1111
So where's that miraculous cure, then? (europe.pub)
submitted 5 days ago by to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
294 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 31 points 5 days ago (6 children)

The thing is that AI is a catch all term and the AI used in medicine has little to do with chat bots or generative AI in general.

It's not that GPT-10 will cure cancer when asked for it. But neural networks are good at pattern recognition so cancer detection is a promising application for example. Also, personalizing a cure is also an idea. It's not that we need a super intelligence and curing cancer is the excuse for data centers for scam bots. Medical AI is no excuse for generative AI.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 5 days ago (4 children)

    Not entirely true, there is some merit to GenAI in the development of cures, using specific specialized models.

    At least, I remember reading about it a few years ago.m, but I assume that's what this comic is based on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 days ago (3 children)

    The comic is based on nothing except someone being enthusiastic about AI and how he uses it for slop and imagining that he is somehow in the same boat as reputable medical researchers when people hate his slop output. He is not basing it on any actual results or backlash to results, just resentment over slop being disliked and trying to strawman up a sympathetic 'victim' for anti-slop sentiment.

    I won't rule out GenAI as being somehow used, but most of what I've heard of has been 'other' AI techniques. GenAI might facilitate some scenarios I don't know, but either way the guy who slopped up a comic has zero in common with the imagined researchers in his comic. While there may be skepticism or accusations of stealing work (like the Math situation), I don't think the public at large would be eager to reject a medical breakthrough that is valid just because GenAI had a hand it it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (2 children)

    The math situation really, really, urgently, isn't what is reported on this message board. Not even close. Those dominoes are really starting to fall.

    We're past the point where faffing about on a message board means anything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (1 child)

    It's not just this forum and have heard the more nuanced reporting.

    So they had a near future good narrative where LLM was going to be a key tool is a long awaited mathematical breakthrough, but they heard about the mathematician effort and felt the need to steal the credit by somehow beating them to the punch.

    In the process, they may have effectively stolen the work in progress, though that is admittedly may be less likely than other concerns.

    The output was a sloppy mess that usually wouldn't have been considered ready for review, but they went with it anyway to get it out before the more considered work could complete. In pursuit of the narrative that AI alone could out speed and LLM augmented human effort, by skipping the quality that a human supervisor would have added.

    They announced victory long before a human could verify the proof. Those working on that believe it likely to verify, but haven't completed that work. Again, very premature.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •