But I thought the whole idea of the list was that it catalogued precisely the problems Erdos posed that he did not solve. The broader set of "all problems Erdos found interesting, including those he resolved" would be both larger and I suspect qualitatively different.
What I think you might be missing, though, is that Erdos was inherently playful with these problems. He'd sometimes just drop in the middle of a paper "hey, this variant of this lemma is neat, I bet it's true, but I'll give cash to anyone who disproves it" and move on. Or challenge a colleague while visiting and collaborating with them, and the problem would get spread by word of mouth. The problems often weren't things he thought long and hard about individually, but they appealed to his sense of aesthetics and curiosity and play. I think that's maybe close to what Bloom is talking about there. It's handy to have a catalog, but fundamentally, creating a set of unsolved math problems was not what Erdos was doing.
From the link:
"The main way that people publicly interact with the site now is to advertise their AI-generated proofs, often without any attempt to explain them, but as a way to record a (increasingly meaningless) priority claim.
This is very different to what I imagined, and I don't want to manage a website which does this."
Just as one does not open a restaurant in an abattoir, it is important that there be a separation between such repositories and a site which aims to promote the actual questions, place them in an appropriate context, and give a useful overview of the current state of human understanding."
I think this is a very reasonable blog post overall. A site for agents to read has many different needs and concerns than one for humans. Really anthropic or openai should be whipping this up for theirs.
I especially like that he’s allowing AI if it generates a better learning proof. That’s so considerate.
I do not particularly care to debate a theory of why it is so, nor press a charge of malice or intent; mere observation suffices to convince me that this shit is corrosive to the better nature of humanity.
Do you think they also are mostly deficient of scruples?
Of all sad words of tongue or pen,
the saddest are these:
a tragedy of the commons has happened, again.I had been expecting this since updates became irregular.
Perhaps this will force those solving these problems to produce something worthy of arxiv submission. Or maybe someone will produce a knock off site that continues to track these problems.
>Some view the future of mathematics as a dystopian...
>I believe Erdős would have found this future grim indeed
If you describe something as dystopian that is going to majorly bias someone's opinion towards being grim. That doesn't mean that dystopian description is reality.
>Find a question that is meaningful to you, find other humans who are interested in it, and talk about it. Be confused, be stuck, be inspired. Find a messy proof, then find a better one. Get tired, get hungry, get into a flow state. Argue, laugh, give up, drink some coffee, and attack it again.
> Some view the future of mathematics as a dystopian arcade of button-pressing, staring at a screen waiting for AI to do the thinking for us, with the main human involvement limited to asking the initial question and offering sporadic words of encouragement. Each new proof is then thrown into a repository, to only ever be read by other AIs, and the human presses the next button.
Is that your view of all AI native mathematicians? It's not mine, but it seems apparent to me that many people think that this is our future, or even should be our future. Same with building software (which is my field, unlike math).
I would find that personally, to use his word, grim.
>Some view the future of mathematics as a dystopian where the terminator hunts down any person who tries to publish a new math proof so he can maintain a monopoly on proofs
People would find that as grim. Even if the chance of that future being realized was 0%.
They are thinking about what it is they do and what their intent was in doing it. Their adaptation is not a blind resistance to change but to preserve their intent.
I especially that they explicitly state that this is what they are trying and that not dropping a decree of new rules that are set in stone.
More platforms should take this approach.