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

Discovery Loop

discoveryloop.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 625 posts

Re: Discovery Loop

#241

Post by beloch »

cjbarber wrote: post #18

From Jeff's twitter post: > Our general approach is to automate the experimental loop. We think this approach is broadly applicable across many different fields of science and engineering. We’ll initially focus on ML research and engineering, but believe the approach can help with important subproblems in nearly every one of the fourteen NAE Grand Challenge problems. We think doing this well requires strong expertise…

They make many bold promises, but their core goal is neatly encapsulated on the website:

"Imagine a future where a handful of people can conduct scientific research and engineering tasks much more rapidly, and with higher quality, than massive teams of scientists and engineers do today."

This is the same goal as every other AI company out there. Automate away the human employees and let a small number of "people" (note that they do not say scientists or engineers for this part) take the credit and financial rewards for every good thing this human-free system produces.

Re: Discovery Loop

#242

Post by xnx »

compiler-guy wrote: post #28
xnx wrote: post #22

I've seen tiny tiny hints from the outside that Jeff Dean was dealing with too much internal BS. Two examples that come to mind: Having to deal with Timnit Gebru fiasco, and even chips in the TPU series getting marketing names (Trillium and Ironwood) before switching back to more standard numbering.

I have no doubt that internal Google friction is one of the reasons they are moving. But the Gebru incident was almost seven years ago now. It is very unlikely to be a proximate cause. I doubt numbering vs names on TPU releases even crosses Jeff's radar. It's not the kind of thing he cares about.

Yes. I'm not privy to any real insider gossip, but I read all his tweets and watch all his public speeches. He made an offhand comment about the TPU naming. I probably overinterpreted that, but I took it as a sign. There should have been a team around Jeff Dean that acted as an absolute shield for any BS. If Jeff disagrees with anyone at Google outside Sundar/Sergey, the strong onus should be on the other person to justify their stance.

Re: Discovery Loop

#244

Post by ravst3s »

frollogaston wrote: post #213
darth_avocado wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Make Solar Energy Economical Isn’t it already?

People on HN keep saying it is, but I'm still not seeing it. Companies are building datacenters in vast, sun-blasted deserts and still choosing to power those with natural gas. This in turn makes people complain about emissions pledges being reversed, but if it were economical, no pledge would be needed. Of course, USA has cheaper oil/gas than other countries. But if you look elsewhere, rich countries are subsidizing…

Solar is dirt cheap in China, where 85% of panels are produced. The problem is they're made in China and face tariffs/import bans in the US/Europe.

Nat gas is preferred for AI DCs because it has faster time-to-market, doesn't have the intermittency issues. Training on solar + storage is an issue because of network synchronization.

Re: Discovery Loop

#245

Post by vanviegen »

dgellow wrote: post #195
cjbarber wrote: post #18

From Jeff's twitter post: > Our general approach is to automate the experimental loop. We think this approach is broadly applicable across many different fields of science and engineering. We’ll initially focus on ML research and engineering, but believe the approach can help with important subproblems in nearly every one of the fourteen NAE Grand Challenge problems. We think doing this well requires strong expertise…

Such a weird list. How is preventing nuclear terror an engineering problem?

Satellite/drone detection of nuclear material? Shooting missiles out of the sky?

Re: Discovery Loop

#246

Post by frollogaston »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #233
frollogaston wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People on HN keep saying it is, but I'm still not seeing it. Companies are building datacenters in vast, sun-blasted deserts and still choosing to power those with natural gas. This in turn makes people complain about emissions pledges being reversed, but if it were economical, no pledge would be needed. Of course, USA has cheaper oil/gas than other countries. But if you look elsewhere, rich countries are subsidizing…

> poor ones are basically not using it. I don't think that's true: https://rmi.org/resources/the-global-souths-cleantech-revolu...

"RMI drives investment to scale clean energy solutions"

Re: Discovery Loop

#247

Post by sejje »

beloch wrote: post #241
cjbarber wrote: post #18

From Jeff's twitter post: > Our general approach is to automate the experimental loop. We think this approach is broadly applicable across many different fields of science and engineering. We’ll initially focus on ML research and engineering, but believe the approach can help with important subproblems in nearly every one of the fourteen NAE Grand Challenge problems. We think doing this well requires strong expertise…

They make many bold promises, but their core goal is neatly encapsulated on the website: "Imagine a future where a handful of people can conduct scientific research and engineering tasks much more rapidly, and with higher quality, than massive teams of scientists and engineers do today." This is the same goal as every other AI company out there. Automate away the human employees and let a small number of "people" (no…

Why shouldn't they?

Also, wouldn't anyone with half a brain use the human-free system to produce another human-free system that was no longer controlled by the "small number of 'people'"?

Re: Discovery Loop

#248

Post by woeirua »

vanviegen wrote: post #237
jszymborski wrote: post #218

> Scientific discovery is bottlenecked. Yah, by funding and how we award it, not by an imaginary lack of undergrad and grad students. Scientific funding requires a shotgun approach and many national science funds try to pick winners as opposed to funding broadly. When the folks who researched bacteria in volcanic vents or the molecular biology of the Gila monster they never could have imagined the industries and mark…

Yes! But if science is bottlenecked by funding, making it cheaper might help?

Not really. Grad students are already essentially working for free.

Re: Discovery Loop

#249

Post by taurath »

jszymborski wrote: post #218

> Scientific discovery is bottlenecked. Yah, by funding and how we award it, not by an imaginary lack of undergrad and grad students. Scientific funding requires a shotgun approach and many national science funds try to pick winners as opposed to funding broadly. When the folks who researched bacteria in volcanic vents or the molecular biology of the Gila monster they never could have imagined the industries and mark…

I truly believe if we took a measely $50b out of the LLM world we could create trillion dollar economies from basic research within 10 years. I personally know folks who have intuitive understanding of things that can't get funding to be studied. If we could keep the money away from university upper management, it'd cost $10b max.

Oh and while we're at it, $20b a year would house every homeless person in the US - there's a hell of a lot of extremely high intelligence and low social cohesion folks who can't handle the extractive punitive system we have. Our ability to deliver opportunity to create lucky situations for ourselves is getting worse and worse

Re: Discovery Loop

#250

Post by frollogaston »

ravst3s wrote: post #244
frollogaston wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People on HN keep saying it is, but I'm still not seeing it. Companies are building datacenters in vast, sun-blasted deserts and still choosing to power those with natural gas. This in turn makes people complain about emissions pledges being reversed, but if it were economical, no pledge would be needed. Of course, USA has cheaper oil/gas than other countries. But if you look elsewhere, rich countries are subsidizing…

Solar is dirt cheap in China, where 85% of panels are produced. The problem is they're made in China and face tariffs/import bans in the US/Europe. Nat gas is preferred for AI DCs because it has faster time-to-market, doesn't have the intermittency issues. Training on solar + storage is an issue because of network synchronization.

I get the gas turbine for semi-temp power when there's not enough grid support, but Google leadership is talking about doing this long-term and at scale: https://www.gstatic.com/marketing-cms/79/80/fb229abf40efa81e... . Not a single mention of "solar" or "renewable" in there. Are they just trying to appease Trump administration?
Post reply on HN