this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2026
69 points (91.6% liked)

Futurology

4298 readers
8 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 41 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Universal coronavirus vaccine, a vaccine against everything would induce all sorts of autoimmune disorders.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 month ago

There's another universal kind-of-vaccine in development, which doesn't tell your body what to recognize but instead tells your body how to react (primes the immune system to respond faster to respiratory infections with localized antibodies, etc)

[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh, right. The vaccine. The vaccine for COVID. The vaccine chosen specifically to kill COVID. COVID’s vaccine. That vaccine?

[–] WolvenSpectre@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, because Vaccines don't kill Covid. Vaccines teach your immune system to respond better and on the whole have better outcomes. If vaccines killed Covid, then they would give a shot to everyone with Long Covid and cure them.

[–] passenger@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Afaik long covid is caused not by covid being still in the person but rather brain / lung / etc. damage it has done.

Anyways vaccines don't kill the virus so you are right.

Viruses aren't alive anyways...

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 17 points 1 month ago

Note that AI has been a cornerstone in high dimensional optimization for a while.

[–] bl4ckp1xx13@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 month ago (3 children)
[–] whats_a_lemmy@midwest.social 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The original press release stated this was done using machine learning, which has been a mainstay in biomedical science for a while. It's what "AI" used to refer to before the current generation of bullshit generators.

[–] bl4ckp1xx13@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, but from what I understand traditional machine learning is more about introspective pattern recognition and not necessarily inference-based synthesis?

Those are certainly word.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

it’s the stringent verification of results that makes it useful

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 5 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

That's true for all research in medicine. The suggestion to not check for errors is mental and would only be suggested by non technical people.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

unfortunately, this how most companies are run

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I am sorry, but did you read that I was talking about medicine first and foremost?

Also using evidence based approaches can be beneficial for longevity of any company and if you truly believe otherwise, then that's your perogative.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

That's true for all research in medicine.

Yes, that’s why I pointed out why it works in this field.

The suggestion to not check for errors is mental and would only be suggested by non technical people.

The way people run companies in others fields is mental, and they want to use AI without verification. They shouldn’t, but they do (hence the “unfortunately”). And even when they say they’re evidence based, it’s usually cherry picked to justify what they were going to do anyway.

[–] Despair@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

It's a jet injector.

Numerous studies have found cross-infection of diseases from jet injections. An experiment using mice, published in 1985, showed that jet injectors would frequently transmit the viral infection lactate dehydrogenase elevating virus (LDV) from one mouse to another.[16] Another study used the device on a calf, then tested the fluid remaining in the injector for blood. Every injector they tested had detectable blood in a quantity sufficient to pass on a virus such as hepatitis B.[15]

[–] noxypaws@pawb.social 1 points 4 weeks ago

I'm curious about this too. Surely they're using some modern advancements in the tech that have addressed that issue, SURELY.

[–] evenglow@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

"We've converted vaccine development from being reactive to being future proof. Our vaccines will continue to provide protection against viruses even as they mutate into new strains," said Professor Jonathan Heeney from the Lab of Viral Zoonotics, University of Cambridge's Department of Veterinary Medicine, the scientific lead of the research.

"We've overcome the problem of traditional vaccines, which have limited protection. It means we can escape the constant cycle of chasing the virus variants circulating in humans and updating the vaccines to try to catch up, like a dog chasing its tail."

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Safe with no side effects does not mean that it works. A glass of water is safe with no side effects.

[–] Omgpwnies@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

A glass of water is safe with no side effects.

A glass of water can kill you if ingested wrong, say no to DHMO!

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

I'm all for machine learning used this way. As long as the trials are as stringent as with any other method.

[–] CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Will anti vaxxers find AI formulated vaccines more or less abhorrent?

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 4 points 4 weeks ago

They don't know yet, they haven't been told what to feel.

[–] Bristlecone@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

Great question. Most of them probably more so I'd imagine still

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

Imagine making that avd getting reduced to "ai designed" lol