31–40 of 144 posts
100% response, zero side effects? This sounds like world changing news. Can anyone with domain expertise explain the catch, if any?
The catch is that there are thousands of promising therapies in animal models/pre-human testing. A very very tiny fraction of them will ever make it to market for a variety of both good and not-good reasons.
[flagged]
I know hearing this gets old, however, please review sources outside of LLMs for accuracy. LLMs take a whole bunch off stuff from all over the internet and distill it down to something you can consume. Those sources include everything from reddit to a certain de-wormer that folks still think treats COVID (side note: I've a few long COVID victims in a support group I am in, and they are not happy about the disinfo tha…
Now I can't wait for the conspiracy theory types to say this proves reptilian people theories. Lizard people just giving to help us accept them type of stuff, and maybe prove how the ape descendants need the lizard people.
Need the what now?
"This news article links human survival to something taken from amphibians and reptiles. There are conspiracy-theorists who posit the existence of Lizard people. It would be amusing if those humans discovered this news, and claimed it was a plot by Lizard People to make us dependent on them."
So there, I think I explained the joke... which isn't necessarily a good thing. In the words of E.B. White:
> Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process.
Now, I could work that new amphibian-connection into another joke... But let's face it, it would be "too meta" at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not against AI summaries being on HN, however, users should verify and cite sources so others can verify. I don't see how they contribute anything to a discussion. Even a speculative comment organically produced is more worthwhile than feeding a slop machine back into itself. I don't go out for coffee to discuss LLM summaries with friends, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to do that here. Earlier today…
It is search if you ask it to produce a list of links. It does well at filtering information for you. Going to primary sources is required to verify what it says but it can reduce the leg work rather a lot.
Unfortunately it can hallucinate those too. I've had ChatGPT cite countless nonexistent academic papers, complete with links that go nowhere.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the difference between a good and not-good reason to not go to market?
A lot of potential treatments are too easily available and can't be patented. If a big pharma company can't make massive profit from it, they won't bother bringing it to market. Consider that a not-good reason. Other treatments may eventually prove to have too many serious negative side effects. That's a good reason to abandon them.
This isn’t really an obstacle, at least not as much as it’s made out to be.
There are numerous examples of drugs being brought to market at high prices despite having been generic compounds. Even old drugs can be brought back at $1000/month or more at different doses or delivery mechanisms.
One example: Doxepin is an old antidepressant that is extremely cheap. It was recently re-certified for sleep at lower doses and reintroduced at low doses at a much higher price, despite being “off patent”.
This happens all the time. The drug companies aren’t actually abandoning usable treatments due to patent issues as much as journalists have claimed. If they couldn’t, for some reason, find a way to charge for it they could still use it as a basis for finding an improved relayed compound with more targeted effects, better pharmacokinetics, etc.
They’re not just dropping promising treatments anywhere if there’s a market for them.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is search if you ask it to produce a list of links. It does well at filtering information for you. Going to primary sources is required to verify what it says but it can reduce the leg work rather a lot.
> It is search if you ask it to produce a list of links. Unfortunately it can hallucinate those too. I've had ChatGPT cite countless nonexistent academic papers, complete with links that go nowhere.
But we still need to ask it for and then follow file and line number references (aka "links") and verify it's true and it got the references right and build enough of a mental model ourselves. With code (at least for our code base) it usually does get that right (the references) and I can verify. I might be biased because I both know our code base very well already (but not everything in detail) and I'm a very suspicious person, questioning everything. With humans it sometimes "drives them crazy" but the LLM doesn't mind when I call its BS over and over. I'm always "right" :P
The problem is when you just trust anything it says. I think we need to treat it like a super junior that's trained to very convincingly BS you if it's out of its depth. But it's still great to have said junior do your bidding while you do other things and faster than an actual junior and this junior is available 24/7 (barring any outages ;)).
(Disclaimer- I am an engineer and not a microbiologist/doctor)
Mutations and wrong copying of genome happens all the time in the body and some enzyme has the job of correcting the mutated genes so it doesn’t get into the system. Level 2 defence is T cells killing it as identified as foreign body.
Thing that baffles me is that I see most work happening to eliminate tumor. To me it sounds a tough problem given the permutation and combination of mutation— roughly few trillions.
But I was curious if there is working happening on L1 defence — fixing the enzyme that fixes the wrong copy paste mechanism. Or making the enzyme get more efficient and powerful. Is that line of thought even valid?