Can you trust them?

No, seriously.

Can you trust them?

To understand what I'm talking about,

you first must know who Palantir is.

Now, if you're not familiar with

Palantir, Palantir, best known for

surveilling um

the whole world and every last person.

Yeah, that company uh led by the way by

Alex Karp, which can do this sweet move,

and also is known for being

geographically monogamous, which is in

fact the definition of not being

monogamous. Well, that Alex Karp of

Palantir has called the AI industry

effing insane in a 20-minute kind of uh

crash out on CNBC. But, here's the thing

is that he made a lot of good points,

okay? And can you trust them? The them

in this situation, the model providers,

can you actually trust them?

I don't know. I'm watching you, Dario.

Also, can we sidebar here for a second?

So, if if you're being accused of

shenanigans by Palantir, I feel like you

got to you know

take a moment and ask yourself some

pretty tough questions.

>> Are we the baddies?

>> So, we're going to actually look at some

of this kind of crash out, this mental

breakdown that Alex Karp had on CNBC.

And shockingly, I actually agree with a

whole bunch of it. And even more

importantly, the things he actually

said, well,

I actually think they have they're

they're happening. They're they have

happened. Like, what he is saying is

actually correct. And I'll show you

exactly what I'm talking about after we

talk about Alex Karp himself. So, first,

we got to say thank you to the sponsors.

>> I've personally conducted hundreds of

interviews, and I know how hard hiring

is. And that's not even what today's

problems of fake AI profiles, resumes

that are difficult to read, and senior

engineers who have never even read code.

G2i fixes that. Not the reading code

part, the hiring part. G2i can help you

hire front-end, back-end, and even AI

engineers.

Because they have pre-vetted 8,000-plus

engineers through real technical

interviews. So, you can review quality

candidates in days, not months. Check

out g2i.co/prime

and take the headache out of hiring. All

right, so the first thing he talks about

is token maxing. Now, if you're not

familiar with token maxing, just imagine

you go into a boat store and you're

like, "Yo, I would like to get a fishing

boat." And the fishing boat store was

just like, "Yeah, well, why why get a

fishing boat when you can get a yacht,

right? Like you can fish on a yacht, you

know that, right?" And you're like,

"Well, I don't know about that." And

they're like, "Yeah, but why even get a

100-ft yacht when you can get a 300-ft

yacht? Like you get a mega yacht. You

get like the world's biggest yacht. Like

why

why would you ever want a fishing boat

when you can get a yacht?" To us, that'd

be quite obvious what they're trying to

do. They're trying to sell the most

amount of money. But for some odd

reason, when it comes to token spend,

spend maxing as the kids call it, we

just have zero care.

>> I just I'm not throwing shade at them,

but something has gone completely wrong.

And the basic view among enterprises in

this country is I'm going to chillax and

waste my time with tokens. I'm going to

get no value, and they're going to get

my IP.

>> Okay, that sounds like shade.

>> First off, it's very strange for me to

watch the news. Yeah, the this this

little news segment right here. Why why

why is this sounding like a Twitch

stream? Okay, who is saying chillax and

shade on CNBC? Okay, I want the business

news to be the business, not some sort

of weird zoomer millennial coded

language. What's happening to the news?

But this was just an unusual experience,

but what he said was so dang correct.

First off, token maxing and getting

little value. It is obvious the value

you get out of token maxing. When you

incentivize employees to just use as

much as you possibly can, that is not

good because really, as he kind of

alluded to, like the really big kind of

piece of feedback wasn't the fact that

you're spending a whole bunch and

getting little value. It's the fact that

what you're spending is on all of your

business strategy. You are handing over

to Claude, you're handing over to OpenAI

all of the alpha, as they keep saying.

By the way, the alpha has two meanings.

Obviously, the first one is like your

defensible position as a company, your

trade secrets, the things that make your

company be able to withstand or

outcompete your competitors. And the

second version of alpha is a word you

hear, and then you know that whatever

comes next is going to be the dumbest

thing you've ever heard cuz you're

talking to a crypto bro. Now, in this

case, it's the it's the former, not the

latter. And of course, with this crash,

Palantir also released a nine-point

manifesto. Now, I don't know if you know

this, but manifestos, when it comes to

tech, pretty much always lead to good

outcomes. I can't think of a single bad

thing that has happened, but if you look

at point three on the manifesto, the

Palantir manifesto, you'll see that

token maxing hijacks your value

orientation and decreases institutional

fortitude and intelligence. The pursuit

of high token usage incentivizes

disposable scripts over robust software

with the addictive feeling of false

progress. It is absolutely an incredible

and insightful point right there. I love

it. And as somebody who is actively

trying to do my own token maxing, my own

looping to really kind of understand

what these zoomers keep talking about, I

just seem like I'm spending all my all

my all my tokens and I'm not really

getting much value out. But the argument

for token maxing, at least from his

perspective,

you'll notice that it wasn't just about

the spend. It really was about handing

over your IP. And he says that best

here.

>> So, safe because it doesn't touch your

underlying data, safe because it

prevents the large language model from

caching your data and replicating your

business,

safe because it doesn't transfer your IP

of how to fight, secret data, top secret

data, or in a in a clinical context.

>> using the term safe there. What he's

talking about is the usage of these

models. How do you make it safe? Well,

the reality is to make it safe, the

actual safety that we all need to be

pursuing is that you need to know who's

storing your data. Like, as a company,

are you giving away the secrets? Are you

giving it all away to these these

companies to just go off and and be able

to use all of your hard-fought wisdom

against you? Now, you're probably

thinking, "Okay, that's a little

ridiculous." Is it ridiculous?

Is it? No company would ever do that.

That's not actually happened. Well, just

hold on. We got one more little part I

want to go over and I think I can prove

that that notion wrong, okay, buddy? Cuz

here's the deal.

If what these big companies were selling

was actually just able to derive value

immediately, right? You didn't need the

token max into potentially just dead end

spending just a ridiculous amount of

money. Seriously though, like look at

Meta. 73.7

trillion dollars. They're claiming it's

a two-plus billion dollar a year bill

that they're spending on AI. Like what

the What are they even doing over there?

You can't tell me they're getting two

billion dollars worth of value out of

their tokens right now. Nope. Refuse to

believe it. Unless of course they're

doing exactly what we're talking about,

which is getting some information,

getting that sweet data.

>> If it was so valuable, let's say I can

make you a billion dollars right

tomorrow. Wouldn't I say, "I'll make you

a billion dollars and I want 30%?" Why

are they charging for tokens if it's so

valuable?

>> So good. Why are they charging for

tokens if it's so valuable? Like that is

a very big question because like just

just really just walk with me on this.

If AI was so freaking amazing that it's

going to take whatever revenue you have

now and triple it. You just have to

integrate it into your into your system.

Why would Anthropic even have a consumer

side? They wouldn't. All they would do

is simply be like, "Yo, business A,

here's the deal. We're going to come in.

We're going to triple your revenue.

You're going to give us 30%. The end."

Yeah. And you'd say, "Absolutely. Yes,

sir. Very much. Please. Thank you very

much. I would absolutely love that." I

would I would hands down do like no

company would say no to that. I mean,

other than Anthropic themselves

considering they're currently losing

They they would triple their losses.

Okay, but besides for them and say

OpenAI, like the rest of companies would

clearly jump on and say, "Absolutely. I

would love to triple my revenue and I

would gladly pay you for that." And

that's of course it's because it's about

the data, the secrets, the hard-fought

knowledge, the alpha

I don't like that term. All right, so

now is the part where I show you real

world examples. You know, that thing

which by the way, if I were to tell you

that these companies were doing things

that were shady, I think a lot of people

would just instinctively go, "Yeah, I I

could probably see that coming." cuz the

reality is if you have all these users,

millions upon millions of users making

queries into your system, you're going

to be able to see shapes of data in

which most people will never be able to

see. You can go, "Okay, this is really,

really hot. This is what the people

want. If we go into this industry, we're

going to win." Well, look at this right

here. Inside Cursor's wild rise, a lot

of great new details. CEO Michael Truel

didn't pay himself for years. Cursor

once made about 40 to 50% of Anthropic's

revenue. Anthropic told Cursor that

Claude Code was just a research effort.

Well, well, yeah. You know, you know,

old Claude Code, that old research

effort. It's not like it's nothing. It's

just like,

"Uh we're just trying something out.

We're not like actually using all this

data we've gathered. Where did they get

the data from?" Wait, by the way, thanks

for all the data. We really do genuinely

appreciate it. We're not like using it

all, identifying the fact that there's

millions upon billions of dollars

sitting on the table here, and we're

going to just simply move into that

industry. There's no definitive proof

that Anthropic used their position,

gathered all the data, and said, "Okay,

this is the exact market we should go

into." But, it's a point on the graph,

okay? Oh, by the way, just in case

you're wondering, our terms of service

often includes things like, "Hey, you

can't build competing projects or else

we're going to drop you." And of course,

competing projects being Claude AI,

Claude Pro, and other projects and

services that we may offer for

individuals along with any associated

apps, software, or websites as our

services. Of course, this is the

consumer side of the TOS. The commercial

TOS is worded slightly different. They

have different affordances. But, this

David Sachs tweet right here, I didn't

know about another case. You don't think

that can happen? That being, "Hey, you

give away all of your information." Just

look at Figma. Yes, if you haven't

looked at Figma, by the way, their stock

I'm so Hey, Figma employees, I feel for

you, okay? Anthropic employees, I don't

feel for you. Look at that. Anthropic,

your stock looks so good, but man, Figma

absolutely decimated. Anyways, when you

jump back here and say, "Just look at

Figma." According to the information,

Anthropic blindsided its its then

business partner with the launch of

Claude design. Figma's founder said

Anthropic had not been consistently

honest with them. Anthropic's chief

product officer, Anthropic's chief

product officer, had even served on

Figma's board until 3 days before the

launch of Claude design. I did two

fingers up. 3 days. I meant to do

threes, not twos. Either way, just think

about that for a second. If you're on

the board for a company, you're there

for the best interest of that company.

We can all agree to that. Now, whether

you're working there, if you're just a

individual engineer, that's a completely

different story, but if you're on the

board, your goal is to shepherd the

company long-term towards success. The

fact that if if all of this stuff that

is being reported by The Information is

correct, which is it is saying that

Anthropic blindsided its business

partners. The fact that Anthropic's

chief product officer knew this was

going to happen, knew Claude design was

going to drop, and remained on the board

for so long just seems completely crazy

to me. I just can't even imagine that.

That is like being not just stabbed in

the back, you're being stabbed in the

front. You're getting right just sitting

there, looking in your eyes, and

stabbing you, and you don't even know

about it until 3 days after they quit.

Think about all of that juicy data they

got from Figma, too. Mhm.

The data must have been absolutely fine,

like a nice delicious French wine. Okay,

I'm not a I don't Do they do French

people drink wine? I assume so. This

This seemed like they drink the wine.

That's not even a good French accent. I

don't even know how to do a French

accent. I don't even know what that

accent is. But now we have two points on

a graph, and two points on a graph makes

well, a line. And if you zoom out just a

bit, you'll notice that Anthropic also

stole the world's books. So, it's not

like this is the first time that they

have been inside of the data stuff. And

plus, if you really zoom out and think

about it, they also stole the world's

knowledge. I mean, that's a that's a

pretty big straight line if you ask me.

Now, there's no definitive proof or like

papers written up how they used Figma's

data and then said, "Oh, okay, yeah,

hey, that's us now. We're we're now

Figma." Instead, I think it's pretty

obvious to say that they saw the success

of Claude Code. They saw them moving

into the coding space. They saw how

popular the design space is that's

paired with the coding space and said,

"We need to move into that." And they

could see the usage already. They

already had the proof. They already had

the pudding to know if they could just

put the little toes again. Also, the

pudding and the toes, that's that's not

an analogy. This is not one. They

probably have many other things that are

in the works that is being designed off

the data that is being handed to them so

that they can commandeer parts of the

industry and then effectively be able to

push people out with their terms of

service. This is a very unusual

experience. Now, I can't say all of this

is actually happening or what is all of

their motivations behind things, but it

does seem like this is exactly what you

would use the data for. You would use it

as a means to determine which industry

you're going to capture because if you

have unlimited token spend, you can

effectively slop together any product

you want to be able to be close enough

with its competitors because you know

that the most amount of people are in

this realm. So, you can use all of your

insider information. You can use all

that hard-fought knowledge. You can see

how people are doing stuff in an

industry and you can build the product

that best matches other people's desires

because you have the data. All the data.

You have every single prompt and every

single answer, every single re-prompt.

It's crazy what they actually have

available. Now, this Alex Karp clip goes

on for about 20 minutes and yes, it's

absolutely legendary some of the things

he has to say. You should definitely

watch the thing. I really am on Alex

Karp's side. I can't believe I'm saying

that. I'm on the geographically

monogamous side of Alex Karp, which

Wait, I shouldn't say it that way. That

That's not That's not what I meant. I am

definitely on the geographically

monogamous Alex Karp's side of this

argument, which is that the AI industry

is effing insane because the effing

insane part isn't the fact that they're

losing a bunch of money, which I think

is what everybody points to right now.

It's the complete destruction of so many

companies and the data they're able to

yield and potentially able to weaponize

against other people to be able to

capture industries. Very, very

interesting. And again, the nine-point

manifest on AI sovereignty probably says

it the best. Data retention is your

treasure. Transfer it at your own peril.

Your ability to win is dictated by your

ability to recognize and use your unique

edges, and you keep winning by

compounding the underlying data to

generate new insights. Transferring that

data hands over access to your

pre-existing winning plays and yields

the means of production for new ones.

Meaning, somebody else can figure out

how to win your industry based on your

data. The name

is the primogen.