I got fooled by AI-for-science hype–here's what it taught me

Re:I got fooled by AI-for-science hype–here's what it taught me by Ygg2 on Tuesday May 20, 2025 @03:35AM (#44038805)

That's less LLM and more three projects by DeepMind team.

And it's far from commercial availability.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I got fooled by AI-for-science hype–here's what it taught me by moffkalast on Tuesday May 20, 2025 @04:30AM (#44039178)

Well to me personally it at least proves something that's long been touted as impossible, that the current architecture can in fact do better than all humans at novel tasks, even if it needs a crutch at the moment.

An LLM-based system now holds the SOTA approach on several math problems, how crazy is that? I wasn't convinced before, but now I guess it won't be many decades before we view making new scientific advancements as viable as winning against stockfish.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I got fooled by AI-for-science hype–here's what it taught me by Ygg2 on Tuesday May 20, 2025 @05:45AM (#44039675)

Yeah, but those rely on setting up the evolve function. And they aren't well guaranteed to be better than humans. They might find you an improvement, but aren't guaranteed to do as shown here[1] (green means better, red means worse, gray means same).

[1] https://youtu.be/sGCmu7YKgPA?t=480

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I got fooled by AI-for-science hype–here's what it taught me by moffkalast on Tuesday May 20, 2025 @07:49AM (#44040469)

Last I checked, humans weren't guaranteed to do anything either.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I got fooled by AI-for-science hype–here's what it taught me by Ygg2 on Tuesday May 20, 2025 @08:03AM (#44040587)

Sure, but they have one thing that makes them better than CPUs, they consume more ;)

[ Parent | on HN ]