This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
This seems irresponsible.
There was an old game from the PlayStation days called Xenogears. There was a population of mutants and monsters in it than came about from fucking with DNA irresponsibly. I’m reminded of that obnoxious rat-man from the Kislev prison.
... or to funny looking specimen. Radioactivity no longer required.
What a shame that we have created a world where this will only benefit a wealthy minority.
"Hey...Crisper.GP...T...think...you've mixed up the genes for my ass and...elbows..."
"Oh, you're totally alright! I apologise about that. 😀"
To be honest you're probably better off just making a T-Rex from the start let it eat you and just get it over with.
"Oh, you're totally alright! I apologise about that. 😀"
Here your ass on your elbow like you asked
Lol... people downvoting stanford university
Lemmy is a wild place.... left wing maga, i guess
it's useless hype, "ai could do x one day" is speculation at best
DeepMind’s AlphaFold solved the decades-old protein folding problem, and its results are already being used in drug and vaccine development.
It says AI in the title. That's all information they need. Most people on social media don't think - they react.
No I doesn't.
The problem is the term AI has become so broadly used that it's become meaningless. There is a popular quote about how the quota doesn't want AI to replace artistic jobs, as if it will. As if generative AI and large language models and projects like this are the same.
When the bubble bursts, (please let it be soon) we're still going to have all of the science AIs because those are actually useful. What we don't need is AI girlfriends.
AI-powered
Yes it does.
Yes I know the title has the word AI powered in it. I never claimed otherwise.
I make three claims and your response only fits one of them.
It says AI in the title.
No it doesn't.
That’s all information they need.
No it doesn't.
Most people on social media don’t think - they react.
No it doesn't.
No it doesn't
Yes you did
If you're going to quote some text quote the actual text because you'll notice that you're changing it.
I didn't say "no it doesn't" I said "no I doesn't" which is a different sentence.
Now that is some bullshit if I've ever seen it. Take the loss bro.
Just read the actual quote it doesn't say what he says it says and you'll notice that no point have I ever edited it.
They misquoted me because they didn't read the quote properly and then doubled down on it. Meanwhile you are now arguing about it despite the fact that it is demonstrably evident that you are wrong
The Futurama quote is "No I'm doesn't" and doesn't make any sense in this context even if it was properly transcribed.
Bro, either you are being insanely unclear, in which case it's still on you, or you are lying to save face.
There is not one person that thought you meant some obscure Futurama quote spealt "No I'm doesn't" instead of the obvious "No it doesn't". We don't live in your head, you are communicating terribly and trying to spin it on everybody else. I mean, thinking most people even know Futurama enough to spot the quote even if it was properly written is a HUGE ask.
I'm not trying to be overly harsh here but this is a bit ridiculous, sorry.
Yeees, your obvious typo is totally invalidating my previous statement...
It wasn't a typo it's a quote from Futurama. Fry says it when the professor says he's dumb.
I am asking that all the people doing this watch Jurassic Park at least once.
I'll let experts do their thing, but this kind of thing worries me. I never had "there is no singularity, AI just engineers a generic disease by accident and kills is all" on my bingo.
Of course the actual moral of Jurassic Park is have a well staffed IT team and not just one random guy who you under pay.
This is actually an excellent use case for AI. Physics and chemistry as scientific disciplines are lots of complex pattern recognition and manipulation. AI is just a pattern recognition and generation engine, despite what the tech bros and apologists like to tell us.
What these engines generate will ultimately be vetted by experts before it even goes to trials. Scientists don't just take things on blind faith simply because a robot or even another expert comes up with something; their entire deal is to understand their particular field of study in great detail, after all!
Back in the day, I used to fold proteins at home.
There's something similar that you can do with categorising stars. Basically they want to map as much of the universe as we can see. We've got the photos the problem is is that when you zoom in on a 1 mm by 1 mm patch of sky 1,100,000 new stars appear. It's going to take a while, even with AI.
You never know you might find a Dyson sphere one day.
Same
Eh. Read the book first.
Machine learning sure, but an llm? For anything other then as a module to translate abstract data into words that just seem weird
Well I'm sure you know more than the scientists at Stanford university.
I am not saying i understand it at all. My comment is genuine, not rhetorical.
On the contrary i express that i do not understand this to the point of deeming it strange or weird, triggering my curiosity.
I was hoping someone would chime in an explain how text generator techniques (which i do know alot about) known to have no capacity to use real world reason or logic can be used to help solve dna puzzles unless as a sub module of general machine learning. In which that later case would be within my understanding
