So, just like humans then?

But where they do differ is they do have an infinite stamina, and can work on problems in loops, self-correcting their own mistakes if a formal way of checking the correctness of the solution exists. Which does happen to be the case with math.

Humans can be wrong, but luckily we have an entire process for dealing with this, which is broadly called this new fangled 'science' thing

> but luckily we have an entire process for dealing with this

and why does this "peer-review" new-age thing cannot be used to scrutinize AI-writted/AI-assisted papers?

a) because the AI is not able to write papers in a manner digestible by humans? b) perhaps because AI generates papers whose complexity is beyond what a human brain can grasp?

Aaaa, you mean 'peer-review' by AI?

Then the answer is: What is the use of a paper no human understands? Then no human can see that the techniques from the paper can be used to build something useful for real human life.

OK, ok, AI can decide to use those techniques to do something in real life it considers useful.

Are you now getting scared? Why not?

Because the LLMs can't understand the papers.

I dunno. There is a flavour of a physicist who is only ever dabbling in theory, and relies on others to experiment and verify their ideas. I don't see why that can't be usurped by LLMs. Its just match, data and Gedankenexperimente.

Math isn't a science. The scientific method is irrelevant for it.

The trope of superficially likening every aspect of LLMs to humans is specious and lazy.

Yes you're replying to astroturfers or AI psychosis victims.