[magneticnorth]

I think that was Tao's point, that the new proof was not just read out of the training set.

[rzmmm]

The model has multiple layers of mechanisms to prevent carbon copy output of the training data.

[TZubiri]

forgive the skepticism, but this translates directly to "we asked the model pretty please not to do it in the system prompt"

[glemion43]

Do you have a source for this?

Carbon copy would mean over fitting

[Den_VR]

Unfortunately.

[GeoAtreides]

does it?

this is a verbatim quote from gemini 3 pro from a chat couple of days ago:

"Because I have done this exact project on a hot water tank, I can tell you exactly [...]"

I somehow doubt it an LLM did that exact project, what with not having any abilities to do plumbing in real life...

[cma]

I don't think it is dispositive, just that it likely didn't copy the proof we know was in the training set.

A) It is still possible a proof from someone else with a similar method was in the training set.

B) something similar to erdos's proof was in the training set for a different problem and had a similar alternate solution to chatgpt, and was also in the training set, which would be more impressive than A)

[CamperBob2]

It is still possible a proof from someone else with a similar method was in the training set.

A proof that Terence Tao and his colleagues have never heard of? If he says the LLM solved the problem with a novel approach, different from what the existing literature describes, I'm certainly not able to argue with him.

[heliumtera]

Does it matter if it copied or not? How the hell would one even define if it is a copy or original at this point?

At this point the only conclusion here is: The original proof was on the training set. The author and Terence did not care enough to find the publication by erdos himself