[seqfan] Re: Sequence from ChatGPT

[Neil Sloane]

Brendan,  That's hilarious!  I suppose one could write a shell script to
produce the sequence of numbers that ChatGPT of April 2, 2023, at 9:18pm
NY Time  gives the wrong factorization for.
Not Of General Interest, of course, just a curiosity.

Best regards
Neil

Neil J. A. Sloane, Chairman, OEIS Foundation.
Also Visiting Scientist, Math. Dept., Rutgers University,
Email: njasloane at gmail.com



On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 8:42 PM Brendan McKay via SeqFan <
seqfan at list.seqfan.eu> wrote:

> Q: what is 10007^4?
> ChatGPT:  10007^4 is equal to 10,028,741,430,768,001.  (WRONG)
>
> Q: what are the prime factors of 10028741430768001? ChatGPT:
> 10028741430768001 = 101 * 99041335663409. (WRONG) Moral: Don't even
> think about using ChatGPT to do arithmetic, let alone more complex
> mathematics. Brendan.
> On 3/4/2023 3:48 am, Alonso Del Arte wrote:
> > Proofreading might be a more productive use of ChatGPT here, e.g., "how
> > would you explain that numbers with property *P* also have property *Q*?"
> > Such a prompt might generate more useful content than asking it to come
> up
> > with an entire new entry from scratch.
> >
> > By the way, has anyone tried looking up something on the OEIS using a
> > mobile device rather than a desktop computer, e.g., a Samsung Galaxy S8+?
> > If you don't know how to fix that problem, ChatGPT might be able to help
> > you.
> >
> > Al
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 12:37 PM Arthur O'Dwyer<arthur.j.odwyer at gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 10:43 AM<israel at math.ubc.ca>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Out of curiosity, I asked ChatGPT:
> >>>
> >>> Write a new sequence for the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences
> >>>
> >>> The result was
> >>>
> >> [nonsense]
> >>
> >> Please don't submit machine-generated spam to OEIS. As I understand it,
> >> OEIS is supposed to be a mathematical resource. If it ends up full of
> >> machine-generated spam, it becomes useless.
> >> See also
> >>
> >>
> https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/421831/temporary-policy-chatgpt-is-banned
> >> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33891538
> >>
> >>
> >> The sequence of concatenations of Fibonacci
> >>> numbers and squares in both orders (not allowing leading 0's) is
> >>>
> >>> 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 29, 30, 31, 34, 39, 40, 41,
> >>> 42,
> >>> 43, 45, 48, 50, 51, 54, 59, 80, 81, 84, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 98,
> 113,
> >>> 116, 121, 125, 130, 131, 134, 136, 139, 149, 155, 160, 161, 162, 163,
> >> 164,
> >>> 165, 168, 181, 189, 210, 211, 214, 216, 219, 225, 236, 249, 250, 251,
> >> 252,
> >>> 253, 255, 258, ...
> >>>
> >>> which doesn't seem to be in OEIS, and I think I'll contribute it.
> >> Why? Is there anything noteworthy about this sequence?
> >> "Computer <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_says_no
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_says_no  submit it" is not
> >> noteworthy. Computer says lots of things.
> >>
> >> I think it's particularly un-mathematically-interesting because
> >> "concatenation" is nothing but an artifact of base-10 notation. If you
> >> think there's something special about concatenating Xs and Ys in base
> 10,
> >> why not also in base 8, or base 3, or base 37?  And why squares but not
> >> cubes, Fibonacci numbers but not strings of 1s,...
> >>
> >> –Arthur
> >>
> >> --
> >> Seqfan Mailing list -http://list.seqfan.eu/
> >>
>
> --
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>