Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Dr. Ruxandra Teslo argues America's biotech problem isn't the science, it's how slowly we learn from humans: "This is going to be more and more of a bottleneck as science advances especially in oncology. It's not just that we don't have enough clinical trials and they are expensive. This...

MTSlive's profile picture

MTS

503,301 subscribers

16,475 görüntüleme • 11 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

1 Yorum

Physician Logic Squared profil fotoğrafı
Physician Logic Squared8 gün önce

The key phrase is “relevant human data.” In medicine, AI is only as useful as the clinical context, evidence and expert feedback loop around it.

Benzer Videolar

Dr. Ruxandra Teslo reveals how China took American cancer science, engineered a better therapy, and now makes 4X the revenue: "China started to rise 10 years ago in biotech. In 2017, they had this amazing result of a Phase I trial for this therapy that was really good for this very advanced refractory blood cancer. It was called Carvitkri. That was basically the first sign that China was getting ahead." "That therapy was better than the American therapy that was quite similar. Even though the American therapy was a bit earlier, and even though most of the science was done in America, Karvyke from China ended up just being better because it was better engineered." "It ended up being approved a year later by the FDA, but it's making four times as much revenue as the American equivalent because it's just better." "That was the first sign, but now that's a common thing. 50% this year New York Times reported that 50% of the therapeutic pipeline in large pharma comes from China." Ruxandra Teslo 🧬 Adam Kroetsch
1:27

Dr. Ruxandra Teslo reveals how China took American cancer science, engineered a better therapy, and now makes 4X the revenue: "China started to rise 10 years ago in biotech. In 2017, they had this amazing result of a Phase I trial for this therapy that was really good for this very advanced refractory blood cancer. It was called Carvitkri. That was basically the first sign that China was getting ahead." "That therapy was better than the American therapy that was quite similar. Even though the American therapy was a bit earlier, and even though most of the science was done in America, Karvyke from China ended up just being better because it was better engineered." "It ended up being approved a year later by the FDA, but it's making four times as much revenue as the American equivalent because it's just better." "That was the first sign, but now that's a common thing. 50% this year New York Times reported that 50% of the therapeutic pipeline in large pharma comes from China." Ruxandra Teslo 🧬 Adam Kroetsch

MTS

18,147 görüntüleme • 11 gün önce

IFP Adam Kroetsch explains how Australia starts Phase I trials up to a year faster than America without sacrificing safety: "Australia is able to get its Phase I trial started several months earlier than trials in the United States, and even up to a year earlier, depending on the kind of drug we're talking about" "Part of the reason is they do not actually require that studies be submitted to their regulatory authority before they're allowed to proceed. Instead, they have a parallel system, a clinical trial notification system, that allows the studies to be reviewed by local bodies that are able to assess whether they're safe to administer in patients." "That has become both a much faster mode of regulation, but also an equally safe mode of regulation to what the United States has. We're seeing a great deal of interest among policymakers in looking at that approach in the United States. We would certainly like to see us move closer in that direction." Ruxandra Teslo 🧬 IFP
2:01

IFP Adam Kroetsch explains how Australia starts Phase I trials up to a year faster than America without sacrificing safety: "Australia is able to get its Phase I trial started several months earlier than trials in the United States, and even up to a year earlier, depending on the kind of drug we're talking about" "Part of the reason is they do not actually require that studies be submitted to their regulatory authority before they're allowed to proceed. Instead, they have a parallel system, a clinical trial notification system, that allows the studies to be reviewed by local bodies that are able to assess whether they're safe to administer in patients." "That has become both a much faster mode of regulation, but also an equally safe mode of regulation to what the United States has. We're seeing a great deal of interest among policymakers in looking at that approach in the United States. We would certainly like to see us move closer in that direction." Ruxandra Teslo 🧬 IFP

MTS

13,053 görüntüleme • 11 gün önce

NEW episode! Drug development has never been more expensive, in terms of output per dollar spent. This trend, called Eroom’s law, is surprising, considering the incredible technological advances in drug discovery, from genome sequencing to engineering to microscopy. On a new episode of the Works in Progress podcast, Ben Southwood and I talk to Ruxandra Teslo 🧬 about why this has happened and what can be done about it. We discuss how: • AI isn’t a magic bullet for drug discovery. Predictive models lack the physical human data, like individual variation and rare side effects, that can only be generated by actually running real-world clinical trials. • As scientists invent more effective drugs, it becomes harder to discover new treatments that can surpass past successes. This is known as the "Better than the Beatles" problem. • Biotech companies are increasingly moving their "first-in-human" trials to Australia because its simpler regulations allow researchers to test drug safety faster and cheaper than in the US. • Clinical trials can be made more efficient with various reforms including: embracing platform trials, allowing researchers to select from independent ethics boards, expanding the funding and validation of surrogate endpoints, increasing transparency by releasing regulatory correspondence from failed companies, and much more. Timestamps: 00:00:00 Eroom’s law and the paradox of drug development 00:08:03 How clinical trials actually work 00:10:23 The power and controversy of surrogate endpoints 00:14:01 How historical patent laws influenced trial timelines 00:22:46 The Australia advantage and regulatory drag 00:29:08 Institutional review boards (IRBs) and bureaucratic drag 00:32:21 Open science and successful reforms 00:41:49 Our wishlist for clinical trial reforms, and which reforms we *don’t* like 00:53:48 Why AI isn’t a magic bullet for drug discovery
56:13

NEW episode! Drug development has never been more expensive, in terms of output per dollar spent. This trend, called Eroom’s law, is surprising, considering the incredible technological advances in drug discovery, from genome sequencing to engineering to microscopy. On a new episode of the Works in Progress podcast, Ben Southwood and I talk to Ruxandra Teslo 🧬 about why this has happened and what can be done about it. We discuss how: • AI isn’t a magic bullet for drug discovery. Predictive models lack the physical human data, like individual variation and rare side effects, that can only be generated by actually running real-world clinical trials. • As scientists invent more effective drugs, it becomes harder to discover new treatments that can surpass past successes. This is known as the "Better than the Beatles" problem. • Biotech companies are increasingly moving their "first-in-human" trials to Australia because its simpler regulations allow researchers to test drug safety faster and cheaper than in the US. • Clinical trials can be made more efficient with various reforms including: embracing platform trials, allowing researchers to select from independent ethics boards, expanding the funding and validation of surrogate endpoints, increasing transparency by releasing regulatory correspondence from failed companies, and much more. Timestamps: 00:00:00 Eroom’s law and the paradox of drug development 00:08:03 How clinical trials actually work 00:10:23 The power and controversy of surrogate endpoints 00:14:01 How historical patent laws influenced trial timelines 00:22:46 The Australia advantage and regulatory drag 00:29:08 Institutional review boards (IRBs) and bureaucratic drag 00:32:21 Open science and successful reforms 00:41:49 Our wishlist for clinical trial reforms, and which reforms we *don’t* like 00:53:48 Why AI isn’t a magic bullet for drug discovery

Saloni

109,256 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

The most interesting part for me is where Andrej Karpathy describes why LLMs aren't able to learn like humans. As you would expect, he comes up with a wonderfully evocative phrase to describe RL: “sucking supervision bits through a straw.” A single end reward gets broadcast across every token in a successful trajectory, upweighting even wrong or irrelevant turns that lead to the right answer. > “Humans don't use reinforcement learning, as I've said before. I think they do something different. Reinforcement learning is a lot worse than the average person thinks. Reinforcement learning is terrible. It just so happens that everything that we had before is much worse.” So what do humans do instead? > “The book I’m reading is a set of prompts for me to do synthetic data generation. It's by manipulating that information that you actually gain that knowledge. We have no equivalent of that with LLMs; they don't really do that.” > “I'd love to see during pretraining some kind of a stage where the model thinks through the material and tries to reconcile it with what it already knows. There's no equivalent of any of this. This is all research.” Why can’t we just add this training to LLMs today? > “There are very subtle, hard to understand reasons why it's not trivial. If I just give synthetic generation of the model thinking about a book, you look at it and you're like, 'This looks great. Why can't I train on it?' You could try, but the model will actually get much worse if you continue trying.” > “Say we have a chapter of a book and I ask an LLM to think about it. It will give you something that looks very reasonable. But if I ask it 10 times, you'll notice that all of them are the same.” > “You're not getting the richness and the diversity and the entropy from these models as you would get from humans. How do you get synthetic data generation to work despite the collapse and while maintaining the entropy? It is a research problem.” How do humans get around model collapse? > “These analogies are surprisingly good. Humans collapse during the course of their lives. Children haven't overfit yet. They will say stuff that will shock you. Because they're not yet collapsed. But we [adults] are collapsed. We end up revisiting the same thoughts, we end up saying more and more of the same stuff, the learning rates go down, the collapse continues to get worse, and then everything deteriorates.” In fact, there’s an interesting paper arguing that dreaming evolved to assist generalization, and resist overfitting to daily learning - look up The Overfitted Brain by Erik Hoel. I asked Karpathy: Isn’t it interesting that humans learn best at a part of their lives (childhood) whose actual details they completely forget, adults still learn really well but have terrible memory about the particulars of the things they read or watch, and LLMs can memorize arbitrary details about text that no human could but are currently pretty bad at generalization? > “[Fallible human memory] is a feature, not a bug, because it forces you to only learn the generalizable components. LLMs are distracted by all the memory that they have of the pre-trained documents. That's why when I talk about the cognitive core, I actually want to remove the memory. I'd love to have them have less memory so that they have to look things up and they only maintain the algorithms for thought, and the idea of an experiment, and all this cognitive glue for acting.”
7:01

The most interesting part for me is where Andrej Karpathy describes why LLMs aren't able to learn like humans. As you would expect, he comes up with a wonderfully evocative phrase to describe RL: “sucking supervision bits through a straw.” A single end reward gets broadcast across every token in a successful trajectory, upweighting even wrong or irrelevant turns that lead to the right answer. > “Humans don't use reinforcement learning, as I've said before. I think they do something different. Reinforcement learning is a lot worse than the average person thinks. Reinforcement learning is terrible. It just so happens that everything that we had before is much worse.” So what do humans do instead? > “The book I’m reading is a set of prompts for me to do synthetic data generation. It's by manipulating that information that you actually gain that knowledge. We have no equivalent of that with LLMs; they don't really do that.” > “I'd love to see during pretraining some kind of a stage where the model thinks through the material and tries to reconcile it with what it already knows. There's no equivalent of any of this. This is all research.” Why can’t we just add this training to LLMs today? > “There are very subtle, hard to understand reasons why it's not trivial. If I just give synthetic generation of the model thinking about a book, you look at it and you're like, 'This looks great. Why can't I train on it?' You could try, but the model will actually get much worse if you continue trying.” > “Say we have a chapter of a book and I ask an LLM to think about it. It will give you something that looks very reasonable. But if I ask it 10 times, you'll notice that all of them are the same.” > “You're not getting the richness and the diversity and the entropy from these models as you would get from humans. How do you get synthetic data generation to work despite the collapse and while maintaining the entropy? It is a research problem.” How do humans get around model collapse? > “These analogies are surprisingly good. Humans collapse during the course of their lives. Children haven't overfit yet. They will say stuff that will shock you. Because they're not yet collapsed. But we [adults] are collapsed. We end up revisiting the same thoughts, we end up saying more and more of the same stuff, the learning rates go down, the collapse continues to get worse, and then everything deteriorates.” In fact, there’s an interesting paper arguing that dreaming evolved to assist generalization, and resist overfitting to daily learning - look up The Overfitted Brain by Erik Hoel. I asked Karpathy: Isn’t it interesting that humans learn best at a part of their lives (childhood) whose actual details they completely forget, adults still learn really well but have terrible memory about the particulars of the things they read or watch, and LLMs can memorize arbitrary details about text that no human could but are currently pretty bad at generalization? > “[Fallible human memory] is a feature, not a bug, because it forces you to only learn the generalizable components. LLMs are distracted by all the memory that they have of the pre-trained documents. That's why when I talk about the cognitive core, I actually want to remove the memory. I'd love to have them have less memory so that they have to look things up and they only maintain the algorithms for thought, and the idea of an experiment, and all this cognitive glue for acting.”

Dwarkesh Patel

1,052,518 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

🔥 Aaron Siri EXPOSES the safety review process for Hep B shots as a sham. “How many Hepatitis B vaccines are there that they give to babies in the first day of life?” “Two.” “How many days are safety monitored after injection in the clinical trials … to become a vaccine?” “Five.” “How many kids were in the trial?” “147.” “What was the control?” "None." “Does that sound like a safety review? Why would they do that?” “Because that’s just how the economics work.” “The original sin is the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine and Injury Act.” “That set into motion… the economic framework and then the regulatory framework that allowed for clinical trials that are completely defective.” “They do not assess safety beforehand.” “That is a very, very serious problem.” Aaron Siri
1:50

🔥 Aaron Siri EXPOSES the safety review process for Hep B shots as a sham. “How many Hepatitis B vaccines are there that they give to babies in the first day of life?” “Two.” “How many days are safety monitored after injection in the clinical trials … to become a vaccine?” “Five.” “How many kids were in the trial?” “147.” “What was the control?” "None." “Does that sound like a safety review? Why would they do that?” “Because that’s just how the economics work.” “The original sin is the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine and Injury Act.” “That set into motion… the economic framework and then the regulatory framework that allowed for clinical trials that are completely defective.” “They do not assess safety beforehand.” “That is a very, very serious problem.” Aaron Siri

Children’s Health Defense

15,482 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

lando: “this [improvement] is nothing that's going to happen overnight or in one week or two weeks' time. the gap was 50? almost a second lap off. some of that is still understanding the pu. some of it is just a better car. i think ferrari, from what we see quite clearly, have the best car. their cornering speeds are unbelievable. so for us to match that is zero chance at the minute, and we have to work very hard to understand things and learn as much as we can from this part of the season, because this part of the season now, sets up the rest of it basically. so the more we can learn, the more we can understand, the better it will be at the end of the season. but yeah, it's looking like it's going to be a long one, a tough one, but i was happy with p5 today”
1:00

lando: “this [improvement] is nothing that's going to happen overnight or in one week or two weeks' time. the gap was 50? almost a second lap off. some of that is still understanding the pu. some of it is just a better car. i think ferrari, from what we see quite clearly, have the best car. their cornering speeds are unbelievable. so for us to match that is zero chance at the minute, and we have to work very hard to understand things and learn as much as we can from this part of the season, because this part of the season now, sets up the rest of it basically. so the more we can learn, the more we can understand, the better it will be at the end of the season. but yeah, it's looking like it's going to be a long one, a tough one, but i was happy with p5 today”

ray

196,652 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.
4:50

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.

Deutsch Explains

116,352 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Steve Jobs on how he learned to run a company: Question: "You're 21. You're a big success. You know, you've just sort of done it by the seat of your pants. You don't have any particular training in this. How do you learn to run a company?" Steve Jobs: "You know, throughout the years in business, I found something, which was that I always ask why you do things. And the answers you invariably get are, oh, that's just the way it's done. Nobody knows why they do what they do. Nobody thinks about things very deeply in business. That's what I found. I'll give you an example. When we were building our Apple I's in the garage, we knew exactly what they cost. When we got into a factory in the Apple II days, the accounting had this notion of a standard cost, where you'd kind of set a standard cost and at the end of a quarter you'd adjust it with a variance. And I kept asking, well, why do we do this? And the answer was, well, that's just the way it's done. And after about six months of digging into this, what I realized was the reason you do it is because you don't really have good enough controls to know how much it costs. So you guess, and then you fix your guess at the end of the quarter. And the reason you don't know how much it costs is because your information systems aren't good enough. But nobody said it that way. And so later on, when we designed this automated factory for Macintosh, we were able to get rid of a lot of these antiquated concepts and know exactly what something cost to the second. So in business, a lot of things are, I call it folklore. They're done because they were done yesterday and the day before. And so what that means is if you're willing to sort of ask a lot of questions and think about things and work really hard, you can learn business pretty fast. It's not the hardest thing in the world. It's not rocket science. It's not rocket science."
2:06

Steve Jobs on how he learned to run a company: Question: "You're 21. You're a big success. You know, you've just sort of done it by the seat of your pants. You don't have any particular training in this. How do you learn to run a company?" Steve Jobs: "You know, throughout the years in business, I found something, which was that I always ask why you do things. And the answers you invariably get are, oh, that's just the way it's done. Nobody knows why they do what they do. Nobody thinks about things very deeply in business. That's what I found. I'll give you an example. When we were building our Apple I's in the garage, we knew exactly what they cost. When we got into a factory in the Apple II days, the accounting had this notion of a standard cost, where you'd kind of set a standard cost and at the end of a quarter you'd adjust it with a variance. And I kept asking, well, why do we do this? And the answer was, well, that's just the way it's done. And after about six months of digging into this, what I realized was the reason you do it is because you don't really have good enough controls to know how much it costs. So you guess, and then you fix your guess at the end of the quarter. And the reason you don't know how much it costs is because your information systems aren't good enough. But nobody said it that way. And so later on, when we designed this automated factory for Macintosh, we were able to get rid of a lot of these antiquated concepts and know exactly what something cost to the second. So in business, a lot of things are, I call it folklore. They're done because they were done yesterday and the day before. And so what that means is if you're willing to sort of ask a lot of questions and think about things and work really hard, you can learn business pretty fast. It's not the hardest thing in the world. It's not rocket science. It's not rocket science."

Founder Mode

32,290 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Omg. STEPHEN MILLER: "[Illegal aliens who] m*rdered a mom, who m*rdered a dad, who trafficked drugs into this country, who trafficked fentanyl into this country, who are responsible for d*ad and slaught*red Americans. I don't know what's broken in the Washington press corps, that none of that moves them emotionally. The only thing that gets them exercised is - do we need to have more trials for terrorist supporters? Do we need have more trials for gangbangers? Do we need to have more trials for illegal alien invaders?" "Even though Congress and the Constitution clearly say that you can expel invaders and illegal aliens quickly, efficiently, and properly. This president has literally saved America, and I could not be prouder. I could not be prouder, as I know Karoline feels the same way, to come every single day to this building where we have a leader sitting in office whose first, last, and every thought is the safety, prosperity, security, and sovereignty of the citizens - that's an important word, people, CITIZENS - of this republic." - Stephen Miller
1:01

Omg. STEPHEN MILLER: "[Illegal aliens who] m*rdered a mom, who m*rdered a dad, who trafficked drugs into this country, who trafficked fentanyl into this country, who are responsible for d*ad and slaught*red Americans. I don't know what's broken in the Washington press corps, that none of that moves them emotionally. The only thing that gets them exercised is - do we need to have more trials for terrorist supporters? Do we need have more trials for gangbangers? Do we need to have more trials for illegal alien invaders?" "Even though Congress and the Constitution clearly say that you can expel invaders and illegal aliens quickly, efficiently, and properly. This president has literally saved America, and I could not be prouder. I could not be prouder, as I know Karoline feels the same way, to come every single day to this building where we have a leader sitting in office whose first, last, and every thought is the safety, prosperity, security, and sovereignty of the citizens - that's an important word, people, CITIZENS - of this republic." - Stephen Miller

Eric Daugherty

158,277 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Eric Weinstein: ROI Obsession and Consensus Are Killing American Science david friedberg: “Treat scientists like the rock stars that they should be. Otherwise, you're going to lose them?” Eric Weinstein: “When you have administrator types come in and say, ‘What we need is KPIs. I'm data-driven. I want to know what the translation is.’ Do you even know what ROI is, or is it just what you can measure? You want these people on retainer, so whenever you have a real problem, you call up the most terrifying intellects you can imagine, and we can get to work and we can solve your problems. If you tell me, ‘You should work on this because this thing is what drives the ROI,’ my feeling is, do you just not understand science? Do you imagine that your technology mindset is the same thing as my scientific mindset? You want to get paid. I’ve spent a lot of time in Silicon Valley. I'm not nearly as interested in having a new McLaren as whether my name is going to be discussed 10,000 years from now if humans are still around. We're in some sort of crazy world in which people who have radical ideas can't do the radical ideas inside of the institutions. When people say something different, do you force them back into this consensus? Well, that's what p*ssy nations do. And we have become a p*ssy nation when it comes to science.” ------------------------------ Thanks to our partners for making this possible! As wealth grows, complexity compounds. Between investments, tax strategy and estate planning, coordinating it all can feel like a full-time job. Creative Planning can help with the heavy lifting. Creative Planning With over nine million acres protected across all fifty states, The Conservation Fund secures the irreplaceable lands we love. Learn more at The Conservation Fund
1:13

Eric Weinstein: ROI Obsession and Consensus Are Killing American Science david friedberg: “Treat scientists like the rock stars that they should be. Otherwise, you're going to lose them?” Eric Weinstein: “When you have administrator types come in and say, ‘What we need is KPIs. I'm data-driven. I want to know what the translation is.’ Do you even know what ROI is, or is it just what you can measure? You want these people on retainer, so whenever you have a real problem, you call up the most terrifying intellects you can imagine, and we can get to work and we can solve your problems. If you tell me, ‘You should work on this because this thing is what drives the ROI,’ my feeling is, do you just not understand science? Do you imagine that your technology mindset is the same thing as my scientific mindset? You want to get paid. I’ve spent a lot of time in Silicon Valley. I'm not nearly as interested in having a new McLaren as whether my name is going to be discussed 10,000 years from now if humans are still around. We're in some sort of crazy world in which people who have radical ideas can't do the radical ideas inside of the institutions. When people say something different, do you force them back into this consensus? Well, that's what p*ssy nations do. And we have become a p*ssy nation when it comes to science.” ------------------------------ Thanks to our partners for making this possible! As wealth grows, complexity compounds. Between investments, tax strategy and estate planning, coordinating it all can feel like a full-time job. Creative Planning can help with the heavy lifting. Creative Planning With over nine million acres protected across all fifty states, The Conservation Fund secures the irreplaceable lands we love. Learn more at The Conservation Fund

The All-In Podcast

23,248 görüntüleme • 14 gün önce

Arteta on the players battling a physical strain: “Yes, but when I see them track back, when we lose the ball and the habits that they have, it's just amazing. That's why I know what they are doing, these players. There is a reason why we are the only English team in the competition, because this league and this schedule takes the hell out of you and it's very difficult to do what we've done. “We are not perfect, we need to improve things, that's for sure, we recognise that, but let's value what these players have done because they deserve it.”
0:36

Arteta on the players battling a physical strain: “Yes, but when I see them track back, when we lose the ball and the habits that they have, it's just amazing. That's why I know what they are doing, these players. There is a reason why we are the only English team in the competition, because this league and this schedule takes the hell out of you and it's very difficult to do what we've done. “We are not perfect, we need to improve things, that's for sure, we recognise that, but let's value what these players have done because they deserve it.”

Connor Humm

55,160 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

.Crémieux dismantles the myth that China only makes "me too" drugs, and what it means for the future of gene therapy: "One of the things China's been accused of for a long time is just doing 'Me Too' drugs... where you basically see a new drug get approved and then you copy it immediately. "Are these Chinese drugs just Me Too? No. These are cell and gene therapy trials." "In the US we are banned from offering gene therapies that do germline changes, meaning that they affect sperm or eggs." "If we can cure a family of like a horrible, debilitating disease for all time, why don't we?"
3:24

.Crémieux dismantles the myth that China only makes "me too" drugs, and what it means for the future of gene therapy: "One of the things China's been accused of for a long time is just doing 'Me Too' drugs... where you basically see a new drug get approved and then you copy it immediately. "Are these Chinese drugs just Me Too? No. These are cell and gene therapy trials." "In the US we are banned from offering gene therapies that do germline changes, meaning that they affect sperm or eggs." "If we can cure a family of like a horrible, debilitating disease for all time, why don't we?"

MTS

46,545 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Tesla's Chief Designer Franz on Optimus: "It's going to be huge piece of Tesla, a huge piece in our world, as we look into the future, the ability to take menial tasks and things that you don't necessarily want to do and have them uploaded to somebody, a human, that can do that. We've been designing the robot that really looks at how humans work in the world. This world is designed around humans, and so I think having a robot that can do the things that humans can do can really start to take those menial tasks away and enrich in our lives, make our lives better we get to spend more time doing the things that we love. It's been incredibly fast paced, but the progress is, like, unbelievable in the short amount of time that the team has been working on it, and we've been growing the team and building the project the same time. I think we're breaking ground in this space everyday. The team is really energized and fired out. Elon Musk is incredibly involved in this. It's a great project to be a part of, and seeing where the future is gonna go and how it's going to enrich our lives is super exciting."
1:13

Tesla's Chief Designer Franz on Optimus: "It's going to be huge piece of Tesla, a huge piece in our world, as we look into the future, the ability to take menial tasks and things that you don't necessarily want to do and have them uploaded to somebody, a human, that can do that. We've been designing the robot that really looks at how humans work in the world. This world is designed around humans, and so I think having a robot that can do the things that humans can do can really start to take those menial tasks away and enrich in our lives, make our lives better we get to spend more time doing the things that we love. It's been incredibly fast paced, but the progress is, like, unbelievable in the short amount of time that the team has been working on it, and we've been growing the team and building the project the same time. I think we're breaking ground in this space everyday. The team is really energized and fired out. Elon Musk is incredibly involved in this. It's a great project to be a part of, and seeing where the future is gonna go and how it's going to enrich our lives is super exciting."

DogeDesigner

202,945 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

NBC’s Gabe Gutierrez: “One on Iran and one on Cuba. Is Iran now bigger foreign policy priority for you than China and on Cuba — the Cuban government —” President Trump: “Iran is just a military operation. To me, Iran is something that was essentially largely over in two or three days because the Navy was wiped out almost immediately. The air force came next, the anti-aircraft came next. I mean, we're flying over Iran. We could take out their electric capacity in one hour. We have all the there's nothing they can do right now because everything is knocked out. They have no — again, no radar, no anti-aircraft. They have nothing, and we don't — and it was a decision I made. We discussed it. Pete, Marco, JD all of us, Chris. We discussed it. We can knock out their electricity in a matter of minutes if we wanted to. There's nothing they can do about it. We can knock out their oil in Kharg Island. The only thing we didn't take down was the oil. Because if we knock out, I call them the pipes. Very complex. But if you do that, it will take them forever to rebuild, meaning whoever — and hopefully it's a sane group of people, but whoever it is, it's going to be running that, and we're going to try to get people that are going to run it well. And you know, it's going to be a prosperous, wonderful place. It used to be, you know, if you go back, it used to be a very — the people are great. The people are smart and energetic and it used to be very successful. Now, it's a country run by fear. It's a country where they tell protesters, don't go outside, because if you do, we're going to kill you....Well, Cuba right now is in very bad shape. They're talking to Marco, and we'll be doing something with Cuba very soon. We're really focused on this, but we're dealing with Cuba. Marco, do you want to say a couple of words about it?” Secretary of State Rubio: “Yeah. I mean, Cuba has an economy that doesn't work and a political and governmental system. They can't fix it. It's not dramatic enough. It's not going to fix it, so they've got some big decisions to make over there.” Gutierrez: “But Secretary — Secretary Rubio, do you support and I know this is up to Congress, but do you support easing the Cuban trade embargo if you get more cooperation from Havana?” Rubio: “Well, I'm not going to discuss what we would talk about or not. Suffice it to say that the embargo is tied to political change on the island. The law has been the embargo is codified. And — but the bottom line is their economy doesn't work. It's a nonfunctional economy. It's an economy that has survived. It's for 40 — that revolution — it's not even a revolution, that thing they have — has survived on subsidies from the Soviet Union and now from Venezuela. They don't get subsidies anymore, so they're in a lot of trouble. And the people in charge are — they don't know how to fix it, so they have to get new people in charge. That's what happened.” Trump: “And the relationship we have with Venezuela has been, I think you could almost say, incredible. It's been really good. It's been good for Venezuela and it's been good for us. And I congratulate the Venezuelan baseball team because that was a big — that was a big win. And I guess they play another game tonight in the finals.” Rubio: “Against the U.S.” Trump: “And I said a lot of good things have happened to Venezuela lately. This is the first time they've ever been in the finals, and it was pretty exciting.
3:27

NBC’s Gabe Gutierrez: “One on Iran and one on Cuba. Is Iran now bigger foreign policy priority for you than China and on Cuba — the Cuban government —” President Trump: “Iran is just a military operation. To me, Iran is something that was essentially largely over in two or three days because the Navy was wiped out almost immediately. The air force came next, the anti-aircraft came next. I mean, we're flying over Iran. We could take out their electric capacity in one hour. We have all the there's nothing they can do right now because everything is knocked out. They have no — again, no radar, no anti-aircraft. They have nothing, and we don't — and it was a decision I made. We discussed it. Pete, Marco, JD all of us, Chris. We discussed it. We can knock out their electricity in a matter of minutes if we wanted to. There's nothing they can do about it. We can knock out their oil in Kharg Island. The only thing we didn't take down was the oil. Because if we knock out, I call them the pipes. Very complex. But if you do that, it will take them forever to rebuild, meaning whoever — and hopefully it's a sane group of people, but whoever it is, it's going to be running that, and we're going to try to get people that are going to run it well. And you know, it's going to be a prosperous, wonderful place. It used to be, you know, if you go back, it used to be a very — the people are great. The people are smart and energetic and it used to be very successful. Now, it's a country run by fear. It's a country where they tell protesters, don't go outside, because if you do, we're going to kill you....Well, Cuba right now is in very bad shape. They're talking to Marco, and we'll be doing something with Cuba very soon. We're really focused on this, but we're dealing with Cuba. Marco, do you want to say a couple of words about it?” Secretary of State Rubio: “Yeah. I mean, Cuba has an economy that doesn't work and a political and governmental system. They can't fix it. It's not dramatic enough. It's not going to fix it, so they've got some big decisions to make over there.” Gutierrez: “But Secretary — Secretary Rubio, do you support and I know this is up to Congress, but do you support easing the Cuban trade embargo if you get more cooperation from Havana?” Rubio: “Well, I'm not going to discuss what we would talk about or not. Suffice it to say that the embargo is tied to political change on the island. The law has been the embargo is codified. And — but the bottom line is their economy doesn't work. It's a nonfunctional economy. It's an economy that has survived. It's for 40 — that revolution — it's not even a revolution, that thing they have — has survived on subsidies from the Soviet Union and now from Venezuela. They don't get subsidies anymore, so they're in a lot of trouble. And the people in charge are — they don't know how to fix it, so they have to get new people in charge. That's what happened.” Trump: “And the relationship we have with Venezuela has been, I think you could almost say, incredible. It's been really good. It's been good for Venezuela and it's been good for us. And I congratulate the Venezuelan baseball team because that was a big — that was a big win. And I guess they play another game tonight in the finals.” Rubio: “Against the U.S.” Trump: “And I said a lot of good things have happened to Venezuela lately. This is the first time they've ever been in the finals, and it was pretty exciting.

Curtis Houck

175,437 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

Sam Altman says AI leaders have done a terrible job at communicating to the public: “The, ‘Dear peasants, we will bequeath upon you these gifts of a cure for cancer and material wealth and great entertainment, and you stop complaining, and we'll make all the decisions about the future and just trust us, we'll be benevolent dictators.’ That’s not good. Not good.” “A lot of the people building AI have been saying, ‘There's a 25% chance we're going to destroy the world, and yet we're going to race ahead to do it because otherwise those bad guys will do it first.’” “Or, ‘Man, this thing is going to be really terrible, and 50% of the jobs are going to go away in the next year, and we hope you all are okay, but it seems really scary.’” “We have not, as a field, done a very good job of explaining to people what the benefits are and how the downsides can be mitigated—and we certainly have not done a good job even if people have had answers like saying, ‘There's going to be UBI, or work will be optional.’” “There's been very little discussion from people about how and why it's important that people have more power and personal freedom in the world, not less. And that matters a lot to most people.” “The ability of people to influence their own future and collectively design where society is going to go, and the autonomy that comes with that, is very important. I don't think a lot of people in the AI field… they feel it for themselves, but they don't spend much time thinking about it, reflecting on or acknowledging how important that is to other people.”
3:19

Sam Altman says AI leaders have done a terrible job at communicating to the public: “The, ‘Dear peasants, we will bequeath upon you these gifts of a cure for cancer and material wealth and great entertainment, and you stop complaining, and we'll make all the decisions about the future and just trust us, we'll be benevolent dictators.’ That’s not good. Not good.” “A lot of the people building AI have been saying, ‘There's a 25% chance we're going to destroy the world, and yet we're going to race ahead to do it because otherwise those bad guys will do it first.’” “Or, ‘Man, this thing is going to be really terrible, and 50% of the jobs are going to go away in the next year, and we hope you all are okay, but it seems really scary.’” “We have not, as a field, done a very good job of explaining to people what the benefits are and how the downsides can be mitigated—and we certainly have not done a good job even if people have had answers like saying, ‘There's going to be UBI, or work will be optional.’” “There's been very little discussion from people about how and why it's important that people have more power and personal freedom in the world, not less. And that matters a lot to most people.” “The ability of people to influence their own future and collectively design where society is going to go, and the autonomy that comes with that, is very important. I don't think a lot of people in the AI field… they feel it for themselves, but they don't spend much time thinking about it, reflecting on or acknowledging how important that is to other people.”

David Senra

32,300 görüntüleme • 23 gün önce

Arteta on his role to re-energise the Arsenal team. 💪 “Certainly, when you lose a game, you have a lot of feelings because, especially, this group of players are so competitive and they seek for excellence and when you don't reach it, you ask yourself questions, and we did that. “But I think my role there as well is to bring optimism and reality about where we are, and yeah, our club has a long history. And to find a moment where, in February, we're in the position that we are, is very difficult to find. So guys, we are doing so many things so well, and let's focus mainly on that. And for sure, we want to improve, we want to be better in every area, but with that sense as well of self-confidence and conviction that we are in the right path. Anyone need to lift Arteta? “No, in these moments, no. Normally, I'm the opposite and when we are doing so well, I'm there with a stick to say, 'This is not good enough,' 'This is not good enough.' The other day, no, because I know how much they wanted the amount of games and the demands that we put on those players every day. “In those moments, they need to understand and feel that we are right behind them. I'm mainly responsible for that and they keep playing with that freedom, with that enjoyment, as I discussed the other day, and I make sure that that journey is beautiful because what is ahead is great and everybody has to be part of that but in a good sense and with good humor and with good optimism and looking forward to it.”
1:58

Arteta on his role to re-energise the Arsenal team. 💪 “Certainly, when you lose a game, you have a lot of feelings because, especially, this group of players are so competitive and they seek for excellence and when you don't reach it, you ask yourself questions, and we did that. “But I think my role there as well is to bring optimism and reality about where we are, and yeah, our club has a long history. And to find a moment where, in February, we're in the position that we are, is very difficult to find. So guys, we are doing so many things so well, and let's focus mainly on that. And for sure, we want to improve, we want to be better in every area, but with that sense as well of self-confidence and conviction that we are in the right path. Anyone need to lift Arteta? “No, in these moments, no. Normally, I'm the opposite and when we are doing so well, I'm there with a stick to say, 'This is not good enough,' 'This is not good enough.' The other day, no, because I know how much they wanted the amount of games and the demands that we put on those players every day. “In those moments, they need to understand and feel that we are right behind them. I'm mainly responsible for that and they keep playing with that freedom, with that enjoyment, as I discussed the other day, and I make sure that that journey is beautiful because what is ahead is great and everybody has to be part of that but in a good sense and with good humor and with good optimism and looking forward to it.”

Connor Humm

17,767 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

NewLimit CEO Jacob Kimmel explains the clinical trial bottleneck AI can't fix: biology has irreducible latency "It's unlikely we're gonna see rapid expedition of clinical trials because a lot of the periods of time can't be expedited based on the biological primitives. In computer science you often have a notion of bandwidth and latency." "There are some irreducible latencies in clinical trials. If you wanna give a drug to a patient and see if they're healthy a month later, it's not like you can enroll 30 patients and check back in one day. You just need to wait a full month. The classic nine people can't have a baby in one month story." "The other thing we can hope for is that the success rate might improve. Right now, rough math, roughly 9 out of 10 drugs that go into the clinic will ultimately fail." "If you're able to even just 2X that success rate, getting to 20% success rather than 10%, then you would double the number of drugs that come out every year, and you would cut the effective cost in half." NewLimit
1:25

NewLimit CEO Jacob Kimmel explains the clinical trial bottleneck AI can't fix: biology has irreducible latency "It's unlikely we're gonna see rapid expedition of clinical trials because a lot of the periods of time can't be expedited based on the biological primitives. In computer science you often have a notion of bandwidth and latency." "There are some irreducible latencies in clinical trials. If you wanna give a drug to a patient and see if they're healthy a month later, it's not like you can enroll 30 patients and check back in one day. You just need to wait a full month. The classic nine people can't have a baby in one month story." "The other thing we can hope for is that the success rate might improve. Right now, rough math, roughly 9 out of 10 drugs that go into the clinic will ultimately fail." "If you're able to even just 2X that success rate, getting to 20% success rather than 10%, then you would double the number of drugs that come out every year, and you would cut the effective cost in half." NewLimit

MTS

50,797 görüntüleme • 15 gün önce

Mira Murati says the outcome of frontier AI is not predestined: "Predicting a dystopia or a utopia, to me, feels very simplified because the truth is we actually have a lot of agency in how we build this technology, in the tools that we're building, how we're deploying it." "There are certainly those risks. We all understand the potential for greatness that comes with building frontier AI systems, and that's why we're working on them." "Where I might disagree or take a different path is that I think we have a lot of agency. This period of time where both humans and AI systems have their hands on the wheel, and we can collaborate, it's a very important time to get right." Mira Murati at Bloomberg Tech live with Emily Chang
1:35

Mira Murati says the outcome of frontier AI is not predestined: "Predicting a dystopia or a utopia, to me, feels very simplified because the truth is we actually have a lot of agency in how we build this technology, in the tools that we're building, how we're deploying it." "There are certainly those risks. We all understand the potential for greatness that comes with building frontier AI systems, and that's why we're working on them." "Where I might disagree or take a different path is that I think we have a lot of agency. This period of time where both humans and AI systems have their hands on the wheel, and we can collaborate, it's a very important time to get right." Mira Murati at Bloomberg Tech live with Emily Chang

a16z

120,411 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Oz: Secretary Kennedy strongly believes we need gold standard science. We need that science to be able to help families make better decisions for themselves and state governments because these are state driven issues usually, especially mandates to make those decisions more wisely. If you can do this in the right way, we very empowering because who loves children the most? Their parents, no matter what we might say, they're the ones who need to have the information. They should have the ability to make the wisest choices for their kids, not based on fear, but based in science
1:26

Oz: Secretary Kennedy strongly believes we need gold standard science. We need that science to be able to help families make better decisions for themselves and state governments because these are state driven issues usually, especially mandates to make those decisions more wisely. If you can do this in the right way, we very empowering because who loves children the most? Their parents, no matter what we might say, they're the ones who need to have the information. They should have the ability to make the wisest choices for their kids, not based on fear, but based in science

Acyn

16,375 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce