[dead]
The AI Scientist: Towards Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery
141–144 of 144 posts
Re: The AI Scientist: Towards Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fully agreed on point A, but I've heard the "but then humans won't be trained" argument before and don't buy it. It's already the case that humans can cheat or get buy without fully understanding the math or ideas they're working with. This is what PhD defences are for, and what paper reviews are for. Yes, likely we need to do something to improve peer review, but that is already true without AI. From a more philosop…
Scientific advancement IS the change in the understanding of humans. Your fallacy lies in pretending science can progress in an objectively defined space where saying 'progress twice as fast' even makes sense. But it does not. It progresses as people refine and improve their understanding of the universe. Books or LLMs don't contain understanding, only data. If less people grow a deep understanding of mathematics and…
[dead]
Re: The AI Scientist: Towards Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
The original purpose of science was to get closer to god. Things change. Arts degrees were also once 7-8 years before the french fought for radical simplification to get them down. There is no law of nature that says PhDs cannot be simplified down more too. The stupification argument comes kneejerk with every new medium, you don't have to believe everything you watch on TV or form a crutch to a screen oracle. Either…
PhD cannot be simplified further down without making it not "significant contribution to science/art/craft". However, DAs (Doctor of Arts) could be granted for hard sciences. The threshold for DA is "outstanding achivement", which would be fit for a post-AGI doctorate in hard sciences.
[dead]
Re: The AI Scientist: Towards Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
my guy you're so confident yet you forget AlphaFold, it designs protein structures that don't exist. Who's to say that a model can't eventually be trained to work within certain parameters the real word operates in and make new novel ideas and inventions much like a human does in a larger scope.
If you go and look at the list of authors on those papers you will see that most of the authors have PhD doing something protein folding related. It's not that some computer scientists figured it out. It's that someone built the infrastructure then gave it to the subject matter experts to use.
[dead]