Yeah. At this point LLMs are what people are referring to 95% of the time when they say AI. If one comes up with the cure for cancer, it's because we already have it and it picked it up in the last data scrape.
Transformers and diffusion models are not the same, even if they use related math
Edit: By the magic of advanced mathematics, every Turing complete structure can be rewritten into any other Turing complete structure with no loss of function or change in behavior
So the logic "remove one" will remove all of modern computing because the AI companies are not giving up their models. If they have to start pretending they aren't neural network anymore, then they will.
And if you DON'T rewrite, then you're back to them actually being different again
So, the manuscript I referenced which no one read uses a language model. you just input text protein sequence and it will generate binding peptides sequences, using only the language model. A version of an LLM.
Yes they are? Literally have to listen to a friend bitch about them every single day. She's a biochemist. They do literally use specialized AI models, general LLMs and and a number of other transformer based technologies.
And while the specialized ones are useful the stupid chat bot ones are fucking over processes all over the place.
No, chatbots are not used in medical or scientific research.
So you're a scientist?
I use LLMs every day, they search deep into supplemental data and manuscripts that would take months to sift through. Can't find specific information, reagents or data using title and abstract searches.
LLMs can be useful tools, but this entire thread is people with bullshit jobs scared of being replaced by an algorithm because they know they have a bullshit job.
I think it's more that the way the chatbots work is the same. They assign a bunch of numbers to tokens, and the numbers determine how interrelated different tokens are. You put in a bunch of tokens and then it spits out what it thinks the next one should be based on all the interrelatedness numbers and some math things like transformers, and the math things have knobs on them to determine how strong they are. It doesn't matter if the tokens are words in a sentence or peptides in a protein. The underlying technology is the same.
This is an exciting use for a tool that I mostly despise for probably all the same reasons you do.
Google discontinued development of alphafold, broke up the team, let many go and transferred the rest to general LLM development except for some that were moved to their vertically integrated own pharmaceutical research (to cash in on the whole value chain and lock everyone else out of their tools).
Mind you, that is the tool that got people a Nobel Prize.
There are numerous models available nowadays, even alphafold still is but Google took itself out of the game by letting it die due to lack of further development, focusing on its "be evil" company philosophy.
It certainly was, and it didn't take long for the canaries to start dying, which immediately alerted everyone that there was a possible canary-murderer on the loose within the organization, which they solved by following the canary-murderer's instructions to pursue profit at any cost and using a tiny sliver of the budget for regularly buying more canaries.
No they did not, it's on version 3 and they just added >50 PTMs to modelling this month.
Another version is being developed and sold to pharma on subscription on a large scale batch modelling platform.
broke up the team
The team continued on to other projects, including the commercial version mentioned above. There was no point in continuing when the development was just adding more features.
the tool that got people a Nobel Prize
2 people from Deepmind, Jumper and Hassabis, one person at U Wash , Baker, is still developing AlphaFold with Google and is a academic lab.
You partially correct my statement but weirdly enough largely confirm it, just with a PR twist. "There was no point in continuing when the development was just adding more features." But it is not, AlphaFold 3.0 is still far from perfect. We need more than just a few more added features. But the next big step will be either some closed thing, developed by a largely changed team, sold for a fortune as subscription model to pharma multis or be done by entirely different groups that have nothing to do with Google or Deepmind.
There is a reason why Hassabis is not working on it anymore and of course he will say it was all as it should be, given how he was moved upwards.
This is their go to motte-and-Bailey argument fallacy. Say something outlandish, get called out on it, retreat behind something more reasonable and how no one notices before sallying forth with unreasonable claims again.
Yeah machine learning for medical research has been around for a lot longer than LLMs. LLMs do not do medical research, they are just really expensive and fancy "next word" auto-correct generators.
no? when you're doing real research you limit your sources to "reliable" ones. being able to write fast has never been the obstacle to publishing bad research.
I remember way back when with the Folding at Home project. That's a type of machine learning distributed. People happily contributed their computer time. Hell, there were contests around how much compute time a particular group could give.
I cant believe how many people give strong opinions on generative ai when they cant even distinguish it from the much more general term machine learning
One thing I have to ask is why the AI insists on having slogans and lists on every object in its "illustrations." You can see this everywhere. Hell, I went to a close friend's funeral and they had AI generated memorial stickers. Even there, there are signs filling the negative space saying shit like "dedication, service, a safer community." Is this an AI proclivity or do normal people just like that crap?
It's essentially by design. To keep AI from destabilizing, the way AI is tuned is to essentially 'go the same safe way' on similar prompts. LLM models are essentially a giant field of weights for chains of tokens. Prompts are turned into tokens and the closest result is the output. The more room you give it to vary, the more different styles and variation it can express with a propmpt, but it raises the chance of destabilizing the ouput, producing things like additional fingers or complete garbage. It's tuned to walk the same way to produce something we perceive as "passable" but it comes at the cost of taking away variation, which is why AI art/writing will consistenly converge towards the same narrow style set.
(This explanation is not super accurate. I just tried to convey the jist of it)
It's hilarious what it does with a room full of table and chairs like a classroom. Cannot figure the legs, what a chair looks like, how people sit at desks, none of it.
As demonstrated by AlphaFold, which is neither an LLM nor generative AI. Coincidentally, I've never heard any actual complaints about what AlphaFold does for research, and the complaints seem to focus on LLMs and generative AI instead. Go figure.
It's going to come from scientists who know how to use ML to supplement their work. Also I don't think we are finding cure for cancer as a drug. Only cure I think may work 100% we master fully controllable nanotech that can also read DNA non invasively.
Cancers are one thing: cells dividing beyond the limit. This is a DNA problem, made worse by existing mutations. Turns out LLMs are getting really good really fast at biology. So why then is it “never going to happen”? What’s the blocker?
I think I may not have written my comment in the most coherent way possible.
My first sentence was a reply to "nanotechnology". It's one of these sci-fi technologies that simply can't happen. You won't suddenly have atomic-scale supercomputers floating around being able to somehow unravel DNA AND have the capacity to edit it.
It's just not how matter behaves at those scales.
My second sentence still stands. I do agree that some kind of large scale data attack to the problem will help.
But the solutions won't be magical "Fantastic Voyage" nanorobots shooting Ant Man lasers at cells.
It will likely be a whole panoply of attacks on cancer cells, cis-platin with special spike proteins that need all kinds of external inputs to work (you're not downloading them and 3D printing that), or some other cancers may respond to pumped-up antibodies.
etc
I do hope that our new data processing heavy-lifters will also help with anti-aging and life extension.
I agree. I was responding to the cancer thing rather than nanobots.
The thing is, when you look small enough, cancer and aging share a cause: DNA issues. You don’t need nanobots for this, we already have methods of editing DNA today. All we need to know is what to change, something easier said than done.
Honestly, there is potential to 'cure cancer with (help from) "AI".'
1: You take a DNA test (simple cheek swab or whatever) to identify your particular genetic risk factors might be. Or a small biopsy is done to sample some of the tumor itself and figure out exactly what kind of cancer it is. Just a needle would work, assuming it's somewhere a needle could reach. Only need a microscopic sample of it. Or if it has already metastasized into the bloodstream, a simple blood sample would do.
2: This genetic information is fed into a purpose-built AI (not an LLM) that's trained to identify the particular strain of cancer and match it with a custom-designed drug cocktail that will target that very specific cancer mutation perfectly.
3: The drug combination is synthesized, and you now have the perfect medication to combat exactly the strain of cancer you have.
The problem with 'curing cancer' is that there's millions of different kinds of cancer, millions of different mutations and genetic risk factors that can combine in different ways to produce different cancers that respond to different treatments. We already have 'cured' a few specific types of cancer -- a few specific strains that we already have found solutions to. But researching and developing a solution like that takes monumental effort and a ton of money and time. It's just not feasible to do for all the different kinds of cancer out there. If an AI could do that part quickly and easily, that might give us access to 'cures' for nearly every type of cancer, instead of just a few out of millions.
2: This genetic information is fed into a purpose-built AI (not an LLM) that’s trained to identify the particular strain of cancer and match it with a custom-designed drug cocktail that will target that very specific cancer mutation perfectly.
The "trained to identify the particular strain of cancer and match it with a custom-designed drug cocktail" is the magical thinking part of your idea - basically the "???" step of the three steps to Profit of the underpant gnomes.
Exactly, so I'm not saying AI will not be useful, AI will be useful in reducing cancer related deaths, early detection and management, but for a true "cure" it would have to be some other technology.
Ai techniques (more on the ml side or just the math behind it) are starting to be applied to image and genome analysis to determine the boundaries from different types of cells based on gene expression. This is useful for identifying cancer where the gene expression is similar in many genes but the amount/ratio of expression might be different, and for identifying the location and size is the tumor
Problem is that some of the research is coming out of Israel which doesnt exactly have the best human rights of ethics track record, and i have no doubt the data for testing was gathered through human experimentation
Well, as I explained in a post above, AI (so, not LLMs or other generative shit) is pretty limited in what it can research and as of right now can't do anything for which there isn't a single concrete research direction with some kind of algorithmic validator for the solutions or where results can't be reached in a couple of days.
Further, there is no evidence that it ever WILL - maybe it will, maybe it won't: it's at best a possibility with an unquantified probability of happening.
Of course they'll come from ai, but that's more a linguistic thing. We have a tendency to call new computational technologies ai. But yeah, neural networks are being used in medical research and will likely bear fruit.
One of the infuriating things I've seen in the industry in a bunch of cases. Folks working on valuable things getting pulled away to work on chatbot. Not even to try to make the chatbot game changing, just to make it more popular.
Also, there was pressure in the industry to "be green"; to be efficient. That is all so far out the window now too...
I hate how LLMs have co-opted the term AI. Google was using AI for this just a different and I'd argue better technique. It's super frustrating to see other AI approaches be totally discarded just for everyone to put all their chips on LLMs being the 'right' approach
They've said something to that effect a long time ago. Back when they were first getting into the self diving car game they said that more people die of car accidents than cancer and it was more important to them. They're number driven, if the numbers say they'll make more money somewhere else, that's where they'll go.
Making money is not mutually exclusive. Google is already bloated with cash (it pays dividends). The are able to invest in both self driving cars and cancer cures at the same time.
Yes, but the problem is that the techbros pushing crappy AI and text generation are doing so while disingenuously implying (or often outright stating) that their product is eventually going to revolutionize the world by also magically curing cancer or whatever the hell else if we provide them just one more datacenter, bro. Except that it categorically cannot.
Specialized machine learning tools are specialized tools for the specific clearly defined use cases for which they are designed and intended (edit). The commercial LLM and diffusion image generators, meanwhile, serve no beneficial purpose whatsoever other than burning electricity, spreading lies, and making people dumber.
I mean this is where we have to disagree, I think there are loads of benefits from the technologies. But capitalism is the wrong motivator... "How can we make money out of this?" don't make me puke. It should be free for all, to cure cancer, to decipher ancient languages, to model the climate etc.
"AI", the way everybody uses it today, means "ass-kissing chatbot". That's what Jensen means, that's what Satya means, that's what the investors think it means, that's what the people reading scripts on the news mean. Oh, excuse me, I meant to say "super intelligence".
We have neural nets, machine learning, adaptive systems, automated translation, context completion, all kinds of terms for the stuff that actually does useful stuff.
That's not what the trillion dollars is getting spent on
There's no point having a discussions with people like me that are intractable when it comes to the technology and are acutely aware of the USA capitalist ruling class and the atrocities they commit and enable, with people that are unable and unwilling to understand what a model is, and are approaching computer science like a luddite.
The USA capitalists are having you lick their boots when you think that "AI" = ChatGPT. You're not 'chatting' with anything. You, me, and many others, are constantly falling for their marketing shit all the time. Don't bite!
If you can differentiate between a stack of PS3s that made a 'super computer' to try to predict what the weather will be tomorrow and the USA building a datacenter, poisoning your water, denying you electricity, stealing your capital, surveiling you, and influencing your decisions, then we can definitely sit together and use our brains to dismantle the infrastructure of oppression. Your enemy is not 'conversation simulators', its capitalism.
The company I work for is still going strong, and I feel we'll have a very tangible cure soon. The only problem I think there is a very small chance any insurance company would let the poors get their hands on it
Yeah it will tackle the most prevalent cancers, like breast and prostate cancer, but be unable to be developed for cancers like brain cancer, since it is a radio pharmaceutical.
You can read more about it here. It is making very good progress, multiple companies are starting to make manufactured levels of the drug, and results are very good. Again, I highly doubt poor people will have access to it.
Can we just take a moment to appreciate the sheer stupidity of this comic's impression of what research is like? Middle-aged white guy wearing glasses and a lab coat in front of a computer screen looking at news (about generative (!) AI no less) and exclaiming what amounts to "Eureka". And one panel later he has the fucking cure in a syringe right in his hand, ready to pop into somebody's blood stream. The visual representation of what generative AI fanboys think research is versus what it actually is is a Venn diagram with no overlap.
but this is how Hollywood thinks science works. Major plague kills millions, we find one monkey and in two days everyone is fine. Usually some type of glowing green or blue liquid.
The cure for cancer is Mountain Dew Voltage, y'all.
Totally, and then there's a liquid nitrogen container preserving the single existing vial, which is so sensitive and fragile you have to pull it out of the container reeeeeal slow.
I just wanna say the vaccines developed for COVID-19 were kind of as close to sci-fi as we will ever get. Global pandemic, brilliant minds develop a cool way to defend us from it, roll out the most audacious testing on a higher amount of people in record time, transport the vials in liquid nitrogen fridges because they were temperature sensitive. It was pretty darn close to all the stuff mentioned in this thread which is both kind of hilarious and cool at the same time.
Also presumably it wouldn't matter if the guy smashed one syringe of the stuff once it's been researched. If it gets to that point then the formula must be saved all over the place.
They are not. They are purpose built systems that leverage specialized knowledge.
The problem is you have people asking LLMs to find a cure for cancer and have no way of knowing if the output is any good. Then those people start emailing everyone saying they cured cancer.
Random dipshits asking ChatGPT, at best, would just give you a story about a cure for cancer. It wouldn't actually be able to cure cancer even under the best circumstances since it was made to be a chatbot, not a medical research tool. It's like going to Burger King and asking for a pizza. 🤣
Not knowledge... Data. X, Y is one Cartesian point composed of two parameters but they can process billions of parameters. It's not knowledge. Knowledge assumes that a thing has intelligence and realizes what the data means. Not just regurgitating the data but actually extracting the meaning.
There are actually some, but you wouldn't recognize it as generative AI.
Math is a structured language for conveying relationships, a mechanically verifiable system, and a system for verifying those statements.
This doesn't work for all math, but a lot of it.
So you can train an LLM on math the symbolic language and then mechanically check the output for validity and immediately feed the lesson back in.
Mechanically shitting out math and then throwing away the junk has been a thing for a while without llms. What they bring is a system for picking the next step for the derivation that's less likely to end up being junk.
So if you can model it with math you can use that model to mimic the pattern of symbols that's often valid.
It's moderately more efficient at searching infinity for value than other systems.
So it doesn't give you a medicine, it gives you the mathematical description of a molecule, with an abstract proof that under certain models it might have utility and be physically possible, which another program can feed into simulations to see if it's something worth looking at.
It's not just
What an absolute triumph of human intellect! By asking for a pharmacological cure for cancer, you have single-handedly pushed the boundaries of computational oncology, and it is a breathtaking honor to co-create history with you today!
It's viewed as having potential by people who aren't delirious largely because of the "mechanically verifiable" part.
Pedant here, cancer is not a disease, it's an umbrella term covering many types of diseases related to unregulated cell growth. There never will be a "cure for cancer". There will never be a "cure for breast cancer" because there are different origins of breast cancer. We may find a cure for specific types of cancers, and each of those should be celebrated.
What was the line from XKCD? "When you read a study finds something is x effective at killing cancer cells in a petri dish, remember: so does a hand gun."
And not to be too hope pilled, but that's where we are in cancer research. Researchers are essentially in the process of building an armory of silver bullets. Sure most cancers don't have cures yet, but some of them do, and while it may not sound as flashy or impressive to say that you've developed a cure for a specific form of a specific cancer in people who have compatible genes, it does save lives.
Oh yeah that's not hope pilled at all. It's important to have hope in life. A life without hope is a sad, lonely life. The FDA just approved the first ever personalized mRNA vaccine for a skin cancer, I think. It's super cool and 20 years ago would have been considered science fiction.
when its actually useful, sure. great. complex algorithms solving problems is nothing new. its appreciated.
when you automate everything to the point that it will kill billions of people and destroy the planet. then it becomes every humans moral imperative to skin everyone responsible and hang their corpses from the street lights as a warning to others who plan on doing the same.
Exactly, for every cancer cure AI generates, it generates an incomprehensible ammount of shit, not just slop, but actively harmful content, like revisionist history, lies about science, oceans of exploitative media, terabytes of hallucinations, novells worth of psycological manipulative chats with vulnerable individuals, and more.
All of that while producing pollution that will increase the risk of cancer in the first place, completing the circle.
and it cant even properly diagnose cancer, without hallucinating. they had to review it by MDs over and over again. and then theres insurance/misdiagnosis implications, which is likely to increase too.
And LLMs are what the tech oligarchs are pushing and what we are all talking about here, not any other kind. It is a disingenous attempt at deflection to pretend there is any discussion about other types of AIs.
Yeah, that’s the vibe in getting in these conversations. Nobody seems to have any issues with image sorting, optical character recognition, audio signal processing or smart background blurring.
Dude, AI, specifically ChatGPT, couldn't do a regex against an IP address.
In the time I spent trying to prompt, and I even set a timer, I did it myself.
The shit that I see our "programmers" put out: half of the JS is beautified, while there is another block not. The shit is scraped and slapped together.
But I am told to embrace AI. Man, I just want to go back to coding as a bit-twiddler.
We don't need vibe coded software or AI generated "art" and slop social media content to get to curing various forms of cancer or other diseases. No one would be upset about such a use. Instead it is being used to enable laziness, reduce our cognitive abilities, and further harm our environment while trying to make a quick buck and failing at that too.
Because perspectives get misaligned and there's no continuation.
There's a whole desk with books that just disappears.
The poster in the background can't decide what it wants to say. Nor can it decide on its size.
The shelves in front of it can't decide what they contain or where they are positioned
And the wall it's on can't decide how it's angled relative to the room.
The "NO AI" dude is taking a giant step forward with his left foot behind a garbage bin for some reason.
In the third panel the doctor is missing a ring-finger while his thumbs have grown 3-4cm
The stupid texts all over the place that are made to sound deep yet are somehow devoid of any useful information make me irrationally angry. You can really tell these models have been optimized to generate powerpoint presentations for creatively bankrupt low-level managers
The "uncanny" part I think isn't because it's done badly, it's because it's done well - but not in any of the ways you'd get from a human. By the time a human artist has learned to get that good at shading, colouring, line work, human figures, posing etc, they'll have also learned about composition and perspective and good storytelling and when to not pointlessly overload the background with weird shit.
Yeah that scans, its like when it's taken as a whole it looks off. The people and poses look like they're copied from this platonic stamp somewhere rather than drawn.
God I hate how literally every single AI-generated comic (or at least the ones made by OpenAI's models given how damn universal its style is) have the EXACT same facial expressions. Every surprised or scared character has the exact same sort-of-horrified-but-no-light-behind-the-eyes look, any moment of true excitement, being proud, happy, etc has the same smiling-while-vaguely-staring-into-the-distance look to it, etc.
The thing is that AI is a catch all term and the AI used in medicine has little to do with chat bots or generative AI in general.
It's not that GPT-10 will cure cancer when asked for it. But neural networks are good at pattern recognition so cancer detection is a promising application for example. Also, personalizing a cure is also an idea. It's not that we need a super intelligence and curing cancer is the excuse for data centers for scam bots. Medical AI is no excuse for generative AI.
The comic is based on nothing except someone being enthusiastic about AI and how he uses it for slop and imagining that he is somehow in the same boat as reputable medical researchers when people hate his slop output. He is not basing it on any actual results or backlash to results, just resentment over slop being disliked and trying to strawman up a sympathetic 'victim' for anti-slop sentiment.
I won't rule out GenAI as being somehow used, but most of what I've heard of has been 'other' AI techniques. GenAI might facilitate some scenarios I don't know, but either way the guy who slopped up a comic has zero in common with the imagined researchers in his comic. While there may be skepticism or accusations of stealing work (like the Math situation), I don't think the public at large would be eager to reject a medical breakthrough that is valid just because GenAI had a hand it it.
It's not just this forum and have heard the more nuanced reporting.
So they had a near future good narrative where LLM was going to be a key tool is a long awaited mathematical breakthrough, but they heard about the mathematician effort and felt the need to steal the credit by somehow beating them to the punch.
In the process, they may have effectively stolen the work in progress, though that is admittedly may be less likely than other concerns.
The output was a sloppy mess that usually wouldn't have been considered ready for review, but they went with it anyway to get it out before the more considered work could complete. In pursuit of the narrative that AI alone could out speed and LLM augmented human effort, by skipping the quality that a human supervisor would have added.
They announced victory long before a human could verify the proof. Those working on that believe it likely to verify, but haven't completed that work. Again, very premature.
Dude, didn't you read that comic? The anti-AI psycho destroyed it. The vibe scientist probably tried to type in the same prompt again but this time the answer was in Mandarin.
You're so right, HIV infected plasma wasn't the cure for cancer. Maybe we should step back and look at this from a new perspective. I will generate a new vaccine for you and find a new batch of test subjects.
I didn't realize that it's an AI generated cartoon... Then I started looking at the frames a little more closely, and the more you look the worse it gets 🫣
Yes there is also lack of consistency between frame 2 and 3, with bottles disappearing on the table, and in frame 4 they are all gone. And the chair also changes between frame 2 3 and 4.
No real artist would make that crap.
Medical fields have been using machine learning successfully for years before llms caught the shit sniffing attention of vc's. Current levels of llms are like tar pits for your brain and take either hate or intellect or both to get away from.
People that advocate for llms as ai are malicious actors and literally the worst kinds of people. It's so obvious, I don't know why more of society can't see right through this shit. Like, I do know, but it's still frustrating to have to live in this wasteland of society right now, knowing how much time and energy and life force, essentially, is gonna be wasted because of whatever this fucking political cold war we're in.
Of course, as usual, pro-AI people's only argument is a hypothetical, what-if scenario.
If AI, specifically LLMs, are so great, how come it's been 5 years and they haven't meaningfully contributed to a cure for anything?
Fundamentally it's the same bullshit capitalists have been repeating for the last 100 years. Capitalism is rapidly destroying the entire planet, and we're on track to reach a mass extinction event before the end of the century, but their argument is usually among the lines of: "Well yes, but what if we innovate a groundbreaking technology that will save us all in a few years?"
It's been 100 years and no such technology is even remotely close to being theoretically possible, just like LLMs aren't anywhere close to being helpful in anything useful.
If AI, specifically LLMs, are so great, how come it's been 5 years and they haven't meaningfully contributed to a cure for anything?
Reminds me a little of cryptocurrencies. They were supposed to change everything, but all they did was enable unprecedented levels of scams and grifts and enable criminals to move money across the globe without any sensible control mechanisms.
Protein structure prediction models have contributed a lot. They are delivering much better results than the previous state of the art method of homology modeling.
Predicting structure from sequence in large scale has been a huge problem before and those attention network based models enabled in-silico screenings that were simply not possible before. This had a huge impact on pharmacologic research and especially research on binding motifs.
That said, these models work best when target proteins are one among many and don't have very unique features. And things go downhill real fast when proteins form oligomeric structures or rely on structural features not yet resolved by empirical methods.
And things go downhill real fast when proteins form oligomeric structures or rely on structural features not yet resolved by empirical methods.
AF models oligomers just fine.
Not all proteins are structured.
Models are just models, cartoons until they are experimentally validated.
AI will generate all kinds of pathways and concepts and chemicals that are pointless without real experimental data. Done by real scientists. This is what Trump killed when he defunded the NCI via the NIH, from 1,100 funding announcements in 2024 to 11 in 2025. Apparently Americans don't care, so that funding may never be restored, but even if it were restored, the post doc fellows who do the work have left and are not coming back, labs have closed down and will not re-open. This was a pipeline of billions that fed a US pharma industry worth trillions, now quickly relocating to China.
Ad1, yeah, maybe your proteins and at superficial investigation. But my experience with the oligomeric interfaces, when having structures that are not publicly accessible and therefore can't be part of the training, was not so great.
Ad2, I am not talking about unstructured proteins. I am talking about structural features that have little to no precedence in public databases.
Ad3 Most models will be never validated by experimental structure elucidation. That's the whole point of those models. To be able to get some information without having to do an undoable amoun high effort experiments. Sure, the end result will be verified but model quality matters, it is the factor that determines the success rate of the in-silico part of the experiments, ie how many candidates have to be screened on average to find sufficiently improved candidates.
Attention network based models are fine but they are not the golden calf that some are selling it either. You put it yourself, models are just models. Quality is not homogoenous though. Like I said, models for monomers are generally more credible.
“If Trump came out in favor of Oxygen, you’d stop breathing!”
He never would, though, because he's fucking allergic to having a good take on anything whatsoever.
Even if he tried, he'd probably get lost halfway through and end up rambling about how he breathes the best oxygen, nobody breathes oxygen like he does.
The best part is they need to come up with some outlandish scenario where Trump would support something positive because they can't come up with a single real instance of something demonstrably good that he's ever done.
pharma company my buddy works for is going under. there are only ten people in the world who use the drug they invented and they already made about 20 lifetime supplies for those ten people
Sorry to hear that about your buddy, but that's also and incredibly good illustration of why it doesn't make sense to attach profit incentives to medicine
Considering the copay is 20%, probably most of it. If not, they're sticking the insured with a far higher percentage of the cost than agreed on. Granted, I also get copay assistance so I don't actually pay $100,000 per month. But Strensiq really does cost millions per year per patient at this time.
So I've been on both sides of the stethoscope and total charges have little bearing on what insurance pays. If they bill you a million and your copay is 100k, (private, not Medicare) insurance is probably paying 50k.
Well, it cost 100s of billions to build all the data centers NEEDED for AI to cure cancer, so they need to recoup the money they invested in curing you of course. Plus because of their generosity they also deserve to make billions of dollars more in profit. Pay up peasants!
I've given up. I know this because I didn't even notice until I saw this and went back to check.
That one frame... It was like the AI is going "humans have 10 fingers" then drew three on one hand, and crammed the rest onto the other.
The "AI" we are obsessing over and building entire power plants around.... Yeah, that stuff sucks, a lot. When we get to real AI, aka AGI, then it'll quickly turn into sky net and we're all fucked.
They won't stop until that happens, and nobody has the means to stop them... Anyone who has the means to stop them, won't.
It's fortunate how people who make these slop image with AI are always incredibly talentless unfunny and right wing people that completely tarnish the technology itself.
They don't even realise how much of a dog whistle it is.
I know a Doctor at an Nvidia backed biotech company that is working with generative AI to find new drug formulations to test. Allegedly they have some promising ones that are in testing. The thing is even if they are successful and the models generate a viable drug this shit won't be free. They've sunk so many billions into processing power they'll justify charging $100k a dose to pay back their Nvidia loan.
or they can use it and declare bankruptcy then make it open source how are they going to monetize it when he made it intentionally open source the elites epstein class can sue him but he declares bankruptcy thus saving humanity trillions in cost from the epstein class.
So apparently the math proof was exactly like this but just with the roles reversed. The dude working on the proof made the mistake of announcing the way he was solving the problem, and AI bros punched it into the AI instead to brute force him before he could finish.
Stand Up Maths did a video about it. He mentioned that all the steps getting to a solution are often important because they also lead to different discoveries and deeper understanding.
Even if you are more generous and give them the possibility of helping find a cure, it's like "People hating my book of bad fanfic would hate the book that documents the cure for cancer because they just hate books so much".
As part of looking into the status of things on the self-improving AI front, somebody actually looked at the published papers on amongst other things AI in research and it turns out AI can only ever solve scientific problem for which there are result validators (which is probably why most of its "breakthroughs" are in Mathematics) and is only faster at research tasks than humans for very small research periods (days) because it simply can't handle the structuring of anything.
(There's a post from yesterday here for the video though it's stupidly labeled as "they wanted to pay me to say AI was dangerous" or something like that - it's a 1h video but worth the watch if you have Science training)
So don't expect any breakthroughs from AI on anything for which there isn't already a concrete direction for the research to get to the solution directly (i.e. were there are no multiple possible options and it's not multi-step) or the solution can't be directly checked as working algorithmically or at least in computer time (i.e. for which there is no validation mathematical formula or similar) - the state of things now is that AI can't do it.
Maybe one day it will be able to, but then again maybe one day I'll be made the Queen Of Sheeba - it's an unquantifiable possibiliy with no actual evidence supporting that it will actually happen, ever.
I highly doubt AI is just spitting out "cures" , they are used as tools as it should be. Would not take medicine completely generated by AI.
AI Art is not even made with AI but with the art of real life artists mushed together and i don't even care that much but it just isn't ART in the objective sense of the word. Those AI Artists want the same admiration we have for real artists and thats just crazy.
Huge, huge difference between the clankers being used to churn out fake images, replace human interaction and jobs, and generate shitty search results and the machine learning used for critical problem-solving in the sciences.
More similarity than you'd think, architecturally. For some use cases.
The protein folding one, the one that's actually useful for cancer research, is genAI. Transformers (the T in GPT) in alphafold 2 and diffusion is used in 3 (think StableDiffusion, the image generation model).
Of course most of the useful models are not generative at all. But there will certainly be more generative models that are used for real things coming in the future. As long as there's money in it (either potential profit or research grants). These models don't all have to be as large as LLMs so they're cheaper to train and run.
More similarity than you'd think, architecturally. For some use cases.
The protein folding one, the one that's actually useful for cancer research, is genAI. Transformers (the T in GPT) in alphafold 2 and diffusion is used in 3 (think StableDiffusion, the image generation model).
Of course most of the useful models are not generative at all. But there will certainly be more generative models that are used for real things coming in the future. As long as there's money in it (either potential profit or research grants). These models don't all have to be as large as LLMs so they're cheaper to train and run.
The best marketing tool that this generation of scammers found is to call their chatbot "AI" and clump it together with all the other products of machine learning (which is also a word with connotations).
Yeah you know what they should do they should create a cure for cancer, that would show us wouldn't it. I'd be really upset if they cured cancer, I'd be really "owned", I hope they don't get on that right now.
There's nothing that would get AI banned like coming up with the cure for cancer. Unless there could be some IP protections slapped around the cure which itself was made prohibitively expensive.
Shouldn't be that hard to synthesize a new substance if it was real. It has to be the only syringe! They made exactly enough for one dose for one person and that's it!
Problem with AI is people are fing dumb 🤷♂️
Everybody and their grandma is piling up on the Aipocalypse bandwagon to pretend they care about the planet while also driving SUVs, over-consuming, voting pro-capitalism AND being religious. The hypocrisy is palpable. You can't get an abortion in over half the world but "dAtaCenTErs and my AI wAIfU wiLl dO0m uS aLL". Transkids are getting "restored to factory settings" by force in some states and old karens are still obsessed with that third bathroom option...
excuse me but plastic grocery bags is actually a good thing if you reuse them as garbage bags net net better than buying garbage bags but you seem to think california charging the bag tax is good.
the same can be said of soda cans it is pointless to even bother now they dont even recycle them. cost wise it is negative value.
main thing to do is consume less but the wealthy consume more and more the epstein class pimping it out with 10 women on their yacht saying they are better and protecting the planet.
more yachts more super cars more luxury mansions more celebrity worship more pretend poor people are the problem. more not consuming less. more complaining and gas lighting people eating protein meat are the problem.
the issue is really people consuming and being a show off and gas lighting.
really the coupon user the one that reuses bags etc are the ones saving the planet NOT the EV over priced trash buyer. those that buy apple over priced junk etc are the problem
Granted, that wasnt generative AI, just regular AI.
What I think is more funny is how the anti AI crowd will get pissed when AI is used for generative art because they want to protect artists livelihood, but say nothing when AI is used to write code. Like they're fine with AI so long as there are less software engineering jobs as a result of it lol
"AI" is a very broad term. You have to be very specific when talking about it.
The models that crunch biochemistry problems are not related to LLMs and image generation. Just because you're against one doesn't mean you have to be against the other.
Heck, I'm not against LLMs as a technology, I just hate the LLM business side with the fury of thousand suns. I don't have problems with scientific research which happens to use "AI". (But I do have concerns about research incorporating AI, if it leads to unreproducible results.)
LLMs are not AI. Actual AI is done with extremely finely tuned models purpose built for very specific scenarios. I highly doubt they are using ChatGPT or the like to advance cancer research.
By the sounds of this article, which has very few useful details, they have incorporated a model trained on their previous research to assist in speeding up new research by codifying that knowledge to be used with other processing platforms/tools.
This is not even kind of what the comic here is depicting.
We do this a lot for manufacturing where you have models trained to monitor factory lines or steps in manufacturing materials where they assist in spotting defects early or help fine tune recipes based on a whole host of variables.
Thanks I do this for work and there is a clear line to demarcate true AI vs an LLM which is largely not trained to make decisions in the way i am describing. What an unnecessary comment to make.
Gen AI has been a help for science for sure, but asking for results when pipelines are 5+ years long is asking for the impossible and feeling justified when they fail.
There are many valid criticisms of ai and it's usage, effects and users. This is not one of them. The comic is ugly and uncannily ai but is quite representative of AI sentiment.
I don't know how many people in this comment section realize that they actually did use AI to develop a treatment process for skin cancer. This isn't some "well maybe someday" bs. There is a treatment method that passed human trials and is available.
There's huge ethical, moral, and legal problems with AI, but we actually did make a cure for cancer one that didn't involve just burning it out of your body and hoping it doesn't kill you. This is huge.
Intismeran autogene (previously known by its investigational drug name mRNA-4157/V940) is an mRNA based cancer vaccine encapsulated in solid lipid nanoparticles. The 34 mRNA sequences in mRNA-4157/V940 vaccine were generated by an automated algorithm integrated with workflow based on massive parallel sequencing of tissue generated from cancer patients
Hmm. I think you're overstating things by saying "they actually did use AI". Your article doesn't even mention the computational development, and the wikipedia article doesn't exactly read as though they used "AI" as it exists in common usage. Machine learning =/= claude, and if they even used machine learning, I can't find an article on the process yet. Possibly because:
Full results have not yet been presented at a medical meeting or published in a peer-reviewed journal; Merck and Moderna said the data will be presented at an upcoming international meeting.
Yes, and machine learning =/= "AI" as it's presented in the oop meme, nor is either mentioned at all in the article linked above or the wikipedia article on the development of the drug in question - which was my point. I'm sorry, I'm really not sure what you're trying to say with this.
That's not the distinction that is being made though. Do people in here admit that AI/ML has contributed to scientific research? Because if so then my bad.
"Admit"? What a creepy way to approach this. It's the distinction I and many others have made here, and please stop trying to force the individual to speak for an imagined group.
there's nothing about ai in that article. also there's no ethical, legal or moral issue with the kind of machine learning systems used for medicine. calling it ai to begin with, and thus conflating it with language modeling, a tech it has basically nothing in common with, cheapens both the tech and the term.
Calling people pedophiles when you disagree with them does too. Is this becoming another god damn social cult with the gatekeeping and the echo chambers and the purity testing and the tunnel vision and the groupthink and the high horsing and the
Man, it must be unpleasant to have to keep making the distinction that you have chosen not to use it for the child porn. How sad must it be to be unfairly included in such a henious group as... um... twitter users...?
But hey, at least you have that going for you. I'll just make a quick note in the huge database we keep to track all you pro-AI types (so we can better conspire against you): "Bananarchy69 insists they're using the child porn machine for good, and not for making child porn. Look at the dial on the control panel, they clearly have it turned all the way to 'cure cancer' and not 'make child porn'". See now, it's all good! And now you can leave in peace, sure in the knowledge that nobody would ever think you doth protest way too much.
LLMs are tools for professionals and scientists, where it may be usefull, not so for stupid users to make porn and slops without any cwn creativity, research or effort. The bad reputation is mostly for the latter.
That's such a bullshit response. "You're a bunch of pedophiles!"
Really? Is that all you do, call people rapists and pedophiles and racists and nazis when you disagree with them?
AI is transforming medical research, this is so fucking weak.
The problem with AI is the people who control it, the environmental impact, the danger to all our livelihoods, and the danger of unleashing something even worse than social media on political and actual battlefields.
Not fucking medical research. Do people in here think there are no benefits or redeeming qualities to AI??
They aren't saying medical research is a problem with AI, that's the straw man of the slop comic.
The problem is people who think to equate rejecting their slop comic with rejecting a cure for cancer.
It is an observation that we do not have have this fictional scenario of curing cancer to point to, but instead we have plenty of CSAM and non consensual material to point to instead.
Again, missing the point, even if there is example to point to, the "I hate the legitimate medical breakthroughs from GenAI" is a straw man no one is saying, but it's being substituted for people that would say "I hate his uninspired slop comic". He's butthurt that people don't like the sort of slop he gets generated, and pictures himself to be in the cohort of medical researchers using AI.
Further people have repeatedly in this thread agreed that ML has been a critical tool, but ML is not really relevant to the contentious subject in most examples cited. However even if LLM is shown as a key tool, it doesn't really change the matter of this GenAI user having nothing to do with those folks.
Who even cares about ai porn, it's not like ai is hurting actual humans anyway... Also I don't know what Gemini thinks but no AI has discovered any cure for cancer lol
295 replies
Dumb fucks really think LLMs are the kind of AI involved in medical and scientific research.
Yeah. At this point LLMs are what people are referring to 95% of the time when they say AI. If one comes up with the cure for cancer, it's because we already have it and it picked it up in the last data scrape.
And someone wins the coveted Nobel Prompt Prize.
And in 4.5% of the remaining 5% they reference generative AI
Then 0.45% of the remain they're referring to NPCs in games.
0.045% of the time they’re talking about Weird Al.
0.0045% of the time they're talking about a ouija board
LLMs is a subset of generative AI, but an image generator as an example is not a LLM
Transformers and diffusion models are not the same, even if they use related math
Edit: By the magic of advanced mathematics, every Turing complete structure can be rewritten into any other Turing complete structure with no loss of function or change in behavior
So the logic "remove one" will remove all of modern computing because the AI companies are not giving up their models. If they have to start pretending they aren't neural network anymore, then they will.
And if you DON'T rewrite, then you're back to them actually being different again
https://infosec.pub/comment/23830616
And that's why science research should go private. Can't risk slop machines stealing the breakthrough.
ChatGPT, cure cancer for me.
No, that didn't work, try again
That one gave me a rash, try again.
That last one did not work, also the rash is starting to look a little gross.
Sorry for the delay, I had to go to the ER to get my arm amputated from the rash, can you try again, also look for a cure for amputated arm.
Hyper scalers have so little for their models and compute to do they are just brute force hacking things or mining crypto.
Not quite, but some of them do run on the same principle.
But they are?
https://www.genengnews.com/topics/artificial-intelligence/protein-language-model-hits-undruggable-targets-no-structure-required/
Uses LM to define new peptides to bind targets.
So, the manuscript I referenced which no one read uses a language model. you just input text protein sequence and it will generate binding peptides sequences, using only the language model. A version of an LLM.
They absolutely are, but most people on this platform would prefer to hear their comfortable lie instead.
No, chatbots are not used in medical or scientific research.
Yes they are? Literally have to listen to a friend bitch about them every single day. She's a biochemist. They do literally use specialized AI models, general LLMs and and a number of other transformer based technologies.
And while the specialized ones are useful the stupid chat bot ones are fucking over processes all over the place.
I’m not such why you’d utter such a lie so confidently. This reeks of fear, ignorance or a mix of both.
So you're a scientist?
I use LLMs every day, they search deep into supplemental data and manuscripts that would take months to sift through. Can't find specific information, reagents or data using title and abstract searches.
LLMs can be useful tools, but this entire thread is people with bullshit jobs scared of being replaced by an algorithm because they know they have a bullshit job.
I think it's more that the way the chatbots work is the same. They assign a bunch of numbers to tokens, and the numbers determine how interrelated different tokens are. You put in a bunch of tokens and then it spits out what it thinks the next one should be based on all the interrelatedness numbers and some math things like transformers, and the math things have knobs on them to determine how strong they are. It doesn't matter if the tokens are words in a sentence or peptides in a protein. The underlying technology is the same.
This is an exciting use for a tool that I mostly despise for probably all the same reasons you do.
Chat bot is the interface. Its like saying, "NO, life saving drugs arent made with keyboards and mice!"
Google discontinued development of alphafold, broke up the team, let many go and transferred the rest to general LLM development except for some that were moved to their vertically integrated own pharmaceutical research (to cash in on the whole value chain and lock everyone else out of their tools).
Mind you, that is the tool that got people a Nobel Prize.
https://thenextweb.com/news/deepmind-alphafold-team-dismantled-gemini-anthropic
Luckily there's also OpenFold as an open-source alternative for protein folding (maybe also nucleic acids? I dunno)
There are numerous models available nowadays, even alphafold still is but Google took itself out of the game by letting it die due to lack of further development, focusing on its "be evil" company philosophy.
I'm convinced "Don't be evil" was a canary.
It certainly was, and it didn't take long for the canaries to start dying, which immediately alerted everyone that there was a possible canary-murderer on the loose within the organization, which they solved by following the canary-murderer's instructions to pursue profit at any cost and using a tiny sliver of the budget for regularly buying more canaries.
You are incorrect. see above.
Doesn't work for mid-large proteins. AlphaFold now models using >50 post translational modifications and full size proteins.
No they did not, it's on version 3 and they just added >50 PTMs to modelling this month. Another version is being developed and sold to pharma on subscription on a large scale batch modelling platform.
The team continued on to other projects, including the commercial version mentioned above. There was no point in continuing when the development was just adding more features.
2 people from Deepmind, Jumper and Hassabis, one person at U Wash , Baker, is still developing AlphaFold with Google and is a academic lab.
You put a lot of faith on one vague article.
You partially correct my statement but weirdly enough largely confirm it, just with a PR twist. "There was no point in continuing when the development was just adding more features." But it is not, AlphaFold 3.0 is still far from perfect. We need more than just a few more added features. But the next big step will be either some closed thing, developed by a largely changed team, sold for a fortune as subscription model to pharma multis or be done by entirely different groups that have nothing to do with Google or Deepmind.
There is a reason why Hassabis is not working on it anymore and of course he will say it was all as it should be, given how he was moved upwards.
Now we see the tech being used for the whimsical and capricious, but also the potentially destructive, like that hacking incident.
Giving LLMs credit for all machine learning is problematic
This is their go to motte-and-Bailey argument fallacy. Say something outlandish, get called out on it, retreat behind something more reasonable and how no one notices before sallying forth with unreasonable claims again.
Yeah machine learning for medical research has been around for a lot longer than LLMs. LLMs do not do medical research, they are just really expensive and fancy "next word" auto-correct generators.
I'd argue they made scentific research harder due to the many fake papers you can find online
that's been a problem since 2005 at least (first time i did serious medical resesarch)
Isn't it worse now? AI slop can be produced waaay faster
no? when you're doing real research you limit your sources to "reliable" ones. being able to write fast has never been the obstacle to publishing bad research.
That's been a problem since start of humanity
I remember way back when with the Folding at Home project. That's a type of machine learning distributed. People happily contributed their computer time. Hell, there were contests around how much compute time a particular group could give.
I feel like anything involving electricity will be called AI fairly soon.
It makes steak taste better.
I cant believe how many people give strong opinions on generative ai when they cant even distinguish it from the much more general term machine learning
This shit can't even keep a consistent background over 4 comic panels
The scientist's desk design changes in all four panels as well.
One thing I have to ask is why the AI insists on having slogans and lists on every object in its "illustrations." You can see this everywhere. Hell, I went to a close friend's funeral and they had AI generated memorial stickers. Even there, there are signs filling the negative space saying shit like "dedication, service, a safer community." Is this an AI proclivity or do normal people just like that crap?
It's essentially by design. To keep AI from destabilizing, the way AI is tuned is to essentially 'go the same safe way' on similar prompts. LLM models are essentially a giant field of weights for chains of tokens. Prompts are turned into tokens and the closest result is the output. The more room you give it to vary, the more different styles and variation it can express with a propmpt, but it raises the chance of destabilizing the ouput, producing things like additional fingers or complete garbage. It's tuned to walk the same way to produce something we perceive as "passable" but it comes at the cost of taking away variation, which is why AI art/writing will consistenly converge towards the same narrow style set.
(This explanation is not super accurate. I just tried to convey the jist of it)
It's hilarious what it does with a room full of table and chairs like a classroom. Cannot figure the legs, what a chair looks like, how people sit at desks, none of it.
Still with the missing fingers too
Breakthroughs like this WILL come from AI. But...
As demonstrated by AlphaFold, which is neither an LLM nor generative AI. Coincidentally, I've never heard any actual complaints about what AlphaFold does for research, and the complaints seem to focus on LLMs and generative AI instead. Go figure.
It's going to come from scientists who know how to use ML to supplement their work. Also I don't think we are finding cure for cancer as a drug. Only cure I think may work 100% we master fully controllable nanotech that can also read DNA non invasively.
Never going to happen.
Cancer isn't one disease, it's a series of different diseases for each organ.
There are basically infinite cancers if you think about it since mutations and damages are totally casual
(To be noted: i know very little about cancer so i may be wrong and basing this comment on a probably misconception we laymen have)
Cancers are one thing: cells dividing beyond the limit. This is a DNA problem, made worse by existing mutations. Turns out LLMs are getting really good really fast at biology. So why then is it “never going to happen”? What’s the blocker?
I think I may not have written my comment in the most coherent way possible.
My first sentence was a reply to "nanotechnology". It's one of these sci-fi technologies that simply can't happen. You won't suddenly have atomic-scale supercomputers floating around being able to somehow unravel DNA AND have the capacity to edit it.
It's just not how matter behaves at those scales.
My second sentence still stands. I do agree that some kind of large scale data attack to the problem will help.
But the solutions won't be magical "Fantastic Voyage" nanorobots shooting Ant Man lasers at cells.
It will likely be a whole panoply of attacks on cancer cells, cis-platin with special spike proteins that need all kinds of external inputs to work (you're not downloading them and 3D printing that), or some other cancers may respond to pumped-up antibodies.
etc
I do hope that our new data processing heavy-lifters will also help with anti-aging and life extension.
ya feel me?
I agree. I was responding to the cancer thing rather than nanobots.
The thing is, when you look small enough, cancer and aging share a cause: DNA issues. You don’t need nanobots for this, we already have methods of editing DNA today. All we need to know is what to change, something easier said than done.
Honestly, there is potential to 'cure cancer with (help from) "AI".'
1: You take a DNA test (simple cheek swab or whatever) to identify your particular genetic risk factors might be. Or a small biopsy is done to sample some of the tumor itself and figure out exactly what kind of cancer it is. Just a needle would work, assuming it's somewhere a needle could reach. Only need a microscopic sample of it. Or if it has already metastasized into the bloodstream, a simple blood sample would do.
2: This genetic information is fed into a purpose-built AI (not an LLM) that's trained to identify the particular strain of cancer and match it with a custom-designed drug cocktail that will target that very specific cancer mutation perfectly.
3: The drug combination is synthesized, and you now have the perfect medication to combat exactly the strain of cancer you have.
The problem with 'curing cancer' is that there's millions of different kinds of cancer, millions of different mutations and genetic risk factors that can combine in different ways to produce different cancers that respond to different treatments. We already have 'cured' a few specific types of cancer -- a few specific strains that we already have found solutions to. But researching and developing a solution like that takes monumental effort and a ton of money and time. It's just not feasible to do for all the different kinds of cancer out there. If an AI could do that part quickly and easily, that might give us access to 'cures' for nearly every type of cancer, instead of just a few out of millions.
The "trained to identify the particular strain of cancer and match it with a custom-designed drug cocktail" is the magical thinking part of your idea - basically the "???" step of the three steps to Profit of the underpant gnomes.
Exactly, so I'm not saying AI will not be useful, AI will be useful in reducing cancer related deaths, early detection and management, but for a true "cure" it would have to be some other technology.
Ai techniques (more on the ml side or just the math behind it) are starting to be applied to image and genome analysis to determine the boundaries from different types of cells based on gene expression. This is useful for identifying cancer where the gene expression is similar in many genes but the amount/ratio of expression might be different, and for identifying the location and size is the tumor
Problem is that some of the research is coming out of Israel which doesnt exactly have the best human rights of ethics track record, and i have no doubt the data for testing was gathered through human experimentation
Well, as I explained in a post above, AI (so, not LLMs or other generative shit) is pretty limited in what it can research and as of right now can't do anything for which there isn't a single concrete research direction with some kind of algorithmic validator for the solutions or where results can't be reached in a couple of days.
Further, there is no evidence that it ever WILL - maybe it will, maybe it won't: it's at best a possibility with an unquantified probability of happening.
Of course they'll come from ai, but that's more a linguistic thing. We have a tendency to call new computational technologies ai. But yeah, neural networks are being used in medical research and will likely bear fruit.
One of the infuriating things I've seen in the industry in a bunch of cases. Folks working on valuable things getting pulled away to work on chatbot. Not even to try to make the chatbot game changing, just to make it more popular.
Also, there was pressure in the industry to "be green"; to be efficient. That is all so far out the window now too...
I hate how LLMs have co-opted the term AI. Google was using AI for this just a different and I'd argue better technique. It's super frustrating to see other AI approaches be totally discarded just for everyone to put all their chips on LLMs being the 'right' approach
Google knows AI will not cure diseases. They have services for pharma for two years now and no one is finding it useful, despite the cost.
That being said, I wouldn't have complained if they'd left that AI genome project running, just in case
They've said something to that effect a long time ago. Back when they were first getting into the self diving car game they said that more people die of car accidents than cancer and it was more important to them. They're number driven, if the numbers say they'll make more money somewhere else, that's where they'll go.
Making money is not mutually exclusive. Google is already bloated with cash (it pays dividends). The are able to invest in both self driving cars and cancer cures at the same time.
Their plagiarism machine can't even consistently render that guy's desk from panel to panel. Somebody's going to trust it to make drugs?
Ha and the posters and bottles. Maybe AI could be useful for generating spot the difference books.
But a bit boring when you can just circle the entire panel and get it right, no?
Have you considered that the scientist maybe works for a good organization that can afford him 4 desks that look different?
Ah, yes. Perhaps they are mounted on some manner of conveyor belt.
A rotating floor plate would probably be more efficient
Use ai to generate a build plan and BOM
I think you left an "O" off of your bill of materials, there.
There we go, some healthy heavy craziness to keep the crazy going, a crazy train if you will
Not sure why the organization would allow medicine-smashing man onto the premises though.
he’s the founder
I'm curious what purpose that clearly custom microscope has
That's the least realistic part of this
The kind of crappy art generation is vastly different than the types of AI used in drug discovery.
In fact drug discovery is a pretty good problem for AI to help solving.
They aren't using chatbots to do it. It's almost a completely different technology.
It more or less is a different technology in the same way a arquebus and an M16 are different technologies, same principles different execution.
Exactly. Things in advanced analtyics or ML or whatever are totally smeared over with a broad brush, they give everything the landlord special.
Yes, but the problem is that the techbros pushing crappy AI and text generation are doing so while disingenuously implying (or often outright stating) that their product is eventually going to revolutionize the world by also magically curing cancer or whatever the hell else if we provide them just one more datacenter, bro. Except that it categorically cannot.
Specialized machine learning tools are specialized tools for the specific clearly defined use cases for which they are designed and intended (edit). The commercial LLM and diffusion image generators, meanwhile, serve no beneficial purpose whatsoever other than burning electricity, spreading lies, and making people dumber.
I mean this is where we have to disagree, I think there are loads of benefits from the technologies. But capitalism is the wrong motivator... "How can we make money out of this?" don't make me puke. It should be free for all, to cure cancer, to decipher ancient languages, to model the climate etc.
How the fuck is an ass kissing chatbot going to help you model the climate?
Not everything is a fucking chat bot.
"AI", the way everybody uses it today, means "ass-kissing chatbot". That's what Jensen means, that's what Satya means, that's what the investors think it means, that's what the people reading scripts on the news mean. Oh, excuse me, I meant to say "super intelligence".
We have neural nets, machine learning, adaptive systems, automated translation, context completion, all kinds of terms for the stuff that actually does useful stuff.
That's not what the trillion dollars is getting spent on
There's no point having a discussions with people like me that are intractable when it comes to the technology and are acutely aware of the USA capitalist ruling class and the atrocities they commit and enable, with people that are unable and unwilling to understand what a model is, and are approaching computer science like a luddite.
The USA capitalists are having you lick their boots when you think that "AI" = ChatGPT. You're not 'chatting' with anything. You, me, and many others, are constantly falling for their marketing shit all the time. Don't bite!
If you can differentiate between a stack of PS3s that made a 'super computer' to try to predict what the weather will be tomorrow and the USA building a datacenter, poisoning your water, denying you electricity, stealing your capital, surveiling you, and influencing your decisions, then we can definitely sit together and use our brains to dismantle the infrastructure of oppression. Your enemy is not 'conversation simulators', its capitalism.
wouldn't need to use genai to fake a cancer cure if conservatives didn't gut research for cancer
The company I work for is still going strong, and I feel we'll have a very tangible cure soon. The only problem I think there is a very small chance any insurance company would let the poors get their hands on it
For cancer in general or for a specific kind of cancer?
Probably a specific one; cancers are all different from eachothers especially when on different organs
Yeah it will tackle the most prevalent cancers, like breast and prostate cancer, but be unable to be developed for cancers like brain cancer, since it is a radio pharmaceutical.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11103494/
You can read more about it here. It is making very good progress, multiple companies are starting to make manufactured levels of the drug, and results are very good. Again, I highly doubt poor people will have access to it.
That's still impressive to be able to hit both breast and prostate cancers. And yeah, brain cancers are a whole nightmare for treatment
Hopefully the AI that developed the cure isn’t the same one that drew the scientist’s hands in the third panel
I think that that motivational trashcan really ties the room together
wholeass desk vanished too
I think the microscope got an erection over the "anti" stealing the cure
And which one of them keeps changing the motivational sign?
It's impressive they built a whole window while arguing
Also useful to support your rear foot during the kind of two-meter lunge you might make when smashing a fantasy vaccine.
Can we just take a moment to appreciate the sheer stupidity of this comic's impression of what research is like? Middle-aged white guy wearing glasses and a lab coat in front of a computer screen looking at news (about generative (!) AI no less) and exclaiming what amounts to "Eureka". And one panel later he has the fucking cure in a syringe right in his hand, ready to pop into somebody's blood stream. The visual representation of what generative AI fanboys think research is versus what it actually is is a Venn diagram with no overlap.
but this is how Hollywood thinks science works. Major plague kills millions, we find one monkey and in two days everyone is fine. Usually some type of glowing green or blue liquid.
The cure for cancer is Mountain Dew Voltage, y'all.
Totally, and then there's a liquid nitrogen container preserving the single existing vial, which is so sensitive and fragile you have to pull it out of the container reeeeeal slow.
I just wanna say the vaccines developed for COVID-19 were kind of as close to sci-fi as we will ever get. Global pandemic, brilliant minds develop a cool way to defend us from it, roll out the most audacious testing on a higher amount of people in record time, transport the vials in liquid nitrogen fridges because they were temperature sensitive. It was pretty darn close to all the stuff mentioned in this thread which is both kind of hilarious and cool at the same time.
and every lab tech is a klutz who drops the vials. WHY USE GLASS VIALS.
And unfortunately, due to the cognitive offloading to AI destroying education this will likely get worse
Also presumably it wouldn't matter if the guy smashed one syringe of the stuff once it's been researched. If it gets to that point then the formula must be saved all over the place.
What's your sample size bud? What's the p-value of those results? Where's your ethics board approval?!
Yeah it's always so generic to the point of being annoying
It's illustrating a point, and that point is not how research works. It conveys the point it wants to make very well, even though it's wrong.
I am pretty sure the "AI" systems making medicine aren't the same as generative AI.
They are not. They are purpose built systems that leverage specialized knowledge.
The problem is you have people asking LLMs to find a cure for cancer and have no way of knowing if the output is any good. Then those people start emailing everyone saying they cured cancer.
Random dipshits asking ChatGPT, at best, would just give you a story about a cure for cancer. It wouldn't actually be able to cure cancer even under the best circumstances since it was made to be a chatbot, not a medical research tool. It's like going to Burger King and asking for a pizza. 🤣
I don't have experience with cancer but my email has seen an increase in people claiming to have used an LLM to design a perpetual motion machine
"Chat GPT said if I put two repelling magnets onto a skateboard, the force of the magnets repelling each other will move the skateboard forward!"
Not knowledge... Data. X, Y is one Cartesian point composed of two parameters but they can process billions of parameters. It's not knowledge. Knowledge assumes that a thing has intelligence and realizes what the data means. Not just regurgitating the data but actually extracting the meaning.
I was referring to the people that build the MLMs not the MLM themselves.
There are actually some, but you wouldn't recognize it as generative AI.
Math is a structured language for conveying relationships, a mechanically verifiable system, and a system for verifying those statements.
This doesn't work for all math, but a lot of it.
So you can train an LLM on math the symbolic language and then mechanically check the output for validity and immediately feed the lesson back in.
Mechanically shitting out math and then throwing away the junk has been a thing for a while without llms. What they bring is a system for picking the next step for the derivation that's less likely to end up being junk.
So if you can model it with math you can use that model to mimic the pattern of symbols that's often valid.
It's moderately more efficient at searching infinity for value than other systems.
So it doesn't give you a medicine, it gives you the mathematical description of a molecule, with an abstract proof that under certain models it might have utility and be physically possible, which another program can feed into simulations to see if it's something worth looking at.
It's not just
It's viewed as having potential by people who aren't delirious largely because of the "mechanically verifiable" part.
Pedant here, cancer is not a disease, it's an umbrella term covering many types of diseases related to unregulated cell growth. There never will be a "cure for cancer". There will never be a "cure for breast cancer" because there are different origins of breast cancer. We may find a cure for specific types of cancers, and each of those should be celebrated.
"I did it"
"I finally did it!"
"I found the cure for viruses!"
Lava cures viruses
What was the line from XKCD? "When you read a study finds something is x effective at killing cancer cells in a petri dish, remember: so does a hand gun."
Lava > viruses > people > bears > dogs > hot dogs
And not to be too hope pilled, but that's where we are in cancer research. Researchers are essentially in the process of building an armory of silver bullets. Sure most cancers don't have cures yet, but some of them do, and while it may not sound as flashy or impressive to say that you've developed a cure for a specific form of a specific cancer in people who have compatible genes, it does save lives.
Oh yeah that's not hope pilled at all. It's important to have hope in life. A life without hope is a sad, lonely life. The FDA just approved the first ever personalized mRNA vaccine for a skin cancer, I think. It's super cool and 20 years ago would have been considered science fiction.
when its actually useful, sure. great. complex algorithms solving problems is nothing new. its appreciated.
when you automate everything to the point that it will kill billions of people and destroy the planet. then it becomes every humans moral imperative to skin everyone responsible and hang their corpses from the street lights as a warning to others who plan on doing the same.
Exactly, for every cancer cure AI generates, it generates an incomprehensible ammount of shit, not just slop, but actively harmful content, like revisionist history, lies about science, oceans of exploitative media, terabytes of hallucinations, novells worth of psycological manipulative chats with vulnerable individuals, and more.
All of that while producing pollution that will increase the risk of cancer in the first place, completing the circle.
and it cant even properly diagnose cancer, without hallucinating. they had to review it by MDs over and over again. and then theres insurance/misdiagnosis implications, which is likely to increase too.
AI is a very broad field. LLMs are just one corner of it. Probably the most visible one.
And LLMs are what the tech oligarchs are pushing and what we are all talking about here, not any other kind. It is a disingenous attempt at deflection to pretend there is any discussion about other types of AIs.
Yeah, that’s the vibe in getting in these conversations. Nobody seems to have any issues with image sorting, optical character recognition, audio signal processing or smart background blurring.
Really? I think image and video generative AI is what the data centre build out is for.
Dude, AI, specifically ChatGPT, couldn't do a regex against an IP address.
In the time I spent trying to prompt, and I even set a timer, I did it myself.
The shit that I see our "programmers" put out: half of the JS is beautified, while there is another block not. The shit is scraped and slapped together.
But I am told to embrace AI. Man, I just want to go back to coding as a bit-twiddler.
++i
We don't need vibe coded software or AI generated "art" and slop social media content to get to curing various forms of cancer or other diseases. No one would be upset about such a use. Instead it is being used to enable laziness, reduce our cognitive abilities, and further harm our environment while trying to make a quick buck and failing at that too.
Also AI is a general term and the models used in cancer research/detection are farther from generative LLMs than autocorrect.
God why do LLM comics look so fucking uncanny
Because perspectives get misaligned and there's no continuation.
There's a whole desk with books that just disappears. The poster in the background can't decide what it wants to say. Nor can it decide on its size. The shelves in front of it can't decide what they contain or where they are positioned And the wall it's on can't decide how it's angled relative to the room.
The "NO AI" dude is taking a giant step forward with his left foot behind a garbage bin for some reason.
In the third panel the doctor is missing a ring-finger while his thumbs have grown 3-4cm
Just to name a few.
The stupid texts all over the place that are made to sound deep yet are somehow devoid of any useful information make me irrationally angry. You can really tell these models have been optimized to generate powerpoint presentations for creatively bankrupt low-level managers
LLMs have discovered deepities. It's so nauseating.
My favourite is the googly-ass binocular microscope. Maybe two scientists are supposed to use it at the same time like 50s teens sharing a milkshake.
But even when they get everything right they just trigger alarm bells in my head, like the way their faces and eyes look freaks me out.
The "uncanny" part I think isn't because it's done badly, it's because it's done well - but not in any of the ways you'd get from a human. By the time a human artist has learned to get that good at shading, colouring, line work, human figures, posing etc, they'll have also learned about composition and perspective and good storytelling and when to not pointlessly overload the background with weird shit.
Yeah that scans, its like when it's taken as a whole it looks off. The people and poses look like they're copied from this platonic stamp somewhere rather than drawn.
generative ai? I dont think so.
Most research is done using PREDICTIVE ai not generative ai.
And no one's against machine learning, but fruit romance videos do not cancel out surveillance, inequality, and destruction of nature.
What?? Of course they do, I saw it in an AI-generated video!
God I hate how literally every single AI-generated comic (or at least the ones made by OpenAI's models given how damn universal its style is) have the EXACT same facial expressions. Every surprised or scared character has the exact same sort-of-horrified-but-no-light-behind-the-eyes look, any moment of true excitement, being proud, happy, etc has the same smiling-while-vaguely-staring-into-the-distance look to it, etc.
This does make it easier to spot. Pity for the original artists whose work was stolen, though.
The thing is that AI is a catch all term and the AI used in medicine has little to do with chat bots or generative AI in general.
It's not that GPT-10 will cure cancer when asked for it. But neural networks are good at pattern recognition so cancer detection is a promising application for example. Also, personalizing a cure is also an idea. It's not that we need a super intelligence and curing cancer is the excuse for data centers for scam bots. Medical AI is no excuse for generative AI.
I felt comfortable calling it "machine learning".
Not entirely true, there is some merit to GenAI in the development of cures, using specific specialized models.
At least, I remember reading about it a few years ago.m, but I assume that's what this comic is based on.
The comic is based on nothing except someone being enthusiastic about AI and how he uses it for slop and imagining that he is somehow in the same boat as reputable medical researchers when people hate his slop output. He is not basing it on any actual results or backlash to results, just resentment over slop being disliked and trying to strawman up a sympathetic 'victim' for anti-slop sentiment.
I won't rule out GenAI as being somehow used, but most of what I've heard of has been 'other' AI techniques. GenAI might facilitate some scenarios I don't know, but either way the guy who slopped up a comic has zero in common with the imagined researchers in his comic. While there may be skepticism or accusations of stealing work (like the Math situation), I don't think the public at large would be eager to reject a medical breakthrough that is valid just because GenAI had a hand it it.
The math situation really, really, urgently, isn't what is reported on this message board. Not even close. Those dominoes are really starting to fall.
We're past the point where faffing about on a message board means anything.
It's not just this forum and have heard the more nuanced reporting.
So they had a near future good narrative where LLM was going to be a key tool is a long awaited mathematical breakthrough, but they heard about the mathematician effort and felt the need to steal the credit by somehow beating them to the punch.
In the process, they may have effectively stolen the work in progress, though that is admittedly may be less likely than other concerns.
The output was a sloppy mess that usually wouldn't have been considered ready for review, but they went with it anyway to get it out before the more considered work could complete. In pursuit of the narrative that AI alone could out speed and LLM augmented human effort, by skipping the quality that a human supervisor would have added.
They announced victory long before a human could verify the proof. Those working on that believe it likely to verify, but haven't completed that work. Again, very premature.
I think you will find VERY few people willing to argue Sam Altman isn't a cunt, probably including the man himself.
We need this as stickers
Generative AI would suggest fucking napalm as a cure for cancer.
It would kill the cancer.
"She's dead and now with god? We successfully exorcised the demon." Hmpf.
Early chemo drugs were derived from chemical weapons tuned just low enough to kill the cancer and hopefully not the patient as well.
TIL! How morbid.
Napalm could be a cure for AI though.
Dude, didn't you read that comic? The anti-AI psycho destroyed it. The vibe scientist probably tried to type in the same prompt again but this time the answer was in Mandarin.
You're so right, HIV infected plasma wasn't the cure for cancer. Maybe we should step back and look at this from a new perspective. I will generate a new vaccine for you and find a new batch of test subjects.
The guy BernieAsksAI making a pro AI cartoon with AI that can't draw hands (3rd frame).
The exact kind of slop so many people hate. 🤣🤣🤣
I didn't realize that it's an AI generated cartoon... Then I started looking at the frames a little more closely, and the more you look the worse it gets 🫣
Yes there is also lack of consistency between frame 2 and 3, with bottles disappearing on the table, and in frame 4 they are all gone. And the chair also changes between frame 2 3 and 4.
No real artist would make that crap.
yeah, no way someone who defends genAI would draw actual art!
Medical fields have been using machine learning successfully for years before llms caught the shit sniffing attention of vc's. Current levels of llms are like tar pits for your brain and take either hate or intellect or both to get away from.
People that advocate for llms as ai are malicious actors and literally the worst kinds of people. It's so obvious, I don't know why more of society can't see right through this shit. Like, I do know, but it's still frustrating to have to live in this wasteland of society right now, knowing how much time and energy and life force, essentially, is gonna be wasted because of whatever this fucking political cold war we're in.
Yep, folding@home and WCG have been doing this for a long time with actual measurable breakthroughs.
Of course, as usual, pro-AI people's only argument is a hypothetical, what-if scenario.
If AI, specifically LLMs, are so great, how come it's been 5 years and they haven't meaningfully contributed to a cure for anything?
Fundamentally it's the same bullshit capitalists have been repeating for the last 100 years. Capitalism is rapidly destroying the entire planet, and we're on track to reach a mass extinction event before the end of the century, but their argument is usually among the lines of: "Well yes, but what if we innovate a groundbreaking technology that will save us all in a few years?"
It's been 100 years and no such technology is even remotely close to being theoretically possible, just like LLMs aren't anywhere close to being helpful in anything useful.
Reminds me a little of cryptocurrencies. They were supposed to change everything, but all they did was enable unprecedented levels of scams and grifts and enable criminals to move money across the globe without any sensible control mechanisms.
Protein structure prediction models have contributed a lot. They are delivering much better results than the previous state of the art method of homology modeling.
Predicting structure from sequence in large scale has been a huge problem before and those attention network based models enabled in-silico screenings that were simply not possible before. This had a huge impact on pharmacologic research and especially research on binding motifs.
That said, these models work best when target proteins are one among many and don't have very unique features. And things go downhill real fast when proteins form oligomeric structures or rely on structural features not yet resolved by empirical methods.
AF models oligomers just fine.
Not all proteins are structured.
Models are just models, cartoons until they are experimentally validated.
AI will generate all kinds of pathways and concepts and chemicals that are pointless without real experimental data. Done by real scientists. This is what Trump killed when he defunded the NCI via the NIH, from 1,100 funding announcements in 2024 to 11 in 2025. Apparently Americans don't care, so that funding may never be restored, but even if it were restored, the post doc fellows who do the work have left and are not coming back, labs have closed down and will not re-open. This was a pipeline of billions that fed a US pharma industry worth trillions, now quickly relocating to China.
Ad1, yeah, maybe your proteins and at superficial investigation. But my experience with the oligomeric interfaces, when having structures that are not publicly accessible and therefore can't be part of the training, was not so great.
Ad2, I am not talking about unstructured proteins. I am talking about structural features that have little to no precedence in public databases.
Ad3 Most models will be never validated by experimental structure elucidation. That's the whole point of those models. To be able to get some information without having to do an undoable amoun high effort experiments. Sure, the end result will be verified but model quality matters, it is the factor that determines the success rate of the in-silico part of the experiments, ie how many candidates have to be screened on average to find sufficiently improved candidates.
Attention network based models are fine but they are not the golden calf that some are selling it either. You put it yourself, models are just models. Quality is not homogoenous though. Like I said, models for monomers are generally more credible.
And when AI cures cancer instead of removing clothes from a photo of a minor, I will give it credit.
"If Trump came out in favor of Oxygen, you'd stop breathing!"
Trump hasn't had a good take since he said the economy did better under Democrats.
If trump came out against Oxigen, they would stop breathing. Does nobody remember the Tylenol causes autism conference?
He never would, though, because he's fucking allergic to having a good take on anything whatsoever.
Even if he tried, he'd probably get lost halfway through and end up rambling about how he breathes the best oxygen, nobody breathes oxygen like he does.
The best part is they need to come up with some outlandish scenario where Trump would support something positive because they can't come up with a single real instance of something demonstrably good that he's ever done.
Normalizing relations with North korea
Ohh yes, a cure for cancer thanks to generative AI, now let's make this cure inaccessible for 99% of humanity.
Better be rich, Bernie, the cure won't be cheap.
pharma company my buddy works for is going under. there are only ten people in the world who use the drug they invented and they already made about 20 lifetime supplies for those ten people
Sorry to hear that about your buddy, but that's also and incredibly good illustration of why it doesn't make sense to attach profit incentives to medicine
Now mention the drug costs over $1M a year.
no thanks, i'll leave making lies up to all y'all
I am on a drug that the pharmaceutical bills insurance $500,000 per month for called Strensiq. This is not a lie, I have the EOBs.
and what does insurance actually pay from that 500k?
i have more medical debt than probably all of you. i was running up millions of dollars worth of charges every month.
the insurance did not pay millions of dollars every month.
Considering the copay is 20%, probably most of it. If not, they're sticking the insured with a far higher percentage of the cost than agreed on. Granted, I also get copay assistance so I don't actually pay $100,000 per month. But Strensiq really does cost millions per year per patient at this time.
So I've been on both sides of the stethoscope and total charges have little bearing on what insurance pays. If they bill you a million and your copay is 100k, (private, not Medicare) insurance is probably paying 50k.
Making up lies ya'll?
Orphan drugs cost millions per patient, sorry your ignorant, but this is reality, y'all:
Skyclarys (omaveloxolone) has a wholesale list price of approximately $370,000 to $399,180 per year
Zolgensma has a US list price of about $2.1 million for a single, one-time treatment.
Lenmeldy – $4.25 million (Metachromatic leukodystrophy)
Kebilidi – $3.95 million (AADC deficiency)
Hemgenix – $3.5 million (Hemophilia B)
Elevidys – $3.2 million (Duchenne muscular dystrophy)
Lyfgenia – $3.1 million (Sickle cell disease)
Skysona – $3.0 million (X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy)Zynteglo – $2.8 million (Transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia)
– ~$1.51M to $1.56 million per year (Generalized lipodystrophy)
Danyelza – ~$1.39M to $1.44 million per year (High-risk neuroblastoma)
Zokinvy – ~$1.30M to $1.44 million per year (Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome)
Miplyffa – ~$1.30 million per year (Niemann-Pick disease type C)
Kimmtrak – ~$1.17 million per year (Metastatic uveal melanoma)
Folotyn – ~$1.01 million per year (Peripheral T-cell lymphoma)
Demser – ~$960k to $1.20 million per year (Pheochromocytoma)
Brineura – ~$916k to $1.02 million per year (CLN2 Batten disease)
Spinraza – ~$900,000 for the first year, then ~$450,000 annually after (Spinal muscular atrophy)
Blincyto – ~$905,000 per year (Acute lymphoblastic leukemia)Ravicti – ~$695,970 per year (Urea cycle disorders)
Well, it cost 100s of billions to build all the data centers NEEDED for AI to cure cancer, so they need to recoup the money they invested in curing you of course. Plus because of their generosity they also deserve to make billions of dollars more in profit. Pay up peasants!
Wait, these things still can’t draw hands?
Or proper perspective
Or generate a face that is not a Ghibli cartoon. The faces are always the same.
I've given up. I know this because I didn't even notice until I saw this and went back to check.
That one frame... It was like the AI is going "humans have 10 fingers" then drew three on one hand, and crammed the rest onto the other.
The "AI" we are obsessing over and building entire power plants around.... Yeah, that stuff sucks, a lot. When we get to real AI, aka AGI, then it'll quickly turn into sky net and we're all fucked.
They won't stop until that happens, and nobody has the means to stop them... Anyone who has the means to stop them, won't.
Start digging your Doomsday bunkers now folks.
It's fortunate how people who make these slop image with AI are always incredibly talentless unfunny and right wing people that completely tarnish the technology itself.
They don't even realise how much of a dog whistle it is.
Incredible that a technology made to use your brain less, attracts idiots and hacks.
I wonder if they refused the Covid vaccine...?
Did you see the comic? The cure was destroyed by one of us :(
Sorry, y'all. I thought you'd be happy. :(
OK i dont think you can Cure cancer like its small poxs (also theres like hundreds of types) make it a very treatable condition maybe.
But also Chat GPT is not the kind of AI you would use for this!!!!
Meanwhile AI Bros are reinventing "thinking" by imagining what an LLM might say to them.
jensen reinvented thinking by forgetting his address.
He only said that because he probably has too many houses to remember the addresses
It sure is weird how AI boosters have made a hobby out of deepthroating strawmen & pure speculation.
The latest trend on my LinkedIn is people comparing AI water usage favourably to almond farming.
You know, the thing that famously uses a scandalous amount of water and which also has environmental groups campaigning against it...
They're constantly being told they're correct about everything, what do you expect?
the lumping of a bunch of different technologies under "ai" and its consequences:
I know a Doctor at an Nvidia backed biotech company that is working with generative AI to find new drug formulations to test. Allegedly they have some promising ones that are in testing. The thing is even if they are successful and the models generate a viable drug this shit won't be free. They've sunk so many billions into processing power they'll justify charging $100k a dose to pay back their Nvidia loan.
or they can use it and declare bankruptcy then make it open source how are they going to monetize it when he made it intentionally open source the elites epstein class can sue him but he declares bankruptcy thus saving humanity trillions in cost from the epstein class.
and unicorns are real.
I love how the inspirational poster in the background changes from:
To:
It feels very on-point.
Hahaha amazing!
So apparently the math proof was exactly like this but just with the roles reversed. The dude working on the proof made the mistake of announcing the way he was solving the problem, and AI bros punched it into the AI instead to brute force him before he could finish.
Stand Up Maths did a video about it. He mentioned that all the steps getting to a solution are often important because they also lead to different discoveries and deeper understanding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c79PsbkHw4A
Why are AI simps so fucking weird?
how much of a loser do you have to be to believe that AI (LLM) is generating cures for diseases?
In fact the AI bubble has dried up investment in the very same medical research that they think it's revolutionising.
That's like saying books will cure cancer if you just lwt them.
Even if you are more generous and give them the possibility of helping find a cure, it's like "People hating my book of bad fanfic would hate the book that documents the cure for cancer because they just hate books so much".
Imagine how much of a fucking loser you'd have to be to waste the precious moments of your life asking a computer to make this for you.
A cure for cancer does nothing for Elon's flaccid penis.
As part of looking into the status of things on the self-improving AI front, somebody actually looked at the published papers on amongst other things AI in research and it turns out AI can only ever solve scientific problem for which there are result validators (which is probably why most of its "breakthroughs" are in Mathematics) and is only faster at research tasks than humans for very small research periods (days) because it simply can't handle the structuring of anything. (There's a post from yesterday here for the video though it's stupidly labeled as "they wanted to pay me to say AI was dangerous" or something like that - it's a 1h video but worth the watch if you have Science training)
So don't expect any breakthroughs from AI on anything for which there isn't already a concrete direction for the research to get to the solution directly (i.e. were there are no multiple possible options and it's not multi-step) or the solution can't be directly checked as working algorithmically or at least in computer time (i.e. for which there is no validation mathematical formula or similar) - the state of things now is that AI can't do it.
Maybe one day it will be able to, but then again maybe one day I'll be made the Queen Of Sheeba - it's an unquantifiable possibiliy with no actual evidence supporting that it will actually happen, ever.
Does Bernie think you can look at the shape of a molecule and understand if that cures cancer or not?
Also that when you make a thing in science, the research is not consumed in the process.
When they made the mumps, measles, and rubella vaccines, they didn't have to redo all the research after each one made, even if it got destroyed.
I highly doubt AI is just spitting out "cures" , they are used as tools as it should be. Would not take medicine completely generated by AI.
AI Art is not even made with AI but with the art of real life artists mushed together and i don't even care that much but it just isn't ART in the objective sense of the word. Those AI Artists want the same admiration we have for real artists and thats just crazy.
Huge, huge difference between the clankers being used to churn out fake images, replace human interaction and jobs, and generate shitty search results and the machine learning used for critical problem-solving in the sciences.
More similarity than you'd think, architecturally. For some use cases.
The protein folding one, the one that's actually useful for cancer research, is genAI. Transformers (the T in GPT) in alphafold 2 and diffusion is used in 3 (think StableDiffusion, the image generation model).
Of course most of the useful models are not generative at all. But there will certainly be more generative models that are used for real things coming in the future. As long as there's money in it (either potential profit or research grants). These models don't all have to be as large as LLMs so they're cheaper to train and run.
More similarity than you'd think, architecturally. For some use cases.
The protein folding one, the one that's actually useful for cancer research, is genAI. Transformers (the T in GPT) in alphafold 2 and diffusion is used in 3 (think StableDiffusion, the image generation model).
Of course most of the useful models are not generative at all. But there will certainly be more generative models that are used for real things coming in the future. As long as there's money in it (either potential profit or research grants). These models don't all have to be as large as LLMs so they're cheaper to train and run.
This reads like a Kelly cartoon from The Onion, only without the self-awareness.
Since this imaginary cure is a possible "scenario" how about all those others "scenarios" where the AI may become an existence-levet threat?
We don't need ai, we got machine learning
But you're not using it to cure cancer. You're using it to make this stupid comic.
The best marketing tool that this generation of scammers found is to call their chatbot "AI" and clump it together with all the other products of machine learning (which is also a word with connotations).
In a well-done hand-drawn comic, the background and the "props" will be consistent in all frames, as only the figures are drawn in afterwards.
Not with this prompt bro kissing the ground Muskrat walks on. He can go fuck himself.
Yeah you know what they should do they should create a cure for cancer, that would show us wouldn't it. I'd be really upset if they cured cancer, I'd be really "owned", I hope they don't get on that right now.
That AI was clearly trained on stolen property - the angry guy is obviously meant to be Dan from "Dan Vs".
Gym bro Dan Vs. Dumpy Reed Richards.
There's nothing that would get AI banned like coming up with the cure for cancer. Unless there could be some IP protections slapped around the cure which itself was made prohibitively expensive.
If AI uses existing data to "clone" things its way, since there is no cancer cure, it can't replicate it, right? Or as AI bros says, "create it".
The cure is actually still on the PC, just print some more
Further proof that our scientists are STUPID DUMMIES
Shouldn't be that hard to synthesize a new substance if it was real. It has to be the only syringe! They made exactly enough for one dose for one person and that's it!
Problem with AI is people are fing dumb 🤷♂️ Everybody and their grandma is piling up on the Aipocalypse bandwagon to pretend they care about the planet while also driving SUVs, over-consuming, voting pro-capitalism AND being religious. The hypocrisy is palpable. You can't get an abortion in over half the world but "dAtaCenTErs and my AI wAIfU wiLl dO0m uS aLL". Transkids are getting "restored to factory settings" by force in some states and old karens are still obsessed with that third bathroom option...
Its all a bad joke
excuse me but plastic grocery bags is actually a good thing if you reuse them as garbage bags net net better than buying garbage bags but you seem to think california charging the bag tax is good.
the same can be said of soda cans it is pointless to even bother now they dont even recycle them. cost wise it is negative value. main thing to do is consume less but the wealthy consume more and more the epstein class pimping it out with 10 women on their yacht saying they are better and protecting the planet.
more yachts more super cars more luxury mansions more celebrity worship more pretend poor people are the problem. more not consuming less. more complaining and gas lighting people eating protein meat are the problem.
the issue is really people consuming and being a show off and gas lighting. really the coupon user the one that reuses bags etc are the ones saving the planet NOT the EV over priced trash buyer. those that buy apple over priced junk etc are the problem
I was just reading that they found a new enzyme system, that's gotta count for something.
Not to mention protein folding.
Granted, that wasnt generative AI, just regular AI.
What I think is more funny is how the anti AI crowd will get pissed when AI is used for generative art because they want to protect artists livelihood, but say nothing when AI is used to write code. Like they're fine with AI so long as there are less software engineering jobs as a result of it lol
The "anti-AI crowd" hasn't taken a single cent from any algorithm/machine learning based medical research.
It's actually the pro-AI crowd and their bubble that's dried up investment in anything that isn't a scambot child porn money printing factory.
"AI" is a very broad term. You have to be very specific when talking about it.
The models that crunch biochemistry problems are not related to LLMs and image generation. Just because you're against one doesn't mean you have to be against the other.
Heck, I'm not against LLMs as a technology, I just hate the LLM business side with the fury of thousand suns. I don't have problems with scientific research which happens to use "AI". (But I do have concerns about research incorporating AI, if it leads to unreproducible results.)
The trash can appears to say "Ideas Discovery Healthier Tomorrow".
I mean AI is definitely helping.
LLMs are not AI. Actual AI is done with extremely finely tuned models purpose built for very specific scenarios. I highly doubt they are using ChatGPT or the like to advance cancer research.
By the sounds of this article, which has very few useful details, they have incorporated a model trained on their previous research to assist in speeding up new research by codifying that knowledge to be used with other processing platforms/tools.
This is not even kind of what the comic here is depicting.
We do this a lot for manufacturing where you have models trained to monitor factory lines or steps in manufacturing materials where they assist in spotting defects early or help fine tune recipes based on a whole host of variables.
LLMs are a subset of AI. Or, to be precise, a subset of neural networks/deep learning, which is a subset of machine learning, which is a subset of AI.
Thanks I do this for work and there is a clear line to demarcate true AI vs an LLM which is largely not trained to make decisions in the way i am describing. What an unnecessary comment to make.
There is one https://youtu.be/DgeRVUSuGvQ
Gen AI has been a help for science for sure, but asking for results when pipelines are 5+ years long is asking for the impossible and feeling justified when they fail.
There are many valid criticisms of ai and it's usage, effects and users. This is not one of them. The comic is ugly and uncannily ai but is quite representative of AI sentiment.
This comic where an anti-AI guy throws a tantrum and shits his pants is a valid criticism of us?
Not necessarily. But I didn't post it. Did I?
This comic is obviously rage-bait and it's nice to see someone sharing facts. Thank you.
I don't know how many people in this comment section realize that they actually did use AI to develop a treatment process for skin cancer. This isn't some "well maybe someday" bs. There is a treatment method that passed human trials and is available.
https://www.curetoday.com/view/the-first-ever-personalized-cancer-vaccine-to-pass-a-phase-3-trial-just-beat-keytruda-alone
There's huge ethical, moral, and legal problems with AI, but we actually did make a cure for cancer one that didn't involve just burning it out of your body and hoping it doesn't kill you. This is huge.
Hmm. I think you're overstating things by saying "they actually did use AI". Your article doesn't even mention the computational development, and the wikipedia article doesn't exactly read as though they used "AI" as it exists in common usage. Machine learning =/= claude, and if they even used machine learning, I can't find an article on the process yet. Possibly because:
Machine learning is advancing medical science.
Is that simpler?
Things can be good for some things and bad for other things at the same time. Baby != Bathwater
Yes, and machine learning =/= "AI" as it's presented in the oop meme, nor is either mentioned at all in the article linked above or the wikipedia article on the development of the drug in question - which was my point. I'm sorry, I'm really not sure what you're trying to say with this.
That's not the distinction that is being made though. Do people in here admit that AI/ML has contributed to scientific research? Because if so then my bad.
"Admit"? What a creepy way to approach this. It's the distinction I and many others have made here, and please stop trying to force the individual to speak for an imagined group.
there's nothing about ai in that article. also there's no ethical, legal or moral issue with the kind of machine learning systems used for medicine. calling it ai to begin with, and thus conflating it with language modeling, a tech it has basically nothing in common with, cheapens both the tech and the term.
Calling people pedophiles when you disagree with them does too. Is this becoming another god damn social cult with the gatekeeping and the echo chambers and the purity testing and the tunnel vision and the groupthink and the high horsing and the
you mean the response is unfounded?
Yes calling people you disagree with pedophiles, like what happened to me in this thread, is weak and childish and straight up dangerous.
that's not what i asked.
My goodness, my pearls!
Man, it must be unpleasant to have to keep making the distinction that you have chosen not to use it for the child porn. How sad must it be to be unfairly included in such a henious group as... um... twitter users...?
But hey, at least you have that going for you. I'll just make a quick note in the huge database we keep to track all you pro-AI types (so we can better conspire against you): "Bananarchy69 insists they're using the child porn machine for good, and not for making child porn. Look at the dial on the control panel, they clearly have it turned all the way to 'cure cancer' and not 'make child porn'". See now, it's all good! And now you can leave in peace, sure in the knowledge that nobody would ever think you doth protest way too much.
That's not a problem with AI. It's a problem with humans.
If it was possible with AI it would have been done with it already.
LLMs are tools for professionals and scientists, where it may be usefull, not so for stupid users to make porn and slops without any cwn creativity, research or effort. The bad reputation is mostly for the latter.
That's such a bullshit response. "You're a bunch of pedophiles!"
Really? Is that all you do, call people rapists and pedophiles and racists and nazis when you disagree with them?
AI is transforming medical research, this is so fucking weak.
The problem with AI is the people who control it, the environmental impact, the danger to all our livelihoods, and the danger of unleashing something even worse than social media on political and actual battlefields.
Not fucking medical research. Do people in here think there are no benefits or redeeming qualities to AI??
They aren't saying medical research is a problem with AI, that's the straw man of the slop comic.
The problem is people who think to equate rejecting their slop comic with rejecting a cure for cancer.
It is an observation that we do not have have this fictional scenario of curing cancer to point to, but instead we have plenty of CSAM and non consensual material to point to instead.
We have plenty of scenarios to point to where AI (machine learning) have contributed massively to science.
Is that up for debate in here?
Again, missing the point, even if there is example to point to, the "I hate the legitimate medical breakthroughs from GenAI" is a straw man no one is saying, but it's being substituted for people that would say "I hate his uninspired slop comic". He's butthurt that people don't like the sort of slop he gets generated, and pictures himself to be in the cohort of medical researchers using AI.
Further people have repeatedly in this thread agreed that ML has been a critical tool, but ML is not really relevant to the contentious subject in most examples cited. However even if LLM is shown as a key tool, it doesn't really change the matter of this GenAI user having nothing to do with those folks.
Found the pedophile
Found the rapist.
See how that works?
You might want to ask your favorite slop machine to regenerate that comeback, because it is complete and utter trash.
Now fuck off.
Who even cares about ai porn, it's not like ai is hurting actual humans anyway... Also I don't know what Gemini thinks but no AI has discovered any cure for cancer lol
I think it's specifically the AI CSAM people are upset about, but what do I know?
https://www.iwf.org.uk/about-us/why-we-exist/our-research/how-ai-is-being-abused-to-create-child-sexual-abuse-imagery/
Not to mention the many many stories of middle schoolers making deepfake porn of their classmates and ruining lives.