Mathematician's AI-generated errata are "slop" but mostly correct
littmath · x · 2026-08-27
In his thread on AI-auditing his own papers, Daniel Litt revealed he also generated semi-automated errata. He openly calls them "slop" and only lightly edited them, but spot-checks showed they were mostly correct, if massively overzealous—often replacing whole paragraphs where a single word would do.
More from Research
- Interpretability paper incoming: in-depth look at testing explanations on modern LLMs — burny_tech · 2026-10-16
- Better-learning models tend to be more interpretable, argues Nick Cammarata — burny_tech · 2026-10-16
- Cornell and Amazon revisit the 16x pretraining compute gap: diffusion LMs need only 3-8x — LucaAmb · 2026-10-16
- AI trained on the fraction of human intelligence that fit the page — r0ck3t23 · 2026-10-16
- Quotient Recurrent Reasoners hit 97.9% on Sudoku-Extreme with 78% fewer loops — burny_tech · 2026-10-16
- Mathematicians publish explainer for the Egyptian fraction proof in OpenAI's proofs collection — burny_tech · 2026-10-16