[baklavaEmperor]

It’s interesting how people insist math requires expert validation when it’s literally the most self validating subject there is. The instinct to gatekeep even something as mechanistically checkable as algebra says more about insecurity in education than it does about rigor.

[Blackthorn]

Wanting an actual check on the device that is notorious for making things up is gatekeeping now?

[baklavaEmperor]

You’re projecting a bad faith use case that the original commenter never described. they’re using it in a exploratory and iterative way, not deferential.

[Blackthorn]

If you're using it for education it is by definition deferential.

[tptacek]

No it isn't. Again, what's happening here I think is that this thread doesn't understand what Math Academy is. It's not an LLM. I'm using the LLM alongside it.

[adrianton3]

"5.11 or 5.9 which number is greater?" was a meme query a few months ago to ask an LLM as it would confidenly prove how 5.11 is greater - so yes, we do need expert validation!

[tptacek]

A very, very big problem we have with LLM discourse is that LLMs have changed radically since the beginning of last year. If you're making an argument about modern foundation models based on the idea that they can't generate reliably correct answers to whether 5.11 is greater than 5.9, your mental model is completely out of date.

You don't have to believe me on this, just your own lying eyes. Go try this for yourself right now: ask it dy/dx of h(x)/g(x) where h(x) is x^3 + 1 and g(x) is -2e^x. That's a random Math Academy review problem I did last night that I pulled out of Notes.app. Go look.

[baklavaEmperor]

I think you’re misreading the situation. the original commenter isn’t outsourcing thinking, they’re using the tool to probe and test ideas, not to blindly accept end result answers which LLMs are (currently) not to be blindly trusted.