4 ms·
> I see no reason that a language model couldn't do iterative science in the same way humans have been with the resources available to it (APIs) using the comp
by xracy 2y ago
> I see no reason that a language model couldn't do iterative science in the same way humans have been with the resources available to it (APIs) using the composition of current technologies.
I think this belies a common refrain from people in non-tech feeling like people in tech tend to oversimplify their fields and claim they can "fix any problem" without any actual specific knowledge in that field. This just feels like the next iteration of that.
- Zambyte 2y agoThis seems like a lot of words to just say "you are wrong". Can you explain why? What features of the scientific method cannot be achieved through the composition of existing technologies? Feel free to be specific and use technical terms.
- xracy 2y agoI think you're misreading this. I'm not saying "you are wrong". I'm saying there's a common trap that a lot of people in tech (and therefore a lot of people on HN fall into), where they believe that they can solve any problem from what they know of basic tech problems. > What features of the scientific method cannot be achieved through the composition of existing technologies? ^This statement, sums up the above trap perfectly. "I know how to create a workflow, therefore, I know how to create a workflow of the scientific method, therefore I can replace a scientist with an AI robot." But okay, how do we know what quantitatively, is a significant result? R=0.05 is the most common cut-off for this, but like, that's a number we picked, and isn't even agreed on.