this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2024
27 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
1377 readers
211 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
404 media revisited the worthless DeepMind materials science dataset, featuring some world-class marketing gymnastics:
hundreds of the materials have already been independently synthesized you say?
this just in, DeepMind’s output is worthless by design. but about that credibility point…
by far the most depressing part of this article is that all of the scientists involved go to some lengths to defend this bullshit — every criticism is hedged with a “but we don’t hate AI and Google’s technology is still probably revolutionary, we swear!” and I don’t know if that’s due to AI companies attributing the successes of machine learning in research to unrelated LLM and generative AI tech (a form of reputation laundering they do constantly) or because the scientists in question are afraid of getting their lab’s cloud compute credits yanked if they’re too critical. knowing the banality of the technofascist evil in play at Google, it’s probably both.
then they proceed to explain how badly have they fucked up in the only one example where they tried to find some utility of "new" "material"
this is basically closest you can get to "you fucked up, do better" in a published article. saying "you fucked up, actually don't even try to do better, go home" is not what i've seen ever really in published piece, excluding obvious cases of cooked data, even if it's warranted this time. it's in conclusions section https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemmater.4c00643
this is a lot more damning than the 404 media article let on, and I'm very happy that's the case
it is really a damning with a slight hint of praise
the other paper cited is that preprint from el reg article from some two months ago
also i wouldn't agree that research on plutonium intermetallics is useless, it's still a very useful material. granted, in civilian use it's mostly in form of ceramic plutonium dioxide, and i guess that some (most?) of plutonium alloying chemistry came to be in search of something that could be called stainless plutonium, which would make nuclear weapons design much easier and more reliable. but it's not completely useless and it can have actual civilian applications
also authors note that even such noncontroversial thing as writing compound formula in standardized, conventional way and sorting them by compound class was too hard for them
it's really the "i'm doing 1000 calculations per second and they are all wrong" meme in machine form
so that preprint got published. good