On: Accelerating scientific breakthroughs with an AI co-scientist

[warbaker]

The article you linked is not an example of this happening. Google open-sourced the chip design method, and uses it in production for TPU and other chips.

https://github.com/google-research/circuit_training

https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/how-alphachip-transfor...

[dekhn → warbaker]

It's an ongoing debacle with multiple people making extremely good arguments that Google overstated the results.

Yes, I know it's in TPUs and I said exactly that.

You simply can't take Google press at face value.

[warbaker → dekhn]

Google has responded to this "controversy" already:

https://x.com/JeffDean/status/1858540085794451906

https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.10053

[dekhn → warbaker]

Yes, I am aware. I didn't find Jeff's argument particularly convincing. Please note: I've worked personally with Jeff before and shared many a coffee with him. He's done great work and messed up a lot of things, too.

[confused_boner → dekhn]

From your perspective, which arguments were not convincing, are you able to share why not?

[Der_Einzige → confused_boner]

Unironically "just trust me bro" is actually fine here. They're objectively right and you'll find they are when you do your painstaking analysis to figure it out.

[mupuff1234 → dekhn]

> You simply can't take Google press at face value.

I think that's true for virtually every company and also for most people (in the context of published work)

[mmooss → mupuff1234]

Do you think that of most published scientific research?

[tho3i4j3242324 → mmooss]

Seems to be true. 'Published' scientific research, by its sheer social-dynamics (verging on highly toxic), is the academic equivalent of a pouty-girl vis-a-vis Instagram.

(academic-burnout resembles creator-burnout for similar reasons)