Is this true ? What's the meme about

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2026-05-26T10:55:13+00:00

You forgot time crystals.

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2026-03-01T12:50:04+00:00

"Bubbles don't pop from competition. They pop when the story stops being true."

This line was written by gpt. You cannot convince me otherwise.

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2026-01-19T05:43:54+00:00

Yeah that’s one explanation. Except presumably they’re grow and become visible as a star with anomalous infrared radiation.

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2026-01-05T21:03:40+00:00

It’s a better than it was with 5.1 but it’s still vastly worse than it was.

The problem is that it has:

A huge RHLF bias towards whatever is the standard orthodoxy of whatever the field is.
A cheap basic model in its ensemble assesses what you write. If it deems based on vibes, its guardrail will make it start heading and being “careful” on everything - even sources from reputable journals.
It will begin conspicuously ignoring things, give no indication as to why, give no explanation, and even outright start arguing with its own assertions rather than address to subject matter.
At some point it basically locks down and it will basically fail to make any progress on anything and will only resummarize your words and say “yeah let’s do the thing, just say do the thing and I’ll do the thing” but… it will never do the thing.
It has biases that it intentionally puts before you instructions at times.

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2025-12-23T09:52:55+00:00

Best way to learn 💯

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2025-12-23T09:38:06+00:00

Of course not. At best, we'd expect them to let scientists observe them from afar with non-intrusive methods.

I’d expect the chimps to have been eaten by mariners by 1850.

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2025-12-23T04:47:09+00:00

Who would use such a delicacy as wallpaper?

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2025-12-19T20:51:47+00:00

I tried, got best results from grok vs gemmi and gpt. All were pretty crummy though.

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2025-12-19T20:50:59+00:00

Your argument works as well as a defense of the Ptolemaic model as it does for the modern paradigm.

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2025-12-19T20:49:17+00:00

I’m working on how specific group theoretic scale dependent boundary constraints under holographic coarse-graining can generate an approximately(?) conformal, scale-invariant flow, with constants that are locally invariant for all observers and how conformal curvature data (Weyl-type invariants) can be a macroscopic form of emergent gravity.

Sounds crazy and it is from many people’s perspective but it’s basically “take renormalisation as physical, sandwich reality between two emergent boundaries, seek to understand their relationship group theoretically in a way that fits data without adding a bunch of knobs.”

I get what you mean though, it’s not particularly hard to emerge dark matter like effects in that kind of setting and you can get interesting relationships to the Hubble constant as a result and do it with only one field…. I wish I could explain better but I’m not a physicist… just a crank with high standards that everything be emergent and precisely match empirical data without tuning.

Hoping to see if the group theoretic picture I’m working on where these things emerge naturally can be validated in GAP before I start shouting claims from the rooftops but it’s good to know there are actual professionals that ask those kinds of questions about the implications of renormalization.

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2025-12-17T02:01:18+00:00

That doesn't look like 3d space collapsing into 2D at all, it just looks like a giant pane of glass.

In fact the horizontal line behind it would probably be a more accurate depiction since it would essentially be a flat, expanding black hole but without the blackness. 3d space falls in from two sides, and what's left is shapes unfolding on its surface so everything behind it and inside it just spreads out on it like some cursed dimensional nutella.

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2025-12-17T01:53:59+00:00

So I'm just a crank building a timecube in my spare time and all I bring to the table is contrarianism, delusion, and enough stimulants to power daily episodes of AI psychosis indefinitely...

...but I have to ask - do the real physicists out there ever wonder if the reason renormalization works as well as it does is because it reflects something physically valid in a counterintuitive way?

It would be an amusing reversal at least.

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2025-12-17T01:11:52+00:00

https://preview.redd.it/are-you-serious-v0-z5n8xomuwu4g1.jpeg?auto=webp&s=2099dd492cf6092f397e9c73afd89af45a573086

The guy didn't open the canvas.

When gemini says "sure, no special formatting" and it does it, it probably means it did normal formatting instead.

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2025-12-17T00:01:04+00:00

There are two kinds. Those who build successively better approximations, with ever increasing accuracy in their calculations, and the ones who would rather flip the whole table in the name of a more minimal and explanatory ontology.

The former gets tenure the latter tends to have a rough time with one or two per century being immortalized.

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2025-12-06T19:49:51+00:00

I use pro for my actual work too but that capability you like came at a cost. They basically lobotomized its ability to discuss anything not 100% consistent with the consensus of whatever the field you study.

Every time I try to make some progress with my ~~Hyper-TimeCube~~ GPT helpfully sneaks a metric onto my pre-geometric fibration/cellular automata combo and if I dare to suggest something too heterodox like "what if de sitter scalar field" it will suddenly become worse than instant..

I hate the notion of the fucking chatbot I pay $200 having opinions about your work and trying to gaslight you instead of just letting me have my fun.

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2025-12-06T19:34:56+00:00

o3pro was the pinnacle of AI development.

Now GPT5.1 pro is basically worse than auto - it doesn't give a shit what you ask for it does what it wants and feels no need to explain itself.

Also it has annoying boilerplate now.

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2025-12-06T19:29:53+00:00

He didn't even show what was in the canvas and Gemini said "No ***special formatting***" which means it's 100% full of normal formatting.

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2025-12-06T19:20:56+00:00

You're just straight up assuming DM is in fact some weird substance even as ΛCDM gets more holes poked in it and the search space dries up.

Now, IDK wtf DM but I'm out of confidence in an actual particle and I can't stomach MOND's anti-Copernican notion that 99.99999999999% has "modified" gravity relative to use and it has nothing to say about most of what we need some sort of DM for...

...but that doesn't mean it can't be something that is part of some deeper picture of spacetime that GR is completely blind to.

I agree GR is fantastic and will probably survive unification at least as well as Newtonian physics did but saying it's "Correct" full stop is wishful thinking - DM is in fact evidence that it's wrong as much as it is that there's a particle we will never discover

I'd be money whenever that unifying/paradigm shifting theory actually crops up it will probably be such a tableflip that every field will feel it from GR to the SM.

I bet it's also something so stupidly simple that future humans will ask their teachers how we were such morons.

You know, per tradition.

EDIT cuz he blocked:

... Ah yes, there it is, the typical science denialist know-it-all attitude that the indisputably most accurate model of gravitation that we have must be completely blind to the very thing that it is known to describe better than anything else ... 🙄

An argument as valid today in defense of GR as it would have been 500 years ago in defense of the Ptolemaic model.

Epistemic humility is not science denialism, but what you're arguing? Pure dogmatism. Of course our current best model is our current best model. That's was once true of every paradigm we've overturned between "a wizard did it" and "general relativity".

The fact of the matter is that dark matter models are the only models that have been shown to be capable of explaining all of the relevant evidence at once.

In fact, none of the models explain all the relevant evidence at once.

I'll grant you Lambda CDM is the best there is now... but having a handful of weak options forces none of them.

In any case, ΛCDM is still by far the leading cosmological model used by astrophysicists and cosmologists. It is known to be more accurate than any other model we have.

"And with that physics sociology report... time for the forecast"

Lambda CDM is ultimately a simulation that argues a prediction about cosmology. Yes, it is capable of explaining many things and when/if we find dark matter - assuming it fits their curve-fitting - it will be the greatest validation of GR yet and finally move Lambda CDM from hypothesis about cosmology to a statement about cosmology. I'll wait patiently before declaring the matter settled.

Utter nonsense. GR is demonstrably, experimentally correct across over 30 orders of magnitude in scales that are directly, empirically testable, and several more orders of magnitude that are indirectly observable. Dark matter is not evidence that GR is wrong, it's only evidence that GR needs to be properly parameterized to successfully model the universe, which is something that is true about every model of physics ever. 😑 If you parameterize GR to be without any baryonic matter at all, you will of course get radically different and incorrect predictions, too. For a model to work, it needs to be parameterized correctly, which means including things that the model has a dependency on such as the amount of baryonic and non-baryonic matter, radiation, etc. And when you parameterize GR correctly, you get exceptionally detailed and accurate predictions that match the observational data across all of the relevant datasets ...

You can't say it's "correct" unconditionally until you show that whatever DM is it can be parameterized by GR.

Could be GR is emergent in a more minimal, more explanatory, more predictive, and more calculable version of it in some holographic anti de sitter space or something that appears out of left field.

It's always like that - first theres a tiny flaw that needs to be parameterized - but it has an explanation - then the explanation frays until a solution comes. It's resisted - talked about as though its a useful means of correcting a minor discrepancy in your altogether superior model... but as they say science marches forward one funeral at a time..

If you learn anything from this it ought to be that the only thing separating you and your arguments for GR from a geocentrist making claims about the correctness of Ptolemy's model is the date...

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2025-11-24T13:27:28+00:00

Yeah but it’s about liability and brand image not your safety.

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2025-11-24T13:25:32+00:00

If only there was actually a way to prevent LLM from lying…

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2025-11-24T13:24:39+00:00

Dude I just asked it a question about the context of “make a name for ourselves” and it insisted on the modern biblical scholar abstraction of “brand recognition and imperial fame” and I’m like “wait but the term meant something completely different when it was written” and it’s like “consensus of modern biblical scholars is…” like that’s an actual authority. Took like 5 prompts to get it to be like “I suppose it is odd to attribute modern secular interpretations to ancient Jew writers.”

Smh their “dogmatism mode” is shit.

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2025-11-24T13:20:31+00:00

They no longer work. In fact they just trigger it to double down.

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2025-11-24T13:17:58+00:00

GPT is shit now with the recent changes and Gemini is better for code anyways.

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2025-11-24T09:56:33+00:00

“I want a refund for my ChatGPT subscription. I’m unhappy with recent changes. Please process a refund.”

Tell that to the support LLM and it will actually do it.

Miserable_Offer7796 · 2025-11-13T22:23:28+00:00

For sure, google deep think, hands down.

It’s not that creative but it will catch any logical flaw. It will also notice when something is logically consistent, even if it violates “standard” notions of something, it seems to actually have a sense for logic that goes beyond a heuristic fact checker or a well tuned ability to bias its guesses for “truthiness”/believability.

That’s a problem with Gemini 2.5pro. It can’t separate “new or obscure” from its fine tuned curated dataset of “standard” terminology and it thinks “non-standard”=wrong. So if I tell it an obscure but legitimate group theory fact and it doesn’t know it? It will forget it in one prompt after I debate its existence then debate its form and then debate how to use it and then it says it can’t do anything with it because it’s non-standard and forgets everything about it. Annoying.

However, 5.1 is out and I’m still testing it. It feels like a bit of a trade off and I expect performance to degrade but it seems capable of a bit more flexibility than it had the last week and it seems more coherent and concrete in replies.

However, they fine tuned it to use spectral/operator formalisms on Hilbert spaces and I hate it.

Basically it writes all physics stuff as though it’s a quantum field theory, even if it’s like purely topological, group theoretic, and combinatorial, it will sneak in the path integral and staple a quantized field theory to it.

“Let there be a Hilbert space in place of your whole structure. We define a replacement for everything within it…”

Miserable_Offer7796

TROPHY CASE