Clinical science is inundated with well-reasoned "potential leads". Ideas for targets, and even designing drugs to interact with those targets in the desired way, is not the bottleneck. Hasn't been for decades. The bottleneck is in clinical development i.e. human trials.
There are many many AI drug discovery companies out there, many of them very well funded, and ALL of them with no shortage of "potential leads".
These companies usually start out with the idea that their potential leads are better than the alternatives (generally because they cast a much bigger net/ considered more screening criteria than a human could, thanks to AI) and that big pharma will pay them license fees.
And yet, all of those companies, pretty much without exception, have turned into drug development companies themselves. They are forced to develop their own "potential leads" into actual approved drugs. And they are subject to the same timelines, same costs and - so far - the same probabilities of success as any other drug developer.
PerturbAI & OpenAI's "potential leads" might be better or worse than the next AI company. I would guess worse, given there is zero proprietary data involved and no clarity about why the underlying models are going to generate insightful findings. Either way, not useful.
I just saw a similar post from Anthropic which also landed like a thud. The deep need of OpenAI/Anthropic to churn out flashy announcements today to with upcoming IPO is in serious conflict with the realistic pace of biological or medical research, let alone successful clinical applications. They would produce many cool leads like this which ultimately turn out to be useless before landing on the one that makes it to human clinical trials (and may fail there too).
A previous blog post from Anthropic used the mention of "CRISPR-like" to activate a mini hype cycle by association with a well-known groundbreaking discovery. Without that kind of manipulative hook these announcements are pretty thin gruel and below the bar of thousands of Pubmed papers that never made it into public view.
Glad to see that Shared Albums are now full resolution!
Now, please:
1. Allow us to edit the photo order of the Shared Album (instead of the order that the photos were added to it). Currently, my wedding unfolds in the wrong order, and my kid turns 6 months old before being born.
2. Fix identification/clean-up of duplicates.
3. Give us a way to tidy up facial recognition.
4. Allow us to join "best quality possible" collectives, which will replace our poor-quality photos with higher-quality originals from somebody else's library.
It’s a study in the rather tricky double edged sword of the Apple walled garden; on one hand they have control that allows providing extremely satisfying interactions and performance, on the other hand, because it’s been a soulless line-go-up corporation, it has very low pressure incentives to take anything beyond the 85% level.
So we are all stuck with an 85% very performant, e.g., Photos app, that has 15% extremely annoying and/or lack of features and functionality; because Apple cannot let go of control, but also fails in its responsibility, as is typical of controlling entities.
> 1. Allow us to edit the photo order of the Shared Album (instead of the order that the photos were added to it). Currently, my wedding unfolds in the wrong order, and my kid turns 6 months old before being born.
Clinical science is inundated with well-reasoned "potential leads". Ideas for targets, and even designing drugs to interact with those targets in the desired way, is not the bottleneck. Hasn't been for decades. The bottleneck is in clinical development i.e. human trials.
There are many many AI drug discovery companies out there, many of them very well funded, and ALL of them with no shortage of "potential leads".
These companies usually start out with the idea that their potential leads are better than the alternatives (generally because they cast a much bigger net/ considered more screening criteria than a human could, thanks to AI) and that big pharma will pay them license fees.
And yet, all of those companies, pretty much without exception, have turned into drug development companies themselves. They are forced to develop their own "potential leads" into actual approved drugs. And they are subject to the same timelines, same costs and - so far - the same probabilities of success as any other drug developer.
PerturbAI & OpenAI's "potential leads" might be better or worse than the next AI company. I would guess worse, given there is zero proprietary data involved and no clarity about why the underlying models are going to generate insightful findings. Either way, not useful.