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

GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 430 posts

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#401

Post by turzmo »

refulgentis wrote: post #397
turzmo wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're misunderstanding my claim. There's no scandal here, just run-of-the-mill academic politicking. I fully believe that ChatGPT did the work they say it did, but that it deserves about as much credit as Mathematica does in "deriving a new result".

No, because you can’t use mathematica to do this. You have been walking down a slippery slope for a couple years now, your choice when to exit. Sucks I gotta eat downvotes for it, but so it goes.

Do you have any more substance behind your arguments? Feel free to open up the preprint and read it -- it doesn't bite.

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#402

Post by kaibee »

matwood wrote: post #328
supern0va wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>AI can be an amazing productivity multiplier for people who know what they're doing. >[...] >The "AI replaces humans in X" narrative is primarily a tool for driving attention and funding. You're sort of acting like it's all or nothing. What about the the humans that used to be that "force multiplier" on a team with the person guiding the research? If a piece of software required a team of ten to people, and instead…

> If a piece of software required a team of ten to people, and instead it's built with one engineer overseeing an AI, that's still 90% job loss. Yes, but this assumes a finite amount of software that people and businesses need and want. Will AI be the first productivity increase where humanity says ‘now we have enough’? I’m skeptical.

> Yes, but this assumes a finite amount of software that people and businesses need and want.

A lot of software exists because humans are needy and kinda incompetent, but we needed to enable to process data at scale? Like, would you build SAP as it is today, for LLMs?

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#403

Post by refulgentis »

turzmo wrote: post #401
refulgentis wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because you can’t use mathematica to do this. You have been walking down a slippery slope for a couple years now, your choice when to exit. Sucks I gotta eat downvotes for it, but so it goes.

Do you have any more substance behind your arguments? Feel free to open up the preprint and read it -- it doesn't bite.

You're getting short with me, so first I'll reframe in a way that you can gain instead of scrap: I'll pay you $1000 if by 11:30 PM PST, you have de novo derived the N->infinity formulation using solely Mathematica and the initial problem.

I also have a physics background, and separately, have derived novel results in color science using Mathematica that led to a great effect on my career.

I wouldn't wish having to do that on anyone, it was awful work.

Independently of it being awful, I know it's extremely, extremely, unlikely to luck into this complex of a result, both in my opinion and seeming reality, here: if someone could have done it before, why didn't they?

If is that trivial, you'll prove it, make some money, and I'll understand that it really was that trivial, and we'll get some headlines out of it. Win-win, modulo I'll look like an ass.

If it isn't that trivial, you won't do it, and no one will notice this far down a thread. But you seem thoughtful, you'll likely grapple with the gulf between your flippant response and reality, and gain some insight. Win for you either way, in that case.

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#404

Post by Leynos »

D-Machine wrote: post #300
square_usual wrote: post #64

It's interesting to me that whenever a new breakthrough in AI use comes up, there's always a flood of people who come in to handwave away why this isn't actually a win for LLMs. Like with the novel solutions GPT 5.2 has been able to find for erdos problems - many users here (even in this very thread!) think they know more about this than Fields medalist Terence Tao, who maintains this list showing that, yes, LLMs hav…

"It's interesting to me that whenever some new result in AI use comes up, there's always a flood of people who come in to gesticulate wildly that that the sky is falling and AGI is imminent. Like with the recent solutions GPT 5.2 has been able to find for Erdos problems, even though in almost all cases such solutions rely on poorly-known past publications, or significant expert user guidance and essential tools like…

Can we not just say "this is pretty cool" and enjoy it rather than turning it into a fight?

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#405

Post by gjm11 »

etraql wrote: post #208
gjm11 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the sake of clarity: Woit's post is not about the same alleged instance of GPT producing new work in theoretical physics, but about an earlier one from November 2025. Different author, different area of theoretical physics.

This thread is about "whenever a new breakthrough in AI use comes up", and the comment you reply to correctly points out skepticism for the general case and does not claim any relation to the current case. You reached your goal though and got that comment downvoted.

My goal was to help other people not make the same mistake as I initially did, of thinking that Peter Woit had made some criticism of the latest claim of GPT-5.2 making a new discovery in theoretical physics, which in fact he appears not to have done.

If I'd wanted that comment downvoted, I would have downvoted it myself, which as it happens I didn't. There was nothing particularly wrong with it, other than the fact that it was phrased in a way that could mislead, hence my comment.

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#406

Post by turzmo »

refulgentis wrote: post #403
turzmo wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any more substance behind your arguments? Feel free to open up the preprint and read it -- it doesn't bite.

You're getting short with me, so first I'll reframe in a way that you can gain instead of scrap: I'll pay you $1000 if by 11:30 PM PST, you have de novo derived the N->infinity formulation using solely Mathematica and the initial problem. I also have a physics background, and separately, have derived novel results in color science using Mathematica that led to a great effect on my career. I wouldn't wish having to do…

I see, so no substance behind your argument.

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#407

Post by refulgentis »

turzmo wrote: post #406
refulgentis wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're getting short with me, so first I'll reframe in a way that you can gain instead of scrap: I'll pay you $1000 if by 11:30 PM PST, you have de novo derived the N->infinity formulation using solely Mathematica and the initial problem. I also have a physics background, and separately, have derived novel results in color science using Mathematica that led to a great effect on my career. I wouldn't wish having to do…

I see, so no substance behind your argument.

Your claim is:

“I fully believe that ChatGPT did the work they say it did, but that it deserves about as much credit as Mathematica does in "deriving a new result".”

The only thing you said is arguable is whether it deserves about as much credit as Mathematica.

I provided 3 prongs as to why I believe that is untrue, put $1000 up for you to show it is true, you replied with more bullying. Your loss, $1000 was more than generous.

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#408

Post by krethh »

jonahx wrote: post #398
krethh wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logical reason is that humans are exceptionally good at operating at the edge of what the technology of the time can do. We will find entire classes of tech problems which AI can't solve on its own. You have people today with job descriptions that even 15 years ago would have been unimaginable, much less predictable. To think that whatever the AI is capable of solving is (and forever will be) the frontier of all…

> To think that whatever the AI is capable of solving is (and forever will be) the frontier of all problems is deeply delusional. AI got good at generating code, but it still can't even do a fraction of what the human brain can do. AGI means fully general, meaning everything the human brain can do and more. I agree that currently it still feels far (at least it may be far), but there is no reason to think there's som…

When I refer to AI, I mean the "AI" that has materialized thus far - LLMs and their derivatives. AGI in the sense that you mean is science fiction, no less than it was 50 years ago. It might happen, it might not, LLMs are in all likelihood not a pathway to get there.

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#409

Post by cxvwK »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #371
square_usual wrote: post #64

It's interesting to me that whenever a new breakthrough in AI use comes up, there's always a flood of people who come in to handwave away why this isn't actually a win for LLMs. Like with the novel solutions GPT 5.2 has been able to find for erdos problems - many users here (even in this very thread!) think they know more about this than Fields medalist Terence Tao, who maintains this list showing that, yes, LLMs hav…

Yeah it's pervasive. It's also delusional. Take a look at this entire thread. Everyone and I mean everyone is talking as if AI is some sort of fraud and everything is just hype. But then this thread is all against, AI, I mean all of it. If anything the Anti-hype around AI is what's flooding the world right now. If AI hype was through the roof we'd see the opposite effect on HN. I think it's a strange contradiction in…

[flagged]

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#410

Post by threethirtytwo »

cxvwK wrote: post #409
threethirtytwo wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it's pervasive. It's also delusional. Take a look at this entire thread. Everyone and I mean everyone is talking as if AI is some sort of fraud and everything is just hype. But then this thread is all against, AI, I mean all of it. If anything the Anti-hype around AI is what's flooding the world right now. If AI hype was through the roof we'd see the opposite effect on HN. I think it's a strange contradiction in…

[flagged]

yep. because I find the bias overly negative.

Let me state the negative things about LLMs: they hallucinate. They are not as reliable as humans. They can lie. They can be deceptive.

But despite all of this people are so negative about it even when 50% of deveopers now don't write code by hand because of AI. The trend from 0 AI to code being written by AI in a couple years cannot be denied and it also spells out a future where the negatives of AI become more and more diminished.

The anti-hype is predictable. It's when something becomes too pervasive and too popular and overused people start talking shit and ignoring the on the ground reality.

Guys if you think AI is shit, take an oath on never using it. Stop all usage of it for the rest of your life. See how far that takes you. Put the money where your mouth is, if it's so bad, come off of it and stop using it completely. Most of you can't... because you're all lying to yourselves.

Post reply on HN