The research community is in uproar after OpenAI released a trove of more than 700 mathematical preprints entirely generated by AI on 6 October. The San Francisco, California-based maker of ChatGPT posted the preprints on the software repository Github.

Although some mathematicians celebrated the solution of longstanding problems, others took to social media to complain about being scooped. Some were incensed at what one physicist called a ‘slopocalypse’, even if the mathematical content could end up being formally correct.

  • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    24·
    12 hours ago

    Throwing 700 papers out there is intentional to generate buzz, “hey look how great we are”, and to slow attempts at proving or disproving their results.

    The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, without regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper’s arguments at the expense of their quality.

    The term “Gish gallop” was coined in 1994 by the anthropologist Eugenie Scott, who named it after the creationist Duane Gish, described by Scott as the technique’s “most avid practitioner”.[1][2]

    • HubertManne@piefed.socialEnglish
      6·
      11 hours ago

      thanks because you know I have seen this with trump and the right in the us but did not think of it in terms of something recognized.

      • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        3·
        11 hours ago

        You’re more patient than I am; I tune that nonsense right out.

        But I bet if you isolated RW talking points, you’d find they’re not even proper arguments so much as emotional triggers. Like a common argument is “That’s socialism!” A good ghish gallop’s arguments at least have internal validity.

        • HubertManne@piefed.socialEnglish
          2·
          10 hours ago

          well what I mean is they will throw out things and when challenged or fact checked then go to a new thing. sometimes not new but proved false long enough ago that people forgot. but yeah a lot is poorly done to begin with but its using large amounts and going to a new one if its disproved and actually ignoring that they ever used it. Oh and then attacking fact checking places as being political for pointing out facts or yelling at news entities for doing it.