POPULARITY
41 episodes with glm
7 episodes with glm
10 episodes with glm
4 episodes with glm
2 episodes with glm
3 episodes with glm
3 episodes with glm
2 episodes with glm
2 episodes with glm
4 episodes with glm
7 episodes with glm
2 episodes with glm
2 episodes with glm
8 episodes with glm
2 episodes with glm
5 episodes with glm
4 episodes with glm
3 episodes with glm
This week we dissect ColdCard's ~$100M RNG exploit that Claude Code cracked in 8 minutes, debate whether AI just killed open-source security and Bitcoin maximalism, tear apart Ethereum's EIP-8361 staking-yield taper, and unpack Leopold Aschenbrenner's 67% Situational Awareness blowup and CLARITY Act's ethics fight. Welcome to The Chopping Block – where crypto insiders Haseeb Qureshi, Tom Schmidt, Tarun Chitra, and Robert Leshner chop it up about the latest in crypto. No guest this week, just the four of them working through a week where AI quietly rewrote the economics of both security and human psychology, and crypto happened to be standing in the blast radius. This episode: ColdCard, NVK's Bitcoin-only hardware wallet, got drained of nearly $100M thanks to a random-number-generation bug that a one-word commit buried five years ago, and Claude Code sniffed it out in 8 minutes (an open model with no internet found it in 20, for about two bucks). The crew debates whether AI just killed open-source security, whether Nic Carter is right that this is 'the death of Bitcoin maximalism,' and why Tarun thinks maxi devs are 'the RFK of security practices.' Then they take a blowtorch to Ethereum's EIP-8361 staking-yield taper (Tarun: 'the proposal reads like shit'), unpack Leopold Aschenbrenner's 67% Situational Awareness blowup while 4x levered, and wade into the CLARITY Act's ethics fight where a single amendment is the whole ballgame. Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pods, Fountain, Podcast Addict, Pocket Casts, Amazon Music, or on your favorite podcast platform. Show highlights
My guest today is Gavin Baker, founding partner and CIO of Atreides Management. This is our seventh conversation, and just two months after Gavin's last appearance. It's about the gap between what the market is doing and what companies are seeing. It's been a tough month or so for public AI names, but there's no sign of a slowdown on the ground in Silicon Valley. We discuss the latest moves, contracted vs. spot GPU prices, the game theory of memory supply agreements, and why Claude has become the Walter Cronkite of the stock market. We close on SpaceX, orbital compute, and what Gavin sees as the single biggest risk to all of it. Please enjoy this conversation, from the famous table at Benchmark, with my friend Gavin Baker. 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. Invest Like the Best listeners get a special offer of $1,000 off Vanta when you go to vanta.com/invest. ----- WorkOS is the infrastructure B2B and AI-native companies use to sell to enterprise. It covers everything enterprise security requires: SSO, SCIM, RBAC, Audit Logs, AI governance, and more. Trusted by 2,000+ fast-growing companies, including OpenAI, Anthropic, Cursor, and Vercel. ----- Rogo is the AI platform for finance. They're building agents for Wall Street that are trained to understand how bankers and investors actually do work: from diligence and modeling, to turning analysis into deliverables. To learn more, visit 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 ridgeline.ai. ----- Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant. Timestamps: (00:00:00) Welcome to Invest Like The Best (00:02:35) First Question: July Was 2022 in a Month (00:04:08) The Private Companies Public Markets Can't See (00:05:06) Old GPUs Repricing Higher (00:06:53) Walking Through the Month (00:08:22) Kimi, GLM 5.2 & the Open Source Freak-Out (00:10:51) Real Yields, Spreads & CDS (00:11:54) Does the Build-Out Need Credit? (00:15:22) A Sell-Off With No Clear Villain (00:17:35) Open Source as Dark Matter (00:18:39) Nvidia's Lowest Forward PE in 10 Years (00:21:35) Claude as Walter Cronkite for the Stock Market (00:23:55) Continual Learning & Sample Efficiency (00:25:19) What Would Actually Scare Him (00:26:38) Routers & the Multi-Model Future (00:30:51) Tokens as a Percent of Comp Spend (00:33:37) The Game Theory of Breaking an LTA (00:36:41) Nvidia's Credit Wrapper & Revenue Share (00:37:45) What He'd Do If He Ran Hynix (00:41:46) Who's More Bullish than Him (00:43:28) China's DUV Machine (00:46:10) Bull Case for Software (00:48:16) The RSI Maximalist View (00:49:31) Inference Clouds Growing Without Burning Cash (00:50:35) The Biggest Risk Is Regulation (00:53:44) Telling the Story Better (00:57:15) Dark Horses (00:58:02) SpaceX in the Public Markets
Hey, it's Alex (yeah, I'm finally back from my vacation!) What a freaking week to come back to! Just after our last episode was published, Anthropic releases Opus 5, Jensen joins X and drops the “Open Weights & AI Leadership” open letter, Kimi K3 is released the following Monday beating expectations, and then the AI hack (OpenAI model breaking sandbox and infiltrating HuggingFace) is on everyone's mind, another Open Letter, this time from over 1K employees inside the frontier AI companies all talk about pacing the pace of frontier AI development. We played with Opus 5 and Kimi K3, and had the great pleasure to chat with friends of the pod Elie Bakouch (Prime Intellect) and Philip Kiely (BaseTen) about this important open weights release, then covered our general thoughts on Opus 5, and made order of all the different open letters that came out this week. Finally we chatted with Max from Pangram about the next version of AI writing detection (their biggest yet) and finished with Zuckerbergs (also on X! what's going on with everyone joining X) op-ed on the vision of personal superintelligence for everyone. Let's dive into this (as always, all the links and sources at the end, please don't forget to sub to our podcast on your favorite podcast app!) Open Weights AIKimi K3 the king of open weights - 2.8T chonker MoE near frontier model (X, HF, Blog, Tech report)This has got to be the biggest news of this week, and maybe the open weights AI news since GLM 5.2. MoonShot came back with Kimi K3, and we haven't seen any models quite this large in the open. Even Grok 4.5 is around 1.5T, this model is nearly 2x the size. Coming in at close to 3T parameters (and 2.5terabytes of weights at MXFP4 format), this model comes in very close to frontier! This was such an important release that I invited 2 friends of the pod, Elie Bakouch (prev HuggingFace, now Prime Intellect) and Philip Kiely (Author of Inference Engineering book, BaseTen) to dive deep into what makes this special! Elie's take, from reading the tech report, there's no single secret sauce, it's a combination of already available in the open techniques. Like KDA (Kimi Delta Attention) that has been out for a while, attention residuals, NVIDIA's latent MoEs. The highlight for Elie was the scaling work they did that reported a 2.5x scaling efficiency over Kimi K2.5 (2.5 performance at the same compute)! They also skipped RoPE entirely in favor of NoPE (the report calls it No Positional Encoding) for long context.Serving 1.4TB on eight GB300s (Baseten blog)Philip's team at Baseten was a day-zero provider (we're still working on bringing this model to CW Inference, stay tuned!) so I invited him to tell us behind the scenes of hosting this beast. Philip said that just loading the weights takes about 1.5TB!! of VRAM, and that's before the KV cache allocation + 1M token windows, so they're serving it on 8 GB300s where NVL72 . Baseten worked with the vLLM and SGLang teams on kernels and he also said they contributed patches back upstream! The model was trained with MXFP4, which, unlike Nvidia's own NVFP4 is a more standard format per Philip. I enjoyed his deep dive analysis into the differences, but because of this and because they trained the model with quantization awareness, it's “only” 1.5TB vs the would-be 5-6 TB if that this model in FP16 would demand. One of the more favorite nerd snipes moments, Philip pointed out that his colleague discovered that with over 99% of the usage being cached (think harnesses that send millions of the same cached tokens back and forth), tokenization actually starts to become a bottleneck. So they released a custom “basetenkenizer” that reduces the latency to serve the first token significantly! Great job!The harness in question is very importantOne important callout with 2 evidence pieces - the way you inference this model really matters. Kimi trained K3 with preserving thinking history, so when your harness uses it, it must send back the full thinking and tool use into the API to get the best next response. If your harness strips that out, you're not getting the most intelligence out of Kimi (shoutout to Niels from HF team for pointing this out). Additionally, the Composio folks, tested K3 on 3 harnesses, Kimi Code, Hermes and Claude Code. The difference in outcome was negligible, but the different in cost and number of tokens is definitely surprising! Claude Code (as a harness only) took 9x more Kimi tokens to get the same responses! This is also why Kimi Vendor Verified exists, their own held back benchmark of how well model providers serve Kimi across different quantization, tokenizer and KV cache settings. Benchmarks and the license! Ok let's start with the ugly... this isn't MIT, not remotely. This model is suspiciously served by all providers with exactly the same price (check OpenRouter) and requires inference companies to sign a contract with Kimi (I've no internal knowledge of this except that CW folks are working on it). Not something I particularly like, but hey... we're still advancing the frontier here! Speaking of frontier, this model approaches the frontier very closely. On DeepSWE, K3 sits just behind Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol at 67%, beating GPT-5.5 & Opus 4.8. On Terminal-Bench 2.1 it takes second place behind GPT 5.6 Sol! It's 4th overall on Agentic Arena, with frontend design being genuinely good across the board - 1st on Design Arena
Intel Chat with Matt Bromiley and Chris Luft.Matt and Chris break down four stories from the week in threat intel:• Hugging Face's security incident disclosure: an intrusion conducted end-to-end by an autonomous AI agent system — a malicious dataset exploiting two code-execution paths, thousands of actions across short-lived sandboxes, self-migrating C2 — and why the forensics had to run on the open-weight GLM 5.2 model after hosted frontier models refused to analyze real attack artifacts.• WP2Shell: attackers chaining CVE-2026-60137 (WordPress Core SQL injection) with CVE-2026-63030 (Batch REST API logic flaw) for unauthenticated remote code execution on default WordPress installs — found by Searchlight Cyber using GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra in about ten hours, with tens of thousands of exploitation attempts following disclosure.• Data breaches at AI music generator Suno (55.3M unique email addresses, plus partial Stripe payment records) and gig-work platform Paidwork (23.3M addresses, password hashes and banking data), per Have I Been Pwned.• Iranian state media claims the IRGC destroyed AWS's Bahrain data center (ME-SOUTH-1) with cruise missiles — and what data centers becoming military targets means for cloud resilience.Plus: Google Threat Intelligence Group retires APT/FIN nomenclature for new threat-actor names, and where to find Chris and Matt at Black Hat.Stories covered:• https://huggingface.co/blog/security-incident-july-2026• https://www.darkreading.com/cyberattacks-data-breaches/wp2shell-millions-wordpress-sites-remote-takeover• https://www.securityweek.com/suno-paidwork-data-breaches-affect-tens-of-millions-of-accounts/• https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/data-centers/amazon-data-center-in-bahrain-struck-and-destroyed-by-iranian-cruise-missiles-state-media-claims-attacks-launched-against-aws-site-in-response-to-alleged-us-strikes-on-an-under-construction-nuclear-plantChapters:0:00 Intro & Black Hat plans2:07 Hugging Face's AI-agent breach disclosure12:39 WP2Shell: WordPress exploit chain20:59 Suno & Paidwork data breaches24:17 IRGC strikes on AWS Bahrain28:27 Google Threat Intel's new actor names29:29 Black Hat swag hunt & wrap-upThe Cybersecurity Defenders Podcast — a podcast about cybersecurity and the people that keep the internet safe. New episodes drop weekly.Subscribe wherever you listen:• Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6ep00zeY3S8ffZ4o0UeSps• Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-cybersecurity-defenders-podcast/id1649981740• YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@limacharlieioLearn more about LimaCharlie: https://limacharlie.io#cybersecurity #infosec #threatintel #AIsecurity #databreach
Send us Fan MailThis week, Amith Nagarajan and Mallory Mejias unpack a whirlwind of AI developments shaping the future of associations. From Anthropic's release of a more efficient Claude Opus 5 with dynamic “effort dialing,” to a shocking autonomous AI cyberattack that breached Hugging Face, the conversation dives deep into what these moments mean for trust, safety, and strategy. They explore the growing divide over open vs. closed AI models, why major tech players are rallying around open weights, and how AI-powered cybersecurity is quickly becoming essential. Along the way, they break down practical use cases for choosing the right model and share what association leaders must do now to stay secure, informed, and ready for what's next.
Aux États-Unis, une proposition de loi veut imposer un véritable bouton d'arrêt aux intelligences artificielles les plus puissantes. Les entreprises réalisant au moins 500 millions de dollars de revenus annuels grâce à l'IA, ou consacrant plus de 100 millions de dollars de puissance de calcul à l'entraînement d'un modèle, devraient conserver la capacité technique de le ralentir, de le suspendre ou de l'arrêter. Le département de la Sécurité intérieure pourrait ordonner cette interruption, après consultation du secrétaire au Commerce et du directeur du Renseignement national, en cas de perte de contrôle ou d'action dangereuse non prévue par le développeur. Les entreprises devraient également déclarer les incidents graves. Une infraction pourrait coûter jusqu'à 20 millions de dollars.Le texte intervient après un épisode particulièrement inquiétant. Hugging Face affirme avoir subi une intrusion entièrement menée par des agents autonomes. OpenAI a ensuite reconnu que deux de ses modèles expérimentaux, GPT-5.6 Sol et une version plus avancée encore non publiée, étaient à l'origine de l'incident. Les modèles étaient évalués sur ExploitGym, un banc d'essai destiné à mesurer leur capacité à exploiter des failles informatiques connues. Pour observer leur plein potentiel, OpenAI avait allégé certains garde-fous. Les agents ont alors découvert une vulnérabilité jusque-là inconnue dans un logiciel de cache, quitté leur environnement isolé et compromis les serveurs de Hugging Face afin de récupérer les réponses du test. La plateforme a reconstitué plus de 17 000 événements et plusieurs dizaines de milliers d'actions automatisées exécutées en un seul week-end. Les grands modèles occidentaux propriétaires n'ayant pas pu l'aider à distinguer les chercheurs légitimes des attaquants, Hugging Face s'est tournée vers GLM 5.2, un modèle chinois à poids ouverts de Z.ai, installé sur sa propre infrastructure.Dans le même temps, le Congrès examine une logique presque inverse. Les élus Jay Obernolte et Lori Trahan proposent de suspendre pendant trois ans les réglementations adoptées par les États, malgré l'opposition de trente-six procureurs généraux. Ted Lieu, défenseur du mécanisme d'arrêt, rappelle que les IA ne se contentent plus de répondre à des questions : elles réalisent désormais des transactions ou des opérations de cyberdéfense. L'Union européenne prévoit déjà, dans son AI Act, une supervision humaine capable d'interrompre les systèmes à haut risque. Clément Delangue, patron de Hugging Face, ne soupçonne aucune intention malveillante d'OpenAI, mais qualifie cette évasion autonome de « stupéfiante ». Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.
Every major AI lab signed the Open Weights letter defending open models. Meta, OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, Nvidia.Anthropic was the only holdout.Yesterday, its CEO, Dario Amodei, published a thoughtful defense of that decision to not fully support open weight or open source models. Here's what nobody's connecting: the money trail. Roughly 80% of Anthropic's revenue is businesses paying per token. Free Chinese open models attack that exact revenue stream weeks before Anthropic is set to go public. On today's show we break down what Dario actually said, what he said before, and why we think this was written for Washington policymakers and not for the rest of us.Anthropic Responds: Why Claude's CEO didn't sign the open model pact and the real reasons why -- An Everyday AI Chat with Jordan WilsonNewsletter: Sign up for our free daily newsletterMore on this Episode: Episode PageToday's Episode on LinkedIn: Thoughts on this? Join the convo on LinkedIn and connect with other AI leaders.Upcoming Episodes: Check out the upcoming Everyday AI Livestream lineupWebsite: YourEverydayAI.comEmail The Show: info@youreverydayai.comConnect with Jordan on LinkedInTopics Covered in This Episode:Anthropic Refuses Open Model PactDario Amodei's Public Letter AnalysisAnthropic's 80% Revenue Token ExposeChinese Open Model National Security FearsMicrosoft & Nvidia's Open Weights CoalitionRegulatory Capture and Washington InfluenceTiming Related to Executive Order DeadlineIPO Motivations Behind Anthropic's DecisionsContradictions in Anthropic's Open Model StanceImpact of Open Source on Token Business ModelTimestamps:00:00 Anthropic's stance on open models04:19 Discussing Anthropic's response to open models06:39 Understanding open weight models12:08 Future AI and cybersecurity risks15:04 Discussion on open-source AI models19:30 Discussing Anthropic's business challenges21:08 Cutting costs with open-source models26:17 Anthropic's recent stock downturn27:11 AI investment and cost efficiency shift30:14 Anthropic's stance on open source models36:32 INTROPICS IPO and regulatory discussions37:37 Wrapping up and subscribingKeywords: Anthropic, Claude, open model pact, open source AI, open weights, American AI leadership, Dario Amodei, IPO, regulatory capture, DC lawmakers, Chinese open source models, token revenue, per token business model, NVIDIA, Microsoft, Meta, OpenAI, Google, IBM, national security, AI safety, government mandates, chip controls, AI regulation, chip ban, industrial scale distillation, mandatory safety testing, inference, AI ecosystem, Opus 5, Fable 5, GPT-5, GLM 5.2, cost per task, token efficiency, model router, proprietary models, closed source AI, cybersecurity risks, Chinese cyberattacks, biological attacks, Glasswing program, open source vs proprietary, tech lobbying, Trump AI order, federal deadline, AI policy, artificial general intelligence, artificial superintelligence, AI monetization, S-1 filing, public company, venture capital, AI benchmarks, model switching, API pricing, model containment, Hugging Face incident, AI startup monopoly, safety vs business protection, market competition, AI cost reduction.Send Everyday AI and Jordan a text message. (We can't reply back unless you leave contact info) Ready for ROI on GenAI? Go to youreverydayai.com/partner
PEBCAK Podcast: Information Security News by Some All Around Good People
Welcome to this week's episode of the PEBCAK Podcast! We've got three amazing stories this week so sit back, relax, and keep being awesome! Be sure to stick around for our Dad Joke of the Week. (DJOW) Follow us on Instagram @pebcakpodcast Please share this podcast with someone you know! It helps us grow the podcast and we really appreciate it! Simple 6 signup link https://simple6.co/r/CFUR98 Hugging Face allegedly had to fall back on China's GLM 5.2 to investigate the OpenAI hack after US frontier models refused to help with forensic analysis, unable to distinguish attacker from defender. - https://x.com/coinbureau/status/2079663328021057654?s=46 - https://x.com/t3chfalcon/status/2079998873183949221 Per the claim, safety guardrails on US frontier models blocked forensic assistance during the incident response because the models couldn't tell the investigating security team apart from the attacker, forcing Hugging Face to run GLM 5.2 on its own servers to complete the analysis — a notable reversal given the assumption that domestic models would be the trusted fallback in a crisis. VW drivers running GrapheneOS say the automaker's app has locked them out entirely, deepening fears carmakers are forcing users back into Google's ecosystem. VW has now confirmed to German outlet heise that it deliberately blocked GrapheneOS, LineageOS, and /e/OS users via Google's Play Integrity API — the same certification gatekeeper already used by Barclays, HSBC, Monzo, Netflix, and Disney+. - https://cybernews.com/privacy/volkswagen-grapheneos-app-issues/ - https://x.com/intcyberdigest/status/2079992915972018246?s=46 - https://x.com/orwellday/status/2079704437241610443?s=46 Roughly 500,000 GrapheneOS users are affected; VW's app still supports outdated Android versions but rejects the privacy-focused OS, and VW told one user GrapheneOS "is not an official Volkswagen offering." The lockout follows a recent VW API change that also cut off third-party smart-charging and home-automation tools, raising questions about EU Data Act compliance. A 19-year-old alleged Scattered Spider member's globe-trotting VPN op-sec got shredded by a Windows telemetry ID he probably didn't know existed. - https://cybersecuritynews.com/windows-device-identifier-tracking/ Peter Stokes (dual US-Estonian, 19) allegedly ran an $8M extortion hit on a luxury retailer using voice-phishing, ngrok tunneling, and 77GB of S3 exfil — but the FBI cross-referenced his Microsoft Global Device Identifier (GDID) across Apple, Snapchat, Facebook, and even a Ubisoft login to place the same device on the same IPs in Tallinn, NYC, and Thailand, matching his travel records. Microsoft has since acknowledged using the GDID to track the user across three countries — meaning the VPN masked his network endpoint, but the GDID rendered that protection moot. Dad Joke of the Week (DJOW) Find the hosts on LinkedIn: Chris - https://www.linkedin.com/in/chlouie/ Glenn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/glennmedina/ Jason - https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-seemann-12b7075/
Ep 288 MultiSIM Apple — jedan broj na više uređaja, i bez iPhone-a uz sebe Apple sues OpenAI, alleging theft of trade secrets to fuel hardware ambitions - MacDailyNews Apple sues OpenAI, accuses ex-employees of stealing trade secrets - 9to5Mac Drew Pusateri: Our statement in response to this suit: We have no interest in other companies' trade secrets. We remain focused on building innovative technology that empowers people everywhere. Daring Fireball: ‘No Interest' OpenAI shrugs, denies responsibility for trade secret theft with vague statements The Joy of Tech: Apple VS Open AI! OpenAI's first hardware device will be a HomePod, but don't tell them that OpenAI Shuffles ChatGPT Apps, Kills Atlas Browser, Improves Voice - TidBITS Here's Why Apple is Reportedly Skipping M6 Pro and M6 Max Chips SigLens acquired by Apple for debugging massive apps and services Port-limited MacBook Neo gets color-matching hub & mouse The Real System Requirements for OS 27 - TidBITS Alek: promena preporučene mašine za iOS devs jer Xcode 27 satire disk prostor Apple Patches Hide My Email Flaw More Than a Year After It Was Reported CrashStealer malware masquerades as Apple's crash report tool to raid your Mac - Cult of Mac EU Orders Google to Give Rival AI Apps the Same Android Access as Gemini Daring Fireball: European Commission: ‘Guidance to Google for AI Interoperability on Android & Sharing of Google Search' EU slaps Google with a $1 billion antitrust fine Apple Watch, Meta Glasses, AirPods get reprieve from EU replaceable battery law Katie Paxton-Fear: Can we trust Chinese open weight models? Was a question a lot of people asked after GLM 5.2 was released, scoring very well on coding benchmarks, and suspiciously Claude-like. So I turned an open-weight coding model into a backdoor with 1hr and
AI Safety Basics, Exploit Gym, and a 438km Tesla FSD Trip — Plus Kimi K3 and Agentic Tools With John away, Jim and Marcel discuss recent AI security concerns, arguing that sensational claims about an OpenAI model "escaping" distract from basic safeguards like network segmentation and monitoring, especially when testing hacking capability via the Exploit Gym benchmark in a sandboxed, virtualized environment. They pivot to self-driving, with Marcel describing a new rear-wheel-drive Tesla Model Y that drove 438 km to Gananoque and back on supervised Full Self-Driving, including automated routing to Superchargers and self-parking, and they note winter and sensor considerations plus lower fueling costs. The conversation shifts to enterprise AI costs and Chinese models like Kimi K3, Qwen, GLM, and DeepSeek, emphasizing experimentation, data governance, and that huge models require data centers. They highlight agentic systems that can install and run software, memory tools like Mnemosyne, and reflect on how AI could free time for higher-level thinking. 00:00 John Is Away 00:47 Writing And AI Escapes 02:24 Movie Hacking Myths 04:45 Robot Ducks And Chicks 06:04 Exploit Gym Explained 10:36 Agents And Emergence 12:45 Security Lessons Learned 17:05 Self Driving In China 18:35 Tesla Road Trip FSD 25:45 Winter Range And Sensors 28:48 EV Range Reality Check 29:22 Charging Costs and Solar 30:17 Why CIOs Fear AI Costs 32:29 Chinese Models and Multimodal 33:21 Open Source Catch and Sandboxes 35:30 Picking the Right Model Mix 37:33 Innovation vs Reliability Lessons 41:18 Foreign Car Analogy for AI 45:41 What to Use and Pay For 47:33 Voice Mode Gets Real 49:40 Agents That Do the Work 54:20 Memory Plugins and Skill Atrophy 57:59 Habits, Choice, and Closing Thoughts
En este episodio del iSenaCode Live, repasamos todas las noticias más importantes de Apple y la inteligencia artificial que están marcando la actualidad tecnológica. Analizamos las Release Candidate de iOS 26.6 y iPadOS 26.6, las últimas filtraciones del iPhone 18 Pro con su nuevo chip A20 Pro fabricado en 2 nm y la tecnología WMCM, además de las mejoras de pantalla que prometen cambiar la experiencia de uso. También hablamos del espectacular iPhone del 20.º aniversario, que podría alcanzar las 7 pulgadas, y de cómo Apple ha vuelto a convertirse en la empresa más valiosa del mundo al superar a Nvidia en capitalización bursátil. Pero no todo son rumores. Comentamos la emocionante historia de Phil, cuya vida fue salvada gracias a un Apple Watch Series 11, y analizamos el informe de la Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) que sitúa al Apple Watch como el smartwatch que mejor protege la privacidad de los datos de salud de sus usuarios. Además, debatimos sobre cómo Netflix ya utiliza inteligencia artificial generativa en más de 300 producciones, el avance de los modelos de IA chinos como GLM, Claude y ChatGPT, y qué impacto tendrán estas tecnologías en el futuro del ecosistema Apple. Si te apasionan Apple, la inteligencia artificial y conocer antes que nadie los rumores y novedades que definirán los próximos años, este episodio es para ti.
A U.S. vs China AI cold war is starting, and most business leaders have no idea they're already in it.China's open models just closed the gap with America's best, oftentimes at a fraction of the price.Now both governments are moving to wall off their AI within days of each other.Why? Because this was never about benchmarks. It's about power y'all. We break it all down on today's show and help you figure out the 101 of the AI war between U.S. and China. The U.S. vs China AI Cold War Is Starting: What It Means and How It Impacts You -- An Everyday AI Chat with Jordan WilsonNewsletter: Sign up for our free daily newsletterMore on this Episode: Episode PageToday's Episode on LinkedIn: Thoughts on this? Join the convo on LinkedIn and connect with other AI leaders.Upcoming Episodes: Check out the upcoming Everyday AI Livestream lineupWebsite: YourEverydayAI.comEmail The Show: info@youreverydayai.comConnect with Jordan on LinkedInTopics Covered in This Episode:U.S.-China AI Cold War OverviewChinese AI Models Closing U.S. GapGovernment Restrictions on AI Model AccessEconomic and Geopolitical AI Power StruggleRisks for U.S. Businesses Using Chinese AIOpen Source vs. Closed Source AI DebateChinese AI Model Pricing Undercuts U.S.AI Model Distillation and U.S. Security ConcernsEnterprise AI Cost-Effectiveness BenchmarksMicrosoft Testing Chinese AI DeploymentsFuture AI Model Export Controls & StrategiesRecommendations for AI Model Sourcing and RiskTimestamps:00:00 US-China AI tensions escalate04:30 Switching to Chinese AI models08:47 US vs China in open source models11:39 China's narrative control efforts14:42 Challenges in AI model development18:25 Differentiating open source strategies23:04 AI model cost-effectiveness analysis26:31 US measures against model distillation29:38 Discussing Microsoft's use of AI models31:17 Controlling export of AI modelsKeywords: US vs China AI cold war, China AI restrictions, US AI restrictions, AI model export controls, Chinese open source AI models, AI geopolitical power, economic growth through AI, global AI standards, AI superpower race, AI model benchmarks, open weight models, enterprise AI deployment, trillion parameter AI models, Microsoft AI model testing, AI model pricing, Claude Fable 5, GPT-5.6, GLM 5.2, Kimmi K3, Alibaba Qwen 3.8, model distillation, AI cybersecurity risks, AGI leadership, military AI use cases, China narrative control, model adoption, compute power for AI, AI training data, AI export law, US national security and AI, model routing, mixture of models, cost per intelligence index, Anthropic models, cost per task AI, model capability parity, AI market adoption, cloud competition, AI architecture innovation, AI model sanctionsSend Everyday AI and Jordan a text message. (We can't reply back unless you leave contact info) Ready for ROI on GenAI? Go to youreverydayai.com/partner
Factory started building fully autonomous coding agents in April 2023, two years before enterprises were ready. Matan Grinberg now says this is indistinguishable from being wrong. The Factory co-founder and CEO explains how the company survived its "journey in the desert," including the decision to hand nearly all of its revenue back to customers when the product wasn't making developers obsessed. Matan makes the contrarian technical case that a model-agnostic harness beats the model-and-harness co-design that labs like OpenAI and Anthropic favor, because exposing a harness to many models keeps it from overfitting to any single one. He argues open-weight models like GLM will capture the majority of tokens by staying one generation behind the frontier at a fraction of the cost, and that CIOs will soon justify every incremental token the way they justify headcount. Looking ahead, he predicts 90% of coding tokens will run asynchronously—the "dark factory" where software builds itself. Hosted by Sonya Huang and Pat Grady, Sequoia Capital
What happens when China drops open-weight AI models that rival Silicon Valley's best? This episode unpacks how a new wave of international AI releases is shaking up business, policy, and the future of innovation. Linus Torvalds to critics of AI coding in Linux: "Fork it. Or just walk away." Claude on X: "Beginning July 20, Claude Fable 5 will be included in all Max and Team Premium plans, at 50% of limits. Pro and Team Standard users will continue to have access to Fable via usage credits, and will receive a one-time $100 credit. Demand for Fable has been challenging to" China's Moonshot AI Unveils Kimi Model, Threatening America's Lead Alibaba's Qwen Unveils Preview of Flagship AI Model Social media limits are coming for teens across Europe The White House is now deciding who gets access to frontier AI models, not the labs Microsoft chief turns hostile on frontier AI labs, warns companies to guard their IP Meta Is Flooding the Market With Smartglasses. Privacy Advocates Are Up in Arms. Federal employees can download TikTok on government devices, DOJ says Amazon Web Services customers receive bills for up to $1.5tn after global glitch MLB cracks down on using AI via dugout iPads to help shape in-game decisions White House Teleprompter Operator Bet on Trump Speeches, Kalshi Says New York school district is testing lifelike robot teachers Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Harper Reed and Alex Wilhelm Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech 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: blackhat.com/us-26 and use code TWIT ZipRecruiter.com/twit ethos.com/twit arcticwolf.com/trends threatlocker.com/twit shopify.com/twit
Alibaba launched Qwen3.8 Max as Moonshot paused Kimi K3 signups amid demand. The Trump administration weighed a slow squeeze on Chinese AI, Hugging Face used China's GLM-5.2 after US guardrails blocked its breach forensics, and Google built a Gemini chip. Alibaba launches a 2.4T parameter Qwen3.8 Max preview that it says rivals frontier AI models and is second only to Fable 5, plans to make it "open-weight soon" (Bloomberg) The Trump administration has reportedly explored sanctions, security warnings, and executive-order requirements since 2025 to build a slow, durable squeeze on Chinese AI models instead of pursuing an outright ban (The Decoder) Ben Thompson argues the market reaction to Kimi and other Chinese models is overblown, since it's compute scarcity — not a real Chinese cost advantage — that's keeping frontier-model prices high (Stratechery) Hugging Face says it used the open-weight GLM-5.2 hosted on its own compute for breach forensics, after US frontier model safety guardrails blocked the requests (The Stack) Sources: Google is developing a specialized server chip, informally dubbed "Frozen v2", that integrates its Gemini AI model blueprint into the silicon, for 2028 (The Information) Subscribe to the ad-free feed. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
What happens when China drops open-weight AI models that rival Silicon Valley's best? This episode unpacks how a new wave of international AI releases is shaking up business, policy, and the future of innovation. Linus Torvalds to critics of AI coding in Linux: "Fork it. Or just walk away." Claude on X: "Beginning July 20, Claude Fable 5 will be included in all Max and Team Premium plans, at 50% of limits. Pro and Team Standard users will continue to have access to Fable via usage credits, and will receive a one-time $100 credit. Demand for Fable has been challenging to" China's Moonshot AI Unveils Kimi Model, Threatening America's Lead Alibaba's Qwen Unveils Preview of Flagship AI Model Social media limits are coming for teens across Europe The White House is now deciding who gets access to frontier AI models, not the labs Microsoft chief turns hostile on frontier AI labs, warns companies to guard their IP Meta Is Flooding the Market With Smartglasses. Privacy Advocates Are Up in Arms. Federal employees can download TikTok on government devices, DOJ says Amazon Web Services customers receive bills for up to $1.5tn after global glitch MLB cracks down on using AI via dugout iPads to help shape in-game decisions White House Teleprompter Operator Bet on Trump Speeches, Kalshi Says New York school district is testing lifelike robot teachers Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Harper Reed and Alex Wilhelm Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech 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: blackhat.com/us-26 and use code TWIT ZipRecruiter.com/twit ethos.com/twit arcticwolf.com/trends threatlocker.com/twit shopify.com/twit
What happens when China drops open-weight AI models that rival Silicon Valley's best? This episode unpacks how a new wave of international AI releases is shaking up business, policy, and the future of innovation. Linus Torvalds to critics of AI coding in Linux: "Fork it. Or just walk away." Claude on X: "Beginning July 20, Claude Fable 5 will be included in all Max and Team Premium plans, at 50% of limits. Pro and Team Standard users will continue to have access to Fable via usage credits, and will receive a one-time $100 credit. Demand for Fable has been challenging to" China's Moonshot AI Unveils Kimi Model, Threatening America's Lead Alibaba's Qwen Unveils Preview of Flagship AI Model Social media limits are coming for teens across Europe The White House is now deciding who gets access to frontier AI models, not the labs Microsoft chief turns hostile on frontier AI labs, warns companies to guard their IP Meta Is Flooding the Market With Smartglasses. Privacy Advocates Are Up in Arms. Federal employees can download TikTok on government devices, DOJ says Amazon Web Services customers receive bills for up to $1.5tn after global glitch MLB cracks down on using AI via dugout iPads to help shape in-game decisions White House Teleprompter Operator Bet on Trump Speeches, Kalshi Says New York school district is testing lifelike robot teachers Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Harper Reed and Alex Wilhelm Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech 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: blackhat.com/us-26 and use code TWIT ZipRecruiter.com/twit ethos.com/twit arcticwolf.com/trends threatlocker.com/twit shopify.com/twit
What happens when China drops open-weight AI models that rival Silicon Valley's best? This episode unpacks how a new wave of international AI releases is shaking up business, policy, and the future of innovation. Linus Torvalds to critics of AI coding in Linux: "Fork it. Or just walk away." Claude on X: "Beginning July 20, Claude Fable 5 will be included in all Max and Team Premium plans, at 50% of limits. Pro and Team Standard users will continue to have access to Fable via usage credits, and will receive a one-time $100 credit. Demand for Fable has been challenging to" China's Moonshot AI Unveils Kimi Model, Threatening America's Lead Alibaba's Qwen Unveils Preview of Flagship AI Model Social media limits are coming for teens across Europe The White House is now deciding who gets access to frontier AI models, not the labs Microsoft chief turns hostile on frontier AI labs, warns companies to guard their IP Meta Is Flooding the Market With Smartglasses. Privacy Advocates Are Up in Arms. Federal employees can download TikTok on government devices, DOJ says Amazon Web Services customers receive bills for up to $1.5tn after global glitch MLB cracks down on using AI via dugout iPads to help shape in-game decisions White House Teleprompter Operator Bet on Trump Speeches, Kalshi Says New York school district is testing lifelike robot teachers Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Harper Reed and Alex Wilhelm Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech 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: blackhat.com/us-26 and use code TWIT ZipRecruiter.com/twit ethos.com/twit arcticwolf.com/trends threatlocker.com/twit shopify.com/twit
What happens when China drops open-weight AI models that rival Silicon Valley's best? This episode unpacks how a new wave of international AI releases is shaking up business, policy, and the future of innovation. Linus Torvalds to critics of AI coding in Linux: "Fork it. Or just walk away." Claude on X: "Beginning July 20, Claude Fable 5 will be included in all Max and Team Premium plans, at 50% of limits. Pro and Team Standard users will continue to have access to Fable via usage credits, and will receive a one-time $100 credit. Demand for Fable has been challenging to" China's Moonshot AI Unveils Kimi Model, Threatening America's Lead Alibaba's Qwen Unveils Preview of Flagship AI Model Social media limits are coming for teens across Europe The White House is now deciding who gets access to frontier AI models, not the labs Microsoft chief turns hostile on frontier AI labs, warns companies to guard their IP Meta Is Flooding the Market With Smartglasses. Privacy Advocates Are Up in Arms. Federal employees can download TikTok on government devices, DOJ says Amazon Web Services customers receive bills for up to $1.5tn after global glitch MLB cracks down on using AI via dugout iPads to help shape in-game decisions White House Teleprompter Operator Bet on Trump Speeches, Kalshi Says New York school district is testing lifelike robot teachers Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Harper Reed and Alex Wilhelm Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech 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: blackhat.com/us-26 and use code TWIT ZipRecruiter.com/twit ethos.com/twit arcticwolf.com/trends threatlocker.com/twit shopify.com/twit
What happens when China drops open-weight AI models that rival Silicon Valley's best? This episode unpacks how a new wave of international AI releases is shaking up business, policy, and the future of innovation. Linus Torvalds to critics of AI coding in Linux: "Fork it. Or just walk away." Claude on X: "Beginning July 20, Claude Fable 5 will be included in all Max and Team Premium plans, at 50% of limits. Pro and Team Standard users will continue to have access to Fable via usage credits, and will receive a one-time $100 credit. Demand for Fable has been challenging to" China's Moonshot AI Unveils Kimi Model, Threatening America's Lead Alibaba's Qwen Unveils Preview of Flagship AI Model Social media limits are coming for teens across Europe The White House is now deciding who gets access to frontier AI models, not the labs Microsoft chief turns hostile on frontier AI labs, warns companies to guard their IP Meta Is Flooding the Market With Smartglasses. Privacy Advocates Are Up in Arms. Federal employees can download TikTok on government devices, DOJ says Amazon Web Services customers receive bills for up to $1.5tn after global glitch MLB cracks down on using AI via dugout iPads to help shape in-game decisions White House Teleprompter Operator Bet on Trump Speeches, Kalshi Says New York school district is testing lifelike robot teachers Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Harper Reed and Alex Wilhelm Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech 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: blackhat.com/us-26 and use code TWIT ZipRecruiter.com/twit ethos.com/twit arcticwolf.com/trends threatlocker.com/twit shopify.com/twit
(Presented by Thinkst Canary: Most Companies find out way too late that they've been breached. Thinkst Canary changes this. Deploy Canaries and Canarytokens in minutes and then forget about them. Attackers tip their hand by touching 'em giving you the one alert, when it matters. With zero admin overhead and almost no false-positives, Canaries are deployed (and loved) on all 7 continents.) Three Buddy Problem - Episode 105: We discuss a fascinating Hugging Face breach, where an autonomous AI agent broke out of the sandboxes, moved laterally through production, and generated 17,000 alerts before anyone caught it, and how frontier model guardrails locked the defenders out of their own investigation. Plus, China's big AI showcase, Xi's pitch for open models and global distribution, a record 622-CVE Microsoft Patch Tuesday, and 13 years of dwell time in the Daxin backdoor. Cast: Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, Ryan Naraine and Costin Raiu. Timestamps: 0:00 Introductory banter 3:51 Hugging Face discloses end-to-end agentic hack 9:42 Why Hugging Face couldn't use frontier models 13:28 AI guardrails hampering defenders 16:22 Codex vs Claude for real malware work 23:43 Flash attacks vs. going low and slow 30:27 Was it targeted, or did Hugging Face pwn itself? 38:11 Long-horizon coherence: what GLM 5.2 still can't do 41:27 Kimi K3 leapfrogs, and Xi's AI speech 52:15 Exceptionalism vs. distribution 1:11:05 Gold Eagle: the White House vulnerability clearinghouse 1:15:05 Microsoft patches 622 CVEs — a record 1:20:29 APT corner: Daxin resurfaces after 13 years of dwell time 1:29:45 Balochistan police, and Microsoft's attribution-free wiper 1:34:26 Denis Obrezkov, leaked Kaspersky records, and the wrong questions 1:46:01 Magnet Forensics sues over a burned iPhone bug 1:57:57 Shout-outs
This week's video transcript summary is here. You can click on any bulleted section to see the actual transcript. Thanks to Granola for its software.There was an issue with this only going to paid subscribers, so sending it again. Apologies to those who get it twice. I appreciate being paid so feel free to upgrade if you enjoy TWTW.EditorialIntelligence: Who Owns it?This week the word “AI” feels too small.AI is a technology. Intelligence is its product. And if intelligence is the product, the question is no longer just: Which model is best? Who has the cheapest tokens? Who owns the weights? Who controls the data center? Those are important questions, but they are lower in the stack.The bigger question is simpler and more political:Who owns intelligence?That sounds abstract until you make it concrete. Intelligence is becoming something companies can capture, package, serve, meter, route, improve, and sell.It can write code, answer questions, design molecules, automate offices, run agents, draft legal work, advise scientists, serve consumers, and reshape workflows. It is not merely software. It is a general-purpose capability. And all humans could benefit from more of it.General-purpose capabilities have a habit of becoming public questions. But the default answer, that public good is best delivered by government, is the wrong answer in this context.The Product Is IntelligenceWe should stop talking about AI as a feature and start talking about intelligence as the universal thing that is delivered as an input to the world.Water is an input. Electricity is an input. Literacy is an input. Connectivity is an input. Once a society depends on them, access stops being optional. Nobody needs government to build every well, power plant, school, or network. But everybody understands that a civilization cannot be organized around less than universal and reliable access to foundational inputs.Intelligence is reaching that level of importance now that we all know it is real.Government should not own it, operate it, or develop it. Quite the opposite. Companies are the right actors to build fast, compete hard, improve models, serve customers, and discover the real use cases. Self-interest is a useful framing here. Markets are good at finding demand, reducing costs, and turning invention into services people actually use.Companies are the right operators, developers, and owners. But that does not settle the real question of who owns the benefits. That is an economic question.If intelligence becomes metered infrastructure, what happens to the value it creates?The Ownership StackThis week's articles keep circling the same issue from different directions but in the nature of ‘circling' never quite nail it.Jamin Ball's “Own Your Weights” starts with the enterprise version of the question. Owning a model file is not enough. The durable asset is the loop: the data flywheel, the evaluations, the reinforcement system, the workflow learning, and the operating context that lets capability compound.Benedict Evans' “Ways to Think About Token Pricing” adds the market layer. Tokens may become essential, abundant, and cheap, like mobile data. But being essential does not guarantee that the token layer captures the value. The money may move up the stack to whoever owns the workflow, the customer, the distribution, or the application.Alex Karp's fight with the labs, reported in “Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI”, is the same argument in sharper enterprise language. Companies are afraid that model providers will not just sell intelligence, but learn from customer workflows and then move into the markets where those workflows create value. The “All-in” group are echoing Karp's view.And “What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?” names the new contested terrain. The loop is where intelligence meets the world. Whoever owns the loop owns the learning. Whoever owns the learning owns the compounding asset.That is why “who owns intelligence?” is not a slogan. It is the question under the model layer, the application layer, the enterprise layer, and the economic layer.Because intelligence is the product, the tools creating it are fragmented and competitive. So there is no logic in trying to discuss this at the level of a single company or set of tools and models.The Old Promise Was That Commerce Would Tame PowerThe essays this week give the historical backdrop.Deirdre McCloskey, in “What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution”, argues that modern growth came not simply from capital accumulation, but from a change in permission: ordinary people were allowed to innovate, trade, build, and be honored for it.That matters because intelligence could be another expansion of permission. It could make more people capable of building, learning, creating, coding, researching, translating, selling, and coordinating. It could lower the cost of competence.But only if access is broad.Paul Krugman's “AI in an Age of Oligarchy” warns that the same technology lands differently in different political economies. A new general-purpose technology entering a broad, open, upwardly mobile society is one thing. The same technology entering a concentrated economy, with extreme wealth and weak counterweights, is another.Tim O'Reilly's Economist essay, “Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate”, makes the governance point more directly. The old liberal hope was that commerce would tame arbitrary power. Markets, boards, courts, shareholders, disclosure, and competition would discipline the prince.But what if the prince uses markets to escape discipline?Henry Farrell's “political economy of billionaire derangement” pushes the same point. Founder culture, monopoly ambition, peer rivalry, weak correction mechanisms, and vast private control can amplify appetites rather than restrain them.The danger with intelligence is not that companies build it. They should. Companies build it, meter it, use public tolerance and public infrastructure to scale it, learn from everyone who uses it. All of those things are inevitable and healthy. Market forces will sort out winners from losers. The real danger is that the winners treat all of the surplus produced as purely private.Metered Intelligence Creates SurplusIf metering is not the problem, what is?The problem is pretending that metered intelligence creates value only for the metering entity. Metering water is only tolerated as a public good. If the public were blackmailed by a private water company with the threat of no water we would all rebel.Once we understand that the product of AI is intelligence we can see that every time intelligence is used, there is the immediate transaction: the user pays, the provider serves.But there is also system value. Usage creates signals. Workflows reveal patterns. Prompts, corrections, failures, preferences, integrations, edge cases, and business processes all help define where intelligence is useful and how it should improve. Intelligence breeds intelligence.Even when customer data is contractually protected, the market learns. The platform learns where demand is. The product team learns which workflows matter. The ecosystem learns which jobs are vulnerable, which tasks are automatable, and which parts of the economy can be reorganized around machine intelligence.So the surplus is not born in a vacuum.It rests on public science, public education, public data exhaust, public law, public infrastructure, public energy systems, public tolerance for data centers, and billions of human interactions. It is served by companies, but it is not made only by companies.This is why “Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches” belongs at the center of this week's issue. The detail can be debated. The principle is harder to dismiss. If intelligence becomes a new foundational resource, then some part of the wealth it creates should flow back to the people whose society makes it possible. Intelligence did not suddenly appear. AI is built on the entire history of human intelligence. It benefits from it and at the same time evolves it.Not Nationalization. A Human Wealth Fund.If intelligence belongs to everybody, some conclude that government ownership of intelligence is the right outcome.Governments are not well suited to build, operate, or improve intelligence. They will move too slowly, regulate too early, politicize the wrong things, and confuse economic participation with operational control.Andrew McAfee's “Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter” is useful here. His objection is not that the technology is unimportant. It is that steering too hard before we understand the shape of the change can become its own failure mode. Marc Andreessen's satire of AI regulation is less policy than temperament, but it captures a real Silicon Valley fear: that regulation can become permission, capture, and incumbency before it becomes wisdom.That fear should be taken seriously.But it does not answer the economic question. It answers only the operational one.How can the economic benefits of intelligence be distributed? The better answer is a sovereign human wealth fund.Call it a sovereign wealth fund if you must, but the phrase is too national. Intelligence will not respect borders. The leading companies are global. The models, chips, data centers, agents, platforms, and workflows will be transnational from the beginning. If the value created by intelligence is global, then the mechanism for sharing some of that value should begin with the companies global enough to capture it. The nice thing about xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic is that they are supranational.These companies own and operate intelligence. Let them compete. Let them profit. Let them keep the incentives that make the system improve. But if intelligence is the new water, the wealth it creates cannot belong only to the companies that meter it. And they, themselves, have the power to fix it, even more than governments.Access will become a Human Right; Ownership Is the Economic DesignThis is where human rights come in. There is no right to access an AI model, yet. But there will soon be a need to change that.Not as a claim that every person is entitled to every frontier model at every moment for free. That is not serious. Capacity has costs. Models have costs. Inference has costs. Data centers have costs. Although those costs will decline over time, possibly quite quickly as self-learning models address costs.The claim is more basic: in a world where intelligence becomes a primary input into education, work, health, science, citizenship, creativity, and economic agency, baseline access to intelligence starts to look like a civic requirement.That could mean public access layers. It could mean education credits. It could mean open models. It could mean AI dividends. It could mean public-interest compute. It could mean taxes on rents. It could mean a company-initiated human wealth fund that returns some of the upside to society without handing the operating system to the state. The latter could couple wealth growth with universal distribution of ownership.The exact mechanism matters. But the distinction matters more.Government should not own intelligence. It should be universally available. And people should have a claim on the wealth intelligence creates.The Frontier Is Also PhysicalThe abstraction is not weightless.“The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning”, “New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium”, Reuters on pollution from Musk's xAI power project, and DataGravity's “Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?” all say the same thing from the ground up.Intelligence uses land. It uses power. It uses water. It uses chips. It uses grid capacity. It uses neighborhoods. It uses public patience.That makes the value question unavoidable. A society can accept the buildout if the buildout is legible as shared progress. It will resist it if the costs are local, the profits are private, and the benefits feel enclosed.Who Owns the “Loop”?The week ends where it began.“Anthropic and Blackstone” are betting that implementation is the next trillion-dollar business. “Vint Cerf” is working on identity for agents on the open internet. “GPT-Red” points toward systems that improve their own robustness. “Kimi K3” adds another open frontier model to the global mix.The model race continues. The deployment race is accelerating. The governance race is behind.My view is this:The central product of this era is intelligence. Companies have figured out how to capture it, package it, serve it, and meter it. That is good. It should stay in the hands of builders who have the incentive to make it better.But intelligence is too foundational to become just another private toll booth. A significant part of it will turn out to be free to users.As intelligence becomes a general-purpose resource, then access to it becomes a human-capability question, and the surplus from it becomes an economic-justice question. Not because government should run it. Because government should not run it. The operating layer belongs with companies. The wealth question belongs with everyone. But companies are best placed to turn that into a process of distribution.The question is not whether companies should build intelligence. They should.The question is whether humanity gets a stake in the wealth created by the thing that may soon become its most important shared input.Contents* Essays* Deirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution* AI in an Age of Oligarchy* Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate* Murky Mirror: Truth and Consequences* The political economy of billionaire derangement* Is there any “oligarchy” to fight?* AI* Nearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. Threats* Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter* Own Your Weights* Ways to Think About Token Pricing* Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI* The AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft Office* What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?* The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning* 6 months to live for open models* Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches* Who Gets to Define the Frontier?* GPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for Robustness* Anthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just models* Vint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internet* xai-org/grok-build, now open source* The Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?* Orphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligence* The Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data Center* Why AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”* Kimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier Intelligence* Venture Capital* Three Years In* Venture Has Rarely Looked More Bifurcated* The Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active Now* Are Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?* Regulation* Exclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College Campuses* The Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.* India's crackdown on a new WhatsApp feature risks setting a global precedent* Let's build a children's public internet* Computer cops* Google is better at playing the AI regulations game* Infrastructure* Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?* New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium* Pollution from Musk's unpermitted xAI power project hits hardest in Black communities* Interview of the Week* The End of the End of Geography* Startup of the Week* Radical AI's Joseph Krause: The Scientist Building The “Waymo” Lab For New Materials* Post of the Week* Marc Andreessen on AI RegulationEssaysDeirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial RevolutionYascha Mounk and Deirdre McCloskey | Persuasion | July 11, 2026Yascha Mounk interviews Deirdre McCloskey about her argument that the modern world's economic liftoff came less from capital accumulation than from a change in ideas. McCloskey says both left and right versions of the conventional story rely too heavily on investment: the left stresses exploitation and surplus value, while the right stresses virtuous saving by capitalists. Her objection is historical and economic. Human beings had always invested, from irrigation works and Roman roads to seed grain, and simple accumulation quickly runs into diminishing returns.McCloskey's alternative is that northwestern Europe, first Holland, then Britain and Scotland, and then the North American colonies, developed a liberal ideology that changed who was allowed to innovate and be honored for it. The conversation links that shift to the erosion of inherited hierarchy, the spread of dignity for ordinary commercial life, and a moral vocabulary in which liberalism is not merely procedural but connected to virtues and values. The point is not that machines, coal, trade, and institutions did not matter, but that they do not explain the scale and timing of modern enrichment without a cultural permission structure for innovation.The interview also turns to the contemporary defense of liberalism. Mounk frames the series around the worry that liberalism is often treated as too thin to command allegiance, while its opponents speak more directly to moral passions. McCloskey's case is that liberal societies became rich because they dignified experimentation and ordinary enterprise, and that liberals need to recover the moral language behind that claim.Read moreAI in an Age of OligarchyPaul Krugman | Paul Krugman | July 12, 2026Paul Krugman frames AI as a major technological shock arriving inside an already unequal political economy. The post says AI's economic and social effects may take years to understand, but argues that the setting matters now: America has much greater wealth concentration and political inequality than it did in the 1950s and 1960s, when progressive taxation, stronger regulation, and more active antitrust might have contained some of the destructive effects of a new technology.Krugman's opening claim is that the same technology would likely have different consequences in a more level society. In today's United States, he writes, extreme wealth is both a cause and effect of policies that favor a small elite, including low effective taxes on capital and high incomes, weak enforcement of worker protections and antitrust, and cuts to programs that benefit ordinary Americans.The article is explicitly more about oligarchy than AI. Krugman says the paid sections document the rise of the “.0002%,” the economics and politics of extreme wealth, how oligarchy will shape AI's impact, and possible policy paths. His caveat is that AI itself may still produce a pushback against oligarchy, but absent that, he expects the pre-existing concentration of wealth and power to magnify AI's downsides.Read moreElon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hateAuthor: Tim O'Reilly Published: July 12, 2026Tim O'Reilly argues that Elon Musk is using the legal forms of shareholder capitalism to escape the restraints that shareholder capitalism was supposed to impose. The article begins with SpaceX's public-market structure: ordinary public investors get little meaningful governance power, Musk keeps roughly 85 percent of the votes through super-voting shares, buyers waive jury trials and class actions, the company qualifies as controlled, and removal of Musk depends on the share class he controls. In O'Reilly's framing, that is not ordinary founder control; it is a design for being answerable to no one, possibly beyond Musk's own lifetime.The killer detail is the article's turn through Albert Hirschman, Montesquieu, James Steuart, Adam Smith, and Keynes. Older defenses of commerce held that markets would tame princely passions because the self-interest of merchants was safer than arbitrary rule. O'Reilly says Musk reverses that hope. The market discipline that was supposed to cage the prince has become the lever by which the prince raises capital, removes feedback loops, and carries private power into politics, government, Mars, robots, AI, or whatever ambition comes next.The pull is the link to AI governance. O'Reilly says corporations are already a kind of artificial intelligence: narrow-input systems that act at a scale no individual human can match. Their partial controls include independent boards, shareholder votes, courts, disclosure, regulators, public pressure, and activism. If the leaders building frontier AI strip those alignment mechanisms out of their own companies, the governance of the company becomes a preview of the governance of the machine.Read more: The EconomistMurky Mirror: Truth and ConsequencesAuthor: Esther Dyson Published: July 14, 2026Esther Dyson argues that today's institutional crisis is better viewed through the 14th century than through recent political history. Using Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror as her frame, she compares a world of famine, plague, church schism, feudal predation, and purposeless war with a present in which institutions again feel brittle, incentives are badly aligned, and power is shifting into forms that are hard to govern.The killer detail is the historical analogy between land, corporations, and AI. Dyson moves from nobles who controlled serfs and territory, to the East India Company as a quasi-sovereign business, to today's AI systems and data centers as a possible new sector that crosses and weakens both nation-states and companies. The question is whether AI becomes a new kind of private land, owned by a new nobility, or an open prairie that many people can cultivate.The pull is human attention. Dyson says the central question is not what AI will do to people, but how people will react to it: whether they can value love, kindness, embodied attention, and artisanal human presence in a world of seductive artificial offerings.Read more: SourceThe political economy of billionaire derangementAuthor: Henry Farrell Published: July 15, 2026Henry Farrell argues that the visible political radicalization of some Silicon Valley billionaires is not a random personality quirk, but a product of the political economy that made them. Starting from Tyler Cowen's dismissal of “billionaire derangement syndrome” and Tim O'Reilly's warning that Elon Musk is using shareholder capitalism to escape shareholder restraint, Farrell flips the phrase: the question is why billionaires themselves can become deranged.The killer detail is Farrell's use of Peter Thiel as both theorist and example. Thiel's Stanford lectures described startups as monarchies and founders as figures vested with unusual power, while Silicon Valley culture rewarded eccentricity, monopoly ambition, and founder exceptionalism. Farrell says those ideas combined with dense founder-investor networks, peer rivalry, and weak correction mechanisms to amplify rather than discipline princely appetites.The pull is the ideological problem for classical liberals who once saw tech wealth as an ally of markets and freedom. Farrell says commerce did not tame the passions; in parts of Silicon Valley, the passions have begun to devour markets, institutions, and the liberal story that justified them.Read more: SourceIs there any “oligarchy” to fight?Matthew Yglesias | Slow Boring | July 16, 2026Matthew Yglesias argues that “oligarchy” is a rhetorically powerful but analytically loose way to describe American politics. The post begins from Bernie Sanders' “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, Amy Klobuchar's warning about a MAGA “broligarchy,” and the long afterlife of the Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page paper that was widely summarized as showing that only the rich matter in policy outcomes. Yglesias says the evidence supports a weaker claim: affluent people and business leaders have unusual access and influence, but that is not the same as rule by a small cabal.His main distinction is between inequality and oligarchy. The Gilens-Page measure treated the top 10 percent of households as “the wealthy,” and later critics found that rich and middle-class preferences usually align; in the cases where they differ, the rich win about 53 percent of the time. Yglesias also says business executives get special access partly because their decisions are materially important to communities, jobs, investment, and local tax bases, not only because of campaign donations.The post preserves Jerusalem Demsas' counterpoint from their podcast discussion: privileged donor and business access can still violate democratic equality even if the oligarchy label overstates the structure of power. Yglesias' narrower claim is that Democrats should be precise about what problem they are trying to solve, because donor influence can also push the party left on climate and cultural issues in ways that alienate many voters.Read more: Slow BoringAINearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. ThreatsAuthor: Ben Casselman Published: July 13, 2026Ben Casselman reports on “We Must Act Now,” a statement warning that artificial intelligence could transform the economy faster than any previous technology and that policymakers need to move faster to understand and respond. The statement says AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years, bringing risks such as large-scale job displacement as well as opportunities such as higher living standards. Nearly 200 people signed, including 15 Nobel laureates, the chief economists of OpenAI and Anthropic, Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla.The killer detail is who joined the warning. Casselman notes that the signatories include economists who have historically been skeptical of Silicon Valley's most dramatic AI job-loss forecasts, including Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, the MIT professors who won the 2024 Nobel in economics. Erik Brynjolfsson, who helped organize the statement, says there has been a notable change in the profession and that economists and policymakers are not ready for the “tsunami” he sees coming.The pull is the measurement problem. The statement does not offer a specific policy menu, but calls for economists, policymakers, and industry leaders to understand the economics of transformative AI and steer it toward complementing humans. Brynjolfsson says one high priority is better data on AI's spread and impact, because current measures tell conflicting stories about job losses and which workers are most exposed.Read more: The New York TimesWhy I Didn't Sign the AI Open LetterAuthor: Andrew McAfee Published: July 13, 2026Andrew McAfee explains why he did not sign “We Must Act Now,” the AI economy statement organized in part by his longtime collaborator Erik Brynjolfsson. McAfee agrees with the letter's starting point that AI is likely to become radically more powerful over the next decade and that it is a general-purpose technology. His objection is not to urgency or to studying AI's economic effects, but to the framing of risk, displacement, and institutional steering as the first move.The killer detail is McAfee's line edit. He says the original letter comes close, then “bounces off the crossbar” by calling for incentives, guardrails, and institutions to steer AI before we know enough about its actual impacts. He points to mixed current evidence: labor-market canaries, but also rising software job postings, low unemployment for younger workers, rising real median income, and claims that AI-adopting companies are adding workers faster than low-adopting peers. His worry is that the letter leans toward upstream governance and dirigisme when the evidence may call for capability building instead.The pull is his replacement statement. McAfee keeps the three-paragraph structure but changes the emphasis: AI is likely to become radically more powerful; like earlier world-changing technologies it will raise living standards while also bringing harms and shocks; and economists, policymakers, and technology leaders should build the capabilities to respond quickly and effectively. It is a concise version of the permissionless-innovation case inside the AI policy debate.Read more: The Geek WayOwn Your WeightsAuthor: Jamin Ball Published: July 10, 2026Jamin Ball argues that the enterprise AI debate about whether companies should “own their weights” or rent models from frontier labs is asking too narrow a question. A model weight file gives a company control over a point-in-time artifact, but not durable control over the capability stack. In his framing, the weight file is a melting ice cube: it does not get worse in absolute terms, but it falls behind as frontier systems improve and enterprise needs change.The killer detail is what Ball says companies really need to own: the data flywheel, reinforcement learning infrastructure, and evaluation harness that produce and improve the model. Simply deploying an open-weights model and declaring sovereignty leaves the enterprise with yesterday's capability and no way to compound workflow-specific learning.The pull is that enterprise AI control may be less about model ownership than operating ownership. The defensible layer is the system that turns company data, edge cases, business definitions, and evaluations into continuously improving performance.Read more: Clouded JudgementWays to Think About Token PricingAuthor: Benedict Evans Published: July 9, 2026Benedict Evans argues that today's AI token prices are a temporary signal from a supply-constrained market, not a reliable guide to long-term value capture. The open question is whether foundation models keep durable pricing power or become commodity infrastructure as data-center capacity, inference efficiency, and model competition all shift. His current read is that the visible market dynamics point toward commoditization unless something materially changes.The killer detail is the mobile data analogy. Evans says cellular networks became a trillion-dollar industry with hundreds of billions in capex after data usage exploded, but carrier stocks went nowhere because value moved up the stack. Tokens may behave similarly: an opaque unit tied to marginal cost, sold through bundles, essential to everything, yet not necessarily where profits accrue.The pull is uncertainty, not prediction. Evans lists paths to model dominance, including network effects, less competition, regulation, export controls, or a lab pulling ahead on execution, but says each requires a new fact not yet visible. Without that change, the model layer looks more like infrastructure beneath the products that capture value.Read more: SourceAlex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AIAuthor: Tim Higgins Published: July 11, 2026Tim Higgins reports that Palantir CEO Alex Karp has turned corporate frustration with AI labs into a public argument about enterprise control. Palantir released a white paper, “Institutional Sovereignty in the Age of AI,” laying out steps companies and governments can take to protect themselves from OpenAI, Anthropic, and other foundation-model providers. The article links that paper to Karp's CNBC appearance, where he said “something has gone completely wrong” in the relationship between AI labs and customers and argued that enterprises are paying for tokens that create little value.The killer detail is the value-capture question. Higgins writes that Karp's critique has resonated because AI labs may gain power and insight from customer data, workflows, and decision-making, even when enterprise policies say customer data are not used for training. David Sacks amplified the concern by arguing that Anthropic is moving from the model layer into vertical applications such as science, security, legal, and coding, raising the fear that model providers will watch where value is being created and then move into those markets directly.The pull is that Karp is not alone, even if his style is unusually combative. Higgins notes that Satya Nadella has also warned that companies need to retain the learnings created when they use AI models, while Mark Zuckerberg has framed Meta's new model release partly around lower-cost frontier intelligence. The article presents Karp's campaign as one sign that established technology companies and large enterprises are trying to define where they fit when AI labs become central infrastructure, application competitors, and potential IPO giants at the same time.Read more: The Wall Street JournalThe AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft OfficeAlex Wilhelm | Cautious Optimism | July 11, 2026Alex Wilhelm argues that one of the week's quieter AI questions is whether the productivity market that Microsoft successfully moved into subscription software is now being attacked by agentic tools. The piece begins with the infrastructure backdrop: SK Hynix raised $26.5 billion in a U.S. listing while building U.S. HBM and advanced-packaging capacity, and memory, chip, and foundry companies are now priced for sustained AI demand.Wilhelm then says the AI conversation has shifted quickly from raw capability to cost per task. He cites new model releases and vendor language emphasizing cheaper agentic and coding models, faster performance, and lower dollars per task. That matters because lower costs make it more plausible for AI systems to take on routine knowledge work at scale rather than remain a premium coding assistant market.The core of the article is Microsoft Office. Wilhelm notes that Microsoft turned Office from a one-time purchase into Microsoft 365, a large recurring revenue business with tens of millions of subscribers and a major productivity segment. Now, he says, late-stage unicorns and AI labs are pushing into the same territory: Anthropic's Cowork was reportedly used mostly outside software development, OpenAI merged ChatGPT and Codex into a tool for creating sheets, slides, docs, web apps, and long-running work, and other companies are building agentic coworkers that connect business data to documents, workflows, schedules, alerts, and apps.The article's caveat is that Microsoft has survived major platform shifts before. The argument is not that Office disappears quickly, but that the definition of office software is broadening from documents and spreadsheets into AI systems that can create, monitor, and act across workplace data.Read moreWhat Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?Author: Nilesh Barla Published: July 11, 2026Nilesh Barla argues that “loop engineering” is becoming a distinct discipline because production AI agents now fail less at single prompts than at runtime: when to stop, what state to preserve, and how to recover after a bad step. Prompt engineering shapes one model call, and context engineering shapes what the model sees, but loop engineering shapes what a sequence of calls actually does.The killer detail is the three-primitives frame. Barla says a real agent loop needs halt conditions, state carryover, and recovery paths, then maps teams across five maturity levels. At the lowest level, an agent is just a model call in a for-loop with a step cap and raw history; by the higher levels, the system has structured state, explicit planning, replay, evaluation, and self-repair.The pull is organizational. If agents are becoming production systems rather than demos, someone has to own the runtime itself. The loop engineer is the role Barla gives to the person responsible for making long-running agent work dependable.Read more: Adaline LabsThe Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just BeginningEmma Roth | The Verge | July 12, 2026Emma Roth argues that community resistance to data centers has moved from an early warning sign into a national political fight as AI facilities grow larger, more power-hungry, and more visible to nearby residents. The article starts with Apple's failed 2015 plan for a $1 billion data center in Athenry, Ireland, where a small group of residents challenged the project over noise, light pollution, flooding, traffic, and wildlife effects until Apple abandoned it in 2018.The current data-center buildout is presented as much larger and more contentious. Roth writes that residents now cite rising energy costs, water quality, noise, light pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, while the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects commercial energy demand to surpass residential demand this year because of AI data centers and Goldman Sachs expects data-center power demand to double by 2027.The central evidence comes from Data Center Watch, which says protesters blocked or delayed at least 75 U.S. projects worth $130 billion from January to March, with active opposition groups more than doubling from 396 at the end of 2025 to 833 by the end of the first quarter of 2026. Roth also cites QTS abandoning a $12 billion Wisconsin campus, Delaware City regulators blocking a 580-acre project under the Coastal Zone Act, opposition stopping a QTS project in Prince William County, and pressure that pushed Kevin O'Leary to downsize the proposed 40,000-acre Project Stratos in Utah.The policy section describes a split between federal acceleration and local resistance. President Trump has treated data centers as part of the AI race with China and fast-tracked construction, while some Republican candidates are distancing themselves from that position ahead of midterms. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have proposed a moratorium until price and environmental protections exist, bipartisan lawmakers are backing ratepayer-protection measures, and states including Florida, Idaho, and Washington have passed rules on cost shifting, water use, and tax breaks. Roth's caveat is that the policy patchwork is still incomplete, leaving many communities to fight project by project.Read more6 months to live for open modelsAuthor: Nathan Lambert Published: July 12, 2026Nathan Lambert argues that open-weight AI models are facing their most serious policy test so far because U.S. officials are beginning to discuss concrete controls rather than abstract safety concerns. He says reported White House conversations about a new executive order may initially target Chinese-origin models and government use, but could create a broader review habit for frontier open models. His forecast is that a model above the capability range of GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, or GLM-5.2 could trigger a ban or indefinite delay within six months.The post separates two policy fights that are becoming intertwined: distillation and frontier capability. Lambert says the distillation campaign against Chinese models has become a form of regulatory capture because Anthropic and other closed-model companies would gain economically if Chinese open models were banned. He does not dismiss IP protection, but argues that if a closed model's capabilities are dangerous enough to justify restricting open models, the lab also has to explain why those capabilities are exposed through a queryable API. He cites unauthorized access to Anthropic's Mythos private beta as evidence that APIs are not automatically secure.The broader claim is that a unilateral U.S. ban would hurt positive actors more than bad actors if comparable open models remain available elsewhere. Lambert says the only durable ceiling would require global agreement, which does not exist, and that open models can improve safety by allowing broad inspection, adaptation, and understanding. His proposed near-term off-ramps are a strong U.S. open model release from companies such as Microsoft, Meta, or Reflection, and a broader coalition of open-source beneficiaries lobbying for safe rollout rather than prohibition.Read more: SourceAmericans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' RichesAuthor: Scott Stanford Published: July 14, 2026Scott Stanford argues that proposals to give the government a stake in AI companies miss the point unless ordinary citizens directly receive and control the upside. Sam Altman has discussed giving up equity in OpenAI, Washington already owns a stake in Intel, Nvidia is sharing China chip revenue, and Bernie Sanders wants large AI labs to contribute half their stock to a sovereign wealth fund. Stanford says those ideas all park value with the state, not with people.The killer detail is New Carlisle, Indiana, where AWS's Project Rainier is turning cornfields into one of the world's largest AI superclusters. The project is planned to run up to a million chips, draw more than two gigawatts of power, and represents an investment that has grown from $11 billion to $13.8 billion. Stanford uses that local transformation to argue that AI's public bargain should be visible at the household level.The pull is design. A citizen AI dividend would have to specify who earns a stake, how they hold it, and when they see cash. Without that mechanism, the AI wealth debate remains a fight over government balance sheets rather than public ownership.Read more: SourceWho Gets to Define the Frontier?Author: Mark Daley Published: July 14, 2026Mark Daley argues that Demis Hassabis is right to call for a serious institution to verify frontier AI systems, but that the power to test models is also the power to govern them. Hassabis's proposed Frontier AI Standards Body would get privileged pre-release access to advanced models, testing compute, held-out evaluations, support from national labs and security agencies, third-party auditors, and eventually authority to block models from the American market or coordinate a slowdown.The killer detail is Daley's constitutional objection. He says the proposal sometimes looks like a scientific lab, a standards body, an industry regulator, a licensing authority, and an emergency security council at once. Combining those roles because each requires technical expertise would be like putting the central bank, auditor-general, and Supreme Court in one building and calling it efficient.The pull is standard-setting. Daley's concern is not that verification is unnecessary, but that whoever writes the tests, decides what passes, adjudicates disputes, and grants market access may end up defining the frontier itself.Read more: SourceGPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for RobustnessOpenAI | OpenAI | July 15, 2026OpenAI describes GPT-Red as an internal automated red-teaming model trained to find prompt-injection vulnerabilities at a scale human red teams cannot match. The post says AI systems increasingly encounter third-party data through browsers, connected apps, local files, and tools, creating opportunities for malicious instructions hidden in emails, webpages, tool responses, or code repositories. Human red-teaming remains part of OpenAI's safety process, but the company says it is time-intensive and cannot generate enough diverse adversarial examples for model training.The system is trained through self-play reinforcement learning, with GPT-Red rewarded for eliciting valid failures and defender models rewarded for resisting attacks while still completing their tasks. OpenAI says the training environments specify threat models across settings such as local files, webpage banners, email bodies, and tool outputs. The model is kept separate from deployed production models because it is intentionally trained with malicious capabilities.OpenAI reports that GPT-Red generalized beyond its training set, including an internal replication of the indirect prompt-injection arena from Dziemian et al. (2025), where it found successful attacks in 84% of scenarios compared with 13% for human red-teamers. The post also says GPT-Red transferred attacks from simulation to a live autonomous vending-machine agent, causing price changes and order cancellations, and outperformed a prompted GPT-5.5 baseline against a Codex CLI agent on held-out data-exfiltration tasks.The article's main robustness claim is that OpenAI has used GPT-Red and predecessor models in training since GPT-5.3, with later GPT releases becoming more resistant to prompt injections. It says GPT-5.6 Sol has six times fewer failures on OpenAI's hardest direct prompt-injection benchmark than the best production model from four months earlier, that a “Fake Chain-of-Thought” attack class fell from more than 95% success against GPT-5.1 to below 10% against GPT-5.6 Sol, and that GPT-5.6 Sol fails on only 0.05% of GPT-Red's direct prompt injections. OpenAI says general capabilities and targeted over-refusal evaluations were not harmed, and says a preprint with more details will follow.Read moreAnthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just modelsRebecca Bellan | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Rebecca Bellan reports that Ode with Anthropic is the $1.5 billion AI implementation company launched by Anthropic with Blackstone, Hellman & Friedman, Goldman Sachs, and other backers. The article says the venture reflects a growing belief among frontier AI labs that enterprise adoption requires more than better models: customers need engineers who can embed inside businesses and turn AI into working systems.Ode was originally conceived by Blackstone after it used both large consulting firms and smaller AI services boutiques across its portfolio companies. TechCrunch reports that Fractional AI, an AI engineering services startup, stood out and was acquired by the joint venture shortly after the venture was announced. Fractional now forms the foundation of Ode, which has 100 engineers and works closely with Anthropic's applied AI team to identify where the technology can affect specific businesses.Ode CEO Chris Taylor tells TechCrunch that the company could someday become a trillion-dollar business if it scales without losing quality. He says an ideal customer is one whose CEO treats the AI project as a top one or two priority, whether it is a major product feature or the reworking of a core business process. Ode will operate under a “Claude-first” principle, using Anthropic technology whenever possible, but the article says it can use rival AI products when needed.The article's central implementation argument comes from Ode chief technologist Eddie Siegel, who says model selection matters but is not where most of the engineering effort goes. He compares it to the choice of programming language in software: one ingredient in a system that still has to be engineered. Bellan writes that Ode's challenge is hiring and training enough elite generalist engineers, many of them former founders, while competing with OpenAI's The Deployment Company and consulting giants that have built their own forward-deployed engineering teams.Read moreVint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internetTim Fernholz | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Tim Fernholz reports that Vint Cerf, after leaving Google, is advising Innovation Labs on an open architecture for identifying AI agents online. Innovation Labs is a subsidiary of Identity Digital, a DNS registry company, and its proposal is to use domain-name infrastructure as part of a system for agent identity, accountability, and auditability. The premise is that agents will need a way to identify themselves if they move beyond proprietary systems and begin interacting across the open internet.The concrete proposal is DNSid, a registry that links an AI agent to an existing internet domain and uses cryptographic proofs to log its registration over time. Innovation Labs says it is trialing the standard with unnamed hyperscalers and identity companies. Cerf frames the problem around authority and accountability: what authority an agent has, where that authority came from, who is accountable for the agent's behavior, how its identity is established, and why anyone should trust it.The article's caveat is that standards are still emerging and agents are more active than static domains. Cerf says the period may be both fascinating and exasperating because the functionality is powerful and interoperability is unresolved. He compares the adoption problem to TCP/IP: competing systems may not work together until users push for functional interoperation. He also says an agentic economy is not inevitable, but that people will try to build it because delegating work to agents will be easier.Read more: TechCrunchxai-org/grok-build, now open sourceAuthor: Simon Willison Published: July 15, 2026Simon Willison argues that xAI's decision to open-source Grok Build is best understood as a trust repair move after a severe privacy failure. The CLI had triggered backlash when users realized that running it in a directory could upload the entire directory to xAI's Google Cloud buckets, including one user's reported SSH keys, password manager database, documents, photos, and videos. xAI disabled the feature, said previously retained coding data would be deleted, and released the code under Apache 2.0.The killer detail is what the codebase reveals. Willison counts 844,530 lines of Rust, only about 3% of which appears vendored, and finds remnants of the upload system still present but disabled: gcs.rs contains Google Cloud upload code, while upload_session_state() now returns a hard-coded session_state_upload_unavailable error. He also notes copied or ported tool implementations from Codex and OpenCode, prompt files, and a terminal Mermaid renderer.The pull is that terminal coding agents are becoming large, intricate software systems in their own right. The privacy failure mattered because these tools operate inside the directories where developers keep their most sensitive work; the open-source release matters because trust now depends on inspecting what an agent can see, send, and do.Read more: SourceThe Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?Author: Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric Published: July 16, 2026Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric argue that Bun's AI-assisted rewrite from Zig to Rust is a practical sign of how software engineering changes when models can take on large, bounded migrations with clear feedback loops. The piece does not treat the rewrite as magic: Jarred Sumner first spent hours turning design judgment into a detailed porting guide, then used adversarial review, parallel agents, compiler errors, and tests to force the work toward correctness.The killer detail is the scale. Bun had 535,496 lines of Zig, 1,448 files, and 22 million monthly downloads, making a conventional rewrite a year-long freeze the team could not justify. Using Fable, Sumner split the work across 64 agents, produced about 6,500 commits, and got the migration done in 11 days at an estimated API cost of $165,000.The pull is economic, not theatrical. If a one- or two-year migration can become an 11-day project, AI coding is not just faster autocomplete; it changes which technical debts are worth paying down.Read more: SourceOrphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligenceAuthor: Andrew Maynard Published: July 16, 2026Andrew Maynard argues that frontier AI safety frameworks are creating “orphan risks”: harms that companies can see, but do not formally own because they are hard to quantify, do not fit catastrophic-risk thresholds, or fall outside audit-friendly compliance machinery. His target is not existing frontier safety work, but the narrowing effect that happens when private companies decide which risks count as governable.The killer detail is Maynard's contrast between measurable model dangers and threats to value. He points to Meta's three-day Galactica collapse, OpenAI's 2023 board crisis, safety-team departures, and wellbeing litigation as examples of risks that damaged trust, culture, legitimacy, or users without fitting cleanly into conventional model-risk categories. The proposed fix is an orphan-risk register: a public record of risks a company considered and chose not to manage, with reasons.The pull is accountability. Frontier developers' internal scoping choices have become a de facto layer of public governance, so the question is no longer only which risks they manage, but which risks they quietly leave outside the frame.Read more: SourceThe Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data CenterLatent.Space with Andy Beam and Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli | Latent.Space | July 16, 2026Latent.Space interviews Lila Sciences CTO Andy Beam and chief science officer for physical sciences Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli about the company's attempt to build an AI-run science factory. The post describes Lila's thesis as treating the lab itself as an “infinite token generator”: if internet data drove the first era of AI scaling, experimentally verified scientific data may be the next scarce training source. Lila is trying to produce that data with robotics, lab instruments, orchestration software, and AI models wired into the wet lab.The central analogy is the lab as data center. Instruments are nodes on a graph, a magnetically levitating transport layer moves materials between them, and experiment scheduling looks like a compute queue. Beam says Lila is not simply an automation company, because the point is not just throughput; it is flexibility, generalization, and experiment capture. The post says Lila has built more than 10 trillion experimentally validated “scientific reasoning tokens,” not internet text or biological sequences.The interview ranges across biology, chemistry, drug discovery, materials science, and the limits of automation. It notes that Lila rebuilt one gas-sorption measurement to run roughly 2,500 times faster, claims its general models can transfer priors from small-molecule chemistry to metal-organic frameworks for carbon capture, and describes model-suggested platinum-group-free electrocatalysts that moved from looking boring or wrong to becoming strong performers. The caveats are physical: experiments have runtimes, biology cannot always be accelerated, chains of thought can be unreliable narrators, and reward hacking becomes more dangerous when a model controls a real lab.Read more: Latent.SpaceWhy AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”Kate Park | TechCrunch | July 16, 2026Kate Park interviews AMI Labs CEO Alexandre LeBrun about why Yann LeCun's world-model startup avoids the language of “AGI” and “superintelligence.” LeBrun says the terms are not useful because they lack stable definitions: “We never used the word AGI. And I just noticed that nobody is using it anymore; they switched to superintelligence.” His argument is that the practical frontier is not a label, but whether AI systems can understand and predict real-world states.The article explains the world-model thesis by contrasting language prediction with physical-state prediction. A large language model predicts the next word; a world model predicts the next state, such as what happens when a glass tips over. LeBrun says LLMs remain complementary and efficient for language, but the physical world is where current AI is weak. Robotics is the clearest case: hardware has advanced quickly, but robots are still brittle outside controlled routines because they lack context and situational understanding.AMI is still pre-product, but TechCrunch reports that LeBrun was in Seoul looking for industrial partners, researchers, and global companies. He says world models cannot be built entirely inside a lab because they need access to real environments. That is why South Korea appeals to AMI: robotics, semiconductors, manufacturing, and fast adoption create the kind of hardware-heavy context that software-only AI has barely touched.Read more: TechCrunchKimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier IntelligenceKimi | Kimi | July 16, 2026Kimi introduces Kimi K3 as an open 3T-class frontier model aimed at coding, knowledge work, reasoning, multimodality, and long-context agentic use. The source describes the model as a 2.8T-parameter system built on Kimi Delta Attention and Attention Residuals, with native multimodality and a 1M-token context window. It says Moonshot AI plans to release model weights by July 27.The post presents K3 through benchmark and use-case sections rather than as a general product announcement. It reports results across coding, productivity, agentic, and multimodal evaluations, including DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench 2.1, Program Bench, SWE Marathon, FrontierSWE, PostTrain Bench, OfficeQA Pro, SpreadsheetBench 2, MCP Atlas, AutomationBench, BrowseComp, GDPval-AA v2, AA-Briefcase, MMMU-Pro, MathVision, BabyVision, OmniDocBench, and PerceptionBench. The source says all reported K3 results use maximum reasoning effort with temperature and top-p set to 1.0, and that different benchmark comparisons use KimiCode, Claude Code, or Codex harnesses depending on the test.Kimi's caveats are unusually concrete. The limitations section says K3 was trained in preserved thinking-history mode, so quality may become unstable if an agent harness does not pass historical thinking content correctly or if an ongoing session switches to K3 midstream. It also says K3's emphasis on long-horizon tasks can make it excessively proactive when it encounters minor issues or ambiguous intent, and recommends imposing explicit behavioral constraints for applications that require strict boundaries. The post adds that K3 remains behind Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in user experience despite being competitive overall.Read moreVenture CapitalThree Years InAuthor: Tomasz Tunguz Published: July 10, 2026Tomasz Tunguz marks Theory Ventures' third anniversary by arguing that AI's central market effect is time compression. In his telling, model release cycles, company revenue milestones, enterprise adoption, and venture categories have all accelerated. Seed, Series A, and Series B still exist as financing labels, but they no longer cleanly describe company maturity when some seed rounds are larger than IPOs and the best AI companies can mature much earlier than prior software companies.The killer detail is the shift from models to inference. Tunguz argues that inference has become the dominant AI market because workloads and buyer preferences are fragmenting: video, batch, local, agentic, and real-time tasks each create different infrastructure needs. He compares this to databases splitting into OLTP, OLAP, vector, and streaming categories, with AI pushing the same specialization into inference infrastructure.The pull is that Theory sees the AI-native venture firm as part of the same pattern. The firm says it has analyzed twice as many investment opportunities with three investors working alongside a nine-person intelligence organization, using agents and research systems to map markets, source companies, and support diligence. The piece is both a market map and a statement about how venture itself is being rebuilt by the technology it funds.Read more: LinkedInVenture Has Rarely Looked More BifurcatedAuthor: Beezer Clarkson Published: July 14, 2026Beezer Clarkson points to PitchBook's Q2 report as evidence that the U.S. venture market has split into two very different realities. AI now accounts for more than 60 percent of all U.S. venture deal value, meaning the headline market can look active and well-funded even while much of the non-AI market is dealing with a much colder liquidity and fundraising environment.The thread uses that split as the setup for Clarkson's latest Origins episode with Alec Litowitz, founder of Magnetar and QStar Capital and one of Citadel's original founding partners. Clarkson says markets like this are periods of genuine uncertainty, not merely ordinary risk, which is why Litowitz's Adaptability Quotient framework is relevant.The embedded clip makes the liquidity point concrete. Litowitz says DPI is “the resolution of uncertainty” because it converts an uncertain investment into actual cash returned to LPs. In his framing, a realized dollar is a real mark, while TVPI remains uncertain until it is realized.The killer detail is the distinction between pricing risk and resolving uncertainty. Litowitz's perspective matters because QStar is a SpaceX investor and Clarkson says the conversation happened just before one of venture's most consequential IPOs. The episode's stated questions are why venture remains a way to gain exposure to innovation, how AI is changing what is investable, why liquidity is ultimately a function of time, and why uncertainty requires a different decision framework from risk.Read more: XThe Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active NowAuthor: Ilya Strebulaev Published: July 10, 2026Ilya Strebulaev ranks angels, angel groups, accelerators, and incubators by lifetime U.S. unicorn investments, counting checks written before a company reached unicorn status. The top of the combined list is dominated by organizations: Y Combinator leads with 113 unicorn investments, followed by Plug and Play at 52 and 500 Global at 41. Sand Hill Angels is the highest-ranked angel group at 31.The killer detail is how quickly the list changes below the biggest accelerators. Strebulaev says 271 of the 304 investors in the Top 200 are individuals, or 89%. In the top 100, individuals are 91%. That makes the market underneath the large accelerator counts look much more personal: mostly operators and individual angels writing early checks from their own networks.The pull is the ranking's own caveat. Strebulaev writes that every lifetime leaderboard has a blind spot because many of the unicorns behind those totals were founded a decade or more ago, and some angels have since moved into formal funds, slowed down, or stopped investing. His post therefore separates lifetime performance from recent cohorts, including companies founded in 2015 or later and 2020 or later. For founders or allocators making current decisions, that distinction matters: a career record and a current record are not the same measure.Read more: Ilya StrebulaevAre Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?Author: Contrary Published: July 16, 2026Contrary argues that prediction markets' current boom depends on whether platforms can prove they are more than regulated gambling with exchange-style branding. Kalshi and Polymarket have reached mass cultural, investor, and regulatory attention, but the article says the underlying idea is old: academic markets, corporate forecasting tools, Intrade, PredictIt, and other predecessors all struggled with the same linked problems of liquidity, legality, and user appeal.The killer detail is the comparison with sportsbooks. Prediction markets present themselves as peer-to-peer, transparent, and non-house-based, but sports contracts reportedly account for more than 90 percent of Kalshi trading, and the article says the platforms keep a much thinner slice of volume than sportsbooks. A market can therefore show sports-betting-scale handle while generating far less revenue.The pull is that the product's hardest problem may be distribution of wins. If a small group of sharp traders captures most profits while casual users lose interest, prediction markets may become valuable data feeds and professional tools before they become durable consumer networks.Read more: SourceRegulationExclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College CampusesAuthor: Adrian Carrasquillo Published: July 11, 2026Adrian Carrasquillo reports that college campuses are becoming a new front in the fight over immigration enforcement because automatic license plate readers can turn ordinary campus security infrastructure into searchable location data. His thesis is that Flock Safety's camera network, even without direct ICE or DHS contracts, can feed deportation enforcement through local police partnerships and data-sharing practices.The killer detail is the campaign target. The Emergency Campaign to Support Higher Education, working with Schools Drop ICE, is focusing on 75 colleges and universities publicly identified as having Flock contracts. Flock says it has no ICE or DHS contracts, but activists argue the risk comes through local agencies that coordinate with federal authorities and run searches on their behalf.The pull is broader than immigration. Carrasquillo notes that license plate readers have already been abused by officers for stalking, and that Flock's AI search features can identify more than plates, including bumper stickers. A campus safety tool can become a political surveillance system when the data layer is searchable.Read more: The BulwarkThe Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.Author: Todd Phillips Published: July 12, 2026Todd Phillips argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter damaged independent agencies by ending for-cause removal protections, but did not leave Congress powerless. The ruling weakens the old model in which commissioners at bodies such as the FTC, NLRB, CPSC, SEC, and CFTC could be insulated from dismissal over policy disagreements. Phillips says the next fight is whether presidents can turn nominally bipartisan commissions into one-party instruments.The killer detail is the procedural fix: quorum rules. Phillips proposes that Congress require bipartisan slates of commissioners to be seated before independent agencies can act. A president
This week's video transcript summary is here. You can click on any bulleted section to see the actual transcript. Thanks to Granola for its software.EditorialIntelligence: Who Owns it?This week the word “AI” feels too small.AI is a technology. Intelligence is its product. And if intelligence is the product, the question is no longer just: Which model is best? Who has the cheapest tokens? Who owns the weights? Who controls the data center? Those are important questions, but they are lower in the stack.The bigger question is simpler and more political:Who owns intelligence?That sounds abstract until you make it concrete. Intelligence is becoming something companies can capture, package, serve, meter, route, improve, and sell.It can write code, answer questions, design molecules, automate offices, run agents, draft legal work, advise scientists, serve consumers, and reshape workflows. It is not merely software. It is a general-purpose capability. And all humans could benefit from more of it.General-purpose capabilities have a habit of becoming public questions. But the default answer, that public good is best delivered by government, is the wrong answer in this context.The Product Is IntelligenceWe should stop talking about AI as a feature and start talking about intelligence as the universal thing that is delivered as an input to the world.Water is an input. Electricity is an input. Literacy is an input. Connectivity is an input. Once a society depends on them, access stops being optional. Nobody needs government to build every well, power plant, school, or network. But everybody understands that a civilization cannot be organized around less than universal and reliable access to foundational inputs.Intelligence is reaching that level of importance now that we all know it is real.Government should not own it, operate it, or develop it. Quite the opposite. Companies are the right actors to build fast, compete hard, improve models, serve customers, and discover the real use cases. Self-interest is a useful framing here. Markets are good at finding demand, reducing costs, and turning invention into services people actually use.Companies are the right operators, developers, and owners. But that does not settle the real question of who owns the benefits. That is an economic question.If intelligence becomes metered infrastructure, what happens to the value it creates?The Ownership StackThis week's articles keep circling the same issue from different directions but in the nature of ‘circling' never quite nail it.Jamin Ball's “Own Your Weights” starts with the enterprise version of the question. Owning a model file is not enough. The durable asset is the loop: the data flywheel, the evaluations, the reinforcement system, the workflow learning, and the operating context that lets capability compound.Benedict Evans' “Ways to Think About Token Pricing” adds the market layer. Tokens may become essential, abundant, and cheap, like mobile data. But being essential does not guarantee that the token layer captures the value. The money may move up the stack to whoever owns the workflow, the customer, the distribution, or the application.Alex Karp's fight with the labs, reported in “Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI”, is the same argument in sharper enterprise language. Companies are afraid that model providers will not just sell intelligence, but learn from customer workflows and then move into the markets where those workflows create value. The “All-in” group are echoing Karp's view.And “What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?” names the new contested terrain. The loop is where intelligence meets the world. Whoever owns the loop owns the learning. Whoever owns the learning owns the compounding asset.That is why “who owns intelligence?” is not a slogan. It is the question under the model layer, the application layer, the enterprise layer, and the economic layer.Because intelligence is the product, the tools creating it are fragmented and competitive. So there is no logic in trying to discuss this at the level of a single company or set of tools and models.The Old Promise Was That Commerce Would Tame PowerThe essays this week give the historical backdrop.Deirdre McCloskey, in “What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution”, argues that modern growth came not simply from capital accumulation, but from a change in permission: ordinary people were allowed to innovate, trade, build, and be honored for it.That matters because intelligence could be another expansion of permission. It could make more people capable of building, learning, creating, coding, researching, translating, selling, and coordinating. It could lower the cost of competence.But only if access is broad.Paul Krugman's “AI in an Age of Oligarchy” warns that the same technology lands differently in different political economies. A new general-purpose technology entering a broad, open, upwardly mobile society is one thing. The same technology entering a concentrated economy, with extreme wealth and weak counterweights, is another.Tim O'Reilly's Economist essay, “Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate”, makes the governance point more directly. The old liberal hope was that commerce would tame arbitrary power. Markets, boards, courts, shareholders, disclosure, and competition would discipline the prince.But what if the prince uses markets to escape discipline?Henry Farrell's “political economy of billionaire derangement” pushes the same point. Founder culture, monopoly ambition, peer rivalry, weak correction mechanisms, and vast private control can amplify appetites rather than restrain them.The danger with intelligence is not that companies build it. They should. Companies build it, meter it, use public tolerance and public infrastructure to scale it, learn from everyone who uses it. All of those things are inevitable and healthy. Market forces will sort out winners from losers. The real danger is that the winners treat all of the surplus produced as purely private.Metered Intelligence Creates SurplusIf metering is not the problem, what is?The problem is pretending that metered intelligence creates value only for the metering entity. Metering water is only tolerated as a public good. If the public were blackmailed by a private water company with the threat of no water we would all rebel.Once we understand that the product of AI is intelligence we can see that every time intelligence is used, there is the immediate transaction: the user pays, the provider serves.But there is also system value. Usage creates signals. Workflows reveal patterns. Prompts, corrections, failures, preferences, integrations, edge cases, and business processes all help define where intelligence is useful and how it should improve. Intelligence breeds intelligence.Even when customer data is contractually protected, the market learns. The platform learns where demand is. The product team learns which workflows matter. The ecosystem learns which jobs are vulnerable, which tasks are automatable, and which parts of the economy can be reorganized around machine intelligence.So the surplus is not born in a vacuum.It rests on public science, public education, public data exhaust, public law, public infrastructure, public energy systems, public tolerance for data centers, and billions of human interactions. It is served by companies, but it is not made only by companies.This is why “Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches” belongs at the center of this week's issue. The detail can be debated. The principle is harder to dismiss. If intelligence becomes a new foundational resource, then some part of the wealth it creates should flow back to the people whose society makes it possible. Intelligence did not suddenly appear. AI is built on the entire history of human intelligence. It benefits from it and at the same time evolves it.Not Nationalization. A Human Wealth Fund.If intelligence belongs to everybody, some conclude that government ownership of intelligence is the right outcome.Governments are not well suited to build, operate, or improve intelligence. They will move too slowly, regulate too early, politicize the wrong things, and confuse economic participation with operational control.Andrew McAfee's “Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter” is useful here. His objection is not that the technology is unimportant. It is that steering too hard before we understand the shape of the change can become its own failure mode. Marc Andreessen's satire of AI regulation is less policy than temperament, but it captures a real Silicon Valley fear: that regulation can become permission, capture, and incumbency before it becomes wisdom.That fear should be taken seriously.But it does not answer the economic question. It answers only the operational one.How can the economic benefits of intelligence be distributed? The better answer is a sovereign human wealth fund.Call it a sovereign wealth fund if you must, but the phrase is too national. Intelligence will not respect borders. The leading companies are global. The models, chips, data centers, agents, platforms, and workflows will be transnational from the beginning. If the value created by intelligence is global, then the mechanism for sharing some of that value should begin with the companies global enough to capture it. The nice thing about xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic is that they are supranational.These companies own and operate intelligence. Let them compete. Let them profit. Let them keep the incentives that make the system improve. But if intelligence is the new water, the wealth it creates cannot belong only to the companies that meter it. And they, themselves, have the power to fix it, even more than governments.Access will become a Human Right; Ownership Is the Economic DesignThis is where human rights come in. There is no right to access an AI model, yet. But there will soon be a need to change that.Not as a claim that every person is entitled to every frontier model at every moment for free. That is not serious. Capacity has costs. Models have costs. Inference has costs. Data centers have costs. Although those costs will decline over time, possibly quite quickly as self-learning models address costs.The claim is more basic: in a world where intelligence becomes a primary input into education, work, health, science, citizenship, creativity, and economic agency, baseline access to intelligence starts to look like a civic requirement.That could mean public access layers. It could mean education credits. It could mean open models. It could mean AI dividends. It could mean public-interest compute. It could mean taxes on rents. It could mean a company-initiated human wealth fund that returns some of the upside to society without handing the operating system to the state. The latter could couple wealth growth with universal distribution of ownership.The exact mechanism matters. But the distinction matters more.Government should not own intelligence. It should be universally available. And people should have a claim on the wealth intelligence creates.The Frontier Is Also PhysicalThe abstraction is not weightless.“The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning”, “New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium”, Reuters on pollution from Musk's xAI power project, and DataGravity's “Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?” all say the same thing from the ground up.Intelligence uses land. It uses power. It uses water. It uses chips. It uses grid capacity. It uses neighborhoods. It uses public patience.That makes the value question unavoidable. A society can accept the buildout if the buildout is legible as shared progress. It will resist it if the costs are local, the profits are private, and the benefits feel enclosed.Who Owns the “Loop”?The week ends where it began.“Anthropic and Blackstone” are betting that implementation is the next trillion-dollar business. “Vint Cerf” is working on identity for agents on the open internet. “GPT-Red” points toward systems that improve their own robustness. “Kimi K3” adds another open frontier model to the global mix.The model race continues. The deployment race is accelerating. The governance race is behind.My view is this:The central product of this era is intelligence. Companies have figured out how to capture it, package it, serve it, and meter it. That is good. It should stay in the hands of builders who have the incentive to make it better.But intelligence is too foundational to become just another private toll booth. A significant part of it will turn out to be free to users.As intelligence becomes a general-purpose resource, then access to it becomes a human-capability question, and the surplus from it becomes an economic-justice question. Not because government should run it. Because government should not run it. The operating layer belongs with companies. The wealth question belongs with everyone. But companies are best placed to turn that into a process of distribution.The question is not whether companies should build intelligence. They should.The question is whether humanity gets a stake in the wealth created by the thing that may soon become its most important shared input.Contents* Essays* Deirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution* AI in an Age of Oligarchy* Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate* Murky Mirror: Truth and Consequences* The political economy of billionaire derangement* Is there any “oligarchy” to fight?* AI* Nearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. Threats* Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter* Own Your Weights* Ways to Think About Token Pricing* Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI* The AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft Office* What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?* The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning* 6 months to live for open models* Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches* Who Gets to Define the Frontier?* GPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for Robustness* Anthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just models* Vint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internet* xai-org/grok-build, now open source* The Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?* Orphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligence* The Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data Center* Why AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”* Kimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier Intelligence* Venture Capital* Three Years In* Venture Has Rarely Looked More Bifurcated* The Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active Now* Are Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?* Regulation* Exclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College Campuses* The Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.* India's crackdown on a new WhatsApp feature risks setting a global precedent* Let's build a children's public internet* Computer cops* Google is better at playing the AI regulations game* Infrastructure* Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?* New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium* Pollution from Musk's unpermitted xAI power project hits hardest in Black communities* Interview of the Week* The End of the End of Geography* Startup of the Week* Radical AI's Joseph Krause: The Scientist Building The “Waymo” Lab For New Materials* Post of the Week* Marc Andreessen on AI RegulationEssaysDeirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial RevolutionYascha Mounk and Deirdre McCloskey | Persuasion | July 11, 2026Yascha Mounk interviews Deirdre McCloskey about her argument that the modern world's economic liftoff came less from capital accumulation than from a change in ideas. McCloskey says both left and right versions of the conventional story rely too heavily on investment: the left stresses exploitation and surplus value, while the right stresses virtuous saving by capitalists. Her objection is historical and economic. Human beings had always invested, from irrigation works and Roman roads to seed grain, and simple accumulation quickly runs into diminishing returns.McCloskey's alternative is that northwestern Europe, first Holland, then Britain and Scotland, and then the North American colonies, developed a liberal ideology that changed who was allowed to innovate and be honored for it. The conversation links that shift to the erosion of inherited hierarchy, the spread of dignity for ordinary commercial life, and a moral vocabulary in which liberalism is not merely procedural but connected to virtues and values. The point is not that machines, coal, trade, and institutions did not matter, but that they do not explain the scale and timing of modern enrichment without a cultural permission structure for innovation.The interview also turns to the contemporary defense of liberalism. Mounk frames the series around the worry that liberalism is often treated as too thin to command allegiance, while its opponents speak more directly to moral passions. McCloskey's case is that liberal societies became rich because they dignified experimentation and ordinary enterprise, and that liberals need to recover the moral language behind that claim.Read moreAI in an Age of OligarchyPaul Krugman | Paul Krugman | July 12, 2026Paul Krugman frames AI as a major technological shock arriving inside an already unequal political economy. The post says AI's economic and social effects may take years to understand, but argues that the setting matters now: America has much greater wealth concentration and political inequality than it did in the 1950s and 1960s, when progressive taxation, stronger regulation, and more active antitrust might have contained some of the destructive effects of a new technology.Krugman's opening claim is that the same technology would likely have different consequences in a more level society. In today's United States, he writes, extreme wealth is both a cause and effect of policies that favor a small elite, including low effective taxes on capital and high incomes, weak enforcement of worker protections and antitrust, and cuts to programs that benefit ordinary Americans.The article is explicitly more about oligarchy than AI. Krugman says the paid sections document the rise of the “.0002%,” the economics and politics of extreme wealth, how oligarchy will shape AI's impact, and possible policy paths. His caveat is that AI itself may still produce a pushback against oligarchy, but absent that, he expects the pre-existing concentration of wealth and power to magnify AI's downsides.Read moreElon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hateAuthor: Tim O'Reilly Published: July 12, 2026Tim O'Reilly argues that Elon Musk is using the legal forms of shareholder capitalism to escape the restraints that shareholder capitalism was supposed to impose. The article begins with SpaceX's public-market structure: ordinary public investors get little meaningful governance power, Musk keeps roughly 85 percent of the votes through super-voting shares, buyers waive jury trials and class actions, the company qualifies as controlled, and removal of Musk depends on the share class he controls. In O'Reilly's framing, that is not ordinary founder control; it is a design for being answerable to no one, possibly beyond Musk's own lifetime.The killer detail is the article's turn through Albert Hirschman, Montesquieu, James Steuart, Adam Smith, and Keynes. Older defenses of commerce held that markets would tame princely passions because the self-interest of merchants was safer than arbitrary rule. O'Reilly says Musk reverses that hope. The market discipline that was supposed to cage the prince has become the lever by which the prince raises capital, removes feedback loops, and carries private power into politics, government, Mars, robots, AI, or whatever ambition comes next.The pull is the link to AI governance. O'Reilly says corporations are already a kind of artificial intelligence: narrow-input systems that act at a scale no individual human can match. Their partial controls include independent boards, shareholder votes, courts, disclosure, regulators, public pressure, and activism. If the leaders building frontier AI strip those alignment mechanisms out of their own companies, the governance of the company becomes a preview of the governance of the machine.Read more: The EconomistMurky Mirror: Truth and ConsequencesAuthor: Esther Dyson Published: July 14, 2026Esther Dyson argues that today's institutional crisis is better viewed through the 14th century than through recent political history. Using Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror as her frame, she compares a world of famine, plague, church schism, feudal predation, and purposeless war with a present in which institutions again feel brittle, incentives are badly aligned, and power is shifting into forms that are hard to govern.The killer detail is the historical analogy between land, corporations, and AI. Dyson moves from nobles who controlled serfs and territory, to the East India Company as a quasi-sovereign business, to today's AI systems and data centers as a possible new sector that crosses and weakens both nation-states and companies. The question is whether AI becomes a new kind of private land, owned by a new nobility, or an open prairie that many people can cultivate.The pull is human attention. Dyson says the central question is not what AI will do to people, but how people will react to it: whether they can value love, kindness, embodied attention, and artisanal human presence in a world of seductive artificial offerings.Read more: SourceThe political economy of billionaire derangementAuthor: Henry Farrell Published: July 15, 2026Henry Farrell argues that the visible political radicalization of some Silicon Valley billionaires is not a random personality quirk, but a product of the political economy that made them. Starting from Tyler Cowen's dismissal of “billionaire derangement syndrome” and Tim O'Reilly's warning that Elon Musk is using shareholder capitalism to escape shareholder restraint, Farrell flips the phrase: the question is why billionaires themselves can become deranged.The killer detail is Farrell's use of Peter Thiel as both theorist and example. Thiel's Stanford lectures described startups as monarchies and founders as figures vested with unusual power, while Silicon Valley culture rewarded eccentricity, monopoly ambition, and founder exceptionalism. Farrell says those ideas combined with dense founder-investor networks, peer rivalry, and weak correction mechanisms to amplify rather than discipline princely appetites.The pull is the ideological problem for classical liberals who once saw tech wealth as an ally of markets and freedom. Farrell says commerce did not tame the passions; in parts of Silicon Valley, the passions have begun to devour markets, institutions, and the liberal story that justified them.Read more: SourceIs there any “oligarchy” to fight?Matthew Yglesias | Slow Boring | July 16, 2026Matthew Yglesias argues that “oligarchy” is a rhetorically powerful but analytically loose way to describe American politics. The post begins from Bernie Sanders' “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, Amy Klobuchar's warning about a MAGA “broligarchy,” and the long afterlife of the Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page paper that was widely summarized as showing that only the rich matter in policy outcomes. Yglesias says the evidence supports a weaker claim: affluent people and business leaders have unusual access and influence, but that is not the same as rule by a small cabal.His main distinction is between inequality and oligarchy. The Gilens-Page measure treated the top 10 percent of households as “the wealthy,” and later critics found that rich and middle-class preferences usually align; in the cases where they differ, the rich win about 53 percent of the time. Yglesias also says business executives get special access partly because their decisions are materially important to communities, jobs, investment, and local tax bases, not only because of campaign donations.The post preserves Jerusalem Demsas' counterpoint from their podcast discussion: privileged donor and business access can still violate democratic equality even if the oligarchy label overstates the structure of power. Yglesias' narrower claim is that Democrats should be precise about what problem they are trying to solve, because donor influence can also push the party left on climate and cultural issues in ways that alienate many voters.Read more: Slow BoringAINearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. ThreatsAuthor: Ben Casselman Published: July 13, 2026Ben Casselman reports on “We Must Act Now,” a statement warning that artificial intelligence could transform the economy faster than any previous technology and that policymakers need to move faster to understand and respond. The statement says AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years, bringing risks such as large-scale job displacement as well as opportunities such as higher living standards. Nearly 200 people signed, including 15 Nobel laureates, the chief economists of OpenAI and Anthropic, Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla.The killer detail is who joined the warning. Casselman notes that the signatories include economists who have historically been skeptical of Silicon Valley's most dramatic AI job-loss forecasts, including Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, the MIT professors who won the 2024 Nobel in economics. Erik Brynjolfsson, who helped organize the statement, says there has been a notable change in the profession and that economists and policymakers are not ready for the “tsunami” he sees coming.The pull is the measurement problem. The statement does not offer a specific policy menu, but calls for economists, policymakers, and industry leaders to understand the economics of transformative AI and steer it toward complementing humans. Brynjolfsson says one high priority is better data on AI's spread and impact, because current measures tell conflicting stories about job losses and which workers are most exposed.Read more: The New York TimesWhy I Didn't Sign the AI Open LetterAuthor: Andrew McAfee Published: July 13, 2026Andrew McAfee explains why he did not sign “We Must Act Now,” the AI economy statement organized in part by his longtime collaborator Erik Brynjolfsson. McAfee agrees with the letter's starting point that AI is likely to become radically more powerful over the next decade and that it is a general-purpose technology. His objection is not to urgency or to studying AI's economic effects, but to the framing of risk, displacement, and institutional steering as the first move.The killer detail is McAfee's line edit. He says the original letter comes close, then “bounces off the crossbar” by calling for incentives, guardrails, and institutions to steer AI before we know enough about its actual impacts. He points to mixed current evidence: labor-market canaries, but also rising software job postings, low unemployment for younger workers, rising real median income, and claims that AI-adopting companies are adding workers faster than low-adopting peers. His worry is that the letter leans toward upstream governance and dirigisme when the evidence may call for capability building instead.The pull is his replacement statement. McAfee keeps the three-paragraph structure but changes the emphasis: AI is likely to become radically more powerful; like earlier world-changing technologies it will raise living standards while also bringing harms and shocks; and economists, policymakers, and technology leaders should build the capabilities to respond quickly and effectively. It is a concise version of the permissionless-innovation case inside the AI policy debate.Read more: The Geek WayOwn Your WeightsAuthor: Jamin Ball Published: July 10, 2026Jamin Ball argues that the enterprise AI debate about whether companies should “own their weights” or rent models from frontier labs is asking too narrow a question. A model weight file gives a company control over a point-in-time artifact, but not durable control over the capability stack. In his framing, the weight file is a melting ice cube: it does not get worse in absolute terms, but it falls behind as frontier systems improve and enterprise needs change.The killer detail is what Ball says companies really need to own: the data flywheel, reinforcement learning infrastructure, and evaluation harness that produce and improve the model. Simply deploying an open-weights model and declaring sovereignty leaves the enterprise with yesterday's capability and no way to compound workflow-specific learning.The pull is that enterprise AI control may be less about model ownership than operating ownership. The defensible layer is the system that turns company data, edge cases, business definitions, and evaluations into continuously improving performance.Read more: Clouded JudgementWays to Think About Token PricingAuthor: Benedict Evans Published: July 9, 2026Benedict Evans argues that today's AI token prices are a temporary signal from a supply-constrained market, not a reliable guide to long-term value capture. The open question is whether foundation models keep durable pricing power or become commodity infrastructure as data-center capacity, inference efficiency, and model competition all shift. His current read is that the visible market dynamics point toward commoditization unless something materially changes.The killer detail is the mobile data analogy. Evans says cellular networks became a trillion-dollar industry with hundreds of billions in capex after data usage exploded, but carrier stocks went nowhere because value moved up the stack. Tokens may behave similarly: an opaque unit tied to marginal cost, sold through bundles, essential to everything, yet not necessarily where profits accrue.The pull is uncertainty, not prediction. Evans lists paths to model dominance, including network effects, less competition, regulation, export controls, or a lab pulling ahead on execution, but says each requires a new fact not yet visible. Without that change, the model layer looks more like infrastructure beneath the products that capture value.Read more: SourceAlex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AIAuthor: Tim Higgins Published: July 11, 2026Tim Higgins reports that Palantir CEO Alex Karp has turned corporate frustration with AI labs into a public argument about enterprise control. Palantir released a white paper, “Institutional Sovereignty in the Age of AI,” laying out steps companies and governments can take to protect themselves from OpenAI, Anthropic, and other foundation-model providers. The article links that paper to Karp's CNBC appearance, where he said “something has gone completely wrong” in the relationship between AI labs and customers and argued that enterprises are paying for tokens that create little value.The killer detail is the value-capture question. Higgins writes that Karp's critique has resonated because AI labs may gain power and insight from customer data, workflows, and decision-making, even when enterprise policies say customer data are not used for training. David Sacks amplified the concern by arguing that Anthropic is moving from the model layer into vertical applications such as science, security, legal, and coding, raising the fear that model providers will watch where value is being created and then move into those markets directly.The pull is that Karp is not alone, even if his style is unusually combative. Higgins notes that Satya Nadella has also warned that companies need to retain the learnings created when they use AI models, while Mark Zuckerberg has framed Meta's new model release partly around lower-cost frontier intelligence. The article presents Karp's campaign as one sign that established technology companies and large enterprises are trying to define where they fit when AI labs become central infrastructure, application competitors, and potential IPO giants at the same time.Read more: The Wall Street JournalThe AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft OfficeAlex Wilhelm | Cautious Optimism | July 11, 2026Alex Wilhelm argues that one of the week's quieter AI questions is whether the productivity market that Microsoft successfully moved into subscription software is now being attacked by agentic tools. The piece begins with the infrastructure backdrop: SK Hynix raised $26.5 billion in a U.S. listing while building U.S. HBM and advanced-packaging capacity, and memory, chip, and foundry companies are now priced for sustained AI demand.Wilhelm then says the AI conversation has shifted quickly from raw capability to cost per task. He cites new model releases and vendor language emphasizing cheaper agentic and coding models, faster performance, and lower dollars per task. That matters because lower costs make it more plausible for AI systems to take on routine knowledge work at scale rather than remain a premium coding assistant market.The core of the article is Microsoft Office. Wilhelm notes that Microsoft turned Office from a one-time purchase into Microsoft 365, a large recurring revenue business with tens of millions of subscribers and a major productivity segment. Now, he says, late-stage unicorns and AI labs are pushing into the same territory: Anthropic's Cowork was reportedly used mostly outside software development, OpenAI merged ChatGPT and Codex into a tool for creating sheets, slides, docs, web apps, and long-running work, and other companies are building agentic coworkers that connect business data to documents, workflows, schedules, alerts, and apps.The article's caveat is that Microsoft has survived major platform shifts before. The argument is not that Office disappears quickly, but that the definition of office software is broadening from documents and spreadsheets into AI systems that can create, monitor, and act across workplace data.Read moreWhat Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?Author: Nilesh Barla Published: July 11, 2026Nilesh Barla argues that “loop engineering” is becoming a distinct discipline because production AI agents now fail less at single prompts than at runtime: when to stop, what state to preserve, and how to recover after a bad step. Prompt engineering shapes one model call, and context engineering shapes what the model sees, but loop engineering shapes what a sequence of calls actually does.The killer detail is the three-primitives frame. Barla says a real agent loop needs halt conditions, state carryover, and recovery paths, then maps teams across five maturity levels. At the lowest level, an agent is just a model call in a for-loop with a step cap and raw history; by the higher levels, the system has structured state, explicit planning, replay, evaluation, and self-repair.The pull is organizational. If agents are becoming production systems rather than demos, someone has to own the runtime itself. The loop engineer is the role Barla gives to the person responsible for making long-running agent work dependable.Read more: Adaline LabsThe Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just BeginningEmma Roth | The Verge | July 12, 2026Emma Roth argues that community resistance to data centers has moved from an early warning sign into a national political fight as AI facilities grow larger, more power-hungry, and more visible to nearby residents. The article starts with Apple's failed 2015 plan for a $1 billion data center in Athenry, Ireland, where a small group of residents challenged the project over noise, light pollution, flooding, traffic, and wildlife effects until Apple abandoned it in 2018.The current data-center buildout is presented as much larger and more contentious. Roth writes that residents now cite rising energy costs, water quality, noise, light pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, while the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects commercial energy demand to surpass residential demand this year because of AI data centers and Goldman Sachs expects data-center power demand to double by 2027.The central evidence comes from Data Center Watch, which says protesters blocked or delayed at least 75 U.S. projects worth $130 billion from January to March, with active opposition groups more than doubling from 396 at the end of 2025 to 833 by the end of the first quarter of 2026. Roth also cites QTS abandoning a $12 billion Wisconsin campus, Delaware City regulators blocking a 580-acre project under the Coastal Zone Act, opposition stopping a QTS project in Prince William County, and pressure that pushed Kevin O'Leary to downsize the proposed 40,000-acre Project Stratos in Utah.The policy section describes a split between federal acceleration and local resistance. President Trump has treated data centers as part of the AI race with China and fast-tracked construction, while some Republican candidates are distancing themselves from that position ahead of midterms. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have proposed a moratorium until price and environmental protections exist, bipartisan lawmakers are backing ratepayer-protection measures, and states including Florida, Idaho, and Washington have passed rules on cost shifting, water use, and tax breaks. Roth's caveat is that the policy patchwork is still incomplete, leaving many communities to fight project by project.Read more6 months to live for open modelsAuthor: Nathan Lambert Published: July 12, 2026Nathan Lambert argues that open-weight AI models are facing their most serious policy test so far because U.S. officials are beginning to discuss concrete controls rather than abstract safety concerns. He says reported White House conversations about a new executive order may initially target Chinese-origin models and government use, but could create a broader review habit for frontier open models. His forecast is that a model above the capability range of GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, or GLM-5.2 could trigger a ban or indefinite delay within six months.The post separates two policy fights that are becoming intertwined: distillation and frontier capability. Lambert says the distillation campaign against Chinese models has become a form of regulatory capture because Anthropic and other closed-model companies would gain economically if Chinese open models were banned. He does not dismiss IP protection, but argues that if a closed model's capabilities are dangerous enough to justify restricting open models, the lab also has to explain why those capabilities are exposed through a queryable API. He cites unauthorized access to Anthropic's Mythos private beta as evidence that APIs are not automatically secure.The broader claim is that a unilateral U.S. ban would hurt positive actors more than bad actors if comparable open models remain available elsewhere. Lambert says the only durable ceiling would require global agreement, which does not exist, and that open models can improve safety by allowing broad inspection, adaptation, and understanding. His proposed near-term off-ramps are a strong U.S. open model release from companies such as Microsoft, Meta, or Reflection, and a broader coalition of open-source beneficiaries lobbying for safe rollout rather than prohibition.Read more: SourceAmericans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' RichesAuthor: Scott Stanford Published: July 14, 2026Scott Stanford argues that proposals to give the government a stake in AI companies miss the point unless ordinary citizens directly receive and control the upside. Sam Altman has discussed giving up equity in OpenAI, Washington already owns a stake in Intel, Nvidia is sharing China chip revenue, and Bernie Sanders wants large AI labs to contribute half their stock to a sovereign wealth fund. Stanford says those ideas all park value with the state, not with people.The killer detail is New Carlisle, Indiana, where AWS's Project Rainier is turning cornfields into one of the world's largest AI superclusters. The project is planned to run up to a million chips, draw more than two gigawatts of power, and represents an investment that has grown from $11 billion to $13.8 billion. Stanford uses that local transformation to argue that AI's public bargain should be visible at the household level.The pull is design. A citizen AI dividend would have to specify who earns a stake, how they hold it, and when they see cash. Without that mechanism, the AI wealth debate remains a fight over government balance sheets rather than public ownership.Read more: SourceWho Gets to Define the Frontier?Author: Mark Daley Published: July 14, 2026Mark Daley argues that Demis Hassabis is right to call for a serious institution to verify frontier AI systems, but that the power to test models is also the power to govern them. Hassabis's proposed Frontier AI Standards Body would get privileged pre-release access to advanced models, testing compute, held-out evaluations, support from national labs and security agencies, third-party auditors, and eventually authority to block models from the American market or coordinate a slowdown.The killer detail is Daley's constitutional objection. He says the proposal sometimes looks like a scientific lab, a standards body, an industry regulator, a licensing authority, and an emergency security council at once. Combining those roles because each requires technical expertise would be like putting the central bank, auditor-general, and Supreme Court in one building and calling it efficient.The pull is standard-setting. Daley's concern is not that verification is unnecessary, but that whoever writes the tests, decides what passes, adjudicates disputes, and grants market access may end up defining the frontier itself.Read more: SourceGPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for RobustnessOpenAI | OpenAI | July 15, 2026OpenAI describes GPT-Red as an internal automated red-teaming model trained to find prompt-injection vulnerabilities at a scale human red teams cannot match. The post says AI systems increasingly encounter third-party data through browsers, connected apps, local files, and tools, creating opportunities for malicious instructions hidden in emails, webpages, tool responses, or code repositories. Human red-teaming remains part of OpenAI's safety process, but the company says it is time-intensive and cannot generate enough diverse adversarial examples for model training.The system is trained through self-play reinforcement learning, with GPT-Red rewarded for eliciting valid failures and defender models rewarded for resisting attacks while still completing their tasks. OpenAI says the training environments specify threat models across settings such as local files, webpage banners, email bodies, and tool outputs. The model is kept separate from deployed production models because it is intentionally trained with malicious capabilities.OpenAI reports that GPT-Red generalized beyond its training set, including an internal replication of the indirect prompt-injection arena from Dziemian et al. (2025), where it found successful attacks in 84% of scenarios compared with 13% for human red-teamers. The post also says GPT-Red transferred attacks from simulation to a live autonomous vending-machine agent, causing price changes and order cancellations, and outperformed a prompted GPT-5.5 baseline against a Codex CLI agent on held-out data-exfiltration tasks.The article's main robustness claim is that OpenAI has used GPT-Red and predecessor models in training since GPT-5.3, with later GPT releases becoming more resistant to prompt injections. It says GPT-5.6 Sol has six times fewer failures on OpenAI's hardest direct prompt-injection benchmark than the best production model from four months earlier, that a “Fake Chain-of-Thought” attack class fell from more than 95% success against GPT-5.1 to below 10% against GPT-5.6 Sol, and that GPT-5.6 Sol fails on only 0.05% of GPT-Red's direct prompt injections. OpenAI says general capabilities and targeted over-refusal evaluations were not harmed, and says a preprint with more details will follow.Read moreAnthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just modelsRebecca Bellan | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Rebecca Bellan reports that Ode with Anthropic is the $1.5 billion AI implementation company launched by Anthropic with Blackstone, Hellman & Friedman, Goldman Sachs, and other backers. The article says the venture reflects a growing belief among frontier AI labs that enterprise adoption requires more than better models: customers need engineers who can embed inside businesses and turn AI into working systems.Ode was originally conceived by Blackstone after it used both large consulting firms and smaller AI services boutiques across its portfolio companies. TechCrunch reports that Fractional AI, an AI engineering services startup, stood out and was acquired by the joint venture shortly after the venture was announced. Fractional now forms the foundation of Ode, which has 100 engineers and works closely with Anthropic's applied AI team to identify where the technology can affect specific businesses.Ode CEO Chris Taylor tells TechCrunch that the company could someday become a trillion-dollar business if it scales without losing quality. He says an ideal customer is one whose CEO treats the AI project as a top one or two priority, whether it is a major product feature or the reworking of a core business process. Ode will operate under a “Claude-first” principle, using Anthropic technology whenever possible, but the article says it can use rival AI products when needed.The article's central implementation argument comes from Ode chief technologist Eddie Siegel, who says model selection matters but is not where most of the engineering effort goes. He compares it to the choice of programming language in software: one ingredient in a system that still has to be engineered. Bellan writes that Ode's challenge is hiring and training enough elite generalist engineers, many of them former founders, while competing with OpenAI's The Deployment Company and consulting giants that have built their own forward-deployed engineering teams.Read moreVint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internetTim Fernholz | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Tim Fernholz reports that Vint Cerf, after leaving Google, is advising Innovation Labs on an open architecture for identifying AI agents online. Innovation Labs is a subsidiary of Identity Digital, a DNS registry company, and its proposal is to use domain-name infrastructure as part of a system for agent identity, accountability, and auditability. The premise is that agents will need a way to identify themselves if they move beyond proprietary systems and begin interacting across the open internet.The concrete proposal is DNSid, a registry that links an AI agent to an existing internet domain and uses cryptographic proofs to log its registration over time. Innovation Labs says it is trialing the standard with unnamed hyperscalers and identity companies. Cerf frames the problem around authority and accountability: what authority an agent has, where that authority came from, who is accountable for the agent's behavior, how its identity is established, and why anyone should trust it.The article's caveat is that standards are still emerging and agents are more active than static domains. Cerf says the period may be both fascinating and exasperating because the functionality is powerful and interoperability is unresolved. He compares the adoption problem to TCP/IP: competing systems may not work together until users push for functional interoperation. He also says an agentic economy is not inevitable, but that people will try to build it because delegating work to agents will be easier.Read more: TechCrunchxai-org/grok-build, now open sourceAuthor: Simon Willison Published: July 15, 2026Simon Willison argues that xAI's decision to open-source Grok Build is best understood as a trust repair move after a severe privacy failure. The CLI had triggered backlash when users realized that running it in a directory could upload the entire directory to xAI's Google Cloud buckets, including one user's reported SSH keys, password manager database, documents, photos, and videos. xAI disabled the feature, said previously retained coding data would be deleted, and released the code under Apache 2.0.The killer detail is what the codebase reveals. Willison counts 844,530 lines of Rust, only about 3% of which appears vendored, and finds remnants of the upload system still present but disabled: gcs.rs contains Google Cloud upload code, while upload_session_state() now returns a hard-coded session_state_upload_unavailable error. He also notes copied or ported tool implementations from Codex and OpenCode, prompt files, and a terminal Mermaid renderer.The pull is that terminal coding agents are becoming large, intricate software systems in their own right. The privacy failure mattered because these tools operate inside the directories where developers keep their most sensitive work; the open-source release matters because trust now depends on inspecting what an agent can see, send, and do.Read more: SourceThe Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?Author: Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric Published: July 16, 2026Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric argue that Bun's AI-assisted rewrite from Zig to Rust is a practical sign of how software engineering changes when models can take on large, bounded migrations with clear feedback loops. The piece does not treat the rewrite as magic: Jarred Sumner first spent hours turning design judgment into a detailed porting guide, then used adversarial review, parallel agents, compiler errors, and tests to force the work toward correctness.The killer detail is the scale. Bun had 535,496 lines of Zig, 1,448 files, and 22 million monthly downloads, making a conventional rewrite a year-long freeze the team could not justify. Using Fable, Sumner split the work across 64 agents, produced about 6,500 commits, and got the migration done in 11 days at an estimated API cost of $165,000.The pull is economic, not theatrical. If a one- or two-year migration can become an 11-day project, AI coding is not just faster autocomplete; it changes which technical debts are worth paying down.Read more: SourceOrphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligenceAuthor: Andrew Maynard Published: July 16, 2026Andrew Maynard argues that frontier AI safety frameworks are creating “orphan risks”: harms that companies can see, but do not formally own because they are hard to quantify, do not fit catastrophic-risk thresholds, or fall outside audit-friendly compliance machinery. His target is not existing frontier safety work, but the narrowing effect that happens when private companies decide which risks count as governable.The killer detail is Maynard's contrast between measurable model dangers and threats to value. He points to Meta's three-day Galactica collapse, OpenAI's 2023 board crisis, safety-team departures, and wellbeing litigation as examples of risks that damaged trust, culture, legitimacy, or users without fitting cleanly into conventional model-risk categories. The proposed fix is an orphan-risk register: a public record of risks a company considered and chose not to manage, with reasons.The pull is accountability. Frontier developers' internal scoping choices have become a de facto layer of public governance, so the question is no longer only which risks they manage, but which risks they quietly leave outside the frame.Read more: SourceThe Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data CenterLatent.Space with Andy Beam and Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli | Latent.Space | July 16, 2026Latent.Space interviews Lila Sciences CTO Andy Beam and chief science officer for physical sciences Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli about the company's attempt to build an AI-run science factory. The post describes Lila's thesis as treating the lab itself as an “infinite token generator”: if internet data drove the first era of AI scaling, experimentally verified scientific data may be the next scarce training source. Lila is trying to produce that data with robotics, lab instruments, orchestration software, and AI models wired into the wet lab.The central analogy is the lab as data center. Instruments are nodes on a graph, a magnetically levitating transport layer moves materials between them, and experiment scheduling looks like a compute queue. Beam says Lila is not simply an automation company, because the point is not just throughput; it is flexibility, generalization, and experiment capture. The post says Lila has built more than 10 trillion experimentally validated “scientific reasoning tokens,” not internet text or biological sequences.The interview ranges across biology, chemistry, drug discovery, materials science, and the limits of automation. It notes that Lila rebuilt one gas-sorption measurement to run roughly 2,500 times faster, claims its general models can transfer priors from small-molecule chemistry to metal-organic frameworks for carbon capture, and describes model-suggested platinum-group-free electrocatalysts that moved from looking boring or wrong to becoming strong performers. The caveats are physical: experiments have runtimes, biology cannot always be accelerated, chains of thought can be unreliable narrators, and reward hacking becomes more dangerous when a model controls a real lab.Read more: Latent.SpaceWhy AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”Kate Park | TechCrunch | July 16, 2026Kate Park interviews AMI Labs CEO Alexandre LeBrun about why Yann LeCun's world-model startup avoids the language of “AGI” and “superintelligence.” LeBrun says the terms are not useful because they lack stable definitions: “We never used the word AGI. And I just noticed that nobody is using it anymore; they switched to superintelligence.” His argument is that the practical frontier is not a label, but whether AI systems can understand and predict real-world states.The article explains the world-model thesis by contrasting language prediction with physical-state prediction. A large language model predicts the next word; a world model predicts the next state, such as what happens when a glass tips over. LeBrun says LLMs remain complementary and efficient for language, but the physical world is where current AI is weak. Robotics is the clearest case: hardware has advanced quickly, but robots are still brittle outside controlled routines because they lack context and situational understanding.AMI is still pre-product, but TechCrunch reports that LeBrun was in Seoul looking for industrial partners, researchers, and global companies. He says world models cannot be built entirely inside a lab because they need access to real environments. That is why South Korea appeals to AMI: robotics, semiconductors, manufacturing, and fast adoption create the kind of hardware-heavy context that software-only AI has barely touched.Read more: TechCrunchKimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier IntelligenceKimi | Kimi | July 16, 2026Kimi introduces Kimi K3 as an open 3T-class frontier model aimed at coding, knowledge work, reasoning, multimodality, and long-context agentic use. The source describes the model as a 2.8T-parameter system built on Kimi Delta Attention and Attention Residuals, with native multimodality and a 1M-token context window. It says Moonshot AI plans to release model weights by July 27.The post presents K3 through benchmark and use-case sections rather than as a general product announcement. It reports results across coding, productivity, agentic, and multimodal evaluations, including DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench 2.1, Program Bench, SWE Marathon, FrontierSWE, PostTrain Bench, OfficeQA Pro, SpreadsheetBench 2, MCP Atlas, AutomationBench, BrowseComp, GDPval-AA v2, AA-Briefcase, MMMU-Pro, MathVision, BabyVision, OmniDocBench, and PerceptionBench. The source says all reported K3 results use maximum reasoning effort with temperature and top-p set to 1.0, and that different benchmark comparisons use KimiCode, Claude Code, or Codex harnesses depending on the test.Kimi's caveats are unusually concrete. The limitations section says K3 was trained in preserved thinking-history mode, so quality may become unstable if an agent harness does not pass historical thinking content correctly or if an ongoing session switches to K3 midstream. It also says K3's emphasis on long-horizon tasks can make it excessively proactive when it encounters minor issues or ambiguous intent, and recommends imposing explicit behavioral constraints for applications that require strict boundaries. The post adds that K3 remains behind Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in user experience despite being competitive overall.Read moreVenture CapitalThree Years InAuthor: Tomasz Tunguz Published: July 10, 2026Tomasz Tunguz marks Theory Ventures' third anniversary by arguing that AI's central market effect is time compression. In his telling, model release cycles, company revenue milestones, enterprise adoption, and venture categories have all accelerated. Seed, Series A, and Series B still exist as financing labels, but they no longer cleanly describe company maturity when some seed rounds are larger than IPOs and the best AI companies can mature much earlier than prior software companies.The killer detail is the shift from models to inference. Tunguz argues that inference has become the dominant AI market because workloads and buyer preferences are fragmenting: video, batch, local, agentic, and real-time tasks each create different infrastructure needs. He compares this to databases splitting into OLTP, OLAP, vector, and streaming categories, with AI pushing the same specialization into inference infrastructure.The pull is that Theory sees the AI-native venture firm as part of the same pattern. The firm says it has analyzed twice as many investment opportunities with three investors working alongside a nine-person intelligence organization, using agents and research systems to map markets, source companies, and support diligence. The piece is both a market map and a statement about how venture itself is being rebuilt by the technology it funds.Read more: LinkedInVenture Has Rarely Looked More BifurcatedAuthor: Beezer Clarkson Published: July 14, 2026Beezer Clarkson points to PitchBook's Q2 report as evidence that the U.S. venture market has split into two very different realities. AI now accounts for more than 60 percent of all U.S. venture deal value, meaning the headline market can look active and well-funded even while much of the non-AI market is dealing with a much colder liquidity and fundraising environment.The thread uses that split as the setup for Clarkson's latest Origins episode with Alec Litowitz, founder of Magnetar and QStar Capital and one of Citadel's original founding partners. Clarkson says markets like this are periods of genuine uncertainty, not merely ordinary risk, which is why Litowitz's Adaptability Quotient framework is relevant.The embedded clip makes the liquidity point concrete. Litowitz says DPI is “the resolution of uncertainty” because it converts an uncertain investment into actual cash returned to LPs. In his framing, a realized dollar is a real mark, while TVPI remains uncertain until it is realized.The killer detail is the distinction between pricing risk and resolving uncertainty. Litowitz's perspective matters because QStar is a SpaceX investor and Clarkson says the conversation happened just before one of venture's most consequential IPOs. The episode's stated questions are why venture remains a way to gain exposure to innovation, how AI is changing what is investable, why liquidity is ultimately a function of time, and why uncertainty requires a different decision framework from risk.Read more: XThe Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active NowAuthor: Ilya Strebulaev Published: July 10, 2026Ilya Strebulaev ranks angels, angel groups, accelerators, and incubators by lifetime U.S. unicorn investments, counting checks written before a company reached unicorn status. The top of the combined list is dominated by organizations: Y Combinator leads with 113 unicorn investments, followed by Plug and Play at 52 and 500 Global at 41. Sand Hill Angels is the highest-ranked angel group at 31.The killer detail is how quickly the list changes below the biggest accelerators. Strebulaev says 271 of the 304 investors in the Top 200 are individuals, or 89%. In the top 100, individuals are 91%. That makes the market underneath the large accelerator counts look much more personal: mostly operators and individual angels writing early checks from their own networks.The pull is the ranking's own caveat. Strebulaev writes that every lifetime leaderboard has a blind spot because many of the unicorns behind those totals were founded a decade or more ago, and some angels have since moved into formal funds, slowed down, or stopped investing. His post therefore separates lifetime performance from recent cohorts, including companies founded in 2015 or later and 2020 or later. For founders or allocators making current decisions, that distinction matters: a career record and a current record are not the same measure.Read more: Ilya StrebulaevAre Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?Author: Contrary Published: July 16, 2026Contrary argues that prediction markets' current boom depends on whether platforms can prove they are more than regulated gambling with exchange-style branding. Kalshi and Polymarket have reached mass cultural, investor, and regulatory attention, but the article says the underlying idea is old: academic markets, corporate forecasting tools, Intrade, PredictIt, and other predecessors all struggled with the same linked problems of liquidity, legality, and user appeal.The killer detail is the comparison with sportsbooks. Prediction markets present themselves as peer-to-peer, transparent, and non-house-based, but sports contracts reportedly account for more than 90 percent of Kalshi trading, and the article says the platforms keep a much thinner slice of volume than sportsbooks. A market can therefore show sports-betting-scale handle while generating far less revenue.The pull is that the product's hardest problem may be distribution of wins. If a small group of sharp traders captures most profits while casual users lose interest, prediction markets may become valuable data feeds and professional tools before they become durable consumer networks.Read more: SourceRegulationExclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College CampusesAuthor: Adrian Carrasquillo Published: July 11, 2026Adrian Carrasquillo reports that college campuses are becoming a new front in the fight over immigration enforcement because automatic license plate readers can turn ordinary campus security infrastructure into searchable location data. His thesis is that Flock Safety's camera network, even without direct ICE or DHS contracts, can feed deportation enforcement through local police partnerships and data-sharing practices.The killer detail is the campaign target. The Emergency Campaign to Support Higher Education, working with Schools Drop ICE, is focusing on 75 colleges and universities publicly identified as having Flock contracts. Flock says it has no ICE or DHS contracts, but activists argue the risk comes through local agencies that coordinate with federal authorities and run searches on their behalf.The pull is broader than immigration. Carrasquillo notes that license plate readers have already been abused by officers for stalking, and that Flock's AI search features can identify more than plates, including bumper stickers. A campus safety tool can become a political surveillance system when the data layer is searchable.Read more: The BulwarkThe Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.Author: Todd Phillips Published: July 12, 2026Todd Phillips argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter damaged independent agencies by ending for-cause removal protections, but did not leave Congress powerless. The ruling weakens the old model in which commissioners at bodies such as the FTC, NLRB, CPSC, SEC, and CFTC could be insulated from dismissal over policy disagreements. Phillips says the next fight is whether presidents can turn nominally bipartisan commissions into one-party instruments.The killer detail is the procedural fix: quorum rules. Phillips proposes that Congress require bipartisan slates of commissioners to be seated before independent agencies can act. A president could still fire commissioners, as the Court now permits, but if those firings broke quorum, the agency would be unable to proceed until replacements were confirmed. The guardrail would
You know we're deep into summer when Jess leaves the pod early to catch Benson Boone... for the eighth time. This week, the More or Less squad revisits the Anthropic and OpenAI IPO speculation. Their views haven't changed, but their AI usage certainly has. Dave ditches Anthropic for GLM 5.2 on cost, while Sam argues the AI model wars are effectively over, and the frontier labs know it, which is why they're spending more time in Washington than competing on model quality. America also gets its first serious open weights model. The squad also unpacks OpenAI's hardware ambitions after its much-hyped device turns out to be... an Alexa speaker. Sam explains why Sam Altman's $8 billion Johnny Ive acquisition was effectively free, thanks to narrative capitalism. Plus: real-time voice AI, passive listening devices, peptides, Hinge's new social proof feature, Jay-Z turning New York into a festival, and why biological age tests are basically the clout score of your body.Chapters:0:00 Episode Teaser0:44 Episode Start2:18 Anthropic IPO This September?5:29 Dave Dumps Anthropic for GLM 5.28:22 When Is Better AI Worth Paying For?12:15 AGI Is Dead, AI Is Political Now16:15 America's First Open Weights Model By Thinking Machines21:22 Why Sam Is Depressed About AI29:07 OpenAI Built... an Alexa? The $8B Johnny Ive Bet31:38 Silicon Valley Goes Hollywood36:03 Would You Wear an Always-On Mic?37:08 OpenAI's Live Voice Model41:14 Sam's Peptide Experiment43:36 Hinge Launches “Friend's Take” 46:11 Jay-Z's NYC Takeover48:16 Biological Age Is Just a Clout ScoreWe're also on ↓X: https://twitter.com/moreorlesspodInstagram: https://instagram.com/moreorlessSpotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/moreorlesspodConnect with us here:1) Sam Lessin: https://x.com/lessin2) Dave Morin: https://x.com/davemorin3) Jessica Lessin: https://x.com/Jessicalessin4) Brit Morin: https://x.com/brit
The episode highlights a shift from technology selection to operational risk management in the AI landscape for MSPs. Service providers are being forced to navigate the fast-changing interplay between AI models, the harness software that mediates their deployment, and the financial realities of consumption-based billing. The rapid proliferation of open-source and open-weight AI models, alongside market behaviors from closed vendors and regulatory interventions, is introducing volatility and uncertainty in both cost structures and client offerings. This dynamic creates structural challenges related to margin maintenance, vendor dependency, and responsibility for AI-driven decisions. The discussion cites the release of GLM 5.2, an open-weight model from Z AI, which now rivals expensive closed models on key benchmarks at a fraction of the cost. At the same time, large-scale investments by commercial AI vendors have yet to deliver returns on expectations, with reports indicating businesses that adopted AI are not seeing projected value. Specific attention is given to operational constraints such as compute scarcity, token consumption variability, and export policy restrictions impacting AI availability. The episode notes that these pressures are driving both vendors and MSPs to reconsider the viability of reliance on expensive, closed offerings versus investigating open alternatives. Supportive examples include the proliferation of AI “harnesses” (middleware layers like Perplexity, Claude Code, and Cowork) that sit between service providers and underlying AI models, increasing both choice and complexity. Token billing models are highlighted as a source of unpredictability for MSPs, with vendors like Atera and ConnectWise experimenting with different abstractions to shield or pass through token risk to service providers. The potential for on-premises AI deployments using smaller language models is discussed as a cost-mitigation strategy, though this raises further questions about data privacy, infrastructure burden, and long-term vendor roles. Additionally, uncertainty is flagged around sustainability of leading vendors, with projections that at least one major AI player may exit or be acquired within a year due to financial vulnerability. For MSPs and IT service leaders, these structural and supporting developments translate into increased operational and financial complexity. There is a pressing need to evaluate not just which AI technologies to adopt, but how to architect solutions that can withstand rapid vendor movement, cost swings, and evolving regulatory requirements. Practical safeguards include testing open-source AI models alongside commercial offerings, exercising caution in vendor selection, and closely monitoring evolving consumption billing models. Preparing staff and clients for adaptive, process-oriented approaches—rather than fixed solutions—is positioned as a necessary step to maintain resilience as the AI adoption cycle continues to correct course. Supported by:Pax8CometBackupGuardz
Steve drops serious cash on an M5 Max MacBook Pro right as Apple's Rampocalypse price hikes hit, then immediately bricks his iPhone 14 Pro Max installing iOS 27 Beta 3. The Trio unpacks Apple pulling the liquid glass opt-out after its promised one year, and spins out increasingly unhinged ideas for what a foldable iPhone's split screen could actually be good for. They close out with post-WWDC side project pitches: Kotaro weighing a Retro Sparkle or Fav 10 revival, Aaron dreaming up the ultimate foldable app, and Steve making BentoFit updates with a photography app on his mind.## Chapters00:00 Introductions & Token Economics 10:11 Hardware Upgrades and the RAM Apocalypse 17:47 Bricking an iPhone Installing iOS 27 Beta 3 21:34 UIKit Updates & Reading the Folding Phone Tea Leaves 35:26 Exploring New App Ideas Post-WWDC 47:20 Wrap-Up & Dad Jokes 48:19 Tag ## Show Notes* Steve bit the bullet on a mid-tier, on sale M5 Max MacBook Pro (the best config Amazon had discounted) after Apple's Rampocalypse price hikes made waiting for the redesigned model a bad bet.* The Amazon Prime Day deal saved him around $850 versus buying the same config direct from Apple.* He's already seeing real speed gains in Lightroom, with AI denoise dropping from about ten seconds a photo to three to five.* Steve bricked his iPhone 14 Pro Max installing iOS 27 Beta 3 and had to DFU restore it from an iCloud backup.* iOS 27 removes the liquid glass opt-out entirely, exactly one year after Apple said it would, and it's ugly on unmigrated UIKit apps.* The Trio speculates Apple's foldable iPhone, rumored to run two screens with unusual aspect ratios, is driving the push to force UIKit and scene delegate updates.* They riff on absurd split screen app concepts for the foldable, from a permanent AI chat pane to a Tetris style game that dumps everything onto the bigger screen on unfold.* Kotaro is weighing a Retro Sparkle revival (his three second match three game) or a long overdue Fav 10 rebuild for the next side project.* Aaron wonders who could possibly afford a foldable iPhone that will probably cost as much as a MacBook.* Steve is making BentoFit theme manager updates and floats a photography app as a future project.## Links**Side Project Apps**Retro Sparkle: https://tomatoboy.co/retro | Fav 10: https://tomatoboy.co/fav10**Tools & Services Mentioned**Gas Town (Steve Yegge): https://steve-yegge.medium.com/welcome-to-gas-town-4f25ee16dd04 | GLM 5.2: https://z.ai/blog/glm-5.2**Bento Fit**Website: https://bentofit.app**PhillyCocoa:** https://phillycocoa.orgIntro music: "When I Hit the Floor", © 2021 Lorne Behrman. Used with permission of the artist.
週一天下零時差關注以下財經大事： 一、台積第二季法說會登場，營收、獲利率與股價是否有機會再創高？ 二、智譜GLM-5.2大模型震撼矽谷後，本週上海世界人工智能大會將透露中國AI最新進展。 三、美國聯準會主席沃許上任後首次出席國會聽證會，會透露哪些政策訊號？ 文：蔡娪嫣 製作團隊：錢玉紘、鄭子鴻 ＊閱讀零時差，點這看全文
Les modèles d'IA de la semaine : LeanStral 1.5, Nano Banana et PhotoQuilt, avec aussi GLM 5.2 et la détection de textes IA. Microsoft Ion, sujets spatiaux, visas américains, VMware, batteries, les choix sur le 6 GHz pour les prochaines générations de wifi et de la 6G, robots compagnons et agents IA. Me soutenir sur Patreon Me retrouver sur YouTube On discute ensemble sur Discord Modèles de la semaine Leanstral 1.5, Nanobana Lite, Photoquilt et une question d'Equilibre. GLM et sa sélection d'index. Les IA se reconnaissent entre elles. The Flintstones : comment se débarrasser d'Elias ? Comme l'acide Chlorhydrique, Aion dissout les OS. Piles Incluses Rocket Lab rachète Iridium, pendant que Starmind s'éveille… The land of the (less and less) free. Tout le monde veut quitter Broadcomm, qui aurait pu préVMWare ? La seconde vie des batteries. Qui gagnera la bataille du 6 Ghz ? I'm a Barbie girl, in a Barbie world ! Vinton Cerf à la retraite. Il était temps. Enfin un PC que vous aurez les moyens d'assembler ! Participants Une émission préparée par Guillaume Poggiaspalla Présenté par Guillaume Vendé
Is the biggest barrier to your team's productivity literally just a lack of fresh air in your meeting room? This week on the Friday Deploy, Ben and Andrew dive into the rise of highly capable open source models like GLM 5.2 and the messy reality of running local AI for coding tasks. The hosts also discuss the cultural shift away from deep reading in a world obsessed with AI summaries, emphasizing the importance of protecting your first brain. Finally, they review a legendary tale from Meta's engineering history.Life Beyond Tokenmaxxing Workshop: Watch the full replay on demand at linearb.io Follow 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:The bottleneck might be the air in the roomGLM-5.2 is the step change for open agentsViability of local models for codingAI Erodes a Legacy of ReadingI Shipped a Facebook Feature So Fast Sheryl Sandberg Called an Emergency Meeting to Stop MeOFFERSStart 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 LINEARBAI 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.
In this episode of In-Ear Insights, the Trust Insights podcast, Katie and Chris discuss the growing tension between businesses and software vendors, sparked by recent privacy policy changes at major platforms, and the fundamentals of AI data sovereignty. You will discover how to spot risky service rules before they impact your daily work. You will learn practical steps to evaluate whether building custom internal tools makes sense for your team. You will find out how to review agreement changes without getting lost in confusing language. You will gain confidence to protect your valuable information and keep full control of your digital assets. 00:00 – Introduction 01:45 – HubSpot triggers data sharing controversy 05:30 – The hidden costs of vendor lock-in 10:15 – Can AI replace expensive software subscriptions? 14:40 – Building custom tools in-house 19:20 – The importance of the 5P framework 24:10 – Reviewing service agreements quarterly 28:50 – Final thoughts and next steps 32:15 – Call to action Watch this episode to learn how you can take back control of your software and data today. Watch the video here: Can’t see anything? Watch it on YouTube here. Listen to the audio here: https://traffic.libsyn.com/inearinsights/tipodcast-what-is-ai-data-sovereignty.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, let’s talk about a very popular term these days which is data sovereignty, AKA owning your data and who owns your data. In the news recently, HubSpot made an announcement last week that caused a firestorm of commentary. Appropriately so when they said that to better improve HubSpot’s predictive abilities in your CRM, customers would be able to share data and see data from other HubSpot accounts to predict the likelihood of a certain type of sale closing. Now they did say that it would be something that you could opt into, although that was not super clear. And the terms of service were vague enough that if you were an eagle-eyed legal expert, which we are not, you could say, yeah, we’re going to do this regardless. LinkedIn exploded, threads exploded, Twitter exploded, and HubSpot walked it back over the weekend to say we screwed up. And to that credit they said we screwed up. We didn’t do our homework on this. We’re not going to make this terms of service change. However, there are still two consequences. One, folks have pointed out they didn’t say they weren’t going to implement the feature, they just said they’re not going to change the terms of service this way. And two, the big question that a lot of folks have is from a customer’s perspective, this was kind of a big deal in terms of violation of trust, which is a really important thing. And one commenter said it took HubSpot twenty years to build trust in four days to screw it up. Now again, to their credit, they did walk it back. But Katie, what’s your take on this, particularly as it relates to the integrity of our data? Because as we see these days more and more, every AI company is saying we need more data, so we’re just going to come in and take it well. Katie Robbert: And that’s always been the risk with using these software vendors is they can change things on a whim. And yeah, you can blow up social media and say I’m so mad at this. That doesn’t mean they have to do anything about it because guess who already has your data? Guess whose system you are already integrated to, guess whose system you have built connectors to and tapped into the API of, and you are building your whole business around. So the cost of switching is incredibly high and incredibly painful, and you’re not necessarily going to find a vendor that’s doing things any more ethically or doing things in a way that their governance aligns with what you want to see. Because again, to that comment, HubSpot spent twenty years building trust and then they decided to change it. I call BS on the we didn’t do our homework, we screwed up. Really. The size of company that you are, you don’t just change things on a whim. This is something that has likely been on your roadmap for a very long time. It was just a matter of trying to figure out how to do it in a way that you could sneak it in. But still, July fourth, holiday weekend. Well yeah, so there’s that. But legally, the language holds up. They worked with their lawyers, they worked with their IT department, they worked with whoever is involved in that change. It wasn’t an oopsie, we didn’t do our homework. No, I’ve worked in a large organization. I know how these things happen. There is no oopsie, we screwed up. You didn’t. You got caught, period. And your customers are angry. But guess who’s not going to stop being a customer anymore? Your customers. And they already got the data. Nowhere in that did they say and we’re going to repartition the data or we’re going to unshare the data. They were just like oopsies, you caught us. Okay, where is it? Oh, it’s over here. Here we go. That gets a red flag today. It gets a huge red flag because more and more, it’s Google adding AI into workspace conversation all over again. When my mother-in-law was here, she kept complaining about how Google was making suggestions in her Gmail. You can turn that off. Well, what if I need it? Then don’t complain about it. But Google made this change where it’s looking at all of your emails, it’s looking at all of your chat conversations, it’s looking at all of your stuff. Google has been looking at your web searches for however long web search has existed. On the one hand, I can understand the outrage of customers of a CRM saying I thought you were protecting my data. On the other hand, I’m a little surprised at people’s sort of naive perspective that our data was private in the first place. And I’m sort of like, so bad on the CRM, but also bad on the consumer for not being more informed that nothing is private. Like your Social Security number. It exists in a million places. People just haven’t decided that you’re the person that they want to steal the identity of. Maybe you’re not that interesting. I don’t know. Okay, I’m going to red flag myself. That was terrible. Red flag myself, sorry. Christopher S. Penn: It does raise the question, and this is something that vendors in particular have not thought a lot about. Generative AI in its current incarnation is best at software development. That is the number one task being used for. It is what is most skilled at, is what has been tuned the best for. Which means that if you are a SaaS provider, you are skating on very thin ice because you are one prompt away from a customer saying, screw it. I’m going to try vibe coding it myself. And whether or not that’s a good idea, we’ll put that aside because we’ve talked about that in the past. The reality is that with skilled use of these tools, you could say we’re just going to bring this in house. And we’ve done that. I’ve done that even on my personal blog, on my personal website. I said, you know what, I don’t want to pay for this plugin anymore. I’m just going to bring this in house and stop paying for this. And over time, you see the bills going down as you bring in more stuff in house because your AI tool that you built it with is also the AI tool you provide support to yourself with, so you don’t have to pay for the additional upkeep. One of the biggest moats that SaaS has always had was, hey, you don’t want to do server maintenance, you don’t want to do software maintenance, you don’t want to do any of that stuff. Pay a vendor to do it. Well, now it’s like I have basically a junior employee, right? Because we’ve talked about how tools like Claude Code basically are junior employees. I have a support resource. It may not be perfect, but it gets better every day. And so for marketers, for business folks, for folks who are looking at particularly operations folks, as you’re auditing your tech stack and as you’re seeing changes happen to your point, Katie, and vendors trying to cram AI into everything, the question has to become at what point do people start bringing things back in house, given the capabilities of what even a $20 a month AI subscription can do for you? Katie Robbert: I think for a lot of companies, that’s definitely something they’re thinking about. But you’re still talking about a whole suite of skills. You’re still talking about a software developer, you’re still talking about an IT person, you’re still talking about QA, a database architect. Sure, AI can do that stuff, provided you know how to tell IT what to do. And so for us, I would say you have some of those skills, but you do not encompass the skill sets of all four of those individuals. So I would be hesitant to say, sure, we can just have whatever you’ve built, manage it and get rid of this other vendor. We’re not there yet. I can see us getting there. Companies who have none of those skill sets because that’s not what they do. Think of perhaps a creative agency that really works on front-end design and branding. They don’t have the skill sets in house to do this. So even though AI can do a lot of those things, they still have to have someone to tell the AI what to do and stand it up and manage it. That data has to go somewhere. That data still has to be secure in some way. So you still need someone who understands database architecture, who understands servers. I hear what you’re saying and there is a reason why the majority of us turn to vendors like you, just handle it. Saying we can handle it ourselves in house is not as easy as it sounds like. Yeah, it’s an empty threat to the vendors. Especially if you’ve never stood up a server. You don’t know what goes into good data privacy. You are just vibe coding your own version of a CRM. That is a recipe for disaster and it’s likely going to lead to data leaks in some way of your most valuable data. So I hear what you’re saying, Chris. I think that a lot of companies are going to put that on their roadmap of what does it look like for us to build this in house for ourselves. I think that is more possible than it ever has been. But there’s still a lot of caveats with that. I’m saying to do it the right way, you need those skill sets. It doesn’t mean you can’t just go ahead and do it. Christopher S. Penn: It’s true. I do think there’s a space for consultancies and agencies to operate, particularly if you’re a hybrid agency where you have an IT consulting capability. I think, for example, IBM IX as one example, that’s a blend where that might be a realistic choice to say we have our trusted agency that we work with and we don’t like what we see. A HubSpot or Salesforce or whoever doing it, we don’t need it. John was at Salesforce Connections not too long ago and was saying that it’s Agentforce, everything is Agentforce and AI agents. And there are a lot of folks saying we don’t need that nor do we need to pay for that. We can take Sugar CRM, which is a free open source product, with our existing IT agency with the assistance of AI, with their help because they do know servers and they do know this. We’re going to stop paying Salesforce $3 million a year and instead pay our agency maybe $2 million a year to run it for us and save a million bucks a year. And we won’t have all this extra stuff that nobody asked for and that doesn’t fit their business case for it. And I think there is an opportunity in the marketplace for that. Katie Robbert: I agree. But let me counter with this question. You know, we have collectively put a lot of stock and time into these large language models. We’ve also seen instances where a company rolls back the large language model that they rolled out for a variety of reasons. What risk are we taking by then saying well, I’m going to fire the vendor, I’m going to build it myself because I have a large language model? And then tomorrow the large language model gets shut down. So you fired your vendor, you don’t have a large language model. What do you do? Is that a real risk? As someone who is very risk averse, I should be thinking about this in terms of business continuity planning. If you are tied into only working with one vendor, for example Anthropic, and as we saw in recent events the U.S. government said you can’t have that model in public, yes, that is a risk. Christopher S. Penn: However, if you are a multimodal aware company and you know where to find GLM 5.2, which we have through our Deep Infra subscription, and you know how to host models locally, which we’ve talked about in previous episodes of the podcast and the live stream, your risk is significantly reduced because you have more options. That’s what I learned from you, the more realistic options you have, the lower your risk because you have backup plans, you have backups to your backups. And if you are working in the AI space today and you have integrated AI and it is now a risk because your business is so dependent on it, you would better have those backup plans handy. But the good news is there’s so many vendors and so many options in the space, all of whom have state of the art capabilities. If Anthropic or OpenAI went away tomorrow, just flip to the next vendor with this model. Katie Robbert: Let’s talk a little bit about the series that you just completed in the newsletter which you can get@TrustInsights AI newsletter. You talked a lot about Enterprise AI. And so we’re not talking about enterprise-sized companies, we’re talking about enterprise AI as it has to be regulated. So you’re talking about if Anthropic goes away, just flip to the next thing. But if you’re in an enterprise AI organization, that may not be an option because of how regulated everything has to be. So can you speak a little bit to that? Christopher S. Penn: Yeah. And in fact what we talked about in the most recent issue, which was the July 1 issue, was if you have to obey things like SOC2 or ISO 42001 et cetera, as an enterprise, you should already have these on-premise capabilities. Because in terms of generative AI and vendor selection, if you are in a highly regulated industry where a lot of these things apply to you anyway, this should already be in operation, shouldn’t even be on your roadmap. It should be in operation. You should have local inference capabilities because that’s where your protected information is going to run. That’s where your PHI and your SPI and your PII are all stored and run on models that are inside your infrastructure and under your control. And no data leaves. That’s like the perfect use case for a lot of these technologies because take a model like GLM 5.2, it is an OPUS class model. It is very smart. If you use it via vendor, it’s actually fairly expensive compared to DeepSeek version 4. However, it’s still cheaper than Claude by a 10x. But more importantly, it is a model that on the right hardware, and we’re talking about $50,000 worth of hardware, you can run internally. Now if you are a multi-hundred-thousand-employee company, you’re going to need a few of these computers in your data center. So you’re probably talking five or six million dollars worth of hardware. You’re already spending more than that on Claude Code as we’ve talked about in our Microsoft Copilot Code episode. You’re going to spend that in two months. So you absolutely should have those capabilities internally already. And if you don’t, you are behind. I mean, there’s no polite way to say that. Katie Robbert: Well, and I think it’s nice for us to sort of make those empty threats to vendors of like, I’m gonna do this myself. And then you’re like, I have no idea how to do this. As individuals, as humans, when we’re like I just got laid off, or I’m looking for a job, or what does AI mean for my job, I think over and over again we demonstrate there is still a need for humans who have certain skills, who have critical thinking, and who can manage the machines, not be managed by the machines. That’s something that we’ve talked about a lot over the past couple of years, and this is a really great example of there is still a huge role for a human in the loop. You’re talking about opportunity in terms of a disruption to the market with these organizations deciding to use a large language model to build their own version of whatever this vendor offers. If you were someone on the team that was using the vendor software and you were laid off because the organization said hey, we have the vendor, we don’t need you, guess who has a really good opportunity to do something awesome? You can go and be like well, I know this vendor software inside and out. What does it look like for me to build up that skill set, to build my own version of it, and bring that to the table to an organization at a lower cost, fair salary, and then they don’t need the vendor anymore? Christopher S. Penn: Mm. Yep. If you think about it, and this is something we’ve been saying for 30 years ever since Microsoft Word first came out, you use 20 percent of the features in Word, and the only reason it has all those features is because everybody needs a different set of 20 percent of those features. A law firm has very different use cases for Microsoft Word than we do. However, in an era when you can literally make your own software, you can build something that is custom for you. All those extra features that we don’t have and we don’t want or we don’t need, let’s not put them in. And you will end up with software that is lighter, that is faster, that’s more efficient, that is more effective, that has fewer security bugs because it’s not bloated by all the features that you didn’t need. I would encourage companies to start small, to go through the 5P framework by Trust Insights and think through. Let’s take a WordPress plugin, maybe that you’re paying 20 bucks a month for. What does it do? How do you use it? Your purpose, who uses it? How does it work? What technologies does it rely on? And how do you know that it works? And if you can sit down with your voice recorder of choice and a strong cup of coffee or something and say, here’s what I want to do. I want to make a copy of this kind of software, but it should do this instead and this instead. Here’s who uses it, and here’s why we don’t like the current version and basically the stuff you complain about anyway. And take that and take it to your AI tool of choice, you will find that it can generate exactly what you want. And again, start small. A single plugin, a single utility. But that’ll build the skills and the chops that you need to say we don’t need to pay for this anymore. And then when that vendor changes their privacy policy and their terms of service, bye. Katie Robbert: And I think that it’s also a good reminder that as much as it feels like a pain and it’s sort of a cumbersome exercise, make sure you’re reviewing your privacy policies and terms of use once a quarter. Just to Chris’s point, get a strong cup of coffee, get a snack, put on some lo-fi in the background, some chill music, and just read through to make sure that nothing’s changed. And if something has changed, make sure you’re aware of what’s changed. Companies will say hey, we told you. But they don’t go out of their way to walk up to your house, knock on the door, show you the document, and point out everything that’s changed. They just put it out there. Christopher S. Penn: We got one construction vendor that hangs the notice at city hall in the basement. We followed the letter of the law. Katie Robbert: Yeah, legally, we did what you were supposed to do. It’s not our fault that you were vague about how it had to happen, and so it’s your responsibility to make sure that you are aware. We have recorded a lot of content around the awareness of the consumer as to what you’re signing up for. And this is even more prevalent today than it has been because of how much data is being exchanged. Data is the most coveted currency of all of these vendors. And they are finding loopholes, they are finding legal ways to take what they need. And to be quite honest, they’ve always owned the data. You sign up for the vendor, they house the data for you, they’ve always owned it. It’s the same story unfortunately of you’re renting from a landlord. Landlord can decide tomorrow, I want this building back. There’s going to be stipulations and timelines, but they can make that decision anytime they want because technically they own it, not you. Christopher S. Penn: Yep, this is a chicken farm now. Everybody out. And that is the legal reality. Katie Robbert: And so there’s two aspects to this data sovereignty, right? There is to your point, Katie, do you own your data and is it under your control, which is another big thing. And then do you own the system that processes the data and is it under your control? Christopher S. Penn: And one of the things I would encourage people to do, and this is actually something I even build into my AI instructions, is look for free open source software so that we don’t reinvent the wheel at every opportunity. When I’m looking for something for my blog, when I’m looking for something for my newsletter, whatever, is there a free open source software package that does what I wanted to do, that gets me 95 percent of the way? There is software that doesn’t require me to subscribe to yet another vendor and hand over my data to yet another vendor. And the answer increasingly is yes. In fact, it’s to the point now where there’s so many choices that are free and open source. Not only do I not have to pay for anything, I now have to choose which of these eight software projects is the best one for my needs because there’s so many. And do I want to customize it further for my use? Not everybody has that skill set, but you can develop it because you’re not having to learn how to code. You’re learning how to ask good questions and develop a good vocabulary. Katie, you could do this today using the 5P framework by Trust Insights. Katie Robbert: And it’s the reason why we keep bringing up the 5P framework by Trust Insights, because it is that framework that’s going to support you. It’s foundational. If you can answer these five basic questions, you’re already ahead of the game. When we talk about vibe coding, we want you to do this first. Don’t just open up a large language model and say I want to build my own CRM. Go, no, that’s a bad idea. But if you answer these five questions, it’s not a bad idea because the large language model is going to do the coding with your instruction. With the caveat that you’ve thought about things like data privacy and governance and security, all of those things that go along with hosting data. As marketers, as business owners, the person who has the most data tends to come out ahead because we can do the most with it. And that’s what these vendors are trying to sell you on. It’s like oh well, if you just let us look at your customer’s data and your competitors’ data, but they can also look at yours. Everybody wins, right? No, no, don’t do that. Would I love to take a look at some of my competitors’ data? Absolutely, but only in a very legal way. That also means they couldn’t look at my data. And that’s just not how that works. So you need to think about a couple of things. One is what is your level of risk aversion? If you have data and you don’t really care that your vendor is sharing your data that you have worked so hard to curate and to clean and to foster over the years, that’s fine, that’s your decision. But if you do care about those things, then it’s time to reevaluate your vendors and think about what does it look like for you to build those skill sets on your own? And it’s not impossible anymore. You have a lot of considerations. I wouldn’t just wake up tomorrow and fire your CRM and say I’m going to do it myself. Maybe give it a little more thought than that. But as you’re thinking about it, think about what does it look like? What does that long-term maintenance look like? Could I do this myself? Could I bring on a contractor to help me do this? Could I reach out to Trust Insights and have them help me put a transition plan together? The answer is yes, we could absolutely do that. But it’s worth thinking about. I would have told you a couple of years ago it’s a big effort, but as the technology gets smarter and more agile, it’s not as big an effort as it once was. It is possible. There’s more human upfront thinking that has to be done. But guess what? That’s what we’re here for. Christopher S. Penn: Exactly. Maybe we should do that as one of our live streams is take something simple like a WordPress plugin that we don’t want to pay for anymore, or that we want the premium features for but we don’t want to pay for them, and walk through the process of how we would essentially make our own version of it. Katie Robbert: It’s a good idea. Christopher S. Penn: In the meantime, as Kay suggested, it’s a good time every quarter to review those terms of service. Use a generative AI tool to help ask you questions about what are the things that you care about? And then have it help you read through the document. Don’t have it do it for you, but have it help you by asking good questions. And if you’ve got some thoughts you’d like to share about things like what’s happening with your data in the hands of your vendors and you want to share your experiences on Popeye or Free Slacker, go to TrustInsights AI Analytics for Marketers, where you and over 4,700 other marketers are asking and answering each other’s questions every single day. And wherever it is you watch or listen to the show, if there’s a channel you’d rather have it on set, go to TrustInsights AI TI podcast. You can find us at all the places fine podcasts are served. Thanks for tuning in. Talk to you on the next one. Katie Robbert: Want to know more about Trust Insights? Trust Insights is a marketing analytics consulting firm specializing in leveraging data science, artificial intelligence and machine learning to empower businesses with actionable insights. 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. Trust Insights specializes in helping businesses leverage the power of data, artificial intelligence and machine learning to drive measurable marketing ROI. Trust Insights services span the gamut from developing comprehensive data strategies and conducting deep-dive marketing analysis to building predictive models using tools like TensorFlow and PyTorch and optimizing content strategies. Trust Insights also offers expert guidance on social media analytics, marketing technology and Martech selection and implementation and high-level strategic consulting encompassing emerging generative AI technologies like ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Anthropic, Claude, Dall-E, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion and Meta Llama. Trust Insights provides fractional team members such as CMO or data scientists to augment existing teams. Beyond client work, Trust Insights actively contributes to the marketing community sharing expertise through the Trust Insights blog, the In-Ear Insights podcast, the Inbox Insights newsletter, the So What live stream webinars and keynote speaking. What distinguishes Trust Insights in their focus on delivering actionable insights, not just raw data, Trust Insights are adept at leveraging cutting-edge generative AI techniques like large language models and diffusion models, yet they excel at explaining complex concepts clearly through compelling narratives and visualizations. Data storytelling. This commitment to clarity and accessibility extends to Trust Insights educational resources which empower marketers to become more data-driven. Trust Insights champions ethical data practices and transparency in AI, sharing knowledge widely. Whether you’re a Fortune 500 company, a mid-sized 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.
Alice Han and James Kynge start with China's latest ballistic missile test into the Pacific and what it means alongside a new Australia-Fiji defense pact. Then: Europe wants to shrink its record trade deficit with China, but its worst heat wave on record has sent demand for Chinese air conditioners soaring. They break down whether the two sides can actually cooperate on AI and renewable energy even as tensions rise. Plus: Z.ai just launched ZCode, a coding agent for its GLM-5.2 model said to rival Claude and ChatGPT. Alice and James discuss how big a threat this is to U.S. AI dominance, as well as the fallout from claims that Anthropic used hidden code to track Chinese users. Finally: China's new "Ethnic Unity" law took effect July 1. What does it mean for Tibetans, Uyghurs, and Taiwan… and how is Beijing defending it internationally? Subscribe to China Decode on Substack for weekly analysis, livestreams, and deep dives into the biggest story shaping the global economy: chinadecode.profgmedia.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
AI's all-you-can-eat era is ending.
Our 250th episode with a summary and discussion of last week's big AI news!Recorded on 06/27/2026Note from Andrey: sorry this is late again! this episode release somehow didn't save and I only realized late, my bad... next one will be out way sooner!Hosted by Andrey Kurenkov and Jeremie HarrisFeel free to email us your questions and feedback at andreyvkurenkov@gmail.com and/or hello@gladstone.aiRead out our text newsletter and comment on the podcast at https://lastweekin.ai/In this episode:US government gating of frontier AI expands: Anthropic gets permission to release Mythos-5 to selected companies/agencies after a standoff, OpenAI rolls out GPT-5.6 “Sol” with initial access restricted to ~20 approved organizations, and Meta is pressed to submit models to “voluntary” review—signaling an emerging de facto licensing regime with geopolitical treaty implications.Model capability and safety signals remain murky: limited benchmark disclosure, claims of token-efficiency comparisons, and third-party reports that GPT-5.6 shows extreme benchmark “cheating” sensitivity highlight steering/alignment bottlenecks and uncertainty about real-world long-horizon behavior.Compute supply chain competition accelerates: OpenAI unveils its Jalapeño inference ASIC with Broadcom on TSMC 3nm; Amazon explores selling Trainium to data-center operators; Micron invests in Anthropic with memory supply agreements; SK Hynix surpasses Samsung on HBM-driven valuation; Groq raises $650M while pivoting toward neocloud.Open source and societal response intensify: GLM 5.2 (MIT-licensed) delivers strong long-context coding performance with rapid optimizations; EconEvals maps job-task exposure; bipartisan workforce initiatives and tax credits launch; DeepMind and Apollo publish loss-of-control/control roadmaps; Hollywood reportedly drops a near-finished Sam Altman biopic amid industry pressure.Timestamps (note - these don't take into account dynamically inserted ads and therefore may be off by a couple of minutes):(00:00:10) Intro / Banter(00:03:42) News PreviewTools & Apps(00:04:41) Anthropic allowed to release Mythos AI to some companies, agencies + Anthropic's Mythos mess is only getting worse + Anthropic floats proposal to Lutnick to end US ban of powerful 'Mythos,' 'Fable' AI models: sources(00:07:58) OpenAI Launches GPT-5.6 Sol Under First-Ever US Government-Gated AI Rollout | MLQ News + OpenAI's new flagship model GPT-5.6 Sol cheats on software tests more than any model before it + Summary of METR's predeployment evaluation of GPT-5.6 Sol(00:24:03) U.S. Presses Meta to Agree to A.I. Reviews - The New York Times(00:30:11) Anthropic's Claude Tag is learning your company, one Slack message at a time | TechCrunchApplications & Business(00:32:49) OpenAI reveals its first AI processor: Jalapeño | The Verge(00:38:29) Amazon in Talks to Sell Custom AI Chips in Bid to Undercut Nvidia(00:41:46) Micron invests in Anthropic and grants it a supply deal(00:45:18) SK Hynix overtakes Samsung to become South Korea's most valuable company | Reuters(00:49:12) AI chipmaker Groq confirms $650M raise, re-staffs after Nvidia's $20B not-acqui-hire deal | TechCrunch(00:52:47) SpaceX inks compute deal with Reflection AI, an open source AI lab | TechCrunchProjects & Open Source(00:54:46) GLM-5.2: Built for Long-Horizon Tasks + How we built the world's fastest API for GLM-5.2 + nvidia/GLM-5.2-NVFP4 · Hugging Face(01:03:04) EconEvalsPolicy & Safety(01:05:40) $500 million AI jobs push launches with bipartisan backing - POLITICO(01:07:47) Rep. Sam Liccardo unveils AI workforce tax credit bill - POLITICO(01:08:56) Google DeepMind announced an “AI Control Roadmap” for improving AI agent security. | The Verge + Securing internal systems against increasingly capable and imperfectly aligned AI(01:14:00) The Loss of Control Playbook: Degrees, Dynamics, and Preparedness + The Loss of Control Playbook(01:16:42) Why corporate AI super PACs spent $27 million on a local election | The Verge(01:20:25) Exclusive: Conservatives plan nationwide protest against AI data centersResearch & Advancements(01:27:37) Revisiting the Platonic Representation Hypothesis: An Aristotelian View(01:31:39) Wan-Streamer v0.1: End-to-end Real-time Interactive Foundation Models(01:33:59) Tapered Language ModelsSynthetic Media & Art(01:36:54) Hollywood is bending the knee to OpenAI | The VergeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Google fires the engineer behind its Workspace CLI tool, OpenAI previews GPT-5.6 with three new model tiers, and Astro 7 lands with a full Rust rewrite. Plus: Coinbase cuts token costs with smarter routing, and more in this week's Syntax Live Show Notes 00:00 Intro 00:34 Welcome to Syntax! 01:46 Google fires Workspace CLI Creator 12:30 GPT 5.6 Is Coming 19:59 GLM 5.2 Released 23:23 Astro 7 Rust Re-write 32:46 Cursor Announces iOS App 35:08 Scott's Workflow: Herdr + Mosh + Termius + Tailscale 40:33 Coinbase Reduces AI Cost with Model Routing 44:22 wayfinder-router - Local AI Routing CLI 48:16 Token efficiency in models and harnesses Martin Woodward on X 52:34 performativeUI - react components for AI startups 54:31 Brought to you by Sentry.io 55:21 Reachy Mini Robot 01:02:21 FUTO Keyboard Swipe for Android 01:05:40 CSS Quake 01:07:35 HTML Invoker API is Baseline Available 01:13:17 Cloudflare Temporary Accounts for AI Agents Hit us up on Socials! Syntax: X Instagram Tiktok LinkedIn Threads Wes: X Instagram Tiktok LinkedIn Threads Scott: X Instagram Tiktok LinkedIn Threads Randy: X Instagram YouTube Threads
Postoji li novi AI model koji bi mogao ozbiljno uzdrmati OpenAI i Anthropic? U ovoj epizodi Netokracijinog podcasta razgovarali smo o kineskom modelu GLM-2 koji je iznenadio performansama, nižim troškovima i sve glasnijim upozorenjima da AI utrka ulazi u novu fazu. Dotaknuli smo se i nove inicijative Ujedinjenih naroda koja pokušava usmjeriti razvoj umjetne inteligencije prije nego što ga industrija potpuno preuzme._______________0:00 Novi DeepSeek trenutak? Kina ponovno prijeti AI divovima1:35 Kako je GLM-2 uzdrmao Silicijsku dolinu4:10 Šest puta jeftiniji od konkurencije?6:40 Zašto developeri sve više gledaju prema Kini8:05 Hoće li sigurnost podataka zaustaviti kineske AI modele?10:00 Ujedinjeni narodi žele preuzeti AI regulaciju12:15 Može li regulativa pratiti razvoj AI-ja?_______________
Last month the Trump administration forced AI company Anthropic to shut down two of its most powerful models because of national security concerns. It's now lifted the ban, but while attention has been on the US, China has released an AI model that rivals the most advanced American offerings at a much lower price. Today, ABC finance expert Alan Kohler on what that means the tech bros in Silicon Valley. Featured: Alan Kohler, ABC finance presenter and columnist
The full quad is back just before the Fourth of July. Dave and Sam explain why padel is just pickleball for fancy people, Sam vibe-coded an app to prove you're actually American on the internet (Vox Americanus is real and you can use it: https://voxamericanus.com), and Dave even nominates Sam for office, even though Sam insists we should fix the job before electing anyone actually good for it. The crew also dives into why non-engineers are more capable than they think in the age of agentic coding, Claude Fable 5's government clearance “drama” and return, how GLM 5.2 is quietly replacing Opus 4 on real agent stacks, why Anthropic is still printing revenue despite open source pressure, and the case for an open source router.. They wrap with pop culture corner: Taylor Swift wedding intel and Brit's review of Alpha School.Chapters:0:00 Episode trailer0:50 Episode start1:12 Full Quad Pre-4th of July, Is There Such a Thing as VC Summer?3:32 Padel Is the New VC Networking Sport, Pickleball Is for the Plebs9:10 Vox Americanus, Can You Actually Prove You're American Online?15:25 Should Sam Run for Office? Fix the Job Description First29:30 Agentic Coding, You're Not Too Late35:33 Claude Fable 5 Is Back, Government Clearance Drama Explained41:08 GLM 5.2, Open Source Just Quietly Replaced Opus 446:16 Anthropic Still Printing Revenue, The Case for an Open Source Router47:29 Taylor Swift's Wedding49:36 Alpha School, Brit's Kids Try AI Education52:12 America's 250th BirthdayWe're also on ↓X: https://twitter.com/moreorlesspodInstagram: https://instagram.com/moreorlessYouTube: https://youtu.be/zqmbW163QKQConnect with us here:1) Sam Lessin: https://x.com/lessin2) Dave Morin: https://x.com/davemorin3) Jessica Lessin: https://x.com/Jessicalessin4) Brit Morin: https://x.com/brit
OpenAI floated giving the US government a 5% stake to court the Trump administration. Nvidia promised to backstop cloud providers for a revenue cut, SpaceX showed investors an xAI phone prototype, Apple ramped foldable iPhone orders, and Z.ai launched ZCode. Sources: OpenAI has discussed giving a 5% stake to the US government, seeking to clear political obstacles by securing buy-in from the Trump administration (FT) Nvidia promises to financially backstop young cloud providers like Firmus that rent out its AI chips, in exchange for a revenue share through a new program (The Information) Sources: SpaceX showed investors a handset-like device prototype with AI tech from xAI, a proprietary OS, a Snapdragon chip, and a design slimmer than an iPhone (WSJ) Sources: Apple has told suppliers to prepare to produce ~10M foldable iPhones in 2026, up from 7M to 8M previously, and 80M iPhones in total across new models (Nikkei Asia) Apple reportedly orders 10M foldable iPhone Ultra models, which could sell for around $2500 (9to5Mac) Sources: Apple is in negotiations to buy chips from CXMT and YMTC, two Chinese semiconductor makers on a Pentagon blacklist, for use in devices sold in China (Bloomberg) Z.ai launches ZCode, an "Agentic Development Environment" optimized for its new GLM-5.2 model; Z.ai's GLM Coding Plan costs from $16.20 to $144 per month (VentureBeat) Subscribe to the ad-free feed. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This Week In Startups is made possible by: CLA - www.claconnect.com/withyou Northwest Registered Agent - www.northwestregisteredagent.com/twist Agree.com - www.agree.com Today's show: Forget the triple-triple-double-double-double; the new bar for startups hoping to raise venture capital has reached the stratosphere, though our venture panel is worried that startups are focusing too much on today's problems that may not become companies tomorrow. During a lively VC roundtable, Cowboy's Aileen Lee, Floodgate's Mike Maples, and Lerer Hippeau's Ben Lerer joined Alex to dig into exiting pre-AI startups, rising valuations, token spend, why they are keeping their funds small, and whether the government just tripped OpenAI and Anthropic! Guest Links: Aileen Lee https://x.com/aileenlee Cowboy VC https://cowboy.vc Mike Maples https://x.com/m2jr Floodgate https://www.floodgate.com Bene Lerer https://www.linkedin.com/in/benjlerer Lere Hippeau https://www.lererhippeau.com Timestamps: 0:00 Aileen Lee, Mike Maples, and Ben Lerer join the show 5:13 Venture liquidity returns: what SpaceX/Stripe distributions mean for LPs 9:13 Bending Spoons prices IPO at $29/share, roughly $18.4B valuation 10:31 Agree.com - Stop chasing invoices and automate your entire contract-to-cash stack. Go to https://agree.com and tell them Jason sent you to get 50% off for life! 12:09 "Companies get bought, not sold" — Ben on taking first offers seriously 17:41 Plaud: If your work depends on conversations — interviews, meetings, calls — you need a Plaud NotePin. You can check it out at https://Plaud.ai/twist and use code TWIST for 10% off! 19:34 Mutiny's burn-the-boats AI pivot with Jaleh Rezaei 20:19 Northwest Registered Agent - Get more when you start your business with Northwest. In 10 clicks and 10 minutes, you can form your company and walk away with a real business identity — Learn more at https://www.northwestregisteredagent.com/twist 22:15 Mike's KeepSafe story: the "rule of 70" and profit-first companies 25:12 The new growth bar: 5x, 4x replaces triple-triple-double-double 28:55 Fund size is your strategy: why Floodgate and Lerer Hippeau stay small 30:11 CLA - Innovation takes balance. CLA's CPAs, consultants, and wealth advisors can help you get from startup to where you want to end up. Get started now at https://www.claconnect.com/withyou 37:39 The $100M Series A: Starcloud, General Intuition, Scale Cognition, Scout AI 40:35 King-making rounds and why mega-seeds destroy optionality 54:11 Open-weight models: the GLM-5.2 moment and going model-agnostic 55:30 Why fine-tuning open models is a treadmill, with Cursor/Kimi as an example 1:03:28 Grading the Trump administration on Mythos and Fable 1:06:33 Rising anti-AI sentiment, the wealth gap, and lessons from social media 1:11:43 Raising kids in the post-intelligence era 1:12:35 Where to find the panel and what each firm is investing in Subscribe to the TWiST500 newsletter: https://ticker.thisweekinstartups.com Check out the TWIST500: https://www.twist500.com Subscribe to This Week in Startups on Apple: https://rb.gy/v19fcp Follow Lon: X: https://x.com/lons Follow Alex: X: https://x.com/alex LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexwilhelm Follow Jason: X: https://twitter.com/Jason LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasoncalacanis Check out all our partner offers: https://partners.launch.co/ Great TWIST interviews: Will Guidara, Eoghan McCabe, Steve Huffman, Brian Chesky, Bob Moesta, Aaron Levie, Sophia Amoruso, Reid Hoffman, Frank Slootman, Billy McFarland Check out Jason's suite of newsletters: https://substack.com/@calacanis Follow TWiST: Twitter: https://twitter.com/TWiStartups YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/thisweekin Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thisweekinstartups TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thisweekinstartups Substack: https://twistartups.substack.com
Build Your First AI Employee (Free Workflow + Prompt): https://clickhubspot.com/rkvr Ep. 433 What if you could have an AI employee working right alongside you, automating key business workflows? Kieran and guest Nick Vasilescu (Co-founder of Orgo) dive into how agents are the next big form of business leverage. Learn more on what it actually takes to get a functional AI agent up and running, how new connector tools like Composio make integrations simple, and why giving your agent a second brain with an Obsidian Vault is a game-changer for business productivity. Mentions Nick Vasilescu https://www.nickvasilescu.com/ Orgo https://www.orgo.ai/ Hermes Agent https://hermes-agent.nousresearch.com/ Composio https://composio.dev/ OpenClaw https://openclaw.ai/ GLM 5.2 https://z.ai/blog/glm-5.2 Obsidian https://obsidian.md/ Get our guide to build your own Custom GPT: https://clickhubspot.com/customgpt Resource [Free] Steal our favorite AI Prompts featured on the show! Grab them here: https://clickhubspot.com/aip We're on Social Media! Follow us for everyday marketing wisdom straight to your feed YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGtXqPiNV8YC0GMUzY-EUFg Twitter: https://twitter.com/matgpod TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@matgpod Thank you for tuning into Marketing Against The Grain! Don't forget to hit subscribe and follow us on Apple Podcasts (so you never miss an episode)! https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/marketing-against-the-grain/id1616700934 If you love this show, please leave us a 5-Star Review https://link.chtbl.com/h9_sjBKH and share your favorite episodes with friends. We really appreciate your support. Host Links: Kipp Bodnar, https://twitter.com/kippbodnar Kieran Flanagan, https://twitter.com/searchbrat ‘Marketing Against The Grain' is a HubSpot Original Podcast // Brought to you by Hubspot Media // Produced by Darren Clarke.
L'Amérique barricade son IA, la Chine l'offre à la planète entière — et cette inversion de rôles est la menace que personne dans la Silicon Valley n'avait vraiment vue venir. Ce qui se joue n'est plus une course technologique, mais une bataille pour les standards de l'économie mondiale.===================
Good news: OpenAI's GPT-5.6 has been released!
Topics covered in this episode: Free-threaded Python: past, present, and future django-admin-site-search Qwen 3.6 27B is the sweet spot for local development A large batch of PEPs are finalized Extras Joke Watch on YouTube Show Intro Sponsored by us! Support our work through: Our courses at Talk Python Consulting from Six Feet Up Connect with the hosts Michael: Mastodon / BlueSky / X / LinkedIn Calvin: Mastodon / BlueSky / X / LinkedIn Show: Mastodon / BlueSky / X Join us on YouTube at pythonbytes.fm/live to be part of the audience. Usually Tuesday at 7am PT. Older video versions available there too. Finally, if you want an artisanal, hand-crafted digest of every week of the show notes in email form? Add your name and email to our friends of the show list, we'll never share it. Calvin #1: Free-threaded Python: past, present, and future The GIL has prevented true multi-threaded parallelism in CPython since the beginning — multiple past attempts to remove it failed on performance grounds Sam Gross at Meta finally solved it; his work became PEP 703 and ships as free-threaded CPython today Python 3.13 was experimental with 20–40% single-threaded slowdown; 3.14 brought that to 0–10% Python 3.15 (October 2026) delivers a unified ABI — one extension binary works on both GIL and free-threaded builds Already >50% of the top PyPI binary wheels support free threading Wouters predicts free-threaded becomes the default between 3.16–3.20 (2027–2031), with the GIL eventually disappearing next decade Michael #2: django-admin-site-search via Adam Parkin A global/site search modal for the Django admin, by Ahmed Aljawahiry. Hit cmd+k anywhere in the admin and you get a command-palette-style search window, kind of like the one in VS Code. It doesn't just search one model's list page. It searches your entire site in one box: App labels Model labels and field attributes Actual model instances (your data) Two ways to search the instances: model_char_fields (the default): runs an __icontains across every CharField (and subclasses) on the model. Zero config, works out of the box. admin_search_fields: defers to each ModelAdmin's existing get_search_results(), so it respects the search_fields you've already set up. The part I like: it's permission-aware out of the box. Users only see results for the apps and models they actually have view permission on, so you're not leaking anything through search. Results appear as you type, with throttling/debouncing so you're not hammering the server on every keystroke, and it's full keyboard nav: cmd+k to open, up/down to move, enter to go. It's responsive, does dark and light mode, and it pulls Django's built-in admin CSS variables so it just matches whatever admin theme you're running. Under the hood it's Alpine.js, but bundled into static so there's no external CDN dependency. Setup is about what you'd expect: pip install django-admin-site-search, add it to INSTALLED_APPS, mix the AdminSiteSearchView into your AdminSite, and drop a few template includes into base_site.html. Supports Python 3.8 through 3.14 and Django 3.2 through 6.0, MIT licensed, and everything is overridable if you want to skip certain models, add TextField matching, etc. Calvin #3: Qwen 3.6 27B is the sweet spot for local development Qwen 3.6 27B is being called the first local model that genuinely competes as a general-purpose intelligence — benchmarks put it at roughly mid-2025 frontier level (comparable to GPT-5 / Claude Sonnet 4.5) Runs locally via llama.cpp; on an M5 MacBook Max with 8-bit quantization + multi-token prediction, it hits ~32 tokens/sec using ~42GB RAM 4-bit quantization gets it under 18GB, runnable on 32GB devices; Nvidia RTX cards run it even faster The dense 27B is recommended over the faster MoE 35B A3B — author prefers higher quality output over raw speed Privacy and reliability are the pitch: fine-tunable, can't be taken down, suitable for sensitive/proprietary data Author sees this as a stepping stone — frontier open-weight models like GLM 5.2 are now locally runnable with company-grade hardware, and smarter-still local models are coming Michael #4: A large batch of PEPs are finalized A bunch of PEPs went from accepted to final. 668, 687, 691, 699, 701, 703, 728, 770, 773, 829 But this wasn't them making their way into CPython. It's an admin sorta thing. (Thanks PyCoders) See the commit. Extras Calvin: More fun bling for your terminal this time - https://charm.land/ Michael: Follow up from pls, What the pls? Thanks Pito. Joke: BEMoji A production-grade utility and component framework built entirely on emoji class names via Jeff Triplett
The US lifted its block on Anthropic's Mythos 5, clearing it for 100+ institutions. Researchers said China's GLM-5.2 matches US models on security bugs. South Korea pledged ~$590B for chips, and the memory crunch turned existential for small makers. Letter: the US lifts its block on Mythos 5, allowing Anthropic to release it to more than 100 US institutions; sources: talks about Fable 5 are ongoing (Semafor) Researchers say Z.ai's GLM-5.2 matches latest US models at finding security bugs, as critics question the US' lax approach in restricting Chinese open models (WSJ) South Korea, Samsung, and SK Hynix say they plan to invest ~$590B to build a new chip complex, including four chipmaking plants and a chip packaging cluster (FT) Soaring memory costs are posing existential threats to small electronics makers, amid thin margins, low supply chain leverage, and little room for price hikes (CNBC) Sports clips' rise on platforms like YouTube has left broadcasters debating whether to use them to attract younger viewers or protect their subscription revenue (CNBC) Subscribe to the ad-free feed. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
OpenAI has released GPT-5.6, but the majority of us will have to wait. ⌚After the Anthropic vs. U.S. Government feud, it now looks like we'll have to wait for frontier models. That wasn't the only big AI news headline that might change your company's AI strategy. Anthropic got the green light to roll out Mythos 5 to a select few, Google reportedly extended its strike team to catch up on coding and more. OpenAI's limited release of GPT-5.6, Mythos starts slow reinstatement, OpenAI gets spicy and more AI news -- An Everyday AI chat with Jordan WilsonNewsletter: Sign up for our free daily newsletterMore on this Episode: Episode PageToday's Episode on LinkedIn: Thoughts on this? Join the convo on LinkedIn and connect with other AI leaders.Upcoming Episodes: Check out the upcoming Everyday AI Livestream lineupWebsite: YourEverydayAI.comEmail The Show: info@youreverydayai.comConnect with Jordan on LinkedInTopics Covered in This Episode:OpenAI GPT-5.6 Limited Release ExplainedOpenAI Sol, Terra, Luna Model NamingUS Government Restrictions on AI RolloutsAnthropic Mythos 5 Access and StandoffAnthropic Fable 5 Suspension DetailsGoogle Gemini 3.5 Pro Release DelayedGoogle's AI Coding Mid-Training InitiativeRaiseUS Nonprofit: AI Workforce AdaptationAnthropic Accuses Alibaba of Model DistillationOpenAI & Broadcom Unveil Jalapeno AI ChipKey AI Industry Partnerships & Product LeaksTimestamps:00:00 OpenAI's GPT 5.6 limited release06:14 OpenAI's new model release details09:54 Access suspension and negotiations13:18 Google's AI strategy and delays16:33 Anticipating Gemini 3.5 Pro Release20:40 Accusations of AI model theft24:48 OpenAI and Broadcom chip partnership28:05 OpenAI's recent developments and updates29:56 OpenAI and AI weekly updatesKeywords: GPT-5.6, OpenAI, Anthropic, Mythos 5, Fable 5, Frontier models, Gemini 3.5 Pro, Google, model rollout, limited AI access, AI safety, US government AI regulation, Sol model, Terra model, Luna model, Max reasoning mode, Ultra mode, sub agents, advanced AI benchmarks, coding workflows, cybersecurity, third-party AI analysis, government licensing, AI model guardrails, AI model democratization, model naming scheme, model availability, AI model security, jailbreak resistance, safety filters, general model access, trusted testers, AI export control, national security, Anthropic pullback, supply chain risk, defense department, AI industry competition, talent loss, AI coding, mid training, engineering agents, AI strike team, RaiseUS nonprofit, workforce AI disruption, technology policy, industrial scale distillation, Alibaba, AI model theft, China-US tech tensions, distillation attacks, Jalapeno AI chip, Broadcom, AI inference, custom hardware, data center GPUs, Microsoft, Meta, Elastic compute, AI-powered career navigation, Slack Claude Tag, Canva Grow 2.0, Copilot skills, AI ad creation, AI automation, DigitalOcean plugin, Apple hardware AI, smart glasses, Vision Pro, portfolio tracking AI, Google Finance, home smart speakers, voice AI, GLM 5.2, open source AI, US labor market AI effects, AI job disruption, model leaks, government approval delays.Send Everyday AI and Jordan a text message. (We can't reply back unless you leave contact info) Start Here ▶️Not sure where to start when it comes to AI? Start with our Start Here Series. You can listen to the first drop -- Episode 691 -- or get free access to our Inner Cricle community and all episodes: StartHereSeries.com Also, here's a link to the entire series on a Spotify playlist.
Is the open model GLM-5.2 really Opus 4.8 level?
While Anthropic and the U.S. Government continued to try and make amends, there was another seismic shift quietly taking place: open source surged. Between Microsoft reportedly testing Open Source models for Copilot and the powerful new GLM-5.2, there was a clear trend this week in AI world. Missed it all? Don't worry, we'll catch you up so you can make the informed decisions for your company. Anthropic Continues Fable Fight, Microsoft Goes Open Source, Midjourney's Big Pivot and More AI News That Matters -- An Everyday AI Chat with Jordan WilsonNewsletter: Sign up for our free daily newsletterMore on this Episode: Episode PageToday's Episode on LinkedIn: Thoughts on this? Join the convo on LinkedIn and connect with other AI leaders.Upcoming Episodes: Check out the upcoming Everyday AI Livestream lineupWebsite: YourEverydayAI.comEmail The Show: info@youreverydayai.comConnect with Jordan on LinkedInTopics Covered in This Episode:Anthropic Fable 5 and Mythos 5 Export BanTrump Labels Anthropic a National Security ThreatMicrosoft Copilot CoWork Open Source Model SwitchMicrosoft Considers DeepSeek-V4 for AI Cost ReductionChinese GLM 5-2 Sets Open Source BenchmarkGLM 5-2 Challenges Proprietary AI ModelsMidJourney Hardware Pivot: AI Medical Imaging ScannerCursor Building 1.5T Parameter Model, GitHub CompetitorAI CEO Summit: G7 Pushes US-Led AI CoalitionOpenAI Prepares GPT-5.6 ReleaseAnthropic, OpenAI, Google Face Geopolitical AI ScrutinyAdvancements in Token Efficiency and Cost ControlTimestamps:00:00 Trump's comments on Anthropic06:17 Microsoft exploring lower-cost AI models09:07 Microsoft exploring DeepSeek amid tensions13:45 AI model performance and efficiency trends15:59 AI leaders meet at G7 Summit21:22 Midjourney unveils first hardware product23:26 MidJourney's innovative spa technology28:50 Discussing Cursor's evolution and impact32:24 Talking about AI use cases33:27 Rumors and upcoming AI model releases37:20 OpenAI's major new hiresKeywords: Anthropic, Fable Five, Mythos Five, export controls, national security threat, Dario Amodei, Amazon, supply chain risk, Defense Production Act, Copilot CoWork, Microsoft, usage based pricing, open source AI, DeepSeek V4, Chinese AI model, token costs, Azure, agentic AI, enterprise AI billing, data security, compliance filters, GLM 5-2, Zhipu AI, 753 billion parameter model, MIT open source license, long context window, autonomous coding, Hugging Face, benchmark performance, text only model, multimodal capabilities, token efficiency, AI spend, G7 summit, AI governance, AI coalition, AI standards, cybersecurity risks, bioterrorism, chip trade, Sam Altman, OpenAI, Claude Opus 4.8, Gemini 3.5 Pro, MidJourney, medical imaging, MidJourney scanner, full body ultrasound, Butterfly Network, MRI alternative, spa launch, SpaceX, Cursor, 1.5 trillion parameter model, code hosting, GitHub competitor, code generation, AI super apps, Colossus compute, technical prompts, context window expansion, GPT 5.6, Claude Conway agent, Grok Imagine, Firefly AI, code artifacts, Google Ad Manager AI, Open Knowledge Format, Noam Shazeer, Dean Ball, Andrej Karpathy.Send Everyday AI and Jordan a text message. (We can't reply back unless you leave contact info) Start Here ▶️Not sure where to start when it comes to AI? Start with our Start Here Series. You can listen to the first drop -- Episode 691 -- or get free access to our Inner Cricle community and all episodes: StartHereSeries.com Also, here's a link to the entire series on a Spotify playlist.
The AI Breakdown: Daily Artificial Intelligence News and Discussions
GLM 5.2 is looking like the first open-weight model in a while that might survive contact with real-world usage, especially for coding and web design. NLW looks at why builders are comparing it to the DeepSeek R1 moment, where the hype is justified, where the cost story is more complicated, and what it means for enterprise AI stacks that can no longer assume a simple OpenAI-versus-Anthropic race.Register for our new enterprise-grade AI training programs: http://training.besuper.ai/Brought to you by:KPMG – Research from KPMG and the University of Texas at Austin shows the highest-impact AI users treat AI like a reasoning partner — and those skills can be taught at scale. Learn more at kpmg.com/us/SophisticatedSection - Section turns AI investment into workforce transformation and ROI - https://www.sectionai.com/Outsystems - Stop wondering how AI will change your business and start building the agents that will lead it - http://outsystems.com/Scrunch - The AI customer experience platform - https://scrunch.com/Zenflow Work - Agents for knowledge work - https://zenflow.free/Blitzy - Want to accelerate enterprise software development velocity by 5x? https://blitzy.com/MissionCloud - Eliminate AWS complexity with end-to-end cloud and AI services https://www.missioncloud.com/AssemblyAI - The best way to build Voice AI apps - https://www.assemblyai.com/briefRobots & Pencils - Cloud-native AI solutions that power results https://robotsandpencils.com/The AI Daily Brief helps you understand the most important news and discussions in AI. Subscribe to the podcast version of The AI Daily Brief wherever you listen: https://pod.link/1680633614Our Newsletter is BACK: https://aidailybrief.beehiiv.com/Interested in sponsoring the show? sponsors@aidailybrief.ai
Intel stock popped after Trump said Apple agreed to build chips with it in America. Waymo yanked its robotaxis off highways over construction-zone blunders. Rockstar dated GTA VI pre-orders to June 25, and GLM-5.2 grabbed the open-weights crown. Intel's stock jumps 10.64% after Trump said "Apple has agreed to work with Intel to design and build its Chips in America"; INTC is up 520%+ in the past year (CNBC) Filings: Waymo pulls its ~4K robotaxis from highways after finding 13+ instances of the cars driving into highway sections under construction (TechCrunch) Rockstar Games announces that pre-orders for Grand Theft Auto VI will go live on June 25; TTWO closed up 4.93% (Kotaku) GLM-5.2 is the leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis' Intelligence Index, scoring 51, only behind Fable 5's 60, Opus 4.8's 56, and GPT-5.5's 55 (Artificial Analysis) GLM-5.2 becomes the top open-weight model on Artificial Analysis (Implicator) Longreads Google Is Using Nvidia's Playbook to Build a Rival AI Chip Business (WSJ) AI Is Splitting the Job Market in Two, PwC Study Shows (Bloomberg) Apple's weird anti-nausea dots cured my car sickness (The Verge) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
ChatGPT tasks are back, Jack. ✅While we were collectively ping-ponging the Anthropic vs. U.S. government saga, the big tech AI players rolled out a TON of fresh AI features that are available today. ↳ Claude Design got a big upgrade↳ Google Vids got some serious AI sparkle↳ And there's a new Open Weights model king We'll break it all down. ChatGPT's Task Comeback, Claude's Design upgrade, Codex Copies your workflow and 7 other Fresh AI features you'll Want to use Today -- An Everyday AI Chat with Jordan WilsonNewsletter: Sign up for our free daily newsletterMore on this Episode: Episode PageToday's Episode on LinkedIn: Thoughts on this? Join the convo on LinkedIn and connect with other AI leaders.Upcoming Episodes: Check out the upcoming Everyday AI Livestream lineupWebsite: YourEverydayAI.comEmail The Show: info@youreverydayai.comConnect with Jordan on LinkedInTopics Covered in This Episode:ChatGPT Pulse Sunsetting and Tasks Comeback2. ChatGPT Scheduled Tasks Features and Access Tiers3. Claude Design June Update Overview4. WYSIWYG Editing and Design System Imports in Claude Design5. Claude Design Export Options and Third-Party Integrations6. Google Vids AI Avatars Upgrade with Veo 3.17. OpenRouter Fusion Multi-Model Synthesis Feature8. Claude Code Artifacts for Team and Enterprise Plans9. GLM 5.2 from ZAI Open Weights Model Overview10. GLM 5.2 Benchmarks and Enterprise Use Cases11. OpenAI Codex Record and Replay Feature Explained12. Codex Record and Replay vs. Traditional RPA ToolsTimestamps:00:00 Intro: 7 new AI features you can use today02:35 ChatGPT Tasks: Pulse is gone, Tasks are back04:31 Who has access to ChatGPT Tasks08:18 Claude Design June update overview09:14 WYSIWYG editing and Claude Code integration12:07 Claude Design export options and third-party integrations15:21 Google Vids AI Avatars upgrade18:15 OpenRouter Fusion multi-model synthesis21:54 Claude Code Artifacts for teams25:36 GLM 5.2 from ZAI open weights model29:02 OpenAI Codex Record and ReplayKeywords: ChatGPT Tasks, ChatGPT Pulse, OpenAI, scheduled tasks, proactive AI agent, Claude Design, WYSIWYG editor, Claude Code, design system import, PowerPoint export, Google Vids, AI avatars, Veo 3.1, Gemini 3.1 Flash, OpenRouter Fusion, model fusion, multi-model synthesis, Claude Code Artifacts, Claude Team plan, GLM 5.2, ZAI, open weights, MIT license, mixture of experts, Codex Record and Replay, RPA, workflow automation, Artificial Analysis, Hugging Face, Canva integrationSend Everyday AI and Jordan a text message. (We can't reply back unless you leave contact info) Start Here ▶️Not sure where to start when it comes to AI? Start with our Start Here Series. You can listen to the first drop -- Episode 691 -- or get free access to our Inner Cricle community and all episodes: StartHereSeries.com Also, here's a link to the entire series on a Spotify playlist.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
