Theres nothing quite so dramatic and inspirational as a scientific breakthrough.
But what happens when different groups of scientists cant seem to agree on the science?
The implications for this cutting-edge research could be huge, if the papers conclusions are true.
A new hope
The big idea here involves being able to simulate quantum interactions.
Our world is made up of matter which is made up of molecules that are made up of atoms.
At each level of abstraction, it becomes harder and harder to simulate.
It’s free, every week, in your inbox.
And the complexity increases the more you add.
Kohn received a Nobel Prize in Chemistry after proving this, thus founding Density Functional Theory (DFT).
Unfortunately, DFT could only simplify the process so far.
The functional part of the theory relied on humans to do all the heavy lifting.
In other words: the academics are disputing how DeepMinds AI came to its conclusions.
In their comment, the researchers write:
Although the conclusion of Kirkpatrick et al.
If this is true, it would mean DeepMind didnt actually teach a neural internet to predict quantum mechanics.
Return of the AI
DeepMind was quick to respond.
1, A and B, for H2+ and H2.
As to whether that solves the problem remains to be seen.
What now?
These systems can go through millions of permutations before outputting an answer.
When this happens, we could see a divergence between corporate technology and that which passes external peer review.
Thats not to say DeepMinds paper is an example of this.
But were experiencing a bold, new, AI-powered technology paradigm.
Its probably time we started considering what the future looks like in a post-peer-review world.
