Re:GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics
by lupsasca on Friday February 13, 2026 @04:43PM
(#47008239)
Hi I am an author of the paper. We believed that a simple formula should exist but had not been able to find it despite significant effort. It was a collaborative effort but GPT definitely solved the problem for us.
Re:GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics
by buttered_toast on Friday February 13, 2026 @04:48PM
(#47008290)
Oh that's really cool, I am not versed in physics by any means, can you explain how you believed there to be a simple formula but were unable to find it? What would lead you to believe that instead of just accepting it at face value?
Re:GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics
by lupsasca on Friday February 13, 2026 @04:57PM
(#47008388)
There are closely related "MHV amplitudes" which naively obey a really complicated formula, but for which there famously also exists a much simpler "Parke-Taylor formula". Alfredo had derived a complicated expression for these new "single-minus amplitudes" and we were hoping we could find an analogue of the simpler "Parke-Taylor formula" for them.
Re:GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics
by buttered_toast on Friday February 13, 2026 @05:00PM
(#47008415)
Thank you for taking the time to reply, I see you might have already answered this elsewhere so it's much appreciated.
Re:GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics
by lupsasca on Friday February 13, 2026 @06:26PM
(#47009249)
My pleasure---thank you for your interest!
Re:GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics
by etraql on Friday February 13, 2026 @05:41PM
(#47008829)
Do you also work at OpenAI? A comment pointing that out was flagged by the LLM marketers.
Re:GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics
by buttered_toast on Friday February 13, 2026 @06:32PM
(#47009306)
I think it says in the paper that he does, but it's also public knowledge.
Was the initial conjecture based on leading info from the other authors or was it simply the authors presenting all information and asking for a conjecture?
Did the authors know that there was a simpler means of expressing the conjecture and lead GPT to its conclusion, or did it spontaneously do so on its own after seeing the hand-written expressions.
These aren't my personal views, but there is some handwaving about the process in such a way that reads as if this was all spontaneous involvement on GPTs end.
But regardless, a result is a result so I'm content with it.