HN tends to be very weird around the topic of AI. No idea why opinions like this are downvoted without having to offer any criticism.
> I don't know if it represents research as a field would not be immune to advances in AI tech
And then there's the opinion that for some reason we should 'value' manual labor over using AI, which seems rather disagreeable.
Let me explain. My belief was that research as a task is non-trivial and would have been relatively out of reach for AI. Given the advances, that doesn't seem to be true.
> And then there's the opinion that for some reason we should 'value' manual labor over using AI, which seems rather disagreeable.
Could you explain why? I'm specifically talking about research. Of course, I would value what a veteran in the field says higher than a probability machine.
I guess there are many ways to interpret the comment, with a lot of potential for disagreement.
There aren't many ways to interpret and I clarified what I meant. Thanks for participating, these comments are insufferable.
It is one thing to vibe code and deal with the errors but I think chemistry is a better subject to test this on.
"Vibe chemistry" would be a better measure of how much we actually trust the models. Cause chemical reactions based on what the model tells you to do starting from zero knowledge of chemistry yourself. In that context, we don't trust the models at all and for good reason.