✳flâneur — a map of the web's best reading

Why do we do astrophysics?

arxiv.org · 13,783 words · saved by 1 readers

At time of writing, large language models (LLMs) are beginning to obtain the ability to design, execute, write up, and referee scientific projects on the data-science side of astrophysics. What implications does this have for our profession? In this white paper, I list—and argue for—a set of facts or “points of agreement” about what astrophysics is, or should be; these include considerations of novelty, people-centrism, trust, and (the lack of) clinical value. I then list and discuss every possible benefit that astrophysics can be seen as bringing to us, and to science, and to universities, and to the world; these include considerations of love, weaponry, and personal (and personnel) development. I conclude with a discussion of two possible (extreme and bad) policy recommendations related to the use of LLMs in astrophysics, dubbed “let-them-cook” and “ban-and-punish.” I argue strongly against both of these; it is not going to be easy to develop or adopt good moderate policies. This doc

Why do we do astrophysics? by David W. Hogg 1 1 1 The author is at the Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics, Department of Physics, New York University; and at the Center for Computational Astronomy, Flatiron Institute; and at the Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie, Heidelberg. I am thankful to Roger Blandford (Stanford), Mike Blanton (Carnegie), Josh Bloom (Berkeley), Gaby Contardo (Nova Gorica), Matt Daunt (NYU), Leslie Greengard (Flatiron), Juna Kollmeier (Carnegie), Jim Peebles (Princeton), Adrian Price-Whelan (Flatiron), Hans-Walter Rix (MPIA), and Kate Storey-Fisher (Stanford) for d

Explore this link on the map →

related reading