u/AllHailSeizure

Sup LLMPhysics

So as you may know I'm makin a Bingo game to play on the sub. It'll be a weekly game, and the bingo will apply to the posts of the past week. Every week the bot will make a post where you can play - it'll be a 'games on reddit' post system, where you can click on the 'play' button in a post and it launches a webview; for ease of cross-platform use (mobile/desktop/etc) and for looking better than simply a md card comment. I might make a little sidebar widget that links to it or something, or maybe the post will be pinned, so you can come back and look at your card if you want. Cards are per-week and per-user.

So basically you get a card with the tiles.. 5 in a row you win. Pretty basic. It's bingo. Not hard.

I'm looking for inspiration for the tiles - I am looking for the idiosyncrasies of the community ("50+ comments, over half are by u/OnceBittenz"), iconic catchphrases from diff types of posts ("ontology mentioned twice"), common things we see in comments ("This sub is full of bullies" "Did you even read the post", "Poe's law mentioned on humor post"). Best would be a combo of gimme tiles that will ALWAYS trigger, and more fringe ones. No fun if nobody wins, no fun if you never win.

I don't fully know yet if I can work out a system to extend beyond reddit into peoples papers, so it would probably need to be limited to the actual Reddit. Could look into it, maybe, maybe not.

Hi guys.

After a month of Rule 11, it seems beyond clear the majority of posters are simply not interested in posting if they aren't ToEs. While this is not what we on the mod team had hoped for, we do realize that we are kneecapping our sub by not allowing for the main source of content on certain days.

In light of this rule 11 is being rescinded. You may now post your ToEs every day. Go crazy.

AHS out.

Hello,

I'm wondering what the view is on creating an app that has multiple functions for a specific sub if I'm uninterested in making it public and leaving it unlisted. I know apps exist for many of these things but I was wondering would be on consolidating it into a single app. Like a modmail app, a flood assistant, etc. A bunch of the standard mod tools united into a single 'mod app'.

I mostly want to do it to for the fun of coding things, which I love, and to customize all of those features to my specific desires, and then just leave it as the app for that sub.

Thanks in advance.

Sup everyone,

I'm a mod on LLMPhysics, obviously not the most chill sub in the world, but basically maybe 4 months ago we had a really, REALLY annoying user get permanently banned. We decided to give him a second chance after a while, maybe a month, after I talked a bit to him about the issues he was creating. Then he just was a dick again and so we permabanned - again. The second permaban happened maybe 6 weeks ago.

For some reason he took this really personally and hasn't been able to move on. He has his own sub, and recently he has taken to making posts about how much our sub sucks. This is brigading I realize but what concerns me is he has taken a particular issue with our head mod and mentions him by name in posts, messages him on twitter, etc. I reported this for brigading, but I'm realizing that maybe I should have reported for harassment - except that the harassment is OFF of Reddit. Should I have done harassment? Not really sure.

A haiku.

Now on the mod team,

A new tyrant overlord,

The_Nerdy_Ninja.

We welcome to the mod team u/The_Nerdy_Ninja, who has yet to prove he is either a nerd or a ninja; but that's on him. This new member of my cabal of tyrannical dictators is here to enforce my iron will upon the sub; to grind it into submission while the pitiful cries of users like u/liccxolydian echo with maddening agony through the haunted corridors of crankery.

There is a depth cap limit on sub comments now. But its like 20 comments so good luck reaching that. After that the bot I made for the sub will lock the comment and auto-report for review.

Also yeah I made a bot for the sub. I mostly intend to use it for making the mod tasks less tedious, but you guys can use it rn for a definition call if you want from Wikipedia; you call it (u/llmphysics-bot) and type !define [term] and it gets you a Wikipedia summary. It's in beta rn but relatively reliable. The term has to be in square brackets, after the command, with a space. It's much easier than regex parsing to attempt to extract a meaning. Also it is limited in categories, so don't go abusing this shit... I'm gonna refine the feature.

If anyone has any interesting ideas of what they think would be cool features to implement into the app in any way, I'd be down to try; this has been a project essentially to teach myself how to use Claude Code effectively. Can be anything from a menu feature to a bot command to I dunno, I am learning the limits of Devvit, but it's pretty broad.

AHS oooouuuuut

Well we finally bring this to a close while we announce the winner of the LLMPhysics Journal Ambitions Contest.

In a photo finish, the winner is u/Educational_Use6401 by 0.2 points. I will not be posting scores for other users, but he ends up with a 63.5%.

Let me extend my congratulations to Educational_Use! And to all the users who participated, thanks for engaging with my madness; and thanks to the sub for putting up with me. I jumped into this on like my third day of moderation and didn't put nearly enough thought into it, and we've been left with a bit of an awkward situation where it kinda burned out.

I still have hope for this sub, though, because hope is fun. So thanks to you all.

Let me extend some special credit. There are users who contributed to this who aren't even active members here anymore.

u/alamalarian for pretty much more things than I can list here,

u/BeneficialBig8372 for the LLM judging,

u/YaPhetsEz & u/99cyborgs for helping to plan and execute this as an experiment,

u/Vrillim and u/herreovertidogrom for human judging (even though this fell through, they tried)

u/ConquestAce for letting me essentially go crazy on the sub,

And finally u/Carver-. Although shit went down, if he reads this, I want to say your contributions are not forgotten.

Thanks LLMPhysics.

As always,

AHS out.

Hello everyone. This is an embarrassing post to make but one I should have made a while ago probably.

Everyone has probably forgotten but we had a competition on the sub. The process of the human judging unfortunately has fallen apart, I don't even know if one of the judges is alive anymore.

We do, however, have the results of the AI judging; so if the sub wants to just put this to bed with me announcing the winner as the person who received the highest score via the AI judging. I'm guessing that is what people probably want rather than to just leave this hanging, but just to leave the decision in the hands of the people who participatedI am making this a poll.

I apologize to you all for this.

View Poll

This post isn't about 'how to correct someone politely so they don't get upset'. I wanna address why neutral debunking gets called out as an 'ad hominem'.

First off, I'd like to clarify that this post doesn't apply when people directly insult. Obviously there's reason to be personally offended when someone says 'you dumb idiot, this is trash.' I'm not gonna argue they didn't call you a dumb idiot.

Before people tell me to get off my high horse, I'm well aware that stuff like that goes on in this sub. Insults are thrown from both sides of the table, people get offended. Opinions on this sub are HIGHLY divided about AI, one of Reddit's most inflammatory topics, and things escalate. I'll make content about that some other day.

However there seems to be an opinion embedded into some posters around here that the sole interest of commenters is in annihilating the self-worth of posters. I'm sorry, but this simply isn't true.

People are gonna say 'ya it is true'. Feel free to scroll back through the last posts in this sub, and look at the top-level comments (not nested ones). A significant majority do NOT address the person. This means that any of them where there is fighting, the fighting comes from *escalation*. And the escalation is almost always 1 of 2 things. a) disagreement on the use of LLMs in physics, or b) the poster taking it personally when told their work is 'worthless'.

I understand those are strong words, but being told this is NOT a personal attack. It just means 'what you have doesn't realistically contribute to physics'. It's can be painful to accept but the reality is this - scientists, all the time, will make mistakes. Even the best ones. All the time. But it's an unhealthy scientific attitude to continue to try and refine something fundamentally flawed.

It's always fair to take things with a grain of salt, because biases exist, if I am being completely honest. Especially on Reddit, where none of us are academically beholden to eachother. But if 7 people tell you your work has nothing.. It's possible they're right. Science isn't just a club where you publish whatever you make up, I think we are all aware of that - why should this sub take that approach? Good academic review 'trims the fat' - and the best way to do so is with a sharp knife. By being realistic about things.

And the reality is: expecting to push your way in as an outsider and overthrow physics is not a realistic expectation. No physicist gets into HEP with that goal. Maybe 5-7 people in history can be considered as having 'revolutionized physics', the 2 obvious choices being Einstein and Newton, and a bunch of people who knew Max Planck.

But the physics landscape is so highly granulated and specialized, that the chances of there even being another person who 'revolutionizes physics' seems highly unlikely.

Temper your expectations. Good science takes time. A long time. And it takes human feedback. Don't get lost in a sunk cost fallacy because you don't want to admit you're wrong.

A personal attack is an attack on a person. An attack on a paper is an academic critique. No matter what level it is raised at - the level of 'this is made by an LLM' or an in-depth critique of every equation; neither of these address the author.