Speaker 1Support for the show comes from Atio. There are sales teams out there who never seem to stop moving. Always a step ahead, always working with a level of precision that doesn't seem normal. It's no secret, they're on Atio, the agentic CRM. Atio runs the work behind every win. It's built for humans and agents with the guardrails of human software and the scale of agentic infrastructure. This is the frontier of go-to-market. Teams like Parallel, Turbo Puffer, and Wardsmith are already using Atio to set the pace. Now it's your turn. Try Atio for free by going to atio.com slash decoder. That's A-T-T-I-O dot com slash decoder. Support for the show comes from ServiceNow. AI is moving fast across the enterprise. But without visibility, it's just chaos. Different tools. Different models. Different teams using AI in completely different ways. ServiceNow turns that chaos into control. With the AI Control Tower, you see all your AI across the business in one place. What it's doing, what it's done, and what it's about to do. So you stay in control. To put AI to work for people, visit servicenow.com.
Speaker 2You know that feeling when too many things fall through the cracks? Monday.com. Build for that gap. The AI work platform where people and agents work side by side to deliver more together. Create your first Monday agent today at monday.com.
Speaker 3Hello and welcome to Decoder. I'm Neil A. Patel, editor-in-chief of The Verge, and Decoder is my show about big ideas and other problems. Today I'm talking with Hayden Field, The Verge's senior AI reporter, about the new wave of consumer-friendly AI agents. Now, if you've been paying attention to AI, you know that AI enthusiasts have been using agents for a minute now. Homebrew open class setup. I'm going to give you a quick overview of what they've been doing for the last couple of years. The first thing is that they've been trying to increase the number of agents they've been using. The second thing is that they've been trying to increase the number of agents they've been using. The third thing is that they've been trying to increase the number of agents they've been using. The fourth thing is that they've been trying to increase the number of agents they've been using. The fifth thing is that they've been trying to increase the number of agents they've been using. The sixth thing is that they've been trying to increase the number of agents they've been using. The seventh thing is that they've been trying to increase the number of agents they've been using. is just dead ahead consumer product.
Speaker 4What's different here is OpenAI needs money a lot more than Meta needs money. And so they're honestly pretty similar, the products, it seems like. The difference is that OpenAI is marketing it to be an enterprise-friendly product a lot more than Meta is. So Meta, yeah, it's just a consumer-facing product. They're happy with that. Their goal is to make it as easy to use as humanly possible. So, you know, one-tap downloading, you know, just like putting it in your face literally everywhere. Even when I went to my Instagram profile the other day, there was a pop-up for using Muse. So yeah, they're trying to make it free, accessible, and super easy to broaden the audience. They want anyone to be able to just use it with one click and get used to it. They're trying to kind of just flood the market with AI agents and make it normal. Kind of have a ChatGPT moment, if you will, for AI agents. They want Muse to be that. Now, with OpenAI, they're still marketing it as a consumer-facing product. I mean, when you're using ChatGPT, if you have the right subscription, it's right there. It's like, use your dot to do this, that, and the other. They really want you to, you know, go for it as a consumer as long as you're paying. So this is for their $100 to $200 a month subscription tier, unlike Meta. So that's why there's a huge difference. For OpenAI, they don't have the money, it seems like, to, you know, just be front-loading all of this and say, hey, use it for free, no problem, we'll catch up with you later. They want this to be a money-making product, and that's why they're marketing it to the enterprise. They talked a lot about privacy to try to, you know, make this set apart from Meta's Muse. They talked a lot about what you could do with this as a knowledge worker, whether you worked in marketing, graphic design, software engineering. Product. Tons of different industries, they kind of gave examples of how you could use this as a assistant, as a co-worker. Sam Allman even put it like a chief of staff. He didn't want it to be just an assistant, he wanted it to be your chief of staff. And something else that I thought was interesting is that Sam Allman seemed to kind of subtly dig at Meta on stage a few times during Dev Day, but one of the times he said, look, I don't want this to be just something that's used to book flights or, you know, plan things with friends and look at your calendar. I want this to go beyond that. And he said, look, I don't want this to be just something that's used to book flights or, you know, plan things with friends and look at your calendar. And to really do knowledge worker tasks, things that, you know, you and your industry would need a niche assistant to perform. And that's why they also introduced specialist dots that are good at marketing, legal analysis, things like that. So they're really going for the enterprise angle here, but I think it's because they need money ahead of their IPO,
Speaker 3obviously. The revenue piece is really interesting that it's only for paid customers that they're higher tiers opening eyes. Tiers are very confusing, but it's $100 and up. And that's just going to keep a lot of people from using dots at first. The flip side of that is OpenAI does have a lot of customers for paying them a lot of money. If they can get those customers to start using dots, then those customers will be on their agent platforms. And maybe you get some lock in, right? You've given those agents a lot of data. They're part of your workflows. And that might solve the problem. I think we've seen all the frontier labs have where a new model comes out and it's slightly better. Everyone switches for six months and the next new model comes out and everyone switches back. Is there some thought that these agent platforms create lock in, create actual loyalty on top of just the models being better?
Speaker 4Yes. They're basically hoping that they can build a moat with their users for these things. So if Meta and Google already have super easy integrations with all of each company's existing tools and services, they can easily keep you there. For example, I have an Apple iPhone, but I use almost exclusively Google apps. So if Google had an AI agent that I was using every day, it would be a little tough for me to switch. Meta is hoping that they can get you so into the Muse ecosystem that it would be tough for you to switch once maybe one day you do have to pay. With OpenAI, they're trying to get you locked into their ecosystem right away. Even though you have to pay up front, they're thinking, okay, well, we have integrations with almost every tool and service. Maybe it's not as good as the company that owns that tool and service, but we have the variety and the breadth. So they're kind of going for quantity here. One of their employees told me that. They said, look, yeah, maybe our Gmail integration, for example, isn't going to be as good as Google's. But the fact that we have a Gmail integration and an Outlook integration and X, Y, and Z, they're going for just the power of choice and the fact that power users will hopefully stay in this moat. Support for the show comes from CrowdStrike.
Speaker 5AI is already fundamentally changing how companies build products and run their businesses. If you listen to the show, you probably already know this. But while AI drives innovation, every new model and agent also creates new cybersecurity vulnerabilities. That's why CrowdStrike built AI Detection and Response. Or AIDR. AIDR helps organizations discover where AI is being used, monitors AI activity at runtime, and helps teams detect, investigate, and respond to threats involving AI systems. As companies adopt AI, security has to be built in from the start. More than 70% of the Fortune 100 trust CrowdStrike to protect their businesses. Now CrowdStrike is helping secure the AI era. You can learn more about AI Detection and Response at CrowdStrike.com. You're either all in on this model, or maybe
Speaker 6you're building with another. You're either speed, or is it security? You're either custom, or are you ready to use? Or you're AWS AI. With hundreds of models, ready-to-use agents, speed, and security built in, you don't have to pick a side. You can have them all. How will AI revolutionize your business?
Speaker 1AWS AI is how. Support for the show comes from PipeDrive. Sales teams spend up to 50% of their time on admin work, rather than selling, building relationships, and closing deals. They could really use a tool that covers all the admin stuff. That way, sales teams could actually focus on the work they were hired to do. That's where PipeDrive comes in. It's an intelligent, AI-powered sales CRM loved by growth. It's a tool that can help you build your business. It can help you build your sales teams. Their new meeting intelligence features, like an AI notetaker, are built right into the CRM. PipeDrive automatically pulls deal history, email records, and previous conversations. You can walk into a call already briefed. During meetings, PipeDrive's AI notetaker records and takes notes. Then, it turns those notes into accurate, auto-drafted CRM updates, ready for you to review and approve. The end result? Less admin, more selling. Switch to a CRM built by salespeople, for salespeople, and join the over 100,000 companies already using PipeDrive. Our link gets you an exclusive 30 days free instead of the usual 14-day trial. No credit card or payment needed. Just head to pipedrive.com slash decoder to get started. That's pipedrive.com slash decoder, and you could be up and running in minutes.
Speaker 3PipeDrive.com slash decoder. Enterprise-focused, coding-focused. Why was Meta able to get there first?
Speaker 4I think it's because, from all my reporting on Meta, they've been behind in AI for a while. And Mark Zuckerberg was like, look, we've got to lock in and do a product that people are going to use on our platforms. Alex Wang, apparently, was more looking to create a frontier model that was going to compete with the other leading frontier models. He was like, we've got to think long. We've got to think super intelligence. Zuckerberg was like, no, we've got to think cold, hard cash, aka getting people to use stuff on our own platform. And so I think that where they met in the middle was this, an AI agent that people would use on the Meta platforms, but that still represented a huge step forward, they hoped, for AI systems and what they could do in the everyday world.
Speaker 3This is a fact. Meta still doesn't have a frontier model. I don't think anyone at Meta is claiming that the Muse Spark model competes at the frontier with GPT-6, but their product is better. And certainly they have a massive distribution advantage in that they don't have to pay for advertising on Meta platforms, and OpenAI does. And certainly they have a consumer design advantage. They're just better at consumer products. Does that change how you feel about the dynamics of competition in AI at all? For so long, it's just been about the capabilities of the frontier. But now it's, a little bit about marketing. It's a little bit about product design. It's you don't have the best model, but you made a consumer agent product and you connected it to giving everybody a computer in the cloud. So now it can actually do things for you. And it's frontier capability is actually not the important thing. It's its capability capability.
Speaker 4I think the more money and power you have at one of these companies, you get a little bit mentally farther away from what the average consumer wants. So let's say the average consumer does want an AI agent, which many of them don't, as we know, but let's say, let's say they do. If they do, they're going to want it to be free or cheap, and they are going to want it to be safe to use without creeping them out too much. You know, they're, they're willing to deal with a little bit of creepiness in order for it to be free, but not too much. Meta's Muse, the headlines about some of the privacy issues with it have gotten a little bit above that comfort level, I think, for some, for some users. That's probably why OpenAI at Dev Day made a lot of, you know, remarks about privacy and important and the importance of that, especially if they're trying to, you know, court enterprise users with their AI agents. Right now, these companies are trying to, especially Meta, just kind of trying to flood the market and create a mass market appeal for this stuff, similar to how ChatGPT became the default AI chatbot. Meta wants to be that for AI agents, and they feel very hungry about it. They will create a ChatGPT moment for this technology by making it the default use for the general public, Muse.
Speaker 3I just think there's something really interesting about the idea that a less-than-frontier model wrapped in a better product is actually going to be the success here versus a bleeding-edge frontier model that is a little bit harder to use. And there's some dynamic in there that is the history of all consumer tech products, right? The worst product that's easier to use often wins, but we haven't seen that yet in AI.
Speaker 4Right. I think that's really important to note here because not everyone needs the bleeding-edge frontier model. You know, software engineers do. They see a huge difference with coding prowess from one model to another, and that's why they're always switching. But the general public, if they're using an AI agent, as long as it's useful, they're good, you know? However, not many of them are useful yet. We're still testing Muse and DOTS ourselves. Muse, apparently, I saw a couple anecdotes yesterday that it had a big flop. For a day or so, people felt like the capabilities got a lot worse. DOTS, you know, the jury's still out. We're still testing it, but it depends on what industry you're in and what you're really using this stuff for. That's why OpenAI is going for enterprise because it makes money and they're confident that their agent is going to be more and more helpful in these niche industries. That's also why they launched specialist DOTS because, as we know, the more specialist, like, niche info you feed into an agent or model, it's going to be more and more helpful. And so, you know, I think that's one of the things that they're trying to do. I think they're trying to make sure that if you're using an AI model, the better it's going to do, obviously. And they don't want to have that imbued into every single agent or general purpose agent. It's just too pricey and too compute heavy. So they're like, you know, let's launch these specialists.
Speaker 3I feel like you and I talk about consumer versus enterprise adoption of AI every time you're on this show. And here, it seems very important to note that OpenAI, asking people to pay a lot of money and asking people to use it primarily in enterprise context is going to overcome what I think of as the brittleness of the AI. And I think that's going to overcome what I think of as the brittleness of the AI. And I think that's going to overcome what I think of as the brittleness of the problem, just because enterprise customers, business customers have a lot of economic incentives to figure out how to make something work. So if I'm paying OpenAI a hundred bucks a month and I'm using the marketing dot to solve some marketing automation, and it doesn't work the first time, it is very likely I will try again. Because if I get it right, then maybe I've saved some money or some time in my business. That is really good. And I'll do it again. And eventually that will lead to more revenue for me, the business owner. What I know about consumers is that the first time it doesn't work, they just walk away. They have no incentive to try again, to overcome frustration or brokenness. And we've seen this happen with Muse now a few times. I've seen it myself with Muse, where it pops open a browser and tries to do something, and it runs into a brick wall or a captcha or Amazon blocking it. And it says, hey, I can't do it that way. Do you want me to try another way? And I'm like, ah, whatever. I was just screwing around and I'm never going to try it again. These are very different markets. OpenAI has, vacillated between wanting to be the big consumer company and knowing that the revenue is an enterprise. Do you see any focus in DOTS or do you see that personality shift back and forth in the product itself?
Speaker 4So far, I'm a little bit more impressed with it than Muse, just because Muse, everyone was impressed right away. And then, yeah, there were, since then, there's been a lot of up and downs. Plus the privacy stuff has been really interesting. Even building profiles on your family and closest friends. There's just a lot of, you know, Meta has never been a super trusted company. None of these companies are very trusted, but Meta has made a lot of missteps with user privacy. So yeah, I think DOTS seems to be a little bit more helpful to me right now, but I'm still testing. So I'm not fully sure yet. I need to run through all my typical things that I do to kind of compare. Everyone has their own short list of tasks. Right now, for example, I'm doing a little bit of a test. I'm doing a little bit of a test sample. I'm trying to create a album of my bachelorette photos, and it's been unbelievably hard to get any agent to try to do that. So I'm like, I'll just do it myself. But that's a pretty easy thing to do. Once again, I mean, I'm like, how useful are these things for our everyday lives? Really? We'll see. I mean, they've gotten a lot better, I will say, over the past few years. I've been shocked at how slow they've been moving, but they have gotten better. So, you know, I think DOTS is a little bit more impressive to me right now, but we'll see.
Speaker 3I've Muse plugged into my Instagram because I don't worry about sharing my metadata with meta in the way that I worry about maybe everything else, but they already have my Instagram. So I've Muse plugged into my Instagram, and it's just doing all kinds of stuff. It surfaces interesting comments that I should reply to on Instagram posts. It tracks follower accounts. It suggests things I should make videos about. It has horrible ideas. Muse is absolutely convinced I should make a video almost every single day about obscure Australian tech regulation. I don't know why it has this idea. I mean, I'm up on it now. I'm deep in the weeds on Australian tech regulation just because I see it every morning. But there's something about all that that still, to me, is work, right? I've just assigned it work, and then it tells me what work I should do. And I haven't found some great consumer use for it yet. Or organize my photos as a consumer use. It kind of still rhymes with work, but it at least does not actually work. Have you found a great consumer use for these yet?
Speaker 4Not that works. That's the problem, you know? It's like, I'll try to have it do something for me for my wedding or for my personal life, and they haven't been good yet. But that's why I'm still kind of running through and testing these because it's like, so far, it's always interesting factually when they can do something, but I haven't been able to trust them end to end with something that I really, really need done. It kind of reminds me of the analogy for AI agents. People always say, right now, they're a bad in turn, and what you want them to be is a really good assistant, or in Sam Allman's words, a really good chief of staff. I think they're no longer a bad intern, but I think maybe they're an okay or assistant. I don't think they've reached the point of being a really, really good assistant yet, but I still need to run through the rest of my tests to see. I mean, they're at least not super consistent, it seems like, which is something that you need in a really good assistant. That ties into trust.
Speaker 3You've mentioned trust several times now. I'm only willing to give Muse access to, again, the meta platforms that meta already has access to. I can't worry too much about that. I've given it access to my spam Gmail, so it is collecting a lot of ideas about my spam Gmail. But meta really wants my credit cards, right? It wants to go through all of my credit card receipts. This is one of the suggestions in Muse. But Muse, you know, one of its suggestions is, let me log into your credit cards and I'll cancel streaming services you're not using, or I'll negotiate your Verizon bill for you. And I am absolutely not ready to give meta one ounce of data more than it already has. This feels like a big issue for every agent. There's an argument that you should give meta all that data, one, because they already have it, and two, because they're a big company that you could sue if they get something wrong. Whereas if I gave all of my data to OpenClaw, it's just my own fault if it gets leaked. If I gave all my data to one of the hot startups like Instinct and they go out of business, well, that's just the end of that. How do you feel about this? Do you feel comfortable with it? Do you feel comfortable giving your data to meta? Do you think people should do that?
Speaker 4No, I don't feel comfortable. And I also don't think that the general person does either. If I've seen one thing in a lot of the comments on our meta story that we published in the last couple of weeks, it's that people don't trust meta at all. And I have to say, I mean, why would they? But I don't think that, you know, you should trust OpenAI a lot more either. It's kind of like it's everyone's own kind of comfort level that they have to abide by. I think that some people are going to get a lot out of this stuff. Some people may say, hey, like, I don't care if they use my data as long as they are negotiating down my bill accurately or canceling streaming services that I wouldn't be canceling on my own. So they're saving me money. It's fine. But one, are they actually going to be able to do that accurately? Some people have said no. And two, yeah, I mean, like, as we know, when you release data like this, it's kind of you can't get it back. So I don't know. I always think about that old example of company that theoretically buys buys data on what's in your fridge and maybe charges you a higher premium if you're buying too much beer and not enough bananas. That's just a theoretical example, but I mean, that's the type of thing that can happen. So I think that people should just kind of operate with caution, abide by their own comfort levels, but I'm certainly not comfortable yet giving my personal data to Muse.
Speaker 3I don't even know if I'm comfortable putting Muse on my Mac. Apple just recently changed how apps can access the disk on Macs because Muse was so aggressive about reading data. In particular, Jason Ayton is a columnist at Inc. It read his notifications off the disk because he had just given it a permission and he didn't realize Muse would take that permission and go do something else with it. This is a lot of spiraling concerns, right? You're going to have a little robot that can use your computer for you, whether that computer is in the cloud or whether it's on your desktop, and you might not know what it's doing. You might not know what it's doing. And that ties directly into, well, OpenAI often doesn't know what its agents are doing, and that has led to catastrophic security problems across this industry. Can you connect those dots? Is your own little agent doing your travel booking the same kind of threat as OpenAI's agents hacking Hugging Face?
Speaker 4I don't think it's the same type of threat, but it's definitely something that you should keep in mind when you're using this stuff. I mean, I think that Back to the kind of Facebook marketplace debacle that we saw with Meta's Muse. To recap, basically, a Muse agent without someone's knowledge invited potential buyers of this item that this guy was selling to his house, said, hey, he's available now. He wasn't home. And then the potential buyer was like, hey, are you here? Like, I'm trying to get the item. And then Muse responded on his behalf. Yeah, I'm here. And then he just never came down because obviously he wasn't there. So there was a lot of drama going on there. Some people said, hey, well, he did give Muse access to his Facebook marketplace. You know, he should have known this could happen. A lot of people don't read all the fine print when they check yes to one of these things. So there's a lot there. There's a lot to unpack in that gray area. But the point is, I think that people should just be a little wary before, you know, checking yes to every possible thing that these agents have. Yeah, I think that people should just be a little wary before, you know, checking yes to every possible thing that these agents have. And then as for, you know, the, you know, so-called rogue AI agents that have been like hacking other companies. Yeah, I think it's just important to notice that if they can't control some of their most powerful unreleased AI models, how well are they going to be able to control your data or your agent? Sam Allman said during Dev Day that you have a ton of control over your dot. He said that there were a lot of like, if this, then that rules you can create. There are a lot of specific stipulations. That you could make in terms of permissions of what your dot could and couldn't do. So that did give people some peace. But I mean, as we've seen, yeah, these labs and these large tech companies have had a lot of missteps about hacking other companies and more are coming out. It feels like every single week, more news items about these cyber attacks. You know, we've seen Meta have one. We've seen OpenAI have a ton. We've seen Anthropic have a ton. And so I think that this is all just stuff to keep in mind. And one cool thing that I saw someone do was name their AI agent after the CEO that runs that company and then see how much data you feel comfortable giving it. So, you know, if you want to do that, I think that's a great idea. And then it just kind of makes you think twice. If you're saying, hey, Sam Allman, can you, you know, go through my email and see what needs to be deleted? Maybe you still feel comfortable with that, but maybe it just makes you think twice and think, oh, you know what? Maybe I'll give it access to my spam email only, like you said.
Speaker 7This Monday.com ad was created by a team of people and AI agents. The agents wrote the copy and managed the timelines, while our human creative director made sure it all made sense. Easy. Create your own AI agent today on Monday.com.
Speaker 8At T-Mobile, the new iPhone 18 Pro is here. It's a big leap in battery life, and you can get it for nothing up front. With so many reasons to choose T-Mobile, you'll want to talk about it. Hired at T-Mobile, you can get iPhone 18 Pro for nothing up front and get $1,000 off.
Speaker 9Pass it on.
Speaker 8Pay nothing today. No taxes, no fees, nothing down. Pass it on. Hey, Mickey, pass it on. iPhone 18 Pro has the most advanced iPhone camera ever. Pass it on.
Speaker 4At T-Mobile, you can get iPhone 18 Pro. No, for nothing up front. Pass it on. At T-Mobile, get $1,000 off the amazing iPhone 18 Pro, with no trade-in needed.
Speaker 9With 36 monthly bill credits, when you switch to T-Mobile on a qualifying plan, if you cancel an entire account before receiving all bill credits, credit stop and balance on a required finance agreement is due. Example, $1,199.99, iPhone 18 Pro, 256 gigabytes. Bill credits end if you pay off device early. Qualifying credit, new line, cord in, and service. $85 more per month with auto pay plus taxes and fees required. $35 device connection charge due at sale.
Speaker 1Visit T-Mobile.com. The AI was supposed to handle the parts of the job you hate. Instead, it just describes them, suggests what to do about them, and then leaves you to do it. That's not help. That's homework. ServiceNow's AI specialists are different. They're not a tool. Think of them as digital teammates who actually do the work, from start to finish. Cases get resolved, requests get processed, loops get closed, and most importantly, no extra work for you. Because when you can truly delegate to AI, you can do it. You can get back to the work only you can do. The work that requires a person, with ideas and judgment. And you know, a pulse. To learn how to put AI to work for people, visit ServiceNow.com.
Speaker 3So this ties into the fact that all these things are really cute. Muse is cute. The mascot, Jolly, is very cute. Alexander Wang. Alexander Wang has been waging a relentless campaign on X to make it not only cute, but sexy, which you can feel any way you want about that. But Alexander Wang keeps tweeting memes of the mascot with a butt. Dots are obviously very cute. They come in shapes and sizes. There's something here where you're not quite anthropomorphizing the agent, but you're making it a character. You're giving it a personality. That connects to the idea that you've called AI Tamagotchis, where eventually we're going to have. You're going to have a little hardware device with your little cute mascot on it, and you'll talk to that instead of your phone. And this is the big promise this whole industry has been working towards forever. And they're going to replace your phone and the entire paradigm of the App Store with AI agents that are going and using computers for you. Do you think that any of these products are a meaningful step towards that?
Speaker 4I think they're just one building block along the journey of the goal that they're chasing here. I mean, I haven't heard of anyone that's using Muse. I haven't heard of anyone that's using Muse or Dots so far for everything. It's not a Jarvis from Iron Man, despite how much these CEOs want both these products to be. I think that they are a meaningful step. But as for the cuteness, I think one of the most important points here is that they are intentionally disarming. These tools are made to be cute because you don't find them threatening or you find them. They're cute. They're there to help you. You know, it's kind of a response, I think, to the AI populism backlash. It's saying, hey, this isn't going to hurt you or do anything bad. It's just a cute little thing with eyes or a sexy little thing with eyes, whatever. But yeah, I think. To be clear, Joy, just to be clear, I do
Speaker 3not think it's sexy. I think Alexander Wang has been relentlessly trying to make it sexy.
Speaker 4No, I also do not think they're sexy. But I will say Elon Musk has been trying. It's so hard to make all agents and chatbots sexy. So I'm sure it's not far off for someone to think that. But yeah, I think that whether the AI agents of the future are cute or sexy, it's going to be equally disarming to people.
Speaker 3That's the whole spectrum.
Speaker 4That's the spectrum, the cute, sexy graph. Yeah, it's going to be really disturbing to see when we go more along that graph. Yeah, I think that the point is. Yeah. It's going to be disarming and that people should really think twice before giving too much of their data or just pick and choose what you're comfortable giving, right? Like how you did with the spam email versus your regular email or saying no to your credit card. These are both new products. So kind of just see how the cookie crumbles before you decide to just give everything over. We're already seeing a bunch of changes week to week with how people are using Muse or what they're upset about. So, you know, just kind of see how it shakes out.
Speaker 3The last piece I want to talk about is just how any of this makes money. You and I have talked many times about the bubbly nature of the AI economy. Zuckerberg has said his plan is for Muse to take a cut of transactions on the back end. So Zuck has given everybody a chance. a little Linux computer in the cloud with eight gigs of RAM. Obviously, he's given away tons of free tokens. He does not have to pay advertising costs. He can just put Muse across all of his platforms. And to the extent that Meta is a well-oiled machine, the amount of Muse promotion that is happening across Meta platforms instantly is kind of incredible to see. They just turned it on. I saw an ad during NFL games this weekend for Muse. They are spending money to promote this. They're giving it away for free. They're giving the tokens away for free. And then somewhere, at the end of this, they're going to say to merchants, hey, this person was shopping for shoes. Muse brought them to your doorstep. You're going to pay for this customer to buy shoes from you. I don't know any merchants that are excited about this. And it certainly feels like merchants that pay Meta more money would be preferred merchants. And that means that not only do I have an assistant or chief of staff, I have a bribable chief of staff. I have a corrupt butler.
Speaker 4Is that what you want? That is a great term for it, a corrupt butler. Yeah, that is not what I want. And I don't think many people do. It's just crazy to me that we've gotten so far from what people really want, which is they want to trust a recommendation and they don't want to be scammed. The leaders in AI don't think about how certain things have been mirrored in other industries. Think about when people were paying for reviews for their businesses or paying to delete reviews. That was a huge uproar. Or influencers getting paid to recommend things without disclosing that it was an ad. Then we saw the rise of micro-influencers who were more valuable for a while because they were seen as more trustworthy. They didn't have that many followers, so the things they recommended must be really good, right? And then we saw the, okay, well, their hashtag ad, but also they only said they were going to recommend things they really believe in, so it's okay that it's an ad. It's like these mental gymnasts, that people have to do to figure out what is really a trustworthy recommendation these days. What is going to convince people that an AI recommendation is trustworthy if it can be bought? So I think that's something that these companies are really going to have to reckon with. The Chat2BD ads blowback was huge, and OpenAI had to say, look, it's going to be a clearly disclosed ad underneath your query, not influencing your queries. So, I mean, if you're using MUSE to shop, and it's an undisclosed, like, potential, you know, meta customer that you're being redirected to to buy those shoes instead of these other ones, I feel like so many people aren't going to use it to shop.
Speaker 3So I get it on the meta side. I understand why they would think about monetization that way. They're a consumer company. This is a consumer product. They know the second they charge even a dollar for it, the uptake will drop precipitously, so they've got to keep it free. And then a bunch of people are going to want to shop and go buy me a new iPhone cable. You know, at the end of the day, it's all just the same Amazon garbage anyway. So whatever. And then they can run an auction on the back end to be like, who wants to pay us meta the most for the privilege of selling an unbranded USB-C cable to this customer? And they'll run some auction, and that will, in its way, just sort of maximize the money that gets turned around. And that is broadly how advertising works today. That's how results page worked until recently, when it's full of AI. And they're probably going to do the same thing. Meta can do that because they already have a giant advertising business that prints money. They can give away a consumer product. Mark Zuckerberg has been shown willing to blow money trying to win a market like he did with Reality Labs for years and years and years. And they can just run it till it works. OpenAI, even at $100 a month, is probably not making money on those customers. In fact, I think we know they're not making money on those customers. And when they do try to turn on ads, people get mad at them. How can they keep up with Zuck?
Speaker 4Only via enterprise. I think that's why they are pushing this so hard. We saw a ton of enterprise discussion, demo videos, customer feedback, tons of stuff at Dev Day. And that's why they're pushing this so hard, because they can't keep up with Zuck on the consumer front. They just can't.
Speaker 3This is the part to me where when people ask if it's a bubble, I find myself wondering how much of the economy does Zuck have to win in order to give away millions upon millions of free tokens and eight gigs of RAM to everyone in the cloud? Because that is just an expensive thing to give to everyone. And how many percentage points of every shoe sale in America do you need to take to fund it? And the answer feels like a lot.
Speaker 4I think that's huge here and something to remember, because we already saw Zuck kind of crash and burn with Metaverse stuff. And he is not wanting to be embarrassed again. So how long is this going to go on? And how are they going to fund it in a real way on the back end, like what you were saying? It's just a little bit tough to imagine. Luckily, Meta has a ton of money, and they can redirect stuff from other departments, which we've already seen them do a lot. But it will be interesting to see how this fares on the next couple of quarters. Yeah. And how many people are using it? They've announced it at the
Speaker 3top of the app store, but our own David Pierce has written an entire story about how being number one in the app store doesn't mean much, right? It's sustained success that actually means something.
Speaker 4Right. It reminds me of when I was in college, Uber and Lyft, or maybe it was just Uber, honestly, were new and VC-backed. So it was like $4 to call an Uber anytime you wanted to go out or down to the bars or anything. So they got everyone using it, and then they got everyone hooked, and then they had to up the prices. That happens. That's a tale as old as time with every VC-backed thing. So what I'm wondering is if this is really going to work to become that. Are they going to get enough users and enough shoe sales on the back end that this is going to be a really viable business model? Or is it just going to be a big bet that they switch away from later? That's what some Meta employees that I spoke with in our Meta piece told me. They said they expect this to kind of be something that they are putting out, trying to make a big deal of, and then they may kind of revolve away from later, or at least partly. We'll see how that goes.
Speaker 3I mean, if your bet is that the future of computing is talking to a little agent, it certainly seems like Meta has gotten farther along that path than anyone else. I think it's going to be a big bet. But we'll see. OpenAI has hardware designed by Johnny Ive that will theoretically come out. It is certain that Google and Apple and all the rest will respond at some point. Hayden, this was great. Thank you so much for being on Decoder once again. Thanks so much. I'd like to thank Hayden for taking the time to join me on Decoder, and thank you for listening. I hope you enjoyed it. To get new episodes every Monday and Thursday, subscribe to our YouTube channel at DecoderPod, and find us on TikTok and Instagram under at DecoderPod for more fun stuff we put out almost every day. If you enjoyed this episode, please send a link to it to someone you think you might like it. It really helps us grow the show. You can also subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Decoder is a production of The Verge and part of the Boxing Week Podcast Network. The show's producers are Greg Ott, Kate Cox, and Nick Statt. This episode was edited by Ursa Wright. Our editorial director is Kevin McShane. The Decoder music is by Breakmaster Cylinder. We'll see you
Speaker 10next time. New and exclusive holiday decor just launched online at The Home Depot. Check out the viral Grand Duchess collection with smart holiday lights you can control from your phone. Easily customize the twinkle across trees, wreaths, and garlands to match your holiday vibe. Create stunning light effects, then switch it up with the tap of your fingers. Even the man in red will be impressed. Shop the holiday decor you want online only at HomeDepot.com.
Speaker 8Close your eyes, exhale, feel your body relax, and let go of whatever you're carrying today. Well, I'm letting go of the worry that I wouldn't get my new contacts in time for this class. I got them delivered free from one of these 1-800 contacts. Oh my gosh, they're so fast. And breathe. Oh, sorry. I almost couldn't breathe when I saw the discount they gave me on my first order. Oh, sorry. Namaste. Visit 1-800-contacts.com today to save on your first order. 1-800-contacts.
Speaker 11Your heart can tell you a lot about your health. Apple Watch Series 12 measures your heart rate every five seconds with the most accurate heart rate sensing in a wearable. So your Vitals app, now with heart rate variability, can tell you when something is off. And your readiness score can let you know when to rest and when to push. Hear the story in every heartbeat with Apple Watch Series 12. The features described are for wellness purposes only and not for medical use. iPhone 11 or later required. Based on Apple conducted study of heart rate accuracy August 2026. Visit apple.com slash Apple Watch Series 12.
PodcastTranscript AI