The person seems real, unless he faked his TedX talk 2 years ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et5HC8SR0BA or 2700 followers on LI https://www.linkedin.com/in/logan-nye/ along with the company, a cofounder etc.

The volume and breadth of publications is unreal.

e.g. Quantum Extensions to the Einstein Field Equations - 10 citations https://www.scirp.org/pdf/jhepgc2024104_362181145.pdf

The physics paper has been published on a predatory 'open-access' journal, where basically you can pay to publish whatever (ref: https://blog.cabells.com/2021/07/07/no-signs-of-slowing/, look for scirp).

I gave a diagonal reading, it uses the right jargon somehow. They add some new components to the Einstein-Hilbert action they say originate from quantum complexity contributions, to be honest seems completely random, but i'm not an expert. Especially the conclusions look like they have been written with AI.

The 10 citations are almost all self-citing: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=2388097775195172652...

Your links give a plausible picture but apparently not in the terms you're thinking.

He's a real person. His TedX talk is about applying AI medicine. Now medicine has so far been one of the least useful ways of applying LLMs/AI but even in areas where its been effective, it's problem is no one is that much of expert 'cause the AI is doing the "thinking" (prompt-"engineering" isn't nothing, it just isn't that hard to pick-up and has to be constantly changing and simplifying as the models improve).

And the thing about his "amazing" output is that it has all the ear-marks of someone who lightly editing "brilliant" LLM hallucinations. Just the case of Quantum Extensions to the Einstein Field Equations; this is either going to be big advance with thousands of citations or it will bogus (and paid placement - that's negative credibility, less credible than just an bare ArchiveX upload).

So, sure he's real. His claims, on the other hand...

Edit: And the thing about the stream of "genius" ideas is that LLMs seem to be inspiring many people with the approach of bouncing ideas off the chat-thing, having the chat-thing fill the ideas with seemingly plausible phrases and math (most of which makes sense) and reach the point where they seem to have created an earth shattering advance - especially in fields they didn't know in any depth. Notably, cranks have been common in many fields already but this allows cranks to proceed without the former markers of crankdom. And that presents some challenges to a variety of fields.

is this a longer restatement of the above idea that the person is real but publications are unreal?

I think it's not real.

https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/search?type=3&name=L

"[email protected]" doesn't seem to be a real user.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=loga...

There seems to be a lot of slope with no citations.

I think this submission should be flagged.

https://www.cmu.edu/swartz-center-for-entrepreneurship/educa... lists a certain "Logan Nye, MD". It doesn't give his email address, but I checked a few of the other people and their email addresses don't turn up with the search you linked either.

So I think the GitHub user logannye is most likely a real master's student at CMU, but that doesn't mean he isn't also mass-producing papers of questionable validity with AI.

It seems like he took a leave of absence from CMU to start his company (based on Linkedin)

you post this from an account created 3 weeks ago with karma 3 based on an email search?

The argument doesn't depend on the users karma

Plus the lack of scholar cites for any of the users papers is more damning than the email search - but they work together.

See my other post. The author has a TedX talk and papers with citations and co-authors, etc. While that wouldn't exclude a cloned profile, it certainly doesn't make him not real.