▲ | nkrisc 8 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
It’s this. When you think you’ve discovered something novel, your first reaction should be, “what mistake have I made?” Then try to find every possible mistake you could have made, every invalid assumption you had, anything obvious you could have missed. If you really can’t find something, then you assume you just don’t know enough to find the mistake you made, so you turn to existing research and data to see if someone else has already discovered this. If you still can’t find anything, then assume you just don’t know enough about the field and ask an expert to take a look at your work and ask them what mistake you made. It’s a huuuuuuuuuuuuge logical leap from LLM conversation yo novel physics. So huge a leap anyone ought to be immediately suspicious. | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | grues-dinner 8 days ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> Akin's Law #19: The odds are greatly against you being immensely smarter than everyone else in the field. If your analysis says your terminal velocity is twice the speed of light, you may have invented warp drive, but the chances are a lot better that you've screwed up. | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | nullc 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Unfortunately people in the thrall of an LLM will tend to use the LLM itself as the checking device. They'll ask it what they could have missed, ask it if those things exclude the theory, etc... and the LLM will just blow smoke up their ass for all of those too. > and ask an expert to take a look at your work Which results in flooding experts with LLM glurge. What to do when the trisector comes --- with an army? | |||||||||||||||||
|