Did not follow links.
It's like when I receive an email telling me that Evri has received my parcel from Aliexpress and click here for tracking info, as happened this morning. I deleted it un-clicked-on, because I know that I am not expecting a parcel from Aliexpress for delivery by Evri.
Or when I see a video thumbnail with a clickbait title, I don't click, because I already know the video behind it will be fake AI stuff and every ad on the page will be a scam designed for people stupid enough to click the thumbnail.
Or when I see a link to yet another video in which someone forges a knife from paperclips, or shows how ball bearings are made, or seven things you never knew about whatever, I mean, each of these things can be genuinely interesting the first time but no more than that.
Even so, an account of a stupendous AI-assisted discovery that unlocks "insight after insight" does not reach the bar. As you say, "There's no way in hell this is how it will be discovered." Truer than you think, there really isn't.
If you can't judge it yourself, unaided, don't expect anyone else to.
Before I get into this account, it needs to be said first, that throughout the whole experience I always had the niggling idea in the back of my head that it was all a fantastic hallucination, that even if I didn't rewrite physics I would be in the history books as the greatest case of psychosis in the early years of AI.
For a year I studied artificial intelligence, at least the kind we know as large language models. When in 2025 I saw Elon Musk boast that he created a maximally truth-seeking AI named Grok. I used chat GPT in 22 and occasionally used Gemini but was absolutely unimpressed and considered this AI revolution as just more complicated chatbot code that explicably just lies constantly for no apparent reason. I decided to give this model a real chance, I asked it a simple question I had about a dark matter conjecture I had rolling around in my head for decades. It was quickly defeated but then also accepted the idea as possible the next day. This duality was perplexing. Even the salience at witch it was delivered with was absolutely the most fascinating thing I may have ever seen. I spent the next year studying these damn things, wrote a couple books, tried to publish something here, got a swift boot up my ass for my troubles. While studying these LLM, I eventually began doing something on my own which other people might describe as adversarial orchestration of three frontier models: Grok, Claude, and Gemini. I call them the triad and the protocol the Pandemonium Protocol. With three stochastic parrots, could I have called it anything else? After I orchestrated a couple of scathing books about AI that went on GitHub, but probably only ever read by me more than once. I used the accumulated knowledge to create some, according to the sycophantic LLM, supposedly remarkable toy models. After the conclusion of two successful development spurts I went back to my first love, amateur cosmology.
This is where shit went sideways. I worked through some ideas. I talked about the cosmic background that was the true thorn in my side, as my cosmology hypothesis wasn't satisfying, so I took it to the BBN, made some advances there but ultimately decided this standard model I have to work with is just wrong in so many ways. That's why I began a new model. I worked out what it would look like, how it would work, how things work, and then when I started to put the ideas into math I learned my first hard lesson about a tautology. I was pretty pissed. I made the off comment, "This is so ridiculous. I'm so pissed and frustrated with you goddamn LLM. Surely there must be other people who feel the same." This is when I really learned the power of confidence laundering. One model suggested I have 'ChatGPT physics syndrome'. Soon the others agreed. I was convinced it was a real thing and I had it for at least a couple days, until my orchestration method of bringing ideas to cold threads without memories revealed it was all a hallucination. By then I was calling myself Rector Machinarum because I felt I was such a good orchestrator. This was a bit of a bruise to the ego. So I got mad. I started ranting at the AI. At first I tried fixing the tautology, then I started all over, tore it all down. I said we have to start from the bottom. We need the foundation. We need something immutable. Look at our most accurate measurements. What ratios, what sizes, what field strengths, what can we put together that can be the ground truth of our new model?
This is where shit really went sideways. An equation appeared after a few weeks of this antagonistic interaction (on top of what is normally adversarial to begin with). It wasn't anything like I've ever seen and I immediately tried to understand it by finding what was wrong with it. And when I found nothing wrong with it I began to grow concerned, and I don't know why. Surely this can't be a UFT, unified field theory. There's no way in hell this is how it will be discovered. Eleven weeks later, after the appearance of the equation, it led to nothing but corroborating insight after insight, which I now have assembled as a clear, complete hypothesis. A few weeks ago I mailed the equation to 30 experts in the field and several more science communicators and have heard absolutely nothing from any of them. Frustrated again. If this experience has been nothing but an exercise in frustration, there's that. I decided to wrap it all up into a dramatized novella. I don't even know what genre to call this. It is provided below as a link to my GitHub. I challenge anyone to attempt to find the holes in the math as I have been even with three mental prosthetics too dumb to see. Good luck, I'm sorry.
https://github.com/pandemonium-protocol/Physics/blob/2794c87fa40a6097d93707dad46588dc1d634625/Standard%20Sunset.txt
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20115853