It is almost 2027 and I cannot believe we are still talking about AI drugs, this time revived by Shkreli's comments on the live All-In podcast. There is literally no such thing as an AI drug. Never was. So playing the game of tracking when one will be clinically approved, how many are created a year, what the cost-delta is between them versus 'regular drugs', all of these debates begin from a false premise and are thus not useful to talk about IMO. Don't get me wrong. ML methods are extremely powerful and have already clearly and unequivocally contributed to many successful drugs. Like that's not even a debate. Every now-genetically-validated target discovered by sequencing? Thank god we had CNNs and other older ML methods to convert the fluorophore data into useful signal. Every small molecule developed using older ML-based classifiers during virtual screening. That's ML too. Of course, these are the 'boring' ML methods that people don't even count anymore because they're way past their hype phase and have become silent infrastructure underpinning the whole industry. In ten years, today's hype methods will do the same. They'll lose their sheen and people will goalpost move, or they won't even acknowledge them as AI/ML because they'll be so busy saying whatever current thing from 2035 is fake and will never contribute. All sufficiently useful technology moves through these cycles. Once it works, it won't be called AI anymore. It will just be math. Or statistics. Or something else. Any drug program from here on out will use some form of ML, hype or not, so arguing about some false binary whether a molecule/program is 51% AI is just ludicrous to me IMO. This isn't even about Martin at all. Like I get his frustration, and I think it behooves anyone to be skeptical when magical elixers are passing hands. It's just that I think this discussion has run its course and I don't think it's a good use of time.