3 ms·

It seems like this AI makes probabalistic guesses based on empirical data, so you need to validate the guess by comparing it with reality. Sometimes reality is

It seems like this AI makes probabalistic guesses based on empirical data, so you need to validate the guess by comparing it with reality. Sometimes reality is not available and from my ignorant perspective, a much better way would be to discover the mathematical principles behind protein-folding and deductively know the exact folding with certainity. Focusing resources on a deductive solution to the problem is much better than creating a statistical guessing machine. AI solutions often seem to shift focus from deductive solutions to statistical ones and I don't think that is progress in the longterm

jf- 8y ago
It’s the only progress we’re likely to get on mathematically intractable problems, until maybe a few generations into quantum computing.
- opless 8y ago
  The hopes pinned on quantum computing seem to be like hoping holistic medicine cures cancer.
  - jf- 8y ago
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but that reads to me as thoughtless eye rolling cynicism. Is there a basis to it? Does quantum computing not offer our best shot at solving currently unsolvable problems?
    - tylerhou 8y ago
      It isn't even clear whether the class of problems quantum computers can efficiently solve is a strict superset of the class of problems classical computers can efficiently solve, before you even consider whether it's clear that we can build quantum computers with any reasonable number of logical qbits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy
    - Jach 8y ago
      > Is there a basis to it? Yes. "Quantum" is used in so many wrong instances that the default reaction to a stranger using it probably should be eyerolling. >Does quantum computing not offer our best shot at solving currently unsolvable problems? Not in general, there are very few problems where shor's algorithm or grover's algorithm apply. There are many more intractable problems that are out of reach regardless of computing power. There are though a lot of 'unsolvable' problems today that are just a matter of more (non-quantum) hardware and software. If you want to rid yourself of quantum computing delusions in particular, try reading Aaronson. https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/ https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/ and maybe for a primer on the sort of problem shor's algorithm can help with: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=208 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=208
      - jf- 8y ago
        Very well. Point taken.
      - opless 8y ago
        I can't really add anything to this reply, it hits the nail on the head with some references I've not seen before. Thanks Jach.
  - hadsed 8y ago
    In this case we are talking about simulating physical systems. Most everyone in the quantum computing community recognize that this is likely the most impactful application of quantum computers currently known. As another sibling comment mentions, I do think you're being a little overzealous with your criticism in this case.
  - dzhiurgis 8y ago
    Quantum protein folding paper has been released a month ago. I think it's better fit than AI.
porpoisely 8y ago
Grounding science in mathematical models is the ultimate goal. But usually, technological advancement and discoveries precede scientific discovery and modeling. We think science that comes first and from science we derive technology. But it is usually the other way around. Technology comes first and from technology, we derive science and even mathematics. A canonical example is the telescope. It's invention led to newtonian physics and calculus. Another is the microscope, which led to much of modern biology. If anyone is interested in the history of technology and science, I recommend "Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction" by McLellan and Dorn Also, if you have netflix, they have a great documentary called AlphaGo. I don't play Go, but I was able to appreciate the documentary. If play chess like I do, there are lots of youtube videos on the AlphaZero's games against stockfish. If DeepMind's system is as general as claimed and as competent in other fields as it was in Go and Chess, I think it's fair to say that it could give us insights into current and new science/mathematics.

jf- 8y ago

It’s the only progress we’re likely to get on mathematically intractable problems, until maybe a few generations into quantum computing.

opless 8y ago
The hopes pinned on quantum computing seem to be like hoping holistic medicine cures cancer.
- jf- 8y ago
  Correct me if I’m wrong, but that reads to me as thoughtless eye rolling cynicism. Is there a basis to it? Does quantum computing not offer our best shot at solving currently unsolvable problems?
  - tylerhou 8y ago
    It isn't even clear whether the class of problems quantum computers can efficiently solve is a strict superset of the class of problems classical computers can efficiently solve, before you even consider whether it's clear that we can build quantum computers with any reasonable number of logical qbits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy
  - Jach 8y ago
    > Is there a basis to it? Yes. "Quantum" is used in so many wrong instances that the default reaction to a stranger using it probably should be eyerolling. >Does quantum computing not offer our best shot at solving currently unsolvable problems? Not in general, there are very few problems where shor's algorithm or grover's algorithm apply. There are many more intractable problems that are out of reach regardless of computing power. There are though a lot of 'unsolvable' problems today that are just a matter of more (non-quantum) hardware and software. If you want to rid yourself of quantum computing delusions in particular, try reading Aaronson. https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/ https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/ and maybe for a primer on the sort of problem shor's algorithm can help with: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=208 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=208
    - jf- 8y ago
      Very well. Point taken.
    - opless 8y ago
      I can't really add anything to this reply, it hits the nail on the head with some references I've not seen before. Thanks Jach.
- hadsed 8y ago
  In this case we are talking about simulating physical systems. Most everyone in the quantum computing community recognize that this is likely the most impactful application of quantum computers currently known. As another sibling comment mentions, I do think you're being a little overzealous with your criticism in this case.
- dzhiurgis 8y ago
  Quantum protein folding paper has been released a month ago. I think it's better fit than AI.

porpoisely 8y ago

Grounding science in mathematical models is the ultimate goal. But usually, technological advancement and discoveries precede scientific discovery and modeling. We think science that comes first and from science we derive technology. But it is usually the other way around. Technology comes first and from technology, we derive science and even mathematics. A canonical example is the telescope. It's invention led to newtonian physics and calculus. Another is the microscope, which led to much of modern biology. If anyone is interested in the history of technology and science, I recommend "Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction" by McLellan and Dorn Also, if you have netflix, they have a great documentary called AlphaGo. I don't play Go, but I was able to appreciate the documentary. If play chess like I do, there are lots of youtube videos on the AlphaZero's games against stockfish. If DeepMind's system is as general as claimed and as competent in other fields as it was in Go and Chess, I think it's fair to say that it could give us insights into current and new science/mathematics.