flown-the-coop said:
WaltonAg18 said:
AI will never replace empirical data. For all the talk about how terrible the experimental vaccine was, you sure are gung ho to trust an algorithm that is consistently wrong.
I've used machine learning in clinical cancer research, but the models must always be confirmed with wet lab data. Animal testing is absolutely necessary to ensure safety and drug efficacy before reaching human patients.
I could make equal arguments about how testing in AI environs offers such improved quality and variable controlling that it would be vastly superior.
I am NOT talking about flown-the-coop becoming a medical research phenom because I cured diabetes with Grok+.
Much iterative testing can be achieved without live animal testing.
And it takes a special level of idiot to trust an algorithm that you know is faulty. Perhaps they suffer from other mental limitations that makes them a poor medical researcher.
I hope that we are one day to the point of understanding the mechanisms behind God's creations that we are able to use computer modeling for research. But we are decades away from something like that. It's so difficult to model complex proteins that there are research groups that you can lend your computers processing power to in order to help them model.
When we were testing one of the cancer drugs, one of the first steps of even approaching FDA-trials was to first give the drug to mice. Those mice then had to be dissected and every single organ had to have DNA extracted and tested to ensure that the biological drug wasn't hitting somewhere unintended - because we have no way of knowing that for sure without empirical data.
One day the technology will finally be to the point where we can get rid of a majority of animal models. But now is not that day, and tomorrow isn't looking too hot either.
And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to Me’