Shaywitz and Gibson make the implicit assumption that AI will be considered unproven by Biotech investors until assets picked by machines make it through clinical trials. But "not yet in the clinic" is too powerful an objection -- that benchmark would exclude many of the most exciting and best-funded biotech platform companies. To me, the more interesting questions are "Why do these platform companies get funded?" Because many of the most interesting therapeutic targets have zero lead compounds and are considered undruggable, the value of AI can be -- and has been! The clinic is a powerful conceptual and practical boundary, and so it is easy to assume that the IND divides drug discovery into an easy-and-cheap domain before and a difficult-and-expensive domain after. David Shaywitz wrote, "Often, little, if any, value is placed on earlier-stage assets or the platform itself", and Chris Gibson concurs when speaking about progress that "absent proof of concept data in human patients, is discounted severely."