‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

I vibed a proof of Conway's conjecture

271 points · 297 comments · m-hodges

  1. bastawhiz · · focus · HN ↗
    These are indisputably good results all things considered. But I have to wonder whether a more scientific and hands-on approach to working on the material would have been better. When I vibe code, I don't just hype the LLM up and tell it to keep going. I interrogate it, I ask it to back up and replace its jargon, and I force it to be accountable. It smells to me like a lot of the circling could have been avoided (even without domain expertise) by just enforcing processes. Even just keeping the Lean more up to date would have likely saved tokens: it doesn't matter if it took longer each week, since the total runtime mostly wasn't the bottleneck.
    1. danabramov · · focus · HN ↗
      >I interrogate it, I ask it to back up and replace its jargon, and I force it to be accountable

      I do that too when working on software. Here, I did a little bit of that, but it is much harder when I have almost no domain knowledge (aside from understanding the statement of the conjecture), since at each point the LLM might trick me anyway, and it would probably take me a year to understand the concepts enough to tell when what it's saying doesn't make sense.

      >Even just keeping the Lean more up to date would have likely saved tokens

      That's the conclusion I came to by the final week! But don't underestimate how much Lean needed to be written in the first place to even "catch up" with the reference papers. I had no option to keep it up to date when I started.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.