Technology

But let's just say for the sake of argument that you're 100% correct, and that Evo is not an LLM.

Why only assume? I cited Wikipedia. You cited nothing.

That is why I absolutely reject your disrespectful framing that by defending a technology, and NOT it's worst uses, I'm somehow opposite to "care(ing) for humanity."

There you go putting words in my mouth again.

The actual technology behind Evo and ChatGPT is structurally the same.

...Except that it isn't. It's not a Generative Pre-Trained Transformer. It uses a Transformer-like architecture. You cannot use Evo's architecture to make a chatbot. It's a GLM.

The methods of training a model on genomic data or weather patterns is indistinguishable from training it on stolen media.

Go ahead and train a StripedHyena2 model to be a chatbot, then. I'm sure that will work great.

For someone who's such a stickler for making 100% correct and unambiguous statements, you're sure keen on asserting equality where there is merely similarity.

Nobody is claiming these technologies don't share some (or even a lot of) DNA. Being upset that people correctly use the definition of LLMs as outlined by Wikipedia, where even Evo's own Github page doesn't claim it's an LLM, is just derailing the conversation away from people's righteous objections.

Nobody is campaigning against using non-chatbot AI for science.

Read the room. Pay more attention to the context.