Re:The Mathocalypse
by lesspassiveobse on Thursday October 08, 2026 @06:13AM
(#50003983)
You sound like some useless bureaucrat. Oh noes, they didn't publish everything using the form XZC-152 template! And what scientific methodology? You want a scientific proof of when a threshold of where you can be impressed has been crossed? Ignoring the shifting goalposts, for me personally, AI is plenty impressive already by the mere fact that it can write a program that solves my problems from a natural language description. And "world-burning" how? Because water evaporates to create clouds? Using excess water treatment system capacity? Or maybe because they are using gas turbines to power it short-term instead of nuclear/renewables? That doesn't sound to me like an inherent flaw of the technology.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
I just don't find particularly impressive that a probabilistic machine designed to write code, wrote code, based on the likely distillation of whatever input it got from math researchers blindly trusting OpenAI.
If the only way to power a "technology" would be to kill an elephant every time you use it, then it's a flawed technology even if it solved fundamental problems of humanity. This is currently how GenAI sprawling data centers operate AND without solving any fundamental problem of humanity.
Also I don't care about A specific template, I just find it ridiculous that some trillion dollar company cannot put a line like "please keep papers' structure consistent" in whatever markdown file controls these things. It's sloppy, like everything OpenAI does.
I guess the point of publishing breakthrough research is that by definition, it’s not just regurgitating human output, because there is no human output to these unsolved problems.
There was a bunch public literature on these topics. They were major unsolved problems. Lots of humans would want to have solved them and tried. But here’s it an llm that has solved them.