> "Solving a Millennium Prize problem de novo w a genuinely novel technique (not latent in the corpus) would constitute such evidence; it has not occurred."
The 'AI is unimpressive' crowd has gotten nervous enough about AI progress that they are now adding qualifiers about what types of solutions to a Millennium problem they might accept as evidence of AI impressiveness. The writing is on the wall.
Jen Zhu@jenzhuscott
Agree w Terence Tao - LLMs limitations are structural. I’ve always said the usefulness of current AI correlates w the users expertise. So the illusion of creativity can impress/fool non experts. The current LLMs excel at Keplerian work (empirically testing many combinations via brute/compute scaling) but not Newtonian unification or genuine leaps. They act as a “super-assistant” for literature search, candidate generation, formalization, and exposition - freeing us for the creative core - but there is no evidence yet of autonomous originality at the frontier. Solving a Millennium Prize problem de novo w a genuinely novel technique (not latent in the corpus) would constitute such evidence; it has not occurred.
English
