Current AI systems cannot come up with a conjecture worthy of study by a mathematician such as Terence Tao.
Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
Reasoning
Whether a conjecture is worthy of Tao's study is subjective and not testable.
Cite this claim
Demis Hassabis, “Current AI systems cannot come up with a conjecture worthy of study by a mathematician such as Terence Tao.” (said 23 July 2025). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_5dab3dfed7bd, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_5dab3dfed7bd
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Demis Hassabis
-
Mostly true
“Performs better than 3.1 Pro on coding & agentic tasks”
Gemini 3.5 Flash performs better than Gemini 3.1 Pro on coding and agentic tasks.
-
Mostly true
“It can take photos, video & audio and build entirely new scenes.”
Gemini Omni can take photos, video and audio and build entirely new scenes.
-
Mostly true
“I didn’t feel like that was proper AI because that system, let’s take Deep Blue, okay, it’s world champion level at chess, at chess, but it can’t do anything else.”
Deep Blue was world-champion level at chess but could not do anything else.
-
Resolved true
“And it uses AI to actually digitally watermark any generated image.”
-
Mostly true
“They still can't really yet go beyond asking a new novel question or a new novel conjecture or coming up with a new hypothesis that has not been thought of before.”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.