[seqfan] Re: Sequence from ChatGPT

[Antti Karttunen]

On 4/2/23, Alonso Del Arte <alonso.delarte at gmail.com> 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*?"

Yes indeed. But unfortunately, it is very clumsy even with a simple
modular arithmetic

https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7094#comment-1947593

https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7094#comment-1947689

so, for now, just expect it to hallucinate more, like when it told me
that Erich Fromm wrote a book called "Anal Tyranny", or that "It never
lies (because computer programs cannot)", and in the next reply
admitting that it was just an April Fool's joke.


Best regards,

Antti


> 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>said
>> <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/
>>
>
>
> --
> Alonso del Arte
>
> --
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>