[haldujai]

> Say, Claude 7 creates a new, brilliant scientific idea every 1 out of 1000 times.

I would not hand wave that away - but Claude 5 feels closer to Claude 1 than the hypothetical Claude 7 you propose. I do not believe one can extrapolate LLMs that far ahead despite the very substantial progress so far.

[fourseventy]

Like two days ago Claude solved a century old math conjecture

[haldujai]

If you are referring to the Jacobian conjecture Claude only provided a counterexample, not a disproof, neither of which is necessarily a “new brilliant scientific idea”.

[fourseventy]

A counterexample proves that the conjecture is false, not sure what you are talking about. And we can play word games all day about what counts as a "new brilliant scientific idea" but the fact is that no human had been able to solve it.

[throw-the-towel]

The whole "AI is a parrot" argument feels like moving the goalposts so quickly, you could actually hear the whooshing sound they make as they move.

[haldujai]

No, that’s not my argument. Rather it is that a counterexample to a mathematical proof whether produced by human or AI may be a scientific discovery but it is not inherently new and brilliant by definition.

The case for AI is also weakened when the model is steered by an expert.

[throw-the-towel]

So what is your definition of "new and brilliant"?