I know a bit about this field. This conjecture reads as somewhat more niche than the cyclic double cover conjecture recently proved by OpenAI, but nevertheless represents a real contribution.
You want to know how long it takes to solve an optimization problem, in this case over convex, lipschitz functions. (The restriction to a spherical domain is not really a restriction, you can just change variables for any bounded domain.) Anyway, showing upper bounds on time complexity is "easy" because it's just the runtime of your algorithm. Showing (nontrivial) lower bounds is usually much harder because it requires constraining all algorithms.
This proof apparently shows that the lower bound time complexity is equal to the time complexity of an existing 30-year old algorithm: it requires Omega(d^2) function evaluations to solve over this class of functions.
My gut says likely implies that d is the minimal number of evaluations if you have a gradient oracle because you can approximate a gradient with d function evaluations, but I'm not sure how hard it is to make that rigorous.
> so advanced that it's just as readable to me as Greek
I used to feel this way about statistics.
The language and terms are hard to understand and many of the formulas are taught as "just memorize this" instead of building up from first principles.
But then I started using statistics to analyze something I cared a lot about (paintball) and I quickly realized it's like learning anything new:
- there is jargon
- and core concepts
- when you learn the above, it suddenly makes a lot more sense.
I gotta know what you use stats for regarding paintball. I haven't played in years but I loved playing back in the tipman 98 custom era (not sure if that's still a popular marker).
- I started with just pen, paper and a stopwatch (as a college coach)
- I assumed paintball would be more like football where it's hard to track individual effects
- Turns out it's a surprisingly simple and stable "state machine". e.g. the odds of winning with +1 body (e.g. 5v4, 4v3 etc) is, in college, about ~75%
- Paintball is one of those sports where "the weakest player determines the outcome". Why? b/c if 1 player gets out early, you are fighting out of a hole.
It also made me appreciate that as good a book as Moneyball is, reading it after you try to create analytics for your own sport makes it 3x as enjoyable/insightful.
One downside though:
I would watch games and I got so good at internalizing the stats per state of the game that it was like watching the world series of poker where I could see both player odds of getting eliminated and probability of winning over time charts as I watched the games. Made it harder to be the "come on guys! we can win this" coach when we were down on points + bodies.
Not to diminish the comment, but most things are not as complex as they sound when phrased in everyday language or sound much more complex than they are when phrased in technical language.
Technical language is a tool that allows insiders to say less and refer to more, and to be specific, but it's just a tool. Most things can be described in accessible ways.
I think you'd be surprised at what you could understand and at just how few domains are truly complex enough that a layman couldn't understand with a little bit of patience and an accessible summary.
Very confused by this comment. The older (poorer) parts of the ML literature focus on models with convex and (gradient-)Lipschitz objectives, but that's not representative of reality, not even close. Modern objectives for AI models are famously nonconvex (catastrophically, from the point of view of classical optimisation theory), and that's where the interesting research is.
I'd push back on this. Most of the core optimization techniques (eg, ADAM, stochastic gradient descent) are straight out of the convex optimization literature. Generally you need to use optimizers that work well on convex objectives because near minimizers, functions tend to be convex. (Proof by contradiction: a non-convex point has a strict descent direction.)
The fact that neural networks are highly nonconvex has encouraged a lot of research, but it's more of the kind aimed at resolving tension: these methods are probably good for convex functions, why do they continue to work for nonconvex problems, and are there tweaks we can make to improve them in that setting? It's not a lot of de novo theory; more standing on the shoulders of giants, etc etc.
The optimizers are lifted from convex optimization, but the point above was that they are applied to highly non-convex problems. They work for finding local minima, but a lot of the deeper literature does not translate (e.g. the conjecture being discussed in this post).
I'll point out that "does not work" is not the same as "not as efficient" :) But it does seem the Adam paper had an error.
I think that Nesterov's first order method is the most efficient general first order algorithm on convex problems, so anything else is in some sense worse. (Edit: removed incorrect ADAM comment.)
Yours' "not as efficient" in [2] means that, sometimes, ADAM "does not work." Look at figure 2, ADAM literally does not work in the case of "true model."
Yes, apologies, I didn't read the articles you linked before posting this. I did update the comment.
I don't think this changes the point, which is that most optimization methods used in AI owe a substantial intellectual debt to convex optimization theory.
Another intuition is that near a minimum you can Taylor expand the function and show that the higher order coefficients (past the square) are negligible.
I'm sorry this comment didn't sit well with you. My goal was to induce discussion by describing the claimed result (which was buried in the post), not to discourage it.
If you have more specific feedback on what you found distasteful, I'd be happy to hear it.
I did not see _alternator_'s comment as asinine. I like a venue where people who have some expertise feel comfortable enough to share it, and are not criticized for doing so
> I don't think researchers in math/TCS will be made obsolete, but I think it will instead no longer make sense to work on any low-hanging, or even medium-hanging (you know what I mean) fruit. We'll be needed for problems where actual novel approaches are needed.
I wonder how this compares to what we see happening with "juniors" in software development?
In math research, do you also get the training for the profession from working on the low hanging fruits for a while, to then move to the medium-hanging, and later go on to work on previously unsolved stuff?
Around here AI isn't really more of a threat to juniors than it is to seniors. It's a threat to the people who have been taught "recipies" rather than applied computer science. You can have excellent seniors who can do TDD, DRY, SOLID and so on, who also happen to have no idea what a L1 cache miss is. The current AI models know all of those things, but they struggle applying them correctly without someone piloting them. Even in the energy industry where I work, where you'd think it would be obvious from the context that you should prioritize runtime safety over debug safety, the current AI models struggle to do so. As far as seniority goes, though. If we can find a young developer with little experience who actually knows computer science, we're much more likely to hire them... Since they are cheaper.
This isn't something which is unique to software development though. We're currently building enterprise AI apps that we can deploy into the AI agents working for anyone of our employees. The key thing we're currently seeing is that the people in a team who are the ones that everyone turn to for advice, are the only people who aren't in "danger". Even people who are great at their jobs are being outperformed by AI in many cases.
I think it'll be a massive challenge for our society in the coming years. Maybe we're even going to get to the point where the AI will also be capable of replacing a lot of the "domain experts". Right now that seems far out, but then, if you had asked me about AI four months ago I would've told you it was all hype.
It's not a zero sum game. You can have AI "senior engineers" working under humans building bigger things than we've been able to.
We also don't know where the capabilities of current AIs will plateau. The benchmarks aren't really telling the entire story. From my perspective of using the models there are certain axis where they're not making a lot of progress, like being able to have large accurate context on the scale that humans can. There are other dimensions where there is still a large gap between human capabilities and LLMs. It's true that relative to other areas (lessay chess) LLMs are more generalized but they are still not fully generalized (back to the chess example, LLMs are not good at chess).
This was sort of what I wanted to say, but I guess I should have worded it differently. I certainly didn't mean to say that I thought AI would stop improving. If anything I'm surprised at how much we have to fight the AI models to do what NASA has been doing for 60(?) years.
How would this be different from taking a yoga class from a video?
I would be willing to be proven wrong, but I doubt the ability of LLMs to give useful corrections in yoga much more than their ability to write useful code.
It's funny how you applied on your own argument several logical fallacies about why ai is only a threat to people who have been taught "recipies" versus who know what L1 cache miss is.
Actually it's sad there are people out there dumb enough to believe knowing L1 cache is any different than knowing recipies when it comes to the story which jobs AI will take. I'm convinced by now it will be the jobs of those people believing such crap.
Interesting, thanks.
I don't know where "around here" is, but the signals I've seen in a lot of articles is that the demand for junior software people has taken a dive since a year or two back, with student programs etc getting cancelled. One googler said they were getting a junior to their team and that was kind of a big deal because it hadn't happened in that whole department for a long time.
In relation to that, I guess my question becomes: if the same thing will happen in math research, who will write the ten page math proof prompts in the future?
There is definitely the effect of less or de-growth in the industry, which started before the current AI hype. And now there's the additional effect of companies hoping AI will replace their need for (junior) devs. Nobody knows if or to what degree this will work out (yes, we all have opinions, but no crystal balls), but they are holding back the hiring until they know how all this pans out.
I'm from Denmark and I've been an external examiner for various CS educations for the previous 13 years now. Some of them teach you a lot about how the hardware works, others mainly teach you design patterns. Five years ago the latter was in high demand, because a lot of software development frankly doesn't need computer science (until it does). Now there is almost no demand for them.
Honestly, i've received a formal MSc education in the hardware aspects, including for designing embedded electronics products. Spent the most part ofy career in the software industry designing enterprise software and feel like i never needed to use them, except maybe early in my career when i was reviewing tech stacks and determined that .NET would be among the winning horses, precisely because it'd take care of that for me almost all the time.
What i see today is the opposite of what you see : product owners not knowing a thing about software engineering but being able to vibe code prototypes handed over to the dev team are rock stars.
They are closely followed by senior software developers having more of an architecture & design background than a low-level computer science background. Most businesses are looking for builders these days.
Where what you say may converge with my observation is that to be able to do to things such as proper database query optimization, even using AI assistance, you need to be able to understand the concepts of working memory set, cache misses etc...
I've found huge problems, like database servers being grossly underprovisioned (like, 60% cache hit, 4gb RAM server for a 700gb dataset with an 50gb circa hot data set). SSD were used and only latency was measured, so no one realized how problematic the situation was (including a consulting shop they hired to help them manage their DBs - backup, maintenance etc...).
However, having a high affinity with hardware is not a driver / computer science of hiring decisions from what i can see in the enterprise software world. But it would make sense for it to become the case within 10 years. I suspect that you work in a niche where performance optimization matters a lot.
Unless you’re claiming that AIs will suddenly (and very soon) stop improving, they are obviously a threat to everyone’s job.
Calling notable conjectures that have been open for decades “low-hanging fruit” is an act of desperation. Most professional mathematicians couldn’t have proved those conjectures if their lives depended on it.
I wouldn’t call it “low hanging fruit” but it’s easy to think of problems that seem harder. Apparently solving notable math conjectures is easier than building a practical robot to deliver a package to someone’s porch?
So, yes, AI is a big deal and we don’t know what it’s going to affect, but the goal of replacing everyone’s job is extremely ambitious and there’s a long way to go.
This has to be assessed separately for each kind of job.
The thought that anything could improve without bounds would be absurd. We are living in the physical world after all. The (open, interesting) question is how close we are to the limit.
Types of technology - of which we can include intelligence - move along S curves, but it's more absurd to think that humans are near the top of that curve rather than right at the bottom.
There might be a thing beyond intelligence that we can't even conceive of.
It’s safe to assume that after less than a decade of LLM development, we’re nowhere close to the limit yet. In fact, progress still seems to be accelerating at the moment.
>Unless you’re claiming that AIs will suddenly (and very soon) stop improving
Most technologies level off sharply after bouts of boundless improvements.
In 1968 they thought we'd be flying to the moon by now but instead we're flying across the ocean in planes not that different from the 747 that existed back then.
They sometimes start improving again. In the context of your comment, look how the cost/kg to LEO has suddenly dropped radically. This was mostly due to institutional change that allowed previous non-technological barriers to improvement to be bypassed.
I was trained as a mathematician and worked as a math researcher for a little while (now working as a private tutor), and based on my experience I'd say this description is basically right, with one extra wrinkle.
In order to get a Ph.D., you have to do some sort of original research, so in that sense you're working on "previously unsolved stuff" basically right from the start. But that doesn't entail doing anything all that ground-breaking; most Ph.D. dissertations (very much including mine!) contain work that a more senior researcher in the same subfield could probably have produced without too much difficulty. The software development analogy is a pretty good one: a lot of the point of getting junior researchers to do research is to help train them to one day become senior researchers, and often the work itself is nothing all that special.
Given the trajectory of these LLM proofs, this seems like it's going to have to change pretty soon, and to be honest I'm pretty grateful that I'm not in charge of deciding what that's going to look like, because I don't have any good ideas! I'm actually pretty worried about the future of the field.
My experience may not be entirely representative because to be entirely honest I’m not exactly a great researcher and there are brilliant PhD students. That said it indeed was my experience that in the pre-PhD / early PhD period ( or even longer … ) your advisor proposes (gives) you pretty low hanging stuff that he mostly already knows how to solve, at least at a high level, with the expectation that it will teach you to use the mathematical tools you need.
The author also used GPT-5.6 to write the prompt. This did involve giving GPT-5.6 access to his previous work and a back and forth process (so definitely still used the author's expertise to some degree), but the prompt itself is also largely AI generated.
What's the difference between using GPT to write the prompt to GPT, and "thinking"? The LLM uses the first tokens to predict more tokens, and then uses those tokens to predict even more tokens.
Certainly. This feels similar, to me, to how building complex software with LLMs works today in practice. You need to know a lot to set up goals and guardrails and verify outputs. For me, making the bits change was always the fun part, not tangling with text in my editor, though that had its moments.
We're also at the point where you can roll out context to your entire organisation. I created an app for our m365 Cowork and deployed it to everyone who develops software. It does a couple of things, but it main knows our compliance policies and can guide developers through writing the documentation needed for NIS2 compliance. It also guardrails against non-approved packages, and helps developers find alternatives, or if none can be reasonably found, how to get a new package/dependency approved (or rejected).
A few months back this would be something every developer kind of did on their own. Maybe they shared skills, we certainly encouraged it and tried to do all the change management things, but nobody really had the same versions of the skills. Which was horrible in the deployment pipelines, something like the compliance documentation often had to go back and forth several times before it could be approved. Now it's just there, for everyone.
In a year or two, I expect a lot of these things to have become even more standardized. So that we don't even really have to build our own apps, but can simply use the ones in the catalog with minimal configuration (and that config will likely only be necessary because I'm from a tiny country that nobody will maintain standards for).
Yes. I worked on two large monorepos, about one quarter per project. Maybe 80+ devs on first, maybe 40+ on second. Both were not sure how to describe this but ultra-high-velocity agentic driven development efforts.
On the first, there were ~no shared skills. There were some requirements set up but they were not minded properly and became stale / ate context for little gain. The hardest hit was in E2E tests which would flake and create long running, too-often failing CI. People would disable them, because they were not reliable and velocity was so high, no one was happy w them.
I maintained my own set of skills and CLIs to back them. I'd share them if they came up but it was like the old days of manage your own stuff. Not much credit for building and sharing devex tooling to the team.
But then on the second one we were in better shape--we had vendoring set up to distro skills automatically.
Before the project was well underway, I put time into understanding how all of our tests aught to be written. Finding the forbidden things, etc, getting review from our best test folks and ultimately landed on a `/test` that routed across all possible test types.
Like night and day. Instead of finding out while trying to get a release out the door that some corner of the project had a handful of flakes, tests were written the right way from the start.
Like, it was beautiful. And I don't think devs noted difference while building. Only that there was an absence of BS in CI.
Hard to quantify the lack of pain, but it was big!
This made me chuckle because it's so true. So much detailed steering and finagling in the past, now I point the agent to a bunch of information sources, skills, similar repositories that might hold useful input and tell it very roughly what I need and off it goes, I'll grab coffee.
Look here and here and here are some tools, and /skill /skill [repo of folder paths etc] and here is what needs to happen: [stuff].
---
Restate this request in your own words and enrich it as appropriate handling any gaps.
?
It is an ultra-lite way to plan, I suppose.
I like the format because:
- I still get to put all my thinking into the request but then easily override the instruction
- It is interesting to see my casual typo-riddled blast professionalized and improved upon.
- Sometimes it surfaces useful questions that can save some time up front.
I think the models are doing this anyway, but I find the words "enrich" and "gap" are well understood by models and they demonstrate it in the response to the above pattern.
Anyhow, to get back to the point, there are still prompt-level tricks--but ultimately if repeated, should probably also be built into skills themselves!
In math, a proof is a proof. We don't know if we can get there and so getting there is the hard part.
In software, we always know that we can solve the problem. So HOW to solve the problem is the hard part. Because the type of solution involves maintainability, which involves planning, LLMs suck at it. This leads to "LLM slop code" whereby the LLM creates ad-hoc convoluted logic with redundancies and no reuse of existing standard library batteries.
Unless you're a Grothendieck who gets mad at Deligne for not solving the Weil's conjecture "THE RIGHT WAY", software is fundamentally different than math in this respect.
So I'll say it again, AI will win a fields medal for before managing a McDonald's simply because there are enough big problems within arms reach than their current capacity to plan over time
I've spent some time working both as a math researcher and as a software engineer, and I think this comment actually underrates the similarity between the two fields as they're actually practiced.
Some math research does involve grabbing a single, fully specified conjecture off the shelf and hunting for a proof of it, and it's true that if you manage to solve a long-standing open problem, other mathematicians will be interested no matter how you did it.
But this isn't all of what they do, probably not even most of what they do. Like in software engineering, it's not always obvious which question would be the most useful one to ask. A lot of mathematical work also goes into what we call "theory-building", where you could say that primary work goes into coming up with definitions rather than theorems. Mathematicians also care a great deal about how something is proved; a lot of them are some of the most aesthetically picky people I've ever met. Words like "ugly", "beautiful", "creative", and "boring" are used to describe both definitions and proofs all the time.
From the outside, it can look like all they're doing is pumping out proofs at any cost. But I promise you that when I talk to mathematicians who don't have any experience building software, they have a similarly narrow view of that field as well! Both fields, from the inside, look a lot more human than you might expect.
It seems to me you hooked onto the wrong part of proofs vs software compared to what OP meant.
The difference OP cares about isn’t how much one cares about style. Instead the important difference lies in validation. A proof can be validated as either correct or wrong. That type of hard feedback really helps combat the optimism and desire for shortcuts of modern models.
Now, that still doesn’t help an LLM distinguish between good and bad correct proofs. But it still really helps a lot. On top of that, taste in proofs is a lot more uniform than taste in coding. That helps LLMs be better at judging the quality of a proof, because there’s less disagreement in the wider world.
The standards of proof are different from the fundamental operation of "OK, cool, you solved this problem. Why does this problem matter? Isn't it useless? Senseless? Meaningless?" You have this same question whether or not you're in an a priori discipline (mathematics), scientific fields proper, or engineering. "Absolute certainty" has nothing to do with it. I can assure you, people on the job are not looking for The Absolute Truth when doing their jobs, yet they still can question at a solution by asking: are we solving the right problem?
(Although in general, there's no true difference between "I answered the question correctly, but the question was mapped to this thing we call 'reality' wrong", and "I answered the question incorrectly", because you can (try) adding the constraints that you really wanted targeted in case A, to case B, and boom, suddenly a question/answer pair that was "Answered correctly, but question doesn't map to reality" now becomes, "You answered this question wrong". However, individuals generally tend to have some breakpoint to differentiate between the two).
No, what I'm saying is that I don't agree that taste in mathematics is more uniform than taste in coding! Mathematicians argue about taste all the time. Just as you might look at a piece of code and agree that it compiles and doesn't have any fatal bugs but still think it's badly written, hard to follow, hard to modify, or whatever else, mathematicians judge mathematical work using very similar criteria.
I think that your take is quite optimistic. Having published in top tier journals my only experience is that mathematicians care about what other mathematicians worked on and failed to solve. Theory building papers are dime a dozen and don't get published in high tier journals unless they solve a problem.
Math is such that most theories are built after solving a problem and actually don't solve a larger class of problems. Etale Cohomology is an example of a rare exception. Grothendieck was mad that Deligne used adhoc complex analysis techniques to prove Weil. But everyone else was thrilled.
Whereas in CS, a good theory (library) solves a large class of problems. The reason being is that CS tackles general problems while math specific ones. Math on average solves problems that don't lead to solutions to other problems.
To me at least, math is more of a game like chess and coding is more of an art. There are aspects which are a game, like performance engineering but I'm pretty sure that LLMs will become superhuman at that soon
If your complaint is about the type of work that gets you published in a fancy math journal, then I'll happily join you on the barricades. Sure, getting a paper into Annals of Mathematics or whatever is more game than art in the sense I think you mean here.
But "what mathematicians care about" is much, much broader than what gets you published in a fancy journal. Mathematics as a human activity is millennia old, much older than the concept of journals or even universities, and that activity is, to me, very beautiful, worth preserving, and more of an art than a game. The incentive structure of academia for the past few decades has done a pretty bad job at preserving that art form, but that doesn't mean mathematicians as actual human beings don't care about it --- if they didn't, they probably would have chosen a different career.
I think the difference is in math the problem is fully specified and easily verifiable and in programming it's not. I don't agree that we always know we can solve the problem.
For example, create a DFA for a regex, not too bad just use Thompson's algorithm and then NFA->DFA. But now we have to care about efficiency, user API, maintainability of definitions etc.
> So I'll say it again, AI will win a fields medal for before managing a McDonald's simply because there are enough big problems within arms reach than their current capacity to plan over time
AI can manage a McDonald’s already. If manage means directing humans to do something to ensure the store is running. If manage means running robots, then yes maybe that is 5 years away but just directing humans to run a store, that is possible right now.
It's not a problem of incentives. Every executive wants to inject LLMs everywhere these days. If they haven't somewhere it means that it does not work.
In the Reddit post there was clarification that this was done with Sol Pro not Ultra - curious what is everyone’s mental model of the difference.
My understanding is that ChatGPT Pro is effectively a multi agent system, or somehow uses multiple LLMs in parallel and selects a best answer. And Ultra is more similar to Claude-Code UltraCode where the main agent can choose to create a dynamic JS workflow that deterministically orchestrates multiple agents to handle different parts of a task and have adversarial checkers etc.
Is that more or less the difference? Any substantiating sources would be great to see.
I tried using AI to solve some advanced math problems. One thing I see is that they can throw an enormous amount of brute force into a problem. When mathematical logic can be brute forced we will see some interesting advances.
If I recall correctly there was a proposed proof to the abc conjecture by Mochizuki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abc_conjecture#Claimed_proofs which was rejected due to being rather inpenetrable to humans. Shouldn't this be an ideal target for LLMs?
There was recently an announcement that a group trying to formalize it found a gap exactly where other mathematicians were pointing. So to the extent there was any doubt, it should be gone now--the proof was incorrect.
But I agree LLMs have a lot of potential for checking proofs--both informally (they can read quickly and find gaps) and formally (by attempting to formalize).
Crazy how intelligence is cheap, efficient and commonplace now.
We humans better refocusing our energy on our core values/principles, given most of our skills are becoming irrelevant
If it were commonplace, there wouldn't be a post and discussion about it. Cheap? Arguable - while it didn't cost thousands, it wasn't free. Cheap is in the eye of the beholder. Efficient...How do we even measure that? The massive infrastructure and training to take a product to the point where someone could do this is massive. Ignoring everything behind the scenes and acting like one session and result is the whole picture of efficiency doesn't seem right. And no, nothing produced by AI makes skills irrelevant. That is the whole ongoing argument of whether people are losing cognitive ability by moving their thinking to AI.
Overall, this is an impressive proof of capability. But I wouldn't take that proof as anything more than what it is.
Seconded on the "not cheap" argument here. I've spent $25 worth of tokens completing a one-week task in an afternoon, or rather my company spent the money. I would never have personally felt OK with throwing this much money after some prompting back and forth for a few hours, one lazy Saturday afternoon. I ran the risk of not finding the solution before the token usage would be too high for me to want to carry on, if I was my own credit card linked to the account.
Of course money in this situation is a bit of a funny measurement, right, because if I was able to take the rest of the week off as soon as I had solved the one-week problem, then I would have no problem at all throwing even $100 worth of tokens at it, so I could enjoy a nice 4-day "mini-vacation".
How cheap "cheap" is, is indeed "in the eye of the beholder".
It's not sarcasm. If I had to pay $25 to perform my work from an ever-growing pile of projects, I would be losing money. That's not "cheap intelligence" for me. It certainly is for my employer, though, because for the mere price of $25 extra per day they can get 4*X the product per period of time.
In Scrum terms my personal velocity grows by a factor of four or more with access to agentic AI workload, but if it means that I will just be asked to "consume" 4*X more Story Points per sprint, I'm not the winner in the end, my employer is. If they asked me to complete X Story Points per sprint regardless of my velocity, and they let me take the days off when I was done, I would be the winner. But that's not how it works.
AI is "Cheap" for the person/organization that gets more product for less money, not for the individual person building the product faster.
I mostly agree, these are things that couldn't or weren't solved with abundant capital at all, and now they are being solved
it went from not having a price, to having one, and we are trying to retroactively transpose economic viability or economic existence to it from some parallel and prior time.
A counter argument: A strong distinction between "intelligence" (understanding what is) and "values/principles" (understanding what ought to be) was characteristic of much early modern European philosophy from Descartes to Kant, which received its influential strong formulation from David Hume.
But trying to maintain this distinction leads to insuperable difficulties. Our conceptual framework for understanding the world are always value-laden. There is no "view from nowhere", no historically unconditioned set of values or concepts. Your framing, in which "values" are external to "intelligence" and must be imposed on it (on pain of intelligence being "value-neutral"), leads inevitably to the dead end of "AI Alignment", "superintelligence", etc. Which is a kind of pseudo-theology.
"We humans better [be] refocusing our energy on our core values/principles, given most of our skills are becoming irrelevant."
In light of the untenability of a strong fact/value or intelligence/ethics distinction, I would suggest this alternative advice: humans should focus on critical appropriation and extension of the received wisdom, whether that comes to us directly from human beings or indirectly through an LLM. Perhaps this is compatible with the spirit of your original suggestion.
It's still clear that LLMs lack spatial reasoning, either in the concrete or abstract, and while that sort of reasoning has been downplayed by academia for at least a century it is fundamental to technology and industry. (And many would say for science and mathematics too).
They will, however, get there as well either directly or as interfaces to models that do, and your core point stands.
"Lack" isn't the right word. "Lacking" is more like it.
If there was a deep fundamental inability, we wouldn't see things like newer generations of LLMs consistently improving on ARC-AGI series (heavy spatial reasoning loading) and SimpleBench (a lot of commonsense + spatial reasoning components).
In a way, it's a surprise that LLMs, notoriously lacking any sort of embodied experience, can even get this close to human baselines on tasks like this.
My takeaway is that text is a far richer modality than anyone has expected - and that high end LLMs are often sharp and flexible enough to recognize their weak points and substitute their strengths. I.e. all the LLMs implementing A* to optimally solve pathfinding in ARC-AGI-3 tasks, often unprompted.
There might still be unrealized gains there from true depth-unbounded recurrence, or maybe from finding better ways to integrate modalities in training. But clearly, a "fundamental limit" it ain't.
> "Lack" isn't the right word. "Lacking" is more like it.
Yeah, that's fair.
> My takeaway is that text is a far richer modality than anyone has expected - and that high end LLMs are often sharp and flexible enough to recognize their weak points and substitute their strengths. I.e. all the LLMs implementing A* to optimally solve pathfinding in ARC-AGI-3 tasks, often unprompted.
I agree and disagree with this. I think we've learned a lot of humans are more text based than we thought, but conversely I'm not persuaded what non-textual task reasoning LLMs are doing is necessarily text based, just that models have grown large enough for other reasoning modes to conceivably be hiding in the parameter space.
As I mentioned elsewhere, like many others I find LLMs work entirely by example, and reaching for A* when pathfinding is the single obvious thing to do. In cases where the magic key word is not mentioned and the problem cannot be identified as "pathfinding" (or some other trigger with a highly specific widely documented solution) they will struggle, yet the moment the trigger is hit they get there very fast. This is why prompting remains such an art form.
Fable is the first one I've encountered that is capable of serious open ended 3D programming in ways that suggest it has some grasp of the spatial aspects of the problem (not merely symbolic manipulation of the vectors etc.), but it still misses optimization opportunities a human will find glaringly obvious based on spatially predictable bounds etc.
Grown? LLMs were always "large enough for other reasoning modes to conceivably be hiding in the parameter space".
Basic LLMs don't reason in text, and never did. They use it as an interface - for input, output and some of the intermediate products. Heavy use of those "pseudo-recurrence" intermediates in "reasoning models" is a relatively late post-training adaptation. But the process that happens between those endpoints is not at all text-based. What happens in the hidden dimension is part "output logit domain", tied to probability distributions over possible output tokens, and part "incomprehensible concept-space madness".
The latter being where things like latent world models live. LLMs develop partial world models, right in pre-training, despite not being explicitly forced to - because it brings them closer to heaven of accurate next token prediction.
And yes, larger models like Fable seem to be better at spatial reasoning. Maybe because their large size increases the sample efficiency and improves generalization, allowing them to absorb the sparse signal of "spatial reasoning" in the training text better. Maybe because this extra size means more layers, allowing for deeper latent space reasoning in lieu of true recurrence. Maybe because the default "next token prediction" reward underrates rare spatial reasoning challenges, and the model only starts to "get good" at them once the other sources of loss reduction are heavily depleted. Maybe because no true recurrence is suboptimal for spatial reasoning architecturally. But it is what it is. Spatial reasoning gains in LLMs are extractable, but extracting them is nontrivial.
On a token level, text tokens are orders of magnitude more information dense than visual tokens.
You don't have to do much statistical analysis to figure out what is meant by the token string "cat under a tree". However you need to do an enormous amount to encode any permutation of pixels that show a cat under a tree from the set of all possible pixels arrangements that illustrate that (along with the massive fringes of ambiguity).
I will be posting something to that effect later this week. (Hopefully).
Basically current gen LLMs apparently do spatial reasoning the way they seemingly do everything else: by reference to previous example. I didn't see them work out which known example to use for a given problem until specifically prompted, in my case by accident.
If you ask an LLM, "what known example did you use to solve this?" it is very likely to cite something plausible-sounding. That absolutely doesn't mean it is what it actually did. It is trying to give the "right answer" and please.
Everybody can be an armchair mathematician now. Just fling some thoughts in the direction of your AI setup and let it do breadth first search with AI based pruning heuristics.
I generally agree, though direction, intuition, and domain knowledge are still relevant. Your breadth-first-search framing feels right, but you still need a sense of which paths are worth following, and you need to know when to trust the results.
I’ve been doing more math as a hobby in the past few weeks — working on lesser-known conjectures and exploring proofs of hard theorems — than I could have managed over the previous several years. It’s an exciting time.
If you really believe this, try to use GPT 5.6 to prove an open problem you know nothing about. You might get lucky, but if you don't, you will soon discover that 5.6 can make "progress" towards a theorem without actually getting anywhere pretty much indefinitely.
Intelligence on its own is not very useful though. We put it on a pedestal because it creates huge potential when paired with other things, wisdom, discipline, empathy, but on its own?
The infinite monkey theorem assumes random distribution of symbols*.
Given the tokenizers have a vocabulary in the 10k-100k range, "a million attempts" will generally still only get the first token of the answer correct.
Even really rubbish models, e.g. talkie, the "what if we only use pre-1930s data to train a model?"** model, had to be almost all the way to the right answer to reach the really low HumanEval pass@100 score of ~0.04 (I'm only eyeballing the relevant chart).
* Actual monkeys not being like this is, while amusing, irrelevant
Even if every atom in the universe were a supercomputer generating a trillion trillion random characters every second since the Big Bang, the chance of producing Hamlet would still be essentially zero.
You've not seen how they react to noobs asking physics questions, I think.
Even when you've got an interesting idea, if you're an enthusiastic amateur who don't yet know enough to phrase the question right but does actually know the basics, they'll put you in the same category as the people who think healing crystals can power hyperspace telepathy with Anubis: "oh no not another one".
LLMs have infinite patience, but unfortunately come (came?) with too much sycophancy, giving even more people far too much confidence.
I can't stop wondering myself.... I'm writing some software with AI and wondering, why am I doing this? Will anyone need this? Will anyone have money to buy this?
Best I've come up with is we'll need to be adopted by technofeudlaist overlords to be our patrons like in the roman days
> Best I've come up with is we'll need to be adopted by technofeudlaist overlords to be our patrons like in the roman days
Continually progressing AI (combined with our current socioeconomic systems) throws a lot of uncertainty into our mid to long term future, but I don't think this is going to be what happens.
There are billions more of "us" than of "them", people don't respond well en masse to a drastic worsening of their societal status and "they" are lagging very far behind on building their robot armies.
If we poorly navigate this transition the outcome should be worrying them more than it worries us.
> There are billions more of "us" than of "them", people don't respond well en masse to a drastic worsening of their societal status and "they" are lagging very far behind on building their robot armies.
Fortunately, yes, those robot armies do seem to be rather behind schedule*.
However, even if Musk dies of old age before anything like the Optimus can be connected to useful artificial intelligence, it can still be driven by the common joke a few years back that "AI" really stood for "Actually Indians".
When all the people currently upset about "immigrants coming here taking our jobs" discover those same people are now staying home and remote-working those same jobs over a VR headset and a Starlink connection... my guess is that by this point, Musk will have no political allies left.
> If we poorly navigate this transition the outcome should be worrying them more than it worries us.
It can screw everyone over. Literal communism was invented in response to Laissez-faire capitalism, and while Laissez-faire died with the Great Depression, the form of capitalism which succeeded it in the USA came into conflict with the USSR and gave us the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, etc.
That view is incredibly reductionist. It really is an efficient encoding of how nature behaves. It might be a human construct, but given how best it allows to understand nature (through principles of physics), it is uncanny to be any different from the language of nature.
Reminds me of Wigner's Unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in natural sciences [0].
At a very high level mathematics is basically 100% text/symbolic rewriting. You start from some set of postulate assumed true and you do your thing to get a new different set of equivalent assertions in a form that is more useful.
I don’t know if LLMs will kill the working-mathematicians but at least seem like that it doesn’t seem absurd to imagine LLMs will be good at math…
This is all a depressing and bleak future that I don’t look forward to.
One solution is to ban LLM’s, to artificially create a demand for human thought, that just feels like living in an artificially constructed zoo.
Another solution is humans don’t do anything that AI can do better , / doesn’t need the human touch. So I suppose we will all become artists, sportsmen or politicians, the only jobs that will remain except for select few. Maybe this is ok, I don’t know.
Another solution is we find a way to mind-meld with AI so that human + Ai >> AI alone. This is dystopian, who gets to decide who mind melds with AI, how much will it cost etc etc.
For the stupid copes that the prompt required human ingenuity, let me first add that the author used GPT5.6 to write most of the prompt. He just gave some mild direction. That amount of direction does not require deep expertise and the expertise required will keep falling with time, eventually an undergrad can create this loop and then maybe a high school student.
And prompt engineering / loop engineering nonsense is not real. Calling it engineering is a psy-op because it is something simple, imprecise and future models will be much better at it than you.
In fact, in the future the most likely outcome is you tell the agent what you want (I want this app, or I want this theorem solved) and it will set up the loop, or loop of loops and use all its computing effort to come up with a result. This is completely dystopian to a human life.
call me naive, but i really think the pursuit for the new, the better, the interesting, is boundless and humans will never stop. and so for those of us that dream and push and are plain curious will never run out of ways to be useful. and hopefully the fruits of all this tech will be ample enough to support the ones that don't want to or can't participate in that way.
gig economy is a blessing to keep the LCD busy and doing something productive instead of being nihilistic losers
it’s better to focus on how to keep these “knowledge” workers busy for the AI age
they don’t like to work and complain even on a w2 job (where someone else had to figure out how to capitalize them) so in many ways they’re far more dangerous and hopeless.
Maybe we should also burn books and lobotomize ourselves to make science more fun and challenging. The ego here sickens me. I don't care about your ego. I want accelerated material science, medical science, energy, better outcomes for people across the world.
I also want better outcomes for people around the world.
Memes like the permanent underclass and the massive incentive of replacing workers across the world does not bode well for a better outcome for people across the world.
A rational reaction would be to identify the political coalition that would act in this manner and place yourself in opposition to it if you do not see yourself being able to change it.
The problem isn't that we are gaining more knowledge and better technology. The problem is that we are allowing the rich to use the technology to subjugate the majority.
If AI improves human productivity so much that millions of people no longer need to work that should be an incredible thing. But the flawed structure of our society punishes those people rather than freeing them to persue endeavors that interest then.
Only solution I can think of is higher taxes for the rich used to provide universal income. I'm not sure how the realities of that would play out, though.
Anything based on a free market just ends up in.. this.
I'm strongly in favour of this. I think income tax should approach 100%. So your second billion you still make more. But not twice as much. The exact decay function is up to date. But I really don't think your post-tax take home should scale linearly with your income once you hit the max bracket.
We can also remove all of the loopholes that result in the biggest companies paying basically no taxes. I also think it may make sense to have a dramatically different tax structure for businesses than effectively income tax.
Outside of really bad luck I've never seen a case where someone was in a situation of working hard + making reasonably okay decisions + struggling, and that's purely due to there being avenues available where you can be rewarded well for your effort if you're of average+ intelligence.
Literally anything you wanted to make is no plausible to make if not now then in the next couple years.
The thing you’re worried about is capitalism and the connection with working to having the right to keep living. If you can throw off that mental shackle you can start to see how this can be amazing, but you have to drop the idea that everyone has to work at a job for someone else to provide some service in order to do it. It’s hard, I know, but change your mindset some and dream for a better world and we can make it.
You ever play a video game with god mode cheats enabled, so you can unlock all the unlocks, get all the best gear, and be an unstoppable force with unlimited money?
Exactly, a lot of people keep attacking me as anxiety for losing my livelihood. It’s not that.
It’s just depression that another avenue for human craftsmanship has been taken over by the machines. Humans are not just infinite consumers. If AI solves all of humanity problems, it’s like living in a zoo, not a life worth living imo.
This has always been the case though that "another avenue of human craftsmanship has been taken over by the machines."
It's good if we can have robots building things instead of having humans slumped over a workbench in a sweatshop piecing things together. It's good if we can have LLMs spitting out code rather than CS grads working 15 hour days at fintech startups or whatever. The conditions were never (ever) good before.
And, it won't be like a zoo - you'll be able to go wherever you want, do more or less whatever you want. Think about living in The Culture, or the Star Trek universe or whatever. There are options beyond "I'm a pet to the machines." Think big, dream big, then help make it a reality!
Like, out in space you're still going to need a human to make decisions because you can't wait 30min for the tight-beam signal to get back to earth. Also, we're pretty good at soaking up rads and still being "useful" - at least so far I don't see that being a major advantage to the robots. Maybe our place is to be the deep space mechanics that keep the robots alive? I don't know, regardless, you should dream big. What kind of world do you want to live in? Ok, how do we make that world happen?
My big (somewhat unspoken and somewhat immature dream) is that advances in regenerative health tech fix my optic nerves and I can get into the cockpit again one day, then maybe later I can fly some space vehicle like I wanted to since I was a 12 year old. Immature I know, but I miss flying still.
Is that world possible without AI? Probably/maybe? But it's a lot more plausible in a world where we have folded every protein, we have robot surgeons doing robotic procedures, AI generated research, etc.
Surgeons too now? Another avenue for human skill destroyed.
I actually want to exit. I want to live in a society where humans flourish not AI.
Actually one just needs to walk the streets of Japan and compare that to US. Tokyo has hundreds of small shops with humans doing specific niche stuff, perfecting their arts. That’s all so beautiful.
America has massive warehouses and supermarkets, with completely uninterested and bored out of their mind humans working and I suppose now we will replace them with robots. Great I guess. Maybe all Americans should just sit at home and consume Netflix and Doritos ig.
I want technology to increase human flourishing, not turn us into WallE humans. I am only interested in technological progress when it is done by humans who trained their whole lives for it, as it is a display of human excellence and that can be a beautiful thing. I’m not interested in it if some AI builds it.
Then, you know, build that world locally, at least for yourself.
Like, I'm building a cabin in the woods (original, I know), but you can build things and do things. You can be that kind of human if you want. But, if Americans could sit at home and consume netflix and doritos I suppose some would, but many would decide to start doing other things too.
I don't think the worlds we want to live in are that far apart to be honest. If I could make a living doing it, I'd try to build wooden sailboats for a living. That would be awesome. I would love it! In a world where I don't have to work to win capitalism tokens, I would probably spend a few years just building wooden sailboats to sail around the bay by my cabin.
Why the ad hominem? I mean, seriously, you think I haven't been "in the trenches?"
Dude, I'm nearly 40. I've seen the shit. When I was flying for a living, literal close friends died because of the results of avarice.
Dream big dude! This constant "doom and gloom" narrative is toxic to your ability to flourish. I have been there, I understand the urge to doom and gloom, but we make the world we want to live in. We do. We choose it.
What world do you want to live in? What is your "optimal" version of the future? How do we get there? What steps would we have to take to make it a reality?
If your vision of the future is "oh, like 10 years ago before $problem_du_jour" then you're already off to a bad start because we ain't going back. There's no regulation that will actually change anything materially (seriously, you think the people getting rich off all this stuff in Congress will voluntarily shoot themselves in the foot?), there's no way to go but forward, so how do we proceed?
I want to live in The Culture, or something like it if it's possible. So, let's start building it and ask permission later.
On the other hand, exploring any of your interests without needing to calculate how it can cover rent means you have more time and opportunities to actually do things you're interested in.
Working all day, then not wanting to do much else after because you're tired, is also fun for all of 30 minutes.
Right!? Like imagine we could use this stuff to solve world hunger, develop robots to clean up the oceans, or colonize space?
People are all “shucks how am I going to be able to justify my career at $job” and are missing the bigger opportunity. Such a lack of imagination I see…
There is no lack of imagination here, there is realism. You think you display "imagination" by just regurgitating all the tired tropes of old science fiction? Oh wow! Robots to clean the ocean! How novel! Nobody has ever thought about this!
The reality is nobody is going to build robots to clean the ocean because there is no money to be made. There will be robots to clean rich people's pools, sure. And it will put pool boys out of a job, great.
I can see (given that you've responded to a few of my points here), that you care about this enough to respond.
What if money wasn't a thing? What if that wasn't the only incentive in the economy? What if there were other ways to balance supply and demand curves (which is basically the principle use for money) so we could reduce shortages, etc.
Dream big man, I'm serious! And who cares if there is no money to be made? Like, what are you (individually you) doing to create the world you want to live in? What world do you even want to live in?
yeah! Like can you imagine a world where you could just effectively "conjure" new furniture for your house and robots would assemble it in a few hours? Or molecular assemblers would grow it while you slept?
Or imagine a world where we could basically cure every disease? Or a world where people could assume any form factor that they wanted? I don't know, the list goes on and on in a post-scarcity world... and we're seeing how we basically live in a sort of digital post-scarcity now and it is really cool.
If I need a software tool these days I don't buy it, I tend to see if I can make it. Now imagine that for physical things? What a time to be alive.
I literally have had various LLMs generate 3d printable plans for things I have used. Also, I am literally making a living right now being something between a dev and SME and building tools for people in an industry I’m familiar with.
Dream bigger buddy! We can make the world better, we’re not powerless here.
- Hasn't been peer reviewed yet, so take with a grain of salt. This applies to all claimed proofs, not just AI-generated ones. Even humans hallucinate proofs too!
- The prompt is on page 27 here[1]. It is ten pages of advanced mathematics priming the model in the right direction, apparently informed by a year of prior research. That doesn't invalidate the result if it is genuine, but it is worth noting that this wasn't a matter of "ChatGPT, solve this unsolved problem. Make no mistakes." and required substantial domain expertise and human research beforehand.
Saying “solve this problem” doesn’t get good results most of the time with humans either, it’s entirely underspecified so the person assigned that problem may solve it in a variety of unacceptable ways or not at all or perhaps worse solve the wrong problem because you weren’t clear about its definition. This actually happens all the time. What matters is the ability to communicate clearly and with precision as well as the “harness” which for humans is procedure, training, planning and management.
The subtext of this whole post (or at least a subtext that some might read), is "we don't need mathematicians/programmers anymore" or "we will need much fewer mathematicians/programmers". So the fact that this result required a year of prior research and a 10 page prompt of specialized knowledge goes against that subtext. You still needed the human just as much to get to the result, and the LLM ended up being a tool to find the last bit.
> Saying “solve this problem” doesn’t get good results most of the time with humans either
Sure. That is not even remotely the point I was getting at. Already we see the thread filling up with comments about how human skills are irrelevant, using a mathematics PhD applying his expert skills in a way that the people who are saying that could never have done to justify their inane conclusion.
> but it is worth noting that this wasn't a matter of "ChatGPT, solve this unsolved problem. Make no mistakes."
It wasn't the case for this, but when OpenAI disproved the Unit Distance Conjecture, it was really done autonomously by an automated AI pipeline with a completely AI-generated prompt. No human expertise required at all in the process (well, except for the final human verification).
What I'm feeling is that there's a need to study how to use AI well. I've seen professors using AI, and it was amazing. In that sense, I think AI prompt input will become stratified. In the past, implementation skills were very important, but these days, concepts feel more important this is one of those things.
It's not that AI brings equality, but rather that the output varies depending on how much background knowledge you have. You could call it a stratification of input
I'm starting to feel like there's no place left for programmers like me who focus on quickly churning out MVPs.
Calling it prompt engineer is doing it a disservice. With agents we’re well into process engineering, which is a ton more interesting.
The obvious baby’s first process is “plan -> execute” but as we learn about the strengths and weaknesses of LLMs you have to start unpacking that process into planning, prototyping, testing, validation, reviews, and tons of research. If you treat it like an extension of your brain that can automate some thought processes, it becomes a lot more powerful.
One of the key skills of a professor is asking the right questions. Figuring out something worth working on, and then framing it in an appropriate way and asking questions that allow someone with specific tools and skills to make progress in the topic. Usually the tools and skills are those available to a new student, but working with an LLM is similar.
That skill comes with experience. Most people don't have it immediately after PhD.
I find it strange that people sometimes think of knowledge as 'public property for everyone.' The essence may be one, but the mental model of knowledge is individual. For an LLM's knowledge to become mine, I need to digest it to some extent.
And programming, as the programmer who created Eliza once said, is the act of becoming a legislator of your own universe. So even if there are black boxes, if you want to build a program that fits your own worldview, studying is essential.
> you can't have one LLM to read your mind to prompt another LLM
I’m excited to inform you that we as a species have developed a particularly useful facility known as Language which these LLM tools are evidently rather handy at wielding. This facility is particularly useful in this context when it takes the form of “dialog” or “questioning”, which can be used to propagate abstract ideas by means of mutually-feedback-guided-iterative-Language-use-turns, or more concisely, “conversation.”
One might even say that this remarkable facility can be used to “read” the ideas from one entity’s mind, such that after sufficient dialog the second entity obtains a (possibly lossy, but there are mitigations for this) copy of the ideas of the first. You might further be surprised to learn that this sort of idea-transfer business using language has already been happening in our society and species for quite some time indeed.
This is a lot of words to say that a human can prompt an LLM to tell it what they want.
edit: it reminds me of all that I have to wade through after I've asked an LLM a straightforward question and the answer should have been "yes, you're right."
I'm going to keep on repeating this on HN threads until I'm blue in the face, but:
There are two ways to solve a problem. Either solve the problem, or deem it irrelevant.
The implication here is that, you, the human operator, clearly are just confused. The LLM knows best. You're just a stupid human. The LLM knows objective truth, you do not. You have concerns, questions, the LLM didn't understand your question "properly"? Do not worry, the LLM objectively knows the optimal course of action. It thought through the implications of what you said, took into account all possible data, and came to the objectively correct design for your software, your society, your life.
In some sense, this problem would have been a societal problem within the next several decades anyways, but it's been hyper-accelerated by AI.
I actually think people who are great at understanding problems, coming up with requirements and designing solutions (all things I would expect someone who is good at churning out MVPs would be good at) are exactly the people most empowered by the current batch of LLMs. Its the people who are only good at working on small chunks of problems that I'm concerned about..
> I'm starting to feel like there's no place left for programmers like me who focus on quickly churning out MVPs.
Of course there is. The same way this was only possible as a result from the professor who prompted it with his specialized 10 page prompt and most importantly his deep knowledge of the problem space, the muscle memory and intuition you've built over the years is what will allow you to get more out of any AI than some guy who says "make a door dash clone" as the entire prompt
So these days I've been writing down my thoughts on my personal homepage. Things I've learned, my background knowledge, and so on.
I've been realizing that there are more books tied to my background knowledge than I expected, but I'm not sure what will happen as AI advances further.
These days, I'm living for the fun of building my own personal wiki on my homepage
Sharing knowledge is good, but just because an LLM crawls it doesn't mean it fits my mental model. The act of writing is fundamentally about drawing the shape of my own mental model.
could machine-learning even handle a TEN PAGE PROMPT just a year ago?
this is changing my mind, at least about experts using advanced tools like any profession where it's like the magic of watching a lifetime of hard-earned skill at work
> After seeing OpenAI’s CDC result, I wrote a much more elaborate prompt following the same general methodology. My prompt is about ten pages long and attached at the end of the preprint (see collection of links below). There is a lot baked into this prompt, on approaches to try and also on how exactly the model should proceed, but it's built exactly in the style of OpenAI's CDC prompt. One note is that I gave it a relatively small error requirement, to prove the quadratic lower bound under order d⁻⁴ accuracy.
> After 148 minutes, GPT-5.6 Sol Pro returned a proposed proof resolving the quadratic dimension dependence at accuracy of order d⁻³. After checking things myself, I formally verified the proof in Lean, and it passed the formal verification check.
>So I wouldn't really say that this result is using or creating some fundamentally new techniques in convex geometry or optimization theory. What this means from my perspective is that if a result is attainable with existing techniques, modern AI methods will be able to solve those problems. I don't think researchers in math/TCS will be made obsolete, but I think it will instead no longer make sense to work on any low-hanging, or even medium-hanging (you know what I mean) fruit. We'll be needed for problems where actual novel approaches are needed.
While they’ll never have the same subjective experience as humans, what stops an LLM from applying similar lines of thought* in a manner that results in a novel conjecture?
They are prediction machines, and so are we in a way. We can give them nearly limitless resources to scale their predictive capabilities. We have billions of years of training baked in. They distill directly from our knowledge and can walk down paths that no human has before.
It’s silly to say they’ll never do anything novel.
At their current capabilities, it sounds like they are already capable of being a specific type is research assistant. What will that look like in 10-20 years?
They also have ability to go deep and wide in a way that humans just can't. We have limits, get tired, distracted and biased where AI does not. I think there a lot of problem where all the information needed to solve them is there, but we just can't put the pieces together. Like no matter how many people you throw at some problems, you hit human limits and more people won't help, but AI will because it is just relentless.
Not really the kind of biased I meant though. There was a recent article about a AI disproving I think an Erdos conjecture by doing similar things humans have tried, but it was much messier and less "beautiful". I think it is a common bias in science and math that things should be "beautiful" but there is no real reason to think that.
>what stops an LLM from applying similar lines of thought* in a manner that results in a novel conjecture?
One thing is that an LLM can never assume, or find out, an inconsistency in its training data. Novel ideas often require correction of existing assumptions. As far as I understand, it is impossible, by design, for LLMs to contradict what is in its training data.
For example, an LLM trained on the data from an internet comprised of people who believe in the earth centric hypothesis can never say "Hey, that cannot be correct", or come up with the heliocentric alternative
Ok, I guess never is a real long time and eventually when we merge our consciousness with the machines we may have the same subjective experience.
I can confidently state that GPT-5.6 Sol is not experiencing the same reality as me. They _might_ be "experiencing" and I personally think they are, but their reality and experience is not the same as ours.
Well, sure. I'm not experiencing the same reality as you, either. I guess I assumed you were implying something more - a lesser experience or something. No?
Famously, all of maths is axioms and tautologies, so I'm not sure this will assuage any professional mathematicians currently having an existential crisis.
Maths was already infinite, it's still infinite, but who wants to spend all their lives changing rooms inside Hilbert's Hotel?
The author explains he's an expert in the domain and that he had worked sporadically on the problem for about a year, also with the help of previous LLMs. So whatever he means by "I wouldn't really say that this result is using or creating some fundamentally new techniques" it doesn't mean that the result was trivial. Also, says it might not make sense to work on low or even medium hanging fruits in the future- and I bet that's by far the largest share of work for most mathematicians.
Sure, it's not a breakthrough that opens new roads in mathematics- is this where the goalpost has moved now?
HEH. Don't know why you're getting downvoted. It's painfully obvious that there is a vicious AI backlash now, where every amazing advancement is met with denial and loathing.
Oh wait, sorry, I do know why you're getting downvoted. Fear.
A lot of people who thought they were special and “better” than mere blue-collar workers are realizing that in fact;l they are the same just working with a different medium.
Humans just want to be able to work and feed their families. Notice how this is something that is never addressed for example in Asimov's writings where robots do everything. How do people do anything to be able to afford these robots? How do Solarians make money to maintain their massively gigantic estates? It is never explained, but we always jump straight to the "robots do everything, everything is free, nobody works". How about the in between?
Oh yes, I agree entirely. I look at The Jetsons or Star Trek, and I see the fruits of technology shared by all of humankind.
But if the current trends continue, Elon will own all of the robots and the rest of us will be at his mercy.
How we change that - I don't know. But I do know we don't change it by putting our heads in the sand. AI is here and it is real. We MUST take it seriously. Shunning is not a viable option.
We're going to have to (collectively at some point) decide that we shouldn't tie survival to working.
Whether that's UBI, or Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism, or UBS, or some AI managed economy, or some other such thing, we need to decide that "hey, we don't want to tied survival to output under our current system."
That's really the Rubicon we have to cross, and there are a LOT of people who can't really come up with a better way in their own heads yet.
Look, we all saw how things can be during the pandemic. That was a dark time, but it also gives us a model, we can just... do things. We just have to decide to do them.
Oh! Damn! Stupid me! "We have to collectively decide this", when is the meeting to vote on that again? When is the last time we all decided something collectively?
WTF does the pandemic have to do with this? "dark time", oh yeah, people stuck at home watching Netflix, what an incommensurable suffering!
Buddy, I can admire the naive childish optimism to a degree, but come on. "We just have to all decide". Do you live in a Disney movie?
I'm not sure, but if I may guess, I suspect he's talking about the fact that the entire US shut down for a year and people survived because the US Government printed money and gave it away free to businesses so they wouldn't collapse. (PPP loans.)
If we can do something like that for the pandemic, we can do something similar when push really comes to shove.
Thank you! We can decide to just... you know... do things.
Like, am I crazy here? The rules that we live by are largely made up and the points don't matter - we can decide to live in a better world if we want to. It's hard, and there are obstacles, for sure, but this appeal to doom for the sake of doom just... why? We have made unfathomable progress over the last century and if we keep trying we can make progress like that over the next century too!
I mean, a at least something like million people died just in the US with the most conservative estimates that I've seen (and by 2022). It was pretty dark, yeah.
But we also decided during that time to literally pay people to stay home for awhile. That was a really revolutionary thing and it was awesome. We could decide to do that again.
You can ad hominem until the cows come home, but yeah, we literally just kind of have to collectively decide that there are better ways to do things.
There's a fantastic book called "The Last Emperor of Mexico" I read a few years ago that really talks about how the idea of a Republic or Democracy in general was a pretty novel concept in the mid 1800s. People were a lot more skeptical about it than we're lead to believe now. But eventually, the ideas of aristocracy and some "well bred" group of various types of monarchs became silly on it's face. Now the default is that we should have some sort of democratic representation. That would seem utopian AF in 1820.
Well, we're going to have to bridge that sort of gap for getting rid of the need to justify our existence through work too. The transition is going to be weird, but we'll have to come up with something else and run with it.
Dream big buddy, I know it's hard, lord knows I do, but dream big, and work little by little towards those things you want to see in the world.
Genuine question: If you still or did think LLMs are just stochastic parrots that just summarize everything and have no form of creativity, what do you think after seeing results like this?
I'm very curious how people reconcile their fear/hatred of AI with actual objective reality. This is actually what interests me most about the whole AI thing. How we tell ourselves what we tell ourselves.
I had to create an account to respond to this because I am quite convinced these math problems they are "solving" are pure marketing. Why is it only GPT doing this, why not Claude? Why does Terrance Tao do marketing for OpenAI? I suspect OpenAI has hired math researchers to solve obscure problems and put them in their training set, purely for marketing reasons.
There was a good comment on the Pelican bicycle svg yesterday about how these models aren't getting much better beyond what the companies focus training them on. I think that's what's happening in this case too, they probably put this in the training set.
You are correct that LLMs are trained on existing proofs but hiring researchers to solve unsolved problems is just unrealistic, both in terms of how none of the mathematicians simply came out and took credit for their own discovery or exposed this, and how training sets are not easily memorized (rather, the meta techniques are learned).
OpenAI just has better training methods and techniques for pure math over Anthropic, it’s one of their biggest strengths
Terrence Tao getting paid by openAI is, to you, the most probable conclusion... much more so then the LLM actually being able to come up with math proofs?
Terrance Tao has for a fact appeared in promotional material for OpenAI. Based on my Googling the consensus seems to be he is paid for it, but I cannot confirm that.
I do think it's very likely that OpenAI pays for solutions like these to put in the training set, and then we get material like this Reddit thread. They market themselves as selling "intelligence", and solving these math problems is something people view as highly intelligent. I'm not a mathematician, so I cannot fully judge it, but based on my experience using LLMs for novel problems in other domains, they seem to really struggle with things that aren't common. That leads me to believe they train for specific outcomes like this. Also, there are a lot of jobs out there for data annotation, including software problems (Meta has basically reorganized its entire engineering department to create training data for coding problems).
Terence Tao also uses Anthropic's models in his work. Oh, you didn't know that? Well, now you can pivot to saying that he's getting paid off by both companies. This is actually one of the hallmarks of both conspiratorial nonsense and military-grade cope. Any fact, regardless of how mundane or extraordinary, gets re-imagined as evidence of the same mad-hatter conclusion.
I hope people are screenshotting this stuff. This really needs to be documented. It's remarkable how wild it's getting.
I hold my stance that LLMs are stochastic parrots.
Making the parrots ever more complex and training on ever more data produced by intelligent, creative beings may make them more useful or convincing but does at no point give rise to intelligence or creativity.
I won't touch creativity, but if this and other results like it do not demonstrate intelligence, what does? How was it able to solve problems that specialist mathematicians have tried and failed to solve for years?
Mathematics is a language. If anything, it's much more well defined and formal than most others. Train on enough examples and statistical autocomplete gets you places. I'm surprised how anyone would even consider this intelligence?
I'm very curious why people conflate thinking LLMs are stochastic parrots with "fear/hatred" of AI. It seems like you're arguing with people who agree that it works and it helps, but you're trying to insist that this implies that they should kneel down and pray to it.
Is "stochastic parrot" too disrespectful for you? Do you think it is a slur?
edit: and this is a genuine question, also. How do you do stochastic parrot = "just summarize everything" = "no form of creativity" = "fear/hatred" so quickly?
Are summaries not creative? Are Maxwell's equations not summaries? Do people hate and fear parrots?
I have absolutely no problem with people disliking or fearing AI. It's energy consumption, effects on education and potential for displacing good jobs are all quite disturbing. But "stochastic parrot" means that "all it does is randomly repeat things that it has seen before without understanding them." It's infuriating to see this written about an instance of an AI solving an open math probably. Do you think the models are just randomly repeating facts until they accidentally emit a proof? If so, then how do they synthesize that knowledge into something logically coherent?
Alternatively, if you think that even Maxwell was a stochastic parrot, then presumably almost every human who has ever lived was also a stochastic parrot except a few rare examples like Einstein. Not sure what definition you are using but it seems too broad to be useful.
I think it's quite clear the proof here shows that it is not a parrot. It objectively isn't.... that's the only rational conclusion. Yet many people claim that it is, so the main conclusion is fear/hatred is causing people to rationalize their logic to fit the narrative they prefer.
Except solving problem is probably the least (even though it's important) interesting thing in research...
The most interesting thing in research is finding new questions, that we understand and that we know why they are important. And that's something that humans need to do (by definition)
I keep hearing this but lots of maths problems are practically important! We want to know the answer because it will be useful for applied science, or statistics, or engineering. It’s not all just about knowledge for its own sake.
Lean is the Mizar here. For those who have no clue what this is about, Mizar [1] was an early automated theorem prover. Can't wait for HN to add AI features to explain concepts in the sideline, and autovoting.
Mizar is an early theorem prover. It still exists, see the 2025 issue of Formalized Mathematics journal [1] that publishes math articles formally verified by Mizar (since 1990).
Cool can we use AI to get a cure for cancer yet? Or is math-turbation the only thing these things are good for? Where are the breakthroughs on actually improving our lives?
It's interesting to see the old "Why would we go to space when there are still uncured diseases" show up in a place like this. Science and discovery are singular, all discovery aids all discovery.
The demographics of HN have changed drastically over the past 10-15 years.
I don't want to be the "back in my day", but back in my day, there were a lot more technical people here, and politics was much smaller. Now there's a ton more people, ton more politics, and a lot less "hey here's something really cool I built, it's like rsync but nice"
Cancer is also bottleknecked by a lot more than just intelligence. If you have 100 of the smartest PHd students working on a cancer problem you have to wait for funding, lab experiments, and clinical trials etc. Math is deterministic and requires nothing like that.
You want to know how long it takes to solve an optimization problem, in this case over convex, lipschitz functions. (The restriction to a spherical domain is not really a restriction, you can just change variables for any bounded domain.) Anyway, showing upper bounds on time complexity is "easy" because it's just the runtime of your algorithm. Showing (nontrivial) lower bounds is usually much harder because it requires constraining all algorithms.
This proof apparently shows that the lower bound time complexity is equal to the time complexity of an existing 30-year old algorithm: it requires Omega(d^2) function evaluations to solve over this class of functions.
My gut says likely implies that d is the minimal number of evaluations if you have a gradient oracle because you can approximate a gradient with d function evaluations, but I'm not sure how hard it is to make that rigorous.
I used to feel this way about statistics.
The language and terms are hard to understand and many of the formulas are taught as "just memorize this" instead of building up from first principles.
But then I started using statistics to analyze something I cared a lot about (paintball) and I quickly realized it's like learning anything new:
- there is jargon
- and core concepts
- when you learn the above, it suddenly makes a lot more sense.
Then I wrote some more about pro paintball stats in the below three Reddit posts:
1. https://www.reddit.com/r/paintball/comments/1h17f2m/intro_to...
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/paintball/comments/1jy5xqp/paintbal...
3. https://www.reddit.com/r/paintball/comments/1k6bzi7/paintbal...
Some highlights:
- I started with just pen, paper and a stopwatch (as a college coach)
- I assumed paintball would be more like football where it's hard to track individual effects
- Turns out it's a surprisingly simple and stable "state machine". e.g. the odds of winning with +1 body (e.g. 5v4, 4v3 etc) is, in college, about ~75%
- Paintball is one of those sports where "the weakest player determines the outcome". Why? b/c if 1 player gets out early, you are fighting out of a hole.
It also made me appreciate that as good a book as Moneyball is, reading it after you try to create analytics for your own sport makes it 3x as enjoyable/insightful.
One downside though:
I would watch games and I got so good at internalizing the stats per state of the game that it was like watching the world series of poker where I could see both player odds of getting eliminated and probability of winning over time charts as I watched the games. Made it harder to be the "come on guys! we can win this" coach when we were down on points + bodies.
- Millenials who were kids of the baby boomers being in their late teens early 20s
- Disposable income due to the real estate bubble / positive consumer sentiment
It dropped off a lot after the 2008 GFC though.
BUT
A lot of those kids playing in the mid 2000s are now parents of ~10 year olds so apparently there is a bit of a resurgence going on.
Technical language is a tool that allows insiders to say less and refer to more, and to be specific, but it's just a tool. Most things can be described in accessible ways.
I think you'd be surprised at what you could understand and at just how few domains are truly complex enough that a layman couldn't understand with a little bit of patience and an accessible summary.
The fact that neural networks are highly nonconvex has encouraged a lot of research, but it's more of the kind aimed at resolving tension: these methods are probably good for convex functions, why do they continue to work for nonconvex problems, and are there tweaks we can make to improve them in that setting? It's not a lot of de novo theory; more standing on the shoulders of giants, etc etc.
I think that Nesterov's first order method is the most efficient general first order algorithm on convex problems, so anything else is in some sense worse. (Edit: removed incorrect ADAM comment.)
I don't think this changes the point, which is that most optimization methods used in AI owe a substantial intellectual debt to convex optimization theory.
If you have more specific feedback on what you found distasteful, I'd be happy to hear it.
I wonder how this compares to what we see happening with "juniors" in software development? In math research, do you also get the training for the profession from working on the low hanging fruits for a while, to then move to the medium-hanging, and later go on to work on previously unsolved stuff?
This isn't something which is unique to software development though. We're currently building enterprise AI apps that we can deploy into the AI agents working for anyone of our employees. The key thing we're currently seeing is that the people in a team who are the ones that everyone turn to for advice, are the only people who aren't in "danger". Even people who are great at their jobs are being outperformed by AI in many cases.
I think it'll be a massive challenge for our society in the coming years. Maybe we're even going to get to the point where the AI will also be capable of replacing a lot of the "domain experts". Right now that seems far out, but then, if you had asked me about AI four months ago I would've told you it was all hype.
The only people who are safe are those whose jobs depend in some way on their humanity. e.g. yoga teachers, bouncers, etc
It's not a zero sum game. You can have AI "senior engineers" working under humans building bigger things than we've been able to.
We also don't know where the capabilities of current AIs will plateau. The benchmarks aren't really telling the entire story. From my perspective of using the models there are certain axis where they're not making a lot of progress, like being able to have large accurate context on the scale that humans can. There are other dimensions where there is still a large gap between human capabilities and LLMs. It's true that relative to other areas (lessay chess) LLMs are more generalized but they are still not fully generalized (back to the chess example, LLMs are not good at chess).
Resources are, though. The planet cannot support a race of digital super-people, and us, and an continually growing economy.
It's the height of folly to think that, as things are going, we are going anywhere "good".
I would be willing to be proven wrong, but I doubt the ability of LLMs to give useful corrections in yoga much more than their ability to write useful code.
Actually it's sad there are people out there dumb enough to believe knowing L1 cache is any different than knowing recipies when it comes to the story which jobs AI will take. I'm convinced by now it will be the jobs of those people believing such crap.
In relation to that, I guess my question becomes: if the same thing will happen in math research, who will write the ten page math proof prompts in the future?
What i see today is the opposite of what you see : product owners not knowing a thing about software engineering but being able to vibe code prototypes handed over to the dev team are rock stars.
They are closely followed by senior software developers having more of an architecture & design background than a low-level computer science background. Most businesses are looking for builders these days.
Where what you say may converge with my observation is that to be able to do to things such as proper database query optimization, even using AI assistance, you need to be able to understand the concepts of working memory set, cache misses etc...
I've found huge problems, like database servers being grossly underprovisioned (like, 60% cache hit, 4gb RAM server for a 700gb dataset with an 50gb circa hot data set). SSD were used and only latency was measured, so no one realized how problematic the situation was (including a consulting shop they hired to help them manage their DBs - backup, maintenance etc...).
However, having a high affinity with hardware is not a driver / computer science of hiring decisions from what i can see in the enterprise software world. But it would make sense for it to become the case within 10 years. I suspect that you work in a niche where performance optimization matters a lot.
Calling notable conjectures that have been open for decades “low-hanging fruit” is an act of desperation. Most professional mathematicians couldn’t have proved those conjectures if their lives depended on it.
So, yes, AI is a big deal and we don’t know what it’s going to affect, but the goal of replacing everyone’s job is extremely ambitious and there’s a long way to go.
This has to be assessed separately for each kind of job.
Moravec must be at some level gratified things are arriving close to his predicted timeline.
There might be a thing beyond intelligence that we can't even conceive of.
Most technologies level off sharply after bouts of boundless improvements.
In 1968 they thought we'd be flying to the moon by now but instead we're flying across the ocean in planes not that different from the 747 that existed back then.
In order to get a Ph.D., you have to do some sort of original research, so in that sense you're working on "previously unsolved stuff" basically right from the start. But that doesn't entail doing anything all that ground-breaking; most Ph.D. dissertations (very much including mine!) contain work that a more senior researcher in the same subfield could probably have produced without too much difficulty. The software development analogy is a pretty good one: a lot of the point of getting junior researchers to do research is to help train them to one day become senior researchers, and often the work itself is nothing all that special.
Given the trajectory of these LLM proofs, this seems like it's going to have to change pretty soon, and to be honest I'm pretty grateful that I'm not in charge of deciding what that's going to look like, because I don't have any good ideas! I'm actually pretty worried about the future of the field.
Back in the before I had put such discipline into my prompting and supporting context.
Now I’m like, “look here and here and here are some tools, and /skill /skill okay go.”
Or “restate this request in your own words and enrich it as appropriate handling any gaps. Okay go”
A few months back this would be something every developer kind of did on their own. Maybe they shared skills, we certainly encouraged it and tried to do all the change management things, but nobody really had the same versions of the skills. Which was horrible in the deployment pipelines, something like the compliance documentation often had to go back and forth several times before it could be approved. Now it's just there, for everyone.
In a year or two, I expect a lot of these things to have become even more standardized. So that we don't even really have to build our own apps, but can simply use the ones in the catalog with minimal configuration (and that config will likely only be necessary because I'm from a tiny country that nobody will maintain standards for).
On the first, there were ~no shared skills. There were some requirements set up but they were not minded properly and became stale / ate context for little gain. The hardest hit was in E2E tests which would flake and create long running, too-often failing CI. People would disable them, because they were not reliable and velocity was so high, no one was happy w them.
I maintained my own set of skills and CLIs to back them. I'd share them if they came up but it was like the old days of manage your own stuff. Not much credit for building and sharing devex tooling to the team.
But then on the second one we were in better shape--we had vendoring set up to distro skills automatically.
Before the project was well underway, I put time into understanding how all of our tests aught to be written. Finding the forbidden things, etc, getting review from our best test folks and ultimately landed on a `/test` that routed across all possible test types.
Like night and day. Instead of finding out while trying to get a release out the door that some corner of the project had a handful of flakes, tests were written the right way from the start.
Like, it was beautiful. And I don't think devs noted difference while building. Only that there was an absence of BS in CI.
Hard to quantify the lack of pain, but it was big!
It is an ultra-lite way to plan, I suppose.
I like the format because:
I think the models are doing this anyway, but I find the words "enrich" and "gap" are well understood by models and they demonstrate it in the response to the above pattern.Anyhow, to get back to the point, there are still prompt-level tricks--but ultimately if repeated, should probably also be built into skills themselves!
In math, a proof is a proof. We don't know if we can get there and so getting there is the hard part.
In software, we always know that we can solve the problem. So HOW to solve the problem is the hard part. Because the type of solution involves maintainability, which involves planning, LLMs suck at it. This leads to "LLM slop code" whereby the LLM creates ad-hoc convoluted logic with redundancies and no reuse of existing standard library batteries.
Unless you're a Grothendieck who gets mad at Deligne for not solving the Weil's conjecture "THE RIGHT WAY", software is fundamentally different than math in this respect.
So I'll say it again, AI will win a fields medal for before managing a McDonald's simply because there are enough big problems within arms reach than their current capacity to plan over time
Some math research does involve grabbing a single, fully specified conjecture off the shelf and hunting for a proof of it, and it's true that if you manage to solve a long-standing open problem, other mathematicians will be interested no matter how you did it.
But this isn't all of what they do, probably not even most of what they do. Like in software engineering, it's not always obvious which question would be the most useful one to ask. A lot of mathematical work also goes into what we call "theory-building", where you could say that primary work goes into coming up with definitions rather than theorems. Mathematicians also care a great deal about how something is proved; a lot of them are some of the most aesthetically picky people I've ever met. Words like "ugly", "beautiful", "creative", and "boring" are used to describe both definitions and proofs all the time.
From the outside, it can look like all they're doing is pumping out proofs at any cost. But I promise you that when I talk to mathematicians who don't have any experience building software, they have a similarly narrow view of that field as well! Both fields, from the inside, look a lot more human than you might expect.
Now, that still doesn’t help an LLM distinguish between good and bad correct proofs. But it still really helps a lot. On top of that, taste in proofs is a lot more uniform than taste in coding. That helps LLMs be better at judging the quality of a proof, because there’s less disagreement in the wider world.
(Although in general, there's no true difference between "I answered the question correctly, but the question was mapped to this thing we call 'reality' wrong", and "I answered the question incorrectly", because you can (try) adding the constraints that you really wanted targeted in case A, to case B, and boom, suddenly a question/answer pair that was "Answered correctly, but question doesn't map to reality" now becomes, "You answered this question wrong". However, individuals generally tend to have some breakpoint to differentiate between the two).
Math is such that most theories are built after solving a problem and actually don't solve a larger class of problems. Etale Cohomology is an example of a rare exception. Grothendieck was mad that Deligne used adhoc complex analysis techniques to prove Weil. But everyone else was thrilled.
Whereas in CS, a good theory (library) solves a large class of problems. The reason being is that CS tackles general problems while math specific ones. Math on average solves problems that don't lead to solutions to other problems.
To me at least, math is more of a game like chess and coding is more of an art. There are aspects which are a game, like performance engineering but I'm pretty sure that LLMs will become superhuman at that soon
But "what mathematicians care about" is much, much broader than what gets you published in a fancy journal. Mathematics as a human activity is millennia old, much older than the concept of journals or even universities, and that activity is, to me, very beautiful, worth preserving, and more of an art than a game. The incentive structure of academia for the past few decades has done a pretty bad job at preserving that art form, but that doesn't mean mathematicians as actual human beings don't care about it --- if they didn't, they probably would have chosen a different career.
For example, create a DFA for a regex, not too bad just use Thompson's algorithm and then NFA->DFA. But now we have to care about efficiency, user API, maintainability of definitions etc.
Coding is more of a human problem than math
AI can manage a McDonald’s already. If manage means directing humans to do something to ensure the store is running. If manage means running robots, then yes maybe that is 5 years away but just directing humans to run a store, that is possible right now.
My understanding is that ChatGPT Pro is effectively a multi agent system, or somehow uses multiple LLMs in parallel and selects a best answer. And Ultra is more similar to Claude-Code UltraCode where the main agent can choose to create a dynamic JS workflow that deterministically orchestrates multiple agents to handle different parts of a task and have adversarial checkers etc.
Is that more or less the difference? Any substantiating sources would be great to see.
But I agree LLMs have a lot of potential for checking proofs--both informally (they can read quickly and find gaps) and formally (by attempting to formalize).
Overall, this is an impressive proof of capability. But I wouldn't take that proof as anything more than what it is.
Of course money in this situation is a bit of a funny measurement, right, because if I was able to take the rest of the week off as soon as I had solved the one-week problem, then I would have no problem at all throwing even $100 worth of tokens at it, so I could enjoy a nice 4-day "mini-vacation".
How cheap "cheap" is, is indeed "in the eye of the beholder".
In Scrum terms my personal velocity grows by a factor of four or more with access to agentic AI workload, but if it means that I will just be asked to "consume" 4*X more Story Points per sprint, I'm not the winner in the end, my employer is. If they asked me to complete X Story Points per sprint regardless of my velocity, and they let me take the days off when I was done, I would be the winner. But that's not how it works.
AI is "Cheap" for the person/organization that gets more product for less money, not for the individual person building the product faster.
it went from not having a price, to having one, and we are trying to retroactively transpose economic viability or economic existence to it from some parallel and prior time.
But trying to maintain this distinction leads to insuperable difficulties. Our conceptual framework for understanding the world are always value-laden. There is no "view from nowhere", no historically unconditioned set of values or concepts. Your framing, in which "values" are external to "intelligence" and must be imposed on it (on pain of intelligence being "value-neutral"), leads inevitably to the dead end of "AI Alignment", "superintelligence", etc. Which is a kind of pseudo-theology.
"We humans better [be] refocusing our energy on our core values/principles, given most of our skills are becoming irrelevant."
In light of the untenability of a strong fact/value or intelligence/ethics distinction, I would suggest this alternative advice: humans should focus on critical appropriation and extension of the received wisdom, whether that comes to us directly from human beings or indirectly through an LLM. Perhaps this is compatible with the spirit of your original suggestion.
They will, however, get there as well either directly or as interfaces to models that do, and your core point stands.
If there was a deep fundamental inability, we wouldn't see things like newer generations of LLMs consistently improving on ARC-AGI series (heavy spatial reasoning loading) and SimpleBench (a lot of commonsense + spatial reasoning components).
In a way, it's a surprise that LLMs, notoriously lacking any sort of embodied experience, can even get this close to human baselines on tasks like this.
My takeaway is that text is a far richer modality than anyone has expected - and that high end LLMs are often sharp and flexible enough to recognize their weak points and substitute their strengths. I.e. all the LLMs implementing A* to optimally solve pathfinding in ARC-AGI-3 tasks, often unprompted.
There might still be unrealized gains there from true depth-unbounded recurrence, or maybe from finding better ways to integrate modalities in training. But clearly, a "fundamental limit" it ain't.
Yeah, that's fair.
> My takeaway is that text is a far richer modality than anyone has expected - and that high end LLMs are often sharp and flexible enough to recognize their weak points and substitute their strengths. I.e. all the LLMs implementing A* to optimally solve pathfinding in ARC-AGI-3 tasks, often unprompted.
I agree and disagree with this. I think we've learned a lot of humans are more text based than we thought, but conversely I'm not persuaded what non-textual task reasoning LLMs are doing is necessarily text based, just that models have grown large enough for other reasoning modes to conceivably be hiding in the parameter space.
As I mentioned elsewhere, like many others I find LLMs work entirely by example, and reaching for A* when pathfinding is the single obvious thing to do. In cases where the magic key word is not mentioned and the problem cannot be identified as "pathfinding" (or some other trigger with a highly specific widely documented solution) they will struggle, yet the moment the trigger is hit they get there very fast. This is why prompting remains such an art form.
Fable is the first one I've encountered that is capable of serious open ended 3D programming in ways that suggest it has some grasp of the spatial aspects of the problem (not merely symbolic manipulation of the vectors etc.), but it still misses optimization opportunities a human will find glaringly obvious based on spatially predictable bounds etc.
Basic LLMs don't reason in text, and never did. They use it as an interface - for input, output and some of the intermediate products. Heavy use of those "pseudo-recurrence" intermediates in "reasoning models" is a relatively late post-training adaptation. But the process that happens between those endpoints is not at all text-based. What happens in the hidden dimension is part "output logit domain", tied to probability distributions over possible output tokens, and part "incomprehensible concept-space madness".
The latter being where things like latent world models live. LLMs develop partial world models, right in pre-training, despite not being explicitly forced to - because it brings them closer to heaven of accurate next token prediction.
And yes, larger models like Fable seem to be better at spatial reasoning. Maybe because their large size increases the sample efficiency and improves generalization, allowing them to absorb the sparse signal of "spatial reasoning" in the training text better. Maybe because this extra size means more layers, allowing for deeper latent space reasoning in lieu of true recurrence. Maybe because the default "next token prediction" reward underrates rare spatial reasoning challenges, and the model only starts to "get good" at them once the other sources of loss reduction are heavily depleted. Maybe because no true recurrence is suboptimal for spatial reasoning architecturally. But it is what it is. Spatial reasoning gains in LLMs are extractable, but extracting them is nontrivial.
You don't have to do much statistical analysis to figure out what is meant by the token string "cat under a tree". However you need to do an enormous amount to encode any permutation of pixels that show a cat under a tree from the set of all possible pixels arrangements that illustrate that (along with the massive fringes of ambiguity).
Basically current gen LLMs apparently do spatial reasoning the way they seemingly do everything else: by reference to previous example. I didn't see them work out which known example to use for a given problem until specifically prompted, in my case by accident.
Only a fraction of the games can be solved by Sol, generally at sub-human efficiency in terms of turns, AND at a cost of >$10,000 per game.
I’ve been doing more math as a hobby in the past few weeks — working on lesser-known conjectures and exploring proofs of hard theorems — than I could have managed over the previous several years. It’s an exciting time.
Stored potential.
But will that potential be converted that contributes to the economy..? That requires other traits.
Might be focus, might be discipline, might be the need to get revenge lmao.
This is what the llm-boosters miss. Progress is willed into existence.
At the end of the day it is still making a best guess at what the user wants based on data it has seen before.
It still requires someone smarter than the output to be able to evaluate if the result is any good, or just hand waving.
This is basically what LLMs do on really hard tasks. Prompt it a million times on a really hard problem and it might output the correct answer once.
Given the tokenizers have a vocabulary in the 10k-100k range, "a million attempts" will generally still only get the first token of the answer correct.
Even really rubbish models, e.g. talkie, the "what if we only use pre-1930s data to train a model?"** model, had to be almost all the way to the right answer to reach the really low HumanEval pass@100 score of ~0.04 (I'm only eyeballing the relevant chart).
* Actual monkeys not being like this is, while amusing, irrelevant
** https://talkie-lm.com/introducing-talkie
Even if every atom in the universe were a supercomputer generating a trillion trillion random characters every second since the Big Bang, the chance of producing Hamlet would still be essentially zero.
Even when you've got an interesting idea, if you're an enthusiastic amateur who don't yet know enough to phrase the question right but does actually know the basics, they'll put you in the same category as the people who think healing crystals can power hyperspace telepathy with Anubis: "oh no not another one".
LLMs have infinite patience, but unfortunately come (came?) with too much sycophancy, giving even more people far too much confidence.
AI hasn’t even taken the class of jobs associated with customer service lmao
This is what the whole https://people.csail.mit.edu/brooks/papers/elephants.pdf is about.
You mistyped it.
Best I've come up with is we'll need to be adopted by technofeudlaist overlords to be our patrons like in the roman days
Continually progressing AI (combined with our current socioeconomic systems) throws a lot of uncertainty into our mid to long term future, but I don't think this is going to be what happens.
There are billions more of "us" than of "them", people don't respond well en masse to a drastic worsening of their societal status and "they" are lagging very far behind on building their robot armies.
If we poorly navigate this transition the outcome should be worrying them more than it worries us.
Fortunately, yes, those robot armies do seem to be rather behind schedule*.
However, even if Musk dies of old age before anything like the Optimus can be connected to useful artificial intelligence, it can still be driven by the common joke a few years back that "AI" really stood for "Actually Indians".
When all the people currently upset about "immigrants coming here taking our jobs" discover those same people are now staying home and remote-working those same jobs over a VR headset and a Starlink connection... my guess is that by this point, Musk will have no political allies left.
> If we poorly navigate this transition the outcome should be worrying them more than it worries us.
It can screw everyone over. Literal communism was invented in response to Laissez-faire capitalism, and while Laissez-faire died with the Great Depression, the form of capitalism which succeeded it in the USA came into conflict with the USSR and gave us the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, etc.
* 2022 "next year": https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/08/elon-musk-says-tesla-is-aimi...
Fwiw I was mostly joking. I agree that the techno overlords have no reason to keep us, unlike in Roman times.
Reminds me of Wigner's Unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in natural sciences [0].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness...
I don’t know if LLMs will kill the working-mathematicians but at least seem like that it doesn’t seem absurd to imagine LLMs will be good at math…
One solution is to ban LLM’s, to artificially create a demand for human thought, that just feels like living in an artificially constructed zoo.
Another solution is humans don’t do anything that AI can do better , / doesn’t need the human touch. So I suppose we will all become artists, sportsmen or politicians, the only jobs that will remain except for select few. Maybe this is ok, I don’t know.
Another solution is we find a way to mind-meld with AI so that human + Ai >> AI alone. This is dystopian, who gets to decide who mind melds with AI, how much will it cost etc etc.
For the stupid copes that the prompt required human ingenuity, let me first add that the author used GPT5.6 to write most of the prompt. He just gave some mild direction. That amount of direction does not require deep expertise and the expertise required will keep falling with time, eventually an undergrad can create this loop and then maybe a high school student.
In fact, in the future the most likely outcome is you tell the agent what you want (I want this app, or I want this theorem solved) and it will set up the loop, or loop of loops and use all its computing effort to come up with a result. This is completely dystopian to a human life.Should I ban table saws because they make people too good at woodworking? Should we ban right-angles?
This line of thought doesn't lead anywhere fruitful.
gig economy is a blessing to keep the LCD busy and doing something productive instead of being nihilistic losers
it’s better to focus on how to keep these “knowledge” workers busy for the AI age
they don’t like to work and complain even on a w2 job (where someone else had to figure out how to capitalize them) so in many ways they’re far more dangerous and hopeless.
Memes like the permanent underclass and the massive incentive of replacing workers across the world does not bode well for a better outcome for people across the world.
There will be people benefiting from advances in these fields.
Neither you nor I will be one of them.
I wonder which one that is.
If AI improves human productivity so much that millions of people no longer need to work that should be an incredible thing. But the flawed structure of our society punishes those people rather than freeing them to persue endeavors that interest then.
Anything based on a free market just ends up in.. this.
We can also remove all of the loopholes that result in the biggest companies paying basically no taxes. I also think it may make sense to have a dramatically different tax structure for businesses than effectively income tax.
Outside of really bad luck I've never seen a case where someone was in a situation of working hard + making reasonably okay decisions + struggling, and that's purely due to there being avenues available where you can be rewarded well for your effort if you're of average+ intelligence.
AI is threatening to take that opportunity away.
Literally anything you wanted to make is no plausible to make if not now then in the next couple years.
The thing you’re worried about is capitalism and the connection with working to having the right to keep living. If you can throw off that mental shackle you can start to see how this can be amazing, but you have to drop the idea that everyone has to work at a job for someone else to provide some service in order to do it. It’s hard, I know, but change your mindset some and dream for a better world and we can make it.
Yeah, it's fun for 30 minutes.
It’s just depression that another avenue for human craftsmanship has been taken over by the machines. Humans are not just infinite consumers. If AI solves all of humanity problems, it’s like living in a zoo, not a life worth living imo.
It's good if we can have robots building things instead of having humans slumped over a workbench in a sweatshop piecing things together. It's good if we can have LLMs spitting out code rather than CS grads working 15 hour days at fintech startups or whatever. The conditions were never (ever) good before.
And, it won't be like a zoo - you'll be able to go wherever you want, do more or less whatever you want. Think about living in The Culture, or the Star Trek universe or whatever. There are options beyond "I'm a pet to the machines." Think big, dream big, then help make it a reality!
Like, out in space you're still going to need a human to make decisions because you can't wait 30min for the tight-beam signal to get back to earth. Also, we're pretty good at soaking up rads and still being "useful" - at least so far I don't see that being a major advantage to the robots. Maybe our place is to be the deep space mechanics that keep the robots alive? I don't know, regardless, you should dream big. What kind of world do you want to live in? Ok, how do we make that world happen?
My big (somewhat unspoken and somewhat immature dream) is that advances in regenerative health tech fix my optic nerves and I can get into the cockpit again one day, then maybe later I can fly some space vehicle like I wanted to since I was a 12 year old. Immature I know, but I miss flying still.
Is that world possible without AI? Probably/maybe? But it's a lot more plausible in a world where we have folded every protein, we have robot surgeons doing robotic procedures, AI generated research, etc.
I actually want to exit. I want to live in a society where humans flourish not AI.
Actually one just needs to walk the streets of Japan and compare that to US. Tokyo has hundreds of small shops with humans doing specific niche stuff, perfecting their arts. That’s all so beautiful.
America has massive warehouses and supermarkets, with completely uninterested and bored out of their mind humans working and I suppose now we will replace them with robots. Great I guess. Maybe all Americans should just sit at home and consume Netflix and Doritos ig.
I want technology to increase human flourishing, not turn us into WallE humans. I am only interested in technological progress when it is done by humans who trained their whole lives for it, as it is a display of human excellence and that can be a beautiful thing. I’m not interested in it if some AI builds it.
Like, I'm building a cabin in the woods (original, I know), but you can build things and do things. You can be that kind of human if you want. But, if Americans could sit at home and consume netflix and doritos I suppose some would, but many would decide to start doing other things too.
I don't think the worlds we want to live in are that far apart to be honest. If I could make a living doing it, I'd try to build wooden sailboats for a living. That would be awesome. I would love it! In a world where I don't have to work to win capitalism tokens, I would probably spend a few years just building wooden sailboats to sail around the bay by my cabin.
Dude, I'm nearly 40. I've seen the shit. When I was flying for a living, literal close friends died because of the results of avarice.
Dream big dude! This constant "doom and gloom" narrative is toxic to your ability to flourish. I have been there, I understand the urge to doom and gloom, but we make the world we want to live in. We do. We choose it.
What world do you want to live in? What is your "optimal" version of the future? How do we get there? What steps would we have to take to make it a reality?
If your vision of the future is "oh, like 10 years ago before $problem_du_jour" then you're already off to a bad start because we ain't going back. There's no regulation that will actually change anything materially (seriously, you think the people getting rich off all this stuff in Congress will voluntarily shoot themselves in the foot?), there's no way to go but forward, so how do we proceed?
I want to live in The Culture, or something like it if it's possible. So, let's start building it and ask permission later.
Working all day, then not wanting to do much else after because you're tired, is also fun for all of 30 minutes.
People are all “shucks how am I going to be able to justify my career at $job” and are missing the bigger opportunity. Such a lack of imagination I see…
The reality is nobody is going to build robots to clean the ocean because there is no money to be made. There will be robots to clean rich people's pools, sure. And it will put pool boys out of a job, great.
What if money wasn't a thing? What if that wasn't the only incentive in the economy? What if there were other ways to balance supply and demand curves (which is basically the principle use for money) so we could reduce shortages, etc.
Dream big man, I'm serious! And who cares if there is no money to be made? Like, what are you (individually you) doing to create the world you want to live in? What world do you even want to live in?
there will always be disruption and frictions, 頑張って ください
People in the real world all having god mode cheats is good, actually
Or imagine a world where we could basically cure every disease? Or a world where people could assume any form factor that they wanted? I don't know, the list goes on and on in a post-scarcity world... and we're seeing how we basically live in a sort of digital post-scarcity now and it is really cool.
If I need a software tool these days I don't buy it, I tend to see if I can make it. Now imagine that for physical things? What a time to be alive.
Can I make food with LLMs? Can I build a house and make clothes? This is stupid. No real wealth is being created for the general population here.
Dream bigger buddy! We can make the world better, we’re not powerless here.
I’m convinced many of you barely go outside and have the capacity for original thoughts.
Sloppity slop slop.
- Hasn't been peer reviewed yet, so take with a grain of salt. This applies to all claimed proofs, not just AI-generated ones. Even humans hallucinate proofs too!
- The prompt is on page 27 here[1]. It is ten pages of advanced mathematics priming the model in the right direction, apparently informed by a year of prior research. That doesn't invalidate the result if it is genuine, but it is worth noting that this wasn't a matter of "ChatGPT, solve this unsolved problem. Make no mistakes." and required substantial domain expertise and human research beforehand.
[1]https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.13335
Sure. That is not even remotely the point I was getting at. Already we see the thread filling up with comments about how human skills are irrelevant, using a mathematics PhD applying his expert skills in a way that the people who are saying that could never have done to justify their inane conclusion.
It wasn't the case for this, but when OpenAI disproved the Unit Distance Conjecture, it was really done autonomously by an automated AI pipeline with a completely AI-generated prompt. No human expertise required at all in the process (well, except for the final human verification).
It's not that AI brings equality, but rather that the output varies depending on how much background knowledge you have. You could call it a stratification of input
I'm starting to feel like there's no place left for programmers like me who focus on quickly churning out MVPs.
The obvious baby’s first process is “plan -> execute” but as we learn about the strengths and weaknesses of LLMs you have to start unpacking that process into planning, prototyping, testing, validation, reviews, and tons of research. If you treat it like an extension of your brain that can automate some thought processes, it becomes a lot more powerful.
That skill comes with experience. Most people don't have it immediately after PhD.
Well it seems more and more that 3 months of 500k GPUs churning through data 24/7 to build high dimensional landscapes also counts as experience.
And programming, as the programmer who created Eliza once said, is the act of becoming a legislator of your own universe. So even if there are black boxes, if you want to build a program that fits your own worldview, studying is essential.
One might even say that this remarkable facility can be used to “read” the ideas from one entity’s mind, such that after sufficient dialog the second entity obtains a (possibly lossy, but there are mitigations for this) copy of the ideas of the first. You might further be surprised to learn that this sort of idea-transfer business using language has already been happening in our society and species for quite some time indeed.
edit: it reminds me of all that I have to wade through after I've asked an LLM a straightforward question and the answer should have been "yes, you're right."
There are two ways to solve a problem. Either solve the problem, or deem it irrelevant.
The implication here is that, you, the human operator, clearly are just confused. The LLM knows best. You're just a stupid human. The LLM knows objective truth, you do not. You have concerns, questions, the LLM didn't understand your question "properly"? Do not worry, the LLM objectively knows the optimal course of action. It thought through the implications of what you said, took into account all possible data, and came to the objectively correct design for your software, your society, your life.
In some sense, this problem would have been a societal problem within the next several decades anyways, but it's been hyper-accelerated by AI.
Debuggers, testing techniques, testing layers
Essentially things that could be used to ground your ai back to reality and work good for humans too
Of course there is. The same way this was only possible as a result from the professor who prompted it with his specialized 10 page prompt and most importantly his deep knowledge of the problem space, the muscle memory and intuition you've built over the years is what will allow you to get more out of any AI than some guy who says "make a door dash clone" as the entire prompt
I've been realizing that there are more books tied to my background knowledge than I expected, but I'm not sure what will happen as AI advances further.
These days, I'm living for the fun of building my own personal wiki on my homepage
this is changing my mind, at least about experts using advanced tools like any profession where it's like the magic of watching a lifetime of hard-earned skill at work
> After seeing OpenAI’s CDC result, I wrote a much more elaborate prompt following the same general methodology. My prompt is about ten pages long and attached at the end of the preprint (see collection of links below). There is a lot baked into this prompt, on approaches to try and also on how exactly the model should proceed, but it's built exactly in the style of OpenAI's CDC prompt. One note is that I gave it a relatively small error requirement, to prove the quadratic lower bound under order d⁻⁴ accuracy.
> After 148 minutes, GPT-5.6 Sol Pro returned a proposed proof resolving the quadratic dimension dependence at accuracy of order d⁻³. After checking things myself, I formally verified the proof in Lean, and it passed the formal verification check.
>So I wouldn't really say that this result is using or creating some fundamentally new techniques in convex geometry or optimization theory. What this means from my perspective is that if a result is attainable with existing techniques, modern AI methods will be able to solve those problems. I don't think researchers in math/TCS will be made obsolete, but I think it will instead no longer make sense to work on any low-hanging, or even medium-hanging (you know what I mean) fruit. We'll be needed for problems where actual novel approaches are needed.
While they’ll never have the same subjective experience as humans, what stops an LLM from applying similar lines of thought* in a manner that results in a novel conjecture?
They are prediction machines, and so are we in a way. We can give them nearly limitless resources to scale their predictive capabilities. We have billions of years of training baked in. They distill directly from our knowledge and can walk down paths that no human has before.
It’s silly to say they’ll never do anything novel.
At their current capabilities, it sounds like they are already capable of being a specific type is research assistant. What will that look like in 10-20 years?
AI can be totally biased...
The fact that it can spout bullshit all day long to a human who can be tired and would actually act on the said bullshit, is not very comforting...
For example, an LLM could confidently declare something a tired human would take as a fact, but would backfire in a real world.
One thing is that an LLM can never assume, or find out, an inconsistency in its training data. Novel ideas often require correction of existing assumptions. As far as I understand, it is impossible, by design, for LLMs to contradict what is in its training data.
For example, an LLM trained on the data from an internet comprised of people who believe in the earth centric hypothesis can never say "Hey, that cannot be correct", or come up with the heliocentric alternative
But maybe it is not applicable to pure Math...
You state this as a fact - are you aware the question is unresolved?
EDIT: I'd love to know why you're downvoting me for stating a known fact.
I can confidently state that GPT-5.6 Sol is not experiencing the same reality as me. They _might_ be "experiencing" and I personally think they are, but their reality and experience is not the same as ours.
Maths was already infinite, it's still infinite, but who wants to spend all their lives changing rooms inside Hilbert's Hotel?
Most of us aren't Terence Tao
How's It Hanging, Brother?
Sure, it's not a breakthrough that opens new roads in mathematics- is this where the goalpost has moved now?
Oh wait, sorry, I do know why you're getting downvoted. Fear.
Humans have a deep need to be special magic flowers - and they can't stand it when science eventually shows them they're not.
But if the current trends continue, Elon will own all of the robots and the rest of us will be at his mercy.
How we change that - I don't know. But I do know we don't change it by putting our heads in the sand. AI is here and it is real. We MUST take it seriously. Shunning is not a viable option.
Whether that's UBI, or Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism, or UBS, or some AI managed economy, or some other such thing, we need to decide that "hey, we don't want to tied survival to output under our current system."
That's really the Rubicon we have to cross, and there are a LOT of people who can't really come up with a better way in their own heads yet.
Look, we all saw how things can be during the pandemic. That was a dark time, but it also gives us a model, we can just... do things. We just have to decide to do them.
WTF does the pandemic have to do with this? "dark time", oh yeah, people stuck at home watching Netflix, what an incommensurable suffering!
Buddy, I can admire the naive childish optimism to a degree, but come on. "We just have to all decide". Do you live in a Disney movie?
I'm not sure, but if I may guess, I suspect he's talking about the fact that the entire US shut down for a year and people survived because the US Government printed money and gave it away free to businesses so they wouldn't collapse. (PPP loans.)
If we can do something like that for the pandemic, we can do something similar when push really comes to shove.
Like, am I crazy here? The rules that we live by are largely made up and the points don't matter - we can decide to live in a better world if we want to. It's hard, and there are obstacles, for sure, but this appeal to doom for the sake of doom just... why? We have made unfathomable progress over the last century and if we keep trying we can make progress like that over the next century too!
But we also decided during that time to literally pay people to stay home for awhile. That was a really revolutionary thing and it was awesome. We could decide to do that again.
You can ad hominem until the cows come home, but yeah, we literally just kind of have to collectively decide that there are better ways to do things.
There's a fantastic book called "The Last Emperor of Mexico" I read a few years ago that really talks about how the idea of a Republic or Democracy in general was a pretty novel concept in the mid 1800s. People were a lot more skeptical about it than we're lead to believe now. But eventually, the ideas of aristocracy and some "well bred" group of various types of monarchs became silly on it's face. Now the default is that we should have some sort of democratic representation. That would seem utopian AF in 1820.
Well, we're going to have to bridge that sort of gap for getting rid of the need to justify our existence through work too. The transition is going to be weird, but we'll have to come up with something else and run with it.
Dream big buddy, I know it's hard, lord knows I do, but dream big, and work little by little towards those things you want to see in the world.
I'm very curious how people reconcile their fear/hatred of AI with actual objective reality. This is actually what interests me most about the whole AI thing. How we tell ourselves what we tell ourselves.
There was a good comment on the Pelican bicycle svg yesterday about how these models aren't getting much better beyond what the companies focus training them on. I think that's what's happening in this case too, they probably put this in the training set.
- Claude isn't doing that
as evidence to support the assumption that
- it's a marketing trick
Which is obviously non sequitur, as if it were a marketing trick, Anthropic could do it too. Anthropic isn't known for not spending on marketing.
Honestly, nowadays I question human's reasoning ability more than I question AI's.
You are correct that LLMs are trained on existing proofs but hiring researchers to solve unsolved problems is just unrealistic, both in terms of how none of the mathematicians simply came out and took credit for their own discovery or exposed this, and how training sets are not easily memorized (rather, the meta techniques are learned).
OpenAI just has better training methods and techniques for pure math over Anthropic, it’s one of their biggest strengths
I do think it's very likely that OpenAI pays for solutions like these to put in the training set, and then we get material like this Reddit thread. They market themselves as selling "intelligence", and solving these math problems is something people view as highly intelligent. I'm not a mathematician, so I cannot fully judge it, but based on my experience using LLMs for novel problems in other domains, they seem to really struggle with things that aren't common. That leads me to believe they train for specific outcomes like this. Also, there are a lot of jobs out there for data annotation, including software problems (Meta has basically reorganized its entire engineering department to create training data for coding problems).
This comment on the Pelican svg better articulates what I'm getting at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48950883
Because Claude can't do it. Anyone who tells you that Fable is better than GPT 5.6 at pure math is lying to you.
I hope people are screenshotting this stuff. This really needs to be documented. It's remarkable how wild it's getting.
Making the parrots ever more complex and training on ever more data produced by intelligent, creative beings may make them more useful or convincing but does at no point give rise to intelligence or creativity.
Not much to do about it, I guess, but continue to call it out.
Is "stochastic parrot" too disrespectful for you? Do you think it is a slur?
edit: and this is a genuine question, also. How do you do stochastic parrot = "just summarize everything" = "no form of creativity" = "fear/hatred" so quickly?
Are summaries not creative? Are Maxwell's equations not summaries? Do people hate and fear parrots?
Alternatively, if you think that even Maxwell was a stochastic parrot, then presumably almost every human who has ever lived was also a stochastic parrot except a few rare examples like Einstein. Not sure what definition you are using but it seems too broad to be useful.
It's doing math proofs. At this point, it's fully clear that objective reality is that the LLM is not parroting anything here.
https://lean-lang.org
The most interesting thing in research is finding new questions, that we understand and that we know why they are important. And that's something that humans need to do (by definition)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizar_system
[1] https://reference-global.com/issue/FORMA/33/1
And cancer is not a single disease that can be cured with one therapy.