[bonzini]

The first paper they link to is not about string theory. It's using math that was developed for string theory, and is perfectly valid outside it, to make predictions that can be (and are) experimentally validated.

It has exactly none of the problems of string theory, and I am not sure why it's clumped with a physics paper in the blog. How is it a problem to say "hey they used string theory tools!" in a press release? If anything it might get other people to look at the math and get something good out of it...

[aaplok]

This quote explains why the author thinks that it is a problem :

> with string theorists now virtually unemployable unless they can figure out how to rebrand as machine learning experts.

Their issue is (seemingly) not with the paper, but with the claim that these headlines feed a hype that attribute to string theory capabilities it doesn't have.

To be clear this is OP's argument, not mine. I am not sure I buy it, except perhaps for the fact that every other academic is expected to rebrand as an ML expert nowadays. It has more to do with ML hype than with string theory hype.

[bonzini]

The professor whose student worked on this problem is a network theorist. He's never done string theory and has no need to "rebrand as machine learning expert". So yeah I don't buy it either.

[WhitneyLand]

Left this on his blog but it’s awaiting moderation:

It would be helpful to have more clearly targeted and titrated criticism, because you’ve mentioned press releases, a sciam article, the paper, and Sabine all without differentiation.

I hope it’s clear enough the paper itself is legit and doesn’t seem to make any inappropriate claims. Beyond that, the PRs seem to be the real offenders here, the sciam article less so (could be argued that’s healthy popsci), and I’m not sure what comment you’re making about Sabine. The title of her video may be click baity but the content itself seems to appropriately demarcate string theory from the paper.

[hannob]

I'm certainly a lay person here, so take this with a grain of salt. But my understanding is that this is part of the problem, or more the issue that people criticize.

I think it's largely uncontroversial that the math in string theory could be useful in other areas. But if that's your argument for the legitimacy of string theory then the question arises what string theory is and if it is still part of physics. Because physics has, of course, the goal of describing the real world, and, my understanding is, string theory failed to do that, despite what many people have hoped.

If string theory is "just a way of developing math that can be useful in totally unrelated areas", it's, well, part of mathematics. But I don't think that's how the field sees itself.

[bonzini]

And why would that be a reason to attack people who don't care at all about the physics, but acknowledge that the mathematical ideas they use originated in string theory? Should they omit that just because the physics side of string theory has been more or less fruitless?

[Tazerenix]

Peter Woit, the Columbia maths department computer systems administrator, makes his bread by googling the word String Theory and then posting what ever latest results come up in a disingenuous way on his blog to stir reactions from his readers.

[stonogo]

Seems like a disingenuous description of a person with a terminal degree in the subject at hand. Why bother?

[jfengel]

Because, unfortunately, a terminal degree is not always a guarantee of future productivity.

String theory came into the public consciousness about two decades ago, followed by a backlash from a relatively small but persistent set of professors. String theory has largely dropped out of the public focus, but those researchers continue to hammer at it.

Woit is one of those. He's known primarily for his objections to string theory. His own work is just fine, but nobody outside of his discipline knows it.