Human collaborators.

This is terrible.

Acknowledging a reality of technological development doesn't mean one takes joy in it being so.

Do you honestly believe we will have robot plumbers in 5 years?

Who today is building, or planning, the manufacturing plants for these robots?

How's the robot going to make it to the job site?

I swear some of you live in a dream state and are so out of touch with how society works it i's mind numbing.

You know plumbers need to be certified right? What mechanism is being developed to validate the work if a plumber robot will be done in accordance with Codes and Regulations?

Ok, then we are talking about different things.

I don't think we will have robot plumbers any time soon.

Similarly, a lot of jobs that take place outside of a computer, either partially or fully, will be safe from AI for a long time.

My comment was specifically about modeling.

No. That comment has nothing to do about anything other than modeling.

Of course, people used to exchange pay for modeling labor.

But the labor was unskilled, and their role can now be replaced with bytes and pixels.

You don't need the model, or the makeup technician, or the photographer, or the illumination technician, or the studio, or the casting agency... Not even the actual jeans.

No. Trade skills are not replaceable by software.

Most jobs that need people to physically engage with their duties are safe until reliable robotics come along. But we're talking about software not hardware.

I work in science, but do multiple things. I still do some bench work, but have shifted to operations and logistics, and EHS and regulatory compliance.

The bench work I do could be automated with robots and the areas that can't could be given to a much more junior scientist that makes much less. AI would not plug into this kind of labor at all.

On the data analysis side it could, and some companies are developing tools with AI assistance features built in. But since each trial is different and it's data sets tend to be small, training models is changing. The areas that can be automated are mindless and can be accomplished by a person with little time and effort.

And AI could assist with some aspects of logistics, safety and compliance but you would still need people to deploy, implement and enforce things.

I personally feel that having proficiency in several areas of private sector biotech gives me some protection. I could pivot with ease to wherever people are still need. But I like to think that being a lot more tech savvy would allow me to be the one adopting AI tools to displace groups of coworkers. At least in the early stages of whatever transition might come to my industry. But it's a slowly changing industry so I'm not concerned at all.

Right now, AI would be an enhancer in my day to day. Not a threat.

It's not about not hiring minorities, it's about not hiring anybody.

Also, if people would have invested in real skills instead of relying on existing in front of a camera for a few seconds this wouldn't be a problem to them.

Language matters. Some people here don't know the difference between singularity and AGI.

If you want to have coherent and intelligent conversations you can't let go of the nuisance of semantics.

If you want to be drooling doomers go ahead and burn the dictionary.

I disagree. Super human intelligence could end up making great discoveries but they would not deploy overnight.

Manufacturing would require to repurpose or build new plants. Drugs and therapies would require human testing and regulatory approval. Advances in infrastructure, ground, air and sea transportation would also take time to deploy.

An intelligence explosion will not necessarily result in advances that humans are able to implement and even if they could, they will not magically transform day to day life overnight.

FutureTimeline.net induced rabbit hole. Somewhere in the second half of the 00s.

And it's sad. Not only are most user not familiar with the terminology, now we have post like this literally describing, very poorly, the most basic of exponential functions.

I hope proper moderation follows soon. Otherwise, this kind of user numbers will continue to degrade the quality of the discourse in the sub.

RIP.

Quality over quantity.

Yes, but AI exists already and has been in use in biomedical research for a while. In-silico clinical trials does not.

We can speculate about the first, but not how the first will do in light of the second. Especially when we would have to also come up with a reasonable argument on how would simulated trials even get approved.

People decide for themselves. During patient recruitment there's an informative phase.

The patients who are interested in participating, and meet the eligibility criteria, have to be informed about the risks. That's meant to fulfill the informed consent requirements.

Many candidates choose not to move forward based on the risks. Or if they did enrolled, if other patients have poor outcomes or adverse incidents, or if they personally don't see improvements they can drop out.

Also, some patients just die, or have secondary health incidents that force them to cease their participation.

Like you say, such thing doesn't exist. Assessing how much impact AI will have in medicine by speculating about a fictional tool is going to devolve to assumptions on top of assumptions on top of assumptions.

And I hardly believe drugs and therapies will ever be approved based on simulated data.

AI is not going to speed up clinical trials.

You have to proceed slowly by design. Phase 1 need to prove safety at low doses and scale up slowly so you don't end up intoxicating patients.

And that's once you have recruited patients. Some trials die at patient recruitment. And most trials don't move to Phase 2, let alone 3.

And taking bigger risks only means killing people.

(I work on clinical stage biotech.)

We don't know how the brain solves 2 + 2 either. Let's not ascribe value to something just because it's still a fussy thing to us.

Plus it's pretty well known it's making assumptions based on the 3D structures of other proteins with similar sequences. Comparative analysis is not new. The software is just better at it, just like a calculator is better at math than most people.

Linear as fuck.

> Really just shows how similar we are to animals.

That's such an ignorant statement. The physiological mechanisms governing movement are so ancient there's zero reason to contemplate any differences between humans and other animals. Hell, chances are microscopic multicellular organisms have similar mechanisms governing their motion.