@tao@mathstodon.xyz I realized that my last comment on the "Working Hypothesis" may seem more pedantic than useful. So let me describe why I think it is important, even if it may seem like its not. The important point is "value" being analogous to work in classical physics. The "value" of an AI may go down as its "information" is "digested", in the same way that the work an engine is capable of doing will go down as its energy is extracted, and if the energy is completely extracted then the engine stops being useful entirely. I think this is the fundamental principle behind the erdos problem submission issue that was faced. The value of these submissions has drastically decreased as previous uses in this area were digested, making AI use more unhelpful than helpful in these specific areas. But this has only happened over some (in this case small, but in general potentially larger) time scale, and is not apparent immediately without more detailed investigation. Then, in this specific area, the problems easily solvable by AI are no longer really considered "research level", rendering the Working Hypothesis false in this area. The "digestion" of its answers might be, but the AI cannot help as much with this, and in the hardest cases may not be able to help at all.