I’m no Fahrenheit expert, but I’m coming up with -175 C = -283 F, so… not a typical typo but perhaps an LLM discrepancy, which doesn’t inspire confidence in either figure.
And in fact, it turns out the original paper gives as their cryo temp 77 Kelvin, which is closer to -196 C or -321 F.
I’m not sure from where the other temps in that report originated but more than likely they were just hallucinated at some point and included with subsequent summaries as confidence-inspiring “datapoints.”
2 Comments
pennomi@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 308d
Septimaeus@infosec.pub · 11 pts · 308d
I’m no Fahrenheit expert, but I’m coming up with -175 C = -283 F, so… not a typical typo but perhaps an LLM discrepancy, which doesn’t inspire confidence in either figure.
And in fact, it turns out the original paper gives as their cryo temp 77 Kelvin, which is closer to -196 C or -321 F.
I’m not sure from where the other temps in that report originated but more than likely they were just hallucinated at some point and included with subsequent summaries as confidence-inspiring “datapoints.”
snipingsnipe@piefed.social · 4 pts · 308d
yeah we will never hear about this again