There is any number of people discussing o1 from the context of their field. So again, why are we valuing one set of discussions above another? Terence Tao may be great, but he's not the end all, be all of commentary. There's plenty of other PhDs talking about this very same thing.
the best competitive programmer in the world (gennady korotkevich, aka tourist) recently crossed the 4000 ELO barrier in Codeforces. o1 is about 1807 ELO.
the best ai model is compared against the best human in the context of competition programming, to set a clear standard of comparison.
similarly, terence tao represents the highest levels of math in analysis.
his input is valuable in regards to math. his summary of the current capabilities of o1 is important because we can then understand the level of competence the best ai models have right now, and set a standard of comparison just like with coding.
site note:
any number of phds = not the same expertise.
there are thousands of phds who graduate every year, let alone thousands of unemployable phds who fail to get a professorship.
there are only 2-4 fields medalists chosen every 4 years.
