← 返回任务列表

How AI Is Changing What Work Means

255 段 · 1 位说话人 · 原片 28:05
M1
M10:00

差不多现在没有人需要被说服AI正在改变工作的方式。

Pretty much no one at this point needs to be convinced that AI is changing how work works.

当然,它改变了我们完成现有任务的速度和效率,而且这些变化的规模和种类似乎随着时间不断增长。

Certainly it changes the speed and efficiency with which we do existing tasks, and the magnitude and kind of those changes seems to grow over time.

举个例子,几年前我们有些人可能用过AI来写邮件,但现在很多人都有个人代理常驻在邮箱里,一旦有真正需要回复的内容,就会通知我们,而且通常已经帮我们起草好了回复。

For example, while some of us may have used AI to write emails a couple of years ago, now many of us have personal agents sitting in our email perpetually notifying us when there's something we actually have to respond to, often after having drafted the response itself.

然而,正如我一直说的,就AI将如何真正改变工作而言,这仅仅是冰山一角。

And yet, as I've always argued, that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how AI will actually change work.

今天的报道就是一个很好的例子:一家知名的金融研究公司临时把自己变成了生物研究实验室,并与Anthropic合作,针对蝎子毒液找到了一些可能的答案。

A great example of that comes in today's story, where a well-known financial research firm turned itself temporarily into a bio research lab and collaborated with Anthropic to come up with some potential answers to scorpion venom.

这不仅仅是一个新奇事物,也不只是博眼球的标题,我确实认为它能在很大程度上告诉我们AI在工作领域的下一个方向。

More than a novelty and more than a clickbait headline, I actually think that this can tell us quite a bit about where AI at work is headed next.

AI Daily Brief是一个关于AI领域最重要新闻和讨论的每日播客和视频节目。

The AI Daily Brief is a daily podcast and video about the most important news and discussions in AI.

好了,朋友们,在我们深入探讨之前,先快速说几个通知。

All right, friends, quick announcements before we dive in.
M1
M11:18

顺便说一下,如果你只想获取我每天提到的所有链接,有两种方式。

And by the way, if you are just looking for all the links that I talk over on any given day, there are 2 ways you can do it.

首先,你可以到网站上任何一集的节目配套页面。

First, you can go into the episode companion page on the website for any episode.

你会看到所有内容按关键数字、关键主题、关键引用分类,但你也可以直接订阅我们的新闻通讯,网站上也有链接,其中会有我讨论的所有内容的摘要以及关键链接。

You're going to see everything split up by key numbers, key topics, key quotes, but you can also just subscribe to our newsletter, which is also linked from the website, which is going to have summaries of everything I discuss as well as the key links.

请在aidailybrief.ai查看。

Check it all out at aidailybrief.ai.

说完这些,让我们开始吧。

But with that out of the way, let's dive in.

我们今天的开场是个人助手主题的更新:Meta的Muse在短短40天内就达到了1000万美国下载量。

We kick off today with an update on the personal assistant theme where Meta's Muse has reached 10 million US downloads in just 40 days.

这个速度非常快。

That is a very quick pace.

事实上,这使得Muse成为仅有的十几个在类似时间内达到这一里程碑的应用之一。

In fact, it makes Muse one of only about a dozen apps to have achieved that milestone in a similar period of time.

其他11个几乎全是手机游戏,具体来说就是手机游戏的大热门,比如Pokémon GO、Fortnite和PUBG。

The other 11 are almost exclusively mobile games, specifically the smash hits of mobile gaming like Pokémon GO, Fortnite, and PUBG.

只有两款非游戏应用增长这么快,那就是Disney+和Meta自家的Threads。

Only 2 non-gaming apps have grown this quickly, which is Disney+ and Meta's own Threads.

奇怪的是,ChatGPT、Claude或Gemini作为移动应用都没有增长那么快,尽管它们最终都登上了下载榜的榜首。

Curiously, none of ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini grew that quickly as a mobile app, even though they eventually made it to the top of the download charts.

每个聊天机器人最初都是以网页应用的形式推出,移动应用后来才出现,错过了早期爆发式增长的阶段。

Each chatbot was introduced as a web app first, with the mobile app coming later and missing the early phases of explosive growth.

第一个月的数据已经统计完毕,Sensor Tower还提供了关于Muse发布的几个有趣数据点。

With its first month in the books, Sensor Tower had several other interesting data points about the Muse rollout as well.

Meta已将10月总广告支出的39%分配给Muse,而9月份是23%。

Meta has allocated 39% of their total advertising spend for October to Muse, which is up from 23% in September.

这使得Muse成为本月美国曝光量第21大的品牌。

That has boosted Muse to become the 21st largest brand by impressions for this month in the United States.

Sensor Tower数据显示,Muse的7天留存率为30%,14天留存率为23%,相比之下,ChatGPT的7天和14天留存率大约为25%,而iOS应用的平均30天留存率约为5%。

Sensor Tower data showed that Muse has a 30% retention rate after 7 days and a 23% retention rate after 14 days, which compares to ChatGPT's 7 and 14-day retention rates at around 25%, and the average retention rates for an iOS app at around 5% after 30 days.

有趣的是,有人对Muse的留存率提出了一些批评。

Interestingly, there has been some criticism around Muse's retention rate.

然而,这种分析将Muse与Instagram、Facebook和Google应用进行不利比较,而这些应用是有史以来用户粘性最强的消费类应用。

However, that analysis compares Muse unfavorably against Instagram, Facebook, and the Google app, which are some of the stickiest consumer apps ever created.

看起来Muse仍处于增长早期,上周日活跃用户达到250万,环比增长15%。

It also looks like Muse is still early in its growth phase, with daily active users reaching 2.5 million last week, which was up 15% week over week.

简而言之,是的,他们投入了大量广告来推广,但Meta似乎确实有了一款热门产品。

TL;DR is yes, they are spending a ton of advertising to push it, but Meta does seem to have a hit on their hands.

接下来的问题不是短期留存,而是如果这款应用真的能留存下来,人们最终会将它融入生活的哪个部分。

The next question isn't going to be about short-term retention, but about where people ultimately find the app fitting into their life if it does.

Signal on X写道,大多数消费产品通常有两种留存类型之一。

Signal on X writes, Most consumer products typically have one of two types of retention.

一个是欲望驱动型,就是纯粹的多巴胺,像 Instagram、TikTok 和游戏这些。

One is desire-driven, which is just pure dopamine, like Instagram, TikTok, and games.

这些应用通常甚至不需要推送通知,因为你知道欲望的奖励总在等着你。

They often don't even need notifications because you know there is a reward for your desire always waiting.

第二个是依赖驱动型,比如邮件、日历,甚至信用卡和银行。

The second is dependency-driven, like emails, calendars, even credit cards and banking.

大部分人必须做这些事,这不是他们真正渴望的东西。

Most people have to do this, it's not something they necessarily desire.

现在个人 AI 助手面临的挑战是,它们处在一种奇怪的第三空间:大多数时候,它们不像第一类那样能提供情感上的回报,成为娱乐;但又不够可靠或必不可少,成为纯基础设施。

The challenge with personal AI agents right now is that they occupy a weird third space where they aren't emotionally rewarding most of the time to become entertainment like the first category, and they're not reliable or indispensable enough to become pure infrastructure.

也就是说,它们会出错,而且用起来很不顺畅。

I.e., they fail, and there's a lot of friction.

除了纯研究任务之外,哪怕一次失败,通常就足以让用户不再回头来看它的实用价值。

Outside of pure research-driven tasks, even one failure is often enough to not come back for the utility-value proposition.

然后他接着推测这打开了哪些机会,但我觉得,虽然我们看到了早期的积极信号,但还是要记住,对于围绕个人助手的用户行为,我们还处于非常早期的理解阶段。

Now, he goes on to speculate a bunch about what opportunities that opens up, but I think even though we're seeing early positive signals, it is worth remembering that we are still very early days in terms of understanding the behavior surrounding personal agents.

Muse 也不是没有挑战。

Muse also is not without its challenges.

本周早些时候,研究人员报告说,Muse 允许用户分享搜索、对话和图片的功能,有一个特别的漏洞,导致别人能看到这些对话。

Earlier this week, researchers reported that the feature by which Muse allows users to share searches, conversations, and images had a particular challenge that was allowing other people to see those conversations.

一般来说,这类分享功能会生成一个唯一的 URL,任何有这个链接的人都能打开一个页面来查看内容。

In general, those types of share features usually involve creating a unique URL, that anyone who has that URL can use to load a page hosting the content.

敏感信息不被访问的保障,就是这些 URL 的复杂程度——理论上不容易被猜到。

The way that sensitive information is kept from being accessed is the complicatedness of the URLs that theoretically can't easily be guessed.

然而,Meta 的工程师在构造这些 URL 时做了一个特殊的设计决定,使得它们容易被发现。

However, a particular design decision that Meta's engineers made around the construction of those URLs has made them easy to discover.

结果,Ars Technica 报道说,安全公司 Claroty 的研究人员表示,他们能枚举出 6800 个 Muse 用户创建的、用于互相分享对话的链接。

As a result, wrote Ars Technica, researchers from security firm Claroty said they were able to enumerate 6,800 links Muse users created for sharing conversations with each other.

在打开了几百个链接之后,他们继续说,研究人员找到了明显不打算公开的信息,包括一个小企业主的贷款申请、一个房地产投资者的内部业绩报告,以及一家全国性营销公司的内部营收回顾。

After opening a few hundred of them, they continue, the researchers found information that was clearly not intended to be publicly available, including things like a small business owner's loan application, a real estate investor's internal performance report, and a national marketing company's internal revenue review.

Meta 表示,他们已经暂时下线了这个功能,并正在加强安全措施,确保这种事不再发生。

Meta has said that they've temporarily taken down the feature and are working to harden it to make sure that doesn't happen.

接下来是另一个你会和助手互动的地方——你的车。

Next up is another place that you're going to interact with agents, your car.

差不多一年前,Android Auto 里就已经有了一个基础版的 Gemini 助手。

For almost a year, a basic version of the Gemini assistant has been available in Android Auto.

这个助手主要作为地图和音响系统的语音控制来用,但也能在你开车时发短信,并在网上查找信息。

The agent mostly functioned as a voice control for Maps and the stereo system, but could also send text messages while you were driving and find information on the web.

不过,它并没有连接到用户的个人上下文中,就像用户对个人助手的期待那样。

It was not, however, connected to your personal context, as users have begun to expect from a personal agent.

用户反馈也表明,它实际运行得不太好,经常连基本任务都失败。

User feedback also suggested that it didn't really work that well and often failed at basic tasks.

新版本增加了访问你其他 Google 服务数据的能力。

The new version adds the ability to access data from the rest of your Google-based services.

Google 说,现在你可以问助手,比如在去机场的路上,你会不会错过航班;助手能翻看你的收件箱找到必要信息,同时查看 Google Maps 里的交通状况。

Google says you can now do things like asking the assistant whether you're going to miss your flight while en route, and the agent can rifle through your inbox to find the necessary details while also checking traffic conditions in Google Maps.

另一个例子是,仅凭一张照片就能问路。

Another example was the ability to ask for directions based solely on a photo.

Google 表示,Gemini 现在可以仅凭一张你坐在卡座里喝意式浓缩咖啡的照片,就指引你上周朋友带你去的那家咖啡馆。

Google said Gemini could now direct you to a coffee place your friend took you to last week based only on a picture of you enjoying your espresso in a booth.

我现在还是不太确定,这些功能最终会有多重要。

Now I'm still quite unsure about how important these features are ultimately going to be.

一方面,我能想象这类与车的互动会变得非常普遍,以至于我们难以想象以前没有这些功能的样子。

On the one hand, I could see this type of interaction with your car becoming something that is so common that we have a hard time imagining that we didn't always have those features.

但与此同时,我也能看到很多人觉得,在另一个设备上设置和集成不值得费这么大劲,因为他们本来就可以直接拿起放在中控台上的手机,获得同样的信息。

And yet at the same time, I can see a lot of people deciding that the setup and integration into another device isn't worth all the hassle when they can already just pick up their phone that's probably already sitting right there on their console and get the same information.

不管怎样,看起来公司们会继续探索这条路,因为 Tesla 也把 GrokBot 整合进了他们的车里,而且你可以想象其他厂商也会跟着做。

Whatever the case, it seems that companies are going to continue to explore that, as Tesla has also integrated GrokBot into their vehicles, and you have to imagine everyone else is going to follow.

转到市场方面,Anthropic 的一份更新财务披露被泄露了,这又在财经媒体中引发了一阵焦虑。

Moving over to markets, an updated financial disclosure from Anthropic has leaked, sparking another round of hand-wringing in the financial press.

《华尔街日报》拿到了Anthropic更新后的招股说明书草案,里面包含了今年上半年的完整审计财务数据。

The Wall Street Journal got their hands on Anthropic's updated prospectus draft, which included fully audited financials for the first half of the year.

他们的报道主要聚焦于两个吓人的大数字。

Their reporting focused on 2 big scary numbers.

上半年净亏损800亿美元,以及未来几年高达7500亿美元的计算资源支出。

An $80 billion net loss for the first half of the year, and up to $750 billion in compute spending over the coming years.

这800亿美元的净亏损,比之前招股说明书版本中报告2025年420亿美元的亏损要大得多。

The $80 billion net loss is substantially larger than the $42 billion loss for 2025 reported from the previous edition of their prospectus.

不过,这两个数字都源于对股票赠予的相同会计处理方式。

But, both numbers stem from the same accounting treatment of stock grants.

大约720亿美元的亏损只是账面上的会计变动,实际运营亏损是87亿美元。

Around $72 billion of the loss was an on-paper accounting change, leaving $8.7 billion as the actual operating loss for the first half.

有说法称这是所有寻求上市的公司中最大的一笔亏损,对此财经播客Jack Farley评论说,如果Anthropic这800亿美元的会计亏损在经济上真有实际意义,那才值得担忧。

Responding to the claim that this is the biggest loss of any company seeking to go public, financial podcaster Jack Farley commented, this would be worrisome if the $80 billion accounting loss by Anthropic were economically real in any way.

好消息是,它没有。

Good news, it isn't.

当一家公司发行可转债和认股权证,而市值涨了1000倍时,账面上来自做空看涨期权的亏损会非常巨大,但这并非基本面问题。

When a company issues convertible notes and warrants and the market cap 1,000x's, the on-paper loss from being short calls is massive, not fundamental.

对其他人来说,更值得关注的是那7500亿美元的计算支出。

Now for others, the bigger deal is the $750 billion in compute spending.

报道称,其中大约4500亿美元是已确定的、不可取消的承诺,将在未来7到10年内到期支付。

The reporting suggested that of that, firm, uncancelable commitments were around $450 billion and come due over the next 7 to 10 years.

换句话说,这虽然是一笔非常高的支出,但分摊到十年里就要可行得多了。

In other words, it's a very high level of spending, but one that's far more tenable spread out over a decade.

另外,这个更大的数字里可能还有些重复下单的成分——Anthropic向NeoClouds做了些软承诺,希望他们能真正建成新的设施。

There also could be an element of double ordering in the larger number, with Anthropic making soft commitments to NeoClouds in hopes they can actually complete new facilities.

《华尔街日报》评论说,Anthropic需要的计算能力已经超出了市场所能供应的。

The Journal commented that Anthropic needs more computing power than the market can provide.

还有一个大家特别关注的数字是上半年的收入——163亿美元。

The one other number that people are laser-focused on is the revenue number of $16.3 billion for the first half.

Anthropic此前声称截至7月年化收入运行率为650亿美元,虽然这两个数字可能都属实,但实际入账的收入比预期要低一些。

Anthropic had claimed a revenue run rate of $65 billion for the year up to July, and while both of those things can be true, actual booked revenue yields a lower number than might have been expected.

在上周的投资者日上,Anthropic表示第三季度又增加了168亿美元收入,季度环比增长率达到45%,但这个未经审计的传闻数字不会出现在IPO招股说明书中。

At last week's Investor Day, Anthropic said that they added another $16.8 billion in revenue in Q3 for a 45% quarter-over-quarter growth rate, but that unaudited whisper number won't be included in the prospectus when they IPO.

报道其余部分主要涉及之前媒体已经报道过的风险披露,比如对齐问题、数据中心遭抵制以及客户集中度等。

The rest of the reporting largely covers risk disclosures that were already in the press— things like alignment issues, the data center backlash, and customer concentration.

说实话,这些泄露的消息大多只是印证了人们已有的看法。

Realistically, these leaks mostly have served to confirm pre-existing biases.

800亿美元的净亏损给AI批评者们提供了下次播客的新素材,但我实在想象不出,会有人对Anthropic发行了大量股票期权、并且最终会在计算上花费超过5000亿美元感到意外。

The $80 billion net loss gives AI critics some new material for their next podcast, but it strikes me as fairly difficult to imagine that anyone is surprised that Anthropic issued a ton of stock options and will spend more than a half trillion on compute when all is said and done.

就像SpaceX的IPO一样,这次股票发行关注的不是过去几个季度。

Like the SpaceX IPO, this stock offering is not going to be about the past few quarters.

它关注的是人们对未来十年的看法。

It's going to be about what people believe about the next decade.

不过,市场的紧张情绪依然重要,或许也解释了为什么一些投资者在推动Anthropic调低他们的目标。

Still, market skittishness matters and perhaps explains why some investors are pushing Anthropic to moderate their targets.

上周路透社报道说,一些投资者对传闻中2万亿美元的估值表示反对,认为1.5万亿美元更合适。

Last week, Reuters reported that some investors are pushing back on the rumored $2 trillion valuation and would be more comfortable at $1.5 trillion.

请注意,这两个数字都来自投资者,我们没听到任何Anthropic或其投行方面的说法。

Keep in mind, both numbers are coming from investors, and we've heard nothing attributed to Anthropic or their investment bankers.

与此同时,OpenAI正在抓紧完成最新一轮融资,赶在Anthropic IPO之前。

Meanwhile, OpenAI is rushing to complete their latest round of fundraising ahead of the Anthropic IPO.

这轮融资的消息最早在上个月底传出,据称OpenAI正在寻求以1.4万亿美元的估值融资300亿美元。

Reports of the round first circulated towards the end of last month, suggesting OpenAI was seeking $30 billion at a valuation of $1.4 trillion.

现在有消息人士告诉路透社,OpenAI试图在几周内完成交易,以抢在Anthropic IPO及其给市场带来的各种条件之前。

Now, sources tell Reuters that OpenAI is trying to close the deal in weeks to get ahead of the Anthropic IPO and whatever conditions that brings to market.

消息人士称,OpenAI也希望能利用GPT-6 Astra发布后近期的增长势头,不过即便是在这个疯狂的行业里,这也是一笔异常快速的交易。

The sources said that OpenAI is also keen to capitalize on recent growth after the release of GPT-6 Astra, but this is an unusually fast deal even for this crazy sector.

路透社写道,这次融资加速凸显了这两家AI开发商在资本争夺上的激烈程度——两者都在追求万亿美元的估值,同时市场对利率上升、科技股大幅波动以及AI估值审查趋严的担忧也在增加。

The acceleration, writes Reuters, underscores how closely the 2 AI developers are competing for capital as both pursue trillion-dollar price tags and growing concern about rising interest rates, significant volatility in technology stocks, and rising scrutiny of AI valuations.

这些关于钱的讨论到年底只会越来越激烈。

These money conversations are going to get nothing but more frenetic to end the year.

不过,今天的人工智能每日简报就到这里了。

However, for now, that's going to do it for today's AI Daily Brief.

感谢你一如既往的收听或收看,下次再见,peace。

Appreciate you listening or watching as always, and until next time, peace.
M1
M113:36

欢迎回到人工智能每日简报。

Welcome back to the AI Daily Brief.

今天我们讨论的是蝎子抗毒血清能告诉我们关于人工智能未来的什么。

Today we're discussing what scorpion antivenom tells us about the future of AI.

说真的,这确实就是本期节目的主题。

Seriously, that's actually the subject of the show.

或者至少是一系列与这个吸引眼球的标题相关的故事,而它们所代表的主题才是本期节目更广泛的话题。

Or at least a set of stories that relate to that attention-grabbing headline, and the themes that they represent are the broader subject of the show.

人工智能新闻聚合商Andrew Curran本周早些时候发文说,药物发现、新疾病疗法、制药和生物医学的进步,再加上目前正在讨论的直接分红或股份,这些才是扭转公众舆论的唯一可行途径。

AI news aggregator Andrew Curran posted earlier this week, drug discovery, new disease cures, advancements in pharma and biomedicine, along with direct dividends or shares as is currently being discussed, these are the only viable ways to turn public sentiment around.

这个想法你经常听到,就是说要让人们不再讨厌人工智能,我们就得赶紧行动,给他们一些承诺过的疾病疗法。

And this is an idea that you see bandied about a lot, that to actually get people to stop disliking AI, we gotta hop to and give them some of those disease cures that they've been promised.

我其实觉得生物学和人工智能相关的新活动带来的问题远不止这一个,虽然这个问题当然也很重要。

I actually think that the new activities around biology and AI bring up a much larger set of questions than just that one, although that one certainly matters as well.

所以首先,我们来说说生物与人工智能交叉领域的几个故事,尤其是这个疯狂的——金融公司Citrini Research正在研究蝎子蜇伤的治疗方法。

So first, let's talk about a couple of the stories at the intersection of bio and AI, particularly this crazy one with financial firm Citrini Research working on scorpion sting cures.

但第一个故事其实来自OpenAI。

But the first actually comes from OpenAI.

该公司宣布收购了一家利用人工智能进行药物发现的初创公司,以拓展他们的生物技术业务。

The company has announced that they have acquired an AI-powered drug discovery startup to build out their biotech offering.

OpenAI周二宣布收购了成立四年的AI生物技术初创公司Orchestra Bio。

OpenAI announced on Tuesday that they'd acquired 4-year-old AI biotech startup Orchestra Bio.

交易条款未披露,Orchestra去年在风险投资中最后一次融资2000万美元。

Terms of the deal were not disclosed, and Orchestra last raised $20 million in venture funding last year.

Orchestra开发了旨在协助药物发现工作流程的AI智能体。

Orchestra develops AI agents designed to assist in drug discovery workflows.

Orchestra并不是去探索新的候选化合物,而是主要专注于简化实验室任务,比如监控化合物制造过程和跟踪药物试验的进展。

Rather than exploring new candidate compounds, Orchestra has largely focused on streamlining lab tasks like monitoring the compound manufacturing process and tracking drug trials as they progress.

Orchestra团队将在GPT Rosalind上工作,这是OpenAI为生命科学工作设计的模型变体。

The Orchestra team will work on GPT Rosalind, OpenAI's model variant designed for life sciences work.

该模型最初于4月作为研究预览版发布,但现在已作为完整商业产品发布。

The model was first released in April as a research preview but has now been released as a full commercial product.

除了模型之外,OpenAI还提供了Rosalind Workbench,这是一套智能体,帮助模型连接科学仪器并分析数据。

Alongside the model, OpenAI offers Rosalind Workbench, which is a suite of agents to help the model connect to scientific instruments and analyze data.

在新闻稿中,OpenAI写道,我们的愿景是让人工智能帮助科学家完成发现和开发新药的整个过程——探索想法、设计实验、解读结果,以及协调推进有前景疗法所需的工作。

In their press release, OpenAI wrote, our vision is for AI to help scientists across the full process of discovering and developing new medicines— exploring ideas, designing experiments, interpreting results, and coordinating the work needed to advance promising treatments.

将OrchestraBio与Rosalind结合起来,是朝着这一愿景迈出的一步。

Bringing OrchestraBio together with Rosalind is a step toward that vision.

与研究人员和合作伙伴一起,我们旨在让更多发现成为可能,并帮助新药更快地惠及患者。

Alongside researchers and our partners, we aim to make more discoveries possible and help new medicines reach patients sooner.

需要说明的是,与我们稍后要讨论的一些事情相比,这并不是OpenAI要建立自己的生物技术公司。

Now to be clear, in contrast to some things we're going to discuss a little bit later, This is not about OpenAI building their own biotech firm.

而是为了打造更好的工具来帮助现有的制药行业。

It's about building better tools to help the existing pharma industry.

同样来自新闻稿,他们写道,在生命科学领域实现人工智能的潜力需要与处于药物发现和开发前沿的组织密切合作。

Also from the press release, they wrote, Realizing the potential of AI in life sciences requires close collaboration with the organizations working at the forefront of drug discovery and development.

我们与Novo Nordisk的合作旨在将其规模和科学专业知识转化为更快的研发和商业执行,同时保持强有力的治理。

Our partnership with Novo Nordisk aims to translate its scale and scientific expertise into faster R&D and commercial execution while maintaining strong governance.

在Moderna,人工智能正在帮助团队将复杂数据中的洞察转化为实验工作流程,从而有可能加速研发。

At Moderna, AI is helping teams translate insights from complex data into experimental workflows, with the potential to accelerate R&D.

换句话说,OpenAI在告诉你,他们希望更好地支持这些行业的人工智能应用场景,而不是用人工智能来做那些具体的工作。

In other words, OpenAI is giving you the idea that they want to better support those industries' use cases of AI, not do that particular work with AI.

很多人对这类工作充满热情。

Many were enthusiastic about this type of work.

我真的希望那些大实验室能继续专注在药物研发上。

I really hope the big labs keep focusing on drug development.

那才是我们真正能改变世界的地方。

That is where we can really change the world.

Presagenetics的Parmita Mishra认为这是一种趋势,她在分享这条新闻时加了个标题,说“生物炒作开始了”。

And Presagenetics' Parmita Mishra thinks this is part of a trend, sharing the news with the added caption, the bio hype begins.

不过,有些人觉得这只是一个渐进式的步骤。

However, some think that this is just an incremental step.

今天Vasishtha写道,对于前沿实验室来说,实现盈利的唯一途径最终就是成为一家生物技术公司。

Today, Vasishtha writes, the only path to profitability for the frontier labs is becoming a biotech company eventually.

上个月路透社报道说Anthropic悄悄建了自己的生物学实验室,这个观点也因此多了几分可信度。

And that position got a bit more credence last month when Reuters reported that Anthropic had quietly set up its own biology lab.

所以说明一下,跟OpenAI给现有实验室建造更好的系统不一样,Anthropic这次是建自己的实验室,来做实际的生物学研究工作。

So to be clear, in contrast to OpenAI building better systems for existing labs to use, this is Anthropic setting up their own lab to do physical biology work.

路透社的消息出来之后,Anthropic生命科学部门的负责人确认了这个实验室的存在。

After the Reuters news broke, the lab's existence was confirmed by Anthropic's head of life sciences.

Eric Kuderer-Abrahams说,我们相信,要做生物学研究,最终的检验仍然并且在一段时间内还会是在真实的实验室工作中。

Eric Kuderer-Abrahams said, we believe that to do biology, the final test is still and will be for a while in real lab work.

我们现在确实就在这么做,我觉得我们的做法跟大多数生物技术公司差不多,一部分工作在自己设施里完成,另一部分跟外部伙伴合作。

We absolutely are doing that today, and I would describe our approach as being typical of what you would see in most biotech companies, where there's some amount of that that we're doing in our own facilities, and some amount of that that we're working with external partners on.

这个消息发布的时候,正好是x-risk讨论再次升温的时候,很多人都在想,这时候Anthropic搞一个湿实验室,到底合不合适。

Now this news broke right at the time that the x-risk discussion was surging once again, leaving many to wonder if it was exactly the right time for Anthropic to be building a wet lab.

不过随着更多报道出现,大家就清楚了,这个实验室的任务范围其实相当有限,能做的研究类型也有很具体的限制。

However, with further reporting, it became clear that it had a relatively limited remit that had pretty specific limitations in the types of research it could do.

不过,也正是在这段时间,有报道说Anthropic内部的一些领导认为,将来某个时候,他们会是唯一剩下的公司。

Still, this was also the time that there were reports that leaders inside Anthropic believed that at some point in the future, they would be the only company left.

鉴于这感觉像是进入了一个完全不同的领域,而且也是AI的一种根本性新模式——不只是提供智能,而是用这个智能去做事情——所以可以说,很多人都挺有兴趣看看它会怎么发展。

And given how much this felt like a move into a totally different area and a fundamentally different model for AI, i.e., not just providing the intelligence but using that intelligence to do things, there was a lot of interest, let's say, to see how it would evolve.

这就引出了Citrini的故事。

That brings us, however, to the story of Citrini.

今年7月,Anthropic写道,Citrini Research的一个团队问了我们一个有趣的问题:Claude,以及更广泛的AI药物发现,能不能让一群有干劲的非专业人士去解决一个真正的人类健康问题?

Back in July, Anthropic writes, a team from Citrini Research had approached us with an interesting question: could Claude, and AI drug discovery more generally, enable a group of motivated non-experts to tackle a genuine problem in human health?

你可能会问自己,Citrini Research?我是不是在那些谈论金融问题的新闻通讯里听过他们?

Now, Citrini Research, you might be saying to yourself, Haven't I heard of them in the context of newsletters about financial issues?

简单回答是:没错——你打开citriniresearch.com,它直接链接到他们的Substack,上面写着“提供主题股权投资和全球宏观交易的见解”。

And the short answer is yes— when you go to citriniresearch.com, it links directly to their Substack, which it sums up as providing insights on thematic equity investing and global macro trading.

那他们到底在搞什么鬼,居然想设计新药?

So what the heck are they doing trying to design new drugs?

根据Citrini关于这个项目的一篇长博客,实验的起因是——按他们自己的说法——想在AI基础设施之外找机会,因为他们担心那个市场太拥挤了。

According to Citrini's long blog post about this work, the origins of the experiment came from, as they put it, searching for opportunities outside of AI infrastructure where they were concerned about markets crowding.

在他们看来,有非对称机会的一个领域是生命科学和医疗保健。

One area that seemed to them to have asymmetric opportunity was life sciences and healthcare.

他们写道,这个行业经历了疫情带来的繁荣期逆转,融资环境也很艰难,因为投资者把钱投到了更刺激的地方。

They wrote, the sector had endured the reversal of the pandemic boom and a difficult funding environment as investors found more exciting places for their money.

在过去五年里,这里简直就是回报的坟墓。

Over the past half decade, it has been a graveyard for returns.

当所有人都在关注哪家日本半导体厂商会下一个被收购的时候,周期好像已经悄悄转变了。

While everyone focused on which Japanese semiconductor producer would sell out next, the cycle had seemingly turned.

但是,这些股票还没有任何明显的上涨,而我们一直听到AI在药物发现方面的潜力。

However, the stocks had yet to climb in any meaningful way, and we kept hearing about AI's promise in drug discovery.

一个被忽视的行业,又有AI带来上升空间的可能——这符合我们最喜欢的那种格局:周期低点的长期故事。

A neglected sector with the chance for AI upside, it had the markings of our favorite type of setup: a secular story at cyclical lows.

另外他们说,因为他们上一篇关于AI的重磅文章讲的是AI做得太好甚至可能摧毁经济,所以现在有机会讲一个乐观的故事,对他们来说也挺让人兴奋的。

And also, they said, given that their last big AI post had been effectively about how AI doing too well even could also destroy the economy, the opportunity to potentially tell an optimistic story also seemed exciting to them as well.

他们半开玩笑地写道,终于,我们有机会写一篇文章,让大家从AI反乌托邦未来威胁的新闻轰炸中喘口气了。

With tongue firmly in cheek, they wrote, finally, it was our chance to write an article offering a reprieve from the threats of a dystopian AI future dominating the news.

当然,我们从来没有煽动过大家对AI未来的恐惧,这点是肯定的。

Not that we have ever been guilty of fueling fears about the future of AI, of course.

他们接着说,唯一的问题是?

The one problem, they continued?

我们谁也不敢说自己对AI在生物学领域的应用有什么了解。

None of us could claim to know anything about AI as it related to biology.

他们写道,我们通常的流程会包括深度研究和几十次专家通话。

Our usual process, they wrote, would involve deep research and dozens of calls with experts.

但你要去调查十几位生物学专家,你听到的会是,AI既没有创造出一种重要的药物,将来也不会,到AI将在未来五年内治愈所有疾病,以及介于两者之间的一切说法,这取决于每个人对AI的痴迷程度。

But survey a dozen experts in biology, and you're going to hear both AI has not created a single important drug and it won't in the future either, to AI will cure all diseases in the next 5 years, and everything in between, depending on each individual's degree of AI-pilledness.

我们不可能通过简单地问问题得到明确答案——我们需要亲自尝试。

We weren't going to get a clear answer by simply asking— we needed to try it for ourselves.

所以我们照做了。

So we did.

我们用模型设计蛋白质,外包给实验室合成,进行实验验证,然后再用模型解读结果。

We used the model to design proteins, contracted a lab to synthesize them, and conduct experimental validation, and again using the model to interpret the results.

现在,这种大胆的生物技术方法似乎确实取得了一些成果。

Now this gonzo approach to biotech seems to have indeed yielded some results.

Citrini团队的人能够用Claude设计蛋白质结合剂,用于对抗蝎子神经毒素。

The Citrini folks were able to use Claude to design protein binders for use against scorpion neurotoxins.

团队从一份35页的提示词开始,这是Anthropic在之前的研究中测试过的,他们稍作修改,就让Claude开始做药物发现工作了。

The group started with a 35-page prompt that Anthropic had already tested in a previous study, modified it to taste and set Claude on its drug discovery work.

300个子代理负责蛋白质设计,总共生成了318,000个候选方案,并挑选出211个有希望的选择进行进一步测试。

300 Subagents worked on the protein design, generating 318,000 total candidates, and selecting 211 promising options for further testing.

在另一个实验室进行独立测试后,发现有17种蛋白质能与4种不同的蝎子毒素结合。

17 Were found to bind to 4 different scorpion toxins after independent testing in another lab.

目前还没有任何一种蛋白质被证明能阻止神经毒素发挥作用,但这是一个有希望的初步结果。

None of the proteins has yet been shown to stop the neurotoxin from working, but it's a promising initial result.

另外,所有这些工作的成本不到几十万美元,虽然不算便宜,但对于一个影响每年一百万人、实际导致三千人死亡、且关注度不足的问题来说,这个成本也不算高得离谱。

Also, all this work came in under a couple hundred thousand dollars, which while not cheap, also isn't prohibitively expensive for trying to go after an underfocused-on issue that affects a million people a year and actually kills 3,000.

有趣的是,Citrini团队的做法是,在他们这群杂牌股票分析师下载Claude用于科学研究的几乎同时,他们就一头撞上了生物安全护栏。

Now what was interesting about the way that Citrini did this is that almost immediately after their ragtag group of stock analysts downloaded Claude for science, they ran headfirst into the biological guardrails.

他们没有尝试走繁琐的申请流程,而是直接联系了Anthropic,问能不能在他们公司办公室里做。

Rather than trying to do some extensive application process, they just reached out to Anthropic and asked if they could do it sitting in the company's offices.

Anthropic立刻产生了兴趣,因为这正是他们认为AI有特殊机会造福的被忽视疾病。

Anthropic was interested right away because this is exactly the type of neglected disease that they think AI has a particular opportunity to benefit.

蝎子每年大约蜇伤120万人,导致大约3200人死亡,其中大多数是儿童,他们生活在医疗基础设施极其有限的地区。

Scorpions sting about 1.2 million people per year, which leads to around 3,200 deaths, and most of those come from children in parts of the world that have extremely limited access to quality medical infrastructure.

Anthropic写道,问题是新疗法开发成本高,而且很可能无法收回开发成本。

The problem, Anthropic writes, is that new treatments are expensive to make and also unlikely to earn back the cost of developing them.

这就是AI可能带来的新疗法开发成本阶梯式下降的用武之地。

And this is where the potential step change in the cost of developing new treatments that AI enables could come in.

当然,当Citrini发布报告时,有很多怀疑的声音。

There was, of course, plenty of skepticism when Citrini dropped the report.

你们所做到的,是文献中15多年前就已经展示过的事情——结合蝎子毒素的蛋白质,但没有展示真正重要的东西,即中和毒液。

So you achieved something demonstrated in the literature 15+ years ago— proteins that bind scorpion toxins, but didn't demonstrate the thing that actually matters, neutralizing the venom.

也许应该把这个作为头条,而不是把它埋在1万字的Claude散文里。

Maybe make that the headline instead of burying it in 10,000 words of Claude prose.

Citrini对此回应说,笑死,每个参与其中的人都说过,我们一发出来,不管怎么做都会有一小撮黑子。

Citrini responded to that one saying, LMAO, everyone involved in this said, well, as soon as we publish this, there will be a handful of haters no matter what we do.

我们可不想再等三个月才发布。

We weren't going to wait another 3 months to publish.

不过,我们仍然想继续进行中和测试。

Still want to pursue the neutralization testing, though.

Google DeepMind的AGI经济学总监Alex Emas写道,Citrini有一种不可思议的天赋,能让公众关注那些被忽视但重要的问题。

Google DeepMind's Director of AGI Economics Alex Emas wrote, Citrini has an incredible talent for getting the public to pay attention to overlooked but important issues.

去年冬天,那篇关于AI驱动的生产力如何导致贫困化的著名文章就是例子。

Last winter, it was the famous essay on how AI-driven productivity could lead to immiseration.

我不同意其中某些部分,但认为它在引发一场急需的经济风险讨论方面做得非常出色。

I disagreed with parts, but thought it did an excellent job of starting a much-needed conversation about economic risks.

今天,Citrini让所有人都在谈论AI对科学的承诺——假设生成和计算方面的巨大提速——同时也展示了瓶颈,即验证和测试。

Today, Citrini got everyone talking about the promise of AI for science— huge speedups in hypothesis generation and computation— but also illustrates the bottlenecks— verification and testing.

我们需要对两者保持清醒的认识,才能知道该在哪里投资。

We need to be clear-eyed about both in order to know where to invest.

事实上,Citrini 的主要结论之一就是,即使人工智能加速了部分流程,物理世界的惯性仍然很大。

And in fact, one of Citrini's major conclusions— was just how much physical-world inertia there is, even when AI speeds up part of the process.

他们写道,我们的虚拟生物学家可能将一年的工作压缩到了几天内,但生物学是以生命的速度运行的。

They wrote, our virtual biologist may have compressed a year's worth of work into a couple days, but biology works at the speed of life.

DNA 必须合成,蛋白质必须生产和纯化,毒素必须以可用形式获得,并且要建立适当的控制措施。

DNA had to be synthesized, proteins produced and purified, toxins obtained in usable form, and appropriate controls established.

我们的数字发明现在开始为人类科学家创造工作。

Our digital invention was now set to create work for human scientists.

前 OpenAI 研究员 Will DePoo 将 Citrini 研究中的两张图表放在一起,并说,天啊,这两张图表真的让我很痛心。

Former OpenAI researcher Will DePoo put 2 of the charts from Citrini research next to one another, and said, God, these 2 charts really hurt my soul.

64 小时用于干实验室设计多价抗蛇毒血清,39 天出结果,4 到 7 年才能发布。

64 Hours to dry lab design a multibinding antivenom, 39 days for results, and 4 to 7 years to release.

我认为 Citrini 和 Anthropic 的合作,以及这个新的 OpenAI 交易,引出了三个非常有趣的问题。

I think that the combination of the Citrini-Anthropic collaboration and this new OpenAI deal bring up 3 really interesting questions.

第一个问题是,人工智能实验室是否会将科学成果内部化,而不是为他人构建技术,以及这样做意味着什么。

The first is whether AI labs will start internalizing scientific results rather than building technology for others to use, and what it means if they do.

这就是我说几个月前真正开始升温的问题。

This is the question I said really picked up steam a couple of months ago.

首先,当有报道出现——这些报道未经证实——称 Anthropic 的领导层认为他们最终将成为世界上仅存的私营公司,这意味着在某个时候他们会做所有事情,包括他们的客户目前所做的一切。而一个月后 Anthropic 的湿实验室宣布时,这种说法更加升温。

First when reports came out, which by the way are unverified, that Anthropic leadership thought that they would be ultimately the only private company left in the world, implying that at some point they do everything, including all the things that their customers do currently, and which picked up more steam a month later when the Anthropic wet lab was announced.

然而,Citrini 的这项研究表明,这个过程中有很多环节,即使增加一个湿实验室来将理论上的AI启动的实验再推进一点,也无法改变一个事实,即还有大量的其他步骤、人员和机构参与才能真正将某样东西带入现实世界。

Yet what this Citrini research shows is that there are so many parts of this process that even adding a wet lab to take theoretical AI-initiated experiments a little bit farther doesn't change the fact that there is an immense number of other steps and people and institutions involved in actually bringing something real into the world.

我认为这根本没有解决问题:在某个时候,AI 用户是否会发现自己与 AI 实验室竞争——事实上,这绝对不可避免——但认为这会一下子发生或波及整个行业的想法可能并不符合现实。

I don't think this at all settles the question of whether at some point AI customers will find themselves competing with the AI labs— in fact, that is going to be absolutely inevitable— but thinking it's going to happen all at once or across entire industries probably doesn't reflect the reality.

第二个问题是关于发现和公众舆论的。

The second question is this one about discoveries and public opinion.

如果人工智能确实治愈了癌症,这会改变人们对人工智能的看法吗?

If AI actually does cure cancer, does that change people's perspective on AI?

首先,至少就 Anthropic 目前的实验而言,它们似乎远非像治愈癌症这样的圣杯,而更多是解决那些以前因市场激励机制而无人问津的医疗项目,而得益于 AI,这些项目不再被忽视。

First of all, at least when it comes to Anthropic experiments right now, they seem to be a lot less about these holy grails like curing cancer, and more about addressing these medical projects which previously fell through the cracks of market incentives but which don't have to anymore thanks to AI.

Anthropic 可能完全正确,即那些项目比大而炫酷的东西有更大的杠杆效应,但像 'Anthropic 治愈蝎子咬伤' 这样的新闻标题——需要说明的是,这甚至还没接近,只是帮助解决这一问题的最初一步——与 'Anthropic 治愈癌症' 仍然有很大不同。

Anthropic might absolutely be correct that there is a lot more leverage there than the big flashy stuff, but a news headline like Anthropic cures scorpion stings, which to be clear this isn't even really close to, it's just the very, very first step, in some solutions that could help this, still hits very different to Anthropic cures cancer.

其次,即使 AI 对治愈重大疾病至关重要,但似乎不太可能的方式是它突然发现了一种神奇化合物,一下子解决所有问题。

Second, even if AI is totally integral to curing major diseases, it seems unlikely that the way that that works is it just discovers a miracle compound that all of a sudden fixes everything in one fell swoop.

事实上,更可能的情况是,AI 加速的发现逐渐成为常态,人们对此习以为常,而这些发现并不会真正影响他们对 AI 的好恶。

In fact, it seems far more likely that AI-accelerated discoveries just kind of become the norm, everyone gets used to them, and they don't really have all that much bearing on whether they like AI or not.

如果 AI 行业认为治愈癌症就足以扭转公众舆论,那他们应该看看对 Big Pharma 的民意调查。

If the AI industry thinks curing cancer is enough to turn public sentiment around, they should look at opinion polling on Big Pharma.

需要明确的是,这绝不意味着我认为人工智能实验室不应该研究这些问题。

To be clear, this does not in any way mean that I think that AI labs shouldn't be working on these issues.

事实上,在我看来,我认为他们短期内能做的很少能真正影响公众舆论,这意味着他们应该专注于他们认为会产生最大影响的领域,而不必在意他们创造了什么头条。

In fact, to me, my belief that very little they can do can, in the short term at least, actually really impact public opinion means they should be focused on working on the areas that they think are going to have the biggest impact, regardless of the headlines they create.

尽管我很希望有,但我就是不相信有什么灵丹妙药能解决 AI 目前以及未来一段时间内将继续面临的认知问题。

As much as I would like there to be, I just simply don't believe that there is any magic bullet to the perception problems that AI has and is going to continue to have for some time.

第三个问题也是最微妙但在某些方面最有趣的问题,是 Citrini 实验具体展示了 AI 将如何不仅改变我们的工作方式,还改变我们从事的工作内容。

The third and most subtle, but in some ways most interesting question to me, is how the Citrini experiment specifically demonstrates the way in which AI will change not only how we work, but what we work on.

记住,Citrini 的实验始于他们做平常做的事情,即从投资主题的角度寻找市场中未被充分认识的机会。

Remember, the Citrini experiment started from them doing what they normally do, which is look for underrecognized opportunities in the markets from an investment thesis perspective.

他们经历了正常的工作流程,即从回报、公众认知、当前市场价值的角度审视不同行业,最终相信生命科学被低估了,尤其是在 AI 可能如何改变这些领域的情况下。

They went through their normal work process, of examining different sectors in the context of returns, public perception, current market values, and basically came away believing that life sciences were undervalued, especially in the context of how AI could change those areas.

他们遇到的问题是他们认为仅靠询问一群专家,无法获得关于 AI 在生命科学领域真正潜力的足够可靠的认识。

The problem they ran into is that they didn't think that they could get a robust enough picture about the real potential of AI in life sciences just by asking a bunch of experts.

正是在这种背景下,对他们来说,自己进行实验在经济上变得可行。

And it was in that context that it became economically viable for them to just experiment for themselves.

现在,Citrini 在最后清楚地表明,他们不会成为生物实验室,他们是一家且仍将是一家金融研究公司。

Now, Citrini was very clear at the end of this that they are not about to become a biolab, that they are and remain a financial research firm.

但我认为你会看到更多这种正交工作,姑且这么称呼,公司里的人可以做一些以前做不到的事情,这些事情实际上改变了他们核心工作流程的效率。

But I think that you're going to see a lot more of this type of orthogonal work, let's call it, where people in firms can do things that they couldn't do before that actually change how well they do their core work stream.

这是我经常谈到的效率与机会的 AI 分界线的另一个版本,即亲自进行深入的生物学和生命科学过程的原创性研究。

This is another version of the efficiency versus opportunity AI divide that I always talk about, to go do original hands-on research deep in the biology and life science process.

至少,这是一个非常有趣的故事,我建议你去读一下完整的 Citrini Therapeutics 研究报告。

If nothing else, it is a very entertaining story, and I suggest you go read the full Citrini Therapeutics research report.

目前,我很兴奋能继续和你一起探索这些主题,但今天的AI Daily Brief就到这里了。

For now, I'm excited to keep exploring these themes with you, but that's gonna do it for today's AI Daily Brief.

一如既往地感谢你的收听或观看,直到下次,祝平安。

Appreciate you listening or watching as always, and until next time, peace.
已剔除 2 处广告(点击展开查看)
M1
M11:03广告 · 已剔除

First of all, thank you to today's sponsors, KPMG, CData, Granola, and Blitzy.

To get an ad-free version of the show, go to patreon.com/AIDailyBrief, or you can subscribe at Apple Podcasts.

If you want to learn more about sponsoring the show, send us a note at [email protected].

M1
M110:35广告 · 已剔除

If you're leading AI inside an enterprise, you already know that the gap right now isn't capability, but execution.

That's why KPMG's You Can with AI is back with a new season featuring conversations with leaders like Surajit Chatterjee of EMA, Mei Habib of Ryder, McKesson CIO Ellery Fisher, and others focused on practical execution.

What's working, what's not, and what it actually takes to move from pilots to real scaled impact across strategy, data readiness, governance, workforce, and value.

And of course, it's co-hosted by me, Nathaniel Whittemore.

Go listen and subscribe at www.kpmg.us/aipodcasts.

That's www.kpmg.us/aipodcasts.

This episode is brought to you by CData.

Companies rolling out AI keep hitting the same wall.

Token spend is climbing, security is holding agents back, and no one knows how AI is truly being used.

The root cause?

AI is cut off from the systems and context your business runs on.

That's why CData built Connect AI Gateway, one control point between your AI and your systems.

Built on the connectivity layer powering Palantir, Google, Salesforce, and hundreds more, each agent gets exactly the data and tools it needs.

It governs down to the record and lets you finally see your org's complete AI usage in one place.

Accurate answers, a fraction of the token cost, and a gateway that learns your business with every interaction.

See how at cdata.ai.

When I'm in a meeting, I'm fully in it.

I'm thinking about the iteration and creative back and forth it takes to actually push a goal forward.

What I'm not thinking about is capturing takeaways, tracking to-dos, or any of that.

And that's where Granola comes in.

Granola is an AI-powered notepad that captures what happens in your meetings and turns it into clean, structured notes with the decisions and action items pulled out and easy to find.

There's no setup and no configuration.

It just fits into how you already work.

For me, it means I get to stay in idea mode and Granola makes sure those ideas actually become action.

Once you try Granola on a first meeting, it is hard to go without.

You can try it totally free at granola.ai/brief.

That's granola.ai/brief to get your time back.

Here's why most legacy modernization projects fail.

The AI doing the work can't understand codebases at scale.

It sees a small slice of context, examines syntax, and misses years of decisions distributed across the global application ecosystem.

Blitzy solves this the way it solves everything.

Grounded in your code before any migration begins, Blitzy's agents reverse engineer the entire legacy system into a persistent knowledge graph.

Every dependency, every constraint, every piece of tribal knowledge that used to live in one engineer's head.

From that understanding, Blitzy autonomously executes language migrations, framework upgrades, and monolith-to-microservices transformations, all validated end-to-end.

One Blitzy customer modernized a $10 million monolithic insurance stack in 16 weeks against a 137-week baseline with coding agents.

That's 9x compression.

Retire technical debt while accelerating your roadmap.

See how at blitzy.com.

That's B-L-I-T-Z-Y dot com.