You must log in or register to comment.
Who has time for YouTube? I get my conspiracies and lies from millisecond-long TikToks.
Hey, but measles in Texas, and tuberculosis in Missouri, are making comebacks!
Ivermectin! RFKjr! Bleach!Learn to ReSeArcH!!
Aren’t those just from the gay space lasers and Jewish hurricanes? I feel like their resistance means we’re on the right path.
All I gotta say is technology has finally made us dumber
I once saw a cow on a roof. Can science explain that? I didn’t think so.
Cow goes up, cow comes down, can’t explain that.
Damn, you’re an older millennial.
True, a sphere would roll off
- an anecdote your cousin told you
Science is important, it helps us solve many of the problems we do not have without science
It isn’t even better science, it is just more science.
N@zi published multiple scientific researches to justify their doings.
And better science refuted their junk science. What’s your point?
That why its such a shame that big corporations can and do regularly buy scientists opinions in exchange for funding setting up a ill give $xxx.xxx for your environmental impact study to not blame my coal mine. Thus by negating the peer review process. science can sadly no longer be taken at face value with out knowing who funded it and why. i miss trusting scientists who are clearly smarter than me because they fell in to the capitalist greed trap RIP real science we should have treated you better and i am sorry.
This is why you never trust a single source. For anything. Reputable news organizations have never trusted single sources, they always use multiple sources to verify information they are told. Science is not immune from this, and never has been. And even for those that you’ve followed in the past, times change, especially in a capitalist society with a massive oligarchy that owns the news companies, like modern western civilizations. Trust, but verify.
Big money can buy a lot of sources, even most on topic, and distorts what gets researched. So you still have to look at where the money is coming from.
How often does this actually happen? The cases where this does occur stand out because they are rare. I really hate the implication that scientists are not trustworthy because some individuals acted in bad faith. Scientific fraud is real but it doesn’t mean you can’t trust science.
I agree, but also approach much of what is published with skepticism because there are many factors that can lead to results not being reproducible.
Not that there aren’t issues with this idea, but I would like to see peer review change to include another independent lab having to reproduce your experiments as a means to verify the results. The methods you hand over to that lab are the ones that will be published, so if they can’t reproduce your results, it stays in review.
what if i watched THREE youtube videos?
Then baby we got an algorithm going.
You’re clearly an expert then, don’t hold back
Should probably create another youtube video.
And your greasy greasy granny
- Your favorite celebrity
I need a tshirt of this
don’t worry, science as conclusions derived from research will soon be replaced by bullshit psuedo-research-AI-word-vomit derived from equally bullshit pre-determined conclusions
This has already been done by politicians and continues to this day
And some scientists!
“If I repeat it in enough papers it’ll become true” seems to be the mantra of scientists with hard to defend theories they claim are fact.
Did you write this with deepseek?
“Can you tell me how other countries have managed effective healthcare based on science?”
“I’m sorry, as a large language model I don’t have the capability to make healthcare system analysis. Would you like to talk about the beautiful Gulf of Amerika instead?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_fHJIYENdI
You should really watch this – AI is being used in real research, and not all of it is bad. Those who think AI is bad are simply uneducated luddites.
Luddites’ main concern was the systemic redirection of revenue from them, the laborers, to the owners of the factories. They did not simply hate technology for technology’s sake.
The fact that you ignore this basic historical fact betrays an embarrassing ignorance.
I personally don’t give a shit if some AI is used in research. I think that’s awesome. But AI also actively and materially deprives laborers of compensation for their work, both before and after the model training process. And I fucking hate that.
the problem is that AI can generate a million bogus “research papers” for every single legit paper. and for the general public (ie science writers, bloggers, news reporters, etc.) they are indistinguishable from each other. so unless you have literally done the research on a particular hypothesis yourself (good luck with that, with all the funding cuts), then everything is suspect
so the question of “are we better off with AI?” as of right now, is absolutely fucking not
Literally you are better off with AI - it’s produced some of the most groundbreaking work in decades. You didn’t watch the video, did you? AI ended up being better than humans at tasks involving protein folding, so much so that they won a Nobel prize for its use. The breakthroughs of this AI have put us forward in medical research by an order of magnitude. Many orders of magnitude in fact.
AI is more than just LLMs and Stable Diffusors. It’s being used in Science by people who aren’t reactionaries and anti-tech luddites to give people better vaccines faster, to discover new proteins for antivenom, to ensure a better future for people who need medical care.
AI’s primary use case so far is to further concentrate wealth with the wealthy, and to replace employees. People who think AI is bad recognize that it is in the hands of the modern generation of robber barons, and serves their interests.
Those who don’t recognize this are delusional.
AI’s primary use case so far is to further concentrate wealth with the wealthy,
Under capitalism, everything further concentrates wealth with the wealthy because the wealthy are best able to capitalize on anything. Wealth gives you the means to better pursue further wealth.
and to replace employees.
So what you’re saying is that we need to dismantle every piece of automation and go back to manufacturing everything by hand with the most basic hand tools possible? Because that will maximize the number of people needed to be employed to produce, well, anything. Anything else is using technology to replace employees.
Or is it just that now we’re talking about people working office jobs they thought were automation-proof getting partially automated that’s made automation a bad thing?
AI as a tool can absolutely be a good thing, just like almost any tool. A tool on its own is neither good nor bad, it’s just a tool that can be used. The usage is what makes it good or bad.
Yes, most of what AI is used for now is bad, but it can absolutely be a good thing in the right use cases.
Counterexamples also refute, without necessarily being science.
Isn’t a counterexample just da tomb? Even though its only won case-a-dilla, it’s still le sahyênçe.
Sorry, I don’t understand.
Yeah, I’m being silly.
Isn’t a counterexample just one datum? Even though its only one case, it’s still science.
FTFM
Isn’t a counter example just data, even though it’s just one case it’s still science
Not to my mind, science requires a testable hypothesis and evidence. I would argue that merely refuting someone else’s hypothesis without providing a new one doesn’t meet the bar of doing science.
Science requires systematic observation, measurement and usually variation (often experimentally controlled); and, usually, iterations.
One datapoint outside such a system is not science.
You can’t even necessarily just insert a new datapoint into a pre-existing scientific sytem. The system itself may need to be adjusted, for example to test and account for biases that often occur due to how observations are made.
Speech-to-text set to the wrong language or something?
Counterexamples only go so far. What you really need is counterexamples, and an analysis of their implications, including a probability study.
In other words, well, science.
Because of the implication.
Counter examples only refute when they are publicised. When they are ignored because the status quo is preferred they achieve little
See for example low carb nutrition
