2 ms·
It is not only the the peanut gallery that is skeptical: https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=15362 https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?
by hgfda 8mo ago
It is not only the the peanut gallery that is skeptical:
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=15362 https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=15362
Let's wait a couple of days whether there has been a similar result in the literature.
- gjm11 8mo agoFor the sake of clarity: Woit's post is not about the same alleged instance of GPT producing new work in theoretical physics, but about an earlier one from November 2025. Different author, different area of theoretical physics.
- etraql 8mo agoThis thread is about "whenever a new breakthrough in AI use comes up", and the comment you reply to correctly points out skepticism for the general case and does not claim any relation to the current case. You reached your goal though and got that comment downvoted.
- gjm11 8mo agoMy goal was to help other people not make the same mistake as I initially did, of thinking that Peter Woit had made some criticism of the latest claim of GPT-5.2 making a new discovery in theoretical physics, which in fact he appears not to have done. If I'd wanted that comment downvoted, I would have downvoted it myself, which as it happens I didn't. There was nothing particularly wrong with it, other than the fact that it was phrased in a way that could mislead, hence my comment.