Curing a disease likely won’t work—even if there’s a cure, clinical trials take a very long time. Now, maybe inventing something like SR-17018 (a chemical which can treat addiction to opioids, and had communities spring up online dedicated to synthesizing and using it) would, but this would be bound to be controversial, and lots of people would be pointing out why this is actually a bad thing, etc.
Releasing science results in general also runs the risk of angering the scientific community, much like mathematics has angered the math community. Unsure what the popular perception of the math advances is, though.
A breakthrough in fundamental theoretical physics would likely be treated similarly to the math breakthrough, while releasing something like a room-temperature superconductor could be beneficial, though I think it’ll take a long time for this tech to percolate through enough to improve the average Joe’s life, similar to drugs.
Other tech breakthroughs—an amazing video game, an incredibly effective matchmaking service, something to manage the boring parts of people’s lives might do this, but also a lot of people really don’t like new technology in general.
I’d be skeptical that good things from AI will be sudden enough to make the news cycle—it feels like most good things take time, whereas destroying/hacking something can happen pretty quickly. Maybe there are things I haven’t considered yet.
AI-powered medical research could rapidly show clinical results by deploying investigational drugs under expanded access/compassionate use/right to try. No clinical trial necessary. If AI-developed investigational drugs started showing clear, fast results on the sickest patients, I think that would change minds very quickly. But if it makes patients sicker, then that will have the opposite effect.
It’s possible that the first AI-developed medications will be from somebody who uses AI to identify a new drug to treat their own severe illness.
Curing a disease likely won’t work—even if there’s a cure, clinical trials take a very long time. Now, maybe inventing something like SR-17018 (a chemical which can treat addiction to opioids, and had communities spring up online dedicated to synthesizing and using it) would, but this would be bound to be controversial, and lots of people would be pointing out why this is actually a bad thing, etc.
Releasing science results in general also runs the risk of angering the scientific community, much like mathematics has angered the math community. Unsure what the popular perception of the math advances is, though.
A breakthrough in fundamental theoretical physics would likely be treated similarly to the math breakthrough, while releasing something like a room-temperature superconductor could be beneficial, though I think it’ll take a long time for this tech to percolate through enough to improve the average Joe’s life, similar to drugs.
Other tech breakthroughs—an amazing video game, an incredibly effective matchmaking service, something to manage the boring parts of people’s lives might do this, but also a lot of people really don’t like new technology in general.
I’d be skeptical that good things from AI will be sudden enough to make the news cycle—it feels like most good things take time, whereas destroying/hacking something can happen pretty quickly. Maybe there are things I haven’t considered yet.
AI-powered medical research could rapidly show clinical results by deploying investigational drugs under expanded access/compassionate use/right to try. No clinical trial necessary. If AI-developed investigational drugs started showing clear, fast results on the sickest patients, I think that would change minds very quickly. But if it makes patients sicker, then that will have the opposite effect.
It’s possible that the first AI-developed medications will be from somebody who uses AI to identify a new drug to treat their own severe illness.