Sure, I’m not against that at all. I hate advertisements and would take no issue with a universal ban. My problem was with the arbitrary moral outrage at this advertisement targeting “Children,” by virtue of the utterly meaningless phrase “Under Age,” which includes actual, legitimate adults, in the US.

Sure, but the primary complaint was against a 0% alcohol beer targeted at “Children” by nature of using the term “Under Age.” I have no complaints against wanting to remove advertising, in general, including drug advertisements.

Below drinking age, sure. I think the nonsense here is that the US considers you “Under age” until you’re 21. So you’re complaining about an ad targeting children, when the target is literally “Anybody under the age of 21.” Which is an unfair complaint to make.

Because using that same logic, “under age” porn is actually legal. Because at 18 you can get fucked in the ass by 3 dudes at once, but not buy a beer.

I hear you say “But there are different ages for X and Y.” Yeah, but it’s the exact same term used to mean the same idea with completely different ranges and neither has any justification beyond “Uh… Here’s the cut-off I guess?”

Would you take issue with 18yr olds having beer ads aimed at them? Because that’s technically “Under Age Beer!” And they’d be considered full adults here in Germany.

Except the US concept of underage also includes people 16 to 20, which this ad is undoubtedly target towards. If it was an ad for beer with bright colours and cartoon characters I would agree, but it is not.

So 19yr olds shouldn’t be advertised to? What’s the cut off?

I actually fully agree that all advertisement is awful and support removing it entirely.

But lacking that, I don’t see an issue with advertising universally. And if we’re going to restrict advertisement to children, target actual children. “Teenagers” includes people legally old enough to join the military and kill other humans.

I’m pretty sure young and impressionable children get used to the idea of drinking beer from friends and family. I think the bigger issue is that the drinking age is fucking 21. It’s absolutely nonsense. If you want to protect children from alcohol abuse, talk to them, teach them, let them have alcohol when they’re ready to try it, in safe settings.

Drag you in to what discussion? The one you engaged in, then refused to give me any reasoning behind? I’m still not sure what your position actually is on the matter because you won’t tell me. Is it entitlement asking someone to explain why they believe something? What the reasoning behind a statement is?

I already accepted your framing that there is no “Anti-AI movement.” Why are you relitigating that?

Well, then it’s a good thing it was posted as a research paper so that ever nation and university on the planet can benefit from the most recent progress in combating the problem of antibiotic resistance. I fully concede and accept that you are 100% correct that the US is fucking AWFUL. But regardless of what that cesspool of a nation is plotting, THIS research is positive, and will allow researchers across the planet to better prepare us against future diseases.

Either I’m not asking the question correctly, or you’ve misunderstood me. Do you take issue with the research itself, or is this purely distrust of a nation? Is it possible for a nation to exist, from which you would applaud this research, rather than condemn it?

Fair.

Would this identical research be acceptable then, had it come from a different nation?

You? Do you think I’m an American?

I didn’t say that. I said THIS research is specifically good because it is set to replace antibiotics, which have a well-known expiration date. I can celebrate medical advances without condoning governments that may use the discoveries for evil. Are you of the position that any technology with the capacity to harm should be banned? Or, what is the alternative research method you’re proposing?

I fully grasp it, but you’re nitpicking over language. I acknowledged already that there is no movement in the typical sense, (despite us having this conversation in a community called FuckAI.) Would you prefer I use the phrase “The people against AI,” instead? I’m dragging you back to the same point over and over again because it’s specifically how I have differentiated the 2 opposing views, and you are the one to have claimed it was pure shit. Whereas I never once claimed it was perfect or without faults. Why are you avoiding my question, and repeatedly sending accusations against me? You’ve called me delusional, arrogant, stupid, and now have claimed I think everyone else is stupid.

Is AI 100% useless, or does it have genuinely beneficial uses? Such as in drug research and weather pattern prediction? Do you reject all AI, in every single context? Or do you support its use in specific areas?

I honestly don’t know what your stance even is, because you won’t tell me.

It’s a bacteriophage, a proposed replacement for antibiotics. It cannot hurt you, it is meant to save your life in the future.

I’ve never spoken to Grok in my life, but you seem disinterested in having an honest conversation about this while accusing me of being a shill or stupid. Precisely the tendency I named in my first message. I reject the premise that AI is pure shit, which you snuck in when comparing what I called the anti-AI movement to an anti-eating-shit movement. But you have not even tried to tell me why AI is shit, in the context of being used to improve weather prediction, and develop new drugs. I’m happy to hear why I’m wrong, but are you willing to actually talk about it, or do you just want to insult me?

You don’t understand. This isn’t a debate. They used Evo1 and Evo2 which are both LLMs. That is just a fact. You don’t understand what LLMs are. I’m not trying to be mean or rude, it’s simply true if you think an LLM couldn’t do this, because it literally did.

Edit: sorry, that probably came of extremely rude and short tempered, and I shouldn’t treat you that way.

LLMs are not only chat-bots, and in fact so not even need to “speak” any language you or I would recognize. Evo 1 & 2 are LLMs built off of raw genomic data. Literally the raw A, C, G, T pattern of the genetic code itself. Trillions of nucleotides. So the output of the LLM wasn’t “Here’s what a bacteriophage would look like!” It was “AT,CG,AG…” Raw genetic code which can then be synthesized.

And I reject that premise entirely, which is why I asked directly whether or not you supported the usage of AI I listed. Because from what I have seen, people who reject AI do so wholesale, with no regard to how it is being used. That’s what I mean by the Anti-AI movement, not that you have a club and meetings.

I am not defending your bosses use of AI to vibecode, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what OP posted.

So are you condemning an entire technology and field of research on the grounds of the worst examples, or do you support the usage of AI in the fields I mentioned?

Okay, then you don’t actually understand my position at all. Would you rather tell me what I believe, and reinforce my assertion that you’re misinformed. Or would you like to actually understand my position, and destroy the strawman that you have built?

This is a proposed replacement for antibiotics, it cannot hurt. Your body contains more bacteriophages than human cells and bacteria combined.

This virus IS a cure for bacterial infections. It is a proposed replacement for antibiotics, which have been steadily reducing in effectiveness over the years, and will likely stop working entirely in the future. This is a way to prevent you and I from being killed by staph infections again.