• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI

    OpenAI Internal Model Produces Ten New Math Results

    OpenAI states an internal model generated ten new results on open problems in math and theoretical computer science.

    OP
    EM
    RA
    24 Sources, 59d ago, first seen 59d ago

    TLDR

    OpenAI posted that an internal version of its next major model produced 10 new results on long-standing open problems in mathematics and theoretical computer science. The effort used roughly $2,000 worth of tokens at GPT-5.6 Sol API rates. Multiple other accounts shared headlines claiming solutions to open problems, Lean certificates, or references to a model called Astra. OpenAI's statement contains none of those details. No corroboration or independent checks appear among the visible posts.

    Combined views

    2.6M

    24 Sources, first seen 59d ago

    Combined views

    2.6M

    24 Sources, first seen 59d ago

    19.9K likes
    19.9K likes
    774 comments
    3K saves
    1.4K reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    774 comments
    3K saves
    1.4K reposts
    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    24 Sources

    @elonmuskRT @postagixyz: Emad Mostaque @EMostaque came on PostAGI and said AI had already found 121 years of missing algebra in Einstein's equations…
    @PatrickKidgerThere's a nice line in Good Will Hunting: "it's just a handful of people in the world who can tell the difference between you and me" I think we're now crossing the point where we'll think models have plateaued... because we poor humans can no longer perceive the difference. 1/
    @jasoncrawfordRT @LongFormMath: 1. This is incredible. 2. For the first time, AI solved a problem that I have spent time working on (multicolor Ramsey n…
    @mobav0This is a surreal moment. Few people could have predicted that the AI will advance to solving math problems at the highest level only a few years after GPT-2/3. The models then couldn't reliably solve grade school math problems. They barely were good enough to draft emails. They still very much felt like statistical parrots. All things that looked like fundamental limitations slowly faded with some advances (e.g. high scale RL) in a span of a few years, which is really a short time. We should behold this moment both in awe and disbelief. What will a few more years of progress bring? How is it going to impact the world and society at large? Are we ready for the tsunami of intelligence at our fingertip? More than any other moment, this feels to me like the eve of singularity. Glasswing & huggingface incident further increase the gravity. A few years ago, deep down I felt working on alignment is premature. It's nice to do if it's your passion, but the shapes of things weren't clear enough for it to be critical in my opinion. The chances that you end up working on things that are useless for aligning the actual AGI was high. It's different now. Now, it feels like it's the most critical thing facing us. https://openai.com/index/ten-advances-in-mathematics/
    @_arohan_This. Human + agent is outcome distribution is worth studying conjointly.
    @OpenAIAn internal version of our next major model produced 10 new results on long-standing open problems in mathematics and theoretical computer science, using roughly $2,000 worth of tokens at GPT-5.6 Sol API rates.
    @AndrewCurran_Notes on the ten breakthroughs, written by a model that read the raw chain-of-thought. https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/reasoning-walkthroughs.pdf
    @kimmonismus„Our next major model“ So their internal model that solved the 10 long standing problems was indeed GPT-6.
    @jachiam0I don't think this is an especially good argument. "Especially likely to want to simulate the singularity" is a an extremely strong assumption that only feels reasonable to us because we don't know the singularity's outcome yet; there are surely many universes and scenarios that would be less-known to postsingular intelligences that would be correspondingly more interesting by virtue of being mysterious. I also think the binary of "a universe is either simulated OR it is real" is probably false. A very big "why not both?" A universe that exchanges no information with outside universes except in the form of boundary conditions (or some better formulated limit) is equally real whether it is run on hardware in an exterior universe or exists independently in an infinite expanse without form and void. How should we count such universes? Real or simulated? I prefer thinking of the space of all possible universes as having a measure over them, where each is counted in some way based on how often it can occur, whether it may occur in a simulation by another universe or on its own... I don't think such measures are easy to formulate but I suspect this can be nailed down with some rigor one day.
    @danintheoryThis is still cool, and remember we want to help all of you make more science faster too

    24 Sources

    @elonmuskRT @postagixyz: Emad Mostaque @EMostaque came on PostAGI and said AI had already found 121 years of missing algebra in Einstein's equations…
    @PatrickKidgerThere's a nice line in Good Will Hunting: "it's just a handful of people in the world who can tell the difference between you and me" I think we're now crossing the point where we'll think models have plateaued... because we poor humans can no longer perceive the difference. 1/
    @jasoncrawfordRT @LongFormMath: 1. This is incredible. 2. For the first time, AI solved a problem that I have spent time working on (multicolor Ramsey n…
    @mobav0This is a surreal moment. Few people could have predicted that the AI will advance to solving math problems at the highest level only a few years after GPT-2/3. The models then couldn't reliably solve grade school math problems. They barely were good enough to draft emails. They still very much felt like statistical parrots. All things that looked like fundamental limitations slowly faded with some advances (e.g. high scale RL) in a span of a few years, which is really a short time. We should behold this moment both in awe and disbelief. What will a few more years of progress bring? How is it going to impact the world and society at large? Are we ready for the tsunami of intelligence at our fingertip? More than any other moment, this feels to me like the eve of singularity. Glasswing & huggingface incident further increase the gravity. A few years ago, deep down I felt working on alignment is premature. It's nice to do if it's your passion, but the shapes of things weren't clear enough for it to be critical in my opinion. The chances that you end up working on things that are useless for aligning the actual AGI was high. It's different now. Now, it feels like it's the most critical thing facing us. https://openai.com/index/ten-advances-in-mathematics/
    @_arohan_This. Human + agent is outcome distribution is worth studying conjointly.
    @OpenAIAn internal version of our next major model produced 10 new results on long-standing open problems in mathematics and theoretical computer science, using roughly $2,000 worth of tokens at GPT-5.6 Sol API rates.
    @AndrewCurran_Notes on the ten breakthroughs, written by a model that read the raw chain-of-thought. https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/reasoning-walkthroughs.pdf
    @kimmonismus„Our next major model“ So their internal model that solved the 10 long standing problems was indeed GPT-6.
    @jachiam0I don't think this is an especially good argument. "Especially likely to want to simulate the singularity" is a an extremely strong assumption that only feels reasonable to us because we don't know the singularity's outcome yet; there are surely many universes and scenarios that would be less-known to postsingular intelligences that would be correspondingly more interesting by virtue of being mysterious. I also think the binary of "a universe is either simulated OR it is real" is probably false. A very big "why not both?" A universe that exchanges no information with outside universes except in the form of boundary conditions (or some better formulated limit) is equally real whether it is run on hardware in an exterior universe or exists independently in an infinite expanse without form and void. How should we count such universes? Real or simulated? I prefer thinking of the space of all possible universes as having a measure over them, where each is counted in some way based on how often it can occur, whether it may occur in a simulation by another universe or on its own... I don't think such measures are easy to formulate but I suspect this can be nailed down with some rigor one day.
    @danintheoryThis is still cool, and remember we want to help all of you make more science faster too