If all of these scientists are as stupid as a bunch of school children using AI, why should we have ever trusted them in the first place?
If all of these allegedly brilliant scientists are so absurdly, dumb and untrustworthy, if they are so foolish as to be fooled by AI, then why did we ever trust them in the first place?
How stupid were the scientists? How stupid were we to think that they had any answers?
Perhaps we need better scientists that know better than to ever even ask AI anything
Monitor their Internet usage. If they ever use AI, just fire them. It doesn’t seem like a difficult problem to solve.
That’s a lot of ad hominem for someone so vocally against it.
If your entire argument is “look at this mistake that was made, why did we trust scientists in the first place?” (with some personal attacks thrown in) you’re going to struggle to find a genuine conversation.
Scientists are people too, they aren’t a homogeneous pool of unassailable morals/ethics and correctness.
People fuck up, constantly, poor decisions and mistakes abound.
The whole idea of the scientific method is iteration towards success, if everyone always made the correct decisions there would be no need for iteration.
It’s not an excuse for shitty work, science as a whole has a bunch of problems that urgently need addressing, but it is an explanation that allows for more nuance than “scientists stupid, hur hur”.
Given your other answers so far I’m not expecting you to actually respond to this in good faith , i’m putting it out there mainly for me.
I can save you some time and say that if this is the calibre of response you normally provide, you should probably just block me, you are almost certainly not going to like interacting with me (or reading anything i write).
That’s a lot of words for a hypocritical “I know you are, but what am I?” Containing its own personal attacks. And coming back at me using an alternate account?
Oh, I forgot that the entirety of science didn’t exist before AI, and can’t exist without AI. Since science is entirely dependent on using AI exclusively for 100% of all thought, we’re obviously all fucked.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You’re making the argument that the deadly deadly poison is only deadly if you drink too much of it, or drink it incorrectly. I elect not to drink the deadly, deadly poison — any of it at all.
Not really what I’m saying. More along the lines of: poison is bad to drink, but great for killing weed.
As for LLMs and sciences (and most fields): “drinking poison” -> “treating LLM output as factual”. “killing weed” -> “some otherwise mundane language transformation that you verify the correctness of”.
poison is bad to drink, but great for killing weed.
But that’s not what you said, nor is it the argument you’re making
The pursuit of science by humanity has made it this far for thousands of years. And has done so quite successfully without AI poisoning that pursuit. You have yet to make the argument that the poison of AI is in any way helpful.
Because you can’t. Because it isn’t.
Ignore the evidence at your own peril. I will not.
Also, what an astonishingly uncritical perspective. I think there are plenty of legitimate concerns to raise about LLMs in science, but there’s a reason that researchers are adopting these tools. I suspect it’s because there’s a ton of rote work in the field (literature review, analysis, drafting a document…) and they’re under great pressure to publish on an accelerating cadence.
“I had to drink the poison because I was under pressure”
Somehow, this doesn’t ring true. Are you defending scientific discovery, or are you defending corporate pressure? Or are you just defending poison? either way, this sounds like bullshit.
it’s because there’s a ton of rote work in the field
So now it’s OK just because scientists are suddenly lazy? You gotta be kidding.
If all of these scientists are as stupid as a bunch of school children using AI, why should we have ever trusted them in the first place?
If all of these allegedly brilliant scientists are so absurdly, dumb and untrustworthy, if they are so foolish as to be fooled by AI, then why did we ever trust them in the first place?
How stupid were the scientists? How stupid were we to think that they had any answers?
Perhaps we need better scientists that know better than to ever even ask AI anything
Monitor their Internet usage. If they ever use AI, just fire them. It doesn’t seem like a difficult problem to solve.
That’s a lot of ad hominem for someone so vocally against it.
If your entire argument is “look at this mistake that was made, why did we trust scientists in the first place?” (with some personal attacks thrown in) you’re going to struggle to find a genuine conversation.
Scientists are people too, they aren’t a homogeneous pool of unassailable morals/ethics and correctness.
People fuck up, constantly, poor decisions and mistakes abound.
The whole idea of the scientific method is iteration towards success, if everyone always made the correct decisions there would be no need for iteration.
It’s not an excuse for shitty work, science as a whole has a bunch of problems that urgently need addressing, but it is an explanation that allows for more nuance than “scientists stupid, hur hur”.
Given your other answers so far I’m not expecting you to actually respond to this in good faith , i’m putting it out there mainly for me.
I can save you some time and say that if this is the calibre of response you normally provide, you should probably just block me, you are almost certainly not going to like interacting with me (or reading anything i write).
That’s a lot of words for a hypocritical “I know you are, but what am I?” Containing its own personal attacks. And coming back at me using an alternate account?
Pathetic. Blocked.
You won’t see this because i’m blocked but it went about as i expected.
Predictably boring, nothing of value was lost.
Most people use LLMs poorly and irresponsible. Most problems they are used for, are a poor choice as well. That doesn’t mean they cannot be useful.
Oh, I forgot that the entirety of science didn’t exist before AI, and can’t exist without AI. Since science is entirely dependent on using AI exclusively for 100% of all thought, we’re obviously all fucked.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You’re making the argument that the deadly deadly poison is only deadly if you drink too much of it, or drink it incorrectly. I elect not to drink the deadly, deadly poison — any of it at all.
Not really what I’m saying. More along the lines of: poison is bad to drink, but great for killing weed.
As for LLMs and sciences (and most fields): “drinking poison” -> “treating LLM output as factual”. “killing weed” -> “some otherwise mundane language transformation that you verify the correctness of”.
But that’s not what you said, nor is it the argument you’re making
The pursuit of science by humanity has made it this far for thousands of years. And has done so quite successfully without AI poisoning that pursuit. You have yet to make the argument that the poison of AI is in any way helpful.
Because you can’t. Because it isn’t.
Ignore the evidence at your own peril. I will not.
It kinda seems to me you’re deciding both sides of the argument. It’s like a straw man monologue show.
Arriving at a conclusion without evidence… Exactly the danger that AI presents.
You OK?
Ad hominem attacks.
So, when your argument fails, you just insult the other person?
Blocked
“We should stop using chainsaws and cut down these trees with our teeth”
Yet, for thousands of years, cutting down these trees with our teeth worked surprisingly well.…
Proven by that tiny little computer in your hand that you’re typing your response upon
“The poison is in the dose”.
Also, what an astonishingly uncritical perspective. I think there are plenty of legitimate concerns to raise about LLMs in science, but there’s a reason that researchers are adopting these tools. I suspect it’s because there’s a ton of rote work in the field (literature review, analysis, drafting a document…) and they’re under great pressure to publish on an accelerating cadence.
“I had to drink the poison because I was under pressure”
Somehow, this doesn’t ring true. Are you defending scientific discovery, or are you defending corporate pressure? Or are you just defending poison? either way, this sounds like bullshit.
So now it’s OK just because scientists are suddenly lazy? You gotta be kidding.
Yeah, it’s how you get grant money.
Oh really, and tell us…how much of that grant money goes to the actual scientist who wrote the grant?
None? But that grant money is the only way they can actually do anything.
Sprinkling AI buzzwords into grant proposals is how the sausage is made.
Sorry about your grade 10 chemistry mark.
Also, check out the 2024 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. Warning: some big words.
It’s surprisingly easy to make a cogent argument against AI (or any argument at all) without insulting others.
Try it sometime