Podcast appearances and mentions of brett taylor

Today, we check in a year after the first Unsupervised Learning x Latent Space Crossover special to discuss everything that has changed (there is a lot) in the world of AI. This episode was recorded just after AIE Europe, but before the Cursor-xAI deal.Unsupervised Learning is a podcast that interviews the sharpest minds in AI about what's real today, what will be real in the future and what it means for businesses and the world - helping builders, researchers and founders deconstruct and understand the biggest breakthroughs.Thanks to Jacob and the UL production team for hosting and editing this!Jacob Effron* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacobeffron/* X: https://x.com/jacobeffronFull Episode on Their YouTubeWe discuss:* swyx's view from the center of the AI engineering zeitgeist: OpenClaw, harness engineering, context engineering, evals, observability, GPUs, multimodality, and why conference tracks now reveal what matters most in AI* Whether AI infrastructure has finally stabilized: why “skills” may be the minimal viable packaging format for agents, why infra companies have had to reinvent themselves every year, and why application companies have had an easier time surviving model volatility* The vertical vs. horizontal AI startup debate: why application companies can act as the outsourced AI team for enterprises, why some horizontal companies still matter, and why sandboxes may be the clearest reinvention of classic cloud infrastructure for the AI era* The “agent lab” playbook: starting with frontier models, specializing for your domain, then training your own models once you have enough data, workload, and user behavior to justify the cost and latency savings* Why domain-specific model training is real, not just marketing: how companies like Cursor and Cognition can get users to choose their in-house models, and why search, domain specialization, and distillation are becoming more important* Open models, custom chips, and alternative inference infrastructure: why swyx has turned more bullish on open source, why non-NVIDIA hardware is suddenly getting real attention, and why every 10x speedup can unlock new product experiences* What it means to sell to agents instead of humans: why agent experience may mostly just be good developer experience by another name, why APIs and docs matter more than ever, and how pretraining-data incumbents are compounding advantages in an agent-first world* Why memory and personalization may become the next big wedge: today's models mostly reward frequency of mentions, but in the future, swyx expects product choice to be shaped much more by personalized memory systems* The state of the AI coding wars: why coding has become one of the largest and fastest-growing categories in AI, how Anthropic, OpenAI, Cursor, and Cognition have all ridden the wave, and why the category may still have more room to run* Capability exploration vs. efficiency: why the industry is still in a token-maxing, experiment-heavy phase where people are rewarded for spending more rather than less* Claude Code vs. Codex and the strange stickiness of coding products: why first magical product experiences may matter more than expected, and why the bigger mystery may be why only a few names have emerged as real winners so far* What the end state of the coding market might look like: two major players, a longer tail of niche products, and possible disruption if Microsoft, Mistral, xAI, or the Chinese labs push harder into coding* Where application companies still have room against the labs: why frontier labs are trying to expand into verticals like finance and healthcare, but still leave space for focused companies that own the workflow and the last mile* Why coding may be a preview of every other AI market: the first category to truly go parabolic, the clearest example of foundation model companies colliding with application companies, and a template for how future vertical AI markets may develop* Why AI valuations now feel unbounded: from billion-dollar ARR products built in a year to trillion-dollar market caps, swyx and Jacob unpack how the AI market has broken traditional startup intuitions about scale and durability* Consumer AI vs. coding AI: why ChatGPT's consumer category may have plateaued on frequency and product design, while coding continues to feel like a daily-use category with real momentum* The next product frontier beyond coding: consumer agents, computer use, and “coding agents breaking containment,” with swyx's thesis that 2025 was the year of coding agents and 2026 may be the year they begin to do everything else* Whether foundation models are really killing startup categories: why swyx is less worried for early founders, more worried for mid-size startups and traditional SaaS, and why building something ambitious may now be the best job interview for a frontier lab* AI vs. SaaS and the internal culture war around adoption: the tension between AI-native employees who want to rip out expensive software and skeptics who think quick AI-built replacements create fragile systems* Why traditional SaaS may be under real pressure: swyx's own experience spending six figures on event and sponsor management software, the temptation to rebuild it cheaply with AI, and the broader question of whether teams will trust custom AI-native replacements* Biosafety, security, and frontier model access: why swyx raised biosafety at a dinner with Anthropic's Mike Krieger, why Krieger argued security is the bigger issue, and what restricted model releases reveal about Anthropic vs. OpenAI* The era of giant models: why 10T+ parameter systems may only be a temporary rationing phase before bigger clusters arrive, why labs may increasingly keep their most powerful models private for distillation, and why scale alone no longer feels like a complete answer* Memory as the slowest scaling factor in AI: why context windows have improved far more slowly than people hoped, why million-token context still has not changed most real workflows, and why memory may be the key bottleneck for the next generation of systems* What swyx changed his mind on in the past year: becoming more bullish on open models, more convinced that the top tier of agent startups behaves very differently from the median AI company, and more optimistic about fine-tuning and specialized model adaptation* “Dark factories” and zero-human-review coding: the next frontier after zero human-written code, where models not only write the code but ship it without human review, forcing companies to rethink testing and verification from first principles* Why RL and post-training may matter more than people assumed: even if the resulting models get thrown out every few months, the data, workflows, and domain-specific improvements persist* Synthetic rubrics, Doctor GRPO, and multi-turn RL: why reinforcement learning is becoming much more domain-specific and multi-step than many people realize, opening the door to much deeper customization* The next frontier after coding: memory, personalization, and world models, including why swyx thinks world models matter not just for robotics or gaming, but for giving AI something closer to lived understanding* Fei-Fei Li, spatial intelligence, and the Good Will Hunting analogy: the idea that today's LLMs may know everything by reading it all, but still lack the lived experience that turns knowledge into a deeper kind of intelligenceTimestamps* 00:00:00 Intro preview: AI coding wars, startup pressure, and market structure* 00:00:28 Welcome to the Latent Space × Unsupervised Learning crossover* 00:01:17 What AI builders are focused on now: OpenClaw, harnesses, and infra* 00:04:33 Why AI infra is harder than apps, and where startups can still win* 00:06:39 Should companies train their own models?* 00:09:28 Open models, custom chips, and the new inference race* 00:11:25 Designing products for agents, not just humans* 00:16:49 The state of the AI coding wars in 2026* 00:19:27 Capability exploration, token-maxing, and why coding is going parabolic* 00:21:41 What the end state of the coding market could look like* 00:23:50 Where app companies still have room against the labs* 00:27:02 Why AI valuations and market swings feel unprecedented* 00:28:56 Consumer AI vs. coding AI, and why sticky products still matter* 00:32:28 What the next breakthrough product experience might be* 00:32:53 2026 thesis: coding agents break containment and eat the world* 00:35:27 Are foundation models wiping out startup categories?* 00:37:33 AI vs. SaaS, vibe coding, and internal team tensions* 00:40:01 Biosafety, security, and the politics of restricted model releases* 00:42:19 Giant models, compute constraints, and the limits of scale* 00:44:30 Memory as the real bottleneck in AI* 00:44:57 Why swyx changed his mind on open models* 00:47:44 Dark factories and the future of zero-human-review coding* 00:49:36 Why post-training and RL may matter more than people think* 00:51:50 Memory, world models, and the next frontier of intelligence* 00:53:54 The Good Will Hunting analogy for LLMs* 00:54:21 OutroTranscript[00:00:00] swyx: Isn't that crazy? That number is just mind boggling.[00:00:03] Jacob Effron: What is the state of the AI coding wars today?[00:00:05] swyx: We're in a phase of sort of like capability exploration. The general thesis that I have been pursuing now is that the same way that 2025 was a year coding agents 2026 is coding agents breaking containments to do everything else.[00:00:16] Jacob Effron: Do you worry about the foundation models just getting into a bunch of these startup categories?[00:00:21] swyx: Mid-size startups. Yes.[00:00:23] Jacob Effron: What do you think the end state of this market is[00:00:25] swyx: for the market structure to, to significantly change? There would be[00:00:28] Jacob Effron: today on unsupervised learning. We had a, a fun episode and what's really become an annual tradition, a crossover episode with our friends at Latent space.Swix and I sat down and we talked about everything happening in the AI ecosystem today. What we thought of the various changes at the model layer, what's happening in the infra world, the coding wars, and a bunch of other things. It's a ton of fun to do this with someone I really respect and another great podcaster in the game.Without further ado, here's our episode. Well switch. This is, uh, super fun to be back with another unsupervised learning, uh, latent space crossover episode.[00:01:02] swyx: Yeah,[00:01:02] Jacob Effron: I feel like a lot of places we could start, but you know, one thing I always find fascinating, uh, about the way you spend your time is you obviously are like at the epicenter of this engineering movement and community, and you run these events and conferences and put on these.Awesome talks and, and I think just have a great pulse on the zeitgeist of what's going on.[00:01:16] swyx: Yeah.[00:01:17] Jacob Effron: Maybe to, to start just what are the biggest topics people are thinking about right now?[00:01:21] swyx: Yeah, so I just came back from London, uh, where we did a IE Europe and we're doing roughly one per quarter now, which Yeah, you've[00:01:27] Jacob Effron: really up[00:01:27] swyx: the, hopefully[00:01:28] Jacob Effron: up the, up the pace.[00:01:29] swyx: It's trying. We're trying to match AI speed, youknow?[00:01:30] Jacob Effron: Yeah, exactly. The tops would be completely different, I imagine. Uh,[00:01:33] swyx: yeah. You know, I definitely curate the tracks, like you can see what I think. When you see the track list and the, the speakers that I invite, obviously Open Claw is like the story of the last four or five months, and then be, be just below that.I would consider harness engineering, context engineering to be two related topics in agents and rag. And then there's a long tail of Evergreen stuff like evals, observability, GPUs, uh, and uh, LM infra and just general, just in general. We also have other updates on like multimodality and, uh, generative media, let's call it.Um, but I definitely, the, the first three that I mentioned are top of mind people. Yeah.[00:02:13] Jacob Effron: I think harness is particular like, so interesting. Um, you know, there was this tweet from Harrison Chase, the, the lane chain, CEO, that, that caught my eye recently where he said, you know, it finally feels like we have stability, uh, around the infrastructure for, uh, you know, around ai.And I think what. He basically was implying his like, look over the past two, three years as a company at the epicenter of AI infrastructure, it was a bit like playing whack-a-mole, right? You were constantly moving around with, however, the building patterns were evolving[00:02:36] swyx: for Harrison for sure. Right? Like he's basically had to reinvent the company every year since he started Lang Chain.Right? It was Lang chain, Ang graph and LP agents and like, uh, I think he's like one of the most nimble, adept sharp people about this. Yeah. Yeah.[00:02:49] Jacob Effron: Saying now, now is finally the time stability[00:02:51] swyx: this. Yeah.[00:02:52] Jacob Effron: Yeah. Um, do you buy that or what have you kind of make of that take?[00:02:56] swyx: I think that. It, it's very expensive to say this Time is different sometimes, but when you're just writing code, like it's actually okay to just like try to make a call and I think it may not even matter if this call is right or not.Like I just don't even care that much because you can be right on a thesis, but if you don't, you don't figure out how to monetize the thesis, then who cares if you said something first that said, um, it does feel like, for example. Uh, we went through a lot of different ways of passion packaging integrations up with, uh, with agents.And it feels like we've landed at skills, which is like the minimal viable format. Yeah. Which is just a markdown file, uh, with some scripts attached to it, and I don't see how it can be more simple than that. And so there is some justification for. The stability around harnesses. I feel like there may be more adaptation with regards to maybe like the real time elements or subagents or memory or any of those like agent disciplines, let's call it in, in agent engineering.Uh, but if, if the thesis is that, okay, you just want agents are LMS with tools in the loop with a file system, what they can do. Retrieval with, with skills and all these like standard tooling that now seems to be relatively consensus then probably. That makes sense. Um, I just think like there's no point trying to stake your reputation on this thesis that we're there because if it changes again, just change with it.It's fine.[00:04:33] Jacob Effron: Yeah. It's always, you know, I've always been struck by how that is. Much more challenging for infrastructure companies and application companies. Like obviously I think, yeah. You know, on the application side you've seen, you know, Brett Taylor from Sierra Max, from Lara. Like, they're like, look, we build, you know, what's ahead of the models and we're willing to throw everything out every three months, you know, as the models get better and better.Exactly. Yeah. But the thing you at least have there is you have. Uh, you have an end customer, right? That's like decently sticky. Um, you know, they will mostly stick, you know, they'll, they'll give you a shot at least of, of building these things. What I've always found more challenging, uh, at, at the kind of like, you know, reinvent yourself every three months of the infrastructure layer, it's like, you know, developers are definitely a, a pickier audience maybe than an accounting firm or, uh, you know, a bank.Yeah. And so it's definitely a, a, a more challenging position to be in to, to have to constantly reinvent yourself.[00:05:17] swyx: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And, and like when they turn, it's like. Very complete. Like, they'll leave to like the, the hot new thing, uh, because there's like no defensibility, I guess. Like e even, even if you are a database, like, uh, people can migrate workloads off databases.Like it's, it's a, it's a known thing. Uh, so I think like basically what we're talking about is the vertical versus horizontal, uh, debate in, in AI startups. And uh, the way I think about it also is just that like when you are. Um, Lara, when you are a bridge, like you are the outsource AI team, right? You, you are, your job is to apply whatever state ofthe art AI methods.[00:05:55] Jacob Effron: Yeah. Like this translation layer between model capabilities and your[00:05:57] swyx: own customers. Yeah. To, to the end customers and like, well, if they didn't have you, they would've to hire in house and they're not gonna hire in house so they have you. And like, I think that's like a reasonable, like very robust to any whatever trends and, and discoveries that people make in, in the engineering layer.I do think like there is, um. It like sort of useful horizontal companies being built, but they're all. Very much like, sort of like the reinventions of classic cloud in the AI era and the, the primary one being sandboxes. Yeah. Um, which like, it's another form of compute guys, like, let's not get too excited about it.But I mean, like the, the workloads are enormous.[00:06:38] Jacob Effron: Right.[00:06:38] swyx: Yeah.[00:06:39] Jacob Effron: It's interesting, and I feel like as, as part of this, you know, the questions that folks are asking around infrastructure, there's a lot around, you know, the extent to which companies should have their own AI teams and what they should be doing in-house.And, you know, uh, I think there's questions around should people be training their own models? Should people be doing, you know, rl, uh, in-house based on the data they have? I feel like, you know, one has to evolve their takes on this every, every three months with paces. But where, where are you at on this today?[00:07:00] swyx: I think, well, I mean actually all models have gone up. Um, and obviously I'm involved in cognition and also cursors doing, doing, uh, a lot of own model training. And I think that that is some part of the, what I've been calling the agent lab playbook, where you start off with the state of the art models from, uh, from the big labs and you, uh, specialize for your domain.But once you have enough workload and enough high quality data from your users, then you can obviously train your own models and like save a lot on cost and latency and all that, all that good stuff. Um, you also get like a marketing bonus of like calling it some fancy name and putting out some research[00:07:38] Jacob Effron: from my seat.I can't tell how much of it is like actual, you know, value that's provided to the end user. And how much of it is that marketing bonus? Right. It seems some combination of the[00:07:45] swyx: I think it's both.[00:07:46] Jacob Effron: Yeah.[00:07:46] swyx: Um, no, no. There, there actually is real value. Um, and you, you know that for a number of reasons. Like one, even when it's not subsidized, people do choose it as like one of the top four or five.This is both composer two and, uh, suite 1.6 I one of the top five models. Like in a, in a fair market? In a free market, yeah. In a, in a, in a model switch. Or people do choose it and like, it's not subsidized. Like, so that's as good as it gets. Uh, but beyond that, like domain specific models, for example. For search with, with both, which both companies have absolutely makes, makes a ton of sense.Everyone says like, yeah, we should always, always do this. And honestly like, I think the infrastructure for that is becoming easier with, um, like thinking machines tinker thing as well as primary like, uh, lab stuff. Yeah, I mean like, this is one of those like reversal of the, the bitter lesson where you first bootstrap on the large models and the general purpose models to get big.And as you get very well-defined workloads that are just high quantity but not high variance, um, then you just distill down to a smaller model and run that on your own. Right. Which like totally makes sense.[00:08:50] Jacob Effron: What I'm less clear on is the kind of DIY RL use case, which I think is really mostly around, you know, improved, uh, quality for, for different things.Obviously there's probably like more efficient ways to, you know, get a smaller model that's that's faster and cheaper. And it'll be interesting to see whether. You know, obviously you had, you know, uh, two, three years ago this whole case of companies that were, you know, pre-training and claiming better outcomes in, in their domains than getting kind of cooked as each model iteration improved.You know, I wonder whether that's a, a similar story plays out in the, uh, in, in the, our all space. Yeah, for the focus on, on on pure outcomes and quality, not the cost side, which clearly your own models for cost at scale makes a ton of sense.[00:09:28] swyx: I think there are this, there are two sides of the same coin.Like you basically always want to hold, uh, quality constant or trade off a little bit of quality for a drastic decreasing cost. And that's true for everyone. Uh, one element I wanted to bring out, which is very much in favor of open models, is custom chips. So this would be cereus, but also talu. And then there's a huge range of stuff in between.This has been a huge story this past year on just like everything non Nvidia is getting bid up, including like freaking MatX is working for, which is very, which is very rewarding for me, but I think one of those things where like, oh, like the suddenly, because the number of alternative. Hard, uh, hardware is increasing and the inference that you can get is insanely high.Like, um, we're talking thousands of tokens per second instead of less than a hundred. So the trade off for qua quality doesn't hold as much anymore because the speed is so high.[00:10:24] Jacob Effron: Have you seen a lot of companies go all in on the alternative chip?[00:10:26] swyx: So cognition has Yeah. On Cerebras, uh, and, and so has OpenAIUm, uh, and so no, I don't think so beyond that, uh, and that, do you think that's like a, that's mostly, that's foreshadowing of, that's, yeah. I used to be kind of a skeptic in terms of like, okay, so what if I get my inference at a hundred to a hundred tokens per second sped up to 200 tokens per second. It's only two X faster.It's not that big a deal. Um, but when you, uh, I think every 10 x does unlock a different usage pattern. Um, and you, we have proof in Talas and, and some of the others. That you can actually, um, drastically imp improve inference speed and what happens from there? I don't even really know, like it's, it's so hard to predict when entire applications just appear at once.Yeah. Uh, and it also isn't that expensive, right? So like, um, this is one of those things where like, I, I think the, the investment cycle is gonna be multi-year. Um, and I. Would caution people to not dismiss it too, too quickly.[00:11:25] Jacob Effron: Yeah. I mean, one other like infra question I was curious to get your thoughts on is obviously it seems increasingly a lot of the cutting edge infra companies are building for agents as the buyers of their product or users of their product, right?[00:11:35] swyx: Ooh,[00:11:36] Jacob Effron: and[00:11:37] swyx: another huge theme. Yeah. Yeah.[00:11:38] Jacob Effron: And I'm trying to figure out like what. What, what do you have to do differently about selling into agents? Um, are they just the ultimate rational developers? Uh, or is there, you know,[00:11:46] swyx: no, absolutely not. Um, I think they are easily prompt, injected and, uh, very tuned towards like, basically com compounding existing winners.[00:11:57] Jacob Effron: Yeah,[00:11:57] swyx: so like if, like, congrats if you won the lottery for getting into the training data right before 2023, because now you're like installed in there for the foreseeable future. But yeah. Uh, you know, one stat that Versal, uh, CTO Malta dropped at my conference was that there are now, uh, 60% of traffic to Elle's, um, like app arch, like admin app architecture for like configuring versal applications, uh, is bought.It's not, it's not human. Uh, so like your primary customer is agents now. Um, and it's mostly co like mostly coding agents, mostly people using CLI on CP or whatever. But yeah, I mean, I think. More. I, I think step one, if it doesn't exist as an API that agents can use, it doesn't exist. Right, right. Which I think is like, uh, it's a good hygiene thing anyway, to, to make everything API available, but not as like an extra, um.Push on like products, people to not only work on the ui, um, you should probably work on the on SCLI stuff. Beyond that, I think honestly there is like, so I, I come from the sensibility of, I think everything that you are trying to do for agents experience now, which is the term that Matt Bowman and Nullify is trying to coin, is the same thing that you should have been doing for developer experience.That you should have had good docs, you should have had a consistent API, uh, that is. Mostly stateless. Um, you should have, I guess, discoverable or progressive disclosure or like search or like whatever. And so now that people have energy in like finding these customers to do that, that's great. Um, do I believe in.Extending beyond that into something like a EO, um, for gaming The chatbots? Not necessarily, but obviously there's gonna be huge advantages when people who figure out the short term wins. Yeah. And short term wins can compound.[00:13:43] Jacob Effron: Do you think these compounding advantages to like the, the pre-training data cutoff companies, like, you know, obviously over some period of time, I imagine that doesn't persist.And so as you think about like. I dunno, three, four years from now what the, you know, selection criteria end up being. Do you think it still mirrors exactly what you were saying before? Like it's exactly what you should have been doing all along to sell a good product to developers?[00:14:01] swyx: It could be, except that I think in three, four years we'll probably have much better memory and personalization.So then general a EO or GEO doesn't really matter as much. So I think whatever memory or personalization system we end up with will probably d determine what you end up choosing much more. Than, than what is currently the case, which is just frequency of mentions, let's call it. Yeah,[00:14:26] Jacob Effron: yeah.[00:14:26] swyx: Uh, so you just spa quantity and I think that's, I mean, that's something I'm looking forward to.I do think, like, like, you know, I, I think that the fundamental exercise to work through for yourself is if you start a new, um, sort of. Uh, disruptor company. Now there's a, there's a big incumbent that everyone knows, like, like superb base. Super base is like, kind of like the Postgres, like database, uh, incumbent.If you wanna start like new superb base, how would you compete with them? And I don't necessarily have the answer, but I, I, I do think like people, like resend like relatively new. I think they would start like 20, 23 and still there was, there was a recent survey where like, people. Checked what Claude recommends by default.If you just don't prompt it with anything, just say, gimme an email provider and says, resent as in like 70, 70% of each cases. Like the fact that you can get in there with like such a relatively short existence, I think is, is encouraging.[00:15:14] Jacob Effron: Yeah.[00:15:14] swyx: I do think like. Um, you do want to do whatever it is to, to like to, to get in that Very short mentions this because, um, it's not gonna be 20 of them, it's gonna be like three.[00:15:26] Jacob Effron: No, definitely. It feels like, uh, you know, probably more, more consolidation than ever. Uh, or, or kind of like, you know, uh, a winner take most market than maybe the, the, the physics of go-to market in the past. Yeah. Might have, uh, enabled.[00:15:38] swyx: The other thing also is like, semantic association is gonna be very important, uh, in the sense that like, you want to do like the combo articles where you're like, use my thing with for sale, with blah, blah.And like that all gets picked up in a, in a corpus. And so that's. Probably one thing that you, you wanna do? Well, I don't know what else. Uh, it's, it's, it's, it's one of those things where like, I think I feel, I feel I'm behind, uh, I don't know how you feel about this, but like,[00:16:04] Jacob Effron: I think AI is just everyone constantly feeling like they're behind some, uh,[00:16:08] swyx: yeah.With,[00:16:09] Jacob Effron: I wanna meet the person that doesn't feel behind,[00:16:11] swyx: but like with, with ax, right? Like, so, so like, my, my stance was that exactly what I said before, like everything that you, that you should do for agents is something that you should have done for humans anyway. Yeah. And so. To the extent that you're just getting it more energy to, to do things for agents, great.But like, uh, it's hard to articulate what new thing apart from just like more spam, um, that you should be doing. Anyway, that would be my take right now. Um, I I, I do think like there, there will be more turns at this. I think the personalization turn that is coming, um, will be big. And I don't know what that looks like because like basically we're kind of, we feel kind of tapped out on the memory side of things.[00:16:49] Jacob Effron: Yeah. I, I guess since we last chatted, you know, you, you took this role over at cognition, um, and you've obviously have a, have a front row seat to the AI coding space today. You know, I feel like coding in many ways. You know, people view it as this, like, I mean, besides being like the, the mother of all markets and this massive opportunity, I think it's kinda a preview of like, what's to come for many other spaces.Both. Yeah. You know, I feel like agents are most advanced in coding. I also feel like the, you know, competition between foundation models and application companies, you know, and, uh, mirrors what we may see in other spaces. And so maybe for our listeners, can you just lay out like what is the state of the AI coding wars today?[00:17:25] swyx: Um, it is massive, right? Like, uh, and I don't think necessarily, last time we talked about this, we appreciated the size of what[00:17:32] Jacob Effron: No, I wish we did.[00:17:33] swyx: I state of AI coding wars today, um, both opening eye philanthropic have made it their p serials to competing coding. Um, and. Tropic is like 2.5 billion in a RR just from Cloud Code.The way they recognize a RR is. Opt for debate, uh, open ai. I don't think the, a public number is known, but let's call it 2 billion as well. And then cursor is like, rumored to be 2 billion, you know? And, and those, those are like the public numbers that are known? Yeah. Um, so like huge markets that have just been created in the past one year.Like, like anthropic, just like Claude Code just recently celebrated their one year anniversary, which is, yeah, pretty nice. Um, so, and then I think, like the other thing that I see is there's, there's some other people who are like, oh, here's like the, the sort of relative penetration of, uh, Claude use cases, right?Like, and it's like coding 50% and then legal, whatever. Health, uh, it's like the, the remaining ones. And there was a very popular tweet that was like, okay, I'll look at the, the empty space and all these other use cases. If you are a new founder today, you should be betting on the other stuff because on, on a sort of catch up Yeah.Theory and my. Consider my, my pushback is the same pushback that, uh, I had on app over Google, which is like, well, well why is this time different? Like, why, if it went from let's say 10 to 50% in the past year, why can't I keep going? Uh, and like getting that wrong is actually a very painful one because you could have just did, did the momentum bet.Instead of the mean reversion bed. So I, I, I think that that is the, the state of things now that people are very, very much into psychosis. Um, they're are getting rewarded for spending more rather than spending less. And I think we're not in that phase of efficiency. We're in a phase of sort of like capability exploration.So I think people who are more crazy, who are more. Uh, creative, um, get rewarded comparatively. Yeah.[00:19:27] Jacob Effron: Well, it's interesting. I mean, it feels like behind these like token maxing, leaderboards and whatnot is this, it's like the first phase of this transition from a workforce perspective is you just gotta show your employer like, Hey, I, I use these tools.[00:19:37] swyx: Here's my nu number of tokens I cost, and that's it. They don't care about the quality. Right. It is, uh, maybe distasteful to someone who cares about the craft and, and all that. Um, but directionally everyone just wants you to go up regardless. And so, um, there it is not very discerning. It's, and it's probably very sloppy, but I think it's net fine because we're still probably underusing ai just in generally.Yeah. Um, and so I think that's like very interesting. Like we had on the podcast, uh, Ryan La Poplar from OBI, who spends a billion tokens a day. Yeah. Um, and that's for those county home, it's like something like 10,000 worth, $10,000 worth a day of API tokens. If they, they did market rates, um, and like most of us can't afford that.Yeah. But like. And, and, and probably a lot of what he does is slop.[00:20:25] Jacob Effron: Right.[00:20:25] swyx: But like, he's going to dis, he's like, if there were a new capability, he would discover it first before you because he was, he was trying and you were not trying. Right. And like, you only do things that work like, well, good for you.But like the, the people who are going to discover the next hot thing are living at the edge.[00:20:42] Jacob Effron: Right and increase in living at the edge of just having the compute budget to like run these experiments. I mean, kind of similar to what living at the edge on the research side has always been. You know, it was constrained in many ways by the amount of compute you had to run these experiments.It feels similarly on the, almost on the builder or like actualizing these tools now.[00:20:56] swyx: Yeah. The other thing that's, I mean, very obvious is philanthropic is kind of like the high price premium player. Um, that where, you know. Restricting limits or restricting model releases even is like the name of the game.Whereas Codex is like, come on in guys, use our SDK, use our login and we don't care. We're gonna reset limits. Whatever you do want to try to exploit the subsidies where you can get it. And definitely Codex is super subsidized right now. Gemini also very subsidized. Um, and. Comparatively, like, I think you should make, Hey, I guess while, while that's going on, it's not that bad to be a capabilities explorer on just the $200 a month plan from Cloud Code or from OpenAI.Um, and, uh, I I, I, my sense is that people aren't even there yet.[00:21:41] Jacob Effron: How do you think this, like, market ultimately plays? I mean, it's obviously such a big market that, you know, any slice of that market is interesting for, for anyone going after it. But I think what, what makes people so interesting in the coding market particularly is it feels like it's kind of this.Foreshadowing of what will happen in other, you know, any other kind of application market that the foundation models eventually turn to and are all their models against and gather data around. And so how do you think, you know, like does there end up being room for lots of different kinds of players or like, what do you think the end state of this market is and is that, do you think that's applicable to other markets?[00:22:10] swyx: I feel like there will be, I mean. Status quo is probably the most likely outcome, which is there are two big players and there's a small range of longer tail people that, um, fit other use cases that the, the two big players don't. That feels right to me. I think that, um, for it to, for the market structure to, to significantly change there would be, there needs to be significant change in like the economics or like the, the brand building or like the, the, the, the value propositions of the, of the companies involved and I.Haven't seen any in the last six months that, that have really changed the stories materially. So I feel like they would just keep going until something, something else happens. Something else happens, meaning like Microsoft wakes up and like goes like. Guys, we have GitHub, we have, uh, you know, we, we, we'll, we'll do something much bigger here than other, other than just copilot.Um, and, uh, that would be a big change. Um, MSL has put out a model now, and I was in a breakfast with, uh, Alex Wang, where they were like, yeah, like, we, we really, really want to go after the coding use case. We haven't done anything yet, but like, don't underestimate them. Right. Um, and, and similarly for the Chinese labs.Um, I think they're trying to go after it. Like ZAI is doing stuff. GLM uh, ZI and GLM is same thing. Um, uh, and, and so it's, so like everyone's trying to get a piece of that pie. I, I feel like the, the status quo has been pretty stable for the past, like almost a year I'll say.[00:23:39] Jacob Effron: Yeah. And is the room for the, not like, you know, for, for the application companies more on like the enterprise side or like where do the, where do the, like what surface area do the model companies leave for application companies?[00:23:50] swyx: Yeah, that's a good one. Um. It's very much evolving. Um, it, I, I, I will say because opening I did not have this, the, this level of attention on coding. Yeah. Uh, a year ago. We just don't have that much history. Right. Um, and it seems like, for example, so the big push at Open I now is the Super app. Um, is that a consumer thing?Is that like a products like. Portfolio rationalization thing, how much is that gonna take away attention from coding at the time when they actually do want to put more coding? I think it's, it's very unclear. So I do think like there's, there's all these, like in both big labs, there's. Uh, sorry. Both of the, and, and drop and, and deep minus and XAI are are separate cases.Um, they are trying to see the other time expansion areas. So cloud code for finance. Yeah. Um, uh, cloud cowork, all those, all those things. Whereas I think cursor and cognition are like comparatively just focused on coding and so I, I do think they leave space and I do think for the other verticals that also means the same thing.Right. That, uh, that they're not gonna be that. Um, intensely focused on, on, on that domain. Except for, I, I think I would mark out finance and healthcare as like the next ones, um, that they're clearly going after. Uh, I, I would say comparatively, healthcare seems more thorny. There, there, there've been some announcements about it, but like, I would respect the, the finance work a lot more just because like the, the path to money is a lot clearer.[00:25:12] Jacob Effron: Yeah, no, I mean, obviously like, I, I think, you know, maybe similar to, to the space that's being left in these other domains, you know, there's obviously. Uh, a lot that's required to actually implement these tools in enterprises, uh, versus, you know, maybe just giving them, uh, giving model access to, to folks outta the box.[00:25:27] swyx: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So the, the agent lab thing is like, we'll do the last mile for you. Whereas I think the model labs tend to just trust the model and, and be minimalist about it. Both of them work.[00:25:38] Jacob Effron: Yeah.[00:25:38] swyx: I, I don't, I don't necessarily think one, uh, beats the other, uh, for every, for every use case. Um, all I, all I do know is that it does seem like.Uh, the large enterprises do want a dedicated partner that isn't just the model labs, which is kind of interesting.[00:25:55] Jacob Effron: We, we've been in this phase of, of pure capability exploration. And so I think nothing has been, you know, better for the large labs, right? I mean, they're always gonna be, uh, uh, the frontier of, of capability exploration.And so I think have a very good relationship with a lot of these enterprises. But ultimately over time, like. The, uh, the incentive structure of these labs is always gonna be maximal, you know, token consumption for, uh, for the end customers they work with. And there's just, I think, so few companies that have actually gotten to massive scale.Maybe coding again is the most interesting. So it's the first space that really is just completely gone, you know? Yeah. You must love it every day. Like absolutely insane. And. I think it[00:26:32] swyx: gets even. Okay. I mean, like, I think we, we say good things about crystal cognition, but the sheer liftoff of like both end UPIC and open ai.‘cause they, they, they have independent valuations. I mean, let's throw an XEI in there because it's now I ping at 1.2 trillion. That number is just mind boggling. Like I, I feel like in normal investing or normal startups, there's kind of like a ceiling market cap or valuation. Totally. That, that like you, you reach and you go like, all right, let's, it's gonna be chiller from now on.And these guys are not slow down. No.[00:27:02] Jacob Effron: Well, I also think the dynamic is fascinating about some of these later stage companies is, is, you know, in the past, I feel like in, in venture world, if you got to a certain level of scale, the question around you was really more a valuation question. And this is like why there was different phase, like, you know, types of venture people did and like the late stage growth people were just incredible at like, you know, a little bit of what's the ultimate market opportunity of this company, but also what's the right way to, to value it.Like we know it's, it's in some bands of an outcome that is like. Sure there's some variance to it, but it's like relatively understood what that bands is and then maybe you get over time surprised to the upside. Whereas any kind of like later, even the labs themselves, any later stage company, the bands of which that company might be worth right now, even in a year or two years are so massive because of how fast the ecosystem changes that it's like.Even for later stage companies, every three months could be an existential level event to the upside to the downside. Yeah. Um, and I think that, like, you are obviously seeing it in the, in the positive with code, which, you know, if you think about a company like philanthropic, you know, that. For a while, it was like unclear if they were going to have access to enough capital, um, to really stay in the, in the race, right?And then coding hit at the exact right time. They had the perfect model for it. They executed brilliantly. Um, and you know, now are, are, you know, uh, you know, one of the most valuable companies in the world.[00:28:13] swyx: Uh, at the same time, I, I don't find, I, I have zero sympathy for opening eye because they're crushing it and they're all rich.You know, this is like a high class champagne problem to have to, uh, to be number two at coding or whatever. Like, who cares? Like, you're, you're doing great.[00:28:27] Jacob Effron: Yeah. It's funny though. I can't even, I mean, you would be closer to this, uh, you know, even that you're in the AI coding space, but it's like a lot of people I talk to think Codex is just as good, if not better than Claude Code.Right. I think one thing that I've been really surprised by, and maybe, maybe Cloud Code is a better product in some ways, I'm curious your thoughts is just in consumer AI with chat GBT. You saw this big first mover advantage, right? Where admittedly today, like, I don't know, Claude Gemini. Great products.Not sure, not abundantly clear chat GBTs any better, but like. People stick with chat, GBT, it's the first thing to introduce them.[00:28:56] swyx: They stay, but they're not growing anymore. I don't know if you've seen[00:28:59] Jacob Effron: Right. But that to me is more of like a, a, a product problem than it is. They're not like, it's not like they've like lost share to someone else.My understanding is the overall problem with consumer AI today is much more of a how do you take this tool and, you know, for, for folks like us, like knowledge workers, it's like this incredible magic tool, but it's not necessarily a daily active use tool for a lot of people around the world today. And what are the like products?It's, it's kind of a category wide problem. Like in coding, for example, like. The entire space has gone parabolic. There may be some relative growth in, uh, in other consumer AI players, but it's not like consumer AI as a category is like going parabolic and they're not capturing most of that thing. I think it's actually the larger problem is much more, hey, the category has kind of hit a bit of a plateau of people haven't figured out how to bring, you know, tons more users on board.Yeah, yeah. Or increase the frequency of those users. And so it seems more of a category wide problem than it is, you know, a massive market share of change. I was gonna draw the comparison to, to the coding space where Claude Co is the first product, obviously, to introduce people to this magical experience.You know, by all accounts, codex is, is pretty damn close to as good, if not better. Um, but like still that first product, you, you would've thought that would not be a super sticky, uh, you know, product surface area. And it actually has, it turns out, I, it feels like the first lab to introduce you and experience really does, uh, keep a lot of, uh, a lot of the focus.[00:30:12] swyx: I, I think. M maybe it's like still, still early days. You know, Chad, BT is like three plus years old and Yeah. Cloud code is only one. Just turned a year. Yeah. So give it time, you know? Yeah. Like, yeah. I mean, definitely sometimes a lot of people have switched from to Codex. Maybe that will keep going. I, it's like really hard to tell.Uh, yeah. I, I, I do, I do think that. Because we are in this like, high volatility, high temperature phase. Um, the loyalty and stickiness to first movers and category creators, I don't think is as high as it might be in some other, uh, areas in our careers that we've looked at.[00:30:47] Jacob Effron: Yeah. Though, I mean, I've been surprised by the cloud code thing.I, I would've thought that, like, in many ways I always worried about the[00:30:52] swyx: enterprise. You think you would've been gone by now?[00:30:53] Jacob Effron: Not gone. But I would've, I I always worried that the, that the consumer business of these companies would be quite sticky. And then the enterprise API business. Uh, was actually like, you know, in some ways like your least loyal buyers, like they would, they would move to,[00:31:05] swyx: right, right.But, but they worked out that it wasn't the enterprise API it was enterprise product.[00:31:09] Jacob Effron: Totally. And maybe that was the, that was the secret that like, but the amount of lock-in or just default behavior that has happened in that space, uh, is, is more than I might've imagined with two products that by all accounts are pretty damn similar.Yeah.[00:31:22] swyx: No fight there. Uh, I will say I do think that Codex is still in like a catch up. Like in terms of personal experience. Um, the only thing I like out of, out of Codex is the, is like Spark and like yeah. Uh, the, I, I feel like the skills integration is a little bit better. I feel like, uh, the, the speed is a bit better.Maybe ‘cause it's in, is written in rust or whatever. Um, very minor things that you like. Almost like telling yourself rather than like objectively assessing between two, two of them. I, I, I do think, like vibes wise, I think that's going on. Um, the, the, you know, I, I feel like the, the missing questions, uh, in, in this whole debate is like, why is this so concentrated in only two names, right?Yeah. Like, um, how, where, like, where is the Gemini? You know, presence, where's the Xai presence? Um, and like they are trying, it's just they haven't made that much progress yet.[00:32:12] Jacob Effron: But what the, what the Claude Co moment does show, and it actually in some ways makes you a little more bullish on the potential for someone else to catch up because it does feel like if you're the first person to introduce some magical net new product experience, that that actually might be stickier than one might have imagined.[00:32:27] swyx: Right, right, right. Okay. Yeah.[00:32:28] Jacob Effron: And so it's, everyone can believe they have shot[00:32:29] swyx: that. What do you think that new product experience might be like? I, I, it's, it's like, and this is a failure of imagination on my part. Like, I always wonder, like, people always say this like, well, the, the thing that will save us is like being first to the next new thing.Like what is it?[00:32:41] Jacob Effron: Yeah.[00:32:42] swyx: It's like,[00:32:45] Jacob Effron: I dunno, something around like, uh, consumer agent, computer use, like hybrid. I think, obviously, I think we're like scratching the surface on the consumer side.[00:32:53] swyx: So my, my current theory is like the. Open claw is like a vision of things to come.[00:32:58] Jacob Effron: Totally.[00:32:58] swyx: Um, and uh, it's good that O open I has like the association with open claw, but by no means do they have the rights to win it.The general thesis that I have been pursuing now is that the year the same way that 2025 was the year of coding agents, 2026 is coding agents breaking containment to do everything else. Um, and so coding agents continue to still win, but because they generate software and software eats the world, so like, it's kind of like the trans.Associated property of like software, eat the world, coding agents, eat software, therefore coding agents eat the world. Um, which is like an interesting,[00:33:30] Jacob Effron: yeah, and breaking containment always an easier phase phrase in the consumer context than the enterprise one. You've seen people run these really cool, uh, experiments in their own personal lives.I think like,[00:33:37] swyx: yes.[00:33:38] Jacob Effron: Figuring out, you know, how you, obviously everyone's focused, you know, on the enterprise side now around how you create these experiences. I feel like the vibes, you know, people love to have these narratives of like, everything is completely shifted. It's like I actually, you know, open AI.Organizationally, uh, you know, volatility aside is, you know, great products, great team, great models like everyone else in the world is incentivized for there to be. Two, three more. Everyone would love more like great model companies. And so I feel like the, the natural forces of the world revolt when any one company, you know, is too much the star of the show, right?There's so many people in the ecosystem that are incentivized for that not to happen. And so I think I'd be shocked if we don't have. Uh, uh, reversion of vibes, not maybe completely the other way, but at least a little bit more equal at some point over the next six, 12 months.[00:34:24] swyx: I, I think there's just a kind of different stages when, when you talk about the world, one wanting more model companies, I talked think about like the neo labs.[00:34:30] Jacob Effron: Yeah.[00:34:31] swyx: And I mean, I don't know, is it fair to say none of them have really broken through in the past year?[00:34:35] Jacob Effron: I think that's totally fair,[00:34:37] swyx: which is rough. Um, and well, how are we gonna, how are we gonna grow that diversity in, in, in choice, like. Um, that's, this is it.[00:34:46] Jacob Effron: Yeah. It'll be really interesting to see what, what, what ends up happening with that.And you've seen, you know, folks like Nvidia, you know, very incentivized to make sure there's, there's a broader platform of, of other model providers.[00:34:57] swyx: I think, uh, I don't know people say this, but I, I, I don't think they try it hard. Nvidia tries harder to build neo clouds[00:35:05] Jacob Effron: Yeah.[00:35:06] swyx: Than neo labs.[00:35:07] Jacob Effron: Well, they try pretty damn hard to build neo Cloud, so[00:35:09] swyx: that's,[00:35:09] Jacob Effron: yeah.[00:35:10] swyx: But like, you know, let's call it like the, the core weaves of the world, much happier place in the, you know, than any neo lab built on top of them.[00:35:18] Jacob Effron: Yeah. That one might argue it's, it's easier to, to enable a neo cloud to be successful than it is. Uh, you can't will a neo lab into existence the same way you, soNvidia[00:35:25] swyx: has more direct control over it.Uh, for sure.[00:35:27] Jacob Effron: What else is kind of catching your eye today on the startup side? I mean, you worry, there's obviously this whole narrative of like, you know, the foundation models, you know, they announced a product and every stock goes down 15%. Like[00:35:36] swyx: Yeah.[00:35:37] Jacob Effron: Do you, do you worry about the foundation models just kind of eating into to a bunch of these startup categories?[00:35:43] swyx: Not really. I, I think actually like. As, uh, there's, there's, okay, there's, there's, there's the, there's the point of view of like being an investor in startups, and there's a point of view of like, do you wanna start something? And I think honestly, like the, the downside for all these is so. Minimal in, in a sense of like, the worst you do is you just get hired into one of these labs anyway.So I, I think the, the market for people who just do things and try things and try to execute in like a competent way, even if like it doesn't work out commercially, even if it just wasn't that great anyway. Like, but like that's your job interview to go into, into one of these things anyway, so, um, I don't feel that.From a, from a very, very small startup perspective, mid-size startups. Yes. Uh, I will say there's been a lot of dead, um, LM Infra, a lot of LM infra consolidation like the, the, uh, lang fuses of the world getting absorbed into, into click house. And I, I think. Like people have maybe worked out the domain specific playbook, uh, and like, I think that's okay.Um, and, and yeah, I'm not that, not that worried about, uh, okay. So, um, I, I would say I'd be more worried about traditional SaaS, like low NPSS. This is the whole AI versus SaaS debate that has, that's been going on. Uh, and, and like literally I'm going through that exact thing in my company where, so I like kind of.Thinking through this on a very visceral, visceral level, right? On one hand you have the people who say you vibe coders don't appreciate the amount of work that goes into A-A-C-R-M and like, yeah, you think you can rip out Salesforce? So did the 30 entrepreneurs before you, right? Like, like, you know, you classically underestimate the things that you don't.Deeply, no. And, and, and target audience is not you. Uh, at the same time, like we have never been able to build software so easily and customize software so easily and like Yeah, you're not gonna use 90% of the things in Salesforce. So like, yeah. What's the typical, so what have you, what[00:37:33] Jacob Effron: have you done internally?[00:37:34] swyx: So we have there the main SaaS that we do for event management and sponsor management. That's, and we paid 200 KA year for that. Not, not huge, but like chunky for, for, for my, my scale. Um, and like, yeah, I could probably spend 2000 and, and build like a custom version of that. Um, the, the, the trick has been dealing with my, the rest of my team and getting them on board.Yeah. ‘cause I'm the most ethical person on my team, but like, I can't make that decision myself. And I think in the same way I've been telling with other CEOs team leaders as well, it's like, well you can be super cloud pilled. You can be super LM psychosis and that you think that's okay, but you like you have to bring your team with you.And I think like there, the sort of widening disparity in LM psychosis in companies is causing real s real riffs because. And on one hand, on one hand, the people who are less AI native are not getting with the picture. They're not, they're actually like behind, they're actually not waking up to the fact that like you, everything you think is necessary is not actually that necessary.And in fact, exactly would be better of you if you just like held your nose and went in and when came out the other side. Yeah, only talking to agents in natural language and like your life would actually be better and you just, you're just like close-minded. There's that perspective. The other perspective is, oh, you vibe coder.You, you did this in a weekend and you got the 80% solution and now the rest of your employees. Have to pick up the rest of your s**t, right, that you, that you thought you were, you were such hot, amazing, uh, uh, at, but like, actually you didn't figure it out. And like, actually LMS are still useless at this and blah, blah, blah.So like, I think there's this huge debate going on in every company right now. Um, and like, um, you know, I have a small microcosm of it, but like, yeah, it, it's making me hesitate to, to pull the trigger. But like I will at some point, it's like maybe I've put it off for one year, but not like five. Yeah, but like, so, so like SaaS is definitely getting squeezed.Um, it does make me wonder, like, I, I do think that there's an opportunity for a more AI native, um, system of record thing that is not just Postgres. Um, or not just MongoDB, although both are very good. Maybe it's like a convex or like people Yeah. Bring up convex a lot. I don't know, like, like, I, I just feel like the sort of quote unquote firebase of, of AI apps isn't really a thing yet.Um, beyond what we have. Uh, which, which is fine. It's, it's, it's just. We could probably start in a more sort of rapid iteration cycle first before scaling up to like a Postgres or MongoDB, which are more sort of old tech. I was at a dinner with, uh, Mike Krieger, the CPO of en philanthropic, and, and he, we were just kind of going around the room going like, what are people most worried about?Yeah. And, uh, for me, uh, I, instead of security, I brought up biosafety. Yeah,[00:40:21] Jacob Effron: classic.[00:40:22] swyx: Um, actually, like I said, it was. Cliche and classic, and the rest of the table were, were like, what do you mean? Someone sitting at home can manufacture a virus that wipes out half of humanity,[00:40:32] Jacob Effron: almost like the OG Jeffrey Hinton.Like, this is why you should be scared.[00:40:35] swyx: I'm like, yeah, like the read the, you know, risk reports. Like this is like the thing. Um, I think, and Mike was just sitting there knowing he was sitting on Mythos and going like, actually it's security. Um, and I think like, um, I think the, there's, there's, part of it is.A very good marketing. Like too good. Yeah, like I would actually advise and topic to tune down the marketing because also it's, it is just a very good model and you don't have to make so many marketing claims around it. At the same time, it is not really a private model. If you give it to 40 companies.Each of whom have like 10,000 employees or whatever. Right. It's not, it's not private, it's, it's like there's bad actors in there.[00:41:18] Jacob Effron: Yeah. Hopefully, hopefully not as, uh, as bad as releasing it widely, but, uh, no, I mean, it's an interesting. You know, it's an interesting case study for how all, I mean, many model releases might, I mean, you know, this might be the first model release that looks like the rest of ‘em from from now on, right?[00:41:31] swyx: It, it, so it's, it's the, there's an overall product strategy, uh, for anthropic of like bundle, uh, you know, restrict access bundle, uh, product with model maybe.Whereas, uh, OpenAI has definitely been a lot more sort of. Philosophically aligned on like, we will just enable access everywhere and we don't know what you, what will come out of it. Right.[00:41:51] Jacob Effron: Right. Though, I mean, this current moment, uh, obviously the cynical take is also just ties to the amount of compute that both companies[00:41:56] swyx: Yeah.Right, right, right. Yeah, I think, I think that's true. I I do think like the, the, this is the, the, the scale, the dawn of like larger than 10 trillion parameter models is very interesting. I don't think it, I think it's a temporary phenomenon because we have much larger compute clusters coming online for everyone over the next like three, five years.It's, and this is like already written in, in the cards.[00:42:18] Jacob Effron: Yeah.[00:42:19] swyx: So to the extent that like, you know, will we have rationing of models, uh, above 10 trillion, uh, in like two years? I don't think so. I think everyone will have no, we'll just[00:42:29] Jacob Effron: have rationing of the next phase.[00:42:30] swyx: Right. Right. But like, that's as it should be almost like, um.My, my classic example, which I, this is just me theorizing, not anything confirmed by Google. When Google announced Gemini, they actually announced three sizes, which was Flash Pro Ultra. They never released Ultra. They only have Pro and Flash. Um, so my theory is they have ultra sitting in a basement and they just could distilling from it for, for flashing pro.Um, which like, yeah, I mean, I, I actually think that's. As it should be for any lab that they, that they do that.[00:43:02] Jacob Effron: Yeah. Just because those are the models that people actually wanna end up using. And it's just like cost prohibit.[00:43:06] swyx: It is more, yeah, it's cost. Yeah. It's, it's not the want, it's just, just, just the cost.Um, I do think, like, uh, it is interesting that, uh, for a while I was, I was considering the theory that models capped out at two, 2 trillion, and I think that's proving to be wrong. And well then if I'm wrong, how wrong? How wrong am I? Do we do 200 trillion? Do we do two quarter trillion, whatever? Um, and I don't think we have the straight answer to that, but like, uh, it's interesting that we are continuing to scale number of pers when everyone kind of assu like can see that we're not going to get like the next thousand or 1 million x from this paradigm.So like the others, like the alias of the world are working on other. Um, model architecture improvements. We need a different scaling law, I guess, because like, we're, I, I feel like people already already feel like we're tapped out on this. Like the, the end, the end state of this is we turn most of the world into data centers and like, I don't know.I don't know if we want that.[00:44:08] Jacob Effron: Yeah, I mean, uh, if the, if, if, if the return of intelligence are there, maybe, uh, maybe not so bad.[00:44:13] swyx: I, I, I think there, there's just a sheer amount of like, like un scalability that like is wrangling people's sensibilities right now. Um, especially in terms of like context lengths.Um, my classic quote is that context length is like the slowest scaling factor in, in lms.[00:44:30] Jacob Effron: Yeah.[00:44:30] swyx: Um, we, like, we took maybe. Three years to go from like 4,000 context length to a million and that's about it. Yeah. Like Gemini has had a million token context length for two years now. Um, and no one's using it.Like, so like yeah, it's memory. Memory is probably gonna be the, the biggest limiting constraint on all these things.[00:44:50] Jacob Effron: Yeah. Certainly seems that way. I guess I'm curious over the last year since you recorded last, like what's one thing you've changed your mind on?[00:44:57] swyx: I feel like I was kind of bearish on open models like last year.Um, in a sense of, like, I, I had just done the podcast with an Al[00:45:07] Jacob Effron: Yeah.[00:45:08] swyx: Of Braintrust where he, and he, I mean, you know, he has a good cross section of all the top AI companies and he says market share of open source is 5% and going down. Um, I think that's changed. I think it's going up. Um, and even if,[00:45:22] Jacob Effron: even though the capability gap does seem to be increasing.Spending on the[00:45:26] swyx: time. It's hard to tell. Yeah, it's, it's really hard to tell. ‘cause like, okay, for, for listeners, capability gap increasing is like on public benchmarks. And let's say you're comparing mythos versus like, I don't know, G-T-O-S-S or like GLM 5.1. And, um, it's, it is really hard to tell. ‘cause even if they were closing, you will also not believe that they were closing that much because it's very easy to gain the benchmarks.Yeah. So you just don't really, really know. Um, all you know is like. Uh, there's somewhat objective open router stats on like what people choose in a free market. And people do choose some of these open models in significant volume, except that a lot of them are heavily discounted. So you need to kind of like price adjust, uh, these things.So even if, even if that were true, which I, I'm not sure, like I, I, I feel like the numbers just up now instead of down. Uh, I think the. Separation between what the top tier agent labs

Jaeden and Conor explore the transformative potential of AI in software interaction, focusing on Brett Taylor's insights about his startup Sierra. From personal assistants to enterprise solutions, they discuss how future technology may streamline the way we communicate and solve problems with software.Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/9eAtBUmLL-0Get the top 80+ AI Models for $8.99 at AI Box: https://aibox.aiConor's AI Course: https://www.ai-mindset.ai/coursesJaeden's AI Business Community: https://www.skool.com/aihustleChapters00:00 The Future of AI Interaction02:56 Transforming Software Development05:53 The Role of AI in Business Solutions08:41 Mindset and Frameworks for AI Utilization See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

We're proud to release this ahead of Ryan's keynote at AIE Europe. Hit the bell, get notified when it is live! Attendees: come prepped for Ryan's AMA with Vibhu after.Move over, context engineering. Now it's time for Harness engineering and the age of the token billionaires.Ryan Lopopolo of OpenAI is leading that charge, recently publishing a lengthy essay on Harness Eng that has become the talk of the town:In it, Ryan peeled back the curtains on how the recently announced OpenAI Frontier team have become OpenAI's top Codex users, running a >1m LOC codebase with 0 human written code and, crucially for the Dark Factory fans, no human REVIEWED code before merge. Ryan is admirably evangelical about this, calling it borderline “negligent” if you aren't using >1B tokens a day (roughly $2-3k/day in token spend based on market rates and caching assumptions):Over the past five months, they ran an extreme experiment: building and shipping an internal beta product with zero manually written code. Through the experiment, they adopted a different model of engineering work: when the agent failed, instead of prompting it better or to “try harder,” the team would look at “what capability, context, or structure is missing?”The result was Symphony, “a ghost library” and reference Elixir implementation (by Alex Kotliarskyi) that sets up a massive system of Codex agents all extensively prompted with the specificity of a proper PRD spec, but without full implementation:The future starts taking shape as one where coding agents stop being copilots and start becoming real teammates anyone can use and Codex is doubling down on that mission with their Superbowl messaging of “you can just build things”.Across Codex, internal observability stacks, and the multi-agent orchestration system his team calls Symphony, Ryan has been pushing what happens when you optimize an entire codebase, workflow, and organization around agent legibility instead of human habit.We sat down with Ryan to dig into how OpenAI's internal teams actually use Codex, why the real bottleneck in AI-native software development is now human attention rather than tokens, how fast build loops, observability, specs, and skills let agents operate autonomously, why software increasingly needs to be written for the model as much as for the engineer, and how Frontier points toward a future where agents can safely do economically valuable work across the enterprise.We discuss:* Ryan's background from Snowflake, Brex, Stripe, and Citadel to OpenAI Frontier Product Exploration, where he works on new product development for deploying agents safely at enterprise scale* The origin of “harness engineering” and the constraint that kicked off the whole experiment: Ryan deliberately refused to write code himself so the agent had to do the job end to end* Building an internal product over five months with zero lines of human-written code, more than a million lines in the repo, and thousands of PRs across multiple Codex model generations* Why early Codex was painfully slow at first, and how the team learned to decompose tasks, build better primitives, and gradually turn the agent into a much faster engineer than any individual human* The obsession with fast build times: why one minute became the upper bound for the inner loop, and how the team repeatedly retooled the build system to keep agents productive* Why humans became the bottleneck, and how Ryan's team shifted from reviewing code directly to building systems, observability, and context that let agents review, fix, and merge work autonomously* Skills, docs, tests, markdown trackers, and quality scores as ways of encoding engineering taste and non-functional requirements directly into context the agent can use* The shift from predefined scaffolds to reasoning-model-led workflows, where the harness becomes the box and the model chooses how to proceed* Symphony, OpenAI's internal Elixir-based orchestration layer for spinning up, supervising, reworking, and coordinating large numbers of coding agents across tickets and repos* Why code is increasingly disposable, why worktrees and merge conflicts matter less when agents can resolve them, and what it really means to fully delegate the PR lifecycle* “Ghost libraries”, spec-driven software, and the idea that a coding agent can reproduce complex systems from a high-fidelity specification rather than shared source code* The broader future of Frontier: safely deploying observable, governable agents into enterprises, and building the collaboration, security, and control layers needed for real-world agentic workRyan Lopopolo* X: https://x.com/_lopopolo* Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryanlopopolo/* Website: https://hyperbo.la/contact/Timestamps00:00:00 Introduction: Harness Engineering and OpenAI Frontier00:02:20 Ryan's background and the “no human-written code” experiment00:08:48 Humans as the bottleneck: systems thinking, observability, and agent workflows00:12:24 Skills, scaffolds, and encoding engineering taste into context00:17:17 What humans still do, what agents already own, and why software must be agent-legible00:24:27 Delegating the PR lifecycle: worktrees, merge conflicts, and non-functional requirements00:31:57 Spec-driven software, “ghost libraries,” and the path to Symphony00:35:20 Symphony: orchestrating large numbers of coding agents00:43:42 Skill distillation, self-improving workflows, and team-wide learning00:50:04 CLI design, policy layers, and building token-efficient tools for agents00:59:43 What current models still struggle with: zero-to-one products and gnarly refactors01:02:05 Frontier's vision for enterprise AI deployment01:08:15 Culture, humor, and teaching agents how the company works01:12:29 Harness vs. training, Codex model progress, and “you can just do things”01:15:09 Bellevue, hiring, and OpenAI's expansion beyond San FranciscoTranscriptRyan Lopopolo: I do think that there is an interesting space to explore here with Codex, the harness, as part of building AI products, right? There's a ton of momentum around getting the models to be good at coding. We've seen big leaps in like the task complexity with each incremental model release where if you can figure out how to collapse a product that you're trying to.Build a user journey that you're trying to solve into code. It's pretty natural to use the Codex Harness to solve that problem for you. It's done all the wiring and lets you just communicate in prompts. To let the model cook, you have to step back, right? Like you need to take a systems thinking mindset to things and constantly be asking, where is the Asian making mistakes?Where am I spending my time? How can I not spend that time going forward? And then build confidence in the automation that I'm putting in place. So I have solved this part of the SDLC.swyx: [00:01:00] All right.[00:01:03] Meet Ryan swyx: We're in the studio with Ryan from OpenAI. Welcome.Ryan Lopopolo: Hi,swyx: Thanks for visiting San Francisco and thanks for spending some time with us.Ryan Lopopolo: Yeah, thank you. I'm super excited to be here.swyx: You wrote a blockbuster article on harness engineering. It's probably going to be the defining piece of this emerging discipline, huh?Ryan Lopopolo: Thank you. It is it's been fun to feel like we've defined the discourse in some sense.swyx: Let's contextualize a little bit, this first podcast you've ever done. Yes. And thank you for spending with us. What is, where is this coming from? What team are you in all that jazz?Ryan Lopopolo: Sure, sure.Ryan Lopopolo: I work on Frontier Product Exploration, new product development in the space of OpenAI Frontier, which is our enterprise platform for deploying agents safely at scale, with good governance in any business. And. The role of VMI team has been to figure out novel ways to deploy our models into package and products that we can sell as solutions to enterprises.swyx: And you have a background, I'll just squeeze it in there. Snowflake, brick, [00:02:00] stripe, citadel.Ryan Lopopolo: Yes. Yes. Same. Any kind of customerswyx: entire life. Yes. The exact kind of customer that you want to,Vibhu: so I'll say, I was actually, I didn't expect the background when I looked at your Twitter, I'm seeing the opposite.Stuff like this. So you've got the mindset of like full send AI, coding stuff about slop, like buckling in your laptop on your Waymo's. Yes. And then I look at your profile, I'm like, oh, you're just like, you're in the other end too. Oh, perfect. Makes perfect.Ryan Lopopolo: I it's quite fun to be AI maximalist if you're gonna live that persona.Open eye is the place to do it. And it'sswyx: token is what you say.Ryan Lopopolo: Yeah. Certainly helps that we have no rate limits internally. And I can go, like you said, full send at this stay.swyx: Yeah. Yeah. So the Frontier, and you're a special team within O Frontier.Ryan Lopopolo: We had been given some space to cook, which has been super, super exciting.[00:02:47] Zero Code ExperimentRyan Lopopolo: And this is why I started with kind of a out there constraint to not write any of the code myself. I was figuring if we're trying to make agents that can be deployed into end to enterprises, they should be [00:03:00] able to do all the things that I do. And having worked with these coding models, these coding harnesses over 6, 7, 8 months, I do feel like the models are there enough, the harnesses are there enough where they're isomorphic to me in capability and the ability to do the job.So starting with this constraint of I can't write the code meant that the only way I could do my job was to get the agent to do my job.Vibhu: And like a, just a bit of background before that. This is basically the article. So what you guys did is five months of working on an internal tool, zero lines of code over a mi, a million lines of code in the total code base.You say it was cenex, more like it was cenex faster than you would've. If you had done it by end. SoRyan Lopopolo: yeah, thatVibhu: was the mindset going into this, right?Ryan Lopopolo: That's right.[00:03:46] Model Upgrades LessonsRyan Lopopolo: Started with some of the very first versions of Codex CLI, with the Codex Mini model, which was obviously much less capable than the ones we have today.Which was also a very good constraint, right? Quite a visceral feeling to ask the [00:04:00] model to build you a product feature. And it just not being able to assemble the pieces together.Which kind of defined one of the mindsets we had for going into this, which is whenever the model just cannot, you always pop open at the task, double click into it, and build smaller building blocks that then you can reassemble into the broader objective.And it was quite painful to do this. Honestly, the first month and a half was. 10 times slower than I would be. But because we paid that cost, we ended up getting to something much more productive than any one engineer could be because we built the tools, the assembly station for the agent to do the whole thing.[00:04:43] Model Generations, Build Systems & Background ShellsRyan Lopopolo: But yeah, so onward to G BT 5, 5, 1, 5, 2, 5, 3, 5 4. To go through all these model generations and see their kind of corks and different working styles also meant we had to adapt the code base to change things up when the model was revved. [00:05:00] One interesting thing here is five two, the Codex harness at the time did not have background shells in it, which means we were able to rely on blocking scripts to perform long horizon work.But with five, three and background shells, it became less patient, less willing to block. So we had to retool the entire build system to complete in under a minute and. This is not a thing I would expect to be able to do in a code base where people have opinions. But because the only goal was to make the Asian productive over the course of a week, we went from a bespoke make file build to Basil, to turbo to nx and just left it there because builds were fast at that point.swyx: Interesting. Talk more about Turbo TenX. That's interesting ‘cause that's the other direction that other people have been doing.Ryan Lopopolo: Ultimately I have. Not a lot of experience with actual frontend repo architecture.swyx: You're talking that Jessica built the sky. So I'm like, I know the NX team. I know Turbo from Jared [00:06:00] Palmer.And I'm like, yeah, that's an interesting comparison.[00:06:02] One Minute Build LoopRyan Lopopolo: The hill we were climbing right, was make it fast.swyx: Is there a micro front end involved? Is it how how complex reactRyan Lopopolo: electron base single app sort of thingswyx: And must be under a minute. That's an interesting limitation. I'm actually not super familiar with the background shelf stuff.Probably was talked about in the fight three release.Ryan Lopopolo: BA basically means that codex is able to spawn commands in the background and then go continue to work while it waits for them to finish. So it can spawn an expensive build and then continue reviewing the code, for example.swyx: Yeah.Ryan Lopopolo: And this helps it be more time efficient for the user invoking the harness.swyx: And I guess and just to really nail this, like what does one minute matter? Like why not five, okay, good. We want no. WeRyan Lopopolo: want the inner loop to be as fast as possible. Okay. One minute was just a nice round number and we were able to hit it.swyx: And if it doesn't complete, it kills it or some something,Ryan Lopopolo: No.We just take that as a signal that we need to stop what we're doing, double click, decompose a build graph a bit to get us to high back under so that we [00:07:00] can able the agent continue to operate.swyx: It's almost like you're, it's like a ratchet. It's like you're forcing build time discipline, because if you don't, it'll just grow and grow.That's right. And you mentioned that my current, like the software I work on currently is at 12 minutes. It sucks.Ryan Lopopolo: This has been my experience with platform teams in the past, where you have an envelope of acceptable build times and you let it go up to breach and then you spend two, three weeks to bring it back down to the lower end of the average low bed stop.But because tokens are so cheap Yeah. And we're so insanely parallel with the model, we can just constantly be gardening this thing to make sure that we maintain these in variants, which means. There's way less dispersion in the code and the SDLC, which means we can simplify in a way and rely on a lot more in variance as we write the software.[00:07:45] Observability, Traces & Local Dev StackVibhu: Lovely.[00:07:46] Humans Are BottleneckVibhu: You mentioned in your article, like humans became the bottleneck, right? You kicked off as a team of three people. You're putting out a million line of code, like 1500 prs, basically. What's the mindset there? So as much as code is disposable, you're doing a lot of review. A lot [00:08:00] of the article talks about how you wanna rephrase everything is prompting everything, is what the agent can't see.It's kind of garbage, right? You shouldn't have it in there. So what's like the high level of how you went about building it, and then how you address okay, humans are just PR review. Like how is human in the loop for this?Ryan Lopopolo: We've moved beyond even the humans reviewing the code as well.[00:08:19] Human Review, PR Automation & Agent Code ReviewRyan Lopopolo: Most of the human review is post merge at this point.But post, post merge, that's not even reviewed. That's justswyx: Oh, let's just make ourselves happy by YouRyan Lopopolo: haven't used fundamentally. The model is trivially paralyzable, right? As many GPUs and tokens as I am willing to spend, I can have capacity to work with my hood base.The only fundamentally scarce thing is the synchronous human attention of my team. There's only so many hours in the day we have to eat lunch. I would like to sleep, although it's quite difficult to, stop poking the machine because it makes me want to feed it. You have to step back, right?Like you need to take a systems thinking mindset to things and [00:09:00] constantly be asking where is the agent making mistakes? Where am I spending my time? How can I not spend that time going forward? And then build confidence in the automation that I'm putting in place. So I have solved this part of the SDLC, and usually what that has looked like is like we started needing to pay very close attention to the code because the agent did not have the right building blocks to produce.Modular software that decomposed appropriately that was reliable and observable and actually accrued a working front end in these things, right?[00:09:35] Observability First SetupRyan Lopopolo: So in order to not spend all of our time sitting in front of a terminal at most, doing one or two things at a time, invested in giving the model that observability, which is that that graph in the post here.swyx: Yeah. Let's walk through this traces and which existed firstRyan Lopopolo: we started with just the app and the whole rest of it. From vector through to all these login metrics, APIs was, I dunno, half an [00:10:00] afternoon of my time. We have intentionally chosen very high level fast developer tools. There's a ton of great stuff out there now.We use me a bunch, which makes it trivial to pull down all these go written Victoria Stack binaries in our local development. Tiny little bit of python glue to spin all these up. And off you go. One neat thing here is we have tried to invert things as much as possible, which is instead of setting up an environment to spawn the coding agent into, instead we spawn the coding agent, like that's the entry point.It's just Codex. And then we give Codex via skills and scripts the ability to boot the stack if it chooses to, and then tell it how to set some end variables. So the app and local Devrel points at this stack that it has chosen to spin up. And this I think is like the fundamental difference between reasoning models and the four ones and four ohs of the past, where these models could not think so you had to put them in [00:11:00] boxes with a predefined set of state transitions.Whereas here we have the model, the harness be the whole box. And give it a bunch of options for how to proceed with enough context for it to make intelligent choices. SoVibhu: sales, so like a lot of that is around scaffolding, right? Yes. Previous agents, you would define a scaffold. It would operate in that.Lube, try again. That's pivoted off from when we've had reasoning models. They're seeming to perform better when you don't have a scaffold, right? That's right.[00:11:28] Docs Skills GuardrailsVibhu: And you go into like niches here too, like your SPEC MD and like having a very short agent MG Agent md.swyx: Yes. Yes.Vibhu: Yeah. So you even lay out what it is here, but I likeswyx: the table contents.Vibhu: Yeah.swyx: Like stuff like this, it really helps guide people because everyone's trying to do this.Ryan Lopopolo: This structure also makes it super cheap to put new content into the repository to steer both the humans and the agents.swyx: You, you reinvented skills, right?Vibhu: One big agents andswyx: skills from first princip holdsRyan Lopopolo: all skills did not exist when we started doing this.Vibhu: You have a short [00:12:00] one 100 line overall table of contents and then you have little skills, right? Core beliefs, MD tech tracker. Yeah. Yeah. The scale is overRyan Lopopolo: The tech jet tracker and the quality score are pretty interesting because this is basically a tiny little scaffold, like a markdown table, which is a hook for Codex to review all the business logic that we have defined in the app, assess how it matches all these documented guardrails and propose follow up work for itself.Before beads and all these ticketing systems, we were just tracking follow up work as notes in a markdown file, which, we could spa an agent on Aron to burn down. There's this really neat thing that like the models fundamentally crave text. So a lot of what we have done here is figure out ways to inject textswyx: intoRyan Lopopolo: the system right when we get a page, because we're missing a timeout, for example.I can just add Codex in Slack on that page and say, I'm gonna fix this by adding a timeout. Please update our reliability documentation. To require that all network calls have [00:13:00] timeouts. So I have not only made a point in time fix, but also like durably encoded this process knowledge around what good looks like.swyx: Yeah.Ryan Lopopolo: And we give that to the root coding agent as it goes and does the thing. But you can also use that to distill tests out of, or a code review agent, which is pointed at the same things to narrow the acceptable universe of the code that's produced.swyx: I think one of the concerns I have with that kind of stuff is you think you're making the right call by making, it's persisted for all time across everything.Yes. But then you didn't think about the exceptions that you need to make, right? And that you have to roll it back.Vibhu: Part of it isswyx: also sometimes it can follow your s instructions too.Vibhu: It's somewhat a skill, right? So it determines when it uses the tools, right? Like it's not like it'll run outta every call.It'll determine when it wants to check quality score, right?Ryan Lopopolo: Yeah. And we do in the prompts we give these agents, allow them to push back,[00:13:51] Agent Code Review RulesRyan Lopopolo: When we first started adding code review agents to the pr, it would be Codex, CLI. Locally writes the change, pushes up a PR on [00:14:00] those PR synchronizations of review agent fires.It posts a comment. We instruct Codex that it has to at least acknowledge and respond to that feedback. And initially the Codex driving the code author was willing to be bullied by the PR reviewer, which meant you could end up in a situation where things were not converging. So yeah, we had to,swyx: he's just a thrash.Ryan Lopopolo: We had to add more optionality to the prompts on both of these things, right? The reviewer agents were instructed to bias toward merging the thing to not surface anything greater than a P two in priority. We didn't really define P two, but we gave it, youswyx: did define P two.Ryan Lopopolo: We gave it a framework within which to score its outputswyx: and then greater than P zero is worse, right?Yes. P two is very good.Ryan Lopopolo: P zero is you will mute the code place ifswyx: you merch thisRyan Lopopolo: thing, right?swyx: Yeah.Ryan Lopopolo: But also on the code authoring agent side, we also gave it the flexibility to either defer or push back against review feedback, right? This happens all the time, right? Like I happen to notice something and leave a code review, [00:15:00] which.Could blow up the scope by a factor of two. I usually don't mean for that to be addressed Exactly. In the moment. It's more of an FYI file it to the backlog, pick it up in the next fix it week sort of thing. And without the context that this is permissible, the coding agents are gonna bias toward what they do, which is following instructions.swyx: Yeah.[00:15:19] Autonomous Merging Flowswyx: I do wanted to check in on a couple things, right? Sure. All the coding review agent, it can merge autonomously. I think that's something that a lot of people aren't comfortable with. And you have a list here of how much agents do they do Product code and tests, CI configuration and release tooling, internal Devrel tools, documentation eval, harness review, comments, scripts that manage the repository itself, production dashboard definition files, like everything.Yes. And so they're just all churning at the same time, is there like a record that, that any human on the team pulls to stop everythingRyan Lopopolo: Because we are building a native application here. We're not doing continuous deploy. So there's still a human in the loop for cutting the release branch.I see. We require a blessed [00:16:00] human approved smoke test of the app before we promote it to distribution, these sort of things.swyx: So you're working on the app, you're not building like infrastructure where you have like nines of reliability, that kinda stuff?Ryan Lopopolo: That's correct. That's correct. Okay. And also like full recognition here that all of this activity took in a completely greenfield repository.There's. Should be no script that this applies generally toswyx: this is a production thing, you're gonna shipRyan Lopopolo: toswyx: customers. Of course. Yeah, of course. So this is realVibhu: And like one of the things there is, you mentioned you started this as a repo from scratch. The onboarding first month or so was pretty, it was like working backwards, right?Yeah. And then you had to work with the system and now you're at that point where you know, you're very autonomous. I'm curious like, okay, so what, how human in the loop is it? So what are the bottlenecks that you wish you could still automate? And part of that is also like, where do you see the model trajectory improving and offloading more human in the loop?We just got 5.4. It's a really good,Ryan Lopopolo: fantastic model, by the way.Vibhu: Yeah. Yeah. It's the first one that's merged. Top tier coding. So it's codex level coding and reasoning. So general reasoning both in one model. SoRyan Lopopolo: andVibhu: computer [00:17:00] use vision.Ryan Lopopolo: Now we now with five four, I can just have Codex write the blog post, whereas for this one I had to balance between chat.swyx: Oh, I need to, I might be out of a job. Oh my God.Ryan Lopopolo: Oh,swyx: I know. You just gave me an idea for a completely AI newsletter that five four could do. Yeah, I get it Now.Ryan Lopopolo: This sort of thing is just one example of closing the loop, right? Like the dashboard thing you mentioned. We have Codex authoring the Js ON, for the Grafana dashboards and publishing them and also responding to the pages, which means when it gets the page, it knows exactly which dashboards are defined and what alerts.What alert was triggered by which exact log in the code base. ‘cause all of this stuff is collated together.swyx: It has to own everything.Yes. Yeah. Yeah.Ryan Lopopolo: And it means that if we have an outage that did not result in a page. It has the existing set of dashboards available to it. It has the existing set of metrics and logs and can figure out where the gaps in the dashboard are or [00:18:00] in the underlying metrics and fix them in one go.In the same way, you would have a full stack engineer be able to drive a feature from the backend all the way to the front end.Vibhu: So it, it seems like a lot of the work you guys had to do was you as a small team are fully working for a way that the model wants the software to be written. It's like less human legible for better. Code legibility, agent legibility. How do you think that affects broader teams? So one at OpenAI, do liaison, like this is how software should be written. Like I can imagine, say you join a new team with this methodology, this mindset there's ways that, teams do code review, teams write code, like teams are structured and a lot of it is for human legibility.So should we all swap? Like how does this play back one broader into OpenAI and then like broader into the software engineering, right? Is it like teams that pick this up will it's pretty drastic, right? You have to make a pretty big switch. Should they just full send Yeah.Ryan Lopopolo: The mindset is very much that I'm removed from the process, right? I can't really have deep code level opinions about [00:19:00] things. It's as if I'm. Group tech leading a 500 person organization.Vibhu: Yeah.Ryan Lopopolo: Like it's not appropriate for me to be in the weeds on every pr. This is why that post merge code review thing is like a good analog here, right?Like I have some representative sample of the code as it is written, and I have to use that to infer what the teams are struggling with, where they could use help, where they're already moving quickly and I can pivot my focus elsewhere.Vibhu: Yeah.Ryan Lopopolo: So I don't really have too many opinions around the code as it is written.I do, however, have a command based class, which is used to have repeatable chunks of business logic that comes with tracing and metrics and observability for free. And the thing to focus on is not how that business logic is structured, but that it uses this primitive ‘cause I know that's gonna give leverage by default.Vibhu: Yeah.Ryan Lopopolo: Yeah, back to that sort of systems stinking,Vibhu: and you have part of that in your blog post, enforcing architecture and ta taste how you set boundaries for what's used. There's also a section on redefining [00:20:00] engineering and stuff, but yeah, it's just, it's interesting to hear,Ryan Lopopolo: and as the models have gotten better, they have gotten better at proposing these abstractions to unblock themselves, which again, lets me move higher and higher up the stack to look deeper into the future on what ultimately blocked the team from shipping.swyx: Yeah. You mentioned so you, this is primarily a, it is like a 1 million line of code base electron app. But it manages its own services as well, so it's like a backend for front end type thing.Ryan Lopopolo: We do have a backend in there, but that's hosted in the cloud.Yeah. This sort of structure is actually within the separate main and render processesWithin theswyx: electric.That's just how electronic works.Ryan Lopopolo: Yeah, of course. So have also treated like. MVC style decomposition with the same level of rigor, which has been very fun.swyx: I have a fun pun. This is a tangent, NVC is model view controller. Any sort of full stack web Devrel knows that.But my AI native version of this is Model view Claw, the clause the harness.Ryan Lopopolo: That's right. That's right. I do think that there is an interesting space to [00:21:00] explore here with Codex, the harness as part of building AI products, right? There's a ton of momentum around getting the models to be good at coding.We've seen big leaps in like the task complexity with each incremental model release where if you can figure out how to collapse a product that you're trying to build, a user journey that you're trying to solve into code, it's pretty natural to use the Codex Harness to solve that problem for you. It's done all the wiring and lets you just communicate and prompts to let the model cook.Yeah. It's been very fun. And there's also a very engineering legible way of increasing capabil. It's fantastic, right? Yeah. Just give you, just give the model scripts, the same scripts you would already build for yourself.swyx: Yeah.Yeah. So for listeners, this is Ryan saying that software engineering or coding against will eat knowledge work like the non-coding parts that you would normally think.Oh, you have to build a separate agent for it. No, start a coding agent and go out from there. Which open Claw has like it's pie Underhood.Ryan Lopopolo: [00:22:00] Yes.Vibhu: Basically define your task in code. Everything is a codingswyx: agent by the way. Since I brought it up, it's probably the only place we bring it up. Is any open claw usage from you?Any?Ryan Lopopolo: No. No. Not for me. I don't have any spare Mac Minis rattling around my house.swyx: You can afford it? No. I just, I'm curious if it's changed anything in opening eye yet, but it's probably early days. And then the other, the other thing I, I wanna pull on here is like you mentioned ticketing systems and you mentioned prs and I'm wondering if both those things have to go away or be reinvented for this kind of coding.So the git itself and is like very hostile to multi-agent.Ryan Lopopolo: Yeah. We make very heavy use of work trees.swyx: But like even then, like I just did a, dropped a podcast yesterday with Cursors saying, and they said they're getting rid of work trees ‘cause it still has too many merge conflicts.It's still un too un unintuitive. But go ahead.Ryan Lopopolo: The models are really great at resolving merge conflicts. Yeah. And to get to a state where I'm not synchronously in the loop in my terminal, I almost don't care that there are mergeswyx: with disposable.[00:23:00] Yeah.Ryan Lopopolo: We invoke a dollar land skill and that coaches codex to push the PR Wait for human and agent reviewers Wait for CI to be green.Fix the flakes if there are any merged upstream. If the PR comes into conflict, wait for everything to pass. Put it in the merge queue. Deal with flakes until it's in Maine. End. This is what it means to delegate fully, right? This is in a, very large model re probably a significant tax on humans to get PRS merged, but the agent is more than capable of doing this and I really don't have to think about it other than keep my laptop open.swyx: Yeah. I used to be much more of a control freak, but now I'm like, yeah, actually you could do a better job of this than me. Yeah. With the right context. Yes.[00:23:47] Encoding Requirementsswyx: Anything else in harness in general? Just this piece, I just wanna make sure we,Ryan Lopopolo: I think one thing that I maybe didn't make super clear in the article that I heard on Twitter as an interesting, that's respond [00:24:00]swyx: to them.What's the chatter and then what's your response?Ryan Lopopolo: Ultimately, all the things that we have encoded in docs and tests and review agents and all these things are ways to put all the non-functional requirements of building high scale, high quality, reliable software into a space that prompt injects the agent.We either write it down as docs, we add links where the error messages tell how to do the right thing. So the whole meta of the thing is to basically tease out of the heads of all the engineers on my team, what they think good looks like, what they would do by default, or what they would coach a new hire on the team to do to get things to merch.And that's why we pay attention to all the mistakes, mistakes that the agent makes, right? This is code being written that is misaligned with some as yet not written down, non-functional requirement.swyx: Sorry, what? Did the online people misunderstand orRyan Lopopolo: No,swyx: whatyouRyan Lopopolo: responded to? Somebody just literally said that.I was like, oh yeah,swyx: okay,Ryan Lopopolo: This is the [00:25:00] thing. This is what I've been doing. Oh, youswyx: agree? Yeah. I see. Interesting.Ryan Lopopolo: One other neat thing, which I did totally did not expect is folks were just. Taking the link to the article and giving it to pi or Codex and say, make my repo this,Vibhu: you achi a whole recursion.Ryan Lopopolo: And it was wildly effective. Really? It was wildly effective. NoVibhu: way. It just actually is something I tried with five, four yesterday. I didn't have time. Last time I was like out speaking of something, and this is one of my things, I was like, okay, I have this article. Can we just scaffold out what it would be like to run this?And I, I did it first as that and then I was like, okay, let me take another little side repo and say okay, if I was to fully automate this like this because I haven't written a line of code, it'sRyan Lopopolo: like over full, setVibhu: it right. The side thing I'm doing of voice. TTS I'm just like, slobbing out, whatever.It's nothing production. I'm like, how would I make this like this? And it's actually like a really good way. It's like a good way to learn what could be changed, what could be like, it's just a good analyzing, right? You give it all the codes, you give it all the context, you give it the article and it walks you through it very well.That's right. That's right.[00:25:57] Inlining Dependencies[00:25:57] Dependencies Going Away & Brett Taylor's Responseswyx: I guess one more thing before we go to Symphony is I wanted to cover [00:26:00] Brett Taylor's response. We had him on the show. He is your chairman, which is wild. Yeah. That he's reading your articles as well and like getting engaged in it. He says software dependencies are going away.Basically they can just be like vendored. Yes. Response.Ryan Lopopolo: Aswyx: hundred percent. A hundred percent agree. You still pro qr, you still pay Datadog. You still pay Temporal. Thank you.Ryan Lopopolo: Yep. The level of complexity of the dependencies that we can internalize is, I would say low, medium right now. Just based on model capability.What does the,swyx: what is medium?Ryan Lopopolo: I would say like a. A couple thousand line dependency is a thing that we could in-house No problem. Call in an afternoon of time. One neat thing about it is like probably most of that code you don't even need. Like by in-house and abstraction, you can strip away all the generic parts of it and only focus on what you need to enable the specific thing.Yes. You're building,swyx: I've been calling this the end of b******t plugins.Ryan Lopopolo: Yeah.swyx: Because there's so much when I published an open source thing, I want to accept everything, be liberal. I want to accept, this is post's law, but that means there's so much bloat. Yes. There's so much overhead.Ryan Lopopolo: One other neat thing about [00:27:00] this too is when we deploy Codex Security on the repo, it is able to deeply review and change. The internalized dependencies in a much lower friction way than it would be to like, push patches upstream, wait for them to be released, pull them down, make sure that's compatible with all the transitive I have in my repo and things like that.So it's also much lower friction to internalize some of these things if code is free. ‘cause the tokens are cheap sort of thing.swyx: Yeah. Yeah. I think like the only argument I have against this is basically scale testing, which obviously the larger pieces of software like Linux, MySQL, he calls up even the Datadog and Temporals and then maybe security testing where Yes.Classically, I think, is it linis tos, it said security open source is the best disinfectant.Ryan Lopopolo: Many eyes.swyx: Many eyes. And if inline your dependencies and code them up, you're gonna have to relearn mistakes from other people that Yep.Ryan Lopopolo: Yep. And to internalize that dependency, you're back to zero and you have to start.Reassembling all those bits and pieces to Yeah. Have [00:28:00] high confidence in the code as it is written. Yeah.Vibhu: Even part of the first intro of this, you basically mentioned like everything was written by codex, including internal tooling, right? So internal tooling, like when you're visualizing what's going on it's writing it for itself.swyx: Yeah. I'm built internal tools way I now, and like I just show them off and they're like, how long did you spend? And I didn't spend any time. I just prompted it,Ryan Lopopolo: very funny story here.swyx: Yeah, go ahead.Ryan Lopopolo: We had deployed our app to the first dozen users internally had some performance issues, so we asked them to export a trace for us get a tar ball, gave it to our on-call engineer, and he did a fantastic job of working with Codex to build this beautiful local Devrel tool, next JS app, the drag and drop the tar ball in, and it visualizes the entire trace.It's fantastic. Took an afternoon, but none of this was necessary. Because you could just spin up codex and give it the tar ball and ask the same thing and get the response immediately. So in a way, optimizing for human [00:29:00] legibility of that debugging process was wrong. It kept him in the loop unnecessarily when instead he could have just like Codex cooked for five minutes and gotten this same.swyx: Yeah, you verify your instincts here of this is how we used to do it. Or this is how I would have used to solve it.Ryan Lopopolo: Yeah. In this local observability stack. Like sure, you can de deploy Yeager to visualize the traces, but I wouldn't expect to be looking at the traces in the first place because I'm not gonna write the code to fix them.swyx: Yeah. So basically there needs to be like this kind of house stack and owning the whole loop. I think that is very well established. And it sounds like you might be like sharing more about that in the future, right?Ryan Lopopolo: Yeah. I think we're excited to do[00:29:36] Ghost Libraries Specs[00:29:36] Ghost Libraries & Distributing Software as SpecsRyan Lopopolo: We're gonna talk about Symphony in a little bit, but like the way we distribute it as a spec, which I think folks are calling Ghost Libraries on Twitter.This is like a such a cool name. It does mean it becomes much cheaper to share software with the world, right? You define a spec, how you could build your own specifying as much as is required for a coding agent to reassemble it [00:30:00] locally. The flow here is very cool. Like we have taken. All the scaffolding that has existed in our proprietary repo spun up a new one.Ask Codex with our repo as a reference. Write the spec. We tell it. Spin up a team ox spawn a disconnected codex to implement the spec. Wait for it to be done. Spawn another codex and another team ox to review the spec com or review the implementation compared to upstream and update the spec so it diverges less.And then you just loop over and over Ralph style until you get a spec that is with high fidelity able to reproduce the system as it is. It's fantastic.Vibhu: And you're basically, you're not really adding any of your human bias in there, right? That's correct. A lot of times people write a spec and be like, okay, I think it should be done this way, and you'll riff on something.And it's no, the agent could have just handled it like you're still scaffolding in a sense, right? I want it done this way. It can determine its spec better.swyx: That's right. That's right. Part of me it, I'm, I've been working a lot on evals recently, and part of me is wondering if [00:31:00] an agent can produce a spec that it cannot solve.Is it always capable of things that he can imagine or can you imagine things that it is impossible to do?Ryan Lopopolo: I think with Symphony, we, there's like this there's this axis where you have things that are easier, hard, or established or new, right? And I think things that are hard and new is still something that the models need humans.Yeah. Drive.swyx: Yeah. Yeah.Ryan Lopopolo: But I think those other quadrants are largely salt. Given the right scaffold and the right thing that's gonna drive the agent to completion,swyx: it's crazy that it solved,Ryan Lopopolo: but it means that the humans, the ones with limited time and attention get to work on the hardest stuff, like the problems where it's pure white space out in front. Or like the deepest refactorings where you don't know what the proper shape of the interfaces are. And this is where I wanna spend my time. ‘cause it lets me set up for the next level of scale.swyx: Yeah. Yeah. Amazing. Let's introduce Symphony.I think we've been mentioning it every now and then. Elixir. Interesting option.Ryan Lopopolo: Yeah.swyx: Yeah. I'm not,Ryan Lopopolo: again, like the [00:32:00] elixir manifestation here is just a derivative. Is it a modelswyx: chosen? Yeah.Ryan Lopopolo: Yeah. Yeah. And it chose that because the process supervision and the gen servers are super amenable to the type of process orchestration that we're doing here.You are essentially spinning up little Damons for every task that is in execution and driving it to completion, which. Means the mall gets a ton of stuff for free by using Elixir and the Beam.swyx: I had to go do a crash course in Beam and Elixir, and I think most people are not operating at that scale of concurrency where you need that.But it is a good mental model for Resum ability and all those things. And these are things I care about. But tell me the story, the origin story of Symphony. What do you use it for? Is this, how did it form maybe any abandoned paths that you didn't take?[00:32:46] Terminal Free Orchestration[00:32:46] Symphony: Removing Humans from the LoopRyan Lopopolo: At the end of December we were at about three and a half PRS per engineer per day.This was before five two came out in the beginning of January. Everyone gets back from holiday with five two and no other work [00:33:00] on the repository. We were up in the five to 10 PRS per day per engineer. And I don't know about y'all, but like it's very taxing to constantly be switching like that. Like I was pretty tapped out at the end of the day, again, where are the humans spending their time? They're spending their time context switching between all these active tmox pains to drive the agent forward.swyx: Yeah. No way. Yeah.Ryan Lopopolo: So let's again, build something to remove ourselves from the loop. And this is what frantic sprinted adapt here to find a way to remove the need for the human to sit in front of their terminal.So a lot of experimentation with Devrel boxes and, automatically spinning up agents, like it seems like a fantastic end state here, where my life is beach. I open live twice a day and say yes no to these things. Yeah. And this is again, a super, super interesting framing for how the work is done.Because I become more latency and sensitive. I have [00:34:00] way less attachment to the code as it is written. Like I've had close to zero investment in the actual authorship experience. So if it's garbage. I can just throw it away and not care too much about it. In Symphony, there's this like rework state where once the PR is proposed and it's escalated to the human for review, it should be a cheap review.It is either mergeable or it is not. And if it's not, you move it to rework. The elixir service will completely trash the entire work tree NPR and start it again from scratch. Okay. And this is that opportunity again to say, why was it trash right? What did the agent do that wasswyx: bad. Yeah.Ryan Lopopolo: Fix that before moving the ticket toswyx: endRyan Lopopolo: of progress again.swyx: Yeah. Why is this not in codex app? I guess this, you guys are ahead of Codex app,Ryan Lopopolo: yeah, so the way the team has been working is basically to be as AI pilled as possible and spread ahead. And a lot of the things we have worked on have fallen out [00:35:00] into a lot of the products that we have.Like we were in deep consultation with the Codex team to. Have the Codex app be a thing that exists, right? To have skills be a thing that Codex is able to use. So we didn't have to roll our own to put automations into the product. So all of our automatic refactoring agents didn't have to be these hand rolled control loops.It has been really fantastic to be, in a way, un anchored to the product development of Frontier and Codex and just very quickly try to figure out what works and then later find the scalable thing that can be deployed widely. It's been a very fun way to operate. It's certainly chaotic. I have lost track very often of what the actual state of the code looks like.‘cause I'm not in the loop. There was. One point where we had wired playwright directly up to the Electron app. With MCPM CCPs, I'm pretty bearish on because the harness forcibly injects all those tokens in the [00:36:00] context, and I don't really get a say over it. They mess with auto compaction. The agent can forget how to use the tool.There's probably only what three calls in playwright that I actually ever want to use. So I pay the cost for a ton of things. Somebody vibed a local Damon that boots playwright and exposes a tiny little shim CLI to drive it. And I had zero idea that this had occurred because to me, I run Codex and it's able to, it's oh, it's better.Yeah. Like no knowledge of this at all. Uhhuh.[00:36:30] Multi Human ChaosRyan Lopopolo: So we have had like in human space to spend a lot of time doing synchronous knowledge sharing. We have a daily standup that's 45 minutes long because we almost have to. Fan out the understanding of the current state.swyx: Yeah, I was gonna say this is good for a single human multi-agent, but multi human, multi-agent is a whole like po like explosion of stuff.Ryan Lopopolo: Yeah. And that this is fundamentally why we have such a rigid, like 10,000 [00:37:00] engineer level architecture in the app because we have to find ways to carve up the space so people are not trampling on each other.swyx: Sorry, I don't get the 10,000 thing. Did I miss that?Ryan Lopopolo: The structure of the repository is like 500 NPM packages.It's like architecture to the excess for what you would consider, I think normal for a seven person team. But if every person is actually like 10 to 50. Then the like numbers on being super, super deep into decomposition and sharding and like proper interface boundaries make a lot more sense.swyx: Yeah. To me, that's why I talked about Microfund ends and I, an anex is from that world, but Cool. It is just coming back to, to, to this I dunno if you have other, thoughts on. Orchestrating so much work coin going through this. Is this enough? Is this like any aha moments?Vibhu: It'll be interesting to see like where, okay, so right now you pick linear as your issue tracker, right?swyx: Or it's like a is it actually linear? This is actually linear.[00:37:55] Linear vs Slack WorkflowVibhu: Oh, that's linear. It's linear.swyx: Oh I never looked atVibhu: video. The demo video I had to download to [00:38:00] run.swyx: So I, because I'm a Slack maxie, but Yeah, linear. Linear is also really good. Yes,Ryan Lopopolo: we do make a good use of Slack. We we fire off codex to do all these lotion, elasticity, fix ups, the things that like sync that knowledge into the repository.It's super cheap. Yeah.swyx: Yeah.Ryan Lopopolo: Just do it in Codex.swyx: My biggest plug is OpenAI needs to build Slack. You need to own Slack. Build yours. Turn this into Slack.Ryan Lopopolo: I did read about it. Youswyx: did?Ryan Lopopolo: Yeah.[00:38:25] Collaboration Tools for AgentsRyan Lopopolo: I would say that if we think that we want these agents to do economically valuable work, which is like this is the mission, right?We want AI to be deployed widely, to do economically valuable work, then we need to find ways for them to naturally collaborate with humans, which means collaboration tooling, I think, is an interesting space to explore.swyx: Yeah, totally. Yeah. GitHub, slack, linear.Vibhu: Yeah, that was my thing. Okay, where do we see right now Codex has started Codex Model, then CLI, now there's an app, app can let me shoot off multiple Codex is in parallel, but there's no great team collaboration for Codex.And it [00:39:00] seems like your team had some say into what comes out, right? So you talked to ‘em, codex kind of was a thing. From there, if you guys are on the bound, what stuff that like, you might not focus on, but what do you expect other people to be building, right? So people that are like five x 50 Xing.Should you build stuff that's like very niche for your workflow, for your team? Should it be more general so other people can adopt? Is there a niche there? ‘Cause part of it is just okay, is everything just internal tooling? Do we have everything our own way? Like the way our team operates has our own ways that we like to communicate or is there a broader way to do it?Is it something like a issue tracker? Just thoughts if you wanna riff on that.[00:39:35] Standardizing Skills and CodeRyan Lopopolo: I think TBD we have not figured this out in a general way. I do think that there is leverage to be had in making the code and the processes as much the same as possible. If you think that code is context, code is prompts, it's better from the agent behavior perspective to be able to look in a package in directory X, Y, Z, and it not to have to page so [00:40:00] deeply into directory if you C, because they have the same structure, use the same language, they have the same patterns internally.And that same like leverage comes from aligning on a single set of skills that you're pouring every engineer's taste into to make sure that the agent is effective. So like in our code base, we have, I think, six skills. That's it. And if some part of the software development loop is not being covered, our first attempt is to encode it in one of the existing setup skills, which means that we can change the agent behavior.Yeah. More cheaply than changing the human driver behavior.swyx: Yeah.[00:40:39] Self Improvement via Logsswyx: Have you ever, have you experimented with agents changing their own behavior?Ryan Lopopolo: We do.swyx: Yeah. Or parent agent changing a subagents, behavior or something like that.Ryan Lopopolo: We have some bits for skill distillation. So for example, there's one neat thing you can do with Codex, which is just point it at its own session logs to ask it to tell you how you can use [00:41:00] the tool pedal better.swyx: It's like introspectionRyan Lopopolo: or ask it to do things. I useVibhu: this session better. What skills should Iswyx: high? I like the modification of, you can do, just do things to you can just ask agent to do things.Ryan Lopopolo: Yeah. You can just codex things. This is like a, this is like a silly emoji that we have, right? You can just codex things, you can just prompt things.It's really glorious future we live in, but okay, you can do that one-on-one. But we're actually slurping these up for the entire team into blob storage and. Running agent loops over them every day to figure out where as a team can we do better and how do we reflect that back into the repositories?Yes, though everybody benefits from everybody else's behavior for free. Same for like PR comments, right? These are all feedback. That means the code as written, deviated from what was good, a PR comment, a failed build. These are all signals that mean at some point the agent was missing context. We gotta figure out how toswyx: Yeah.Ryan Lopopolo: Slurp it up and put it back in the reboot.swyx: By the way, I do this exactly right. I used to, when I use cloud code for [00:42:00] knowledge work, cloud cowork is like a nice product, right? Yes. In I think you would agree. I always have it tell me what do I do better next time? And that's the meta programming reflection thing.So I almost think like you have six reflection extraction levels in symphony and almost like the zero of layer. So the six levels are PO policy, configuration, coordination, execution, integration, observability. We've talked about a couple of these, but the zero layer is like the, okay, are we working well?Can we improve how we work? Yes. Can I modify my own workflow without MD or something? I don't know.Ryan Lopopolo: Yeah, of course. Yeah, of course you can. Like this thing is also able to cut its own tickets ‘cause we give it full access.Yeah. Make it a ticket to have it cut. Tickets you can.Put in the ticket that you expect it to file as on follow up work,swyx: like Yeah. Self-modifying. Yeah.Ryan Lopopolo: Yeah.[00:42:44] Tool Access and CLI FirstRyan Lopopolo: Put, don't put the agent in a box. Give the agent full accessibility over it. Domain.swyx: I had a mental reaction when you said don't put the agent in a box. So I think you should put it in a box. Like it's just that you're giving the box everything it needs.Ryan Lopopolo: Yeah. Context and tools.swyx: But we're like, as developers, we're used to calling [00:43:00] out to different systems, but here you use the open source things like the Prometheus, whatever, and you run it locally so that you can have the full loop. I assume.Ryan Lopopolo: Yep.Vibhu: I think likeRyan Lopopolo: another, you wanna minimize cloud, cloud dependencies.Vibhu: You also want to make sure that you think about what the agent has access to. What does it see? Does it go back into the loop, like from the most basic sense of you let it see its own like calls, traces it can determine where it went wrong. But are you feeding that back in? So you know, just the most basic level of you wanna see exactly what's input output, like does the agent have access to.What is being outputted, right? It can self-improve a lot of these things. It's allRyan Lopopolo: text, right? My job is to figure out ways to funnel text from one agent to the other.swyx: It's so strange like way back at the start of this whole AI wave Andre was like, English is the hottest day programming language.It's here, it's just Yeah. The feature as well.Vibhu: A lot of, okay. Like a lot of software, a lot of stuff. There's a gui, it's made for the human. We're seeing the evolution of CLI for everything, right? All tools have CLIs. Your agents can use [00:44:00] them well, do we get good vision? Do we get good little sandboxes?Like right now? It's a really effective way, right? Models love to use tools. They love the best. They love to read through text. So slap a CLI let it go loose. That works for everything.Ryan Lopopolo: It does. Yeah. Yeah.[00:44:14] UI Perception and RasterizingRyan Lopopolo: We've also been adapting nont, textual things to that shape in order to improve model behavior in some ways, right?We want the agent to be able to see the UI agents do not perceive visually in the same way that we do. They don't see a red box, they see red box button, right? They see these things in latent space. So if we want, Hey, yeah, I do. We haveswyx: a ding if that goes off every time. Alien spaceRyan Lopopolo: ding.Anyway if we wanna actually make it see the layout, it's almost easier to rasterize that image to ask EOR and feed it in to the agent. Ha. And there's no reason you can't do both, right? To like further refine how the model perceives the object it's [00:45:00] manipulating.swyx: Cool. Could we, you wanna talk about a couple more of these layers that might bear more introspection or that you have personal passion for?[00:45:07] Coordination Layer with ElixirRyan Lopopolo: I will say that the coordination layer here was a really tricky piece to get right.swyx: Let's do it. Yep. I'm all about that. And this is Temporal core.Ryan Lopopolo: This is where when we turn the spec into Elixir, where like the model takes a shortcut, right? Like it's oh, I have all these primitives that I can make use of in this lovely runtime that has native process supervision.Which is I think, a neat way to have taken the spec and made it more choices achievable by making choices that naturally mapswyx: Yeah.Ryan Lopopolo: To the domain, right? In the same way that like you would prefer to have a TypeScript model repo if you are doing full stack web development, right? Because the ability to share types across the front end and backend reduces a lot of complexity.And becauseswyx: that's what graph kill used to be.Ryan Lopopolo: That's right. Andswyx: I don't know if it's still alive, butRyan Lopopolo: [00:46:00] no humans in the loop here. So like my own personal ability to write or not write elixir. Doesn't really have to bias us away from using the right tool for the job. It is just wild.swyx: Love it. I love it.Yeah. I wonder if any languages struggle more than others because of this? I feel like everyone has their own abstractions. That would make sense. But maybe it might be slower, it might be more faulty where like you'd have to just kick the server every now and then. I, I don't know. I think observability layer is really well understood.Integration layer, CP is dead. I think all these just like a really interesting hierarchy to travel up and down. It's common language for people working on the system to understandRyan Lopopolo: The policy stuff is really cool, right? Yeah. You don't really have to build a bunch of code to make sure the system wait for the, to passswyx: it's institutional knowledge.Ryan Lopopolo: Yeah. You just give it the G-H-C-L-I with some text that say CI has to pass. It makes the maintenance of these systems a lot easier.[00:46:57] Agent Friendly CLI Outputswyx: Do you think that CLI maintainers need to be [00:47:00] do anything special for agents or just as is? It's good because like I don't think when people made the G GitHub, CLI, they anticipated this happening.Ryan Lopopolo: That's correct. The GH CLI is fantastic. It's great super industry.swyx: Everyone go try GH repo create GH pull and then pull request number, right? GH HPR, like 1 53, whatever. And then it like pullsRyan Lopopolo: basically my only interaction with the GitHub web UI at this point is GH PR view dash web.Exactly. Glanceswyx: at the diffRyan Lopopolo: and be like Sure thing. Send it. Yeah. But the CLI are nice ‘cause they're super token efficient and they can be made more token efficient really easily. Like I'm sure you all have seen like I go to build Kite or Jenkins and I could just get this massive wall of build output.And in order to unblock the humans, your developer productivity team is almost certainly gonna write some code that parses the actual exception out of the build logs and sticks it in a sticky note at the top of the page. And you basically [00:48:00] want CLI to be structured in a similar way, right? You're gonna want to patch dash silent to prettier because the agent doesn't care that every file was already formatted.Just wants to know it's either formatted or not. So it can then go run a right command. Similarly, like in our PNPM distributed script runner, when we had one, when you do dash recursive, like it produces a absolute mountain of text. But all of that is for passing. Test suites. So we ended up wrapping all of this in another scriptswyx: to suppress the,Ryan Lopopolo: which you can vibe the channel only output the failing parts of the tests.swyx: You make a pipe errors versus the standard, standard out. I don't know. Okay. Whatever. Too much thinking have to do that. The CII used to maintain SCLI for my company and yeah, this is like core, very core to my heart. But you're vibing my job.Ryan Lopopolo: That's right.swyx: Cool. Any other things?This is a long spec. [00:49:00] I appreciate that. It's got a lot of strong opinions in here. Any other things that we should highlight? I think obviously you can spend the whole day going through some of these, but I do think that some of these have a lot of care or some of this you might wanna tell people, Hey, take this, but, make it your own.[00:49:15] Blueprint Spec and GuardrailsRyan Lopopolo: Fundamentally, software is made more flexible when it's able to adapt to the environment in which it is deployed, which means that things like linear or GitHub even are specified within the spec, but not required pieces of it. There's like a more platonic ideal of the thing that you could swap in like Jira or Bitbucket, for example.But being able to tightly specify things like the ID formats or how the Ralph Loop works for the individual agents. Basically means you can get up and running with a fully specified system quickly that you then evolve later on. I think we never intended for this to be a static spec that you can [00:50:00] never change.It's more like a blueprint to get something worth a starting point up and running.swyx: Yeah.Ryan Lopopolo: For you then to vibe later to your heart's content,swyx: you have like code and scripts in here where it's oh, I think this is a really good prompt. It's just a very long prompt.Ryan Lopopolo: Fundamentally, the agents are good at following instructions, so give them instructions.And it will, improve the reliability of the result. We, much like the way we use Symphony, we don't want folks to have to monitor the agent as it is vibing the system into existence. So being very opinionatedVery strict around what these success criteria are means that our deployment success rate goes up. Yeah. It means we don't have to get tickets on this thing.Vibhu: Think it all goes back to that like code to disposable, right? Like early on when you had CLI or you'd kick off a Codex run, it would take two hours. You would wanna monitor okay, I'm in the workflow of just using one.I don't want it to go down the wrong path. I'll cut it off and, just shoot off four, like that was my favorite thing of the Codex app, right? Yeah. Just Forex it like, [00:51:00] it's okay. One of them will probably be right, one of them might be better. Stop overthinking it. Like my first example was probably like deep research.When you put out deep research and I'd ask it something like, I asked it something about LLM, it thought it was legal something and spent an hour, came back with a report completely off the rails. And I was like, okay, I gotta monitor this thing a bit. No don't monitor it. Just you want to build it so it's that it, it goes the right way.And you don't wanna, you don't wanna sit there and babysit, right? You don't want to babysit your agentsRyan Lopopolo: with that deep research query that you made. Looking at the bad result, you probably figured out you needed to tweak your prompt Yeah. A bit, right? That's that guardrail that you fed back into the code base for the task, your prompt to further align the agent's execution.Same sort of concept supply there too.swyx: When you talk, how are the customers feelingRyan Lopopolo: for Symphony? I think we have none, right? This is a thing we have put out into theswyx: world. Symphony's internal, right? As long as you are happy, you are the customer. That'

Fresh off raising a monster $15B, Marc Andreessen has lived through multiple computing platform shifts firsthand, from Mosaic and Netscape to cofounding A16z. In this episode, Marc joins swyx and Alessio in a16z's legendary Sand Hill Road office to argue that AI is not just another hype cycle, but the payoff of an “80-year overnight success”: from neural nets and expert systems to transformers, reasoning models, coding, agents, and recursive self-improvement. He lays out why he thinks this moment is different, why AI is finally escaping the old boom-bust pattern, and why the real bottleneck may be less about models than about the messy institutions, incentives, and social systems that struggle to absorb technological change.This episode was a dream come true for us, and many thanks to Erik Torenberg for the assist in setting this up. Full episode on YouTube!We discuss:* Marc's long view on AI: from the 1980s AI boom and expert systems to AlexNet, transformers, and why he sees today's moment as the culmination of decades of compounding technical progress* Why “this time is different”: the jump from LLMs to reasoning, coding, agents, and recursive self-improvement, and why Marc thinks these breakthroughs make AI real in a way prior cycles were not* AI winters vs. “80-year overnight success”: why the field repeatedly swings between utopianism and doom, and why Marc thinks the underlying researchers were mostly right even when the timelines were wrong* Scaling laws, Moore's Law, and what to build: why he believes AI scaling laws will continue, why the outside world is messier than lab purists assume, and how startups can still create durable value on top of rapidly improving models* The dot-com crash and AI infrastructure risk: Marc's comparison between today's AI capex boom and the fiber/data-center overbuild of 2000, plus why he thinks this cycle is different because the buyers are huge cash-rich incumbents and demand is already here* Why old NVIDIA chips may be getting more valuable: the pace of software progress, chronic capacity shortages, and the idea that even current models are “sandbagged” by supply constraints* Open source, edge inference, and the chip bottleneck: why Marc thinks local models, Apple Silicon, privacy, trust, and economics all point toward a major role for edge AI* American vs. Chinese open source AI: DeepSeek as a “gift to the world,” why open models matter not just because they're free but because they teach the world how things work, and how open source strategies may shift as the market consolidates* Why Pi and OpenClaw matter so much: Marc's claim that the combination of LLM + shell + filesystem + markdown + cron loop is one of the biggest software architecture breakthroughs in decades* Agents as the new “Unix”: how agent state living in files allows portability across models and runtimes, and why self-modifying agents that can extend themselves may redefine what software even is* The future of coding and programming languages: why Marc thinks software becomes abundant, why bots may translate freely across languages, and why “programming language” itself may stop being a salient concept* Browsers, protocols, and human readability: lessons from Mosaic and the web, why text protocols and “view source” mattered, and how similar principles may shape AI-native systems* Real-world OpenClaw use: health dashboards, sleep monitoring, smart homes, rewriting firmware on robot dogs, and why the most aggressive users are discovering both the power and danger of agents first* Proof of human vs. proof of bot: why Marc thinks the internet's bot problem is now unsolvable via detection alone, and why biometric + cryptographic proof of human becomes necessaryTimestamps* 00:00 Marc on AI's “80-Year Overnight Success”* 00:01 A Quick Message From swyx* 01:44 Inside a16z With Marc Andreessen* 02:13 The Truth About a16z's AI Pivot* 03:29 Why This AI Boom Is Not Like 2016* 06:33 Marc on AI Winters, Hype Cycles, and What's Different Now* 10:09 Reasoning, Coding, Agents, and the New AI Breakthroughs* 12:13 What Founders Should Build as Models Keep Improving* 16:33 AI Capex, GPU Shortages, and the Dot-Com Crash Analogy* 24:54 Open Source AI, Edge Inference, and Why It Matters* 33:03 Why OpenClaw and PI Could Change Software Forever* 41:37 Agents, the End of Interfaces, and Software for Bots* 46:47 Do Programming Languages Even Have a Future?* 54:19 AI Agents Need Money: Payments, Crypto, and Stablecoins* 56:59 Proof of Human, Internet Bots, and the Drone Problem* 01:06:12 AI, Management, and the Return of Founder-Led Companies* 01:12:23 Why the Real Economy May Resist AI Longer Than Expected* 01:15:53 Closing ThoughtsTranscriptMarc: Something about AI that causes the people in the field, I would say, to become both excessively utopian and excessively apocalyptic. Having said that, I think what's actually happened is an enormous amount of technical progress that built up over time. And like for, for example, we now know that neural network is the correct architecture.And I, I will tell you like there was a 60 year run where that was like a, you know, or even 70 years where that was controversial. And so, so the way I think about what's happening is basically, I think, I think about basically the, the, the period we're in right now is it's, I call it 80 year overnight success, right?Which is like, it's an overnight success ‘cause it's like bam, you know, chat GPT hits and then, and then oh one hits, and then, you know, open claw hits and like, you know, these are open, these are, these are like overnight, like radical, overnight transformative successes, but they're drawing on an 80 year sort of wellspring backlog, you know, of, of, of, of ideas and thinking it's not just that it's all brand new, it's that it's an unlock of all of these decades of like very serious, hardcore research.If I were 18, like this is a hundred, this is what I would be spending all of my time on. This is like such an incredible conceptual breakthrough.swyx: Before we get into today's episode, I just have a small message for listeners. Thank you. We will not be able to bring you the ai, engineering, science, and entertainment contents that you so clearly want if you didn't choose to also click in and tune into our content.We've been approached by sponsors on an almost daily basis, but fortunately enough of you actually subscribed to us to keep all this sustainable without ads, and we wanna keep it that way. But I just have one favor to ask all of you. The single, most powerful, completely free thing you can do is to click that subscribe button.It's the only thing I'll ever ask of you, and it means absolutely everything to me and my team that works so hard to bring the in space to you each and every week. If you do it, I promise you will never stop working to make the show even better. Now, let's get into it.Alessio: Hey everyone, welcome to the Lidian Space Pockets. This is CIO, founder Kernel Labs, and I'm joined by s Swix, editor of Lidian Space.swyx: Hello. And we're in a 16 Z with a, uh, mark G and welcome.Marc: Yes, yes. A and what, half of 16? Something like that. A one. Exactly,swyx: exactly. Uh, apparently this is the, the final few days in your, your current office.You're moving across the road.Marc: Uh, we're, yeah. We have a, we have some, we have some projects underway, but yeah, this is actually, oh, this is the original. We're in actually the original office. We're in the, we're in the, we're, we're in the whole thing.swyx: It's beautiful. Yeah. Great.Marc: Thank you.swyx: So I have to come out, uh, this is a, you know, I wanted to pick a spicy start in October, 2022.I just made friends with Roone and, uh, I wanted to give him something to sort of be spicy about. And I said, uh. Uh, it'll never not be funny. The A 16 Z was constantly going. The future is where the smart people choose to spend their time and then going deep into crypto and not in ai. And that was in October 22nd, 2022.And Ruen says there was an internal meeting in a 16 Z to reorient around Gen ai. Obviously you have, but was there a meeting? What, what was that?Marc: I mean, I don't, look, I've been doing AI since the late eighties.swyx: Yeah.Marc: So I, I don't know, like all that, as far as I'm concerned, this stuff is all Johnny cum lately.Yeah. You, I mean, look, we've been doing ar entire existence. I mean, we've been doing AI machine learning deep, you know, deeply. We've been doing this stuff way from the beginning. Obviously a AI is just core to computer science. I, I, I actually view them as like quite, uh, quite continuous. Um, you know, Ben and I both have computer science degrees.Um, you know, we, we both, Ben, Ben and I actually both are world enough to remember the actual AI boom in the 1980s. Yeah. There was like a, there was a big AI boom at the time. Um, and there was a, was names like expert systems. Um, and they of like lisp and lisp machines. Uh, I, I coded in lisp. I was coding a lisp in 1989.When that was the, the language of the AI future. Um, yeah. So this is something that we're like completely, you completely comfortable with. I've been doing the whole time and are very enthusiastic aboutswyx: is there a strong, like this time is different because, uh, my closest analog was 20 16 17. It was an AI boom.Mm-hmm. And it petered out very, very quickly. Um, we, it just, it just in terms of investingMarc: sort of, sort of,swyx: yeah. Investment, investment excitement.Marc: Although that's really when the, the, the Nvidia phenomenon really, it was, I would say it was in that period when it was very clear that at, at the time it, the vocabulary was more machine learning, but it, it was very clear at that time that machine learning was hitting some sort of takeoff point.Alessio: Yeah.Marc: Well, and as you guys, you guys have talked about this at length on, on your thing, but, you know, if you really track what happened, I think the real story is, it was, it was the Alex net, uh, basically breakthrough in like 2013. That was the, that was the real knee in the curve. Um, and then it was obviously the transformer breakthrough in 17.Alessio: Yeah.Marc: Um, and then everything that followed. But, but, you know, look, machine learning, you know, there were, you know, look, uh, I mean look, I've been working, you know, I've been working with, uh, one of my, you know, kind of projects working with Facebook since 2004. Um, and on the board since 2007, and of course, you know, they, they started using machine learning very early, um, and, you know, have used it basically, you know, for like 20 years for, you know, content, you know, feed optimization and advertising optimization.And obviously many, you know, financial services. You know, many, many, many companies, many different sectors have been doing this. And so it's like one of these things, it's like, it's not a, it's not a single thing. Like it's, it's like, it's like layers, right? Yeah. Um, and, and the layers arrive at different paces and, but they kind of build up.swyx: Yeah.Marc: Uh, they kind of build up over time and then, and then, yeah. And then look, in retrospect, it was 2017 was kind of the, you know, the key, the key point with the trans transformer and then. And then as you guys know, there was this really weird like four year period where it's like the, the transformer existed and then it was just like,swyx: let's go.Yeah.Marc: Well, but, but it was just, but, but between 2020, but between 2017 and 2021, I mean, that was the era of which like companies like Google had internal chat Botts, but they weren't letting anybody use them.swyx: Yeah.Marc: Right. And then, you know, and then OpenAI developed Chat GT or GPT two, and then they told everybody, this is way too dangerous to deploy.Right. Yeah. You know, we can't possibly let normal people, normal people use this thing. And then you, you guys, I'm sure remember AI Dungeon, um mm-hmm. So the o for, there was like a year where like the only way for a normal person to use GP T three was in, in AI dungeon.Alessio: Yeah.Marc: And so you, you, we would do this, you'd go in there and you'd pretend to play Dungeons and Dragons.In reality, you're just trying to talk to talk to GPT. And so there was this, you know, there was this long, you know, and I, you know, the big, big companies, you know, big companies are cautious and, you know, the big companies were cautious. It, it, by the way, it took open ai. You know, they, they, they talk about this, it took open AI time to actually adjust, you know, kind of re redirect their researchswyx: path.I, I think, uh, let say Rosewood, right? Uh, the, the dinner that founded OpenAI was right there.Marc: Right, right. But that, that dinner would've taken place in 20swyx: 18Marc: 19. The formation of OpenAI Uhhuh as late as 2018.swyx: Uh, uh, sorry. Uh, no, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm wrong. Probably It should be 20. Yeah. They just celebrated a 10 year anniversary, so it it is 2025.Yeah, so, so 2015?Marc: Yeah. 2015. Yeah. 2015. But then, uh, um, Alec Radford did G PT one in what, probablyswyx: mm-hmm. 17, 18,Marc: yeah. 17, 18. So it, yeah. For, and then, and then they didn't really, and then GPT three was what? 2020? 2020.swyx: 2020.Marc: Because that became copilot immediately. Even open ai, which has been, you know, the leader of, of this thing in the last decade, you know, e even they had to adapt and, and, and lean into the new thing.And so. Um, yeah, I, I think it's just this process of basically sort of wave after wave layer after layer, you know, building on itself. And then you kind of get these catalytic moments where, where the whole thing pops and, and obviously that's what's happening now.swyx: Is it useful to think about will there be any ai, winter?‘cause there's always these patterns. Like, is this, in the summer is something I constantly think about because do I get, do I just like. Just get endlessly hyped and just trust that I will only be early and never wrong or right. Well, are we, will there be a winter?Marc: So there's something about, say the following.There's something about AI that has led to this repeated pattern. Um, and, and, and you guys know this,swyx: it's summer, winter, summer,Marc: winter, summer, winter, summer, winter. And it goes back 80 years. Yeah. 80 years. Uh, so the original neural network paper was 1943. Right. Which is, which is amazing. Uh, that it was, it was far back that long.And then there was you, if you guys have ever talked about this on your show, but there was this, uh, there was a big, uh, there was an a GI conference at Dartmouth University in 1950. 55. 55, yeah. And they got a NSF grant to, uh, for the, all the AI experts at the time to spend the summer together. And they figured if they had 10 weeks together, they could get a GI, uh, at the other end.And they got their, by the way, they got the grant, they got the 10 weeks and then, you know, 1955, you know. No, no. A GI. And like I said, I, I lived through the eighties version of this where there was a big, a big boom and a crash. And so, so there is this thing, and there, there is something about AI that causes the people in the field, I would say, to become both excessively utopian and excessively apocalyptic.Um, and, and it's probably on both sides of like the, the, the boom bus cycle. You, you kind of see that play out. Having said that, I think what's actually happened is like just, and you know, and we now know in retrospect like an enormous amount of technical progress that built up over time. And like for, for example, we now know that neural network is the correct architecture.And I, I will tell you like there was a 60 year run where that was like a, you know, or even 70 years or that was controversial. And, and we now know that that's the case. And so we, we now, you know, everything we're building on today just sort of derives from the original idea in 1943. And so, so in retrospect, we, we now know that like, these, these guys are right.They, they, you know, they would get the timing wrong and they thought, you know, capabilities would arrive faster, or they were, it could be turned into businesses sooner or whatever, but like, they were fundamentally, the, the scientists who worked on this over the course of decades were fundamentally correct about what they were doing.And, and the, and the payoff from, from, from all their work is happening now. And so, so the way I think about what's happening is basically, I think, I think about basically the, the, the period we're in right now is it's, I call it 80 year overnight success, right? Which is like, it's an overnight success.‘cause it's like bam, you know, chat, GPT hits and then, and then oh one hits, and then, you know, open claw hits and like, you know, these are open, these are, these are like overnight, like radical, overnight transformative successes, but they're drawing on an 80 year sort of wellspring backlog, you know, of, of, of, of ideas and thinking it's not just that it's all brand new, it's that it's an unlock of all of these decades of like very serious, hardcore research.Um, and thinking, and look, there were AI researchers who spent their entire lives. They got their PhD. They, they worked for, they've researched for 40 years. They retired in a lot of cases, they passed away and they never actually saw it work.swyx: Yeah. It's all sad.Marc: It is. It is sad. It's sad. Knewswyx: Jeff Hinton was like the last guy.Marc: Yeah. Yeah. Well, there were the guys, uh, was a guy, Alan Newell. I mean, there's tons of John McCarthy. You know, John McCarthy was like one of the inventors in the field. He's one of the guys who organized the Dartmouth Conference and you know, he taught at Stanford for 40 years. Wow. And passed, you know, passed away, I don't know, whatever, 10, 10 years ago or something.Never, never actually go. Got to see it happen. But like, it is amazing in retrospect, like, these guys were incredibly smart and they worked really hard and they were correct. So anyway, so then it's like, okay, you know, say history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes. It's like, okay, does that mean that there's gonna be another, like, you know, basically boom buzz cycle.And I, I will tell you, like, let, like in a sense, like yes, everything goes through cycles and, you know, people get overly enthusiastic and overly depressed and there's, there's a time, there's a timelessness to that. Having said that, there's just no question. Um, so the form, the foremost dangerous words in investing this time are, this time is different.Do you know the 12 most dangerous words investing? No. The four most d foremost dangerous words in investing are this time is different. Yeah. Um, the 12 most dangerous words. And so like, I'll tell you what's different. Like now it's working like, like there's just no, I mean, look, there's just no question.And by the way, I, I'll just give you guys my take. Like L LLMs, like from, from basically the Chad G PT moment through to spring of 25. I think you could still, I think well intention, well, and of. Form skeptics could still say, oh, this is just pattern completion. And oh, these things don't really understand what they're doing.And you know, the hall hallucination rates are way too high. And, you know, this is gonna be great for creative writing and creating, you know, Shakespeare and so sonnets and, you know, as, as rap lyrics or whatever, like, it's gonna be great and all that stuff, but we're not gonna be able to harness this to make this relevant in, you know, coding or in medicine or in law or in, you know, you know, kind of feels that, you know, kind of really, really matter.And I think basically it was the reasoning breakthrough. It, it was oh one and then R one that basically answered that question basically said, oh no, we're gonna be able to actually turn this into something that's gonna work in the real world. And, and then obviously the coding breakthrough over the, over basically the coding breakthrough that kind of catalyzed over the holiday break was kind of the third step in that.Mm-hmm. Where you're just like, alright, if, if, you know, if Linus Tova is saying that the AI coding is no better than he is like. Like, that's, that's never happened before. That's theswyx: benchmark.Marc: Yeah. That's never happened before. And so now we know that it's, it's gonna sweep through coding and, and then, and then we, we know, you know, we know that if it's gonna work in coding, it's gonna work in everything else.Right. It's just then, because that's, that's like, that's like, that's like the hardest in many ways. That's the hardest example. And how everything else is gonna be a, a derivative of that. And then on top of that, we just got the agent breakthrough, you know, with Open Claw, which is fantastic. Which is amazing and incredibly powerful.And then we just got the, the, um, the auto research, uh, you know, the, the self-improvement. You know, we're now into the self-improvement breakthrough. And so the, so the way I think about it is we've had four fundamental breakthroughs in functionality, l OMS reasoning, uh, agents, um, and then, uh, and, and then now RSI, um, and, and they're all actually working.Um, and so I'm, I'm just, as you like, you can tell I'm jumping outta my shoes. Like, like this is, like this is it like this, this is the culmination of 80 years worth of worth of work, and this is the time it's becoming real.Alessio: Yeah.Marc: I, I'm completely convinced.Alessio: I think the anxiety that people feel is like during the transistor era, yet Mors law, and it's like, all right, we understand why these things are getting better.We understand the physics of it. Yeah. With ai, it's. It's so jagged in like the jumps where like, like you said, it's like in three months you have like this huge jump like, and people are like, well this can keep happening. Right? But then it keeps happening,Marc: it'll keep happening.Alessio: And so like how do you think about also timelines of like what's we're building?I think we always have this question with guests, which is like, you know, should you spend time building harness for a model versus like the next model just gonna do it one shot in the lead space. Right. And how does that inform, like how you think about the shape of the technology? You know, you talk about how it's a new computing platform.If you have a computing platform, then like every six months it like drastically changes in what it looks like. It's hard to build companies on top of it.Marc: Yeah. So, so a couple things. So one is like, look, the, the Moore's law was what we now call a scaling law. Like Moore's Law was a scaling law and for your younger viewers, more Moore's Law was every chip chip chips either get twice as powerful or twice as cheap every, every 18 months.And that, and that and that, you know, that it's gotten more complicated in the last few years. But like that, that was like the 50 year trajectory of, of, of the computer industry. And then, and then by the way, and that's what took the mainframe computer from a $25 million current dollar thing into, you know, the phone in your pocket being, you know, a million times more powerful than that.Like that, you know, for, for 500 bucks. And so that, that was a scaling law. And then, and then, and then key to any scaling law, including Moore's Law and the AI scaling laws is, you know, they're not really laws, right? They're, they're, they're, they're predictions, but when they work, they become self-fulfilling predictions because they, they, they, they, they set a benchmark and, and then the entire industry, right?All the smart people in the industry kind of work to make sure that, that, that actually happens. And so they, they kind of motivate the breakthroughs that are required to, to keep that going. And, and in and in chips, that was a 50 year, that was a 50 year run. Right. And it, it was amazing. And it's still happening in, in some areas of, of chips.I think the same thing is happening with the, the core scaling laws. The core scaling laws. In, in, in ai, you know, they're, they're not really laws, but like they, they are basically. There are predictions and then they're motivating catalysts for the research work that is required to be. And, and, and, and by the way, also the investment, uh, dollars, um, uh, you know, required to basically keep, you know, keep the curves going and, and look, it, it is, it's gonna be complicated and it's gonna be variable and they're, you know, there're gonna be walls that are gonna look like they're fast approaching, and then they're gonna be, you know, engineers are gonna get to work and they're gonna figure out a way to punch through the walls.And obviously that's, you know, that's been happening a lot, you know, and then look, there's gonna be times when it looks like the walls have, you know, the, the, the laws have petered out and then they're gonna, they're gonna pick up again and surge and then, and then, and then it, it appears what's happening to the eyes is there's not multiple, you know, multiple scaling laws.Um, there's multiple areas of improvement. And, and I think, you know, I don't know how many more there are already yet to be discovered, but there are probably some more that we don't know about yet. You know, they, like, for example, there's probably some scaling law around, um, world models and robotics that we don't fully understand, you know, kind of acquisition of data at scale in the real world that we don't fully understand yet.So that, that, that one will probably kick in at some point here. There's a bunch of really smart people working on that. Um, and so, yeah, I, I think the expectation is that, that, you know, the, the scaling laws generally are gonna continue. Yeah. The, the pace of improvement will continue to move really fast.Um. To your question on like what to build. So, uh, I'm a complete believer the scaling laws are gonna continue. I'm a complete believer the capabilities are gonna keep getting amazing, um, you know, leaps and bounds. Uh, the part where I kind of part ways a little bit with how, what I would describe as the AI purists, um, you know, which is, which I would characterize as like the people who are.In many ways, the smartest people in the field, but also the people who spend their entire life, like at a lab, um, and have, have, I would say, have very little experience in the outside world. Um, the, the, the nuance I would offer is the outside world of 8 billion people and institutions and governments and companies and economic systems and social systems is really complicated.Um, and, um, and doesn't, you know, it it 8 billion people making collective decisions on planet Earth is not a simple process of like, just like you see this happening now. It's like a bunch of AI CEOs have this thing, which is just like, well, there's just this, they just all have this kind of thing when they talk in public where they're just like, well, there's these, these obvious set of things that so society to do.Alessio: Mm-hmm.Marc: And then they're like, society's not doing any of those things. Right. And it's like, how can society not, you know, what, whatever their theory is, how can society not see x, y, Z? Mm-hmm. And the answer is, well, society is number one. There's no single society, it's like 8 billion people. And they like all have a voice, and they all have a vote, like at the end of the day of how they, they react to change.And then, you know, it just like, it's just human reality is just really complicated and messy. Um, and, and, and so the specific answer to your question is like, as usual, it depends. Um, you know, it, it depends. Look, pe there's no question people are gonna, like, there's no question they're gonna be companies.It's already happening. There are companies that think that they're building value on top of the models and then they're just gonna get blissed by the, by the next model. There's no question that's happening. But I think there's no question also that just the process of adaptation of any technology into the real and into the real messy world of humanity is, is just going to be messy and complicated.It's, it's not going to be simple and straightforward. It's gonna be messy and complicated. And there are gonna be a lot of companies and a lot of products, um, uh, and in, in fact entire industries that are gonna get built to, to, to basically actually help all of this technology actually reach real people.Alessio: The amount of capital going into these companies, I mean, Dario talked about it on the Door Cash podcast and Door Cash was like, why don't you just buy 10 x more GPUs? And he is like, because I'm gonna go bankrupt if the model doesn't exactly hit the, the performance level. How do you think about that?Also as a risk on, you know, you guys are investors, open AI and thinking machines and world apps. It seems like we're leveraging the scaling loss at a pretty high rate, right? Like how comfortable, I guess, do you feel with the downside scenario, like, and say like things Peter out, you think you can kind of like restructure uh, these build outs and uh, you know, capital investments.Marc: Yeah. So should start by saying, so I live through the.com crash, um, and I can tell you stories for hours about the.com crash and it was horrible. No, it was awful. It was, it was, it was apocalyptic by the way. The, a lot of the.com crash was actually at the time, it was actually a telecom crash. It was a bandwidth crash.Like the, the thing that actually crashed, that wiped out all the money with the tele, the telecom companies.swyx: GlobalMarc: crossing. Global, global, yeah.swyx: I'm from Singapore and they, they laid so much cable o over over our oceans.Marc: Actually there was a scaling law in the.com. Era. And it was literally the, the US Commerce Department put out a report in 1996 and they said internet traffic was doubling every quarter.Um, and, and actually in 1995 and 1996, internet traffic actually did double every quarter. And so that became the scaling law. And so what all these telecom entrepreneurs did was they went out and they raised money to build fiber, anticipating that the demand for bandwidth is gonna keep doubling every quarter.Doubling every quarter though is like, you know, grains of chess and the chessboard, like at some point the numbers become extremely large. Right. And, and, and it really, and really what happened was the internet. The internet by the way, continuously kept growing basically since inception. And it's, you know, it's, it's continuously grown.It's never shrunk. And it's grown really fast compared to anything else. Mm-hmm. You know, in, in, in human history. But it wasn't doubling every quarter as of 19 98, 19 99. And so there was this gap in the expectation of what they thought was a scaling law versus reality. And that's actually what caused the.com crash, which was the, it they, they way over companies like global crossing way overbuilt fiber, which is sort of the, and by the way, fiber, telecom equipment, you know, so all the, all the networking gear, you know, and then, and then by the way, the actual physical data centers, like that was the beginning of the, of the, of the data center build and then, and the data center overbuild.And so you had that, but it was, it was literally, I think it was like $2 trillion got wiped out, right? It was like Jesus, it was like a big, it was. And by the way, the other, the other subtlety in it was the internet companies themselves never really had any debt. ‘cause tech, tech companies generally don't run on debt, but the telecom companies run on debt.Physical infrastructure companies run on debt. And so the companies like Global Crossing not just raise a lot of equity, they also raise a lot of debt. So they're highly levered. And so then you just do the thing. It's just like, okay, you have a highly levered thing where you're, you're just over, you're overbuilding capacity.Demand is growing, but not as fast as you hoped. And then boom, bankrupt. Right. And, and then it, and then it's like they say about the hotel industry, which is, it's always the third owner of a hotel that makes money. It has to go bankrupt twice, right? You have to wash out all of the over optimistic exuberance before it gets to actually a stable state.And then it makes money. So by the way, all of those data centers and all of those, all the fiber that they're in use, it's all in use today. Yeah. But 25 years later. But it, it, it took, and actually the elapsed time was, it took 15 years. It took 15 years from 2000 to 2015 to actually fill, fill up all that capacity.The cautionary warning is the, the overbuild can happen. Um, and, and, and, and, you know, you, you get into this thing where basically everybody, everybody who basically has any sort of institutional capital, it's like, wow. It's just, I, I don't know how to invest in these crazy software things. For sure I can put build data centers and for sure I can buy GPUs that I can deploy, you know, compute grids and, and all these things.Um, and so, you know, if you're a pessimist, you could look at this and you could say, wow, this is like really set up to be able to basically replicate, you know, what we went through, what we went through in 2000. Obviously that would be bad. The counter argument, which is the one I I agree with, which is the counter on, on the other side is a couple things.One is the companies that are investing all the, the companies that are investing the money are like the bluest chip of companies. And so back, back, back in the, in the do, like Global Crossing was like a, it was like an entrepreneur. It was like a, a new venture, but like the money that's being deployed now at scale is Microsoft, and, you know, and Amazon and Google, Facebook and Facebook and Nvidia and, you know, these, these, these, and, and now you know, by the way, open ai philanthropic, which are now at like, you know, really serious size, um, you know, as companies with, you know, very serious revenue.These are very large scale companies with like, lots, lots of cash, lots of debt capacity that they've, they've never used. And so th this is institutional in a way that, that really wasn't at the time. And then the other is, at least for now, every dollar that's being put into anything that results in a running GPU is being turned into revenue right away.Like so, and you guys know this, like everybody's starved for capacity, everybody's starved for compute capacity and then, you know, all the associated things, memory and, and, and interconnected and everything else. Um, data center space. And so e every dollar right now that's being put into the ground is turning into revenue.And, and it, and in fact, I actually think there's an interesting thing happening, which is because everybody starve for capacity, the models that we actually have that we can use today are inferior versions of what we would have if not for the supply constraints. That's true. Um, if Right pose a hypothetical universe in which GPUs were 10 times cheaper and 10 times more plentiful mm-hmm.The models would be much better. ‘cause you would just allocate a lot more money to training and you'd just build better models and they would be better. Um, and so we're, we're actually getting the sandbag version of the technology.swyx: Yeah. No. Everything we use is quantized because the, the labs have to keep the, the full versions,Marc: right?swyx: LikeMarc: we're not even getting the good stuff.swyx: Yeah.Marc: But, but getting the good stuff, it's, it's just, even if technical progress stops. Once there's like a much bigger build of like GPU manufacturing capacity and memory, you know, all, all the things that have to happen in the course of the next five or 10 years.Once it happens, even the current technology is gonna get, gonna get much better. And then as you know, like there's just like a million ways to use this stuff. Like there's just like a million use cases for this. Mm-hmm. Like, it, it, you know, this isn't just sending packets across a, a thing, whatever, and hoping that people find something to do with it.This is just like, oh, we apply intelligence into every domain of human activity. And then it works like incredibly well. Yeah. Um. Here's what I know, here's what I know. Um, in the next three or four year, it's like somewhere between three or four years out, basically everything is selling out. So like the, the entire supply chain is, is, is, is sold out or, or, or selling out.And so there, there's no, like, we're just gonna have like chronic supply shortage for, you know, for years to come. Um, there's going to be a response from the market that's gonna result in an enormous, you know, it's happening now. An enormous flood of investment in a new fab capacity and ev you know, every, everything else to be able to do that, at some point the supply chain constraints will unlock, you know, at least to some degree that will be another accelerant to industry growth when that happens.‘cause the products will get better and everything will get cheaper. Um, and so, so I know that's gonna happen. I know that, you know, the deployments, you know, the, the actual use cases are like really compelling. And then, like I said, you know, with reasoning and agents and so forth, like, I know they're just gonna get like much, much better from here.And so I, I, I know the capabilities are like really real and serious. I also know that the technical progress is not going to stop. It. It, it is excel. It is, is accelerating. Like the, the breakthroughs are are tremendous. I mean, even just month over month, the breakthroughs are really dramatic. And so, you know, I think if you were a cynic and there, there are cynics, you can look at 2000, you can find echoes.But I can't even imagine betting it that this is gonna like somehow disappoint and, you know, at least for years to come, I think it would be essentially suicidal to make that bet. Yeah. Um, it was that Michael Burry, uh, uh, that'sswyx: anMarc: interesting guy, huh? We'll pick on a guy. We'll pick, let's pick on one guy.We'll pick. Well ‘cause he did, he he came out with, it was, it was the, heswyx: doesn't mind.Marc: It was the Nvidia short. Right. He came with the Nvidia short. And then if you guys probably talked about this, which is the, the analysis now that like the current models are getting better faster at such a rate that if you are running an Nvidia, if you're running an Nvidia inference chip today, that's three years old, you're making more money on it today than you did three years ago because the pace of improvement of the software is, is faster than the, the, the depreciation cycle, the chip.And then my understanding is Google is running. I don't if they've, I don't know exactly what, uh, these are rumors that I've heard or maybe it's public, but, um, I think Google's running very old TPUs, very profitably. Ference. Yeah. And very profit and very profitably. Yeah. Um, and so, so it actually turns out, as far as I can tell, it's actually the opposite of the Beery thesis is actually.He was actually 180 degrees wrong. It's actually the, the, the, the old Nvidia chips are getting more valuable, which is something that's like literally never happened before. Like it's never been the case that you have an older model chip that becomes more valuable, not less valuable. And that, and again, that's an expression of the just ferocious pace of software progress.Ferocious pace of capability payoff. Yeah. Uh, that you're getting on the other side of this. And so I just, the idea of betting against that, like.swyx: Yeah. Yeah. Well, one ofMarc: my, it seems like an invitation to get your face ripped up.swyx: One of my early hits was like modeling the lifespan of the H 100 and h two hundreds and, and going like, you know, usually they advise like four to seven years and it was, you know, maybe you sort of realistically haircut cut it down to two to three.Yeah. But actually it's going up and not down. Yeah. And, and uh, that's, I mean that's, I think that's the dream. Uh, we are finding utilization and I think utilization solves all problems. Like, you can, you can find use, use cases for even like the poor, like even memory, we're having a shortage. Right. And, and even like the, the shittier versions of, of memory that we do have, we are finding use cases for it.So like That's great.Marc: Yeah.Alessio: How, how important is open source AI and kinda like edge inference in a world in which you have three years of supply crunch. Like, do you think in the, like, you know, if you fast forward like five years, like how do you think about inference, uh, in the data center versus at the edge?Marc: Well, so just to start, yeah. So I think, I think open source is very important for a bunch of reasons. I think edge, edge inference is very important for a bunch of reasons. I, I think just practically speaking, if we're just gonna have fundamental construc, supply crunches for the next, I mean, you, you guys know if you just project forward demand over the next three years, right?Yeah. Relative to supply, one of the, its main predictions you can do is what's gonna, what, what's gonna happen to the cost of, of inference in the core, uh, over the next three years? And like, it may rise dramatically, right? Like, so, so what is, and then is, is, you know, like the, the, the big model competition are subsidizing heavily right now.Right? Right. And so, so what's the, what will be the average person's, you know, per day, per month token cost, you know, three years from now to do all the things that they want to do. And I, I don't know, it's gonna. I mean, I have, you guys probably have friends, I have friends today who are paying a thousand dollars a day for open claw, for claw tokens to run open claw.Right? And so, okay. $30,000 a month. Right? And, and by the way, those, those friends have like a thousand more ideas of the things that they want their claw to do, right? Yeah. And so you, you could imagine there, there's like latent demand of up to, I don't know, five or $10,000 a day of, of, of tokens for a fully deployed, you know, per personal agent.Uh, and obviously consumers can't pay that, right? And so, so, but it gives you a sense of the fu of the fu of the future scope of demand, right? And so, so even, even if there's a 10 x improvement in price performance, that still, you know, goes to a hundred dollars a day, which is still way beyond what people can pay.Mm-hmm. So there's just gonna be like. Ferocious to me, by the way. The agent thing, the other interesting thing is I think the agent thing, so up until now, a lot of the constraints of GGPU constraints, I think the agent thing now also translates into CPU constraints. Mm-hmm. Right?swyx: CPU memory.Marc: Yes. CPU memory, right?And so, like the entire chip ecosystem is just gonna get wait,swyx: wait for network constraints, that that will be the killer.Marc: It's all bottleneck potentially for years. And so, so I, I think that Brad, and, and I think it's actually possible, I mean, generally inference costs are gonna keep coming down, but I think the, let's put it this way, the rate of decline, I think may level out here for a bit because of these supply constraints.And then at some point, maybe the lab stops subsidizing so much and that, that, that again, will be, be an issue. And so there's just gonna be so much more demand for inference than, than can be satisfied. Um, you know, kind of with the centralized model. And then, and then, you know, you guys know this, but like all the, just the dramatic, I mean just the dramatic innovations that have happened in the Apple silicon to be able to do, uh, inferences, it's quite amazing the level of effort being put.Like the open source guys are putting incredible effort into getting, you know, this recurring pattern where the big model will never run on a pc, and then six months later mm-hmm. Oh, it runs in a pc, right? It's like amazing. And there's very smart people working on that. So there's all that. And then look, there's also, you know.There's also like other, there's other motivators. There's other motivators which is just like, okay, how much trust are the big centralized model providers? You know, how much trust are they building in the market versus, you know, how much are, you know, at least for, in certain cases with some people, for certain use cases, people being like, well, I'm not willing to just like, turn everything over.So there, there, there's all the trust issues. Um, by the way, there's also just like straight up price optimization. There's many uses of AI where you don't need Einstein in the cloud. You just need like a, a a, a smart local model. There's also performance issues where you want, you know, you want, you know, you're gonna want your doorknob to have an AI model in it.Right. You know, to be able to, you know, do, um, you know, to be able to do access control. Um, obviously like everything with a chip is gonna have an AI model in it. Mm-hmm. And it, a lot of those are gonna be local. Um, and so, yeah. No, like I think, I think you're gonna have ti and then you're gonna, by the way, also wearable devices, you know, you don't wanna do a complete round trip.You want, you know, you, whatever your smart devices are, you want it to be like super low latency. Yeah.swyx: The question, do we care who makes it? Yeah. One of the biggest news this week was the collapse of AI two, the Allen Institute. Mm-hmm. One of the actual American open source model labs. Yeah. Um, and, uh, I'm not that optimistic on, on American open source.Yeah. Like you, you guys invested in MIS trial and MIS trial's doing extremely well outside of China. That's about it.Marc: Yeah. We'll see. We'll see. I look, I, number one, I do think we care. Uh, I do think we, I do think we care who makes it. Um, I would say this, the, the, the, the previous presidential administration wanted to kill it in the us Oh yeah.They wanted to drown in the bathtub. Um, and so they wanted to kill it. So at least we have a government now that actually like, actually wants it wants it to happen. And youswyx: earned to councilMarc: and Yeah. And the new and the P pcast. Yeah. So the, the, you know, this admin for whatever other political issues people have, which are many, you know, this administration has, I think a very enlightened view and in particular an enlightened view on AI and in particular on open source ai.Uh, and so they're very supportive. Um, my read is the Chi. The Chinese have a very, the various Chinese companies have a very specific reason to do open source, which is, they, they, they don't fundamentally, they don't think they can sell commercial, uh, AI outside of China right now. And or at least specifically not, not in the US for a combination of reasons.And so they, they kind of view, I think, open source AI as a bit of a loss leader against basically domestic, uh, you know, paid, paid services. And then kind of an, you know, kind of an ancillary products. You know, they're, they're very excited about it, by the way. I think it's great. I think it's great that they're doing it.Um, you know, I think Deeps seek was like a gift to the world. Um, I think. The great thing about open source, open source, the, the, the impact of open source is felt two ways. One is you, you get the software for free, but the other is you get to learn how it works, right? And so like the paper, the paper, the paper and, and the code, right?And the code. And so, like, for example, I thought this was amazing. So open comes out with L one and it's an amazing technical breakthrough, and it's just like, absolutely fantastic. But of course they don't explain how it works in detail. And then of course they hide the, they hide the reasoning traces, right?And, and then, and then, and then everybody's like, okay, this is great, but like, who's gonna be able to replicate this? Are other people gonna be able to do this? You know, is their secret sauce in there? And then our one comes out and it's just like, there's the code and there's the paper, and now the whole world knows how to do it.And then, you know, three months later, every other AI model is, is adding reasoning. And so, so you get this kind of double, like even if the Chinese models themselves are not the models that get used, the education that's taken place to the rest of the world, the information diffusion, you know, is incredibly powerful.So that happens and then, I don't know. We'll, we'll see. You know, there are a bunch of American, you know, open source, you know, ai, uh, model companies. I mean, look, there's gonna be tremendous, you know, there already is. There's, you know, there's gonna be tre there's tremendous competition, uh, among the primary model companies.You know, there's, depending on how you count, there's like four or five, you know, big co model companies now that are, you know, kind of neck and neck, uh, in different ways. Um, uh, you know, and, and, and, um, you know, and then obviously Bo Bo both X and then MetAware involved are, you know, both have huge, you know, huge attempts to, you know, kind of, to kind of leapfrog underway.And then you've got, you know, a whole fleet of startups, new companies, including a whole bunch that we're backing, that are, you know, trying to come out with different approaches. And then you've got whatever it is. I don't know how, how many, how many, like main line foundation model companies are there in China at this point?It's probably six. It'sswyx: five Tigers is what they call it. Yeah. Uh, Quinn is in questionable because there's change in leadership,Marc: right?swyx: Yeah.Marc: But that, does that include, that includes like Moonshot,swyx: yes. Can deep seek, uh, uh, ZI, um, Quinn oh one is in there.Marc: Right. And then, um, and by dance and, and then you see,swyx: ance would be like the next tier ance.They weren't as prominent. They weren't, didn't haveMarc: a leading. Yeah. But they, you at least, you know, ance is very inspiring and presumably they have more stuff coming and Tencent probably has more stuff coming and, and so forth. And so, so, so like, look, here, here would be a thing you can anticipate, which is there are not these markets, there are not going to be between the US and China right now, there's like a dozen primary foundation model companies that are like at scale, at, at some level of a critical mass.It's not gonna be a dozen in three years, right? Like, it just because these industries don't bear a dozen, it's, it's gonna be three or you know, there's gonna be three or four big winners or maybe one or two big winners. And so there's gonna be like a whole bunch of those guys that are gonna have to figure out alternate strategies.Um, and I think like open source is one of those strategies. And so I, I think you could see like a whole, i, I, I think the questions like, who's gonna do open source? I think that could change really fast. I, I think that, that, that's a very dynamic thing. I think it's very hard to predict what happens. And, and I think it's very important.swyx: NVIDIA's doing a lot.Marc: Well, I was gonna say. Well, exactly. And then you're got Nvidia and then, and then, you know, just to, again, indu, there's an old thing in business strategy, which is called, uh, commoditize Compliments. Commoditize the compliment. That's right. And so if your Jensen is just kind of obvious, of course, you wanna commoditize the software.Yeah. And he's, and to his enormous credit, he's putting enormous resources behind that. And so maybe it, maybe it's literally Nvidia and I think that would be great.Alessio: Yeah. Uh, narrative violation to European projects, uh, in the, uh, damn.swyx: I'm hosting my, uh, Europe, uh, conference soon. And I got both of them.Alessio: They got us.They got us. MarkMarc: finished. They got us, us. Well, wait a minute. Where was Peter? So where was Steinberger when he did? In AustriaAlessio: was, yeah, yeah, yeah.Marc: He was in what? He was in Vienna. Oh, he was in Vienna. And then where is he now?swyx: Uh, he's moving to sf.Marc: Okay. Okay. Alright. Okay, there we go. And then, yeah, the PI guy, right?The PI guys are European.swyx: Yeah, they're also, they're buddies inAlessio: Australia. Mario's also there. Yeah.Marc: Right. And are they, yeah, they haven't announced yet. Any sort of change changed or have theyAlessio: No, they're, they have a company there.Marc: Okay. Got, okay. Good.Alessio: Good, good,good.Alessio: Um,Marc: yeah, good.swyx: Anyways, I think pie and open cloud very important software things and, and I just wanted you to just go off on what you think.Marc: Yeah. So I think in co the, the combination of the two of them I think is one of the 10 most important softwares. Openswyx: Claw got all the attention, but Right. Talk about pie,Marc: pi pie's, kind of the Yeah. PI's, PI's kind of the architectural breakthrough for those of us who are older. There was this whole thing that was very important in the world of software basically from like 1970 to, I don't know, it still is very important, but like 19, from 1973 to like basically the creation of Linux, which is basically this, this thing used to call like the Unix mindset.Like so, so, ‘cause there were all these different, you know, theories. There are all these different operating systems and mainframes and, and then you know, all these windows and Mac and all these things. And then there was this, but kind of behind it all was this idea of kind of the Unix mindset. And the Unix mindset was this thing where basically you don't have these, like, like in the old days, like, like the operating system that like made the computer industry really work, like in the 1960s mm-hmm.Was this thing called o os 360, which was this big operating system that IBM developed that was supposed to basically run everything. And it was this like giant monolithic architecture in the sky. It was like a, you know, it was like a giant castle. Um, of software. And, and by the way, it worked really well and they were very successful with it.But like, it was this huge castle in the sky, but it was this thing, it was almost unapproachable, which is like, you had to be kind of inside IBM or very close to IBM. And you had to really understand every aspect, how the system worked. And then the, the Unix sky is originally out of at and t and then out out of Berkeley, um, you know, came out and they said, no, let's have a completely different architecture.And the way architecture's gonna work is we're gonna have, we're gonna have a, a prompt and, and a, and a shell. And then, and then we're gonna, all, all the functionality is gonna be in the form of these discreet modules, and then you're gonna be able to chain the modules together. Mm-hmm. Yeah. And so like the, the, the op, it's almost like the operating, operating system itself is gonna be a programming language.Um, and then that led led to the, the, the sort of centrality of the shell. Um, and then that led to sort of, uh, you know, basically chaining together Unix tools. And then that led to the emergence of these, these scripting languages like Pearl, where you, you could basically kind of very easily do this, and then the shells got more sophisticated and then, and then, and then look like, you know, that, that, that number one, that worked and that, that was the world I grew up in.Like I was, I was a Unix guy. You know, sort of from, call it 1988 to, you know, kind of all, all the way through my work and it worked really well. It, it's in the background, um, you know, nor normal people don't need to, didn't need to necessarily know about it, but like, if you were doing like system architecture, application development, you, you, you knew all about it.Um, and then, you know, it's been in the background ever since. And, you know, look, your Mac still has a Unix shell, you know, kind of in there, and your iPhone still has a Unix shell kind of buried in there somewhere. So they're kind of in there. And then, you know, the Windows shell is kind of a, you know, sort of a weird derivative of that.But, um, you know, but look, the inter, the internet runs on Unix, um, and that smartphones, actually, both iOS and Android are Unix derivatives. And so, you know, kind of Unix did end up winning. But, but anyway, and then we just started taking that for granted. And then, and then so, so basically the, the way I think about what happened with Pie and then with Open Claw is basically what those guys figured out is, I always say the, the great breakthroughs are obvious in retrospect, right?Which is the best kind, the best kind. They weren't obvious at the time or somebody else would've done them already. Um, and so there is a, like a real conceptual leap, but then you look at it sort of the backwards looking and you're just like, oh, of course. Mm-hmm. Like the, the, to me those are always the best breakthroughs.Well, actually language models themselves are like that. It's just like, oh, next token completion. Oh, of course.swyx: Yeah. What other objective mattered?Marc: Yeah, exactly. But, but like it, right. But she's even saying it wasn't obvious until somebody actually did it. Right. And so the conceptual breakthrough is real and deep and powerful and, and very important.And so the way I think about pie and olaw is it's basically marrying the, the language model mindset to the un to the Unix, basically shell prompt mindset. And so it's, it's basically this idea that what, what, so what is an agent, right? And as, as, and as you know, like many smart people who have been trying to figure out what an agent is for, for, for decades, and they've had many architectures to build agents and the whole thing.And it turns out what is an agent. So it turns out what we now know is an agent is the following. It's, so it's a language model. And then above that, it's a ba, it's a bash shell. Um, so it's a, it's a Unix shell, and then it's, and then the agent has access, uh, has access to, to the shell. And, you know, hopeful, hopefully in a sandbox, maybe in, maybe in a sandbox.So it's, it's the model. Um, it's the shell. Um, and then it's a fi, it's a file system. Um, and then the state is stored in files. And then, you know, there's the markdown format for the, you know, for, for the files themselves. And then, and then there's basically what in Unix is called Aron job. There's a loop and then there's a heartbeat for the, there's heartbeat and, and the thing basically Wake Wakes up.Wakes up. So it's basically LLM plus shell, plus file system, plus markdown, plus kron. And it turns out that's an agent. And, and, and every part of that, other than the model is something that we already completely know and understand. And in fact, it turns out that like the latent power of the Unix shell is like extraordinary because basically like all, like, there's just like an, there's just enormous latent power in the shell.There's enormous numbers of Unix commands, there's enormous number of command line interfaces into all kinds of things already in the, you know, your entire, I mean your entire, just to start with, your computer runs on a shell. If you're running a Mac or a, or, or a phone, your computer, your computer's running on a shell, uh, already.And so like the full power of your computer is available at the command line level. Um, and then it turns out it's really easy to expose other functions as a command line interface. And so like this whole idea where we need like MCP and these like product mm-hmm. Fancy protocols, whatever, it's like, no, we don't, we just need like a command, command line thing.So that's the architecture. And then it turns out what is your agent? Your agent has a bunch of files starting a file system. And then there's the thing that just like completely blew my mind when I write my head around it as a result of this, which is like, okay. This means your agent is now actually independent of the model that it's running on.Because you can actually swap out a different LLM underneath your agent and your, your agent will change personality somewhat. ‘cause the model is different, but all of the state stored in the files will be retained.swyx: Yeah. Different instruction set, but you just compiledit.Marc: Right, exactly. And it's all right.It's like right. Swapping out a ship and recompiling, but it's, it's still, it's still your agent with all of its memories. Um, and with all of its capabilities. And then by the way, you can also swap out the shell, uh, so you can move it to a different execution environment that is also, is also a b shell, by the way, you can also switch out the file system, right.Uh, and you can, and you can, and you can swap out the, the, the heartbeat for the, the crown framework, the, the loop that the agent framework itself. And so your agent basically is ba basically at the end of the day, it's just. It's just, its files. Um, and then, and then there's of course it a openswyx: call.Marc: Yeah, it's, it's basically, it's, it's just the files.Um, and then by the way, as a consequence of that, the agent and then the agent itself, it turns out a couple important things. So one is it, it's, it, it can migrate itself, right? And so you're, you can instruct your agent, migrate yourself to a different, uh, runtime environment, migrate yourself to a different file system, migrate yourself to a different, you know, swap out the language model.Your agent will do all that stuff for you. And then there's the final thing, which is just amazing, which is the agent is the agent actually has full introspection. It actually, it actually knows about its own files and it could rewrite its own files. Right. Which by the way, is basically no widely deployed software system in history where the, the, the thing that you're using actually has full introspective knowledge of how it itself works and is able to modify itself.Like that, that, I mean, there have been toy systems that have had that, but there, there's never been a widely deployed system that has that capability and then that leads you to the capability. That just like completely blew my mind when I wrap my head around it, which is you can tell the agent to add new functions and features to itself and it can do that.Extend yourself. Yeah. Right? Extend, extend yourself. Like extend yourself. Give yourself a new capability. Right? And so, and so literally it's just like you run into somebody at a party and they're like, oh, I have my open claw, do whatever, connect to my eat, sleep bed, and it gives me better advice and sleep.And you go home at night and you tell your claw, or if they're at the party, by the way, you tell your claw, oh, add this capability to yourself. And your claw will say, oh, okay, no problem. And it'll go out on the internet and it'll figure out whatever it needs and then it'll go out to claw code or whatever.It'll write whatever it needs. And then the next thing you know, it has this new capability. And so you don't even have to, like, you can have it upgrade itself without even having to, without having to do anything other than tell it that you want it to do that. And so anyway, so the, the combination of all this is just, I mean, this is just like a massive, incredible, I mean, it's just incredible.Like if I, if I were, if I were 18, like this is a hundred, this is what I would be spending all of my time on. This is like such an incredible conceptual breakthrough. Yeah. And again, pe people are gonna look at it and they already get this response. People are gonna look at it and they're gonna say, oh, well, where's the breakthrough?‘cause these, the, all of these components were already known before. Mm-hmm. But, but this is the key, the key to the breakthrough was by using all these components that were known before, you get all of the underlying capability of that's buried in there. And so all, and so for example, computer use all of a sudden just kind of falls, trivi, trivial.Of course it's gonna be able to use your computer. It has full access to the shell. Right. And then, and then you just, you, you give it access to a browser, and then you've got the computer and the browser and, and often away it goes. And, and then you've got all the abilities of the browser also. Um, yeah.And so, and so the capability unlock here is profound. My friends who are, you know, deepest into this, are having their claw do like a, like, literally like a thousand things in their lives. They have new ideas every day. They're just like constantly throwing new challenges at the thing. And by the way, it's early and, you know, these are, you know, these are prototypes and there are, you know, as you guys know, there's security issues.Yeah. And, and so, you know, there's a bunch of stuff to be ironed out, but the, the unlock of capability is just incredible.swyx: Yeah.Marc: And I, I have absolutely no doubt that everybody in the world is gonna, is gonna have at least, you know, an agent like this, if not an entire family of agents. And w

In this episode of Lore, Brett Taylor looks back on the unlikely arc of Bleacher Nation — from a side project in the early blog era to a daily stop for Cubs fans during the rebuild, the rise, and the championship. The timing, fandom, and why community mattered more than access. Brett reflects on what Cubs fans needed during the lean years, what traditional media couldn't always provide, and how Bleacher Nation found its voice by staying close to the reader. It's a conversation about luck, trust, and why the things that work eventually have to adapt — without losing what made them matter in the first place.

My friend and New Jersey-based charter captain Brett Taylor is as addicted to jigging for tautog as I am. This week, we break down how it all works, because fall and early winter are ‘tog season throughout much of their range. And once you learn to jig them, you'll never want to use a traditional ‘tog rig again. This episode is brought to you by Montana Department of Commerce. Hosted by OL Fishing Editor Joe Cermele. Edited by Mike Pedersen / Eighty Five Audio. Guest is Capt. Brett Taylor. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Plaintiff Steve Otis has filed a Second Amended Complaint in the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:25-cv-01652-LAP) against Sean “Diddy” Combs, Garren James (also known as Brett Taylor), and Cowboys4Angels, through his attorneys at Eisenberg & Baum, LLP. The filing outlines allegations made by Otis that stem from actions he claims were personally experienced and others he believes occurred based on information and belief.The complaint positions Combs, James, and Cowboys4Angels as defendants in what appears to be a civil case involving alleged misconduct and coordination among the named parties. While the specific factual allegations and legal claims are not included in this introductory section, the filing indicates Otis intends to hold the defendants accountable under federal jurisdiction in New York, marking a continuation of prior versions of the case through this amended complaint.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.43.0.pdf

Plaintiff Steve Otis has filed a Second Amended Complaint in the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:25-cv-01652-LAP) against Sean “Diddy” Combs, Garren James (also known as Brett Taylor), and Cowboys4Angels, through his attorneys at Eisenberg & Baum, LLP. The filing outlines allegations made by Otis that stem from actions he claims were personally experienced and others he believes occurred based on information and belief.The complaint positions Combs, James, and Cowboys4Angels as defendants in what appears to be a civil case involving alleged misconduct and coordination among the named parties. While the specific factual allegations and legal claims are not included in this introductory section, the filing indicates Otis intends to hold the defendants accountable under federal jurisdiction in New York, marking a continuation of prior versions of the case through this amended complaint.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.43.0.pdf

Plaintiff Steve Otis has filed a Second Amended Complaint in the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:25-cv-01652-LAP) against Sean “Diddy” Combs, Garren James (also known as Brett Taylor), and Cowboys4Angels, through his attorneys at Eisenberg & Baum, LLP. The filing outlines allegations made by Otis that stem from actions he claims were personally experienced and others he believes occurred based on information and belief.The complaint positions Combs, James, and Cowboys4Angels as defendants in what appears to be a civil case involving alleged misconduct and coordination among the named parties. While the specific factual allegations and legal claims are not included in this introductory section, the filing indicates Otis intends to hold the defendants accountable under federal jurisdiction in New York, marking a continuation of prior versions of the case through this amended complaint.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.43.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Plaintiff Steve Otis has filed a Second Amended Complaint in the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:25-cv-01652-LAP) against Sean “Diddy” Combs, Garren James (also known as Brett Taylor), and Cowboys4Angels, through his attorneys at Eisenberg & Baum, LLP. The filing outlines allegations made by Otis that stem from actions he claims were personally experienced and others he believes occurred based on information and belief.The complaint positions Combs, James, and Cowboys4Angels as defendants in what appears to be a civil case involving alleged misconduct and coordination among the named parties. While the specific factual allegations and legal claims are not included in this introductory section, the filing indicates Otis intends to hold the defendants accountable under federal jurisdiction in New York, marking a continuation of prior versions of the case through this amended complaint.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.43.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

3 millionaires explain how they would make $1M with these business models, strategies, and systems.    Thanks for tuning in! Catch new episodes every Wednesday.  Subscribe to Topline Newsletter. Tune into Topline Podcast, the #1 podcast for founders, operators, and investors in B2B tech. Join the free Topline Slack channel to connect with 600+ revenue leaders to keep the conversation going beyond the podcast!   Chapters: 00:00 Introduction and Agenda 03:17 Bootstrapping: Who It's For and Why It Matters 09:00 Executive Search and the Craft Business Dilemma 10:06 The Venture Trap and Valuation Missteps 13:48 Smart vs. Dumb Money: Lessons Learned 15:32 NVIDIA's $100B Bet on OpenAI 17:55 Bubble Economics and Market Cycles 22:00 The Shift from Public to Private Markets 27:31 The Public Company Dilemma 31:36 Employee Liquidity and Why Founders Stay Private 36:08 Brett Taylor and the Myth of “Faster Is Better” 39:19 Go-to-Market Quality vs. Hype 45:25 Playing the Game: Why Bubbles Build Infrastructure 49:40 Staying True to Your Business Model 51:04 Strengths and Weaknesses of Founders 53:48 Wrap-Up and Community Invite    

Jesse Zhang is the Co-Founder and CEO @ Decagon, the conversational AI platform for customer experience. As one of the fastest growing companies in the valley, they have raised over $230M at a last round price of $1.5BN. Prior to Decagon, Jesse founded Lowkey (acquired by Niantic), studied CS at Harvard, and worked at places like Google, HRT, Citadel, and Intel. AGENDA: 00:00 Introduction and Sponsor Messages 03:43 Olympiad Mathematician to Startup Founder 05:34 Selling to Niantic and What I Did Differently the Second Time 07:16 Why 90% of Founders Build Companies the Wrong Way 12:19 Scaling to $50M ARR in 15 Months 31:31 Is the AI Talent War Out of Hand: How To Compete with Meta Pay Packets 32:38 Why Remote Work is Total BS 34:06 Competitors in AI Customer Experience: Sierra, Intercom and more 37:34 AI Market Predictions 44:56 Embracing Stress and Winning Culture 50:13 Quick Fire Questions: Most Underrated AI Founder, Biggest Changed Opinion      

If you're in SF: Join us for the Claude Plays Pokemon hackathon this Sunday!If you're not: Fill out the 2025 State of AI Eng survey for $250 in Amazon cards!Unsupervised Learning is a podcast that interviews the sharpest minds in AI about what's real today, what will be real in the future and what it means for businesses and the world - helping builders, researchers and founders deconstruct and understand the biggest breakthroughs. Top guests: Noam Shazeer, Bob McGrew, Noam Brown, Dylan Patel, Percy Liang, David LuanFull Episode on Their YouTubeTimestamps* 00:00 Introduction and Excitement for Collaboration* 00:27 Reflecting on Surprises in AI Over the Past Year* 01:44 Open Source Models and Their Adoption* 06:01 The Rise of GPT Wrappers* 06:55 AI Builders and Low-Code Platforms* 09:35 Overhyped and Underhyped AI Trends* 22:17 Product Market Fit in AI* 28:23 Google's Current Momentum* 28:33 Customer Support and AI* 29:54 AI's Impact on Cost and Growth* 31:05 Voice AI and Scheduling* 32:59 Emerging AI Applications* 34:12 Education and AI* 36:34 Defensibility in AI Applications* 40:10 Infrastructure and AI* 47:08 Challenges and Future of AI* 52:15 Quick Fire Round and Closing RemarksTranscript[00:00:00] Introduction and Podcast Overview[00:00:00] Jacob: well, thanks so much for doing this, guys. I feel like we've we've been excited to do a collab for a while. I[00:00:13] swyx: love crossovers. Yeah. Yeah. This, this is great. Like the ultimate meta about just podcasters talking to other podcasters. Yeah. It's a lot. Podcasts all the way up.[00:00:21] Jacob: I figured we'd have a pretty free ranging conversation today but brought a few conversation starters to, to, to kick us off.[00:00:27] Reflecting on AI Surprises and Trends[00:00:27] Jacob: And so I figured one interesting place to start is you know, obviously it feels that this world is changing like every few months. Wondering as you guys reflect path on the past year, like what surprised you the most?[00:00:36] Alessio: I think definitely recently models we kinda on the, on the right here. Like, oh, that, well, I, I I think there's, there's like the, what surprised us in a good way.[00:00:44] May maybe in a, in a bad way. I would say in a good way. Recently models and I think the release of them right after the new reps scaling instead talked by Ilia. I think there was maybe like a, a little. It's so over and then we're so back. I'm like such a short, short period. It was really [00:01:00] fortuitous[00:01:00] Jacob: timing though, like right.[00:01:01] As pre-training died, I mean, obviously I'm sure within the labs they knew pre-training was dying and had to find something. But you know, from the outside it was it, it felt like one right into the other.[00:01:09] Alessio: Yeah. Yeah, exactly. So that, that was a good surprise,[00:01:12] swyx: I would say, if you wanna make that comment about timing, I think it's suspiciously neat that like, because we know that Strawberry was being worked on for like two years-ish.[00:01:20] Like, and we know exactly when Nome joined OpenAI, and that was obviously a big strategic bet by OpenAI. So like, for it to transition, so transition so nicely when like, pre-training is kind of tapped out to, into like, oh, now inference time is, is the new scaling law is like conv very convenient. I, I, I like if there were an Illuminati, this would be what they planned.[00:01:41] Or if we're living in a simulation or something. Yeah.[00:01:44] Open Source Models and Their Impact[00:01:44] swyx: Then you said open source[00:01:45] Alessio: as well? Yeah. Well, no, I, I think like open source. Yeah. We're discussing this on the negative. I would say the relevance of open source. I would specifically open models. Yeah, I was surprised the lack, like the llamas of the world by the lack of adoption.[00:01:56] And I mean, people use it obviously, but I would say nobody's [00:02:00] really like a huge fanboy, you know, I think the local llama community and some of the more obvious use cases really like it. But when we talk to like enterprise folks, it's like, it's cool, you know? And I think people love to argue about licenses and all of that, but the reality is that it doesn't really change the adoption path of, of ai.[00:02:18] So[00:02:19] swyx: yeah, the specific stat that I got from on anchor from Braintrust mm-hmm. In one of the episodes that we did was I think he estimated that open source model usage in work in enterprises is that like 5% and going down.[00:02:31] Jacob: And it feels like you're basically all these enterprises are in like use case discovery mode, where it's like, let's just take what we think is the most powerful model and figure out if we can find anything that works.[00:02:39] And, you know, so much of, of, of it feels like discovery of that. And then, right, as you've discovered something, a new generation of models are out and so you have to go do discovery with those. And you know, I think obviously we're probably optimistic that the that the open source models increase in uptake.[00:02:50] It's funny, I was gonna say my biggest surprise in the last year was open source related, but it was just how Fast Open Source caught up on the reasoning models. It was kind of unclear to me, like over time whether there would be, you know, [00:03:00] a compounding advantage for some of the closed source models where in the, okay, in the early days of, of scaling you know, there was a, a tight time loop, but over time, you know, would would the gap increase?[00:03:08] And if anything it feels like a trunk. You know, and I think deep seek specifically was just really surprising in how, you know, in many ways if the value of these model companies is like you have a model for a period of time and you're the only one that can build products on top of that model while you have it.[00:03:21] Like, God, that time period is a lot shorter than a, than I thought it was gonna be a year ago.[00:03:25] swyx: Yeah. I mean, again, I I, I don't like this label of how Fast Open Source caught up because it's really how Fast Deepsea caught up. Right. And now we have, like, I think some of it is that Deepsea is basically gonna stop open sourcing models.[00:03:36] Yeah. So like there, there's no team open source, there's just different companies and they choose to open source or not. And we got lucky with deep seek releasing something and then everyone else is basically distilling from deep seek and those are distillations. Catching up is such an easier lower bar than like actually catching up, which is like you, you are like from scratch.[00:03:56] You're training something that like is competitive on that front. I don't know if [00:04:00] that's happening. Like basically the only player right now is we're waiting for LA four.[00:04:03] Jordan: I mean, it's always an order of magnitude cheaper to replicate what's already been done than to create something fundamentally new.[00:04:09] And so that's why I think deep seek overall was overhyped. Right? I mean obviously it's a good open source, new entrant, but at the same time there's nothing new fundamentally there other than sort of doing it executing what's already been done really well.[00:04:21] Alessio: Yeah,[00:04:21] Jordan: right.[00:04:21] Alessio: So Well, but I think the traces is like maybe the biggest thing, I think most previous open models is like the same model, just a little worse and cheaper.[00:04:30] Yeah. Like R one is like the first model that had the full traces. So I think that's like a net unique thing in fair, open source. But yeah, I, I think like we talked about deep seek in the our n of year 2023 recap, and we're mostly focused on cheaper inference. Like we didn't really have deep, see, deep CV three[00:04:47] swyx: was out then, and we were like, that was already like talking about fine green mixture of experts and all that.[00:04:51] Like that's a great receipt to[00:04:52] Jacob: have[00:04:52] swyx: to be like, yeah.[00:04:52] Jacob: End[00:04:53] swyx: of year 20. Yeah. That's a,[00:04:54] Jacob: that's a, that's, that's an[00:04:55] swyx: impressive one. You follow the right whale believers in Twitter. It's, it's like [00:05:00] pretty obvious. I actually had like so, you know, I used to be in finance and, and a lot, a lot of my hedge fund and PE friends called me up.[00:05:06] They were like, why didn't you tip us off on deep seek? And I'm like, well, I mean, it's been there. It's, it's actually like kind of surprising that like, Nvidia like fell like what, 15% in one day? Yeah. Because deep seek and I, I think it's just like whatever the market, public market narrative decides is a story, becomes the story, but really like the technical movements are usually.[00:05:26] One to two years in the making. Before that,[00:05:27] Jacob: basically these people were telling on themselves that they didn't listen to your podcast. They've been on the end of year 22, 3. No, no,[00:05:32] swyx: no. Like yeah, we weren't, we weren't like banging the drum. So like it's also on us to be like, no, like this. This is an actual tipping point.[00:05:38] And I think I like as people who are like, our function as podcasters and industry analysts is to raise the bar or focus attention on things that you think matter. And sometimes we're too passive about it. And I think I was too passive there. I'd be, I'd be happy to own up on that.[00:05:52] Jacob: No, I feel like over time you guys have moved into this margin general role of like taking stances of things that are or aren't important and, you know I feel like you've done that with MCP of [00:06:00] late and a bunch of[00:06:00] swyx: things.[00:06:00] Yeah.[00:06:01] Challenges and Opportunities in AI Engineering[00:06:01] swyx: So like the, the general pushes is AI engineering, you know, like it's gotta, gotta wrap the shirt. And MCP is part of that, but like the, the general movement is what can engineers do above the model layer to augment model capabilities. And it turns out it's a lot. And turns out we went from like, making fun of GPT rappers to now I think the overwhelming consensus GPT wrappers is the only thing that's interesting.[00:06:20] Yeah.[00:06:21] Jacob: I remember like, Arvin from Perplexity came on our podcast and he was like, I'm proudly a rapper. Like, you know, it's like anyone that's like talking about like, you know, differentiation, like pre-product market fit is like a ridiculous thing to, to say, like, build something people want and then yeah.[00:06:33] Over time you can kind of worry about that.[00:06:35] swyx: Yeah. I, I interviewed him in 2023 and I think he may have been the first person on our podcast to like, probably be a GBT rapper. Yeah. And yeah, and obviously he's built a huge business on that. Totally. Now, now we now we all can't get enough of it. I have another one for, Oh, nice.[00:06:47] That was Alessia's one and we, we perhaps individual answers just to be interesting in the same Uber on the way up. Yeah. You just like in the, in different Oh, I was driving too. Oh, you were driving. So I actually, I mean, it was a Tesla mostly drove mine was [00:07:00] actually, it is interesting that low-code builders did not capture the AI builder market.[00:07:04] Right. AI builders being bought lovable, low-code builders being Zapier, Airtable, retool notion. Any of those, like you're not technical. You can build software.[00:07:14] misc: Yeah.[00:07:14] swyx: Somehow not all them missed it. Why? It's bizarre. Like they should have the DNA, I don't know. They should have. They already have the reach, they already have the, the distribution.[00:07:25] Like why? I I have no idea. The ability to[00:07:27] Jacob: fast follow too. Like I'm surprised there's Yeah. There's just[00:07:29] swyx: nothing. Yeah. What do you make of that? I, it seems and you know, not to come back to the AI engineering future, like it takes a, a certain kind of. Founder mindset or AI engineer mindset to be like, we will build this from whole cloth and not be tied to existing paradigms.[00:07:45] I think, 'cause I like, if I was, if I'm to, you know, you know, Wade or who's, who's, who's the Zapier person than, you know, Mike. Mike who has left the Zapier. Yeah. What's the, yeah. Like you know, Zapier, when they decided to do Zapier ai, they [00:08:00] were like, oh, you can use natural language to make Zap actions, right?[00:08:03] When Notion decided to do Notion ai, they were like, oh, you can like, you know write documents or, you know, fill in tables with, with ai. Like, they didn't do the, the, the, the next step because they already had their base and they were like, let's improve our baseline. And the other people who actually tried for to, to create a phone cloth were like, we, we got no prior preconceptions.[00:08:24] Like, let's see what we can, what kinda software people can build with like from scratch, basically. I don't know that, that's my explanation. I dunno if you guys have any retros on the AI builders?[00:08:33] Jacob: Yeah. Or, or, or did they kind of get lucky getting, you know starting that product journey? Like right as the models were reaching the inflection point?[00:08:39] There's the timing[00:08:40] swyx: issue. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I don't know. Like I, I, to some extent, I think the only reason you and I are talking about it is that they, both of them have reported like ridiculous numbers. Like zero to 20 million in three months, basically, both of them. Jordan, did you have a, a big surprise?[00:08:55] Jordan: Yeah, I mean, some of what's already been discussed. I guess the only other thing would be on the Apple side in particular, I [00:09:00] think, I think you know, for the last text message summary, like, but they're[00:09:04] Jacob: funny. They're funny at how bad they had, how off they're, they're viral. Yeah.[00:09:08] Jordan: I mean, so like for the last couple years we've seen so many companies that are trying to do personal assistance, like all these various consumer things, and one of the things we've always asked is, well, apple is in prime position to do all this.[00:09:18] And then with Apple Intelligence, they just. Totally messed up in so many different ways. And then the whole BBC thing saying that the guy shot himself when he didn't. And just like, there's just so many things at this point that I would've thought that they would've ironed up their, their AI products better, but just didn't really catch on,[00:09:35] Jacob: you know, second on this list of, of generally overly broad opening questions would be anything that you guys think is kind of like overhyped or under hyped in the AI world right now?[00:09:43] Alessio: Overhyped agents framework. Sorry. Not naming any particular ones. I'm sorry. Not, not not, yeah, exactly. It's not, I, I would say they're just overall a chase to try and be the framework when the workloads are like in such flux. Yeah. That I just think is like so [00:10:00] hard to reconcile the two. I think what Harrison and Link Chain has done so amazingly, it's like product velocity.[00:10:05] Like, you know, the initial obstructions were maybe not the ending obstruction, but like they were just releasing stuff every day trying to be on top of it. But I think now we're like past that, like what people are looking for now. It's like something that they can actually build on mm-hmm. And stay on for the next couple of years.[00:10:23] And we talked about this with Brett Taylor on our episode, and it feels like, it's like the jQuery era Yeah. Of like agents and lms. It's like, it's kinda like, you know, single file, big frameworks, kinda like a lot of players, but maybe we need React. And I think people are just trying to build still Jake Barry.[00:10:39] Like, I don't really see a lot of people doing react like,[00:10:43] swyx: yeah. Maybe the, the only modification I made about that is maybe it's too early even for frameworks at all. And the thing that, and do you think[00:10:50] Jacob: there's enough stability in the underlying model layer and, and patterns to, to have this,[00:10:54] swyx: the thing is the protocol and not the framework?[00:10:56] Jacob: Yeah.[00:10:56] swyx: Because frameworks inherently embed protocols, but if you just focus on a protocol, maybe that [00:11:00] works. And obviously MCP is. The current leading mm-hmm. Area. And you know, I think the comparison there would be, instead of just jQuery, it is XML HTB requests, which is like the, the thing that enabled Ajax.[00:11:10] And that was the, the, the, the, the sort of inciting incident for JavaScripts being popular as a language.[00:11:16] Jordan: I would largely agree with that. I mean, I think on the, the react side of things, I think we're starting to see more frameworks sort of go after more of that, I guess like master is sort of like on the TypeScript side and more of like a sort of master.[00:11:28] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. The traction is really impressive there. And so I think we're starting to see more surface there, but I think there's still a big opportunity. What do you have for for an over or under hyped on the under hype side? You know, I actually, I, I know I mentioned Apple already, but I think the private cloud compute side with PCC, I actually think that could be really big.[00:11:45] It's under the radar right now. Mm-hmm. But in terms of basically bringing. The on device sort of security to the cloud. They've done a lot of architecturally interesting things there. Who's they? Apple. Oh, okay. On the PCC side. And so I actually think of that.[00:11:58] swyx: So you're negative on Apple [00:12:00] Intelligence, but also on Apple Cloud,[00:12:01] Jordan: on the more of the local device.[00:12:04] Sort of, I think there'll be a lot of workloads still on device, but when you need to speak to the cloud for larger LLMs, I think that Apple has done really interesting thing on the privacy side.[00:12:13] Alessio: Yeah. We did the seed of a company that does that, so Yeah. Especially as things become more co that you set 'em up on purpose.[00:12:18] So that felt like a perfect Yeah, no, I was like, let's go Jordan, you guys concluding before this episode? Tell me about that company after. We'll chat after, but, but yes, I, I think that's like the unique the thing about LLM workflows is like you just cannot have everything be single tenant, right?[00:12:35] Because you just cannot get enough GPUs. Like even like large enterprises are used to having VPCs and like everything runs privately. But now you just cannot get enough GPUs to run in a VPC. So I think you're gonna need to be in a multi-tenant architecture, and you need, like you said, like single tenant guarantees in multi-tenant environment.[00:12:52] So yeah, it's a interesting space.[00:12:55] swyx: Yeah. What about you, Swiss? Under hypes, I want to say [00:13:00] memory. Just like stateful ai. As part of my keynote on, on for just like every, every conference I do, I do a keynote and I try to do the task of like defining an agent, just, you know, always evergreen content, every content for a keynote.[00:13:14] But I did it in a, in a way that it was like I think like a, what a researcher would do. Like you, you survey what people say and then you sort of categorize and, and go like, okay, this is the, the. What everyone calls agents and here are the groups of DEF definitions. Pick and choose. Right. And then it was very interesting that the week after that OpenAI launched their agents SDK and kind of formalized what they think agents are.[00:13:34] CloudFlare also did the same with us and none of them had memory. Yeah, it's very strange. The, pretty much like the only big lab o obviously there, there's conversation memory, but there's not memory memory like in like a, like a let's store a large across fact about you and like, you know, exceed the, the context length.[00:13:54] And here's the, if you, if you're look, if you look closely enough, there's a really good implementation of memory inside of [00:14:00] MCP when they launched with the initial set of servers. They had a memory server in there, which I, I would recommend as like, that's where you start with memory. But I think like if there was a better, I.[00:14:10] Memory abstraction, then a lot of our agents would be smarter and could learn on, on the job, which is something that we all want. And for some reason we all just like ignored that because it's just convenient to, and, but do you feel like[00:14:24] Jacob: it's being ignored or it's just a really hard problem and like lots of, I feel like lots of people are working on it.[00:14:27] Just feels like it's, it's proven more challenging.[00:14:29] swyx: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, so Harrison has lang me, which I think now he's like, you know, relaunched again. And then we had letter come speak at our mm-hmm. Our conference I don't know, Zep, I think there's a bunch of other memory guys, but like, something like this I think should be normal in the stack.[00:14:44] And basically I think anything stateful should be interesting to VCs 'cause it's databases and, you know, we know how those things make money.[00:14:51] Jacob: I think on the over hype side, the only thing I'd add is like, I'm, I'm still surprised how many net new companies there are training models. I thought we were kind of like past that.[00:14:58] And[00:14:58] swyx: I would say they died end of last year. And now, [00:15:00] now they've resurfaced. Yeah. I mean they, that's one of the questions that you had down there of like, yeah. Sorry. Is there an opportunity for net new model players? I wouldn't say no. I don't know what you guys think.[00:15:08] Alessio: I, I don't have a reason to say no, but I also don't have a reason to say, this is what is missing and you should have a new model company do it.[00:15:15] But again, I'm an add here. Like, all these guys wanna[00:15:17] swyx: pursue a GI, you know, all, they all want to be like, oh, we'll, we'll like hit, you know, soda on all the benchmarks and like, they can't all do it. Yeah.[00:15:25] Jacob: I mean, look, I don't know if Ilia has the secret secret approach up his sleeve of of something beyond test time compute.[00:15:29] Mm-hmm. But it was funny, I, we had Noam Shaer on the podcast last week. I was asking him like, you know, is, is there like some sort of other algorithmic breakthrough? Would he make a Ilia? And he's like, look, I think what he is implicitly said was test time compute gets to the point where these models are doing AI engineering for us.[00:15:43] And so, you know, at that point they'll figure out the next algorithm breakthrough. Yeah. Which I thought was was pretty interesting.[00:15:47] Jordan: I agree with you folks. I think that we're most interested, at least from our side and like, you know, foundation models for specific use cases and more specialized use cases.[00:15:55] Mm-hmm. I guess the broader point is if there is something like that, that these companies can latch onto [00:16:00] and being there sort of. Known for being the best at. Maybe there's a case for that. Largely though I do agree with you that I don't think there should be, at this point, more model companies. I think it's like[00:16:09] Jacob: these[00:16:09] Jordan: unique data[00:16:09] Jacob: sets, right?[00:16:10] I mean, obviously robotics has been an area we've been really interested in. It's entirely different set of data that's required, you know, on top of like a, a good BLM and then, you know, biology, material sciences, more the specific use cases basically. Yeah. But also specific, like specific markets. A lot of these models are super generalizable, but like, you know finding opportunities to, you know, where, you know, for a lot of these bio companies, they have wet labs, like they're like running a ton of experiments or you know, same on the material sciences side.[00:16:31] And so I still feel like there's some, some opportunities there, but the core kind of like LLM agent space is it's tough, tough to compete with the big ones.[00:16:38] Alessio: Yeah. Agree. Yeah. But they're moving more into product. Yeah. So I think that's the question is like, if they could do better vertical models, why not do that instead of trying to do deep research and operator?[00:16:50] And these different things. Mm-hmm. I think that's what I'm, in my mind, it's like the agents coming[00:16:53] swyx: out too.[00:16:54] Alessio: Well. Yeah. In my, in my mind it's like financial pressure. Like they need to monetize in a much shorter timeframe [00:17:00] because the costs are so high. But maybe it's like, it's not that easy to, do[00:17:04] Jacob: you think they would be, that it would be a better business model to like, do a bunch of vertical?[00:17:07] Well, it's more like[00:17:07] Alessio: why wouldn't they, you know, like you make less enemies if you're like a model builder, right? Yeah. Like, like now with deep research and like search, now perplexity like an enemy and like a, you know, Gemini deep research is like more of an enemy. Versus if they were doing a finance model, you know?[00:17:25] Mm-hmm. Or whatever, like they would just enable so many more companies and they always have, like they had as one of the customer case studies for GBT search, but they're not building a finance based model for them. So is it because it's super hard and somebody should do it? Or is it because the new models.[00:17:41] Are gonna be so much better that like the vertical models are useless anyways. Like this is better lesson. Exactly.[00:17:46] Jacob: It still seems to be a somewhat outstanding question. I, I'd say like, all the signs of the last few years seem to be like a general purpose model is like the way to go. And, you know, you know, like training a hyper-specific model in this, in, in a domain is like, you know, maybe it's cheaper and faster, but it's not gonna be like higher quality.[00:17:59] But [00:18:00] also like, I think it's still an, I mean, we were talking to, to no and Jack Ray from Google last week, and they were like, yeah, this is still an outstanding, like, we, we check this every time we have a new model. Like whether there's you know, there that still seems to be holding. I remember like a few years ago, it felt like all the rage was like the, it was like the Bloomberg GPT model came out.[00:18:14] Everyone was like, oh, you gotta like, you know, massive data. Yeah. I had[00:18:17] swyx: a GPA, I had DP of AI of Bloomberg present on that. Yeah. That must be a really[00:18:20] Jacob: interesting episode to go back on because I feel like, like very shortly thereafter, the next opening AI model came out and just like beat it on all sorts of[00:18:25] swyx: No, it, it was a talk.[00:18:26] We haven't released it yet, but yeah, I mean it's basically they concluded that the, the closed models were better so they just Yeah. Stopped. Interesting. Exactly. So I feel like that's been the but he's I, I would be. He's very insistent that the work that they did, the team he assembled, the data that he collected is actually useful for more than just the model.[00:18:42] So like, basically everything but the model survived. What are the other things? The data pipeline. Okay. The team that they, they, they assembled for like fine tuning and implementing whatever models they, they ended up picking. Yeah, it seems like they are happy with that. And they're running with that.[00:18:57] He runs like 12, 13 [00:19:00] teams at Bloomberg just working. Jenny, I across the company.[00:19:03] Jacob: I mean, I guess we've, we've all kind of been alluding it to it right now, but I guess because it's a natural transition. You know, the other broad opening I have is just what we're paying most attention to right now. And I think back on this, like, you know, the model company's coming into the product area.[00:19:13] I mean, I think that's gonna be like, I'm fascinated to see how that plays out over the next year and kind of these like frenemy dynamics and it feels like it's gonna first boil up on like cursor anthropic and like the way that plays out over the next six months I think will be. What, what is Cursor?[00:19:26] swyx: Anthropic is, you mean Cursor versus anthropic or, yeah. And I[00:19:29] Jacob: assume, you know, over time Anthropic wants to get more into the application side of coding Uhhuh. And you know, I assume over time Cursor will wanna diversify off of, you know, just using the Anthropic model.[00:19:39] swyx: It's interesting that now Cursor is now worth like 10 billion, nine, nine, 10 billion.[00:19:43] Yeah. And like they've made themselves hard to acquire, like I would've said, like, you should just get yourself to five, 6 billion and join OpenAI. And like all the training data goes through OpenAI and that's how they train their coding model. Now it's not as complicated. Now they need to be an independent company.[00:19:57] Jacob: Increasingly, it's seems to the model companies want to get into the [00:20:00] product layer. And so seeing over the next six, 12 months does having the best model, you know let you kind of start from a cold start on the product side and, and get something in market. Or are the, you know, companies with the best products, even if they eventually have to switch to a somewhat worse, tiny bit worse model, does it not, you know, where do the developers ultimately choose to go?[00:20:16] I think that'll be super interesting. Yeah.[00:20:18] Alessio: Don't you think that Devon is more in trouble than cursor? I, I feel like on Tropic, if anything wants to move more towards, I don't think they wanna build the ID like if I think about coding, it's like kind of like, you know, you look at it like a cube, it's like the ID is like one way to get the code and then the agent is like the other side.[00:20:33] Yeah. I feel like on Tropic wants more be on the agent side and then hand you off the cursor when you want to go in depth versus like trying to build the claw. IDEI think that's not, I would say, I don't know how you think the[00:20:46] swyx: existence, a cloud code doesn't show, doesn't support what you say. Like maybe they would, but[00:20:52] Jacob: assume, like I assume both just converge eventually where you want have where will you be able to do both?[00:20:57] So,[00:20:57] swyx: so in order to be so we're, we're talking [00:21:00] about coding agents, whether it's sort of what is it? Inner loop versus auto loop, right? Like inner loop is inside cursor, inside your ID between inside of a GI commit and auto loop is between GI commits on, on the cloud. And I think like to be an outer loop coding agent, you have to be more of a, like, we will integrate with your code base, we'll sign your whatever.[00:21:17] You know, security thing that you need to sign. Yeah. That kinda schlep. I don't think the model ads wanna do that schlep, they just want to provide models. So that, that, that's, that would be my argument against like why cognition should still have, have, have some moat against anthropic just simply because they cognition would do the schlep and the biz dev and the infra that philanthropic doesn't really care about.[00:21:39] Jacob: I know the schlep is pretty sticky though. Once you do it,[00:21:41] swyx: it's very sticky. Yeah. Yeah. I mean it's, it's, it's interesting. Like, I, I think the natural winner of that should be sourcegraph. But there's another[00:21:47] Jacob: unprompted point portfolio. Nice. We, I mean they, they're[00:21:51] swyx: big supporters like very friendly with both Quinn and B and they've they've done a lot of work with Cody, but like, no, not much work on the outer [00:22:00] loop stuff yet.[00:22:01] But like any company where like they have already had, like, we've been around for 10 years, we, we like have all the enterprise contracts that you already trust us with your code base. Why would you go trust like factory or cognition as like, you know, 2-year-old startups who like just came outta MIT Like, I don't know.[00:22:17] Product Market Fit in AI[00:22:17] Jacob: I guess switching gears to the to the application side I'm curious for both of you, like how do you kind of characterize what has genuine product market fit in AI today? And I guess less, you more and your side of the investing side, like more interesting to invest in that category of the stuff that works today or kind of where the capabilities are going long term.[00:22:35] Alessio: That's hard. I was asking you to do my job for you, like, man, that's a easy, that's a layout. Tell us all your investing[00:22:40] pieces. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I, I, I would say we, well we only really do mostly seed investing, so it's hard to invest in things that already work. Yeah. That fair. Are really late. So we try to, but, but we try to be at the cusp of like, you know, usually the investments we like to make, there's like really not that much market risk.[00:22:57] It's like if this works. Obviously people are gonna [00:23:00] use it, but like it's unclear whether or not it's gonna work. So that's kind of more what we skew towards. We try not to chase as many trends and I don't know, I, you know, I was a founder myself and sometimes I feel like it's easy to just jump in and do the thing that is hot, but like becoming a founder to do something that is like underappreciated or like doesn't yet work shows some level of like dread and self, like you, you actually really believe in the thing.[00:23:25] So that alone for me is like, kind of makes me skew more towards that. And you do a lot of angel investing too, so I'm curious how,[00:23:31] swyx: Yeah, but I don't regard, I don't have, I don't use, put, put that in my mental framework of things like I come at this much more as a content creator or market analyst of like, yeah, it, it really does matter to me what has part of market fit because.[00:23:45] People, I have to answer the question of what is working now When, when people ask me,[00:23:50] Jacob: do you feel like relative to the, the obviously the hype and discourse out there, like, you know, do you feel like there's a lot of things that have product market fit or like a few things, like where a few things? Yeah.[00:23:58] swyx: I was gonna say this, so I have a list [00:24:00] of like two years ago we, I wrote the Anatomy of autonomy posts where it was like the, the first, like what's going on in agents and, and and, and, and what is actually making money. Because I think there's a lot of gen I skeptics out there. They're all like, these, these things are toys.[00:24:13] They're, they're not unreliable. And you know, why, why, why you dedicating your life to these things. And I think for me, the party market fit bar at the time was a hundred million dollars, right? Like what use cases can reasonably fit a hundred million dollars. And at the time it was like co-pilot it was Jasper.[00:24:30] No longer, but mm-hmm. You know, in that category of like help you write. Yeah. Which I think, I think was, was helpful. And then and the cursor I think was on there as, as a, as, as, as like a coding agent. Plus plus. I think that list will just grow over time of like the form factors that we know to work, and then we can just adapt the form factors to a bunch of other things.[00:24:47] So like the, the one that's the most recently added to this is deep research.[00:24:52] misc: Yeah.[00:24:52] swyx: Right. Where anything that looks like a deep research whether it's a grok version, Gemini version, perplexity version, whatever. He has an investment [00:25:00] that that he likes called Brightwave that is basically deep research for finance.[00:25:02] Yeah. And anything where like all it is like long-term agent, agent reporting and it's starting to take more and more of the job away from you and, and just give you much more reason to report. I think it's going to work. And that has some PMFI think obviously has PMF like I, I would say. It's I, I went to this exercise of trying to handicap how much money open AI made from launching open ai deep research.[00:25:25] I think it's billions. Like the, the, the mo the the she upgrade from like $20 to 200. It has to be billions in the R off. Maybe not all them will stick around, but like that is some amount of PMF that is didn't they have to immediately drop it down[00:25:38] Jacob: to the $20 tier?[00:25:39] swyx: They expanded access. I don't, I wouldn't say, which I thought was[00:25:42] Jacob: really telling of the market.[00:25:43] Right. It's like where you have a you know, I think it's gonna be so interesting to see what they're actually able to get in that 200 or $2,000 tier, which we all think is, is, you know, has a ton of potential. But I thought it was fascinating. I don't know whether it was just to get more people exposure to it or the fact that like Google had a similar product obviously, and, and other folks did too.[00:25:59] But [00:26:00] it was really interesting how quickly they dropped it down.[00:26:02] swyx: I don't, I think that's just a more general policy of no matter what they have at the top tier, they always want to have smaller versions of that in the, in the lower tiers. Yeah. And just get people exposure to it. Just, yeah, just get exposure.[00:26:12] The brand of being first to market and, and like the default choice Yeah. Is paramount to open ai[00:26:18] Jacob: though. I thought that whole thing was fascinating 'cause Google had the first product, right? Yeah. And no, like, you know, I, we[00:26:24] swyx: interviewed them. I, I, I, straight up to their faces, I was like, opening, I mocked you.[00:26:28] And they were like, yeah, well, actually curious, what's[00:26:30] Jacob: it, this is totally off topic, but whatever. Like, what is it going to take for go? Google just released some great models like a, a few weeks ago. Like I feel like it's happening. The stuff they're shipping is really cool. It's happening. Yeah, but I, I, I also, I feel like at least in the, you know, broader discourse, it's still like a drop in the bucket relative to[00:26:45] swyx: Yeah.[00:26:45] I mean, I, I can riff on, on this. I, I, but I, I think it's happening. I think it takes some time, but I am, like my Gemini usage is up. Like, I, I use, I use it a lot more for anything from like summarizing YouTube videos to the [00:27:00] native image generation Yeah. That they just launched to like flash thinking.[00:27:02] So yeah, multi-mobile stuff's great. Yeah. I run you know, and I run like a daily sort of news recap called AI news that is, 99% generated by models, and I do a bake off between all the frontier models every day. And it's every day. Like does it switch? I manual? Yes, it does switch. And I, man, I manually do it.[00:27:18] And flash is, flash wins most days. So, so like, I think it's happening. I think I was thinking, I was thinking about tracking myself like number of opens of tragedy, g Bt versus Gemini. And at some point it will cross. I think that Gemini will be my main and, and it, it, I I like that will slowly happen for a bunch of people.[00:27:37] And, and, and then that will, that'll shift. I, I think that's, that's a really interesting for developers, this is a different question. Yeah. It's Google getting over itself of having Google Cloud versus Vertex versus AI studio, all these like five different brands, slowly consolidating it. It'll happen just slowly, I guess.[00:27:53] Alessio: Yeah.[00:27:54] Yeah. I, I mean, another good example is like you cannot use the thinking models in cursor. Yeah. And I know [00:28:00] Logan killed Patrick's that they're working on it, but I, I think there's all these small things where like if I cannot easily use it, I'm really not gonna go out of my way to do it. But I do agree that when you do use them, their models are, are great.[00:28:12] So yeah. They just need better, better bridges.[00:28:15] swyx: You had one of the questions in the prep.[00:28:16] Debating Public Companies: Google vs. Apple[00:28:16] swyx: What public company are you long and short and minus Google versus, versus Apple, like, long, short. That was also my[00:28:23] Jacob: combo. I, I feel like, yeah, I mean, it does feel like Google's really cooking right now.[00:28:26] swyx: Yeah. So okay, coming back to what has product market fit[00:28:29] Jacob: now,[00:28:29] swyx: now that we come[00:28:30] Jacob: back to my complete total sidetrack,[00:28:33] Customer Support and AI's Role[00:28:33] swyx: there's also customer support.[00:28:35] We were talking on, on the car about Decagon and Sierra, obviously Brett, Brett Taylor is founder of Sierra. And yeah, it seems like there's just this, these layers of agents that'll like, I think you just look at like the income statement or like the, the org chart of any large scaled company and you start picking them off one by one.[00:28:51] What like is interesting knowledge work? And they would just kind of eat. Things slowly from the outside in. Yeah, that makes sense.[00:28:57] Alessio: I, I mean, the episode with the, [00:29:00] with Brett, he's so passionate about developer tools and Yeah. He did not do a developer tools. We spent like two hours talking about developer tools and like, all, all of that stuff.[00:29:10] And it's like, I, they a customer support company, I'm like, man, that says something. You know what I mean? Yeah. It's like when you have somebody like him who can like, raise any amount of money from anybody to do anything. Yeah. To pick customer support as the market to go after while also being the chairman of OpenAI, like that shows you that like, these things have moats and have longstanding, like they're gonna stick around, you know?[00:29:32] Otherwise he's smarter than that. So yeah, that's a, that's a space where maybe initially, you know, I would've said, I don't know, it's like the most exciting thing to, to jump into, but then if you really look at the shape of like, how the workforce are structured and like how the cost centers of like the business really end up, especially for more consumer facing businesses, like a lot of it goes into customer support.[00:29:54] AI's Impact on Business Growth[00:29:54] Alessio: All the AI story of the last two years has been cost cutting. Yeah. I think now we're gonna switch more towards growth revenue. [00:30:00] Totally. You know, like you've seen Jensen, like last year, GTC was saying the more you buy, the more you save this year is that the more you buy, the more you make. So we're hot off the[00:30:08] Jacob: press.[00:30:10] We were there. We were there. Yeah. I do think that's one of the most interesting things about the, this first wave of apps where it's like almost the easiest thing that you could you could get real traction with was stuff that, you know, for lack of a better way to frame it, like so that people had already been comfortable outsourcing the BPOs or something and kind of implicitly said like, Hey, this is a cost center.[00:30:24] Like we are willing to take some performance cut for cost in the past. You know, the, the irony of that, or what I'm really curious to see how it plays out is, you know, you, you could imagine that is the area where price competition is going to be most fierce because it's already stuff that you know, that people have said, Hey, we don't need the like a hundred percent best version of that.[00:30:42] And I wonder, you know, this next wave of apps. May prove actually even more defensible as you get these capabilities that actually are, you know, increased top line or whatnot where you're like, you take ai, go to market, for example. Like you're, you'd pay like twice as much for something that brought, like, 'cause there's just a kind of very clean ROI story to it.[00:30:59] And so [00:31:00] I wonder ultimately whether the, like this next set of apps actually ends up being more interesting than the, than the first wave.[00:31:05] Alessio: Yeah,[00:31:05] Voice AI and Scheduling Solutions[00:31:05] Jordan: I think a lot of the voice AI ones are interesting too, because you don't need a hundred percent precision recall to actually, you know, have a great product.[00:31:12] And so for example, we looked into a bunch of you know, scheduling intake companies, for example, like home services, right? For electricians and stuff like that. Today they miss 50% of their calls. So even if the AI is only effective, say 75% of the time, yeah, it's crazy, right? So if it's effective 75% of the time, that's totally fine because that's still a ton of increased revenue for the customer, right?[00:31:32] And so you don't need that a hundred percent accuracy. Yeah. And so as the models. And the reliability of these agents are getting better is totally fine, because you're still getting a ton of value in the meantime.[00:31:41] swyx: Yeah. One, this is, I don't know how related this is, but I, one of my favorite meetings at it is related one of my favorite meetings at AI Engineer Summit, it is like, like I do these, this is our first one in New York, and I it is like met the different crew than, than you meet here.[00:31:55] Like everyone here is loves developer tools, loves infra over there. They're actually more interested in [00:32:00] applications. It's kind of cool. I met this like bootstrap team that, like, they're only doing appointment scheduling for vets. They, they, yeah. And like, they're like, this is a, this is an anomaly. We don't usually come to engineering summits 'cause we usually go to vet summits and like talk to the, they're, they're like, you know, they, they're, they're literally, I'm sure it's a[00:32:16] Jordan: massive pain point.[00:32:17] They're willing to pay a lot of money.[00:32:20] Alessio: Yeah. But, but, but this is like my point about saving versus making more, it's like if an electrician takes two x more calls, do they have the bandwidth? To actually do two X more in-house and they get higher. Well, yeah, exactly. That's the thing is like, I don't think today most businesses are like structured to just like overnight two, three x the band, you know?[00:32:38] I think that's like a startup thing. Like mo most businesses then you make an[00:32:42] swyx: electrician agent. Well, no, totally. That's how do you, how do you recruiting agent for electrician, for like[00:32:49] Alessio: electrician. Great. That's a good point. How do you do lambda school for electrician? I, it's hilarious.[00:32:53] Jacob: Whack-a-mole for the bottlenecks in these businesses.[00:32:55] Like as, oh, now we have a ton of demand. Like, cool. Like where do we go?[00:32:58] swyx: Yeah.[00:32:59] Exploring AI Applications in Various Fields[00:32:59] swyx: So just to [00:33:00] round out the, the this PMF thing I think this is relevant in a certain sense of, like, it's pretty obvious that the killer agents are coding agents, support agents, deep research, right? Roughly, right. We've covered all those three already.[00:33:10] Then, then, then you have to sort of be, turn to offense and go like, okay, what's next? And like, what, what about, I[00:33:16] Jacob: mean, I also just like summarization of, of voice and conversation, right? Yep. Absolutely. We actually had that on there. I[00:33:21] swyx: just, I didn't put it as agent. Because seems less agentic, you know? But yes, still, still a good AI use case.[00:33:26] That one I, I've seen I would mention granola and what's the other one? Monterey, I think a bridge was one wanted to mention. I was say bridge. Yeah, bridge. Okay. So I'll just, I'll call out what I had on my slides. Yeah. For, for the agent engineering thing. So it was screen sharing, which I think is actually kind of, kind of underrated.[00:33:42] Like people, like an AI watching you as you do your work and just like offering assistance outbound sales. So instead of support, just being more outbound hiring, you say[00:33:51] Jacob: outbound sales has brought a market fit?[00:33:53] swyx: No, it, it, it will, it's come out. Oh, on the comp. Yeah. I was totally agree with that. Yeah. Hiring like the recruiting side education, like the, [00:34:00] the sort of like personalized teaching, I think.[00:34:02] I'm kind of shocked we haven't seen more there. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know if that's like, like it's like Duolingo is the thing. Amigo.[00:34:08] Jacob: Yeah. I mean, speak in some of these like, you know,[00:34:10] swyx: speak, practice, yeah. Interesting. And then finance, I, there's, there's a ton of finance cases that we can talk about that and then personal ai, which we also had a little bit of that, but I think personal AI is a harder to monetize, but I, I think those would be like, what I would say is up and coming in terms of like, that's what I'm currently focusing on.[00:34:27] Jacob: I feel like this question's been asked a few different ways but I'm, I'm curious what you guys think it's like, is it like, if we just froze model capabilities today, like is there, you know, trillions of dollars of application value to be unlocked? Like, like AI education? Like if we just stopped today all model development, like with this current generation of models, we could probably build some pretty amazing education apps.[00:34:44] Or like, how much of this, how much of, of all this is like contingent upon just like, okay, people have had two years with GBT four and like, you know, I don't know, six months with the reasoning models, like how much is contingent upon it just being more time with these things versus like the models actually have to get better?[00:34:58] I dunno, it's a hard question, so I'm gonna just throw it [00:35:00] to you.[00:35:00] Alessio: Yeah. Well I think the societal thing, it's maybe harder, especially in education. You know, like, can you basically like Doge. The education system. Probably you should, but like, can you, I I think it's more of a human,[00:35:14] Jacob: but people pay for all sorts of like, get ahead things outside of class and you know, certainly in other countries there's a ton of consumer spend and education.[00:35:21] It feels like the market opportunity is there.[00:35:23] swyx: Yeah. And, and private education, I think yeah, public Public is a very different, yeah. One of my most interesting quests from last year was kind of reforming Singapore's education system to be more sort of AI native, just what you were doing on the side while you were Yes.[00:35:38] That's a great, that's a great side quest. My stated goal is for Singapore to be the first country that has Python as a first language, as a, as a national language. Anyway, so, but the, the, the, the defense, the pushback I got from Ministry of Education was that the teachers would be unprepared to do it.[00:35:53] So it's like, it was like the def the, like, the it was really interesting, like immediate pushback. Was that the defacto teachers union being like, [00:36:00] resistant to change and like, okay. It's that that's par for the course. Anyway, so not, not to, not to dwell too much on that, but like yeah, I mean, like, I, I think like education is one of those things that pe everyone, like has strong opinions on.[00:36:11] 'cause they all have kids, all be the education system. But like, I think it's gonna be like the, the domain specific, like, like speak like such a amazing example of like top down. Like, we will go through the idea maze and we'll go to Korea and teach them English. Like, it's like, what the hell? And I would love to see more examples of that.[00:36:29] Like, just like really focus, like no one tried to solve everything. Just, just do your thing really, really well[00:36:34] Defensibility in AI Applications[00:36:34] Jacob: on this trend of of, of difficult questions that come up. I'm gonna just ask you the one that my partners like to ask me every single Monday, which is how do you think about defensibility at the at the app layer?[00:36:41] Alessio: Oh[00:36:41] Jacob: yeah, that's great. Just gimme an answer. I can copy paste and just like, you know, have network effects. Auto, auto response.[00:36:47] swyx: Honestly like network effects. I think people don't prioritize those enough because they're trying to make the single player experience good. But then, then they neglect the [00:37:00] multiplayer experience.[00:37:00] I think one of the I always think about like load-bearing episodes, like, you know, as, as park that you do one a week and like, you know, some of those you don't really talk about ever again. And others you keep mentioning every single podcast. And one of the, this is obviously gonna be the last one. I think the recap episodes for us are pretty load-bearing.[00:37:15] Like we, we refer to them every three months or so. And like one of them I think for us is Chai for me is chai research, even though that wasn't like a super popular one among the broader community outside of Chai, the chai community, for those who don't know, chai Research is basically a character AI competitor.[00:37:32] Right. They were bootstraps, they were founded at the same time and they have out outlasted character of de facto. Right. It's funny, like I, I would love to ask Mil a bit more about like the whole character thing, but good luck getting past the Google copy. But like, so he, like, he, like he doesn't have his own models, basically he has his own network of people submitting models to be run.[00:37:54] And I think like. That is like short term going to be hurting him because he doesn't have [00:38:00] proprietary ip. But long term he has the network network effect to make him robust to any changes in the future. And I think, like I wanna see more of that where like he's basically looking himself as kind of a marketplace and he's identified the choke point, which is will be app or the, the sort of protocol layer that interfaces between the users and the model providers.[00:38:18] And then make sure that the money kind of flows through and that works. I, I wish that more AI builders or AI founders emphasize network effects. 'cause that that's the only thing that you're gonna have with the end of the day. Yeah. And like brand deeds into network effects you.[00:38:34] Jacob: Yeah, I guess you know, harder in, in the enterprise context.[00:38:36] Right. But I mean, I feel, it's funny, we do this exercise and I feel like we talk a lot about like, you know, obviously there's, you know kind of the velocity and the breadth you're able to kind of build of product surface area. There's just like the ability to become a brand in a space. Like, I'm shocked that even in like six, nine months, how an individual company can become synonymous with like an entire category.[00:38:52] And like, then they're in every room for customers and like all the other startups are like clawing their way to try and get in like one, you know, 20th of those rooms.[00:38:59] Jordan: There's a [00:39:00] bunch of categories where we talk about an IC and it's like, oh, pricing compression's gonna happen, not as defensible. And so ACVs are gonna go down over time.[00:39:08] In actuality, some of these, the ACVs have doubled, we've seen, and the reason for that is just, you know, people go to them and pay for that premium of being that brand.[00:39:16] Jacob: Yeah. I mean, one thing I'm struck by is there's been, there was such a head fake in the early days of, of AI apps where people were like, we want this amazing defensibility story, and then what's the easiest defensibility story?[00:39:24] It's like, oh, like. Totally unique data set or like train your own model or something. And I feel like that was just like a total head fake where I don't think that's actually useful at all. It's the much less, you sound much less articulate when you're like, well the defensibility here is like the thousand small things that this company does to make like the user experience design everything just like delightful and just like the speed at which they move to kind of both create a really broad product, but then also every three, six months when a new model comes out, it's kind of an existential event for like any company.[00:39:49] 'cause if you're not the first to like figure out how to use it, someone else will. Yeah. And so velocity really matters there. And it's funny in in, in kinda our internal discussions, we've been like, man, that sounds pretty similar to like how we thought about like application SaaS [00:40:00] companies. That there isn't some like revolutionary reason you don't sound like a genius when you're like, here's applications why application SaaS company A is so much better than B.[00:40:07] But it's like a lot of little things that compound over time.[00:40:10] Infrastructure and AI: Current Trends[00:40:10] Jacob: What about the infrastructure space, guys? Like I'm curious you know. What, how do you guys think about where the interesting categories are here today and you know, like where, where, where do you wanna see more startups or, or where do you think there are too many?[00:40:21] Alessio: Yeah. Yeah, we call it kind of the L-L-M-O-S. But I would say[00:40:24] swyx: not we, I mean Andre, Andre calls it LMOS[00:40:27] Alessio: Well, but yeah, we, well everyone else just copies whatever two. And Andre, the three of you call it the LMO. Well, we have just like four words of ai framework Yeah. Yeah. That we use. And LM Os is one of them, but yeah, I mean, code execution is one.[00:40:39] We've been banging the drum, everybody now knows where investors in E two B. Mm-hmm. Memory, you know, is one that we kind of touched on before. Super interesting search we talked about. I, I think those are more not traditional infra, not like the bare metal infra. It's more like the infra around the tools for agents model, you know?[00:40:57] Which I think is where a lot of the value is gonna [00:41:00] be. The security[00:41:00] swyx: ones. Yeah.[00:41:01] Alessio: Yeah. And cyber security. I mean there's so much to be done there. And it's more like basically any area where. AI is being used by the offense. AI needs to be applied on the defense side, like email security, you know, identity, like all these different things.[00:41:16] So we've been doing a lot there as well as, you know, how do you rethink things that used to be costly, like red teaming and maybe used to be a checkbox in the past Today they can be actually helpful. Yeah. To make you secure your app. And there's this whole idea of like, semantics, right? That not the models can be good at.[00:41:32] You know, in the past everything is about syntax. It's kind of like very basic, you know, constraint rules. I think now you can start to infer semantics from things that are beyond just like simple recognition to like understanding why certain things are happening a certain way. So in the security space, we're seeing that with binary inspection, for example.[00:41:51] Like there's kinda like the syntax, but then there are like semantics of like understanding what is the scope overall really trying to do. Even though this [00:42:00] individual syntax, it's like seeing something specific. Not to get too technical, but yeah, I, I think infra overall, it's like a super interesting place if you're making use of the model, if you're just, I'm less bullish.[00:42:13] Not, not that it's not a great business, but I think it's a very capital intensive business, which is like serving the models. Mm-hmm. Yeah. I think that infra is like, great people will make money, but yeah. I, I, I don't think there's as much of a interest from, from us at[00:42:25] Jordan: least. Yeah. How, how do you guys think about what OpenAI and the big research labs will encompass as part of the developer and infra category?[00:42:31] Yeah.[00:42:31] Alessio: That, that's why I, I would say I search is the first example of one of the things we used to mention on, you know, we had X on the podcast and perplexity obviously as a, as an API. The basic idea[00:42:44] swyx: is if you go into like the chat GBT custom GPT builder, like what are the check boxes? Each of them is a startup.[00:42:50] Alessio: Yeah. And, and now they're also APIs. So now search is also an a p, we will see what the adoption is. There's the, you know, in traditional infra, like everybody wants to be [00:43:00] multi-cloud, so maybe we'll see the same Where change GPD search or open AI search. API is like, great with the open AI models because you get it all bundled in, but their price is very high.[00:43:11] If you compare it to like, you know, XI think is like five times the, the price for the same amount of research, which makes sense if you have a big open AI contract. But maybe if you're just like pick and best in breed, you wanna compare different ones. Yeah. Yeah, they don't have a code execution one.[00:43:26] I'm sure they'll release one soon. So they wanna own that too, but yeah. Same question we were talking about before, right? Did they wanna be an API company or a product company? Do you make more money building Tri g BT search or selling search? API?[00:43:38] swyx: Yeah. The, the broader lesson, instead of like going, we did applications just now.[00:43:42] And then what do you think is interesting infrastructure? Like it's not 50 50, it's not like equal weighted, like it, it's just very clearly the application layer has like. Been way more interesting. Like yes, there, there's interesting in infrastructure plays and I even want to like push back on like the, the, the whole GPU serving thing because like together [00:44:00] AI is doing well, fireworks, I mean I was, that worked.[00:44:02] Alessio: It's like data[00:44:02] Jacob: centers[00:44:03] Alessio: and inference[00:44:03] Jacob: providers,[00:44:04] Alessio: the,[00:44:04] swyx: you know,[00:44:04] Alessio: I think it's not like the capital[00:44:06] swyx: Oh, I see.[00:44:07] Alessio: I for, for again, capital efficiency. Yeah. Much larger funds. So you, I'm sure you have GPU clouds. Yeah.[00:44:13] swyx: Yeah. So that's, that's, that is one thing I have been learning in, in that you know, I think I have historically had dev tools and infra bias and so has he, and we've had to learn that applications actually are very interesting and also maybe kind of the killer application of models in a sense that you can charge for utility and not for cost.[00:44:33] Right? Which, where like most infrastructure reduces to cost plus. Yeah. Right. So, and like, that's not where you wanna be for ai. So that's, that's interesting for, for me I thought it would be interesting for me to be the only non VC in the room to be saying what is not investible. 'cause like then I then, you know, you can I, I won't be canceled for saying like, your, your whole category is, we have a great thing where like, this thing's[00:44:54] Jacob: not investible and then like three months later we're desperately chasing.[00:44:56] Exactly. Exactly. So you don't wanna be on a record space changes so [00:45:00] fast. It's like you gotta, every opinion you hold, you have to like, hold it quite loosely. Yeah.[00:45:02] swyx: I'm happy to be wrong in public, you know, I think that's how you learn the most, right? Yeah. So like, fine tuning companys is something I struggled with and still, like, I don't see how this becomes a big thing.[00:45:12] Like you kind of have to wrap it up in a broader, ser broader enterprise AI company, like services company, like a writer, AI where like they will find you and it's part of the overall offering. Mm-hmm. But like, that's not where you spike. Yeah, it's kind of interesting. And then I, I'll, I'll just kind of AI DevOps and like, there's a lot of AI SRE out there seems like.[00:45:32] There's a lot of data out there that that should be able to be plugged into your code base or, or, or your app to it's self-heal or whatever. It's just, I don't know if that's like, been a thing yet. And you guys can correct me if you're, if I'm wrong. And then the, the last thing I'll mention is voice realtime infra again, like very interesting, very, very hot.[00:45:49] But again, how big is it? Those are the, the main three that I'm thinking about for things I'm struggling with.[00:45:54] Jordan: Yeah. I guess a couple comments on the A-I-S-R-E side. I actually disagree with that one. Yeah. I think that the [00:46:00] reason they haven't sort of taken off yet is because the tech is just not there quite yet.[00:46:04] And so it goes back to the earlier question, do we think about investing towards where the companies will be when the models improve versus now? I think that's going to be, in short term we'll get there, but it's just not there just yet. But I think it's an interesting opportunity overall.[00:46:18] swyx: Yeah. It's my pushback to you is, well it's monitoring a lot of logs, right?[00:46:22] Yeah. And it's basically anomaly detection rather than. Like there's, there's a whole bunch of like stuff that can happen after you detect the anomaly, but it's really just an anomaly detection. And we've always had that, you know, like it's, this is like not a Transformers LLM use case. This is just regular anomaly detection.[00:46:38] Jordan: It's more in terms of like, it's not going to be an autonomous SRE for a while. Yeah. And so the question is how, how much can the latest sort of AI advancements increase the efficacy of going, bringing your MTTR

If you're in SF: Join us for the Claude Plays Pokemon hackathon this Sunday!If you're not: Fill out the 2025 State of AI Eng survey for $250 in Amazon cards!We are SO excited to share our conversation with Dharmesh Shah, co-founder of HubSpot and creator of Agent.ai.A particularly compelling concept we discussed is the idea of "hybrid teams" - the next evolution in workplace organization where human workers collaborate with AI agents as team members. Just as we previously saw hybrid teams emerge in terms of full-time vs. contract workers, or in-office vs. remote workers, Dharmesh predicts that the next frontier will be teams composed of both human and AI members. This raises interesting questions about team dynamics, trust, and how to effectively delegate tasks between human and AI team members.The discussion of business models in AI reveals an important distinction between Work as a Service (WaaS) and Results as a Service (RaaS), something Dharmesh has written extensively about. While RaaS has gained popularity, particularly in customer support applications where outcomes are easily measurable, Dharmesh argues that this model may be over-indexed. Not all AI applications have clearly definable outcomes or consistent economic value per transaction, making WaaS more appropriate in many cases. This insight is particularly relevant for businesses considering how to monetize AI capabilities.The technical challenges of implementing effective agent systems are also explored, particularly around memory and authentication. Shah emphasizes the importance of cross-agent memory sharing and the need for more granular control over data access. He envisions a future where users can selectively share parts of their data with different agents, similar to how OAuth works but with much finer control. This points to significant opportunities in developing infrastructure for secure and efficient agent-to-agent communication and data sharing.Other highlights from our conversation* The Evolution of AI-Powered Agents – Exploring how AI agents have evolved from simple chatbots to sophisticated multi-agent systems, and the role of MCPs in enabling that.* Hybrid Digital Teams and the Future of Work – How AI agents are becoming teammates rather than just tools, and what this means for business operations and knowledge work.* Memory in AI Agents – The importance of persistent memory in AI systems and how shared memory across agents could enhance collaboration and efficiency.* Business Models for AI Agents – Exploring the shift from software as a service (SaaS) to work as a service (WaaS) and results as a service (RaaS), and what this means for monetization.* The Role of Standards Like MCP – Why MCP has been widely adopted and how it enables agent collaboration, tool use, and discovery.* The Future of AI Code Generation and Software Engineering – How AI-assisted coding is changing the role of software engineers and what skills will matter most in the future.* Domain Investing and Efficient Markets – Dharmesh's approach to domain investing and how inefficiencies in digital asset markets create business opportunities.* The Philosophy of Saying No – Lessons from "Sorry, You Must Pass" and how prioritization leads to greater productivity and focus.Timestamps* 00:00 Introduction and Guest Welcome* 02:29 Dharmesh Shah's Journey into AI* 05:22 Defining AI Agents* 06:45 The Evolution and Future of AI Agents* 13:53 Graph Theory and Knowledge Representation* 20:02 Engineering Practices and Overengineering* 25:57 The Role of Junior Engineers in the AI Era* 28:20 Multi-Agent Systems and MCP Standards* 35:55 LinkedIn's Legal Battles and Data Scraping* 37:32 The Future of AI and Hybrid Teams* 39:19 Building Agent AI: A Professional Network for Agents* 40:43 Challenges and Innovations in Agent AI* 45:02 The Evolution of UI in AI Systems* 01:00:25 Business Models: Work as a Service vs. Results as a Service* 01:09:17 The Future Value of Engineers* 01:09:51 Exploring the Role of Agents* 01:10:28 The Importance of Memory in AI* 01:11:02 Challenges and Opportunities in AI Memory* 01:12:41 Selective Memory and Privacy Concerns* 01:13:27 The Evolution of AI Tools and Platforms* 01:18:23 Domain Names and AI Projects* 01:32:08 Balancing Work and Personal Life* 01:35:52 Final Thoughts and ReflectionsTranscriptAlessio [00:00:04]: Hey everyone, welcome back to the Latent Space podcast. This is Alessio, partner and CTO at Decibel Partners, and I'm joined by my co-host Swyx, founder of Small AI.swyx [00:00:12]: Hello, and today we're super excited to have Dharmesh Shah to join us. I guess your relevant title here is founder of Agent AI.Dharmesh [00:00:20]: Yeah, that's true for this. Yeah, creator of Agent.ai and co-founder of HubSpot.swyx [00:00:25]: Co-founder of HubSpot, which I followed for many years, I think 18 years now, gonna be 19 soon. And you caught, you know, people can catch up on your HubSpot story elsewhere. I should also thank Sean Puri, who I've chatted with back and forth, who's been, I guess, getting me in touch with your people. But also, I think like, just giving us a lot of context, because obviously, My First Million joined you guys, and they've been chatting with you guys a lot. So for the business side, we can talk about that, but I kind of wanted to engage your CTO, agent, engineer side of things. So how did you get agent religion?Dharmesh [00:01:00]: Let's see. So I've been working, I'll take like a half step back, a decade or so ago, even though actually more than that. So even before HubSpot, the company I was contemplating that I had named for was called Ingenisoft. And the idea behind Ingenisoft was a natural language interface to business software. Now realize this is 20 years ago, so that was a hard thing to do. But the actual use case that I had in mind was, you know, we had data sitting in business systems like a CRM or something like that. And my kind of what I thought clever at the time. Oh, what if we used email as the kind of interface to get to business software? And the motivation for using email is that it automatically works when you're offline. So imagine I'm getting on a plane or I'm on a plane. There was no internet on planes back then. It's like, oh, I'm going through business cards from an event I went to. I can just type things into an email just to have them all in the backlog. When it reconnects, it sends those emails to a processor that basically kind of parses effectively the commands and updates the software, sends you the file, whatever it is. And there was a handful of commands. I was a little bit ahead of the times in terms of what was actually possible. And I reattempted this natural language thing with a product called ChatSpot that I did back 20...swyx [00:02:12]: Yeah, this is your first post-ChatGPT project.Dharmesh [00:02:14]: I saw it come out. Yeah. And so I've always been kind of fascinated by this natural language interface to software. Because, you know, as software developers, myself included, we've always said, oh, we build intuitive, easy-to-use applications. And it's not intuitive at all, right? Because what we're doing is... We're taking the mental model that's in our head of what we're trying to accomplish with said piece of software and translating that into a series of touches and swipes and clicks and things like that. And there's nothing natural or intuitive about it. And so natural language interfaces, for the first time, you know, whatever the thought is you have in your head and expressed in whatever language that you normally use to talk to yourself in your head, you can just sort of emit that and have software do something. And I thought that was kind of a breakthrough, which it has been. And it's gone. So that's where I first started getting into the journey. I started because now it actually works, right? So once we got ChatGPT and you can take, even with a few-shot example, convert something into structured, even back in the ChatGP 3.5 days, it did a decent job in a few-shot example, convert something to structured text if you knew what kinds of intents you were going to have. And so that happened. And that ultimately became a HubSpot project. But then agents intrigued me because I'm like, okay, well, that's the next step here. So chat's great. Love Chat UX. But if we want to do something even more meaningful, it felt like the next kind of advancement is not this kind of, I'm chatting with some software in a kind of a synchronous back and forth model, is that software is going to do things for me in kind of a multi-step way to try and accomplish some goals. So, yeah, that's when I first got started. It's like, okay, what would that look like? Yeah. And I've been obsessed ever since, by the way.Alessio [00:03:55]: Which goes back to your first experience with it, which is like you're offline. Yeah. And you want to do a task. You don't need to do it right now. You just want to queue it up for somebody to do it for you. Yes. As you think about agents, like, let's start at the easy question, which is like, how do you define an agent? Maybe. You mean the hardest question in the universe? Is that what you mean?Dharmesh [00:04:12]: You said you have an irritating take. I do have an irritating take. I think, well, some number of people have been irritated, including within my own team. So I have a very broad definition for agents, which is it's AI-powered software that accomplishes a goal. Period. That's it. And what irritates people about it is like, well, that's so broad as to be completely non-useful. And I understand that. I understand the criticism. But in my mind, if you kind of fast forward months, I guess, in AI years, the implementation of it, and we're already starting to see this, and we'll talk about this, different kinds of agents, right? So I think in addition to having a usable definition, and I like yours, by the way, and we should talk more about that, that you just came out with, the classification of agents actually is also useful, which is, is it autonomous or non-autonomous? Does it have a deterministic workflow? Does it have a non-deterministic workflow? Is it working synchronously? Is it working asynchronously? Then you have the different kind of interaction modes. Is it a chat agent, kind of like a customer support agent would be? You're having this kind of back and forth. Is it a workflow agent that just does a discrete number of steps? So there's all these different flavors of agents. So if I were to draw it in a Venn diagram, I would draw a big circle that says, this is agents, and then I have a bunch of circles, some overlapping, because they're not mutually exclusive. And so I think that's what's interesting, and we're seeing development along a bunch of different paths, right? So if you look at the first implementation of agent frameworks, you look at Baby AGI and AutoGBT, I think it was, not Autogen, that's the Microsoft one. They were way ahead of their time because they assumed this level of reasoning and execution and planning capability that just did not exist, right? So it was an interesting thought experiment, which is what it was. Even the guy that, I'm an investor in Yohei's fund that did Baby AGI. It wasn't ready, but it was a sign of what was to come. And so the question then is, when is it ready? And so lots of people talk about the state of the art when it comes to agents. I'm a pragmatist, so I think of the state of the practical. It's like, okay, well, what can I actually build that has commercial value or solves actually some discrete problem with some baseline of repeatability or verifiability?swyx [00:06:22]: There was a lot, and very, very interesting. I'm not irritated by it at all. Okay. As you know, I take a... There's a lot of anthropological view or linguistics view. And in linguistics, you don't want to be prescriptive. You want to be descriptive. Yeah. So you're a goals guy. That's the key word in your thing. And other people have other definitions that might involve like delegated trust or non-deterministic work, LLM in the loop, all that stuff. The other thing I was thinking about, just the comment on Baby AGI, LGBT. Yeah. In that piece that you just read, I was able to go through our backlog and just kind of track the winter of agents and then the summer now. Yeah. And it's... We can tell the whole story as an oral history, just following that thread. And it's really just like, I think, I tried to explain the why now, right? Like I had, there's better models, of course. There's better tool use with like, they're just more reliable. Yep. Better tools with MCP and all that stuff. And I'm sure you have opinions on that too. Business model shift, which you like a lot. I just heard you talk about RAS with MFM guys. Yep. Cost is dropping a lot. Yep. Inference is getting faster. There's more model diversity. Yep. Yep. I think it's a subtle point. It means that like, you have different models with different perspectives. You don't get stuck in the basin of performance of a single model. Sure. You can just get out of it by just switching models. Yep. Multi-agent research and RL fine tuning. So I just wanted to let you respond to like any of that.Dharmesh [00:07:44]: Yeah. A couple of things. Connecting the dots on the kind of the definition side of it. So we'll get the irritation out of the way completely. I have one more, even more irritating leap on the agent definition thing. So here's the way I think about it. By the way, the kind of word agent, I looked it up, like the English dictionary definition. The old school agent, yeah. Is when you have someone or something that does something on your behalf, like a travel agent or a real estate agent acts on your behalf. It's like proxy, which is a nice kind of general definition. So the other direction I'm sort of headed, and it's going to tie back to tool calling and MCP and things like that, is if you, and I'm not a biologist by any stretch of the imagination, but we have these single-celled organisms, right? Like the simplest possible form of what one would call life. But it's still life. It just happens to be single-celled. And then you can combine cells and then cells become specialized over time. And you have much more sophisticated organisms, you know, kind of further down the spectrum. In my mind, at the most fundamental level, you can almost think of having atomic agents. What is the simplest possible thing that's an agent that can still be called an agent? What is the equivalent of a kind of single-celled organism? And the reason I think that's useful is right now we're headed down the road, which I think is very exciting around tool use, right? That says, okay, the LLMs now can be provided a set of tools that it calls to accomplish whatever it needs to accomplish in the kind of furtherance of whatever goal it's trying to get done. And I'm not overly bothered by it, but if you think about it, if you just squint a little bit and say, well, what if everything was an agent? And what if tools were actually just atomic agents? Because then it's turtles all the way down, right? Then it's like, oh, well, all that's really happening with tool use is that we have a network of agents that know about each other through something like an MMCP and can kind of decompose a particular problem and say, oh, I'm going to delegate this to this set of agents. And why do we need to draw this distinction between tools, which are functions most of the time? And an actual agent. And so I'm going to write this irritating LinkedIn post, you know, proposing this. It's like, okay. And I'm not suggesting we should call even functions, you know, call them agents. But there is a certain amount of elegance that happens when you say, oh, we can just reduce it down to one primitive, which is an agent that you can combine in complicated ways to kind of raise the level of abstraction and accomplish higher order goals. Anyway, that's my answer. I'd say that's a success. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk on agent definitions.Alessio [00:09:54]: How do you define the minimum viable agent? Do you already have a definition for, like, where you draw the line between a cell and an atom? Yeah.Dharmesh [00:10:02]: So in my mind, it has to, at some level, use AI in order for it to—otherwise, it's just software. It's like, you know, we don't need another word for that. And so that's probably where I draw the line. So then the question, you know, the counterargument would be, well, if that's true, then lots of tools themselves are actually not agents because they're just doing a database call or a REST API call or whatever it is they're doing. And that does not necessarily qualify them, which is a fair counterargument. And I accept that. It's like a good argument. I still like to think about—because we'll talk about multi-agent systems, because I think—so we've accepted, which I think is true, lots of people have said it, and you've hopefully combined some of those clips of really smart people saying this is the year of agents, and I completely agree, it is the year of agents. But then shortly after that, it's going to be the year of multi-agent systems or multi-agent networks. I think that's where it's going to be headed next year. Yeah.swyx [00:10:54]: Opening eyes already on that. Yeah. My quick philosophical engagement with you on this. I often think about kind of the other spectrum, the other end of the cell spectrum. So single cell is life, multi-cell is life, and you clump a bunch of cells together in a more complex organism, they become organs, like an eye and a liver or whatever. And then obviously we consider ourselves one life form. There's not like a lot of lives within me. I'm just one life. And now, obviously, I don't think people don't really like to anthropomorphize agents and AI. Yeah. But we are extending our consciousness and our brain and our functionality out into machines. I just saw you were a Bee. Yeah. Which is, you know, it's nice. I have a limitless pendant in my pocket.Dharmesh [00:11:37]: I got one of these boys. Yeah.swyx [00:11:39]: I'm testing it all out. You know, got to be early adopters. But like, we want to extend our personal memory into these things so that we can be good at the things that we're good at. And, you know, machines are good at it. Machines are there. So like, my definition of life is kind of like going outside of my own body now. I don't know if you've ever had like reflections on that. Like how yours. How our self is like actually being distributed outside of you. Yeah.Dharmesh [00:12:01]: I don't fancy myself a philosopher. But you went there. So yeah, I did go there. I'm fascinated by kind of graphs and graph theory and networks and have been for a long, long time. And to me, we're sort of all nodes in this kind of larger thing. It just so happens that we're looking at individual kind of life forms as they exist right now. But so the idea is when you put a podcast out there, there's these little kind of nodes you're putting out there of like, you know, conceptual ideas. Once again, you have varying kind of forms of those little nodes that are up there and are connected in varying and sundry ways. And so I just think of myself as being a node in a massive, massive network. And I'm producing more nodes as I put content or ideas. And, you know, you spend some portion of your life collecting dots, experiences, people, and some portion of your life then connecting dots from the ones that you've collected over time. And I found that really interesting things happen and you really can't know in advance how those dots are necessarily going to connect in the future. And that's, yeah. So that's my philosophical take. That's the, yes, exactly. Coming back.Alessio [00:13:04]: Yep. Do you like graph as an agent? Abstraction? That's been one of the hot topics with LandGraph and Pydantic and all that.Dharmesh [00:13:11]: I do. The thing I'm more interested in terms of use of graphs, and there's lots of work happening on that now, is graph data stores as an alternative in terms of knowledge stores and knowledge graphs. Yeah. Because, you know, so I've been in software now 30 plus years, right? So it's not 10,000 hours. It's like 100,000 hours that I've spent doing this stuff. And so I've grew up with, so back in the day, you know, I started on mainframes. There was a product called IMS from IBM, which is basically an index database, what we'd call like a key value store today. Then we've had relational databases, right? We have tables and columns and foreign key relationships. We all know that. We have document databases like MongoDB, which is sort of a nested structure keyed by a specific index. We have vector stores, vector embedding database. And graphs are interesting for a couple of reasons. One is, so it's not classically structured in a relational way. When you say structured database, to most people, they're thinking tables and columns and in relational database and set theory and all that. Graphs still have structure, but it's not the tables and columns structure. And you could wonder, and people have made this case, that they are a better representation of knowledge for LLMs and for AI generally than other things. So that's kind of thing number one conceptually, and that might be true, I think is possibly true. And the other thing that I really like about that in the context of, you know, I've been in the context of data stores for RAG is, you know, RAG, you say, oh, I have a million documents, I'm going to build the vector embeddings, I'm going to come back with the top X based on the semantic match, and that's fine. All that's very, very useful. But the reality is something gets lost in the chunking process and the, okay, well, those tend, you know, like, you don't really get the whole picture, so to speak, and maybe not even the right set of dimensions on the kind of broader picture. And it makes intuitive sense to me that if we did capture it properly in a graph form, that maybe that feeding into a RAG pipeline will actually yield better results for some use cases, I don't know, but yeah.Alessio [00:15:03]: And do you feel like at the core of it, there's this difference between imperative and declarative programs? Because if you think about HubSpot, it's like, you know, people and graph kind of goes hand in hand, you know, but I think maybe the software before was more like primary foreign key based relationship, versus now the models can traverse through the graph more easily.Dharmesh [00:15:22]: Yes. So I like that representation. There's something. It's just conceptually elegant about graphs and just from the representation of it, they're much more discoverable, you can kind of see it, there's observability to it, versus kind of embeddings, which you can't really do much with as a human. You know, once they're in there, you can't pull stuff back out. But yeah, I like that kind of idea of it. And the other thing that's kind of, because I love graphs, I've been long obsessed with PageRank from back in the early days. And, you know, one of the kind of simplest algorithms in terms of coming up, you know, with a phone, everyone's been exposed to PageRank. And the idea is that, and so I had this other idea for a project, not a company, and I have hundreds of these, called NodeRank, is to be able to take the idea of PageRank and apply it to an arbitrary graph that says, okay, I'm going to define what authority looks like and say, okay, well, that's interesting to me, because then if you say, I'm going to take my knowledge store, and maybe this person that contributed some number of chunks to the graph data store has more authority on this particular use case or prompt that's being submitted than this other one that may, or maybe this one was more. popular, or maybe this one has, whatever it is, there should be a way for us to kind of rank nodes in a graph and sort them in some, some useful way. Yeah.swyx [00:16:34]: So I think that's generally useful for, for anything. I think the, the problem, like, so even though at my conferences, GraphRag is super popular and people are getting knowledge, graph religion, and I will say like, it's getting space, getting traction in two areas, conversation memory, and then also just rag in general, like the, the, the document data. Yeah. It's like a source. Most ML practitioners would say that knowledge graph is kind of like a dirty word. The graph database, people get graph religion, everything's a graph, and then they, they go really hard into it and then they get a, they get a graph that is too complex to navigate. Yes. And so like the, the, the simple way to put it is like you at running HubSpot, you know, the power of graphs, the way that Google has pitched them for many years, but I don't suspect that HubSpot itself uses a knowledge graph. No. Yeah.Dharmesh [00:17:26]: So when is it over engineering? Basically? It's a great question. I don't know. So the question now, like in AI land, right, is the, do we necessarily need to understand? So right now, LLMs for, for the most part are somewhat black boxes, right? We sort of understand how the, you know, the algorithm itself works, but we really don't know what's going on in there and, and how things come out. So if a graph data store is able to produce the outcomes we want, it's like, here's a set of queries I want to be able to submit and then it comes out with useful content. Maybe the underlying data store is as opaque as a vector embeddings or something like that, but maybe it's fine. Maybe we don't necessarily need to understand it to get utility out of it. And so maybe if it's messy, that's okay. Um, that's, it's just another form of lossy compression. Uh, it's just lossy in a way that we just don't completely understand in terms of, because it's going to grow organically. Uh, and it's not structured. It's like, ah, we're just gonna throw a bunch of stuff in there. Let the, the equivalent of the embedding algorithm, whatever they called in graph land. Um, so the one with the best results wins. I think so. Yeah.swyx [00:18:26]: Or is this the practical side of me is like, yeah, it's, if it's useful, we don't necessarilyDharmesh [00:18:30]: need to understand it.swyx [00:18:30]: I have, I mean, I'm happy to push back as long as you want. Uh, it's not practical to evaluate like the 10 different options out there because it takes time. It takes people, it takes, you know, resources, right? Set. That's the first thing. Second thing is your evals are typically on small things and some things only work at scale. Yup. Like graphs. Yup.Dharmesh [00:18:46]: Yup. That's, yeah, no, that's fair. And I think this is one of the challenges in terms of implementation of graph databases is that the most common approach that I've seen developers do, I've done it myself, is that, oh, I've got a Postgres database or a MySQL or whatever. I can represent a graph with a very set of tables with a parent child thing or whatever. And that sort of gives me the ability, uh, why would I need anything more than that? And the answer is, well, if you don't need anything more than that, you don't need anything more than that. But there's a high chance that you're sort of missing out on the actual value that, uh, the graph representation gives you. Which is the ability to traverse the graph, uh, efficiently in ways that kind of going through the, uh, traversal in a relational database form, even though structurally you have the data, practically you're not gonna be able to pull it out in, in useful ways. Uh, so you wouldn't like represent a social graph, uh, in, in using that kind of relational table model. It just wouldn't scale. It wouldn't work.swyx [00:19:36]: Uh, yeah. Uh, I think we want to move on to MCP. Yeah. But I just want to, like, just engineering advice. Yeah. Uh, obviously you've, you've, you've run, uh, you've, you've had to do a lot of projects and run a lot of teams. Do you have a general rule for over-engineering or, you know, engineering ahead of time? You know, like, because people, we know premature engineering is the root of all evil. Yep. But also sometimes you just have to. Yep. When do you do it? Yes.Dharmesh [00:19:59]: It's a great question. This is, uh, a question as old as time almost, which is what's the right and wrong levels of abstraction. That's effectively what, uh, we're answering when we're trying to do engineering. I tend to be a pragmatist, right? So here's the thing. Um, lots of times doing something the right way. Yeah. It's like a marginal increased cost in those cases. Just do it the right way. And this is what makes a, uh, a great engineer or a good engineer better than, uh, a not so great one. It's like, okay, all things being equal. If it's going to take you, you know, roughly close to constant time anyway, might as well do it the right way. Like, so do things well, then the question is, okay, well, am I building a framework as the reusable library? To what degree, uh, what am I anticipating in terms of what's going to need to change in this thing? Uh, you know, along what dimension? And then I think like a business person in some ways, like what's the return on calories, right? So, uh, and you look at, um, energy, the expected value of it's like, okay, here are the five possible things that could happen, uh, try to assign probabilities like, okay, well, if there's a 50% chance that we're going to go down this particular path at some day, like, or one of these five things is going to happen and it costs you 10% more to engineer for that. It's basically, it's something that yields a kind of interest compounding value. Um, as you get closer to the time of, of needing that versus having to take on debt, which is when you under engineer it, you're taking on debt. You're going to have to pay off when you do get to that eventuality where something happens. One thing as a pragmatist, uh, so I would rather under engineer something than over engineer it. If I were going to err on the side of something, and here's the reason is that when you under engineer it, uh, yes, you take on tech debt, uh, but the interest rate is relatively known and payoff is very, very possible, right? Which is, oh, I took a shortcut here as a result of which now this thing that should have taken me a week is now going to take me four weeks. Fine. But if that particular thing that you thought might happen, never actually, you never have that use case transpire or just doesn't, it's like, well, you just save yourself time, right? And that has value because you were able to do other things instead of, uh, kind of slightly over-engineering it away, over-engineering it. But there's no perfect answers in art form in terms of, uh, and yeah, we'll, we'll bring kind of this layers of abstraction back on the code generation conversation, which we'll, uh, I think I have later on, butAlessio [00:22:05]: I was going to ask, we can just jump ahead quickly. Yeah. Like, as you think about vibe coding and all that, how does the. Yeah. Percentage of potential usefulness change when I feel like we over-engineering a lot of times it's like the investment in syntax, it's less about the investment in like arc exacting. Yep. Yeah. How does that change your calculus?Dharmesh [00:22:22]: A couple of things, right? One is, um, so, you know, going back to that kind of ROI or a return on calories, kind of calculus or heuristic you think through, it's like, okay, well, what is it going to cost me to put this layer of abstraction above the code that I'm writing now, uh, in anticipating kind of future needs. If the cost of fixing, uh, or doing under engineering right now. Uh, we'll trend towards zero that says, okay, well, I don't have to get it right right now because even if I get it wrong, I'll run the thing for six hours instead of 60 minutes or whatever. It doesn't really matter, right? Like, because that's going to trend towards zero to be able, the ability to refactor a code. Um, and because we're going to not that long from now, we're going to have, you know, large code bases be able to exist, uh, you know, as, as context, uh, for a code generation or a code refactoring, uh, model. So I think it's going to make it, uh, make the case for under engineering, uh, even stronger. Which is why I take on that cost. You just pay the interest when you get there, it's not, um, just go on with your life vibe coded and, uh, come back when you need to. Yeah.Alessio [00:23:18]: Sometimes I feel like there's no decision-making in some things like, uh, today I built a autosave for like our internal notes platform and I literally just ask them cursor. Can you add autosave? Yeah. I don't know if it's over under engineer. Yep. I just vibe coded it. Yep. And I feel like at some point we're going to get to the point where the models kindDharmesh [00:23:36]: of decide where the right line is, but this is where the, like the, in my mind, the danger is, right? So there's two sides to this. One is the cost of kind of development and coding and things like that stuff that, you know, we talk about. But then like in your example, you know, one of the risks that we have is that because adding a feature, uh, like a save or whatever the feature might be to a product as that price tends towards zero, are we going to be less discriminant about what features we add as a result of making more product products more complicated, which has a negative impact on the user and navigate negative impact on the business. Um, and so that's the thing I worry about if it starts to become too easy, are we going to be. Too promiscuous in our, uh, kind of extension, adding product extensions and things like that. It's like, ah, why not add X, Y, Z or whatever back then it was like, oh, we only have so many engineering hours or story points or however you measure things. Uh, that least kept us in check a little bit. Yeah.Alessio [00:24:22]: And then over engineering, you're like, yeah, it's kind of like you're putting that on yourself. Yeah. Like now it's like the models don't understand that if they add too much complexity, it's going to come back to bite them later. Yep. So they just do whatever they want to do. Yeah. And I'm curious where in the workflow that's going to be, where it's like, Hey, this is like the amount of complexity and over-engineering you can do before you got to ask me if we should actually do it versus like do something else.Dharmesh [00:24:45]: So you know, we've already, let's like, we're leaving this, uh, in the code generation world, this kind of compressed, um, cycle time. Right. It's like, okay, we went from auto-complete, uh, in the GitHub co-pilot to like, oh, finish this particular thing and hit tab to a, oh, I sort of know your file or whatever. I can write out a full function to you to now I can like hold a bunch of the context in my head. Uh, so we can do app generation, which we have now with lovable and bolt and repletage. Yeah. Association and other things. So then the question is, okay, well, where does it naturally go from here? So we're going to generate products. Make sense. We might be able to generate platforms as though I want a platform for ERP that does this, whatever. And that includes the API's includes the product and the UI, and all the things that make for a platform. There's no nothing that says we would stop like, okay, can you generate an entire software company someday? Right. Uh, with the platform and the monetization and the go-to-market and the whatever. And you know, that that's interesting to me in terms of, uh, you know, what, when you take it to almost ludicrous levels. of abstract.swyx [00:25:39]: It's like, okay, turn it to 11. You mentioned vibe coding, so I have to, this is a blog post I haven't written, but I'm kind of exploring it. Is the junior engineer dead?Dharmesh [00:25:49]: I don't think so. I think what will happen is that the junior engineer will be able to, if all they're bringing to the table is the fact that they are a junior engineer, then yes, they're likely dead. But hopefully if they can communicate with carbon-based life forms, they can interact with product, if they're willing to talk to customers, they can take their kind of basic understanding of engineering and how kind of software works. I think that has value. So I have a 14-year-old right now who's taking Python programming class, and some people ask me, it's like, why is he learning coding? And my answer is, is because it's not about the syntax, it's not about the coding. What he's learning is like the fundamental thing of like how things work. And there's value in that. I think there's going to be timeless value in systems thinking and abstractions and what that means. And whether functions manifested as math, which he's going to get exposed to regardless, or there are some core primitives to the universe, I think, that the more you understand them, those are what I would kind of think of as like really large dots in your life that will have a higher gravitational pull and value to them that you'll then be able to. So I want him to collect those dots, and he's not resisting. So it's like, okay, while he's still listening to me, I'm going to have him do things that I think will be useful.swyx [00:26:59]: You know, part of one of the pitches that I evaluated for AI engineer is a term. And the term is that maybe the traditional interview path or career path of software engineer goes away, which is because what's the point of lead code? Yeah. And, you know, it actually matters more that you know how to work with AI and to implement the things that you want. Yep.Dharmesh [00:27:16]: That's one of the like interesting things that's happened with generative AI. You know, you go from machine learning and the models and just that underlying form, which is like true engineering, right? Like the actual, what I call real engineering. I don't think of myself as a real engineer, actually. I'm a developer. But now with generative AI. We call it AI and it's obviously got its roots in machine learning, but it just feels like fundamentally different to me. Like you have the vibe. It's like, okay, well, this is just a whole different approach to software development to so many different things. And so I'm wondering now, it's like an AI engineer is like, if you were like to draw the Venn diagram, it's interesting because the cross between like AI things, generative AI and what the tools are capable of, what the models do, and this whole new kind of body of knowledge that we're still building out, it's still very young, intersected with kind of classic engineering, software engineering. Yeah.swyx [00:28:04]: I just described the overlap as it separates out eventually until it's its own thing, but it's starting out as a software. Yeah.Alessio [00:28:11]: That makes sense. So to close the vibe coding loop, the other big hype now is MCPs. Obviously, I would say Cloud Desktop and Cursor are like the two main drivers of MCP usage. I would say my favorite is the Sentry MCP. I can pull in errors and then you can just put the context in Cursor. How do you think about that abstraction layer? Does it feel... Does it feel almost too magical in a way? Do you think it's like you get enough? Because you don't really see how the server itself is then kind of like repackaging theDharmesh [00:28:41]: information for you? I think MCP as a standard is one of the better things that's happened in the world of AI because a standard needed to exist and absent a standard, there was a set of things that just weren't possible. Now, we can argue whether it's the best possible manifestation of a standard or not. Does it do too much? Does it do too little? I get that, but it's just simple enough to both be useful and unobtrusive. It's understandable and adoptable by mere mortals, right? It's not overly complicated. You know, a reasonable engineer can put a stand up an MCP server relatively easily. The thing that has me excited about it is like, so I'm a big believer in multi-agent systems. And so that's going back to our kind of this idea of an atomic agent. So imagine the MCP server, like obviously it calls tools, but the way I think about it, so I'm working on my current passion project is agent.ai. And we'll talk more about that in a little bit. More about the, I think we should, because I think it's interesting not to promote the project at all, but there's some interesting ideas in there. One of which is around, we're going to need a mechanism for, if agents are going to collaborate and be able to delegate, there's going to need to be some form of discovery and we're going to need some standard way. It's like, okay, well, I just need to know what this thing over here is capable of. We're going to need a registry, which Anthropic's working on. I'm sure others will and have been doing directories of, and there's going to be a standard around that too. How do you build out a directory of MCP servers? I think that's going to unlock so many things just because, and we're already starting to see it. So I think MCP or something like it is going to be the next major unlock because it allows systems that don't know about each other, don't need to, it's that kind of decoupling of like Sentry and whatever tools someone else was building. And it's not just about, you know, Cloud Desktop or things like, even on the client side, I think we're going to see very interesting consumers of MCP, MCP clients versus just the chat body kind of things. Like, you know, Cloud Desktop and Cursor and things like that. But yeah, I'm very excited about MCP in that general direction.swyx [00:30:39]: I think the typical cynical developer take, it's like, we have OpenAPI. Yeah. What's the new thing? I don't know if you have a, do you have a quick MCP versus everything else? Yeah.Dharmesh [00:30:49]: So it's, so I like OpenAPI, right? So just a descriptive thing. It's OpenAPI. OpenAPI. Yes, that's what I meant. So it's basically a self-documenting thing. We can do machine-generated, lots of things from that output. It's a structured definition of an API. I get that, love it. But MCPs sort of are kind of use case specific. They're perfect for exactly what we're trying to use them for around LLMs in terms of discovery. It's like, okay, I don't necessarily need to know kind of all this detail. And so right now we have, we'll talk more about like MCP server implementations, but We will? I think, I don't know. Maybe we won't. At least it's in my head. It's like a back processor. But I do think MCP adds value above OpenAPI. It's, yeah, just because it solves this particular thing. And if we had come to the world, which we have, like, it's like, hey, we already have OpenAPI. It's like, if that were good enough for the universe, the universe would have adopted it already. There's a reason why MCP is taking office because marginally adds something that was missing before and doesn't go too far. And so that's why the kind of rate of adoption, you folks have written about this and talked about it. Yeah, why MCP won. Yeah. And it won because the universe decided that this was useful and maybe it gets supplanted by something else. Yeah. And maybe we discover, oh, maybe OpenAPI was good enough the whole time. I doubt that.swyx [00:32:09]: The meta lesson, this is, I mean, he's an investor in DevTools companies. I work in developer experience at DevRel in DevTools companies. Yep. Everyone wants to own the standard. Yeah. I'm sure you guys have tried to launch your own standards. Actually, it's Houseplant known for a standard, you know, obviously inbound marketing. But is there a standard or protocol that you ever tried to push? No.Dharmesh [00:32:30]: And there's a reason for this. Yeah. Is that? And I don't mean, need to mean, speak for the people of HubSpot, but I personally. You kind of do. I'm not smart enough. That's not the, like, I think I have a. You're smart. Not enough for that. I'm much better off understanding the standards that are out there. And I'm more on the composability side. Let's, like, take the pieces of technology that exist out there, combine them in creative, unique ways. And I like to consume standards. I don't like to, and that's not that I don't like to create them. I just don't think I have the, both the raw wattage or the credibility. It's like, okay, well, who the heck is Dharmesh, and why should we adopt a standard he created?swyx [00:33:07]: Yeah, I mean, there are people who don't monetize standards, like OpenTelemetry is a big standard, and LightStep never capitalized on that.Dharmesh [00:33:15]: So, okay, so if I were to do a standard, there's two things that have been in my head in the past. I was one around, a very, very basic one around, I don't even have the domain, I have a domain for everything, for open marketing. Because the issue we had in HubSpot grew up in the marketing space. There we go. There was no standard around data formats and things like that. It doesn't go anywhere. But the other one, and I did not mean to go here, but I'm going to go here. It's called OpenGraph. I know the term was already taken, but it hasn't been used for like 15 years now for its original purpose. But what I think should exist in the world is right now, our information, all of us, nodes are in the social graph at Meta or the professional graph at LinkedIn. Both of which are actually relatively closed in actually very annoying ways. Like very, very closed, right? Especially LinkedIn. Especially LinkedIn. I personally believe that if it's my data, and if I would get utility out of it being open, I should be able to make my data open or publish it in whatever forms that I choose, as long as I have control over it as opt-in. So the idea is around OpenGraph that says, here's a standard, here's a way to publish it. I should be able to go to OpenGraph.org slash Dharmesh dot JSON and get it back. And it's like, here's your stuff, right? And I can choose along the way and people can write to it and I can prove. And there can be an entire system. And if I were to do that, I would do it as a... Like a public benefit, non-profit-y kind of thing, as this is a contribution to society. I wouldn't try to commercialize that. Have you looked at AdProto? What's that? AdProto.swyx [00:34:43]: It's the protocol behind Blue Sky. Okay. My good friend, Dan Abramov, who was the face of React for many, many years, now works there. And he actually did a talk that I can send you, which basically kind of tries to articulate what you just said. But he does, he loves doing these like really great analogies, which I think you'll like. Like, you know, a lot of our data is behind a handle, behind a domain. Yep. So he's like, all right, what if we flip that? What if it was like our handle and then the domain? Yep. So, and that's really like your data should belong to you. Yep. And I should not have to wait 30 days for my Twitter data to export. Yep.Dharmesh [00:35:19]: you should be able to at least be able to automate it or do like, yes, I should be able to plug it into an agentic thing. Yeah. Yes. I think we're... Because so much of our data is... Locked up. I think the trick here isn't that standard. It is getting the normies to care.swyx [00:35:37]: Yeah. Because normies don't care.Dharmesh [00:35:38]: That's true. But building on that, normies don't care. So, you know, privacy is a really hot topic and an easy word to use, but it's not a binary thing. Like there are use cases where, and we make these choices all the time, that I will trade, not all privacy, but I will trade some privacy for some productivity gain or some benefit to me that says, oh, I don't care about that particular data being online if it gives me this in return, or I don't mind sharing this information with this company.Alessio [00:36:02]: If I'm getting, you know, this in return, but that sort of should be my option. I think now with computer use, you can actually automate some of the exports. Yes. Like something we've been doing internally is like everybody exports their LinkedIn connections. Yep. And then internally, we kind of merge them together to see how we can connect our companies to customers or things like that.Dharmesh [00:36:21]: And not to pick on LinkedIn, but since we're talking about it, but they feel strongly enough on the, you know, do not take LinkedIn data that they will block even browser use kind of things or whatever. They go to great, great lengths, even to see patterns of usage. And it says, oh, there's no way you could have, you know, gotten that particular thing or whatever without, and it's, so it's, there's...swyx [00:36:42]: Wasn't there a Supreme Court case that they lost? Yeah.Dharmesh [00:36:45]: So the one they lost was around someone that was scraping public data that was on the public internet. And that particular company had not signed any terms of service or whatever. It's like, oh, I'm just taking data that's on, there was no, and so that's why they won. But now, you know, the question is around, can LinkedIn... I think they can. Like, when you use, as a user, you use LinkedIn, you are signing up for their terms of service. And if they say, well, this kind of use of your LinkedIn account that violates our terms of service, they can shut your account down, right? They can. And they, yeah, so, you know, we don't need to make this a discussion. By the way, I love the company, don't get me wrong. I'm an avid user of the product. You know, I've got... Yeah, I mean, you've got over a million followers on LinkedIn, I think. Yeah, I do. And I've known people there for a long, long time, right? And I have lots of respect. And I understand even where the mindset originally came from of this kind of members-first approach to, you know, a privacy-first. I sort of get that. But sometimes you sort of have to wonder, it's like, okay, well, that was 15, 20 years ago. There's likely some controlled ways to expose some data on some member's behalf and not just completely be a binary. It's like, no, thou shalt not have the data.swyx [00:37:54]: Well, just pay for sales navigator.Alessio [00:37:57]: Before we move to the next layer of instruction, anything else on MCP you mentioned? Let's move back and then I'll tie it back to MCPs.Dharmesh [00:38:05]: So I think the... Open this with agent. Okay, so I'll start with... Here's my kind of running thesis, is that as AI and agents evolve, which they're doing very, very quickly, we're going to look at them more and more. I don't like to anthropomorphize. We'll talk about why this is not that. Less as just like raw tools and more like teammates. They'll still be software. They should self-disclose as being software. I'm totally cool with that. But I think what's going to happen is that in the same way you might collaborate with a team member on Slack or Teams or whatever you use, you can imagine a series of agents that do specific things just like a team member might do, that you can delegate things to. You can collaborate. You can say, hey, can you take a look at this? Can you proofread that? Can you try this? You can... Whatever it happens to be. So I think it is... I will go so far as to say it's inevitable that we're going to have hybrid teams someday. And what I mean by hybrid teams... So back in the day, hybrid teams were, oh, well, you have some full-time employees and some contractors. Then it was like hybrid teams are some people that are in the office and some that are remote. That's the kind of form of hybrid. The next form of hybrid is like the carbon-based life forms and agents and AI and some form of software. So let's say we temporarily stipulate that I'm right about that over some time horizon that eventually we're going to have these kind of digitally hybrid teams. So if that's true, then the question you sort of ask yourself is that then what needs to exist in order for us to get the full value of that new model? It's like, okay, well... You sort of need to... It's like, okay, well, how do I... If I'm building a digital team, like, how do I... Just in the same way, if I'm interviewing for an engineer or a designer or a PM, whatever, it's like, well, that's why we have professional networks, right? It's like, oh, they have a presence on likely LinkedIn. I can go through that semi-structured, structured form, and I can see the experience of whatever, you know, self-disclosed. But, okay, well, agents are going to need that someday. And so I'm like, okay, well, this seems like a thread that's worth pulling on. That says, okay. So I... So agent.ai is out there. And it's LinkedIn for agents. It's LinkedIn for agents. It's a professional network for agents. And the more I pull on that thread, it's like, okay, well, if that's true, like, what happens, right? It's like, oh, well, they have a profile just like anyone else, just like a human would. It's going to be a graph underneath, just like a professional network would be. It's just that... And you can have its, you know, connections and follows, and agents should be able to post. That's maybe how they do release notes. Like, oh, I have this new version. Whatever they decide to post, it should just be able to... Behave as a node on the network of a professional network. As it turns out, the more I think about that and pull on that thread, the more and more things, like, start to make sense to me. So it may be more than just a pure professional network. So my original thought was, okay, well, it's a professional network and agents as they exist out there, which I think there's going to be more and more of, will kind of exist on this network and have the profile. But then, and this is always dangerous, I'm like, okay, I want to see a world where thousands of agents are out there in order for the... Because those digital employees, the digital workers don't exist yet in any meaningful way. And so then I'm like, oh, can I make that easier for, like... And so I have, as one does, it's like, oh, I'll build a low-code platform for building agents. How hard could that be, right? Like, very hard, as it turns out. But it's been fun. So now, agent.ai has 1.3 million users. 3,000 people have actually, you know, built some variation of an agent, sometimes just for their own personal productivity. About 1,000 of which have been published. And the reason this comes back to MCP for me, so imagine that and other networks, since I know agent.ai. So right now, we have an MCP server for agent.ai that exposes all the internally built agents that we have that do, like, super useful things. Like, you know, I have access to a Twitter API that I can subsidize the cost. And I can say, you know, if you're looking to build something for social media, these kinds of things, with a single API key, and it's all completely free right now, I'm funding it. That's a useful way for it to work. And then we have a developer to say, oh, I have this idea. I don't have to worry about open AI. I don't have to worry about, now, you know, this particular model is better. It has access to all the models with one key. And we proxy it kind of behind the scenes. And then expose it. So then we get this kind of community effect, right? That says, oh, well, someone else may have built an agent to do X. Like, I have an agent right now that I built for myself to do domain valuation for website domains because I'm obsessed with domains, right? And, like, there's no efficient market for domains. There's no Zillow for domains right now that tells you, oh, here are what houses in your neighborhood sold for. It's like, well, why doesn't that exist? We should be able to solve that problem. And, yes, you're still guessing. Fine. There should be some simple heuristic. So I built that. It's like, okay, well, let me go look for past transactions. You say, okay, I'm going to type in agent.ai, agent.com, whatever domain. What's it actually worth? I'm looking at buying it. It can go and say, oh, which is what it does. It's like, I'm going to go look at are there any published domain transactions recently that are similar, either use the same word, same top-level domain, whatever it is. And it comes back with an approximate value, and it comes back with its kind of rationale for why it picked the value and comparable transactions. Oh, by the way, this domain sold for published. Okay. So that agent now, let's say, existed on the web, on agent.ai. Then imagine someone else says, oh, you know, I want to build a brand-building agent for startups and entrepreneurs to come up with names for their startup. Like a common problem, every startup is like, ah, I don't know what to call it. And so they type in five random words that kind of define whatever their startup is. And you can do all manner of things, one of which is like, oh, well, I need to find the domain for it. What are possible choices? Now it's like, okay, well, it would be nice to know if there's an aftermarket price for it, if it's listed for sale. Awesome. Then imagine calling this valuation agent. It's like, okay, well, I want to find where the arbitrage is, where the agent valuation tool says this thing is worth $25,000. It's listed on GoDaddy for $5,000. It's close enough. Let's go do that. Right? And that's a kind of composition use case that in my future state. Thousands of agents on the network, all discoverable through something like MCP. And then you as a developer of agents have access to all these kind of Lego building blocks based on what you're trying to solve. Then you blend in orchestration, which is getting better and better with the reasoning models now. Just describe the problem that you have. Now, the next layer that we're all contending with is that how many tools can you actually give an LLM before the LLM breaks? That number used to be like 15 or 20 before you kind of started to vary dramatically. And so that's the thing I'm thinking about now. It's like, okay, if I want to... If I want to expose 1,000 of these agents to a given LLM, obviously I can't give it all 1,000. Is there some intermediate layer that says, based on your prompt, I'm going to make a best guess at which agents might be able to be helpful for this particular thing? Yeah.Alessio [00:44:37]: Yeah, like RAG for tools. Yep. I did build the Latent Space Researcher on agent.ai. Okay. Nice. Yeah, that seems like, you know, then there's going to be a Latent Space Scheduler. And then once I schedule a research, you know, and you build all of these things. By the way, my apologies for the user experience. You realize I'm an engineer. It's pretty good.swyx [00:44:56]: I think it's a normie-friendly thing. Yeah. That's your magic. HubSpot does the same thing.Alessio [00:45:01]: Yeah, just to like quickly run through it. You can basically create all these different steps. And these steps are like, you know, static versus like variable-driven things. How did you decide between this kind of like low-code-ish versus doing, you know, low-code with code backend versus like not exposing that at all? Any fun design decisions? Yeah. And this is, I think...Dharmesh [00:45:22]: I think lots of people are likely sitting in exactly my position right now, coming through the choosing between deterministic. Like if you're like in a business or building, you know, some sort of agentic thing, do you decide to do a deterministic thing? Or do you go non-deterministic and just let the alum handle it, right, with the reasoning models? The original idea and the reason I took the low-code stepwise, a very deterministic approach. A, the reasoning models did not exist at that time. That's thing number one. Thing number two is if you can get... If you know in your head... If you know in your head what the actual steps are to accomplish whatever goal, why would you leave that to chance? There's no upside. There's literally no upside. Just tell me, like, what steps do you need executed? So right now what I'm playing with... So one thing we haven't talked about yet, and people don't talk about UI and agents. Right now, the primary interaction model... Or they don't talk enough about it. I know some people have. But it's like, okay, so we're used to the chatbot back and forth. Fine. I get that. But I think we're going to move to a blend of... Some of those things are going to be synchronous as they are now. But some are going to be... Some are going to be async. It's just going to put it in a queue, just like... And this goes back to my... Man, I talk fast. But I have this... I only have one other speed. It's even faster. So imagine it's like if you're working... So back to my, oh, we're going to have these hybrid digital teams. Like, you would not go to a co-worker and say, I'm going to ask you to do this thing, and then sit there and wait for them to go do it. Like, that's not how the world works. So it's nice to be able to just, like, hand something off to someone. It's like, okay, well, maybe I expect a response in an hour or a day or something like that.Dharmesh [00:46:52]: In terms of when things need to happen. So the UI around agents. So if you look at the output of agent.ai agents right now, they are the simplest possible manifestation of a UI, right? That says, oh, we have inputs of, like, four different types. Like, we've got a dropdown, we've got multi-select, all the things. It's like back in HTML, the original HTML 1.0 days, right? Like, you're the smallest possible set of primitives for a UI. And it just says, okay, because we need to collect some information from the user, and then we go do steps and do things. And generate some output in HTML or markup are the two primary examples. So the thing I've been asking myself, if I keep going down that path. So people ask me, I get requests all the time. It's like, oh, can you make the UI sort of boring? I need to be able to do this, right? And if I keep pulling on that, it's like, okay, well, now I've built an entire UI builder thing. Where does this end? And so I think the right answer, and this is what I'm going to be backcoding once I get done here, is around injecting a code generation UI generation into, the agent.ai flow, right? As a builder, you're like, okay, I'm going to describe the thing that I want, much like you would do in a vibe coding world. But instead of generating the entire app, it's going to generate the UI that exists at some point in either that deterministic flow or something like that. It says, oh, here's the thing I'm trying to do. Go generate the UI for me. And I can go through some iterations. And what I think of it as a, so it's like, I'm going to generate the code, generate the code, tweak it, go through this kind of prompt style, like we do with vibe coding now. And at some point, I'm going to be happy with it. And I'm going to hit save. And that's going to become the action in that particular step. It's like a caching of the generated code that I can then, like incur any inference time costs. It's just the actual code at that point.Alessio [00:48:29]: Yeah, I invested in a company called E2B, which does code sandbox. And they powered the LM arena web arena. So it's basically the, just like you do LMS, like text to text, they do the same for like UI generation. So if you're asking a model, how do you do it? But yeah, I think that's kind of where.Dharmesh [00:48:45]: That's the thing I'm really fascinated by. So the early LLM, you know, we're understandably, but laughably bad at simple arithmetic, right? That's the thing like my wife, Normies would ask us, like, you call this AI, like it can't, my son would be like, it's just stupid. It can't even do like simple arithmetic. And then like we've discovered over time that, and there's a reason for this, right? It's like, it's a large, there's, you know, the word language is in there for a reason in terms of what it's been trained on. It's not meant to do math, but now it's like, okay, well, the fact that it has access to a Python interpreter that I can actually call at runtime, that solves an entire body of problems that it wasn't trained to do. And it's basically a form of delegation. And so the thought that's kind of rattling around in my head is that that's great. So it's, it's like took the arithmetic problem and took it first. Now, like anything that's solvable through a relatively concrete Python program, it's able to do a bunch of things that I couldn't do before. Can we get to the same place with UI? I don't know what the future of UI looks like in a agentic AI world, but maybe let the LLM handle it, but not in the classic sense. Maybe it generates it on the fly, or maybe we go through some iterations and hit cache or something like that. So it's a little bit more predictable. Uh, I don't know, but yeah.Alessio [00:49:48]: And especially when is the human supposed to intervene? So, especially if you're composing them, most of them should not have a UI because then they're just web hooking to somewhere else. I just want to touch back. I don't know if you have more comments on this.swyx [00:50:01]: I was just going to ask when you, you said you got, you're going to go back to code. What

Brett Taylor from Bleacher Nation joins Sean to preview the upcoming Cubs season. Is the lineup deeper? Will Shōta give up more homers? Dansby Swanson healthy and ready to thrive? Also a warning not to overreact to the first month of the year good or bad.

Sammy Sosa was the main headliner, but he wasn't the only big name at the team's annual winter event. For a full recap, Brett Taylor of Bleacher Nation joins Sahadev Sharma and Patrick Mooney, The Athletic writers on the Cubs beat. Together, they explain Sosa's return to Chicago and what the Cubs are trying to accomplish in the final innings of the offseason. Where will the Cubs pivot after missing out on Tanner Scott? Could an Alex Bregman deal fall into their laps? And what is chairman Tom Ricketts planning to do with payroll and the front office? Go to Hungryroot.com/FT and use code FT to get 40% off your first box and a free item of your choice for life!

In this candid and introspective episode, we sit down with Brett Taylor, founder of My Dog Zorro, to explore the personal and professional challenges of building a career in game development. Brett opens up about his journey, sharing insights from his previous roles, the lessons he's learned as a young founder, and how he balances work and life while aiming high and accepting the possibility of failure. Join us as Brett discusses what truly matters to him, the recurring mistakes he strives to overcome, and the ways he's working on improving himself and his process. We'll also touch on his philosophy of "done is better than perfect," the importance of celebrating small wins, and building self-belief. Plus, Brett shares his favorite books that inspire his journey in both life and game development. Connect with Brett Taylor: Twitter: https://x.com/batzerk LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brett-taylor-13268916/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bretttaylor1/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/batzerk/ #IndieGameBusiness #GameDevelopment #WorkLifeBalance #MyDogZorro #SelfImprovement #GameIndustry #PersonalGrowth #BelievingInYourself #Entrepreneurship #BrettTaylor --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/indiegamebusiness/support

Please note this episode of Type 1 on 1 contains honest discussions around addiction, mental health and diabetes complications. ‘I think type 1 diabetes is a selfish disease up until you realise that the resonant effect of diabetes just doesn't finish with you. I always used to say it's about me, it's my disease, but my wife was the driving force for me to realise my potential and it's all to honour what she saw in me when I didn't see it. I wouldn't be here without her.' Brett Taylor was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in the 80s, aged just four years old. His first experiences were incredibly traumatic, and he felt the heavy weight of shame around his condition for decades. Alongside the rollercoaster of type 1 diabetes in an age without mass information at our fingertips, online communities or diabetes technology, Brett has faced addiction, mental health challenges and diabetes-related sight loss.Today Brett calls himself The Conscious Diabetic, focusing on taking what he describes as ‘conscious and active control' of his life one day at a time, with the help of Crossfit and his wife Vicky by his side.CONNECT WITH BRETT:Follow The Conscious Diabetic on Instagram. Follow The Conscious Diabetic pidcast on YouTube.JOIN THE TYPE 1 ON 1 COMMUNITYWe've got an Instagram account! Come and say hi @studiotype1on1.SPONSOR MESSAGE:Thanks to my episode sponsors Dexcom.Pioneer and leader in Real-Time continuous glucose monitors, Dexcom's goal is to simplify and improve diabetes management for every possible person with diabetes.They have a choice of systems, so you can find the right one for your lifestyle at https://www.dexcom.com/

This week is a conversation recorded at Notch Brewing, during the Forever Lager Festival. In a moment you'll hear from the brewers Wild East Brewing, Working Draft, and Dovetail, a bunch of cool brewers doing cool things. For more Drink Beer, Think Beer check out All About Beer.Host: John HollGuests: Jenny Pfafflin of Dovetail Brewery, Clinton Lohman of Working Draft Beer Co., and Brett Taylor of Wild East Brewing.Sponsors: All About BeerTags: Lager, Brewing, Rice, Hazy IPA, FestivalPhoto by Andy Crouch

In the final hour, Mark Grote was joined by Brett Taylor of Bleacher Nation to discuss the Cubs' ongoing rough stretch and what they have to do to get back on track. Later, Grote discussed the bizarre ending in the White Sox's loss to the Tigers on Friday and how baseball legend Barry Bonds starred in the pregame show of the MLB at Rickwood Field game Thursday.

Is Jed Hoyer to blame for the Cubs miserable 2024 season? Did he make some bad moves to lead this organization to where it stands today? I'm going to examine every significant move he made, and grade his overall performance since taking over for Theo.Watch my conversation with Brett Taylor about the state of the Cubs organization: https://youtu.be/g7N-vdq5pLgGet a 15% discount to Obvious Shirts. Click on the link and use code "thesetupman15": obviousshirts.pxf.io/SetupManGo to www.setupman.net and subscribe to our mailing list to become a part of Setup Man Nation and so you never miss a show! We also do free giveaways for those who are on our list!Check us out on social media:Instagram: https://bit.ly/setupmaninstaTwitter: https://bit.ly/setupmantwitter

The Cubs have played a miserable 5+ week stretch. Should Tom Ricketts fire Jed Hoyer and company? Brett Taylor from Bleacher Nation joins me to discuss.How to fix the 2024 Cubs. Watch: https://youtu.be/T7SpxjA1MqkGet a 15% discount to Obvious Shirts. Click on the link and use code "thesetupman15": obviousshirts.pxf.io/SetupManGo to www.setupman.net and subscribe to our mailing list to become a part of Setup Man Nation and so you never miss a show! We also do free giveaways for those who are on our list!Check us out on social media:Instagram: https://bit.ly/setupmaninstaTwitter: https://bit.ly/setupmantwitter

On this podcast of Welcome Home Radio, host Don Scordino spoke with special guests Chris Jolly, 2024 President of the Tulare Association of REALTORS® and Brett Taylor, Association Executive of the Tulare Association of REALTORS® on Saturday's show.

In the second hour, Anthony Herron was joined by Brett Taylor of Bleacher Nation to discuss the Cubs going 2-5 on their just-completed homestand, during which their bats were ice cold. After that, Herron further discussed the Cubs' woes and heard manager Craig Counsell's comments on their struggles. Later, Herron listened and reacted to Bears coach Matt Eberflus explain the ways that he has seen rookie quarterback Caleb Williams make progress during OTAs.

Today's episode is an ode to recovery after loss, love, generosity and how human beings have the power to completely reemerge from their darkness and the worst event a parent can experience. Beth brings you Jeff Johnston (livingundeterred.com) survivor, author of This One's For You, and creator of Brighton an app to support youth's mental health, and Brett Taylor, a man dedicated to the purpose of helping others, who is an Intake and Group Specialist at a rehab center called Ripple Ranch and comes to us with his own victories over addiction and dependency. #wellness #healthylifestyle #addictionrecovery #brainhealth #yogapractice   Disclaimer: The content of this podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be considered a substitute for medical treatment, or advice, and shall not make any health or medical-related decision based in whole or in part on anything contained in the site. The opinions expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Beth Shaw or YogaFit.

It's the Second Friday in Easter in the Church Calendar. April 12, 2024. Our general order and lectionary come from the Book of Common Prayer Daily Office. Welcome (00:00) Song: Hear You (Luke Laird, Sandra Mccracken, Brett Taylor) (00:48) Prayer of Confession (05:05) Reading: Psalm 16 (06:32) Reading: Psalm 17 (07:55) Gloria Patri (09:56) Reading: John 16:1- 15 (10:53) Apostles' Creed (13:03) The Lord's Prayer (13:57) Collect of the Day (14:29) Time of Prompted Prayer (15:07) Benediction (18:31) Playlist of songs from Morning Prayer. If you have a prayer request please ⁠submit it here⁠. Sign up ⁠here⁠ for the email list. Morning Prayer and Worship is a production of Steady Stream Ministries, a 501(c)(3) non profit organization. Thank you for your support. ⁠You can go here to find out more⁠. ⁠Join our Facebook group here!⁠ Art: Rianna Turner. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/prayerandworship/message

Welcome Back! On Episode 3 of BBTI: Sean and I discuss players that we have taken notice of in Spring (00:01:46) We dance into the Cubs interesting Bench issue (00.25:00) Special Guest! First ever guest for BBTI! We are joined by Brett Taylor of BleacherNation! (00:34:00)

Brett Taylor, from Bleacher Nation, joins Jeremy & Pat this week. We talk Cubs Spring Training. Happ is injured and we discuss outfield options. We speculate on the rotation, the infield, and more. We talk about all the things to enjoy as we get ready for the season.

We're continuing Wine Week on Bri Books! I started the week with episodes about how to select the perfect wine and my wine-shopping hacks, and now we're delving deep into the specific wines and regions. My love for orange wine led me to an NYC wine shop called Orange Glou in 2019, shortly after the shop opened. It's a store dedicated 100% to orange wine! This past November, Orange Glou hosted their second-ever orange wine fair, and it was a roaring success. Hosted at the Wythe Hotel in Williamsburg, Orange Glou's founders Doreen Winkler and Jack Won really knocked it out of the park and managed to secure nearly 5 dozen winemakers and importers. It was a veritable who's who of the orange wine world.  A few facts about orange wine: Orange wine is a type of skin contact wine, made from white grapes that macerate on the skin. It's not wine made from citrus oranges!  Orange wine was invented in the Republic of Georgia thousands of years ago and was reintroduced to the rest of the world 40 years ago by 2 Italians, Gravner and Radikon, who wanted to explore this winemaking style. Today there are 1,000+ wine producers and wineries that make orange wine along with other styles they're producing.  I find orange wine to be fascinating because of the geographical differences in the wines. From South Australia to South Africa, Austria to Alsace, Georgia to Germany, the varieties of white grapes put on display in orange wine are divine.   In this episode, I'm sharing a few of my favorite orange wine importers and orange wines.  5:00: D-I Wine (Alsace): D-I Wine is a natural wine import and distribution powerhouse. I met the founder Brett Taylor (for the second year in a row!), and spent too long gushing over his selection. D-I wine takes a truly DIY approach to natural wine. Their portfolio is stocked with natural and low-intervention wines. They're all about deep partnership with producers who understand and respect tradition. The true gem on the D-I Wine team is George Kalligeros, a wine Somm with a diverse background in the wine industry. He has experience as a portfolio manager, sommelier, and is knowledgable about wine-making. He's currently serving as the portfolio manager of D-I Wine, and in this role, he curates and manages the wine selection for the company, focusing on French natural wines. His expertise expands to Paris, the Rhone, and beyond. One of my favorite selections  from D-I Wine is Domaine Brand's Tout Terriblement wine from Alsace, France. A 100% Gewurztraminer, this full-bodied wine has a fresh, yellow and orange-fruit flavor with a hint of sweet lychee.  8:25: Donkey and Goat Winery (California): I'll admit it: the name of this winery pulled me right away. But this winemaker/ proprietor/ hose cleaner Jared Brandt and his tasty drinks charmed me. Based in Berkeley, CA, ared and his co-founder Tracey Rogers founded Donkey and Goat Winery in 2004 in San Francisco after studying the art of crafting natural wines in the Rhone Valley. I tasted the Elen Ridge Vineyard Stone Crusher orange wine made from the Roussanne varietal. It was rich, well structured and the tannins revealed a fresh finish. Donkey and Goat also have a testing room in Berkeley, so I'd say they're probably one of the coolest natural wine operations in the Bay.  10:10: 8000 Vintage Selections (Georgia): The 8000 Vintage Selections table was the party epicenter of the orange wine fair. The team from 8000 Vintage Selections had over a half dozen producers at the ready, with at least a dozen or so bottles to taste from. The founder and CEO Shalva Tevdoradze was an absolute beast. The 8000 Vintage Selections collection is almost exclusively Georgian wines. Winemaking in Georgia dates back at least 8,000 years. Early Georgians made wine at least 6,000 BC when they discovered that grape juice could be turned into wine after being buried in qvevris underground. Kveri is an egg-shaped earthenware vessel made for making, aging and storing wine. It's the oldest way of making wine. This experience completely cemented in me the need to visit Georgia to explore viticulture for myself. Two Georgian winemakers caught my attention: Nikalas Marani and Vellino Wines.  Nikalas Marani: We tasted the Nikalas Marani Rkatsiteli 2020 vintage from a small-scale winemaker with over 100 years of family legacy. Winemaker Zurab Mgvdliashvili's grandfather was a small-scale wine cultivator in the 1920s, during the peak of the Soviet Union. When Zurab Mgvdliashvili took over the property in 2005, he restored everything, and as a tribute to his grandfather kept the old name Nikala's Marani. I'd describe the Nikalas Marani Rkatsiteli 2020 vintage as tropical and balanced with pronounced tannins and fruity aromas of peach, forest honey, and yellow dried fruit.  Vellino Wines: Vellino was founded in 2015 to continue a family business of winemaking. The 26-year-old winemaker makes wines from Kakhetian grape varieties, utilizing knowledge passed down by family and fellow winemakers. I tasted the Kisi 2020 vintage, and the Rkatsiteli 2020 vintage. Beka Jimsheladze did an excellent job with this wine. I can imagine this amber colored wine being perfect with fish, veggies, chicken and cheeses, thanks to its gentle, refreshing notes of citrus. The best part: Vellino Wines in Georgia offers tours! Wines Mentioned: Orange Glou orange wine shop in NYC  D-I Wine (Alsace), Domaine Brand's Tout Terriblement wine  Donkey and Goat Winery (California), Elen Ridge Vineyard Stone Crusher orange wine  8000 Vintage Selections (Georgia), Nikalas Marani Rkatsiteli 2020 and Vellino Wines Kisi 2020 If you're new to the show (and loving it!), leave a review of Bri Books on Apple Podcasts, and listen to Bri Books on Apple Podcasts, Spotify! Please tell me what you're drinking to by using #bribooks on Instagram and subscribe to the Bri Books newsletter at bribookspod.com/newsletter. 

In this riveting episode of the Adams Archive, host Austin Adams takes you on an exploratory journey through a series of compelling and thought-provoking topics. From the storm brewing on TikTok over Osama Bin Laden's controversial 2002 letter to America, Austin doesn't shy away from delving into the complex narratives that are often avoided. He challenges the mainstream outrage and seeks to understand the underlying truths in these contentious dialogues. Following this, the episode shifts to an examination of the recent Israel-Hamas ceasefire. Austin will dissect the nuances of this agreement and its potential longevity, providing insights into the geopolitical implications. The conversation then takes a technological turn, delving into Michigan's capital gun ban enforcement through AI. Austin scrutinizes ZeroEyes' AI technology, raising critical questions about its impact on Second Amendment rights and the future of surveillance. The episode also covers the U.S. Army's reversal of its COVID-19 vaccine mandate decision. Hear the Army's call for the return of the troops who left over the mandate and Austin's take on this dramatic policy shift. Then, gear up for a deep dive into the OpenAI saga, a whirlwind of decisions and employee backlashes that could potentially reshape the AI industry's future. This segment promises to unravel one of the most astonishing episodes in modern business history. Finally, Austin introduces you to the newly elected Libertarian President of Argentina, a figure attracting global attention for his unorthodox approach and bold declarations against the deep state and government overspending. With a fresh crew cut and his signature engaging style, Austin is all set to guide you through these fascinating topics. Don't forget to hit subscribe, leave a five-star review, and get ready for an episode packed with insights, analyses, and a touch of the unexpected.   All the links: https://linktr.ee/theaustinjadams Substack: https://austinadams.substack.com   ----more---- Full Transcription    Adam's Archive.  Hello, you beautiful people and welcome to the Adam's Archive. My name is Austin Adams and thank you so much for listening today. On today's episode, we are going to be jumping into first, what happened recently with Tick tock and all these conservative influencers calling out all you young tick tockers out there for talking about even considering speaking about this document that must not be named. But I am me and I will name it and we will read it. And that is Osama bin Laden's letter. From 2002, a letter to America. Now there was a ton of controversy that came out on tick talk about this, a ton of conservative channels that are crying out saying, you should, you should be ashamed of yourself for even considering agreeing with any of his points. And I understand the sentiment, right? We have, um, some wounds from that man as a great country, however.  I think that kind of takes away from the point, right? If you're afraid to look at something in the eye,  uh, then maybe that's more of a reason to address it head on. So we will read that together. And I believe personally, there is actually some valid points and hold your thoughts until I read it. Cause I think. You might agree to. Alright. Once we walk through that, we are going to then move on into what has been called a agreement on a ceasefire between Israel and Temas. We'll see how long that, uh, lasts for and what the actual, uh, the actual breakdown of the deal was. But we'll go into that together. After that, we will go into the Michigan capital enforcing its gun ban with artificial intelligence. We'll actually look at the name of this company, which is zero I, and we will watch some of their advertisements. We will see what this technology actually does and talk about what the implications of that could be on your second amendment rights in the future where big brother knows exactly who's carrying and when  following up on that. We will go into. The situation with the U S army who has asked their troops who left because of the COVID mandate. Come back, come back. We need you. Oh, that's silly. That's the only thing we did where we kicked you out because we wanted to mandate a, a experimental drug on your body and then not pay for the effects of it later. Oh, that thing. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Don't worry about that. Um, just, just come back, come back. So we'll actually read that letter together from the army that they issued. And then we'll talk all about the open AI drama that has been going down. If you haven't heard about this, it is crazy. This shit's definitely going to be a documentary in like 10 years from now, five years from now, who knows, three years from now, if AI can put it together fast enough. Um, this was one of the wildest sagas that you've seen in modern business history. Okay, so we will talk about that. We'll walk through what the situation is. I am pretty... Astounded by the way that this went down. They essentially could have just dismantled a  multi billion dollar, probably the single most powerful entity in the prospect of the future of humanity as standing today.  over a weekend and over a split second decision, which was not very well thought through, which ended in 200 or some, sorry, 95 percent of their employees threatening to leave and go to a different company. So we will actually read that letter today together too. Wow. We're reading a lot of letters. I didn't realize that.  And then, uh, last but not least, we will talk about  the, uh, president. of  the Libertarian President  of Argentina, um, that was recently elected and he has some wild moments, but I also have some, some agreements with him. And I, they're calling him this far, right? Crazy guy, because he's talking about the deep state and saying he wants to dismantle the over bloated government. And, uh, so lots of interesting stuff. And then he went through. The parade with a chainsaw  saying he's going to cut down government spending so wild dude, but I'm all for it. Alright guys, that's what I got. Go ahead and hit that subscribe button. Leave a five star review. If you are watching this and not just listening, you'll notice that  Cut some hair on top of my head. So, uh, essentially, uh, got, uh, a, uh, crew cut now. So, you know, if you see me on Instagram, I might look a little bit different than, than you saw me before. All right. That's what I got for you guys. Subscribe, leave a five star review and  yeah, let's jump into it.  The Adams archive.  All right, all right, the very first topic that we are going to discuss today was the recent document from Osama bin Laden, which went viral. On TikTok, now there was over 9 million views mentioned, but TikTok tried to diminish it in a recent, uh, recent note. I believe it was on Twitter even, or X, now as the kids call it. Uh, but,  I digress. Let's jump into it. This is a letter that was written by Osama Bin Laden in 2002, which was a letter to America. Now in the way he, that he breaks down this letter, it's, it's hard to argue with some of the...  Thoughts that he, the way that he portrays the United States. And so, we'll read that full letter together. But first, let's read this, which breaks down how this all went down and why this even came to fruition. Because I never read this document until I heard about this. And the way that I heard about it was all these conservative influencers that were coming out and saying, How dare you, these young kids coming out here siding with the terrorists. How dare you read this letter. How dare you say that you agree with any of his points. That he had valid opinions. How dare you? And we go back to this, this idea of,  of  the good guy and the bad guy,  right? And this has been a theme more recently in the Israel and Palestine and Hamas conflict for me, which has been reconciling with the fact that We've almost always been told, whether it be through Hollywood, whether it be through music, whether it be through plays and books and everything that we've ever been told is that there's a good guy and that there's a bad guy. And that philosophy, as I've come to know it now, today, is generally flawed.  And the reason that I say that is it's... It's far more complicated than we're giving it credit, right? There's generally not just a good guy and not just a bad guy, right? There's absolutely people who do acts of malevolence and horrific, atrocious acts in the name of being a terrible person and just inflicting pain on people. That is true. That is factual. But majority of the time that you see these national and world stage conflicts,  it's generally not. The case,  most of the time, what you'll find is both sides think that they're the good guy, right? And not just both sides is this radical extreme side of things on the far, far terrorist organizations. It's not just them. It's the people behind them, the general population, they have some.  with these people that there's a good guy and there's a bad guy. And, and so I think the only way that we reconcile and we start to  actually pull the curtains behind the military industrial complex is by,  by recognizing that. It's not that simple.  There's not generally a good guy and a bad guy. This isn't, and even when you look at the old western, you know, westerns, where they try to portray it, you know, there's cowboys and there's Indians, and those are the savages, and we're the upstanding. You know, uh, enforcers of the law, right? It's again, it's just generally not that simple. And you, and as you start to take this framework and start to untangle the programming that you've been given, which is that there's again, a  good guy and a bad guy, as you start to untangle that, you can almost go back through. Almost any conflict in history, I say almost, almost for a reason, but you can almost go back and look at any framework, any, any conflict, any large scale war, any,  and you start to pull on some of the threads, like, okay,  there's a, there's an idea in debate and then, uh,  I guess, I don't know what, what to classify it as, but there's the idea of steel manning within an argument which is essentially if I was taking the, the opposing individual or opposing forces position and trying to be as generous as possible and trying to make the most compelling argument for it. Their side of the argument for them being the good guy and me being the bad guy in this instance How would I do? So how would I?  Take critical thinking and how would I?  Critique my own position and and if you can do that right if you can actually steel man the argument and and look and at the the conflict or the Situation or the debate point that you're arguing and say, okay  if I had to take their position  If I had to steel man the case that X, Y, and Z was the good guy, and now I'm the bad guy, how would I do that? And if you take that  into the equation, you start to see that, okay, maybe there are some compelling opinions on maybe why we shouldn't be in this conflict to begin with,  right? And  maybe it's a sign of peace rather than a return of fire in some instances. Now again, that's not to say there's not... There's not reasons for war at certain points and for certain reasons and if we are gonna say that you know in the instance of Israel vs. Palestine, I would much rather them come out and just say hey We're taking our land back almost the same way, you know that they tried to frame that as what it was for Russia Right Russia not wanting Ukraine and NATO to infringe on their territory or at least within the immediate vicinity of it They even tried to go. Oh, they're colonizing Ukraine. It's It's like, okay, that's not really what's happening here. So even if we were to be generous within the Israel and Palestine, uh,  conflict and say, okay, they're doing this as a response and not just to colonize the area, which it seems more and more likely that they're just trying to take that area over.  However, we'll get into that ceasefire a little bit later in here, but, but my point in this is that when you go back and you start to do those on that unwinding and start to take that steel man argument and look at some of the things that have happened in history, whether it be to the United States or by the United States against other countries or individuals or,  uh,  organizations, you can start to, at the very least, steel man your argument. If you want to say that the United States is the good guy and every other country we've ever been in conflict with is the bad guy, and you want to die on that hill, you better, you better be able to steel man that argument. And if you're not, you're just blindly following a religion. Right? You're not, you're not even reading the textbooks, right? You're just blindly having faith that, oh, daddy has my back, right? Daddy government knows all and is,  is essentially, you know, giving blind faith into that institution, which we already know is corrupt.  So whether you're right or you're left, you should think critically about these things and go back and start to pull on those threads. And that's what we'll do here today. So on that note, this comes from Time Magazine.  And the article title is Why Osama Bin Laden's Letter Went Viral. Now within this letter,  he mentions Palestine several times. Okay, and I'll share this with you. So if you're on YouTube, you'll actually be able to see what we are looking at here together. If you're not on YouTube, you can always join us over there. And it's just the Adams archive. So if you type that into YouTube at the very top, you'll be able to see what we're looking at. However, let's move on. It says two decades ago, Osama bin Laden, the Al Qaeda leader behind 9 11, it says, probably also next to the  three letter organizations, laid out his attempt. His attempt at justification for the attack against the U. S. that killed nearly 3, 000 people in his letter to America.  This week, that same letter went viral on TikTok among a new generation, many of whom are debating the Israel Hamas war and the role played by the U. S. for some, a big part of Bin Laden's justification.  American support for Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories and what the U. N. deems a violation of international law resonates with what's going on now in the Middle East, leading them to renew calls. For a Gaza ceasefire in one video, which was live on the app of Thursday afternoon with more than 900, 000 views, a tick tocker made the claim that everything we learned about the Middle East 9 11 and terrorism was a lie. Others on social media have criticized the video sympathizing with terrorists and legitimizing violence. In a statement posted on the next on Thursday, TikTok said content promoting this letter clearly violates our rule in supporting any form of terrorism. We are proactively and aggressively removing the content and investigating how to get it on how it got onto our platform. So let's watch this video. Let's see if it's actually still there. It might not be anymore.  If they were removing all of it. Yeah, and there it is. It's gone.  Who knew censorship for the  Not when, uh, in a statement posted on X on Thursday, TikTok said, Nope, we just read that the company also says that the content did not reflect a widespread trend, but rather just a few posts on the platform. Number of videos on TikTok is small and reports of a trending on their platform are inaccurate. This is not unique to TikTok and has appeared across multiple platforms. And the media views on video shared by the hashtag letter to America had over 14 million views on Thursday, CNN reported. But as of Thursday afternoon, the phrase could not be searched on the app due to guideline violations. This isn't the first time that Tik TOK has faced controversy for what's been shared on the app. The company has responded to Republican criticisms on the platform being biased towards pro Palestinian content by pointing to polling that shows younger people are more sympathetic to Palestinians.  While tens of thousands of people recently publicly showed their support for Israel and the U. S. condemned anti semitism in France, hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets in pro Palestinian protests around the world calling the ceasefire to protect civilians in Gaza since the start of the war on October 7th.  Okay, now we have  context. Now where I originally went to search for this was the Guardian. And if we go look at the Guardian's website, which we can do right now,  the document was originally set here on, uh, November 15th of  2023, it was removed. It was originally placed on this by on Sunday, November 24th of 2002.  So 21 years later, they decided that, oh, now this is dangerous for people to read because They're actually reading it. So you can actually find this document and I will keep it in the, uh, I'll actually send this out. So if you're on my Instagram, go to at the Austin J Adams. So the Austin J Adams on Instagram. And if you comment on my most recent video and some of my other videos that will be about this, after I get some of this content out, I will send this letter to you. Okay, so  let's go ahead and read the letter,  the letter that must not be named according to TikTok and the guardian.  Here it is. All right.  It says page one  in the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful to the American people,  peace be upon those who follow the righteous track hereafter. The subject of my talk to you is in the overwhelming control of capital. And it's a fact on the ongoing war between us.  I direct my talk specifically those who support real change, especially the youth.  I say from the onset, your former president warned you previously about the devastation  or the devastating Jewish control of capital and about a day that would come when it would enslave you. It has happened. Your current president warns you now about the. enormity of capital control and it has a cycle whereby it devours humanity when it is devoid of the percepts or the precepts of God's law  and says in parentheses sharia  the tyranny of control of capital by large companies has harmed your economy as it did ours  And that was my motivation for this talk. Tens of millions of you are below the poverty line. Millions have lost their homes, and millions have lost their jobs to mark the highest average unemployment in 60 years.  Your financial system in its totality was about to collapse within 48 hours had the administration not reverted to using taxpayer monies to rescue the vultures by using the assets of the victims.  As for us, our Iraq was invaded in response to pressure from capitalists with greed. from black gold and you continue to support the oppressive Israelis in their occupation of our Palestine in response to pressures on your administration by a Jewish lobby backed by enormous financial capabilities.  Hmm. Okay. So let's break that down a little bit. We start from the very beginning. And he talks about the Jewish control of capital, right? Your former president warned you previously about the devastating Jewish control of capital. This has been a pretty consistent conversation, right? Surrounding the control of media within media about the control within Hollywood and news corporations and.  So  this is in line with some very recent conversations that people are having and that probably leads to why this had some effect of ringing true, especially when you bring in something like Palestine and the conflict and him referencing that occupation all the way back 21 years.  So now what he says is the tyranny of control of capital by large companies has harmed your economy as it did ours. And that was my motivation for this talk. Tens of millions of you are below the poverty line. So now he's calling out the, the lack of. care from our government surrounding people of low income surrounding people who are homeless surrounding, you know, talking about the financial system and its totality was about to collapse within 48 hours had the administration reverted to had not the administration reverted to using taxpayers money to rescue the vultures by using the assets of the victims. Essentially saying that the banking. Corporations, the banks,  all lever, when they went bankrupt, they essentially  took taxpayer money and then utilized that to  bail the banks out when the people who suffered the most from that was not the organizations,  it was the individuals who banked with them,  right? So he's saying.  Your own government used your money  to help the people who oppressed you to begin with.  As for us, our Iraq was invaded in response to the pressure of capitalists, then talks about their greed for black gold, meaning oil.  And you can continue to support the oppressive Israelis and their occupation of our Palestine in response to pressures on your administration by a Jewish lobby backed by an enormous Financial capabilities now what we look at there is is the discussion surrounding  The the fact that the  and you continue to support the oppressive Israelis in their occupation of Palestine in response to pressures by your administration Okay, so What, what we can get into from that is, is realizing that this has been a longstanding issue that has been bubbling below the surface for a very long time, right? This discussion around the powers that be the, the individuals that we know that the, you know, however many families that, you know, control a massive amount of wealth, right? You want to get more into that? But go back to the episode that I did on.  Uh, the creature in Jekyll Island, which is a great book that was written surrounding the end of the gold standard and the rise of the Federal Reserve. Now go back and look at who the people were that were involved in that conversation. I  believe it was 13 families that were on a private train together  and essentially on Jekyll Island, which is a small island, came up with the idea of the Federal Reserve and then implemented it. Perfectly. And they now control all of the world as a result of controlling  the largest corporation or the largest country's capital, being able to essentially print money at will with no repercussions to themselves.  And just to the American people, right? In walks  inflation.  So now it goes on to say that an observer of the policies of the new administration relieves or realizes that the change is tactical and not strategy or strategic. It does not at all agree with this, the change you seek. There are very many indicators of this, especially concerning important matters related to your own security and economy, particularly the ongoing war between us. The previous administration was successful in implicating you in the wars against us under the premise that they are necessary for your security according to the promise that it would be short and would finish in six days or six weeks. Six years has passed, and that administration is gone without realizing the victory. The man calling for change promised you victory in Afghanistan and set a time for withdrawal.  Before the end of the set time,  Patriots from the previous administration came and asked for an extension of six more months  if it was  The six day war that started by President Bush and six years have not enough to has not been enough to finish it Then the wise men should question How long would a six month war? take and whether you would be able to fund a war that requires a large amount of money that weakens your economy and Your dollar  interesting.  Okay. So what he's saying there is essentially that they said this would take six days. Now they said it was six weeks. Now they're saying it's six years,  right? And how much are you willing to sacrifice as a country of your financial stability as a nation,  by simply coming over here and looking to go after our oil, which, you know, we go back to the weapons of mass destruction conversation, which  were never found.  So,  moving on here,  uh, so, so that's interesting to me. It's like the amount of people that are now realizing that there's  some.  Some  cracks in the armor, right, that, that, the great nation that we were told that we were brought up as patriots for that, you know, I myself joined the military  to defend,  right,  maybe there's some questions that should be asked about  whether or not we should be in these wars, and you guys know. If you listen to me enough that I'm at this point, there's very little you could do to convince me that we should be at war with essentially anybody unless we're specifically defending our home territory, which nobody's encroached upon the United States in Lord since the British.  So moving on.  This says for Obama to leave one third of its soldiers in Iraq and the statements from his administration about this, especially from Aderno about the possibility for Obama's ordering the return of the forces he took out of Iraq, it would have been better for him had he disagreed with the ethics of the previous administration and adopted the truth as a friend and told you that he would not withdraw from Iraq, which may not serve the U S interests, but it is in the interest of the large corporations,  right? So he's talking about the war machine. Right? He's talking about the Military Industrial Complex.  It serves... Doesn't serve the U S, but it serves the large corporations, meaning the same corporations that we know own all the other corporations, the same corporations who own all of the politicians, the same corporations who own all of the military companies like Raytheon, or at least have the largest share percentage within those companies.  It says the course of these policies of the president administration in several areas clearly reveals that whatever, whoever enters the white house, even with good intentions to safeguard the people's interests is no more than a train operator.  His only task is to keep the train on the tracks that are laid down by the lobbyists in New York and Washington to serve their interests first, even if it's counter to your security and economy.  Any president who tries to move the train from the lobbyist tracks to a track for the American people's interests will confront very strong opposition and pressures from the lobbyists.  Your president described the decisions by the court in favor of corporations to intervene in the political arena as a victory. But it is not for the American people, except for the big corporations.  Okay, so now what he's saying is that your president...  is controlled.  No matter how many, how, how good of intentions he has, if he goes to fight the machine, if he goes to do what's in the best interest of the American people, he will be met by the corporations, right? So that's why when people are saying, Oh, there's merit to this. Yes, there's absolutely some merit to this. Our government has been  commandeered by large corporate entities that have the only best interest of their entities making more profits. And generally, the best way to do that is by siphoning it from the people,  not by serving the people's best interests.  And we've talked about this, our system is fundamentally flawed, almost everybody who goes in with a good intentions gets spit out,  or ends up 13 indictments before they go for re election.  We exactly saw that play out with Donald Trump. The entire machine. All the news companies.  All the, the, the, entire, entirety of Hollywood. All of the, the journalists that, that were a part of any actual legitimate organization.  All of them conspired. Even the FBI and the CIA did the same thing with the letters that they signed about the Hunter Biden laptop. Right?  It says. The course of the, the course of the policies of the President Administration in several areas clearly reveals that whoever enters the White House, even with good intentions, to safe, to safeguard the people's interests, is no more than a train operator. His only task is to keep the train on the tracks that are laid down by the lobbyists,  even if it's counter to your security and economy.  Now tell me you disagree with that,  because I, I will argue that point with you all day.  There is no doubt about it, that it is right, and... That it is also a right for the administration to support the oppressive Israelis for the continued, let's, let's get context. I think I maybe skipped something. Um, it says, There is no doubt about it that it is a right, and it is also a right for the administration to support the oppressive Israelis for the continued occupation of our land and the killing of our brothers, marking a victory for the Jewish lobby. The president was not able to defend you against the security and economic loss. The way for change and freeing yourselves from the pressure of lobbyists is not through the Republican or the Democratic parties, but through undertaking a great revolution for freedom.  Not to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein, but to free the White House, and to free Barack Hussein so he can implement the change you seek. It is not, it does not only include improvement of your economic situation and ensure your security, but more importantly, help him, helps him in making a rational decision to save humanity from the harmful gases that threaten its destiny.  Let's read that again. So what, what he's saying there again. The way for change and freeing yourselves from the pressure of lobbyists is not through Republican or Democratic parties, but through undertaking a great revolution for freedom, not to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein, but to free the White House and to free the president  so they can implement the change you seek. Free them from who? Free them from the lobbyists. Free them from what lobbyists? Well, and what he's referencing here, he says the Jewish lobbyists,  the individuals who own those large corporate entities.  Who control a portion, a large portion of Hollywood. And the news entities, right? So again,  and this is far different than when everybody wants to ring the anti Semitic bell. It's like nobody's saying anything about the religion and nobody's saying anything about the people who are in those areas who hold the title of being Jewish. No, it just so happens that the people that we're discussing here have a Jewish background, have Jewish blood running through their veins, and are from  That origin.  It does not mean anything against the peoples themselves. It means that there is a large portion of people who also hold these characteristics that is what they push their agenda through.  Okay, so it's like, it's very important to make that distinction. No, it is not all Jewish people that are running Hollywood. It is not all Jewish people that are controlling the White House. It is not all, no, it has nothing to do with the fact that they are Jewish or their beliefs in their religion or where their origin is from. It has to do with that. There is a small, very small, like, handful  of people and families in power that all have similar characteristic that unites them, which so happens to be that cultural background.  So everybody crying anti semitic when you say, oh, don't bomb  or don't agree with the fact that, you know, there is a strong Jewish lobby. It's like, you're missing the point.  Love Jewish people.  Love all my people. I have nothing against really any class or group or culture or background or ethnicity or race or religion. It's like that to me is such a low frequency beta.  Uh, uninteresting perspective to have that has just no value. There, there is no reason to have any distinction between people and, and, and say, this group is this thing. No.  But there is a way to categorize people based on that. And when a small group of people who hold Those powerful positions hold that uniting culture, then it's going to be referenced, which is important to make a distinction of. Okay,  moving on.  The British military governor in the United States used to have the right to appoint judges and mayors. Similarly, the corruption is deep and rooted now in all the higher authorities, thus giving authorities over to these officials or these offices to corporations.  Hmm.  Subsequently, the higher court adjudicated their support of political financing by corporations under such circumstances.  Now he's talking about the lobbying. Reading the book by the intellectual Thomas Paine helped your fathers in the revolution against the oppressors. It is useful for you to read it under the current similar circumstances. You are in need of people like Thomas Paine to publish books pointing out the similarities between the two phases, and that will have a similar effect. You are also in need of men with courage and initiative like those of your forefathers at that time when they refused to allow one company to harm the interests of the United States, a company that had a monopoly on tea and its prices.  Talking about the Boston Tea Party. Right? Talking about the, um, the, what is it? The, the Indian tea company or whatever it's called.  I'm going to have to look that one up. Um, forget the, the, uh, God, what's the name of it? Um, that's so stupid that I can't remember that.  Let's see.  The East India Trade Company, is that what it is?  Pretty sure that's what it is. East India Trade Company.  Um,  Yeah, the East India Company. That's what it was. Thank you. At least I got it right. I got there eventually, guys. Before even Google told me, and you can reference the YouTube video to see it.  Um, alright. So,  it says, uh, yeah, there are now many companies that endanger the United States economy, which continues to be vulnerable to collapse, and they also formulate the policies for the White House. They threw hundreds of thousands of soldiers against us and have formed an alliance with the Israelis to oppress us and occupy our land. That was the reason for our response on the 11th.  Palestine has been under occupation for decades. Now what he's referencing there is obviously September 11th. Now, obviously that's  obviously not a justification to commit acts of terrorism against random civilians, which has been the theme this whole year with the Israel and Palestine conflict. So again, Don't agree with that. It's a horrific way to respond to this. The way that you respond to this is what this letter was attempting to do. Just do it more effectively. Cause the fact that nobody read this, now all of a sudden people are reading this and now there's value to it.  Anyways, it says, uh, Palestine had been under occupation for decades and none of your presidents could talk, talked about it until after September 11th, when Bush realized that your oppression and the tyranny against us were part of the reason for the attack. Then he talked about it, the necessity for two States. Obama is trying to address the issue with the same solutions, suggesting by his predecessors they are quilting fruitless solutions not of concern to us. If you want a real settlement that guarantees your security in your country and safeguards your economy from being depleted in a matter similar to our war of attrition against  the  Soviet Union, then you have to implement a roadmap that returns the Palestine land to us. All of it from the sever or the sea to the river. It is an Islamic land, not subject to being traded or granted to any party.  In conclusion, be assured that we do not fight for mere killing, but to stop the killing of our people. It is a sin to kill a person without proper justifiable cause, but terminating his killer is a right.  You should be aware that justice is the strongest army and security offers the best livelihood. You lost it by your own making when you supported the Israelis in occupying our land and killing our brothers in Palestine. The road to safety starts with the stopping of aggression. And again,  the way to combat aggression is not  more aggression. And the way to stop people from killing your people is not by killing their people.  Fundamentally disagree with him on that. Palestine should not be seen, and even in his own argument there, he says that it is a sin to kill a person without proper justifiable cause. Okay, 3,  000 people on 9 11 that you killed without proper justifiable cause, regardless of the country that they lived within.  Palestine should not be seen captive, for we will try to break its shackles.  The United States shall pay for its arrogance with the blood of Christians and their funds. Peace be upon those who follow the righteous track.  All right, so again,  fundamentally disagree with a lot of what he says there, but there is merit to some of the points that he makes surrounding lobbying, surrounding our president not being in control regardless of  good intentions.  Several things that he said there that holds true.  in the awakening that we've seen over the last three to four years. So when you see all these people shouting at, you know, saying that anybody who reads this and agrees with any of the points made that they're a terrorist, it's no, that you're missing the point.  And  We probably, if you hadn't already gotten to this point where you realize these things without reading a letter from  Osama bin Laden, like maybe you should do that first and there's far better ways to probably get to this point from far more intelligent, far less polarizing, far less bloodthirsty people, then Osama Bin Laden, so there's that, like you could definitely get this point across without having to hear it from him.  But, that, that, you see the censorship, you see the people coming out and calling, you know, everybody a terrorist who reshares  this, or says that there's any merit to some of the points that he made about the occupation, and  so. I just wanted to get that out there. I think it's a value to actually read through these things and not just hear the headlines and just assume that everybody who makes any point about this is siding with a terrorist organization. Because again,  I fundamentally, fundamentally disagree with the acts that were committed on behalf of this ideology.  But that doesn't mean that there's no merit to some of the points that he made about  the United States of America being flawed, because It is.  And if you disagree with that,  you're very likely brainwashed at this point.  All right. Alright, so the next thing that we're going to discuss is that Israel and Hamas have agreed to a temporary ceasefire for humanitarian purposes that include a hostage release deal, which has come from Fox News. Let's go ahead and read this article where it says the Israeli government is committed to the return of all hostages home. Tonight, the government approved the outline for the first stage of achieving this goal.  According to which, at least 50 hostages, women and children, will be released for four days, during which there will be a lull in the fighting.  The release of every 10 additional hostages will result in an additional day of respute.  The Israeli government, the IDF, and the security forces will continue the war in order to return all the hostages, to complete the elimination of Hamas, and to ensure that Gaza does not renew any threat to the State of Israel.  The ceasefire was officially announced hours after Israeli and Hamas leaders said Tuesday that negotiations were in their final stages.  Both sides ultimately agreed to their conditions. Qatari... Negotiators helped broker the agreement under the deal. Israeli's government has agreed to temporarily stop its pursuit of Hamas, including its ground invasion of Gaza and its airstrikes for humanitarian purposes. Also, Hamas has agreed to release dozens of hostages in tandem with Israeli government or with Israel agreeing to release Palestinian prisoners on a three to one ratio. Fox news, Trey Yankst reported Hamas leaders would release one hostage for every three Palestinians that Israel releases from its prisons.  Hamas, so  that means that Israel essentially has to have three times the amount of  hostages slash prisoners.  Hamas, which governs Gaza, took about 240 hostages from Israel during its terror attack on October 7th when it invaded Israel and killed approximately 1, 200 people, mostly civilians. The terror group said at the time that it took enough hostages, which included Israelis, Americans, and other foreign nationals, to free all Palestinians in Israel.  Interesting. So you'll see the first hostages come. out over the course of Thursday.  Netanyahu met with his war council Tuesday afternoon, then the security council, and then this full cabinet before the agreement was announced. Ahead of the meetings, he said he hoped there would be good news. Earlier Tuesday, Hamas leader Ismail Hanaya and Mark Rijev, the senior advisor to Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, openly said a deal was closed. The deal being, hey, we'll stop for three or four days and we'll, you know, exchange hostages. You know, for every one that you give us, we'll give you three.  Um, okay, so not exactly what I was thinking. So not a long term, this is not a long term ceasefire. This is just a ceasefire for three or four, potentially five days where they release their hostages together. And then Israel will go back to  leveling the city of Gaza, apparently.  Uh...  Yeah, that's what it seems like. Okay,  not exactly what I was thinking, but as you guys know, when things pop up and we have breaking news, you'll get it while we're here. Um, so again, this was Israel and Hamas agreed to a temporary ceasefire hostage release deal, including freeing three Americans. Now, the original headline of this made it seem like it was more of a longstanding agreement, which obviously it's not.  So  let's  move on to our next topic, which is that the Michigan Capitol is going to enforce gun bans with artificial intelligence.  There's a software that has been created that allows them to using video surveillance footage in real time to identify threats.  And by threats, they mean anybody who's potentially carrying a weapon, whether it be lawful or unlawful.  So let's read this article. It comes from, uh,  bridgemi. com. And the article says, Michigan capital to enforce a gun ban with artificial intelligence. Now, to me, this signifies some dystopian stuff, right? What my concern around this would be is now that this has...  Been created. You can't put it back in the box, right? You've opened the box. Now, there is a software that will allow them to identify people who have weapons on them, whether it be lawfully or unlawfully because it is our right to carry and bear arms.  It is our right to conceal weapons. It is our right to open carry weapons where the laws allow.  So now. You can be punished for that. You can be approached by police and you can have this technology that will be implemented  in God knows what way, right? We don't know how this is going to be used for sure.  How do you make sure that this isn't going to be used to, I don't know, stop people from  defending property or defending life at rallies when they're allowed to open carry right in walks Kyle Rittenhouse  to me, it's like, this isn't the issue that I have is not.  Making sure that we're more safe in our capital buildings. It's is what is the actual use case for this going to be right? when you're talking about Smart cities and things like that and the totalitarian surveillance in Michigan itself just put up 400 400 cameras on one highway alone 400 cameras, Michigan just put up to surveil its own citizens in the name of stopping violent crime. How does 400 cameras on a highway stop violent crime? That's not what it's for. It's to surveil the general public. If you think that that data just stops and they're scrubbing through hundreds of thousands of tens of thousands of millions of cars flying by every single day, To look for one, two, three, four people. No, there's no return on investment there, right? They want to surveil people. They want to know where you're going, how you're getting there. I challenge you to drive down the highway right now, drive five miles in any city without seeing a camera up in the sky watching you drive.  It  infuriates me. It's so frustrating that you can't even drive your car on a road that they built with your tax dollars without daddy government Big big brother sitting there watching you tracking your license plate  This says authorities in the michigan state capitol are beginning to use artificial intelligence to detect any Firearms in a bid to increase security amid a growing national wave of political threats and violence Show me a recent violent gum crime at the Capitol and what justifies utilizing this software. In fact, why don't we use this software at school zones? Why don't we put this software outside of every single school in America? Instead of funding Israel's  war, instead of funding Ukraine's war, why don't we take this software and actually use it for some implementation that people want? Because the implementation  that people want is not going to Capitol buildings that already have security. Arm security at that. Why not put it into school zones? Why not put a video camera on outside of every single school that identifies threats that way? I'm cool with that because you shouldn't be open carrying by a school anyways.  Company officials at the Zero Eyes firm announced the deployment Monday, saying Michigan is the first state capital in the nation to use its gun detection technology, which has also been implemented last year at Oxford High School in the wake of the mass shooting. Thank you.  The system, which also analyzes footage from existing video cameras to identify brandished or otherwise drawn firearms, represents the latest in a series of escalating security measures at the Michigan capital following armed protests in 2020.  I'm sure you'll be fine.  The Michigan Capitol Commission earlier this year approved installation of metal detectors inside the building and implemented a full indoor gun ban. Except for lawmakers with a concealed weapons permit. Except for lawmakers with a concealed weapons permit. So the lawmakers get to protect themselves, but not the citizens who are there, right? Interesting.  Um, commissioners last month unanimously approved the, the lease with zero wise, a Pennsylvania based firm, which expected to cost about $3,000 a month. The money will come from existing security funding. First proposed by Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who is the subject of a kidnapping plot by the FBI,  by the FBI orchestrated by the men who also discussed storming the capitol. You mean the FBI agents?  And also the people, I'm pretty sure they got released because it was entrapment. It's just another layer of protection, Rob Blackshaw said, an executive director of the State Capitol Commission. Our latest goal, as we've said from day one, is to decrease any potential of a mass shooting and increase our level of safety for the people who work here and visit here. The artificial intelligence system will tap into existing surveillance video at the Capitol, including inside the building and outside grounds when openly carried firearms are still allowed. Where openly carried firearms are still allowed. So again...  If a gun is identified, images will be immediately reviewed by trained specialists at Zero Eyes, including military and law enforcement veterans, the company said on Monday. If those specialists confirm a threat, they'll send alerts and other actionable intelligence to Capitol Police in a matter of seconds, according to the firm.  Hmm.  So how do you identify a threat for somebody who's not a threat? Do they wear a red jersey? Do they, you know?  Anyways, here's the video by Zero Eye, so you can see what this technology is all.  About.  And we'll go ahead and watch it  together.  ZeroEyes is a team of former Navy SEALs and military special operations veterans teamed up with elite technologists with a mission to save lives.  We use your existing video cameras coupled with our artificial intelligence gun detection  to prevent threats rather than react to them. There is no better purpose right now and no more difficult problem to solve than mass shootings. We go over the existing security cameras at a building, so on the interior and exterior, at entrances, exits, choke points, bottlenecks, inside the hallways.  So when a shooter walks up and they take out a weapon,  zero eye system will pick that weapon up.  And our military trained operation experts verify every detection before sending out alerts to local staff,  security.  And the local 911 center to get the alert to first responders.  It takes about three seconds from the time a gun enters the frame of a camera to the time an alert is sent.  So now they know what the shooter looks like.  What type of weapon they have. We have an armed subject in the southwest vault.  How many there are. And what was our last known location?  First responders on scene have access to this information before shots are fired.  That will allow them to go directly to the shooter and prevent more violence from occurring.  Drop your weapon now! Drop the gun! Drop the gun! So we can really decrease response times and save lives. Turn around!  So we're going to stop threats at first sight, not first shot. Mass shootings are devastating.  Current alternatives are reactive. We need a proactive solution that mitigates gun violence, provides actionable intelligence, reduces response time, ultimately saving lives, while at the same time respecting our privacy and rights. ZeroEyes is that solution.  Save time,  save lives.  Interesting. So, I don't disagree with the premise of the application when it's in the context of school environments.  But literally probably only school environments. It just doesn't seem to me that there should be any other use case for this other than schools, because when you put it in the context of government and organizations, and what the potential is for this software to be leveraged nationwide when you have  Basically, a surveillance camera on every single corner now within three seconds of anybody ever having a weapon that they are legally hold according to our Second Amendment rights, they can be identified and immediately, immediately have authorities contacted for no other reason than lawfully carrying a firearm.  Right. And like I said, you have  Michigan putting out 400 cameras just on their highways alone with your tax dollars to surveil you. And for 3, 000 a month. They, too, can make sure that you're not actually leveraging your rights as an American citizen.  So, you know, when we talk about a surveillance state, that's a terrifying application. And again, under the context of school shootings and this being leveraged within schools and the perimeter of schools, I don't have any problem with that. I think it's a great idea. I like the idea of proactive identification of threats.  It doesn't end there.  It won't end there.  And that's where I have a problem with it.  All right. So that seems to me like, you know, again, I don't think that there's any way to remedy that the cat's out of the bag. And obviously there's going to be military applications for this and, and government applications for this, but I don't think that we have to allow it, right. We can push back against our tax dollars being used for these things. As long as the application is not being used in a way that is, uh, you know, useful to the people. And useful to the people, to me,  does not mean  the Capitol building. It doesn't, because they already have armed security there. And we as, as the people in the United States of America have a right to carry firearms.  Now, if this was communist China, just imagine the applications of this in communist China.  And that, my friends, is coming to a city near you in the very near future, right? Oh, you, you actually can identify a,  a, uh, concealed weapon, right? Down the road. Maybe they can see people printing on the side of their waistband. Uh, and now all of a sudden it bumps your... Your social credit score, right? Like where where does this end and this is obviously just just the beginning So that that's more so the the terrifying applications of this  All right moving on the next thing that we're going to discuss here is going to be that the u. s army asked the troops who they Fired who they gave dishonorable discharges to just, just come back, right? The people that they got out of the military, right? The U S army kicked people out of the military for not having the vaccine for not getting the vaccine for not agreeing with an experimental drug being injected into their bodies now.  They're telling them to come back, come back. We won't even mandate that to you. And I think there's a bigger play at hand here. I don't think it's just as simple as them saying, Hey, we're missing recruiting numbers. I think it's bigger than that. Um, I actually think the, the app, the reason that they're doing this is to mitigate legal costs more than very likely.  Um,  so let's look at this together. This comes from the post millennial and it says the U. S. Army asked troops who left over COVID mandate to come back as war looms. Now, I don't know if that's the reason why. Um, I, again, I think this might be more of a legal play than anything, but the United States Army is inviting, because if you're in the army, you're not going to be able to sue the army, right? But there could be a large class action lawsuit against the institutions that mandated this as. Especially when it was the federal government,  the United States army is inviting service members to return to the branch who had been separated over the refusal of the COVID 19 vaccine. This comes as the US military struggles to, uh, to achieve targeted recruitment numbers due to years of woke political activism, which has reportedly turned off its primary recruitment base. And you see this, you see the, I think it was the  air force now doing special forces, uh, videos for recruitment where it's all white.  How dare you? How egregious! Could you imagine a military that was mostly occupied by  straight, white men who don't dress up as,  you know, women on their weekends to shake their ass for dollar bills at a gay bar? Like,  imagine the world.  Uh, the United States Army is inviting its service members to return to the branch who had been separated over the refusal of the COVID 19 vaccine. The Army issued a recent letter to former... Service members informing them that they can apply to return to service following the recession of the vaccine requirement.  The Army had enacted four separations for unvaccinated service members early last year and announced in early 2023 that they had rescinded the mandate for current service members and applicants.  The letter uploaded to X reads, Dear former service  member,  and I'll read it here verbatim for you. Dear former service member, we write to notify you of new army guidance surrounding the correction of military records for former members of the army following recession of the COVID 19 vaccination requirement. As a result of the recession of all or the rescission of So let's try that again. We write to notify you of the new army guidance regarding the correction of military records of the former members of the army, following the rescission of the COVID 19 vaccination requirement. As a result of the rescission of all current COVID 19 vaccination requirements, former soldiers who were. involuntary separated for refusal to receive the COVID 19 vaccination may request a correction of their military records from either both or either or both of the Army Discharge Review Board or the Army Board for correction of military records. Individuals may request a correction to military personnel records including records regarding the characterization of a discharge by submitting a request to the ADB or the ADRB or the ABCMR online at  Uh, individuals who desire to apply to return to service should contact their local U. S. Army Reserves or Army Recruiter for more information. Individuals may locate an Army Recruiter by visiting that website. How about no? How about if you want to mandate upon my body a experimental experimental drug that we now know caused harm to me, that you did not have my best interest in mind. You had the best interest in mind of pharmaceutical companies. You had the best interest in mind of saving political face to half of the country who wanted to, you know, call on people to have separation of, of workforce and, and have people lose their jobs and lose their livelihood and not be able to even see their grandma in a hospital if they don't get vaccinated.  Right? Like we went so crazy during COVID  and now you see them walking everything back. Even the army walking back the ability now to join again now that they hit no recruiting numbers that they've had like the lowest recruiting numbers we've seen in a very long time. In one of the most highest tension times in American history.  So no,  you have to, you have to look at this and take a stand and say, this person, this entity, this thing did not, and obviously most people in the military know that the military does not immediately have their best interest in mind. Let's be very clear about that. Um, but,  and in this case, the only thing they had in mind was how do we, how do we  a make profits for the pharmaceutical companies, which is actually where vaccines became popularized to begin with. So we can, we can. touch on that fairly quickly, which is that the reason that vaccines became mandated even in schools was because  the, the, the penicillin manufacturers, which is where vaccines became very prevalent was penicillin shots during world war two penicillin because of world war two was used so often. And so the, the, the people who came up with the penicillin shot, and I believe if you go back and look, it's, it was Pfizer and I have a book back here.  called Code Blue. See if that knocks over my whole thing here. This book, Code Blue, is a tremendous read. It's inside America's medical industrial complex, and it goes back into the history. And I actually did a whole breakdown of this on the very first episode. That I did so go back and listen to the very, very first episode of the red pill revolution podcast, which you can just find in the feed that you're on right now, um, where it talks about this and why the penicillin became such a prevalent drug and why it was mandated in schools was specifically due to the fact that they had built so many industrialized or in so many industrial plants to build penicillin.  That they, I'll put this here for you guys, um, that they essentially needed to continue perpetuating that profitability. So, instead, they, instead of shutting down all their manufacturing plants for penicillin, they actually opened, or they actually started to spend their money on lobbying, uh, Washington to make it mandatory within schools that you now vaccinate your children.  And the reason they were doing this for, for soldiers was because people were coming back with like gangrene and all types of shit in World War II. And I went into the military, when I went into the military, we called it a peanut butter shop. One of the very first things that you get is a big needle shoved in your, your ass so that they can inject you with penicillin. For no reason at all, by the way. None of us were, well, maybe not none of us, but I wasn't sick when I went in. I didn't need penicillin, but they just give it to you because you're cattle. That's all you are to them is cattle. So  when you talk about what, what they, what happened here, you realize that it was far more about. appeasing the pharmaceutical complexes that probably lobbied to make it mandatory within the military than it was about, you know, and, and who that helped at the very top of the military that makes these decisions, right? There's lobbying in that aspect too. Um, so I find it comical. Absolutely not. You showed your hand and we will not be a part of it. No matter how many cool badass Advertisements you put out showing straight white men  you showed your hand and now you just you don't get the support  And that was obviously a mistake. All right, and that leads us to one of our bigger discussion points today, which is a Historical Historical  blunder by one of the most successful companies of all time, which almost overnight collapsed an entire An entire industry essentially  and we'll get to that right after this which is the fact that you haven't subscribed yet You haven't left a review because I see you. I know I look every week to see who did what and I know Maybe  it seems like you didn't leave a review. Not last week. Not this week. Not yet So what I'm asking you right now is stop what you're doing unless you're driving and then you know pull over There's there's somewhere you could there's a gas station right there. There's a McDonald's. Maybe there's a rest stop pull over right now Be safe. Don't do it while you're driving go to Apple podcasts. Go to Spotify hit the Five star review button. If you're on Apple podcasts, go ahead and leave a note. That's actually means way more than it does to just hit the five star review button, leave a review, say something nice, what you like about the podcast. I would appreciate it from the bottom of my heart. All right,  so let's get into this open AI essentially almost collapsed overnight after the board fired Sam Altman. Now, if you don't know the back back. Story of Sam Altman. Sam Altman is the front face of Silicon Valley. He has been for a very long time. He was the head of Y Combinator, which is a startup incubator in, uh, in Silicon Valley. And  For a very long time. He was not very well known outside of Silicon Valley until more recently with open AI He just he exploded in his celebrity and he was just most recently which makes me have some questions about this More recently is the fact that Sam Altman was on both Joe Rogan And Lex Friedman, not two weeks before this whole thing happened. So he gets one of the biggest celebrity moments and pushes of his face and his name just two weeks before he gets fired by the board. And what is the worst decision making ever by any company literally ever. As shown by the fact that  725 people, the last time I looked, signed a letter saying that if they don't reinstate him and fire the entirety of the board that made this decision,  all 725 employees will go over to the same company that offered Sam Altman a position as the CEO of a new venture with an AI company. Which is Microsoft,  and we'll read about that in just a second.  So, essentially, let's, let's go ahead and let's dive into this article together. And I'll give you the very first thing, which is that OpenAI came out with this letter, directly on their website as a blog post. And it reads,  Not what I wanted. And it reads,  Chief Technology Officer Mira Murati, appointed Interim CEO to lead OpenAI. Sam Altman departs the company. Search process underway to identify permanent success for.  The Board of Directors of OpenAI, that acts as the overall governing body for all OpenAI activities, today announced that Sam Altman will be departed as CEO and leave the Board of Directors. Mira Murati and the company's Chief Technology Officer will receive or will serve as Interim CEO, effective immediately.  A member of OpenAI's leadership team for five years, Mira has played a critical role  in OpenAI's evolution into a greater AI leader. She brings a unique skill set, understanding of the true company values, operations, and business leaders, and already have leads the company's research product and safety functions. Um, okay. Who cares about that? Mr. Altman's departure follows a deliberative review process by the board, which concluded that he has not been consistently  candid with his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities. So the reason that they state, which is so obscure and vague, and nobody seems to actually know the reason, and they won't come out with it, even after being threatened by all sorts of people within OpenAI, including the letter, uh, Mr. Altman's departure follows a deliberative Review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board. So because he wasn't candid with us, we're going to fire him.  Okay. Probably the worst decision ever. The board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading open AI. In a statement, the board of directors said open AI was deliberately structured to advance our mission, to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity. The board remains fully committed to serving this mission. We are all grateful for Sam's many contributions to the founding and growth of OpenAI. At the same time, we believe new leadership is necessar

Addiction is something that is running rampant in our society right now. In this episode we hear the amazing stories of two men who learned how to begin to emerge from their addictive behaviors, but not before suffering some devastating life experiences, to put their lives back together. Our guests are Jeffrey Johnston at LivingUndeterred.com and his Brightn Mental Wellness App, empowering young adults by building their own one-page mental wellness plan, can be accessed at https://brightn.app/. Brett Taylor can be contacted through the website https://rippleranch.com , an addiction treatment center located in San Antonio, Texas.

Back to Roberta's! Being in the studio always gives Jimmy a chance to bring in his favorite folks from the NYC beer community. This week he does just that with Brett Taylor, Co Founder and Head Brewer at Wild East Brewing Company, and Ted Kenny, owner of Top Hops Beer Shops. Every brewery is different, and NYC is home to some very special beers. In this episode, learn about the myth behind Wild East, while tasting some great styles beyond the world of hazy IPAs. Easy drinking, very approachable, great beers! Discover new styles and rediscover the great classics like Czech Pilsners. Plus, track Brett's journey from homebrewer to award winner as Jimmy finally gets to try his beers. Tune in and let the session begin!Heritage Radio Network is a listener supported nonprofit podcast network. Support Beer Sessions Radio by becoming a member!Beer Sessions Radio is Powered by Simplecast.

Ripple Ranch Recovery Center group and intake specialist, Brett Taylor, joins me on this episode! Brett and I discuss:what first brought him to use as a teenhis experience in the Army & how common drinking is when deployedwhat led him to relapsing the first & second timewhy he entered rehab & the thoughts that went through his headhow your environment & the people in your life impact your decisionsthings he does to maintain his sobriety today how his position at Ripple Ranch helps in his journey and more!!!If you or someone you know has struggled with substance abuse, I think this episode will help you gain some insight and understanding into the disease. Check out Ripple Ranch and the work they do here:https://rippleranch.com/Follow me on socials and find more here:https://linktr.ee/tammyu_wellnessMore info on a Pathway Membership from To Be Magnetic (and use code TAMARA6281 to save $):https://login.tobemagnetic.com/a/2147524106/4XggnWZV  Don't forget to review, subscribe, or share this with a friend! Thanks so much for listening. I'm grateful for you

In the second hour, Anthony Herron was joined by Brett Taylor of Bleacher Nation to discuss the Cubs' important 3-2 win against the NL Central-leading Brewers on Wednesday afternoon at Wrigley Field. Later, Ant took listeners' Cubs calls.

The Cubs were about to drop another frustrating game to the White Sox. And then Michael Fulmer put out a fire. And then Nick Madrigal hit a pinch-hit homer. And then Cody Bellinger doubled and Dansby Swanson walked. And then Christopher Morel walked to the plate... Brett Taylor, Sahadev Sharma and Patrick Mooney discuss the Cubs' exhilarating 4-3 win over the White Sox on this episode of Onto Waveland. They also get into Marcus Stroman's rib injury and more. Follow Brett on Twitter: @BleacherNation Follow Sahadev on Twitter: @sahadevsharma Follow Patrick on Twitter: @PJ_Mooney Email us: wavelandathletic@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Cubs rebounded from a bad series against the Mets by taking two of three from the Blue Jays in Toronto over the weekend. The schedule over the next two weeks is quite favorable, and then they get a golden opportunity with a three-game series against the Brewers at Wrigley to wrap up the month. In other words, now's the time for the Cubs to move. Brett Taylor, Sahadev Sharma and Patrick Mooney discuss that and more on this episode of Onto Waveland. Follow Brett on Twitter: @BleacherNation Follow Sahadev on Twitter: @sahadevsharma Follow Patrick on Twitter: @PJ_Mooney Email us: wavelandathletic@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A 2-1 series win against the Nationals is...exactly what the Cubs needed to do to keep this conversation the same? And now, they've got the Cardinals and White Sox on deck. Brett Taylor, Sahadev Sharma and Patrick Mooney set the table for the weekend on this episode of Onto Waveland Follow Brett on Twitter: @BleacherNation Follow Sahadev on Twitter: @sahadevsharma Follow Patrick on Twitter: @PJ_Mooney Email us: wavelandathletic@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Selling has become an all-too-familiar July position for the Cubs over these last few seasons. Are they there again? Brett Taylor, Sahadev Sharma and Patrick Mooney discuss the latest on this episode of Onto Waveland. Follow Brett on Twitter: @BleacherNation Follow Sahadev on Twitter: @sahadevsharma Follow Patrick on Twitter: @PJ_Mooney Email us: wavelandathletic@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this podcast of Welcome Home Radio, host Don Scordino spoke with special guests Mike Allen with Century 21 Jordan Link & Co. and Brett Taylor, AE of Tulare County Association of REALTORS®, Vice Mayor of the City of Visalia who discussed the current real estate market.

In the second hour, Mark Grote was joined by Brett Taylor of Bleacher Nation to discuss the Cubs winning two of three games against the Giants over the weekend, which included a brilliant outing from right-hander Kyle Hendricks in a win Saturday.

In this episode, we discuss Apple's announced Vision Pro, the annoyance of the GPT buzzword, Salesforce and Google Cloud AI offerings, Brett Taylor's play for CEO, and Salesforce as a job title.

On today's episode, we welcome lead writer and editor-in-chief at Bleacher Nation, Brett Taylor! Brett fills us in on his journey from law to baseball before highlighting the MLB rule changes set to take effect this season. Do the revised rules give the young Cubs an advantage? Later, Brett previews some of the top prospects to watch during Spring Training before sharing his bold predictions for the regular season! Let us know your thoughts on Instagram (@domesticdraftpodcast) and Twitter (@domesticdraft)! Cheers!

Brooklyn's Wild East (https://www.wildeastbrewing.com) is a brewer's brewery. It's the kind of place that other local brewers go for a beer when they're not working. The lagers are exceptional, characterful more than crispy, and their best-selling IPA is a West coast-style iteration—a stark contrast to the hazy and juicy IPAs that make up the bulk of the offerings from neighbors Other Half or Finback. Cofounder and head brewer Brett Taylor has some strong opinions about brewing lagers—decoction isn't optional, water is very important, and the imperfection of more “rustic” malt offers a tension that makes for more interesting beers. In this episode, Taylor discusses those approaches to lager, as well as their techniques behind West coast IPA and mixed fermentation farmhouse beers, and along the way, he covers: leaning into Czech-style lagers due to the similarity in water between New York and Pilsen designing a brewhouse with decoction methodology in mind treating lagers gently in every step of the process to preserve the delicate flavors using the same yeast in different ways across the lager program brewing West coast and New England IPAs with Conan yeast modernizing West coast IPA recipes the challenges of scaling up farmhouse brewing cultures optimizing for light Brett character and very gentle acidity in foeder saisons achieving juicy yet dry notes in everything from IPA to mixed culture beer And more. This episode is brought to you by: G&D Chillers (https://gdchillers.com): For nearly 30 years, G&D Chillers has set the mark for quality equipment you can rely on. Contact the total glycol system design experts today at gdchillers.com (https://gdchillers.com) Probrew (https://www.probrew.com) N/A? No Problem! The Alchemator from ProBrew uses proprietary membrane technology to strip the alcohol from the beer without sacrificing all the elements – like flavor and color - that make the beer great! Are you ready to Brew Like A Pro? Check out www.probrew.com (https://www.probrew.com) to learn more about The Alchemator from ProBrew, or shoot them an email to ContactUs@probrew.com today! Old Orchard (https://www.oldorchard.com/brewer): Historic heatwaves devastated U.S. berry crops, causing supply to dwindle and prices to skyrocket. That's why brewers are switching over to Old Orchard's craft concentrate blends, which mimic straight concentrates but at a better price point—and with more reliable supply. Reclaim your margins and order your craft concentrates at oldorchard.com/brewer (https://www.oldorchard.com/brewer) American Canning (https://americancanning.com): American Canning provides packaging supplies at competitive prices in order quantities catered to craft. For a smooth packaging experience, also consider their ultra-compact, single operator canning machines. Learn more about their ecosystem of solutions at americancanning.com (https://americancanning.com). ABS Commercial (https://abs-commercial.com): ABS Commercial is a full-service brewery outfitter, proud to offer brewhouses, tanks, and small parts to brewers across the country. Contact one of their brewery consultants today at sales@abs-commercial.com to discuss your brewery project. Twin Monkeys (https://twinmonkeys.net): For a special offer from Twin Monkeys Beverage Systems, simply mention the CBB Podcast when you contact Twin Monkeys Beverage Systems to get a special discount on a brand new canning line through March of 2023.

Episode 392 - Brett Taylor, Wild East Brewing TK***As always, you can email your questions, complaints, whimpers, or whines to us at stealthisbeerpodcast@gmail.com. We read everything we get and we'll try to respond as quickly as we can. If not online, then on air. And THANKS! You can subscribe to STB on iTunes and PLEASE LEAVE US A REVIEW!!! Co-hosts: Augie Carton & John Holl Producer: Justin Kennedy Engineer: Brian Casse Music: "Abstract Concepts - What Up in the Streets" by Black Ant.

Brett Taylor and Patrick Mooney discuss the Cubs day one picks in the 2022 draft and put a bow on the first half on this episode of Onto Waveland. Follow Brett on Twitter: @BleacherNation Follow Sahadev on Twitter: @sahadevsharma Follow Patrick on Twitter: @PJ_Mooney Email us: wavelandathletic@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey, did you guys hear that Onto Waveland's very own Brett Taylor is the second-most-popular person in the Chicago sports Twitter world?!? It's true! You'd be crazy not to listen to this episode of Onto Waveland, where Brett and Patrick look ahead to the final weekend of the first half. Follow Brett on Twitter: @BleacherNation Follow Sahadev on Twitter: @sahadevsharma Follow Patrick on Twitter: @PJ_Mooney Email us: wavelandathletic@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sara is joined by Bleacher Nation's Brett Taylor to look back at how the Cubs ended their 10-game losing streak while snapping the Braves 14-game winning streak, which is something we haven't seen in MLB for a century. They are also talking about Contreras Day, tough roster decisions on the horizon. After the break they look at what ails Dr. Hendo and Mr. Kyle and preview four games against the Pirates that will include the 2022 debut of Oneil Cruz and a reunion with old friend José Quintana. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

**SPECIAL GUEST ALERT**BRETT TAYLOR OF BLEACHER NATIONS JOIN LOCKED ON CUBS!Passionate Chicago Cubs fan, lead editor and writer for Bleacher Nation, Brett Taylor, joins us to discuss a buffet of Cubs news, notes and info!-MLB LOCKOUT/SPRING TRAINING DELAY-2022 CHICAGO CUBS ROSTER OUTLOOK-CARLOS CORREA TO THE CUBS A POSSIBILITY POST LOCKOUT?-SHOULD SAMMY SOSA BE IN THE HALL OF FAME?AND MUCH, MUCH MORE! JOIN US!https://linktr.ee/lockedoncubs Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices