* LLMs do just interpolate their training data, BUT-

* That can still yield useful "discoveries" in certain fields, absent the discovery of new mechanics that exist outside said training data

In the case of mathematics, LLMs are essentially just brute-forcing the glorified calculators they run on with pseudo-random data regurgitated along probabilities; in that regard, mathematics is a perfect field for them to be wielded against in solving problems!

As for organic chemistry, or biology, or any of the numerous fields where brand new discoveries continue happening and where mathematics alone does not guarantee predicted results (again, because we do not know what we do not know), LLMs are far less useful for new discoveries so much as eliminating potential combinations of existing data or surfacing overlooked ones for study. These aren't "new" discoveries so much as data humans missed for one reason or another - quack scientists, buried papers, or just sheer data volume overwhelming a limited populace of expertise.

For further evidence that math alone (and thus LLMs) don't produce guaranteed results for an experiment, go talk to physicists. They've been mathematically proving stuff for decades that they cannot demonstrably and repeatedly prove physically, and it's a real problem for continued advancement of the field.

I'd say yes, LLMs "just" recombine things. I still don't think if you trained an LLM with every pre-Newton/Liebniz algebra/geometry/trig text available, it could create calculus. (I'm open to being proven wrong.) But stuff like this is exactly the type of innovation LLMs are great at, and that doesn't discount the need for humans to also be good at "recombinant" innovation. We still seem to be able to do a lot that they cannot in terms of synthesizing new ideas.

Most discoveries are indeed implied from axioms, but every now and then, new mathematics is (for lack of a better word) "created"—and you have people like Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, Gauss, Euler, Ramanujan, Galois, etc. that treat math more like an art than a science.

For example, many belive that to sovle the Riemann Hypothesis, we likely need some new kind of math. Imo, it's unlikely that an LLM will somehow invent it.

The proof relies on extremely deep algebraic number theory machinery applied to a combinatorial geometry problem.

Two humans expert enough in either of those totally separate domains would have to spend a LONG time teaching each other what they know before they would be able to come together on this solution.

E.g. training on physics knowledge prior to 1915, then attempting to get from classical mechanics to general relativity.

That said. I think it’s worth saying that “LLMs just interpolate their training data” is usually framed as a rhetorical statement motivated by emotion and the speaker’s hostility to LLMs. What they usually mean is some stronger version, which is “LLMs are just stochastically spouting stuff from their training data without having any internal model of concepts or meaning or logic.” I think that idea was already refuted by LLMs getting quite good at mathematics about a year ago (Gold on the IMO), combined with the mechanistic interpretatabilty research that was actually able to point to small sections of the network that model higher concepts, counting, etc. LLMs actually proving and disproving novel mathematical results is just the final nail in the coffin. At this point I’m not even sure how to engage with people who still deny all this. The debate has moved on and it’s not even interesting anymore.

So yes, I agree with you, and I’m even happy to say that what I say and do in life myself is in some broad sense and interpolation of the sum of my experiences and my genetic legacy. What else would it be? Creativity is maybe just fortunate remixing of existing ideas and experiences and skills with a bit of randomness and good luck thrown in (“Great artists steal”, and all that.) But that’s not usually what people mean when they say similar-sounding things about LLMs.

You can watch a rock roll down a hill and derive the concept for the wheel.

Seems pretty self evident to me

They will do their own thing, don't need us. In fact, we will be in the way...

We can choose to study them and their output, but they don't make us better mathematicians...

But that's not how new frontiers are conquered - there's a great deal of existing knowledge that is leveraged upon to get us into a position where we think we can succeed, yes, but there's also the recognition that there is knowledge we don't yet have that needs to be acquired in order for us to truly succeed.

THAT is where we (as humans) have excelled - we've taken natural processes, discovered their attributes and properties, and then understood how they can be applied to other domains.

Take fire, for example, it was in nature for billions of years before we as a species understood that it needed air, fuel, and heat in order for it to exist at all, and we then leveraged that knowledge into controlling fire - creating, growing, reducing, destroying it.

LLMs have ZERO ability (at this moment) to interact with, and discover on their own, those facts, nor does it appear to know how to leverage them.

edit: I am going to go further

We have only in the last couple of hundred years realised how to see things that are smaller than what our eye's can naturally see - we've used "glass" to see bacteria, and spores, and we've realised that we can use electrons to see even smaller

We're also realising that MUCH smaller things exist - atoms, and things that compose atoms, and things that compose things that compose atoms

That much is derived from previous knowledge

What isn't, and it's what LLMs cannot create - is tools by which we can detect or see these incredible small things

Cracks me up.

What exactly do we think that human brains do?

Isn't this just anthropocentrism? Why is understanding only valid if a human does it? Why is knowledge only for humans? If another species resolved the contradictions between gravity and quantum mechanics, does that not have meaning unless they explain it to us and we understand it?

However, this was not verified in Lean. This was purely plain language in and out. I think, in many ways, this is a quite exciting demonstration of exactly the opposite of the point you're making. Verification comes in when you want to offload checking proofs to computers as well. As it stands, this proof was hand-verified by a group of mathematicians in the field.

Dystopia vibes from the fictional "Manna" management system [0] used at a hamburger franchise, which involved a lot of "reverse centaur" automation.

> At any given moment Manna had a list of things that it needed to do. There were orders coming in from the cash registers, so Manna directed employees to prepare those meals. There were also toilets to be scrubbed on a regular basis, floors to mop, tables to wipe, sidewalks to sweep, buns to defrost, inventory to rotate, windows to wash and so on. Manna kept track of the hundreds of tasks that needed to get done, and assigned each task to an employee one at a time. [...]

> At the end of the shift Manna always said the same thing. “You are done for today. Thank you for your help.” Then you took off your headset and put it back on the rack to recharge. The first few minutes off the headset were always disorienting — there had been this voice in your head telling you exactly what to do in minute detail for six or eight hours. You had to turn your brain back on to get out of the restaurant.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manna_(novel)

We have that chess board for quite a while now, over 40 years. And no, there is nothing special about Lean here, it is just herd mentality. Also, we don't now how much training with Lean helped this particular model.

Heuristically weighted directed graphs? Wow amazing I'm sure nobody has done that before.

I think we still don't really comprehend how much can be achieved by a single "mind" that has internalized so much knowledge from so many areas.

Solving problems people have already stated is a niche activity in mathematical research. More often, people study something they find interesting, try to frame it in a way that can be solved with the tools they have, and then try to come up with a solution. And in the ideal case, both the framing and the solution will be interesting on their own.

They also offer grants you can apply for as a researcher. I'm sure other labs may have this too but I believe OpenAI was first to this.

Given that Google is the "web indexing company", finding hard to find things is natural for their models, and this is the only way I need these models for.

If I can't find it for a week digging the internet, I give it a colossal prompt, and it digs out what I'm looking for.

As far as academic research is concerned (e.g. this threads topic), I can't say.

I’m very out of my depth, but the structure of the proof seems to follow a pattern similar to a proof by contradiction. Where you’d say for example “assume for the sake of contradiction that the previously known limit is the highest possible” then prove that if that statement is true you get some impossible result.

(Though in some ways that's actually more impressive.)

When I'm learning about a new subject, I'll ask Claude to give me five papers that are relevant to what I'm learning about. Often three of the papers are either irrelevant or kind of shit, but that leaves 2/5 of them that are actually useful. Then from those papers, I'll ask Claude to give me a "dependency graph" by recursing on the citations, and then I start bottom-up.

This was game-changing for me. Reading advanced papers can be really hard for a variety of reasons, but one big one can simply be because you don't know the terminology and vernacular that the paper writers are using. Sometimes you can reasonably infer it from context, but sometimes I infer incorrectly, or simply have to skip over a section because I don't understand it. By working from the "lowest common denominator" of papers first, it generally makes the entire process easier.

I was already doing this to some extent prior to LLMs, as in I would get to a spot I didn't really understand, jump to a relevant citation, and recurse until I got to an understanding, but that was kind of a pain in the ass, so having a nice pretty graph for me makes it considerably easier for me to read and understand more papers.

I do not believe it will replace humans.

But AI is supercharging Math like there is no tomorrow.

Who else disproved this longstanding conjecture before the model did so, since obviously it must have been in the training data since before?