Even if everything is fake, the code has value for further research.
It would be nice to have that as a minimun standard at this point, as I would prefer to see much less publications that can be trusted more than the current situation.
That's not to say scientists shouldn't publish their data; they should.
In the limit, any claims one makes are rejected unless you also provide a way to reproduce the claim.
That's a lot of work, but perhaps the world doesn't need more monkeys and typewriters creating faux Shakespeare.
I'd call that human-computer science partnership. If it checks out, it's not fake. Nonhuman scientists are still scientists.
If someone trains a translation model between languages they don't know, is that someone a translator?
I guess the users of said model would be "translators" as they would be doing the translation (without necessarily knowing the languages either).
Making conjectures, deriving predictions from the hypotheses as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.
Not sure AI is up to that, and it's debatable if it'll ever be able to make and test conjectures. There is a difference between symbol manipulation (like outputting text) and actual conjecture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Scientist
Adam is capable of:
- hypothesizing to explain observations