Sorry, but FunSearch probably isn’t a milestone in scientific discovery
We recorded 7 claims from this post. 3 were checked against evidence. 4 can’t be checked. 2 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (7)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“But then Google DeepMind’s PR team oversold the paper, claiming e.g., that they had “solved a notoriously hard challenge in computing” and ending with this exuberant but immensely speculative set of claims:”
What we tested: Google DeepMind's PR team oversold the FunSearch paper, ending with an exuberant but immensely speculative set of claims.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“As clever as FunSearch is, it’s unlikely to be a major factor in solving cancer or making lightweight batteries.”
What we tested: FunSearch is unlikely to be a major factor in solving cancer or making lightweight batteries.
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“Human mathematicians had to write problem-specific code for each separate mathematical problem.”
What we tested: FunSearch required human mathematicians to write problem-specific code for each separate problem.
What happened: The specification section requires a coded evaluator and an initial program. Figure 2 supplies different evaluation and surrounding code for cap sets and bin packing, supporting the reading that humans supplied task-specific code. (Nature / Google DeepMind author manuscript, )
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“There is no evidence that the problem was heretofore “unsolvable””
What we tested: There is no evidence that the problem FunSearch addressed was previously unsolvable.
What happened: This predating result demonstrates constructive progress on the same lower-bound problem. It supports treating the task as an open optimization question rather than an established impossibility. (arXiv / Fred Tyrrell, )
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
““Going beyond human knowledge” is a bit oversold here.”
What we tested: The claim that FunSearch went 'beyond human knowledge' is a bit oversold.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“And the solution probably isn’t all that general.”
What we tested: The FunSearch solution probably isn't all that general.
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“It’s also hardly the first time AI is helped with mathematics.”
What we tested: FunSearch is not the first time AI has helped with mathematics.
What happened: This firsthand report documents AI contributing to mathematical research two years before FunSearch. That is sufficient to establish the claimed predecessor. (DeepMind, )
Held from this post (2)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.