That’s an interesting way to think about it. While tests don’t satisfy mathematicians‘ standards for rigor one could instead look at interactive proofs from complexity theory. These are of interest if a problem doesn’t allow for short proofs, i.e. when the problem is not in NP [1].
In your scenario an adapted AI-assisted theorem prover would be the prover, and a mathematician the verifier.
I just wanted to tell you that I wholeheartedly agree with your statement and that you shouldn’t be discouraged by some of the nay-sayers in the replies. I feel that HN has many users who are techno-optimist, but are very pessimistic of the role of individuals and the possibilities of the society overall.
Even in the replies someone tries to appeal to some ideal of „rationalism“ which is nothing but defeatism to the status quo. They see any kind of passion, emotion or values as „irrational“ and categorically as something lesser.
But what is reason without values? Logic without axioms? Just treading in the trivial waters.
The lack of actual photos of Labubus "in the real" (usually on a keychain at a pant's belt loops) is jarring. The topic of the "performative male" has been regurgitated in social media for quite some time. Still the author ignores that and misses the overall bigger picture.
I think any argument made here with regard to Baudrillard's hyperreality could be made about most trends, not only Labubus. Actual insight into the demographic is missing.
I prefer the following video which touches on the performative male (it's in German though). Don't get distracted by the title, it's nuanced and offered me some insight into performative behaviors (both the recent manifestation and in general)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rFMdKcR824
I think the comment referred to the phrase „a graph needs X (colors or whatever)“. For me, this can be read two ways: 1. „a graph always needs at least X colors“ or 2. „a graph always needs at most X colors“.
Personally, I would interpret this as option 1 (and so did the comment above I assume). In that case, the statement is wrong. But I’d prefer to specify „at most/ at least“ anyways.
Or even better, use actual vocabulary. „For every graph there exists a coloring with X colors.“ or „any graph can be coloured using X colors“.
PS: I also agree with the sentiment about quanta magazine. It’s hard to get some actual information from their articles if you know the topic.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_proof_system