TheLegendaryAssholeOfJushinLiger comments on How corporate AI adoption is going

[–] TheLegendaryAssholeOfJushinLiger@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Uh no. I use these things every day. There is a marked and notable improvement that is happening.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] vala@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago (5 children)

You are using these to solve the novel research problems no one else has solved?

Or you are using them to solve problems you don't know how to solve?

The things you're saying are marketing hype. Point me to the scientific journal where Claude is credited as a co-author of a research paper.

Ive also read these articles. I also use LLMs every day. I'm working on building closed agentic loops right now. I think I'm pretty on top of the current state of the art here.

The truth is much more nuanced and much less exciting than you think it is.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] TheLegendaryAssholeOfJushinLiger@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Actually yes, kind of. I use it to find financial fraud from large public datasets. It wasn't trained to do that, in the slightest.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ai-disproves-a-decades-old-mathematical-idea-the-biggest-conjecture-that-the-tech-has-played-a-role-in-yet-180989189/

https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/openai-says-its-unreleased-astra-model-solved-10-hard-math-problems-anthropic-claims-fable-cracked-5-2962067-2026-08-03

What hype am I falling for?

A scientific journal where claude is a co-author? First of all, what does that even mean? Like what is that a metric of? You think no one has used Claude to help them with novel scientific problems? I mean, come on.

And second of all, here you go: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36589923/#%3A%7E%3Atext=Rapamycin+in+the+context+of+Pascal%27s+Wager%3A%2C36589923.++PMCID%3A+PMC9796173.++DOI%3A+10.18632%2Foncoscience.571.

They banned them not long after.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] vala@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

It gets at the “how” without explaining the “why,” he adds. “One can check out that it’s correct, but it would be nice to be able to tell a story.”

A.I. could help prove conjectures, but at this point, the models aren’t able to provide reliable, step-by-step instructions for solving them, reports Fortune’s Eva Roytburg. Humans can fill more than 100 pages documenting just one proof.

Blumberg describes A.I.’s role with an analogy: “Suppose that Moses came down from the mountain with tablets, and on the tablet was written, ‘Cancer can be cured.’ Would you care? You don’t just want the answer to the question. You want to learn something from the answer,”

Does this sound like AGI?

Also, this is once again not a novel problem. This was interpolation, not extrapolation.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] TheLegendaryAssholeOfJushinLiger@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

What does novel mean to you? I'm honestly asking. And what is your benchmark, I am honestly asking. And again, I have not asserted AGI is here, but if the level is "working with a genius" I do think we're there, although I do think the genius is senile, like I said to begin with. So yeah, that sort of sounds like someone who could solve an equation no one ever has before, but would have trouble explaining it. Also the article referenced saying they couldn't explain equations was written before that equation was solved. My guy!

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments