The first example was the paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.17664 on Comodule representations of second-order functionals, co-authored with Danel Ahman. The AI told me that the paper restricted to representations to only finitely-branching trees. When asked to cite the place in the paper where such a restriction is enforced, it said that finite branching is "strongly implied" by the requirement that the trees must be well-founded. Then I confronted it with the fact that the introduction gives the example of countably branching trees, so clearly the authors did not intend finite branching. The response was that the authors misrepresented their work by giving such an example. When forcilby told that it was wrong, the AI eventually admitted its initial summary of the paper was incorrect. (2/3)
=> More informations about this toot | View the thread | More toots from andrejbauer@mathstodon.xyz
text/geminiThis content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).