501–510 of 625 posts
For sure made with Claude code for front end, but I’m excited to see where they go
Absolutely reeks of Claude. This is the new aesthetic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I don’t understand why all of these companies need to frame it like this. Why not a large amount of people doing an even larger amount of science?
It's not as if there is a limited amount of R&D to do.
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'"?
My main point is that people shouldn't just swallow the noble and lofty sounding PR. These guys are the same as everyone else in the sector. Don't ignore the harmful or scummy things they'll inevitably do. Hold them accountable. If they are as noble as they sound, they should agree with me.
This sounds same as Google's "don't be evil" enshiftification, consolidating technologies that was available in a competitive way.
I prefer Scientists, and team of people working on things, instead of a corporate controlling everything with promise of automation, thank you very much.
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…
2-14. ???
I would love to see someone with a strong natural science background in those efforts.
No one would build a house without an architect.
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…
16. Make Everyone Nice
17. Finally Impress a Girl
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…
This one is already solved, right? The price of panels and batteries is on trend to displace all other forms of power generation within our lifetime
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…
> 1. Make Solar Energy Economical This one is already solved, right? The price of panels and batteries is on trend to displace all other forms of power generation within our lifetime
Batteries are still open. While they do get cheaper, there is still a lot of room to improve. And battery chemistry is something where a lot of research, trial and error, healthy intuition is necessary. I'd say that is more a field where an AI based approach might make sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They cherrypicked 15 countries. The "world" chart shows an increase from 19% renewal to 34%. Did they cherry-pick that? (Also, "European Union" is more than one country.) > I don't doubt that it's economical for individuals when the govt is subsidizing it. Does that distinguish renewables from fossil fuels? Haven't governments been essentially subsidizing fossil fuels (not least by allowing environmental externalit…
Because a lot of countries in the world, especially the EU, are subsidizing solar. That doesn't make it economical. Externalities ignored from fossil fuels, yes. That's not a subsidy though. I'm not saying they should ignore it, but if they do, they aren't the ones who pay for it.
Solar is cheaper, but requires more room and time to spin up (think datacenters, where you can put a turbine within a month) and storage or backups for windless nights.