you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 306 points 1 week ago (31 children)

Dumb fucks really think LLMs are the kind of AI involved in medical and scientific research.

  • source
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 113 points 1 week ago* (16 children)

    Yeah. At this point LLMs are what people are referring to 95% of the time when they say AI. If one comes up with the cure for cancer, it's because we already have it and it picked it up in the last data scrape.

    And someone wins the coveted Nobel Prompt Prize.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 week ago (14 children)

    And in 4.5% of the remaining 5% they reference generative AI

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Then 0.45% of the remain they're referring to NPCs in games.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 1 week ago (10 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    LLMs is a subset of generative AI, but an image generator as an example is not a LLM

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 1 week ago (8 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (7 children)

    Transformers and diffusion models are not the same, even if they use related math

    Edit: By the magic of advanced mathematics, every Turing complete structure can be rewritten into any other Turing complete structure with no loss of function or change in behavior

    So the logic "remove one" will remove all of modern computing because the AI companies are not giving up their models. If they have to start pretending they aren't neural network anymore, then they will.

    And if you DON'T rewrite, then you're back to them actually being different again

    https://infosec.pub/comment/23830616

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 1 week ago* (6 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    This is a dumb take. You can use a more general term like large dataset generative machine learning. Legislation needs to understand the different risks between the different implementations to do any good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 week ago (4 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29530

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1009670302979

    https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/file/e4acb4c86de9d2d9a41364f93951028d-Paper.pdf

    https://arxiv.org/html/2106.03354v3

    https://luke-griffiths.github.io/non-neural-networks/

    Machine B has now been fully rewritten to structures that are no longer a neural network. Everything it learned has been extracted from the model and given a new form. It doesn't even run on a GPU anymore.

    Its just decision trees and explicit function now. Same origin, same behavior, wildly different implementation and appearance. It just looks like another program. Especially to a judge.

    Every rule you wrote that specified "neural", not something more universal as "heuristic", has now been denied by the judge, as you do not have jurisdiction against the new thing.

    This isn't some academic wordplay either. All machine implementable logic has infinitely many possible representations. If you specify your rule on appearance, not behavior, then the appearance will change and the behavior stays.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 6 days ago (2 children)
  • [–] 0 points 6 days ago* (1 child)

    Did you seriously stop reading after the first line? Your response has NOTHING to do with what I wrote.

    Keep reading

    If you're going to make a law saying "anything with a neural architecture" it's possible to keep the behavior with alternative architectures which remove the neurons.

    I very explicitly and plain as day DID NOT say they are using something different today, I said your proposed law would make them change in response. This is very clearly not the thing you think I said.

    If you change the proposed law further to "any software which takes a large amount of data to extract patterns iteratively to solve for arbitrary targets" then your regulation will cover every optimizing compiler and a ton of physics solvers.

    The law should cover behavior of software deployments, not architectures.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 1 week ago

    ChatGPT, cure cancer for me.

    No, that didn't work, try again

    That one gave me a rash, try again.

    That last one did not work, also the rash is starting to look a little gross.

    Sorry for the delay, I had to go to the ER to get my arm amputated from the rash, can you try again, also look for a cure for amputated arm.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (10 children)
  • [+] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    They absolutely are, but most people on this platform would prefer to hear their comfortable lie instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    No, chatbots are not used in medical or scientific research.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago

    Yes they are? Literally have to listen to a friend bitch about them every single day. She's a biochemist. They do literally use specialized AI models, general LLMs and and a number of other transformer based technologies.

    And while the specialized ones are useful the stupid chat bot ones are fucking over processes all over the place.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago

    No, chatbots are not used in medical or scientific research.

    So you're a scientist?

    I use LLMs every day, they search deep into supplemental data and manuscripts that would take months to sift through. Can't find specific information, reagents or data using title and abstract searches.

    LLMs can be useful tools, but this entire thread is people with bullshit jobs scared of being replaced by an algorithm because they know they have a bullshit job.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    I think it's more that the way the chatbots work is the same. They assign a bunch of numbers to tokens, and the numbers determine how interrelated different tokens are. You put in a bunch of tokens and then it spits out what it thinks the next one should be based on all the interrelatedness numbers and some math things like transformers, and the math things have knobs on them to determine how strong they are. It doesn't matter if the tokens are words in a sentence or peptides in a protein. The underlying technology is the same.

    This is an exciting use for a tool that I mostly despise for probably all the same reasons you do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment