131–140 of 185 posts
I'm not sure what's crazier: AI improving a lower bound on RH, or AI improving a lower bound on RH and it not even making the front page of HN.
Any human mathematician would be thrilled to prove a result like this, and it's not even big news anymore that an LLM can do it.
prompt engineering 2025: you are an expert programmer, use industry best practices, test driven development and use modularity and abstraction to anticipate future features, … prompt engineering 2026: i believe in you
Yes, one of the things I find hardest about using Claude code for Mathematics is keeping negativity out of the notes and memory. First of all, it will convince itself that a task is just too hard and find excuses not to try hard enough. Then when it struggles on something it loves to write down confusing notes about things which it believes cases the problem. Then next iteration it reads its own note, misinterprets i…
it sounds like this might benefit from a ui that helps to edit/re-write the history
I also think this would make sense for programming but there it is a bit harder to justify the effort
when you are working on something that really matters this can make the difference though
ty for sharing!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would expect to see LLMs that are creative in math before any that are creative in writing. Creativity is more easily specified in math and the solutions can be formally verified. There's no good way to classify creative writing. Many truly great works are overlooked by experts and the public until decades later. Many derivative works are commercially successful.
LLMs, both in writing and mathematics seem to only be capable of coming up with texts that are inside the distribution of the training data. With writing it's just more obvious. LLMs don't write with personality. They don't create new and exciting worlds on their own. Everything they output feels derivative. In mathematics you see the same effect. They are very good at finding results that humans missed, taking advan…
> Jarred Sumner, an Anthropic staff member (and non-mathematician) prompted Claude to “take a real stab” at the hypothesis itself, leaving the mathematical choices from there up to the model. Initially, Claude generated and tried 650 ideas, none of which worked. Jarred prompted Claude to try again, and it spent a day and a half coordinating about 60 Claude subagents, which this time went much deeper: between them, th…
> Throughout this process, Jarred's input was mostly limited to sending Claude messages of encouragement (mostly variants of “keep going” or “believe in yourself”). This seems to have helped Claude overcome some initial skepticism that it could make meaningful progress. I remain delighted at how absurd our current timeline has become.
$2M TC. Job: AI cheerleader.
The world collectively spends trillions training, and entertaining and then watching people kick and hit balls around but somehow working with AI is preposterous for less money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> to the detriment of the whole club of stochastic parrot folk What an interesting and pointless way to refer to “experts who understand what an LLM actually is ”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anthropic seems to be challenging the traditional way math gets published. As far as I understand, these results did not get submitted to journals, and did not get Arxiv preprints; they are released only as self-hosted pdfs, and we don't even know the names of their authors. The canonical reference for the counterexample to the Jacobian conjecture is a tweet with no puntuations nor capitals.
As far as I can tell, Arxiv does not allow an AI to be listed as the author, so publishing there would not have been an option. https://blog.arxiv.org/2023/01/31/arxiv-announces-new-policy...
No more "stochastic parrots" and "LLM's can never produce anything novel, just regurgitate" comments anymore huh?
Sure, looks like 5% of math can be solved by 1T parameters stochastic parrot after NN trillion attempts (burned tokens). By numbers it could be less impressive than some brute force distributed chess engine.. Prove me wrong.