41–50 of 53 posts
TLDR: Article starts by mentioning a bunch of current/past applications of AI to science, many of which are in the medical field where (the article fails to mention) no AI system has ever been shown to improve the quality or length of human life in a randomized clinical trial. It takes a very long time to then mention just 2 things that could "revolutionize" science: LLM style systems could help you find collaborator…
As someone who probably puts way too much time into literature reviews, my big hope is that literature reviews at the beginning if a research project will be revolutionized. Things are re-discovered across adjacent fields of study all the time. There are also a bunch of times I've come across a paper when I was a year into a project, and wished that I'd had it at the beginning of the project.
Check out https://elicit.org/ I think it might be exactly what you are looking for.
One idea that I find interesting is to combine LLMs with formal verification and theorem prover tools like Coq, Lean, etc. Any mistakes by the LLM should be detectable by the verification engine. Maybe this could be useful in automating the currently ongoing efforts of 're-proving' the existing body of mathematical knowledge with theorem provers ('ChatGPT, please take this paper and verify the proofs with Lean'). And who knows, maybe one day the machines will produce some interesting mathematics on their own. Would be curious if anyone has links to works in this direction, or blogs/content by mathematicians discussing this.
Here's the heart of how they say it can be done > Two areas in particular look promising. The first is “literature-based discovery” (LBD), which involves analysing existing scientific literature, using ChatGPT-style language analysis, to look for new hypotheses, connections or ideas that humans may have missed. LBD is showing promise in identifying new experiments to try—and even suggesting potential research collabo…
It might be worse than that, not only might ChatGPT uncritically accept authors' claims or reduce the effort to produce low-quality research - given the current state of the art, there seems to be no guarantee that LLMs won't claim things about a paper that was never even said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Game developers should be hired to make an UI that allows scientists to accept “quests” and will show the public who accepted what and is collaborating with who on which problems with rankings. The reason to use game is to make it more engaging for everyone and also an incentive to go thru with it when in public
I'm now getting an idea for a dystopian cyberpunk novel about a world in which everyone is addicted to an awesome game that they think they are obsessed with that provides gift cards and credits that allow you to purchase real things, but it turns out it's all actually secretly controlled by a massive shadow government/corporation and everything everyone thinks they are doing in the "game" is actually having massive…
these upsides are a sirens song. it wont matter how advanced science is or whatever benefit you can imagine if human society is destroyed. the upsides will be pointless. destruction of human society is inevitable and intrinsic to artificial intelligence.
AI existential risk isn’t “inevitable” in the same way that eg heat death of the universe is.
> Luminaries in the field such as Demis Hassabis and Yann LeCun believe that AI can turbocharge scientific progress and lead to a golden age of discovery. Could they be right?... Such claims are worth examining, and may provide a useful counterbalance to fears about large-scale unemployment and killer robots. But will we maintain control of the above-human-ability, autonomous AI systems these companies are racing to…
these upsides are a sirens song. it wont matter how advanced science is or whatever benefit you can imagine if human society is destroyed. the upsides will be pointless. destruction of human society is inevitable and intrinsic to artificial intelligence.
Got an argument for that conjecture? AI existential risk isn’t “inevitable” in the same way that eg heat death of the universe is.