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.
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
Dude. I’m genuinely asking here. Whatever it is. I hope you figure it out.
“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.