Simulation vs. Understanding: A Tension, in Quantum Chemistry and Beyond. Part B. The March of Simulation, for Better or Worse

In the second part of this Essay, we leave philosophy, and begin by describing Roald's being trashed by simulation. This leads us to a general sketch of artificial intelligence (AI), Searle's Chinese room, and Strevens’ account of what a go‐playing program knows. Back to our terrain—we ask “Quantum Chemistry, † ca. 2020?” Then we move to examples of Big Data, machine learning and neural networks in action, first in chemistry and then affecting social matters, trivial to scary. We argue that moral decisions are hardly to be left to a computer. And that posited causes, even if recognized as provisional, represent a much deeper level of understanding than correlations. At this point, we try to pull the reader up, giving voice to the opposing view of an optimistic, limitless future. But we don't do justice to that view—how could we, older mammals on the way to extinction that we are? We try. But then we return to fuss, questioning the ascetic dimension of scientists, their romance with black boxes. And argue for a science of many tongues. In the second segment of a tripartite essay, we move from a sketch of the artificial intelligence debate to examples of AI in action, both in chemistry and society. Impressive, scary, and funny, these abound. Yet, moral decisions are hardly to be left to a computer. And causes are deeper than correlations. We do try to give voice to the opposing view of an optimistic, limitless future of AI in chemistry. And return to fuss.