Extending single-minus amplitudes to gravitons

https://openai.com/index/extending-single-minus-amplitudes-to-gravitons/

by telotortium • 5 months ago

16 17 5 months ago

behnamoh4• 5 months ago

I'm tired of these posts; LLMs are good for happy-path demos, that's it. And even then, their success rate depends on the prompter already knowing the answer!

Literally any out-of-distribution project in which I used LLMs lead to catastrophic failure. The models can't "see" stuff outside their training data.

semiquaver2• 5 months ago

I legitimately can’t tell if you’re being serious. It kind of seems like you might be trying to parody LLM detractors that will never admit to their usefulness. If you’re serious, why choose to say so in this post, which includes hard evidence that you’re wrong?

behnamoh4• 5 months ago

which includes hard evidence that you’re wrong?

You should already know what to ask to extract the answer OpenAI claims gpt-5.2-pro gave them.

Then you should be lucky to get an answer that makes sense.

Then you should already know how to verify the model's response.

Only after all these steps should you cherry-pick the one-in-a-million successful response to feature on your website.

And finally, you should prove that the answer didn't already exist in the training data. It's highly likely that the problem was solved before and the model picked that up. I have yet to see a genuinely novel discovery these models can produce.

* I'm an LLM researcher, but that doesn't mean I should close my eyes to the unjustified hype around language models.

JProthero3• 5 months ago

Do you understand the purported result, and the verification? I don't, but I'm confident that Andrew Strominger wouldn't have agreed to put his name on this if he didn't think it was correct and interesting.

The human authors have positions at the Institute for Advanced Study (Einstein's old institution), Vanderbilt, Harvard (Strominger) and Cambridge in the UK.

If you have to gauge this by the reputation of the experts involved in it as I do, that seems like a good list to me.

muhdeeb• 5 months ago

How I wish more people would remember this! What extraordinary interpolation tools we have! Truly marvelous and worth celebrating, but not worth a damn for extrapolation. Such a torrent of well-formed advertising trying to convince experts that a universal and reliable extrapolator has been demonstrated!

wat10000• 5 months ago

You don't need to know the answer, just be able to recognize it. There are many situations where you can judge the output a lot easier than you can produce it, and LLMs are quite useful for those.

adampunk• 5 months ago

That's one heck of a next token to predict.

semiquaver2• 5 months ago

Well, quantum mechanics is one thing you’d expect a stochastic parrot to know about.

micheles• 5 months ago

As a former Theoretical Physicist, this result is remarkable. I myself I tried to use AI for calculations in Perturbative Quantum Field Theory and I was impressed. I agree with the authors: it looks like the future of Theoretical Physics would be more in verification and consistency checking of AI-assisted results rather than in manual calculations.

Extending single-minus amplitudes to gravitons

Related Stories