🖕

My point exactly.

K

Why?

If that’s the case, then why did you bring up wikipedia vs encycopedias? You’re losing me bud.

Why is medical research special? Why is that the only place that AI is valid, and not science or engineering or art or anywhere else?

What did people use for knowledge before libraries? Elders, right?

What did people use for retrieving knowledge before AI? Wikipedia/Google. Before that? Libraries.

Again though, why can that use case not be applied other places? Why is medicine special? You seem to have a specific application in mind, so how about you just explain what that is so I can evaluate it on its merits?

It is not apples and oranges. Before people had libraries, they went to the elders for knowledge. It’s very probably that when that happened, some of the elders felt spite towards libraries, because they replaced their roles in society, or diminished them.

Today, AI is doing the same for libraries, albeit with a few minor intermediary phases of the internet as a whole and global searching for information. You used to need to go to the library to read the biography of George Washington. Then someone invented wikipedia. Then someone invented an algorithm that can take sources from Wikipedia and other places and combine them into a coherent natural language response.

So no, not apples and oranges at all, very much the same thing.

I don’t know the specifics, but not sure how that is relevant. Why does the field it’s being applied in make a difference? Is medicine the only field you view as truly impactful and valuable? Or do you really view the down sides as that dramatically terrible that the only possible way those downsides could be justified is by saving a life?

Thanks for the response, I appreciate your perspective. Definitely a reasonable take overall. I very much agree on the regulation side. It is pretty mental how unregulated it has been, especially with some of the projections about the impact that their purveyors claim it will have on society.

My intent was to try to understand why people feel the way they feel. If I disagree with a reason someone has, am I just supposed to be like “oh, ok”, and move on? Is that the proper protocol here if I am supposed to be understanding? Am I not supposed to give any rebuttal to any points whatsoever and just read through the thread without replying? Is that what you would consider a true “understanding” approach?

In depth is one thing. Logically sound and valid are another.

Certainly curious to see sources, but last I checked the industry was an insignificant contributor to electricity use overall. That number is obviously growing, but when I say insignificant, I mean negligible.

Again though, happy to see data that shows otherwise it you have a source to provide.

That’s a counterproductive and unhealthy dispotion to have. No topic should be considered “not worth discussing” particularly one so ubiquitous and impactful.

So you’re saying that medical is the ONLY single place where the pros out weight the cons? You said we need to eat, so what about agriculture? What about science/engineeing in general? Why the arbitrary line in the sand at medical?

Also, if AI is so faulty and flawed, why would you want to use it in situations where lives are on the line, but condemn it’s use for lower stakes situations

How is it a false equivalence?

I appreciate your distinction between capitalism and AI. Many attribute the maladies of hyper late stage capitalism (enshittification, data hoovering, algorithmic engagement tuning, etc) to AI, when one is just a symptom of the other.

I agree on the overhype and hope for the industry. I do not want LLMs to go away, and there are plenty of open source non commercial LLM projects out there. I look forward to the day when I can just download a local LLM assistant that has all the capabilities of the best models today. Once someone figures that out, I think the corporations who have poured hundreds of billions into massive data centers will start collapsing.

Are you saying I am being disingenuous in my intentions by making counter points in a discussion? Is reflecting people’s ideas back to them the only way to understand them?

I don’t disagree, the current administration is that dumb. Hopefully their popularity continues to drop like a stone and in an election cycle we will be off dumb island.