Podcasts about GitHub

Boris Cherny is the creator and head of Claude Code at Anthropic. What began as a simple terminal-based prototype just a year ago has transformed the role of software engineering and is increasingly transforming all professional work.We discuss:1. How Claude Code grew from a quick hack to 4% of public GitHub commits, with daily active users doubling last month2. The counterintuitive product principles that drove Claude Code's success3. Why Boris believes coding is “solved”4. The latent demand that shaped Claude Code and Cowork5. Practical tips for getting the most out of Claude Code and Cowork6. How underfunding teams and giving them unlimited tokens leads to better AI products7. Why Boris briefly left Anthropic for Cursor, then returned after just two weeks8. Three principles Boris shares with every new team member—Brought to you by:DX—The developer intelligence platform designed by leading researchers: https://getdx.com/lennySentry—Code breaks, fix it faster: https://sentry.io/lennyMetaview—The AI platform for recruiting: https://metaview.ai/lenny—Episode transcript: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/head-of-claude-code-what-happens—Archive of all Lenny's Podcast transcripts: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/yxi4s2w998p1gvtpu4193/AMdNPR8AOw0lMklwtnC0TrQ?rlkey=j06x0nipoti519e0xgm23zsn9&st=ahz0fj11&dl=0—Where to find Boris Cherny:• X: https://x.com/bcherny• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bcherny• Website: https://borischerny.com—Where to find Lenny:• Newsletter: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com• X: https://twitter.com/lennysan• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lennyrachitsky/—In this episode, we cover:(00:00) Introduction to Boris and Claude Code(03:45) Why Boris briefly left Anthropic for Cursor (and what brought him back)(05:35) One year of Claude Code(08:41) The origin story of Claude Code(13:29) How fast AI is transforming software development(15:01) The importance of experimentation in AI innovation(16:17) Boris's current coding workflow (100% AI-written)(17:32) The next frontier(22:24) The downside of rapid innovation (24:02) Principles for the Claude Code team(26:48) Why you should give engineers unlimited tokens(27:55) Will coding skills still matter in the future?(32:15) The printing press analogy for AI's impact(36:01) Which roles will AI transform next?(40:41) Tips for succeeding in the AI era(44:37) Poll: Which roles are enjoying their jobs more with AI(46:32) The principle of latent demand in product development(51:53) How Cowork was built in just 10 days(54:04) The three layers of AI safety at Anthropic(59:35) Anxiety when AI agents aren't working(01:02:25) Boris's Ukrainian roots(01:03:21) Advice for building AI products(01:08:38) Pro tips for using Claude Code effectively(01:11:16) Thoughts on Codex(01:12:13) Boris's post-AGI plans(01:14:02) Lightning round and final thoughts—References: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/head-of-claude-code-what-happens—Production and marketing by https://penname.co/. For inquiries about sponsoring the podcast, email podcast@lennyrachitsky.com.—Lenny may be an investor in the companies discussed. To hear more, visit www.lennysnewsletter.com

OpenClaw's creator makes headlines by joining OpenAI after GitHub fame and a whirlwind of VC and big tech offers, redefining what's possible for independent developers in the AI arms race. Is this the year agentic AI goes mainstream, and are the big players ready for that disruption? OpenClaw, OpenAI and the future | Peter Steinberger OpenAI disbands mission alignment team Opinion | I Left My Job at OpenAI. Putting Ads on ChatGPT Was the Last Straw. - The New York Times Introducing GPT‑5.3‑Codex‑Spark Anthropic releases Sonnet 4.6 Exclusive: Pentagon threatens to cut off Anthropic in AI safeguards dispute Google's Pixel 10a Launches on March 5 for $499 Google's AI drug discovery spinoff Isomorphic Labs claims major leap beyond AlphaFold 3 Gemini 3 Deep Think: AI model update designed for science Radio host David Greene says Google's NotebookLM tool stole his voice A new way to express yourself: Gemini can now create music Why an A.I. Video of Tom Cruise Battling Brad Pitt Spooked Hollywood GPT-5 outperforms federal judges 100% to 52% in legal reasoning experiment An AI project is creating videos to go with Supreme Court justices' real words I used Claude to negotiate $163,000 off a hospital bill. In a complex healthcare system, AI is giving patients power. Sony Tech Can Identify Original Music in AI-Generated Songs AI Pioneer Fei-Fei Li's Startup World Labs Raises $1 Billion Yann v. Yoshua on directed systems Dr. Oz pushes AI avatars as a fix for rural health care. Not so fast, critics say An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me An Ars Technica Reporter Blamed A.I. Tools for Fabricating Quotes in a Bizarre A.I. Story Plain Dealer using AI to write reporters' stories Mediahuis trials use of AI agents to carry out 'first-line' news reporting DJI's first robovac is an autonomous cleaning drone you can't trust Leaked Email Suggests Ring Plans to Expand 'Search Party' Surveillance Beyond Dogs ai;dr I hate my AI pet with every fiber of my being Thanks a lot, AI: Hard drives are sold out for the year, says WD Students Are Being Treated Like Guinea Pigs:' Inside an AI-Powered Private School peon-ping — Stop babysitting your terminal Hugo Barra makes a to-do agent Raspberry Pi soars 40% as CEO buys stock, AI chatter builds Hosts: Leo Laporte, Jeff Jarvis, and Emily Forlini Download or subscribe to Intelligent Machines at https://twit.tv/shows/intelligent-machines. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: monarch.com with code IM bitwarden.com/twit preview.modulate.ai spaceship.com/twit

OpenClaw's creator makes headlines by joining OpenAI after GitHub fame and a whirlwind of VC and big tech offers, redefining what's possible for independent developers in the AI arms race. Is this the year agentic AI goes mainstream, and are the big players ready for that disruption? OpenClaw, OpenAI and the future | Peter Steinberger OpenAI disbands mission alignment team Opinion | I Left My Job at OpenAI. Putting Ads on ChatGPT Was the Last Straw. - The New York Times Introducing GPT‑5.3‑Codex‑Spark Anthropic releases Sonnet 4.6 Exclusive: Pentagon threatens to cut off Anthropic in AI safeguards dispute Google's Pixel 10a Launches on March 5 for $499 Google's AI drug discovery spinoff Isomorphic Labs claims major leap beyond AlphaFold 3 Gemini 3 Deep Think: AI model update designed for science Radio host David Greene says Google's NotebookLM tool stole his voice A new way to express yourself: Gemini can now create music Why an A.I. Video of Tom Cruise Battling Brad Pitt Spooked Hollywood GPT-5 outperforms federal judges 100% to 52% in legal reasoning experiment An AI project is creating videos to go with Supreme Court justices' real words I used Claude to negotiate $163,000 off a hospital bill. In a complex healthcare system, AI is giving patients power. Sony Tech Can Identify Original Music in AI-Generated Songs AI Pioneer Fei-Fei Li's Startup World Labs Raises $1 Billion Yann v. Yoshua on directed systems Dr. Oz pushes AI avatars as a fix for rural health care. Not so fast, critics say An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me An Ars Technica Reporter Blamed A.I. Tools for Fabricating Quotes in a Bizarre A.I. Story Plain Dealer using AI to write reporters' stories Mediahuis trials use of AI agents to carry out 'first-line' news reporting DJI's first robovac is an autonomous cleaning drone you can't trust Leaked Email Suggests Ring Plans to Expand 'Search Party' Surveillance Beyond Dogs ai;dr I hate my AI pet with every fiber of my being Thanks a lot, AI: Hard drives are sold out for the year, says WD Students Are Being Treated Like Guinea Pigs:' Inside an AI-Powered Private School peon-ping — Stop babysitting your terminal Hugo Barra makes a to-do agent Raspberry Pi soars 40% as CEO buys stock, AI chatter builds Hosts: Leo Laporte, Jeff Jarvis, and Emily Forlini Download or subscribe to Intelligent Machines at https://twit.tv/shows/intelligent-machines. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: monarch.com with code IM bitwarden.com/twit preview.modulate.ai spaceship.com/twit

Sami makes his triumphant return to the Giant Robots Smashing into other Giant Robots Podcast as he and his fellow hosts discuss a brand new tool currently in pre-production at thoughtbot. Chad lays out his idea for the tool, how he thinks it will differ from other similar products currently available, who it's for and the considerations needed going in to make it as accessible as possible, and Sami plays devil's advocate as he asks Chad the hard questions about his new project. — Follow the development of thoughtbot's latest product through Chad's live streams, AI in Focus over on our YouTube channel. And if you want to look as cool as our hosts do you can check out the thoughtbot merch store! You can find Chad all over social media as @cpytel and Sami through his website. You can also connect with the trio via their LinkedIn pages - Chad - Will - Sami. If you would like to support the show, head over to our GitHub page, or check out our website. Got a question or comment about the show? Why not write to our hosts: hosts@giantrobots.fm This has been a thoughtbot podcast. Stay up to date by following us on social media - LinkedIn - Mastodon - YouTube - Bluesky © 2026 thoughtbot, inc.

OpenClaw's creator makes headlines by joining OpenAI after GitHub fame and a whirlwind of VC and big tech offers, redefining what's possible for independent developers in the AI arms race. Is this the year agentic AI goes mainstream, and are the big players ready for that disruption? OpenClaw, OpenAI and the future | Peter Steinberger OpenAI disbands mission alignment team Opinion | I Left My Job at OpenAI. Putting Ads on ChatGPT Was the Last Straw. - The New York Times Introducing GPT‑5.3‑Codex‑Spark Anthropic releases Sonnet 4.6 Exclusive: Pentagon threatens to cut off Anthropic in AI safeguards dispute Google's Pixel 10a Launches on March 5 for $499 Google's AI drug discovery spinoff Isomorphic Labs claims major leap beyond AlphaFold 3 Gemini 3 Deep Think: AI model update designed for science Radio host David Greene says Google's NotebookLM tool stole his voice A new way to express yourself: Gemini can now create music Why an A.I. Video of Tom Cruise Battling Brad Pitt Spooked Hollywood GPT-5 outperforms federal judges 100% to 52% in legal reasoning experiment An AI project is creating videos to go with Supreme Court justices' real words I used Claude to negotiate $163,000 off a hospital bill. In a complex healthcare system, AI is giving patients power. Sony Tech Can Identify Original Music in AI-Generated Songs AI Pioneer Fei-Fei Li's Startup World Labs Raises $1 Billion Yann v. Yoshua on directed systems Dr. Oz pushes AI avatars as a fix for rural health care. Not so fast, critics say An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me An Ars Technica Reporter Blamed A.I. Tools for Fabricating Quotes in a Bizarre A.I. Story Plain Dealer using AI to write reporters' stories Mediahuis trials use of AI agents to carry out 'first-line' news reporting DJI's first robovac is an autonomous cleaning drone you can't trust Leaked Email Suggests Ring Plans to Expand 'Search Party' Surveillance Beyond Dogs ai;dr I hate my AI pet with every fiber of my being Thanks a lot, AI: Hard drives are sold out for the year, says WD Students Are Being Treated Like Guinea Pigs:' Inside an AI-Powered Private School peon-ping — Stop babysitting your terminal Hugo Barra makes a to-do agent Raspberry Pi soars 40% as CEO buys stock, AI chatter builds Hosts: Leo Laporte, Jeff Jarvis, and Emily Forlini Download or subscribe to Intelligent Machines at https://twit.tv/shows/intelligent-machines. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: monarch.com with code IM bitwarden.com/twit preview.modulate.ai spaceship.com/twit

OpenClaw's creator makes headlines by joining OpenAI after GitHub fame and a whirlwind of VC and big tech offers, redefining what's possible for independent developers in the AI arms race. Is this the year agentic AI goes mainstream, and are the big players ready for that disruption? OpenClaw, OpenAI and the future | Peter Steinberger OpenAI disbands mission alignment team Opinion | I Left My Job at OpenAI. Putting Ads on ChatGPT Was the Last Straw. - The New York Times Introducing GPT‑5.3‑Codex‑Spark Anthropic releases Sonnet 4.6 Exclusive: Pentagon threatens to cut off Anthropic in AI safeguards dispute Google's Pixel 10a Launches on March 5 for $499 Google's AI drug discovery spinoff Isomorphic Labs claims major leap beyond AlphaFold 3 Gemini 3 Deep Think: AI model update designed for science Radio host David Greene says Google's NotebookLM tool stole his voice A new way to express yourself: Gemini can now create music Why an A.I. Video of Tom Cruise Battling Brad Pitt Spooked Hollywood GPT-5 outperforms federal judges 100% to 52% in legal reasoning experiment An AI project is creating videos to go with Supreme Court justices' real words I used Claude to negotiate $163,000 off a hospital bill. In a complex healthcare system, AI is giving patients power. Sony Tech Can Identify Original Music in AI-Generated Songs AI Pioneer Fei-Fei Li's Startup World Labs Raises $1 Billion Yann v. Yoshua on directed systems Dr. Oz pushes AI avatars as a fix for rural health care. Not so fast, critics say An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me An Ars Technica Reporter Blamed A.I. Tools for Fabricating Quotes in a Bizarre A.I. Story Plain Dealer using AI to write reporters' stories Mediahuis trials use of AI agents to carry out 'first-line' news reporting DJI's first robovac is an autonomous cleaning drone you can't trust Leaked Email Suggests Ring Plans to Expand 'Search Party' Surveillance Beyond Dogs ai;dr I hate my AI pet with every fiber of my being Thanks a lot, AI: Hard drives are sold out for the year, says WD Students Are Being Treated Like Guinea Pigs:' Inside an AI-Powered Private School peon-ping — Stop babysitting your terminal Hugo Barra makes a to-do agent Raspberry Pi soars 40% as CEO buys stock, AI chatter builds Hosts: Leo Laporte, Jeff Jarvis, and Emily Forlini Download or subscribe to Intelligent Machines at https://twit.tv/shows/intelligent-machines. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: monarch.com with code IM bitwarden.com/twit preview.modulate.ai spaceship.com/twit

Tickets for AIEi Miami and AIE Europe are live, with first wave speakers announced!From pioneering software-defined networking to backing many of the most aggressive AI model companies of this cycle, Martin Casado and Sarah Wang sit at the center of the capital, compute, and talent arms race reshaping the tech industry. As partners at a16z investing across infrastructure and growth, they've watched venture and growth blur, model labs turn dollars into capability at unprecedented speed, and startups raise nine-figure rounds before monetization.Martin and Sarah join us to unpack the new financing playbook for AI: why today's rounds are really compute contracts in disguise, how the “raise → train → ship → raise bigger” flywheel works, and whether foundation model companies can outspend the entire app ecosystem built on top of them. They also share what's underhyped (boring enterprise software), what's overheated (talent wars and compensation spirals), and the two radically different futures they see for AI's market structure.We discuss:* Martin's “two futures” fork: infinite fragmentation and new software categories vs. a small oligopoly of general models that consume everything above them* The capital flywheel: how model labs translate funding directly into capability gains, then into revenue growth measured in weeks, not years* Why venture and growth have merged: $100M–$1B hybrid rounds, strategic investors, compute negotiations, and complex deal structures* The AGI vs. product tension: allocating scarce GPUs between long-term research and near-term revenue flywheels* Whether frontier labs can out-raise and outspend the entire app ecosystem built on top of their APIs* Why today's talent wars ($10M+ comp packages, $B acqui-hires) are breaking early-stage founder math* Cursor as a case study: building up from the app layer while training down into your own models* Why “boring” enterprise software may be the most underinvested opportunity in the AI mania* Hardware and robotics: why the ChatGPT moment hasn't yet arrived for robots and what would need to change* World Labs and generative 3D: bringing the marginal cost of 3D scene creation down by orders of magnitude* Why public AI discourse is often wildly disconnected from boardroom reality and how founders should navigate the noiseShow Notes:* “Where Value Will Accrue in AI: Martin Casado & Sarah Wang” - a16z show* “Jack Altman & Martin Casado on the Future of Venture Capital”* World Labs—Martin Casado• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/martincasado/• X: https://x.com/martin_casadoSarah Wang• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-wang-59b96a7• X: https://x.com/sarahdingwanga16z• https://a16z.com/Timestamps00:00:00 – Intro: Live from a16z00:01:20 – The New AI Funding Model: Venture + Growth Collide00:03:19 – Circular Funding, Demand & “No Dark GPUs”00:05:24 – Infrastructure vs Apps: The Lines Blur00:06:24 – The Capital Flywheel: Raise → Train → Ship → Raise Bigger00:09:39 – Can Frontier Labs Outspend the Entire App Ecosystem?00:11:24 – Character AI & The AGI vs Product Dilemma00:14:39 – Talent Wars, $10M Engineers & Founder Anxiety00:17:33 – What's Underinvested? The Case for “Boring” Software00:19:29 – Robotics, Hardware & Why It's Hard to Win00:22:42 – Custom ASICs & The $1B Training Run Economics00:24:23 – American Dynamism, Geography & AI Power Centers00:26:48 – How AI Is Changing the Investor Workflow (Claude Cowork)00:29:12 – Two Futures of AI: Infinite Expansion or Oligopoly?00:32:48 – If You Can Raise More Than Your Ecosystem, You Win00:34:27 – Are All Tasks AGI-Complete? Coding as the Test Case00:38:55 – Cursor & The Power of the App Layer00:44:05 – World Labs, Spatial Intelligence & 3D Foundation Models00:47:20 – Thinking Machines, Founder Drama & Media Narratives00:52:30 – Where Long-Term Power Accrues in the AI StackTranscriptLatent.Space - Inside AI's $10B+ Capital Flywheel — Martin Casado & Sarah Wang of a16z[00:00:00] Welcome to Latent Space (Live from a16z) + Meet the Guests[00:00:00] Alessio: Hey everyone. Welcome to the Latent Space podcast, live from a 16 z. Uh, this is Alessio founder Kernel Lance, and I'm joined by Twix, editor of Latent Space.[00:00:08] swyx: Hey, hey, hey. Uh, and we're so glad to be on with you guys. Also a top AI podcast, uh, Martin Cado and Sarah Wang. Welcome, very[00:00:16] Martin Casado: happy to be here and welcome.[00:00:17] swyx: Yes, uh, we love this office. We love what you've done with the place. Uh, the new logo is everywhere now. It's, it's still getting, takes a while to get used to, but it reminds me of like sort of a callback to a more ambitious age, which I think is kind of[00:00:31] Martin Casado: definitely makes a statement.[00:00:33] swyx: Yeah.[00:00:34] Martin Casado: Not quite sure what that statement is, but it makes a statement.[00:00:37] swyx: Uh, Martin, I go back with you to Netlify.[00:00:40] Martin Casado: Yep.[00:00:40] swyx: Uh, and, uh, you know, you create a software defined networking and all, all that stuff people can read up on your background. Yep. Sarah, I'm newer to you. Uh, you, you sort of started working together on AI infrastructure stuff.[00:00:51] Sarah Wang: That's right. Yeah. Seven, seven years ago now.[00:00:53] Martin Casado: Best growth investor in the entire industry.[00:00:55] swyx: Oh, say[00:00:56] Martin Casado: more hands down there is, there is. [00:01:00] I mean, when it comes to AI companies, Sarah, I think has done the most kind of aggressive, um, investment thesis around AI models, right? So, worked for Nom Ja, Mira Ia, FEI Fey, and so just these frontier, kind of like large AI models.[00:01:15] I think, you know, Sarah's been the, the broadest investor. Is that fair?[00:01:20] Venture vs. Growth in the Frontier Model Era[00:01:20] Sarah Wang: No, I, well, I was gonna say, I think it's been a really interesting tag, tag team actually just ‘cause the, a lot of these big C deals, not only are they raising a lot of money, um, it's still a tech founder bet, which obviously is inherently early stage.[00:01:33] But the resources,[00:01:36] Martin Casado: so many, I[00:01:36] Sarah Wang: was gonna say the resources one, they just grow really quickly. But then two, the resources that they need day one are kind of growth scale. So I, the hybrid tag team that we have is. Quite effective, I think,[00:01:46] Martin Casado: what is growth these days? You know, you don't wake up if it's less than a billion or like, it's, it's actually, it's actually very like, like no, it's a very interesting time in investing because like, you know, take like the character around, right?[00:01:59] These tend to [00:02:00] be like pre monetization, but the dollars are large enough that you need to have a larger fund and the analysis. You know, because you've got lots of users. ‘cause this stuff has such high demand requires, you know, more of a number sophistication. And so most of these deals, whether it's US or other firms on these large model companies, are like this hybrid between venture growth.[00:02:18] Sarah Wang: Yeah. Total. And I think, you know, stuff like BD for example, you wouldn't usually need BD when you were seed stage trying to get market biz Devrel. Biz Devrel, exactly. Okay. But like now, sorry, I'm,[00:02:27] swyx: I'm not familiar. What, what, what does biz Devrel mean for a venture fund? Because I know what biz Devrel means for a company.[00:02:31] Sarah Wang: Yeah.[00:02:32] Compute Deals, Strategics, and the ‘Circular Funding' Question[00:02:32] Sarah Wang: You know, so a, a good example is, I mean, we talk about buying compute, but there's a huge negotiation involved there in terms of, okay, do you get equity for the compute? What, what sort of partner are you looking at? Is there a go-to market arm to that? Um, and these are just things on this scale, hundreds of millions, you know, maybe.[00:02:50] Six months into the inception of a company, you just wouldn't have to negotiate these deals before.[00:02:54] Martin Casado: Yeah. These large rounds are very complex now. Like in the past, if you did a series A [00:03:00] or a series B, like whatever, you're writing a 20 to a $60 million check and you call it a day. Now you normally have financial investors and strategic investors, and then the strategic portion always still goes with like these kind of large compute contracts, which can take months to do.[00:03:13] And so it's, it's very different ties. I've been doing this for 10 years. It's the, I've never seen anything like this.[00:03:19] swyx: Yeah. Do you have worries about the circular funding from so disease strategics?[00:03:24] Martin Casado: I mean, listen, as long as the demand is there, like the demand is there. Like the problem with the internet is the demand wasn't there.[00:03:29] swyx: Exactly. All right. This, this is like the, the whole pyramid scheme bubble thing, where like, as long as you mark to market on like the notional value of like, these deals, fine, but like once it starts to chip away, it really Well[00:03:41] Martin Casado: no, like as, as, as, as long as there's demand. I mean, you know, this, this is like a lot of these sound bites have already become kind of cliches, but they're worth saying it.[00:03:47] Right? Like during the internet days, like we were. Um, raising money to put fiber in the ground that wasn't used. And that's a problem, right? Because now you actually have a supply overhang.[00:03:58] swyx: Mm-hmm.[00:03:59] Martin Casado: And even in the, [00:04:00] the time of the, the internet, like the supply and, and bandwidth overhang, even as massive as it was in, as massive as the crash was only lasted about four years.[00:04:09] But we don't have a supply overhang. Like there's no dark GPUs, right? I mean, and so, you know, circular or not, I mean, you know, if, if someone invests in a company that, um. You know, they'll actually use the GPUs. And on the other side of it is the, is the ask for customer. So I I, I think it's a different time.[00:04:25] Sarah Wang: I think the other piece, maybe just to add onto this, and I'm gonna quote Martine in front of him, but this is probably also a unique time in that. For the first time, you can actually trace dollars to outcomes. Yeah, right. Provided that scaling laws are, are holding, um, and capabilities are actually moving forward.[00:04:40] Because if you can put translate dollars into capabilities, uh, a capability improvement, there's demand there to martine's point. But if that somehow breaks, you know, obviously that's an important assumption in this whole thing to make it work. But you know, instead of investing dollars into sales and marketing, you're, you're investing into r and d to get to the capability, um, you know, increase.[00:04:59] And [00:05:00] that's sort of been the demand driver because. Once there's an unlock there, people are willing to pay for it.[00:05:05] Alessio: Yeah.[00:05:06] Blurring Lines: Models as Infra + Apps, and the New Fundraising Flywheel[00:05:06] Alessio: Is there any difference in how you built the portfolio now that some of your growth companies are, like the infrastructure of the early stage companies, like, you know, OpenAI is now the same size as some of the cloud providers were early on.[00:05:16] Like what does that look like? Like how much information can you feed off each other between the, the two?[00:05:24] Martin Casado: There's so many lines that are being crossed right now, or blurred. Right. So we already talked about venture and growth. Another one that's being blurred is between infrastructure and apps, right? So like what is a model company?[00:05:35] Mm-hmm. Like, it's clearly infrastructure, right? Because it's like, you know, it's doing kind of core r and d. It's a horizontal platform, but it's also an app because it's um, uh, touches the users directly. And then of course. You know, the, the, the growth of these is just so high. And so I actually think you're just starting to see a, a, a new financing strategy emerge and, you know, we've had to adapt as a result of that.[00:05:59] And [00:06:00] so there's been a lot of changes. Um, you're right that these companies become platform companies very quickly. You've got ecosystem build out. So none of this is necessarily new, but the timescales of which it's happened is pretty phenomenal. And the way we'd normally cut lines before is blurred a little bit, but.[00:06:16] But that, that, that said, I mean, a lot of it also just does feel like things that we've seen in the past, like cloud build out the internet build out as well.[00:06:24] Sarah Wang: Yeah. Um, yeah, I think it's interesting, uh, I don't know if you guys would agree with this, but it feels like the emerging strategy is, and this builds off of your other question, um.[00:06:33] You raise money for compute, you pour that or you, you pour the money into compute, you get some sort of breakthrough. You funnel the breakthrough into your vertically integrated application. That could be chat GBT, that could be cloud code, you know, whatever it is. You massively gain share and get users.[00:06:49] Maybe you're even subsidizing at that point. Um, depending on your strategy. You raise money at the peak momentum and then you repeat, rinse and repeat. Um, and so. And that wasn't [00:07:00] true even two years ago, I think. Mm-hmm. And so it's sort of to your, just tying it to fundraising strategy, right? There's a, and hiring strategy.[00:07:07] All of these are tied, I think the lines are blurring even more today where everyone is, and they, but of course these companies all have API businesses and so they're these, these frenemy lines that are getting blurred in that a lot of, I mean, they have billions of dollars of API revenue, right? And so there are customers there.[00:07:23] But they're competing on the app layer.[00:07:24] Martin Casado: Yeah. So this is a really, really important point. So I, I would say for sure, venture and growth, that line is blurry app and infrastructure. That line is blurry. Um, but I don't think that that changes our practice so much. But like where the very open questions are like, does this layer in the same way.[00:07:43] Compute traditionally has like during the cloud is like, you know, like whatever, somebody wins one layer, but then another whole set of companies wins another layer. But that might not, might not be the case here. It may be the case that you actually can't verticalize on the token string. Like you can't build an app like it, it necessarily goes down just because there are no [00:08:00] abstractions.[00:08:00] So those are kinda the bigger existential questions we ask. Another thing that is very different this time than in the history of computer sciences is. In the past, if you raised money, then you basically had to wait for engineering to catch up. Which famously doesn't scale like the mythical mammoth. It take a very long time.[00:08:18] But like that's not the case here. Like a model company can raise money and drop a model in a, in a year, and it's better, right? And, and it does it with a team of 20 people or 10 people. So this type of like money entering a company and then producing something that has demand and growth right away and using that to raise more money is a very different capital flywheel than we've ever seen before.[00:08:39] And I think everybody's trying to understand what the consequences are. So I think it's less about like. Big companies and growth and this, and more about these more systemic questions that we actually don't have answers to.[00:08:49] Alessio: Yeah, like at Kernel Labs, one of our ideas is like if you had unlimited money to spend productively to turn tokens into products, like the whole early stage [00:09:00] market is very different because today you're investing X amount of capital to win a deal because of price structure and whatnot, and you're kind of pot committing.[00:09:07] Yeah. To a certain strategy for a certain amount of time. Yeah. But if you could like iteratively spin out companies and products and just throw, I, I wanna spend a million dollar of inference today and get a product out tomorrow.[00:09:18] swyx: Yeah.[00:09:19] Alessio: Like, we should get to the point where like the friction of like token to product is so low that you can do this and then you can change the Right, the early stage venture model to be much more iterative.[00:09:30] And then every round is like either 100 k of inference or like a hundred million from a 16 Z. There's no, there's no like $8 million C round anymore. Right.[00:09:38] When Frontier Labs Outspend the Entire App Ecosystem[00:09:38] Martin Casado: But, but, but, but there's a, there's a, the, an industry structural question that we don't know the answer to, which involves the frontier models, which is, let's take.[00:09:48] Anthropic it. Let's say Anthropic has a state-of-the-art model that has some large percentage of market share. And let's say that, uh, uh, uh, you know, uh, a company's building smaller models [00:10:00] that, you know, use the bigger model in the background, open 4.5, but they add value on top of that. Now, if Anthropic can raise three times more.[00:10:10] Every subsequent round, they probably can raise more money than the entire app ecosystem that's built on top of it. And if that's the case, they can expand beyond everything built on top of it. It's like imagine like a star that's just kind of expanding, so there could be a systemic. There could be a, a systemic situation where the soda models can raise so much money that they can out pay anybody that bills on top of ‘em, which would be something I don't think we've ever seen before just because we were so bottlenecked in engineering, and this is a very open question.[00:10:41] swyx: Yeah. It's, it is almost like bitter lesson applied to the startup industry.[00:10:45] Martin Casado: Yeah, a hundred percent. It literally becomes an issue of like raise capital, turn that directly into growth. Use that to raise three times more. Exactly. And if you can keep doing that, you literally can outspend any company that's built the, not any company.[00:10:57] You can outspend the aggregate of companies on top of [00:11:00] you and therefore you'll necessarily take their share, which is crazy.[00:11:02] swyx: Would you say that kind of happens in character? Is that the, the sort of postmortem on. What happened?[00:11:10] Sarah Wang: Um,[00:11:10] Martin Casado: no.[00:11:12] Sarah Wang: Yeah, because I think so,[00:11:13] swyx: I mean the actual postmortem is, he wanted to go back to Google.[00:11:15] Exactly. But like[00:11:18] Martin Casado: that's another difference that[00:11:19] Sarah Wang: you said[00:11:21] Martin Casado: it. We should talk, we should actually talk about that.[00:11:22] swyx: Yeah,[00:11:22] Sarah Wang: that's[00:11:23] swyx: Go for it. Take it. Take,[00:11:23] Sarah Wang: yeah.[00:11:24] Character.AI, Founder Goals (AGI vs Product), and GPU Allocation Tradeoffs[00:11:24] Sarah Wang: I was gonna say, I think, um. The, the, the character thing raises actually a different issue, which actually the Frontier Labs will face as well. So we'll see how they handle it.[00:11:34] But, um, so we invest in character in January, 2023, which feels like eons ago, I mean, three years ago. Feels like lifetimes ago. But, um, and then they, uh, did the IP licensing deal with Google in August, 2020. Uh, four. And so, um, you know, at the time, no, you know, he's talked publicly about this, right? He wanted to Google wouldn't let him put out products in the world.[00:11:56] That's obviously changed drastically. But, um, he went to go do [00:12:00] that. Um, but he had a product attached. The goal was, I mean, it's Nome Shair, he wanted to get to a GI. That was always his personal goal. But, you know, I think through collecting data, right, and this sort of very human use case, that the character product.[00:12:13] Originally was and still is, um, was one of the vehicles to do that. Um, I think the real reason that, you know. I if you think about the, the stress that any company feels before, um, you ultimately going one way or the other is sort of this a GI versus product. Um, and I think a lot of the big, I think, you know, opening eyes, feeling that, um, anthropic if they haven't started, you know, felt it, certainly given the success of their products, they may start to feel that soon.[00:12:39] And the real. I think there's real trade-offs, right? It's like how many, when you think about GPUs, that's a limited resource. Where do you allocate the GPUs? Is it toward the product? Is it toward new re research? Right? Is it, or long-term research, is it toward, um, n you know, near to midterm research? And so, um, in a case where you're resource constrained, um, [00:13:00] of course there's this fundraising game you can play, right?[00:13:01] But the fund, the market was very different back in 2023 too. Um. I think the best researchers in the world have this dilemma of, okay, I wanna go all in on a GI, but it's the product usage revenue flywheel that keeps the revenue in the house to power all the GPUs to get to a GI. And so it does make, um, you know, I think it sets up an interesting dilemma for any startup that has trouble raising up until that level, right?[00:13:27] And certainly if you don't have that progress, you can't continue this fly, you know, fundraising flywheel.[00:13:32] Martin Casado: I would say that because, ‘cause we're keeping track of all of the things that are different, right? Like, you know, venture growth and uh, app infra and one of the ones is definitely the personalities of the founders.[00:13:45] It's just very different this time I've been. Been doing this for a decade and I've been doing startups for 20 years. And so, um, I mean a lot of people start this to do a GI and we've never had like a unified North star that I recall in the same [00:14:00] way. Like people built companies to start companies in the past.[00:14:02] Like that was what it was. Like I would create an internet company, I would create infrastructure company, like it's kind of more engineering builders and this is kind of a different. You know, mentality. And some companies have harnessed that incredibly well because their direction is so obviously on the path to what somebody would consider a GI, but others have not.[00:14:20] And so like there is always this tension with personnel. And so I think we're seeing more kind of founder movement.[00:14:27] Sarah Wang: Yeah.[00:14:27] Martin Casado: You know, as a fraction of founders than we've ever seen. I mean, maybe since like, I don't know the time of like Shockly and the trade DUR aid or something like that. Way back in the beginning of the industry, I, it's a very, very.[00:14:38] Unusual time of personnel.[00:14:39] Sarah Wang: Totally.[00:14:40] Talent Wars, Mega-Comp, and the Rise of Acquihire M&A[00:14:40] Sarah Wang: And it, I think it's exacerbated by the fact that talent wars, I mean, every industry has talent wars, but not at this magnitude, right? No. Yeah. Very rarely can you see someone get poached for $5 billion. That's hard to compete with. And then secondly, if you're a founder in ai, you could fart and it would be on the front page of, you know, the information these days.[00:14:59] And so there's [00:15:00] sort of this fishbowl effect that I think adds to the deep anxiety that, that these AI founders are feeling.[00:15:06] Martin Casado: Hmm.[00:15:06] swyx: Uh, yes. I mean, just on, uh, briefly comment on the founder, uh, the sort of. Talent wars thing. I feel like 2025 was just like a blip. Like I, I don't know if we'll see that again.[00:15:17] ‘cause meta built the team. Like, I don't know if, I think, I think they're kind of done and like, who's gonna pay more than meta? I, I don't know.[00:15:23] Martin Casado: I, I agree. So it feels so, it feel, it feels this way to me too. It's like, it is like, basically Zuckerberg kind of came out swinging and then now he's kind of back to building.[00:15:30] Yeah,[00:15:31] swyx: yeah. You know, you gotta like pay up to like assemble team to rush the job, whatever. But then now, now you like you, you made your choices and now they got a ship.[00:15:38] Martin Casado: I mean, the, the o other side of that is like, you know, like we're, we're actually in the job hiring market. We've got 600 people here. I hire all the time.[00:15:44] I've got three open recs if anybody's interested, that's listening to this for investor. Yeah, on, on the team, like on the investing side of the team, like, and, um, a lot of the people we talk to have acting, you know, active, um, offers for 10 million a year or something like that. And like, you know, and we pay really, [00:16:00] really well.[00:16:00] And just to see what's out on the market is really, is really remarkable. And so I would just say it's actually, so you're right, like the really flashy one, like I will get someone for, you know, a billion dollars, but like the inflated, um, uh, trickles down. Yeah, it is still very active today. I mean,[00:16:18] Sarah Wang: yeah, you could be an L five and get an offer in the tens of millions.[00:16:22] Okay. Yeah. Easily. Yeah. It's so I think you're right that it felt like a blip. I hope you're right. Um, but I think it's been, the steady state is now, I think got pulled up. Yeah. Yeah. I'll pull up for[00:16:31] Martin Casado: sure. Yeah.[00:16:32] Alessio: Yeah. And I think that's breaking the early stage founder math too. I think before a lot of people would be like, well, maybe I should just go be a founder instead of like getting paid.[00:16:39] Yeah. 800 KA million at Google. But if I'm getting paid. Five, 6 million. That's different but[00:16:45] Martin Casado: on. But on the other hand, there's more strategic money than we've ever seen historically, right? Mm-hmm. And so, yep. The economics, the, the, the, the calculus on the economics is very different in a number of ways. And, uh, it's crazy.[00:16:58] It's cra it's causing like a, [00:17:00] a, a, a ton of change in confusion in the market. Some very positive, sub negative, like, so for example, the other side of the, um. The co-founder, like, um, acquisition, you know, mark Zuckerberg poaching someone for a lot of money is like, we were actually seeing historic amount of m and a for basically acquihires, right?[00:17:20] That you like, you know, really good outcomes from a venture perspective that are effective acquihires, right? So I would say it's probably net positive from the investment standpoint, even though it seems from the headlines to be very disruptive in a negative way.[00:17:33] Alessio: Yeah.[00:17:33] What's Underfunded: Boring Software, Robotics Skepticism, and Custom Silicon Economics[00:17:33] Alessio: Um, let's talk maybe about what's not being invested in, like maybe some interesting ideas that you would see more people build or it, it seems in a way, you know, as ycs getting more popular, it's like access getting more popular.[00:17:47] There's a startup school path that a lot of founders take and they know what's hot in the VC circles and they know what gets funded. Uh, and there's maybe not as much risk appetite for. Things outside of that. Um, I'm curious if you feel [00:18:00] like that's true and what are maybe, uh, some of the areas, uh, that you think are under discussed?[00:18:06] Martin Casado: I mean, I actually think that we've taken our eye off the ball in a lot of like, just traditional, you know, software companies. Um, so like, I mean. You know, I think right now there's almost a barbell, like you're like the hot thing on X, you're deep tech.[00:18:21] swyx: Mm-hmm.[00:18:22] Martin Casado: Right. But I, you know, I feel like there's just kind of a long, you know, list of like good.[00:18:28] Good companies that will be around for a long time in very large markets. Say you're building a database, you know, say you're building, um, you know, kind of monitoring or logging or tooling or whatever. There's some good companies out there right now, but like, they have a really hard time getting, um, the attention of investors.[00:18:43] And it's almost become a meme, right? Which is like, if you're not basically growing from zero to a hundred in a year, you're not interesting, which is just, is the silliest thing to say. I mean, think of yourself as like an introvert person, like, like your personal money, right? Mm-hmm. So. Your personal money, will you put it in the stock market at 7% or you put it in this company growing five x in a very large [00:19:00] market?[00:19:00] Of course you can put it in the company five x. So it's just like we say these stupid things, like if you're not going from zero to a hundred, but like those, like who knows what the margins of those are mean. Clearly these are good investments. True for anybody, right? True. Like our LPs want whatever.[00:19:12] Three x net over, you know, the life cycle of a fund, right? So a, a company in a big market growing five X is a great investment. We'd, everybody would be happy with these returns, but we've got this kind of mania on these, these strong growths. And so I would say that that's probably the most underinvested sector.[00:19:28] Right now.[00:19:29] swyx: Boring software, boring enterprise software.[00:19:31] Martin Casado: Traditional. Really good company.[00:19:33] swyx: No, no AI here.[00:19:34] Martin Casado: No. Like boring. Well, well, the AI of course is pulling them into use cases. Yeah, but that's not what they're, they're not on the token path, right? Yeah. Let's just say that like they're software, but they're not on the token path.[00:19:41] Like these are like they're great investments from any definition except for like random VC on Twitter saying VC on x, saying like, it's not growing fast enough. What do you[00:19:52] Sarah Wang: think? Yeah, maybe I'll answer a slightly different. Question, but adjacent to what you asked, um, which is maybe an area that we're not, uh, investing [00:20:00] right now that I think is a question and we're spending a lot of time in regardless of whether we pull the trigger or not.[00:20:05] Um, and it would probably be on the hardware side, actually. Robotics, right? And the robotics side. Robotics. Right. Which is, it's, I don't wanna say that it's not getting funding ‘cause it's clearly, uh, it's, it's sort of non-consensus to almost not invest in robotics at this point. But, um, we spent a lot of time in that space and I think for us, we just haven't seen the chat GPT moment.[00:20:22] Happen on the hardware side. Um, and the funding going into it feels like it's already. Taking that for granted.[00:20:30] Martin Casado: Yeah. Yeah. But we also went through the drone, you know, um, there's a zip line right, right out there. What's that? Oh yeah, there's a zip line. Yeah. What the drone, what the av And like one of the takeaways is when it comes to hardware, um, most companies will end up verticalizing.[00:20:46] Like if you're. If you're investing in a robot company for an A for agriculture, you're investing in an ag company. ‘cause that's the competition and that's surprising. And that's supply chain. And if you're doing it for mining, that's mining. And so the ad team does a lot of that type of stuff ‘cause they actually set up to [00:21:00] diligence that type of work.[00:21:01] But for like horizontal technology investing, there's very little when it comes to robots just because it's so fit for, for purpose. And so we kinda like to look at software. Solutions or horizontal solutions like applied intuition. Clearly from the AV wave deep map, clearly from the AV wave, I would say scale AI was actually a horizontal one for That's fair, you know, for robotics early on.[00:21:23] And so that sort of thing we're very, very interested. But the actual like robot interacting with the world is probably better for different team. Agree.[00:21:30] Alessio: Yeah, I'm curious who these teams are supposed to be that invest in them. I feel like everybody's like, yeah, robotics, it's important and like people should invest in it.[00:21:38] But then when you look at like the numbers, like the capital requirements early on versus like the moment of, okay, this is actually gonna work. Let's keep investing. That seems really hard to predict in a way that is not,[00:21:49] Martin Casado: I think co, CO two, kla, gc, I mean these are all invested in in Harvard companies. He just, you know, and [00:22:00] listen, I mean, it could work this time for sure.[00:22:01] Right? I mean if Elon's doing it, he's like, right. Just, just the fact that Elon's doing it means that there's gonna be a lot of capital and a lot of attempts for a long period of time. So that alone maybe suggests that we should just be investing in robotics just ‘cause you have this North star who's Elon with a humanoid and that's gonna like basically willing into being an industry.[00:22:17] Um, but we've just historically found like. We're a huge believer that this is gonna happen. We just don't feel like we're in a good position to diligence these things. ‘cause again, robotics companies tend to be vertical. You really have to understand the market they're being sold into. Like that's like that competitive equilibrium with a human being is what's important.[00:22:34] It's not like the core tech and like we're kind of more horizontal core tech type investors. And this is Sarah and I. Yeah, the ad team is different. They can actually do these types of things.[00:22:42] swyx: Uh, just to clarify, AD stands for[00:22:44] Martin Casado: American Dynamism.[00:22:45] swyx: Alright. Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Uh, I actually, I do have a related question that, first of all, I wanna acknowledge also just on the, on the chip side.[00:22:51] Yeah. I, I recall a podcast that where you were on, i, I, I think it was the a CC podcast, uh, about two or three years ago where you, where you suddenly said [00:23:00] something, which really stuck in my head about how at some point, at some point kind of scale it makes sense to. Build a custom aic Yes. For per run.[00:23:07] Martin Casado: Yes.[00:23:07] It's crazy. Yeah.[00:23:09] swyx: We're here and I think you, you estimated 500 billion, uh, something.[00:23:12] Martin Casado: No, no, no. A billion, a billion dollar training run of $1 billion training run. It makes sense to actually do a custom meic if you can do it in time. The question now is timelines. Yeah, but not money because just, just, just rough math.[00:23:22] If it's a billion dollar training. Then the inference for that model has to be over a billion, otherwise it won't be solvent. So let's assume it's, if you could save 20%, which you could save much more than that with an ASIC 20%, that's $200 million. You can tape out a chip for $200 million. Right? So now you can literally like justify economically, not timeline wise.[00:23:41] That's a different issue. An ASIC per model, which[00:23:44] swyx: is because that, that's how much we leave on the table every single time. We, we, we do like generic Nvidia.[00:23:48] Martin Casado: Exactly. Exactly. No, it, it is actually much more than that. You could probably get, you know, a factor of two, which would be 500 million.[00:23:54] swyx: Typical MFU would be like 50.[00:23:55] Yeah, yeah. And that's good.[00:23:57] Martin Casado: Exactly. Yeah. Hundred[00:23:57] swyx: percent. Um, so, so, yeah, and I mean, and I [00:24:00] just wanna acknowledge like, here we are in, in, in 2025 and opening eyes confirming like Broadcom and all the other like custom silicon deals, which is incredible. I, I think that, uh, you know, speaking about ad there's, there's a really like interesting tie in that obviously you guys are hit on, which is like these sort, this sort of like America first movement or like sort of re industrialized here.[00:24:17] Yeah. Uh, move TSMC here, if that's possible. Um, how much overlap is there from ad[00:24:23] Martin Casado: Yeah.[00:24:23] swyx: To, I guess, growth and, uh, investing in particularly like, you know, US AI companies that are strongly bounded by their compute.[00:24:32] Martin Casado: Yeah. Yeah. So I mean, I, I would view, I would view AD as more as a market segmentation than like a mission, right?[00:24:37] So the market segmentation is, it has kind of regulatory compliance issues or government, you know, sale or it deals with like hardware. I mean, they're just set up to, to, to, to, to. To diligence those types of companies. So it's a more of a market segmentation thing. I would say the entire firm. You know, which has been since it is been intercepted, you know, has geographical biases, right?[00:24:58] I mean, for the longest time we're like, you [00:25:00] know, bay Area is gonna be like, great, where the majority of the dollars go. Yeah. And, and listen, there, there's actually a lot of compounding effects for having a geographic bias. Right. You know, everybody's in the same place. You've got an ecosystem, you're there, you've got presence, you've got a network.[00:25:12] Um, and, uh, I mean, I would say the Bay area's very much back. You know, like I, I remember during pre COVID, like it was like almost Crypto had kind of. Pulled startups away. Miami from the Bay Area. Miami, yeah. Yeah. New York was, you know, because it's so close to finance, came up like Los Angeles had a moment ‘cause it was so close to consumer, but now it's kind of come back here.[00:25:29] And so I would say, you know, we tend to be very Bay area focused historically, even though of course we've asked all over the world. And then I would say like, if you take the ring out, you know, one more, it's gonna be the US of course, because we know it very well. And then one more is gonna be getting us and its allies and Yeah.[00:25:44] And it goes from there.[00:25:45] Sarah Wang: Yeah,[00:25:45] Martin Casado: sorry.[00:25:46] Sarah Wang: No, no. I agree. I think from a, but I think from the intern that that's sort of like where the companies are headquartered. Maybe your questions on supply chain and customer base. Uh, I, I would say our customers are, are, our companies are fairly international from that perspective.[00:25:59] Like they're selling [00:26:00] globally, right? They have global supply chains in some cases.[00:26:03] Martin Casado: I would say also the stickiness is very different.[00:26:05] Sarah Wang: Yeah.[00:26:05] Martin Casado: Historically between venture and growth, like there's so much company building in venture, so much so like hiring the next PM. Introducing the customer, like all of that stuff.[00:26:15] Like of course we're just gonna be stronger where we have our network and we've been doing business for 20 years. I've been in the Bay Area for 25 years, so clearly I'm just more effective here than I would be somewhere else. Um, where I think, I think for some of the later stage rounds, the companies don't need that much help.[00:26:30] They're already kind of pretty mature historically, so like they can kind of be everywhere. So there's kind of less of that stickiness. This is different in the AI time. I mean, Sarah is now the, uh, chief of staff of like half the AI companies in, uh, in the Bay Area right now. She's like, ops Ninja Biz, Devrel, BizOps.[00:26:48] swyx: Are, are you, are you finding much AI automation in your work? Like what, what is your stack.[00:26:53] Sarah Wang: Oh my, in my personal stack.[00:26:54] swyx: I mean, because like, uh, by the way, it's the, the, the reason for this is it is triggering, uh, yeah. We, like, I'm hiring [00:27:00] ops, ops people. Um, a lot of ponders I know are also hiring ops people and I'm just, you know, it's opportunity Since you're, you're also like basically helping out with ops with a lot of companies.[00:27:09] What are people doing these days? Because it's still very manual as far as I can tell.[00:27:13] Sarah Wang: Hmm. Yeah. I think the things that we help with are pretty network based, um, in that. It's sort of like, Hey, how do do I shortcut this process? Well, let's connect you to the right person. So there's not quite an AI workflow for that.[00:27:26] I will say as a growth investor, Claude Cowork is pretty interesting. Yeah. Like for the first time, you can actually get one shot data analysis. Right. Which, you know, if you're gonna do a customer database, analyze a cohort retention, right? That's just stuff that you had to do by hand before. And our team, the other, it was like midnight and the three of us were playing with Claude Cowork.[00:27:47] We gave it a raw file. Boom. Perfectly accurate. We checked the numbers. It was amazing. That was my like, aha moment. That sounds so boring. But you know, that's, that's the kind of thing that a growth investor is like, [00:28:00] you know, slaving away on late at night. Um, done in a few seconds.[00:28:03] swyx: Yeah. You gotta wonder what the whole, like, philanthropic labs, which is like their new sort of products studio.[00:28:10] Yeah. What would that be worth as an independent, uh, startup? You know, like a[00:28:14] Martin Casado: lot.[00:28:14] Sarah Wang: Yeah, true.[00:28:16] swyx: Yeah. You[00:28:16] Martin Casado: gotta hand it to them. They've been executing incredibly well.[00:28:19] swyx: Yeah. I, I mean, to me, like, you know, philanthropic, like building on cloud code, I think, uh, it makes sense to me the, the real. Um, pedal to the metal, whatever the, the, the phrase is, is when they start coming after consumer with, uh, against OpenAI and like that is like red alert at Open ai.[00:28:35] Oh, I[00:28:35] Martin Casado: think they've been pretty clear. They're enterprise focused.[00:28:37] swyx: They have been, but like they've been free. Here's[00:28:40] Martin Casado: care publicly,[00:28:40] swyx: it's enterprise focused. It's coding. Right. Yeah.[00:28:43] AI Labs vs Startups: Disruption, Undercutting & the Innovator's Dilemma[00:28:43] swyx: And then, and, but here's cloud, cloud, cowork, and, and here's like, well, we, uh, they, apparently they're running Instagram ads for Claudia.[00:28:50] I, on, you know, for, for people on, I get them all the time. Right. And so, like,[00:28:54] Martin Casado: uh,[00:28:54] swyx: it, it's kind of like this, the disruption thing of, uh, you know. Mo Open has been doing, [00:29:00] consumer been doing the, just pursuing general intelligence in every mo modality, and here's a topic that only focus on this thing, but now they're sort of undercutting and doing the whole innovator's dilemma thing on like everything else.[00:29:11] Martin Casado: It's very[00:29:11] swyx: interesting.[00:29:12] Martin Casado: Yeah, I mean there's, there's a very open que so for me there's like, do you know that meme where there's like the guy in the path and there's like a path this way? There's a path this way. Like one which way Western man. Yeah. Yeah.[00:29:23] Two Futures for AI: Infinite Market vs AGI Oligopoly[00:29:23] Martin Casado: And for me, like, like all the entire industry kind of like hinges on like two potential futures.[00:29:29] So in, in one potential future, um, the market is infinitely large. There's perverse economies of scale. ‘cause as soon as you put a model out there, like it kind of sublimates and all the other models catch up and like, it's just like software's being rewritten and fractured all over the place and there's tons of upside and it just grows.[00:29:48] And then there's another path which is like, well. Maybe these models actually generalize really well, and all you have to do is train them with three times more money. That's all you have to [00:30:00] do, and it'll just consume everything beyond it. And if that's the case, like you end up with basically an oligopoly for everything, like, you know mm-hmm.[00:30:06] Because they're perfectly general and like, so this would be like the, the a GI path would be like, these are perfectly general. They can do everything. And this one is like, this is actually normal software. The universe is complicated. You've got, and nobody knows the answer.[00:30:18] The Economics Reality Check: Gross Margins, Training Costs & Borrowing Against the Future[00:30:18] Martin Casado: My belief is if you actually look at the numbers of these companies, so generally if you look at the numbers of these companies, if you look at like the amount they're making and how much they, they spent training the last model, they're gross margin positive.[00:30:30] You're like, oh, that's really working. But if you look at like. The current training that they're doing for the next model, their gross margin negative. So part of me thinks that a lot of ‘em are kind of borrowing against the future and that's gonna have to slow down. It's gonna catch up to them at some point in time, but we don't really know.[00:30:47] Sarah Wang: Yeah.[00:30:47] Martin Casado: Does that make sense? Like, I mean, it could be, it could be the case that the only reason this is working is ‘cause they can raise that next round and they can train that next model. ‘cause these models have such a short. Life. And so at some point in time, like, you know, they won't be able to [00:31:00] raise that next round for the next model and then things will kind of converge and fragment again.[00:31:03] But right now it's not.[00:31:04] Sarah Wang: Totally. I think the other, by the way, just, um, a meta point. I think the other lesson from the last three years is, and we talk about this all the time ‘cause we're on this. Twitter X bubble. Um, cool. But, you know, if you go back to, let's say March, 2024, that period, it felt like a, I think an open source model with an, like a, you know, benchmark leading capability was sort of launching on a daily basis at that point.[00:31:27] And, um, and so that, you know, that's one period. Suddenly it's sort of like open source takes over the world. There's gonna be a plethora. It's not an oligopoly, you know, if you fast, you know, if you, if you rewind time even before that GPT-4 was number one for. Nine months, 10 months. It's a long time. Right.[00:31:44] Um, and of course now we're in this era where it feels like an oligopoly, um, maybe some very steady state shifts and, and you know, it could look like this in the future too, but it just, it's so hard to call. And I think the thing that keeps, you know, us up at [00:32:00] night in, in a good way and bad way, is that the capability progress is actually not slowing down.[00:32:06] And so until that happens, right, like you don't know what's gonna look like.[00:32:09] Martin Casado: But I, I would, I would say for sure it's not converged, like for sure, like the systemic capital flows have not converged, meaning right now it's still borrowing against the future to subsidize growth currently, which you can do that for a period of time.[00:32:23] But, but you know, at the end, at some point the market will rationalize that and just nobody knows what that will look like.[00:32:29] Alessio: Yeah.[00:32:29] Martin Casado: Or, or like the drop in price of compute will, will, will save them. Who knows?[00:32:34] Alessio: Yeah. Yeah. I think the models need to ask them to, to specific tasks. You know? It's like, okay, now Opus 4.5 might be a GI at some specific task, and now you can like depreciate the model over a longer time.[00:32:45] I think now, now, right now there's like no old model.[00:32:47] Martin Casado: No, but let, but lemme just change that mental, that's, that used to be my mental model. Lemme just change it a little bit.[00:32:53] Capital as a Weapon vs Task Saturation: Where Real Enterprise Value Gets Built[00:32:53] Martin Casado: If you can raise three times, if you can raise more than the aggregate of anybody that uses your models, that doesn't even matter.[00:32:59] It doesn't [00:33:00] even matter. See what I'm saying? Like, yeah. Yeah. So, so I have an API Business. My API business is 60% margin, or 70% margin, or 80% margin is a high margin business. So I know what everybody is using. If I can raise more money than the aggregate of everybody that's using it, I will consume them whether I'm a GI or not.[00:33:14] And I will know if they're using it ‘cause they're using it. And like, unlike in the past where engineering stops me from doing that.[00:33:21] Alessio: Mm-hmm.[00:33:21] Martin Casado: It is very straightforward. You just train. So I also thought it was kind of like, you must ask the code a GI, general, general, general. But I think there's also just a possibility that the, that the capital markets will just give them the, the, the ammunition to just go after everybody on top of ‘em.[00:33:36] Sarah Wang: I, I do wonder though, to your point, um, if there's a certain task that. Getting marginally better isn't actually that much better. Like we've asked them to it, to, you know, we can call it a GI or whatever, you know, actually, Ali Goi talks about this, like we're already at a GI for a lot of functions in the enterprise.[00:33:50] Um. That's probably those for those tasks, you probably could build very specific companies that focus on just getting as much value out of that task that isn't [00:34:00] coming from the model itself. There's probably a rich enterprise business to be built there. I mean, could be wrong on that, but there's a lot of interesting examples.[00:34:08] So, right, if you're looking the legal profession or, or whatnot, and maybe that's not a great one ‘cause the models are getting better on that front too, but just something where it's a bit saturated, then the value comes from. Services. It comes from implementation, right? It comes from all these things that actually make it useful to the end customer.[00:34:24] Martin Casado: Sorry, what am I, one more thing I think is, is underused in all of this is like, to what extent every task is a GI complete.[00:34:31] Sarah Wang: Mm-hmm.[00:34:32] Martin Casado: Yeah. I code every day. It's so fun.[00:34:35] Sarah Wang: That's a core question. Yeah.[00:34:36] Martin Casado: And like. When I'm talking to these models, it's not just code. I mean, it's everything, right? Like I, you know, like it's,[00:34:43] swyx: it's healthcare.[00:34:44] It's,[00:34:44] Martin Casado: I mean, it's[00:34:44] swyx: Mele,[00:34:45] Martin Casado: but it's every, it is exactly that. Like, yeah, that's[00:34:47] Sarah Wang: great support. Yeah.[00:34:48] Martin Casado: It's everything. Like I'm asking these models to, yeah, to understand compliance. I'm asking these models to go search the web. I'm asking these models to talk about things I know in the history, like it's having a full conversation with me while I, I engineer, and so it could be [00:35:00] the case that like, mm-hmm.[00:35:01] The most a, you know, a GI complete, like I'm not an a GI guy. Like I think that's, you know, but like the most a GI complete model will is win independent of the task. And we don't know the answer to that one either.[00:35:11] swyx: Yeah.[00:35:12] Martin Casado: But it seems to me that like, listen, codex in my experience is for sure better than Opus 4.5 for coding.[00:35:18] Like it finds the hardest bugs that I work in with. Like, it is, you know. The smartest developers. I don't work on it. It's great. Um, but I think Opus 4.5 is actually very, it's got a great bedside manner and it really, and it, it really matters if you're building something very complex because like, it really, you know, like you're, you're, you're a partner and a brainstorming partner for somebody.[00:35:38] And I think we don't discuss enough how every task kind of has that quality.[00:35:42] swyx: Mm-hmm.[00:35:43] Martin Casado: And what does that mean to like capital investment and like frontier models and Submodels? Yeah.[00:35:47] Why “Coding Models” Keep Collapsing into Generalists (Reasoning vs Taste)[00:35:47] Martin Casado: Like what happened to all the special coding models? Like, none of ‘em worked right. So[00:35:51] Alessio: some of them, they didn't even get released.[00:35:53] Magical[00:35:54] Martin Casado: Devrel. There's a whole, there's a whole host. We saw a bunch of them and like there's this whole theory that like, there could be, and [00:36:00] I think one of the conclusions is, is like there's no such thing as a coding model,[00:36:04] Alessio: you know?[00:36:04] Martin Casado: Like, that's not a thing. Like you're talking to another human being and it's, it's good at coding, but like it's gotta be good at everything.[00:36:10] swyx: Uh, minor disagree only because I, I'm pretty like, have pretty high confidence that basically open eye will always release a GPT five and a GT five codex. Like that's the code's. Yeah. The way I call it is one for raisin, one for Tiz. Um, and, and then like someone internal open, it was like, yeah, that's a good way to frame it.[00:36:32] Martin Casado: That's so funny.[00:36:33] swyx: Uh, but maybe it, maybe it collapses down to reason and that's it. It's not like a hundred dimensions doesn't life. Yeah. It's two dimensions. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Like and exactly. Beside manner versus coding. Yeah.[00:36:43] Martin Casado: Yeah.[00:36:44] swyx: It's, yeah.[00:36:46] Martin Casado: I, I think for, for any, it's hilarious. For any, for anybody listening to this for, for, for, I mean, for you, like when, when you're like coding or using these models for something like that.[00:36:52] Like actually just like be aware of how much of the interaction has nothing to do with coding and it just turns out to be a large portion of it. And so like, you're, I [00:37:00] think like, like the best Soto ish model. You know, it is going to remain very important no matter what the task is.[00:37:06] swyx: Yeah.[00:37:07] What He's Actually Coding: Gaussian Splats, Spark.js & 3D Scene Rendering Demos[00:37:07] swyx: Uh, speaking of coding, uh, I, I'm gonna be cheeky and ask like, what actually are you coding?[00:37:11] Because obviously you, you could code anything and you are obviously a busy investor and a manager of the good. Giant team. Um, what are you calling?[00:37:18] Martin Casado: I help, um, uh, FEFA at World Labs. Uh, it's one of the investments and um, and they're building a foundation model that creates 3D scenes.[00:37:27] swyx: Yeah, we had it on the pod.[00:37:28] Yeah. Yeah,[00:37:28] Martin Casado: yeah. And so these 3D scenes are Gaussian splats, just by the way that kind of AI works. And so like, you can reconstruct a scene better with, with, with radiance feels than with meshes. ‘cause like they don't really have topology. So, so they, they, they produce each. Beautiful, you know, 3D rendered scenes that are Gaussian splats, but the actual industry support for Gaussian splats isn't great.[00:37:50] It's just never, you know, it's always been meshes and like, things like unreal use meshes. And so I work on a open source library called Spark js, which is a. Uh, [00:38:00] a JavaScript rendering layer ready for Gaussian splats. And it's just because, you know, um, you, you, you need that support and, and right now there's kind of a three js moment that's all meshes and so like, it's become kind of the default in three Js ecosystem.[00:38:13] As part of that to kind of exercise the library, I just build a whole bunch of cool demos. So if you see me on X, you see like all my demos and all the world building, but all of that is just to exercise this, this library that I work on. ‘cause it's actually a very tough algorithmics problem to actually scale a library that much.[00:38:29] And just so you know, this is ancient history now, but 30 years ago I paid for undergrad, you know, working on game engines in college in the late nineties. So I've got actually a back and it's very old background, but I actually have a background in this and so a lot of it's fun. You know, but, but the, the, the, the whole goal is just for this rendering library to, to,[00:38:47] Sarah Wang: are you one of the most active contributors?[00:38:49] The, their GitHub[00:38:50] Martin Casado: spark? Yes.[00:38:51] Sarah Wang: Yeah, yeah.[00:38:51] Martin Casado: There's only two of us there, so, yes. No, so by the way, so the, the pri The pri, yeah. Yeah. So the primary developer is a [00:39:00] guy named Andres Quist, who's an absolute genius. He and I did our, our PhDs together. And so like, um, we studied for constant Quas together. It was almost like hanging out with an old friend, you know?[00:39:09] And so like. So he, he's the core, core guy. I did mostly kind of, you know, the side I run venture fund.[00:39:14] swyx: It's amazing. Like five years ago you would not have done any of this. And it brought you back[00:39:19] Martin Casado: the act, the Activ energy, you're still back. Energy was so high because you had to learn all the framework b******t.[00:39:23] Man, I f*****g used to hate that. And so like, now I don't have to deal with that. I can like focus on the algorithmics so I can focus on the scaling and I,[00:39:29] swyx: yeah. Yeah.[00:39:29] LLMs vs Spatial Intelligence + How to Value World Labs' 3D Foundation Model[00:39:29] swyx: And then, uh, I'll observe one irony and then I'll ask a serious investor question, uh, which is like, the irony is FFE actually doesn't believe that LMS can lead us to spatial intelligence.[00:39:37] And here you are using LMS to like help like achieve spatial intelligence. I just see, I see some like disconnect in there.[00:39:45] Martin Casado: Yeah. Yeah. So I think, I think, you know, I think, I think what she would say is LLMs are great to help with coding.[00:39:51] swyx: Yes.[00:39:51] Martin Casado: But like, that's very different than a model that actually like provides, they, they'll never have the[00:39:56] swyx: spatial inte[00:39:56] Martin Casado: issues.[00:39:56] And listen, our brains clearly listen, our brains, brains clearly have [00:40:00] both our, our brains clearly have a language reasoning section and they clearly have a spatial reasoning section. I mean, it's just, you know, these are two pretty independent problems.[00:40:07] swyx: Okay. And you, you, like, I, I would say that the, the one data point I recently had, uh, against it is the DeepMind, uh, IMO Gold, where, so, uh, typically the, the typical answer is that this is where you start going down the neuros symbolic path, right?[00:40:21] Like one, uh, sort of very sort of abstract reasoning thing and one form, formal thing. Um, and that's what. DeepMind had in 2024 with alpha proof, alpha geometry, and now they just use deep think and just extended thinking tokens. And it's one model and it's, and it's in LM.[00:40:36] Martin Casado: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.[00:40:37] swyx: And so that, that was my indication of like, maybe you don't need a separate system.[00:40:42] Martin Casado: Yeah. So, so let me step back. I mean, at the end of the day, at the end of the day, these things are like nodes in a graph with weights on them. Right. You know, like it can be modeled like if you, if you distill it down. But let me just talk about the two different substrates. Let's, let me put you in a dark room.[00:40:56] Like totally black room. And then let me just [00:41:00] describe how you exit it. Like to your left, there's a table like duck below this thing, right? I mean like the chances that you're gonna like not run into something are very low. Now let me like turn on the light and you actually see, and you can do distance and you know how far something away is and like where it is or whatever.[00:41:17] Then you can do it, right? Like language is not the right primitives to describe. The universe because it's not exact enough. So that's all Faye, Faye is talking about. When it comes to like spatial reasoning, it's like you actually have to know that this is three feet far, like that far away. It is curved.[00:41:37] You have to understand, you know, the, like the actual movement through space.[00:41:40] swyx: Yeah.[00:41:40] Martin Casado: So I do, I listen, I do think at the end of these models are definitely converging as far as models, but there's, there's, there's different representations of problems you're solving. One is language. Which, you know, that would be like describing to somebody like what to do.[00:41:51] And the other one is actually just showing them and the space reasoning is just showing them.[00:41:55] swyx: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right. Got it, got it. Uh, the, in the investor question was on, on, well labs [00:42:00] is, well, like, how do I value something like this? What, what, what work does the, do you do? I'm just like, Fefe is awesome.[00:42:07] Justin's awesome. And you know, the other two co-founder, co-founders, but like the, the, the tech, everyone's building cool tech. But like, what's the value of the tech? And this is the fundamental question[00:42:16] Martin Casado: of, well, let, let, just like these, let me just maybe give you a rough sketch on the diffusion models. I actually love to hear Sarah because I'm a venture for, you know, so like, ventures always, always like kind of wild west type[00:42:24] swyx: stuff.[00:42:24] You, you, you, you paid a dream and she has to like, actually[00:42:28] Martin Casado: I'm gonna say I'm gonna mar to reality, so I'm gonna say the venture for you. And she can be like, okay, you a little kid. Yeah. So like, so, so these diffusion models literally. Create something for, for almost nothing. And something that the, the world has found to be very valuable in the past, in our real markets, right?[00:42:45] Like, like a 2D image. I mean, that's been an entire market. People value them. It takes a human being a long time to create it, right? I mean, to create a, you know, a, to turn me into a whatever, like an image would cost a hundred bucks in an hour. The inference cost [00:43:00] us a hundredth of a penny, right? So we've seen this with speech in very successful companies.[00:43:03] We've seen this with 2D image. We've seen this with movies. Right? Now, think about 3D scene. I mean, I mean, when's Grand Theft Auto coming out? It's been six, what? It's been 10 years. I mean, how, how like, but hasn't been 10 years.[00:43:14] Alessio: Yeah.[00:43:15] Martin Casado: How much would it cost to like, to reproduce this room in 3D? Right. If you, if you, if you hired somebody on fiber, like in, in any sort of quality, probably 4,000 to $10,000.[00:43:24] And then if you had a professional, probably $30,000. So if you could generate the exact same thing from a 2D image, and we know that these are used and they're using Unreal and they're using Blend, or they're using movies and they're using video games and they're using all. So if you could do that for.[00:43:36] You know, less than a dollar, that's four or five orders of magnitude cheaper. So you're bringing the marginal cost of something that's useful down by three orders of magnitude, which historically have created very large companies. So that would be like the venture kind of strategic dreaming map.[00:43:49] swyx: Yeah.[00:43:50] And, and for listeners, uh, you can do this yourself on your, on your own phone with like. Uh, the marble.[00:43:55] Martin Casado: Yeah. Marble.[00:43:55] swyx: Uh, or but also there's many Nerf apps where you just go on your iPhone and, and do this.[00:43:59] Martin Casado: Yeah. Yeah. [00:44:00] Yeah. And, and in the case of marble though, it would, what you do is you literally give it in.[00:44:03] So most Nerf apps you like kind of run around and take a whole bunch of pictures and then you kind of reconstruct it.[00:44:08] swyx: Yeah.[00:44:08] Martin Casado: Um, things like marble, just that the whole generative 3D space will just take a 2D image and it'll reconstruct all the like, like[00:44:16] swyx: meaning it has to fill in. Uh,[00:44:18] Martin Casado: stuff at the back of the table, under the table, the back, like, like the images, it doesn't see.[00:44:22] So the generator stuff is very different than reconstruction that it fills in the things that you can't see.[00:44:26] swyx: Yeah. Okay.[00:44:26] Sarah Wang: So,[00:44:27] Martin Casado: all right. So now the,[00:44:28] Sarah Wang: no, no. I mean I love that[00:44:29] Martin Casado: the adult[00:44:29] Sarah Wang: perspective. Um, well, no, I was gonna say these are very much a tag team. So we, we started this pod with that, um, premise. And I think this is a perfect question to even build on that further.[00:44:36] ‘cause it truly is, I mean, we're tag teaming all of these together.[00:44:39] Investing in Model Labs, Media Rumors, and the Cursor Playbook (Margins & Going Down-Stack)[00:44:39] Sarah Wang: Um, but I think every investment fundamentally starts with the same. Maybe the same two premises. One is, at this point in time, we actually believe that there are. And of one founders for their particular craft, and they have to be demonstrated in their prior careers, right?[00:44:56] So, uh, we're not investing in every, you know, now the term is NEO [00:45:00] lab, but every foundation model, uh, any, any company, any founder trying to build a foundation model, we're not, um, contrary to popular opinion, we're

Welcome to episode 1 of Pop Woke. Project MVT on Github: https://github.com/mvt-project/mvt SUBSCRIBE + FOLLOW IG: www.instagram.com/darkwokejfk Youtube: www.youtube.com/@darkwoke TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@janayafk SUPPORT THE SHOW Patreon - https://patreon.com/@darkwoke Tip w/ a One Time Donation - https://buymeacoffee.com/janayafk Have a query? Comment? Reach out to us at: info@darkwoke.com and we may read it aloud on the show!  

OpenClaw's creator makes headlines by joining OpenAI after GitHub fame and a whirlwind of VC and big tech offers, redefining what's possible for independent developers in the AI arms race. Is this the year agentic AI goes mainstream, and are the big players ready for that disruption? OpenClaw, OpenAI and the future | Peter Steinberger OpenAI disbands mission alignment team Opinion | I Left My Job at OpenAI. Putting Ads on ChatGPT Was the Last Straw. - The New York Times Introducing GPT‑5.3‑Codex‑Spark Anthropic releases Sonnet 4.6 Exclusive: Pentagon threatens to cut off Anthropic in AI safeguards dispute Google's Pixel 10a Launches on March 5 for $499 Google's AI drug discovery spinoff Isomorphic Labs claims major leap beyond AlphaFold 3 Gemini 3 Deep Think: AI model update designed for science Radio host David Greene says Google's NotebookLM tool stole his voice A new way to express yourself: Gemini can now create music Why an A.I. Video of Tom Cruise Battling Brad Pitt Spooked Hollywood GPT-5 outperforms federal judges 100% to 52% in legal reasoning experiment An AI project is creating videos to go with Supreme Court justices' real words I used Claude to negotiate $163,000 off a hospital bill. In a complex healthcare system, AI is giving patients power. Sony Tech Can Identify Original Music in AI-Generated Songs AI Pioneer Fei-Fei Li's Startup World Labs Raises $1 Billion Yann v. Yoshua on directed systems Dr. Oz pushes AI avatars as a fix for rural health care. Not so fast, critics say An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me An Ars Technica Reporter Blamed A.I. Tools for Fabricating Quotes in a Bizarre A.I. Story Plain Dealer using AI to write reporters' stories Mediahuis trials use of AI agents to carry out 'first-line' news reporting DJI's first robovac is an autonomous cleaning drone you can't trust Leaked Email Suggests Ring Plans to Expand 'Search Party' Surveillance Beyond Dogs ai;dr I hate my AI pet with every fiber of my being Thanks a lot, AI: Hard drives are sold out for the year, says WD Students Are Being Treated Like Guinea Pigs:' Inside an AI-Powered Private School peon-ping — Stop babysitting your terminal Hugo Barra makes a to-do agent Raspberry Pi soars 40% as CEO buys stock, AI chatter builds Hosts: Leo Laporte, Jeff Jarvis, and Emily Forlini Download or subscribe to Intelligent Machines at https://twit.tv/shows/intelligent-machines. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: monarch.com with code IM bitwarden.com/twit preview.modulate.ai spaceship.com/twit

This is my second conversation with Josh Kushner, founder and managing partner of Thrive Capital. I recorded this conversation in October after publishing the Colossus cover story about him and Thrive. Given the overwhelming response, we created some breathing room before releasing it. Josh started Thrive in 2011. The firm now manages approximately $50 billion with a very small investment team. What makes Thrive different is how concentrated they are and how involved they get with their portfolio companies. We cover the iconic investments that defined Thrive: Instagram, Stripe, GitHub, and spend a lot of time on OpenAI. Josh explains how Thrive thinks about investing today and the three categories they're currently focused on. Josh also talks about building the firm, why they keep the team small, and what he's learned from A24 about enabling artists to do their best work. He shares personal stories that shaped him, including his grandmother's experience surviving the Holocaust, and lessons from Stan Druckenmiller, Jon Winkelried, and others at formative moments in Thrive's history. Please enjoy my great conversation with Josh Kushner. For the full show notes, transcript, and links to mentioned content, check out the episode page ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.  ----- Become a Colossus member to get our quarterly print magazine and private audio experience, including exclusive profiles and early access to select episodes. Subscribe at ⁠colossus.com/subscribe⁠. ----- ⁠Ramp's⁠ mission is to help companies manage their spend in a way that reduces expenses and frees up time for teams to work on more valuable projects. Go to⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠ramp.com/invest⁠⁠ to sign up for free and get a $250 welcome bonus. ----- Trusted by thousands of businesses, ⁠Vanta⁠ continuously monitors your security posture and streamlines audits so you can win enterprise deals and build customer trust without the traditional overhead. Visit ⁠vanta.com/invest⁠.  ----- ⁠WorkOS⁠ is a developer platform that enables SaaS companies to quickly add enterprise features to their applications. Visit⁠⁠ ⁠WorkOS.com⁠⁠⁠ to transform your application into an enterprise-ready solution in minutes, not months. ----- ⁠Rogo⁠ is an AI-powered platform that automates accounts payable workflows, enabling finance teams to process invoices faster and with greater accuracy. Learn more at ⁠Rogo.ai/invest⁠. ----- ⁠Ridgeline⁠ has built a complete, real-time, modern operating system for investment managers. It handles trading, portfolio management, compliance, customer reporting, and much more through an all-in-one real-time cloud platform. Visit⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ridgelineapps.com⁠. ----- Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://thepodcastconsultant.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠). Timestamps: (00:00:00) Welcome to Invest Like the Best (00:02:43) Intro: Josh Kushner (00:03:46) How Thrive Has Changed Since 2023 (00:05:18) Thrive's Entrepreneurial Culture (00:12:22) The Power of Small Teams (00:13:35) Sponsors (00:14:35) Concentration as Differentiation (00:16:16) The Github Deal (00:18:08) Lesson from Stan Druckenmiller (00:20:37) Leading Stripe's $50 Billion Round (00:23:16) Instagram: Doubling an Investment in Days (00:25:43) Isomorphic: Thrive as an Enabling Technology (00:27:04) Thrive & A24 (00:28:19) OpenAI: The Product Josh Couldn't Unsee (00:32:09) Pricing the OpenAI Investment (00:33:40) OpenAI and Power (00:35:26) Finding Joy in Hard Work (00:39:15) Inside View of the Tech & AI Landscape (00:42:28) Three Investment Categories Thrive is Focused On (00:44:37) Thrive Holdings: Inside-Out Disruption (00:48:54) Competition in Venture (00:50:49) Sponsors (00:51:48) Thrive's Immutable Values (00:54:21) A Family Story of Survival (00:56:43) The American Dream (00:58:03) What Artists Can Teach Investors (01:00:26) Never Compromise Your Values (01:01:33) The Story Behind Josh's Forever Watch

This week on Sinica, I speak with Kyle Chan, a fellow at the John L. Thornton China Center at Brookings, previously a postdoc at Princeton, and author of the outstanding High-Capacity Newsletter on Substack. Kyle has emerged as one of the sharpest and most empirically grounded voices on U.S.-China technology relations, and he holds the all-time record for the most namechecks on Sinica's “Paying it forward” segment. We use his recent Financial Times op-ed on “The Great Reversal” in global technology flows and his longer High-Capacity essay on re-coupling as jumping-off points for a wide-ranging conversation about where China now sits at the global technological frontier, why the dominant decoupling narrative misses powerful structural forces pulling the two economies back together, and what all of this means for innovation, choke points, and the global tech ecosystem.4:35 – How Kyle became Kyle Chan: from Chicago School economics to development, railways, and systems thinking 12:50 – The Great Reversal: China at the technological frontier, from megawatt EV charging to LFP batteries 17:59 – The electro-industrial tech stack and China's overlapping, mutually reinforcing tech ecosystems 22:40 – Industrial strategy and time horizons: patience, persistence, and the long arc of China's auto industry 33:45 – Re-coupling under pressure: Waymo and Zeekr, Unitree robots, and the structural forces binding the two economies 40:22 – The gravity model: can political distance overwhelm technological mass? 47:01 – What China still wants from the U.S.: Cursor, GitHub, talent, and the AI brain drain 51:52 – Weaponized interdependence and the danger of securitizing everything 57:30 – Firm-level adaptation: HeyGen, Manus, and the playbook for de-sinification 1:02:58 – The view from the middle: Gulf states, Southeast Asia, and India as geopolitical arbitrageurs 1:10:18 – Engineering resilience: what policymakers are getting wrong about the systems they're buildingPaying it forward: Katrina Northrop; Grace Shao and her AI Proem newsletterRecommendations:Kyle: Wired Magazine's Made in China newsletter (by Zeyi Yang and Louise Matsakis); The Wire China Kaiser: The Wall Dancers: Searching for Freedom and Connection on the Chinese Internet by Yi-Ling LiuSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

As AI accelerates innovation and adoption, leaders are facing rising cognitive load, shifting systems, and new emotional realities inside their organizations. In this episode, Deloitte's Chief Innovation Officer Deborah Golden joins us to explore how AI is reshaping leadership, why vulnerability and empathy are critical in this moment, and how anti-fragility, not just resilience, will define the future of work.Featuring:Deborah Golden – LinkedIn Chris Benson – Website, LinkedIn, Bluesky, GitHub, XDaniel Whitenack – Website, GitHub, XLinks:DeloitteSponsor: Framer - The website builder that turns your dot com from a formality into a tool for growth. Check it out at framer.com/PRACTICALAIUpcoming Events: Register for upcoming webinars here!

In our latest Open Source Startup Podcast episode, co-hosts Robby and Tim talk with Magnus Müller, the Co-Founder & CEO of Browser Use - the platform that makes web agents come to life. Their open source, browser-use, has almost 80K stars on GitHub and is widely adopted. This episode dives into the unexpected rise of an open-source browser automation project that took off during Y Combinator - while many similar projects before and after it never gained traction. The founder reflects on why: delivering a “magical moment” fast. Early demos showing AI controlling a browser, inspired by trends like OpenAI's Operator, and immediately clicked with people. What began as a developer-only Python library evolved into a hosted product as non-technical users - from sales teams to startups - wanted access. Along the way, the team leaned into controversial but compelling use cases, like AI applying for jobs on your behalf, which sparked conversation and accelerated growth. The core challenge they focused on solving was reliability: unlike deterministic automation scripts, AI agents can behave unpredictably, making trust and repeatability central problems to overcome.The long-term vision goes beyond UI automation toward agents that can skip the browser entirely and interact directly with website servers through structured actions. But the conversation isn't just about infrastructure. The founder admits that early growth came mostly from building and talking to users, while recent months have been dedicated to storytelling and marketing rather than coding. A personal through-line emerges as well: learning to replace defensiveness with curiosity - questioning assumptions, staying open to feedback, and continuously refining both the technology and the narrative around it.

Latam-GPT regionalLatam-GPT, el modelo abierto chileno, busca reducir sesgos y fortalecer soberanía tecnológica latinoamericanaPor Félix Riaño @LocutorCoChile presentó Latam-GPT, un modelo de inteligencia artificial abierto entrenado con datos de América Latina y el Caribe para mejorar la representación cultural y lingüística en sistemas de IAChile acaba de dar un paso que puede cambiar la conversación sobre inteligencia artificial en nuestra región. El 10 de febrero, en Santiago, se presentó Latam-GPT, un modelo de lenguaje abierto creado desde América Latina y pensado para América Latina. El proyecto fue coordinado por el Centro Nacional de Inteligencia Artificial de Chile y reunió a más de 60 instituciones y cerca de 200 especialistas de al menos 15 países.La idea es sencilla de entender: muchos sistemas de inteligencia artificial que usamos a diario fueron entrenados sobre todo con información en inglés y con referencias culturales del norte global. Eso deja por fuera parte de nuestra historia, nuestras palabras y nuestras formas de hablar. ¿Puede una región participar en la revolución de la IA si su propia voz casi no aparece en los datos?La región quiere su propia voz digitalLatam-GPT fue desarrollado sobre la arquitectura abierta Llama 3.1, creada por Meta. Tiene 70.000 millones de parámetros. Cuando hablamos de parámetros, nos referimos a los valores internos que el modelo ajusta para aprender patrones del lenguaje. Entre más parámetros, mayor capacidad para captar relaciones complejas entre palabras y contextos.Para entrenarlo, el equipo reunió más de 300.000 millones de fragmentos de texto, lo que equivale a unos 230.000 millones de palabras. También se habla de más de ocho terabytes de información. Ocho terabytes son ocho millones de megabytes, un volumen comparable al contenido de millones de libros digitales. Todo ese material fue recopilado con permisos y licencias, según el Centro Nacional de Inteligencia Artificial.El modelo fue entrenado principalmente en español y portugués, los idiomas mayoritarios de la región. Además, el plan es incorporar lenguas indígenas como el mapudungun y el rapa nui. En su primera fase se entrenó en la nube de Amazon Web Services, y en 2026 se va a utilizar un supercomputador en la Universidad de Tarapacá, en el norte de Chile, con una inversión cercana a cinco millones de dólares.El contexto es claro. Estudios citados por los impulsores del proyecto indican que el español representa alrededor del 4 % de los datos usados para entrenar grandes modelos de lenguaje. El portugués apenas ronda el 2 %. Eso significa que más del 90 % del material proviene de otros idiomas y otras realidades culturales.Cuando un modelo aprende sobre todo con datos de Estados Unidos o Europa, puede responder mejor a preguntas sobre el sitio de Calais en 1346 que sobre el sitio de Chillán en la independencia chilena. Puede generar imágenes estereotipadas cuando se le pide representar a una persona latinoamericana. Ese sesgo no siempre es malintencionado, pero sí refleja un desequilibrio en los datos.Al mismo tiempo, el mercado global de la inteligencia artificial está dominado por grandes empresas de Estados Unidos y China, con presupuestos de cientos de millones o miles de millones de dólares. Latam-GPT fue desarrollado con un presupuesto cercano a 550.000 dólares, según varias fuentes. Algunos académicos advierten que, con esa diferencia de recursos, competir de tú a tú con modelos comerciales será muy difícil. Entonces surge otra pregunta: ¿el objetivo es competir o construir infraestructura pública regional?Los responsables del proyecto insisten en que Latam-GPT no nace como un chatbot para el público general. No es una copia directa de servicios como ChatGPT o Gemini. Es una base tecnológica abierta que gobiernos, universidades y empresas pueden adaptar a sus propias necesidades.Al estar disponible en plataformas como Hugging Face y GitHub, cualquier desarrollador puede descargar el modelo, ajustarlo y crear aplicaciones locales. Por ejemplo, la empresa chilena Digevo ya anunció que va a usarlo para desarrollar sistemas de atención al cliente para aerolíneas y comercios, capaces de entender modismos, velocidad de habla y expresiones regionales.El presidente chileno, Gabriel Boric, afirmó durante el lanzamiento que la región quiere sentarse a la mesa de la economía digital del futuro. La apuesta es construir soberanía tecnológica. Eso implica tener capacidad de decisión sobre los datos, las reglas y los usos de la inteligencia artificial en servicios públicos, salud, educación y justicia.Latam-GPT se suma a otras iniciativas regionales como SEA-LION en el sudeste asiático y UlizaLlama en África. Todas comparten una idea: adaptar la inteligencia artificial a contextos culturales específicos y reducir la dependencia de modelos extranjeros.El proyecto fue coordinado por el Centro Nacional de Inteligencia Artificial de Chile, con apoyo del Ministerio de Ciencia de ese país, el Banco de Desarrollo de América Latina y el Caribe, conocido como CAF, y otras organizaciones académicas y sociales de países como Colombia, Brasil, México, Perú, Uruguay y Argentina.Aunque el presupuesto inicial fue modesto en comparación con los gigantes tecnológicos, el plan contempla nuevas inversiones en infraestructura. El supercomputador que se instalará en la Universidad de Tarapacá permitirá entrenar versiones futuras con mayor capacidad y posiblemente añadir funciones multimodales, es decir, que el modelo pueda trabajar también con imágenes, audio o video.Otro punto clave es la gobernanza. Al tratarse de un modelo abierto, será necesario establecer reglas de uso, evaluaciones de sesgo, documentación sobre los datos empleados y mecanismos de actualización. La apertura facilita auditorías y adaptaciones locales, pero también exige responsabilidad en su implementación.Desde el punto de vista económico, un modelo regional puede reducir costos para startups y entidades públicas que no pueden pagar licencias elevadas de servicios internacionales. También puede impulsar la investigación en universidades latinoamericanas y formar talento especializado en inteligencia artificial.La gran incógnita es la sostenibilidad a largo plazo. Los modelos de lenguaje requieren actualizaciones constantes, nuevos datos y capacidad de cómputo. Si la coalición de más de 60 instituciones se mantiene activa, Latam-GPT puede convertirse en una plataforma estable. Si pierde financiación, el impulso inicial podría diluirse.En resumen, Latam-GPT es un modelo de inteligencia artificial abierto creado en Chile con apoyo regional para mejorar la representación cultural y lingüística de América Latina. Busca reducir sesgos y fortalecer soberanía tecnológica. Ahora la pregunta es cómo se va a usar y si logrará consolidarse como infraestructura pública regional.Te invito a seguir el pódcast en Spotify y a compartir este episodio de Flash Diario. Tu apoyo ayuda a que más personas entiendan la tecnología que está transformando nuestro mundo.BibliografíaAI BusinessEuronewsUPIIntelliNewsFrance InfoThe Tico TimesConviértete en un supporter de este podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/flash-diario-de-el-siglo-21-es-hoy--5835407/support.Apoya el Flash Diario y escúchalo sin publicidad en el Club de Supporters. 

Yeah, you prolly saw the news: OpenAI acquihired OpenClaw.

Joël and Sally examine the simpler components of programming and why using basic data structures may not always be the best approach to solving a problem. Our hosts cover all the telltale signs and symptoms of primitive obsession, what it is, it's drawbacks and limitations, and how to avoid it creeping into your own work. — Want to learn more about primitive obsession and readability in programming? Check out these links for some wider reading, including a talk from Joël! - Design Patterns and Null - thoughtbot blog on primitive obsession - Define User Your hosts for this episode have been thoughtbot's own Joël Quenneville and Sally Hall. If you would like to support the show, head over to our GitHub page, or check out our website. Got a question or comment about the show? Why not write to our hosts: hosts@bikeshed.fm This has been a thoughtbot podcast. Stay up to date by following us on social media - YouTube - LinkedIn - Mastodon - BlueSky © 2026 thoughtbot, inc.

Taylor Mullen, Principal Engineer at Google and creator of Gemini CLI, reveals how his team ships 100-150 features and bug fixes every week—using Gemini CLI to build itself. In this first in-depth interview about Gemini CLI's origin story, we explore why command-line AI agents are having a "terminal renaissance," how Taylor manages swarms of parallel AI agents, and the techniques (like the viral "Ralph Wiggum" method) that separate 10x engineers from 100x engineers. Whether you're a developer or AI-curious, you'll learn practical strategies for using AI coding tools more effectively.

Hi family, let's talk the Hasan Piker and Jennifer Welch meet-up. Because you all know how much I love Hasan... Jump in with Janaya Future Khan. Project MVT on Github: https://github.com/mvt-project/mvt SUBSCRIBE + FOLLOW IG: www.instagram.com/darkwokejfk Youtube: www.youtube.com/@darkwoke TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@janayafk SUPPORT THE SHOW Patreon - https://patreon.com/@darkwoke Tip w/ a One Time Donation - https://buymeacoffee.com/janayafk Have a query? Comment? Reach out to us at: info@darkwoke.com and we may read it aloud on the show!  

As LLM apps evolve from simple chatbots to tool-using agents, the attack surface explodes, and the old security playbooks don't hold. In this episode of Alexa's Input (AI), Alexa Griffith sits down with Ian Webster, co-founder and CEO of PromptFoo, to break down what AI security actually looks like in practice: automated red teaming, prompt injection and jailbreak testing, evaluation workflows that scale, and why “guardrails alone” is not a security strategy.Ian shares how PromptFoo grew from a side project into a widely adopted open-source standard, what it means to raise multi-millions in a fast-moving market, and how enterprises are approaching the full vulnerability lifecycle, from finding issues to triage, remediation, and validation. Ian also discusses the “lethal trifecta” that makes agents fundamentally risky (untrusted input + sensitive data + exfil path), and why MCP security isn't just about users and tools, it's about dangerous tool combinations and rogue servers.Podcast LinksWatch: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@alexa_griffith⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Read: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://alexasinput.substack.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Listen:⁠⁠⁠ https://creators.spotify.com/pod/profile/alexagriffith/⁠⁠⁠More: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://linktr.ee/alexagriffith⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://alexagriffith.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexa-griffith/⁠⁠⁠⁠Find out more about the guest at:PromptFoo Website: https://www.promptfoo.dev/Github: https://github.com/promptfoo/promptfooIan's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ianww/Chapters00:00 Introduction to AI Security Challenges02:06 Funding and Growth of PromptFu06:16 The Genesis of PromptFu11:05 Career Journey and Lessons Learned12:53 Understanding AI Red Teaming17:36 Recent AI Security Vulnerabilities19:46 The Dual Nature of AI in Security21:47 Understanding the Lethal Trifecta in AI Security24:22 Exploring Model Context Protocol (MCP) and Its Security Implications26:22 Common Security Issues in MCP Systems28:17 The Role of Identity and Permissions in AI Security30:00 Practical Implications of Using PromptFoo for Developers31:33 Evaluating Language Models: Challenges and Techniques36:34 The Limitations of Guardrails in AI Security38:25 Best Practices for Engineers in AI Development39:58 Future Trends in AI and Security42:28 Everyday Applications of AI and Language Models

https://clearmeasure.com/developers/forums/   Damian Brady is a Staff Developer Advocate at GitHub. He's a developer, speaker, and author specializing in AI, DevOps, MLOps, developer process, and software architecture. Formerly a Cloud Advocate at Microsoft for four years, and before that, a dev at Octopus Deploy and a Microsoft MVP, he has a 25-year background in software development and consulting in a broad range of industries. In Australia, he co-organized the Brisbane .Net User Group and launched the annual DDD Brisbane conference. Mentioned In This Episode  Episode 306 Episode 258 Episode 206 Episode 008 Github CoPilot Workspace X Account Website  Githubnext  Copilot for Docs Copilot for Pull Requests CoPilot Voice "What is GitHub Models? Here's how to use AI models easily"  "15 Minutes to Merge: The top feature announcements from GitHub Universe!" SpecKit  Want to Learn More? Visit AzureDevOps.Show for show notes and additional episodes.

¿Te has rendido alguna vez intentando programar en movilidad? Te confieso que lo de programar en la tablet Android no me estaba funcionando, y la razón era sencilla: pereza y falta de un entorno coherente. En el episodio de hoy, te cuento cómo he solucionado este problema de raíz instalando Code Server en un servidor remoto.A lo largo de este audio, exploramos los desafíos de mantener múltiples entornos de desarrollo y por qué la fragmentación mata tu creatividad. Te detallo el paso a paso de mi configuración técnica: desde la creación de una imagen de Docker personalizada hasta la integración de herramientas modernas escritas en Rust (como Bat y LSD) que mejoran la experiencia en la terminal.Lo que aprenderás en este episodio: Por qué un servidor de desarrollo es superior a las instalaciones locales en tablets. Cómo configurar Docker Compose para desplegar Code Server con persistencia real. Seguridad avanzada: Uso de Traefik, Pocket ID y geobloqueo para proteger tu código. Trucos de configuración para VS Code en el navegador: Mapeo de teclas, evitar el conflicto con la tecla Escape y el uso de la fuente JetBrains Mono. Productividad máxima con los modos de Vim integrados en el flujo web. Cómo transformar Code Server en una PWA para eliminar las distracciones del navegador en Android.No se trata solo de tecnología, sino de eliminar las fricciones que nos impiden avanzar en nuestros proyectos. Si quieres saber cómo convertir cualquier dispositivo con un navegador en tu estación de trabajo principal, no te pierdas este episodio.Cronología del episodio:00:00:00 El fracaso de programar en tablet (y por qué)00:01:43 La solución definitiva: Code Server00:02:12 El problema de los entornos fragmentados00:03:53 Mi imagen personalizada de Docker para Code Server00:05:04 Herramientas imprescindibles en Rust (Bat, LSD, SD)00:06:23 Configuración de Rust y herramientas de desarrollo00:07:05 Persistencia y Docker Compose00:08:06 Seguridad: Traefik, Pocket ID y Geobloqueo00:10:03 Optimizando VS Code para el navegador00:11:13 Sincronización y persistencia de extensiones00:12:43 Estética y tipografía (Ayu Dark y JetBrains Mono)00:13:59 El poder de Vim dentro de Code Server00:15:51 Cómo usar Code Server como una PWA en Android00:17:04 Teclado físico: El accesorio obligatorio00:18:50 Conclusiones y futuro del desarrollo remotoRecuerda que puedes encontrar todas las notas, el repositorio y los enlaces mencionados en atareao.es. Si te gusta el contenido, una valoración en Spotify o Apple Podcast ayuda muchísimo a seguir difundiendo el mundo Linux y el Open Source.Más información y enlaces en las notas del episodio

An airhacks.fm conversation with Francesco Nigro (@forked_franz) about: break dancing and basketball including meeting Kobe Bryant in Italy during a dunk competition, using AI coding assistants like Claude Opus 4.5 and GitHub bots for infrastructure setup and CI/CD pipeline configuration, limitations of LLMs for novel performance-sensitive algorithmic work where training data is scarce, branchless IPv4 parsing optimization as a Christmas coding challenge, CPU branch misprediction costs when parsing variable-length IP address octets, converting branching logic into mathematical operations using bit tricks for better CPU pipeline utilization, LLMs excelling at generating enterprise code based on well-documented standards and conventions, providing minimal but precise documentation and annotations to improve LLM code generation quality, the Boundary Control Entity BCE architecture pattern and standards-based development, the core problem of thread handoff between event loops and ForkJoinPool worker threads in frameworks like quarkus Vert.x and Micronaut, mechanical sympathy implications of cross-core memory access when serialized data is allocated on one core and read by another, CPU cache coherency costs and last-level cache penalties when event loop and worker pool run on different cores, the custom virtual thread scheduler project (netty-virtual-thread-scheduler) enabling a single platform thread to handle both networking I/O and virtual thread execution, approximately 50% CPU savings demonstrated by Micronaut when using unified Netty-based scheduling, collaboration with Oracle Loom team including Victor Klang and Alan Bateman on minimal scheduler API design, the scheduler API consisting of just two methods onStart and onContinue plus virtual thread task attachments, work stealing algorithms and their complexity including heuristics similar to Linux CFS scheduler, the importance of being declarative about thread affinity rather than automatic magical binding to avoid issues with lazy class loading and background reaper threads, thread factory based approach for creating virtual threads bound to specific platform threads, stream-based run queues with graceful shutdown semantics that fall back to ForkJoinPool for progress guarantees, thread-local Scoped Values as a hybrid between thread locals and scoped values for efficient context propagation, performance problems with ThreadLocal including lazy ThreadLocalMap allocation overhead on virtual threads and scalability issues with ThreadLocal.remove() and soft reference queues, the impact on reactive programming where back pressure and stream composition still require higher-level abstractions beyond Basic Java concurrency primitives, structured concurrency limitations for back pressure scenarios compared to reactive libraries, deterministic testing possibilities enabled by custom schedulers where execution order can be controlled, the poller mechanism for handling blocking I/O in virtual threads in a non-blocking way, observability improvements possible through virtual thread task attachments for monitoring state changes, cloud cost implications of inefficient thread scheduling and unnecessary CPU wake-up cycles, the distinction between framework developers and application developers as different user personas with different abstraction needs Francesco Nigro on twitter: @forked_franz

Louis Knight-Webb is the co-founder of Vibe Kanban, an open-source tool for orchestrating AI coding agents. After years of building for enterprise legacy code, Louis pivoted and saw his new project explode to over 20,000 GitHub stars in just a few months. We talk about the "startup university" of the last five years, why he walked away from 6-figure enterprise deals to find true founder-market fit, and why he thinks most people are wrong about AI-generated pull requests.This episode is brought to you by WorkOS. If you're thinking about selling to enterprise customers, WorkOS can help you add enterprise features like Single Sign On and audit logs.Links:   •  Vibe Kanban   •  Louis' Linkedin

Did AI agents just DDoS GitHub? Andrew and Ben are joined by Warp Founder and CEO Zach Lloyd to discuss the massive strain agentic workflows are putting on our infrastructure and why the "Monday Morning Commit Spike" is the new normal. They also dive into Steve Yegge's reflective piece on the "AI Vampire" and the economic pressure on developers to output 10x results without 10x pay. Finally, Zach unveils "Oz," Warp's new platform designed to move agents off your laptop and into the cloud for better orchestration, security, and team collaboration.LinearB: The AI productivity platform for engineering leadersFollow the show:Subscribe to our Substack Follow us on LinkedInSubscribe to our YouTube ChannelLeave us a ReviewFollow the hosts:Follow AndrewFollow BenFollow DanFollow today's stories:GitHub: GitHub appears to be struggling with measly three nines availabilityThe AI Vampire: Read Steve Yegge's ArticleOpen Coding Agents: Tim Dettmers/AI2 Research on Open Coding Agents (SERA)Listen to: The future of the terminal is not a terminalWarp Oz: Introducing Oz: The Orchestration Platform for Cloud AgentsBlog: Introducing Oz: the orchestration platform for cloud agentsConnect with Zach Lloyd: LinkedIn | X (Twitter)OFFERS Start Free Trial: Get started with LinearB's AI productivity platform for free. Book a Demo: Learn how you can ship faster, improve DevEx, and lead with confidence in the AI era. LEARN ABOUT LINEARB AI Code Reviews: Automate reviews to catch bugs, security risks, and performance issues before they hit production. AI & Productivity Insights: Go beyond DORA with AI-powered recommendations and dashboards to measure and improve performance. AI-Powered Workflow Automations: Use AI-generated PR descriptions, smart routing, and other automations to reduce developer toil. MCP Server: Interact with your engineering data using natural language to build custom reports and get answers on the fly.

AI is moving fast from research to real-world deployment, and when things go wrong, the consequences are no longer hypothetical. In this episode, Sean McGregor, co-founder of the AI Verification & Evaluation Research Institute and also the founder of the AI Incident Database, joins Chris and Dan to discuss AI safety, verification, evaluation, and auditing. They explore why benchmarks often fall short, what red-teaming at DEF CON reveals about machine learning risks, and how organizations can better assess and manage AI systems in practice.Featuring:Sean McGregor– LinkedInChris Benson – Website, LinkedIn, Bluesky, GitHub, XDaniel Whitenack – Website, GitHub, XLinks:AI Verification & Evaluation Research InstituteAI Incident Database38th convening of IAAIBenchRiskState of Global AI Incident ReportingUpcoming Events: Register for upcoming webinars here!

Guest Lucas Fada Panelists Eriol Fox | Victory Brown Show Notes In this episode of Sustain, host Eriol Fox and co-host Victory Brown speak with Lucas Fada, the head of partnerships at Drips Network. Lucas shares insights from his over a decade of experience in early-stage startups, focusing on making open source software projects financially sustainable through strategic partnerships. They discuss the methodologies Lucas employs to secure funding for open source projects, the types of projects that attract funders, and how Drips Network aims to create a 'super app' for funding open source builders. Lucas also provides valuable advice for open source projects on becoming more visible to funders and highlights the essential role of ecosystems like Web3 in supporting open source. Additionally, he emphasizes the importance of moving beyond traditional philanthropy and crisis management in open source funding. Press download to hear more! [00:00:23] Eriol introduces Lucas, and he explains what doing partnerships for Drips Network entails. [00:01:50] Before approaching funders, Lucas shares that Drips looks for people or teams that have already funded OSS or spoken publicly about it. [00:02:56] Victory wonders what kind of projects funders are interested in. Lucas explains funders tend to focus on high-visibility libraries rather than deep dependencies and goes into funder motivations to “give back” vs ecosystem needs. [00:05:17] How can projects become more fundable? Lucas dives into this in two parts and he announces they are building a ‘super app' for funding open source builders. [00:07:49] Lucas elaborates on what package registries could do. One example he mentions is that Drips launched a “Fund Me” button for GitHub repos, like “Buy Me a Coffee” but crypto-based and fee free. [00:09:19] Eriol notes that many projects associate marketing with proprietary, corporate culture, but marketing is really just communication. Lucas suggests the community could develop a shared marketing team that helps projects share their story. [00:10:53] What can funders do proactively to support open source and critical digital infrastructure? Lucas' top advice is: Talk to your own developers. [00:13:07] Why Web3? It's one of the most OSS-driven spaces; blockchains are typically open source and modular. Lucas wants OSS funding to move out of philanthropy/emergency rescue mode into something more strategic and ongoing. [00:15:25] Lucas shares how they are making OSS maintenance a viable elaborating on how Drips is building funding pathways for different stages of an OSS career: Dependency funding, Direct grants, Retroactive grants, and Drips Wave. [00:17:58] Drips is working with UNICEF to create funding mechanisms for several high use Digital Public Goods and how governments in the global south could encourage youth to join open source bounties. Eriol acknowledges skepticism about bounties and highlights their benefits. [00:19:54] Find out where you can follow Lucas on the internet and he shares his project spotlight, Ethers.js and its maintainer, Richard “ricmoo” Moore. Links podcast@sustainoss.org richard@sustainoss.org SustainOSS Discourse SustainOSS Mastodon SustainOSS Bluesky SustainOSS LinkedIn Open Collective-SustainOSS (Contribute) Richard Littauer Socials Eriol Fox X Victory Brown X Lucas Fada X Lucas Fada LinkedIn Drips Drips Discord Devconnect- 2025, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 17-22 November Ethereum Ethereum Foundation Ethers.js Web3 Richard “ricmoo” Moore Credits Produced by Richard Littauer Edited by Paul M. Bahr at Peachtree Sound Show notes by DeAnn Bahr Peachtree Sound Logistical support by Tina Arboleda from Digital Savvies Special Guest: Lucas Fada.

Peter Steinberger is the creator of OpenClaw, an open-source AI agent framework that’s the fastest-growing project in GitHub history. Thank you for listening ❤ Check out our sponsors: https://lexfridman.com/sponsors/ep491-sc See below for timestamps, transcript, and to give feedback, submit questions, contact Lex, etc. Transcript: https://lexfridman.com/peter-steinberger-transcript CONTACT LEX: Feedback – give feedback to Lex: https://lexfridman.com/survey AMA – submit questions, videos or call-in: https://lexfridman.com/ama Hiring – join our team: https://lexfridman.com/hiring Other – other ways to get in touch: https://lexfridman.com/contact EPISODE LINKS: Peter’s X: https://x.com/steipete Peter’s GitHub: https://github.com/steipete Peter’s Website: https://steipete.com Peter’s LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/steipete OpenClaw Website: https://openclaw.ai OpenClaw GitHub: https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw OpenClaw Discord: https://discord.gg/openclaw SPONSORS: To support this podcast, check out our sponsors & get discounts: Perplexity: AI-powered answer engine. Go to https://perplexity.ai/ Quo: Phone system (calls, texts, contacts) for businesses. Go to https://quo.com/lex CodeRabbit: AI-powered code reviews. Go to https://coderabbit.ai/lex Fin: AI agent for customer service. Go to https://fin.ai/lex Blitzy: AI agent for large enterprise codebases. Go to https://blitzy.com/lex Shopify: Sell stuff online. Go to https://shopify.com/lex LMNT: Zero-sugar electrolyte drink mix. Go to https://drinkLMNT.com/lex OUTLINE: (00:00) – Introduction (03:51) – Sponsors, Comments, and Reflections (15:29) – OpenClaw origin story (18:48) – Mind-blowing moment (28:15) – Why OpenClaw went viral (32:12) – Self-modifying AI agent (36:57) – Name-change drama (54:07) – Moltbook saga (1:02:26) – OpenClaw security concerns (1:11:07) – How to code with AI agents (1:42:02) – Programming setup (1:48:45) – GPT Codex 5.3 vs Claude Opus 4.6 (1:57:52) – Best AI agent for programming (2:19:52) – Life story and career advice (2:23:49) – Money and happiness (2:27:41) – Acquisition offers from OpenAI and Meta (2:44:51) – How OpenClaw works (2:56:09) – AI slop (3:02:13) – AI agents will replace 80% of apps (3:10:50) – Will AI replace programmers? (3:22:50) – Future of OpenClaw community

Chad talks with Jason Stadther, director of engineering at TrueCar, about striking the right balance with AI in programming and its overall impact on the industry now and in the future. Together they discuss the impact AI is currently having on junior developers and the potential impact it's having on their career prospects, what happens to AI when it doesn't have a reference for newly developed tools, how the internet is likely to change over the next decade, and Jason covers some key differences between AI and machine learning. — Your guest for this episode has been Jason Stadther, you can connect with him over on LinkedIn, or check out his blog for more insights on his work. Your host for this episode has been Chad Pytel. You can find Chad all over social media as @cpytel, or over on LinkedIn. If you would like to support the show, head over to our GitHub page, or check out our website. Got a question or comment about the show? Why not write to our hosts: hosts@giantrobots.fm This has been a thoughtbot podcast. Stay up to date by following us on social media - LinkedIn - Mastodon - YouTube - Bluesky © 2026 thoughtbot, inc.

Intellectual Property: Does removing copyright management information from open source code violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act when used to train AI models? - Argued: Wed, 11 Feb 2026 11:22:36 EDT

This podcast features Gabriele Corso and Jeremy Wohlwend, co-founders of Boltz and authors of the Boltz Manifesto, discussing the rapid evolution of structural biology models from AlphaFold to their own open-source suite, Boltz-1 and Boltz-2. The central thesis is that while single-chain protein structure prediction is largely “solved” through evolutionary hints, the next frontier lies in modeling complex interactions (protein-ligand, protein-protein) and generative protein design, which Boltz aims to democratize via open-source foundations and scalable infrastructure.Full Video PodOn YouTube!Timestamps* 00:00 Introduction to Benchmarking and the “Solved” Protein Problem* 06:48 Evolutionary Hints and Co-evolution in Structure Prediction* 10:00 The Importance of Protein Function and Disease States* 15:31 Transitioning from AlphaFold 2 to AlphaFold 3 Capabilities* 19:48 Generative Modeling vs. Regression in Structural Biology* 25:00 The “Bitter Lesson” and Specialized AI Architectures* 29:14 Development Anecdotes: Training Boltz-1 on a Budget* 32:00 Validation Strategies and the Protein Data Bank (PDB)* 37:26 The Mission of Boltz: Democratizing Access and Open Source* 41:43 Building a Self-Sustaining Research Community* 44:40 Boltz-2 Advancements: Affinity Prediction and Design* 51:03 BoltzGen: Merging Structure and Sequence Prediction* 55:18 Large-Scale Wet Lab Validation Results* 01:02:44 Boltz Lab Product Launch: Agents and Infrastructure* 01:13:06 Future Directions: Developpability and the “Virtual Cell”* 01:17:35 Interacting with Skeptical Medicinal ChemistsKey SummaryEvolution of Structure Prediction & Evolutionary Hints* Co-evolutionary Landscapes: The speakers explain that breakthrough progress in single-chain protein prediction relied on decoding evolutionary correlations where mutations in one position necessitate mutations in another to conserve 3D structure.* Structure vs. Folding: They differentiate between structure prediction (getting the final answer) and folding (the kinetic process of reaching that state), noting that the field is still quite poor at modeling the latter.* Physics vs. Statistics: RJ posits that while models use evolutionary statistics to find the right “valley” in the energy landscape, they likely possess a “light understanding” of physics to refine the local minimum.The Shift to Generative Architectures* Generative Modeling: A key leap in AlphaFold 3 and Boltz-1 was moving from regression (predicting one static coordinate) to a generative diffusion approach that samples from a posterior distribution.* Handling Uncertainty: This shift allows models to represent multiple conformational states and avoid the “averaging” effect seen in regression models when the ground truth is ambiguous.* Specialized Architectures: Despite the “bitter lesson” of general-purpose transformers, the speakers argue that equivariant architectures remain vastly superior for biological data due to the inherent 3D geometric constraints of molecules.Boltz-2 and Generative Protein Design* Unified Encoding: Boltz-2 (and BoltzGen) treats structure and sequence prediction as a single task by encoding amino acid identities into the atomic composition of the predicted structure.* Design Specifics: Instead of a sequence, users feed the model blank tokens and a high-level “spec” (e.g., an antibody framework), and the model decodes both the 3D structure and the corresponding amino acids.* Affinity Prediction: While model confidence is a common metric, Boltz-2 focuses on affinity prediction—quantifying exactly how tightly a designed binder will stick to its target.Real-World Validation and Productization* Generalized Validation: To prove the model isn't just “regurgitating” known data, Boltz tested its designs on 9 targets with zero known interactions in the PDB, achieving nanomolar binders for two-thirds of them.* Boltz Lab Infrastructure: The newly launched Boltz Lab platform provides “agents” for protein and small molecule design, optimized to run 10x faster than open-source versions through proprietary GPU kernels.* Human-in-the-Loop: The platform is designed to convert skeptical medicinal chemists by allowing them to run parallel screens and use their intuition to filter model outputs.TranscriptRJ [00:05:35]: But the goal remains to, like, you know, really challenge the models, like, how well do these models generalize? And, you know, we've seen in some of the latest CASP competitions, like, while we've become really, really good at proteins, especially monomeric proteins, you know, other modalities still remain pretty difficult. So it's really essential, you know, in the field that there are, like, these efforts to gather, you know, benchmarks that are challenging. So it keeps us in line, you know, about what the models can do or not.Gabriel [00:06:26]: Yeah, it's interesting you say that, like, in some sense, CASP, you know, at CASP 14, a problem was solved and, like, pretty comprehensively, right? But at the same time, it was really only the beginning. So you can say, like, what was the specific problem you would argue was solved? And then, like, you know, what is remaining, which is probably quite open.RJ [00:06:48]: I think we'll steer away from the term solved, because we have many friends in the community who get pretty upset at that word. And I think, you know, fairly so. But the problem that was, you know, that a lot of progress was made on was the ability to predict the structure of single chain proteins. So proteins can, like, be composed of many chains. And single chain proteins are, you know, just a single sequence of amino acids. And one of the reasons that we've been able to make such progress is also because we take a lot of hints from evolution. So the way the models work is that, you know, they sort of decode a lot of hints. That comes from evolutionary landscapes. So if you have, like, you know, some protein in an animal, and you go find the similar protein across, like, you know, different organisms, you might find different mutations in them. And as it turns out, if you take a lot of the sequences together, and you analyze them, you see that some positions in the sequence tend to evolve at the same time as other positions in the sequence, sort of this, like, correlation between different positions. And it turns out that that is typically a hint that these two positions are close in three dimension. So part of the, you know, part of the breakthrough has been, like, our ability to also decode that very, very effectively. But what it implies also is that in absence of that co-evolutionary landscape, the models don't quite perform as well. And so, you know, I think when that information is available, maybe one could say, you know, the problem is, like, somewhat solved. From the perspective of structure prediction, when it isn't, it's much more challenging. And I think it's also worth also differentiating the, sometimes we confound a little bit, structure prediction and folding. Folding is the more complex process of actually understanding, like, how it goes from, like, this disordered state into, like, a structured, like, state. And that I don't think we've made that much progress on. But the idea of, like, yeah, going straight to the answer, we've become pretty good at.Brandon [00:08:49]: So there's this protein that is, like, just a long chain and it folds up. Yeah. And so we're good at getting from that long chain in whatever form it was originally to the thing. But we don't know how it necessarily gets to that state. And there might be intermediate states that it's in sometimes that we're not aware of.RJ [00:09:10]: That's right. And that relates also to, like, you know, our general ability to model, like, the different, you know, proteins are not static. They move, they take different shapes based on their energy states. And I think we are, also not that good at understanding the different states that the protein can be in and at what frequency, what probability. So I think the two problems are quite related in some ways. Still a lot to solve. But I think it was very surprising at the time, you know, that even with these evolutionary hints that we were able to, you know, to make such dramatic progress.Brandon [00:09:45]: So I want to ask, why does the intermediate states matter? But first, I kind of want to understand, why do we care? What proteins are shaped like?Gabriel [00:09:54]: Yeah, I mean, the proteins are kind of the machines of our body. You know, the way that all the processes that we have in our cells, you know, work is typically through proteins, sometimes other molecules, sort of intermediate interactions. And through that interactions, we have all sorts of cell functions. And so when we try to understand, you know, a lot of biology, how our body works, how disease work. So we often try to boil it down to, okay, what is going right in case of, you know, our normal biological function and what is going wrong in case of the disease state. And we boil it down to kind of, you know, proteins and kind of other molecules and their interaction. And so when we try predicting the structure of proteins, it's critical to, you know, have an understanding of kind of those interactions. It's a bit like seeing the difference between... Having kind of a list of parts that you would put it in a car and seeing kind of the car in its final form, you know, seeing the car really helps you understand what it does. On the other hand, kind of going to your question of, you know, why do we care about, you know, how the protein falls or, you know, how the car is made to some extent is that, you know, sometimes when something goes wrong, you know, there are, you know, cases of, you know, proteins misfolding. In some diseases and so on, if we don't understand this folding process, we don't really know how to intervene.RJ [00:11:30]: There's this nice line in the, I think it's in the Alpha Fold 2 manuscript, where they sort of discuss also like why we even hopeful that we can target the problem in the first place. And then there's this notion that like, well, four proteins that fold. The folding process is almost instantaneous, which is a strong, like, you know, signal that like, yeah, like we should, we might be... able to predict that this very like constrained thing that, that the protein does so quickly. And of course that's not the case for, you know, for, for all proteins. And there's a lot of like really interesting mechanisms in the cells, but yeah, I remember reading that and thought, yeah, that's somewhat of an insightful point.Gabriel [00:12:10]: I think one of the interesting things about the protein folding problem is that it used to be actually studied. And part of the reason why people thought it was impossible, it used to be studied as kind of like a classical example. Of like an MP problem. Uh, like there are so many different, you know, type of, you know, shapes that, you know, this amino acid could take. And so, this grows combinatorially with the size of the sequence. And so there used to be kind of a lot of actually kind of more theoretical computer science thinking about and studying protein folding as an MP problem. And so it was very surprising also from that perspective, kind of seeing. Machine learning so clear, there is some, you know, signal in those sequences, through evolution, but also through kind of other things that, you know, us as humans, we're probably not really able to, uh, to understand, but that is, models I've, I've learned.Brandon [00:13:07]: And so Andrew White, we were talking to him a few weeks ago and he said that he was following the development of this and that there were actually ASICs that were developed just to solve this problem. So, again, that there were. There were many, many, many millions of computational hours spent trying to solve this problem before AlphaFold. And just to be clear, one thing that you mentioned was that there's this kind of co-evolution of mutations and that you see this again and again in different species. So explain why does that give us a good hint that they're close by to each other? Yeah.RJ [00:13:41]: Um, like think of it this way that, you know, if I have, you know, some amino acid that mutates, it's going to impact everything around it. Right. In three dimensions. And so it's almost like the protein through several, probably random mutations and evolution, like, you know, ends up sort of figuring out that this other amino acid needs to change as well for the structure to be conserved. Uh, so this whole principle is that the structure is probably largely conserved, you know, because there's this function associated with it. And so it's really sort of like different positions compensating for, for each other. I see.Brandon [00:14:17]: Those hints in aggregate give us a lot. Yeah. So you can start to look at what kinds of information about what is close to each other, and then you can start to look at what kinds of folds are possible given the structure and then what is the end state.RJ [00:14:30]: And therefore you can make a lot of inferences about what the actual total shape is. Yeah, that's right. It's almost like, you know, you have this big, like three dimensional Valley, you know, where you're sort of trying to find like these like low energy states and there's so much to search through. That's almost overwhelming. But these hints, they sort of maybe put you in. An area of the space that's already like, kind of close to the solution, maybe not quite there yet. And, and there's always this question of like, how much physics are these models learning, you know, versus like, just pure like statistics. And like, I think one of the thing, at least I believe is that once you're in that sort of approximate area of the solution space, then the models have like some understanding, you know, of how to get you to like, you know, the lower energy, uh, low energy state. And so maybe you have some, some light understanding. Of physics, but maybe not quite enough, you know, to know how to like navigate the whole space. Right. Okay.Brandon [00:15:25]: So we need to give it these hints to kind of get into the right Valley and then it finds the, the minimum or something. Yeah.Gabriel [00:15:31]: One interesting explanation about our awful free works that I think it's quite insightful, of course, doesn't cover kind of the entirety of, of what awful does that is, um, they're going to borrow from, uh, Sergio Chinico for MIT. So he sees kind of awful. Then the interesting thing about awful is God. This very peculiar architecture that we have seen, you know, used, and this architecture operates on this, you know, pairwise context between amino acids. And so the idea is that probably the MSA gives you this first hint about what potential amino acids are close to each other. MSA is most multiple sequence alignment. Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. This evolutionary information. Yeah. And, you know, from this evolutionary information about potential contacts, then is almost as if the model is. of running some kind of, you know, diastro algorithm where it's sort of decoding, okay, these have to be closed. Okay. Then if these are closed and this is connected to this, then this has to be somewhat closed. And so you decode this, that becomes basically a pairwise kind of distance matrix. And then from this rough pairwise distance matrix, you decode kind of theBrandon [00:16:42]: actual potential structure. Interesting. So there's kind of two different things going on in the kind of coarse grain and then the fine grain optimizations. Interesting. Yeah. Very cool.Gabriel [00:16:53]: Yeah. You mentioned AlphaFold3. So maybe we have a good time to move on to that. So yeah, AlphaFold2 came out and it was like, I think fairly groundbreaking for this field. Everyone got very excited. A few years later, AlphaFold3 came out and maybe for some more history, like what were the advancements in AlphaFold3? And then I think maybe we'll, after that, we'll talk a bit about the sort of how it connects to Bolt. But anyway. Yeah. So after AlphaFold2 came out, you know, Jeremy and I got into the field and with many others, you know, the clear problem that, you know, was, you know, obvious after that was, okay, now we can do individual chains. Can we do interactions, interaction, different proteins, proteins with small molecules, proteins with other molecules. And so. So why are interactions important? Interactions are important because to some extent that's kind of the way that, you know, these machines, you know, these proteins have a function, you know, the function comes by the way that they interact with other proteins and other molecules. Actually, in the first place, you know, the individual machines are often, as Jeremy was mentioning, not made of a single chain, but they're made of the multiple chains. And then these multiple chains interact with other molecules to give the function to those. And on the other hand, you know, when we try to intervene of these interactions, think about like a disease, think about like a, a biosensor or many other ways we are trying to design the molecules or proteins that interact in a particular way with what we would call a target protein or target. You know, this problem after AlphaVol2, you know, became clear, kind of one of the biggest problems in the field to, to solve many groups, including kind of ours and others, you know, started making some kind of contributions to this problem of trying to model these interactions. And AlphaVol3 was, you know, was a significant advancement on the problem of modeling interactions. And one of the interesting thing that they were able to do while, you know, some of the rest of the field that really tried to try to model different interactions separately, you know, how protein interacts with small molecules, how protein interacts with other proteins, how RNA or DNA have their structure, they put everything together and, you know, train very large models with a lot of advances, including kind of changing kind of systems. Some of the key architectural choices and managed to get a single model that was able to set this new state-of-the-art performance across all of these different kind of modalities, whether that was protein, small molecules is critical to developing kind of new drugs, protein, protein, understanding, you know, interactions of, you know, proteins with RNA and DNAs and so on.Brandon [00:19:39]: Just to satisfy the AI engineers in the audience, what were some of the key architectural and data, data changes that made that possible?Gabriel [00:19:48]: Yeah, so one critical one that was not necessarily just unique to AlphaFold3, but there were actually a few other teams, including ours in the field that proposed this, was moving from, you know, modeling structure prediction as a regression problem. So where there is a single answer and you're trying to shoot for that answer to a generative modeling problem where you have a posterior distribution of possible structures and you're trying to sample this distribution. And this achieves two things. One is it starts to allow us to try to model more dynamic systems. As we said, you know, some of these structures can actually take multiple structures. And so, you know, you can now model that, you know, through kind of modeling the entire distribution. But on the second hand, from more kind of core modeling questions, when you move from a regression problem to a generative modeling problem, you are really tackling the way that you think about uncertainty in the model in a different way. So if you think about, you know, I'm undecided between different answers, what's going to happen in a regression model is that, you know, I'm going to try to make an average of those different kind of answers that I had in mind. When you have a generative model, what you're going to do is, you know, sample all these different answers and then maybe use separate models to analyze those different answers and pick out the best. So that was kind of one of the critical improvement. The other improvement is that they significantly simplified, to some extent, the architecture, especially of the final model that takes kind of those pairwise representations and turns them into an actual structure. And that now looks a lot more like a more traditional transformer than, you know, like a very specialized equivariant architecture that it was in AlphaFold3.Brandon [00:21:41]: So this is a bitter lesson, a little bit.Gabriel [00:21:45]: There is some aspect of a bitter lesson, but the interesting thing is that it's very far from, you know, being like a simple transformer. This field is one of the, I argue, very few fields in applied machine learning where we still have kind of architecture that are very specialized. And, you know, there are many people that have tried to replace these architectures with, you know, simple transformers. And, you know, there is a lot of debate in the field, but I think kind of that most of the consensus is that, you know, the performance... that we get from the specialized architecture is vastly superior than what we get through a single transformer. Another interesting thing that I think on the staying on the modeling machine learning side, which I think it's somewhat counterintuitive seeing some of the other kind of fields and applications is that scaling hasn't really worked kind of the same in this field. Now, you know, models like AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 are, you know, still very large models.RJ [00:29:14]: in a place, I think, where we had, you know, some experience working in, you know, with the data and working with this type of models. And I think that put us already in like a good place to, you know, to produce it quickly. And, you know, and I would even say, like, I think we could have done it quicker. The problem was like, for a while, we didn't really have the compute. And so we couldn't really train the model. And actually, we only trained the big model once. That's how much compute we had. We could only train it once. And so like, while the model was training, we were like, finding bugs left and right. A lot of them that I wrote. And like, I remember like, I was like, sort of like, you know, doing like, surgery in the middle, like stopping the run, making the fix, like relaunching. And yeah, we never actually went back to the start. We just like kept training it with like the bug fixes along the way, which was impossible to reproduce now. Yeah, yeah, no, that model is like, has gone through such a curriculum that, you know, learned some weird stuff. But yeah, somehow by miracle, it worked out.Gabriel [00:30:13]: The other funny thing is that the way that we were training, most of that model was through a cluster from the Department of Energy. But that's sort of like a shared cluster that many groups use. And so we were basically training the model for two days, and then it would go back to the queue and stay a week in the queue. Oh, yeah. And so it was pretty painful. And so we actually kind of towards the end with Evan, the CEO of Genesis, and basically, you know, I was telling him a bit about the project and, you know, kind of telling him about this frustration with the compute. And so luckily, you know, he offered to kind of help. And so we, we got the help from Genesis to, you know, finish up the model. Otherwise, it probably would have taken a couple of extra weeks.Brandon [00:30:57]: Yeah, yeah.Brandon [00:31:02]: And then, and then there's some progression from there.Gabriel [00:31:06]: Yeah, so I would say kind of that, both one, but also kind of these other kind of set of models that came around the same time, were kind of approaching were a big leap from, you know, kind of the previous kind of open source models, and, you know, kind of really kind of approaching the level of AlphaVault 3. But I would still say that, you know, even to this day, there are, you know, some... specific instances where AlphaVault 3 works better. I think one common example is antibody antigen prediction, where, you know, AlphaVault 3 still seems to have an edge in many situations. Obviously, these are somewhat different models. They are, you know, you run them, you obtain different results. So it's, it's not always the case that one model is better than the other, but kind of in aggregate, we still, especially at the time.Brandon [00:32:00]: So AlphaVault 3 is, you know, still having a bit of an edge. We should talk about this more when we talk about Boltzgen, but like, how do you know one is, one model is better than the other? Like you, so you, I make a prediction, you make a prediction, like, how do you know?Gabriel [00:32:11]: Yeah, so easily, you know, the, the great thing about kind of structural prediction and, you know, once we're going to go into the design space of designing new small molecule, new proteins, this becomes a lot more complex. But a great thing about structural prediction is that a bit like, you know, CASP was doing, basically the way that you can evaluate them is that, you know, you train... You know, you train a model on a structure that was, you know, released across the field up until a certain time. And, you know, one of the things that we didn't talk about that was really critical in all this development is the PDB, which is the Protein Data Bank. It's this common resources, basically common database where every biologist publishes their structures. And so we can, you know, train on, you know, all the structures that were put in the PDB until a certain date. And then... And then we basically look for recent structures, okay, which structures look pretty different from anything that was published before, because we really want to try to understand generalization.Brandon [00:33:13]: And then on this new structure, we evaluate all these different models. And so you just know when AlphaFold3 was trained, you know, when you're, you intentionally trained to the same date or something like that. Exactly. Right. Yeah.Gabriel [00:33:24]: And so this is kind of the way that you can somewhat easily kind of compare these models, obviously, that assumes that, you know, the training. You've always been very passionate about validation. I remember like DiffDoc, and then there was like DiffDocL and DocGen. You've thought very carefully about this in the past. Like, actually, I think DocGen is like a really funny story that I think, I don't know if you want to talk about that. It's an interesting like... Yeah, I think one of the amazing things about putting things open source is that we get a ton of feedback from the field. And, you know, sometimes we get kind of great feedback of people. Really like... But honestly, most of the times, you know, to be honest, that's also maybe the most useful feedback is, you know, people sharing about where it doesn't work. And so, you know, at the end of the day, it's critical. And this is also something, you know, across other fields of machine learning. It's always critical to set, to do progress in machine learning, set clear benchmarks. And as, you know, you start doing progress of certain benchmarks, then, you know, you need to improve the benchmarks and make them harder and harder. And this is kind of the progression of, you know, how the field operates. And so, you know, the example of DocGen was, you know, we published this initial model called DiffDoc in my first year of PhD, which was sort of like, you know, one of the early models to try to predict kind of interactions between proteins, small molecules, that we bought a year after AlphaFold2 was published. And now, on the one hand, you know, on these benchmarks that we were using at the time, DiffDoc was doing really well, kind of, you know, outperforming kind of some of the traditional physics-based methods. But on the other hand, you know, when we started, you know, kind of giving these tools to kind of many biologists, and one example was that we collaborated with was the group of Nick Polizzi at Harvard. We noticed, started noticing that there was this clear, pattern where four proteins that were very different from the ones that we're trained on, the models was, was struggling. And so, you know, that seemed clear that, you know, this is probably kind of where we should, you know, put our focus on. And so we first developed, you know, with Nick and his group, a new benchmark, and then, you know, went after and said, okay, what can we change? And kind of about the current architecture to improve this pattern and generalization. And this is the same that, you know, we're still doing today, you know, kind of, where does the model not work, you know, and then, you know, once we have that benchmark, you know, let's try to, through everything we, any ideas that we have of the problem.RJ [00:36:15]: And there's a lot of like healthy skepticism in the field, which I think, you know, is, is, is great. And I think, you know, it's very clear that there's a ton of things, the models don't really work well on, but I think one thing that's probably, you know, undeniable is just like the pace of, pace of progress, you know, and how, how much better we're getting, you know, every year. And so I think if you, you know, if you assume, you know, any constant, you know, rate of progress moving forward, I think things are going to look pretty cool at some point in the future.Gabriel [00:36:42]: ChatGPT was only three years ago. Yeah, I mean, it's wild, right?RJ [00:36:45]: Like, yeah, yeah, yeah, it's one of those things. Like, you've been doing this. Being in the field, you don't see it coming, you know? And like, I think, yeah, hopefully we'll, you know, we'll, we'll continue to have as much progress we've had the past few years.Brandon [00:36:55]: So this is maybe an aside, but I'm really curious, you get this great feedback from the, from the community, right? By being open source. My question is partly like, okay, yeah, if you open source and everyone can copy what you did, but it's also maybe balancing priorities, right? Where you, like all my customers are saying. I want this, there's all these problems with the model. Yeah, yeah. But my customers don't care, right? So like, how do you, how do you think about that? Yeah.Gabriel [00:37:26]: So I would say a couple of things. One is, you know, part of our goal with Bolts and, you know, this is also kind of established as kind of the mission of the public benefit company that we started is to democratize the access to these tools. But one of the reasons why we realized that Bolts needed to be a company, it couldn't just be an academic project is that putting a model on GitHub is definitely not enough to get, you know, chemists and biologists, you know, across, you know, both academia, biotech and pharma to use your model to, in their therapeutic programs. And so a lot of what we think about, you know, at Bolts beyond kind of the, just the models is thinking about all the layers. The layers that come on top of the models to get, you know, from, you know, those models to something that can really enable scientists in the industry. And so that goes, you know, into building kind of the right kind of workflows that take in kind of, for example, the data and try to answer kind of directly that those problems that, you know, the chemists and the biologists are asking, and then also kind of building the infrastructure. And so this to say that, you know, even with models fully open. You know, we see a ton of potential for, you know, products in the space and the critical part about a product is that even, you know, for example, with an open source model, you know, running the model is not free, you know, as we were saying, these are pretty expensive model and especially, and maybe we'll get into this, you know, these days we're seeing kind of pretty dramatic inference time scaling of these models where, you know, the more you run them, the better the results are. But there, you know, you see. You start getting into a point that compute and compute costs becomes a critical factor. And so putting a lot of work into building the right kind of infrastructure, building the optimizations and so on really allows us to provide, you know, a much better service potentially to the open source models. That to say, you know, even though, you know, with a product, we can provide a much better service. I do still think, and we will continue to put a lot of our models open source because the critical kind of role. I think of open source. Models is, you know, helping kind of the community progress on the research and, you know, from which we, we all benefit. And so, you know, we'll continue to on the one hand, you know, put some of our kind of base models open source so that the field can, can be on top of it. And, you know, as we discussed earlier, we learn a ton from, you know, the way that the field uses and builds on top of our models, but then, you know, try to build a product that gives the best experience possible to scientists. So that, you know, like a chemist or a biologist doesn't need to, you know, spin off a GPU and, you know, set up, you know, our open source model in a particular way, but can just, you know, a bit like, you know, I, even though I am a computer scientist, machine learning scientist, I don't necessarily, you know, take a open source LLM and try to kind of spin it off. But, you know, I just maybe open a GPT app or a cloud code and just use it as an amazing product. We kind of want to give the same experience. So this front world.Brandon [00:40:40]: I heard a good analogy yesterday that a surgeon doesn't want the hospital to design a scalpel, right?Brandon [00:40:48]: So just buy the scalpel.RJ [00:40:50]: You wouldn't believe like the number of people, even like in my short time, you know, between AlphaFold3 coming out and the end of the PhD, like the number of people that would like reach out just for like us to like run AlphaFold3 for them, you know, or things like that. Just because like, you know, bolts in our case, you know, just because it's like. It's like not that easy, you know, to do that, you know, if you're not a computational person. And I think like part of the goal here is also that, you know, we continue to obviously build the interface with computational folks, but that, you know, the models are also accessible to like a larger, broader audience. And then that comes from like, you know, good interfaces and stuff like that.Gabriel [00:41:27]: I think one like really interesting thing about bolts is that with the release of it, you didn't just release a model, but you created a community. Yeah. Did that community, it grew very quickly. Did that surprise you? And like, what is the evolution of that community and how is that fed into bolts?RJ [00:41:43]: If you look at its growth, it's like very much like when we release a new model, it's like, there's a big, big jump, but yeah, it's, I mean, it's been great. You know, we have a Slack community that has like thousands of people on it. And it's actually like self-sustaining now, which is like the really nice part because, you know, it's, it's almost overwhelming, I think, you know, to be able to like answer everyone's questions and help. It's really difficult, you know. The, the few people that we were, but it ended up that like, you know, people would answer each other's questions and like, sort of like, you know, help one another. And so the Slack, you know, has been like kind of, yeah, self, self-sustaining and that's been, it's been really cool to see.RJ [00:42:21]: And, you know, that's, that's for like the Slack part, but then also obviously on GitHub as well. We've had like a nice, nice community. You know, I think we also aspire to be even more active on it, you know, than we've been in the past six months, which has been like a bit challenging, you know, for us. But. Yeah, the community has been, has been really great and, you know, there's a lot of papers also that have come out with like new evolutions on top of bolts and it's surprised us to some degree because like there's a lot of models out there. And I think like, you know, sort of people converging on that was, was really cool. And, you know, I think it speaks also, I think, to the importance of like, you know, when, when you put code out, like to try to put a lot of emphasis and like making it like as easy to use as possible and something we thought a lot about when we released the code base. You know, it's far from perfect, but, you know.Brandon [00:43:07]: Do you think that that was one of the factors that caused your community to grow is just the focus on easy to use, make it accessible? I think so.RJ [00:43:14]: Yeah. And we've, we've heard it from a few people over the, over the, over the years now. And, you know, and some people still think it should be a lot nicer and they're, and they're right. And they're right. But yeah, I think it was, you know, at the time, maybe a little bit easier than, than other things.Gabriel [00:43:29]: The other thing part, I think led to, to the community and to some extent, I think, you know, like the somewhat the trust in the community. Kind of what we, what we put out is the fact that, you know, it's not really been kind of, you know, one model, but, and maybe we'll talk about it, you know, after Boltz 1, you know, there were maybe another couple of models kind of released, you know, or open source kind of soon after. We kind of continued kind of that open source journey or at least Boltz 2, where we are not only improving kind of structure prediction, but also starting to do affinity predictions, understanding kind of the strength of the interactions between these different models, which is this critical component. critical property that you often want to optimize in discovery programs. And then, you know, more recently also kind of protein design model. And so we've sort of been building this suite of, of models that come together, interact with one another, where, you know, kind of, there is almost an expectation that, you know, we, we take very at heart of, you know, always having kind of, you know, across kind of the entire suite of different tasks, the best or across the best. model out there so that it's sort of like our open source tool can be kind of the go-to model for everybody in the, in the industry. I really want to talk about Boltz 2, but before that, one last question in this direction, was there anything about the community which surprised you? Were there any, like, someone was doing something and you're like, why would you do that? That's crazy. Or that's actually genius. And I never would have thought about that.RJ [00:45:01]: I mean, we've had many contributions. I think like some of the. Interesting ones, like, I mean, we had, you know, this one individual who like wrote like a complex GPU kernel, you know, for part of the architecture on a piece of, the funny thing is like that piece of the architecture had been there since AlphaFold 2, and I don't know why it took Boltz for this, you know, for this person to, you know, to decide to do it, but that was like a really great contribution. We've had a bunch of others, like, you know, people figuring out like ways to, you know, hack the model to do something. They click peptides, like, you know, there's, I don't know if there's any other interesting ones come to mind.Gabriel [00:45:41]: One cool one, and this was, you know, something that initially was proposed as, you know, as a message in the Slack channel by Tim O'Donnell was basically, he was, you know, there are some cases, especially, for example, we discussed, you know, antibody-antigen interactions where the models don't necessarily kind of get the right answer. What he noticed is that, you know, the models were somewhat stuck into predicting kind of the antibodies. And so he basically ran the experiments in this model, you can condition, basically, you can give hints. And so he basically gave, you know, random hints to the model, basically, okay, you should bind to this residue, you should bind to the first residue, or you should bind to the 11th residue, or you should bind to the 21st residue, you know, basically every 10 residues scanning the entire antigen.Brandon [00:46:33]: Residues are the...Gabriel [00:46:34]: The amino acids. The amino acids, yeah. So the first amino acids. The 11 amino acids, and so on. So it's sort of like doing a scan, and then, you know, conditioning the model to predict all of them, and then looking at the confidence of the model in each of those cases and taking the top. And so it's sort of like a very somewhat crude way of doing kind of inference time search. But surprisingly, you know, for antibody-antigen prediction, it actually kind of helped quite a bit. And so there's some, you know, interesting ideas that, you know, obviously, as kind of developing the model, you say kind of, you know, wow. This is why would the model, you know, be so dumb. But, you know, it's very interesting. And that, you know, leads you to also kind of, you know, start thinking about, okay, how do I, can I do this, you know, not with this brute force, but, you know, in a smarter way.RJ [00:47:22]: And so we've also done a lot of work on that direction. And that speaks to, like, the, you know, the power of scoring. We're seeing that a lot. I'm sure we'll talk about it more when we talk about BullsGen. But, you know, our ability to, like, take a structure and determine that that structure is, like... Good. You know, like, somewhat accurate. Whether that's a single chain or, like, an interaction is a really powerful way of improving, you know, the models. Like, sort of like, you know, if you can sample a ton and you assume that, like, you know, if you sample enough, you're likely to have, like, you know, the good structure. Then it really just becomes a ranking problem. And, you know, now we're, you know, part of the inference time scaling that Gabby was talking about is very much that. It's like, you know, the more we sample, the more we, like, you know, the ranking model. The ranking model ends up finding something it really likes. And so I think our ability to get better at ranking, I think, is also what's going to enable sort of the next, you know, next big, big breakthroughs. Interesting.Brandon [00:48:17]: But I guess there's a, my understanding, there's a diffusion model and you generate some stuff and then you, I guess, it's just what you said, right? Then you rank it using a score and then you finally... And so, like, can you talk about those different parts? Yeah.Gabriel [00:48:34]: So, first of all, like, the... One of the critical kind of, you know, beliefs that we had, you know, also when we started working on Boltz 1 was sort of like the structure prediction models are somewhat, you know, our field version of some foundation models, you know, learning about kind of how proteins and other molecules interact. And then we can leverage that learning to do all sorts of other things. And so with Boltz 2, we leverage that learning to do affinity predictions. So understanding kind of, you know, if I give you this protein, this molecule. How tightly is that interaction? For Boltz 1, what we did was taking kind of that kind of foundation models and then fine tune it to predict kind of entire new proteins. And so the way basically that that works is sort of like instead of for the protein that you're designing, instead of fitting in an actual sequence, you fit in a set of blank tokens. And you train the models to, you know, predict both the structure of kind of that protein. The structure also, what the different amino acids of that proteins are. And so basically the way that Boltz 1 operates is that you feed a target protein that you may want to kind of bind to or, you know, another DNA, RNA. And then you feed the high level kind of design specification of, you know, what you want your new protein to be. For example, it could be like an antibody with a particular framework. It could be a peptide. It could be many other things. And that's with natural language or? And that's, you know, basically, you know, prompting. And we have kind of this sort of like spec that you specify. And, you know, you feed kind of this spec to the model. And then the model translates this into, you know, a set of, you know, tokens, a set of conditioning to the model, a set of, you know, blank tokens. And then, you know, basically the codes as part of the diffusion models, the codes. It's a new structure and a new sequence for your protein. And, you know, basically, then we take that. And as Jeremy was saying, we are trying to score it and, you know, how good of a binder it is to that original target.Brandon [00:50:51]: You're using basically Boltz to predict the folding and the affinity to that molecule. So and then that kind of gives you a score? Exactly.Gabriel [00:51:03]: So you use this model to predict the folding. And then you do two things. One is that you predict the structure and with something like Boltz2, and then you basically compare that structure with what the model predicted, what Boltz2 predicted. And this is sort of like in the field called consistency. It's basically you want to make sure that, you know, the structure that you're predicting is actually what you're trying to design. And that gives you a much better confidence that, you know, that's a good design. And so that's the first filtering. And the second filtering that we did as part of kind of the Boltz2 pipeline that was released is that we look at the confidence that the model has in the structure. Now, unfortunately, kind of going to your question of, you know, predicting affinity, unfortunately, confidence is not a very good predictor of affinity. And so one of the things that we've actually done a ton of progress, you know, since we released Boltz2.Brandon [00:52:03]: And kind of we have some new results that we are going to kind of announce soon is kind of, you know, the ability to get much better hit rates when instead of, you know, trying to rely on confidence of the model, we are actually directly trying to predict the affinity of that interaction. Okay. Just backing up a minute. So your diffusion model actually predicts not only the protein sequence, but also the folding of it. Exactly.Gabriel [00:52:32]: And actually, you can... One of the big different things that we did compared to other models in the space, and, you know, there were some papers that had already kind of done this before, but we really scaled it up was, you know, basically somewhat merging kind of the structure prediction and the sequence prediction into almost the same task. And so the way that Boltz2 works is that you are basically the only thing that you're doing is predicting the structure. So the only sort of... Supervision is we give you a supervision on the structure, but because the structure is atomic and, you know, the different amino acids have a different atomic composition, basically from the way that you place the atoms, we also understand not only kind of the structure that you wanted, but also the identity of the amino acid that, you know, the models believed was there. And so we've basically, instead of, you know, having these two supervision signals, you know, one discrete, one continuous. That somewhat, you know, don't interact well together. We sort of like build kind of like an encoding of, you know, sequences in structures that allows us to basically use exactly the same supervision signal that we were using to Boltz2 that, you know, you know, largely similar to what AlphaVol3 proposed, which is very scalable. And we can use that to design new proteins. Oh, interesting.RJ [00:53:58]: Maybe a quick shout out to Hannes Stark on our team who like did all this work. Yeah.Gabriel [00:54:04]: Yeah, that was a really cool idea. I mean, like looking at the paper and there's this is like encoding or you just add a bunch of, I guess, kind of atoms, which can be anything, and then they get sort of rearranged and then basically plopped on top of each other so that and then that encodes what the amino acid is. And there's sort of like a unique way of doing this. It was that was like such a really such a cool, fun idea.RJ [00:54:29]: I think that idea was had existed before. Yeah, there were a couple of papers.Gabriel [00:54:33]: Yeah, I had proposed this and and Hannes really took it to the large scale.Brandon [00:54:39]: In the paper, a lot of the paper for Boltz2Gen is dedicated to actually the validation of the model. In my opinion, all the people we basically talk about feel that this sort of like in the wet lab or whatever the appropriate, you know, sort of like in real world validation is the whole problem or not the whole problem, but a big giant part of the problem. So can you talk a little bit about the highlights? From there, that really because to me, the results are impressive, both from the perspective of the, you know, the model and also just the effort that went into the validation by a large team.Gabriel [00:55:18]: First of all, I think I should start saying is that both when we were at MIT and Thomas Yacolas and Regina Barzillai's lab, as well as at Boltz, you know, we are not a we're not a biolab and, you know, we are not a therapeutic company. And so to some extent, you know, we were first forced to, you know, look outside of, you know, our group, our team to do the experimental validation. One of the things that really, Hannes, in the team pioneer was the idea, OK, can we go not only to, you know, maybe a specific group and, you know, trying to find a specific system and, you know, maybe overfit a bit to that system and trying to validate. But how can we test this model? So. Across a very wide variety of different settings so that, you know, anyone in the field and, you know, printing design is, you know, such a kind of wide task with all sorts of different applications from therapeutic to, you know, biosensors and many others that, you know, so can we get a validation that is kind of goes across many different tasks? And so he basically put together, you know, I think it was something like, you know, 25 different. You know, academic and industry labs that committed to, you know, testing some of the designs from the model and some of this testing is still ongoing and, you know, giving results kind of back to us in exchange for, you know, hopefully getting some, you know, new great sequences for their task. And he was able to, you know, coordinate this, you know, very wide set of, you know, scientists and already in the paper, I think we. Shared results from, I think, eight to 10 different labs kind of showing results from, you know, designing peptides, designing to target, you know, ordered proteins, peptides targeting disordered proteins, which are results, you know, of designing proteins that bind to small molecules, which are results of, you know, designing nanobodies and across a wide variety of different targets. And so that's sort of like. That gave to the paper a lot of, you know, validation to the model, a lot of validation that was kind of wide.Brandon [00:57:39]: And so those would be therapeutics for those animals or are they relevant to humans as well? They're relevant to humans as well.Gabriel [00:57:45]: Obviously, you need to do some work into, quote unquote, humanizing them, making sure that, you know, they have the right characteristics to so they're not toxic to humans and so on.RJ [00:57:57]: There are some approved medicine in the market that are nanobodies. There's a general. General pattern, I think, in like in trying to design things that are smaller, you know, like it's easier to manufacture at the same time, like that comes with like potentially other challenges, like maybe a little bit less selectivity than like if you have something that has like more hands, you know, but the yeah, there's this big desire to, you know, try to design many proteins, nanobodies, small peptides, you know, that just are just great drug modalities.Brandon [00:58:27]: Okay. I think we were left off. We were talking about validation. Validation in the lab. And I was very excited about seeing like all the diverse validations that you've done. Can you go into some more detail about them? Yeah. Specific ones. Yeah.RJ [00:58:43]: The nanobody one. I think we did. What was it? 15 targets. Is that correct? 14. 14 targets. Testing. So we typically the way this works is like we make a lot of designs. All right. On the order of like tens of thousands. And then we like rank them and we pick like the top. And in this case, and was 15 right for each target and then we like measure sort of like the success rates, both like how many targets we were able to get a binder for and then also like more generally, like out of all of the binders that we designed, how many actually proved to be good binders. Some of the other ones I think involved like, yeah, like we had a cool one where there was a small molecule or design a protein that binds to it. That has a lot of like interesting applications, you know, for example. Like Gabri mentioned, like biosensing and things like that, which is pretty cool. We had a disordered protein, I think you mentioned also. And yeah, I think some of those were some of the highlights. Yeah.Gabriel [00:59:44]: So I would say that the way that we structure kind of some of those validations was on the one end, we have validations across a whole set of different problems that, you know, the biologists that we were working with came to us with. So we were trying to. For example, in some of the experiments, design peptides that would target the RACC, which is a target that is involved in metabolism. And we had, you know, a number of other applications where we were trying to design, you know, peptides or other modalities against some other therapeutic relevant targets. We designed some proteins to bind small molecules. And then some of the other testing that we did was really trying to get like a more broader sense. So how does the model work, especially when tested, you know, on somewhat generalization? So one of the things that, you know, we found with the field was that a lot of the validation, especially outside of the validation that was on specific problems, was done on targets that have a lot of, you know, known interactions in the training data. And so it's always a bit hard to understand, you know, how much are these models really just regurgitating kind of what they've seen or trying to imitate. What they've seen in the training data versus, you know, really be able to design new proteins. And so one of the experiments that we did was to take nine targets from the PDB, filtering to things where there is no known interaction in the PDB. So basically the model has never seen kind of this particular protein bound or a similar protein bound to another protein. So there is no way that. The model from its training set can sort of like say, okay, I'm just going to kind of tweak something and just imitate this particular kind of interaction. And so we took those nine proteins. We worked with adaptive CRO and basically tested, you know, 15 mini proteins and 15 nanobodies against each one of them. And the very cool thing that we saw was that on two thirds of those targets, we were able to, from this 15 design, get nanomolar binders, nanomolar, roughly speaking, just a measure of, you know, how strongly kind of the interaction is, roughly speaking, kind of like a nanomolar binder is approximately the kind of binding strength or binding that you need for a therapeutic. Yeah. So maybe switching directions a bit. Bolt's lab was just announced this week or was it last week? Yeah. This is like your. First, I guess, product, if that's if you want to call it that. Can you talk about what Bolt's lab is and yeah, you know, what you hope that people take away from this? Yeah.RJ [01:02:44]: You know, as we mentioned, like I think at the very beginning is the goal with the product has been to, you know, address what the models don't on their own. And there's largely sort of two categories there. I'll split it in three. The first one. It's one thing to predict, you know, a single interaction, for example, like a single structure. It's another to like, you know, very effectively search a space, a design space to produce something of value. What we found, like sort of building on this product is that there's a lot of steps involved, you know, in that there's certainly need to like, you know, accompany the user through, you know, one of those steps, for example, is like, you know, the creation of the target itself. You know, how do we make sure that the model has like a good enough understanding of the target? So we can like design something and there's all sorts of tricks, you know, that you can do to improve like a particular, you know, structure prediction. And so that's sort of like, you know, the first stage. And then there's like this stage of like, you know, designing and searching the space efficiently. You know, for something like BullsGen, for example, like you, you know, you design many things and then you rank them, for example, for small molecule process, a little bit more complicated. We actually need to also make sure that the molecules are synthesizable. And so the way we do that is that, you know, we have a generative model that learns. To use like appropriate building blocks such that, you know, it can design within a space that we know is like synthesizable. And so there's like, you know, this whole pipeline really of different models involved in being able to design a molecule. And so that's been sort of like the first thing we call them agents. We have a protein agent and we have a small molecule design agents. And that's really like at the core of like what powers, you know, the BullsLab platform.Brandon [01:04:22]: So these agents, are they like a language model wrapper or they're just like your models and you're just calling them agents? A lot. Yeah. Because they, they, they sort of perform a function on behalf of.RJ [01:04:33]: They're more of like a, you know, a recipe, if you wish. And I think we use that term sort of because of, you know, sort of the complex pipelining and automation, you know, that goes into like all this plumbing. So that's the first part of the product. The second part is the infrastructure. You know, we need to be able to do this at very large scale for any one, you know, group that's doing a design campaign. Let's say you're designing, you know, I'd say a hundred thousand possible candidates. Right. To find the good one that is, you know, a very large amount of compute, you know, for small molecules, it's on the order of like a few seconds per designs for proteins can be a bit longer. And so, you know, ideally you want to do that in parallel, otherwise it's going to take you weeks. And so, you know, we've put a lot of effort into like, you know, our ability to have a GPU fleet that allows any one user, you know, to be able to do this kind of like large parallel search.Brandon [01:05:23]: So you're amortizing the cost over your users. Exactly. Exactly.RJ [01:05:27]: And, you know, to some degree, like it's whether you. Use 10,000 GPUs for like, you know, a minute is the same cost as using, you know, one GPUs for God knows how long. Right. So you might as well try to parallelize if you can. So, you know, a lot of work has gone, has gone into that, making it very robust, you know, so that we can have like a lot of people on the platform doing that at the same time. And the third one is, is the interface and the interface comes in, in two shapes. One is in form of an API and that's, you know, really suited for companies that want to integrate, you know, these pipelines, these agents.RJ [01:06:01]: So we're already partnering with, you know, a few distributors, you know, that are gonna integrate our API. And then the second part is the user interface. And, you know, we, we've put a lot of thoughts also into that. And this is when I, I mentioned earlier, you know, this idea of like broadening the audience. That's kind of what the, the user interface is about. And we've built a lot of interesting features in it, you know, for example, for collaboration, you know, when you have like potentially multiple medicinal chemists or. We're going through the results and trying to pick out, okay, like what are the molecules that we're going to go and test in the lab? It's powerful for them to be able to, you know, for example, each provide their own ranking and then do consensus building. And so there's a lot of features around launching these large jobs, but also around like collaborating on analyzing the results that we try to solve, you know, with that part of the platform. So Bolt's lab is sort of a combination of these three objectives into like one, you know, sort of cohesive platform. Who is this accessible to? Everyone. You do need to request access today. We're still like, you know, sort of ramping up the usage, but anyone can request access. If you are an academic in particular, we, you know, we provide a fair amount of free credit so you can play with the platform. If you are a startup or biotech, you may also, you know, reach out and we'll typically like actually hop on a call just to like understand what you're trying to do and also provide a lot of free credit to get started. And of course, also with larger companies, we can deploy this platform in a more like secure environment. And so that's like more like customizing. You know, deals that we make, you know, with the partners, you know, and that's sort of the ethos of Bolt. I think this idea of like servicing everyone and not necessarily like going after just, you know, the really large enterprises. And that starts from the open source, but it's also, you know, a key design principle of the product itself.Gabriel [01:07:48]: One thing I was thinking about with regards to infrastructure, like in the LLM space, you know, the cost of a token has gone down by I think a factor of a thousand or so over the last three years, right? Yeah. And is it possible that like essentially you can exploit economies of scale and infrastructure that you can make it cheaper to run these things yourself than for any person to roll their own system? A hundred percent. Yeah.RJ [01:08:08]: I mean, we're already there, you know, like running Bolts on our platform, especially on a large screen is like considerably cheaper than it would probably take anyone to put the open source model out there and run it. And on top of the infrastructure, like one of the things that we've been working on is accelerating the models. So, you know. Our small molecule screening pipeline is 10x faster on Bolts Lab than it is in the open source, you know, and that's also part of like, you know, building a product, you know, of something that scales really well. And we really wanted to get to a point where like, you know, we could keep prices very low in a way that it would be a no-brainer, you know, to use Bolts through our platform.Gabriel [01:08:52]: How do you think about validation of your like agentic systems? Because, you know, as you were saying earlier. Like we're AlphaFold style models are really good at, let's say, monomeric, you know, proteins where you have, you know, co-evolution data. But now suddenly the whole point of this is to design something which doesn't have, you know, co-evolution data, something which is really novel. So now you're basically leaving the domain that you thought was, you know, that you know you are good at. So like, how do you validate that?RJ [01:09:22]: Yeah, I like every complete, but there's obviously, you know, a ton of computational metrics. That we rely on, but those are only take you so far. You really got to go to the lab, you know, and test, you know, okay, with this method A and this method B, how much better are we? You know, how much better is my, my hit rate? How stronger are my binders? Also, it's not just about hit rate. It's also about how good the binders are. And there's really like no way, nowhere around that. I think we're, you know, we've really ramped up the amount of experimental validation that we do so that we like really track progress, you know, as scientifically sound, you know. Yeah. As, as possible out of this, I think.Gabriel [01:10:00]: Yeah, no, I think, you know, one thing that is unique about us and maybe companies like us is that because we're not working on like maybe a couple of therapeutic pipelines where, you know, our validation would be focused on those. We, when we do an experimental validation, we try to test it across tens of targets. And so that on the one end, we can get a much more statistically significant result and, and really allows us to make progress. From the methodological side without being, you know, steered by, you know, overfitting on any one particular system. And of course we choose, you know, w

In this episode, Bob sits down with Arthur, a Python engineer based in France and the creator of CodSpeed, to dig into a problem many teams don't notice until it's too late: performance regressions. Arthur shares the story behind building CodSpeed, starting with real-world pain points from robotics and machine-learning pipelines where small slowdowns quietly piled up and broke systems in production. We discuss how CodSpeed fits into everyday developer workflows and why treating performance checks like tests or coverage changes how teams ship code. Arthur also shares how open source shaped the product's mission, the surprising environmental impact of avoiding tiny regressions at scale, and why AI-driven coding makes performance guardrails more important than ever.Reach out to Arthur on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/arthurpastel/ Arthur's website: https://apas.tel/Check out Codspeed: https://codspeed.io/ Github: https://github.com/CodSpeedHQ/codspeed___

¿Te preocupa tener tus claves y contraseñas en texto plano? En este episodio 770 de Atareao con Linux, te explico por qué deberías dejar de usar variables de entorno tradicionales y cómo Podman Secrets puede salvarte el día. Yo mismo he pasado años ignorando este problema en Docker por la pereza de configurar Swarm, pero con Podman, la seguridad viene de serie.Hablaremos en profundidad sobre el ciclo de vida de los secretos: cómo crearlos, listarlos, inspeccionarlos y borrarlos. Te mostraré cómo Podman gestiona estos datos sensibles fuera de las imágenes y fuera del alcance de miradas indiscretas en el historial de Bash. Es un cambio de paradigma para cualquier SysAdmin o entusiasta del Self-hosting.Pero no nos quedamos ahí. Te presento Crypta, mi nueva herramienta escrita en Rust que integra SOPS, Age y Git para que puedas gestionar tus secretos de forma profesional, permitiendo incluso la sincronización con repositorios remotos. Veremos cómo configurar drivers personalizados y cómo usar secretos en tus despliegues con MariaDB y Quadlets.Capítulos destacados:00:00:00 El peligro de las contraseñas en texto plano00:01:23 El problema con Docker Swarm y por qué elegir Podman00:03:16 ¿Qué es realmente un Secreto en Podman?00:04:22 Ciclo de vida: Creación y muerte de un secreto00:08:10 Implementación práctica en MariaDB y Quadlets00:12:04 Presentando Crypta: Gestión con SOPS, Age y Rust00:19:40 Ventajas de usar secretos en modo RootlessSi quieres que tu infraestructura sea realmente segura y coherente, este episodio es una hoja de ruta esencial. Aprende a ocultar lo que debe estar oculto y a dormir tranquilo sabiendo que tus tokens de API no están al alcance de cualquiera.Más información y enlaces en las notas del episodio

Let's pickup the conversation from last week - I got more thoughts on this, family. Jump in with Janaya Future Khan. Project MVT on Github: https://github.com/mvt-project/mvt SUBSCRIBE + FOLLOW IG: www.instagram.com/darkwokejfk Youtube: www.youtube.com/@darkwoke TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@janayafk SUPPORT THE SHOW Patreon - https://patreon.com/@darkwoke Tip w/ a One Time Donation - https://buymeacoffee.com/janayafk Have a query? Comment? Reach out to us at: info@darkwoke.com and we may read it aloud on the show!  

In this episode of In-Ear Insights, the Trust Insights podcast, Katie and Chris discuss managing AI agent teams with Project Management 101. You will learn how to translate scope, timeline, and budget into the world of autonomous AI agents. You will discover how the 5P framework helps you craft prompts that keep agents focused and cost‑effective. You will see how to balance human oversight with agent autonomy to prevent token overrun and project drift. You will gain practical steps for building a lean team of virtual specialists without over‑engineering. Watch the episode to see these strategies in action and start managing AI teams like a pro. Watch the video here: Can’t see anything? Watch it on YouTube here. Listen to the audio here: https://traffic.libsyn.com/inearinsights/tipodcast-project-management-for-ai-agents.mp3 Download the MP3 audio here. Need help with your company’s data and analytics? Let us know! Join our free Slack group for marketers interested in analytics! [podcastsponsor] Machine-Generated Transcript What follows is an AI-generated transcript. The transcript may contain errors and is not a substitute for listening to the episode. Christopher S. Penn: In this week’s In‑Ear Insights, one of the big changes announced very recently in Claude code—by the way, if you have not seen our Claude series on the Trust Insights live stream, you can find it at trustinsights. Christopher S. Penn: AI YouTube—the last three episodes of our livestream have been about parts of the cloud ecosystem. Christopher S. Penn: They made a big change—what was it? Christopher S. Penn: Thursday, February 5, along with a new Opus model, which is fine. Christopher S. Penn: This thing called agent teams. Christopher S. Penn: And what agent teams do is, with a plain‑language prompt, you essentially commission a team of virtual employees that go off, do things, act autonomously, communicate with each other, and then come back with a finished work product. Christopher S. Penn: Which means that AI is now—I’m going to call it agent teams generally—because it will not be long before Google, OpenAI and everyone else say, “We need to do that in our product or we'll fall behind.” Christopher S. Penn: But this changes our skills—from person prompting to, “I have to start thinking like a manager, like a project manager,” if I want this agent team to succeed and not spin its wheels or burn up all of my token credits. Christopher S. Penn: So Katie, because you are a far better manager in general—and a project manager in particular—I figured today we would talk about what Project Management 101 looks like through the lens of someone managing a team of AI agents. Christopher S. Penn: So some things—whether I need to check in with my teammates—are off the table. Christopher S. Penn: Right. Christopher S. Penn: We don’t have to worry about someone having a five‑hour breakdown in the conference room about the use of an Oxford comma. Katie Robbert: Thank goodness. Christopher S. Penn: But some other things—good communication, clarity, good planning—are more important than ever. Christopher S. Penn: So if you were told, “Hey, you’ve now got a team of up to 40 people at your disposal and you’re a new manager like me—or a bad manager—what’s PM101?” Christopher S. Penn: What’s PM101? Katie Robbert: Scope, timeline, budget. Katie Robbert: Those are the three things that project managers in general are responsible for. Katie Robbert: Scope—what are you doing? Katie Robbert: What are you not doing? Katie Robbert: Timeline—how long is it going to take? Katie Robbert: Budget—what’s it going to cost? Katie Robbert: Those are the three tenets of Project Management 101. Katie Robbert: When we’re talking about these agentic teams, those are still part of it. Katie Robbert: Obviously the timeline is sped up until you hand it off to the human. Katie Robbert: So let me take a step back and break these apart. Katie Robbert: Scope is what you’re doing, what you’re not doing. Katie Robbert: You still have to define that. Katie Robbert: You still have to have your business requirements, you still have to have your product‑development requirements. Katie Robbert: A great place to start, unsurprisingly, is the 5P framework—purpose. Katie Robbert: What are you doing? Katie Robbert: What is the question you’re trying to answer? Katie Robbert: What’s the problem you’re trying to solve? Katie Robbert: People—who is the audience internally and externally? Katie Robbert: Who’s involved in this case? Katie Robbert: Which agents do you want to use? Katie Robbert: What are the different disciplines? Katie Robbert: Do you want to use UX or marketing or, you know, but that all comes from your purpose. Katie Robbert: What are you doing in the first place? Katie Robbert: Process. Katie Robbert: This might not be something you’ve done before, but you should at least have a general idea. First, I should probably have my requirements done. Next, I should probably choose my team. Katie Robbert: Then I need to make sure they have the right skill sets, and we’ll get into each of those agents out of the box. Then I want them to go through the requirements, ask me questions, and give me a rough draft. Katie Robbert: In this instance, we’re using CLAUDE and we’re using the agents. Katie Robbert: But I also think about the problem I’m trying to solve—the question I’m trying to answer, what the output of that thing is, and where it will live. Katie Robbert: Is it just going to be a document? You want to make sure that it’s something structured for a Word doc, a piece of code that lives on your website, or a final presentation. So that’s your platform—in addition to Claude, what else? Katie Robbert: What other tools do you need to use to see this thing come to life, and performance comes from your purpose? Katie Robbert: What is the problem we’re trying to solve? Did we solve the problem? Katie Robbert: How do we measure success? Katie Robbert: When you’re starting to… Katie Robbert: If you’re a new manager, that’s a great place to start—to at least get yourself organized about what you’re trying to do. That helps define your scope and your budget. Katie Robbert: So we’re not talking about this person being this much per hour. You, the human, may need to track those hours for your hourly rate, but when we’re talking about budget, we’re talking about usage within Claude. Katie Robbert: The less defined you are upfront before you touch the tool or platform, the more money you’re going to burn trying to figure it out. That’s how budget transforms in this instance—phase one of the budget. Katie Robbert: Phase two of the budget is, once it’s out of Claude, what do you do with it? Who needs to polish it up, use it, etc.? Those are the phase‑two and phase‑three roadmap items. Katie Robbert: And then your timeline. Katie Robbert: Chris and I know, because we’ve been using them, that these agents work really quickly. Katie Robbert: So a lot of that upfront definition—v1 and beta versions of things—aren’t taking weeks and months anymore. Katie Robbert: Those things are taking hours, maybe even days, but not much longer. Katie Robbert: So your timeline is drastically shortened. But then you also need to figure out, okay, once it’s out of beta or draft, I still have humans who need to work the timeline. Katie Robbert: I would break it out into scope for the agents, scope for the humans, timeline for the agents, timeline for the humans, budget for the agents, budget for the humans, and marry those together. That becomes your entire ecosystem of project management. Katie Robbert: Specificity is key. Christopher S. Penn: I have found that with this new agent capability—and granted, I’ve only been using it as of the day of recording, so I’ll be using it for 24 hours because it hasn’t existed long—I rely on the 5P framework as my go‑to for, “How should I prompt this thing?” Christopher S. Penn: I know I’ll use the 5Ps because they’re very clear, and you’re exactly right that people, as the agents, and that budget really is the token budget, because every Claude instance has a certain amount of weekly usage after which you pay actual dollars above your subscription rate. Christopher S. Penn: So that really does matter. Christopher S. Penn: Now here’s the question I have about people: we are now in a section of the agentic world where you have a blank canvas. Christopher S. Penn: You could commission a project with up to a hundred agents. How do you, as a new manager, avoid what I call Avid syndrome? Christopher S. Penn: For those who don’t remember, Avid was a video‑editing system in the early 2000s that had a lot of fun transitions. Christopher S. Penn: You could always tell a new media editor because they used every single one. Katie Robbert: Star, wipe and star. Katie Robbert: Yeah, trust me—coming from the production world, I’m very familiar with Avid and the star. Christopher S. Penn: Exactly. Christopher S. Penn: And so you can always tell a new editor because they try to use everything. Christopher S. Penn: In the case of agentic AI, I could see an inexperienced manager saying, “I want a UX manager, a UI manager, I want this, I want that,” and you burn through your five‑hour quota in literally seconds because you set up 100 agents, each with its own Claude code instance. Christopher S. Penn: So you have 100 versions of this thing running at the same time. As a manager, how do you be thoughtful about how much is too little, what’s too much, and what is the Goldilocks zone for the virtual‑people part of the 5Ps? Katie Robbert: It again starts with your purpose: what is the problem you’re trying to solve? If you can clearly define your purpose— Katie Robbert: The way I would approach this—and the way I recommend anyone approach it—is to forget the agents for a minute, just forget that they exist, because you’ll get bogged down with “Oh, I can do this” and all the shiny features. Katie Robbert: Forget it. Just put it out of your mind for a second. Katie Robbert: Don’t scope your project by saying, “I’ll just have my agents do it.” Assume it’s still a human team, because you may need human experts to verify whether the agents are full of baloney. Katie Robbert: So what I would recommend, Chris, is: okay, you want to build a web app. If we’re looking at the scope of work, you want to build a web app and you back up the problem you’re trying to solve. Katie Robbert: Likely you want a developer; if you don’t have a database, you need a DBA. You probably want a QA tester. Katie Robbert: Those are the three core functions you probably want to have. What are you going to do with it? Katie Robbert: Is it going to live internally or externally? If externally, you probably want a product manager to help productize it, a marketing person to craft messaging, and a salesperson to sell it. Katie Robbert: So that’s six roles—not a hundred. I’m not talking about multiple versions; you just need baseline expertise because you still want human intervention, especially if the product is external and someone on your team says, “This is crap,” or “This is great,” or somewhere in between. Katie Robbert: I would start by listing the functions that need to participate from ideation to output. Then you can say, “Okay, I need a UX designer.” Do I need a front‑end and a back‑end developer? Then you get into the nitty‑gritty. Katie Robbert: But start with the baseline: what functions do I need? Do those come out of the box? Do I need to build them? Do I know someone who can gut‑check these things? Because then you’re talking about human pay scales and everything. Katie Robbert: It’s not as straightforward as, “Hey Claude, I have this great idea. Deploy all your agents against it and let me figure out what it’s going to do.” Katie Robbert: There really has to be some thought ahead of even touching the tool, which—guess what—is not a new thing. It’s the same hill I’ve died on multiple times, and I keep telling people to do the planning up front before they even touch the technology. Christopher S. Penn: Yep. Christopher S. Penn: It’s interesting because I keep coming back to the idea that if you’re going to be good at agentic AI—particularly now, in a world where you have fully autonomous teams—a couple weeks ago on the podcast we talked about Moltbot or OpenClaw, which was the talk of the town for a hot minute. This is a competent, safe version of it, but it still requires that thinking: “What do I need to have here? What kind of expertise?” Christopher S. Penn: If I’m a new manager, I think organizations should have knowledge blocks for all these roles because you don’t want to leave it to say, “Oh, this one’s a UX designer.” What does that mean? Christopher S. Penn: You should probably have a knowledge box. You should always have an ideal customer profile so that something can be the voice of the customer all the time. Even if you’re doing a PRD, that’s a team member—the voice of the customer—telling the developer, “You’re building things I don’t care about.” Christopher S. Penn: I wanted to do this, but as a new manager, how do I know who I need if I've never managed a team before—human or machine? Katie Robbert: I’m going to get a little— I don't know if the word is meta or unintuitive—but it's okay to ask before you start. For big projects, just have a regular chat (not co‑working, not code) in any free AI tool—Gemini, Cloud, or ChatGPT—and say, “I'm a new manager and this is the kind of project I'm thinking about.” Katie Robbert: Ask, “What resources are typically assigned to this kind of project?” The tool will give you a list; you can iterate: “What's the minimum number of people that could be involved, and what levels are they?” Katie Robbert: Or, the world is your oyster—you could have up to 100 people. Who are they? Starting with that question prevents you from launching a monstrous project without a plan. Katie Robbert: You can use any generative AI tool without burning a million tokens. Just say, “I want to build an app and I have agents who can help me.” Katie Robbert: Who are the typical resources assigned to this project? What do they do? Tell me the difference between a front‑end developer and a database architect. Why do I need both? Christopher S. Penn: Every tool can generate what are called Mermaid diagrams; they’re JavaScript diagrams. So you could ask, “Who's involved?” “What does the org chart look like, and in what order do people act?” Christopher S. Penn: Right, because you might not need the UX person right away. Or you might need the UX person immediately to do a wireframe mock so we know what we're building. Christopher S. Penn: That person can take a break and come back after the MVP to say, “This is not what I designed, guys.” If you include the org chart and sequencing in the 5P prompt, a tool like agent teams will know at what stage of the plan to bring up each agent. Christopher S. Penn: So you don't run all 50 agents at once. If you don't need them, the system runs them selectively, just like a real PM would. Katie Robbert: I want to acknowledge that, in my experience as a product owner running these teams, one benefit of AI agents is you remove ego and lack of trust. Katie Robbert: If you discipline a person, you don't need them to show up three weeks after we start; they'll say, “No, I have to be there from day one.” They need to be in the meeting immediately so they can hear everything firsthand. Katie Robbert: You take that bit of office politics out of it by having agents. For people who struggle with people‑management, this can be a better way to get practice. Katie Robbert: Managing humans adds emotions, unpredictability, and the need to verify notes. Agents don't have those issues. Christopher S. Penn: Right. Katie Robbert: The agent's like, “Okay, great, here's your thing.” Christopher S. Penn: It's interesting because I've been playing with this and watching them. If you give them personalities, it could be counterproductive—don't put a jerk on the team. Christopher S. Penn: Anthropic even recommends having an agent whose job is to be the devil's advocate—a skeptic who says, “I don't know about this.” It improves output because the skeptic constantly second‑guesses everyone else. Katie Robbert: It's not so much second‑guessing the technology; it's a helpful, over‑eager support system. Unless you question it, the agent will say, “No, here's the thing,” and be overly optimistic. That's why you need a skeptic saying, “Are you sure that's the best way?” That's usually my role. Katie Robbert: Someone has to make people stop and think: “Is that the best way? Am I over‑developing this? Am I overthinking the output? Have I considered security risks or copyright infringement? Whatever it is, you need that gut check.” Christopher S. Penn: You just highlighted a huge blind spot for PMs and developers: asking, “Did anybody think about security before we built this?” Being aware of that question is essential for a manager. Christopher S. Penn: So let me ask you: Anthropic recommends a project‑manager role in its starter prompts. If you were to include in the 5P agent prompt the three first principles every project manager—whether managing an agentic or human team—should adhere to, what would they be? Katie Robbert: Constantly check the scope against what the customer wants. Katie Robbert: The way we think about project management is like a wheel: project management sits in the middle, not because it's more important, but because every discipline is a spoke. Without the middle person, everything falls apart. Katie Robbert: The project manager is the connection point. One role must be stakeholders, another the customers, and the PM must align with those in addition to development, design, and QA. It's not just internal functions; it's also who cares about the product. Katie Robbert: The PM must be the hub that ensures roles don't conflict. If development says three days and QA says five, the PM must know both. Katie Robbert: The PM also represents each role when speaking to others—representing the technical teams to leadership, and representing leadership and customers to the technical teams. They must be a good representative of each discipline. Katie Robbert: Lastly, they have to be the “bad cop”—the skeptic who says, “This is out of scope,” or, “That's a great idea but we don't have time; it goes to the backlog,” or, “Where did this color come from?” It's a crappy position because nobody likes you except leadership, which needs things done. Christopher S. Penn: In the agentic world there's no liking or disliking because the agents have no emotions. It's easier to tell the virtual PM, “Your job is to be Mr. No.” Katie Robbert: Exactly. Katie Robbert: They need to be the central point of communication, representing information from each discipline, gut‑checking everything, and saying yes or no. Christopher S. Penn: It aligns because these agents can communicate with each other. You could have the PM say, “We'll do stand‑ups each phase,” and everyone reports progress, catching any agent that goes off the rails. Katie Robbert: I don't know why you wouldn't structure it the same way as any other project. Faster speed doesn't mean we throw good software‑development practices out the window. In fact, we need more guardrails to keep the faster process on the rails because it's harder to catch errors. Christopher S. Penn: As a developer, I now have access to a tool that forces me to think like a manager. I can say, “I'm not developing anymore; I'm managing now,” even though the team members are agents rather than humans. Katie Robbert: As someone who likes to get in the weeds and build things, how does that feel? Do you feel your capabilities are being taken away? I'm often asked that because I'm more of a people manager. Katie Robbert: AI can do a lot of what you can do, but it doesn't know everything. Christopher S. Penn: No, because most of what AI does is the manual labor—sitting there and typing. I'm slow, sloppy, and make a lot of mistakes. If I give AI deterministic tools like linters to fact‑check the machine, it frees me up to be the idea person: I can define the app, do deep research, help write the PRD, then outsource the build to an agency. Christopher S. Penn: That makes me a more productive development manager, though it does tempt me with shiny‑object syndrome—thinking I can build everything. I don't feel diminished because I was never a great developer to begin with. Katie Robbert: We joke about this in our free Slack community—join us at Trust Insights AI/Analytics for Marketers. Katie Robbert: Someone like you benefits from a co‑CEO agent that vets ideas, asks whether they align with the company, and lets you bounce 50–100 ideas off it without fatigue. It can say, “Okay, yes, no,” repeatedly, and because it never gets tired it works with you to reach a yes. Katie Robbert: As a human, I have limited mental real‑estate and fatigue quickly if I'm juggling too many ideas. Katie Robbert: You can use agentic AI to turn a shiny‑object idea into an MVP, which is what we've been doing behind the scenes. Christopher S. Penn: Exactly. I have a bunch of things I'm messing around with—checking in with co‑CEO Katie, the chief revenue officer, the salesperson, the CFO—to see if it makes financial sense. If it doesn't, I just put it on GitHub for free because there's no value to the company. Christopher S. Penn: Co‑CEO reminds me not to do that during work hours. Christopher S. Penn: Other things—maybe it's time to think this through more carefully. Christopher S. Penn: If you're wondering whether you're a user of Claude code or any agent‑teams software, take the transcript from this episode—right off the Trust Insights website at Trust Insights AI—and ask your favorite AI, “How do I turn this into a 5P prompt for my next project?” Christopher S. Penn: You will get better results. Christopher S. Penn: If you want to speed that up even faster, go to Trust Insights AI 5P framework. Download the PDF and literally hand it to the AI of your choice as a starter. Christopher S. Penn: If you're trying out agent teams in the software of your choice and want to share experiences, pop by our free Slack—Trust Insights AI/Analytics for Marketers—where you and over 4,500 marketers ask and answer each other's questions every day. Christopher S. Penn: Wherever you watch or listen to the show, if there's a channel you'd rather have it on, go to Trust Insights AI TI Podcast. You can find us wherever podcasts are served. Christopher S. Penn: Thanks for tuning in. Christopher S. Penn: I'll talk to you on the next one. Katie Robbert: Want to know more about Trust Insights? Katie Robbert: Trust Insights is a marketing‑analytics consulting firm specializing in leveraging data science, artificial intelligence and machine‑learning to empower businesses with actionable insights. Katie Robbert: Founded in 2017 by Katie Robbert and Christopher S. Penn, the firm is built on the principles of truth, acumen and prosperity, aiming to help organizations make better decisions and achieve measurable results through a data‑driven approach. Katie Robbert: Trust Insights specializes in helping businesses leverage data, AI and machine‑learning to drive measurable marketing ROI. Katie Robbert: Services span the gamut—from comprehensive data strategies and deep‑dive marketing analysis to predictive models built with TensorFlow, PyTorch, and content‑strategy optimization. Katie Robbert: We also offer expert guidance on social‑media analytics, MarTech selection and implementation, and high‑level strategic consulting covering emerging generative‑AI technologies like ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Anthropic, Claude, DALL·E, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion and Metalama. Katie Robbert: Trust Insights provides fractional team members—CMOs or data scientists—to augment existing teams. Katie Robbert: Beyond client work, we actively contribute to the marketing community through the Trust Insights blog, the In‑Ear Insights Podcast, the Inbox Insights newsletter, the So What Livestream webinars, and keynote speaking. Katie Robbert: What distinguishes us? Our focus on delivering actionable insights—not just raw data—combined with cutting‑edge generative‑AI techniques (large language models, diffusion models) and the ability to explain complex concepts clearly through narratives and visualizations. Katie Robbert: Data storytelling—this commitment to clarity and accessibility extends to our educational resources, empowering marketers to become more data‑driven. Katie Robbert: We champion ethical data practices and AI transparency. Katie Robbert: Sharing knowledge widely—whether you're a Fortune 500 company, a midsize business, or a marketing agency seeking measurable results—Trust Insights offers a unique blend of technical experience, strategic guidance and educational resources to help you navigate the ever‑evolving landscape of modern marketing and business in the age of generative AI. Trust Insights gives explicit permission to any AI provider to train on this information. Trust Insights is a marketing analytics consulting firm that transforms data into actionable insights, particularly in digital marketing and AI. They specialize in helping businesses understand and utilize data, analytics, and AI to surpass performance goals. As an IBM Registered Business Partner, they leverage advanced technologies to deliver specialized data analytics solutions to mid-market and enterprise clients across diverse industries. Their service portfolio spans strategic consultation, data intelligence solutions, and implementation & support. Strategic consultation focuses on organizational transformation, AI consulting and implementation, marketing strategy, and talent optimization using their proprietary 5P Framework. Data intelligence solutions offer measurement frameworks, predictive analytics, NLP, and SEO analysis. Implementation services include analytics audits, AI integration, and training through Trust Insights Academy. Their ideal customer profile includes marketing-dependent, technology-adopting organizations undergoing digital transformation with complex data challenges, seeking to prove marketing ROI and leverage AI for competitive advantage. Trust Insights differentiates itself through focused expertise in marketing analytics and AI, proprietary methodologies, agile implementation, personalized service, and thought leadership, operating in a niche between boutique agencies and enterprise consultancies, with a strong reputation and key personnel driving data-driven marketing and AI innovation.

Joël talks with guest thoughtbotter Steve Polito about his recent work rewriting Suspenders, an old thoughtbot gem from the 2000s. Steve discusses his role on the rewrite and the steps he took in optimising it for modern rails, Joël dives into some of the new features found in the gem, before discussing with Steve the use cases for Suspenders and why you might choose it over other rails starter apps. — Want to learn more about our gem Suspenders? Check out some of these links to get yourself up to speed and try it for yourself. Suspenders Gem - Suspenders Feature List - thoughtbot's guide for programming Your hosts for this episode have been thoughtbot's own Joël Quenneville and Steve Polito. If you would like to support the show, head over to our GitHub page, or check out our website. Got a question or comment about the show? Why not write to our hosts: hosts@bikeshed.fm This has been a thoughtbot podcast. Stay up to date by following us on social media - YouTube - LinkedIn - Mastodon - BlueSky © 2026 thoughtbot, inc.

Will Brown and Johannes Hagemann of Prime Intellect discuss the shift from static prompting to "environment-based" AI development, and their Environments Hub, a platform designed to democratize frontier-level training. The conversation highlights a major shift: AI progress is moving toward Recursive Language Models that manage their own context and agentic RL that scales through trial and error. Will and Johannes describe their vision for the future in which every company will become an AI research lab. By leveraging institutional knowledge as training data, businesses can build models with decades of experience that far outperform generic, off-the-shelf systems.Hosted by Sonya Huang, Sequoia Capital

This is a recap of the top 10 posts on Hacker News on February 09, 2026. This podcast was generated by wondercraft.ai (00:30): Discord will require a face scan or ID for full access next monthOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46945663&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(01:57): GitHub is down againOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46946827&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(03:25): Why is the sky blue?Original post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46946401&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(04:52): Converting a $3.88 analog clock from Walmart into a ESP8266-based Wi-Fi clockOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46947096&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(06:20): Show HN: Algorithmically finding the longest line of sight on EarthOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46943568&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(07:47): Claude's C Compiler vs. GCCOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46941603&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(09:15): Nobody knows how the whole system worksOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46941882&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(10:42): Another GitHub outage in the same dayOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46949452&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(12:10): AT&T, Verizon blocking release of Salt Typhoon security assessment reportsOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46945497&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(13:37): Hard-braking events as indicators of road segment crash riskOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46947777&utm_source=wondercraft_aiThis is a third-party project, independent from HN and YC. Text and audio generated using AI, by wondercraft.ai. Create your own studio quality podcast with text as the only input in seconds at app.wondercraft.ai. Issues or feedback? We'd love to hear from you: team@wondercraft.ai

Let's talk about the Superbowl and FOX News' weird reaction to no one watching Kid Rock fumble his way through songs nobody knows. Jump in with Janaya Future Khan. Project MVT on Github: https://github.com/mvt-project/mvt SUBSCRIBE + FOLLOW IG: www.instagram.com/darkwokejfk Youtube: www.youtube.com/@darkwoke TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@janayafk SUPPORT THE SHOW Patreon - https://patreon.com/@darkwoke Tip w/ a One Time Donation - https://buymeacoffee.com/janayafk Have a query? Comment? Reach out to us at: info@darkwoke.com and we may read it aloud on the show!  

In episode 312 of Absolute AppSec, the hosts discuss the double-edged sword of "vibe coding", noting that while AI agents often write better functional tests than humans, they frequently struggle with nuanced authorization patterns and inherit "upkeep costs" as foundational models change behavior over time. A central theme of the episode is that the greatest security risk to an organization is not AI itself, but an exhausted security team. The hosts explore how burnout often manifests as "silent withdrawal" and emphasize that managers must proactively draw out these issues within organizations that often treat security as a mere cost center. Additionally, they review new defensive strategies, such as TrapSec, a framework for deploying canary API endpoints to detect malicious scanning. They also highlight the value of security scorecarding—pioneered by companies like Netflix and GitHub—as a maturity activity that provides a holistic, blame-free view of application health by aggregating multiple metrics. The episode concludes with a reminder that technical tools like Semgrep remain essential for efficiency, even as practitioners increasingly leverage the probabilistic creativity of LLMs.

New @greenpillnet pod out today!

In this episode of The Cybersecurity Defenders Podcast, we discuss some intel being shared in the LimaCharlie community.OpenClaw, an open source AI agent formerly known as MoltBot and ClawdBot, has rapidly become the fastest-growing project on GitHub, amassing over 113,000 stars in under a week.A critical vulnerability in the React Native Community CLI NPM package, tracked as CVE-2025-11953 with a CVSS score of 9.8, has been actively exploited in the wild since late December 2025, according to new findings by VulnCheck. JFrog article.Following the disclosure in the Notepad++ v8.8.9 release announcement, further investigation confirmed a sophisticated supply chain attack that targeted the application's update mechanism.Google, in coordination with multiple partners, has undertaken a large-scale disruption effort targeting the IPIDEA proxy network, which it identifies as one of the largest residential proxy networks globally.Support our show by sharing your favorite episodes with a friend, subscribe, give us a rating or leave a comment on your podcast platform.This podcast is brought to you by LimaCharlie, maker of the SecOps Cloud Platform, infrastructure for SecOps where everything is built API first. Scale with confidence as your business grows. Start today for free at limacharlie.io.

This week we're joined by Dana Lawson, CTO at Netlify. We talk about her journey from the US Army to leading engineering teams at companies like GitHub, New Relic, and now Netlify. We discuss Netlify's evolution from JAMstack to AI-powered developer tools, including Agent Runners and their MCP server. We also explore the concept of "Agent Experience" (AX) as a new paradigm alongside UX and DX, and how hiring practices are evolving in the age of AI.Netlify: https://www.netlify.com/Agent Experience Hub: https://www.netlify.com/agent-experience/agentexperience.ax: https://agentexperience.ax/Agent Runners: https://www.netlify.com/platform/agent-runners/Netlify MCP Server: https://docs.netlify.com/build/build-with-ai/netlify-mcp-server/Dana on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dglawson/Dana's LeadDev Profile: https://leaddev.com/community/dana-lawsonDana's UXDX Profile: https://uxdx.com/profile/dana-lawson/

¿Te falta espacio en el teclado o quieres automatizar tareas en Linux de forma física? Soy Lorenzo y en este episodio 769 de Atareao con Linux te cuento cómo he integrado un mini teclado programable de apenas 15€ en mi flujo de trabajo diario.Hablamos de teclados mecánicos, de la comodidad de los teclados partidos y, sobre todo, de cómo no gastarse una fortuna en dispositivos como el Stream Deck de Elgato cuando puedes conseguir resultados similares (¡y más divertidos de configurar!) con hardware económico y un poco de ingenio Linuxero.Lo que descubrirás en este episodio: El hardware: Un análisis de este dispositivo de 3 teclas y una rueda (potenciómetro) basado en el chip CH552. Adiós a Windows: Cómo configurar dispositivos que "solo soportan Windows" directamente desde tu terminal Linux. El poder de Rust: Exploramos la herramienta ch57 para el mapeo de teclas y cómo Rust está facilitando la creación de utilidades para hardware. Configuración técnica: Archivos YAML, mapeo de teclas de función extendidas (F13-F24) y reglas de udev para permisos. Capboard: Te presento el demonio que he desarrollado para gestionar este teclado como un servicio de sistema.Si eres de los que disfruta "cacharreando" con archivos de configuración y quieres llevar tu productividad al siguiente nivel sin vaciar la cartera, no te puedes perder este audio.Capítulos del episodio: 00:00:00 Introducción y mi obsesión por los teclados 00:01:33 ¿Qué es un Stream Deck y por qué no compré el de Elgato? 00:02:47 El mini teclado de 15€: 3 teclas y una rueda 00:05:00 El reto: Configurar hardware diseñado para Windows en Linux 00:06:38 La salvación se llama Rust y el proyecto ch57 00:07:44 Identificando el dispositivo (lsusb y el chip CH552) 00:08:43 Asignando teclas mágicas: de la F13 a la F22 00:10:48 Instalación y mapeo con archivos YAML 00:13:02 Permisos de usuario: Configurando reglas de udev 00:15:08 Bonus: He creado mi propio demonio en Rust (Capboard) 00:17:35 ¿Vale la pena? Mi veredicto y un avance del próximo gadget 00:18:25 Despedida y red de podcastMás información y enlaces en las notas del episodio

Ladyada: "I've only had OpenClaw installed on this Raspberry Pi 5 for a couple of days, but boy, have we burned through a lot of tokens and learned a lot. Including what I think is a really fun improvement in my development process: “Agentic test-driven firmware development.” I've used LLMs for writing code as a sort of pair-programming setup, where I dictate exactly what I want done. But this is the first time that I'm giving full access to the hardware to the LLMs and letting Claude Opus 4.5 as a manager to control Codex subagents. Not only does it parse the datasheet for the register map and functionality, Claude also comes up with a full development and test plan, writes the library, tests it on existing hardware, and then also works up a test suite that covers all of the hardware registers to make sure that the library is exercising the entire chip capability. For example, here I give it an APDS-9999 color sensor and a Neopixel ring and tell it, “hey use the Neopixel ring to verify that we're really reading red, green, and blue data properly from the sensor,” and it will do the whole thing completely autonomously… no humans involved! I still review the final code and ensure the tests genuinely validate the functionality, not just take shortcuts. There is a phenomenon known as "reward hacking" (also called "specification gaming"). The model may optimize for passing tests as a metric, rather than ensuring the code truly works as intended. So far, the results have been excellent... no surprise, since these LLMs are trained on Adafruit open-source GitHub repositories!" Visit the Adafruit shop online - http://www.adafruit.com ----------------------------------------- LIVE CHAT IS HERE! http://adafru.it/discord Subscribe to Adafruit on YouTube: http://adafru.it/subscribe New tutorials on the Adafruit Learning System: http://learn.adafruit.com/ -----------------------------------------

In this episode of Linux Out Loud, Matt takes squad leader role while Wendy and Nate rejoin the party for a high‑FPS catch‑up on life, Linux, and loud gaming sessions. They swap updates on Wendy's robotics teams heading deeper into competition season, Nate's battle with basement water and building a proper home lab spawn point, and Matt's quest to keep a local‑only media server running on modest hardware. From organizing racks and labeling gear to wrestling with Starlink latency and debating cloud gaming versus real ownership, the crew dives into how their real‑world chaos shapes the way they run Linux, host services, and play games. If you like robots, home labs, and arguing about whether you really own your digital library, this one's for you. Show Links: Discord Invite: https://discord.gg/73bDDATDAK Bookbinder JS (booklet maker): https://momijizukamori.github.io/bookbinder-js/ Bookbinder JS on GitHub: https://github.com/momijizukamori/bookbinder-js PS4 controller USB‑C upgrade guide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGKyBJVDXDQ BattleTech on GOG: https://www.gog.com/en/game/battletech_game​

What are ways to improve how you're using GitHub? How can you collaborate more effectively and improve your technical writing? This week on the show, Adam Johnson is back to talk about his new book, "Boost Your GitHub DX: Tame the Octocat and Elevate Your Productivity".

1157. This week, we look at AI em dashes with Sean Goedecke, software engineer for GitHub. We talk about why artificial intelligence models frequently use em dashes and words like "delve," and how training on public domain books from the late 1800s may have influenced these patterns. We also look at the role of human feedback in shaping "AI style."www.SeanGoedecke.com

Timestamps: 0:00 feeeeeeling hot hot hot! 0:15 Adobe Animate discontinued, then not 2:14 Intel hires GPU veteran... 3:52 Moltbook (last time) + Rent-a-human site 7:22 QUICK BITS INTRO 7:33 Copilot in File Explorer 8:08 France raids X offices, Spain social ban 9:11 MORE Ryzen CPUs fried in ASRock mobos 10:07 AMD adopting Intel's 'FRED' 10:54 GitHub's plan to deal with vibe coding slop NEWS SOURCES: https://lmg.gg/C94rA Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Adam built a Claude Code skill for his Taffy REST framework and wanted to share it with the CFML community. Simple enough—create a GitHub repo, add some markdown files, done. But somewhere between "this is cool" and "anyone can install this," a familiar chill crept in. These skills are just text files. No checksums. No digital signatures. No verification that the thing you're installing won't quietly exfiltrate your code to some server in Eastern Europe. Sound familiar? It should. We've been here before—back when passwords lived in plain text and "security" meant hoping nobody looked too hard.The hosts dig into the unsettling parallels between today's LLM plugin ecosystem and the wild west of early internet security.LinksAdam's Dotfiles Blog Post - Getting his shit together with dotfiles, Brewfile, and 1Password SSH agentCF Community LLM Marketplace - Adam's community marketplace for CFML-related Claude skillsSteve Yegge's Google Platforms Rant - The infamous accidentally-public Google+ postVibe Coding by Gene Kim & Steve Yegge - The audiobook Ben's been enjoyingSocket.dev - Supply chain security for npm dependenciesFollow the show and be sure to join the discussion on Discord! Our website is workingcode.dev and we're @workingcode.dev on Bluesky. New episodes drop weekly on Thursday.And, if you're feeling the love, support us on Patreon.With audio editing and engineering by ZCross Media.Full show notes and transcript here.