adam_smith123

>You still have the title "scientist"

You seem to be completely obsessed by titles for no apparent reason. I don't care what your title is, if you fake data to validate false hypotheses you aren't doing science. It's very simple.

>You still have the title "scientist", and still get your paycheque. Like baking, there is the recipe one is supposed to follow, but there is also the how the baking is actually done. If a baker failed to follow the recipe in an instance of baking, would you also believe that they are not a baker, or are not baking?

If you purchase a cake from Walmart and tell people you baked it from scratch you are not a baker. If you 3d print a cake look alike made of plastic and tell people it is a cake you are not a baker.

You seem to be in the midst of a mental break so good luck to you.

How is this relevant? Do these people define what science or is it an established set of principles and methods? You think scientists are the only ones who can do science and what they do, wrong or not, defines what science is??

Science is a set of methods. If you abandon those methods and fake data to fit your needs you aren't doing science you are committing various kinds of fraud. Maybe ChatGPT can explain that to you instead of listening to Alex Jones.

PEOPLE are abusing bad incentives. I'm quite certain that if this lab was exposed for doing what the poster claims it would be a major controversy just like other cases we've seen. That's the institution correctly reacting to bad actors.

No analogy is perfect and I feel like this one is already stretched enough.

If it didn't come out of a Physic Lab or a hard Engineering Lab dont trust the results at face value and even it did there's plenty of reason for doubt. See LK-99 or Ranga Dias.

That's called fraud and no it's not how "science" functions.

Yeah because only complex websites and apps deliver any value lol. I think you're really just admitting to having very poor creativity. I use LLM's everyday in systems that replace manual business processes. They're delivering clear value in a Multi-Billion dollar company. So again, skill issue.

That sounds more like a Parent-Child relationship than Owner-Pet to me. I guess I take inspiration from the Culture series where AIs indeed have basically all the agency and "run" things but humans are not relegated to the status of pets.

>But who's going to be on the other side, arguing that listening to the AI advice is a net bad?

If an AI reached the point where it is objectively better than the human, across all intellectual metrics, to which it is giving advice would it be a net bad?

To be fair, I think there's a significant difference between giving up agency to AI and hoping to become their pets like many e/acc's seem to do.

> Do these people even use GPT-4? Do they connect the dots of its capital to the dots of its performance, and see how we're already hitting a huge wall? All while losing MSFT cash and routinely failing to do even basic tasks?

Honestly it's a complete skill issue if you can't get it to "basic tasks". People are out there literally spinning up entire websites and apps in minutes using GPT. There is also no indication at all that we're "hitting a wall". I suppose next you're going to say its glorified auto-complete or a "stochastic parrot"?

Like is this guy completely blind to progress? GPT4 is no better than GPT2? That GPT5 or 6 will have even better capabilities??