- cross-posted to:
- AntiAI@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- cross-posted to:
- AntiAI@lemmy.blahaj.zone
I was surprised to see that this lovely write-up wasn’t posted here already. Also see the author’s Mastodon post about it: https://wandering.shop/@aesthr/117470082684445346
So you don’t understand how the technology you’re defending functions then?
You see that as “defending” the technology?
That specifically is not the part I was referring to, but for the record, if an LLM isn’t given any input, it does nothing.
Giving it input is how you “prompt” it to generate the absolute crap.
I was referring to the part where you gave the LLMs credit for solving math equations when there is evidence that they simply stole the solutions from real mathematicians and attempted to pass it off as work the LLM had done itself.
All maths is based on previous work. The QRH proof combined known maths in a way that nobody had thought of before.
I’m not familiar with the equation, but if you’ve got something you think is worth reading I’d take a look at it
If it doesn’t have an actual human mathematician who has checked its work and verified it, then I don’t care
Do you disagree that the examples given are new knowledge? I’m sure OP is aware AI is “just a token generator” or whatever; that doesn’t really matter here when there is proof of it at least producing data in the convex hull of its training data, and in the case of alphago, with no training data at all.
They literally stole the answers to those math problems from human mathematicians who hadn’t published their work yet, but had spoken to a chat bot about it.
All 300 of them?
Probably, but I haven’t researched all of them.
The first one they claimed has been verified to be 100% stolen
I’m assuming they released the remaining 300 in one large batch so it would be more difficult to check. Like a Gish Gallup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
I think the scenario in which they steal a solution and then release 300 more stolen solutions to cover it up is highly unlikely. Gish galloping doesn’t work when the news cycle has weeks to cover what you’ve published, if literally everything was stolen, we would’ve heard something by now.
But that isn’t how the news cycle works.
The news cycle lasts for maybe a week. Tops.
You don’t think they’d be bragging about how it got all of them right by now if that were the case?
If they had 301 new solutions, why would they release the stolen one first? I suppose it could be because it’s the only one they were confident was correct, but I think these people are likely hubristic and psychotic enough to believe that their plausibility engine actually solve all of the unsolved math questions (rather than providing plausible looking answers, as it’s explicitly designed to do, which then need to be disproven by actual thinking human mathematicians).