Quoting: mr-victory

Quoting: scaineBut... again, this isn't what I'm talking about when I disparage genAI. From the article:

I tried to find a short source as I recalled that something akin to GenAI was used in this specific discovery, instead of checking the content of the source. My bad.

PS: If I use at least 2 quotes or links, do I end up in the mod queue?

It's just any external link, or embedded picture, I believe. Sadly, quoting a post with a link in it will also trigger the queue.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: mr-victory

Quoting: ScottCarammellstill waiting for that legitimate use case the technology is sure to get. I mean this is supposed to be the next motor vehicle or whatever, right? there's gotta be something huge right around the corner. not like this was all a giant, unbelievable waste of time, money, life and resources for absolutely nothing of value. that's impossible. the people on wall street said otherwise. they're supposed to be smart, right?

I'll drop another one: generative ai found an algorithm to multiply matrices faster

https://spectrum.ieee.org/matrix-multiplication-deepmind [External Link]

But... again, this isn't what I'm talking about when I disparage genAI. From the article:

The scientists developed an AI system dubbed AlphaTensor based on AlphaZero, which they earlier developed to master chess, Go, and other games

They didn't use ChatGPT, or Claude, Gemini or Perplexity here. The kind of genAI that makes people's blood boil is very different from the useful, targeted ML instances that have existed for decades before all the genAI hype kicked off around 2022.

The actual technology of LLMs might have merit. But the over-hyping and over-investments in genAI... the lack of governance and ethical standards... the illegality of the training data... the inefficiency in the middle of a climate crisis... does not have merit.

And you know what? Finding one of two loosely related wins for LLMs won't balance the scales here anyway. Too much damage has already been done.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Well okay, I guess, but that feels a bit pedantic? Did you read how they used genAI here? They designed their own ML model using medical data. Technically, okay, sure, that's genAI, fine. But it's hardly the kind of genAI that everyone is talking about and hating on. It's not plagiarising books, pirating material, talking kids into suicide or whatever.

It's probably also not quite the planet burning water hog either, because the data sets are so targeted.

Maybe you're right, and I'm the one being pedantic here, but I honestly don't feel like we should conflate these two things and thereby justify the car crash of genAI over-investment by pointing at fringe, targeted medical uses.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: ScottCarammellstill waiting for that legitimate use case the technology is sure to get. I mean this is supposed to be the next motor vehicle or whatever, right? there's gotta be something huge right around the corner. not like this was all a giant, unbelievable waste of time, money, life and resources for absolutely nothing of value. that's impossible. the people on wall street said otherwise. they're supposed to be smart, right?

https://asm.org/articles/2025/august/ai-next-frontier-antibiotic-discovery [External Link]

Oh man, please don't confuse AI, which is vital to this kind of research you've linked, to genAI, which what we're generally complaining about here in articles like this one (even though it's often just termed as AI).

That conflation of AI and genAI is often how the techbros will try to justify the ridiculous investment in this tech, even though medical research AI won't likely see a single penny from those investments, which are all focused on genAI pish.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: vic-bayIf you see ai slop long enough, you will learn to identify it immediately. Yes, it is still a time waster, but it is nowhere as bad as it looks at the first look. Creating slop commits and pull requests takes way longer than reading it for half minute and smashing ban button.

That might be true, but Godot currently has nearly 5000 PRs awaiting review, and 50K closed PRs overall. I think that when you're dealing with those kind of numbers, it still adds up to a near-insurmountable problem.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

using AI to fight AI which they said "seems horribly ironic" but they might have to eventually

A couple of years ago, I was on a cyber security panel which asked "what is the best use for AI, in your business". We were a panel of investment managers, and the top answer was "writing out responses to client due diligence questionnaires". The second-to-top answer was "reading responses from our own vendor due diligence questionnaires".

You couldn't make it up.

But no, fighting AI with more AI is a poor choice that simply feeds the beast (in this case, the beast being AI itself). A ban on AI is ideal... except it will become increasingly difficult to know when AI has been involved.

I wonder if it's possible that new PR requests (that is, PRs from new contributors) go into a queue, and a voting system is introduced among Github users. This wouldn't be the Godot team themselves, just interested parties. As more people vote on the "good" PRs, or at least the desirable PRs, they rise to the top, and only then get reviewed by the Godot team. Once they've contributed (well) once, they skip the queue for future PRs.

It's far from simple, but there's a crowd of interested parties out there, and it would be a shame not to give that crowd some agency on the prioritisation of new contributions.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Leopard

Quoting: hardpenguinThis game has kinda fallen into obscurity since they moved to Epic 🤷

Lol, not correct at all.

Correct for many. Correct for me. I don't have an Epic account and never, ever will.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Ah, DRM. When paying customers get a (much) worse experience compared to the pirates because publishers treat those customers like criminals.

Capcom won't see a penny of my money.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: SlayerTheChikken

Quoting: GerarderloperAMD/Intel RT performance being quite far behind NVIDIA, and probably still behind.

At least when looking at very heavy RT based games like many running UE5, or CP77.
I think the only reason AMD/Intel look ok in these games atm is because NVIDIA has that COLOSSAL 40-50% performance hit in MANY DX12 RT games. (probably still 3mnths until we see fixes be fully integrated)

Yes, the $1000 more hardware is 1000$ worth better at raytracing, ofcourse.

It's not quite that clear-cut, but it's not far off! It's awkward, because the top end AMD card, the RX9070, doesn't really have a direct equivalent Nvidia card - it's somewhere between a 5070ti and a 5080 (probably nearer the lower end), at least at 4K. I can pick up a RX9070 from scan.co.uk here in the UK for around £650 (which still, to me, feels like a crazy amount of money!). The 5070ti is around the £850. But the next jump up, the 5080 is about £1200, which is... unimaginable (to me).

And then there's the £2750 you'll spend on a 5090. I mean, I wouldn't, but that's scan's price for anyone with money (and electricity) to burn!

But the point is moot for me anyway, on two levels:
a) I'll never buy an Nvidia card again, unless they fully open-source their drivers and get them merged into the kernel.
b) Ray-tracing is utterly underwhelming in every video I've seen using it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

"I find the moral indignation over what others do with their own hard earned money to be performative."

This is about indignation specifically targeted at how people (individuals or companies) spend their legitimately earned funds on choices that are legal, consensual, and don't directly victimize anyone.

Why would anyone be morally indignant about legal, consensual, no-victim spending??

It's entirely obvious to everyone but you that your statement implied otherwise. It's bizarre that you can't see that.

Time to move on here, I think.

View this comment - View article - View full comments