Nobel laureate Giorgio Parisi used Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.7 to prove a jamming transition critical exponent identity
The proof builds on full replica symmetry breaking.
Positive users praise Claude AI assisting Nobel laureate Parisi with a jamming exponents proof as validation for AI in advanced research, while negative users dismiss the work as lazy or overhyped copy.
No Digg Deeper questions have been answered for this story yet.
Most Activity
Unless it’s Claude Opus 4.8 in which case it’ll tell you you’re not good enough and to go to sleep or something
If Claude is good enough for Nobel Prize winners it is good enough for you
https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.03300
If Claude is good enough for Nobel Prize winners it is good enough for you
https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.03300
can it really reason tho?
If Claude is good enough for Nobel Prize winners it is good enough for you
https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.03300
@EMostaque
@EMostaque it's not good enough to take to the car wash
@EMostaque And look at the paper’s credits. Work derived from AI interactions count as authorship.
@EMostaque
@EMostaque I agree but it’s like a formula one car. Very powerful, but if you aren't carefully guiding it you will hit the rails badly.
@EMostaque As a Wi-Fi QA, I told it to make an MCP over an IEEE spec w/ high-lvl preferences. Repeat for all docs. Throw em in the wrapper for accurate assists on RTFM asks of “does STA1 or STA2 use dynamic SMPS in that one test in this 2k-page pdf” bc ik the structure but don’t wanna dig
@EMostaque good for them, but why did they feel they had to disclose they interacted with AI? Who gives a shit if it is objective truth?
@oops_here_he_is @EMostaque Because in science, having a transparent process is as important as obtaining a great result. It also has important epistemological implications that is good to highlight.
@EMostaque this Nobel-prize-level copy is crazy, guess my "write a tweet for me" prompts are small potatoes now
@EMostaque Doing sniffer analysis, maybe 1-2/week, I hoard the scripts from each ask of “a visual/histogram/scatterplot/etc of RTS-NAV durations” or any data w/ latent patterns. Then I tell it to use MCP to refine the script with one annotation per test step, so I can show it w/o explaining
@EMostaque Doesn't really track. You need a certain level of sophistication to get good outputs from the (current) models.
@EMostaque Little things add up. MU-EDCF (Wi-Fi 6 media prioritization algorithm) anomaly debugging used to be my most tedious-but-make-no-mistake task if it ever came up, practically a short surgery, now it’s just eyeballing that RTS-NAV histogram without even crossreferencing the testplan
@EMostaque i use claude to argue with people on the internet
feels like im aiming low
@EMostaque There's a million nobel prizes lined up waiting
@EMostaque Using Claude in hard-STEM is a numbers game. Where’s the money going in academia? To pay the mathematicians/scientists spending their precious hours peer-reviewing potentially a complete dud. If Claude catches those before time is sunk, that is still a LOT of money/time saved
@EMostaque Nobel laureates using Claude is great, but are we benchmarking inference consistency or academic output?
@EMostaque If a Nobel Prize winner needs to verify Claude's work, so should you.