TLDR, I wouldn't buy it either unless its supported by population level real data sets like Tempus has. If one AI frontier lab goes around Tempus, Tempus can partner with another AI lab and combined, they will bury the competition.
That said...
At the JPM conf in January Lefkofsky mentioned they were considering the possibility of partnering on a consumer facing app. I think it was at JPM. If I remember correctly, I think he was implying or saying directly that an app like that would require immense consumer facing resources like a call center or something.
Overall on the front of partnering with a frontier lab, I think access to Tempus' data would greatly advantage one over the other. It took time to get big pharma partners to sign a strategic partnership. Eric has said those came historically from smaller deals that grew into bigger deals due volume discounts. I would guess theres some game theory here that says its time to hold the line and now wait only big partnerships whether pharma or frontier lab.
I would also guess (and these are all guesses) that the stakes are higher with giving an AI lab incremental access. In the old days of Tesla AI day presentations they did a great job of generating synthetic data to run edge case simulations for FSD. My guess is Tempus is very conscientious of that slippery slope.
All the frontier labs, really everyone in AI, are obsessed w curing cancer. My underlying assumption is getting a deal done will take time because a deal like this can make a step function in the experience of getting diagnosed with cancer and how both patients and care providers treat cancer.
Throw MRD and $PSNL technology in there too and its game, set and match. So much at stake means to me a deal will need a lot of consideration. Is it with one lab or non-exclusive? Is there a pharma and/or provider partner involved?
I believe Lefkofsky and Fukushima are the right people at the table to play this hand out.
Any product that isn't supported by real data I wouldn't buy either. Genomic and multimodal data has too much search space and the decisions being considered are a lot more consequential than a fender bender.
@AuditTheHerd Also, the data side can be used as a moat to entirely erode the profitablitity of selling diagnostocs, commoditizing lab tests while profit goes parabolic from the data side.
Again, paralleling Google/Tech business practices.
Jennifer Doudna won the Nobel Prize for gene editing and went on Bloomberg to say the chatbots everyone is betting on cannot innovate at all. Every promise Silicon Valley is making about AI curing disease just hit the one person qualified to check it.
She has spent her whole career inside the actual frontier of curing disease.
So when she talks about what AI can and cannot do in biology, she is not guessing. She is reporting from inside the lab.
Her words were blunt. She is not seeing chatbots innovate. They summarize data. They write reports. They do not come up with a brand new idea nobody has ever had.
Then the interviewer pushed. So you're saying AI can't innovate?
Doudna did not flinch. She does not know if it can't. She just does not see it doing it right now.
This lands harder when you remember who is making the opposite case. Sam Altman says AI will eliminate disease within five years. Larry Ellison says AI will cure cancer in a 48 hour window.
An OpenAI executive even floated that the company should get a cut of sales on any drug discovered through ChatGPT. Doudna answered that in two words. Good luck.
Even the cancer specialists Altman is selling to keep warning that cancer is not one disease but hundreds, each needing its own cure, and that compute does not skip the years of lab work.
Her reason is simpler. Biology is hard. You cannot simulate your way to an understanding of the human body.
The people promising cures are the ones selling the tool.
The person who actually won a Nobel building them is telling you it has not happened yet.
Source: Bloomberg Originals
Watch the full video on their official channel.
@JKeynesAlpha If I remeber correctly, Lefkofsky mentioned on the Investor day video conf that the Tempus team had RECENTLY been spending ALOT of time in DC.
🤣 good point, it just they are doing something hard to execute in the realm of atoms (genomics and mutimodal diagnostics for tempus and car manufacturing for tesla) and bits (optimizing drug and treatment options for tempus and fsd for tesla). Doing both inside the same company is both a flywheel and a tightrope walk.
There may also be a balancing act with lab capacity and not just reimbursement.
If sequencing is constrained at its probably easiest and most cost efficient to prioritize all research sequencing which will be 100% paid (likely at a premium) and more reliably operationalized.
Getting fast TATs and a great clinical experience can be hard to achieve in clinic with a rapidly growing test like $PSNL has now with IO and the other approvals.