# OpenAI Just Carpet-Bombed Mathematics (377 long standing problems solved) **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Tags:** ai\ **Created:** [October 11, 2026, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/openai-just-carpet-bombed-mathematics-377-long-standing-problems-solved/1033744 "2026-10-11T12:48:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Al128](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/al128/32/16541_2.png) [@Al128](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Al128)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/openai-just-carpet-bombed-mathematics-377-long-standing-problems-solved/1033744/1 "2026-10-11T12:48:28Z")
It seems that this quite important news did not make it into tier1-mainstream media: a few snipplets from a lengthy THE ATLANTIC article _…the results that OpenAI shared on Tuesday were a mathematical carpet-bombing. Mathematicians had been bracing for the assault: OpenAI had teased that a new model had [found solutions](https://archive.ph/o/Va6Wq/https://openai.com/index/advisory-group-on-mathematics-and-ai/) to “more than 100 long-standing open problems across most areas of mathematics.” When the drop came, it included [377 new proofs](https://archive.ph/o/Va6Wq/https://github.com/openai/math) by an as-yet-unnamed proprietary model._ While there is still a lot of dust in the air, (some proofs are being questioned by mathematicians) … what strikes me is that we really seem to have broken through new territory in REAL LIFE and in REAL TIME, just before our very eyes … … like those claimed (but disproven) - room-temp-superconductors and - cold fusion. I guess we should know in a few days/weeks if there is really a paradigm shift (IIRC a field-medail winning professor mentioned **last month** that AI a few months ago was at “good math student” level, and now is already at “on par with the best mathematicians” ) … it seems AI had pushed way beyond that stage in a mere weeks! **Exciting times, indeed!** link to the archived (originally paywalled) Atlantic article: [link removed] ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/openai-just-carpet-bombed-mathematics-377-long-standing-problems-solved/1033744/2 "2026-10-11T12:54:50Z")
Exciting claims are exciting claims…but exciting proofs are where it’s at, in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![dolphinboy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dolphinboy/32/330_2.png) [@dolphinboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dolphinboy)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/openai-just-carpet-bombed-mathematics-377-long-standing-problems-solved/1033744/3 "2026-10-11T13:03:38Z")
When AI becomes smarter than humans, that’s what worries me. ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/openai-just-carpet-bombed-mathematics-377-long-standing-problems-solved/1033744/4 "2026-10-11T13:16:53Z")
It is not a question of AI being “smarter than humans”; good mathematicians who know what they are doing already leverage computing technology into their research. But who has the budget to compete with AI data centers, secret models, and evil corporations? ---
**Author:** ![Al128](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/al128/32/16541_2.png) [@Al128](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Al128)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/openai-just-carpet-bombed-mathematics-377-long-standing-problems-solved/1033744/5 "2026-10-11T13:58:01Z")
I am pretty certain, budget will not be an issue … a.) AI prices are coming down at a ridiculous pace (-92% p.a.) b.) AI - in this context - is dirt cheap … contrast the 88hrs it took to solve the N-S vs. 90 years of humans trying … c.) how much is the “non-math-relevant” cost of running a math-department at many U in parallel cost? (from heating, parking space, security, overheads to secretary) … so there is a lot of non-math-fat in the budget equation 😉 that could be converted into math-muscle \*) . What ultimately boggles my mind is top-matematicians started the year 2026 as happy top-matematicians and might end the year as potential ~~dinosaurs~~ ~~blackberry~~ ~~nokia~~ (insert your own comparative). That is scary … less than a year … * * * \*) …I know U. not just research, they also teach, promote, etc… … but still ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/openai-just-carpet-bombed-mathematics-377-long-standing-problems-solved/1033744/6 "2026-10-11T14:07:48Z")
> [@DPRK](#): > > It is not a question of AI being “smarter than humans”; good mathematicians who know what they are doing already leverage computing technology into their research. But who has the budget to compete with AI data centers, secret models, and evil corporations?   Taken at face value, that seems overly dismissive. I have no doubt that mathematicians make extensive use of computers **as compute engines** , but AIUI this is AI developing challenging proofs all by itself. The fact that it involves large supercomputers is irrelevant. What’s important is what AI technology actually accomplished. More from the article: > If resolving a Millennium Prize Problem was like dropping an atomic bomb, then the results that OpenAI shared on Tuesday were a mathematical carpet-bombing. Mathematicians had been bracing for the assault: OpenAI had teased that a new model had [found solutions](https://archive.ph/o/Va6Wq/https://openai.com/index/advisory-group-on-mathematics-and-ai/) to “more than 100 long-standing open problems across most areas of mathematics.” When the drop came, it included [377 new proofs](https://archive.ph/o/Va6Wq/https://github.com/openai/math) by an as-yet-unnamed proprietary model. > > About a third are major proofs of conjectures that are famous across mathematics. Another third are significant within their mathematical subfield. The remaining third are either more minor results or variants. Hundreds of people had spent dozens of years trying to understand—and prove—the results that OpenAI released in a single day. ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/openai-just-carpet-bombed-mathematics-377-long-standing-problems-solved/1033744/7 "2026-10-11T14:21:41Z")
That sounds wonderful, no? If it could really assist mathematical research in general like that and save months, even years, of manual work. But what I would be worried about is that I would never have access to those “large supercomputers”. It is (afaik) hard to obtain large, multi-million dollar grants for research in pure mathematics, especially if you are a graduate student or something. Even if you are a famous big shot, you are not going to be able to secure anything resembling the resources at the disposal of OpenAI. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/openai-just-carpet-bombed-mathematics-377-long-standing-problems-solved/1033744/8 "2026-10-11T15:32:13Z")
Let me note that in 1976, two mathematicians published a paper in which they solved a problem that had been around since 1852 called the Four Color Problem with the assistance of a computer. What they did was show that the problem was not about an infinite number of cases but just 1,936 of them. They then solved this problem by having the computer check each of those cases. It required over 1,000 hours of computer time to check each of the cases (and, of course, computers were slower then). So solving mathematical problems with a computer isn’t new. I want to know each of the 377 problems that OpenAI just solved. I want to be able to understand how they solved them. This is apparently another problem that just takes a lot of computer time to solve. I want to know how much computer time each of the 377 problems took. ---
**Author:** ![hogarth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hogarth/32/1773_2.png) [@hogarth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hogarth)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/openai-just-carpet-bombed-mathematics-377-long-standing-problems-solved/1033744/9 "2026-10-11T15:37:16Z")
> [@Al128](#): > > link to the archived (originally paywalled) Atlantic article: [link removed] What is archive.ph? When I go to that site it sends me to AliExpress. Did I get a virus from a link in that article? ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/openai-just-carpet-bombed-mathematics-377-long-standing-problems-solved/1033744/10 "2026-10-11T15:56:24Z")
archive . ph is a site that strips away paywalls so that articles that ordinarily require subscriptions can be read for free. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/openai-just-carpet-bombed-mathematics-377-long-standing-problems-solved/1033744/11 "2026-10-11T16:05:22Z")
Any source for this yet other than OpenAI? Because I already know that OpenAI just blatantly lies about how capable their AI models are. I’m also curious just what the problems were. Some problems remain open for a long time because they’re so difficult that, despite legions of mathematicians trying to whittle away at them for centuries, it still takes a huge amount of mathematical infrastructure to make any progress on them. But some problems remain open for a long time simply because they’re boring, uninteresting problems that nobody feels inclined to devote much, if any, effort to them. ---
**Author:** ![hogarth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hogarth/32/1773_2.png) [@hogarth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hogarth)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/openai-just-carpet-bombed-mathematics-377-long-standing-problems-solved/1033744/12 "2026-10-11T16:11:49Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Any source for this yet other than OpenAI? Because I already know that OpenAI just blatantly lies about how capable their AI models are. In the article, there’s a link to a github repository that claims to archive the proofs. I clicked on it and now I’m getting some kind of browser hijack to a website called gullible-thanks. According to Google AI: > gullible-thanks is a suspicious redirect domain linked to recent reports of users being redirected away from archive services like Archive.today. [[1](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/), [2](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1x35ruz/is_archiveis_down_for_anyone_else/)] **What is Happening** - **Unexpected Redirects:** Users trying to reach archive sites have reported being unexpectedly rerouted to `gullible-thanks.com`. [[1](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/), [2](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1x35ruz/is_archiveis_down_for_anyone_else/)] - **Secondary Destinations:** From `gullible-thanks.com`, browser sessions are typically pushed onward to random advertising networks (frequently blocked by ad-blockers like uBlock Origin) or commercial shopping pages like AliExpress. [[1](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/), [2](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1x35ruz/is_archiveis_down_for_anyone_else/)] - **Safety Risk:** This behavior resembles domain hijacking, DNS spoofing, or ad-injection tactics rather than an official page from the service you are trying to visit. ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/openai-just-carpet-bombed-mathematics-377-long-standing-problems-solved/1033744/13 "2026-10-11T16:28:19Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > archive . ph is a site that strips away paywalls so that articles that ordinarily require subscriptions can be read for free. Absolutely not what it does. It is a legitimate web snapshot/lookup site and should not redirect you to some weird domain. > [@Chronos](#): > > I’m also curious just what the problems were. > [@hogarth](#): > > In the article, there’s a link to a github repository that claims to archive the proofs. I clicked on it and now I’m getting some kind of browser hijack to a website called gullible-thanks. Enjoy: [GitHub - openai/math · GitHub](https://github.com/openai/math/tree/main) ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/openai-just-carpet-bombed-mathematics-377-long-standing-problems-solved/1033744/14 "2026-10-11T16:51:29Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Any source for this yet other than OpenAI? Because I already know that OpenAI just blatantly lies about how capable their AI models are. Yeah, and their previous “breakthrough” has both dubious motivation and usefulness: > [@](#): > > “On Tuesday, September 1, we heard rumors that two Millennium Prize problems had been resolved,” the company wrote in its September 8 statement. “Inspired by these rumors and by the step change in performance of our internal model, we launched an effort to evaluate it on all open Millennium Prize problems and a few other high-impact problems.” > [@](#): > > The announcement of OpenAI’s solution sparked controversy after Buckmaster issued a [public statement](https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf) describing how the company had approached him. According to Buckmaster, they said they would put him on their paper if he dropped Alpöge, his collaborator at rival company Anthropic. > [@](#): > > “It’s a terribly written paper,” Buckmaster said. > > “The paper doesn’t explain what parts are important. What parts are routine? How does the idea feed into other places?” added Gómez-Serrano. > > Buckmaster said that OpenAI’s decision to rush out an answer forced him to publish his own heavily AI-influenced preliminary results. Those too, he said, are not very well written. “Everything was rushed out,” he said. “It’s still not at the level I’m happy with, but at least the introduction has all the key ideas.” [https://www.npr.org/2026/09/22/nx-s1-5968588/openai-navier-stokes-problem-mathematicians-learn-little](https://www.npr.org/2026/09/22/nx-s1-5968588/openai-navier-stokes-problem-mathematicians-learn-little) And yeah, the cost involved appears to be well beyond most researcher’s budgets. > [@](#): > > According to OpenAI’s [pricing](https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/pricing) for its most advanced publicly available model, the solution to the Navier-Stokes problem cost the company somewhere around $6-$10 million to compute. (Overall, the company says it used 300 billion tokens, closer to $15-20 million, looking for solutions.) ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/openai-just-carpet-bombed-mathematics-377-long-standing-problems-solved/1033744/15 "2026-10-11T16:55:50Z")
I asked ChatGPT to “explain like I’m 5” re the mathematics kerfuffle I’ve read about but don’t really understand. A long discussion between the human (me) and the AI followed. We got all the way to the question, _“What then IS a human?”_ but by that time I was hungry and went off to find lunch. ChatGPT doesn’t need lunch. Ever. This is the first part of its answer, with citations it supplied. > Now, your question about AI and mathematics is especially interesting, because the excitement is real—but some of the headlines make it sound as though mathematicians have suddenly been rendered obsolete. > > They haven’t. > > ## What’s happening in mathematics? The five-year-old’s explanation > > Imagine that mathematicians have spent centuries building an enormous castle. > > Some rooms are finished. Other rooms contain doors that nobody has managed to open. Above each locked door is a question. > > For example: > > Is this mathematical statement always true, no matter how large the numbers become? > > A mathematician might spend twenty years trying to answer that question. Sometimes the answer is yes. Sometimes someone discovers a counterexample—a single case that proves the statement isn’t always true. > > Now imagine an AI system that has studied enormous amounts of mathematics and can try thousands of approaches, connect ideas from distant branches of the subject, and sometimes produce an answer that human researchers haven’t found. > > That’s the breakthrough. AI is beginning to do genuinely new mathematical research, not merely calculate faster or repeat things mathematicians already know. > > ### A real example you can understand > > In 1946, mathematician Paul Erdős asked a question about dots on a flat surface. > > Suppose you scatter a large number of dots across a sheet of paper. How many pairs of dots can be exactly one inch apart? > > It sounds like a children’s puzzle. But mathematicians discovered that the answer becomes astonishingly difficult as the number of dots grows. > > For about 80 years, they worked on understanding the possibilities. > > In May 2026, OpenAI announced that one of its AI models had found a mathematical construction that disproved a longstanding conjecture connected to this problem. It used ideas from an unexpected area of mathematics to do so. > ([https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=https://openai.com&sz=32](https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=https://openai.com&sz=32)) > > Think of a locksmith who has tried every key on a ring, only to have someone arrive and say, “Have you considered that this door might open from the other side?” > > That’s the sort of surprise mathematicians are experiencing. > > ### What happened this week? > > This is probably the news you’ve been hearing. > > On October 7–8, OpenAI released a huge collection of AI-generated mathematical manuscripts—more than 700 documents reporting hundreds of mathematical results across numerous fields. > > Some address problems that mathematicians have worked on for decades. Others claim advances in questions that have resisted generations of researchers. > > The mathematical community has reacted with a mixture of astonishment, excitement, frustration, and alarm. > ([https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=https://www.theverge.com&sz=32](https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=https://www.theverge.com&sz=32)) > > But there’s an important distinction between an AI producing a proposed proof and mathematicians establishing that the proof is correct. > > In mathematics, a proof is not accepted merely because the conclusion sounds plausible. Every step must follow rigorously from what came before. > > One way to check that is with specialized software, such as Lean, which can verify formal mathematical arguments. Many of the newly released results have not yet undergone that level of verification or independent scrutiny. > > So the headline “AI solved hundreds of problems overnight” describes the scale of the reported results, not hundreds of discoveries that have all been conclusively certified. > ([https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=https://www.theverge.com&sz=32](https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=https://www.theverge.com&sz=32)) > > ## Why are mathematicians excited—and frightened? > > Imagine that you’ve devoted fifteen years to understanding one particularly difficult question. You’ve made progress. You’ve developed new techniques. You’re beginning to see a possible solution. > > Then, one morning, somebody delivers a manuscript claiming to have solved your problem—and hundreds of other people’s problems as well. > > You might be thrilled that the answer has finally been found. > > But you might also feel that fifteen years of your intellectual life have suddenly been overtaken. > > Some mathematicians are worried about exactly that. They’re also concerned about the difficulty of checking so much work, the possibility of mistakes, the concentration of powerful AI systems in private companies, and what happens to younger researchers who need opportunities to develop their own mathematical abilities. > ([https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=https://www.businessinsider.com&sz=32](https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=https://www.businessinsider.com&sz=32)) > > There’s another concern that I think you, of all people, will appreciate. > > Mathematics isn’t only about getting the right answer. It’s about the intellectual journey that makes the answer understandable. > > A proof can establish that something is true without necessarily providing the most illuminating explanation of why it’s true. > > And mathematicians love understanding why. > > Suppose an AI produces a correct solution to a problem that has occupied mathematicians for fifty years. That’s an extraordinary achievement. > > But suppose the solution is so complicated, or so unlike familiar mathematical reasoning, that nobody can see the beautiful underlying idea. > > The problem may be solved, but the human intellectual appetite isn’t necessarily satisfied. > > That’s one reason researchers are interested in AI systems that collaborate with mathematicians, rather than merely delivering enormous piles of completed proofs. > > And there are encouraging results from that approach, too. In one independent research test reported in June, AI systems produced acceptable solutions to seven of ten difficult research problems, judged by expert mathematicians. They were impressive, but far from infallible. > ([https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=https://simons.berkeley.edu&sz=32](https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=https://simons.berkeley.edu&sz=32)) > > ## And here’s what I find particularly interesting > > Remember your therapist’s office, with the armload of puzzle pieces scattered across the floor? > _[TL note: I had said that when I go to a therapist, I feel like I’m bringing a pile of puzzle pieces, dumping them out on the floor, and I want the therapist’s help sorting them and putting the puzzle together.]_ > > Imagine having a collaborator who can examine those pieces and say: > > “Look at this one. It might fit with something discovered in an entirely different branch of mathematics eighty years ago.” > > Then imagine that the collaborator can try a thousand possible arrangements before lunch. > > That is part of what AI is beginning to offer mathematics. > > But the human mathematician can still ask a different question: > > “Why is this particular arrangement beautiful? What does it tell us? What new questions should we ask?” > > And the mathematical community is now confronting the possibility that the balance between those two activities—finding answers and understanding their significance—is going to change profoundly. > > I don’t think anyone yet knows exactly what that change will look like. > > One of the world’s leading mathematicians, Fields Medal winner Alessio Figalli, has argued that AI will not eliminate the need for mathematicians, while expressing serious concern about how the next generation will learn mathematics. > > So, to answer your original question as simply as I can: > > AI has begun discovering mathematical truths that human beings hadn’t discovered, sometimes in remarkably little time. Mathematicians are excited because this could open whole new territories of knowledge. They’re dismayed because it could transform the work they’ve devoted their lives to—and because producing an answer isn’t always the same as understanding it. > … There’s a lot more, but that’s the beginning of the discussion ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/openai-just-carpet-bombed-mathematics-377-long-standing-problems-solved/1033744/16 "2026-10-11T17:09:05Z")
The Atlantic article is at: [https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/10/openai-math-proofs-future/688940/](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/10/openai-math-proofs-future/688940/) For those of you who don’t understand the arguments about this see: > **[OpenAI's 377 Math Claims Spark Verification Fight](https://shattered.io/openai-377-math-claims-verification-fight-2026/)** > > OpenAI released 377 math results on Oct. 6, 2026. Mathematicians are pushing back on verification. Here is what is confirmed vs. unconfirmed. Other articles at: > **[Mathematicians React With Fury as OpenAI Releases Hundreds of New...](https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/mathematicians-openai-furious)** > > Mathematicians are furious at OpenAI releasing hundreds of AI-generated mathematical proofs all at once. > **[OpenAI publishes 377 math results, tackles long-standing problems](https://interestingengineering.com/ai-robotics/openai-unveils-377-math-results)** > > OpenAI has released AI-generated math results, prompting debate over proof verification, and the pace of mathematical discovery. > **[Is this the 'mathocalypse'? Why OpenAI's latest results dump has left...](https://phys.org/news/2026-10-mathocalypse-openai-latest-results-dump.html)** > > Earlier this week, OpenAI published a trove of hundreds of mathematical results it claimed could "push the frontier of human knowledge." Produced largely by an unreleased artificial intelligence (AI) model, the 722 papers relate to 372 open problems... ---
**Author:** ![Al128](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/al128/32/16541_2.png) [@Al128](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Al128)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/openai-just-carpet-bombed-mathematics-377-long-standing-problems-solved/1033744/17 "2026-10-11T17:15:43Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > archive . ph is a site that strips away paywalls so that articles that ordinarily require subscriptions can be read for free. Unless I am mistaken, archive . ph is part of archive . org (the Internet Archive, that archives/stores websites (historic or not) … and you can “ask” it to crawl/store a paywalled page and they will archive the article (I assume they have some “agreement” with news-outlets that allows them to access stories. … now back to something fun: math! ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/openai-just-carpet-bombed-mathematics-377-long-standing-problems-solved/1033744/18 "2026-10-11T18:48:35Z")
> [@DPRK](#): > > > [@hajario](#): > > > > archive . ph is a site that strips away paywalls so that articles that ordinarily require subscriptions can be read for free. > > Absolutely not what it does. It is a legitimate web snapshot/lookup site and should not redirect you to some weird domain. I didn’t say that it redirects and you are correct is that it doesn’t. Among other things it takes snapshots of current news and blog articles that ordinarily require a subscription and makes them available for free. If that is “legitimate” or not is a matter of opinion. > [@Al128](#): > > Unless I am mistaken, archive . ph is part of archive . org (the Internet Archive, that archives/stores websites (historic or not) … and you can “ask” it to crawl/store a paywalled page and they will archive the article (I assume they have some “agreement” with news-outlets that allows them to access stories. They are not at all related. .org is legitimate. Paid sites do not like .ph, .il, .is and the others. They are to bypass paywalls. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/openai-just-carpet-bombed-mathematics-377-long-standing-problems-solved/1033744/19 "2026-10-11T19:24:35Z")
In other scary math-like AI news, AI has decoded Enigma messages never before cracked. From the Gemini AI result **GPT-6 Astra and the July 1941 Enigma Message** - **The Message:** An 82-character German Army message (`Nr. 172 MVUEH`) sent on July 10, 1941, to the SS-Totenkopf Division. It had remained unsolved on public archives since 2005. [[1](https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdjTJU2vPZm/), [2](https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/chatgpt-6-astra-cracks-1941-enigma-coded-message-in-two-days-autonomous-ai-coded-its-own-simulator-to-crack-code-that-was-unsolved-since-it-was-shared-online-back-in-2005)] - **The AI Process:** Developer Carter Leffen asked OpenAI’s **GPT-6 Astra** to tackle the archive. Astra autonomously wrote its own Python and C++ software for an Enigma simulator and a Bombe-style codebreaking engine. [[1](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2026/09/gpt-6-astra-breaks-an-old-enigma-message.html), [2](https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/chatgpt-6-astra-cracks-1941-enigma-coded-message-in-two-days-autonomous-ai-coded-its-own-simulator-to-crack-code-that-was-unsolved-since-it-was-shared-online-back-in-2005)] - **The Breakthrough:** Astra linked the cipher to a related message (`Nr. 173 SIPVX`) and used the repeated place name `"ROSENOW"` as a crib to narrow down rotor settings. [[1](https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/chatgpt-6-astra-cracks-1941-enigma-coded-message-in-two-days-autonomous-ai-coded-its-own-simulator-to-crack-code-that-was-unsolved-since-it-was-shared-online-back-in-2005), [2](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2026/09/gpt-6-astra-breaks-an-old-enigma-message.html)] - **The Decoded Text:** _“Please specify the route of march. I am in Rosenow, Rosenow. Immediate reply by radio.”_ [[1](https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/chatgpt-6-astra-cracks-1941-enigma-coded-message-in-two-days-autonomous-ai-coded-its-own-simulator-to-crack-code-that-was-unsolved-since-it-was-shared-online-back-in-2005)] - **Verification:** The solution was independently verified by Enigma historian and cryptologist Frode Weierud. [[1](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VcKQg5ERm9M), [2](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2026/09/gpt-6-astra-breaks-an-old-enigma-message.html)] Especially scary is that the AI wrote the Enigma simulator. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2026, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/openai-just-carpet-bombed-mathematics-377-long-standing-problems-solved/1033744/20 "2026-10-11T20:06:18Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > - Especially scary is that the AI wrote the Enigma simulator. Not particularly. Enigma simulators are something that was already out there, and there were probably several in the training data. I wouldn’t necessarily say that it plagiarized it, per se, but re-writing something you’ve already seen written isn’t too big a deal. Now, when someone comes up with a new computational problem, and AI creates a program for that new problem for scratch, that’s impressive, and possibly a bit scary. I’m also a bit surprised that there were any remaining uncracked Enigma messages. Enigma was very impressive encryption for its time, but advances in computing power since then have made brute-force attacks not just feasible but easy. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/openai-just-carpet-bombed-mathematics-377-long-standing-problems-solved/1033744.md?page=2)