Who is Gene Galt?

Silicon Valley
Joined November 2008
A healthy person wants many things. A sick person wants just one. That’s why, after housing, people and the nation spend more on health than anything.
1
1
15
There’s a revolution happening that will not just treat but cure a lot of diseases. This is unknown to most investors, leaving biotech prices low with large growth potential.
4
Problem are sets of constraints that do not allow desired states. Solutions are the removal or circumvention of constraints.
3
1
24
A notable linguistic indicator: English speakers on the political left tend to use the word "issue" where ones on the political right would be more likely to say "problem".
6
Optimism believes that problems can be solved. Pessimism assumes that they cannot.
1
5
Check out the latest @LexiVentures newsletter: October 2026 linkedin.com/pulse/october-2… via @LinkedIn
17
Jonah Probell retweeted
Merit is the enemy of privilege. Those who try to strike down standardized testing in the hopes of creating more “equity” will achieve the opposite.
1
6
269
I just met a room of VCs most of whom have AI theses with so little differentiation that when I see a great AI deal I have no idea who to share it with, much less where I would want an LP position. One needs very little creativity to stand out, yet so few do.
1
25
Everybody has a rare disease. Just some are more disabling than others in this world we inhabit.
34
Claude's oversensitive biosafety flag is hurting my productivity. What's the best alternative for long context biotech VC due diligence?
2
119
This is one of the more thoughtful (and humble) analyses of the potential economic effects of AI that I have read. Thanks @patrickc.
Assorted things I've been mulling over regarding agents in the economy: • Companies are in some sense the original superintelligence. It's often the case that they can use their amortized cognitive surplus to advance their interests against those of certain consumers: relative to the optimization capacity of companies, consumers can be inattentive, underinformed, irrational, etc. (Think, say, of some of the classic insurance upsells at the end of a booking process, which is typically priced substantially above what a regular policy would cost.) Herbert Simon introduced the idea of bounded rationality, and firms often end up benefiting from it. Thanks to personal agents, we will probably get somewhat more rational in how we engage with companies. • How exactly will outcomes change? Well, certain kinds of price discrimination will work less well (how do coupons work if every agent hunts fastidiously for them?), and certain kinds of customer cross-subsidy will change (today, people who forget to cancel subscriptions subsidize those who don't). Taken across the economy as a whole, I'm not sure what the incidence of all of this will be. • In corporate strategy, people have long debated the relative importance of distribution and product quality. Perhaps you've made something better, but does anyone know about it? Won't people just continue to buy the ACME Corp Mousetraps? Personal agents will, I think, act as a kind of structural subsidy for product quality. How would markets look different if individuals always spent at least 10 hours researching their purchases? On the margin, focusing on making a product better is, I think, going to become a more effective strategy for companies. This is good! • It true, a corollary is that information about product quality will become more important and impactful. Today, most people have very limited ability to aggregate and integrate such data, but agents will have insatiable thirst for such signals. (It's often said that data is becoming more valuable because it helps in the training of models. That's obviously true, but I think there's a secondary way in which it's more valuable simply as a complement to cheaper intelligence.) • A big question is whether agents will increase superstar effects (rational agents all settle on the same product) or increase dispersion (because everyone has slightly different tastes and preferences, which agents are good at eliciting, finally overcoming the artificial clustering we've been subjected to). • Many internet companies have monetized demand routing, which is in turn often predicated on short attention spans. "I'll click on the first thing I see." This has led to some amount of inefficiency, as companies try to propitiate capricious ranking algorithms and incur various placement fees. It's not all deadweight loss (willingness to pay is itself a kind of signal, which is valuable to buyers), but it's not great. How will the nature and value of this routing change in a world of personal agents? I don't know the answer, but I think that the effects might be pretty big. • Much of what I'm writing hinges on the assumption that personal agents will be on the consumer's side. I suspect that that will be the winning strategy, but whether it's true, and what it means to be true, involves a lot of other questions. Taken as a whole, the market is a massively parallelized, decentralized, and highly imperfect value attribution machine, and, taking stock of all of the effects, it seems to me that the quality point may well be the biggest: that agents will change the nature of the backpropagation such that the rewards for better products increase. Maybe this is too optimistic, but I suspect (and hope) that companies that make things that they're proud of will feel that the universe is a little more partisan in their favor.
1
47
Thinking is intra-brain. Language is inter-brain. Writing is language in persistent form.
Sure, there are some kinds of thinking that don't require writing. People could think before writing was invented. But writing is an extraordinarily valuable tool in the hardest kinds of thinking.
37
One of the strongest negative predictors of who will win the Nobel is that they were publicly predicted to win. Thank you for leaving my name off the list.
Next week, the 2026 Nobel Prizes in Medicine and in Chemistry will be announced. These scientists have won the most pre-Nobel “predictor” prizes and I think represent the pool of the most likely candidates:
2
126
Difficult to stand out in voice AI, but the @DeptVetAffairs is a huge and sticky customer. I'm glad to be an investor in @knowtexai.
Breaking NEWS! @knowtexai is Named Prime Awardee on @DeptVetAffairs $775 Million Contract - available to VA medical centers and clinics nationwide. This is the largest public enterprise commitment to ambient #AI in #American #healthcare. Honored. ❤️🤍💙 globenewswire.com/news-relea…
3
122
1,700+ events at SF Tech Week. Only one @LexiVentures 🍕 pizza party for people building in biotech. CRISPR, cell therapy, RNA, synbio, -omics. Founders and investors. No agenda. Thu Oct 8, 3:30pm, SOMA. Tag a biotech founder who should come. #SFTechWeek @Techweek_
2
3
7
249
Will the desire for acceptance cause most people to converge towards being clones or will the desire for recognition cause most people using those capabilities to individualize with the result of increasing human diversity?
By 2050 anyone who wants to be “hot” and “cool” will be able to.
1
163
In the future there will be a war in which no person gets hurt.
36
If there was a national holiday to thank the millions of entrepreneurs for the hard work they do, risks they take, and sacrifices they make for the wellbeing of all people, what day of the year would it be?
1
1
52
A lot of genetic engineering news this past month.
Check out Lexi Ventures' September Newsletter: * Pizza * Role model firms * AlkaLi Labs’ mining microbes * Viruses in the brain * Personalized cancer vaccines * Dogized cancer vaccines * Four edits on the farm lexiventures.substack.com/p/…
6
132
china just released their latest 5 year plan for biotech. it is clear that china has ambitions of building globally dominant pharma companies, not just licensing assets to the West: 1. it explicitly supports building overseas sales networks, R&D centers, and manufacturing bases. these are the capabilities needed to commercialize internationally and capture product revenues directly. 2. china is addressing their domestic reimbursement bottleneck: faster hospital adoption of innovative drugs, a new pricing mechanism, and a push for commercial health insurance. chinese biotechs that can make money domestically can afford to keep global rights instead of selling them for upfront cash. 3. china is pushing regulatory alignment with global standards so chinese data can gain credibility with FDA/EMA. historically, a big part of what Western licensees paid for was the ability to "translate" a chinese asset into a package global regulators would trust. if that translation layer disappears, so does much of the reason to license. 4. it supports international multicenter trials and overseas registration. these capabilities will make western partners less essential to getting a drug through global development and approval. 5. the partnership language includes joint development AND joint commercialization. that creates a path to retaining more economics while building experience operating internationally. 6. china is targeting 50 pharma companies with annual revenue above RMB10 billion and at least 5 products with global annual sales above $1 billion. that scale will create more domestic acquirers, giving chinese biotechs non-western alternatives to exit/license. over time, more promising assets will stay within chinese pharma companies. china-to-west licensing volumes will keep rising, but i suspect western partners’ share of the upside has already peaked. the west may keep licensing more chinese drugs while capturing less of the upside. the economics change when your partner no longer needs you to reach the market.
11
32
5
158
20,125