This is really cool. One of my favorite parts of the internet is getting to see these kinds of projects by people who aren't afraid to tear into stuff and take it apart and put it back together.
But you do all that for privacy... and then you use CarPlay?
Not long ago I started having an issue with my eye. I called around and they said I should get seen ASAP, same day if possible, but it wasn’t worth the ER and it was a five day wait for an appointment.
I was pretty freaked out. During that time, I tried diagnosing it with AI. When I finally got to the appointment, the actual doctor sat down, looked at all the unremarkable images, asked me one (1) question, ordered another image and diagnosed the issue. When I looked back, in all that time, the AI had mentioned it exactly one time early on, ruled it out immediately based on a flawed understanding of the symptoms, and never brought it up again.
Just my anecdotal evidence, but I’d never trust any AI on its own. My doctor can use it if they want, I can’t.
You think that they have “days leading up to consultation”? Please don’t be so disingenuous; I’m sure you know exactly what the person you’re replying to meant.
I don't think the bake-off to decide which superpower has the worst human rights record is going to land where you want it to. Hint, they both suck.
FWIW, I'll take the one not dropping bombs to keep their BFF happy, boosting right-wing shitheads, threatening to invade their real allies and slapping dumb tariffs on everyone.
They both suck, but one of them literally harvests organs from political prisoners.
I’m honestly torn on which one I’d pick, but there’s a TON of likely state-sponsored pro-China propaganda on the internet, so I consider it a patriotic duty to push back for the sole reason that we can still freely talk shit about the one (for the time being, as long as you don’t mention the blessed martyr Charlie Kirk), whereas the other blocks the internet and imprisons people for dissent.
> “The raw output of ChatGPT’s proof was actually quite poor. So it required an expert to kind of sift through and actually understand what it was trying to say,” Lichtman says. But now he and Tao have shortened the proof so that it better distills the LLM’s key insight.
I guess “ChatGPT came up with a novel approach to a problem that later turned out not to be totally stupid and terrible for once” isn’t as catchy of a headline
I haven't reviewed it myself, but when a mathematician calls a proof "quite poor" and experts have to "sift through" it, I would understand that to mean that it's technically incorrect. Errors like "This statement isn't correct, but it points towards a weaker statement that is, and the subsequent steps can be rebuilt on top of the weaker statement" are pretty common in output from both LLMs and math students.
Depends. I reckon a proof by an amateur would either be worthless because it demonstrates no understanding whatsoever or significantly better because they actually understand the proof.
LLM produced texts are often in a weird area where the quality of the content and the quality of the writing have very little to do with one another.
I don't think it's true that all amateurs have no understanding whatsoever. Amateurs have proven things before, and they've also wasted mathematicians time with wrong proofs.
That should be buried, I agree 100% with their headline and structure over yours.
For comparison, if the amateur did it by hand but the result was sloppy to read, would you prefer "Amateur solves an Erdos problem" or "Amateur came up with a novel approach to a problem that later turned out not to be totally stupid and terrible for once"?
There should be zero expectation that the solution is "novel." It could not have produced any of it were it not in it's training data set.
This is simply evidence that our search tools and academic publishing are completely broken and not at all evidence that a machine "thought up a novel solution."
Humans constantly anthropomorphize their environment. To their detriment.
This isn't true. There are solutions that are beyond apparent reason and logic. This is what a "breakthrough" is.
> The order and combination is what makes it special.
Given an infinite amount of time a team of monkeys will produce Shakespeare. Is that "special?" Perhaps we should leave some room for _how_ those combinations happen and how efficient they are.
> Is current human information access methods wrong
They are wrong. The largest search company is also the largest advertiser. I'm surprised that anyone either fails to apprehend this or pretends not to.
reply