[emil-lp]

> But as always, the methodology is buried: how many open problems were tried until they found a success?

Not only that, but they have like 500 world-leading experts in mathematics and IMO alumni, so how do we know one of the agents wasn't hardcoded to return a proof that the mathematicians had found?

I'm a mathematician/graph theorist, and I've tried ChatGPT 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, and now 5.6 on a bunch of simple-ish open problems, and I've never gotten a solution.

[turzmo]

I’ve had a similar experience in physics. Excellent domain knowledge and semantic search, but the intellectual sparkle and reasoning just isn’t there and it still often throws out a lot of wrong ideas. It is very useful for coding.

But there is a discrepancy between (the implication behind) these reports and how I subjectively feel talking to LLMs. Granted, I don’t have access to whatever cutting edge model is out there for as many credits, but I also don’t feel like I’m talking to an IMO silver medallist.

[i000]

What is a "simple-ish open problem". I guess it falls under "solving this open problem in mathemathics is left as an exercise to the reader" ;)