When tested with a classic psychological assessment, advanced AI models experienced a total breakdown in focus. A new PNAS Nexus study suggests these systems lack the human-like executive control necessary to override automatic responses and maintain complex goals.
I don’t know what you mean, I wasn’t the one who claimed they couldn’t do something they clearly can.
You are the one collapsing tool use into a binary when there are varying degrees of competency and hand holding.
I am not, you inaccurately said that the math olympiad was not bested by llm’s because they had a tool that told them if they were close but incorrect and can just try an infinite number of times. This is incorrect, they had a number of tries with python. This just isn’t a true statement. I think them besting it with use of python is equally significant and still counts as them besting it, and saying they can’t do math work is absurd.
It’s not “bested” by the LLM though, a mathematician used the LLM as a tool to disprove a conjecture. Subtract the mathematicians from the process and the LLM would not have successfully completed the task. It would be more accurate to say a mathematician with an LLM was able to best a mathematician who did not have an LLM. Which is cool, but we don’t need to pretend the LLM is not a tool but something that “understands” math like a mathematician
You’re confusing the olympiad with the erdos conjecture. This is just really not true, they just asked it and it found a solution, the mathmatician then used its solution as inspiration to create a better one. It still essentially did it on its own, and they certainly do the olympiad on their own.
The description that the LLM did it on its own is subjective at best. I’ll just leave it at that. Have a good one
I don’t see how it’s subjective.