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.
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.