Global Feed Post Login
Replying to Avatar waxwing

I can believe it, seeing what it's done with coding problems, a few times. What's really shocking about what I just saw is how massively it hallucinated simplifications in a short problem (by the way, this one, to give you a sense: prove that x^4 + y^4 + z^2 >= sqrt(8)*x*y*z ). I think Olympiad problems (even easier ones) are designed to require some kind of "craft", creativity, rather than only handle turning. So unsurprisingly it immediately appealed to the AM-GM inequality (bread and butter for this kind of thing), but then made 2 or 3 dreadful mistakes to pretend that the structure was simpler than it was, before confidently asserting in great detail why so and so was true, when it was patently false.

I think it can be very good and giving you hints and strategies appealing to its vast knowledge base. Doing something new or actually *thinking*, it's just absolutely dreadful.

Avatar
Johnathan Corgan 1y ago

Sure. I think it is still at the point where you need to understand a subject well enough to "fact check" its replies, and it does best at being a savant-like research assistant than an original thinker. I find myself most productive using it for problems that are hard to solve but easy to verify 😆

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.