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

561–570 of 625 posts

Re: Discovery Loop

#561

Post by sejje »

interstice wrote: post #495
tern wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love this question. If history is a guide, some version of that is what will happen (employment doesn't seem to go down, despite technological progress and population + economic growth). I suspect the root cause is that it's harder and scarier to imagine good outcomes. It exposes us to disappointment, and when you do it publicly, it looks "crazy". Another explanation is that there's no direct consumer for "more." I…

I know some scientists and there's barely enough demand for them as it is

I hope the demand for average-skilled people goes down.

Or that the floor is raised, at least, and AI empowers average scientists to do substantial work.

Re: Discovery Loop

#562

Post by sejje »

londons_explore wrote: post #452
CamelCaseName wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that directionally what OpenAI's core message was for a while? A large amount of people building their own customized apps for themselves. Similarily, everyone becoming their own accountant / lawyer / other professional services.

> Similarily, everyone becoming their own accountant / lawyer / other professional services. These professional services will defend themselves with gatekeeping. Suddenly it doesn't depend anymore on the quality of your legal advice, but whether it has been stamped by a qualified Lawyer. It doesn't matter that your taxes are correct, but whether they are submitted by an approved accountant. Etc.

Probably true, but the rubber-stamp process will be a race to the bottom.

Re: Discovery Loop

#563

Post by judah »

go_elmo wrote: post #308
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…

4. Manage the Nitrogen Cycle Easy solution - eat less products that pass an animal first - reduces nitrogen pollution by 10x intantly, low tech. I'd re-formulate: 4. Make people more flexible to changing their mindsets & habits - this is the ultimate problem.

In other words, a boil-the-ocean scheme.

Solutions that require a great many humans to change an ingrained behavior are usually non-starters.

Re: Discovery Loop

#564

Post by scottyah »

grapeorangesoda wrote: post #527
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…

What is the most impressive thing Jeff has ever done? I only see "co-created" "co-founded" "managed a team" - what did he actually do?

Here's a list of accomplishments: https://github.com/LRitzdorf/TheJeffDeanFacts

Re: Discovery Loop

#565

Post by sejje »

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?

You can't out-compete people who release things open-source. They're not in competition.

So, while a company might crack it and become massive, the tech will make it to the rest of us whether they like it or not.

Re: Discovery Loop

#566

Post by scottyah »

moelf wrote: post #93
drivebyhooting wrote: post #87

How do you automate experimentation? Doubtlessly, AI can iterate at superhuman speeds in the domains of thought and design: Software, mathematical proofs, literature search. But in the realm of experiment? Alas it is the lack of a body that constrains it. Rather than transcendence what AI requires is immanence. In the human flesh may we find the godhead living among men. Let the laboratories, warehouses, and factorie…

would love to see how AI can automate the construction of the next high energy particle collider

If you just got some agents to handle scheduling meetings, finding out which permits to get and applying for them, and finding capable sub-contractors, you'd save half the time.

Re: Discovery Loop

#567

Post by sejje »

BrenBarn wrote: post #344
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 shouldn't they? Because it's evil?

It's evil to make something so powerful it meaningfully improves the GDP/wealth level of the entire planet?

Or is it just evil that you aren't the one who gets to control it?

Why should the greatest creation of all time have to be given away? As a counter-example, what if they used it to do nothing but good deeds everywhere? And they controlled it to keep it out of the hands of Abdul Al-Hassan the hijadi?

Re: Discovery Loop

#568

Post by scottyah »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #377
nonameiguess wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're halfway there, but the only impediment isn't on the side of the researchers. Many of these topics they're trying to solve involve human subject research. Even with tireless embodied researchers who work around the clock and don't require breaks, you can't make the thing you're studying happen faster. The biggest reason we use poor proxy measures for things like longevity and mortality research is the simple im…

As a scientist, I can confirm. Reality will likely kick their assess. Intelligence and creativity is not the bottleneck. Great scientists have 50 good ideas for every one they actually manage to execute on the grant->experiment->manuscript haul.

What if the grants process were AI's on your side understanding what you want to do talking to the AI of the funding source, and they could provide immediate and direct feedback on what they would or would not fund and why? And it just runs one a week, looking for new funding sources and applying if relevant.

Re: Discovery Loop

#569

Post by scottyah »

wavemode wrote: post #234
flakiness wrote: post #7

To be honest, this feels more like a lifestyle business (aka hobby) than a startup. They truly deserve it, but I don't expect a huge success as a business. That said, I hope they write cool papers with various peers across the industry without worrying too much about the competing dynamics. That'd be a blessing for humanity, and good for their spirit.

It can be both. Bell Labs performed a lot of speculative research while still producing economically valuable technology.

And Zerox, though they didn't know how economically valuable it was.

Re: Discovery Loop

#570

Post by FabCH »

grapeorangesoda wrote: post #533
FabCH wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeff Dean invented MapReduce and Bigtable. Say what you want about their later years, but Dean and Ghemawat deserve their title of engineer.

They wrote the paper, they did not build it. Gemini (stolen technology they had nothing to do with) says: Jeff and Sanjay led the development, but they collaborated with a small team of engineers to build and refine the database. So, who were the engineers who actually built it? It lists "Fay Chang, Howard Gobioff, Mike Burrows, Wilson Hsieh, Deborah Wallach" but Idk if it's accurate. I know that these talentless man…

IIRC Sanjay was literally never a manager and Jeff was not a manager until like a decade after MapReduce was built.

And of course they didn’t build it alone, that’s the point of companies and teams.

Post reply on HN