1101
So where's that miraculous cure, then?
(lemmy.nz)
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 24 Sep 2026
1101 points (95.9% liked)
Fuck AI
8308 readers
950 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
Yeah. At this point LLMs are what people are referring to 95% of the time when they say AI. If one comes up with the cure for cancer, it's because we already have it and it picked it up in the last data scrape.
And someone wins the coveted Nobel Prompt Prize.
And in 4.5% of the remaining 5% they reference generative AI
Then 0.45% of the remain they're referring to NPCs in games.
0.045% of the time they’re talking about Weird Al.
0.0045% of the time they're talking about a ouija board
LLMs is a subset of generative AI, but an image generator as an example is not a LLM
Transformers and diffusion models are not the same, even if they use related math
Edit: By the magic of advanced mathematics, every Turing complete structure can be rewritten into any other Turing complete structure with no loss of function or change in behavior
So the logic "remove one" will remove all of modern computing because the AI companies are not giving up their models. If they have to start pretending they aren't neural network anymore, then they will.
And if you DON'T rewrite, then you're back to them actually being different again
https://infosec.pub/comment/23830616
This is a dumb take. You can use a more general term like large dataset generative machine learning. Legislation needs to understand the different risks between the different implementations to do any good.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29530
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1009670302979
https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/file/e4acb4c86de9d2d9a41364f93951028d-Paper.pdf
https://arxiv.org/html/2106.03354v3
https://luke-griffiths.github.io/non-neural-networks/
Machine B has now been fully rewritten to structures that are no longer a neural network. Everything it learned has been extracted from the model and given a new form. It doesn't even run on a GPU anymore.
Its just decision trees and explicit function now. Same origin, same behavior, wildly different implementation and appearance. It just looks like another program. Especially to a judge.
Every rule you wrote that specified "neural", not something more universal as "heuristic", has now been denied by the judge, as you do not have jurisdiction against the new thing.
This isn't some academic wordplay either. All machine implementable logic has infinitely many possible representations. If you specify your rule on appearance, not behavior, then the appearance will change and the behavior stays.
Did you seriously stop reading after the first line? Your response has NOTHING to do with what I wrote.
Keep reading
If you're going to make a law saying "anything with a neural architecture" it's possible to keep the behavior with alternative architectures which remove the neurons.
I very explicitly and plain as day DID NOT say they are using something different today, I said your proposed law would make them change in response. This is very clearly not the thing you think I said.
If you change the proposed law further to "any software which takes a large amount of data to extract patterns iteratively to solve for arbitrary targets" then your regulation will cover every optimizing compiler and a ton of physics solvers.
The law should cover behavior of software deployments, not architectures.
And that's why science research should go private. Can't risk slop machines stealing the breakthrough.