While this is true, it is also true that the sentiment of this line is frequently used outside of the biotech (note that this entire website is primarily dominated by computer science posts). I think it is just worth mentioning that it is perfectly valid for discussions to not be pigeonholded and that you are perfectly allowed to talk about similarities in other fields (exact or inexact).

It is also true that my reply is not invalidated by changing settings. If you pay close attention you'll notice the generality of the comment outside of the specific example. In fact, this is exactly what the OP did, considering the article is about a machine learning paper and the example they used to __illustrate__ their point was about their wife's work in biotech. But the sentiment/point/purpose of their comment would not have changed were their wife to work in physics/engineering/chemistry/underwater basket weaving/whatever. So if this is your issue, I think they are misdirected and I ask that you please take it up with the OP and ensure that they know no comments in this thread may be about anything but ML papers by DeepMind. Illustrative examples out of domain are not allowed.

It is also true that this domain example was a product this company was selling. So I think you're being too quick to dismiss as not only did it run "in a lab" but the actual product runs in the real world. It has real customers who use the software.

It's also true I never accused anyone of doing "just [running] busy work" and that such an interpretation is grossly inaccurate. My final sentence should make this abundantly clear and I would argue is far more important in a setting such as medicine where I've said conveyed that you can sell ineffective or subpar products while still generating a profit and suggested that this probably shouldn't be the metric we care about (it certainly isn't what the spirit of those metrics are about).

But if you want to (implicitly) accuse me of derailing the conversation, I do not think you have the grounds to do so. But I will accuse you of doing so. If you disagree with my comment, you are more than welcome to reply in such a way. If you think my comment does not apply to dug discovery or think it only applies to ML[0], then you are welcome to state as much too and it is encouraged to state why. But the only derailing of the conversation has been the pigeonholing you have applied. If you think this is wrong, I still welcome a response to that as I am happy to learn how to communicate better but you did also catch me on a day where I'm not happy to be unreasonably and willfully misinterpreted.

[0] I didn't tell you the application... a bit presumptuous are we?