糖心视频

For much of the past decade, Silicon Valley chased software and apps. was investing elsewhere: in semiconductors, quantum computing, robotics and energy infrastructure. Now, as AI drives a scramble for chips, power and data-center capacity, Playground co-founder believes the venture industry is finally returning to the physical technologies it neglected.

“Silicon Valley has done very well with software, but while software was eating the world, they forgot about silicon,” Barrett told Crunchbase News in an interview.

The firm recently closed a $475 million fund focused on investing in deep-tech startups at seed and Series A. In the decade-plus since its founding, it has built its investment thesis around the idea that breakthroughs in science and engineering 鈥� not just software 鈥� would create the next generation of valuable companies.

With demand surging for compute, semiconductors and energy, Barrett argues the rest of the industry is now catching up. “We’ve been at it for more than a decade,” he said. “In recent years, as AI is eating software, people are scrambling back to recognize that the energy, semiconductors and infrastructure they operate on all need capital too. We’ve been operating in that regime for a very long time.”

Barrett is originally from Australia and came to Silicon Valley in the 1980s. He’s been coding for 50 years, he said, after developing an early and deep respect for science and engineering as the child of two engineers. His childhood was steeped in punch cards, draftsmen and drawings of control systems and machinery, he said.

鈥淪cience lets you follow breadcrumbs from prehistoric plumage to semiconductors. One principle can be applied somewhere orthogonal and create extraordinary value,鈥� Barrett said in a lengthy interview with Crunchbase News.

Barrett went on to found video game developer , joined to build the entertainment browser acquired by , and was subsequently CTO at prior to co-founding Playground Global in 2015.

Playground Global operates a lab in the former Palo Alto Research Building in Palo Alto, California. The location hosts 350 people, including those working at its portfolio companies and others with adjacencies working from the lab.

On a recent visit to the warehouse, I saw various models of robots, materials for aerospace construction, and a model of building powerful lasers to increase the speed of semiconductor manufacturing. The quantum computing startup , a Playground portfolio company, moved in when it had three employees and moved out when it reached 90.

The firm has four general partners. Along with Barrett, they are , the former CEO of and who architected CPUs at Intel that helped computing take off at scale, and who joined the Playground team last year as a general partner specializing in semiconductors; , who has made many investments in biotech, including ; and co-founder , who led the investment in .

What follows are highlights from a wide-ranging interview with Barrett that covered topics including sovereign technology, the need to invest in companies that operate on the physical plane, and why he believes putting data centers in space is stupid.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

Gen茅 Teare: What is the thesis for Playground Global?

Peter Barrett: It is about reducing new results in science and engineering into commercial and societal value. That means operating at the boundary between computation and the physical world. We are very interested in new capabilities of computation driving civilization forward, and that inevitably means operating in the same physical plane that we live in.

We’re seeing in our data a huge amount of funding going into space, semiconductors and robotics. It seems as if the whole venture industry has pivoted to this much broader array of companies. Do you see that as a good thing?

Barrett: We lost a lot when people weren’t investing in things that strike us as important. It is good that there is capital chasing the things we care about and that have real consequence.

You can鈥檛 spin up a deep-tech practice overnight. You still need domain expertise. You still need to understand why investing in nuclear reactors is good, and why data centers in space are preposterous.

Silicon Valley hasn’t been very efficient with much of the capital it’s deployed over the past decade or so. But I do think it’s good that people recognize that software may be eating the world, but you can’t eat software. We have to operate in the physical layer.

Do you think Silicon Valley gets more efficient?

Barrett: We need to do the work. You develop the instincts and the platform to deploy capital efficiently into these places.

It’s important that people recognize there’s this unprecedented funnel of technical change. AI is an early indicator of it, but we have technologies like quantum. We know how to produce computation using things beyond transistors and semiconductors.

We’re scratching the surface in terms of AI models. We’re right at the beginning of an explosion and renaissance in materials science driven by things like quantum computing.

Now would be the time 鈥� and candidly, I feel the imperative 鈥� that anywhere there is science and capital, it needs to be turned into value, especially in liberal democracies, because the despots are doing a pretty good job of it. It’s incumbent on us to stay ahead.

We’re in the DOS age of AI. We’re scratching the surface, both in terms of the models we make and the hardware we run them on.

Now would be the time for people to write checks into things that are sensible and valuable. We spent a lot of time on NFTs. How are we doing with cancer? How are we doing with our most difficult challenges in terms of healing and feeding the world?

There are lots of new degrees of freedom that could take capital and turn it into value.

Do you think deep tech fits the venture thesis, despite the long time horizons and the amount of capital it requires?

Barrett: The long time horizons certainly exist. If you’re building PsiQuantum, we’re building million-qubit quantum machines. That takes billions of dollars and a decadal effort.

The corollary is that we’ve had hardware exits in two years. The timelines for hardware aren’t necessarily that different from software.

Therapeutics naturally take a longer time, because of clinical trials. But we’ve also seen exits there. One of our companies tested half a million drugs in a single animal and created a new corpus of AI input for building models to create therapeutics. That’s not a decadal effort 鈥� that’s a handful of years before exit.

We try to craft a portfolio that’s a mix of tactical and strategic. Some of these companies get to hundreds of millions in revenue within a few years. Others, like PsiQuantum or , may take a decade to reach full entitlement. That’s part of portfolio construction.

The biology company you mentioned 鈥斅爓hat’s its name?

Barrett: . It did the largest pharma deal of its kind last year with . The deal could be worth $2 billion on the back end.

It’s a unique mechanism to create giant AI training sets by using physical systems 鈥� using animals and in vivo testing to create that dataset. It affords the ChatGPT and biology moment, where you can have large enough training sets to build big models.

You describe the firm as investing somewhere between improbable and impossible. Are there companies that really fit that thesis when you first met them?

Barrett: When we first met PsiQuantum, they were talking about building a machine which was 10,000x the state of the art. Using then-current technologies, it would have been the size of the Sierra Nevadas.

They required exponential improvements in both hardware and software, and they’ve achieved both. It’s the size of a warehouse, not a laptop.

The work we’re doing in biology, materials, quantum algorithms and superconducting logic 鈥� which will replace transistors and semiconductors 鈥� all of these things sound like science fiction, but they’re much closer to improbable. In many cases they’re entirely practical before we invest; they just seem improbable to those unfamiliar with the domain.

There are things that are not impossible but are still really dumb 鈥� data centers in space, small modular reactors (SMRs), or fusion. The physics may work, but the economics don’t, or the timelines don’t align.

I’m disappointed we haven’t invested in anything that turned out to be more impossible than we thought. None of our portfolio companies failed because the technology didn’t work.

We’ve had capitalization failures. We flew hydrogen planes. We’ve built things that were thought to be virtually impossible that turned out to be straightforward. They may have missed their market or may have been unable to raise the capital to continue.

I want to do something where the technology doesn’t work, and we鈥檝e yet to do one of those.

Is there a company you missed out on where it looked impossible and you wish you’d invested?

Barrett: I wish I hadn’t taken ‘s word for it when was a non-profit.

We haven鈥檛 missed many. As the roadmap developed, we wish we had been earlier in a couple of categories that are really interesting. But overall, we haven’t missed too many.

In which sectors or companies have you invested where the time horizons have shortened due to AI?

Barrett: Adding Pat Gelsinger to the team reflects an interest in scaling semiconductors along various dimensions, including energy efficiency and how power is delivered.

We do everything from nuclear reactors all the way through to transmission, energy conversion outside the data center, inside the data center, under the chip, what kinds of chips you鈥檙e running, what models run on top of those chips, what architectures those chips are made from, and what materials those chips are made from.

At every layer of the infrastructure 鈥� optical interconnects, memory systems 鈥� we have a best-in-class company at every point. We built the first AI accelerator a decade ago, and we鈥檝e broadened that to encompass the entire ecosystem, from the creation of electrons to how they expend themselves doing useful software work.

There are bubbly aspects of the current AI moment, but the bubble is being modulated to some degree by the unavailability of energy.

We鈥檙e in the DOS age of AI. LLMs are embarrassingly incompetent compared to what comes next, but we believe in the durability and growth of AI, and are making investments in model architectures and the ways AIs are trained. We see demand for compute, energy and infrastructure continuing to grow.

We have technologies that can reduce general-purpose compute workloads by 100x to 1,000x over state of the art. We believe we know how to make the energy and deliver it. We know how to connect these systems.

So quixotic pursuits like putting data centers in space are unnecessary.

Talking privately to hyperscalers and Fortune 50 companies, they all say there is way more demand for AI in its future incarnation than exists today. It鈥檚 incumbent on us to figure out how to do it 100x, 1,000x or 10,000x more efficiently, because that demand turns into GDP growth and better solutions to our hardest problems.

What are the companies in energy and semiconductors that you are betting on?

Barrett: One example is the wild superconducting logic company . We can make things that are post-semiconductor and post-transistor, with devices that switch five orders of magnitude more efficiently than transistors.

They operate at cryogenic temperatures, but quantum computers do that, and our extreme ultraviolet lithography system does that. The future of computation is cryogenic. Even after you pay to make it cold, you鈥檙e still 100x to 1,000x more energy-efficient on compute.

This technology has been around since last century, but it鈥檚 mainly been used for secure signals intelligence and radar applications. We鈥檙e generalizing it for compute.

Another example is . People talk about SMRs, which are a physics solution to a financial problem, or fusion, which is still decades away. Alva instead operates the existing nuclear fleet to get hundreds of megawatts out of each unit by replacing 1970s steam generators with a 2020 steam generator.

We can deliver power in a handful of years. No new fuel, no new regulatory path, and a business model that makes sense for operators. We can put gigawatts onto the grid without moving a fence line of an existing reactor and without upgrades to the electricity grid.

We know how to make AI training wildly more efficient. We know how to train different kinds of AI models that we鈥檝e been unable to train.

The last supercomputer at uses something unlike a CPU or GPU to run existing software. We鈥檝e been running software the same way for 70 years, but there are other ways, with dataflow architectures. We have a company doing that 鈥� [].

The degrees of freedom from materials, systems, code and models have never been greater. We鈥檙e exploring all of them. But most require rolling your sleeves up in the physical world.

LLMs feel like brute-forcing something 鈥� like a drunk looking for keys under the streetlight. We鈥檙e pushing more and more into that, and I think that鈥檚 a dead end. We know other ways of moving forward.

Are you seeing new model companies, separate from LLMs, that are going to solve things?

Barrett: Our brains are not LLMs. They鈥檙e not transformers. Transformers are effective, but they are one of a long line of soon-to-be-extinct models that get replaced by something that works better.

That millionfold gap between our brains and GPUs is an architectural gap. Meat is much worse at computation than hardware can be, so biology shouldn鈥檛 be better.

Physics allows a million times a million more efficiency, and we should start chipping away at that.

Intelligence is useful and can be pressed into service against basic things like photosynthesis. Plants were invented by accident of evolution 3 billion years ago. They鈥檙e pretty, but not efficient. They shouldn鈥檛 be green; they should be black. We know how to make photosynthesis twice as efficient, and probably 5x more efficient.

We鈥檙e not stuck with the physical constraints of our technology or of nature. Nature is beautiful, but cobbled together by a process that we can have agency over.

All the materials that operate our civilization are discovered, not designed, because we can鈥檛 design things we can鈥檛 simulate. Our best computers cannot simulate the quantum nature of nature. That鈥檚 about to change.

We鈥檙e stumbling around in the dark, relying on serendipity and the occasional magical material. Whereas we can construct any number of materials with magical properties that are currently hidden from us by our inability to simulate the quantum mechanical processes that animate chemistry.

We are right on that threshold of unlocking all of these dimensions. And at the same time, we鈥檙e putting money into NFTs, the metaverse and other things that will come and go, without anybody ever caring.

Are you talking about the mix of quantum with biology and model-focused companies?

Barrett: Quantum allows us to directly design materials, directly explore the method of action of drugs, and directly design drugs.

AI has a role to play in biology and understanding structures we can measure. We think there are quantum wet labs where we can measure the performance of small-molecule drugs against models of nature and then verify in nature.

We don鈥檛 know how many things that animate our industry actually work. We don鈥檛 know how Tylenol works. We don鈥檛 know how the Type II superconductors we鈥檙e building fusion reactors out of work. We know that if you take iron and nitrogen and arrange them in a certain way, they produce magnets stronger than rare earth magnets, but we don鈥檛 know why.

There are mysterious things we鈥檝e stumbled across that hint at an Aladdin鈥檚 cave locked behind a wall of computation. That wall is coming down.

Which sectors do you think are going to take a lot longer to come to fruition?

Barrett: Civilization will operate on fusion eventually, but right now the only reactor that works using gravimetric confinement is the sun. I think that鈥檚 a long way off.

Data centers in space are stupid. You can鈥檛 operate a gigawatt data center in a thermos. We have terrestrial answers to those questions that we should pursue.

I鈥檝e always been a detractor of self-driving cars, which are starting to work. Now we need an economic model that makes them sensible and doesn鈥檛 drown our cities. The problem with transportation in cities is not the degree of autonomy. If we cared about traffic deaths, we鈥檇 worry about roundabouts.

There鈥檚 also nonsense with NFTs and the metaverse which have sopped up enormous amounts of capital. Small amounts of capital using these tools against our most difficult diseases would yield results. Small modular reactors are an unwarranted innovation.

There are lots of things that, at first blush, seem good and valuable, but there are far better solutions that are simpler and more imminent. We need to be practical about where the money goes.

There was a company that just joined the 糖心视频, valued over $1 billion this past month, doing orbital data centers. Are you saying this whole category doesn鈥檛 make sense?

Barrett: To his credit, will show you a picture of what a 100-kilowatt data center looks like, and it鈥檚 bigger than Starship. A 100-kilowatt is a small rack from that is human-sized.

The arguments are that there are a lot of renewables in space. But there are a lot of renewables on the ground too. North Western Australia has solar and wind that are 70% naturally firm, and on the ground, so you can build things on it.

Put a data center in North Western Australia, which we are doing. We have a renewable site 35x the size of Manhattan.

Energy generation and compute in space is a nonstarter because space is not cold. You鈥檙e building things in a thermos and need to get rid of heat. A single human-sized rack is 100 kilowatts, which is about the size of the International Space Station鈥檚 radiators and solar panels.

Starship has yet to actually put anything in orbit. It鈥檚 made some fireworks, which are pretty, and it鈥檚 a beautiful thing. is an amazing company because of Falcon 9 and Starlink. But data centers and power generation in space makes no sense.

We know how to build arbitrary amounts of energy generation on the ground with very safe, very large nuclear reactors. We鈥檝e been doing it for decades.

For all the talent and genius rattling around the Valley, we do spend money on silly things.

Do you think now is the most exciting time to be investing, or have some of those investments already been made and are going to come to fruition?

Barrett: We鈥檝e already made investments in things on a really steep trajectory.

Snowcap will take a decade before we鈥檙e building GPUs with that technology, but we鈥檒l have commercial product from them next year. We鈥檙e getting better at early, undeniable signals.

PsiQuantum is a long journey, but some things just take that amount of time.

X-Lite seems like a ridiculously long journey, although we鈥檙e building the prototype facility now, and it received the first money from the new CHIPS Act.

Some hardware companies making silicon or systems are getting significant revenue in a handful of years.

There鈥檚 a sleeper in Fund I. Its first trick was to make MRI machines 100,000x more sensitive, and they鈥檙e shipping those. In the background they鈥檝e also been developing that core physics to build a new quantum computing modality. So we actually have two quantum computing companies in Fund I.

Even though that鈥檚 a 10-year-old company, there are about to be two companies, one of which will be a unicorn virtually overnight.

There are wild things bubbling under the surface that people are going to wonder where they came from.

Companies like 鈥� the only co-packaged optics on TSMC 鈥� we鈥檝e been working on that for a long time. Now people are waking up to silicon photonics and co-packaged optics.

There are also stealth companies that are indistinguishable from magic. Some of those will come out of stealth this summer.

Is there anything we haven鈥檛 chatted about that you think is worth noting?

Barrett: It鈥檚 a sobering note, but globally there is a need and desire for sovereign capability in tech 鈥� in Western Europe, Australia, Canada and elsewhere.

There are extraordinary pools of capital, pension funds and Australia鈥檚 superannuation fund. Given the things we can invest in, globally the West needs to do a better job translating that capital into societal and economic value.

The safety and durability of liberal democracies depends on creating wealth and staying ahead.

We see a resurgent desire to do that in Europe and Australia. Around those pools of capital, there鈥檚 ambition. We need to drive that ecosystem globally, not just in the U.S.

The pace of innovation in Ukraine, driven by need, is indicative of changes that can be made in parts of the world less friendly to the tenets we hold dear in liberal democracies.

We can鈥檛 operate under the assumption that everybody clever lives in Palo Alto or that we can only invest in things we can drive to. We need to deploy capital globally, and we do. We鈥檙e going to do more of that.

Do you feel encouraged by the amount of infrastructure build-out that鈥檚 going to happen over the next few years? It feels like it will create a boom in all sorts of technologies because the drive for efficiency will become much stronger.

Barrett: LLMs are not the end. We鈥檒l run LLMs on these data centers initially, but we鈥檒l run their descendants and other more useful things on these machines and on quantum machines.

It鈥檚 going to be hard to overbuild because computation is incredibly useful. There鈥檚 no upper bound. We鈥檙e not in a Malthusian zero-sum game for resources.

We know how to make everything more productive. We know how to grow GDP arbitrarily large. But we need food, energy and medicine there, and we need to normalize the distribution of wealth.

There is unbounded abundance we can unlock if we spend capital on the right things. We know how to do much more of that than people suspect.

The fact that sensible people are considering data centers in space indicates they鈥檙e not paying attention to the things we already have in hand that can move the needle.

We do need compute in space. We need AIs in space, sensing in space, and Starlink is great. But we need to use technologies that make sense, not try to make skyscrapers out of toothpicks.

Crunchbase queries:

Related reading:

• Sector Snapshot: Quantum Computing Startup Investment Slows In 2026 While Public Markets Hold Strong
• Sector Snapshot: Semiconductor Startup Funding Still Running Hot

Illustration: