Given the 20 years of twisted and evil greedy nature of most successful VC level startups and their founders, tech bros and VCs and the evil of MBA optimized Private Equity should we not instead teach young people to run away from startups and greed?

Paul Graham is selling a drug to society

That drug has infected the world.. we need to review what value all this disruption is providing anyone

He capitalizes on greed and hype but with a soft, sober and thoughtful voice so as to lull you with rationalism and now 20 years of his “disruption” has mostly ruined modern society and a whole generation of techies have been led astray into trying to “change the world” is the world of today (minus the magic technology really any better than 20 years ago?)

- Good for him and his Tech Bros, bad for the rest of society

Twenty years later Wolfram ideas are still popular and showing that it is physicists that are reevaluating his theories

Ie Its LEGITIMATE NICHE RESEARCH PROGRAM not a crackpot by any means also his ideas are useful in the digital physics community

Some Evidence:

specifically evidence outside Wolfram’s own ecosystem, and the picture has changed since the Physics Project launched in 2020.

I think there is now enough peer-reviewed work, independent citation, and engagement by serious physics departments that dismissing it as merely “crackpot physics” is also hard to justify. It has become a legitimate, though still highly speculative and niche, research program.

Here are the strongest recent examples I found, roughly in order of evidential value:

1. Foundations of Physics, 2024 — an independent researcher explicitly develops the Wolfram Model. Furkan Semih Dündar of Amasya University published A Case Study for Leibnizian Ideas in Wolfram Model in Springer’s Foundations of Physics. This matters because it is not a Wolfram blog post: it went through a conventional academic journal and explicitly treats the Wolfram Model as something worth investigating. The paper is cautious—it calls some interpretations speculative—which actually makes it better evidence of genuine academic engagement rather than promotion.

2. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 2024 — substantial mathematical development of the framework. Xerxes Arsiwalla and Jonathan Gorard published Pregeometric Spaces from Wolfram Model Rewriting Systems as Homotopy Types in Springer’s International Journal of Theoretical Physics. They connect Wolfram rewriting systems to homotopy type theory, higher categories and approaches to quantum gravity. This isn’t independent in the same sense—both authors have strong connections to the project—but it means the mathematics is getting through normal peer review and entering the conventional theoretical-physics literature. A copy is also deposited in Cambridge University’s research repository.

3. European Physical Journal C, 2025 — perhaps the most interesting independent signal. A 2025 theoretical-physics paper by Ali Chamseddine, Ola Malaeb and Sara Najem on discrete gravity cites both Gorard’s Wolfram Model work and Wolfram’s original Physics Project paper directly in its survey of approaches to discrete/network geometry. More importantly, look at the intellectual company it keeps in the references: causal sets, quantum graphity, Regge calculus, causal dynamical triangulations, Carlo Rovelli and spin foams, and other established discrete-gravity programs.

Especially with the failure of string theories -We see many physicists treating the Wolfram Model as one of the approaches in the literature that needs to be cited when discussing emergent/discrete spacetime.

4. A serious academic quantum-gravity book now places Wolfram’s ideas alongside established researchers. Routledge published Quantum Gravity and Computation: Information, Pregeometry, and Digital Physics in late 2025/copyright 2026. Stephen Wolfram contributes the chapter On the Nature of Time, and there is a separate chapter called Ruliology: Linking Computation, Observers and Physical Law. The volume also includes work by established researchers including Paul Davies, Gerard Milburn, Vlatko Vedral, Chiara Marletto, Daniele Oriti and Renate Loll.

I would put quite a bit of weight on this. It doesn’t imply that Vedral, Loll, Oriti, etc. endorse the Ruliad. But it does show that computational/pregeometric ideas associated with Wolfram are now participating in an academic conversation with researchers from established quantum-information and quantum-gravity programs.

5. Brown University’s Physics Department gave Wolfram a dedicated two-hour physics colloquium in May 2025. The title was Computation All the Way Down: The Machine Code of Physics & Other Applications. This wasn’t a tech entrepreneurship event; it was hosted by Brown’s Department of Physics and listed as a physics colloquium.

Again, universities invite controversial people all the time, so an invitation isn’t endorsement. But major physics departments generally don’t give two-hour research colloquia to completely unserious theories.

6. Cambridge’s 2025–26 Maxwell Lecture went to Wolfram. The Cambridge University Physics Society selected him for its Maxwell Lecture, whose Cambridge listing explicitly describes the lecture as dedicated to “ground-breaking theoretical & computational physics research and discoveries.” His subject was Computation at the Foundations of Everything — Physics and More, including his recent foundational-physics work. It was run in partnership with the Cambridge Mathematical Society.

This is one of the cleaner institutional-respectability signals.

7. King’s College London went considerably further in October 2025. King’s Department of Mathematics and King’s Institute for Artificial Intelligence jointly hosted Wolfram before a packed audience of students and staff. More interestingly, Nikolay Gromov, a Professor of Theoretical Physics, explicitly discussed the research Wolfram presented, including the work with Jonathan Gorard, and described it as “fascinating and inspiring.”

The King’s headline itself is revealing: “King’s explores new scientific paradigm with creator of Mathematica, Stephen Wolfram.” That’s not acceptance of the theory, but it is a mainstream university treating the program as intellectually serious.

8. Brian Greene / World Science Festival devoted more than two hours to the actual physics in 2025. Wolfram sat down with Columbia physicist Brian Greene specifically to examine whether space, time, general relativity and quantum mechanics can emerge computationally. This wasn’t a five-minute publicity segment. The World Science Festival page currently shows roughly 239,000 views, 4,200+ likes and 800+ comments, so it is also actual evidence of growing public/scientific interest.

This is much weaker evidence for scientific acceptance than the papers above, but quite strong evidence for increased visibility among scientifically literate audiences.

9. The London Institute for Mathematical Sciences hosted him specifically to discuss foundational physics in October 2025. LIMS describes Wolfram as a theoretical physicist and calls his work a “radical new framework for fundamental physics.” The event was a discussion of foundational problems with institute director Thomas Fink and science writer Ananyo Bhattacharya.

10. There is continuing new technical work rather than just recycling the 2020 claim. A December 2025 preprint by Dündar, Arsiwalla and Hatem Elshatlawy develops Wolfram Model multiway systems into explicit representations of quantum gates—including Hadamard, CNOT and π/8 gates—and quantum circuits. Dündar has conventional university affiliations in physics/engineering in Turkey in addition to involvement with the Wolfram Institute. It’s currently a preprint, so I would not put it in the same category as the Springer papers.

There is also a useful bibliometric clue. The important thing isn’t just that Wolfram/Gorard keep publishing papers themselves; newer papers are beginning to cite the framework in the context of other discrete-spacetime approaches. The 2025 European Physical Journal C example above is particularly useful because its reference list literally places Wolfram/Gorard among papers on network gravity, causal sets and discrete quantum gravity.

So where would I put Wolfram in August 2026?

I would use this scale:

Crackpot idea → outsider speculation → legitimate niche research program → serious competing quantum-gravity program → mainstream contender → established theory

The Wolfram Physics Project is now approximately here:

Crackpot → outsider → [LEGITIMATE NICHE RESEARCH PROGRAM] → serious contender → mainstream → established

In 2020, critics had a much easier case for saying: “Wolfram announced an enormous Theory-of-Everything claim outside the normal academic process, most physicists aren’t working on it, and almost everything supporting it comes from Wolfram’s own circle.”

That criticism is weaker six years later. There are now external peer-reviewed papers, independent citations in established theoretical-physics journals, conventional academic books incorporating the framework, major university physics/mathematics departments hosting detailed presentations, and outside academics actually building on pieces of the formalism.

Wolfram’s fundamental-physics claims remain highly speculative and far outside the consensus, but the Wolfram Model can no longer fairly be dismissed as merely internet crackpottery. It has generated peer-reviewed mathematical physics, attracted independent academic work and citations, and is receiving serious engagement at institutions such as Brown, Cambridge and King’s.

https://youtu.be/-vz5LU2ECm0?is=g1T-QM8Lq9qNyiNK

I don't know any 50+ year who really looks as young people as anything other than filtered reflections of themselves who will learn on their own..

is innocence unwise and experience embittered? Perhaps but that is a Judgemental and cynical perspective - we need more perspective in this world..and we must expose our best art early so that conversation can begin...The young will get there.

I can say for a fact that reliable medical transcrption and dictation is worth handling hallicinations..

its an order of magnitude worse in real life.. or else its just ommitted info since most docs and nurses dont have time for details..

By all means lets be accurate but we must remember all these complex workflows are filled with human error..

1. Is this self improvement at the model level (updated weights or memory, KV etc) or just by adding agentic code harnesess to guide the output better?

Thank you

Welcome to the progress and “better world” that Tech Bros promised while they reaped billions of the VC/PE economy

We are so desperate that someone murdered a Healthcare CEO - ie resorting to violence

We are so desperate that many is (myself included travel to cheaper countries for dental and other healthcare)

Its a simple calculus but one that is obtuse to conservatives and richer people

Human responsibility over AI oversight folks.. even forgoing AI, we're still gonna get compromised code either way.. deal with it.

https://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~karl/Life%20as%20we%20know%20...

His paper here presents a heuristic proof (and simulations of a primordial soup) suggesting that life—or biological self-organization—is an inevitable and emergent property of any (ergodic) random dynamical system that possesses a Markov blanket

https://www.geekwire.com/2026/the-startup-idea-that-convince...

Viewing the world as haves and have nots and building giant Walls and moats and hyper-capitalism alone will never solve this..

https://youtu.be/mGYmiQkah4o?si=L8JKYQP5JqRjyFEt

Thanks Trump

1. For Dario as CEO "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it” -Upton Sinclair

2. For Chinese open weight models - following Jin Yang’s silicon valley strategy- https://youtu.be/a0NjDx5UJsg?is=xm-S_WuARmQiPHYh