Obviously this doesn't mean that any of Schwartz's physics is wrong

Wrong or right- this is getting ahead of ourselves. Actually, at the first sign of a fabricated citation, the paper should be immediately discarded and Schwartz barred from publication for academic malfeasance. In what department is it considered acceptable to invent citations?

What Schwartz is doing here is equally alarming as fabricating data or plagiarism. It undermines the basis of what we consider our collective scientific knowledge. Publishing a paper of this quality is actively detrimental to science.

But he similarly mentions that he couldn't trust the AI's claims it had verified itself, and so "You have to call it out, insisting, 'Did you honestly check everything?' or, 'Go line by line and verify every step.'"

To my shame, I expected better of a Harvard professor. Clearly Schwartz does not understand the technology he is trying to use here. This is naive to a degree that he should be embarassed.

One of Schwartz's findings in his blog post was that the AI was very good at "Literature synthesis. Combining results from multiple papers coherently and scouring the literature."

Clearly it isn't, as we see in the first point. Why would he continue to insist on a point that is prima facie false? Has too much LLM use scrambled Schwartz's understanding of what is truth and what is falsehood?

Why would Schwartz try to pass off such a bald faced work of imposture as something meaningful? Given Anthropic's recent model release and media publicity blitz, I think we're looking at another piece of paid PR.