TaupeRanger

Very large studies already exist. They’re safe. Fearmongering about side effects is actually harmful at this point, because skepticism could keep someone from getting safe, effective treatment.

“Millions of people live longer healthier lives by reducing cardiovascular and diabetes risk, but their fingernails might be more brittle!” Doesn’t hit the same does it?

Pre-LLMs: anyone can generate ideas, the implementation is what matters

Post-LLMs: anyone can generate implementations, the ideas are what matter

The term "Generative UI" refers to a front-end design approach where an AI model dynamically builds a UI in real time instead of relying on static, hard-coded templates.

Public opinion and politicians will only notice when the job losses are massive, unfortunately. Right now, unemployment rates are still stable. We can only hope they will notice before things fall off a cliff (if they do).

It's like YouTube "Explainer" personalities, like Hank Green and Adam Neely. They do the kind of "learning theater" that makes you feel like you're learning something when you're actually just providing views and ad revenue. You'll come away from a video feeling like you gained knowledge, but:

1) there's a good chance it was subtly misleading (or just wrong)

2) you probably won't ever use the information in any meaningful way and will likely forget all relevant details in a few days

3) you almost certainly could have spent that time better actually doing or creating something - actually doing real learning and making real progress

The taxi driver claim is not really supported by any evidence. There was an article going around in 2024 claiming something like "taxi drivers die at 68", but the study it referenced had all kinds of methodological problems and was not actually designed to estimate occupational life expectancy.

"Sitting" is just a stand in for "having a sedentary lifestyle". Anyone who doesn't exercise will have these issues.

It's not uncharitable, because the system doesn't actually claim to give you an extra day of notice. It would be more accurate to say: "the model can reach a given level of forecast accuracy roughly a day farther in advance". So your question becomes: are there scenarios where I am 80% sure this is a Cat 5 hurricane 3 days before, where I would die if I was only 65% sure it was Cat 5 on that same day? The answer is - probably not, because even in the example used in the PR article, the NHC was already issuing strong early guidance 5 days before landfall.

Actually it doesn't even say that - they claim to have the same "accuracy" at 3 days that older methods have at 2 days. What does that actually get you? Were the older models so much less accurate at 3 days (compared to 2) that it prevented evacuation of key areas? Looking at the paper, it doesn't really seem like this can be answered yet because there's not enough data over a long enough time.

Keep in mind, DeepMind has a very well documented history of releasing enormously hyped up PR pieces with grandiose claims that are never backed up in real world usage, or are simply lies.

All this for a game that has 123 "Mixed" reviews on Steam? My face was twisted in cringe the entire time. Oof.

Very common press release/headline meme: the question in the title of the article is literally never answered (or the opposite of the headline's claim is true). This research plainly DOES NOT explain why certain mice got cancer and others didn't, let alone why smoking/UV rays cause cancer in some humans but not others. There was no control group for exposed mice that would've allowed them to look at which biological differences made one group get tumors and the others not (the study doesn't appear to actually be interested in that question).

The language here is also pretty hyperbolic. We've known for decades that certain gene mutations cause increased cancer risk in the context of a certain genetic background (BRCA1/2, etc.). Using language like "for the first time" is just juvenile, or purposeful lying at worst.

And at least one comment references "Curtains for Zoosha"

Even that would be false.

You're right, and to me it's refreshing to see a promo video that shows how the real product works, rather than a sanitized over-produced edit that takes out all the flaws.

What do you mean? OpenAI has had a real-time voice model since August of last year. This is a new model with better performance.

Really? Are you under the impression that parrots are able to synthesize their input and create entirely new, useful outputs which they have never heard before?

Whether Bender intended it or not, the term has an inherently pejorative sense. "Parroting" is not really indicative of what modern LLMs do. However, when most people bring it up as a criticism of "AI in general" in 2026, they're using it as a pointer to all of the social/environmental criticisms, rather than the technological capabilities.

How in the world did you miss such obvious sarcasm?

Really interesting - if I understood the article correctly, they're simulating this on conventional hardware, so in order to get the proposed benefits, it would need to be implemented in some other electronic medium.

Pretty sure you responded to an AI bot, looking at their comment history.

TLDR: "I think AirPods increase social isolation, I don't have much good evidence for it, and although I started the article by observing how many MORE Americans use AirPods, I completely contradicted myself at the end by pointing out how Germans, who apparently use AirPods less, are still less friendly/warm to strangers than Americans."

Suspiciously close to an AI slop article.

"Basketball players are extremely tall."

"Go tell that to the middle school travel team in my neighborhood."

Why are you even making this comment? The comment you responded to was obviously talking about median wages of the entire US population. Real Wages are near all-time highs - it's just a fact, you can look up the data yourself.

Technical Analysis is Astrology, and Burry has predicted 17 of last the last 2 stock market crashes.

The word "benefit" does not apply here. The only "benefits" patients and families care about are: 1) does the patient live longer, and/or 2) does the quality of life improve in a meaningful way? Amyloid plaques are a surrogate marker, and (as already explained by many people in this thread) have not been established as a causal factor in disease. In fact, some work has even suggested a protective role for plaques. So we do not have enough evidence to say that a 42% reduction in amyloid-beta IN MICE relays any benefit at all to humans.

You are correct that a series of clinical trials, which would take 7-10 years, would clear things up. But for now, we simply don't know.

Flagged. Nonsense puff piece by the university. The headline itself is beyond terrible - this is a mouse model and would need years of further successful research to be able to say that it "restores memory" in any meaningful way, let alone in actual humans.

You are wrong. This paper very clearly does not show that it "works". The debate exists for a good reason - the very thing this paper claims to show is the exact thing the person you replied to was questioning. And that is a central question in all of Alzheimer's research.

There are dozens of studies that show mice improving their memory/spatial reasoning as Alzheimer's models. None of them have led to a proven improvement in longevity or quality of life for human Alzheimer's patients. Some of them slightly slow the progression, but even then you're getting into a gray area - is it really "better" to be stuck in the Alzheimer's fog for longer? Are we actually improving quality of life? It's unclear.

So no, in order for us to say that this approach "works", we would need randomized controlled clinical trials in humans showing a strict improvement in quality of life and/or longevity. This is not even close to that level of evidence.

I have had a family member die of pancreatic cancer before age 60. It is, of course, terrible beyond belief. I'm not sure what you mean by "SOP" in this context. Referencing a bio-plausible mechanism is not actually clinically meaningful. It can provide a direction for study, but does not replace an actual clinical trial. As I said, "a patient can try anything they want".

But since we don't actually know whether such a recommendation will harm or help any individual patient, no one should be taking this recommendation as advice, and at the very least you should not be "highly recommending" specific dietary changes to people based on one anecdotal experience.

They are working on getting in vivo studies going from what I remember - it's going to take a positive result in a trial on real patients to get attention - that's just how medicine works. You have to show it actually improves longevity and/or patient quality of life before anyone has a reason to care.

Unfortunately, anecdotes are not data, and although a patient can try anything they want, there is no way to know that such dietary changes are beneficial or potentially harmful for most patients without doing a randomized controlled trial and hoping for strong adherence from the participants.

For now. Progress in hardware/model efficiency is one of the threats the big AI labs face, because if LLMs become commoditized they can’t make back the billions they spent.