I wish it would revolutionize spelling.
According to Merriam Webster [1], "revolutionise" is the British spelling of "revolutionize" (I did not know).
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revolutionise
Artificial intelligence can revolutionise science
11–20 of 53 posts
Re: Artificial intelligence can revolutionise science
#12Bias, or lack of bias, in experimental results and hypotheses was an interesting angle I hadn’t considered before, especially if it’s combined with the ability to conduct the experiment mechanically.
Would researchers have less issue publishing papers that contradict sensitive findings in earlier papers if they can pass responsibility back to the robot? (e.g. robot hypothesizes and disproves widely accepted result that years of other research is based and that anyone who challenged in the past has been dismissed as a quack.)
Re: Artificial intelligence can revolutionise science
#13> The idea that AI might transform scientific practice is therefore feasible. But the main barrier is sociological: it can happen only if human scientists are willing and able to use such tools.
As a tenure-track scientist who works in ML applications for astrophysics, I disagree with this sentiment. The main issue isn't that enough scientists are using tools to search through literature or form new hypotheses, the main issue is that scientists now have to validate and sift through AI-generated outputs in order to find useful signals, rather than validate and sift through experimentally derived or observed signals.
AI can be useful for hypothesis generation in my field [0], and I think that there are lots of great use cases where it can be used to summarize information. However, it always comes with the possibility that it might output complete nonsense [1], so scientists who adopt these tools will have to spend some of their time verifying their outputs.
[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.11648
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20230913230733/https://www.msn.c...
Re: Artificial intelligence can revolutionise science
#14I wish it would revolutionize spelling.
According to Merriam Webster [1], "revolutionise" is the British spelling of "revolutionize" (I did not know). [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revolutionise
Same for civilisation and many other words, see for example the leftmost table in the second row here:
https://www.studyenglishtoday.net/british-american-spelling....
Re: Artificial intelligence can revolutionise science
#15Any specific examples? What new understanding do we have of our world because of AI?
[dead]
Re: Artificial intelligence can revolutionise science
#16Here's the heart of how they say it can be done > Two areas in particular look promising. The first is “literature-based discovery” (LBD), which involves analysing existing scientific literature, using ChatGPT-style language analysis, to look for new hypotheses, connections or ideas that humans may have missed. LBD is showing promise in identifying new experiments to try—and even suggesting potential research collabo…
> This sounds basically of just asking a GPT to suggest ideas for experiments?
I think actually the second idea extends quite a bit further than that. The idea is that you enable the agent to interact with an entire collection of laboratory equipment through tool-use. The agent not only generates hypotheses and designs experiments to test them, but then also actually executes the experiments through tool-use and iterates.
Re: Artificial intelligence can revolutionise science
#17TLDR: Article starts by mentioning a bunch of current/past applications of AI to science, many of which are in the medical field where (the article fails to mention) no AI system has ever been shown to improve the quality or length of human life in a randomized clinical trial. It takes a very long time to then mention just 2 things that could "revolutionize" science: LLM style systems could help you find collaborators or generate hypotheses, or "self-driving labs" could generate new hypotheses on their own, and run experiments with (presumably) minimal human intervention.
But it remains totally unclear whether those things are achievable, and to what extent they can actually do real, useful science, rather than just exist as a novelty. Of course AI "can" revolutionize science. But the proof is in the pudding. Write an article when something has happened, rather than predicting that it will (and being wrong, like every such article written for the past 70 years).
Re: Artificial intelligence can revolutionise science
#18Re: Artificial intelligence can revolutionise science
#19Schmidhuber literally says that his goal is to "create an automatic scientist and then retire."
Re: Artificial intelligence can revolutionise science
#20As someone who probably puts way too much time into literature reviews, my big hope is that literature reviews at the beginning if a research project will be revolutionized.
Things are re-discovered across adjacent fields of study all the time. There are also a bunch of times I've come across a paper when I was a year into a project, and wished that I'd had it at the beginning of the project.