AI solved share of complex physics problems jumped from 2% to 35% in two years
AryHHAry · x · 2026-11-09
An Indonesian-language thread explores a paradox of AI-era physics: the better AI gets at well-defined physics problems, the scarcer and more expensive theoretical physicists who can define new problems become—because the remaining work is the most human part: choosing models, negotiating assumptions, and bearing uncertainty without ground truth.
Cited data (unverified): an MIT study published October 2026 reportedly found the share of complex theoretical problems AI successfully solved jumped from 2% to 35% in two years; New Scientist reported models scored up to 94% once ambiguous, poorly-defined benchmark questions were fixed—meaning in well-defined territory AI is no longer a complement.
The strategic question: are we actually understanding nature, or just getting better at predicting it?
More from AGI Musings
- 'GPT-6 Astra' answer goes viral: everyday life is quietly losing its slack — TheMoonMidas · 2026-11-09
- User laments X feed overrun by AI slop: 'just slop trying to pull me down some dark slop alley' — iruletheworldmo · 2026-11-09
- 'You don't need books to get smart' meets Lurie's theorem 6.1.2.4 — burny_tech · 2026-11-09
- AI memory needs pruning and forgetting — and RSI could bring selective amnesia — yangyi · 2026-11-09
- Menlo: Enterprise AI spend hits $177B from $33B; Anthropic now 55% of API spend — FinanceYF5 · 2026-11-09
- Intelligence is a means, not an end: why unbounded AI RSI is hard to imagine — i_dg23 · 2026-11-09