Ohm, of course I can tell the difference between r

Ohm, of course I can tell the difference between reality and a fictional movie. My point was to show the value of simulation for gaining real wisdom about an unknown situation.

Every satellite, probe or lander sent into space from Earth that is successful demonstrates the "wisdom" that can be gained through simulation. Every failure also gives you wisdom about what not to do next time and that you simulations need to be tuned up.

This AI discussion is about evaluating how Leronlimab might work against various diseases, say, on your list. An AI could be used to aggregate all the relevant knowledge we have from research already done. Then it can suggest diseases to target for further investigation owing to the constellation of cells and cytokines and receptors involved.

That, of course, would be just the beginning which would lead to simulations of using the drugs in a bodily, cellular, chemical environment.

And that is exactly what is done in experiments in petri dishes - simulations of what might happen in a mouse or a monkey or a human being. You don't think a simulation at that level can be done by an AI?

Absci certainly does. And they have Microsoft, the Gates Foundation and Nvidia behind their efforts.

They think they can simulate a disease situation in cells so well that they can synthesis an antibody - from scratch - to resolve the disease situation through a sort of reverse engineering. They aren't so bold as to say they can do be successful only through AI simulation. That's why they have a state-of-the-art wet lab in New York to test what the AI comes up with. Then, depending on wet lab result, they will do an iterative simulation again until they get it right.

That's what they're doing and I wish them luck. They are,evidently, not pursuing an immumo-therapy strategy, which is a mistake in my book, and is convincing me that they are probably not a candidate for collaboration with Cytodyn.

But you, Ohm, seem to think that an AI drug trial through simulation would not go through a series of step, going from the most simple to the most complex, but would go from simulation to market. That would indeed be a disaster. No one is suggesting that. That is fiction.

You say ChatGPT inquiry yields garbage. But ChatGPT 3.0 or 3.5 is an infant language AI. It doesn't know chemistry to any advanced degree. It is a toddler compared to the AIs that are as yet inaccessible to the public. AI 4.0 has been trained on 5000 times more data and has not been limited only to information known before 2019. And it is not a specialized medical AI.

My claim to the benefit of Cytodyn using AI is to advancing Dr. Sasha's work if applicable, validating the possible use of Leronlimab against the diseases in your list which, to my knowledge Cytodyn has not done yet and shouldn't until they get some other matters taken care of, and eventually trialing Leronlimab for all those diseases while cutting costs and saving time. Those are the promised benefits of AI.

Patterson has already used AI to find the cytokine patterns associated with Long Haulers and CCR5 blockade. That was a great thing. I benefited from that personally.

Drug trials these days are said to cost 1.2 to 2.5 billion dollars. We can't afford that. Therefore, I hope we get some help from AI.