I gave you an example of a new field of mathematics on which finance could embark. Our comments about "AI"/ML are not just snarky, but contain valid and often constructive criticism: insufficient or incorrect theoretical foundations, from those commonly recognised ones (problems with SGD discussed by Cuchulainn, who's an expert in a related field - he doesn't need to prove himself so tone down a bit if you please) to major statistical errors such as confusing observational associations with causal inference from data.
I'm not the one asking people to prove themselves, so it's not me you need to tell to tone it down.
Posting
ML afficiandos claim they can solve 100-dimensional PDEs before breakfast is a snarky comment about AI, which nobody has suggested using in this thread. In fact the only people mentioning AI are those who want to have a grumble about it.
What is this new field you're speaking of, are you referring to "
I do simulations of microdynamics of systems of higher complexity than markets."
Why does it have to be a new field? I just think it's weird that with all these mathematicians and physicists, and 10+ years since the start of the crisis and critiquing of financial models, nobody can say "I'd model X with Y, it's better than a parabolic PDE, or RN valuation or whatever".