klhs

I see, that's good to hear!

>Like most writers, I find writing an almost-essential tool for thinking. Often it's only by writing something down, that I can really get my thoughts on a topic into coherence. I've often started an essay knowing I don't really understand something, but the act of wrestling with the words forces me to overcome my confusions. As more people delegate writing to LLMs they will also delegate thinking and comprehension to LLMs.

A very important point, which was also made more forcefully in "Human Routers of Machine Words" by Fernando Borretti, shared on this site previously. It's good that Fowler brings up a very legitimate use case in the next paragraph, though.

My previous question does not indicate more belief than that it might be true, so I can't answer you there. Should I adopt the belief any information put into words by an LLM is wrong? I don't think it would do me any good. I wish people would stop giving over their writing (or other things) completely to LLMs too, but I can't make them.

True, I should have written they misclassified it, should it work as advertised. If Google knows something that makes it not an issue, hopefully they'll let us know.

Good point, I don't know! That's why I formulated it this way. Edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is, with security relevant things it might do no harm to be a bit more credulous when it comes to initial reports. (In theory, no idea how to best handle the growing flood of LLM generated stuff. Pointing LLMs at each other doesn't seem great.)

That's unfortunate. They need to do some kind of triage then, I hope this doesn't mean that they're constantly busy now with equally bad or worse bugs, but I guess it wouldn't be too surprising.

How could they possibly give this a "won't fix" if it can do what is reported here?

University of Vienna also took a lot offline. Seems it's getting patched fast now, though.

Edit: Or maybe not? At least one service on their IT-department's list seems to be working again. :-)

This analogy is only valid if you're confident that parents would not say meaning is vaporized if you turned their 8-year-olds into 18-year-olds overnight, and there was reason to believe this would frequently happen to families in the future, probability increasing. The exact problem is that the situation in mathematics is not akin to "finally moving out" but instead to "immediately moving out". I imagine few people would be OK with it.

Also I find the suggestion that the people unhappy with the AI-in-mathematics situation are psychologically unwell to be presumptuous, to put it mildly.