durdanovic > 5 hours ago
tavie > 4 hours ago
asteckley > 4 hours ago
durdanovic > 4 hours ago
(4 hours ago)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How did you use AI in producing these two papers? We have a prohibition on theories and papers that were assisted by LLM chatbots like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude because their current models are invariably producing AI slop when used for anything more than pure translation.
A lot in your papers is going over my head to be fair...but I'm concerned from reading the conclusions in particular that this is AI slop.
asteckley > 2 hours ago
(4 hours ago)durdanovic Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(4 hours ago)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How did you use AI in producing these two papers? We have a prohibition on theories and papers that were assisted by LLM chatbots like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude because their current models are invariably producing AI slop when used for anything more than pure translation.
A lot in your papers is going over my head to be fair...but I'm concerned from reading the conclusions in particular that this is AI slop.
I let the paper(s) speak for themselves, if the math is over your head,that is not my problem.
durdanovic > 1 hour ago
(2 hours ago)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(4 hours ago)durdanovic Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(4 hours ago)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How did you use AI in producing these two papers? We have a prohibition on theories and papers that were assisted by LLM chatbots like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude because their current models are invariably producing AI slop when used for anything more than pure translation.
A lot in your papers is going over my head to be fair...but I'm concerned from reading the conclusions in particular that this is AI slop.
I let the paper(s) speak for themselves, if the math is over your head,that is not my problem.
You know damn-well that the math is not over her head -- the math is nonsense just like the rest of the paper.
You do not understand it yourself. You cannot explain it in your own words, you cannot walk anyone through its pseudo-logic, and you cannot defend it as legitimate research. Yet you still publish it and present it as if it were the result of your own effort, expecting people to give you credit for something you neither produced nor understand. Anyone who behaves that way has serious mental and emotional problems and needs to get help.
Your only response is a snide pathetic remark to a legitimate question that was put to you.
pjburkshire > 1 hour ago
(1 hour ago)durdanovic Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Koen G > 1 hour ago
Koen G > 1 hour ago