Re: [TYPES] AI-generated conference submissions
Hendrik Boom <hendrik-e9JHxFxFq/[email protected]> Fri, 20 Mar 2026 11:55:33 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.science.types |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
[ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ] On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 09:38:53AM +0100, Gavin Mendel-Gleason wrote: > I'm frankly amazed that anyone can hold such a position at the present > moment. > > I would strongly recommend using an LLM to perform proof search. This is > not an eliza. They are effective at devising lemmata and can radically > increase the rate of development. That is very different from trusting the LLM output. LLMs are very good at producing plausible-looking output with subtle flaws. This produces the appearance of progress. I would not trust an LLM-generated proof unless it has been vetted by a formal proof-checker like coq or Lean. -- hendrik > > Gavin > > On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 at 22:22, Hendrik Boom <hendrik-e9JHxFxFq/[email protected]> wrote: > > > [ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list > > ] > > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 05:46:39PM -0700, Michael Shulman wrote: > > > [ The Types Forum, > > http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ] > > > > > > I think in Jon's phrase "something that you knowingly haven't > > understood", > > > the word "you" refers to all the authors of the paper. They may not > > > individually understand all parts of the paper, but as long as at least > > one > > > of them understands each part, they can assert that collectively they > > > understand it. An AI is qualitatively different because it cannot take > > > responsibility, hence cannot be a co-author. > > > > > > It may be easy for students to fall into the trap of thinking that the AI > > > "understands" what it told them and therefore they don't have to. That > > > doesn't make it okay; it means they need to be educated, gently and > > firmly. > > > > Ever since the Eliza program, AIs have been designed to project the > > illusion of understanding. There have been decades of development > > to this end. It's not surprising that students fall for it. x> > > > -- hendrik > >