Sharing AI progress in mathematics

This feels like a huge AI slop dump. Who validated these results. Why are they not mentioned. Human understanding is key here.

In my experience AI (frontier models) sometimes does weird stuff that needs human review. Not that’s incorrect but sometimes overly complex language or weird use of language.

Valency has the papers up on Valency Hub

will this make the math for building data centers work?

Glad to seem them changing their tact with the whole NS debacle. Hopefully we can all focus on the results now rather than the surrounding drama.

wow

holy fucking shit

This is a pretty hilarious thing to read juxtaposed with AGMAI's requests.

Basically "Here you go, have fun with this, fuck all your demands, by the way we're gonna be releasing the model stay tuned!"

Can someone knowledgeable about the subject outline the most significant portions of the results?

Stochastic parrot truthers in shambles.

Mathematics is solved.

Seemingly none are vetted and reviewed yet

I wonder if the Lean compiler can change it's license so that a for-profit corporation can only use it if it pays, say, a few hundred billion dollars. This is the correct path.

Have any real mathematicians working on these problems reviewed any of these and determined if they are just gobbledegook or not?

The ones with lean proofs could still be formulated incorrectly

With so many results in so many different areas no way they even remotely spot checked well enough.

Prediction: one of these is wrong and this (publicity stunt) will backfire.

Edit: don't tell me about lean. For lean to function as a proof certificate you need to represent the theorem correctly. Again: good luck doing that across such a broad swath of problems.

[dead]

[dead]

[flagged]

The stochastic parrots have predicted the next token once again.

Why didn't they just give mathematicians access, so they could at least understand and write up the results in publishable form?

Gross. After the accusations training on mathematicians conversations and unique methods, to dump this volume of unsubstantiated papers is at best tone deaf. Are they hoping humans review and validate this? The amount of free that they are coat tailing is outrageous.

So the million monkeys at a million typewriters have churned out 700 shakespeares, but they need me for spellcheck?

Curious if Sébastien Bubeck still work at OpenAI? He came out quite dirty after Navier-Stokes drama

I find the claimed matrix multiply result (w<= 2.25) shocking. I hope it holds up.

Good to see they're engaging with the mathematical community, even if they had to be publicly shamed into doing so.