+1 canceled all OpenAI and switched to Gemini hours after it dropped. I was tired of vape AI, obfuscated facts in hallucinations and promises of future improvements.
Remarkably some claim AI has now discovered a new drug candidate on its own. Reading the prep-print (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.04.14.648850v2....), it appears the model was targeted to just a very specific task and without evaluating other models on the same task. I know nothing about gens, and I can see that is an important advance. However, seems a bit headline grabbing when claiming victory for one model without comparing against others using the same process.
If a simple majority classifier has the same performance as a fancy model with 58 layers of transformers, and you use your fancy model instead of the majority classifier, is it the model that's doing the discovery or is it the operator that choose to look in a particular place?
I am all for crediting humans and I don't particularly fancy all the anthropomorphising myself. However rubbing it in now feels similarly pointless as suggesting the US should switch to metric.
Well it's important, because the particular new lead for drug targeting is not super valuable, they are a dime a dozen, easier to find than a startup idea. Actually driving a successful drug development program is an entirely different matter that can only be established with $10-$100M of early exploration, with a successful drug costing much more to get to market.
It could also be that particular prioritization method that uses Gemma is useful in its own, but we won't know that unless it is somehow benchmarked against the many alternatives that have been used up until now. And in other benchmark settings, these cell sentence methods have not been that impressive.
Would be great if more data were made available by OP to peer review some of this. That said, making money with failure starts looking like a business model - highly unethical. Why make customers succeed when you loose money doing so.
Well, as it seems they have a hard time getting trains on time, perhaps stress resiliency practiced in gaming is a useful skill for customer service reps.
If genuine, this finger pointing is an interesting approach to a security vulnerability. Last time I read such arguments was 20 years ago from a different firm in California and it was not to their advantage.
Great idea. I had been thinking about pretty much the same but perhaps targeted at executives and perhaps including AI/Cloud.
I usually feel to many people wildly through around terms they hardly understand, in the belief they cannot possibly understand. That’s so wrong, every executive should understand some of what determines button line. It’s not like people skip economics because it’s hard.
Would love to perhaps contribute sometime next year. Stared and until then good luck - perhaps add a donation link!
Thanks! I completely agree. For more than ten years consulting, training and architecting systems for clients across government and enterprise, I have seen the same pattern. Long before "big data", "cloud" and now with "AI" and "GenAI" these buzzwords have often been misunderstood by most of the C-suite. In my entire career, explaining the basics and setting the right expectations has always been the hardest part.
I really like your idea of targeting executives and connecting it to real business outcomes. Getting decision makers to truly understand the fundamentals behind the technology would make a huge difference.
I hope the next generation learns to love "C" and Algorithms again. I have rediscovered my appreciation for C recently, even though Go is my main professional programming language.
You’d be surprised how much trust people place in legal departments, balance sheet strength and talent capacity. All things for which I had to turn down superior technical proposals in the past. The old saying „Nobody gets fired for buying IBM“ still runs strong.
Free e-signatures are a great idea, have you considered getting a foundation to back the project and maybe taking out some indemnity insurance, perhaps raising a dispute fund?
And then there is pricing too…