logoalt Hacker News

Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

357 pointsby milkshakestoday at 4:27 PM643 commentsview on HN

Comments

bhawika_kaushiktoday at 7:52 PM

[dead]

jsnelltoday at 5:14 PM

Original submission (460 votes) two days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49132058

For some reason comments got moved to this one.

show 1 reply
k2xllast Saturday at 8:46 AM

[dead]

deyiaolast Saturday at 8:55 AM

[dead]

drcongotoday at 5:07 PM

This thread has an absolutely wild points to comments ratio.

show 1 reply
Keltesethtoday at 5:11 PM

What's up with the upvote/comments ratio 8 to 337 on this post? Are the comments already also ai advanced? (/s?)

luciana1ulast Saturday at 8:30 AM

[flagged]

show 1 reply
utopiahlast Saturday at 8:28 AM

[flagged]

show 1 reply
sashank_1509last Saturday at 2:31 PM

[flagged]

show 2 replies
xyzsparetimexyzlast Saturday at 11:09 AM

Any implication of any of these findings? They seem like unimportant nerd snipes to me. If you want to do something actually relevant, get chatgpt to write a simulation of graphene nanotube construction and figure out how to do it at scale.

show 1 reply
zkmonlast Saturday at 8:17 AM

> claiming human authorship for a proof generated entirely by an AI system would misrepresent both the system’s contribution and the nature of genuine human intellectual work.

AI has no self-awareness. It's a tool. When you assemble a furniture using a screw driver, the torque force interacts with the molecular forces inside the metal and miraculously it transfers the force to the screw though a clever geometry design, communicating the force to the screw to turn it in a certain way.

Do you attribute the build to the tool? The "system's contribution" is helped by many other things all the way down to chips, datacenters and power generation. If the authorship requires attributing to a tool, then it should happen all the way down.

show 5 replies
overgardtoday at 6:42 PM

Gary Marcus' has a good take on this:

https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/openais-amazing-but-vastly...

https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/two-critical-updates-re-as...

Not that there isn't something interesting in here, but lets be clear that we don't have enough information to evaluate this properly. And as always with these labs, BS takes a lot more energy to refute than it does to spread.

show 3 replies
maxprimestoday at 5:48 PM

I'm sure OpenAI is just interested in the greater good of mankind!

merelydevtoday at 7:20 PM

Great stuff. Wonder how many of the ten problems where solved by independent mathematicians not linked to OpenAI

show 1 reply
titanix88today at 7:38 PM

How do we know that these solutions don't exist in the training data? It is open secret that they have used pirated materials for training. Perhaps it plagiarized solutions from works of some obscure Belgian mathematician from the sixties, who did not get mainstream acceptance. I wouldn't be surprised if they also got access to mathematics done in the "defense contractor" setting from various three letter agencies.

Without a searchable index of training data, it is hard to put faith into these claims.

show 2 replies