I would interpret it as implying that the result was due to a lot more hand-holding that what is let on.

Was the initial conjecture based on leading info from the other authors or was it simply the authors presenting all information and asking for a conjecture?

Did the authors know that there was a simpler means of expressing the conjecture and lead GPT to its conclusion, or did it spontaneously do so on its own after seeing the hand-written expressions.

These aren't my personal views, but there is some handwaving about the process in such a way that reads as if this was all spontaneous involvement on GPTs end.

But regardless, a result is a result so I'm content with it.

▲

lupsasca an hour ago | parent [-]

Hi I am an author of the paper. We believed that a simple formula should exist but had not been able to find it despite significant effort. It was a collaborative effort but GPT definitely solved the problem for us.

▲

etraql 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Do you also work at OpenAI? A comment pointing that out was flagged by the LLM marketers.

▲

buttered_toast an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Oh that's really cool, I am not versed in physics by any means, can you explain how you believed there to be a simple formula but were unable to find it? What would lead you to believe that instead of just accepting it at face value?

▲

lupsasca an hour ago | parent [-]

There are closely related "MHV amplitudes" which naively obey a really complicated formula, but for which there famously also exists a much simpler "Parke-Taylor formula". Alfredo had derived a complicated expression for these new "single-minus amplitudes" and we were hoping we could find an analogue of the simpler "Parke-Taylor formula" for them.

	▲	buttered_toast an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Thank you for taking the time to reply, I see you might have already answered this elsewhere so it's much appreciated.