You must log in or register to comment.
Dude, have you looked out your window? Its so obvious the qorld is flat… /s
Who has time for YouTube? I get my conspiracies and lies from millisecond-long TikToks.
I need a tshirt of this
deleted by creator
“Can you tell me how other countries have managed effective healthcare based on science?”
“I’m sorry, as a large language model I don’t have the capability to make healthcare system analysis. Would you like to talk about the beautiful Gulf of Amerika instead?”
This has already been done by politicians and continues to this day
And some scientists!
“If I repeat it in enough papers it’ll become true” seems to be the mantra of scientists with hard to defend theories they claim are fact.
Did you write this with deepseek?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_fHJIYENdI
You should really watch this – AI is being used in real research, and not all of it is bad. Those who think AI is bad are simply uneducated luddites.
Luddites’ main concern was the systemic redirection of revenue from them, the laborers, to the owners of the factories. They did not simply hate technology for technology’s sake.
The fact that you ignore this basic historical fact betrays an embarrassing ignorance.
I personally don’t give a shit if some AI is used in research. I think that’s awesome. But AI also actively and materially deprives laborers of compensation for their work, both before and after the model training process. And I fucking hate that.
deleted by creator
Literally you are better off with AI - it’s produced some of the most groundbreaking work in decades. You didn’t watch the video, did you? AI ended up being better than humans at tasks involving protein folding, so much so that they won a Nobel prize for its use. The breakthroughs of this AI have put us forward in medical research by an order of magnitude. Many orders of magnitude in fact.
AI is more than just LLMs and Stable Diffusors. It’s being used in Science by people who aren’t reactionaries and anti-tech luddites to give people better vaccines faster, to discover new proteins for antivenom, to ensure a better future for people who need medical care.
AI’s primary use case so far is to further concentrate wealth with the wealthy, and to replace employees. People who think AI is bad recognize that it is in the hands of the modern generation of robber barons, and serves their interests.
Those who don’t recognize this are delusional.
AI’s primary use case so far is to further concentrate wealth with the wealthy,
Under capitalism, everything further concentrates wealth with the wealthy because the wealthy are best able to capitalize on anything. Wealth gives you the means to better pursue further wealth.
and to replace employees.
So what you’re saying is that we need to dismantle every piece of automation and go back to manufacturing everything by hand with the most basic hand tools possible? Because that will maximize the number of people needed to be employed to produce, well, anything. Anything else is using technology to replace employees.
Or is it just that now we’re talking about people working office jobs they thought were automation-proof getting partially automated that’s made automation a bad thing?
AI as a tool can absolutely be a good thing, just like almost any tool. A tool on its own is neither good nor bad, it’s just a tool that can be used. The usage is what makes it good or bad.
Yes, most of what AI is used for now is bad, but it can absolutely be a good thing in the right use cases.
Ideally, yes.
What ends up happening if your research shows new conclusions on the basis of “better science” is that those in power will probably ridicule your new conclusions and findings since it doesn’t align with ‘accepted’ scientific consensus and doctrine. And by ridicule I don’t mean challenging the new theory on the basis of counter data/evidence and reasoning. I mean ad hominem attacks on the researchers themselves. “Well, they graduated from a top 30 university and not MIT, so anything they produce is not worth looking into”. You won’t be funded and the status quo will be allowed to continue without significant challenge.
I used to want to be a researcher when I was younger. My experiences have been wrought with closed-mindedness, arrogance, and lack of critical judgment and objectivity. Maybe my experiences aren’t representative, but hearing from others (at least in my field), I see that this is a systemic and widespread problem within the scientific community as a whole.
How long did it take to convince people the Earth was not at the center of our universe?
- an anecdote your cousin told you
It isn’t even better science, it is just more science.
“I did my own research”
Oh, you did? You had a lab, and test subjects and ran double blind studies? Is it peer reviewed?
“Oh, no I listened to Joe Rogan”
But I said the phrase “scientists don’t know everything” so now you have to listen to my bullshit.
Ahhhhh… Love that line. My brother and his fiance just had a baby and are debating on vaccines or not. They asked me, I said, it’s always better to get them and protect your child from as much as you possibly can. Like all of us here are vaccinated. I recommended that they follow what their doctor recommends. My dad chimes in with, “Doctors don’t know everything, they’re just trying to sell drugs for the pharmaceutical companies, that’s all they care about.” I looked at him and said, “As someone who studied biology in college, there’s a lot that a lot of us don’t know. But seeing as that doctor has had significantly more training than I’ve had, let alone you, I’m going to trust them more than some random article I’ve read online.” He stopped talking to me for a large portion of the day after that.
If they did, their job would no longer exist! This is proof they don’t know everything!
Counterexamples also refute, without necessarily being science.
Isn’t a counterexample just da tomb? Even though its only won case-a-dilla, it’s still le sahyênçe.
Sorry, I don’t understand.
Isn’t a counter example just data, even though it’s just one case it’s still science
Science requires systematic observation, measurement and usually variation (often experimentally controlled); and, usually, iterations.
One datapoint outside such a system is not science.
You can’t even necessarily just insert a new datapoint into a pre-existing scientific sytem. The system itself may need to be adjusted, for example to test and account for biases that often occur due to how observations are made.
Not to my mind, science requires a testable hypothesis and evidence. I would argue that merely refuting someone else’s hypothesis without providing a new one doesn’t meet the bar of doing science.
Yeah, I’m being silly.
Isn’t a counterexample just one datum? Even though its only one case, it’s still science.
FTFM
Counterexamples only go so far. What you really need is counterexamples, and an analysis of their implications, including a probability study.
In other words, well, science.
N@zi published multiple scientific researches to justify their doings.
And better science refuted their junk science. What’s your point?
How about 47 TikTok videos?
what if i watched THREE youtube videos?
Then baby we got an algorithm going.
You’re clearly an expert then, don’t hold back
Should probably create another youtube video.
Science is important, it helps us solve many of the problems we do not have without science
I once saw a cow on a roof. Can science explain that? I didn’t think so.
True, a sphere would roll off
Cow goes up, cow comes down, can’t explain that.
Damn, you’re an older millennial.
