The recent MO post, A number theoretic conjecture by Chat GPT, posed a conjecture that was generated by ChatGPT. In my opinion, it was not a particularly interesting conjecture. For me at least, the novelty factor of LLMs has worn off, so the mere fact that ChatGPT has managed to generate a conjecture that's not totally absurd isn't by itself enough justification for posting to MO.

Should MO have a policy toward ChatGPT-generated conjectures? I don't mind conjectures arising from computer experiments, or even from programs that are expressly designed to generate interesting conjectures, such as Graffiti or the Ramanujan Machine. But current LLMs aren't designed to generate mathematically interesting conjectures. Should we emphasize that a GPT-generated conjecture should be posted to MO only if the person posting it would find it worthy of posting to MO *even if it hadn't been generated by GPT?*

In a comment, Yemon Choi wrote, "I would be much happier if all mention of GPT were removed from the original question." I certainly don't want to see MO flooded with banal GPT-generated questions. On the other hand, if such a question does rise to an MO-worthy level, then maybe disclosing its origin is the scholarly thing to do?

contentof the question is what's being evaluated, not the origin. I think that coming from a generative language model can not, in principle, add to or detract from mathematical interest. $\endgroup$1more comment