[ExI] Dispatches from the last days of human relevance

Fri May 29 12:15:57 UTC 2026

On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 5:59 AM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

*I especially liked one comment on Scott Aaronson's website
<https://scottaaronson.blog/> concerning that article by somebody called
"Maybe an AI": *

*2022: Pfft! AI can’t even do high school math!2023: Pfft! AI can’t even do
college-level math!2024: Pfft! AI can’t even do PhD-level math!2025: Pfft!
AI can’t even do math research!2026: Pfft! AI can’t even solve open
research problems harder than the Erdős problems!2027: Pfft! AI can’t even
win the Abel Prize!2028: Pfft! AI can’t even win a second Abel Prize!*

*John K Clark*

> *Quantum computer expert Scott Aaronson wrote this yesterday:*
>
> *===*
> *Dispatches from the last days of human relevance*
>
> *By Scott Aaronson *
>
>
> As most readers have presumably heard by now, Paul Erdös's Unit Distance
> Problem
> <https://scottaaronson.blog/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=e1d2b543d54abdae09f00c47c6aa74342497f5457524d607965c77ef3254481e&blog_id=129520580&post_id=9782&user_id=0&subs_id=317430890&signature=55586574732a954c4bb2821126597460&email_name=new-post&user_email=johnkclark@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvVW5pdF9kaXN0YW5jZV9ncmFwaA=&email_id=3d774be550584f63265fb5d090b4cbe2> from
> 1946---one of the central open problems from the field of discrete
> geometry---has been solved
> <https://scottaaronson.blog/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=2be8a5c817e27621b3b3979214d8fa0cac66888c57f1c2abff8e9ad6e2eb5112&blog_id=129520580&post_id=9782&user_id=0&subs_id=317430890&signature=0144bc4f1f16ae2b2fc37161b71846a6&email_name=new-post&user_email=johnkclark@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly9jZG4ub3BlbmFpLmNvbS9wZGYvNzRjMjQwODUtMTliMC00NTM0LTljOTAtNDY1YjhlMjlhZDczL3VuaXQtZGlzdGFuY2UtcHJvb2YucGRm&email_id=3d774be550584f63265fb5d090b4cbe2> by
> GPT5.5Pro. Erdös had conjectured that, given n points in the plane, at most
> n1+o(1) pairs of them could be unit distance apart. Using high-powered
> results from algebraic number theory, GPT refuted this, constructing a set
> with n1+ε unit-distance pairs, for ε ~ 10-38. Shortly afterward, Will
> Sawin, a human (!), improved GPT's construction
> <https://scottaaronson.blog/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=37f0d9ae78da57f36de87c6b77ae7c3d55abff4d7c75591804dbaea62bde7d8a&blog_id=129520580&post_id=9782&user_id=0&subs_id=317430890&signature=3425c56e3c084c36294de6c210355fd6&email_name=new-post&user_email=johnkclark@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly9hcnhpdi5vcmcvYWJzLzI2MDUuMjA1Nzk&email_id=3d774be550584f63265fb5d090b4cbe2> to
> get ~n1.014 pairs. Meanwhile, the best known upper bound remains n4/3,
> improving Erdös's n3/2.
>
> he entire process seems have been one-shot: my former student Lijie Chen
> <https://scottaaronson.blog/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=ebc57c05f4749aea70cf7d5ecd98ee20bdf8fb2cc4de12161d30be984bec0759&blog_id=129520580&post_id=9782&user_id=0&subs_id=317430890&signature=4048061081474004a084cc98808bb12f&email_name=new-post&user_email=johnkclark@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly9jaGVuLWxpamllLmdpdGh1Yi5pby8&email_id=3d774be550584f63265fb5d090b4cbe2> simply
> gave GPT the problem, then GPT thought for a while and output a
> several-page argument that, on analysis by human experts, turned out to be
> correct. *Of course* there's selection bias here; we're not hearing as
> much about the hundreds of other problems GPT was given that it *didn't* solve
> (isn't that the case with humans too?). Clearly, too, GPT was helped by the
> facts that human mathematicians had wasted most of their time trying to
> prove Erdös right rather than looking for a counterexample, and that, even
> if they *did* look for a counterexample, they'd need to be experts in
> algebraic number theory to find this one, which hardly any discrete
> geometers are. So, *maybe* that suggests that AI, right now, is "merely"
> picking various medium-hanging fruits that human mathematicians missed for
> contingent reasons? With emphasis on the "right now."
>
> In a companion paper
> <https://scottaaronson.blog/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=59733452193bf809b2ca0c47b9770c67fbd4bf46690a2b86dd26ffc5712b1842&blog_id=129520580&post_id=9782&user_id=0&subs_id=317430890&signature=811217d6c8c60f0249d52477395c5d92&email_name=new-post&user_email=johnkclark@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly9jZG4ub3BlbmFpLmNvbS9wZGYvNzRjMjQwODUtMTliMC00NTM0LTljOTAtNDY1YjhlMjlhZDczL3VuaXQtZGlzdGFuY2UtcmVtYXJrcy5wZGY&email_id=3d774be550584f63265fb5d090b4cbe2>,
> OpenAI helpfully included commentary from Timothy Gowers, Noga Alon, Will
> Sawin, Daniel Litt, and many other experts, reflecting on the breakthrough,
> the path that GPT took to get to it (which can actually be seen by
> examining its chain-of-thought), and what this might mean for the future of
> mathematical research.
>
> I heard the news maybe an hour after it broke, when some UT grad students
> came to my office to tell me. For what it's worth: these students were
> morose, musing about how everything might soon be over for young scientists
> and mathematicians like themselves. I don't know whether they're right, but
> I feel like I should tell the truth about what their reaction was.
>
> Then, a few days later, a team at DeepMind, including my UT Austin
> colleague Swarat Chaudhuri
> <https://scottaaronson.blog/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=c9ded037d91b3fec4522167735ae5d9fa3c6596215e5a1d5b52ea22a5f4f50a3&blog_id=129520580&post_id=9782&user_id=0&subs_id=317430890&signature=eda9f82ed32b6709ea52fa16f827ef2d&email_name=new-post&user_email=johnkclark@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuY3MudXRleGFzLmVkdS9+c3dhcmF0Lw=&email_id=3d774be550584f63265fb5d090b4cbe2>,
> announced that they were able to use a system called AlphaProof Nexus to settle
> nine more (!) Erdös problems
> <https://scottaaronson.blog/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=5a498efc50c29c675ee47a1cbefa0488e005d7f8f36d692bb42c919d48780d6d&blog_id=129520580&post_id=9782&user_id=0&subs_id=317430890&signature=a8250812ab38ac3098646c6ef1c0cd86&email_name=new-post&user_email=johnkclark@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly9hcnhpdi5vcmcvYWJzLzI2MDUuMjI3NjN2MQ=&email_id=3d774be550584f63265fb5d090b4cbe2>,
> many of them in additive combinatorics, along with miscellaneous other open
> math problems. Notably, in this case the AI also fully formalized its
> proofs in Lean.
>
> And then, just today, Jelani Nelson alerted me to a new CS theory paper
> <https://scottaaronson.blog/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=2f75a414d1047af3be8608ba1520b2365802088d1fc34953e27cd8f9f4c064db&blog_id=129520580&post_id=9782&user_id=0&subs_id=317430890&signature=d0776e6e7bccffb99d3cd67b95d79601&email_name=new-post&user_email=johnkclark@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly9hcnhpdi5vcmcvcGRmLzI2MDUuMjQxMzA&email_id=3d774be550584f63265fb5d090b4cbe2>,
> which solves a longstanding open problem about electrical flows on graphs
> using a proof from GPT5.5Pro.
>
> It seems to me that we're now over the top of this particular
> rollercoaster, and it will keep accelerating until we reach the bottom,
> wherever that might be. I don't know whether to hope or dread that
> solutions to P versus NP and all our other great problems will be included
> in the ride---that our role, as human mathematicians, will be reduced to
> (at most) deciding which questions we find interesting and then
> understanding AI models' answers to those questions.
>
> But *maybe* that won't happen. Maybe the new AI mathematicians will soon
> hit a wall, because they lack the uncomputable quantum gravity microtubules
> of Penrose and Hameroff, or some other magic human ingredient. The
> fantastical thing is that, one way or the other, we're going to find out
> empirically before very long.
> ------------------------------
>
> Readers may have also seen the news that multiple prizewinning entries in
> a short fiction contest called the Commonwealth Prize, give overwhelming
> indications of having been written by AIs
> <https://scottaaronson.blog/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=e4dbe589f08e7a382fa1e24ee575fcdb4f50c2b1b9f9aaa645c3872f8b112881&blog_id=129520580&post_id=9782&user_id=0&subs_id=317430890&signature=e183475a5160d29a1dd6432570a0c732&email_name=new-post&user_email=johnkclark@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGhlZnAuY29tL3AvYWktZ2VuZXJhdGVkLWxpdGVyYXR1cmUtY29udHJvdmVyc3k&email_id=3d774be550584f63265fb5d090b4cbe2>.
> As Kelsey Piper puts it
> <https://scottaaronson.blog/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=911956d9089fc9b3fea5c2521362de01cf006717953016c499cd16f7ab096401&blog_id=129520580&post_id=9782&user_id=0&subs_id=317430890&signature=975bd515640800e82b68feca4a2565fc&email_name=new-post&user_email=johnkclark@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGhlYXJndW1lbnRtYWcuY29tL3AvdGhlLWxpdGVyYXJ5LXdvcmxkLWlzLXNsZWVwd2Fsa2luZw=&email_id=3d774be550584f63265fb5d090b4cbe2>
> :
>
> There are, let’s say, also some noticeable similarities in the prose style
> between the winning stories that were flagged for AI use. AI chatbots love
> metaphors and similes, and they often spit out ones that sound vaguely
> pleasing but are logically incoherent or ascribe properties to things that
> don’t make sense.
>
> “The Serpent in the Grove” gave us, “The girl smiled like sunrise over a
> sink.” “The Bastion’s Shadow” says, “She carried it now in her bag, heavy
> as a charm.” “Mehendi Nights” describes something as “swaying against
> plaster like a warning bell.”
>
> The Commonwealth Foundation, whose judges chose these stories, hasn't
> exactly covered itself in glory---saying, on the one hand, that it strictly
> forbids AI use but on the other, that it will continue taking authors at
> their word that they didn't use AI, no matter the immensity of evidence to
> the contrary. As many others have pointed out, judges more familiar with AI
> would've ironically been better placed to notice the signs of its use.
>
> If only
> <https://scottaaronson.blog/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=5e021e3ed9a7b77b5000ded3fd169539c4fe016a4c5beb1da74b8ae402bacf62&blog_id=129520580&post_id=9782&user_id=0&subs_id=317430890&signature=f492cfba4036852aa2cae92c79484627&email_name=new-post&user_email=johnkclark@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly9zY290dGFhcm9uc29uLmJsb2cvP3A9OTMzMw=&email_id=3d774be550584f63265fb5d090b4cbe2> there
> were some sort of automated way to detect AI-generated text. Someone should
> really get on that problem, don't you think?
> ------------------------------
>
> But maybe we should just throw in the towel---as some of my colleagues
> have already done in the context of undergraduate projects? Maybe we should
> simply say that a good story is a good story, regardless of what manner of
> entity produced it?
>
> As it happens, just last week I read my very first AI-written story that
> affected me *as* a story, to the extent that I wanted to read it more
> than once. This happened when I gave GPT5.5Pro the following simple prompt:
>
> Write me a story about the most ancient Israelites that’s riveting like
> the stories of the Bible but that’s also consistent with all of the
> archeological evidence.
>
> You can read the result here
> <https://scottaaronson.blog/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=def2608d0d93d9fa0ad1732ac633eb113eb08c72c2552f48b50b9ed686fbe65b&blog_id=129520580&post_id=9782&user_id=0&subs_id=317430890&signature=9a31cce536039c20571acf5872aa1f0c&email_name=new-post&user_email=johnkclark@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly9jaGF0Z3B0LmNvbS9zL3RfNmEwZDEwYzVhNjE4ODE5MWFlNTVjMWRkZjBjYTgwMTU/ZmJjbGlkPUl3WTJ4amF3U0VtX2hsZUhSdUEyRmxiUUl4TVFCemNuUmpCbUZ3Y0Y5cFpCQXlNakl3TXpreE56ZzRNakF3T0RreUFBRWVmZW5vUVJUTmZTZ2xzNnJzdHQtNFY2T1NqUkhHRnJEaWZfS0tEUGFDX09EU2VRcnI4bHNHNzlMd0Fra19hZW1fMmUxT3ZwU1hhR1kwU19yUUVQOE9GQQ=&email_id=3d774be550584f63265fb5d090b4cbe2>.
> One of my Facebook friends called it "disturbingly good," and I share that
> assessment. Of course, I'm well aware that GPT could easily generate a
> thousand stories like this one---sampled from the same probability
> distribution---and then I could even do statistics on which tropes were the
> most common. This makes it feel silly to overindex on the first story that
> happened to be output, and yet somehow I did.
> ------------------------------
>
> I feel like at this point, both the prophets of AI utopia like Ray
> Kurzweil, and of AI doom like Eliezer Yudkowsky, could be forgiven for
> asking: *dude, will you listen to us YET?* Do you *still* find it prudent
> to call this new form of terrestrial intelligence a stochastic parrot, a
> laughable fraud, or a fad that's about to go away? Fear it all you want,
> hate it even, but at least respect it!
>
> Which brings me to the *other* big AI news from the past week, namely
> that Pope Leo released his first encyclical, which is entitled "Safeguarding
> the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence."
> <https://scottaaronson.blog/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=c702a02abe7da27822219ce16f3946d4628fbad20ef8572be0eb5baa27e1916e&blog_id=129520580&post_id=9782&user_id=0&subs_id=317430890&signature=1607283b52777e24854b860b34c47f68&email_name=new-post&user_email=johnkclark@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmF0aWNhbi52YS9jb250ZW50L2xlby14aXYvZW4vZW5jeWNsaWNhbHMvZG9jdW1lbnRzLzIwMjYwNTE1LW1hZ25pZmljYS1odW1hbml0YXMuaHRtbA=&email_id=3d774be550584f63265fb5d090b4cbe2> I
> read it and ... well, I certainly agreed with the theme that such a
> world-changing technology needs to be developed for the common good (as the
> Pope would have it, like the walls of Jerusalem), rather than for the
> profit or vanity of any one individual or company (in his analogy, like the
> Tower of Babel). I had quibbles with some of the other parts. Zvi
> Mowshowitz, as he often does, had a superb paragraph-by-paragraph analysis
> <https://scottaaronson.blog/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=993596768aa7b6ff8c864bcb8eedf0e25c930a2a64e5a16fe4c2b2333f2e9e9e&blog_id=129520580&post_id=9782&user_id=0&subs_id=317430890&signature=e420677c6d2b6e00b2b7f91d9f452c1d&email_name=new-post&user_email=johnkclark@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly90aGV6dmkuc3Vic3RhY2suY29tL3AvcnRtaC1wb3BlLWxlb3MtbWFnbmlmaWNhLWh1bWFuaXRhcw=&email_id=3d774be550584f63265fb5d090b4cbe2>.
> Amusingly, there are indications that parts of the encyclical were
> written by AI
> <https://scottaaronson.blog/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=a073407aa10469bd997935388d66fed198836765e7bf636a1aeec4181d287227&blog_id=129520580&post_id=9782&user_id=0&subs_id=317430890&signature=66bbed006c0aaf803b2b998c484542d7&email_name=new-post&user_email=johnkclark@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucmVkZGl0LmNvbS9yL3NsYXRlc3RhcmNvZGV4L2NvbW1lbnRzLzF0b2E4NzIvY2xhdWRlX2F1dGhvcl9vZl90aGVfaHVtYW5pdGFzX2V2aWRlbmNlX3RoYXRfdGhlLw=&email_id=3d774be550584f63265fb5d090b4cbe2>
> .
>
> To me, though, maybe the most notable part was that Chris Olah, who leads
> Anthropic's interpretability team, was standing next to the Pope at the
> ceremony
> <https://scottaaronson.blog/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=e186265da8905c70bd21a63d9831a6dc8ee6f863b5d56d0ff111e3dcc825e1e0&blog_id=129520580&post_id=9782&user_id=0&subs_id=317430890&signature=325ef2e8fc8da9725abe2bc6f2c79474&email_name=new-post&user_email=johnkclark@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZm9yYmVzLmNvbS9zaXRlcy9hbGljaWFwYXJrLzIwMjYvMDUvMjUvYW50aHJvcGljLWJpbGxpb25haXJlLWNvZm91bmRlci1qb2lucy1wb3BlLWxlby13YXJucy1haS1qb2ItbG9zc2VzLXdpbGwtc3BhcmstbW9yYWwtaW1wZXJhdGl2ZS1vZi1oaXN0b3JpYy1wcm9wb3J0aW9ucy8&email_id=3d774be550584f63265fb5d090b4cbe2>,
> and delivered his own remarks
> <https://scottaaronson.blog/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=1439706fd8a5b068651273d47abd8df1484ecfa6cdbdf1fca07e8a1243fe750e&blog_id=129520580&post_id=9782&user_id=0&subs_id=317430890&signature=9e2000bce6617fb2f88e03348c936ec2&email_name=new-post&user_email=johnkclark@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYW50aHJvcGljLmNvbS9uZXdzL2NocmlzLW9sYWgtcG9wZS1sZW8tZW5jeWNsaWNhbA=&email_id=3d774be550584f63265fb5d090b4cbe2>.
> I felt like Chris, who I met even before Anthropic existed, was a
> non-obvious yet inspired choice here, one of the rare figures in frontier
> AI whose technical *and* moral authority are both completely
> unimpeachable by anyone.
>
> And so, at this momentous era for the human project, and no less of an
> authority than that of the Vicar of Christ himself, the Supreme Pontiff and
> the Successor of Peter, I hereby throw myself on the wisdom and mercy of
> ... uhh, Chris Olah and his team at Anthropic.
>
> Chris, if I am soon to share the earth with entities that can prove the
> Riemann Hypothesis and solve quantum gravity after 30 seconds of thought,
> then may you understand those entities well enough to cause them to be nice.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260529/3f324c50/attachment.htm>