Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

AI + lab robotics will change experimental science. 1. Data (both positive and negative results) shared daily among a team of AI agents pursuing different hypothesis 2. Lab robotics running 24/7 with lab experiments written in code that are easily reproducible Human scientists can shepherd the whole process with...

22,629 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Automating the lab bench is the best thing we can do for AI in biology. Most experiments are still run by hand. Every biologist's handiwork is unique and every lab is a little different. So, biology faces widespread reproducibility issues. But, AI will demand more reproducible data than we can produce, and generate more ideas than we can test. Experiments must be communicated and executed in a standardized way to generate reproducible data. So, Tetsuwan is building a lab where users specify experiments in an exact syntax. These experiments are executed by an automated platform to generate transparent, reproducible output. The user never needs physical access to a lab. This is a biology lab you can use like a computer. Our platform, built and tested with pilot labs over the past two years, lets users configure automated workflows rapidly & precisely. Later this year, we will bring our first services online, focusing on functional screens for protein design. Alex and I met at Caltech, where she was one year my senior. We're building this company because we were little kids who wanted to be biologists that grew up into adults who resented the lab bench. We want biology to be about asking questions, not the painful and frustrating manual process of asking them. For those looking to receive updates on our pilot services, looking for a meaningful job, or just to learn more about our work, see the links in the comments!

Cristian Ponce

1,140,918 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Terence Tao, UCLA mathematics professor and Fields Medallist, on why AI may be succeeding at science while scientists get worse at it: Tao starts by naming the tension directly: "There is this paradox that on the one hand AIs are becoming more powerful and more capable and making fewer mistakes, and they are ostensibly achieving a lot of the goals that we think scientists are trying to do. They're running experiments. They're analyzing data. They're writing papers." Experiments run, data analyzed, papers written — the exact outputs any university or funding body would cite as proof that science is working. Tao's concern is what those outputs stop telling you: "It may be that it comes at the cost of the AI picks up some skill but no human scientist gets any better at doing the science." The skill still accumulates, just in the wrong place. The system gets more capable while the people operating it stand still, because the work that used to build a researcher is now the work being handed off. And the cost shows up in the one thing scientists are supposed to be able to do: "No human can communicate exactly what just happened and why. This scientific discovery is interesting, why this proof is new and what features it has and how it connects." That final clause is the sharp end of it. Tao is describing a result nobody can place — a proof that arrives with no one able to say what makes it new, how it's built, or how it connects to the rest of the field. Understanding is a separate achievement from getting the answer, and it can quietly disappear while the answers keep arriving on schedule. Which is why he thinks the target itself needs re-examining: "We may have to sort of redesign our conception of what science is and what we actually want out of science. What exactly is science for and what are we trying to do? And is there a danger that we are optimizing the wrong thing when we are pointing our AI tools at science?"

Big Brain AI

42,366 просмотров • 10 дней назад