this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2026
1118 points (96.0% liked)
Fuck AI
8360 readers
957 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
Dumb fucks really think LLMs are the kind of AI involved in medical and scientific research.
Yeah. At this point LLMs are what people are referring to 95% of the time when they say AI. If one comes up with the cure for cancer, it's because we already have it and it picked it up in the last data scrape.
And someone wins the coveted Nobel Prompt Prize.
And in 4.5% of the remaining 5% they reference generative AI
Then 0.45% of the remain they're referring to NPCs in games.
0.045% of the time they’re talking about Weird Al.
0.0045% of the time they're talking about a ouija board
LLMs is a subset of generative AI, but an image generator as an example is not a LLM
Transformers and diffusion models are not the same, even if they use related math
Edit: By the magic of advanced mathematics, every Turing complete structure can be rewritten into any other Turing complete structure with no loss of function or change in behavior
So the logic "remove one" will remove all of modern computing because the AI companies are not giving up their models. If they have to start pretending they aren't neural network anymore, then they will.
And if you DON'T rewrite, then you're back to them actually being different again
https://infosec.pub/comment/23830616
This is a dumb take. You can use a more general term like large dataset generative machine learning. Legislation needs to understand the different risks between the different implementations to do any good.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29530
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1009670302979
https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/file/e4acb4c86de9d2d9a41364f93951028d-Paper.pdf
https://arxiv.org/html/2106.03354v3
https://luke-griffiths.github.io/non-neural-networks/
Machine B has now been fully rewritten to structures that are no longer a neural network. Everything it learned has been extracted from the model and given a new form. It doesn't even run on a GPU anymore.
Its just decision trees and explicit function now. Same origin, same behavior, wildly different implementation and appearance. It just looks like another program. Especially to a judge.
Every rule you wrote that specified "neural", not something more universal as "heuristic", has now been denied by the judge, as you do not have jurisdiction against the new thing.
This isn't some academic wordplay either. All machine implementable logic has infinitely many possible representations. If you specify your rule on appearance, not behavior, then the appearance will change and the behavior stays.
Did you seriously stop reading after the first line? Your response has NOTHING to do with what I wrote.
Keep reading
If you're going to make a law saying "anything with a neural architecture" it's possible to keep the behavior with alternative architectures which remove the neurons.
I very explicitly and plain as day DID NOT say they are using something different today, I said your proposed law would make them change in response. This is very clearly not the thing you think I said.
If you change the proposed law further to "any software which takes a large amount of data to extract patterns iteratively to solve for arbitrary targets" then your regulation will cover every optimizing compiler and a ton of physics solvers.
The law should cover behavior of software deployments, not architectures.
And that's why science research should go private. Can't risk slop machines stealing the breakthrough.
ChatGPT, cure cancer for me.
No, that didn't work, try again
That one gave me a rash, try again.
That last one did not work, also the rash is starting to look a little gross.
Sorry for the delay, I had to go to the ER to get my arm amputated from the rash, can you try again, also look for a cure for amputated arm.
Hyper scalers have so little for their models and compute to do they are just brute force hacking things or mining crypto.
Not quite, but some of them do run on the same principle.
But they are?
https://www.genengnews.com/topics/artificial-intelligence/protein-language-model-hits-undruggable-targets-no-structure-required/
Uses LM to define new peptides to bind targets.
So, the manuscript I referenced which no one read uses a language model. you just input text protein sequence and it will generate binding peptides sequences, using only the language model. A version of an LLM.
They absolutely are, but most people on this platform would prefer to hear their comfortable lie instead.
No, chatbots are not used in medical or scientific research.
I’m not such why you’d utter such a lie so confidently. This reeks of fear, ignorance or a mix of both.
Yes they are? Literally have to listen to a friend bitch about them every single day. She's a biochemist. They do literally use specialized AI models, general LLMs and and a number of other transformer based technologies.
And while the specialized ones are useful the stupid chat bot ones are fucking over processes all over the place.
So you're a scientist?
I use LLMs every day, they search deep into supplemental data and manuscripts that would take months to sift through. Can't find specific information, reagents or data using title and abstract searches.
LLMs can be useful tools, but this entire thread is people with bullshit jobs scared of being replaced by an algorithm because they know they have a bullshit job.
I think it's more that the way the chatbots work is the same. They assign a bunch of numbers to tokens, and the numbers determine how interrelated different tokens are. You put in a bunch of tokens and then it spits out what it thinks the next one should be based on all the interrelatedness numbers and some math things like transformers, and the math things have knobs on them to determine how strong they are. It doesn't matter if the tokens are words in a sentence or peptides in a protein. The underlying technology is the same.
This is an exciting use for a tool that I mostly despise for probably all the same reasons you do.
Chat bot is the interface. Its like saying, "NO, life saving drugs arent made with keyboards and mice!"