From the press release I had the same reaction as many commenters here: this seems like a terrible idea because any model that tries to be better at everything inevitably winds up being better at nothing.
But I want to be charitable and so I wonder if there really is a game-changing idea in here that the press release does a poor job communicating.
Could this wind up physically measuring a ton of stuff that hasn't been measured at a decent resolution before, and so produce genuine meaningful improvements?
Or is there really some kind of new viable "supercomputer" architecture unique to climate modeling that will pay off massive dividends?
The AI part worries me the most, since it can be a notorious black box where critical biases and errors get amplified without even being detectable. But are there actually techniques here to drastically speed up the production of expensive calculations, that are cheap to verify as correct?
Or is there genuinely a divide between earth scientists and computer scientists where neither side is benefiting from advances in the other, and there's a huge genuine opportunity here for a massively productive paradigm shift?
I'd really like to hope there's something of value here, and perhaps someone here who has worked with climate modeling and knows actual details about this project has some insight.
But I want to be charitable and so I wonder if there really is a game-changing idea in here that the press release does a poor job communicating.
Could this wind up physically measuring a ton of stuff that hasn't been measured at a decent resolution before, and so produce genuine meaningful improvements?
Or is there really some kind of new viable "supercomputer" architecture unique to climate modeling that will pay off massive dividends?
The AI part worries me the most, since it can be a notorious black box where critical biases and errors get amplified without even being detectable. But are there actually techniques here to drastically speed up the production of expensive calculations, that are cheap to verify as correct?
Or is there genuinely a divide between earth scientists and computer scientists where neither side is benefiting from advances in the other, and there's a huge genuine opportunity here for a massively productive paradigm shift?
I'd really like to hope there's something of value here, and perhaps someone here who has worked with climate modeling and knows actual details about this project has some insight.