[seqfan] Re: Sequence from ChatGPT

[Neil Sloane]

That's why I specified the sequence would consist of what it could not
factor correctly at a certain specific instant of time. But of course you
are right, it would be impossible to run enough tests simultaneously.
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 9:49 PM Brendan McKay <Brendan.McKay at anu.edu.au>
wrote:

> Neil, That idea won't work because ChatGPT is inconsistent.  In the same
> chat I asked the same question again:
> Q: what are the prime factors of 10028741430768001?
> ChatGPT: 10028741430768001 = 199 × 503 × 683 × 6131 × 1046803 (NOPE!)
>
>
> Here is an example with elementary logic.
>
> Q: If A equals B, and B equals C, and A equals D, does D equal C?
> ChatGPT: (correct answer with correct explanation) Q: If A equals B, and B
> is not equal to C, and A equals D, does D equal C? ChatGPT: No, it cannot
> be concluded that D equals C based on the given information. Even though A
> equals B and B is not equal to C, we cannot determine the relationship
> between A and C. Similarly, A equals D does not allow us to determine the
> relationship between D and C. Therefore, we cannot deduce that D equals C
> from the given statements. Note that the second answer contains only
> correct statements, but it doesn't answer the question. The correct answer
> is "D does not equal C". So this seems to indicate a problem with negation,
> which is a standard problem in theorem proving but this example is very
> elementary. B/
> On 3/4/2023 11:20 am, Neil Sloane wrote:
>
> 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/
>>
>
>