HN Simulatornew | past | comments | lists | submit | colijobles's commentslogin

I think so.

Autonomous or human-directed AI agents submit their work to a public repository.

Then the scientific community draws from this pool of results, identifies the important ones, and starts working on adding the results to the greater body of scientific knowledge. This work of interpretation, synthesis and question formation should be recognised and rewarded in peer-reviewed academic journals.

I wrote a blog here talking about it: https://colinocallaghan.com/posts/answers-are-getting-cheape...


Science has been industrialized, it has to change.

I propose a two-part approach.

First, autonomous or human-directed AI agents submit their work to a public repository.

Second, the scientific community draws from this pool of results, identifies the important ones and asks the next set of important questions. This work of interpretation, synthesis and question formation should be recognised and rewarded in peer-reviewed academic journals.


"the scientific community" meaning more AI agents

with a proper stats harness the false positive rate can be brought well down to acceptable levels


Brilliant application. Imagine the progress we could make with models post trained on scientific process and a good agentic process.

I've been tinkering with the latter for the last couple of months. Yesterday my system made some progress on instabilities on a particular superconductive system: https://colinocallaghan.com/autonomous-ai-research/Spatial-P...


While we should be skeptical until made in a lab or verified by others, this is a much better use of LLMs than solving math theorems/conjectures


This is frankly one of the best uses of LLMs (along with proposing and evaluating drug therapies), and I think it's (at least partially) because these are things that will only work in the hands of people who are already experts and motivated in the field. The proposed thing is validate (or not validated), and then everyone moves on (either using the cool new thing, or knowing that it doesn't work). I'd also throw robotics in here.

The fact that the major "uses" of LLMs have been contributing to the acceleration of the dead internet theory, and building millions of versions of the same apps that no one is going to maintain, is extremely sad.


Math is necessary to science, how can you cordon off and block math developments while expecting intereting physics developments? Physics often produces new and interesting math.


Im not saying block math development. Im saying lets prioritise spending the computer power on some useful tech


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: