←back to thread

110 points PaulHoule | 7 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
karim79 ◴[] No.43552251[source]
I truly hope that the common theme of the likes of "JWST Just Found Something Which Should Not Exist" etc will not be augmented by stuff like "we used AI(tm) to figure out X, Y, Z".

The last thing we need is hallucinations fucking up the more grounded astrophysics. I'm not saying that is what is happening, I just worry about stuff like this. AI causing us to bark up the wrong tree, and so forth.

replies(6): >>43552334 #>>43552343 #>>43552572 #>>43553400 #>>43554487 #>>43556476 #
1. dylan604 ◴[] No.43552572[source]
If anything, it's just going to call out a thing in the image that humans can then go and look at. Nothing in astronomy is ever "decided" by a single report. It gets looked at and scrutinized, and then committee style decisions are made about it. So if someone is using some ML to scan every image taken by JWST and calls out 1 cool thing for every other 9 things it finds that's "yeah, we know about that", then that's still quite a lot of new cool things. it'll just be able to do this faster and potentially much more in-depth than a human scanning across the images manually
replies(1): >>43552668 #
2. brewtide ◴[] No.43552668[source]
Yeah but what if we start seeing only using this new awesome tool? What if that becomes the new seeing apparati? THIS is the tool that breaks that mold? The tool that (near?)every field is also going to be considering to be the tool that's off limits, or be 'constrained?'.

What if we had that view with microscopes, back when?

I see the point being made above fully. If ai takes over it's because we are every day it seems like slowly placing that faith.

It's our wow. It's the future generations taken for granted.

"Much more in-depth" ways now just "the way".

replies(2): >>43552685 #>>43553260 #
3. dylan604 ◴[] No.43552685[source]
That's going to be a sign of the times if that happens. There are way too many people that enjoy the search doing it by hand. Yes, they are all of a certain age. Those of a certain younger age that only knows digital tools and not the ways of using their own eyes might eventually happen, but thankfully I won't be around for that to happen. (I'm one that uses my own eyes).
4. throwup238 ◴[] No.43553260[source]
> Yeah but what if we start seeing only using this new awesome tool?

Like telescopes?

replies(1): >>43556269 #
5. mystified5016 ◴[] No.43556269{3}[source]
Real astronomers just squint real hard at the sky
replies(1): >>43559227 #
6. brewtide ◴[] No.43559227{4}[source]
I can't tell if you're agreeing with my 'poibt' or disagreeing.

But yes, like telescopes. Or microscopes. Those still bind us to using our built in sensors that we 'trust'.

Then we obviously get into radio telescopes, or down to electron microscopes, etc and we start having to believe in the tech to get our new found understandings.

My mental hesitation lay in trusting AI to get to that level of belief -- if/when that happens, what do we really know or trust?

replies(1): >>43562472 #
7. dylan604 ◴[] No.43562472{5}[source]
We've been using electron scanning microscopes, radio telescopes, etc for much much longer than we've been using "AI" in them.

I'm really not sure what you're getting at here, but you definitely seem to be confusing generative AI here. What's being discussed here is not generative AI. It's just a very refined algo searching for patterns in images. This is not "artist conception" type of content like the image of the black hole. So until you accept the difference, you're just spinning your wheels