Live data from Hacker News

AI in my plasma physics research didn’t go the way I expected

understandingai.org

181–190 of 307 posts

Re: AI in my plasma physics research didn’t go the way I expected

#181
This is the second article in a week where someone is writing about how "AI" has failed them in their field (here it's physics, the other article was radiology), and in both articles they are using now ancient mid 2010's deep learning NNs.

I don't know if it's intentional, but the word "AI" means different things almost every year now. Its worse than papers getting released with "LLMs unable to do basic math" and then you see they used GPT-3 for the study.

Re: AI in my plasma physics research didn’t go the way I expected

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh they're not even close in availability as cars, much harder to operate, much more expensive and tend to fall out of the sky. Thank you for providing an example that directly maps to usefulness of ANN in most research though.

Helicopters don't just fall out of the sky, atleast not any different than planes fall out of the sky, they can auto-rotate to the ground without engine power.

You are absolutely correct about autorotation and helicopters not falling out of the sky. There is one nuance that the rotor blades still need to be able to rotate for this, and a failed gearbox can prevent that. Anecdotally that feels like the most common cause when I read about another crash in the North Sea.

Re: AI in my plasma physics research didn’t go the way I expected

#183

Does anybody else find it peculiar that the majority of these articles about AI say things like "of course I don't doubt that AI will lead to major discoveries", and then go on to explain how they aren't useful in any field whatsoever? Where are the AI-driven breakthroughs? Or even the AI-driven incremental improvements? Do they exist anywhere? Or are we just using AI to remix existing general knowledge, while making…

Speaking out against the hype is frowned upon. I'm sure even this very measured article about "I tried it and it didn't work for me" will draw negative attention from people who think AI is the Second Coming.

It's also very hard to prove a negative. If you predict "AI will never do anything of value" people will point to literally any result to prove you wrong. TFA does a good job debunking some recent hype, but the author cannot possibly wade through every hyperbolic paper in every field to demonstrate the claims are overblown.

Re: AI in my plasma physics research didn’t go the way I expected

#184
post #2

I am not a AI booster at all, but the fact that negative results are not published and that everyone is overselling their stuff in research papers is unfortunately not limited to AI. This is just a consequence of the way scientists are evaluated and of the scientific publishing industry, which basically suffers from the same shit than traditional media does (craving for audience). Anyway, winter is coming, innit?

I published my first papers a little over fifteen years ago on practical applications for AI before switching domains. Recently I've been sucked back in.

I agree it's a problem across all of science, but AI seems to attract more than it's fair share of researchers seeking fame and fortune. Exaggerated claims and cherry-picking data seem even more extreme in my limited experience, and even responsible researchers end up exaggerating a bit to try and compete.

Re: AI in my plasma physics research didn’t go the way I expected

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AlphaFold is real. To the extent you care about chess and Go as human activities, progress there is real. there are some other scientific computing problems where AI or neural-network-based methods do appear to be at least part of the actual state-of-the-art (weather forecasting, certain single-molecule quantum chemistry simulations). i would like the hype of the kind described in the article to be punctured, but thi…

Even more relvant, AlphaEvolve is real. Could easily be brick 1 of self-improvement and the start of the banana zone.

I’m with gthompson512

Sounds like a routine Bill Hicks might have come up with if he was still with us.

He hated obfuscation.

Re: AI in my plasma physics research didn’t go the way I expected

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AlphaFold is real. To the extent you care about chess and Go as human activities, progress there is real. there are some other scientific computing problems where AI or neural-network-based methods do appear to be at least part of the actual state-of-the-art (weather forecasting, certain single-molecule quantum chemistry simulations). i would like the hype of the kind described in the article to be punctured, but thi…

I've never seen an AI critic say AI isn't "useful in any field whatsoever". Especially one that is known as an expert in and a critic of the field. There may be names that aren't coming to mind because that stance would reduce their specific credibility. Do you have some in mind?

the post that I replied to?

Re: AI in my plasma physics research didn’t go the way I expected

#187

I'm not sure why people on HN (of all places) are so divided regarding the perception of AI/ML. I have not seen anything like it before. We literaly had not system or way of even doing things like code generation based on text input. Just last week i asked for a script to do image segmentation with a basic UI and claude just generated that for me in under 1 Minute. I could list tons of examples which are groundbreaki…

The ultimate job of a programmer is to translate human language into computer language. Computers are extremely capable, but they speak a very cryptic overtly logical language.

LLMs are undeniably treading onto that territory. Who knows how far in they will make it, but the wall is breached. Which is unsettling to down right scary depending on your take. It is a real threat to a skill that many have honed for years and for which is very lucrative to have. Programmers don't even need to be replaced, having to settle for $100k/yr in a senior role is almost just a scary.

Re: AI in my plasma physics research didn’t go the way I expected

#188
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have breakthroughs. Benchmark results which have been unheard of before ML. Alone language translation got so much better, voice syntesis, voice transcription. All my meetings now are searchable and i can ask 'ai' to summarize my meetings in a relative accurate way impossible before that. Alphafold made a breakthrough in protein folding. Image and Video generation can now do unbelievable things. Realtime v…

I'm sure there's many people out there who could say that they hardly use AI but that crypto has made them lots of money. At the end of the day searching work documents and talking with computers is only desirable inasmuch as they are economically profitable. Crypto at the end of the day is responsible for a lot of people getting wealthy. Was a lot of this wealth obtained on sketchy grounds? probably, but the same co…

Crypto is not creating anything. Its a scheme that is based on gamble. Person A gets rich. Person B loses money. It does not really contribute to anything.

Re: AI in my plasma physics research didn’t go the way I expected

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen an AI critic say AI isn't "useful in any field whatsoever". Especially one that is known as an expert in and a critic of the field. There may be names that aren't coming to mind because that stance would reduce their specific credibility. Do you have some in mind?

the post that I replied to?

The post you replied to was asking for examples based on the general critical discussions they have seen.

And no offense to the GP, but they clearly aren't an expert in the field or they wouldn't be asking.

Probably should have replied directly to the post you replied to as much as yours. Was just pointing out that "not useful in any field whatsoever" is not something I've seen from anyone in the field. Even the article doesn't say that.

Re: AI in my plasma physics research didn’t go the way I expected

#190
"I suspect that scientists are switching to AI less because it benefits science, and more because it benefits them."

This is a huge problem in software, and it's not restricted to AI. So much of what has been adopted over the years has everything to do with making the programmers life easier, but nothing to do with producing better software. AI is a continuation of that.

Post reply on HN