Comment by an0malous
20 days ago
If we had a machine today with unlimited intelligence could it figure out a cure for cancer with our currently available data, or would it just request more data and ask us to conduct more studies? Is the bottleneck our ability to recognize patterns in the current data (i.e. intelligence) or the lack of sufficient data to determine a pattern? Or is it some other more nebulous thing that we aren’t considering?
IIRC this question is complicated by the fact that there are many types of cancer. There are probably some in either category.
A gross understatement. In approximate terms, cancer is any time cell proliferation goes off the rails. More possibilities than you can shake a stick at.
A bit like asking how close are we to being able to fix electronic devices that have lost their magic smoke.
Ok, pick one charitably. Is there any type of cancer whose cure could be found with an unlimited amount of intelligence but only the currently available data?
I’m personally convinced that at least for physics we have sufficient data for the next big theoretical breakthrough and we lack only the imagination and the computer power required to numerically validate the maths through simulations.
It feels an awful lot like the decade before Einstein’s landmark papers on quantum mechanics and relativity.
Watch how people like Terrence Tao et al are transforming how mathematics is done: with AI assistance and the Lean theorem prover, at a level of collaboration and consistency never before possible.
Something similar is just around the corner for the other sciences, the ability to mechanise the integration of vast tracts of previously disconnected facts and insights.
Surely something of value will pop out of the result…
Physics research is not particularly in a state of stagnation, so I’m not really sure what you mean by the “next big theoretical breakthrough”.
I firmly disagree:
No new successful fundamental theory has even gotten off the ground since the Standard Model, which is half a century old at this point.
Our understanding of gravity hasn’t improved substantially in a century. String Theory is dead, stop whipping it. Other quantum gravity theories each have one proponent going in circles futilely looking for a big breakthrough that never comes.
Superconductivity was discovered 115 years ago and we still don’t understand it! We’re “finding” new HT materials by accident and then attempting to explain how they work. Nobody can figure out how to predict a new one, ab initio.
Our understanding of the universe is improving only in the sense that we’re now more certain that we don’t know much at all about: its early history, far future, present behavior of gravity, or its content.
I’m not aware of any “sea change” akin to the scale and scope of QM or GR in many decades despite clear need for one.
Physics has stagnated for a long time now.
My conspiracy theory is that there has been a brain drain into the finance industry, but that doesn’t explain everything.
8 replies →