Do you know what the volumetric consumption rate is (i.e. CO2/Liter of culture/h)? That is really the decissive factor in such endeavours. If I remember correctly, past studies haven't been able to surpass the capture rate of a regular tree. That is still worth investigating because you can get better end products from the capture but you basically compete against planting trees and turning them into something else through sugar fermentation.

Yeah but what I'm saying is that we won't get it

Mate, AI will not solve all problems. You can expect it to take years until there is an AI capable of working on these problems. Biology/Medicine is a very AI unfriendly field because it is very expensive and time consuming to generate test data thus it is very difficult to train AI models.

Think about the GPT models, they have millions if not billions of examples. On the other hand, a simple cell line takes 6 weeks to grow, then sone time to perform experiments, then some for data analysis.

Even if there were 100k people (which is a generous estimate) working on this problem and we assume a generous 10 weeks per experiment and that all experiments are successfull there will be 520k experiments a year. That is such a massive overestimate and still not enough for a really powerful AI tool.

Yes that is true. However, that is not the only reason cells die after a certain amount of time. If you want more information about that you can look up Hayflick limit (wiki article)

I'm not sure if I missed something but in my lecture on tissue engineering it sounded like printed organs are something like 20-30+ years away. There are problems with the cell density, the cell type diversity and the vascularization. We don't even have proper organ models for medical testing yet. And then you will have to go through all the clinical testing and legal processes. Don't mean to be a downer but I thing that is quite some time away, at least from what I've heard.

Also, I wouldn't expect them to surpass the real thing for quite some time after the introduction. They may be better than a failing organ but it is quite safe to assume that our organs are already performing at a very high efficiency rate given the biological compoments.

Bro has discovered biotechnology. I think this idea will die because people won't adopt it. If people knew how most drugs were produced there would probably be a bunch of people that didn't want them anymore. You can already see this in small things like microbial rennet that is equal to animal rennet in all relevant properties and yet (at least in Europe) you still see a lot of animal rennet and at least from my observation the percentage of animal rennet in higher quality cheese (the ones that aren't pre packaged but still available in supermarkets) has risen in the past years

Yes and no. The real problem here is already in the way that you perceive their marketing material because the I7 hasn't been Intels top chip in each generation for quite some time. Then you have to consider the different wattages of the laptops conpared (especially if you compare a MacBook Air which is more focused on efficiency) because the "regular" chips vary vastly in power target and thus performance. And then there are the desktop chips, which are a whole different story to begin with. And on top of all that come the asynchronous release cycles so when Apple releases somethin in June but this years competition's products haven't released yet, they are esentially comparing them to a year old technology.

Then there is the whole issue of selecting the software for the benchmarks. Not just the OS makes a difference but also the individual programs yoh select.

Don't get me wrong, I like the chips and I wish that more companies focus on more efficiency like apple did with the M1 chips (although I heard that it is a different story with the M2 chips now). But every company will select the test suites to be as much in their favour as possible and when you comoare the Mac Platform to Windows there is always that inherrent difference that programs are just not the same between the two.