I'm not sure battling the Vatican over interpretations of an obscure philosopher who mentored him back when he was an undergrad is the easiest way of winning over the religious right. Most of whom will happily go along with generic arguments about Peter Thiel's portfolio being essential to defeat Communist China and the woke libs. Treating Eliezer Yudkowsky as an irrelevant nutter probably works better on people with all kinds of views on religion and politics than attempting to elevate him to the status of antichrist
Perhaps one unifying principle behind all the iterations of the Catholic church as social mores changed over time and its influence waxed and waned and was coopted by secular kingdoms, is that every single one of them might have written an article entitled "should Peter Thiel be burned at the stake", if someone had taken the time to explain Peter Thiel to them in terms they might understand. And concluded "yes, probably".
I doubt there's anyone in the small group of people that actually need to care about the distinction between EU and ESA spacecraft who doesn't already know this is an ESA mission anyway, and if such a person exists they can probably read as far as the first four words...
the UK has incarcerated plenty of participants in grooming gangs from a diverse range of ethnic groups (and elected none of them President).
No matter how many accounts you create to amplify the Epstein-associate media message that only other ethnicities participate in the systematic sexual abuse of children and get away with it, you're still not getting an invite to the island...
Nah, in context it's more like if your neighbourhood police have been sanctioning counterfeiters across our borders for years, we're not going to take lectures on how inappropriate it is for our neighbourhood police to pick on your pimps too seriously.
Don't mistake Brits' general disinterest in engaging with foreigners whose perspective on the UK begins and ends with lecturing us on "England for the English" with us not being able to talk with anybody else...
Generative AI iterating on design is being done with satellites in production already (and given that there's limited scope for real world testing so you're solving complex optimization problems against a set of models, actually represents one of the better use cases for generative design). Don't think the foundation models and physics based constraints solvers involved look much like LLM "agents", mind you..
Yeah. It's possible to think that there are cases where lowering the cost of first phase trials or making it relatively simple for people capable of offering informed consent to obtain access to existing safe medications currently undergoing trials for their specific ailments and thinking that a person who claims to have "designed an RNA vaccine" by asking an LLM to teach him about RNA and now wants to inject it into animals under his care might be the exact thing such laws were meant to restrict.
Plus as others have pointed out, LLMs are much better at generating something that looks like compliance documentation than they are at designing drugs (and providing generic background info on compliance processes than they are at relatively little-documented cutting edge research), so if most people aren't instantly sceptical of a yarn spun about how a layman with ChatGPT easily taught himself enough to find an RNA immunotherapy cure for his dog but then was stymied by the amount of typing involved in a 100 page document, it's a good indication of why barriers to even nominally consenting people trying experimental stuff exist.
The LLM did not design the drug. The LLM summarized some papers on how to design similar drugs, and then a dozen specialized tools were used in an established pipeline to design the drug. You people need to read the article and read the background before writing nonsense based on your assumptions.
Funny how you keep skipping the unbelievable part of the story out of your replies: why would he spend 3 month hand typing a document that an LLM can definitely make at least 80% of it in one shot?
True, and even more true in the case that you barely understand what you're doing. That's a feature rather than a bug of this sort of paperwork; the person who's simply pestered ChatGPT until it says "great idea" won't cross that threshold at all, whereas this guy [and the bioinformatics processing chain and experts in the loop he found] crossed it in his spare time. If it was just the "two hours a night typing" as quoted in the article, LLMs can do it in no time.
"ChatGPT better at finding expert advice than filling in compliance forms" and even "getting workable results from latest generation Open Source bioinformatics tools possible for smart laymen with minimal background reading; learning enough to prove they aren't dangerous only takes marginally longer" doesn't sound nearly as bad as "layman asks ChatGPT to cure his dog's cancer, only hard bit is writing enough words to convince gatekeepers" as rendered by news coverage of this (and not really elaborated on more by the TFA). A rendering which really should trigger people's bullshit filters.
Other fields crossed the computers can find potential solutions easily a lot earlier (any idiot can put dimensions into pretty dumb civil engineering tools and get answers that are probably correct; don't as me how I know!) and actually have higher barriers (no, even if you actually learn the relevant physics as well you will still need to pass some elements of your home design via someone with the right professional liability insurance linked to their experience and formal qualifications)
You don't understand how the technology in question works, and you're just making shit up because you don't want to admit to being wrong.
What are you alleging here anyways? That all the scientists quoted and photographed in the article discussing their part in making the vaccine are in on the game? That the Australian made the story up wholesale? Come on.
> You don't understand how the technology in question work
See my comment history. I do know very well how language models work. Thank you.
What I don't know is why you're claiming you disagree with the story reported here being bullshit (the story being almost literally “ChatGPT did the heavy lifting and the only reason we can't have nice thing is because red tape is blocking humanity”: “he used AI to teach himself about how a personalized vaccine could work, designed much of the process himself. […] The red tape was actually harder than the vaccine creation”), when you know very well it's bullshit because your comments describe what has most likely happened (ChatGPT did nothing much besides telling what could work and pointing towards which scientists to seek help from).
Again, literally no one question the fact that mRNA-based medicine has incredible potential, the bullshit here is not about the medicine: it's about red tape being the only bottleneck in a fantasyland where AI solves all the hard challenges.
Quite remarkable how you are unable to make the link between "unethical medical experiments bad" and "maybe we should have some sort of medical ethics regulating whether people are able to perform a medical experiment"...
Ok, now you are grasping at straws by trying to find faults in my logic. I am able to distinguish just fine. Most people, me included, are just tired of managing their deceases vs having an actual, permanent solution that works. The modern medical establishment's therapeutic approach has evolved to focus on the former and totally ignored the latter. In doing so, it has failed its patients, alienating them in the process, all in the name of greed. Self-interest and greed are universal concepts. Don't worry, once the singularity comes about, things will change, for better or worse, but hopefully for the better ;)
reply