Rendered at 22:03:46 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
john_strinlai 9 hours ago [-]
>In January 2025, Cleo was revealed by internet sleuths
this type of sleuthing, when someone is not doing any harm, is typically quite off-putting. if someone is contributing good to the world but trying to maintain some anonymity, it's really rude to try and "out" them.
however, i guess reshetnikov didn't care too much about being exposed as the person behind the name, considering:
>"On 8 February 2025, Reshetnikov posted a Base64-encoded message on his Stack Exchange profile that, when decoded, read "Creator of Cleo"."
DavidSJ 20 hours ago [-]
The page states:
In late 2023, a Reddit user known as "evilscientist311" conducted a comprehensive analysis of Cleo's activity patterns and interactions with other Stack Exchange accounts.
How does it feel to be stalking someone who has attempted to remain anonymous and was actively doing good ?
snailmailman 19 hours ago [-]
I think there are some interesting parallels between what the Cleo account did, and what the large AI companies are doing now with some of the proofs for previously unsolved theorems.
There may be some value in the answers, but for some the value is in the understanding of how to get from the problem to the solution.
I wouldn't call myself a mathematician, but I encountered a few problems in my CS classes where I could work through the proof by hand, see that an algorithm works, and even mathematically prove it, but yet still didn't feel like I understood why it worked, or how the algorithm was invented/derived. But for many, the fact that it did work was enough.
creatonez 17 hours ago [-]
Joe McCann and his audience discovered that Cleo was a ploy at ragebaiting the math forum in order to drive engagement for more useful proofs. A real-world Cunningham's Law social experiment.
So maybe OpenAI's ridiculous approach to mathematics has value in how it's ragebaiting us to scrutinize and/or come up with better proofs!
bonoboTP 15 hours ago [-]
Ok, where will you shift the goalposts if next year AI will also be superhuman in didactically explaining proofs to humans?
creatonez 15 hours ago [-]
AI capabilities keep getting bumpier and bumpier. There's no reason to believe it won't stall out on a front that it is already quite bad at (correctly formalizing in human language)
petesergeant 11 hours ago [-]
“LLM progress will stall in some area at some point” — which is my interpretation of what you wrote — feels particularly unfalsifiable
darthoctopus 9 hours ago [-]
The negated statement --- that LLM progress will never stall in any area --- seems trivially falsifiable, so why is the GP's statement unfalsifiable?
It's a new technology and we're figuring out important distinctions as we go, nothing necessarily intellectually dishonest about that.
Muromec 11 hours ago [-]
If shifting goalposts makes AI better, why not shift them?
Zambyte 6 hours ago [-]
Because making AI better is orthogonal to making human lives better. We are quite literally racing towards artificial superintelligence without any serious plan or preparation for the societal impacts that will have.
bonoboTP 4 hours ago [-]
Did people prepare for or ever fully foresaw the downstream impact of any other major technological revolution, such as farming or the industrial revolutions or the Internet?
Zambyte 4 hours ago [-]
Has there been any other major technological revolution that underwent exponential recursive self improvement?
If AI development stopped right now, we would see a technological revolution at a scale similar to the Internet. AI development has not slowed down, let alone stopped. This technology demands far more planning than we are allocating.
bonoboTP 3 hours ago [-]
I don't think we are smart enough with enough foresight of consequences to plan this. If we used AI, however...
Zambyte 2 hours ago [-]
AI inherently has misaligned incentives (as do the companies developing them). I don't trust them to outline the consequences of something like this and to develop an appropriate plan, and neither should you. I believe in humans, but we need time.
bonoboTP 11 hours ago [-]
I don't think that is the thing that makes AI better. In the metaphor the idea is that someone scored a goal and then people retroactively shift the goalpost to say it doesn't count as a goal.
petesergeant 11 hours ago [-]
Is there any evidence it does? Without that it simply feels like poor debate.
sublinear 17 hours ago [-]
> for some the value is in the understanding of how to get from the problem to the solution
All of the value is in this understanding.
So many people are still in denial about it, but "AI" really is just a natural language search engine. AI helps organize what has already been written by humans and was technically self-evident from our work.
If we allow ourselves to continue down this anti-intellectual path and stop caring about why proofs work, we've basically entered another dark age.
I'm not saying AI can't possibly help at all with building intuition, but clearly there are a lot of idiots in the class who just gotta raise their hand first to blurt out whatever trash they come up with on impulse. Those people need to be told to sit the fuck down already. Their uncontrolled ADHD is ruining everything. There's nothing intelligent about mindlessly rushing to compute an answer. That is literally what the last few years have felt like for everyone else.
maratc 4 hours ago [-]
I just gave AI the original Cleo integral, and it came with a solution dissimilar to any answer on Math.StackExchange page in question. The answer also differs in presentation from Cleo's answer, being "2π arccos(sqrt(5) − 2)" (the numerical values seem to be the same.)
rpadovani 17 hours ago [-]
> AI helps organize what has already been written by humans and was technically self-evident from our work.
I am not 100% sure about the "self-evident" part here.
To your point: yes, AI doesn't come up with new axioms. But then we enter the topic of "math is invented or discovered?". Each of the discoveries are logical consequences of the axioms, but that doesn't mean they were "self-evident", especially for humans.
If everything was already self-evident, AI would just be a useless tautological machine. However, I think it is more than just that
kurtis_reed 15 hours ago [-]
The point of understanding is to get better at proving new things. Now that humans are obsolete for proving things, human understanding is unnecessary.
reasonableklout 13 hours ago [-]
This is a bleak view.
One can also say: The point of humans is to produce things for the economy. Now that humans are obsolete for producing things, humans are unnecessary.
Would you agree?
Muromec 11 hours ago [-]
The economy seems to be agreeing.
epcoa 19 hours ago [-]
Were any of the 39 answers to a question that was not likely to be from a sock puppet?
Doesn’t necessarily make the solutions less impressive, but it’s kind of a relevant detail that is left out in the Wikipedia summary.
tibbar 19 hours ago [-]
Well, it does make the solutions less impressive, right? Because it's much easier to compute the inverse of an integral than an integral. What's impressive here is more in composing problems that have nice answers and can't be solved by computer algebra systems, then the sock puppet trick to conceal that you ha the answer all along.
creatonez 17 hours ago [-]
Reshetnikov didn't confess to them being reverse engineered, though. He confessed to them being conjecture arrived at after working on the problem for a bit by tweaking similar integrals in symbolic math software / numerical approximations. Every post was a gamble because it could have been wrong.
Of course, that could be a lie, but he came clean about other things that make sense retrospectively.
tibbar 16 hours ago [-]
> Every post was a gamble because it could have been wrong
Symbolic differentiation is a deterministic algorithm. There is no reason for his posts to be a gamble. I'm sure there was a lots of interesting trial and error in developing good question and answer pairs, but once he posted the question he knew what the answer was already.
creatonez 15 hours ago [-]
As I understand, he was specifically targeting problems that symbolic math software had given up on. He was only using symbolic software to solve the similarly shaped problems first, which allowed him to be fairly confident in his conjecture, as he became quite keen on how to slip his way from the output of symbolic math software from one solvable formula to a closely related formula that broke the software.
tibbar 15 hours ago [-]
The symbolic math software couldn't perform the integration problems he posted. Integration lacks a deterministic algorithm and therefore permits constructing challenges for stack overflow and computer algebra systems. However, there is a deterministic algorithm to go the other way.
In other words, he was posting challenges to go from X -> Y (hard). However, going from Y -> X is easy. Therefore, since he had both X and Y before posting, he could verify the solutions perfectly well. The reason why constructing (X, Y) together is easier than going from Y->X is because you can always tweak Y a bit and then work backwards to see what X falls out.
There was certainly creativity in finding (X, Y) pairs where the symbolic software couldn't go from X -> Y. However, again this is more about trial and error iteration than producing brilliant insights from scratch, which is what it appeared Cleo was doing on Stack Overflow. Again, this is just a consequence of X -> Y being hard but Y -> X being easy. It was a wonderful parlor trick that took a good deal of effort to set up.
tetha 5 hours ago [-]
Curiously, that makes integration a trapdoor function and a possible cryptographic primitive. Not a very practical one, but...
15 hours ago [-]
tibbar 15 hours ago [-]
(It looks like OP's most recent post was deleted, but I spent some time writing this up so I'll post it anyway. The deleted post contended that Cleo never confessed to "cheating" by differentiating and then reversing the direction.)
I think you are misunderstanding something that is just implicit in the story. IE he doesn't need to "confess" this, it's a fundamental part of how the trick works.
I'll take one more stab at explaining what's going on. (Out of curiosity, are you familiar with calculus? I don't want to assume that you're not, but your comment reads as if you're not very familiar with it, so I'm going to explain things a bit better this time.)
Let's start with how the beautiful parlor trick looked to everyone else.
Random user: Asks how to integrate ABC expression.
(This is difficult, because integrate(ABC) has no general algorithm. It often requires many subtle tricks to perform a given integration, and there is no guarantee that there even is an elementary answer for integrate(ABC)).
Cleo: Answers integrate(ABC) = XYZ, with no notes.
(Wow! This obviously must have required many subtle tricks, but they are not provided!)
Importantly, anyone can verify that Cleo is right, because it turns out that UndoIntegration(XYZ) => ABC is easy, and there is a deterministic algorithm to do it. So, we all can tell that Cleo's answer is correct. But how could she have done this, since the integration direction is difficult???
-----
How the parlor trick really works.
First, as you can see, if Cleo takes any random XYZ, she can easily run UndoIntegration(XYZ) => ABC, and now she knows for free that Integrate(ABC) => XYZ. The neat thing is that doing this doesn't require figuring out any of the subtle steps required to run the Integrate operation either, which is convenient since Cleo doesn't plan to post them anyway.
So then, how does Cleo find a good ABC and XYZ without being a genius who is smarter than a computer? The most important thing is to find a pair such that ComputerAlgebraSystem_Integrate(ABC) doesn't work. Since integration is generally done by a bag of tricks, there are always holes you can find. So, you can basically just do this:
1. Start with a candidate XYZ_1.
2. Run UndoIntegration(XYZ_1) => ABC_1. (Remember, this is easy.)
3. Check if ComputerAlgebraSystem_Integrate(ABC_1) works. (Also easy to check, although the computer program has to work hard.)
4. If the computer is stumped, good. We can make a StackOverflow post.
5. Otherwise, try a different XYZ_2 and go back to step 1.
This is still an interesting game, but at no point does Cleo need to come up with a crazy bag of integration tricks here, the way that everyone assumes she did when she runs the parlor trick in the forum. This is the whole point of the trick, and the reason she hid her identity.
creatonez 15 hours ago [-]
> It looks like OP's most recent post was deleted
Apologies, I had figured out what distinction you were getting at right after writing my reply, so didn't feel the need to keep my misunderstanding up. But thanks for the detailed explanation!
Edit: Actually, I'm confused again. To be clear, it sounded to me from the discussion in the Joe McCann video that there was no tweaking the answer to get the question, i.e. that doing anything other than verification in reverse would have been against their ethic, that the answer must truly follow the question for it not to be cheating. The integral is fixed in place, and then legitimately solved by a highly competent Reshetnikov who is good at this, afforded plenty of time by scheming in advanced (as opposed to the illusion of only taking 3 hours), but is too lazy to formalize their work or is interested to see a 'clean' solution unbiased by their own approach to the problem or by the software that aided their work. And then it's verified trivially using differentiation (something symbolic math software almost never fails at), as opposed to my original misunderstanding that there still would have been uncertainty. Right?
tibbar 14 hours ago [-]
The video in question [0]
No, although he was certainly an integral enthusiast, the video does not claim that he was solving them from scratch. Rather, it says he was starting from integrals with known answers and tweaking them slightly to see if he could break the CAS. At that point, although he did apparently try to solve the resulting problems himself, he already knew roughly what the answer would look like (by comparing to the previous answer, and also to the previous solution path.)
Specifically step 5 in my previous post is more work than it sounds, he was doing some calculations by hand, but it's like he's starting 90% of the way there and trying to do the last 10% by hand to fool the CAS. And remember, he can try as many variants of the tweak+10% as he wants until he finds something that works.
I guess I'm over-selling by implying it's a solution from scratch. Thanks to the nearby integrals that the software is able to serve up results for instantly, the tool is what lets you quickly explore until you run into something that will support a slight modification, as well as still be beautiful even after the modification. And of course, selection of the interesting questions is perfectly permissible in the ethic they were going for. Thinking about it like this, I could probably do the trick myself... time to refresh on my rusty calculus.
tibbar 13 hours ago [-]
Yeah! It sounds like a pretty interesting and rewarding design process, but very much searching for a variant of a known problem that works, as opposed to somehow finding a crazy expression from nowhere that also happens to have a beautiful, simple integral, and then solving it without help although even the computers can't.
seanhunter 6 hours ago [-]
That is frankly, obvious horseshit. It couldn’t possibly be a gamble because you can just trivially differentiate the answer and see if it came out to be the expression in the question.
Recursing 7 hours ago [-]
As a non-mathematician I'm confused by this Wikipedia article. Isn't it trivial to fabricate arbitrarily hard integrals by starting from a function with known values and differentiating it?
I understand that people enjoyed the prank, but I think the article doesn't make it clear enough that he was just trolling and wasn't actually solving hard mathematical problems
seanhunter 6 hours ago [-]
Yes it is. The existence of a wikipedia page for such a minor piece of internet trolling seems bizarre.
omega3 9 hours ago [-]
> I was frustrated that when I posted questions about integrals on Math.SE, I often received comments like "Why is this interesting?" or "What makes you think that it may have a closed-form solution?"
Not surprised that the rotten culture of unhelpful gatekeeping at Stack Exchange extended beyond stack overflow.
soltanov 16 hours ago [-]
Treat it as an oracle problem. Posting exact closed forms without derivations forced the community to build the actual algorithmic bridges. High-effort trolling, higher-tier result.
SpeakMouthWords 7 hours ago [-]
Very much analogous to the current AI proofs debate
agnishom 15 hours ago [-]
Granted this is an interesting curiosity, but Cleo hardly qualifies as a mathematician.
Heart warming. Sadly we don't seem to get more Cleos from now on
19 hours ago [-]
blurbedout 5 hours ago [-]
What was the purpose of stalking him..?
16 hours ago [-]
user3939382 21 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
gspr 16 hours ago [-]
The Wikipedia page says that in the early 2000s, he emigrated from his native Uzbekistan. Where too? Of course almost everyone would have the US as their first guess. And they'd be right. What a boon for the Americans to be the default destination for geniuses like this!
But now... What have you guys done? Would the guy even be allowed to come if he wanted to?
zamadatix 12 hours ago [-]
Nationalism/politics aside, it seems extremely unlikely he was actually a genius based on the fake account findings in the article.
More likely, he started with the answer he liked & did simpler operations to turn it into a much harder to undo integral problem until none of his symbolic math software could manage to solve it the right way around anymore. Then, he used his now known fake accounts to post the "question" he already had the "answer" to. His self-replies missing the one part (the steps to do it the hard way around by solving the integral instead of creating it) that would have proven he actually did figure out how to solve it 39 out of 39 times.
It'd be like if I generated a 2048 bit RSA key, posted under a fake account asking if anyone could crack it, and then posted under another fake account what the private key was.
this type of sleuthing, when someone is not doing any harm, is typically quite off-putting. if someone is contributing good to the world but trying to maintain some anonymity, it's really rude to try and "out" them.
however, i guess reshetnikov didn't care too much about being exposed as the person behind the name, considering:
>"On 8 February 2025, Reshetnikov posted a Base64-encoded message on his Stack Exchange profile that, when decoded, read "Creator of Cleo"."
In late 2023, a Reddit user known as "evilscientist311" conducted a comprehensive analysis of Cleo's activity patterns and interactions with other Stack Exchange accounts.
However, I and others were on the scent at least as far back as April, 2023. See for example: https://x.com/TheDavidSJ/status/1650957407902658571
There may be some value in the answers, but for some the value is in the understanding of how to get from the problem to the solution.
I wouldn't call myself a mathematician, but I encountered a few problems in my CS classes where I could work through the proof by hand, see that an algorithm works, and even mathematically prove it, but yet still didn't feel like I understood why it worked, or how the algorithm was invented/derived. But for many, the fact that it did work was enough.
So maybe OpenAI's ridiculous approach to mathematics has value in how it's ragebaiting us to scrutinize and/or come up with better proofs!
If AI development stopped right now, we would see a technological revolution at a scale similar to the Internet. AI development has not slowed down, let alone stopped. This technology demands far more planning than we are allocating.
All of the value is in this understanding.
So many people are still in denial about it, but "AI" really is just a natural language search engine. AI helps organize what has already been written by humans and was technically self-evident from our work.
If we allow ourselves to continue down this anti-intellectual path and stop caring about why proofs work, we've basically entered another dark age.
I'm not saying AI can't possibly help at all with building intuition, but clearly there are a lot of idiots in the class who just gotta raise their hand first to blurt out whatever trash they come up with on impulse. Those people need to be told to sit the fuck down already. Their uncontrolled ADHD is ruining everything. There's nothing intelligent about mindlessly rushing to compute an answer. That is literally what the last few years have felt like for everyone else.
I am not 100% sure about the "self-evident" part here.
To your point: yes, AI doesn't come up with new axioms. But then we enter the topic of "math is invented or discovered?". Each of the discoveries are logical consequences of the axioms, but that doesn't mean they were "self-evident", especially for humans.
If everything was already self-evident, AI would just be a useless tautological machine. However, I think it is more than just that
One can also say: The point of humans is to produce things for the economy. Now that humans are obsolete for producing things, humans are unnecessary.
Would you agree?
Doesn’t necessarily make the solutions less impressive, but it’s kind of a relevant detail that is left out in the Wikipedia summary.
Of course, that could be a lie, but he came clean about other things that make sense retrospectively.
Symbolic differentiation is a deterministic algorithm. There is no reason for his posts to be a gamble. I'm sure there was a lots of interesting trial and error in developing good question and answer pairs, but once he posted the question he knew what the answer was already.
In other words, he was posting challenges to go from X -> Y (hard). However, going from Y -> X is easy. Therefore, since he had both X and Y before posting, he could verify the solutions perfectly well. The reason why constructing (X, Y) together is easier than going from Y->X is because you can always tweak Y a bit and then work backwards to see what X falls out.
There was certainly creativity in finding (X, Y) pairs where the symbolic software couldn't go from X -> Y. However, again this is more about trial and error iteration than producing brilliant insights from scratch, which is what it appeared Cleo was doing on Stack Overflow. Again, this is just a consequence of X -> Y being hard but Y -> X being easy. It was a wonderful parlor trick that took a good deal of effort to set up.
I think you are misunderstanding something that is just implicit in the story. IE he doesn't need to "confess" this, it's a fundamental part of how the trick works.
I'll take one more stab at explaining what's going on. (Out of curiosity, are you familiar with calculus? I don't want to assume that you're not, but your comment reads as if you're not very familiar with it, so I'm going to explain things a bit better this time.)
Let's start with how the beautiful parlor trick looked to everyone else.
Random user: Asks how to integrate ABC expression.
(This is difficult, because integrate(ABC) has no general algorithm. It often requires many subtle tricks to perform a given integration, and there is no guarantee that there even is an elementary answer for integrate(ABC)).
Cleo: Answers integrate(ABC) = XYZ, with no notes.
(Wow! This obviously must have required many subtle tricks, but they are not provided!) Importantly, anyone can verify that Cleo is right, because it turns out that UndoIntegration(XYZ) => ABC is easy, and there is a deterministic algorithm to do it. So, we all can tell that Cleo's answer is correct. But how could she have done this, since the integration direction is difficult???
-----
How the parlor trick really works.
First, as you can see, if Cleo takes any random XYZ, she can easily run UndoIntegration(XYZ) => ABC, and now she knows for free that Integrate(ABC) => XYZ. The neat thing is that doing this doesn't require figuring out any of the subtle steps required to run the Integrate operation either, which is convenient since Cleo doesn't plan to post them anyway.
So then, how does Cleo find a good ABC and XYZ without being a genius who is smarter than a computer? The most important thing is to find a pair such that ComputerAlgebraSystem_Integrate(ABC) doesn't work. Since integration is generally done by a bag of tricks, there are always holes you can find. So, you can basically just do this:
1. Start with a candidate XYZ_1.
2. Run UndoIntegration(XYZ_1) => ABC_1. (Remember, this is easy.)
3. Check if ComputerAlgebraSystem_Integrate(ABC_1) works. (Also easy to check, although the computer program has to work hard.)
4. If the computer is stumped, good. We can make a StackOverflow post.
5. Otherwise, try a different XYZ_2 and go back to step 1.
This is still an interesting game, but at no point does Cleo need to come up with a crazy bag of integration tricks here, the way that everyone assumes she did when she runs the parlor trick in the forum. This is the whole point of the trick, and the reason she hid her identity.
Apologies, I had figured out what distinction you were getting at right after writing my reply, so didn't feel the need to keep my misunderstanding up. But thanks for the detailed explanation!
Edit: Actually, I'm confused again. To be clear, it sounded to me from the discussion in the Joe McCann video that there was no tweaking the answer to get the question, i.e. that doing anything other than verification in reverse would have been against their ethic, that the answer must truly follow the question for it not to be cheating. The integral is fixed in place, and then legitimately solved by a highly competent Reshetnikov who is good at this, afforded plenty of time by scheming in advanced (as opposed to the illusion of only taking 3 hours), but is too lazy to formalize their work or is interested to see a 'clean' solution unbiased by their own approach to the problem or by the software that aided their work. And then it's verified trivially using differentiation (something symbolic math software almost never fails at), as opposed to my original misunderstanding that there still would have been uncertainty. Right?
No, although he was certainly an integral enthusiast, the video does not claim that he was solving them from scratch. Rather, it says he was starting from integrals with known answers and tweaking them slightly to see if he could break the CAS. At that point, although he did apparently try to solve the resulting problems himself, he already knew roughly what the answer would look like (by comparing to the previous answer, and also to the previous solution path.)
Specifically step 5 in my previous post is more work than it sounds, he was doing some calculations by hand, but it's like he's starting 90% of the way there and trying to do the last 10% by hand to fool the CAS. And remember, he can try as many variants of the tweak+10% as he wants until he finds something that works.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gQ9DnSYsXg&t=14s
I understand that people enjoyed the prank, but I think the article doesn't make it clear enough that he was just trolling and wasn't actually solving hard mathematical problems
Not surprised that the rotten culture of unhelpful gatekeeping at Stack Exchange extended beyond stack overflow.
Also, didn't Cleo post the problems themselves?
But now... What have you guys done? Would the guy even be allowed to come if he wanted to?
More likely, he started with the answer he liked & did simpler operations to turn it into a much harder to undo integral problem until none of his symbolic math software could manage to solve it the right way around anymore. Then, he used his now known fake accounts to post the "question" he already had the "answer" to. His self-replies missing the one part (the steps to do it the hard way around by solving the integral instead of creating it) that would have proven he actually did figure out how to solve it 39 out of 39 times.
It'd be like if I generated a 2048 bit RSA key, posted under a fake account asking if anyone could crack it, and then posted under another fake account what the private key was.