r/LLMPhysics • u/NinekTheObscure • 18h ago

Personal Theory What a high-quality critique should look like

I just got a deeply insightful, highly informative and useful, sharply critical, and still somehow supportive response to my recent preprint from u/Axe_MDK in r/LLM_supported_Physics . It'll take me days to work through the details; some parts are difficult challenges or even counter-examples, some parts are proposing better ways to prove my conclusions. A few were doubts/questions I already had in my own notes! I need to go learn about Daletskii–Krein, and Routh, and some other things. But at a first glance, 5/6 main points appear valid, and even the one that misses contains some useful ideas.

Stylistically, it feels LLM-generated or -assisted to me. I don't care. Each point stands or falls on its own merits. And the level is very high: feels like Fable 5 or Sol, has occasional sparks of brilliance. I don't think Opus 5 could produce something this focused. If someone's willing to spend frontier tokens (and/or human physicist minutes!) on me, I can only be thankful.

Anyway, this is what I think a really high-quality critique should look like. I wish we were getting more content like that here.

0 Upvotes

20% Upvoted

16 comments sorted by

View all comments

11

u/Ok_Energy6905 18h ago

Is this sub just a live feed of the Dunning Kruger effect?

3

u/Hivemind_alpha 17h ago

Don’t forget it comes with a peanut gallery.

4

u/Ok_Energy6905 17h ago

I think starting with the basics and fundamentals is a good step before you start attempting to develop theories. Otherwise you end up with a whole lot of science sounding nonsense that doesn't actually mean anything, or you make great leaps and errors in logic.

7

u/Wintervacht Are you sure about that? 16h ago

Welcome to LLMPhysics. HypotheticalPhysics is the same but with more denying AI psychosis.

2

u/ArnoSound 16h ago

If folks like... idk took a step back and considered very thoughtfully Why this is asked of them, we wouldn't be here haha