201–210 of 504 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also no commercial use, from the paper: > AlphaFold 3 will be available as a non-commercial usage only server at https://www.alphafoldserver.com , with restrictions on allowed ligands and covalent modifications. Pseudocode describing the algorithms is available in the Supplementary Information. Code is not provided.
What's the point in that that - I mean who does non-commercial drug research?
Stepping back, the high-order bit here is an ML method is beating physically-based methods for accurately predicting the world. What happens when the best methods for computational fluid dynamics, molecular dynamics, nuclear physics are all uninterpretable ML models? Does this decouple progress from our current understanding of the scientific process - moving to better and better models of the world without human-int…
Many of our existing physical models can be decomposed into "high-confidence, well tested bit" plus "hand-wavy empirically fitted bit". I'd like to see progress via ML replacing the empirical part - the real scientific advancement then becomes steadily reducing that contribution to the whole by improving the robust physical model incrementally. Computational performance is another big influence though. Replacing the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The goal of science has always been to discover underlying principles and not merely to predict the outcome of experiments. I don't see any way to classify an opaque ML model as a scientific artifact since by definition it can't reveal the underlying principles. Maybe one could claim the ML model itself is the scientist and everyone else is just feeding it data. I doubt human scientists would be comfortable with that…
What if the underlying principles of the universe are too complex for human understanding but we can train a model that very closely follows them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The goal of science has always been to discover underlying principles and not merely to predict the outcome of experiments. I don't see any way to classify an opaque ML model as a scientific artifact since by definition it can't reveal the underlying principles. Maybe one could claim the ML model itself is the scientist and everyone else is just feeding it data. I doubt human scientists would be comfortable with that…
What if the underlying principles of the universe are too complex for human understanding but we can train a model that very closely follows them?
Stepping back, the high-order bit here is an ML method is beating physically-based methods for accurately predicting the world. What happens when the best methods for computational fluid dynamics, molecular dynamics, nuclear physics are all uninterpretable ML models? Does this decouple progress from our current understanding of the scientific process - moving to better and better models of the world without human-int…
The current computational and systems biochemistry approaches struggle to model large biomolecules and their interactions due to the large degrees of freedom of the models.
I think it is reasonable to rely on statistical methods to lead researchers down paths that have a high likelihood of being correct versus brute forcing the chemical kinetics.
After all chemistry is inherently stochastic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're a scientist who works in protein folding (or one of those other areas) and strongly believe that science's goal is to produce falsifiable hypotheses, these new approaches will be extremely depressing, especially if you aren't proficient enough with ML to reproduce this work in your own hands. If you're a scientist who accepts that probabilist models beat interpretable ones (articulated well here: https://no…
There have been times in the past when usable technology surpassed our scientific understanding, and instead of being depressing it provided a map for scientific exploration. For example, the steam engine was developed by engineers in the 1600s/1700s (Savery, Newcomen, and others) but thermodynamics wasn’t developed by scientists until the 1800s (Carnot, Rankine, and others).
From: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01383-z >Unlike RoseTTAFold and AlphaFold2, scientists will not be able to run their own version of AlphaFold3, nor will the code underlying AlphaFold3 or other information obtained after training the model be made public. Instead, researchers will have access to an ‘AlphaFold3 server’, on which they can input their protein sequence of choice, alongside a selection of…
Or OpenFold, which is the more literal reproduction of AlphaFold 2: https://github.com/aqlaboratory/openfold
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're a scientist who works in protein folding (or one of those other areas) and strongly believe that science's goal is to produce falsifiable hypotheses, these new approaches will be extremely depressing, especially if you aren't proficient enough with ML to reproduce this work in your own hands. If you're a scientist who accepts that probabilist models beat interpretable ones (articulated well here: https://no…
The goal of science has always been to discover underlying principles and not merely to predict the outcome of experiments. I don't see any way to classify an opaque ML model as a scientific artifact since by definition it can't reveal the underlying principles. Maybe one could claim the ML model itself is the scientist and everyone else is just feeding it data. I doubt human scientists would be comfortable with that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm in the following camp: It is wrong to think about the world or the models as "complex systems" that may or may not be understood by human intelligence. There is no meaning beyond that which is created by humans. There is no 'truth' that we can grasp in parts but not entirely. Being unable to understand these complex systems means that we have framed them in such a way (f.e. millions of matrix operations) that doe…
But the human brain has limited working memory and experience. Even in software development we are often teetering at the edge of the mental power to grasp and relate ideas. We have tried so much to manage complexity, but real world complexity doesn't care about human capabilities. So there might be high dimensional problems where we simply can't use our brains directly.
The concern is about "holding it all in your head", and depending on your preferred level of abstraction, "all" can perfectly reasonably be held in your head. For example: "This program generates the most likely outputs" makes perfect sense to me, even if I don't understand some of the code. I understand the system. Programmers went through this decades ago. Physicists had to do it too. Now, chemists I suppose.