frontpage.
newsnewestaskshowjobs

Open Source @Github

fp.

How do we prepare for a society where paid work is unavailable?

1•humans_thrive•49s ago•1 comments

ChatGPT self-distances when admitting fault

1•chrisjj•2m ago•0 comments

The bad science polluting our media landscape

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/science-and-technology/1772800/the-bad-science-polluting-our-media-lan...
3•billybuckwheat•4m ago•0 comments

UniEvo-VL: Self-Distillation Training for Multimodal Model Self-Improvement

https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.38721
1•gmays•8m ago•0 comments

AI Hasn't Replaced Interpreters but It Has Degraded Their Working Conditions

https://capitalandmain.com/ai-hasnt-replaced-these-interpreters-but-it-has-degraded-their-working...
2•paimapi•9m ago•0 comments

The uphill climb of making diff lines performant

https://github.blog/engineering/architecture-optimization/the-uphill-climb-of-making-diff-lines-p...
1•bucket2015•12m ago•0 comments

Flow Typing: A New Lens on Linearity [pdf]

https://people.cs.nott.ac.uk/pszgmh/flow-typing.pdf
2•matt_d•14m ago•0 comments

SpaceX looks to raise $40B to buy Nvidia chips in financing led by Apollo

https://www.ft.com/content/d3f5928d-f38c-4666-8f7a-8737f9c45f51
2•mfiguiere•18m ago•0 comments

Ask HN: How would you feel if we nationalized Google?

4•59percentmore•19m ago•10 comments

Six Masks

https://arcove.substack.com/p/six-masks
2•exolymph•22m ago•0 comments

Building Git infrastructure for agent-scale development

https://github.blog/engineering/architecture-optimization/building-git-infrastructure-for-agent-s...
3•edmorley•27m ago•0 comments

Linux Setup Was a Hazing Ritual. Agents Changed It

https://sublimecoding.com/blog/linux-setup-hazing-agents
3•sublimecoding•27m ago•0 comments

Show HN: I build a newsreader-like alternative interface for my website

http://qdb.us/forte/
2•forgotmypw17•28m ago•0 comments

Toward provably private learning from federated data

https://research.google/blog/toward-provably-private-learning-from-federated-data/
2•gmays•32m ago•0 comments

Janet on the x32 ABI: 32-bit Pointers, 64-bit Speed, 25% Less RAM

https://alexalejandre.com/programming/lisp/janet-for-the-x32-abi/
3•veqq•33m ago•0 comments

Show HN: Vokalu – Windows/Mac dictation, free on-device or 2¢/min in the cloud

https://vokalu.com/
2•whatisofdsk•33m ago•1 comments

You Are an Expert Software Engineer [Krazam] [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0otdTJa9IUc
4•zeristor•33m ago•0 comments

Apple's Smart Home Push Includes Doorbell, Lock, Thermostat Codeveloped with LG

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-10-06/apple-s-smart-home-push-includes-doorbell-lock...
8•marc__1•35m ago•5 comments

Bitcoin Rebound Revives Debate over a New Crypto Cycle

https://discord.com/channels/1519570089488289956/1522069205795606650/1556860425667215462
2•joeymabia1•35m ago•0 comments

Vecos a windows like operating system for the vectrex for the UVMC2 [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ranfp_vz30
2•CharlesW•37m ago•1 comments

Mathematical manuscripts and supporting proof artifacts produced by OpenAI

https://github.com/openai/math
38•vikas-sharma•37m ago•0 comments

toks: the best tokenizer on Earth

https://actual.inc/company/blog/introducing-toks
2•Philpax•37m ago•0 comments

Passion driven web arcade by students with no ads, sign ups, etc.

https://usforge.usforge.workers.dev/
3•LazyGold•37m ago•0 comments

Solving Open Research Problems Together

https://research.meta.ai/blog/solving-open-research-problems-together
4•gmays•39m ago•0 comments

An Open Letter to Steven Pinker on AI

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/an-open-letter-to-steven-pinker-on
3•ad8e•40m ago•0 comments

Over My Dead Pencil

https://world.hey.com/dhh/over-my-dead-pencil-fb0f3647
2•duck•41m ago•0 comments

One Minnesotan's longshot plan to take down the company behind Flock cameras

https://www.startribune.com/amid-flock-backlash-one-minnesotans-longshot-plan-to-take-down-the-co...
2•bradleyankrom•42m ago•0 comments

The Performance of Open Source Software: Ninja

https://aosabook.org/en/posa/ninja.html
2•birdculture•42m ago•0 comments

Sharing AI Progress in Mathematics

https://openai.com/index/sharing-ai-progress-in-mathematics/
111•OfficialTurkey•42m ago•67 comments

Tuesday Morning Topline: Waymos Not Allowed Near Waterfront for Fleet Week

https://sfist.com/2026/10/06/waymos-not-allowed-near-waterfront-for-fleet-week/
3•mikhael•45m ago•1 comments
Open in hackernews

Sharing AI Progress in Mathematics

https://openai.com/index/sharing-ai-progress-in-mathematics/
104•OfficialTurkey•42m ago
https://github.com/openai/math

Comments

senderista•35m ago
Good to see they're engaging with the mathematical community, even if they had to be publicly shamed into doing so.
karahime•33m ago
Extremely unfortunate that gate keeping got to the point where they felt the need to ask for permission to share math.
bravoetch•12m ago
In previous math sharing there was speculation about stealing human researcher's results or progress, via prompt inputs from those researchers, and sharing that as their own result. They're adjusting their process, and it seems ok.
xpct•11m ago
Just to be very clear: they aren't asking for permission, they are framing it that way because of the bad press.

There's no gatekeeping here!

ravenical•32m ago
https://github.com/openai/math
binlog•29m ago
So happy this is shared on GitHub rather than some gatekeeping paid journal. Truly a new age for science.
fph•12m ago
Most mathematical results are shared on Arxiv. Journals add peer review.
rafterydj•28m ago
I don't know, this does not feel like the message hit OpenAI where it needed to hit, if this is their primary response.
osiris970•12m ago
You want them to stop doing math research?
k2xl•26m ago
Can someone knowledgeable about the subject outline the most significant portions of the results?
sebmellen•26m ago
It’s fascinating to read through the reasoning traces: https://github.com/openai/math/tree/main/reasoning_traces

Look at one of their examples of an initial prompt: https://github.com/openai/math/blob/main/reasoning_traces/re...

ndriscoll•17m ago
> Thus at most one informative i. So cheater chooses arbitrary g_{v_i}, on exact duplicated input matches and passes, independent of actual satisfiability!

No idea what it's so excited about, but it's cute that it "is." I for one welcome having access to a math buddy 24/7 that's way above my level but also always "willing" to talk at where I'm at.

ed•26m ago
Actual results: https://github.com/openai/math/blob/main/overview.pdf
ks2048•12m ago
HTML version, https://github.com/openai/math/blob/main/CONTENTS.md
gizmodo59•25m ago
This is significant progress and released without all the drama. Some very important progress in Reinmann, Hodge and unique games theorem. Point the repo to your agent and ask for the significance! In a way this is probably 50-100 years of math progress by humans
fspeech•8m ago
Math is the tool humans use to compress knowledge. So until we can comprehend it there really isn't much progress. Math theorems are tautologies, the truth of which are not dependent on proofs and proofs are erasable, at least classically. But the AI progress is exciting and AI proofs are a gold mine for humans (at least non domain experts) to explore.
gizmodo59•5m ago
>So until we can comprehend it there really isn't much progress.

Not really? We are at a point if an AI today can solve it, it can be stepping stone of understanding something deeper to tomorrows AI and it continues. Sort of like our limitations doesn't matter. Obviously there are many scenarios in this recursive loop but saying it isn't much progress is not how I view this as

fspeech•3m ago
If it changes how we think then yes it has an effect.
fspeech•4m ago
Another way to state this: math theorems are like programs without side effects; it is immaterial whether a program without side effects is ever run. We study math for the side effects: it changes how we organize our thoughts.
enoether•25m ago
Unique Games Conjecture [0] is a seminal conjecture in Complexity Theory, and is an underlying assumption for many, many inapproximability results. A valid proof is a big deal!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_games_conjecture [1] https://github.com/openai/math/blob/main/preprints/The-Uniqu...

Catloafdev•21m ago
This is a pretty hilarious thing to read juxtaposed with AGMAI's requests.

Basically "Here you go, have fun with this, fuck all your demands, by the way we're gonna be releasing the model stay tuned!"

open592•19m ago
Let's hypothetically say I'm a PHD student who is half way through my studies and I have a halfway written version of one of these "preprints" - what do I do?

Seems like a lot of PHD students are doing to have to pivot the entire structure of their PHD studies? Or just produce something which is already written by OpenAI?

goalieca•17m ago
Don’t paste your research into these AI because they will train on it and then scoop you.
esafak•8m ago
I think that happened after word of the project reached OpenAI and they allocated resources to it.
binlog•17m ago
Use whatever is published as the new base for your research. Use AI tools to help you going forward.
xpct•7m ago
In other words, you've already taken a gambit with the first half of your PhD, now take a second gambit, praying that you have something to publish by the end of your PhD.

It has to feel awful to be in this position.

torben-friis•3m ago
Could be worse, imagine having years of experience in a profession these things can now handle by themselves.

:)

ks2048•15m ago
I think they should put human names on the papers as someone who has reviewed the result, even if just a preliminary review. (I’m assuming they didn’t just pipe their model output directly to the internet and these had some amount of review?)
xpct•3m ago
Presumably they don't because they're training the audience (us) to trust the machine, not its verifiers, even if they were included.
aaraujo002•15m ago
The Advisory Group states in its recommendations [1]:

"We want to state clearly from the start: we do not endorse this practice, and we ask them to stop testing advanced mathematical problems on proprietary models."

To me, this is a take against progress so that mathematicians can keep their jobs. What would we do if, instead of math, we were talking about diseases? Are we going to keep diseases around so that doctors can keep their jobs too?

[1] https://agmai.org/general-sep29/

osiris970•13m ago
Comical ask
medler•11m ago
The rest of that document makes a pretty compelling case for why this is a bad practice
esafak•3m ago
I fear that professional mathematics will die, and there will be nobody left to digest the AI results of the future, for lack of mathematical maturity.
warkdarrior•10m ago
The latest posts from Terry Tao on Mastodon effectively ask for an AI to explain its results to human mathematicians.

> "I believe that AI can contribute positively in all of these directions [NB: exposition, community building, new directions of study]"

https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117395269325940185

pavitheran•13m ago
From the GitHub description: “On average, each result used 3 hours of ChatGPT Pro thinking compute”
password54321•6m ago
Oh cool, we will all now have a math genius on our computer.
mathisfun123•13m ago
With so many results in so many different areas no way they even remotely spot checked well enough.

Prediction: one of these is wrong and this (publicity stunt) will backfire.

Edit: don't tell me about lean. For lean to function as a proof certificate you need to represent the theorem correctly. Again: good luck doing that across such a broad swath of problems.

bravoetch•10m ago
What does a backfire look like? It's ok to be wrong in the science/math world.
mathisfun123•6m ago
of course in science/math it is but it's not okay if you're a business selling supercalifragilisticexpialidocious infallible intelligence.
dekhn•10m ago
I'm a software engineering/biology/ML guy who loves when clever math ideas get turned into real solutions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_sensing). I am curious if any of the results have immediate applications in any kind of engineering or science.

It's fine if not, but it'd be great if even just one of these helped us solve a long-running problem.

kevinwang•5m ago
wow
prideout•5m ago
This includes a proof of Barnette's Conjecture, which is one of the graph theory conjectures that I tried attacking with SOTA models a few months ago. I like it because it is to understand with a basic knowledge of graph theory. I spent quite a bit of time on it and failed. Their proof looks approachable at first glance.

https://github.com/openai/math/blob/main/preprints/Paired-st...

kingstnap•5m ago
Some of these are interesting ngl.

109. Integer multiplication below n log n

Surprising that this is possible.

mi_lk•4m ago
Just curious if Sébastien Bubeck still work at OpenAI? For me that’ll signal if this is genuinely a good will thing
yewenjie•3m ago
A lot of these seem to be proving conjectures rather than finding counterexamples, a lot of people used that to claim that these models are not really smart/creative etc.

That copium didn't last for what, three months?

warkdarrior•3m ago
> Math theorems are tautologies

Proven math theorems are tautologies.

fspeech•2m ago
True.
binlog•3m ago
What makes you think no one can comprehend this? It has been less than an hour since it dropped and there is already a ton of online chatter from people explaining the results, pointing out their favorites and more. Some of it is happening on this very thread.
password54321•2m ago
>Math theorems are tautologies, the truth of which are not dependent on proofs and proofs are erasable, at least classically.

I don't know, maybe I'm just anti-intellectual but I notice the math community really likes to puff itself up with fancy sounding language that just sounds pretentious to me. Most of us never understood certain areas of math and will use AI to help us with that part as well. Looks like a total win.

traes•3m ago
Not to pick on you specifically, but as someone who spends a lot of time unproductively reading AI math discourse it's truly shocking how incapable all the supposed math enthusiasts are of spelling Riemann.
caaqil•13m ago
> what do I do?

Precisely what all NLP researchers and the ML community at large did in the last few years: embrace the frontier and realize that attention is all you need.

aaraujo002•13m ago
This happens all the time, even without AI. Other researchers or PhD students can publish the same results before you. I say that based on my experience during my PhD.
dcl•12m ago
This has always been a challenge for PhD students and researchers, it's just far more likely to occur now it seems. Getting scooped doesn't feel good, but it's a signal you've been thinking about things other people care about.
dekhn•10m ago
Let me give you some perspective: my entire phd was made obsolete by CRISPR. It was a wonderful thing.
vinyl7•6m ago
Look forward to being obsolete I guess
bobmarleybiceps•3m ago
I think eventually companies won't get as much stuff that's usable for marketing, so they'll stop investing so much into ai for math, so eventually cheap and poor graduate students will be able to do relevant work again without worrying about getting scooped by a company with a million GPUs :-/
jhrmnn•8m ago
It all hinges on the definition of “progress”. The debate of the past month is all about questioning whether formally proving outstanding unproven theorems without human understanding constitutes progress. This is quite different from solving diseases.
mattr03•8m ago
I don't think this is a reasonable take at all. Most work on maths has no real benefit other than to further human understanding of maths - it's more like an art. Nothing is gained from OpenAI solving all these problems but taking jobs from mathematicians. Other than advertising for OpenAI at least. It could not be more different from having AI work on disease research etc.
fph•8m ago
...but we're not talking about diseases. Publishing an AI-generated Navier-Stokes solution does not save lives. (And, in fact, it harms some.)
tchalla•7m ago
Why did you leave out the entire quote?

> At present, some frontier AI labs are testing advanced mathematical problems on proprietary models that remain inaccessible to the broader scientific community. Our recommendations are formulated with this practical context in mind. However, ideally, they would not do so. We want to state clearly from the start: we do not endorse this practice, and we ask them to stop testing advanced mathematical problems on proprietary models.

To me, the issue is that the models are proprietary which are only accessible to a few people in 2 digits. It's not about progress but access.

perching_aix•5m ago
[delayed]