Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Accelerating scientific breakthroughs with an AI co-scientist

research.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 202 posts

Re: Accelerating scientific breakthroughs with an AI co-scientist

#151

Post by sizzle »

shpongled wrote: post #42
CaptainOfCoit wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would be impressed if a sophomore in high school proposed it That sounds good enough for a start, considering you can massively parallelize the AI co-scientist workflow, compared to the timescale and physical scale it would take to do the same thing with human high school sophomores. And every now and then, you get something exciting and really beneficial coming from even inexperienced people, so if you can incre…

We don't need an army of high school sophomores, unless they are in the lab pipetting. The expensive part of drug discovery is not the ideation phase, it is the time and labor spent running experiments and synthesizing analogues.

Also clinical trials

Re: Accelerating scientific breakthroughs with an AI co-scientist

#153

Post by confused_boner »

dekhn wrote: post #144
warbaker wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has responded to this "controversy" already: https://x.com/JeffDean/status/1858540085794451906 https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.10053

Yes, I am aware. I didn't find Jeff's argument particularly convincing. Please note: I've worked personally with Jeff before and shared many a coffee with him. He's done great work and messed up a lot of things, too.

From your perspective, which arguments were not convincing, are you able to share why not?

Re: Accelerating scientific breakthroughs with an AI co-scientist

#154

Post by confused_boner »

pradn wrote: post #73
yodon wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a dev, I have the same experience. AI chat is a massive productivity enhancer, but, when coding via prompts, I'm not able to hit the super satisfying developer flow state that I get into via normal coding. Copilot is less of a productivity boost, but also less of a flow state blocker.

There is some queasy feeling of fake-ness when auto-completing so much code. It feels like you're doing something wrong. But these are all based on my experience coding for half my life. AI-native devs will probably feel differently.

Maybe they should build in a test/reward system somehow to make it more appealing to use by humans. Gamification is the corporate buzzword I think

Re: Accelerating scientific breakthroughs with an AI co-scientist

#155

Post by confused_boner »

hinkley wrote: post #77

I am generally down on AI these days but I still remember using Eliza for the first time. I think I could accept an AI prompting me instead of the other way around. Something to ask you a checklist of problems and how you will address them. I’d also love to have someone apply AI techniques to property based testing. The process of narrowing down from 2^32 inputs to six interesting ones works better if it’s faster.

AI prompting us sounds interesting

Re: Accelerating scientific breakthroughs with an AI co-scientist

#156

Post by OvidNaso »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #123
baq wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A couple years ago even suggesting that a computer could propose anything at all was sci-fi. Today a computer read the whole internet, suggested a place to look at and experiments to perform and… ‘not impressive enough’. Oof.

> Today a computer read the whole internet, suggested a place to look at Or imagine this one - computer maps the whole world, suggests a route how to get to any destination?! You just described a basic search engine. LLM is kind of a search engine for language

But so are you and I. That's how you wrote this reply.

Re: Accelerating scientific breakthroughs with an AI co-scientist

#157

Post by ncfausti »

celltalk wrote: post #20

“Drug repurposing for AML” lol As a person who is literally doing his PhD on AML by implementing molecular subtyping, and ex-vivo drug predictions. I find this super random. I would truly suggest our pipeline instead of random drug repurposing :) https://celvox.co/solutions/seAMLess edit: Btw we’re looking for ways to fund/commercialize our pipeline. You could contact us through the site if you’re interested!

Thank you for your work on this, truly.

Re: Accelerating scientific breakthroughs with an AI co-scientist

#158

Post by anu7df »

Oh great.. This looks exactly like some PhD advisors I've heard of. Creating a list of "ideas" and having their lab monkey PhD students work on it. Surefire way to kill joy of discovery and passion for science. Nice going google :). Also, while validating with "in silico" discovery I would like it to be double blind. If I know the idea and its final outcome the prompts I give are vastly different from if I did not.

Re: Accelerating scientific breakthroughs with an AI co-scientist

#159

Post by mmooss »

mupuff1234 wrote: post #147
dekhn wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an ongoing debacle with multiple people making extremely good arguments that Google overstated the results. Yes, I know it's in TPUs and I said exactly that. You simply can't take Google press at face value.

> You simply can't take Google press at face value. I think that's true for virtually every company and also for most people (in the context of published work)

Do you think that of most published scientific research?

Re: Accelerating scientific breakthroughs with an AI co-scientist

#160

Post by mmooss »

ein0p wrote: post #89
dekhn wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, I've been reading Google research papers for decades now and also worked there for a decade and wrote a few papers of my own. When google publishes papers, they tend to juice the results significance (google is not the only group that does this, but they are pretty egregious). You need to be skilled in the field of the paper to be able to pare away the exceptional claims. A really good example is https://spectrum…

That applies to absolutely everyone. Convenient results are highlighted, inconvenient are either not mentioned or de-emphasized. You do have to be well read in the field to see what the authors _aren't_ saying, that's one of the purposes of being well-read in the first place. That is also why 100% of science reporting is basically disinformation - journalists are not equipped with this level of nuanced understanding.

> That applies to absolutely everyone.

Eating, drinking, sleeping apply to absolutely everyone. Deception varies greatly by person and situation. I know people who are painfully honest and people I don't trust on anything, and many in between.

Post reply on HN