I’ve gone down a rabbit hole here.

I’ve been looking at lk99, the potential room temp superconductor, lately. Then I came across an AI chat and decided to test it. I then asked it to propose a room temp superconductor and it suggested (NdBaCaCuO)_7(SrCuO_2)_2 and a means of production which got me thinking. It’s just a system for looking at patterns and answering the question. I’m not saying this has made anything new, but it seems to me eventually a chat AI would be able to suggest a new material fairly easily.

Has AI actually discovered or invented anything outside of it’s own computer industry and how close are we to it doing stuff humans haven’t done before?

  • Archpawn@lemmy.world
    1·
    1 year ago

    > I’m asking whether AIs are able and allowed to modify THEIR OWN code.

    Yes. They can write code. Right now the don’t have a big enough context window to write anything very useful, but scale everything up enough and they could.

    > Scientists are continuously baffled by the universe - very physical thing - and things they discover there. The point is that the knowledge that a thing follows certain specific laws does not give us the understanding of it and the mastery over it.

    And my point is that neural networks don’t require understanding of whatever they’re trained on. The reason I brought up that human brains are turing complete is just to show that an algorithm for human-level intelligence exists. Given that, a sufficiently powerful neural network would be able to find one.

    • JesterRaiin@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 year ago

      > Yes. They can write code.

      You don’t seem to understand me, or are trying very hard to not understand me.

      I’ll try again, but if it fails, I’ll assume it’s “bring horse to the water” case.

      So: can AIs write their own code? As in “rewrite the code that is them”? Not write some small pieces of code, a small app, but can their write THEIR OWN code, the one that makes them run?

      > And my point is that neural networks don’t require understanding of whatever they’re trained on.

      Your point does not address my argument.

      You can’t compare a thing to a thing you neither understand nor can predict its capabilities.