prof | univ of utah | oxford | cognition AI reasoning economics strategy |

Joined July 2010
Teppo Felin retweeted
my question is, if you think I'm dumb enough to not realize your personalized email was tailored by ChatGPT, do you really want me to be your PhD advisor?
28
33
9
631
42,316
Abhishek: A different take on this: two models with overlapping corpora landed on the same result the same day. The contrarian bet wasn’t new. Scholars like Ryan Williams spent years in the minority, pursuing lines of attack against the consensus.
ANT disproved ETH the same time as OAI! First major simultaneous discovery by agents? Newton-Leibnitz circa 2026?!
2
2
614
…though a notable improvement over some past releases: Williams’s work is cited. How much is new, or whether this is a “last-mile” contribution, will hopefully emerge through verification and tracing the lineage.
1
117
Teppo Felin retweeted
Replying to @Afinetheorem
There’s lots of slippage in how even OpenAI’s own mathematicians are talking about this, including search and “last mile” - my prediction is frontier collapse without human work and lines of attack - but obviously we’ll see
1
1
2
827
Teppo Felin retweeted
Replying to @Quasilocal
Existence of Yang Mills? It’s just tying up a lose end for the hyper mathematically minded. I don’t think any physicist gives af. We have been doing precision calculations for decades. Of course it exists. But sure, would be nice to have a proof.
13
17
10
202
108,869
Kevin: I’m struggling with ongoing claims about independent AI discovery. This looks more like AI free riding (intentionally or not) on human lines of attack: Navier–Stokes, now Yang–Mills. Worth checking what folks working on these problems say, e.g. xitter.cf/__alpoge__/status/2114…
I cannot express how crazy these three results are. Not only are they so famous in math, computer science, and physics that even I am aware of them, but at least one of the results goes in the opposite direction of what we all assumed would be true...
3
2
14
7,729
Yeah, this study making the rounds is primarily about perceptions of review quality, and primarily about AI's perceptions. I find it odd honestly that the authors are advertising it as an analysis of "every measure we could construct."
Seeing this study being widely re-shared with the take away that now AI >= human in peer review, in every dimension. People need to tone it down a little... This is primarily GPT evaluating Claude's comments. To me, the more useful signal is the 3 past editors of unnamed journals rating human vs Claude reviews, but this is only related to just 10 papers, it's not clear the editors have specific expertise in the paper topics or methods, and it reads as though the editors looked at the reviews but not the actual papers. I know we will need AI in the loop in some fashion to manage the paper deluge. I also realize that AI is already widely used in peer review and it's better to step in to manage / govern that process than let people do whatever they want. In my experience, AI certainly surfaces useful / good comments, particularly on methods, but many of the comments can be pedantic. Many models also still have terrible judgment about the other aspects that determine a study's value, e.g., whether the question is important. We're not yet at the point of ditching the human. Note: I'm pushing back here on the interpretations people are sharing when circulating this work, not the discussion in the paper itself.
2
2
1
24
1,591
IMO the issue is even deeper than Golub suggests. AI itself is backward-looking and imitative, extrapolating from past data. Studying AI with backward-looking empirics doubles the problem. Theory’s job isn’t just mapping conditions to outcomes. It points to new data, experiments
This misdiagnoses things in a few different ways - let me try to unpack. (1) A lot of the 10x new economists of AI are empirical. Truly empirical econ is modest and backward-looking. (2) What you want is new theory - that's where big new approaches will live/come from. 1/
4
2
17
2,367
I was never a fan of TL;DR. I don't mind reading something long, if it's good. But AI;DR — I'm definitely for that.
4
1
1
43
2,180
So much outrage over people using Pangram scores to decide how much weight to give a text boils down to denial of a basic fact: it’s rational to rely on a signal when it’s informative. Good luck convincing people it’s in their best interest to make worse decisions!
4
5
1
63
3,875
I asked Claude in thirty fresh chats: "Pick a number between 1 and 10." It gave me 7. Every time. AI radically amplifies the most common answers. That's a problem with major consequences: teppofelin.substack.com/p/di…
11
6
1
36
2,336
thanks to @adamzwasserman's graph for inspiring the little experiment
1
1
235
Oxford researchers just published a paper that quietly dismantles a lot of the AI-will-replace-everyone narrative. Teppo Felin and Matthias Holweg (Saïd Business School, Oxford) argue in Theory Is All You Need that large language models cannot invent anything genuinely new. Not because they aren’t impressive, but because of how they work. An LLM is trained to predict the next token from existing data. It is structurally backward-looking and imitative. It cannot hold a belief the training data says is wrong. Every real scientific or technological breakthrough in history started with exactly that kind of belief. The Wright Brothers are the paper’s central example. In 1903 the prevailing data and expert consensus said human flight was one to ten million years away. Nine weeks later they flew. They did not have better data. They had a theory the data had not yet caught up to. They broke the problem into lift, propulsion and control, built their own wind tunnels, and generated the evidence that did not previously exist. That is the data–belief asymmetry humans can live with and machines cannot. Humans start with a causal theory, then intervene in the world and run experiments to create new data. LLMs start with the data and stay inside its statistical envelope. This is why the current hysteria is mostly noise. The models are extraordinary at compressing, remixing and accelerating what we already know. They are not going to independently invent the next physics, the next energy source, or the next medical paradigm. Those leaps still require a human who is willing to treat the existing record as incomplete or wrong. Use the tools. Just stop pretending the tools are the source of the next idea. Paper: pubsonline.informs.org/doi/1…
76
110
20
383
22,221
Taleb once again missing the point
Where we see evidence that mathematicians are more interested in the welfare of mathematicians than the improvement of scientific knowledge.
1
1
18
1,714
And yet, the lack of experience and taste such students have is immediately recognizable (and leads to embarassment on their part) as soon as they enter a lab or academic program and start interacting with faculty and more experienced students. I am seeing this all around me.
My PhD advisor received an email from a student who's been doing research for 8 months, and has *16 solo papers published* in 2026, almost all at real AI conferences, 1 paper at ICML. All papers 100% flagged by Pangram (not reliable but a tell). The truth is academic AI research does not survive this. It has to reinvent itself fast.
1
2
1
32
4,912
Teppo Felin retweeted
Oh, come on, aren't you going to say why she isn't there now?
Former McGill professor Anne Carson has won the 2026 Nobel Prize in Literature. 🏆 Awarded “for her bold and inventive oeuvre", she has helped redefine contemporary literature through poetry, essays, translation and criticism. Congratulations! ➡️ mcgill.ca/x/5HS
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
Ann Carson left McGill after the university closed her department in the late 1990s theguardian.com/books/2026/oct…
3
7
180
30,896
Love yesterday's angry responses to the idea that AI is laundering human knowledge “Who cares?” “You're just obsessed with credit” “Human brains launder knowledge too” Can't answer in short X post. So here's a long form paper addressing chunks of that: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.…
AI is laundering human work and knowledge. We desperately need better tracing of the provenance of ideas and knowledge
5
2
2
26
2,951
Just to amplify pt below. Here's a very concrete prediction based on the laundering argument: more of hmm-this-looks-familiar is going to start rolling in from mathematicians (here's Khurana's reacting to OpenAI math in her space) and scientists - dakshitakhurana.substack.com…
2
222
Nothing to see here: a nonobvious line of attack by Dakshita Khurana and OpenAI dakshitakhurana.substack.com…
3
286
For at least a couple of problems I worked on extensively with GPT/Codex (with data sharing off), I noticed an OpenAI solution shortly afterward, based on the paper dates. That is deeply concerning: OpenAI may be competing directly with its users using massive data and resources.
24
27
6
247
24,422