Generative A.I. arrives in the gene editing world of CRISPR
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
In a nutshell this sounds more like a case of "we wanted something with AI in the title".
I suspect we will need to move from sequential modelling to graphical modelling to level-up again, though.
Out of curiosity, would you mind elaborating on this?
it could also be I completely misunderstand context in sequential models and what I'm describing is already being used, or has been evaluated and has been unsuccessful.
If statistical distributions can model higher level polypeptide structure, then it could be useful.
Warning: the following is my opinion.
In the same way that MLP “neurons” are universal approximators, it seems that LLMs are universal mappers.
They have the potential to help us organize and translate the immense quantity of data being generated by modern methods in all respective disciplines. We might create a model that translates english to protein synthesis, and vice versa, which would be pretty useful given my lay understanding of biochem.
To your point - this probably is NOT the best way to do this in an objective sense. But to my mind we are hitting upper limits as finite beings and need things like this, which utilize native language constructs, to move forward.
I worked on a predecessor to LLMs - HMMs for protein modelling. They were, and still are for most people the best way to model protein sequences. It's usually done as prediction, rather than generation (IE, you use the model to classify an unknown sequence into a known category, rather than asking the model to generate new instances of a category). HMMs for proteins are a bit stuffy, and they model local changes well, but struggle with long-range interactions that LLMs seem to excel at (for example, an HMM will do a good job of letting you stuff a few more residues into a protein in a localized region such as a hinge, but are not so great at modelling groups of residues that are located far-apart in sequence space but close in protein space).
One detail of the bitter lesson is, imho, that statistical parrots are better than they "should" be, probably for the same reason that mathematics is unexpectedly proficient in modelling physics: to some degree, the models recapitulate the true latent space of the underlying system well enough to generalize outside the original observation space.
https://www.404media.co/google-says-it-discovered-millions-o...
Or is it only just going to be as good at generating headlines?
Preprint: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.04.22.590591v1
You could even guarantee privacy. That would be some really useful data.
One of the four horsemen of the AI apocalypse.
I just need to be able to test the guidelines and results. Clinical trial process to make an objective decision from that point.
Nobody is impressed by anything anymore, nobody is excited about the future - everything’s just “terrible” and everything looking forward is bad. I hate that mindset and I’m sick and tired of cynicism poisoning practically every online space. Thank you for saying it’s “lowbrow” and giving OP a little bit of a hard time.
As long as robots are incapable of recreation I don’t see the threat.
One could say all maschines today are infertile.
In a way, all life hijacks hardware (the material world) that it doesn't create to reproduce itself.
Only analogously. The reality is that what we call computer viruses are merely instructions running on a computer and are not substantially distinct from the computer in the same way that parasites or physical viruses are distinct from biological tissue.
It does not seem implausible at this point to imagine a virus which gets to control some currency, uses it place an order for parts to be assembled, delivered to a location, connected to power, etc.
It is, in a sense, taking control by pulling the levers supplied by our society. Is that alive?
I would say no, it is not 'alive'… but I would also paraphrase Dijkstra: "The question of whether an AI or computer virus is 'alive' is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim."