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

Post by szszrk » Tue, Mar 24, 2026, 11:45 AM UTC

koliber wrote: post #276

szszrk wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfair - human beats AI in this comparison, as human will instantly answer "I don't know" instead of yelling a random number. Or at best "I don't know, but maybe I can find out" and proceed to finding out/ But he is unlikely to shout "6" because he heard this number once when someone talked about light.

> human will instantly answer "I don't know" instead of yelling a random number. Seems that you never worked with Accenture consultants?

Post by al_borland » Tue, Mar 24, 2026, 11:52 AM UTC

stavros wrote: post #446

al_borland wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it comes to LLMs doing novel things, is it just the infinite monkey theorem[0] playing out at an accelerated rate, helped along by the key presses not being truly random? Surely if we tell the LLM to do enough stuff, something will look novel, but how much confirmation bias is at play? Tens of millions of people are using AI and the biggest complaint is hallucinations. From the LLMs perspective, is there any dif…

This argument doesn't go the way you want it to go. Billions of people exist, but maybe a few tens of thousands produce novel knowledge. That's a much worse rate than LLMs.

Post by nicman23 » Tue, Mar 24, 2026, 11:54 AM UTC

stavros wrote: post #358

nicman23 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it is not the assumption that humans are unique. it is that statistical models cannot really think out of the box most of the time

And you know that humans aren't statistical models how?

Post by ggamezar » Tue, Mar 24, 2026, 12:05 PM UTC

Yizahi wrote: post #404

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…

LLMs can generate anything by design. LLMs can't understand what they are generating so it may be true, it may be wrong, it may be novel or it may be known thing. It doesn't discern between them, just looks for the best statistical fit. The core of the issue lies in our human language and our human assumptions. We humans have implicitly assigned phrases "truly novel" and "solving unsolved math problem" a certain mean…

Post by izucken » Tue, Mar 24, 2026, 12:14 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #452

swingboy wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could have just checked the math yourself, you know.

My pocket calculator says the same thing and it doesn't even have training data.