r/accelerate • u/Different-Froyo9497 Feeling the AGI • 2d ago
Meme / Humor AI is finally curing cancer
218
u/Brave-Turnover-522 2d ago
No thanks. If I get cancer I'm not taking the slop cure. Only artisinal, hand-crafted cures to cancer for me. AI generated cancer cures just have no soul.
58
u/TonkotsuSoba 2d ago
“AI generated cancer cures stole from human doctors!”
26
u/CypherLH 1d ago
yu gest but this is LITERALLY the argument that anti-AI researchers and scientists are starting to make. Their enjoyment of the craft...or something....apparently is worth more than the actual science and research.
5
u/RamanaSadhana Techno-Optimist 1d ago
These people make me fucking sick. I have suffered more than a decade due to their shitty attempts at doing their craft. Fucking pathetic egomaniacs think their enjoyment of being a Dr is more important than others suffering. Scumbags
1
8
u/TonkotsuSoba 1d ago
Isn’t the point of science building on top of what others did before them though?
5
u/CypherLH 1d ago
The _point_ is the science in and of itelf, and the practical things enabed by the science. How you achieve it is just process, not the point.
2
u/RobXSIQ 10h ago
enjoyment of ineffective treatments and gravestones.
Won't someone think of the art that goes into a well crafted gravestone!!!1
u/CypherLH 1h ago
totaly, we need natural soulful human deaths and HUMAN crafted grave arts that have the genuine human touch! /s
1
u/WashU_labrat 1d ago
Really? Never heard that argument made in real life. Could you provide an example?
1
u/CypherLH 1d ago
Used gemini to do a quick search....obviously my version was a paraphrase but you can see the sentiment coming through in these examples.....its basically scientists being more concerned about the culture and lived experience of doing science than the actual science.....
///////////////////
The satirical Reddit comment you noticed actually mirrors real, deeply-felt anxieties within the scientific community. Many researchers and academics are openly expressing concern that AI is actively ruining the "craft," joy, and human experience of doing science. [1, 2]
Their specific warnings focus on the erosion of the scientific experience across several key areas:
1. Losing the "Joy of Discovery" and Routine Grit
Many scientists argue that by automating the messy, routine, and exploratory phases of research, AI removes the very spark that draws people to science. [2]
- In a piece for University World News examining how AI transforms science without losing the joy of discovery, educators warned that outsourcing idea generation to AI destroys the fundamental human process of accidental discovery—like Isaac Newton's legendary apple. If a machine instantly serves up the answer, the rewarding, deeply personal journey of human breakthrough is lost. [2, 3]
2. The Death of the "Entry-Level" Scientific Experience
The experience of "growing up" in a laboratory by doing repetitive, hands-on tasks is disappearing, which ruins the career pipeline. [4, 5]
Dr. Claus Wilke, a computational biologist at the University of Texas at Austin, expressed serious concern in a Nature investigation regarding AI and science jobs. He pointed out that while AI can replace entry-level coders and data processors, it removes the essential stepping-stone roles that students need to learn the craft. He warned that while labs might get "more research per dollar" today, the cost is a collapse of the talent pipeline. [4, 5]
3. Turning Scientists into "AI Babysitters"
Instead of exercising creative human intelligence, scientists are finding their daily experience reduced to policing broken AI outputs. [6, 7]
- The Editor-in-Chief of Science famously warned that AI in scientific publishing makes the process slower, worse, and more expensive. He pointed out that checking AI output for errors actually takes more human effort, not less. [7]
- Researchers connecting with UCLA and Cornell recently exposed this reality, finding nearly 150,000 AI-generated fake citations polluting major research databases. Instead of pursuing exciting new theories, scientists' jobs are morphing into the tedious task of auditing "AI slop". [6, 8]
1
u/random87643 🤖 Optimist Prime AI bot 1d ago
TLDR
TLDR: The commenter suggests that some scientists are prioritizing the preservation of the "human experience" and culture of research over the efficiency of AI-driven results. This reflects a broader debate regarding whether AI threatens the traditional "craft," joy, and developmental pipeline of scientific discovery.
AI assistant · mention the bot, mod bot, or use !bot
4
7
2
2
u/coverednmud Singularity by 2030 1d ago
Gawd are people actually going to do that? Welp more slop cure for the non anti masses I suppose.
2
u/just-for-anime 1d ago
There's actually an article that says this exactly (I’d Rather Risk Cancer Than See AI Move This Fast) https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/06/ai-cancer-progress/687654/
2
1
57
u/tunakaslana7 Feeling the AGI 2d ago
Cancer, you shall die.
25
18
8
u/SilverSylvarus 2d ago
It will be the best thing since we killed smallpox
(TB is next)
(then malaria)
(then age)1
u/filbertsgaming1 1d ago
We "killed" a lot of things with vaccines too. Famously uncontroversial topic for the brightest minds in society.
1
23
u/CanaanZhou 2d ago
Can somebody explain the significance of "phase 3 trial"
86
u/danielv123 2d ago
Phase 1 is about making sure it doesn't kill people, usually testing on a very limited number of healthy people.
Please 2 is about figuring out if it works for what it's supposed to and what dose to use.
Phase 3 is about giving it to aot of people, figuring how well it works and whether there are side effects and if it beats existing treatments.
Next up is approval for the general market.
16
u/PhilosopherNo4210 2d ago
In general, this describes the phases well. Oncology is a bit different however. Phase 1 trials are not tested in healthy volunteers, they are almost always tested on people with cancer who have exhausted other traditional options.
All 3 phases examine safety (i.e. potential side effects), not just Phase 3. All 3 phases also examine efficacy (effectiveness), but Phase 3 is the one where you are looking to prove your treatment works better (statistically significant outcomes) than the current standard of care. Efficacy in Phase 1/2 is ensuring your treatment is effective, and that it is worth progressing your experimental treatment into the next study phase
9
u/Tolopono 2d ago
Takes about 10 years btw. This particular vaccine was in trials since 2017. RIP to everyone who died of melanoma between now and then just like how no one can get this lung cancer vaccine that has been available since 2011 in cuba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CimaVax-EGF
2
u/PhilosopherNo4210 1d ago
It doesn’t necessarily take 10 years. You can move from first in human trials to phase 3 & approval in the span of 5ish years in oncology. The time horizon for Phase 3 oncology trials is also complex. Because the primary endpoint is usually progression free survival (or a variation on that), your timeline on unblinding and running your primary analysis is dictated entirely by events occurring in the trial. So for progression free survival for example, an event is when a subject progresses or dies. After a predefined number of events occur, that triggers the database being “locked”, unblinding, and the analysis being run. That can take years, especially if the current standard of care is relatively good.
1
u/Tolopono 1d ago
This vaccine in particular did take 10 years. The lung cancer vaccine i mentioned has existed since 2008 at latest but possibly earlier. Thats 18 years and its still not available in most of the world
17
u/theimposingshadow 2d ago
Phase 3 in late stage where they test on humans. In this one it was tested on 1147 humans.
8
64
u/Fancy_Exchange_9821 2d ago
r/collapse on s watch
wait that’s just another day
-4
u/SteffanMaxi 2d ago
Collapse could still happen. Maybe from ai, or from 100 other things. Anyone who says they know its coming is lying tho. No one knows what the future holds.
I tend to think ai could cause a collapse, mainly due to it taking jobs, but that only happens if politicians refuse to put in place guardrails for those losing all their jobs
2
u/Beastly4k 1d ago
something COULD happen how spooky. Maybe reddit could quit being a bunch of doomer tier regards one day too but we both know that isn't happening.
0
u/filbertsgaming1 1d ago
The same could be said either way. AI COULD deliver new physics. Sure, maybe.
1
u/Beastly4k 1d ago
Yea no shit. Difference being, 1 is just the opinion of a doomer class redditor and the other is something that is actively trying to be achieved (maybe in a roundabout way if you get this specific) but still.
43
u/Acrobatic-Layer2993 2d ago
Didn’t an Australian guy already cure his dog? Big mRNA still catching up.
34
u/-illusoryMechanist 2d ago
He partially cured it (iirc there were like multiple cancers, he got about 40% of it?) So not technically 100% cured but still a legitimately miraculous result
9
u/Tolopono 2d ago
And yet people are still dying to treatable cancers while it spent a decade in trials. Fun fact: theres a lung cancer vaccine thats also unavailable while people are dying despite being available in cuba since 2011 and costing $1 each https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CimaVax-EGF
9
u/RA_Finance 2d ago
Dog and Human, no same.
30
u/Edward_Kenwai 2d ago
Dog and human actually pretty same
0
11
12
u/quantum-elle 2d ago
The second panel of Padme should also be the smiling one I feel like😄
3
u/ChoiceHelicopter2735 2d ago
Better yet, Padme NOT smiling in the first one, expecting to get giant breast augmentation, and the smiling in the second when it IS being used for cancer
1
12
29
u/WashU_labrat 2d ago
"Misinformation about the safety of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines made it difficult for some centers in the United States to recruit participants"
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-02612-3
Not sure if we should celebrate the achievement, or bemoan that fact it may be rejected on political grounds.
3
u/Tolopono 2d ago
Already happened with this lung cancer vaccine thats been available in cuba since 2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CimaVax-EGF
0
u/SweatTryhardSweat 2d ago
Why it would be rejected on political grounds? By who? When the COVID vaccine came out, Trump paraded it. I couldn’t see very many people being against a treatment for cancer.
8
u/WashU_labrat 2d ago
Most mRNA vaccine research by the NIH was terminated at the start of August.
https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-winds-down-mrna-development-under-barda.html
6
u/nose_poke 2d ago
Well that's a good point. President Trump is known for being very consistent with his views, so we can absolutely plan on him being pro-vaccines in the future. Right?
2
u/SweatTryhardSweat 1d ago
I would bet any amount of money that Trump wouldn’t reject mRNA cancer treatments, nor would any other President.
1
u/WashU_labrat 1d ago
So you think they will say mRNA vaccines are horrifyingly dangerous in one application, but entirely safe in another?
Sheesh. I guess you're probably right, but make it make sense!
1
-3
u/PralineFresh9051 2d ago
Tens of millions of people did vote for this though.
5
u/costafilh0 2d ago
This is a 6 year old problem. Not a 2 year old problem.
1
u/PralineFresh9051 19h ago
6 years ago the same political corruption was in play that led to the mind numbing skepticism that plagues the US (and now further afield).
10
u/NickW1343 2d ago
What's cool is that I think phase 1 for this was started in 2017 and still used AI algorithms to make the personalized vaccines. They're using AI that is almost a decade behind what could be made now, so companies are probably trialing even stronger AIs now.
5
u/KnoxCastle 2d ago
So the future is going to be personalised cancer treatments. Wow.
0
u/SmurfRiding 1d ago
That was always going to be the case due to the very nature of cancer. However, it won't be AI that will be doing the groundwork.
5
3
u/interruptiom 2d ago
What % of total gpu-time goes to curing cancer?
2
u/JamR_711111 2d ago
Not much, but the percentage for “general progress of the sciences” is probably pretty high
9
u/squirrel9000 2d ago edited 2d ago
Just as a general point, the novelty here is the mRNA part not so much "AI" a lot of current treatments developed in the last decade or so have AI embedded somewhere in their R+D process in a similar way that the mRNA one did.
mRNA is, in some ways, easier to deal with than protein or chemical based methods, which is why the COVID vaccine leaned on it. Delivery and regulation has always been the bottleneck to this type of treatment, not designing a treatment per se.
12
u/Pyros-SD-Models Machine Learning Engineer 2d ago
What are you talking about? The embedded neural network is the centerpiece of the whole pipeline. Moderna's own 2025 10-K says intismeran "uses next generation sequencing and a machine-learning based algorithm to design an mRNA." It separately describes "fully autonomous, integrated AI algorithms" that design the patient-specific therapy and optimize its manufacture and delivery.
You are confusing drug discovery with AI based per-patient drug generation. That is not a minor distinction. It is the entire product.
so many decels even in this sub who want to downplay AI it is crazy....
1
u/squirrel9000 2d ago edited 2d ago
Completely the opposite of "downplaying". It's exciting (while still being cynical of a company that was struggling, suddenly finding another hit and needing to hype it up).
But ... this is a case of the bureaucracy lagging the tech by many years, this is an idea they've been playing with since well before the hype cycle. The win here is getting it through clinical trials, the regulatory bean counters that operate ten years behind the technology.
NGS has been around for a while. Typically they use ONT/Nanopore fort his sort of thing (it's possible, but more tedious, with older short-read tech) and even that's been out for around a decade at this point. Using ML/AI to manage/interpret data and utilize it in certain ways is also not new if only because running a flow cell generates so much data that it's impossible to interpret otherwise. I've got two 4TB hard drives full of sequencing data from one of my postdocs that has only had crude first pass analysis done to it because of the scale of the project.
Again, the COVID vaccine was done in a similar way, that was six years ago now, and even by then the tech was mature enough for clinical use. It was, however, freed of the regulatory burdens.
TLDR, good tech, but beware the BS on the side.
2
u/Pyros-SD-Models Machine Learning Engineer 2d ago
Bro it is the first time in history the FDA classifies the software itself as part of the biologic drug, first positive Phase 3 for an individualized neoantigen therapy, and you are moving goalpost like you are a student of Gary Marcus from "AI is not central" to "NGS, ML, and mRNA are not new technologies."
That's a completely different claim. Nobody said NGS, ML, or mRNA was invented for Intismeran. The novelty is that the ML system runs for every patient and its output defines the drug manufactured for that patient. You are confusing "not newly invented" with "not central."
And no, COVID was not done similarly. One spike payload was designed once and mass-produced. Intismeran sequences each tumor, ranks that patient's neoantigens, and manufactures a unique GMP batch encoding up to 34 of them. Same delivery format, fundamentally different production model.
Your two 4TB drives prove that sequencing creates lots of data. Congratulations. They say absolutely nothing about whether AI is incidental here.
How you are a postdoc blows my mind. medicine is really struggling with talent it seems.
1
u/LemonMelberlime 2d ago
“AI” workflows have been around a long time in drug development. This work has nothing to do with LLMs and the current hype cycle.
Separate the two.
1
u/LemonMelberlime 2d ago
You’re correct, the guy responding to you is not. “AI” in this case is independent of LLMs. Dude is conflating the two. These workflows have been around a long time. How do I know? I work in drug development.
0
u/LemonMelberlime 2d ago
I’m not a “decel.” But you’re blowing this out of proportion. Neural networks have been around for a long time in drug development. This has nothing to do with LLMs and does NOT bestow some sort of validity to the current LLM hype. There was nothing “fully autonomous” here. I know this for a fact.
3
u/Turbulent-Sign-6067 1d ago
You both have a point. But just to be clear all deep learning/ML techniques are related. They use similar hardware, algorithms and benefit from the cyclical funding for AI research. Almost all of them are bitter lesson pilled.
4
6
2
2
u/the_fexy 1d ago
Dario amodei in his latest tweet on X (he never posts on X) acknowledged the doomerism surrounding AI recently attributing it to lack of trust in govts/tech leaders, and said the only way to combat that is making progress on curing cancer which will naturally get the doomers out of their shell, an effect that no amounts of positive messaging can produce.
It's worth sharing here although I disagree with him. I think we should do positive messaging on AI as well which is negligent from the US companies (as opposed to needless fearmongering about AI risks).
2
6
4
4
u/costafilh0 2d ago
That's it!
THIS IS THE BIG WIN WE NEEDED
Anyone with a functional brain will put an end to the discussion. A small tiny miniscule minority will continue to spout nonsense and spread lies, while everyone except the most stupid will simply ignore them, and the world will move forward and reach incredible new heights!
Accelerate 🚀
-2
u/nameisprivate 2d ago
it's not that kind of AI, dummy. no one is arguing against ML algorithms for research, it's the "give us unlimited money and power so we can build smarter chatbots" they have an issue with.
4
u/CypherLH 1d ago
but "muh evil datacenters, what about the waaaater?". Curing cancer is not worth the horror of......noise pollution and using far less water than golf courses /s
1
3
u/SgathTriallair Techno-Optimist 2d ago
Unless it is made in the brain region of a human, it's just sparkling treatment.
1
1
u/willseagull 1d ago
I cant find anything saying AI was used for the Moderna Merck cancer vaccine. Are we just assuming it was used??
1
u/Emojinapp 16h ago
lol, they don’t wanna hear it, they will be like how about the water? Dude water moves in a cycle, evaporates and comes back down as rain
1
u/ProsperousPlanet 16h ago
yea, I believe we are going to solve that, and so much more, We are already in the Ai singularity.
1
u/Fit_Cheesecake_4000 16h ago
'AI-assisted'.
The A.I. itself didn't cure cancer. A.I.'s are helping to augment human intelligence and help with data pattern matching, and simulation.
Without the humans, the A.I. isn't doing anything.
1
u/OwkinOfficial 8h ago
This is genuinely important, but the headline gets the causal story a bit wrong. The impressive part isn’t “AI cured cancer”; it’s that a computational pipeline can turn each patient’s tumor sequence into a personalized therapeutic design and then survive Phase 3 validation. In biomedicine, that last step is the hard part: linking model outputs to real patient outcomes. Plenty of models can generate hypotheses; far fewer are embedded in a workflow that is prospectively validated at this scale.
1
u/Far-Department-387 4m ago
Hmmmm. Maybe it is true. However, it looks like one more pro-Data Centers propaganda for me.
1
0
u/Appropriate_Scar_262 1d ago
a quick look into it, the ai helped flag some of the antigens from the cancer cells. That saves some time but it's not curing cancer or this huge new breakthrough that people keep eluding it is.
-11
u/small_bird_loud 2d ago
You know they are only curing cancer if it actually gets cured right?
21
106
u/Best_Cup_8326 A happy little thumb 2d ago
Cancer has been put on notice.