this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2026
1150 points (97.7% liked)
Fuck AI
8481 readers
851 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
The practice of fear mongering to create public pressure for increased legislation, as a mechanism to suppress competition, is a well know mechanism called "regulatory capture".
If you oppose monopolies then you oppose this practice and should view posts like this as morally wrong.
But what if there's no suppression of competition, just guardrails put in place through legislation? I wouldn't be opposed to that.
Sure. But that's not realistically on the table.
You should stop viewing the US government as being on your side. They are the HR of our society. "AI legislation" in all it's current proposed forms are just mechanisms to exclude things like open-weight models or foreign competitors from entering the market. So long as AI exists as an element of our society it will cause harms. Advocate for it's abolition, not regulation.
"oh no, if we abolish AI then how will we cure disease X which my relative happens to have?" Good luck arguing against that.
It's too stupid to cure disease X. Easy, there you go.
GenAI is. But deep-learning-based tech in general might be able to do it. I doubt we will be able to ban one and allow the other.
You can ban kinds. You can ban purposes. You can offer licenses. And failing all of those, you can do a bit of cost benefit analysis.
How many diseases has AI already cured? (Serious question, I’m genuinely curious if it has)
It depends on your definition of AI, and 'cure', and to what degree you credit the AI with a human operator.
If you mean in the truest sense, "An artificial intelligence autonomously discovered & validated a cure", then none. Because artificial intelligence does not exist. If you mean "A language calculator (llms) autonomously discovered and validated a cure", then also none. If you mean the weaker version of "An LLM supported research leading to cures", then lots. But did the humans do that? If I build a house with a hammer, did the hammer build the house? If you mean the even weaker version of "Data modeling coalesced data which discovered patterns at a scale humans never could on their own which lead to cures", then nearly every cure in the last 30 years.
It's one of those things that gets more complicated the closer you look.
Take this specific issue, for example.
The "guardrail" would be "AI must only run on trusted curated infrastructure, open weight models are banned".
Now if you told me I couldn't use any AI, remote or local, I would not shed a tear. However the angle of this scare is squarely targeted at open weight models, that Anthropic does not do.