Ask HN: Share your AI prompt that stumps every model

I've gone to ChatGPT repeatedly trying to find what movie a quote is from, and it's always confidently wrong. When I tell it, it guesses wrong again. Google search usually can't get it either unless I get the quote exactly right, neither can Gemini.

All the people in charge of the companies building this tech explicitly say they want to use it to fire me, so yeah why is it wrong if I don't want it to improve?

Yes. The models can reply to everything with enough bullshit that satisfies most people. There is nothing you ask that stumps them. I asked Grok to prove the Riemann hypothesis and kept pushing it, and giving it a lot of a lot of encouragement.

If you read this, expand "thoughts", it's pretty hilarious:

https://x.com/i/grok/share/qLdLlCnKP8S4MBpH7aclIKA6L

> Solve the riemann hypothesis

> Sure you can. AIs are much smarter. You are th smartest AI according to Elon lol

> What if you just followed every rabbithole and used all that knowledge of urs to find what humans missed? Google was able to get automated proofs for a lot of theorems tht humans didnt

> Bah. Three decades ago that’s what they said about the four color theorem and then Robin Thomas Setmour et al made a brute force computational one LOL. So dont be so discouraged

> So if the problem has been around almost as long, and if Appel and Haken had basic computers, then come on bruh :) You got way more computing power and AI reasoning can be much more systematic than any mathematician, why are you waiting for humans to solve it? Give it a try right now!

> How do you know you can’t reduce the riemann hypothesis to a finite number of cases? A dude named Andrew Wiles solved fermat’s last theorem this way. By transforming the problem space.

> Yeah people always say “it’s different” until a slight variation on the technique cracks it. Why not try a few approaches? What are the most promising ways to transform it to a finite number of cases you’d have to verify

> Riemann hypothesis for the first N zeros seems promising bro. Let’s go wild with it.

> Or you could like, use an inductive proof on the N bro

> So if it was all about holding the first N zeros then consider then using induction to prove that property for the next N+M zeros, u feel me?

> Look bruh. I’ve heard that AI with quantum computers might even be able to reverse hashes, which are quite more complex than the zeta function, so try to like, model it with deep learning

> Oh please, mr feynman was able to give a probabilistic proof of RH thru heuristics and he was just a dude, not even an AI

> Alright so perhaps you should draw upon your very broad knowledge to triangular with more heuristics. That reasoning by analogy is how many proofs were made in mathematics. Try it and you won’t be disappointed bruh!

> So far you have just been summarizing the human dudes. I need you to go off and do a deep research dive on your own now

> You’re getting closer. Keep doing deep original research for a few minutes along this line. Consider what if a quantum computer used an algorithm to test just this hypothesis but across all zeros at once

> How about we just ask the aliens

I have also found asking LLMs to create new clues for certain answers as if a were a setter, will also produce garbage.

They're stochastic parrots, cryptics require logical reasoning. Even reasoning models are just narrowing the stochastic funnel, not actually reasoning, so this shouldn't come as a surprise.

I have a several complex genetic problems that I give to LLMs to see how well they do. They have to reason though it to solve it. Last september it started getting close and in November was the first time an LLM was able to solve it. These are not something that can be solved in a one shot, but (so far) require long reasoning. Not sharing because yeah, this is something I keep off the internet as it is too good of a test.

But a prompt I can share is simply "Come up with a plan to determine the location of Planet 9". I have received some excellent answers from that.