3 ms·
I'm not sure what's crazier: AI improving a lower bound on RH, or AI improving a lower bound on RH and it not even making the front page of HN.
by bryan0 2mo ago
I'm not sure what's crazier: AI improving a lower bound on RH, or AI improving a lower bound on RH and it not even making the front page of HN.
- magneticnorth 2mo agoRight? I just learned about this and searched it on hacker news wondering why I didn't see it earlier. Any human mathematician would be thrilled to prove a result like this, and it's not even big news anymore that an LLM can do it.
- adornKey 2mo agoWhere did you find the news? So far I only found decent discussions about it in Chinese. https://www.zhihu.com/question/2070336637360518307/answer/2070453556918984932 https://www.zhihu.com/question/2070336637360518307/answer/20...
- magneticnorth 2mo agoI saw it first on reddit (r/math).
- josteinhylin 2mo ago[dead]
- jcfrei 2mo agoThat's how quickly your perception shifts when you are inside of a real, fundamental technological shift. If some similar computer program figured out the same improved bound just 6 years ago there would have been numerous blog posts, experts interviews and NYTimes, WaPo op-eds about some computer working on the Riemann hypothesis. Now that we are in the middle of it it's going to be a footnote at best.
- afdbcreid 2mo agoTrue, however: if some human would improve the lower bound that would still end as some few posts on mathematics magazines, even if it would be no less impressive. The general public is not interested in the mathematical details, it is interested in the fact this is unique. And it is no longer unique.