The lengthy timelines of drug development create a significant perception lag for AI's impact. Molly Gibson clarifies that molecules currently in clinical trials were designed years ago using nascent AI models. The true capabilities of today's more advanced AI platforms won't be evident in approved drugs for several more years.

While AI promises to design therapeutics computationally, it doesn't eliminate the need for physical lab work. Even if future models require no training data, their predicted outputs must be experimentally validated. This ensures a continuous, inescapable cycle where high-throughput data generation remains critical for progress.

AI models trained on descriptive data (e.g., RNA-seq) can classify cell states but fail to predict how to transition a diseased cell to a healthy one. True progress requires generating massive "causal" datasets that show the effects of specific genetic perturbations.

Despite AI's power, 90% of drugs fail in clinical trials. John Jumper argues the bottleneck isn't finding molecules that target proteins, but our fundamental lack of understanding of disease causality, like with Alzheimer's, which is a biology problem, not a technology one.

The progress of AI in predicting cancer treatment is stalled not by algorithms, but by the data used to train them. Relying solely on static genetic data is insufficient. The critical missing piece is functional, contextual data showing how patient cells actually respond to drugs.

Current AI for protein engineering relies on small public datasets like the PDB (~10,000 structures), causing models to "hallucinate" or default to known examples. This data bottleneck, orders of magnitude smaller than data used for LLMs, hinders the development of novel therapeutics.

The bottleneck for AI in drug development isn't the sophistication of the models but the absence of large-scale, high-quality biological data sets. Without comprehensive data on how drugs interact within complex human systems, even the best AI models cannot make accurate predictions.

Achieving explainability in AI for drug development isn't about post-hoc analysis. It requires building models from the ground up using inherently interpretable data like RNA sequencing and mutational profiles. When the inputs are explainable, the model's outputs become explainable by design.

AI thrives on learning from the vast, structured data evolution provides for proteins. Molly Gibson explains that small molecules lack this clear "language" or evolutionary history. This fundamental data gap is a primary reason generative AI has been slower to transform small molecule drug discovery compared to biologics.