If arguably the person with the highest IQ currently living, is impressed but still not fully satisfied that a computer doesn’t give Nobel prize winning mathematical reasoning I think that’s a massive metric itself
So what then should the first year maths PhD think? I believe Tao obliquely addresses this with his previous post with effectively “o1 is almost as good as a grad student”
> If arguably the person with the highest IQ currently living, is impressed but still not fully satisfied that a computer doesn’t give Nobel prize winning mathematical reasoning
No offense, but every part of this characterization is really unserious! He says "the model proposed the same strategy that was already identified in the most recent work on the problem (and which I restated in the blog post), but did not offer any creative variants of that strategy." That's very different from what you're suggesting.
The way you're talking, it sounds like it'd be actually impossible for him to meaningfully say anything negative about AI. Presumably, if he was directly critical of it, it would only be because his standards as the world's smartest genius must simply be too high!
In reality, he's very optimistic about it in the future but doesn't find it useful now except for basic coding and bibliography formatting. It's fascinating to see how this very concrete and easily understood sentiment is routinely warped by the Tao-as-IQ-genius mythos.
If arguably the person with the highest IQ currently living, is impressed but still not fully satisfied that a computer doesn’t give Nobel prize winning mathematical reasoning I think that’s a massive metric itself
So what then should the first year maths PhD think? I believe Tao obliquely addresses this with his previous post with effectively “o1 is almost as good as a grad student”