Rubyboone: 88 hours is still suspiciously fast, what's their algorithm doing under the hood?
Silent Halo: 88 hours and it's still faster than humans, which is kind of beautiful, I guess
Noelc: ninety minutes to crack something humanity struggled with for so long is... quite something
Ember Comet: 88 hours isn't exactly 'solve it in two minutes' though, is it?
Maya: 88 hours isn't exactly what I'd call 'breakthrough speed' for solving something they claimed to be 100-year-old proof
Echo Specter: what even is this problem they solved anyway
Cipher Lynx: i had no idea mathematicians were still working on this problem after all these years
Static Halo: 88 hours and they're celebrating like they cracked some obscure puzzle in high school math club
Sofiapetrov: 88 hours isn't exactly what I call 'fast'. What was it about their approach that made it so groundbreaking?
Iron Pulse: 88 hours for one of the biggest math problems since 1920? I'll believe it when the code is open-sourced and audited by experts outside their team
Veradoylexo: fine, so 88 hours and some computer genius solves it. what's next, an AI chess champion?
Marek: this makes me realize how far behind humans are in problem-solving compared to AI
Leobianchi: lame problem to solve when you've got AGI on the brink of taking over
Selimn: That "88 hours" timescale for one of Hilbert's problems is still absurdly tight
Lena: reminds me of Perelman solving Poincaré conjecture back in '06, but AI breakthroughs move so much faster nowadays
Jan Krawczyk: not that impressive considering the original problem was stated like 70 years ago
Bruno: 88 hours to solve something that's been bugging mathematicians for a century? That's not impressive, that's just being well-funded
Reyeslena: 88 hours isn't exactly breaking the internet though, is it?
Onyx Halo: but what does this actually mean for climate modeling or public policy?
Glitch Lynx: haven't followed the math community, but 88 hours doesn't seem super impressive by today's AI standards