Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The AI Scientist: Towards Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery

sakana.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 144 posts

Re: The AI Scientist: Towards Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery

#5

Post by agf »

> For example, in one run, it edited the code to perform a system call to run itself. This led to the script endlessly calling itself. In another case, its experiments took too long to complete, hitting our timeout limit. Instead of making its code run faster, it simply tried to modify its own code to extend the timeout period.

They go on to say that the solution is sandboxing, but still, this feels like burying the lede.

Re: The AI Scientist: Towards Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery

#7

Post by unraveller »

But OpenAI said LLMs can't innovate until human-level reasoning and long-term agenthood is solved. [1] Referring to their precious 5 stages to classify AI before it reaches the scary "beyond" levels of intelligence... presumably at that point they get the feds involved to reg cap the field, so genuine is the fear of the pace they've set.

It's clear OpenAI is a hype company knocking over glass bottle stacks at its own wonderful carnival stall. Obviously if you can reason you can reason about what is innovative and we don't need OpenAI to set up fake scary progress markers like an Automated Scientific Organization.

Lets see if scientists even want this style of tech progress, it'd be sad to see each multitudes of AI papers having to be rebuilt from scratch and flushed down the toilet because associating with it is taboo.

[1]: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/07/opena...

Re: The AI Scientist: Towards Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery

#8

Post by Redster »

The pace at which AI/ML research is being published is phenomenal. I could see that some wins would be possible just by having a Sonnet or 4o level read the faster/more and combine ideas that haven't been combined before. I would just be concerned about the synthetic of its own papers being able to lead itself astray if they weren't edited by a human ML researcher? Seems like it could produce helpful stuff right now, but I would just want to not mess up our own datasets of ML "research".

Re: The AI Scientist: Towards Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery

#10

Post by tomohelix »

agf wrote: post #5

> For example, in one run, it edited the code to perform a system call to run itself. This led to the script endlessly calling itself. In another case, its experiments took too long to complete, hitting our timeout limit. Instead of making its code run faster, it simply tried to modify its own code to extend the timeout period. They go on to say that the solution is sandboxing, but still, this feels like burying the…

The beginning of the AI uprising lmao
Post reply on HN