Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The last 20% takes 99% of the work. Of course it does, since the first 80% take literal minutes! But if you compare to doing it entirely manually, it's still x5 more efficient. Why would you do it all by hand (spending 200hours in the process…) when you're an “AI entrepreneur”… In fairness, it pains me to see people as gullible as you are just because you like the idea of the story being true.
You don't understand how the technology in question works, and you're just making shit up because you don't want to admit to being wrong. What are you alleging here anyways? That all the scientists quoted and photographed in the article discussing their part in making the vaccine are in on the game? That the Australian made the story up wholesale? Come on.
See my comment history. I do know very well how language models work. Thank you.
What I don't know is why you're claiming you disagree with the story reported here being bullshit (the story being almost literally “ChatGPT did the heavy lifting and the only reason we can't have nice thing is because red tape is blocking humanity”: “he used AI to teach himself about how a personalized vaccine could work, designed much of the process himself. […] The red tape was actually harder than the vaccine creation”), when you know very well it's bullshit because your comments describe what has most likely happened (ChatGPT did nothing much besides telling what could work and pointing towards which scientists to seek help from).
Again, literally no one question the fact that mRNA-based medicine has incredible potential, the bullshit here is not about the medicine: it's about red tape being the only bottleneck in a fantasyland where AI solves all the hard challenges.