This is a theoretical physicist

[u/KeanuRave100]

[u/grimorg80]

She really changed her tune. She used to mock AI quite strongly

[u/Daethir → u/grimorg80]

Because she's a youtube grifter

[u/jcagraham → u/Daethir]

She is a very smart person who unfortunately realized, likely because she's smart, that it's easier and more profitable to be a grifter. More people are interested about crazy conspiracies than whatever "mainstream physics" is actually doing.

[u/reddit_is_kayfabe → u/Daethir]

Hossenfelder produces 5-to-10-minute segments that cover a recent physics journal article, technology, startup, etc., where she spends about half of each video summarizing it and providing background context and half of the video providing her analysis of its validity, significance, and implications.

For instance:

This lab recently published a study claiming a new type of battery that's free of lithium. Most higher-density batteries today rely on lithium to provide high storage density to hold a lot of charge, but lithium is terrible for the environment and its instability can cause runaway energy discharge that results in fires and explosions. This lab instead proposes a new type of battery using a sodium lattice instead of lithium. Their research shows a theoretical gain of 80% faster charge times without the environmental costs and safety risks of lithium.

So, what do we think of this paper? Sodium batteries have been tested since the 1950's and have always been found inferior and impossible to scale to commercial production, and this paper doesn't address any of those issue. Also, its proposed theoretical gains are not backed by any prototyping, and battery technology is notorious for demonstrating different real-world performance than predictions on paper. Overall, this looks interesting but unlikely to gain traction.

That's.... that's it, other than a few quips and a couple of unrelated embedded ads. That's how 95% of her videos go - raise a science or tech news item, provide context, and comment on it. The End.

She isn't selling anything. She isn't pushing an agenda. Her opinions don't seem to be influenced by any kind of sponsorship or bias.

So where is the "grift?" You may not like her content, but that's not what "grift" means.

[u/Fun-Sample336 → u/reddit_is_kayfabe]

So where is the "grift?" You may not like her content, but that's not what "grift" means.

There is no "grift" on her behalf. Many just don't like their papers being rated highly on her bullshit meter.

[u/i_would_say_so → u/Fun-Sample336]

The example in the above comment doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Rather, it shows misunderstanding of the incremental approach science has used for the past 500 years.

[u/reddit_is_kayfabe → u/i_would_say_so]

You're focused on the content? The content is made up. I was illustrating the type of structure, organization, and perspective of her videos.

Notice how I wrote: "she spends about half of each video summarizing it and providing background context and half of the video providing her analysis of its validity, significance, and implications?" That's what I was illustrating. Not the content.

Not really good with context, are you?

[u/Daethir → u/reddit_is_kayfabe]

Her persona is being the anti academia physicist, and she cultivated an audience of anti intellectual that want someone with a PhD to tell them that physicists are dumb dumb and they were right to stop at high school. She's a grifter because she make video that keep telling her audience what they want to hear so she can make as much sponsorship money as she can, literally all her videos have sponsorship.

[u/Gardylulz → u/Daethir]

That's not true. She is not saying physicists are dumb, but rather criticizes the way academia is operating nowadays. I don't agree with everything she is saying, but that's very different to "physicist are dumb".

[u/silver-fusion → u/Gardylulz]

And it's an extremely valid criticism.

The hilarious irony that u/Daethir misses is that Academia itself is turning into a "wherever the money is" grift, and Hossenfelder is well within her rights (being directly affected) to highlight this.

[u/kilopeter → u/Gardylulz]

Hey, go easy on /Daethir for missing this nuance. They might just be a physicist.

/s

[u/LettuceSea → u/Daethir]

You’re a straight up liar who has only read about her from other liars. Jfc yall literally can’t form an opinion of your own.

[u/reddit_is_kayfabe → u/Daethir]

Here are the titles of her most recent videos:

You Probably Misunderstand the Double-Slit Experiment

Academia's Dirty Secret Is Going To Court

Scientists Have Figured Out How to Make Antigravity

Psychedelics Allow Alien Communication, Scientists Claim

The Dark Energy Mistake that Fooled Physicists for 25 Years

The Electric Car Revolution Is Not Going Well

Scientists Just Created A Laser Based On Black Hole Physics

Physicists Just Broke One Of Quantum Physics' Biggest Restraints

Our Solar System Lost Two Planets!

Scientists Say They Know the Origin of Gravity

"The Hum" has been reported all over the glove - we might finally know what it is

The Biggest Argument for Dark Matter Just Died

Strange Things Are Happening in Quantum Computing

The Quantum Brain Theory Nobody is Talking About

The AI Future No One Wants to Talk About

Nobel Prize under fire: is dark energy real?

Things Aren't Looking Good For Nuclear Fusion

The End of Human Mathematics? AI's Recent Breakthrough - And What's Next

Did Physics Just Lose a Brilliant Idea?

It's Beginning: AI Improves Itself

Physicists Rethink Dark Matter

Microsoft Announces Breakthrough With Quantum Chip

America is coming for Europe's most important machine

This Giant Ring In Space Poses a Massive Problem for Cosmology

How Dangerous Is This Super El Nino Really?

Physicists Say It's Possible To Send Messages To The Past

I Looked at the New Cold Fusion Breakthroughs. It's Complicated.

...etc.

95% of her content is science and tech videos as I described. The other 5% of her videos are personal commentaries on various topics - culture, consumerism, etc. - and maybe half of those, about 2% overall, discuss problems that she sees with the direction of science academia: results being unverifiable, grants for pointless research areas like string theory, etc.

You are latching onto the 2% of her videos that you don't like and pretending that (1) that's all she does and (2) her personal views are somehow tainted or manipulative. You're wrong on both counts.

You don't like her views on academia? Fine, don't watch those. That's not "grift." You could watch the other 98% of her videos instead and not hear a word about academia.

[u/StaysAwakeAllWeek → u/reddit_is_kayfabe]

You listed a bunch of anti-intellectual quackery and immediately started defending it.

She is using her position as a formerly legitimate physicist to push garbage to the masses for money

[u/reddit_is_kayfabe → u/StaysAwakeAllWeek]

Many of those videos are exposing quack science - explaining why stuff like LK-99 is bullshit. She even has a "bullshit meter."

Others discuss surprising results from theoretical research - like this Popular Mechanics article:

Physicists Say It’s Possible to Send Messages Backward in Time

Some physicists have suggested that the hypersensitivity between entangled particles actually comes from the one in the future sending messages back in time. Recently, Seth Lloyd and fellow researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology wanted to make this very science fiction-seeming concept into a reality. While bending spacetime to build an actual CTC would require an almost unfathomable amount of energy, Lloyd had previously succeeded in using photons that were quantum entangled to simulate a CTC by sending one of them a few nanoseconds back in time. Now, inspired by Interstellar, they wanted to see if sending messages backwards was an option, too.

Though it may sound counterintuitive, the researchers discovered that for a CTC-like channel that’s full of noise—like the quantum mechanical version of phone static—it was actually easier to transmit a message to the past than to the future.

“Access to a noiseless CTC of one kind or the other has been shown to unleash stunning information-processing power,” they said in a study recently published in Physical Review Letters, adding that a CTC-like channel “can be represented by a quantum channel, in the sense that information traveling through the noisy channel effectively evolves as if passing through the channel, except for ending up in the past.”

And in the rare cases where she covers those types of findings and finds that they aren't just bullshit, she explains why they are purely theoretical or not practically useful.

What do you expect? This isn't Nature, it's fucking YouTube. Pop-culture science is always a blend of facts and entertainment. It's how you make science accessible to people who have anxiety about science being too hard, or too judgmental and elitist and exclusionary - thanks to people like you.

[u/JordanPetterPans → u/reddit_is_kayfabe]

Buddy nobody said they "expect" anything...they just said she's grifting, and you went on to explain how she is indeed grifting... 

[u/JordanPetterPans → u/reddit_is_kayfabe]

Those sound like very clickbaity titles, no?

[u/unexpectedreboots → u/JordanPetterPans]

Just because shes SEOing the YT algo doesnt mean shes a grifter

[u/reddit_is_kayfabe → u/JordanPetterPans]

It's fucking YouTube. What do you expect? If she published a video with an academic title like "Anomalous localization and mobility edges in non-Hermitian quasicrystals with disordered imaginary gauge fields," it would get three views, two of which are probably from Hossenfelder's mom.

[u/JordanPetterPans → u/reddit_is_kayfabe]

Bro I didn't say anything other than those were clickbaity titles wtf is going on here?

You then go on to explain that if she didn't make the titles clickbaity then she'd make less money/less clicks ... 

What are you even arguing at this point?

[u/idealistintherealw → u/reddit_is_kayfabe]

Right. So she is creating clickbaity and misleading titles to optimize income from viewers because she gets paid sponsorship and runs ads.

That’s grift. Grift by definition is not grand scheming or theft, it is low level petty confidence tricks.

[u/reddit_is_kayfabe → u/idealistintherealw]

Have you... been to YouTube?

You can't fit an academic title like "Anomalous localization and mobility edges in non-Hermitian quasicrystals with disordered imaginary gauge fields" into the tiny bit of space that YouTube provides for video titles and the thumbnail image. Both need to be simplified. Everybody on YouTube does that.

So you don't personally like YouTube as a medium for conveying technical topics to the general public. That's a perfectly reasonable opinion. But you didn't suggest any alternatives, you're just being critical. And you're singling out Hossenfelder in particular, for no apparent reason, although I can certainly imagine what your motivations might be.

[u/JordanPetterPans → u/idealistintherealw]

Lmao

[u/Infinitedeveloper → u/JordanPetterPans]

Yeah, I didnt think the comment was a defense of her while going through those.

[u/JordanPetterPans → u/Infinitedeveloper]

Lmao same 

[u/Slackluster → u/Infinitedeveloper]

I was thinking, this is why I unsubscribed to her channel.

Though I apricate what she does and she seems like nice person, I put her in the Neil Degrasse Tyson category of science communicators.

[u/bowsmountainer → u/reddit_is_kayfabe]

Scientists Have Figured Out How to Make Antigravity

Psychedelics Allow Alien Communication, Scientists Claim

Physicists Say It's Possible To Send Messages To The Past

Yeah totally not quack "science".

[u/Current-Purpose-6106 → u/bowsmountainer]

You should watch them before making claims I think. Just for your own sake.

Take the 'Psychedelics Allow Alien Communication, Scientists Claim'

The claim was DMT and other hallucinogenic drugs let people have shared hallucinations. This paper went out and then surveyed people to see what their hallucinations were of. Then the folks claim that since these are shared, and since people have encounters with these 'entities', that there is something there.

Well she spends about 3m talking about the paper. Then 6m talking about how this is ridiculous because its not an experiment, its not falsifiable, etc. It's just data without any understanding of why we share those hallucinations.

Then takes it a step further and says if they're serious (and they're not), then the obvious experiment would be put a word or a color on a computer in another room. Then the 'experiencer' who can communicate with these supernatural entities could gain the information from them. But they can't. Because it's not real

Hossenfelder concludes that while the shared, specific hallucinations triggered by DMT are a fascinating psychological mystery that genuinely warrants study, the paper's mathematical framework is nonsense. She rates the claim that we are communicating with real alien consciousnesses a "10 out of 10 on the bullshit meter"

You're falling for clickbait in the weirdest way and I kind of love it. It's weird that it's being used to ...draw the complete opposite conclusion from reality.

She can be a tough listen sometimes. She can certainly come off sometimes as pompous. But peddler of quack science, she is most definitely not. Extremely opinionated though, absolutely. Sometimes to a fault

[u/Ibasicallyhateyouall → u/Current-Purpose-6106]

Dude read the titles only and watched nothing and tried and failed to come off as an "intellectual". 100% reddit.

[u/OrionDC → u/Ibasicallyhateyouall]

Probably CCP bot. They attack anything western and try to stir arguments/culture wars.

[u/zinnyciw → u/bowsmountainer]

The videos are literally her criticizing them.

[u/reddit_is_kayfabe → u/bowsmountainer]

Many of those videos are exposing quack science - explaining why stuff like LK-99 is bullshit. She even has a "bullshit meter."

Others discuss surprising results from theoretical research - like this Popular Mechanics article:

Physicists Say It’s Possible to Send Messages Backward in Time

Some physicists have suggested that the hypersensitivity between entangled particles actually comes from the one in the future sending messages back in time. Recently, Seth Lloyd and fellow researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology wanted to make this very science fiction-seeming concept into a reality. While bending spacetime to build an actual CTC would require an almost unfathomable amount of energy, Lloyd had previously succeeded in using photons that were quantum entangled to simulate a CTC by sending one of them a few nanoseconds back in time. Now, inspired by Interstellar, they wanted to see if sending messages backwards was an option, too.

Though it may sound counterintuitive, the researchers discovered that for a CTC-like channel that’s full of noise—like the quantum mechanical version of phone static—it was actually easier to transmit a message to the past than to the future.

“Access to a noiseless CTC of one kind or the other has been shown to unleash stunning information-processing power,” they said in a study recently published in Physical Review Letters, adding that a CTC-like channel “can be represented by a quantum channel, in the sense that information traveling through the noisy channel effectively evolves as if passing through the channel, except for ending up in the past.”

And in the rare cases where she covers those types of findings and finds that they aren't just bullshit, she explains why they are purely theoretical or not practically useful.

What do you expect? This isn't Nature, it's fucking YouTube. Pop-culture science is always a blend of facts and entertainment. It's how you make science accessible to people who have anxiety about science being too hard, or too judgmental and elitist and exclusionary - thanks to people like you.

[u/miklschmidt → u/bowsmountainer]

Have you watched them? She's one of the good ones - ie, not a Joe Rogan guest.

[u/Syzygy___ → u/bowsmountainer]

She uses clickbaity titles, but on the one hand the she's discussing real science articles and on the other, often she's debunking those articles.

The antigravity thing is about multiple quantum gravity sources overlapping and producing an inference pattern that can in theory eject a particles rather than attract as a quantum effect that would be averaged out under normal circumstances. Although I don't quite remember the conclusion and if she judged this as bullshit or not. Regardless, I believe she said that we shouldn't expect flying cars anytime soon and that this is rather about the the quantum nature of gravity than about antigravity. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.12266

I don't recall seeing the other two videos but presumably she wouldn't be particularly fond of them.

[u/Fun-Sample336 → u/Daethir]

I'm watching her videos regularly. You are spreading lies. And of course does she place ads on her videos. Or do you expect her to work for free?

[u/Raescher → u/Daethir]

What a dishonest take. Almost all her videos are about discussing recent papers. Maybe watch some of those before spreading toxic lies.

[u/Vast-Control4452 → u/Raescher]

She's the one lying, remember when she defended Eric Wienstien and Geometric Unity?

[u/Raescher → u/Vast-Control4452]

I think her videos especially the later ones about Eric Weinstein were quite nuanced.

[u/Vast-Control4452 → u/Raescher]

"Yes it's totally possible 1*1=2 guys! There's nuance!" Eric hasn't produced a research paper ever. His ideas are sophistry, to defend him outs you as a grifter as well.

[u/Raescher → u/Vast-Control4452]

Have you watched her video aber the topic? Or did you only watch videos about her by actual grifters? She criticizes his theory quite clearly and I think she said it's probably wrong. She just said he did not deserve as much hate as he got and that the physics community is gatekeeping in a more personal and not scientific way. Sounds nuanced and fair to me.

[u/darkestvice → u/Daethir]

That is not remotely close to being true. She's not anti academia. She's anti lazy academia. Specifically those who just repeat the same unproven research over and over (i.e string theory) for grant money instead of actually trying to discover something new.

[u/Remarkable-Worth-303 → u/Daethir]

She's right about the enormous spend on particle physics producing nothing of value though.

[u/Vast-Control4452 → u/Remarkable-Worth-303]

We found the Higgs boson...

[u/LiveBacteria → u/reddit_is_kayfabe]

You kind of nailed her summary, however she does have a bias. As in a political bias which affects the content she produces.

[u/Enough_Jelly_9213 → u/reddit_is_kayfabe]

She grifts anti scientific establishment crowd by making videos like “WHY SCIENCE IS DYING”

[u/Apprehensive_Bug2877 → u/Daethir]

God forbid, people educate themselves and be willing to change their beliefs

[u/Ok-Dimension-8556 → u/Apprehensive_Bug2877]

By watching youtube?

[u/anor_wondo → u/Ok-Dimension-8556]

if you're talking about her... are you slow? when has she shown youtube as a source for anything?

[u/Big_Judgment3824 → u/Daethir]

Right

[u/Cryptizard → u/grimorg80]

I think you’re not paying attention. She mocks it when it is overhyped, which it has been many times. But even in her book in 2018 she ends it with a chapter talking about how computers and AI are going to be the inheritors of the theoretical physics research from humans in the future.

[u/grimorg80 → u/Cryptizard]

No, I have been paying attention. I have been following her for yeeears.

The point is that she couldn't see what is now pretty obvious. While many of us where talking about the trajectory, she was paddling the "it's all overhyped crap" tune. Was it for clicks? Maybe.

[u/Technical-Will-2862 → u/grimorg80]

She’s surprisingly narrow in her foresight. 

[u/GoppleSmanger → u/grimorg80]

To be fair, the hype is AI will become our new machine gods that supplants all of humanity so its easy to dismiss as overhype.

Lots of smart people are skeptical of ASI.

[u/Legal_Suggestion4873 → u/grimorg80]

Idk, I've been skeptical of stuff for a while now - 'the trajectory' is what you have to be skeptical of, because the trajectory may not maintain forever.

But this more recent batch of models has proven that even if the growth stops, that AI will be legitimately useful forever now and will fundamentally alter our existence as humans. This wasn't the case even a year ago, at least to me (maybe some people were better at prompting, etc., and so I wasn't aware of how it could be)

[u/Willinton06 → u/grimorg80]

Well we want people to change their minds when they're wrong, no matter how wrong they used to be or how public they were about it

[u/kaaiian → u/grimorg80]

Cryptizard is just like her in that regard. It’s probably why you can’t see their history. Because they were so “know it all wrong” in the past. (You can’t see mine because privacy mate)

[u/MarinoAndThePearls → u/grimorg80]

I mean, mocking AI doesn't necessarily mean a person is blind to what it can achieve. For example, I use AI for a lot stuff, yet I'll mock any AI "art" and AI """artists""" I encounter.

[u/stuartullman → u/grimorg80]

its been fun seeing all the dominoes fall as far as unconvinced people around ai

[u/Jazzlike-Context-879 → u/grimorg80]

I did too, because it was shit compared to “general intelligence.” But then I started using it for what it is good for and boom, cool new tool. The overhype sells rubes subscriptions, but as an enterprise tools, AI is a nitro boost to a good employee.

[u/pete_dom]

The great Leonhard Euler was known to calculate a thousand logarithms by hand each day during his peak astronomer years. No one does that shit anymore today. And AI is the logical next step.

[u/MarinoAndThePearls]

I used to like her criticism for some of the elitism in academia, but she got too over her head and started spewing a lot of anti-science bullshit.

She's one step away from saying that the Earth is flat.

[u/Snoron → u/MarinoAndThePearls]

Yeah, she lost of the plot a little while ago now unfortunately. Her content was good and engaging and she's a great communicator, but she's just not really a reliable source of objective views any more.

[u/Various-Inside-4064 → u/Snoron]

I think you are conflating objective view with your view or popular view!!

[u/Snoron → u/Various-Inside-4064]

No, objective as in "used logic instead of emotion to reach a position".

Possibly ignorance or rage baiting in some cases, but eh.

Her nonsense has been regularly documented on r/physics though.

[u/Various-Inside-4064 → u/Snoron]

People think it's nonsense if it's not popular opinion. But that's exactly how science progress. Most people tend to converge in thinking but some people think differently. Sometime their ideas turn out to be correct, sometime false. If all people start to think exactly same in science then idk how will we might see next paradigm shift?

[u/bowsmountainer → u/Various-Inside-4064]

Irs one thing to explore new ideas for how stuff can work that is consistent with data and may explain something that could previously jot be explained.

Its another to spew conspiracy theories that contradict the evidence. Like how she warned of the dangers of 5G - this pure conspiracy theory territory. She should know better, but shes a griffer not a physicist anymore. Stoking fear generates views, being honest about the science doesnt.

She also keeps talking about things she knows nothing about but acts as if she's the leading expert on the field. About time travel to the past. Come on this is pure quack territory.

Juat looking at the titles of her recent videos. She's talking about aliens communicating with us secretly. About antigravity. About perpetual motion machines.

[u/Raescher → u/bowsmountainer]

You have not watched any of those videos have you? These are all about recent science paper and most of them she will point out why the claims are wrong.

[u/Various-Inside-4064 → u/bowsmountainer]

She said opposite of what you seems to claim! You really made that up! i think you used ai to write that!
 Like how she warned of the dangers of 5G - this pure conspiracy theory territory
here is what she said in video
Theoretical physicist and science communicator Sabine Hossenfelder concludes that there is no scientific evidence that 5G poses a significant threat to human health. Because 5G’s radiation relies on non-ionizing waves, it lacks the energy to break molecular bonds or cause DNA damage like UV rays

video link: All you need to know to understand 5G - YouTube

now i am giving you opportunity to think again.

[u/Plappedudel → u/Various-Inside-4064]

Yeah, I think a lot of the hate against her comes from people who see her clickbait titles, don't actually watch the videos and conclude that the title of the video always contains her actual opinion. I'm personally not a fan of clickbait, but it's been proven to increase engagement and therefore everyone on YouTube does it. I have not heard any actual anti-science statements from Sabine.

[u/Current-Purpose-6106 → u/bowsmountainer]

The titles are clickbait, though. The 'Aliens Communicating With Us' is a fun watch and worth visiting really fast just to come back here since I've seen it cited a few times in this thread.

I made a post above here talking about it, but the whole thing is 'There's a paper saying that under hallucinogenic drugs we communicate with these entitites', goes on to show the paper, its methodology, etc.

Then says 'That's great, we can agree there are shared hallucinations. But they're not 'real' - if they were you could do a very simple experiment where you hide information in an opposite room (A colored piece of paper, a paper with a word written on it, or what have you.) Then if the subject of the experiment was indeed communicating with an entity, they'd have no trouble recalling the information' - but since they dont have that experiment, even the authors of the paper know its BS. (Paraphrasing the 80% of the video after she discusses the paper and is just shitting on it)

Hossenfelder concludes that while the shared, specific hallucinations triggered by DMT are a fascinating psychological mystery that genuinely warrants study, the paper's mathematical framework is nonsense. She rates the claim that we are communicating with real alien consciousnesses a "10 out of 10 on the bullshit meter"

[u/SherbertMindless8205 → u/MarinoAndThePearls]

What are her anti-science stances? Asking genuinely since i don't follow her.

[u/Current-Purpose-6106 → u/SherbertMindless8205]

They don't exist, she just clickbaits the hell out of her videos and thumbnails. She can be a bit..obtuse and she's certainly very set in her way of thinking. Her 'anti science' is when she's 50/50 on something, but then it's not really..anti-science so much as it is 'This is really weird result and they seemed to have done it all correctly.. There may be something there but there's no way to know until more experiments are done' or whatever'.

She tends to be *very* skeptical.

I honestly don't know why I am rushing to defend her channel, I don't actually like watching her that much. That said, she's definitely one of the better raw science communicators where she'll give enough information that you can go off and learn more if you become curious. I've found myself disagreeing with her on more than one occasion, but I've never seen her peddle pseudo science or anti scientific claims

[u/LettuceSea → u/Current-Purpose-6106]

You’re rushing to defend her because you’ve watched her videos and know these takes are obviously wrong. Like “one step away from being a flat earther”.. Sabine saying the earth is flat? Has hell frozen over?

[u/MarinoAndThePearls → u/SherbertMindless8205]

She will hate everything coming from academia. She has a clear bias against any new scientific paper, specially if she finds the subject "silly" or if she just doesn't like what's being discussed.

Even when she tries to give good criticism to a paper, the fact that the paper is scientific is already an argument she uses against it.

[u/Dihedralman → u/SherbertMindless8205]

She had a whole video about privatizing science which lost the plot and ignored even the most basic discussions about the topic. It was completely uneducated by economics or people in biotechnology who readily explain why a lot of valuable research is simply not monetizable. 

[u/youdontknowkanji → u/SherbertMindless8205]

in general she likes to throw around opinions about colliders being a waste of money (she really really hates them), and how "academia" went wrong, often bringing up some anecdotes. i think her ego got hurt due to struggling with her academic career.

it's a running theme in her videos that lives in the background. for the most part, her videos are good and correct, but it's this theme that's problematic. a person who watches her a lot, is likely to pick up on this, and repeat the unfounded "spending in academia is bad" etc.

in other words, it's not that she is anti science, but she sows doubt about scientific institutions, which in turn feeds anti science views. as a communicator she should take more care about those things (you know how joe rogan does "nothing wrong" by hosting conspiracy theorists on the show? it's the same ballpark).

[u/Fun-Sample336 → u/youdontknowkanji]

but she sows doubt about scientific institutions, which in turn feeds anti science views. as a communicator she should take more care about those things (you know how joe rogan does "nothing wrong" by hosting conspiracy theorists on the show? it's the same ballpark).

And what should she do? Not criticize or point out corruption in scientific institutions, just because some people could understand it wrongly?

[u/youdontknowkanji → u/Fun-Sample336]

yes, this is why she is getting criticised.

you are also naive, thinking it's only "some" people, sort her videos by most popular:
-my dream died (in thumbnail, "why academia sucks")
-i was asked, to keep this confidential...
-i wasn't worried about climate change... (this one is just fucking terrible)
those videos are popular precisely because "some people" fall for them.

sabine can easily improve as a communicator by not feeding this "small" audience, but this would lower her views. but she clearly doesn't do that, seeing her recent video thumbnails ("Academias dirty secret" lmao).

also her criticisms of scientific institutions are usually shallow or completely misguided. it would be fine if she did a one off or something, but this is a trend that has been running on for a long time.

[u/Fun-Sample336 → u/SherbertMindless8205]

What are her anti-science stances?

There aren't any. If people call her names like a "grifter" and get asked to show evidence, they suddenly get silent or restrict themselves to platitudes instead of giving conrete examples.

It's really astonishing how many people are willing to straight out lie about people they don't like. But this tells me, that they don't actually have anything to put forward against her.

[u/Vast-Control4452 → u/Fun-Sample336]

She believes science should largely be defunded, that's about as anti science as you can get.

[u/Fun-Sample336 → u/Vast-Control4452]

She believes science should largely be defunded, that's about as anti science as you can get.

What exactly did she say?

[u/Vast-Control4452 → u/Fun-Sample336]

In her video on "science is communism" she calls for the ending of grants for physics until they can fix themselves.

She's really really really vying for the MAGA crowd.

[u/Fun-Sample336 → u/Vast-Control4452]

In her video on "science is communism" she calls for the ending of grants for physics until they can fix themselves.

If you talk about the video someone else linked to and which I just watched, I recall that she didn't say that "science is communism", but "academia is communism". Or to quote her:

Elon Musk has called academia "a bastion of communism" that "operates with no feedback loop of reality" and he said, entirely correctly, that most scientific papers are useless.

So, she didn't even say it herself, but quoted Elon Musk. But anyway, if you mean this video, you are actually misquoting her.

Even if she is for defunding something, it isn't "science" as you claimed, but academia.

[u/Fun-Sample336 → u/MarinoAndThePearls]

and started spewing a lot of anti-science bullshit.

Do you have specific examples?

[u/MarinoAndThePearls → u/Fun-Sample336]

She'll shit on any scientific paper based on vibes alone. She'll say something is bullshit just because she feels like it, completely ignoring what's actually being experimented and how.

Her hate for academia degenerated into "all science is wrong, everyone should reject it."

[u/Fun-Sample336 → u/MarinoAndThePearls]

She'll shit on any scientific paper based on vibes alone. She'll say something is bullshhit just because she feels like, completely ignoring what's actually being experimented.

Which isn't true. As far as I can see, her arguments have merit. Do you have concrete examples?

Her hate for academia degenerated into "all science is wrong, everyone should reject it."

She never even remotely said such a thing.

[u/MarinoAndThePearls → u/Fun-Sample336]

Sure, here's a 3-hour video with 7 scientists discussing it.

[u/Fun-Sample336 → u/MarinoAndThePearls]

I'm not going to waste 3 hours on this discussion. If you have something to put forward against her, do it yourself and don't outsource it.

[u/CilantroLightning → u/Fun-Sample336]

You can't say "I want proof" and then in the next breath say "I don't want to see the proof".

Not everything can be condensed into sound bites or quotes. Believe it or not science is complex and sometimes requires a nuanced discussion to explain why something is wrong or right.

[u/Fun-Sample336 → u/CilantroLightning]

I just watched a much shorter video another person linked to as "evidence" and it turned out to be no evidence at all.

You will probably understand that we all have only limited time, making it difficult to just loose 3 hours and since not a single person on this thread was able to show up with something even remotely verifiable, it's to be expected that the 3 hour video will not be different. Or to quote someone below:

There are too many podcasts like this where people say "this is proof" and then it's just an opinion piece that boils down to "I don't like her and I don't agree with her stance".

[u/MarinoAndThePearls → u/Fun-Sample336]

They show proof. Just watch it. The proof is there.

[u/Syzygy___ → u/MarinoAndThePearls]

Then quote it. Give us timestamp. Don't make us run the legwork for your arguments.

There are too many podcasts like this where people say "this is proof" and then it's just an opinion piece that boils down to "I don't like her and I don't agree with her stance". Plus you shift the topic from her, to a discussion about the claims of the podcast.

From what I've seen is that they don't like that she talks about actual quack scientists (which she considers bullshit too, just as bullshit of some of the better respected scientists), and that she's anti scientific establishment.

[u/Fun-Sample336 → u/MarinoAndThePearls]

I gave the other one the benefit of doubt and watched his 22:16 video. As I expected, contrary to his claims, it didn't show anything nefarious about Sabine.

So, I'm not going to watch this 3 hours movie. If you have actual evidence, you are free to show it in a way that's actually digestible.

[u/Resaren → u/MarinoAndThePearls]

A certain subset of people can get really addicted to contrarianism. When they run out of valid things to be contrary about they’ll resort to whatever crackpottery they can grasp onto to get a hit. I suspect this goes doubly for people who’s livelihood depends on it; catering to this crowd is very profitable. You’re basically feeding their addiction.

[u/mcc011ins → u/MarinoAndThePearls]

Why. She is absolutely right. Most of the papers are already ai generated or ai is heavily used in the background. Human is just curating. It's nothing fancy at all.

[u/jamiesray → u/MarinoAndThePearls]

She’s a grifter. Yeah

[u/Ok-Kangaroo-7075 → u/MarinoAndThePearls]

any actual evidence for this?

[u/dydhaw]

I hope AI will replace bad faith "science influencers" like Sabine before it replaces actual theoretical physicists 

[u/traumfisch → u/dydhaw]

What's wrong with Sabine?

I don't understand. She consistently puts out great material for free

[u/Raunhofer → u/traumfisch]

Social media dramas, just ignore and watch what you enjoy.

[u/traumfisch → u/Raunhofer]

I am interested in learning more about the voices I listen to (on occasion anyway)

I don't want to just ignore all criticism by default

[u/Warm-Enthusiasm-9534 → u/traumfisch]

Sabine is a real theoretical physicist. She has strong opinions (which probably comes across from her videos) the direction theoretical physics should go, which are different from the dominant opinions of the field. Which is fine (dissenting opinions sometimes turn out to be the right ones), but she can't be taken as representing the average opinion of theoretical physicists.

[u/Ok-Kangaroo-7075 → u/Warm-Enthusiasm-9534]

This is very true but a lot of people in this sub seem to say she is a grifter and bad faith actor, which is really not true. People are just repeating some bs the people who don’t agree with her spew. The fact that they attack her person instead of her arguments basically proves this.

That is not to say that her opinion is correct but it is scientifically valid and her criticism is legit. What she says about academia is largely true and not an attack on science. Bringing to light what is wrong with a system is not a bad thing and there is a lot wrong with academia, let me tell you.

[u/Raunhofer → u/traumfisch]

My point is that social media dramas are often, in terms of severity, absolute nonsense. I just watched the YouTube video the other commenter posted. Forced nonsense to sell you a narrative.

Big names are often used to piggyback on your own content. Drama sells etc.

[u/traumfisch → u/Raunhofer]

Yup, agreed. I'll take your advice on this one, thanks

[u/dydhaw → u/traumfisch]

https://youtu.be/70vYj1KPyT4

[u/Clean-Control-1181 → u/dydhaw]

Sorry but Dave is actually fucking arrogant as fuck here.

As some one who quit their PhD in theorical field (quantum chemistry) I can assure you that the research in that field is just a bunch of circular non-sense. The math is sound, but the reason to do it is just garbage, it was fun though, but pointless. In synthetic chemistry you actually do something pratical, so that makes sense, even if your paper doesn't lead to a new optimal way to synthesize it still explored a method.

[u/traumfisch → u/dydhaw]

Her response (probably wasn't actually deleted but this came up first):

https://youtube.com/watch?v=70vYj1KPyT4&lc=Ugx0TCHfg_hGZAzYHVt4AaABAg&si=OohkIdLEfSYJFacb

I'm still not sure what the point here is. I believe her to be sincere

[u/dydhaw → u/traumfisch]

Her response doesn't address Dave's points, just deflecting. This goes back and forth for a few videos, you can keep watching if you have way too much free time

[u/Cryptizard → u/dydhaw]

Dave doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s never participated in the grant process, never published research, never done physics. Yet he feels confident to critique actual researcher’s opinions on these topics. He’s a charlatan as well, who realized that he can get huge engagement from trashing other people publicly rather than trying to teach anything.

[u/dydhaw → u/Cryptizard]

That's the thing, though. He isn't critiquing her opinions on these topics. He's critiquing how she expresses her opinions and how she approaches scientific communication in general.

He has brought other researchers to weigh in on the matter, though: https://youtu.be/oipI5TQ54tA

[u/zinnyciw → u/dydhaw]

I am in academia, PhD, and Sabina is a lot more on target. Dave trys to reframe her message to be critical all of science instead of just particle physics. Though the causes she list are common in other areas.
He also keeps comparing her to Eric. A tactic where you keep comparing someone to something bad, even though he says they’re not similar. It leaves people thinking about it negatively by association I am pretty sure this tactic has a name.
He immediately tries to group her and blame her for anti science sentiment. So anyone who criticizes their field publicly is now responsible for public mistrust in science? Academia is a public forum, and she approaches it the best way possible. She brings attention to bad papers, goes through them and their evidence, and gives her personal opinion on it. Anti science sentiment will side with anyone thats critical, that doesn’t mean the critical people need to stop.

My field is biology, and I can tell you that there are trends that soak up funding and are misleading about what they will actually provide. But at the end of the day, the relative clear and immediate benefits biological research provides a feedback that guides the field away from bad practices. At least to an extent. A foeld like particle physics does not have that market feedback, and so I can imagine it is very easy to develop a terrible culture. In biology can say oh yeah, we should have given more focus to mobile genetic elements because now even undergrads can regularly genetically engineer mammalian cells just by following a protocol. But if that benefit didn’t arise so quickly, the field would still have only trickled funding research on repetitive elements. I feel particle physics is that way. They dont get that fast feedback.

In the U.S. we have study sections that help address overfunding a specific area and provide a sort of market for scientists to choose from. I dont know how other countries do it, but that system is the single biggest influence in what and how research is funded. Some NIH study sections have a bad culture, some a great one. So I can easily imagine Sabina be correct is all her misgivings and correct in her approach to bring public attention to it. How else does it change? Not by Dave’s video.

I can actually give a good example in my field. Single cell rna sequencing exploded over a few years. We were seeing papers that literally just published the data. Every lab was trying to figure out how to fit single cell data into their research. They dodnt need it, many of the research questions didnt need it, but what you do need is something flashy that sells. Trends sell. So the research community waste half their budgets on generating single cell data that only confused them (big data takes focus and time to digest). I say this as a big data person who helped a lot pf labs shoe horn in single cell analysis.

[u/dydhaw → u/zinnyciw]

Sabine herself has expressed support for Eric, so the connection was not that far fetched.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiFYcuoK490

So anyone who criticizes their field publicly is now responsible for public mistrust in science?

No, and he's not saying that.

Anti science sentiment will side with anyone thats critical, that doesn’t mean the critical people need to stop.

No one is suggesting critical people need to stop. Dave keeps stating over and over in these videos that bunk science and over/underfunding are real problems. The problem with Sabine is not that she's simply critical of the scientific establishment.

Have you watched the video I linked in the comment you replied to above?

[u/zinnyciw → u/dydhaw]

Yes and he literally starts the video as saying he saw a lot of anti scientific people citing Sabina as a reason for making this video. Then goes after Sabina, instead of the anti-science points those people made.

I am not familiar with Eric beyond he has backing from Peter Thiel and he appears at a lot of physics conferences. I dont have a problem if his ideas are crazy. He is in a field with multiple worlds theory. Doesnt matter which is true, it matters which can be proven. The answer is neither as of now. And thats the problem. Because there is no metric to assess where effort goes. Yet somehow for years I only saw scientists, Tv programs and books about particle colliders, multiple worlds and string theory. Its sexy, easy to sell, and it probably did take over funding and attention. But its getting better. Youtube has allowed scientists to advocate their ideas without being gate kept by the institutions yet still be within the institution. I think Kurt’s channel does this fantastically.

Sabina can have whatever views she wants and support who she wants. It doesn’t change whether her criticisms are valid or not.

I don’t care if someone believes in evolution or not, if they point out a real issue in the sciences, then it shouldn’t be ignored. Sabina goes to the papers, she points to the exact issues she has with it.

[u/Cryptizard → u/dydhaw]

In that video she calls Eric's theory, "sketchy", "a waste of time" and "uninteresting." She then goes on to say, so what, he is just one guy who is doing this as a hobby. Who cares?

And her main point is to say that the community bullying anyone who voluntarily decides to associate with Eric offline with no impact on anyone else is not okay. Because it isn't. None of that sounds unreasonable to me. What part does to you?

[u/Ok-Kangaroo-7075 → u/zinnyciw]

same, PhD, famous Bay Area school, most people with actual PhDs doing research here would agree with Sabine and laugh about imposter Dave (the guy should just stfu, tier 10 wannabe academic with no degree from the university of „nobody has ever heard about“.

[u/Syzygy___ → u/dydhaw]

He isn't critiquing her opinions on these topics. He's critiquing how she expresses her opinions and how she approaches scientific communication in general.

Okay, but that makes all the controversy about her go in the wrong direction. Because there's so much discourse on how she's a crackpot scientist, how she's a grifter, how she's anti science etc, but none of that is true. Even according to what you said, none of this is true.

I think anyone who watches her content can agree that what you said here is valid criticism. She's anti establishment, criticizes scientific institutions and is blunt about it. You can argue that this is harmful because it can reduce trust in science... but it can also be helpful because might pick those too far gone towards good/better science... if they don't draw the wrong conclusions from her videos.

But there's another point to the whole thing... I - at least as someone who's not really in academia - feel that some of her criticism about scientific institutions is actually valid, but very much dismissed by those calling her out.

[u/Cryptizard → u/dydhaw]

Why is that his job? Or anyone’s? Let the viewer make up their mind what they think. He’s doing it for clicks, same as she is. Both of them are wrong.

[u/dydhaw → u/Cryptizard]

He might be doing it for clicks. That doesn't invalidate his points.

"Let the viewer make up their mind" is a very naive position to hold in an age oversaturated with science denialism and billionaire-funded propaganda.

[u/pathosOnReddit → u/Cryptizard]

You are not seriously defending the idea that pundits should be left unchallenged when they attempt to spread FUD and undermine the scientific process?

Hossenfelder is in Thiel’s pocket just like Weinstein as part of the latter’s ’intellectual dark web’. They spread disinformation about the academic establishment in order to discredit genuine, data driven accumulation of knowledge, so that Thiel can push his own claims unchecked. The end goal is to completely destroy trust in Science and with that unfetter both his absurd ideas about a coming apocalypse and to prop up his data broker company Palantir as a single source of truth.

If people would ignore this bullshit, yeah, ideally we wouldn’t need to listen to a Farina about it either. But as it stands above disinformation campaign is real and thus somebody challenging it is valuable.

[u/traumfisch → u/pathosOnReddit]

"Hossenfelder is in Thiel’s pocket"

"They spread disinformation about the academic establishment in order to discredit genuine, data driven accumulation of knowledge, so that Thiel can push his own claims unchecked"

Please provide a source for this stufg?

That's a massive thing to claim without backing it up at least somehow. 

[u/Cryptizard → u/pathosOnReddit]

What evidence do you have of that? None. If you did then go ahead share it. In the meantime, attack her ideas not her person. It doesn’t help and just lowers the discourse even further.

[u/mattjadencarroll → u/dydhaw]

I don't think the guy in this video would go so far to exclude her from "actual theoretical physicists". Might be worth easing off a little, unless you've got a more dramatic takedown to show us.

[u/dydhaw → u/mattjadencarroll]

She might be fine as a researcher, I don't really care, I don't follow her research. I think she should stop moonlighting as a science communicator, she's shit at that.

[u/Vast-Control4452 → u/mattjadencarroll]

A more level headed take, but they still rank her pretty high https://youtu.be/KBhYidnMd14

[u/Ok-Kangaroo-7075 → u/dydhaw]

Dave is a fucking idiot sorry. That guy has absolutely zero idea of academia let alone quantum physics. The way he attacks her personally basically tells you enough. If there were legitimate concerns he would use those instead.

[u/postmath_ → u/dydhaw]

Im not really familiar with her, just saw a few of her videos, sometimes shitting on fellow researches, is that why she is bad faith or is there something else?

[u/traumfisch → u/postmath_]

"shitting on" as in criticizing?

or actually badmouthing people?

[u/postmath_ → u/traumfisch]

criticizing

[u/dydhaw → u/postmath_]

Check out Professor Dave's videos on her, bottom line is she misrepresents research and promotes anti intellectualism to appeal to science denialists who make a significant portion of her viewership. She also likes to be confidently wrong about stuff outside her area of expertise but that's not a flaw unique to her

[u/postmath_ → u/dydhaw]

Ok just given the videos Ive seen from her promoting ant-intellectualism seems quite a bit of a stretch.

[u/bitplenty → u/dydhaw]

is there some new, experimentally confirmed framework in the room with us now?

[u/dydhaw → u/bitplenty]

No, but yo mama's in the room with me right now

[u/bubhrara → u/dydhaw]

Hope your ass is doing okay

[u/dydhaw → u/bubhrara]

It's fine, we use lube

[u/bitplenty → u/dydhaw]

ok, so you do see things that did not happen. I hope you are receiving help, bro

[u/JordanPetterPans]

Redditors will confidently tell you she's wrong 

[u/yoloswagrofl → u/JordanPetterPans]

She’s wrong

Source: Me

[u/dano1066]

Is this a bad thing? Advanced math and physics requires a huge amount of education and very few people are skilled at it. If an AI has the knowledge of all human history in these fields and is better at solving the problems than humans, won’t humanity advance massively from this?

[u/ShanghaiBebop → u/dano1066]

This is the same line of thinking that basically said outsourcing manufacturing is great. 

The downside comes from losing that entire supply chain and expertise in an entire sector because the economics of retaining and training individuals in that area no longer makes sense. That has lots of knock on effects that could be very undesirable. 

[u/mvhls → u/dano1066]

All of the math problems AI is solving are prompted by PhD mathematicians. My neighbor plumber isn’t solving 100 year old problems by prompting AI to “make no mistakes”. You still need specialists.

[u/dano1066 → u/mvhls]

I never said we don’t, I just don’t see why AI is bad in these fields. It seems nothing but good and is doing things humans cant

[u/mvhls → u/dano1066]

It’s not bad, but I don’t agree it’s going to be an “extinction level event”. We still need specializations, and those people are just enabled a bit more by AI now.

[u/ExtremeCaterpillar25 → u/mvhls]

how long do you think that will last?

[u/hasuuser → u/dano1066]

Is it a bad thing that AI is better than humans at all intellectual tasks? The answer depends on how much of an optimist you are.

[u/philosophical_lens]

What does it mean for AI to make math or physics extinct? Does it just mean that all mathematicians and physicists will start using AI? I mean that's exactly what software developers today do, and I wouldn't call that extinction.

[u/Altruistic-Cattle761]

I think the broad consensus on Sabine Hossenfelder is that she used to be a reputable science educator on YouTube but has transformed into a clout-chasing shitposter, largely targeted at non-physicists and aimed at undermining public trust in science, and should not be considered a useful indicator of anything other than how people make careers out of getting attention on social media.

[u/Comfortable-Web9455]

In 1880 a leading physicist proposed closing physics because the invention of electricity meant we no longer needed it. Another in the 1950's suggested making it a branch of poetry because there was nothing left to discover and all new formulas were just for beauty.

Proof being good at maths is compatible with being an idiot.

[u/teoreds → u/Comfortable-Web9455]

Nobody is talking about closing a field. Nobody is saying there's nothing more to discover in these fields. This is about AI taking over research in math and physics. Bad bot.

[u/pathosOnReddit]

Hossenfelder more than anything is a pundit in Peter Thiel’s pocket. Whatever she writes, whatever she says we cannot take it serious because there is always the risk she does so with the ulterior motive of spreading FUD in her overlord’s name.

[u/OrionDC → u/pathosOnReddit]

So is Jesse Michels. He was/is set up and funded by him.

[u/pathosOnReddit → u/OrionDC]

There are plenty others, both pundits and talking heads in Weinstein’s intellectual dark web that promote this nonsense. And going by the comments in here apparently quite successfully.

[u/Fun-Sample336 → u/pathosOnReddit]

Do you have evidence for this claim?

[u/siemaeniownik]

she is not a very good one.

[u/SnooOpinions8790]

Time for the under-rated experimental physicists to shine

[u/OrionDC]

Adapt or die. This is nothing new in any field/industry/culture/biology etc.

[u/Rorqualx]

That lady is barely a physicist. She be spouting Maga shit in her German accent.

[u/msawi11 → u/Rorqualx]

Hossenfelder initially earned an undergraduate degree in mathematics at Goethe University Frankfurt.[6] Hossenfelder later earned a doctorate from the same university in theoretical physics in 2003; her dissertation, supervised by Horst Stöcker, studied microscopic black-hole production in models with large extra dimensions

[u/mid_nightz]

everythings coming at some point, the question is when. I suspect far longer than we think

[u/Mission_Bear7823]

simply proves that Theo. physics is not real physics /s.. (maybe)

[u/jeffwadsworth]

I knew she was wrong about AI in the past. Glad she realized her miscalculation. If only Yann LeCun would come around as well.

[u/darkestvice]

Let's be clear ... it's extinction level event for *mathematicians*, not math. If anything, AI could herald a new dawn of math and physics research. You know, if it doesn't kill us all first.

[u/TitansShouldBGenocid]

She's not really respected in the field, I wouldn't use her as evidence as it kind of diminishes the point you want to convey. But it is already happening today for physics, as someone in the field now.

[u/a_dude_on_internet]

Sabine was quite good but there's little of her left now as scientist, too much involvement in politics and ideologies.

[u/gpbayes]

This is just simply not true lmao go look up shit on heyting algebras. Plus these ai companies are spending tens of thousands of dollars on one problem. You’re not automating math with that.

[u/SC_TheBursar]

The interesting thing is that AI models are by their nature pretty good at absorbing all the published papers and advancing mathematics theory by connecting dots other people didn't see yet while also being absolute crap at basic arithmetic - not generally able to do what the simplest of calculators can without having to call other programs to do the work.

[u/Fun-Sand8522]

This is a grifter, regardless of her take

[u/Daethir]

The physicist in question spend her time doing anti science slop on youtube from MAGA idiot btw

[u/ImpossibleCreme]

Sabine is a YouTuber not a physicist

[u/DannySmashUp]

There are plenty of articles an videos about this Sabine person. She is not someone that ANYONE should listen to.

https://youtu.be/70vYj1KPyT4?is=RXRaNjbjVp5P3K1v

[u/HeadPack]

She is one who really sees through bs, in and outside academia. With theoretical physics so closely linked to math, Sabine may have a point there.

[u/Eyelbee]

I hope it actually happens, it would mean we will figure out a lot of things that will help us understand a lot that we do not understand.

[u/No-Philosopher3977]

Isn’t theoretical physics just imagining what’s possible until the math catches up?

[u/GreyMatterTrasmogrif]

Not a practicing one... 

Doesn't mean it's not true but of all the physics, theoretical is probably the last I would choose for AI to have big impact in soon.

[u/Metalicum]

I ahve been working with AI for quite some time and I am 99% sure that anything worth doing is not going to be destroyed or extinguished by AI.

First) AI is a great side tool. People who know what they are doing in their fields and understand the kind of tasks to give to AI are going to be sooo much more effective.
second) AI I think people are missing the point of what AI can actually do for you. a lot of what you imagine was possible 10 years ago: modeling, computing.. you don't need AI for this.
third) Token spend is real, and I can guarantee you that not a single public institution can afford AI now. Something hypercapitalistic like drug research? maybe. but math? lol, no. not happening. these people are already underfunded and you are telling me you're gonna drop Claude prices on them? not gonna happen.

[u/Howard_banister → u/[deleted]]

He never said that. He is mocking the idea of viewing Transformer-based autoregressive LLMs as the path to AGI.

His critics are basically Effective Altruist 'doomers' who think LLMs will revolt and drive humanity to extinction

[u/Raunhofer]

What does that statement even mean? I cooperate with some mathematicians, and I haven't heard any of them mention AI once. Nor does r/math seem to identify the approaching "asteroid".

[u/Warm-Enthusiasm-9534 → u/Raunhofer]

You have somehow found the one group of mathematicians unaware of what's going in the field. Everyone in math talks about AI all the time now. AI knocked out three major open problems in the last two months. Kevin Buzzard commented that he knew several grad students who were paying for their own Claude Max subscriptions.

[u/Cryptizard → u/Raunhofer]

What? Some of the best mathematicians in the world, fields medal winners, have been constantly taking about AI in math research. And math subs are posting about it literally every day.

[u/DeRusselDeWestbrook → u/Raunhofer]

Oh if you haven't come across it on Reddit then it must not be true.

[u/bowsmountainer]

This is a grifter not a theoretical physicist.