• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI

    Anthropic Tells Investors of Healthcare and Biology AI Focus

    Andrew Curran claims Anthropic shared the plans during pre-IPO investor meetings.

    RO
    DP
    SU
    26 Sources, 51d ago, first seen 51d ago

    TLDR

    Andrew Curran posted that Anthropic told investors it will expand AI work in biology and healthcare to offset negative public views of the industry. Multiple replies on the post discussed the strategy, including whether it would shift sentiment and how it fits with profitable sectors like pharma. One reply noted consistent rumors of hands-on work with pharma and bio. No first-party confirmation from Anthropic appears in the packet.

    Combined views

    1.1M

    26 Sources, first seen 51d ago

    Combined views

    1.1M

    26 Sources, first seen 51d ago

    8.4K likes
    8.4K likes
    387 comments
    1.1K saves
    605 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    387 comments
    1.1K saves
    605 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    26 Sources

    @AndrewCurran_Anthropic has told investors in pre-IPO meetings that it plans to lean harder into biology and healthcare applications to help mitigate the increasingly negative public sentiment against the industry. A few miracle cures would certainly do wonders to turn things around.
    @herbiebradleychecks out, given consistent rumors I've heard of Anthropic's FDEs being much more hands-on with pharma/bio than the average enterprise
    @tszzl@AndrewCurran_ regardless of whether it moves public sentiment or not (it won’t by the way—can you name the methods that discovered Tylenol or Ozempic?) it just makes sense of superintelligence companies to compete on the generation of high value IP (pharma, finance, technology)
    @KeyTryerI suspect that this will not, in fact, do that.
    @TaylorLorenzRT @KeyTryer: I suspect that this will not, in fact, do that.
    @xeophon@AndrewCurran_ Which incidentally is also a highly profitable sector
    @beffjezosSo the real reasons that Anthropic nerfed Fable for biology and ML weren't for "Safety" but because those are markets they wanted to dominate. Got it.
    @AustenMaybe also stop going on press tours saying, “AI is basically as dangerous as a nuclear weapon and will cause everyone to lose their job.”
    @nickcammarata@beffjezos if you want to dunk say they are too anxious about biorisk if you think they are, it's an obvious strawman to say they limited bio out of concern for biotech competition they did limit frontier ml to limit frontier lab competition, but said that openly
    @SynBio1This supports my theory that the big neolabs see biotech mainly as a marketing expense, not a revenue source. You would never pivot into pharma to improve your company's reputation. Pharma companies regularly poll as the most disliked companies in the US. People like medicine, sure, but not companies that make money selling medicine. So where does that leave a post-IPO neolab looking to mitigate increasingly negative public sentiment about AI? The play is to perform biotech-like activities, but not become a commercial biotech. Make drug discovery software and give it away for free. Finance the creation of large open datasets. Build an AI scientist that combs the literature to repurpose drugs, then put those drugs in the public domain. Biotech companies have been watching the AI giants closely, knowing that any move they make shifts the gravity of the whole ecosystem. Will they scoop us on all the good drugs? Will they steal their biotech customers' data and use it to compete with them? I don't think so. Biotech-as-marketing shifts the ecosystem in a different way. Certain functions that used to be for-profit will be done by the neolabs at a loss. This is probably bad for you if you're a techbio company selling mainly software. But it’s great if are building in biotech and positioned to make use of all the cheap new tools.

    26 Sources

    @AndrewCurran_Anthropic has told investors in pre-IPO meetings that it plans to lean harder into biology and healthcare applications to help mitigate the increasingly negative public sentiment against the industry. A few miracle cures would certainly do wonders to turn things around.
    @herbiebradleychecks out, given consistent rumors I've heard of Anthropic's FDEs being much more hands-on with pharma/bio than the average enterprise
    @tszzl@AndrewCurran_ regardless of whether it moves public sentiment or not (it won’t by the way—can you name the methods that discovered Tylenol or Ozempic?) it just makes sense of superintelligence companies to compete on the generation of high value IP (pharma, finance, technology)
    @KeyTryerI suspect that this will not, in fact, do that.
    @TaylorLorenzRT @KeyTryer: I suspect that this will not, in fact, do that.
    @xeophon@AndrewCurran_ Which incidentally is also a highly profitable sector
    @beffjezosSo the real reasons that Anthropic nerfed Fable for biology and ML weren't for "Safety" but because those are markets they wanted to dominate. Got it.
    @AustenMaybe also stop going on press tours saying, “AI is basically as dangerous as a nuclear weapon and will cause everyone to lose their job.”
    @nickcammarata@beffjezos if you want to dunk say they are too anxious about biorisk if you think they are, it's an obvious strawman to say they limited bio out of concern for biotech competition they did limit frontier ml to limit frontier lab competition, but said that openly
    @SynBio1This supports my theory that the big neolabs see biotech mainly as a marketing expense, not a revenue source. You would never pivot into pharma to improve your company's reputation. Pharma companies regularly poll as the most disliked companies in the US. People like medicine, sure, but not companies that make money selling medicine. So where does that leave a post-IPO neolab looking to mitigate increasingly negative public sentiment about AI? The play is to perform biotech-like activities, but not become a commercial biotech. Make drug discovery software and give it away for free. Finance the creation of large open datasets. Build an AI scientist that combs the literature to repurpose drugs, then put those drugs in the public domain. Biotech companies have been watching the AI giants closely, knowing that any move they make shifts the gravity of the whole ecosystem. Will they scoop us on all the good drugs? Will they steal their biotech customers' data and use it to compete with them? I don't think so. Biotech-as-marketing shifts the ecosystem in a different way. Certain functions that used to be for-profit will be done by the neolabs at a loss. This is probably bad for you if you're a techbio company selling mainly software. But it’s great if are building in biotech and positioned to make use of all the cheap new tools.