Almost five years after the COVID-19 pandemic began, its central question remains subject to heated debate: Did the SARS-CoV-2 virus originate naturally, or was it leaked from a scientific lab participating in gain-of-function research?
No, gain of function research did not cause COVID-19
I find it a bit ridiculous that this “debate” is still ongoing, since the evidence is pretty clear. That’s not to say that a future virus couldn’t be engineered, but SARS-COV-2 was not.
Yes, it’s an odd statement. The authors are all Harvard scientists, and I have checked what they post on Twitter, they aren’t anti vaccine cranks. Though one of them, Al Ozonoff, does try to engage with such people. Perhaps this is a concession in a similar vein of outreach. The Hill is a conservative news website. Perhaps they felt they had to get their own dubious science a mention, and that was the price of publication for the Harvard scientists?
But that means the cure for that same virus could also be built using AI
Available for the low, low cost of just $80/month.
$60/month with ads.
Are the genome AIs more capable than the average ChatGPT? Or do they also sound convincing but fail at every real-world task given to them that has some degree of complexity? I’m not sure if I’m supposed to be afraid of them.
I’d say the medical fields are probably going to be the only “industry” (🤢) that has a chance of seeing an ROI from AI.
Human ability to find patterns of use in data/experiences is pretty friggin good on a singular organism scale. (Meaning humans are incredible at the intake and processing of the amount of information an average person interacts with throughout one lifetime). But pattern recognition involving datasets that are exponentially larger than we could ever have time to take in during one Human lifespan is literally the only thing AI is good at. (And writing the professional email to describe it too I suppose.)
And that is exactly the tool that will is already churning out significant results in medical research fields.
