> (1) the huge majority of what people are calling AI these days is in fact machine learning. [...]
> (2) machine learning does not create any new knowledge. It rearranges information you have already obtained [...]
I do wish more folks who hype AI/ML as a means to revolutionize science would acknowledge point #2 and address it before their next clueless claim. Until ML can propose novel scientific hypotheses AND validate them, AI will continue to advance ONLY technology, as a tool does, but not science, as a theory does.
> (1) the huge majority of what people are calling AI these days is in fact machine learning. [...]
> (2) machine learning does not create any new knowledge. It rearranges information you have already obtained [...]
I do wish more folks who hype AI/ML as a means to revolutionize science would acknowledge point #2 and address it before their next clueless claim. Until ML can propose novel scientific hypotheses AND validate them, AI will continue to advance ONLY technology, as a tool does, but not science, as a theory does.
As it relates to biomedicine, the AI community is increasingly toeing the "snake oil" line.
Yes, machine learning/AI is powerful, but pie in the sky predictions such as the "end of disease" probably hurt more than help in the long run.
Works well enough to attract capital, though.