Hacker News Reader

Comment by jackb4040 | Hacker News Reader

A chatbot for cancer researchers to talk to is worth single-digit billions at most. Anthropic is already valued at over a trillion dollars, on the premise that they can replace the majority of jobs in most knowledge industries. All the announcements about hacking / math problems / biological science are meant to create the impression that that strategy works and is repeatable across industries.

View on HN

Cancer research is a lot harder for LLMs than math millennium problems though, because there is no fast feedback loop to iterate on. Even if you have a really good idea based on a solid theoretical insight, doing the experiments using in-vitro/mice/monkeys/humans can take years or even decades. I have no doubt that AI will help find new avenues that boost certain parts of research in these fields, but I don't see a potential for a drastic change until we at the very least give LLMs a direct way to interact with lab equipment and train them using RL on it.

Yes, but initial discovery of molecules and novel mechanisms is massive. That was the last generational change in modern drug research was the movement to high throughput screening, going from the ability to screen 10's of molecules to hundreds of thousands to find 'hits'. Better and more focused models, especially ones trained internally at big pharma companies will accelerate that portion of the pipeline, or increase the hit rate of successful compounds. Several companies are already taking this approach like Novo has been. There are other more early stage companies like Recursion and others that are doing the same thing. They are more tech companies than traditional wet lab companies.

RL robotics is increasingly something that cannot be avoided, I think.

> ... until we at the very least give LLMs a direct way to interact with lab equipment and train them using RL on it.

Which is exactly what is being done.

https://www.reuters.com/world/anthropic-quietly-sets-up-biol...

Not according to Anthropic:

  Our lab, located in the Bay Area, looks like a typical molecular biology lab. We do research that involves only the lower-levels of the biosafety risk level (BSL-1 and BSL-2) and we do not handle pathogens that can infect humans. All of the lab work is performed by human scientists. Although we’ve experimented with using AI to accelerate lab work with initiatives like the Model Hardware Standard, this approach is less conducive to the sort of ad hoc workflows that are involved in our molecular biology research.

Automated labs are far more challenging to build and run than most people appreciate. If I wanted to make progress quickly in discovery science, I would find good lab techs before building automated labs.

Sorry, yes I agree 100%. I don't agree with their narrative, I was just explaining it. I think it's fraudulent and based on science fiction and will lead to a significant economic crisis.

The global GDP is on the order of $120T, consequently a few percentage points of productivity improvements correspond to vast sums yearly.

I don't think replacing the majority of jobs in knowledge is priced in at a 1T valuation.

>A chatbot for cancer researchers to talk to is worth single-digit billions at most

I am disappointed by your lack of Capitalism buff. What you say is true, but what is the untapped fetish market for such a thing?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com