Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem

Post by gf000 » Tue, Mar 24, 2026, 8:26 AM UTC

razorbeamz wrote: post #298

gf000 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What calculations? Do you mean "3+5" or a generic Turing-machine like model? In either case, this "it's a language model" is a pretty dumb argument to make. You may want to reason about the fundamental architecture, but even that quickly breaks down. A sufficiently large neural network can execute many kinds of calculations. In "one shot" mode it can't be Turing complete, but in a weird technicality neither does your…

> What calculations? Do you mean "3+5" or a generic Turing-machine like model? Either one. An LLM cannot solve 3+5 by adding 3 and 5. It can only "solve" 3+5 by knowing that within its training data, many people have written that 3+5=8, so it will produce 8 as an answer. An LLM, similarly, cannot simulate a Turing machine. It can produce a text output that resembles a Turing machine based on others' descriptions of o…

Post by ChrisGreenHeur » Tue, Mar 24, 2026, 8:27 AM UTC

tornikeo wrote: post #308

qnleigh wrote: post #288

I am kind of amazed at how many commenters respond to this result by confidently asserting that LLMs will never generate 'truly novel' ideas or problem solutions. > AI is a remixer; it remixes all known ideas together. It won't come up with new ideas > it's not because the model is figuring out something new > LLMs will NEVER be able to do that, because it doesn't exist It's not enough to say 'it will never be able t…

Beliefs are not rooted in facts. Beliefs are a part of you, and people aren't all that happy to say "this LLM is better than me"

Post by famouswaffles » Tue, Mar 24, 2026, 8:30 AM UTC

staticassertion wrote: post #295

famouswaffles wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://epochai.substack.com/p/first-ai-solution-on-frontier... >The newly-solved problem came from Will Brian, who had placed it in the Moderately Interesting category. It is a conjecture from a paper he wrote with Paul Larson in 2019. They were unable to solve it at the time, or in several attempts since. Brian had this to say.

I actually still don't see the source for them trying several times, but we can take that for granted. Regardless, as I said: 1. It's labeled as "moderately interesting" 2. They said that they expect an expert could solve it in 1-3 months 3. They had already come up with the solution that the AI had but weren't convinced it would have worked So how big was the gap here, do you think?

Post by tourist2d » Tue, Mar 24, 2026, 8:35 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #306

qnleigh wrote: post #288

I am kind of amazed at how many commenters respond to this result by confidently asserting that LLMs will never generate 'truly novel' ideas or problem solutions. > AI is a remixer; it remixes all known ideas together. It won't come up with new ideas > it's not because the model is figuring out something new > LLMs will NEVER be able to do that, because it doesn't exist It's not enough to say 'it will never be able t…

> e.g. 167,383 * 426,397 = 71,371,609,051 They may be wrong, but so are you.

Post by ekjhgkejhgk » Tue, Mar 24, 2026, 8:39 AM UTC

qnleigh wrote: post #288

I am kind of amazed at how many commenters respond to this result by confidently asserting that LLMs will never generate 'truly novel' ideas or problem solutions. > AI is a remixer; it remixes all known ideas together. It won't come up with new ideas > it's not because the model is figuring out something new > LLMs will NEVER be able to do that, because it doesn't exist It's not enough to say 'it will never be able t…