[themafia]

There should be zero expectation that the solution is "novel." It could not have produced any of it were it not in it's training data set.

This is simply evidence that our search tools and academic publishing are completely broken and not at all evidence that a machine "thought up a novel solution."

Humans constantly anthropomorphize their environment. To their detriment.

[pylua]

If that’s the case, are you saying the proof was part of the training set?

A lot of novelty is just gluing approaches together and reporting what sticks.

[themafia]

Yes.

A lot of brute force methods are the most inefficient means of solving a problem.

Language Models are a sign that our current human information infrastructure and access methods are completely wrong.

[pylua]

Arguably, since everything resolves to an axiom, isn’t the solution in any training set ?

The order and combination is what makes it special.

Is current human information access methods wrong, or do we just synthesize data in a way that is inefficient for this sort of problem solving ?

[themafia]

> since everything resolves to an axiom

This isn't true. There are solutions that are beyond apparent reason and logic. This is what a "breakthrough" is.

> The order and combination is what makes it special.

Given an infinite amount of time a team of monkeys will produce Shakespeare. Is that "special?" Perhaps we should leave some room for _how_ those combinations happen and how efficient they are.

> Is current human information access methods wrong

They are wrong. The largest search company is also the largest advertiser. I'm surprised that anyone either fails to apprehend this or pretends not to.