<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>TaoBench: Do Automated Theorem Prover LLMs Generalize Beyond MathLib? · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2603.12744/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2603.12744/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>TaoBench: Do Automated Theorem Prover LLMs Generalize Beyond MathLib? — mentioned by lambdaone</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48779531</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2603.12744:48779531</guid><pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2026 20:22:38 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Structured thinking and deliberation are indeed important, but you can also make LLMs do structured &amp;quot;thinking&amp;quot; if you work hard enough, and generate quite plausible reasoned arguments with valid real-world results, and you can get them to write down their working as they go. But as research has shown, it&amp;#x27;s not &amp;quot;true&amp;quot; thinking, just pattern matching at a higher level, and eventually runs out of steam.[0] But you only have to drill down a couple more layers and you are back in the void again; do you have any proof that your own thinking, no matter how structured and accurate, is anything other…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2603.12744/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LG</category></item></channel></rss>
