4 Comments
User's avatar
Carl Rossini Jr.'s avatar

It seems that AI promoters are claiming qualitative leaps in results that are fantastic rather than make much more fact and logic- based predictions of incremental improvement with new , promising tools.

JS's avatar

Dario Amedei is Italian for Andy Grove. He has no idea what he's talking about.

Jacob's avatar
2hEdited

I think at least part of the counter argument would be that if drugs are dramatically better, trials become much cheaper and faster even holding regulatory frictions constant. Eg for fractures, an AI drug that totally eliminated fractures would be testable in a much shorter time, and with much lower n, than a drug that reduced fractures by 30%. Likewise larger effect sizes could allow for less stringent exclusion criteria which would make patient recruitment way easier. And so on.

Not an argument against regulatory reform of course, it’s very “yes, and”, just a reason for optimism even if your trial abundance initiative progresses less than the goal (to be clear I hope it does succeed and you achieve all that you are aiming for!)

Dave Reed's avatar

Come on. Surely you must “know” that Technological Salvation™ will provide! He explained it all in “Machines of Loving Grace”! 🦾 😏 That’s why he had to tell Hegseth “Hell no!”