Digital Discovery of interferometric Gravitational Wave Detectors · HackerPapers discussions

Digital Discovery of interferometric Gravitational Wave Detectors — mentioned by christianqchung

Tue, 22 Jul 2025 16:54:48 GMT

The thread is full of people debating what AI means and whether ML/optimization algorithms count as AI. Laypeople don't think of machine learning when they see AI, they think of chatbots. I would argue even for a techy magazine this is a bad term to use without spending two sentences to clarify the distinction. Examples of people being confused: rlt: The discovering itself doesn’t seem like the interesting part. If the discovery wasn’t in the training data then it’s a sign AI can produce novel scientific research / experiments. wizzwizz4 in reply: It's not that kind of AI. We know that these…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Digital Discovery of interferometric Gravitational Wave Detectors — mentioned by agentcoops

Tue, 22 Jul 2025 12:19:44 GMT

I agree with your point, but I think it's worth noting that there's a real problem of language today both in popular and scientific communication. On the one hand, in popular understanding, there's the importance of clearly separating the era of "machine learning" as let's say Netflix recommendations from the qualitative leap of modern AI, most obviously LLMs. This article clearly draws on the latter association and really leads to confusion, most glaringly in the remark you note that the AI probably took up some forgotten Russian text etc. However, scientifically, I think there's a real…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Digital Discovery of interferometric Gravitational Wave Detectors — mentioned by wizzwizz4

Tue, 22 Jul 2025 05:26:28 GMT

It's not that kind of AI. We know that these algorithms can produce novel solutions. See https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.04258, specifically "Urania".

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.