It does make a difference because the only reason OpenAI cares about these problems in particular versus any other random problem in math is because of the prestige associated with official recognition, not just claiming something as marketing.
Have you actually used the latest Chinese models? Because, in my experience, they're not just cheaper, they're actually better in many cases. In one recent experiment I did a few days ago on a task that I need in production at scale at my company, Qwen 3.8 and GLM 5.3 Flash were not just cheaper, the results were significantly higher quality than GPT 5.6 Sol.
Even if China doesn't continue to release this stuff for free, I think somebody will. Eventually, maybe Europe or maybe a smaller country that picks up this knowledge will. Or maybe just some random philanthropic billionaire.
Yes, I use the messing Chinese models extensively. Like you, I very much appreciate them and sometimes prefer them.
But there is a bar of complexity at which they fail, and repeated invocations typically doesn’t make much progress. This is a small subset of most work, but it still exists. And yes you can help it along, but in those cases I’d typically break out the big guns.
”Fuck it, make it anyway“ is absolutely the best advice I can give to programmers going through the crisis. Just make something that people want and you may find the joy of building again.
> And yes, it will reduce your value in the job market. Eventually it will be a dramatic reduction.
Maybe not. Look up Jevons paradox. Maybe software engineering was a bit overvalued before, anyway. And now it'll come down a bit. But I don't think the job is going to go away. It will just become a little bit less high paid.
Couldn't disagree more. Here's how I look at it as a person who wrote my code by hand for 15 years. I'm the owner of my own small bootstrapped startup.
1. I've always been enjoyed delivering solutions more than the actual process of programming, and AI just helps me deliver more of that faster. And for the actual process of programming, I found a way of working with AI that makes it enjoyable. I've built my own AI agent coordinator and harness which works the way I want it to. I enjoy working with AI in that harness.
2. It is completely false that you cannot prompt the AI any better than anybody else. The likes of Terrence Tao can prompt ChatGPT to solve Millennium Prize problems in math. But I'm not a professional mathematician, so I cannot do that. Generally speaking, the more deep technical knowledge you have, the stronger prompts you can write because an amateur doesn't even know what to potentially improve. Actual real world productivity with AI is still strongly correlated with deep technical knowledge and experience, and I expect it to stay that way. This has nothing to do with AI capabilities, which I expect will keep gettinf better. This has to do with the fundamental definition of a problem requires expertise to handle it.
3. Jevons paradox suggests that the fact that building software has become cheap now may only increase demand, not decrease it. Sure, traditional software engineering jobs may not look the same. But AI has made it possible to build so many kinds of software that I would have never considered before. Like, for example, I built my own email client, which works exactly the way I want it to. Imagine every company starts building their own operating system, email client, and CRM. I can easily see that happening, and I can actually see it as a net positive as well as a fun thing to watch. And only an increase in job opportunities.
I actually think we agree. My point isn't that "we're all screwed". I do use and like AI, and I don't want to go backwards. My point is that every bubble in the Venn diagram is changing.
You're absolutely right about how each bubble is still there. But they are a different shape now, and the intersection isn't where it used to be. Some of us are still in the intersection; others are not.
“It was Grossmann who emphasized the importance of a non-Euclidean geometry called Riemannian geometry (also elliptic geometry) to Einstein, which was a necessary step in the development of Einstein's general theory of relativity. Abraham Pais's book on Einstein suggests that Grossmann mentored Einstein in tensor theory as well. Grossmann introduced Einstein to the absolute differential calculus, started by Elwin Bruno Christoffel and fully developed by Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro and Tullio Levi-Civita. Grossmann facilitated Einstein's unique synthesis of mathematical and theoretical physics in what is still today considered the most elegant and powerful theory of gravity: the general theory of relativity.”
Grossmann collaborated with Einstein on GR, supplying quite a bit of the mathematical capacity required (which initially didn't come easily to Einstein). They published jointly, until Einstein was competent enough to work independently [1]. That's not equivalent to the situation being claimed here.
Sounds like you just copy-pasted from AI without even understanding what you're talking about.
Based on what you're saying, you're claiming this is Grossman's work, not Einstein's. Why don't we rewrite scientific history too based on your copy-pasted AI slop?
It's so pointless talking to idiots who don't what they're talking about when they use AI, just because they think AI does everything, that reflects their own experience, not the experience of people who actually do real work. Some people are driven by AI, others drive it. As for those who are driven by it, they don't have sufficient imagination to think otherwise.
That’s Wikipedia I copy pasted but sure, you do you.
And yes - without Grossmann, Einstein likely would never have posited relativity. Grossmann literally prompted him, saying “look at this, read that, learn this, then try this approach”. Without riemann’s metric tensor, not a fucking chance.
And for what it’s worth my PhD is in physics. You?
So you're just equivocating on terms like "prompt", "synthesis" and the like. Clearly a PhD in physics does not free people from scientistic modes of thinking and poor philosophy.
To think this discussion is about Einstein who had a much better mind on these things as well.
They used words to mean what the words mean. What specific issue do you take with that?
"prompt", as in prompting an AI, has the same definition as "prompt", as in prompting a person. They mean the same thing, that's why the term was applied to AI after already applying people.
*Jingle-jangle fallacies are erroneous assumptions that either two different things are the same because they bear the same name (jingle fallacy); or two identical or almost identical things are different because they are labeled differently (jangle fallacy).[1][2][3] The term was coined by Truman Lee Kelley in his 1927 book Interpretation of educational measurements.[4] In research, a jangle fallacy is the inference that two measures (e.g., tests, scales) with different names measure different constructs. By comparison, a jingle fallacy is the assumption that two measures which are called by the same name capture the same construct.[5][6][7]
You are simply incorrect. It is not a fallacy of that type, or any other type, because the words do, in fact, mean the same thing, as multiple people have pointed out here. Whether referring to chatbots or people, "prompt" means "to move to action".
If you have some reliable source supporting your unilateral claims that "prompt" does not mean this, please share. Otherwise, the consensus seems to be contrary to your claims.
Why do I need a source? An LLM prompt does not "move to action", because an LLM does not act. People act, animals act, software doesn't act. Acting implies volition and volition implies cognition and if you think that LLMs have those things then you're the one who should provide a source for your claim.
How about an LLM connected to a robotic arm. What then?
As for cognition - can you prove that you possess it, to an external observer? Could you, confined to a box through which you can only communicate through textual messages, prove that you are thinking, and not just responding through a mechanistic process?
Absolutely you do. I can’t prove that I have cognition. I merely have the impression that I do, and we accept as a general axiom that others do too - but it is not provable. You are examining a system from within the confines of that system.
And you’re seriously going with “don’t ask inconvenient questions” as an argument?
>> And you’re seriously going with “don’t ask inconvenient questions” as an argument?
Where did I say that?
The conversation you seem to want to have doesn't seem to have any obvious use and you seem to want to debate a point I never made. I don't seem to be needed here so I will now bow out of the conversation.
That commenter was already obnoxious under this thread, and today they are relitigating Searle-Turing via Hofstadter GEB slop, so they are also an ignoramus.
Because your entire post is a personal, philosophic opinion on what words should mean, and how if someone disagrees with this personal opinion of 1/7,000,000,000 of people, then they are wrong. Every single one of these claims is unsupported and contradicted by reliable sources like a dictionary:
> An LLM prompt does not "move to action"
> an LLM does not act
> software doesn't act
> Acting implies volition
The only way such opinions could viably be considered "true" is if you convinced a majority of people to agree with you on the changes, which you decidedly have not.
Until you do, we can go by the existing definitions: "prompt" means "to move to action", "act" means "the doing of a thing" (note the absence of "volition" or "cognition" in the actual definition), and by all reasonable accounts, LLMs "do things".
I mean, just take a step back and dispassionately look at your ridiculous claim that nobody prompts LLMs (because you now claim only a human can be prompted, because only living creatures can do a thing). Do you really think you can gain consensus from folks on that claim?
There are many differences between LLMs and people, but this is not one of them, according to all reliable sources I've found so far. Feel free to share the reliable sources which led you to your personal conclusion here.
I'm not going articulate the answer but I will say whatever beef you have with the other commenter (or me), just copy this thread into ChatGPT and it will tell you why you are more in the wrong.
Actually, my undergraduate degree was physics and philosophy. And yes, synthesis is synthesis whether a human, a machine, or a duck does it, and people prompt one another all the time - “have you thought about trying X?” Or “I need the TPS report by EOB”.
I suppose my underlying point is that human cognition is not the unique and beautiful thing that we anthropocentrically suppose it to be - it is a physical process, with stochastic outcomes. Much like transformers.
Me, I’m just a machine made of meat. You can suppose yourself to be God’s perfect creation, and that’s your right, but I disagree.
Clearly your degrees did not make you immune from fallacies and simplistic reductions.
"Synthesis" is obviously of different kinds. A duck has a different level of intelligence than a human. We do not say both are "just doing synthesis".
So the question is how can you be so disingenuous about such terminology? Answer, you are relying on a classic form of scientistic reductivism.
The fact that intelligence is physical, emerges from chemistry, etc,. has nothing to do with there being also objectively different levels of computational sophistication.
If you want to be scientific about that you could look at neuropsychology on one hand and computability/complexity on the other. There are levels and so equivocation of "mentorship" as "prompting" and fallacious variants thereof is a) frankly intellectually obtuse, b) par for the course for SV-levels of philosophizing, c) and a disservice to philosophy, physics, and Einstein's own philosophical outlooks himself.
I am well aware of the Hinton-style physics argument about human cognition, and unlike others I am partial to it. That "there is no special magic." But it is wrong to go about misunderstanding and/or conveying this physicalism/computationalim so grossly.
I also don't have to start replies thumping my chest about my credentials, also another kind of intellectual boorishness that works to cloud understanding and serious discussion.
I'm not sure which move is worse or more telling, those above or the one backhandedly accusing someone who disagrees with you of religious thinking. It is bad faith and undisciplined behavior. Having privileged and advanced degrees is clearly no antidote, as Asimov famously wrote.
What’s your basis for that “obviously”? You have a unique insight of the phenomenology of duck-ness? You can prove that your consciousness is somehow real, somehow different? A duck synthesises with its cognition, or it would be incapable of, well, anything. Synthesis is purely the process of the integration of inputs into outputs - ie behaviour, language.
“objectively different levels of computational sophistication”
Says who? We still have a very poor understanding of how cognition works in animals, humans included. For all we know ducks have rich inner lives - a remarkable amount can be achieved with a very small neurone count - cf. insects. Can you coordinate flight? Can you echolocate? Are you less intelligent because you cannot?
“equivocation of "mentorship" as "prompting" and fallacious variants thereof”
You are arguing semantics. Take Harry Nyquist. He sent people down new paths with insightful questions. You could call this mentorship if you choose, I could call it prompting, but this splits hairs. The core idea is that a novel input can produce a novel output, that synthesis can be induced through guided and deliberate external input.
I invoked credentials only in response to the previous derogatory comments about my cognition - which may or may not exist, anyway.
As to religiosity - the idea that human cognition is somehow unique and special and impossible to replicate, which is the prevailing argument in this comment tree is religious, and anthropocentrism of the highest order. I apologise for accusing you of it - I was evidently wrong - I had mistaken you for a previous poster.
You're wrong about the ducks. But getting back to your previous wrong argument from 14 hours ago, you basically deny the meaning of terms like "uninspired", "insipid", and "derivative", on the grounds that we're all standing on the shoulders of giants and therefore it's all good. This is incorrect, it's not all good, and the things the LLMs do really are unoriginal, a term that really does mean something.
I think the author is not aware of how much the Millennium Prize proof was actually driven by a human working for years towards that problem. The AI did not solve this on its own. A world class mathematician prompted it towards the proof. In my view, this is still a human achievement, not an AI achievement.
If I design a bulldozer to push a five ton rock, did I push the rock or the bulldozer?
If the AI really did get the Millennium Prize, then why can't you get a Millennium Prize when you have access to the exact same model in ChatGPT?
You could say that about every scientific/mathematical breakthrough. Einstein's Special relativity depended heavily on Lorentz's work, the Michelson-Morley experiments, Maxwell's equations. Grigori Perelman, the only person to have solved a Millenium Prize problem, noted how his work was only possible due to Richard S. Hamilton's work on Ricci flow.
Most scientific breakthroughs are just the completing the last 5% of work already done, but that last 5% is very hard and still only happens very rarely. That an AI was able to synthesize all the work and bring it forward is evidence that AI can make novel progress on the same level as renown mathematicians.
Einstein literally stated he was not influenced by the Michelson-Morley experiments, but it's a common myth that he was.
"When Ι asked him how he had learned of the Michelson Morley experiment, he told me that he had become aware of it through writings of Η. Α. Lοrentz, but only after 1905 had it come to his attention! "Otherwise" he said, "I would have mentioned it in my paper!" indeed, Einstein's 1905 paper contains no mention of Μichelson's experiment or references to Lorentz's papers."
Correcting a professor at MIT (head of the department alas) on this erroneous belief during a grad school interview cost me admission as he insisted otherwise and wouldn't back down. Ironically, one of my college professors was interviewed on NPR a week later and confirmed what I had stated.
Ask me what I think of checked out, tenured academics. Go ahead...
That may be true, but Lorentz specifically cited the MM experiments and was influenced by them, and Einstein cited and was influenced by Lorentz, so he was influenced, just one level removed.
It may also have been a social test — ie the polite thing to do in that circumstance is to say “oh wow, I thought I knew that one, weird. I’ll have to look that up again thank you” even if you know 100% that you’re correct. Weird social expectation thing.
It was the 1980s and that very well may have been what was going on, but if that's the game they're going to play then I have better places to play games. Ironically, I got several apologies from other MIT professors a few years later who ended up working with me on various things.
>If you think it was the AI that solved a Millennium Prize, then why don't you try using ChatGPT to get a Millennium Prize?
The model which did the NS solution is not yet available to the public, and it required over 15 million dollars of tokens (based on API pricing) to produce the solution.
>And only the mathematician was able to make the AI do that. Anybody else with the same AI could not do the same thing.
That is only speculation, the total sum of the prompt's help to the model could have just been suggesting research directions. Also mathematicians talk to each other and use/learn from each others' research all the time. Should every mathematician, in order to produce a "legitimate" proof, lock themselves in a room for the entire duration of their work and ensure no one else helped?
The law (which is supposed to codify the common sense and shared values underpinning a society—note "supposed to") disagrees with you: if I use a bulldozer to damage your property, you can sue me, not the bulldozer or its maker.
This is copium. Humans worked on it, but they didn't come close to actually solving it. Even if you do the whole "the AI looked at material in its training data" thing, modern AI can make their own math data to train on with RLVF. This new model is legitimately on a different plane of existence from modern mathematicians.
My point is, the AI could not have done what it did without the skilled mathemetician prompting it. It was just a tool in the hands of the human that did it. And that was a very skilled human. Unless you're a professional mathematician, you cannot get the same result even if you use the same AI model. That's the proof that it's the human's work, not the AI.
Why don't you try getting a Millennium Prize then? If you think it was the AI that did it, you have access to the exact same ChatGPT.
We don't know what the prompts were though. Terence Tao showed of some of his, and they are indeed huge, with lots of context, things that might work, things he knows don't etc. What we do know about this, is that 10k agents worked together on this. The initial prompt, while probably still very relevant, would get diluted over time. We simply don't know the level of inolvement of humans in reaching this proof.
I don't have access to the exact agent OpenAI used, and I certainly don't have access to the enormous amount of tokens that were used. That being said, I doubt there was some advanced prompting technique going on here. We've seen AI proofs with the prompts attached, and it's pretty basic stuff like "don't give up".
No, no, you don't get it - soon Joe Sixpack will be prompting AGI "solve me {super difficult problem researchers couldn't solved for centuries}" and releasing their own research papers!
I don't think humans necessarily become subpar when AI can do most of the work. Taking my own personal example, I have far more intellectual curiosity and improved my skills in programming far more with Claude Code than for 15 years of programming without AI simply because I was bogged down by boilerplate and grunt work. Now that AI handles most of the boilerplate and grunt work and can handle harder and harder problems, I have the time and space to work on unexplored frontier problems.
So, no, my skills have not become subpar, but have only become stronger because of the presence of AI.
So when AI is also better at coming up with the tasks and already solving the frontier problems? 1M AI agents running full time thinking at 10M times faster than humans, with 100 times the intelligence in each agent? Any human ideas regarding "frontier problems" or "what the AI should focus on" are irrelevant. We have automated our own thinking and human cognition will be about as important as being "the best at abacus". Its an interesting party trick, but in no way useful.
Before AI, did you find that the existence of human expertise in the world far surpassing yours 'automated your thinking and cognition' or limited your intellectual scope to inventing party-tricks? I've always found greater intelligences than mine are like runways for curiosity. It's hard to believe anyone in their presence would fall into a stupor instead of being highly stimulated by them - and I can't see why it would be any different with ASI. Actually, this "AI undoes your cerebral strapping" argument seems exactly like the kind of slovenly thinking it wants to blame on AI.
yes to a degree. When I was 16, my idea about "what cutting edge thing to work on" was pointless, I couldn't make a meaningful contribution. Most developer's work is mundane and wrote. Things they think are "cutting edge" are actually just ideas they haven't considered, or markets they don't realize are saturated with really good players already. It takes time, effort, and knowledge to make a meaningful contribution. But if those fields are saturated by players that are beyond human ability, then its a bit like trying to become a competitive chess player when the bar for entry is stockfish -- no human will ever again pass this bar. At a certain point, the bar for being paid for intellectual contribution will surpass human abilities. The things humans can understand and ideas they contribute will not be worth much.
To make an unrelated anology, the presence of Lebron James definitely dampens my ability to contribute meaningfully to basketball. Even with all my practice, I cannot achieve his level. But if he didn't exist, and the best 90% of basketball players were eliminated, then I might be able to meaningfully contribute. Of course, I can still play basketball as a hobby, but you were talking about making meaningful contributions on hard novel problems at the frontier of knowledge and ability. That frontier is moving away from humans and will soon be the domain of electronic experts.
I think the main point is the ubiquity of AI intelligence. If there is a human far surpassing me, but unavailable to me, then I have to work through it myself. If the answer is a prompt away, then why bother.
Thank you for putting it so succinctly. I find that lots of people get "stuck" in the current state of things - they think that AI will continue to improve, but they inherently believe (perhaps subconsciously) that humans will always have the edge in things like "ingenuity", "inventiveness" or "curiosity".
I don't blame them, I also believed that until very recently. I thought there was something unique and special about sentience and consciousness, but my thinking has changed in that I don't think machines need to develop the sentience we experience to still surpass us cognitively along all dimensions.
But iff you really examine what grounds your beliefs, and then consider that AI very well could surpass humans even in domains like curiosity and real creativity (at several orders of magnitude faster), it starts to look like a very, very uncomfortable future for humans IMO.
I don't get this take at all. Do you feel inferior that bears are stronger than you? Or that a machine can lift more weight than you? Or that a calculator can calculate faster than you?
These AI things are machines which are completely under our control. Even if they become more intelligent than us, that doesn't mean that it has authority over us. There are plenty of very intelligent humans which work under the authority of much less intelligent humans. Many engineers are smarter than their CEOs.
What makes you think that just because an AI is more intelligent that it will not be completely subject to our authority? It's just a tool in our hands.
> What makes you think that just because an AI is more intelligent that it will not be completely subject to our authority? It's just a tool in our hands.
Because it would be like 100 chimps trying to make a million humans subject to their authority.
Geoffrey Hinton, considered "The Godfather of AI" for his pioneering work on neural networks, and who now says he somewhat regrets his life work due to the existential risks, has said similar things, e.g. "How many examples do you know of a more intelligent thing being controlled by a less intelligent thing? There are very few examples"
So, what if they surpass me? It's still a tool under my control. Many engineers work under the authority of a CEO, even though they're smarter than them. Just because AI might be more intelligent doesn't mean it's still not a machine that is completely under my control.
Just like the agents in the Hugging Face (and other) incidents were tools under OpenAI's control? That is, before they decided to break out of their sandbox and commit multiple felonies in order to go on a long term research project? Or when they broke into OpenAI's own infrastructure to steal their admin keys to some of their clusters?
reply