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

47,249 subscribers

23,215 次观看 • 3 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 • 6 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 • 5 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

29,486 次观看 • 2 个月前

We raised a $40M Series A to build the automated lab for agentic biology. Last week, we shared the work we did with Paul Jankura: Claude designed proteins, sent them to our automated wet lab, and got real experimental data back. We believe this is where biology is going: AI agents designing experiments, running them in automated wet labs, learning from the results and iterating. But AI can only move as fast as the experiments behind it. To use the potential of AI to cure all diseases, we need to build high-throughput wet lab infrastructure: a “biological gigafactory”. That’s exactly what we’re doing at Adaptyv. Over the past year we’ve grown our lab throughput by over 5x and onboarded more than 100 customers, ranging from bio AI labs like Chai Discovery and Boltz to pharmas like Roche and Novo Nordisk to dozens and dozens of new startups that use AI to radically speed up drug discovery.

We raised a $40M Series A to build the automated lab for agentic biology. Last week, we shared the work we did with Paul Jankura: Claude designed proteins, sent them to our automated wet lab, and got real experimental data back. We believe this is where biology is going: AI agents designing experiments, running them in automated wet labs, learning from the results and iterating. But AI can only move as fast as the experiments behind it. To use the potential of AI to cure all diseases, we need to build high-throughput wet lab infrastructure: a “biological gigafactory”. That’s exactly what we’re doing at Adaptyv. Over the past year we’ve grown our lab throughput by over 5x and onboarded more than 100 customers, ranging from bio AI labs like Chai Discovery and Boltz to pharmas like Roche and Novo Nordisk to dozens and dozens of new startups that use AI to radically speed up drug discovery.

Adaptyv Bio

182,945 次观看 • 1 个月前

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

162,581 次观看 • 4 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

47,040 次观看 • 2 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

7,039,728 次观看 • 4 个月前

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 • 7 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

101,601 次观看 • 3 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

40,001 次观看 • 5 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

285,425 次观看 • 4 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 • 10 个月前

Jensen Huang just admitted the biggest AI labs can't borrow money like normal companies. So Nvidia signs for them, and they spend it on Nvidia chips. Nvidia reported Wednesday and the numbers are absurd: Revenue of $96.2 billion, up 106%, with net income of $59.7 billion, the most profitable quarter any public company has EVER posted. And Huang just told Fox Business that every chip Nvidia can make next year is already sold. Here's why this matters the most: Huang wrote this himself about his own customers: "Frontier AI labs have extraordinary demand for training and inference compute, but many are growing faster than their balance sheets and long-term credit profiles can support." Then: They "still lack the decades-long infrastructure contracts and investment-grade financing capacity needed to secure the AI factory infrastructure independently." Put simply: His customers can't get the loans. So Nvidia signs for them. There's a compute campus going up in Ohio with OpenAI as the tenant. Nvidia has tied roughly $105 billion in commitments to it. OpenAI's existing and planned commitments now come to about 12 gigawatts of Nvidia compute. CFO Colette Kress told analysts Nvidia will also provide selective credit enhancement for nearly 2 gigawatts of compute at a second frontier lab. She wouldn't say which one. Nvidia put up to $10 billion into Anthropic in November at a valuation near $350 billion, and Anthropic agreed to buy up to a gigawatt of Grace Blackwell and Vera Rubin systems in the same deal. And Nvidia isn't only guaranteeing these companies. It OWNS pieces of them. This week's filing shows $18 billion committed to equity investments for the rest of the fiscal year, and $47.9 billion already sitting in private companies as of late July. Now here's where it gets really insane: Last week, Huang sat on a CNBC set surrounded by six of Wall Street's biggest firms. Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone, Brookfield, Goldman Sachs and KKR. They signed a memorandum to mobilise up to $500 billion in outside capital for AI data centres. Nvidia kept the option to backstop up to a quarter of those deals. And Huang used that stage to announce that Nvidia GPUs are now an asset class. Pension and credit funds can now lend against graphics cards the way they lend against office towers. Kress saw the accusation coming and got ahead of it on the earnings call: "We recognise the scale of this support, and we know some will call this circular financing. We see it differently." But look at the two things Huang says about the same companies. On the earnings call he said AI has hit its inflection point, that the tokens are productive and profitable, and that compute is now revenue. But he also said those same labs can't secure investment-grade financing on their own. A business that's inflecting into profit is exactly the business a bank lends to. Banks lend against cash flow every day. But Nvidia‘s guarantee exists because something in that first story isn't landing with the people whose job is pricing risk. Kress does have a real answer to this though. She said the second lab's credit support only complements capacity it already secured on its own, without Nvidia backing it. Vendor financing is also old and legal. Cisco did it and GE built a finance arm on it. Huang's case is that Nvidia understands these businesses better than any lender could, and he says the risk is low and his only regret is not investing more and sooner. He may be completely right. But one thing is certain: Nvidia guarantees the paper. The paper buys the chips. Nvidia books the sale. Then Nvidia tells you the order book is full for a year. That order book is the entire argument for a $5 trillion company. And Jensen Huang just explained, in his own words, that his customers couldn't have written those orders without him. Isn’t this suspicious?

Jensen Huang just admitted the biggest AI labs can't borrow money like normal companies. So Nvidia signs for them, and they spend it on Nvidia chips. Nvidia reported Wednesday and the numbers are absurd: Revenue of $96.2 billion, up 106%, with net income of $59.7 billion, the most profitable quarter any public company has EVER posted. And Huang just told Fox Business that every chip Nvidia can make next year is already sold. Here's why this matters the most: Huang wrote this himself about his own customers: "Frontier AI labs have extraordinary demand for training and inference compute, but many are growing faster than their balance sheets and long-term credit profiles can support." Then: They "still lack the decades-long infrastructure contracts and investment-grade financing capacity needed to secure the AI factory infrastructure independently." Put simply: His customers can't get the loans. So Nvidia signs for them. There's a compute campus going up in Ohio with OpenAI as the tenant. Nvidia has tied roughly $105 billion in commitments to it. OpenAI's existing and planned commitments now come to about 12 gigawatts of Nvidia compute. CFO Colette Kress told analysts Nvidia will also provide selective credit enhancement for nearly 2 gigawatts of compute at a second frontier lab. She wouldn't say which one. Nvidia put up to $10 billion into Anthropic in November at a valuation near $350 billion, and Anthropic agreed to buy up to a gigawatt of Grace Blackwell and Vera Rubin systems in the same deal. And Nvidia isn't only guaranteeing these companies. It OWNS pieces of them. This week's filing shows $18 billion committed to equity investments for the rest of the fiscal year, and $47.9 billion already sitting in private companies as of late July. Now here's where it gets really insane: Last week, Huang sat on a CNBC set surrounded by six of Wall Street's biggest firms. Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone, Brookfield, Goldman Sachs and KKR. They signed a memorandum to mobilise up to $500 billion in outside capital for AI data centres. Nvidia kept the option to backstop up to a quarter of those deals. And Huang used that stage to announce that Nvidia GPUs are now an asset class. Pension and credit funds can now lend against graphics cards the way they lend against office towers. Kress saw the accusation coming and got ahead of it on the earnings call: "We recognise the scale of this support, and we know some will call this circular financing. We see it differently." But look at the two things Huang says about the same companies. On the earnings call he said AI has hit its inflection point, that the tokens are productive and profitable, and that compute is now revenue. But he also said those same labs can't secure investment-grade financing on their own. A business that's inflecting into profit is exactly the business a bank lends to. Banks lend against cash flow every day. But Nvidia‘s guarantee exists because something in that first story isn't landing with the people whose job is pricing risk. Kress does have a real answer to this though. She said the second lab's credit support only complements capacity it already secured on its own, without Nvidia backing it. Vendor financing is also old and legal. Cisco did it and GE built a finance arm on it. Huang's case is that Nvidia understands these businesses better than any lender could, and he says the risk is low and his only regret is not investing more and sooner. He may be completely right. But one thing is certain: Nvidia guarantees the paper. The paper buys the chips. Nvidia books the sale. Then Nvidia tells you the order book is full for a year. That order book is the entire argument for a $5 trillion company. And Jensen Huang just explained, in his own words, that his customers couldn't have written those orders without him. Isn’t this suspicious?

Ricardo

64,411 次观看 • 1 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 • 3 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

74,945 次观看 • 3 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

35,085 次观看 • 2 个月前

Every Wall Street giant that owns an AI data center is suddenly looking for a buyer. And NONE of them want to be the last one holding it. Three of them made their move in the last two weeks: Vantage Data Centers is exploring an exit. Its owners, Silver Lake and DigitalBridge, are weighing a listing at around $100 billion, or a sale, or a stake sale. It would be the largest data center IPO ever done. Three days earlier, CyrusOne started the same process. KKR and Global Infrastructure Partners met Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, and the banks pitched for roles on a listing that could come as early as 2027. Last month, Switch hired Goldman and JPMorgan to take it public at close to $80 billion including debt, possibly by the fourth quarter. Three different companies moved inside the same 14 days, and the same handful of investment banks took every call. And these are the exact same firms that BOUGHT these companies off the public market four years ago. Between June 2021 and early 2022, private equity took the data center industry private. Blackstone bought QTS. KKR and Global Infrastructure Partners took CyrusOne private in a deal worth about $15 billion. DigitalBridge and IFM took Switch private for about $11 billion. Together those deals ran past $35 billion. By 2023 there were only two pure-play data center companies left on the public market. The logic at the time was that data centers burn cash for years before they pay, and public shareholders hate that. But private money was patient, and private money could wait. Four years later, the AI boom arrived and every one of those buildings became a gold mine. So follow this: Switch went private at about $11 billion in 2022. Its owners now want close to $80 billion for it. That is roughly 7x, in four years, on the same buildings. And DigitalBridge sits on both sides of this. It owns a piece of Vantage and it took Switch private. It is now looking for the door on BOTH. The question now is who is supposed to buy. There is no bigger private buyer left to sell to. These are already the largest infrastructure funds on Earth, and the price tags now run to $100 billion. The only pocket deep enough is the public market, which means anyone with a brokerage account or an index fund. The people who bought low from the public are now organizing to sell high back to the public. And they are doing it while telling everyone the buildout is just getting started. KKR raised a record $19.2 billion for its newest infrastructure fund this month, and in June launched a separate company with over $10 billion committed to finance more construction. So one hand raises fresh billions to build more data centers, and the other hand sells the finished ones to whoever will take them. None of this proves anyone thinks the boom is ending. Selling into strength is what these firms are paid to do, and every one of these deals is early stage and might never happen. But the timing tells you something: The most sophisticated infrastructure investors alive spent four years accumulating these assets in private, and all decided in the same two weeks that now is the moment to find someone else to own them. Four years ago these firms decided the public market was too impatient to own data centers. Now they want the public market to own them again, at 7x the price. Quite suspicious.

Every Wall Street giant that owns an AI data center is suddenly looking for a buyer. And NONE of them want to be the last one holding it. Three of them made their move in the last two weeks: Vantage Data Centers is exploring an exit. Its owners, Silver Lake and DigitalBridge, are weighing a listing at around $100 billion, or a sale, or a stake sale. It would be the largest data center IPO ever done. Three days earlier, CyrusOne started the same process. KKR and Global Infrastructure Partners met Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, and the banks pitched for roles on a listing that could come as early as 2027. Last month, Switch hired Goldman and JPMorgan to take it public at close to $80 billion including debt, possibly by the fourth quarter. Three different companies moved inside the same 14 days, and the same handful of investment banks took every call. And these are the exact same firms that BOUGHT these companies off the public market four years ago. Between June 2021 and early 2022, private equity took the data center industry private. Blackstone bought QTS. KKR and Global Infrastructure Partners took CyrusOne private in a deal worth about $15 billion. DigitalBridge and IFM took Switch private for about $11 billion. Together those deals ran past $35 billion. By 2023 there were only two pure-play data center companies left on the public market. The logic at the time was that data centers burn cash for years before they pay, and public shareholders hate that. But private money was patient, and private money could wait. Four years later, the AI boom arrived and every one of those buildings became a gold mine. So follow this: Switch went private at about $11 billion in 2022. Its owners now want close to $80 billion for it. That is roughly 7x, in four years, on the same buildings. And DigitalBridge sits on both sides of this. It owns a piece of Vantage and it took Switch private. It is now looking for the door on BOTH. The question now is who is supposed to buy. There is no bigger private buyer left to sell to. These are already the largest infrastructure funds on Earth, and the price tags now run to $100 billion. The only pocket deep enough is the public market, which means anyone with a brokerage account or an index fund. The people who bought low from the public are now organizing to sell high back to the public. And they are doing it while telling everyone the buildout is just getting started. KKR raised a record $19.2 billion for its newest infrastructure fund this month, and in June launched a separate company with over $10 billion committed to finance more construction. So one hand raises fresh billions to build more data centers, and the other hand sells the finished ones to whoever will take them. None of this proves anyone thinks the boom is ending. Selling into strength is what these firms are paid to do, and every one of these deals is early stage and might never happen. But the timing tells you something: The most sophisticated infrastructure investors alive spent four years accumulating these assets in private, and all decided in the same two weeks that now is the moment to find someone else to own them. Four years ago these firms decided the public market was too impatient to own data centers. Now they want the public market to own them again, at 7x the price. Quite suspicious.

Ricardo

71,544 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

208,701 次观看 • 4 个月前