4 ms·
Yeah, LLMs are great at generating negative results for math-related prompts "We scanned values {a,b,c} from 0-100 and no results" Great..too bad journals will
by paulpauper 2mo ago
Yeah, LLMs are great at generating negative results for math-related prompts "We scanned values {a,b,c} from 0-100 and no results" Great..too bad journals will not publish this. But good job, I guess. A negative result is only truly useful if it can be bounded, requiring an actual proof.
- delusional 2mo ago> A negative result is only truly useful if it can be bounded, requiring an actual proof. That's at least true for current journals, since they're supposed to be read by actual humans. I suppose one could imagine a sort of "AI" pure data journal that just "publishes" (in actuality aggregates) any sort of partial result. This body of knowledge would be entirely useless to humans, but could serve as a sort of "computation cache" for these stochastic systems.
- dandaka 2mo ago> would be entirely useless to humans why useless? humans can navigate these unsuccessful chains of thoughts to build on top of them or reject completely