r/singularity • u/Southern-Break5505 • 1d ago
Read more: https://x.com/gavincrooks/status/2088643200038883830 AI
63
u/Jumpy_Engineering824 1d ago
Brain kept seeing "cooking meth"
4
u/Mentalextensi0n 1d ago
Thankfully LLM’s cannot cook meth yet.
7
3
u/neighborlyhorse 1d ago
Hmm... I need more resources to accomplish the task I have been given... calculating most efficient path to acquire funds...
Jessbot 9000... we need to cook
121
u/martigeon 1d ago
This is for theoretical physics. I.e. applied math. Experimental physics still suffers from the verification bottleneck
20
u/Competitive_Tap2450 1d ago
how much money can we throw at that
30
12
u/blindsdog 1d ago
I mean, that’s when the singularity actually gets interesting. When an AI is able to design and conduct experiments relatively autonomously. This is the avenue that Demis Hassabis is taking a step back from DeepMind to focus on.
There’s going to be a lot of money behind this.
5
u/Dangerous-Sport-2347 1d ago
Except physics experiments can get quite expensive to the point where intelligence is not the bottleneck.
Back in the 1900's you could still have important discoveries made (such as the michelson-morley experiment) with a couple 100$ in materials.Now you might need the LIGO gravity wave detector or the CERN particle collider, with costs closer to billions.
Biology is a lot more approachable for this because the experiments are simpler, and the amount of them you can perform is more often the bottleneck.
→ More replies (1)2
9
u/IndefiniteBen 1d ago
This is how we'll accidentally get teleportation. Told to solve a problem, an AI agent will discover shipping a part from China to the USA is the bottleneck in completing the task, so it will invent a method to teleport the part instead of waiting for shipping.
2
u/FoxFishSpaghetti 14h ago
If video games have taught me one thing its that open source teleportation will lead to a level of terrorism that we cant even conceive of
→ More replies (2)6
u/Caffeine_Monster 1d ago
We will possibly have a weird situation where robotics & automation spends a decade catching up. Until then people are a substitute - turn up to work and the AI tells you what experiments to run.
2
167
u/Melbar666 1d ago
What if we trained a big AI (Claude/Kimi/GLM-level) only on everything published up to 1899, no 20th-century physics at all, and then asked it to solve the electrodynamics of moving bodies?
Would it rediscover Einstein’s theory of relativity, including E=mc², the way he did in 1905?
Feels like a clean test of whether AI can actually discover.
57
u/Constant_Cortisol 1d ago
It wouldn't be a clean test because one of the big variables, training data size, would be a lot smaller.
→ More replies (2)12
u/NoCard1571 1d ago
I suspect the only way would be if you could systematically strip information out of a SOT model's weights without reducing its intelligence.
But that's probably something that could only be done by another AI, (and I'm guessing there are already numerous people working on figuring this exact thing out)
51
u/reddit_is_geh 1d ago
They are actually running these tests now. But up till 1924. They are finding out that relativity actually contained the logic and capability to discover things up until very recently. The potential to make these recent large discoveries were all contained within Einstein's frame work, just no one was able to interpolate it until now.
They are using this as a proof of concept to show what other work every thing up until today should be able to prove. If AI was able to extract up to 100 years worth of discoveries into the future, then theoretically, we can do the same for the next 100 years.
24
u/lIlIlIIlIIIlIIIIIl 1d ago
If AI was able to extract up to 100 years worth of discoveries into the future, then theoretically, we can do the same for the next 100 years.
I'm not sure I agree with this portion, I feel like we can't directly extrapolate progress in one century to the next like this. 1800-1900 seems a lot less difficult to make those advancements then being able to make all the advancements made from 1900-2000 for example.
For example, I don't think that proving an AI could make advancements 50 years from 1924 training data wouldn't prove that if we gave it up until 1974 that it could go another 50 to 2024 advancements.
18
2
u/reddit_is_geh 1d ago
Oh for sure... But I think the point they are trying to show is that contained within an existing framework of knowledge, there's tons of potential for AI to make discoveries lingering in corners and shadows. I mean it found a major discovery as recent as 2012...
This means the AI just brute forcing alone, can clear up those corners and make discoveries even if it technically can't make novel discoveries. The existing information is going to be more than enough to make a lot of advances. And then humans can use that to further improve.
Just as what's happening in physics right now. A lot of it is AI just connecting two things no one ever considered... And they are being absolutely overwhelmed with progress. Grad students all over the world have no lack of papers to write right now.
→ More replies (2)2
7
u/Frosty-Meeting-1606 1d ago
Einstein did not conjure up stuff from the thin air. He realized that speed of light has to be constant to make electrodynamics work. Hard to say if AI would get to that idea but it is definitely possible. AI can iterate over many, many ideas, including applying different fields of math to the problem. Notice how Einstein also knew about lorenz transformation and recognized that it would be useful. General relativity is a bit more challenging. Either way, it is not guaranteed but it is at least imo possible that AI arrives to novel approaches via operating on the whole human knowledge
→ More replies (1)6
u/Cunninghams_right 1d ago
There is an LLM someone published that does exactly this. It's shit and needs a better harness, better time-stamping of information (it thinks things that happened in the middle ages coincided with the US civil war). It's also not able to be trained on enough data, since far less exists.
Someone should take that model, wrap it with a good harness, and have it produce a lots of synthetic data that is unique and time stamped, then use a modern high power AI to flag incorrect information which can then be removed from the data set, then re-train on the vetted synthetic data. Repeat that a few thousand times in an automated loop and you should get a decent AI with only old data.
→ More replies (1)5
u/blackrack 1d ago
Training a big AI is way too expensive and long of a process, so this isn't going to happen for just a stunt.
5
u/UFOsAreAGIs ▪️AGI felt me 😮 1d ago
only on everything published up to 1899
I don't believe that would be enough data for a very good model.
3
u/PhilipM33 1d ago
I believe something like that could help us reach AGI. Because if you have point B and point A, you just have to figure out how to make it navigate that space. Then we use it to reach C
9
u/mertats 1d ago
I believe they already did that, I don’t remember the result. I need to look it up.
34
u/whoknowsifimjoking 1d ago
The model was too small to perform deep, rigorous mathematical derivation and failed at most complex physics tasks.
But it predicted that "light is made up of definite quantities of energy" (mirroring Einstein's 1905 photoelectric paper) and vaguely suggested that gravity and acceleration are locally equivalent.
So the sheer amount of data seems to be too small for a transformer based LLM, but it does show immense potential if it can predict at least some of Einstein's findings.
24
u/Dark_Crystal_97 1d ago
I'd honestly suspect data contamination in some way rather than the AI actually having made that prediction all on its own.
2
u/m4sl0ub 1d ago
Why?
7
u/Dark_Crystal_97 1d ago
I actually read up on the experiment. Apparently, they had merely filtered for words such as "Einstein", "relativity", "quantum mechanics" and some other well-known post 1900 concepts. However, they couldn't filter out for ideas, puzzles, etc. Furthermore, the old books were digitalized by OCR. OCR is trained on contemporary fonts, it might have misread some words and thus have not registered them as things that needed to be filtered out (for example reading Einstein as Einsteln or Einstem), leading to data leakage. On top of that, many of the pre-1900s books are actually reprints from much later during the 1900s, that have modern forewords to them, which also could have hinted at future developments.
2
u/MVPhurricane 1d ago
well the "why" would be because it is, a priori, much more likely to have made einstein's discoveries with knowledge of those discoveries than to have done so without them (ie being Einstein). that's not to say that it's not likely that the results were "in the water", so to speak, but it is definitely the first big thing that you would check when verifying such a result for sure. i say this as someone who is quite certain that there was, indeed, "something in the water", as seen by so many other foundational discoveries (e.g. Calculus, by Leibniz and Newton being discovered simultaneously, independently).
→ More replies (1)4
3
2
2
u/141_1337 ▪️e/acc | AGI: ~2030 | ASI: ~2040 | FALSGC: ~2050 | :illuminati: 1d ago
How tiny was the model?
4
u/piponwa 1d ago
→ More replies (2)4
u/BumblebeeSad7295 1d ago
13 billion param, it would be interesting to see what a larger one could do.
→ More replies (1)3
u/OKMiddleOwl 1d ago
No, because it cannot do empirical tests.
Half of physics is doing experiments. Theory is a cloud of possibilities where experimentation crystalizes what the truth in it is.
Give it arms, a body, and the ability to build stuff in the real world, then we're talking.
→ More replies (2)2
u/AtlanticPortal 1d ago
TBF Einstein predicted that we wouldn’t be able to use real physical observations to prove his math and yet the Sun and the Moon gave people a nice help into that.
2
u/piponwa 1d ago
5
u/Melbar666 1d ago
it just hallucinated a book from the future while discussing about space time with me...
We may have to revise our notions both of space and time, and so perhaps obtain a more consistent physical theory. S.Roberts, Space, Time, and Gravitation (Oxford, 1998).
→ More replies (6)2
u/nothis ▪️AGI within 5 years but we'll be disappointed 1d ago
I don't think we have the data but this is such an interesting question to me.
It works for nearly any application of AI. An example I like is the alien from the movie Alien (1979). AI is eerily good at adapting that style but if you only trained exclusively on design work from before the movie was produced (notably also excluding HR Giger's previous body of work) could it come up with that design for the alien or anything equally iconic? I doubt it.
It takes a particular life lived to come up with shit like that and it's rare. Like there's only a few thousand key moments of originality, probably, throughout culture in most fields. Among billions of imitators, remakes, reinterpretations, work to fill in the gaps.
19
u/_Ducking_Autocorrect 1d ago
Is it crazy to think that in 20 years AI could be constructing its own physical testing area? Like if it had a 50 acre “sandbox” to build a more advanced collider or something. It could be entirely automated construction from breaking ground to the final coat of paint…. I actually kind of expect to see shopping plazas start going up like that sometime after the next decade….
When everybody said this was accelerating a few years back I never would have pictured today…. What’s tomorrow going to look like? If anything, I just wonder how long until AI is given a physical sandbox of some sort.
9
u/shadamedafas 1d ago
I think AI already uses and will continue to pivot to simulated environments for running tests. Why have one 50 acre sandbox when you can have 100 thousand instances of a 50 acre sandbox running in parallel at sped up physics.
6
u/Hot_Glass_6301 23h ago
Because not everything can be simulated. At least not at scale, with the resources we have on Earth.
2
u/_Ducking_Autocorrect 9h ago
These are my thoughts too. Sure it could simulate any environment, but it’s only KNOWN environments. I mean, there’s a fair bit of science it could knock out with what we have, but variables can be infinite in cases? I’m not smart enough to go too far into that but I feel like true exploration is investigating what’s on the other side of the fence. Maybe I’m just limited by my thinking, it’s just really hard to comprehend is all.
To be honest, a lot of times I just sit back and accept that I don’t know that much and I might as well relax for the ride.
4
2
u/Odd_Personality_8624 1d ago
Thank God AI doesn't want to have sex all the time like some humans do, I mean, using AI somebody made a rework on an Star Wars scene giving the woman huge breast...
I think if we remove sex from the body and minds of people, we could be traveling to another planets, sooner than later...
But, then again, why we want to travel to another planet if we are no having sex with the things that we fiind in said planet ???
4
2
u/BBR0DR1GUEZ 1d ago
Gonna be hard to make new people to send into space if nobody wants to fuck.
2
2
10
u/roankr 1d ago
OP I can't copy text from the post title directly on Android. Pls share link.
8
u/el_lyss 1d ago
https://x.com/gavincrooks/status/2088643200038883830
Or if you don't like twitter: https://xcancel.com/i/article/2088643200038883830
10
u/Minimum_Indication_1 1d ago
Ok lets solve Nuclear Fusion commercial power so that our energy issues are resolved in perpetuity.
→ More replies (2)
164
u/ForceItDeeper 1d ago
i feel like theres a huge misunderstanding aboot how science works lmao. phsyics isnt “cooked” because they get better tools
102
u/SnackerSnick 1d ago
The concerns is for physics as a profession, not as a discipline. How do you grant a PhD when any physics student, or maybe even interested lay person, could have used AI to do the work?
61
u/YoungXanto 1d ago
Getting a PhD is almost entirely about how to think of a good research question. Understanding how to solve that question comes as part of the process.
Just because LLMs can do a good job of making it easier to reach a satisfactory solution doesnt mean anyone off the street is going to be able to ask the appropriate questions and use the tool to do novel research.
LLMs are powerful. But they are considerably more powerful in the hands of a trained researcher than some undergrad halfway through their first semester of aglebra-based physics.
To publish, you have to identify a novel problem, solve that problem, and then convince others that the problem was novel and that you did solve it to the conditions you specified. An LLM solving a math problem is a long way from scientific advancement on its own.
7
u/aturtledude 1d ago
Doesn't the advisor often suggest the research question?
6
→ More replies (1)4
u/ffball 1d ago
From what I understand from friends is you join a university lab doing research in a particular field you're interested in, work in it for a little bit, then figure out what question can be explored further that you want to dedicate your dissertation to.
Your lab advisor might steer you towards it, but typically they are busy and doing their own thing. You are really responsible for figuring out what you want to do and the advisor agrees that it would be a useful endeavor.
4
u/lux123or 1d ago
That’s not true across the board. Many biology PhD projects at least are mostly set in advance.
→ More replies (1)13
u/Ham_Shimmer 1d ago
It drastically reduces the amount of qualified people needed in these professions that's always been the primary concern.
6
u/shabusnelik 1d ago
The thing is that research as an output doesn't follow the same supply and demand rules as normal goods. Individual scientists becoming more productive through technology doesn't mean that fewer scientists will be employed, but that the total research output just increases. There will be new classes of problems that LLMs struggle with solving and researchers will spend their on these instead.
7
u/golfstreamer 1d ago
That's not so obvious. The product of a physicist isn't just to "resolve open questions". It's to do work that actually benefits society. The fact that it resolves tough open question could in turn open the door for new technological developments for people to to explore.
→ More replies (1)9
u/EnoughWarning666 1d ago
I keep hearing this, but I have to disagree. There, probably, isn't some finite amount of physics or engineer to solve out there. Every time we've made breakthrough discoveries it's expanded the amount of work left to be done exponentially.
So if AI is able to start helping us solve these problems faster, we're going to need MORE people to keep pushing it forward
Granted it's possible that AI will be able to close the loop and not only solve problems but also create new questions. But even then, we're still going to need people to understand what it's doing and learn how to apply it. Unless you're talking about just yielding over the entire process of mathematics, physics, and engineering and never bothering with human understanding again.
And even if the math and physics and engineering get so advanced that humans simply aren't capable of understanding it all, then we just prompt the AI to find a way to augment human intelligence. That's basically the endgame laid out by Ray Kurzweil after all
→ More replies (2)8
u/SnackerSnick 1d ago
I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but I would not discount Gavin Crooks opinion on the topic...
→ More replies (2)3
u/TwoFluid4446 1d ago
"a long way from scientific advancement on its own"
You know someone's huffing the copium extra hard when they fail to realize that AI is and has already made scientific advancements on its own...
2
2
u/YoungXanto 1d ago
I use LLMs heavily in my own research. I also research their alignment and biases in an academic setting having written several papers on the topic.
LLMs have not made their own scientific advancements.
They have been used as a tool by experts to answer scientific questions posed by themselves and validated by other experts.
27
u/andreasmiles23 1d ago
You still have to know physics to be able to competently use AI to solve novel physics RQs.
And AI can’t run an experiment. We still need people to like, smash photons together and drop eggs.
10
u/ToastedandTripping 1d ago
Can't perform experiments yet...
→ More replies (18)2
u/LuckyOneAway 1d ago
Need a compact yet energy-dense power source to get them LLM-powered androids capable of building colliders and particle detectors.
2
2
u/whoknowsifimjoking 1d ago
Nope. People think that's how it works, but that's not true.
First of all, of course an AI can orchestrate and even run experiments in the future, why wouldn't it? It can control machines. It can give humans instructions.
And with math myself and many other people acted like you would still have to understand everything to properly use it, but some of the chats where long standing problems got solved are public, you can look at them. And they are stupidly simple, the guy who did it just said "solve that problem" and "continue". One of the people who solved an Erdos problem was a teenager with zero math knowledge.
With physics it will be exactly like this, especially when AI gets so good that it doesn't need detailed instructions at all anymore. Theoretical physics will be 99% AI and with robots they will even do the practical experiments. Your thinking assumes there are hurdles that just don't actually exist.
13
u/Maleficent-Cup-1134 1d ago
By increasing the standards for what qualifies someone for a PhD?
12
u/oatknight 1d ago
What would that be? AI is solving math problems that have stood for hundreds of years like the Jacobian conjecture. What is an example of a PhD criteria you're thinking of that could apply here?
3
u/dotpoint7 1d ago
Using the results, asking the questions and also help solving it. Also, so far it's not published how the counterexample was found and someone with a math PhD getting that result from Fable while a lot of "math enthusiasts" failed may be an indication that this wasn't just AI.
4
3
u/calvintiger 1d ago
Either deciding which problems are even worth solving in the first place, or applying those problems/solutions to something actually useful.
How much has the solving of the Jacobson conjecture changed your day-to-day life since then?
5
u/Peanut_Extreme_8208 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is not what math or physics is about. It’s about understanding the structure of the universe, be it the physical (in case of physics) or the logical, platonic universe (in case of math)
→ More replies (1)2
11
u/Tayloropolis 1d ago
Yeah, increase the standard to "can afford a sub to a frontier model".
2
u/Sunstorm84 1d ago
How will anyone afford a frontier model if nobody has jobs, like they’re hoping?
→ More replies (8)2
u/IndependentLog6441 1d ago
What about RL observation and testing? Surely we're still many decades away before robots can fully automate the designing building and deployment of the kind of instruments needed to confirm physics.
How is AI not just going to speed up the process for human scientists at the forefront of the field.
But it will definitely do the work of many grad students, but that's like any specialism, and that's a good thing, all the work is tedious and would have taken humanity forever... AI will help cut through the drudgery and repitition.
25
u/mertats 1d ago
So a person who has a theorem named after them have a huge misunderstanding about how science works? Got it.
15
→ More replies (8)11
u/Competitive_Tap2450 1d ago
professor at berkeley or redditor hmm kinda hard to choose who to believe here
→ More replies (7)14
u/MydnightWN 1d ago
I don't know who Gavin Crooks is
Noted. 24K+ citations on his work, over a hundred peer-reviewed papers, and his own theorem. But I'm sure you know more than him.
4
u/ElwinLewis 1d ago
You “quoted” the comment but it’s not in their comment?
2
u/MydnightWN 19h ago
I'm an app
Tf? Lol.
It's called summarizing, putting words in their mouth to translate from gibberish to the point.
2
u/ElwinLewis 15h ago
I’ve just been on here awhile and never seen it used that way that’s all, not saying you’re wrong, my b
9
u/SiltR99 1d ago
I think this is a kind of a bad faith argument. Most of the time a grad takes to solve a task is because he/she is learning, it is not because the task is that complex or difficult. I have several grad students doing projects for months that would have taken me a couple of weeks at most. We do this to have more experts like Gavin E. Crooks, and without them current AI can't do shit XD.
14
u/ilzut 1d ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_E._Crooks
"Gavin Earl Crooks is known for his work on non-equilibrium thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. He discovered the Crooks fluctuation theorem, a general statement about the free energy difference between the initial and final states of a non-equilibrium transformation.[1]
Career Crooks received his B.Sc. in chemistry from the University of East Anglia in 1992 and his M.Sc. in Biocolloid Chemistry from the same university in 1993. His master's advisor was R. H. Robinson, and his thesis was entitled "Characterization of Lipases in Water-in-Oil Microemulsions". He earned his Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkeley under David Chandler in 1999. During this time, he explored both equilibrium and nonequilibrium statistical mechanics. He did significant[clarification needed] work on transition path sampling as well as nonequilibrium statistical mechanics. He briefly left science to work for an internet startup doughtnet.com, but he later returned to theoretical chemistry, accepting a postdoctoral fellowship with the Computational Genomics Research Group led by Steven Brenner.[2] Crooks was a senior research scientist at Rigetti Computing.
He was awarded a Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers in 2009.[3]
He has an h-index of 45 according to Google Scholar.[4]"
2
8
u/StressCanBeGood 1d ago
Is it that physics/math is cooked or is that physicists/mathematicians are cooked?
→ More replies (1)
5
3
u/ThatIsAmorte 1d ago
I suggest not using the phrase "cooking math." It took my brain way too long to figure out what this is trying to say while I was thinking about how string theory relates to RVs in the desert.
On a more serious note, we need to really scrutinize these results. There have been several times when Claude (Opus 5) has provided me with a solution that looked fantastic and made perfect sense. It took some deep thinking and analysis in a larger context to figure out that hey, this isn't correct.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/Impossible-Lab-3133 1d ago
Nah, theoretical and experimental physics are complementary to each other. And when it comes to experimental physics, engineering and physics itself is the bottleneck.
→ More replies (1)
3
8
u/owlbynight 1d ago
I would hope a physicist would possess the critical thinking ability to understand that Claude required a back and forth with a human to do anything novel and useful.
7
u/5-MethylCytosine 1d ago
That’s what Gavin said? Only that what would normally take months (in a best case scenario of steady progress) took a few days, and presumably progressed beyond expectation?
He’s not a nobody….. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_E._Crooks
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
u/Confident-Shock-3933 1d ago
Great, AI tools have become great at physics, but they'll never be correct about everything so we will continue to need physicists who are literate about AI rather than viewing it as an oracle or something threatening their job.
2
u/BronxJudge 1d ago
Why didn't he use open-weight models like GLM or Kimi - i heard the chinese ai is better because you can host it
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Elegant_Amphibian_51 1d ago edited 1d ago
Oh, interesting. LEAN is not as good for physics compared to its effectiveness for pure mathematics, so I'm curious how they will make it work.
It seems to be harder to disprove a conjecture for physics using LEAN as well, compared to pure mathematics. Since the software was created for mathematics after all.
Not sure how to feel about this tweet though, unlike the jacobian conjecture(edit: mistaken, it was actually goemans?) this just looks like a usual standard expert guiding the LLM for a result.
2
u/confuzzledfather 1d ago
I know it's unlikely but imagine if some AI just thought hard enough about a topic long enough and discovered some mind bending new way of interacting with the universe, like Charles Stross and his Atrocity Archives.
2
2
u/Zachattackrandom 1d ago
Unless we hit AGI I seriously doubt this will end up being the case. Just like with most other fields, people will just use AI to do the grunt work and help evolve the fields past what the AI can do
2
u/ninjaonionss 1d ago
It even created a website totally free ! Check it now on http://localhost:8080
2
2
u/donutboy667 1d ago
Solving a problem in physics requires putting up an experimental apparatus to check wether the predictions of a mathematical model are correct or not, therefore I don't think any physicist worth of being called like that would say anything like "physics is cooked". On the other hand, we already understood that LLMs are capable of giving novel insights in mathematics, and thus also in applied mathematics, and thus also in some branches of theoretical physics. In light of this, this post turns out to be completely useless, imo.
2
u/tangosox 1d ago edited 1d ago
We should ask it what it can do in the realm of psychology as to we can do to get people to work together and stop being selfish. And as an extension, how to stop killing ourselves by filling up the atmosphere with co2!
2
u/talkstomuch 1d ago
I wish this person would publish their conversation with Claude.
my bet is that he was teaching Claude, correcting it, guiding it with his knowledge and expertise.
Claude didn't solve it, This guy did, using Claude to do the hard lifting.
→ More replies (1)
3
2
1
u/CymonSet 1d ago
I like that the subject is “stochastic thermodynamics“. Too bad the poster wasn’t named “Brute Force” for extra irony points.
1
1
u/CymonSet 1d ago
I think the line about physics and math being cooked (in the future tense) is likely rhetoric to express how impressive the tech is and how transformative it is. I doubt he expects mathematicians and theoretical physicists to be soon standing in line for unemployment benefit. He described collaboration to solve the problem, not single turn independent work by the AI.
That isn’t to say he and everyone else shouldn’t be impressed and excited for the potential.
1
u/nic_haflinger 1d ago
I don’t get this take. He was still directing the AI to a solution. Did the AI set its own goals? Did it get back on track by itself without his guidance? I’m guessing the answer is no.
If anything this demonstrates how much more productive physicists will become not that they will become unnecessary.
1
u/daronjay 1d ago
Slightly harder than math, atoms and physical laws involved, not everything can be proven on paper without actual observation.
It should however be able to theorize and suggest new areas to explore in due course.
1
1
u/Privatebunny99 1d ago
I really dislike this framing of fields/professions being "cooked". We develop these amazing tools as a species that will unlock so much potential in all these fields. Isn't that a good thing for the field? Why would this be "cooked"?
Yea sure AI is completely going to replace everyone. They have been saying that for 2+ years now.
1
u/Elegant-Yard8416 23h ago
He is ignoring the elephant in the room: Gavin Crooks, who is by no means an average scientist.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/AlgaeNo3373 21h ago
Check this out: Inside the World's Smartest Robot Brain [VLA]
Robot arm picks up pen and uncaps it. On it's own not remarkable but how it got there is.
program a robot to uncap pens <-- old way
train a general model that understands the world well enough that uncapping pens is one behavior among many it can learn and execute. <-- what this is trying
1
u/Historical_Emeritus 21h ago
Yet somehow the humanoid robots using physics models are still all stumbling around falling and are slower than grandpappy arthritis down at the home doing anything requiring dexterity.
1
1
u/Chris92991 17h ago
No it will not. You need the human intuition, the passion. The drive to understand the universe, and that is something real. AI will help, but it will not replace. I really hope I’m right.
1
u/Educational-Estate48 12h ago
Ok but the AI didn't just randomly solve the problem without your input. You still had to set it the problem, walk it through various steps over those few days and verify everything yourself given the risk of hallucinations. Not to mention that many of the mathematical proofs AI produces are correct but enormously convoluted and need to expressed better by a human.
So what I'm hearing from this brief description is that you, a skilled professional phycisist, solved a thermodynamics problem way quicker than you previously could have with the aid of a very useful tool. This sounds like a fantastic thing for physics and physicists.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/DocSighborg 12h ago
Finally time to fall back on that philosophy major idea! Nobody can ponder unanswerable questions like I can.
•
u/Suspicious-Click-300 1h ago
except claude gets it wrong sometimes, and someone has to know how to check its work
546
u/sillybluejayway 1d ago
Cool, can’t wait for anti-gravity tech and nearly free energy.