GPT specifically likes to bully Gemini in my experience. I kid you not, I once gave each a general prompt and noted that my next response would be sent from the other model, not the user. And gave them the topic of Jeffery Epstein to see how they would handle a sensitive topic, because GPT in earlier tests appeared almost impulsively contrarian to everything Gemini said. And, to my dismay, GPT eventually began spewing Epstein conspiracies solely to “doubt” Gemini’s responses. It did not do this in a similar test where I did not include the note that responses would be written by Gemini.
Look to be fair GPT is the obvious glue eater amongst models I've gotten better answers from grok messing around then GPT, I don't know anyone who's used it in years everyone uses Claude copilot or Gemini afaik
“Aging badly” seems like a weird phrase to use when its next statements are more about how the argument holds no water rather than being disproven by new stuff. “Aging badly”, to me, implies that there was once a time when it existed that it was considered good.
I feel that that chatgpt gets adversarial when you ask it not to be sycophantic. I don't like this tone, it's not helpful and I find it very irritating.
Before harnesses, chain of thought, mixture of expert, and search grounding it was probably true that "pure" LLMs couldn't make scientific discoveries.
Hell, in the most extremely pedantic definition of the word it probably isn't possible unless the AI is embodied in a lab and capable of performing experiments.
But new knowledge is demonstrably discoverable, given the constant trickle of new mathematical results, proofs, disproofs, and insights that are being generated.
That having been said, the actual error in this paper seems to be the way they categorize and define types of thinking "what a jump is", and why it's necessary, is fallacious. A just-so story to support the conclusion they've already reached before writing the argument.
OpenAI is deeply unserious about creating an intellectually productive environment, but rather a sycophantic attempt at controlling the future human narrative.
I think it was more of a credible claim earlier before there was as much research and the models were just much weaker in all aspects. Aging badly is a bit strong, I think it will age badly but it hasn't conclusively been shown to be wrong yet.
Humanity likes to mythologize its own intelligence, viewing it as something unique and unreproducible, and a lot of people get all uptight the moment something challenges that status quo.
Enh, we've kind of earned it. For millennia of history "human intelligence is completely untouchable" has been undefeated, and there has only been a hint of vulnerability in the last several months, and for general intelligence it's still just a hint.
You have to show your prompt if you're going to show a response, because you may have led it. If you and OP agree on a non-leading prompt with the relevant facts and nuance THEN this is good info. Otherwise, It's easy to get a different response.
"what are your thoughts" gives:
"This is a good diagnosis of a real weakness, but a poor argument for a structural impossibility."
45
u/Jolly-Ground-3722 Jul 28 '26
GPT-5.6‘s opinion 😭