Picture this: a top quantum computing guru like Scott Aaronson, who's spent decades wrestling with the mind-bending puzzles of computational complexity, finally gets a hand from an AI model—OpenAI's GPT-5 thinking, no less—in cracking a tough proof that's been simmering since 2008. It's not just any proof; it's the kind that dances on the edge of quantum physics and math wizardry, the stuff that could one day redefine how we think about unbreakable codes or super-fast computations. And Aaronson admits it saved him time, even if the bot flubbed its first swing.
What's intriguing here isn't that AI nailed it on the first try—far from it. The real magic is in the back-and-forth: Aaronson pokes, the AI pivots, and boom, a usable insight emerges. It's like having a brilliant but overconfident intern who occasionally needs a nudge to double-check the math. Humorously enough, even a postdoc commenter topped the AI's answer, reminding us that while these models are getting scary good at abstract pure math (the kind detached from everyday messiness, which ironically makes it AI catnip), they're no oracle. You still need that human BS detector to sift the gold from the glitches.
Pragmatically, this flips the script on AI in research from 'nice gimmick' to 'essential sidekick.' Last year, Aaronson tried and failed; now, it's a game-changer. For students like those in his quantum info class, it's a no-brainer: why slog through office hours when AI can unstick you faster? But let's not kid ourselves—over-relying on it could turn sharp minds dull. Aaronson's push for a balanced curriculum, blending AI-assisted courses with old-school solo grinding, feels spot-on. Teach the foundations so humans stay in the driver's seat, steering AI toward breakthroughs rather than shortcuts.
In a world buzzing with AI hype, this story grounds us: innovation thrives when we treat these tools like accelerators, not automatics. It encourages every researcher and student to experiment—dip a toe in, verify ruthlessly, and who knows? Your next 'eureka' might just be a prompted conversation away. Just don't blame the bot if it hallucinates a parallel universe. Source: ‘AI is useful, right?’: Professor uses artificial intelligence to assist in research
