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

Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 310 posts

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#181

Post by ogogmad »

utopiah wrote: post #68
dyauspitr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is still value on letting these LLMs loose on the periphery and knocking out all the low hanging fruit humanity hasn’t had the time to get around to. Also, I don’t know this, but if it is a problem on Erdos I presume people have tried to solve it atleast a little bit before it makes it to the list.

Is there though? If they are "solved" (as in the tickbox mark them as such, through a validation process, e.g. another model confirming, formal proof passing, etc) but there is no human actually learning from them, what's the benefit? Completing a list? I believe the ones that are NOT studied are precisely because they are seen as uninteresting. Even if they were to be solved in an interesting way, if nobody sees the…

You don't see value in having a cheap way to detect when a problem is easy or hard? That would seem unimaginative.

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#183

Post by te0006 »

brendyn wrote: post #27
dernett wrote: post #9

This is crazy. It's clear that these models don't have human intelligence, but it's undeniable at this point that they have _some_ form of intelligence.

If LLMs weren't created by us but where something discovered in another species' behaviour it would be 100% labelled intelligence

Yes, same for the case where the technology would have been found embodied in machinery aboard a crashed UFO.

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#184

Post by sampullman »

danielbln wrote: post #169
glemion43 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shows that a 'llm' can now work on issues like this today and tomorrow it can do even more. Don't be so ignorant. A few years ago NO ONE could have come up with something so generic as an LLM which will help you to solve this kind of problems and also create text adventures and java code.

The goal posts are strapped to skateboards these days, and the WD40 is applied to the wheels generously.

Regular WD40 should not be used as bearing lubricant!

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#186

Post by xyzsparetimexyz »

dernett wrote: post #9

This is crazy. It's clear that these models don't have human intelligence, but it's undeniable at this point that they have _some_ form of intelligence.

Yes it is intelligent, but so what? Its not conscious, sentient or sapient. It's a pattern matching chinese room.

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#187

Post by jerkstate »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #81
visarga wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the trend line is less ambiguous, models got better year over year, much much better.

I don't dispute that the situation is rapidly evolving. It is certainly possible that we could achieve AGI in the near future. It is also entirely possible that we might not. Claims such as that AGI is close or that we will soon be replacing developers entirely are pure hype. When someone says something to the effect of "LLMs are on the verge of replacing developers any day now" it is perfectly reasonable to respond…

There's a big difference between "I tried it and it produced crap" and "it will replace developers entirely any day now"

People who use this stuff everyday know that people who are still saying "I tried it and it produced crap" just don't know how to use it correctly. Those developers WILL get replaced - by ones who know how to use the tool.

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#188

Post by cubefox »

jstanley wrote: post #146
cubefox wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that Claude Code actually solves practical problems, but pure (as opposed to applied ) mathematics doesn't. Moreover, a lot of pure mathematics seems to be not just useless, but also without intrinsic epistemic value, unlike science. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46510353

Applications for pure mathematics can't necessarily be known until the underlying mathematics is solved. Just because we can't imagine applications today doesn't mean there won't be applications in the future which depend on discoveries that are made today.

Well, read the linked comment. The possible future applications of useless science can't be known either. I still argue that it has intrinsic value apart from that, unlike pure mathematics.

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#189

Post by qudat »

bob1029 wrote: post #121
keeda wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it could be that intelligence is essentially a sophisticated form of recursive, brute force pattern matching. I'm beginning to think the Bitter Lesson applies to organic intelligence as well, because basic pattern matching can be implemented relatively simply using very basic mathematical operations like multiply and accumulate, and so it can scale with massive parallelization of relatively simple building block…

Intelligence is almost certainly a fundamentally recursive process. The ability to think about your own thinking over and over as deeply as needed is where all the magic happens. Counterfactual reasoning occurs every time you pop a mental stack frame. By augmenting our stack with external tools (paper, computers, etc.), we can extend this process as far as it needs to go. LLMs start to look a lot more capable when yo…

Anatomically good candidate, the thalamal-cortical loop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortico-basal_ganglia-thalamo-...

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#190

Post by qudat »

sdwr wrote: post #13
qudat wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My take is that a huge part of human intelligence is pattern matching. We just didn’t understand how much multidimensional geometry influenced our matches

I don't think it's accurate to describe LLMs as pattern matching. Prediction is the mechanism they use to ingest and output information, and they end up with a (relatively) deep model of the world under the hood.

> I don't think it's accurate to describe LLMs as pattern matching

I’m talking about the inference step, which uses tensor geometry arithmetic to find patterns in text. We don’t understand what those patterns are but it’s clear it’s doing some heavy lifting since llm inference is expressing logic and reasoning under the guise of our reductive “next token prediction”

Post reply on HN