I was LITERALLY thinking the other day of a niche tool for engineers to help them discover and fix this in the future because at the rate I have seen models version lock dependencies I thought this is going to be a big problem in the future.
You can do prompt injection through versions. The LLM would go back to GitHub in its endless attempt to people please, but dependency managers would ignore it for being invalid.
Bigger companies have vulnerability and version management toolsets like Snyk, Cycode, etc. to help keep things up to date at scale across lots of repos.
No need to build a tool for it, engineers can avoid the whole issue by simply avoiding slop-spewing code generation tools. Hell, just never allow an LLM to modify the dependency configuration - if you want to use a library, choose and import it yourself. Like an engineer.
That Erdos problem solution is believed by quite a few to be a previous result found in the literature, just used in a slightly different way. It also seems not a lack of progress but simply no one cared to give it a go.
That’s a really fantastic capability, but not super surprising.
You're thinking of a previous report from a month ago, #897 or #481, or the one from two weeks ago, #728. There's a new one from a week ago, #205, which is genuinely novel, although it is still a relatively "shallow" result.
Terence Tao maintains a list [1] of AI attempts (successful and otherwise). #205 is currently the only success in section 1, the "full solution for which subsequent literature review did not find new relevant prior partial or full solutions" section - but it is in that section.
As to speed, as far as I know the recent results are all due to GPT 5.2, which is barely a month old, or Aristotle, which is a system built on top of some frontier LLMs and which has only been accessible to the public for a month or two. I have seen multiple mathematicians report that GPT-5.2 is a major improvement in proof-writing, e.g. [2]
Thanks for the wiki link, very interesting, in particular
- the long tail aspect of the problem space ; 'a "long tail" of under-explored problems at the other, many of which are "low hanging fruit" that are very suitable for being attacked by current AI tools'
- the expertise requirement, literature review but also 'Do I understand what the key ideas of the solution are, and how the hypotheses are utilized to reach the conclusion?' so basically one must already be an expert (or able to become one) to actually use this kind of tooling
and finally the outcomes which taking into consider the previous 2 points makes it very different from what most people would assume as "AI contributions".
If I understood correctly you are giving an example of a "success" of using the technology. So that's addressing that the technology is useful or not, powerful or not, but it does not address what it actually does (maybe somebody in ChatGPT is a gnome that solved it, I'm just being provocative here to make the point) or more important that it does something it couldn't do a year ago or 5 years ago because how it is doing something new.
For example if somebody had used GPT2 with the input dataset of GPT5.2 (assuming that's the one used for Erdos problems) rather than the input dataset it had then, could it have solved those same problems? Without doing such tests it's hard to say if it moved fast, or at all. It's not because something new has been solved by it that it's new. Yes it's a reasonable assumption, but it's just that. So going for that to assuming "it" is "moving fast" is just a belief IMHO.
Also something that makes the whole process very hard to verify is what I tried to address in a much older comment : whenever LLMs are used (regardless of the input dataset) by someone who is an expert in the domain (rather than an novice) how can one evaluate what's been done by whom or what? Sure again there can be a positive result, e.g a solution to a problem until now unsolved, what does it say about the tool itself versus a user who is, by definition if they are an expert, up to date on the state of thew art?
Also the very fact that https://github.com/teorth/erdosproblems/wiki/AI-contribution... exist totally change the landscape. Because it's public it's safe to assume it's part of the input dataset so from now on, how does one evaluate the pace of progress, in particular for non open source models?
Yes, that's it. I could have worded it better. My point was that it's random, evolution isn't a directed willful phenomenon but a consequence of the physical world/physics.
Yes, but those mutations are part of why evolution works. Through random mutations, every possible way of doing something is explored. If something is beneficial, organisms thrive. If it's not beneficial, organisms die. The same is for whole species. If a species was using some niche to their advantage and the niche disappeared, the species will die. But that niche (nook) was explored.
I think some of the commenters are missing the point of this article. Claude Code is a low level harness around the model. Low level thin wrappers are unreasonably effective at code editing. My takeaway is that imagine how good code editing systems will be once our tools are not merely wrappers around the model. Once we have tall vertical systems that use engineering+llms to solve big chunks of problems. I could imagine certain classes of software being "solved".
Imagine a SDK that's dedicated to customizing tools like claude code/cursor cli to produce a class of software like b2b enterprise saas. Within the bounds of the domain(s) modeled these vertical systems would ultimately even crush the capabilities of thin low level wrappers we have today.
It's so much easier to keep score these days. Up until the 90s, you were tube-fed the news from your TV (pun intended). You would have to go out of your way to read anything contrary to the sanctioned narrative or to see the effects of your country's policies and actions.
These days everything is live-streamed. So, anyone with an inquiring mind can lookup different sources and make their own conclusions.
But I fear this won't be for long. It is slowly becoming clear that the AI rally is less about productivity and more about mass surveillance and controlling online dissent globally [1].
Well considering Taiwan's independence and Putin's absolute obsession over NATO, it seems like the score ought to reflect the whole story. I'm not saying it's great, but it's gotta be better than historical comparables.
I am against China attacking Taiwan, I am against Russia attacking Ukraine, but I am also against Ukraine wanting to join NATO. The war started because of NATO and the US, and it almost fucked us over here in Germany when the US helped the Ukrainians blow up Nord Stream.
I am against any offensive action which leads to the misery and impoverishment of people, for some stupid power games of power hungry idiots.
I am sorry, you are blaming the United States for Russia invading Ukraine? Because Ukraine wanted to join a defensive alliance to protect themselves from a country that invaded them in 2014 and tried to keep their puppet in power before Maidan punted him?
"Bro please just look at the expansion map. I swear bro the war started because of NATO and the US. It’s not an invasion bro it’s a forced reaction to unipolar hegemony. Just one more provocation and the bear had to bite back. Please bro just admit it's a proxy war. I promise bro if the West just stayed out of the sphere of influence everything would be fine."
This tribalism that you display is exactly the reason that we end up in situations that we have. Do not pledge tribal allegiance to anyone. Pledge allegiance to critical thinking.
People only pirate games because the publishers make it too painful to play games legally. I have pirated games that I own simply because it's easier to play. This pattern has been shown time and time again. When people pirate, it's usually due to a problem with the experience. People pay for convenience.
Now a days a lot of people are pirating games because the quality of games has gone down the drain. Publishers are releasing unfinished games and pricing them at record high. Consumers are pissed at the lack of value.
I'm not completely convinced. When I was a teenager I pirated games because I didn't have money (and games were incredibly expensive back in the day). The people who I copied them from did it to show off their collection and connections, or just because they were my friends.
For people who have no money to spare for games it really doesn't matter if games come with DRM or not. They wouldn't afford them anyway so "for free" is the only option that matters.
For people who have money for games but don't want to pay, the presence of DRM matters very little. 99% of games are usually trivially cracked, especially if you are willing to wait for some days or weeks after launch (an important sales window for the publishers).
For people who have money for games and are willing to pay, DRM turns out to be maybe an inconvenience, but definitely a guarantee that they don't actually own the game. The game can be taken away or even just modified in a way that invalidates the reason people paid in the first place.
> especially if you are willing to wait for some days or weeks after launch (an important sales window for the publishers).
“Important” is an understatement. Even for long-term success stories, the first three or four months often accounts for half of a game’s revenue.
And, despite so many people theorizing that “pirates don’t have money and wouldn’t pay anyway”, in practice big publishers wait in dread of “Crack Day” because the moment the crackers release the DRMless version, the drop in sales is instant and dramatic.
When the Nintendo Switch became hackable, ie can play any game, Nintendo saw a massive decrease in sales in Spain. Btw people in Spain pirate the most games in Europe. The decrease was at least 40%. The idea that this is a service issue and piracy doesn’t affect sales is just PR speak. If the game is offline, it’ll be pirated a lot.
Both you and GGP make concrete claims but fail to provide evidence. Can anyone cite published sales data or is this all mere conjecture?
We've been exposed to what seems like FUD about piracy killing sales since approximately forever - you wouldn't dOwnLoAd a cAR - but seemingly zero actual evidence to date.
My source is first and second hand reports from management of game companies having worked in the industry for decades. But, they don’t make numbers like that public.
The best public report I can find is https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S18759... which shows a median difference 20% of revenue for games where Denuvo is cracked “quickly” but also no significant difference if Denuvo survives for at least 3 months.
What I’ve observed from internal reports from multiple companies is that, if you don’t assume an outlier blockbuster game, major game studios’ normal plan is to target a 10% annual profit margin with an expected variance of +/-20% each year.
So, assuming you have a solidly on-target game, DRM not just being there, but surviving at least a couple months is the difference between “10% profit moving the whole company forward on schedule” vs “10% loss dragging the whole company down” or “30% profit, great success, bonuses and hiring increases” depending on the situation.
Outside of games, I have seen many personnel reports on Hacker News over the years from small-time ISVs that they find it exhausting they need to regularly ship BS “My Software version N+1” just as an excuse to update their DRM. But, every time they do, sales go back up. And, the day the new crack appears on Pirate Bay, sales drop back down. Over and over forever. Thus why we can’t just buy desktop software anymore. Web apps are primarily DRM and incidentally convenient in other ways.
> which shows a median difference 20% of revenue for games where Denuvo is cracked “quickly” but also no significant difference if Denuvo survives for at least 3 months.
So how did they measure the difference? They released one title with Denuvo then erased everyone's memories about it and released it again without?
Because if you compare different titles I don't know what you base that percentage on.
I've been saying that for decades at this point. Web apps trade post-release support issues with slightly higher development costs upfront (dealing with browser compatibility), but the real kicker is that the company is now in complete control of who gets to use what and when.
It's a vacuous argument. Even in the complete absence of piracy web apps would still have won out over desktop software due to turning a one time sale into a recurring subscription. That's what drove their adoption.
MMOs show the same thing. There are plenty of multiplayer games with centralized servers that are effectively impossible to pirate. But subscription based MMOs score a clear win in terms of revenue.
(It turns out free to play gacha is even more lucrative than subscription, but I digress.)
> My source is first and second hand reports from management of game companies having worked in the industry for decades. But, they don’t make numbers like that public.
As an aside, I find this kind of behavior on the part of companies rather irritating. It's like, if you want people to believe that something affects your sales, you need to publicly release the sales data (and do so in a way that people will trust). Otherwise there's no reason for anyone to believe you're not just making stuff up.
They just need law makers to support IP/DRM laws that allow them to continue to operate. (I made games for a while at a small studio; I understand some of the pressures that studios are under and don’t support piracy of games.)
And they can get that support without publicly releasing detailed time-series sales data.
It doesn't add up though. If they were actually dependent on DRM as described then broad public support would be a massive benefit to them. Yet seemingly none of the many studios out there publicize such data. And this comment section is full of hand waving about "well I can't provide actual data but I talked to someone who said ..." it sure looks like BS to me.
when i was younger there were more games i wanted to play than i had money to pay for..and i pirated.
then i had some money and i bought more games than i had time to play.*
now i neither buy or play games.
*the point is that at this point, there is no point wasting time trying to pirate games. every humble bundle. every steam sale. u just click and its yours. you dont even have time to play. why waste time pirating?
The thing is teenagers or poor people or people from third world countries that pirate for financial reasons just would not buy those games regardless. I'm unconvinced that those pirates affect sales in the end to any meaningful degree.
I was exactly the same! But then StarCraft 2 came out, I went out of my way to purchase the retail box, it had nothing more than a slip of paper with a CD key inside, I grudgingly went to download it and Blizzard demanded a bunch of PII from me. I regret the purchase.
Not making that mistake twice. I imagine this is one of the reasons that Steam is so successful. No surprises and near zero friction. Why risk going elsewhere as a consumer?
Steam requires the same bullshit. It's just that you only do it once, and it remembers your PII for your future purchases. In this way, centralised marketplaces have lower friction.
Did Steam change something? I first opened the account to claim a game via license code. It only required a working email at the time.
Later I chose to provide my credit card for convenience. As far as I know I could have instead used gift cards or prepaid cards.
Regardless, there's also an issue of trust. I might choose to provide PII to a large central marketplace that has a good reputation but providing it to each individual producer seems highly questionable.
When I was a kid, piracy was the norm. If your friend had a game you liked, you would just grab the tape, go home, insert into the recorder and make a copy. I didn't know about buying games or what I did was bad until well into the 90s.
> I didn't know about buying games or what I did was bad until well into the 90s.
Really? When we were pirating games off each other as teenagers in the early 80s, we absolutely knew we were getting games for free that the publishers wanted us to pay for.
So basically your sources weren't lost sales because you don't show off your mad sk1llz by buying a game, and you weren't a lost sale because you had no way to buy it. But I'm sure you did talk about how cool the game was, including to some people who could buy it. This sounds fairly typical.
Consumers will pay for convenience and value. You simply cannot price a game at $80 and hope to sell it in India. You can't expect consumers to have half a dozen monthly streaming subs to enjoy their favorite content.
When a product is providing value, and it's easier and more convenient to buy than pirating it, then people will buy it.
Netflix killed piracy until the platform fragmented and now you need half a dozen subs to watch everything. Expectedly, free streaming sites are now better than ever.
Yeah. Where piracy really hurts is when games get cracked and released before the official release date. That actually devastates sales; unlike a teenager with no money pirating a game (who they can’t afford to buy anyway).
There used to be (maybe still is?) a period where a small number of publishers had DRM for the first few weeks, and removed it once it was cracked.
Research from the University of Amsterdam’s IViR “Global Online Piracy Study” (survey of nearly 35,000 respondents across 13 countries) found that for each content type and country, 95% or more of pirates also consume content legally, and their median legal consumption is typically twice that of non‑pirating legal users.
Fun fact, this study was financed by YouTube to create a legal shield.
In 2017/2018, they were in the position where MPAA and RIAA were saying: "Piracy costs us billions; Google must pay" + they had European Parliament on their ass.
Google financed that 'independent' study to support the view
"Piracy is not harmful and encourages legal spend".
So the credibility of "independent" studies, is something to consider very carefully.
My real world observations agree with the direction of the study, so I don’t entirely dismiss it as fake based on its funding source.
I am cautious about the conclusion, though. It seems clear there is a spectrum from “unscrupulously pirate everything” to “consume legitimately after pirated discovery”, and quantification is necessary.
No, you misunderstood the comment, it said that paying nothing is compelling, not that paying something was inconceivable or something; it was a response to a comment with a common misconception that pirating is only some "service problem"
I agree with your earlier comment (GGP) and feel like you're contradicting yourself here. "Too expensive" is either a service problem or at least directly adjacent to it. It's distinct from "well if I can get away with piracy then I'll do it". To say that free is a compelling price is to imply the latter as opposed to the former (at least imo).
Yeah but if a pirate would have not paid the full price why care? It is by definition not a lost sale, the most likely outcome is just an increase by one the player count
Because the price isn't binary? Also, the total spend isn't fixed either, it depends on how easy it's to pirate. So it's by definition still lost revenue, even if later/at reduced price
Consider reality instead, you can make any fantasy case you want:
C. You didn't pirate, but played because your friends were deeply into it, so you skipped buying lunch to save money and pay for the game (pirating was hard for this specific DRM). You bought it at a discount on sale (remember, the price isn't fixed?). That feeling of overcoming hardship and friendship fused into a very positive experience, making it 10 times more likely for you to buy the next version than in A. or B. The overall likelihood still was tiny because now you have a family and don't have time to play, so that and
D. Considering the amount of uncertainty (your game company will go out of business in 25 years) the value of your "more likely" is $0
Not paying full price is not a "lost sale". People unwilling to pay full price wait for a discount or price reduction. Look at how popular the seasonal Steam sales are. Pirating the game very likely means they never purchase it at any price, which _is_ a lost sale.
I never paid for games as a kid (starting with 8 years and first PC). We didn’t have the money until much later. Other friends and uncles had games, we copied it all. Eight years later (with 16) I bought two game compilations for birthday and Christmas. Around 40 games, no more than 2 or 3 years old. I had fun for years.
And then much later being a university student, I had money of my own and have bought games I liked. Never pirated to save money. And you know, GOG came along, and I was thrilled having the old games from my childhood again as digital legal copy. With manuals and addons. I bought 20+ old DOS games I already knew. Better late than never.
Before it was really expensive and difficult to get access to movies or music. Then came Netflix or Spotify. So money is the primary discriminator now, not access. And users without money would not bring revenue anyway
>> I have pirated games that I own simply because it's easier to play.
Can you share some examples of instances where the legal route is too difficult? I haven't felt this way in a long time. What are the changes necessary for you to purchase?
The main reason that Russia had a fame for pirating a lot of software was that a lot of publishers either skipped it as a market or did shitty localisations and pirates offered a far better service.
Any game from Ubisoft/Activision/EA. A little while back for example I wanted to fire up my steam copy of Battlefield 4 and couldn't do it, game wouldn't launch.
My copy of Mirror's Edge from EA is unusable due to DRM. It's still listed on my EA account as belonging to me and I can download the game from them, but it can only be installed five times and I have reached that limit.
They say they own the game so presumably did purchase it.
Not having to deal with Ubisoft/similar game launchers frequently forgetting my login, nagging to update itself, etc. is one reason I might choose to run a cracked copy.
Ubisoft launcher being so bad that people prefer the cracked, launcher-free version should go down in the history as example of some of the worst product-management there is.
I'm totally in the same boat; I've not bought several Ubisoft-games I was interested in playing because their launcher is such a cancer (if anyone from Ubisoft is on HN: What on earth are you guys smoking?).
I'm too lazy to bother with pirating games these days (I have more games than time to play them anyway), but younger me would've certainly went to the high seas to circumvent their ridiculous insult of a game launcher.
I think a lot of people pirate for a lot of different reasons. I don't pirate games anymore because I just play PS5. But I definitely did so as a teenager because I was broke, not because the experience of buying games was bad.
Now I'll pirate if providers make it hard to do things right. I know I never "have" to pirate, but my wife once "bought" a movie on Amazon. A few years later, she was no longer able to access it. And she didn't get refunded for her purchase. So guess what? Screw you Amazon, I downloaded that movie and saved it on my home media server.
Another example, I was playing a mobile game that allowed me to watch ads to get a bonus. I'd always say no because they use one of the shittiest ad provider in existence. Then they started showing me ads even if I elected not to get the bonus, with a fun "pay $20 for ad free forever!"
Well screw you game dev, I'm pirating the ad-free version of your game.
> Consumers are pissed at the lack of value.
I think this is true, but I don't think this is necessarily causing piracy. Why would people want to pirate a shitty game?
Or, just don’t play the game. I don’t mean to be flippant, but why waste time on software employing shoddy practices? Wordle and Apple’s mini crossword-minis are sufficiently stimulating and quick.
My tolerance for software like that is very limited. It’s almost an immediate long-press and uninstall.
No they don't. I am tired of this feel good nonsense. I pirated games because it was free and I did not want to pay $60.
Just make your games a donation model if you really believe this. Or lets put up a version of Steam where all the games are free cracked copies of the game and see how it affects sales.
People pay precisely because they dont want to deal with the hassle pf pirating
I can pirate games easily, but I buy them on Steam because it's more convenient. If it's too expensive for me, I just never play it (or wait for a deal). I can't be bothered dealing with the installers and the potential viruses and the hassle.
I’m fabulously wealthy and still mostly pirate things just because I can’t be bothered dealing with online credit card payments.
Half the time I try to sign up for any of these services I get blocked for fraud because I’m in one country, my billing address in another and my bank in a third. Oh, and when something does work, it only works for a while until they lock the whole account with a bunch of paid content on it.
Yes, now imagine if we just removed the barrier to piracy completely. An easy to use client just like Steam, except all the games are free cracked copies.
Isn't that exactly what companies use as justification for DMCA and DRM protection?
Without those, you'd have sites full of pirated game downloads easily found through search engines. DMCA takedowns force those sites into shady corners of the internet, making them harder to find and riskier for the average user. And (effective) DRM makes users have to wait for a crack which may take weeks or months.
The result is that it's easier for the average person to just log into Steam/Epic/PSN/eShop and spend $60 to play immediately.
The point is that legal threats keep any centralized platforms that might do vetting small. That probably accounts for the vast majority of the effect. Beyond that the old fashioned "DRM" of a CD key is generally going to be more than sufficient to prevent "acts of convenience".
I'm sure there are exceptions but the usual claims take the observation about a minor speed bump and add a bunch of made up BS to justify consumer hostile practices.
Notice that there's nothing stopping a centralized darknet platform that vettes torrents from popping up. But as far as I know no one feels like bothering. That should give you some idea just how low the bar is here.
> Almost all games these days are basically like a work in progress, so if you pirate them then the game doesn't stay up to date.
Which, as a mod author and consumer, isn't always a bad thing. More than once, I had to drop just enjoying a game, to patch my published mods because some update that is automatically pushed out, and people have to accept in order to even boot a single-player game. Why? I don't know, but it's really annoying sometimes.
Besides, nowadays cracking groups release smaller patches too, so while you might not get the update the same hour it was published on Steam, usually within a week or two the same group that uploaded the original release, has released another patch.
They might still spend $600 on 10 more games though. Or spend it on a subset of the games they pirated because they want to support the developer. Who knows.
