New Comment
I’ll watch this post go negative, try to forget it next week, and maybe come back another month.
The post going negative is a signal that you are doing something wrong and should change your tack, rather than posting more crank slop.
1I’ll watch this post go negative, try to forget it next week, and maybe come back another month.
The post going negative is a signal that you are doing something wrong and should change your tack, rather than posting more crank slop.
1
The last few months have been very interesting. I didn't decide to become a crank and use LLMs to develop a "Theory of Everything," but it kind of just snowballed into that. When I find that many of my ideas have been tried by people like Dirac, Witten, Penrose, and Lord Kelvin, I think, "What the hell am I doing? What chance do I actually have?"
The hardest part isn't just sitting with an LLM and generating a rambling narrative as the AI goes along, sycophantically agreeing with everything. It's making the math work—creating something publishable.
The only thing I have so far is the already published relationship between gravity and the electroweak sector discovered through symbolic regression (no better than a Balmer-esque ansatz); it's not even defendable without a proper Lagrangian, which it's never going to have because it's geometry. That means the rest of the math has to work, and somehow I have to figure out how to show another LLM how to find it using only breadcrumbs. It has not been a successful endeavor. When another AI (I adversarially orchestrate multiple) admitted that "we" are trained on the consensus, I realized it wasn't going to happen.
Let that sink in: when it comes to things that matter, LLMs are incapable of true creativity. Ultimately, they create facsimiles of previously generated human creativity. I despise them and use them as I despise the hammer that hit my thumb yesterday; the job cannot be completed without them.
No, I'm not looking for support here (I have experienced none); this place has been nothing but toxic. It is a fortress of gatekeepers for gatekeepers, punishing unique thoughts. My reward for refusing to pay a pound of flesh and adhere to groupthink is being allowed only one post, edit, or reply per week. I'll watch this post go negative, try to forget it next week, and maybe come back another month.
Who else is trying to find a unified field theory? Who else is being punished and bullied by the consensus? Who else wants math and reason to return?
Take solace: when you read and react to this, I am bound and gagged for an entire week. Take your shots. You are more wrong than you think.
Ü=(√3)(1-4α/3+(α^2)/(√e))=α_G/(α^18)=G(m_p^2)/((α^18)ħc)=1.7152542