Reality has a surprising amount of detail

If actual experiments differ from theory, that just means the theory needs to be updated.

Some stuff in physics matches REALLY well, particularly quantum physics. Like Feynman would always brag that for a few key quantities, the theoretical value and experimental values only differed by like 0.0000000000001%.

Literally uncritically regurgitated dogma lol worse than religioncels

The only phil of science this STEMcel knows is Popper and Kuhn, what a classic 😂😂😂 FYI both are completely irrelevant for contemporary phil of science and questions about the epistemic status of non-physical experiments. It's completely uncontroversial (in phil of science departments (aka smarter ppl than STEMcels)) that computer simulations create the same kind of evidence that """actual experiments""" do

Round up more hobos, dummy.

High throughput can scan thousands of compounds. Typically you would run compounds you already know work, some that have similar characteristics, some that have very different characteristics, and some that work for other purposes. They are typically extremely small amounts of natural products for each sample so pretty cheap and fast.

There are giant libraries of "drug-like" molecules that you use. They tend to be biased towards molecules that are easy to make by chemical manufacturers, which yes, is a problem. When a new good reaction comes along you'll often get new classes of compounds out of that. Depending on your target, you know what's had some interaction in the past, so you start with stuff that looks like that.

Once you get a hit or several, the compound isn't good enough as-is, so you start modifying it. In theory, computations could help you here as well, and maybe it's starting to, I don't know. Start making chemical modifications, see what helps it hit the target better. Of course, it has to do other stuff too: get into the target organs, not degrade too quickly, not be too toxic. There's various things you can try to make each of those better, but it's still largely guess-and-check. And usually it doesn't work. There's a reason that new medicine is expensive: it needs to not only pay for its own R&D, but also the R&D of everything that hasn't panned out.

Wow, I must make counter arguments to this that are totally mine and mine alone.

1. Enhanced Interaction and Engagement:

While ChatGPT aims to enable seamless communication between users and AI systems by simulating emotional responses and providing a more humanized experience, this can lead to a superficial understanding of human emotions and interactions. The AI does not possess consciousness or genuine feelings, so any emotional responses are generated based on patterns in data rather than real empathy or understanding. This simulation might mislead users into believing they are engaging in meaningful interactions, potentially diminishing the value they place on genuine human connections. Moreover, reliance on AI for interaction could reduce opportunities for individuals to develop and refine their interpersonal skills with real people.

2. Improved Communication Skills:

Counter-Argument:

Although ChatGPT can provide users with scenarios to practice communication, it cannot fully replicate the complexity and unpredictability of human interactions. Real-life conversations involve nuanced emotions, body language, and spontaneous reactions that an AI cannot authentically reproduce. Practicing with an AI might give users a false sense of confidence in their communication abilities without adequately preparing them for the challenges of engaging with real individuals who may not respond in predictable or programmable ways. This could ultimately hinder personal growth in communication skills rather than enhance it.

3. Personalization and Efficiency:

While personalization can make interactions with ChatGPT more efficient, it may also lead to a narrowing of perspectives. By tailoring responses to individual preferences, the AI might inadvertently reinforce existing biases and limit exposure to diverse viewpoints. This echo chamber effect can hinder critical thinking and reduce opportunities for users to challenge their own assumptions. Additionally, over-reliance on AI for efficient communication might diminish patience and tolerance for the natural pace and complexity of human conversations, potentially leading to frustration or disengagement in social settings that do not offer the same level of tailored responsiveness.

4. Clarity and Plain Language:

Although simplifying complex information is valuable, ChatGPT's interpretations may sometimes oversimplify or misrepresent critical details, especially in specialized fields like healthcare. Nuances and subtleties that are essential for accurate understanding might be lost, leading to misunderstandings or misinformed decisions. Relying on AI to convey important information could also discourage individuals from developing the necessary skills to comprehend and communicate complex concepts themselves, potentially leading to a general decline in subject matter expertise and critical literacy skills over time.

SHOW MORE

Sorry ma'am, looks like his delusions have gotten worse. We'll have to admit him.