Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An OpenAI model has disproved a central conjecture in discrete geometry

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 1001 posts

Re: An OpenAI model has disproved a central conjecture in discrete geometry

#461

Post by conception »

jryan49 wrote: post #457
libraryofbabel wrote: post #448

This HN thread depressed me. I’m still thinking about why. Look past the press-releasey gushing from OpenAI and there are all sorts of interesting and subtle questions here about the role for LLMs in mathematical research. I urge folks to click through to the accompanying comments from mathematicians published alongside the result. There is a really interesting discussion going on. I particularly recommend Tim Gowers…

People are afraid for their livelihood. What do you expect?

Livelihoods and lives.

Re: An OpenAI model has disproved a central conjecture in discrete geometry

#462

Post by godelski »

libraryofbabel wrote: post #448

This HN thread depressed me. I’m still thinking about why. Look past the press-releasey gushing from OpenAI and there are all sorts of interesting and subtle questions here about the role for LLMs in mathematical research. I urge folks to click through to the accompanying comments from mathematicians published alongside the result. There is a really interesting discussion going on. I particularly recommend Tim Gowers…

I think part of it is that one side throws rocks and so it never even matters was is in the article. It becomes a battle if the article is good or the article is shit.

Yes, I'm tired too. I want you have real discussions about these things. But the problem is everyone believes their reality is real and anyone's reality that disagrees is fake. It just escalates. I take long breaks from HN because I realize I just come to the forums and end up being angry. Why do we do this to ourselves? The reality is that at a core level we usually want the same things.

Re: An OpenAI model has disproved a central conjecture in discrete geometry

#463

Post by isotypic »

trostaft wrote: post #232

Speaking as a postdoc in math, I must say that this is rather exciting. This is outside of my field, but the companion remarks document is quite digestible. It appears as though the proof here fairly inspired by results in literature, but the tweaks are non-trivial. Or, at least to me, they appear to be substantial to where I would consider the entire publication novel and exciting. Many of my colleagues and I have b…

I cannot quite share your enthusiasm. The clearest analogy that I can think of to try to explain why I feel this way is that it seems there will eventually be a phantom textbook of all of mathematics contained in the weights of an LLM; every definition, every proof, etc; and the role of a mathematician is going to be reduced towards reading certain parts of this phantom textbook (read: prompting an LLM to generate a proof or explore some problem) and sharing the resulting text with others, which of course anybody else could have found if they simply also knew the right point of the textbook.

To be blunt, this seems incredibly uninteresting to me. I enjoy learning mathematics, sure, but I just don't find much inherent meaning in reading a textbook or a paper. The meaning comes from the taking those ideas and applying them to my own problems, be it a direct proof of a conjecture or coming up with the right framework or tools for those conjectures. But, of course, in this future, those proofs and frameworks are already in the textbook. So what's the point? If someone cared about these answers in the first place, they probably could have found the right prompt to extract it from this phantom textbook anyways.

You could argue for there being work still like marginal improvements and applying the returned proof to other scenarios as happened in this case, but as above, what is really there to do if this is already in the phantom textbook somewhere and you just need to prompt better? The mathematicians in this case added to the exposition of the proof, but why wouldn't the phantom textbook already have good enough exposition in the first place?

I think my complete dismissal of the value of things like extending the proofs from an LLM or improving exposition is too strong -- there is value in both of them, and likely will always be -- but it would still represent a sharp change in what a mathematician does that I don't think I am excited for. I also don't think this phantom textbook is contained even in the weights of whatever internal model was used here just yet (especially since as some of the mathematicians in the article pointed out, a disproof here did not need to build any new grand theories), but it really does seem to me it eventually will be, and I can't help but find the crawl towards that point somewhat discouraging.

Re: An OpenAI model has disproved a central conjecture in discrete geometry

#464

Post by cpard »

keyle wrote: post #407
cpard wrote: post #224

The proof brings unexpected, sophisticated ideas from algebraic number theory to bear on an elementary geometric question. The more I read about these achievements the more I get a feeling that a lot of the power of these models comes from having prior knowledge on every possible field and having zero problems transferring to new domains. To me the potential beauty of this is that these tools might help us break thro…

I think you're on point, and you've explained it very well. As we're becoming hyper specialised, they become an invaluable tool to merge the horizon in, so to speak.

I think traditionally engineering was supposed to be the discipline that brings the breadth that science has to give up. At least that’s how I rationalized the pain I had to go through in college studying EE.

I don’t think that this model works anymore though.

Also, I love the expression “merge the horizon in”. Being a non native speaker of a language is so nice some times. Thanks!

Re: An OpenAI model has disproved a central conjecture in discrete geometry

#465

Post by heuristicsearch »

jryan49 wrote: post #457
libraryofbabel wrote: post #448

This HN thread depressed me. I’m still thinking about why. Look past the press-releasey gushing from OpenAI and there are all sorts of interesting and subtle questions here about the role for LLMs in mathematical research. I urge folks to click through to the accompanying comments from mathematicians published alongside the result. There is a really interesting discussion going on. I particularly recommend Tim Gowers…

People are afraid for their livelihood. What do you expect?

[flagged]

Re: An OpenAI model has disproved a central conjecture in discrete geometry

#466

Post by jug »

ykl wrote: post #334
m-hodges wrote: post #40

To the “LLMs just interpolate their training data” crowd: Ayer, and in a different way early Wittgenstein, held that mathematical truths don’t report new facts about the world. Proofs unfold what is already implicit in axioms, definitions, symbols, and rules. I think that idea is deeply fascinating, AND have no problem that we still credit mathematicians with discoveries. So either “recombining existing material” isn…

I like to think of it as: Imagine every bit of human knowledge as a discrete point within some large high dimensional space of knowledge. You can draw a big convex hull around every single point of human knowledge in a space. A LLM, being trained within this convex hull, can interpolate between any set of existing discrete points in this hull to arrive at a point which is new, but still inside of the hull. Then there…

I found this thought provoking and just had to see how the new Gemini 3.5 Flash reasoned about this (I find it fun to go meta on modern AI like this), and I'm happy that I did! Also as an opportunity to trial this recent model.

https://g.co/gemini/share/065ffa89698e

Re: An OpenAI model has disproved a central conjecture in discrete geometry

#467

Post by mrandish »

m-hodges wrote: post #40

To the “LLMs just interpolate their training data” crowd: Ayer, and in a different way early Wittgenstein, held that mathematical truths don’t report new facts about the world. Proofs unfold what is already implicit in axioms, definitions, symbols, and rules. I think that idea is deeply fascinating, AND have no problem that we still credit mathematicians with discoveries. So either “recombining existing material” isn…

I'm just hoping we're almost past this phase of needing to assess LLM capabilities against an arbitrary one dimensional yard stick labeled 'Not Human' on end and "Beyond Human' on the other.

It's irrelevant and pointless. Irrelevant not just in the sense that when Deep Blue finally beat Kasparov, it didn't change anything but in the sense some animals and machines have always been 'better' on some dimensions than humans. And it's pointless because there's never been just one yardstick and even if there was it's not one dimensional or even linear. Everyone has their own yardstick and the end points on each change over time.

Don't assume I'm handing "the win" to the AI supremacists either. LLMs can be very useful tools and will continue to dramatically improve but they'll never surpass humans on ALL the dimensions that some humans think are crucial. The supremacists are doomed to eternal frustration because there won't ever be a definitive list of quantifiable metrics, a metaphorical line in the sand, that an AI just has to jump over to finally be universally accepted as superior to humans in all ways that matter. That will never happen because what 'matters' is subjective.

Re: An OpenAI model has disproved a central conjecture in discrete geometry

#468

Post by getnormality »

libraryofbabel wrote: post #448

This HN thread depressed me. I’m still thinking about why. Look past the press-releasey gushing from OpenAI and there are all sorts of interesting and subtle questions here about the role for LLMs in mathematical research. I urge folks to click through to the accompanying comments from mathematicians published alongside the result. There is a really interesting discussion going on. I particularly recommend Tim Gowers…

Yes, this and every internet forum will still be doing this two years hence. Your life will be better if you take to heart this famous passage from Nietzsche:

I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation.

Re: An OpenAI model has disproved a central conjecture in discrete geometry

#469

Post by scosman »

libraryofbabel wrote: post #448

This HN thread depressed me. I’m still thinking about why. Look past the press-releasey gushing from OpenAI and there are all sorts of interesting and subtle questions here about the role for LLMs in mathematical research. I urge folks to click through to the accompanying comments from mathematicians published alongside the result. There is a really interesting discussion going on. I particularly recommend Tim Gowers…

We won’t be doing it in 2 years. By then my side will have won!

Re: An OpenAI model has disproved a central conjecture in discrete geometry

#470

Post by pbhjpbhj »

pulkitsh1234 wrote: post #178
dvt wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think that idea is deeply fascinating, AND have no problem that we still credit mathematicians with discoveries. Most discoveries are indeed implied from axioms, but every now and then, new mathematics is (for lack of a better word) "created"—and you have people like Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, Gauss, Euler, Ramanujan, Galois, etc. that treat math more like an art than a science. For example, many belive that to…

Creation is done by humans who have been trained on the data of their life experiences. Nothing new is being created, just changing forms. A scientist has to extract the "Creation" from an abstract dimension using the tools of "human knowledge". The creativity is often selecting the best set of tools or recombining tools to access the platonic space. For instance a "telescope" is not a new creation, it is recombinati…

>a "telescope" is not a new creation

It was a new concept, combining lenses to look at things far away as if they are close to. The literal atoms/molecules weren't new, but the form they were arranged in was. The purpose of the arrangement was new too.

Post reply on HN