🔬 The Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data Center — Andy Beam & Rafa Gómez-Bombarelli, Lila Sciences
🔬 The Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data Center — Andy Beam & Rafa Gómez-Bombarelli, Lila Sciences
🔬 The Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data Center — Andy Beam & Rafa Gómez-Bombarelli, Lila Sciences
Unprocessed episode, you can be the first!
Shownote
Shownote
Imagine a dark warehouse. Racks and racks of devices with wires, tubes, and
electronics sticking out. The next AI data center? No. This is Lila Sciences
[https://www.lila.ai/]‘ dream for the future of science. A dark warehouse full
of AI-guided robotics and lab equipment, cranking out new experiments 24/7,
building toward a scientific superintelligence.
Their automated lab is almost hypnotizing to watch. They have floating plates
zipping around on Wall-E-esque tracks, used vision-language models to control
Windows 95 boxes, and created the world’s largest collection of voided
warranties. In the process they’ve built a massive library of scientific
reasoning tokens. Over 10 trillion of them, all experimentally validated.
No warranties were voided in the making of this video
To say Lila is ambitious is an understatement. Their goal is a scientific
superintelligence wired directly into the wet lab. They are all in on the bitter
lesson [https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~eunsol/courses/data/bitter_lesson.pdf], and
the thesis follows from it: a lab is an infinite token generator. Produce data
at scale, and the synergies give you a general reasoner that can tackle any
scientific problem. They are committing hard. Biology, chemistry, drug
discovery, and materials science, all at the same time. Time will tell if it
works, but it is an exciting hypothesis.
In our latest episode we sat down with Lila’s very own Andy Beam
[https://www.lila.ai/team/andrew-beam] (CTO) and Rafa Gómez-Bombarelli
[https://www.lila.ai/team/rafael-gomez-bombarelli] (CSO, physical sciences) and
went on a journey through the possibilities of AI-run science, almost as
wide-ranging as Lila’s goals.
Did we mention they do both materials science and biology? In the same AI
science factory? Same time, same lab, same AI. Finally a guest who can settle a
long-running debate we’ve had amongst ourselves: is biology or materials science
harder?
Watch to find out!
We discuss:
* The internet is spent, science is next. Why Lila thinks the scientific method
is the last untapped internet-scale dataset, and why they treat RL as a data
generation mechanism with nature as the verifier.
* The lab as a data center. Instruments as nodes on a graph, a magnetically
levitating “PCI bus” transport layer between them, orchestration as a slurm
queue. Andy is not short on analogies.
* Why Lila insists it is not an automation company. They optimize for
flexibility and generalizability over raw throughput, which means humans stay
below the API line wherever automating does not pay.
* Your experiment has a runtime. We put Escalante Bio’s question
[https://blog.escalante.bio/your-experiment-has-a-runtime/] to Andy: if science
is the token generator, what is the runtime of your data collection? His answer,
in short, is that you cannot make the ribosome go faster. Why Lila bets on fast
round-over-round iteration rather than big noisy multiplexed screens, and how
Rafa’s team rebuilt a gas sorption measurement to run roughly 2,500x faster.
* What is actually in 10 trillion scientific tokens. Not sequences.
Experimentally verified reasoning traces, a kind of data that Andy argues exists
on the internet in quantities that round to zero.
* Breadth as a path to depth. Small molecule chemistry priors transferring to
metal organic frameworks for carbon capture, and the claim that the general
model beats domain-specific models sample for sample.
* If you have the data, what do you need the model for? Sri Kosuri’s koan about
the ML-for-drug-discovery business model, and Andy’s answer: the coding model
got better because it also read Shakespeare and carnitas recipes.
* The serendipity they want to automate. Emily Whitehead survived the first
pediatric CAR-T cure only because the doctor treating her happened to know, from
pediatric arthritis, which antibody would blunt her IL-6 response. Roll that
dice again and you probably lose her. Breadth is how you stop depending on luck.
* Move 37 for catalysts. Model suggestions for platinum-group-free
electrocatalysts that went from boring, to what a 40-paper expert called stupid,
to the best performers they have made.
* Six months to in vivo CAR-T data in non-human primates, and the zero-FTE
virtual startup commercial model that fell out of it. For context on why that
number is startling, AbbVie paid $2.1B for Capstan
[https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/abbvie-capstan-acquisition-in-vivo-cell-therapy/751944/]
on the strength of preclinical in vivo CAR-T data.
* You cannot have scientific superintelligence if you are just a good test
taker. Ken Stanley [https://www.kenstanley.net/], who wrote Why Greatness Cannot
Be Planned [https://www.amazon.com/dp/3319155237], runs open-endedness at Lila.
RL at scale gives you a ruthlessly Vulcan problem solver. Machine creativity is
a different thing, and it is the part nobody has solved.
* The chain of thought is an unreliable narrator. The model reasons in latent
space and only emits tokens. Sometimes it skips the experiment entirely and is
still right. So how much do you trust the reasoning versus the verifier?
* Reward hacking when the rollout is physical. Chains of thought that collapse
into repetition, and a model that got annoyed and swore at the scientist who
kept asking it to redo a plate map. What happens when a pathological loop has a
wet lab inside it?
* The bittersweet lesson. Rafa’s inversion
[https://bidmap.berkeley.edu/seminars/rafael-gomez-bombarelli-bittersweet-lesson-scaling-ai-materials]
of the bitter lesson: in AI, scaling is a roadmap. In materials, scaling is a
filter, because only the things that scale end up mattering.
* Not your typical Flagship company. Why a famously single-asset biotech
incubator spun out a platform bet, and Andy’s line that if Lila called itself a
biopharma it would have a top-three GPU cluster.
* Bottlenecks they would remove by fiat. Sim-to-real for physics-based
simulation, and the fact that RL training runs at roughly 5% mean FLOP
utilization.
Watch on YouTube:
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers
or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.latent.space/subscribe
[https://www.latent.space/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]
Highlights
Highlights
Chapters
Chapters
Transcript
Transcript

