this post was submitted on 21 May 2025
937 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

70259 readers
3636 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 days ago (2 children)

but what good is that if AI can do it anyway?

It can't. It just fucking can't. We're all pretending it does, but it fundamentally can't.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/10/12/apples-study-proves-that-llm-based-ai-models-are-flawed-because-they-cannot-reason

Creative thinking is still a long way beyond reasoning as well. We're not close yet.

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It can and it has done creative mathematical proof work. Nothing spectacular, but at least on par with a mathematics grad student.

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Specialized AI like that is not what most people know as AI. Most people reffer to it as LLMs.

Specialized AI, like that showcased, is still decades away from generalized creative thinking. You can't ask it to do a science experiment with in a class because it just can't. It's only built for math proof.

Again, my argument is that it won't never exist.

Just that it's so far off it'd be like trying to regulate smart phone laws in the 90s. We would have only had pipe dreams as to what the tech could be, never mind its broader social context.

So tall to me when it can, in the case of this thread, clinically validated ways of teaching. We're still decades from that.

[–] Zexks@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Show me a human that can do it.

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)
[–] FourWaveforms@lemm.ee -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's already capable of doing a lot, and there is reason to expect it will get better over time. If we stick our fingers in our ears and pretend that's not possible, we will not be prepared.

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

If you read, it's capable of very little under the surface of what it is.

Show me one that is well studied, like clinical trial levels, then we'll talk.

We're decades away at this point.

My overall point of it's just as meaningless to talk about now as it was in the 90s. Because we can't convince of what a functioning product will be, never mind it's context I'm a greater society. When we have it, we can discuss it then as we have something tangible to discuss. But where we'll be in decades is hard to regulate now.

[–] Zexks@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Alpha Fold. We're not decades away. We're years at worst.

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

If you assume the unlimited power needed right now to power Aloha fold at scale of all human education.

We have at best proof of concepts that computers can talk. But LLMs don't have any way of actually knowing anything behind them. That's kinda the problem.

And it's not a "we'll figure out the one trick" but more fundamentally how it works doesn't allow for that to happen.