Browse Comments — Raw (as collected)

Exactly. 💯

Preserving the paths behind discovery is a fascinating framing. So much of how knowledge actually advances gets lost because the failed attempts and unexpected detours are never recorded. AI that helps capture and make sense of that process could matter as much as the discoveries themselves.

alejandro sinopoli, exactly this. Expanding the space of exploration is only half the equation. If the human understanding behind what was found does not keep pace, you end up with results that cannot be questioned, reproduced, or built upon meaningfully. Discovery without comprehension has a very short shelf life.

Marek Porycki, The archaeology framing is spot on. You keep the result and lose the reasoning. And in any field where work has to be reproduced, audited or defended, that missing trail is not a minor gap. It is a fundamental problem with how we treat AI assisted discovery right now.

AI CAN'T DO WHAT THOSE GUYS CAN DO, I KNOW OF COMPANIES WHO USED AI SAW COST GO SKY HIGH AND DECIDED TO BRING BACK THEM DEV

A fascinating perspective on the future of research. AI has the potential to reduce cognitive barriers and give scientists more freedom to explore bold, unconventional ideas that could lead to breakthrough discoveries.

Fascinating perspective. AI as a tool to expand the horizons of mathematical and scientific exploration is incredibly exciting. 🚀

Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical 'Magnifica Humanitas' is an incredible, historic call to protect our humanity in the AI era. It's not just a sermon; it's a masterful critique of data colonialism and tech concentration. In my latest article, I dive deep into this text—and where my view diverges: could AI actually serve as a corrective to human bias rather than just its mirror? 👉 Read my full, nuanced analysis here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/pope-engineer-data-william-couturier-smbhf

This resonates beyond pure research. In finance and compliance, AI is beginning to do something similar — helping professionals explore regulatory positions, tax interpretations, and audit patterns that would have taken days to analyse manually. The real unlock is not just speed, but the confidence to ask questions you previously could not afford the time to answer. What Terence Tao describes as 'crazier paths' is exactly what better analysis tools should enable — in every knowledge-intensive profession.

Pope Leo XIV’s Magnifica Humanitas is a continuation of the long tradition of Catholic social thought, updating concerns once raised in the encyclical Rerum Novarum (issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1891 and addressing the social consequences of industrialization) for the age of artificial intelligence, algorithmic power, and technological disruption. Magnifica Humanitas opens an essential conversation, but the scale of the transformation now underway may ultimately require an even stronger and more direct moral, philosophical, and institutional framework capable of confronting the deeper social consequences of the AI age. Technological change of this magnitude cannot be left solely to markets or private actors; it will also require serious institutional intervention, ethical governance, and regulatory capacity capable of protecting human dignity, social stability, and the common good.

A powerful reminder that AI can expand human creativity in research. Reducing routine work gives researchers more freedom to explore bold ideas, test new directions, and focus on deeper discovery.

This is the part of AI that gets overlooked in the hype. It's not about replacing the researcher, it's about lowering the cost of chasing a long shot. When the friction of testing a crazy idea drops, people attempt more of them, and that is where the real breakthroughs hide.

What Terence Tao describes at the research level — AI removing friction so humans can focus on what only humans can do — is exactly what we see at the enterprise level. When AI handles the repetitive, the administrative, the procedural, it doesn't replace human thinking. It creates more room for it.

Matthew Kilkenny , 🤔🤔🤔🤔 Im sure that's about to change. Need salvation, just 9,950.00 for the first sin, 2,950.00 for each additional sin. Or, buy our 10 sin package that covers trafficking. Lawyer not included.

Most of what the encyclical says is straightforward: AI systems can simulate empathy, but they do not possess it. They generate language about moral concepts without experiencing the underlying human states. That is not a revelation. It is the baseline distinction between statistical models and human agency. The document is not announcing a civilizational turning point. It is restating a simple boundary: machines operate on optimisation and pattern prediction; humans operate on experience, intention and responsibility. Treating that as a spiritual breakthrough risks inflating what is essentially a reminder of category differences. If we want a serious conversation about AI, it starts with governance, verification, accountability and institutional design. Not metaphysics. We don’t need AI‑generated theology to restate that machines simulate empathy but don’t possess it

In alignment and ahead of the conversation- reviewers note it as "the missing conversation". #tech #ethics #Nevo

Guys, don't steal my next idea of a gym ok? I'm already deep into selling it now so if you're not willing to fight don't step into the cage 🤣🤣🤣

Gordian Etim hey, idk if you'll find this useful..

And yet companies are still gonna try to replace humans lol. They help us to get things done fast, at least in their current form, not replace us

The most useful part of AI in research may be reducing the cost of trying more paths, not replacing the researcher. If models can help preserve failed attempts, intermediate reasoning, and alternative approaches, the workflow becomes more inspectable and easier to build on. That matters a lot for science, where the process is often as valuable as the answer.