[bpodgursky]

I don't want to be rude but like, maybe you should pre-register some statement like "LLMs will not be able to do X" in some concrete domain, because I suspect your goalposts are shifting without you noticing.

We're talking about significant contributions to theoretical physics. You can nitpick but honestly go back to your expectations 4 years ago and think — would I be pretty surprised and impressed if an AI could do this? The answer is obviously yes, I don't really care whether you have a selective memory of that time.

[RandomLensman]

I don't know enought about theoretical physics: what makes it a significant contribution there?

[terminalbraid]

It's a nontrivial calculation valid for a class of forces (e.g. QCD) and apparently a serious simplification to a specific calculation that hadn't been completed before. But for what it's worth, I spent a good part of my physics career working in nucleon structure and have not run across the term "single minus amplitudes" in my memory. That doesn't necessarily mean much as there's a very broad space work like this takes place in and some of it gets extremely arcane and technical.

One way I gauge the significance of a theory paper are the measured quantities and physical processes it would contribute to. I see none discussed here which should tell you how deep into math it is. I personally would not have stopped to read it on my arxiv catch-up

https://arxiv.org/list/hep-th/new

Maybe to characterize it better, physicists were not holding their breath waiting for this to get done.

[RandomLensman]

Thank you!

[epolanski]

Not every contribution has immediate impact.

[terminalbraid]

That doesn't answer the question. That statement just admits "maybe" which isn't helpful or insightful to answering it.

[outlace]

I never said LLMs will not be able to do X. I gave my summary of the article and my anecdotal experiences with LLMs. I have no LLM ideology. We will see what tomorrow brings.

[nozzlegear]

> We're talking about significant contributions to theoretical physics.

Whoever wrote the prompts and guided ChatGPT made significant contributions to theoretical physics. ChatGPT is just a tool they used to get there. I'm sure AI-bloviators and pelican bike-enjoyers are all quite impressed, but the humans should be getting the research credit for using their tools correctly. Let's not pretend the calculator doing its job as a calculator at the behest of the researcher is actually a researcher as well.

[famouswaffles]

If this worked for 12 hours to derive the simplified formula along with its proof then it guided itself and made significant contributions by any useful definition of the word, hence Open AI having an author credit.

[nozzlegear]

> hence Open AI having an author credit.

How much precedence is there for machines or tools getting an author credit in research? Genuine question, I don't actually know. Would we give an author credit to e.g. a chimpanzee if it happened to circle the right page of a text book while working with researchers, leading them to a eureka moment?

[floxy]

>How much precedence is there for machines or tools getting an author credit in research?

For a datum of one, the mathematician Doron Zeilberger give credit to his computer Shalosh B. Ekhad on select papers.

https://medium.com/@miodragpetkovic_24196/the-computer-a-mys...

https://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/akherim/EkhadCredit...

https://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/pj.html

[nozzlegear]

Interesting (and an interesting name for the computer too), thanks!

[steveklabnik]

Not exactly the same thing, but I know of at least two professors that would try to list their cats as co-authors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._D._C._Willard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Knorozov

[nozzlegear]

That is great, thank you!

[kuboble]

I have seem stuff like "you can use my program if you will make me a co-author".

That usually comes up with some support usually.

[slopusila]

it's called ethics and research integrity. not crediting GPT would be a form of misrepresentation

[nozzlegear]

Would it? I think there's a difference between "the researchers used ChatGPT" and "one of the researchers literally is ChatGPT." The former is the truth, and the latter is the misrepresentation in my eyes.

I have no problem with the former and agree that authors/researchers must note when they use AI in their research.

[slopusila]

now you are debating exactly how GPT should be credited. idk, I'm sure the field will make up some guidance

for this particular paper it seems the humans were stuck, and only AI thinking unblocked them

[famouswaffles]

>How much precedence is there for machines or tools getting an author credit in research?

Well what do you think ? Do the authors (or a single symbolic one) of pytorch or numpy or insert <very useful software> typically get credits on papers that utilize them heavily? Well Clearly these prominent institutions thought GPT's contribution significant enough to warrant an Open AI credit.

>Would we give an author credit to e.g. a chimpanzee if it happened to circle the right page of a text book while working with researchers, leading them to a eureka moment?

Cool Story. Good thing that's not what happened so maybe we can do away with all these pointless non sequiturs yeah ? If you want to have a good faith argument, you're welcome to it, but if you're going to go on these nonsensical tangents, it's best we end this here.

[nozzlegear]

> Well what do you think ? Do the authors (or a single symbolic one) of pytorch or numpy or insert <very useful software> typically get credits on papers that utilize them heavily ?

I don't know! That's why I asked.

> Well Clearly these prominent institutions thought GPT's contribution significant enough to warrant an Open AI credit.

Contribution is a fitting word, I think, and well chosen. I'm sure OpenAI's contribution was quite large, quite green and quite full of Benjamins.

> Cool Story. Good thing that's not what happened so maybe we can do away with all these pointless non sequiturs yeah ? If you want to have a good faith argument, you're welcome to it, but if you're going to go on these nonsensical tangents, it's best we end this here.

It was a genuine question. What's the difference between a chimpanzee and a computer? Neither are humans and neither should be credited as authors on a research paper, unless the institution receives a fat stack of cash I guess. But alas Jane Goodall wasn't exactly flush with money and sycophants in the way OpenAI currently is.

[famouswaffles]

>I don't know! That's why I asked.

If you don't read enough papers to immediately realize it is an extremely rare occurrence then what are you even doing? Why are you making comments like you have the slightest clue of what you're talking about? including insinuating the credit was what...the result of bribery?

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You've decided to accuse prominent researchers of essentially academic fraud with no proof because you got butthurt about a credit. You think your opinion on what should and shouldn't get credited matters ? Okay

I've wasted enough time talking to you. Good Day.

[bpodgursky]

If a helicopter drops someone off on the top of Mount Everest, it's reasonable to say that the helicopter did the work and is not just a tool they used to hike up the mountain.

[nozzlegear]

Who piloted the helicopter in this scenario, a human or chatgpt? You'd say the pilot dropped them off in a helicopter. The helicopter didn't fly itself there.

[bpodgursky]

“They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is only in their minds, yet they are in that prison; and so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out.”

― C.S. Lewis, The Last Battle

[nozzlegear]

"For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

— Carl Sagan

[bpodgursky]

I read the narnia series many times as a kid and this one stuck with me, I didn't prompt for it.

I have no real way to demonstrate that I'm telling the truth, but I am ¯\_(ツ)_/¯