3 ms·

I could review his published research, but in the interim, I had GPT painstakingly review the math in the image, and extrapolate the direction, which it conside

I could review his published research, but in the interim, I had GPT painstakingly review the math in the image, and extrapolate the direction, which it considered to be a suggested hybrid successor to the Transformer for structured and scientific domains: https://chatgpt.com/share/6931c915-88c8-8012-9ca4-b0097e53e851 https://chatgpt.com/share/6931c915-88c8-8012-9ca4-b0097e53e8...

impossiblefork 11mo ago
I don't think that's correct.
- OutOfHere 11mo ago
  You're not in any position to judge since you previously admitted having no idea.
  - impossiblefork 11mo ago
    There's no contradiction between knowing what something is, and knowing that something does not support a certain view. What you see on the board is presumably something relating to a maths problem they're discussing. It doesn't seem AI-related at all.
    - impossiblefork 11mo ago
      I mean not knowing what something is and knowing that it isn't a certain specific thing.
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
lambdas 11mo ago
Yeah, that’s not right. I’m not sure about painstakingly… it said it couldn’t make out the notation, and spat out what it thought it could read, and you never checked it - nor read the articles for context, just assumed it was to do directly with further AI work. It picked up on the polynomial, then what it thought was a scheme/sheaf being defined is actually the finite field with six elements. It also misread “Thue” as “the”. If you had corrected what it read from the board, then gave it the context that he was a number theorist now working for a company trying to get AI to work through proofs, then you may have got the correct answer that this appears to be them crafting problems on polynomial reduction to test how the LLM reasons about proof.
- ky3 11mo ago
  M&Ms much? There is no finite field with six elements.
  - lambdas 11mo ago
    Tell him that, not me; I’m simply referring to what’s on the board, above her right hand, left of her stomach. Perhaps it’s abuse of notation.
- OutOfHere 11mo ago
  > If you had corrected what it read from the board, then gave it the context that he was a number theorist now working for a company trying to get AI to work through proofs It was just a quick and dirty chat. A proper evaluation will consider his published research to date.

impossiblefork 11mo ago

I don't think that's correct.

OutOfHere 11mo ago
You're not in any position to judge since you previously admitted having no idea.
- impossiblefork 11mo ago
  There's no contradiction between knowing what something is, and knowing that something does not support a certain view. What you see on the board is presumably something relating to a maths problem they're discussing. It doesn't seem AI-related at all.
  - impossiblefork 11mo ago
    I mean not knowing what something is and knowing that it isn't a certain specific thing.

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

lambdas 11mo ago

Yeah, that’s not right. I’m not sure about painstakingly… it said it couldn’t make out the notation, and spat out what it thought it could read, and you never checked it - nor read the articles for context, just assumed it was to do directly with further AI work. It picked up on the polynomial, then what it thought was a scheme/sheaf being defined is actually the finite field with six elements. It also misread “Thue” as “the”. If you had corrected what it read from the board, then gave it the context that he was a number theorist now working for a company trying to get AI to work through proofs, then you may have got the correct answer that this appears to be them crafting problems on polynomial reduction to test how the LLM reasons about proof.

ky3 11mo ago
M&Ms much? There is no finite field with six elements.
- lambdas 11mo ago
  Tell him that, not me; I’m simply referring to what’s on the board, above her right hand, left of her stomach. Perhaps it’s abuse of notation.
OutOfHere 11mo ago
> If you had corrected what it read from the board, then gave it the context that he was a number theorist now working for a company trying to get AI to work through proofs It was just a quick and dirty chat. A proper evaluation will consider his published research to date.