alt Hacker NewsYour unstated major premise here is that their intent was to make a universal statement about how proofs work and not just talking to humans about how they teach humans.
That premise seems unlikely to be correct.
Your unstated major premise here is that their intent was to make a universal statement about how proofs work and not just talking to humans about how they teach humans.
That premise seems unlikely to be correct.
Why? The entire subject of conversation is triggered by things which are not humans producing proofs.
If it's possible for a machine to produce a proof without intuition then clearly a human could also do it too. (And in fact I'd argue I've seen many people like that, simply very good at pattern matching over memorised items).