Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
3/8/2025, 5:40:55 PM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
312d
@skdh @tegmark What do you think is the most scientifically original thing an AI has done to date?

General Problem Solver was helping with proofs in the 1950s, but not figuring out what the important questions are to ask.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ge…
Sabine Hossenfelder
@skdh
·
312d
@GaryMarcus @tegmark I agree but I think there are cases where the step from the first (data analysis and search etc) to the latter (a Nobel worthy discovery) is so small that AIs can now almost close it on their own.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
312d
@skdh @tegmark Maybe we are talking past each other. I don’t doubt that a scientist with an eye of what they want can use these things as tools.

There is a difference between a machine conceiving of an executing a research program that is original and important and Nobel worthy, and a Nobel…
Sabine Hossenfelder
@skdh
·
312d
@GaryMarcus @tegmark the pattern isn't complex, you just need to be able to chew through a lot of data. See, if this was possible in 2019, how much will be possible in 2025:

https://www.nature.com/articles/…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
312d
@skdh @tegmark 1. Sure there is a lot left to discover.
2. But the causal reasoning is too poor, the evaluation of complex patterns is too unreliability, and the originality too low.
3. Best uses cases for quite some time will be things like AlphaFold where a scientist uses AI as a tool, and…
Sabine Hossenfelder
@skdh
·
312d
@GaryMarcus @tegmark Sorry @GaryMarcus I am with Max on this. There are almost certainly "Nobel quality discoveries" hidden in the published scientific literature because no human has an overview. AI can almost do this now, and these discoveries are no less "original" than what most scientists…

The statement is part of a public discourse on the role of AI in scientific research, specifically addressing the issue of AI-generated research and potential plagiarism. It engages with the broader debate on AI's capabilities in contributing to scientific originality and discovery.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm with words or actions. It neutrally references a paper on AI-generated research plagiarism, contributing to the discussion without harmful language. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By sharing a relevant paper, the statement promotes understanding of the potential issues with AI in research, fostering a more informed discussion on the topic. [+1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive dialogue by providing a resource that adds depth to the ongoing conversation about AI's role in scientific discovery. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]
  4. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds free speech principles by responsibly sharing information relevant to the public discourse on AI and scientific research. [+1]