4 ms·

Hehe, I love CS, but give me significant advances in physics, chemistry or medicine over some new "breakthrough" in machine learning.

• djohnston 7y ago
  A general AI would give you all 3
  • landryraccoon 7y ago
    That argument is like saying if we had better theorists you wouldn't need to build particle accelerators. Nature has brute facts that can only be discovered through observation. I would be surprised to see evidence that an intelligence, no matter how smart, could reason to the fundamental properties of neutrinos without massive physical real world experiments and piles of observational data.
    • goatlover 7y ago
      If it could, that would mean rationalism as a philosophy would come back into play, whereas empiricism has been dominant during the scientific revolution.
    • sullyj3 7y ago
      obviously ultimately you need observation, but I think this article (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien-message https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien...) makes an intuitive case that having better researchers gets you greater insight per unit observation.