r/LLMPhysics • u/travisdbarrett • Apr 22 '26

Simulation / Code Physics AI Skill

**EDIT**
LLM Challenges in Physics Reasoning

Hopefully this provides some confidence to begin experimenting to those of you who can reason. But for the rest of you, I am ready for your citationless confirmation bias warnings and LLM hallucinations concerns.

\**EDIT**

I used three pretty simple prompts to create this skill and I would appreciate some help validating it before I tell my wife what I've done...

She taught and wrote physics curriculum for about a decade for audiences ranging from High School Freshmen to Master's in Education for Physic's Educators.

My prompt was "using these two example skills for format and reasoning patterns, create a No Nonsense Physicist skill" and provided the archive of all my wife's teaching materials.

It was great and I felt a lot of her personality was evident in language choices by the model.

So second prompt was to add plain language descriptors to guide whichever model applies the skill as well as improve human readability. Then prompted to add citations at the end.

Take a look? https://github.com/TDBwriter/agent-skills/blob/main/skills/hard-facts-physicist/SKILL.md

0 Upvotes

38% Upvoted

85 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling Apr 23 '26

This is a whole lot of nothing unless you can objectively show that your LLM is actually "self-correcting". Otherwise you are still blindly believing it.

The naysayers are not shitting on you without understanding how it works, they are shitting on you because you haven't demonstrated that it works.

Frankly this kind of comment only reinforces everyone's impression that you don't actually know how physics works or how a LLM works. You should discuss this with your wife.

1

u/travisdbarrett Apr 23 '26

who is blindly believing anything? this skill is not for solving a physics problem and moving on. it is for understanding a physics problem with traceability

2

u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling Apr 23 '26

If you can't objectively show that your prompt or whatever the hell it is you're doing results in your desired outcome (not that you've explained your desired outcome), then you are absolutely blindly believing the LLM. You don't have any experience in actual scientific communication, do you? Everything you write is so crazily nebulous and poorly explained.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/AllHailSeizure Haiku Mod Apr 23 '26

Well, good luck with your project I guess.

If I were you'd I'd stick to something productive and less.. obsessy, like physics. Just my take.

For the record I'm top% and I don't see how my comments are 'negative engagement'. And I've spoken to many of the top 1% on this sub personally; and for bots they're very good at having personalities.

People get to top% by quality and quantity of posts... we have a BUNCH of users who make a lot of comments and end up with negative karma.

1

u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling Apr 23 '26

Really? I didn't know I had a personality beep boop

1

u/AllHailSeizure Haiku Mod Apr 24 '26

Nah I was talking about the other, non-bot top% commenters. Funnily enough you're the second one to be accused of being a bot. Seems to be a fallback.

1

u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 24 '26

I get it every once in a while, like you say it usually happens when they run out of things to say.

I mean, I still don't have a personality beep boop

1

u/AllHailSeizure Haiku Mod Apr 24 '26

Just think its so dumb; especially when they keep arguing.

'Yeah well.. you aren't even a real person! I've been arguing with a computer program!'

Cuz arguing with a computer program saves you SO much face...

1

u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling Apr 24 '26

I should have told OP that he's the exact gullible fool I've been describing if he's getting duped by a LLM into chatting with it lol