Live data from Hacker News

A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro

gowers.wordpress.com

451–460 of 558 posts

Re: A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro

#451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have also come to the conclusion independently that a lot of companies are bullshit companies, maybe that is closer to the core issue. For the individuals who do have some choice in the matter, I think it is important to hold on to their skills by continuing to use them. It sucks that our work culture is so competitive, but from that angle I believe they will stand out eventually as more competent.

Most companies are real, it's just that a good fraction of the work is mostly unnecessary. Partially because of the overhead of doing business activities that is unneeded most of the time, partly because we don't know what work will be useful, and partly for silly social reasons

I keep coming back to the idea that all the upheaval combined with all the new tools at our disposal will empower and motivate people to start businesses that challenge the status quo. I've lived long enough to see that play out at scale, it is basically how we got Google. That might not sound encouraging, but Google was once a really inspiring company and one of the best places to work.

Re: A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro

#452
post #189

> The lower bound for contributing to mathematics will now be to prove something that LLMs can’t prove, rather than simply to prove something that nobody has proved up to now and that at least somebody finds interesting. 5.5pro is amazing but this implication might not be true & is the core argument of this piece. AI will prove all sort of things - interesting, boring & incorrect. To sort it will be the task of the P…

Verification is generally a much lower bar than solution generation. I don’t think it’s likely sorting out the right from wrong will end up being this huge PhD level effort.

Re: A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro

#453
post #404

This jives with what I've experienced in the brief time I had access to 5.5 Pro. It's the very first LLM that I feel like I can wrangle into solving tedious, but straightforward, problems correctly. It still makes a ton of mistakes and needs to be very rigidly guided, but it does a pretty good job of tracing its own reasoning and correcting itself in a way that the other models do not. The downside (not noted in the…

> This jives with what I've experienced Just as an fyi, the word you are looking for is jibes. Jive is something else entirely.

I'm with you!

Re: A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro

#454
post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think this is a pretty ridiculous take. This falls in the category of swipes/name-calling in https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - can you please edit those out? You're a good contributor - it's just all too easy for unintentional sharpness to downgrade the conversation, and when it's a good conversation like this one, that's especially regrettable.

Noted, doesn’t seem like I’m able to edit anymore though

I've re-opened it for editing if you want to. For us the main point is just to fix things going forward!

Re: A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro

#455
post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who hurt you bro? Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

My apologies. I’m out of the edit window, so I can’t remove it, but I tried!

Appreciated!

I've re-opened it for editing if you want to. For us the main point is just to fix things going forward!

Re: A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro

#456
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the top link (i.e. that the title is linked to), no?

Indeed, the body in the post made me think it was a url-less submission.

Ah yah. Somehow in the last 6 months or so we started using the toptext in new ways - e.g. to share related links and whatnot.

I know it's ambiguous (is this a text post or a linked post? did the submitter write the text or was it the mods?) - but my thought is that over time it might naturally evolve into something clearer.

Re: A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro

#458
post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I note that it is always the same online pundits (even if they are distinguished academics) who push anything new. Meanwhile Wiles and Perelman stayed offline and solved real problems.

would Wiles be willing to transcribe his proof for the metamath verifier? it can be done offline indeed...

https://github.com/ImperialCollegeLondon/FLT

Re: A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro

#459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

1. It matters because there are human mathematicians who pride themselves for their mathematical achievements. Mathematics is art to them. 2. Yes, it is. Because pre-LLM era computer-aided proofs were about using the computer to either solve a large number of cases or to check that each step in a proof mechanically follows from the axioms.

1. And some that are equally skilled that don’t. It matters, internally, to them but it needn’t matter to anyone else.

Re: A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro

#460
post #404

This jives with what I've experienced in the brief time I had access to 5.5 Pro. It's the very first LLM that I feel like I can wrangle into solving tedious, but straightforward, problems correctly. It still makes a ton of mistakes and needs to be very rigidly guided, but it does a pretty good job of tracing its own reasoning and correcting itself in a way that the other models do not. The downside (not noted in the…

> This jives with what I've experienced Just as an fyi, the word you are looking for is jibes. Jive is something else entirely.

Cut me some slack, Jack.
Post reply on HN