How many PRs you think are going to get

pushed to the core structural internet

in 100 days? What's the overunder

number? Cuz I'll give you a number.

>> You're going to say zero. My my answer

to that is

>> I'll say like 10,000. But it's going to

be immediately

>> if it prevents your browser history from

being released to everybody in the

world, Chamath, that may be something

that you're willing to, you know, let

100 days pass on.

>> I think you got Chimat's attention when

you said browser history.

>> What about the dickpicks?

>> Chamat is he's going to release them

himself.

We'll let your winners ride.

>> We open source it to the fans and

they've just gone crazy with it. Love

you.

>> All right, everybody. Welcome back to

the number one podcast in the world.

David Freeberg is out this week. But in

his place, the one, the only,

our fifth bestie, Brad Gersonner. I

mean, why don't you ever give me puts a

little namaste in your payday anymore?

You used to be

>> I'm going to bring back the greatest

moderator, but now it's just kind of You

know what? These guys beat me up. They

beat me up and they just beat the the

joy out of me doing this program.

>> It's because you're a Roana apologist

now.

>> No, I We'll get into it. Okay. Save it

for the Roana apologist. just

because I said like, "Hey, they've

stopped maxing and they've

started doing like some logical things."

Uh, yeah. Okay, here we go.

>> It's great to be here. Great to be here.

>> Good to have you. Good to have you here.

And of course, uh, we have David Saxs is

back. Everybody wants to hear from David

Sax. We missed you last week, bestie.

>> We didn't beat the joy out of you. We

just try to beat some of the hot air.

Turn

>> any any fluff that you can put on the

show that just involves you talking and

saying nothing is

>> that's the stuff we got.

>> Turn up. Yeah. Turn up. Okay. Yeah,

we'll cut it right out. Um we'll cut it

out and we'll just put a promo in for

the syndicate.com. Thank you. Also with

us, Jamalet is here.

>> How's your maxing going since

last week? Did you have a a a

maxing full weekend? Did you have a good

full weekend of just smoking cigars in

the back deck and not ruminating about

all the chaos you've caused in the last

20 years?

>> I think I've done generally more good

>> than than not.

>> Oh, you have. But there's been some

chaotic moments. Don't think about it.

>> You can't, bro. You can't have ups

without downs, man. It's like, what are

you there to do? Just like plate

everybody and be a loser? Are you there

to be a winner? Yes, you're in the

arena, but have you stopped going to

therapy after realizing ruminating?

>> What's up with this uh sudden interest

in maxing? Are you like the

clavvicular for maxing?

>> No, the world finally caught up with me.

That's it. What do you I mean, I've been

maxing this whole time. THEY JUST

DIDN'T HAVE A name for it, guys.

>> Wow. Okay. Eli's videos are really good.

I watched two more this week.

What take us through what's so appealing

about not ruminating, smoking a cigar,

and just living your life?

>> Because what he says actually works at

every level of society and every sort of

thing that you may want to achieve. Even

if you're trying to like climb the

rungs,

you very quickly learn that the more you

want something, the less you're going to

get it. And I think that's like his real

message is let go, live life, and just

try stuff or don't try stuff. And I

think that that detachment is really

healthy for people. I like it. I like it

a lot.

>> Who's the guy who says this? I actually

didn't know.

>> Elisha Long. Well, Eli, I think, is how

he goes by.

>> But he's fantastic. He Mark YouTube

channel.

>> Mark Andre found him

>> and he's like, "This is this guy is the

new guy.

>> Modernday philosopher. He gives you a

road map for how to live your life,

right? A new age sage.

>> What's the name of the guy? The

character's name from Dune.

>> I was into girls books. I was dating

girls.

>> He's the Lison Algib of the modern

internet.

>> This is why we need Freeberg here is to

explain these deep holes. All right,

listen. We got a lot to get to. Don't

The basic point is build something and

don't ruminate. Okay, ruminating is just

not worth it. Just everybody go for it.

>> No, just do stuff. Stop blathering in

your own head. Just do stuff.

Absolutely. All right. Listen, speaking

of doing so, Anthropic is withholding

its newest model, Mythos. I'm using the

Greek uh pronunciation, its newest

model, Mythos, uh saying it is far too

dangerous for any of us to have access

to it. According to the company, the

model autonomously found thousands of

vulnerabilities, including bugs in every

major operating system and web browser.

This uh little study they did included

20 year old exploits that had been

missed by security audits for decades.

Uh some examples, they found a 27y old

vulnerability in OpenBSD used in

firewalls and critical infrastructure.

They found a 16-year-old bug in FFmpeg

that was missed by automated tools after

5 million scans. The Linux kernel, all

kinds of uh bugs they found. They

released a hype video hyping up why they

were not going to share this model.

Here's Dario. Come on the program

anytime, brother.

>> But as a side effect of being good at

code, it's also good at cyber.

>> The model that we're experimenting with

is by and large as good as a

professional human at identifying bugs.

It's good for us because we can find

more vulnerabilities sooner and we can

fix them.

>> It has the ability to chain together

vulnerabilities. So what this means is

you find two vulnerabilities, either of

which doesn't really get you very much

independently, but this model is able to

create exploits out of three, four,

sometimes five vulnerabilities that in

sequence give you some kind of very

sophisticated end outcome.

>> All right, Brad, uh, by the way, that

set they're using there, that's the same

room those guys play Dungeons and

Dragons in every Sunday. Brad, you're

Brad, you're an investor in this

company. Is this virtue signaling or is

it reality? Is this a good move by them

to not release this model and be

thoughtful, give it to a handful of

people and just find all the bugs it can

before releasing it to the public? And

we've got a lot more issues to discuss.

>> I I actually think they deserve a ton of

credit here and let me walk you through

why, right? They the company could have

just released Mythos, broken a lot of

core things on the internet. Often times

in Silicon Valley, we say move fast and

break things. In this case, it means

just releasing the model to move further

ahead of your competition. But here the

company realized it would wreak havoc.

They ran their own vulnerability

testing. They saw that it would allow

offensive hacking and people to expose

browsers and browser history, expose

credit cards, you know, on the internet.

So, you know what I like about this is

they didn't need government to hold

their hand on this. We have plenty of

government regulations. They know it's

in the best long-term interest of the

company and the industry, you know. So,

they set up Project Glass Wing. It's an

AIdriven, you know, kind of cyber

coalition. Apple, Microsoft, Google,

Amazon, JP Morgan, 40 of the most

important companies. And their goal is

very simple. Let's spend a 100 days use

advanced AI to find and to fix and to

harden these software vulnerabilities

before hackers exploit them. Now, what I

think this represents, Jason, is a

threshold that we're crossing. Mythos

and Spud, which is going to be out from

OpenAI any day now, which is the first

Blackwell trained model at OpenAI. They

represent the beginning of what I would

call AGI models. These are models with

massive step function improvements and

intelligence. Um, and they're just too

smart to be released immediately,

you know. And by the way, there was

nothing that said that every time you

you finish a model, you got to

immediately release it GA. So they set

up this idea of sandboxing, building

defensive alliances,

you know, in order to move away from

that regime. I I think it shows, and

Saxon and I have talked about this a

lot, so I'm interested to hear what he

thinks. It shows you can trust the

industry and market forces in

coordination with the government. They

were talking to the government about

this. But they're not relying on some

top- down regulation in order to do

this. They laid out a blueprint that

seems to me very pragmatic that now that

we're at this threshold, we're going to

sandbox these things. I think that open

AAI will end up doing the same thing. I

think Google will end up doing the same

thing. It's an aggressive way to keep

the RA, you know, the pressure on and

and win the race at AI while making the

tradeoffs to protect safety. So, you

know, I think you're always going to

have to make these trade-offs. I think

in this case, it was a great move by

Dario and team and I think they deserve

a lot of credit. Sachs, when you look at

this, we had Emil Michael on the program

a couple weeks ago. It might have been

four or five weeks ago, and we had a

very thoughtful discussion about, hey,

if the government is going to have these

tools, you know, an anthropic wants to

withhold them and, you know, what is the

proper relationship there, you have to

think that the government, and I know

you don't speak for all parts of the

government. If you were just going to

run through the game theory, they must

have gone to the government and said,

"Listen, this thing is so powerful, it

can put together two or three hacks,

create a novel attack vector, and this

is incredibly dangerous. What if China

has it? And if this thing is as powerful

as Daario says it is, then this is an

offensive weapon as well for us to take

out, let's just pick, you know, uh, a

pressing issue, the North Korea's

ballistic missile program. This is

equivalent the way it's being described

as the Manhattan project perhaps. So

what are the chances two-part question

for you Sax that China already has this

and is using it and do you think Daario

is doing the right thing by regulating

themselves?

>> I think Anthropic has proven that it's

very good at two things. One is product

releases. The second is scaring people.

And we've seen a pattern in their

previous releases of at the same time

they roll out a new model or new model

card, something like that. They also

roll out some study showing really the

worst possible implication of where the

technology could lead. We saw this last

year about a year ago. They rolled out

this blackmail study where supposedly

the new model could blackmail users.

There's been a whole bunch of these

things. Actually, I went back to Grock

and I just asked, "Hey, give me examples

where Antropic has basically used scare

tactics and it's it's a pattern." Okay,

it's a pattern.

>> Okay,

>> these guys, I'm not saying it's not

sincere, but they have a proven pattern

of using fear as a way to market their

new products. And if you think back to,

again, my favorite example is this

blackmail study where they prompted the

model over 200 times to get the result

they wanted. And that result was was

clearly reverse engineered and it got

them the headlines they wanted. And I

would say the proof that it's reverse

engineered is we're now a year later.

There's a bunch of open- source models

out there that have the same level of

capability that that anthropic model

had. And have you seen any examples of

blackmail in the wild? I don't think so.

So in other words, if that study were

true in the sense of being a likely

outcome of that model, I think you would

see examples in the wild of that

behavior. And we haven't seen any of

that in the past year. Now, let's talk

about this specific example with cyber

hacking.

>> I actually think that this one is more

on the legitimate side. I mean, look,

the reason why I bring this up is

anytime Anthropic is scaring people, you

have to ask, is this a tactic? Is this

part of their Chicken Little routine? or

is it real? You know, are they crying

wolf or not? I actually would give them

credit in this case and say this is more

on the the real side. It just makes

sense, right? So that as the coding

models become more and more capable,

they're more capable of finding bugs.

That means they're more capable of

finding vulnerabilities. And like one of

their engineers said, that means they're

more capable of stringing together

multiple vulnerabilities and creating an

exploit. And so I do think that over say

the next 6 months we're going to have

this call it one-time period of catching

up where AIdriven cyber is going to be

able to detect a whole range of of bugs

that maybe have been dormant over the

past 20 years across a wide range of

systems. And so I do think that there is

real risk here. And I do think therefore

that having this pre-release period

makes a lot of sense where they're

giving the capability to all these

software companies that have existing

code bases to use the tool to detect the

vulnerabilities for themselves so they

can patch them before these capabilities

are widely available. And by the way, it

won't just be anthropic that makes these

capabilities available. We know that

like let's say the Chinese open source

models like Kimmy K2, it's about 6

months behind. So we have a window here

of maybe 6 months where we're still in

this pre-release period where I think

companies that have large code bases can

get advanced access to this model and uh

I guess open AI is going to release a

similar thing in the next few weeks. I

do think that every company or IT

department or CISO that is managing code

bases should take this seriously and use

the next few months to detect any again

like dormant bugs or vulnerabilities and

and roll out patches. If everybody does

their job and reacts the right way, then

I do not think it will be the doomsday

scenario that Anthropic is sort of

portraying. But it's one of these things

where the fear might end up being a good

thing in order to drive people to in

order to drive the correct behavior. So

>> sure,

>> I ultimately think this is going to work

out fine, but you do need everyone to

kind of pay attention, use the

capabilities,

>> fix the bugs, then we're going to get

into a big arms race between AI being

used for cyber offense and AI being used

for cyber defense, but it'll be a more

normal sort of of period. Chimath, we

have uh Daario and uh you know a number

of the participants here are taking this

super seriously. They're making a big

statement. Zach's very nuanced uh I

think take there. What's your take on

how do these companies have it both

ways? Hey, this is shouldn't be

regulated. This should be regulated. If

this is in fact a cataclysmic, oh my

god, they're going to hack everything.

What if the Chinese have this right now?

That would speak to more government

either coordination, regulation, or some

kind of relationship between the CIA,

the FBI for domestic stuff, and these

companies because there it is a non-zero

chance that the Chinese have an equal

capability here. We're assuming they're

behind, but who knows what they're doing

behind closed doors. So, what's your

take on this? Is it uh The Boy Who Cried

Wolf, or is this the real deal? Now,

>> I think it's mostly theater.

>> Okay.

In February of 2019,

when Daario was still at OpenAI,

they did the same thing with GPT2.

That was a 1.5 billion parameter model,

which sounds like a total fart in the

wind in 2026. But at that time, this 1.5

billion parameter model was supposed to

be the end of days. And it was supposed

to unleash this torrent of spam and

misinformation. And that was the big

bugaboo at the time. And so what

happened? They went through this

methodical roll out over six or nine

months. They started releasing the

smaller parameter models and then they

scaled up to the big 1.5 billion

parameter model. And at the end of it,

it was a huge nothing burger.

If you actually think that Mythos is

capable of doing what it says it can do,

two things are true. One is a very

sophisticated hacker can probably do

those things right now with Opus.

And two, if these exploits

are this easy to find,

whether you use Opus or whether you use

Mythos, the reality is you'd have to

shut down the internet for about 5 years

to patch them all. So when you see like

a large multi- trillion dollar gang,

it's a bit of theater. Why? What do you

think they can actually accomplish in 2

months? Do you actually think that if

there's these vulnerabilities, it's all

going to get fixed? Let's give them six

months. Let's give them nine months. But

the reality is that capitalism moves

forward, the funding needs moves

forward, and the need for these guys to

build adoption moves forward. And that's

going to supersede

what this is. So I do think that Sax is

right that they have figured out a very

clever go-to market muscle here and a go

to market motion that activates

hyper attention and hyper usage and so I

give them tremendous credit and I'll

maintain what I've maintained before.

Anthropic is shooting the lights out

right now. This is like Steph Curry

going bananas from every everywhere on

the court. These guys are hunking

threes.

>> It's all in that. Okay. So huge kudos to

Anthropic,

but we've seen it before. We saw it when

these folks were the principal

architects at OpenAI who are now seeing

the same playbook here. I think we'll

look back and I think what we'll say are

these two things. One is if we're really

going to patch all these security holes,

we need to shut down the internet

for some number of years, honestly,

literally years. And the second is an

advanced hacker can probably do this

today with Opus if they really wanted

to.

>> Okay. Hey Brad, I gota I'll get you in

here for the for the last word. I I'm

going to go with Yeah, maybe they did uh

Crywolf before, but based on what I see

with these models advancing and using

them and I'm using a lot of the open

source ones right now from China. I

think that this is like code red kind of

moment. This is Defcon. like we should

be taking this deadly seriously and I

think these companies got to coordinate

with the CIA and this is uh equally a

defensive as offensive opportunity. Do

you think this

>> you're asking for the nationalization of

AI now?

>> No, I actually I I I don't think it

should be nationalized. Um although I

did see people sort of insinuating that.

I think these companies need to build a

group Brad that work and coordinate with

the CIA. I assume that they're already

doing this. I'm assuming you Emil

Michael and uh you know Trump and

everybody have these people in a room

and that they've given the defcon and

said hey how can our government use this

to stop bad actors and this is already

being coordinated with the CIA and the

FBI. I am 100% certain of that that

Dario went to them and said look what we

found. This is the real deal. I'll give

you the last word on this Brad since

you're an investor in both companies and

you know them quite well. the frontier

model forum which was which was put

together in 23 um is cooperating on

anti- and adversarial distillation stuff

as we speak right they don't want to

make it easy on you know so Google and

and open AAI and and anthropic they're

coordinating on this stuff you know

there are times where I've pushed back

on anthropic because I thought it was

you know perhaps regulatory capture or

something else this is very different in

my mind right he could have easily Dario

could have easily come out and said oh

my god we passed a threshold we need to

have a government moratorum. Remember,

even our friend Elon called for a

six-month moratorium in 2023 because of

civilization risk. This guy didn't do

that. Instead, he said, "Okay, what what

should we do? I'm going to get 40 of the

leading companies together. We're going

to spend a 100 days sandboxing,

hardening the systems, and then we're

we're we're going to keep pushing

forward."

>> What do you honestly think is going to

get accomplished in a 100 days? How many

PRs you think are going to get pushed to

the core structural internet in 100

days? What's the overunder number? Cuz

I'll give you a number. You're gonna say

zero. My my answer to that is

>> I'll say like 10,000, but it's going to

be immediate.

>> But if it prevents your browser history

from being released to everybody in the

world, Chimat, that may be something

that you're willing to, you know, let a

100 days pass on.

>> I think you got Chimat's attention when

you said browser history.

>> What about the dickpicks?

>> As Chimat is, he's going to release them

himself right now. CHIMAT'S LIKE, "HEY,

CHINESE HACKERS, HERE ARE MY DICKPICKS.

Please put them out."

>> Oh my god. we have to be out there

complimenting when they're doing the

right things or relying on the market

rather than running to the nanny state

and saying do more of this. So this to

me was just an example of of a of a good

balance. I'm sure we're going to have

plenty of debates about this in the

future. But you know this is one I would

like to see more of.

>> This is why to use your word Jake I

tried to have a more nuanced take is

because we have no choice but to take

this seriously. Whether it's total

theater, whether it's fear-mongering,

and they do have a pattern around this,

we can't take the risk, right? And it

does logically make sense that as these

models become more and more capable at

coding, they're going to get better at

cyber. And there's going to be that one

time period where you're moving from

preAI to post AAI, and you need a patch

for that. So, my guess is we're going to

see a lot of patches over the next few

months. I think that that will resolve

the problem.

I think this is a case where I'm going

to give them the benefit of the doubt. I

I think that, you know, I've criticized

him in the past. I think that blackmail

study was embarrassing to the level of

being a hoax, but I think in this case,

I'm going to give him credit and say

that I think that it's legit.

>> So, it's not the anthropic hoax. This

could be legit. I, you know, looking at

>> we have no choice but to treat it that

way.

>> Of course. Yeah. I mean, even if two

things could be true at the same time,

Saxs, they could have used this tactic

before. It could be performative, like

the video with the dramatic music in the

background. It does have a little bit of

drama to it, and the way they presented

it is very dramatic, but it does make

logical sense that the one company that

made the bet on code bigger than anybody

else would be the one who would discover

this quickest. And you know in a 100

days that's a pretty good um that's a

pretty big advantage versus the hackers.

But let me think one more point there

Jimat

>> the most important thing that people

haven't talked about here is the amount

of code being pushed right now because

of these tools is 10x 100x in most

organizations. So we need to have this

type of security embedded in these new

coding tools to do it in real time.

That's the opportunity. There should be

real time correcting of this. If this

was real, they picked the wrong

companies. Meaning, there are energy

companies, folks that control nuclear

reactors. There are airplane companies

that are flying hundreds of thousands of

people in essentially manufactured

missiles of like streaming gas going at

500 miles an hour. None of those

companies were the ones that were

included in this. And so I think if you

really thought that this was end of

days,

at a minimum we can agree maybe we

should have expanded the circle a touch.

Well, maybe those are customers of the

ones they're including here. Anyway, uh

this is a really important story. We'll

obviously track it in the coming weeks

to see what turns out to be reality. And

uh Daario, do come on the program at

some point. Hey uh Brad, will you get

Dario to come on the program? I've

invited him like three times. I got his

phone number. He's ghosted me. I don't

know why.

>> Wait, he he's ignored you? I get

>> I literally got an introduction from the

number like one of the number one

venture capitalists in the world. He's

on the cap table very early. He just

won't respond. I don't know why.

>> I would tell you Daario's podcast with

Dwarkish who I think is an excellent

podcaster. I've listened to that three

or four times taken notes every time. It

is a really exceptional piece really

exceptional piece of work by by by them.

>> All right, let's keep moving. We got a

lot on the job.

>> You may once again be tarred with your

affiliation with us.

>> Poor you. I mean, I don't care.

Literally, I I've got friends on both

sides of the aisle. I have friends

>> of course you do.

>> Even JCAL.

>> Even JCAL has friends everywhere.

>> Let me ask Brad a question here just

while we're on the topic of anthropic.

There was a really interesting story or

tweet I guess you could say by the

founder of OpenClaw

that

>> Peter.

>> Peter. Yeah. What's his name? Peter

Steinber.

>> Steinberger. Steinberger.

>> Steinberger. Yeah.

renowned coder created openclaw which is

kind of the thing that launched this

whole agent era now you I guess you

could say any event he said that

anthropic was cutting off his access to

was it was to claw is that the next

topic

>> this is on the docket it's a little bit

nuanced

everybody using openclaw would take

their $200 a month subscription to

anthropic which was essentially like a

people were using more tokens and it's

an average the people from openclaw it

is very verbose and those people are

100x the usage of the average

subscriber. So he said you can't use

your 200, you have to use the API. You

move from the $200 plan to the API, add

a zero to your token use. So or more.

And so they essentially anchored

Open Claw and then 10 days later or less

they released or announced their new

agent technology which is according to

them a safer better version of OpenClaw.

So, hey, all fair in love and war and

they have basically shot a huge cannon

across the bow of openclaw.

>> Wait, can you just explain that exactly?

So, so I think you're right that they

systematically copied feature by feature

>> of open claw, incorporated that into

clawed and then the coupross was

basically cutting off open

>> oxygen. Can you just explain exactly

what they did? Okay, very simply, when

you buy a subscription to these

services, they have blended your usage

across many users. So there's, you know,

nine out of 10 users use less than the

tokens they're paying for and the top

10% use much more. When OpenClaw became

a phenomenon, the number one open source

project in history on GitHub with all of

this usage, people went crazy. And you

heard me talking about how crazy I went

for it. those people with the $200

subscriptions were using $2,000 $20,000

worth of tokens. So they said you can no

longer use your subscription to, you

know, either your professional or

enterprise subscription at $200

>> and plug that into your open claw. You

now have to go to the API and pay per

usage. So no more like

>> unlimited. If you use Anthropic's own

agent harness, are you part of the

bundled flat rate? You can assume that

that's what they'll do, which if you

were thinking on an antirust level might

be token dumping or price dumping. I'm

not saying like I'm ratting them.

>> No, it's like bundling, isn't it?

>> Well, price dumping or bundling. When

you price something under the market

price in antitrust, that would be price

dumping, right? And if you were to

bundle, it would be like the bundling

issue.

>> Critically important. You can use

openclaw via claw API and every company

has a right to set the price for its

products. It's just saying that you were

for under their current regime, they

were selling dollars for 10 cents via

OpenClaw because these were such power

users and now they're just saying we

have to price this rationally, but we're

happy to have you guys use the API. So,

>> okay. Okay. But Brad, when you use the

OpenClaw competitor that Anthropic now

offers,

>> correct?

>> Are they subsidizing that? Are you

paying?

>> We don't know yet because it's in closed

beta. So in other words, what I'm saying

is if they charge for API usage, right,

their own first party agent harness or

system, then that would be apples to

apples. But if

>> if they end up charging the bundled flat

rate, let's say, for their stuff, but

then charge the metered rate for third

party stuff, you could make a bundling

argument.

>> Sure. Sure. And you could say it's

anti-competitive assuming that Anthropic

has dominant market share in coding,

which I think most people would say they

do at this point.

>> And assuming that it's the same product,

I mean, the reason most enterprises will

probably use the Anthropic uh version of

this agentic product is because it meets

all of your security parameters, right?

So, Altimter runs, you know, a lot of

stuff on Enthropic. They're already

integrated within our our data

warehouse, our data lake, things of that

nature. So just letting openclaw loose

on the uh altimeter you know data set

would not be wise and so it's a

different fundamental product.

>> No I get that and I think that anthropic

has a huge advantage let's say cloning

open claw and just building it into

claude. I'm not denying that to me that

would be the reason why they don't need

to do price discrimination is because

there's already a very good reason

>> to use the let's call it the bundled

offering on a featured basis. But the

question I'm specifically asking is

whether they're giving themselves a

price advantage because

>> I think Brad is giving the the most

generous interpretation. You're taking a

more cynical one. I'm with you, Saxs.

I'm 100% on the cynical side. Open Claw

is so powerful. It's got so much

momentum that not only is anthropic

trying to ankle it. I believe when Sam

Waltman bought it, it was uh and he

didn't buy OpenClaw itself, he hired

Aqua hired Peter. I believe it was to

subvert the open- source project to get

Peter's next set of genius ideas inside

of OpenAI as opposed to letting them go

there. People are going to say I'm a

conspiracy theorist, but this is the

number one focus and let me just give

you a list of who is trying to kill

OpenClaw/compete with them. Obviously,

you have Anthropic, but also Perplexity

Computer launched. It's awesome. I've

been using it. Anthropic has this clawed

managed agents. They dropped that on

Wednesday, April 8th. uh yesterday uh

today's Thursday when we tape you you

guys listen on Fridays and then you have

Hermes agent that was released on

February 25th that's also open source

and very good so that's in the open

source camp Alibab is coming out with

one that's going to be based on their

Quinn model then you have Elon who said

he's got something called rock computer

coming out of macro hard which is a play

on words for Microsoft in addition to

that Amazon and Apple are preparing uh

new releases of their uh maxing

assistants Alexa and Siri that will be

less in this new version and

then nothing out of uh SAT and Microsoft

yet. So the number one goal I believe in

the large language model frontier model

space is to kill this open source

product.

>> No, I mean come on like why they're

building multi-functioning agents that

can move from answering questions to

actually doing something for you. like

you got to do that because that's what

consumers and enterprises wants. It

doesn't mean that it's about killing

OpenClaw. just this is an obvious thing

right to do it

>> but this is a giant movement to stop it

because this is the equivalent of having

an open-source Android like player in

the market and that could be incredibly

disruptive these I believe open source

is going to win the day on the large

language models and take 90% of the

token usage and I think the entire

frontier model space could be undercut

by open source and I think they realize

that SLMs the the smaller language

models that are verticalized now that

will run on you know, desktops and

laptops and is even starting to run on

the top ones. That is their biggest

competitive threat and I hope it

happens. All due respect to your

investments, Brad, I think this

technology and the interface is uh you

know, he placed bets, but I I think it's

imperative that the agent level, which

is essentially your entire life, you

don't give that to Anthropic. You don't

give that to OpenAI. That's your entire

business, your entire life. It is

foolish for you, Brad, to give your

entire business and all the knowledge

you have to anthropic through that.

unless you're just doing it to boost

your um your your investment in those

companies. But I would be very concerned

if I was you with putting all of your

knowledge that you've earned over a

lifetime into any of these large

language models.

>> All right, Jake, let me ask you. Can I

ask a question? Thank you for that

impassioned monologue. Um actually, I

want to ask my TED talk.

>> I Yes, thank you for that TED talk. Um I

have a yes no question for each of you.

>> Do you believe that anthropic has

dominant market share in coding? right

now? Yes. No,

>> no.

>> In in coding,

>> yes,

>> they had the lead, but not that they had

the lead, but not dominating.

>> I think it's a trillion dollar market,

and these guys have less than 10% of it

today. So, it's hard to make a case that

>> What percent of coding tokens do you

think that anthropic is providing the

market right now?

>> Greater than 50%.

>> Yeah, that's true.

>> Okay, that's called dominant market

share.

>> Uh, I don't know about that.

>> More than 50% of the market.

>> You got to look at what you got to look

at what the TAM is.

with the Tan,

>> right? There are a lot of people who

provide, you know, that that are in this

tiebreaker before we move on to the

next.

>> I'm not saying it's a permanent

condition,

>> but if you're telling me that today

>> Anthropic is delivering over half of the

coding tokens, that's clearly a dominant

position in the market for coding. It's

an early market. It could change, but

>> if I were representing them, David, I

would say nine months ago, everybody t

called us uh, you know, out of the game.

We were being destroyed by open AI in

three months. Now people are saying we

have dominant market position. This is

the fastest changing most competitive

market in the world. I think it would be

very hardressed to walk into, you know,

some district court make the case that

these guys have somehow already formed a

monopoly against Amazon, Google,

Microsoft, Open AI, etc.

>> Well, I'm not saying it's a it's already

a permanent monopoly, but I am just

asking about market share. And I do

think you guys all agree that

>> Shimov, go ahead.

>> They probably have 50 to 60% market

share because I think codeex is actually

quite broadly used as well.

>> But that belies the more important point

which is AI enabled coding I think is

still 5% of the broad market. So it's

kind of a nothing burger. Yes, they're

leading but they're leading in something

that isn't that big yet. Now you would

say how could it not be big? And what I

would say is because most of the stuff

that's being written is still white

sheet denovo code. And I think the ugly

truth is I don't care what model you

have, but the long horizon ability for

any of these models to actually build

enterprisegrade software is still

shiit And that's the actual lived

experience. Not for me, but when I call

on our customers, half a trillion dollar

banks, hundred billion dollar insurance

companies, none of these guys are like,

"Wow, it just works out of the box." It

doesn't work. So, most of it is still

handtuned. So, until I can honestly tell

you that we can point a model at this

with the right guard rails, which I

can't today, what I would say is it's a

small market that will become large as

these models become better.

But we are in the world where we have 50

years of accumulated tech debt as a

world. And I suspect when you enumerate

the number of lines that that

represents, it's hundreds of trillions

of lines of just pretty marginal

mediocre code to bad code. On top of

that, we have all these legacy

languages. I'll tell you one of our

customers, they have to go and get

60year-old pensioners to come into the

office to interpret cope. No, I'm not

joking. This is a

>> snowball for trend.

>> This is a hundred billion dollar a year

revenue company and that's how they

solve these problems. It's not opus just

solves it. So I I would just keep in

mind that most of the tech debt in the

world that exists 99% of it is still

poorly addressed by these models. We are

untying this Gordian knot. It's going to

take decades to do it right. So all the

breathlessness about all this other

stuff, I really think it's not where the

money is. It's not the big time stuff.

And you can tell me, "Oh yeah, it's

going to be the future." And I would

say, "Tell this business that's a

hundred billion dollars a year of

revenue and 50 million billing

relationships that all of a sudden

you're going to open claw your way to a

solution." It's Not to say

that you can't have a great chief of

staff, and not to say you can't do some

useful stuff and trickery and, you know,

have a good knowledge base. I'd like

that, too. But the core things that your

lived experience sits on today is a mess

of tech debt that will get very slowly

replaced. And that's just the reality of

life.

>> And there are competitors that are

extremely disruptive. I'll tell you

about one. We talked about Bit Tensor

Tao on this program a couple weeks ago

when we had the um Jensen interview. You

brought it up actually Chimath. There's

a there's a project that's subnet 62.

It's called Ridges AI. And what they're

doing is a competitor that is not only

open- source but anybody can contribute

to it. They spent about a million

dollars in tow like rewards and in 45

days they hit 80% of what Claude 4 is

and they did that in under 45 days. The

way that works is they give rewards for

people who and they can do this

anonymously make that coding product

which is like codeex or claude code

better. that flywheel is racing right

now with participation in the same way

Bitcoin is. So you're going to see a lot

of open- source and these crypto

open-source combinations and uh anybody

who's not investigated this, I highly

recommend you investigate this.

>> I do think you're right about one

specific thing. I would put zero,

literally the probability zero of any

important company worth anything more

than a dollar having and outsourcing

their production code to an open source

project. That'll never happen. However,

what will happen though is when you look

at the cost of training this 10 trillion

parameter model on Blackwell and when

you look in the future let's just say in

six or nine months that a 15 or 20

trillion perm model is going to get

trained on Vera Rubin I think Jason

where you are right I have zero and just

to be clear I have no investments in

this at all I'm

>> to be so super clear

>> I'm just observing because another

project other than Bit Tensor that

someone brought up to me is Venice. The

concept of opensource training and

orchestration

is a hugely disruptive idea which is the

complete orthogonal attack vector to

this idea that you have to raise tens

and tens of billions of dollars to train

your models because if the capital

markets run out of 10 and 20 billion

dollar checks to give people the only

solution is to be totally distributed. I

tend to agree with you Jason that there

is going to be at some point a very

successful open source project for

pre-training.

Absolutely. Will there never ever be an

open- source way where a real company

that has any skin in the game says here

guys re-engineer my codebase as an open

source project. Never going to happen.

>> Yeah, I I think the coding tools will.

And if you look at the history of open

source, Brad, you actually I think had a

lot of bets in this space. Linux,

Kubernetes, Apache, Postgress, like

Terraform, like these open source

projects are deep inside of enterprises.

Deep. And we're sitting here 15, 20

years ago, the same argument was made.

Nobody will ever adopt these inside the

enterprise. You got to go with Oracle,

whatever. And fair enough, many people

do. But I think this is this $29 ridges

um subscription to do this versus 200.

It's starting to take hold inside of

startups. And that's where I always look

at the tip of the spear. Startups love

to, you know, use open source products.

I think this could be the next big

thing. But listen, I I I invest in

things that have a 90% chance of going

to zero. So do your own research. No

crying in the casino.

>> Can I just make a a final few points? So

just just quickly so number one is with

respect to this market for code or code

tokens whatever you want to call it

>> it might be 5% today meaning 5% of the

codes AI generated versus human

generated I think it's going to 95% I

mean I bet any amount of money on that

the only question is when probably over

the next few years so that's point

number one point number two is it's

possible that if you're the early leader

in coding as a AI model company let's

say you have 50 to 60% of market share.

You have the most developers using it.

Therefore, you have the most access to

code bases. You might get the most

training tokens. There is a potential

flywheel there where you can see the

early market leader consolidating its

lead because it's generating the most

code tokens and it's getting access to

the most existing code. Now, I'm not

saying for sure that's going to happen.

is possible that the other guys catch

up, but I think there is a possibility

of a flywheel there and strong, I guess

you'd call it data scale effects, things

like that. So, I do believe that the

market for coding tokens could be

monopolized. Third, Anthropic's revenue

run rate, as based on what I can tell

and what's been publicly released, is

the fastest growing revenue run rate at

scale that I think we've ever seen. Uh,

we

>> perfect segue. It's the next story.

Okay, maybe

>> pull up the the tweets. But this thing

is ramping at a rate we've never seen

before.

>> We can get into that in a second. But

just one last final point

>> is I think it's pretty clear that where

we go from here is agents and coding

gives you a huge step up on agents

because you know one of the main things

that agents need to do is is write code

to be able to enable them to complete

tasks.

>> Correct. And so if it is the case that

coding is this huge market that's going

to be dominated by one or two companies

and then that leads to another huge

market which is agents. My point is just

I think all these companies need to

behave in a very clean way

>> and not engage in tactics that later the

government might say you know what that

was anti-competitive. Everyone should

just I think play fair. Do not engage in

discrimination against other people's

products. engage in fair pricing. I'm

not accusing anyone of breaking any of

the rules, but what I'm saying is that

eventually the government's going to

look at this market with the benefit of

2020 hindsight and I think everyone

should just basically, you know, keep it

>> keep your nose clean.

>> Keep it tight. Keep it tight.

>> Keep it tight. Tight is right. I think

is an excellent point. Let's talk about

the revenue ramp of Anthropic. This is

just unprecedented. Anthropic's revenue

run rate has topped 30 billion with a B.

Early 2023, they turned on revenue. They

started charging for API access. End of

2024, they're at a billion dollar run

rate. February 25, they launched Claw

Code. That was the starter pistol. Mid

2025, $4 billion run rate. End of 2025,

$9 billion run rate. Just a couple of

months later in April, $30 billion run

rate. Yes, that's right. Triple. Uh and

the way they did this is enterprise uh

customers are a major part of the spend.

Dario announced a couple of months ago

that there's over a thousand enterprises

paying over 1 million annually. This is

truly mindboggling when you think about

it because those are the most coveted

customers in the world. These are the

big fish that you just uh when people

are running enterprise software, they

they dream Slack dreamed of getting

these million-dollar customers. Uh

Salesforce dreams of getting these

million-dollar customers. Brad, you're

an investor. I guess uh Sam famously on

BG2 asked you to sell your uh OpenAI

stock back to him. You didn't. You

demired, but you're an investor in both.

How shocking is it to you to place both

of those bets and then see one of them

come from so far behind? You know, Chat

GPT has 900 million users. I don't know

if they've they've passed a billion

officially yet, but they are the Verb,

right? They're the Uber. They're the

Xerox. They're the Polaroid of AI, but

they didn't go after the enterprise.

Daario made that and Daario worked. He

was the co-founder of OpenAI. He left

and according to the New Yorker story

that came out from Ronan Farrell this

week, he was basically left because of

his disgust in working with Sam Alman.

Your thoughts?

>> Well, you know, before we go down the

OpenAI rabbit hole, let's just really

contextualize like what's going on here.

You know, check I I I have this

additional chart. you showed one, you

know, they added 4 billion of revenue in

January, 7 billion in February, 11

billion of annualized run rates, um, or

10 or 11 billion in March, just to put

in perspective, that's data bricks plus

Palanteer combined that they added in a

single month, right? So we started with

everybody at the start of the year

ringing their hands including you know

Gurley and others saying we're in a big

bubble asking whether the AI revenues

would show up to justify all of this

investment and bam you have the largest

revenue explosion in the history of

technology. So the company's plans were

to end the year at about a $30 billion

ex exit run rate. They got there by the

end of March right and I suspect that

it's continuing in April. So you have to

ask what's going on and what's the big

so what the first thing for me is that

model and product capability just hit

this threshold we talked about earlier

near AGI whatever the hell you want to

call it and everybody like alimter said

damn this is so good I have to have it

this is no longer about my IT budget

this is about labor augmentation and

labor replacement and by the way co-work

is growing even faster than Claude go at

the same stage of development

So what it showed is we have a near

infinite TAM. It turns out that the TAM

for intelligence is radically different

than anything that we've seen before.

And I think the best example of this,

right? This is millions of

self-interested parties, consumers,

enterprises, a thousand now over a

million dollars. Right? It's not that

there was some great go to market and

anthropic that all of a sudden, you

know, they snuck up and blew everybody

away. No, it was companies demanding the

product. They're getting throttled on

the product. Why? Because it's so good.

It makes them better at their business.

We are all self-interested actors. And

when millions of those people are all

making the same decision, there's a huge

tell. And the tell here is that the TAM

is as big as Daario and Sam and others

have been saying. We knew intelligence

was going to scale on the exponential.

The question was whether revenue will

scale on the exponential, and that's

what we're seeing. And remember, they're

doing this with only 1 1/2 to 2 gawatt

of compute, right? These guys are

massively compute constrained. They're

each going to be adding 3 GW of compute

this year. And so that will unlock they

would be growing even faster. But for

that, and then Jason, to your point

about the open source models that we all

want to be a part of this solution, I've

talked to a lot of big companies, 65 to

70% of their token consumption is

open-source model, right? are these

cheap Chinese and other tokens. So these

revenue ramps are happening while the

world is already using open source. This

is not frontier only. This is Frontier

plus open source. We're going to see

massive token optimization over the

course of the year. But what happens on

this Jebans paradox is the co the unit

costs right of intelligence is

plummeting. Not the cost of tokens. The

unit cost of intelligence is plummeting

because the capabilities of these models

is so much better. I look at what it

does for Altimeter day in and day out. I

talked to a major uh company yesterday.

They're on a run rate to do a hundred

million of token consumption this year

on about $5 billion in opex. They think

that we're now nearing peak employment

in their company, but that their token

their intelligence consumption, okay,

let's not call it token consumption,

right? because tokens may go up a lot,

but their intelligence consumption is

going to go up, you know, a lot. So, I

would leave you with this. We're early

to Chimas's point. We have low

penetration of the global 2000. We have

low penetration of the use cases. We

have low penetration of of within the

use cases that they're already using.

And the models are only getting better.

So I think when you look out toward the

end of the year, I would not be shocked

if you see Anthropic exiting this year

at 80 to 100 billion in revenue. And by

the way, doing it at the same time that

OpenAI, who is also on the wave, they'll

be releasing an incredible model in the

next imminently. They're going to be on

that wave and you're going to see an

inflection in their revenues as well.

>> Okay, Chimath, question one has been

answered. The question of hey, does this

stuff actually have utility? that went

from a question mark to an exclamation

point. Of course, it's got utility.

People are getting value from it. And it

might be variable. Some people get more

value than others. Number two, the

revenue ramp was a big question. Now,

that's turned into an exclamation point.

The final piece of the puzzle that

you've brought up many times is can this

be profitable? And these companies are

burning through a large amount of cash.

So, what is your take on when these

companies can get out of the J curve? We

talked about this, I think, three

episodes ago. I estimated like we're

going to be looking at $4500 billion in

investment into these data centers at a

minimum and then they have to climb out

of that to get to profitability. So what

are your thoughts on these becoming

profitable companies? Do you remember

the

investor that published this list Jason

where he put all of the terms you talk

about when one of the terms you can't

talk about is profit. It's a list where

it's like if you can't talk about free

cash flow, you talk about IBIDA. When

you can't talk about IBIDA, you talk

about

>> margina.

When you can't talk about that, you talk

about revenue. And then when you can't

talk about revenue, you talk about gross

revenue

>> bookings.

>> So you can kind of figure out,

I think, where we are in any part of any

cycle by just indexing into what does

everybody talk about. I think where we

are is we are between gross revenue and

net revenue. That's where the discussion

is.

>> Okay.

>> There was another article I think today

in I think maybe it was the information

that tried to categorize and distinguish

that anthropic presents gross, open AI

presents net. They're different. We

don't know what the various take rates

are. So they're saying that there's a

difference. If it's not true, there's

been no clarity provided by these

companies. So, at a minimum, you have

this confusion where there's the

breathless talk. Then there's people

that don't even know the difference

between actual recognized revenue and

run rate revenue and how to multi. I

mean, so we're definitely there, okay?

We can quibble about the details, but we

are not at the place where people are

like, "Oh, here's your steadystate, you

know, free cash flow margin, and here's

what your EBA does." We're never we're

we're years from that. They're gonna

have token maxing IBA like IB at the

Wii.

>> The thing that we need to understand is

how gross margin negative is this

revenue growth.

>> We don't know that and at least we don't

as outsiders.

>> Brad might know.

>> Brad may know. I I I I will tell you

think about this. What are their big

cost inputs? The number one cost input

is the cost of compute. Cost of compute.

>> Right? I just told you they only have a

gigawatt and a half of compute. and they

have that gigawatt and a half of compute

whether they have a billion in revenue

or whether they have 80 billion in

revenue. So you might actually expect to

see these companies their gross margins

are exploding higher like the fastest

increase in gross margins I've probably

seen out of any technology company. So

this is not gross margin negative you're

saying?

>> No definitely not gross margin negative.

And what I would tell you

>> so that they must be hugely profitable

then

>> well you may see accidental why I call

it accidental profitability. They may

not be able to spend this revenue fast

enough chamath on compute. And remember

it's only 2500 people. Google crossed

this revenue threshold when they had

120,000 people. These guys have 2500

people. So the only thing you can really

spend money on, right, is compute. And

they can't stand up the compute fast

enough.

>> But none of this foots to me then to be

honest because if you were on a

threshold of 90% plus gross margin,

>> I'm not saying it's there. I'm not

saying it's 90% plus. I'm just saying

it's gone from meaningfully negative 18

months ago to, you know, very very

positive. I've seen rumored out there

50% is what you're saying. The trend is

there.

>> Let me just say this.

I think if you're an incumbent, you want

the cost of compute to go down. I think

if you're not an incumbent, so

specifically, who do I mean? Meta,

Google, and SpaceX.

I think those three people who have all

three of them, well, sorry, Meta and

Google have a fortress balance sheet. I

think by the end of June, SpaceX will

also have a fortress balance sheet. What

they will want to do is they will want

to make this a compute problem because

they will control the the conditions on

the field. You already see this today.

>> Yeah.

>> Meta's models today, what people's

general reviews are it's okay, but the

one thing that people say is it's

incredibly performant. The model quality

is okay, but the performance is great,

which speaks to Meta's huge advantage.

They have a massive compute

infrastructure. So if you're if you're

not open AI and anthropic,

they'll want to make this a capital

problem because then they can win it. If

you're anthropic and open AI, you want

this thing to be as efficient as

possible.

I think where we are is very much in the

early innings. And we're bumbling around

talking about gross margins and you know

revenues. We are not at profitability.

And what is true for Facebook and what

was true for Google was irrespective of

where they got to a billion. Who g

cares? They were profitable by year

three and they never looked back. I was

there. I remember it was glorious.

>> The the cost the cost of building uh you

know AI

totally stipulate is radically higher

than the cost of building retrieval at

Google, right? Like it's just a

fundamentally more expensive problem.

But I will tell you that there's a lot

of FUD out there about negative gross

margins. I mean Jason, you started the

segment by saying they're burning

through large amounts of cash. I think

people are going to be shocked at the

burn how low the burn levels are at

these companies.

>> Anthropic or Open AI.

>> Yes. And and I would say at Open AI as

well like they're if they're on you know

if they do $50 billion this year again

just look at the number of people they

have revenue per people. It's pretty low

and the inference cost is plummeting.

Inference cost is down by 90%

year-over-year. And so just finally I

want to make respond to this point about

gross versus net uh this this tweet that

Chimath was referencing. Okay, so

there's a certain percentage, a

smallalish percentage of Anthropics

revenue, right, that they distribute

through the hyperscalers and like a lot

of arrangements, whether it's Snowflake

or Data Bricks or others, you pay a

commission, right, uh on on that. I will

just tell you that you're talking

singledigit percentage of total revenue

of these companies. So the gross versus

net thing isn't what's being reported.

like the apples for apples is pretty

easy and if you want to be conservative

on it take down Anthropic's revenue by

you know five to 10% which you know

again I don't I think it's better to

gross up OpenAI's revenue but any way

you do it I just think it's a

distraction from what's really what's

really going on here happy to

>> s you have any thoughts on this uh

massive revenue ramp

>> yeah I mean I want to go back to a point

that Brad made because I think it was

just really important and I want to just

underline it consider where we were at

the beginning of the year and What

everybody was saying is that AI was a

big bubble and the evidence they would

point to was the fact that hundreds of

billions of dollars was going into capex

that needed to be spent on these data

centers and there was no evidence of

significant revenue to justify that

spend. Where was the ROI? By the way, as

an aside, the same doomers who were

saying that AI was in a bubble were also

the ones who were saying that AI was so

powerful it's going to put us all out of

work and it's going to, you know, take

over from humanity. I mean, in other

words, they couldn't decide if AI was

too powerful or not powerful enough. But

putting aside that contradiction, they

clearly were making this case that AI

was this big bubble and that there'd be

no payoff or justification for this

massive capex that's being spent. And I

think we're starting to see here there

is justification for it. Uh we're seeing

it just in this one vertical of AI which

is coding. We're again seeing the

fastest revenue growth in history. It's

utterly unprecedented. And this is just

one category or vertical of AI. We know

that agents are coming next and the

enterprise adoption of that is going to

be absolutely massive. So, I guess what

I'm saying is that this is early proof

for I think the thing that makes Silicon

Valley special, which is we're willing

to basically bet on things that just

intuitively on a gut level we know are

the next big thing. We're not that

spreadsheet driven. Actually, Silicon

Valley believes that if you build it,

they will come and is willing to finance

that build out. And that's basically

what's been happening. Again, just the

top four hyperscalers, $350 billion of

expected capex this year on its way, I

think Jensen said 1 trillion by 2030.

So, Silicon Valley, whether it's big

companies, whether it's founders,

they're always willing to bet on this

next big thing. They're not like Wall

Street. They don't need, you know,

specialist to tell them where to go.

They know where the technology is going

and they make their bets based on that.

And I think that there is going to be a

big payoff for this. And I think it's

the thing that's going to make our

economy and the United States in general

remain extremely dynamic and in the lead

on this thing is that we are willing to

make those kinds of bets. And I think

it's going to pay off big time.

>> Yeah, clearly. Hey, um Brad, you didn't

answer my question about the vibes over

at OpenAI versus Quad. Open AI is um I

wouldn't say reeling but there's a lot

of hand ringing going on a lot of

employees leaving a lot of people who

are wondering like is our strategy the

winning strategy of like consumer first

they shut down Sora you know unwinding

the Disney deal and really trying to get

the company focused and it's kind of

like I mean listen the New Yorker story

was a bit of a rehash so I don't think

we have to go into the blowby-blow

because we covered here three years ago

but the truth is a lot of the great

founders, co-founders of OpenAI and a

lot of the great contributors are now at

Anthropic and other large language

models. And in the secondary market,

OpenAI is trading lower than the last

valuation. And Anthropic is trading

significantly above the $380 billion. So

maybe talk a little bit about this

competition, this Microsoft versus

Apple, this Google versus Facebook.

Well, let's let's start with immense

credit where credit is due. Anthropic

was literally counted out of the game

last year. Y,

>> right? And here they come over the last

12 months and and and they've kicked

OpenAI's ass over the last 90 days,

right? And what did Anthropic do?

Anthropic made choices. No multimodal,

no video, no hardware, no chips, no

building data centers. They said, "We're

just going to focus on coding and

co-work. We think that is the path to

AGI and and and and ASI." They executed

their butts off. They took the lead.

2500 people tight pulling on the ore in

the same direction. But I think you

would be seriously foolish to count out

open AI, right? And I think we're we're

we're at peak open AI FUD. And I'll tell

you, it starts with great researchers

and great models. And I think when you

see the Spud model, they're about ready

to release. I think it's going to be an

excellent model. Shows that they're

firmly on the wave. Um, if you look at

what's going on with Codeex, incredible

ramp on Codeex, fastest ramping model

with 5.4, I think 5.5 or Spud, whatever

we're going to call, it's going to be an

even faster ramp.

>> Have you seen Spud? Have you used it?

Have you gotten a preview?

>> People are using Spud, right? So, it it

is being previewed and so

>> So, you're talking to people who've used

it and what are they telling you?

>> They're telling us that it's an

incredible model on par with Mythos,

right? and that it's a a very usable

model in terms of um how it's packaged.

I will say that back to David's point

now this is the most important point I

think anybody can take away here.

This is not zero sum. The TAM of

intelligence is dramatically larger than

any TAM we've ever seen in our investing

careers over the last two decades.

Right? And if you're on the wave, which

Open AAI is, you are going to be selling

into the world's biggest TAM, they are

going to build a very big company. I'm a

buyer of the shares today.

Notwithstanding all of the vibes that

you describe, I think these companies

are firmly on the wave. They are jarred.

They are sitting there saying, "What did

we do wrong? And how do we get our mojo

back?" They want to compete. It is

embarrassing to people on the research

team and the product team over there.

So, I'm not saying there's not a real

awakening occurring there, but I think

that's what the case is. And by the way,

to Chamas's point, do not count out

Meta, right? I think Meta is absolutely

in this game. Google is absolutely in

this game. Elon is absolutely in this

game. And if you're

>> got some stuff dropping shortly that's

going to be very impressive.

>> If you're on team America, the fact that

we have five frontier models competing

against each other and David made sure

they weren't throttled by excessive

government regulation. We have mythos

come out. It's a self-imposed safe

harbor, you know, to harden our system.

It wasn't a call for moratoriums or

getting the government involved. We have

the type of competition that's causing

us to accelerate our lead against the

rest of the world. We can't take our eye

off the prize. We got to stop

adversarial distillation and we need to

make sure that we're distributing our

products around the world. But I view

this as really good for team America.

>> Well said. And here is your poly market

IPOs before 2027. Obviously SpaceX at

95% uh Cerebrus at 94% and uh hey number

five on this list 51% chance that

Anthropic goes out before the end of the

year. 44% chance that OpenAI comes out

before then. All right here is the

closing market cap for Anthropic on Poly

Market only $158,000 in volume. So,

Chimath, when you put in 400K, you're

going to really tilt this market.

78% chance that it's above 600 billion,

19% chance that it doesn't go out. So,

it's looking like this will be a decent

investment for you. Brad, what valuation

did you get into Anthropic at?

>> We first invested in I believe it was

the

uh 30 or $150 billion round.

>> So, this will be a 7x 5x for Altimeter

L, please. Congratulations. I mean, no,

listen. I I I again, there are lots of

people who were there before us and who

are on the board and who are going to do

much better than that. What' you put in?

50.

>> What' you put in?

>> No, we've got billions in both

companies. Uh

>> billions in both companies. Oh my lord.

>> I think there's this existential thing

going on in venture today. David could

talk about it as well. I mean people

can't they're extraordinarily nervous

about you look at the IGV stock index

down 30% year to date down 5% today all

software stocks plummeting right venture

capitalists are terrified to invest

money in anything other than these

frontier models and things like SpaceX

or military modernization finding

something that's out of harm's way of AI

right where you can count on the

terminal value to Chamas insights over

the last few weeks is very difficult to

do. That's why you see this crowding.

So, we've taken a barbell approach,

right? We've got a lot in what we think

are the most important companies that

are on the frontier and then we're

betting with on really small teams that

we think have very defensible businesses

in a world of uh you know, AGI. But it's

>> what happens to all these enterprise

software companies? Do they become PE

takeouts? Do they get consolidated? um

or do they just have to adopt these AI

technologies and and and solve this

problem of hey the frontier model is

just going to solve for whatever these

niche software companies do.

>> I think the market's probably being a

little too pessimistic with respect to

at least some of these software

companies. I mean, obviously, there's

going to be big differences in the

quality of the modes of these companies.

And so, look, software is going to be a

lot cheaper and easier to generate, but

I'm not sure that was the competitive

advantage of a lot of these companies.

So, there's probably a little bit of the

baby being thrown out with the bathwater

right now, and there probably are some

value buys in enterprise software. I

think the interesting question here and

we've been talking about this for a

couple of years in the pod is just where

you see the AI value capture being in

terms of layer of the stack. Remember

where we started it was really just the

chip layer of the stack was where all

the value capture was. It was basically

Nvidia was the first company to be worth

multiple trillions of dollars because of

AI. And for a while it looked like

that's where all the value capture was

going to be because OpenAI for example

was losing so much money and Anthropic

wasn't on the radar as much. Now we're

seeing wait a second um you know it's

not just the chip companies it's also

the hyperscalers are now benefiting and

now we're seeing at the model layer it

looks like Enthropic and Open AI they're

all going to be huge beneficiaries. I

think the next question is at the

application layer of the stack. Okay.

Well, now does all that value capture

just get eaten by the model companies or

are there applications that get

turbocharged? I guess you could say that

Palunteer is already one of them, right?

It's an application company that's been

turbocharged by these model

capabilities. Who else will be a big

beneficiary? Is it again, is it all

going to be at the model layer or will

you see an explosion of value at the

application layer? I'm hoping obviously

that it'll be at all layers of the

stack. PC beneficiaries. But to me,

that's a really interesting question

right now.

>> Yeah. What happens to Salesforce,

HubSpot, you know, Oracle, right down

the line? David, uh, Chimati, your

thoughts here, uh, on the the layers

here and where the value is captured.

>> It's too early to tell.

>> Too early to tell, right? And energy we

kind of put into sort of data center as

well, but that's obviously been a clear

winner. Little housekeeping here.

Liquidity, put a little Tiffany in here.

uh producer Nick D is sold out. There's

a wait list of hundreds of people, but

it is what it is, folks. If you snooze,

you lose and top tier speakers are

coming. Uh it's going to be great. We'll

get a an update from But I think Brad,

you're going to be joining us again.

Yes. For liquidity.

>> I have an update.

>> That's probably not your headliner,

though. I'm probably not your headliner.

>> No, but you always score so high. Every

event you've spoken at, you've been

either number one, two, I don't think

you've ever dropped to three. Go ahead,

Sham. Make your announcement here.

>> Nat sent me an article from Wikipedia

about penile links when you guys are

talking about

>> breaking news.

>> Showing me showing me that I'm in the

large category. Top 5%. She highlighted

it.

>> Top 5%. Okay. And that's with Is that

with Nano Banana or without? Is that

>> She just texted dummy. It's clogged. My

apologies. Clogged.

>> Oh.

>> All right. This is why Jamath isn't

afraid of the cyber is because nothing's

going to come out that's more

embarrassing than what he says himself

on the box.

>> He's like Bezos. When Bezos got hacked,

HE'S LIKE, "GUYS, I GOT HACKED."

>> SO, I saw the agenda for this thing.

It's incredible. Congrats to you guys. I

mean, like the uh like just the fun of

being in Napa, all the poker, all the

the dining experience. This is five star

all the It looks really

>> six-star. It's a man level because

Chimath

>> was, I dare I say, belligerent in his

demands. He said, "This has to be

six-star or I will not show up." Jake

Al. I said, "Okay, boss, get to work."

And uh, Chimath, what do you got any? No

mids. This is all elite. And for the

hundreds of people who are on the wait

list, I am sorry, but we have a capacity

issue. We'll try to get you in for next

year. But Chim, give us some updates

here. You have any updates that you want

to share? because you are running

programming for liquidity 2026 up in

Yon.

>> Look, it's going really well.

Really excited to hear all of these

great folks speak. I think the next two

will release today. Brad Gersonner and

Thomas Leaf of COTU

>> of CO2. That's a great get.

>> We also have I think three people

confirmed for their best ideas pitch.

Really interesting folks. They each run

between one and six or seven billion

>> awesome

>> superstar compounders early in their

career.

>> This is a new zone chamat.

>> It's great. So right now we have Bill

Aman, we have Andre Carpathy, we have

Dan Loe, we have Thomas Lefont, we have

Brad Gersner, we have Sarah Frier and

more to come. We will announce more.

>> There might be one or two surprises. Jay

Cal

>> and a couple and a couple of surprises.

>> Yeah, we we don't announce all the

speakers. Jay Cal's got a couple of

surprises coming. And if you didn't get

in to liquidity, apologies. You're on

the wait list. We are going to be

hosting the fifth

annual all-in summit in Los Angeles

September 13th to the 15th of Sax. You

going to come to that?

>> Allin.com/events.

>> Sax, you should come to that.

>> I've been advised that I can attend

business. I can be in the state for

business reasons.

>> Okay, there you go. Then we'll see you

at liquidity and the summit. Correct.

That's that's big news. Now we just got

a bunch of Sachs stands who are racing.

Uh and now we're going to get Sachs at

This is what happens every year behind

the scenes.

>> Sachs at the last minute says, "Oh, I

have four speakers and I have 72 people

who need tickets and then the whole team

has to like do a fire drill 48 hours

before the event." Okay, here we go,

guys. We're going to go to the third