Ask HN: Is September 8th AGI Day?

As a former mathematician, I'm not impressed at all. I don't even care about the solution. I think an integral part of math is what the human mind can do, and if AI was required, then to me it's not impressive at all.

I never cared about merely solving problems. I care about the beauty that one can construct from the human mind, and that was the entire point, at least for me, to practise math. To me, what mathematicians have done with AI and Navier Stokes is worthless.

>I care about the beauty that one can construct from the human mind, and that was the entire point, at least for me, to practise math.

the result of this originates from the beauty of the human mind, even if the tool used blinds you to the (very human) conquering of a long standing problem.

Even horrible acts can originate from good intentions and places of beauty. The tool use does not blind me but reveals the stupidity of merely solving problems for the sake of solving them. Only your love and addiction to technology blinds you.

I used to think of mathematicians as generally level headed people, I am having to re-evaluate my viewpoint.

> Keep in mind that 1 (or less than 5) expert human mathematician (Grigori Perelman) out of 8 billion humans managed to solve 1 of the seven millennium prize problems which was the Poincaré conjecture.

8 billion is the wrong number to use in the denominator, since not every single person on Earth was actively trying to make progress in Navier-Stokes. Equivalently, we could say "1 out of every 5 billion AI prompts managed to solve 1 of the seven millennium prize problems".

> Equivalently, we could say "1 out of every 5 billion AI prompts managed to solve 1 of the seven millennium prize problems".

Why did you choose exactly "5 billion" when we both know it is far higher than that? [0]

OpenAI worked on the problem since September 1st until the 5th, around 4 days so that would still be around 1 - 4.9 million prompts out 8 billion total prompts every 4 days.

[0] https://www.theverge.com/news/710867/openai-chatgpt-daily-pr...

if this is the terminus of AI then my god we live in such a lame reality

> So don't be sad that this 90 year problem was solved, just be happy that is exactly what AGI should be.

???

I feel like I'm going crazy reading this stuff. Are we about to be passed a Dixie cup with Kool-aid in it?

They've gone full cult.

As I said before, you still need expert human verifiers to check the solution.

But I think you should read the contents of the article first before calling it one.

Not everything you don't like is a "cult".

[0] https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/

I'm not talking about OpenAI

I'm talking about you

> So don't be sad that this 90 year problem was solved, just be happy that is exactly what AGI should be.

That sounds like a cult leader.

So an AI model(s) giving a solution to a 90 year problem is not "AGI" to you and maybe you have a different definition of "AGI" (There have been many other definitions which were far more nonsensical before this event.)

Then all you can just say to answer the original question, is where you believe the goalpost should be moved to and explain why this is not AGI day.

AI, AGI, and intelligence itself are poorly defined.

I invite you to add to the literature if you think you have any novel insight, and get it published.

Otherwise I'd recommend digging deeper into history, cognitive science, philosophy. That would prevent making any such empty claims as "today is the day artificial general intelligence was created".

If otherwise you prefer to be mystified by linear algebra and big computers, I kindly refuse to partake.

> AI, AGI, and intelligence itself are poorly defined.

Of course they are. The previous definitions were not credible and nonsensical.

> I invite you to add to the literature if you think you have any novel insight, and get it published.

That has been already done. You might want to start here: [0] - A Definition of AGI

Let's read the agreed (Gary Marcus approved) definition together:

"AGI is an AI that can match or exceed the cognitive versatility and proficiency of a well-educated adult."

What other well-educated adult can claim that they gave a rigorous solution to an unsolved mathematical problem (Millennium Prize problem). One human out of 8 billion can claim that.

Now an unreleased AI system has also just done that. I would have expected it to have been instantly dismissed by mathematicians as a flawed proof. But it instead, it has upset them and has them worried, even when they are still needed to verify the proof.

> Otherwise I'd recommend digging deeper into history, cognitive science, philosophy. That would prevent making any such empty claims as "today is the day artificial general intelligence was created". If otherwise you prefer to be mystified by linear algebra and big computers, I kindly refuse to partake.

This really sounds like cope I'm afraid. Surely you are running out of space to move the goalpost this time.

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.18212

It is specifically your manner of speech that is pretentious and cultlike.

If you cannot comment on technological advancement without making hyperbolic claims, why would you even comment at all? Deep down you must know that "Ask HN: Is September 8th AGI Day?" is a plainly bad-faith question that does not stimulate intellectual curiosity and cannot be answered at all.

Arbitrarily defining AGI around "exactly what AGI should be" is like what a character from HBO's Silicon Valley would say. Let's hold ourselves to higher standards, at least slightly.

Go touch some grass

Consider this for a bit.

Maybe you should go and seek work first before correctly answering this question?

Be a bit polite next time.

Everyone besides you in this thread is echoing the parent's exact sentiment.

Maybe you should get one of your coworkers to reword the next question you ask HN.

Betteridge says?

Betteridge's Law of Headlines does not apply here.

There is a paper with an in depth proof which can be verified and is not speculative.