Physicist here. Did you guys actually read the paper? Am I missing something? The "key" AI-conjectured formula (39) is an obvious generalization of (35)-(38), and something a human would have guessed immediately.
(35)-(38) are the AI-simplified versions of (29)-(32). Those earlier formulae look formidable to simplify by hand, but they are also the sort of thing you'd try to use a computer algebra system for.
I'm willing to (begrudgingly) admit the possibility for AI to do novel work, but this particular result does not seem very impressive.
I picture ChatGPT as the rich kid whose parents privately donated to a lab to get their name on a paper for college admissions. In this case, I don't think I'm being too cynical in thinking that something similar is happening here and that the role of AI in this result is being well overplayed.
Also a physicist here -- I had the same reaction. Going from (35-38) to (39) doesn't look like much of a leap for a human. They say (35-38) was obtained from the full result by the LLM, but if the authors derived the full expression in (29-32) themselves presumably they could do the special case too? (given it's much simpler). The more I read the post and preprint the less clear it is which parts the LLM did.
Random anonymous HN driveby claiming something that'd be horrible PR; or the coauthors on the GPT-5.2 paper...and the belief OpenAI isn't aggressively stupid, especially after earlier negative press....gotta say, going with the coauthors, after seeing their credentials.
I think you're misunderstanding my claim. There's no scandal here, just run-of-the-mill academic politicking. I fully believe that ChatGPT did the work they say it did, but that it deserves about as much credit as Mathematica does in "deriving a new result".
No, because you can’t use mathematica to do this. You have been walking down a slippery slope for a couple years now, your choice when to exit. Sucks I gotta eat downvotes for it, but so it goes.
You're getting short with me, so first I'll reframe in a way that you can gain instead of scrap: I'll pay you $1000 if by 11:30 PM PST, you have de novo derived the N->infinity formulation using solely Mathematica and the initial problem.
I also have a physics background, and separately, have derived novel results in color science using Mathematica that led to a great effect on my career.
I wouldn't wish having to do that on anyone, it was awful work.
Independently of it being awful, I know it's extremely, extremely, unlikely to luck into this complex of a result, both in my opinion and seeming reality, here: if someone could have done it before, why didn't they?
If is that trivial, you'll prove it, make some money, and I'll understand that it really was that trivial, and we'll get some headlines out of it. Win-win, modulo I'll look like an ass.
If it isn't that trivial, you won't do it, and no one will notice this far down a thread. But you seem thoughtful, you'll likely grapple with the gulf between your flippant response and reality, and gain some insight. Win for you either way, in that case.
“I fully believe that ChatGPT did the work they say it did, but that it deserves about as much credit as Mathematica does in "deriving a new result".”
The only thing you said is arguable is whether it deserves about as much credit as Mathematica.
I provided 3 prongs as to why I believe that is untrue, put $1000 up for you to show it is true, you replied with more bullying. Your loss, $1000 was more than generous.
(35)-(38) are the AI-simplified versions of (29)-(32). Those earlier formulae look formidable to simplify by hand, but they are also the sort of thing you'd try to use a computer algebra system for.
I'm willing to (begrudgingly) admit the possibility for AI to do novel work, but this particular result does not seem very impressive.
I picture ChatGPT as the rich kid whose parents privately donated to a lab to get their name on a paper for college admissions. In this case, I don't think I'm being too cynical in thinking that something similar is happening here and that the role of AI in this result is being well overplayed.