[pona-a]

There's a video by Siliconversations [0] about it. Medicine is first and foremost limited by high-quality data, not intelligence. If OpenAI built a superhuman AGI tomorrow, it would not change a thing about the state of cancer treatment, at least not for a while.

Trying to design a cancer cure by setting a trillion alight on AI is like trying to achieve UBI by funneling citizen's taxes into Polymarket, so they may operate their free supermarket.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijTxAfFUHkY

[hephaes7us]

I don't think the above poster is talking about finding novel treatments, but rather that they're talking about aiding in diagnosis and navigating existing treatment options.

We always wish that our doctors would stay up to date on all of the current medical literature as they practice, and some of them do. In theory, AI systems could greatly accelerate a person's ability to retrieve and extract insights from the current body of knowledge.

Of course, that is highly fraught, but, in theory, I think I see what they're going for.

[zozbot234]

How can we be sure of that when we don't even know what improved "intelligence" might look like in this context? Especially given the increased importance of "big data" (genomics, proteomics, metabolomics etc.) to the field and the sheer amount of obscure data that's currently buried in all sorts of archival sources and might be resurfaced with some "intelligence".