Earlier quoted context omitted.
> to the detriment of the whole club of stochastic parrot folk What an interesting and pointless way to refer to “experts who understand what an LLM actually is ”
The concept of "stochastic parrot" is that an LLM merely parrots its training data with some randomness. We now know that isn't true - LLMs build complex internal models and output based on that. See for example https://arxiv.org/html/2505.23323v1 Also, you are commenting on a post where a LLM made significant progress on the Riemann hypothesis . Even the most extreme interpretation of these results, ie claiming that…
Actually you're commenting on a post where an LLM used existing insights to make a small improvement to the bounds of the Riemann Hypothesis by applying the existing insight to an existing theoretical approach. This is the core problem and missing it betrays your lack of understanding: an LLM was used to apply existing work to an existing approach, there was no innovation on the part of the parrot.