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

GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra produces proof of the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture [pdf]

cdn.openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 467 posts

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra produces proof of the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture [pdf]

#361

Post by hoppp »

kertoip_1 wrote: post #347
plaidfuji wrote: post #230

It seems like a solid set of criteria for how easily a task can be automated by AI agents is: - extent to which correctness of solution be easily specified and checked - extent to which new potential solutions can be implemented as text - extent to which prior art exists online This basically maps to software engineering and math. I think a fair bit of AI hype comes from the fact that the very architects of AI are th…

The job of a programmer isn't to write code, but to automate things. Code itself doesn't have any value unless it solves some real problem not related to coding. So if the work of a programmer can be automated then this means that any work can be automated. So no, it's not about software engineering only.

Code that solves a problem related to coding absolutely have value.

Compilers, programming languages, IDEs, toolings all solve problems related to coding and are valuable.

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra produces proof of the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture [pdf]

#362

Post by hoppp »

imdsm wrote: post #356
emil-lp wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if the work of a programmer can be automated then this means that any work can be automated This is a very typical programmer thing to say.

i think most things can be automated, but not everything i think AI will just replace jobs with new jobs, and humans will continue with open-ended goal setting, and probably jobs where being human is necessary: responsibility and authenticity, so judges, politics, leaders, chefs, etc. so in a way, the above commenter was correct, anything a programmer can automate, AI can do

It is a little bit suspicious that the big replacement didn't happen, yet.

If it was so valuable then AI companies would directly create valuable things, not just sell API tokens.

A proof like this is a good effort at trying to provide value directly, but still far away from real use.

When OpenAI cures cancer I'll accept the fate, but till then I'm still seeing a lot of gambling going on.

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra produces proof of the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture [pdf]

#363

Post by hoppp »

tock wrote: post #327
mapontosevenths wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great question. Thanks for asking it. It really got people talking. My $0.02: Your value as a person never had anything to do with your value to the economy. It's time to relearn that fact. Check out some of Tom Hodgkins books for more. Or maybe anxietyculture.com.

Yeah but what is a persons value economically anymore? What skillsets will enable us to continue to make a decent living till we are old?

It's funny because if people get replaced and don't have money they won't pay for API tokens either so the retail AI business collapses too, there won't be enough demand because people rather buy food.

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra produces proof of the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture [pdf]

#364

Post by hoppp »

pingou wrote: post #335
Retr0id wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI will never be better than me at appreciating a good sunset.

Perhaps it will. And perhaps countless animals are already better than us at appreciating a good sunset, yet we do not seem to value them much.

Animals sure but they evolve with us for hundreds of millions of years so they get a break. They did their part.

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra produces proof of the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture [pdf]

#365

Post by hoppp »

breezybottom wrote: post #242
StefanBatory wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard for me not to think what's the point. I am a very average, even below average person in times of intelligence. What is even my value or reason to be if I know anything I can do, LLMs can do better? What is even my value both on job market and as a human?

Manual labor

Anti-ai sentiment won't be automated out haha

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra produces proof of the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture [pdf]

#366

Post by amluto »

gf000 wrote: post #354
amluto wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the comment is right. The prompt had GPT-5.6 reviewing the proof, and the result, unsurprisingly, survives review by GPT-5.6.

Given a new context, why couldn't the same model have a decent shot at reviewing some results? It's not like they identify whether this output is from them and then go "yeah correct", that's not how they work.

It’s the other way around. The prompt instructed a GPT-5.6 agent to try to make a proof that would survive review by a GPT-5.6 subagent. If there were some defect that would cause the reviewer subagent to accept an incorrect proof, then one might imagine that someone else asking the same model to review the same proof would give the same result. And the proof generation process might even be biased to find such an incorrect proof.

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra produces proof of the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture [pdf]

#367

Post by hoppp »

stavros wrote: post #215
noname120 wrote: post #184

ChatGPT 5.6 Sol Pro believes that the proof is sound. Usually it’s very good at determining if proofs are correct and their mistakes (a friend of mine is a top mathematician researcher and confirmed): https://chatgpt.com/share/6a515ead-b464-83ed-b85c-c8674f56ea... Personally this gives me additional confidence that this is the real deal.

Of course it believes the proof is sound, it wrote it. If you want to check an LLM's output, you should use a different LLM.

Use a human maybe.

Only people can really verify clankers.

Can't trust anything LLM since it will confidently lie too.

It can't take responsibility for verification so it can't verify.

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra produces proof of the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture [pdf]

#368

Post by singularity2001 »

gb2d_hn wrote: post #348
futureshock wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of this has to do with the post-training these models normally get. They are designed to answer basic questions with straightforward and short summary answers. They have the capacity to reason deeply, but they are not biased towards that unless prompted. I think it's because LLMs as they are in 2026 are both highly capable but also parlor tricks. They are not sentient, you just set them up with the cont…

'roll down hill' is a good way of putting it. They don't have 'will', but that's as we want it I think. I think alignment is harder if they develop will. Without will they are still tools that feel like an exoskeleton rather than something that will control us.

Agents have a state which will unfold as a plan, especially in planning mode. Why not call this 'will'?

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra produces proof of the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture [pdf]

#369

Post by singularity2001 »

krona wrote: post #339
riddlemethat wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current foundational models have basic reasoning with glimpses of brilliant reasoning.

LLMs have almost no fluid intelligence or capacity for abstract inductive reasoning, relying on crystallized intelligence for basically everything.

If anything their capability of abstract inductive reasoning is way beyond the average human given how much better LLMs are at solving math problems, it's the paradox that they can do complicated reasoning before they can do intuitive peep-pe-boo.

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra produces proof of the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture [pdf]

#370

Post by StefanBatory »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #313
StefanBatory wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard for me not to think what's the point. I am a very average, even below average person in times of intelligence. What is even my value or reason to be if I know anything I can do, LLMs can do better? What is even my value both on job market and as a human?

This is a great question. Thanks for asking it. It really got people talking. My $0.02: Your value as a person never had anything to do with your value to the economy. It's time to relearn that fact. Check out some of Tom Hodgkins books for more. Or maybe anxietyculture.com.

But it is. My worth is based on what my value is, what I can do. What when I can no longer have any value on the job market?
Post reply on HN