The discussion centers on Anthropic's decision not to release its advanced AI model "Mythos," which can autonomously uncover serious software vulnerabilities—some decades old—in critical systems like operating systems and web browsers. Instead, Anthropic launched "Project Last-Wing," a 100-day initiative involving 40 major tech and financial companies to proactively find and fix these security flaws before they can be exploited. Opinions on the move are divided: some participants commend it as a responsible, industry-led approach to safety that avoids heavy-handed regulation, while others suspect it is partly a marketing tactic, comparing it to past "crying wolf" scenarios by AI companies. The conversation also touches on the potential risks if such capabilities fall into the hands of state actors, the balance between innovation and security, and whether this moment calls for closer collaboration with government agencies. Ultimately, the group debates whether this is a critical cybersecurity turning point or a manageable challenge within the industry's existing framework.
How many PRs you think are gonna get pushed to the core structural internet in 100 days? What's the over under number? 'Cause I'll give you a number. - You're gonna say zero. - No, no, no, I'll say like 10,000, but it's gonna be a meaningless thing. - But if it prevents your browser history from being released everybody in the world, - Ooh. - in the world, Chamath. That may be something that you're willing to, you know, let 100 days pass on. - I think you got Chamath's attention when you said browser history. - What about the dick pics? (laughing) - Chamath is gonna release them himself. (laughing) - For what your winner's ride. - Brain man David's side. (upbeat music) - And it said we open sources to the fans and they've just got crazy with them. - WS, I think. - Queen of kilowatt. - I'm going to leave. - All right, everybody, welcome back to the number on podcast in the world, David Freiburg is out this week, but in his place, the one, the only, our fifth bestie, Brian, Gersner, Chamath. - I mean, why don't you ever give me, put a little namaste in your payday anymore. - You used to be so, I mean, I mean, you used to be the greatest moderator, but now it's just, it's gotta make sure. - You know what, these guys beat me up. They beat me up and they just beat the joy out of me doing this program. (laughing) - It's because you're a Rokana Apologist now. - No, I, who will get into it? Okay, save her for the fuck. (laughing) Oh, Kaka Apologist. Just 'cause I said like, hey, they've stopped retard maxing and they've started doing like some logical things. Yeah, okay. - It was great to be here. - Great to be here. - Good to have you. - Good to have you here. And of course, we have David Sacks. Is back, everybody wants to hear from David Sacks? We missed you last week, bestie. - We didn't beat the joy out of you. We just trying to beat some of the hot air. - Oh, turn. - Any fluff that you can put on the show that disinvolves you talking and saying nothing is, that's the stuff we gotta turn. - Yeah, I cut it out. - Okay, yeah, I cut it right now. We'll cut it out and then we'll just put a promo in for the syndicate.com. Thank you. - Oh, it's just. - I'm also with us, (laughing) - Patias here. How's your retard maxing going since last week? Did you have a retard 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 that you've caused in the last 20 years? - I think I've done generally more good things than not. - Oh, you have, but there's been some chaotic moments of 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 play, can't everybody and be a loser? Are you there to be a winner? - Yes, you're in the arena, but have you stopped going to there after realizing - Jay Cal, what's up with this sudden interest in retard maxing? Are you like that calivicular for a retard maxing? - No, the world finally caught up with me. That's it. I mean, I've been retard maxing this whole time. - I just didn't have a name for it guys. - Wow, okay. - Eli's videos are really good. I watch 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 climb the rungs, you very quickly learn that the more you want something, the less you're gonna 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. - Eli Shalong, but Eli I think is how he goes by. - Okay. - But he's fantastic. He's got a YouTube chat. - Mark Andreessen found him. And he's like, this guy is the new guy. - Modern day philosopher. He gives you a roadmap 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. - I was dating girls. - He's the Liza and El Gaiib 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. The basic point is build something and don't ruminate. Okay, ruminating is just not worth it. Just everybody go through. - So just do stuff. Stop blathering in your own head. Just do stuff. - Absolutely. - Listen, it's being a doing stuff. Anthropic is withholding its newest model, mythos. I'm using the Greek pronunciation. Its newest model, mythos, 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 in web browser. This little study they did included 20 year old exploits that had been missed by security audits for decades. Some examples they found a 27 year old vulnerability in open BSD, used in firewalls and critical infrastructure. They found a 16 year old bug in FFM peg. That was missed by automated tools after 5 million scans, the Linux kernel, all kinds of bugs they found. They released a hype video, hyping up why they were not going to share this model. Here's Daria, come on the program anytime, brother. It is 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 identifying bugs. It's good for us because we can find more of an algorithm 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. All right, Brad. By the way, that's set there using there. That's the same room those guys played Dungeons and Dragons in every Sunday. 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. We've got a lot more issues to discuss about this. I actually think they deserve a ton of credit here and let me walk you through why. The company could have just released mythos, broken a lot of core things on the internet. Oftentimes 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 solved it. It would allow offensive hacking and people to expose browsers and browser history, expose credit cards on the internet. 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 in the industry. They set up project last-wing. It's an AI-driven cyber coalition, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, JP Morgan. 40 of the most important companies. Their goal is very simple. Let's spend 100 days using advanced AI to find and to fix and to harden the software of vulnerabilities before hackers exploit them. 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 Train model at OpenAI. They represent the beginning of what I would call AGI models. These are models with massive step-function improvements and intelligence. They're just too smart to be released immediately. By the way, there was nothing that said that every time you finish a model, you got to immediately release it GA. They set up this idea of sandboxing, building defensive alliances in order to move away from that regime. 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. Now that we're at this threshold, we're going to sandbox these things. I think that OpenAI 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 pressure on and win the race at AI while making the trade off to protect safety. 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. Sax, when you look at this, we had Emil Michael on the program a couple of weeks ago. I might have been four or five weeks ago. We had a very thoughtful discussion about, hey, if the government is going to have these tools, an anthropic wants to withhold them and 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 very, 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. This is incredibly dangerous. What if China has it? If this thing is as powerful as Dario says it is, then this is an offensive weapon as well. For us to take out, let's just pick a pressy issue, the North Korea's ballistic missile program. This is equivalent the way it's being described as the Manhattan Project, perhaps. What are the chances to part question for USX? That China already has this and is using it. Do you think Dario 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 a 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 Groc and I just asked, hey, give me examples where it's brought back his basically use caretakers. And 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 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 in throbbing model had. And have you seen the 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. Yeah. I actually think that this one is more on the legitimate side. I mean, look, the reason why I bring this up is anytime and throbic 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 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 the 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 six months, we're going to have this call it one time period of catching up where a I driven cyber is going to be able to detect a whole range of bugs that maybe it's 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 themselves. So they can patch them before these capabilities are widely available. And by the way, it won't just be entropic that makes these capabilities available. We know that like let's say the Chinese open source models like Kimi K2. It's about six months behind. So we have a window here of maybe six 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 I guess open a is going to release a similar thing in the next few weeks. I do think that every company or IT department or C so that is managing code bases should take this seriously and use the next few months to detect and again, like dormant bugs or vulnerabilities and and roll up 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 that it's in order to drive the correct behavior. So 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 a I being used for cyber offense and a I being used for cyber defense, but it will be a more normal sort of a period. Tremoth, we have Dario and you know, a number of the participants here taking this super seriously. They're making a big statement, sacs very nuanced, I think take there. What's your take on how do these companies have it both ways. Hey, this 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 you're take on this is it the boy who cried well for is this the real deal now. I think it's mostly theater. Okay. In February of 2019, when Dario was still at open AI, they did the same thing with GPT two. 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 rollout 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 five years to patch them on. So when you see like a large multi trillion dollar g said bank, it's a bit of theater. Why? What do you think they can actually accomplish in two 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 sacks 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 and the topic is shooting the lights out right now. This is like Steph Curry going bananas from every everywhere on the court. These guys are hunting threes. It's all that. Okay. So huge kudos to anthropic. But we've seen it before we saw it when these folks were the principal architects at open AI 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 goals. 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 got to I'll get you in here for the last word. I'm going to go with yeah, maybe they did cry wolf 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 defconn like we should be taking this deadly seriously. I think these companies got a coordinate with the CIA and this is equally a defensive as offensive opportunity. Do you think this is a nationalization of AI now? No, I actually I don't think it should be nationalized. 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 know, Pamela Michael and you know Trump and everybody have these people in a room and that they've given the defconn 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 Daria went to them and said, look what we found. This is the real deal. I'll give you the last word on this Brad sent your investor in both. The frontier model forum, which was which was put together in 23 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 AI and and and then. They're coordinating on this stuff. You know, there are times where I push back on anthropic because I thought it was you know, perhaps regulatory capture 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 moratorium. 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 100 days, sandboxing, hardening the systems. And then we're going to keep pushing forward. What do you honestly think is going to get accomplished in 100 days? How many PRs you think are going to get pushed to the core structural internet in 100 days? Because I'll give you a number. You're going to say zero. My answer to that is I'll say like 10,000, but it's going to be a million.
If it prevents your browser history from being released, everybody in the world, Chimath, that may be something that you're willing to, you know, let 100 days pass on. I think you got Chimath's attention when you said browser history. What about the dick pics? Chimath is going to release them myself. Hey, Chinese hackers, here are my dick pics. 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 a good balance. I'm sure we're going to have plenty of debates about this in the future. But you know, this 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 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 pre-AI to post-AI 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 think that, you know, I've put a size in the past. I think that blackmail study was embarrassing to level with being a hoax. But I think in this case, I'm going to give them credit and say that I think that it's legit. So it's not the anthropocokes. This could be legit. Looking at the choice but to treat it that way. Of course. Yeah. I mean, even if two things could be true at the same time, Sacks, 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 a 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 hundred days, that's a pretty good, that's a pretty big advantage versus the hackers. But let me think one more point there, Jamal. 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 is real, they pick 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 of Dutch. Well, maybe those are customers of the ones that are including here. Anyway, this is a really important story. We'll obviously track it in the coming weeks to see what turns out to be reality and Dario do come on the program. At some point, hey, 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. He's ignored you. I literally got an introduction from the number, like one of the number one venture capitalists in the world is on the cap table very early. He just won't respond. I don't know why. I would tell you Dario's podcast with Dworkish, who I think is an excellent podcaster. I've listened to that three or four times, taking notes every time. It is a really exceptional piece. Really exceptional piece of work by, by doing it. All right, let's keep moving. We've got a lot on the agenda. Jay, you may once again be tarred with your affiliation with us. For 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 Jay Cal. Even Jay Cal has friends everywhere. Let me ask a Braddock question here, which is why 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 Steinberger. Steinberger. Yeah. We're now in Coder, created OpenClaw, which is kind of the thing that launched the sole agent, era now, I guess you could say. Any event, he said that Anthropic was cutting off his access to was it to was to call it. Is that the next topic that's on? 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 a hundred x 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 at a zero to your token use. So or more. And so they essentially angled. OpenClaw. 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. Well, can you just explain that exactly? So I think you're right that they systematically copied, featured by feature of OpenClaw, incorporated that into Claude. And then the coup de Grasse was basically cutting off OpenClaw. Yeah. 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, 9 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 OpenClaw. You now have to go to the API and pay per usage. So no more like. Unbelievably essential use andthropic's own agent harness or you part of the bundled flat rate. You can assume that that's what they'll do, which if you were thinking on an antitrust 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 Cloud API. And every company has a right to set the price for its products. It's just saying that you were under their current regime, they were selling dollars for $0.10 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. Okay, okay. But Brad, when you use the OpenClaw competitor that Anthropic now offers, right? Are they subsidizing that? Are you paying? We don't know yet because it's in close ban. So another way I'm saying is if they charge for API usage, their own first party agent, harness or system, then that would be Apple's to Apple's. But if they end up charging the bundled flat rate, let's say for their stuff, but then charge the meter grade 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 version of this agentic product is because it meets all of your security parameters, right? So, Altymator runs a lot of stuff on Anthropic. They're already integrated within our data warehouse, our data lake, things of that nature. So just letting OpenClaw loose on the Altymator dataset 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 OpenClaw 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 you're just giving the most generous interpretation you're taking a more cynical one. I'm with you, Sacks. I'm 100% on the cynical side. OpenClaw is so powerful. It's got so much momentum that not only is Anthropic trying to ankle it. I believe when Sam Altman bought it, it was needing to 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 launch. It's awesome. I've been using it. Anthropic has this clawed managed agents. They dropped that on Wednesday April 8th. Yesterday, today's Thursday when we tape. You guys listen on Fridays. And then you have Hermes agent that was released on February 25th. That's also OpenSource and very good. So that's in the OpenSource camp. Oli Bob 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 new releases of their retard-maxing assistance Alexa and Siri. That will be less retarded in this new version. Then nothing out of Satya 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 are they building multi-functioning agents that can move from answering questions to actually doing something for you? Like, you've got to do that because that's what consumers in enterprise is once. It doesn't mean that it's about killing open-clots. Just this is an obvious thing that the world wants. They have the 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. 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 smaller language models that are verticalized now, that will run on desktops and laptops and is even starting to run on the top ones. That is their biggest competitive threat. And I hope it happens. I all do respect to your investments, Brad. I think this technology and the interface is, you know, he plays bets. But 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 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, kind of a question. Thank you for that impassioned monologue. Actually, I want to ask all three of you. Thank you for the TED Talk. I have a yes-no question for each of you. Do you believe that Anthropic has dominant market share encoding right now? Yes, no. Encoding? Yes, just coding. But not that they had the lead, but not dominant. 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 person encoding 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. I don't know about that. Right, 50% of the market. You've got to look at what the-- It's probably a-- It's probably a-- You've got to look at what the tam is. Right, there are a lot of people who provide, you know, that are in the business that have-- You have a tape on here, you have a tiebreaker before we move on to the next slide. 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 called us, you know, out of the game. We were being destroyed by OpenAI. 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 hard press to walk into, you know, some district court and make the case that these guys have somehow already formed a monopoly against Amazon, Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, 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-- Let's get you to market share. And you're sure, Malfe, go ahead. They probably have 50 to 60% market share, because I think Codex 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 de novo 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 enterprise-grade software is still sh-- SHIT. And that's the actual lived experience, not for me, but when I call on our customers, half a trillion dollar banks, a 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 hand-to-n. So until I can honestly tell you that we can point a model at this with the right guardrails, 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 60-year-old pensioners to come into the office to interpret, "Kopno, I'm not joking. This is all-wall, Fortran. 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 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 Gordy and not. 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 bullshit. Not to say that you can't have a great keep 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 massive 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 BitTensor, Tau on this program a couple of weeks ago when we had the Genshin interview, you brought it up actually, Chema. 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 Tau like rewards. And in 45 days they hit 80% of what clawed for 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 by codex or clawed 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. 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 an 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 Blackwall. And when you look in the future, let's just say in six or nine months that a 15 or 20 trillion parameter 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 just to be so clear. I'm just observing because another project other than BitTensor that someone brought up to me is Venice. The concept of open source training and orchestration is a hugely disruptive idea, which is the complete or thogonal 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. So 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 code base as an open source project. Never going to happen." Yeah, 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, Postgres, like Terraform, like these open source projects are deep inside of enterprises, deep. If we were 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 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 spare startups. Love to use open source products. I think this could be the next big thing. But listen, I invest in things that have a 90% chance of going to zero. Do your own research, no crying in the casino. Can I just make a final few points? So just quickly. So number one is with respect to this market for code, for 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, does 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 percent 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 as possible that the other guys catch up, but I think there is a possibility of a flywheel there and strong, I guess you call it data scale effects, things like that. So I do believe that the market for coding tokens could be monopolized. Third, and Thropix revenue run rate is 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. We perfect. It's the next story. Okay, maybe pull up the tweets, but this thing is ramping at a rate we've never seen before. Yeah, let me 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 one of the main things an agency to do 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. Yeah, 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 is going to look at this market with the benefit of 2020 hindsight. And I think everyone should just basically keep it. Keep your nose clean. Keep it tight. Keep it tight. Tight is right. I think it's 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 cloud code. That was the starters pistol mid 2025 for billion dollar run rate end of 2025. $9 billion run rate. Just a couple of months later in April 30 billion dollar run rate. Yes, that's right. Triple. And the way they did this is enterprise customers are a major part of the spend. Dario announced a couple of months ago that there's over a thousand enterprises paying over one million annually. This is truly mind-boggling when you think about it because those are the most coveted customers in the world. When people are running enterprise software, they dream, slack dreamed of getting these million dollar customers sales for it's dreams of getting these million dollar customers. Brad, you're an investor, I guess Sam famously on BG2 asked you to sell your open AI stock back to him. You didn't. You demeared. 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. Chachi PT has 900 million users. I don't know if 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. Dario made that and Dario worked. It was the co-founder of open AI. He left. And according to the New Yorker story that I came out from running fire this week, he was basically left because of his disgust in working with Sam Altman. Your thoughts, Brad. You know, before we go down the open AI rabbit hole, let's just really contextualize like what's going on here. You know, I have this additional chart. You showed one. You know, they added four billion of revenue in January, seven billion in February, 11 billion of annualized run rates, or 10 or 11 billion in March, just to put in perspective. His Databricks plus Palantir 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, girly 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 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 Altman, or 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 clawed goat 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 a thropic 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 one million to those people are all making the same decision. There's a huge talent. The tell here is that the tam is as big as Dario 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 one and a half to two gigawatts of compute, right? These guys are massively compute constrained. They're each going to be adding three gigawatts 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 Jevons paradox is the unit costs 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 company yesterday. They're on a run rate to do 100 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 they're 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 a lot. So I would leave you with this. We're early to Chemos Point. We have low penetration of the global 2000. We have low penetration of the use cases. We have low penetration 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, the 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. Chemos, question one has been answered. The question of, hey, does this stuff actually have utility? That went from a question mark to an explanation point. Of course, it's got utility. People are getting value from it. That 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 explanation 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 $400, $500 billion in investment into these data centers at a minimum. And then they have to climb out of that to get your profitability. So what are your thoughts on these becoming profitable companies? Do you remember that 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 EBITDA. When you can't talk about EBITDA, you talk about margin. Commuter EBITDA. 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. 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. They're saying that there's a difference. If it's not true, there's been no clarity provided by these companies. 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 rate revenue. We're definitely there. We can quibble about the details, but we are not at the place where people are like, "Here's your steady state, free cash flow margin, and here's what your e-book does." We're years from that. They're going to have token-maxing e-book, like commuting at the e-book at the way we want it. The thing that we need to understand is how gross margin negative is this revenue growth. We don't know that. At least we don't as outsiders. Brad might know. Brad may know. I will tell you, think about this. What are their big cost inputs? The number one cost input is the cost to compute. I just told you they only have a gigawatt and a half a compute. They have that gigawatt and a half a compute, whether they have a billion in revenue or whether they have 80 billion in revenue. You might actually expect to see these companies. Their gross margins are exploding higher. The fastest increase in gross margins, I've probably seen out of any technology company. This is not gross margin negative, you're saying? No, definitely not gross margin negative. What I would tell you is- They must be hugely profitable. You may see accidental, why I call it accidental, profitability. They may not be able to spend this revenue fast enough, 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. The only thing you can really spend money on is compute and they can't stand up the compute fast enough. None of this puts 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 very, very possible. I've seen rumored out- There are 50 to 60%- 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, 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 conditions on the field. You already see this today. 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 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. Then we're bumbling around talking about gross margins and revenues. We are not at profitability. What is true for Facebook and what was true for Google was irrespective of where they got to a billion. Who the f*ck cares? They were profitable by year three and they never looked back. I was there, I remember. It was glorious. The cost of building AI totally stipulate is radically higher than the cost of building retrieval at Google. It's just a fundamentally more expensive problem. But I will tell you that there's a lot of fun out there about negative gross margins. Jason, you started this 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 opening? Yes. I would say it opened AI as well. If they're on, if they do $50 billion, this year again, just look at the number of people they have. Revenue per people is pretty low. The inference cost is plummeted. Inference cost is down by 90% year over year. Finally, I want to make a respond to this point about gross versus net this tweet that Chimath was referencing. There's a certain percentage, a small percentage of Anthropics revenue that they distribute through the hyper scalers. Like a lot of arrangements, whether it's Snowflaker, Data Bricks or others, you pay a commission on that. I will just tell you that you're talking single digit percentage of total revenue of these companies. The gross versus net thing isn't what's being reported. The apples for apples is pretty easy. If you want to be conservative on it, take down Anthropics revenue by 5% to 10%, which again, I think it's better to gross up opening AI's revenue. But anyway, you do it. I just think it's a distraction from what's really going on here. Happy that. Zach, you have any thoughts on this massive revenue ramp? Yeah. I want to go back to a point that Brad Bay, 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 were point to was the fact that hundreds of billions dollars was going into catbacks 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 dooms were saying that AI was in a bubble. We're also the ones who were saying that AI was so powerful that's going to put us all out of work. And it's going to 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 there'd be no payoff or justification for this massive catbacks that's being spent. And I think we're starting to see here. There is justification for it. 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 God 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 catbacks this year. On his way, I think Jensen said, one trillion by 2030. So Silicon Valley, whether it's big companies, whether it's founders, are always willing to bet on this next big thing. They're not like Wall Street. They don't need, you know, as far as these 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 a 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, Brad, you didn't answer my question about the vibes over at OpenAI versus Quad. OpenAI is, I wouldn't say, really, but there's a lot of hand wringing going on. A lot of employees leaving. A lot of people who are wondering, like, is our strategy, the winning strategy of consumer first. They shut down Sora, 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. I don't think we have to go into the blow by 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. Let's start with immense credit where credit is due. Anthropic was literally counted out of the game last year. And here they come over the last 12 months. And they've kicked OpenAI's ass over the last 90 days. And what he did in Anthropic too. 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 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 OpenAI. Right? And I think we're at peak OpenAI 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. If you look
at what's going on with Codex, incredible ramp on Codex, fastest ramping model with 5.4, I think 5.5 or Spud, whatever we're going to call it, 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 is being previewed. 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 very usable model in terms of 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 AI 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 Armojo 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 Chimaz 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 on 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 a really good for team America. Well said. And here is your polymarket IPO is before 2027. Obviously SpaceX at 95% Cerribros at 94%. And hey, number five on this list, 51% chance that in profit goes out before the end of the year, 44% chance that opening eye comes out before then. All right, here is the closing market cap for anthropic on polymarket, only $158,000 in volume. So, Chimato, 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 it? We first invested, and I believe it was the hundred and uh, 30 or 150 billion dollar round. So this would be a seven X five X for outtemeter. L, please congratulations. I mean, listen, I again, there are lots of people who were there before us and who are on the board and who are going to do better than that. Would you put in 50? No, we've got billions of both companies. Billions in both companies. Oh my lord. Yeah, I think there's this existential thing going on in venture today. And David could talk about as well. I mean, people can't, they're extraordinary 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 Chimass 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 tricky. That's what happens to all these enterprise software companies. Do they become PE takeouts? Do they get consolidated? Or do they just have to adopt these AI technologies and solve this problem of, hey, the frontier models 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 most 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 bath water right now, and they probably are some value buys and enterprise software. I think the interesting question here, and we've been talking about this for a couple of years on 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 in video was the first company to be worth multiple trillions of dollars because of AI. And for a while, look like that's where all the value capture was going to be because OpenAI, for example, was losing so much money and a throbbing wasn't on the radar as much. Now we're seeing, wait a second, 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 in phropic and OpenAI, 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 Palantir 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, you see 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, Tremoth, your thoughts here on the layers here and where the value is captured. It's too early to tell. Too early to tell, right? An energy 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 tip finnian here, producer Nick, that is sold out. There's a wait list of hundreds of people, but it is what it is, folks. If you snooze, you'll lose. And top tier speakers are coming. It's going to be great. We'll get an update from Tremoth, but I think Brad, you're going to be joining us again. Yes, for liquidity update. That's probably not your headline or though. I'm probably not your headline. No, but you always squirt 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, Tremoth. Make your announcement here. That sent me an article from Wikipedia about peanut 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 chip. Is that with nano banana? But without is that what she said? She just takes the dummy. It's clogged. My apologies. Clod. All right. This is much of a thiz an afraid of the cyber is because nothing's going to come out. That's more embarrassing than what he says himself on the basis. For basis, that's he's like guys. So I saw the agenda for this thing. It's incredible. Congrats to you guys. I mean, like the, like just the fun of being a nap all the poker, all the the dining experience. I this is five star. All the way. It looks really cool. Six star. It's a mom level because Tremoth was I dare I say belligerent in his demands. He said this has to be six star or I will not show up Jake now. I said, okay, boss, get to work. And Tremoth, what do you got? And 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 Tremoth, give us some updates here. You have any updates that you want to share because you are running programming for liquidity 2026 up in york. 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 Gersner and Thomas LaFont of co two. Co two. That's great. 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. This is a new. This is a new son, Tremoth. It's great. So right now we have Bill Ackman. We have Andre Carpathy. We have Dan Loeb. We have Thomas LaFont. We have Brad Gersner. We have Sarah Fryer. And more to come, we will announce more to you. There might be one or two surprises. J. Cal and a couple and a couple of surprises. Yeah, we don't announce all the speakers. J. 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. Sax you're going to come to that all-in.com session. 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. Well, see you at liquidity end. That's big news. Now we just got a bunch of sac stands who are racing. Now we're going to get sacks at this is what happens every year behind the scenes. Sax 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 do a fire drill 48 hours before the event. Okay, here we go, guys. We're gonna go to the third rail here. We gotta catch up on the Iran War. Here's the latest two weeks into a cease fire. I've started just two days ago at the taping of this. VP, JD Vance, friend of the pod, is a, and some special consultants, Wicoff and friend of the pod, Jared Kushner, are headed to Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan for talks this very weekend. So while you're listening to this event, they are going to be working on the peace deal. Easter Sunday, Trump posted a truth stating, open the fucking straight and crazy bastards, or you're gonna be living in hell, just watch Praise be to Allah. On Tuesday morning, Trump posted another threat on social media, a whole civilization will die tonight. Never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen, but it probably will. Tweets were obviously discussed a lot over the last week. He gave him an 8 PM deadline. At 6.30 PM, I'm post-announced on truth, social, that he had agreed. President Trump had agreed to a two week cease fire if Iran opens the straight. He also said, "Hey, listen, we got the straight. "Maybe there'll be a toll booth, "but we'll take the majority of the toll "and we'll split it with Iran." Here's the quote. We received a 10 point proposal from Iran, and we believe it's a workable, it is a workable basis on which to negotiate. And apparently Netanyahu took the cease fire to mean level Lebanon dropping 160 bombs in 10 minutes yesterday. Sacks, you were out last week. Everybody wants to know your position on the war. I'll hand it off to you. What are your thoughts on the two week cease fire? And everything that's occurred up until this point? Well, look, I have to preface them about to say, which is I'm not part of the foreign policy team at the White House. And the last time I commented on the war on the show, it somehow made international headlines that Trump advisor says, "X, Z." And I'm not a Trump advisor on this issue. I think that'd be a fair headline to write if it was a technology issue, but this is not. So whatever I say is just my personal opinion, but then the media is gonna somehow portray it or attribute it to the White House or try and create an issue out of it. So I feel like I'm limited in what I can say, except that to say that I think it's terrific that we have the cease fire. I think it's great that there's gonna be this meeting in Islamabad to hammer it out. And I think what the President's accomplished so far with the cease fire is, it's a great thing because what happens with these wars is they take on a life of their own, meaning they tend to go up the escalation ladder, right? There's a lot of podcasts are discussing the so-called escalation trap and supposedly, there are stages this based on historical patterns. And so I think it's actually very hard to pull out of these things. And I give the President tremendous credit for negotiating the cease fire that we've achieved so far and then sending the team tofully work this out. - Brad, actually my first trip to the Middle East was when you and I, maybe four years ago, went, "Thank you for taking me." What is your take on where we're at here? I think we just wrapped up weeks six of this and we're going into weeks seven. First, on March 4th, I tweeted the Trump doctrine in Iran massively destroy all military capabilities, kill the people building lethal weapons to use against us and get out. Reserve the right to do it again if needed, zero efforts to build Madisonian democracy, Iran's gonna have to build what comes next. And I think what the market has said, right? If you look back at last year on tariff, Jason, the top to bottom drawdown was about 15%. On the Nasdaq, intraday is down 22%. Okay? The drawdown in this period over Iran was only down about five to seven percent on S&P and Nasdaq, right? So the market has said, listen, re-trust Trump at his words, he said he's not gonna get into an entangled war here. I think he terrifies the hell out of people with his tweets about destroying civilization and all this other stuff, but I think people, even though they don't like to hear it, they've resolved for themselves that when he says he's gonna get out, he will in fact get out. Of course, there was a lot of hand-ringing, but if you look at the markets today, we basically bounced all the way back from where we were pre-Aran on both the S&P and the Nasdaq. If in fact we land the plane, if JD lands the plane, by the way, on Lebanon, yes, they were bombing yesterday, but Netanyahu has now said that you're gonna have direct government talks between Israel and Lebanon. So if we land the plane on these two things, I think it's off to the races in the market. And by the way, while everybody's focused on Iran, stay tuned. I think we're getting close to a deal on Ukraine, Russia, right? Venezuela is kind of going seemingly very well. I think there's also gonna be news on Cuba. You could envision a world, there's risks to the downside. Certainly, I will stipulate, but you also have to pay attention to the risk to the upside. If you land the plane on those things, heading into America 250, July 4th, the market could really take off. All right, well, let's maybe up level this a little bit and talk about why we're in this war to begin with. And that's the big discussion amongst both sides of the aisle on Tuesday, the New York Times dropped, and inside the room piece on how President Trump made the decision according to this report. If it's true, I know some people don't subscribe to the New York Times anymore or think it's fake news, but how Trump decided to basically follow Netanyahu into this war in February 11th, Netanyahu met with Trump at the White House where he gave him a four-part pitch on attacking Iran. JD Vance, according to the story, if it's true, disclaimer, disclaimer, warn Trump that the war could cause regional chaos and break apart Trump's MAGA 2.0, the Trump 2.0 coalition. We talked about here, the big tent, and that's turned out, actually, to be true. There's been a bunch of hand-wringing from Megan Kelly, Tucker Carlson right on down the line. Rubio was anti-regime change, but he was largely ambivalent according to this story about the bombing campaign. Suzy Wiles, chief of staff, said she had concerns about gas prices before the midterms, pretty good advice there. And General Dan Kane, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, "This of Netanyahu's pitch, quote, "Sir, this is in my experience, "standard operating procedural for the Israelis. "They oversell and their plans are not always well developed. "They know they need us, and that's why they're hard selling. "If you put this together with Rubio's, "walk back comments at the start of the war, "we knew," this is quote from Rubio, "we knew there was going "to be an Israeli action. "We knew that would precipitate "and attack against American forces, "and that's why we did it." I had Josh Shapiro on the All-In-Interview show, and he talked a lot about this. There is a big underpinning here, Chimoff, that the United States foreign policy is being driven by Netanyahu, every Jewish American person I've talked to feels Netanyahu is not doing Jewish American and Jewish, the Jewish diaspora, any favors here by his approach to these wars, what are your thoughts on why we got into this and how we get out of it? - I mean, the person that decides is the president of the United States. So, a foreign leader isn't getting to call the shots in the United States. I think very practically speaking, the markets are effectively pricing in that this was a small blip for whatever people think. That's just what the best prediction market that we have is telling us, I think that's important to acknowledge that we're probably in the end game here. And the second thing to acknowledge is, if I was Israel, I would really be concerned that unless I help find an off-brand quickly, the risk that Israel loses America as a predictably steadfast ally could go down. And I think that that's problematic for Israel. Far more than that. - Yeah. - It's problematic for the United States. So, all of that kind of tells me that we will find an off-brand, a, because I think economically it makes sense and then b, geopolitically I think Israel will want to make sure that this doesn't burn a longstanding relationship. - Yeah, that seems to me to be the major issue here is Americans basically do not want to be in this war. Americans do not want our forest policy being influenced to the extent they believe, I'm not putting my belief in here, just Americans believe we are being dragged into this by Israel and that Israel has too much, or Netanyahu specifically, has far too much influence. And then people believe the anti-Semitism that's occurring here, Josh Shapiro gave me a lot of pushback on this. But all the Jewish Americans I talked to say, Netanyahu is causing with his actions in Gaza, Lebanon, Iran. He's gone too far and it's causing the anti-Semitism we're experiencing today. So you can make your own decisions about that. Any final thoughts here, Brad, on the American foreign policy being influenced too much by Israel? - No, it's the discussion of the-- - I mean, listen, kind of like Saks said earlier, I think that we will ultimately be judged by the outcomes. And everybody is an armchair pendant today on, the approach that we're taking in these two different places. I think we could be on the verge of a massive transformation of the Gulf states. You went there with me, Jason, Saudi, Qataris, Kuwaitis, Emirates, I've talked to a lot of them this week. I think they're very hopeful and optimistic. I think you could bring Iran into the full, but listen, I'm an optimist on all of this stuff. I just want to remind,
people doing nothing in Iran had tremendous risks. Doing nothing in Venezuela had tremendous risks. So it's not as though this was something that I think wasn't well calculated, but I think we have to let the cards be played and then let history be the judge. But I think there's a risk in both directions, but I'm gonna remain optimistic. - All right, Sachin, you said in the Gaza situation we should have a wide berth for criticism of Israel and Netanyahu. What are your thoughts on this belief here in the United States now in this discussion that Israel's having far too much influence over the United States foreign policy? - Well, I know some of my feed today that Naufhtali Bennett, who is a major Israeli politician, who was a former Prime Minister tweeted polling that showed that Israel was becoming very unpopular in the US and he was expressing concern about that. And expressing the need to basically address that or fix that. So I think you're starting to see Israeli politicians raising that as an issue. And I think that's probably a good thing. Yeah, there it is. And it's really cool actually how X now dis automatically translates things from foreign languages. In this case, he grew and it puts it in your feed. So yeah, so here's Naufhtali Bennett, former Prime Minister saying this is a situation with a lot of work ahead of us to fix everything. Now, obviously this is not Netanyahu. This is one of his political opponents. But yeah, I mean, this is something for Israel to consider and think about. And I think that they would improve their popularity if they got behind the ceasefire. And I have no indication that they won't. But that would certainly be a good place to start. - I have to say just as an aside, this auto translate feature has done more for understanding across borders than anything I've ever seen. And it is the most impressive tech feature. I've seen released in years putting AI and large language models aside for people don't know what's happening because of GROC being really good at doing auto translate. They've taken the pockets of the best of what's happening in Japan, what's happening in Israel, what's happening in France. And they're surfacing it auto translated. Then when you reply as an American to somebody in Japan, they see it auto translated as well, which has led to people who don't speak the same language engaging on X in a very nuanced, fun, interesting way. And that for as a truth mechanism is just absolutely extraordinary. I think this is gonna have such a profound effect. Maybe Elon and the X team should get like a Nobel Peace Prize award for this. I think it's gonna change, I mean, I hate to be hyperbolic, but have you been using this feature, Tremont, has it been coming up in your feed? And which language is up in your feed right now? English. Okay, so you're not part of the translation thing. Brad, is this hit your feed yet? And which regions are you seeing? Definitely see it in on the Middle East stuff. And, you know, I've seen on Chinese, I've seen it on the Russian Japanese. Super healthy. Let me tell you, based Japanese is a whole of a Nobel Peace Prize. - Whoa, man, based Japanese makes like, when days that Alex Jones seemed tame. They're like, look at this group of people insert whatever group of immigrants you like. And they're like, this is unacceptable behavior. This is not Japanese culture. These people need to be, get the hell out of Japan. It is wild folks. And if you don't have an X account, you are missing out. Go to x.com and sign up for this reason only because you think about the velocity. Like journalists are not even taking the time to translate and cover what's going on in those areas. And this is happening automatically in real time. So you start thinking about what happened in Ukraine. If you had people in Russia and Ukraine doing this and conversation with each other, it would be wild. - You're like a such a good hype man. The problem is you hype buttered bread the same way you hype a nuclear reactor. And so it's hard to really tell, you know, what you're really hype because your level of excitement, the intonation is exactly the same. - Yo man, nothing better than a slice of great toast. I mean, if this is very, in a way it is like sliced bread. It's very simple, but it is so powerful in the experience. - Well, it is true. X is better today than it's ever been. And remember, they have 70% fewer employees than they had the day Elon walked into the building. And so if they were ever a debate about this, like and I remember every base in, oh, it's gonna tip over, oh, it's gonna be a crappy experience. - So it's gonna do the job. - The fact of the matter here is we are a few years later, 70% fewer employees and every other company in Silicon Valley is looking at that. I think for a lot of these tech companies, we've hit peak employment. We're gonna create a tremendous number of new jobs, but for the existing jobs, these companies are all realizing they can do more with less. - Nikita Beer just tweeted that they're about to go ham on these bought accounts that auto-replied. - Yes. - Those literally ruined my feed. That's why I went to subscriber mode in my replies and it's worked out great. Yeah, no shout out to him and to Chris Sockah, who was in tears at what happened to Twitter. You need to be okay, Chris. Sorry, you need to be okay. No more tears. You only let subscribers respond to your tweets. - I do 50/50. Sometimes I'll just let it rip and get chaos. And then other times I have 2000 paid subscribers. I give all the money to charity like 30 grand a year. And it's just wonderful to get to know the same 2000 people out of my million followers. It's kind of like having this little subset. So sometimes I'm like, I don't have time to deal with 100 or 200 or 300 of your replies. - You have a million followers. - That's incredible. I mean, it's just, I mean, you have two million. I think Sacks must have a million, right? You have a million, right? - Only a million. - Right. How many you have now? You're getting popular. You built a couple. - I've got a couple. - I've got a couple. - What's your, oh, your alt cap, ALTC, AP. - I'm at 1.4 million. What do you got, Jacob? So I've lost your past, you. - I think you have. I'm like 1.1 million. - It's possible to get my real name, Jason. - I know a guy. - I gotta find out. - You're 1.1. Yeah, I mean, it's 1.4. I don't know how that happened exactly. - And just having the number one podcast in the world. Another amazing episode of the number one, and Shamat has two million, but that's only because he engaged it. He has just incredible moments of engaging with his haters. Oh my God. The reply is that Shamat sometimes drops are so great. I love Shamat. Goes, I like them up. - I like them up. - He likes them up. And then you had somebody who was like, oh my God, I was in the casino and you told me to bet black. So you bet black. So I bet black and I lost my money. And so you're responsible. And then you pay for the kids college. - He has two young girls. And so I funded their college accounts. - I thought that was hilarious. Just as obviously I'm very happy for him and his two daughters. I'm even more happy at how much it'll anger all these other goofball doorks living in their mom's basement. - Yes. - Who'd literally have no, take, they take no responsibility for their lives. And they should enjoy those hot pockets. By the way, for those folks in their mom's basement, the hot pockets and the fish sticks are ready. And you get one more hour of Xbox from mom. All right, listen, we missed you free, but this is the best episode in two years. (laughing) - Oh my God. - At the end of the show, it's a good move. And we will see you all at the liquidity summit except for the 400 people on the way. - Wait, let's go. - Let's go. - We're not gonna get in. - We got an email from the guys at Athena, 'cause we were just, oh my God. - They're gonna hire like 500 new Athena assistants. - Yes. - They had a thousand people after last week when we mentioned how much we love Athena. - Go to Athena.com. - But that's amazing. Those are like 500 hardworking men and women who are like working in the Philippines. - Saxon. - Great jobs. - I get you a couple of Athena assistants as a birthday present. That's something to get. - You're gonna love this, Axe. - Oh, Athena assistants are the best. - Congratulations to my friends over there. - All right, everybody. We'll see you next time. - Love you boys. - On Bratsy Tonight. - Favorite podcast. - Take care. - Love you. - Bye. - Bye. (upbeat music) - Well, let your winners ride. - Brain man David Sack. (upbeat music) - And it says, we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. - I'm the West. - I'm the queen of kilowatt. - I'm going on a beach. - What? - What? - What are you trying to do? - I'm going on a beach ride. Besties are gone. - Go through the sea. - That's my dog taking a wish to drive away to the next. - Get it off. (laughing) - Oh man. - My house is actually a meet me at the beach. - We should all just get a room and just have one big huge or two because they're all just like this like sexual tension that we just need to release about. (upbeat music) - What? - B. - You're a beer of beef. - B. - What? - We need to get besties aren't there. (upbeat music)
Podcast Summary
Key Points:
Anthropic has developed a new AI model, "Mythos," capable of autonomously discovering critical software vulnerabilities, including long-overlooked bugs in major operating systems and browsers.
Instead of releasing the model publicly, Anthropic initiated "Project Last-Wing," a 100-day collaborative effort with 40 major companies to identify and patch vulnerabilities before potential exploitation by malicious actors.
Opinions among the speakers vary
There is debate over whether this represents a genuine cybersecurity emergency requiring government coordination or a manageable challenge that the tech industry can address independently.
Summary:
The discussion centers on Anthropic's decision not to release its advanced AI model "Mythos," which can autonomously uncover serious software vulnerabilities—some decades old—in critical systems like operating systems and web browsers. Instead, Anthropic launched "Project Last-Wing," a 100-day initiative involving 40 major tech and financial companies to proactively find and fix these security flaws before they can be exploited. Opinions on the move are divided: some participants commend it as a responsible, industry-led approach to safety that avoids heavy-handed regulation, while others suspect it is partly a marketing tactic, comparing it to past "crying wolf" scenarios by AI companies.
The conversation also touches on the potential risks if such capabilities fall into the hands of state actors, the balance between innovation and security, and whether this moment calls for closer collaboration with government agencies. Ultimately, the group debates whether this is a critical cybersecurity turning point or a manageable challenge within the industry's existing framework.
FAQs
Mythos is a new AI model from Anthropic that autonomously finds software vulnerabilities, including old bugs in major operating systems and browsers. It's considered dangerous because it can chain together vulnerabilities to create novel cyber attacks.
Anthropic is withholding Mythos to prevent widespread cyber havoc, as it could enable offensive hacking. Instead, they are sandboxing it with a coalition of companies to find and fix vulnerabilities before potential release.
Project Last-Wing is an AI-driven cyber coalition involving companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Google. Its goal is to spend 100 days using advanced AI to find, fix, and harden software vulnerabilities before hackers can exploit them.
Some hosts see it as a responsible move to prioritize safety, while others view it as theatrical marketing, comparing it to past 'crying wolf' scenarios like with GPT-2.
If misused, such models could expose sensitive data like browser history or credit cards, and enable large-scale cyber attacks by chaining together vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure.
There is concern that China may already have similar AI capabilities, making it urgent for companies and governments to coordinate on defense and potentially use these tools offensively.
Chat with AI
Loading...
Pro features
Go deeper with this episode
Unlock creator-grade tools that turn any transcript into show notes and subtitle files.
PodcastTranscript AI