• Muffi@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 hours ago

    What a shame that we have created a world where this will only benefit a wealthy minority.

    • rapchee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      it’s useless hype, “ai could do x one day” is speculation at best

      • Perspectivist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        DeepMind’s AlphaFold solved the decades-old protein folding problem, and its results are already being used in drug and vaccine development.

    • Perspectivist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      14 hours ago

      It says AI in the title. That’s all information they need. Most people on social media don’t think - they react.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        No I doesn’t.

        The problem is the term AI has become so broadly used that it’s become meaningless. There is a popular quote about how the quota doesn’t want AI to replace artistic jobs, as if it will. As if generative AI and large language models and projects like this are the same.

        When the bubble bursts, (please let it be soon) we’re still going to have all of the science AIs because those are actually useful. What we don’t need is AI girlfriends.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Yes I know the title has the word AI powered in it. I never claimed otherwise.

            • Perspectivist@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 hours ago

              I make three claims and your response only fits one of them.

              It says AI in the title.

              No it doesn’t.

              That’s all information they need.

              No it doesn’t.

              Most people on social media don’t think - they react.

              No it doesn’t.

              • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 hours ago

                If you’re going to quote some text quote the actual text because you’ll notice that you’re changing it.

                I didn’t say “no it doesn’t” I said “no I doesn’t” which is a different sentence.

                • Grimy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 hours ago

                  Now that is some bullshit if I’ve ever seen it. Take the loss bro.

  • Horta@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    “Hey…Crisper.GP…T…think…you’ve mixed up the genes for my ass and…elbows…”

    “Oh, you’re totally alright! I apologise about that. 😀”

  • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    21 hours ago

    I am asking that all the people doing this watch Jurassic Park at least once.

    I’ll let experts do their thing, but this kind of thing worries me. I never had “there is no singularity, AI just engineers a generic disease by accident and kills is all” on my bingo.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Of course the actual moral of Jurassic Park is have a well staffed IT team and not just one random guy who you under pay.

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      18 hours ago

      This is actually an excellent use case for AI. Physics and chemistry as scientific disciplines are lots of complex pattern recognition and manipulation. AI is just a pattern recognition and generation engine, despite what the tech bros and apologists like to tell us.

      What these engines generate will ultimately be vetted by experts before it even goes to trials. Scientists don’t just take things on blind faith simply because a robot or even another expert comes up with something; their entire deal is to understand their particular field of study in great detail, after all!

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          There’s something similar that you can do with categorising stars. Basically they want to map as much of the universe as we can see. We’ve got the photos the problem is is that when you zoom in on a 1 mm by 1 mm patch of sky 1,100,000 new stars appear. It’s going to take a while, even with AI.

          You never know you might find a Dyson sphere one day.

  • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    Machine learning sure, but an llm? For anything other then as a module to translate abstract data into words that just seem weird

      • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I am not saying i understand it at all. My comment is genuine, not rhetorical.

        On the contrary i express that i do not understand this to the point of deeming it strange or weird, triggering my curiosity.

        I was hoping someone would chime in an explain how text generator techniques (which i do know alot about) known to have no capacity to use real world reason or logic can be used to help solve dna puzzles unless as a sub module of general machine learning. In which that later case would be within my understanding