"I wrote an email to Google to say, 'you have access to my computer, is that right?'", he added.

lmao right, because the support person they reached, if indeed they even spoke to a person at all, would know and divulge the sources they train on. They may think that all their research is private but they're making use of these tech giant services. These tech giants have blatantly showed that they're OK with piracy and copyright infringement to further their goals, why would spying on research institutions be any different?

If you want to give it a run for its money, give it a novel problem that isn't solved, and see what it comes up with.

Now if you'd all just empty your wallets into the AI bonfire. Thaaaat's right.

Uh no, the AI didn't crack any problem.

The AI produced the same hypothesis that a scientist produced, one that the scientist considered his own original awesome idea.

But the truth is that science is less about producing awesome ideas and more about proving them. And AI did nothing in this regard, except to remind scientists that their original awesome ideas are often not so original.

There's even a term scientists use when another scientist has the same idea but actually managed to do the work of proving it: "scooped". It's a very common occurrence. It didn't happen here.

Google doesn't need access to all his unpublished research if he's ever mentioned anything about it online or in an email that went to a gmail address.

Further, University of Cambridge runs on Microsoft Exchange and University of Glasgow uses Office365.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but they don't need access to your computer and this feels a little bit overhyped.

Also just because it came to the same conclusion means about as much as it coming to the wrong conclusion, does it not? Since there is no actual "thinking" in these devices? How do we know the "right" conclusion wasn't merely a hallucination?

It's so easy to ask a question in such a way that the statistically most likely answer is the one at the front of your mind.

Great! We have a tested solution and scalled up th3 drug to treat the issue. And in 2 days! Great!

Oh, that is not what we have?

When AI decides to destroy the human virus, it now knows exactly how to create a bug capable of it. Probably more likely than pumping out a bunch of humanoid robots with guns, just create a bug, spread it around, and mess with our ability to communicate in time to stop the spread. BAM. Easy-peasy, humans are now down to a manageable 1 billion or so individuals.

if this is machine learning and neural networks, I can believe it's a good thing, maybe even meaningful for the potential of so called artificial intelligence.

if this is an LLM that's alleged to have popped this "virus tail" theory out of... what exactly...? I'm not buying it.