Thanks for sharing that paper. I was indeed missing that information and now agree with your earlier statement.
I think them using magnetohydrodynamical black hole models as a base for the ML is a better approach than standard CLEAN though that the Japanese team used. However, both “only” approach reality.
You’re welcome. I think calling it the output of an ‘AI model’ triggers thoughts of the current generative image models, i.e. entirely fictional which is not accurate, but it is important to recognise the difference between an image and a photo.
I also by no means want to downplay the achievement that the image represents, it’s an amazing result and deserves the praise. Defending criticism and confirming conclusions will always be vital parts of the scientific method.
True, ML and such fell under the umbrella term of AI before, but I feel that with most people using it mostly for LLMs (or things like diffusion models, etc.) right now, it has kinda lost that meaning to some extent…
Having triggered this conversation off, I’ll just congratulate you both on a quality discussion. I’ll admit I used loose terminology in my original post, but that was mainly to get my point across to a general audience. The specificity you both went to is laudable.
Thanks for sharing that paper. I was indeed missing that information and now agree with your earlier statement.
I think them using magnetohydrodynamical black hole models as a base for the ML is a better approach than standard CLEAN though that the Japanese team used. However, both “only” approach reality.
You’re welcome. I think calling it the output of an ‘AI model’ triggers thoughts of the current generative image models, i.e. entirely fictional which is not accurate, but it is important to recognise the difference between an image and a photo.
I also by no means want to downplay the achievement that the image represents, it’s an amazing result and deserves the praise. Defending criticism and confirming conclusions will always be vital parts of the scientific method.
True, ML and such fell under the umbrella term of AI before, but I feel that with most people using it mostly for LLMs (or things like diffusion models, etc.) right now, it has kinda lost that meaning to some extent…
@Tamo240@programming.dev and yourself.
Having triggered this conversation off, I’ll just congratulate you both on a quality discussion. I’ll admit I used loose terminology in my original post, but that was mainly to get my point across to a general audience. The specificity you both went to is laudable.