Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
AI & Trust
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="J_B_" data-source="post: 77576012" data-attributes="member: 428251"><p>"Did AI Prove Our Proton Model Wrong?"</p><p>[MEDIA=youtube]TbzZIMQC6vk[/MEDIA]</p><p></p><p>Using "prove" in the title of the video, is a bit click-baity, but the video itself is much more reserved. They discuss the use of AI to identify a Proton model that is different than the current best candidates. I don't have a dog in that fight, so I could care less which Proton model rises to the top. Let the best one win.</p><p></p><p>My question is: How much do you trust AI solutions? Before you answer, let me elaborate further.</p><p></p><p>The video reveals that the "AI" involved was a neural network that optimized 1000s of models to arrive at the best, which is an advantage given that human physicists can only test a few. When I heard that, my reaction was, "Oh, is that all it was?" I'm not downplaying the accomplishment, but rather the use of "AI" as a label in this case, where it seems a misnomer. It's fine if people want to call such things "AI", but I am sometimes concerned that the general public misunderstands the nature of what is actually going on in the belly of the beast.</p><p></p><p>I've used all kinds of different optimizers in my engineering work: gradient descent, genetic algorithms, neural nets. They all have their uses, but I've never trusted them enough to just turn them loose and take their solution without reservation. I never believed use of a genetic algorithm meant I was condoning evolutionary biology because they simply aren't the same thing. I've never considered any of the neural nets I've ever used actually "intelligent". Usually it's an intensive process where I am deeply involved with guiding the algorithm, and find a better solution that way than just turning it loose to do its own thing. In the end, it's more about using the optimizer as a workhorse to test more cases than I can do on my own. It's not about the algorithm understanding the engineering problem better than I do.</p><p></p><p>But what if the day arrives when that is the case - the day when AI gives an answer we don't understand - would you trust it?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="J_B_, post: 77576012, member: 428251"] "Did AI Prove Our Proton Model Wrong?" [MEDIA=youtube]TbzZIMQC6vk[/MEDIA] Using "prove" in the title of the video, is a bit click-baity, but the video itself is much more reserved. They discuss the use of AI to identify a Proton model that is different than the current best candidates. I don't have a dog in that fight, so I could care less which Proton model rises to the top. Let the best one win. My question is: How much do you trust AI solutions? Before you answer, let me elaborate further. The video reveals that the "AI" involved was a neural network that optimized 1000s of models to arrive at the best, which is an advantage given that human physicists can only test a few. When I heard that, my reaction was, "Oh, is that all it was?" I'm not downplaying the accomplishment, but rather the use of "AI" as a label in this case, where it seems a misnomer. It's fine if people want to call such things "AI", but I am sometimes concerned that the general public misunderstands the nature of what is actually going on in the belly of the beast. I've used all kinds of different optimizers in my engineering work: gradient descent, genetic algorithms, neural nets. They all have their uses, but I've never trusted them enough to just turn them loose and take their solution without reservation. I never believed use of a genetic algorithm meant I was condoning evolutionary biology because they simply aren't the same thing. I've never considered any of the neural nets I've ever used actually "intelligent". Usually it's an intensive process where I am deeply involved with guiding the algorithm, and find a better solution that way than just turning it loose to do its own thing. In the end, it's more about using the optimizer as a workhorse to test more cases than I can do on my own. It's not about the algorithm understanding the engineering problem better than I do. But what if the day arrives when that is the case - the day when AI gives an answer we don't understand - would you trust it? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
AI & Trust
Top
Bottom