A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro

Post by jeremyjh » Sat, May 09, 2026, 1:16 PM UTC

FrojoS wrote: post #141

nopinsight wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you're using the "regular" Pro version of Gemini 3.1 for the above, rather than the Deep Think mode, which is more comparable to GPT-5.5 Pro. To my knowledge, regular 3.1 Pro is a tier below and often makes mistakes. Moreover, there's no reason to believe the progress of LLMs, which couldn't reliably solve high-school math problems just 3–4 years ago, will stop anytime soon. You might want to track the progr…

> there's no reason to believe the progress of LLMs [...] will stop anytime soon Wrong. Every advancement has followed a s curve. Where we are on that curve is anyones guess. Or maybe "this time its different".

Post by bdangubic » Sat, May 09, 2026, 1:20 PM UTC

le-mark wrote: post #258

gdhkgdhkvff wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great. You see a shape in graphs. And that shape tells you that _at some unknown point in the future_ progress will slow (but likely not stop). Now back to the point, what reason do you have to believe progress will stop soon ? If you have no reason, then it sounds like you agree with OP. Which makes the patronizing sarcasm all that much more nauseating.

Nausea aside, what evidence does anyone have that “super intelligence” of the sort your argument alludes to is even possible? Because that’s what we’re really talking about; greater than human intelligence on this sort of academic task. For example; When llms start contributing meaningfully to their own development, that would be a convincing indicator imo.

Post by doginasuit » Sat, May 09, 2026, 1:24 PM UTC

aspenmartin wrote: post #256

doginasuit wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually consider compilers more impressive, and a compiler was an important part of making this possible.

To each their own. I mean compilers didn’t produce trillions of dollars of investment, and produce serious and profound philosophical questions about the nature of consciousness but you’re right, thank god we have C

Post by coldtea » Sat, May 09, 2026, 1:29 PM UTC

gchamonlive wrote: post #202

FrojoS wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's no reason to believe the progress of LLMs [...] will stop anytime soon Wrong. Every advancement has followed a s curve. Where we are on that curve is anyones guess. Or maybe "this time its different".

This could be right for the current architecture of LLMs, but you can come up with specialized large language models that can more efficiently use tokens for a specific subset of problems by encoding the information differently ( https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03214-7 ). So if instead of text we come up with a different representation for mathematical or physical problems, that could both improve the qual…

Post by layer8 » Sat, May 09, 2026, 1:30 PM UTC

sdeframond wrote: post #246

pmontra wrote: post #6

It's a very long post with a mix of technical (math) and philosophical sections. Here are the most striking points to reflect upon IMHO. > It seems to me that training beginning PhD students to do research [...] has just got harder, since one obvious way to help somebody get started is to give them a problem that looks as though it might be a relatively gentle one. If LLMs are at the point where they can solve “gentl…

> Would we regard that as a major achievement of the mathematician? I don’t think we would. 1. Does it matter, really? 2. Is it very different from previous computer-aided proofs, philosophically?