30 ms·

This approach dismisses the cases where Ai submissions generally are better. I don't think this is appreciated enough: a lot of Ai adaptation is not happening

This approach dismisses the cases where Ai submissions generally are better. I don't think this is appreciated enough: a lot of Ai adaptation is not happening because of cost on the expense of quality. Quite the opposite. I am in the process of switching my company's use of retool for an Ai generated backoffice. First and foremost for usability, velocity and security. Secondly, we also save a buck.

moregrist 8mo ago
> This approach dismisses the cases where Ai submissions generally are better. You’re perhaps missing the not so subtle subtext of Peter Woit’s post, and entire blog, which is: While AI is getting better, it’s still not _good_ by the standards of most science. However it’s as good as hep-th where (according to Peter Woit) the bar is incredibly low. His thesis is part “the whole field is bad” and part “Arxiv for this subfield is full of human slop.” I don’t have the background to engage with whether Peter Woit’s argument has merit, but it’s been consistent for 25+ years.
- tossandthrow 8mo ago
  My comment was more an answer to the proposed gatekeeping of science as a human activity. Yes, Ai is still not good in the grand scheme of things. But everybody actively using it has gotten concerned over the past 2 months by the leap frigging of LLMs - and surprised as they thought we had arrived at the plateau. We will see in a year or two if humans still hold an advantage in research - currently very few do in software development, despite what they think about themselves.
  - lioeters 8mo ago
    > gatekeeping of science as a human activity The other side of the coin is: automating science as a machine activity. Is that what we want? I agree with you that the use of language models in science is an inevitable paradigm shift, but now is the time to make collective decisions about how we're going to assimilate this increasingly super-human "intelligence" into academic practices, and the rest of daily life. Otherwise we will be the ones being assimilated by a force beyond our control. The progress is so rapid that the only people who might have control over the process are the ones with self-interest, mainly financial, and not aligned with - in some aspects opposed to - the interests of humanity.
    - tossandthrow 8mo ago
      > Is that what we want? Only if there are some very fundamental and convincing arguments that are still not uncovered. We can't protect science and let services like medical services be too expensive for people to have access to them. That would be introducing new social classes: people who do science can get unnecessary protection, everybody else can not. That is not going to fly.
    - donkeybeer 8mo ago
      Its already automated. Do you think astronomers manually count stars or medical scientists manually run chemical reactions? Why is automation by ai wrong when all other automations were beneficial?
  - pjc50 8mo ago
    The single most valuable part of science is keeping the gates: not adding things to the corpus of scientific knowledge unless they can be properly substantiated.
- zozbot234 8mo ago
  What about the new result that was recently derived by GPT 5.2 Pro/Deep Research? That was also hep-th. https://openai.com/index/new-result-theoretical-physics/ https://openai.com/index/new-result-theoretical-physics/ https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.12176 https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.12176

moregrist 8mo ago

> This approach dismisses the cases where Ai submissions generally are better. You’re perhaps missing the not so subtle subtext of Peter Woit’s post, and entire blog, which is: While AI is getting better, it’s still not _good_ by the standards of most science. However it’s as good as hep-th where (according to Peter Woit) the bar is incredibly low. His thesis is part “the whole field is bad” and part “Arxiv for this subfield is full of human slop.” I don’t have the background to engage with whether Peter Woit’s argument has merit, but it’s been consistent for 25+ years.

tossandthrow 8mo ago
My comment was more an answer to the proposed gatekeeping of science as a human activity. Yes, Ai is still not good in the grand scheme of things. But everybody actively using it has gotten concerned over the past 2 months by the leap frigging of LLMs - and surprised as they thought we had arrived at the plateau. We will see in a year or two if humans still hold an advantage in research - currently very few do in software development, despite what they think about themselves.
- lioeters 8mo ago
  > gatekeeping of science as a human activity The other side of the coin is: automating science as a machine activity. Is that what we want? I agree with you that the use of language models in science is an inevitable paradigm shift, but now is the time to make collective decisions about how we're going to assimilate this increasingly super-human "intelligence" into academic practices, and the rest of daily life. Otherwise we will be the ones being assimilated by a force beyond our control. The progress is so rapid that the only people who might have control over the process are the ones with self-interest, mainly financial, and not aligned with - in some aspects opposed to - the interests of humanity.
  - tossandthrow 8mo ago
    > Is that what we want? Only if there are some very fundamental and convincing arguments that are still not uncovered. We can't protect science and let services like medical services be too expensive for people to have access to them. That would be introducing new social classes: people who do science can get unnecessary protection, everybody else can not. That is not going to fly.
  - donkeybeer 8mo ago
    Its already automated. Do you think astronomers manually count stars or medical scientists manually run chemical reactions? Why is automation by ai wrong when all other automations were beneficial?
- pjc50 8mo ago
  The single most valuable part of science is keeping the gates: not adding things to the corpus of scientific knowledge unless they can be properly substantiated.
zozbot234 8mo ago
What about the new result that was recently derived by GPT 5.2 Pro/Deep Research? That was also hep-th. https://openai.com/index/new-result-theoretical-physics/ https://openai.com/index/new-result-theoretical-physics/ https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.12176 https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.12176