Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT spitballing fundamental physics theories

ramrajv.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 69 posts

Re: ChatGPT spitballing fundamental physics theories

#51

Post by whatshisface »

simplotek wrote: post #45
whatshisface wrote: post #30

This is really awful, the text is completely content-free but it's got everyone who's not a domain expert hooked. I didn't know whether ChatGPT's ability to babble convincingly was going to cause trouble or be a funny quirk that we all knew about and worked around, but this thread is really making it look like the pessimists were right about it. The problem is that it gets past many people's filters because its phras…

> The problem is that it gets past many people's filters because its phrasing sends a lot of intelligent/rational/professional signals, as it was engineered to do. Nobody is used to picking smart-sounding text apart word by word to make sure they agree with it, except maybe academics, and that's the vulnerability it reaches us through. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. To me ChatGPT is basically a c…

That description of how it functions is true, but it did fool a lot of people, and now we have to explain why. I also note that a lot of people report positive results in their own fields of expertise, which might be part of the explanation. (It might be building trust before failing inexplicably right when it can no longer be checked.)

Re: ChatGPT spitballing fundamental physics theories

#52

Post by euroderf »

supermatt wrote: post #22

I have been using ChatGPT as a Lithuanian language tutor. It is surprisingly amazing - accurately (verified with a native speaker) conversing in Lithuanian with phrase level translations, explaining pronunciation, explaining clauses and cases, and is able to explain some grammatical concepts (usage of commas, etc) that I haven't found explained in English elsewhere.

Works for Interlingua too. A conlang with no native speakers (AFAIK). A great use of its capabilities.

Re: ChatGPT spitballing fundamental physics theories

#53

Post by yread »

mola wrote: post #33

I spent 20minutes being gaslighted by it trying to convince me some very obvious false logical statement in set theory is true. It wouldn't for a second admit any doubts and would just say it's sorry I'm confused and that it'll explain it again more simply. This thing is not good for developing any useful theories other than a creative crutch.

It presented me with some weird facts and when I asked for a reference it hallucinated one from 1988. The article name returned 0 results on Google. I went to the journal, volume, issue and page and found out it was in the middle of another article. When I asked GPT what is on that page in that vol. and issue it replied with the article's title again! When asked what is 3 pages earlier (where the actual article starts) it apologized and said it doesn't actually know...

Re: ChatGPT spitballing fundamental physics theories

#54

Post by logifail »

ramraj07 wrote: post #44
whatshisface wrote: post #30

This is really awful, the text is completely content-free but it's got everyone who's not a domain expert hooked. I didn't know whether ChatGPT's ability to babble convincingly was going to cause trouble or be a funny quirk that we all knew about and worked around, but this thread is really making it look like the pessimists were right about it. The problem is that it gets past many people's filters because its phras…

I (OP) am not a physicist but still a scientist. I’m not gonna say the theories it said are solid. It’s quite clear to me that they’re not. But they are better theories than what I (who knows the fundamentals of physics for the most part) can come up with. So it’s not a subject matter expert but better than the average joe. For what it is, (and given I asked it to imagine theories), its output looks impressive to me.…

> a hypothesis generation machine

Is anyone claiming there's a market niche for hypothesis generation in the natural sciences?

Full disclosure: I have a science PhD and a couple of published papers as a result. It was a long, slow, frustrating grind, but generating hypotheses wasn't even close to being the hard bit.

Re: ChatGPT spitballing fundamental physics theories

#55

Post by dr_dshiv »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #41
whatshisface wrote: post #30

This is really awful, the text is completely content-free but it's got everyone who's not a domain expert hooked. I didn't know whether ChatGPT's ability to babble convincingly was going to cause trouble or be a funny quirk that we all knew about and worked around, but this thread is really making it look like the pessimists were right about it. The problem is that it gets past many people's filters because its phras…

> the text is completely content-free Since the same could be said about your comment, perhaps you could amend your critique?

Since I got so many downvotes, let me share the specific claims:

“Dynamic Geometric Interactions in Multi-Layered Spacetime"

This hypothesis proposes that spacetime consists of multiple interconnected layers, each with its unique geometry and properties. The fundamental forces and particles emerge from the interactions between these layers and the geometric transformations that take place within and between them.

Multi-Layered Spacetime: The universe is not a single, continuous spacetime fabric but instead is composed of multiple interconnected layers. Each layer has its own geometric structure, which can be influenced by the other layers.

Interactions and Transformations: Particles and forces emerge from the interactions between the layers and the geometric transformations that occur within and between them. These transformations might involve changes in curvature, connectivity, or other geometric properties, leading to the observed behavior of particles and forces at different scales.

Unification: At high energy scales or specific conditions, the interactions and transformations between the layers might become more unified, leading to a single overarching interaction responsible for all fundamental forces.

[And a rough mathematical explanation] Let's denote the granular spacetime structures as Sij, where i and j represent the indices for the type of spacetime structure and its configuration, respectively. Suppose there are N types of spacetime structures, each corresponding to a specific force or force pattern. The interaction between particles might be described by an interaction matrix I, where each element Iij quantifies the strength of the interaction between spacetime structures Si and Sj. In a high-energy regime, the spacetime structures' patterns might begin to merge, leading to the unification of forces. We can represent this by introducing an energy-dependent matrix U(E), which modifies the interaction matrix I as a function of energy E:

I'(E) = U(E) * I

As the energy E approaches a critical energy level Ec, the matrix U(E) transforms I into a single unified interaction matrix, corresponding to the unified force.

- - -

This comports with my understanding of the Inflaton field, which parametrically resonates (through geometric relationships?) with other fundamental fields during the Big Bang. I’ll pull some references here.

Re: ChatGPT spitballing fundamental physics theories

#56

Post by ramraj07 »

logifail wrote: post #54
ramraj07 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I (OP) am not a physicist but still a scientist. I’m not gonna say the theories it said are solid. It’s quite clear to me that they’re not. But they are better theories than what I (who knows the fundamentals of physics for the most part) can come up with. So it’s not a subject matter expert but better than the average joe. For what it is, (and given I asked it to imagine theories), its output looks impressive to me.…

> a hypothesis generation machine Is anyone claiming there's a market niche for hypothesis generation in the natural sciences? Full disclosure: I have a science PhD and a couple of published papers as a result. It was a long, slow, frustrating grind, but generating hypotheses wasn't even close to being the hard bit.

I too have a PhD and a few papers. If you think generating a good hypothesis wasn’t the hard bit then in my opinion you never did get what science was about. In my opinion. Which is the minority among todays scientists. It’s like People dont even know what they’re doing wrong.

Re: ChatGPT spitballing fundamental physics theories

#57

Post by 0xmarcin »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #40
0xmarcin wrote: post #31

Not sure about physics but I am really looking forward to see games with NPC characters powered by ChatGPT. That would make some game world really deep and involving.

ChatGPT lowers information complexity by smoothing and averaging the information content, so no, likely you'll see the opposite effect. We already went through this with Stable Diffusion - the content it produces looks very professional, but also somehow exactly the same no matter the subject.

This assumes that you will have only a single model. I expected at least one model per race (elves, dwarfs...) x adversity (friend, enemy, neutral) x some psychological models (e.g. Jung personality archetypes). So with ~100 GTP models learned on different sets you may have a quite diverse army of characters.

ChatGPT also offers a possibility to e.g. have a real bargaining at the shops: "How much is that sword... ".

Re: ChatGPT spitballing fundamental physics theories

#58

Post by simplotek »

whatshisface wrote: post #51
simplotek wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that it gets past many people's filters because its phrasing sends a lot of intelligent/rational/professional signals, as it was engineered to do. Nobody is used to picking smart-sounding text apart word by word to make sure they agree with it, except maybe academics, and that's the vulnerability it reaches us through. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. To me ChatGPT is basically a c…

That description of how it functions is true, but it did fool a lot of people, and now we have to explain why. I also note that a lot of people report positive results in their own fields of expertise, which might be part of the explanation. (It might be building trust before failing inexplicably right when it can no longer be checked.)

> That description of how it functions is true, but it did fool a lot of people, and now we have to explain why.

I see your point, and I agree. Nevertheless, these misdirections seem to boil down to a broad temptation to succumb to appeals to authority. People might be falling for ChatGPT misfires just like they fall for fancy talking bullshit artists, but that's hardly a failing of clever auto text generators.

Re: ChatGPT spitballing fundamental physics theories

#59

Post by logifail »

ramraj07 wrote: post #56
logifail wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a hypothesis generation machine Is anyone claiming there's a market niche for hypothesis generation in the natural sciences? Full disclosure: I have a science PhD and a couple of published papers as a result. It was a long, slow, frustrating grind, but generating hypotheses wasn't even close to being the hard bit.

I too have a PhD and a few papers. If you think generating a good hypothesis wasn’t the hard bit then in my opinion you never did get what science was about. In my opinion. Which is the minority among todays scientists. It’s like People dont even know what they’re doing wrong.

> If you think generating a good hypothesis wasn’t the hard bit then in my opinion you never did get what science was about [..]

Is a good hypothesis important? Sure. Is it easy to get that bit wrong? Yes, and lots of people do.

I'm reminded of one of Paul Graham's quotes:

"I also have a theory about why people think this. They overvalue ideas. They think creating a startup is just a matter of implementing some fabulous initial idea. And since a successful startup is worth millions of dollars, a good idea is therefore a million dollar idea [..] startup ideas are not million dollar ideas, and here's an experiment you can try to prove it: just try to sell one. Nothing evolves faster than markets. The fact that there's no market for startup ideas suggests there's no demand. Which means, in the narrow sense of the word, that startup ideas are worthless."[0]

[0] http://www.paulgraham.com/ideas.html

Re: ChatGPT spitballing fundamental physics theories

#60

Post by 00F_ »

whatshisface wrote: post #30

This is really awful, the text is completely content-free but it's got everyone who's not a domain expert hooked. I didn't know whether ChatGPT's ability to babble convincingly was going to cause trouble or be a funny quirk that we all knew about and worked around, but this thread is really making it look like the pessimists were right about it. The problem is that it gets past many people's filters because its phras…

demur, not demure
Post reply on HN