|
| ▲ | moregrist an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| They only withdrew it after someone pointed out that it was a flawed paper. In one case by asking Astra to review it. Not exactly encouraging that they did their homework before publishing results. |
| |
| ▲ | crimsoneer 38 minutes ago | parent [-] | | This is how science is meant to work. | | |
| ▲ | moregrist 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Most good scientists work hard to prove results to themselves before going public. Peer review is then done _in private_ before publication as a check on quality and significance. Retracting a paper is pretty embarrassing. And not considered science as usual. | | | |
| ▲ | dwattttt 33 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes. A researcher who achieves a reputation of making mistakes carries that reputation. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jansport123 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| it's like if you vibe coded something and the onus is now on the reviewer and the reviewer tells you your work contains bugs and is messy - that is not acceptable from the reviewers pov - why should the reviewer spend all his human effort, a scarce resource, reviewing your code while you've spent barely a fraction of his effort generating this. OpenAI is a trillion dollar company, surely they can verify stuff before pushing it out? The problem is not that they are solving the problems, they don't care at all about the actual process of doing mathematics. Using compute to mine problems and throwing results in github and letting human reviewers spend effort to correct these is not going to win them any favor. If OpenAI really cared about math, they would have someone on their side who actually understood the results they produced and was able to verify their correctness and educate others. |
|
| ▲ | spider-mario 43 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Withdrawing it, in itself, might not be, but it kind of skips over the part where they have a paper that warrants it in the first place. |
