Start chewing.
You literally admitted it in your own comment: “Sure, it’s not something humans had gotten to yet.”
That is the definition of a novel discovery.
You are arguing that because the AI used logic and existing data to reach the conclusion, it doesn’t count. By that definition, no human scientist has ever had a novel idea either since we all build on existing data and patterns.
The AI looked at the same data humans had, saw a pattern humans missed, and created a solution humans didn’t have. That is novelty.
But honestly it is hard to take your analysis of these papers seriously when you just argued in the comment above that protein folding involves “10^2 combinations.”
You realize 10^2 is just 100 right?
You think complex biology is a list shorter than a grocery receipt. If your math is off by about 300 zeros I am not sure you are the best judge of what these models are actually capable of.
I notice you got real quiet about the math part. I guess realizing you think protein folding is a list of 100 items was too embarrassing to address. Ignoring it doesn’t make you look smarter.
And now you are frantically moving the goalposts. You claim it’s only “novel” if it invents the rules from scratch? By that definition, a human author never has a novel idea because they are just using grammar rules taught by a teacher.
Also: AlphaGo Move 37.
The AI played a move that human masters explicitly said was “wrong” based on human strategy. It defied the logic conventions it was fed and won. That is the literal definition of forming a conclusion independent of, and superior to, human intervention.
But please, use more periods between your words. It definitely covers up the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Start chewing. You literally admitted it in your own comment: “Sure, it’s not something humans had gotten to yet.” That is the definition of a novel discovery. You are arguing that because the AI used logic and existing data to reach the conclusion, it doesn’t count. By that definition, no human scientist has ever had a novel idea either since we all build on existing data and patterns. The AI looked at the same data humans had, saw a pattern humans missed, and created a solution humans didn’t have. That is novelty. But honestly it is hard to take your analysis of these papers seriously when you just argued in the comment above that protein folding involves “10^2 combinations.” You realize 10^2 is just 100 right? You think complex biology is a list shorter than a grocery receipt. If your math is off by about 300 zeros I am not sure you are the best judge of what these models are actually capable of.
No, that’s not what novel ideation is whatsoever 🤦
Again…these models work from a list of boundaries, logic, and rules made by humans. They don’t make it up themselves because…they.fucking.cant.
If they could make their own rules and conclusions without human intervention, then you have novel ideas. But…they.100%.FUCKING.CANT.DO.THAT.
Okay, let me posit one more question to you. Please define novel ideation in technical terms.
I notice you got real quiet about the math part. I guess realizing you think protein folding is a list of 100 items was too embarrassing to address. Ignoring it doesn’t make you look smarter. And now you are frantically moving the goalposts. You claim it’s only “novel” if it invents the rules from scratch? By that definition, a human author never has a novel idea because they are just using grammar rules taught by a teacher. Also: AlphaGo Move 37. The AI played a move that human masters explicitly said was “wrong” based on human strategy. It defied the logic conventions it was fed and won. That is the literal definition of forming a conclusion independent of, and superior to, human intervention. But please, use more periods between your words. It definitely covers up the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about.