4 ms·

Personally I’d like to see them actually start benefiting humanity by doing all the things Sam has claimed they will like curing disease, cancer, global warming

• weatherlite 10d ago
  Well there's great progress in automated warfare does that count?
  • jonplackett 10d ago
    Only if targeting schools is progress
    • weatherlite 9d ago
      You're focusing on the negatives there were tons of direct hits on tankers that were absolutely beautiful. Beautiful tankers getting lit.
  • bix6 9d ago
    Oof too real
• gatio 10d ago
  > Personally I’d like to see them actually start benefiting humanity by doing all the things Sam has claimed they will like curing disease, cancer, global warming, etc. It makes more sense to leave curing disease & cancer to the experts, with tools (like AI) being developed by AI experts. Call me crazy, but I want separate organizations and experts for medical vs finance vs space vs climate vs AI research.
  • ryan_n 9d ago
    What the op was pointing out is that guys like Altman and Dario are repeatedly saying they’re going to cure xyz diseases and solve xyz huge global problems. Maybe their companies will eventually do these things, but haven’t yet. I don’t have an opinion either way, I think it’s too soon to tell if llms will be able to cure cancer or whatever. But at the very least it will be a good tool to help researchers do their jobs.
    • BatFastard 9d ago
      The thing is... AI is not going to solve any problems. People needs to solve their problems. AI can give us clever solutions, but its up to us to do it!
    • gatio 9d ago
      > Maybe their companies will eventually do these things, but haven’t yet. I think they are working with customers to improve the LLMs and tools for these use-cases. They almost certainly also hire experts to help filter out nonsense, pseudo-science and help curate trusted knowledge bases for training, but it will almost certainly be the customers who deliver the major results, and the AI companies will claim some of the credit. That said, patents for important medicine might help with the bottom line, so I could imagine partnerships and JVs. > at the very least it will be a good tool to help researchers do their jobs. Indeed.
• figassis 10d ago
  When that happens, OpenAI will own 100% of your life. I’d rather they keep spinning their wheels long enough for these problems to be solved elsewhere.
  • Schlagbohrer 9d ago
    I would actually like to see them solve these problems, I don't care who comes up with solutions to curing cancer, etc
    • ryan_n 9d ago
      I think people very much should care about who ends up owning these solutions. The person or entity that controls things like that just has more power, which isn’t necessarily a good thing
      • SamPatt 9d ago
        It is a good thing when it didn't exist before and it does exist now and wouldn't have existed without them. If they profit immensely from curing cancer, good.
        • ryan_n 8d ago
          And if they decide they are in charge of determining who gets this cancer cure and who doesn’t? Still good? Maybe it is, idk, you may be right. But I think it’s something people should care about.
          • SamPatt 6d ago
            I don't see how it's different from what we have now? Expensive cancer treatments already exist and are rationed by the companies who create them, then over time become more widely available. If AI companies create better treatments they'll offer them to people who pay for them. So wealthier people will have better cancer treatments. If they can make them inexpensively, then a broader audience also gets treatment. Eventually they lose IP rights and they become generics and the world gets better cancer treatments. In all scenarios having them find better treatments benefits humans with cancer more than if they didn't. I don't like trusting any organization, corporate or governmental, with control over people's lives, but it's obvious that we're not going to get cutting edge medical treatments without these organizations.