Interesting recap to date. I wish the rhetorical logic at the end was a bit meatier. Why is it inherent that scientists be the one to infuse intelligibility
I agree with Cutler that if there be an additional layer of AI tools that apply the implications of these scientific discoveries in a fruitful manner, then these theories become intelligible right? What is inherent in human scientists that is absent from this extra layer of AI tools that focus specifically on applying scientific discoveries?
AI may become excellent at generating results while leaving scientists progressively less able to reconstruct the reasoning that makes those results scientifically meaningful.
To quote one of my undergrad essays: "Doctors make the worst patients; scientists, philosophers."
Interesting recap to date. I wish the rhetorical logic at the end was a bit meatier. Why is it inherent that scientists be the one to infuse intelligibility
I agree with Cutler that if there be an additional layer of AI tools that apply the implications of these scientific discoveries in a fruitful manner, then these theories become intelligible right? What is inherent in human scientists that is absent from this extra layer of AI tools that focus specifically on applying scientific discoveries?
https://legionaus.substack.com/p/the-fourth-point-who-is-pat-martin
AI may become excellent at generating results while leaving scientists progressively less able to reconstruct the reasoning that makes those results scientifically meaningful.
To quote one of my undergrad essays: "Doctors make the worst patients; scientists, philosophers."