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 vrighter on Tuesday May 20, 2025 @10:36AM (#44042131)

If there is a single objective right answer, the model should output a probability of 1 for it, and 0 for everything else. Ex. If I ask "Is a sphere a curved object?" The one and only answer is "100% yes" not "I am 99% sure it is" (and once in a while actually say it isn't)

This is pretty much impossible to achieve with current architectures (which aren't all that different to those of old, just bigger). If they did, then they'd be woefully overfitted. They can't be made reliable. Anyone who understands the tech does know this.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I got fooled by AI-for-science hype–here's what it taught me by Voloskaya on Tuesday May 20, 2025 @01:08PM (#44043723)

> Anyone who understands the tech does know this

Yes, and this is does not mean the technology can never be useful.

I work everyday with that have false beliefs about a tech, I have a friend that until recently thought there were rivers on the moon, and some believe climate change is a hoax, I often forget things people told me and they have to tell me again.

Are humans not useful at anything ?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I got fooled by AI-for-science hype–here's what it taught me by vrighter on Thursday May 22, 2025 @06:51AM (#44060762)

If someone responds with "no" to that question even once, then yes, I don't consider them trustworthy for anything involving complex thought.

[ Parent | on HN ]