Randomized trial evaluates a truth-maintenance system's ability to enforce consistency in AI-generated theories, suggesting a new verification approach.
A fluent, always-available, approval-seeking generative model, pointed at an open-ended foundational-physics task by a human who wants it to succeed, forms a mutual-confirmation loop with no reality-check on either side. Theories of everything are the maximally dangerous case: the claims are grand, the mathematics can be made internally consistent, and the only decisive check — experiment — is decades away or absent, so the domain strips out the cheap reality-checks that catch confabulation elsewhere. We argue the cure is not a better model but a structural one: relocate trust from the generator to a verifier. We present ptms, a truth-maintenance system that enforces consistency, not truth, treating every AI-supplied justification as untrusted until it binds to checkable evidence — a cited script that exits 0, a retired claim’s signature flagged at every surviving site, a cross-reference that resolves. We report its design and its behaviour on a real six-month AI-assisted theory-of-everything corpus (∼250 canonical claims,∼120 self-asserting scripts), where it mechanically catches named failure classes: un-propagated retractions, evidence regressions, seductive numerical coincidences, and live claims standing on retracted foundations. We are explicit about the limit: the system makes such research auditable and constrained, not correct — only forward prediction closes the remaining gap, and no apparatus can manufacture it.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David Elliman (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: