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

81–90 of 310 posts

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#81

Post by fc417fc802 »

visarga wrote: post #73
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…

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 "I tried it and it came up with crap". If we were actually near that point you wouldn't have gotten crap back when you tried it for yourself.

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#83

Post by danielbln »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #78
danielbln wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Transformers was 2017 and it had some implications on translation (which were in no way overstated), but it took GPT-2 and 3 to kick it off in earnest and the real hype machine started with ChatGPT.

What you are doing however is dismissing the outrageous progress on NLP and by extension code generation of the last few years just because people over hype it.

People over hyped the Internet in the early 2000s, yet here we are.

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#84

Post by threethirtytwo »

velox_neb wrote: post #76
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.

> 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.

I wouldn't know how to prove to you otherwise other then to tell you that I have seen these tools show incorrect results for both AI generated text and human written text.

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#85

Post by AstroBen »

johnfn wrote: post #47
threethirtytwo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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.

Their comments are full of "it's not x, it's y" over and over. Short pithy sentences. I'm quite confident it's AI written, maybe with a more detailed prompt than the average

I guess this is the end of the human internet

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#86

Post by XenophileJKO »

velox_neb wrote: post #76
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.

> 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.

I must be a bot because I love existential dread, that's a great phrase. I feel like they trigger a lot on literate prose.

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#87

Post by nsoonhui »

utopiah wrote: post #80
nsoonhui wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am basing on Terrence Tao comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46665168

It says that the OpenAI proof is a different one from the published one in the literature.

Whereas whether the Deepseek proof is the same as the published one, I dont know enough of the math to judge.

That was what I meant.

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#88

Post by threethirtytwo »

furyofantares wrote: post #79
magnio wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not.

Evidence shows otherwise: Despite the "20x" length, many people actually missed the point.

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#89

Post by fc417fc802 »

danielbln wrote: post #83
fc417fc802 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Transformers was 2017 and it had some implications on translation (which were in no way overstated), but it took GPT-2 and 3 to kick it off in earnest and the real hype machine started with ChatGPT. What you are doing however is dismissing the outrageous progress on NLP and by extension code generation of the last few years just because people over hype it. People over hyped the Internet in the early 2000s, yet here…

Well I've been seeing an objectionable amount of what I consider to be hype since at least transformers.

I never dismissed the actual verifiable progress that has occurred. I objected specifically to the hype. Are you sure you're arguing with what I actually said as opposed to some position that you've imagined that I hold?

> People over hyped the Internet in the early 2000s, yet here we are.

And? Did you not read the comment you are replying to? If I make wild predictions and they eventually pan out does that vindicate me? Or was I just spewing nonsense and things happened to work out?

"LLMs will replace developers any day now" is such a claim. If it happens a month from now then you can say you were correct. If it doesn't then it was just hype and everyone forgets about it. Rinse and repeat once every few months and you have the current situation.

Re: Erdos 281 solved with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro

#90

Post by Klover »

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…

Here's kimi-k2-thinking with the reasoning block included: https://www.kimi.com/share/19bcfe2e-d9a2-81fe-8000-00002163c...
Post reply on HN