Do you think AI is going to go away? History repeats itself, the Luddites will not win. The people who can best exploit AI will be ahead of those who cannot.
It won’t go away, but LLM won’t always mean automated-cargo-cult-programming, digital serfdom, climate apocalypse and a financial speculation bubble. At some point, their cost will have to be their actual cost. Bigtech hope is many will be so hopelessly dependent at that point, that they will pay that cost. Also that there is little competition because few can run at those losses.
But I think at that point, efficient small language models you can own/host, train and use at will, will be a thing. No one wants to be (American) bigtech serfs.
This is consistent with how most people have technology since the PC. They want control of their devices, the ability to use open source software, self host the services they deem critical. I’m no predictor, but I can see AI going the same path as other technologies, and we will get to a more user controlled environment.
Exactly. Right now it is the mainframe era and the billionaire monopolies want it that way. However that is a future not one but them wants. Little tech rebel alliance is the way to go. I’m not interested in big tech’s imperial AI.
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.
This is one article. Are you actually interested in learning about the benefit of AI in cancer research? I could post a dozen articles, but would it make a difference to you? Also keep in mind it’s only going to get better as the models improve. I suspect your position is more ideological rather than rational.
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?
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.
People also smashed printing presses when they first arrived.
https://bigthink.com/the-past/printing-press-ai/
People are really out here defending the billionaire’s toys and comparing them to the fucking printing press?
We are so incredibly fucked.
Do you think AI is going to go away? History repeats itself, the Luddites will not win. The people who can best exploit AI will be ahead of those who cannot.
It won’t go away, but LLM won’t always mean automated-cargo-cult-programming, digital serfdom, climate apocalypse and a financial speculation bubble. At some point, their cost will have to be their actual cost. Bigtech hope is many will be so hopelessly dependent at that point, that they will pay that cost. Also that there is little competition because few can run at those losses.
But I think at that point, efficient small language models you can own/host, train and use at will, will be a thing. No one wants to be (American) bigtech serfs.
This is consistent with how most people have technology since the PC. They want control of their devices, the ability to use open source software, self host the services they deem critical. I’m no predictor, but I can see AI going the same path as other technologies, and we will get to a more user controlled environment.
Exactly. Right now it is the mainframe era and the billionaire monopolies want it that way. However that is a future not one but them wants. Little tech rebel alliance is the way to go. I’m not interested in big tech’s imperial AI.
Printing presses made knowledge more widely available for everyone.
LLMs do the exact opposite.
AI has accelerated cancer research, able to cross reference thousands of studies. LLM’s still suck at writing emails though.
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.
You could have done a quick google search as easily as myself.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-026-01276-6
AI is a game changer in oncology.
You haven’t read it, have you.
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.
This is one article. Are you actually interested in learning about the benefit of AI in cancer research? I could post a dozen articles, but would it make a difference to you? Also keep in mind it’s only going to get better as the models improve. I suspect your position is more ideological rather than rational.
https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cncr.70050
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?
I’ve already provided two references. Please feel free to post the link supporting that AI has no influence in medicine.
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.