与「Biotech」相关的搜索结果

There is immense potential for collaboration across diverse sectors such as digital technologies, artificial intelligence, cyber-security, fin-tech, digital public infrastructure, infrastructure development, renewable energy, advanced manufacturing, logistics, agriculture, food processing, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and healthcare.

One thing I find striking in the discourse between AI 2040 and its detractors is that the two seem to be locked in to totally incompatible worldviews of how fast and how much of a big deal AI progress is: * In AI 2040, every scenario sees superintelligence of some kind emerging by 2040, unless a herculean effort is made to completely stop it * Detractors say things like "AI 2040 is naive about human coordination ability and a threat to freedom", but don't seem to see any naivety in assuming that the ASI transition will just go well by default, don't seem to see ASI itself as a massive power concentrator risk, and don't seem to feel fear of humanity's "hard power" dropping to zero if ASIs can do literally every task better than we can. This stance makes total sense in a "AI is normal technology" world, zero sense in a world where superintelligence is possible by 2030 and almost guaranteed by 2040 I think my beliefs are: - If I was confident that (present-day-style) AI is normal technology, I would be in the detractor camp - If I was confident that superintelligence is coming in 2030 by default, I would be closer to the AI 2040 camp - it's naive, but every other option is naive squared? But my problem is that I feel great uncertainty and have no idea which of the two worlds (or some other third thing) we're living in? Hence why I continue to be open-minded about slowdowns/pauses, but also I feel very uncomfortable with the "open source bad, the good outcome is the one where our guys have controlling global dominance" push coming from some major AI companies and intellectuals - in a "normal" world that's the sort of thing that triggers every political alarm bell at the same time. A big reason why I have been advocating and trying my best to support the d/acc platform (rapid up-skilling in formal verification, cryptography, secure and open hardware, pandemic resistance and other defensive biotech, food and basic resource security, public epistemics, non-power-concentrating versions of physical security) is that these things are clearly worth doing in both worlds. The 2040 plan is already much more open source friendly (even mandating it! yay). It also includes "mutually assured compute destruction" ideas which (if they work) effectively give one of 2-5 actors the ability to trigger a global compute winter - as opposed to giving 1-5 actors the ability to selectively disenfranchise people they consider baddies while exempting themselves. This is also a big improvement. So I can see the earnest attempts to improve along the dimensions detractors criticize on ("does this concentrate power in big AI labs and superpower governments?"), and I appreciate this. I think many people don't appreciate enough the differences between different "kinds" of pause buttons, and how some concentrate power far more than others. Probably we can think harder and improve even more here. But on the "slowdown/pause or not" topic, there isn't a magic "escape the tradeoff" button. The Hansonian in me says: the winning deal is a deal which, from the perspective of both sides' present-day beliefs and knowledge, both sides would accept, though for different reasons. If the crux is AI progress speed, then identify a set of pre-agreed triggers for "okay, serious shit is happening" [super-pandemics? >25% unemployment? something involving slaughterbots?], and pre-agree that we become much more open-minded to the slowdown or pause thing if enough triggers come to pass within some timeframe. 2040 detractors (who clearly implicitly think that we'll see amazing speedup of progress from AI but think that what I call the "serious shit" category is overhyped) will accept expecting that the triggers don't come to pass, and AI worriers will accept expecting that they will. Pre-agreeing on the specific triggers means that once the triggers either hit or don't hit, there is stronger legitimacy around the idea that one side's worldview turned out more correct and we should be more inclined toward their program. If I were @elonmusk (or zuck, or...) I would re-tool twitter much more heavily into being a platform for helping to identify and make these kinds of grand win-win deals, so that we can bypass big-country governments and big-company CEOs and big nonprofit intellectuals and give more people a voice in the discussion. It's possibly one of the best things that social media _could_ do for humanity if it wanted to. But again, maybe this is also naive. Actually, probably it's naive. But currently, I see zero plans for how to deal with an ASI transition that are not naive. Perhaps humanity is stuck with a choice between naive and naive squared (or maybe even naive squared and naive cubed), so I feel inclined to cut some slack to people who are trying.

This year, the EF is decreasing its budget by roughly 40%, which entails some difficult decisions. The goal of the decreases was set out in the Treasury Management Policy last year: the EF is transitioning into being a long-term-oriented endowment-based organization, shifting from its pre-2026 average of spending ~15% of its remaining funds each year, toward a post-2030 target of ~5% per year. Often, when an organization goes through something like this, people try to pretend that nothing of great value was lost, that it is an efficiency increase, that the only people cut are unproductive dead weight, and everyone else stopped partying, studied the blade, entered cracked S-tier beast mode, and this was sufficient to make up for the downside. I will not try to pretend this. I respect my EF colleagues far too much to pretend that there was not much that is lost. They are brilliant people. They are dedicated engineers of whom some have worked on the Ethereum protocol for nearly a decade. They have brought a bright light to the Ethereum ecosystem with their code, their words, their warmth as human beings and their actions. My dearest hope is that they find a path that brings them fulfillment and happiness whether inside Ethereum or outside. Hopefully many will be able to bring their excellent talents and mindset to the wider Ethereum ecosystem, or the even wider CROPS world. Instead, I will try to explain what *are* some of the grand sacrifices being made. The Ethereum Strawmap is no small thing. It is an extremely ambitious undertaking seeking to replace and augment almost every part of the protocol - consensus, proofs, privacy, account model, state, and more. This is the third iteration of Ethereum, in the same way that the Merge was the second, even if the shipping style is less Big Bang and more one-piece-at-a-time. On top of this, the EF is increasing its role in the Access Layer. We are not compromising on Ethereum being a Deeply Impressive protocol, something worthy of its place in a world with quantum computing, rockets to Mars and powerful biotech and AI, and capable of meeting the challenges that this era will bring. Some of the deficit will be recovered through more work happening outside the EF. But not all. So what are the grand sacrifices that will enable a leaner effort to accomplish all of this? I will give a few examples (though far from an exhaustive list): * The multi-client model will shift in the direction of multiple clients existing less for _redundancy_, and more for _specialization_. Up to this point, redundancy has been the main security strategy: if one client has a bug, if it has less than 33%, the chain keeps going and does not even stop finalizing. We are increasingly exploring moving more pieces of the protocol to a different security strategy: AI-assisted formal verification. Some smaller pieces of Ethereum (eg. BLS libraries) have worked this way already for a long time. But soon many more parts of Ethereum will likely function on this model. This may greatly reduce resource requirements of shipping a large number of EIPs. The resources saved by client teams can ideally instead be used to better serve different specialized user needs, including EF Access Layer goals. * PSE (Privacy and Scaling Explorations) is winding down as a unit. The number of people working on ZKPs for privacy and scaling is probably as high as ever, but they are working less on "exploration" and more on *implementing* ZKP-based privacy and scaling into the Protocol and Access Layer * Devcon will likely over time become smaller-scale, somewhat more spartan, much lower-deficit than previous years, in addition to other changes in vision in line with the Mandate. * Fewer beyond-Ethereum megaprojects coming from EF. As I announced earlier this year, I am taking on some of the responsibility of doing projects in this category that I consider valuable with my personal funds. * EF institutional work is reducing in scope, specializing more specifically on creating replicable test cases of highly CROPS-friendly deployments, even if at smaller scale. These do not explain all departures; in some cases they do not explain departures at all and rather explain _reduced need for new spending_. But they are a large part of the strategy at play. In the longer term, I personally favor a "soft lean-and-done" approach to Ethereum: once the Strawmap is completed, generally stick to security fixes and small high-value changes, and have a much higher bar for considering new feature additions to the protocol. This allows Ethereum to remain capture-resistant without demanding very large budgets. Learn less from multimillion-line-of-code behemoth projects, more from bitcoin. The past years have been a challenging era for Ethereum. However, the ecosystem is adapting, both inside the EF and outside, and I am confident that Ethereum is very well-positioned to succeed and thrive.

This year, the EF is decreasing its budget by roughly 40%, which entails some difficult decisions. The goal of the decreases was set out in the Treasury Management Policy last year: the EF is transitioning into being a long-term-oriented endowment-based organization, shifting from its pre-2026 average of spending ~15% of its remaining funds each year, toward a post-2030 target of ~5% per year. Often, when an organization goes through something like this, people try to pretend that nothing of great value was lost, that it is an efficiency increase, that the only people cut are unproductive dead weight, and everyone else stopped partying, studied the blade, entered cracked S-tier beast mode, and this was sufficient to make up for the downside. I will not try to pretend this. I respect my EF colleagues far too much to pretend that there was not much that is lost. They are brilliant people. They are dedicated engineers of whom some have worked on the Ethereum protocol for nearly a decade. They have brought a bright light to the Ethereum ecosystem with their code, their words, their warmth as human beings and their actions. My dearest hope is that they find a path that brings them fulfillment and happiness whether inside Ethereum or outside. Hopefully many will be able to bring their excellent talents and mindset to the wider Ethereum ecosystem, or the even wider CROPS world. Instead, I will try to explain what *are* some of the grand sacrifices being made. The Ethereum Strawmap is no small thing. It is an extremely ambitious undertaking seeking to replace and augment almost every part of the protocol - consensus, proofs, privacy, account model, state, and more. This is the third iteration of Ethereum, in the same way that the Merge was the second, even if the shipping style is less Big Bang and more one-piece-at-a-time. On top of this, the EF is increasing its role in the Access Layer. We are not compromising on Ethereum being a Deeply Impressive protocol, something worthy of its place in a world with quantum computing, rockets to Mars and powerful biotech and AI, and capable of meeting the challenges that this era will bring. Some of the deficit will be recovered through more work happening outside the EF. But not all. So what are the grand sacrifices that will enable a leaner effort to accomplish all of this? I will give a few examples (though far from an exhaustive list): * The multi-client model will shift in the direction of multiple clients existing less for _redundancy_, and more for _specialization_. Up to this point, redundancy has been the main security strategy: if one client has a bug, if it has less than 33%, the chain keeps going and does not even stop finalizing. We are increasingly exploring moving more pieces of the protocol to a different security strategy: AI-assisted formal verification. Some smaller pieces of Ethereum (eg. BLS libraries) have worked this way already for a long time. But soon many more parts of Ethereum will likely function on this model. This may greatly reduce resource requirements of shipping a large number of EIPs. The resources saved by client teams can ideally instead be used to better serve different specialized user needs, including EF Access Layer goals. * PSE (Privacy and Scaling Explorations) is winding down as a unit, and its underlying task (working on ZKP and related tech to support privacy and scaling) is shifting from an "exploration" strategy to a "build specific things we know are important" strategy, which requires less resources. * Devcon will likely over time become smaller-scale, somewhat more spartan, much lower-deficit than previous years, in addition to other changes in vision in line with the Mandate. * Fewer beyond-Ethereum megaprojects coming from EF. As I announced earlier this year, I am taking on some of the responsibility of doing projects in this category that I consider valuable with my personal funds. * EF institutional work is reducing in scope, specializing more specifically on creating replicable test cases of highly CROPS-friendly deployments, even if at smaller scale. These do not explain all departures; in some cases they do not explain departures at all and rather explain _reduced need for new spending_. But they are a large part of the strategy at play. In the longer term, I personally favor a "soft lean-and-done" approach to Ethereum: once the Strawmap is completed, generally stick to security fixes and small high-value changes, and have a much higher bar for considering new feature additions to the protocol. This allows Ethereum to remain capture-resistant without demanding very large budgets. Learn less from multimillion-line-of-code behemoth projects, more from bitcoin. The past years have been a challenging era for Ethereum. However, the ecosystem is adapting, both inside the EF and outside, and I am confident that Ethereum is very well-positioned to succeed and thrive.

卧槽兄弟们！！ 华尔街又要被我们收割了？？？ 散户在美股做微盘，就像毫无保护裸冲高杠杆合约——满眼20倍贪婪，却看不见头顶悬着的清算热力图！！市值不到10亿的修罗场里，看PE和财报纯自欺欺人。 真正能20倍爆炸的，本质就是一张没有到期日的虚值期权！暴涨从来不靠业绩线性增长，而是三大底层逻辑共振：流动性枯竭后的Gamma逼空 + 算力/能源物理资产化映射 + 纯二元事件驱动（FDA/军工订单）。 还在用传统估值选股？兄弟你就是流动性提款机！！白嫖党福音：当前资金暗流最猛的10个高弹性标的，按顶级游资分类逻辑降维拆解。 别手动了，直接抄作业冲！一、算力与能源的“物理化 RWA”映射 AI的尽头是电力，这些微盘电力/矿企就是活生生的算力RWA资产。 英伟达期权链固化后，热钱必然往下找高杠杆替代品。 CIFR 卧槽！曾经比特币挖矿纯打野，现在全面转HPC+AI数据中心！核心不是矿机，是电网底下签的那些廉价长期购电协议。 数据中心电荒一爆发，这玩意儿就是最硬的通缩资产！ IREN 兄弟们，市值小到离谱，对AI算力敏感度却极高！自带高倍杠杆的现货属性，一旦降息放水，资金冲基础设施，它戴维斯双击会直接起飞！ OKLO 纯SMR微型核反应堆叙事龙头！零营收，靠“AI需要核电”+OpenAI创始人光环硬撑。别用基本面看，只能用资金费率和持仓量去交易！核电+AI，这波叙事直接拉满！ 二、流动性黑洞与Gamma逼空阵区 常年被机构重度做空，盘口极轻。不需要基本面变好，只需让空头“觉得痛”。做市商对冲Delta狂买正股时，烟花直接绽放！SOUN 卧槽，边缘AI语音概念！空头头寸巨大，还时不时有英伟达持股利好。走势就是一张清算热力图，跌穿支撑洗盘后，一点火星就能连环爆仓，拉升速度快到离谱！ BBAI Palantir影子股，主打军工防务AI。极低流通盘+高度集中筹码，期权玩家最爱战场。随便拿个中型国防部订单，Gamma Squeeze直接引爆！ NNOX AI医疗影像赛道，长期在“颠覆医疗”和“可能破产”之间横跳。做空比例极高，一旦冷阴极X射线技术大规模商业化验证，空头踩踏血腥程度将史诗级！ 三、绝对的二元期权：零或无限 胜率可能不到20%，但盈亏比爆炸。要么政府批文/临床数据一飞冲天，要么原地归零。就是配置极小仓位的彩票库。 LUNR 月球物流运输，被美国国家机器绑定的航天微盘股。每次NASA合同竞标就是一次生死轮盘赌！只适合事件真空期潜伏，靴子落地别追高！ ACHR eVTOL龙头之一。催化剂超级明确——FAA最终适航认证！纯纯的监管二元博弈！ QBTS 量子退火计算先驱，盘子极小。量子计算还在炼金术阶段，不需要盈利，只要一个“突破量子霸权”PR稿，市值就能重估10倍！ SAVA 阿尔茨海默症药物研发，Biotech最臭名昭著也最血脉贲张的标的。数据造假争议+奇迹疗法交织，三期临床盲盒一开，不是天堂就是地狱！ 兄弟们，这10张暗牌就是顶级游资的降维打击逻辑！传统估值在微盘修罗场就是死路一条，抓住Gamma逼空、RWA映射、二元事件三大共振，才能真正收割华尔街！ 白嫖党们福音已到，别手动了，你怎么看呢？

Targeting GPRC5D to treat myeloma can be highly effective, explains @jmikhaelmd, but we do see some unique side effects. Learn how we can manage these at Supported by an educational grant from Janssen Biotech, Inc. #IMFMyelomaMadeSimple#

To @IovanceBio $IOVA management- Show us you believe- 1- Where are the data announcements on how much AI is improving your process? Time wise , cost savings wise . 2- What this could mean to $IOVA 3- Why aren't you buying stock consistently in the open market? 4 - we all know of 2 similar biotechs that were sold for $10 billion - KITE & JUNO ( i believe) 5- My guess is- because you have The Guy - ex chairman- still BOD - your operation is perfection. 6- Cancel your ATM ( its embarrassing) and buy stock consistently. This is not hard. After all , your not really a BioTech company- Your really a tech company with a proven idea , that finally now , with AI , the tech is catching up . These old school "Fire Side" chats with bankers don't work. Get on Podcasts immediately- and tell the story of a real world Biotech - Technology that with AI is about to transform into a $100 billion company . $IOVA @IovanceBio Roar like the Lion 🦁 you used to be. Thank you Barry