https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46336655

Meanwhile, there's interesting experimental action in low-energy physics, down near absolute zero. Many of the weirder predictions of quantum mechanics have now been observed directly. Look at the list of Nobel laureates in physics since 1990. A big fraction of them involve experiments with very low energy states, where thermal noise is small enough that quantum effects dominate. Some of that work led to useful technology. That's forward progress.

> with string theorists now virtually unemployable unless they can figure out how to rebrand as machine learning experts.

Their issue is (seemingly) not with the paper, but with the claim that these headlines feed a hype that attribute to string theory capabilities it doesn't have.

To be clear this is OP's argument, not mine. I am not sure I buy it, except perhaps for the fact that every other academic is expected to rebrand as an ML expert nowadays. It has more to do with ML hype than with string theory hype.

It would be helpful to have more clearly targeted and titrated criticism, because you’ve mentioned press releases, a sciam article, the paper, and Sabine all without differentiation.

I hope it’s clear enough the paper itself is legit and doesn’t seem to make any inappropriate claims. Beyond that, the PRs seem to be the real offenders here, the sciam article less so (could be argued that’s healthy popsci), and I’m not sure what comment you’re making about Sabine. The title of her video may be click baity but the content itself seems to appropriately demarcate string theory from the paper.

I think it's largely uncontroversial that the math in string theory could be useful in other areas. But if that's your argument for the legitimacy of string theory then the question arises what string theory is and if it is still part of physics. Because physics has, of course, the goal of describing the real world, and, my understanding is, string theory failed to do that, despite what many people have hoped.

If string theory is "just a way of developing math that can be useful in totally unrelated areas", it's, well, part of mathematics. But I don't think that's how the field sees itself.

That's from 2003, when the string theory theorists were riding high and attacking string theory was bad for a physicist's career. Now, "with string theorists now virtually unemployable unless they can figure out how to rebrand as machine learning experts...", the situation has reversed.

String theorists understand high-dimensional math, so maybe they can do something for machine learning theory. Probably not, but we can hope. It's frustrating how much of a black box machine learning systems are.

I knew a someone who was a temp visitor at the Institute for Advanced Studies who was given temp office next to Witten. And he said he wouldn't hear a noise, and the one day he starts typing and doesn't stop until 100 pages of paper are written, like he has it finished in his mind before he starts typing. Somehow I'm inclined to believe it can't be far from truth.