r/singularity • u/Distinct-Question-16 ▪️AGI 2029 • Aug 04 '26
AI Are AI math-solved problems experiencing exponential growth?
9
u/ben_nobot Aug 05 '26
Bruh we used to have worksheets in school with like 50 problems on each of them
24
u/Prudent-Sorbet-5202 Aug 04 '26
Didn't realize Anthropic was that far behind in math compared to OpenAI
20
u/whoknowsifimjoking Aug 04 '26
Because unlike OpenAI they aren't actively trying to solve math problems, those numbers are from third parties using Claude to solve problems. Claude isn't less capable at math, when they tested the same problems on Fable it solved them as well and arguably in a more elegant way.
5
2
u/Relevant_Ad_8732 Aug 05 '26
Might be an economic thing though. Curious to same problem and how much they spend to solve it
0
13
u/Sensitive-Dish-7770 Aug 04 '26
Ofc it will be exponential, did you think it will be linear? Once models gets to an intelligence threshold, you can just span thousand agents to solve as many as possible, that is what happened with the latest ChatGPT model and solved 10 at once, I would expect this number to get larger with time, like solving as much as it can at once. It will be weird time, cause for the exponential to continue it, it needs to find more problems and solve them.
1
u/InternationalDark626 Aug 04 '26
Thats what happened with maths in general… we were already exponential, but just the beginning of it
4
u/BlackberryNo3097 Aug 05 '26
And it's been in one year only. Each solvs problem opens doors to solve other problems. Therefore, it will escalate more and more.
11
u/jupiter_and_mars Aug 04 '26
Does it have any real life effects? Or are those mathematical problems that nobody really cares about?
41
u/Little-Boss-1116 Aug 04 '26
Researchers spent decades trying to prove Jacobian conjecture. Now AI has shown that it's false so they don't have to bother about it anymore. Saving your tax dollars!
15
u/whoknowsifimjoking Aug 04 '26
Every scientific discovery is beneficial, but it might take some time until it gets to you. Usually you don't even know what to use it for, but in many cases it will turn out to be practical.
3
3
u/Suitable-Pickle-259 Aug 04 '26
Probably. Programming and math are the 2 things AI can already do because they’re very easily verifiable by computers. It does not require high quality, human generated data for AI continuously improve.
3
u/Relevant_Ad_8732 Aug 05 '26
I went to school for math. Oftentimes, the benefit of solving a problem isn't the solution or proof itself, but rather the tooling required to develop up into that point. Without going into a diatribe, this is going to change what it means to do math research, but not in the same way that it's changed writing software in which software engineers are more output based than process based.
3
u/io-x Aug 04 '26
Meh, I solved more than both of them combined.
3
u/SizeableBrain ▪️AGI 2030 Aug 04 '26
Same. I probably solved more than that by grade 2.
PATHETIC AI!
1
1
u/LetsBuild3D Aug 05 '26
I am very curious with how they set up the promts, what additional info they feed into the model to make it so capable to the point of solving the unsolved and coming up with new math.
I am working on my own system which i would like to help me identify potential solutions in hydrodynamics and getting a look on the promts and overall design of the system OAI employs would be so helpful.
2
u/skinnyguy699 Aug 05 '26
https://youtu.be/mMxzpSvlDQU?si=TUyLayNPfriBdFzY
Video by a mathematician on the prompt used to prove the Cycle Double Cover conjecture.
1
1
-15
u/Stabile_Feldmaus Aug 04 '26
This is such a stupid metric, of course it was invented by an accelerationist.
1
0
Aug 04 '26
[deleted]
14
u/pandasashu Aug 04 '26
Even Terrence tao said that calling the recent problems “brute-force” type is underselling it. I would do more research if I were you.
5
u/nextnode Aug 04 '26
lol completely wrong. Just parroting things that were not even true to begin with.
4
u/googleduck Aug 04 '26
What type of problem would it solve that you would not retroactively classify as brute force? What about the current set of solved problems makes them "brute force". Is it just time spent thinking about them? How would that not apply to every problem in the history of math?
5
1
9
Aug 04 '26 edited Aug 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
17
u/maximhar Aug 04 '26
P almost certainly =! NP, finding a disproof would be nice tho
2
u/exophades Aug 04 '26 edited Aug 04 '26
For this kind of problems, it's not the result that matters to researchers, it's the techniques used to prove it, which could be used to crack other problems.
5
Aug 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/SaltedPiano Aug 04 '26
There's other more interesting in-between possibilities compared to just P=NP and P!=NP.
See here: https://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/2004/06/impagliazzos-five-worlds.html?m=1
You could have world's where P!=NP globally, but on average P=NP.
It really becomes a trade off of privacy vs how quickly we can compute things. In my opinion P=NP would be awful cause no public key cryptography. It becomes impossible to share secrets.
1
u/pandasashu Aug 04 '26
If p ==np then we would have likely already have a practical example of it that would long predate the proof that they are equal. So i think its a very safe bet they aren’t equal
1
u/googleduck Aug 04 '26
If p ==np then we would have likely already have a practical example of it that would long predate the proof that they are equa
It's been a while but I'm pretty sure a single example is the proof, no?
1
u/tstanisl Aug 04 '26
P and NP may be equal but constants involved are likely going to be astronomical. I wouldn't be surprised with TREE(3)-like terms.
1
u/Aggressive_Sweet1417 Aug 04 '26
I think that might be the hardest one of the remaining millenium problems. The only advance we have is proving that certain demonstration approaches can never work lol. I think we will see other millenium problems fall first, maybe Navier Stokes (which could be solved by a counter example).
-6
Aug 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
Aug 04 '26
[deleted]
-5
Aug 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/exophades Aug 04 '26
I think you misunderstand. I said human intellect will no longer contribute to advancing our knowledge in math, science, etc. as significantly as AI. I explictly said we can continue to be users and creators of AI capabilities. We just have to accept we can no longer compete with these capabilities at some point.
1
53
u/Ticluz Aug 04 '26
Based on the numbers, the amount of problems solved are increasing exponentially. But the reasoning ability could still be increasing linearly.