3 ms·
Right now we can look at DALL-E and say that it did a good job or it didn't because it is producing familiar objects like teddy bears or whatever. If the scien
by narrator 4y ago
Right now we can look at DALL-E and say that it did a good job or it didn't because it is producing familiar objects like teddy bears or whatever. If the science equivalent of DALL-E said this is a process to extract an enantiomer with right chirality and it's actually is for left chirality who is going to know it made a mistake except a trained chemist? Thus, double checking the work of the AI is going to be a lot of the work of scientists in the future.
- pessimizer 4y ago> Thus, double checking the work of the AI is going to be a lot of the work of scientists in the future. That seems similar to the idea of self-driving cars that screw up frequently and have to suddenly turn over control to the driver being safer than just paying attention to driving. Peer review sucks now. Reviewing something that makes errors that no human would make seems like it would be a lot worse.
- hypertele-Xii 4y agoOn the other hand, such AI will usher in a new era of art and comedy. Watching computers fail in absurd ways.
- mdp2021 4y agoDifferent is the laugh, when slapstick occurs on a stage, versus when your doctor had bad ideas. This stresses the call for humans not to be lightminded and decadent: new instruments are around, and they require to be managed competently and properly.