Wow a corporate press release? The peak of science!!! jfc.
Comment on Meta’s star AI scientist Yann LeCun plans to leave for own startup
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 3 weeks agoblog.google/…/google-gemma-ai-cancer-therapy-disc… how did it do this?
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 3 weeks ago
It doesn’t have to be to invalidate the claim. It proposed a novel hypothesis, this is the easiest thing to check in the world.
just_another_person@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Lol 🤣 I’m SO EMBARRASSED. You’re totally right and understand these things better than me after reading a GOOGLE BLOG ABOUT THEIR PRODUCT.
I’ll speak to this topic again since I’ve clearly been tested with your knowledge from a Google Blog.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 3 weeks ago
yes, google reported about their ai discovering a novel cancer treatment, of course they did?
now tell me about how it isn’t true.
just_another_person@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I sure do. Knowledge, and being in the space for a decade.
Here’s a fun one: go ask your LLM why it can’t create novel ideas, it’ll tell you right away 🤣🤣🤣🤣
LLMs have ZERO intentional logic that allow it to even comprehend an idea, let alone craft a new one and create relationships between others.
I can already tell from your tone you’re mostly driven by bullshit PR hype from people like Sam Altman , and are an “AI” fanboy, so I won’t waste my time arguing with you. You’re in love with human-made logic loops and datasets, bruh. There is, and never was, a way for any of it to become some supreme being of ideas and knowledge. You’re drunk on Kool-Aid, kiddo.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 3 weeks ago
You sound drunk on kool-aid, this is a validated scientific report from yale, tell me a problem with the methodology or anything of substance.
markon@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
A decade in the space is impressive. It shows dedication and time invested. That alone deserves recognition.
Still, the points you are repeating are familiar. They are recycled claims from years ago. If the goal is to critique novelty, repeating the same arguments does not advance it.
You say LLMs have zero intentional logic. That is true if by intentional logic you mean human consciousness or goals. It is false if you mean emergent behaviors and the ability to combine information in ways no single source explicitly wrote. Eliminating nuance with absolute terms makes it easy to dismiss valid evidence.
Calling someone an AI fanboy signals preference for labels over analysis. That approach does not strengthen an argument. Specific examples do. Concrete failures, reproducible tests, or papers are what advance discussion.
It is also not accurate to suggest that anyone pitches LLMs as supreme beings. Most people treat them as complex tools that produce surprising results. Their speed, scale, and capacity to identify patterns exceed human ability, but they remain tools. Critiquing them as if they were gods is a strawman.
If you want this discussion to matter, show a single reproducible example where an LLM fails in a way your logic cannot explain. Otherwise, repeating slogans and metaphors only illustrates a resistance to evidence.
I am not here to argue for ideology. I am here to examine claims. That is a choice. It is also a choice to resist slogans and demand specificity. Fun, fun. Another fun day.