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

241–250 of 430 posts

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

#241

Post by QuercusMax »

btown wrote: post #118
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the critical bit (paraphrasing): Humans have worked out the amplitudes for integer n up to n = 6 by hand, obtaining very complicated expressions, which correspond to a “Feynman diagram expansion” whose complexity grows superexponentially in n. But no one has been able to greatly reduce the complexity of these expressions, providing much simpler forms. And from these base cases, no one was then able to spot a…

It bears repeating that modern LLMs are incredibly capable, and relentless, at solving problems that have a verification test suite. It seems like this problem did (at least for some finite subset of n)! This result, by itself, does not generalize to open-ended problems, though, whether in business or in research in general. Discovering the specification to build is often the majority of the battle. LLMs aren't bad a…

Yes, this is where I just cannot imagine completely AI-driven software development of anything novel and complicated without extensive human input. I'm currently working in a space where none of our data models are particularly complex, but the trick is all in defining the rules for how things should work.

Our actual software implementation is usually pretty simple; often writing up the design spec takes significantly longer than building the software, because the software isn't the hard part - the requirements are. I suspect the same folks who are terrible at describing their problems are going to need help from expert folks who are somewhere between SWE, product manager, and interaction designer.

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

#242

Post by cpard »

elzbardico wrote: post #189
cpard wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the c compiler results or the physics results this post is about?

The C compiler.

of course the results were much worse than what was communicated on the media, it was content marketing not an attempt to build a better c compiler.

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

#243

Post by whattheheckheck »

kilroy123 wrote: post #232
Toutouxc wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am constantly seeing this thing do most of my work (which is good actually, I don't enjoy typing code), but requiring my constant supervision and frequent intervention and always trying to sneak in subtle bugs or weird architectural decisions that, I feel with every bone in my body, would bite me in the ass later. I see JS developers with little experience and zero CS or SWE education rave about how LLMs are so muc…

I agree with you on all of it. But _what if_ they work out all of that in the next 2 years and it stops needing constant supervision and intervention? Then what?

If We Build It We Will All Die

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

#244

Post by kilroy123 »

computator wrote: post #204

I have a weird long-shot idea for GPT to make a new discovery in physics: Ask it to find a mathematical relationship between some combination of the fundamental physical constants[1]. If it finds (for example) a formula that relates electron mass, Bohr radius, and speed of light to a high degree of precision, that might indicate an area of physics to explore further if those constants were thought to be independent.…

My dream is that powerful agents trawl through all the research papers looking for diamonds in the rough.

They evaluate papers that look interesting and should be looked at more deeply. Then, research ideas as much as they can.

Then flag for human review the real possible breakthroughs.

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

#245

Post by kbelder »

nyc_data_geek1 wrote: post #186
godelski wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think this was all already figured out in 1986 though They cite that paper in the third paragraph... Naively, the n-gluon scattering amplitude involves order n! terms. Famously, for the special case of MHV (maximally helicity violating) tree amplitudes, Parke and Taylor [11] gave a simple and beautiful, closed-form, single-term expression for all n. It also seems to be a main talking point. I think this is a prim…

[flagged]

Be careful, in the strength of your passions, that you don't become a stochastic word generator yourself.

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

#246

Post by 8note »

epolanski wrote: post #62
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…

Serious questions, I often hear about this "let the LLM cook for hours" but how do you do that in practice and how does it manages its own context? How doesn't it get lost at all after so many tokens?

the annoying part is that with tool calls, a lot of those hours is time spent on netowrk round trips.

over long periods of time, checklists are the biggest thing, so the LLM can track whats already done and whats left. after a compact, it can pull the relevant stuff back up and make progress.

having some level or hierarchy is also useful - requirements, high level designs, low level designs, etc

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

#247

Post by dakolli »

janalsncm wrote: post #228
dakolli wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, all of these stories, and frequent model releases are just intended to psyop "decision makers" into validating their longstanding belief that the labour shouldn't be as big of a line item in a companies expenses, and perhaps can be removed altogether.. They can finally go back to the good old days of having slaves (in the form of "agentic" bots), they yearn to own slaves again. CEOs/decision makers would rather…

I’m reminded of Dan Wang’s commentary on US-China relations: > Competition will be dynamic because people have agency. The country that is ahead at any given moment will commit mistakes driven by overconfidence, while the country that is behind will feel the crack of the whip to reform. … That drive will mean that competition will go on for years and decades. https://danwang.co/ (2025 Annual letter) The future is not…

I think it will be over automation that does them in, most normies I know are not down with this all this automation and will totally opt for the human focused product experienced, not the one devoid of it because it was built and ran by a souless NN powered autocomplete. We certainly aren't going to let a bunch of autocomplete models (sold to us as intelligent agents), replace our labor. We aren't stupid.

Much like there is a premium for handmade clothing, and from scratch food. Automation does nothing but lower the value of your product (unless its absolutely required like electronics perhaps), when there is an alternative, the one made with human input/intention is always worth more.

And the idea that small nimble teams are going to outpace larger corporations is such a psyop. You really mostly hear CEOs saying these things on podcast. This is to appease the working class, to give them hope that they too one day can be a billionaire...

Also, the vast majority of people who occupy computer i/o focused jobs, whos jobs will be replaced, need to work to eat and they don't all want to go form nimble automated SaaS companies lmao, this is such a farce.. Bad things to come all around.

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

#248

Post by DonaldFisk »

dotancohen wrote: post #59
randomtoast wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I haven’t been to get them to do something totally out of distribution yet from first principles Can humans actually do that? Sometimes it appears as if we have made a completely new discovery. However, if you look more closely, you will find that many events and developments led up to this breakthrough, and that it is actually an improvement on something that already existed. We are always building on the shou…

Relativity comes to mind. You could nitpick a rebuttal, but no matter how many people you give credit, general relativity was a completely novel idea when it was proposed. I'd argue for special relatively as well.

Agreed.

General relativity was a completely novel idea. Einstein took a purely mathematical object (now known as the Einstein tensor), and realized that since its coveriant derivative was zero, it could be equated (apart fron a constant factor) to a conserved physical object, the energy momentum tensor (except for a constant factor). It didn't just fall out of Riemannian geometry and what was known about physics at the time.

Special relativity was the work of several scientists as well as Einstein, but it was also a completely novel idea - just not the idea of one person working alone.

I don't know why anyone disputes that people can sometimes come up with completely novel ideas out of the blue. This is how science moves forward. It's very easy to look back on a breakthrough and think it looks obvious (because you know the trick that was used), but it's important to remember that the discoverer didn't have the benefit of hindsight that you have.

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

#249

Post by DonaldFisk »

poplarsol wrote: post #99
dotancohen wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relativity comes to mind. You could nitpick a rebuttal, but no matter how many people you give credit, general relativity was a completely novel idea when it was proposed. I'd argue for special relatively as well.

That's not exactly true. Lorentz contraction is a clear antecedent to special relativity.

It isn't an anteceent, it's part of special relativity, discovered by Lorentz. It's well known that special relativity is the work of several people as well as Einstein.

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

#250

Post by hn_acc1 »

lamontcg wrote: post #102
dotancohen wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relativity comes to mind. You could nitpick a rebuttal, but no matter how many people you give credit, general relativity was a completely novel idea when it was proposed. I'd argue for special relatively as well.

Not really. Pretty sure I read recently that Newton appreciated that his theory was non-local and didn't like what Einstein later called "spooky action at a distance". The Lorentz transform was also known from 1887. Time dilation was understood from 1900. Poincaré figured out in 1905 that it was a mathematical group. Einstein put a bow on it all by figuring out that you could derive it from the principle of relativit…

Are you saying Newton was aware of quantum entanglement? Because that's what the "spooky action at a distance" quote refers to.
Post reply on HN