←back to thread

Using AI to perceive the universe in greater depth

(deepmind.google)
55 points diwank | 3 comments | 05 Sep 25 02:35 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
conartist6 ◴[05 Sep 25 12:02 UTC] No.45137561[source]▶
The headline is borderline offensive in what it wink-wink suggests. The content is just about normal boring stuff engineers deal with --vibration damping.
replies(1): >>45137647 #
macleginn ◴[05 Sep 25 12:15 UTC] No.45137647[source]▶
But the solution -- using reinforcement learning -- is arguably novel and AI-related. (And also less deterministic?)
replies(1): >>45137693 #
conartist6 ◴[05 Sep 25 12:22 UTC] No.45137693[source]▶
Yeah, totally fine. Once I read past the headline I was fine with all of it. It's just egregious clickbait that is actively misleading until you click through
replies(1): >>45137721 #
jebarker ◴[05 Sep 25 12:27 UTC] No.45137721[source]▶
I don’t see what’s misleading. Is it that people read “perceive” to mean “understand”? The headline seems like a reasonable simplification of the actual work to me.
replies(1): >>45137849 #
1. conartist6 ◴[05 Sep 25 12:43 UTC] No.45137849{3}[source]▶
With none of the context, as is the case before you click a headline, it makes sounds like they're claiming ChatGPT is a philosopher.
replies(1): >>45137980 #
2. jebarker ◴[05 Sep 25 12:56 UTC] No.45137980[source]▶
Thanks for explaining. I think it is the interpretation of “perceive” that does that. When I read perceive I think about sensors and its prior to any interpretation, but I guess that’s not how everyone (most?) people read it.
replies(1): >>45138714 #
3. therealpygon ◴[05 Sep 25 14:03 UTC] No.45138714[source]▶
None of those things quite fit the definition of perceiving, or “becoming aware of” something, unless you stretch the definition of “awareness”. However, by technical definition, if AI assists in us being able to see deeper into space, then the title is accurate. But, I have to agree that it is a bit ambiguous for a title, but as they say, being technically right is still right.