Modal Path Ethics Apologizes to David Gross

On June 17, Modal Path Ethics published Humanity Does Not Possess a Radioactive Half-Life.

The article concerned Nobel Prize-winning physicist David Gross, who had warned that humanity might have approximately thirty-five years before nuclear war.

I appreciated the warning. I disputed the mathematics. I also objected to the press presenting Gross's expertise in particle physics as though it conferred special authority over geopolitical probability.

The article concluded that he may keep every alarm bell he has.

He must surrender the clock.

I considered the matter settled.

Unfortunately, physics has intervened.

On October 26, OpenAI announced that its models had produced mathematical existence proofs for four-dimensional quantum chromodynamics, related quantum field theories, and the existence component of Yang–Mills theory.

The Yang–Mills result has reportedly been formalized in Lean. The mass-gap component of the Millennium Prize problem remains unresolved. The physics artifacts have not yet been released for independent public examination.

And who has been selected to lead the team of physicists charged with understanding and explaining these results?

David Gross.

So the guy I used to illustrate the limits of transferring expertise between disciplines has now returned to demonstrate what happens when expertise is applied to exactly the discipline in which it was earned.

Gross shared the 2004 Nobel Prize for discovering asymptotic freedom, a foundational result in quantum chromodynamics.

This is his physics. With quarks.

Modal Path Ethics would therefore like to apologize to Dr. Gross for the unfortunate timing of its earlier public confiscation of his timekeeping equipment.

If an artificial intelligence has produced a rigorous mathematical construction of the quantum field theory Gross helped establish, then having Gross examine it seems like a sensational use of David Gross.

There is, however, another problem.

The physics group has chosen to withhold the AI-produced material while preparing its own explanation. OpenAI says the researchers are independent and free to publish their findings.

Meanwhile, the Advisory Group on Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence has called for immediate public release.

A proof can be correct without being understood. Understanding can take enormous additional work. That is exactly why Modal Path Ethics has been developing Proof-to-Theory.

But independent verification requires independent access.

I am very pleased to see that David Gross is in the room. I would also like everyone else to be allowed into the room. The shepherds can be respected without requiring the entire scientific community to take their word for what the sheep look like.

So The Ruling is straightforward.

• David Gross deserves congratulations, an apology for any administrative inconvenience I may have caused by stealing all his timekeeping devices, and whatever assistance he needs to understand this potentially extraordinary result.
• OpenAI deserves credit for attempting to distinguish machine-produced proofs from human scientific understanding.
• The proof still needs public scrutiny.
• And the thirty-five-year nuclear countdown clock remains confiscated.

Just one more thing.

In The Problem of Space, I challenged the physicists to remove fundamental spacetime if they wanted to so very badly. The framework had survived an audit of its dependence on space, and I announced that I was not afraid of any of them.

Apparently, the physicists have decided to continue testing this claim.

I am still not afraid of any of your quantum theories.

My ethics are built to abide.