[js8]

> AIs will become better at explaining math before they become better at doing math

I am not so sure. I am talking about math with AI and I feel as a math teacher, it is terrible. It introduces new notation and concepts faster than I can ask for definitions. It doesn't provide many examples. Sometimes it realizes it made a mistake in a guess and the confusion compounds.

Maybe it's just my (in)experience - but I would welcome a practical advice on how it could explain math to me better.

[pfdietz]

It's another example of Moravec's Paradox. Explaining something to another person uses capabilities that go back millions of years. Mathematics goes back thousands of years. Evolution has made us very good at verbal communication, not so good at proving theorems. So it should have been expected that machines would have an easier time proving results than explaining them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox

[bananaflag]

By explaining, I just meant writing papers in a human-readable way. For example, the results yesterday were also written up by AI.

Explaining in the sense of getting someone who doesn't get math to actually get math, giving illustrative examples and so on, maybe AIs are not good at, but anyway it's not something I enjoy much.

[js8]

I am OK with reading (decently-written) papers, something that a graduate can read. I still don't think that AI is good at it.

I am not sure what writeup you refer to. I have looked at proofs of 10 problems from Open AI written in Lean, I would not call a megabyte of Lean with no comments a good exposition.