31–40 of 132 posts
I really love Deep Mind, its genuinely focused on using AI to make the world a better place.
Be careful when loving shareholder-driven endeavors; they're a single executive decision away from breaking your heart.
the Google DeepMind PR team can't catch a break, shame it makes no sense to me - if someone's in the field maybe they could explain to the rest of us if this is a big deal, just a PR move, or nah?
What are you even talking about? What do you mean catch a break? They’ve made massive contributions over the last decade.
I'm comfortable programming but others who also do mol bio may be less so or may not recognize when Claude is going off the rails.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PunchTornado was first, fr2029 was second
i made no such comment. reported for harassment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Be careful when loving shareholder-driven endeavors; they're a single executive decision away from breaking your heart.
Be careful when loving government/philanthropy/ngo-driven endeavors; they're a single executive decision away from breaking your heart.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Be careful when loving shareholder-driven endeavors; they're a single executive decision away from breaking your heart.
It's "shareholder-linked" (probably not "driven"), but yes, upvoted. Nonetheless, even when with grave faults in the path, Google has managed to give us marvellous, paramount free resources (Google Street, Google Museum...), and would have given more (Google Books - if the negotiation had succeeded). I am grateful.
The gist was, can existing variation provide enough context to infer impact of variation? The answer seemed to be no.
Kind of like how frontier LLMs need to ingest larger and large amounts of text to advance. We are going to need to leverage comparative data from other species, and likely tremendous amounts of laboratory mutagenesis experiments to actually make headway on variant prediction. Nature, as it stands, just doesn't have enough human variation.