4 ms·
> I agree I don't understand the nature of data NASA It's not the nature of the data that poses an issue... it's the lack of direction. AI/ML/NN (whatever buzz
by Alupis 9y ago
> I agree I don't understand the nature of data NASA
It's not the nature of the data that poses an issue... it's the lack of direction. AI/ML/NN (whatever buzz word of choice) simply cannot do the things you seem to believe it capable of.
> it does not hurt getting some help from companies that are searching for problems to solve.
What makes you think Google or Microsoft have any interest in working on NASA's research? These are very, very different domains.
Even if they were interested, what problems would they be solving exactly? This is the lack of direction that is the core problem with you assertion AI/ML/NN would be of any help here on it's own.
- ethbro 9y agoTo add to the above, it's the difference between telling a model: "Model, show me spectral signatures which are similar." And "Model, is there anything interesting about the spectral signatures collected?" In the former, you are potentially able to (or your NN layers can) identify representative features for your intended result. In the latter, you're asking machine learning to synthesize the sum of human scientific knowledge, then extract interesting facts from the data using it. E.g. "Hmm, the vortex patterns on this Jupiter storm are incongruous with our fluid dynamics models" or "The reflectivity of the surface seems to indicate a different composition than we expected." AI isn't currently capable of formulating questions, asking them, answering them, and ranking the results on significance. And in lieu of that, the only use is "Help a scientist answer a question they posed." Which seems to be the initial problem that started this thread! Not enough scientists can get grants to pose all the questions that should be asked of old data.