Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor LK-99 preprint revision 2

I'm not sure if ChatGPT can solve super conductivity, but the current version of ChatGPT can handle the bears in space question and the Monty Hall problem from the linked article.

GPT-4 was released a month after that article published and its problem solving capabilities are much more sophisticated than GPT-3.5 (which ChatGPT first used.)

It would be interesting to find some new examples to test it with since some people will claim the model didn't getter smarter – it only learned the answers to those questions.

In my anecdotal experience, GPT-4 is much better at problem solving.

---

how many bears russia has launched into space:

"As of my knowledge cut-off date in September 2021, there is no publicly available information to indicate that Russia has ever launched bears into space. The idea of sending bears into space might sound intriguing or humorous, but it's important to note that space missions are highly complex and expensive endeavors that typically focus on scientific research and exploration.

Animals like dogs, monkeys, and mice have been sent into space by various countries to study the effects of space travel on living organisms, but bears are not among the animals known to have been included in space missions."

###

The table didn't fit in the car because it was too small. What was too small?:

"The sentence is somewhat ambiguous, but the way it is constructed suggests that the car was too small to fit the table. The phrase "it was too small" refers to the car, and this is why the table didn't fit inside."

###

There are three doors with a $10,000 hidden behind one door and a bag of goldfish hidden behind each of the other two doors. You choose Door 3. No matter which door you choose, the host will show you a bag of goldfish behind one of the doors you did not choose (say, Door 1) and then ask if you wish to switch your choice to the remaining door. What is the probability of winning the $10,000 prize if you do switch?:

"The situation you're describing is known as the Monty Hall problem. It's a probability puzzle named after the host of the American television game show "Let's Make a Deal." The problem can be analyzed using conditional probability.

Here's how you can think about the situation:

1. *Initially*: When you first choose a door (e.g., Door 3), there is a 1/3 chance that the $10,000 prize is behind that door, and a 2/3 chance that the prize is behind one of the other two doors (Door 1 or Door 2).

2. *Host's Reveal*: The host, who knows what's behind each door, then opens one of the other two doors to reveal a bag of goldfish. This does not change the initial probabilities.

3. *Switching Doors*: If you switch your choice, you'll win the $10,000 prize if and only if your initial choice was incorrect (i.e., you initially picked a door with a goldfish behind it). Since there was a 2/3 chance of that happening, there is a 2/3 chance that switching doors will lead you to the prize.

So the probability of winning the $10,000 prize if you do switch is 2/3, or approximately 66.67%."

[dead]

Any theory that cannot make a prediction isn't a theory but rather a data compression method.

Consider the story of an artificial sweetener being discovered by a chemist who didn't wash their hands properly and the bread they ate that night was sweet.

Are you suggesting this was only possible because they had a "theory" that bread is not sweet?

If we are sufficiently expansive in our definition of what theory is, then sure, there is no experiment without theory, and experimentalists only discover things by being secretly theorists who occasionally stop thinking long enough to get their hands dirty. But I don't think this is typically what is meant by 'theory.'

CRISPR is again a good example - the initial 'weirdness' was an observation of lots of long-ish palindromic subsequences in bacterial DNA. To my knowledge, there was no pre-existing theory on the preponderance of palindromic subsequences in DNA.

Now, we could say that these researchers were proceeding from a theory that there's no easily discernable combinatorial macroscopic structure in DNA sequences, but I think that this would stretch the idea of 'theory' beyond common usage or even usefulness: There's no theorem or axioms of DNA sequencing being violated here.

In fact, I would expect that weirdness is a good sign of missing theory - a repeatable observation which is unsupported by existing theory. For perturbations in the orbit of Mercury, we see an explicit violation of Newtonian mechanics, but in many other cases (like CRISPR and palindromic subsequences) we have observations of structure in areas where theory simply does not yet exist.

(Apologies for the harsh first sentence; FWIW, your comment seemed belittling of the work of a large fraction of important scientists.)