GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

Post by Refreeze5224 » Fri, Feb 13, 2026, 7:55 PM UTC

famouswaffles wrote: post #22

emil-lp wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"GPT did this" . Authored by Guevara (Institute for Advanced Study), Lupsasca (Vanderbilt University), Skinner (University of Cambridge), and Strominger (Harvard University). Probably not something that the average GI Joe would be able to prompt their way to... I am skeptical until they show the chat log leading up to the conjecture and proof.

The paper has all those prominent institutions who acknowledge the contribution so realistically, why would you be skeptical ?

Post by famouswaffles » Fri, Feb 13, 2026, 7:56 PM UTC

kristopolous wrote: post #31

famouswaffles wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paper has all those prominent institutions who acknowledge the contribution so realistically, why would you be skeptical ?

they probably also acknowledge pytorch, numpy, R ... but we don't attribute those tools as the agent who did the work. I know we've been primed by sci-fi movies and comic books, but like pytorch, gpt-5.2 is just a piece of software running on a computer instrumented by humans.

Post by RandomLensman » Fri, Feb 13, 2026, 7:57 PM UTC

bpodgursky wrote: post #20

outlace wrote: post #11

The headline may make it seem like AI just discovered some new result in physics all on its own, but reading the post, humans started off trying to solve some problem, it got complex, GPT simplified it and found a solution with the simpler representation. It took 12 hours for GPT pro to do this. In my experience LLM’s can make new things when they are some linear combination of existing things but I haven’t been to g…

I don't want to be rude but like, maybe you should pre-register some statement like "LLMs will not be able to do X" in some concrete domain, because I suspect your goalposts are shifting without you noticing. We're talking about significant contributions to theoretical physics. You can nitpick but honestly go back to your expectations 4 years ago and think — would I be pretty surprised and impressed if an AI could do…

Post by bpodgursky » Fri, Feb 13, 2026, 7:58 PM UTC

nozzlegear wrote: post #27

bpodgursky wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to be rude but like, maybe you should pre-register some statement like "LLMs will not be able to do X" in some concrete domain, because I suspect your goalposts are shifting without you noticing. We're talking about significant contributions to theoretical physics. You can nitpick but honestly go back to your expectations 4 years ago and think — would I be pretty surprised and impressed if an AI could do…

> We're talking about significant contributions to theoretical physics. Whoever wrote the prompts and guided ChatGPT made significant contributions to theoretical physics. ChatGPT is just a tool they used to get there. I'm sure AI-bloviators and pelican bike-enjoyers are all quite impressed, but the humans should be getting the research credit for using their tools correctly. Let's not pretend the calculator doing it…

Post by famouswaffles » Fri, Feb 13, 2026, 8:00 PM UTC

Refreeze5224 wrote: post #32

famouswaffles wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paper has all those prominent institutions who acknowledge the contribution so realistically, why would you be skeptical ?

Their point is, would you be able to prompt your way to this result? No. Already trained physicists working at world-leading institutions could. So what progress have we really made here?