[realityfactchex]

> She has cried a lot in the last one year for the mess science research has become.

At least it's a good thing that we're able to a) observe and b) talk about and c) acknowledge openly(ish) that academic, mainstream, practicing "science" (including as visible to microscopists and all that entails) is currently a "mess".

This allows us to, eventually, address those issues (or die trying!).

Science used to move at a pace of one lifetime after another (pearl clutching 'til the end and confirmation bias and careers built on saving face and economic entrenchments all that).

But I hypothesize that with AI, we can point to "a thing that is not a person with all that is bundled up with that" and say "look, maybe this other train of thought is worth entertaining". Not to say the AI is right. Ideas will stand or fall on their own merit. Just that an AI is not a person outside the field. Normally, an outsider says something, nobody listens. But, if an anonymous AI says something (of course, cleaned up for voice and concision and validated by a human as a first pass), the worst you can say is "ok prove it" or "here is where that is wrong". Instead of: deafening silence.

In other words, I hope AI augments our ability to have those hard conversations that need to be had. Without people losing their jobs due to their prior (understandable) errors, and within the spirit of always using the best available information.

I shared this optimistic indirect use-case for AI with (less technical) friends recently, and they literally were speechless and finally one person said "you're the only one who thinks that".

Am I right, though? There's a there there, isn't there?

[throw4847285]

There are less than zero theres there. This comment is negative there. It's not even here. It's nowhere.

[solid_fuel]

Put the chatbot down, you’ve got psychosis. You can’t next-token-predict your way into actual research.

[tensor]

No. AI is not doing science. And also no, science is not being held back by "pearl clutching" and "unwillingness to let brilliant non-science geniuses in."

While there are a lot of problems with how the journal model of publication has evolved over time, and AI has actually made that problem far worse, not better, the real threat and "mess" that science is in currently in the US is from the administration.

Science in the US used to be one of the world's best funded science communities, and also one with the most independence. That is currently being reversed at a startling pace, both in funding and independence. This is the mess science is in, and it's a great loss for the world. While US science leadership may not have been without issue, it was still a huge positive for humanity. It's not about AI.

[awesome_dude]

It disheartens me a great deal to see how the US (in particular, but they are not alone) has turned its back on good science, largely, but not exclusively, on the back of populist politics.

Science has had waves, and people have over pushed its advances (for profit) and hidden some of its shortcomings (we can point to a lot of problems) and is going through a massive reckoning where its influence is being curtailed.

Probably (IMO) the biggest problem science has, is that people don't realise that the key to its strength isn't that it finds all these advances/truths, but that it's comfortable with the idea that we really don't know anything.

Fundamentally science says - this is the best understanding we have of the given data, AND, reiterating that this is what people miss, science absolutely accepts that a better understanding or fresh data can at any moment in time change things.

That confuses most people, they like their understanding of the world to be concrete.

[golem14]

Don’t fret. Science had to confront issues before- the Catholic Church, the earlier Chinese dynasties, Nazis, etc.

Just have faith (in science, not sure about the U.S. - empires come and go)

[realityfactchex]

I think we agree. I certainly agree with what you've written. You may not agree with my opinions, and that's fine.

In any case, you've inspired me to post the original reply I had composed for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48575653 (the immediate parent to your comment), below. This is what I wanted to say, before then deciding to just be grateful for the sharing of the parent's perspective:

""" I'd frame AI as a plausible hypothesis engine, not as a working scientist (yet). I think AI can do some things that look like rational analysis (far better than many/most humans much of the time, perhaps), but I reserve that (most rare and prestigious and important) activity of actual science for humans too, when it counts, for sure.

I get the main article is about the very real "chaos/threat" of no funding, not the "chaos/threat" of AI-articles/"research" nor the "chaos/threat" of "real issues in the state of Science (before funding crises)".

IMO, the state of Science (before funding crises) could be, perhaps, inextricably (though not overtly) linked to the later/current chaos/threat of markedly reduced funding. No? Maybe it's not stated anywhere, but it seems oh so likely, reading between the lines.

If funding cuts, in the medium to long term, lead to a good thing (which would be the best we can now wish for -- and, after all, everything comes and goes in and out with the pendulum of time), it will be a much needed "reset" of science onto a more honest (and net knowledge-learning productive) model.

It (Science) was, arguably, already well by the wayside. Not just sort of expensive (though not very, compared with other budget items). But more importantly: inefficient (to put it nicely). And more importantly still: often (perhaps more often than not!) plain wrong. And that means, sadly: fairly/largely ineffective (degree depending on the domain). Which is the opposite of what is wanted. If you're going to do Science, it should at least be valid, or if it's not, it should be possible for those in their own field to tell that it is not. Else, it's kind of broken.

And if it doesn't serve it's purpose, what can you do but reboot. Reset. Just like a computer.

At least Science can be rebuilt. You just start doing it again (with what you have/can). With more rigor.

Maybe this reads like more of the same. But I don't think "being well funded" correlates well with "doing good science". (Only if the science is measured by the paychecks. Which is economics, not science.) """

[runako]

> Not just sort of expensive (though not very, compared with other budget items). But more importantly: inefficient (to put it nicely). And more importantly still: often (perhaps more often than not!) plain wrong. And that means, sadly: fairly/largely ineffective (degree depending on the domain)

This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of "science." Science is not experiments and papers. Science is a set of methods by which we discover truth.

I will agree: if you knew in advance which experiments to do, or which needed fewer resources, you could make science more efficient. Pharma could save a ton of money by not testing all the stupid compounds that don't work. We could abandon safety protocols and simply not make mistakes that harm people. Rocket companies could simply start by designing the working rocket on the first try instead of making all the failures first. Physicists should just model reality accurately instead of spending money building giant particle accelerators to check how reality works. These are all good ideas, and I am sure there are many more!

In the Land of Theory, there are any number of ways to make science more efficient and always right. You can guarantee yourself a Nobel prize if you can demonstrate how to run real science in the the Land of Theory.

[Windchaser]

Heard from some friends & accomplished scientists at a national lab: "if we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research"

[realityfactchex]

Points taken and appreciated. Thanks.

[dwa3592]

honestly my friend, i did not understand your comment.

[realityfactchex]

I appreciate the feedback.