I was implying that you still need a human to make the final decision. AI can be a valuable aid in both fields. Doctors can't just let the AI do all the work in the same way synthetic chemists can't blindly trust the AI to spit out correct and feasible results. Research time is expensive and thus the effort needs to be evaluated, and usually the intuition of said chemists trump that of the AI.
True. But perhaps you can eliminate 9 out of 10 chemists, and replace them by an AI that generates ideas. Then use the 1 chemist to validate those ideas.
Not to generate ideas, there's always more ideas than resources in chemistry.
Mainly to do more automated routines than ever.
9 out of 10 chemists aren't that great at the bench anyway.
Everyone would probably benefit from getting them in front of a computer full-time to leverage their training in a way, and freeing up the bench space to those who can really make the most of it.
