dwa3592

>>Your suggestion that it could be "unclear who conducted the phase 3" is very strange--the FDA knows who filed the application

This means the drug has gone through the actual drug development lifecycle- Terrence is not talking about this.

>Acetaminophen is among the oldest and most commonly used synthetic drugs, and its mechanism is still debated

You answered your confusion; it's an extremely old drug (1950s) and back then we didn't really know anything about pathway targeting. The drugs that we have developed in the recent decades (post 2000s); we generally start from the target; the same story that i wrote in the main comment - so we do know about the mechanisms and the pathways that are targetted, down to the genetic level sometimes.

So if a new drug showed up on the market today which actually has gone through the above lifecycle; we could with a minimal effort put together 5-6 scientists and get a consensus on how the drug is actually working.

No pharmaceutical is testing drugs today which have no scientific theory or reasoning or seminal papers behind it.

Just added this at the top of the repo. For text only, 1.1GB ram, for images 1.4GB. context windows for text (2 model choices) - 512-8192 tokens.

>>No one’s saying it’s going to be sudden or anything

hmm. 700 papers released in one day.

>>It’s gonna have clear provenance and the same type of verification channels

what's gonna have clear provenance? - the math slop they released has already been rebuked by human mathematicians as incoherent and deserving of desk rejection.

I think people are missing the point that terrence is trying to make, especially on the cancer drug.

For nuance lovers - here are some basics for how you get your drugs: there is an established chain of trust from the first basic science paper to the phase 3 trial and the subsequent availability of the drug to general public

- someone publishes the first paper (basic science) explaining some biological phenomenon, which leads to 10s or 100s of other papers with some tweaks in conditions,

- after the above papers the pathway of the phenomenon is understood by researchers, they try therapies at cell level to see if they can control some behavior, 10s or more papers get published,

- then someone tries this in mice and other models, 10s and more papers get published.

- then researchers at pharma companies + hospitals create this therapy for human trials - phase 1, 2, 3 etc - data collections, then FDA - then approval.

Now, the people who worked on the phase 3 trial might not know the people who wrote the first seminal paper and they often don't exist in the same decade - but it absolutely does not mean that we (humans) don't know how these drugs work - if you take 1-2 researchers from each phase and put them in a room and ask them how that particular drug works - they will quickly be able to build a consensus. that is what the chain of trust means here. now of course there can be fraud in scientific research, but that happens in every human endeavor and is a separate topic.

back to terrence - he is saying that if there is suddenly a drug that nobody knows the origin of; passed phase 3 but it's unclear who conducted the phase 3 or if the phase 3 even happened or if it's fabricated - you would not want to take the drug. usually when doctors recommend these kinds of drugs - there is already a lot of information available about where the drug came from, if there are any case studies, which doctor tried it first, which country- they often even call those other doctors and find out who was behind the first trials going back as far as the university professors.

Your MD doctor might not know the chemistry and physics behind the drug you are taking but there is deifnitly a group of people, when put together, can tell how that drug is working. My wife is a fundamental researcher - understanding physics at DNA level and my brother is a MD doctor; our conversations are super fun.

Side effects are a completely different thing - they involve the above cycle on repeat.

>>can't believe there is a class of software engineers who wake up everyday and tell themselves, "today is the day I am going to automate the rest of my job"

>>The whole point of software engineering is automating processes

There is a difference between 'automating a process' and 'automating oneself' and making one obsolete a benchmark. I can sympathize if it's confusing for you to understand that.

While I agree with this and appreciate Tao and other mathematicians to take the time to do this. There are similar concerns for many many other fields aka there is a general misalignment of technology. Take Software engineering for example, I can't believe there is a class of software engineers who wake up everyday and tell themselves, "today is the day I am going to automate the rest of my job".

Lets forget the hyper intellectual fields like maths and software engineering for a moment. What about taxi drivers? The best minds in silicon valley wake up everyday to automate the jobs of taxi drivers - TFA can be reworded as - 'The misalignment of AI/Tech in Transportation'. Remember the Nepal disaster that happened a couple weeks ago - the largest cranes that they had were stuck in the mud and couldn't move. There were no tools which could help the rescue teams at that time. Its weird that billions have been spent on making a ride automated to make a taxi driver redundant but no improvement in tech for rescue teams.

Nice! Good luck.

Love it. Position tracking in canyons is a much needed use case. Is there a link where I can follow your progress?

Does it have to be scarce for it to become a currency? It just needs to be regulated which I think it will be.