I'm so sick of this argument.

All AI has to do is catch problems earlier in the pipeline to outcome success rates.

You just have to think about the system wholisticly, the ways that AI could make trials more consistently positive are many. Moving the needle on any process upstream of the bottleneck benefits greatly. Currently something like 80% of trials fail, so without changing trial rate you have 5x potential sitting on the table.

▲

estearum a day ago | parent [-]

> All AI has to do is catch problems earlier in the pipeline to outcome success rates.

Which it has shown no ability to do, so far.

▲

vanuatu a day ago | parent | next [-]

i think it's a promising ai-shaped problem

you have inputs and outputs mapped for the trials and know historically how trials tend to fail

not a leap to have ai assist in proposing or reviewing trials to reduce failure rates. even a 10% reduction is massive

	▲	estearum a day ago \| parent [-]
		It's not an AI-shaped problem. The mapping from inputs to outputs is something like "the most complex process humans are aware of." You're trying to map a chemical in a pill (or a shot) from the organism down to organs down to cells, through the metabolome, proteome, genome, and so on, both down then back up, until you get back to "outcome that a human being feels positively about."

▲

malfist a day ago | parent | prev [-]

All AI has to do to make poverty nonexistent is to find a way to make everyone rich.

All AI has to do to prove n=NP is to just prove n is equal to NP

All ai has to do to make space travel possible is find a way around the laws of thermodynamics