正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

This is WILD! Nvidia just launched something that could compress the most expensive process in medicine from 12 years to 12 months. BioNeMo Agent Toolkit is an open, agent-ready platform that turns AI agents into autonomous scientific workers, giving them the ability to run real drug discovery workflows instead... of just generating ideas. And more than 50 companies are already using it, including Anthropic, OpenAI, Eli Lilly, Databricks, Snowflake, Dassault Systèmes and Schrödinger. Here is what it actually does. Traditional drug discovery costs an average of $2.6 billion per drug and takes over a decade. Most of that time and money goes into screening millions of compounds, designing proteins that bind to disease targets and running countless lab experiments to validate whether something works. BioNeMo agents now do all of that computationally before a single lab experiment begins. The demo Nvidia shared makes the speed impossible to ignore. An agent was asked to design 10 protein binders for PD-L1, a critical cancer immunotherapy target and it completed the full design, co-folding, scoring, and 3D structural analysis on GPU in under 90 seconds. What used to require weeks of wet lab work and PhD-level expertise now runs as a callable tool inside an AI workflow. The four core capabilities are virtual drug screening, protein binder design, genomic analysis, and medical imaging each one compressing tasks that previously took weeks into minutes. The institutional validation behind this is unusually strong. Nvidia and Eli Lilly announced a joint investment of up to $1 billion over five years to build a co-innovation lab running entirely on BioNeMo. The University of Washington's Institute for Protein Design is already running RosettaFold3 at 2x faster performance than the prior generation. And the market this unlocks is enormous, and Nvidia is sitting right at the center of it. The AI drug discovery market is projected to grow from $2.9 billion in 2026 to $13.8 billion by 2033 and McKinsey estimates generative AI could deliver $60 to $110 billion in annual economic value to pharma. Bullish on drug discovery!show more

Milk Road AI

46,678 subscribers

23,155 次观看 • 1 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Demis Hassabis: If you know the structure of a protein, the real question becomes—where will your drug bind, and what will it actually do? That’s where the next wave of AI comes in. Not just predicting structures, but modeling interactions, outcomes, and real biological impact. At Isomorphic Labs, this is already happening—with 17 active drug programs and partnerships with giants like Eli Lilly and Novartis. The goal? Scale that to 100. This is a fundamental shift in how medicine gets built. Instead of slow, expensive trial-and-error in wet labs, AI allows researchers to run thousands of hypotheses in silico—hundreds to thousands of times more efficiently. The wet lab becomes validation, not exploration. Drug discovery is turning into a computational problem. Faster cycles, smarter predictions, and potentially massive breakthroughs in human health.

Demis Hassabis: If you know the structure of a protein, the real question becomes—where will your drug bind, and what will it actually do? That’s where the next wave of AI comes in. Not just predicting structures, but modeling interactions, outcomes, and real biological impact. At Isomorphic Labs, this is already happening—with 17 active drug programs and partnerships with giants like Eli Lilly and Novartis. The goal? Scale that to 100. This is a fundamental shift in how medicine gets built. Instead of slow, expensive trial-and-error in wet labs, AI allows researchers to run thousands of hypotheses in silico—hundreds to thousands of times more efficiently. The wet lab becomes validation, not exploration. Drug discovery is turning into a computational problem. Faster cycles, smarter predictions, and potentially massive breakthroughs in human health.

Ian Miles Cheong

93,975 次观看 • 4 个月前

Demis Hassabis, the Nobel Prize winner who runs Google DeepMind just described the most consequential project on earth, and most people have no idea it exists. The project is called Isomorphic Labs and the goal is to end the way drugs have been developed for the last century. Here is the problem it is trying to solve. Developing a single drug today takes an average of 10 years, costs billions of dollars, and fails 90 percent of the time before it ever reaches a patient. Of every 10 drugs that enter clinical trials, only one makes it through. The other nine years of work, the other billions of dollars, the other scientific careers, gone. Hassabis believes AI can collapse that entire process from identifying a disease target to designing a compound that binds to it, predicts how it behaves in the body, and minimizes side effects , end to end, on a computer, before a single experiment is run. The foundation is AlphaFold, the AI system that solved one of biology's hardest problems predicting the 3D structure of every protein in the human body and won him the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2024. But knowing a protein's shape is only one part of designing a drug. Isomorphic is building what Hassabis describes as adjacent systems , AlphaFold 3, AlphaFold 4, and now a unified model called IsoDDE , that take the next steps. From designing the actual chemical compound that binds to the protein, predicting its binding strength, identifying new pockets to target that no one has ever found before. IsoDDE more than doubles the accuracy of AlphaFold 3 on the hardest protein-ligand prediction benchmarks that exist. Isomorphic is already running 18 to 19 live drug programs, cardiovascular disease, cancer, immunology in partnership with Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Johnson and Johnson. The first human clinical trial of a fully AI-designed drug is expected by the end of 2026. If that trial succeeds, it will be the first time in history that a drug put into a human body was designed not by a team of chemists working for a decade but by an AI working for months. Hassabis's long-term vision is even more direct, one day you describe a disease, click a button, and a drug blueprint comes out the other side. AI will solve almost all diseases within 10 years.

Demis Hassabis, the Nobel Prize winner who runs Google DeepMind just described the most consequential project on earth, and most people have no idea it exists. The project is called Isomorphic Labs and the goal is to end the way drugs have been developed for the last century. Here is the problem it is trying to solve. Developing a single drug today takes an average of 10 years, costs billions of dollars, and fails 90 percent of the time before it ever reaches a patient. Of every 10 drugs that enter clinical trials, only one makes it through. The other nine years of work, the other billions of dollars, the other scientific careers, gone. Hassabis believes AI can collapse that entire process from identifying a disease target to designing a compound that binds to it, predicts how it behaves in the body, and minimizes side effects , end to end, on a computer, before a single experiment is run. The foundation is AlphaFold, the AI system that solved one of biology's hardest problems predicting the 3D structure of every protein in the human body and won him the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2024. But knowing a protein's shape is only one part of designing a drug. Isomorphic is building what Hassabis describes as adjacent systems , AlphaFold 3, AlphaFold 4, and now a unified model called IsoDDE , that take the next steps. From designing the actual chemical compound that binds to the protein, predicting its binding strength, identifying new pockets to target that no one has ever found before. IsoDDE more than doubles the accuracy of AlphaFold 3 on the hardest protein-ligand prediction benchmarks that exist. Isomorphic is already running 18 to 19 live drug programs, cardiovascular disease, cancer, immunology in partnership with Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Johnson and Johnson. The first human clinical trial of a fully AI-designed drug is expected by the end of 2026. If that trial succeeds, it will be the first time in history that a drug put into a human body was designed not by a team of chemists working for a decade but by an AI working for months. Hassabis's long-term vision is even more direct, one day you describe a disease, click a button, and a drug blueprint comes out the other side. AI will solve almost all diseases within 10 years.

Milk Road AI

36,062 次观看 • 3 个月前

Chai Discovery cofounder Jack Dent says AI drug discovery hit a major inflection point in 2025. As a result, it's now being deployed at the biggest pharma companies as part of their core discovery engines. "Over the course of 2025, these models went from being research curiosities... to being able to design molecules without needing to fine-tune them on a lot of data." "You can really just prompt them in the way that you'd prompt an LLM with a target, maybe some disease you're going after. And they will design a number of candidates that would help do that, essentially." "A year, year and a half ago, basically none of this stuff worked." "In 2025 we really crossed the Rubicon. And now these technologies are actively being deployed in companies like Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer. These are some of the most scientific, highest-tech companies in the world. And they're putting them into real drug programs and making them part of their core discovery engines."

Chai Discovery cofounder Jack Dent says AI drug discovery hit a major inflection point in 2025. As a result, it's now being deployed at the biggest pharma companies as part of their core discovery engines. "Over the course of 2025, these models went from being research curiosities... to being able to design molecules without needing to fine-tune them on a lot of data." "You can really just prompt them in the way that you'd prompt an LLM with a target, maybe some disease you're going after. And they will design a number of candidates that would help do that, essentially." "A year, year and a half ago, basically none of this stuff worked." "In 2025 we really crossed the Rubicon. And now these technologies are actively being deployed in companies like Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer. These are some of the most scientific, highest-tech companies in the world. And they're putting them into real drug programs and making them part of their core discovery engines."

TBPN

29,183 次观看 • 28 天前

Nvidia is pulling off the most sophisticated financial loop in tech history. They invested $40 BILLION in its own customers in just 5 months. Here's why this could blow up the entire AI economy: Nvidia generated $97 billion in free cash flow last year. Instead of sitting on it, Jensen started writing checks to every company in the AI supply chain. Not small checks. We're talking about billions at a time. And almost every single one of those companies turns around and spends that money on Nvidia chips. Follow the money: $30 billion into OpenAI. OpenAI is one of Nvidia's largest GPU customers and spends billions annually on Nvidia hardware through cloud providers. $2 billion into CoreWeave, a company that exists exclusively to rent out data centers full of Nvidia GPUs. $2 billion into Marvell for silicon photonics that connects Nvidia systems. $2 billion into Lumentum for optical tech that powers Nvidia data centers. $2 billion into Coherent for the same thing. $2 billion into Nebius, an AI cloud company deploying Nvidia infrastructure. $3.2 billion into Corning, the glassmaker building three new US factories specifically to make fiber optic cables for Nvidia's next-gen systems. $2.1 billion into IREN, a data center operator that just agreed to deploy 5 gigawatts of Nvidia-designed infrastructure. And the list goes on. Every single recipient either buys Nvidia chips directly, builds infrastructure that runs on Nvidia chips, or manufactures components that go inside Nvidia systems. Matthew Bryson, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, said in a research note that Nvidia's dealmaking fits "squarely into the circular investment theme." Bloomberg even published an entire interactive feature this week titled "AI Circular Deals: How Microsoft, OpenAI and Nvidia Keep Paying Each Other." The piece maps how capital flows between the same handful of companies and gets counted as revenue multiple times along the way. But here's the part that makes this genuinely complicated: Nvidia's $5 billion investment in Intel from September is now worth over $25 billion. That's a 5x return in months. Their private company portfolio went from $3.4 billion to $22.3 billion on the balance sheet in a single year. They booked $8.9 billion in gains from equity investments alone. So when critics say "circular investing," Nvidia can point to Intel and say "we turned $5 billion into $25 billion, this is just smart capital deployment." And they're not wrong. Some of these bets ARE paying off like crazy. The real question is whether Nvidia is a chipmaker that happens to invest, or a venture fund that happens to sell chips. Because right now Jensen is doing both at a scale that has never existed in the semiconductor industry. No chipmaker in history has EVER invested $40 billion in its own ecosystem in five months. Last fiscal year Nvidia invested $17.5 billion in private companies. Their SEC filing literally says those investments include "AI model companies that purchase its products directly or through cloud service providers." They're saying it themselves: We invest in companies that buy our products. On Nvidia's last earnings call, Jensen told investors their investments are focused on "expanding and deepening our ecosystem reach." Translate that from CEO-speak and it means " we're funding the companies that fund us. The bull case says Nvidia is building an unbreakable moat by financing the entire AI supply chain and ensuring it all runs on Nvidia hardware. The bear case says this is the most elaborate circular revenue scheme since the subprime mortgage era and it all breaks apart the moment one domino falls. Both cases use the exact same evidence.

Nvidia is pulling off the most sophisticated financial loop in tech history. They invested $40 BILLION in its own customers in just 5 months. Here's why this could blow up the entire AI economy: Nvidia generated $97 billion in free cash flow last year. Instead of sitting on it, Jensen started writing checks to every company in the AI supply chain. Not small checks. We're talking about billions at a time. And almost every single one of those companies turns around and spends that money on Nvidia chips. Follow the money: $30 billion into OpenAI. OpenAI is one of Nvidia's largest GPU customers and spends billions annually on Nvidia hardware through cloud providers. $2 billion into CoreWeave, a company that exists exclusively to rent out data centers full of Nvidia GPUs. $2 billion into Marvell for silicon photonics that connects Nvidia systems. $2 billion into Lumentum for optical tech that powers Nvidia data centers. $2 billion into Coherent for the same thing. $2 billion into Nebius, an AI cloud company deploying Nvidia infrastructure. $3.2 billion into Corning, the glassmaker building three new US factories specifically to make fiber optic cables for Nvidia's next-gen systems. $2.1 billion into IREN, a data center operator that just agreed to deploy 5 gigawatts of Nvidia-designed infrastructure. And the list goes on. Every single recipient either buys Nvidia chips directly, builds infrastructure that runs on Nvidia chips, or manufactures components that go inside Nvidia systems. Matthew Bryson, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, said in a research note that Nvidia's dealmaking fits "squarely into the circular investment theme." Bloomberg even published an entire interactive feature this week titled "AI Circular Deals: How Microsoft, OpenAI and Nvidia Keep Paying Each Other." The piece maps how capital flows between the same handful of companies and gets counted as revenue multiple times along the way. But here's the part that makes this genuinely complicated: Nvidia's $5 billion investment in Intel from September is now worth over $25 billion. That's a 5x return in months. Their private company portfolio went from $3.4 billion to $22.3 billion on the balance sheet in a single year. They booked $8.9 billion in gains from equity investments alone. So when critics say "circular investing," Nvidia can point to Intel and say "we turned $5 billion into $25 billion, this is just smart capital deployment." And they're not wrong. Some of these bets ARE paying off like crazy. The real question is whether Nvidia is a chipmaker that happens to invest, or a venture fund that happens to sell chips. Because right now Jensen is doing both at a scale that has never existed in the semiconductor industry. No chipmaker in history has EVER invested $40 billion in its own ecosystem in five months. Last fiscal year Nvidia invested $17.5 billion in private companies. Their SEC filing literally says those investments include "AI model companies that purchase its products directly or through cloud service providers." They're saying it themselves: We invest in companies that buy our products. On Nvidia's last earnings call, Jensen told investors their investments are focused on "expanding and deepening our ecosystem reach." Translate that from CEO-speak and it means " we're funding the companies that fund us. The bull case says Nvidia is building an unbreakable moat by financing the entire AI supply chain and ensuring it all runs on Nvidia hardware. The bear case says this is the most elaborate circular revenue scheme since the subprime mortgage era and it all breaks apart the moment one domino falls. Both cases use the exact same evidence.

Ricardo

159,345 次观看 • 3 个月前

NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang just gave us a glimpse into the future of AI, and it's far bigger than text and images. He asked: "If you can understand worlds, is it possible that you understand proteins and chemicals that have structure?” This is the quiet revolution happening in AI right now. We're moving from an AI that understands human language to an AI that understands the language of nature itself. The "letters" are atoms. The "words" are molecules. The "sentences" are the complex structures of life, networks, and reality. The same foundational models that generate video are now being used to: *Decode proteins to fight disease *Design new materials at the atomic level *Simulate complex systems in quantum computing These were once the domain of supercomputers and Nobel laureates. Now, they're becoming solvable problems for a new generation of startups. AI is transitioning from a tool for communication to a tool for creation and discovery in the physical world. This is where the next wave of generational companies will be built. The "hard-to-solve" problems are now within reach.

NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang just gave us a glimpse into the future of AI, and it's far bigger than text and images. He asked: "If you can understand worlds, is it possible that you understand proteins and chemicals that have structure?” This is the quiet revolution happening in AI right now. We're moving from an AI that understands human language to an AI that understands the language of nature itself. The "letters" are atoms. The "words" are molecules. The "sentences" are the complex structures of life, networks, and reality. The same foundational models that generate video are now being used to: Decode proteins to fight disease Design new materials at the atomic level *Simulate complex systems in quantum computing These were once the domain of supercomputers and Nobel laureates. Now, they're becoming solvable problems for a new generation of startups. AI is transitioning from a tool for communication to a tool for creation and discovery in the physical world. This is where the next wave of generational companies will be built. The "hard-to-solve" problems are now within reach.

Konstantine Buhler

13,014 次观看 • 9 个月前

Demis Hassabis explains Isomorphic Labs' 10x drug discovery engine, and why solving disease could also create a multi-hundred-billion-dollar business "If you ask me, the number one thing AI can do for humanity, it would be to solve hundreds of terrible diseases. I can't imagine a better use case for AI." "If you could revolutionize the drug discovery process, make it 10x faster and more efficient, and more likely to pass through the clinical trials because you can predict the properties better, that has to also be of enormous commercial value too." "I hope to do both with Isomorphic." "Build a multi-hundred-billion-dollar business. I think it has that potential, as well as being incredibly beneficial for society and humanity." The real health AI prize is not another chatbot. It is compressing the path from a predicted drug property to a clinical trial, then turning that speed into treatments for hundreds of diseases. Demis is making a rare dual bet: the most valuable AI company in biology may also deliver AI's most valuable public benefit. - Demis Hassabis (Demis Hassabis), CEO of Google DeepMind and founder of Isomorphic Labs, on Bloomberg TV

Demis Hassabis explains Isomorphic Labs' 10x drug discovery engine, and why solving disease could also create a multi-hundred-billion-dollar business "If you ask me, the number one thing AI can do for humanity, it would be to solve hundreds of terrible diseases. I can't imagine a better use case for AI." "If you could revolutionize the drug discovery process, make it 10x faster and more efficient, and more likely to pass through the clinical trials because you can predict the properties better, that has to also be of enormous commercial value too." "I hope to do both with Isomorphic." "Build a multi-hundred-billion-dollar business. I think it has that potential, as well as being incredibly beneficial for society and humanity." The real health AI prize is not another chatbot. It is compressing the path from a predicted drug property to a clinical trial, then turning that speed into treatments for hundreds of diseases. Demis is making a rare dual bet: the most valuable AI company in biology may also deliver AI's most valuable public benefit. - Demis Hassabis (Demis Hassabis), CEO of Google DeepMind and founder of Isomorphic Labs, on Bloomberg TV

Karl Mehta

46,840 次观看 • 1 个月前

We live in a golden age of biology. So why are people still dying from disease? Because discovery and development move slower than they should. Today, we’re partnering with Incyte to change that. Kosmos is now the first agent that can compress months of drug development into weeks, from the earliest stages of scientific discovery through to FDA approval. Incyte will be the first company to deploy it across their pipeline. Work that used to take a team of scientists months now happens in weeks. Patients can't wait, and neither can we.

We live in a golden age of biology. So why are people still dying from disease? Because discovery and development move slower than they should. Today, we’re partnering with Incyte to change that. Kosmos is now the first agent that can compress months of drug development into weeks, from the earliest stages of scientific discovery through to FDA approval. Incyte will be the first company to deploy it across their pipeline. Work that used to take a team of scientists months now happens in weeks. Patients can't wait, and neither can we.

Sam Rodriques

7,030,496 次观看 • 2 个月前

Literature review is often a starting point for drug discovery campaigns, but it is a time consuming step. The NVIDIA Healthcare team created a reference framework for a Biomedical Research Agent that uses the Llama Nemotron reasoning model to review 100+ manuscripts in minutes, generate complex hypotheses, and identify potential target/small molecule pairs for a particular disease. The results can be handed off to the BioNeMo virtual screening agent that continues the thought experiment by predicting protein–ligand interactions. Github details in 🧵 Note: This is a simplified example intended to demonstrate software capabilities.

Literature review is often a starting point for drug discovery campaigns, but it is a time consuming step. The NVIDIA Healthcare team created a reference framework for a Biomedical Research Agent that uses the Llama Nemotron reasoning model to review 100+ manuscripts in minutes, generate complex hypotheses, and identify potential target/small molecule pairs for a particular disease. The results can be handed off to the BioNeMo virtual screening agent that continues the thought experiment by predicting protein–ligand interactions. Github details in 🧵 Note: This is a simplified example intended to demonstrate software capabilities.

Vega Shah

12,562 次观看 • 1 年前

One of the biggest unsolved problems in making medicines is what comes after AI design. Gleb Kuznetsov, cofounder and CEO of Manifold Bio, is tackling the in vivo bottleneck. Screening hundreds of thousands of antibody designs in a single animal changes what’s possible in drug discovery. I’ve known Gleb since he was my TA at MIT, so it was really fun to have him on Transcribed. We talked about: - Why he left Google to start over in biology (literally showing up at george church’s lab and asking how he could be useful) - How 3 companies came out of his grad school lab bay - What it takes to build a true platform company - Where AI-driven drug discovery is actually headed

One of the biggest unsolved problems in making medicines is what comes after AI design. Gleb Kuznetsov, cofounder and CEO of Manifold Bio, is tackling the in vivo bottleneck. Screening hundreds of thousands of antibody designs in a single animal changes what’s possible in drug discovery. I’ve known Gleb since he was my TA at MIT, so it was really fun to have him on Transcribed. We talked about: - Why he left Google to start over in biology (literally showing up at george church’s lab and asking how he could be useful) - How 3 companies came out of his grad school lab bay - What it takes to build a true platform company - Where AI-driven drug discovery is actually headed

Sajith Wickramasekara

10,659 次观看 • 6 个月前

Demis Hassabis just described the exact architecture he is building to cure all human disease and said the breakthrough will not come gradually. It will hit all at once. He is building a full platform to do it. Think of it as a dozen AlphaFold-level models, each one covering a different step in the drug discovery process, all stitched together into a single engine that can be pointed at almost any disease area on earth. AlphaFold solved protein structure. It then folded 200 million proteins in a single year. Hassabis is now building the equivalent of that for every other step like protein interactions, molecular binding, toxicity prediction, drug design, and clinical stratification. Each one its own AlphaFold. All of them connected. He is already testing it on disease profiles in pre-clinical stages right now. Most biotech analysts still model drug discovery timelines in decades. McKinsey published a report estimating AI could reduce discovery timelines by 25 to 50 percent. Hassabis is not describing a 25 percent improvement. He is describing a complete replacement of the process. Do not expect a slow drip of results. Expect nothing for a few years and then a sudden explosion where everything works at once. Demis is running the same play. At a scale that makes AlphaFold look like a warm-up act. (Watch the full interview on YouTube at Two Minute Papers channel)

Demis Hassabis just described the exact architecture he is building to cure all human disease and said the breakthrough will not come gradually. It will hit all at once. He is building a full platform to do it. Think of it as a dozen AlphaFold-level models, each one covering a different step in the drug discovery process, all stitched together into a single engine that can be pointed at almost any disease area on earth. AlphaFold solved protein structure. It then folded 200 million proteins in a single year. Hassabis is now building the equivalent of that for every other step like protein interactions, molecular binding, toxicity prediction, drug design, and clinical stratification. Each one its own AlphaFold. All of them connected. He is already testing it on disease profiles in pre-clinical stages right now. Most biotech analysts still model drug discovery timelines in decades. McKinsey published a report estimating AI could reduce discovery timelines by 25 to 50 percent. Hassabis is not describing a 25 percent improvement. He is describing a complete replacement of the process. Do not expect a slow drip of results. Expect nothing for a few years and then a sudden explosion where everything works at once. Demis is running the same play. At a scale that makes AlphaFold look like a warm-up act. (Watch the full interview on YouTube at Two Minute Papers channel)

Ihtesham Ali

101,258 次观看 • 1 个月前

Alex on why AI + fully autonomous labs will compress drug discovery from five years to two: "If scientists are armed with agentic infrastructure that has an intelligence that's a multiple of Einstein, they will do science faster, with higher probability, for lower cost, and have greater impact." "AI coming into the discovery of medicines is one of the biggest unlocks we will see in history because it means we're no longer constrained by our hands or minds. We can identify all n number of hypotheses that could exist, figure out the best experiment to run, and run those 24/7." "The sheer ability to be more comprehensive in our hypothesis set, and to run experimentation at unprecedented scale, means we're going to speed breakthroughs from timelines that take three to five years to timelines that take less than a couple of years."

Alex on why AI + fully autonomous labs will compress drug discovery from five years to two: "If scientists are armed with agentic infrastructure that has an intelligence that's a multiple of Einstein, they will do science faster, with higher probability, for lower cost, and have greater impact." "AI coming into the discovery of medicines is one of the biggest unlocks we will see in history because it means we're no longer constrained by our hands or minds. We can identify all n number of hypotheses that could exist, figure out the best experiment to run, and run those 24/7." "The sheer ability to be more comprehensive in our hypothesis set, and to run experimentation at unprecedented scale, means we're going to speed breakthroughs from timelines that take three to five years to timelines that take less than a couple of years."

Patrick OShaughnessy

39,883 次观看 • 3 个月前

BREAKING: Michael Burry just compared Nvidia to the company that lost 90% of its value in the dot-com crash and took 25 years to recover. "I stand by my analysis. I am not claiming Nvidia is Enron. It is clearly Cisco." Here's the most recent warning from the investor who called the 2008 crash: Michael Burry built his reputation on one trade. He saw the housing market collapse before anyone else and bet against it. "The Big Short" made him famous. Now he's looking at Nvidia. And he says it looks like Cisco in March 2000. That comparison is not a casual insult. Cisco was the most valuable company in the world at the peak of the dot-com bubble. Its valuation crossed $500 billion. Then the bubble burst. The stock fell roughly 90% from its 2000 peak. Its market cap collapsed to about $60 billion by 2002. And it took roughly 25 years for the stock to climb back to where it started. An entire generation of investors waited a quarter century just to break even. That is the company Burry is comparing Nvidia to. Now here is the number that triggered the warning. In Nvidia's fiscal 2026 results, the company disclosed its purchase obligations. These are the commitments Nvidia makes to its suppliers to lock in future manufacturing capacity. A year ago, that figure sat at $16.1 billion. This year it jumped to $95.2 billion. Total supply obligations now sit at roughly $117 billion. Nvidia is committing $117 billion to build capacity for demand that has not arrived yet. Burry's argument is simple. A company does not lock in $117 billion in supplier commitments unless it is betting the demand keeps climbing. If that demand slows even slightly, Nvidia is holding billions in obligations it cannot unwind. And that is exactly what happened to Cisco. Cisco overcommitted to supplier capacity expecting roughly 50% annual growth. Then tech spending slowed. The inventory piled up. The stock cratered. Burry is not calling Nvidia a fraud. He is not saying it is the next Enron. He is saying it could be the market's Cisco. The single stock that becomes the symbol of an AI spending unwind that drags everything down with it. And the dot-com comparison carries weight because of what happened to the broader market. When that bubble burst, the Nasdaq 100 fell 77%. The S&P 500 dropped 49%. It was not just one stock. It was the whole market. Now here is the other side of the argument. Nvidia's supporters say the Cisco comparison is too simple. Because Cisco was riding hype. Nvidia is riding actual revenue. Nvidia reported fiscal 2026 revenue of $215.9 billion, up 65% year over year. Data center revenue alone hit roughly $193.7 billion, up 68%. Record quarterly data center revenue of $62.3 billion in the fourth quarter, up 75%. These are not promises. These are realized sales, booked and collected. The bulls argue that pricing power and margins this strong do not exist inside a pure bubble. In their view, Burry is warning about a future slowdown that has not shown up in a single quarterly report. So the debate splits into two clean halves. The bears say the $117 billion in commitments makes Nvidia dangerously sensitive to any demand slowdown. The bulls say the revenue is real, the growth is accelerating, and the buildout is justified by the orders already on the books. Both sides are looking at the same company. Both sides are looking at the same numbers. They just disagree on what those numbers mean. And there is a second force pulling at this market that has nothing to do with Nvidia's earnings. A wave of mega-IPOs is reportedly coming. SpaceX. OpenAI. Anthropic. Some estimates suggest the market may need to absorb close to $200 billion in fresh equity supply. That creates a quieter question underneath the Burry debate. Even if AI demand stays strong, capital is finite. When the next wave of private giants goes public, money has to come from somewhere. And the easiest place to pull it from is the stock that already tripled. The real test is not whether Burry is right or wrong today. It is whether demand growth, margins, and contract utilization keep matching the $117 billion that Nvidia and its entire ecosystem are committing right now. If the demand keeps climbing, the commitments look like foresight. If it stalls, they look like Cisco. The man who saw the last crash before anyone else just put a name on the risk. A company that was once worth over $500 billion, then lost 90%, then made its investors wait 25 years to get back to even. The numbers say Nvidia is booking record revenue. The same numbers say Nvidia is committing $117 billion to a future nobody can see. One of those facts ages well. The other one is the entire question.

BREAKING: Michael Burry just compared Nvidia to the company that lost 90% of its value in the dot-com crash and took 25 years to recover. "I stand by my analysis. I am not claiming Nvidia is Enron. It is clearly Cisco." Here's the most recent warning from the investor who called the 2008 crash: Michael Burry built his reputation on one trade. He saw the housing market collapse before anyone else and bet against it. "The Big Short" made him famous. Now he's looking at Nvidia. And he says it looks like Cisco in March 2000. That comparison is not a casual insult. Cisco was the most valuable company in the world at the peak of the dot-com bubble. Its valuation crossed $500 billion. Then the bubble burst. The stock fell roughly 90% from its 2000 peak. Its market cap collapsed to about $60 billion by 2002. And it took roughly 25 years for the stock to climb back to where it started. An entire generation of investors waited a quarter century just to break even. That is the company Burry is comparing Nvidia to. Now here is the number that triggered the warning. In Nvidia's fiscal 2026 results, the company disclosed its purchase obligations. These are the commitments Nvidia makes to its suppliers to lock in future manufacturing capacity. A year ago, that figure sat at $16.1 billion. This year it jumped to $95.2 billion. Total supply obligations now sit at roughly $117 billion. Nvidia is committing $117 billion to build capacity for demand that has not arrived yet. Burry's argument is simple. A company does not lock in $117 billion in supplier commitments unless it is betting the demand keeps climbing. If that demand slows even slightly, Nvidia is holding billions in obligations it cannot unwind. And that is exactly what happened to Cisco. Cisco overcommitted to supplier capacity expecting roughly 50% annual growth. Then tech spending slowed. The inventory piled up. The stock cratered. Burry is not calling Nvidia a fraud. He is not saying it is the next Enron. He is saying it could be the market's Cisco. The single stock that becomes the symbol of an AI spending unwind that drags everything down with it. And the dot-com comparison carries weight because of what happened to the broader market. When that bubble burst, the Nasdaq 100 fell 77%. The S&P 500 dropped 49%. It was not just one stock. It was the whole market. Now here is the other side of the argument. Nvidia's supporters say the Cisco comparison is too simple. Because Cisco was riding hype. Nvidia is riding actual revenue. Nvidia reported fiscal 2026 revenue of $215.9 billion, up 65% year over year. Data center revenue alone hit roughly $193.7 billion, up 68%. Record quarterly data center revenue of $62.3 billion in the fourth quarter, up 75%. These are not promises. These are realized sales, booked and collected. The bulls argue that pricing power and margins this strong do not exist inside a pure bubble. In their view, Burry is warning about a future slowdown that has not shown up in a single quarterly report. So the debate splits into two clean halves. The bears say the $117 billion in commitments makes Nvidia dangerously sensitive to any demand slowdown. The bulls say the revenue is real, the growth is accelerating, and the buildout is justified by the orders already on the books. Both sides are looking at the same company. Both sides are looking at the same numbers. They just disagree on what those numbers mean. And there is a second force pulling at this market that has nothing to do with Nvidia's earnings. A wave of mega-IPOs is reportedly coming. SpaceX. OpenAI. Anthropic. Some estimates suggest the market may need to absorb close to $200 billion in fresh equity supply. That creates a quieter question underneath the Burry debate. Even if AI demand stays strong, capital is finite. When the next wave of private giants goes public, money has to come from somewhere. And the easiest place to pull it from is the stock that already tripled. The real test is not whether Burry is right or wrong today. It is whether demand growth, margins, and contract utilization keep matching the $117 billion that Nvidia and its entire ecosystem are committing right now. If the demand keeps climbing, the commitments look like foresight. If it stalls, they look like Cisco. The man who saw the last crash before anyone else just put a name on the risk. A company that was once worth over $500 billion, then lost 90%, then made its investors wait 25 years to get back to even. The numbers say Nvidia is booking record revenue. The same numbers say Nvidia is committing $117 billion to a future nobody can see. One of those facts ages well. The other one is the entire question.

Insider Trackers

285,220 次观看 • 2 个月前

🚨 The Paxil scandal is an astonishing example of how drug data can be hidden and spun—and then sold to kids. “In the late 90s, the manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline or GSK did a series of trials and found that the drug was no better than placebo. …There was an email that was sent to staff where GSK said that [it] would be commercially unacceptable to disclose the poor efficacy data of this drug. So instead of telling the truth, they hired a PR firm to write the medical journal for them, to ghostwrite the article and put a positive spin on it, and then that was submitted to the journal, and it was published in 2001. And it wasn't long before the regulators in the US and also in Europe discovered that the drug actually was increasing the risk of suicidal ideation. It was doing the exact opposite of what the drug was meant to do. And so they put out a warning saying that this drug showed no efficacy in children and adolescents, but the drug continued to be marketed off-label…because the prominent journal had published this peer-reviewed paper. GSK purchased thousands of pre-prints and sent them out to all their representatives, and then they went to doctors, giving free samples, saying this drug is safe and effective for children. And I think within a time span of three years, GSK made over a billion dollars in sales from a drug that had never proven to be safe or effective in children and adolescents.” -Investigative journalist Maryanne Demasi, PhD

🚨 The Paxil scandal is an astonishing example of how drug data can be hidden and spun—and then sold to kids. “In the late 90s, the manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline or GSK did a series of trials and found that the drug was no better than placebo. …There was an email that was sent to staff where GSK said that [it] would be commercially unacceptable to disclose the poor efficacy data of this drug. So instead of telling the truth, they hired a PR firm to write the medical journal for them, to ghostwrite the article and put a positive spin on it, and then that was submitted to the journal, and it was published in 2001. And it wasn't long before the regulators in the US and also in Europe discovered that the drug actually was increasing the risk of suicidal ideation. It was doing the exact opposite of what the drug was meant to do. And so they put out a warning saying that this drug showed no efficacy in children and adolescents, but the drug continued to be marketed off-label…because the prominent journal had published this peer-reviewed paper. GSK purchased thousands of pre-prints and sent them out to all their representatives, and then they went to doctors, giving free samples, saying this drug is safe and effective for children. And I think within a time span of three years, GSK made over a billion dollars in sales from a drug that had never proven to be safe or effective in children and adolescents.” -Investigative journalist Maryanne Demasi, PhD

Jan Jekielek

140,141 次观看 • 8 个月前

Anthropic's CEO just said the most exciting thing he's seen AI do isn't writing code or passing exams but rather catching diseases that a room full of specialist doctors completely missed (Save this). Dario Amodei described watching Claude diagnose medical conditions that went undetected by multiple highly trained physicians including in his own co-founder Daniela. In a clinical study published earlier this year, AI outperformed attending physicians at diagnosing patients on arrival to the emergency room. Claude models correctly diagnosed 556 to 565 out of 945 complex medical cases compared to 467 correct from individual physicians on average. The medicine piece gets the headlines, but Amodei thinks the biology story is actually bigger. As a former biologist, he described watching Claude perform tasks in drug design and computational chemistry that previously required years of specialized training and being genuinely surprised at how capable it had become. The data backs up that reaction. In 2025, the first drug with both its target and molecule designed entirely by AI completed Phase IIa trials with measurable clinical efficacy reaching that milestone in 18 months versus the three to four years a traditional approach would have required. New AI antibody design models are now achieving 16 to 20% experimental hit rates in zero-shot design from scratch, a 100x improvement over prior computational benchmarks. Oxford researchers developed a model that identifies patients at risk of heart failure up to five years before symptoms appear, with 86% accuracy using standard CT scans already in hospitals. What Amodei is pointing at is something deeper than any individual breakthrough. He's describing a compression of time, the collapse of the gap between scientific question and scientific answer that has defined the pace of medicine for the last century. Traditional drug discovery runs 12 to 15 years from target identification to approval, AI is cutting that to 14 months in early-stage cases. The lead optimization cycle that used to take four months is being compressed to two weeks. That compounding rate, applied across every disease simultaneously, is what Amodei means when he points to 1900 and says think of another hundred years of that kind of progress, only faster. The caveats are real and worth noting. Even though AI achieves over 90% accuracy on final diagnoses when given complete information, it still struggles significantly with the early reasoning steps, building differential diagnoses, interpreting ambiguous initial symptoms, and deciding what questions to ask next. The bottleneck is no longer whether AI can get to the right answer but it's whether it can navigate the messy, incomplete information that defines real clinical encounters. But the trajectory is clear and Amodei is increasingly optimistic about it. Go back to 1900, the average person lived to 46, died of infections we now cure in three days, and had no meaningful treatment for cancer, heart disease, or diabetes, one century of scientific progress changed nearly all of that. AI doesn't just accelerate that process linearly, but rather parallelizes it, running thousands of research hypotheses simultaneously across every disease, every protein, every chemical interaction, at a speed no human institution has ever operated. That's what Amodei means when he says life is going to get better.

Anthropic's CEO just said the most exciting thing he's seen AI do isn't writing code or passing exams but rather catching diseases that a room full of specialist doctors completely missed (Save this). Dario Amodei described watching Claude diagnose medical conditions that went undetected by multiple highly trained physicians including in his own co-founder Daniela. In a clinical study published earlier this year, AI outperformed attending physicians at diagnosing patients on arrival to the emergency room. Claude models correctly diagnosed 556 to 565 out of 945 complex medical cases compared to 467 correct from individual physicians on average. The medicine piece gets the headlines, but Amodei thinks the biology story is actually bigger. As a former biologist, he described watching Claude perform tasks in drug design and computational chemistry that previously required years of specialized training and being genuinely surprised at how capable it had become. The data backs up that reaction. In 2025, the first drug with both its target and molecule designed entirely by AI completed Phase IIa trials with measurable clinical efficacy reaching that milestone in 18 months versus the three to four years a traditional approach would have required. New AI antibody design models are now achieving 16 to 20% experimental hit rates in zero-shot design from scratch, a 100x improvement over prior computational benchmarks. Oxford researchers developed a model that identifies patients at risk of heart failure up to five years before symptoms appear, with 86% accuracy using standard CT scans already in hospitals. What Amodei is pointing at is something deeper than any individual breakthrough. He's describing a compression of time, the collapse of the gap between scientific question and scientific answer that has defined the pace of medicine for the last century. Traditional drug discovery runs 12 to 15 years from target identification to approval, AI is cutting that to 14 months in early-stage cases. The lead optimization cycle that used to take four months is being compressed to two weeks. That compounding rate, applied across every disease simultaneously, is what Amodei means when he points to 1900 and says think of another hundred years of that kind of progress, only faster. The caveats are real and worth noting. Even though AI achieves over 90% accuracy on final diagnoses when given complete information, it still struggles significantly with the early reasoning steps, building differential diagnoses, interpreting ambiguous initial symptoms, and deciding what questions to ask next. The bottleneck is no longer whether AI can get to the right answer but it's whether it can navigate the messy, incomplete information that defines real clinical encounters. But the trajectory is clear and Amodei is increasingly optimistic about it. Go back to 1900, the average person lived to 46, died of infections we now cure in three days, and had no meaningful treatment for cancer, heart disease, or diabetes, one century of scientific progress changed nearly all of that. AI doesn't just accelerate that process linearly, but rather parallelizes it, running thousands of research hypotheses simultaneously across every disease, every protein, every chemical interaction, at a speed no human institution has ever operated. That's what Amodei means when he says life is going to get better.

Milk Road AI

44,385 次观看 • 1 个月前

The market is watching xAI charge $50 billion per gigawatt and the rest of the neocloud sector run up is just getting started (Save this). According to Gavin Baker of Atreides Management, this is the most important number in AI infrastructure right now, xAI is monetizing compute at $50 billion per gigawatt on the Google deal, 2 to 3 times what any neocloud competitor charges. Google is paying $920 million per month for access to roughly 110,000 Nvidia GPUs through June 2029, and Anthropic is paying $1.25 billion per month for Colossus 1's 300 megawatts. Baker's point is simple that stop tracking rocket launches, stop tracking GPU orders, model gigawatt additions. At $50 billion per gigawatt, every new gigawatt that xAI energizes over the next 12 months is a revenue event that the market has not yet priced in. But this is not just an xAI story but rather why neocloud stocks are one of the most mispriced assets in the entire AI stack. Neoclouds charge $17 to $25 billion per gigawatt in contract value, a dramatic discount to xAI's pricing, but still an extraordinary business model when the underlying infrastructure costs $9 to $12 million per megawatt to operate and customers are signing 5-year locked contracts. H100 GPU-hours from neoclouds like Nebius at $2.95 per GPU-hour are 66% cheaper than hyperscaler rates, which is the structural reason enterprise AI teams are shifting spend to neoclouds at an accelerating pace. The neocloud market is projected to grow 69% annually through 2030 to reach nearly $180 billion and right now only a handful of public companies offer direct exposure to it. Nebius is the standout among the publicly traded neoclouds. It reported Q1 2026 AI cloud revenue of $399 million, an 841% increase year over year beating estimates, with its CEO stating that demand continues to exceed available capacity and customers are actively being turned away. Nebius commands a 20 to 25% revenue premium over peers thanks to its full-stack software offering, European sovereign positioning, and data residency advantages that physically prevent hyperscalers from competing for a large portion of its customer base. It has $49 billion in contracted backlog with Meta, Microsoft, and Nvidia meaning its revenue trajectory for the next three to five years is not a forecast, it is a schedule. The competitive moat is in power, permits, and speed exactly what xAI has proven is the true bottleneck. Jensen Huang said publicly that xAI deploys data centers faster than anyone else in the ecosystem, and Baker called out that this deployment speed advantage directly translates to monetization speed, every week of earlier energization at these pricing levels is worth hundreds of millions in revenue. Neoclouds with secured power, permits, and long-term customer contracts are not in a fair race against companies still waiting on grid connections and zoning approvals. The companies with the most locked in gigawatts coming online in 2026 and 2027 are about to have very good years.

The market is watching xAI charge $50 billion per gigawatt and the rest of the neocloud sector run up is just getting started (Save this). According to Gavin Baker of Atreides Management, this is the most important number in AI infrastructure right now, xAI is monetizing compute at $50 billion per gigawatt on the Google deal, 2 to 3 times what any neocloud competitor charges. Google is paying $920 million per month for access to roughly 110,000 Nvidia GPUs through June 2029, and Anthropic is paying $1.25 billion per month for Colossus 1's 300 megawatts. Baker's point is simple that stop tracking rocket launches, stop tracking GPU orders, model gigawatt additions. At $50 billion per gigawatt, every new gigawatt that xAI energizes over the next 12 months is a revenue event that the market has not yet priced in. But this is not just an xAI story but rather why neocloud stocks are one of the most mispriced assets in the entire AI stack. Neoclouds charge $17 to $25 billion per gigawatt in contract value, a dramatic discount to xAI's pricing, but still an extraordinary business model when the underlying infrastructure costs $9 to $12 million per megawatt to operate and customers are signing 5-year locked contracts. H100 GPU-hours from neoclouds like Nebius at $2.95 per GPU-hour are 66% cheaper than hyperscaler rates, which is the structural reason enterprise AI teams are shifting spend to neoclouds at an accelerating pace. The neocloud market is projected to grow 69% annually through 2030 to reach nearly $180 billion and right now only a handful of public companies offer direct exposure to it. Nebius is the standout among the publicly traded neoclouds. It reported Q1 2026 AI cloud revenue of $399 million, an 841% increase year over year beating estimates, with its CEO stating that demand continues to exceed available capacity and customers are actively being turned away. Nebius commands a 20 to 25% revenue premium over peers thanks to its full-stack software offering, European sovereign positioning, and data residency advantages that physically prevent hyperscalers from competing for a large portion of its customer base. It has $49 billion in contracted backlog with Meta, Microsoft, and Nvidia meaning its revenue trajectory for the next three to five years is not a forecast, it is a schedule. The competitive moat is in power, permits, and speed exactly what xAI has proven is the true bottleneck. Jensen Huang said publicly that xAI deploys data centers faster than anyone else in the ecosystem, and Baker called out that this deployment speed advantage directly translates to monetization speed, every week of earlier energization at these pricing levels is worth hundreds of millions in revenue. Neoclouds with secured power, permits, and long-term customer contracts are not in a fair race against companies still waiting on grid connections and zoning approvals. The companies with the most locked in gigawatts coming online in 2026 and 2027 are about to have very good years.

Milk Road AI

74,611 次观看 • 1 个月前

Elon Musk's biggest competitor is secretly paying him $1.25 BILLION per month. SpaceX just revealed its financials for the first time in 23 years of existence. And buried deep in the S-1 is a detail that changes how you should think about the entire AI race. Anthropic, the company building Claude, the company that positions itself as OpenAI's biggest threat, the company valued at over $100 billion, is paying SpaceX $1.25 billion EVERY SINGLE MONTH for compute capacity through May 2029. That is $15 billion a year flowing directly from Elon's top AI competitor into Elon's bank account. Think about what that means: Every time Anthropic trains a new model, improves Claude, or lands an enterprise customer, a massive chunk of that revenue goes straight to the guy who owns the competing AI product. Anthropic is literally funding the war against itself. And that's just the beginning of what this filing reveals... The entire SpaceX IPO is structured around a bet most people haven't figured out yet. In 2025, SpaceX spent $20 billion in capex. 60% of that, roughly $12 billion, went to AI infrastructure. Rockets and satellites got the leftovers. In Q1 2026 alone, $7.7 billion out of $10 billion in total capex went to AI. The "rocket company" is spending like an AI company. Meanwhile, xAI, the division that houses Grok, generated $3.2 billion in revenue for the full year of 2025. But its R&D costs TRIPLED to $5 billion. It's burning cash at a pace that would have destroyed it as a standalone company. Which is exactly why Elon merged it into SpaceX two months before filing the IPO. And Starlink is the engine that makes the whole thing work: $11.4 billion in revenue, $4.4 billion in operating profit, and 10.3 million subscribers across 164 countries. It's one of the most profitable subscription businesses on the planet right now. But the average revenue per user DROPPED from $99 per month in 2023 to $66 per month in March 2026. Subscribers quadrupled but each one is paying a third less. Starlink is growing by getting cheaper. SpaceX has lost $37 BILLION since it was founded. Net loss in 2025 was $4.9 billion. This is a company that has never turned an annual profit in 23 years of operation, and it is about to IPO at a $1.75 trillion valuation. And the total addressable market SpaceX claims in the filing is $28.5 trillion. That is a QUARTER of global GDP. So here is what investors are actually buying when this IPO prices: They are buying the most profitable satellite internet business in history, stapled to an AI lab that is burning cash, wrapped inside a Mars colonization pitch that requires building a permanent city on another planet, funded by monthly billion-dollar payments from a direct competitor who has no other option for compute at that scale. This is the kind of thing only Elon could pull off.

Elon Musk's biggest competitor is secretly paying him $1.25 BILLION per month. SpaceX just revealed its financials for the first time in 23 years of existence. And buried deep in the S-1 is a detail that changes how you should think about the entire AI race. Anthropic, the company building Claude, the company that positions itself as OpenAI's biggest threat, the company valued at over $100 billion, is paying SpaceX $1.25 billion EVERY SINGLE MONTH for compute capacity through May 2029. That is $15 billion a year flowing directly from Elon's top AI competitor into Elon's bank account. Think about what that means: Every time Anthropic trains a new model, improves Claude, or lands an enterprise customer, a massive chunk of that revenue goes straight to the guy who owns the competing AI product. Anthropic is literally funding the war against itself. And that's just the beginning of what this filing reveals... The entire SpaceX IPO is structured around a bet most people haven't figured out yet. In 2025, SpaceX spent $20 billion in capex. 60% of that, roughly $12 billion, went to AI infrastructure. Rockets and satellites got the leftovers. In Q1 2026 alone, $7.7 billion out of $10 billion in total capex went to AI. The "rocket company" is spending like an AI company. Meanwhile, xAI, the division that houses Grok, generated $3.2 billion in revenue for the full year of 2025. But its R&D costs TRIPLED to $5 billion. It's burning cash at a pace that would have destroyed it as a standalone company. Which is exactly why Elon merged it into SpaceX two months before filing the IPO. And Starlink is the engine that makes the whole thing work: $11.4 billion in revenue, $4.4 billion in operating profit, and 10.3 million subscribers across 164 countries. It's one of the most profitable subscription businesses on the planet right now. But the average revenue per user DROPPED from $99 per month in 2023 to $66 per month in March 2026. Subscribers quadrupled but each one is paying a third less. Starlink is growing by getting cheaper. SpaceX has lost $37 BILLION since it was founded. Net loss in 2025 was $4.9 billion. This is a company that has never turned an annual profit in 23 years of operation, and it is about to IPO at a $1.75 trillion valuation. And the total addressable market SpaceX claims in the filing is $28.5 trillion. That is a QUARTER of global GDP. So here is what investors are actually buying when this IPO prices: They are buying the most profitable satellite internet business in history, stapled to an AI lab that is burning cash, wrapped inside a Mars colonization pitch that requires building a permanent city on another planet, funded by monthly billion-dollar payments from a direct competitor who has no other option for compute at that scale. This is the kind of thing only Elon could pull off.

Ricardo

208,495 次观看 • 2 个月前

To date, finding a drug has been a process of guess & check… screening millions of molecules hoping one binds. Chai Discovery is changing the paradigm… describe the molecule you want, and the model designs it. Joshua Meier and Matt McPartlon took antibody hit rates from roughly 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 7. That's the jump from search to engineering. On this episode of Training Data, they get into where the field actually is, why 2024 was the moment to start, what drug discovery looks like when the computer does the design, and more. 00:00 Introduction 01:52 From Discovery to Design 03:25 Protein AI Breakthroughs Timeline 06:04 Why Start in 2024 10:13 Diffusion Models Intuition 11:41 Building the Avengers Team 15:22 Hit Rates and Scaling Laws 25:01 Molecular CAD Vision 25:24 Faster Design Loops 26:32 Future Drug Discovery 28:37 Platform Business Model 31:14 Partnering Reality Check 33:44 Data Flywheel Explained 37:16 Staying Ahead at Scale 39:44 Culture and What's Next

To date, finding a drug has been a process of guess & check… screening millions of molecules hoping one binds. Chai Discovery is changing the paradigm… describe the molecule you want, and the model designs it. Joshua Meier and Matt McPartlon took antibody hit rates from roughly 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 7. That's the jump from search to engineering. On this episode of Training Data, they get into where the field actually is, why 2024 was the moment to start, what drug discovery looks like when the computer does the design, and more. 00:00 Introduction 01:52 From Discovery to Design 03:25 Protein AI Breakthroughs Timeline 06:04 Why Start in 2024 10:13 Diffusion Models Intuition 11:41 Building the Avengers Team 15:22 Hit Rates and Scaling Laws 25:01 Molecular CAD Vision 25:24 Faster Design Loops 26:32 Future Drug Discovery 28:37 Platform Business Model 31:14 Partnering Reality Check 33:44 Data Flywheel Explained 37:16 Staying Ahead at Scale 39:44 Culture and What's Next

Pat Grady

32,076 次观看 • 7 天前

🚨 WARNING: NVIDIA x ELON MUSK DEAL IS BUILT ON FAKE NUMBERS!! Michael Burry published an analysis calling the structure “Fugazi”, meaning fake. If the structure is real, we could be heading for a COLLAPSE: He is alleging that BILLIONS of dollars in Nvidia chips are being hidden off balance sheets, and that American retirees are unknowingly funding the whole thing. Nvidia, the world's largest AI chip company sold $5.4 BILLION worth of its most advanced GPUs, the GB200, to a company called Valor. Valor is not a real operating business. It is a special purpose vehicle, a shell company created specifically to hold these chips and nothing else. Nvidia also invested $1.9 BILLION of its own money directly into Valor on top of the sale. Those 100,000+ chips are now physically inside xAI's data center. xAI is Elon Musk's artificial intelligence company, the one that builds Grok. xAI is using every single one of those chips right now to run its AI models. But here is what Burry is flagging. Neither Nvidia nor xAI owns those chips on paper. Valor, the shell company holds legal title. That means $5.4 BILLION in GPU assets do not show up on Nvidia's balance sheet as inventory. They do not show up on xAI's balance sheet as assets. They are legally invisible to both companies. Nvidia gets to book the $5.4 BILLION as a completed sale and record it as revenue. xAI gets full use of the chips without owning them. And the risk disappears into a shell company in the middle. Now here is where American retirees enter the picture. Valor needed $3.5 BILLION in debt to fund this structure. Apollo provided it. Apollo is one of the largest asset managers on earth with $1.03 TRILLION under management and $834 BILLION specifically in private credit. Apollo raised the $3.5 BILLION, packaged it into debt securities, and sold those securities to Athene. Athene is Apollo's own insurance company. It sells fixed and indexed annuities, retirement savings products, to ordinary Americans. When a retiree buys an Athene annuity, they believe their money is sitting in safe, stable investments. That money is now inside a structure funding Elon Musk's AI data center. The numbers inside Athene are most alarming. Athene holds $74.2 BILLION in reserves. It has moved $217 BILLION in assets into a captive insurer based in Bermuda, meaning those assets sit outside normal US insurance regulation and oversight. Of the entire portfolio, 34.7%, equal to $103 BILLION, is classified as Level 3 assets. Level 3 is an accounting classification that means there is no observable market price for these assets. No outside party can independently verify what they are actually worth. The leverage sitting on top of those unpriced assets is 16 times. Burry's says: Every step of this structure is technically legal and publicly disclosed. But the entire thing was deliberately engineered across 8 to 12 steps to move credit risk off balance sheets and away from any market pricing. Nvidia books the revenue. Apollo collects the fees. xAI gets the computing power. And retirees sitting at the bottom of a 16x leveraged Bermuda insurance structure, holding $103 BILLION in assets with no market price carry the risk without knowing it exists. I’ve been in finance for more than 15 years. When I EXIT the markets completely, I’ll say it here publicly, like I always do. Turn notifications on. If you’re not following yet, you’ll understand why that was a mistake later.

🚨 WARNING: NVIDIA x ELON MUSK DEAL IS BUILT ON FAKE NUMBERS!! Michael Burry published an analysis calling the structure “Fugazi”, meaning fake. If the structure is real, we could be heading for a COLLAPSE: He is alleging that BILLIONS of dollars in Nvidia chips are being hidden off balance sheets, and that American retirees are unknowingly funding the whole thing. Nvidia, the world's largest AI chip company sold $5.4 BILLION worth of its most advanced GPUs, the GB200, to a company called Valor. Valor is not a real operating business. It is a special purpose vehicle, a shell company created specifically to hold these chips and nothing else. Nvidia also invested $1.9 BILLION of its own money directly into Valor on top of the sale. Those 100,000+ chips are now physically inside xAI's data center. xAI is Elon Musk's artificial intelligence company, the one that builds Grok. xAI is using every single one of those chips right now to run its AI models. But here is what Burry is flagging. Neither Nvidia nor xAI owns those chips on paper. Valor, the shell company holds legal title. That means $5.4 BILLION in GPU assets do not show up on Nvidia's balance sheet as inventory. They do not show up on xAI's balance sheet as assets. They are legally invisible to both companies. Nvidia gets to book the $5.4 BILLION as a completed sale and record it as revenue. xAI gets full use of the chips without owning them. And the risk disappears into a shell company in the middle. Now here is where American retirees enter the picture. Valor needed $3.5 BILLION in debt to fund this structure. Apollo provided it. Apollo is one of the largest asset managers on earth with $1.03 TRILLION under management and $834 BILLION specifically in private credit. Apollo raised the $3.5 BILLION, packaged it into debt securities, and sold those securities to Athene. Athene is Apollo's own insurance company. It sells fixed and indexed annuities, retirement savings products, to ordinary Americans. When a retiree buys an Athene annuity, they believe their money is sitting in safe, stable investments. That money is now inside a structure funding Elon Musk's AI data center. The numbers inside Athene are most alarming. Athene holds $74.2 BILLION in reserves. It has moved $217 BILLION in assets into a captive insurer based in Bermuda, meaning those assets sit outside normal US insurance regulation and oversight. Of the entire portfolio, 34.7%, equal to $103 BILLION, is classified as Level 3 assets. Level 3 is an accounting classification that means there is no observable market price for these assets. No outside party can independently verify what they are actually worth. The leverage sitting on top of those unpriced assets is 16 times. Burry's says: Every step of this structure is technically legal and publicly disclosed. But the entire thing was deliberately engineered across 8 to 12 steps to move credit risk off balance sheets and away from any market pricing. Nvidia books the revenue. Apollo collects the fees. xAI gets the computing power. And retirees sitting at the bottom of a 16x leveraged Bermuda insurance structure, holding $103 BILLION in assets with no market price carry the risk without knowing it exists. I’ve been in finance for more than 15 years. When I EXIT the markets completely, I’ll say it here publicly, like I always do. Turn notifications on. If you’re not following yet, you’ll understand why that was a mistake later.

WhaleTwits

48,759 次观看 • 2 个月前

Less than two weeks before he left Google to co-found Discovery Loop, Jeff Dean described the automated research loop the new company is named for, giving no hint he was about to leave to go do it. "There's this sort of the foundation of the scientific method of you propose an experiment, you implement what you need to run the experiment, and you evaluate the experiment, and then you get results from that." "And I think there are more and more problems that are now possible to implement where that whole loop of running not just a few experiments, but running many, many experiments because you're able to automate that loop and make the latency of that loop extremely low is going to be really, really important." "It's going to enable us to tackle lots of different problem domains in science and engineering and machine learning, model design itself, and also in engineering tasks like designing chips."

Less than two weeks before he left Google to co-found Discovery Loop, Jeff Dean described the automated research loop the new company is named for, giving no hint he was about to leave to go do it. "There's this sort of the foundation of the scientific method of you propose an experiment, you implement what you need to run the experiment, and you evaluate the experiment, and then you get results from that." "And I think there are more and more problems that are now possible to implement where that whole loop of running not just a few experiments, but running many, many experiments because you're able to automate that loop and make the latency of that loop extremely low is going to be really, really important." "It's going to enable us to tackle lots of different problem domains in science and engineering and machine learning, model design itself, and also in engineering tasks like designing chips."

Fireside Alpha

14,495 次观看 • 6 天前

Jensen Huang just said this is the greatest era in history to build software. AI agents will not kill software. They will do the exact opposite: create a massive new wave of software demand. at NVIDIA GTC Taipei 2026 "Click and type. We now replace that with explaining to the AI what we want, our intent, and the AI generates the code or uses tools to produce the necessary output. This is how computers are going to work in the future. This is Agentic AI. For two years, we've been building toward this, and now it has arrived. One of the big breakthroughs, of course, is tool use. A lot of people have said, “Jensen, AI is coming. Agentic AI is coming. Therefore, all the software companies are going to go out of business.” This is exactly the opposite. Because there are going to be so many agents, the world is no longer limited by the number of people. Therefore, those agents are going to use more tools than ever. This is actually an incredible time to be a software company. But the software has to be presented to the agent in a way that the agent can use it. This is a big breakthrough. And in fact, what we have done, as you know, what Nvidia’s treasure..." ---- From 'NVIDIA' YT channel (link in comment)

Jensen Huang just said this is the greatest era in history to build software. AI agents will not kill software. They will do the exact opposite: create a massive new wave of software demand. at NVIDIA GTC Taipei 2026 "Click and type. We now replace that with explaining to the AI what we want, our intent, and the AI generates the code or uses tools to produce the necessary output. This is how computers are going to work in the future. This is Agentic AI. For two years, we've been building toward this, and now it has arrived. One of the big breakthroughs, of course, is tool use. A lot of people have said, “Jensen, AI is coming. Agentic AI is coming. Therefore, all the software companies are going to go out of business.” This is exactly the opposite. Because there are going to be so many agents, the world is no longer limited by the number of people. Therefore, those agents are going to use more tools than ever. This is actually an incredible time to be a software company. But the software has to be presented to the agent in a way that the agent can use it. This is a big breakthrough. And in fact, what we have done, as you know, what Nvidia’s treasure..." ---- From 'NVIDIA' YT channel (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

16,584 次观看 • 2 个月前