Rohan Paul· @rohanpaul_ai · X·· 2 小时前AI 评分45
AI 导读
哈佛数学家对正确的 AI 证明是否需要人类理解产生分歧，起因是 OpenAI 的纳维-斯托克斯方程主张。 一个证明做两件事：它表明一个陈述为真，并教给其他数学家一种可复用的方法，而 AI 证明往往只做到第一件。 数学家看重证明有两个原因：确定性和技巧，而一个无人理解的 AI 证明给了他们确定性，却扣留了技巧。
正文 · 原文
Harvard mathematicians are split over whether correct AI proofs need human understanding, after OpenAI’s Navier-Stokes claim.
A proof does 2 things: it shows a statement is true, and it teaches other mathematicians a method they can reuse, and AI proofs often deliver only the first.
Mathematicians value proofs for 2 reasons, certainty and technique, and an AI proof that nobody understands gives them certainty while withholding the technique.
来源：Rohan Paul · x.com