I theorize that number of problems AI is possible of solving is limited. My theory rests on an assumption that all human knowledge is a result of lived experience. AI as a statistical machine doesn't know lived experience, therefore it can't solve problems that a living person interacting with reality could solve. Therefore human brain > AI, or so long AI is unconscious anyway.

Sure it can solve math problems by just following the implication arrows. But those are just low hanging fruits, i.e problems that humans were too lazy to deal with.

▲

hopa a day ago | parent | next [-]

They solved a millennium prize problem… they disproved the exponential time hypothesis. Are those low hanging fruits?

▲

jason_oster a day ago | parent | next [-]

GP missed the most important part of TFM's introduction:

> AI is now undeniably capable of making groundbreaking contributions across many areas of mathematics.

▲

claytongulick a day ago | parent | prev [-]

In the "theory of mind" sense, yes, probably.

These fall under the class of problems that have solutions which can be inferred more easily from applying massive computation, which is a subset of problems that human minds are trying to solve.

It's like being a CIA analyst, maybe. You have an overwhelming number of information sources of varying quality and non-obvious relationships. Applying massive computation will definitely allow you to draw new insights and identify trends that would have been difficult, or nearly impossible for unassisted human reasoning.

From what I understand, this is the sort of thing that the LLMs have been particularly effective at in mathematics, applying massive computation to the existing field and with a combination of impressive vector space search and runtime evaluation, deriving plausible solutions to certain narrowly defined problems.

Here's a harder one: you're in a bar, sitting having drinks with friends. There's an attractive girl sitting with some of her friends that has glanced at you a couple of times. What should you do?

Taking into account, of course, the entire human experience from marriage status, age, rejection likelihood, your friends opinions, her friends opinions, your family, your hormones, everyone's intoxication level, how well you slept, the noise level, how long her glance lingered, and the billions of other things that go into it - entire lifetimes of experience, genetic behavior predisposition, etc...

This is just a small example of a brief problem that a normal human has to solve hundreds or thousands of times per day that don't fit into the class of solutions that LLMs would be particularly adept at. It's easy to come up with a lot more.

So yes, I'd argue that those neatly formulated, clean problems with clearly provable solutions are low hanging fruit.

▲

QuesnayJr a day ago | parent [-]

Wait until you find about RizzGPT.

▲

claytongulick 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Oh, I'm well aware of many AI crap apps, and that lots of people use these things instead of their brains.

Doesn't change anything about my point.

	▲	QuesnayJr 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Doesn't it? People are already experimenting with outsourcing your exact example of a quintessentially human activity to a machine.

▲

vanviegen a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> But those are just low hanging fruits, i.e problems that humans were too lazy to deal with.

Some of these problems have had mathematicians dedicating their careers towards getting closer to a solution. Your comment reads like wishful thinking.

	▲	amlib a day ago \| parent [-]
		Low hanging fruits for the agents that solved them. It's very possible that there are whole classes of problems that AI won't be able to solve or will require another few orders of magnitude of compute to solve. A human might even be required to first make a breakthrough on some field before AI can re-apply it exhaustively and find new discoveries on top of that.

▲

dboreham a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's amazing to still see posts like this in late 2026. I suggest you recalibrate your ideas on what both AI and human intelligence is and can do. My take: both are trained systems. Both are as "statistical" as the other. Any idea that "because statistics" means that humans are different or better is bogus. Both can do things based on their training data. You are totally correct that a human has access to training data that AI doesn't (the smell of new mown hay, for example, or the fear of being crushed by the garbage compactor room in Star Wars). But there's no "humans have more training data therefore better" argument to be made about fields like mathematics. In fact the opposite argument works quite well: AI can have all mathematics ever invented in its training data, something that's pretty hard to achieve as a human.

I won't even start on "AI is unconscious"...

	▲	hardbass 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This hangup on sensory data is weird. Sensory data is just like any other signal and can be fed.

▲

claytongulick a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I think Sutton agrees [1].

[1] https://youtu.be/ThFq87Rp21s?is=xvgU-cKCpK0KwG_M