2026-10-09 14:48 UTC
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.
Replies (2)
-
@Sxan@piefed.zip 2026-10-09 16:34
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.
-
@badabim@lemmy.world 2026-10-10 07:45
700+ preprints is a lot and takes time to be ingested, especially when the text is generated. For example, Communication in Mathematics had less than a hundred submissions in 2025 and accepted a fourth of them. So, the small correction rate might be due to the bottleneck at the verification stage, which OpenAI should have done in the first place, rather than throwing everything at mathematicians and expecting them to do the ungratifying work whilst they reap the fame.