GPT-5.6 used a prompt to close a 30-year gap in convex optimization
https://old.reddit.com/r/math/comments/1uxj3cy/after_openais_cdc_proof_announcement_gpt56_used_a/You want to know how long it takes to solve an optimization problem, in this case over convex, lipschitz functions. (The restriction to a spherical domain is not really a restriction, you can just change variables for any bounded domain.) Anyway, showing upper bounds on time complexity is "easy" because it's just the runtime of your algorithm. Showing (nontrivial) lower bounds is usually much harder because it requires constraining all algorithms.
This proof apparently shows that the lower bound time complexity is equal to the time complexity of an existing 30-year old algorithm: it requires Omega(d^2) function evaluations to solve over this class of functions.
My gut says likely implies that d is the minimal number of evaluations if you have a gradient oracle because you can approximate a gradient with d function evaluations, but I'm not sure how hard it is to make that rigorous.
I wonder how this compares to what we see happening with "juniors" in software development? In math research, do you also get the training for the profession from working on the low hanging fruits for a while, to then move to the medium-hanging, and later go on to work on previously unsolved stuff?
In order to get a Ph.D., you have to do some sort of original research, so in that sense you're working on "previously unsolved stuff" basically right from the start. But that doesn't entail doing anything all that ground-breaking; most Ph.D. dissertations (very much including mine!) contain work that a more senior researcher in the same subfield could probably have produced without too much difficulty. The software development analogy is a pretty good one: a lot of the point of getting junior researchers to do research is to help train them to one day become senior researchers, and often the work itself is nothing all that special.
Given the trajectory of these LLM proofs, this seems like it's going to have to change pretty soon, and to be honest I'm pretty grateful that I'm not in charge of deciding what that's going to look like, because I don't have any good ideas! I'm actually pretty worried about the future of the field.
In math, a proof is a proof. We don't know if we can get there and so getting there is the hard part.
In software, we always know that we can solve the problem. So HOW to solve the problem is the hard part. Because the type of solution involves maintainability, which involves planning, LLMs suck at it. This leads to "LLM slop code" whereby the LLM creates ad-hoc convoluted logic with redundancies and no reuse of existing standard library batteries.
Unless you're a Grothendieck who gets mad at Deligne for not solving the Weil's conjecture "THE RIGHT WAY", software is fundamentally different than math in this respect.
So I'll say it again, AI will win a fields medal for before managing a McDonald's simply because there are enough big problems within arms reach than their current capacity to plan over time
Some math research does involve grabbing a single, fully specified conjecture off the shelf and hunting for a proof of it, and it's true that if you manage to solve a long-standing open problem, other mathematicians will be interested no matter how you did it.
But this isn't all of what they do, probably not even most of what they do. Like in software engineering, it's not always obvious which question would be the most useful one to ask. A lot of mathematical work also goes into what we call "theory-building", where you could say that primary work goes into coming up with definitions rather than theorems. Mathematicians also care a great deal about how something is proved; a lot of them are some of the most aesthetically picky people I've ever met. Words like "ugly", "beautiful", "creative", and "boring" are used to describe both definitions and proofs all the time.
From the outside, it can look like all they're doing is pumping out proofs at any cost. But I promise you that when I talk to mathematicians who don't have any experience building software, they have a similarly narrow view of that field as well! Both fields, from the inside, look a lot more human than you might expect.
My understanding is that ChatGPT Pro is effectively a multi agent system, or somehow uses multiple LLMs in parallel and selects a best answer. And Ultra is more similar to Claude-Code UltraCode where the main agent can choose to create a dynamic JS workflow that deterministically orchestrates multiple agents to handle different parts of a task and have adversarial checkers etc.
Is that more or less the difference? Any substantiating sources would be great to see.
One solution is to ban LLM’s, to artificially create a demand for human thought, that just feels like living in an artificially constructed zoo.
Another solution is humans don’t do anything that AI can do better , / doesn’t need the human touch. So I suppose we will all become artists, sportsmen or politicians, the only jobs that will remain except for select few. Maybe this is ok, I don’t know.
Another solution is we find a way to mind-meld with AI so that human + Ai >> AI alone. This is dystopian, who gets to decide who mind melds with AI, how much will it cost etc etc.
For the stupid copes that the prompt required human ingenuity, let me first add that the author used GPT5.6 to write most of the prompt. He just gave some mild direction. That amount of direction does not require deep expertise and the expertise required will keep falling with time, eventually an undergrad can create this loop and then maybe a high school student.
And prompt engineering / loop engineering nonsense is not real. Calling it engineering is a psy-op because it is something simple, imprecise and future models will be much better at it than you.
- Hasn't been peer reviewed yet, so take with a grain of salt. This applies to all claimed proofs, not just AI-generated ones. Even humans hallucinate proofs too!
- The prompt is on page 27 here[1]. It is ten pages of advanced mathematics priming the model in the right direction, apparently informed by a year of prior research. That doesn't invalidate the result if it is genuine, but it is worth noting that this wasn't a matter of "ChatGPT, solve this unsolved problem. Make no mistakes." and required substantial domain expertise and human research beforehand.
It's not that AI brings equality, but rather that the output varies depending on how much background knowledge you have. You could call it a stratification of input
I'm starting to feel like there's no place left for programmers like me who focus on quickly churning out MVPs.
I'm very curious how people reconcile their fear/hatred of AI with actual objective reality. This is actually what interests me most about the whole AI thing. How we tell ourselves what we tell ourselves.
The most interesting thing in research is finding new questions, that we understand and that we know why they are important. And that's something that humans need to do (by definition)