▲ 75 ▼ AI-designed universal vaccine clears first human trial, targets future coronavirus threats with needle-free delivery. (medicalxpress.com) submitted 4 months ago by Lugh@futurology.today [M] to c/futurology@futurology.today 31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] bl4ckp1xx13@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 4 months ago (10 children) Useful case of AI. 👏 permalink fedilink source hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] whats_a_lemmy@midwest.social 17 points 4 months ago (2 children) The original press release stated this was done using machine learning, which has been a mainstay in biomedical science for a while. It's what "AI" used to refer to before the current generation of bullshit generators. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bl4ckp1xx13@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago (1 child) Yes, but from what I understand traditional machine learning is more about introspective pattern recognition and not necessarily inference-based synthesis? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago Those are certainly word. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago (4 children) it’s the stringent verification of results that makes it useful permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Gladaed@feddit.org 6 points 4 months ago (3 children) That's true for all research in medicine. The suggestion to not check for errors is mental and would only be suggested by non technical people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) unfortunately, this how most companies are run permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Gladaed@feddit.org 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) I am sorry, but did you read that I was talking about medicine first and foremost? Also using evidence based approaches can be beneficial for longevity of any company and if you truly believe otherwise, then that's your perogative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago That's true for all research in medicine. Yes, that’s why I pointed out why it works in this field. The suggestion to not check for errors is mental and would only be suggested by non technical people. The way people run companies in others fields is mental, and they want to use AI without verification. They shouldn’t, but they do (hence the “unfortunately”). And even when they say they’re evidence based, it’s usually cherry picked to justify what they were going to do anyway. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Despair@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 child) It's a jet injector. Numerous studies have found cross-infection of diseases from jet injections. An experiment using mice, published in 1985, showed that jet injectors would frequently transmit the viral infection lactate dehydrogenase elevating virus (LDV) from one mouse to another.[16] Another study used the device on a calf, then tested the fluid remaining in the injector for blood. Every injector they tested had detectable blood in a quantity sufficient to pass on a virus such as hepatitis B.[15] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] noxypaws@pawb.social 1 point 4 months ago I'm curious about this too. Surely they're using some modern advancements in the tech that have addressed that issue, SURELY. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] whats_a_lemmy@midwest.social 17 points 4 months ago (2 children) The original press release stated this was done using machine learning, which has been a mainstay in biomedical science for a while. It's what "AI" used to refer to before the current generation of bullshit generators. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bl4ckp1xx13@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago (1 child) Yes, but from what I understand traditional machine learning is more about introspective pattern recognition and not necessarily inference-based synthesis? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago Those are certainly word. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bl4ckp1xx13@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago (1 child) Yes, but from what I understand traditional machine learning is more about introspective pattern recognition and not necessarily inference-based synthesis? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago Those are certainly word. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago Those are certainly word. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago (4 children) it’s the stringent verification of results that makes it useful permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Gladaed@feddit.org 6 points 4 months ago (3 children) That's true for all research in medicine. The suggestion to not check for errors is mental and would only be suggested by non technical people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) unfortunately, this how most companies are run permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Gladaed@feddit.org 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) I am sorry, but did you read that I was talking about medicine first and foremost? Also using evidence based approaches can be beneficial for longevity of any company and if you truly believe otherwise, then that's your perogative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago That's true for all research in medicine. Yes, that’s why I pointed out why it works in this field. The suggestion to not check for errors is mental and would only be suggested by non technical people. The way people run companies in others fields is mental, and they want to use AI without verification. They shouldn’t, but they do (hence the “unfortunately”). And even when they say they’re evidence based, it’s usually cherry picked to justify what they were going to do anyway. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 6 points 4 months ago (3 children) That's true for all research in medicine. The suggestion to not check for errors is mental and would only be suggested by non technical people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) unfortunately, this how most companies are run permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Gladaed@feddit.org 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) I am sorry, but did you read that I was talking about medicine first and foremost? Also using evidence based approaches can be beneficial for longevity of any company and if you truly believe otherwise, then that's your perogative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago That's true for all research in medicine. Yes, that’s why I pointed out why it works in this field. The suggestion to not check for errors is mental and would only be suggested by non technical people. The way people run companies in others fields is mental, and they want to use AI without verification. They shouldn’t, but they do (hence the “unfortunately”). And even when they say they’re evidence based, it’s usually cherry picked to justify what they were going to do anyway. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) unfortunately, this how most companies are run permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Gladaed@feddit.org 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) I am sorry, but did you read that I was talking about medicine first and foremost? Also using evidence based approaches can be beneficial for longevity of any company and if you truly believe otherwise, then that's your perogative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago That's true for all research in medicine. Yes, that’s why I pointed out why it works in this field. The suggestion to not check for errors is mental and would only be suggested by non technical people. The way people run companies in others fields is mental, and they want to use AI without verification. They shouldn’t, but they do (hence the “unfortunately”). And even when they say they’re evidence based, it’s usually cherry picked to justify what they were going to do anyway. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) I am sorry, but did you read that I was talking about medicine first and foremost? Also using evidence based approaches can be beneficial for longevity of any company and if you truly believe otherwise, then that's your perogative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago That's true for all research in medicine. Yes, that’s why I pointed out why it works in this field. The suggestion to not check for errors is mental and would only be suggested by non technical people. The way people run companies in others fields is mental, and they want to use AI without verification. They shouldn’t, but they do (hence the “unfortunately”). And even when they say they’re evidence based, it’s usually cherry picked to justify what they were going to do anyway. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago That's true for all research in medicine. Yes, that’s why I pointed out why it works in this field. The suggestion to not check for errors is mental and would only be suggested by non technical people. The way people run companies in others fields is mental, and they want to use AI without verification. They shouldn’t, but they do (hence the “unfortunately”). And even when they say they’re evidence based, it’s usually cherry picked to justify what they were going to do anyway. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Despair@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 child) It's a jet injector. Numerous studies have found cross-infection of diseases from jet injections. An experiment using mice, published in 1985, showed that jet injectors would frequently transmit the viral infection lactate dehydrogenase elevating virus (LDV) from one mouse to another.[16] Another study used the device on a calf, then tested the fluid remaining in the injector for blood. Every injector they tested had detectable blood in a quantity sufficient to pass on a virus such as hepatitis B.[15] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] noxypaws@pawb.social 1 point 4 months ago I'm curious about this too. Surely they're using some modern advancements in the tech that have addressed that issue, SURELY. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] noxypaws@pawb.social 1 point 4 months ago I'm curious about this too. Surely they're using some modern advancements in the tech that have addressed that issue, SURELY. permalink fedilink source parent