A lab mate shared this write up of Don Knuth using LLMs to solve a math problem: https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/papers/claude-cycles.pdf
It's clear that using Claude did help them arrive at some new understanding here, which is wonderful. I'm happy for them.
However, I'm upset by how much they personify Claude and attribute the solution to "him."
From this narrative, it's clear that the humans were very actively involved from beginning to end. Claude was a helpful tool, but it did not solve this problem on its own. What role did it actually play? How was it like or unlike a human collaborator on this problem?
It did generate a crucial insight, but where did that come from? Was it plagiarized from some unknown source? Did it "just emerge" from text completion and interpolation in latent space? Do we need some other explanation for Claude's apparent creativity?
These folks don't care. They just wanted a solution, which they attribute to Claude, and leave it at that. I think that's a serious problem.
#llm #ai #science #math