2 ms·

Real title includes: > Unsolved Problem by Fields Medalist Breached by Two High School Students with AI My title recommendation: Fields Medalist Problem Solve

Real title includes: > Unsolved Problem by Fields Medalist Breached by Two High School Students with AI My title recommendation: Fields Medalist Problem Solved With AI They used AI for “computation, proof idea generation, and editing assistance”. It’s a bit odd how they list the AIs used - “Claude Opus 5, Anthropic and ChatGPT Sol5.6 were used for calculations, proof ideas, and editorial assistance.”

shafyy 12d ago
[flagged]
random3 12d ago
note HEAVILY > The students heavily utilized AI assistants, specifically Claude Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol, for computational exploration, proof idea generation, and editing. this is a bit like Enhanced Olympics(https://www.enhanced.com https://www.enhanced.com), except that you have someone else compete for you. My issue is that it makes it hard to distinguish real insight/work etc. from effectively null one. An old instance of the same issue was with what was called "script kiddie" back in the 90-00s
- gus_massa 12d ago
  For short problems the LLM are just too good now, but for long problems they still get in trouble. It's like bicycle or F1 race. It goes faster, but you still have to steer the boat to reach somewhere. (Or probably something in between, like a motorcycle race.) Also, the "kids" were guide by a postdoc, not completely on their own.
- karmakaze 12d ago
  Difference being anyone can be a "script kiddie". I don't think anyone could direct an AI to proofs like this one.
  - dist-epoch 12d ago
    > Jarred Sumner, an Anthropic staff member (and non-mathematician), prompted Claude to "take a real stab" at the hypothesis itself, leaving the mathematical choices from there up to the model. ... Throughout this process, Jarred's input was mostly limited to sending Claude messages of encouragement (mostly variants of "keep going" or "believe in yourself"). This seems to have helped Claude overcome some initial skepticism that it could make meaningful progress. https://www.anthropic.com/research/riemann-zeta https://www.anthropic.com/research/riemann-zeta
kelseyfrog 12d ago
It means that the solution is merely an interpolation of existing work and not fundamentally innovative as AI can only regurgitate, never creating something new.
- empath75 12d ago
  This is such a silly thing to say in 2026

shafyy 12d ago

[flagged]

random3 12d ago

note HEAVILY > The students heavily utilized AI assistants, specifically Claude Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol, for computational exploration, proof idea generation, and editing. this is a bit like Enhanced Olympics(https://www.enhanced.com https://www.enhanced.com), except that you have someone else compete for you. My issue is that it makes it hard to distinguish real insight/work etc. from effectively null one. An old instance of the same issue was with what was called "script kiddie" back in the 90-00s

gus_massa 12d ago
For short problems the LLM are just too good now, but for long problems they still get in trouble. It's like bicycle or F1 race. It goes faster, but you still have to steer the boat to reach somewhere. (Or probably something in between, like a motorcycle race.) Also, the "kids" were guide by a postdoc, not completely on their own.
karmakaze 12d ago
Difference being anyone can be a "script kiddie". I don't think anyone could direct an AI to proofs like this one.
- dist-epoch 12d ago
  > Jarred Sumner, an Anthropic staff member (and non-mathematician), prompted Claude to "take a real stab" at the hypothesis itself, leaving the mathematical choices from there up to the model. ... Throughout this process, Jarred's input was mostly limited to sending Claude messages of encouragement (mostly variants of "keep going" or "believe in yourself"). This seems to have helped Claude overcome some initial skepticism that it could make meaningful progress. https://www.anthropic.com/research/riemann-zeta https://www.anthropic.com/research/riemann-zeta

kelseyfrog 12d ago

It means that the solution is merely an interpolation of existing work and not fundamentally innovative as AI can only regurgitate, never creating something new.

empath75 12d ago
This is such a silly thing to say in 2026