I make it a point to never install the first versions of major macos releases. they are usually buggy and have annoying new features that are either removed, improved or made optional in the following minor releases. Currently on 26.6.2, it's pretty good.

I think you're comparing to third party prices, deepseek's prices hasn't changed with this release. Also, $1.2 is the peaktime price.

https://api-docs.deepseek.com/quick_start/pricing/

Yes and it's also compatible with thermodynamics: it's much easier to destroy (increase entropy) than to create (locally decrease entropy)

The "IQ 180" label seems to be referring to the (human) CTO of their startup.

And relatedly, just now available on OpenRouter

https://openrouter.ai/deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro-0813

I would be extremely surprised if something as elegant, terse, and useful as the Fourier Transform had been missed by human mathematicians up until now. All expressible theorems are enumerable, after all (if we limit ourselves to a finite alphabet). It seems likely that any new theorems are long, highly complex and esoteric, regardless of human or machine origin.

1. The computer is going to struggle to recognize elegance. I’m not sure it’s relevant at this point (but who knows).

2. The statement about proofs is just way wrong. It doesn’t sound like you are familiar enough with them.

This isn’t exactly what you implied, but witness the very short disproof of the Jacobean Conjecture.

Big leaps in insight I don't think are received as elegant, generally. Fourier's contemporaries actually thought he was wrong (which he was), about both the series and heat equations, and even with the whole thing worked out it's not really straightforward. It fits into integral transforms/linear operators but in a way more complicated than can explained in those terms alone. Plus truncation error is commonly unbounded! Complex numbers and "fluxions" were also objectionable on their face although now one can frame them more or less elegantly.

> the very short disproof of the Jacobean Conjecture.

That's a counterexample (finding a needle in a haystack), not an elegant proof. Proving the conjecture would be elegant, if it were true but somehow still resisted proof nearly as much as the conjecture did because the conjecture was false.

Shannon was 1948, one-way crypto in 1978, univalence/HoTT something like 2007; I would be surprised if there weren’t simple new fundamental primitives out there! One problem is that some great advances are from viewing complex objects in a simple way, which take a lot of characters to define in formal logic but which are “simple” in platonic maths-space.

More like second-to-last on most of them, to my eye. Which is impressive as it's smaller and cheaper than the others.

It's a high quality benchmark for sure, but it being public means it's at risk of leaking into the models (unintentionally or not), right? For that reason I prefer to look at the private ones, like: HLE, SimpleBench, Kagi, ARC-AGI.

the obvious solution is to not use the words that have an obscure word as anagram. I failed on 'target' because I went for 'regatta'.

> I failed on ‘target’ because I went for ‘regatta’.

Given that those two don’t have the same letters, isn’t that the expected outcome?

Haha oops, you're right :)

That seems only fair. ;-)

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.