Rune Busk Damgaard

So Belgium beat the US at a kids game. Do you have one of these? Of course you don’t .

With all due respect, I'd like to offer a few points of clarification. First, I have no issue with "shortcut models." In fact, many of my own papers use relatively simple models to solve important real-world problems. If a simpler model ultimately proves capable of capturing complex cellular biology and helping cure disease, I'd be delighted. Science should reward what works, not what is most sophisticated. Second, terms like virtual cells, foundation models, and world models are high-level concepts that describe a class of models rather than a specific algorithm. Similar terminology has emerged naturally in computer vision and NLP as the field evolved. I think it's reasonable to adopt analogous concepts in biology as we explore whether they can unlock similar advances. Whether these ideas ultimately live up to their promise is, of course, an empirical question. Rigorous validation will decide. This is exactly what my original post is about. Healthy skepticism is essential, but so is giving ambitious new directions the opportunity to prove (or disprove) themselves. I don't think we should dismiss a promising research direction simply because the terminology sounds aspirational 🙏🙏

20 días para organizar consorcios complicados. ¡Gracias! 🤨

You know what other tools know better than most instructors? Coursera and YouTube courses from top faculty, *the internet*, books from the library. How many students used those tools instead of formal ed? Very very few. How many will use Claude independently to learn the material? Probably the same amount. I know it doesn’t sound glamorous, but the primary role of faculty is to get students in the seats and create incentives to actually absorb the information. This is your job. AI can help as a tool, I’ve seen some great harnesses of AI for education, but it will not do this.