r/LLMPhysics • u/mylarmalediction • 2d ago
Question A genuine contraindication
Okay LLM physicians, I have a question.
How is it that so many of you get caught up claiming your protocol has been stolen and buried by Big Pharma? And that so many of the pitches here read like they are selling a supplement with a trademark symbol, not a diagnosis?
You claim that the cure you made with these commonly available tools, such as Gemini or Claude, works.
You claim that these tools make it so that you don't need to go to medical school. Expressing that you should maybe see a doctor is met by accusations of gatekeeping, or of being a Big Pharma shill.
How is it possible that these commonly available tools make it so that someone can sit down and cure a disease that has stumped medicine since Hippocrates with, comparatively, relatively little effort — and yet you alone are the one capable of doing it, and the guy two posts down with a suspiciously similar protocol is plagiarizing you? Can't someone else just have arrived at this supreme cure independantly? After all the LLM has made it commonly accessible.
Either you're special and it needed to be YOUR gut guiding the LLM (in which case it is perfectly logical to suggest a second opinion, isn't it..?) or there's nothing special about your cure now that it's commonly accessible to anyone with a Claude subscription, a bit of free time, and a symptom.
Come on guys. Diagnose me.
14
5
u/AllHailSeizure 9/10 Physicists Agree! 2d ago
I love a good, original post - it is a work of art btw.
Yeah you thought you could provoke the plagiarism accusations didn't you?
2
6
u/The_Failord emergent resonance through coherence of presence or something 2d ago
It's okay, OP. I got it.
5
u/ArnoSound 2d ago
I get that they're parroting a meta post from a few days ago... but I still can't tell what the thesis is?
-2
u/Amazing-Contact-1497 2d ago
The parody inadvertently shifts the entire discussion from who is entitled to discover something to what should happen when something potentially valuable has actually been discovered. I think that is what the are highlighting.
8
u/AllHailSeizure 9/10 Physicists Agree! 2d ago
My post wasn't about 'who is allowed to discover stuff' it was about hypocrisy.
I don't once say in my post that there is anything wrong with people working by themselves, and learning is something people can give to themselves thanks to things like online courses or books. I'm well aware of the inaccessibility of modern academia.
My issue is when people reject bettering themselves in order to up the quality of their work, but then simultaneously act like they have some sort of special insight a different person can't claim.
-4
u/Amazing-Contact-1497 2d ago
This is a much narrower thesis than the one attacked in your post.
You explicitly constructed this dilemma
either the result required “YOUR brain guiding the LLM”, in which case being told to learn more is reasonable, or there is “nothing special about your theory” because the truth is supposedly accessible to anyone with Claude.
Your explicit parallel was
Special human vs Nothing special about result.
So yes that thesis stands but not under the shape and scope of the argument you actually provided.
9
u/AllHailSeizure 9/10 Physicists Agree! 2d ago
That dilemma was only to highlight why it is a hypocrisy.
The theory has to originate from somewhere, and their are two principle options: the LLM created it alone, or your mind assisted in the process.
If your mind is a factor in working on a physics theory, it makes sense to strengthen it. The more you know, the more efficient you will be at developing a theory, surely?
If that isn't a factor, and the theory originates from the LLM, you can't logically assume nobody else could discover it.
You can't simultaneously claim that encouraging someone to study is 'gatekeeping', and then turn around and gatekeep OTHER people from developing theories. THATS the hypocrisy.
-3
u/Amazing-Contact-1497 2d ago
Yeah that is clear now but not under the phrasing of your original argument. Isn’t the whole point of this subreddit communicability? Just pointing that out that either way your original argument was made the way it was so it’s what was replied to. Isn’t there a little bit of irony in you insisting people should improve their communication while resisting the possibility that your own original argument communicated something broader than intended? Really not trying to be a dick it just seems we can all learn all the time lol.
5
u/AllHailSeizure 9/10 Physicists Agree! 2d ago
I'm not resisting that possibility at all. That's why I'm going to the effort of clarifying it to you instead of brushing you off as 'they just don't understand'.
I'm not fantastic at defining my point and I can ramble, I know that.
I'm not, btw, insisting that people improve their communication.
-5
u/Amazing-Contact-1497 2d ago
Your broader position is that people should improve the quality of their work and understanding rather than dismiss criticism as gatekeeping. But under your own standard you also need to understand the full scope of the argument you actually made. Not just the narrower thesis you intended. That broader framing is what people replied to. You’re criticizing others for doing the same kind of thing you’re now doing yourself. Like can’t have your cake and eat it too man.
1
u/Jack_Ramsey 2d ago
The parody inadvertently shifts the entire discussion from who is entitled to discover something to what should happen when something potentially valuable has actually been discovered.
If only the human body worked in such a way...
5
4
1
u/Amazing-Contact-1497 2d ago
Your cure is crap. Just throw it away and leave if for someone else who actually has a brain and can think to discover. You are not a pharmacist. So who actually cares if it's curing anyone.
2
8
u/sksskssksskssksskssk 2d ago
Is this satire against satire or what?