(I did learn much of my QFT from Schwartz’s QFT textbook though, so I hold him in higher regard than <insert random Harvard Physics prof here>.)

LLMs making otherwise extremely intelligent people veer off in a strange direction isn't new. When reassured by LLMs, there have been many cases where someone starts posting papers on a plethora of fields they know nothing about, making unified theories that try to tie several fields together, or get convinced they made a real breakthrough when they haven't. I don't think there's been a single counterexample so far where someone used LLMs to push out so many papers on so many topics and have them be correct. So until someone who knows something in these fields pitches in, I'm remaining skeptical by default.

Wisdom of the crowd has finally proven to be more valuable than some obscure title in academia. Crowds are relentless and ruthless, kind of a red team instead of a cronyism.

PS: The infamous replication crisis deserves a honorable mention here.

Three words: Cambridge, Jason Arday.

I was confused too. Whoever wrote the title(s) doesn’t know a second language, otherwise, they would have realized how confusing that was, even to native English speakers.

We do of course need to watch for hallucinations, but I in general expect AI to be very good at theoretical physics. AI can take a lot of known equations and prove/propose (these are different things!) generalizations to that may or may not match reality. AI can suggest experiments to see if the predictions match the real world. Maybe string theory can finely make a non-trivial prediction that we can test in the real world...

However AI is terrible for other parts of physics (at least so far) and those are also important we shouldn't lose track of them despite the excitement that we can get from progress in things AI is good at.