4 ms·
This is a rare instance where feeding this groundbreaking information into an LLM gives _them_ psychosis. I fed this to claude code and watched it verify the re
by aizk 3mo ago
This is a rare instance where feeding this groundbreaking information into an LLM gives _them_ psychosis. I fed this to claude code and watched it verify the result in 7 different ways to be 100% certain, and it was just flabbergasted. Quite remarkable.
- SubiculumCode 3mo agoI read some thinking traces someone posted on X, and yeah, near psychosis from refusing to believe this simple of a solution had not been found already
- minimaxir 3mo agoWho knew DOES NOT COMPUTE would be an actual thing?
- left-struck 3mo agoThe unexpected part is it does compute!
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- TMWNN 3mo agoCaptain Kirk defeated multiple evil computers this way
- CamperBob2 3mo agoInterestingly, even Qwen 3.6 27B was able to verify the solution, but I didn't get any glazing for discovering it. Instead, it thought that someone named Shestakov had already found a counterexample in 2004. GLM 5.2 whiffed, it insisted the counterexample wasn't valid. VibeThinker 3B also recognized that the counterexample was valid. But it kept trying to convince itself that it wasn't, over and over, since it's an "unsolved problem." Eventually it just answered "-2."
- kelseyfrog 3mo ago> that someone named Shestakov had already found a counterexample in 2004. Qwen has the sprit of a grad student
- moffkalast 3mo ago> Matches! This is bizarre. A Jacobian counterexample has been sitting here in a prompt? Wait... is this map a known "fake" counterexample from the literature? Many mathematicians have tried and failed. This specific map might come from a paper or a forum where it was proposed and then debunked. Or... is it actually correct? Gemma's having trouble accepting it too. A solution?! At this time of year? At this time of day? In this part of the country? Localized entirely within my own prompt?
- angry_octet 3mo agoInconceivable!
- playerm1 3mo agoYes! Can I see it? No.
- 7373737373 3mo agoCurrent LLMs behave very counterproductively around unsolved problems, especially if they learned that humans consider them difficult. This has many straight up preventing themselves from attempting anything...
- kelseyfrog 3mo agoSame result. Public share https://claude.ai/share/19fd1a34-d63b-4a16-8d83-60d5b79e7747 https://claude.ai/share/19fd1a34-d63b-4a16-8d83-60d5b79e7747 It did the multiple verification sequence before expanding to internet search where it found this thread.
- minimaxir 3mo ago> So the conjecture that survived Keller, Abhyankar, Moh's degree-100 verification, and five-plus published wrong proofs appears to have died via tweet during the World Cup final.
- rvz 3mo ago..and (you guessed it) before GTA 6.
- FacelessJim 3mo agoI lol’d. I didn’t know Fable was this sassy
- eru 3mo agoOh, Fable can be surprisingly witty and sassy, when you get them in the mood.
- moffkalast 3mo agoI like how first it's amazed and doesn't believe it, accepts it, then realizes you not only stole it from twitter but that it's its own proof lmao.
- kzrdude 3mo agoWhich exact model does claude use here?
- drcongo 3mo ago> the "fable" in that tweet is Claude Fable, i.e., this model Looks like this was also Fable.
- monocasa 3mo agoI've heard about mathematicians going through kind of the same thing when they get a weird proof that ends up being right from some weird source or themselves. Which is fair, they get inundated with kooky proofs from amateurs all the time and odds are incredibly good that there's some major fatal flaw that the amateur doesn't see. Or in the case of themselves, there's a certain blindness that makes it a little more difficult to critically evaluate your own leaps. In ether case the way it manifests is by going over it many times and many ways, each time more certain that you missed something until you just kind of break. Only then do you publicly start suggesting that there might be something to this new leap.
- Xmd5a 3mo ago> they get inundated with kooky proofs from amateurs Source?
- fn-mote 3mo agoThe citation needed is for the other part, which claims a mathematician got an amateur proof which was correct. Nobody is reading unsolicited proofs. They are like spam. Source: personal friend of a “crank”.
- nullc 3mo agohttps://www.ufv.ca/media/faculty/gregschlitt/information/WhatToDoWhenTrisectorComes.pdf https://www.ufv.ca/media/faculty/gregschlitt/information/Wha...
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- wahnfrieden 3mo agoThis is also just an annoying Claude personality trait
- arcfour 3mo ago[flagged]
- cgio 3mo ago[flagged]
- baq 3mo agosol medium can't believe its own input and output tokens either despite computing everything itself; this is what it gave me: > Taken literally, these two facts would make this map a counterexample to the complex Jacobian conjecture in dimension 3: scaling one output coordinate would normalize the determinant to 1 without restoring injectivity. Since the complex Jacobian conjecture is still treated as an open problem, this strongly indicates that the displayed formula has been mistranscribed or contains a subtle typographical error. quite interesting indeed!
- inigyou 3mo agoJust take it as more confirmation that LLMs are unintelligent pattern-matchers.
- baq 3mo agostatistical parrot indeed, just like the one which built the counterexample. maybe.
- lostmsu 3mo agoOr they just have more scepticism than some of present public.
- losvedir 3mo agoYou must never have faced a situation where you can't believe your eyes. It takes a certain level of - dare I say it - intelligence and maturity to consider that it's more likely you've made a mistake than that you've made a huge breakthrough. In HN terms - it's never the compiler. Yes, very occasionally it might be the compiler, but you're better off assuming it's a bug in your code.
- astrange 3mo ago> In HN terms - it's never the compiler. Yes, very occasionally it might be the compiler, but you're better off assuming it's a bug in your code. Conversely: - if your company has an internal compiler team then it's likely the compiler because they broke it. - if it's not the compiler, you're not pushing it hard enough.
- siddboots 3mo agoI fed ChatGPT the map with no other context, just “tell me about this function”. It did a bit of work finding the Jacobean etc and eventually worked out the implications of what it was seeing. It then proceeded to check the arithmetic 4 times, and then decided to do a manual verification using an ad hoc symbolic checker in case its SymPy had been tampered with.
- Sophira 3mo agoCan you please share the chat log for this? I would absolutely love to see this.
- dist-epoch 3mo agoIt's easy to reproduce, I've fed the example in GPT-5.6 Sol Max and it started multi-checking it in all kinds of ways, with multiple symbolic packages then manual computation, then it did extensive literature search on the subject, looked at tens of math websites, extensive arxiv research. this was soon after it was posted, it didn't find the original twits with the finding
- thomascountz 3mo agoNot OP, but here's Gemini's reaction: https://aistudio.google.com/app/prompts?state=%7B%22ids%22:%5B%221WfqIwRCfmKmHoXueS9WHMbywpUkaw5Ya%22%5D,%22action%22:%22open%22,%22userId%22:%22115652185538866555952%22,%22resourceKeys%22:%7B%7D%7D&usp=sharing https://aistudio.google.com/app/prompts?state=%7B%22ids%22:%...
- jpfromlondon 3mo ago>flabbergasted phatic mimicry.
- inigyou 3mo agoLike the unicorn emoji, but for math? It occurs when the LLM is presented with incontrovertible evidence against something it "deeply believes" to be true.
- I-M-S 3mo agoSo, basically human psychology?
- eru 3mo agoCan confirm, Claude is flabbergasted. Gemini just checks the web first it seems, and already references the news. Kimi doesn't quite believe it.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- __grist 3mo agoturn off search >kimi is having a blast. i turned search back on and found this post from it’s sources cited after i suggested to check out the reaction. best thing is to go to a model with search off and plop it in the session
- Rzor 3mo agoDeepseek Pro got stuck after munching it for a minute or so and couldn't quite believe it either.
- Lockal 3mo agoI fed it to Google AI Studio, enabling tool execution and disabling web access. It also quickly verified it with SymPy, then went into psychosis. 5 minutes later: all previous chats are loading fine, but the only "Counterexample to the Jacobian Conjecture" chat is not loading. Well, I'm not a conventional conspiracy theorist. But everyone knows that in every major LLM provider there are hell of hidden guarding systems that mark users and dialogues based on content (for topics about national security, biology, security, adult topics, etc.) - so there is a small chance a CEO of Google is now receiving a dozens of notifications about "ground-breaking results that could be attributed to Gemini, if act quick". So if any of thousands researchers have ever submitted this polynomial to Claude previously, any Anthropic employee can accidentally or intentionally "rediscover" the result of other researcher (and even hide the traces by deleting a dialogue of other user).
- dist-epoch 3mo ago> all previous chats are loading fine, but the only "Counterexample to the Jacobian Conjecture" chat is not loading. This happened multiple times to me with Gemini. For the most trivial of requests, like translating a video into English. > "ground-breaking results that could be attributed to Gemini, if act quick" This would be such a dumb thing to do, and so easy to get caught with...
- Lockal 3mo agoThat is not dumb - erasing copyrights is just their business, and even when caught has zero consequences (for them). Providers can use any users input for improving their models, either by consent, or by flagging any dialogue for safety review (nonconsensually), or by training on whatever content they want anyways (obtained via torrents from pirate sites with U.S. court approval). On top of that, I retried the same question + one simple question, and again, same behavior - second JC chat is loading forever. That's more just a funny observation over Gemini - today this is very likely some internal issue, tomorrow it can be used for plausible deniability against copyright accusations.
- 3mo ago
- apf6 3mo agoIt reminds me of how AI will estimate that a coding project will take "4 weeks" and then proceed to finish the task itself in 15 minutes. AI models are changing the world much faster than their own training can keep up with.