AI for Math vs. Biology: Nobel-worthy breakthroughs needed
rbhar90 · x · 2026-08-17
A thread discusses the difference between math (axiomatic) and biology (stochastic evolution). The author reflects on underestimating AI's progress in math and hopes to be wrong about the 5-10 year timeline for biology breakthroughs. Biology involves far more unknowns and is currently infeasible to simulate, with no way to predict clinical trial outcomes. Progress by future Claude models would be a boon to humanity but require multiple Nobel-worthy breakthroughs.
Related event: AI May Conquer Math but Not Biology Soon, Debate Heats Up(3 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- AI meeting notes went from spyware to normal in 5 years, argues dev willcb — willcb · 2026-10-03
- Garry Tan's GBrain vision: agents as a 24/7 personal Jiminy Cricket, not a chatbot — garrytan · 2026-10-03
- Dev argues AI is great at assets and code but bad at designing game mechanics that feel good — rms80 · 2026-10-03
- CAS Five-Year Plan gives AI for Science its own chapter, setting up a US-vs-China metascience bet — teortaxesTex · 2026-10-03
- Draft standard for autonomous labs emerges as AI-driven science heats up — Afinetheorem · 2026-10-03
- After a diagnosis, use LLMs as agents to dissect pathology, treatments and trials — louisvarge · 2026-10-03