Hacker News Reader

Comment by KoolKat23 | Hacker News Reader

I'm sorry I disagree entirely.

The more information the better.

The entire purpose of published work is to remove noise (and perhaps incentivize work through attributing credit).

This information is now out there. You can choose to ignore it if you wish. You may just find yourself a century behind in research.

And on that point most of this research has been looked at by their mathematics panel and comes with lean certificates, it's not exactly noise.

This to me is more the old guard not willing to let go or change their ways.

View on HN

I think in a ideal world your right.

I think a problem is that math seems like a deeply toxic, ego driven domain.

I think he argued that e.g because the navier stokes millennium problem ist considered solved now, you won't get any recognition for being the first human to solve.(How would you even proof you solved it yourself and not just regurgitated the ai proof?)

And since recognition is the main objective, noone would spend time on dissecting the proof, and perhaps finding some unique approach to solving the problem, that could be transferred to other open issues.

And therefore the problem is now "poisoned". Since it's assumed to be solved noone will research it, and the potential revelations won't be found

To be fair I'd hope during peer review this would be apparent.

During your write up, I'd imagine you would check it's not already out there too. And once complete it's cheap and easy to run it through an LLM and ask is this covered by anything else out there. If its novel and not published it doesn't matter what others say.

Research is already messy as it stands. Something new can already be dismissed by incumbents as "not novel enough" especially in niche fields where they're likely to be the ones conducting peer review.

I think it's quite clear the mathematics panel didn't read most of the papers with the scrutiny it would take to publish it, if only because the lean certificates and the informal proofs are not 100% the same.

And if it's hard to understand (which seems to be the most common reaction) it's not exactly devoid of noise either

There was an opportunity for people to work with the AI to produce a proof, now it almost feels they're working against it.

I never said it was journal worthy. Just its not all noise. As I say academics are welcome to ignore it, it isn't published in any journals after all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com