---
title: "Agent swarms are changing what counts as proof"
date: 2026-09-11
canonical: https://solmaz.io/x/2098305807851180055/
x_url: https://x.com/onusoz/status/2098305807851180055
license: CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
---

In the Jacobian conjecture and other recent cases (if not all), agents acted like counterexample monkeys brute-forcing their way into a disproof in a way that does not show the same level of eloquence as a human, by human standards

The bar has shifted. We are not impressed anymore by 100 year old problems being solved through millions of $$$ in compute, mathematical equivalent of throwing dynamite at a problem until it breaks

My bet for OpenAI Hodge result is yet another counterexample disproof (but apparently Hodge is harder to disprove by brute force because finding a candidate counterexample isn’t enough. you also have to prove no algebraic cycle could ever generate it. I haven't studied this problem before, so take it with a grain of salt)

This means we might have a new way to "prove" theorems: If you spend $10m on an agent swarm and they can't disprove it, there is a high chance it might be true :P

In 1 year from now, we will have disproven all the low-hanging conjectures, and the remaining set will likely have a higher share of true conjectures than false ones :P

*Quotes a post by @Thom_Wolf (https://x.com/Thom_Wolf/status/2097998205858320756); its text is omitted here because it is not covered by this site's license.*