Background: P versus NP problem
"AI resolved" means a machine learning system or a human researcher constructively aided by AI/ML techniques* proves P=NP or P != NP or some exotic outcome (such as P vs NP being independent of ZFC) for the first time before the start of 2050.**
*The AI must "come up with" a key part of the proof. If a human researcher has a unique or critical insight that leads to a proof but that proof is subsequently verified or confirmed using AI plus an automated proof system, that by itself would not count. This distinction is obviously a little fuzzy and subjective, but I will do my best to hold true to the spirit of the question...
** If a human researcher resolves the problem without AI, but an AI later discovers a related or different proof, this market will still resolve NO.
1,000Does an AI have to involved in the first proof of P vs NP, or would it also resolve "yes" if the first proof is created by a human, and later, a different researcher comes along with a new proof using AI? My interpretation is that it should resolve "no" in the latter case, since the P vs NP problem would have been resolved by humans, and AI just provided an additional proof rather than the resolution to the problem.
@JosephNoonan Yes, my intention was for it to resolve no in that case. I can see how my wording is ambiguous; I'll modify the description...
What is this?
What is Manifold?
Are our predictions accurate?
Why use play money?
Why use play money?Related questions
What is this?
What is Manifold?
Are our predictions accurate?
Why use play money?
Why use play money?