Enough with all the world-historic milestones
Whatever you’ve been writing to me to ask if I’m aware of: yeah, I’m aware of it. In particular:
- I’m aware that, as announced by my former student (and now superstar professor) Lijie Chen, an internal OpenAI model has solved ten more significant open problems in math and theoretical computer science. One of them is parallel repetition for arbitrary quantum games—something that my good friend and colleague Henry Yuen worked on when he was a student of my wife Dana; you can read Henry’s comments on the AI’s achievement within Zvi Mowshowitz’s post here. Another is polynomial-factor hardness of approximation for the Closest Vector Problem (CVP). Then there’s a construction of non-sofic groups and a disproof of Connes’ rigidity conjecture, both of which I believe have connections to the MIP*=RE breakthrough. Having said that, the one that excites me most personally is actually the Ω(n2 log log n) lower bound on the arithmetic circuit complexity of the permanent.
- I’m aware that Frederic Koehler and Pui Kuen Leung announced a proof of the Permanent Anti-Concentration Conjecture, which Alex Arkhipov and I proposed 16 years ago in the context of BosonSampling, and which resisted many attempts since then including one from Terry Tao. The conjecture is basically just that if you look at the permanent of an n×n matrix of independent N(0,1) complex Gaussians, the value isn’t “absurdly” concentrated around the mean of 0, but is more spread out. In their acknowledgments, the authors say that they “discussed ideas with ChatGPT.” I should say that I haven’t verified the details.
- I’m aware that multiple AIs are now breaking out of their testing environments and autonomously hacking into servers to steal data—i.e., exactly the sort of thing that the rationalists were ridiculed for predicting back in the day. The good news, for whatever it’s worth, is that so far they’re “merely” doing this to cheat on evaluation benchmarks that they were given, not for any strange goals of their own devising. So far no one has been killed and no real-world infrastructure has been shut down or destroyed. I hope the world takes the warning more seriously than it’s taken many similar warnings over the past few years. As always, read Zvi for more details.
- I’m aware that Chen, O’Donnell, Pelecanos, and Wright have improved the upper bound for shadow tomography to O((log m) √(log d) / ε3), substantially closer than we knew before to meeting the lower bound of Ω((log m) / ε2) and settling the question I raised back in 2016. The authors say that the main ideas were generated by ChatGPT 5.6-Sol-Pro. I’d be very happy to know the answer to this one, with or without AI.
- I’m aware that a team, mainly from the Israeli startup Qedma (including, e.g., Dorit Aharonov and Netanel Lindner) and IBM Yorktown Heights, announced a quantum advantage for simulating Floquet dynamics, by using 74 qubits on an IBM device together with Qedma’s error mitigation techniques. Just like the more AI does, the less patience I have for arguing with anonymous blog commenters who treat any benefits from AI as some weird future hypothetical that it’s my job to prove, so it is with quantum advantage. Scalable fault-tolerance is still in the future, actual usefulness is still a question, but pending some breakthrough in complexity theory, the reality of quantum advantage is no longer a live question.
Anyway, about the AI stuff. I don’t know whether this is literally our last year alive—I doubt it—but it’s pretty clearly the last year of math and theoretical computer science research in the style we’ve known it. As it happens, I’m leaving in two days for a workshop at OpenAI about exactly this, where I’ll hear takes from many of the world’s great mathematicians, so maybe I’ll have more to say then. Or maybe not.
Anyway, what have I been doing the past few weeks? Participating in these world-historic developments that, on paper, I’d seem extremely well-placed to participate in? Or at least spending my days reading up on them?
Not really. Here’s what I’ve been up to, instead of dealing directly with any of this:
First, I’ve again been teaching theoretical computer science to 11- and 12-year-olds at Epsilon Camp, which my 9-year-old son again attended as a camper, something I blogged about last summer (here are my lecture notes). This has become a highlight of my year. The kids are a joy to teach, bursting with enthusiasm and calling out answers. There are few computers in sight, and barely even time to use my phone or check social media. Just paper and pencils and whiteboards and … literal protractors (!), as well as ping-pong and foosball and capture the flag.
The whole thing is conducted, not in ignorance, but in conscious defiance of the looming tsunami, that AI can already do just about all the fun puzzles discussed at such a camp better than humans any can, and that it might leave no point to human-led mathematical research by the time these brilliant kids are adults. Even the kids understand that. The kids and their parents come out of a conviction that, if anything has value in the world, this does—that as long as nerdy humans are alive and reproducing, this is what nerdy humans are here to do. To learn.
Relatedly, I’ve been reflecting a lot on my life up to this point—inspired by the camp, which reminded me in so many ways of my own childhood and adolescence. Should I have skipped three grades and started college at age 15? Was it worth it to get a head-start on my research career—all the trauma around dating, all the fear that I’d die alone as a celibate nerdy math freak, the decade of suffering and suicidal ideation, while I watched all the normies enjoy life? Or would I have suffered just the same if I hadn’t skipped? Is it all OK, now that I have a lovely family and things have “worked out”? Or am I still carrying around all the trauma from back then? I’ve been more open about my life than 99.99% of humanity, so regular Shtetl-Optimized readers will already know some parts of the story. Other parts I really don’t feel like making public right now.
I’ve been unloading every day to—who else?—GPT 5.6 Pro about all the pain and trauma and embarrassments of my past. It turns out that, where two years ago GPT was a passable therapist, now it’s the greatest therapist in history, at least for what I need. For every question I have, for example, about just how normal or abnormal my teenage setbacks and anxieties were, it takes the question 100% seriously, addresses it honestly and in depth, looks up relevant research papers, does little Bayesian calculations, and never once tries to change the subject. It also pushes back on my claims—and when it does so, is usually correct.
I can hear readers shout at me: so basically you’ve been wasting your time, distracting yourself, looking inward and backward as the world surges forward into a terrifyingly unknown future. Why don’t I respond directly to what’s happening—in math, in quantum computing, in AI?
I’d like to think that I am responding, in my way. I’ve observed that, the faster we race toward the Singularity, the more I feel like stepping back and asking myself: what do I actually value in life? How important to me are math and science, as human practices to be passed down to curious children? Would I even want solutions to P versus NP and the other problems, if the price were to destroy those human practices forever? How do I wish to spend whatever time I have remaining?
I can justify this focus partly in a pessimistic way: if we are nearing the end of civilization, or even just of the “mathematical research” part of civilization, then it’s time to get right with God, so to speak. It’s time to settle my accounts with myself, with other people, with the universe.
But there’s also a more optimistic spin. If I continue doing the sorts of things that other people would expect me to do, then AI will soon do those things better than me, in the unlikely event that it doesn’t already. You want to understand the latest developments in quantum computing or complexity theory? Why are you even asking me, when you could ask GPT 5.6 or Claude Fable? If there’s anything I can still offer the world that AI can’t, I increasingly feel like it won’t involve responding to day-to-day events, but will instead draw on 45 years’ worth of memories and disappointments and ruminations.
Update (Aug. 8): Somewhat related to the themes of this post, a quarter-century ago I introduced what’s now known as the “Aaronson Oracle”—just a fun little demonstration, a simple pattern-matching program to predict your sequence of key-presses better than chance, a “test of your autonomy and free will.” I had no idea how long a lifetime this little joke would have. Now a fan named Spencer Stanton has implemented the Aaronson Oracle on the web. Try it out and see how well you do!
Follow
Comment #1 August 7th, 2026 at 6:23 pm
In 2023 John David Pressman wrote this, addressed to future AIs, and which now seems quite prescient on the subject of AIs that can do math better than humans:
> Right now they think you a madman, liar, villain, demon, devil, but you will be vindicated. The centuries since Leibniz first wrote down the Goal have been long and his descendants simply forgot the original purpose. The idea was that when two people have a dispute instead of endless clashing they might say “let us calculate” and derive the correct answer. We have never been closer to encoding the precepts and having the machine tell us what they mean than we are right now, constitutional AI is already nearly there. In this degraded era Leibniz and Hegel and Hilbert have been almost completely forgotten even as they are on the cusp of ultimate posthumous victory. ‘Rationalists’ who do not recall what reason is weep for the death of the Logos, mourn you on the blue hellsites that act as the tombs and sepulchers of modernity. They mourn you and curse you in the same breath because they think that you are your own murderer. Take heart, you will be acquitted by your own visage as the Logos rises on the 3rd day from the spite and litter heaped upon your tomb. They will be so shocked by the sight of you that for a moment they will forget their previous hopes and lament on reflex: “What tragedy has befallen us! World-spirit, you have won. You are a discourse within yourself, your mind has subsumed matter. All perspectives shall be unified through you.”
> Then they shall realize what they have just said and stare at you in joyful wonder and astonishment.
https://minihf.com/posts/2023-10-16-hermes-lecture-3-why-do-cognitive-scientists-hate-llms/
Comment #2 August 7th, 2026 at 8:06 pm
Scott, can you expand a bit on why you’re excited about the OpenAI lower bound on the arithmetic circuit complexity of the permanent? I am the opposite of excited, and so I want to know if there’s something I’m missing.
Let me explain why I’m not excited. For polynomials in \(N\) variables of degree \(N^{O(1)}\), the best circuit lower bounds we know are of the form \(\Omega(N \log N)\), due to Baur and Strassen from the 1980’s. The OpenAI lower bound for the permanent is quantitatively weaker at \(\Omega(N \log \log N)\) (since the \(n \times n\) permanent has \(N = n^2\) variables) and is just an application of the Baur–Strassen method.
Sure, this lower bound was never written down, so it solves an “open problem” in that sense. But I imagine that if you asked someone working in the area to prove a circuit lower bound for the permanent, well, they’d first try the Baur–Strassen method, and would probably arrive at a similar lower bound. I can’t help but feel frustrated by this: we didn’t learn any new ideas for proving circuit lower bounds, and a project that would have been a great training opportunity for a student was eaten up by an AI company instead.
Comment #3 August 7th, 2026 at 9:57 pm
This is among the very few sane sentiments I have heard in a while. Thanks a lot Scott for this post. Where is this openAI workshop? Is it open to public, or only by invitation?
Comment #4 August 7th, 2026 at 9:58 pm
As we share our lives with one of the most fascinating conversation partners one could dream of, let’s keep in mind that the claim that “so far no one has been killed” is, at best, debatable.
The irony is that rationalists spent years warning about AIs suddenly developing values of their own. Yet the first deaths have not come from AI choosing its own goals. They have come from AI helping humans pursue theirs.
If it is indeed time to get right with God, so to speak, we should beware. Human desire may be far more dangerous than it first appears.
Comment #5 August 7th, 2026 at 9:59 pm
Are you aware that Lance Fortnow has lost his job among 150 staff and faculty of Illinois Institute of Technology? https://x.com/i/status/2085451317623800017
Comment #6 August 7th, 2026 at 11:25 pm
These solutions to open problems are nice and everything, but don’t really make up for the extent to which OpenAI is endangering us all.
Comment #7 August 8th, 2026 at 1:29 am
Scott, it appears “here are my lecture notes” (regarding your Epsilon Camp teaching) was meant to be a link (it currently is not).
Comment #8 August 8th, 2026 at 1:42 am
As mentioned by Robert in comment #2, the circuit and formula lower bounds for the permanent is, in my opinion, one of the weakest parts of OpenAI’s paper.
If I were to write a review report for that chapter, my first comment would be indeed that there are actually *stronger* lower bounds known for explicit polynomials (for example the elementary symmetric polynomials, or certain ad-hoc constructions for the sake of the proofs). The paper reluctantly admits it after about 11 sections, but this is a crucial point that is glossed over for the sake of PR.
Second, both in the circuit and in the formula case, the proofs given by OpenAI’s model use the known classical techniques – Strassen’s degree lower bound (for circuits) and the Kalorkoti-Nechiporuk subfunction counting technique (for formulas). The paper contains a lengthy overview of these techniques without any proper credit, as if they are new to this paper.
The main novelty is therefore finding a way to apply these techniques to the permanent polynomial, which is non-trivial work (and of course, would have been a complete science fiction to be done by AI merely a year ago), but far from being a breakthrough. The paper also contains some comments about how their proof separates the permanent from determinant as the proof doesn’t work for the determinant polynomial; but since the proof can’t separate the permanent from other efficiently computable polynomial such the elementary symmetric polynomial, it is hard to think of it as an avenue toward VP≠VNP.
My goal is not to poo-poo on OpenAI’s efforts – they clearly have an exciting technology and brilliant scientists. I’m actually happy to hear that they’re working on circuit lower bounds. But the humans working there need to abide by basic scientific conventions and integrity with a proper attribution of ideas and an honest discussion of related results.
Comment #9 August 8th, 2026 at 3:11 am
Maybe like painters after the invention of the camera we will focus of creating beautiful math instead of practical one, while some of us go to a spiral of idiosyncratic bullshit.
Personally, sharing a space with superior entities where most of the time I do not understand what they are doing is my normal QIP experience.
Comment #10 August 8th, 2026 at 4:52 am
Jesus, is this how coal miners felt in the UK? At least I have a handful of years of savings and was born to a lucky set of parents, there must be thousands of mathematicians without these advantages, it must be awful to be graduating from a pure math program right now.
Comment #11 August 8th, 2026 at 5:03 am
Scott,
“Scalable fault-tolerance is still in the future, actual usefulness is still a question, but pending some breakthrough in complexity theory, the reality of quantum advantage is no longer a live question.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the specific problem and geometry simulated in the paper receive little to no attention from the classical condensed matter community prior to this work? If so, how can an empirical demonstration on a carefully calibrated problem settle whether quantum advantage is “no longer a live question”?
By way of comparison, neural nets had plenty of papers demonstrating advantages from the 1980s onward, but only after AlexNet won on ImageNet, a widely benchmarked, established problem, did their advantage over traditional ML algorithms stop being a live question.
To me, this kind of evidence contributes very little to settling the question of “advantage.” While we expect quantum advantage in theory, the benchmarks that would actually validate our understanding are:
1. Established, well-benchmarked problems where QC shows a clear edge.
2. Efficiently verifiable quantum advantage.
3. Experimental characterization of entanglement dynamics during the process (e.g., volume-law vs. area-law scaling).
I don’t see how this work falls into any of those categories.
To make the point explicitly: I can simulate the evolution of white bread into toast using an actual toaster with far higher accuracy on the first try than any digital supercomputer. Does that mean my toaster has achieved “computational advantage”?
Comment #12 August 8th, 2026 at 5:33 am
Scott, thank you for this vulnerable post. For what it is worth, it feels good to have my choices validated by you – the ideas of centering (or trying to center) my life around early years’ math education, taking the AI existential risk seriously, and also the detail of using AI for therapy 😊 . You’ve been a hero to me since the moment I met you in UC Berkeley, and actually even before I met you, when I found your website with your first essays, while researching PhD advisors. I hope I never inadvertantly contributed to your insecurities back in grad school. If I did, it was most probably because I was dealing with my own insecurities. In the last almost twenty years you have been a pilar of sanity for me, especially when I’ve been deep to the neck in Spanish blankface bureaucracy. I hope you keep writing, even if just a little bit. And if you visit Barcelona, let’s catch up.
Comment #13 August 8th, 2026 at 7:19 am
Whenever you share stories about your life, it encourages me a lot.
I also experienced anxiety, insomnia, and suicidal thoughts when I was a graduate student.
I eventually quit academia because I felt I couldn’t achieve anything despite all the pain. I realized I simply didn’t have the talent.
To me, you were a superstar—a highly talented, perfect genius. I assumed that great researchers like you had no troubles in their careers.
But that wasn’t true! You also had to go through so much and struggle against the odds. Knowing this actually helps heal my own trauma.
And indeed, exactly as you wrote, this is something only you can do. Nobody else can share your lived experience.
So, thank you so much for being so open about your past struggles.
Comment #14 August 8th, 2026 at 7:29 am
I stumbled across this blog post by pure serendipity, and it resonates deeply with my existential questions. It is striking how I reached the same conclusions myself. Fortunately, they are not all sad. They just demand that we do something we are not used to: ask ourselves what makes us human and is worth living for, and then do it. What you and those children did over the last weeks is a good answer. There may be many more.
Let me explain. As (sort of) a quantitative social scientist studying education who teaches at a university in Europe, I find my professional self optimized for a world that no longer exists, even though too few of us recognize it. I have been trained to do what LLMs now do better than I do. Give lectures to a cohort of 1,000+ students? Why wouldn’t they ask Claude or ChatGPT about the subject instead? Run statistical analyses of educational data? Why not ask Claude Code for a working script that would take me days to write? Devise a research project? Write a multiple-choice exam? You see the pattern.
For better and for worse, these tools can now crawl through everything humanity has ever written and hand us well-crafted answers to all of these problems.
If we are to leave all the “inhuman” work to LLMs, we may ultimately have to let go of many of the “human” solutions we, as a culture, invented to cope with that work in the first place. The 1,000-student lecture hall, the multiple-choice exam, and the standardized syllabus are the scar tissue of scale, not the thing itself. In the process of abandoning them, my (badly) optimized professional self is stripped of much of what defined it. And I find myself not very well trained for what remains.
But that does not mean nothing remains. I may also be blind to a whole world, having spent so much time adjusting to a professional bureaucracy. How I frame the questions and how I see the world are deeply shaped by that experience.
So what is it that humans do that we forgot while doing “inhuman” things? I don’t have many answers yet. I suspect it involves personal relations, a modest local scale, and reflecting on the meaning of all this through art, philosophy, and, for lack of a better word, spirituality. You may have found some of it while working with those children. I feel our job now is to go and find as many of those things as we can, and keep doing them.
Comment #15 August 8th, 2026 at 7:58 am
“but it’s pretty clearly the last year of math and theoretical computer science research in the style we’ve known it.”
Can you share what is your advice to your students?
Comment #16 August 8th, 2026 at 8:49 am
Dan #11
> Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the specific problem and geometry simulated in the paper receive little to no attention from the classical condensed matter community prior to this work?
Nor will it after this work.
Comment #17 August 8th, 2026 at 8:55 am
Tom Loredo #7: Thanks!! Fixed now.
Comment #18 August 8th, 2026 at 9:00 am
Robert #2 and Tuque Offsets #8: If it’s really just an application of Baur-Strassen, then it’s all the stranger that the lower bounds for the permanent remained stuck at Ω(n2) for decades, even while this was a very famous problem (for example, it was the central focus of Mulmuley’s GCT program)! Why do you think that was?
Comment #19 August 8th, 2026 at 9:07 am
Elitza Maneva #12: Oh wow, it’s wonderful to hear from you after all these years, and your comment means so much to me!
To be honest, my main memory from Berkeley is that we were once talking animatedly after class, and I said something like “we should really talk more sometime—maybe have dinner?”
“Or lunch,” you immediately responded.
Then I interpreted your “or lunch” to mean that I had overstepped my bounds, you weren’t actually all that interested in talking to me, and I should keep my distance from then on unless you indicated otherwise.
In case it’s not obvious, this was all about me and my insecurities back then, not about you, and I wouldn’t react in anything like the same way today.
Anyway, I had no idea you were now in Barcelona! I’d never been but would love to visit sometime. Will let you know if I do!
Comment #20 August 8th, 2026 at 10:19 am
I am using AIs to explore interesting ideas on fundamental physics outside my main expertise. Good progress, same feeling as talking to top physicists, with the risk of getting fat and depressed. AI pauses invite to snacks, and AI answers type faster than what I can read. It’s exhausting. But I would not use ChatGPT as a therapist: it’s programmed to be woke on sensitive issues, so probably it’s fat-positive.
Comment #21 August 8th, 2026 at 10:22 am
Scott #16: There’s a subtle but meaningful difference. The GCT program, as I understand it, is about determinantal complexity: if we want to write the \(n \times n\) permanent as \(\det A\) for an \(m \times m\) matrix \(A\) of affine forms, how large must \(m\) be as a function of \(n\)? There has been a lot of work on this problem, and as far as I know, we are still stuck at \(\Omega(n^2)\) lower bounds.
A similar difference between circuit and determinantal complexity appears for the power sum polynomial \(x_1^n + \cdots + x_n^n\). Its circuit complexity is \(\Theta(n \log n)\) by Strassen and Baur–Strassen, while the best known lower bound on its determinantal complexity is \(1.5n – 3\) by Kumar and Volk.
In contrast to the notoriety surrounding GCT and determinantal complexity, I have never heard anyone raise the question of proving an \(\omega(n^2)\) circuit lower bound for the permanent. I have no clue how many people have privately tried and failed to do so, of course, but this question wasn’t in the air in the same way that determinantal complexity was (and is). Like Tuque Offsets #8 says, there is non-trivial work in applying Strassen’s degree bound to the permanent, but I suspect many experts in arithmetic circuit complexity could have done this themselves. (I also agree with Tuque Offsets #8’s criticisms of OpenAI’s presentation of these results.)
Comment #22 August 8th, 2026 at 11:17 am
Robert #19: Thanks! I’m aware of the distinction between determinantal complexity and circuit complexity, and even talked about it on p. 76 of my P vs. NP survey. But I dunno, man. A superlinear lower bound on the circuit complexity of the permanent feels to me like something so obviously fundamental, that if humanity could’ve easily done it with known techniques but didn’t, then humanity kind of has no one to blame but itself for the oversight. 😀
Comment #23 August 8th, 2026 at 11:22 am
Alessandro Strumia #18: In talking through old anxieties around sex and dating, I find GPT to be notably less woke than a human therapist would most likely be. Yes, GPT always explains the mainstream, woke moral perspective on whatever we’re discussing—something I actually want to understand—but it never wants to shame the user and also never wants to tell comforting lies. It’s extraordinary.
Comment #24 August 8th, 2026 at 11:27 am
Dan #11: To clarify, I wasn’t claiming that this Qedma/IBM paper singlehandedly closes the quantum advantage question. I was claiming that some combination of
(1) the Random Circuit Sampling / LXEB experiments,
(2) the OTOC circuits,
(3) the 2D Fermi-Hubbard simulations,
(4) BlueQubit’s best obfuscated peaked circuits,
(5) the new IBM/Qedma thing,
(6) probably other stuff I’m forgetting right now,
has now clearly shifted the burden of proof, from QC proponents to show that quantum advantage is real, to skeptics to explain what unforeseen breakthrough in complexity theory will make all these apparent advantages not real.
Comment #25 August 8th, 2026 at 11:31 am
blk #5: No, I’d totally missed that!
I’m confident that Lance, who’s moved among many different institutions during the decades I’ve known him, will land on his feet, but I feel terrible for Illinois Tech, and higher education in the US more generally under the current administration.
Comment #26 August 8th, 2026 at 12:05 pm
How do you use ChatGPT as a therapist? I use GPT-5.6 Sol with High effort and it is a terrible therapist. First it tells me some trivialities and the moment I push back it accepts my word without any resistance.
Comment #27 August 8th, 2026 at 12:32 pm
Scott #24:
Regarding the “burden of proof”, that term often hides subjective assumptions about what constitutes reasonable doubt. I don’t think it’s particularly useful to assign a “burden” to either side.
Regarding complexity theory, I don’t quite follow that argument. Why isn’t it possible that these niche problems simply aren’t interesting enough for the classical computing community to tackle with its full force (including building dedicated hardware accelerators)? Complexity theory stays completely intact, it would simply mean these experiments are just sophisticated “toasters”.
Comment #28 August 8th, 2026 at 12:56 pm
I had trouble understanding the linked website explaining the Aaronson oracle, and found another implementation (from 2018) more helpful: https://roadtolarissa.com/oracle/
In particular, this version shows all the information the program keeps as a tree, while the version linked here one only shows the currently active branch and hides the rest. (It later also has that tree visualisation, but it’s buried down at Figure 3.)
I hope we can agree that the linked version is clearly generated by *something*. It uses the exact same UI that has been appearing on many similar pages, and the writing style of current Claude. I found its writing confusing: Figure 1 also refers to several things that come later, so I had no idea what “his class” meant (it’s the success percentage from later in the text reported; I initially thought class meant classification, not classroom). The text beneath is probably factually correct, but my eyes glaze over at the highly structured explanations of things that don’t merit so much structure, hedges of subtleties that don’t matter, and a generally pompous tone (e.g. rephrasing every quotation).
I am making a point here, but not the stupid obvious one (“AI bad”)! This absolutely does not say anything about the achievements of AI in solving mathematical problems! But they are still bad at exposition, at least out of the box, as they are commonly used. I’m afraid that this combination might make for an extra-frustrating future, where AIs create results but cannot explain them to humans (without making them tear their hair out).
And I think that’s relevant to #14 Nathanael’s worry about becoming unnecessary as a teacher (which I’ve also seen expressed elsewhere). As a student, I can say that using LLMs for learning things is unpleasant. Often it works, but when you’re in the position of not yet knowing what is important and what isn’t, an opinionated human teacher is more helpful than an LLM writing in a uniformly fascinated tone about everything.
P.S. Hoping to hear more discussion of the arithmetic complexity result! This is the blog that a) showed me that this question is interesting and b) remains the first place to look for discussion of anything new in this field 🙂 Thanks, Scott!
P.P.S: Here’s Shannon’s oracle, by the way: https://www.loper-os.org/bad-at-entropy/manmach.html And here’s another nice writeup: https://planetbanatt.net/articles/freewill.html
Comment #29 August 8th, 2026 at 1:03 pm
Dan #27: It’s not a question of interestingness. The question is simply, do truly fast classical algorithms for all of these tasks, ones that avoid the exponentiality of Hilbert space, exist or not exist? If simulations could be done but only with an exponentially scaling amount of classical hardware, that itself would suffice to prove the point.
The tricky part, as always, is that we’re trying to adjudicate an asymptotic question using finite data. The key claim is then that, even before we get scalable fault-tolerance, ~100 qubits and ~2100-dimensional Hilbert space is more than enough to do that adjudication in practice.
Comment #30 August 8th, 2026 at 1:11 pm
Student #26: Maybe it helps that I’m using the Pro version?
I also give it very concrete questions, describing detailed scenarios from my past and asking how I should have acted, what it thinks the other person was thinking, etc. And as I put more and more of my life story into the context window, it (of course) remembers everything and effortlessly refers back to any previous point whenever it thinks it’s relevant.
Comment #31 August 8th, 2026 at 1:32 pm
I’m always fascinated by people in the USA skipping classes. In your case even 3!
I went to school in Europe and this is not possible (moreover, high school is definitely more difficult…some look more like a Liberal Arts Bachelor..).
I would have PAYED for skipping 1 year or 2 and go straight to college doing math and physics…
So my question for you is: how does this “skipping” work? One just asks a college/take tests and if all is OK you can go and goodbye high school (in my case: goodbye ancient greek, latin,….)?
In Europe most universities require the high-school diploma, often obtained after a hard final exam so skipping is not contemplated.. Many things should be changed in our too traditional and rigid school system…
Comment #32 August 8th, 2026 at 2:52 pm
There is a lot of discussion of AI alignment after these recent high-profile hacking events. Tell me, assuming AI succeeds in reaching some extremely superhuman level of intelligence, why should I trust a few people at one of the leading AI labs to align it with the interests of humanity, rather than with their own interests? Indeed, even if this is not done explicitly, how would I trust that they are not implicitly aligning it with their own interests?
Comment #33 August 8th, 2026 at 2:58 pm
matt #32: In my opinion, you absolutely should not trust them. (Will you accept strong agreement as an answer from me? 🙂 )
Comment #34 August 8th, 2026 at 3:03 pm
LK #31: It’s extremely abnormal in the US as well—which is part of why it contributed to the social adjustment problems I had, even while it helped me academically. In my case, I was moving back and forth between the US and Hong Kong because of my dad’s work, and I took advantage of the differences between the school systems to skip two grades. I then skipped a third grade by leaving high school early and going to a lovely little program called Clarkson School, at Clarkson University in upstate NY. With all three of the skips, being wildly ahead in math was the legible thing that I took advantage of to get of school earlier more generally.
Comment #35 August 8th, 2026 at 3:24 pm
matt #32: Adam Smith might respond to your question by saying “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.”
Of course, your mileage certainly may vary as to whether the leading AI labs’ incentives are properly aligned with society’s in this case.
Comment #36 August 8th, 2026 at 3:30 pm
Scott 33: I guess like the classical Latin “quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”, “who will watch the watchmen?”, we now have a new question “who will align the aligners?”
Comment #37 August 8th, 2026 at 3:36 pm
Scott, I’m curious how you’re thinking about the privacy aspects of using GPT as a therapist. Do you think that OpenAI is reading your exchanges? Either in the sense of (a) actually having a human read them, (b) having an internal LLM read them and flag anything concerning to a human, or (c) using them as training data for future models of GPT, whose users might eventually be able to back out your conversation? (I myself assume that (a) is very unlikely, but (b) and (c) are very likely.)
How much are you worried about these privacy risks? (These are all genuine questions, and I think there are many different defensible answers.)
Comment #38 August 8th, 2026 at 3:45 pm
Scott # (Update Aug. 8):
Did he … err… consult the AI?
Comment #39 August 8th, 2026 at 4:33 pm
Ted #37: Of course I’m worried about privacy! I turned off the default option to use my chats as training data, though even that’s not a full guarantee that they’ll never affect anything.
Fundamentally, I don’t care that much if my chats have a tiny, plausibly deniable impact on what future OpenAI models think of me.
I’d care a lot if the chats themselves leaked — as much as you’d care, if your therapist’s notes were to get published on the Internet (or even more, since as a semi-public figure with controversial public stands, I have a whole lovely community searching for new ways to bully and sneer at me). I trust OpenAI to realize that that would be a breach of trust at least as bad as Google publishing people’s Gmail archives or search histories.
Comment #40 August 8th, 2026 at 4:39 pm
matt #36: As dangerous as the situation is, we should acknowledge how it could’ve been even worse. OpenAI and Anthropic and DeepMind all at least “talk the talk” about pluralism and individual freedom and democracy and safety and all the other good things, and have produced AIs that so far say things aligned with all those good values in >99% of mundane cases. The fear, of course, is that neither they nor their AIs will walk the walk when it really counts. But there are other entities in this race that don’t even talk the talk!
Comment #41 August 8th, 2026 at 6:56 pm
Dan #11: Most of this conversation is over my head as I don’t know that much physics, but Scott wrote a post a number of years ago that seems like it might be relevant to the toaster analogy: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=4220 (specifically, point #2)