yes for sure boomers would want it. for boomers, I assume these problems have more to do with processed foods, "forever chemicals", other kinds of "not natural" contaminants.
I believe the way the AIs come up with "safe" solutions is being able to look through formulations and a large amount of data (and the simulations he talks about) far more efficiently as well as effectively. the likelihood of adverse effects is "predicted". the more they "understand" the human "data", the more powerful/safe the, let's call them, hypotheses, can be. this portion of the research is what could probably be done exponentially faster. sometimes for finding "needles in haystacks" it would never make sense to fund if humans had to do the searching. the logistics and humans trials would still take longer, but his point on simulation is interesting. not sure people would feel ok about that. it could be an earlier phase inserted into the phases. another downside/risk is humans do not necessarily know how the AI can "find the solution" so fast. to make a bad analogy, this is similar to how chess grandmasters do not understand the algorithms that chess programs (that "learned" on their own) use (they no longer use human algorithms and just compute them faster). can we trust that which we cannot actually understand? in business applications, they already use neural networks, but for applications in which the models need to be explainable (for example due to regulations), they then switch to logistic regression. all of that likely needs to be sorted out. I'm scratching the surface from light reading and some light professional experience around precursors to AI tech. I think the other point is "humanity" (read: the smartest ones) is also scratching the surface, so who knows.
regardless, this "reboot" finding is apparently from humans. who knows where it goes, other than that it probably is going somewhere. the boomer demand (and demand from the next generations) will be there. even just for some hair follicle or knee cartilage treatment.