How Hallucinatory A.I. Helps Science Dream Up Big Breakthroughs

Artificial intelligence often gets criticized because it makes up information that appears to be factual, known as hallucinations. The plausible fakes have roiled not only chatbot sessions but lawsuits and medical records. For a time last year, a patently false claim from a new Google chatbot helped drive down the company’s market value by an estimated $100 billion.In the universe of science, however, innovators are finding that A.I. hallucinations can be remarkably useful. The smart machines, it turns out, are dreaming up riots of unrealities that help scientists track cancer, design drugs, invent medical devices, uncover weather phenomena and even win the Nobel Prize.“The public thinks it’s all bad,” said Amy McGovern, a computer scientist who directs a federal A.I. institute. “But it’s actually giving scientists new ideas. It’s giving them the chance to explore ideas they might not have thought about otherwise.”The public image of science is coolly analytic. Less visibly, the early stages of discovery can teem with hunches and wild guesswork. “Anything goes” is how Paul Feyerabend, a philosopher of science, once characterized the free-for-all.Now, A.I. hallucinations are reinvigorating the creative side of science. They speed the process by which scientists and inventors dream up new ideas and test them to see if reality concurs. It’s the scientific method — only supercharged. What once took years can now be done in days, hours and minutes. In some cases, the accelerated cycles of inquiry help scientists open new frontiers.“We’re exploring,” said James J. Collins, an M.I.T. professor who recently praised hallucinations for speeding his research into novel antibiotics. “We’re asking the models to come up with completely new molecules.”

figcaption.css-ktho12 {
margin-left: auto !important;
text-align: center;
width: calc(100% – 50px);
margin-right: auto;
position: relative;
margin-top: -20px;
z-index: 1;
}

.css-yi0xdk.e89cr9k0 {
display: none;
}

.css-16nbvf {
margin-top: 50px
}

.css-mtrzde {
margin-top: 5px
}

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Read more →

Mpox Is Spreading in Congo’s Capital, Threatening Global Efforts to Contain the Virus

Mireille Efonge got sick a few months ago, with a fever and painful blisters on her groin. She became too weak to move, so neighbors carried her to a health center with walls of plastic sheeting in Pakadjuma, a crowded, poor community in Kinshasa, the capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo.There, a nurse called an ambulance to take her to a hospital. Soon lesions broke out on her head and the rest of her body, each one a hard nub of throbbing pain.Finally she was given a diagnosis: mpox. “I’d never heard of it,” Ms. Efonge said.This was back in August, when the mpox virus — closely related to smallpox — was still almost unknown in Kinshasa, a city of 17 million people.Some researchers now recall that time almost wistfully, because it might still have been possible back then to fence in the mpox virus, to fend off disaster.That window has probably closed, they say.The detection of a new, fast-spreading strain of the virus in a remote mining town in eastern Congo led the World Health Organization to declare mpox a global public health emergency in August. Since then, its spread has only accelerated.The virus is taking hold in crowded camps home to millions of displaced Congolese, who live crammed into rough shelters with limited access to water. And it has reached Congo’s cities, including its enormous, congested capital.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Read more →

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Wants to Ban Drug Ads on TV. It Wouldn’t Be Easy.

Attempts to restrict pharmaceutical advertisements have failed many times over the years, often on First Amendment grounds.Since the late 1990s, drug companies have spent tens of billions of dollars on television ads, drumming up demand for their products with cheerful jingles and scenes of dancing patients.Now, some people up for top jobs in the incoming Trump administration are attacking such ads, setting up a clash with a powerful industry that has long had the courts on its side.Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President-elect Donald J. Trump’s choice for health secretary, is a longtime critic of pharmaceutical advertising on TV, arguing that it leads broadcasters to more favorable coverage of the industry and does not improve Americans’ health. He has repeatedly and enthusiastically called for a ban on such ads.Elon Musk, who is spearheading a government cost-cutting effort, last month wrote on X, his social-media site, “No advertising for pharma.”And Brendan Carr, Mr. Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Communications Commission, said that his agency could enforce any ban that is enacted. “I think we’re way, way too overmedicated as a country,” he said.The push against TV drug ads threatens to dent the revenues of pharmaceutical companies, which can make back in sales five times as much as they spend on commercials, according to some analysts. It could also create uncertainty for major television networks, which bring in substantial revenue from pharmaceutical advertisers trying to reach older viewers, who tend to take more medications.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Read more →

As Drugstores Close, Older People Are Left in ‘Pharmacy Deserts’

Shuttered drugstores pose a particular threat to older adults, who take more medications than younger people and often rely on pharmacies for advice.In July, a notice appeared on the front door of The Drug Store, the only pharmacy in rural Kernville, Calif. After 45 years, the proprietor wrote regretfully, it would be closing in four days and transferring customers’ prescriptions to a Rite Aid about 12 miles away.As the news spread, “there was a real sense of loss, a sense of mourning,” said Roberta Piazza Gordon, who owns Piazza’s Pine Cone Inn in Kernville. The pharmacy had served as a community crossroads where people chatted with neighbors and with the friendly staff.Its closing also created practical concerns. “We are an aging population,” Ms. Gordon, 69, said of the townspeople.She relied on The Drug Store for her blood pressure and cholesterol medications and for anti-inflammatories after injuring her shoulder. Her husband, who is 70, also regularly filled prescriptions there.At The Drug Store, “you got your flu shot, your Covid shot, your pneumonia shot,” she said.Now those services require a 20- to 30-minute drive to the Rite Aid, which is in Lake Isabella and which Ms. Gordon described as understaffed for its growing number of customers.“On any given day, there’s a line of 10 to 15 people waiting at the pickup window,” she said. Unlike The Drug Store, the Rite Aid doesn’t deliver.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Read more →

Democrats highlight a casualty of the spending fight: funding to combat pediatric cancer.

A federal government shutdown probably wouldn’t be enough to derail the solid U.S. economy. But it could inject more uncertainty into an already murky economic outlook.Funding for the federal government will lapse at the end of Friday if Congress doesn’t reach a deal to extend it. It is still possible that legislators will act in time to prevent a shutdown, or will restore funding quickly enough to avoid significant disruptions and minimize any economic impact.But if the standoff lasts beyond the weekend, most federal offices will not open Monday, and hundreds of thousands of government employees will be told not to work. Others will be required to work without pay until the government reopens.For those workers and their families, the consequences could be serious, especially if the impasse drags on. Federal law guarantees that government workers will eventually receive back pay, but that may not come in time for those living paycheck to paycheck. And the back-pay provisions don’t apply to consultants or contractors. During the last government shutdown — a partial lapse in funding in late 2018 and early 2019 — federal workers lined up at food pantries after going weeks without pay.For the economy as a whole, the effects of a shutdown are likely to be more modest. Many of the most important government programs, like Social Security and Medicare, would not be affected, and government services that are deemed “essential,” such as air traffic control and aviation security, can continue at least temporarily. Federal workers who put off purchases are likely to make them once their paychecks restart.Forecasters at Goldman Sachs estimate that a shutdown would exert a small but measurable drag on the economy, reducing quarterly economic growth by about 0.15 percentage points for every week the lapse in funding continues. Most of that toll, though not all, would reverse in the next quarter. Other forecasters have released similar estimates.The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2019 that the last shutdown, which ended after 35 days, had only a modest and short-lived impact on economic output. That was only a partial shutdown, however — large parts of the government, including the Departments of Defense, Labor, and Health and Human Services, remained open.A funding lapse now would affect a much larger part of the government, and therefore could cause more severe damage if it lasted a while. But that makes a long shutdown less likely, said Bobby Kogan, a former budget official in the Biden administration who now works at the Center for American Progress. He noted that the last shutdown had ended when it appeared that Transportation Security Administration screeners were about to stop showing up for work.“Part of the reason these things don’t end up being catastrophic is because we stop it before it gets catastrophic,” Mr. Kogan said.But economists warn that even if the direct effects of a shutdown are limited, the dysfunction it represents could have consequences in the long run. Government contractors may be more reluctant to hire workers and make investments if they think they can’t count on the federal government to be a reliable customer. Bond investors may demand a higher return to buy Treasury securities, in the form of higher interest rates, if they worry that political turmoil has made the U.S. government more of a credit risk.“The natural concern is that this is just a prelude of what we’re going to get over the next four years,” said Kathy Bostjancic, chief economist for Nationwide, the insurance company. “It’s just another layer of uncertainty and maybe caution that can work against the economy.”The economy is relatively healthy by most measures, with unemployment low, consumer spending strong and inflation much cooler than it was two years ago. That momentum means the economy can probably withstand the modest drag of a shutdown without running much risk of a recession.But recent economic data have sent conflicting signals, with some measures suggesting that inflation could be picking back up and others that the labor market could be starting to crack.Uncertainty about what policies the incoming administration will pursue has further clouded the economic outlook. On Wednesday, policymakers at the Federal Reserve cut interest rates by a quarter percentage point, but signaled that cuts next year were likely to be fewer and were not guaranteed.A government shutdown would complicate the picture for the Fed, and not only by adding more uncertainty to the economic outlook. It could also imperil the data that policymakers rely on to make their decisions. Past shutdowns forced the government to delay or even cancel reports on jobs, inflation and other measures.“If we do have a big delay in the economic data, I think it’s going to be really hard for the Fed to provide a whole lot of guidance,” said Michael Pugliese, senior economist at Wells Fargo.The impact of such uncertainty is hard to measure, Mr. Pugliese said, but it is real.“I don’t think that’s completely costless even if you don’t see it in the next G.D.P. report,” he said.

Read more →