2 ms·

The last author also wrote up a quite-readable blogpost here that accompanies the article: https://jsous.github.io/blogs/is-physics-dead/ https://jsous.github.i

The last author also wrote up a quite-readable blogpost here that accompanies the article: https://jsous.github.io/blogs/is-physics-dead/ https://jsous.github.io/blogs/is-physics-dead/ One tidbit I found particularly interesting: "We tested a GPT-based agentic system, which previously succeeded in resolving several open mathematical conjectures, on open problems in theoretical physics. To our temporary relief and encouragement, it has not managed to fully resolve even one autonomously. We also noted that these agents made considerably less progress on the partially resolved physics problems than on open mathematics problems of comparable difficulty, both by our analysis and independent agent-based analysis of partial results in each domain."

treebeard901 15d ago
> To our temporary relief and encouragement, it has not managed to fully resolve even one ... Why would that be encouraging if the purpose of their chosen profession is to advance physics? This is sort of like mathematics being solved by AI with human researchers complaining that they are losing potential awards. It's an entirely self serving way to be.
- webern777 15d ago
  This is the same social process as to why science tends to progress one funeral at a time. So many people have their financial and self worth tied to their expertise in phlogiston theory that the truth is second to advancing the field of phlogiston theory. From that perspective it is hard to think of something worse than a machine that disproves phlogiston theory.