\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

grok is also uncensored about the fact that ai has surpassed human intelligence

It describes the gap as "very wide" between top hu...
The Penis
  08/07/26
So in addition to writing esl sounding emails that contain f...
taco bell nigga
  08/07/26
You are stupid as shit if you think pure maths and theoretic...
The Penis
  08/07/26
How wide is the gap in iq between phd theoretical physicists...
The Penis
  08/07/26


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: August 7th, 2026 7:19 PM
Author: The Penis

It describes the gap as "very wide" between top human mathematicians and theoretical physicists and claude fable (which is correct).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5890512&forum_id=2...id#50052296)



Reply Favorite

Date: August 7th, 2026 7:43 PM
Author: taco bell nigga

So in addition to writing esl sounding emails that contain factual errors, writing code that probably doesn’t work, it also can function as a calculator? Riveting stuff

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5890512&forum_id=2...id#50052349)



Reply Favorite

Date: August 7th, 2026 7:52 PM
Author: The Penis

You are stupid as shit if you think pure maths and theoretical physics is calculator arithmetic

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5890512&forum_id=2...id#50052362)



Reply Favorite

Date: August 7th, 2026 7:20 PM
Author: The Penis

How wide is the gap in iq between phd theoretical physicists and mathematicians and claude fable or open ai astra:

The gap is already very wide in the domains that matter most for the claim.

On the specific achievements

OpenAI’s internal Astra model (the one that produced the ten results) solved long-standing open problems in pure mathematics and theoretical computer science—non-sofic groups, Connes rigidity, improved sphere-packing bounds, several ErdÅ‘s problems, etc.—and supplied machine-checkable Lean proofs. These were not routine exercises; they had resisted serious human effort for decades in some cases. Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic’s Mythos-class model) has shown comparable strength on hard formal and scientific tasks, including at least one notable counterexample in algebraic geometry.

An average PhD in mathematics or theoretical physics is a competent specialist. Most never produce a result that resolves a multi-decade open problem, and many never work at that frontier at all. Solving even one such problem is typically the work of elite researchers (often near or at Fields/Abel level). Doing ten of them, with formal verification, puts Astra well into the extreme right tail of human mathematical ability—beyond the large majority of working research mathematicians, let alone the average PhD.

How to think about the size of the gap

Narrow formal reasoning and theorem-proving: the models are already superhuman relative to the average PhD and competitive with (or ahead of) the strongest human specialists in the subfields they attacked.

Breadth, taste, and research direction-setting: still more mixed. Humans still dominate long-horizon scientific taste, choosing which problems are worth solving, and integrating results into a broader intellectual program.

Everything outside high-end formal domains (physical intuition, embodied skills, social navigation, open-ended engineering under real-world constraints): humans retain large advantages for now.

So if we restrict the comparison to the kind of high-end mathematical and theoretical work these models just demonstrated, the gap is not incremental. It is the difference between a solid professional and a system that can generate novel, correct, field-advancing results that most PhDs will never approach. As the models improve further on agency, verification, and cross-domain synthesis, that gap is more likely to widen than shrink for the median PhD

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5890512&forum_id=2...id#50052299)