AI can speed up a lot of the manual labour needed to bring even an almost dead, 10-year-old device back to life. My Xiaomi Mi Max 2 (oxygen, MSM8953) was dead. With AI help and my own knowledge, I ported/rewrote the missing drivers, and it now runs Nura (postmarketOS) with working camera, torch, SIM, phone calls and SMS. Only the loudspeaker is still broken.
Everything is up for anyone who wants to install it, or to understand the changes and manually write the patches for mainline: https://github.com/sv1sjp/mi-max2-oxygen-msm8953-nura-drivers Testing, feedback and PRs welcome.
Unfortunately the proof found by the LLM combines work by different teams of mathematicians that cannot individually be published as proofs. It’s the equivalent of a scoop in investigation journalism by someone who was spying on journalists instead of doing any investigating. It’s on lemmy/wired: https://lemmy.world/post/52843754
It’s good that some do cite sources, however one major problem with generative AI is that it can produce volumes of output much faster than they can be verified. “You can always cross-check” is not viable at scale, and by the time LLM output gets cited, it becomes a quagmire potentially unlimited levels deep.
LLM output should never be treated as original until they can show their work transparently.
From what I understood from that article, OpenAI scooped the work of a couple of mathematicians (one an OpenAI employee, and both using OpenAI’s tools) and claimed it as their own. Stealing others’ work is not commonplace in science, but it does happen. The lesson here is to not trust OpenAI / Anthropic with your data or ideas, and to use local AI or at least less shady services. Also, the mathematicians will still get credit if they publish the findings first in a scientific journal, arXiv or conference - blogs and press releases sadly don’t count in academia.
You still seem to missing a lot of the story. Open AI published several hundred articles in scientific journals claiming to solve maths problems. At my last count they had retracted 3.
If you would like to downplay the scale of theft and unethical behaviour enabled and perpetrated by OpenAI by calling the scientists naive or saying it’s acceptable because it happens, that’s your right. Perhaps you could just say what would convince you that something bad and dangerous for human scientific progress is happening.
No, they published them on GitHub. Meaning they aren’t peer-reviewed. In the current scientific system, peer review is almost always necessary for your work to be taken seriously. If the original authors can get their work published first, they still get precedence. Plus, there have been a number of cases where X discovers and publishes something, Y rediscovers and publishes it a few years later, and Y gets the credit for whatever reason (usually racism or money).
The scientists were naive to hand over their ideas to a shady closed-source model. I don’t think what OpenAI did is acceptable, but it is something that already happens without any LLM involvement, so I’m just not as shocked as you are.