lupsasca

Hi, I'm an author on the paper. It was definitely a human-AI collaboration, but it is also true that the final simplified formula, Eq. 39 in the paper (which is what we had been seeking, without success), was conjectured and proved by GPT. So it derived a new result in theoretical physics. I'm genuinely puzzled by your complaint.

Correct, on both counts!

My pleasure---thank you for your interest!

There are closely related "MHV amplitudes" which naively obey a really complicated formula, but for which there famously also exists a much simpler "Parke-Taylor formula". Alfredo had derived a complicated expression for these new "single-minus amplitudes" and we were hoping we could find an analogue of the simpler "Parke-Taylor formula" for them.

That paper from the 80s (which is cited in the new one) is about "MHV amplitudes" with two negative-helicity gluons, so "double-minus amplitudes". The main significance of this new paper is to point out that "single-minus amplitudes" which had previously been thought to vanish are actually nontrivial. Moreover, GPT-5.2 Pro computed a simple formula for the single-minus amplitudes that is the analogue of the Parke-Taylor formula for the double-minus "MHV" amplitudes.

Hi I am an author of the paper. We believed that a simple formula should exist but had not been able to find it despite significant effort. It was a collaborative effort but GPT definitely solved the problem for us.

By "grabbing references" I meant queries of the type "add paper [bla] to the bibliography" -- that seems useful to me!

I am very sympathetic to your point of view, but let me offer another perspective. First off, you can already vibe-write slop papers with AI, even in LaTeX format--tools like Prism are not needed for that. On the other hand, it can really help researchers improve the quality of their papers. I'm someone who collaborates with many students and postdocs. My time is limited and I spend a lot of it on LaTeX drudgery that can and should be automated away, so I'm excited for Prism to save time on writing, proofreading, making TikZ diagrams, grabbing references, etc.

About ~5x improvement. Recall that the resolution of an interferometric array is set by the distance between telescopes measured in units of the observation wavelength. BHEX will get a ~3x resolution improvement from the increased distance between the space satellite and our ground telescopes (for the EHT, the max telescope separation is limited by the diameter of the Earth) and another ~50% from the increased frequency of observations (going up from 230 to 320 GHz).

5x is actually a lot: we'll be able to resolve the "photon ring" of orbiting light around M87* and Sgr A* (the two black holes previously imaged by EHT at lower resolution) and likely see the "shadows" of another 6-8 black holes, with the possibility of estimating the mass of another ~20-30 sources.

We're thinking about it! Likely 2025 though.

Excellent! Hope it looked cool.

Hahaha, I half-expected a plasma physicist to complain that GRRMHD is not self-consistent and we need to include non-ideal fluid effects :D

That would be cool, but then you wouldn't be seeing the world around you anymore. In other words, at that point it becomes a GRMHD simulation, and there is no point in using cameras since the user's environment is obscured, no? Or did you have something else in mind?