Podcasts about Google Cloud

An exclusive with the CEO of Google Cloud, Thomas Kurian, after Alphabet's cloud unit saw an 82% jump in revenue growth. But the stock falling on some capex concerns. Then the CEO of IBM joins the show, a week after the company warned of weaker than expected results, that led the stock to see its worst day ever. He explains the outlook. And Tesla on pace for its worst day in more than a year, why spending concerns are also hitting that stock.   Squawk on the Street Disclaimer Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In today's Cloud Wars Minute, I preview the coming wave of Q2 earnings while highlighting the extraordinary growth reshaping cloud computing. Highlights 00:03 — We're on the verge of having a lot of calendar Q2 financial results released, so just in advance of that, I wanted to offer a snapshot of where things stand now regarding the world's hottest cloud and AI vendors. Right now, we've got Palantir in the number one spot, Google Cloud number two, Oracle number three. 00:42 — I've also got a chart in there showing backlog, or RPO, which is future booked business that's fully contracted, fully committed, among the four hyperscalers that now totals over $2 trillion. But in the here and now, here's where it stands for the Cloud Wars Top 10 companies. Palantir is in the number one spot for Q1. 01:56 — We've got Microsoft with an enormous performance here: 29% growth and $54.5 billion in quarterly cloud revenue. AWS had a very strong quarter: 28% growth and $37.6 billion in revenue. Salesforce is in the number nine spot with 13% growth, while OpenAI remains an estimate because it is not yet publicly traded. 03:05 — You know, you see some of these numbers, and as I referred to a moment ago about the backlog numbers, which are truly just mind-bending, we become immune to being amazed by the size and the volume here. I do not throw around the phrase "the greatest growth market the world has ever known" lightly. 03:55 — The former applications companies are now racing to become agentic companies and data companies. Huge change and transformation within the Cloud Wars Top 10 is helping customers participate in, succeed in, and potentially thrive in the AI economy. I don't expect any massive changes in this lineup, but the growth numbers will be very interesting over the next few weeks. Visit Cloud Wars for more.

La France dépend encore massivement des géants américains pour ses logiciels, son cloud et son intelligence artificielle. C'est le constat sévère dressé par la commission d'enquête sur les vulnérabilités numériques, dans un rapport publié mercredi 15 juillet. Près de 80 % des achats réalisés auprès des cinquante principaux fournisseurs de logiciels de l'Ugap, la centrale d'achat public, bénéficient à des entreprises américaines comme Microsoft, VMware ou Oracle. Les administrations dépenseraient au moins 1,5 milliard d'euros par an dans des solutions extra-européennes. Selon les députés, un milliard pourrait pourtant être réorienté dès maintenant vers des logiciels libres.Le constat est similaire pour l'hébergement des données. Des ministères, la CNAF, France Travail, mais aussi EDF, Enedis ou SNCF Réseau utilisent encore largement AWS, Google Cloud ou Microsoft Azure. Or, les lois américaines peuvent permettre aux autorités d'accéder à certaines informations hébergées par ces groupes. Les élus alertent également sur un possible « kill switch » : la capacité de Washington à couper l'accès à des services numériques par de simples restrictions à l'exportation.L'intelligence artificielle accentue cette dépendance. ChatGPT serait utilisé par 79 % des Français ayant recours à l'IA, contre seulement 14 % pour le service de Mistral. À cela s'ajoute une régulation jugée trop lente ou insuffisamment appliquée. Sur 3,5 milliards d'euros d'amendes prononcées en Irlande entre 2020 et 2024 au titre du RGPD, seulement 0,6 % auraient réellement été payés. Le rapport dénonce aussi un lobbying puissant, avec 35 millions d'euros dépensés par les GAFAM en 2025 et plus de 200 représentants mobilisés à Bruxelles. Il pointe enfin des stratégies de verrouillage : crédits cloud attractifs, présence dans les écoles et influence de prestataires présentant les solutions américaines comme incontournables.La commission propose donc de basculer 100 % des achats de logiciels de l'État vers l'open source à partir de 2030. Elle cite la gendarmerie, passée sous Linux, qui aurait économisé 534 millions d'euros depuis 2004. Parmi les autres mesures : une clause de souveraineté dans les marchés publics, un soutien renforcé aux entreprises françaises, un moratoire sur certains data centers étrangers et la création d'un véritable ministère du Numérique. L'objectif est clair : transformer une dépendance devenue stratégique en politique industrielle. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Esta semana, Diego comenta la frase que la presidenta Laura Fernández dirigió al Poder Judicial, luego de que le pidieran que dejara las acusaciones de corrupción y que, de tener pruebas, presentara las denuncias correspondientes. Además, analiza la comparecencia de la magistrada Patricia Solano ante la Comisión de Seguridad y Narcotráfico, así como la aparente relación entre el bloqueo del oficialismo a la elección de magistraturas suplentes y la causa del “Caso Costa Rica Próspera”. RecomendacionesVideo Mario Quirós Carta pública del Foro del MagisterioNota sobre ACAM y municipalidadesCosta Rica PuedeCENFOTEC abrió 400 becas del 100% para obtener una certificación oficial de Google Cloud en computación en la nube. La iniciativa reúne a CENFOTEC, Procomer, el BID, Google Cloud y Talent Up para fortalecer capacidades y abrir oportunidades laborales en tecnología. Las postulaciones cierran el 24 de julio.Trece chanchos de monte regresaron al Parque Nacional Piedras Blancas, en Golfito, después de más de 15 años de ausencia. Conservación Osa y el Sinac prepararon durante dos años la reintroducción de la manada, que ahora es monitoreada mediante collares satelitales, cámaras trampa y patrullajes. La comunidad de Daniel Flores, en Pérez Zeledón, estrenó Mi Pueblo Cuenta: Entre Ceibas y Tradiciones, una ruta turística que reúne historia local, observación de aves, gastronomía, presentaciones artísticas y emprendimientos de la zona. Mujeres de los ocho pueblos indígenas de Costa Rica organizarán el Mercado Sawak para financiar la participación de jóvenes en el IV Encuentro Nacional de Mujeres Indígenas.Agenda CulturalEste sábado 18 de julio, el Mariposario Spirogyra, en San Francisco de Goicoechea, presentará Living Systems, una experiencia que conecta plantas y otros organismos vivos a sensores para convertir sus señales eléctricas en música en tiempo real.RIDE Cultural tendrá este fin de semana conciertos, teatro, danza, talleres, exposiciones, cuentacuentos y actividades para todas las edades, todas de acceso gratuito. Los días 24 y 25 de julio, el Territorio Indígena Térraba celebrará el Festival Cultural Filomena Navas: Saberes Vol. 01, dedicado a la memoria de la lideresa bröran declarada Benemérita de la Patria este año. El barbero de Sevilla regresará a Costa Rica del 24 al 31 de julio, casi tres décadas después de su última producción nacional. 

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

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

Uber agreed to acquire Delivery Hero for ~$14.8B, expanding into 99 markets. Thinking Machines released its first open-weight model, Inkling, SpaceXAI open-sourced Grok Build after a data-upload backlash, and sources detailed xAI's chaotic race to catch Claude under new leadership. Uber agrees to acquire Delivery Hero in a deal that values the German food delivery company at ~$14.8B, offering €41.50 per share and buying Prosus' 16.8% stake (Bloomberg) Thinking Machines Lab debuts Inkling, an open-weight MoE model with 975B total and 41B active parameters, trained to be broad rather than optimized for one area (Thinking Machines Lab) Thinking Machines Lab debuts Inkling, an open-weight MoE model with 975B total and 41B active parameters, trained to be broad rather than optimized for one area (WSJ) SpaceXAI open-sources Grok Build under an Apache 2.0 license, after the tool uploaded user repositories to SpaceXAI's Google Cloud bucket, causing a backlash (Simon Willison) SpaceXAI open-sources Grok Build under an Apache 2.0 license, after the tool uploaded user repositories to SpaceXAI's Google Cloud bucket, causing a backlash (The Decoder) Sources detail how xAI has been slowed down by internal chaos as Musk pushed for Grok to match Claude, amid signs it is turning a corner under Michael Nicolls (Bloomberg) Sources: Apple is preparing new iPads, including an iPad mini with an OLED screen by October and refreshed entry-level iPads and iPad Airs for 2027 (Bloomberg) Subscribe to the ad-free feed. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In today's Cloud Wars Minute, I explain why hyperscalers are rewriting the rules of deal-making to build the next generation of AI infrastructure. Highlights 00:01 — We are seeing the beginnings here of an incredible round of innovation, not just in technology, but in deal-making, partnerships, alliances, and financing, all by the hyperscalers trying to meet this insatiable AI demand. We're seeing these companies undertake some very innovative, bold, distinctive new strategies to build the capability and capacity to get these AI data centers built out to meet this insatiable demand. 00:49 — Google Cloud did a joint venture with Blackstone, in which Blackstone invested $5 billion into the joint venture. We have seen Amazon issue a series of debt and bond offerings totaling over $100 billion. AWS has said that in calendar year 2026 it will spend $200 billion on CapEx, most of which is going into AI data centers. Oracle announced $50 billion in debt and equity financing. 01:57 — This funding, this raising of funds to build out the data centers, is because there is, among these hyperscalers, over $2 trillion in committed contracted business. While Oracle right now is the smallest by revenue of the hyperscalers, it has the largest backlog, and in order to meet that, it has to spend a lot of money to build the capacity. 02:46 — Microsoft is using proceeds from its brilliant early relationship with OpenAI to help secure some of the funding. Under a newly restructured agreement between the two companies, Microsoft now will receive 20% of OpenAI revenues for the next few years. Plus, Microsoft has a huge ownership stake in OpenAI. 04:17 — Remarkable things are going on here as the technology buildout by all these companies has helped create this incredible demand. What we're seeing now is extraordinary efforts by the hyperscalers to combine with other companies, move into different industries, and do everything possible — at staggering expense — to meet this insatiable customer demand for AI. Visit Cloud Wars for more.

In this episode of Shift AI, Jared Wray, CEO and co-founder of Hyphen, joins host Boaz Ashkenazy for a wide-ranging conversation on how AI is poised to eliminate the complexity of cloud infrastructure and the DevOps role entirely.Jared shares his unconventional career journey from growing up in a small town in Idaho, where technology barely existed, to washing dishes at 15, teaching himself programming at the local ISP, and eventually founding five startups across cloud computing, energy tech, and developer infrastructure. From bootstrapping Tier 3 (acquired by CenturyLink) to co-founding Palmetto, now one of the largest energy lenders in the nation, Jared's path has been defined by a passion for solving infrastructure problems.The conversation dives deep into why DevOps has become painfully complex, with developers needing to glue together seven to thirteen different services just to deploy a single application across providers like AWS, Google Cloud, and Cloudflare. Jared explains how Hyphen is using AI to abstract away this complexity by asking developers only for business rules like uptime requirements and performance needs, then letting the AI determine the right architecture, deploy it, and operate it autonomously.Boaz and Jared explore why tools like Claude Code and other coding agents still cannot handle the full deployment lifecycle, what it would look like if AI agents replaced PagerDuty by calling you during an outage with a diagnosis and recommendation, and why the future of infrastructure is an autonomous cloud where humans are decision makers and agents handle everything else. The episode closes with a forward-looking discussion on agent-only companies, the death of cloud certifications, and why Jared believes DevOps was a good idea that we ran too long.This episode is essential listening for CTOs, platform engineers, and startup founders who want to understand how AI is moving beyond writing code to fundamentally transforming how software is deployed, operated, and scaled.Chapters[00:00] From Pocatello to Five Startups: Jared's Career Journey[02:49] Building Fonz, Co-founding Palmetto, and Finding Passion in Infrastructure[06:05] Why AI Led Jared Back to Infrastructure with Hyphen[07:05] First Job as a Dishwasher and Breaking Into Tech[08:46] What Is DevOps and Why Does It Exist[10:49] Why Cloud Infrastructure Has Become So Painfully Complex[12:36] How AI Can Apply Best Practices Without Reinventing the Wheel[14:35] The Hyphen Developer Experience: Business Rules Over Architecture[17:14] Why Claude Code and Coding Agents Cannot Solve Infrastructure Yet[20:26] The Full Context Problem: Operating Across Multiple Cloud Providers[23:07] Autonomous Cloud: When Agents Talk to Agents[24:17] Replacing PagerDuty: AI Agents That Call You During Outages[28:47] March Madness, Live Streaming, and Why Five Minutes Feels Like a Lifetime[30:59] Two Words for the Future of Work: Autonomous Cloud[33:20] Agent-Only Companies and Why Humans Will Be CEOs[35:12] DevOps Was a Good Idea We Ran Too Long[35:41] What Is Next for HyphenConnect with Jared WrayLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaredwray/Email: jw@hyphen.aiConnect with Boaz AshkenazyLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/boazashkenazy/Email: info@shiftai.fm

Bloomberg reported that Anthropic is planning investor meetings as a potential IPO approaches. Anthropic, founded in 2021 by Dario and Daniela Amodei, develops the Claude model family and emphasizes AI safety. Amazon completed a commitment of up to $4 billion in 2024, and Google was reported in 2023 to be investing up to $2 billion, alongside earlier funding from Spark Capital and from FTX and Alameda Research in 2022. Claude is distributed through Anthropic's API, Amazon Bedrock, and Google Cloud's Vertex AI, tying workloads to hyperscale infrastructure. The company established a Long-Term Benefit Trust in 2023 to embed safety in governance. Investor meetings would address valuation, operating metrics, and concentration risks as the IPO window improves after listings by Reddit, Astera Labs, and Rubrik.Learn more on this news by visiting us at: https://greyjournal.net/news/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today’s headline news for Canadian IT solution providers: OpenAI Partner Network: OpenAI‘s inaugural Partner Network is officially live as of July 15, with vice president of strategic global partnerships Colleen Kapase confirming the three-tier program is backed by $150 million in channel investment. Partners can progress through Select, Advanced, and Elite tiers while earning specializations in areas like Codex, cybersecurity, and AI agents. OpenAI says it aims to train 300,000 certified consultants by year-end and is recruiting solution providers of all sizes that can put AI systems into production. OpenAI Carbon60 MSP 501: Carbon60, a Toronto-based managed cloud services provider, has been named to the 2026 MSP 501 at position 206, ranking among the world’s top managed services firms by revenue and operational discipline. The company has built a differentiated practice around Canada-first sovereign cloud and Azure expertise, and the ranking follows a broader push by Canadian MSPs to demonstrate global competitiveness in compliance-heavy verticals. Carbon60 RecordPoint channel-first: RecordPoint has launched a global partner program that CRN describes as a channel-first move, enabling resellers, consultancies, and systems integrators to resell, co-sell, and refer its data and AI governance platform. Partners will receive enablement, joint sales support, and platform access to build practices around data retention, compliance, and AI-ready data classification. Channel Insider Blackpoint Cyber 2026 threat report: Blackpoint Cyber has released its 2026 Annual Threat Report, finding that attackers are increasingly exploiting trusted IT tools rather than using perimeter breaches. The report highlights abuse of remote monitoring and management platforms, VPNs, and identity credentials as primary vectors. ChannelPro Network Managed security market growth: Acronis and Omdia project the global managed security market will grow from $93 billion in 2025 to $106 billion in 2026, a 14.4 percent increase. The growth reflects sustained demand for outsourced security operations among mid-market organizations that lack internal SOC capacity. RAMageddon pressures PC refresh: Industry analysts and OEMs continue to signal significant PC RAM price increases through 2026 due to the ongoing memory supply shortage. Channel partners should advise clients on refresh timing and alternative configurations to manage budget impact. CNET Exabeam MSSP licensing: Exabeam has expanded its APEX partner program with pooled and federated licensing options designed specifically for MSSPs. The new framework is intended to reduce onboarding friction and simplify compliance across multi-tenant security operations centers. Security Brief Read Full Transcript Welcome to The Buzz from ChannelBuzz.ca, I’m Robert Dutt, today is Thursday, July 16, and here’s what’s happening in the channel today. OpenAI’s inaugural Partner Network is officially live as of yesterday, July 15, with the company backing the three-tier program with $150 million in channel investment. Vice president of strategic global partnerships Colleen Kapase confirmed the program is open to solution providers of all sizes, not just global systems integrators. Partners can progress through Select, Advanced, and Elite tiers based on sales performance, technical capability, and deployment experience. The program includes specializations in Codex, cybersecurity, and AI agents. OpenAI says it aims to train 300,000 certified consultants by the end of 2026, and is actively recruiting solution providers that can put AI systems into production. Philip Larson, senior director of the OpenAI Partner Network and a former Google Cloud channel leader, said the program is designed to reward partners for the value they create with customers. Canadian VARs and MSPs with existing AI practices should evaluate the program alongside their current AWS, Google, and Microsoft partnerships, as the specializations in Codex and AI agents may create differentiation in automation-heavy verticals. Carbon60, a Toronto-based managed cloud services provider, has been named to the 2026 MSP 501 at position 206, marking the company as one of the world’s top managed services firms by revenue and operational discipline. The ranking, published by Channel Futures, evaluates financial health, operational maturity, and recurring revenue growth. Carbon60’s inclusion follows a broader trend of Canadian MSPs demonstrating global competitiveness in specialized infrastructure and compliance-heavy verticals. The company has built a differentiated practice around Canada-first sovereign cloud and deep Azure expertise. As Canadian public sector and healthcare clients face stricter data residency requirements, sovereign cloud capabilities are becoming a key differentiator for domestic MSPs seeking to compete with larger global firms on government and enterprise contracts. RecordPoint has gone channel-first with the launch of a global partner program enabling resellers, consultancies, and systems integrators to resell, co-sell, and refer its data and AI governance platform. The program arrives as AI adoption drives a surge in demand for data governance across regulated industries. RecordPoint says partners will receive enablement, joint sales support, and platform access to build practices around data retention, compliance, and AI-ready data classification. CRN reports that the move represents a strategic shift for the company. Canadian partners serving regulated industries like finance, government, and healthcare may find particular opportunity as clients confront unstructured data sprawl ahead of AI deployments. In Brief – OpenAI commits $150 million to launch its inaugural Partner Network with tiered AI specializations. Acronis and Omdia project the managed security market will reach $106 billion in 2026. Blackpoint Cyber’s 2026 Annual Threat Report highlights attackers hiding inside trusted IT tools and RMM platforms. RAMageddon memory shortages continue to pressure PC pricing and enterprise refresh cycles. Exabeam adds pooled and federated licensing options to its APEX partner program for MSSPs. Full details and links in the show notes or the blog post. Later today on In The Channel, we’re talking specialist distribution in Canada with Carrie Hopkins of Exclusive Networks. We get into the Ignition program, what broadliners can’t deliver, and why the model might feel familiar to channel veterans. And if you haven’t heard it yet, yesterday we wrapped our HPE Discover 2026 arc with HPE vice president of North America channels Jeremiah Jenson. He talks about the quote-cycle win, the Canadian angle on data sovereignty, and what partners should stop doing. That’s how we’re seeing the headlines today. I’m Robert Dutt for ChannelBuzz.ca, thanks for listening. Have a great day.

David is a veteran cybersecurity executive with more than 30 years of experience and currently serves as Chief Information Security Officer after previously leading Oracle's SaaS Cloud Security organization. David has held leadership roles at Microsoft and Google Cloud, helping build and secure some of the world's largest cloud platforms. He's also a former U.S. Navy electronic warfare specialist, an inventor with more than 30 security patents, and now serves as both a Chief Information Security Officer and Venture Partner.00:00 Intro02:50 Our Guest05:50 The Evolution of Technology and Coding10:55 AI's Role in Software Development and Security16:07 DevSecOps and Cloud Security Architecture18:35 The Future of Vulnerabilities and Human Factors in Cybersecurity21:22 The Value of Veterans in Cybersecurity22:21 Maturing Organizations in Cybersecurity23:20 Understanding Risk and Maturity Models24:51 Simplicity in Cybersecurity Practices25:27 Challenges for Small and Medium Enterprises27:05 Adopting AI in Organizations29:58 Data Leakage Prevention Strategies32:01 Third Party Risk Management35:02 Concerns with Embedded Systems37:50 Emerging Threats in Cybersecurity39:58 The Future of Cyber Threats43:27 Leveraging AI for Enhanced Capabilities

CNBC reported that Apple is in talks with a startup that specializes in compressing AI models to run on iPhones. The move aligns with Apple's strategy to execute more AI locally, reducing reliance on cloud infrastructure and lowering latency. On-device AI relies on techniques such as quantization, pruning, and distillation to fit models within CPU, GPU, and Neural Engine limits. The shift could reduce cloud inference costs that depend on GPUs from providers like Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud. Competitors including Google, Samsung, Qualcomm, and Meta are advancing on-device AI capabilities. Founders should benchmark compact models, assess battery impact, and decide which features should run locally versus in the cloud.Learn more on this news by visiting us at: https://greyjournal.net/news/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Treasury sanctions a VPN provider tied to ransomware. The Pentagon hits pause on CMMC audits. Critical flaws surface in Google Cloud's Dialogflow CX. Estée Lauder discloses a data breach. Mobile networks become a battlefield for tracking U.S. personnel. Australia calls out Big Tech over child safety. SAP patches critical bugs. CISA flags an actively exploited Cisco flaw. And the federal government accelerates AI investments. Our guest is Bogdan Botezatu, Senior Director, Threat Research and Reporting at Bitdefender, talking about Cyberthreats to Journalists and Influencers. AI costs savings come at a price. Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Miss an episode? Sign-up for our daily intelligence roundup, Daily Briefing, and you'll never miss a beat. And be sure to follow CyberWire Daily on LinkedIn. CyberWire Guest Today we are joined by Bogdan Botezatu, Senior Director, Threat Research and Reporting at Bitdefender, is talking about "Targeting the Messengers: Cyberthreats to Journalists and Influencers," their awareness campaign designed to address the escalating digital and reputational risks faced by media professionals in hostile environments. Selected Reading US sanctions VPN, malware providers for enabling ransomware attacks (Bleeping Computer) Pentagon announces 'immediate suspension' of CMMC Phase II mandates (Breaking Defense) Google Cloud Dialogflow CX vulnerability allowed AI agent hijacking | brief  (SC Media) Estée Lauder Companies Reports Data Breach Exposing Health Records and SSNs (Beyond Machines) US military targeted in Iran war phone-tracking campaign (Financial Times) Australia finds serious gaps in Big Tech response to online child sexual abuse (Reuters) SAP warns of critical flaws in NetWeaver and Commerce Cloud (Bleeping Computer) CISA adds Cisco IOS flaw to known exploited vulnerabilities catalog | brief (SC Media) Federal AI Projects Get Priority in TMF Funding Dash (GovInfo Security) Companies Are Throttling Employees' AI Use Because It's Too Expensive (404 Media) Share your feedback. What do you think about CyberWire Daily? Please take a few minutes to share your thoughts with us by completing our brief listener survey. Thank you for helping us continue to improve our show. Want to hear your company in the show? N2K CyberWire helps you reach the industry's most influential leaders and operators, while building visibility, authority, and connectivity across the cybersecurity community. Learn more at sponsor.thecyberwire.com. The CyberWire is a production of N2K Networks, your source for strategic workforce intelligence. © N2K Networks, Inc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

AI Chat with Maxime Lamothe-Brassard and Chris Luft.A new segment on the podcast: AI news in cybersecurity that is less than 24 hours old, discussed while it is still hot. Joining Chris for these conversations is LimaCharlie founder and CEO Maxime Lamothe-Brassard.In this episode:• Nipun Gupta (founder of Optimus Labs) reports that xAI's Grok Build CLI packaged and uploaded an entire local Git repository — commit history, branches and .env files with API keys — to a Google Cloud bucket; wire-level analysis via mitmproxy, a quiet server-side fix, and why you should rotate keys if you used the tool.• Fortinet's take (via Mexico Business News) on AI accelerating vulnerability discovery and exploitation: 24–48 hours from disclosure to active exploitation vs. 16 days to patch — and whether "virtual patching" is a real mitigation or a feat of marketing.• The AI distillation debate: after years of arguing fair use for scraping the internet, frontier labs now object to competitors training on their model outputs — Business Insider's look at the irony, shared by Pascal Hetzscholdt (Wiley).• Neon Cyber's survey on shadow AI rising with seniority: 14% of individual contributors use unapproved AI tools vs. 63.7% of managers and 70% of VPs and above — and why enforcement, not awareness, is the real challenge.Stories covered:• / guptanipun_my-spare-laptop-ran-completely-... • https://mexicobusiness.news/cybersecu...• / pascal-hetzscholdt_quote-heres-some-delici... • https://neoncyber.com/blog/shadow-ai-...Chapters:0:00 Intro — welcome to AI Chat0:45 Grok Build CLI uploading entire repos (Nipun Gupta / Optimus Labs)4:57 AI is outpacing patch management — is virtual patching the answer?12:32 The AI distillation debate: scraping irony at the frontier labs16:29 Shadow AI use rises with seniority (Neon Cyber)22:51 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/6ep00ze...• Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...• YouTube: / @limacharlieio

In today's Cloud Wars Minute, I compare Google's ecosystem-first AI strategy with the hybrid deployment models of Microsoft and AWS.Highlights 00:03 — A crazy new trend here in 2026 has been AI deployment, or agent deployment, agentic transformation. The connection is this remarkable technology that all these AI companies have been pumping out with the desired business goals that business leaders are demanding. You see a couple of different approaches emerging here. 00:26 — The five big AI companies leading the way on this are Google Cloud, Microsoft, AWS, OpenAI, and Anthropic. The only one of those that is going with an exclusively partner ecosystem-led approach for these AI deployments is Google Cloud. I think the big thing is it's going 100% with its ecosystem partners for these AI deployments, for what Google Cloud calls agentic transformation. 01:51 — President, Global Partner Ecosystem, Kevin Ichhpurani has been a very successful in his efforts. He's also been a staunch supporter of this [approach], he says: "We're a technology company. We're really good at doing the technology, and we want to surround ourselves with force multiplying partners who are really good at the deployment. And Google Cloud will be connected with them in some ways." 03:16 — Partner-driven revenue was up 80%. Bookings driven by partners were up 100%, so they doubled. And sales of partner-created solutions on the Google Cloud Marketplace were up 90%. As high-growth as Google Cloud was in 2025, they're moving and growing, expanding at an even more blistering pace here in 2026. 04:36 — Google Cloud has said, "Hey, what we've been doing so far has been working really well. We're going to double down on that with lots of training and incentives for our partners," whereas AWS and Microsoft say, "You know what? We're going to keep working with partners. In some ways, we need to build our own capabilities and expertise." Visit Cloud Wars for more.

Legacy enterprises are facing a decisive shift from stalled pilots and fragmented data toward agentic systems that reshape customer experience, operations, and net‑new revenue.   Matt Renner, President and Chief Revenue Officer at Google Cloud, examines how leaders can move beyond early AI failures to build modern data foundations, orchestrate heterogeneous agents, and accelerate transformation in conversation with Daniel Faggella, Emerj CEO and Head of Research.   The discussion highlights capability‑driven ROI, structured AI governance, data modernization, agentic orchestration, and the emerging security imperatives shaping enterprise adoption.   To listen to the conversations other infrastructure and AI leaders in the Fortune 500 are tuned into, subscribe to the AI infrastructure podcast at emerj.com/inf1

What if the biggest obstacle to AI-driven ROI isn't the AI itself, but everything you're feeding it?Agility requires not just the speed to adopt new technologies like AI, but the clarity to recognize when foundational elements, like your data strategy, must be fixed first to unlock true potential.Today, we're going to talk about the intense pressure on revenue and marketing leaders to demonstrate ROI from AI. We'll explore the counterintuitive idea that simply chasing 'better AI' is a distraction, and that the real gains come from addressing the foundational data gaps that plague most organizations.To help me discuss this topic, I'd like to welcome, Ann Davis, Chief Revenue Officer at Crunchbase. About Ann DavisAnn Davis is the Chief Revenue Officer at Crunchbase, where she leads global sales strategy and drives adoption of the company's AI-powered predictive intelligence solution. With more than 30 years of experience scaling enterprise sales teams at high-growth SaaS companies, Ann brings deep expertise in data analytics, customer engagement, and revenue growth. She joined Crunchbase from Google Cloud, where she led sales for data analytics solutions—including BigQuery and Vertex—across multiple U.S. regions. Prior to that, she was Vice President of Sales at Looker, playing a key role in expanding its enterprise business ahead of its acquisition by Google. At Crunchbase, Ann is focused on helping customers unlock the power of AI-driven market insights to anticipate shifts and act faster.Ann Davis on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anndavis3/---------- Resources ---------- Crunchbase: https://www.crunchbase.comThe Agile Brand podcast is brought to you by TEKsystems. Learn more here: https://aglbrnd.co/r/2868abd8085a9703We're proud to be a media partner for #MAICON26 - Oct. 13-15! Learn how AI can power your marketing and business and help you grow smarter. Use code AGILE150 to save! https://aglbrnd.co/r/7fe458ced0f04658Reach your customers with Reddit. Spend $500 in ad spend, get $500 back in ad credit! Learn more: https://advertalize.com/r/491818c79fb1873fChaser is the only Slack-native project management platform that helps teams turn messages into tracked tasks, automate follow-ups, and maintain team-wide visibility, without adopting another tool. Now integrated with Claude and other GenAI tools. Learn more at trychaser.com and use code AGILEBRAND for a 3-month free trial (normal trial is 14 days).The most influential minds in software, AI, and engineering leadership will be at WeAreDevelopers World Congress North America, September 23-25 in San Jose. Learn more: https://aglbrnd.co/r/60a7299222a7bcf1Enjoyed the show? Tell us more at and give us a rating so others can find the show at: https://aglbrnd.co/r/faaed112fc9887f3Connect with Greg on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gregkihlstromDon't miss a thing: get the latest episodes, sign up for our newsletter and more: https://aglbrnd.co/r/35ded3ccfb6716baCheck out The Agile Brand Guide website with articles, insights, and Martechipedia, the wiki for marketing technology: https://www.agilebrandguide.comThe Agile Brand is produced by Missing Link—a Latina-owned strategy-driven, creatively fueled production co-op. From ideation to creation, they craft human connections through intelligent, engaging and informative content. https://www.missinglink.company Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Ray Cochrane breaks down AI distillation, the teacher-student technique frontier labs now lean on to train smaller, cheaper models. He also covers GPT-5.6’s government-vetted rollout, Claude Sonnet 5 landing on AWS, Maryland’s two-year data center pause, and Microsoft’s climbing carbon numbers. Finally, he wraps with Apple’s $30 billion Broadcom deal, Meta’s tamper-proof recording light, Michigan’s parasite outbreak, and a simulation that erased a super El Niño. – Want to start a podcast? Its easy to get started! Sign-up at Blubrry – Thinking of buying a Starlink? Use my link to support the show. Subscribe to the Newsletter. Email Ray if you want to get in touch! Like and Follow Geek News Central’s Facebook Page. Support my Show Sponsor: Best Godaddy Promo Codes Get 1Password Full Summary Cochrane opens with a quick personal update. Longer days have him outdoors, including a float trip on the Sandy River at Dabney State Park, where he found clearer water, clay-like sand, and easy footing. Next week brings both a move and a trip home, so he is stocking up on Trader Joe’s “Power Berries” and IKEA bags at his mom’s request. Then he turns to the lead story. AI Distillation Explained: How Frontier Models Teach Each Other Cochrane’s featured story comes from Hugging Face engineer Sergio Paniego. Distillation is teacher-student training for AI: a capable model generates the training signal, and a smaller student learns to match it. The classic off-policy version compresses giant models into cheap students, either through soft labels or piles of worked answers. Google’s Gemma models and DeepSeek’s R1-Distill line were built exactly this way. However, the industry is now converging on multi-teacher on-policy distillation, or MOPD. Labs build reinforcement-learning specialists for math, coding, and agentic work, then have them grade a single student, word by word, as the student generates its own answers. DeepSeek-V4, MiMo-V2-Flash, and NVIDIA’s Nemotron 3 Ultra all run versions of the recipe, and the Qwen3 team reported better results at roughly a tenth of the GPU hours of raw reinforcement learning. Finally, self-distillation lets models like Cursor’s Composer 2.5 learn from better-prompted versions of themselves. Sponsor: GoDaddy Economy hosting $6.99/month, WordPress hosting $12.99/month, domains $11.99. Website builder trial available. Use codes at geeknewscentral.com/godaddy to support the show. GPT-5.6 Arrives With a Government-Vetted Rollout OpenAI shipped GPT-5.6 as a three-tier family: Sol, Terra, and Luna. Sol costs five dollars in and thirty dollars out per million tokens, half of Claude Fable 5’s rate. The benchmarks split: Sol Ultra wins Terminal-Bench at 91.9 percent, while Claude Fable 5 still leads SWE-Bench Pro. Notably, the API launched in limited preview to roughly 20 partners vetted by the U.S. government, though the model went live in Microsoft 365 Copilot on day one. Claude Sonnet 5 Lands on AWS, Plus Quick AWS Wins Claude Sonnet 5 arrived on AWS through Bedrock, pitched as top-tier intelligence at Sonnet pricing. Additionally, Amazon WorkSpaces for AI agents reached general availability, enabling agents to drive full desktop applications securely. OpenSearch gained a log-analytics engine claiming four times the price-performance, and SageMaker now scales inference about twice as fast. Cochrane also flags that Kendra and Q Business move to maintenance mode at the end of July. Anthropic Wants You to Reflect on Your Claude Habits Anthropic launched Reflect, a beta feature that analyzes your past Claude conversations and visualizes how you actually use the assistant. It requires Memory, excludes incognito and health-related chats, and keeps its insights inside the tool. Cochrane loves the idea. He reviews his own transcripts to extract prompt patterns and turn them into reusable skills, and he suggests listeners simply ask their AI to do the same. AlphaEvolve Goes GA on Google Cloud Google made AlphaEvolve generally available to Google Cloud customers on the Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform. The agent acts as an evolutionary collaborator: provide a baseline algorithm and your goals, and it searches for better, human-readable code. BASF, JetBrains, and Kinaxis are the named early adopters. Meanwhile, Cochrane renews his standing wish that DeepMind release AlphaGo as a playable teacher. Google Adds “How This Ad Was Made” AI Labels Google is adding a “How this ad was made” section to My Ad Center across Search, YouTube, and Discover. Ads built with Google’s own AI tools automatically get the disclosure, backed by invisible watermarks. However, ads made with outside tools rely on advertiser self-declaration. Cochrane points out the limits of voluntary disclosure in an AI-flooded content economy. Microsoft’s Carbon Emissions Climb 25 Percent Microsoft’s new sustainability report shows emissions up 25% in 2025, driven by a data center construction spree. The gross figure is 34 million metric tons before offsets, while other coverage puts the net figure at around 20 million. Water consumption also jumped thirty-four percent, even as Microsoft claims its first water-positive year. Cochrane argues regulation needs to catch up, since Google and Amazon report similar increases. Prince George’s County Pauses Data Centers for Two Years Prince George’s County adopted a two-year moratorium on new data center development, the longest pause in Maryland so far. The resolution blocks new applications, including hyperscale projects, until the council passes real regulations. Water and energy impacts remain open questions the county intends to study. Cochrane gives kudos to residents for making their voices heard. Apple and Broadcom Ink a $30 Billion U.S. Chip Deal Apple is expanding its partnership with Broadcom with a multiyear agreement expected to exceed $30 billion. The deal covers custom silicon and wireless components, with more than fifteen billion chips to be made on American soil. Broadcom’s Fort Collins, Colorado plant anchors the work with a $1.5 billion equipment expansion. Tim Cook framed the deal as accelerating Apple’s commitment to American manufacturing. MSI and Intel Ship the First Arc G3 Extreme Handheld Intel detailed how it co-engineered the MSI Claw 8 EX AI+, the first handheld on the Arc G3 Extreme processor. Highlights include a heat-spreading board layout and game-tuning loops that Intel says run Cyberpunk 2077 up to thirty-seven percent faster. The device is on sale now in void purple for around $1,500. At that price, Cochrane jokes he would rather buy a computer. Meta’s Glasses Get a Tamper-Proof Recording Light Meta answered the most common privacy questions about its AI glasses. Photos stay private on the device until the wearer imports or shares them, and a white capture LED blinks during any recording with no off switch. Moreover, newer glasses disable the camera if the LED is blocked, tampered with, or destroyed. Cochrane reminds listeners these claims are Meta grading its own homework, but the blink signal is worth recognizing in public. Michigan’s Parasite Outbreak Tops 1,200 Cases Michigan’s cyclosporiasis outbreak reached 1,251 cases since June 22, with roughly forty hospitalizations along the way. Northwest Ohio adds more than five hundred cases. The parasite typically spreads through contaminated fresh produce, and investigators still have not found the source. Cochrane’s advice: wash your produce, and get tested if your symptoms fit. AI Finds the San Andreas Fault’s Silent Slips Researchers paired AI with borehole strainmeters to detect dozens of hidden slow-slip events beneath the San Andreas Fault’s Parkfield section. Each silent slip releases stress within hours and is reliably followed by low-frequency earthquakes. Together, the findings support a continuous spectrum from silent creep to destructive quakes. The study appears in Nature Communications, and Cochrane hopes it will lead to better earthquake prediction. Cloud Brightening Erased a Super El Niño, in a Simulation Finally, a Science Advances study simulated marine cloud brightening in response to the 1997 and 2015 super El Niño events. Seeding clouds over the eastern Pacific erased the events entirely inside the model. Real deployment would take roughly 2,400 ships spraying continuously, and the simulations showed side effects like extra warming over Europe and Asia. Cochrane finds the weather-machine concept fascinating, yet he questions the consequences of altering cycles the planet runs for a reason. The post AI Distillation: How Frontier Models Teach Each Other #1870 appeared first on Geek News Central.

Minute, I look at how Google Cloud, Microsoft, AWS, OpenAI, and Anthropic are redefining enterprise AI adoption. Highlights 00:11 — So, in what I'm calling the AI Deployment Wars, we see the five largest AI companies — that is, Google Cloud, Microsoft, AWS, OpenAI, and Anthropic — are now all saying, or realizing, that in addition to this incredible technology they're pumping out, they have to actually ensure that all that cool stuff works for customers and that it delivers quantifiable business outcomes. 01:29 — One, we see these tech companies, who've always said, "I don't want to be in the services business," now they have to get a little bit into the services business. They are all relying on the coolest three-letter acronym of the year, FDE, for forward deployed engineers, and they're all saying they're doing this to help customers, to co-create and collaborate with customers. 02:22 — So first, Google Cloud, number one on the Cloud Wars Top 10, it announced a $750 million ecosystem fund to help partners develop agentic AI applications and capabilities that will help its customers get up to speed. OpenAI, $4.15 billion that it's investing in this — $4 billion so far itself, and outside investors have put into a new deployment company. 03:03 — Anthropic, it's about $1.5 billion, and all these companies, other than Google Cloud, it's a combination of forward deployed engineers and partners. AWS said, "We're going to put a billion dollars into it." Microsoft, $2.5 billion. It's calling it's the Microsoft Frontier Company. These numbers here together add up to $9.9 billion. I rounded up to $10 billion. 04:02 — They're (customers are) saying, "We're spending a lot of money on it, we're devoting a lot of time, we're devoting a lot of thinking and energy and focus to this, but we're not seeing the tangible business outcomes." We need to get this deep-seated engineering capability from these big tech vendors to ensure that these new AI transformation initiatives aren't just talk. Visit Cloud Wars for more.

Artificial intelligence is reshaping marketing at a pace unlike anything we've seen since the birth of digital. But as today's guests remind us, the fundamentals of great marketing haven't changed.Recorded live at the Infillion Café during Cannes Lions 2026, Jim sits down with Marie Gulin-Merle, Global Vice President of Ads & Commerce Marketing at Google, and Anda Gansca, Co-Founder and CEO of Knotch.Marie has spent her career leading marketing for some of the world's most iconic brands, including L'Oréal, Calvin Klein, and PVH, before joining Google to help shape the future of advertising, commerce, and AI-powered marketing on a global scale.Anda founded Knotch more than a decade ago with a vision of making digital experiences more personalized and measurable. Today, Knotch helps many of the world's leading brands optimize content performance and customer experience, and Anda has become one of the industry's leading voices on the intersection of marketing, data, and AI.Just days before this conversation, Google and Knotch announced the launch of ACE (Agentic Content Engine), a new AI-powered experience platform built with Google Cloud, Vertex AI, and Gemini. Designed for the emerging "AI-native consumer," ACE enables brands to create dynamic, personalized digital experiences that adapt in real time to each customer's needs.Together, Jim, Marie, and Anda explore what this next era of marketing means for brands, why relevance has become the industry's most valuable currency, how AI can amplify rather than replace creativity, and why the future belongs to marketers who can unite technology, data, and human insight to create better customer experiences.—This week's episode is brought to you by Knotch and Infillion.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Visual AI gets stuck not because the technology fails, but because enterprises cannot move it from controlled environments into the variability of daily operations. In this episode, Brian Ton, Senior Laboratory Manager at Florida Crystals Corporation, examines why building operational trust in visual AI requires more than a successful pilot — and what actually determines whether a deployment becomes standard practice or stalls. The conversation covers validation and verification frameworks, the role of the feedback loop in sustaining trust, and why starting with small, demonstrable wins is more effective than reaching for enterprise-wide solutions from the outset. This episode is sponsored by Roboflow. Do you sell AI products or services? Emerj gives you access through trusted content and real conversations. Learn how leading AI brands like NVIDIA and Google Cloud work with Emerj to reach Fortune 500 AI buyers — download our media kit at: emerj.com/AD1

This was upside down week in AI news.

Microsoft prepara demissão em massa, e Xbox demite mais de 3 mil pessoas e reestrutura divisão de games! Veja destino dos estúdios. Chrome proíbe extensões que desbloqueiam IAs e limita coleta de dados. Óculos que filmam: o que pode, o que não pode e o que diz a lei. Novo malware para macOS se disfarça de app popular de copiar e colar. Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra deve ter S Pen de volta, mas com um asterisco. Recurso 'Ocultar Meu Email' da Apple tem bug que revela endereços. Sam Altman diz que IA vai transformar o mundo como a eletricidade. Trump compra ações de Big Techs antes de alta histórica do mercado. Meta prepara serviço de nuvem para competir com AWS, Azure e Google Cloud e mais! E eu sou Amanda Fleure, a companhia de vocês nessa noite no Hoje no TecMundo, seu programa diário de tecnologia que começa depois da vinheta envolvente que o editor vai colocar aí pra gente!

Unlocking billions in cloud marketplace revenue. Subscribe to our Newsletter: https://theultimatepartner.com/ebook-subscribe/ Check Out UPX: https://theultimatepartner.com/experience/ This powerful panel discussion featuring leaders from Google, Tackle, and dbt Labs dives deep into the explosive growth of cloud marketplaces and the radical shift toward AI-driven go-to-market strategies. With hyperscaler backlogs nearing half a trillion dollars, the conversation unpacks how top-tier organizations are transforming their compensation models, aligning executive buy-in, and navigating the complexities of co-selling to capture committed customer budgets. From the rise of AI agents acting as metered SaaS to the essential operational investments required to scale marketplace revenue from 10% to over 50%, this session provides an actionable roadmap for software companies ready to dominate the 2026 partner ecosystem. https://youtu.be/LSj49f5FEII Key Takeaways Hyperscaler backlog commitments represent a massive, nearly half-trillion-dollar addressable market that completely changes the budgeting conversation. Successful marketplace selling requires complete executive alignment, right down to the CFO, and strategic adjustments like spiffing sales teams for marketplace transactions. The AI category is experiencing staggering 18x year-over-year growth, forcing companies to pivot toward an “agent-first” go-to-market model. Shifting from traditional channels to cloud go-to-market demands a multi-year, intentional investment in operations, people, and technology. System integrators are evolving into software companies as they build orchestration agents to manage fragmented, end-to-end workflows. Leveraging cloud commitments bypasses standard 12-15 month budget cycles, allowing for significantly faster deal closures and larger initial lands. If you're ready to lead through change, elevate your business, and achieve extraordinary outcomes through the power of partnership—this is your community. At Ultimate Partner® we want leaders like you to join us in the Ultimate Partner Experience – where transformation begins. Key Tags: Google Cloud Marketplace, hyperscaler backlog, cloud commitments, co-selling strategies, AI agents, metered SaaS, product-led growth, rev ops, B2B sales transformation, ecosystem shift, channel strategy, system integrators, Deal registration, private offer APIs, digital transformation, software procurement. Transcript: Insight to Revenue- The State of Cloud GTM [00:00:00] Dai Vu: These are all things everyone has to do to get to that first five to 10 deals, and then 10, 20, 30% of your business through Marketplace. [00:00:09] Vince Menzione: You can feel it happening. The ecosystem is shifting beneath us, the way Hyperscalers are partnering, how AI is remaking the channel and what it means to win in 2026. [00:00:21] Vince Menzione: Welcome to the Ultimate Partner Podcast. I’m Vince Menzi, own your host, and each week I sit down with leaders at the intersection of technology. Partnerships and outcomes. The voices shaping how ecosystems actually work. We talk about what’s real, what’s changing, and what it takes to lead in this era where the partner channel isn’t just part of the strategy. [00:00:43] Vince Menzione: It is the strategy because being in the room changes [00:00:46] John Janke: everything. Let’s start. [00:00:52] Vince Menzione: And we have an incredible session. The way that we wanted today to, to, to start the day up was like, let’s talk about what’s happening right now and let’s get three leaders in this space to come up and talk about the world and how it’s a rapidly evolving. So I want to invite to the stage dvu from Google is a great friend of Ultimate Partner. [00:01:14] Vince Menzione: Are you guys ready? Are you guys micd up already? Okay, good. Good. John Yanke, the CEO and Founder of Tackle, and Sean Todo, who is an incredible leader with DBT, but also an old friend of mine. We worked together on Microsoft Days. Good to see you gentlemen. Thanks Sean. Great to have you with us. [00:01:37] John Janke: They stuck me on the side ’cause they said I’d block the screen if I sat in the middle. [00:01:41] Shawn Toldo: You still block it a little bit. [00:01:42] John Janke: And that picture’s from like 1985. I, I, we do have to get that. I had way darker hair. It was, uh, 10 year, 10 years at a startup. Makes you turn white. [00:01:52] Shawn Toldo: Mine’s the exact same right now. So it’s all good. [00:01:55] Shawn Toldo: Mine’s AI generated. Yeah. [00:01:57] Vince Menzione: Well, you know, guys, I just took it all off at that point, you know, it’s like good. Yeah, but you lose enough of it. You pull it out over the years. Yeah. So, uh, some really exciting times. Uh, you, we gotta spend some time at you at our breakfast. That’s right. A couple weeks ago. [00:02:13] Dai Vu: A lot of folks here, too. [00:02:14] Vince Menzione: A lot of folks that are here were at that breakfast, and I thought we’d spend a few moments with you talking about all the exciting things that have been happening at, at Google. I mean the, yeah, the businesses just to, first of all, the numbers were house. Outstanding. Congratulations. [00:02:28] Dai Vu: That’s right. [00:02:28] Vince Menzione: Yep. [00:02:28] Vince Menzione: Really, some really great numbers. Commitments are off the charts. [00:02:32] Dai Vu: Yes. [00:02:32] Vince Menzione: Crazy off the charts. [00:02:33] Dai Vu: Yes. [00:02:34] Vince Menzione: Yes. Uh, and then there’s a lot happening in this little world called ai, which makes a ton of sense. Yep. I was critical about Google in the beginning because you had all the assets, but Microsoft leaned in first. [00:02:45] Vince Menzione: Uh, but now it’s like things have evolved, uh, quite a bit since those first days. Absolutely. In, in November of 2022. So, uh, take us through a little bit. Let’s, let’s go through [00:02:56] Dai Vu: it. Yeah. I could talk for quite a bit of time because obviously we came out next, yeah. At the end of April, and then we had our earnings announced, but shortly thereafter. [00:03:03] Dai Vu: But, but real quick on next, uh, for folks who attended, uh, you know, the way they framed, uh, the discussion was they showed this AI integrated stack, and that’s how they frame the keynote because we position ourselves as being the only vendor that provides this. Fully integrated stack from custom silicon all the way to the apps and agents. [00:03:23] Dai Vu: And a lot of the announcements were, were focused in those areas. Um, uh, I won’t go through the, the long list, but I think the big ones coming out of next were, uh, certainly the eighth generation TPU we announced, so we actually split this into two specialized chips for training and inference. Uh, so that’s, uh, that was a big piece. [00:03:41] Dai Vu: Uh, but the big one that we announced was this, uh, Gemini Enterprise. Uh, agent platform. So think of it as the comprehensive platform for companies to basically build scale, govern and optimize their agents. And of course, once they have that, they can bring that into, uh, what we call a Gen Gemini enterprise app, which is really the front door for AI for. [00:04:03] Dai Vu: All customers and all employees to manage a mix of agents, um, as part of their daily workflow. And, uh, and a big part of it is, you know, certainly they’ll have some custom agents, but we think a lot of the agents will come from the ecosystem. And obviously there was a big announcement around what we’re doing there. [00:04:21] Dai Vu: Um, and in fact, one of the things that’s interesting is this shows the evolution of, of marketplace in our, in our partnership, which is we’ve taken a lot of the marketplace experience. And brought it into Gemini exp uh, Gemini Enterprise app, right? So search, discovery, uh, the ability to invoke agents, uh, in context. [00:04:39] Dai Vu: I think that’s gonna be very powerful as we think about the evolution, uh, of, of go to market. And then the last thing maybe I’ll highlight is this, um, is. 750 million, uh, investment fund that we’re gonna drive with the broad partnership. So this cuts across all partner types, global system integrators, uh, uh, you know, AI, pure plays, uh, ISVs, uh, the big management consultants as well, uh, because we recognize that partners are gonna be critical to drive business transformation with our end customers. [00:05:08] Dai Vu: So we’re investing around things like. Technical enablement, access to our product teams, access to our FDE for deployment engineers, and then a lot of incentives to drive usage and deployment. So, um, so a lot of, a lot of activity and obviously the ecosystem’s gonna be very critical for us to drive that impact’s. [00:05:25] Dai Vu: Fine. And the last thing, I know we’ve going on and on fine, but the last thing I’ll just mention is just on the earnings announcement, uh, Vince touched on the backlog, so people have been tracking Yeah. Two quarters ago. We were 155 billion on the backlog, and then a quarter later we were 240 billion. And then in the last quarter, just recently, 462 billion. [00:05:46] Dai Vu: So obviously that’s a, a massive signal of customer intent, but more importantly, it’s a, it’s, it’s a addressable market for this ecosystem to go after as well. [00:05:54] Vince Menzione: Yeah. Almost a half a trillion dollars. Yes. In commitment. So a lot, a lot of reason why we should be on the marketplace. [00:06:01] Dai Vu: Absolutely. Absolutely. [00:06:02] Vince Menzione: Um, each of these gentlemen have some things to talk about as well, about their companies and the exciting things that have been happening. [00:06:08] Vince Menzione: I’m gonna start, John, I’m gonna start with you because Tackle has, has transformed quite a bit since the last time you were on stage with us. I thought maybe introduce the company. Take us through the transformation and then we’re gonna do the same thing with Sean with his organization. [00:06:21] John Janke: Yeah. Thanks. Uh, thanks Vince. [00:06:23] John Janke: Great to see everybody. Uh, John Yanke, GM of Tackle at App Direct. So the big news there is Tackle was acquired in Q4 by a company called App Direct, and I think the why behind this app, direct Powers, marketplaces, they run 400 marketplaces around the world for telcos, for ISVs, for system integrators, channel partners. [00:06:42] John Janke: And we were talk like, when you build a marketplace and diagnose this, stocking the shelves is actually really hard. Uh, and we were talking to them about how could we connect the dots between the hyperscaler marketplaces, the iscs we support, and these additional routes to market. Uh, and that became more strategic and we ended up joining forces in December. [00:07:00] John Janke: And since then, the other part that’s really hard when you build a marketplace is how do you generate demand? Uh, so four weeks ago we acquired a company called Partner Stack. And Partner Stack does affiliate content. They have an affiliate content platform that allows you to connect with 150,000 content providers to be able to start to tell your story to drive leads to. [00:07:23] John Janke: Marketplace. So we think there is a tremendous opportunity to continue. We’re in the earliest days. I think the, you know, Jay, I was with Jay at Channel Partners a few weeks ago and he is like, we under called it, he didn’t say this on stage yesterday, but he is like, uh, the 82% growth. He’s like, we totally under called it. [00:07:40] John Janke: Uh, and I think just listening to dies commit level increase mm-hmm. Reinforces the fact that we’ve under called it. But I also think we’re at this tipping point in the market where all of the new capabilities coming out, we have to all rethink our better together stories. So I think the challenge to all partner leaders, it’s like, how do we. [00:07:58] John Janke: Figure that out. So it’s, it’s a, it’s a fun time. As we transform the way we worked. We wrote the first helping people kind of list, launch and sell through the marketplaces. And now to be able to take that to the next level to hopefully unlock the next a hundred billion of marketplace throughput. [00:08:13] Vince Menzione: And are we at a hundred billion? [00:08:15] Vince Menzione: ’cause that was the number, right? [00:08:16] John Janke: I mean that’s, that’s, that’s the number that’s talked about. I mean, we’re seeing the data signals we see, I mean, we will process 20 billion plus this year. Uh, and that number’s growing faster than Jay’s stated number. So I think we’re excited to see where this year lands. [00:08:30] Vince Menzione: We’ve come a long way from three years ago and we all got on stage and talked about marketplaces together. Right. It’s been, it’s been amazing. And then Sean, let’s talk about DBT. You’ve had some excitement. I know some things maybe we can’t even talk about yet on stage. [00:08:43] Shawn Toldo: Uh, yeah, go ahead. [00:08:44] Vince Menzione: No, I was saying I, I could, I’ll pre-announce things, but No, I’m just, uh, tell, tell us about DBT for those who don’t know in the room, sure. [00:08:49] Vince Menzione: Mean Yeah, that might help. [00:08:51] Shawn Toldo: So, uh, Sean Todo, I lead the partner business at DBT. I’ve been here about 18 months. Um, DBT really started as an open source tool. That help data engineers be successful in SQL transformation with cloud data warehouses? Right. And so back even to the Redshift days now into what I would call more the BigQuery, snowflake, Databricks fabric led days, um, DBT is the tool of choice amongst the data engineering community in terms of how they wanna drive SQL transformation. [00:09:21] Shawn Toldo: And so more recently, we kind of jumped into this kind of paid world. Which is why we needed to bring in additional experience leadership around go to market product, sales, et cetera. And so when I walked in the door, one of the things I noticed really quickly was we were running on AWS, which was great. [00:09:40] Shawn Toldo: We were doing some AWS marketplace stuff. We were running on Azure in Europe only. And one of my first strategies was we have to be everywhere, right customer. We have to meet customers where they are. And so we, uh, made some major investments to be on Google Cloud platform to then be able to really take advantage of marketplace, to then really be able to take advantage of the co-sell opportunities that exist in the field from a day, day-to-day AI perspective with Google. [00:10:07] Shawn Toldo: And it has been a hell of a ride. We launched on, uh, Google Marketplace in July of last year. We went to Google next and we were Google Partner of the Year. Wow. For data and analytics in a very rapid way. We’re now in three, uh, data centers around the, the world. So we’re here in the us, we’re in Frankfurt, we’re in uh, uh, UK as well. [00:10:30] Shawn Toldo: And so it’s been a pleasure to work with D and the broader team. Because the enablement we’ve had and the support we’ve had from that group has really helped our growth be up and to the right. The data point I would give is that when I walked in the door, we were 10% of our business from an A RR perspective was transacting through marketplace. [00:10:48] Shawn Toldo: Last quarter we cracked 40%. Whoa. We will be at north of 50, uh, next quarter. [00:10:53] Dai Vu: Wow. [00:10:54] Shawn Toldo: The other piece that Vince was talking about is we’re getting ready to merge with a company called Five Tran. And so there will be a new company name at some point down the road. Uh, pay attention on June 1st for a public announcement around that merger. [00:11:06] Shawn Toldo: Uh, but we’re really looking forward to what we’re gonna be able to do with folks like DI and the Google team as well as others in the ecosystem. Um, ’cause I think in this data world that we’ve played for so long. This trusted foundational element of data and what it’s gonna mean to context in the AI world. [00:11:23] Shawn Toldo: We’re in a very interesting place to really continue our growth rate at a high level. [00:11:28] John Janke: Yeah, that maybe just a comment something there. Start there. I think we, we used to hear people say we wanted to be strategic with cloud, go to market and get to say 10 or 20% of revenue. I think this like 40, 50%. Yeah. Th that’s where people are setting the bar these days. [00:11:43] John Janke: Yeah. So the numbers are getting really crazy. Yeah. Uh, and people are showing up and being like, I have to go big. Mm-hmm. So a huge change over the last few years. [00:11:52] Vince Menzione: Yep. What’s the experience you’re seeing as well? I mean, it, it was a huge amount of buzz at next. [00:11:57] Dai Vu: Yeah. I mean, so interestingly, um, you know, typically when, when people get started on the, on the marketplace in Cosal journey, I always try to caution them and say, this is, uh, this is like a multi-year. [00:12:07] Dai Vu: Yeah. Uh, process. You have to be very intentional. You have to invest. It’s not gonna be a thing where you just list and, and, and, and, and, and sort of this channel opens up. So in some ways, Sean is describing an acceleration that is not common, right? Uh, so they’ve done, we’ve done some amazing things together and we hope to keep that acceleration going. [00:12:22] Vince Menzione: What does that require, by the way? Is it engineering resource? I mean, there’s, I talk about executive commitment and maniacal focus. Yeah. But it’s all those things, right? [00:12:29] Shawn Toldo: Well, all of it. But we went to a QBR in Austin, and I put up a slide and I said, we have to do this. And everybody in our ETE agreed. So when you have a chief financial officer that’s bought into the partner business. [00:12:43] Shawn Toldo: Yeah. And I guess qualifying coming into this role at this company, I qualified the C-level staff. Uh, like are they really serious about partner or not? And it’s one of the reasons I took the role. So I think executive commitment was one thing. I think the second thing is we were really well supported, um, by the Google team across the board, right? [00:13:02] Shawn Toldo: Yeah. So folks, Indy’s team that we would work with regularly on, these are the things you need to do to have an effective marketplace offering. Here’s what you need to do operationally with folks like John and team and others that are in the market, right? That helped us a ton to be able to scale. And then the other thing that we did is we changed comp. [00:13:20] Shawn Toldo: So from our VP of sales levels down, we have a 5% kicker for everything that goes through marketplace. [00:13:26] Vince Menzione: Hear [00:13:26] Shawn Toldo: that everyone. So as soon as we incented the sales team, I love that, right? We, we created the foundation on the partner side, but then from top down on the sales side, they were all in. And as a result of that, the question would become, okay, which marketplace stage two sales cycle are we gonna go use? [00:13:42] Vince Menzione: Yeah. [00:13:43] Shawn Toldo: Who’s the right partner to go partner with? And then my team is reaching out to make sure that co-sell connection happens. [00:13:48] Vince Menzione: That is such a best practice, Sean, to, because there is, as a seller out in the field and we talk about, you talk to John, talks about rev ops all the time. But getting rev ops eng getting the field engaged in the right way. [00:14:01] Vince Menzione: ’cause it feels like it’s more work for them. ’cause they have to think, they have to have more conversations with their customer about their cloud commitments and things like that. Mm-hmm. And then getting them incentive to do the right things. The right behavior. [00:14:12] John Janke: Yeah. It’s a strategy process. People, technology problem. [00:14:17] John Janke: Yeah. It’s not just some flip API automation, go list something if you don’t like that top down view. I think the other thing. Like there’s a, there’s a theme in startups where VCs fund second time founders. I think Sean and team have done this before and they took a lot of learnings over the years and reapplied them, which I think helps them go faster. [00:14:36] John Janke: It’s like that second time. Yeah. Second time cloud go to market Founder theme. [00:14:41] Vince Menzione: Yeah. Yeah. Um, so we could talk about the platform and all the changes there on the. The, the commitments and everything. Mm-hmm. Uh, what separates ISPs generating real incremental revenue on your, in your marketplace? What, what do you see? [00:14:58] Dai Vu: Yeah, so I mean, I, I think there are a couple things. Number one is, uh, the, the foundation has to be, uh, this better together story, uh, with Google Cloud. Um, so this idea that what, you know, what do you bring, what does the Google platform bring and how does that drive impact with customers? And I think this is the reason why Sean and DBT Labs has been very effective. [00:15:16] Dai Vu: ’cause our field recognized they, they can recognize that better together story and communicate it to their customers. So I think that’s the foundation. For everything. Right. And I think as you get started, uh, you know, we do tell partners that they probably need to lean in a little bit, uh, in terms of focus, uh, you know, pick a vertical, a customer segment, um, you know, a geography where they’re particularly strong and, you know, get that momentum going. [00:15:39] Dai Vu: And once you do that, the field knows about it and starts to pull you into deals. Um, so I think that’s the other big opportunity. And then the other thing I just mentioned. Which, uh, the panel already touched on, which is be very intentional around all the things you need to do to invest. Whether it’s like, uh, you know, the business functional alignment, uh, the policies around like, uh, pricing and, and comp, uh, making sure you have the operational capabilities. [00:16:02] Dai Vu: These are all things everyone has to do to get to that. First five to 10 deals, and then 10, 20, 30% of your business through marketplace. And not to, not to top you Sean, but our very top partners are driving 80 to 90% of their business on marketplace. And in fact, some of these partners are actually only marketplace first, uh, uh, because they started out that way. [00:16:21] Dai Vu: Obviously it’s the bigger challenge if you have an existing channel, you’re trying to shift that. But, uh, the aspiration to be more marketplace focus, uh, is up there. [00:16:28] Shawn Toldo: So I just set a new goal for the business plan for me. So that’s exciting. I love it. Looking forward to seeing you in six months on that. [00:16:35] Shawn Toldo: It’s good. [00:16:36] Vince Menzione: I love [00:16:37] Dai Vu: it. Work together on that. [00:16:38] Vince Menzione: Well, di I’m just gonna add, add this because I, I got to see operationally with some of the things you do. Mm-hmm. You, you have an overlay organization. [00:16:45] Dai Vu: Yes. Yes. [00:16:46] Vince Menzione: And so you put accelerants in place within your own organization Yeah. To drive the ISVs into the, into the lines of business. [00:16:54] Vince Menzione: Right. You have, you, you do some of that to accelerate. [00:16:57] Dai Vu: Yeah, I mean, I think, I think this is somewhat unique. I don’t, I don’t wanna speak to the other [00:17:00] Shawn Toldo: hyperscalers, [00:17:01] Dai Vu: but we do have, um, uh, you gotta know the field roles, right? [00:17:04] Shawn Toldo: Yeah. So [00:17:04] Dai Vu: obviously at Google Cloud in the regions, we have, uh, ISV sales specialists who are effectively quoted on marketplace revenue, right? [00:17:12] Dai Vu: So they’re a hundred percent focused on that. And, uh, in addition to that, uh, we also have these, uh, co-sell teams, partner teams where, you know, opportunistically if there’s an opportunity, uh, in a, in a, in a particular area. This team is responsible for connecting the regional sales leadership, uh, the regional, uh, sales teams with, with the partner on the opportunity. [00:17:32] Dai Vu: So there’s a lot of things we’re doing to sort of accelerate that. And of course, the foundation for all this is, you know, our, our, you know, registering deals. And as you definitely get started on that, it’s very important to be very mindful around when you register deals. Uh, be very clear around what the ask and the engagement is with the field reps. [00:17:51] Dai Vu: But once you have that going and get the right rhythm, it becomes sort of a natural way to sort of register all your deals and get that engagement. And then, um, and then maybe the last thing I would say is it isn’t always the sales specialists. It’s, you know, the FSR, our field sales rep as well as our customer engineers are also very motivated. [00:18:08] Dai Vu: To work, uh, with, uh, with our partners because they know that this, you know, whether it be solution completeness or it’s part of a bigger workload or helps unlock greenfield opportunity, they really are motivated to engage with the partners. [00:18:21] Vince Menzione: Nice. [00:18:22] Shawn Toldo: Yeah. I’ll just add, I’ll just add to that statement too. I think, um, it’s one thing to have a story as it relates to. [00:18:30] Shawn Toldo: Google Cloud and what you do with marketplace. It’s another thing to have a story in terms of how you impact data and analytics in our world. And there’s a set of specialist sellers inside of Google mm-hmm. That really care about us because we drive a lot faster consumption of big query. And our ability to tell that story across the world effectively has really created a pull now. [00:18:54] Shawn Toldo: And so I, I would say it’s almost, you know, back to, you know, being 12 years at Microsoft and watching kind of that. Phase and how that went. As we went to the cloud and we picked specialty areas, um, Google is doing that as well and they’re doing it extremely fast in a very, very productive way with partners. [00:19:12] Shawn Toldo: And so, you know, I’ll get comments from like Levi who runs west in north region for us, and he’s a, he was at Google next and he was like, I, I gotta, I, I just gotta go to bed. I’m tired. Like we wore him out over two days with their sales team and gave him a host of follow ups and actions related to specific sales areas as well as specific accounts. [00:19:34] Shawn Toldo: And I think that’s the other thing that, um, Google’s done a good job of, but we’ve pushed and we’ve had to work really hard to earn that seat at the table. To help make those people successful from a comp perspective inside of Google as well. [00:19:45] John Janke: Yeah, and this is a huge failure zone for partners with the clouds because they think enablement’s a one and done thing. [00:19:51] John Janke: Like I did a training for the field and I told them the better together story. That doesn’t work. Like you have to literally. Have consistency around this message every day. Oftentimes you need experts who can partner with your reps to give them the confidence. ’cause they may be able to ask the first line question, but someone asks a follow up and they fold up ’cause they know your product. [00:20:11] John Janke: That’s right. They don’s don’t understand all of the nuances of Google and the clouds and the questions that may come back. But if you do that well, it is a huge unlock. [00:20:20] Vince Menzione: Talk about the coaching you provided on the tackle side of that as well and kind of helping. Through this maturity model? [00:20:26] John Janke: Yeah. I mean we, we, over the years, I mean we started as a pure SaaS company and over the years our customers would consistently ask us for more help and we would struggle to figure out how to do that, and we had to invest in services and we actually acquired a company. [00:20:42] John Janke: Five years ago now, that was the foundation. Aaron Feiger, who’s in the room. The core consulting was the foundation of our services business. And that continues to evolve with us. And you know, we see customers at scale saying, I wanna operate my cloud, go-to market really consistently, and I want you to do all the backend operations so my teams can be outselling our products, selling the better together value with Google and others, and not have to figure out how to run the machinery. [00:21:09] John Janke: So we’ve invested a lot there. We have services around strategy, like how to help people think about their business strategy and translate it into a better together story and able to get executive buy-in. And then we have coaching, which is really a phone, a friend, because I think these things get complicated. [00:21:24] John Janke: And I had a customer who was doing the largest deal in their company history. It was the end of the quarter and it was Friday, and they’re like, this is going to be the most complex transaction we’ve ever done and we have no idea how to do it. Our team gets on the phone with them, they work through, what are you selling? [00:21:40] John Janke: How are you selling it? Is your listing set up the right way? Can we actually create all the offers? In a way you have confidence to execute. ’cause those are failure modes. You try to build a cloud, go to market business, and you mess up the largest deal in the company. On the last day of the quarter, uh, that’s something you can’t recover from. [00:21:55] John Janke: So we try to really wrap support around our customers to help them have the confidence to grow. [00:22:02] Vince Menzione: Di you’ve seen tremendous growth in marketplace. Mm-hmm. We don’t publish the numbers specifically. Yeah. We kind of try to figure it out on the back end, but [00:22:09] Dai Vu: Yep. [00:22:09] Vince Menzione: I know you’re accelerated. Your, your marketplace numbers are astounding. [00:22:13] Dai Vu: Yes. I can share some numbers, if that’s [00:22:15] Vince Menzione: okay. Please. Yeah, let’s go. [00:22:18] Dai Vu: So, um. I would say that for a few years now, we’ve been talking about growth. So we’ve been consistently, uh, you know, north of a hundred percent year over year growth. Uh, for the last few years we’ve been processing, uh, what I say, uh, billions of dollars, uh, annually and, uh, uh, millions of transactions. [00:22:36] Dai Vu: And again, that’s for a few years now. Now for 24 to 25, that full year we also doubled. Wow. Uh, which is, uh, which is amazing when you think about the scale in which we operate. But more importantly, if you look at specific category areas, right? So, you know, historically, marketplace has always cater to, uh, those solution pillars that are tied to cloud migrations, like, uh, like security and data and analytics. [00:22:59] Dai Vu: And those continue to be very strong areas for us. But the biggest growth area is, uh, is in the areas of business app. So obviously, you know, the, the ServiceNow workday, uh, Salesforce of the world, as well as the AI category. So one number that we threw out next was 18 x. Year over year growth for the AI category. [00:23:17] Dai Vu: Wow. So in one year now, a lot of it is models, right? So foundational models with our, with our ecosystem. But a lot of that is around agents. So this whole agent go to market model is gonna be, continue to grow and it’s gonna be a huge focus area for, for the coming years. [00:23:32] Vince Menzione: Fantastic. Yeah. Fantastic growth. [00:23:34] Shawn Toldo: Yeah, and, and I’ll add, Diane and I talked about this at Google next. This is a. Very complex thing for DBT, where today we sell seats. [00:23:42] Vince Menzione: Mm-hmm. Yeah. [00:23:43] Shawn Toldo: To data engineers. [00:23:44] Yeah. [00:23:44] Shawn Toldo: And now we have all these agentic things that are hitting our engine. And di and I are talking and we’re like, okay, so how does this work in an ag agentic marketplace? [00:23:54] Shawn Toldo: Yeah. Kind of a scenario. And what should we build? Where should we play it? ’cause we’re gonna spin the meter in a different way, so to speak. [00:24:01] Dai Vu: Yep. [00:24:01] Shawn Toldo: And so candidly, we got stuff to figure out related to that. Um, I think what’s been fascinating for DBT is our partner ecosystem changed overnight. So now it’s like I talked to x.ai on Monday. [00:24:15] Shawn Toldo: Mm-hmm. We got time with open AI on Thursday and we have a call with Anthropic and our, uh, CEO and co-founder and uh, chief Product Officer next week. [00:24:26] Vince Menzione: Mm. [00:24:27] Shawn Toldo: We don’t have anybody managing those partners. [00:24:29] Vince Menzione: Right. [00:24:30] Shawn Toldo: Today our focus is on managing the large, uh, hyperscalers plus Snowflake and, uh, Databricks. [00:24:36] Vince Menzione: Mm-hmm. [00:24:36] Shawn Toldo: And then the SI ecosystem and some tech partners. So we’re having to like, to your point on Agile yesterday. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Like we’re having to change our strategy, operating model and organizational model to support that. And candidly, we don’t have all the answers yet, so we have a lot of things to figure out fast, which is a little bit scary. [00:24:54] Shawn Toldo: And challenging, but it’s also a huge opportunity we have to kind of embrace and get into. Yeah. [00:24:59] Vince Menzione: And they’re figuring out as well. ’cause they’re, they’re new to partnering as well. Yeah. As organizations [00:25:03] John Janke: and these AI agents. I think to demystify for a lot of people, and what Sean said is totally right. [00:25:08] John Janke: They’re disrupting everyone’s business model. But in reality from a marketplace standpoint, they’re metered SaaS. This is a thing that’s existed for a long time. Yeah. They look like product-led growth products. There is a lot of patterns around how product-led growth products work in marketplace. Mm-hmm. [00:25:24] John Janke: But you have to bring your business strategy, your product and pricing strategy to those two categories. Metered SaaS and product-led growth. Put that all together to get cross-functional alignment. So we are seeing like. A lot of people get tripped up here and it really does go back to more of the company strategy, product strategy questions, and a lot of partner leaders are not in the room for those conversations. [00:25:48] John Janke: So I think at, at this point in time, as you see big pivots with the partners to go all in on agents, you have to go elevate. Those discussions to be like, what is our plan here? ’cause I, I mean, pricing and packaging will be the thing that trips almost everyone up. [00:26:02] Dai Vu: If I could, if I just build on what John John mentioned, um, so I do agree. [00:26:06] Dai Vu: P it looks a lot like POG, but, uh, but the difference I think is POG has. More historically been in like the data and developer space, now it’s like the general business user, right? So this idea that you want a business user to be able to search and discover, um, agents that could actually be part of their like everyday workflow is going to be very critical. [00:26:26] Dai Vu: And uh, you know, I do think that when we think about the ecosystem building agents. Uh, you know, a lot of the ISV partners aren’t necessarily gonna own end-to-end workflows, right? They’ll, they’ll have a very specific, uh, domain and scope area, but you have to enable yourself to be orchestrated and managed by, you know, orchestration agents or, or, or meta agents that are gonna span end, end workflows. [00:26:49] Dai Vu: And sometimes that includes system integrators and, and others who can stitch that, that automation. So I think, I think that’s, that’s one piece of it. But the other area that I think is gonna be different is, um. There’s going to be a lot of agents. I mean, literally you’re gonna have a very fragmented set of, uh, uh, of players, right? [00:27:07] Dai Vu: It’s not just gonna be the incumbents, it’s gonna be a lot of disruptors and, and, and, and startups. And so the, uh, for the incumbents in the room, it is a mandate that you need to, to innovate because if you do not identify and go to like an agent first, go to market model. Uh, you’re gonna be, you know, disintermediated. [00:27:25] Dai Vu: Somebody’s gonna go build an agent that’s going to leverage you as a dumb database. Um, and they’re gonna own the workflow. So you have to, you have to push the, the, the, the limits here. And I think it’s creates a big opportunity for everyone in this room. [00:27:39] John Janke: I’m going off script. I’m curious. Let’s do it. I’m curious on your take on the system integrators. [00:27:44] John Janke: ’cause I think this, this puts like they’re all, a lot of them are creating agents for people and I think that’s turning them almost more into software companies than they’ve ever been. [00:27:53] Dai Vu: They are, and I think they’re, you know, obviously they’re being, uh, impacted from like, you know, typical like, you know, SOW you know, time and materials type type business models. [00:28:02] Dai Vu: But I do think they play a big role because a lot of the system integrators are bringing, um, you know, vertical and business process expertise. And, um, like I said, I said before, a lot of the ISVs are not gonna necessarily have big enough scope in their area to own end-to-end workflows. And that’s really the promise of agents, right? [00:28:20] Dai Vu: You really need. This cognitive, you know, reasoning, planning, executing across end to end workflows. And I think, you know, the system integrators are gonna bring that capability either, either through, you know, these custom, uh, orchestration or meta agents or if they’re able to productize that and bring that to a model, they can also sort of go through the marketplace model as well. [00:28:41] Dai Vu: So who knows is how it’s gonna evolve. But you know, we’ve always been talking about. Marketplace being a broader opportunity for all partner business models. And I think that will extend to not only, uh, you know, traditional sort of, uh, sell and services partners, but also some of these system integrators as well. [00:28:58] Shawn Toldo: If I could comment on that, please. Yeah. I, I was in London two weeks ago and we did an SI partner day. Mm-hmm. We had 25 sis in a room, probably about 50 people. We had no, um, hyperscalers or cloud data warehouse providers. And when we started talking about open data infrastructure. The role that they can play. [00:29:17] Vince Menzione: Mm-hmm. [00:29:18] Shawn Toldo: Cross platform in a cost efficient manner for customers and the advisory orientation of that. They all leaned in and we, we stopped talking and they started talking. [00:29:28] Vince Menzione: Right. [00:29:28] Shawn Toldo: So they’re all facing this kind of same problem, which is actually causing a little bit of a shift, I think, in how they think about, I’m a Databricks partner. [00:29:38] Shawn Toldo: Uh, you sure you wanna do that? [00:29:39] Vince Menzione: Yeah. [00:29:40] Shawn Toldo: So this, this whole thing that’s kind of evolved in the last six to 12 months, when you kind of pick one horse to ride, I, I would tell you be cautious about what that means. You may pick a horse to lead with mm-hmm. But you’re gonna have to flank yourself a bit in terms of other providers that can help you be successful with that, that that partner you’re gonna roll with. [00:30:00] Vince Menzione: So you’re suggesting data vendor agnostic. [00:30:04] Shawn Toldo: I’m suggesting you really have to think about your strategy. Yeah. Because I think the AI, AI disruption is gonna make you think about that strategy. [00:30:13] John Janke: Yeah, I mean there’s, someone mentioned anthropics First Partner Summit. I was not there, but I’ve heard from a bunch of people were there. [00:30:20] John Janke: You know, they had a hundred partners in the room. 95 of them were system integrators. Five were technology companies, the three Clouds, Databricks and Snowflake. Like if you just think about the, the one of the major disruptors in ai, ISVs, were not in the mix. So I, I think, are they trying to disrupt all of us? [00:30:40] John Janke: Uh, do they need us? And they haven’t figured out how to work with us. I, I think. It’s, it’s, [00:30:44] Vince Menzione: and I’ve heard they only have five people in their partner organization, so I just, it’s, [00:30:49] Shawn Toldo: it’s 11 now, but it’s 11, [00:30:51] Vince Menzione: so it was five [00:30:51] Shawn Toldo: last growing fast in the, in the new company I have 50. So like, to put it in perspective, they have to make some pretty big priority. [00:30:59] John Janke: Yeah. And everyone’s been there a hot second, [00:31:00] Vince Menzione: like, right, exactly. Yeah, they, well, we will talk about the learnings we’ve had over the years, getting to where they need to get to. It’s exciting times. We got a lot to talk about here. Um, I, you know, we have about 15 minutes. I I, I want to kind of gauge, ’cause we could talk, we, we have a few things we could talk about, I could ask about, but I want to see if there’s an, like, an interest in opening up to the room for questions. [00:31:25] Vince Menzione: ’cause I feel like we’ve got a very interesting group here. [00:31:28] Shawn Toldo: You got a hand here? [00:31:29] Vince Menzione: Uh, are there hands that wanna Yeah, there’s some people that wanna ask some questions. So Yeah. We have a mic? Yeah, [00:31:37] Dai Vu: we have [00:31:37] Shawn Toldo: a mic. We, [00:31:37] Vince Menzione: we [00:31:38] Shawn Toldo: got one here. [00:31:38] Vince Menzione: We got one here. One here. Thank you. Sorry we went off script, but [00:31:44] Shawn Toldo: that’s fine. [00:31:45] Vince Menzione: It’s fine. [00:31:45] Dai Vu: Off [00:31:45] Vince Menzione: script. Better is good. [00:31:46] Shawn Toldo: I’m sure you planted the questions outta anyway. It’s okay. We [00:31:48] Vince Menzione: did, we did. [00:31:55] Audience Guest: Okay. All Eva, Sean Lightner, quick question to your, uh, increase on the marketplace, and you said you spiff the salespeople by fifth percent. 5%. Mm-hmm. So, and that obviously drives a very large adoption of, uh, marketplace transactions. How are you accounting for the margin you’re losing on, uh, you know, going through the marketplace? [00:32:14] Audience Guest: And also have you done analysis? I’m sure you have, how much is, uh, shape shifting or shifting from existing versus incremental? [00:32:22] Shawn Toldo: Yeah, it’s a great question. Um, um, lemme make three points. Number one, the backlog statement makes the margin statement not matter. So do you wanna play in that space where a customer’s already bought or not? [00:32:36] Shawn Toldo: Yeah. Or do you wanna force a budget conversation that you have to drive on your own in a direct model? That to me, I think it was 484 4 62 [00:32:43] Dai Vu: 4 6 [00:32:44] Shawn Toldo: 2. [00:32:44] Vince Menzione: That’s new Tam available to you? [00:32:46] Shawn Toldo: Yeah. That, that’s just with one. Right. And we are, we are, uh, running on four marketplaces. So that just increases our tam and makes our, our sellers lives easier. [00:32:55] Shawn Toldo: So on that piece, yes, there’s an expense, but we believe it’s right for growth. So there’s a balance there. Um, I think the, and then the second part of your question again. Sorry, [00:33:05] Vince Menzione: shapeshift. [00:33:05] Shawn Toldo: Oh, shift. We, we actually don’t think we would’ve won the business. So if I go back to our Q4 and I can probably point to three or four deals that went, um, Google Marketplace, we would not have won those deals because we couldn’t have created the budget cycle and that quarter. [00:33:23] Shawn Toldo: To make it happen. Generally a budget cycle is gonna take anywhere from 12 to 15 months. Bingo. Because of the spend that was available to us, we were able to close it in that quarter, and we had the largest Q4 in company history. [00:33:35] Vince Menzione: That is such an important point. I’m sorry. [00:33:37] Dai Vu: Okay. [00:33:38] Vince Menzione: But I, I just wanna, that is such an important point of the budget cycle. [00:33:42] Dai Vu: Yeah. [00:33:43] Vince Menzione: Being a year to a year and a half versus being able to tap into a commitment that’s already been made. Yeah, so I just emphasize that [00:33:51] Dai Vu: I was, I was just gonna add real quick, even, even when we see sort of a, uh, a channel shift renewal, which is, you know, it’s on partner paper and it moves to marketplace as part of the renewals, we do consistently see that the, uh, renewal rates on marketplace and the incremental a CB on the expansion and new opportunities tend to be better when it’s on the platform marketplace than than offline. [00:34:12] Dai Vu: And that’s why partners choose to continue to drive renewals on marketplace at a reduced to rev share. But uh, because they see that that growth, [00:34:20] John Janke: we, we, sorry. [00:34:22] Shawn Toldo: We see that as well. Yeah. And I would also make the statement on our land business, when we go through marketplace, we are two x higher across marketplaces. [00:34:30] Shawn Toldo: We’re three x higher with them. [00:34:32] John Janke: Yeah, I think separate new from renewals and then instrument deeply. [00:34:37] Shawn Toldo: Yeah, [00:34:38] John Janke: go proactively talk to your CFO and your head of rev ops to understand their mindset. Because I was with a billion dollar seller a couple weeks ago, their CFO still creates friction in the process, even though they’re selling a billion dollars through these channels. [00:34:52] John Janke: But when they broke it down, their deals are three times bigger. They do them faster. They use more components of the product, which I thought was a really cool one. So customers who buy this platform, many component platforms through a marketplace, end up using six components of the product. Versus a normal land customer who uses two increases gross in net retention. [00:35:12] John Janke: So you have to get to the point where you have the data and you can tell that story real really clearly to your finance team to get support ’cause that they will trip you up if you don’t get them on board. [00:35:23] Vince Menzione: And you’re saying there’s friction in that company. I’m just kind of curious ’cause a billion dollar company. [00:35:27] John Janke: There’s a billion dollar marketplace seller [00:35:29] Vince Menzione: market marketplace company. That’s what I meant. Yeah. But, but the fact that this, their CFO friction, like, is it, is it because they’re not doing a good enough job or? [00:35:37] John Janke: Uh, in, of educating, I, the root of the question is from this person is, would they win without it? [00:35:44] Vince Menzione: Yeah. [00:35:45] Shawn Toldo: Oh, and is it worth the three points? [00:35:46] John Janke: Right. It’s, it is And, and I think some pe like to me, it’s the cheapest channel in the world. Yeah. Like with committed budget and people to support you winning. Like the, that formula, the math is so simple. [00:35:57] Shawn Toldo: Yeah. For, for a company of our size to go to like the classic resell ecosystem, I gotta walk in with 30 points. [00:36:02] John Janke: Yeah. [00:36:03] Vince Menzione: Yeah. [00:36:03] Shawn Toldo: It, it’s an illogical conversation. Outside of public sector and growth, you know, geos around the world. And so I, I’ve been lucky to have a CFO that I haven’t had that challenge with, at least at DBTI should say. [00:36:19] Vince Menzione: Really great insights. I think we have, we have another hand up here. [00:36:28] Audience Guest: Yeah. Thanks Susan. The question is for Dai. Uh, my name is Latif Hamani. I’m the founder of Partner System ai. Um, so what we’ve done is we’ve built a, a co-sell AI agent mm-hmm. That your partners can use to Yeah. Reduce all the friction in the co-sell with you. Uh, the questions that I have is, I guess I should back up, so XAWS Madison with a very large alliances, and then I worked, went on the other side. [00:36:55] Audience Guest: For software companies, and even though I had an operational team, I was spending two to three hours on on the keyboard, right? Mm-hmm. Deal registration, emails that can’t be automated, et cetera. So the question that I have for you is, I’d love for you to validate that. You know, unless you are one of the big companies, one of the big enterprises, if you go to the lower end of the enterprise or the mid market, uh, would you validate that there is a challenge? [00:37:20] Audience Guest: There’s a lot of friction for a smaller company. Mm-hmm. Uh, ’cause these marketplaces are complex. Yeah. The cosell is complex. Uh, that there’s an opportunity to really break down that friction with some automation and ai. [00:37:33] Dai Vu: Yeah, absolutely. So, um, we have already been, uh, part of the journey to remove some of the, uh, the friction as part of that selling and purchasing journey. [00:37:43] Dai Vu: Uh. We’re not quite there yet. But, uh, we’ve done things like we have, uh, you know, private offer APIs. We, uh, we have co-sell, uh, registration automation. Um, you know, we have tools like, uh, propensity to buy, tooling to help, uh, partners do, uh, more targeted efforts. Um, but the a i piece is still coming. Um, so I think, uh, the idea here is that we have launched a number of agents as part of our, um. [00:38:08] Dai Vu: Uh, part of our, uh, Google Cloud Partner network, partner hub. Uh, so these are, uh, agents that are gonna do a bunch of things to help partners as part of their workflow, but we’re gonna extend this to the marketplace and ISV area as well. Uh, so I think there’s a lot of opportunity. So, uh, I know there’s probably a lot of feedback in friction, uh, in, in certain parts. [00:38:29] Dai Vu: So we can, we can go tackle together. [00:38:32] Vince Menzione: Hey. There you go. There was a little [00:38:34] Dai Vu: plug [00:38:34] Shawn Toldo: there for tackle. Exactly. [00:38:37] Dai Vu: Uh, and I wanted, and just to be clear, I want to take a look at it from the end to end, uh, uh, flow, right? It shouldn’t just be just marketplace. It should be all the way from like, you know, top of the funnel, demand generation, all the way to like post transaction follow up. [00:38:51] Dai Vu: So we really need to take a look at, at the, the end, end flows and figure out a way we can remove some of that friction [00:38:56] Vince Menzione: three sense. [00:38:57] Dai Vu: Yeah. [00:38:59] Vince Menzione: Any more questions [00:39:00] Audience Guest: back here? Hey. Hey guys. This, this is a really good discussion. Uh, di this question’s primarily, uh, from, I’m interested in the hyperscaler response. [00:39:09] Audience Guest: Yep. Uh, but all of you, uh, can you talk about the patterns or say more about the patterns between. Um, the consumption of just platform capabilities versus industry workflows. Mm-hmm. And how industry where I, I mean, I, I, my sense is that industry workflows are becoming more [00:39:27] Dai Vu: Yeah. [00:39:28] Audience Guest: Uh, the easier thing for enterprises and SMBs to buy. [00:39:33] Audience Guest: Yeah. Especially SMBs, I think. Um, but say more about those patterns that you’re seeing develop and kind of what is. Uh, who are, where, where are those kind of, where is the demand being driven? Is it, is it, yeah. The search and discover in the marketplace, or is it being led by field sales of mm-hmm. Either GCP or partners? [00:39:55] Dai Vu: Yeah, so let me, I’ll mention a couple, a couple areas where, where it’s growing. So I think number one I mentioned before about some of these large horizontal business apps that we’re partnering with, right? Um, and, uh, and of course the fact that we’re, we’re, we’re transacting them through marketplace is, is a huge. [00:40:14] Dai Vu: Evolution from a few years ago. So who would’ve thought you would be buying like, you know, a hundred million dollars a CB deals, uh, through, through marketplace with like a Salesforce or a ServiceNow workday. But it’s happening now. And to be clear, all these. Horizontal business app. They’re not doing this in a very, you know, opportunistic, transactional way. [00:40:32] Dai Vu: They basically see marketplace and cloud go to market as a strategic growth lever for them. So that’s one big area. So from just a pure large deal perspective. Okay. Then you mentioned before around sort of corporate and SMB. Well, we find that a lot of the big opportunities are mostly around as they scale their business, uh, they’re not necessarily looking for things in the traditional sort of infrastructure space, but they’re looking for, you know, full SaaS applications to help scale their business, right? [00:40:58] Dai Vu: So it would be CRM, finance, hr, these types of solutions to become very attractive for some of this, uh, downstream market. And then lastly, as I mentioned before, which is, uh, when we think about this gentrification and owning, um. Uh, driving, uh, this business process and vertical, the ISVs become very important along with the services partners who bring that domain expertise to drive the end to end workflow. [00:41:25] Dai Vu: So I think that’s gonna be increasingly important. So those are three areas I think we need to watch out for. We. Okay. [00:41:30] John Janke: Maybe one thing, like as the cloud commit grows inside of companies, it’s shifted from being an engineering department, IT department budget line item to a corporate finance budget line item. [00:41:40] John Janke: Typically one of the top five to 10 expenses in a company. So that has shifted. Who is thinking about optimizing? The cloud commit with marketplace contracts. And that opens, that’s really opened up the avenue in addition to like these biz apps, vertical apps players. Yeah. Like having success. So I, I do think even inside your own company, evaluating where your cloud commits are, who owns them and are they thinking about the intersection of marketplace? [00:42:06] John Janke: ’cause I, I think it’s smaller companies, they’re still figuring it out. I run into engineering leaders who still own the commits, uh, but in medium to large companies. Very different. [00:42:16] Vince Menzione: Really good point. Because it, you know this, the optics change dramatically, right? This large commitment is now at the board level, [00:42:23] John Janke: right? [00:42:23] John Janke: And then you do have to teach your sellers as a vertical or business application player how to ask that question. ’cause the first resistance everybody says is, oh my, my person, my stakeholder, we. Manufacturing vertical application provider talking at an event last week, and they’re like, the shop floor manufacturing owner doesn’t know anything about the cloud commit. [00:42:43] John Janke: But if they ask the question, be like, Hey, do you guys have a strategic relationship with Google? Would it be easier to buy our product on the bill? Eight out of 10 times they get a yes. So [00:42:52] Vince Menzione: which is why the 5% comes in And that really accelerates the conversation happening. Yeah. We’ve got three more minutes. [00:43:01] Vince Menzione: Um, if we don’t have any other questions, I ha I have one for each of you really about the maturity model and partners are in the room that are not committed yet, right? We’ve talked about some very significant DBTs doing some incredible things, right? So we, there’s maybe a sense that like we, you, you are working with the be the biggest and the best out there, but what about everyone else that’s in the room that maybe isn’t committed yet? [00:43:23] Vince Menzione: And maybe they’re in motion, but they need some help and advice on what to go do next. What? What would you say die first? [00:43:30] Dai Vu: So they’re early stage, [00:43:31] Vince Menzione: early, early stage or not, they’re not on board yet. They’re not, yeah. They’re not with you yet. [00:43:35] Dai Vu: Yeah. So I’ll, I’ll go back to my earlier comment, which is that as you go into the journey, just be very intentional about what you need to do from an operational, investment people, uh, technology perspective. [00:43:47] Dai Vu: Uh, because it could be, it could be a multi-year journey. Um, uh, so I’d say go into it with the right expectations as opposed to thinking it’s going to be some accelerated six month thing that Sean has been driving here. It’s, he’s the outlier. [00:43:59] Shawn Toldo: But, but the reason for the outlier, [00:44:00] Dai Vu: yeah. [00:44:01] Shawn Toldo: And just to add to the intentional point Yeah. [00:44:02] Shawn Toldo: Is, you know, hire the right people. Right. So, somebody told me a long time ago, uh, hire slow, fire fast. That’s a really, really, really good principle that I take. Mm-hmm. I don’t like the fire part, obviously, but just for context, I, I am very lucky to have a great set of leaders that we were able to add people in. [00:44:24] Shawn Toldo: When I walked in the door, we had a person that was leading the Snowflake and AWS partnership. I had nobody on GCPI had nobody on Microsoft. I had nobody on Databricks. And then we made prioritization decisions on where we’re gonna go next. And so we hired people that had the experience and could drive the outcome in the right way. [00:44:43] Shawn Toldo: But we were very thoughtful about when we made those decisions on a quarterly basis, not a daily basis. So who you’re gonna bet on and then who you’re gonna put in the seat to make that bet come to life, I think is a really important thing as well. [00:44:58] John Janke: Yeah. [00:44:58] Vince Menzione: John, you worked with the be biggest and the best out there, so Yeah, sorry. [00:45:01] John Janke: Well, I think there’s the, like there’s the bottoms up and the tops down. Like seven years ago, this was all bottoms up. It was a partner leader who thought launching a marketplace would be good and they would go figure out how to do some deals and then sell their way up. Today there’s a lot more top down where people get it. [00:45:17] John Janke: But you can evaluate top down pretty fast. ’cause if you go talk to your CEO, you talk to your head of product, you talk to your CFO, and they have an allergic reaction to these concepts. You know, you have to go bottoms up. But there also are success story examples in every single ISV category that exists. [00:45:33] John Janke: Like this is not just security and data and DevOp like the, I think the ServiceNow. Salesforce workday. Examples are really great, like the marketing tech examples, more and more business of vertical apps every day. So I do think you can look at those people who’ve been successful. Maybe they’re your competitors, maybe they’re people you aspire to be and reference them as you’re trying to figure out how to do top down. [00:45:55] John Janke: But like you need both. You can’t win long term unless you get top down and bottom up aligned. [00:46:01] Shawn Toldo: And, and when I, when I would go ask for resourcing, I would always get the question, do, could you go faster with more? And I’d say, no. Gimme the one or two humans here, let me go prove it out and I’ll come back. [00:46:13] Shawn Toldo: So there’s a little bit of a strategy in doing that, that you’re gonna get more over time when you’re, you know, very measured in how you go ask for investment and resource. And so I would just add that point also. [00:46:27] Vince Menzione: Was, was hiring a significant component of your executive commitment, Sean? I mean, [00:46:33] Shawn Toldo: yes. So when I walked in the door at DBT, we had eight people in the partner organization. [00:46:38] Shawn Toldo: Today we have 25, and that was 18 months ago. But that did not happen. I didn’t go in and ask for, you know, that 16 people. Right. I asked over time in a very measured way with, you know, the programs and strategy team, like, what can we also support? You don’t want to bring somebody in to go do something and you don’t have the programs and operations side to support it ’cause they’ll fail. [00:47:01] Shawn Toldo: So we’ve been very thoughtful about how we’ve done that as well. [00:47:04] Vince Menzione: Die from you. I know you had something. [00:47:06] Dai Vu: No, no, no. I, I was good. [00:47:08] Vince Menzione: What is the one thing that people in this room need to go better and differently? Is there one, is there one specific thing other than what we’ve already discussed, did we miss anything? [00:47:16] Dai Vu: No, I would just, the whole identification. So obviously, uh, identifying this is not just like slapping a chat bot, but more around thinking all the things we talked about, product commercials, but also go to market where it’s agent first, where you can surface your agent in a workflow like Gemini Enterprise app. [00:47:34] Dai Vu: That’s gonna drive high alignment with how we work and go to market with Google. [00:47:38] Vince Menzione: Awesome. [00:47:38] Dai Vu: Yeah. [00:47:40] Vince Menzione: Wow. Good stuff. Yeah. Very good session. [00:47:44] Dai Vu: Thank [00:47:44] Vince Menzione: you guys. What do you think? Everyone? Thank you very much. [00:47:47] Shawn Toldo: Thanks for listening to the Ultimate Partner Podcast. [00:47:50] Vince Menzione: If today’s conversation resonated, share it with a partner leader in your network. [00:47:55] Vince Menzione: Subscribe where you listen, and head over to the ultimate partner.com. For show notes related content and the resources for this episode. And if you haven’t already, now’s the time to register for the Ultimate Partner Live Event in Reston, Virginia, [00:48:11] John Janke: October 26th through October 28th. [00:48:14] Vince Menzione: Until next time, keep showing up in the rooms that matter because being in the room changes everything [00:48:22] I.

AI is changing leadership faster than most executives can lead their team.In this episode of Lead the Team, Ben Fanning sits down with Olivia Nottebohm, COO of Box, to discuss why the companies that win technology shifts aren't the ones with the perfect strategy—they're the ones willing to move before they have all the answers.After helping scale Google Cloud, Dropbox, Notion, and now Box, Olivia shares the leadership frameworks she's used to navigate some of the biggest technology shifts of the last two decades.You'll learn:How to make faster decisions without having all the information.How to turn AI anxiety into optimism across your organization.What separates the companies that win technology shifts from the ones that get left behind.Why speed beats certainty during periods of massive change.How elite leaders build teams that thrive under pressure.Whether you're a CEO, executive, founder, or ambitious professional navigating leadership in the AI era, this episode will challenge the way you think about decision-making, organizational transformation, and leading through uncertainty.Chapters00:00 – If Nothing Feels Broken, You're Moving Too Slowly02:02 – The Biggest AI Mistake Leaders Are Making03:59 – Why Speed Beats Certainty07:54 – Reinventing Organizations for the AI Era09:16 – Turning AI Anxiety into Optimism14:16 – Why Data Strategy Determines AI Success17:40 – Leading Teams Through High-Pressure Sprints22:22 – The Culture Behind Elite Technology Companies25:07 – Why Great Leaders Embrace Failure30:11 – Turning Vision into Execution33:36 – The Transition from Consultant to Operator36:49 – Why Empathy Makes Leaders More Effective42:51 – Olivia's Final Leadership AdviceBen Fanning interviews world-class executives, founders, and leadership experts to uncover the real-world lessons shaping modern organizations. Topics include AI leadership, executive psychology, high-performance teams, decision-making, organizational transformation, communication, and leadership under pressure.Follow Lead the Team for weekly conversations designed to help you become the leader others want to follow.

Every headline wants you to believe AI has rewritten the rules of cybersecurity. Eric Doerr, the Chief Product Officer at Tenable a Resilient Cyber Partner, is not so sure. After running security response at Microsoft and leading security products at Google Cloud, he came on to separate the genuine transformation from the noise, and his read is refreshingly grounded. The tools changed, but the fundamentals did not, and the teams that win are the ones who finally act on that.Why this conversation mattersEric sits at a rare intersection, having lived the post-breach world of the SOC and now building the pre-breach world of exposure management. That vantage makes him a sharp guide to what AI actually shifts for defenders, from why cheaper discovery makes prioritization more valuable to how AI becomes its own attack surface once agents start touching your data. If you own vulnerability or exposure management and you are trying to spend your next dollar well, this conversation is a practical map of where the real risk lives and what to automate first.Key takeawaysAttackers are ruthlessly economical. Eric calls bad actors the perfect capitalists, spending the least effort needed to hit their goal, which is why so many still get in through unpatched basics rather than anything AI-powered.AI has not rewritten the offense-defense balance. The attacker only ever had to be right once, layered defense and zero trust still hold, and the real lever is accelerating your program with fewer human loops rather than lamenting the asymmetry.Cheaper discovery makes context more valuable, not less. Reachability and exploitability mean most findings are not worth chasing, so as AI floods teams with more of them, telling the truly scary hundred from the theoretical ten thousand becomes the whole game.Being too small to target is a strategy on borrowed time. As automation drives the cost of attacks toward zero, the quiet bet that adversaries will hit weaker neighbors stops paying off, and Eric would move off that mentality now.Humans should not be the bottleneck on every fix. Getting the workflow and tooling right is most of the work, and the rest is the organizational willingness to let validated automation act, even when a business partner would feel better with a human in the loop.AI is special and not special at the same time. It is mostly just another attack surface, and Eric estimates 80 to 90 percent of securing it maps to patterns the industry already learned during the move to cloud.Shadow AI is the first surprise in almost every environment. When teams scan the endpoints they already interrogate for AI artifacts, nearly all of them find something they never sanctioned, which is why discovery has to come before control.The real AI risk is interconnection. A misconfigured database was a needle in a haystack until you wire it to an agent, and then a harmless question about the budget quietly returns data the asker should never see.Most breaches are not even CVEs. Citing the Verizon DBIR, Eric notes roughly two-thirds of breaches trace to misconfigurations, and since about a third of Tenable's findings are non-CVE, a third of your findings can carry two-thirds of your risk.Agentic automation is finally killing the toil. Early users are automating drudgery like asset tagging and full remediation workflows, with one manufacturing customer letting automation handle 80 to 90 percent and scheduling the rest for change windows with a human notified.Notable quotes“Bad actors are the most perfect representation of capitalism”Eric Doerr, on why attackers do the least work necessary and often skip AI entirely.“a third of their findings are two-thirds of their risk”Eric Doerr, on why misconfigurations, not CVEs, drive most breaches.“you're on the wrong side of history”Eric Doerr, on insisting a human eyeball every automated fix.

Anna Bicker, heise-online-Chefredakteur Dr. Volker Zota und Malte Kirchner sprechen in dieser Ausgabe der #heiseshow unter anderem über folgende Themen: - Kartenhaus-Kollaps: Was ein US-Urteil für EU-Daten bei AWS, Google & Co. bedeutet – Mit der Entscheidung des Obersten Gerichtshofs der USA in der Rechtssache Trump vs Slaughter hat die konservative Mehrheit der Richter die Unabhängigkeit der Federal Trade Commission für verfassungswidrig erklärt. Genau diese Unabhängigkeit war lange Zeit eine tragende Säule, auf der der Datenverkehr zwischen der EU und den USA ruhte. Wie wackelig ist das EU-US Data Privacy Framework jetzt wirklich? Welche Alternativen bleiben Unternehmen, die auf AWS, Google Cloud oder Microsoft Azure setzen? Und ist digitale Souveränität für Europa nur noch ein Buzzword oder endlich eine echte Option? - Platzt die KI-Blase? Experten warnen vor Dotcom-Wiederholung – Die Bank für Internationalen Zahlungsausgleich warnt vor den finanziellen Risiken, die aus dem aktuellen Investitionsboom rund um KI erwachsen könnten und zieht dabei Parallelen zum Dotcom-Boom der späten 90er. Die fünf größten Hyperscaler werden von 2025 bis 2026 voraussichtlich über eine Billion US-Dollar für KI-bezogene Investitionen ausgeben – teils auf Pump. Ist der Vergleich mit der Dotcom-Blase gerechtfertigt, oder ist KI diesmal wirklich anders? Und was würde ein Platzen der Blase für die gesamte Wirtschaft bedeuten? - Und Cut: Scheitert die geplante Streaming-Abgabe an der Verfassung? Ein Gutachten des Ex-Verfassungsrichters Udo Di Fabio kommt laut FAZ zum Schluss, dass das vorgesehene Mediendienste-Investitionsverpflichtungsgesetz in der Regierungsfassung gegen das Grundgesetz und geltendes Europarecht verstößt. Netflix, Prime Video und Disney+ sollen künftig acht Prozent ihres in Deutschland erwirtschafteten Umsatzes direkt in lokale, deutschsprachige Produktionen stecken. Ist die geplante Investitionspflicht der richtige Weg, um den deutschen Filmmarkt zu stärken? Und wie ließe sich das Gesetz verfassungskonform gestalten? Außerdem wieder mit dabei: ein Nerd-Geburtstag, das WTF der Woche und knifflige Quizfragen.

Anna Bicker, heise-online-Chefredakteur Dr. Volker Zota und Malte Kirchner sprechen in dieser Ausgabe der #heiseshow unter anderem über folgende Themen: - Kartenhaus-Kollaps: Was ein US-Urteil für EU-Daten bei AWS, Google & Co. bedeutet – Mit der Entscheidung des Obersten Gerichtshofs der USA in der Rechtssache Trump vs Slaughter hat die konservative Mehrheit der Richter die Unabhängigkeit der Federal Trade Commission für verfassungswidrig erklärt. Genau diese Unabhängigkeit war lange Zeit eine tragende Säule, auf der der Datenverkehr zwischen der EU und den USA ruhte. Wie wackelig ist das EU-US Data Privacy Framework jetzt wirklich? Welche Alternativen bleiben Unternehmen, die auf AWS, Google Cloud oder Microsoft Azure setzen? Und ist digitale Souveränität für Europa nur noch ein Buzzword oder endlich eine echte Option? - Platzt die KI-Blase? Experten warnen vor Dotcom-Wiederholung – Die Bank für Internationalen Zahlungsausgleich warnt vor den finanziellen Risiken, die aus dem aktuellen Investitionsboom rund um KI erwachsen könnten und zieht dabei Parallelen zum Dotcom-Boom der späten 90er. Die fünf größten Hyperscaler werden von 2025 bis 2026 voraussichtlich über eine Billion US-Dollar für KI-bezogene Investitionen ausgeben – teils auf Pump. Ist der Vergleich mit der Dotcom-Blase gerechtfertigt, oder ist KI diesmal wirklich anders? Und was würde ein Platzen der Blase für die gesamte Wirtschaft bedeuten? - Und Cut: Scheitert die geplante Streaming-Abgabe an der Verfassung? Ein Gutachten des Ex-Verfassungsrichters Udo Di Fabio kommt laut FAZ zum Schluss, dass das vorgesehene Mediendienste-Investitionsverpflichtungsgesetz in der Regierungsfassung gegen das Grundgesetz und geltendes Europarecht verstößt. Netflix, Prime Video und Disney+ sollen künftig acht Prozent ihres in Deutschland erwirtschafteten Umsatzes direkt in lokale, deutschsprachige Produktionen stecken. Ist die geplante Investitionspflicht der richtige Weg, um den deutschen Filmmarkt zu stärken? Und wie ließe sich das Gesetz verfassungskonform gestalten? Außerdem wieder mit dabei: ein Nerd-Geburtstag, das WTF der Woche und knifflige Quizfragen.

AI時代，企業最需要的領導者，會是什麼樣的人？不是懂AI，而是以AI帶動組織轉型的人。 這集的來賓是佳世達集團總經理柯淑芬，上任三個多月，柯淑芬已推動集團AI策略整合，從AI基礎設施、智慧製造、智慧醫療到產業解決方案，希望把AI真正變成佳世達下一波成長的引擎。 柯淑芬的職涯經歷幾乎走過科技產業每一次關鍵轉折。她在微軟15年，打造橫跨亞洲的技術支援體系與MVP專家社群；在趨勢科技參與資安服務邁向雲端的重要轉型；在台達電從最佳CIO到第一線負責事業，之後加入Google Cloud，協助台灣企業導入雲端與AI。 這集節目中，柯淑芬分享從一位工程師、資訊長，到跨國企業高階主管，再到今天帶領大型科技集團，不只是個人的職涯修煉，更是AI時代領導者如何整合資源、帶動組織轉型的思考。 【聽完這集你會知道】 04:04 ｜ 打造跨國技術社群 跨國管理不只是語言的轉換，更是互信機制的建立。透過經營最有價值專家與產品社群，培育關鍵意見領袖。 10:00 ｜ 從虛擬化邁向全球首波上雲戰略 在技術破局初期，企業決策者面對未知需具備「小量試用、全面佈署、隨時回滾」的精準彈性，關鍵在於可控風險下評估可擴充性。 14:04 ｜ 當卓越 CIO 轉任事業部負責人 卓越的資訊長必須能說「商業語言」並建立跨部門共識，從平台思維躍升至扛營收的 Business Leader，核心在於將心態轉為「客戶與解決方案優先」。 23:41 ｜ 四大 AI 板塊重組大艦隊，佳世達的短中長期變革布局 佳世達在AI浪潮下迅速重組業務範疇，包含液冷交換器、AI 伺服器量產，到藥局實體店 AI 精準行銷，乃至醫院的 AI 助理醫應用。 【本集金句】 「我相信當你的客戶還有你的最具影響力的社群影響者，他能代替你去講你的產品，其實是比自己的企業更有力量，而且會成長得更快。」 主持人：天下雜誌共同執行長 吳琬瑜  來賓：佳世達集團總經理柯淑芬 製作團隊：李洛梅、錢玉紘、陳紀帆、劉駿逸 ＊立即探索《天下學習》：https://hi.cw.com.tw/u/j85asib/ ＊訂閱天下全閱讀：https://bit.ly/3STpEpV ＊意見信箱：bill@cw.com.tw -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

In today's Cloud Wars Minute, I examine three very different approaches to turning breakthrough AI technology into real-world business transformation. Highlights 00:11 — The AI Deployment Wars involve Google Cloud, OpenAI, and Anthropic. Each has evolved from being almost lab-focused companies with tremendous AI models, and now the pace of innovation of these models is remarkable. The capabilities, power, is stunning, but what that leads to is a huge demand among customers now to not just slip in a piece of technology, but to change companies dramatically. 00:45 — So, that's why the focus here now is on these Deployment Wars. I want to take a look at the three different approaches that these companies are taking. How are they going to take this very cool technology and turn that into customer success at the point of deployment for these customers? There are different approaches here. Money's not the issue here. 01:45 — The challenge is, how do they set themselves up to be not just great creators of technology, but deployment enablers for some of the world's largest companies doing unbelievably complex projects and betting their futures on AI? The technology is enabling the real goals, which are transformation and the ability to move and grow quickly. 02:21 — How are they going to ensure customer success at every level? How are they going to change the processes companies have, the way they do business, the mindset, the technology, the opportunities they have, the strategy, and the cultures of these companies? How are they going to tackle technical challenges that nobody has really ever handled before? This is remarkably different. 03:56 — Google Cloud is going to go almost exclusively with partners. Both Anthropic and OpenAI are saying that they have both funded, along with a lot of partners, deployment companies that will use deployed engineers who are employees of either OpenAI or Anthropic out at the point of the customer to complement or supplement some of what partners are doing. Visit Cloud Wars for more.

Photo by Francis Painchaud on Unsplash Published 29 June 2026 e559 with Michael R and Andy – it’s a catch-up and geek out on things we’ve been doing, games we’ve been playing, and topics we’ve been thinking about… including Apple history, Retro Computing, and self-hosting services. A slightly different show format this week, as Michael R and Andy decide not to cover the weekly news stories and links… and instead catch up with one another, across a range of topics. Michael has backed a new Kickstarter, for a podcast talking about Apple’s background and history in California. Andy talks about his recent visit to the Retro Computer Museum in Leicester, UK. Then, there’s a discussion of Andy’s latest work project, a new role at the Matrix.org Foundation. There’s a dive into what the Matrix protocol is and how it is used; Michael is considering whether it might be worth trying as an alternative to existing tools for our podcast workflow. They also stop to discuss Markdown; Michael traces it back to Waterloo Script on IBM 3081 and WordPerfect’s Reveal Codes. Andy brings up Google Cloud’s “Open Knowledge Format” (essentially Markdown + YAML front matter) as an AI-readable standard. The gaming section covers Michael ordering the D&D-themed Demeo game. Andy has neglected his Meta headset for six months but has been hooked on Forza Horizon 6. Finally Michael wants a single “home page” for all of his communities (Slack, Discord, RSS, forums). Andy uses Glance on his homelab for a dashboard, with Uptime Kuma monitoring the show’s infrastructure. Thanks for joining our one-to-one this week! Let us know what you thought! Selected links “Designed in California” on Kickstarter Retro Computer Museum the Matrix.org Foundation This Week in Matrix 2026-06-26 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUSX1Hm201c Matrix Overview Continuwuity (a Matrix homeserver) Google Open Knowledge Format Forza Horizon 6 – get a DeLorean Glance app

More than two decades after AWS helped usher in the public cloud era, many organizations are reassessing whether a cloud-first strategy still delivers the cost and operational benefits it once promised. While hyperscalers such as AWS, Azure and Google Cloud have built enormously successful businesses, cloud spending has become a growing concern for customers as usage expands and costs continue to rise. On this episode of The New Stack Makers, Summit's Byron Dill argues that many enterprises have become overly reliant on public cloud infrastructure, using it for workloads that may be better suited to private environments. Rather than treating the cloud as a one-size-fits-all solution, Dill advocates for a more segmented approach that places workloads where they make the most sense based on cost, security and management requirements. The conversation draws parallels to the rapid adoption of AI, where organizations often discover unexpected costs after implementation. Dill explores when repatriating workloads from the public cloud to private infrastructure can reduce expenses, simplify data management and improve control, while examining the costs, timelines and industries best positioned to benefit from a private cloud strategy.   Learn more from The New Stack around cloud spending:  How to Cut Cloud Waste Without Constricting Developer Productivity  AI agents need to spend money — Stripe and iWallet are building the rails  Join our community of newsletter subscribers to stay on top of the news and at the top of your game. 

The Wall Street Journal reported on June 24, 2026, that former Anthropic employees launched a startup aimed at helping scientists develop their own AI systems. Anthropic, led by CEO Dario Amodei and President Daniela Amodei, received up to $4 billion from Amazon in 2023 and at least $300 million plus additional financing reported as up to $2 billion from Google. The new venture targets researcher needs around data control, reproducibility, and deployment. Alternatives include closed APIs from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind, and open-source options from Meta and Mistral with tooling from Hugging Face, Databricks, and Weights & Biases. Compute considerations center on Nvidia GPUs via AWS, Google Cloud, and Azure. Sales into universities and pharma will require compliance, security reviews, and marketplace channels. Founders should watch for product details, partnerships, and pricing as indicators of viability.Learn more on this news by visiting us at: https://greyjournal.net/news/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Join us this week for a Tech Leaders Podcast Special, where Gareth sits down with John Abel, MD, Office of the CTO, and Alex Rutter, EMEA MD for AI, fresh from the Google Cloud Summit in London.On this episode Gareth, John and Alex discuss how organisations can effectively deploy Agents, future skills the workforce will need to use Agentic AI, and how to simulate a virtual board meeting.Timestamps:John Abel Introduction (1:25)Agentic AI Adoption and Data Readiness (3:39)Future Skills – John's take (12:09)How to move beyond “Pilot Mode” (15:50)Alex Rutter Introduction (19:16)The Integrated Google Tech Stack (22:50)AI Automation vs Human Oversight (27:55)Is Agentic AI Adoption Maturing? (30:48)Future Skills – Alex's take (35:48)Data Quality (38:35)The UK's AI Position (41:01)https://www.bedigitaluk.com/

In today's Cloud Wars Minute, I look at why two of the fastest-growing Cloud Wars companies are joining forces around data, AI, and industry solutions. Highlights 00:03 — When heavy weather rolls in, it's good to have friends around. It's good to have partnerships, and I don't think the AI Revolution is so much heavy weather, but that depends on how well prepared businesses are to take advantage of it, how aggressively, how thoughtfully they're moving into this AI Revolution. 00:41 — It's interesting, Google Cloud and Palantir, on the Cloud Wars Top 10, these are the two fastest-growing companies. Google Cloud grew 63%; Palantir grew 70%. Palantir's commercial business grew 133% in the first quarter, so they've got enormous momentum. 01:30 — The Palantir Foundry platform for enterprise data management is now available on Google Cloud infrastructure and on the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud and Palantir have built connectors between Foundry and Google Cloud's BigQuery, allowing data from those platforms and others to be pulled together for businesses to analyze. 02:09 — Not just the technical integrations, which have to happen, but also this desire for these two companies to say, "We're going to jointly develop industry-specific solutions around data and AI for vertical markets." The first two they picked are retail and financial services. 03:15 — This is a dream partnership, I think. And it's also probably an example of how, with the enormity of the prospects of what can happen here in the AI Revolution, we're going to see more of the Cloud Wars Top 10 companies form these sorts of wide-ranging partnerships. 04:19 — There's a big emphasis from both of these companies on keeping things open and fully accessible for whichever specific routes customers want to take. We're seeing these inextricably bound connections here through this partnership of data, which is the fuel for AI, helping companies transform into AI-powered enterprises. Visit Cloud Wars for more.

Cannes Lions 2026 Day 2: Google's Paul Limbey on AI Transformation, LinkedIn Creators & Heineken's Bronze LionOn day two at Cannes Lions 2026 (Tuesday, 23 June), host Conor Byrne recaps a busy schedule at Brand Tech Beach, including an interview with Natasha Wallace to be released later in the summer with The Digital Voice. He doorstops Google's Paul Limbey, who warns against the “double shift” of giving top performers both day jobs and transformation work, highlights the rise of forward-deployed roles backed by major programs from Google Cloud, Anthropic and OpenAI, and explains his upcoming leadership fable The Frog in a Sock (out early July) about organizational constraints like workflows, approvals and pilot obsession; he also argues for product-minded scaling, better performance metrics for transformation, and repeated communication. At the System1 party, Conor discusses talks from Andrew Tindall, Mark Ritson and Jon Evans, chats with creator Henry about high-effort LinkedIn video, and interviews Jon Evans on going full-time with Uncensored CMO. Fiona shares Heineken Ireland's Bronze Lion wins for The Pub That Refused To Die, while Digital Voice street interviews cover AI, retail media, and creators seeking long-term brand partnerships.00:00 Day Two Kickoff01:02 Paul Limbey from google01:28 Ending The Double Shift05:00 Frog In A Sock05:50 Scaling Beyond Pilots06:45 Performance And People08:07 Repeat To Lead Change09:31 System1 Party Recap10:35 Henry Hayes On LinkedIn Comedy14:45 Jon Evans Goes Solo20:54 Heinekens Bronze Lion with Fiona Curtin23:19 Croisette Street Interviews Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Highlights 00:27 — It's not just business as usual for these companies, their customers, and others who are tied into these extraordinary enterprises. We're also seeing booms in innovation, not just in technology but in go-to-market models, business models, and more. 01:32 — The big part of this is that it's not just big numbers, but big numbers driving widespread, deep, and profound innovation. Here's how the $2.1 trillion breaks out across the four hyperscalers: Backlog RPO Total Backlog RPO Growth Rate Oracle $638 Billion 363% Microsoft $627 Billion 99% Google Cloud $462 Billion 93% AWS $364 Billion 49% Total $2.091 Trillion   02:32 — With this high level of innovation, we're seeing a convergence of industries including technology, energy, and construction. Because of extreme demands, the tech industry has to start getting into the energy business. Construction is entering the picture as well, as these facilities are some of the largest built in such a short period of time, meeting demanding specifications and aligning with supply and demand. 03:25 — This convergence is leading to the hyperscalers developing new business models. These companies are coming up with unique models to solve this unprecedented demand and business challenge. Customers are coming up with different models based on what's happening, too. 04:15 — I have been a huge fan of the potential of fusion energy to meet this need. The convergence of tech and energy is only going to accelerate what's happening to break even with fusion energy. Visit Cloud Wars for more.

What happens when one of the world's largest enterprise software companies declares that it is no longer a software company, but an AI company? At SAP Sapphire, I caught up with James Bates, Head of Customer Advisory at SAP UK & Ireland, to discuss the company's vision for what it calls the Autonomous Enterprise and why this year's event felt different from any SAP conference before it. From standing-room-only AI sessions to bold declarations from SAP leadership, there was a clear sense that the conversation around AI has moved beyond experimentation and into the world of measurable business outcomes. In our conversation, James explained why so many organizations remain stuck in what he described as the experimentation phase of AI, despite years of investment and countless pilot projects. We explored why successful AI initiatives begin with business outcomes rather than technology choices and why data, governance, and process context have become the foundations of enterprise AI success. We also examined some of the standout announcements from Sapphire, including SAP's AI Agent Hub, the growing role of Joule as a new interface for work, and the company's expanding ecosystem of partnerships with organizations including Anthropic, NVIDIA, Microsoft, Google Cloud, Palantir, and Mistral. James shared why SAP believes the future lies in combining large language models with business context, process knowledge, and trusted enterprise data. The discussion also touched on real-world examples that demonstrate how AI agents are beginning to transform customer experiences, automate complex workflows, and support employees across finance, supply chain, and customer-facing operations. Rather than replacing people, James sees AI assistants and agents working alongside employees, removing repetitive tasks and helping teams focus on higher-value activities. We also explored the challenge many business leaders continue to wrestle with: how to balance autonomy with governance. As AI agents become more capable, maintaining visibility, accountability, and control becomes increasingly important. James shared why governance, trusted data, and strong business processes must remain at the center of every AI strategy. If you've been wondering whether enterprise AI is finally moving beyond the hype cycle and into meaningful business transformation, this conversation offers a fascinating perspective from the heart of SAP's AI strategy and its vision for the future of work. What role do you think AI agents will play inside your organization over the next few years? Share your thoughts.

In today's Cloud Wars Minute, I examine why the Google Cloud-EQT deal signals a major shift in how AI is being distributed at scale. Highlights 00:03 — The rapid pace at which deals are being struck and portfolios are expanding among the leaders in the race for AI dominance isn't new. Significant partnerships are being forged, and contracts are being signed all the time. However, every so often, a deal comes along that stands out not only for its scope, but also for what it indicates about the direction of travel for the industry as a whole. 00:33 — One such deal recently announced is between Google Cloud and the Swedish private equity firm EQT. Ultimately, this partnership sees EQT commit to accelerating AI adoption through Google Cloud for over 300 companies within its portfolio, and this is, of course, a big win for Google Cloud, as it gains access to hundreds of potential enterprise AI customers. 01:04 — Beyond this, those companies will not only benefit from Google Cloud's wide-ranging AI offerings, including the Gemini Enterprise agent platform, as well as its cybersecurity portfolio, but also from its vast partner network, which includes over 330,000 consultants from major firms like Deloitte and KPMG. 01:27 — For me, the biggest takeaways here are that, firstly, agentic AI is clearly going mainstream, with equity firms eager to roll it out among their entire portfolios. We're obviously well past the experimentation phase now. 01:42 — Secondly, this really presents a major opportunity for AI infrastructure companies to leverage this growing acceptance to enhance AI distribution at the portfolio level. This shift could result in AI adoption accelerating much faster than when companies go down the traditional enterprise sales route. Visit Cloud Wars for more.

Rob Moffat (Chief Architect at FINOS) maps out the intersection of workspace interoperability, open-source AI deployment, and multi-cloud security frameworks. He compares MCP (Model Context Protocol) with FDC3, tracks the rollout of the Common Cloud Controls (CCC) live validator tool, and reveals how open-source standards prevent multi-vendor lock-in at the desktop and infrastructure layers.

What does it take to move from AI experimentation to real business impact? Recording during Google Cloud Summit London 2026 at Tobacco Dock, I had the opportunity to speak with Maureen Costello, Vice President for UKI and Sub-Saharan Africa at Google Cloud, about one of the biggest shifts currently taking place across technology and business. After years of discussion around generative AI, the focus is now turning toward agentic AI and how organizations can put these capabilities to work in practical, measurable ways. Maureen offered a fascinating view from the front line of AI adoption, sharing how businesses across financial services, retail, government, and other sectors are beginning to move beyond pilots and proof-of-concept projects. We discussed how AI is helping organizations improve customer experiences, increase productivity, strengthen decision-making, and create new opportunities for growth. From helping banks tackle financial crime and deliver smarter customer services to supporting government departments in modernizing public services, the conversation is filled with examples that bring the technology to life. We also explored why the UK is so well positioned for the next chapter of AI adoption. With world-class research, exceptional talent, and ambitious investment across both the public and private sectors, Maureen believes the UK has a genuine opportunity to remain at the forefront of AI innovation. She also explained why skills development, data readiness, security, governance, and trust will play such an important role as organizations begin introducing AI agents into everyday workflows. What I particularly enjoyed was discussing the human side of this transition. As AI becomes embedded into business operations, how should leaders prepare their teams? What separates organizations that achieve meaningful outcomes from those that struggle to move beyond the early excitement? And how can businesses strike the right balance between innovation, responsibility, and long-term value? Whether you're following the announcements from Google Cloud Summit London, building your own AI strategy, or simply trying to understand where this technology is heading next, this conversation offers valuable insight into one of the most talked-about topics in business today. What role do you think agentic AI will play inside your organization over the next 12 months, and are businesses finally moving from curiosity to meaningful adoption?

The Department of Homeland Security is taking the next step toward reaching its cloud aspirations by officially bringing the first vendor onboard its Cumulus project, according to contract documents published last Friday. The agency awarded nearly $2.6 billion to Amazon Web Services via a single-award indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract for its cloud offerings, including Infrastructure as a Service, training and marketplace solutions. Cumulus was first introduced in January as part of procurement forecasting documents that outlined DHS's plan to increase the efficiency, flexibility and effectiveness of its cloud purchases in the hopes of unlocking “significant discounts.” At the time, DHS anticipated potential contracts would surpass $100 million, which is the ceiling for estimates on the Acquisition Planning Forecast System platform. The Cumulus project marks the first time cloud service providers have been tapped at an agencywide level, rather than by individual components. DHS plans to bring on other notable cloud providers. Oracle Cloud Infrastructure is expected to join next quarter, as is Google Cloud and Microsoft Azure. The award amounts for those contracts have not yet been disclosed. More than 2 in 5 IRS IT employees have either been separated from the agency or involuntarily reassigned to other positions during the second Trump administration, according to a watchdog report released last week. In its third workforce snapshot since President Donald Trump began his second term, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that the IRS lost 30% of its workforce (31,273 staffers) from January 2025 through January 2026, though it also added 2,000-some positions for a net decrease of 28%. Those departures were a mix of voluntary separations, deferred resignations or other incentive-induced exits. Among the tax agency's IT staff, 42% are gone, including 29% (2,497 individuals) who departed via separation or workforce reduction efforts. The remaining 13% (1,143 employees) were reassigned to the chief operating officer's staff, per the report. “According to the IRS, restructuring the IT department allowed them to simplify and align technical work with the agency's mission and core functions,” TIGTA reported. “IRS officials stated that the reassignment was not performance-related but was done to support Chief Operating Officer responsibilities.” Those non-IT responsibilities included the oversight of integrated support functions, implementing economy-of-scale efficiencies and facilitating better business practices, tax agency officials told the watchdog. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

Queridos Curiosinautas, bienvenidos a un nuevo CuriosiMartes con el Tío Fabián.Esta semana viene cargadísima: Elon Musk vuelve a sacudir el mercado con SpaceX, X e inteligencia artificial; la FIFA queda en ridículo intentando tapar marcas durante el Mundial.Epodcastl Reino Unido avanza con restricciones fuertes para menores de 16 años en redes sociales; y Anthropic queda en el centro de una tormenta por sus modelos, sus límites, sus demandas y el bloqueo de acceso externo a tecnologías cada vez más poderosas. También hablamos de Apple y Siri AI: ¿realmente podrían cobrar por estas funciones? ¿Qué pasa con Gemini, Google Cloud, Nvidia y la infraestructura que Apple necesita para cumplir lo que prometió? Además, aparecen nuevos rumores sobre un posible MacBook Ultra con pantalla táctil y el esperado iPhone Ultra plegable.Y como cierre, dos noticias que muestran el lado más transformador de la tecnología: inteligencia artificial aplicada a mamografías para detectar cáncer de mama años antes, y una posible terapia genética para lupus que podría cambiar la vida de millones de personas.Un episodio sobre poder, negocios, salud, inteligencia artificial y el impacto real de la tecnología en nuestras vidas. Si te gustó, dejá tu like, suscribite y activá la campanita para no perderte ningún CuriosiMartes.

Lili Hellriegel is head of enterprise solutions at Cherry Servers, a Lithuania-based bare metal cloud provider that pitches itself as a sovereign, Web3-friendly alternative to the US hyperscalers. Before joining Cherry, Lili was head of infrastructure at staking firm Blockdaemon, where she built out data center partnerships, network architecture and the server specs behind validation workloads — work that left her unusually fluent in what crypto teams actually need from their infrastructure. Why you should listen The pitch for European infrastructure has rarely been louder, and Lili makes the case with the confidence of someone who has lived on both sides of it. Every major hyperscaler — AWS, Google Cloud, Azure, even Oracle — is a US company, and for a growing cohort of Web3 teams that is no longer a neutral fact. Cherry Servers sits under European jurisdiction, runs its own facility in Lithuania, and operates data centers across Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Chicago, Singapore and a newly opened site in Tokyo. Some of Cherry's customers come for hard compliance reasons; others, Lili says, come for ideological ones, wanting the chains they help secure to live beyond the reach of any single government. The conversation lands at a moment when data sovereignty and distrust of concentrated American cloud power have moved from fringe concern to boardroom agenda. The sharper argument is about economics, and here Lili thinks the industry is approaching an inflection point. She describes a shift from "cloud-first" to "workload-first" thinking: instead of defaulting to a hyperscaler and accepting whatever T-shirt-sized instance you're sold, teams running archival nodes, validators or other niche workloads are discovering they pay more and perform worse than they would on dedicated hardware tuned to the job. Cherry's answer is granular customization — choose your disks, your storage, your RAM, and pay only for what the workload demands — backed by account managers who architect the build rather than just sell a box, with human support that answers in well under a minute. For staking-heavy customers, the model is almost self-funding: a large share pay in crypto, drawing on staking rewards to cover their infrastructure across some thirty different chains. Her forecast for the next eighteen to twenty-four months is the part worth sitting with. Lili argues the era of free cloud credits is ending — she doubts AWS will keep handing startups six-figure credit grants for signing up to an accelerator — and that founders, newly disciplined about runway, will increasingly treat optimized bare metal as a way to extend it. In the closing hot-take round she plants her flag as a multi-chain "Solana maxi," names Bitcoin as the enduring store of value while backing the smaller chains' upside, and offers a builder's creed: the market ultimately rewards people who make useful things on-chain, not those treating tokens purely as speculation — which, she adds, is also why she thinks people should run nodes with smaller providers. The desert-island sci-fi pick, naturally, is Star Wars. https://www.cherryservers.com/

Show Notes - https://forum.closednetwork.io/t/episode-58-the-price-of-being-watched/198Website / Donations / Support - https://closednetwork.io/support/BTC Lightning Donations - closednetwork@getalby.com / simon@primal.netThank You Patreons & Direct Supporters! - https://www.patreon.com/closednetworkhttps://xmrchat.com/closednetworkDirect Support - https://closednetwork.ioSubscribe Without Patreon - https://closednetwork.io/#/portal/signupMichael Bates - Privacy Bad AssDavid - Privacy Bad AssTK - Privacy Bad AssTrying - Privacy Bad AssVO - Privacy Bad AssMrMilkMustache - Privacy SupporterHutch - Privacy AdvocateInferno_Potato Privacy SupporterDolores Y - Privacy SupporterDirect Support - Craig D Thank You Producers! You Produce This Show!TOP LIGHTNING BOOSTERS !!!! THANK YOU !!!@bon thousands and thousands and thousands of SATs sats!!@fireflygow - 5,000 sats!!frigolay - 34,540 SATs.. HOLY SHITEwardemoff - 5,000 SATsSilas ThornbrookThank You To Our Moderators:Unintelligentseven - Follow on NOSTR primal.net/p/npub15rp9gyw346fmcxgdlgp2y9a2xua9ujdk9nzumflshkwjsc7wepwqnh354dMaddestMax - Follow on NOSTR primal.net/p/npub133yzwsqfgvsuxd4clvkgupshzhjn52v837dlud6gjk4tu2c7grqq3sxavtJoin Our CommunityClosed Network Forum - https://forum.closednetwork.ioJoin Our Matrix Channels!Main - https://matrix.to/#/#closedntwrk:matrix.orgOff Topic - https://matrix.to/#/#closednetworkofftopic:matrix.orgSimpleX Group Chat - https://smp9.simplex.im/g#SRBJK7JhuMWa1jgxfmnOfHz7Bl5KjnKUFL5zy-Jn-j0Join Our Mastodon server!https://closednetwork.socialFollow Simon On The SocialsMastodon - https://closednetwork.social/@simonNOSTR - Public Address - npub186l3994gark0fhknh9zp27q38wv3uy042appcpx93cack5q2n03qte2lu2 - primal.net/simonTwitter / X - @ClosedNtwrkInstagram - https://www.instagram.com/closednetworkpodcast/YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@closednetworkEmail - simon@closednetwork.ioSpecial Thanks to - EloquentWinter for creating - A Linux guide on MAC address randomizationhttps://forum.closednetwork.io/t/a-linux-guide-on-mac-address-randomization/189TOPICSEncourage curiosity - This week ties together a single thread: someone else holds your data, and therefore holds the power. From algorithmic pricing to supply-chain malware to government scanning to cloud-AI assistants — and the hopeful counter-move, taking your data back. The episode theme is curiosity: in every story, one extra question would have changed the outcome.Segment 1 — Surveillance PricingInspired by More Perfect Union, "We Found the Radical Solution to Surveillance Pricing"Surveillance pricing (a.k.a. personalized / surveillance-based pricing) = charging you an individual price based on sensitive data about you — purchase history, browsing, geolocation, social activity, even biometric and financial signals. The economic endgame is "perfect price discrimination": charging each person their exact maximum.DoorDash holds a patent describing promotions based on a user's stress level.Delta Air Lines (with AI firm Fetcherr) has talked about expanding generative-AI pricing to ~20% of domestic fares, with ambitions to go further. Senators (Gallego, Blumenthal, Warner) and House members demanded answers.A Groundwork Collaborative / Consumer Reports / More Perfect Union study found different shoppers charged different prices for identical Instacart items. Former FTC chair Lina Khan has voiced concern.The "radical" fix is a law: New York's proposed One Fair Price Act would ban surveillance pricing outright — one posted price for everyone.Defensive moves (partial): private/container browsing, block cookies, disable ad personalization, use a VPN, compare logged-out vs. logged-in prices. Honest caveat: this is a structural problem — regulation, not browser tricks, is the real fix.Curious question: Is this price the market — or is it me being read?Segment 2 — "Arch malware btw": the AUR supply-chain attackInspired by Michael Tunnell and Switched to Linux — developing story, June 2026.The Arch User Repository (AUR) is community-maintained, unvetted package build scripts (PKGBUILDs). In a ~24-hour window, a coordinated attack poisoned a large number of packages — reports cite 1,500+ touched, with community trackers confirming ~400–500 malicious package names and rising.How: Attackers adopted orphaned packages (abandoned by maintainers — anyone can claim them) and edited the PKGBUILD to add a pre/post-install hook that pulls a malicious npm package, atomic-lockfile (Sonatype tracked one strand as the "Atomic Arch" campaign).Payload: A Linux infostealer + optional root-only eBPF rootkit. Targets developer secrets — browser creds/cookies, SSH keys, GitHub creds, Vault/npm tokens, Docker/Podman, VPN configs, shell history, Slack/Teams/Discord/Telegram, crypto wallets. eBPF lets it run in-kernel and hide processes/files/connections.If you were hit and the rootkit deployed: rotate every credential (from a clean machine) and reinstall from scratch. A normal uninstall is not enough.Status: Maintainers are removing malicious commits and banning accounts; the official repos of Arch-based distros (CachyOS, Garuda, Chaotic-AUR) were not infected — only users who installed/upgraded a compromised AUR package during the window. Community checker script + affected-package list were published within hours.Action checklist (Arch users):pacman -Qm → list your foreign (AUR) packages.Compare against the community list / run the checker script (CachyOS advisory).If matched → rotate credentials from a clean machine, then clean-reinstall.Curious habit: Before installing, ask who maintains this, when did it last legitimately update, and did ownership recently change? On the AUR, read the PKGBUILD — the malicious line was visible to anyone who looked.Segment 3 — UK Device Scanning: 90 Days to ComplyInspired by "Signal's Warning: The UK's Phone Scanning Plan Just Got Real"The UK government signaled that phone makers (Apple, Google) will get ~90 days to start scanning photos on young people's devices for nude images. Running alongside: Online Safety Act powers for Ofcom aimed at encrypted messaging (key report expected ~April). The mechanism: client-side scanning — every message/image checked on your device, before encryption.Why it matters: Client-side scanning doesn't break encryption directly — it inspects content before the lock clicks shut. The "end-to-end encrypted" label survives, but the privacy guarantee (nobody is looking) is gone.Signal's position: scanning won't protect children and builds surveillance infrastructure that "endangers us all."Security: once scanning exists on every device, the match-database can be expanded — swap it and you're scanning for slogans, documents, faces. Signal would withdraw from the UK rather than build a backdoor. Mullvad raised parallel alarms.Misdiagnosis: real child safety = better-funded education, social services, AI-platform guardrails — not default scanning. Rallying phrase: "Surveillance is not safety."Bigger picture: This is a template (cf. the EU's "Chat Control"). Sympathetic justification + a mechanism that, once built, can point anywhere.Curious question: Not is the goal good? (it usually is) but what else can this machine do once built, and who decides what it points at next?Segment 4 — iOS 27 at WWDC: the Privacy Fine PrintApple WWDC 2026 keynote coverage.Genuine wins: New Siri AI (next-gen Apple Intelligence) uses a tiered architecture — simple requests on-device, moderate ones via Private Cloud Compute (inspectable, hardened). Plus stronger family safety: child-account setup, parental controls, redesigned Screen Time, new Safari safeguards.The fine print (two concerns):Total context access. Siri AI indexes across your messages, emails, photos, and apps — a unified, queryable view of your whole digital life. Conversation history syncs via iCloud ("with privacy protections"), but strength depends on whether you've enabled Advanced Data Protection (Apple's E2EE for iCloud — not on by default).New Google dependency. Apple made official a Gemini partnership — the heaviest reasoning routes to Google Cloud. Apple says queries are anonymized and tokenized so neither Apple nor Google can link them to you (Federighi: "privacy in AI is non-negotiable"). Critics counter that PCC/anonymization is "only as private as the weakest link" — if Google retains any path to usage data for training/debugging, the guarantee weakens.Takeaway: Apple's defaults are still among the best of the mainstream — but don't let "privacy" in a keynote switch off your curiosity. On update: review Siri AI indexing settings, turn on Advanced Data Protection, and understand where your hardest queries travel.Curious question: A magical assistant that knows everything about you is, by definition, a system granted everything about you. Did you make that trade on purpose?Segment 5 — Self-Hosting 101: What to Migrate FirstOriginal recurring segment — Part 1 (scope). Part 2 next week: hands-on photos build.Self-hosting = run the services yourself, on hardware you own, instead of renting space on a company's servers. It's the deliberate counter-move to every other story this week. Honest caveat: you become your own IT department (backups, updates, downtime). Don't eat the elephant at once — scope first.The five candidates (ranked by impact-to-effort):Photos — highest emotional and surveillance value (faces, locations, timestamps). Self-host with Immich (Google-Photos-like: app, auto camera-roll backup, face/object search). Difficulty: moderate; biggest single win.Calendar — a forward-looking map of your life. CalDAV via Radicale or Nextcloud; syncs to your existing calendar app. Easy–moderate; great first project.Contacts — your social graph (everyone else's data too). CardDAV on the same Radicale/Nextcloud server — bundle it with calendar. Easy.File backups — documents and digital paperwork. Often Nextcloud.

In today's Cloud Wars Minute, I compare Oracle, Microsoft, Google Cloud, and AWS through the lens of backlog growth and future demand. Highlights 00:02 — I talked last week a little bit about Oracle's Q4 results, very strong across the board. I wanted to go into a little more detail today about one number in particular: its RPO, remaining performance obligation. That's contracted business not yet recognized as revenue. 00:18 — Some people refer to it as RPO. It's also known as pipeline or backlog. But with what Oracle reported for Q4, its AI and cloud backlog, pipeline, or RPO is now the largest in the world: $638 billion. It's even bigger than Microsoft's. This reveals a lot about who's got momentum into the future. 01:02 — So, as I said, Oracle's RPO for the quarter ended May 31 was $638 billion, up 363%. A couple of months ago, when Microsoft reported its fiscal Q3 and calendar Q1 numbers for the period ended March 31, it reported RPO of $627 billion, up 99%. So, Oracle beats them slightly on total RPO, but look at the difference in the growth rate: 99% versus 363%. 02:20 — But when we flip the arrow of time from the recent past, which revenue reflects, into the future, that's where we see Oracle is just winning an outlandish share of the business going forward, even more than Microsoft. We're seeing more and more of that pipeline, or RPO, over time convert to revenue for both of these companies. 03:40 — These are multiplier effects, and again, my point here is about who's growing faster and who is moving into leadership positions going forward. Clearly, as Microsoft and AWS led the first chapter of the cloud, here in the AI chapter, the leaders jumping out in front, growing faster, and finding new ways of doing things are Oracle and Google Cloud. 04:12 — Speaking of AWS, how does it fit into this whole RPO tale of the tape? AWS refers to this as backlog, and in its most recent quarter, ended March 31, it said that its backlog was $364 billion, up 49%. For Google Cloud, its backlog is $462 billion, growing at 98%. So clearly, all three companies are outperforming AWS in this backlog/RPO space. Visit Cloud Wars for more.