Can’t get on board with that. Relational QM/no objective reality is just one viewpoint, and it’s worth noting it’s not consensus.

To clarify he’s not claiming objects don’t exist, just that they don’t have observer independent properties.

It is fun to try and wrap your head around what no objective reality would mean. To grasp what we already have shown to be true about time being relative, the examples around simultaneity are a great wtf demonstration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

The process of philosophy involves shedding illusions like words, statements, time, space to reach objectivity. A loop quantum gravity philosopher claiming there is no objective reality could just be an observer stuck at a bottleneck (notice he doesn’t call into question illusory attributes the piece relies on like biographical info).

Barbour’s observation, that quantum appears to demand specialization and record keeping at very unique planes (records are geology, fossils, impressions, photographs) hints that observers are what physical reality is, is counterpoint to “there is no objective reality.”

If reality is non trivially about record keeping, then of course there’s an objective reality, the Darwinian outcome is the objective sum of record keeping and the study of their differences.

Then before submitting if I ask an LLM to review my code and it proposes a few changed lines that are more efficient. Should I then

- Leave my less efficient code unchanged?

- Try to rewrite what was suggested in a way that’s not too similar to what the LLM suggested?

Unreviewed is a key word here.

Any contribution of any LLM-generated content will be rejected and result in an immediate ban for the contributor, without recourse.

It also doesn’t necessarily mean he was a yes man. Often in these situations people spell out their confidence levels plainly and directly to such execs and it just bounces off.

I’m also seeing below people suggesting he could have publicly voiced his concerns, but that probably wasn’t even a legal option for multiple reasons.

Maybe, but for lots of scenarios even M5 could still benefit from being an order of magnitude faster.

AI, dev, some content scenarios, etc…

Hope they’re addressing that at the same time.

No, I wouldn’t think.

The post implies flaws in the original paper, then at the very end seems to concede it was technically fine just should’ve been up front about entanglement.

The post should be edited to be more upfront about what he realized after writing it.

By assuming no entanglement, it's also not a paper about quantum. (Entanglement <=> quantum)

It should not be in Nature. It is... a homework problem, at best? To teach students not to get too excited about publishing.

Without the technical footnote, it could still have been an interesting paper. But wrong

As for homework problems, the blogpost is a better starting point for one. Maybe the blog author should be a prof, and the paper authors should become adjuncts

I think the article makes a good point when it says that nobody else he spoke to about it had noticed this qualifier either. There is a long history of papers in physics making grand claims that lead to decades of mistaken beliefs. For instance, von Neumann's mistaken proof ruling out any kind of hidden variable theory from reproducing QM. Some people still cite this incorrect proof to this day to dismiss hidden variables, 70 years later.

And once you make the caveat obvious, the paper is kind of a nothingburger that got published in Nature.

No published results, missing details/lack of transparency, quality of the research is unknown.

Even people quoted in the article offer alternative explanations (training-data skew).

Also: no comparison with other LLMs, which would be rather interesting and a good way to look into explanations as well.