57 points dataking 1 hour ago 42 comments

adamredwoods 1 hour ago | parent

I have a rare disease with no cure. Id love to see how Claude can help with us, but I'm cautious what it can really advance. Murine models still take time, and clinical trials are slow. I would think most biotech companies lose money at these stages.

>> If Claude is to significantly increase the rate of new cures, we need to work with many more biotechnology firms and integrate Claude more deeply into their development processes

Sounds invasive.

dyauspitr 1 hour ago | parent

Have you tried it yourself on their best available public model yet?

SwellJoe 35 minutes ago | parent

I suspect the public model will refuse. Anthropic models have gotten extremely strict on biology and security work.

I'd be happy to be wrong, though. I've never tried to do biology with Claude, but I have gotten many refusals and downgrades for security work.

rtsil 7 minutes ago | parent

I was downgraded for asking about a poisonous plant in my yard (poisonous for my cats, not for humans).

2001zhaozhao 1 hour ago | parent

I like how there's a giant "chapter picker" pinned at the top of the web page, but there are only two chapters and the second chapter is a tiny blob at the end of the article.

vatsachak 54 minutes ago | parent

That's standard blog design though

Sarkie 1 hour ago | parent

New cocaine?

ChrisMarshallNY 45 minutes ago | parent

We've had "research chemicals" for a couple of decades.

Some, do what it says on the tin.

Some...not so much.

The issue with any new chemical is full, comprehensive, regulated testing.

Dodgy folks aren't really so good, with that last part. They use their customers as guinea pigs.

yewenjie 1 hour ago | parent

TBH, I am waiting for Mathocalypse-level progress in biology and medicine, but I guess that's not happening as fast, because it's the real world, human lives, etc., mostly etc.

redanddead 55 minutes ago | parent

That plus organs on a chip could be scalable and generate interesting data

enraged_camel 55 minutes ago | parent

Specifically, it's because the verification loops are much longer in applied sciences. In biology you need to wait for wet lab experiments, clinical trials, regulatory steps, etc. before you can call something "solved".

Since sequential steps are slow, I think we're going to see massive increases in parallelization. I'm not sure how the regulatory frameworks will keep up honestly.

slashdave 51 minutes ago | parent

> we're going to see massive increases in parallelization

Why? This is not an AI problem, it's an industry one. And if it was simple, it would already exist.

menaerus 44 minutes ago | parent

> And if it was simple, it would already exist.

Not necessarily. Many things are simply gatekept behind the door.

xp84 29 minutes ago | parent

Well, it matters more for AI because there are some limitations of human research that don't apply to AI. Not all of course, just mainly the fact that there's a finite number of great researchers. Other things are limitations that could theoretically be overcome -- for instance, it's "only" money stopping you from having more lab space as long as you have a suitable robot to run a lab.

Bluestein 41 minutes ago | parent

> wet lab experiments, clinical trials, regulatory steps

I wonder what the unlock would be, if any, of having simulations substitute any (or all, in time) of these steps. Akin to the method used to train FSD cars, or robots.-

xp84 25 minutes ago | parent

In my untrained opinion, I don't think that will be as much of a cheat as it might seem. Or more accurately, creating a simulation accurate enough to where it would work for this purpose would be where all the breakthroughs would have to be made. Building a perfect simulation requires an understanding of the system being simulated, that I don't think we fully have of molecular biology -- if we did, I suspect we'd already have many of the answers we are seeking when we do this kind of research.

But I'm no biologist so if someone else is, feel free to correct me.

jurgenburgen 25 minutes ago | parent

By the time we can simulate a human body to the degree that clinical trials aren’t necessary I think we have solved disease a long time ago.

slashdave 52 minutes ago | parent

Keep waiting

xhevahir 50 minutes ago | parent

I expect that AI use in the more axiomatic kinds of research will be well in advance of sciences that have a heavy, messy empirical foundation, like biology.

dennysora-main 36 minutes ago | parent

Indeed, actually, one of the limitations preventing AI from making more contributions is humans. Human emotions, laws, morality, responsibility, and so on are all part of these limitations.

I've always thought openai could actually create an agent that can control various physical robotic arms and things like that, and then continuously iterate on solutions that can participate in the real physical environment. This could accelerate automatic iteration for many things that require human operations, such as complicated experiments, assembly adjustments, and testing.

Otherwise, AI is always trapped in virtual systems and still needs human intervention. But even though AI is already very powerful now, there is still a limit to how much humans can handle or assign tasks. Many times, AI has already finished processing something, but I don't even have time to assign the next deeper level of tasks.

People hope AI can improve productivity, but at the same time they're afraid of AI actually getting involved in reality, while the valuation of the entire AI industry is so high.

This kind of wanting to move forward but not moving forward makes humans especially uncomfortable.

aleksiy123 26 minutes ago | parent

Google does this research not sure if the others are doing it. Embodied reasoning

https://deepmind.google/models/gemini-robotics/

altmanaltman 26 minutes ago | parent

They should put AI in a car so it can drive itself or create robots that use world models...

ungovernableCat 10 minutes ago | parent

Math is completely abstract and the base rules and mechanics of it are some of the most clear cut and formalised because that’s the entire point of the subject.

Biology is the complete opposite of that.

jon128 56 minutes ago | parent

Crossing fingers for LSD 2.0

ruther4d 52 minutes ago | parent

> Six Generate scientists used Claude Code to propose new designs for this part

“Generate scientist” … is that a real job like “prompt engineer”

traceroute66 48 minutes ago | parent

"Invent a new drug, make no mistakes"

mysterydip 38 minutes ago | parent

“One that won't make me nervous, wondering what to do. One that makes me feel like I feel when I'm with you.”

anigbrowl 42 minutes ago | parent

I think the dividing line between skilled and unskilled use of AI is 'machine, do magic' vs 'machine, do x, y and Z, thus and so, avoid i, j, k which knowledge is the fruit of bitter experience.' Being able to articulate what matters and why is the ultimate high level language.

gonzalohm 33 minutes ago | parent

At that point you are just defining the requirements, you may as well write the code for it

gonzalohm 29 minutes ago | parent

I think they meant six scientists from "Generate Biomedicines" (the company)

Either that or six degenerate scientists. Both options work just fine

klustregrif 7 minutes ago | parent

It's like saying "Cisco Developer" even though the company is Cisco Systems

The company is called Generate Biomedicines, and they reference it in short as Generate.

inglor_cz 51 minutes ago | parent

The point about finding problems in documented processes (Enveda: manufacturing and filings) is unexpected but interesting. One of our civilizational problems is that the sheer volume of documentation has slowly exceeded capabilities of humans to produce it reliably and without flaws.

Same applies to construction projects, BTW.

fwlr 42 minutes ago | parent

Claude, you are a senior drug dealer. Get me my fix, make no mistakes.

throw-qqqqq 13 minutes ago | parent

> senior drug dealer

Lol that cracked me up :D I love that job title!

ngai_aku 10 minutes ago | parent

Not trying to be a dick, but I think this community is better off without low effort jokes like this littering the post.

gonzalohm 26 minutes ago | parent

It's funny that a lot of the "helping" is just actually filling paperwork.

If that's the bottleneck maybe we need to rethink all the bureaucracy around the process instead of using AI to fill a document and then using AI to read it. That's just plain stupid.

1970-01-01 17 minutes ago | parent

Sorting and filing paperwork won't go away until AGI rightfully declares bureaucracy as the worst evil produced by humanity.

klustregrif 2 minutes ago | parent

There's some subleties lost in the "just filing paperwork" the regulatory filing reports are big content heavy documents, that need to be generated. But it's not just a job consisting of pasting in lorum ipsum. A lot of intelligence goes into creating those documents, which is why it hasn't been revolutionised by digital templating systems. But there is the very real potential for speeding up the process through AI document editing and reviews to turn 2 weeks of people sequentially doing edits, passing for review back and forth before being able to submit, to perhaps just getting everyone in a room for 2 hours and pointing out everything that needs changing and changing it on the spot. But even then you'll still sometimes have the hook back to the slower processes of having to generate new evidence or find and review evidence that wasn't included. But even a 25% increase in speed will have quite significant impact, so it's not like it has to become a turn key submissions solution to be valuable.

orthogonal_cube 23 minutes ago | parent

This is one application of AI that I’ve been hopeful for. Accelerating research into new medicines and cures to disorders, diseases, and cancers could be a net positive on human lives. Maybe it’ll help bring R&D costs down so that medicines for rare diseases aren’t out of reach for those that are afflicted by them.

> If Claude is to significantly increase the rate of new cures, we need to work with many more biotechnology firms and integrate Claude more deeply into their development processes.

Given all that, the wording here feels very self-serving. Cautious optimism is probably warranted.

daemonk 20 minutes ago | parent

It helps with bureaucracy and pipeline generation. That's valuable and frees up time and effort for scientists. But it's not generating new ideas or solving problems like in math/engineering.

The problem is that biology is like trying to reverse engineer alien technology to understand how it works. Math/engineering is more like building up complexity through well defined parts. Math/engineering is a heck of a lot more deterministic than biology. The ultimate bottleneck in biology in context of AI is well curated and breadth of data, not necessarily intelligence.

rao-v 3 minutes ago | parent

I’m honestly a little surprised by the sparsity of examples? One example of improving an existing therapeutic (Generate Biomedicines), one example of speeding up an existing clever play in food allergies (Divergence Labs), one fairly generic lead optimization play, and then we get … Claude helped write better paperwork and documentation for Enveda?!

I know Anthropic are brilliant at knowing when to focus where, but I genuinely expected them to be talking about 3-5x more serious scaled up drug discovery plays at this stage.

Is this not a focus, or did the big plays not want to be part of a roundup post?