592
AI needs $6tn in annual revenue to justify data centre boom, Bain says | The National (www.thenationalnews.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
131 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 1 month ago (4 children)

AI has been mainstream for what, 4 years now?

if AI had such powerful results for developing novel solutions to problems such as medicine or material science, why have we not seen major improvements in those sectors?

the way AI is spoken about is that it's "world impacting" and "sector disrupting". the only disruption and impacts I'm seeing are in human rights violations, price gouging, privacy negation, and corruption.

if these are the results after only 4 years, I can only logically assume it will only get worse with more time and support.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    Takes years to get new drugs to market. AI is speeding up drug discovery by predicting protein folding ridiculously fast, but there's a lot of other work that needs to be done. Perhaps there will be models to speed up some of those processes too, but the real bottleneck is approvals and while AI might be used to speed up the paperwork part of it, I can't think of any way it'll be able to speed up actual trials. What I suspect will happen is we'll get an even faster response time with the next global pandemic that requires a vaccine, and we'll start getting more and more mRNA vaccines, including some for some types of cancers.

    This paper details 9 processes in which AI is already helping or is predicted to be able to help in material development. Material development also takes time to get anything to market, for various reasons. But there's a nonzero chance that the recent battery tech boom from China has been aided by AI. They just tested a very high density solid state cell not long ago.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    if it wasn't maliciously designed it's absurdly negligent. both of which are reason enough to not use AI at all.

    wouldn't it make more sense to streamline the existing processes first before creating a traffic jam of "potential" cures? where at least the models could be trained on existing cutting edge medical research instead of flying blind and developing novel treatments and cures.

    the more I think about it the more is seems plausible that the actions AI implementation takes is malicious negligence. incompetence derived from a malicious intent to do harm on someone or something.

    is this the disruption AI execs were talking about?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent