this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2026
39 points (74.7% liked)

Technology

84146 readers
3363 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
39
Even experts are surprised by AI’s latest ‘vibe-mathing’ advance (www.scientificamerican.com)
submitted 8 hours ago by General_Effort@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Here's a github tracking AI contributions to Erdos problems: https://github.com/teorth/erdosproblems/wiki/AI-contributions-to-Erd%C5%91s-problems

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 3 points 2 hours ago

t when you start to analyze its output it has a lot of holes that require someone trained in the art to fix.

I don't disagree, but that's not really what the article is saying.

The article is saying: GPT found a novel approach resulting in a solution where none existed before, presented it poorly - though still technically correctly - and they polished the output to make it more human friendly.

I have used the new LLMs for various things over the past few months, the one constant: for anything longer than a paragraph of output, you can get better results by reading the output (yourself) and feeding back "notes" for things to improve.

What happens 10 or 15 years from now, when all the current crop of experts are retired and all the experts who could have curated the AI output had to spend all that time as baristas instead because the AI took all of their entry level jobs?

Presumably, that next crop of experts will be curating AI output for 10-15 years before the current crop expires. Hopefully they learn what they're doing in that time.