AI vs biology camps clash: drug design seen as AI's most verifiable near-term impact
citrini · x · 2026-10-26
Citrini highlights a sharp divide between the AI camp (believers in scaling laws and the bitter lesson, who expect AI to drive novel medical discoveries) and the biology camp (who argue the bitter lesson doesn't apply and reliable simulation of human toxicology is 5-10 years away).
Amplifier amirshanehsaz adds that drug design is to drug development what coding is to software development: the most verifiable step, yielding results in weeks or months, making it the most visible near-term impact of AI—necessary but not sufficient, yet at minimum shortening the path to patients.
Related event: AI Camp vs Biology Camp: Can Scaling Laws Really Accelerate Drug Discovery(5 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Over 1,000 mathematicians join Association for Human Mathematics, pledge to refuse AI papers and frontier lab ties — sebkrier · 2026-10-26
- Sharon Goldman's deep dive on the people and ideas behind AI doom forecasting — Grady_Booch · 2026-10-26
- Top AI forecaster FutureSearch whiffed on Brazil election, showing prediction's intrinsic limits — sebkrier · 2026-10-26
- Open weights' rise may end as US and China restrict cyber-capable AI models — GunmetalZen · 2026-10-26
- mflux: talk about the cool stuff you're building, not how it's built — mflux · 2026-10-26
- Economists replicate papers with Claude and Codex: your past errors will be found — paulnovosad · 2026-10-26