this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2026
764 points (94.2% liked)
Fuck AI
6809 readers
3126 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Human cloning could print a workforce. Or an army.
Human fucking is already doing that.
Yes but they get to experience outside and music and get ideas.
Can't have any of that nonsense.
Again, if you're willing to make people who don't get to have that, you can use already existing babies for that, making them clones doesn't achieve anything. Unless you think that clone comes out of the womb fully formed and with the full life of experience, but it's not that.
Clone is a fetus with DNA closer resembling mother's than a regular fetus has. That's about it.
Human cloning (media) and human cloning (real life) are two completely different processes that don't have anything to do with each other. Human cloning in real life is a way to spend too much money to get something that is worse than just two people fucking.
While this is totally true and valid. It's also a question of refinement. Human clone gen 10 is still going to give you a Dolly type situation, gen 100? Idk man.
It really isn't. It's a problem of people not understanding what cloning is. You seem to be talking about accelerated aging or something, which is just a different concept that gets lumped into cloning in sci fi because the reality of cloning itself is ultimately pointless.
As opposed to AI?
More or less the same as AI
I'm not sure what you're saying. AI can be over hyped and misunderstood too. It's not like there's a limit to the number of things that can be underwhelming compared to common depictions.
Human cloning could be used to harvest organs and blood. I can imagine a lot of money could be made offering perfectly compatible transplant organs harvested from cloned people with O-negative blood.
Not without solving the issues with shortened telomers
https://thisweekinsciencenews.com/blog/2025/10/28/the-truth-about-human-cloning-and-why-it-fails/
and the issue of how to raise a child to carry the organs and then....harvest them all at once? If you take the heart from the clone, what, you just trash the kidneys and liver?
Firstly, I would be much more swayed by your argument had you not linked some AI slop article sprinkled in em-dashes and containing zero sources/links, much less reputable ones.
Secondly, we can imagine that such technology would be much more mature if it were legal and considered ethically acceptable to perform on humans.
Third, you could grow multiple people simultaneously and in intervals, such that multiple clients' needs can be met by taking apart one host. We already have existing variable pricing systems, so a less-efficient scenario would simply cost the customer more. To a multi-billionaire, what is a couple billion dollars if you might live 10 more years? To the service provider, what is 'wasted [insert organs]' to the tune of a billion dollars or more in profit?
I'll take the hit for a bad link - I was on my phone and didn't have time to dig up a college-level course of information for your to have to simply understand that for nearly 30 years cloning of all mammals has ran into the same types of problems that make cloning problematic. You're talking about a scifi-level of development, and for a quarter of a century, the same problems have persisted with all animal cloning. This isn't about humans, this is about fundamental elements not working.
Ultimately, it's that the genes of adults aren't good for cloning. Telomere length is the key part of our genes that, as we age, burns like a fuse. Solving telomere length issues in a clone would be equivalent to also solving a way to make normal people or new babies immortal. Our cells wouldn't change as we age, and it would be more about turning on/off the right genes in any stage in life to get the effects you want.
Here's a link to a teaching module for school in the UK explaining how animal cloning - of any animal - doesn't work well. Clone a sheep, clone a hedgehog, same problems.
https://www.abpischools.org.uk/topics/cloning/cloning-problems/
Here's a link to an article from MIT in 1997 explaining the problems they had. You'll notice they are still the same problems today.
Here's another link from a .gov site where the "What are the potential drawbacks of cloning animals?" section explains it again.
https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Cloning-Fact-Sheet
I'm not making this up, this is well-established and well-studied limitations of cloning. The only fiction here is you refusing to accept that the world and science have something that doesn't exist, and that real research problems can be solved by "Well, but what if"-ing your way out of it.
I'm not suggesting that you made up anything or that you're wrong about the limitations. I just don't think it's reasonable to make a claim and justify it with an LLM output article (I noticed because I read it, since I wanted to see the actual science). Thanks for the new links.