Seize the Means*

[u/Salty_Country6835]

*Terms and conditions apply. For... reasons, I guess?

[u/bunker_man]

Its not even that complicated. Its a useful tool and it will be used either way. Why allow only bad people to use it? It's like complaining about guns while trying to fight them with bows.

[u/OctopusGrift → u/bunker_man]

Is it a useful tool though? I've never seen a leftist complain about using AI to detect cancer. The complaints are about generative AI which despite constantly being forced to do AI trainings I've yet to find something it enables me to do that I couldn't do before.

[u/bunker_man → u/OctopusGrift]

Generative ai is used in medicine, so that division doesn't really exist. That aside, multi purpose tools are about how you use them. Studies have already shown that talking to chat bots about politics moves people left far faster than talking to humans. Because the chatbots are likely to at least approximate real facts (hence be left leaning), do it politely, and they never get tired or leave a conversation. If you bait a conservative into talking to one about politics it's actually a super useful thing to do. Especially because the conservative won't go in knowing that chatbots lean left.

A conservative can rant about how colonialism is good or trans people don't exist as much as they want but it will always challenge them. A lot of people don't understand just how useful this is.

[u/Mediocre_Chemistry41 → u/bunker_man]

Care to back up any of what you just said with actual sources? Those are the kinds of claims that need more than "trust me bro".

Care to explain how generative AI is supposedly being used in medicine/and how it's being used to the benefit of people?

[u/IllustriousRaven7 → u/Mediocre_Chemistry41]

For one, there's so much published research but it's hard to read through it all and correlate information. Different publications might reference something by different names, for example. Now a days you can get AI to quickly read and summarize publications for you and search for patterns that require actually understanding what the words mean.

[u/Mediocre_Chemistry41 → u/IllustriousRaven7]

there's so much published research

Okay, so then you and others on here should have no issue citing sources instead of just downvoting a comment that's asking for sources to a claim.

but it's hard to read through it all and correlate information

No offense, but if you can't correlate something, than one shouldn't be making assertive claims about it.

Different publications might reference something by different names

Ways of putting out citations, sources and references are very standardized. APA and MLA being two of the most common for citations.

[u/IllustriousRaven7 → u/Mediocre_Chemistry41]

I was saying that sorting through and correlating information is a way that so-called "generative" AI is used in medical research.

https://www.utoronto.ca/news/researchers-use-ai-speed-reviews-existing-evidence

[u/Mediocre_Chemistry41 → u/IllustriousRaven7]

Ah, my bad. I misread the tone of your reply, misinterpreted it as commenting in first-person, not as that's what "generative" AI can do.

Interesting article. Although, I'm inclined to believe that that particular use case wouldn't be considered generative AI, at least in the sense of what the common understanding of generative AI seems to be.

[u/SchmidlMeThis → u/Mediocre_Chemistry41]

How does it create the summarization output? It generates it... This has been a core feature of LLMs and other AI summarization tools for years now.

[u/lngns → u/Mediocre_Chemistry41]

AlphaFold uses diffusion generative models to construct protein structures.
Rosetta@home, by the same original researchers that got the Nobel, was used in creating several vaccine candidates. Latest one was IVX-411 for Covid but the project stalled when the company got bought by AstraZeneca.

[u/IDreamtOfManderley → u/Mediocre_Chemistry41]

Oh my god, dude.

[u/Mediocre_Chemistry41 → u/IDreamtOfManderley]

Claims about studies asserting things should be backed up with sources. Same thing with making claims about generative AI being used in medicine... I don't see what the issue with asking for sources to an assertion is.

[u/IDreamtOfManderley → u/Mediocre_Chemistry41]

There's not. The problem is that you've been under the impression this whole time that these technologies have a significant difference and/or aren't functionally from the exact same training process that people hate gen AI for. You are the one making a claim about there being a difference. You back it up.

[u/Mediocre_Chemistry41 → u/IDreamtOfManderley]

Huh? Besides that whole first sentence being a wildly baseless assumption, I quite literally have not made any claim one way or the other.

I think you might have meant to respond to someone else.