249
AI creates first synthetic viruses (europe.pub)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
162 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Why go for the cures right?
Paywalled source https://ft.trib.al/Uk6VCRG

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)

I've never spoken to Grok in my life, but you seem disinterested in having an honest conversation about this while accusing me of being a shill or stupid. Precisely the tendency I named in my first message. I reject the premise that AI is pure shit, which you snuck in when comparing what I called the anti-AI movement to an anti-eating-shit movement. But you have not even tried to tell me why AI is shit, in the context of being used to improve weather prediction, and develop new drugs. I'm happy to hear why I'm wrong, but are you willing to actually talk about it, or do you just want to insult me?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

    You really think other people are stupid, eh? It's fairly obvious that someone who on purpose doesn't grasp the point that [there is no movement if it's just humanity + exceptions prove the rule], and just tries to drag you elsewhere, never WANTED an honest conversation.

    But you know who will gladly accept your BS, and give you the positive answers you seek? LLMs. That's why I tried to redirect you there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    I fully grasp it, but you're nitpicking over language. I acknowledged already that there is no movement in the typical sense, (despite us having this conversation in a community called FuckAI.) Would you prefer I use the phrase "The people against AI," instead? I'm dragging you back to the same point over and over again because it's specifically how I have differentiated the 2 opposing views, and you are the one to have claimed it was pure shit. Whereas I never once claimed it was perfect or without faults. Why are you avoiding my question, and repeatedly sending accusations against me? You've called me delusional, arrogant, stupid, and now have claimed I think everyone else is stupid.

    Is AI 100% useless, or does it have genuinely beneficial uses? Such as in drug research and weather pattern prediction? Do you reject all AI, in every single context? Or do you support its use in specific areas?

    I honestly don't know what your stance even is, because you won't tell me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    You have made it clear that you feel entitled to drag people into that discussion, but that's simply delusional.

    "The anti-AI movement" doesn't exist, stop being a drama queen, bye.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    Drag you in to what discussion? The one you engaged in, then refused to give me any reasoning behind? I'm still not sure what your position actually is on the matter because you won't tell me. Is it entitlement asking someone to explain why they believe something? What the reasoning behind a statement is?

    I already accepted your framing that there is no "Anti-AI movement." Why are you relitigating that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (1 child)

    BECAUSE THAT WAS MY WHOLE POINT! NOTHING ELSE!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Then I think you've misunderstood my reasoning, or why I've repeatedly asked the same question. I'm sorry if I phrased it poorly or wasn't clearer.

    "The point is that calling it an "anti-AI movement", is like saying there's an anti shit eating movement."

    This is what I have been arguing against. If you are saying that being against AI is so universal and obvious as to be compared to being against eating shit, then I need a justification for that comparison. Without the reasoning behind the claim, it cannot be accepted.

    It seems to me there are only 3 justifications for this claim.

    1. Being against AI is so universal and self-evident it cannot be considered a movement.

    2. A movement requires a structured hierarchy and stated goals, which the proposed "Anti-AI Movement," does not have.

    3. Being anti-AI doesn't mean a universal hatred of AI. It is a spectrum between universal admonishment and regulation.

    If the point you're trying to make is the first, it's specifically why I have been repeatedly asking you to defend the claim, and it's why I reject the framing.

    If the point you're trying to make is the second, then I already conceded it, and you're arguing linguistic semantics.

    If it is the third point, then you're claiming that to be "Pro-AI" means to be a universal advocate for AI in all things and all ways, which again I disagree with, even if there are indeed some people who feel that way.

    It's very possible you and I are in agreement on the principles, but simply splitting hairs on terms and titles. Which is what I've been trying to discover by asking where you stand on those 2 specific fields.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent