Biologist pushes back on "solving biology": empirical testing can't be bypassed
rbhar90 · x · 2026-11-14
Biologist Melinda Chu pushes back on the AI-world mantra of "solving biology": if it means what runs on a computer is 100% exactly what happens in real life, that's far off and possibly never achievable.
Her core argument: biology and the physical sciences are at heart empirical—any new drug, diagnostic or product must be tested in the real world, so there's a hard limit to what "superhuman" reasoning on a computer can do. She also criticizes people for treating biology like Sudoku with one right answer rather than seeking better understanding of it.
More from AGI Musings
- Heaven-design debate: boredom complaints are failures of the lower rungs — jd_pressman · 2026-11-14
- 90% of job applications are obvious bots, says recruiter; human emails win — minhnguyen · 2026-11-14
- Switching from global health to AI safety: one grantmaker's candid career reflection — austinc3301 · 2026-11-14
- Ex-HKUST President Tony Chan: China's AI Should Earn Respect via Innovation, Not Rankings — pstAsiatech · 2026-11-14
- Researcher admits running agentic exploit probing on national infrastructure, halts harness amid FAA ground stop — andersonbcdefg · 2026-11-14
- Will local models keep up with frontier? Users debate a hardware-bound gap — AshAtlasDev · 2026-11-14