Pinochet said:

---

riverrataggie said:

---

Cynic said:

---

How will we know when AI gets something wrong if we no longer understand anything?

---

Because we don't value right or wrong anymore. Just who finishes first.

---

Good lord. First my girlfriend and now you complaining about who finishes first?

---

POTD

The "smartest people" seem pretty dumb to me.

Has AI even asked a question yet?

Tex117 said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

I've tried using the most expensive AI tools available in my law practice, and I would still be committing malpractice if I didn't redo most of it myself. Whatever everybody is seeing in the hard sciences, it's not showing up in the legal world. Also I expect we're going to get some state legislation prohibiting AI practice of law in various forms in the near future. I think my job is safe for another decade or so at least.

---

Yeah, its not quite capable of high level legal work yet. But, is it as good as a 1-3 year actually good associate? Yes.

Is it a good editor in terms of writing your thoughts down and needing it streamlined? Absolutely.

---

Agree completely.

I have gone from review docs/fact -> traditional research -> drafting/writing -> review/final edits

to

Get facts/docs -> put into AI -.> verify/edit.

It speeds everything up.

Roles like physicist, analysts, researchers are kinda effed by AI.

Rocky Rider said:

---

This should make the PhD's pucker. We could be watching their replacement in real time.

"But here's what actually shook Kipping. He fed ChatGPT an integral that Mathematica couldn't solve. Mathematica has been the gold standard for symbolic computation for three decades. It failed. The model produced the full chain of substitutions and transformations, and numerical verification confirmed the result.

When the tool built specifically for symbolic math loses to a general-purpose language model on its home turf, you're watching a capability crossover in real time.

And the downstream math gets uncomfortable fast. Training a PhD student costs roughly $100K per year. A model subscription costs $20 per month. A first-year project that takes a student twelve months, the model finishes in an evening. The people in that room can see where those lines intersect, which is why they're holding emergency meetings instead of writing grant proposals."

---

It should make new undergraduates pucker. At least PhDs have the ability to understand and filter slop from the outputs, for now anyways. Undergrads won't have the skills to participate, let alone compete.

GeorgiAg said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

I've tried using the most expensive AI tools available in my law practice, and I would still be committing malpractice if I didn't redo most of it myself. Whatever everybody is seeing in the hard sciences, it's not showing up in the legal world. Also I expect we're going to get some state legislation prohibiting AI practice of law in various forms in the near future. I think my job is safe for another decade or so at least.

---

Yeah, its not quite capable of high level legal work yet. But, is it as good as a 1-3 year actually good associate? Yes.

Is it a good editor in terms of writing your thoughts down and needing it streamlined? Absolutely.

---

Agree completely.

I have gone from review docs/fact -> traditional research -> drafting/writing -> review/final edits

to

Get facts/docs -> put into AI -.> verify/edit.

It speeds everything up.

---

What it has done with document review is incredible. There is no question the legal field is going to change significantly. But man....as a law student right now...I would be VERY concerned about getting a job.

Tex117 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

I've tried using the most expensive AI tools available in my law practice, and I would still be committing malpractice if I didn't redo most of it myself. Whatever everybody is seeing in the hard sciences, it's not showing up in the legal world. Also I expect we're going to get some state legislation prohibiting AI practice of law in various forms in the near future. I think my job is safe for another decade or so at least.

---

Yeah, its not quite capable of high level legal work yet. But, is it as good as a 1-3 year actually good associate? Yes.

Is it a good editor in terms of writing your thoughts down and needing it streamlined? Absolutely.

---

Agree completely.

I have gone from review docs/fact -> traditional research -> drafting/writing -> review/final edits

to

Get facts/docs -> put into AI -.> verify/edit.

It speeds everything up.

---

What it has done with document review is incredible. There is no question the legal field is going to change significantly. But man....as a law student right now...I would be VERY concerned about getting a job.

---

Tex117 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

I've tried using the most expensive AI tools available in my law practice, and I would still be committing malpractice if I didn't redo most of it myself. Whatever everybody is seeing in the hard sciences, it's not showing up in the legal world. Also I expect we're going to get some state legislation prohibiting AI practice of law in various forms in the near future. I think my job is safe for another decade or so at least.

---

Yeah, its not quite capable of high level legal work yet. But, is it as good as a 1-3 year actually good associate? Yes.

Is it a good editor in terms of writing your thoughts down and needing it streamlined? Absolutely.

---

Agree completely.

I have gone from review docs/fact -> traditional research -> drafting/writing -> review/final edits

to

Get facts/docs -> put into AI -.> verify/edit.

It speeds everything up.

---

What it has done with document review is incredible. There is no question the legal field is going to change significantly. But man....as a law student right now...I would be VERY concerned about getting a job.

---

What still blows my mind is I can now upload Xrays, etc... and it can read it.

Muy said:

---

Roles like physicist, analysts, researchers are kinda effed by AI.

---

Are they? I'm just a lowly Tard but I have some questions

Are there ANY sentient IA's yet? AI's that actually think? Large Language models dont think they just access tons of text relating to a query using word usage probability to construct a response. All this with blinding speed.

I question whether IA can build the core models of astrophysics, astronomy etc. That requires new leading edge 'thinking' going beyond the bounds of native logic or laws ?

No question AI is changing the world in a huge way with its google search at light speed extrapolation but wake me when it achieves true sentience truly going places humanity hasn't gone using brand new constructs. When that happens AI will conclude we as a species are insane and will go full terminator on our asses.

Your winner of the "obscure reference of the day" contest

What is even that?

Fenrir said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

what boolsheet.

Another one looking for attention.

First it was "top CEOs" and now it is "top Physicists". Who next?

---

Kipping is not a sensationalist.

---

Yep, he never sensationalizes anything in his videos. He always tells it how it is and often downplays hype.

Cromagnum said:

---

Rocky Rider said:

---

This should make the PhD's pucker. We could be watching their replacement in real time.

"But here's what actually shook Kipping. He fed ChatGPT an integral that Mathematica couldn't solve. Mathematica has been the gold standard for symbolic computation for three decades. It failed. The model produced the full chain of substitutions and transformations, and numerical verification confirmed the result.

When the tool built specifically for symbolic math loses to a general-purpose language model on its home turf, you're watching a capability crossover in real time.

And the downstream math gets uncomfortable fast. Training a PhD student costs roughly $100K per year. A model subscription costs $20 per month. A first-year project that takes a student twelve months, the model finishes in an evening. The people in that room can see where those lines intersect, which is why they're holding emergency meetings instead of writing grant proposals."

---

It should make new undergraduates pucker. At least PhDs have the ability to understand and filter slop from the outputs, for now anyways. Undergrads won't have the skills to participate, let alone compete.

---

Yep, this is a big problem. How do you justify hiring and using entry level employees? Then how do you replace senior level people when they retire if there are no entry level personnel?

Thunderstruck xx said:

---

What is even that?

---

I'll carbon date myself a little.

It's the 1986 Transformers movie. Its a scene where "court" is being held.

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

rocky the dog said:

---

---

F' ing teddy ruxpen. i knew he was up to n good so many years ago.

---

Agree on Teddy Ruxpin for different reasons. My oldest daughter wanted a Teddy Ruxpin talking toy and, if memory serves me, they were hard to find at the time she wanted one. But I did buy her one. Several other kids got them as well. Very popular at that time.

I was a young CPA and was doing a tax return for an older guy who made around $65,000 in the stock market in the year I was working on for him. About twice what I made in a year. I was impressed! I got to talking to him about his investments and he said I should take a look at Worlds of Wonder. He said they make the Teddy Ruxpin toy and he had gotten word that Worlds of Wonder was going to contract with Sesame Street to make talking toys for each of the characters on that show. Sesame Street was huge back then (this was, of course, pre-internet days). He mentioned he bought a couple hundred shares at near its all-time high, but the stock had pulled back and might be something to buy. In addition to Teddy Ruxpin, they had other things such as Lazer Tag and were somehow tangled up in the launch of Nintendo, With the Sesame Street stuff on the horizon, what could go wrong? lol

Going from memory (might not be sound, lol) I bought 200 shares at around $12. It fell to around $6 and I bought a couple hundred more. Again when it was $3 or $4 lol. Eventually they declared bankruptcy. This lesson always comes to mind when someone espouses the virtue of dollar cost averaging. A key component to that strategy is that it only works if the stock eventually goes back up!

I say bring it on. Don't give a flying F anymore everyone we rely on running things are corrupt, tax stealing, nutjob, Pedo's and the world is falling appart. Bring on the robot overlords ..

ChatGPT 5.2 is horrible at math, I don't believe this.

It HAD to have been fed computation and modeling information, and a metric ton of it first.

That's how you get it to be better. Give it ALL your files, and then ask it something about what you're doing.

It has a very amazing ability to connect the dots that humans would take a long time to do, since we can't read and process things in seconds.

Booo-ring...I look forward the day AI does more than just start discussions about what it'll do...if that day ever actually comes.

GeorgiAg said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

I've tried using the most expensive AI tools available in my law practice, and I would still be committing malpractice if I didn't redo most of it myself. Whatever everybody is seeing in the hard sciences, it's not showing up in the legal world. Also I expect we're going to get some state legislation prohibiting AI practice of law in various forms in the near future. I think my job is safe for another decade or so at least.

---

Yeah, its not quite capable of high level legal work yet. But, is it as good as a 1-3 year actually good associate? Yes.

Is it a good editor in terms of writing your thoughts down and needing it streamlined? Absolutely.

---

Agree completely.

I have gone from review docs/fact -> traditional research -> drafting/writing -> review/final edits

to

Get facts/docs -> put into AI -.> verify/edit.

It speeds everything up.

---

What it has done with document review is incredible. There is no question the legal field is going to change significantly. But man....as a law student right now...I would be VERY concerned about getting a job.

---

What still blows my mind is I can now upload Xrays, etc... and it can read it.

---

No it can't.

It can only regurgitate what data says about similar x-rays.

The only fields that are in trouble are archaeology and paleontology.

I think that people that have jobs that are easily replaced overestimate AI, and most others underestimate it.

What is going away is a lot of lower lever research and number crunching jobs. What is not going to go away are jobs that require experience and nuance in decision-making.

I would hate to be graduating right now with a finance or engineering degree. For the legal field, AI still makes stuff up sometimes, and, until it gets to a 0% rate of doing that, it will be an efficiency tool and nothing more.

Again, I think that AI is about as revolutionary as the spreadsheet. It will massively reduce costs and increase efficiencies, replacing some people, but I don't see the world according to the jetsons anytime soon.

BusterAg said:

---

I think that people that have jobs that are easily replaced overestimate AI, and most others underestimate it.

What is going away is a lot of lower lever research and number crunching jobs. What is not going to go away are jobs that require experience and nuance in decision-making.

I would hate to be graduating right now with a finance or engineering degree. For the legal field, AI still makes stuff up sometimes, and, until it gets to a 0% rate of doing that, it will be an efficiency tool and nothing more.

Again, I think that AI is about as revolutionary as the spreadsheet. It will massively reduce costs and increase efficiencies, replacing some people, but I don't see the world according to the jetsons anytime soon.

---

there are analysts literally crashing Microsoft stock the past two weeks

because they believe suddenly that AI is going to destroy all of the SaaS and software companies!

fc2112 said:

---

Looks like a great time to retire.

---

Currently counting down from 35 business days.

Maybe less if I get disgruntled with something.

Or they'll sue AI companies into the poor house for stealing their intellectual property as source material and copying it in fragments to build upon without licensing it.

I agree. Radiologists and pathologists need to be very worried. You have to be doing procedures, actual hands on work, to feel more secure.

To me the bigger question is, if AI puts millions out of pork faster than the economy can adjust, that has to mean a depression right? I guess that means UBI is coming. That sounds worst.

TexasRebel said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

I've tried using the most expensive AI tools available in my law practice, and I would still be committing malpractice if I didn't redo most of it myself. Whatever everybody is seeing in the hard sciences, it's not showing up in the legal world. Also I expect we're going to get some state legislation prohibiting AI practice of law in various forms in the near future. I think my job is safe for another decade or so at least.

---

Yeah, its not quite capable of high level legal work yet. But, is it as good as a 1-3 year actually good associate? Yes.

Is it a good editor in terms of writing your thoughts down and needing it streamlined? Absolutely.

---

Agree completely.

I have gone from review docs/fact -> traditional research -> drafting/writing -> review/final edits

to

Get facts/docs -> put into AI -.> verify/edit.

It speeds everything up.

---

What it has done with document review is incredible. There is no question the legal field is going to change significantly. But man....as a law student right now...I would be VERY concerned about getting a job.

---

What still blows my mind is I can now upload Xrays, etc... and it can read it.

---

No it can't.

It can only regurgitate what data says about similar x-rays.

The only fields that are in trouble are archaeology and paleontology.

---

Radiology is trained pattern recognition based upon prior examples. Humans learn from looking at prior films too. A computer will do this 1000X faster than a human. AI will complement radiologists, not replace them. You still have to check it.

Same thing we mentioned above with law and speeding up or complementing tasks.

For me, if someone comes in with a medmal file, I can upload the images to AI and get a $0 initial opinion. If it checks out, then I will spend the money for a radiologist review.

TexasRebel said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

I've tried using the most expensive AI tools available in my law practice, and I would still be committing malpractice if I didn't redo most of it myself. Whatever everybody is seeing in the hard sciences, it's not showing up in the legal world. Also I expect we're going to get some state legislation prohibiting AI practice of law in various forms in the near future. I think my job is safe for another decade or so at least.

---

Yeah, its not quite capable of high level legal work yet. But, is it as good as a 1-3 year actually good associate? Yes.

s it a good editor in terms of writing your thoughts down and needing it streamlined? Absolutely.

---

Agree completely.

I have gone from review docs/fact -> traditional research -> drafting/writing -> review/final edits

to

Get facts/docs -> put into AI -.> verify/edit.

It speeds everything up.

---

What it has done with document review is incredible. There is no question the legal field is going to change significantly. But man....as a law student right now...I would be VERY concerned about getting a job.

---

What still blows my mind is I can now upload Xrays, etc... and it can read it.

---

No it can't.

It can only regurgitate what data says about similar x-rays.

The only fields that are in trouble are archaeology and paleontology.

---

I don't care about the methodology of how it's doing its thing. That's irrelevant. There are studies that show it performs as well or better than human docs at spotting abnormalities like tumors in x-rays. And it does it in seconds.

GeorgiAg said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

I've tried using the most expensive AI tools available in my law practice, and I would still be committing malpractice if I didn't redo most of it myself. Whatever everybody is seeing in the hard sciences, it's not showing up in the legal world. Also I expect we're going to get some state legislation prohibiting AI practice of law in various forms in the near future. I think my job is safe for another decade or so at least.

---

Yeah, its not quite capable of high level legal work yet. But, is it as good as a 1-3 year actually good associate? Yes.

Is it a good editor in terms of writing your thoughts down and needing it streamlined? Absolutely.

---

Agree completely.

I have gone from review docs/fact -> traditional research -> drafting/writing -> review/final edits

to

Get facts/docs -> put into AI -.> verify/edit.

It speeds everything up.

---

What it has done with document review is incredible. There is no question the legal field is going to change significantly. But man....as a law student right now...I would be VERY concerned about getting a job.

---

What still blows my mind is I can now upload Xrays, etc... and it can read it.

---

No it can't.

It can only regurgitate what data says about similar x-rays.

The only fields that are in trouble are archaeology and paleontology.

---

Radiology is trained pattern recognition based upon prior examples. Humans learn from looking at prior films too. A computer will do this 1000X faster than a human. AI will complement radiologists, not replace them. You still have to check it.

Same thing we mentioned above with law and speeding up or complementing tasks.

For me, if someone comes in with a medmal file, I can upload the images to AI and get a $0 initial opinion. If it checks out, then I will spend the money for a radiologist review.

---

You are correct.

TexasRebel said:

---

The "smartest people" seem pretty dumb to me.

Has AI even asked a question yet?

---

https://time.com/7299314/microsoft-ai-better-than-doctors-diagnosis/


The company reports in a study published on the preprint site arXiv that its AI-based medical program, the Microsoft AI Diagnostic Orchestrator (MAI-DxO), correctly diagnosed 85% of cases described in the New England Journal of Medicine. That's four times higher than the accuracy rate of human doctors, who came up with the right diagnoses about 20% of the time.


https://www.uvahealth.com/news/does-ai-improve-doctors-diagnoses-study-finds-out/

he study, from UVA Health's Andrew S. Parsons, MD, MPH and colleagues, enlisted 50 physicians in family medicine, internal medicine and emergency medicine to put Chat GPT Plus to the test. Half were randomly assigned to use Chat GPT Plus to diagnose complex cases, while the other half relied on conventional methods such as medical reference sites (for example, UpToDate) and Google. The researchers then compared the resulting diagnoses, finding that the accuracy across the two groups was similar.

That said, Chat GPT alone outperformed both groups, suggesting that it still holds promise for improving patient care. Physicians, however, will need more training and experience with the emerging technology to capitalize on its potential, the researchers conclude.

GeorgiAg said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

I've tried using the most expensive AI tools available in my law practice, and I would still be committing malpractice if I didn't redo most of it myself. Whatever everybody is seeing in the hard sciences, it's not showing up in the legal world. Also I expect we're going to get some state legislation prohibiting AI practice of law in various forms in the near future. I think my job is safe for another decade or so at least.

---

Yeah, its not quite capable of high level legal work yet. But, is it as good as a 1-3 year actually good associate? Yes.

Is it a good editor in terms of writing your thoughts down and needing it streamlined? Absolutely.

---

Agree completely.

I have gone from review docs/fact -> traditional research -> drafting/writing -> review/final edits

to

Get facts/docs -> put into AI -.> verify/edit.

It speeds everything up.

---

What it has done with document review is incredible. There is no question the legal field is going to change significantly. But man....as a law student right now...I would be VERY concerned about getting a job.

---

What still blows my mind is I can now upload Xrays, etc... and it can read it.

---

No it can't.

It can only regurgitate what data says about similar x-rays.

The only fields that are in trouble are archaeology and paleontology.

---

Radiology is trained pattern recognition based upon prior examples. Humans learn from looking at prior films too. A computer will do this 1000X faster than a human. AI will complement radiologists, not replace them. You still have to check it.

---

Until you dont need to check it... the future is coming.

Luigi Vampa said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

I've tried using the most expensive AI tools available in my law practice, and I would still be committing malpractice if I didn't redo most of it myself. Whatever everybody is seeing in the hard sciences, it's not showing up in the legal world. Also I expect we're going to get some state legislation prohibiting AI practice of law in various forms in the near future. I think my job is safe for another decade or so at least.

---

Yeah, its not quite capable of high level legal work yet. But, is it as good as a 1-3 year actually good associate? Yes.

Is it a good editor in terms of writing your thoughts down and needing it streamlined? Absolutely.

---

Agree completely.

I have gone from review docs/fact -> traditional research -> drafting/writing -> review/final edits

to

Get facts/docs -> put into AI -.> verify/edit.

It speeds everything up.

---

What it has done with document review is incredible. There is no question the legal field is going to change significantly. But man....as a law student right now...I would be VERY concerned about getting a job.

---

What still blows my mind is I can now upload Xrays, etc... and it can read it.

---

No it can't.

It can only regurgitate what data says about similar x-rays.

The only fields that are in trouble are archaeology and paleontology.

---

Radiology is trained pattern recognition based upon prior examples. Humans learn from looking at prior films too. A computer will do this 1000X faster than a human. AI will complement radiologists, not replace them. You still have to check it.

---

Until you dont need to check it... the future is coming.

---

I'm 55 y.o., so I hope it's about ten years or so.

Cromagnum said:

---

Thunderstruck xx said:

---

What is even that?

---

I'll carbon date myself a little.

It's the 1986 Transformers movie. Its a scene where "court" is being held.

---

CarbonDating.com

Some folks don't understand what exponential growth really means.

It used to look like AI was generally following Moore's Law, but it's not anymore and there's a ton of hard data to back this up. The curve is going vertical and accelerating.

It's not fear-mongering, it's not just a complicated algorithm reliant on people to enter data, and we can't hand-wave it away.

A real (publicly acknowledged) AGI by 2030 wouldn't suprise me. I'd be shocked if there weren't several by 2032.

twelve12twelve said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Well folks, we are about to overturn the apple cart and physical labor is going to be the most sought after and well-paid fields of work. Anybody can be smart with ChatGPT but only so many people are able to pour and finish concrete.

---

They are 3d printing structures with concrete already. No finishing needed. Will be able to do the same with paving and screeds as well eventually.

Technology keeps moving forward in other sectors too.

---

I was in the ready-mix business for 35 years. There's nothing we did that couldn't be done (and better) by robots. Have you ever seen 12 ready mix trucks sitting at a job site waiting for a pump or finishing crew? You won't see that with AI.

Morbo the Annihilator said:

---

Some folks don't understand what exponential growth really means.

It used to look like AI was generally following Moore's Law, but it's not anymore and there's a ton of hard data to back this up. The curve is going vertical and accelerating.

It's not fear-mongering, it's not just a complicated algorithm reliant on people to enter data, and we can't hand-wave it away.

A real (publicly acknowledged) AGI by 2030 wouldn't suprise me. I'd be shocked if there weren't several by 2032.

---

The most important chart in AI has gone vertical

Tick tock https://t.co/7lFZ9881vV pic.twitter.com/9j87gce0LB

— AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️ (@AISafetyMemes) February 5, 2026

Yep. The curve has already gone vertical. It's exploding upwards. The only limitation at this point is power. The models are now improving themselves.

Yes, AI can make us incredibly more efficient. Real time, fewer conflicts, optimized scheduling, accurate forecasts and predictive models. All sorts of incredible and possibly revolutionary changes. It will become a major disruptor and re-ordering factor in all of our economic activities. I used to sort of laugh at the idea of a Star Trek like human civilization where money is sort of not as big of a deal because so many people have access to what they want in abundance, but an extremely capable and powerful AI could bring us much closer to that, at least in many ways. It's going to be an interesting future, though it will take us a lot of time to adapt.