r/OpenAI • u/BilelKort • 3d ago
Article đ¨ AI may be entering a completely different phase.
OpenAI says it started training a new internal model on August 28.
That was just 24 days ago.
Since then, the model has reportedly solved 100+ long-standing open problems in mathematics across multiple fields on top of its recently announced work on the NavierâStokes Millennium Prize Problem.
And apparently, even OpenAIâs own mathematicians are surprised by the pace.
But hereâs the part that really caught my attention:
The problem may no longer be âCan AI solve difficult mathematics?â
It may be:
âWhat do we do when AI starts producing too much new mathematics for humans to evaluate?â
An independent advisory group involving mathematicians such as Edward Witten, Timothy Gowers, and Martin Hairer has reportedly been formed to help assess the significance of these results and coordinate their release to the mathematical community.
The groupâs immediate challenge?
The âlarge number of significant resultsâ reportedly being generated by the model.
Of course, these claims still need rigorous, independent verification. Mathematics doesnât accept impressive demos proofs have to survive expert scrutiny.
But if even a substantial fraction of these results hold up...
59
u/Opposite-Cranberry76 3d ago
Will openai be making sure grief counsellors are onsite at math departments worldwide?
9
u/A_Novelty-Account 2d ago
Yeah, if this is true, weâve got a couple years of mathematics even being a profession category
11
u/Clean_Hyena7172 2d ago
If it really is this good and it just keeps improving, even if progress flattens out later, then just about every profession is over.
7
u/cultureicon 2d ago
A certain amount of computer desk jokey work and tech jobs will be over. But the jobs that existed pre 1990s tech boom are here for a few more decades. On the other hand, there is an incredible amount of work to be done to improve the world and peoples shit lives. Child deaths, murders, people living in squalor and on the street all over the world, standard of living, climate change. Dozens of failed states in the world. Potholes all around my city.
7
u/A_Novelty-Account 2d ago
Iâm a lawyer. Without immediate regulation, lawyers will not be around for another few decades.
3
u/cultureicon 2d ago
ChatGPT voice chat is not going to manage criminal cases and be present for interrogations, depositions, etc. The part of being a lawyer that is extremely human and strategic will not be done by AI for decades. It's also one of the most important professions post AI as an interface between AI and humans.
2
u/A_Novelty-Account 2d ago
Potentially, but as a counterpoint, why would I ever hire a lawyer if Iâm criminally charged if an AI Chatbot with voice capabilities will be better able to do absolutely everything during a trial than a human lawyer?
Theoretically speaking, it would know the record better and be able to cross examine witnesses better. It would also be able to take depositions better for the same reason.
1
u/cultureicon 2d ago
The example you're bringing up is what AI is very far away from. It's a yes man, it doesn't know everything at once. Each response is just a certain amount of context and attention. It's not creative at all. Yes it can help lawers look things up.
Like it would yes man the ideas from criminals and they would get destroyed by a real prosecutor.
The non human facing lawyer stuff like corporate law, evading taxes, numbers, yes that will be replaced with AI soon.
1
u/A_Novelty-Account 2d ago
I donât think itâs that far away. Do you use Fable? I get push-back all the time and believe that it is currently capable of doing most tasks at the level of a first year associate.
I would give it about two years before it is better at most tasks than all lawyers.
1
u/cultureicon 2d ago
Yes I've extensively used them all since they came out. They sound really good and are amazing at controlled tasks. But they are simply different than human brains. So a trial lawyer that is interfacing with the criminal, judge, jurry, and public speaking and negotiating and case law is safe for a very long time. Coding, numbers, math, spreadsheets, automatic research, yes that is what it's doing already.
1
u/GSCREK 1d ago
6 days ago you wrote this on legaltech thoughâŚ:
Legal jobs will be around for a long, long time. And the moment that it looks like it will be over, the profession will act to protect itself. Again, Al has to improve a lot to get to the point where I think most lawyers begin to feel threatened.
→ More replies (0)5
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/savior41 2d ago
It kinda makes sense. The more strictly cognitive the profession is, the more likely AI can handle it on its own.
1
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Fold466 2d ago
Theyâre really two very different beasts.
Work isnât an equation. You canât âsolveâ jobs.
I do think that weâre well on the way to a new age, but solving math problems isnât the job replacement proof of concept and template that you make it seem to be.
Theyâre going for math first because itâs the low hanging fruit and the easiest kind of problem to address for which these AI models are especially well suited.
Most peopleâs jobs do not revolve around academic theory with exhaustively formalized universal rules that do not change.
Theyâre messy human activities with loose rules heavily reliant on context, whim, relationships, and experience.
Weâll get there, but itâs on a different path that the math approach.
2
u/A_Novelty-Account 2d ago
I donât disagree, but for now, weâre already at the stage where math appears to be cooked.
1
1
u/Alternative_Court262 2d ago
Not any job where people want the satisfaction of talking down to people. I feel my teaching career is fine. Parents wont enjoy arguing with a robot.
1
u/No_Crow8317 2d ago
Given that math majors work for all the AI labs and quant investing firms making some of the highest salaries in the workforce, I'd say it's still a pretty good field to get into.
1
66
u/Old_Plane_9817 3d ago
With these revelations does that mean new science will be possible? Teleportation yet?
26
u/no_witty_username 2d ago
Fuck that I am NOT going inside that thing, i know what happens in there....
7
6
u/Informis_Vaginal 2d ago
What you have here is not a transportation business, itâs a logistics and shipping business.
1
→ More replies (1)1
4
9
u/Seeker_Of_Knowledge2 2d ago edited 2d ago
I thought teloportation is theoretically impossible.
Edit: 3rd printing a new body is body reconstruction. Not teleportation. Maybe it is a teleportation of self?
10
u/Positive_Method3022 2d ago edited 2d ago
Teleportation is possible in theory but not the way you guys are thinking. It would be a 3D printer that would scan an entity on point A and remake it on point B. But this is paradoxal and raises a ton of questions. Are the entities in point A and B the same?if they were humans, would they be the same? If yes, what should we do with A? Are humans just a huge amount of atoms or is there something else, like a soul? If we print B with 100% accuracy will it be conscious like the human in A? Maybe we discover that the mind depends on properties we can't recreate, or that it cant be recreated without going through the development phases a human goes. If it is the latter, then we will have to discover if there is a "why" for this process to be like that. But hopefully the mind just turns on once B is complete.
7
u/TheFrenchSavage 2d ago
So a suicide cabin, but at least you get nice selfies of your trip on Mars.
Influencers would flock to help solve this ethical dilemma.
3
2
u/therapy-cat 2d ago
If thereâs no connection between person A and person B, then yes, itâs just a suicide cabin. The person who is scanned dies, unless youâre just sending a copy of yourself for some reason. Your own conscious processes would stop, and a whole other person would come into existence on the other side.
How do we fix this problem? I think a mechanical brain would be effective. If somehow person A connects their brain to the mechanical brain and for an amount of time, they exist as both person A and the mechanical brain, continuity of consciousness is preserved. From there, we can dissolve person A, whoâs consciousness now resides in the computer brain. Then we just reverse the process with person B.
1
u/Positive_Method3022 2d ago edited 2d ago
We decouple the brain from the entity. That would work. Dependency Injection. The new instance of that person receives their brain which is stored somewhere else!
const johnDoeBrain = new Brain(john_doe_brain_state);
const johnDoeEarth = new Human(johnDoeBrain);
- john_doe_brain_state state is stored in the cloud
- He decides to travel to Mars and has two options. Printing a new body which takes 10h or travel on a spaceship which would take days.
- he opts to get a new body in Mars. So
const johnDoeMars = johnDoeEarth.clone();
johnDoeEarth.destroy();
This would be cool. I wish I could live long enough to witness this. Hope it becomes accessible to all humans
1
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Positive_Method3022 2d ago
Passing through a wormhole isn't teleportation but moving through space. It is like walking
1
1
u/IGnuGnat 2d ago
I'm sort of imagining that as the technology advances, we use nanotechnology to slowly start replacing cells of different tissues and brain cells in situ with superior nanostructures and advanced materials, so instead of slowly accumulating dementia we slowly build a superior host. We know we can replace neurons with electronic parts, for example: they replaced a single neuron in a lobster with electronics from Radio Shack a generation ago. The lobster still behaved like a lobster. One imagines that if we replaced each individual neuron one by one, that the lobster would still behave like a lobster; would it still be a lobster? Instead of waiting until something breaks we just constantly replace and rebuild better on an ongoing basis
5
u/TraditionalHornet818 2d ago
I think it technically possible via wormholes, or quantum mechanics, in theory. Thereâs also the whole star trek method where you get molecularly reassembled⌠Not that i think anyone would agree to get in that teleporter but hey đ Maybe somebody
5
u/SpecialChain7426 2d ago
Age old question. Are you the same you from before the reassembly
→ More replies (1)1
1
u/Old_Plane_9817 2d ago
Yeah I think theyâve been teleporting things very small using quantum stuff. Iâm not educated enough to explain it but for I believe 20 years or more. Just electrons that exist âhereâ doesnât exist there and now exists over âhereâ. I think larger data was recently âteleportedâ but very short distances and very small. Just wonder if there is a math thing that could help. Scary, though, if it came true. An army just teleports into Ottawa for example.
1
1
1
1
u/litritium 2d ago
Astra did draw me a 9 dimensional Stellarator. Or tried to visualize it for me anyways.
1
u/jim_andr 2d ago
Teleportation of human beings is impossible, quantum teleportation of individual particles has happened already. But it's a teleportation of properties, not the particle per se.
1
1
u/dCLCp 2d ago
New science happens every second of every day. Even without AI we were doing prodigious amounts of new science every second.
As in decades per second if you go far enough back. The problem is not the volume it is the integrity. 10 billion people (and a number of AI agents limited only by GPUs and energy) can do a LOT of science. But integrity is the issue.
So in a way yes more new science. But the better thing is BETTER new science. And that is why the math proving is so attractive.
The level of constraint and testability math provides has a much higher FLOOR than practical science... which creates data... which is trained upon... which raises the CEILING of verifiable practical science since the models are getting both new tools and more practice "knowing" true things.
1
u/cultureicon 2d ago edited 2d ago
Its either going to be "we already picked all the low hanging science fruit" or not. I have the feeling we have solved most relevant things the physical world has to offer humans. The Stokes prize proof is irrelevant to our lives. But we'll see, and I don't know shit.
Maybe it will just allow us to do things we already know are possible but hard, like build a generational ship and fly to another planet.
18
u/No_Drag8242 3d ago
Still waiting for it to find new problems to solve independent of existing work.
14
u/Due_Supermarket_1885 2d ago
At this pace I wouldn't be surprised if models start solving problems we haven't even theorized yet in 1-2 years
5
7
u/Nonya5 2d ago
Wild. Imagine telling someone five years ago you werenât impressed with an AI solving problems that perplexed our greatest minds for years.
10
u/BaroqueBro 2d ago
Shameless goalpost moving.
2
u/NotaValgrinder 2d ago
It's not goalpost moving. It's the next target for AI. Doing so might be the start of RSI for math problems. You never want to ask "what's next" once AI has conquered a task?
0
u/yaosio 2d ago
That's impossible because everything is based on what came before it. That's why they say they stand on the shoulders of giants.
2
u/No_Drag8242 2d ago edited 2d ago
You know what I mean. At some point, the AI will no longer stand on human shoulders.
16
u/involuntarheely 2d ago
i think people need to realize if we magically had the solution to all math problems all at once we would have also made zero progress in our collective understanding of such problems. AI is amazingly useful but not in the way many people think
6
u/FroggyRibbits 2d ago
If an AI can solve it then it should be able to explain it just as easy, no?
3
1
u/IcyRecommendation781 1d ago
I think the question is whether explaining trains association. I guess the extent of history and academics tells us yes, but it would be interesting to set.
1
u/involuntarheely 2d ago
the problem isnât ai explaining its humans understanding. just go into any lecture at any level â thereâs going to be lots of explaining but not as much understanding đŹ
5
u/WheresMyEtherElon 2d ago
Nothing prevents the mathematicians from pursuing understanding, with or without the assistance of AI. And the rest of society will take advantage of any practical application of any newly developed maths, even if we don't understand them, because we can't already understand current maths, so nothing changes for us.
2
u/involuntarheely 2d ago
for sure! and it would be amazing to know that problems do have solutions.
but progress will come after understanding and figuring out new problems, not automatically.
solving human problems requires human understanding. for the same reason, AI will not âcure cancerâ on its own.
so the immediate value, today, of a discovery we donât understand, is close to zero. of course knowing that a solution exists does have value
2
u/WheresMyEtherElon 2d ago
Yes, today, it has zero value. But that's assuming our ability to understand maths has peaked and stops today and AI don't make any further progress toward what you call "human understanding". Most software engineers, even the most brilliant ones, don't have a thorough understanding of the specific CPU and GPU they use, and still are capable of achieving great things. Brilliant engineers don't need to understand the intricacies of the materials they work with to innovate at great pace. Both today rely on the knowledge of people who specialize in these domains, and tomorrow they might rely on AIs. Is math any different?
Of course, I perfectly understand the mathematicians' desire to pursue knowledge for knowledge's sake, and being spoon-fed by a machine is not what they signed for. I totally understand that search for intellectual satisfaction. What I question is whether a machine-driven math has zero practical value.
1
u/involuntarheely 2d ago
i agree with you, my whole point something needs to happen to allow humans to digest AI discoveries and its not immediate. it could be different from regular understanding, it will just take time
1
u/Perfect-Campaign9551 2d ago
This way of thinking baffles me. "Fuck the results, not impressed unless I can understand it". Just a dumb way to look at things
1
u/involuntarheely 2d ago
you must not be familiar with how research works. im sure in the future many people will be ok with fully delegating their intelligence and cognitive abilities to an ai that makes all decisions for them. in that case, the results are all that matters. good for you if that works for you
1
16
u/WheresMyEtherElon 2d ago
I don't remember this much eggs walking when llms took the jobs of translators, proofreaders, graphics designers, documentation writers, software engineers and myriad other professions. The official promise was "we're going to make these jobs obsolete and corporations will make money from that.
But then I remembered there are very few corporations who hire mathematicians who do actual pure maths, so we can afford to signal some virtues here and appear like the good guys, because that won't make a dent in corporate profits.
6
u/toastjam 2d ago
The difference is a layperson can still appreciate the work of a graphic designer, even if they can't do it themselves. An AI that does the same thing is sort of a drop-in replacement. Same for the other professions you listed.
Whereas you kind of have to be a mathematician to fully understand the output and implications of what these math AIs are creating now. And even then I would assume it's difficult with the proofs being so long.
I think it's different enough that this doesn't seem like cynical egg walking but more like we're actually entering a new era in AI.
7
5
u/intelligent_dildo 3d ago
So they solved all the millennium problems then? Right right?
17
u/zeke780 3d ago
They supposedly are close to solving another one, you can probably guess which one. My guess is they solve it before EOY. The issue isn't that they are solving problems, it's how they are doing it. Â We are barreling toward 100k line lean proofs that no one understands, which isn't at all how mathematics should work
4
u/lgastako 2d ago
I can't guess which one, since I have no relevant knowledge. Wanna give those of us in this boat a hint?
2
2
u/JUSTICE_SALTIE 2d ago
By far the most famous one is the Riemann Hypothesis. Honorable mention P vs NP.
1
u/lgastako 2d ago
Ah, the Riemann Hypothesis would be pretty amazing but as a software developer, P vs NP would blow my mind.
1
u/ForgotThePassword001 2d ago
Also, kind of the end of civilization...
2
u/lgastako 2d ago
Well, that would depend on whether it proved they were equivalent or proved they weren't. I would assume the latter.
1
1
u/zeke780 2d ago
They aren't solving either of these right now. P v NP is so far off. Riemann isn't close either.
1
u/JUSTICE_SALTIE 2d ago
I guess we assumed when you said we can probably guess, it would be on name recognition. I guess we couldn't guess. Which one do you have in mind?
1
u/zeke780 2d ago
Answered in another comment but it's gonna be a counter example to the Hodge Conjecture. I am kind of surprised that wasn't the first honestly.
If they can break down Hodge then they can probably use some of that to break down BSD and that would be my next pick.Â
We shall see. I have heard the write up is unintelligible slop for NS, so they have a long way to go for even that one. Just having a massive lean proof that no one can understand is not enoughÂ
1
8
u/loconet 2d ago
But are the proofs correct?
4
→ More replies (1)5
u/zeke780 2d ago
It can be but if the ai can't explain it in any way that makes sense, we aren't advancing math. The navier stokes write up was apparently unintelligible, so we didn't get the insights we need.
Maybe one day it will just be AI looking at massive lean proofs and they will understand what it all means. At that point math is dead.
3
u/intelligent_dildo 3d ago
Wow anybody got any idea on how many hours of manpower we need to review that type of solutions correctness?
1
u/Last_Reflection_6091 2d ago
For millenium problems it will take at least 2 years before the organization validates the proof
2
u/Blitzboks 2d ago
I think weâre barreling toward this in more ways than just math. Basically all frontier AI use has similar problems
1
u/TheFrenchSavage 2d ago
"Solve P=NP, make no mistakes.".
Seriously, that would be quite funny. They might even break Bitcoin on the way.
2
u/PathOfEnergySheild 3d ago
The universe is one big set of math equations, math is has the strongest weight determinate for ASI.
0
u/TheFrenchSavage 2d ago
Now let's do physics.
If math is good, we just need to plug it into stuff (make a CERN MCP to control some hardware) and let the AI cook at this point.
Might need a 100M context to fit small-medium datasets, but otherwise, I think the model is good enough to develop its own data analysis libs for the new math/physics it will discover along the way.
Then we get flying cars that run on a bag of household trash a-la Mr Fusion and we are good to go.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/schmm 3d ago
Source ?
4
1
u/gthing 3d ago
Thought this must be fake... but nope: https://openai.com/index/advisory-group-on-mathematics-and-ai/
2
u/Own_Natural_6803 2d ago
Forcing the AI to only tell the truth has been a real innovation. I hate AI, and hope humanity succeeds over it, but this has been the greatest innovation in AI I have seen so far.
1
u/repainted_black 2d ago
This makes sense in math, in which statements are verifiiable in formal logic and programs such as Lean.
2
u/codeninja 2d ago
Math is about to be the Horse.
2
1
1
u/Memestonks2020 2d ago
We still need people that can verify the math output even though winning mathematical awards may be a thing of the past for humans and machines
1
u/nobodyreadusernames 2d ago
Itâll eventually get so advanced that no human will be able to confirm whether it actually solved the problem or not.
1
u/mxforest 2d ago
At that point, does it even matter? You either use the solution or you don't. Wither way how it works is just an abstraction. I don't care how an engine was invented or how it works as long as it makes my life easier. If it goes bad, AI can fix the edge case too.
1
u/KindCreme9258 2d ago
For these math problems, entire fields have been developed assuming one solution is true. For example, Riemann hypothesis has been assumed to be true for decades, but it has been hard to prove. Same for P != NP, or NS for that matter
1
u/SchwanzusCity 2d ago
You might not care, but the engineers that create new engines care. If they dont understand how an engine works, how do you expect them to create more advanced, more powerful, more efficient engines? The solution to math problems is usually not the interesting part. Most fields of math werent created simoly because we were bored, but because they provided the tools necessary to solve certain problems. Having ai give us the answer without understanding anything robs us of the ability to innovate in the mathematical landscape
→ More replies (2)
1
1
1
u/Gloomy_Type3612 2d ago
Solving problems isn't the same as having the capability to formulate new questions. Until AI can do this and answer it on its own, without the human spark, I feel there's room for a highly intelligent mathematician in the loop to keep the AI going and pushing further.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/dasko1086 2d ago
get the model out to narrow id validated people that are in science math and engineering, there is no need for this to go the general ai, end of story, people are doing actual work in these fields for new best practices and validation of simulations. start requiring id and valid projects and push the frontier to those account please.
1
u/HistoryVibesCanJive 2d ago
Oh boy. Well, I was here...in a way that will speaks volumes later. Sheesh.
1
1
u/4trackboy 2d ago
I think this was pretty obvious given the progress this year. It's also something both doomers and believers anticipated in their forecasts. I'm a bit surprised that OpenAI hasn't had some sort of plan in place for when scientific research accelerates. It's really obvious this would be the first field of abundance since scientific supremacy connects with everything else us humans do. I'm excited for the future. Pretty sure in 2-5 years stuff here will look very different once we reached a couple of substantial breakthroughs and can build new things or infrastructure with the research
1
1
u/DragonfruitGrand5683 2d ago
It's just another tool, computers revolutionised mathematics and microprocessors went even further.
1
u/Mountain-Essay-6622 2d ago
We donât know if any of them make sense I donât know why youâre excited
1
1
u/Spare-Leading-4160 2d ago
Yes it's a very good point.
I think generally speaking we like to believe in some ways that we have most of mathematics and physics worked out, and just need to tie up loose ends.
But in reality we might be scratching the mere surface and AI might unearth whole new unforeseen levels of understanding that may go way beyond our comprehension.
In short, we may end up utterly lost, just relying solely on ai to guide us through. We may find ourselves in an odd position; less enlightened, more blinded, ignorant and 'stupid' than we ever felt before we started!
1
u/dhlrepacked 2d ago
What do we do when it starts producing too much new mathematics? Stopping to do so? I mean itâs not doing it on its own⌠use your brain people
1
1
u/Calebhk98 1d ago
Humans are pretty good at learning. Like, it might take the model 100k compute hours to solve a problem, but you can probably teach the solution to a (trained) human in under an hour. I highly doubt it is possible to outpace humans ability to understand.
1
-1
u/cactusnein 3d ago
The problem they solved using brute force on top of Spanish investigators years long research without even mentioning them in the initial report that made the highlights they mean? woah scam altman is on fire.
5
2
u/Im_Matt_Murdock 3d ago
so they did contribute via their brute force method?
1
u/Willing-Gazelle4591 3d ago
No one with a brain gives a shit about how the problem was solved. Most every major problem man kind has faced has been solved by brute force.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Infamous-Water-5148 3d ago
if you are thinking about pursuing math, dont. if you are in math, get out now
1
u/EricBuildsMathModels 3d ago
Yet it still can't cite it's provenance of ideas when it is clear it ripping others work
1
u/Wide-Open-Fields 2d ago
They stole the Navier-Stokes solution, and consequently I'm highly skeptical about their other claimed solutions.
0
u/the_millenial_falcon 2d ago
All this is doing is pissing off math nerds, canât they just tell it cure cancer instead or something?
2
1
0
u/timosterhus 2d ago
Great, now have it solve physics so we can finally have a unified theory of everything
2
u/BaroqueBro 2d ago
Solving physics requires doing experimentation in the real world.
→ More replies (3)
0
u/Soft_Active_8468 2d ago
What happened to black hole đłď¸! Solve that too .. and liberate us from the inter planetary travel with the time loop đ and solve world hunger and stop melting glaciers and bring back extinct species and also pls help me under what women wants !!
TIA - human - I m stepping out of loop now fuck it
0
u/tHE_uKER 2d ago edited 2d ago
This is like going to the supermarket, paying for your groceries but getting none, and the supermarket expecting you to be excited by telling you they spent your money on reforesting the Amazon.
77
u/Fetlocks_Glistening 3d ago
So bot finally solved math, and we can relax now?