4 ms·
you're conflating LLMs with AI. Strictly speaking, from what we understand of physics, chemistry, biology, computing, and mathematics, there is no coherent arg
by dekhn 2y ago
you're conflating LLMs with AI. Strictly speaking, from what we understand of physics, chemistry, biology, computing, and mathematics, there is no coherent argument that you could not build an AI which could be an effective research scientist (which I define as: a system which produces novel hypotheses based on current scientific knowledge that are likely to be true, and is capable of evaluating their likelihood quickly enough to be relevant to human endeavors.)
I imagine that such a system would probably have at least required component that looked much like an LLM.
Not all breakthroughs happened due to original insight- many came from tediously improving techniques through fairly mundane means, or from advancements in other areas.
- dgfitz 2y ago> which I define as: a system which produces novel hypotheses based on current scientific knowledge that are likely to be true, and is capable of evaluating their likelihood quickly enough to be relevant to human endeavors. Produces hypotheses which are likely to be true? Pardon my ignorance, have we even proven gravity to be true yet? Sure, I think gravity exists and is true, however your definition of AI seems like Swiss cheese.
- dekhn 2y agoI think you must have misunderstood my statement on multiple levels (or you're being disingenuous; it's hard to tell). I don't think you can ever prove anything to be true in science, and I expressed that in my statement ("likely to be true"). You could also turn what I said around, and say "novel hypotheses which are unlikely to be trivially falsified". There's nothing swiss cheese about my heuristic definition of a research scientist AI; it's precisely the same thing that we expect human research scientists to do (I presume an AI research scientist could also write papers that get published and grants that get approved, but unlikely to be an effective mentor for a PhD candidate). It's also only a working definition that I would update if I found a good reason.
- dgfitz 2y agoSorry, I did not mean to be disingenuous. My skepticism came through in my tone. I think LLMs are a valuable tool, and will continue to grow in different ways. I can even imagine a scenario where the right series of prompts gives someone a eureka moment in a big, new way. I don’t see how an LLM could produce anything novel without being prompted. At which point, is the LLM just a tool for a brilliant mind, or is the LLM the brilliant mind? I prefer the former, because I just can’t wrap my head around the latter.