21 comments

  • paxy 56 minutes ago
    Title is no doubt crafted to get ahead of the usual online backlash, but here’s the actual announcement:

    > We are announcing three new discoveries in mathematics, computer science, and physics about harmonic analysis, complexity theory, and quantum field theory.

    1. Local smoothing and the Kakeya conjecture

    2. The Exponential Time Hypothesis is false

    3. Existence of quantum chromodynamics and completions of the Standard Model

    • Rudybega 31 minutes ago
      To give some context:

      Kakeya / local smoothing (math): The result would resolve the Kakeya conjecture and Stein’s restriction conjecture across all dimensions together. Mathematicians had been making progress one dimension at a time, so this would settle a whole family of central harmonic analysis problems at once.

      ETH is false (computer science): ETH has been used as a computational hardness premise in hundreds of papers, so a disproof would undercut a large body of existing complexity results. It would also change what researchers think is achievable for efficient computation.

      QCD existence (physics): It would give a rigorous mathematical foundation to the theory of the strong force, which physicists have used for decades without proving it’s well-defined. It also bears on a Millennium Prize Problem.

      • jlev1 3 minutes ago
        Thanks Claude!
  • mindwok 9 minutes ago
    It is mind blowing that these long-standing conjectures and open questions are just falling by the dozen every other week. What a time to be alive.
    • __MatrixMan__ 5 minutes ago
      Chasing open questions, it seems to me, is worthwhile for the things learned along the way. Do you expect these results will be helpful, or is it just a sign that we need a new way to navigate uncharted spaces now that longstanding problems don't stand long enough for us to organize around?

      It feels a bit like having "visited" a place because you had a layover there.

  • mlinsey 1 hour ago
    I understand that the Exponential Time Hypothesis being false doesn't necessarily mean P=NP, but for people who are a lot more knowledgeable about complexity theory, does this update your priors significantly in the direction of P=NP?
    • novaRom 8 minutes ago
      For me, this result is significant. It basically adds much more hope P is equal NP (that majority seems being against). I believe one day AI will explain a major flaw in modern mathematics, so a kind of correction in axioms will be suggested to prove Rieman's hypothesis (or a completely new apparatus)
  • rcr-anti 3 minutes ago
    Well, this is certainly different, can't say they ignored the criticism. Wonder if this is a monkey paw curls moment; if the findings continue to accelerate, most of it just isn't public now.
  • rbranson 1 hour ago
    The title buries the lede quite a bit:

    > The Exponential Time Hypothesis is false

  • 3abiton 32 minutes ago
    I am not sure if I side with Tao on this, or 3B1B. It's already causing quite a kerfuffle (to say the least) in the academic communities. This is the new norm now.
  • aborsy 5 minutes ago
    Science is getting out of the reach of the majority of people. In particular, EU is out of it mostly.
  • metalsiliconYT 19 minutes ago
    OpenAi needs to stop trying to please everyone. Just release the findings and give all the credit to your models/collaborators.
    • sebzim4500 17 minutes ago
      They have released them, they are just also hiring mathematicians to clean them up in parallel.
      • T-A 6 minutes ago
        We reached out to external experts and asked them to act as shepherds, organizing groups to understand the new results. They advised three different release strategies: [...] For the physics result, form an external group of collaborators and defer to them on the release of materials. [...] The group requests that all communications with any and all members of the group regarding this effort be directed to the following email account: YANGMILLS4D@gmail.com.
  • artninja1988 28 minutes ago
    I wonder how much compute they are throwing at problems in ML like continual learning and sample efficiency. Also how successful they are with these. Results like in the post make me hopeful we'll see some type of so singularity soon
  • jwpapi 16 minutes ago
    Honestly, I’m a bit scared but also a bit excited.

    I’m currently reading Africa by John Reader which covers a lot of humanity storyline. From HN I get the humanity achievements that are happening right now.

    The feeling digesting both daily is in order of magnitudes bigger than what any really exciting tv show did to me.

    I honestly at this point don’t know anything about what could be possible and what couldnt.

    I understand that this is really freightening, but also especially ETH being false gives even more hope that some fundamental problems could be solved in our lifetime, for example understanding universe, aging, colonization of planets and also our limits. I know I’m the minority, but these answers really interest me.

    • kypro 8 minutes ago
      > gives even more hope that some fundamental problems could be solved in our lifetime, for example understanding universe, aging, colonization of planets and also our limits.

      There are infinitely many more ways to kill and torture a human than to save one.

  • dooglius 38 minutes ago
    The proof appears to be a sub-exponential algorithm for #3-SAT not just 3-SAT, I think this is considered a much stronger result?
    • geysersam 17 minutes ago
      Isn't 3-SAT NP-complete?
      • krackers 11 minutes ago
        Yes. Up until now, it was unknown whether containment of NP in EXPTIME was strict or not. (Obviously you can brute-force all possible witnesses, so any problem in NP can be solved in EXPTIME, it was open whether you could do better than that.)

        Showing 3SAT (technically #3SAT) can be solved in less than EXPTIME resolves this. It's only slightly subexponential, not even quasipolynomial, but it is a very surprising result.

      • LPisGood 13 minutes ago
        It is the canonical NP complete problem.
  • wilg 8 minutes ago
    In my opinion its okay for them to work on science and math problems and release the results.
  • hei-lima 11 minutes ago
    Terrible title. I was hoping to see more interesting comments on the story, haha!
  • titzer 25 minutes ago
    I'm going to be the cynical one and offer this translation: "Our results are too important to wait for the pesky peer review, so we are dumping a whole ton of money in a fund and giving some elites a breathless first look so our buzz keeps getting jacked up."

    The reality that Science is a grind and there are thousands of new results every year discovered by regular humans who use a regular human process to cross-check and review.

    Treating every result from the AI like a gift from god is getting tiring.

    • quantumspandex 4 minutes ago
      Science doesn't have to be a grind with AI.
  • grd_dev 47 minutes ago
    [flagged]
  • calf 1 hour ago
    In the Star Trek Voyager capstone episodes titled "Scorpion" parts 1 & 2, Chakotay explains to Janeway the behavior of the Borg through the parable of the fox and the scorpion making a transactional deal to cross the river together. After reaching the shore, the scorpion stings the fox, and the dying fox asks why. The scorpion replies, "Because it is in my nature."

    (Upside of the story is Captain Janeway's trusted crew works together to formulate a trick up their sleeve precisely in case of predicted contingency...)

  • mentalgear 31 minutes ago
    "Working with PR to make us look less like cheating mind leeches".
  • esalman 53 minutes ago
    Working with academic communities lol.

    I looked over the announcement for any substantial contribution, and found they're donating $5 million to a research foundation.

    $5 million might sustain 5-10 PhD students for 5 years.

    Maybe it's just me but I think they should contribute more in exchange for forcing the scientific community into paying for tokens to generate slop and then pouring their time into verifying or falsifying the slop.

    • quantumspandex 15 minutes ago
      No one "forces" anyone to verify it.
      • LPisGood 10 minutes ago
        I said the same thing in another thread and someone compared it to no one, forcing you to own a smart phone. I will preempt that argument by saying the community is motivated to verify these results because they are important to the field.
  • 1ahsgt 17 minutes ago
    I wonder how many prompts for proof approaches they stole for these. Nothing on how many tokens were burned.

    Proud to funnel money through the Simons Foundation, which is an AI booster itself and completely aligned with OpenAI.

    They make it very hard to enjoy a single result with the business and the politics being so dirty.