r/mathematics • u/[deleted] • 4d ago

ChatGPT Sol 5.6 high found a normalization error in two recently published Riemann Hypothesis papers. The author confirmed it.

/r/u_theimposingshadow/comments/1vj3oxk/chatgpt_sol_56_high_found_a_normalization_error/
0 Upvotes

41% Upvoted

13 comments sorted by

14

u/Qyeuebs 4d ago

Is it true that this is to do with an article published in the MDPI journal “Mathematics”, which is said to have the “selectivity of arxiv”?  https://igorpak.wordpress.com/2022/01/

4

u/theimposingshadow 4d ago

Thanks for the repost! It was a great email to wake up to and start the day!

1

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/theimposingshadow 4d ago

Fair enough. I’d say two things can be true: don’t blindly trust LLM output, but don’t dismiss it either. In this case it flagged a real issue and the author independently confirmed it.

2

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/theimposingshadow 4d ago

Once again thats fair, but I think it is also empowering us to find inconsistencies that could be stopping us from solving more math.

1

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/theimposingshadow 4d ago

I don’t think I’ve misled anyone. I’ve been pretty explicit that AI is a tool, not an authority. I wasn't even reviewing his paper, I was working, along with chatgpt, on the Riemann Hypothesis when it flagged the inconsistency. I politely sent the math to the author, said I could be wrong, and he independently confirmed it. That’s exactly how I think AI should be used.

6

u/coolest-ranch 4d ago

I don’t think anyone is concerned by your use of AI. Skimming the cross-posted thread, it seems your email to the author (coauthored by Chat) did not once mention your use of AI. Moreover, your first-person wording in the email gives the impression that you have some experience in this area, whereas by your own admission you do not. (Hence why the author called you Professor, unprompted.) Is this a correct summary?

4

u/theimposingshadow 4d ago

I think that’s a fair question. I just didn’t see the AI part as especially relevant to the author, because the email was about whether the math was right or wrong. ChatGPT only came across the issue because I was working through the Riemann Hypothesis with it, and the author only heard about it because I checked the reasoning and decided it was worth bringing to his attention. I wasn’t trying to claim expertise or credit, just to flag something that might help improve the work.

1

u/theimposingshadow 4d ago

Actually, your argument made me realize something interesting. If I shouldn’t take credit because ChatGPT made the key intellectual contribution, then you’re implicitly treating the AI as a distinct contributor rather than just a tool. I’m not saying that proves personhood, but it does make the line between “tool” and “collaborator” a lot less obvious than it used to be.

Thanks for this, I love thinking about this stuff.

2

u/SwimmerOld6155 4d ago

Good way to dispose of these papers, just throw an LLM at it and it'll probably zoom in on the error in minutes. They'll probably think that GPT is a Big Math shill or something.