Professor Luke O'Neill

design the experiment.

Now, a human did the experiment, put the data back into the AI system and find the account of conclusion.

And they found a new drug, actually, it's called Repastudil, which could be useful in AMD.

Now, they reckon, Pat, it took the AI system two hours to do all that.

It would have taken a human 424 hours to read the literature and design and interpret.

All that part of it would have taken a lot longer than the AI machine.

Now, of course, the drug isn't on the market yet.

It's still very early.

But talk about speeding up the discovery process.

Yeah, now, one issue is it is used in the literature.

There's stuff there where they can read all these papers and all this historical stuff, and then get an idea.

That's great to me.

We read this literature all the time.

Anyway, you know, can it really be creative is the question.

Like, the really big breakthroughs in science are usually mavericks who think outside the box.

AI is not very good at thinking outside the box because it's looking inside the box, you know.

So one question is, again, we'll still need creativity and humans to do it.

You've got it.

And nor at a conference talking like I do.

My main skill for that, when I go to meet someone for a drink and you have a conversation, you get an idea that way from them by talking to them.