What the hell...

Is there any distinction between the different papers? Like a majority are surely not showing any intellectual independence, right?

Lol brings back memories.
I do still actually check it occasionally, but never even make eye contact with the crazies. Occasionally it reminds me of a paper I wanted to read though

(I found a call due very soon promoting internationalisation to recruit someone from outside Europe with less than 2 years on the post-PhD clock but not sure I can come up with a candidate quick enough)

For the math folks on here: NSF has suspended Terry Tao's grant. www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/...

Some kind of joke related to observing/measuring the back of the poster?

I say "attempt" because admittedly, I still don't really understand it all too well but seems we can prove stuff about it.

We were however able to show that the quantity arises as the value of a reduced Hamiltonian for the Einstein equations, which I think is kind of neat

Recently, we (with Mattias Dahl and Klaus Kröncke) gave a definition of a new geometric "mass-like" invariant for asymptotically (locally) hyperbolic manifolds, which we've found satisfies some interesting properties.

This paper is our attempt to understand it a little better.

[Disclaimer: Not any kind of expert, so I'm probably missing things but the gist is roughly right I think 😅 ]

Yeh, it's not even the AI that's the problem -- I actually *do* even think that we aren't that far from being able to generate tools to help prove things.

But they seem to think that essentially papermilling is a goal...

How can you look at a shift to quantity over quality seen in other fields, and think "math really needs to do this too"