this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
321 points (93.0% liked)

Fuck AI

2825 readers
1429 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] glimse@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I want to be clear I'm not talking about the layman here (though I hear chatgpt is pretty good at creating quizzes based on notes you give it) - actual scientific work is being done with the help of LLMs

A concrete example of this would be www.OpenCatalystProject.com or IBM using it to discover a new COVID drug.

I'd bring up all the machine learning breakthroughs - of which there are likely hundreds - but I'd imagine you'd skewer me as they're not LANGUAGE models (which is fair as I said LLM, not ML).

What you won't hear me defending AI marketed to the masses. Pretty much any value it provides is offset by the things mentioned in the OP. But for science? Hell yeah keep up the good work

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

You're right those arent fucking LLMs, stick with the program. Everybody else in here is talking about one specific thing and its not research oriented machine learning algorithms. It's bullshit generators.

[–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 2 points 7 hours ago

This is the exact same technology, as if using semantic reasoning will make your argument any stronger

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 0 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

You were supposed to argue with fervor, not make stuff up..

You're wrong, they both use LLMs.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Any research using LLM, not on it, is publishing bullshit.

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Why double down on being wrong? My two examples aren't publishing bullshit.

If OP was only talking about chatgpt and the like, maybe they should have said that instead of lumping all LLMs together??

Either way I think we're done here, a shame you never actually argued with fervor

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

Fine then:

  1. IBM - Not an LLM

  2. Meta Open Catalyst - Not an LLM

In fact the Open Catalyst in the paper specifically compares it's model to LLMs in that both different models improved with larger datasets (and increased processing power).

Eat shit

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 0 points 9 hours ago
  1. IBM DeepSearch. But you're half right, the drug I was thinking of was BenevolentAI...using an LLM similar to IBM.

  2. CatBERTa

But nice try. Eat shit, I guess