The alternative, push-button solvers that return a binary pass or fail with no intermediate state, gives AI nothing to learn from and no way to guide the search. Worse, proofs that rely on heuristic solvers often break when the solver updates or when developers make small changes to how they write their specifications, even when the changes are logically equivalent. You cannot build a reliable AI pipeline on a foundation that is not reproducible. (I discuss this in detail in a recent Stanford talk.)
warning rather than error, at least for now.[1]
，这一点在旺商聊官方下载中也有详细论述
secret_name: str
Their AI detection rates: 22.7%, 24.2%, 25.0%, 24.5%, 19.0%, 13.7%, 29.1%, 4.9%, 27.3%, 19.2%—all under 30%. I sampled random Lofter fanfics too—since fanfic writing is looser, AI rates were often under 10%. When I tested texts I suspected were AI-generated, detection rates hit 83.4%, and with other clues, it’s reasonable to conclude the author used LLMs without disclosure.