My guest today is Max Marchione, founder and CEO of Superpower, a company building a new kind of healthcare system around prevention, personalization, and human enhancement. Max's obsession with health started unusually early. After spending years struggling with health problems and seeing more than 20 doctors without finding answers, he began experimenting on himself, reading medical research, tracking his sleep, and using a continuous glucose monitor as a teenager. Today, the company is combining comprehensive diagnostics, personal health data, AI-driven care, and increasingly frontier therapeutics like peptides around a much bigger ambition: moving medicine from simply treating sickness toward preventing disease and improving human capability. Max has become a thought leader in frontier medicine, regularly demystifying the ever-growing peptide space, and sharing input on regulation and healthcare writ large for the 21st century.
Max, welcome to State Change.
Kyle, excited to be here.
Okay, so I want to start with a topic that is somewhat unconventional for this podcast, but I think it's really important to get a good understanding of the market size around what you're doing. So, I want to focus on the business aspect here. You recently talked publicly about the S-1 filing for Oura, the maker of Oura Ring, and you talked a little bit about the business metrics, the valuation of the business. I'd love for you to talk a bit about your analysis there, but perhaps you could also apply that same treatment to what you're building at Superpower, so we can kind of get a clear picture of like how big this opportunity is.
Yeah, there are a couple of ways of thinking of it. Take the US alone: 20% of GDP is healthcare, so $5 trillion is spent on healthcare. Now, if we look at most industries, there tends to be a company that is known for innovation in the industry. We see this in cars, we see this in phones, we see this in electricity, we see this in most industries, but we don't really see it in health yet. Like if I ask someone, "What's the Apple of healthcare? What's the kind of tech company that has really changed healthcare a lot over the past decade?" People wouldn't have an answer. So, that's $5 trillion without meaningful innovation outside of therapeutics for oncology or surgery, right? So, that's one way of thinking of it.
Another way of thinking of it is humans are Darwinistic, right? We need to improve ourselves because of our kind of primitive desires for survival selection and sexual selection. We need to continue to see what humans are capable of. Now, what that means is once we get enhancement therapeutics, most people are going to need to take them, right? If everyone else is slim and smart and energetic and sleeping really well and putting on muscle, you're not going to be the one person who's limited by kind of primitive human biology. Everyone's going to kind of want to catch up. So, if we look at the therapeutic side of the market, we're kind of looking at most people multiplied by some amount of spend on therapeutics, maybe a thousand a year. That's pretty big, right? 370 million people in the US multiplied by a thousand a year.
Then we can look at the diagnostic side of the market. Take the annual physical. The annual physical is a pretty broken thing. You don't test for much, it's not awfully diagnostic, it's not that preventative. It's really something that's still stuck in the past, right? We use a hollow stethoscope and listen to heart murmurs through a literally hollow tube to diagnose heart problems. That seems quite archaic. Well, 150-ish million Americans get an annual physical. Let's say that's replaced by a better diagnostic that's far more predictive. That's 150 million times whatever the price of that is. So, there are a few ways of cutting it, but that's kind of how I think of market size in just one market. And then we expand to other markets as well, and then you kind of get a sense that, oh, okay, this health thing is pretty big and pretty important.
And the final thing is how does AGI modify this? I think one of the most important questions is assuming AGI is here, what still matters? And one thing that I can say with conviction is health still matters, right? Humans still don't want to die. We still want to feel better and look better and be younger and not be diseased. So it continues to be relevant post AGI.
Great. Well, we're going to talk a lot about AGI a little bit later. I want to double down on the business model and the kind of current narrative around preventive medicine, longevity, healthcare, AI, kind of these threads that are coming together. I see two narratives in the public conversation right now. One is, I would say, kind of a detractive narrative. There's some skepticism around longevity and wellness. There's critiques of people like Bryan Johnson being an N of 1, the fact that this kind of hyper-personalized medicine can't scale. There's a question of how much data is actually useful.
So for instance, I think there was a bit of pushback on the Oura Ring recently that the people who are wearing an Oura Ring end up sleeping more poorly because they're so hyper-focused on their sleep score. So there's this kind of detractive element. And then on the opposite side of that, I think there's an amplifier which goes back to your point on AGI. You know, in the event that AGI becomes this kind of universal intelligence we can apply to many industries including healthcare, what's left for us to do and corporations and business to do? And the kind of common refrain, at least in the VC echo chambers, around taste and aesthetics and personalization. And I think from the Superpower point of view, this is something you guys put quite an emphasis on. So I want you to kind of toy with those two ideas, the detractors and the amplifiers.
Yeah, so I think classically people have not engaged in prevention unless it's culturally mandated or unless someone gets a short-term benefit. Now, we have seen some culturally or kind of regulatory mandated forms of prevention. Lifespan, expected age, has kind of doubled over the past 150 years. The primary reason for that was the introduction of vaccines eliminating things like polio, etc. And that is something that is prevention done at scale because the government kind of mandated that. The second probably innovation there is statins, right? We saw the introduction of statins was associated with lower incidence of heart disease, the number one killer. And then maybe the third version of that is GLP-1s.
Now, GLP-1s are really interesting because people don't take a GLP-1 primarily thinking, "Oh, I'm preventing disease, I'm improving insulin sensitivity, I'm reducing risk of type 2 diabetes." Most people take a GLP-1 because they want to look slimmer or feel better. And that is really interesting because I think that it shows that the kinds of preventative measures that are really going to see mass adoption quickly are the ones that also give people some sort of short-term acute benefit. So, there's this idea that, oh, we never feel prevention, but I don't actually believe that's true. I think if all we did is if we didn't think about prevention and we only thought about how do I feel better today, how do I look better today, how do I have more energy today, we would be doing things that are actually quite preventative. And when we introduce that premise, like, actually we all kind of do care about prevention. Many of us try to sleep because we feel better or we try to exercise because we feel better.
And then we do have this — I do though concede that we have this hyper — some people have this hyper-fixation. And I do think hyper-fixation is kind of inimical to the idea of good health altogether. Like, the purpose of health is not to obsess over health, right? The purpose of health is not to do the Bryan Johnson thing and spend years of your life just doing health. The purpose of health is to allow you to do more.
And if I'm spending more time obsessing over health than I am using the extra time I get to live life, it's kind of, huh, what's the point?
So I think that we need to think of optimizing health less as optimizing health arbitrarily for health's sake and more as actually I'm trying to build bodily resilience.
It's fine if I eat the wrong thing or sometimes don't sleep or travel and my schedule's out.
I'm healthy and therefore my body's resilient and therefore I can do more.
Yeah, I find that the people who do this the best usually have a specific purpose around or health goal, so to speak. You know, someone who's training for a marathon or a triathlon or wants to lose an amount of weight, and they start tracking their data. They might become obsessed with it during a one to three-month period, but it doesn't become a lifelong journey of obsessing over your data and optimizing, you know, this and that day in and day out.
You mentioned earlier, you know, the Apple of healthcare. Who's going to be the Apple of healthcare? And I think if you polled people five years ago, ten years ago, people would have said, "It's Apple. Apple's going to become the Apple of healthcare." And these big enterprise software companies needed bigger markets to go after, right? And so they were saying Apple was going to build, you know, all these med devices and Amazon was going to be the delivery vector for pharmaceuticals or, you know, over-the-counter medicine, that sort of type of thing. To some degree, you know, there's some truth to that, but I think what's interesting, especially in the past five years, is the kind of convergence of the longevity movement and AI-native companies.
So I'd like you to opine on that a little bit. Like, fundamentally, what are the differences between some of these large behemoths and these new AI-native companies? And to throw one other thing into the mix here, it's the frontier model companies. You know, we've seen Midjourney, for example, do their IRL kind of checkup experience, right? Or something like a Neko Health, for example. You know, is there competition coming from the large frontier labs?
Yeah, I think to create a new healthcare system, there are maybe four or five things you need to do. And it's pretty hard for one company to do all of them. First is you need to own the infrastructure, right? There are certain commoditized parts of healthcare, and to bring the cost to zero and the quality really high, you need to own manufacturing and compounding and labs. That's not the kind of business Apple wants to be in, for example. I don't see them owning a compounding pharmacy to manufacture personalized drugs.
The second thing you need to own to create a new health system is intelligence, right? How do we replace the kind of primitive or limited human brain with super intelligence or the AI brain? The large model companies are the closest to doing that. They might be the ones to win at that. I think that today they're still a data constraint. There's no really good longitudinal structured data set that combines lots of different diagnostics with interventions, with tracking to see what works over time. So, the jury's still out on who is going to actually crack intelligence for health. I suspect it's going to be correlated with who has the data to solve intelligence for health. It'll be unlikely to be Apple. I just think again, they're not in the business of building foundation models, and they haven't been able to do that for the existing massive use cases.
That's kind of counterintuitive because I think a lot of people think of them as being the biggest distributor of medical devices with the Apple Watch, for example. So.
Well, that goes to the kind of third thing you need to create a new health system, which is either diagnostic IP or therapeutic IP. Apple, I doubt, will get into the therapeutic IP side of things because it tends to mean drugs, right? Peptides, biologics, small molecules, mRNA, gene therapies. Doesn't sound awfully like Apple. That said, diagnostic IP is where I think Apple will probably do best.
I do think that we're going to have diagnostics in our AirPods, on our phones, on our Apple Watches, and therefore even if another company creates this kind of health aggregator and new health system, the Apple devices will play a really important role in that.
And those devices will feed the frontier intelligence. Those devices will inform the therapeutic protocols that people should be on. And it's almost inevitable that Apple owns meaningful diagnostic IP.
The probably final two things you need to create — so there's infrastructure, there's intelligence, there's diagnostic and therapeutic IP. The fourth thing is, do you own the interface? You need — there are certain interfaces through which someone needs to receive health.
One of those interfaces is digital, another is at home, and then another is kind of in-person, the clinic. Apple will likely do a really good job of owning the digital interface.
Either they will develop the software of that interface, or at the very least they will house that software.
Right, they'll house that software on their iPhone, on Apple Watches, on other devices that are created. The at-home interface, Apple is very unlikely to own. They might build at-home devices, but I don't see it as this high probability. And then there's the in-person interface.
Neko is probably the best example of kind of an in-person interface, where they have this space that can keep having new diagnostics added to it, right? As new research comes out, where does that go? It goes into Neko. I could see Apple doing something like that. Like imagine Apple launches...
Walk-in Apple scan for your health once a year. That would absolutely blow, right? It'd be incredible. And then the final thing is you need to own the consumer applications.
So, you need to actually be the place someone can go to — all of this infrastructure exists, but who's actually selling the application?
And Apple might do that, but it's not obvious though.
Mhm.
Okay, so there's probably an opportunity to go full stack here, but it sounds like in the interim you have to kind of pick and choose the layer where you can compete. I was thinking about this the other day because, you know, I have a subscription to a couple of these programs and there's always friction in data collection. And that's what, as you mentioned before, this is why the frontier models might not outcompete a smaller upstart, is just because you have to collect vast amounts of data, longitudinal data, enriched data, and that has to be continuous over time.
And the way we do this now is, you know, maybe I connect my Garmin watch or my Apple Watch to my Superpower interface. I probably go in for a check-in or blood work once or twice a year. You know, maybe there's a couple other tests here and there that I can put manual data I can input, but I think the holy grail is having something that is continuous 24/7 monitoring that is being pumped into the system so that my recommendations personally are better, and also from a business point of view you guys are enriching your model and fine-tuning it and making it a better and better experience for your users. Have you thought about, you know, like working on or partnering with like some sort of like continuous molecular monitoring tool, or what do you think is going to take place there in the next couple of years?
Yeah, we tend to want to sit at the intelligence layer, part of the interface layer, and then certainly the app consumer application layer. To really do a good job of the intelligence layer, we need to ingest all data sources, right? So we need to ingest Oura, Whoop, connected scales. We're soon going to have wearables that can monitor other molecular data points — lactose, glucose, insulin — non-invasively, and we need to connect to all of them, right? The company that owns intelligence needs that data. That data obviously feeds the recommendations. It builds the models over time. So I think that's a really important thing to do.
The challenge companies like Oura will have is it's unlikely Oura is going to allow you to connect your Whoop, right? Or connect your Apple Watch. And that makes it really hard to actually win because people change. They change devices. Different devices give you different inputs. So, I think actually to kind of win at the intelligence layer, you need to be agnostic to device and really aggregate all data streams.
And of the frontier models, which one do you think is the best shot of winning the healthcare space?
I think Anthropic has the best chance of being the next Eli Lilly. Dario was kind of a biologist in some respects by background, or bio guy by background. Anthropic really wants to do drug development. They really believe in computational discovery. I think they'll partner with companies even to move into kind of clinical pipelines to develop drugs.
I think both OpenAI and Anthropic will do a good job of kind of diagnostic and therapeutic intelligence, meaning knowing what someone should do. I think we'll see what we see now, which is both kind of neck and neck, right? One's a little bit better than another, one's a little bit better. I don't think there's any obvious example of another company owning their own intelligence yet ahead of those two. Maybe Google will do it. Google has kind of bigger existing bio efforts and research efforts than OpenAI and Anthropic. Yeah, so maybe they'll do it as well.
Would you ever consider partnering with one of the frontier models, or do you think you have enough valuable IP and data collection in your own proprietary model to be defensible?
So, we would use foundation models. Sometimes open source ones, sometimes the ones developed by the large labs. That said, there's a lot of things you need to do around the foundation model, right? How do you post-train it? How do you solve for memory and context? How do you actually allow the model to perform actions? How can it prescribe? How can it diagnose? How can it order people things? And then as we get more and more data over time, what does that imply? Does that imply we need to build our own foundation model? Does that mean we build a bunch of small models for different specific use cases? Is language not actually the right input? Is there some sort of other kind of input that a model is trained on that is distinct from what the large language models are doing?
These are still open questions. Also in the short term is all the former stuff I said: context, multi-agent orchestration, memory, action. And then the medium to long term, if we get to our own intelligence, it's going to be because we have a data set that others don't have.
And right now we're collecting that. Like the data set we collect is, I think, better than the data set anyone else is collecting. And the reason why is we have like hundreds of thousands of members who are testing frequently, not just one type of data, but they're doing imaging, they're doing microbiome testing, genomic testing, blood testing. Then we're making recommendations. They're following up with the AI constantly, telling us what is happening, how they're feeling, how they're going, and then we test again. So that data set is like really, really useful. And with enough time and enough scale, perhaps that is what actually allows us to create frontier intelligence.
Mhm. I'd like to understand how you think the experience will evolve over the next three to five years. So I mentioned a couple of those friction points, right? We have to go into a clinic, we have to, you know, constantly provide data either manually or through one of our watches. These are discrete data points, it's not a continuous data feed. You know, what's the ideal outcome? Like how do you remove that friction entirely and kind of run your health on autopilot?
Yeah, I think there are going to be three main kind of interfaces and ways we kind of engage with health. One is going to be digital where we interface with intelligence, probably via SMS, maybe via voice, maybe within an app, but we'll have a digital interface with intelligence that is constantly telling us what to do. It understands our preferences, it has access to continuous data streams, it can take action, it can make referrals and prescribe. And that's going to be one thing we do. The AI will run a lot of our health and a lot of our life.
The second interface is going to be at home, right? I do see more and more things being done at home rather than in the clinic. It's a better experience. The economics of at-home delivery can sometimes even be better than the economics of not doing it at home. So, I think for some things we just have someone come to our home and do it,
right? We'll have someone come to our home and draw blood or we'll do a finger-prick test at home rather than having to go into a lab. And then I think the third way we'll engage with our health is I suspect we will see diagnostic and therapeutic centers that have proprietary IP, proprietary diagnostics akin to what Neko is trying to do. And we'll go there maybe once a year, maybe more often. Sometimes these diagnostics and therapeutics will be integrated into places we already go,
right? I think the gym is an obvious place to house health, but wellness club is an emerging category, which is kind of like the new gym, which is kind of gym meets health.
And I do think there's going to be this behavior of the annual scan or the twice-annual scan that happens in person, because there are some things that we can't do at home. It's pretty hard to put an MRI at home, for example.
Yeah. Okay. That's great. I want to dedicate a little bit of time to peptides, because I think this is an important subject. You mentioned, you know, the GLP-1 moment — I don't know how long ago it was now, a couple years ago — where it has created an explosion in interest in the category and also a lot of experimentation. This is a frontier that you've spent a lot of time thinking about and testing.
One of the comments you made earlier was around the fact that an interesting entry point to health, as opposed to just health itself, is this kind of selfish Darwinian urge to look good, to feel good, for mate selection, for athletic performance, which I think is an interesting way to kind of couch the conversation of health and medicine. And peptides seem to be a good framing for that.
It seems as if there's kind of a peptide for everything under the sun, whether you want better sexual performance, better athletic performance, be better looking, lose weight, better focus, minimize sleep but maximize rest. So maybe just to start, you can give us kind of the lay of the land. Like what are you seeing? What are you using? What's most interesting at the moment?
Yeah, I think five to ten years from now, the majority of people will be taking some sort of peptide therapeutic to enhance themselves. So peptides are just one class of drug. All right, we have peptides which are chains of amino acids, right? Small chains of peptides, larger chains of proteins. We have other categories of drugs. We have small molecules, we have biologics which are kind of larger molecules, mRNA, gene therapies. Peptides are one kind.
Now, the reason peptides are quite interesting is they tend to be safer and can produce an effect sometimes more easily. And the reason why is peptides are often natural, they're endogenous. Our body, the way our body works is we have DNA which encodes for RNA, which produces proteins and peptides. So our body is producing millions of peptides every single day. And what some people are doing is they're saying, "Let's look at what the body's already doing and let's actually replicate that. Let's actually make the peptide in kind of a bioreactor and kind of a chemical synthesis plant and let's introduce that into the body." So that's kind of what peptides are.
We have seen one peptide already change the world: GLP-1s, right? Ozempic, tirzepatide, Mounjaro, Zepbound. All of these are peptides, right? And GLP-1s are really interesting because they're one of the first times we've seen a drug developed for a disease actually be used for human enhancement. Very few people are taking GLP-1s to say, "I'm reducing my type 2 diabetes risk." Most people are taking them because they say, "I want to lose weight. I want to look better. I want my face to be slimmer."
And that is one class of peptides. That's a peptide for weight loss. But we'll have peptides for muscle gain, right? The first myostatin inhibitor wasn't a peptide actually. It was a large molecule, but the first myostatin inhibitor was approved earlier this week. A myostatin inhibitor allows people plausibly to put on muscle, right? You take this drug and it's kind of like exercise in a pill, so to speak. So we'll have maybe therapeutics for muscle. We might have therapeutics for sleep. You likely — like you acquired a company called Centessa. They're developing a drug that targets narcolepsy, but will likely be used by people to sleep less but feel the same, right? It's an orexin agonist, that drug. And there are some small molecules that are an agonist of orexin. There are some peptides that are kind of targeting orexin. So I think what we'll see is dozens of therapeutics that target enhancement use cases,
right? Be smarter, look younger, have better skin, have better sexual performance, put on muscle, sleep less, and GLP-1s are the first example of that trend at large.
Yeah. Okay, so there's a myriad of peptides out here. I actually spoke to Max Martin from the Enhanced Games or Enhanced company not too long ago. And, you know, just as you mentioned earlier, I think it's important to have kind of like a purpose or an entry point around your health and perhaps around your enhancement. I think the same goes for peptides. You know, when I spoke to him, I was curious if it was an all-or-nothing kind of thing. And do you have to max out on every peptide under the sun to reach this kind of peak humanness, or is it possible to do things à la carte?
And I'm curious what it's going to be like in three to five years where everyone is spending time calibrating, you know, their sleep, their sexual performance, their weight. Can you imagine any sort of negative consequences from this type of — I don't know. It feels like personal ownership of your health, but also it's a big obligation. It's a lot of work, it's a lot of time, and I don't know if everyone has the bandwidth or the skill set to manage that.
I think one like dystopian or utopian view of the future, depending on how you see it, is we have these devices in our home with lots of different vials in them, peptide vials, and they every morning, depending on what you want, make you a syringe of peptides that you inject.
I don't know whether that actually comes to life. All that's to say is I think that we do move to a world where people think about this less. I think right now peptides still somewhat sit in biohacker territory. They're like, if you know, you know, and if you're really obsessed, you can optimize. But I do think we get to a world where the AI just tells us what to do, and we trust the AI.
I think it's going to be unlikely that people don't take any therapeutics, right? And the reason why is very just primitive Darwinism, right? If everyone around you is smarter and more energetic and sleeping less and musclier and slimmer, you don't want to be the one person who's not. And if you are, you might be disadvantaged in the world. Now, whether this is a good world or not, I won't opine. I tend to think morality is not objective, it's subjective and defined by culture. But I do think it's quite inevitable, right? If we just understand the basics of human psychology and the basics of biology, I do think that this is, yeah, almost inevitable.
Yeah, I think it's a similar through line with, you know, gene editing, embryo selection, like these kind of topics, you know, that there will reach a tipping point where it's almost an obligation to kind of get involved, otherwise you kind of risk getting left behind.
Yeah, when we can edit the genes and embryos, when we can select embryos at scale safely for all sorts of positive effects, you don't want to be the one person with the kind of dumb, fat, ugly child, right?
Is it immoral? Is it like a bad thing to not give your child that advantage in that world? Probably. I know that sounds insane today, but I think so many things over the course of history that kind of once sounded insane become normal, right? And I think this is like a classic example of that.
Yeah. I'm curious to hear from your vantage point on the ground in San Francisco, because a lot of the experimentation, a lot of the frontier stuff, as we all...
know, happens in San Francisco. And I've seen and heard of and spent time with people that are at, you know, peptide parties, for example. I think a mutual acquaintance of ours, Jeff Tang, did one of these recently. He's starting a company around compounding and distributing peptides through like a telemedicine platform. You've got Frontier Tower that's kind of like the biohacker tower that's hosting these types of events. Have you been to any of these events? Like what is the feeling on the ground? Are people taking this seriously? Do they think it's a real revolution or is this another kind of niche biohacking, you know, like club scene?
Health is becoming social, right? Health is becoming cool. People used to go to the pub, now people go to wellness places and saunas and ice baths. And I think this kind of idea of the peptide party is one example of that. Right? I think the reason that happens is still like an SF microcosm. I don't think we have peptide parties at scale, but I think it does show that something that used to be very private, like medication, is becoming very public. Right? Peptides are probably the first time where people have flaunted their medication stacks. Right? 5 years ago if someone was taking Ozempic, they'd hide it. I was living with someone for a little bit who was taking Ozempic but locked it in the fridge in like a kind of pencil case with a lock in it so no one knew it was in there.
It's kind of like plastic surgery, right? People want to be covert about it, you know?
Totally. Yeah, but that's changing. And plastic surgery is similar. 20 years ago people were covert about it. Now in Korea and China people get gifted plastic surgery on their birthdays, right? And I think we're seeing a similar thing with peptides. It moves from covert to overt. It moves from kind of negative signal to like positive social signal. And that will drive adoption.
So, I want to drill down on one specific class of peptides around sleep because sleep is becoming, I think, more widely known as one of the kind of critical pillars of your health. As to people who travel quite a bit and deal with jet lag on a regular basis, this is something that I spent a lot of time trying to optimize. And as someone who's trying to be, you know, as a founder who's trying to be optimally productive, it would be pretty nice if you could sleep 4 hours a night instead of 8 hours a night and feel equally good without any sort of negative consequences on your health. So, tell me what the latest and greatest is there. Are you experimenting in this space? Do you have a peptide of choice?
Of around 100 billion people who live on Earth, no one has lived past the age of 130, right? But there are millions of people who are documented to being able to sleep 4 hours or less a night and live the same, feel the same, perform the same cognitively, sometimes physically. What that kind of suggests is that if we actually want to extend lifespan, maybe one of the easiest ways to do so is not going to be adding years to the end of life, but allowing people to be awake for more of life. Right? If we can be awake for 4 hours or more every day, we add a third, maybe a quarter more to our kind of lives. That's really powerful. That's really impactful. And what we're starting to see now is that therapeutics are being developed, sometimes peptides, sometimes small molecules, to allow people plausibly to sleep 4 hours, but feel as if they've slept 8 hours. So, the kind of one thing that people are going after at the moment is orexin. And what some researchers did is they studied short sleepers. And they saw that short sleepers during the day produce more orexin than others. So, they kind of called it a wakefulness peptide. Now, what some of these drugs are doing is increasing orexin production in people who do not have the short sleeper kind of phenotype.
So, Senteza was acquired by Eli Lilly for $6 billion and its main drug is an orexin agonist. It increases orexin. We have dozens of other companies that are also building orexin agonists. Now, I don't think orexin is fully going to get us there. I think allowing people to feel more awake is one part of the sleep equation, but I don't think that automatically allows someone to sleep better. Right? I think we need ways to actually improve the efficiency of sleep. And I think our challenge there is we don't really understand what improves sleep efficiency.
Right? We haven't really, even though we know the, we can see these short sleepers, we don't have strong enough hypotheses for what's driving that.
I do think we inevitably get to a world where everyone has the short sleeper phenotype. Everyone can sleep less and as a result effectively live longer. I don't think we necessarily have a clear pathway to that yet.
Yeah. Well, I mean, as we've discussed previously, biology is very complex and I think I saw you commented recently about just the complexity of human metabolism. Like we, you know, there's some like mapping of the microbiome and human metabolism, but it's incredibly difficult to parse, let alone develop drugs for. And I would imagine it's similar in the case of sleep. Do you think that AGI, for lack of a better term, is promising in finding some clear mapping here and possible solutions?
What AGI is going to do is discover thousands or millions of possible drugs. It's going to come up with sequences of peptides. It's going to come up with the structure of small molecules. It's going to do that. Right? It's almost inevitable. It's already happening today.
