many drugs were discovered, evaluated and approved without understanding at all how they worked.
iirc back in the day chemists synthesized a whole bunch of random compounds, observed their effects (in mice etc., or even the chemists tasting them!) then did clinical trials to measure safety and efficacy.
high-throughput screening of chemical libraries on in vitro assays is the modern version of this. "rational" drug design, which uses understanding of mechanisms to design chemical structures for a specific purpose, largely failed back in the '80s.
The way I ask it in public situations with scientists is this:
If you had an AI that could output cures for diseases (IE, drugs that pass phase III clinical trial, get approved by the FDA, and are highly effective), but it couldn't explain how it worked, would you use it?
Opinions are mixed. Some folks will say that it's morally imperative to cure people even if we don't understand the specific or general principles. Other folks will insist that it's a terrible idea to hand over the comprehension of medical treatments to LLMs, because in the long term it will leave us helpless and dependent.
Is it guaranteed? The most likely outcome is you get rid of both the humans to understand the research and the artificial wizard of Oz was actually just outputting nonsense, and it took killing a bunch of people to find that out.
Ive been thinking about this a a lot, like now if LLMs can just try a bunch of things, you can just try them all now. Are there some applications where we can just brute force and test at scale and no longer need to understand? Where understanding is now in essence that it “works” and passes our acceptance tests.
There's been a decent amount of drugs that have been made via a brute force method, but it's a pretty physical process, usually pipetting a few hundred thousand compounds and samples. There's also a lot of drugs where we don't fully understand how they work.
I agree! I'm also not going to turn down an Alzheimer's vaccine that's been demonstrated to be safe and effective even if we don't know exactly how it works. (And if you think that's a contrived fantasy, check out the shingles vaccine).
True, but it's also not your job to understand what post-docs are suggesting (hopefully), unlike post-docs who kind of need to understand what LLMs are suggesting.
Not to get back into the AI safety debate from last week, but I really, really want a team of human experts to understand what the AI is suggesting before we administer new medical treatments or synthesize new lifeforms in the lab.
There will always be a %age of humans who will be curious how the universe works including LLMs. Delusional to think those humans are only incentivized by degrees, or money.
Humans were curious and started the intelligence / learning explosion much much before money and degrees were invented.
For most of history we died of easily preventable diseases because we lacked the scientific institutions to learn how to prevent them. The fact that a percentage of the population wanted to know more is why we live so well today, but it didn’t stop many of those people from dying awfully. It wouldn’t take a lot to go back there, or at least to a civilization that would go back there the second the AIs have a major outage.
Sure. But unless they are born into a very wealthy family, or decide to pass up on having a family and other hobbies, they won't be able to satisfy that curiosity beyond a very basic level.
We got to 80 without inventing money. Living that long back then was hard work every day.
Then the industrial revolution happened, and we got state pensions at one end of life and extended childhood a few years past adolescence on the other. We currently pay for this… by taxes funding both education and a pension.
Absent the radical transformations of an AI driven economy, we live 200 years in exactly the same way.
With those transformations, all bets are off unless they violate the laws of physics.
But the majority of people in the world are still working just as hard now as before the industrial revolution? Most of the labor rights activists of the 19th and 20th century spent their time advocating for working hours closer to their pre-industrial grandparents. Industrialization increased working hours with the promise that eventually everyone will have to work less hours once the equipment was built. And yet many generations later countries are talking about increasing retirement age, reducing worker rights, and wage theft is more prevalent than all other forms of theft combined.
What is AI going to do that industrialization and automation hasn't already made the same promises for?
Before the industrial revolution, you started working as soon as you could assist with anything (cooking meant firewood, washing clothes was by hand, etc.); you stopped working when you were too feeble, and only if you were lucky (or from another perspective, very unlucky) a lord's almshouse might look after you.
Life back then was a never-ending quest to make more calories, and you had to consume about 90% of what you made just to not starve (the other 10% went to the lords, the army, and very young children; though I'm oversimplifying here because farm animals also eat and you had to feed them). As total production was lower (and because "preservative" meant cats, alcohol, salt, and grain silos on mushroom-shaped pillars so rats couldn't get in, not industrial refrigeration and sodium benzoate etc.), this meant very different work schedule compare to today; but people were working at the limits of what biology would support, even if hours were fewer (no affordable artificial light to work at night) and "holy days" more plentiful… but on that front, most pop reporting on that seems to forget that today we have two-day weekends, while medieval European communities often only rested on Sunday (and even Sunday-is-rest-day was relaxed somewhat to avoid crop spoilage).
The modern equivalent would be if everyone's job was to hit the gym for 10 hours a day in summer and 4 a day in winter, and still sometimes had mandatory overtime. Some people do labour-intensive work today, but pre-industrial this would be 90%+ of the population and not by choice.
What we actually have in developed nations today, is no significant labour before 18 or over 68, only about 70% the people of working age* are in work at any given time, and the "work" is far less intensive. Less than half of us are employed today to support the whole population. I say "are employed" rather than "work" because childcare and domestic work is still work, but this too is much easier than pre-industrial life.
A malnourished subsidence farmer could work non-stop at the same pace as modern workers then I got a bridge to sell you. 19th century worker's advocating for worker rights were literally calling for working standards closer to their subsidence grandparents.
Industrialization increased working hours, not decreased them.
> A malnourished subsidence farmer could work non-stop at the same pace as modern workers then I got a bridge to sell you.
Way to misread what I wrote.
A subsidence farmer necessarily spends their lives doing as much work as they can eat food, because the energy to do the work is that food.
Their work cycle was arranged differently than ours, with harvest season being longer days because letting crops spoil in the fields meant starvation come winter, and winter hours being mostly limited by sunlight and moonlight because artificial illumination was far too expensive.
> 19th century worker's advocating for worker rights were literally calling for working standards closer to their subsidence grandparents.
And? Those workers got those rights, past tense. The fact they got them is a big part of why less than half of the living population in OECD nations needs to work today: their efforts 200-100 years ago are why it is taxes paying for schools and pensions, not the largesse of lords limited to almshouses.
If we suddenly get an anti-aging treatment that has us all live 200 years*, all the governments can trivially handle this just by adjusting pension ages.
* somehow without any of the other things implied by the tech that can make such treatments; add those things in and you have to ask "why only 200?" and "what else can this tech do?" and this is all about AI having been a big contributor to some bio research, so there's a lot of "what else" already and we don't even have the anti-aging treatment yet.
Yeah harvest season has longer hours, I grew up on a farm. But you aren't putting in anything like that amount of work most of the year. You don't work the same fields all year long. You got plenty of other things to do but not a full modern work schedule.
Heating can be done in a few weeks even with handsaws and an axe. A chainsaw makes it faster.
If 12th century peasants had to work anything like a modern work schedule, how would people a 1000 years or more before then survive at all with less technology, tools, and knowledge? How would clothing exist at all without a loom? How did ancient people have any time for discovery and innovation at all if their lives were nearly so grueling.
Those workers rights activists didn't get all that they asked for. And why has it not gotten even better with another 100 years of productivity increases after that?
To me your explainations seem like repeates of what robber barons claimed. The luddites didn't form because people thought industrialisation was allowing them to work less than those before them.
This is a horribly wrong understanding of history. If you think life today is in any way comparable to the Industrial Revolution, you need to pick up a history book because your history classes failed you.
If you think malnourished subsidence farmers could work non-stop before industrialization then you need to think about that a bit more and aread a bit more early and pre-industrial works.
>But man is it remarkable that an open source project can rival something from Google in terms of quality and experience.
I'd argue Google is always way worse than the open source alternative in both quality and ux. Their products are terrible. From Gmail to Youtube, the product itself comes second (or Nth), while in open source the product is always first.
In my experience, most open source photo apps lacked basic features like facial recognition, mobile apps, etc. And where they do exist, the UX isn't the best. Are there ones I'm unaware of?
Kano predicted that users' perceptions of satisfaction with a feature will shift from delight to expectation over time. This is either because they have got used to it or because competitors have started to include it in their offerings. In the case of the touchscreen, for instance, the newness that came with the iPhone is no longer a novelty; the touchscreen has become the norm. It's no big deal anymore, but taking it away would be a big deal!
And just to add some more context, the Second Section (Sección Segunda), which is part of the executive branch, was created because time after time judges concluded that downloading movies from the internet was perfectly legal[1]. So the PSOE's gov at the time (with Zapatero being president) created a law that just sidesteps judges altogether, and bans access from the executive branch.
> Isn't 1337x and others better and offer a complete alternative?
The best way is always private trackers. They're easy to get into, easy to keep (if you're a serious and honest person), malware free, high quality content, great community, etc.
> It's probably easier to lurk in r/trackerinvites (or whatever it's called) hoping to snatch an invite
I think it's much easier to pay 12 bucks for a month of seedbox that includes an invite to TL, than to hit F5 on /r/OpenSignups for months/years until they open registration.
It's amazing how it held up over 20-ish years. You'd think it would only get worse after removing mandatory registration 10 or so years ago. And yet...
Laws are great and all. But what we really need is a massive boycott. Stop buying shit manufactured or sold by Sony for a year. That alone will probably force them to backtrack every single anti consumer decision they've made recently.
Boycotts don't work nearly as well nowadays because
a) Consumers don't have enough money already, so they're both stressed out and getting fewer things for themselves. These combine to mean that they're less likely to be willing to give up what little luxuries they have left, even if you're just asking them to substitute one media property for another.
b) The companies being targeted are just too damn big. The consolidation that began in the '80s has reached truly ludicrous levels in 2026, meaning that the company can just...ignore drops in profits for months or even years while consumers get worn out.
You painted an accurate picture about how people act in this case and for boycotts in general but let’s be honest, not buying movies from Sony and its store is the last thing most people would “suffer” from. There’s such a large supply of content today that ditching one source for another has almost no real impact.
How much content really is only on Sony’s store, and how much of it would wear you down if you didn’t consume it within X years?
There are truly painful boycotts (try boycotting the only ISP in your area), and boycotts that are an inconvenience. This one is a far cry from losing a luxury or getting worn out.
You seem to have either misunderstood my point (a), or you have a misguided idea of how important small luxuries are to people, especially people who do not have the means to procure larger luxuries on a regular basis.
I mean, sure; it's much more painful to boycott the only ISP around, or the only grocery store within a 30 mile radius, but just because there are things that could be worse doesn't mean that this can't be bad.
I get the need for small luxuries but you failed to make the point that the Sony store is the place for this. I don’t mind if you clarify for me how not buying movies from Sony and buying instead from Amazon or a local store for example is such a loss for quality of life. Why is Sony so special? Do those people find special meaning in Sony’s store above all others? Or do they need to buy the “small luxury” from every store and can’t boycott any?
They probably boycott the Xbox store just fine, and that one’s also full of “small luxuries” so as best I can tell you make a personal preference based argument, which is different from what you think you’re saying.
There's nothing special about Sony's store—the point is that, just for instance, many people own a Playstation of some sort, and want to watch movies through it. For some (nontrivial!) percentage of those people, the Playstation is the only thing hooked up to their television, and thus the only way they can—or know how to—watch a movie on their biggest screen.
Furthermore, Sony is the exclusive source for movies distributed by Sony. If someone wants to watch one of their movies—I don't know which those are offhand—they will need to buy it from Sony (or, at the very best, buy it from some other store and their money still goes to Sony).
In either of these cases, yes, they could choose not to do that. But if you've just gotten home from a hectic shift at your second job, microwaved a ready-meal for yourself and your kid, gotten them to bed, and finally have an hour or two to relax before you have to go to sleep yourself...are you really going to be willing to go out of your way to find some other way to watch the movie you want to watch? And more and more people are finding themselves in these sorts of situations in recent years.
Most broadly, my point is that for any given (major) store, there are people for whom their preferred "small luxuries" come from there, and asking them to give that up in order to try to make a difference that probably won't happen (due to my point (b) above) is likely to be a very hard sell.
You are not going to get the guy at 7-11 or the cashier at Target who just bought a PS5 for her son to boycott watching movies on it. Boycotts only work if it is demonstrably going to make their life worse if they don't. Losing access to a movie that interested you 15 years ago when you were still in high school is not one of those things.
For me, it was when they removed the Linux capability from the PS3 (or technically, they removed the ability to have it be able to run Linux and also use it to play PS3 games). I wasn't personally affected by the rootkit fiasco as I was pirating music back then (I mean I still do, but I did back then as well). I should have taken that as a warning as I was fully aware of what kind of company they were, but was attracted by the shiny PS3 games. Nowadays, I mainly play games on my SteamDeck and do appreciate Valve's treatment of customers - the hardware is mine and I can do what I want with it such as easily upgrade the NVM drive (I'm glad I put a 2TB disk in it back when the prices were lower).
I wasn't affected either as I had given up using Windows already but it hit No. 2 son's machine. I decided that the intent was more important than their technical incompetence.
I did buy a Sony ultrazoom camera recently but that was a secondhand purchase. The hardware is brilliant but as usual the software ranges from barely usable and to totally broken. In theory it is supposed to be able to run a wifi hotspot that lets you transfer images wirelessly but instead of just putting a minimal web server on it they created their own opaque protocol, the only client was Windows only, and you can no longer download it. Had I bought it new in the expectation of being able to unload it wirelessly I would have sent it back for a refund
I didn't take the hint then but I also will never buy any Sony product ever again. I have two headphones from them. Both noise canceling. When the model year passes they push one final firmware to make ANC shit. Then they deny it. I thought if I got the fancier one I would be OK but it doesn't turn on anymore. Very comfortable ear warmers. (Simple shitty solder without support probably. Gotta open it up and look sometime.)
For the love of god please understand 80% of people are trying to just get on day by day. They don't give a shit about any of this. They probably don't even realize it's happening. Some subset of them might be hit by this but most just don't care.
The point of a government in society is for people who give a shit to guide this kind of thing.
No, I won't understand. These people who don't give a shit, they are the problem. They're the ones who finance these corporations and enable their abusive practices.
They are indeed part of the problem, but you cannot blame them. You have to blame those who caused their situation to be so dire, making them lack support.
These people work 2 jobs, have a young kid, a demented parent or a bedridden sister that need constant support. If they take the time to give a shit about politics, their dependent dies. You don't seem to know how incredibly stressful and exhausting the life of some people is.
Do something about their situation that gives them the time to participate in real life. Don't blame them for trying to survive with all their might, and not go to council hall twice a week.
I learned about the earlier generations of my family. The massive difference is how much more socially connected they were. They walked to grocery stores because the grocery stores were within walking distance because they had to be (perishable foods were not refrigerated). They walked to work and lived blocks away from their business (great grandfather owned a service station). Their friends were the people in the businesses between home and work. They rode streetcars to travel around. The great- generation of my family was born 1908 and 1910. My grandparents conveyed these stories of how they lived and how their parents lived.
In your dire example, the missing component is how older generations socialized organically and effortlessly. They might be caring for their dependent, but the minute they left the house, they experienced social interaction. I certainly feel like modern day is vastly different and creates the isolation you describe.
>If they take the time to give a shit about politics, their dependent dies.
Meanwhile, their healtchare provider canceled on their parent because they gaslit the family into saying "this isn't covered in out service" and the parent dies. Because they did not give a shit about politics.
This isn't asking for a part time civics duty hobby. Just to stop pretending all politicians are the same and take a few hours to vote. It'll save you a few weeks of battling with UnitedHealthcare over a very treatable issue.
>Do something about their situation that gives them the time to participate in real life.
That also requires votes and calls to the represenatives.
There's a reason why they teach the prisoner's dilemma on day 1 of business school: a group which is more fragmented has less power. From the consumer perspective, this is why monopolies are bad and this is why boycotts don't work. From the slimy businessman perspective, this is why monopolies are good and boycotts are the only way consumers should be allowed to push back. Boycotts are empirically understood to be an ineffective strategy -- which, of course, is usually exactly what the people proposing them as an alternative to legislation are usually after.
Completely different circumstances as the protest was very organised and the target far smaller than a multi national company and the reason was far more important than access to a few films
Boycotts are one thing, people simply not buying because a company's reputation is ruined is another. What I think we really need is simply to spread the word about how sony is a shitty company, let people know the stuff they buy from them gets deleted. That's enough to really smash up sony's revenue. Tech people naturally assume other people are highly informed about tech stuff, but they aren't, they're watching tiktok ai sexy cat videos and assume the reason grandma lost her copy to Alien: Resurrection was because grandma isn't very good at computers, not that sony deleted it. Indeed, I think, because sony is concurrently removing physical media the outrage probably will effect their bottom line in some ways when the next playstation comes out.
Look at how the firestone tire scandal in 2000 effected their company's bottom line. Or how the click of death effected the fortunes of the owners of Iomega. Reputation actually does matter sometimes.
>It's having a general understanding/view of the "baseline", aka healthy anatomy. This is something LLMs will never have
You're making the mistake of conflating AI with LLMs.
I don't think LLMs will reliably be better than a board of doctors. But an Expert System probably will (if it isn't already). That's literally what they were created for.
The biggest downside of LLMs IMO isn't the millions of Jules wasted on training models that are ultimately used to create funny images of cats with lasers. It's that all that money isn't being invested into truly helpful AI systems that will actually improve and save our lives, such as medical expert systems.
The nature of expert systems is to become experts on a system.
The reason you need a doctor, or more often, let's be honest, a good nurse, is because systems can fail in any one of 10000 as yet undiscovered ways. New nurses. New residents. New techs. And on and on and on. All the measurements you're feeding to the system are an amalgamation of the potential errors of a potentially different set of professionals each time you move a patient through the enterprise.
Full disclosure, my first startup was building PACS and RTP software back before AI reading was a thing. Current startup working across dental and medical. Rethinking the link between oral and systemic health. Partner has been in the C-suite of several hospitals over the past few decades and now runs large healthcare delivery networks.
The reason you can't hand things over to AI, is precisely because there are so many humans in the system. Each of whom are fallible. Human experts are quicker to catch it. Expert systems are not. At least not any ES or AI I've seen. And I've been going to, for instance, RSNA, for well over 25 years.
If you have an ES or AI in the system, you would naturally put the same professionals responsible for catching human screwups, in charge of catching AI and ES screw ups. Even if these AI's turn 100% accurate based on the inputs they are given, that professional would still be responsible for catching those bad inputs.
Example, it's never happened to one of my companies knock on wood, but I have seen cases of radiation therapy patients being incorrectly dosed. The doctor almost never was the one who miffed in the situation, but ultimately, s/he's responsible.
Why? Bad input should have been caught.
Another example, situations where you operate on the wrong side of the body because someone prepped the wrong leg. Surgeon didn't do the prep. Whoever did do the prep may have simply relied on the software. But the software was wrong. May have been anything. Point is, the team is good, but everyone just fell into too complacent of a pattern with each other and their tools.
Trust is good. Complacency is not.
The same will hold true for AI team members that integrate into these environments. It's just another "team member", and it better have a "monitor". If not, you're asking for trouble.
The "monitor" ultimately responsible for everything will continue to be the provider. Any change in that reality will take decades. (And in the end, they probably will not change the current system in that regard.)
reply