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

351–360 of 625 posts

Re: Discovery Loop

#351

Post by TrackerFF »

galoisscobi wrote: post #134

> 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. Imagine a future where only the anointed few elite minds can participate in science and engineering. Btw we’re hiring. Great message!

I don't know why you're being downvoted.

This is basically something scientists have been alarming about for the past year: We're moving into a future where science may be tiered into the haves (those with access to premium compute) and the have nots (hoi polloi with restricted access), which in turn could seriously influence what kind of science we'll get.

Worst case, we'll get science that is completely dependent on business and politics.

EDIT: I should note, this comment was aimed at a more general case.

Re: Discovery Loop

#352

Post by mosura »

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…

There is a meta comment here which is there seems to be an implicit assumption in the finite amount of possible work and progress.

It seems that in history we were bounded by not enough people and too much potential and now we all fear the opposite is the situation?

Re: Discovery Loop

#354

Post by andai »

a2ff6eeb0 wrote: post #264
sejje wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'"?

Why do you think you'd be given access and permission to do this? If a company genuinely cracks this human free system problem, why would they open it up, instead of simply outcompeting everyone that doesn't have their product?

Is science hard to distil?

Re: Discovery Loop

#355

Post by bagacrap »

Sathwickp wrote: post #155

Is it a very hard problem to solve that jeff and the other legendary engineers have decided to quit and start on this?

I suspect they want a bit more control over what they're working on. These days the bean counters are running Google.

Re: Discovery Loop

#356

Post by anon-3988 »

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…

> "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."

I don't think the US have this capability because you guys don't really have manufacturing that is really necessary for scientific research.

For example, if I want a highly toxic chemical, how difficult it would be to procure that in the US vs China?

Re: Discovery Loop

#357

Post by throwaway7783 »

roncesvalles wrote: post #334
ramraj07 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans have proven to be incapable of making real progress in science given the effort. Especially academia. We haven't cured many diseases and cancer when we should have (and no im not an amateur and yes I do believe we can "cure cancer". Debate me). We already have a trillionaire, whats the difference? The only difference I see is that people who were previously rich, but considered themselves middle class, are now…

Many cancers are "cured" in the sense that they're detectable and treatable. My grandmother lived 35 years longer than she would have by detecting breast cancer early and getting a mastectomy. There is currently a $800 SOTA blood test that can detect most cancers before any symptoms. Maybe a decade until it's a routine part of your annual blood test? Whole genome sequencing costed $2.7 billion in 2003. You can get it…

Is this the Galleria test?

Re: Discovery Loop

#358

Post by bagacrap »

xuehaohu wrote: post #268

Big news aside, it feels exciting to see them leave and pursue startup. They could have stayed back, and retire

This is their version of retirement. Did you think Jeff Dean was going to stop doing tech and play golf?

Re: Discovery Loop

#359

Post by BenFranklin100 »

From the self-stated bios, this group consists solely of CS guys. No biologist, physicist, linguist, chemist, biophysicist to be found. Based on this observation alone I call nonsense. These is AI bullshittery. These guys aren’t close enough to the problems to understand the challenges.

Source: PhD Computational biophysicist turned experimentalist. I work with genuine scientists across a range of disciplines from neurodegeneration, cancer, to fibrosis. Getting in the lab and generating data is absolutely key, among other things.

Re: Discovery Loop

#360

Post by dekhn »

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…

The same thing happened before with every technological advance like cars and personal computers.

I don't get this weird rejection of AI from a socialistic perspective. Or rather, I do, but I don't think it's healthy.

Post reply on HN