[varenc]

This has been an unsolved open problem for 80 years. What you're suggesting is that someone connected to Open AI solved this very hard math problem, but then rather than taking credit for it, falsely attributed it to AI?

The point of having an AI solve an unsolved problem, is to make it very clear that the insight must have come from the AI and wasn't in the training data. Sure, it's possible OpenAI had access to some math professors that solved it and then let an AI model take the credit... but seems unlikely. That human would be turning down a potential Fields Medal for this discovery.

The abridged chain-of-thought from the model also serves as some evidence of LLM origin: https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/1625eff6-5ac1-40d8-b1db-5d5cf925d... (could be fake, though I'm unsure what proof of LLM origin couldn't be faked)

[iLoveOncall]

> What you're suggesting is that someone connected to Open AI solved this very hard math problem, but then rather than taking credit for it, falsely attributed it to AI?

I'm suggesting that OpenAI invested a lot of resources and money in having someone (or a group of people) disprove this conjecture, so they could claim their LLM disproved it. Yes.

I'm not sure why you're surprised by this, given that everything that Altman has said in the past has turned out to be a lie.

The fact that they gave an EDITED (even rewritten, from the PDF itself) chain of thought is just further proof. Why not give the raw one alongside? No reason at all, except if it doesn't exist.

[Antibabelic]

> That human would be turning down a potential Fields Medal for this discovery.

While interesting, this result is not Fields Medal material.

[geraneum]

> but seems unlikely. That human would be turning down a potential Fields Medal for this discovery.

I also don’t like the tin foil hatty theories and don’t know what OpenAI actually did, but an NDA does wonders! Just pointing out that this line of operations is not really unlikely.