251–260 of 316 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is only true from the perspective of developing new theories for why are things happen. Of course new theories arise from other theories. It's not true for Discovery in general. New phenomenon can be created and observed without any theory for why they occur, either before or after observation
You can't even observe something without theories. For example: - I need to observe here and not anywhere else - I can reliably interpret my senses/the instrumentation is working correctly - Objects of this type normally behave in X way, because of Y - etc Think of it a different way. You can come up with a theory without any observation whatsoever. Black holes, for example, were conjectured well before they were obs…
Thinking that something will either happen or not happen if I mix those two substances is not a theory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a feedback loop. Experimental results suggest new theories, which suggest new experiments to test those theories.
That's what I am thinking when commenters compare LLMs with humans. Humans got the experimental loop going through the real world, pure LLMs are brains in vats. They need experimental confirmation to become truly creative. But on the other hand are the commenters who think AGI to ASI is going to take hours. When is there time to experiment anything? Even ASI needs real world confirmation to do research.
All this LK-99 related activity is exciting and all, too bad Twitter hype merchants hijacked the narrative (first Al now superconductivity they got them in every flavor it seems). It's important to remember that scientists are people too and they'll bandwagon trending claims to get their name out there. I'm no expert but the videos here are far from convincing and the other paper about simulating LK-99 is just that a…
Elon Musk must be feeling much better lately, having confirmed that Twitter is still relevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine you have dreamed of some new discovery your whole life. Let's say you are convinced that, I don't know, there exists in the world a naturally bright pink species of cat. You study cats; you know their behaviors, and can guess at the means of finding this elusive pink jungle cat. You search for years to no avail... when suddenly, without prior warning you are on vacation in some remote island and hear a rumor.…
My iPhone can take stunning videos. This is not 2010 anymore
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then what was the point? If I saw a unicorn and took out my phone in a hurry I could get a video of exceptional quality, granted I uploaded it somewhere without too much compression. Seems like you wanted to create a little abstract story ignoring the reality of hardware
Wow, I’ve never thought about it like that before. You’ve done a good job explaining your opinion on this matter! Thanks for the feedback.
jiggawatts's gripe is that the researchers seem generally incapable of effectively using the cameras they already possess (including iphones), where do pink cats and islands come into this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would someone do an experiment without a theory to test? How would they know that a particular result was interesting without a theory about the expected result?
Because rubbing your chin doesn't accomplish anything, messing around with stuff does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't even observe something without theories. For example: - I need to observe here and not anywhere else - I can reliably interpret my senses/the instrumentation is working correctly - Objects of this type normally behave in X way, because of Y - etc Think of it a different way. You can come up with a theory without any observation whatsoever. Black holes, for example, were conjectured well before they were obs…
Well sure, that's the point that you're trying to make. I thought anything most people felt you were claiming you need a theory related to the novel Discovery or convention. That is to say how it might work and what the expected outcomes are. I can't go to the lab without a theory that my car can get me there. That doesn't mean I have a hypothesis for what will happen when I mix two substances in the lab. Thinking th…
OK I'll bite. What is it then?
ChatGPT is literally built on collective human knowledge and massive amount of data.
If ChatGPT has the power to replace software developer, this should be childplays.