Investors debate: should biomedical AI capital pool into LLMs or a plurality of ideas
dr1337 · x · 2026-11-08
A debate over whether capital should concentrate on LLM-driven biomedical moonshots or a plurality of approaches.
Investor @dawallach says he's rooting for the LLM thesis and accelerating it, but must assign probabilities to highly uncertain scenarios where timing is hardest. With limited money and people, going all-in on moonshots would sacrifice lower-risk near-term wins with immediate patient impact; he thinks the market's current ratio is roughly right, perhaps slightly underweight on moonshots.
@dr1337 agrees: it's not a foregone conclusion that scaling LLMs solves all biomedical problems, and capital is zero-sum — money pooling into the same ideas is money not funding a plurality of possible outcomes.
More from AGI Musings
- Martin Casado: specialized approaches grow toward generality, not just get eaten by it — timigod · 2026-11-08
- Counter to the 'Nature already does RSI' argument: life's waves suggest humans are fleeting — danfaggella · 2026-11-08
- Reminder of the original slow/fast takeoff definitions from Vinge and Yudkowsky — sebkrier · 2026-11-08
- 'People are ahead of their skis': stalled AI revenue sparks stagnation-over-boom warning — abhiadesai · 2026-11-08
- AI capability growth as a tug of war: recursive self-improvement vs diminishing returns — CFGeek · 2026-11-08
- Chollet: Scaling Is Only a Multiplier, Smarter Methods Scale Better — fchollet · 2026-11-08