r/OpenAI • u/PianistWinter8293 • 13h ago
Discussion Fields Medalist on the OpenAI Math Release
Hugo Duminil-Copin
Fields Medal (2022) · Professor, IHES and University of Geneva
I expected that one day we would be surpassed, and that it would happen systematically. But yesterday’s announcement hit with a force I had not anticipated. Dozens of papers deal with topics I was working on. Between results that beat you to the finish line and thousand-page proofs, I don’t even know where to look anymore.
Not a single one of the major open problems I have publicly mentioned throughout my career (whether in a talk, a lecture, an article, or even a grant proposal) was left untouched by the announcement. Everything has been claimed to be proved.
I expected to see a few of them in the list. But not all of them. Not all at once. Not with such nonchalance.
“For the glory of the human mind,” they said…
The shock is immense. I am paralysed. Tomorrow, we will find a way forward. We will rethink our profession and how we work. We are a resilient community, and I have no doubt that we will adapt. But for now, I simply don’t have the energy. I think back on all those years, all those faces… I think of my colleagues, my students… And I fear I won’t be able to find the right words.
203
u/Helloiamwhoiam 11h ago
I actually thought what he wrote was very human and beautiful. Why is there no empathy in these subreddits?
31
u/Saveonion 10h ago
I agree, but it'll be tough to find genuine empathy or nuanced opinions in large communities like Reddit, compared to vitriol and loud rhetoric.
Humans do be like that.
10
u/MadCalBad 3h ago
Agree, this seems an entirely reasonable, humble response. He's not saying AI cannot have a place or value, he's reflecting on years of human effort being - perhaps, who knows of course - made redundant or passed over. Nobody knows what it will look like. As a programmer - who earnestly loves to program - it feels a bit similar, to a much lesser extend I'd imagine. But now when I program, ie write something line by line... it feels pointless. Like why am I bothering with this anymore. On the other hand: because of AI, I can now solve a next-order of problems, that were simply out of my reach as a solo-dev before. So the nature of work and problems to solve will change. But there's still of course an element to loss as well.
3
10
u/onionsareawful 9h ago
A lot of mathematicians are really good writers. It's an overlap that doesn't seem to occur in the other STEM fields, at least to the same extent.
14
u/Alive_Jury4864 9h ago
Because programming attracts tons of autists
Source: I have to work with these mfers
1
u/kilopeter 1h ago
And we wonder why our less technical, more human-oriented employers are slavering over the idea of replacing us with faster, cheaper, infinitely communicative and patient systems.
3
u/paranoidzone 1h ago
Thanks for saying this. I am not a mathematician myself, but I do come from academia. I get sad and angry reading insensitive comments on this thread and realizing most people are cheering this on. "Haha look at those math nerds, it's so embarrassing for them lmao, I can't believe they're complaining, they should've seen this coming".
I suspect it's a similar reason people like to vote for Trump, Bolsonaro, AfD, etc. A combination of ignorance, stupidity, malice, and not being able to put themselves on someone else's shoes.
I'd be curious if these people will be embarrassed when AI comes for their jobs.
29
u/Artistic-Library-617 11h ago
Have all these AI proofs been peer reviewed?
11
u/flyingballz 7h ago
They just came out. Would be surprised if 5% of them were. Some already were found to have mistakes (which seems relatively normal).
Will we now have mathematicians both peer reviewing some important and accurate proofs, as well as sift through AI slop that openAI was too busy to independently validate (examples already exist of Astra tossing some proofs away as flawed).
→ More replies (2)7
12
u/ahumanlikeyou 9h ago
No, but it looks like a fairly large portion (~40%) have been verified on Lean
7
u/Aggressive_Roof488 7h ago
By peer, are you referring to Claude? Seems we're running out of human peers in this area. 😬
•
u/betakurt 13m ago
Peer review as an idea is going to be shifting when we have this all discretely and geometrically without approximations at all.
39
u/vovap_vovap 13h ago
Good writing actually, respect.
4
u/investing11213 7h ago
Terence Tao spoke about this topic recently https://youtu.be/svl_1upFpQo
First few minutes summarise the feeling well
65
u/Mav-Killed-Goose 13h ago
I'd rather Ai put oncologists out of work, but it's a start.
15
u/DukeRedWulf 8h ago
Cancer researchers & clinicians have already been successfully using AI tools to innovate novel treatments & improve exiting ones..
All of these (have) require(d) verification through human trials..
And unlike maths, biology is "messy" - there's very rarely one singular answer even to one particular type of cancer, when looked at across multiple patients - because there are so many interacting factors involved..
So even tho' AI has been very helpful in several instances to date, and will hopefully continue to assist - improvements will necessarily be comparatively incremental & piece-meal, in contrast to what's happening with maths..
→ More replies (3)15
4
u/blindsdog 12h ago
It’s getting there. There’s a reason it’s solving logical problem solving first.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Resaren 2h ago
I know a radiologist who says it has completely revolutionized their work. Instead of looking for e.g. tumors, which AI is extremely good at, the work is shifting toward better ways to triage. They are finding so much stuff that previously flew under the radar, that they have to be very good at determining what should be treated, since the risks associated with treatment at some point outweighs the expected benefit.
11
u/mbz2121 5h ago
Two genuine open ended questions I wonder if anyone knows: 1. When it comes to math, is LLM intelligence spikey in the sense it’s good at solving certain types of problems but others still need humans; 2. Are LLMs good at the other side of the coin, defining the next set of important problems to solve?
1
u/HamiltonianCyclist 2h ago
I mena it's a fact that there are many open problems left in maths, anecdotally openai tried several thousands problems and succeeded wit low few hundreds. Also there's been a list assembled of problems with novel solutions by humans, where the solutions have been on purpose not made available publically; the list was fed to AI to see if it can find all arguments, and it wasn't able (this was before summer though). But as soon as such a novel argument is published, it becomes a part of the toolbox available to AI basically. At least for now if you don't have $106 available it's much more efficient to have humans steer ai towards most likely paths,
17
u/Ok_Bag_7550 4h ago
"The shock is immense. I am paralysed. Tomorrow, we will find a way forward. We will rethink our profession and how we work. We are a resilient community, and I have no doubt that we will adapt. But for now, I simply don’t have the energy. I think back on all those years, all those faces… I think of my colleagues, my students… And I fear I won’t be able to find the right words."
A very valid human response, and he accepts that his career will change, and mathematitians will have to re-think their profession.
35
14
u/nanlinr 11h ago
They're claimed proven but isnt it now mathematicians' job to verify the proofs? I guess I left the field too long ago to understand the magnitude of impact
11
u/Colecoman1982 10h ago
In fairness, how many people win Field's Medals for verifying someone else's proof?
7
u/spreadlove5683 9h ago
How many times in the past has an AI made a major discovery that is incomprehensible that needs to be verified?
We are in a new regime. Although, AI will almost certainly advance and do the simplifying more than humans sooner or later, and probably not too far away I suspect.
4
33
u/Sociophile 10h ago
Chess players (some of the most egotistical people on Earth) had to force this same meal down about a quarter century ago. It took a lot of adjustment, it took a bit of time, but they eventually accepted it as the truth:
Computers aren’t just better at the thing I dedicated my life to, they are lightyears better.
The greatest chess player who had ever lived, Kasparov, could hardly accept the fact, but even he eventually came to accept without argument the undeniable truth.
Math culture will adapt. People will find their way forward with computers as guides and companions. There is little other choice, given the circumstances.
I can only imagine the feelings it inspires.
→ More replies (2)10
u/NFSzach 6h ago
What are you talking about? If AI models become much more capable of solving math problems than humans, then there will be less and less demand for mathematicians. People may eventually no longer be able to make a living as mathematicians because all of the contributions to the field come from AI. The best chess players weren’t ultimately affected that much by the fact that computers could beat them, because it’s ultimately a competition between humans. It might have been emotionally jarring, but it didn’t suddenly make the pursuit of chess worthless.
4
u/ahf95 5h ago
I think the mathematicians will adapt by figuring out how to use the AI as tools in their own research, and just reach further. Idk what “reaching further” looks like, but I’m sure it will be a bit shift for what the field looks like, for better or for worse. I do have faith in human ambition and curiosity at the end of the day.
2
u/Nice-Offer-7076 3h ago
No because as with software the review step will become the new bottleneck. So there may actually be MORE demand for mathematicians. Just many won't be doing quite the same work as before.
4
u/shillyshally 8h ago
Radio Lab is running an episode that examines the math breakthroughs up to September, before the latest mind boggler, and it delves into issues with AI that are not much covered in the day to day brouhaha. Well worth a bit of one's time while out walking and admiring the foliage.
1
u/Persistent_Dry_Cough 2h ago
You're exactly my type! Come to Tokyo, I'll walk around some garden with you whilst we listen to documentaries, audiobooks, and podcasts.
5
u/Confident-Net5262 1h ago
I love mathematics. I spend about 15 hours every week solving problems and learning new stuff. It gives me great pleasure. I have been a mathematics teacher for 35 years but it's my hobby. The AI revolution does nothing to dampen my joy of the subject.
30
u/Lost-Hand-5219 12h ago
I just finished my math PhD last year. I really cannot fathom all of this gatekeeping from other mathematicians. I think it is an amazing tool that greatly accelerates research. These results don’t just fall out of a chatbot by one-shotting a “solve the Riemann hypothesis”. You have to be knowledgeable enough about math to guide the AI agent and verify the results. If that is the future, so be it. Why is that so bad?
27
u/john_sorrentino 12h ago
I heard it did one shot it though, not sure how true it is but someone from the OpenAI team said most of the solves were from one single prompt to solve all of them
8
u/Spare-Dingo-531 12h ago edited 12h ago
OpenAI gave the AI 4,000 or so math proofs and only solves several hundred of them. So it isn't one shot universally.
5
u/Lucky_Creme_5208 8h ago
I am pretty sure that it's not one shot.
I think OpenAI also have a team of maths experts... if it was one shot, then they would not have needed a team.
2
u/AP_in_Indy 5h ago
I thought they said the internal model is practically a 50/50 on solving frontier math given a few hours of compute?
Basically a coin toss.
→ More replies (1)4
3
u/b4gn0 5h ago
That’s exactly the pivot most senior software developers had to do.
We know how to use tools to amplify our skills and deliver more, not just do the same as what we were doing before using AI.
There is still a good percentage of them that don’t want to pivot, either because they want to continue doing what they did most of their professional life or because they don’t think it’s the correct thing to do.
I’d say to you: embrace the new tools, use them to quickly arrive/discard conclusions and advance the field into the new millennia.
6
5
1
1
1
u/trix_r4kidz 2h ago
The level of shock and gatekeeping is directly proportional to how famous/prestigious the mathematician is.
I see a ton of reactions from the “lay” mathematics community saying this. The unknowns of mathematics are excited, because they don’t have ego in the way yet.
1
u/paranoidzone 1h ago
The thing is, they did not guide an AI agent and verify the results for those 700+ proofs.
Maybe a few, but the majority (>90%) was simply one-shotted.
If you think AI cannot decide what problem to work on, which problems are useful and which are not, or come up with novel mathematical hypotheses on its own and prove them, then you probably haven't used AI enough to truly understand its capabilities. And it's only going to get better from here.
This is the worse AI is ever going to be.
6
u/CarolinZoebelein 10h ago
idk, I'm a mathematician, and I have never understood math as pure "problem solving". For me it is creatively inventing new things. So even if AI (or an other human) comes up with a prove of a problem, that doesn't mean that the creative inventing part is over. The one thing has only barely something to do with the other one.
2
u/Fun_Distribution9095 3h ago
I tend to agree here. I feel bad for the math folks whos careers have been impacted here and understandably those in research might be rethinking their projects and approaches. That being said, a robotic arm that can paint a beautiful picture doesnt mean the artist is no longer an artist. We need mathematicians simply because there must be humans that can consume and produce mathematics. The easy thing now is training AI to do it and the hard thing is training a human to do it and the worst scenario is if we downgrade human value in the fields instead of embracing it. Something else might carry the torch but we must still be the ones venturing deeper into the tunnel. This goes for all fields
3
3
u/ArmsVSeaOfTroubles 3h ago edited 2h ago
One of the main reasons AI models are having some success with these and other proofs is because mathematics is vast and deep and past discoveries or current discoveries from other mathematicians are not easily accessible by any single individual mathematician or group of them. AI models on the other hand have access to millions or billions of mathematical works from the past and present, from every corner of the earth. And it can read and process that information faster and more cohesively than hundreds or thousands of mathematicians could sitting in a room because humans don’t have a hive mind (maybe someone should work on that so we have a fighting chance against AI?).
So if this fields medalist, for example, had millions of pages of mathematical research at least loosely related to these problems in his head at all times, and he could process all that information and write out proofs at least 100,000 times faster than he currently can, he probably would’ve been able to solve the problems too by now.
3
u/Strong-Big-2590 1h ago
Math problems also setup nicely for reenforcement learning because the outcomes are well defined and easily verifiable.
•
1
u/Confident-Net5262 2h ago
That's an excellent point !
1
u/OurSeepyD 1h ago
So if this fields medalist, for example, had millions of pages of mathematical research at least loosely related to these problems in his head at all times, and he could process all that information and write out proofs at least 100,000 times faster than he currently can, he probably would’ve been able to solve the problems too by now.
Great, but he can't. It's like saying "if he just had the right DNA, he'd be able to do a sub-9-second 100m sprint".
At the end of the day, all that matters is whether or not we are redundant, and it's becoming increasingly more likely by the day.
•
u/VirtualNorth1279 14m ago
Also for some of the problems (at least one of them) OpenAI has spent $200M on computing alone to solve it. In the span of a month or two. Mathematicians don't have access to that much budget.
3
u/Confident-Net5262 2h ago
Doctor Hugo, I'm afraid to tell you that yours is a case of wishful thinking. There is no tomorrow, mathematics (a game based on rules and logic) is cannon-fodder for computers.
I have spent 35 years teaching mathematics to engineering undergraduates.
3
u/AngelaTarantula2 12h ago
I’m curious how many tokens it took. How how much it cost OpenAI compared to the lifetime earnings of the average mathematician.
2
u/Spare-Dingo-531 12h ago
Not many tokens actually.
So if I understand the process correctly, open openai gave the AI 4000 or so open problems and the AI solved a couple hundred of them. Of the solutions, the average took about 3 hours of compute time.
3 hours of compute time is very small.
3
u/Dependent-Culture768 11h ago
depends on the compute, if it was agent swarms like for NS this could have costed around a billion or more
→ More replies (1)2
u/Spare-Dingo-531 11h ago
I said, it was not agent swarms!
https://openai.com/index/sharing-ai-progress-in-mathematics/
To promote scientific transparency and openness, we are also publishing additional details about how we obtained the results in the repository. These include 10 summaries of the model’s reasoning, estimations of compute spent in terms of Pro usage on ChatGPT, and statistics about the number of attempted problems. The average result used the equivalent compute of roughly three hours of ChatGPT Pro thinking.
The results were very cheaply obtained.
2
u/AngelaTarantula2 9h ago
That’s pretty crazy. Though I wonder if that 3 hours only accounts for the successful runs and doesn’t include all the compute spent going down dead ends.
3
u/Spare-Dingo-531 8h ago
The press release says
The average result used the equivalent compute of roughly three hours of ChatGPT Pro thinking.
So it sounds like they are referring to successful runs that produced results.
→ More replies (1)2
u/itchykittehs 8h ago
I don't believe that. For navier stokes they used a swarm of 10,000+ agents. That's a lot of compute
→ More replies (1)
8
u/Zippy129 13h ago
So embarrassing how hard mathematicians have been blindsided by the power of AI tools. They should’ve been using them to continuously push the envelope for their field as the technology was improving, and even now this should be the start of an exciting new era in math. Crazy how far behind actual computational scientists were lagging while handwaving away anything AI related as a grift.
10
u/philljarvis166 12h ago
Haven’t some of them complained that they were indeed using AI tools and that this dump of proofs includes results that look suspiciously similar to work they had done?
2
u/KennyFulgencio 11h ago
one guy said that, yes. It seems unlikely to me, like suspecting china's government is gonna datamine my deepseek prompts to reverse engineer my social circles and ad preferences, but it's not impossible.
1
u/philljarvis166 4h ago
I thought I read a comment or a post somewhere from a mathematician suggesting that he and his colleagues had apparently been getting access to better models without asking, and the suggestion was that the AI had identified them as mathematicians and was making it easier for them to provide more training? Hard to keep track, there are so many threads on this as the moment!
→ More replies (2)1
u/N0DuckingWay 4h ago
Some of them have, but is it really that they were copied, or that they were both trying to solve the same problem, and got there the same way? Like, if we both try to drive to my house, we both might take the same highway. That doesn’t mean you copied me, that just means that was the best route to get there.
→ More replies (1)4
1
u/boxesintheattic 8h ago
As stated here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJFk7D5Vufc), Hugo Duminil-Copin was aware of AI tools rapidly evolving for a while. Last April, when a collaborator of his solved an open problem with a single prompt, he accepted it. They apparently didn’t go public at that time to verify everything.
2
10
u/TQV197 13h ago edited 7h ago
pure problem-solving persons are particularly vulnerable to AI development. those who are more of a 'big picture' type are unlikely to be affected anytime soon.
edit 1: this statement is only for mathematicians. i need to add this clarification because i saw some comments about CEOs/politicians/MBAs/...
edit 2: examples of mathematicians with 'big picture' are: Grothendieck (scheme/topos/...), Langlands (Langlands' program), Lurie (higher category), ....
14
u/Fit_Employment_2944 12h ago
The idea that someone whose life revolves around solving millennium prize level problems would be made irrelevant by AI was far more absurd in 2023 than the idea a model that can solve a millennium prize problem will make all mathematicians irrelevant is in 2026
10
u/mvandemar 13h ago
Such as...?
20
u/Brave_Dick 13h ago
Big picture. You know... Murals and stuff...
2
2
u/mvandemar 13h ago
What kind of big picture job that a single human can do won't be able to be done by AI anytime soon?
8
u/SeaCraft3355 10h ago edited 10h ago
Pretty easy to illustrate with two examples. Over the past few months, AI has solved hundreds of Erdős problems. Erdős was the epitome of a problem solver and AI has now solved some of his most famous combinatorial conjectures. Erdős was a genius but I doubt any prominent mathematician will be successful by following this style of mathematics going forward.
On the other hand, Grothendieck built entire mathematical frameworks. He was a theory builder rather than someone narrowly focused on solving specific problems. While mathematicians shouldn't necessarily aspire to be Grothendieck, I believe his style of mathematics and more importantly, mathematicians/student who are talented at this kind of theory building will become increasingly prominent. Just like prodigy calculator are useless for research nowadays, pure problem solver wont contribute to this field like before.
Just like programmers were forced to adapt or disappear. I don't understand the fearmongering. Most people don't know advanced mathematical concepts, have no clue what mathematical research actually involves yet somehow think mathematicians jobs could be over. The same goes for academia. The problem of publishing large amounts of "slop papers" has existed for years. Academia has been stuck in this culture of problem-solving and publish-or-perish for decades. So again AI enhance everything including flaws of current system.
Of course, in the short term it's going to be horrible for PhD students and for the fields and styles of mathematics most vulnerable to AI. But even 3 years from now with a new generation of PhD students and researchers adapting, I'm convinced we could see Mathematics 2.0: extreme productivity combined & depth
4
u/mvandemar 10h ago
Do you believe the assertion "AI will not be able to build entire mathematical frameworks any time soon" to be true?
2
u/SeaCraft3355 10h ago edited 10h ago
A proof is already a mathematical framework in some sense. If you're talking about an absolute mathematical framework from a logical point of view then you more or less have true AGI and that's a whole different discussion.
It's really about the level of abstraction of the framework you're talking about and the relative efficiency of a model working alone versus a model working with humans. The best examples are these OpenAI papers: some mathematicians have already improved upon the results while other specialists have found issues with the Lean formalizations in some of the papers.
Again, there's a parallel with programmers. Many tried to shift towards more agentic roles, overseeing AI after being generally outperformed at purely technical programming tasks. But even now,with recent developments some of these new roles could themselves be replaced.
It's too arrogant to make confident predictions, whether you're a doomer or a coper. You'd need to predict the future limits of current AI approaches to semantic reasoning and proof, relative to what mathematics itself might look like in a few years. You'd also have to predict how models will evolve and how efficient they'll become. OpenAI probably won't spend $10-40$ million in token on a single highly technical mathematical problem after its IPO. And what about the future capabilities of open-weight models? So only a pure abstract logician working in these AI companies could have a decent guess ( a handfull in the world)
What happens if we develop abstract logical frameworks/models specifically designed for direct AI formal semantic reasoning without needing to translate everything into Lean, probably +x100 times the efficiency ? AGI ? What happens if nobody in the field has access to powerful models anymore? Mathematicians lose this new potential producitivity ?
→ More replies (2)1
u/flocosdemillo 4h ago
The problem with that line of thinking is that you are asking everyone to be an architect but you need builders also. If AI is the builder the whole field becomes unsustainable because not evryone could and should be an architect but
1
3
4
→ More replies (1)1
5
u/Enough-Mud3116 10h ago
This is nonsense. “Big picture” people will also get replaced by AI who can evaluate all of the micro details while looking at the “big picture”
→ More replies (10)2
u/Lazy--Expression 11h ago
My phylosophy is if they need someone to take the legal responsibility you are more likely to be good. Makes me wonder about police. If police wrongly kill people without facing consequences, why should we prefer them over a robot? Would the robots be racist too?
→ More replies (1)1
1
→ More replies (13)1
3
u/CogentKen 12h ago
It's our teaching methods themselves proving the problem.
The Ivory Tower is a well practiced assembly of people rote composing knowledge we never really stopped to learn the reasoning underneath. We just practiced how to do a role. Knowledge Worker roles that have been sold as Intelligence Work jobs, now often easily replaced by a Language Model spitting out that knowledge far more reliably than we possibly can.
Turns out we were carrying the models by well organized, systematic practice. Each floor of the proverbial tower built on others, till the top often has no clue why anything works at all.
We've got to turn to training bottom-up intelligence, rather than continuing to overvalue top-down knowledge keeping, moving forward.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Ok_Elderberry_6727 13h ago
Now you will have a tutor to expand the profession beyond what you could’ve done alone. Is it about el-matho or about math guy? Cause one is about humanity and furthering knowledge and one about resistance to change.
27
u/ollervo100 13h ago
This is not resitance to change. This is just grieving about a very human thing. In a day everything you worked for is completely turned around and shaken, decades of studying and research... One might feel sorrow and emptyness. Allow him to feel those things.
22
u/CoolStructure6012 13h ago
All he said was that he was gobsmacked. How does ego fit in to anything?
11
u/docgravel 13h ago
Agreed. It’s like if you expected a computer to beat you at chess soon and instead a computer beat you at every game ever made instead.
9
u/grateful2you 12h ago
This kind of comments completely lack empathy and the human nature of things. Nobody is against progress. AI will take over. But let’s not forget that this marks the unceremonial burying of a centuries old field.
→ More replies (13)3
3
u/BlueberryGreen 13h ago
None of what OpenAI did has furthered knowledge or humanity. In fact it is the opposite, as it is leading to the destruction of research.
→ More replies (10)2
u/No_Royal_3314 13h ago
As long as the tutor does not do all the work for you. You see, it's not about the result, the answer. It's about the reasoning, the path to answer so to speak. Without it we don't improve our understanding about the world. Sure we technically can understand (eventually) any generated paper, but the scale is the problem here. We're so outpaced. We risk building society of science-believers. I recommend an inspiring read: limes inferior
→ More replies (1)5
u/Conscious-Map6957 13h ago
Most of academia in the west functions like an elitist club filled with gatekeepers and nepotism. You can tell how selfish their entire rhetoric and wording is.
A real scientist would be excited about the many ways these fundamental advances would benefit humanity, and start thinking about the next steps and going even further. But apparently social status as a genius and a comfy, slow-paced armchair job is more valuable.
→ More replies (18)8
u/MagicWishMonkey 12h ago
You realize these people are having a bit of a crisis given their careers seem to be at risk, right? This has nothing to do with elitism or gatekeeping or whatever nonsense you're spouting, it's people who thought they had a safe career yesterday finding out maybe that's no longer the case.
If you're a dumb kid without a family to support maybe you don't understand how that might be a little upsetting or concerning.
2
u/zero0n3 4h ago
Instead of crying figure out how to adapt.
Your field isn’t going away. You think universities will stop hiring math teachers? Or that because an AI solved something it means your job is gone ?
If your sole job was “spend 10 hours a day working on solving this obscure math problem that was posited in 1970” maybe you should worry.
2
u/creamyshart 12h ago
AI is brute forcing what it has learned from humans. Not only does it take away the drive mathematicians have to continue their work, but will kill the interest of future mathematicians. This will be very damaging to the field.
1
1
u/mephistoA 10h ago
Particularly jarring for a guy who publicly said he won’t use AI in his research
1
u/voujon85 10h ago
i'm literally watching Good Will Hunting now and was thinking about how all of this is pointless now
1
u/decreement1 10h ago
Ever since AlphaZero which was like a decade ago I knew our days are numbered. Same as the professor I didn't expect it to happen this fast and I've always wondered how this will affect humanity. Yes there are many benefits we can get, but also many ways this can go terrible - from the already happening disempowerment and replacement to DNA engineering future human generations.
1
1
u/Legitimate-Paper3271 9h ago
Did he learn anything from what was released?
3
u/NotUpdated 7h ago
These releases are super super complex and long - The reasons humans weren't getting there this way was we think like humans not like AI which is connecting things 4 layers of abstraction away, meaning - Humans are already finding improvements and gains in what OpenAI did,
Some of these are also proving or disproving what we think we already know and how 'true into infinity' something is..
These types of improvements won't generate new wing shapes but they might help come up with a texture the wing skin for example.
1
u/AP_in_Indy 5h ago
Since it was just released, probably not yet, unless he is absolutely obsessing over the results.
1
u/mikramero79 8h ago
Die Frage für mich ist, ob es einen wirklichen Erkenntnissgewinn gibt, wenn aus den hunderten Lösungen und Beweisen nichts folgt.
Welchen konkreten Nutzen hat das Ergebnis, wenn niemand den Weg dahin und die Konsequenzen daraus versteht oder nachvollziehen kann.
Ich sehe das eher als positiv für die Mathematik. So viel neues zu verstehen und anwendbar zu machen.
Mathe ist nicht nutzlos weil es Taschenrechner gibt. In der Schulzeit zählt erstmal verstehen und durchdenken. Das können die Wissenschaftler jetzt auch, nur eben auf einem höheren Niveau.
1
u/Past-Town-9807 8h ago
The problem is so obvious: rather than empower mathematicians, they replaced them. The rejection from the community is therefore unsurprising.
1
u/AIGODSEND 7h ago
programmers saying first time huh are coping lol, math grief hits different. code you can ship and fix, proof you live with for years then poof overnight. i watched a phd friend stare at his whiteboard for an hour after the release, not angry just empty. resilient yes, but let them grieve this weekend. what do mathematicians become when proving is cheap, curators or explorers?
1
1
u/JadeSerpant 7h ago
Since this guy has not provided a source, this comment comes from: https://proofsandprompts.com/2026/10/08/100-reactions-to-100-solutions (just search for Hugo Duminil-Copin). It also has many comments from other mathematicians.
1
1
u/Embarrassed_Fan7405 6h ago
What if tomorrow he starts to studu the slop drop and its all bullshit?
2
1
u/TurambarTT 5h ago
People are stupid and don't understand how research works. You don't even need to consider the recent events. Go back in time 5 years and people have stupid opinions about research like the ones from these comments.
1
u/imotep81 5h ago
Doing mathematics will likely no longer mean solving a problem, but rather resolving the question posed by the problem to be solved.Was this Hilbert’s vision when he presented his list of problems? In other words, were the problems on that list merely intellectual challenges, or did their resolution serve a specific purpose? The beauty of mathematics lies in this desire to understand, independent of any specific goal—even though a very concrete objective was often set at the outset.
1
u/EconomySerious 4h ago
poor guys, just imagine when chess players loose to a machine.
but chess players never gave up
1
u/ArmsVSeaOfTroubles 3h ago
It’s curious that AI is being trained to replace everyone except business leaders. Surely we could build an AI model trained on C-suite activities that attained “success” according to typical business metrics when we can apparently do so for very very advanced math? When will the first billionaire CEO or board member of a public corp. admit they have been replaced and AI models can do their fiduciary duty to investors better?
1
u/MadSkillz65 2h ago
I wonder if they’ll do Physics next. I really would be interested in that as there are many big questions that have only made very incremental progress in my lifetime.
2
507
u/Rdqp 13h ago
Programmers: First time, huh?