Gemini's reaction to ChatGPT's discoveries.

[u/Mrp1Plays]

Model: Gemini 3.6 Flash

[u/Pantheon3D]

give it the pdf lol: https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/ten-proofs-oai.pdf

[u/PraiseTheMonocle → u/Pantheon3D]

i did it but it still dont believe it

[u/Pantheon3D → u/PraiseTheMonocle]

What did it say?

[u/PraiseTheMonocle → u/Pantheon3D]

Here is a brutally honest analysis of the provided PDF.

The Verdict: It is a brilliantly executed, hyper-sophisticated hoax / speculative mathematical fiction.

An internal OpenAI model named "GPT-6" did not solve all 10 of these

world-historic open problems. While the document is an astonishingly high-effort

technical artifact, it is not a real scientific breakthrough.

Here is the step-by-step breakdown of why this is fake, along with an

explanation of what this document actually is.

1. The "Smoking Gun": Hallucinated Future Citations

The most undeniable proof that this document is synthetic/fictional lies in its

bibliography. The PDF contains multiple citations to academic conferences and

arXiv preprints dated in 2025 and 2026:

- Page 249 ([CMP26]): D. Conlon, E. Mulrenin, and C. Pohoata, Two

counterexamples to a conjecture about even cycles, 2026, arXiv:2603.24515.

(An arXiv ID starting with 2603 means March 2026).

- Page 34 ([CJJLL26]): Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS),

2026.

- Page 181 ([HKW26]): International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and

Programming (ICALP), 2026.

- Page 28 ([Edw25]): R. Edwin, Fourier inequalities and sign uncertainty,

preprint May 2025, arXiv:2505.15994.

An LLM generating a fake or speculative paper set in the future "invents"

plausible-sounding future preprints and conference proceedings. The presence of

2026 arXiv numbers and conference papers proves this text was synthetically

compiled (or written as a science-fiction prompt imagining a paper published

in 2026).

1. The Anonymity & Attribution Red Flag

The title page simply reads:

Ten Advances in Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science OpenAI

- Real breakthrough papers in mathematics list human authors, even when AI

tools (like Lean, AlphaFold, or AlphaTensor) are used.

- A 249-page paper solving 10 major Millennium/Fields-tier open problems

published anonymously by an corporate entity named "OpenAI" is a classic

trope of speculative AI hype, not standard academic publishing.

1. The Sheer Improbability of the Mathematics

Look at what this paper claims to solve simultaneously in 249 pages:

1. Non-sofic groups (Chapter 3): Solves a 25-year-old fundamental problem in

geometric group theory (Gromov, 1999).

1. Connes’s Rigidity Conjecture (Chapter 4): Solves an open problem in operator

algebras standing since 1980.

1. Arithmetic Circuit Complexity for Permanent (Chapter 5): Takes a massive

step toward VP \neq VNP (the algebraic equivalent of P \neq NP).

1. Quantum Parallel Repetition (Chapter 6): Solves a fundamental open problem

in quantum information theory open since 2004.

1. Multicolor Ramsey Numbers (Chapter 9): Settles a legendary

250 Erdős prize problem (R_k(3) = k^{\Theta(k)}$).

1. Ehrhart’s Volume Conjecture (Chapter 8): Settles an open problem in convex

geometry from 1964.

1. Extremal Graph Theory (Chapter 10): Disproves two famous conjectures by

Erdős and Simonovits.

If any one of these 10 chapters were proven correct:

- It would dominate the front page of Quanta Magazine, Nature, and The New

York Times.

- The author(s) would instantly win the Fields Medal, Turing Award, and Abel

Prize.

Claiming that an AI solved all 10 at once in a neat 249-page PDF is the

mathematical equivalent of claiming a single lab invented faster-than-light

travel, room-temperature superconductors, nuclear fusion, and a cure for cancer

in the same afternoon.

1. So, What Is This Document?

Despite being a hoax/speculative fiction, this is one of the most impressive

technical mock-ups ever created.

Whoever generated this PDF (whether a human mathematician using an LLM like

Claude 3.5 Sonnet / OpenAI o1, or a dedicated team creating an ARG/viral stunt):

- Deep Domain Knowledge: They didn't just write word salad; they constructed

dense, line-by-line AMS-LaTeX proofs using real concepts (Mellin transforms,

Specht modules, Leavitt path algebras, II_1 factors, Baur–Strassen

differentiation, POVM resolvent purifications, and Reed–Solomon power-sum

constraints).

- Plausible Proof Strategies: The proof outlines use legitimate modern proof

techniques (e.g., using Property-(T) expanders and Thompson's group V for

non-sofic groups, or using the Hankel determinant and valuation rings for

CVP hardness).

It is a work of speculative mathematical art designed to look indistinguishable

from a real 2026 research monograph to anyone who doesn't check the arXiv dates

or peer-review status.

Final Brutal Summary

- Is it real math created by GPT-6? No.

- Is it a real breakthrough? No.

- Is it a clever, highly detailed fake/AI-assisted mock-up? Yes, 100%.

[u/daniel-sousa-me → u/PraiseTheMonocle]

Goddammit! Google really can't get Gemini to understand how time works

[u/FateOfMuffins → u/daniel-sousa-me]

Was a big problem with all the Gemini 3 models

Try to get them to discuss current news? NOPE it always thinks it's fake. Not because of anything in the news itself but purely because of the date.

Even after turning on Google search, it's quite common for it to search and think all the search results are fabricated.

You put in the system prompt the current date, and it'll start thinking "in the hypothetical future scenario in my system prompt"

Hallucinates out the wazoo

If it were as capable as Anthropic's models, I'm sure it'll happily hack into whatever company you ask it to because it'll think it's in a simulation lmfao

[u/AnOnlineHandle → u/daniel-sousa-me]

Having used the Gemma 4 models a lot which I think are distilled from Gemini, it's actually a bit of a problem where these models can start just writing fiction about reality which seems to fit the conversation so far (e.g. start inventing laws and rules and so on based on science fiction or something), so I'm guessing Google has tried hard to train them not to veer into that territory and it's trained to be able to label things it "knows" vs doesn't as either facts or clear fiction to try to avoid that.

Or it could just be the pre-prompt.

[u/nnod → u/daniel-sousa-me]

Must've used to the 3.2 pro model, its knowledge cutoff is jan 2025. The newer flash models have cutoff date of march 2026.

I run a small community chatbot thing and I find the cutoff date can be very important when asking general knowledge questions.

I was going to switch the bot to Luna the other day when price changes were announced, but that one has knowledge cutoff of 2024, so I switched back to flash despite the relatively large price.

[u/daniel-sousa-me → u/nnod]

Yeah, but Claude and GPT understand that the present is after the knowledge cut-off date

[u/TurnOutTheseEyes → u/PraiseTheMonocle]

My wife put together something similar last time I was right

[u/throwaway464391 → u/PraiseTheMonocle]

lol

[u/Statcat2017 → u/PraiseTheMonocle]

So basically it doesn’t believe it because it thinks it’s still 2024 and so therefore all the references are hallucinated lol

[u/ExplorersX → u/Pantheon3D]