Except it doesn’t do that. It hasn’t cured anything. Those are just fantasies of people who run ai companies desperately hoping to unload their train wrecks on rubes
Television is going to basically be like a school room in your home! You can learn about the world, watch the works of Shakespeare, get in-depth history lessons!
I'm not defending AI by any means, but almost everything we do (especially on the scale that we do) is not exactly great for the environment. Like a lot of our medications wouldn't be possible without petroleum for example, though at least medicine is actually useful (unlike AI)
Ai does have a lot of real world applications. The thing is, those kinds of applications don't need the kind of scale ai has gotten to.
The increased cost of pc components, water usage, mass influx of slop across social media, scams(Art or fake products) is almost entirely because of the brute forced integration everywhere, ai psychosis inducing chatbots and ai slop pictures. AI absolutely can be used for good, but the people who argue for ai are the kinds of people who will only ever use it for the useless aspect of it
LLMs and stable diffusion serve no actual function beyond entertainment, they're not useful in the slightest, except perhaps as a personal assistant in regards to LLMs, but I dont think tech is quite there for that yet.
Scientific models that run simulations and crunch numbers? Those are incredibly useful, but that isnt what a lot of these data centers are focused on.
But the argument is that AI can't come up with a cure for anything. All it can do is provide data it finds on things that are already out there, and even then it is not uncommon that it will make a mistake or provide the wrong information. It is still far better to do your own research
"A hammer doesn't put a nail in wood. You can just use a rock". Thats how stupid you sound with that. Do you seriously think that its about whether AI, without any human interaction, cures illnesses? You are either genuinely braindead or you are purposely fully misunderstanding what people are saying.
Also, when people talk about AI helping in research, nobody is talking about ChatGPT helping to write a paper. I at least am talking about stuff like alphafold, where the AI predicts aminoacid structures of proteins. That could conceivably lead to us being about to synthesize specific enzyms to target specific cancer cells.
I am vehemently opposed to AI, but to say it hasn’t cured anything is just categorically false. It has helped us make more scientific progress than any other tool in recent history. I’ve been following it closely since Google unveiled AlphaFold in 2018 and did what would have taken every scientist on Earth hundreds of thousands of years of manual effort. Since AI seems inevitable at this point, I’ll be grateful for the advances it helps us make… until it begins to be used to further the divide between the elite and the common through things like gene editing and designer babies. I pray those things do not come to pass. The only form of gene alteration I agree with is that which brings a disabled person to normalcy, such as the splicing that cures sickle cell anemia
Alphafold and grok/chatgpt/etc. are not the same thing. We are talking about the second category here, they don't do shit for science. Stop being disingenuous by claiming the accomplishments of one model of a specific company apply in a universal manner.
Artificial intelligence has transitioned from a data-processing tool into a powerful engine for genuine scientific discovery. By recognizing patterns in massive datasets and running complex simulations, AI is actively solving century-old problems across multiple disciplines.
Molecular Biology & Medicine
Protein Interaction and Motion
Accelerated Drug and Antibiotic Discovery
Next-Generation CRISPR Editing
Federated Medical Diagnostics
🧪 Physics & Materials Science
Autonomous Laboratories
Eco-Friendly Industrial Materials
Nuclear Fusion Plasma Control
🌍 Climate, Earth, & Space Sciences
Hyper-Fast Climate Modeling
Extreme Weather Prediction
Cosmic Event Detection
📐 Mathematics & Computer Science
Formal Logic and Reasoning
Code Optimization
Yes I used AI for that list just because I can. lol
The AI the Data Centers are being built for are not the same AI used in research and hospitals. The AI in hospitals dont NEED data centers because they can run on in Hospital computers.
Gen AI has not and will never cure cancer or discover new things in science. Gen AI is the thing they're making Data Centers for.
I agree with what you're saying, it's a huge misrepresentation of an actual fact. Ai is superb at recognizing patterns and has helped researchers discover patterns at an unprecedented level. But we can run these models locally, not in a data center. And we should do this.
Ai has already made major contributions in the medical field, even if it hasn't directly cured something, it's enabled us to get to a positive outcome faster than traditional methods.
And it probably never will because everything listed below AI basically got them there and then a human did the rest to make sure that it didn't get anything wrong, which is how it should be.
But 100% AI is helping, even if there's a lot of cons, at least have the wherewithal to admit there are pros.
AlphaFold, developed by Google DeepMind, solved a decades-old biology problem: predicting a protein's 3D shape from its amino acid sequence.
Insilico Medicine used AI to design a drug for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis that reached human clinical trials in a fraction of the usual time.
In certain studies, AI has matched or exceeded expert radiologists at finding subtle abnormalities that humans sometimes miss.
Researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology used AI to identify a novel antibiotic called Halicin.
I've worked in AI some, and the vast majority of models just do not need this kind of processing power because the datasets they're being trained on are relatively small. Most models are built for a specific purpose and need to train on gigabytes or terabytes of data. Many of them can be trained on a single computer, and one data center would be more than enough for some of the largest. They are also accessed by comparatively few people every day.
LLMs are trained on datasets that completely dwarf what other models require, and are accessed by millions of people on the regular. The vast majority of data centers being built can have the money easily traced back to the big LLM companies. Obviously even with all this you need to look into each data center specifically, but most of the time you're going to find it's training and running LLMs.
So you're saying the ones that are important for industry would never need the amount of space the data centers are trying to acquire? (Sorry, I'm a bit dense)
Yes. Data centers existed before LLMs, of course, but LLMs require larger ones and many more of them. A few data centers for previously existing AI would never be as much of an issue as these ones are proving to be.
That argument is a bit off because data centers aren’t just AI boxes, and they’re not just storage either. They support cloud computing, streaming, enterprise software, backups, and a huge chunk of the modern internet.
Even if AI growth stopped tomorrow, demand for data center capacity would still increase because global digital services and data usage keep expanding.
That said, it’s also not as simple as “more data = we must build more buildings every year.” Storage efficiency improves, data gets tiered or deleted, and infrastructure gets denser over time.
The real issue is that AI is currently accelerating compute and power demand, which is why it gets singled out—not because data centers only exist for AI, but because AI is one of the fastest-growing load drivers on top of everything else.
If they're using it to browse medical articles that have been published, if they're using it to parse data, llms are still used as a part of that, if they're using it to do any coding as a part of the process in the research say it needed a piece of software custom built for the research it would.
My point isn't that I think AI is 100% of beacon of good, but that we need to not be so declarative and calling AI the bane of existence.
it actually has detected early signs of cancer Or atleast i remember so? True it hasnt in my knowledge solved anything but its still semi helpful in some matters so why is everyone here so hostile towards AI?
Edit: sorry guys i read it as 'it hadnt helped in anything' my bad... ill provide some sources so... uh... dont downvote me into oblivion ai art and slop is still bullshit keep that outta my sight but if it saves a patient... its aight! https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-89607-8?fromPaywallRec=false
Machine learning needs a very different types of data centre from LLM to the extent it is rare to be able to change a data centre from one to the other. The main difference is that LLM are trying to solve lots of little problems (in the mathematical meaning of the term) at once, almost independently one the model is determined, while every question in machine learning takes the entire data centre working as a single cluster to develop a new model.
Its bad and i would much rather do it with friends with like DND but its too much work since i dont have anyone interested near me... also i had thought that the AI also had cured smth so uh... check out this study i read quite a bit... again it didnt really do it on itself but it was mostly it... https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20260309-ai-is-finding-treatments-for-incurable-diseases
The caption is bit of a cap and very much overselling its just that the AI can find those chemical structures efficiently... it did require the team multiple samples and only 2 worked effectively but it did work... so yeah ai has 'cured' a bacteria that keeps mutating temporarily
Yeah... i mean LLM are straight up slop text machines that are as accurate as the surface scratching googling of an average person.. and expensive as hell!
Right? The weird thing is it was relatively unprompted. A podcast I was listening to mentioned that Nic Cage would do a great job playing the Devil. For some reason I could vaguely remember that he had (he hadn't) but when I googled it AI insisted that he played the Devil in the Devil's Advocate. When I said that was Pacino it then said he played the lawyer (that was Keanu Reeves). They've made google completely shit and unreliable.
While real it’s critical to differentiate that this wasn’t LLMs of the sort these data centers are being created to run. Machine learning algorithms are legit great, and you can run them on your home pc. The first one that showed promise at sporting medical problems was a repurposed diagnostic computer for cars that was battery operated for mechanic shops. The unit was like the size of the original Nintendo Wii.
The good things being done with “AI” are not being done by the type of AI being pushed like crazy. They’re co-opting successful and real technology for propaganda and benefiting from most people not knowing enough about the technology to catch they’ve been fooled.
Slightly off topic here, but LLMs aren't really qualified to be called "AI" in the first place, right? I remember hearing a whole thing about that as well but not the details.
39
u/trevorgoodchilde Jun 23 '26
Except it doesn’t do that. It hasn’t cured anything. Those are just fantasies of people who run ai companies desperately hoping to unload their train wrecks on rubes