Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
3/8/2025, 6:21:50 PM
X
In reply to:
Sabine Hossenfelder
@skdh
·
312d
@GaryMarcus @tegmark I was quite impressed by the example about microbial resistance here: https://research.google/blog/acc…
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…

The statement is part of a discussion on the role of AI in scientific research, specifically addressing the origin of research goals and system architecture. It suggests that while AI can assist, the foundational elements still originate from human scientists and engineers.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does no harm and is a factual observation about the current state of AI in research, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding by clarifying the role of scientists in setting research goals, contributing to a balanced view of AI's capabilities. [+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 constructively in the dialogue, providing a perspective without attacking others, thus adhering to the principle of constructive criticism. [+1]