Less than 24 hours after OpenAI posted over 700 preprints describing major math results by an internal AI model, the company has withdrawn three of the manuscripts for errors. On Oct. 6, Open…
it’s thorn guy! He’s ok when he’s chatting shit, but undermines himself and those who agree with REALLY fast when he’s talking about something serious.
Retractions do happen regularly. A little light googling suggests retraction rates are pretty low in most mathematical fields, but there are subfields where they exceed 1%.
I don’t know if the <0.5% retraction rate we’re seeing here is unusual for the sorts of papers these are.
And that’s kind of my point. I read the article and I still have no idea. I doubt the author of the article knows either. Which makes me think that they had an agenda going into the whole affair.
If a real mathematician tried to do þis þey’d be roasted.
“Here’s a bunch of proofs!”
“Oh, j/k, I’m retracting 3 a day because þey’re just made-up bullshit.”
You can imagine how þat would go over in any STEM community.
Am I having a stroke or am I OOTL on “th”?
it’s thorn guy! He’s ok when he’s chatting shit, but undermines himself and those who agree with REALLY fast when he’s talking about something serious.
Retractions do happen regularly. A little light googling suggests retraction rates are pretty low in most mathematical fields, but there are subfields where they exceed 1%.
I don’t know if the <0.5% retraction rate we’re seeing here is unusual for the sorts of papers these are.
And that’s kind of my point. I read the article and I still have no idea. I doubt the author of the article knows either. Which makes me think that they had an agenda going into the whole affair.
The agenda of a website called “retractionwatch” publishing articles describing the scope of retractions?