Text to avoid paywall

The Food and Drug Administration is planning to use artificial intelligence to “radically increase efficiency” in deciding whether to approve new drugs and devices, one of several top priorities laid out in an article published Tuesday in JAMA.

Another initiative involves a review of chemicals and other “concerning ingredients” that appear in U.S. food but not in the food of other developed nations. And officials want to speed up the final stages of making a drug or medical device approval decision to mere weeks, citing the success of Operation Warp Speed during the Covid pandemic when workers raced to curb a spiraling death count.

“The F.D.A. will be focused on delivering faster cures and meaningful treatments for patients, especially those with neglected and rare diseases, healthier food for children and common-sense approaches to rebuild the public trust,” Dr. Marty Makary, the agency commissioner, and Dr. Vinay Prasad, who leads the division that oversees vaccines and gene therapy, wrote in the JAMA article.

The agency plays a central role in pursuing the agenda of the U.S. health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and it has already begun to press food makers to eliminate artificial food dyes. The new road map also underscores the Trump administration’s efforts to smooth the way for major industries with an array of efforts aimed at getting products to pharmacies and store shelves quickly.

Some aspects of the proposals outlined in JAMA were met with skepticism, particularly the idea that artificial intelligence is up to the task of shearing months or years from the painstaking work of examining applications that companies submit when seeking approval for a drug or high-risk medical device.

“I don’t want to be dismissive of speeding reviews at the F.D.A.,” said Stephen Holland, a lawyer who formerly advised the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on health care. “I think that there is great potential here, but I’m not seeing the beef yet.”

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 天前

      Yeah I’m going to make sure I don’t take any new drugs for a few years. As it is I’m probably going to have to forgo vaccinations for a while because dipshit Kennedy has fucked with the vaccination board.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      2 天前

      I’ll try arguing in the opposite direction for the sake of it:

      An “AI”, if not specifically tweaked, is just a bullshit machine approximating reality same way human-produced bullshit does.

      A human is a bullshit machine with an agenda.

      Depending on the cost of decisions made, an “AI”, if it’s trained on properly vetted data and not tweaked for an agenda, may be better than a human.

      If that cost is high enough, and so is the conflict of interest, a dice set might be better than a human.

      There are positions where any decision except a few is acceptable, yet malicious humans regularly pick one of those few.

      • Eximius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 天前

        Your argument becomes idiotic once you understand the actual technology. The AI bullshit machine’s agenda is “give nice answer” (“factual” is not an idea that has neural center in the AI brain), and “make reader happy”. The human “bullshit” machine, has many agendas, but it would have not got so far if it was spouting just happy bullshit (but I guess America is a becoming a very special case).

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 天前

          It doesn’t. I understand the actual technology. There are applications of human decision making where it’s possibly better.

          • Eximius@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            2 天前

            LLM does no decision making. At all. It spouts (as you say) bullshit. If there is enough training data for “Trump is divine”, the LLM will predict that Trump is divine, with no second thought (no first thought either). And it’s not even great to use as a language-based database.

            Please don’t even consider LLMs as “AI”.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              2 天前

              Even an RNG does decision-making.

              I know what LLMs are, thank you very much!

              If you wanted to even understand my initial point, you already would have.

              Things have become really grim if people who can’t read a small message are trying to teach me on fundamentals of LLMs.

              • Eximius@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                2 天前

                I wouldn’t define flipping coins as decision making. Especially when it comes to blanket governmental policy that has the potential to kill (or severely disable) millions of people.

                You seem to not want any people to teach you anything. And are somehow completely dejected at such perceived actions.

                • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 天前

                  You seem to not want any people to teach you anything.

                  No, I don’t seem that. I don’t like being ascribed opinions I haven’t expressed.

                  I wouldn’t define flipping coins as decision making. Especially when it comes to blanket governmental policy that has the potential to kill (or severely disable) millions of people.

                  When your goal is to avoid a certain most harmful subset of such decisions, and living humans always being pressured by power and corrupt profit to pick that subset, flipping coins is preferable, if that’s the two variants between which we are choosing.