[flagged]
In the humanties there is lots of well-written text of no useful depth, so academics in the humanities get good at filtering it quickly. In the sciences, it seems "this is well written and well structured" is treated as a filter to assume the text probably contains something worth reading -- of course eventually it is found to be nonsense.
This is already par for the course
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/12/chatg...
> ...a professor in the U.K., used GPT-3, a large language model from OpenAI that automatically generates text from a prompt, to write it. (The whole essay, which Sharples considered graduate-level, is available, complete with references, here.) Personally, I lean toward a B+. The passage reads like filler, but so do most student essays.
I only gave it the info that was available in the question, all it came up with were different variations of "no idea".
> The numbers appear to be arranged in an exponential pattern [1], where each number is approximately 2.3 times larger than the previous number. This pattern can be expressed as: n = 2.3^x, where n is the number and x is the index of the number. So for the numbers you provided, the pattern would be: 925 = 2.3^0 8642 = 2.3^2 37654 = 2.3^3 627418 = 2.3^4
Where [1] links to this very hackernews thread.