It's a new conjecture, all right. But it's clearly false.
Consider n=4. Then p=5, q=3, k=1. But 5+1 and 3+1 are not primes.
All you number theorists out there, I think your jobs are safe for the time being.
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Machine Learning
1 readers
1 users here now
Community Rules:
- Be nice. No offensive behavior, insults or attacks: we encourage a diverse community in which members feel safe and have a voice.
- Make your post clear and comprehensive: posts that lack insight or effort will be removed. (ex: questions which are easily googled)
- Beginner or career related questions go elsewhere. This community is focused in discussion of research and new projects that advance the state-of-the-art.
- Limit self-promotion. Comments and posts should be first and foremost about topics of interest to ML observers and practitioners. Limited self-promotion is tolerated, but the sub is not here as merely a source for free advertisement. Such posts will be removed at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't know. A bit more than a year ago GPT2 was somewhere in a lab trying to learn how to tie shoelaces.
You couldn't have chosen a worst example than tying shoes to illustrate your point
Fair enough. The point still holds though. At least from the outside it seems things are fast and just accelerating.
It's not saying its proof is true though, it just posed a conjecture. Proving it would be a whole different ballgame.
Yeah, what is it surprise you that it can literally make something up that looks compelling. That’s all that happened here. This is far from the most interesting thing GPT can do.
This post made me finally unsub, it's insufferable
Some are trying to revive the spirit of r/machinelearning in r/learningmachines .
Thank you for link, subbed