td6

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

Would that be a bad thing?

While top AI labs no longer focus on chess, the community build way better chess engines.

Stockfish is probably stronger, than everything the top labs build.

Wouldn't we expect the same thing for math? That slowly the broader math community would engineer a harness/program... That will surpass the current labs, and be a community ran project

Id guess if it returns the exact same system prompt, multiple times when you ask slightly different, it's a good indicator it's real

I agree to you, when it's in person. I think what your describing is mostly the beginning of an answer.

Just randoms "um" inbetween because your struggling to build sentences can get annoying both in person and online