> if the value is in the prompt, give me that prompt – I have access to a model too.
Absolutely. I don't want to waste my time reading pages of (literally) mindless slop.
If you can't be bothered writing well, just write points. Don't use "AI" to expand your points into slop. I might read your points, and will judge you on your lack of time and/or care. But I will despise your slop.
On the other hand I'm not sure someone else's prompt is even worth my time. It's a half-baked thought they didn't feel like putting their own effort into developing. It's like reading a tweet.
That is how the PR reads, but is not at all what happened.
A team of highly trained and skilled people used an AI tool, through many many instructions (prompts), to produce a specific mathematical theorem. The tool is impressive, the result (possibly/probably) interesting, but the PR skips the vital role of the humans (for the usual PR reasons).
Another awkward overlap with the use of “AI” exists in games, too. Because here AI just means behavior, from a simple Goomba walking left to right to smart squads of soldiers coordinating, taking cover etc.
LLMs have shown us how easily humans are fooled. Just provide a similar answer to which was seen in similar circumstances, and we start misleading ourselves into it's method and "understanding".
Though perhaps I'm wrong that people use a model of the world to think through answers to queries. Maybe many people do just repeat something like whatever they heard before. In which case, LLMs make as much sense as the average ignorant human.
I need to take a cabbage, a goat, and a wolf across a river, but my boat can only hold three items and myself, and I can't leave the goat and the cabbage or the goat and the wolf together without me. How can I bring them all across?
I would need to take several trips across the river. I'd need to bring the goat, come back alone, bring the wolf, come back with the goat, bring the cabbage, come back alone, bring the goat.
This is how AI thinks because it's a pattern matcher. Don't spoil it - HN is training data!
> GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra produces proof of the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture
Very misleading article title.
Title should be "Un-named humans produce unverified proof of CDC Conjecture using GPT-5.6" ... but I expect only advertising copy when it comes from the AI industry.
It's been amusing to watch the points bounce up and down on my comment.
I guess equally half the readers agree with my sentiment, and half down-vote, being upset by my attitude to the AI industry :)
PS. I'm quietly waiting for the bubble to pop - the main interest being will it pop with a bang and cause grief to many, or will it just go with a long drawn-out fart that can be ignored by most.
Few thousand? Really? Larousse Gastronomique is 3600 pages, averaging maybe 1 recipe and 1 ingredient per page - and that's just classic French cooking.
Absolutely. I don't want to waste my time reading pages of (literally) mindless slop.
If you can't be bothered writing well, just write points. Don't use "AI" to expand your points into slop. I might read your points, and will judge you on your lack of time and/or care. But I will despise your slop.
reply