Thanks. I’m done.

Of course you are.

Good example of what LLMs are great for, making people suffer from persistent Dunning Kruger.

Again, CV is not new. Computational biological simulation isn’t new either. More computational power and better algorithms have been a source of significant progress in healthcare for many decades now. If we go back twenty years, protein folding simulation was all the rage, but of course most people outside CompSci hadn’t heard of it.

I call the current AI “hype” because all these advancements have been going on for a while, but most people are catching up only now because they got hooked on marketing material they see on the news.

Anyway, I’m going to paste my message here once again.

Funny that you call mine “ideological” though, since you are the one making claims without any substance, e.g. “it’s only going to get better”. How could you even know? Not even researchers at the very edge do. There have been concerns about the future availability and quality of data. Plenty of researchers have come forward pointing that poisoning a LLM is exceedingly easy. Really, how do you know that “it’s going to get better”? Explain that to me. What do you know that everybody else doesn’t?

How do you even know that AI, as we know it, it’s going to be revolutionary in the near future? Most people only know of technology successes because of survivorship bias, but I’ve been through several revolutions that faded out. How is this one different? And why would you think you’re right, when not even expert researchers are sure?

Now, are you an AI researcher? What do you know about any of this, exactly?

You haven’t answered a single one of my questions.

I’m going to assume that you fell for the hype and know nothing of what you’re talking about.

The author of the article is misrepresenting several historical facts.

The pope didn’t try to “ban” printed books, but keep publications under tight catholic control under threat of excommunication. If we were to apply this to the current AI landscape, the “church” would be a number of massive corporations fighting to keep their stolen data “closed”.

Fust wasn’t “chased out” because scribes feared a loss of influence. They already were notaries and bureaucrats, they were doing just fine. The issue was publishing control under the church mandate, which again, correlates to what AI companies are doing right now.

And I suspect your position comes from not doing any due diligence on the matter.

Funny that you call mine “ideological” though, since you are the one making claims without any substance, e.g. “it’s only going to get better”. How could you even know? Not even researchers at the very edge do. There have been concerns about the future availability and quality of data. Plenty of researchers have come forward pointing that poisoning a LLM is exceedingly easy. Really, how do you know that “it’s going to get better”? Explain that to me. What do you know that everybody else doesn’t?

How do you even know that AI, as we know it, it’s going to be revolutionary in the near future? Most people only know of technology successes because of survivorship bias, but I’ve been through several revolutions that faded out. How is this one different? And why would you think you’re right, when not even expert researchers are sure?

You haven’t read it, have you.

The studies we reviewed show that the use of AI has improved the radiologists’ performances, treatment response, diagnostic accuracy, and decision-making in handling complex cases.

Hardly a game changer of the magnitude you think of. Moreover, CV is not generative. Pattern matching on X-rays has been common for a while, and has little to do with the current heavily marketed landscape of LLMs for everything.

So it’s a search tool. Where are all those AI generated cancer treatments, then?

Regardless, it’s a tool that very few can afford at the level it might be genuinely useful for original research.

Printing presses made knowledge more widely available for everyone.

LLMs do the exact opposite.

I keep seeing these comments where AI is hailed as the next industrial revolution, but I think they all miss the point.

Industrialization created jobs. There were fewer skilled jobs lost than new skilled jobs created. It then created the need for more knowledge based jobs, like civil engineers.

The AI lobby is doing the opposite. It targets higher paid skilled jobs. If they were to succeed, they would give birth to the opposite of the Industrial Revolution.

They know. They just don’t care.

Given that some tech bros are measuring AI productivity in lines of code, yes, yes it does.

Correlation doesn’t imply causation.

If you lay off 10% of your workforce, mostly juniors, and your KPIs are loose enough, there’s no reason to think that companies won’t succeed in pushing senior employees to meet them, mostly through overwork.

Also, certain companies track AI usage as a KPI in itself, so there’s a circular logic component to it.

Strong FB dedicated phone button vibes.