Reading the descriptions of their work makes me think of magic. It's an understanding of the principles of math and physics at a level above almost everyone on the planet - these are modern wizards.
Clarke’s third law.
Fields Medals 2026
21–30 of 128 posts
Re: Fields Medals 2026
#22One was IMO gold medal winner as well.
Re: Fields Medals 2026
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like saying: - winners in the 30s were the last time we have pure human to win (before computer) - winners in the 70s were the last time we have pure human to win (before internet) - winners in the 90s were the last time we have pure human to win (before search engine) Why can't we treat LLMs as just another tool like computers, search engines, computing libraries? Why do people keep trying to anthropomorphizing…
But it's not the same thing. I went through this conversation between Terry Tao and ChatGPT about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample [0] and it looks a lot more like a conversation between peers than him using a tool. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49010345
"Looks like" being the operative keyword there. Do you feel like you're having a conversation with a peer when you prompt an LLM in the topic you're an expert of? For the love of God, I'd hope not. The whole point is that, even though these things are really good at generating what looks like human output, they are still just regular software algorithms.
Re: Fields Medals 2026
#24One was IMO gold medal winner as well.
[deleted]
Re: Fields Medals 2026
#25Reading the descriptions of their work makes me think of magic. It's an understanding of the principles of math and physics at a level above almost everyone on the planet - these are modern wizards.
The description of Yu Deng's work should be accessible to someone who's taken condensed matter physics in grad school.
Re: Fields Medals 2026
#26Congrats to the winners! I’m not sure how accurate this prediction is, but 2026 may be the last time pure humans win the Fields Medal. By 2030, AI could be a coauthor on many winning results. With recent news about LLMs solving major conjectures, winning IMO gold medals, and so much rapid progress, a lot is happening.
[flagged]
We know which bots are the best at Chess. You'd care which AI is the most accurate at diagnosing your medical condition. It's not a bad thing to keep track of which automated systems are the best at certain tasks.
Re: Fields Medals 2026
#27Congrats to the winners! I’m not sure how accurate this prediction is, but 2026 may be the last time pure humans win the Fields Medal. By 2030, AI could be a coauthor on many winning results. With recent news about LLMs solving major conjectures, winning IMO gold medals, and so much rapid progress, a lot is happening.
I don't remember the details exactly. I think earlier this year someone listed an LLM as a coauthor on a paper, maybe in physics or maybe another field. I remember reading about it on Reddit, but I'm not sure when or which paper it was. If anyone remembers what I'm referring to, please let me know.
> I think earlier this year someone listed an LLM as a coauthor on a paper
This is not as radical as it sounds. People did stuff like that all the time pre-LLM. It's just a question of how fussy the journal's editor is. See https://www.wired.com/2013/03/computers-and-math/ for examples in math.
HN discussion on that article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5322313
Re: Fields Medals 2026
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
I posted a similar comment when the winners were leaked: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48906573 i’d like to revise my earlier comment: 2022 may have been the last time we had pure humans win a Fields Medal. I’m fairly certain this batch's winners used LLMs for research, lit-revews, reviewing work, and calculations... perhaps not enough to count as a co-author, but still enough to handle a lot of the grunt work…
It's like saying: - winners in the 30s were the last time we have pure human to win (before computer) - winners in the 70s were the last time we have pure human to win (before internet) - winners in the 90s were the last time we have pure human to win (before search engine) Why can't we treat LLMs as just another tool like computers, search engines, computing libraries? Why do people keep trying to anthropomorphizing…
If you say "find some unsolved graph theory problem and counterexample for it" and LLM actually does it, is it really you that solved the problem? That's the difference vs other tools.
Re: Fields Medals 2026
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This Fox has a longing for grapes: He jumps, but the bunch still escapes. So he goes away sour; And, 'tis said, to this hour Declares that he's no taste for grapes.
The fox who longed for grapes, beholds with pain
The tempting clusters were too high to gain;
Grieved in his heart he forced a careless smile,
And cried, 'They’re sharp and hardly worth my while.'
Re: Fields Medals 2026
#30One was IMO gold medal winner as well.
*Two IMO gold medal winners. Three ISO gold medal winners. Six ISO gold medals collectively :)
- Yu Deng: IMO gold [1]
- Jacob Tsimerman: 2x IMO gold [2]
- John Pardon: 3x IOI gold [3]
Fun fact: Tsimerman and Deng both overlapped with Peter Scholze (another Fields Medal recipient) at the IMO
[1] https://www.imo-official.org/results/contestant/8824/