|
|
|
|
|
|
by randcraw
836 days ago
|
|
|
The article completely misses the essential mechanism behind the advancement of science, like cures for disease. Advancing science is not about making better use of the info you have. It's about gathering NEW info you didn't have before and then using it to propose a novel mechanism of action or a hypothesis leading to a better theory. But AI cannot gather new info. Only better sensors can do that. Without gathering better info, even an infinite increase in smarts can't move the needle in science. If the info you need lies in genomics but all you have is images, no amount of cognition can bridge that gap. AI has seen some success in detecting disease (diagnosis) but none at all in creating new treatments or cures. Future use of AI likely can help guide or optimize an existing therapy (e.g. chemotherapy) by detecting or discriminating feedback faster than a human can. But invention or discovery? No. AI as we know it today has shown no ability to advance the knowledge frontier beyond what the facts fed in by its teacher, nor any signs it ever will. |
|
|
Your critique might apply to an article written about the use of AI/ML in science, in which case it would be uninformed - algorithms like DeepVariant, DeepConsensus, and AlphaFold are fundamental AI-enabled tools for gathering and interpreting new information from existing sensors that changed the state of the art and are advancing science and enabling cures today. AI-enabled tools are also improving information management and literature search for scientists, because advancing science usually is about making better use of the info you have - a lot of scientific breakthroughs today are made by analyzing data that has already been gathered (like Genbank or UK Biobank or All of Us data).