1254
Moving in the right direction
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2026
1254 points (95.5% liked)
Fuck AI
7748 readers
2486 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I feel like finding and citing appropriate law cases would be a great way for AI to be used, especially because the bullshit legal-ese that surrounds everything in court cases is so spectacularly opaque and trivial that you have to pay out the nose just for someone to parse through all the bullshit... Like, lawyers shouldn't even be a thing you need unless it's for some really complicated case. The courtroom should be a place where an average citizen could speak for themselves.
Also, as someone who studied medicine... Do you know how often doctors will take a patients history, step outside the exam room, and then google shit? I don't want to imply that they don't know what they're doing, like, you need to study medicine to know what to google, BUT... they still be googling shit. I think AI could be trained to ask the same patient history questions that a nurse asks. Then using the answers to those questions, then they can provide some feedback, with a big ol disclaimer that it's NOT to be taken seriously, and you should consult with a physician.
When people say "AI" these days, they mean the LLM-derived generative AI such as ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Anthropic Claude, and Grok.
These AI systems are not capable of finding authoritative search results. They are good at generating fluent, plausible, context-appropriate text. In legal and medical situations, that's the opposite of what you'd want.
Think about how often the doctors land on some pseudo-science result. Now imagine that instead of a doctor it's a patient and instead of asking "could these be related" the patient is told "these are related".
This has worked very well for Fox News, which is not a news agency and is for entertainment purpose only. Also for dietary supplements, which are not medicine.
Specifically tuned LLMs that are trained on medical databases and less sycophant (E.g. OpenEvidence) are one of the killer applications of AI. Tons of frivolous AI nonsense but this could actually save lives. Access to broad knowledge and connections that a doctor can make use of.
We're demanding and regulating the complete wrong shit about AI.
I've seen purpose built models for things like patent examination and its clear that AI can be incredibly useful. I think if the implementation of AI was not so abusive and destructive people would not be so unwilling to see the good uses.
We live in a late stage capitalist boring dystopia, of course the rollout for AI is going to be abusive and destructive. The real problem is the unlimited greed and billions of freshly printed money in an overheated capitalist economy that is poured into marketing and destructive causes. But interfering in the "free market" doesn't ever enter the liberals mind so we get this dysfunctional reaction.
AI corporations should be nationalized and turned into public utilities, and put under the mandate that they work for the betterment of the population and economy, not for profit. They cannot be trusted to use AI safely. It's potentially dangerous technology, more dangerous than nuclear power. We should pour billions into AI research but with the objective to make it useful and safe, not to maximize shareholder value.
Outlawing people from using expert AI models to get expert advice is idiotic at best, malicious at worst. Next they'll ban using open source AI models locally. Plutocrats are going to want to collect rent on AI usage.
I agree completely, especially considering the models were trained off human content without our consent collectively or individually. They are ours by all possible interpretations.
I do think there is a certain poetry that vast amounts of humanities written works went into training and creating the LLM. They are a true miracle - even if their current ability is very often vastly overstated and they are still pretty low IQ, they are the first thinking machines. Just that intelligence without sentience is possible is an amazing discovery.
In that we aren't regulating any of it?
What would be your demands for regulation?
And answering general health questions isn't how AI is being used in the medical field.
I'd agree with you to some extent if people weren't so god damn stupid. So many lazy fucks just take the AI's output at face value, believing it to be some all knowledgeable god, rather than a compilation of all human biases expressed on the internet with a bunch of hallucinations thrown in for good measure.
It's a great search engine for case law, but yeah most people are too stupid to use it.
Yeah, I don't disagree, it can be a decent starting point, emphasis important lol