The first human clinical trial of a universal Sarbeco coronavirus vaccine, developed by the University of Cambridge and spin-out DIOSynVax (DVX) Ltd, has shown that the vaccine is safe and has no significant side effects.
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.
Yes, but from what I understand traditional machine learning is more about introspective pattern recognition and not necessarily inference-based synthesis?
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.
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]
Useful case of AI. 👏
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.
Yes, but from what I understand traditional machine learning is more about introspective pattern recognition and not necessarily inference-based synthesis?
Those are certainly word.
it’s the stringent verification of results that makes it useful
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.
unfortunately, this how most companies are run
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.
Yes, that’s why I pointed out why it works in this field.
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.
It’s a jet injector.
I’m curious about this too. Surely they’re using some modern advancements in the tech that have addressed that issue, SURELY.