• iAvicenna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 minutes ago

    Sure it helps with a bottle neck but it is not the only one. Until you gain biological and biochemical understanding of the disease no amount of throwing neural networks will help you. I am really sick and tired of AI people hyping up their stuff to get more investments. It even feels like all this “secretive” bullshit is also a part of the show.

  • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I’m sure all the savings from accelerated/cheaper R&D will be passed on to the consumer…right?

  • MajinBlayze@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    There really needs to be a rhetorical distinction between regular machine learning and something like an llm.

    I think people read this (or just the headline) and assume this is just asking grok “what interactions will my new drug flavocane have?” Where these are likely large models built on the mountains of data we have from existing drug trials

    • holomorphic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      59 minutes ago

      Those models will almost certainly be essentially the same transformer architecture as any of the llms use; simply because they beat most other architectures in almost any field people have tried them. An llm is, after all, just classifier with an unusually large set of classes (all possible tokens) which gets applied repeatedly

  • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    I think I lost neurons reading this. Other commenters in this thread had the resilience to explain what the problems with it are.

  • TheFogan@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    18 hours ago

    I mean I hate AI in general… but to be honest… assuming no one is stupid enough to bypass the trials etc… I’m all for it, 90% of these problems already exist in the existing system, who owns it, can a corporation charge us to death.

    The only reasonable fear is, if they come out with more than they can develop trials for, and they lobby to lower standards in trials. Even that honestly is a more acceptable risk in the context of terminal diseases/severe cancers.

        • TheFogan@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          15 hours ago

          and it’s still a better system than anyone hired by RFK Jr manually reviewing the file.

          Which is kind of the point, idea fully agreed there’s a lot of risks and messed up stuff, but almost all of it, is at worse roughly equal to the already existing problems in our systems… I can’t quite think of any that are made worse.

  • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    There’s only one way to solve all diseases.

    Did they test this on Mars first?