Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 9862565" data-attributes="member: 177">Yes.&nbsp; But, in pushing back on the technical point, your argument looks like apologia.Here's the thing:&nbsp; Production of scientific gen AI (for, finding tumors or driving probes on Mars) is disjoint from producing Midjourney or Claude.&nbsp; Frequently a different engine, totally different training, on (and this is important) much more focused data sets.&nbsp; It doesn't require stealing copyright protected data from artistic people, doesnt' threaten to steal common people's jobs, doesn't need the giant freakin' data centers that suck down more electricity than the Las Vegas strip, and it doesn't need the trillions of dollars of funding and balloon economics around its production.And that means you can relax.&nbsp; The public does not care if a generative AI is used over at JPL, or at CERN, for arcane technical tasks.&nbsp;&nbsp; The public's reaction to the Groks, Claudes, and Midjourneys will not stop scientific use.The scientific community doesn't have to try to sell to the public.&nbsp; It doesn't have to even use the term &quot;generative AI&quot; or &quot;AI&quot; at all.&nbsp; Which is actually good, because &quot;artificial intelligence&quot; is a marketing term that is, itself, scientifically inaccurate!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 9862565, member: 177"] Yes. But, in pushing back on the [I]technical[/I] point, your argument looks like apologia. Here's the thing: Production of [I]scientific[/I] gen AI (for, finding tumors or driving probes on Mars) is [I]disjoint[/I] from producing Midjourney or Claude. Frequently a different engine, totally different training, on (and this is important) much more focused data sets. It doesn't require stealing copyright protected data from artistic people, doesnt' threaten to steal common people's jobs, doesn't need the giant freakin' data centers that suck down more electricity than the Las Vegas strip, and it doesn't need the trillions of dollars of funding and balloon economics around its production. And that means you can relax. The public does not care if a generative AI is used over at JPL, or at CERN, for arcane technical tasks. The public's reaction to the Groks, Claudes, and Midjourneys will not stop scientific use. The scientific community doesn't have to try to sell to the public. It doesn't have to even use the term "generative AI" or "AI" at all. Which is actually good, because "artificial intelligence" is a marketing term that is, itself, scientifically inaccurate! [/QUOTE]

Verification