Well, wait, I don't think that actually disproves the claim. I'm not saying it's not impressive, I just don't think it's as novel as you say.

When I ask an LLM to write me code that does something 'novel', it usually does quite a good job. I'm just using the freely available models, but they quite competently write code that is not truly derivative of any other code. If I give them some code of my own that has a bug in it, they'll find the bug and patch it, and that bug is, for all intents and purposes, unique.

You're still seeing a bunch of old patterns rehashed--I presume that other proofs introduce infinity families, and they can iterate through inside a clear logical structure to test whether or not something works. Again, this is impressive work, but I'm not personally convinced that this is 'novel' in terms of the broader corpus of mathematical knowledge. It didn't invent a new field of mathematics to solve your problem.

Even if you didn't prompt it, take a look sometimes at the contemplations of the models, if that's available to you. Before the model even arrives in your hands, it's got stacks of prompts giving it meta instructions, and it then generates prompts for itself to check your work. I think it would be interesting if you ran your experiment again on a new account that's fresh and see if you can watch the chain of reasoning. You might be right, it MAY be doing something TRULY novel, but as I've said, I've got my doubts.

Obviously, you're a mathematician and I'm not; I can't tell you that you're wrong about it if you insist that it is doing something new.

And that's besides asking people who mostly live around and beyond the polar circle to make decisions for the rest of us.
Same goes for those living near the equator.

Have fun living with winter depression (and depressives driving around you) for half a year.
Or getting ZERO sleep in the summer. It's gonna be great.

But hey... As long as you don't have to suffer the tyranny of setting the clock twice a year. That's what really matters.
Razor blades are cheap. So is rope and simply swerving into oncoming traffic.

Interesting that you immediately jumped to censorship. Why is that?

Crack open a history book, start with the 1947 Shubaki family assassination by Zionist paramilitary. And then work your way forward through the back and forth reprisals, the UN Partition Plan for Palestine, and the 1947-1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine.

Once you're caught up, reread your diatribe on Hamas. It is okay to be naive and have myoptic opinions initially, as long as you can also grow and learn.

The muh freeze peach crowd are about the worst defenders of free speech I've ever met.

Speech is powerful and dangerous, which is why it is important and needs to be free. Pretending otherwise is to diminish it and erase the need for it to be protected.

Amazon has peaked, they have fully saturated multiple markets. They are not going to add any more customers in the US. This cannot be considered a growth industry anymore.

I just looked at the paper and you are right. Thanks for looking.

The male and the female one are basically suggesting visually that the man is competent and the woman is not. I mean even only the cloth pattern of the skirt that "she" is wearing is atrocious. It is like they made the "woman" intentionally unattractive while they made the "man" average. ("She" is also blonde, of course, while "he" has dark hair.) I have no idea whether this was actually done intentionally, but if I were to design a study to find this type of bias, that is what I would use. I wonder whether they did something similar in the text interfaces.

I also noticed that their names are Johanna and Johan, i.e. a proper male name for "him" and a feminized male name for "her".

So, after all, my first take of "likely methodical error" was correct.

The study is flawed in another way as well because "everybody knows" that women earn less than men. (Usually that is "proven" with the unadjusted wage gap, which is completely bogus and essentially a lie.) Hence the study participants just conformed to what they thought were the facts of the matter. Makes the results completely meaningless.

And the other thing is that "everybody knows" there is a gender pay gap. This is only true for the unadjusted gap, but most people do not know what that means. Once you adjust for factors like experience and field-of-work the difference is below the margin of error, i.e. small and we do not even know whether it is real. We essentially have same wages for the same work and qualification and had it for a while. That some parts of some gender groups decide to not do the same work or invest less or more time into getting experience is a separate problem and not a problem of payment.

Hence the people in this "experiment" were just conforming to what they thought was expected of them. That makes the whole thing bogus. Obviously wages in the real world are determined by a different procedure and harping on about women and men not behaving exactly the same (as a group) is just one thing: counterproductive.

Well, what can an LLM do? It has no understanding or insight, so it cannot see whether something is a good solution or not. Obviously, a smart human would not even have looked for a "solution" like that, because it is obvious crap.

Are you serious? Because that is the dumbest shit I have read in a long, long time.

Since you do not even seem to know the very basics, here is a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

No. Or rather not to any meaningful degree or depth. They can do very shallow reasoning only and after a few steps into deeper reasoning chains, only noise is left. Statistical AI is completely unsuitable for automated deduction. It is not even remotely comparable to what a smart human or even the very limited automatic theorem proving systems can do.

Yes. While this may be hard to understand for non-mathematicians, the data-theft angle could not be any more obvious. All LLM type AI can to is put puzzle pieces together. Somebody else needs to create those. And if they were unpublished, then they were stolen.

It does not actually make a useful contribution. It does damage. And the allegation of most of this stuff essentially being stolen are very likely true.