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

71–80 of 310 posts

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#71

Post by comp_throw7 »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #64
johnfn wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect this is AI generated, but it’s quite high quality, and doesn’t have any of the telltale signs that most AI generated content does. How did you generate this? It’s great.

Your intuition on AI is out of date by about 6 months. Those telltale signs no longer exist. It wasn't AI generated. But if it was, there is currently no way for anyone to tell the difference.

> But if it was there is currently no way for anyone to tell the difference.

This is false. There are many human-legible signs, and there do exist fairly reliable AI detection services (like Pangram).

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#72

Post by danielbln »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #43
anonzzzies wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN will be the last place to admit it; people here seem to be holding out with the vague 'I tried it and it came up with crap'. While many of us are shipping software without touching (much) code anymore. I have written code for over 40 years and this is nothing like no-code or whatever 'replacing programmers' before, this is clearly different judging from the people who cannot code with a gun to their heads but stil…

> holding out with the vague 'I tried it and it came up with crap' Isn't that a perfectly reasonable metric? The topic has been dominated by hype for at least the past 5 if not 10 years. So when you encounter the latest in a long line of "the future is here the sky is falling" claims, where every past claim to date has been wrong, it's natural to try for yourself, observe a poor result, and report back "nope, just mo…

What topic are you referring to? ChatGPT release was just over 3 years ago. 5 years ago we had basic non-instruct GPT-3.

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#73

Post by visarga »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #43
anonzzzies wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN will be the last place to admit it; people here seem to be holding out with the vague 'I tried it and it came up with crap'. While many of us are shipping software without touching (much) code anymore. I have written code for over 40 years and this is nothing like no-code or whatever 'replacing programmers' before, this is clearly different judging from the people who cannot code with a gun to their heads but stil…

> holding out with the vague 'I tried it and it came up with crap' Isn't that a perfectly reasonable metric? The topic has been dominated by hype for at least the past 5 if not 10 years. So when you encounter the latest in a long line of "the future is here the sky is falling" claims, where every past claim to date has been wrong, it's natural to try for yourself, observe a poor result, and report back "nope, just mo…

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

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#74

Post by visarga »

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.

The "pattern matching" perspective is true if you zoom in close enough, just like "protein reactions in water" is true for brains. But if you zoom out you see both humans and LLMs interact with external environments which provide opportunity for novel exploration. The true source of originality is not inside but in the environment. Making it be all about the model inside is a mistake, what matters more than the model is the data loop and solution space being explored.

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#75

Post by CGamesPlay »

sequin wrote: post #10

FWIW, I just gave Deepseek the same prompt and it solved it too (much faster than the 41m of ChatGPT). I then gave both proofs to Opus and it confirmed their equivalence. The answer is yes. Assume, for the sake of contradiction, that there exists an \(\epsilon > 0\) such that for every \(k\), there exists a choice of congruence classes \(a_1^{(k)}, \dots, a_k^{(k)}\) for which the set of integers not covered by the f…

> I then gave both proofs to Opus and it confirmed their equivalence.

You could have just rubber-stamped it yourself, for all the mathematical rigor it holds. The devil is in the details, and the smallest problem unravels the whole proof.

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#76

Post by velox_neb »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #64
johnfn wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect this is AI generated, but it’s quite high quality, and doesn’t have any of the telltale signs that most AI generated content does. How did you generate this? It’s great.

Your intuition on AI is out of date by about 6 months. Those telltale signs no longer exist. It wasn't AI generated. But if it was, there is currently no way for anyone to tell the difference.

> It wasn't AI generated.

You're lying: https://www.pangram.com/history/94678f26-4898-496f-9559-8c4c...

Not that I needed pangram to tell me that, it's obvious slop.

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#77

Post by threethirtytwo »

comp_throw7 wrote: post #71
threethirtytwo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your intuition on AI is out of date by about 6 months. Those telltale signs no longer exist. It wasn't AI generated. But if it was, there is currently no way for anyone to tell the difference.

> But if it was there is currently no way for anyone to tell the difference. This is false. There are many human-legible signs, and there do exist fairly reliable AI detection services (like Pangram).

I've tested some of those services and they weren't very reliable.

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#78

Post by fc417fc802 »

danielbln wrote: post #72
fc417fc802 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> holding out with the vague 'I tried it and it came up with crap' Isn't that a perfectly reasonable metric? The topic has been dominated by hype for at least the past 5 if not 10 years. So when you encounter the latest in a long line of "the future is here the sky is falling" claims, where every past claim to date has been wrong, it's natural to try for yourself, observe a poor result, and report back "nope, just mo…

What topic are you referring to? ChatGPT release was just over 3 years ago. 5 years ago we had basic non-instruct GPT-3.

Wasn't transformer 2017? There's been constant AI hype since at least that far back and it's only gotten worse.

If I release a claim once a month that armageddon will happen next month, and then after 20 years it finally does, are all of my past claims vindicated? Or was I spewing nonsense the entire time? What if my claim was the next big pandemic? The next 9.0 earthquake?

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#79

Post by furyofantares »

magnio wrote: post #50
threethirtytwo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Pity that HN's ability to detect sarcasm is as robust as that of a sentiment analysis model using keyword-matching.

The problem is more that it's an LLM-generated comment that's about 20x as long as it needed to be to get the point across.

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#80

Post by utopiah »

nsoonhui wrote: post #69
utopiah wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but if so wouldn't ChatGPT 5.2 Pro also "just memorizing the existing solution?"?

No it's not, you can refer to my link and subsequent discussion.

I don't see what's related there but anyway unless you have access to information from within OpenAI I don't see how you can claim what was or wasn't in the training data of ChatGPT 5.2 Pro.

On the contrary for DeepSeek you could but not for a non open model.

Post reply on HN