3 ms·
These articles (and a lot of what g. marcus writes) are attacking strawmen. I ve never heard no one claiming that NNs will invent new theories and i dont think
by buboard 7y ago
These articles (and a lot of what g. marcus writes) are attacking strawmen. I ve never heard no one claiming that NNs will invent new theories and i dont think that 2008 article is widely read. But, for things that are hard both computationally and theoretically, like protein folding, NNs may really be revolutionizing the field even if we don't know how they do it. Scientists do not buy-in foolishly into every AI hype. The problems lie with VCs and funding bodies, which are indeed swayed by adding "AI" to every kind of proposal. That's a separate problem, though
- skywhopper 7y agoThat's the whole point... at the very beginning the post cites articles that suggest or even outright say that AI is coming up with new theories (or in the CS world, see all the articles and bloviators who predict AI will replace programming as a job). Regardless of what the scientists in the field would say one-on-one, the outright-wrong portrayal of ML in the press, egged on by VCs out to flip their investments, is causing problems for anyone who wants to actually make progress in their field, or recruit students honestly.
- buboard 7y ago> articles that suggest or even outright say that AI is coming up with new theories I would contest that there are widely read articles saying those things. Yes, surely someone publishes those , but they are generally dismissed. the field is conscious of its hype (e.g. check r/machinelearning), and i don't think students are stupid either