So it's a garbage headline, from an AI vendor, trying to increase hype and froth around what they are selling, when in fact the "new result" has been a solved problem for almost 40 years? Am I getting that right?

▲

kbelder an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Be careful, in the strength of your passions, that you don't become a stochastic word generator yourself.

▲

singpolyma3 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

▲

throwuxiytayq 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

you’re not, and you might have a slight reading comprehension problem

▲

jrflowers 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Surely you can explain it yourself, then? A person such as yourself with normal reading comprehension would be able to analyze and synthesize this on your own, without asking an LLM for help, no?

	▲	refulgentis an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I feel for you because you kinda got baited into this by the language in the first couple comments. But whatever’s going on in your comment is so emotional that it’s hard to tell what you’re asking for that you haven’t been able to read already, tl;dr proof stuck at n=4 for years is now for arbitrary n