91–100 of 562 posts
Maybe not? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacobian_conjectu...
I think the editor themselves misunderstood the conjecture. UPD: The edit got reverted and there's this on the talk page now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacobian_conjecture#c-DaR... UPD2: There are edit wars happening now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacobian_conjectu... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacobian_conjecture#c-Sea...
I asked Fable to verify and it absolutely freaked out! I have no idea what any of this stuff even means, but my AI thinks I’m a legend level mathematician!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author has a PhD in math from Cambridge. If it turns out to be a false claim it is an interesting case study on AI's sycophancy causing even experts to drop their guard and make mistakes.
[flagged]
Frontier models have solved several major open problems in mathematics in the past few months, so this should not be a huge shock. "Anti-AI psychosis" will probably grow to outcompete AI psychosis by year's end.
The great thing about these mathematical mopping up type operations is that no person will waste their time trying to prove it to be true anymore. If anything that’s a win. It would be great if an LLM could settle the Collatz conjecture next, god knows how many man-years have been burned on that by unsuspecting victims.
The reason this was "easy" is because the conjecture turned out to be false. If the collatz conjecture holds true (and most mathematicians seem to think it will), it will be much harder to prove than your average Erdos problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the editor themselves misunderstood the conjecture. UPD: The edit got reverted and there's this on the talk page now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacobian_conjecture#c-DaR... UPD2: There are edit wars happening now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacobian_conjectu... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacobian_conjecture#c-Sea...
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd rather wait for independent seasoned mathematicians to verify such claims first before someone at said AI lab posting a claim about solving a proof online. Let this be a lesson to those who fell for such AI psychosis and to not believe everything you see on the internet as real.
It's a Jacobian determinant and three points. You can check this yourself in Sage. The author is a Princeton math doctorate.
in this case it's not original research, because there's a tweet by someone with a good reputation, and plenty of comments on said tweet corroborating the result. But it's a more sketchy "secondary source" than most wikipedia references and some caution on the part of the editors is not out of place.
(saying this as the person who made the original edit to the wikipedia page adding the counterexample)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The goal posts have moved. People generally stopped saying this stuff now. Even if you go to the ultimate anti-AI subreddit r/betteroffline, they've changed from "AI is useless" to "AI is good but the AI bubble will collapse soon" over the last 6 months.
I don't think the (fairly factual) description of these systems as stochastic parrots means that they will never do useful work, just that they are not intelligent in the way we believe animals to be (to "push back" on your anecdata, I've also heard fewer people claiming that LLMs are actually conscious in the past year -- maybe we're reaching the happy medium?). That was the point the stochastic parrots paper and Ch…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a Jacobian determinant and three points. You can check this yourself in Sage. The author is a Princeton math doctorate.
playing devil's advocate a little bit, but wikipedia does have a policy against original research. If you published an obviously correct counterexample to wikipedia which is not anywhere else on the internet (or in a book, etc), the rules are clear: the counterexample must be removed. in this case it's not original research, because there's a tweet by someone with a good reputation, and plenty of comments on said twe…
What Wikipedia says about this doesn't matter, does it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason this was "easy" is because the conjecture turned out to be false. If the collatz conjecture holds true (and most mathematicians seem to think it will), it will be much harder to prove than your average Erdos problem.
True but Noam brown (openai researcher) said that in 2 years AI will start creating new math.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The goal posts have moved. People generally stopped saying this stuff now. Even if you go to the ultimate anti-AI subreddit r/betteroffline, they've changed from "AI is useless" to "AI is good but the AI bubble will collapse soon" over the last 6 months.
the ROI just isn't there. they aren't making these capital investments back in the next decade even. not to mention the trillions yet to be spent. it kinda all works but it's an earth-scale blood from a stone. the resources needed to even do these parlor tricks is nutso.
the ROI just isn't there. they aren't making these capital investments back in the next decade even.
People say LLMs are scholastic parrots, but people who say this stuff have almost certainly not done the homework themselves and are just repeating what others say without verifying.