[seqfan] Re: Sequence from ChatGPT

[W. Edwin Clark]

It is easy to make fun of ChatGPT.  But just you wait.
See, for example: "GPT-4 can improve itself"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SgJKZLBrmg
And recall what I. J. Good said in 1965.

On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 9:32 PM Antti Karttunen <antti.karttunen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/
> >
>
> --
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>