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.
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.