“Erdos problem #728 was solved more or less autonomously by AI”
1–10 of 385 posts
Re: “Erdos problem #728 was solved more or less autonomously by AI”
#2Reconfiguring existing proofs in ways that have been tedious or obscured from humans, or using well framed methods in novel ways, will be done at superhuman speeds, and it'll unlock all sorts of capabilities well before we have to be concerned about AGI. It's going to be awesome to see what mathematicians start to do with AI tools as the tools become capable of truly keeping up with what the mathematicians want from the tools. It won't necessarily be a huge direct benefit for non-mathematicians at first, because the abstract and complex results won't have direct applications, but we might start to see millenium problems get taken down as legitimate frontier model benchmarks.
Or someone like Terence Tao might figure out how to wield AI better than anyone else, even the labs, and use the tools to take a bunch down at once. I'm excited to see what's coming this year.
Re: “Erdos problem #728 was solved more or less autonomously by AI”
#3This is great, there is still so much potential in AI once we move beyond LLMs to specialized approaches like this.
EDIT: Look at all the people below just reacting to the headline and clearly not reading the posts. Aristotle (https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.01346) is key here folks.
EDIT2: It is clear much of the people below don't even understand basic terminology. Something being a transformer doesn't make it an LLM (vision transformers, anyone) and if you aren't training on language (e.g. AlphaFold, or Aristotle on LEAN stuff), it isn't a "language" model.
Re: “Erdos problem #728 was solved more or less autonomously by AI”
#4Reconfiguring existing proofs in ways that have been tedious or obscured from humans, or using well framed methods in novel ways, will be done at superhuman speeds, and it'll unlock all sorts of capabilities well before we have to be concerned about AGI. It's going to be awesome to see what mathematicians start to do with AI tools as the tools become capable of truly keeping up with what the mathematicians want from…
This is what has excited me for many years - the idea I call "scientific refactoring"
What happens if we reason upwards but change some universal constants? What happens if we use Tao instead of Pi everywhere, these kind of fun questions would otherwise require an enormous intellectual effort whereas with the mechanisation and automation of thought, we might be able to run them and see!
Re: “Erdos problem #728 was solved more or less autonomously by AI”
#5This is great, there is still so much potential in AI once we move beyond LLMs to specialized approaches like this. EDIT: Look at all the people below just reacting to the headline and clearly not reading the posts. Aristotle ( https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.01346 ) is key here folks. EDIT2: It is clear much of the people below don't even understand basic terminology. Something being a transformer doesn't make it an LLM…
[flagged]
Re: “Erdos problem #728 was solved more or less autonomously by AI”
#6Reconfiguring existing proofs in ways that have been tedious or obscured from humans, or using well framed methods in novel ways, will be done at superhuman speeds, and it'll unlock all sorts of capabilities well before we have to be concerned about AGI. It's going to be awesome to see what mathematicians start to do with AI tools as the tools become capable of truly keeping up with what the mathematicians want from…
This is what has excited me for many years - the idea I call "scientific refactoring" What happens if we reason upwards but change some universal constants? What happens if we use Tao instead of Pi everywhere , these kind of fun questions would otherwise require an enormous intellectual effort whereas with the mechanisation and automation of thought, we might be able to run them and see!
> What happens if we use Tao instead of Pi everywhere
Literally nothing other than mild convenience. It’s just 2pi.
Re: “Erdos problem #728 was solved more or less autonomously by AI”
#7This is great, there is still so much potential in AI once we move beyond LLMs to specialized approaches like this. EDIT: Look at all the people below just reacting to the headline and clearly not reading the posts. Aristotle ( https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.01346 ) is key here folks. EDIT2: It is clear much of the people below don't even understand basic terminology. Something being a transformer doesn't make it an LLM…
> beyond LLMs to specialized approached
Do you mean that in this case, it was not a LLM?
Re: “Erdos problem #728 was solved more or less autonomously by AI”
#8You can try out Aristotle yourself today https://aristotle.harmonic.fun/. No more waitlist!
Re: “Erdos problem #728 was solved more or less autonomously by AI”
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what has excited me for many years - the idea I call "scientific refactoring" What happens if we reason upwards but change some universal constants? What happens if we use Tao instead of Pi everywhere , these kind of fun questions would otherwise require an enormous intellectual effort whereas with the mechanisation and automation of thought, we might be able to run them and see!
> What happens if we use Tao instead of Pi everywhere Literally nothing other than mild convenience. It’s just 2pi.
Call me a mathematical extremist but I think pi should equal 6.28... and tau, which looks like half of pi, should equal 3.14...
Re: “Erdos problem #728 was solved more or less autonomously by AI”
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what has excited me for many years - the idea I call "scientific refactoring" What happens if we reason upwards but change some universal constants? What happens if we use Tao instead of Pi everywhere , these kind of fun questions would otherwise require an enormous intellectual effort whereas with the mechanisation and automation of thought, we might be able to run them and see!
> What happens if we use Tao instead of Pi everywhere Literally nothing other than mild convenience. It’s just 2pi.
You're forgetting that some equations have π/2 so on balance nothing will change. It will be the same number of symbols.