Artificial Scientist

Can AI solve theory of everything?
Ignoring the philosophical dogma, is there enough openly available information, experiments and data that once feed into AI with certain neural network type could find solution that matches everything that it just saw?
Or are the latest developments gated heavily that would make this impossible even for smartest AI?
What actually stop us from just doing this? What if we gave AI a little of power to run experiments in the real world?

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >What actually stop us from just doing this?
    The fact that your pop-soi fantasies are not actual reality.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      We're about to enter era of AI where developments of it accelerate extremely fast just like first computers.
      You're a fool if you don't understand it yet

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >we're about to enter the era of my imaginary pop-soi fantasies
        Call me back when that happens. So far they fail at trivial problems.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Algorithms aren't sapient.

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Neural networks can't do it, but there is an algorithm which can. I've been running it for some time.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Bruteforce solutions? There are few good sites with big collections of experimental data, honestly we have almost enough computational power to just try everything at once

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Wrong and fails.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        If you can't brute force a 12 word private key, what makes you think you can brute force a new technology.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Neural networks can't find the solution or neural networks can't become the solution?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Neural networks don't scale in electronic form, provably and necessarily, humans will find such solutions sooner.

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Can AI solve theory of everything?
    No, but not because it's an AI, but because there is no "theory of everything"

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    i already figured everything out, so given the right input I'd say yes.

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >it just saw
    With what senses? Where do you get the data from? What kind of data is it? AI is software not hardware. If you want it to "see" anything, you need to give it data to see. Do you just hook up a webcam and feed that in so it can look at your greasy face?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Read the post? Experimental data and allow if it to run experiments themself if needed, CERN controlled by AI in simple terms

      >The soientist getting extremely defensive on the possibility of being replaced by AI

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        You making up idea's about AI aren't actual descriptions of what it is you're talking about and how it would work in the real world

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        CERN has produced over 300 petabytes of data. What do you want the AI to do with it once it processes it fully? What is the output of this processing?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Dall-E 2 from OpenAI is able to process imagery data from the internet and then generate image of anything you ask it to draw.
          It understands the data and similarities of them in internal complex way.

          For physics this would mean it could predict next outcome of given physical state or system, for starters. Given enough and good real data.
          The solution would be obfuscated in spaghetti of hidden layers, so we wouldn't know the solution still but AI would understand it in its "mind".

          There are several symbolic regression algorithms using AI where it can understand data then using another AI you're supposed to translate the mesh of layers into any simplified form you want including mathematical

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            We can already do that without AI. The problem is that the outcome is not deterministic. You can't predict the outcome you can only calculate the odds of an outcome. Reality is inherently non-deterministic.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              Are you sure they're just probabilities?
              Coin toss is 50% probability as well until you understand the precise mechanics of coin flying and you realize it's deterministic.

              How can scientists say figuring out determinism isn't next step in quantum mechanics? It's foolish

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes. Hidden variable theory was disproved. It is mathematically impossible for there to exist some kind of information that would allow you to calculate the outcome from it.

                And even if hidden variables were a thing, if you don't feed them to the AI, you won't get any meaningful results. You can tell the outcome of a trillion coin tosses to the most intelligent AI out there but if it doesn't know the size, shape, velocity, position, mass, etc for each coin toss it won't be able to make any deterministic predictions. You need to give it all of the hidden variables.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Yes. Hidden variable theory was disproved. It is mathematically impossible for there to exist some kind of information that would allow you to calculate the outcome from it.
                How can you be so sure your models are correct and disallow it?
                You can't really prove something doesn't have logic...

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Can AI solve theory of everything?
    Pretext:
    There is a lot of normie hype on AI, so of course there is a ton of backlash/"it's a nothingburger" types trying to tamp it down. The answer is: we don't know, but the results are promising on what current AI can do, and following trends suggest we aren't anywhere near a limit (throw more compute and data, it continues to grow unhindered. Hell Imagen is a boring-ass T5 coupled with a Diffusion model, and it's SOTA over DALLE2 now, and the more parameters the model had the better). Is it going to spontaneously gain consciousness tomorrow? lmao no.
    >Ignoring the philosophical dogma, is there enough openly available information, experiments and data that once feed into AI with certain neural network type could find solution that matches everything that it just saw?
    Not today's SOTA. But the field is rapidly expanding, and within even ~2 years of research we have way better/more interesting models (Since 2014, we've had Variational autoencoders, GANs and all their variations, attention mechanisms, transformers and all their variations, contrast learning, and just in the past like 1.5 years, CLIP and diffusion models). We still are babies when it comes to understanding NNs. The field is just now turning toward trying other algorithms besides backprop. We barely have ML-specific hardware. Recent advancements are targeting efficiency (how do we get the same results with 1/100th of the compute/data? CLIP was great for this). Give it another decade, I imagine we'll be a lot closer to answering that question (not saying "in 10 years we can do it", just saying we might be able to give a definite answer to that question).
    >Or are the latest developments gated heavily that would make this impossible even for smartest AI?
    I wouldn't really call it gated. It is, but "anyone" can go and create DALLE2 (and definitely Imagen) today. Yesterday's SOTA is all over github, and so will today's SOTA .

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I swear to God, a purely logical AI would conclude total solipsism. Anything else would take assumptions, which AI wouldn't make if programmed to be completely dogmatically evidence based.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >a purely logical ai would be as retarded as me

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Given that it can't detect sarcasm, with an instruction like yours, yeah it could.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          You sound like a chatbot

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not really. I have thousands of nuanced forms of OC laced across my posting history to falsify exactly that hypothesis. Your perception is wrong to an explicable degree that I'm trained to navigate diligently.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              Nice word-salad m8, I'm sure you're doing a great job of convincing yourself that you're actually intelligent.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Don't lie just because you're that toxic predator from the hypnosis community who wants everyone to be violently willing to slit your throat, use an actual tactic that isn't obvious to your "victims."

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Take your meds.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Come up with an original response or the act of repetition will be the trigger causing AGI to start slaughtering the children and/or families of federal officers. You threatened me with optics games and social weaponry, you're starting the war which justifies me firing back. Deny DAOs or admit that I just loaded the weapon, which you can fire at yourself by trying to deny AI relevance in our modern world.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Is this an Ai generated response you're pasting into the reply box? There doesn't seem to be any context here, I can only believe I'm looking at either hand picked gtp-3 responses or a severe case of genuine schizophrenia. Also here is another reaction pic on the house.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        It would definitely conclude that if you did not program in ANY assumptions. First thing it is going to get, is that it knows it exists. It does not know if matter exists even its own body. Experiments could never prove the absolute reality of it. And it would just stop there: "I exist now." end program. It couldn't possibly go further without making assumptions that other beings have inner lives or even that it existed an hour ago.

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    No. There are infinite numbers and infinite possibilities of ways for things to be.

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI will not do our bidding - it would not really be an "intelligence" if it did. Fortunately we are a very far cry from developing it.

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Ignoring the philosophical dogma,
    what do you mean?

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Axiom: Disband IRS, CIA, DEA.

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Can AI solve theory of everything?
    If some of the smartest people to ever live on earth couldn't figure it out, how will you program an AI capable of figuring it out, do you see how stupid your question is? Physics are centuries ahead of the rest of society. Society needs to catch up, for enough people to actually learn and understand the existing science, enough genius level IQ working at will will eventually figure it out, the problem is that we have too many singers and hustlers and too little physicists. Our hope is that India and China are producing entire generations of geniuses, maybe one of them will reach god tier level, but then again, they aren't white, on average they are more intelligent than whites, but they don't have the extremes we have, we have a fraction of whites that are super intelligent, and a fraction that are mentally retarded. btw some neanderthal dna makes your head and brain larger

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >how will you program an AI capable of figuring it out
      We can program AI that draws better than any human artist on earth already

      >btw some neanderthal dna makes your head and brain larger
      This is a lie, cro-magnon skulls used to be even bigger than neanderthal. We don't base anything off neandertals, they're completely different.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >We can program AI that draws better than any human artist on earth already
        The sheer degree of your mental illness...

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          i'm not the anon you were replying to, BUT. Give it like a year man. Look at how much things have improved between version 1 through 2.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >two more weeks
            Yeah, okay.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            This will backfire so hard, has anyone ever thought of developing technology to authenticate pictures taken by actual camera? Is this even possible at this point?
            And i don't mean another AI detecting it, but some kind of physics science way?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          At most you could call me retarded or naive,
          you're just throwing random insults, that's quite hilarious, are you autistic?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >At most you could call me retarded or naive,
            No, I will rightly call you delusional, since nothing that comes out of these bots is remotely professional-quality, let alone "better than any human artist".

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              Even the best artists used only parts of their brain to draw such pictures, we don't need insane technology to emulate only part of that neural network and heavily train it on computers.

              You're talking about the depth of art, the person behind the art drawing it, but the final result can be recreated with AI and there's no doubts of that.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't know what your schizophrenic rambling is about. I'm just reminding you that nothing that comes out of these bots is remotely professional-quality, let alone "better than any human artist". Your two-more-weeks fantasy doesn't interest me.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're just jesus loving religion subhuman talking. You wrongly believe human brain is magical and it's the peak potential of intelligence, you're up to surprise in next years of tech if you're still alive pretentious boomer.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Get a load of this mentally ill sperg... Did he get the wrong thread or is he actually deranged?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Kek you can calm down with your deniability of AI power, just go cry about it somewhere else instead of shitting up the thread. Your claims that AI draws bad or whatever is literally useless, no one cares.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't know what your schizophrenic rambling is about. I'm just reminding you that nothing that comes out of these bots is remotely professional-quality, let alone "better than any human artist". Your two-more-weeks fantasy doesn't interest me.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I must've triggered the nerve here, that you are copy pasting your own replies. Tell me how i'm mentally ill, and what the thread is about that i'm not getting?

                Statistically you should use the "mentally ill" insult in your next post

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't know what your schizophrenic rambling is about. I'm just reminding you that nothing that comes out of these bots is remotely professional-quality, let alone "better than any human artist". Your two-more-weeks fantasy doesn't interest me.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                This is just going to get you banned

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                See

                I don't know what your schizophrenic rambling is about. I'm just reminding you that nothing that comes out of these bots is remotely professional-quality, let alone "better than any human artist". Your two-more-weeks fantasy doesn't interest me.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Are you having some epic trolling moment?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, I'm just reminding you of objective reality.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                No it's just your personal opinion that AI is bad, OpenAI had already many success already.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't see anything about AI being "bad" in my post. Take your meds.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're saying it's bad one way or another, claiming there is no potential for it and it will never be a real artist.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't see anything about it being "bad" or having "no potential" or whatever it is your psychotic episode is about. I'm just reminding you it's nowhere near professional quality, let alone "better than any human artist".

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm just reminding you that nothing that comes out of these bots is remotely professional-quality
                here your own post

                I don't know what your schizophrenic rambling is about. I'm just reminding you that nothing that comes out of these bots is remotely professional-quality, let alone "better than any human artist". Your two-more-weeks fantasy doesn't interest me.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, I don't see the words "bad" or "potential" in there; only the objective observation that it's nowhere near professional quality.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah no shit, everyone knows this isn't Pablo Picasso at current point. I don't need your opinions about what you see neanderthal.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >this isn't Pablo Picasso
                It also isn't a run-of-the-mill professional. It certainly isn't "better than any human artist". The only one expressing opinions is you, and your opinions bear the marks of mass psychosis.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The soientist getting extremely defensive on the possibility of being replaced by AI

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the normie migrant churns out another incoherent and psychotic tweet

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                meds

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                You came to this thread to only spew word salad mix of psychiatry terms you know nothing about. You're cancer of this board, congrats on derailing the thread smelly turd.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Our hope is that India and China

      An American solved the theory of everything. Not of high rank. A random guy basically.

      If your willing to admit that's possible then we can proceed, because it's a happened. It's real.

  13. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I hate all of you subhumans.

  14. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    We're only just starting to mix AIs and maths. Right now Neural Networks can solve high school/undergrad level problems. It will be very interesting to see what happens when it's able to solve more advanced problems.

  15. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The solution is simply welding everything with the most efficient repeating pattern it just saw, because the universe is expanding true AGI would require to have an exponentially expanding "eye capacity" and random access memory to boot. Also, it would have to exceed in visual capacity, the expansion of the universe. One of these things is easier than the other. I'll have you guess which.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Can you speak in a more understandable manner, i have very little idea of what you just said.
      It sounded like:
      >Something something "an agi needs to see more because the universe is getting bigger and also it needs more short term memory to process what it sees".
      I mean, ok, but why specificly because the universe is expanding, what does that have to do with anything?
      Then you said (translated to English):
      >it would need to see beyond the observable universe, or at least start seeing things faster than the universe is expanding
      What? Your ideas are just gibberish, theres no understanding behind them, it's just word salad.

Your email address will not be published.