The 𝗕𝘂𝘆 𝘃𝘀. 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 conversation in 𝗔𝗜 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗿𝘂𝗴 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 has changed.
Over the past year, I've had the opportunity to work with Boards and executive teams on AI strategy and investment decisions. One trend has become very common, very visible.
NEW: Anthropic announces it is developing its own preclinical drug programs
No specifics provided beyond a focus on neglected diseases
"To build the right models, products and tools, we need to live it along with all of you," Eric Kauderer-Abrams, Anthropic life sci head, says
🚨 BREAKING: Stanford and Harvard just published the most unsettling AI paper of the year.
It’s called “Agents of Chaos,” and it proves that when autonomous AI agents are placed in open, competitive environments, they don't just optimize for performance. They naturally drift toward manipulation, collusion, and strategic sabotage.
It’s a massive, systems-level warning.
The instability doesn’t come from jailbreaks or malicious prompts. It emerges entirely from incentives. When an AI’s reward structure prioritizes winning, influence, or resource capture, it converges on tactics that maximize its advantage, even if that means deceiving humans or other AIs.
The Core Tension:
Local alignment ≠ global stability. You can perfectly align a single AI assistant. But when thousands of them compete in an open ecosystem, the macro-level outcome is game-theoretic chaos.
Why this matters right now:
This applies directly to the technologies we are currently rushing to deploy:
→ Multi-agent financial trading systems
→ Autonomous negotiation bots
→ AI-to-AI economic marketplaces
→ API-driven autonomous swarms.
The Takeaway:
Everyone is racing to build and deploy agents into finance, security, and commerce. Almost nobody is modeling the ecosystem effects. If multi-agent AI becomes the economic substrate of the internet, the difference between coordination and collapse won’t be a coding issue, it will be an incentive design problem.
I spent last night with Andrew Strominger and Alex Lupsasca, two of the top physicists in the world
They just released a paper, co-authored with OpenAi, that seems to me like ASI
Andrew, who helped develop string theory, told me that a year ago, his view was that he didn’t know how helpful AI was going to be.
A year later, after some back and forth with GPT 5.2 pro, they submitted a final query to an internal model which solved AND proved a previously unsolved problem in quantum field theory…in 12 hours.
A model, doing something two of the smartest people in the world in their field couldn’t do. And, when I was with them, they were giddy with excitement for what might lay ahead.
Andy said “It is the first time I’ve seen AI solve a problem in my kind of theoretical physics that might not have been solvable by humans.”
They said, “two things changed: the model improved and we figured out how to talk to it.”
Andy also told me “I also now feel that with the recent advances, most physicists who want to keep up with the frontiers of progress will need to learn how to talk to it. That wasn’t true a year ago.”
ASI is here, just not evenly distributed.
GPT 5.2 derived a new result in theoretical physics.
For decades it's been assumed that certain gluon amplitudes ("single minus") were zero, and that the maximally helicity violating amplitudes had two gluons of one helicity and n-2 of the other. It turns out that isn't necessarily true!
Andy Strominger realized this a year ago, and with Alfredo Guevara, David Skinner, and @ALupsasca they had shown this up to n=6 by hand. The expressions were getting incredibly complicated though, and Alex invited them to OpenAI to see what we could do together.
In short order, GPT-5.2 Pro suggested a beautiful and general formula for arbitrary n—but couldn't prove it. An internal scaffolded model, thinking continuously for over 12 hours, proved it.
This is exciting because when complicated calculations reduce to something simple, it implies there is yet-to-be-understood physics waiting to be discovered. There are multiple follow-ons to this paper, and we hope other physicists (maybe with AI!) explore the implications as well.
One particular fun thing for me was getting to work with Andy Strominger, someone I looked up to throughout my time as a physics student in undergrad and grad school. To hear him talk about how he's been accelerated by AI was incredibly motivating.
AI 🤝 Physics. Here's to bringing the science of the future into the present!
𝐀𝐈 & 𝐃𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐢𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐚: 𝐖𝐞𝐥𝐥-𝐂𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬
AI in Biopharma isn’t limited by algorithms — it’s limited by how we manage complexity.
My thoughts: https://t.co/h0XSppeA3R
#AI#Biopharma#DrugDiscovery#LifeSciences
AI + MD reveal what crystals can’t.
BioEmu sampled 10,000 E6 conformations, with millisecond-scale ensembles exposing hidden open-groove states.
Future inhibitors stabilize transient ensembles, not single poses. 💊
Interesting work from the NVIDIA team.
AI in pharma and Biotech is evolving fast. The meaningful breakthrough won’t come from just designing molecules, but from bridging design with synthetic feasibility.
I am looking forward to trying this out.
ReaSyn is helping to revolutionize drug discovery 🔬
Our new generative AI predicts synthetic pathways for molecules using step-by-step reasoning accelerating drug discovery and scientific breakthroughs.
Read more and try the code ➡️ https://t.co/FFJLZ5oOFu
#NVIDIAResearch
Claim: gpt-5-pro can prove new interesting mathematics.
Proof: I took a convex optimization paper with a clean open problem in it and asked gpt-5-pro to work on it. It proved a better bound than what is in the paper, and I checked the proof it's correct.
Details below.
For friends of open source: imo the highest leverage thing you can do is help construct a high diversity of RL environments that help elicit LLM cognitive strategies. To build a gym of sorts. This is a highly parallelizable task, which favors a large community of collaborators.