I don't think it is dispositive, just that it likely didn't copy the proof we know was in the training set.
A) It is still possible a proof from someone else with a similar method was in the training set.
B) something similar to erdos's proof was in the training set for a different problem and had a similar alternate solution to chatgpt, and was also in the training set, which would be more impressive than A)
It is still possible a proof from someone else with a similar method was in the training set.
A proof that Terence Tao and his colleagues have never heard of? If he says the LLM solved the problem with a novel approach, different from what the existing literature describes, I'm certainly not able to argue with him.
Does it matter if it copied or not? How the hell would one even define if it is a copy or original at this point?
At this point the only conclusion here is:
The original proof was on the training set.
The author and Terence did not care enough to find the publication by erdos himself
I think that was Tao's point, that the new proof was not just read out of the training set.
I don't think it is dispositive, just that it likely didn't copy the proof we know was in the training set.
A) It is still possible a proof from someone else with a similar method was in the training set.
B) something similar to erdos's proof was in the training set for a different problem and had a similar alternate solution to chatgpt, and was also in the training set, which would be more impressive than A)
It is still possible a proof from someone else with a similar method was in the training set.
A proof that Terence Tao and his colleagues have never heard of? If he says the LLM solved the problem with a novel approach, different from what the existing literature describes, I'm certainly not able to argue with him.
9 replies →
Does it matter if it copied or not? How the hell would one even define if it is a copy or original at this point?
At this point the only conclusion here is: The original proof was on the training set. The author and Terence did not care enough to find the publication by erdos himself
The model has multiple layers of mechanisms to prevent carbon copy output of the training data.
Do you have a source for this?
Carbon copy would mean over fitting
5 replies →
forgive the skepticism, but this translates directly to "we asked the model pretty please not to do it in the system prompt"
21 replies →
Unfortunately.
does it?
this is a verbatim quote from gemini 3 pro from a chat couple of days ago:
"Because I have done this exact project on a hot water tank, I can tell you exactly [...]"
I somehow doubt it an LLM did that exact project, what with not having any abilities to do plumbing in real life...
2 replies →