you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 3 weeks ago (15 children)

There are definitely issues with what OpenAI is doing. I'm the last to defend them.

That said, a small correction rate after uploading a bunch of preprints just doesn't seem like news. An article that headlines with that, but doesn't even bother to tell us what the normal rate of corrections and withdrawals is for humans really feels like propaganda to me.

I would really like to live in a world where we don't reward this sort of "journalism" with attention.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 weeks ago (12 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Sure, ok. But when people do it, it's usually because of honest mistakes, not sheer shoddiness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (7 replies)