UK hospitals lose millions after AI startup valuation collapses

Two NHS hospital trusts in the UK have lost nearly £15 million ($18 million) between them due to the collapse in value of an AI startup. Last month, The Register reported that seven NHS hospital trusts appeared to have lost millions following deals with Sensyne Health – a fledgling AI business trying to discover and develop …

[Harry Kiri]

This raises a lot of questions...

Public money into an AI startup? Was it seen as a way of bypassing data regulations to get hold of patient data, with the hospitals owning shares? What exactly were Sensyne promising?

Is this the start of the 'AI' hype bubble starting to burst?

[GlenP]

Re: This raises a lot of questions...

It appears it wasn't public money invested, they were receiving equity shares in exchange for the data.

On that basis they haven't actually lost the money, just failed to gain it at some point in the future when they sold the shares. It also appears that most didn't ever share the data either.

Hopefully though it is the AI bubble bursting - it's about time it did.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This raises a lot of questions...

"It appears it wasn't public money invested, they were receiving equity shares in exchange for the data."

Well if you're giving something over, it doesn't have to be cash to be public money - data has a value. Setting up this deal would cost the public purse a fair bit - by the time all the legals, responses, use of publically funded staff has been accounted for I'd be surprised if there was much change from a million quid.

So yes they bought shares which had a value with public money / assets which had a value and you'd expect that at least the initial value of the shares could be redeemed, else its a loss. And they lost it.

I can't find anything about whether data was shared, whether it was used or is still held and could end-up in a fire sale one day.

[Howard Sway]

Re: This raises a lot of questions...

The data wouldn't have been magically transferred at no cost to the hospital. Aside from all the meetings where the senior management devoted time to getting involved in the AI startup scene, rather than solving problems with such trivialities as waiting times, staffing, etc, the hospitals must have put in work to get the data extracted, probably from multiple systems. Not to mention the drawing up of contracts, privacy discussions (yeah, right), compliance and auditing (what's that?), security guarantees (ha ha, just kidding..)

But no, we're in Cambridge, and lots of clever people do clever things with computers here, and we should hop on the AI / big data hype whether the company's ideas are moonshine or not. There's no possibility that the AI touters have spotted a way to milk public data and public services just to enrich themselves......

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: This raises a lot of questions...

"The data wouldn't have been magically transferred at no cost to the hospital."

That cost is the real loss.

[Roland6]

Re: This raises a lot of questions...

But was real data actually transferred?

Because if it was, I suggest the Trusts have potentially lost a lot more, as that data is now "in the wild".

[steelpillow]

Re: This raises a lot of questions...

or is it perhaps the bursting of the patient-data-for-unenforcable-promises bubble?

No, silly me,. that would be too much to hope. :(

[Il'Geller]

Re: This raises a lot of questions...

You can easily find if this is an AI bubble: ask to show you the product’s dictionary. If the product has it, there is a chance you see not a bubble. After which ask them to download a book, for instance Dickens. Search in the it. If you found the right answers you have a real AI.

That’s all you need.

[redpawn]

Wouldn't it be easier to...

just keep the patient data in a poorly or unsecured server? Just asking.

[Nick Stallman]

Re: Wouldn't it be easier to...

Don't worry, I'm sure they are already on to that one too.

[Il'Geller]

Re: Wouldn't it be easier to...

You don't know artificial intelligence technology: there is actual data and its structured representation. All operations are performed with a structured part only, the actual data can be stored in a different and safe place. The structured part has no value and does not disclose anything confidential, can be easily replaced. There's no point in even stealing or hurting it. The question “is the patient data in a poorly or unsecured server?” is irrelevant.

But these guys used something else that is not artificial intelligence.

[Dwarf]

Everyone knows the stock line that investment companies always use

The value of stocks and shares may go up or down. Past performance is not an indicator of future performance

I wish they had stuck to doing their primary job and use actual intelligence, rather than the fabled artificial intelligence, which generally is fairly dumb.

[Peter Gathercole]

@Dwarf

The thing is, there's a lot that automated pattern matching over health data can help with, if only it is developed correctly.

I have a condition that requires regular platelet counts. As I understand it, this particular test is still largely counted by eye under a microscope by the path. lab at my local hospital, something that really ought to be able to be automated, which would speed up the process.

The hope for AI is/was that if you let a self-training AI look at patient data or test results, it might me able to spot trends or correlations for symptoms leading to diagnosis which would be useful. But it seems that there are problems, as IBM has recently got out of the business, and other AI projects appear to be struggling.

I don't know for certain, but I read somewhere that one of the problems is that it's not really possible to get these self-training AI systems to explain how they came to a particular diagnosis, and this causes concern in the very conservative world of medicine, as they like to understand how decisions are made.

[spaxe]

Re: @Dwarf

"it's not really possible to get these self-training AI systems to explain how they came to a particular diagnosis"

So the answer is 42...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Dwarf

problem is the AI has the intelligence of a gnat or lower.

Good luck asking a gnat how it works things out.

Any "suggestion" an AI developer gives of what they think the AI is doing is pretty much inferred guess work, easily affected by internal bias, and could be just bollocks on steroids.

[J.G.Harston]

Re: @Dwarf

"I have a condition that requires regular platelet counts. As I understand it, this particular test is still largely counted by eye under a microscope by the path. lab at my local hospital, something that really ought to be able to be automated, which would speed up the process."

That's odd, I worked on a computer platelet counting thingy back in the 1980s.

[Peter Gathercole]

Re: @Dwarf

I know.

Maybe my hospital never justified the cost of the right machine, or maybe they're coming up with excuses as to why it takes so long to get the results back.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Dwarf

Thanks for comment. I have worked in the Blood science labs for >30y and can confirm that blood counts are performed by automated analysers in over 99% of labs. Occasionally some patients present with platelets that clump together causing the automation to under estimate the number. In these cases a scientist/ Haematlogist will review the film by hand. This could explain your position.

I left the NHS in 2020 by which time the hospital I worked in had moved over to a new site wide system which seems to be a step forward (provided it’s maintained correctly….)

[Drew Scriver]

Re: @Dwarf

It shouldn't be that hard to use pattern matching to count platelets. It could even number the platelets right in the image them for human verification.

[gandalfcn]

Weren't they just following government instructions?

[Martin M]

Consent?

It would be interesting to understand how consent was obtained for data sharing, given the well documented problems with obtaining this at national level. Particularly for GOSH.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Consent?

From my thin understanding, as soon as you anonymise data then it is no longer personally identifiable, so it's no longer "you". GDPR isn't specific about anonymisation but a working group has pointed out that the act of anonymising data is "legitimate interest" because it's for the benefit of the data controller (GOSH) and the subject (patient).

Whether the patients knew what they were signing up for is another matter, all this legalese isn't in plain English and T&C and Privacy Policies tend to be huge. I doubt they knew and for many, I doubt they care.

Caldicott Guardians and NHS data protection impact assessments are pretty robust and in this case AI doesn't need identifiable data to function and you can't retrieve individual patient records from a model. From a personal information protection standpoint, that's as good as it gets.

Anon because I know enough but not expert.

[Peter Gathercole]

Re: Consent?

It's been shown several times that given enough different data, some 'anonymized', and some public domain, it's easy enough to de-anonymize the data to the point where you can re-construct information that is useful to the large data consumers, and possibly damaging to the data subjects.

This is something that does not seem to get through to the admins. and politicians.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Consent?

That's true; in the same way that you're never really anonymous and that your information is already out there. I wish that the powers that be (NCSC rather than the ICO [1]) set out specific guidelines as to what point a record is anonymous. Is clearing name, DoB, address, email, contact numbers etc enough or do you need to anonymise the fact that they visited their GP called X on 1st of March 2022?

Regarding AI however, no amount of fusing different sources can retrieve individual records from a trained neural network. Training is a one way process and you lose the individuality of training data.

1. https://ico.org.uk/media/1061/anonymisation-code.pdf

[Peter Gathercole]

Re: Consent?

Yes, I know. but when you look at the output from the neural net, you rarely get to see the source data, merely what has been deduced from it.

But the data being fed into the neural net. That is the concern, because that is likely to be able to be de-anonymized.

If the AI was running inside the NHS systems, and only the output from the AI got sent outside, I would be a lot less worried. But these companies are being given the raw anonymized data, so that is where the risk is. Once they have that, although they will be subject contract clauses, currently the GDPR does not cover the anonymized data, although that may not be true of any synthesized de-anonymized data they create.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Consent?

It was shown years ago that it is possible to identify people with quite small amounts of information in a dataset. Social media and search history can be used to find likely individuals because if you have a particular medical condition you are likely to have searched the symptoms, medications support groups etc etc. With health data there are lots of clues that can be followed.

Which is why anyone handling health data has to meet incredibly onerous security and restrictive usage criteria. Which is how it should be. Curiously on occasion NHS developed apps/tools don't meet the bar set for commercial providers but continue to be used anyway.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Consent?

Side note, but "legitimate interest" needs to die, get changed, or if applicable fines need to be levied.

I'm flabbergasted at the amount of websites that seem to employ Legitimate Interest as some kind of get-out-of-jail card.

There are pages where it's unclear that saying "Reject all" actually rejects all or only rejects consent, while not changing the default value of "legitimate interest" from Accept.

What the hell is the legitimate interest from third party vendors in stuff like:

"Create a personalised ads profile

A profile can be built about you and your interests to show you personalised ads that are relevant to you."

And what changes depending on having consent, only legitimate interest access or nothing at all?

[OhForF']

Re: Consent?

When our elected representatives have an interest in acquiring the data they usually make it easier for us to get the benefits of the great program by tossing out the usual rules and make participation opt out.

Only mean-spirited people would think it might not be our best interest they have in mind ....

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Consent?

Where do "our elected representatives" come into this?

[OhForF']

Re: Consent?

Well they make the laws, normally requiring informed consent but seem to make laws that allow organisations like NHS to switch to opt out.

At least where i live they made special laws for electronic medical records resulting in everyone automatically being enrolled in the system and making it complicated to opt out.

I'd assumed the NHS data grab resulted from similar special rules created by your representatives. I might of course be wrong and they just use a creative argument to collect the data for "legitimate interest" reasons.

[Peter Gathercole]

Re: Consent?

For data kept by the NHS, there are already exceptions in GDPR that allow them to keep more data than you might think without consent. But GDPR does apply to any data sold or even given to an external company.

This is why it should be completely transparent who has received even anonymized data. But I don't think that these safeguards exist, which is why there should be an opt-out to keep your data away from this process.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Consent?

And where's their "interest"?

[Halfmad]

Heads should roll

I am not a fan of cancel culture or firing for the sake of it but there are serious ethical issues at these hospitals and arguably compounded by financial incompetence.

You could argue that it was an exchange and not purchase - but I'd argue that value was purchased with patient information, highly unethical and is in financial reports = it's been bought somehow, exchange of goods.

ICO should have it's big boots on and the boards need clearing out.

[Warm Braw]

Re: Heads should roll

Regrettably, we've seen similar problems in local authorities that have invested (and lost) real money in a whole variety of speculative commercial ventures (from property developments to electricity retailers).

While it's easy to criticise, what's fundamentally behind this is a chronic shortage of funding (which is why 43 hospitals have roofs that could collapse at any minute and social care is increasingly unavailable to those who need it) that is leading managers to seek other sources of income, sometimes unwisely and sometimes with tacit encouragement from central government.

Public services need more money and if we're not prepared to give them it while still insisting they operate they will increasingly be driven to find it in other ways.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ICO should have it's big boots on and the boards need clearing out.

big boots, ICO? More like big boobs and a cushy chair :(

[T 7]

Re: Heads should roll

Oxford has not had a lot of good luck with Information Officers:

A former chief information officer has admitted a charge of fraud after lying about having a degree, a court has heard.

Peter Knight, 53, was chief information and digital officer at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust from August 2016 until September 2018.

[Andy E]

Shoddy reporting

This is just sensationalism and widely distorting the truth. The various trusts didn't actually pay any money for the shares. They provided data and in return were given some shares which are now pretty much worthless. THEY HAVE NOT LOST ANY MONEY. You could summarize it as they were tricked into giving away data for free but even that's a distortion of the facts.

[OhForF']

Re: Shoddy reporting

Do you although consider it a distortion of facts to say they gave away (allegedly anonymized) data for something that has no real value to them?

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Shoddy reporting

You missed "tricked" from your quote. There is no evidence that the company's management intended to collapse the company. If they had then "tricked" might well apply. As far as can be seen the trusts were participating in a development that could be of use to them in their everyday operations. It's entirely possible that they might have participated in that without the offer of shares.

The complicating factor here seems to have been that the shares were listed and hence received a value that had to be entered into the accounts. If that were not the case then they could have been entered with a nominal value reflecting the cost of the effort needed to prepare the data for sharing. That is the actual cash loss which has been incurred here.

[OhForF']

Re: Shoddy reporting

I agree with you that they didn't loose any money as they never received any and still have the shares (even though they are not worth much to them).

That is ignoring the value of the data that was handed over. Generally data is said to be the new oil and considered valuable.

Personally i think it is a bit of a stretch to say the data has no value as they might have given it away for free.

If they had participated by sharing their data for free (or for the cost of making it available) arguing its good for everyone to develop something useful to healthcare there wouldn't be any discussion of lost money.

There would probably a discussion if the public benefit outweighs the data subjects right to privacy in this case and whether its fine to give the data to selected startups instead of making it available to all researches.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: That is ignoring the value of the data that was handed over.

value of the shares collapsed to nil while the value of the data...not exactly nil, is it? So where is this data now, by the way? Dutifully destroyed as per legal requirements? Shipping towards ebay hdd section (opened, never used)? At a carefully selected busines partners' datacentre, waiting for the dust to settle, while the plebs move on, nothing to see here?

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Shoddy reporting

"That is ignoring the value of the data that was handed over. "

The hospital trusts still have the data and hence the value if there's value to be extracted. What happens to the copy the company has (and at least some trusts seem not to have handed any over) or what constraints accompanied it we haven't been told.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Shoddy reporting

The new CEO has said that the company shouldn't be valued on the turnover but on the' value of the data' that they hold that can be applied to developing solutions for life sciences and big Pharma, It's in a statement on their website.

Also, if you take the time to read the reports around the financial instruments used by the private equity companies who stepped in to 'rescue' the company, you will see that the 'pancaked' shareholders will never recover a realistic value from their shareholding.

[Falmari]

Re: Shoddy reporting

Technically they have not lost money as they exchanged data for shares. But that data had a monetary value as it was exchanged for shares that had a monetary value. If the trusts failed to sell the shares which are now worthless as they cannot be traded, then they have lost money.

If you exchange something of value for something else of value that subsequently turns out to be worthless then you have lost money. The money you would have got if you had sold your something of value.

The trusts that got shares for data showed those shares as assets with a value £x in their financial reports last year. This year’s financials won’t show assets with a value of £x as they now have a value of £0. So they have lost money.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Shoddy reporting

But has the data "gone"? I presume that anything the NHS handed over can't be valued as assets for purposes of liquidating whatever is left of the company. As pointed out above the loss is in the effort required by NHS staff to generate the data sets from their existing systems. If another more successful startup comes along that can use it, and hand over equity or other value, then even that may not be a complete loss (though I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear it has all been deleted and a new version would need to start from scratch).

I don't know whether this was a good idea that didn't pan out or a bad idea from the start, but not all startups will go on, so the key thing must be to insulate the public purse (NHS) from any losses, and make sure it is the investors who are taking the gamble.

[maffski]

Re: Shoddy reporting

The company isn't being closed. It's simply being delisted from the public exchange. The NHS trusts are having to list them as zero value as there is no public price for them to trade at, they could still be sold but it would be up to the trust to find a buyer and agree a price.

So this is mostly just a quirk of the accounting process. They haven't lost millions, mainly because they never had those millions to start with.

Or, in other words. The article is clickbait.

[Graham Cobb]

Re: Shoddy reporting

Of course they never had that money to start with. But due to the stupidity of the CEO and CFO of the trusts, the trusts have lost millions. They should never have accepted the shares in the first place - they should have demanded cash.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Shoddy reporting

To summarise: the trusts have lost money they never had. I too have lost millions I never had.

[J.G.Harston]

Re: Shoddy reporting

And surely the NHS still has the data. It's been copied, not moved. It's not Star Trek where copying data destroys the source.

[Falmari]

Re: Shoddy reporting

@AC "But has the data "gone"?"

No The trusts will still have their own copy of the data. But the company has not gone bust they still have the data and can use it. The company may go bust and be bought up by someone else. Now not sure what the deal was about data use, but the trusts have been paid for the data just what they were paid in is now worthless, the data could pass to the purchaser the company.

Now I don't buy into the view that if you sell something digital and don't get paid for it you have not lost anything as you still have the original. I am sure if my company sold software and did not get payed for it they would register the retail value as the loss.

Also is the data may now not be worth as much, as there is already a copy out there.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Shoddy reporting

"The company may go bust and be bought up by someone else."

Bought from whom?

Yup, that's right, the shareholders who just happen to include the trusts.

[Falmari]

Re: Shoddy reporting

@ Doctor Syntax"Yup, that's right, the shareholders who just happen to include the trusts."

You mean those cash strapped trusts, what would they buy it with, more patient data or taxpayer's money?

I sure they may be some companies interested in buying up on the cheap a company involved in medical AI and has patient data.

[John Smith 19]

So a large block of UK citizens sensitive personal data (In the GDPR sense) is out there

But not to worry everybody as it's been "Annonymized"

I think you'll find that is worth considerably more (to the right players) than whatever share promises they issued to the hospitals to get it.

I smell bait, followed by switch.

[Commswonk]

Re: So a large block of UK citizens sensitive personal data (In the GDPR sense) is out there

I think you'll find that is worth considerably more (to the right players) than whatever share promises they issued to the hospitals to get it.

Quite. I would like to think that the deal was that the hospitals would provide the data, but that it would remain "NHS property" at all times and that the organisation to which they gave access would have no title to it whatsoever - i.e. it could not be sold on or otherwise disposed of to any third party.

OK, OK, hopeless optimism...

[Anonymous Coward]

As others have pointed out the "lost" money is far less interesting than finding out what has happened to any data transferred.

And how it was anonymized, who has it, how it can be secured, who oversees that etc. etc.

Oh, and of course as a favour journalists might include employment history, supposed skills and expertises, and other applicable information on the people in charge of this - as surely they'll be looking for jobs in the near future...?!

[Anonymous Coward]

journalists might include employment history, supposed skills and expertises,

and names, full names. But hey, we can't do that, this information is anonymized, and so is accountability.

[anothercynic]

All conspiracy theorists take a step back from their keyboard

Here's the TL;DR on this:

1. Sensyne (Drayson) wanted to work on AI stuff for the medical sector. So far, so good.

2. OUH NHS trust and GOSH both were interested in this (because a) Oxford is always interested in advances in science and b) GOSH is always trying to make pediatric medical things better for their ultimate charges, the kids). So far, so good.

3. Sensyne says "we'll need some funding to do this, and we'll need data to train the AI" (note the mentions of a 'funding round'). OUH and GOSH go "we have data, but it'll cost ya". Sensyne points at the "we'll need money" statement. OUH and GOSH say "well, if you give us shares, you can have the data" (or maybe Sensyne said "we'll give you shares if you give us the data" - the end result is the same). So far, so good, because both trusts have a decent history where this is concerned.

4. Sensyne fails in their quest (or appears to fail in their quest, or is burning money left right and centre in the quest). They get delisted. They're *not* dead, but the shares are practically worthless.

5. OUH and GOSH write off this 'investment' they obtained by bartering data for shares.

6. Sensyne is *NOT DEAD*. It's *shares* are flatlining and it's been delisted, but the company hasn't gone into administration or gone bankrupt. They *DO* still have the data.

7. Yes, OUH and GOSH *have* lost money. The investment they got was in exchange for data. They should've gotten cold hard cash for it, they didn't. They took a stab at what could've, if Sensyne's quest had delivered a great result, turned into quite a good cash return (especially if Sensyne had gone and then sold itself to someone big). But, they failed, they haven't sold themselves, their shares are worthless, and thus OUH and GOSH's grand idea *also* failed.

8. GOSH and OUH *could* buy it back, and throw more good money after bad (but get their data back). They could buy Sensyne, terminate it, and get their data back. Either way, they would be throwing more money away, *actual* money, not "here's some imaginary value that needs to sit in an accounting column somewhere" money. No public money has gone anywhere (unless this point happens).

the end.

[Graham Cobb]

Re: All conspiracy theorists take a step back from their keyboard

No public money has gone anywhere

But, unfortunately, it has. Entirely through the stupidity of the Trusts' senior management. The money never existed, but was put on the balance sheet as though it did! For several years it seems that budgets were set, plans were made and projects funded on the basis that it existed.

And then it disappeared - because it never really existed. I am sure it was just stupidity, not fraud. But I would expect to see the responsible executives (CEOs and CFOs of the Trusts) resign, and the auditors be pressed hard to explain why they allowed it to happen.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: All conspiracy theorists take a step back from their keyboard

"Entirely through the stupidity of the Trusts' senior management. The money never existed, but was put on the balance sheet as though it did!"

IANAA but I'd expect that there are accounting rules saying that the value of the shares had to go on the balance sheet just like the value of the buildings, the furniture, the contents of the pharmacy and everything else. If they hadn't done that the shit would really have hit the fan when the auditors discovered the fact.

[Vometia has insomnia. Again.]

Re: All conspiracy theorists take a step back from their keyboard

OUH NHS trust and GOSH both were interested in this (because a) Oxford is always interested in advances in science

Meh. OUH is my local NHS "provider" and it couldn't be more regressive in its approach to... well, everything tbh. Having previously dealt with their managers I'd say it's entirely reasonable to come to the worst possible conclusion about their intentions.

[JimC]

Re: They should've gotten cold hard cash for it,

Was cold hard cash available to be had? I doubt it. And certainly the amount of cold hard cash they could have got would be a fraction of what the shares could have been worth if the gamble had paid off.

[Graham Cobb]

Re: They should've gotten cold hard cash for it,

Someone (a gambler) would have paid something for their shares. Probably not very much, but that was the exact value to the NHS trust - not the speculative value. We don't pay NHS managers to gamble on the stock market, we pay them manage life-saving organisations with stability and predictability. They should resign and the auditors should be replaced.

[Graham Cobb]

NHS trusts gambling on the horses next?

Since when have NHS Trusts been allowed to gamble? AIM-quoted shares are an extremely risky asset and the Trust accounts should have been heavily qualified by the directors and auditors as not a suitable investment for such an institution. If they accepted the shares at all they should have been immediately sold for cash and not held.

There should be an official enquiry into how these shares ever appeared on these balance sheets as an asset. Have the Finance Directors who allowed the shares to be included in the annual report been disciplined?

Venture capitalists tell us they assume 9-in-10 of their backed companies will fail but 1-in-10 will make more than 10x gains. That is fine if your business is being a venture capitalist. It is not fine if your business is running a health service and, what's more, you are only holding shares in a single high-risk company!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: NHS trusts gambling on the horses next?

"Have the Finance Directors who allowed the shares to be included in the annual report been disciplined?"

Surely they got big bonusses for the effect on the bottom line of the report!

Such is the way.

[midgepad]

For actual value,

Licenced redistributable source code might have had some.

[Il'Geller]

Conclusion: don't want to lose money? Then follow my technology, up to the creation of synonymous clusters. Then all the lexical noise will go away and you will be able to instantly find the required information, in its context and subtexts (definitions of the meaning and part of speech for words, based on a common English dictionary).

It is also necessary to create user profiles as filters, for phrases and words from the search phrase.

It is also necessary to create user profiles as filters of phrases and words from the search phrase.

I think that these companies did not comply with the technology and did not use a dictionary.

[YetAnotherXyzzy]

There is a phrase in the financial world, "investment grade". It seems irresponsible for the administrators of a charitable trust to be putting money, valuable data, or even merely their scarce time, into anything that isn't investment grade. Leave the gambling to the gamblers, particularly if you are a charitable trust.

[Il'Geller]

These guys most likely didn't use the right technology: a dictionary costs at least $10 million, and it's been done for at least around a year. AI is not programming.

[Anonymous Coward]

The shares started with no value, and ended with no value. How did they lose anything?

[Il'Geller]

The main thing is that after many, many years you have understood what AI is and also see its technology. And also that AI makes Philosophy a science, by bringing a number into it; which levels out everything that the British aristacrocy did, such as Lord Russell and Professor Moore. The Russian Jew put them in their place, which is very, very unpleasant, unpresentable and low.

Everything else is such nonsense and rubbish! Philosophy has become a science! The AI was created.

[Graham Cobb]

They ran their business, spent real money, borrowed money and created future plans and commitments as though the money existed. That spending has been made and will have to be replaced with real money, or plans and projects discontinued. The money spent on projects that have been cancelled, or the borrowing needed to replace the missing assets, is lost.