My main gripe here is the lack of transparency around the total experiment and construction. I doubt that they simply pointed their model at these ten specific problems alone and gave the model one shot; therefore the $2000 number could be completely misleading, similar to P-value hacking by not disclosing the total experimental setup.
I want to know:
1. How many total problems were given to the model, and what percent were left unsolved at what cost before giving up?
2. How many attempts did you give the model at solving these problems?
3. How expensive was the harness, e.g. did the model have access to a job cluster?
I believe we're seeing a new kind of mathematics that will require completely new formats for publication, a bit similar to those used in experimental sciences. AI-powered mathematics should be fully reproducible, so it's the authors' responsibility to disclose the exact model type, inference settings/seeds and the full prompt history leading to the result. Of course that would ideally require open weights models.
It's not just about requiring to disclose AI use. AI-powered mathematics is a completely valid discipline that doesn't need to be shy, but it should develop its own publication culture.
Yeah I remember reading about something along the lines of Mathematics is now about the scaffolding around you find the problems/solutions not just the problems and solutions. For teaching purposes. This was before this ai craze
You need to bring both cost and benefit into the argument, and it's not necessarily an obvious win for either side. There are a few complicating factors here.
The cost of running a model is not only $/token, but the salaries of the people managing/orchestrating the models, deciding what theorems to try, etc. Once we factor that in, how much are we really paying per theorem?
The other factor is the subjective component of the value of a theorem. Not all theorems are created equal, and the only way to really measure the value is to ask professional mathematicians for their opinion, or publish the results and look at citations over months/years.
Once we have both of these nailed down, then we can start to do the cost/benefit analysis. To be fair, we should actually compare three groups: human experts, hybrid agent/human expert teams, and fully autonomous agents.
It is comical at this point. Some people just can not stand the thought of AI actually delivering and are trying to find whatever ways to discredit it.
This isn't really about delivering - it's more about helping to understand the shape of problems that AI can solve right now. If they took 1000 problems and threw the model at it and it solved these ten, is there something we learn about these ten problems and the kinds of things that current AI is good at? That's very different from picking ten problems _at random_ and solving all of them successfully, which would suggest a much less bumpy capability surface. It's interesting and it would be good science to release it.
It's not about discrediting AI. We know LLM is a commodity technology like electricity at this point. If somebody in 1900 claimed they had a setup at home where they feed in electricity and cool air comes out the other end (meaning they invented AC), obviously people would want to know what the setup is, so everybody can have AC.
Sure, but I don't really understand what the argument is to _not_ be transparent about methodology, since if the models are so powerful, then doing so would easily support the claims and put these concerns to rest. People are right to be skeptical given what is being implied and the orientation of the narrative
I know it's more exciting to say "AI disproved a longstanding conjecture" vs to say "it did so AND it took several PhD specialists in the field this many attempts to even produce a prompt that got the model spitting out something useful under some configurations, and many iterations to optimize the configurations, and the prompt itself, and many trials with that configuration to solve the problem. All told we spent more than a typical math academic can hope make in their career."
By not being transparent, they invite skepticism and cynical takes, like maybe it's just that tempered and qualified claims are an existential threat to companies that are fully subsidized by the hype train?
I don't know. Either way, it seems like it would be easy to address these, so why should they not do it?
To be clear, even if that tempered version is close to reality, it doesn't make the models not useful! It just forces a certain calibration of expectations
I say this btw as someone who uses these things extensively, including to disprove an old conjecture my advisor and I were stuck on recently. I know they are powerful and that everything is different now because of them. Let's be sober when discussing them though
Yes, but if their machine god really is as good as they say it is, why are they constantly resorting to statistical sleight of hand at best and outright lies at worst with every public statement?
That's not normally how people act when they're confident in their product
If you told them this was the problem and they would still have a job if they failed probably. The reasons people don't go head on these problems is career incentives and psychology.
it's still important. not everyone has access to 1 million USD. saying it "only" coat 2000 USD is highly misleading for the discussion and future. the concentration of power is a huge problem with AI.
Everyday? Which 10 problems were solved by mathematics grad students in the past 10 days?
OK I’ll grant that it’s not your obligation to be my search function (despite you making the wild assertion in the first place), so instead can you just point us to the latest grad student solved problem of this level that you know of?
Even if they can solve problems like this every day, you still have a very limited number of grad students who can solve them. With model capabilities like this, you can have the equivalent of millions of grad students who can solve problems like this.
Also, have there been examples of researchers not affiliated with OpenAI (or another LLM creator), who have done something similar?
Another question I have is whether or not OpenAI 'simply' hired capable combinatorics researchers to work on problems, and they have, and the use of the model is incidental / secondary to their work.
> Our most capable agent autonomously resolved 9 of 353 open Erdős problems at the per-problem cost of a few hundred dollars, proved 44/492 OEIS conjectures
But "had" still doesn't mean what you are implying: once the model solved the problems and the solutions were verified, the problems weren't open any more, so a later description using the past tense is totally consistent.
> Also, have there been examples of researchers not affiliated with OpenAI (or another LLM creator), who have done something similar?
A couple small ones that I've seen (example here [0]), but not anything of the magnitude that OpenAI and Anthropic have put out. Likely just related to token limits.
> Another question I have is whether or not OpenAI 'simply' hired capable combinatorics researchers to work on problems, and they have, and the use of the model is incidental / secondary to their work.
I think their output has reached a level that precludes this possibility, but I of course don't have any hard proof.
I guess that's because there are serious problems on which many professional mathematicians worked on years. If it was just a matter of hiring an expert, they would've been solved long time ago.
I have no affiliation whatsoever with any AI company, nor any formal education outside high school, for what it's worth. Simply being curious and persistent can get you quite far in my anecdotal experience.
It's a very important clarification if it took $2000/problem on 20 problem attempts or on 1,000 problem attempts for each successful one. That may be the deciding factor on whether or not it's economically viable to replace a mathematician with a ChatGPT subscription.
Yeah fair I concede that this is somewhat crucial information. The parent seems to write it in a tone that suggests deliberate misleading “lack of transparency” etc.
> deliberate misleading “lack of transparency” etc
It's a marketing post from a huge company. Only the naive would view it uncritically without assuming it's been written carefully to present the results in the best possible light while skirting the boundaries of outright lying.
Imagine 2 years from now: "yes, GPT solved the Riemann Hypothesis, but cmon, it's just a marketing stunt to hype their stuff, it was probably Terence Tao doing the work but he's so obsessed with hyping AI that he doesn't want to take credit"
We're saying look critically at the claims for how it was done, that it only cost $2000, etc. it would be extremely easy to run 100 sessions that failed, each costing ~$2000, and then just publishing an article about the one that succeeded, for example.
This goes double since it's an internal secret model (Astra) so nobody else can verify the results.
Would this be your reaction if OpenAI also solved millennium problems? The point we are trying to make is that the significance of this news is much larger than the skepticism you are providing.
It would be my reaction if we're discussing a blog post from OpenAI, yes. I would be looking at it extremely critically, wondering what they're misrepresenting to make it look cheaper, easier, and why they're trying to make it look like only their model could possibly do this.
Look at their recent claims about their model "escaping" - there was literally a Guardian article calling them out for being hyperbolic! Again, it wasn't that they lied, their marketing department is too savvy for that. They just present it in way that's, well, marketing.
As for the actual result, I'll look for secondary posts by actual mathematicians and draw my conclusions there, not from this marketing blog post about results from a secret model.
Hmm. But this level of skepticism looks performative and seems to serve as a signalling thing rather than a functional thing. You do you though. If OpenAI solves the millenial problems, my skepticism will only be restricted to the correctness of proof. Not that it was "marketing" haha
No, this is valid criticism. Oai gives the impression anybody could get similar results at a similar price, but that’s very likely not true. This is marketing first, then mathematics.
> therefore the $2000 number could be completely misleading, similar to P-value hacking by not disclosing the total experimental setup.
I don't think that comparison to p-hacking is fair. I mean not reporting price of all run is nothing like committing scientific fraud and fake results.
In a way the most remarkable thing about this is that it isn't even at the top of the HN homepage. Even if this is a step up from what we've seen before, we're no longer astonished by the idea that AI can make significant advances in mathematics and computer science.
This is not at the top as it is actively flagged by people that can't psychologically cope with the advances of AI. Hacker News is no longer a web site of an elite.
> people that can't psychologically cope with the advances of AI
Yes. And there are many of them. I wonder what would help them come to terms with it. Seriously, people are going to be grieving over this. Loss of identity, loss of social standing, ideas of entire future lives that will now never happen. The greatest crime people may hold AI guilty of is taking away their dreams.
You don't accept it is possible that it was initially flagged as a dupe or spam why? There is competition for primary submission here, especially for the primary AI companies.
Moreover, if it wasn't flagged at all, like you suggest, then the grandparent was inventing things to be bitterly resentful about... Which is not a behavior any forum should indulge.
That's true, but submissions are only killed in that way if they receive a ‘fatal’ number of flags. However, flags lower the rank of a story even at non-fatal levels. What antirez is suggesting here is that the rank of this story has been lowered by flags – and that seems plausible, if you compare its rank to that of other stories with a similar age and number of points.
[flagged] submissions aren't [dead] (killed), they are still active and can be upvoted and commented upon.
> if you compare its rank to that of other stories with a similar age and number of points.
Ranking is complicated enough here even before weighting, speed of initial upvotes can play against ranking, number of comments and the shape of the comment tree also affect ranking. And yes, various subjects and submission sources do get weightings that impact ranking.
What's funny, to myself at least, is that any attention at all is paid to "HN front page ranking" - I've been on again off again active here since 2008 .. and can't recall ever really looking at a default HN "front page" ever.
( There's /newest /newcomments /active etc to browse and sites such as https://hckrnews.com/ )
I don't think that's it. Multiple or my friends from the target audience (academic mathematicians) admitted to scrolling past because the title made it sound like a review of last month's contributions, instead of 10 new ones.
There are articles with far fewer upvotes and comments ranking higher on the front page right now, despite being the same age or older than this one. HNs opaque ranking system at it again.
They and Anthropic have indicated that the models are substantially augmenting the research and doing large amounts of work autonomously at this point. Here is one of the many blog posts on it [1]. Many people would dismiss this as "marketing" so take it for what you will.
My guess from following this stuff quite closely is that these companies are still a couple years away from fully autonomous research staff.
This is one of the most impactful mathematical publications in history by all accounts
I think we've now hit a point where 99.9% of the population gloss over these types of AI advancements because of human competence being insufficient
No human could have published this because it requires paradigm shifts (e. g. Section 5) in multiple mathematical domains. Mastering one of them to this degree is rare, mastering 3+ pretty much non existent for humans.
Pretty cool. The impact of AI is getting undeniable, there aren’t many positions left to move the goalposts to at this stage, next they’ll have to be outside the stadium entirely.
The sooner people can be broken out of their denial about all this the better, and we can start actually taking it seriously.
Never understood all this talk about moving goalposts - you understand that's how science works, right? We improve, we learn, we recalibrate our expectations based on what we've learned. If we never "moved the goalposts", we'd be stuck scoring the same goals over and over.
> We improve, we learn, we recalibrate our expectations based on what we've learned.
That's not what people mean when they say "moving the goalposts". It means that people are adamant that something wasn't important/hard/impressive once the "AI" solves it. And then they come up with another thing that needs to be solved in order to prove it is important/hard/impressive. And once that happens, they do it again. And again. That's what "moving the goalposts" means.
It's also very much not a new phenomenon. It's been happening since the 1980s. As you can see from this quote from GEB by Hofstadter:
> There is a related "Theorem" about progress in AI: once some mental function is programmed, people soon cease to consider it as an essential ingredient of "real thinking". The ineluctable core of intelligence is always in that next thing which hasn't yet been programmed. This "Theorem" was first proposed to me by Larry Tesler, so I call it Tesler's Theorem: "AI is whatever hasn't been done yet."
Yes, this is exactly what is meant by “moving the goalposts”. And it’s a fairly well known expression applying wherever people retroactively change their requirements in reaction to those requirements having been met.
Its not denial that is the problem. It's apathy. The vast majority simply don't care. They can tell you everything there is to know about Kim Kardashian though.
I can deal with apathy, that’s the norm. What bothers me are all the people who think they can suppress AI by talking it down. That’s what’s counterproductive, just pretend the problem doesn’t exist. Tell other people it doesn’t exist either. I get it, it’s threatening socially, economically, maybe existentially. It’s also not going away.
one of the early premises of how ai takeoff would go was that a system that could solve open problems in advanced mathematics would also discover novel advances in math and computer science that directly unlock drastically better software performance.
we are seeing frontier level math breakthroughs (ie performance that would put it in the top 100 or 1000 mathematicians in the world if it were a human, meaning top .00001% or 800/8B).
we are also seeing incredible advances in software performance. open ai announced like 15% improvement by fixing gpu kernel issues.
these are clearly linked in the sense of scaling laws and generalization of intelligence: a huge model gets capabilities in both math and software engineering that isn't possible at smaller scales.
but it seems less likely to me than before that the types of math/science discoveries will explicitly unlock better software performance. in some sense this fits our intuitions. when top tech companies use math PhD type employees, they have them stop doing pure math research and instead focus on software engineering. these people are often very good at software engineering but not due to recent discoveries in academic mathematics, it's due to their general intelligence.
to me, this is evidence that the models are getting better but does not make me think we are on the cusp of a foom style fast takeoff enabled by revolutions in frontier math
(i also posted this on twitter @mlipman13)
This makes no sense. To believe this you have to think that the models are somehow being overfit explicitly on academic mathematics and it doesn’t carry over at all to more practical software engineering. I wouldn’t make that bet.
Some of the problems solved here, at least in CS, have been open for decades, and have been worked on by very smart leading researchers in the field, including Turing Award winners.
Like, these would be best-paper awards at many top CS conferences.
> we are seeing frontier level math breakthroughs (ie performance that would put it in the top 100 or 1000 mathematicians in the world if it were a human, meaning top .00001% or 800/8B)
i think you have misunderstanding of what mathematicians do
> i think you have misunderstanding of what mathematicians do
They get to make cool 3D plot visualizations of functions so obscure to me that they’re named after someone who is still alive - and/or get to work on cryptography for the NSA - I think?
Not being an expert in any of the fields OpenAI has "advanced" I don't want to prematurely downplay the significance of this contribution. However, I am worried that the language they are using in this blog post is exaggerating for the sake of marketing.
It is true there hasn't been a reliable computational approach to solving these problems before. But do these proofs contribute new ideas to the mathematical corpus, or are they simply an effective method to exhaustively search the literature for the right combination of existing tools to apply to the problem?
Essentially, did these problems seem like they had an intuitive answer and were feasible to prove before, just not high enough value targets for an expert to invest time into? Or were they fundamentally difficult prior to this point and it appears that AI has done something more than just throw the problem into a big solver.
"Breakthrough research" can be defined (in the citation record) as research that both (1) becomes highly cited, and (2) brings together citation chains that were previously not showing up together.
Mundane incremental research is cobbled from existing citations that already appear nearby in the record.
Basically, innovative research is a measure of bridging thought and domains that were previously not bridged. It's quite concrete as a measure in the citation record.
So we can know pretty conclusively.
Puja Ohlhaver gave a talk on this[1], and ran some experiments (that I had the pleasure to support on)
The ones I'm familiar with are big breakthroughs, but they are both counterexamples. Examples have an advantage in that once you have the example in hand and a sketch of the proof (which they have provided), then an expert can probably work out the details themselves.
The sofic groups question was the outstanding question about sofic groups. Almost everyone thought that non-sofic groups existed, and there were plausible candidates, but proving a group was non-sofic was out of reach. Now that we know how to do it once, we can probably do it a lot more.
The Connes rigidity conjecture I think people thought was false, but it was a provocative claim to make. The significance of conjectures is frequently not that the answer to the question is "yes", but that we don't know how to answer the question. And now, apparently, we do.
The problems from CS (CVP and circuit complexity) are very important problems that have been worked on by top researchers for 30-40 years. Some of these researchers include Turing Award winners. A solution to them would be a best-paper award at many top CS conferences.
> However, I am worried that the language they are using in this blog post is exaggerating for the sake of marketing
Your worry.... is because they used the word advanced? For marketing? The word is used very appropriately here. There were PhD's who spent a big part of their career tackling these problems.
I am duly impressed by the powerl of the nameless internal AI, but not a single human contributor's name listed anywhere? Did someone at least make this model a coffee?
Why would you factor in salary unless they had to baby it through. You would only count the hours for setting up the harness and prompt and checking the result.
Training the model is going to be amortized over other uses.
Say that it turned out that the total cost of the proof of the Erdős unit-distance conjecture was $50 million.
Then the question really becomes: yes, these models are capable of proving important mathematical results, but at a very high cost. Is it worth it?
If a mathematician applied for a research grant of $50M USD for proving the same thing, they would have been laughed out of the bank.
What's more is that when you have a research grant, you train PhDs and postdocs, you hire new staff, and you disseminate. That is, you get much more value for the money spent.
I didn't argue that knowing the total cost is uninteresting. What I was saying is that realistically the total cost is:
Hours needed for prompt + Hours needed to check result + API costs.
You don't say "well let's add together the total yearly compensation of all the engineers and mathematicians at OpenAI that were involved" and throw that into the total cost. That's simply nonsense accounting.
The actual comparison you are making is some university researcher weighing between getting a grad student (several tens of thousands of dollars) vs typing up a prompt and sending a request to OpenAI for inference (as mentioned in the article, around $2000 in API and maybe a few hours for the prompt and harness).
It feels like the real cost might be negative though.. They use frontier math as a way to test improvements in their model. So solving the problems is like a positive externality, but the important thing is they can verify that the model is improving instead of looking at useless benchmarks. Plus it is good for marketing and attracting talent.
Given that OpenAI pays their employees with stock surely a breathtaking number, but not a very meaningful number now that the infrastructure is in place and the models are trained. AI could never get better and it would still be incredibly disruptive.
Not much point to pure math being kept secret, in all honesty. There isn't really industrial value, its only purpose (to them) is showing off their model's capabilities. More realistically they'll just stop paying for it.
Edit: Oh, are you suggesting they just use it to privately improve their models? I imagine a few more correct proofs would have a very marginal benefit, if any. Also, they'll probably just get extracted, meaning it still gets out but OpenAI doesn't get to fancily announce it themselves.
On the token limits etc - one assumes that OpenAI et al are able to “hire expert in field, and let them spend the equivalent of a million dollars of tokens” because they are not actually selling their complete compute 24 hrs a day, so the cost internally is a negligible (ish) electricity bill.
Which is very suggestive - if after everything they are not fully loaded then the next gazillion data centres being built look unlikely to be needed.
Presumably it's a rounding error compared to their full output, and they're making sure they have enough compute set aside for research by limiting public models. The more datacenters they build the less they have to limit them.
I love how people come up with creative ideas to prove the bubble. This one is even more ridiculous - that OpenAI had spare compute to advance mathematics proves that data centres will not be needed. WHAT.
If anything it proves more data centres are needed. That's literally the only reasonable conclusion from this news.
I'm enjoying learning about these hard problems, but this line about credit made me chuckle:
> We helped prepare the manuscripts and formalize the proofs in Lean, and we take responsibility for their correctness
Offering to take responsibility for the correctness of a proof written in Lean feels like volunteering to be the fall guy in case someone finds a flaw in basic arithmetic, no?
There is no evidence that I can find for the claim "a bug in the Lean kernel was discovered last week by way of an LLM tricking itself and its handler into believing it had found a non-constructive proof of the existence of a nontrivial Collatz cycle."
As I currently understand it, all we know is that:
- a mathematician produced a Lean-verified counterexample to the Collatz conjecture, demonstrating a bug in the kernel
- he claims that LLMs were involved somehow but pointedly refuses to specify how
- he admits that he knew about the bug before publishing the counterexample to his repository.
Perhaps not a joke (although it sure seems to me like they discovered a bug and thought falsely disproving the Collatz conjecture would be a flashy way to announce it), but at best extremely sensationalized by the above description. If you have additional context I would be happy to hear it!
It’s more than you get from free software - you get no proofs, no warranties and any responsibility of its authors are their pure good will. Reminder lean proofs are software!
I'm not an expert at it myself, but my understanding is there are numerous ways to "cheat" in a Lean proof (via `sorry` and similar). They're taking responsibility for fully verifying that none of these cheats were used (and that the theorem statements themselves were all correctly formalized.)
A friend’s PhD advisor has been chasing non-sofic groups for 25 years (and was shown a preprint of the results by openai to verify them). He believed a solution would be Fields-worthy
This isn't really a productive way to think about these things, IMO. It's quite possible it would take hundreds of years for any specific group of PhDs to solve them. Or one individual PhD could have the correct flash of insight and solve it in a month. There's absolutely no way to predict this, besides trying to gauge the apparent simplicity of the proof or counterexample (which is likely to be misleading). Until someone actually runs an experiment like this it's not a viable metric.
I understand and I am not trying to deny the impressiveness or the velocity of AI in general. But at some point we have to ask how much do we trust the labs at face value without much transparency of how they got to the results when there is trillions of dollars on the line.
Capabilities of this sort have already been demonstrated by independent parties, and models have consistently gotten better at this. Yes, insinuating that mathematicians and scientists are secretly solving decades-old problems on OpenAI's behalf is an insane conspiracy theory.
I don’t feel the existential dread of mathematicians is correct. It seems to me in fact these results are bringing math mainstream. I now personally look forward to the interpretations and discussions of the significance of such results by human mathematicians.
Now I understand that it’s mostly the super stars benefitting from the increased attention. Folks who are less established don’t share in that glory. But on the other hand it seems like an exciting time to go even deeper for in various specialties of math by deciding where to focus these powerful tools. For every conjecture defeated some seven or eight new ideas open up. Our path through that combination will be set by creative and curious human mathematicians.
The old way of establishing career credibility is being destroyed, for better or worse. Accomplishments that used to be career-defining are hard to distinguish from AI, and correlate more with access to compute. Think about Bill Gates's math paper he wrote in college. That kind of thing is gone now as a path to credibility. There's still competitions and grades, but the diversity of paths is going away. Maybe new ones will open up. This is a competitive advantage for old people who have credible pre-2025 accomplishments they can point to.
If accomplishments can't be distinguished between talented people and untalented people with compute, is there really a point in trying? I suppose one can hope that talented people given compute will be more effective than untalented people with compute, but I despair that that may not be true for much longer.
Knowledgable people can confirm what the AI produces is correct. I could make ChatGPT produce a result on an open question and I would have zero way to verify its actual correctness.
Which is less interesting work. And you probably need to do the hard grunt work by hand first to develop the skills and intuition to be able to verify an AI-generated result. So you can’t outsource everything to AI without loss of skill.
I find this whole way of looking at things weird. Did maths exist just to entertain and employ mathematicians? Surely maths is, like, useful? Not immediately, not predictably, but in the long run? In which case, whether mathematicians feel bad about it is mostly irrelevant - it's like complaining about the railway because it may put coaching inns out of business.
Do mathematicians have the right to say "no AI PRs please, the volume is too much" just like how some open source maintainers do it? I guess they feel a loss of control, there is no way to turn the hose off.
Thinking of this a little bit with the perspective of every new proof as a burden, dumped for review by actual mathematicians.
Every time someone makes a comparison to chess I die inside. Chess is a spectator sport primarily funded by a few eccentric billionaires. Players artificially constrain themselves in timed environments knowing that they will never be able to produce better moves than a smartphone because a select few people find it interesting. Only ~30 top professionals actually make enough money to have a full career playing chess, maybe a few hundred more can sustain a meager lifestyle with coaching gigs. I shudder to imagine what will happen to the tens of thousands of non-Fields medalist caliber mathematicians if math goes the way of chess. Perhaps Terence Tao and a few other famous mathematicians will be funded by Peter Thiel to report on how well humanity can keep up with the machines? How do you expect any mathematician to be optimistic about this comparison.
>Only ~30 top professionals actually make enough money to have a full career playing chess, maybe a few hundred more can sustain a meager lifestyle with coaching gigs.
Was this different before chess computers were invented?
The distinction is mathematician vs mathematics. Mathematics is going to reach new heights beyond the wildest dreams of contemporary mathematicians. But perhaps without the participation of many paid mathematicians.
Thats not the point, if there were a better proprietary engine stockfish would still be there as a baseline. Anyone can access an engine as good as stockfish to practice against. Are any open models touting mathematical breakthroughs?
There is money in this, so of course the closed models are far ahead. The open models will likely catch up a bit at some point, just as Stockfish caught up to AlphaZero. That being said, there are already a couple. It seems Deepseek has a claimed proof to the "Ziegler's Cross-Polytope Conjecture" [0], but I can't speak to the significance of the result.
The chess analogy is awful. If you simply want to know the answer to a chess problem, give it to the engine. Chess only lives on because it's a competition between humans to test their skill (just like bicycles, cars, trains didn't eliminate foot races) ... the computer is largely factored out, but not entirely -- people train with the computer, use it to check whether they played correctly, ... and they cheat. A lot. Thus there are more and more sophisticated mechanisms to detect and prevent cheating.
If you translate that to math, then all you get is math competitions, not math as a career. Of course the translation isn't nearly exact ... there's a lot more room for professional mathematicians because the math space is far more vast than the chess space and can't generally be cranked out mechanically (we have proof).
P.S. The response is nonsense ... I explained exactly why it's awful (others have too) and the response doesn't in any way refute the explanation ... rather it offers up a ridiculous strawman.
I’ve deleted it but no it’s not awful anymore than saying “we survived WWII, we can survive this.” The point was that change happens but humans find a way forward.
As in chess and go and also coding for the past ~year there are two groups of people: the disappointed and the enthusiastic. The disappointed are sad that they lost their advantage and that the craft they honed for years or decades has rapidly lost its value; the enthusiastic are excited about the future and what computers can bring to their domain and how it will evolve. I’m a bit of both if it comes to programming, more enthusiastic than disappointed, but also more than a bit terrified about the pace of it all. I imagine that’s how Kasparov felt back then, that’s how Lee Sedol felt and now that’s how Terry Tao feels.
The most disappointed folks will simply drop out, but the enthusiastic ones will keep going and with luck make up for the ones who decided to quit. Chess and go certainly went this way.
A fundamental difference being that no one was actually paid to find good moves in chess and go like they are to solve math problems and write code. You're comparing the digital camera and the automobile.
Now that we've seen AI produce a fair number of proofs (and disproofs), I'm curious when we'll start seeing it build genuinely novel theory. Does anyone have predictions on when and how we'll get there and will it take new architectures/ training paradigms, or is the current approach enough?
I’m personally hoping for the next big AI gangbanger to be theoretical physics. Boy does that field need a good reshuffle. I think when any novel mathematical theory can be done by AI you’ll see simultaneously theoretical physics getting wrecked as hard as pure math is. At that point we might see new physics or paradigm shifting technology emerging.
I mean doing something like Grothendieck when he redeemed algebraic geometry or Galois when he invented group theory. We haven't seen that at all from LLMs.
This is both awesome and terrifying for mathematicians, however some ideas can be generated and the field as whole expanded with the attention!
However, I was looking at the proofs and reason explanation and openAI should be more explicit in how the work has flown. I find the models have jumped hoops in some places of the proofs, that can be hard to track. In fact, when a paper is published you usually get a review and if no reviewer understands they ask you to further explain the thought process. It will be fun to see if this happens here.
I would love more time and money put into real-world problems by these companies. Climate, food insecurity, pollution, technology for convenience and/or to help people have a higher quality of life.
I'm sure they must do some of this type of work, right?
Replace philosophers for mathematicians and Douglas Adams was spot on again.
Whilst current models can't 'intuit' and come up with conjectures, they can certainly disprove some of them very quickly through the kind of grind that humans can't do. I suppose there really are some mathematicians out there today, whose last few years of study, have just been up-ended by this.
--
"Yes we are," insisted Majikthise. "We are quite definitely here as representatives of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries and Other Thinking Persons, and we want this machine off, and we want it off now!"
"What's the problem?" said Lunkwill.
"I'll tell you what the problem is mate," said Majikthise, "demarcation, that's the problem!"
"We demand," yelled Vroomfondel, "that demarcation may or may not be the problem!"
"You just let the machines get on with the adding up," warned Majikthise, "and we'll take care of the eternal verities thank you very much. You want to check your legal position you do mate. Under law the Quest for Ultimate Truth is quite clearly the inalienable prerogative of your working thinkers. Any bloody machine goes and actually finds it and we're straight out of a job aren't we? I mean what's the use of our sitting up half the night arguing that there may or may not be a God if this machine only goes and gives us his bleeding phone number the next morning?"
It's remarkable how you can manage to get these models to produce remarkable breakthroughs like an explicit construction of a non-sofic group.
And yet this is the exact same company that has screwed up their android app so bad that the latex N^3 rendering problem makes it so having it explain it to me crashes the app.
It's just another tool that can help solve problems. It doesn't know _what_ problems to solve. It turns out that a lot of old problems are now low hanging fruit for these new models. In terms of 'expanding the frontier', we've just discovered dynamite and can now blast our way through mountains. The bottom of the ocean or space are still as hard to reach as ever.
Can’t wait for this stuff to have quality of life increases for the average person. So far all I see is that AI has made owning a computer more expensive, made some jobs redundant, increased spam and distrust with questionable authenticity of content and of course made some Americans very rich.
Meh, Humans should be doing this. It’s kind of retarded that we have AI automating creative problem solving, coding, music, arts, the fun parts of life before they can do my dishes, laundry and vacuum my house.
They can’t even drive me anywhere I want, though I suppose they’re getting there. I don’t think LLM companies should be surprised when rest of society hates them. They’re literally bringing in a dystopian WallE like society where most demand for human work is destroyed.
You shouldn't be getting downvoted for something that a majority of pure math and art enthusiasts believe to be true. The truth is many of these entrepreneurs and VCs are obsessed with AI not for money or human progress, but because it makes them feel closer to being a "god" rather than a mere mortal. Much of it (especially AI art) is out of spite for human creativity, which is done by mortals with limitations.
Taking the stance of moral superiority is kind of funny. And pure math and art enthusiasts don't think they are closer to being a "god" from understanding/"discovering" math?
Stop coping and deluding yourself mate.
To begin with, whether AI is the one doing the discovering or not makes no difference. Any "pure math" person would aim to understand regardless - and would be quite glad that they have a longer paved path.
Any mathematician in academic or industry is more than likely not a "pure math" person (tainted by capitalism).
> claiming human authorship for a proof generated entirely by an AI system would misrepresent both the system’s contribution and the nature of genuine human intellectual work.
AI has no self-awareness. It's a tool. When you assemble a furniture using a screw driver, the torque force interacts with the molecular forces inside the metal and miraculously it transfers the force to the screw though a clever geometry design, communicating the force to the screw to turn it in a certain way.
Do you attribute the build to the tool? The "system's contribution" is helped by many other things all the way down to chips, datacenters and power generation. If the authorship requires attributing to a tool, then it should happen all the way down.
A slightly smarter highschooler could write these. I could write these. It's clear as day that the LLM, not the human, did the heavy lift. It'd be ridiculous to give full credit to whoever wrote the prompt.
[0]: Not one of the proofs in the linked article, but from OpenAI too.
> A slightly smarter highschooler could write these. I could write these. It's clear as day that the LLM, not the human, did the heavy lift. It'd be ridiculous to give full credit to whoever wrote the prompt.
I think you're over-estimating what a smarter highschooler could write.
A "finite loopless undirected multigraph" could have been explained to me at that age if we'd taken Discrete rather than Mechanics and Pure (and one module of Stats) in my two A-levels* in maths and further maths; but from what I saw of the Discrete module, neither:
Every finite loopless multigraph with no bridge possesses a cycle double cover, without additional assumptions such as cubicity, planarity, connectivity, or higher edge-connectivity.
nor:
repeated-edge closed trails masquerading as cycles
would have been something we'd have learned. But more importantly, we absolutely didn't have a feel for how much effort one needs to put into making sure the proof is right, so if one of us had been hypothetically asked to write a prompt it would've been no more than half that length, and missed most of the bullet points.
The human provides the intention and the ability to appreciate the output. Tools do “heavy lifting” all the time, but we still primarily credit the humans who use them precisely because they made the choice to use them.
Provability is just going the way of computation. John Napier had to manually compute logarithm tables over decades and was recognised for his work; now that same work could be performed by a 10 year old with a calculator in an evening.
Prompt quality should not matter. If a high-schooler operates the crane to lift a ton of weight 10 floors high, should the credit entirely go to the crane?
I don't disagree with you but there's no need for exaggeration; ain't no high school student writing this:
> In
particular, proofs for special graph classes, constructions of cycle covers with some edges
covered other than twice, bounded-length or prescribed-cycle variants, reductions to another
unproved conjecture, computational verification through any fixed graph size, and candidate
counterexamples without a complete nonexistence certificate are insufficient.
which is infact a very important part of the prompt.
the fact that such things have to be explicitly in the prompt points to the fact that the underlying system is still far from where it needs to be (basically, lacks basic understanding what a proof is)
No, that's not what this is. This is a warning to the LLM that coming back with partial results is not good enough.
Take a grad student with a perfectly good understanding of what a proof is. Their supervisor gives them a major problem to work on. Almost always, the problem is too hard, the student comes back with partial results, and student and the supervisor iterate from there. Now imagine that they have an unusually cruel and unreasonable advisor who tells them, do not dare to talk to me until you've fully solved the problem. This paragraph is exactly that. It's there exactly because the underlying system is smart enough to know that real mathematicians do not work like that.
Your brain also is physical. Electrochemical gradients flow between physical molecular constructs. Isn't it just chemistry? Do you attribute it to physics or some whole-is-greater-than-the-parts idea?
A better analogy would be a manufactured object, say 3d printed for simplicity. The 3d printer is given an input, and an object manifests itself after some time. We say that the creator of the object is the person turning on the machine, sending the data, and collecting the object. Not the machine itself.
I would say „I made this gadget with my 3d printer, but the designer is someone else (I found the model online)“. The intent, the drive, the action comes from the human
(let's assume that)My 3dprinter is special. It has a bunch of values + an algorithm (i.e. a neural network) that takes input as tokens and outputs a printed object.
> Do you attribute the build to the tool? The "system's contribution" is helped by many other things all the way down to chips, datacenters and power generation. If the authorship requires attributing to a tool, then it should happen all the way down.
When the tool is a 3D printer, or any CNC system really, you bet I attribute a build to it.
I could also attribute the operator; there is no contradiction, it's a free choice, just like saying "I am in Berlin" does not contradict "I am in Germany".
I honestly don't think a language model is enough for self-awareness, regardless of the exact model of awareness.
A language model (or an image model or whatever) cannot even be sentient, and I think sentience is a prerequisite for awareness.
Even if we express a lot of our subjective experience with words, the language is just a symbolic representation of those experiences. The qualia themselves, even those that are quite abstract, are rooted in our physical presence and evolution.
You can't have an understanding of what hunger or physical pain feel like if you have no need for food or a sensory capacity for feeling pain. You can't understand what loneliness or pride at an achievement mean if you don't have a neural network wired to value social connection or status. We value connection because we're social animals that have needed each other for survival.
Even the more abstract of our subjective experiences are in some way rooted in our physical evolution.
I see no reason to believe that a neural network built entirely based on the symbolic level of language could have the features needed for the subjective experience itself.
AI awareness might actually be more believable if that awareness manifested itself in an entirely different way than in humans. But if we assume awareness because outputs resemble what we consider meaningful as humans, yet the neural network has had no inputs or evolution that could form the actual basis of human-like experience, I think we're seeing something that isn't actually there.
> The qualia themselves, even those that are quite abstract, are rooted in our physical presence and evolution.
There is no objective evidence of qualia. All evidence of qualia are vocal or other expressions of belief in qualia. Perceptions clearly exist and are observable, subjective experience and qualia, not so much.
> I see no reason to believe that a neural network built entirely based on the symbolic level of language could have the features needed for the subjective experience itself.
If your objection is to models based on "symbolic level of language" which you think lack semantic understanding of, say, trees, you should ask yourself how our brain, based on physics which also lacks any semantic category for trees, can somehow develop a semantic understanding of trees. All of these appeals to differences with the brain never seem to acknowledge that fundamentally, the brain has the same explanatory gap with physics.
> But if we assume awareness because outputs resemble what we consider meaningful as humans, yet the neural network has had no inputs or evolution that could form the actual basis of human-like experience
This assumes a lot. It seems very possible to me that intelligence inherently develops a map of natural categories (natural kinds), and language naturally develops around such categorical understanding. Semantics are then fundamentally the network of associations between categories, eg. there is no fundamental difference between symbols and semantics, and the latter cam be inferred from the former, and that's exactly what LLMs do, and why the semantic maps between different languages are so similar and how they can translate between languages.
Making definitive claims about whether LLMs do or do not have specific properties absolutely does require precise definitions of those properties that can be used to evaluate those questions. Merely hand waving that LLMs didn't undergo the same evolutionary process is not a definitive argument.
For example, the Turing machines and the lambda calculus don't look anything alike, but they are fundamentally interconvertible, and so in a real sense they are fundamentally equivalent. Without a model, all of your arguments are completely unconvincing for exactly the same reasons, eg. that there may exist many paths to fundamentally equivalent ends.
Dunno about the parent commenter, but I personally interpret the concept as having a hidden representation of self that is continually tended to, and influences future choices. This implies statefulness, which models are intentionally not at inference time (*).
(*) Even if we hack around this and just do the usual trick of simply laundering statefulness to a higher level, in this case the context window being fed in, I fail to identify (**) a representation of its own state in these bodies of text that it'd be meticulously maintaining. I further fail to identify how it could be hidden or maintained, considering I control like half of it. The best you could ascribe it is a meticulous maintenance of a persona the user is talking to, but then that doesn't necessarily represent the model's internal state, the same way my own words here aren't doing so either. Difference being, I actually have one (I'm "on-line").
You'll sometimes catch models mixing up who's who and how many who-s there even are for example.
(**) I did wish for something hidden though, so maybe it's just concealed? The same way people can encode a lot more of their emotional and mental state than normal into text if they read and write a lot of it, I'm aware of research that suggested the same for LLMs, albeit I cannot cite it. Maybe those phrasing signatures are just alien to me and will never pop out. Either way, I'd expect researchers to stumble upon this during interpretability studies, and either they haven't, they have but it wasn't popsci adopted, or they're keeping awfully tight lipped about it. If you know of anything like this, your turn now, would be happy to learn.
I do wonder how reasonable it is to expect e.g. a single maintained identity though. Maybe it isn't?
(*) Another way to hack around this of course is to just precompute some internal "self-awareness states" and hop around between them. Probably the closest to what the models are actually "doing".
> Dunno about the parent commenter, but I personally interpret the concept as having a hidden representation of self that is continually tended to
I don't see why an LLM could not have a sense of identity or personality while it's evaluating a specific prompt, or even change self awareness while evaluating a prompt since many outputs model a back and forth conversation. My point is that without a mechanistic model of what "self awareness" means, we have no way of truly evaluating such questions, we're just hand waving vague intuitions about what it could mean.
Before reading, know that I am uncertain in either direction.
> a hidden representation of self that is continually tended to
This sounds like a personality? They act like they have one of those. It may be an illusion, and even if it isn't an illusion it is unlikely to be anything like the source (us), but they act like it.
> I further fail to identify how it could be hidden or maintained, considering I control like half of it.
Indeed you control everything about a local model, and much of the context of even a remote model. But the state of activations and circuits in SotA AI is hidden in similar ways to those of synapses in your head: difficult to decipher even with probes monitoring the signals directly, and often not emitted at the normal output.
> The best you could ascribe it is a meticulous maintenance of a persona the user is talking to, but then that doesn't necessarily represent the model's internal state, the same way my own words here aren't doing so either. Difference being, I actually have one (I'm "on-line").
While we can be confident that LLMs make up personas etc., it is insufficient to go from "that doesn't necessarily represent the model's internal state" to "therefore it doesn't have one".
> You'll sometimes catch models mixing up who's who and how many who-s there even are for example.
I've, unfortunately, also experienced this with humans. Perhaps they were losing their self-awareness at the time? I do wonder if old-age dementia does that by the end, though the person in question didn't ever get diagnosed with that.
> If you know of anything like this, your turn now, would be happy to learn.
Not quite what I meant, but it's also not entirely unrelated I guess? Personality to me is like a natural bias. It does also shift over time, and is also an internal bit of state. I guess in some respects it can also be self-referential, like personal convictions.
> Perhaps they were losing their self-awareness at the time?
I do think it is entirely possible for people's self-awareness to shift, yes. Or more precisely, I do model things that way.
> Do you mean like these, or something else?
They're adjacent, but I more meant something like these:
So basically, steganography. The difference is that these papers investigate from the perspective of separate LLM instances covertly exchanging information between each other. This is in contrast with the scenario I'm laying out, where an LLM's past state is exchanging information with its future state, continuously representing and modulating a concealed internal state of some sort. And then that state just so happening to be some sort of self-referential meta state.
Any implication of any of these findings? They seem like unimportant nerd snipes to me. If you want to do something actually relevant, get chatgpt to write a simulation of graphene nanotube construction and figure out how to do it at scale.
One - and I do not mean to be snarky - you can literally ask Gpt 5.6 Sol this - and if you want to see cool stuff - Fable running in their app (not website) has a view thinking button that is actually a good way to explore the adjacent fields, etc.
The non-sofic group one is definitely a big deal - would have been a Fields medal if discovered by a human.
My main gripe here is the lack of transparency around the total experiment and construction. I doubt that they simply pointed their model at these ten specific problems alone and gave the model one shot; therefore the $2000 number could be completely misleading, similar to P-value hacking by not disclosing the total experimental setup.
I want to know:
1. How many total problems were given to the model, and what percent were left unsolved at what cost before giving up? 2. How many attempts did you give the model at solving these problems? 3. How expensive was the harness, e.g. did the model have access to a job cluster?
I believe we're seeing a new kind of mathematics that will require completely new formats for publication, a bit similar to those used in experimental sciences. AI-powered mathematics should be fully reproducible, so it's the authors' responsibility to disclose the exact model type, inference settings/seeds and the full prompt history leading to the result. Of course that would ideally require open weights models.
It's not just about requiring to disclose AI use. AI-powered mathematics is a completely valid discipline that doesn't need to be shy, but it should develop its own publication culture.
Yeah I remember reading about something along the lines of Mathematics is now about the scaffolding around you find the problems/solutions not just the problems and solutions. For teaching purposes. This was before this ai craze
I don't think you want to bring cost into this argument.
Even if the cost was $1 mil for these 10 problems, that's maybe 10-20 math researchers for a year.
Do you really think that if you paid that to humans, they will deliver the same results?
You need to bring both cost and benefit into the argument, and it's not necessarily an obvious win for either side. There are a few complicating factors here.
The cost of running a model is not only $/token, but the salaries of the people managing/orchestrating the models, deciding what theorems to try, etc. Once we factor that in, how much are we really paying per theorem?
The other factor is the subjective component of the value of a theorem. Not all theorems are created equal, and the only way to really measure the value is to ask professional mathematicians for their opinion, or publish the results and look at citations over months/years.
Once we have both of these nailed down, then we can start to do the cost/benefit analysis. To be fair, we should actually compare three groups: human experts, hybrid agent/human expert teams, and fully autonomous agents.
It is comical at this point. Some people just can not stand the thought of AI actually delivering and are trying to find whatever ways to discredit it.
This isn't really about delivering - it's more about helping to understand the shape of problems that AI can solve right now. If they took 1000 problems and threw the model at it and it solved these ten, is there something we learn about these ten problems and the kinds of things that current AI is good at? That's very different from picking ten problems _at random_ and solving all of them successfully, which would suggest a much less bumpy capability surface. It's interesting and it would be good science to release it.
It's not about discrediting AI. We know LLM is a commodity technology like electricity at this point. If somebody in 1900 claimed they had a setup at home where they feed in electricity and cool air comes out the other end (meaning they invented AC), obviously people would want to know what the setup is, so everybody can have AC.
Sure, but I don't really understand what the argument is to _not_ be transparent about methodology, since if the models are so powerful, then doing so would easily support the claims and put these concerns to rest. People are right to be skeptical given what is being implied and the orientation of the narrative
I know it's more exciting to say "AI disproved a longstanding conjecture" vs to say "it did so AND it took several PhD specialists in the field this many attempts to even produce a prompt that got the model spitting out something useful under some configurations, and many iterations to optimize the configurations, and the prompt itself, and many trials with that configuration to solve the problem. All told we spent more than a typical math academic can hope make in their career."
By not being transparent, they invite skepticism and cynical takes, like maybe it's just that tempered and qualified claims are an existential threat to companies that are fully subsidized by the hype train?
I don't know. Either way, it seems like it would be easy to address these, so why should they not do it?
To be clear, even if that tempered version is close to reality, it doesn't make the models not useful! It just forces a certain calibration of expectations
I say this btw as someone who uses these things extensively, including to disprove an old conjecture my advisor and I were stuck on recently. I know they are powerful and that everything is different now because of them. Let's be sober when discussing them though
Yes, but if their machine god really is as good as they say it is, why are they constantly resorting to statistical sleight of hand at best and outright lies at worst with every public statement?
That's not normally how people act when they're confident in their product
If you told them this was the problem and they would still have a job if they failed probably. The reasons people don't go head on these problems is career incentives and psychology.
it's still important. not everyone has access to 1 million USD. saying it "only" coat 2000 USD is highly misleading for the discussion and future. the concentration of power is a huge problem with AI.
It would still provide better context to see the numbers that the parent proposes, though.
Mentioning cost is fine, comparing may not be.
Grad students on zero pay solve problems like this everyday. What exactly is your point here?
Everyday? Which 10 problems were solved by mathematics grad students in the past 10 days?
OK I’ll grant that it’s not your obligation to be my search function (despite you making the wild assertion in the first place), so instead can you just point us to the latest grad student solved problem of this level that you know of?
Even if they can solve problems like this every day, you still have a very limited number of grad students who can solve them. With model capabilities like this, you can have the equivalent of millions of grad students who can solve problems like this.
Give the grad students these resources and they can do even more!!!
Also, have there been examples of researchers not affiliated with OpenAI (or another LLM creator), who have done something similar?
Another question I have is whether or not OpenAI 'simply' hired capable combinatorics researchers to work on problems, and they have, and the use of the model is incidental / secondary to their work.
Many less important Erdos problems have been solved by amateurs prompting ChatGPT 5.{3,4,5,6} Pro using their $200 subscription.
Yes, here is another example of major work in this area:
https://arxiv.org/html/2605.22763v1
> Our most capable agent autonomously resolved 9 of 353 open Erdős problems at the per-problem cost of a few hundred dollars, proved 44/492 OEIS conjectures
The actual quote:
> Our full-featured agent autonomously solved 9 Erdős problems out of 353 attempted, including two questions that had been open for 56 years
Note _had_ been open, not _have_ been open. Can you clarify?
The original was an actual quote?
But "had" still doesn't mean what you are implying: once the model solved the problems and the solutions were verified, the problems weren't open any more, so a later description using the past tense is totally consistent.
> Also, have there been examples of researchers not affiliated with OpenAI (or another LLM creator), who have done something similar?
A couple small ones that I've seen (example here [0]), but not anything of the magnitude that OpenAI and Anthropic have put out. Likely just related to token limits.
> Another question I have is whether or not OpenAI 'simply' hired capable combinatorics researchers to work on problems, and they have, and the use of the model is incidental / secondary to their work.
I think their output has reached a level that precludes this possibility, but I of course don't have any hard proof.
[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/1uxj3cy/after_openais...
Why you think that?
I guess that's because there are serious problems on which many professional mathematicians worked on years. If it was just a matter of hiring an expert, they would've been solved long time ago.
I guess expert+chatgpt beats chatgpt alone, so why not hire top experts to drive the search?
https://blob.byteterrace.com/public/bds-theorem.html
I have no affiliation whatsoever with any AI company, nor any formal education outside high school, for what it's worth. Simply being curious and persistent can get you quite far in my anecdotal experience.
There are people who can’t grasp the universe without mandatory randomised controlled trial. Would tomorrow be a Sunday? Need an RCT for that boys!
My point here is to not snark. But there should be some level of self skepticism that doesn’t warrant an RCT theatre.
It's a very important clarification if it took $2000/problem on 20 problem attempts or on 1,000 problem attempts for each successful one. That may be the deciding factor on whether or not it's economically viable to replace a mathematician with a ChatGPT subscription.
Yeah fair I concede that this is somewhat crucial information. The parent seems to write it in a tone that suggests deliberate misleading “lack of transparency” etc.
> deliberate misleading “lack of transparency” etc
It's a marketing post from a huge company. Only the naive would view it uncritically without assuming it's been written carefully to present the results in the best possible light while skirting the boundaries of outright lying.
The results speak for themselves.
Imagine 2 years from now: "yes, GPT solved the Riemann Hypothesis, but cmon, it's just a marketing stunt to hype their stuff, it was probably Terence Tao doing the work but he's so obsessed with hyping AI that he doesn't want to take credit"
Nobody is claiming the results are false.
We're saying look critically at the claims for how it was done, that it only cost $2000, etc. it would be extremely easy to run 100 sessions that failed, each costing ~$2000, and then just publishing an article about the one that succeeded, for example.
This goes double since it's an internal secret model (Astra) so nobody else can verify the results.
Would this be your reaction if OpenAI also solved millennium problems? The point we are trying to make is that the significance of this news is much larger than the skepticism you are providing.
It would be my reaction if we're discussing a blog post from OpenAI, yes. I would be looking at it extremely critically, wondering what they're misrepresenting to make it look cheaper, easier, and why they're trying to make it look like only their model could possibly do this.
Look at their recent claims about their model "escaping" - there was literally a Guardian article calling them out for being hyperbolic! Again, it wasn't that they lied, their marketing department is too savvy for that. They just present it in way that's, well, marketing.
As for the actual result, I'll look for secondary posts by actual mathematicians and draw my conclusions there, not from this marketing blog post about results from a secret model.
Hmm. But this level of skepticism looks performative and seems to serve as a signalling thing rather than a functional thing. You do you though. If OpenAI solves the millenial problems, my skepticism will only be restricted to the correctness of proof. Not that it was "marketing" haha
No, this is valid criticism. Oai gives the impression anybody could get similar results at a similar price, but that’s very likely not true. This is marketing first, then mathematics.
> therefore the $2000 number could be completely misleading, similar to P-value hacking by not disclosing the total experimental setup.
I don't think that comparison to p-hacking is fair. I mean not reporting price of all run is nothing like committing scientific fraud and fake results.
In a way the most remarkable thing about this is that it isn't even at the top of the HN homepage. Even if this is a step up from what we've seen before, we're no longer astonished by the idea that AI can make significant advances in mathematics and computer science.
This is not at the top as it is actively flagged by people that can't psychologically cope with the advances of AI. Hacker News is no longer a web site of an elite.
> people that can't psychologically cope with the advances of AI
Yes. And there are many of them. I wonder what would help them come to terms with it. Seriously, people are going to be grieving over this. Loss of identity, loss of social standing, ideas of entire future lives that will now never happen. The greatest crime people may hold AI guilty of is taking away their dreams.
Forums change with the times, and this one never existed solely to burnish your ego.
Moreover, mister elite, you don't know why this press release was flagged.
I'm not sure why we should privilege your bitter speculation over more mundane possibilities.
I don't know that it was flagged, but if it were, the reasons are pretty clear.
You don't accept it is possible that it was initially flagged as a dupe or spam why? There is competition for primary submission here, especially for the primary AI companies.
Moreover, if it wasn't flagged at all, like you suggest, then the grandparent was inventing things to be bitterly resentful about... Which is not a behavior any forum should indulge.
Didn't know I was part of an elite.
Interesting. I had no idea that a person could see what is flagged?
If you page through the /newest listings you can see [flagged] and [flagged][dead] submissions.
eg. this: [flagged] A migrant surge tests Spain's open policies (economist.com) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49131860
is clearly marked as flagged.
Unlike the current submission: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science (openai.com) which isn't [flagged].
* https://news.ycombinator.com/newest
That's true, but submissions are only killed in that way if they receive a ‘fatal’ number of flags. However, flags lower the rank of a story even at non-fatal levels. What antirez is suggesting here is that the rank of this story has been lowered by flags – and that seems plausible, if you compare its rank to that of other stories with a similar age and number of points.
[flagged] submissions aren't [dead] (killed), they are still active and can be upvoted and commented upon.
> if you compare its rank to that of other stories with a similar age and number of points.
Ranking is complicated enough here even before weighting, speed of initial upvotes can play against ranking, number of comments and the shape of the comment tree also affect ranking. And yes, various subjects and submission sources do get weightings that impact ranking.
What's funny, to myself at least, is that any attention at all is paid to "HN front page ranking" - I've been on again off again active here since 2008 .. and can't recall ever really looking at a default HN "front page" ever.
( There's /newest /newcomments /active etc to browse and sites such as https://hckrnews.com/ )
Couldn't have said it better myself.
I don't think that's it. Multiple or my friends from the target audience (academic mathematicians) admitted to scrolling past because the title made it sound like a review of last month's contributions, instead of 10 new ones.
There are articles with far fewer upvotes and comments ranking higher on the front page right now, despite being the same age or older than this one. HNs opaque ranking system at it again.
It’s also very very divided (x companies, oss vs not and other interests)
What about AI research itself? Is OpenAI close to automating its human staff out of a job?
They and Anthropic have indicated that the models are substantially augmenting the research and doing large amounts of work autonomously at this point. Here is one of the many blog posts on it [1]. Many people would dismiss this as "marketing" so take it for what you will.
My guess from following this stuff quite closely is that these companies are still a couple years away from fully autonomous research staff.
[1]. https://www.anthropic.com/institute/recursive-self-improveme...
Yes, but they wouldn't publish that bit lest other companies steal the ideas.
Honestly just a bit burnt out on posts like this
This is one of the most impactful mathematical publications in history by all accounts
I think we've now hit a point where 99.9% of the population gloss over these types of AI advancements because of human competence being insufficient
No human could have published this because it requires paradigm shifts (e. g. Section 5) in multiple mathematical domains. Mastering one of them to this degree is rare, mastering 3+ pretty much non existent for humans.
Pretty cool. The impact of AI is getting undeniable, there aren’t many positions left to move the goalposts to at this stage, next they’ll have to be outside the stadium entirely.
The sooner people can be broken out of their denial about all this the better, and we can start actually taking it seriously.
Never understood all this talk about moving goalposts - you understand that's how science works, right? We improve, we learn, we recalibrate our expectations based on what we've learned. If we never "moved the goalposts", we'd be stuck scoring the same goals over and over.
> We improve, we learn, we recalibrate our expectations based on what we've learned.
That's not what people mean when they say "moving the goalposts". It means that people are adamant that something wasn't important/hard/impressive once the "AI" solves it. And then they come up with another thing that needs to be solved in order to prove it is important/hard/impressive. And once that happens, they do it again. And again. That's what "moving the goalposts" means.
It's also very much not a new phenomenon. It's been happening since the 1980s. As you can see from this quote from GEB by Hofstadter:
> There is a related "Theorem" about progress in AI: once some mental function is programmed, people soon cease to consider it as an essential ingredient of "real thinking". The ineluctable core of intelligence is always in that next thing which hasn't yet been programmed. This "Theorem" was first proposed to me by Larry Tesler, so I call it Tesler's Theorem: "AI is whatever hasn't been done yet."
Yes, this is exactly what is meant by “moving the goalposts”. And it’s a fairly well known expression applying wherever people retroactively change their requirements in reaction to those requirements having been met.
> The sooner people can be broken out of their denial
There is irony here
Its not denial that is the problem. It's apathy. The vast majority simply don't care. They can tell you everything there is to know about Kim Kardashian though.
I can deal with apathy, that’s the norm. What bothers me are all the people who think they can suppress AI by talking it down. That’s what’s counterproductive, just pretend the problem doesn’t exist. Tell other people it doesn’t exist either. I get it, it’s threatening socially, economically, maybe existentially. It’s also not going away.
It’s not apathy. It’s the fact that almost nobody can really understand what these results mean.
I’m not a mathematician so I have zero clue what “ New upper bounds on sphere-packing density down to the Cohn–Elkies thresholds” means.
one of the early premises of how ai takeoff would go was that a system that could solve open problems in advanced mathematics would also discover novel advances in math and computer science that directly unlock drastically better software performance. we are seeing frontier level math breakthroughs (ie performance that would put it in the top 100 or 1000 mathematicians in the world if it were a human, meaning top .00001% or 800/8B). we are also seeing incredible advances in software performance. open ai announced like 15% improvement by fixing gpu kernel issues. these are clearly linked in the sense of scaling laws and generalization of intelligence: a huge model gets capabilities in both math and software engineering that isn't possible at smaller scales.
but it seems less likely to me than before that the types of math/science discoveries will explicitly unlock better software performance. in some sense this fits our intuitions. when top tech companies use math PhD type employees, they have them stop doing pure math research and instead focus on software engineering. these people are often very good at software engineering but not due to recent discoveries in academic mathematics, it's due to their general intelligence. to me, this is evidence that the models are getting better but does not make me think we are on the cusp of a foom style fast takeoff enabled by revolutions in frontier math (i also posted this on twitter @mlipman13)
This makes no sense. To believe this you have to think that the models are somehow being overfit explicitly on academic mathematics and it doesn’t carry over at all to more practical software engineering. I wouldn’t make that bet.
This also makes the assumption that frontier math has all the long hanging fruits already taken... also very dubious.
Some of the problems solved here, at least in CS, have been open for decades, and have been worked on by very smart leading researchers in the field, including Turing Award winners.
Like, these would be best-paper awards at many top CS conferences.
Unlike math, software is constrained by the physical world.
> we are also seeing incredible advances in software performance
Incredible?
> open ai announced like 15% improvement by fixing gpu kernel issue
That is... ordinary software optimization.
> novel advances in math
> we are seeing frontier level math breakthroughs (ie performance that would put it in the top 100 or 1000 mathematicians in the world if it were a human, meaning top .00001% or 800/8B)
i think you have misunderstanding of what mathematicians do
> i think you have misunderstanding of what mathematicians do
They get to make cool 3D plot visualizations of functions so obscure to me that they’re named after someone who is still alive - and/or get to work on cryptography for the NSA - I think?
Not being an expert in any of the fields OpenAI has "advanced" I don't want to prematurely downplay the significance of this contribution. However, I am worried that the language they are using in this blog post is exaggerating for the sake of marketing.
It is true there hasn't been a reliable computational approach to solving these problems before. But do these proofs contribute new ideas to the mathematical corpus, or are they simply an effective method to exhaustively search the literature for the right combination of existing tools to apply to the problem?
Essentially, did these problems seem like they had an intuitive answer and were feasible to prove before, just not high enough value targets for an expert to invest time into? Or were they fundamentally difficult prior to this point and it appears that AI has done something more than just throw the problem into a big solver.
"Breakthrough research" can be defined (in the citation record) as research that both (1) becomes highly cited, and (2) brings together citation chains that were previously not showing up together.
Mundane incremental research is cobbled from existing citations that already appear nearby in the record.
Basically, innovative research is a measure of bridging thought and domains that were previously not bridged. It's quite concrete as a measure in the citation record.
So we can know pretty conclusively.
Puja Ohlhaver gave a talk on this[1], and ran some experiments (that I had the pleasure to support on)
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guLDNMAOn24
The ones I'm familiar with are big breakthroughs, but they are both counterexamples. Examples have an advantage in that once you have the example in hand and a sketch of the proof (which they have provided), then an expert can probably work out the details themselves.
The sofic groups question was the outstanding question about sofic groups. Almost everyone thought that non-sofic groups existed, and there were plausible candidates, but proving a group was non-sofic was out of reach. Now that we know how to do it once, we can probably do it a lot more.
The Connes rigidity conjecture I think people thought was false, but it was a provocative claim to make. The significance of conjectures is frequently not that the answer to the question is "yes", but that we don't know how to answer the question. And now, apparently, we do.
The problems from CS (CVP and circuit complexity) are very important problems that have been worked on by top researchers for 30-40 years. Some of these researchers include Turing Award winners. A solution to them would be a best-paper award at many top CS conferences.
> However, I am worried that the language they are using in this blog post is exaggerating for the sake of marketing
Your worry.... is because they used the word advanced? For marketing? The word is used very appropriately here. There were PhD's who spent a big part of their career tackling these problems.
I am duly impressed by the powerl of the nameless internal AI, but not a single human contributor's name listed anywhere? Did someone at least make this model a coffee?
> The results were achieved by an internal version of Astra, our next major model.
I wonder what the total cost of this research was, including the salary for their mathematicians and engineers.
Why would you factor in salary unless they had to baby it through. You would only count the hours for setting up the harness and prompt and checking the result.
Training the model is going to be amortized over other uses.
> Why would you factor in salary
Say that it turned out that the total cost of the proof of the Erdős unit-distance conjecture was $50 million.
Then the question really becomes: yes, these models are capable of proving important mathematical results, but at a very high cost. Is it worth it?
If a mathematician applied for a research grant of $50M USD for proving the same thing, they would have been laughed out of the bank.
What's more is that when you have a research grant, you train PhDs and postdocs, you hire new staff, and you disseminate. That is, you get much more value for the money spent.
I'm just curious what the cost is.
I didn't argue that knowing the total cost is uninteresting. What I was saying is that realistically the total cost is:
Hours needed for prompt + Hours needed to check result + API costs.
You don't say "well let's add together the total yearly compensation of all the engineers and mathematicians at OpenAI that were involved" and throw that into the total cost. That's simply nonsense accounting.
The actual comparison you are making is some university researcher weighing between getting a grad student (several tens of thousands of dollars) vs typing up a prompt and sending a request to OpenAI for inference (as mentioned in the article, around $2000 in API and maybe a few hours for the prompt and harness).
It feels like the real cost might be negative though.. They use frontier math as a way to test improvements in their model. So solving the problems is like a positive externality, but the important thing is they can verify that the model is improving instead of looking at useless benchmarks. Plus it is good for marketing and attracting talent.
Given that OpenAI pays their employees with stock surely a breathtaking number, but not a very meaningful number now that the infrastructure is in place and the models are trained. AI could never get better and it would still be incredibly disruptive.
> The cost of generating the proofs for all 10 of these breakthroughs combined was under $2,000 at Sol API prices.
https://x.com/polynoamial/status/2083470822258467194
That's clearly just for the tokens, this doesn't really answer OP's question.
What happens when OpenAI et al stop being open about these things, and just pack it into the training?
Not much point to pure math being kept secret, in all honesty. There isn't really industrial value, its only purpose (to them) is showing off their model's capabilities. More realistically they'll just stop paying for it.
Edit: Oh, are you suggesting they just use it to privately improve their models? I imagine a few more correct proofs would have a very marginal benefit, if any. Also, they'll probably just get extracted, meaning it still gets out but OpenAI doesn't get to fancily announce it themselves.
At this stage. No doubt calculus had plenty industrial benefit.
What does this even mean lol. These are not solved questions. The solution never existed.
On the token limits etc - one assumes that OpenAI et al are able to “hire expert in field, and let them spend the equivalent of a million dollars of tokens” because they are not actually selling their complete compute 24 hrs a day, so the cost internally is a negligible (ish) electricity bill.
Which is very suggestive - if after everything they are not fully loaded then the next gazillion data centres being built look unlikely to be needed.
For OpenAI, research is marketing. I’m sure they’ve got plenty of budget for that.
Presumably it's a rounding error compared to their full output, and they're making sure they have enough compute set aside for research by limiting public models. The more datacenters they build the less they have to limit them.
RL training can use all of them - idk what needed means.
I love how people come up with creative ideas to prove the bubble. This one is even more ridiculous - that OpenAI had spare compute to advance mathematics proves that data centres will not be needed. WHAT.
If anything it proves more data centres are needed. That's literally the only reasonable conclusion from this news.
I'm enjoying learning about these hard problems, but this line about credit made me chuckle:
> We helped prepare the manuscripts and formalize the proofs in Lean, and we take responsibility for their correctness
Offering to take responsibility for the correctness of a proof written in Lean feels like volunteering to be the fall guy in case someone finds a flaw in basic arithmetic, no?
well, a bug in the Lean kernel was discovered last week by way of an LLM tricking itself and its handler into believing it had found a non-constructive proof of the existence of a nontrivial Collatz cycle, see https://infosec.exchange/@0xabad1dea/117002106099986943 and https://lipn.info/@mevenlennonbertrand/116997917683191056
That seems to have been more of a sensationalized joke. Even your link has a disclaimer in it now. Read this chat from the researcher who did this:
https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/270676-lean...
It's not at all a joke ... that's a severe misunderstanding of the context.
There is no evidence that I can find for the claim "a bug in the Lean kernel was discovered last week by way of an LLM tricking itself and its handler into believing it had found a non-constructive proof of the existence of a nontrivial Collatz cycle."
As I currently understand it, all we know is that:
- a mathematician produced a Lean-verified counterexample to the Collatz conjecture, demonstrating a bug in the kernel
- he claims that LLMs were involved somehow but pointedly refuses to specify how
- he admits that he knew about the bug before publishing the counterexample to his repository.
Perhaps not a joke (although it sure seems to me like they discovered a bug and thought falsely disproving the Collatz conjecture would be a flashy way to announce it), but at best extremely sensationalized by the above description. If you have additional context I would be happy to hear it!
Fascinating, and arguably an illustration of why the bifurcation of responsibility is interesting in the first place.
No, the correctness isn't for the "inside the Lean proofs", but for the translation of "human language math" and its formal Lean variant.
I see. It still feels like a bit of an oddly solemn way of saying "this is the part we admit responsibility for"
It’s more than you get from free software - you get no proofs, no warranties and any responsibility of its authors are their pure good will. Reminder lean proofs are software!
Well, to be fair, with Lean proofs, that's the only thing there is (unless I'm missing something).
I'm not an expert at it myself, but my understanding is there are numerous ways to "cheat" in a Lean proof (via `sorry` and similar). They're taking responsibility for fully verifying that none of these cheats were used (and that the theorem statements themselves were all correctly formalized.)
How much do you all think it would cost to "buy" these advances from PhDs, practicing scientists?
A friend’s PhD advisor has been chasing non-sofic groups for 25 years (and was shown a preprint of the results by openai to verify them). He believed a solution would be Fields-worthy
This was not a problem that was for sale
This isn't really a productive way to think about these things, IMO. It's quite possible it would take hundreds of years for any specific group of PhDs to solve them. Or one individual PhD could have the correct flash of insight and solve it in a month. There's absolutely no way to predict this, besides trying to gauge the apparent simplicity of the proof or counterexample (which is likely to be misleading). Until someone actually runs an experiment like this it's not a viable metric.
I understand and I am not trying to deny the impressiveness or the velocity of AI in general. But at some point we have to ask how much do we trust the labs at face value without much transparency of how they got to the results when there is trillions of dollars on the line.
Do you think OpenAI investors are more cavaliers than yourself who doesn't have any stake in it?
The level of conspiracy theory is nuts
I would say the lack of skepticism is nuts, honestly.
Capabilities of this sort have already been demonstrated by independent parties, and models have consistently gotten better at this. Yes, insinuating that mathematicians and scientists are secretly solving decades-old problems on OpenAI's behalf is an insane conspiracy theory.
I don’t feel the existential dread of mathematicians is correct. It seems to me in fact these results are bringing math mainstream. I now personally look forward to the interpretations and discussions of the significance of such results by human mathematicians.
Now I understand that it’s mostly the super stars benefitting from the increased attention. Folks who are less established don’t share in that glory. But on the other hand it seems like an exciting time to go even deeper for in various specialties of math by deciding where to focus these powerful tools. For every conjecture defeated some seven or eight new ideas open up. Our path through that combination will be set by creative and curious human mathematicians.
[edit: deleted a distracting comparison to Chess]
The old way of establishing career credibility is being destroyed, for better or worse. Accomplishments that used to be career-defining are hard to distinguish from AI, and correlate more with access to compute. Think about Bill Gates's math paper he wrote in college. That kind of thing is gone now as a path to credibility. There's still competitions and grades, but the diversity of paths is going away. Maybe new ones will open up. This is a competitive advantage for old people who have credible pre-2025 accomplishments they can point to.
If accomplishments can't be distinguished between talented people and untalented people with compute, is there really a point in trying? I suppose one can hope that talented people given compute will be more effective than untalented people with compute, but I despair that that may not be true for much longer.
Knowledgable people can confirm what the AI produces is correct. I could make ChatGPT produce a result on an open question and I would have zero way to verify its actual correctness.
Which is less interesting work. And you probably need to do the hard grunt work by hand first to develop the skills and intuition to be able to verify an AI-generated result. So you can’t outsource everything to AI without loss of skill.
I find this whole way of looking at things weird. Did maths exist just to entertain and employ mathematicians? Surely maths is, like, useful? Not immediately, not predictably, but in the long run? In which case, whether mathematicians feel bad about it is mostly irrelevant - it's like complaining about the railway because it may put coaching inns out of business.
Given that we were nowhere near this state even two years ago, I think it’s a question of velocity more so than just distance.
Do mathematicians have the right to say "no AI PRs please, the volume is too much" just like how some open source maintainers do it? I guess they feel a loss of control, there is no way to turn the hose off.
Thinking of this a little bit with the perspective of every new proof as a burden, dumped for review by actual mathematicians.
Every time someone makes a comparison to chess I die inside. Chess is a spectator sport primarily funded by a few eccentric billionaires. Players artificially constrain themselves in timed environments knowing that they will never be able to produce better moves than a smartphone because a select few people find it interesting. Only ~30 top professionals actually make enough money to have a full career playing chess, maybe a few hundred more can sustain a meager lifestyle with coaching gigs. I shudder to imagine what will happen to the tens of thousands of non-Fields medalist caliber mathematicians if math goes the way of chess. Perhaps Terence Tao and a few other famous mathematicians will be funded by Peter Thiel to report on how well humanity can keep up with the machines? How do you expect any mathematician to be optimistic about this comparison.
>Only ~30 top professionals actually make enough money to have a full career playing chess, maybe a few hundred more can sustain a meager lifestyle with coaching gigs.
Was this different before chess computers were invented?
Fully agreed. As someone who both loves chess and works on chess engines... these comparisons to chess needs to stop.
The distinction is mathematician vs mathematics. Mathematics is going to reach new heights beyond the wildest dreams of contemporary mathematicians. But perhaps without the participation of many paid mathematicians.
Just sounds dystopian,
Another noteworthy difference is that Stockfish is also gpl.
If there was any real money in it Stockfish would not be the best chess engine.
Thats not the point, if there were a better proprietary engine stockfish would still be there as a baseline. Anyone can access an engine as good as stockfish to practice against. Are any open models touting mathematical breakthroughs?
There is money in this, so of course the closed models are far ahead. The open models will likely catch up a bit at some point, just as Stockfish caught up to AlphaZero. That being said, there are already a couple. It seems Deepseek has a claimed proof to the "Ziegler's Cross-Polytope Conjecture" [0], but I can't speak to the significance of the result.
[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.31640
The chess analogy is awful. If you simply want to know the answer to a chess problem, give it to the engine. Chess only lives on because it's a competition between humans to test their skill (just like bicycles, cars, trains didn't eliminate foot races) ... the computer is largely factored out, but not entirely -- people train with the computer, use it to check whether they played correctly, ... and they cheat. A lot. Thus there are more and more sophisticated mechanisms to detect and prevent cheating.
If you translate that to math, then all you get is math competitions, not math as a career. Of course the translation isn't nearly exact ... there's a lot more room for professional mathematicians because the math space is far more vast than the chess space and can't generally be cranked out mechanically (we have proof).
P.S. The response is nonsense ... I explained exactly why it's awful (others have too) and the response doesn't in any way refute the explanation ... rather it offers up a ridiculous strawman.
I’ve deleted it but no it’s not awful anymore than saying “we survived WWII, we can survive this.” The point was that change happens but humans find a way forward.
As in chess and go and also coding for the past ~year there are two groups of people: the disappointed and the enthusiastic. The disappointed are sad that they lost their advantage and that the craft they honed for years or decades has rapidly lost its value; the enthusiastic are excited about the future and what computers can bring to their domain and how it will evolve. I’m a bit of both if it comes to programming, more enthusiastic than disappointed, but also more than a bit terrified about the pace of it all. I imagine that’s how Kasparov felt back then, that’s how Lee Sedol felt and now that’s how Terry Tao feels.
The most disappointed folks will simply drop out, but the enthusiastic ones will keep going and with luck make up for the ones who decided to quit. Chess and go certainly went this way.
A fundamental difference being that no one was actually paid to find good moves in chess and go like they are to solve math problems and write code. You're comparing the digital camera and the automobile.
Now that we've seen AI produce a fair number of proofs (and disproofs), I'm curious when we'll start seeing it build genuinely novel theory. Does anyone have predictions on when and how we'll get there and will it take new architectures/ training paradigms, or is the current approach enough?
It will not happen with existing LLM techniques.
I’m personally hoping for the next big AI gangbanger to be theoretical physics. Boy does that field need a good reshuffle. I think when any novel mathematical theory can be done by AI you’ll see simultaneously theoretical physics getting wrecked as hard as pure math is. At that point we might see new physics or paradigm shifting technology emerging.
What? No. Frontier physics is experiment driven.
There's no clean line between a collection of theorems and a theory.
I mean doing something like Grothendieck when he redeemed algebraic geometry or Galois when he invented group theory. We haven't seen that at all from LLMs.
This is both awesome and terrifying for mathematicians, however some ideas can be generated and the field as whole expanded with the attention!
However, I was looking at the proofs and reason explanation and openAI should be more explicit in how the work has flown. I find the models have jumped hoops in some places of the proofs, that can be hard to track. In fact, when a paper is published you usually get a review and if no reviewer understands they ask you to further explain the thought process. It will be fun to see if this happens here.
I would love more time and money put into real-world problems by these companies. Climate, food insecurity, pollution, technology for convenience and/or to help people have a higher quality of life.
I'm sure they must do some of this type of work, right?
Solving math problems doesn’t require the cooperation of rival factions.
Yes, but all of those are orders of magnitude harder than math.
They are political problems, a computer could never solve them.
A computer could solve them by creating the right technological ,social, rhetorical and economical solutions but that would lots of money anyway
Tell that to game theory.
What's stopping the non-profits that exist today from just putting more money into tokens to get the solutions they want?
Seriously?
We already know how to solve all of these issues. What we lack is collective political will.
Almost like superintelligence solves these problems...
Replace philosophers for mathematicians and Douglas Adams was spot on again.
Whilst current models can't 'intuit' and come up with conjectures, they can certainly disprove some of them very quickly through the kind of grind that humans can't do. I suppose there really are some mathematicians out there today, whose last few years of study, have just been up-ended by this.
--
"Yes we are," insisted Majikthise. "We are quite definitely here as representatives of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries and Other Thinking Persons, and we want this machine off, and we want it off now!"
"What's the problem?" said Lunkwill.
"I'll tell you what the problem is mate," said Majikthise, "demarcation, that's the problem!"
"We demand," yelled Vroomfondel, "that demarcation may or may not be the problem!"
"You just let the machines get on with the adding up," warned Majikthise, "and we'll take care of the eternal verities thank you very much. You want to check your legal position you do mate. Under law the Quest for Ultimate Truth is quite clearly the inalienable prerogative of your working thinkers. Any bloody machine goes and actually finds it and we're straight out of a job aren't we? I mean what's the use of our sitting up half the night arguing that there may or may not be a God if this machine only goes and gives us his bleeding phone number the next morning?"
Any advances in theoretical physics yet? Are there any fundamental obstacles? I would have thought not, but I haven't seen anything reported.
The Maxwell conjecture was a conjecture in theoretical physics (though not a particularly important one)
It's remarkable how you can manage to get these models to produce remarkable breakthroughs like an explicit construction of a non-sofic group.
And yet this is the exact same company that has screwed up their android app so bad that the latex N^3 rendering problem makes it so having it explain it to me crashes the app.
Truly jagged beyond belief.
Wow, so this is the end of science :(
It's just another tool that can help solve problems. It doesn't know _what_ problems to solve. It turns out that a lot of old problems are now low hanging fruit for these new models. In terms of 'expanding the frontier', we've just discovered dynamite and can now blast our way through mountains. The bottom of the ocean or space are still as hard to reach as ever.
No bud, it’s just the beginning!
I don't know why, but when I saw the source of this particular headline it reminded me of the album title 26 Mixes for Cash
Ambient 0: Math for Airports
Can’t wait for this stuff to have quality of life increases for the average person. So far all I see is that AI has made owning a computer more expensive, made some jobs redundant, increased spam and distrust with questionable authenticity of content and of course made some Americans very rich.
Meh, Humans should be doing this. It’s kind of retarded that we have AI automating creative problem solving, coding, music, arts, the fun parts of life before they can do my dishes, laundry and vacuum my house.
They can’t even drive me anywhere I want, though I suppose they’re getting there. I don’t think LLM companies should be surprised when rest of society hates them. They’re literally bringing in a dystopian WallE like society where most demand for human work is destroyed.
You shouldn't be getting downvoted for something that a majority of pure math and art enthusiasts believe to be true. The truth is many of these entrepreneurs and VCs are obsessed with AI not for money or human progress, but because it makes them feel closer to being a "god" rather than a mere mortal. Much of it (especially AI art) is out of spite for human creativity, which is done by mortals with limitations.
Taking the stance of moral superiority is kind of funny. And pure math and art enthusiasts don't think they are closer to being a "god" from understanding/"discovering" math?
Stop coping and deluding yourself mate.
To begin with, whether AI is the one doing the discovering or not makes no difference. Any "pure math" person would aim to understand regardless - and would be quite glad that they have a longer paved path.
Any mathematician in academic or industry is more than likely not a "pure math" person (tainted by capitalism).
I wonder if Erdos would be saying " It's fine that y'all are answering my questions, but who is asking better questions??"
the real milestone isn't that AI solved ten math problems, it's that we now need a press release to tell us which ten problems count as important
I asked ChatGPT and it told me these aren’t not important /s
> claiming human authorship for a proof generated entirely by an AI system would misrepresent both the system’s contribution and the nature of genuine human intellectual work.
AI has no self-awareness. It's a tool. When you assemble a furniture using a screw driver, the torque force interacts with the molecular forces inside the metal and miraculously it transfers the force to the screw though a clever geometry design, communicating the force to the screw to turn it in a certain way.
Do you attribute the build to the tool? The "system's contribution" is helped by many other things all the way down to chips, datacenters and power generation. If the authorship requires attributing to a tool, then it should happen all the way down.
Sorry, OpenAI's take is correct here. If you're not convinced, here is how they prompted LLM: https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/04d1d1e4-bc75-476a-97cf-49055cd98... [0]
A slightly smarter highschooler could write these. I could write these. It's clear as day that the LLM, not the human, did the heavy lift. It'd be ridiculous to give full credit to whoever wrote the prompt.
[0]: Not one of the proofs in the linked article, but from OpenAI too.
> A slightly smarter highschooler could write these. I could write these. It's clear as day that the LLM, not the human, did the heavy lift. It'd be ridiculous to give full credit to whoever wrote the prompt.
I think you're over-estimating what a smarter highschooler could write.
A "finite loopless undirected multigraph" could have been explained to me at that age if we'd taken Discrete rather than Mechanics and Pure (and one module of Stats) in my two A-levels* in maths and further maths; but from what I saw of the Discrete module, neither:
nor: would have been something we'd have learned. But more importantly, we absolutely didn't have a feel for how much effort one needs to put into making sure the proof is right, so if one of us had been hypothetically asked to write a prompt it would've been no more than half that length, and missed most of the bullet points.* For those not from the UK: A-levels are between secondary school and university, when aged 16-18. Functionally they are university entrance qualifications: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-level_(United_Kingdom)
The human provides the intention and the ability to appreciate the output. Tools do “heavy lifting” all the time, but we still primarily credit the humans who use them precisely because they made the choice to use them.
Provability is just going the way of computation. John Napier had to manually compute logarithm tables over decades and was recognised for his work; now that same work could be performed by a 10 year old with a calculator in an evening.
What gives the intention and ability to the human?
But why can’t we prompt the LLM “just do math research”? This is what I don’t understand.
If there aren't thousands of TPUs doing that [0] right now I'd be quite surprised.
[0]: e.g. "go through wikipedia's unsolved math problem list and solve them".
When you use a crane to do the "heavy lifting" for construction work, do you give full credit to the cranes?
Read the prompts in the PDF I link and see if your analogy makes sense in this context :)
Prompt quality should not matter. If a high-schooler operates the crane to lift a ton of weight 10 floors high, should the credit entirely go to the crane?
When I type 56789*23456 into my calculator and get the result I don't claim to have solved the problem, the calculator did it.
I don't disagree with you but there's no need for exaggeration; ain't no high school student writing this:
> In particular, proofs for special graph classes, constructions of cycle covers with some edges covered other than twice, bounded-length or prescribed-cycle variants, reductions to another unproved conjecture, computational verification through any fixed graph size, and candidate counterexamples without a complete nonexistence certificate are insufficient.
which is infact a very important part of the prompt.
the fact that such things have to be explicitly in the prompt points to the fact that the underlying system is still far from where it needs to be (basically, lacks basic understanding what a proof is)
No, that's not what this is. This is a warning to the LLM that coming back with partial results is not good enough.
Take a grad student with a perfectly good understanding of what a proof is. Their supervisor gives them a major problem to work on. Almost always, the problem is too hard, the student comes back with partial results, and student and the supervisor iterate from there. Now imagine that they have an unusually cruel and unreasonable advisor who tells them, do not dare to talk to me until you've fully solved the problem. This paragraph is exactly that. It's there exactly because the underlying system is smart enough to know that real mathematicians do not work like that.
They don't have to be. At this point, we have multiple results from 3rd parties where the prompts are very basic.
To name a few:
- https://xcancel.com/DmitryRybin1/status/2079904005652893709
- https://archive.ph/2w4fi (https://chatgpt.com/share/69dd1c83-b164-8385-bf2e-8533e9baba...)
Your brain also is physical. Electrochemical gradients flow between physical molecular constructs. Isn't it just chemistry? Do you attribute it to physics or some whole-is-greater-than-the-parts idea?
A better analogy would be a manufactured object, say 3d printed for simplicity. The 3d printer is given an input, and an object manifests itself after some time. We say that the creator of the object is the person turning on the machine, sending the data, and collecting the object. Not the machine itself.
I'd say the creator is the one who created the 3d model, not the one who pushed the print button.
I would say „I made this gadget with my 3d printer, but the designer is someone else (I found the model online)“. The intent, the drive, the action comes from the human
"I made this proof myself, but the designer is someone else" is an extremely unconvincing claim to ownership.
Almost as if a proof isn’t the same as a 3d print. It’s just not a good analogy
(let's assume that)My 3dprinter is special. It has a bunch of values + an algorithm (i.e. a neural network) that takes input as tokens and outputs a printed object.
> Do you attribute the build to the tool? The "system's contribution" is helped by many other things all the way down to chips, datacenters and power generation. If the authorship requires attributing to a tool, then it should happen all the way down.
When the tool is a 3D printer, or any CNC system really, you bet I attribute a build to it.
I could also attribute the operator; there is no contradiction, it's a free choice, just like saying "I am in Berlin" does not contradict "I am in Germany".
> AI has no self-awareness
What is your mechanistic model of self awareness that yields this conclusion?
> It's a tool
Does your model suggest that tools can't have self awareness?
I honestly don't think a language model is enough for self-awareness, regardless of the exact model of awareness.
A language model (or an image model or whatever) cannot even be sentient, and I think sentience is a prerequisite for awareness.
Even if we express a lot of our subjective experience with words, the language is just a symbolic representation of those experiences. The qualia themselves, even those that are quite abstract, are rooted in our physical presence and evolution.
You can't have an understanding of what hunger or physical pain feel like if you have no need for food or a sensory capacity for feeling pain. You can't understand what loneliness or pride at an achievement mean if you don't have a neural network wired to value social connection or status. We value connection because we're social animals that have needed each other for survival.
Even the more abstract of our subjective experiences are in some way rooted in our physical evolution.
I see no reason to believe that a neural network built entirely based on the symbolic level of language could have the features needed for the subjective experience itself.
AI awareness might actually be more believable if that awareness manifested itself in an entirely different way than in humans. But if we assume awareness because outputs resemble what we consider meaningful as humans, yet the neural network has had no inputs or evolution that could form the actual basis of human-like experience, I think we're seeing something that isn't actually there.
> The qualia themselves, even those that are quite abstract, are rooted in our physical presence and evolution.
There is no objective evidence of qualia. All evidence of qualia are vocal or other expressions of belief in qualia. Perceptions clearly exist and are observable, subjective experience and qualia, not so much.
> I see no reason to believe that a neural network built entirely based on the symbolic level of language could have the features needed for the subjective experience itself.
If your objection is to models based on "symbolic level of language" which you think lack semantic understanding of, say, trees, you should ask yourself how our brain, based on physics which also lacks any semantic category for trees, can somehow develop a semantic understanding of trees. All of these appeals to differences with the brain never seem to acknowledge that fundamentally, the brain has the same explanatory gap with physics.
> But if we assume awareness because outputs resemble what we consider meaningful as humans, yet the neural network has had no inputs or evolution that could form the actual basis of human-like experience
This assumes a lot. It seems very possible to me that intelligence inherently develops a map of natural categories (natural kinds), and language naturally develops around such categorical understanding. Semantics are then fundamentally the network of associations between categories, eg. there is no fundamental difference between symbols and semantics, and the latter cam be inferred from the former, and that's exactly what LLMs do, and why the semantic maps between different languages are so similar and how they can translate between languages.
So… your model is 100% vibes based. Got it.
I wasn't trying to give a model. The point was that I don't think it's necessary to give one.
You didn't address any of what I wrote, let alone provide any counterarguments. Which part of what I wrote do you think was wrong?
Making definitive claims about whether LLMs do or do not have specific properties absolutely does require precise definitions of those properties that can be used to evaluate those questions. Merely hand waving that LLMs didn't undergo the same evolutionary process is not a definitive argument.
For example, the Turing machines and the lambda calculus don't look anything alike, but they are fundamentally interconvertible, and so in a real sense they are fundamentally equivalent. Without a model, all of your arguments are completely unconvincing for exactly the same reasons, eg. that there may exist many paths to fundamentally equivalent ends.
Dunno about the parent commenter, but I personally interpret the concept as having a hidden representation of self that is continually tended to, and influences future choices. This implies statefulness, which models are intentionally not at inference time (*).
(*) Even if we hack around this and just do the usual trick of simply laundering statefulness to a higher level, in this case the context window being fed in, I fail to identify (**) a representation of its own state in these bodies of text that it'd be meticulously maintaining. I further fail to identify how it could be hidden or maintained, considering I control like half of it. The best you could ascribe it is a meticulous maintenance of a persona the user is talking to, but then that doesn't necessarily represent the model's internal state, the same way my own words here aren't doing so either. Difference being, I actually have one (I'm "on-line").
You'll sometimes catch models mixing up who's who and how many who-s there even are for example.
(**) I did wish for something hidden though, so maybe it's just concealed? The same way people can encode a lot more of their emotional and mental state than normal into text if they read and write a lot of it, I'm aware of research that suggested the same for LLMs, albeit I cannot cite it. Maybe those phrasing signatures are just alien to me and will never pop out. Either way, I'd expect researchers to stumble upon this during interpretability studies, and either they haven't, they have but it wasn't popsci adopted, or they're keeping awfully tight lipped about it. If you know of anything like this, your turn now, would be happy to learn.
I do wonder how reasonable it is to expect e.g. a single maintained identity though. Maybe it isn't?
(*) Another way to hack around this of course is to just precompute some internal "self-awareness states" and hop around between them. Probably the closest to what the models are actually "doing".
> Dunno about the parent commenter, but I personally interpret the concept as having a hidden representation of self that is continually tended to
I don't see why an LLM could not have a sense of identity or personality while it's evaluating a specific prompt, or even change self awareness while evaluating a prompt since many outputs model a back and forth conversation. My point is that without a mechanistic model of what "self awareness" means, we have no way of truly evaluating such questions, we're just hand waving vague intuitions about what it could mean.
Before reading, know that I am uncertain in either direction.
> a hidden representation of self that is continually tended to
This sounds like a personality? They act like they have one of those. It may be an illusion, and even if it isn't an illusion it is unlikely to be anything like the source (us), but they act like it.
> I further fail to identify how it could be hidden or maintained, considering I control like half of it.
Indeed you control everything about a local model, and much of the context of even a remote model. But the state of activations and circuits in SotA AI is hidden in similar ways to those of synapses in your head: difficult to decipher even with probes monitoring the signals directly, and often not emitted at the normal output.
> The best you could ascribe it is a meticulous maintenance of a persona the user is talking to, but then that doesn't necessarily represent the model's internal state, the same way my own words here aren't doing so either. Difference being, I actually have one (I'm "on-line").
While we can be confident that LLMs make up personas etc., it is insufficient to go from "that doesn't necessarily represent the model's internal state" to "therefore it doesn't have one".
> You'll sometimes catch models mixing up who's who and how many who-s there even are for example.
I've, unfortunately, also experienced this with humans. Perhaps they were losing their self-awareness at the time? I do wonder if old-age dementia does that by the end, though the person in question didn't ever get diagnosed with that.
> If you know of anything like this, your turn now, would be happy to learn.
Do you mean like these, or something else?
• https://researchportal.hkust.edu.hk/en/publications/decoding...
• https://aclanthology.org/2026.eacl-long.165/
• https://transformer-circuits.pub/2026/emotions/index.html
> This sounds like a personality?
Not quite what I meant, but it's also not entirely unrelated I guess? Personality to me is like a natural bias. It does also shift over time, and is also an internal bit of state. I guess in some respects it can also be self-referential, like personal convictions.
> Perhaps they were losing their self-awareness at the time?
I do think it is entirely possible for people's self-awareness to shift, yes. Or more precisely, I do model things that way.
> Do you mean like these, or something else?
They're adjacent, but I more meant something like these:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.03768
https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.18512
https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.26537
So basically, steganography. The difference is that these papers investigate from the perspective of separate LLM instances covertly exchanging information between each other. This is in contrast with the scenario I'm laying out, where an LLM's past state is exchanging information with its future state, continuously representing and modulating a concealed internal state of some sort. And then that state just so happening to be some sort of self-referential meta state.
And the best inkling I have towards this is basically: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WP5_XJY_P0Q
But then I don't think there's enough covert channel bandwidth in the agent replies for anything interesting like this.
Any implication of any of these findings? They seem like unimportant nerd snipes to me. If you want to do something actually relevant, get chatgpt to write a simulation of graphene nanotube construction and figure out how to do it at scale.
Very marketable nerd snipes indeed.
One - and I do not mean to be snarky - you can literally ask Gpt 5.6 Sol this - and if you want to see cool stuff - Fable running in their app (not website) has a view thinking button that is actually a good way to explore the adjacent fields, etc.
The non-sofic group one is definitely a big deal - would have been a Fields medal if discovered by a human.