upvote

points

by 331c8c7115 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby SyneRyder15 hours ago|
next
[-]
The trials process is the moat. There's already founders using AI to treat their cancers, and it's all about skipping trials and jumping straight to "I consent, I'll fund it, let's try it". The general public might get access to this in 10 years, but employees at AI companies will have access much much sooner.

https://sytse.com/cancer/

reply
upvoteby TeMPOraL12 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I don't necessarily see a problem with it: if people want to try experimental therapy on themselves and can fund it, then as long as it's expensive, let them - that speeds up research. The problem with allowing anyone to opt out of safety trials is that it then creates pressure from doctors and family members to try, and then it becomes non-consensual in practice.
reply
upvoteby 331c8c7113 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Yeah it's more like personalized therapy - often the only hope for rare diseases.

While AI has definitely helped quite a bit I am wondering how much all this research and treatments cost. Not sure the current health systems could sustain this for _everyone affected_. If ai enables it all the better.

reply
upvoteby RandomLensman14 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
What's the success rate there?
reply
upvoteby SyneRyder14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
At least in Sid's case, it went from the oncologist saying "I have no more drugs I would recommend, no trials available" (slide 7) to "I currently have no evidence of disease" (slide 18). I don't know beyond that or beyond Sid's case - or a similar story of an Australian who treated a cancer tumour their dog had with a similar AI / personalized vaccine process.

My understanding of what Sid's describing is that you do RNA sequencing, a whole genome sequencing, feed that into frontier AI (if it will still let you), and somewhere along the way give the information the AI finds to people who can use it make a personalized mRNA vaccine, specifically for you and your cancer.

Another link here about Sid's case, it explains it didn't go through trials: "made possible through a compassionate use allowance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)".

https://www.houstonmethodist.org/newsroom/houston-methodist-...

I am not medical, so I'm happy for someone who understands better to come in and explain all the myriad ways I am wrong.

reply
upvoteby WarmWash15 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Trudging into the technicalities of the example still doesn't undo the question of "What is the point of mathematics? To find answers or to be a hobby?"

It's tempting to say "both", but that misses that AI is now forcing us to pick one.

reply
upvoteby TeMPOraL12 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The AI is not forcing us to pick one, it already decided for us.

As 'ogogmad said upthread:

> mathematics will continue to advance, albeit differently from before. The social structures will not survive however.

reply
upvoteby spolitry9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
What if the point of mathematics is to be mature enough to study and teach math to help humans understand it, without the ego stroke of being the first to solve a problem? Bad communicators are upset that a robot is better than they are solving problems.
reply
upvoteby 331c8c7115 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I'd definitely say both and the cultural component is becoming more and more important to keep up as AI capabilities increase.
reply