I wonder if people could just write their blogs posts in a short form: claim, argument in favor, counter-argument; consequences (this is optional).
Like this whole blog post could be:
Claim: Current AI is unlikely to usher in an era of dramatically accelerated scientific discovery.
Argument in favor: A genius does not come to life when you linearly extrapolate a top-10% student. Newton or Einstein is not just scaled-up good students. To create an Einstein, we need a system can ask questions nobody else has thought of or dared to ask. One that writes 'What if everyone is wrong about this?' when all textbooks, experts, and common knowledge suggest otherwise.
Existing benchmarks don't test such skills. And existing systems are likely hopelessly far from this capability (based on the author's personal feelings).
Like this whole blog post could be:
Claim: Current AI is unlikely to usher in an era of dramatically accelerated scientific discovery.
Argument in favor: A genius does not come to life when you linearly extrapolate a top-10% student. Newton or Einstein is not just scaled-up good students. To create an Einstein, we need a system can ask questions nobody else has thought of or dared to ask. One that writes 'What if everyone is wrong about this?' when all textbooks, experts, and common knowledge suggest otherwise.
Existing benchmarks don't test such skills. And existing systems are likely hopelessly far from this capability (based on the author's personal feelings).
Counter-argument: none.
Consequences: obvious.