Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
I enjoyed Sabine’s analysis in another video that continuing to make increasingly larger models with more compute is about as effective as continuing to make larger and larger particle accelerators. Come on, bro, this million km Gigantic Hadron Collider will finally get us to the TOE. Just one more trillion, bro.
Hasn’t Sabine been getting in some hot water about promoting academic skepticism and making authoritative claims on fields well outside of her expertise?
Personal experience as some of her views have come across my viewing habits is she is as full of shit at the next one. She passes off conjecture as fact.
Wow… i mostly ignore the click-bait stuff she puts out based on the thumbnails alone and tend to follow the “science-oriented” stuff (which has been dwindling but i’ve only followed her for a few months), but watching those 3 PDE videos really shed a light on an underlying pattern.
He makes a good (and logical) point showing that “older” fields of science will have fewer breakthroughs, as is the case of physics.
I like how the interviewees state “not my field of science, here’s my layman interpretation”.
The view-count by type of content is a bit worrying indeed and a telling sign, she could (and should) chose quality over quantity and stick to physics…
Indeed the only video that’s somewhat on that note is the first one about transgenders: it’s a “new” phenomenon, people are still getting to terms with it, there are few studies, some of questionable quality, with few individuals… but i didn’t notice anything specifically transphobic about it.
Out of curiosity i went and watched one of her latest videos and she blurts out in the first few minutes A lot of research in the foundations of physics is now pseudo-science. It hasn’t followed the scientific method for decades. Decades?!
I get the churning out papers without real content angle. Anecdotally i’ve had an acquaintance who’s a published astrophysicist complain about how it’s getting harder to get work 'cos academia is shifting from peer review and quality to quantity of published papers as the sole metric. But claiming an entire field has been bullshit for decades…
but i didn’t notice anything specifically transphobic about it.
It might not sound transphobic to the uneducated, but many points she peddled in that video (esp. the Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria stuff) and used by transphobic groups to discredit trans people. And the fact she is trying to discreetly legitimize transphobic dog-whistles should be a huge red flag.
There is a very good video (not related to Sabine) that explains all this stuff:
Every particle accelerator that has been built has paid for itself in research value. There’s basically nothing that comes out of AI research except the need for a bigger model.
The comparison is poor. Particle accelerators are science, LLMs do not produce science.
That’s not to say that we couldn’t build LLMS that would be useful for scientific purposes but we’re not. That is not the function or the goal of the people building these things.
TL;DR - Many times the cost of the LHC and unlike the LHC, the gains are likely to be incremental instead of revolutionary. The same funding could do much more good elsewhere.
To your point, agreed that even small, incremental gains for science are more valuable than what we are likely to get from AI.
Sure, but the waste of AI is so much worse while providing close to no benefits at all (or probably even damage society as a whole).
Just to put this in perspective: OpenAI alone had a $40 Billion funding round in March this year. That is enough to build that huge particle accelerator and run it for 20 years. OpenAI burned that money in 6 months (they needed another $40 Billion in funding in August) and all they have to show for it is GPT 5 which is just more of the same.
Sure other Science Projects could probably do a lot more with the 40 Billion, but the complete waste of resources in the persuit of AI isn’t comparable to ground breaking Physics experiments which actually helps further our understanding of the universe and the very fabric of reality.
Every step towards the next generation of colliders needs to be deeply justified about the falsifiables it will check and their interest to the current knowledge before being able to see a cent for it, and the expected energies of the TOE are well known to not be reachable with current means and technology, that’s not what they are promising ever, but what they do they fulfill, often, beyond predictions, to not mention the huge return basic research has always had in the long term to humanity… nope, I am afraid that I do not find it a good analogy at all.
EDIT: but, yes, such strategy of making it bigger does not work anymore, so collider proposals go usually in other directions…
Except that’s not at all what they’re doing. Most of the impact studies are already outdated, and the models are shrinking and becoming more efficient.
Used to love Sabine, but the channel’s been taken over by sloppy clickbait.
I enjoyed Sabine’s analysis in another video that continuing to make increasingly larger models with more compute is about as effective as continuing to make larger and larger particle accelerators. Come on, bro, this million km Gigantic Hadron Collider will finally get us to the TOE. Just one more trillion, bro.
Hasn’t Sabine been getting in some hot water about promoting academic skepticism and making authoritative claims on fields well outside of her expertise?
Personal experience as some of her views have come across my viewing habits is she is as full of shit at the next one. She passes off conjecture as fact.
She has also peddled transphobic talking points
Source video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR_RAp73ra0
And here are some videos categorizing more of her grifts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70vYj1KPyT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJjPH3TQif0
And more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oipI5TQ54tA
Wow… i mostly ignore the click-bait stuff she puts out based on the thumbnails alone and tend to follow the “science-oriented” stuff (which has been dwindling but i’ve only followed her for a few months), but watching those 3 PDE videos really shed a light on an underlying pattern.
He makes a good (and logical) point showing that “older” fields of science will have fewer breakthroughs, as is the case of physics.
I like how the interviewees state “not my field of science, here’s my layman interpretation”.
The view-count by type of content is a bit worrying indeed and a telling sign, she could (and should) chose quality over quantity and stick to physics…
Indeed the only video that’s somewhat on that note is the first one about transgenders: it’s a “new” phenomenon, people are still getting to terms with it, there are few studies, some of questionable quality, with few individuals… but i didn’t notice anything specifically transphobic about it.
Out of curiosity i went and watched one of her latest videos and she blurts out in the first few minutes A lot of research in the foundations of physics is now pseudo-science. It hasn’t followed the scientific method for decades. Decades?!
I get the churning out papers without real content angle. Anecdotally i’ve had an acquaintance who’s a published astrophysicist complain about how it’s getting harder to get work 'cos academia is shifting from peer review and quality to quantity of published papers as the sole metric. But claiming an entire field has been bullshit for decades…
I guess i’ll switch subscriptions.
It might not sound transphobic to the uneducated, but many points she peddled in that video (esp. the Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria stuff) and used by transphobic groups to discredit trans people. And the fact she is trying to discreetly legitimize transphobic dog-whistles should be a huge red flag.
There is a very good video (not related to Sabine) that explains all this stuff:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiOc0r31-Os
Be warned, it’s 5 hours long. (Yes, there is a lot to explain, and there is a lot of bad stuff there.)
Every particle accelerator that has been built has paid for itself in research value. There’s basically nothing that comes out of AI research except the need for a bigger model.
The comparison is poor. Particle accelerators are science, LLMs do not produce science.
That’s not to say that we couldn’t build LLMS that would be useful for scientific purposes but we’re not. That is not the function or the goal of the people building these things.
Not really my area of expertise, but this article lays out her perspective on this for anyone who isn’t aware: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-doesnt-need-a-new-gigantic-particle-collider/
TL;DR - Many times the cost of the LHC and unlike the LHC, the gains are likely to be incremental instead of revolutionary. The same funding could do much more good elsewhere.
To your point, agreed that even small, incremental gains for science are more valuable than what we are likely to get from AI.
Sure, but the waste of AI is so much worse while providing close to no benefits at all (or probably even damage society as a whole).
Just to put this in perspective: OpenAI alone had a $40 Billion funding round in March this year. That is enough to build that huge particle accelerator and run it for 20 years. OpenAI burned that money in 6 months (they needed another $40 Billion in funding in August) and all they have to show for it is GPT 5 which is just more of the same.
Sure other Science Projects could probably do a lot more with the 40 Billion, but the complete waste of resources in the persuit of AI isn’t comparable to ground breaking Physics experiments which actually helps further our understanding of the universe and the very fabric of reality.
deleted by creator
Every step towards the next generation of colliders needs to be deeply justified about the falsifiables it will check and their interest to the current knowledge before being able to see a cent for it, and the expected energies of the TOE are well known to not be reachable with current means and technology, that’s not what they are promising ever, but what they do they fulfill, often, beyond predictions, to not mention the huge return basic research has always had in the long term to humanity… nope, I am afraid that I do not find it a good analogy at all. EDIT: but, yes, such strategy of making it bigger does not work anymore, so collider proposals go usually in other directions…
Except that’s not at all what they’re doing. Most of the impact studies are already outdated, and the models are shrinking and becoming more efficient.
Used to love Sabine, but the channel’s been taken over by sloppy clickbait.