3 ms·
Perhaps you are using the wrong LLMs that are not fine-tuned for chemistry. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adg9774 https://www.science.org/doi/10.
by mycall 2y ago
Perhaps you are using the wrong LLMs that are not fine-tuned for chemistry.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adg9774 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adg9774
https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/10/18/1105880/the-race-to-find-new-materials-with-ai-needs-more-data-meta-is-giving-massive-amounts-away-for-free/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/10/18/1105880/the-race...
- HarryHirsch 2y agoThe argument was that with current word-based methods an LLM can puzzle out mechanistic problems better than a human. Turns out it can't at all, it makes errors that no human would. Anyone who looks at such attempts recognizes them as blather that is not rooted in reality. The parent poster posted a paper where an AI guesses the Hamiltonian (nice, but with iterative methods you at least get an idea of the error associated with your numbers, not sure how far anyone should trust AI's there), maybe methods that do guesswork on topological networks would help. But I haven't seen those yet.