I found it intellectually reprehensible then, and now.
That's the primary difference between science and engineering.
In science, understating how it works is critical, and doing something with that understanding is optional. In engineering getting the desired outcome is critical, and understanding why it works is optional.
Anyway, the "we have AI, so will be soon no more things to discover" is similar to what was thought at the end of the XIX century that everything was discovered and only increasing precision was left. At the very least, we have a lot of learning about ourselves and how we understand reality, in the light of what AI could uncover with different methods than the traditional ones.
You can also view science as a rejection of the ability to be able to predict (arbitrary) things. Any illusion otherwise is simply seemingly reliable knowledge of the past and present. The rise of eg disinformation and misinformation, siloed communication, the replication crisis could presage a future where confidence is generally lower than the past, and predictive power is more limited.
I caution heavily against the idea that what you perceive as "progress" is inevitable or will follow past trends
I’m curious. Why did you write it this way vs. “19th”? People from 400 AD to 1400 AD used to write it that way. I’m assuming you’re either very old or a history buff.
This is not entirely new. For example, we had working (if inefficient) steam engines and pumps long before the development of thermodynamics. We had beer and cheese long before microbiology.
You could say: Scientific advances have massively accelerated with the use of the new tool of electricity, but there are serious concerns about the "black-box" nature of electricity, since no one has ever answered the question "what is charge?".
Modern semiconductors depend on quantum effects that no one has ever "explained", but they are highly repeatable, and make useful predictions that can be confirmed.
My expectation is that every advance cited in the article, and attributed to LLMs, is in fact the output of a team of human scientists using LLMs as a tool to expand their scope and increase productivity.
All of these examples are actually human endeavors.
The only qualitative difference I see, is that LLMs are a human invention, whereas electricity and quantum effects are natural phenomenon that were discovered, and utilized as a tool, by humans.
While LLMs, and subsequent s/w advances, may well lead us into new, even unexpected, realms of science, the need to be able to confirm repeatable results and verify the accuracy of predictions, will always be necessary.
As such, I would still call this science, not "after"...
tech_ken•2mo ago
A while ago I read "Against Method" by Paul Feyerabend and there's a section that really stuck with me, where he talks about the "myth" of Galileo. His point is that Galileo serves as sort of the mythological prototype of a scientist, and that by picking at the loose ends of the myth one can identify some contradictory elements of the popular conception of "scientific method". One of his main points of contention is Galileo's faith in the telescope, his novel implementation of bleeding edge optics technology. Feyerebend argues that Galileo invented the telescope as primarily a military invention, it revolutionized the capabilities of artillery guns (and specifically naval artillary). Having secured his finances with some wealthy patrons, he then began to hunt for nobler uses of his new tool, and landed on astronomy.
Feyerabend's point (and what I'm slowly working up to) is that applying this new (and untested) military tool to what was a very ancient and venerable domain of inquiry was actually kind of scandalous. Up until that point all human knowledge of astronomy had been generated by direct observation of the phenomenon; by introducing this new tool between the human and the stars Galileo was creating a layer of separation which had never been there before, and this was the source of much of the contemporary controversy that led to his original censure. It was one thing to base your cosmology on what could be detected by the human eye, but it seemed very "wrong" (especially to the church) to insert an unfeeling lump of metal and glass into what had before been a very "pure" interaction, which was totally comprehensible to the typical educated human.
I feel like this article is expressing a very similar fear, and I furthermore think that it's kind of "missing the point" in the same way. Human comprehension is frequently augmented by technologly; no human can truly "understand" a gravitational wave experientially. At best we understand the n-th order 'signs' that the phenomenon imprints on the tools we construct. I'd argue that LLMs play a similar role in their application in math, for example. It's about widening our sensor array, more than it is delegating the knowledge work to a robot apprentice.
mjamesaustin•2mo ago
Though there is a key difference – Galileo could see through his telescope the same way, every time. He also understood what the telescope did to deliver his increased knowledge.
Compare this with LLMs, which provide different answers every time, and whose internal mechanisms are poorly understood. It presents another level of uncertainty which further reduces our agency.
spongebobstoes•2mo ago
Gradient descent is not a total black box, although it works so well as to be unintuitive. There is ongoing "interpretability" research too, with several key results already.
nahuel0x•2mo ago
tech_ken•2mo ago
Actually this is a really critical error- a core point of contention at the time was that he didn't see the same thing every time. Small variations in the lens quality, weather conditions, and user error all contributed to the discovery of what we now call "instrument noise" (not to mention natural variation in the astronomical system which we just couldn't detect with the naked eye, for example the rings of Saturn). Indeed this point was so critical that it led to the invention of least-squares curve fitting (which, ironically, is how we got to where we are today). OLS allowed us to "tame" the parts of the system that we couldn't comprehend, but it was emphatically not a given that telescopes had inter-measurement reliability when they first debuted.
graemep•2mo ago
Did Feyerband also not argue that Galileo's claim that Copernicus's theory was proved was false given it was not the best supported hypothesis by the evidence available at the time.
I very much agree with your last paragraph. Telescopes are comprehensible.
tech_ken•2mo ago
My reading of AM was that it's less about what's "true" or "false" and more about how the actual structure of the scientific argument compares to what's claimed about it. The (rough) point (as I understand it) is that Galileo's scientific "findings" were motivated by human desires for wealth and success (what we might call historically contingent or "poltical" factors) as much as they were by "following the hard evidence".
> Telescopes are comprehensible.
"Comprehensible" is a relative measure, I think. Incomprehensible things become comprehensible with time and familiarity.