upvote

points

by captainclam5 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby 2muchcoffeeman53 minutes ago|
next
[-]
I think his last point is important

* Could the AI solution be somehow misaligned by exploiting a weakness in the trial process or its math models?*

Maybe it’s a clumsy example but I think the difference is humans would follow the spirit of the trial process.

Could an AI find flaws in the process and then use them to get its drug passed? I think that’s the question.

Are you saying that the trail process is good enough that we shouldn’t worry about it?

reply
upvoteby curt153 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
The accounts spreading that narrative on X no doubt have their own agenda. Before people start hyperventilating about "AI" conquering human endeavors, remember that the cash-strapped frontier labs are themselves still hiring human "Account Associates" and "Android Engineers" instead of saving those salaries using their own AI capabilities.

https://openai.com/careers/search/

reply
upvoteby Loquebantur2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Tao actually pictures the AI as having hacked the FDA, so as to pass the test despite the drug being lethal.

Picking out that one example and misrepresenting it on top of it indeed clearly is driven by an agenda. Or mere stupidity.

The central point in all of this is the misguided idea of "letting AI think for us". An over-generalization feeding into the society-wide problem of self-infantilization.

reply
upvoteby gyanchawdhary1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
>to paint Tao as an example of some sort of gatekeeping luddite who would deny the world a post-abundance future in order to maintain the prestige of his particular career path

why is it so hard to accept that a brilliant mathematician can have the same human flaws as anyone else i.e. ego, arrogance, jealousy and competitiveness?

reply
upvoteby calf5 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
The conflations about his example ("thought experiment") is twofold, the AI itself confounds the ethical intuition so it is wrong directly compare against what real medicine today does; furthermore, the very admission that real medicine in fact operates through unknown risks (e.g. Jannsen vaccine recall) is different than having a scientific standard that it should not have to be that way at least as minimally as possible.
reply
upvoteby EA-31672 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Instead of bemoaning his specific and clumsy example, take the gift of this moment and don’t forget that he’s smart, confident, and usually wrong or completely ignorant outside of his own narrow field.

Don’t let the Gell-Mann Amnesia take you.

reply
upvoteby cgio1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I think logic is squarely in his field, and even with simple logic, proposing the importance of second order effects on people who are dying is not tenable. Personally, knowing that he is indeed one of the smartest people around, and definitely much smarter than me, I cannot but be a bit worried that going with this example indicates traces of panic in the face of a shifting world. He’s smart but human, and maybe these weaknesses are not to bemoan but to celebrate in our current context.
reply
upvoteby EA-31671 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
One of life’s hardest lessons is that raw intelligence isn’t a superpower, it isn’t a substitute for actually knowing about the topic. The smartest person alive talking about a subject they don’t understand the details of is no better than a confident idiot.

Speaking for myself n I’ll respect his intelligence more when he discovers his limits and learns to act with humility outside of his narrow field.

reply