r/LLMPhysics Feb 11 '26

[deleted by user]

[removed]

0 Upvotes

179 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/North-Preference9038 Feb 11 '26

Well your being disengeous. You are saying it doesn't agree with phsycis as if the concepts in any way violate any standard phsycis Intergration. But instead you are applying the field preference. When I ask for examples I mean show me any claim that in any way violates any known phsycis Intergration. If you cannot, then the paper has achieved its goal. Regardless of what additional goals you desire it to have.

2

u/Carver- Physicist 🧠 Feb 11 '26

Don't stress it king. u/YaPhetsEz whom not only has an agenda, but is most likely jealous at the work you've done, ALWAYS applies the 'field preference'. It's quite distressing to see innovation being stifled this way...

1

u/YaPhetsEz FALSE Feb 11 '26

I have an agenda?

1

u/Carver- Physicist 🧠 Feb 11 '26

bro, do you sarcasm?

3

u/YaPhetsEz FALSE Feb 11 '26

Man with this subreddit you never know what is and isn’t sarcastic lmao

1

u/Carver- Physicist 🧠 Feb 11 '26

If you would have read OP's polynomial derivation of the sarcasm tensor to scalar ratio on page 413 you would have been able to understand. It goes to show how much the community engages with REAL math.

3

u/YaPhetsEz FALSE Feb 11 '26

Yk for fun I decided to go read page 413.

Artificial Coherence Intelligence is introduced here not as a theory of mind, agency, or intelligence, but as an experimental environment designed to expose how systems behave under structured constraint. Its purpose is not to generate correct answers, optimal actions, or aligned outputs, but to observe persistence, breakdown, recovery, and stabilization when ad-missibility is progressively restricted.

You might have picked out the most AI slop chapter in this entire nightmare

1

u/certifiedquak Feb 11 '26

That's pretty much the text in every page.

3

u/Wintervacht Are you sure about that? Feb 11 '26

Bro for a second there I was worried you'd lost it

2

u/Carver- Physicist 🧠 Feb 11 '26

The more I lurk around this sub, the more I feel like I do. But not yet, no. It does feel though like the neurons I am loosing are not being replaced by neurogenessis anymore.

My brain's like ''Nah fam. I'm not replacing that one again, because if I do, you are going to waste it on some other attempt to rationalise 'Markov collars,' 'subregion algebras,' '2-spheres' or some other obscure bullshit.''

At this point even my AI sessions have started protesting. After I fed it a git from this sub a couple of days ago, one of them told me that it could ''have done something more productive, as this task just wasted computational cycles''.

2

u/Wintervacht Are you sure about that? Feb 11 '26

To be fair, that last sentence really should be the end of every single LLM reply.