this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2026
142 points (97.3% liked)
Technology
83666 readers
3936 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And again no "AI" is used, because it does not exist and is not needed for statistical approximations.
Props to this publication for at least leaving the grifter bullshit out of the title. That's a clue that the technology might actually be useful.
"AI" <<<<<<< large physics models
All machine learning is and has always been part of the artificial intelligence field. They're doing AI, whether that happens to be a trending term or not.
This is definitely AI, but AI is such a vaguely defined term that it's basically meaningless. Too many people these days mistake it for meaning "a computer that can think like a human" even though it encompasses everything from LLMs to chess playing algorithms to something like Minecraft zombie pathfinding.
Yah, I have some vague experience in the space and, without getting into things covered by NDAs, I guess I can say...
First, The popular media talks about the classic style of physics solvers as these magical black boxes but my experience is that they are sufficiently unreliable that I would never trust my life solely to the answers of a solver. They do provide very valuable feedback for refining a design without an endless hardware-rich cycle of destructive testing. Thus, I think that a large physics model is probably going to be the same sort of useful tool.
Second, while the CAE engineers can be very very protective over the time they spend on the two week cycle the article talks about, it's fucking drudge work and a waste of a good mind. At the same time, the article does not really talk about some of the nitty gritty details. Aerodynamics is a great place to start because there's less setup but the coefficient of drag is only one problem that needs to be considered.
Third, the good engineers can "see" things intuitively because things do operate with a pattern. Vorticies from protruding features... stress fractures from square holes in a beam... etc. This does feel like an area where spicy autocorrect can spicy autocorrect you to a useful answer.
Finally, cycle time for real world engineers is just like the cycle time for software engineers. Nobody wants to go back to the world where programmers submitted a deck of cards and got the printout back a week later.
The only real risk here is that somebody gets high on their own supply and decides that a large physics model is actually predictive and we don't need the same set of actual physical tests that validate the models.
I don't know what specific technology they're using, but remember that not all AL/ML implementations are LLMs.
Yeah, I was referring to spicy autocorrect in the more general sense of something that uses a faster statistical model to replace a slower theoretically derived exhaustive calculation.