104
The uncritical adoption of AI in science is alarming — we urgently need guard rails
(www.nature.com)
this post was submitted on 29 May 2026
104 points (100.0% liked)
Fuck AI
7191 readers
1382 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.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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?
“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.
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