> Critique of absolute time and space of Newtonian physics was already well underway
This only means Einstein was not alone, it does not mean the results were in distribution.
> Many of the phenomena that relativity would later explain under a consistent framework already had independent quasi-explanations hinting at the more universal theory.
And this comes about because people are looking at edge cases and trying to solve things. Sometimes people come up with wild and crazy solutions. Sometimes those solutions look obvious after they're known (though not prior to being known, otherwise it would have already been known...) and others don't.
Your argument really makes the claim that since there are others pursuing similar directions that this means it is in distribution. I'll use a classic statistics style framing. Suppose we have a bag with n red balls and p blue balls. Someone walks over and says "look, I have a green ball" and someone else walks over and says "I have a purple one" and someone else comes over and says "I have a pink one!". None of those balls were from the bag we have. There are still n+p balls in our bag, they are still all red or blue despite there being n+p+3 balls that we know of.
> I am not a [...] physicist
I think this is probably why you don't have the resolution to see the distinctions. Without a formal study of physics it is really hard to differentiate these kinds of propositions. It can be very hard even with that education. So be careful to not overly abstract and simplify concepts. It'll only deprive you of a lot of beauty and innovation.
To be clear, I don't think coming up with relativity was "in distribution" based on the results of the time. I would be exceedingly surprised if an LLM trained on all of the physics up until that point and nothing else would come up with the framework that Einstein did, from such elegant first principles at that. Without handholding from a prompter, I expect an LLM (or non-critical human thinker) would only parrot the general consensus of confusion and non-uniformity that predominated in that era.
I only believe that (1) if it hadn't been Einstein, it would very soon have been someone else using very similar concepts and evidence, (2) "completely novel idea" is a stricter criterion than "not in distribution," and (3) better examples of completely novel ideas from history exist as a benchmark for this sort of things.
> Without a formal study of physics it is really hard to differentiate these kinds of propositions. It can be very hard even with that education. So be careful to not overly abstract and simplify concepts. It'll only deprive you of a lot of beauty and innovation.
I agree, but with the caveat that I think ancestor worship is also an impediment to understanding our intellectual and cultural heritage. Either all of human creativity deserves to be treated sacredly, or none of it does.
> To be clear, I don't think coming up with relativity was "in distribution" based on the results of the time.
This is difficult to infer from the context of the conversation.
> only believe that (1) if it hadn't been Einstein, it would very soon have been someone else
I also agree, but am unsure of your point.
> (2) "completely novel idea" is a stricter criterion than "not in distribution,"
Sorry, I used a looser word. If you have a strong definition of what "in distribution" means I'll be happy to adapt.
> (3) better examples of completely novel ideas from history exist
Sure. Maybe? I can't judge. I think determining how novel something is really requires domain expertise. I only have an undergraduate degree in physics so I am not really qualified on determining the novelty of relativity, but it appears fairly novel to me fwiw. (And I am an enjoyer of scientific history. I'd really recommend Cropper's The Quantum Physicists: And an Introduction to Their Physics as it teaches QM in a more historical progression. I'd also recommend the An Opinionated History of Mathematics podcast which goes through a lot of interesting stuff, including Galileo)
> I think ancestor worship is also an impediment to understanding our intellectual and cultural heritage
I'm in full agreement here (I have past comments on HN to support this too tbh. Probably best to search for things related to Schmidhuber since that's when ancestor worship frequently happens in those topics). It's good to recognize people, but we over emphasize some and entirely forget most. I don't think this is malicious but more logistical. Even Cropper's work misses many people but I think it is still a good balance considering the audience.
I think the best way to avoid the problem is to remember "my understanding is limited" and always will be. At least until we somehow become omniscient, but I'm not counting on that ever happening.
If that were true then science should have accelerated a lot faster. Science would have happened differently and researchers would have optimized to trying to ingest as many papers as they can.
Dig deep into things and you'll find that there are often leaps of faith that need to be made. Guesses, hunches, and outright conjectures. Remember, there are paradigm shifts that happen. There are plenty of things in physics (including classical) that cannot be determined from observation alone. Or more accurately, cannot be differentiated from alternative hypotheses through observation alone.
I think the problem is when teaching science we generally teach it very linearly. As if things easily follow. But in reality there is generally constant iterative improvements but they more look like a plateau, then there are these leaps. They happen for a variety of reasons but no paradigm shift would be contentious if it was obvious and clearly in distribution. It would always be met with the same response that typical iterative improvements are met with "well that's obvious, is this even novel enough to be published? Everybody already knew this" (hell, look at the response to the top comment and my reply... that's classic "Reviewer #2" behavior). If it was always in distribution progress would be nearly frictionless. Again, with history in how we teach science we make an error in teaching things like Galileo, as if The Church was the only opposition. There were many scientists that objected, and on reasonable grounds. It is also a problem we continually make in how we view the world. If you're sticking with "it works" you'll end up with a geocentric model rather than a heliocentric model. It is true that the geocentric model had limits but so did the original heliocentric model and that's the reason it took time to be adopted.
By viewing things at too high of a level we often fool ourselves. While I'm criticizing how we teach I'll also admit it is a tough thing to balance. It is difficult to get nuanced and in teaching we must be time effective and cover a lot of material. But I think it is important to teach the history of science so that people better understand how it actually evolves and how discoveries were actually made. Without that it is hard to learn how to actually do those things yourself, and this is a frequent problem faced by many who enter PhD programs (and beyond).
> We are always building on the shoulders of giants.
And it still is. You can still lean on others while presenting things that are highly novel. These are not in disagreement.
It's probably worth reading The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. It might seem obvious now but read carefully. If you truly think it is obvious that you can sit in a room armed with only pen and paper and make accurate predictions about the world, you have fooled yourself. You have not questioned why this is true. You have not questioned when this actually became true. You have not questioned how this could be true.
> I think this was all already figured out in 1986 though
They cite that paper in the third paragraph...
Naively, the n-gluon scattering amplitude involves order n! terms. Famously, for the special case of MHV (maximally helicity violating) tree amplitudes, Parke and Taylor [11] gave a simple and beautiful, closed-form, single-term expression for all n.
It also seems to be a main talking point.
I think this is a prime example of where it is easy to think something is solved when looking at things from a high level but making an erroneous conclusion due to lack of domain expertise. Classic "Reviewer 2" move. Though I'm not a domain expert and so if there was no novelty over Parke and Taylor I'm pretty sure this will get thrashed in review.
You're right. Parke & Taylor showed the simplest nonzero amplitudes have two minus helicities while one-minus amplitudes vanish (generically). This paper claims that vanishing theorem has a loophole - a new hidden sector exists and one-minus amplitudes are secretly there, but distributional
My comment was in response to the claim I responded to. Any inference you have made about my feelings about OpenAI are that of your own. You can search my comment history if you want to verify or reject your suspicion. I don't think you'll be able to verify it...
I feel for you because you kinda got baited into this by the language in the first couple comments. But whatever’s going on in your comment is so emotional that it’s hard to tell what you’re asking for that you haven’t been able to read already, tl;dr proof stuck at n=4 for years is now for arbitrary n
Yeah I kind of fell for it. I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised by a particle physicist in the openai victory lap thread or someone with insight into what “GPT 5.2 originally conjectured this” means exactly because the way it’s phrased in the preprint makes it sound like they were all doing bongrips with chatgpt and it went “man do you guys ever think about gluon tree amplitudes?” but uh, my empty post getting downvoted hours after being made empty makes it pretty clear that this is a strictly victory-lap-only thread
Fwiw I'm not trying to celebrate for OpenAI. The press piece definitely makes bolder claims than the paper.
I was just stating the facts and correcting a reaction that went too far in the other direction. By taking my comment as supporting or validating OpenAI's claim is just as bad. An error of the same magnitude.
I feel like I've been quoting Feynman a lot this week: The first principle is to not fool yourself, and you're the easiest person to fool. You're the easiest person for you to fool because you're as smart as yourself and deception is easier than proving. We all fall for these traps and the smartest people in the world (or history) are not immune to it. But it's interesting to see on a section of the internet that prides itself for its intelligence. I think we just love blinders, which is only human
> Early we should see huge chunky contributions and bursts. Loc means things are being realized.
There is nothing more permanent than a temporary fix that works.
This is a common way for tech debt to build. You're right that strategies like "move fast and break things" is a very useful strategy, but it only really works if it is followed by "cleanup, everybody do your share."
LoC as a measurement is nothing without context. But that context is constantly changing and even dependent on people's coding styles. I like to write my first iteration of even small programs pretty dirty, before I refine. I'll even commit them, but they generally won't show up in a PR because I quickly distill.
I think measuring activity or productivity is an extremely difficult thing to measure. A thing that's extremely easy to fool yourself into believing you're measuring accurately. A first order approximation is going to look fine for a little while, but that is the trap. That is how you fool yourself. In a relatively local timeframe it'll keep looking like it is working, but you have no idea if it is accurate over the timeframes that actually matter. The measure is too simple and adding more first order approximations only makes the measurements worse, not better. Context allows you to progress, but complexity increases exponentially while accuracy may not.
Asimov and Feynman also spoke about similar things (along with many others)
In 1980, Asimov famously wrote The Cult of Ignorance[0], criticizing the rise of anti-intellectualism. Where there was a strong political push of "don't trust the experts". He criticizes claims that sound familiar today "America has a right to know" on the basis of this being meaningless without literacy. He clarifies that literacy is far more than being able to actually read words on a page, but to interpret and process them. Asimov isn't being pretentious, his definition is consistent with how we determine reading levels[2] and his critique would be that most people do not have that of a Freshman in High School. Hell, it is even in his fiction! It is even in The Foundation and is literally the premise of Profession[3].
Feynman is a bit more scattered, but I think his discussion about the education system in Brazil (in the 50's) says a lot[4]. He talks a lot about how the students could recite the equations, ace all the tests, and achieve everything that looks to be, at least on paper, perfectly academic; but how the students did not really have the deeper understanding of the equations. It is a discussion about literacy. Were he around today I'm sure he'd use the phrase "metric hacking". Anyone that knows Feynman may also be thinking about his Cargo Cult Science[5](a commencement speech at Cal Tech (1974)). This is where his famous quote
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that.
comes from. But there is a lot of important context surrounding this and it is worth knowing about.
[3] Profession has been in discussion lately, directly relating to this topic. If you haven't read it I'll say it is one of my favorite's of his. Not as good as Foundation but up there with Nightfall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profession_(novella)
I wanted to add Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong. Sometimes I feel it should be required reading before arguing on the internet. I find myself coming back to read it at least once a year
Truthfully, things like uBlock are digital protests. They look different than people marching in a street but they are organized and pushing back against the oppression. But it does look different and isn't as extreme as a riot.
You point to the market but these market giants gain a lot of their stature from the free and open work done by others. The market is not the decider of the value of utility. If it was we'd not hear about donation campaigns for FOSS. We wouldn't hear stories of how there's a single developer working on critical software on nights and weekends. We wouldn't hear about yet another FFMPEG wrapper making millions while trying to demand free work from FFMPEG. We wouldn't hear that stuff because the market would be compensating them.
While there are some things where there is no alternative, you can get pretty far with FOSS, if you know where to look. I'm not trying to say people shouldn't be paid, but I am saying that just pointing to the market is too simplistic of an answer.
> Seems like industry insiders passing responsibility for their bad practices on to consumers really means they want consumers to stay divided.
I think this is why they also encourage the old trope of "It's not just <X>".
It's a truth, but used in a way that makes people feel powerless. Like the war is already lost. It makes people apathetic, because it makes people overwhelmed. It causes the evangelists to quiet themselves as they become exhausted. It normalizes the behavior. It just becomes another one of the many things we're powerless to fight against, so why even try.
I'm not accusing the OP of doing this, but I do want to point out that it is a strategy being used. Not misinformation, not disinformation, but malinformation. Truths used in a specific way, often lacking context. It is the same way people dog whistle, hiding their true intent in normalized speech (it's not a dog whistle if everyone can hear it, that's just a whistle).
Your argument really makes the claim that since there are others pursuing similar directions that this means it is in distribution. I'll use a classic statistics style framing. Suppose we have a bag with n red balls and p blue balls. Someone walks over and says "look, I have a green ball" and someone else walks over and says "I have a purple one" and someone else comes over and says "I have a pink one!". None of those balls were from the bag we have. There are still n+p balls in our bag, they are still all red or blue despite there being n+p+3 balls that we know of.
I think this is probably why you don't have the resolution to see the distinctions. Without a formal study of physics it is really hard to differentiate these kinds of propositions. It can be very hard even with that education. So be careful to not overly abstract and simplify concepts. It'll only deprive you of a lot of beauty and innovation.reply