6 ms·
> 1) it takes a undergrad to make and measure a superconductor by a Nobel laureate to explain it. Another example of Taleb’s idea that experimentation comes fi
by huijzer 3y ago
> 1) it takes a undergrad to make and measure a superconductor by a Nobel laureate to explain it.
Another example of Taleb’s idea that experimentation comes first and theories second. Universities pretend that it’s the other way around but apart from an Einstein it’s usually not.
- anonymous_sorry 3y agoIt's a feedback loop. Experimental results suggest new theories, which suggest new experiments to test those theories.
- johndunne 3y agoWell put. I'd add that theories can produce predictions, and if the predictions can be proved experimentally, all the better for the theory.
- anonymous_sorry 3y agoOr perhaps even stronger - theories _should_ produce predictions.
- mrguyorama 3y agoAny theory that cannot make a prediction isn't a theory but rather a data compression method.
- visarga 3y agoThat's what I am thinking when commenters compare LLMs with humans. Humans got the experimental loop going through the real world, pure LLMs are brains in vats. They need experimental confirmation to become truly creative. But on the other hand are the commenters who think AGI to ASI is going to take hours. When is there time to experiment anything? Even ASI needs real world confirmation to do research.
- mgfist 3y agoThe claim is that an AGI can instruct humans to do the experimentation (knowingly or not).
- WitCanStain 3y agoAGI to ASI might take hours if all that's needed is more compute. Such an intelligence might exponentially spread across the internet. Though I don't think it's the most likely scenario.
- psychoslave 3y agoEinstein did experimented a lot too, even if it’s generally not as highlighted as his thought experiments. https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Einstein-Experiments-Patents-Inventions/dp/1421411717 https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Einstein-Experiments-Patent...
- tdehnel 3y agoNot possible. Theory comes first. Scientists need a theory first to know which experiments to do. Any interesting experimental results are interesting precisely because they do not conform to the existing theories. Edit: here's a decent writeup to show what I mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory-ladenness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory-ladenness
- robinduckett 3y agoSo before Isaac Newton, apples would float up off the tree when they fell?
- tdehnel 3y agoThe pre-existing theory Newton needed was “things move when other things act on them.” Without that, the observation would be meaningless. Seeing the apple fall told Newton “some unseen force is acting on the apple.” Incidentally, this was wrong. There is no “force”, only a warping of space time.
- __sy__ 3y agoFor the wetter sciences, the answer is somewhere in between. We usually have somewhat of an understanding of the prior theory. We then throw a lot of stuff at the wall…. Oh, this sticks? Eh, why? And then usually some more clever person will come up with reasons for why X works beyond what we already knew. A few years later, the field reaches some sort of consensus around one of the hypothesis.
- tdehnel 3y agoThe “oh this sticks” part is only ever interesting precisely because it doesn’t conform to the pre existing theory. You cannot even make an observation without theories baked in: - Normally these things do X - My senses or instruments are detecting reality accurately - This thing I’m measuring will result in something interesting etc
- 3y ago
- gmadsen 3y agonot really?, Dirac, Von Neumann, etc. taking a look at the history of the nobel prize, its typically the case that something is predicted by theory, then once an experiment is able to verify, then prizes are given out.
- BlueTemplar 3y agoWhat universities ? They don't have labs ?