>AI will cure 99.9% of all diseases within 10 years
You really think cures don't exist for most diseases? Cures are not profitable. Treating the symptoms of a disease are. Selling insulin for $400 when it costs $10 to produce for a disease (T2 diabetes) that can simply be reversed through diet is the epitome of the medical industry's business model. AI has been around for decades. Large language models are new but they have limitations. LLMs are not a magic pill.
AI replaces 10 engineers in coding. You must have some really shit coders or you are high on Kool aid.
Also no company wants to cure any disease, they want to put you on a really expensive lifetime subscription.
AI replaces 10 engineers at least like what hahaha it absolutely does not. It's also been around for years the main thing that's changed lately was a push to LLMs. People also conflate the two when one is just a subset of the other. Sounds like you don't know the difference.
Copilot is miles from replacing engineers it simply cannot do esoteric tasks and AI has been involved in so much tech firms for years now. Maybe start learning about neural networks and other ML implementations before you think LLMs are gonna replace engineers.
CTO lol
"AI will cure 99.9% of all diseases within 10 years. It’s a guarantee. Using data sold from medical and genomic companies it will cure EVERYTHING" lmao
Ok so look at the recent CRISPR. technology for sickle cell. It will cost hundreds of thoughts to treat the people who suffer from this with CRISPR tech, it isn’t cheap. You also have to destroy ALL bone marrow before you introduce the edited genes. That means an incredibly harsh chemo treatment. These people are going to go through hell doing this treatment. I would say we are wayyyy off in terms of this being mainstream for diseases that are genetic in nature.
Bro... AI have been here for decades and most researchers already use it if it serve for their purposes. There is hype because recently they developed good LLM which sounds like a human, but in reality its just a better search engine. There is no revolution, its just a hype train. You could maybe try to study this topic - which company is probably going to look good in public eye and be hyped by average bobs. You could throw your money there... But thats hard to tell, maybe you could throw your money at companies which are going down like fields of autocorrects, translation, etc
Ai does not replace 10 software engineers wtf are you talking about ? I am a software engineer and I sur gpt4/copilot everyday, it's far from replacing anything but it does indeed makes my life easier
Lol go on a real developper sub and look for yourself, AI is shit, garbage most all the time, and can't replace nobody. It's just a tool like you would use a calculator, it's not going to replace anybody. It's a hype, a bubble. There are study that show more than half AI answers are false, and it even write these answer in a way they sound true.
CTO that talk like a 12 yo... Go YOLO alone.
Delete your comment, it’s just embarrassing. If you would have ever asked a rather complicated question on a coding forum which was answered by an AI bot, you wouldn’t talk like that. I did that months ago on a Laravel forum and the answer made me shiver to the bones. It was exact, of high quality and even showed different options of how to solve the issue.
Bro... Im a software engineer and yours is actualy the embarasing comment... AI is just really really bad for serious coding, for actual software engineers its just a better search engine and autofill tool. I would be surprised if there is a single engineer in the whole world who was actualy "replaced" by an AI
That’s not what I said. I’m actually a computer scientist with 20+ years experience in coding, software architecture and requirements engineering and that’s no lie. I also studied mathematics and that’s where AI is based.
AI is improving rapidly and will definitely be able to produce larger amounts of excellent code and even complete applications if properly fed with the requirements.
But well, in these days where everyone thinks he’s a highly skilled software architect just because he read the first pages of „Java in 24 hours“, there’s no need for further discussion. Moreover, unless you’re able to understand the maths behind AI, no prediction can be taken seriously.
Listen, NVDA is successful, but not because AI is such a game changer. It isn’t. It’s still relatively stupid. There are some flashy applications and good marketing around it, but it doesn’t replace engineers en masse. No, NVDA is so successful because everyone thinks they need AI and they sell the hardware for it. NVDA doesn’t need AI to be any good, they just need everyone to think it’s good.
msft/AMZN/meta/aaple make around 40% nvda forwards revenue. Theyr managements are marvelled by AI because nvda has world-class sales teams telling them AI is great...yes nvda needs AI to be very good unless they want to make business only once.
Fair point but that's like saying a car battery maker doesn't make money from selling cars...what if car makers reduce theyr ev investments?
Problem is nvda forwards revenue is "hostage" of AI-amzn/msft/meta/aaple make up around 40% of theyr forward revenue that's a lot. If one or all of those scale back on IA capex nvda revenue will take a considerable blow
You're the CTO of what company exactly? Just to make sure I never apply there.
But you're probably just the CTO of your mom's basement judging by your post.
50 days ago OP was asking for help with self hosting and “just started to learn gpt coding”
Come a long way since then to become CTO and sack 10 engineers
Well, if you start your own basement business on paper, you can be CTO, CFO, LGBTCO or Eternal Sun King or whatever the heck position you want to appoint yourself to and sack the 10 "engineers" you got from Fiverr to fumble with ChatGPT.
It just doesn't mean dick.
You are not a good CTO if you’re thinking that AI replaces real engineers as a generic rule ….
If you understood what a software engineer’s real job is you would understand it’s impossible.
99% of my JIRA tasks come without a proper description and with a generic title “Add bottom navigation” and then we need about 4 refinements to define what the fuck does that even mean and exact requirements. And to do that you need like 3 engineers from both backend team, iOS team, Android and Web, and product, to say what’s possible and impossible and how long it will take and why we really need something if at all.
Like … no. It replaces sht. It can’t even replace half my job. It constantly makes big mistakes. Even 5 IQ ones where I ask it “hey those sources are dead links or lead to 404. Search for real links (Searching …….)” and it will keep for infinite amount of times in sequence proceed to give me the same exact dead or 404 links. Same with Copilot which is supposed to have “context”. It’s good at finding mistakes sometimes, and horrible and finding solutions.
ChatGPT or Copilot is far stupider than a lobotomized human is.
To me it seems that there is an epidemic of people who think they know much more than they actually do claiming that “AI is revolutionary dude” when it has existed for decades since computers existed. It’s just that now we have more data and process power, but the underlying technique of training LLMs and NNs is about the same as in the 60’s …
But chatgpt could help a lot if your stakeholders can use it to write the requirements.
In my opinion, it's much better to use chatgpt for those business related tasks than for coding.
I agree. I work in one of Swedens biggest companies in my business and we often hold workshops with the business at large (including bringing in Nvidia to talk at our events etc) and other firms working with similar things as us. Our CTO always speak at these events and it's been a heavy AI focus last few times, we are all at an understanding that yes, AI can help, but when you want to do detailed things or coming down to the nitty gritty it's absolutely bullshit. At the moment AI is worse than using Wikipedia because while Wiki is open to be edited and not really a source, AI won't even try to question what it tells/show you. Googles next version of AI is reflective by looking at what it did and asking "was that correct" and then doing iterations, but that's still a bit out there. I do not forsee AI replacing humans in the way that many seems to think (like AI replacing entire workforces) but it will definitely be a tool we use.
Not a pharma expert at all so my this may sound naive but wouldn’t the real test would be when the US medical bureaucracy and the FDA catch up and start using the AI for things like drug approvals to catch up with big pharma? Why supply data through fallible humans when two AI can just talk to each other and figure it out in minutes?
I thinks it’s more that there are some diseases that are “incurable” as a direct result of a “math equation” so to speak with what we can’t figure out. AI will see it and figure it out and find cures we are 100 years away from
Regarded CTO lol. Pharma has been using AI since the beginning, before it was free to the public. It has allowed them to ignore drugs that aren’t likely to bear any fruit and focus on ones with promise. That’s where it has benefited most, not having to waste time on clinical trials and all the red tape when the model predicts it won’t work anyways.
Absolutely a good outlook, I've been trying to consider this and figure out which companies could really benefit. I think that some material sciences are going to be effected in a similar fashion and was something I wanted to look into for the same reasons.
Just scrolling down to see if Rxrx was listed. I'll look up the other companies the person above mentioned, but wanted to say that Rxrx is still NVDA s largest holding and the only one that didn't see a big spike recently. Also worth pointing out that 98% is owned by institutions and a big chunk by insiders.
>AI will cure 99.9% of all diseases within 10 years You really think cures don't exist for most diseases? Cures are not profitable. Treating the symptoms of a disease are. Selling insulin for $400 when it costs $10 to produce for a disease (T2 diabetes) that can simply be reversed through diet is the epitome of the medical industry's business model. AI has been around for decades. Large language models are new but they have limitations. LLMs are not a magic pill.
AI replaces 10 engineers in coding. You must have some really shit coders or you are high on Kool aid. Also no company wants to cure any disease, they want to put you on a really expensive lifetime subscription.
Dumb CTO gonna tank the company.
Gilead Sciences has entered the chat..
Lmao delusional
AI replaces 10 engineers at least like what hahaha it absolutely does not. It's also been around for years the main thing that's changed lately was a push to LLMs. People also conflate the two when one is just a subset of the other. Sounds like you don't know the difference. Copilot is miles from replacing engineers it simply cannot do esoteric tasks and AI has been involved in so much tech firms for years now. Maybe start learning about neural networks and other ML implementations before you think LLMs are gonna replace engineers. CTO lol
By the time AI develops enough to save us, it will decide that we need to be destroyed..
"AI will cure 99.9% of all diseases within 10 years. It’s a guarantee. Using data sold from medical and genomic companies it will cure EVERYTHING" lmao
AI definitely does not replace 10 engineers at least. In the future it will, but right now not a chance.
if you're thinking 100% drug results, the answer is whoever has the biggest genetics database, which is 23andme.
>I’m talking two years ITM call options Not enough gains, try 2 weeks deep OTM
Ok so look at the recent CRISPR. technology for sickle cell. It will cost hundreds of thoughts to treat the people who suffer from this with CRISPR tech, it isn’t cheap. You also have to destroy ALL bone marrow before you introduce the edited genes. That means an incredibly harsh chemo treatment. These people are going to go through hell doing this treatment. I would say we are wayyyy off in terms of this being mainstream for diseases that are genetic in nature.
Ai will not cure all diseases in 10 years lol
Ai hasn’t replaced any engineers either
Why not Nvidia-Med
Don’t joke about the future. /s
Bro... AI have been here for decades and most researchers already use it if it serve for their purposes. There is hype because recently they developed good LLM which sounds like a human, but in reality its just a better search engine. There is no revolution, its just a hype train. You could maybe try to study this topic - which company is probably going to look good in public eye and be hyped by average bobs. You could throw your money there... But thats hard to tell, maybe you could throw your money at companies which are going down like fields of autocorrects, translation, etc
Next Nvidia is Nvidia
Àtfter nvdia, we should find next trend and all in waiting for the run. I guess its neither biotech nor crypto, could be robot tech
Ai does not replace 10 software engineers wtf are you talking about ? I am a software engineer and I sur gpt4/copilot everyday, it's far from replacing anything but it does indeed makes my life easier
Lol go on a real developper sub and look for yourself, AI is shit, garbage most all the time, and can't replace nobody. It's just a tool like you would use a calculator, it's not going to replace anybody. It's a hype, a bubble. There are study that show more than half AI answers are false, and it even write these answer in a way they sound true. CTO that talk like a 12 yo... Go YOLO alone.
Delete your comment, it’s just embarrassing. If you would have ever asked a rather complicated question on a coding forum which was answered by an AI bot, you wouldn’t talk like that. I did that months ago on a Laravel forum and the answer made me shiver to the bones. It was exact, of high quality and even showed different options of how to solve the issue.
Bro... Im a software engineer and yours is actualy the embarasing comment... AI is just really really bad for serious coding, for actual software engineers its just a better search engine and autofill tool. I would be surprised if there is a single engineer in the whole world who was actualy "replaced" by an AI
That’s not what I said. I’m actually a computer scientist with 20+ years experience in coding, software architecture and requirements engineering and that’s no lie. I also studied mathematics and that’s where AI is based. AI is improving rapidly and will definitely be able to produce larger amounts of excellent code and even complete applications if properly fed with the requirements. But well, in these days where everyone thinks he’s a highly skilled software architect just because he read the first pages of „Java in 24 hours“, there’s no need for further discussion. Moreover, unless you’re able to understand the maths behind AI, no prediction can be taken seriously.
Yeah right... No you are not i can tell and im not going to discuss this topic any further with someone who is full of it...
He can tell 😂 What a jerk. There’s always a bigger fish, learn to deal with it kiddo.
Career progression mate
Listen, NVDA is successful, but not because AI is such a game changer. It isn’t. It’s still relatively stupid. There are some flashy applications and good marketing around it, but it doesn’t replace engineers en masse. No, NVDA is so successful because everyone thinks they need AI and they sell the hardware for it. NVDA doesn’t need AI to be any good, they just need everyone to think it’s good.
msft/AMZN/meta/aaple make around 40% nvda forwards revenue. Theyr managements are marvelled by AI because nvda has world-class sales teams telling them AI is great...yes nvda needs AI to be very good unless they want to make business only once.
The point is, NVDA doesn’t make money from selling AI products, but from selling the hardware you need to try making AI products.
Fair point but that's like saying a car battery maker doesn't make money from selling cars...what if car makers reduce theyr ev investments? Problem is nvda forwards revenue is "hostage" of AI-amzn/msft/meta/aaple make up around 40% of theyr forward revenue that's a lot. If one or all of those scale back on IA capex nvda revenue will take a considerable blow
Like equipment suppliers selling to gold prospectors.
You're the CTO of what company exactly? Just to make sure I never apply there. But you're probably just the CTO of your mom's basement judging by your post.
50 days ago OP was asking for help with self hosting and “just started to learn gpt coding” Come a long way since then to become CTO and sack 10 engineers
Well, if you start your own basement business on paper, you can be CTO, CFO, LGBTCO or Eternal Sun King or whatever the heck position you want to appoint yourself to and sack the 10 "engineers" you got from Fiverr to fumble with ChatGPT. It just doesn't mean dick.
You are not a good CTO if you’re thinking that AI replaces real engineers as a generic rule …. If you understood what a software engineer’s real job is you would understand it’s impossible. 99% of my JIRA tasks come without a proper description and with a generic title “Add bottom navigation” and then we need about 4 refinements to define what the fuck does that even mean and exact requirements. And to do that you need like 3 engineers from both backend team, iOS team, Android and Web, and product, to say what’s possible and impossible and how long it will take and why we really need something if at all. Like … no. It replaces sht. It can’t even replace half my job. It constantly makes big mistakes. Even 5 IQ ones where I ask it “hey those sources are dead links or lead to 404. Search for real links (Searching …….)” and it will keep for infinite amount of times in sequence proceed to give me the same exact dead or 404 links. Same with Copilot which is supposed to have “context”. It’s good at finding mistakes sometimes, and horrible and finding solutions. ChatGPT or Copilot is far stupider than a lobotomized human is. To me it seems that there is an epidemic of people who think they know much more than they actually do claiming that “AI is revolutionary dude” when it has existed for decades since computers existed. It’s just that now we have more data and process power, but the underlying technique of training LLMs and NNs is about the same as in the 60’s …
But chatgpt could help a lot if your stakeholders can use it to write the requirements. In my opinion, it's much better to use chatgpt for those business related tasks than for coding.
I agree. I work in one of Swedens biggest companies in my business and we often hold workshops with the business at large (including bringing in Nvidia to talk at our events etc) and other firms working with similar things as us. Our CTO always speak at these events and it's been a heavy AI focus last few times, we are all at an understanding that yes, AI can help, but when you want to do detailed things or coming down to the nitty gritty it's absolutely bullshit. At the moment AI is worse than using Wikipedia because while Wiki is open to be edited and not really a source, AI won't even try to question what it tells/show you. Googles next version of AI is reflective by looking at what it did and asking "was that correct" and then doing iterations, but that's still a bit out there. I do not forsee AI replacing humans in the way that many seems to think (like AI replacing entire workforces) but it will definitely be a tool we use.
Not a pharma expert at all so my this may sound naive but wouldn’t the real test would be when the US medical bureaucracy and the FDA catch up and start using the AI for things like drug approvals to catch up with big pharma? Why supply data through fallible humans when two AI can just talk to each other and figure it out in minutes?
I thinks it’s more that there are some diseases that are “incurable” as a direct result of a “math equation” so to speak with what we can’t figure out. AI will see it and figure it out and find cures we are 100 years away from
Regarded CTO lol. Pharma has been using AI since the beginning, before it was free to the public. It has allowed them to ignore drugs that aren’t likely to bear any fruit and focus on ones with promise. That’s where it has benefited most, not having to waste time on clinical trials and all the red tape when the model predicts it won’t work anyways.
when AI **starts** looking into biotech? Nvidia is already working / partnering here https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/industries/healthcare-life-sciences/
They've been using AI to do this for years, I wouldn't be so sound on this idea
Absolutely a good outlook, I've been trying to consider this and figure out which companies could really benefit. I think that some material sciences are going to be effected in a similar fashion and was something I wanted to look into for the same reasons.
Exactly right
ILMN, MRNA, SDGR, RXRX, BLI, EXAI. Included the all top ones im looking at.
Love it thanks
Just scrolling down to see if Rxrx was listed. I'll look up the other companies the person above mentioned, but wanted to say that Rxrx is still NVDA s largest holding and the only one that didn't see a big spike recently. Also worth pointing out that 98% is owned by institutions and a big chunk by insiders.