viraptor an hour ago | parent | next [-]

So someone ran a different LLM to find an issue they'd find anyway during formalisation? That's not the same as relying on thriving community.

▲

oliculipolicula an hour ago | parent [-]

The bigger question is why there was internal pressure to rush such a historic launch without having someone in the company, anyone, check the proofs first.

This concerns the Hodge conjecture (millennium prize related) paper. Seems to me like PhD nerds weren't confident bosses pushed ahead anyway.

▲

kolinko 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

My assumption is that they checked the proofs vigurously, but now a way broader community is taking a look with professionals from the relevant subfields, and different agent setups / models.

▲

yorwba 24 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

What makes you think that nobody checked the proofs first? It's not like someone checking it once without spotting any mistakes means that nobody else will find any mistakes either.

	▲	oliculipolicula 2 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Tweeter checked it with Astra. It seems like OAI could have pointed their own instance at it before launch. Because the source of the tip is likely someone at OAI, my guess is that they actually did check. But after the launch.
	▲	idiotsecant 5 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Because people are finding errors using other LLMs. This implies that if they spent a miniscule fraction of the enormous pile of money they spend making this pile of slop they'd find the errors. They didn't want to find errors. They want to build hype for an IPO.

▲

afavour an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

That’s not proof though is it? If the original LLM output is fallible surely the LLM review of that output is also very much fallible?

	▲	kolinko a minute ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Output of LLM can be infallible* even if LLMs themselves make mistakes. Ditto with humans. As much as anything can be infallible.
	▲	rsfern 36 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Proof of what? There is a sign error in one of the proofs, OpenAI acknowledged it and withdrew three papers (two relied on the result). I agree LLM review is also fallible (as is human review) but the interesting part to me is that finding this sign error before publication should have been table stakes for OpenAI, it’s their own model that found the sign error. I’m curious what was in the original prompt and what was in the prompt that led to finding the sign error, I think it matters a lot for understanding the dynamics here