4 ms·

Obligatory rebuttal from someone who actually knows about drug development: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/01/31/another-ai-generated-drug

Obligatory rebuttal from someone who actually knows about drug development: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/01/31/another-ai-generated-drug https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/01/31/an...

dang 7y ago
Ok, based on that text, we've replaced AI with algorithms in the title above. If someone can suggest a more accurate and neutral title, we can change it again.
- natechols 7y ago
  I think it's fine for HN to use the same title that the BBC used - the problem is it's still a giant hand-waving oversimplification either way. It shouldn't be the moderator's job to clarify sloppy science journalism.
  - dang 7y ago
    The HN guidelines say: Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait. (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) That rule serves HN well. People come here to get relief from the world of linkbait, and people who want such relief tend to be the kind of users HN benefits from. Giant hand-waving oversimplifications are certainly misleading-or-linkbait and usually both. So the rule means we should change it. It's just a question of what to change it to. Generally there's a subtitle or heading or photo caption or first sentence that says what the article is actually about—especially in major media, where the headlines are written by specialists who have nothing to do with the article. But I couldn't find any representative phrase in the article itself this time.
    - natechols 7y ago
      I'm trying to think of a better title and am blanking right now, but it's the "-created" that annoys me - it implies that they fed a bunch of data into a black box and a molecule popped out ready for human testing. What really happened, according to the BBC article, is they enhanced a standard virtual screening pipeline with AI. This is a totally useful and legitimate thing to do and I'm sure it has some cost savings, but they're hand-waving past all of the human labor that is unavoidable in drug discovery.
      - derefr 7y ago
        Feels like the whole article is buying the lede, then. The news story is really something like "AI accelerates drug discovery pipeline—new drugs will now come faster." The fact that one such drug is in human trials is kind of irrelevant.
        natechols 7y ago
        Yes, and the more general form of this ("computers accelerate drug discovery pipeline") has been appearing almost as long as I've been alive.

dang 7y ago

Ok, based on that text, we've replaced AI with algorithms in the title above. If someone can suggest a more accurate and neutral title, we can change it again.

natechols 7y ago
I think it's fine for HN to use the same title that the BBC used - the problem is it's still a giant hand-waving oversimplification either way. It shouldn't be the moderator's job to clarify sloppy science journalism.
- dang 7y ago
  The HN guidelines say: Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait. (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) That rule serves HN well. People come here to get relief from the world of linkbait, and people who want such relief tend to be the kind of users HN benefits from. Giant hand-waving oversimplifications are certainly misleading-or-linkbait and usually both. So the rule means we should change it. It's just a question of what to change it to. Generally there's a subtitle or heading or photo caption or first sentence that says what the article is actually about—especially in major media, where the headlines are written by specialists who have nothing to do with the article. But I couldn't find any representative phrase in the article itself this time.
  - natechols 7y ago
    I'm trying to think of a better title and am blanking right now, but it's the "-created" that annoys me - it implies that they fed a bunch of data into a black box and a molecule popped out ready for human testing. What really happened, according to the BBC article, is they enhanced a standard virtual screening pipeline with AI. This is a totally useful and legitimate thing to do and I'm sure it has some cost savings, but they're hand-waving past all of the human labor that is unavoidable in drug discovery.
    - derefr 7y ago
      Feels like the whole article is buying the lede, then. The news story is really something like "AI accelerates drug discovery pipeline—new drugs will now come faster." The fact that one such drug is in human trials is kind of irrelevant.
      - natechols 7y ago
        Yes, and the more general form of this ("computers accelerate drug discovery pipeline") has been appearing almost as long as I've been alive.