Am I correct in thinking this is the 2nd such fumble by a major lab? DeepMind released their “matrix multiplication better than SOTA” paper a few months back, which suggested Gemini had uncovered a new way to optimally multiply two matrices in fewer steps than previously known. Then immediately after their announcement, mathematicians pointed out that their newly discovered SOTA had been in the literature for 30-40 years, and was almost certainly in Gemini’s training set.
No, your claim about matrix multiplication is false. Google's new algorithm can be applied recursively to 4x4 block matrices (over the field of complex numbers). This results in an asymptotically faster algorithm for nxn matrix multiplication than Strassen's. Earlier results on 4x4 matrices by Winograd and others did not extend to block matrices..
That doesn't match my recollection of the AlphaEvolve release.
Some people just read the "48 multiplications for a 4x4 matrix multiplications" part, and thought they found prior art at that performance or better. But they missed that the supposed prior art had tighter requirements on the contents of the matrix, which meant those algorithms were not usable for implementing a recursive divide and conquer algorithm for much larger matrix multiplications.
It's an interesting type of fumble too, because it's easy to (mistakenly!) read it as "LLM tries and fails to solve problem but thinks it solved it" when really it's being credited with originality for discovering or reiterating solutions already out there in the literature.
It sounds like the content of the solutions themselves are perfectly fine, so it's unfortunate that the headline will leave the impression that these are just more hallucinations. They're not hallucinations, they're not wrong, they're just wrongly assigned credit for existing work. Which, you know, where have we heard that one before? It's like the stylistic "borrowing" from artists, but in research form.
