Alright everybody, it's a great day for your boy, J-Cow. I am still long. Uber, I still have a large amount of holdings and the stock was up massively today because they had record high-freak cash flow and they beat on revenue.
This week in Startups is brought to you by QuickNode gives blockchain developers unparalleled reliability and speed with access to unlimited endpoints across 18 chains and 35 networks. Get 1 Month Free by using code twist at go.quicknode.com slash twist. Cash Fly is a pure play CDN provider that makes CDN simple, effective and secure. Deliver content faster than your competitors and get 10 terabytes free forever if you sign up at twist.cashfly.com. And the Microsoft Startups founders hub helps all founders build a better startup at a lower cost from day 1. Startups get up to $150,000 in Azure credits, access to free open AI credits, free dev tools like GitHub, technical advisory, access to mentors and experts and so much more. There is no funding requirement and it only takes minutes to join. Sign up today at aka.ms slash this week in Startups.
“本周的初创公司”由QuickNode赞助,为区块链开发者提供了无限的端点、涵盖18个链和35个网络,使其拥有卓越的可靠性和速度。在go.quicknode.com/twist上使用代码“twist”可以获得一个月免费体验。Cash Fly是一个专门提供CDN服务的厂商,旨在让CDN变得简单、高效、安全。如果在twist.cashfly.com上注册,您可以比您的竞争对手更快地传输内容,并且永远免费获得10TB存储容量。此外,Microsoft初创公司创始人中心帮助所有创始人在从第一天开始更低的成本内建立更好的初创公司。初创公司可以获得高达150,000美元的Azure学分、免费的开放AI学分、免费的开发工具-如GitHub、技术咨询、导师和专家的支持,以及更多。不需要任何资金要求,注册只需几分钟。立即在aka.ms/this week in Startups上注册。
This is a great day for me. You can see I'm very enthused. My net worth went up but also the bet I placed over a decade ago that defined my career as an investor. I always believe this company would start becoming a money printing machine and thus that has happened to you on revenue 8.8 billion. That's up 29% year over year.
And we're talking about cloud computing at Alex on last week and we're talking about oh it's falling to single digits. Well you know it's not falling to single digits. Uber up 29% year over year. Revenue came in 100 million above analyst estimates according to CNBC. The total trips in q1 2.1 billion. I remember when Uber had a total of three riders on the platform and we'd done maybe a dozen rides up 24% year over year. That's incredible and this includes mobility and delivery monthly active platform customers.
Max Max Max. Max there's no way to pronounce map sees map sees actually map sees works monthly active platform customers. This is Uber's sort of mouse monthly active users. But what they want to say is these are customers who are active on the platform not dormant accounts once that actually did something. I was 130 million that is extraordinary. We're talking nine figures worth of customers monthly and looking at the revenue 72% revenue growth for mobility 23% year over year for delivery and freight the freight business drop 23% year over year. I'm not sure what the details are there will double click on it in a future episode. Can't win them all to edit three and bad but that's a small number. It's an emerging business for them that they're investing in total gross bookings right this is the top line before they give a large percentage of the money they make to the drivers and the drivers are doing spectacular.
That's why so many people are driving for Uber don't believe the fake news which keeps saying like Uber drivers are making eight dollars or nine dollars an hour. That's all made up nonsense. The truth is they're making 25 35 dollars an hour. And the gross bookings worth 31.4 billion of 19% year over year. So the revenue grew 29% year over year but gross bookings grew only 19% which means Uber's more profitable and charging more for their services. Just great to see bottom line they had a small net loss of 157 million and that included a 320 million dollar benefit from net unrealized gains related to Uber's equity investments but really cash flow that's what matters right how much cash makes it into the coffers as we say and this includes capital expenditures right so you'll have some things on the books that are capital expenditures but the actual amount of cash into the business so this is accounting issues. Record high free cash flow 549 million dollars cash and cash equivalents and short term investments 4.2 billion for the team over at Uber and I think the really interesting part of all this is lifts demise. They are a shrinking amount of this industry and Uber I don't want to say has a monopoly because it's not a monopoly of door dash out there you have lift out there.
Paragraph 1:
You have people competing like public transportation and micro mobility and people owning their own cars rent a cars and taxi and livery driver so to say Uber has a monopoly or they don't on mobility nor do they have it on delivery. What they have is they have the majority now of app driven rides and they have a strong presence I think their number two in the United States behind door dash in delivering groceries and food but people order from other sources as well right there they're still instacard you still have Amazon to live in groceries and whole food so it's not quite a monopoly but it's a strong position in those areas and the average map see did 14 rides or food orders in the quarter that's almost five per month which is very impressive because you take the 2.1 billion trips you divide it by 150 million you know map sees just taking a guess here that maybe they're taking 14 rides or food orders in the quarter which would be about five per month that's the average now that means there's people who use Uber a lot there's people who drop in but if you're like me I'm using Uber Eats and taking Uber rides at least 10 times 15 times a month so I think I'm probably in the 40 or 50 a quarter 200 a year kind of group as a family because man my daughters love to they get me every time all we did our homework can we get boba or you know can we order sushi and yeah I'm a sucker because they just take it out and I'm just like you know what I want you have a great child and enjoy some nice sushi and some boba so just to Dara and the team and Dara's coming on the show in over the summer and we'll have a great interview and catch up but the stock is ripping it's up almost 11% today which puts me in a great mood not just because money which is nice but enough of that it's just about being right and betting on a team and really seeing the investment come to fruition.
Paragraph 2:
At this year at Founder University I'll make somewhere between 50 and 125 K investments as a tribute to that 25 K investment I made in Uber as one of the first investors maybe the third or fourth I don't know so if you want $25,000 from me to start your company get two or three founders have one technical person make an MVP come to Founder.University hang out with me we're gonna have a we're gonna actually have our own space in San Mateo soon and just come hang out with Jacob let me give you that lucky 25 K first check so you can incorporate maybe come to our accelerator the launch accelerator will give you a hundred thousand and I'll let us syndicate you on the syndicate.com share it with other angel investors and get you a millie or two I think the average is like 700 K to the syndicate so it's been an amazing journey with Uber as my best investment in history and I'm trying to hit another one or a bigger one and so that's not going to be easy but in the next 10 years I hope to invest in maybe two or 300 names per year which would put me at 2,000 more investments in my second decade of investing to go with the 300 my first 250 in my first decade I'm gonna 10 next that and you know you never know maybe I had another Uber or two and maybe that's you so Founder.University or launch.co slash apply to meet with our team great job team Uber all right next up on the program Charles Fisher the CEO of unlearn AI.
在今年的创始人大学,我会进行50到125千美元的投资,以纪念我在Uber作为最早的投资者之一投资了25千美元的经历,我可能是第三或第四个投资者,我不知道。所以,如果你想从我这里获得25,000美元来创立自己的公司,你需要有两到三个联合创始人,其中一个技术人员,并打造一个MVP。来参加创始人大学,和我一起玩,我们很快就会在San Mateo拥有属于我们自己的空间,来和Jacob一起玩吧,让我给你这个幸运的25K第一笔支票,这样你就可以注册了,或者来参加我们的加速器——“发射加速器”,我们会给你10万美元,并让其他天使投资者和我们一起投资,最后可能获得一两百万美元,据说“发射加速器”的平均投资金额是70万美元,Uber的投资历程是我最成功的一次投资,我正在尝试命中另一次或者更大的成功,这不容易,但是在未来的10年里,我希望每年能够投资两三百家公司,这样在我的第二个投资十年里,我将进行2000多次投资,加上第一个十年的投资为300次,我会继续下去的。你永远不知道,也许我会找到另一个Uber或两个,而这也是创始人大学或launch.co/apply,来和我们团队会面吧。接下来是unlearn AI的CEO Charles Fisher。
Paragraph 3:
Okay everybody you know all of the complaints about building apps on the blockchain it's slow oh it's less reliable oh there's no support if things go wrong right the blockchain is this incredible innovation and there's some good news here execution on the blockchain just got super easy quick note has solved all of these problems they give blockchain developers unparalleled reliability and speed with access to unlimited endpoints across 18 chains and 35 networks quick node provides amazing response time and a dedicated 24 seven customer support team they offer consistent performance at any scale lightning fast API responses that are 2.5 x faster on average than competitors and the most sophisticated and globally balanced cloud and bare metal web 3 architectural listen everybody this is the AWS or Azure of web 3 if you are building DAPS decentralized action need to use quick node it's that simple find out why companies like Twitter Adobe Queen base and open see use get 1 month free by using the code twist at go dot quick node dot com slash twist that go dot to you I see K and ODE dot bomb slash twist and remember to use the code twist.
Paragraph 4:
All right everybody welcome back to our special AI series never seen anything move this fast in the 30 years I've been in the technology business so we are having people on the program 3 4 times a week here at this weekend startups to share what they're working on and why so that we can all keep up with this crazy pace.
We found an interesting guest today his name is Charles Fisher he's the founder and CEO of unlearn dot AI unlearn AI and he is taking AI models to try to speed up clinical trials for pharma companies which seems like a really interesting idea Charles and welcome to the program but also one that has me a bit concerned because using chat GPT 3.5 4 and some of the other tools barred from Google and the core AI tool they're frequently hallucinating and giving wrong data so maybe we could start with a little bit of how long you've been working on this and then getting right to how this is going to change clinical trials and the hallucination problem.
Yeah definitely yeah so thanks for having me how long have I been working on this that's a really interesting question I think how long have I been working on like generative modeling as a as an area because I was an academic researcher before starting unlearn so I don't know like 15 years probably since I've been working on sort of generative AI but we've been at this with on there now for about six years not quite almost six years working on yet developing generative AI to currently speed up problems in clinical trials so like let's make clinical trials biggest bottleneck we want to make that faster but eventually we want to roll this out to think about how we can really sort of revolutionize the way we think about medicine.
Turning all of medicine from something that's really today kind of an art form into a real predictive science that's founded on computer science. So let's talk about what is a clinical trial what is the you know state of the art architecture of that because I don't invest in this area but you know some of my contemporaries do and they talk about how incredibly incredibly frustrating and humbling it is to beat the placebo as I've been told which is placebo seem to work 10% of the time 15% of the time they have some efficacy that is not zero in some cases pretty amazing what the placebo can do to people's minds in terms of having an impact versus actually having an impact so maybe the definition of in 2023 what is a clinical trial how does it work today and then how is your software going to change that.
A clinical trial is simply a comparison so it's really it's the same thing as an AB test that you would run in any other area. So I have some new experimental treatment and I want to compare that to usually what is currently available. So placebo usually doesn't mean that you get no treatment at all usually given whatever would you normally get for that particular disease plus a placebo. So you're still receiving some treatment and I just want to know which of these two things is better which is safer which works better like so forth. Typically clinical trials are staged out and so we have three different phases. Phase one is usually done in around 10 or so often healthy people. You give them your experimental drug you just increase the dose until you see too high of dose and then that lets you figure out how much is like a safe dosage.
Then after that you move on to a phase two trial that's usually like around 100 people and this is just an early signal of does this seem like a drug that is worth continuing to pursue.
之后你会进行第二阶段的试验,一般会招募约100人,这只是一个早期的信号,该药物是否值得继续追求。
And then the last thing would be a large phase three clinical trial that's usually around a thousand people and here you're going to randomly assign half of the people to receive your new experimental treatment. You're going to randomly assign the other half to receive the control and then at the end of the trial you're going to compare see if it was better or worse and then you can submit those data to the regulators like FDA to help them make a decision about whether or not your drug should be marketed. Got it.
And so that process, I've heard a lot of criticism of that process objectively. What are the criticisms of that process and then we'll get on to sort of what you're doing?
因此,这个过程我听到了很多客观的批评。那么这个过程的批评是什么,然后我们来谈谈你正在做的事情?
There are million criticisms of the process. Well the major ones. Yeah, sure. Yeah, right. So the first thing that I think we tend to encounter is just the amount of time and cost that goes into running one of these trials.
One of these big phase three clinical trials, just the individual trial itself can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to run and they take some, they often take more than five years, right? So you're talking about spending five plus years on a single experiment and hundreds of millions of dollars and most of the time these trials fail. So the majority of time actually only about 10% of drugs that enter clinical trials end up being successful, so 90% failure rate in clinical trials.
So you're spending like a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars on an experiment with a 90% failure rate. And would that mean if one out of 10 actually work, we're talking about billions of dollars to get a successful drug to market if you were to look at it as a portfolio of say 10 drugs. That's right. Yeah. So incredibly expensive and incredibly time-consuming.
I think that there are other things in terms of like we need to get participants to be willing to join and take part in these clinical trials. And then you get into other issues of, you know, certainly issues like placebo control are controversial amongst like patient advocates. Why is it that you're participating typically in a clinical trial?
Usually that's because you want access to this new experimental therapy. So I think that what people are thinking about and certainly what we're thinking about are ways that we can leverage new technologies to alleviate these problems of the speed and cost of clinical trials, but also align them more closely with what patients want. Got it.
So how are you using AI machine learning to test drugs? Because it would seem to me that the human body is complex in many ways. And other ways probably very simple. And interactions are hard. So are you literally running a simulation of, here is this new drug for, I don't know, lowering your cholesterol. And you can model the human body and how it would interact and does this occur in parallel to phase one, two and three, or is this something that is just running a simulation that informs how you would then run these different trials, explain to the audience how this works.
Sure. So like I said, every clinical trial is a comparison. And what we really want to know is for an individual person, we wish we could tell like what would happen to this person if I could take them and I gave them this new experimental drug and I observed how they respond. And I simultaneously don't give them the drug and I observed how they respond. And so the way to run that experiment is to invent a time machine.
Paragraph 1:
"So you give them the drug, you take your time machine back in time to the point you did it and then you don't give it to them and you see what happens, right? You do this comparison. We don't have a time machine. But we do have a computer model."
Paragraph 2:
"And so the whole idea kind of behind what we do is that what we're going to do is for every individual person in a trial, we create a digital twin of that person. And it's a computer model that allows us to simulate what would happen to that individual person. And in our case, in the trials, we're always simulating what would happen if they got the control."
Paragraph 3:
"So we don't simulate what would happen if they got this brand new experimental treatment. Only what would happen if they got the existing treatment. And the reason is brand new experimental treatment is not really a machine learning problem, right? Machine learning, we learn from data and we make new predictions, right? So what we can do is we'll have data from like 100,000 patients receiving the current treatment."
Paragraph 4:
"And then our task is to give in a new patient, how will they respond to this current treatment? And that's kind of a standard machine learning problem. As opposed to here's a brand new molecule, what will it do to a person? That's a very, that's much harder."
Paragraph 5:
"Yeah. So if I would reflect this back to you in simple plain old English, I'm going to even try to simplify it for me. It's like I'm a five year old kind of situation here. We have 100,000 people who have taken this current cholesterol, lowering drug."
Paragraph 6:
"Right. You're in the new trial, you're going to get cholesterol, a lowering drug, 2.0. It's completely new. And then there's people who are going to get the placebo. But hey, since we know these 100,000 people's age cholesterol level, BMI, heart rate, whatever battery of information, we can say, hey, Jekal, 52 year old Jekal, 174 pounds, this blood pressure, this cardiovascular fitness level, whatever it happens to be, we take your watch data, I don't know what data is state of the earth these days."
Paragraph 7:
"And okay, yeah, look, we have another out of those 100,000 people, we do have 2,000 people who are just like Jekal. We're going to run a simulation to see what would happen with you on the 1.0 medicine. We're going to take the 2.0 and of course we've got some other group of people who are taking the placebo. Is that about right? What's happening?"
Paragraph 8:
"Yeah, I mean, well, yes. So we're taking this historic, this data from the people that currently exist. We're training this kind of machine learning model on that data. Yeah, and then exactly. So we would predict Jekal comes in, we'd say, what would happen to you if you got the placebo and version 1.0 cholesterol medicine."
Paragraph 9:
"And so the interesting thing is, if you take that to the extreme, let's imagine this case where that machine learning model week belt is perfect, makes no mistakes at all. That's not true, but that's just a matter of. Yeah, I mean, if it's 50% correct, it's going to have an extraordinary impact."
Paragraph 10:
"Right, yeah. But this interesting scenario, which you can kind of work backwards from, is, well, if that were very true, then for every patient, I can just give them the experiment, the new 2.0 cholesterol medicine. And I can see how they respond to it. And I don't need any compare, I would not need any real patients receiving a placebo. So if you could sort of get to that point where machine learning models are sufficiently accurate, you get to a world in which you're running clinical trials that don't have placebo groups. It would be 100% of the patients receiving your new experimental treatment and zero patients receiving a placebo."
Paragraph 11:
"So that would mean you'd have a clinical trial that's got half as many patients in it, which is way faster and cheaper to run. Also, all of your patients are getting access to this new experimental treatment, which is what they want it. So that future is really great for our customers, the pharma companies, because they get faster trials. Actually, great for whole all of medical research, because you basically speed up medical research twice as fast. It's also great for patients."
Paragraph 12:
"It's not perfectly achievable because our models aren't perfect today. And so then we get into this question about how we still run randomized studies where some patients receive placebo is to guard against what you were calling earlier with hallucinations. Right? So we want to make sure that we can guarantee that the clinical trials that we work in produce the right results, even if our models are not perfect."
Paragraph 1:
"It seems to me that you, when a new drug comes out, depending on the corpus of data you have about individuals, you have a lot of them. You can give it a shot and say to the AI, hey, make your best predictions and give me, you know, I mean, depending on computer power available, give me all the possible predictions you could come up with in some reasonable amount that a human could actually compare them and say, predict what will happen with these 2,000 people who are joining the trial as best you can.".
Paragraph 2:
And then give them the trial and then see which sets of thinking the AI got correct. That's also a possibility and would also cost nothing because all you're doing is saying, just make a simulation and be like running a simulation on who's going to win the MBA finals based on the data you have from the regular season. Is anybody doing that as well? Because it seems like it could be a worthy use of time.
Paragraph 3:
Yeah, I mean, right, so what we are basically doing again is we're simulating how every single patient in this trial is going to respond if they got the new treatment. We are very interested as well into as drugs come out, incorporating, so this is kind of the future world.
Paragraph 4:
So the way I kind of view it, interestingly is that clinical trials are highly regulated area, super scientifically rigorous, right? But we think they're the easiest area actually, the easier than all of the other areas of medicine. And the reason for this is because treatments are randomly assigned to patients. So basically the way that this will work is that the model will make mistakes. It will make those mistakes on patients who are randomly assigned to receive the placebo. And it makes the same mistakes on the patients randomly assigned to receive the treatment. And basically in the end, the mistakes end up canceling up. And so because of that, it's like that particular application is really robust to these mistakes that machine learning models make today.
Paragraph 5:
So everybody, when it comes to the blocking and tackling of running your startup, you don't need to reinvent the wheel. CDNs, aka content delivery networks are the place where startups can really overcomplicate things. You don't need custom authentications or custom codes. Now if you're a startup, you need to just check out cash fly. It's a pure play CDN. And CDNs are literally all they do. So they're the best in the world at it. They've been doing it for over two decades. That's 20 years.
Paragraph 6:
Cash fly makes CDNs simple, effective and secure. Let me say that one more time. Simple? Secure. Effective. Effective. Secure simple, simple, effective, secure. You eventually are going to outgrow the smaller ones that are trying to give you too many discounts.
Paragraph 7:
So you want the best of breed. So don't burn your startup credits using a CDN at one of those larger players. Let cash fly handle it all for you. They will help you deliver your content faster than your competitors. You have to be fast if you want to compete. Whether it's videos, your mobile app, games, content, SaaS, the faster you go with your delivery, the more capable you use your product. So go check out cash fly.
Paragraph 8:
And twist listeners are going to get 10 terabytes free forever. When you sign up at twist.cashfly.com, that's twist.cac, h-e-f-l-y.com. 10 terabytes are waiting for you for free. Stop what you're doing. Pause the podcast. Go to twist.cashfly.com and get your 10 terabytes for free forever.
Paragraph 9:
Talk about the data. Well, the thing I'm curious about is the data you that is currently used for these trials. My understanding is one of the problems is garbage in, garbage out. You get information from patients if they tell you information. Well, how many drinks do you have a week? Sure. They're like, ah, like two. And it's really 20. So if they're reporting data, it's obviously going to be flawed.
Paragraph 10:
And then if you look at the data that's available in medical records, well, why do we even have medical records today? It's for billing. Right. And to do with, it has more to do. Am I correct with billing than it does with reality? Is that right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So what data do we actually have that has some truth to it? It feels like wearables are perhaps the whole of your blood tests. You can't fake those. I don't believe.
Paragraph 11:
You can tell me if I'm wrong, but blood tests that are historical, maybe body scans, which I just did the Pernovo body scan and wearables. If I gave you my Fitbit data for 10 years and then my Apple Watch, which I switched to, all of those seem to be like, that's pretty rock solid. So are any of those type of things being currently used in these trials? Or is it still just like they go to people's medical records and they give them a survey to fill out?
Paragraph 1:
Well, clinical trials are a really unique space when it comes to data in medicine because it's a research study.
临床试验是医学中数据非常特殊的领域,因为它是一项研究性的研究。
Paragraph 2:
So one of the problems with medical records, like if you looked at my medical records, you would see that I've been to the doctor like four times in the last 20 years.
因此,医疗记录存在一个问题,比如,如果你查看我的医疗记录,你会发现在过去20年里我去了四次医生。
Paragraph 3:
Is that right? And all of the information in between those dates, just not even there.
这是正确的吗?这些日期之间的所有信息都没有。
Paragraph 4:
Like because I didn't go to the doctor, so it's gone. It doesn't exist, right?
就像因为我没有去看医生,所以它已经不存在了对吧?
Paragraph 5:
But clinical trials are really different.
但是临床试验确实非常不同。
Paragraph 6:
So in a trial, it's set up ahead of time and you define this giant battery of exams that you're going to give to patients.
因此,在试验中,提前设置并定义了一系列要给患者进行的考试。
Paragraph 7:
And that always includes things like blood tests. Now it includes other new things.
通常这包括血液测试。现在它还包括其他新事物。
Paragraph 8:
There are times where people it's going to be wearables. Sometimes it's going to be imaging, maybe we'll get MRIs.
有时人们会认为可穿戴设备会成为主流。有时可能会使用成像技术,比如进行磁共振成像。
Paragraph 9:
It could be full genomic tests like you might get a whole genome sequence potentially.
这可能是像你进行全基因组测序的全基因检测。意思是说可以进行完整的基因组检测,包括全基因组测序。
Paragraph 10:
So it could be a huge amount of information. It varies from trial to trial.
这可能是大量的信息。具体情况因案而异。
Paragraph 11:
But everyone is going to get this giant battery of tests. And then they're going to come in like once a month for the next year and a half.
但是每个人都将接受这个巨大的测试组合。然后他们在接下来的一年半中每个月来一次。
Paragraph 12:
And they're going to make the same battery of tests every month.
他们将每个月进行相同的一系列测试。意思是说,他们会定期进行各种测试来检查某种事物的状态或表现。
Paragraph 13:
So regardless of what happens to them, whether or not they're feeling good or they're feeling bad, it doesn't make any difference.
所以,无论他们经历什么,无论他们感觉良好还是感觉糟糕,都没有任何影响。
Paragraph 14:
You enroll in the study and you come in like once a month and you get this giant battery of tests.
您参加了这个研究,每个月过来一次进行一系列的测试。
Paragraph 15:
So there's actually a huge amount of information about these diseases that is being captured in these clinical trials.
因此,这些临床试验实际上捕获了大量关于这些疾病的信息。
Paragraph 16:
So this is an opportunity in two ways.
所以这是一个双重的机会。
Paragraph 17:
First of all, we run tons of clinical trials every year.
首先,我们每年会开展数以千计的临床试验。
Paragraph 18:
Like as a society, we run a ton of them. Actually, the government runs a ton of them.
就像社会中我们经营很多企业一样。实际上,政府经营了许多企业。
Paragraph 19:
The NIH funds a ton of clinical trials.
美国国家卫生研究院资助了大量的临床试验。
Paragraph 20:
And all of those data just proof how they collected and they're not used again.
这些数据只是证明了它们被收集了,并且没有再被使用。
Paragraph 21:
They're just like, what? And then they just throw them in the dumpster.
他们只是拿起这些东西,什么也不管就扔进垃圾箱里。
Paragraph 22:
They don't exactly get put in the data. Yeah, they put them in the database.
他们并没有被准确地记录在数据中。对,他们被放入数据库中。
Paragraph 23:
They put them in the dumpster.
他们把它们扔进了垃圾箱。
Paragraph 24:
It's like the end of Indiana Jones and Rachel are stocks of those into some like their house.
这就像是《辛普森一家》中的结尾,那个家庭股票投资不成功,他们的房子也受到了影响。
Paragraph 25:
So the top man are working on it exactly.
所以高层人员正在全力以赴地处理此事。
Paragraph 26:
You know, it's like it's in some warehouse and it's never used again.
你知道,就好像它被存放在某个仓库里,再也没有被使用过了。
Paragraph 27:
Oh, and I know hold on a second.
哦,我知道,等一下。
Paragraph 28:
Let's pause for a second.
让我们停一下。
Paragraph 29:
If this is paid for by the government in a lot of cases, the government owns it.
如果这些都是由政府支付的,在许多情况下,政府就是所有者。
Paragraph 30:
So yeah, there's a rule that you have to make the data public two years after your clinical trial has been completed if it was funded by the government.
所以,如果你的临床试验是由政府资助的,完成后两年内你必须公开数据。
Paragraph 31:
So that is sitting on a server somewhere or is it a website?
Paragraph 32:
So like government server where like it exists, that's like all put together.
这句话的意思是,就像政府服务器一样,所有的东西都集中在一起。
Paragraph 33:
So like we have a group of people.
所以,我们有一群人。
Paragraph 34:
So we aggregate data from lots of sources to train from and we love clinical trial data because it's this high-quality, amazing data sets.
因此,我们从许多来源聚合数据来进行训练,我们喜欢临床试验数据,因为这是高质量的、令人惊叹的数据集。
Paragraph 35:
So like we have a group of people who like call up professors at universities and are like, Hey, you ran this clinical trial two years ago.
Paragraph 38:
Yeah. It's pretty much like a freedom of information act.
是的,这差不多就像信息自由法案。
Paragraph 39:
People will do in journalism, this freedom of information act to, Hey, listen, the government arrested this person.
人们会在新闻界中运用信息自由法,表达出“嘿,听着,政府逮捕了某人”的言论。
Paragraph 40:
There are documents available, JFK assassination.
有一些文件可以查看,关于肯尼迪遇刺事件的。
Paragraph 41:
You know, give us the information.
你知道的,把信息提供给我们。
Paragraph 42:
The government will release some percentage of it or whatever.
政府会释放一定比例的它(指某个东西)。
Paragraph 43:
You can actually start going and getting this information.
你可以开始获取这些信息了。
Paragraph 44:
Yes.
是的。
Paragraph 45:
And then putting it into AI models, this is something that we should have a Manhattan project on where some organization is paid like yours or another.
Paragraph 51:
Like so there are pharma companies who are running all of these trials.
就像这样,有一些制药公司正在进行所有这些试验。这些试验指的是医药公司在测试新药物的安全性和有效性。
Paragraph 52:
They own the data from those trials.
他们拥有那些试验的数据。
Paragraph 53:
So that's typically how they make sense.
这通常是他们理解意义的方式。
Paragraph 54:
They pay it for it. Yeah.
他们为此付出了代价。是的。
Paragraph 55:
One could argue that maybe the patients should own their own data potentially.
有人可能会认为,患者可能应该拥有自己的数据。
Paragraph 56:
But individually they should.
但是个体来说,他们应该这样做。
Paragraph 57:
Yeah.
是的。
Paragraph 58:
They don't.
他们不这样做。
Paragraph 59:
But that's another point.
但那是另一个问题。
Paragraph 60:
They really don't.
他们真的不这样认为。
Paragraph 61:
They don't own a dual license to it.
他们没有这方面的双重许可证。这意味着他们不能完全拥有它或随意使用它。
Paragraph 62:
No, many cases they're not giving it at all.
在许多情况下,他们根本没有提供它。这意味着他们没有提供所需的东西。
Paragraph 63:
Yeah.
是的。
Paragraph 64:
See that's something that some patients never find out whether or not they got the placebo or the real drug.
有些患者永远不会知道他们是否服用了安慰剂或真正的药物。
Paragraph 65:
Okay.
好的。
Paragraph 66:
So this is somewhere where like our government's not going to get this done because they're bought and paid for by pharma.
所以这里的情况是我们政府不会完成这个任务,因为他们已经被药企买通了。
Paragraph 67:
I said that not you.
我说的不是你。
Paragraph 68:
But this is something where the EU could pass something where they just say, listen, you're data, you get a copy of it, you get to know that.
但这是欧盟可以推出的一项政策,他们可以说,听着,你们的数据,你们可以获得一份副本,你们可以了解它。
Paragraph 69:
Yeah.
是的。
Paragraph 70:
Well, I mean, or the regulators, right?
嗯,我的意思是,或者说监管机构,对吧?
Paragraph 71:
The FDA could say that if you want to submit your drug, you have to also submit an randomized data.
Paragraph 72:
It's going to go into a database, right?
它将被放入数据库中,对吧?这句话在询问是否将信息存储在数据库中。
Paragraph 73:
Yeah.
是的。
Paragraph 1:
There's a huge amount of opportunity there because there's data from right now every year about 1 million patients participate in clinical trials across the board. So if you think about every year, there's 1 million people participating in that level of experiments and the data are not really being collected. So but that's where what we focus on is learning from those style of data.
Paragraph 2:
In a country where you have socialized medicine like Canada, let's say the Canadian government with a with a pen stroke, Justin Trudeau, and it could just say, all this is put into an anonymized database, all the data, or just give people a choice. Hey, if you want to get free healthcare, you have to give away some amount of data to the collective good anonymized, or it could be opt-in. But I think if you're giving socialized medicine, it's not too much to ask that you're a blood results which the government paid for, get to be put anonymously, your name, your approximate region, maybe ethnicity, DNA, whatever.
Paragraph 3:
If you, or some amount of it gets, I got to think this through because it could get a little dystopian. That's complicated. It does get complicated to the state owns your data. But there is some trade of services here. So in a commercial country like the United States, it could be, will discount your rate if you put it into this pool for future research or like organ-doning, you could just do it out of the goodness of your heart. And a socialized medicine, they could say, listen, we just want everybody in the country to give their blood data to this research. I mean, there could be a way to do it in a very positive way. Is anything like that even being considered these days or no?
Paragraph 4:
No. Why is it so obvious to us and not everybody else? Yeah, I mean, it's, yeah, it's difficult. Yeah, it's difficult. I think that there are a handful of, definitely a handful of countries that have better medical records where, you know, if you have a national health system, it's easier to have a national medical record system. But it's still not the case that these are the, these are like a repository of people taking part in these kind of research studies where you have a really rich, much more rich information about those people than you do a normal, like just from your medical records.
Paragraph 5:
All right, everybody. Our friends from Microsoft are here. Tom Davis, a senior director at Microsoft for startups. How long has Microsoft been working on this cloud that you've now sort of uncovered and offered two founders? It's been years in the making, so to speak. The evolution of AI has taken many twists and turns in its journey at these large language models that have really been the game changer. And that's really thanks to OpenAI and the work that they've done and it's obviously our partnership.
Paragraph 6:
There has helped us really get ahead of the game on this. And we're seeing great companies like Peplexity.ai. In six months, they've built out an application that has now got millions of users. That wouldn't have been possible in a more traditional way of working. So it's great to see the innovation that startups are able to bring to the table now and not have to make these huge investments in time, resources and basically cash as well, which is always a premium when you're starting off your own company.
Paragraph 7:
The Founder's Hub that Microsoft provides offers $150,000 in Azure cloud credits, all the development tools like GitHub and Teams, Office, all that great stuff. You get all that for free. Five minutes to sign up. Six figures and benefits. AKA dot ms slash this week and startups.
Paragraph 8:
Thanks so much. Tom, tell me how does your company make money? Because you are startup. You raise a series of B.I. Understand you've done pretty well for yourself here. FEC's replacing a big bet on you. What's the business model?
Paragraph 9:
So we actually have a relatively simple to understand business model. Our value proposition for a a farmer company is that by working with us, your trial can be months, months shorter, many months. So it depends a little bit. Let's say six to months to a year shorter. And if your farmer company, your patent clock actually starts when you start your clinical trials. So every six to months shorter or a year shorter, that's an extra six months to a year of on patent sales. So it's billions of dollars in revenue for the farmer company. If the drug's successful.
And as we said, that's like one intent. So how do we do that? Well, the way we're going to do it is we're going to allow these farmer companies to run clinical trials that have smaller control groups than normal trials.
So you have fewer patients that you need for your trial. So let's say you need 100 fewer patients in your clinical trial. Well, there's a couple of things. One is that, you know, that again, it might take six months to find 100 patients who are willing to participate in your clinical trial.
So right there, you've saved a whole bunch of time. That farmer company's also pay about $100,000 per patient in their clinical trials. Yeah. Yeah. So that's where that 100 million dollar number comes from. You get a thousand people in a trial. You're at 100 million. Yep. Yeah.
Exactly. And the patents are, I think it's pretty standard, 20 years. 20 years. So you're talking about a couple of year trial. What did you say? Five years. Five years. Five years. So you're at 15.
If you were to get them that extra year. Well, that's just one trial. You still have your phase one. You have your phase two. You've got your trial. So what is it by the time you get to work at how many years you got left on the pen? Probably like 10 or 12.
So you have 10. If you save them one year, you get 10% more money. Yeah. That's right. Or 10% more time to exploit the drug. Exactly. Yeah. And not only, I mean, you know, that's the capitalist way. We can also frame it and say, well, there's a whole group of patients during that year. Who needed a drug? Who now get access to it?
Because otherwise, if it was you wait another year, say you have, you know, groups of patients in a disease where people are dying. Right? If that drug's not available, all of those people are dead. So I know people with cystic fibrosis in the area. This is an area where it's particularly acute and they've made incredible progress. Yeah. But they're strong. Yeah. Extraordinarily expensive for a very small number of people. And there is some compassionate use of this, but it is really a challenging dynamic.
Maybe you could talk about the long tail of diseases and how they should apply. Because that does also seem to be something unique. We have the, we have the me, the big four horsemen, you know, of, you know, diabetes and cancer and whatnot that kill people Alzheimer's, I think is in that group. But this, there's the long tail.
So does this get a dramatic effect on the long tail as well? We think that this should be used in every single clinical trial period. Okay. Yeah. There are challenges that I would call technical and data challenges to getting there for all of these small diseases that also means there's a small amount of data to learn from. Right? So if we're talking about Alzheimer's, so many people have Alzheimer's, we can be really, really big data sets. But you start talking about, I don't know, something like cystic fibrosis is a lot smaller population.
And so we still need to have enough data to train a machine learning algorithm. But we are working on that all the time. How we can do better with these small populations. And over the next few years, we want to be able to roll things out across everything. Actually, our ultimate goal right now, we basically, the way we do our machine learning is there will be one model per disease. So we have like a model for Alzheimer's. We have a model for ALS. We have a model for multiple sclerosis like that. We want to build one model for everything.
One model for like all human health. That's an extraordinary mission. I mean, this is very hard, but it's kind of like AGI versus vertical, right? Like you're, it is. It is. Verticalized cholesterol or heart disease, you know, you need a certain data set for that. But Alzheimer's might be overlap 50%, but not 100% in my ballpark correct here. That's the issue.
Exactly. You know, that's right now. Yeah, so you get these specialized data sets. We build specialized models. But the whole point of it is, I think that in order for us to get into these smaller disease areas, we want to have something that looks sort of like a foundation model for health.
So one of the things we talk about these large foundation models today doing is that they can do either zero shot or few shot learning. And what that means is that they can learn to predict things having seen one example. So instead of having to give it like, we need just million examples for you to figure it out. Here's one example. What would happen in these next few examples? And so we want to probably be able to build something similar where for patients, even with really rare diseases, you can still figure it out from just a couple of examples.
That's extraordinary. In a way, it's like the foundational models of chat GPT or stable diffusion and some dolly and all this stuff. My understanding is people think you're going to be able to fit this on your smartphone. And so the model will eventually be on a chip.
And when that happens, that's going to be pretty wild that you're just like you have a Wi-Fi chip or a graphics chip on your phone or computer, the concept of having an AI chip on there. That just yes is the next word in a sentence. And it's kind of starting you on third base every time you could do that for health.
Then my watch, my Apple watch might have this built into it. And it'd be like, wow, we're seeing something with your heart. We know it you ate. We have your blood sugar level because you have a container glucose monitor. It could be like doing stuff in real time. Oh, yeah. You could be doing real time interventions. Yeah, there's all kinds of stuff that are really interesting. And again, hard problems, but I want to know not just what is happening with me today, but what will happen with me in the future.
I want to have a something that can predict the state of my health in the future, depending on what I do today. If I change my diet in this way, how will that actually really affect my state of health over time? If I take on this different workout plan, how will that affect my state of health over time? And it's a super duper, duper hard problem. Right? You talked about how complex like human violence, human violence.
If human body has 37 trillion cells in it, it's actually 100 times the number of stars there are in the galaxy. So it's like a really, really complicated system. It's actually so complicated. I think that AI is going to be the only way we can tackle it. Right? It's too complicated for us to try to build up piece by piece.
So I think that AI is really going to be fundamentally the new language of biology in the end. We are going to describe biology in 10 or 20 years entirely in terms of like AI algorithms that are learned to understand and tame this complexity. And once you get to that point, yeah, the idea of you have your own digital twin that's on your computer that talks about your health and maybe your doctor also has that same thing.
You don't even need to go to the doctor's office anymore. They just pull up your digital twin and they can see what is happening with you today and what's going to happen with you in the future and they can design treatment plants. Maybe it's even an AI doctor, but I think that's the future. You already have this happening again, back to a vertical AI versus general AI, which is analogous to what we're talking about here.
You already have in X-rays, people are starting to build technology to look at the X-rays or to look at heart rate monitors over time and just highlight stuff that then goes to a doctor and that's augmentation. So what I've been really thinking about in this AI future because this is moving rapidly.
You've been doing this for six years. How would you describe the pace we've seen of the past year compared to the decade before? It's definitely moving faster. What's interesting in, I think what's happened more is that we finally reached a threshold of utility.
Things seem like they are moving really fast when you're near a threshold of utility, even if they're moving slow. Because if you just stay at a linear line, you just increase by X a little bit every year, but there's some threshold that would you need to pass before people care about it. You will seem like no progress has happened and all of a sudden you'll pass that threshold everywhere like, wow, amazing progress.
I do kind of think that's where we're at that the AI research has been pretty steady progress over the past 10 or 15 years to bring us to this point. But it's all of the sudden got good enough that we're willing to use it. If you think about GPT-3, the API to that was released three years ago. It's not like we're in some exponential speed up of Terminator world because that was a three years waiting period between three and four.
That's actually not that fast. It's more that what's happened is people have figured out, oh, while these models are actually able to solve stuff now, we can build applications on them. Now it feels like it's incredibly fast because there's all these applications because before they weren't useful, and now they are. And so it's really more of a cross that threshold of utility than I think a real speed up in the research.
The research is kind of the same. Yeah. There is something perhaps to humans using it, finding the utility and then the reinforcement learning or these GPT-starding different language models, different AI instances learning from each other. That also is, once you get humans using it, it's like, well, GPS is really interesting for sending a missile or tracking a plane, but it's also pretty good at finding a bakery or getting an Uber, right?
It's like the GP, the street finds it's used for technologies that William Gibson said. And it's like, that really feels like what's happening once you put language models into a chat format. It's just, or you start building auto-GTPs or plugins. It's like with streets figuring out all kinds of interesting use cases for it.
这就像是 GP(一种电子技术设备),街道发现它的用途就像 William Gibson 所说的一样。而且当你把语言模型应用到聊天界面中时,真的感觉到这就是正在发生的事情。就像您开始构建自动 GTP 或插件一样,街道正在发现各种有趣的使用案例。
Hey, listen, thanks for doing this work. And on the revenue question, since you saved them that extra year, you just want to take a percentage of that or take a percentage of how much less people can be in the study. Is that the ultimate goal?
Yeah. So that's why I was saying earlier, the business model is relatively simple. So if you're paying $100,000 per patient and we remove one patient, you should pay us $100,000 if you remove two, $200,000. So we just get paid based on how much smaller we can make your clinical trials. That's our main business model. Maybe a split of 50-50, so they get a little savings. Yeah, we try to take them.
Again, they're getting billions of dollars in saying additional sales. So they're getting a great deal by working with us. It's an example of our work in clinical trials, I think, is a really unusual example of something that everybody wins from because the pharma company, they definitely benefit. They can make a huge amount of additional sales. But the patients also very clearly benefit because you have a smaller control group and you have a faster time to market for the drug. Even the regulators and people benefit from this because it's a use of AI. Well, actually, we can prove that the clinical trials produce the same rigorous, scientifically rigorous results. So everybody benefits from this technology. I think that there's going to be a lot more areas in health where this is the case, where a technology is just going to totally benefit everybody.
I think the difficult part of building in this space is that it's this legacy conservative industry and trying to figure out how to get people to trust and adopt new technologies as hard.
我认为在这个领域建设的难点是它是一种传统保守的行业,而要想办法让人们信任和采用新技术是很困难的。
Yeah, we have the Wikipedia as an example of a foundational data set and the DBPedia that's being kind of built off of it, really helped train these models. Is there an equivalent in your world? And if not, would that not be something noble for the government to work on if way of saying, hey, let's find 10,000 people in the United States and give them a battery of tests for their lives and really get that data set and open source it to the world to learn from?
I don't think that there's one, there have been attempts to kind of go in that direction. The UK Biobank is an example of something that kind of starts to look a little bit more like this, which is the NHS version of this. So exactly that NHS is like, hey, we have a national health system. We could create a big open source data set for everybody and there is a big open source data set.
Verily, also in Google had tried to run something they called project baseline. I don't know what its current status is, but the whole idea was enroll 10,000 people into a big observational study and follow them for a bunch of years and collect all this information and then we'd have this data set to learn from.
Verily, yeah, yeah, yeah. Exactly. That was Google's live forever health care thing. Well, I think you need something to learn from, right? Like kind of what you're saying. So baseline is like, hey, let's collect this data set. Let's build this thing that we could learn from. Again, I don't know what the status of that is.
So there have been a few different options, but I think that I 100% would support the US government trying to build a similar type of data set. Yeah, the ability to reduce suffering, extend health span.
Maybe we don't add years to life as Peter and his new book has been talking about Tela, I guess this is any pronounciation last name. He talks a little bit about health span versus lifespan. Hey, you live the same number of years, but you're skiing in your 70s and 80s. Or riding bikes in your 90s. It feels like we're on the cusp of something very interesting here.
And so just a behalf of humanity. Thank you for choosing this for your entrepreneurial journey and that you're doing God's work. Or if you're an atheist, you're doing humanity's work. So pick whichever you like. No judgements either way. Thanks for coming on the program and maybe we can catch up in a year and hear how you're doing next year with this.