> Your argument is that advanced mathematics, that did not solve navier stones
Do you think playing dumb is making you look credible or something? The argument isn't "was maths in the dataset" the controversy was if someone with potentially working approaches narrowed the search space enough for the LLM not to fail
> And you think it butresses the argument that the llms can’t do _coding_ tasks they haven’t seen before?
This isn't an argument being made. At least try to respond to what's actually written rather than making yourself look foolish and trying to wordplay your way to a point.
Do you think playing dumb is making you look credible or something? The argument isn't "was maths in the dataset" the controversy was if someone with potentially working approaches narrowed the search space enough for the LLM not to fail
> And you think it butresses the argument that the llms can’t do _coding_ tasks they haven’t seen before?
This isn't an argument being made. At least try to respond to what's actually written rather than making yourself look foolish and trying to wordplay your way to a point.