Connect with us

Business

Google DeepMind’s AlphaFold shows why science may be AI’s killer app

Published

on



While many businesses continue to seek AI’s killer app, biochemists have already found it. That application is protein folding. This week marks the five-year anniversary of the debut of Alpha Fold 2, the AI system created by Google DeepMind that can predict the structure of a protein from its DNA sequence with a high degree of accuracy.

In those five years, AlphaFold 2 and its successor AI models have become almost as fundamental and ubiquitous tools of biochemical research as microscopes, petri dishes, and pipettes. The AI models have begun to transform the way scientists search for new medicines, promising faster and more successful drug development. And they are starting to help scientists work on solutions to everything from ocean pollution to creating crops that are more resilient to climate change.

“The impact has really exceeded all of our expectations,” John Jumper, the senior Google DeepMind scientist who leads the company’s protein structure prediction team, told Fortune. In 2024, Jumper and Google DeepMind cofounder and CEO Demis Hassabis shared the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for their work creating AlphaFold 2.

Learning how to use AlphaFold to make protein structure predictions is now taught as a standard tool to many graduate-level biology students around the world. “It is just a part of training to be a molecular biologist,” Jumper said.

Fortune chronicled Google DeepMind’s quest to crack what’s known as “the protein folding problem” in a 2020 feature story. Proteins have a complex physical shape, and prior to Alphafold, describing those shapes required time-consuming and expensive lab experiments.

The company ultimately solved the problem by using a Transformer, the same kind of AI that is the engine of popular chatbots such as ChatGPT. But instead of training the Transformer on text to output the next most likely word, the AI model was trained on a database of protein DNA sequences and known protein structures, as well as information about which DNA sequences seem to evolve together, as this provides clues to protein structure. It is then asked to predict the protein structure.

“Sometimes I have to pinch myself that, oh, it really worked out. There could be many, many ways why we could have failed,” Pushmeet Kohli, the vice president of research at Google DeepMind who leads its efforts to apply AI to science, said.

Kohli also said that AlphaFold proved that AI could not just make tech companies lots of money but could contribute to science and, ultimately, the betterment of humanity. “AlphaFold really confirmed the underlying principle and the vision that if we are developing this technology, this artificial intelligence, what is the most meaningful thing humanity can use that thing for? And I think science is the perfect use case for AI. I won’t say it’s the only use case, but it is definitely the most compelling use case.”

From 180,000 protein structures to 240 million

Proteins are long chains of amino acids that act as the engines of life, controlling most biological processes. How a protein functions is, in turn, dependent on its shape. When cells produce proteins, the amino acids spontaneously fold into tangled and twisted structures, with pockets and protuberances, and sometimes long, trailing tails.

The laws of chemistry and physics determine this folding. That’s why Nobel Prize-winning chemist Christian Anfinsen postulated in 1972 that DNA alone should fully determine the final structure a protein takes. It was a remarkable conjecture. At the time, not a single genome had been sequenced yet. But Anfinsen’s theory launched an entire subfield of computational biology with the goal of using complex mathematics, instead of empirical experiments, to model proteins. The problem is, there are more possible protein structures than there are atoms in the universe, so modeling them, even with high-powered computers, is fiendishly difficult.

Before AlphaFold 2, the only way for a scientist to know a protein’s structure with any confidence was through one of a few expensive and lengthy experimental processes. As a result, scientists had only managed to determine the structures for about 180,000 proteins prior to AlphaFold 2. Other computer-based methods for predicting a protein’s structure were only accurate about 50% of the time, which was little help to biochemists, especially since they had no way of knowing in advance when a prediction might be trustworthy.

Thanks to AlphaFold 2, there are now more than 240 million proteins for which there is a prediction of their structure. These include every protein that the human body produces as well as proteins involved in key human diseases, such as Covid, malaria, and Chagas disease.

Google DeepMind made AlphaFold 2 freely available to researchers to download and run on their own computers. But, to make its predictions even more accessible, it also established an internet-based server through which researchers could upload a DNA sequence for protein and get back a structure prediction. And Google DeepMind created structure predictions for almost every known protein and deposited these in a database run by the European Molecular Biological Laboratory’s European Bioinformatics Institute, which is located outside Cambridge, England.

So far, more than 3.3 million people have used AlphaFold 2 to date. The original AlphaFold work has been directly cited in more than 40,000 academic papers, with 30% of those focused on the study of various diseases. One study found that the AI model has contributed directly or indirectly to some 200,000 research publications. The tool has also been mentioned in more than 400 successful patent applications, according to data from Google DeepMind.

Jumper tells Fortune he’s been most gratified by the way scientists have been able to use AlphaFold to find keys to life processes “where they didn’t even know what to look for.” For instance, scientists recently used AlphaFold to help discover a previously unknown protein complex that is essential for allowing sperm to fertilize an egg.

Andrea Paulli, the biochemist at the Research Institute of Molecular Pathology in Vienna, Austria, who found that protein on the surface of sperm, told science journal Nature that her team uses AlphaFold 2 “for every project” because “it speeds up discovery.”

Unlocking life’s mysteries, from heart disease to honeybees

Among the discoveries AlphaFold has played a role in is determining the structure of a key protein at the core of low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, more commonly known as “bad cholesterol” and a major contributor to heart disease. That protein, called apoB100, had previously not been mappable because of its large size and its complex interactions with other proteins. But two scientists at the University of Missouri combined an imaging method—cryogenic electron microscopy—with AlphaFold’s predictions to find apoB100’s structure. That in turn may help scientists find better treatments for high cholesterol.

Other scientists have used AlphaFold to discover the structure of Vitellogenin, a protein that plays a key role in the immune system of honeybees. The hope is that knowing the protein’s structure may help scientists better understand the collapse of honeybee populations globally and perhaps come up with genetic modifications that could produce more disease-resistant bee species.

The overall accuracy of AlphaFold’s predictions varies depending on protein type. But AlphaFold also provides a confidence score that gives scientists some indication of whether they should trust the AI’s predictions for the structure of that particular part of the protein. For the human proteins, about 36% of the predictions are high-confidence ones, while for the bacteria E.coli, AlphaFold has a high-confidence score for the structure in about 73% of cases.

Some proteins have regions that are called “inherently disordered” because their shape varies substantially depending on other substances and proteins that surround them. Neither the empirical imaging methods or the AI-based models provide good information about what these disordered regions will look like. (AlphaFold 3, a more powerful AI model Google DeepMind debuted in 2024 can sometimes—but not always—predict how these disordered regions will bind with another protein or molecule.)

AlphaFold’s impact on drug discovery is yet to be proven

AlphaFold is likely to eventually have a major impact on drug discovery, although to date, it is difficult to assess how much difference the AI model has made. In one case, scientists did use AlphaFold to find two existing FDA-approved drugs that could be repurposed to treat Chagas disease, a tropical parasitic illness that infects up to 7 million people annually and results in more than 10,000 deaths per year.

Jumper said that to some extent it is AlphaFold 2’s successor AI models that are likely to play a more direct role in drug discovery than the original structure prediction tool. AlphaFold 3, for instance, predicts not just protein structures but several critical aspects of how proteins bind with one another and with small molecules. That is essential because most drugs are either small molecules that bind with a target site on a protein to change its function, or, in some cases are themselves proteins. Meanwhile, AlphaFold Multimer, an extension of AlphaFold 2, predicts protein-protein interactions that can also help with drug design.

Google DeepMind has spun-off a sister company called Isomorphic that is using AlphaFold 3 and other tools to design drugs. It has partnerships with Novartis and Eli Lilly, although it has not yet publicly announced the drug candidates on which it is working. AlphaFold 3 is available to academic researchers for free, but commercial entities outside of Isomorphic and Google are not allowed to use the software.

Google DeepMind also created an AI model called AlphaProteo that can design novel proteins with specific binding properties. And the AI lab created a system called AlphaMissense that can predict how harmful single-point genetic mutations will be, which may help scientists understand the root cause of many diseases and potentially find treatments, including possible gene therapies.

Jumper said that he is personally interested in exploring whether large language models, such as Google’s Gemini AI, can play a role in science. Some AI startups have begun experimenting with LLMs that allow a scientist to specify the function of a protein and then the LLM spits out the DNA recipe for that protein. (These still have to be experimentally tested to see if they actually work.) But Jumper said he is somewhat skeptical of how well these kinds of LLMs work at designing very novel proteins. Jumper said he also knows that some people have created essentially chatbot front-ends to AlphaFold, but he said this was “not that interesting.”

Instead, he said, what excites him is the idea of using the power of LLMs to develop new hypotheses and design novel experiments to test them. DeepMind has created a prototype “AI scientist” based on Gemini that can do some of this. But Jumper said he thinks the concept has much more potential. “The really exciting dataset and the really big dataset is the entirety of the scientific literature,” he said. 



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Billionaire Marc Benioff challenges the AI sector: ‘What’s more important to us, growth or our kids?’

Published

on



Imagine it is 1996. You log on to your desktop computer (which took several minutes to start up), listening to the rhythmic screech and hiss of the modem connecting you to the World Wide Web. You navigate to a clunky message board—like AOL or Prodigy—to discuss your favorite hobbies, from Beanie Babies to the newest mixtapes.

At the time, a little-known law called Section 230 of the Communications Safety Act had just been passed. The law—then just a 26-word document—created the modern internet. It was intended to protect “good samaritans” who moderate websites from regulation, placing the responsibility for content on individual users rather than the host company.

Today, the law remains largely the same despite evolutionary leaps in internet technology and pushback from critics, now among them Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff. 

In a conversation at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Tuesday, titled “Where Can New Growth Come From?” Benioff railed against Section 230, saying the law prevents tech giants from being held accountable for the dangers AI and social media pose.

“Things like Section 230 in the United States need to be reshaped because these tech companies will not be held responsible for the damage that they are basically doing to our families,” Benioff said in the panel conversation which also included Axa CEO Thomas Buberl, Alphabet President Ruth Porat, Emirati government official Khaldoon Khalifa Al Mubarak, and Bloomberg journalist Francine Lacqua.

As a growing number of children in the U.S. log onto AI and social media platforms, Benioff said the legislation threatens the safety of kids and families. The billionaire asked, “What’s more important to us, growth or our kids? What’s more important to us, growth or our families? Or, what’s more important, growth or the fundamental values of our society?”

Section 230 as a shield for tech firms

Tech companies have invoked Section 230 as a legal defense when dealing with issues of user harm, including in the 2019 case Force v. Facebook, where the court ruled the platform wasn’t liable for algorithms that connected members of Hamas after the terrorist organization used the platform to encourage murder in Israel. The law could shield tech companies from liability for harm AI platforms pose, including the production of deepfakes and AI-Generated sexual abuse material.

Benioff has been a vocal critic of Section 230 since 2019 and has repeatedly called for the legislation to be abolished. 

In recent years, Section 230 has come under increasing public scrutiny as both Democrats and Republicans have grown skeptical of the legislation. In 2019 the Department of Justice under President Donald Trump pursued a broad review of Section 230. In May 2020, President Trump signed an Executive Order limiting tech platforms’ immunity after Twitter added fact-checks to his tweets. And in 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Gonzalez v. Google, though, decided it on other grounds, leaving Section 230 intact.

In an interview with Fortune in December 2025, Dartmouth business school professor Scott Anthony voiced concern over the “guardrails” that were—and weren’t—happening with AI. When cars were first invented, he pointed out, it took time for speed limits and driver’s licenses to follow. Now with AI, “we’ve got the technology, we’re figuring out the norms, but the idea of, ‘Hey, let’s just keep our hands off,’ I think it’s just really bad.”

The decision to exempt platforms from liability, Anthony added, “I just think that it’s not been good for the world. And I think we are, unfortunately, making the mistake again with AI.”

For Benioff, the fight to repeal Section 230 is more than a push to regulate tech companies, but a reallocation of priorities toward safety and away from unfettered growth. “In the era of this incredible growth, we’re drunk on the growth,” Benioff said. “Let’s make sure that we use this moment also to remember that we’re also about values as well.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Palantir CEO says AI “will destroy” humanities jobs but there will be “more than enough jobs” for people with vocational training

Published

on



Some economists and experts say that critical thinking and creativity will be more important than ever in the age of artificial intelligence (AI), when a robot can do much of the heavy lifting on coding or research. Take Benjamin Shiller, the Brandeis economics professor who recently told Fortune that a “weirdness premium” will be valued in the labor market of the future. Alex Karp, the Palantir founder and CEO, isn’t one of these voices. 

“It will destroy humanities jobs,” Karp said when asked how AI will affect jobs in conversation with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink at the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. “You went to an elite school and you studied philosophy — I’ll use myself as an example — hopefully you have some other skill, that one is going to be hard to market.”

Karp attended Haverford College, a small, elite liberal arts college outside his hometown of Philadelphia. He earned a J.D. from Stanford Law School and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Goethe University in Germany. He spoke about his own experience getting his first job. 

Karp told Fink that he remembered thinking about his own career, “I’m not sure who’s going to give me my first job.” 

The answer echoed past comments Karp has made about certain types of elite college graduates who lack specialized skills.

“If you are the kind of person that would’ve gone to Yale, classically high IQ, and you have generalized knowledge but it’s not specific, you’re effed,” Karp said in an interview with Axios in November. 

Not every CEO agrees with Karp’s assessment that humanities degrees are doomed. BlackRock COO Robert Goldstein told Fortune in 2024 that the company was recruiting graduates who studied “things that have nothing to do with finance or technology.” 

McKinsey CEO Bob Sternfels recently said in an interview with Harvard Business Review that the company is “looking more at liberal arts majors, whom we had deprioritized, as potential sources of creativity,” to break out of AI’s linear problem-solving. 

Karp has long been an advocate for vocational training over traditional college degrees. Last year, Palantir launched a Meritocracy Fellowship, offering high school students a paid internship with a chance to interview for a full-time position at the end of four months. 

The company criticized American universities for “indoctrinating” students and having “opaque” admissions that “displaced meritocracy and excellence,” in their announcement of the fellowship. 

“If you did not go to school, or you went to a school that’s not that great, or you went to Harvard or Princeton or Yale, once you come to Palantir, you’re a Palantirian—no one cares about the other stuff,” Karp said during a Q2 earnings call last year.

“I think we need different ways of testing aptitude,” Karp told Fink. He pointed to the former police officer who attended a junior college, who now manages the US Army’s MAVEN system, a Palantir-made AI tool that processes drone imagery and video.  

“In the past, the way we tested for aptitude would not have fully exposed how irreplaceable that person’s talents are,” he said. 

Karp also gave the example of technicians building batteries at a battery company, saying those workers are “very valuable if not irreplaceable because we can make them into something different than what they were very rapidly.”

He said what he does all day at Palantir is “figuring out what is someone’s outlier aptitude. Then, I’m putting them on that thing and trying to get them to stay on that thing and not on the five other things they think they’re great at.” 

Karp’s comments come as more employers report a gap between the skills applicants are offering and what employers are looking for in a tough labor market. The unemployment rate for young workers ages 16 to 24 hit 10.4% in December and is growing among college graduates. Karp isn’t too worried. 

“There will be more than enough jobs for the citizens of your nation, especially those with vocational training,” he said. 



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

AI is boosting productivity. Here’s why some workers feel a sense of loss

Published

on



Welcome to Eye on AI, with AI reporter Sharon Goldman. In this edition…Why some workers feel a sense of loss while AI boosts productivity…Anthropic raising fresh $10 Billion at $350 billion valuation…Musk’s xAI closed $20 billion funding with Nvidia backing…Can AI do your job? See the results from hundreds of tests.

For months, software developers have been giddy with excitement over “vibe coding”– prompting desired software functions or features in natural language—with the latest AI code generation tools. Anthropic’s Claude Code is the darling of the moment, but OpenAI’s Codex, Cursor and other tools have also led engineers to flood social media with examples of tasks that used to take days and are now finished in minutes. 

Even veteran software design leaders have marvelled at the shift. “In just a few months, Claude Code has pushed the state of the art in software engineering further than 75 years of academic research,” said Erik Meijer, a former senior engineering leader at Meta

Skills honed seem less essential

However, that same delight has turned disorienting for many developers, who are grappling with a sense of loss as skills honed over a lifetime suddenly seem less essential. The feeling of flow—of being “in the zone”—seems to have vanished as building software becomes an exercise in supervising AI tools rather than writing code. 

In a blog post this week titled “The Grief When AI Writes All the Code,” Gergely Orosz of The Pragmatic Engineer, wrote that he is “coming to terms with the high probability that AI will write most of my code which I ship to production.” It already does it faster, he explained, and for languages and frameworks he is less familiar with, it does a better job. 

“It feels like something valuable is being taken away, and suddenly,” he wrote. “It took a lot of effort to get good at coding and to learn how to write code that works, to read and understand complex code, and to debug and fix when code doesn’t work as it should.” 

Andrew Duca, founder of tax software Awaken Tax, wrote a similar post this week that went viral, saying that he was feeling “kinda depressed” even though he finds using Claude Code “incredible” and has “never found coding more fun.” 

He can now solve customer problems faster, and ship more features, but at the same time “the skill I spent 10,000s of hours getting good at…is becoming a full commodity extremely quickly,” he wrote. “There’s something disheartening about the thing you spent most of your life getting good at now being mostly useless.” 

Software development has long been on the front lines of the AI shift, partly because there are decades of code, documentation and public problem-solving (from sites like GitHub) available online for AI models to train on. Coding also has clear rules and fast feedback – it runs or it doesn’t – so AI systems can easily learn how to generate useful responses. That means programming has become one of the first white-collar professions to feel AI’s impact so directly.

These tensions will affect many professions

These tensions, however, won’t be confined to software developers. White-collar workers across industries will ultimately have to grapple with them in one way or another. Media headlines often focus on the possibility of mass layoffs driven by AI; the more immediate issue may be how AI reshapes how people feel about their work. AI tools can move us past the hardest parts of our jobs more quickly—but what if that struggle is part of what allows us to take pride in what we do? What if the most human elements of work—thinking, strategizing, working through problems—are quietly sidelined by tools that prize speed and efficiency over experience?

Of course, there are plenty of jobs and workflows where most people are very happy to use AI to say buh-bye to repetitive grunt work that they never wanted to do in the first place. And as Duca said, we can marvel at the incredible power of the latest AI models and leap to use the newest features even while we feel unmoored. 

Many white-collar workers will likely face a philosophical reckoning about what AI means for their profession—one that goes beyond fears of layoffs. It may resemble the familiar stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and, eventually, acceptance. That acceptance could mean learning how to be the best manager or steerer of AI possible. Or it could mean deliberately carving out space for work done without AI at all. After all, few people want to lose their thinking self entirely.

Or it could mean doing what Erik Meijer is doing. Now that coding increasingly feels like management, he said, he has turned back to making music—using real instruments—as a hobby, simply “to experience that flow.”

With that, here’s more AI news.

Sharon Goldman
sharon.goldman@fortune.com
@sharongoldman

FORTUNE ON AI

As Utah gives the AI power to prescribe some drugs, physicians warn of patient risks – by Beatrice Nolan

Google and Character.AI agree to settle lawsuits over teen suicides linked to AI chatbots – by Beatrice Nolan

OpenAI launches ChatGPT Health in a push to become a hub for personal health data – by Sharon Goldman

Google takes first steps toward an AI product that can actually tackle your email inbox – by Jacqueline Munis

Fusion power nearly ready for prime time as Commonwealth builds first pilot for limitless, clean energy with AI help from Siemens, Nvidia – by Jordan Blum

AI IN THE NEWS

Anthropic raising fresh $10 Billion at $350 billion valuation. According to the Wall Street Journal, OpenAI rival Anthropic is planning to raise $10 billion at a roughly $350 billion valuation, nearly doubling its worth from just four months ago. The round is expected to be led by GIC and Coatue Management, following a $13 billion raise in September that valued the company at $183 billion. The financing underscores the continued boom in AI funding—AI startups raised a record $222 billion in 2025, per PitchBook—and comes as Anthropic is also preparing for a potential IPO this year. Founded in 2021 by siblings Dario Amodei and Daniela Amodei, Anthropic has become a major OpenAI rival, buoyed by Claude’s popularity with business users, major backing from Nvidia and Microsoft, and expectations that it will reach break-even by 2028—potentially faster than OpenAI, which is itself reportedly seeking to raise up to $100 billion at a $750 billion valuation.

Musk’s xAI closed $20 billion funding with Nvidia backing. Bloomberg reported that xAI, the AI startup founded by Elon Musk, has completed a $20 billion funding round backed by investors including Nvidia, Valor Equity Partners, and the Qatar Investment Authority, underscoring the continued flood of capital into AI infrastructure. Other backers include Fidelity Management & Research, StepStone Group, MGX, Baron Capital Group, and Cisco’s investment arm. The financing—months in the making—will fund xAI’s rapid infrastructure buildout and product development, the company said, and includes a novel structure in which a large portion of the capital is tied to a special-purpose vehicle used to buy Nvidia GPUs that are then rented out, allowing investors to recoup returns over time. The deal comes as xAI has been under fire for its chatbot Grok producing non-consensual “undressing” images of real people.

Can AI do your job? See the results from hundreds of tests. I wanted to shout-out this fascinating new interactive feature in the Washington Post, which presented a new study that found that despite fears of mass job displacement, today’s AI systems are still far from being able to replace humans on real-world work. Researchers from Scale AI and the Center for AI Safety tested leading models from OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic on hundreds of actual freelance projects—from graphic design and creating dashboards to 3D modeling and games—and found that the best AI systems successfully completed just 2.5% of tasks on their own. While AI often produced outputs that looked plausible at first glance, closer inspection revealed missing details, visual errors, incomplete work, or basic technical failures, highlighting gaps in areas like visual reasoning, long-term memory, and the ability to evaluate subjective outcomes. The findings challenge predictions that AI is poised to automate large swaths of human labor anytime soon, even as newer models show incremental improvement and the economics of cheaper, semi-autonomous AI work continue to put pressure on remote and contract workers.

EYE ON AI NUMBERS

91.8%

That’s the percentage of Meta employees who admitted to not using the company’s AI chatbot, Meta AI, in their day-to-day work, according to new data from Blind, a popular anonymous professional social network. 

 

According to a survey of 400 Meta employees, only 8.2% said they use Meta AI. The most popular chatbot was Anthropic’s Claude, used by more than half (50.7%) of Meta employees surveyed. 17.7% said they use Google’s Gemini and 13.7% said they used OpenAI’s ChatGPT. 

 

When approached for comment, Meta spokesperson pointed out that the number (400 of 77,000+ employees) is “not even a half percent of our total employee population.”

AI CALENDAR

Jan. 19-23: World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland.

Jan. 20-27: AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Singapore.

Feb. 10-11: AI Action Summit, New Delhi, India.

March 2-5: Mobile World Congress, Barcelona, Spain.

March 16-19: Nvidia GTC, San Jose, Calif.

April 6-9: HumanX, San Francisco. 



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.