This seems like splitting hairs agi doesn't exist so that can't be what they mean. AI applies to everything from pathing algorithms for library robots to computer vision and none of those seem to apply.

The context of this post is LLMs and their applications

[–] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The comment you replied to first said "AI", not "LLMs". And he even told you himself that he didn't mean LLMs.

I'm not saying he's right, though, because afaik AI hasn't made any noteworthy progress made in medical science. (Although a quick skim through Google suggests there has been). I'm just saying that's clearly not what he said.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago

I thought they was saying they didn't mean llms will aid science not that llms wasn't the topic. Ambiguous in reread.

AI isn't well defined which is what I was highlighting with mentions of computer vision etc, that falls into AI and it isn't really meaningfully different from other diagnostic tools. If people mean agi then they should say that, but it hasn't even been established it's likely possible let alone that we're close.

There are already many other intelligences on the planet and not many are very useful outside of niches. Even if we make a general intelligence it's entirely possible we won't be able to surpass fish level let alone human for example. and even then it's not clear that intelligence is the primary barrier in anything, which was what I was trying to point out in my science held back post.

There are so many ifs AGI is a Venus is cloudy -> dinosaurs discussion, you can project anything you like on it but it's all just fantasy.