AI Is Building Highly Effective Antibodies That Humans Can’t Even Imagine
wired.com
machine learning algorithm designs antibodies to target specific diseases, then automated robotic systems build and grow them in lab, run tests, and feed data back into algorithm, all with limited human supervision.
You are viewing a single comment
100% of these AI hype articles are also puff pieces for a specific company. They also all have a very loose interpretation of "AI." Anything that uses any machine learning techniques is AI, which is going to revolutionize every industry and/or end life as we know it.
Anyway, that complaint aside: That seems like a plausible use for machine learning. I look forward to wealthy Americans being able to access it while the rest of us wait 19 months to get a new PCP and take out a mortgage for the privilege.
Yes, this is literally true, since ML is a subfield of AI. You seem to be confusing the term “AI” with “AGI”.
Even Deep Blue was (correctly) considered to be an AI and it’s not even even complex enough to count as ML.
Yes, it is literally true in the field of computer science, but it's being thrown around loosey goosey in a way that does not align with how it would be used in a technical sense, at least my in experience, though it's been 15 years since I was in school, and 5 years since I did my last machine learning work in robotics.
The field of AI contains ML, but "an AI," singular, as used in this headline, is a generalized intelligence. When you write a headline "AI is building..." that's not the technically correct usage I am used to.
But my point is that suddenly what any industry used to call machine learning and has been doing for a decade or more is getting puff pieces as part of the AI hype because of LLMs. Anyone so much a thinking about a markov chain is changing their marketing copy to be about how they're an AI-driven company.
It definitely doesn't help how many times people published articles saying stuff like "ChatGPT is just about to become Skynet".
Yeah that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.
I look forward to everybody outside the states being able to access it as well.
And another side note, this is nothing new. Researchers have been doing this for ten years in this and other area's, for instance to design new antibiotics against resistant strains. AI has just been slapped on here to make it sound cutting edge, which it isn't.
That worse part they make healthcare a for profit and make insurance only affordable through your employer ( which doesn't really cover shit) that when they cure cancer and all the other neat shit it will be for the rich only.
If you read the article, you would realize that this is happening in the UK, and has nothing to do with the US.
EDIT: You guys need to learn what a relevance fallacy is.
And?
Parent commenter is introducing problems completely unrelated to what the article is talking about.
Is he incorrect?
He's setting up a relevance fallacy.
Yes he is. Everybody outside the states will get it too
But he's referring specifically to the states.
The original statement is that only wealthy Americans will get it. That's categorically wrong, as many people outside the states have no problem affording modern healthcare. Either he's forgotten there are countries outside the states, or he thinks the healthcare system worldwide is as screwed up as it is in the states.
Or he's specifically referring to the states and everybody else is making assumptions.
Can you point to the part of his post that specifically states he's talking about the US only? The entire point of my reply was just to remind everybody that the US is not the only country in existence.
"Wealthy Americans" and "the rest of us" is clearly in reference to the rest of Americans. Give him the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming.
I'm not from the US, it annoys me as well, but I don't agree that it applies in this context.
You don't get it. I KNOW he was referring to Americans. My comment is entirely meant as a reminder that America is not the world, and the rest of us exist. I don't understand why you have a problem with that.
That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the part where you said he was incorrect.
Not sure why you're still arguing if we both agree he was referring to Americans, which was my point all along. Have a good day.
doesn't change the fact that this will probably be affordable only by people with deep pockets
Or everybody outside of the states
If you meant "everybody on Europe" I'd reluctantly agree. But almost no one in Africa, or South America, or most of Asia will have access to this too
You might be surprised how prevalent universal healthcare is in Asia. Source, am Asian.
That aside, my point was largely to poke holes in the US-centric viewpoint that seems to be the default online.
Russia, India and Bangladesh are on Asia too. Plenty of poor countries on Asia. But, this is a second-handed account since I'm not from Asia, I'm from South America
I understand. They really tend to see themselves as the default, despite being fewer than 4% of the world in absolute numbers, it is unnerving sometimes
Reply to the edit: The problem here is that you're treating every discussion on the internet like an argument. He's not "setting up" an argument, he's sharing an (unfortunate) reality about the U.S. medical system.