Post

And a prediction machine of the most likely output, strictly based on previous publications, sounds like a very, very bad falsification tool.

6. Sure, it's important as a science to stretch your horizons into domains you're not familiar with. But you can't vibe your way through it. This is where either engage in slow months of study or you find collaborators who you trust enough to serve as your guide. A sycophancy machine? Hell no.

“Move fast, break things” applied to science except it feels like it jettisons understanding from academia

Bullshit all the way down

Endless screaming

"ChatGPT, am I a genius?" "Yes, Darrel, you are the most genius."

I just made a sound in my throat at this

That's a weird and pretty bad example since there were a couple successful vibecoded mathematical proofs in the news recently... The key obviously being that formal(type-theoretical) mathematical proofs are easily verifiable whereas general science is not

I see that you have some of the same content as my spam folder. (Lately, I get people sending me "AI" copypasta pretending to have found aliens that have magic faster-than-light travel.)

It also involves (hopefully) very clear and precise definitions, the sort of thing genAI would be specifically bad at, as words in its training corpus would’ve defined differently than in a given research stream.