3 ms·
We probably could. But the prevalent wisdom in pharmacology is that the hard part is not killing the thing you want killed: the hard part is keeping the healthy
by tremon 4y ago
We probably could. But the prevalent wisdom in pharmacology is that the hard part is not killing the thing you want killed: the hard part is keeping the healthy tissue alive. And I don't think we have adequate models (nor the processing power) to evaluate every potential cure protein against every potential cell in the human body. But that's just a guess, it's not my field of study.
- carlmr 4y agoDidn't they have this AI to predict the toxicity of certain compounds with extreme accuracy? If you combine the two it sounds like a solution with some remaining risk, but if the disease is bad enough that risk may be worth it.
- colechristensen 4y agoOof, people tend to way overestimate the capabilities of these tools. No there are not magic AI tools where you can wave your hands and design proteins or evaluate the properties of arbitrary compounds.
- fbdab103 4y agoIt is difficult for the layman to appreciate when every other day there is a puff piece about how group x has solved protein folding or what have you.
- fbdab103 4y agoConsider me highly skeptical of any AI models predicting biology. The way these models were is more or less by association. There is no foundational understanding of underlying pathways or likely decomposition products. The AI models can be used as a first stage filter: generate a bunch of putative products computationally, filter them through predicted toxicity profile, and then start real testing (though you are likely leaving out solid leads from false positives). AI can be a human assisting tool, but it is in no way sufficient for leap-frogging into human testing.