mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Deep Learning Opacity in Scientific Discovery

arXiv 2206.00520 ↗First posted 1 Jun 2022cs.AI cs.CY cs.LGcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Philosophers have recently focused on critical, epistemological challenges that arise from the opacity of deep neural networks. One might conclude from this literature that doing good science with opaque models is exceptionally challenging, if not impossible. Yet, this is hard to square with the recent boom in optimism for AI in science alongside a flood of recent scientific breakthroughs driven by AI methods. In this paper, I argue that the disconnect between philosophical pessimism and scientific optimism is driven by a failure to examine how AI is actually used in science. I show that, in order to understand the epistemic justification for AI-powered breakthroughs, philosophers must examine the role played by deep learning as part of a wider process of discovery. The philosophical distinction between the 'context of discovery' and the 'context of justification' is helpful in this regard. I demonstrate the importance of attending to this distinction with two cases drawn from the scientific literature, and show that epistemic opacity need not diminish AI's capacity to lead scientists to significant and justifiable breakthroughs.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Jun 2022.

Builds on

3 of 48 references.

References · 3

  1. 2016The Mythos of Model Interpretabilitycited by 716
  2. 2019Understanding artificial intelligence ethics and safetycited by 68
  3. 2017Machine Learning and the Future of Realismcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 4; 2025: 4.

9 papers.