3 ms·
Are they the authors of the “informal note” or not? I’ve never seen a math paper of any formality written without the authors’ names on it before.
by briansmith 2mo ago
Are they the authors of the “informal note” or not?
I’ve never seen a math paper of any formality written without the authors’ names on it before.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- fph 2mo agoAnthropic seems to be challenging the traditional way math gets published. As far as I understand, these results did not get submitted to journals, and did not get Arxiv preprints; they are released only as self-hosted pdfs, and we don't even know the names of their authors. The canonical reference for the counterexample to the Jacobian conjecture is a tweet with no puntuations nor capitals.
- wbl 2mo agoI've cited letters from Serre to Tate in my dissertation: this is the source for what's known as Faltings-Serre.
- jsnell 2mo agoAs far as I can tell, Arxiv does not allow an AI to be listed as the author, so publishing there would not have been an option. https://blog.arxiv.org/2023/01/31/arxiv-announces-new-policy-on-chatgpt-and-similar-tools/ https://blog.arxiv.org/2023/01/31/arxiv-announces-new-policy...
- fph 2mo agoThe current consensus in mathematical publishing is that LLMs are tools, so they don't get listed among the authors. But nothing would have prevented them from posting these preprints on Arxiv, with the human prompters as authors and the LLM's contribution acknowledged in the text.
- famouswaffles 2mo agoOne of the 2 names on here says they aren't being listed as an author on the paper because their contributions don't meet the standards of authorship. People can call LLMs 'tools' or whatever they want but if you had essentially nothing to do with the breakthrough, you're not an author.