5 ms·

I have reported nothing but numerical results. Making assumptions about me instead of looking at the numbers says more about your background than it does about

I have reported nothing but numerical results. Making assumptions about me instead of looking at the numbers says more about your background than it does about mine.

bigyabai 9mo ago
I have done nothing but associate your "numerical results" with other numberslop I see from LLMs. Again, you're self-reporting.
- albert_roca 9mo ago
  Can you share the results of your analysis by association? Or was it an instant mental calculation?
yuuu 9mo ago
From the manuscript linked in your profile: > The author declares the intensive and extensive use of Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemini 3.0 Pro (Google) and sincerely thanks its unlimited interlocution capacity. The author declares as their own responsibility the abstract formulation of the research, the conceptual guidance, and the decision-making in case of intellectual dilemma. The AI performed the mathematical verification of the multiple hypotheses considered throughout the process, but the author is solely responsible for the final content of this article. The prompts are not declared because they number in the thousands, because they are not entirely preserved, and because they contain elements that are part of the author’s privacy.
- albert_roca 9mo ago
  This seems properly copied and pasted. Good job. I guess we agree that AI is already playing a central role in science, and physics is no exception.
  - yuuu 9mo ago
    > AI performed the mathematical verification That should be done by the human writing the manuscript, i.e., you.
    - albert_roca 9mo ago
      Absolutely not. Results don't depend on who performed the calculation or how it was done. Can you solve 12,672 Feynman diagrams by hand?
      - deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]
      - rolph 9mo ago
        i can. and i will take longer than you. i will take longer, because at each step the process of lateral association occurs, this will foster imaginative variation of schema, and result in inspiration, an internally generated drive to pursue a goal, and experience the results. i will not only complete the task, but will understand the many outcomes of task corruption as they relate to the components of the task. you will obtain a set of right answers, i will discover the rules that govern the process.
        albert_roca 9mo ago
        Fair enough. However, it is practically impossible to complete such a task in a human lifetime. But even if it were possible, the main point stands: using computers to perform calcualtions is standard scientific practice. Discrediting a proposal solely because it uses AI is retrograde per se. It contradicts the history of technological progress and excludes potentially valid results based on intellectual prejudice.
        rolph 9mo ago
        who discredited your proposal?
        9mo ago

I have reported nothing but numerical results. Making assumptions about me instead of looking at the numbers says more about your background than it does about mine.

bigyabai 9mo ago

I have done nothing but associate your "numerical results" with other numberslop I see from LLMs. Again, you're self-reporting.

albert_roca 9mo ago
Can you share the results of your analysis by association? Or was it an instant mental calculation?

yuuu 9mo ago

From the manuscript linked in your profile: > The author declares the intensive and extensive use of Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemini 3.0 Pro (Google) and sincerely thanks its unlimited interlocution capacity. The author declares as their own responsibility the abstract formulation of the research, the conceptual guidance, and the decision-making in case of intellectual dilemma. The AI performed the mathematical verification of the multiple hypotheses considered throughout the process, but the author is solely responsible for the final content of this article. The prompts are not declared because they number in the thousands, because they are not entirely preserved, and because they contain elements that are part of the author’s privacy.

albert_roca 9mo ago
This seems properly copied and pasted. Good job. I guess we agree that AI is already playing a central role in science, and physics is no exception.
- yuuu 9mo ago
  > AI performed the mathematical verification That should be done by the human writing the manuscript, i.e., you.
  - albert_roca 9mo ago
    Absolutely not. Results don't depend on who performed the calculation or how it was done. Can you solve 12,672 Feynman diagrams by hand?
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
    - rolph 9mo ago
      i can. and i will take longer than you. i will take longer, because at each step the process of lateral association occurs, this will foster imaginative variation of schema, and result in inspiration, an internally generated drive to pursue a goal, and experience the results. i will not only complete the task, but will understand the many outcomes of task corruption as they relate to the components of the task. you will obtain a set of right answers, i will discover the rules that govern the process.
      - albert_roca 9mo ago
        Fair enough. However, it is practically impossible to complete such a task in a human lifetime. But even if it were possible, the main point stands: using computers to perform calcualtions is standard scientific practice. Discrediting a proposal solely because it uses AI is retrograde per se. It contradicts the history of technological progress and excludes potentially valid results based on intellectual prejudice.
        rolph 9mo ago
        who discredited your proposal?
        9mo ago