[HN Gopher] Iumenta: A generic framework for animal digital twins
___________________________________________________________________
Iumenta: A generic framework for animal digital twins
Author : sandwichsphinx
Score : 23 points
Date : 2024-11-19 03:54 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arxiv.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (arxiv.org)
| j-pb wrote:
| Reminds me of:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_No_Mouth,_and_I_Must_...
|
| AI overloard controls your every existence until you are killed.
| block_dagger wrote:
| One of the best (and incidentally one of the first) scifi
| stories I ever read. Certainly stuck with me.
| thom wrote:
| I have no idea why it needles me so much, and I will
| cathartically accept any downvotes, but why has the phrase
| "digital twin" entered our lexicon when it just means "model" or
| "simulation"? I've worked with incredibly smart AI engineers who
| talked about "building a digital twin" when they just meant
| "storing some data". Maddening.
| tupshin wrote:
| It generally means model running in parallel with the actual
| system. It is not just about being able to store data, but
| about being able to mirror (and sometimes predict/replicate)
| exactly what that system is doing.
|
| In current software parlance, this is often used in stupidly
| trivial ways, but digital twins have a long and important
| history and function
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_twin
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| To use this terminology on biological systems seems more like
| a very lofty goal than anything realizable with current
| technology.
|
| Not that there's any issue with lofty goals.
| uoaei wrote:
| There's a huge difference between modeling only the
| stimulus/response, and modeling the full interior and
| exterior dynamics. "Digital twin" only refers to the latter.
|
| I wholeheartedly agree that it's a safe bet that very very
| few digital twin projects achieve anything close to what they
| propose. More typically it is a flashy label to stun
| management. I actually worked on digital twins -- I came into
| ML via physics -- and once you start digging, you find the
| rabbit hole is deep enough that absent massive government
| grants or angel corporate investors you will never get
| anywhere close to what could be a called a digital twin.
| bArray wrote:
| I think it has been around for a while, but I agree that it
| seems to be pushed more now. Keeping a model in step with a
| real-world environment is to be fair actually quite complex, so
| I can see a lot of work needing to be done, and that work
| needing a clear name.
| wink wrote:
| In the definition (or maybe even more the usage) I know, you're
| missing certain properties.
|
| E.g. you can and will sync properties to the digital twin, and
| back. Obviously this does not work for animals (yet?...) but
| the digital twin of a car can have changes that are then
| propagated back to the original.
|
| I don't get any of this in any definition of "model" or
| "simulation" I know.
| leonheld wrote:
| This is my personal opinion, from working in such places:
| research institutes in Europe get grants very, very easily if
| they mention anything related to "Industrie 4.0", and one of
| those keywords is "Digital Twin". Another good one is "Real-
| Time".
|
| Note that I'm not directing this comment specificaly at the
| authors of these papers (I haven't read it, just skimmed
| through it). Just observations from experience.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-19 23:02 UTC)