<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: derpism999</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=derpism999</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 13:13:03 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=derpism999" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by derpism999 in "Leiden Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>That doesn’t mean it isn’t a problem for human proofs as well. Mathematicians use affiliations and c.v.’s as their primary means of gatekeeping for review, not the effort that went into a proof or its superficial appearances. Especially in hard and big problems which have had any number of flawed proofs.<p>Even Grigori Perelman took years to have his proof of Poincaré conjecture accepted, and he had a Ph.D. and a Berkeley fellowship.<p>Expecting a human author to put substantially more effort into a proof than needed to verify it is oversimplifying. It is more a matter of credentialing and collegiality in mathematics whereby someone’s reputation and work-product demonstrates that a purported proof put forward for review is likely to be true or at least a valuable or interesting contribution even if imperfect.<p>AI makes this a much bigger challenge.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 17:39:49 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48387093</link><dc:creator>derpism999</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48387093</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48387093</guid></item></channel></rss>