frontpage.
newsnewestaskshowjobs

Open Source @Github

fp.

“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more holistically

https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117395269325940185
265•ent101•4h ago•228 comments

Claude Haiku 5.5

https://www.anthropic.com/claude-haiku-5-5
869•sfkgtbor•15h ago•417 comments

Classic PC demoscene productions running natively in the browser

https://treylorswift.github.io/demoscene-recomp/web/
44•adunk•2h ago•13 comments

Living off-grid: Hundred Rabbits

https://100r.ca/site/home.html
197•Muhammad523•2d ago•55 comments

The 15-year search for a band that charted once and vanished

https://shahidhussain.com/writing/search-for-salvage/
90•shahidhussain•3d ago•30 comments

Margaret Hamilton has died

https://news.mit.edu/2026/margaret-hamilton-computing-pioneer-dies-1007
1467•muglug•12h ago•161 comments

GPT‑6 and Intelligent UI for everyone

https://openai.com/index/gpt-6-for-everyone/
621•joshuawright11•15h ago•345 comments

How did Rosalind Franklin miss the helix in her iconic DNA image? She didn't

https://www.science.org/content/article/how-did-rosalind-franklin-miss-helix-her-iconic-dna-image...
169•pavel_lishin•2d ago•60 comments

'Jonathan' is the oldest land animal on Earth

https://www.404media.co/oldest-living-land-animal-jonathan-the-tortoise/
145•gumby•13h ago•67 comments

Cleo (Mathematician)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleo_(mathematician)
143•djoldman•1d ago•28 comments

Shipping JPEG XL in Chrome

https://developer.chrome.com/blog/jpeg-xl-in-chrome
547•AshleysBrain•21h ago•362 comments

New repository settings for configuring pull request access

https://github.blog/changelog/2026-02-13-new-repository-settings-for-configuring-pull-request-acc...
16•Bluestein•2d ago•7 comments

The Mathocalypse

https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=10169
225•6bitquant•13h ago•254 comments

Show HN: Bigwords.page – Turn any screen into a sign. The URL is the app

https://bigwords.page/
498•SpeakingOfBrad•17h ago•138 comments

Dat-ecosystem: high level applications built on top of P2P protocols

https://dat-ecosystem.org/
10•janandonly•2h ago•3 comments

In Vienna and Beijing, the first (thorium) nuclear clocks begin to tick

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/07/science/first-nuclear-clocks-thorium-229.html
99•gumby•15h ago•20 comments

Analog Computer Simulator in the Browser

https://pavel-krivanek.github.io/The-Analog-Thing-Simulator/public/
20•adamnemecek•2d ago•5 comments

OpenAI withdraws three mathematical results

https://twitter.com/danintheory/status/2108065033070789090
40•sashank_1509•2h ago•30 comments

Docker Agent

https://github.com/docker/docker-agent
233•saikatsg•15h ago•109 comments

Sharing AI progress in mathematics

https://openai.com/index/sharing-ai-progress-in-mathematics/
1280•OfficialTurkey•1d ago•1450 comments

Push ifs up and fors down: The idiom, its algebra, and its limits

https://debasishg.github.io/blog/push-ifs-up-fors-down/
146•speckx•14h ago•66 comments

A minimal kernel in Swift, running in QEMU

https://carette.xyz/posts/minimal_swift_kernel_on_qemu/
77•surprisetalk•1d ago•15 comments

Animated ASCII Art for Web Pages

https://ascii.rest/
352•turrini•18h ago•61 comments

Port of the TypeScript compiler, checker and lsp to Rust, by LLM

https://github.com/pingdotgg/ts-rust
54•jcbhmr•8h ago•95 comments

How machines learned precision

https://glinscott.github.io/how-machines-learned-precision/
162•glinscott•1d ago•63 comments

Why were Victorian elites so effective?

https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-seven-vices-of-highly-effective-victorians/
152•karakoram•18h ago•249 comments

Bloody Cavemen

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v48/n18/edmund-gordon/bloody-cavemen
3•Thevet•1d ago•1 comments

House with 15m underground tunnels for sale for 300k

https://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/26612080.house-15m-underground-tunnels-sale-300k/
203•librasteve•20h ago•191 comments

Navier–Stokes Lost in Translation

https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.08144
303•nill0•17h ago•184 comments

Anti-patterns in software blogging

https://refactoringenglish.com/blog/anti-patterns-software-blogging/
272•ilreb•20h ago•139 comments
Open in hackernews

OpenAI withdraws three mathematical results

https://twitter.com/danintheory/status/2108065033070789090
40•sashank_1509•2h ago

Comments

sashank_1509•2h ago
Early sentiments are a lot of the write ups still read like slop and it feels very rushed and not very polished.
illwrks•1h ago
I wonder if the issue is that not many people within OpenAI can validate the output. Therefore what reads well looks good, and then was published.

If that’s the case in a way its a similar delusion that average people are experiencing with their own AI use.

ssfdg•40m ago
This is almost certainly the case. I very much doubt that anyone there of any importance in the decision-making process around this actually cares about the math, just the headlines they can get from pushing it out.
Ekaros•23m ago
I am starting to think do they have some metrics or KPIs that they are trying to fill with this stuff. Pressure to produce anything that at least on first glance sells... Then again they probably are not only place doing that with AI...
SequoiaHope•39m ago
I am certainly experiencing what seems like some mania or computer addiction from these technologies. I’ve never been able to produce such results as I can today. I lose sleep staying up late working on it (though to be fair this has always been an issue). But the volume of work is so hard to audit. It makes it difficult to make flawless results. That doesn’t excuse the mode of publication. They could have had humility in their announcement. “We are seeing some interesting results and seeking community validation.” Maybe they did, I did not read their full announcement. But that would have been the right move if they can’t verify something fully.
IsTom•19m ago
I've tried reading one of these, it was an unreadable mess with some strong smells. It might have something to it, but it'd take a decent amount of labor to validate it, especially with how many references to other papers it had.
bbor•5m ago
Yes, of course. Wasn't that the whole point? To get more humans involved earlier in the process, with more transparency?
ekjhgkejhgk•52m ago
Just the other day I was thinking, if unsupervised maths will descend into "oops we found a bug in some code, branch XYZ of maths is no longer true".
jjgreen•39m ago
c.f. Italian differential geometry
literalAardvark•38m ago
If you go far enough to the edge that's already how math works, since everything is very interpretation-sensitive.

There is however a new problem of scale. Erdös was a human and still managed to create work for an entire generation of mathematicians, how much of a mess will an automathician create?

doginasuit•26m ago
> automathician

I vote for "automathon"

rapsey•33m ago
Sure but if the results have practical implications then the validity will be self evident. If they do not, not much of consequence has been lost.

Interesting that math gets so much attention, when actual advances to material science, biology and chemistry have much higher ramifications and economic benefits. I assume progress there is kept under wraps until they can capture the economic benefits. If they can do that, then the insane valuations may actually be valid.

plastic-enjoyer•23m ago
nryoo•26m ago
Were the withdrawn ones actually Lean-checked or not? seems like that matters
rich_sasha•26m ago
I’m a little confused - I thought their proofs were all driven by Lean proofs - is that not right? So even if the quality of the work is low in some metrics, it either passes the test or not..? No space for changing your mind either way.
stavros•21m ago
If you wrote twenty million lines of Lean to verify something, my suspicion is you've been fuzzing the Lean solver rather than coming up with new math.
rich_sasha•18m ago
Well, fine - but my understanding is, if a fuzz-generated Lean proof is correct, that’s end of story. It can’t be “incorrect” if it “passes”.

You might think this is not very useful, maybe - but that’s not a reason to retract..?

stavros•17m ago
If you're fuzzing the solver, you might discover a solver bug.
AlanYx•20m ago
Only a subset contain Lean formalizations. And even for that subset, there's the potential that the formalization is semantically off (that is, it's a formalization for a slightly different problem).
autuni•19m ago
No, in their original blog they wrote:

> As part of our GitHub repository, we are sharing formalizations of many of the proofs in Lean, a programming language that allows mathematical proofs to be checked by a computer. We will update the repository with more formalizations as we obtain them.

Meaning they published all results before checking all of them, and intended to add more Lean proofs later. In the linked post they state ~42% of the posted results now have formalized proofs, some were added, some verified, and I assume this means that some results turned out to be wrong.

samrus•23m ago
How? What about the lean verification?
Thorentis•8m ago
How do we even know the premises of the "verified" Lean proofs are correct? The more I think about these results, the more I'm convinced this is like a junior engineer who writes 100 unit tests and shares a screenshot of Pytest being all green, but you check the code and most of them are just doing assert True.
> I assume progress there is kept under wraps until they can capture the economic benefits. If they can do that, then the insane valuations may actually be valid.

Or progress is not as straight forward in those fields as in math.

mrpopo•13m ago
This is extremely disappointing. It means they are sharing unproven work for PR, forcing the mathematicians community to do the verification job for them, while so-called "accelerationists" surf on the hype and help with the pro-AI propaganda.

If your AI tool can help advance mathematical research, share the tool with mathematicians. Using it like this is irresponsible.

"AI will kill us all": no. Greedy humans will kill us all. With AI.

cm2187•9m ago
Irresponsible? You can safely ignore the GitHub repo if it bothers you so much. You can safely browse away.
mrpopo•5m ago
The "irresponsible" part is about how orange buffoons in power will read this, and immediately defund all universities, and mathematicians will lose their jobs, leaving us with nothing but an AI tool that no one can keep in check anymore.
solidasparagus•7m ago
Every option is going to lead to someone shitting on OpenAI for what seems to be a pretty huge accomplishment. There have been opinions written by some mathematicians that OpenAI should just share the work that they have now so that people who are working on any solved problems can know. Which seems reasonable to me.
est•7m ago
Lean 4 is relatively a new thing, last time I checked the formalization of graduate level mathematics isn't entirely done yet.

Lean itself is very hard to get rigorously correct, if you have every tried it yourself. I am not surprised if some AI even tries to benchmaxx Lean 4 by some loopholes

bbor•6m ago
No, it's the exact opposite, actually. They were sharing them early on advice of mathematicians -- they were criticized for being opaque for too long with previous announcements. OpenAI is in ~bad faith, but this isn't a sound criticism.

Also you are deeply confused about what accelerationism is, I believe. Sorry.

happa•4m ago
But that exactly how human mathematicians do things. They upload their research to preprint services like arXiv as they await it to be peer reviewed and accepted into a journal. Why is it okay for mathematicians to publish preprint papers, but when OpenAI does it, it's irresponsible?