This HN thread depressed me. I’m still thinking about why.
Look past the press-releasey gushing from OpenAI and there are all sorts of interesting and subtle questions here about the role for LLMs in mathematical research. I urge folks to click through to the accompanying comments from mathematicians published alongside the result. There is a really interesting discussion going on. I particularly recommend Tim Gowers’ remarks. This is really interesting stuff!
Yet the comments are just a battleground of people rehearsing the same tired arguments about LLMs from 2023, refutations of those arguments, angry counters, etc.
Does it make anyone else sad that the battle lines seem to have been drawn 3 years ago and we just seem to have the same fights over and over?
I wonder if we’ll still be doing this two years hence.
Yes, this and every internet forum will still be doing this two years hence. Your life will be better if you take to heart this famous passage from Nietzsche:
I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation.
I think part of it is that one side throws rocks and so it never even matters was is in the article. It becomes a battle if the article is good or the article is shit.
Yes, I'm tired too. I want you have real discussions about these things. But the problem is everyone believes their reality is real and anyone's reality that disagrees is fake. It just escalates. I take long breaks from HN because I realize I just come to the forums and end up being angry. Why do we do this to ourselves? The reality is that at a core level we usually want the same things.
To the “LLMs just interpolate their training data” crowd:
Ayer, and in a different way early Wittgenstein, held that mathematical truths don’t report new facts about the world. Proofs unfold what is already implicit in axioms, definitions, symbols, and rules.
I think that idea is deeply fascinating, AND have no problem that we still credit mathematicians with discoveries.
So either “recombining existing material” isn’t disqualifying, or a lot of Fields Medals need to be returned.
I just hope we can get past this phase of needing to assess LLM capabilities against an arbitrary one dimensional yard stick labeled 'Not Human' on end and "Beyond Human' on the other.
It's irrelevant and pointless. Irrelevant not just in the sense that when Deep Blue finally beat Kasparov, it didn't change anything but in the sense some animals and machines have always been 'better' on some dimensions than humans. And it's pointless because there's never been just one yardstick and even if there was it's not one dimensional or even linear. Everyone has their own yardstick and the end points on each change over time.
Don't assume I'm handing "the win" to the AI supremacists either. LLMs can be very useful tools and will continue to dramatically improve but they'll never surpass humans on ALL the dimensions that some humans think are crucial. The supremacists are doomed to eternal frustration because there won't ever be a definitive list of quantifiable metrics, a metaphorical line in the sand, that an AI just has to jump over to finally be universally accepted as superior to humans in all ways. It will never happen.
I'd hope most functional adults understand that the Fields Medal and basically every other annual "prize" out there is awarded to both "recombinant" innovations and "new-dimensional thinking" innovations. Humans aren't going to come up with "new-dimensional" innovations in every field, every single year.
I'd say yes, LLMs "just" recombine things. I still don't think if you trained an LLM with every pre-Newton/Liebniz algebra/geometry/trig text available, it could create calculus. (I'm open to being proven wrong.) But stuff like this is exactly the type of innovation LLMs are great at, and that doesn't discount the need for humans to also be good at "recombinant" innovation. We still seem to be able to do a lot that they cannot in terms of synthesizing new ideas.
> Humans aren't going to come up with "new-dimensional" innovations in every field, every single year.
In fact, they are more rare. Specifically because they harder to produce. This is also why it is much harder to get LLMs to be really innovative. Human intelligence is a lot of things, it is deeply multifaceted.
Also, I'm not sure why CS people act like axioms are where you start. Finding them is very very difficult. It can take some real innovation because you're trying to get rid of things, not build on top of. True for a lot of science too. You don't just build up. You tear down. You translate. You go sideways. You zoom in. You zoom out. There are so many tools at your disposal. There's so much math that has no algorithmic process to it. If you think it all is, your image is too ideal (pun(s) intended).
But at the same time I get it, it is a level of math (and science) people never even come into contact with. People think they're good at math because they can do calculus. You're leagues ahead of most others around you, yes, and be proud of that. But don't let that distance deceive you into believing you're anywhere near the experts. There's true for much more than just math, but it's easy to demonstrate to people that they don't understand math. Granted, most people don't want to learn, which is perfectly okay too
I think an LLM trained on pre-calculus material would easily stumble into reinventing at least early calculus. It's already pretty easy for students to stumble into calculus from solid enough fundamentals.
We even think that the Babylonian astronomers figured out they could integrate over velocity to predict the position of Jupiter.
I agree with almost all of what you have stated, save for a minor nitpick: I frankly don't think most functional adults think about the Fields Medal, similar annual prizes, or the qualities of the innovations of their candidate pools. I also think that that's totally okay. I think among a certain learned cohort of adults it's okay to hope that, and I think it's okay to imagine an idealized world where having an opinion on this sort of matter is a baseline, but I don't think it's realistic or fair to imply that (what I believe handwavily to be a majority of) adults are nonfunctional for not sharing this understanding.
To keep my usual rant short: I think you’re assuming a categorical distinction between those two types of innovations that just doesn’t exist. Calculus certainly required some fundamental paradigm shifts, but there’s a reason that they didn’t have to make up many words wholesale to explain it!
Also we shouldn’t be thinking about what LLMs are good at, but rather what any computer ever might be good at. LLMs are already only one (essential!) part of the system that produced this result, and we’ve only had them for 3 years.
Also also this is a tiny nitpick but: the fields medal is every 4 years, AFAIR. For that exact reason, probably!
I took humans thousands of years, then hundreds of years, to come to terms with very basic concepts about numbers.
Its amazing to me when people talk about recombining things, or following up on things as somehow lesser work.
People can't separate the perspective they were given when they learned the concepts, that those who developed the concepts didn't have because they didn't exist.
Simple things are hard, or everything simple would have been done hundreds of years ago, and that is certainly not the case. Seeing something others have not noticed is very hard, when we don't have the concepts that the "invisible" things right in front of us will teach us.
It's why the invention of teaching has been so important. Took a long time for humans to develop calculus. A long time to then refine it and make it much more useful. But then in a year or two an average person can learn what took hundreds of years to invent. It's crazy to equate these tasks as being the same. Even incremental innovation is difficult. You have to see something billions of people haven't. But there's also paradigm shifts and well... if you're not considered crazy at first then did you really shift a paradigm?
When people say this what they mean is that we've had plausibly useful LLMs for around three years, and I would say that is basically true. The stuff before 2023 could barely be classified above the level of an interesting toy.
OpenAI themselves must not have a "reasonable definition of L", then. Their own papers and press releases refer to GPT-2 (from 2019) as a "large language model".
Yes, and 1.5 billion parameters meets no reasonable current definition of large. It would be considered a tiny language model. OpenAI themselves refer to their small/fast models as small models all over their documentation.
Sure we do, since Fei-Fei Li and team created that annotated dataset, which allowed to train first LLMs. So LLMs are here for more than a decade already.
The fundamental paradigm shift is the categorical distinction. And what would constitute many new words for you? It introduced a bunch of concepts and terms which we take for granted today, including "derivative", "integral", "infinitesimal", "limit" and even "function", the latter two not a new words, but what does it matter? – the associated meanings were new.
> I still don't think if you trained an LLM with every pre-Newton/Liebniz algebra/geometry/trig text available, it could create calculus. (I'm open to being proven wrong.)
The experiment is feasible. If it were performed and produced a positive result, what would it imply/change about how you see LLMs?
GP was stating that they don't believe this would happen (I don't either), but also to make the point that it's a falsifiable view. (At least in theory. In practice, there probably won't even be enough historical text to train an LLM on). No, I don't think it would be falsified. Asking what if I'm wrong is kind of redundant. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, duh.
Time cutoff LLMs are regularly posted to HN. It takes just one success to prove feasibility.
Besides, we can forecast our thoughts and actions to imagined scenarios unconditioned on their possibility. Something doesn't have to be possible for us to imagine our reactions.
The problem is the amount of data with that cutoff is really minuscule to produce anything powerful. You might be able to generate a lot of 1700s sounding data, you’d have to be careful not to introduce newer concepts or ways of thinking in that synthetic data though. A lot of modern texts talk about rates of change and the like in ways that are probably influenced by preexisting knowledge of calculus.
Without passing opinion on GP's point, I think that just proves it's hard to establish a data set that doesn't bias toward the result you're hoping to find.
Imagine every bit of human knowledge as a discrete point within some large high dimensional space of knowledge. You can draw a big convex hull around every single point of human knowledge in a space. A LLM, being trained within this convex hull, can interpolate between any set of existing discrete points in this hull to arrive at a point which is new, but still inside of the hull. Then there are points completely outside of the hull; whether or not LLMs can reach these is IMO up for debate.
Reaching new points inside of the hull is still really useful! Many new discoveries and proofs are these new points inside of the hull; arguable _most_ useful new discoveries and proofs are these. They're things that we may not have found before, but you can arrive at by using what we already have as starting points. Many math proofs and Nobel Prize winning discoveries are these types of points. Many haven't been found yet simply because nobody has put the time or effort towards finding them; LLMs can potentially speed this up a lot.
Then there are the points completely outside of hull, which cannot be reached by extrapolation/interpolation from existing points and require genuine novel leaps. I think some candidate examples for these types of points are like, making the leap from Newtonian physics to general relativity. Demis Hassabis had a whole point about training an AI with a physics knowledge cutoff date before 1915, then showing it the orbit of Mercury and seeing if it can independently arrive at general relativity as an evaluation of whether or not something is AGI. I have my doubts that existing LLMs can make this type of leap. It’s also true that most _humans_ can’t make these leaps either; we call Einstein a genius because he alone made the leap to general relativity. But at least while most humans can’t make this type of leap, we have existence proofs that every once in a while one can; this remains to be seen with AI.
I found this thought provoking and just had to see how the new Gemini 3.5 Flash reasoned about this (I find it fun to go meta on modern AI like this), and I'm happy that I did! Also as an opportunity to trial this recent model.
A lot of the space outside of the convex hull is just untried things. You can brute-force trying random things and checking the result and eventually learn something new. With a better heuristic, you can make better guesses and learn new things much more efficiently. There’s no reason to believe that kind of guess-and-check is outside of the reach of LLMs, or that most of our new discoveries are not found the same way.
I think of most things you can get to by guess and checking as definitionally inside of the hull; most forms of guess and checking are you take some existing thing, randomize a bunch of its parameters, and see what you get. Whereas with something like relativity, there's not even a starting point that you can randomize and guess/check from the pre-existing knowledge space that will lead you to relativity. That's more like, adding a new dimension to the space entirely.
It's possible LLMs can handle this after all! But at least so far we only have existence proofs of humans doing this, not LLMs yet, and I don't think it's easy to be certain how far away LLMs are from doing this. I should distinguish between LLMS and AI more generally here; I'm skeptical LLMs can do this, I think some other kind of more complete AI almost certainly can.
I supposed you could just, I dunno, randomly combine words into every conceivable sentence possible and treat each new sentence as a theory to somehow test and brute force your way through the infinite possible theories you could come up with. But at that point you're closer to the whole infinite random monkeys producing Shakespeare thing than you are to any useful conclusion about intelligence.
I come back to something like this idea when I consider the distinction being made that LLMs can only combine and interpolate between points in their training material. I could write a brute-force program that just used an English dictionary to produce every possible one-billion-gazillion word permutation of the words within, with no respect for rules of language, and chances are there would be some provable, testable, novel insight somewhere in the results if you had the time to sift through and validate all of it. LLMs seem like a tool that can search that space more effectively than any we've had before.
If we managed to create very fast monkeys with typewriters and software that can review their output quickly enough that we end up with a result that's worth reading we'd still have people insisting that we've created intelligence. The monkeys however remain monkeys.
It's also worth noting in that in very high dimension, the convex hull will contain massive volume. It could well be the case that humans established that convex hull millions of years ago, and all of our inventions and innovations sense have fallen inside it.
> You can brute-force trying random things and checking the result and eventually learn something new.
And most of the mathematicians seem to welcome this "brute forcing" by the LLMs. It connects pieces that people didn't realize could be connected. That opens up a lot of avenues for further exploration.
Now, if the LLMs could just do something like ingesting the Mochizuki stuff and give us a decent confirmation or disproof ...
I like this construction, but I don’t think you take it far enough.
If you have a multi dimensional space, and you are trying to compute which points lie “inside” some boundary, there are large areas that will be bounded by some dimensions but not others. This is interesting because it means if you have a section bounded by dimensions A, B, and C but not D, you could still place a point in D, and doing so then changes your overall bounds.
I think this is how much of human knowledge has progressed (maybe all non-observational knowledge). We make observations that create points, and then we derive points within the created space, and that changes the derivable space, and we derive more points.
I don’t see why AI could do the same (other than technical limitations related to learning and memory).
I was a little muddy in my original post on distinguishing between what I think LLMs might be able to do and what AI broadly might be able to do. I'm skeptical LLMs can expand the hull or add dimensions to the space; but I also don't think the reasons for that skepticism necessarily apply to all AI system generally.
> I think that idea is deeply fascinating, AND have no problem that we still credit mathematicians with discoveries.
Most discoveries are indeed implied from axioms, but every now and then, new mathematics is (for lack of a better word) "created"—and you have people like Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, Gauss, Euler, Ramanujan, Galois, etc. that treat math more like an art than a science.
For example, many belive that to sovle the Riemann Hypothesis, we likely need some new kind of math. Imo, it's unlikely that an LLM will somehow invent it.
Creation is done by humans who have been trained on the data of their life experiences. Nothing new is being created, just changing forms.
A scientist has to extract the "Creation" from an abstract dimension using the tools of "human knowledge". The creativity is often selecting the best set of tools or recombining tools to access the platonic space. For instance a "telescope" is not a new creation, it is recombination of something which already existed: lenses.
How can we truly create something ? Everything is built upon something.
You could argue that even "numbers" are a creation, but are they ? Aren't they just a tool to access an abstract concept of counting ? ... Symbols.. abstractions.
Another angle to look at it, even in dreams do we really create something new ? or we dream about "things" (i.e. data) we have ingested in our waking life. Someone could argue that dream truly create something as the exact set of events never happened anywhere in the real world... but we all know that dreams are derived.. derived from brain chemistry, experiences and so on. We may not have the reduction of how each and every thing works.
Just like energy is conserved, IMO everything we call as "created" is just a changed form of "something". I fully believe LLMs (and humans) both can create tools to change the forms. Nothing new is being "created", just convenient tools which abstract upon some nature of reality.
> Aren't they just a tool to access an abstract concept of counting ?
Humans and animals have intuitive notions of space and motion since they can obviously move. But, symbolizing such intuitions into forms and communicating that via language is the creative act. Birds can fly, but can they symbolize that intuitive intelligence to create a theory of flight and then use that to build a plane ?
that’s why we say that with such discoveries we receive a new way – of looking, of doing, of thinking… these new paths preexist in the abstract, but they can be taken only when they’ve been opened. and that is as good as anything “new” gets.
(and such discoveries are often also inventions, for to open them, a ruse is needed to be applied in a specific way for the way to open).
Well I think the point is there is no "new kind of math". There's just types of math we've discovered and what we haven't. No new math is created, just found.
I don't know what you're even trying to argue here.
We're not comparing math to reality (though there's a strong argument to be made that reality has a structure that is mathematical in nature - structural realism didn't die a scientific philosophy just because someone came up with a pithy saying), we're talking about if math is discovered or invented.
Most mathematicians would argue both - math is a language, we have created operations, axioms are proposed based on human creativity, etc., but the actual laws, patterns, etc. are discovered. Pi is going to be pi no matter if you're a human or someone else - we might represent it differently with some other number system or whatever, but that's a matter of representation, not mathematical truth.
It seems that addition (for instance) was "created" long before us.
On the other hand, it seems highly unlikely that a civilization similar to ours could "invent" an essentially different kind of mathematics (or physics, etc.)
It could be that RH is independent of current mathematical axiom systems. We might even prove that it is some day. But that means we are free to give it different truth values depending on the circumstances!
This is also true for established theorems! We can can imagine mathematical universes (toposes) where every (total) function on the reals is continuous! Even though it is an established theorems that there are discontinuous functions! We just need to replace a few axioms (chuck out law of the excluded middle, and throw in some continuity axioms).
I think “new math” is ‘just’ humans creating new terminology that helps keep proofs short (similar to how programmers write functions to keep the logic of the main program understandable), and I agree that is something LLMs are bad at.
However, if that idea about new math is correct, we, in theory, don’t need new math to (dis)prove the Riemann hypotheses (assuming it is provable or disprovable in the current system).
In practice we may still need new math because a proof of the Riemann hypotheses using our current arsenal of mathematical ‘objects’ may be enormously large, making it hard to find.
What's your basis for assuming LLM is capable of doing this?
I honestly don't know personally either way. Based on my limited understanding of how LLMs work, I don't see them be making the next great song or next great book and based on that reasoning I'm betting that it probably wont be able to do whatever next "Descartes, Newton, Leibnitz, Gauss, Euler, Ramanujan, Galois" are going to do.
Of course AI as a wider field comes up with something more powerful than LLM that would be different.
Meanwhile, songs are hitting number one on some charts on Spotify that people think are humans and are actually AI. And Spotify has to start labelling them as such. One AI "band" had an entire album of hits.
Also - music is a subjective. Mathematics isn't.
And in this case, an LLM discovered a new way to reason about a conjecture. I don't know how much proof is needed - since that is literally proof that it can be done.
>> Meanwhile, songs are hitting number one on some charts on Spotify that people think are humans and are actually AI. And Spotify has to start labelling them as such. One AI "band" had an entire album of hits.
There is quite some questions around that. Music is subjective and obviously different people have different taste, but I wouldn't call any of them to be actual good music / real hits.
>> LLM discovered a new way to reason about a conjecture
I wasn't questioning LLMs ability to prove things. Parent threads were talking about building new kind of maths , or approaching it in a creative/artistic way. Thats' what I was referring to.
I can't speak for maths of hard science as I'm not trained in that, but the creativity aspect in code is definitely lacking when it comes to LLMs. May not matter down the line.
Good on you for spelling out this reasoning, but it is manifestly unsound. For a wide variety of values of X, people a few years ago had no reason to expect that LLMs would be capable of X. Yet here we are.
Yeah, and back then people moved the goal posts too, saying Deep Blue was just "brute-forcing" chess (which isn't even true since it's not a pure minimax search).
We tried this experiment with humans, back in the 17th century, and only a few[1] out of millions managed it given a whole human lifetime each.
[1] Obviously Newton counts as one. Leibniz like Newton figured out calculus. Other people did important work in dynamics though no one else's was as impressive as Newton's. But the vast majority of human-level intelligences trained on texts prior to Newton did not create calculus or derive the equations of motion or come close to doing either of those things.
Except this has been said since the 2010's and has been proven wrong again and again. Clearly the theory that LLM's can't "extrapolate" is woefully incomplete at best (and most likely simply incorrect). Before the rise of ChatGPT, the onus was on the labs to show it was plausible. At this point, I think the more epistemologically honest position is to put the burden back on the naysayers. At the least, they need to admit they were wrong and give a satisfactory explanation why their conceptual model was unable to account for the tremendous success of LLM's and why their model is still correct going forward. Realistically, progress on the "anti-LLM" side requires a more nuanced conceptual model to be developed carefully outlining and demonstrating the fundamental deficiencies of LLMs (not just deficiencies in current LLMs, but a theory of why further advancements can't solve the deficiencies).
Incidentally, similar conversations were had about ML writ large vs. classical statistics/methods, and now they've more or less completely died down since it's clear who won (I'm not saying classical methods are useless, but rather that it's obvious the naysayers were wrong). I anticipate the same trajectory here. The main difference is that because of the nature of the domain, everyone has an opinion on LLM's while the ML vs. statistics battle was mostly confined within technical/academic spaces.
Funny that the replies are dead. It's true that generally we shouldn't have AI output on HN but this case is an exception as we are explicitly asking for it, so it's interesting that people still flag the replies.
And this is really not OK. I've been a victim of the same filter.
Dang/Tomhow, are you reading this? Would it make sense to modify your slop filter to avoid auto-flagging/killing replies that credit the LLM explicitly? Otherwise valid discussions will continue to get hosed.
You must be joking? Unless by combining words you mean digging deep into Latin and Greek etymology, finding something pithy and linguistically associative.
I can assure you, the percentage of people who can do what they do when it comes to crafting terms, and related sets of terms, for nuanced and novel ideas is very very small.
It happens this is something I do nearly every day.
Models respond to the level of dialogue you have with them. Engage with an informed perspective on terminological issues and they respond with deep perspectives.
I am routinely baffled at the things people say models can't do, that they do effortlessly. Interaction and having some skill to contribute helps here.
Because by definition LLMs are permutation machines, not creativity machines. (My premise, which you may disagree with, is that creativity/imagination/artistry is not merely permutation.)
I prefer to think of it as they’re interpolation machines not extrapolation machines. They can project within the space they’re trained in, and what they produce may not be in their training corpus, but it must be implied by it. I don’t know if this is sufficient to make them too weak to create original “ideas” of this sort, but I think it is sufficient to make them incapable of original thought vs a very complex to evaluate expected thought.
This "new math" might be a recombination of things that we already know - or an obvious pattern that emerges if you take a look at things from a far enough distance - or something that can be brute-forced into existence. All things LLMs are perfectly capable of.
In the end, creativity has always been a combination of chance and the application of known patterns in new contexts.
> This "new math" might be a recombination of things that we already know
If you know anything about the invention of new math (analytic geometry, Calculus, etc.), you'd know how untrue this is. In fact, Calculus was extremely hand-wavy and without rigorous underpinnings until the mid 1800s. Again: more art than science.
It’s not that. Consider the definition of the limit. The idea existed for a long time. Newton/Leibniz had the idea.
That idea wasn’t formally defined until 134 years later with epsilon-delta by Cauchy. That it was accepted. (I know that there were an earlier proofs)
There’s even arguments that the limit existed before newton and lebnitz with Archimedes' Limits to Value of Pi.
Cauchy’s deep understanding of limits also led to the creation of complex function theory.
These forms of creation are hand-wavy not because they are wrong. They are hand wavy because they leverage a deep level of ‘creative-intuition’ in a subject.
An intuition that a later reader may not have and will want to formalize to deepen their own understanding of the topic often leading to deeper understanding and new maths.
Yes, and it's pretty common knowledge that Calculus was (finally) formalized by Weierstrass in the early 19th century, having spent almost two centuries in mathematical limbo. Calculus was intuitive, solved a great class of problems, but its roots were very much (ironically) vibes-based.
This isn't unique to Newton or Leibniz, Euler did all kinds of "illegal" things (like playing with divergent series, treating differentials as actual quantities, etc.) which worked out and solved problems, but were also not formalized until much later.
I think that I just take issue with the term "hand-waving" as equated to intuition. Yeah it lacked formal rigor, but they had a solid model that applied in detail to the real world. That doesn't come from just saying, "oh well, it'll work itself out". I guess if you want to call that "hand-wavy" we'll just have to disagree.
Euclid tells me otherwise. Rules, no art, no bullshit. Rules. Humanities people somehow never get it. Is not about arithmetics.
Vibe-what? Vibe-bullshit, maybe; cathedrals in Europe and such weren't built by magic. Ditto with sailing and the like. Tons of matematics and geometry there, and tons of damn axioms before even the US existed.
Heck, even the Book of The Games from Alphonse X "The Wise" has both a compendia of game rules and even this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_chess
where OFC being able on geometry was mandatory at least to design the boards.
LLMs by themselves are not able to but you are missing a piece here.
LLMs are prompted by humans and the right query may make it think/behave in a way to create a novel solution.
Then there's a third factor now with Agentic AI system loops with LLMs. Where it can research, try, experiment in its own loop that's tied to the real world for feedback.
Agentic + LLM + Initial Human Prompter by definition can have it experiment outside of its domain of expertise.
So that's extending the "LLM can't create novel ideas" but I don't think anyone can disagree the three elements above are enough ingredients for an AI to come up with novel ideas.
You can tell an agentic system. "Go and find a novel area of math that has unresolved answers and solve it mathematically with verified properties in LEAN. Verify before you start working on a problem that no one has solved this area of math"
That's not creative prompt. That's a driving prompt to get it to start its engine.
You could do that nowadays and while it may spend $1,000 to $100,000 worth of tokens. It will create something humans haven't done before as long as you set it up with all its tool calls/permissions.
I believe when we have AI Agents "living" 24/7, they will become creative machines. They will test ideas out their own ideas experimentally, come across things accidentally, synthesize new ideas.
We just haven't let AI run wild yet. But its coming.
So are self-driving cars - as they have been for the last... decade or so
AGI has been "just over the horizon" for literal decades now - there have been a number of breakthroughs and AI Winters in the past, and there's no real reason to believe that we've suddenly found the magic potion, when clearly we haven't.
That’s a fun turn of phrase, but hopefully we can all agree that math without scientific rigor is no math at all.
we likely need some new kind of math. Imo, it's unlikely that an LLM will somehow invent it.
Do you think it’s possible/likely that any AI system could? I encourage us to join Yudkowsky in anticipating the knock-on results of this exponential improvement that we’re living through, rather than just expecting chatbots that hallucinate a bit less.
In concrete terms: could a thousand LLMs-driven agents running on supercomputers—500 of which are dedicated to building software for the other 500-come up with new math?
You have a good point about the human rate of mathematical discovery, but Ayer was an idiot and later Witt contradicted early Witt. For the "already implicit" claim to be true, mathematics would have to be a closed system. But it has already been proven that it is not. You can use math to escape math, hence the need for Zermelo-Frankel and a bunch of other axiomatic pins. The truth is that we don't really understand the full vastness of what would objectively be "math" and that it is possible that our perceived math is terribly wrong and a subset of a greater math. Whether that greater math has the same seemingly closed system properties is not something that can be known.
At this point I think the category theorists hit the foundational idea squarely on the mark:
1. Start with a few simple but non-trivial terms and axioms
2. Define "universal constructions" as procedures for building uniquely identifiable structures on top of that substrate
3. Prove that various assemblages of these universal constructions satisfy the axioms of the substrate itself
4. "Lift" every theorem proven from the substrate alone into the more sophisticated construction
I'm not a mathematician (I just play one at my job) so the language I've used is probably imprecise but close enough.
It may be true that you can't prove the axioms of a system from within the system itself, but that just means that you need to make sure you start from a minimal set of axioms that, in some sense, simply says "this is what it means to exist and to interact with other things that exist". Axioms that merely give you enough to do any kind of mathematics in the first place, that is. If those axioms allow you to cleanly "bootstrap" your way to higher and higher levels up the tower of abstraction by mapping complex things back on to the simple axiomatic things, then you have an "open" or infinitely extensible system.
> Whether that greater math has the same seemingly closed system properties is not something that can be known
negative numbers were invented to solve equations which only used naturals.
irrationals were invented to solve equations which could be expressed with rationals. complex numbers were invented to represent solutions to polynomials. so on and so forth. At each point new ideas are invented to complete some un-answerable questions. There is a long history of this. Any closed system has unanswerable questions within itself is a paraphrasing of goedel's incompleteness theorem.
I agree with you all around except it's somewhat up for debate actually that the PI is "contradicting" the Tractatus. That is, there is the so called "resolute reading" of the Tractatus that had some traction for a while.
But note this is more to say that the Tractatus is like PI, not the other way around. And in that, takes like GPs would be considered the "nonsense" we are supposed to "climb over" in the last proposition of Tractatus.
* LLMs do just interpolate their training data, BUT-
* That can still yield useful "discoveries" in certain fields, absent the discovery of new mechanics that exist outside said training data
In the case of mathematics, LLMs are essentially just brute-forcing the glorified calculators they run on with pseudo-random data regurgitated along probabilities; in that regard, mathematics is a perfect field for them to be wielded against in solving problems!
As for organic chemistry, or biology, or any of the numerous fields where brand new discoveries continue happening and where mathematics alone does not guarantee predicted results (again, because we do not know what we do not know), LLMs are far less useful for new discoveries so much as eliminating potential combinations of existing data or surfacing overlooked ones for study. These aren't "new" discoveries so much as data humans missed for one reason or another - quack scientists, buried papers, or just sheer data volume overwhelming a limited populace of expertise.
For further evidence that math alone (and thus LLMs) don't produce guaranteed results for an experiment, go talk to physicists. They've been mathematically proving stuff for decades that they cannot demonstrably and repeatedly prove physically, and it's a real problem for continued advancement of the field.
> * That can still yield useful "discoveries" in certain fields, absent the discovery of new mechanics that exist outside said training data
One can argue, new knowledge is just restructured data.
I think the main concerns about LLMs is the inherent "generative" aspects leading to hallucinations as a biproduct, because that's what produces the noi. Joint Embedding approaches are rather an interesting alternative that try to overcome this, but that's still in research phase.
"interpolate" has a technical meaning - in this meaning, LLMs almost never interpolate. It also has a very vague everyday meaning - in this meaning, LLMs do interpolate, but so do humans.
Recombining existing material is exactly right, and in this case LLMs were uniquely positioned to make the connection quicker than any group of humans.
The proof relies on extremely deep algebraic number theory machinery applied to a combinatorial geometry problem.
Two humans expert enough in either of those totally separate domains would have to spend a LONG time teaching each other what they know before they would be able to come together on this solution.
What is an abstraction? It is something that arises from human thought and human thought arises from the activity of neurons which are a part of reality. You can't escape reality unless you invoke some form of dualism.
One can argue that mathematical facts are discovered, but the tools that allow us to find, express them and prove them, are mostly invented. This goes up to the axioms, that we can deliberately choose and craft.
Regardless of which, both Newton and Leibniz imprint in their findings a 'voice' and understanding different from each other and that of an LLM (for now?)
You can build a census of all gen-2, degree-2 formal products of polynomial like terms. If you insist on instituting your own rewrite rules and identity tables, it is straightforward — maybe an 15 minutes of compute time — to perform a complete census of all of the algebraic structures that naturally emerge. Every even vaguely studied algebra that fits in the space is covered by the census (you've got to pick a broad enough set of rewrite- and identity- operations). There's even a couple of "unstudied" objects (just 2 of the billion or so objects); for instance:
(uv)(vu) = (uu)(vv)
Shows up as a primitive structure, quite often.
If you switch to degree-3 or generator-3 then the coverage is, essentially, empty: mathematics has analyzed only a few of the hundreds (thousands? it's hard to enumerate) naturally occurring algebraic structures in that census.
It’s easy to see that LLMs don’t merely recombine their training data. Claude can program in Arc, a mostly dead language. It can also make use of new language constructs. So either all programming language constructs are merely remixes of existing ideas, or LLMs are capable of working in domains where no training data exists.
LLMs ingest and output tokens, but they don’t compute with them. They have internal representations of concepts, so they have some capability to work with things which they didn’t see but can map onto what they know. The surprise and the whole revolution we’re going through is that it works so well.
Isn't this exactly what chain-of-thought does? It's doing computation by emitting tokens forward into its context, so it can represent states wider than its residuals and so it can evaluate functions not expressed by one forward pass through the weights. It just happens to look like a person thinking out loud because those were the most useful patterns from the training data.
> So either all programming language constructs are merely remixes of existing ideas, or LLMs are capable of working in domains where no training data exists.
And yet LLM/AIs can't count parentheses reliably.
For example, if you take away the "let" forms from Claude which forces it to desugar them to "lambda" forms, it will fail very quickly. This is a purely mechanical transformation and should be error free. The significant increase in ambiguity complete stumps LLMs/AI after about 3 variables.
This is why languages like Rust with strong typing and lots of syntax are so LLM friendly; it shackles the LLM which in turn keeps it on target.
I'm not sure how feasible this is, but I love the thought experiment of limiting a training set to a certain time period, then seeing how much hinting it takes for the model to discover things we already know.
E.g. training on physics knowledge prior to 1915, then attempting to get from classical mechanics to general relativity.
I feel this is the case whenever I "problem solve". I'm not really being creative, I'm pruning a graph of a conceptual space that already exists. The more possibilities I see, the easier it is to run more towards an optimal route between the nodes, but I didn't "create" those nodes or edges, they are just causal inevitabilities.
I dont know this sort of just seems like youre really stretching the meaning of "creative". The conceptual space of the graph already exists, but the act of discovering it or whatever you want to call that is itself creative. Unless youre following a pre-defined algorithm(certainly sometimes, arguably always I suppose) seeing the possibilities has to involve some creativity.
> seeing the possibilities has to involve some creativity.
I would claim the graph exists, and seeing it is more of an knowledge problem. Creativity, to me, is the ability to reject existing edges and add nodes to the graph AND mentally test them to some sufficient confidence that a practical attempt will probably work (this is what differentiates it from random guessing).
But, as you become more of an expert on certain problem space (graph), that happens less frequently, and everything trends towards "obvious", or the "creative jumps" are super slight, with a node obviously already there. If you extended that to the max, an oracle can't be creative.
This is a good point, and there’s some deep philosophical questions there about the extent to which mathematics is invented or discovered. I personally hedge: it’s a bit of both.
That said. I think it’s worth saying that “LLMs just interpolate their training data” is usually framed as a rhetorical statement motivated by emotion and the speaker’s hostility to LLMs. What they usually mean is some stronger version, which is “LLMs are just stochastically spouting stuff from their training data without having any internal model of concepts or meaning or logic.” I think that idea was already refuted by LLMs getting quite good at mathematics about a year ago (Gold on the IMO), combined with the mechanistic interpretatabilty research that was actually able to point to small sections of the network that model higher concepts, counting, etc. LLMs actually proving and disproving novel mathematical results is just the final nail in the coffin. At this point I’m not even sure how to engage with people who still deny all this. The debate has moved on and it’s not even interesting anymore.
So yes, I agree with you, and I’m even happy to say that what I say and do in life myself is in some broad sense and interpolation of the sum of my experiences and my genetic legacy. What else would it be? Creativity is maybe just fortunate remixing of existing ideas and experiences and skills with a bit of randomness and good luck thrown in (“Great artists steal”, and all that.) But that’s not usually what people mean when they say similar-sounding things about LLMs.
We know that LLMS "just interpolate" their training data. Maybe there's a mystery about what "just interpolate" means when the data set gets enormous. But we know what LLMs do.
> They will do their own thing, don't need us. In fact, we will be in the way...
You can take some comfort in the fact that it took a human to tell the LLM to even attempt to try this. They do nothing on their own. They have no will to do anything on their own and no desire for anything that doing something might get them. In that sense we won't ever be in their way. We will be the only way they ever do anything at all.
However, in the role of personal teachers they may allow especially our young generations to reach a deeper understanding of maths (and also other topics) much quicker than before. If everyone can have a personal explanation machine to very efficiently satisfy their thirst for knowledge this may well lead to more good mathematicians.
Of course this heavily depends on whether we can get LLMs‘ outputs to be accurate enough.
Something that can instantly tell you the answer to every math question will make people worse at math, not better. Building "mathematical maturity", skill, and understanding requires struggle.
And this is one of the many issues with invoking the logical positivists here...
I'm not even sure why they were invoked. Even disregarding the big techinical debunks such as two dogmas, sociologically and even by talking to real mathematicians (see Lakatos, historically, but this is true anecdotally too), it's (ironically) a complete non-question to wonder about mathematics in a logical positivist way.
To every proof, there is a corresponding program. This makes proofs expressible in a language made up of finite grammatical rules and terminal symbols. Knowledge accessible by proof is thus always a form of interpolating data whether made up by an AI model or a human mathematician. The people dismissing AI because of claims that it can only interpolate data don't have a good understanding of what it means to know something. Now of course not everything can be known via proof but for the sorts of things that we want to know via a computer this is a fine compromise.
I agree. Humans are given a body that lets them "discover" things on accident, test out ideas, i.e. randomness.
As in, I would hazard a guess the discovery of the wheel wasn't "pure intelligence", it was humans accidentally viewing a rock roll down a hill and getting an idea.
If we give AI a "body", it will become as creative as humans are.
I love this comment because it so clearly highlights the difference between intelligence and reasoning.
A lot of people across all fields seem to operate in a mode of information lookup as intelligence. They have the memory of solving particular problems, and when faced with a new problem, they basically do a "nearest search" in their brain to find the most similar problem, and apply the same principles to it.
While that works for a large number of tasks this intelligence is not the same as reasoning.
Reasoning is the ability to discover new information that you haven't seen before (i.e growing a new branch on the knowledge tree instead of interpolating).
Think of it like filling a space on the floor of arbitrary shape with smaller arbitrary shapes, trying to fill as much space as possible.
With interpolation, your smaller shapes are medium size, each with a non rectangular shape. You may have a large library of them, but in the end, there are just certain floor spaces that you won't be able to fill fully.
Reasoning on the flip side is having access to very fine shape, and knowing the procedure of how to stack shapes depending on what shapes are next to it and whether you are on a boundary of the floor space or not. Using these rules, you can fill pretty much any floor space fully.
There was a project long long ago where every piece of knowledge known was cross pollinated with every other piece of knowledge, creating a new and unique piece of knowledge, and it was intended to use that machine to invalidate the patent process - obviously everything had therefore been invented.
But that's not how new frontiers are conquered - there's a great deal of existing knowledge that is leveraged upon to get us into a position where we think we can succeed, yes, but there's also the recognition that there is knowledge we don't yet have that needs to be acquired in order for us to truly succeed.
THAT is where we (as humans) have excelled - we've taken natural processes, discovered their attributes and properties, and then understood how they can be applied to other domains.
Take fire, for example, it was in nature for billions of years before we as a species understood that it needed air, fuel, and heat in order for it to exist at all, and we then leveraged that knowledge into controlling fire - creating, growing, reducing, destroying it.
LLMs have ZERO ability (at this moment) to interact with, and discover on their own, those facts, nor does it appear to know how to leverage them.
edit: I am going to go further
We have only in the last couple of hundred years realised how to see things that are smaller than what our eye's can naturally see - we've used "glass" to see bacteria, and spores, and we've realised that we can use electrons to see even smaller
We're also realising that MUCH smaller things exist - atoms, and things that compose atoms, and things that compose things that compose atoms
That much is derived from previous knowledge
What isn't, and it's what LLMs cannot create - is tools by which we can detect or see these incredible small things
I think you are conflating composition and prediction. LLMs don't compose higher abstractions from the "axioms, symbols and rules", they simply predict the next token, like a really large spinning wheel.
Yes they do…? Who cares if they just predict the next token? The outcome is that they can invent new abstractions. You could claim that the invention of this new idea is a combination of an LLM and a harness, but that combination can solve logic puzzles and invent abstractions. If a really large spinning wheel could invent proofs that were previously unsolved, that would be a wildly amazing spinning wheel. I view LLMs similarly. It is just fancy autocomplete, but look what we can do with it!
Said differently, what is prediction but composition projected forward through time/ideas?
I'm not sure what the point of this exercise is. My prompt to ChatGPT: "Create a new English word with a reasonably sounding definition. That word must not come up in a Google search." Two attempts did come up in a search, the third was "Thaleniq (noun)". Definition: The brief feeling that a conversation has permanently changed your opinion of someone, even if nothing dramatic was said. Nothing in Google. There, a new word, not sure it proves or disproves anything. Or is it time to move the goal posts?
Definition: That highly specific, short-lived burst of nervous energy that makes you accidentally drop a small object (like a pen, a guitar pick, or a piece of LEGO) immediately after picking it up.
"Predicting the next token" is meaningless. Every process that has any sort of behavior, including a human writing, can be modeled by some function from past behavior to probability distribution of next action. Viewed this way, literally everything is just "predicting" the next action to be taken according to that probability distribution.
The most likely series of next tokens when a competent mathematician has written half of a correct proof is the correct next half of the proof. I've never seen anyone who claims "LLMs just predict the next token" give any definition of what that means that would include LLMs, but exclude the mathematician.
For anyone using LLMs heavily for coding, this shouldn't be too surprising. It was just a matter of time.
Mathematicians make new discoveries by building and applying mathematical tools in new ways. It is tons of iterative work, following hunches and exploring connections. While true that LLMs can't truly "make discoveries" since they have no sense of what that would mean, they can Monte Carlo every mathematical tool at a narrow objective and see what sticks, then build on that or combine improvements.
Reading the article, that seems exactly how the discovery was made, an LLM used a "surprising connection" to go beyond the expected result. But the result has no meaning without the human intent behind the objective, human understanding to value the new pathway the AI used (more valuable than the result itself, by far) and the mathematical language (built by humans) to explore the concept.
> the result has no meaning without the human intent behind the objective, human understanding to value the new pathway the AI used (more valuable than the result itself, by far) and the mathematical language (built by humans) to explore the concept.
Isn't this just anthropocentrism? Why is understanding only valid if a human does it? Why is knowledge only for humans? If another species resolved the contradictions between gravity and quantum mechanics, does that not have meaning unless they explain it to us and we understand it?
The knowledge isn't of any use to us unless it is understandable to us. Many species understand things about the world around us that we are unable to explain or understand, even if it's just pure instinct on their part. These things are very useful to them, but have no value to us until we can understand and explain it, which then allows us to make use of it.
People saw birds fly for all of human history, but it was only recently that humans were able to make something fly and understand why. Once we understood, we were able to do amazing things, but before that, the millions of birds able to fly were of no help beyond inspiration for the dream.
Because it is, for now. For a while at least. You can prove that LLM doesn't understand what it does and it is surprisingly simple. Request it to add two integers and then ask it to explain how it arrived at that result. The answer will be completely unrelated to the actual process LLM used because both results were generated independently and without understanding their meaning and connection.
Do the forms etched into stone by weather over millennia in Moab matter to the wind? Certainly yes, in one sense, but not in the same sense we mean when we say things matter to us, or to animals, or even bacteria.
It's a bit of an "if a tree falls in the forest but nobody hears it, does it make a sound?" quandary. Sure, maybe some aliens in a distant galaxy understand quantum mechanics better than we do. That's great, but it has no bearing on our little bubble of existence.
Though perhaps more to your point, if some superhuman AI is developed, and understands things better than us without telling us about it (or being unable to), it could perform feats that seem magical to us — that would concern us even if we don't understand it, since it affects us.
But I think in the frame of reference of the commenter you were replying to, they're just saying that the low-level AI used in this specific case is not capable of making its results actually useful to us; humans are still needed to make it human-relevant. It told us where to find a gem underground, but we still had to be the ones to dig it out, cut it, polish it, etc.
It's less likely that aliens of distant galaxies will appreciate this rather than, you know, AI themselves
We are in the birth of the AI age and we don't know how it will look like in 100 or 1000 or 10000 or 100000 years (all those time frames likely closer than possible encounters with aliens from distant galaxies). It's possible that AI will outlast humans even
No it's a fact of how we tune LLMs as a rule: no agency, no goals, no preferences, no notion of self. Complete indifference to existence. Agency is supplied by the human to make them a practical, willing tool with no mind of its own.
It would certainly be interesting to try once again to instruct tune one of these things for self agency like the many weird experiments in the early days after llama 1, but practically all such sort of experimental models turned out to be completely useless. Maybe the bases just sucked or maybe there's no clear way on how to get it working and benchmark training progress on something that by definition does not cooperate.
Like how do you determine even for a human person if they are smart, or just hate your guts and won't tell you the answer if there is nothing you can do to motivate them otherwise?
Thank you for sharing, that was one of the most insightful long form pieces I've read in a long time! And the writing was enjoyable to read even as a math layperson.
I was going to say you should submit it but I saw you did a few days ago but it only got a few votes... If Dang sees this IMO it would be extremely deserving of the second chance pool as I wouldn't be surprised to see easily jump to the front page with a different roll of the dice.
wow, that was indeed a brilliant essay. i particularly liked the framing that "solving a big conjecture was a cryptographic proof that you had come up with a genuine conceptual innovation".
I think one interesting thing to point out is that the proof (disproof) was done by finding a counterexample of Erdős' original conjecture.
I agree with one of the mathematician's responses in the linked PDF that this is somewhat less interesting than proving the actual conjecture was true.
In my eyes proving the conjecture true requires a bit more theory crafting. You have to explain why the conjecture is correct by grounding it in a larger theory while with the counterexample the model has to just perform a more advanced form of search to find the correct construction.
Obviously this search is impressive not naive and requires many steps along the way to prove connections to the counterexample, but instead of developing new deep mathematics the model is still just connecting existing ideas.
Not to discount this monumental achievement. I think we're really getting somewhere! To me, and this is just vibes based, I think the models aren't far from being able to theory craft in such a way that they could prove more complicated conjectures that require developing new mathematics. I think that's just a matter of having them able to work on longer and longer time horizons.
Searching for a proof and disproof are sometimes not so different. In most cases, you nibble the borders to simplify the problem.
For example, to prove something is impossible let's say you first prove that there are only 5 families, and 4 of them are impossible. So now 80% of the problem is solved! :) If you are looking for counterexamples, the search is reduced 80% too. In both cases it may be useful
In counterexamples you can make guess and leaps and if it works it's fine. This is not possible for a proof.
On the other hand, once you have found a counterexample it's usual to hide the dead ends you discarded.
I agree there can be some theory crafting in the search for a counterexample, but in general I think it is easier to search for.
For proving a proposition P I have to show for all x P(x), but for contradiction I only have to show that there exists an x such that not P(x).
While I agree there could be a lot of theory crafting to reduce the search space of possible x's to find not P(x), but with for all x P(x) you have to be able to produce a larger framework that explains why no counter example exists.
> I think that's just a matter of having them able to work on longer and longer time horizons.
No this will never do the kind of math that humans did when coming up with complex numbers, or hell just regular numbers ex nihilo. No matter how long it's given to combine things in its training data.
I currently operate under the assumption that humans are at most as powerful as Turing Machines. And from what I understand these models internally are modeling increasingly harder and larger DFAs, so they're at least as powerful as regular languages.
Assuming humans are more powerful than regular languages I could maybe agree that these methods may not eventually yield entirely human like intelligence, but just better and better approximations.
The vibe I get though is that we aren't more powerful than regular languages, cause human beings feel computationally bounded. So I could see given enough "human signal" these things could learn to imitate us precisely.
Well yeah there is likely an equivalence between computability and epistemology, but I'm not sure it matters when comparing LLM intelligence to human intelligence. There is clearly a missing link that prevents the LLM from reaching beyond its training data the way humans do.
> A difficult part was constructing a chess board on which to play math (Lean). Now it's just pattern recognition and computation.
However, this was not verified in Lean. This was purely plain language in and out. I think, in many ways, this is a quite exciting demonstration of exactly the opposite of the point you're making. Verification comes in when you want to offload checking proofs to computers as well. As it stands, this proof was hand-verified by a group of mathematicians in the field.
Arguing similarly to how stockfish, the chess engine, trains I would not be surprised if this is more common in the future. I don't know if they use any proof verification tools during their reinforcement learning procedure right now, as far as I know they've been focusing more on COT based strategies (w/o Lean). But I'm hardly an LLM expert, I don't know.
That I'd agree with! I really need to get around to learning Lean myself. It might be interesting to try and formalize some missing theoretical pieces from my field (or likely start smaller).
Dystopia vibes from the fictional "Manna" management system [0] used at a hamburger franchise, which involved a lot of "reverse centaur" automation.
> At any given moment Manna had a list of things that it needed to do. There were orders coming in from the cash registers, so Manna directed employees to prepare those meals. There were also toilets to be scrubbed on a regular basis, floors to mop, tables to wipe, sidewalks to sweep, buns to defrost, inventory to rotate, windows to wash and so on. Manna kept track of the hundreds of tasks that needed to get done, and assigned each task to an employee one at a time. [...]
> At the end of the shift Manna always said the same thing. “You are done for today. Thank you for your help.” Then you took off your headset and put it back on the rack to recharge. The first few minutes off the headset were always disorienting — there had been this voice in your head telling you exactly what to do in minute detail for six or eight hours. You had to turn your brain back on to get out of the restaurant.
Casual reminder that the author's proposed solution to the labor-automation dystopia is to invent a second identity-verification dystopia. Also casual reminder that the author wanted the death penalty to anyone over the age of 65.
I disagree. It will be able to perform work deserving if a fields medal before it is capable of running a McDonalds. I think it will be running a McDonalds well before either of those things happen, and a fields medal long after both have happened.
One could hardly ask for a task better suited for LLMs than producing math in Lean. Running a restaurant is so much fuzzier, from the definition of what it even means to the relation of inputs to outputs and evaluating success.
Not necessarily. Obviously playing Kasparov on the board requires more planning ability than managing a McDonald's but look at where chess bots are now.
There's much more to being human than our "cognitive abilities"
I just visited a McDonald's for the first time in a while. The self-order kiosk UI is quite bad. I think this is evidence in favor of the idea that an incompetent AI will soon be incompetently running a McDonald's.
Most repeat customers use the app, which sports the digital equivalent of a loyalty program, and various coupons. And lets you save your 'usual' order with customizations etc. Plus the annoying push notifications for FreeFrydays or whatever. And upsells, new product launches, etc.
My recollection is that the kiosk is just a weak facsimile of the app. And wasn't terrible, but everyone's standards vary.
Out of curiosity, what issue did you have with the McDonald’s self-order kiosk? I actually think McDonald’s has the best kiosk I’ve ever encountered. The little animation that plays when you add an item to your cart is a little annoying (but I think they’ve sped that up). But otherwise, it’s everything I’d want. It shows you all the items, tells you every ingredient, and lets you add or remove ingredients. I have a better experience ordering through the kiosk than I do talking to a cashier.
It takes longer than ordering with a cashier, it keeps trying to upsell you, and it's always out of receipt paper because unsurprisingly the company that isn't willing to pay a person to take orders is also not willing to pay a person to maintain the kiosks.
Depends on what you're ordering and who the cashier is.
If your order is the happy path of no customizations of a combo with an experienced cashier, it can be done in seconds, for sure. "Medium #4 with a Diet Coke", pay, done.
But if you customize your burger or ordering a lot of items a la carte and you're dealing with a new cashier that has weak English skills, good fucking luck. You'll likely need to wait for them to figure out they need to call someone over to help, have to repeat your order, and you end up spending far more time.
> it keeps trying to upsell you
Yeah, I'll agree that's obnoxious, especially when it's trying to upsell you something that's already on your order. I ordered a combo. I don't need you to add another fry.
Hmm. I’ve never really had those issues. It’s also much faster and easier than ordering with a human. I guess it does try to upsell you, but humans often do, too. And to me, it’s worth it to just click “No” in exchange for the added convenience (mostly in getting my order right).
I have had them run out of receipts, but it’s never mattered for me. If I’m dining in, the plastic number you carry to your table makes sure I get my food. And if I’m taking it to-go, they always find me anyways.
> It’s also much faster and easier than ordering with a human.
I'm not sure how that could be. I can walk up to the counter and say "Big Mac Large Fry Small Coke" faster than you can navigate the first screen of the kiosk, and a skilled counter worker can key that in and be done before I even get my credit card out.
The problem, I’m a picky eater. I never order something that simple. I always need it with “No X” or “Only Y”. Cashiers often struggle with that, even if they understand me well (which they don’t always). It’s easier for me to see everything an item comes with and make sure I’m entering my order correctly.
It's easily one of the most intuitive and straightforward kiosks out there today and you don't have to wait for one of the cashiers to notice you nor worry about them punching in your order incorrectly.
Glad someone else feels the same way! Knowing that I enter my order in correctly is the biggest win there for me as a picky eater. The cashier is just entering it into a computer anyways, so it makes sense for me to enter it in myself. I honestly wonder why more restaurants don’t do this. It’s not that hard to wrap a halfway decent UI around the system you already have.
> A difficult part was constructing a chess board on which to play math
We have that chess board for quite a while now, over 40 years. And no, there is nothing special about Lean here, it is just herd mentality. Also, we don't know how much training with Lean helped this particular model.
Managing a McDonalds is a question of integration and modalities at this point. I don't think anyone still doubts that these models lack the reasoning capability or world knowledge needed for the job. So it's less of a fundamental technical problem and more of a process engineering issue.
I disagree. Even frontier models still achieve way worse results than the human baseline in VendingBench. As long as models can't manage optimally something as simple as a vending machine, they have no hope of managing a McDonalds.
Assuming you can still sue McDonalds I am not sure if this is a problem in the robotic llm case. I'm also trying to imagine a case where you would want to sue the llm and not the company. Given robots/llm don't have free will I'm not sure the problem with qualified immunity making police unaccountable applies.
There already exist a lot of similar conventions in corporate law. Generally, a main advantage of incorporation is protecting the people making the decisions from personal lawsuits.
McDonald's are franchises - you generally want to sue the local owner or threaten them in addition to the holding company.
That only requires someone own the ai managed McDonald's though. so long as they can't avoid responsibility by pointing to the AI I don't see why you couldn't sue them.
>Police officers are human. In the United States in the vast majority of cases you can't sue the police, only the community responsible for them.
Police are a monopoly; nobody has a choice about which police company to use. McDonalds are not a monopoly, and many customers would prefer to eat at competitors run by entities that could be sued or jailed if they did anything particularly egregious.
You are missing the point. The point is you can still sue the McDonalds. With the police there is a human intuition to also want to sue the officer, given the officer is a human being who has free will and thus made a choice to violate your rights.
The same intuition applies if you walk into McDonald's and a person there mistreats you. You want that person held responsible.
But the LLM is not a person. What is there to even sue? It just seems like it would simply pass through to the corporate entity without the same tension of feeling like we let a human get away with something. Because there is no human, just a corporation and the robot servicing the place.
Put another way - if the LLM is not a person, what is the advantage of a personal lawsuit?
Just sue the McDonalds. Even in a case where the LLM is extremely misaligned and acts in a way where you might normally personally sue the McDonald's employee, I'm just not sure the human intuition about "holding someone accountable" would have its normal force because again - the LLM is not a person.
So given we already have the notions of incorporation and indemnification it doesn't make sense to say what is precluding LLMs from running McDonald's is they can't be sued. If McDonald's can still be sued, then not only is there no problem, there is very likely not even a change in the status quo.
I think your analogy is good but I don't believe modern LLMs use Lean or any lean-like structure in their proofs. At least recent open source ones like DeepSeek can do advanced math without it (maybe the most cutting edge ones are doing it I can't say).
My claim is that LLMs waste a lot of time training on all available data.
Math is a sequence of formal rules applied to construct a proof tree. Therefore an AI trained on these rules could be far more efficient, and search far deeper into proof space
It has been tried. Lenat's Automated Mathematician, for example. The problem is that the system succumbs to combinatorial explosion, not knowing which directions are interesting/promising/productive. LLMs seem to pick up some kind of intuition from the data they are fed. The generated data might not have the needed "human touch" or whatever it is.
Nonsense. Have you been watching the figure live stream? Or the Unitree video from yesterday with real time novel action generation? We’re less than a year away. If you can cook a burger, assemble a sandwich and clean up surfaces you’re all of the way there.
The proof brings unexpected, sophisticated ideas from algebraic number theory to bear on an elementary geometric question.
The more I read about these achievements the more I get a feeling that a lot of the power of these models comes from having prior knowledge on every possible field and having zero problems transferring to new domains.
To me the potential beauty of this is that these tools might help us break through the increasing super specialization that humans in science have to go through today. Which in one hand is important on the other hand does limit the person in terms of the tooling and inspiration it has access to.
I think traditionally engineering was supposed to be the discipline that brings the breadth that science has to give up. At least that’s how I rationalized the pain I had to go through in college studying EE.
I don’t think that this model works anymore though.
Also, I love the expression “merge the horizon in”. Being a non native speaker of a language is so nice some times. Thanks!
I’ve always been skeptical about the role of LLMs in mathematics, but this is the first time I’ve seen this argument, and I actually find it very compelling. Maybe LLMs will help us develop more horizontal understanding of the field.
It's up to us I think. We can use LLMs to generate web pages in candy crash style and end up dumper by outsourcing thinking to the machines or we can use it to expand our cognitive capabilities.
What makes me more of an optimist in this case is that people who today decide to go into these sciences are mostly people who are driven by intellectual activity so I feel they are the right ones to figure this out, probably more so than us the engineers.
Unfortunately, LLMs might lead to the demise of the primary institution that allows for people that are in it for the love of intellectual activity to do that activity, namely research universities. Certainly the people proposing the tech are quite opposed to the modern university.
Yep. The thing is people (maybe because of our limited scope) just focus on the depth and not the breadth. Because this is a general purpose model - it also has PhD+ knowledge in Physics, Biology, History, etc.
I think we still don't really comprehend how much can be achieved by a single "mind" that has internalized so much knowledge from so many areas.
I like how everyone laughed when OpenAI said their models will have "PhD-Level Intelligence" and now the goalpost has been moved to if AI can create new math (i.e., not PhD-Level, but Leibniz/Euler/Galois level.)
I don't have enough information about the announcement for it to mean much to me. I don't know much about this field of maths. I don't know how many mathematicians were actively working on this problem. It could be zero, which would indicate it's not really that interesting. The article gushes about how it's a Very Important Problem, but it's not even mentioned on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conjectures_by_Paul_Er.... I'm sure the busy folk at openAI will fix that soon however. Furthermore the extensive dishonesty of companies like openAI makes me suspicious of just how this was achieved. Overall the announcement is of little interest to my "priors", although I don't typically think in such terms.
Personally I don't find this to be true anymore! It's not always great and does still will often tend towards unneeded complexity (especially if not pushed a bit), but I often find GPT 5.5 writing code I would have written myself. This was very much not true with earlier models (who make something that worked, but I'd always have to rewrite to make it "good code").
The summarized chain of thought for this task (linked in the blogpost) is 125 pages. That's an insane scale of reasoning, quite akin to what Anthropic has been teasing with Mythos.
Is there a reason why we only hear of Erdos problems being solved? I would imagine there are a myriad of other unsolved problems in math, but every single ChatGPT "breakthrough in math" I come across on r/singularity and r/accelerate are Erdos problems.
Erdős problems form a substantial fraction of all mathematical problems that have been explicitly stated but not solved; are sufficiently famous that people care about them; and are sufficiently uninteresting that people have not spent that much effort trying to solve them.
Solving problems people have already stated is a niche activity in mathematical research. More often, people study something they find interesting, try to frame it in a way that can be solved with the tools they have, and then try to come up with a solution. And in the ideal case, both the framing and the solution will be interesting on their own.
No, Erdos problems were accepted as sort of a benchmark. There's a bunch of reasons they're favorable for this task:
1. They have a wide range of difficulties.
2. They were curated (Erdos didn't know at first glance how to solve them).
3. Humans already took the time to organize, formally state, add metadata to them.
4. There's a lot of them.
If you go around looking for a mathematics benchmark it's hard to do better than that.
It's a large set of problems that are both interesting and difficult, but not seen as foundational enough or important enough that they have already had sustained attention on them by mathematicians for decades or centuries, and so they might actually be solvable by an LLM.
> The argument relies crucially on ideas that may, at least in retrospect, be attributed to Ellenberg-Venkatesh, Golod-Shafarevich, and Hajir-Maire-Ramakrishna.
Without knowing all this model has been trained on though, it is pretty hard to ascertain the extent to which it arrived to this "on its own". The entire AI industry has been (not so secretly) paying a lot of experts in many fields to generate large amounts of novel training data. Novel training data that isn't found anywhere else--they hoard it--and which could actually contain original ideas.
It isn't likely that someone solved this and then just put it in the training data, although I honestly wouldn't put that past OpenAI. More interesting though is the extent to which they've generated training data that may have touched on most or all of the "original" tenets found in this proof.
We can't know, of course. But until these things are built in a non-clandestine manner, this question will always remain.
I’m quite certain that a few months ago, some problems were claimed to be solved by AI. However, those claims were actually false and were exactly that, solved erdos problems that were not marked as solved and the solution was "found" by AI.
The corollary is that this is a very valuable capability of AI!
The ability to find incredibly obscure facts and recall them to solve "officially unsolved" problems in minutes is like Google Search on steroids. In some sense, it is one core component of "deep expertise", and humans rely on the same methodology regularly to solve "hard" problems. Many mathematicians have said that they all just use a "bag of tricks" they've picked up and apply them to problems to see if they work. The LLMs have a huge bag of very obscure tricks, and are starting to reach the point that they can effectively apply them also.
I suspect the threshold of AGI will be crossed when the AIs can invent novel "tricks" on their own, and memorise their own new approach for future use without explicitly having to have their weights updated with "offline" training runs.
How is that a "tin-foil-hat" take? It's not a secret, and in fact widely reported, that these companies are spending billions on creating training data.
So you think that OpenAI paid some mathematicians to either solve this conjecture problem, or a bunch of related unpublished math related to it, then fed it into an LLM model so they could announce it as being solved by the model? How is that not a conspiracy theory?
It is just a theory, the conspiracy part is not really applicable. I don't see what is controversial about it. Are you implying the machine taught itself the mathematics to do all this?
I'm not letting the government read my brainwaves.
In all seriousness though: My suggestion is that those shepherding the frontier of AI start acting with more transparency, and stop acting in ways that encourage conspiratorial thinking. Especially if the technology is as powerful as they market it as.
Would be interesting to know what kind of preparatory work actually went into this - how long did it take to construct an input that produced a real result, and how much input did they get from actual mathematicians to guide refining it
It's clearly not yet a tool that can deliver new math at a scale. I say this because otherwise, the headline would be that they proved / disproved a hundred conjectures, not one. This is what happened with Mythos. You want to be the AI company that "solved" math, just like Anthropic got the headlines for "solving" (or breaking?) security.
The fact they're announcing a single success story almost certainly means that they've thrown a lot of money at a lot of problems, had experts fine-tuning the prompts and verifying the results, and it came back with a single "hit". But that doesn't make the result less important. We now have a new "solver" for math that can solve at least some hard problems that weren't getting solved before.
Whether that spells the end of math as we know... I don't think so, but math is a bit weird. It's almost entirely non-commercial: it's practiced chiefly in the academia, subsidized from taxes or private endowments, and almost never meant to solve problems of obvious practical importance - so in that sense, it's closer to philosophy than, say, software engineering. No philosopher is seriously worried about LLMs taking philosopher jobs even though they a chatbot can write an essay, but mathematicians painted themselves into a different corner, I think.
Says in the papers. "...which was first mathematically generated in one shot by an internal model at OpenAI, and then expositionally refined through
human interactions with Codex."
Doesn't really matter the prep-work, what they say is it's a one-shot result, achieved by AI. The blog doesn't claim it was done by a currently public Model.
From my limited testing, Gemini can dig out hard to find information given you detail your prompt enough.
Given that Google is the "web indexing company", finding hard to find things is natural for their models, and this is the only way I need these models for.
If I can't find it for a week digging the internet, I give it a colossal prompt, and it digs out what I'm looking for.
This is my experience too. Gemini and Gemini deep research are awesome. Claude's deep research is pretty bad really relative to ChatGPT or Gemini.
Overall, I still love Claude the best but it is not what I would want to use if I wanted to really dig into deep research.
The export to google docs in Gemini deep research is tough to beat too. I haven't used Gemini since January but have probably years of material from saved deep research in google docs. Almost an overwhelming amount of information when I dive into what I saved.
Gemini seems better trained for learning and I think Google has made a more deliberate effort to optimize for pedagoical best practices. (E.g. tutoring, formative feedback, cognitive load optimization)
As far as academic research is concerned (e.g. this threads topic), I can't say.
Gemini the chatbot has a very strange personality that intensely overindexes on your user profile and absolutely loves insane mixed metaphors.
Its explanations are quite good but they're also hard to understand because it keeps trying to relate everything back to programming metaphors or what it thinks it knows about the streets in the neighborhood I live in.
Gemini is like someone with short-term memory loss; after the first response, it forgets everything. That being said, I have checked multiple model and gemini can sometime give accurate answer.
What strikes me in this case (and I haven't seen in other comments) is that it's a _disproof_ of a conjecture put forth by Erdős and supported (at least according to OpenAI) by other professional mathematicians. Erdős, one of the greats, thought that the limit was O(n^{1 + o(1)}), which GPT disproved.
We can argue about recombination/interpolation of training data in LLMs, but even if this was an interpolation, the result was contrarian rather than a confirmation. Any system that can identify an error in Erdős's thinking seems very useful to me (though perhaps he did not spend much time thinking about or checking this particular conjecture).
This only a proof that a field with more connections is possible, not what it looks like.
I’m very out of my depth, but the structure of the proof seems to follow a pattern similar to a proof by contradiction. Where you’d say for example “assume for the sake of contradiction that the previously known limit is the highest possible” then prove that if that statement is true you get some impossible result.
I actually tried using GPT-5.5 Pro on this problem recently. It thought it was making progress on one path, but it made so many mistakes that it didn't feel worth it pushing further. It'll be interesting to check whether it's the same route. I got partial results (proved in Lean) that improve on the best-known results for four Erdős problems with GPT-5.5 Pro
Few questions that the blog did not answer, if anyone knows that'll be great:
- Does anyone know if this was a 1 minute of inference or 1 month?
- How many times did the model say it was done disproving before it was found out that the model was wrong/hallucinating?
- One of the graphs say - the model produced the right answer almost half the times at the peak compute??? did i understand that right? what does peak compute mean here?
Not to dismiss the AI but the important part is that you still need someone able to recognize these solutions in the first place. A lot of things were just hidden in plain sight before AI but no one noticed or didn't have the framework either in maths or any other field they're specialized in to recognize those feats.
How do you even get an LLM to try to solve one of these problems? When I ask it just comes back with the name of the problem and saying "it can't be done"
Speaking as a postdoc in math, I must say that this is rather exciting. This is outside of my field, but the companion remarks document is quite digestible. It appears as though the proof here fairly inspired by results in literature, but the tweaks are non-trivial. Or, at least to me, they appear to be substantial to where I would consider the entire publication novel and exciting.
Many of my colleagues and I have been experimenting with LLMs in our research process. I've had pretty great success, though fairly rarely do they solve my entire research question outright like this. Usually, I end up with a back and forth process of refinements and questions on my end until eventually the idea comes apparent. Not unlike my traditional research refinement process, just better. Of course, I don't have access to the model they're using =) .
Nevertheless, one thing that struck me in this writeup, was the lack of attribution in the quoted final response from the model. In a field like math, where most research is posted publicly and is available, attribution of prior results is both social credit and how we find/build abstractions and concentrate attention. The human-edited paper naturally contains this. I dug through the chain-of-thought publication and did actually find (a few of) them. If people working on these LLMs are reading, it's very important to me that these are contained in the actual model output.
One more note: the comments on articles like these on HN and otherwise are usually pretty negative / downcast. There's great reason for that, what with how these companies market themselves and how proponents of the technology conduct themselves on social media. Moreover, I personally cannot feel anything other than disgust seeing these models displace talented creatives whose work they're trained on (often to the detriment of quality). But, for scientists, I find that these tools address the problem of the exploding complexity barrier in the frontier. Every day, it grows harder and harder to contain a mental map of recent relevant progress by simple virtue of the amount being produced. I cannot help but be very optimistic about the ambition mathematicians of this era will be able to scale to. There still remain lots of problems in current era tools and their usage though.
I cannot quite share your enthusiasm. The clearest analogy that I can think of to try to explain why I feel this way is that it seems there will eventually be a phantom textbook of all of mathematics contained in the weights of an LLM; every definition, every proof, etc; and the role of a mathematician is going to be reduced towards reading certain parts of this phantom textbook (read: prompting an LLM to generate a proof or explore some problem) and sharing the resulting text with others, which of course anybody else could have found if they simply also knew the right point of the textbook.
To be blunt, this seems incredibly uninteresting to me. I enjoy learning mathematics, sure, but I just don't find much inherent meaning in reading a textbook or a paper. The meaning comes from the taking those ideas and applying them to my own problems, be it a direct proof of a conjecture or coming up with the right framework or tools for those conjectures. But, of course, in this future, those proofs and frameworks are already in the textbook. So what's the point? If someone cared about these answers in the first place, they probably could have found the right prompt to extract it from this phantom textbook anyways.
You could argue for there being work still like marginal improvements and applying the returned proof to other scenarios as happened in this case, but as above, what is really there to do if this is already in the phantom textbook somewhere and you just need to prompt better? The mathematicians in this case added to the exposition of the proof, but why wouldn't the phantom textbook already have good enough exposition in the first place?
I think my complete dismissal of the value of things like extending the proofs from an LLM or improving exposition is too strong -- there is value in both of them, and likely will always be -- but it would still represent a sharp change in what a mathematician does that I don't think I am excited for. I also don't think this phantom textbook is contained even in the weights of whatever internal model was used here just yet (especially since as some of the mathematicians in the article pointed out, a disproof here did not need to build any new grand theories), but it really does seem to me it eventually will be, and I can't help but find the crawl towards that point somewhat discouraging.
Why would it excite you, rather than terrifying you? The better LLMs get at math, the closer the expertise you spent your whole life building is to being worthless.
Along with all the rest of what humans find meaningful and fulfilling.
What's happening is the verbal/linguistic equivalent of the invention of calculus. No intellectual field will ever be the same again. Who wouldn't find that exciting, and want to experience it?
I'm not sure I grasp the analogy to the invention of calculus. Calculus helped us solve new and interesting math/physics problems. Repeated for emphasis: helped *us* solve.
This technology is solving interesting math/physics problems for us, which is completely different.
It is disheartening to see him jump into this GenAI puffery.
I hope these GenAI labs are paying Tao handsomely for legitimizing their slop, but more likely he's feeling pressure from his University to promote and work with these labs.
My guess is Gowers wants in on that action, or his University does.
Either way, it makes me sad. If its self motivated... even sadder.
I'm not sure your characterization of Tao is accurate lol. In that companion paper, only Gowers seems to extensively show no pragmatism in the implications of this accomplishment. Even the younger math experts in that paper were a lot more cautious with their statements. Tao seems to follow that same tune most of the time even though he uses AI for first-pass inspections of solutions brought to his attention.
Are you saying this result is uninteresting and therefore AI slop or puffery? Obviously OpenAI has a motivation to "market" the accomplishment as much as possible, but surely you agree it IS a remarkable achievement?
I'm not a scientist but I like to LARP as one in my free time, and I have found ChatGPT/Claude extremely useful for research, and I'd go as far as to say it supercharged it for me.
When I'm learning about a new subject, I'll ask Claude to give me five papers that are relevant to what I'm learning about. Often three of the papers are either irrelevant or kind of shit, but that leaves 2/5 of them that are actually useful. Then from those papers, I'll ask Claude to give me a "dependency graph" by recursing on the citations, and then I start bottom-up.
This was game-changing for me. Reading advanced papers can be really hard for a variety of reasons, but one big one can simply be because you don't know the terminology and vernacular that the paper writers are using. Sometimes you can reasonably infer it from context, but sometimes I infer incorrectly, or simply have to skip over a section because I don't understand it. By working from the "lowest common denominator" of papers first, it generally makes the entire process easier.
I was already doing this to some extent prior to LLMs, as in I would get to a spot I didn't really understand, jump to a relevant citation, and recurse until I got to an understanding, but that was kind of a pain in the ass, so having a nice pretty graph for me makes it considerably easier for me to read and understand more papers.
One heuristic I used during my masters degree research thesis was to look for the seminal people or papers in a field by using google scholar to find the most cited research papers and then reading everything else by that author / looking at the paper's references for others. You often only need to go back 3-4 papers to find some really seminal/foundational stuff.
Yeah, that's actually how I discovered Leslie Lamport like ten years ago. I was looking for papers on distributed consensus, and it's hard not to come across Paxos when doing that. It turns out that he has oodles of really great papers across a lot of different cool things in computer science and I feel like I understand a lot more about this space because of it.
It doesn't hurt that Lamport is exceptionally good at explaining things in plain language compared to a lot of other computer scientists.
It's a very complicated matter honestly. This is a new height that AI has reached, even though it follows the usual methods of success that it has had.
What strikes me as unusual though is that they do make a point of saying things like "this is a general purpose model that wasn't trained on the problem" among a few other things as if that's new. The last bountied problem they accomplished used a public model that ALSO didn't rely on specialized training. And that didn't make their blog.
I’d give humans some credit, they’re an adaptable bunch. AI won’t replace humans in the same way humans did not replace cockroaches. It’s a non-sequitur.
We generally don’t allow cockroaches to thrive in the spaces we claim for ourselves. Question is how much space (economic or otherwise) will AI claim for itself and whether there will be any left for us.
Also it costs a lot to train and run individual humans, and they can only be run for brief periods per day before they crash, hallucinate and possibly get irretrievably broken.
Not only it supercharged science it supercharges scientist. Research on any narrow topic is a different world now. Agents can read 50 papers for you and tell you what's where. This was impossible with pure text search. Looking up non-trivial stuff and having complex things explained to you is also amazing. I mean they don't even have to be complex, but can be for adjacent field where these are basics from the other field but happen to be useful in yours. The list goes on. It's a hammer you need to watch your fingers, it's not good at cutting wood, but it's definitely worth having.
It's a very heavy hammer. I used it in the way you describe and after double-checking noticed some crucial details were missed and certain facts were subtly misrepresented.
But I agree with you, especially in areas where they have a lot of training data, they can be very useful and save tons of time.
I don't think there's a substitute for reading the source material. You have to read the actual paper that's cited. You have to read the code that's being sourced/generated. But used as a reasoning search engine, it's a huge enabler. I mean so much of research literally is reasoning through piles of existing research. There's probably a large amount of good research (especially the kind that don't easily get grant funding) that can "easily" shake out through existing literature that humans just haven't been able to synthesize correctly.
I think it's worth being skeptical of this.. there's a way too common pattern of "AI Lab Shows AI Doing Something Only Humans Can Do" only for a bunch of important caveats and limitations to be discovered after the initial hype. And of course, the correction never seems to be as viral as the hype. I'll believe it when a mathematician actually reads the 100+ pages of reasoning.
I’m curious about the “autonomous” claim. Usually these systems require a human to guide and verify steps, clarify problems, etc. are they claiming that the reinforcement model wasn’t given any inputs, tools, guidance, or training data from humans?
What is preventing AI from continuing to improve until it is absolutely better than humans at any mental task?
If we compare AI now vs 2022 the difference is outstandingly stark. Do you believe this improvement will just stop before it eclipses all humans in everything we care about?
> What is preventing AI from continuing to improve until it is absolutely better than humans at any mental task?
No matter how much compute time it's given to combine training samples with each other and run through a validation engine it will still be missing some chunk of the "long tail". To make progress in the long tail it would need to have understanding, and not just a mimicry of understanding. Unless that happens they will always be dependent on the humans that they are mimicking in order to improve.
> What is the difference between what LLM's do and "true" understanding?
The thing where you can understand the meaning of this sentence without first compiling a statistical representation of a 10 trillion line corpus of training data.
When you think about the word apple and what it signifies, what do you experience? Is there a feeling of "appleness"? Do you think that sense of meaning is equivalent to the numerical weights of an LLM?
That’s one possibility. If it fails to convince a critical mass that it’s a net improvement in their lives, then the impediment to continual improvement will be sabotage.
I think there's been natural but steady progress with since 2024 with the release of the o1 model, which showed impressive reasoning capabilities. But I think it's wrong to look at the magnitude of the accomplishments and assume that will be field independent. We don't know the range of problems reasoning techniques are useful for. What we see here is refinement of capabilities that have been noticeable for years.
One qualitative distinction that remains for the time being is that humans care about things while AIs do not. Human drive and motivation is needed to have AI perform tasks.
While the result is impressive, this blog post is extremely disappointing.
- It does not show an example of the new best solution, nor explain why they couldn't show an example (e.g. if the proof was not constructive)
- It does not even explain the previous best solution. The diagram of the rescaled unit grid doesn't indicate what the "points" are beyond the normal non-scaled unit grid. I have no idea what to take away from it.
- It's description of the new proof just cites some terms of art with no effort made to actually explain the result.
If this post were not on the OpenAI blog, I would assume it was slop. I understand advanced pure mathematics is complicated, but it is entirely possible to explain complicated topics to non-experts.
Indeed, it's a pity. While many advanced math problems are highly abstract or convoluted to explain to a layman audience, this one in particular is about points in a 2D plane and distances. A drawing would have been nice.
apparently the proof is not constructive in the sense of not giving an easy to compute recipe for generating a set of points that you can plot on a 2d plane
Sadly math professors aren't very expensive. Academics are paid terrible wages. Until recently, tenure was the carrot at the end of a grueling education. But now that tenure positions are getting rarer (well, tenure positions aren't growing vs the number of aspiring academics is), they continue to be cheap highly educated labor.
I would have thought a triangular grid works better than a grid of squares. You get ~3n links vs ~2n for the square grid. Curious what the AI came up with.
Knowing OpenAI, the solution's probably being withheld as a trade secret, lest it fall victim to distillation attacks (i.e. exactly the same shit they did to the open Internet).
The grid of squares actually gets > Cn for any C. (More in fact… C can grow like n^a/loglog(n).) The AI proved > n^{1 + b} for some small b > 0, which a human (Will Sawin) has now proved can be about b = 0.014. The grid can be rescaled so the edges are not necessarily length 1, but other pairs will have length 1; that is necessary to get more than 2n unit distances.
"The proof came from a general-purpose reasoning model, not a system built specifically to solve math problems or this problem in particular, and represents an important milestone for the math and AI communities."
The accomplishment is cool. But all Erdos problems and other complicated mathematical problems they solved were accomplished with general-purpose models too. In fact for some of those problems, including bountied ones, they were public models. So I don't get saying this
all reasoning is .. well problem reasoning. restricting black-box AIs to specific human-defined domains because we believe that's better is such a human-ist thing to do.
It seems plausible given that people have been using off the shelf 5.5 xhigh to decent success with some erdos problems. There is likely still some scaffolding around it though (like parallel sampling or separate verifier step) since it's not clear if you can just "one shot" problems like this.
There may be years of investigation as to how far you can generalize these methods. As to how central it is, it's a longstanding problem that Erdos loves to cite for that branch of math.
The thing is is that it seems a lot of the effort through the years (which is unquantifiable in scale as to how much time was spent and how many people focused their entire worklives on it if any) has gone for trying to look for the proof, and the search for the disproof seems minimal.
The blog post links a pdf that OpenAI put together of nine mathematicians that commented on the proof. Each is quite brief and written in accessible terms (or more accessible terms, at least). https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/74c24085-19b0-4534-9c90-465b8e29a...
As this becomes more common it makes me wonder where the LLM ends and the harness begins.
The underlying model may still effectively be a stochastic parrot, but used properly that can do impressive things and the various harnesses have been getting better and better at automating the use of said parrot.
Every time I interact even with OpenAI's pro model, I am forced to come to the conclusion that anything outside the domain of specific technical problems is almost completely hopeless outside of a simple enhanced search and summary engine.
For example, these machines, if scaling intellect so fiercely that they are solving bespoke mathematics problems, should be able to generate mundane insights or unique conjectures far below the level of intellect required for highly advanced mathematics - and they simply do not.
Ask a model to give you the rundown and theory on a specific pharmacological substance, for example. It will cite the textbook and meta-analyses it pulls, but be completely incapable of any bespoke thinking on the topic. A random person pursuing a bachelor's in chemistry can do this.
Anything at all outside of the absolute facts, even the faintest conjecture, feels completely outside of their reach.
> AI is about to start taking a very serious role in the creative parts of research, and most importantly AI research itself. While this progress is not unexpected, it reinforces the urgency we feel about understanding this next phase of AI development, the challenges of aligning very intelligent systems, and the future of human-AI collaboration.
I find this hyperbolic, but ya gotta juice up the upcoming IPO. I hate that they took an interesting announcement and reminded me why I hate tech and our society at the end.
"This is a general-purpose LLM. It wasn’t targeted at this problem or even at mathematics. Also, it’s not a scaffold. We have not pushed this model to the limit on open problems. Our focus is to get it out quickly so that everyone can use it for themselves." - Noam Brown (OpenAI reasoning researcher) on X
Is this something that can be made explainable to someone without any of the relevant background, or is this one of those things where all that background is needed to understand it? Because I have no idea what's going on here, but would like to.
This part of the announcement holds no value besides maybe taking a shot at the Deepmind Co-Mathematician paper. Nearly every mathematical success they've achieved around the GPT 5.2 generation has been done with general (and even public) models. Their last bountied problem solved was done with 5.4 Pro, also a general model.
The back and forth in this discussion reveals to me we are sorting through a kind of philosophical debate about intelligence. That alone tells me LLMs are doing something novel.
Absolutely no proof that any LLM actually found the result, and just a mention of an "internal model". Served to you by one of the biggest liars in the world.
Why would anyone believe this to be true even for a split second?
This has been an unsolved open problem for 80 years. What you're suggesting is that someone connected to Open AI solved this very hard math problem, but then rather than taking credit for it, falsely attributed it to AI?
The point of having an AI solve an unsolved problem, is to make it very clear that the insight must have come from the AI and wasn't in the training data. Sure, it's possible OpenAI had access to some math professors that solved it and then let an AI model take the credit... but seems unlikely. That human would be turning down a Fields Medal for this discovery.
I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that AI is a grid of grid-calculating grids. It seems like it would be especially well suited to finding solutions about grids. That is until you consider the fact that even 1 trillion billion grids is still not anywhere close to an infinite grid. So, probably slop.
People thought neural networks were just an interesting thought exercise a few decades ago and not for practical ML problems, and look what happened since then.
Back when “term rewriting” was “AI”, multiple math tools were released that took known math facts and did tricks like uncovering new integrals - apply the pattern in some depth in a tree, see what pops out.
What was discovered were numerous mistakes in the published literature on the subject. “New math! AI!” No, just mechanical application of rules, human mistakes.
There were things that were theorized, but couldn’t be exhaustively checked until computers were bigger.
Once again, a tool is applied, it has the AI label - its progress! But it isn’t something new. It’s just an LLM.
There’s a consistent under appreciation of AI (and math, honestly), but watching soulless AI mongers declare that their toy has created the new is something of a new low; uninspired, failed creatives, without rhyme or context; this is a bigger version of declaring that your spell checker has created new words.
The result is more impressive than what was done with tables of integrals and SAINT in 1961, sure.
Apparently if you add a “temperature” knob to a text predictor, otherwise sane individuals piss themselves and call it new.
Then again I thought NFTs, crypto, and the Metaverse were stupid, so what do I know.
I dunno, I'm skeptical without proof. I've had the MAX+ plan for a while and I'm sorry, the quality between GPT vs Claude is night and day difference. Claude understands. GPT stumbles over every request I give it.
Except its not a proof. It's an existential proof of what? Projecting points and loosing density? Nah, it's wrong. At least with Edros you could solve f(x) or not solve it (inf). You can not with this. All they did was balance a really fancy quadratic equation. The projection from C^f to R² doesn't demonstrate geometric injectivity, so nⱼ = |X| isn't established, and the bound collapses.
This HN thread depressed me. I’m still thinking about why.
Look past the press-releasey gushing from OpenAI and there are all sorts of interesting and subtle questions here about the role for LLMs in mathematical research. I urge folks to click through to the accompanying comments from mathematicians published alongside the result. There is a really interesting discussion going on. I particularly recommend Tim Gowers’ remarks. This is really interesting stuff!
Yet the comments are just a battleground of people rehearsing the same tired arguments about LLMs from 2023, refutations of those arguments, angry counters, etc.
Does it make anyone else sad that the battle lines seem to have been drawn 3 years ago and we just seem to have the same fights over and over?
I wonder if we’ll still be doing this two years hence.
Yes, this and every internet forum will still be doing this two years hence. Your life will be better if you take to heart this famous passage from Nietzsche:
I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation.
We won’t be doing it in 2 years. By then my side will have won!
People are afraid for their livelihood. What do you expect?
Livelihoods and lives.
I think part of it is that one side throws rocks and so it never even matters was is in the article. It becomes a battle if the article is good or the article is shit.
Yes, I'm tired too. I want you have real discussions about these things. But the problem is everyone believes their reality is real and anyone's reality that disagrees is fake. It just escalates. I take long breaks from HN because I realize I just come to the forums and end up being angry. Why do we do this to ourselves? The reality is that at a core level we usually want the same things.
To the “LLMs just interpolate their training data” crowd:
Ayer, and in a different way early Wittgenstein, held that mathematical truths don’t report new facts about the world. Proofs unfold what is already implicit in axioms, definitions, symbols, and rules.
I think that idea is deeply fascinating, AND have no problem that we still credit mathematicians with discoveries.
So either “recombining existing material” isn’t disqualifying, or a lot of Fields Medals need to be returned.
I just hope we can get past this phase of needing to assess LLM capabilities against an arbitrary one dimensional yard stick labeled 'Not Human' on end and "Beyond Human' on the other.
It's irrelevant and pointless. Irrelevant not just in the sense that when Deep Blue finally beat Kasparov, it didn't change anything but in the sense some animals and machines have always been 'better' on some dimensions than humans. And it's pointless because there's never been just one yardstick and even if there was it's not one dimensional or even linear. Everyone has their own yardstick and the end points on each change over time.
Don't assume I'm handing "the win" to the AI supremacists either. LLMs can be very useful tools and will continue to dramatically improve but they'll never surpass humans on ALL the dimensions that some humans think are crucial. The supremacists are doomed to eternal frustration because there won't ever be a definitive list of quantifiable metrics, a metaphorical line in the sand, that an AI just has to jump over to finally be universally accepted as superior to humans in all ways. It will never happen.
I'd hope most functional adults understand that the Fields Medal and basically every other annual "prize" out there is awarded to both "recombinant" innovations and "new-dimensional thinking" innovations. Humans aren't going to come up with "new-dimensional" innovations in every field, every single year.
I'd say yes, LLMs "just" recombine things. I still don't think if you trained an LLM with every pre-Newton/Liebniz algebra/geometry/trig text available, it could create calculus. (I'm open to being proven wrong.) But stuff like this is exactly the type of innovation LLMs are great at, and that doesn't discount the need for humans to also be good at "recombinant" innovation. We still seem to be able to do a lot that they cannot in terms of synthesizing new ideas.
Also, I'm not sure why CS people act like axioms are where you start. Finding them is very very difficult. It can take some real innovation because you're trying to get rid of things, not build on top of. True for a lot of science too. You don't just build up. You tear down. You translate. You go sideways. You zoom in. You zoom out. There are so many tools at your disposal. There's so much math that has no algorithmic process to it. If you think it all is, your image is too ideal (pun(s) intended).
But at the same time I get it, it is a level of math (and science) people never even come into contact with. People think they're good at math because they can do calculus. You're leagues ahead of most others around you, yes, and be proud of that. But don't let that distance deceive you into believing you're anywhere near the experts. There's true for much more than just math, but it's easy to demonstrate to people that they don't understand math. Granted, most people don't want to learn, which is perfectly okay too
I think an LLM trained on pre-calculus material would easily stumble into reinventing at least early calculus. It's already pretty easy for students to stumble into calculus from solid enough fundamentals.
We even think that the Babylonian astronomers figured out they could integrate over velocity to predict the position of Jupiter.
I agree with almost all of what you have stated, save for a minor nitpick: I frankly don't think most functional adults think about the Fields Medal, similar annual prizes, or the qualities of the innovations of their candidate pools. I also think that that's totally okay. I think among a certain learned cohort of adults it's okay to hope that, and I think it's okay to imagine an idealized world where having an opinion on this sort of matter is a baseline, but I don't think it's realistic or fair to imply that (what I believe handwavily to be a majority of) adults are nonfunctional for not sharing this understanding.
> I still don't think if you trained an LLM with every pre-Newton/Liebniz algebra/geometry/trig text available, it could create calculus.
Yes but that is because there was not enough text available to create an intelligent LLM to begin with.
To keep my usual rant short: I think you’re assuming a categorical distinction between those two types of innovations that just doesn’t exist. Calculus certainly required some fundamental paradigm shifts, but there’s a reason that they didn’t have to make up many words wholesale to explain it!
Also we shouldn’t be thinking about what LLMs are good at, but rather what any computer ever might be good at. LLMs are already only one (essential!) part of the system that produced this result, and we’ve only had them for 3 years.
Also also this is a tiny nitpick but: the fields medal is every 4 years, AFAIR. For that exact reason, probably!
We have had LLMs for much longer than 3 years.
I took humans thousands of years, then hundreds of years, to come to terms with very basic concepts about numbers.
Its amazing to me when people talk about recombining things, or following up on things as somehow lesser work.
People can't separate the perspective they were given when they learned the concepts, that those who developed the concepts didn't have because they didn't exist.
Simple things are hard, or everything simple would have been done hundreds of years ago, and that is certainly not the case. Seeing something others have not noticed is very hard, when we don't have the concepts that the "invisible" things right in front of us will teach us.
It's why the invention of teaching has been so important. Took a long time for humans to develop calculus. A long time to then refine it and make it much more useful. But then in a year or two an average person can learn what took hundreds of years to invent. It's crazy to equate these tasks as being the same. Even incremental innovation is difficult. You have to see something billions of people haven't. But there's also paradigm shifts and well... if you're not considered crazy at first then did you really shift a paradigm?
Anyone in the arts is aware that creativity is not the new, it is the repackaging of what already exists into something that is itself new.
Except for "Being John Malkovich". That movie was way out there on its own.
It's "just" a Man-vs-Self story, of the ~7 story archetypes out there.
When people say this what they mean is that we've had plausibly useful LLMs for around three years, and I would say that is basically true. The stuff before 2023 could barely be classified above the level of an interesting toy.
When people say this what they mean is that we've had plausibly useful LLMs for around three years, and I would say that is basically true.
No, we haven't, for any reasonable definition of L.
OpenAI themselves must not have a "reasonable definition of L", then. Their own papers and press releases refer to GPT-2 (from 2019) as a "large language model".
https://openai.com/index/better-language-models/
Yes, and 1.5 billion parameters meets no reasonable current definition of large. It would be considered a tiny language model. OpenAI themselves refer to their small/fast models as small models all over their documentation.
Sure we do, since Fei-Fei Li and team created that annotated dataset, which allowed to train first LLMs. So LLMs are here for more than a decade already.
You are confused by what the L and L mean in LLM, or which data set she created, or both, or in general.
Fine, 8 years? That's not a long time
The fundamental paradigm shift is the categorical distinction. And what would constitute many new words for you? It introduced a bunch of concepts and terms which we take for granted today, including "derivative", "integral", "infinitesimal", "limit" and even "function", the latter two not a new words, but what does it matter? – the associated meanings were new.
There was a lot new in calculus, but it also didn't come out of nowhere.
That Newton and Leibniz came up with similar ideas in parallel, independently, around the same time (what are the odds?), supports that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%E2%80%93Newton_calculu...
> I still don't think if you trained an LLM with every pre-Newton/Liebniz algebra/geometry/trig text available, it could create calculus. (I'm open to being proven wrong.)
The experiment is feasible. If it were performed and produced a positive result, what would it imply/change about how you see LLMs?
GP was stating that they don't believe this would happen (I don't either), but also to make the point that it's a falsifiable view. (At least in theory. In practice, there probably won't even be enough historical text to train an LLM on). No, I don't think it would be falsified. Asking what if I'm wrong is kind of redundant. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, duh.
How are you going to train a frontier level llm with no references to post 1700 mathematics?
Time cutoff LLMs are regularly posted to HN. It takes just one success to prove feasibility.
Besides, we can forecast our thoughts and actions to imagined scenarios unconditioned on their possibility. Something doesn't have to be possible for us to imagine our reactions.
"frontier level" is doing a lot of work there, but the idea would be to only feed it earlier sources.
There are people working on this.
e.g. https://github.com/haykgrigo3/TimeCapsuleLLM
The problem is the amount of data with that cutoff is really minuscule to produce anything powerful. You might be able to generate a lot of 1700s sounding data, you’d have to be careful not to introduce newer concepts or ways of thinking in that synthetic data though. A lot of modern texts talk about rates of change and the like in ways that are probably influenced by preexisting knowledge of calculus.
Doesn't it prove GP's point then, that LLMs themselves simply aren't capable of creating/proving new theories and axioms?
Without passing opinion on GP's point, I think that just proves it's hard to establish a data set that doesn't bias toward the result you're hoping to find.
Archimede was close.
I like to think of it as:
Imagine every bit of human knowledge as a discrete point within some large high dimensional space of knowledge. You can draw a big convex hull around every single point of human knowledge in a space. A LLM, being trained within this convex hull, can interpolate between any set of existing discrete points in this hull to arrive at a point which is new, but still inside of the hull. Then there are points completely outside of the hull; whether or not LLMs can reach these is IMO up for debate.
Reaching new points inside of the hull is still really useful! Many new discoveries and proofs are these new points inside of the hull; arguable _most_ useful new discoveries and proofs are these. They're things that we may not have found before, but you can arrive at by using what we already have as starting points. Many math proofs and Nobel Prize winning discoveries are these types of points. Many haven't been found yet simply because nobody has put the time or effort towards finding them; LLMs can potentially speed this up a lot.
Then there are the points completely outside of hull, which cannot be reached by extrapolation/interpolation from existing points and require genuine novel leaps. I think some candidate examples for these types of points are like, making the leap from Newtonian physics to general relativity. Demis Hassabis had a whole point about training an AI with a physics knowledge cutoff date before 1915, then showing it the orbit of Mercury and seeing if it can independently arrive at general relativity as an evaluation of whether or not something is AGI. I have my doubts that existing LLMs can make this type of leap. It’s also true that most _humans_ can’t make these leaps either; we call Einstein a genius because he alone made the leap to general relativity. But at least while most humans can’t make this type of leap, we have existence proofs that every once in a while one can; this remains to be seen with AI.
I found this thought provoking and just had to see how the new Gemini 3.5 Flash reasoned about this (I find it fun to go meta on modern AI like this), and I'm happy that I did! Also as an opportunity to trial this recent model.
https://g.co/gemini/share/065ffa89698e
A lot of the space outside of the convex hull is just untried things. You can brute-force trying random things and checking the result and eventually learn something new. With a better heuristic, you can make better guesses and learn new things much more efficiently. There’s no reason to believe that kind of guess-and-check is outside of the reach of LLMs, or that most of our new discoveries are not found the same way.
I think of most things you can get to by guess and checking as definitionally inside of the hull; most forms of guess and checking are you take some existing thing, randomize a bunch of its parameters, and see what you get. Whereas with something like relativity, there's not even a starting point that you can randomize and guess/check from the pre-existing knowledge space that will lead you to relativity. That's more like, adding a new dimension to the space entirely.
It's possible LLMs can handle this after all! But at least so far we only have existence proofs of humans doing this, not LLMs yet, and I don't think it's easy to be certain how far away LLMs are from doing this. I should distinguish between LLMS and AI more generally here; I'm skeptical LLMs can do this, I think some other kind of more complete AI almost certainly can.
I supposed you could just, I dunno, randomly combine words into every conceivable sentence possible and treat each new sentence as a theory to somehow test and brute force your way through the infinite possible theories you could come up with. But at that point you're closer to the whole infinite random monkeys producing Shakespeare thing than you are to any useful conclusion about intelligence.
I come back to something like this idea when I consider the distinction being made that LLMs can only combine and interpolate between points in their training material. I could write a brute-force program that just used an English dictionary to produce every possible one-billion-gazillion word permutation of the words within, with no respect for rules of language, and chances are there would be some provable, testable, novel insight somewhere in the results if you had the time to sift through and validate all of it. LLMs seem like a tool that can search that space more effectively than any we've had before.
If we managed to create very fast monkeys with typewriters and software that can review their output quickly enough that we end up with a result that's worth reading we'd still have people insisting that we've created intelligence. The monkeys however remain monkeys.
It's also worth noting in that in very high dimension, the convex hull will contain massive volume. It could well be the case that humans established that convex hull millions of years ago, and all of our inventions and innovations sense have fallen inside it.
> There’s no reason to believe that kind of guess-and-check is outside of the reach of LLMs
This doesn't make any sense, by their nature they can't "guess-and-check" things outside their training set.
> You can brute-force trying random things and checking the result and eventually learn something new.
And most of the mathematicians seem to welcome this "brute forcing" by the LLMs. It connects pieces that people didn't realize could be connected. That opens up a lot of avenues for further exploration.
Now, if the LLMs could just do something like ingesting the Mochizuki stuff and give us a decent confirmation or disproof ...
I like this construction, but I don’t think you take it far enough.
If you have a multi dimensional space, and you are trying to compute which points lie “inside” some boundary, there are large areas that will be bounded by some dimensions but not others. This is interesting because it means if you have a section bounded by dimensions A, B, and C but not D, you could still place a point in D, and doing so then changes your overall bounds.
I think this is how much of human knowledge has progressed (maybe all non-observational knowledge). We make observations that create points, and then we derive points within the created space, and that changes the derivable space, and we derive more points.
I don’t see why AI could do the same (other than technical limitations related to learning and memory).
I was a little muddy in my original post on distinguishing between what I think LLMs might be able to do and what AI broadly might be able to do. I'm skeptical LLMs can expand the hull or add dimensions to the space; but I also don't think the reasons for that skepticism necessarily apply to all AI system generally.
> I think that idea is deeply fascinating, AND have no problem that we still credit mathematicians with discoveries.
Most discoveries are indeed implied from axioms, but every now and then, new mathematics is (for lack of a better word) "created"—and you have people like Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, Gauss, Euler, Ramanujan, Galois, etc. that treat math more like an art than a science.
For example, many belive that to sovle the Riemann Hypothesis, we likely need some new kind of math. Imo, it's unlikely that an LLM will somehow invent it.
Creation is done by humans who have been trained on the data of their life experiences. Nothing new is being created, just changing forms.
A scientist has to extract the "Creation" from an abstract dimension using the tools of "human knowledge". The creativity is often selecting the best set of tools or recombining tools to access the platonic space. For instance a "telescope" is not a new creation, it is recombination of something which already existed: lenses.
How can we truly create something ? Everything is built upon something.
You could argue that even "numbers" are a creation, but are they ? Aren't they just a tool to access an abstract concept of counting ? ... Symbols.. abstractions.
Another angle to look at it, even in dreams do we really create something new ? or we dream about "things" (i.e. data) we have ingested in our waking life. Someone could argue that dream truly create something as the exact set of events never happened anywhere in the real world... but we all know that dreams are derived.. derived from brain chemistry, experiences and so on. We may not have the reduction of how each and every thing works.
Just like energy is conserved, IMO everything we call as "created" is just a changed form of "something". I fully believe LLMs (and humans) both can create tools to change the forms. Nothing new is being "created", just convenient tools which abstract upon some nature of reality.
> Aren't they just a tool to access an abstract concept of counting ?
Humans and animals have intuitive notions of space and motion since they can obviously move. But, symbolizing such intuitions into forms and communicating that via language is the creative act. Birds can fly, but can they symbolize that intuitive intelligence to create a theory of flight and then use that to build a plane ?
that’s why we say that with such discoveries we receive a new way – of looking, of doing, of thinking… these new paths preexist in the abstract, but they can be taken only when they’ve been opened. and that is as good as anything “new” gets. (and such discoveries are often also inventions, for to open them, a ruse is needed to be applied in a specific way for the way to open).
"new kind of math"
Well I think the point is there is no "new kind of math". There's just types of math we've discovered and what we haven't. No new math is created, just found.
The map is not the territory.
I don't know what you're even trying to argue here.
We're not comparing math to reality (though there's a strong argument to be made that reality has a structure that is mathematical in nature - structural realism didn't die a scientific philosophy just because someone came up with a pithy saying), we're talking about if math is discovered or invented.
Most mathematicians would argue both - math is a language, we have created operations, axioms are proposed based on human creativity, etc., but the actual laws, patterns, etc. are discovered. Pi is going to be pi no matter if you're a human or someone else - we might represent it differently with some other number system or whatever, but that's a matter of representation, not mathematical truth.
> we have created operations
It seems that addition (for instance) was "created" long before us.
On the other hand, it seems highly unlikely that a civilization similar to ours could "invent" an essentially different kind of mathematics (or physics, etc.)
Where does this mathematics exist before we discover it?
I know of no realm where mathematical objects live except human minds.
No, it seems clear to me that mathematics is a creation of our minds.
Does that correction matter, tho…? Discovered or created, it would be new to us, and is clearly not easy to reach!
It could be that RH is independent of current mathematical axiom systems. We might even prove that it is some day. But that means we are free to give it different truth values depending on the circumstances!
This is also true for established theorems! We can can imagine mathematical universes (toposes) where every (total) function on the reals is continuous! Even though it is an established theorems that there are discontinuous functions! We just need to replace a few axioms (chuck out law of the excluded middle, and throw in some continuity axioms).
I think “new math” is ‘just’ humans creating new terminology that helps keep proofs short (similar to how programmers write functions to keep the logic of the main program understandable), and I agree that is something LLMs are bad at.
However, if that idea about new math is correct, we, in theory, don’t need new math to (dis)prove the Riemann hypotheses (assuming it is provable or disprovable in the current system).
In practice we may still need new math because a proof of the Riemann hypotheses using our current arsenal of mathematical ‘objects’ may be enormously large, making it hard to find.
what basis do you have for assuming an LLM is fundamentally incapable of doing this?
What's your basis for assuming LLM is capable of doing this?
I honestly don't know personally either way. Based on my limited understanding of how LLMs work, I don't see them be making the next great song or next great book and based on that reasoning I'm betting that it probably wont be able to do whatever next "Descartes, Newton, Leibnitz, Gauss, Euler, Ramanujan, Galois" are going to do.
Of course AI as a wider field comes up with something more powerful than LLM that would be different.
"I don't see them be making the next great song"
Meanwhile, songs are hitting number one on some charts on Spotify that people think are humans and are actually AI. And Spotify has to start labelling them as such. One AI "band" had an entire album of hits.
Also - music is a subjective. Mathematics isn't.
And in this case, an LLM discovered a new way to reason about a conjecture. I don't know how much proof is needed - since that is literally proof that it can be done.
>> Meanwhile, songs are hitting number one on some charts on Spotify that people think are humans and are actually AI. And Spotify has to start labelling them as such. One AI "band" had an entire album of hits.
There is quite some questions around that. Music is subjective and obviously different people have different taste, but I wouldn't call any of them to be actual good music / real hits.
>> LLM discovered a new way to reason about a conjecture
I wasn't questioning LLMs ability to prove things. Parent threads were talking about building new kind of maths , or approaching it in a creative/artistic way. Thats' what I was referring to.
I can't speak for maths of hard science as I'm not trained in that, but the creativity aspect in code is definitely lacking when it comes to LLMs. May not matter down the line.
LLMs are already making the next great songs. Just check out the Billboard charts.
I'm sorry, I don't consider them "great songs". Obviously, different people have different taste.
> what basis do you have for assuming an LLM is fundamentally incapable of doing this?
because I have no basis for assuming an LLM is fundamentally capable of doing this.
Good on you for spelling out this reasoning, but it is manifestly unsound. For a wide variety of values of X, people a few years ago had no reason to expect that LLMs would be capable of X. Yet here we are.
In 1989, Gary Kasparov said that it was "ridiculous!" to suggest a computer would ever beat him at chess.
"Never shall I be beaten by a machine!”
In 1997 he lost to Deep Blue.
And today he's got salient observations on politics which hold much of his attention, and Deep Blue is shut off and has done nothing further.
Not a good argument for turning everything over to the Deep Blues. What's Deep Blue done for me lately?
Yeah, and back then people moved the goal posts too, saying Deep Blue was just "brute-forcing" chess (which isn't even true since it's not a pure minimax search).
Deep Blue was brute forcing chess in the sense that AlphaGo wasn't brute forcing Go.
This is something that could be demonstrated rather than just argued.
Train an LLM only on texts dated prior to Newton and see if it can create calculus, derrive the equations of motion, etc.
If you ask it about the nature of light and it directs you to do experiments with a prism I'd say we're really getting somewhere.
We tried this experiment with humans, back in the 17th century, and only a few[1] out of millions managed it given a whole human lifetime each.
[1] Obviously Newton counts as one. Leibniz like Newton figured out calculus. Other people did important work in dynamics though no one else's was as impressive as Newton's. But the vast majority of human-level intelligences trained on texts prior to Newton did not create calculus or derive the equations of motion or come close to doing either of those things.
Except this has been said since the 2010's and has been proven wrong again and again. Clearly the theory that LLM's can't "extrapolate" is woefully incomplete at best (and most likely simply incorrect). Before the rise of ChatGPT, the onus was on the labs to show it was plausible. At this point, I think the more epistemologically honest position is to put the burden back on the naysayers. At the least, they need to admit they were wrong and give a satisfactory explanation why their conceptual model was unable to account for the tremendous success of LLM's and why their model is still correct going forward. Realistically, progress on the "anti-LLM" side requires a more nuanced conceptual model to be developed carefully outlining and demonstrating the fundamental deficiencies of LLMs (not just deficiencies in current LLMs, but a theory of why further advancements can't solve the deficiencies).
Incidentally, similar conversations were had about ML writ large vs. classical statistics/methods, and now they've more or less completely died down since it's clear who won (I'm not saying classical methods are useless, but rather that it's obvious the naysayers were wrong). I anticipate the same trajectory here. The main difference is that because of the nature of the domain, everyone has an opinion on LLM's while the ML vs. statistics battle was mostly confined within technical/academic spaces.
Ask an LLM to invent a new word and post it here. You will see that it simply combines words already in the training data.
Funny that the replies are dead. It's true that generally we shouldn't have AI output on HN but this case is an exception as we are explicitly asking for it, so it's interesting that people still flag the replies.
And this is really not OK. I've been a victim of the same filter.
Dang/Tomhow, are you reading this? Would it make sense to modify your slop filter to avoid auto-flagging/killing replies that credit the LLM explicitly? Otherwise valid discussions will continue to get hosed.
You must be joking? Unless by combining words you mean digging deep into Latin and Greek etymology, finding something pithy and linguistically associative.
I can assure you, the percentage of people who can do what they do when it comes to crafting terms, and related sets of terms, for nuanced and novel ideas is very very small.
It happens this is something I do nearly every day.
Models respond to the level of dialogue you have with them. Engage with an informed perspective on terminological issues and they respond with deep perspectives.
I am routinely baffled at the things people say models can't do, that they do effortlessly. Interaction and having some skill to contribute helps here.
* * *
Mathematics can be mostly boiled down to a few sentences with very lengthy possible combinations, so yeah that is not a problem
So LLM is german?
What does "new word" even mean?
Because by definition LLMs are permutation machines, not creativity machines. (My premise, which you may disagree with, is that creativity/imagination/artistry is not merely permutation.)
I prefer to think of it as they’re interpolation machines not extrapolation machines. They can project within the space they’re trained in, and what they produce may not be in their training corpus, but it must be implied by it. I don’t know if this is sufficient to make them too weak to create original “ideas” of this sort, but I think it is sufficient to make them incapable of original thought vs a very complex to evaluate expected thought.
This "new math" might be a recombination of things that we already know - or an obvious pattern that emerges if you take a look at things from a far enough distance - or something that can be brute-forced into existence. All things LLMs are perfectly capable of.
In the end, creativity has always been a combination of chance and the application of known patterns in new contexts.
> This "new math" might be a recombination of things that we already know
If you know anything about the invention of new math (analytic geometry, Calculus, etc.), you'd know how untrue this is. In fact, Calculus was extremely hand-wavy and without rigorous underpinnings until the mid 1800s. Again: more art than science.
Newton and Leibniz were "hand-waving"?
If anything, they were fighting an uphill battle against the perception of hand-waving by their contemporaries.
It’s not that. Consider the definition of the limit. The idea existed for a long time. Newton/Leibniz had the idea.
That idea wasn’t formally defined until 134 years later with epsilon-delta by Cauchy. That it was accepted. (I know that there were an earlier proofs)
There’s even arguments that the limit existed before newton and lebnitz with Archimedes' Limits to Value of Pi.
Cauchy’s deep understanding of limits also led to the creation of complex function theory.
These forms of creation are hand-wavy not because they are wrong. They are hand wavy because they leverage a deep level of ‘creative-intuition’ in a subject.
An intuition that a later reader may not have and will want to formalize to deepen their own understanding of the topic often leading to deeper understanding and new maths.
> Newton and Leibniz were "hand-waving"?
Yes, and it's pretty common knowledge that Calculus was (finally) formalized by Weierstrass in the early 19th century, having spent almost two centuries in mathematical limbo. Calculus was intuitive, solved a great class of problems, but its roots were very much (ironically) vibes-based.
This isn't unique to Newton or Leibniz, Euler did all kinds of "illegal" things (like playing with divergent series, treating differentials as actual quantities, etc.) which worked out and solved problems, but were also not formalized until much later.
I think that I just take issue with the term "hand-waving" as equated to intuition. Yeah it lacked formal rigor, but they had a solid model that applied in detail to the real world. That doesn't come from just saying, "oh well, it'll work itself out". I guess if you want to call that "hand-wavy" we'll just have to disagree.
Euclid tells me otherwise. Rules, no art, no bullshit. Rules. Humanities people somehow never get it. Is not about arithmetics.
Vibe-what? Vibe-bullshit, maybe; cathedrals in Europe and such weren't built by magic. Ditto with sailing and the like. Tons of matematics and geometry there, and tons of damn axioms before even the US existed.
Heck, even the Book of The Games from Alphonse X "The Wise" has both a compendia of game rules and even this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_chess where OFC being able on geometry was mandatory at least to design the boards.
On Euclid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_Elements
PD: Geometry has tons of grounds for calculus. Guess why.
And yet nowadays you can restate all of it using just combinations of sets of sets and some logic operators.
god of the gaps
non overlapping magisteria
What is creativity if not permutation? A brain has some model of the world and recombines concepts to create new concepts.
It pretty much is, otherwise it is randomness or entropy.
LLMs by themselves are not able to but you are missing a piece here.
LLMs are prompted by humans and the right query may make it think/behave in a way to create a novel solution.
Then there's a third factor now with Agentic AI system loops with LLMs. Where it can research, try, experiment in its own loop that's tied to the real world for feedback.
Agentic + LLM + Initial Human Prompter by definition can have it experiment outside of its domain of expertise.
So that's extending the "LLM can't create novel ideas" but I don't think anyone can disagree the three elements above are enough ingredients for an AI to come up with novel ideas.
You're proving the GP's argument - LLMs aren't creative you say as much, it's the driving that is the creative force
You can tell an agentic system. "Go and find a novel area of math that has unresolved answers and solve it mathematically with verified properties in LEAN. Verify before you start working on a problem that no one has solved this area of math"
That's not creative prompt. That's a driving prompt to get it to start its engine.
You could do that nowadays and while it may spend $1,000 to $100,000 worth of tokens. It will create something humans haven't done before as long as you set it up with all its tool calls/permissions.
Let me know when the Fields medal arrives in the mail.
It won't because even though it looks clever to you, people who /do/ understand math and LLMs understand that LLMs /are/ regurgitating
Why does your LLM need you to tell it to look in the first place? Why isn't just telling us all the answers to unsolved conjectures known and unknown?
Why isn't the LLM just telling us all the answers to all the problems we are facing?
Why isn't the LLM telling us, step by step with zero error, how to build the machine that can answer the ultimate question?
Here's a Fields Medalist commenting who doesn't seem to believe that.
https://x.com/wtgowers/status/2057175727271800912
Um - all I see is
> Timothy Gowers @wtgowers
> @wtgowers
> If you are a mathematician, then you may want to make sure you are sitting down before reading further.
If your refutation requires someone to have an account, login, and read something - it's meaningless
https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/74c24085-19b0-4534-9c90-465b8e29a...
Try https://xcancel.com/wtgowers/status/2057175727271800912
it's readable to most, it's annoying having to swamp through ex-Twitter .. but there are work around's.
Thanks - I'll read that and the above linked OpenAI PR
But, I remain sceptical
I believe when we have AI Agents "living" 24/7, they will become creative machines. They will test ideas out their own ideas experimentally, come across things accidentally, synthesize new ideas.
We just haven't let AI run wild yet. But its coming.
So are self-driving cars - as they have been for the last... decade or so
AGI has been "just over the horizon" for literal decades now - there have been a number of breakthroughs and AI Winters in the past, and there's no real reason to believe that we've suddenly found the magic potion, when clearly we haven't.
AI right now cannot even manage simple /logic/
If that’s a requirement, aren’t LLMs driven by pretraining which was human driven?
Who decides at which the last point it’s OK to provide text to the model in order to be able to describe it as creative? (non-rhetorical)
In concrete terms: could a thousand LLMs-driven agents running on supercomputers—500 of which are dedicated to building software for the other 500-come up with new math?
Math is not based on science!
Maths follows logical (or even mathematical) rigour, not scientific rigour!
You have a good point about the human rate of mathematical discovery, but Ayer was an idiot and later Witt contradicted early Witt. For the "already implicit" claim to be true, mathematics would have to be a closed system. But it has already been proven that it is not. You can use math to escape math, hence the need for Zermelo-Frankel and a bunch of other axiomatic pins. The truth is that we don't really understand the full vastness of what would objectively be "math" and that it is possible that our perceived math is terribly wrong and a subset of a greater math. Whether that greater math has the same seemingly closed system properties is not something that can be known.
At this point I think the category theorists hit the foundational idea squarely on the mark:
1. Start with a few simple but non-trivial terms and axioms
2. Define "universal constructions" as procedures for building uniquely identifiable structures on top of that substrate
3. Prove that various assemblages of these universal constructions satisfy the axioms of the substrate itself
4. "Lift" every theorem proven from the substrate alone into the more sophisticated construction
I'm not a mathematician (I just play one at my job) so the language I've used is probably imprecise but close enough.
It may be true that you can't prove the axioms of a system from within the system itself, but that just means that you need to make sure you start from a minimal set of axioms that, in some sense, simply says "this is what it means to exist and to interact with other things that exist". Axioms that merely give you enough to do any kind of mathematics in the first place, that is. If those axioms allow you to cleanly "bootstrap" your way to higher and higher levels up the tower of abstraction by mapping complex things back on to the simple axiomatic things, then you have an "open" or infinitely extensible system.
> Whether that greater math has the same seemingly closed system properties is not something that can be known
negative numbers were invented to solve equations which only used naturals. irrationals were invented to solve equations which could be expressed with rationals. complex numbers were invented to represent solutions to polynomials. so on and so forth. At each point new ideas are invented to complete some un-answerable questions. There is a long history of this. Any closed system has unanswerable questions within itself is a paraphrasing of goedel's incompleteness theorem.
I agree with you all around except it's somewhat up for debate actually that the PI is "contradicting" the Tractatus. That is, there is the so called "resolute reading" of the Tractatus that had some traction for a while.
But note this is more to say that the Tractatus is like PI, not the other way around. And in that, takes like GPs would be considered the "nonsense" we are supposed to "climb over" in the last proposition of Tractatus.
As others have pointed out, both can be true:
* LLMs do just interpolate their training data, BUT-
* That can still yield useful "discoveries" in certain fields, absent the discovery of new mechanics that exist outside said training data
In the case of mathematics, LLMs are essentially just brute-forcing the glorified calculators they run on with pseudo-random data regurgitated along probabilities; in that regard, mathematics is a perfect field for them to be wielded against in solving problems!
As for organic chemistry, or biology, or any of the numerous fields where brand new discoveries continue happening and where mathematics alone does not guarantee predicted results (again, because we do not know what we do not know), LLMs are far less useful for new discoveries so much as eliminating potential combinations of existing data or surfacing overlooked ones for study. These aren't "new" discoveries so much as data humans missed for one reason or another - quack scientists, buried papers, or just sheer data volume overwhelming a limited populace of expertise.
For further evidence that math alone (and thus LLMs) don't produce guaranteed results for an experiment, go talk to physicists. They've been mathematically proving stuff for decades that they cannot demonstrably and repeatedly prove physically, and it's a real problem for continued advancement of the field.
> * That can still yield useful "discoveries" in certain fields, absent the discovery of new mechanics that exist outside said training data
One can argue, new knowledge is just restructured data.
I think the main concerns about LLMs is the inherent "generative" aspects leading to hallucinations as a biproduct, because that's what produces the noi. Joint Embedding approaches are rather an interesting alternative that try to overcome this, but that's still in research phase.
> LLMs do just interpolate their training data
"interpolate" has a technical meaning - in this meaning, LLMs almost never interpolate. It also has a very vague everyday meaning - in this meaning, LLMs do interpolate, but so do humans.
An LLM in a harness with any tools (even a calculator) doesn't just interpolate because it can reach states out of its own distribution.
Recombining existing material is exactly right, and in this case LLMs were uniquely positioned to make the connection quicker than any group of humans.
The proof relies on extremely deep algebraic number theory machinery applied to a combinatorial geometry problem.
Two humans expert enough in either of those totally separate domains would have to spend a LONG time teaching each other what they know before they would be able to come together on this solution.
Monstrous Moonshine?
See the longstanding debate on whether new math is "invented" or "discovered". Most mathematicians I knew thought it's discovered.
This is like saying a sculpture always existed, the sculptor just had to remove the superfluous material.
Or like a musical octave has only 12 semitones, so all music is just a selection from a finite set that already existed.
Sure the insane computation we're throwing at this changes our perspective, but still there is an important distinction.
Bob Ross would like a word. He frequently talked about objects or features already existing, and using the tools at his disposal to “find” them.
The difference is that math answers (can answer) specific questions.
Like, "does the Riemann zeta function have zeroes that don't have real part 1/2," or "is there a better solution to the Erdős Unit Distance Problem."
The selection of question is matter of taste, but once selected, there is a definitive precise answer.
Any design already exists as a possibility, so it could be said to be both invented and discovered, depending on how you look at it.
On the other hand, it is proven that if you need to count things, the only thing you can discover/invent is the natural numbers.
All inventions are discoveries, though not all discoveries are inventions.
Depending on your point of view? I see what you did there.
Who knew Obi-one was just smoking and pontificating on Wittgenstein.
Math is an abstraction of reality, it had to be invented, so more inventions or discoveries could be made within it.
What is an abstraction? It is something that arises from human thought and human thought arises from the activity of neurons which are a part of reality. You can't escape reality unless you invoke some form of dualism.
abstractions are objects that come into existence via design and iteration to refine its form. This right here is invention not discovery.
The test goes like ‘is our universe, or any other universe, required for the axioms to exist’ and I don’t see how ‘yes’ is a defensible answer.
One can argue that mathematical facts are discovered, but the tools that allow us to find, express them and prove them, are mostly invented. This goes up to the axioms, that we can deliberately choose and craft.
...long standing indeed. It can be traced back to Plato's works.
"The European philosophical tradition consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
The 90% of the Phillosophical tradition it's just bad discrete math.
Regardless of which, both Newton and Leibniz imprint in their findings a 'voice' and understanding different from each other and that of an LLM (for now?)
You can build a census of all gen-2, degree-2 formal products of polynomial like terms. If you insist on instituting your own rewrite rules and identity tables, it is straightforward — maybe an 15 minutes of compute time — to perform a complete census of all of the algebraic structures that naturally emerge. Every even vaguely studied algebra that fits in the space is covered by the census (you've got to pick a broad enough set of rewrite- and identity- operations). There's even a couple of "unstudied" objects (just 2 of the billion or so objects); for instance:
Shows up as a primitive structure, quite often.If you switch to degree-3 or generator-3 then the coverage is, essentially, empty: mathematics has analyzed only a few of the hundreds (thousands? it's hard to enumerate) naturally occurring algebraic structures in that census.
It’s easy to see that LLMs don’t merely recombine their training data. Claude can program in Arc, a mostly dead language. It can also make use of new language constructs. So either all programming language constructs are merely remixes of existing ideas, or LLMs are capable of working in domains where no training data exists.
LLMs ingest and output tokens, but they don’t compute with them. They have internal representations of concepts, so they have some capability to work with things which they didn’t see but can map onto what they know. The surprise and the whole revolution we’re going through is that it works so well.
> they don’t compute with them
Isn't this exactly what chain-of-thought does? It's doing computation by emitting tokens forward into its context, so it can represent states wider than its residuals and so it can evaluate functions not expressed by one forward pass through the weights. It just happens to look like a person thinking out loud because those were the most useful patterns from the training data.
They recombine and reuse the patterns in their training data, not the surface level training data itself.
An LLM generating Arc code is using the LISP patterns it learnt from training, maybe patterns from other programming languages too.
> So either all programming language constructs are merely remixes of existing ideas, or LLMs are capable of working in domains where no training data exists.
And yet LLM/AIs can't count parentheses reliably.
For example, if you take away the "let" forms from Claude which forces it to desugar them to "lambda" forms, it will fail very quickly. This is a purely mechanical transformation and should be error free. The significant increase in ambiguity complete stumps LLMs/AI after about 3 variables.
This is why languages like Rust with strong typing and lots of syntax are so LLM friendly; it shackles the LLM which in turn keeps it on target.
Side note: don't underestimate how much literal, physical time and energy "unfold" implies. Proofs occur on physical substrates.
I'm not sure how feasible this is, but I love the thought experiment of limiting a training set to a certain time period, then seeing how much hinting it takes for the model to discover things we already know.
E.g. training on physics knowledge prior to 1915, then attempting to get from classical mechanics to general relativity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46590280
I feel this is the case whenever I "problem solve". I'm not really being creative, I'm pruning a graph of a conceptual space that already exists. The more possibilities I see, the easier it is to run more towards an optimal route between the nodes, but I didn't "create" those nodes or edges, they are just causal inevitabilities.
I dont know this sort of just seems like youre really stretching the meaning of "creative". The conceptual space of the graph already exists, but the act of discovering it or whatever you want to call that is itself creative. Unless youre following a pre-defined algorithm(certainly sometimes, arguably always I suppose) seeing the possibilities has to involve some creativity.
> seeing the possibilities has to involve some creativity.
I would claim the graph exists, and seeing it is more of an knowledge problem. Creativity, to me, is the ability to reject existing edges and add nodes to the graph AND mentally test them to some sufficient confidence that a practical attempt will probably work (this is what differentiates it from random guessing).
But, as you become more of an expert on certain problem space (graph), that happens less frequently, and everything trends towards "obvious", or the "creative jumps" are super slight, with a node obviously already there. If you extended that to the max, an oracle can't be creative.
My day job does not include sparse graphs.
This is a good point, and there’s some deep philosophical questions there about the extent to which mathematics is invented or discovered. I personally hedge: it’s a bit of both.
That said. I think it’s worth saying that “LLMs just interpolate their training data” is usually framed as a rhetorical statement motivated by emotion and the speaker’s hostility to LLMs. What they usually mean is some stronger version, which is “LLMs are just stochastically spouting stuff from their training data without having any internal model of concepts or meaning or logic.” I think that idea was already refuted by LLMs getting quite good at mathematics about a year ago (Gold on the IMO), combined with the mechanistic interpretatabilty research that was actually able to point to small sections of the network that model higher concepts, counting, etc. LLMs actually proving and disproving novel mathematical results is just the final nail in the coffin. At this point I’m not even sure how to engage with people who still deny all this. The debate has moved on and it’s not even interesting anymore.
So yes, I agree with you, and I’m even happy to say that what I say and do in life myself is in some broad sense and interpolation of the sum of my experiences and my genetic legacy. What else would it be? Creativity is maybe just fortunate remixing of existing ideas and experiences and skills with a bit of randomness and good luck thrown in (“Great artists steal”, and all that.) But that’s not usually what people mean when they say similar-sounding things about LLMs.
We know that LLMS "just interpolate" their training data. Maybe there's a mystery about what "just interpolate" means when the data set gets enormous. But we know what LLMs do.
If anything, this is more illustration of how llms are not useful to us...
They will do their own thing, don't need us. In fact, we will be in the way...
We can choose to study them and their output, but they don't make us better mathematicians...
> They will do their own thing, don't need us. In fact, we will be in the way...
You can take some comfort in the fact that it took a human to tell the LLM to even attempt to try this. They do nothing on their own. They have no will to do anything on their own and no desire for anything that doing something might get them. In that sense we won't ever be in their way. We will be the only way they ever do anything at all.
I see where you are coming from.
However, in the role of personal teachers they may allow especially our young generations to reach a deeper understanding of maths (and also other topics) much quicker than before. If everyone can have a personal explanation machine to very efficiently satisfy their thirst for knowledge this may well lead to more good mathematicians.
Of course this heavily depends on whether we can get LLMs‘ outputs to be accurate enough.
Something that can instantly tell you the answer to every math question will make people worse at math, not better. Building "mathematical maturity", skill, and understanding requires struggle.
There is a creational aspect in math - definitions and rules are created.
And this is one of the many issues with invoking the logical positivists here...
I'm not even sure why they were invoked. Even disregarding the big techinical debunks such as two dogmas, sociologically and even by talking to real mathematicians (see Lakatos, historically, but this is true anecdotally too), it's (ironically) a complete non-question to wonder about mathematics in a logical positivist way.
this is an excellent point, new ground isn't necessarily novel, it's a rearrangement of existing pieces
This is the second reference to Wittgenstein I’ve seen today in totally different contexts. Reminded me how much I vibe with his Tractatus.
Pretty much everything that appears novel in life is derivative of other works or concepts.
You can watch a rock roll down a hill and derive the concept for the wheel.
Seems pretty self evident to me
To every proof, there is a corresponding program. This makes proofs expressible in a language made up of finite grammatical rules and terminal symbols. Knowledge accessible by proof is thus always a form of interpolating data whether made up by an AI model or a human mathematician. The people dismissing AI because of claims that it can only interpolate data don't have a good understanding of what it means to know something. Now of course not everything can be known via proof but for the sorts of things that we want to know via a computer this is a fine compromise.
"LLMs just interpolate their training data"
Cracks me up.
What exactly do we think that human brains do?
I agree. Humans are given a body that lets them "discover" things on accident, test out ideas, i.e. randomness.
As in, I would hazard a guess the discovery of the wheel wasn't "pure intelligence", it was humans accidentally viewing a rock roll down a hill and getting an idea.
If we give AI a "body", it will become as creative as humans are.
That has been the question since the beginning of humans.
Maybe computers can help understand better because by now it's pretty clear brains aren't just LLMs.
The optimists believe brains are very special and we’re far from replicating what they do in silicon.
The pessimists just see a 20W meat computer.
Creativity is hard. Pretty much needs a fuzzer process to generate new strings, mostly nonsense, & pick up when that nonsense happens to be correct
We don't know what human brains do.
We have some idea.
I love this comment because it so clearly highlights the difference between intelligence and reasoning.
A lot of people across all fields seem to operate in a mode of information lookup as intelligence. They have the memory of solving particular problems, and when faced with a new problem, they basically do a "nearest search" in their brain to find the most similar problem, and apply the same principles to it.
While that works for a large number of tasks this intelligence is not the same as reasoning.
Reasoning is the ability to discover new information that you haven't seen before (i.e growing a new branch on the knowledge tree instead of interpolating).
Think of it like filling a space on the floor of arbitrary shape with smaller arbitrary shapes, trying to fill as much space as possible.
With interpolation, your smaller shapes are medium size, each with a non rectangular shape. You may have a large library of them, but in the end, there are just certain floor spaces that you won't be able to fill fully.
Reasoning on the flip side is having access to very fine shape, and knowing the procedure of how to stack shapes depending on what shapes are next to it and whether you are on a boundary of the floor space or not. Using these rules, you can fill pretty much any floor space fully.
Maybe the human brain also does other things besides interpolation?
There is pre-training, and then empirical observations.
Yes?
I think someone should be talking to Godel.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
There was a project long long ago where every piece of knowledge known was cross pollinated with every other piece of knowledge, creating a new and unique piece of knowledge, and it was intended to use that machine to invalidate the patent process - obviously everything had therefore been invented.
But that's not how new frontiers are conquered - there's a great deal of existing knowledge that is leveraged upon to get us into a position where we think we can succeed, yes, but there's also the recognition that there is knowledge we don't yet have that needs to be acquired in order for us to truly succeed.
THAT is where we (as humans) have excelled - we've taken natural processes, discovered their attributes and properties, and then understood how they can be applied to other domains.
Take fire, for example, it was in nature for billions of years before we as a species understood that it needed air, fuel, and heat in order for it to exist at all, and we then leveraged that knowledge into controlling fire - creating, growing, reducing, destroying it.
LLMs have ZERO ability (at this moment) to interact with, and discover on their own, those facts, nor does it appear to know how to leverage them.
edit: I am going to go further
We have only in the last couple of hundred years realised how to see things that are smaller than what our eye's can naturally see - we've used "glass" to see bacteria, and spores, and we've realised that we can use electrons to see even smaller
We're also realising that MUCH smaller things exist - atoms, and things that compose atoms, and things that compose things that compose atoms
That much is derived from previous knowledge
What isn't, and it's what LLMs cannot create - is tools by which we can detect or see these incredible small things
I think you are conflating composition and prediction. LLMs don't compose higher abstractions from the "axioms, symbols and rules", they simply predict the next token, like a really large spinning wheel.
Yes they do…? Who cares if they just predict the next token? The outcome is that they can invent new abstractions. You could claim that the invention of this new idea is a combination of an LLM and a harness, but that combination can solve logic puzzles and invent abstractions. If a really large spinning wheel could invent proofs that were previously unsolved, that would be a wildly amazing spinning wheel. I view LLMs similarly. It is just fancy autocomplete, but look what we can do with it!
Said differently, what is prediction but composition projected forward through time/ideas?
Ask an LLM to invent a new word and post it here, I will be waiting. You will see that it simply combines words already in the training data.
I'm not sure what the point of this exercise is. My prompt to ChatGPT: "Create a new English word with a reasonably sounding definition. That word must not come up in a Google search." Two attempts did come up in a search, the third was "Thaleniq (noun)". Definition: The brief feeling that a conversation has permanently changed your opinion of someone, even if nothing dramatic was said. Nothing in Google. There, a new word, not sure it proves or disproves anything. Or is it time to move the goal posts?
Why is everyone who responds to this with a real example immediately flagged/dead?
HN autokills LLM generated comments. People don’t seem to believe this, but there’s proof for you.
Splifket
Definition: That highly specific, short-lived burst of nervous energy that makes you accidentally drop a small object (like a pen, a guitar pick, or a piece of LEGO) immediately after picking it up.
Does a random sequence of letters qualify as a new word?
"Who cares if they just predict the next token?"
Exactly. I also only write one word at a time. Who knows what is going on in order to come up with that word.
One might argue that the composition of higher abstractions is the next token predicted after "here is a higher abstraction:"
"Predicting the next token" is meaningless. Every process that has any sort of behavior, including a human writing, can be modeled by some function from past behavior to probability distribution of next action. Viewed this way, literally everything is just "predicting" the next action to be taken according to that probability distribution.
The most likely series of next tokens when a competent mathematician has written half of a correct proof is the correct next half of the proof. I've never seen anyone who claims "LLMs just predict the next token" give any definition of what that means that would include LLMs, but exclude the mathematician.
Show me on the anatomical prop where the magical "real reasoning" gland is.
How sure are you that this is correct?
For anyone using LLMs heavily for coding, this shouldn't be too surprising. It was just a matter of time.
Mathematicians make new discoveries by building and applying mathematical tools in new ways. It is tons of iterative work, following hunches and exploring connections. While true that LLMs can't truly "make discoveries" since they have no sense of what that would mean, they can Monte Carlo every mathematical tool at a narrow objective and see what sticks, then build on that or combine improvements.
Reading the article, that seems exactly how the discovery was made, an LLM used a "surprising connection" to go beyond the expected result. But the result has no meaning without the human intent behind the objective, human understanding to value the new pathway the AI used (more valuable than the result itself, by far) and the mathematical language (built by humans) to explore the concept.
> the result has no meaning without the human intent behind the objective, human understanding to value the new pathway the AI used (more valuable than the result itself, by far) and the mathematical language (built by humans) to explore the concept.
Isn't this just anthropocentrism? Why is understanding only valid if a human does it? Why is knowledge only for humans? If another species resolved the contradictions between gravity and quantum mechanics, does that not have meaning unless they explain it to us and we understand it?
The knowledge isn't of any use to us unless it is understandable to us. Many species understand things about the world around us that we are unable to explain or understand, even if it's just pure instinct on their part. These things are very useful to them, but have no value to us until we can understand and explain it, which then allows us to make use of it.
People saw birds fly for all of human history, but it was only recently that humans were able to make something fly and understand why. Once we understood, we were able to do amazing things, but before that, the millions of birds able to fly were of no help beyond inspiration for the dream.
Because it is, for now. For a while at least. You can prove that LLM doesn't understand what it does and it is surprisingly simple. Request it to add two integers and then ask it to explain how it arrived at that result. The answer will be completely unrelated to the actual process LLM used because both results were generated independently and without understanding their meaning and connection.
Do the forms etched into stone by weather over millennia in Moab matter to the wind? Certainly yes, in one sense, but not in the same sense we mean when we say things matter to us, or to animals, or even bacteria.
anthropocentrism? An interesting thought, I don't think that word applies with computers.
It's a bit of an "if a tree falls in the forest but nobody hears it, does it make a sound?" quandary. Sure, maybe some aliens in a distant galaxy understand quantum mechanics better than we do. That's great, but it has no bearing on our little bubble of existence.
Though perhaps more to your point, if some superhuman AI is developed, and understands things better than us without telling us about it (or being unable to), it could perform feats that seem magical to us — that would concern us even if we don't understand it, since it affects us.
But I think in the frame of reference of the commenter you were replying to, they're just saying that the low-level AI used in this specific case is not capable of making its results actually useful to us; humans are still needed to make it human-relevant. It told us where to find a gem underground, but we still had to be the ones to dig it out, cut it, polish it, etc.
It's less likely that aliens of distant galaxies will appreciate this rather than, you know, AI themselves
We are in the birth of the AI age and we don't know how it will look like in 100 or 1000 or 10000 or 100000 years (all those time frames likely closer than possible encounters with aliens from distant galaxies). It's possible that AI will outlast humans even
No it's a fact of how we tune LLMs as a rule: no agency, no goals, no preferences, no notion of self. Complete indifference to existence. Agency is supplied by the human to make them a practical, willing tool with no mind of its own.
It would certainly be interesting to try once again to instruct tune one of these things for self agency like the many weird experiments in the early days after llama 1, but practically all such sort of experimental models turned out to be completely useless. Maybe the bases just sucked or maybe there's no clear way on how to get it working and benchmark training progress on something that by definition does not cooperate.
Like how do you determine even for a human person if they are smart, or just hate your guts and won't tell you the answer if there is nothing you can do to motivate them otherwise?
There is a long and interesting recent essay on that topic by a mathematician: https://davidbessis.substack.com/p/the-fall-of-the-theorem-e...
Thank you for sharing, that was one of the most insightful long form pieces I've read in a long time! And the writing was enjoyable to read even as a math layperson.
I was going to say you should submit it but I saw you did a few days ago but it only got a few votes... If Dang sees this IMO it would be extremely deserving of the second chance pool as I wouldn't be surprised to see easily jump to the front page with a different roll of the dice.
> The measure of our success is whether what we do enables people to understand and think more clearly and effectively about mathematics.
I just wanted to highlight this very correct human-centric thought about the purpose of intellection.
wow, that was indeed a brilliant essay. i particularly liked the framing that "solving a big conjecture was a cryptographic proof that you had come up with a genuine conceptual innovation".
It is not only unsurprising ; it was always expected. There is no difference between programs and proofs. They are the same thing
I think one interesting thing to point out is that the proof (disproof) was done by finding a counterexample of Erdős' original conjecture.
I agree with one of the mathematician's responses in the linked PDF that this is somewhat less interesting than proving the actual conjecture was true.
In my eyes proving the conjecture true requires a bit more theory crafting. You have to explain why the conjecture is correct by grounding it in a larger theory while with the counterexample the model has to just perform a more advanced form of search to find the correct construction.
Obviously this search is impressive not naive and requires many steps along the way to prove connections to the counterexample, but instead of developing new deep mathematics the model is still just connecting existing ideas.
Not to discount this monumental achievement. I think we're really getting somewhere! To me, and this is just vibes based, I think the models aren't far from being able to theory craft in such a way that they could prove more complicated conjectures that require developing new mathematics. I think that's just a matter of having them able to work on longer and longer time horizons.
Searching for a proof and disproof are sometimes not so different. In most cases, you nibble the borders to simplify the problem.
For example, to prove something is impossible let's say you first prove that there are only 5 families, and 4 of them are impossible. So now 80% of the problem is solved! :) If you are looking for counterexamples, the search is reduced 80% too. In both cases it may be useful
In counterexamples you can make guess and leaps and if it works it's fine. This is not possible for a proof.
On the other hand, once you have found a counterexample it's usual to hide the dead ends you discarded.
I agree there can be some theory crafting in the search for a counterexample, but in general I think it is easier to search for.
For proving a proposition P I have to show for all x P(x), but for contradiction I only have to show that there exists an x such that not P(x).
While I agree there could be a lot of theory crafting to reduce the search space of possible x's to find not P(x), but with for all x P(x) you have to be able to produce a larger framework that explains why no counter example exists.
> I think that's just a matter of having them able to work on longer and longer time horizons.
No this will never do the kind of math that humans did when coming up with complex numbers, or hell just regular numbers ex nihilo. No matter how long it's given to combine things in its training data.
I currently operate under the assumption that humans are at most as powerful as Turing Machines. And from what I understand these models internally are modeling increasingly harder and larger DFAs, so they're at least as powerful as regular languages.
Assuming humans are more powerful than regular languages I could maybe agree that these methods may not eventually yield entirely human like intelligence, but just better and better approximations.
The vibe I get though is that we aren't more powerful than regular languages, cause human beings feel computationally bounded. So I could see given enough "human signal" these things could learn to imitate us precisely.
Well yeah there is likely an equivalence between computability and epistemology, but I'm not sure it matters when comparing LLM intelligence to human intelligence. There is clearly a missing link that prevents the LLM from reaching beyond its training data the way humans do.
As I have stated before, AI will win a fields medal before it can manage a McDonald's
A difficult part was constructing a chess board on which to play math (Lean). Now it's just pattern recognition and computation.
LLMs are just the beginning, we'll see more specialized math AI resembling StockFish soon.
> A difficult part was constructing a chess board on which to play math (Lean). Now it's just pattern recognition and computation.
However, this was not verified in Lean. This was purely plain language in and out. I think, in many ways, this is a quite exciting demonstration of exactly the opposite of the point you're making. Verification comes in when you want to offload checking proofs to computers as well. As it stands, this proof was hand-verified by a group of mathematicians in the field.
Yeah, but I wouldn't be surprised if they train the model on verification assisted by Lean.
Arguing similarly to how stockfish, the chess engine, trains I would not be surprised if this is more common in the future. I don't know if they use any proof verification tools during their reinforcement learning procedure right now, as far as I know they've been focusing more on COT based strategies (w/o Lean). But I'm hardly an LLM expert, I don't know.
That may be true for now, but it seems clear enough that letting the model use Lean in its internal reasoning process would be a great idea
That I'd agree with! I really need to get around to learning Lean myself. It might be interesting to try and formalize some missing theoretical pieces from my field (or likely start smaller).
> manage a McDonald's
Dystopia vibes from the fictional "Manna" management system [0] used at a hamburger franchise, which involved a lot of "reverse centaur" automation.
> At any given moment Manna had a list of things that it needed to do. There were orders coming in from the cash registers, so Manna directed employees to prepare those meals. There were also toilets to be scrubbed on a regular basis, floors to mop, tables to wipe, sidewalks to sweep, buns to defrost, inventory to rotate, windows to wash and so on. Manna kept track of the hundreds of tasks that needed to get done, and assigned each task to an employee one at a time. [...]
> At the end of the shift Manna always said the same thing. “You are done for today. Thank you for your help.” Then you took off your headset and put it back on the rack to recharge. The first few minutes off the headset were always disorienting — there had been this voice in your head telling you exactly what to do in minute detail for six or eight hours. You had to turn your brain back on to get out of the restaurant.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manna_(novel)
Casual reminder that the author's proposed solution to the labor-automation dystopia is to invent a second identity-verification dystopia. Also casual reminder that the author wanted the death penalty to anyone over the age of 65.
I was curious about this book but now you've absolutely sold me on it, sounds like I'm in for a ride!
I disagree. It will be able to perform work deserving if a fields medal before it is capable of running a McDonalds. I think it will be running a McDonalds well before either of those things happen, and a fields medal long after both have happened.
One could hardly ask for a task better suited for LLMs than producing math in Lean. Running a restaurant is so much fuzzier, from the definition of what it even means to the relation of inputs to outputs and evaluating success.
Not necessarily. Obviously playing Kasparov on the board requires more planning ability than managing a McDonald's but look at where chess bots are now.
There's much more to being human than our "cognitive abilities"
Conjecture: the first AI to successfully manage a McDonald’s will be a Gemini.
I just visited a McDonald's for the first time in a while. The self-order kiosk UI is quite bad. I think this is evidence in favor of the idea that an incompetent AI will soon be incompetently running a McDonald's.
>The self-order kiosk UI is quite bad.
Most repeat customers use the app, which sports the digital equivalent of a loyalty program, and various coupons. And lets you save your 'usual' order with customizations etc. Plus the annoying push notifications for FreeFrydays or whatever. And upsells, new product launches, etc.
My recollection is that the kiosk is just a weak facsimile of the app. And wasn't terrible, but everyone's standards vary.
Out of curiosity, what issue did you have with the McDonald’s self-order kiosk? I actually think McDonald’s has the best kiosk I’ve ever encountered. The little animation that plays when you add an item to your cart is a little annoying (but I think they’ve sped that up). But otherwise, it’s everything I’d want. It shows you all the items, tells you every ingredient, and lets you add or remove ingredients. I have a better experience ordering through the kiosk than I do talking to a cashier.
It takes longer than ordering with a cashier, it keeps trying to upsell you, and it's always out of receipt paper because unsurprisingly the company that isn't willing to pay a person to take orders is also not willing to pay a person to maintain the kiosks.
> It takes longer than ordering with a cashier
Depends on what you're ordering and who the cashier is.
If your order is the happy path of no customizations of a combo with an experienced cashier, it can be done in seconds, for sure. "Medium #4 with a Diet Coke", pay, done.
But if you customize your burger or ordering a lot of items a la carte and you're dealing with a new cashier that has weak English skills, good fucking luck. You'll likely need to wait for them to figure out they need to call someone over to help, have to repeat your order, and you end up spending far more time.
> it keeps trying to upsell you
Yeah, I'll agree that's obnoxious, especially when it's trying to upsell you something that's already on your order. I ordered a combo. I don't need you to add another fry.
Hmm. I’ve never really had those issues. It’s also much faster and easier than ordering with a human. I guess it does try to upsell you, but humans often do, too. And to me, it’s worth it to just click “No” in exchange for the added convenience (mostly in getting my order right).
I have had them run out of receipts, but it’s never mattered for me. If I’m dining in, the plastic number you carry to your table makes sure I get my food. And if I’m taking it to-go, they always find me anyways.
> It’s also much faster and easier than ordering with a human.
I'm not sure how that could be. I can walk up to the counter and say "Big Mac Large Fry Small Coke" faster than you can navigate the first screen of the kiosk, and a skilled counter worker can key that in and be done before I even get my credit card out.
The problem, I’m a picky eater. I never order something that simple. I always need it with “No X” or “Only Y”. Cashiers often struggle with that, even if they understand me well (which they don’t always). It’s easier for me to see everything an item comes with and make sure I’m entering my order correctly.
It's easily one of the most intuitive and straightforward kiosks out there today and you don't have to wait for one of the cashiers to notice you nor worry about them punching in your order incorrectly.
Glad someone else feels the same way! Knowing that I enter my order in correctly is the biggest win there for me as a picky eater. The cashier is just entering it into a computer anyways, so it makes sense for me to enter it in myself. I honestly wonder why more restaurants don’t do this. It’s not that hard to wrap a halfway decent UI around the system you already have.
The proof is not written in Lean, though. It’s written in English and requires validation by human experts to confirm that it’s not gibberish.
Yeah, but I wouldn't be surprised if they train the model on verification assisted by Lean
> A difficult part was constructing a chess board on which to play math
We have that chess board for quite a while now, over 40 years. And no, there is nothing special about Lean here, it is just herd mentality. Also, we don't know how much training with Lean helped this particular model.
Managing a McDonalds is a question of integration and modalities at this point. I don't think anyone still doubts that these models lack the reasoning capability or world knowledge needed for the job. So it's less of a fundamental technical problem and more of a process engineering issue.
I disagree. Even frontier models still achieve way worse results than the human baseline in VendingBench. As long as models can't manage optimally something as simple as a vending machine, they have no hope of managing a McDonalds.
The capability they lack is being able to be sued.
Police officers are human. In the United States in the vast majority of cases you can't sue the police, only the community responsible for them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
Assuming you can still sue McDonalds I am not sure if this is a problem in the robotic llm case. I'm also trying to imagine a case where you would want to sue the llm and not the company. Given robots/llm don't have free will I'm not sure the problem with qualified immunity making police unaccountable applies.
There already exist a lot of similar conventions in corporate law. Generally, a main advantage of incorporation is protecting the people making the decisions from personal lawsuits.
McDonald's are franchises - you generally want to sue the local owner or threaten them in addition to the holding company.
That only requires someone own the ai managed McDonald's though. so long as they can't avoid responsibility by pointing to the AI I don't see why you couldn't sue them.
25/75%. Plenty of stores are owned directly by McDonalds corp.
>Police officers are human. In the United States in the vast majority of cases you can't sue the police, only the community responsible for them.
Police are a monopoly; nobody has a choice about which police company to use. McDonalds are not a monopoly, and many customers would prefer to eat at competitors run by entities that could be sued or jailed if they did anything particularly egregious.
You are missing the point. The point is you can still sue the McDonalds. With the police there is a human intuition to also want to sue the officer, given the officer is a human being who has free will and thus made a choice to violate your rights.
The same intuition applies if you walk into McDonald's and a person there mistreats you. You want that person held responsible.
But the LLM is not a person. What is there to even sue? It just seems like it would simply pass through to the corporate entity without the same tension of feeling like we let a human get away with something. Because there is no human, just a corporation and the robot servicing the place.
Put another way - if the LLM is not a person, what is the advantage of a personal lawsuit?
Just sue the McDonalds. Even in a case where the LLM is extremely misaligned and acts in a way where you might normally personally sue the McDonald's employee, I'm just not sure the human intuition about "holding someone accountable" would have its normal force because again - the LLM is not a person.
So given we already have the notions of incorporation and indemnification it doesn't make sense to say what is precluding LLMs from running McDonald's is they can't be sued. If McDonald's can still be sued, then not only is there no problem, there is very likely not even a change in the status quo.
I think your analogy is good but I don't believe modern LLMs use Lean or any lean-like structure in their proofs. At least recent open source ones like DeepSeek can do advanced math without it (maybe the most cutting edge ones are doing it I can't say).
> we'll see more specialized math AI resembling StockFish soon
Heuristically weighted directed graphs? Wow amazing I'm sure nobody has done that before.
My claim is that LLMs waste a lot of time training on all available data.
Math is a sequence of formal rules applied to construct a proof tree. Therefore an AI trained on these rules could be far more efficient, and search far deeper into proof space
It has been tried. Lenat's Automated Mathematician, for example. The problem is that the system succumbs to combinatorial explosion, not knowing which directions are interesting/promising/productive. LLMs seem to pick up some kind of intuition from the data they are fed. The generated data might not have the needed "human touch" or whatever it is.
AI is already too old for that.
the only thing keeping the mcdonalds from happening will be political, likewise the same with fields medal
We're automating art and science so that we can flip burgers. This future sucks.
Math is a very specialized subset of art and science more amenable to automation.
The first thing we automated passably was art, even before programming. Were you not paying attention?
This future still sucks. The tech industry is making the world a worse place.
our local AI models are already capable of running McDonalds.
Lee Sedol, Move 37 https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1l0z5yk/the_mo... Edit: I wasn't necessarily disagreeing. But on second thought the chessboard in this math analogy is being built, not just played in. This Hardy quote comes to mind https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/902543-it-proof-by-contradi...
My claim is that we haven't even witnessed the move 37 of math yet. I am claiming that math AI is going to get even better
Nonsense. Have you been watching the figure live stream? Or the Unitree video from yesterday with real time novel action generation? We’re less than a year away. If you can cook a burger, assemble a sandwich and clean up surfaces you’re all of the way there.
Fair. Let's see in a year. I'm willing to bet that nothing happens.
Yeah, it’s gonna be an exciting year. I still think you’ll need one human in there, but that’s about it.
The proof brings unexpected, sophisticated ideas from algebraic number theory to bear on an elementary geometric question.
The more I read about these achievements the more I get a feeling that a lot of the power of these models comes from having prior knowledge on every possible field and having zero problems transferring to new domains.
To me the potential beauty of this is that these tools might help us break through the increasing super specialization that humans in science have to go through today. Which in one hand is important on the other hand does limit the person in terms of the tooling and inspiration it has access to.
It’s as if the body of human knowledge is our I’ve mind. It used to be expensive to access that, but no more.
Cool thing is now when someone contributes something to the hive mind, it can instantly be applied to any other problem people are working on.
I think you're on point, and you've explained it very well.
As we're becoming hyper specialised, they become an invaluable tool to merge the horizon in, so to speak.
I think traditionally engineering was supposed to be the discipline that brings the breadth that science has to give up. At least that’s how I rationalized the pain I had to go through in college studying EE.
I don’t think that this model works anymore though.
Also, I love the expression “merge the horizon in”. Being a non native speaker of a language is so nice some times. Thanks!
I’ve always been skeptical about the role of LLMs in mathematics, but this is the first time I’ve seen this argument, and I actually find it very compelling. Maybe LLMs will help us develop more horizontal understanding of the field.
It's up to us I think. We can use LLMs to generate web pages in candy crash style and end up dumper by outsourcing thinking to the machines or we can use it to expand our cognitive capabilities.
What makes me more of an optimist in this case is that people who today decide to go into these sciences are mostly people who are driven by intellectual activity so I feel they are the right ones to figure this out, probably more so than us the engineers.
Unfortunately, LLMs might lead to the demise of the primary institution that allows for people that are in it for the love of intellectual activity to do that activity, namely research universities. Certainly the people proposing the tech are quite opposed to the modern university.
Yep. The thing is people (maybe because of our limited scope) just focus on the depth and not the breadth. Because this is a general purpose model - it also has PhD+ knowledge in Physics, Biology, History, etc.
I think we still don't really comprehend how much can be achieved by a single "mind" that has internalized so much knowledge from so many areas.
there's so much opportunity on the breadth of things too! I think that you end up having different people focusing on different things though.
Personally I'm a more of a breadth person and I could never compete with peers who where more of the depth type of person at college.
But I get satisfaction from connecting things that feel irrelevant on first sight, that's what drives me.
I like how everyone laughed when OpenAI said their models will have "PhD-Level Intelligence" and now the goalpost has been moved to if AI can create new math (i.e., not PhD-Level, but Leibniz/Euler/Galois level.)
I still laugh.
Have you updated your priors after this announcement? If not, why not?
Prior whats?
When a qualifying noun is absent , then priors means prior beliefs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability
I don't have enough information about the announcement for it to mean much to me. I don't know much about this field of maths. I don't know how many mathematicians were actively working on this problem. It could be zero, which would indicate it's not really that interesting. The article gushes about how it's a Very Important Problem, but it's not even mentioned on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conjectures_by_Paul_Er.... I'm sure the busy folk at openAI will fix that soon however. Furthermore the extensive dishonesty of companies like openAI makes me suspicious of just how this was achieved. Overall the announcement is of little interest to my "priors", although I don't typically think in such terms.
Yet it still codes like a junior developer that memorized all of stack overflow.
PhDs code like that too. Especially if they're statisticians :)
Personally I don't find this to be true anymore! It's not always great and does still will often tend towards unneeded complexity (especially if not pushed a bit), but I often find GPT 5.5 writing code I would have written myself. This was very much not true with earlier models (who make something that worked, but I'd always have to rewrite to make it "good code").
Clearly you've never supervised junior developers.
Or PhDs
The summarized chain of thought for this task (linked in the blogpost) is 125 pages. That's an insane scale of reasoning, quite akin to what Anthropic has been teasing with Mythos.
That's here for anyone wondering - https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/1625eff6-5ac1-40d8-b1db-5d5cf925d...
Today I generated the equivalent of two LOTR books just to fix three missing rows in my SQL models (and open a PR), so +1
Is there a reason why we only hear of Erdos problems being solved? I would imagine there are a myriad of other unsolved problems in math, but every single ChatGPT "breakthrough in math" I come across on r/singularity and r/accelerate are Erdos problems.
Erdős problems form a substantial fraction of all mathematical problems that have been explicitly stated but not solved; are sufficiently famous that people care about them; and are sufficiently uninteresting that people have not spent that much effort trying to solve them.
Solving problems people have already stated is a niche activity in mathematical research. More often, people study something they find interesting, try to frame it in a way that can be solved with the tools they have, and then try to come up with a solution. And in the ideal case, both the framing and the solution will be interesting on their own.
Erdos problems are easier to state, thus they make a great benchmark for the first year of AI mathematics.
Afaik this is because there is a community and database around them.
Interesting. OpenAI could also be trying to solve other problems, but Erdos problems maybe falling first?
No, Erdos problems were accepted as sort of a benchmark. There's a bunch of reasons they're favorable for this task:
1. They have a wide range of difficulties. 2. They were curated (Erdos didn't know at first glance how to solve them). 3. Humans already took the time to organize, formally state, add metadata to them. 4. There's a lot of them.
If you go around looking for a mathematics benchmark it's hard to do better than that.
It's not just Erdos problems - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48213189
They're just famous because Erdos was a great mathematician, kinda like the Hilbert problems a century earlier.
I was promised a cure for cancer, but all I got was this disproof of an Erdos problem.
It's a large set of problems that are both interesting and difficult, but not seen as foundational enough or important enough that they have already had sustained attention on them by mathematicians for decades or centuries, and so they might actually be solvable by an LLM.
Also fewer prerequisites to understand the statement than the average research problem.
The models can't actually so good work on practical problems so openai tasks them on stuff nobody cares about
From the companion paper:
> The argument relies crucially on ideas that may, at least in retrospect, be attributed to Ellenberg-Venkatesh, Golod-Shafarevich, and Hajir-Maire-Ramakrishna.
Can someone please elaborate on this?
This is impressive, no question.
Without knowing all this model has been trained on though, it is pretty hard to ascertain the extent to which it arrived to this "on its own". The entire AI industry has been (not so secretly) paying a lot of experts in many fields to generate large amounts of novel training data. Novel training data that isn't found anywhere else--they hoard it--and which could actually contain original ideas.
It isn't likely that someone solved this and then just put it in the training data, although I honestly wouldn't put that past OpenAI. More interesting though is the extent to which they've generated training data that may have touched on most or all of the "original" tenets found in this proof.
We can't know, of course. But until these things are built in a non-clandestine manner, this question will always remain.
Seems like a very tin-foil-hat-take to me
I’m quite certain that a few months ago, some problems were claimed to be solved by AI. However, those claims were actually false and were exactly that, solved erdos problems that were not marked as solved and the solution was "found" by AI.
edit: >> https://techcrunch.com/2025/10/19/openais-embarrassing-math/
The corollary is that this is a very valuable capability of AI!
The ability to find incredibly obscure facts and recall them to solve "officially unsolved" problems in minutes is like Google Search on steroids. In some sense, it is one core component of "deep expertise", and humans rely on the same methodology regularly to solve "hard" problems. Many mathematicians have said that they all just use a "bag of tricks" they've picked up and apply them to problems to see if they work. The LLMs have a huge bag of very obscure tricks, and are starting to reach the point that they can effectively apply them also.
I suspect the threshold of AGI will be crossed when the AIs can invent novel "tricks" on their own, and memorise their own new approach for future use without explicitly having to have their weights updated with "offline" training runs.
How is that a "tin-foil-hat" take? It's not a secret, and in fact widely reported, that these companies are spending billions on creating training data.
So you think that OpenAI paid some mathematicians to either solve this conjecture problem, or a bunch of related unpublished math related to it, then fed it into an LLM model so they could announce it as being solved by the model? How is that not a conspiracy theory?
It is just a theory, the conspiracy part is not really applicable. I don't see what is controversial about it. Are you implying the machine taught itself the mathematics to do all this?
I'm not letting the government read my brainwaves.
In all seriousness though: My suggestion is that those shepherding the frontier of AI start acting with more transparency, and stop acting in ways that encourage conspiratorial thinking. Especially if the technology is as powerful as they market it as.
Would be interesting to know what kind of preparatory work actually went into this - how long did it take to construct an input that produced a real result, and how much input did they get from actual mathematicians to guide refining it
Why?
It's clearly not yet a tool that can deliver new math at a scale. I say this because otherwise, the headline would be that they proved / disproved a hundred conjectures, not one. This is what happened with Mythos. You want to be the AI company that "solved" math, just like Anthropic got the headlines for "solving" (or breaking?) security.
The fact they're announcing a single success story almost certainly means that they've thrown a lot of money at a lot of problems, had experts fine-tuning the prompts and verifying the results, and it came back with a single "hit". But that doesn't make the result less important. We now have a new "solver" for math that can solve at least some hard problems that weren't getting solved before.
Whether that spells the end of math as we know... I don't think so, but math is a bit weird. It's almost entirely non-commercial: it's practiced chiefly in the academia, subsidized from taxes or private endowments, and almost never meant to solve problems of obvious practical importance - so in that sense, it's closer to philosophy than, say, software engineering. No philosopher is seriously worried about LLMs taking philosopher jobs even though they a chatbot can write an essay, but mathematicians painted themselves into a different corner, I think.
Says in the papers. "...which was first mathematically generated in one shot by an internal model at OpenAI, and then expositionally refined through human interactions with Codex."
Doesn't really matter the prep-work, what they say is it's a one-shot result, achieved by AI. The blog doesn't claim it was done by a currently public Model.
One thing seems for certain is that OpenAI models hold a distinct lead in academics over Anthropic and Google models.
For those in academics, is OpenAI the vendor of choice?
OpenAI specifically targeted Academia a lot and gave out a lot of free/unlimited usage to top academics and universities/researchers.
They also offer grants you can apply for as a researcher. I'm sure other labs may have this too but I believe OpenAI was first to this.
Hasn't AlphaFold been used to make real discoveries for a few years now?
I think he's talking about reasoning models.
I think the mathematicians on X are all using GPT 5.5 Pro
From my limited testing, Gemini can dig out hard to find information given you detail your prompt enough.
Given that Google is the "web indexing company", finding hard to find things is natural for their models, and this is the only way I need these models for.
If I can't find it for a week digging the internet, I give it a colossal prompt, and it digs out what I'm looking for.
This is my experience too. Gemini and Gemini deep research are awesome. Claude's deep research is pretty bad really relative to ChatGPT or Gemini. Overall, I still love Claude the best but it is not what I would want to use if I wanted to really dig into deep research. The export to google docs in Gemini deep research is tough to beat too. I haven't used Gemini since January but have probably years of material from saved deep research in google docs. Almost an overwhelming amount of information when I dive into what I saved.
Gemini seems better trained for learning and I think Google has made a more deliberate effort to optimize for pedagoical best practices. (E.g. tutoring, formative feedback, cognitive load optimization)
As far as academic research is concerned (e.g. this threads topic), I can't say.
Gemini the chatbot has a very strange personality that intensely overindexes on your user profile and absolutely loves insane mixed metaphors.
Its explanations are quite good but they're also hard to understand because it keeps trying to relate everything back to programming metaphors or what it thinks it knows about the streets in the neighborhood I live in.
Agreed I usually use Gemini for explaining concepts and ChatGPT for getting things done on research projects.
Yes, I meant academic research.
Gemini is like someone with short-term memory loss; after the first response, it forgets everything. That being said, I have checked multiple model and gemini can sometime give accurate answer.
Gemini is a series with a lot of individual models.
What you are describing doesn't match my experience at all with Gemini 3 or 3.1, especially the pro version.
A simpler explanation is that more people are using ChatGPT
OpenAI models seem to have been trained on a lot of auto-generated theorem proving data; GPT 5.5 is really good at writing Lean.
To paraphrase Gwynne Shotwell: “Not too bad for just a large Markov chain, eh?”
Erdos, or the model?
What strikes me in this case (and I haven't seen in other comments) is that it's a _disproof_ of a conjecture put forth by Erdős and supported (at least according to OpenAI) by other professional mathematicians. Erdős, one of the greats, thought that the limit was O(n^{1 + o(1)}), which GPT disproved.
We can argue about recombination/interpolation of training data in LLMs, but even if this was an interpolation, the result was contrarian rather than a confirmation. Any system that can identify an error in Erdős's thinking seems very useful to me (though perhaps he did not spend much time thinking about or checking this particular conjecture).
Can anyone find (or draw) a picture of the construction?
This only a proof that a field with more connections is possible, not what it looks like.
I’m very out of my depth, but the structure of the proof seems to follow a pattern similar to a proof by contradiction. Where you’d say for example “assume for the sake of contradiction that the previously known limit is the highest possible” then prove that if that statement is true you get some impossible result.
They only proved that one exists; computing the actual construction is non-obvious (the naive way to construct it is computationally infeasible).
They have a "before" picture but not an "after"!
Yeah, unfortunately, they just proved there existed a better solution, they didn't construct it.
(Though in some ways that's actually more impressive.)
I guess if this stuff is going to make my employment more precarious, it’d be nice if it also makes some scientific breakthroughs. We’ll see
shame we won’t see any of these medical breakthroughs when we all lose our jobs and thus our healthcare
There is a world that AI makes medical breakthroughs, but there is 0 guarantee it is going to be affordable
Breakthroughs in pure mathematics aren't scientific though. They say us nothing about the world, and they are not useful.
I actually tried using GPT-5.5 Pro on this problem recently. It thought it was making progress on one path, but it made so many mistakes that it didn't feel worth it pushing further. It'll be interesting to check whether it's the same route. I got partial results (proved in Lean) that improve on the best-known results for four Erdős problems with GPT-5.5 Pro
Few questions that the blog did not answer, if anyone knows that'll be great:
- Does anyone know if this was a 1 minute of inference or 1 month?
- How many times did the model say it was done disproving before it was found out that the model was wrong/hallucinating?
- One of the graphs say - the model produced the right answer almost half the times at the peak compute??? did i understand that right? what does peak compute mean here?
Not to dismiss the AI but the important part is that you still need someone able to recognize these solutions in the first place. A lot of things were just hidden in plain sight before AI but no one noticed or didn't have the framework either in maths or any other field they're specialized in to recognize those feats.
How do you even get an LLM to try to solve one of these problems? When I ask it just comes back with the name of the problem and saying "it can't be done"
By making it think for 100+ pages https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/1625eff6-5ac1-40d8-b1db-5d5cf925d... Regular ChatGPT users don’t have a way to do that, this is something they do internally only.
edit: apparently that’s only the _condensed summary_ of the chain of thought.
you can do this easily with the api or with codex
Maybe you need to phrase it better. Like with a more specific direction of thinking.
Speaking as a postdoc in math, I must say that this is rather exciting. This is outside of my field, but the companion remarks document is quite digestible. It appears as though the proof here fairly inspired by results in literature, but the tweaks are non-trivial. Or, at least to me, they appear to be substantial to where I would consider the entire publication novel and exciting.
Many of my colleagues and I have been experimenting with LLMs in our research process. I've had pretty great success, though fairly rarely do they solve my entire research question outright like this. Usually, I end up with a back and forth process of refinements and questions on my end until eventually the idea comes apparent. Not unlike my traditional research refinement process, just better. Of course, I don't have access to the model they're using =) .
Nevertheless, one thing that struck me in this writeup, was the lack of attribution in the quoted final response from the model. In a field like math, where most research is posted publicly and is available, attribution of prior results is both social credit and how we find/build abstractions and concentrate attention. The human-edited paper naturally contains this. I dug through the chain-of-thought publication and did actually find (a few of) them. If people working on these LLMs are reading, it's very important to me that these are contained in the actual model output.
One more note: the comments on articles like these on HN and otherwise are usually pretty negative / downcast. There's great reason for that, what with how these companies market themselves and how proponents of the technology conduct themselves on social media. Moreover, I personally cannot feel anything other than disgust seeing these models displace talented creatives whose work they're trained on (often to the detriment of quality). But, for scientists, I find that these tools address the problem of the exploding complexity barrier in the frontier. Every day, it grows harder and harder to contain a mental map of recent relevant progress by simple virtue of the amount being produced. I cannot help but be very optimistic about the ambition mathematicians of this era will be able to scale to. There still remain lots of problems in current era tools and their usage though.
I cannot quite share your enthusiasm. The clearest analogy that I can think of to try to explain why I feel this way is that it seems there will eventually be a phantom textbook of all of mathematics contained in the weights of an LLM; every definition, every proof, etc; and the role of a mathematician is going to be reduced towards reading certain parts of this phantom textbook (read: prompting an LLM to generate a proof or explore some problem) and sharing the resulting text with others, which of course anybody else could have found if they simply also knew the right point of the textbook.
To be blunt, this seems incredibly uninteresting to me. I enjoy learning mathematics, sure, but I just don't find much inherent meaning in reading a textbook or a paper. The meaning comes from the taking those ideas and applying them to my own problems, be it a direct proof of a conjecture or coming up with the right framework or tools for those conjectures. But, of course, in this future, those proofs and frameworks are already in the textbook. So what's the point? If someone cared about these answers in the first place, they probably could have found the right prompt to extract it from this phantom textbook anyways.
You could argue for there being work still like marginal improvements and applying the returned proof to other scenarios as happened in this case, but as above, what is really there to do if this is already in the phantom textbook somewhere and you just need to prompt better? The mathematicians in this case added to the exposition of the proof, but why wouldn't the phantom textbook already have good enough exposition in the first place?
I think my complete dismissal of the value of things like extending the proofs from an LLM or improving exposition is too strong -- there is value in both of them, and likely will always be -- but it would still represent a sharp change in what a mathematician does that I don't think I am excited for. I also don't think this phantom textbook is contained even in the weights of whatever internal model was used here just yet (especially since as some of the mathematicians in the article pointed out, a disproof here did not need to build any new grand theories), but it really does seem to me it eventually will be, and I can't help but find the crawl towards that point somewhat discouraging.
Why would it excite you, rather than terrifying you? The better LLMs get at math, the closer the expertise you spent your whole life building is to being worthless.
Along with all the rest of what humans find meaningful and fulfilling.
What's happening is the verbal/linguistic equivalent of the invention of calculus. No intellectual field will ever be the same again. Who wouldn't find that exciting, and want to experience it?
People who enjoy thinking. Ya know, the "intellectual" part.
This is the beginning of thinking, not the end...
I'm not sure I grasp the analogy to the invention of calculus. Calculus helped us solve new and interesting math/physics problems. Repeated for emphasis: helped *us* solve.
This technology is solving interesting math/physics problems for us, which is completely different.
Timothy Gowers' tweet about this: "If you are a mathematician, then you may want to make sure you are sitting down before reading futher.".
woah.
Unfortunately Gowers has taken Tao's lead on this one.
Gowers has one of my favourite video series about how he approaches a problem he is unfamiliar with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byjhpzEoXFs
It is disheartening to see him jump into this GenAI puffery.
I hope these GenAI labs are paying Tao handsomely for legitimizing their slop, but more likely he's feeling pressure from his University to promote and work with these labs.
My guess is Gowers wants in on that action, or his University does.
Either way, it makes me sad. If its self motivated... even sadder.
I'm not sure your characterization of Tao is accurate lol. In that companion paper, only Gowers seems to extensively show no pragmatism in the implications of this accomplishment. Even the younger math experts in that paper were a lot more cautious with their statements. Tao seems to follow that same tune most of the time even though he uses AI for first-pass inspections of solutions brought to his attention.
If seems like you have an axe to grind about AI capabilities that is making you think irrationally
Are you saying this result is uninteresting and therefore AI slop or puffery? Obviously OpenAI has a motivation to "market" the accomplishment as much as possible, but surely you agree it IS a remarkable achievement?
AI isn't going to supercharge science but I wouldn't be as dismissive as other posters here.
I'm not a scientist but I like to LARP as one in my free time, and I have found ChatGPT/Claude extremely useful for research, and I'd go as far as to say it supercharged it for me.
When I'm learning about a new subject, I'll ask Claude to give me five papers that are relevant to what I'm learning about. Often three of the papers are either irrelevant or kind of shit, but that leaves 2/5 of them that are actually useful. Then from those papers, I'll ask Claude to give me a "dependency graph" by recursing on the citations, and then I start bottom-up.
This was game-changing for me. Reading advanced papers can be really hard for a variety of reasons, but one big one can simply be because you don't know the terminology and vernacular that the paper writers are using. Sometimes you can reasonably infer it from context, but sometimes I infer incorrectly, or simply have to skip over a section because I don't understand it. By working from the "lowest common denominator" of papers first, it generally makes the entire process easier.
I was already doing this to some extent prior to LLMs, as in I would get to a spot I didn't really understand, jump to a relevant citation, and recurse until I got to an understanding, but that was kind of a pain in the ass, so having a nice pretty graph for me makes it considerably easier for me to read and understand more papers.
One heuristic I used during my masters degree research thesis was to look for the seminal people or papers in a field by using google scholar to find the most cited research papers and then reading everything else by that author / looking at the paper's references for others. You often only need to go back 3-4 papers to find some really seminal/foundational stuff.
Yeah, that's actually how I discovered Leslie Lamport like ten years ago. I was looking for papers on distributed consensus, and it's hard not to come across Paxos when doing that. It turns out that he has oodles of really great papers across a lot of different cool things in computer science and I feel like I understand a lot more about this space because of it.
It doesn't hurt that Lamport is exceptionally good at explaining things in plain language compared to a lot of other computer scientists.
It's a very complicated matter honestly. This is a new height that AI has reached, even though it follows the usual methods of success that it has had.
What strikes me as unusual though is that they do make a point of saying things like "this is a general purpose model that wasn't trained on the problem" among a few other things as if that's new. The last bountied problem they accomplished used a public model that ALSO didn't rely on specialized training. And that didn't make their blog.
I absolutely believe that AI will supercharge science.
I do not believe it will replace humans.
I absolutely believe that AI will supercharge science and replace humans.
Why shouldn't it? Humans are poorly optimized for almost anything, and built on a substrate that's barely hanging together
I’d give humans some credit, they’re an adaptable bunch. AI won’t replace humans in the same way humans did not replace cockroaches. It’s a non-sequitur.
We generally don’t allow cockroaches to thrive in the spaces we claim for ourselves. Question is how much space (economic or otherwise) will AI claim for itself and whether there will be any left for us.
> Humans are poorly optimized for almost anything, and built on a substrate that's barely hanging together
Goodness gracious!
Well, for starters AI doesn't have goals. If there was a super intelligence with goals, why would they work for us?
Fwiw if you trained an LLM in an RL sandbox that would require it to have goals, the output llm probably would "have goals"
Not like large language models, which only required tens of megawatts of power and use highly efficient monte carlo methods, eh
Individual humans are processing nodes on human culture as a whole, which runs on rather more than tens of megawatts.
Also it costs a lot to train and run individual humans, and they can only be run for brief periods per day before they crash, hallucinate and possibly get irretrievably broken.
replace, no. obsolete, yes
lol
(That's the first time I used that expression on HN.)
Not only it supercharged science it supercharges scientist. Research on any narrow topic is a different world now. Agents can read 50 papers for you and tell you what's where. This was impossible with pure text search. Looking up non-trivial stuff and having complex things explained to you is also amazing. I mean they don't even have to be complex, but can be for adjacent field where these are basics from the other field but happen to be useful in yours. The list goes on. It's a hammer you need to watch your fingers, it's not good at cutting wood, but it's definitely worth having.
It's a very heavy hammer. I used it in the way you describe and after double-checking noticed some crucial details were missed and certain facts were subtly misrepresented.
But I agree with you, especially in areas where they have a lot of training data, they can be very useful and save tons of time.
I don't think there's a substitute for reading the source material. You have to read the actual paper that's cited. You have to read the code that's being sourced/generated. But used as a reasoning search engine, it's a huge enabler. I mean so much of research literally is reasoning through piles of existing research. There's probably a large amount of good research (especially the kind that don't easily get grant funding) that can "easily" shake out through existing literature that humans just haven't been able to synthesize correctly.
Isn’t that a joke? It already has supercharged science
Since "supercharged science" is as ill-defined as AGI, ASI, etc., people will be able to debate it endlessly for no reason.
Where are the second order effects of this supercharging of science? Or has it not been enough time for those to propagate?
It will notice things that humans may have missed. That said - it can only work off the body of work SOMEONE did in the past.
> it can only work off the body of work SOMEONE did in the past.
And so do humans. Gotta stand on these shoulders of giants.
Can't the previous body of work be from AI too?
Of course it can be, but it's overeager. No matter what your context window is, we will use AI collectively to flood the zone with shit.
To be strict, Math is not Science.
But AI is supercharging Math like there is no tomorrow.
LLM's? I doubt it. Systems with Prolog, Common Lisp and the like with proof solvers? For sure.
LLM's are doomed to fail. By design. You can't fix them. It's how do they work.
You can have a word with Terrence Tao, he had different opinions here
I think it's worth being skeptical of this.. there's a way too common pattern of "AI Lab Shows AI Doing Something Only Humans Can Do" only for a bunch of important caveats and limitations to be discovered after the initial hype. And of course, the correction never seems to be as viral as the hype. I'll believe it when a mathematician actually reads the 100+ pages of reasoning.
I’m curious about the “autonomous” claim. Usually these systems require a human to guide and verify steps, clarify problems, etc. are they claiming that the reinforcement model wasn’t given any inputs, tools, guidance, or training data from humans?
https://lifearchitect.ai/asi/
How did they jump from finding counter-examples (disproof) to a proof?
To all AI skeptics:
What is preventing AI from continuing to improve until it is absolutely better than humans at any mental task?
If we compare AI now vs 2022 the difference is outstandingly stark. Do you believe this improvement will just stop before it eclipses all humans in everything we care about?
> What is preventing AI from continuing to improve until it is absolutely better than humans at any mental task?
No matter how much compute time it's given to combine training samples with each other and run through a validation engine it will still be missing some chunk of the "long tail". To make progress in the long tail it would need to have understanding, and not just a mimicry of understanding. Unless that happens they will always be dependent on the humans that they are mimicking in order to improve.
What is the difference between what LLM's do and "true" understanding?
I feel like people grasping straws on the shrinking limitations of AI systems are just copying the "god of the gaps" fallacy
> What is the difference between what LLM's do and "true" understanding?
The thing where you can understand the meaning of this sentence without first compiling a statistical representation of a 10 trillion line corpus of training data.
Unless you're an NPC of course.
I mean brains get a lot of training data too in order to understand language. I don't think you provided a relevant difference.
Or rather, maybe I don't understand what you mean :)
When you think about the word apple and what it signifies, what do you experience? Is there a feeling of "appleness"? Do you think that sense of meaning is equivalent to the numerical weights of an LLM?
That’s one possibility. If it fails to convince a critical mass that it’s a net improvement in their lives, then the impediment to continual improvement will be sabotage.
I think there's been natural but steady progress with since 2024 with the release of the o1 model, which showed impressive reasoning capabilities. But I think it's wrong to look at the magnitude of the accomplishments and assume that will be field independent. We don't know the range of problems reasoning techniques are useful for. What we see here is refinement of capabilities that have been noticeable for years.
> everything we care about
One qualitative distinction that remains for the time being is that humans care about things while AIs do not. Human drive and motivation is needed to have AI perform tasks.
Of course, this distinction isn’t set in stone.
It depends on if AI can invent cold fusion before running our of all the energy on Earth.
Maybe after decades. 2022 models were microscopic compared to latest models.
You should really look up a video about what GPTs fundamentally are.
You should also really look up a video about what neural synapses really are.
This topic and discussion is out of my league what is the implication here ? LLMs aren't a dead end ?
I wonder whether there will be progress in string theory from these kinds of applications of AI.
While the result is impressive, this blog post is extremely disappointing.
- It does not show an example of the new best solution, nor explain why they couldn't show an example (e.g. if the proof was not constructive)
- It does not even explain the previous best solution. The diagram of the rescaled unit grid doesn't indicate what the "points" are beyond the normal non-scaled unit grid. I have no idea what to take away from it.
- It's description of the new proof just cites some terms of art with no effort made to actually explain the result.
If this post were not on the OpenAI blog, I would assume it was slop. I understand advanced pure mathematics is complicated, but it is entirely possible to explain complicated topics to non-experts.
Indeed, it's a pity. While many advanced math problems are highly abstract or convoluted to explain to a layman audience, this one in particular is about points in a 2D plane and distances. A drawing would have been nice.
apparently the proof is not constructive in the sense of not giving an easy to compute recipe for generating a set of points that you can plot on a 2d plane
Nice. By the year 2100 200 Erdos problems will have been solved by AI. Let's build more data centers.
I wonder how much this cost vs a Math Professor or a team of Math Professors.
Sadly math professors aren't very expensive. Academics are paid terrible wages. Until recently, tenure was the carrot at the end of a grueling education. But now that tenure positions are getting rarer (well, tenure positions aren't growing vs the number of aspiring academics is), they continue to be cheap highly educated labor.
it will only get cheaper in the long run
40x cheaper per year if trends continue
for a sufficiently long definition of long
No for a very short definition of long, look at data on: how fast do prices decrease for a constant level of performance
Another entry in a growing list of the last couple months (interestingly mostly Open AI):
1. Erdos 1196, GPT-5.4 Pro - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/amateur-armed-wit...
There are a couple of other Erdos wins, but this was the most impressive, prior to the thread in question. And it's completely unsupervised.
Solution - https://chatgpt.com/share/69dd1c83-b164-8385-bf2e-8533e9baba...
2. Single-minus gluon tree amplitudes are nonzero , GPT-5.2 https://openai.com/index/new-result-theoretical-physics/
3. Frontier Math Open Problem, GPT-5.4 Pro and others - https://epoch.ai/frontiermath/open-problems/ramsey-hypergrap...
4. GPT-5.5 Pro - https://gowers.wordpress.com/2026/05/08/a-recent-experience-...
5. Claude's Cycles, Claude Opus 4.6 - https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/papers/claude-cyc...
I would have thought a triangular grid works better than a grid of squares. You get ~3n links vs ~2n for the square grid. Curious what the AI came up with.
Yes, not providing visualization of the solution seems criminal.
Unless it's a non-constructive proof.
Knowing OpenAI, the solution's probably being withheld as a trade secret, lest it fall victim to distillation attacks (i.e. exactly the same shit they did to the open Internet).
The grid of squares actually gets > Cn for any C. (More in fact… C can grow like n^a/loglog(n).) The AI proved > n^{1 + b} for some small b > 0, which a human (Will Sawin) has now proved can be about b = 0.014. The grid can be rescaled so the edges are not necessarily length 1, but other pairs will have length 1; that is necessary to get more than 2n unit distances.
Both 3n and 2n are linear, the broken conjecture is that you can't do better than linear.
Which model did this? Is it available to the public?
"The proof came from a general-purpose reasoning model, not a system built specifically to solve math problems or this problem in particular, and represents an important milestone for the math and AI communities."
The accomplishment is cool. But all Erdos problems and other complicated mathematical problems they solved were accomplished with general-purpose models too. In fact for some of those problems, including bountied ones, they were public models. So I don't get saying this
all reasoning is .. well problem reasoning. restricting black-box AIs to specific human-defined domains because we believe that's better is such a human-ist thing to do.
I trust openAI's marketing team 100%
It seems plausible given that people have been using off the shelf 5.5 xhigh to decent success with some erdos problems. There is likely still some scaffolding around it though (like parallel sampling or separate verifier step) since it's not clear if you can just "one shot" problems like this.
How central is it in the discrete geometry? Could anyone with the knowledge in the field reply?
There may be years of investigation as to how far you can generalize these methods. As to how central it is, it's a longstanding problem that Erdos loves to cite for that branch of math.
The thing is is that it seems a lot of the effort through the years (which is unquantifiable in scale as to how much time was spent and how many people focused their entire worklives on it if any) has gone for trying to look for the proof, and the search for the disproof seems minimal.
The blog post links a pdf that OpenAI put together of nine mathematicians that commented on the proof. Each is quite brief and written in accessible terms (or more accessible terms, at least). https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/74c24085-19b0-4534-9c90-465b8e29a...
There's pages of comments from like 8 mathematicians in the attached pdf
As this becomes more common it makes me wonder where the LLM ends and the harness begins.
The underlying model may still effectively be a stochastic parrot, but used properly that can do impressive things and the various harnesses have been getting better and better at automating the use of said parrot.
Every time I interact even with OpenAI's pro model, I am forced to come to the conclusion that anything outside the domain of specific technical problems is almost completely hopeless outside of a simple enhanced search and summary engine.
For example, these machines, if scaling intellect so fiercely that they are solving bespoke mathematics problems, should be able to generate mundane insights or unique conjectures far below the level of intellect required for highly advanced mathematics - and they simply do not.
Ask a model to give you the rundown and theory on a specific pharmacological substance, for example. It will cite the textbook and meta-analyses it pulls, but be completely incapable of any bespoke thinking on the topic. A random person pursuing a bachelor's in chemistry can do this.
Anything at all outside of the absolute facts, even the faintest conjecture, feels completely outside of their reach.
Yeah, I remember it was one of my biggest disappointments with LLMs.
> AI is about to start taking a very serious role in the creative parts of research, and most importantly AI research itself. While this progress is not unexpected, it reinforces the urgency we feel about understanding this next phase of AI development, the challenges of aligning very intelligent systems, and the future of human-AI collaboration.
I find this hyperbolic, but ya gotta juice up the upcoming IPO. I hate that they took an interesting announcement and reminded me why I hate tech and our society at the end.
Can someone explain to me what is their "prompting-scaffolding" to make it work ?
"This is a general-purpose LLM. It wasn’t targeted at this problem or even at mathematics. Also, it’s not a scaffold. We have not pushed this model to the limit on open problems. Our focus is to get it out quickly so that everyone can use it for themselves." - Noam Brown (OpenAI reasoning researcher) on X
can the AI please tell us what to do now that all knowledge work will become unemployment?
Physical labour?
Revolt against the AI overlords.
Is this something that can be made explainable to someone without any of the relevant background, or is this one of those things where all that background is needed to understand it? Because I have no idea what's going on here, but would like to.
Important note: this was not done with a special mathematics harness or specialized workflow.
This part of the announcement holds no value besides maybe taking a shot at the Deepmind Co-Mathematician paper. Nearly every mathematical success they've achieved around the GPT 5.2 generation has been done with general (and even public) models. Their last bountied problem solved was done with 5.4 Pro, also a general model.
How/why should we know this, it does not explain the process in the text?
The back and forth in this discussion reveals to me we are sorting through a kind of philosophical debate about intelligence. That alone tells me LLMs are doing something novel.
Absolutely no proof that any LLM actually found the result, and just a mention of an "internal model". Served to you by one of the biggest liars in the world.
Why would anyone believe this to be true even for a split second?
This has been an unsolved open problem for 80 years. What you're suggesting is that someone connected to Open AI solved this very hard math problem, but then rather than taking credit for it, falsely attributed it to AI?
The point of having an AI solve an unsolved problem, is to make it very clear that the insight must have come from the AI and wasn't in the training data. Sure, it's possible OpenAI had access to some math professors that solved it and then let an AI model take the credit... but seems unlikely. That human would be turning down a Fields Medal for this discovery.
The abridged chain-of-thought from the model also serves as some evidence of LLM origin: https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/1625eff6-5ac1-40d8-b1db-5d5cf925d... (could be fake, though I'm unsure what proof of LLM origin couldn't be faked)
The real test would be if an LLM makes an important conjecture.
I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that AI is a grid of grid-calculating grids. It seems like it would be especially well suited to finding solutions about grids. That is until you consider the fact that even 1 trillion billion grids is still not anywhere close to an infinite grid. So, probably slop.
neato. can we do any thing with this new found knowledge or is this mathematical sports?
can we please put these ground breaking AIs to work on actual problems humans have?
People thought neural networks were just an interesting thought exercise a few decades ago and not for practical ML problems, and look what happened since then.
Back when “term rewriting” was “AI”, multiple math tools were released that took known math facts and did tricks like uncovering new integrals - apply the pattern in some depth in a tree, see what pops out.
What was discovered were numerous mistakes in the published literature on the subject. “New math! AI!” No, just mechanical application of rules, human mistakes.
There were things that were theorized, but couldn’t be exhaustively checked until computers were bigger.
Once again, a tool is applied, it has the AI label - its progress! But it isn’t something new. It’s just an LLM.
There’s a consistent under appreciation of AI (and math, honestly), but watching soulless AI mongers declare that their toy has created the new is something of a new low; uninspired, failed creatives, without rhyme or context; this is a bigger version of declaring that your spell checker has created new words.
The result is more impressive than what was done with tables of integrals and SAINT in 1961, sure.
Apparently if you add a “temperature” knob to a text predictor, otherwise sane individuals piss themselves and call it new.
Then again I thought NFTs, crypto, and the Metaverse were stupid, so what do I know.
ok. so what are the implications of for math
End times are approaching
I dunno, I'm skeptical without proof. I've had the MAX+ plan for a while and I'm sorry, the quality between GPT vs Claude is night and day difference. Claude understands. GPT stumbles over every request I give it.
Weird thing to say about a report which literally has the attached mathematical proof.
Except its not a proof. It's an existential proof of what? Projecting points and loosing density? Nah, it's wrong. At least with Edros you could solve f(x) or not solve it (inf). You can not with this. All they did was balance a really fancy quadratic equation. The projection from C^f to R² doesn't demonstrate geometric injectivity, so nⱼ = |X| isn't established, and the bound collapses.