GeorgimusPrime

Same but with math: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feeling_of_Power

Read here (PDF): https://archive.org/download/TheFeelingOfPower/The Feeling of Power.pdf

Some people don’t get that this could mean aborting an early first pregnancy might have left the person better able financially to have more children later in life. Not recovering from the first pregnancy could be what led to subsequent ones being aborted.

Yes let’s be judgy about the personal choices of people we don’t know.

Living yes, person no.

100%. Most “pro-lifers” would be okay with kicking someone out of your house even if it means they would die. Not to mention your own body.

“Kessler” bullets, amirite?

But does it need //deflectors?

And there I was thinking it was h_t p_ss on those slanting wall deflectors.

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine_deflector

I know that’s not how it’s supposed to happen. But the Github repository is getting attention and review, like this: https://kingy.ai/blog/openai-math-722-manuscripts-results-proofs-compute-costs/

I still don’t get if you’re still trying to excuse something bad and getting worse due to AI by saying it was always happening. I have acknowledged that it was happening.

Being published on Github makes it not as bad, though it seems the intent is for the peer review to happen there. I also don’t think I need to point out the harm in forcing people to publish before they are ready by stealing their work.

In at least some cases, the mathematicians shared their work with OpenAI researchers asking to collaborate. I’ll accept your acknowledgment that it’s bad and ignore the irrelevant dig about being shocked.

You still seem to missing a lot of the story. Open AI published several hundred articles in scientific journals claiming to solve maths problems. At my last count they had retracted 3.

If you would like to downplay the scale of theft and unethical behaviour enabled and perpetrated by OpenAI by calling the scientists naive or saying it’s acceptable because it happens, that’s your right. Perhaps you could just say what would convince you that something bad and dangerous for human scientific progress is happening.

Unfortunately the proof found by the LLM combines work by different teams of mathematicians that cannot individually be published as proofs. It’s the equivalent of a scoop in investigation journalism by someone who was spying on journalists instead of doing any investigating. It’s on lemmy/wired: https://lemmy.world/post/52843754

It’s good that some do cite sources, however one major problem with generative AI is that it can produce volumes of output much faster than they can be verified. “You can always cross-check” is not viable at scale, and by the time LLM output gets cited, it becomes a quagmire potentially unlimited levels deep.

LLM output should never be treated as original until they can show their work transparently.

“Intellectual property” is mostly a capitalist idea. To give a direct example of the harm caused by LLMs using others’ work without attribution or credit, there is the recent case in which one of the models was being portrayed as finding a mathematical proof which was actually in it’s training data. The original authors will not get the credit, academic support, exposure and funding they would have gotten otherwise.

Also, even if information is not “owned”, it’s epistemology and source are an important part of it. Consumption by LLMs degrades the information by removing such metadata, and even worse hallucinating sources.