Curious if the authors are hanging around here and how they feel about the recent Leiden Statement. (Late in the article it’s clear that this is at least partially a publicity effort around a new AI math tool, if I’m reading it correctly.)
On a personal level I’m very excited about AI getting good at math, but I’m a consumer of math, not a creator. My job gets easier as AI gets better on this front, so I can’t fully empathize with mathematicians who feel threatened or are worried about the sanctity of the discipline.
I am a producer of math. But I feel two ways about AI math.
First I fear slop-math. People producing LLM “proofs” and prose with no value. I do not want to review something the author has spend lies energy on than I will spend reviewing.
Two, I am excited about formal machine-checked proofs. I love formalisation, and if the llm can prove my lemmas I will be a happy camper!
I think my optimism here is coloured by the fact that I am a theory builder, not a problem solver. I will be happy to create beautiful theory, writing (myself) wonderful articles explaining them, but letting the ugly details be formally verified by an LLM.
A problem solver kind of mathematician might feel cheated of all the fun of the llm did all the problem solving.
It should be noted that this is a PR piece for a "math" startup. The result doesn't look particularly interesting, from either a mathematical or Lean code standpoint, as far as I can see.
Curious if the authors are hanging around here and how they feel about the recent Leiden Statement. (Late in the article it’s clear that this is at least partially a publicity effort around a new AI math tool, if I’m reading it correctly.)
On a personal level I’m very excited about AI getting good at math, but I’m a consumer of math, not a creator. My job gets easier as AI gets better on this front, so I can’t fully empathize with mathematicians who feel threatened or are worried about the sanctity of the discipline.
I am a producer of math. But I feel two ways about AI math.
First I fear slop-math. People producing LLM “proofs” and prose with no value. I do not want to review something the author has spend lies energy on than I will spend reviewing.
Two, I am excited about formal machine-checked proofs. I love formalisation, and if the llm can prove my lemmas I will be a happy camper!
I think my optimism here is coloured by the fact that I am a theory builder, not a problem solver. I will be happy to create beautiful theory, writing (myself) wonderful articles explaining them, but letting the ugly details be formally verified by an LLM.
A problem solver kind of mathematician might feel cheated of all the fun of the llm did all the problem solving.
It should be noted that this is a PR piece for a "math" startup. The result doesn't look particularly interesting, from either a mathematical or Lean code standpoint, as far as I can see.