[dellamonica]

It is extremely well known. Lots of people have tried to solve it and it stood basically stuck for 80 years. It is getting harder every day to downplay these models.

Given its elementary nature (very easy to state), you can bet that a lot of very bright people have worked on it (I know of one MIT graduate who specialized in Geometry had a lot of interest in it).

[voxl]

I don't believe the result at all. I think it contains faulty logic. Perhaps the mathematicians involved can read the tea leaves and decide something interesting happened, but all this AI psychosis bullshit still refuses to accept that AIs do not, and cannot, have a mental model of the world.

Moreover, model output is incredibly good at looking credible but being wrong. It has NEVER produced something correct for me in a field of which I am an expert without some external oracle to validate claims (like e.g., Lean)

[gizmondo]

At this point the term "AI psychosis" is the more apt label for AI skeptics. Here we have literal Fields medalists vouching for correctness and relative importance of the result, but who cares, "I don't believe the result at all". Just pure denial of reality.

[golol]

You should believe that the proof works at least as much as any ither paper in mathematics. The proof has been scrutinized by experts and simplified and improved. If you don't believe that then I'm sorry but you are deluding yourself.