| |
| ▲ | mrbungie 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They are highly capable, no doubt about that, but: 1) We don't really know how they arrived to this result except that they had a lead and that they threw millions of compute at the problem. The article is written in a way that makes you believe that it was just an agent loop with little human intervention, but without any evidence. 2) If the threats are to be believed, it is concerning how far they are willing to go to show how capable the model is. One would think their products and credibility would be enough to speak for themselves. | | |
| ▲ | dsdf3 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "2) If the threats are to be believed, it is concerning how far they are willing to go to show how capable the model is. One would believe their products and credibility would take by themselves but here we are." Personally I anticipated nefarious behaviour as part of a broader marketing strategy to sway the view of those in the west that american frontier offerings were far better and powerful than that of China - that if you did not purchase their offerings you'd be awake every night worrying your competitor was. And this is boring - they need to admit at some point they misinvested, Anthropic less so. All this math stuff is great... but hello? The largest market cap companies are valuable irrespective of such amplified intelligence. | |
| ▲ | scurnus 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 1) The article is written in a way that states clearly they threw a lot of compute at the problem. In api cost millions of dollars.
2) Millenium Problems have been the goal every AI company wanted to achieve since their diffusion, all companies have thrown a lot of resource to solve these problems, as they are very famous and scientists spent a lot of time trying to solve them. The first company to solve it will remain in history, despite all of you finding excuses about it. Regarding product and credibility normal people have a completely different view about LLMs, most don't even know difference between models and probably don't even care about Millenium problems, but care instead if chatgpt can solve their day to day problems. This is just them trying to have the throne on the AI companies space, outside it this result won't matter. | | |
| ▲ | mrbungie 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 1) The article is written in a way that states clearly they threw a lot of compute at the problem. In api cost millions of dollars. Did I say otherwise? > 2) Millenium Problems have been the goal every AI company wanted to achieve since their diffusion, all companies have thrown a lot of resource to solve these problems, as they are very famous and scientists spent a lot of time trying to solve them. The first company to solve it will remain in history, despite all of you finding excuses about it. I know, but I don't know how that relates to my point, which is about the way they are doing it. | | |
| ▲ | scurnus 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sorry, I misinterpreted point 1), on X they said they didn't have people specialized in that specific field for prompting and steering the agents, just a group of mathematicians and physicists. The way they are doing it is by trying to get the attention and staying on top of the news, it is a game they are playing that benefits both OpenAI and Anthropic. The more people discuss SF drama, the less attention Chinese Labs and others get. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | QuesnayJr 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Of the seven Millenium problems, Navier-Stokes was the one most thought to be in reach. I'm not sure what the top 3 problems are. You can make a case for the Riemann Hypothesis and P != NP, but I'm not sure what #3 would be. Maybe the Langlands program? (That one is not as precisely stated as the other two.) | | |
| ▲ | anthonypasq 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | the goalposts are on Pluto at this point. | | |
| ▲ | dsdf3 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'd put good money on the fact that we will have a lot of distilled intelligence and yet the world won't look much different. | | | |
| ▲ | QuesnayJr 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm not moving the goalposts. I haven't heard anyone, ever, refer to the Navier-Stokes problem as a top 3 problem in mathematics. People were saying that they thought the solution was in reach a few years ago, before AI was at all capable of research-level mathematics (and the expectation that there was a counterexample). I am not particularly skeptical of claims about AI, compared to the average here on HN, but that doesn't mean every random piece of hype is warranted. What they did is impressive, even though we now know the only reason they threw so much compute at the problem is that they heard a rumor that someone else was already close. Navier-Stokes is not a top 3 problem in mathematics, and it was the one that was thought closest to being solved. |
| |
| ▲ | ameliaquining 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There were also some people talking about the Hodge conjecture, because it has some similarities to some LLM-assisted breakthroughs that were considered impressive in the distant past of [checks notes] July 2026. See, e.g., https://xenaproject.wordpress.com/2026/07/20/human-mathemati... | | |
| |
| ▲ | andrepd 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Lmao my friend, the whole "drama" is that there are allegations of plagiarism. | |
| ▲ | danielmarkbruce 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Highly capable of writing math proofs, no doubt. It's really unclear that this entire line of work (training LLMs for proof writing) has much real value outside of writing math proofs. It is reasonably clear that, similar to Deep Blue at the time, people are extrapolating the results to general intelligence because the people who usually write proofs are insanely smart (just like world class chess players). |
|
