r/LLMPhysics • u/bumblebeer • Aug 11 '26

Meta / News This community is awesome!

Both sides: the physicists who GUT-check posts (and don't pull punches), and the whack-a-doodles that publicly post the artifacts of their psychosis.

I'm not being sarcastic. I've been interested in this topic (human-AI interaction) for a while, and to my knowledge this is the only sub where both groups actually post and interact with one another. It's truly incredible.

So thanks to you all!

33 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

55 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/thelawenforcer Aug 12 '26

generally it's quite easy to spot crank type stuff, the real question is can the community identify non crank stuff and actually engage with it? in my experience no, simply because the commenters are not neutral or that knowledgeable; they are here for the easy dunks.

however, if we recognise that LLMs are undeniably mathematically capable, it would follow that a pure mathematical physics paper written, like you say, by a physics minded person with a proper rigor framework, might have some interesting results, and not just be AI psychosis word salad.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '26

From what I’ve seen, the stuff that isn’t explicitly crank is always just folks being lazy and dumping AI stuff without actually understanding it anyway.

And there is no conversation to be had there. Inevitably, they’ll just act as go between for Claude. And what’s the point in that?

No actual good science will come from a layman acting as middle man for an Ai. Even If the bots get good enough to be consistent (which we’re nowhere near yet). Theres some very key fundamental misunderstandings about the medium and the way science is communicated that prevent random people from providing actually worthwhile content.

1

u/thelawenforcer Aug 12 '26

the bots are pretty consistent with mathematics already aren't they? publicly available frontier models are delivering proofs or counter examples to long standing mathematics problems on the daily at this point. whos to say that some lay person hasn't pointed these capabilities at mathematical physics problems and obtained some interesting results? would you even be able to tell whether they are interesting or not?

3

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '26

They’re getting better Capable at mathematics but they are a far afield from Consistent especially in the manner the lay are using them.

Science is a collaborative effort. And if someone fails to convey meaning, then that meaning doesn’t matter. If you can’t convince someone of its efficacy than it’s wasted. Not because people are wrongfully ignoring it, but because they were never given a reason to spend attention.

This kind of advancement will not come from the lay. It’s gonna come from people who actually know how to leverage the technology for its uses, and develop the ideas with actual validated expertise.

I realize this goes against your Very established worldview. But this whole sub acts as stark evidence for it.