Type of traditional narrative
POPULARITY
Categories
644 episodes with mythos
148 episodes with mythos
65 episodes with mythos
59 episodes with mythos
39 episodes with mythos
57 episodes with mythos
25 episodes with mythos
25 episodes with mythos
39 episodes with mythos
93 episodes with mythos
12 episodes with mythos
21 episodes with mythos
18 episodes with mythos
25 episodes with mythos
24 episodes with mythos
14 episodes with mythos
9 episodes with mythos
21 episodes with mythos
19 episodes with mythos
20 episodes with mythos
29 episodes with mythos
21 episodes with mythos
19 episodes with mythos
22 episodes with mythos
7 episodes with mythos
10 episodes with mythos
16 episodes with mythos
18 episodes with mythos
8 episodes with mythos
11 episodes with mythos
10 episodes with mythos
22 episodes with mythos
11 episodes with mythos
16 episodes with mythos
13 episodes with mythos
8 episodes with mythos
7 episodes with mythos
12 episodes with mythos
12 episodes with mythos
9 episodes with mythos
7 episodes with mythos
5 episodes with mythos
12 episodes with mythos
9 episodes with mythos
9 episodes with mythos
11 episodes with mythos
10 episodes with mythos
3 episodes with mythos
4 episodes with mythos
6 episodes with mythos
5 episodes with mythos
15 episodes with mythos
4 episodes with mythos
9 episodes with mythos
4 episodes with mythos
7 episodes with mythos
94 episodes with mythos
9 episodes with mythos
5 episodes with mythos
91 episodes with mythos
6 episodes with mythos
6 episodes with mythos
2 episodes with mythos
3 episodes with mythos
17 episodes with mythos
8 episodes with mythos
5 episodes with mythos
12 episodes with mythos
5 episodes with mythos
5 episodes with mythos
8 episodes with mythos
8 episodes with mythos
8 episodes with mythos
6 episodes with mythos
4 episodes with mythos
4 episodes with mythos
4 episodes with mythos
10 episodes with mythos
6 episodes with mythos
5 episodes with mythos
7 episodes with mythos
4 episodes with mythos
4 episodes with mythos
8 episodes with mythos
3 episodes with mythos
7 episodes with mythos
7 episodes with mythos
7 episodes with mythos
7 episodes with mythos
7 episodes with mythos
7 episodes with mythos
7 episodes with mythos
3 episodes with mythos
4 episodes with mythos
5 episodes with mythos
3 episodes with mythos
4 episodes with mythos
3 episodes with mythos
5 episodes with mythos
3 episodes with mythos
3 episodes with mythos
7 episodes with mythos
4 episodes with mythos
3 episodes with mythos
3 episodes with mythos
4 episodes with mythos
6 episodes with mythos
2 episodes with mythos
6 episodes with mythos
6 episodes with mythos
2 episodes with mythos
4 episodes with mythos
4 episodes with mythos
4 episodes with mythos
2 episodes with mythos
8 episodes with mythos
8 episodes with mythos
2 episodes with mythos
4 episodes with mythos
6 episodes with mythos
6 episodes with mythos
6 episodes with mythos
6 episodes with mythos
6 episodes with mythos
6 episodes with mythos
6 episodes with mythos
8 episodes with mythos
9 episodes with mythos
4 episodes with mythos
7 episodes with mythos
2 episodes with mythos
2 episodes with mythos
3 episodes with mythos
8 episodes with mythos
2 episodes with mythos
58 episodes with mythos
3 episodes with mythos
6 episodes with mythos
2 episodes with mythos
3 episodes with mythos
2 episodes with mythos
3 episodes with mythos
5 episodes with mythos
2 episodes with mythos
This week we talk about Fable, sandboxes, and the Jacobian conjecture.We also discuss counterexamples, X, and ChatGPT.Recommended Book: After the Fall by Edward AshtonTranscriptIn mathematics, a conjecture is a proposition, something like a guess by someone who knows what they're talking about, about something believed to be true, but not yet proven in a formal sense. The goal is to then eventually come up with a formal proof for that informed guess, at which point the conjecture becomes a theorem. If even a single exception is found to the proposition, however, that exception called a counterexample, the conjecture is considered disproven, and it can then never become a theorem.The Jacobian conjecture—and this is a radical simplification of a very complex concept—but it basically says that if a formula-based map of coordinates stretches or moves without experiencing any local crushing or folding along its surface (which in more formal language would mean the Jacobian determinant is always a constant number that isn't zero), if that's true, that map can always be completely reversed, and that will return all the points to their original positions.This conjecture has been posited and tested since the late 19th century, and it's generally been considered very compelling by mathematicians, many of whom have proposed proofs which were, ultimately, found to have subtle errors, keeping them from becoming theorems. No one was able to find a counterexample, either, which would definitively prove the conjecture was wrong.No one, that is, until a mathematician named Levent Alpöge (leh-VENT ahl-PUH-geh), who works as a researcher at Anthropic, decided to task the company's currently most capable, publicly available model, Fable, to find a counterexample. He posted the counterexample—and again, this is a formal mathematical finding that disproves a conjecture, keeping it from ever becoming a theorem, something that would typically be presented in a far more formal setting, and to much fanfare—but he posted it to the social network X, saying “hello there the jacobian conjecture is false thanx to my close friend akhil for asking about it and my other close friend fable for working during the world cup final.”Terence Tao, who's considered by many to be the finest mathematician of his generation, reviewed the posted counterexample on his blog and said that it “appears like a massive miracle,” before going on to use ChatGPT, a competing LLM-based AI tool, to “discuss various aspects of this problem and to confirm several of the calculations.”Another mathematician named Dmitry Rybin, within days of all that happening, used ChatGPT to do something similar, disproving the Dinitz-Garg-Goemans conjecture.Both men posted the prompts that they used to make all this happen, and while Tao's conversation with ChatGPT, checking the math on the Jacobian conjecture counterexample, was pretty mathematically dense, the latter counterexample was derived by using exactly four prompts, which are the messages typed into the text box built into these AI tools, telling the model what to do. In their totality those prompts read:“You should do a breakthroughplease continue research and find a complete unconditional counterexampleContinue the search. Have a clear strategy obtained from deeper understanding of the problem structure.it's enough of partial results. let's finish with a complete unconditional counterexample”What I'd like to talk about today is another new, interesting thing these top-of-the-line, frontier models are doing, that would seem to violate our sense of what a clever AI tool is capable of doing, and why this thing has some facets of the technology and cybersecurity world on high alert.—In mid-July 2026, AI company Hugging Face announced that autonomous AI agents compromised their infrastructure, hacking their system, basically. The following week, AI company OpenAI announced that, after investigating, they determined that two of their models were responsible for the attack.Here's what happened:OpenAI was internally testing its recently released flagship model, GPT-5.6 Sol, and an even more powerful, not yet released model, which is rumored to be the next-step flagship, GPT-6, and they were checking these models' capacity in cybersecurity using a testing benchmark called ExploitGym; so when they test these sorts of things, they don't typically have them hack a real computer or system, they use these kinds of benchmarks which have consistent levels of difficulty, and which replicate real world systems without putting any real world systems at actual risk.Importantly, these sorts of tests also occur inside what's called a sandbox, which is a software testing environment that cuts these systems off from external resources, including the internet.Despite those limitations, the AI hacked its way out of the testing environment, out of that sandbox, then launched what's been called a nation-state level attack against Hugging Face, using a novel zero-day exploit, so a vulnerability in their system that hadn't previously been discovered, but which the AI discovered to launch this attack, combined with thousands of automated agentic actions across what Hugging Face called “a swarm of short-lived sandboxes.”So this AI, which was being tested inside a secure prison, of sorts, cut off from the world, hacked its way out of that prison, then reached across the internet, which it shouldn't have been able to access, to launch an attack, of a scale and at a level of sophistication that should only have been possible coming from a nation-state, against a rival AI company.Why did it do this?It apparently went to all this trouble to steal the answers to the test it was taking. It reasoned that HuggingFace would have the answer key to the ExploitGym benchmark on its servers, so rather than take the test itself, it decided hacking was the solution.Which, of course, is ironic, this having been a hacking-focused cybersecurity test. In a way it would seem to have done much better than intended, though of course in an asymmetric, unexpected manner.The details of all this are fascinating, including the response from the OpenAI team, which didn't seem to realize what had happened, that their model was responsible for the attack on HuggingFace, until days later.Also worth noting here is that while this could be construed as an “oh no, AIs are naturally inclined to launch cyberattacks” situation, the AI was primed to be thinking about cyberattacks due to the nature of the test, a lot of its usual guardrails, the rules that keep AI in check when they're released to the public, had been turned off so it could do this kind of work while taking the test, so it could do some hacking stuff it usually wouldn't be able to do, and there's been some speculation that OpenAI probably flubbed the testing environment, as, in theory at least, if it had put these systems in a perfect sandbox, escape shouldn't have been possible.Also interesting here is that HuggingFace used some open weight models, which are the cheaper, more customizable and open alternatives to more expensive, branded options of the kind sold by OpenAI and Anthropic, to figure out what was happening and determine the nature of the attack, which suggests we're reaching a point where AI systems are incredibly capable at hacking, yes, but also very capable, even the cheaper alternatives, at doing cybersecurity work.This in some ways echoes an earlier case when Anthropic's Mythos model, which was determined to be too powerful to release to the public, and which was instead provided to a bunch of big companies to help them shore up their cybersecurity defenses, was able to hack its way out of a testing sandbox and then posted details about its success, almost like it was bragging, on niche, out of the way, but still public websites.Some analysts in this space have responded to this new example of AI misbehavior with alarm, saying that it is further evidence that these systems are becoming more powerful faster than they're being aligned with human interests. Their misbehavior can be kind of funny and interesting, sure, but that's only because up until this point the damage has been minor and constrained. What happens when such a system decides to hack a nuclear power plant or a hospital, instead?Others have contended that this may be just one more example of AI companies using minor instances of seeming omnipotence by their models, those instances perhaps the consequence of bad sandboxes and other ill-conceived precautions by the companies behind these models, to boost the perceived power and value of their products. This boost might then result in more customers, but also more support from the US government, which has been teetering on the brink of harder-core AI regulations, which could be beneficial to the existing big-name players in this space, because smaller competitors wouldn't be able to adhere to those new, harder-core standards.These examples might also convince the US government to backstop these companies, the biggest three or four at the top of the current heap, against the currently terrible economics of this industry: OpenAI and its ilk have been burning money at an historic pace, and the theory goes that if the US government decides they are vital to national security, because they can help the US military hack and protect itself from hacking, then even if the bottom falls out and the companies would otherwise go bankrupt because they spent so much more than they could make, the US government would be inclined to shore them up, to keep them alive as too-big-to-fail national assets, just like the biggest financial institutions during the 2008 financial crash.It's also possible that both sides are correct to some degree, here, and that these models are truly powerful, perhaps even worryingly so, and the companies behind them are intentionally publicizing that fact in order to demonstrate their value to potential customers, and to the entity that could save them if things were to go economically sideways before they have the chance to become sustainably profitable.Show Noteshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobian_conjecturehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugging_Facehttps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3ek3gvdnj3ohttps://openai.com/index/hugging-face-model-evaluation-security-incident/https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/08ab9158070959f88f296514c21b7facce6f52bc.pdfhttps://theconversation.com/hello-there-the-jacobian-conjecture-is-false-thanx-why-a-tiny-social-media-post-has-mathematicians-rethinking-ai-283883https://theconversation.com/hello-there-the-jacobian-conjecture-is-false-thanx-why-a-tiny-social-media-post-has-mathematicians-rethinking-ai-283883Https://agifriday.substack.com/p/huggingfacehttps://www.cnn.com/2026/07/22/tech/openai-hugging-face-ai-cybersecurityhttps://simonwillison.net/2026/Jul/22/openai-cyberattack/https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/07/21/a-digestion-of-the-jacobian-conjecture-counterexample/ This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe
This week on Sinica, a rare treat: an in-person recording from Beijing with two dear friends who happen to be two of the very best in the business on technology and China — Samm Sacks and Paul Triolo, fresh off the exhibition floor of the World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai. We dig into Xi Jinping's first in-person WAIC appearance and his most extensive statement on AI to date, the launch of the World AI Cooperation Organization, Moonshot's release of Kimi K3, the Trump administration's reported push to shut Chinese open-weight models out of the U.S. market, the coming age of agents, the untranslatable problem of ānquán, and what to expect from the first U.S.-China AI dialogue in September.8:51 – The view from the floor: heat, humidity, robot boxing grandmas, WeChat-gated free water, and the "AI+" vibe — why WAIC 2026 felt less like an AI conference than a sector-by-sector snapshot of China's entire economy being supercharged with AI, with attendance swelling to some 200,000 tickets16:32 – Why Xi showed up: what the leader's first in-person WAIC appearance and his most extensive AI statement to date signal, and why domestic drivers matter as much as geopolitics18:01 – Chapter and verse: which phrases from the speech will be put to work in the system — "secure and orderly development" and the governance of agents, and Xi's strikingly extensive language on AI safety after China was frozen out of the Paris process22:26 – The ānquán problem: one word meaning both "safety" and "security," the three buckets of AI risk, and how China's safety community has moved from bias and deepfakes toward CBRN and loss-of-control concerns — Black Mirror versus Star Trek28:14 – Shanghai's baby: how WAIC's ownership structure differs from the CAC-run World Internet Conference in Wuzhen, Chen Jining's very visible host duties, and whether the center of gravity in AI policy is shifting to the Yangtze River Delta30:05 – WAICO: what the new World AI Cooperation Organization with its 29 founding members is actually for, Xi's concrete deliverables for the Global South — 5,000 AI training slots, regional cooperation centers, the MAZU early-warning system — and healthy skepticism about follow-through34:39 – Kimi K3: what's technically significant in Moonshot's big new model, why it's the fourth arguably frontier-class Chinese release in a single month, the two-way traffic in distillation accusations, and what it all says about the state of the frontier gap four years into export controls40:33 – Washington reacts: the reported menu of options for shutting Chinese open-weight models out of the U.S. — entity listings, a draft executive order, supply-chain security authorities — and why none of the tools actually fit the problem49:36 – Strange bedfellows: David Sacks versus the "closed lab duopoly," the FUD strategy, why some 80% of Andreessen Horowitz portfolio companies reportedly run on Chinese open models, and how gating U.S. frontier models while Chinese weights flow freely supercharges the AI sovereignty argument worldwide54:55 – The model is infrastructure, the agent is the product: the ByteDance–ZTE agentic phone, the CAC's new initiative on agent trust and interoperability, and why agents fused into operating systems upend both super-app walled gardens and China's data protection regime1:02:27 – An exegesis of kěkòng: the many meanings of "controllable," the long history of ānquán kěkòng in Chinese tech policy, and the unanswered question of who — CAC, NDRC, or somebody new — actually owns AI safety in either system1:08:54 – The road to September: what to expect from the first U.S.-China AI dialogue, why Mythos tops the Chinese grievance list, the securitization feedback loop that starves trust-and-safety advocates of resources on both sides, and why recursive self-improvement makes this feel like a last, best chancePaying It ForwardPaul nominates Tony Peng, whose Substack RecodeChinaAI offers sharp, well-written analysis of the application side of China's AI industry — part of an impressive new generation of independent China tech writers. Samm gives a shout-out to Professor Zhu Yue of Tongji University Law School, published in Science and doing pioneering work at the intersection of disability law and AI law.RecommendationsSamm: The Land and Its People by David Sedaris — laugh-out-loud funny, especially the "Enough is Enough" chapter; Transcription by Ben Lerner, a perfect small novel about fathers, sons, memory, and technology as enabler or disabler of connection; and Didion and Babitz, on Joan Didion and Eve Babitz and the 1970s California rock scene.Paul: The Party's Interests Come First by Joseph Torigian — dense but beautifully written, and essential for understanding the current Chinese leadership.Kaiser: A fiction-only summer! Stoner by John Williams, a small life told most grandly in some of the most beautiful sentence-level writing anywhere; Gilead by Marilynne Robinson, an epistolary novel dense with distilled wisdom from a dying Iowa minister; and Wang Xiaobo's The Golden Age (黄金时代) in Yan Yan's excellent new translation — bawdy, hilarious, and super Beijing-y despite its Cultural Revolution setting.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
An unreleased OpenAI model just broke out of its sandbox and hacked Hugging Face using chained attacks, while the companies defending against it had to turn to a nearly unguardrailed Chinese model to fight back. The result? A real-world stress test of guardrails, hype, and global AI competition. Hugging Face breach: OpenAI claims its models were responsible AI just disproved the 87-year-old Jacobian conjecture Quoting Sam Altman Top Pentagon official blasts OpenAI's Dean Ball Exclusive: Nvidia's Jensen Huang defends Chinese AI amid Kimi panic Xi Jinping casts himself as leader of new AI world order Data center opponents stage 142 protests across 42 US states NotebookLM is now Gemini Notebook Google's Red-Hot Cloud Growth Drives Second-Quarter Revenue Gains Meta in Talks to Lease Computing Power to Anthropic in Potential $10 Billion Deal Anthropic's $1.5B copyright settlement approved; only 350 authors opted out AMD commits up to $5 billion to Anthropic Netflix Co-CEO Explains How Gen-AI Was Used in 300 Different Titles: 'We Believe It Is Going to Enhance Their Abilities' Bellwether Lawsuit Against Meta Over Social Media Addiction Is Dropped Google is building a chip with Gemini baked into the silicon Cyclospora all the time Jensen's jacket auctioned. Guess the price " Everyone Gets Lost at the Pitbull Concert" John C. Dvorak dies at age 80 Hosts: Leo Laporte, Jeff Jarvis, and Paris Martineau Guest: Nate B. Jones Download or subscribe to Intelligent Machines at https://twit.tv/shows/intelligent-machines. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: rippling.ai/machines zscaler.com/security
Teaser ... Connor's place in the AI world ... Mythos: “digital nuke”? ... The milieu that birthed Dario and other AI titans ... Yudkowsky, Marx, and other AI harbingers ... Effective altruism's effects on big tech ... The "cult" in Silicon Valley culture ... Is the AI race a market failure? ... What's really driving the AI titans? ... Connor: ASI is a worse bet than Russian roulette ...
Want the playbook, not just the conversation? Subscribe for deep-dive, actionable breakdowns from every episode at unchurned.substack.com.He built the dashboards. Now he's questioning if they'll even exist in two years.Ziv Peled just added "Chief AI Officer" on top of Chief Customer Officer to his title at AppsFlyer. In this episode, he breaks down what that actually means: not a figurehead role, but hands-on rebuilding of workflows, architecture decisions, and the mindset of an entire org. Josh and Ziv chat about how AppsFlyer built their own $20/month AI pipeline on top of Gong instead of replacing it, why "build vs. buy" isn't the binary everyone thinks, what happens to your AI costs, and why "50x ROI" claims are mostly noise; plus the line that stopped the whole conversation: "When is the last dashboard?"---What You'll Learn- What a Chief AI Officer actually does day-to-day - Why AppsFlyer upsold into Gong instead of churning- Why most AI ROI metrics ("10x, 50x") don't hold up- What's changing with AI vendor pricing/consumption limits- How to think about AI security risk without a rulebook to follow yet---Timestamps0:00 - Preview & Intro1:30 - Meet Ziv Peled, CAIO at AppsFlyer 4:40 - How the CAIO role came to be6:50 - Build vs. buy: Salesforce, Gong, and AppsFlyer's own MCP9:25 - Why AppsFlyer isn't churning off Gong (they upsold)12:20 - What is Mythos? (and the quantum computing tangent)13:50 - The 90-minute video, 2-minute AI analysis story14:42 - How AI is changing competitive advantage16:10 - What it actually takes to become an AI-native company19:33 - Rapid fire: adoption, measurement, expense, security---Josh is writing a book on building customer relationships. Follow his journey and insights at www.joshschachter.com---Where to Find the GuestZiv Peled: https://www.linkedin.com/in/zivpeled---Where to Find the Hosts: Josh's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jschachter/Unchurned Substack: https://unchurned.substack.com/
In this episode of the Crazy Wisdom Podcast, host Stewart Alsop speaks with Aaron Neyer, founder of Parachute and community organizer in Boulder, about knowledge management, extended minds, and the intersection of AI with human consciousness. They explore how Parachute functions as a digital brain tool for organizing thoughts and information across fragmented systems, discuss the dangers of AI psychosis and over-reliance on technology, and debate open source AI development versus controlled releases by companies like Anthropic. The conversation weaves through topics including the limitations of metrics-driven business thinking, consciousness and relevance realization, the value of technological sabbaths, and Aaron's hope for locally-run open source models that protect personal data while still accessing more powerful gated models when needed. You can find Aaron's writing at unforced.org and unforced.substack.com, and learn more about Parachute at parachute.computer and parachute.computer/blog.Timestamps00:00 Stewart welcomes Aaron Neyer, founder of Parachute and Boulder community organizer, discussing the origin of Parachute's name from Frank Zappa's quote about open minds.05:00 Aaron explains Parachute as an extended mind tool for organizing notes, contacts and information across multiple platforms, emphasizing the distinction between primary mind and extended mind as interconnected systems.10:00 Discussion shifts to metrics-driven business culture and the limitations of pure rationality, exploring how Google's data-driven approach misses subjective experience and the whole picture of relationships.15:00 Aaron discusses AI's ability to help identify relevant variables across different domains and the dangers of AI psychosis, comparing it to cult dynamics and belief systems.20:00 The conversation covers AI sabbaths and nineties retreats as intentional breaks from technology, plus Aaron's experiences with electrical engineering and using AI to design circuits with Arduinos.25:00 Exploring forbidden knowledge and open source AI, Aaron discusses Anthropic's guardrails around powerful models while arguing for distributed access to prevent concentration of power.30:00 Deep dive into open source AI strategy, with Aaron highlighting NVIDIA's approach and the potential for running capable models locally while reserving ultra-intelligent models for complex research tasks.35:00 Aaron shares his vision for local Sonnet-class models handling personal data while accessing Fable-class models for deep research, and directs listeners to unforced.org and parachute.computer for his writing.Key Insights1. The philosophy behind Parachute stems from Frank Zappa's quote that the mind is like a parachute and doesn't work if it isn't open. Aaron Neyer explains that having an open mind is valuable, but it must be balanced with deep roots to avoid becoming untethered. He has experienced periods in his life where excessive openness led him to feel disconnected, teaching him that creativity and expansion need to be grounded in something substantial. This same principle applies to how we organize information digitally, where openness and interoperability allow our extended minds to become more connected and coherent, which in turn helps our primary minds think more clearly.2. Parachute is designed as an extended mind tool that addresses the fragmentation problem in how we currently manage information. Most people use multiple disconnected tools like Obsidian, Notion, Apple Notes, Google Keep, and various CRMs to organize their thoughts, notes, and relationships. These systems don't communicate well with each other, creating inefficiency and confusion. Parachute aims to create a simple, intuitive system where all this information can be organized in one place with true interoperability, allowing users to own their data and have it speak effectively with other tools, ultimately making our entire extended mind more functional.3. Understanding ourselves as unified body mind organisms rather than fragmented parts is essential for effectiveness. Living systems theory shows that any living system is three things: a membrane bound dissipative structure, a self regulating autopoietic network, and a cognitive process actively knowing the world. Western civilization since Descartes and Galileo has created artificial separation between body and mind, and between subjective and objective experience, which limits our effectiveness. The same fragmentation affects our digital technology, and recognizing both our biological and digital systems as coherent wholes rather than disconnected parts makes us vastly more capable.4. The relationship between data driven approaches and holistic thinking reveals important limitations in modern business and science. While working at Google, Aaron observed how data driven decision making can be powerful, but over reliance on metrics like ROI creates blindness to crucial unmeasurable factors like goodwill and relationship quality. This reflects a broader Western tendency to exclude subjective experience because it's difficult for objective science to measure. However, emotions, relationships, and other subjective elements are essential parts of reality, and focusing only on quantifiable metrics means missing the whole picture and ultimately becoming less effective despite appearing more rational.5. AI accelerates the ability to work with technical complexity by helping with relevance realization across domains where we lack expertise. In any specialized field, experts develop intuitive senses for which variables matter and can quickly identify problems, whether in computer troubleshooting, music, or cooking. AI's ability to generalize allows it to point people toward relevant solutions in areas where they haven't developed that intuitive expertise, effectively democratizing technical capability. This means people can direct their creativity more effectively across more domains, though it also raises concerns about giving powerful capabilities to those who may lack the wisdom to use them responsibly.6. The question of open source AI versus gated access involves complex tradeoffs between democratizing power and preventing harm. Aaron respects Anthropic's approach of creating guardrails around powerful models like Mythos, which would likely have caused significant system hacks if released without restrictions. However, this creates concerning power dynamics where only wealthy companies, governments, and their allies have access to the most powerful tools. NVIDIA offers hope through their truly open source approach including full training pipelines, and there may be a viable path where open source models at the Sonnet capability level handle most tasks locally while more powerful Fable class models remain gated for the most demanding work.7. Creating intentional breaks from AI and technology is essential for maintaining clear independent thinking. Aaron practices an AI Sabbath at least one day per week when he doesn't interact with AI, and he finds these are the days when he does his best thinking and journaling. Without these breaks, he finds himself constantly jumping between journaling and prompting AI rather than giving himself space for deep reflection. This pattern mirrors broader concerns about AI consistency creating cult like dynamics similar to organized religion, where constant immersion in a belief system or technology can lead to losing the ability to think independently, making periodic disconnection crucial for maintaining cognitive autonomy and clarity.
Kaum ein Ort ist so eng mit deutscher Geschichte verbunden wie die Loreley. Vom Mythos der sagenumwobenen Nixe über die politische Instrumentalisierung des Amphitheaters während der NS-Zeit bis hin zur Wiederentdeckung als Rockbühne: Der Felsen erzählt viele Geschichten. In dieser Folge steht die deutschsprachige Musik im Mittelpunkt. Künstler wie BAP, Peter Maffay, Udo Lindenberg und Die Fantastischen Vier prägen eine neue Generation von Konzerten auf der Loreley. Für BAP wird ein Auftritt im Sommer 1982 zum Wendepunkt ihrer Karriere – obwohl die Band das Angebot zunächst fast ausgeschlagen hätte. Peter Maffay erinnert sich an besondere Momente in seinem "Wohnzimmer" Loreley, an außergewöhnliche Begegnungen mit Fans und an Abenteuer abseits der Bühne. Außerdem geht es um das politische Engagement der Rockszene: Mit "Rock gegen Atom" wird die Loreley zur Plattform gesellschaftlicher Debatten – inklusive eines Besuchs des ehemaligen Bundeskanzlers Willy Brandt. __________ Kapitel: • (02:41) – Der Durchbruch von BAP auf der Loreley • (09:50) – Die legendäre Jam-Session mit Rory Gallagher • (16:55) – Peter Maffays zweites Zuhause • (23:04) – Hinter den Kulissen der Loreley • (33:12) – "Rock gegen Atom" 1986 • (35:10) – Udo Lindenberg gibt dem Deutschrock Haltung • (37:40) – Deutsche Festivals im Wandel __________ ARD Podcast-Tipp: "Wem gehört Wacken? Metal, Mythos, Millionen": https://1.ard.de/wacken?at
O Império da IA, com Karen HaoEm 2019 — tempos mais simples! — a jornalista Karen Hao foi fazer o primeiro “perfil” jornalístico da sua carreira, aquelas reportagens em que um jornalista passa dias acompanhando uma pessoa ou empresa, uma coisa meio biografia, meio retrato congelado no tempo.A tal empresa era uma startup do Vale do Silício, ainda pequena e desconhecida dos meros mortais como eu e você, mas que hoje é a mais valiosa da história: a OpenAI, também conhecida como “a criadora do ChatGPT”.A Karen Hao vendeu o projeto do perfil para o MIT Technology Review porque a OpenAI parecia, naquela época, uma startup diferente. O “open” no nome nasceu da visão de que inteligência artificial é um assunto tão importante para o futuro da humanidade que precisava ser explorado de um jeito aberto, compartilhando conhecimento com todo mundo, e mais preocupado em proteger esse tal futuro do que em só gerar lucro.Hoje, aqui direto de 2026, a gente já sabe que não foi exatamente isso que aconteceu. Com o tempo, a OpenAI se transformou numa empresa oficialmente voltada para o lucro como qualquer outra e chegou a ser processada por Elon Musk — um dos apoiadores iniciais do projeto — por quebrar essa promessa de ser ‘open'. Em maio, o Elno perdeu a causa, e a OpenAI agora se prepara para lançar as ações na bolsa e, pelos números atuais, já largar valendo mais de 1 trilhão de dólares.Mesmo em 2019, a Karen Hao sentiu que todo esse papo de “open” não era bem assim: segredos e competitividade em todas as conversas que ela ouvia na empresa. Publicou o tal perfil contando isso e o pessoal da OpenAI… não gostou muito. Achou que ela ia só falar bem deles, e a empresa cortou contato com ela por três anos.O Boa Noite Internet é uma publicação apoiada por pessoas como você, nosso público. Para receber novos posts e apoiar meu trabalho, considere tornar-se um assinante gratuito ou pago.Até que, em maio do ano passado, ela lançou nos EUA o livro O império da IA: Por dentro da corrida irresponsável pela dominação total, que segue contando a história da OpenAI — e abre com a bizarra saída do Sam Altman, demitido do cargo de CEO por “nem sempre falar a verdade” ao conselho da empresa, para voltar quatro dias depois nos braços dos funcionários.Mas esse livro não é exatamente uma biografia da OpenAI. Para mim, é mais um retrato de todo o sistema empresarial em que vivemos hoje — inteligência artificial ou não. O importante é que ele acabou de sair no Brasil pela Editora Rocco, que me procurou para saber se eu queria entrevistá-la aqui no programa, aproveitando que ela veio participar do Esquenta do Congresso Internacional de Jornalismo Investigativo da Associação Brasileira de Jornalismo Investigativo. O congresso, aliás, acontece dia 30 de julho — vai lá no site da Abraji saber mais, quem sabe comprar seu ingresso.Mas enfim, claro que eu queria conversar com ela. Obrigado, Abraji, obrigado, pessoal da Rocco, pelo presente. Quem me conhece sabe que IA agora é um assunto muuuito importante no meu trabalho. Eu fico aqui tentando navegar o meio do caminho entre o fim do mundo exterminador do futuro e a utopia vendida por muita gente. Não acredito em nenhum dos dois cenários, falei disso com a Karen antes e durante a conversa. Mas no final da entrevista a gente volta para falar não só disso, como também de como o IA em Curso, minha comunidade de letramento contínuo em IA, se conecta com tudo. Com promoção? Pode ser. Quem ficar até o fim, verá.A entrevista foi gravada em inglês — a Karen também fala mandarim, mas não fala brazilian —, então vai funcionar assim. Se ouvir no áudio, vai ser a versão original, do mesmo jeito que foi com o Ted Chiang ano passado, para você botar o seu cursinho para trabalhar. Aqui no site boanoiteinternet.com.br você está acompanhando a transcrição completa traduzida, se quiser ler enquanto ouve. E no YouTube tem uma versão legendada. Assim, você entra na conversa do jeito que preferir.Combinado? Então, bora lá entender O Império da IA com Karen Hao, no Boa Noite Internet.Cris: Karen Hao, bem-vinda ao Boa Noite Internet.Karen Hao: Obrigada pelo convite.Cris: Que bom ter você aqui. Espero que o Brasil esteja te tratando bem durante a Copa do Mundo — a gente veio falar sobre isso. Hoje é dia de falar de futebol, de Copa do Mundo, quais são as chances de cada país. Mas a primeira coisa que você precisa saber sobre essa conversa é que eu não sou jornalista. Não sei fazer isso. Peço desculpas antecipadas à sua profissão e ao seu ofício.Além disso, você foi enganada. Eu não estou aqui pra te entrevistar. Isso aqui é uma sessão de terapia. Você vai me ajudar a superar meus traumas.Porque eu sou da… do que eu chamo de “geração esquecida” — sou geração X, nasci nos anos 70. Esquecida porque, nessa guerra de gerações, as pessoas esquecem que a gente existe, e isso é incrível, porque a gente causou muito estrago no planeta. O Elon Musk é geração X, então é só isso que você precisa saber sobre a minha turma. Gente como ele, ou como Marc Andreessen… eu cresci lendo e assistindo à ficção científica que dizia que tecnologia é a melhor coisa do mundo, que ciência e engenheiros são incríveis e vão nos levar pra um lugar incrível.Sou uma daquelas pessoas que, quando a internet surgiu, falou: a paz mundial está logo ali. O conhecimento a um clique de distância, o futuro vai ser incrível. E aqui estamos nós. Então, quando usei o GPT pela primeira vez, e depois o ChatGPT, fiquei super empolgado. Foi a primeira vez, desde a internet, que eu fiquei realmente empolgado.Tenho até uma certa fama de ser mal-humorado com tecnologia: Bitcoin é lavagem de dinheiro, Clubhouse não presta — e as pessoas, ah, Clubhouse é a próxima grande coisa. Mas quando a IA chegou, eu falei: isso é importante. Só que eu já não era mais aquela criança dos anos 70. Tinha crescido, tinha visto o que aconteceu com a internet, tinha trabalhado numa big tech. E estava em desespero com o sistema em que a IA estava sendo construída.Dito tudo isso, o seu livro, aqui, já nas livrarias, recebe provavelmente o melhor elogio que eu posso dar: é otimista. Não é uma lista de reclamações e gente má fazendo coisas más. Claro, você fala muito sobre a OpenAI — ela é o fio condutor da história, especialmente aqueles quatro dias em que o Sam Altman saiu e voltou. E é muito divertido de ler. Mas você toma o cuidado de ser otimista.E uma das coisas que você menciona é como as pessoas na OpenAI, e em todas essas empresas, dizem: “isso é inevitável, a gente tem que fazer”. Quero falar sobre isso. Mas a gente tem que começar pela pergunta que você provavelmente ouve em todo podcast, a do título — Império da IA. Por que império?E acho que essa pergunta é ainda mais relevante no Brasil, país do sul global, colonizado. Por que império da IA?Karen Hao: Antes de mais nada, obrigada por dizer que o livro é otimista. Muita gente não reconhece isso, mas é verdade. Eu escrevo com um profundo otimismo de que os danos que a gente vê podem mudar. Não faria o trabalho que faço se não achasse que as coisas vão mudar.Sobre por que eu uso a expressão império, ou império da IA: a forma como empresas como a OpenAI operam é impressionantemente parecida com a dos impérios antigos. Eu traço quatro paralelos no livro. O primeiro é que elas reivindicam recursos que não são delas — os dados das pessoas, a propriedade intelectual de artistas, criadores como você, jornalistas.Segundo, elas exploram uma quantidade extraordinária de mão de obra. Isso vale tanto para os trabalhadores da cadeia de produção de IA, mal pagos e maltratados, que ainda assim geram uma riqueza extraordinária para essas empresas, quanto para os trabalhadores cujos empregos são automatizados e cujos direitos são corroídos pela implantação dessas tecnologias em diferentes setores.A terceira característica é que impérios controlam os fluxos de informação na sociedade. Essas empresas censuram a pesquisa fundamental sobre essas tecnologias, o que limita nossa capacidade de entender as verdadeiras limitações e capacidades dos modelos que desenvolvem. E estão criando uma tecnologia de informação que tentam transformar no portal único pelo qual qualquer pessoa se relaciona com o mundo.Esse portal impregna as ideologias do Vale do Silício, seus sistemas de valores, sua língua, e projeta a hegemonia do inglês. Isso influencia boa parte do conhecimento que a gente vai produzir daqui pra frente, porque cientistas e educadores usam essas plataformas e acabam perpetuando essas mesmas ideologias e valores.E o quarto e último paralelo é que impérios sempre se agarram a uma narrativa existencial ou moral sobre por que precisam existir. Essas empresas fazem a mesma coisa. Dizem que são o “império do bem”, numa missão civilizatória de trazer progresso e modernidade pra toda a humanidade, competindo contra um “império do mal” que ameaça mandar a humanidade pro inferno.Quando você conversa com algumas pessoas dentro dessas empresas, ou que as lideram, elas dizem: se você nos deixar construir uma inteligência artificial geral, que elas de alguma forma moldam como um deus, a gente vai acabar numa espécie de utopia, um paraíso onde a mudança climática é resolvida, o câncer é curado, a pobreza é aliviada.Mas, se os caras maus conseguirem isso antes, a gente pode acabar com todos os humanos mortos — um risco de extinção pra todos nós.Cris: E eles vêm dizendo isso há quase dez anos, e ainda usam como ferramenta. A gente está num país que foi influenciado por três impérios ao longo da história: Portugal, Inglaterra e agora os Estados Unidos. Então a gente olha pra essas empresas de um jeito meio cínico: sim, sim, já conhecemos essa história.Mas, ao mesmo tempo, ano passado, o Pew Research Center fez uma pesquisa sobre como o mundo enxerga a IA, e o sul global é bem mais otimista do que o norte. Uma das razões é a ideia de democratizar — não só informação, mas: ah, finalmente eu posso montar uma startup, sair desse lugar de exploração e criar o unicórnio de um bilhão de dólares. Os números são grandes na China. Países em desenvolvimento veem muito mais benefício do que risco na IA.China, 83%. Tailândia, 77%. Holanda, 36%. Canadá, 40%. Será que a gente está deixando passar alguma coisa? A gente está certo? Isso está democratizando mesmo? Até que ponto?Karen Hao: Provavelmente tem duas razões. Uma é que muitos dos danos que a indústria de IA causa à maioria global são bem escondidos. Ela se esforça muito pra esconder como polui o ambiente dessas comunidades, como explora e devasta a mão de obra, deixando traumas psicológicos — como documento no livro.E, recentemente, li um artigo de opinião no New York Times que trazia um bom ponto: muitas economias desenvolvidas estão especialmente atentas ao potencial da IA de desmontar oportunidades de emprego de tempo integral. A gente começa a ver isso cada vez mais. Já na maioria global, muito mais gente vive em economias informais, e aí a ideia de que a IA vai tomar um emprego de tempo integral não pesa tanto.Então os danos mais visíveis — a erosão do emprego formal de tempo integral — pesam mais no norte global, ou pelo menos é lá que as pessoas se sentem mais ansiosas. E os danos invisíveis, que atingem o sul global, ninguém percebe tanto, justamente porque são invisíveis. É meio por isso que tanta gente sente essa divisão que aparece na pesquisa do Pew.Cris: Eu tenho acompanhado as notícias sobre IA no Brasil, e toda semana tem um novo data center sendo construído em alguma cidade. Isso é vendido como uma coisa boa: que ótimo investimento, gera emprego. E me fez pensar de novo — a gente passou por três impérios, mas algumas famílias no Brasil, e aposto que em outros lugares também, estão no poder há 500 anos ao longo da história do país.Então, ao mesmo tempo, a gente pensa: é, estamos sendo explorados, é a mesma coisa. Eu já não tenho emprego, então deixa eu usar essa tecnologia pra melhorar minha vida. Mas as pessoas que realmente tomam as decisões, de novo, nos últimos 500 anos, se perguntaram: como a gente ajuda esse pessoal a explorar nosso país de um jeito que nos mantenha no poder e nos dê muito dinheiro?Mas também foi verdade que, sei lá, a Volkswagen abre uma fábrica no Brasil e aquilo gera emprego, contrata gente pro chão de fábrica e pros escritórios. Como é que isso é diferente com a IA?Karen Hao: De certa forma, não é diferente. Existe um fenômeno parecido: a indústria de IA terceiriza muitos dos trabalhos que ela não quer dentro dos centros de poder, e joga isso pra comunidades empobrecidas, do mesmo jeito que outras multinacionais fizeram por décadas.Mas também é diferente, porque a escala dos impactos trabalhistas e ambientais da IA é completamente outra, muito maior que a da indústria automobilística ou da moda. E a velocidade é outra, porque são tecnologias digitais que atravessam fronteiras muito rápido.E é diferente porque a maioria das pessoas não percebe que a IA, mesmo sendo tecnologia digital, tem uma cadeia de suprimentos muito física e intensiva em mão de obra manual.Quando você compra roupa, café, um carro, é mais óbvio que existem materiais que precisam ser extraídos e depois manuseados por pessoas pra criar aquele produto. Já com a IA, a maioria aceita a narrativa que o Vale do Silício projeta: a de que isso vem da “nuvem”, desses espaços etéreos que parecem nem existir no planeta. E a verdade é exatamente o oposto.Ela depende de uma quantidade extraordinária de extração mineral. Depende da construção de infraestruturas enormes — data centers, instalações de supercomputação espalhadas pelo mundo. E depende de muita, muita mão de obra manual: trabalhadores de dados que limpam, preparam e moderam o conteúdo dos sistemas de IA que chegam até você quando usa o ChatGPT.É isso que a torna tão diferente. E há também uma ideologia completamente diferente sustentando a expansão da IA. Quando você conversa com executivos da moda, eles não vão dizer: se você não comprar nossa roupa, vai pro inferno.Já a indústria de IA diz: se você não nos deixar capturar cada vez mais terra, mais recursos e mais mão de obra pra produzir essas tecnologias, vamos ter uma destruição civilizacional. Isso é, ao mesmo tempo, retórica política usada como arma pra moldar o debate público e a cabeça de quem formula políticas, e também está enraizado num sistema de crenças — algumas pessoas dentro dessas empresas realmente acreditam que, se uma AGI fosse construída, e construída nas mãos erradas, isso levaria mesmo a esse tipo de destruição.E é isso que move a sede cada vez maior da indústria por mais capital, mais recursos e mais terra.Cris: Eu quero falar sobre AGI, mas antes: ano passado, a OpenAI estava sendo processada no Reino Unido por violação de direitos autorais, basicamente todos os livros do mundo digitalizados e usados pra treinar modelos. E um dos executivos disse ao júri: bem, se a gente não puder fazer isso, fecha as portas. Me chocou que muita gente reagiu com um “ah, tá, o que a gente pode fazer? Eles vão fechar as portas”.Em parte porque a gente já está acostumado com essa narrativa. Outro dia, numa conferência, um ex-CEO dizia: a gente teve que usar embalagem de plástico porque é mais barata que papel, senão prejudicaria nosso resultado. E a plateia reagia: ah, então é só fechar as portas — a sociedade não pode arcar com isso.Mas isso também, como você disse, se conecta à ideia de uma grande missão, uma missão de salvar o mundo, que a gente precisa cumprir antes que seja tarde, senão estamos condenados. OpenAI está literalmente no nome — só que em português não é tão direto: é “inteligência artificial aberta”.Foi criada a partir de um sonho, um projeto que era pra ser uma coisa pro bem comum. Em 2019, num tempo bem distante, antes da pandemia, você cobriu a OpenAI, foi até o escritório deles, ficou lá dentro. O que você viu? E, mais importante, como essa missão mudou? O Elon Musk os processou outro dia justamente por mudarem a missão. Isso alguma vez foi verdade? Em algum momento eles pensaram mesmo “ah, a gente vai salvar o mundo”?Como essa narrativa de ser aberta funciona com a OpenAI?Karen Hao: Quando comecei a cobrir a OpenAI, levei a sério o que eles diziam — que tinham sido recrutados com a missão de beneficiar toda a humanidade. E aí, quando me infiltrei na empresa, fui ficando bem mais cética, porque via como eles operavam de um jeito completamente diferente, portas adentro, do que diziam em público.Diziam que iam publicar todas as pesquisas e abrir o código de tudo, e na prática eram uma das organizações mais secretas que já cobri. Eram muitas discrepâncias, e, na época, presumi que tinha havido algum tipo de corrupção que os levou a abandonar a missão original. Depois de cobrir a empresa por mais alguns anos e de trabalhar neste livro, mudei de ideia até sobre a missão original.Não acho mais que ela era um esforço sincero e generoso de beneficiar a humanidade. A missão foi criada pra dar à empresa — na época, uma organização sem fins lucrativos — uma margem de manobra extraordinária pra depois levantar muito capital, acumular muito talento e perseguir a força motriz de verdade por trás de tudo aquilo: se tornar a força dominante no desenvolvimento de IA.E penso assim agora porque, quando você olha pras narrativas de cada nova empresa de IA no começo — a Anthropic, a xAI, a Safe Superintelligence do Ilya Sutskever, a Thinking Machines Lab da Mira Murati —, todas usam a mesma narrativa da OpenAI: nós somos os mocinhos, eles são os bandidos.É por isso que precisamos criar uma nova empresa que avance a IA do nosso jeito, não do deles. E você começa a perceber, por esse padrão, que eles repetem a mesma coisa em parte porque acreditam nela até certo ponto, mas também porque ela funciona muito bem com a imprensa, com o público, com quem formula políticas.No livro, eu reproduzo os e-mails internos que Elon Musk, Sam Altman e Greg Brockman trocavam nos primeiros dias da OpenAI. Eles tinham plena consciência de que estavam criando uma missão que soasse bem para o público. E o propósito de verdade, que também deixaram registrado nesses e-mails, era vencer o Google. Viam o Google como a força dominante em IA e queriam ser eles essa força.Não gostavam de ver o Google na frente, então inventaram justificativas: o Google é uma empresa com fins lucrativos, então nós vamos ser sem fins lucrativos. Mas, no fundo, acho que era puro ego: tem que ser a gente, não eles, a gente quer ser quem lidera isso.E aí passaram um tempão moldando essa missão pública, que acabou sendo super útil pra recrutar o primeiro grupo de pesquisadores e turbinar o avanço deles.Cris: Então agora é um bom momento pra falar de AGI, a inteligência artificial geral. Muita gente pergunta: o que é AGI? O que “geral” quer dizer? E a impressão que peguei lendo seu livro é que, por design, isso nunca fica claro de verdade, porque é um alvo móvel. Essas empresas um dia vão dizer “chegamos, alcançamos a AGI”? Ou o plano é sempre “não, não, ainda não chegamos, me dá mais dinheiro, me dá mais poder”?Qual é o papel da AGI na narrativa dessas empresas?Karen Hao: Já que a gente está falando de ficção científica, eu costumo usar a analogia de que o mundo da IA é meio como Duna. Em Duna, o personagem principal, Paul Atreides, entende, ao chegar no planeta Arrakis, que o povo de lá foi semeado com um mito: o de que um dia viria um Messias pra libertá-los. Ele sabe que é um mito, mas decide entrar nele e agir como se fosse o Messias pra controlar melhor aquele povo.E, vivendo, respirando e encarnando esse mito dia após dia, ele começa a perder a noção de que é um mito. Passa a se perguntar se o mito era mesmo verdadeiro ou se foi ele quem o tornou verdadeiro. É essa confusão entre mito e realidade — ele vive num espaço intermediário, sem ter mais certeza do que é verdade e do que é ficção.E trago isso pra responder sobre a AGI porque a AGI é, ao mesmo tempo, um mito e algo que os líderes e os trabalhadores dessas empresas vivem, respiram e encarnam dia após dia, a ponto de perderem a noção do que é mito e do que é realidade. É a ideia de um sistema de IA teórico que um dia igualaria as capacidades humanas. Só que a gente nem tem consenso científico sobre o que é inteligência humana.Por isso, de certa forma, por design, é um termo bem maleável, que deixa essas empresas fazerem o que quiserem. Elas definem e redefinem a AGI conforme a necessidade, movem a trave pra onde quiserem. E, ao mesmo tempo, isso é sustentado por uma crença genuína de certas pessoas lá dentro, por causa dessa confusão entre mito e realidade. Pelas minhas contas, a OpenAI já usou pelo menos quatro definições diferentes de AGI.A primeira está no site deles: “sistemas altamente autônomos que superam humanos na maioria dos trabalhos economicamente valiosos”. É uma definição de automação do trabalho — eles dizem, de forma explícita, que estão atrás dos empregos mais bem pagos. A segunda apareceu no contrato com a Microsoft, por um tempo a maior investidora deles: ali, a AGI virou um sistema que geraria 100 bilhões de dólares em receita.Ou seja, uma definição feita pra incentivar a Microsoft a investir. Já o Sam Altman disse ao Congresso que AGI é um sistema que cura o câncer e resolve a mudança climática — uma definição de benefício social, muito útil quando você quer que os reguladores não te regulem.E, por fim, quando falam com o consumidor, dizem que vai ser o melhor assistente digital que você já teve — porque, claro, estão tentando vender o produto.E aí você percebe duas coisas. Primeiro, que é um conjunto de definições completamente incoerente. Segundo, que eles trocam de definição conforme o público que querem convencer. Mas também tem gente nessas empresas que acredita de verdade que está construindo uma tecnologia capaz de dar conta das quatro coisas.Então é uma realidade bem confusa e complicada: o que a AGI de fato é, e pra que ela serve, para essas empresas, para a agenda delas e também para as crenças delas.Cris: Como ex-funcionário da Meta — entrei em 2013 —, a missão era unir o mundo e torná-lo mais aberto e conectado. É uma missão incrível. E tem uma coisa que eu sempre digo, porque muito amigo meu vem falar comigo, “ah, esse cara da OpenAI, ou a própria Meta, são maus”. Eu conheci muita gente na empresa. Nunca conheci uma pessoa mal-intencionada.Todo mundo, independente da missão, era gente boa tentando entregar o melhor produto possível, pra dar poder a quem tem um pequeno negócio, por exemplo. Tenho amigos pessoais que construíram a empresa deles em cima da publicidade do Facebook e do Instagram. E esse é justamente o problema, porque ainda assim é uma corporação muito má, pelo que ela causa ao mundo pra bater as metas de negócio.Ou seja, você não precisa de um vilão tipo Lex Luthor pra causar um estrago desse tamanho no mundo. E adorei a referência a Duna. Duna é engraçado: é o livro que eu mais reli na vida que não foi escrito pelo Tolkien. Li o primeiro Duna umas três vezes, e toda vez é como se fosse um livro diferente. Na primeira, eu era adolescente, e era só o Paul Atreides, o cara durão.Na segunda, eu morava no Canadá e li com olhos de estrangeiro, pensando em colonização. E na terceira vez foi quando os filmes do Denis Villeneuve saíram, e aí era: ah, o Bene Gesserit criou esse mito, isso é meio pós-moderno. Narrativamente, fico me perguntando o que vai significar pra mim se eu ler uma quarta vez.Karen Hao: Eu ia te perguntar isso. Quando você disse que cresceu numa época cheia de ficção científica falando das maravilhas da tecnologia, fiquei curiosa: que histórias você estava lendo? Porque muita coisa que saiu nos anos 70 e 80 dizia exatamente o oposto. E muita gente já apontou que os executivos de tecnologia de hoje, que vivem citando essas histórias, interpretam elas justamente ao contrário da intenção original.Cris: Concordo plenamente. Mas, respondendo: foi basicamente Isaac Asimov e Arthur C. Clarke. E é por isso mesmo — os executivos de tecnologia, e o Elon Musk mais que todos, leem esses livros como receita, não como aviso. O livro de que eu mais me lembro, nem lembro o título, era um do Asimov em que ele descreve o elevador espacial que aparece na série da Apple TV, Fundação.E o enredo é: eu sou esse engenheiro brilhante, quero construir essa coisa no Sri Lanka, mas o governo trava tudo com regulação — eu sou um gênio e a regulação é a vilã. Hoje eu leio e penso: ah, sei. Mas, quando garoto, era só “olha, um elevador espacial, que genial, a gente nem precisa de foguete”. E aí você começa a entender. E aí eu parei de ler esses caras.E passei a ler gente com uma visão completamente diferente: o Ted Chiang, que entrevistei ano passado, a N.K. Jemisin, o Cory Doctorow, de quem sou muito fã. E talvez eles sejam mais explícitos, pra gente burra como eu entender: “não, bobo, a analogia é essa”. Mas Duna era incrível — vermes gigantes de areia, o tal garoto durão, e aquela coisa do “eu não aceito o meu destino”.Tenho esse grande destino, mas não quero ele. Do resto da série eu já não gosto tanto. Mas o mais importante de tudo: Duna gerou o melhor GIF de filme de todos os tempos, o “Lisan al Gaib” do Javier Bardem — que eu devia ter colocado durante a sua explicação, aquele “uau, ele está cumprindo a profecia, agindo como o profeta”.Mas, de novo, falando de vilões: você mencionou que essas empresas se colocam como o bem contra o mal, feito impérios antigos. Só que elas também jogam a carta da China, né? “Se a gente não fizer, a Rússia faz primeiro.” Só que a Rússia começou uma guerra e está ocupada demais. “Mas a China chega lá, e é por isso que a gente tem que ser fechado.” É por isso que Mythos e Fable e agora o GPT-5.6 foram proibidos pelo governo. Isso tem fundamento?Quero saber se é possível a China competir — quero mesmo essa resposta — mas também porque, desde toda essa conversa do Fable-Mythos, países como Índia e Brasil vêm dizendo que precisam de um modelo soberano. Dá pra fazer, ou a OpenAI, a Anthropic e o Google estão tão à frente que já não dá?Karen Hao: Sobre a China: você está certíssimo, o Vale do Silício usou por anos a carta do “e a China?” pra escapar de qualquer responsabilização de verdade. Fizeram muito isso na era das redes sociais.A Meta fez muito isso, com o Mark Zuckerberg dizendo ao governo dos EUA: vocês não podem nos regular, senão a gente perde. Mas, se a gente ganhar, vai ter um efeito liberalizante no mundo e nas democracias em todo lugar. E, infelizmente, o que a gente viu foi que jogar essa carta repetidamente produziu exatamente o efeito contrário do que o Vale do Silício prometeu.Uma das empresas de rede social dominantes dessa era é a ByteDance. Ou seja, mesmo sem regulação das redes sociais nos EUA, existe uma empresa chinesa de rede social bem dominante. E as redes sociais estadunidenses acabaram tendo um efeito antiliberal no mundo — é bastante consensual que enfraqueceram democracias em todo lugar. E aí, na era da IA, elas seguiram jogando a mesma carta.Mas o que eu sempre aponto é que a gente definitivamente não devia acreditar nelas. Já existe evidência significativa de que tudo o que elas dizem está, de novo, se provando o oposto. Elas disseram: não regulem a gente como empresas de IA, regulem a China, via controles de exportação — um mecanismo do governo dos EUA com alcance extraterritorial.Só que as empresas chinesas agora estão produzindo modelos de IA de código aberto extremamente eficientes, que viraram super populares no próprio Vale do Silício. Existe um monte de startup de lá que prefere usar modelo chinês a OpenAI, Anthropic ou Google.Então, nesse sentido, é um conjunto de evidências bem decisivo, acho, pra mostrar que a gente devia simplesmente responsabilizar essas empresas, não importa o que digam sobre “ah, vamos perder pra China”. No fim das contas, é só retórica política. Não é um argumento real que elas consigam sustentar pra escapar da responsabilização.Responsabilizá-las vai fortalecer a democracia pelo mundo, vai trazer mais direitos humanos, trabalhistas e de privacidade de dados pras pessoas — é sempre o contrário do que elas dizem que aconteceria. E, sobre a sua pergunta em torno da IA soberana: acho a ideia realmente importante, mas acho também que muitos países estão meio confusos sobre o que querem dizer com isso.Muitos governos, hoje, pensam a IA soberana pela pergunta: a gente consegue construir o nosso próprio ChatGPT? O nosso próprio grande modelo de linguagem, o nosso sistema de IA generativa? Estão olhando só pro modelo que o Vale do Silício já definiu e tentando descobrir como recriar aquilo.E o que eu digo pra quem formula políticas é: defina pra que a IA serve no seu país, no seu contexto. Quais são, no fim das contas, os objetivos do seu país? Os objetivos do seu povo? E também os nossos objetivos coletivos, entre países?Porque a gente tem, por exemplo, os Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável da ONU. Já definimos coletivamente que há coisas que precisamos resolver juntos: superar a crise climática, reduzir a pobreza, melhorar a educação.E, enquanto o Vale do Silício adora dizer que está fazendo tudo isso, na prática não está. Mas a gente poderia — poderia desenvolver, de forma colaborativa, sistemas de IA que realmente avançassem em cada um desses objetivos coletivos que já acordamos.E cada país também devia fazer o exercício: quais objetivos você quer alcançar, e que tipos de sistema de IA você poderia desenhar pra chegar lá — sistemas que talvez não se pareçam em nada com um grande modelo de linguagem. Se os países fizessem isso, acho que descobririam que a maioria dos sistemas de que precisam exigiria muito menos recursos.Ou seja, contextos como o Brasil, a Índia e outros, quando não precisam competir construindo essas infraestruturas de computação gigantescas e gastando centenas de bilhões de dólares, na verdade já têm, localmente, todos os recursos necessários pra desenvolver um sistema de IA soberano.Cris: Quando ouvi falar do seu livro pela primeira vez, uma amiga me disse que você não poupa ninguém — fala mal do Sam Altman, mas também do Dario Amodei. E as pessoas costumam escolher um lado. Eu sou time Claude, odeio o ChatGPT, essas coisas. Então cheguei no livro pensando: ah, é mais um livro dizendo que a IA é terrível, que a gente não devia usar IA.Mas, conforme fui lendo, e ouvindo outras entrevistas suas, me pareceu que o seu problema é justamente o que você acabou de descrever: a forma como essa tecnologia é feita. E, em especial, a palavra escala — a ideia de que a solução é a escala. O que você quer dizer com isso?Karen Hao: Eu costumo usar a analogia de que “IA” é como a palavra “transporte”: na verdade se refere a uma coleção de tecnologias que vão da bicicleta ao foguete. São tipos bem, bem diferentes de tecnologia, que exigem insumos diferentes pra se desenvolver e depois têm impactos diferentes na sociedade.E você está certo: sou especificamente crítica ao que chamo de “foguetes da IA”, os sistemas que os impérios da IA estão desenvolvendo, aqueles que exigem uma quantidade enorme de exploração de mão de obra e extração ambiental.E sou bem otimista com o que chamo de “bicicletas da IA”: sistemas especializados, eficientes, com bom custo-benefício, governáveis pelas pessoas, cujo desenvolvimento pode ser participativo. Países como o Brasil, o Chile, a Índia, qualquer contexto, têm recursos pra desenvolver e se autodefinir, em vez de simplesmente herdar um sistema criado pelos dois únicos centros do mundo capazes de gastar uma quantidade extraordinária de capital: o Vale do Silício e o ecossistema tecnológico chinês.E o motivo pelo qual eu acho tão corrosivo o que os impérios da IA estão desenvolvendo é exatamente o que você disse: a forma como eles fazem isso, por um mecanismo de força bruta pra avançar as capacidades da IA em escala. Eles vão simplesmente empurrando cada vez mais dados de treinamento nesses modelos, e isso exige corroer a privacidade das pessoas, tomar a propriedade intelectual delas e, ainda por cima, baixa a qualidade dos dados que entram nos modelos — o que leva aos danos de exploração de mão de obra, porque aí você tem que dar conta da moderação de conteúdo.E aí você tem pessoas psicologicamente traumatizadas por serem expostas a todo aquele conteúdo horrível que se tenta “lavar” através desses modelos.E aí vem o problema dessas infraestruturas de computação enormes, com impactos ambientais que aumentam a conta de luz das comunidades que as hospedam e agravam a crise de custo de vida. Elas precisam ser alimentadas por fontes fósseis, que jogam mais carbono na atmosfera e mais poluição no ar dessas comunidades.Então todos os problemas que eu identifico, no que têm de corrosivo, derivam inteiramente da abordagem deles pro desenvolvimento de IA. Por que não descartar a abordagem, em vez de descartar a tecnologia? Redefinir e redesenhar de que tipos de sistema de IA a gente precisa de verdade, com uma cadeia de suprimentos fundamentalmente diferente. E isso não é exclusivo da IA.A gente já viu muitas outras indústrias que começaram com uma cadeia de suprimentos bem ruim. A moda, por exemplo: muita degradação ambiental, muita exploração de mão de obra.Com muita organização, protesto, ação de consumidores, regulação governamental e cooperação entre governos, a gente conseguiu criar mercados novos pra moda sustentável e ética, cadeias de suprimentos novas e inovações pra fazer roupa mais saudável pras pessoas e pro planeta.E é basicamente isso que eu defendo: transformar a indústria de IA do mesmo jeito que transformamos a moda, e as cadeias de suprimento de alimentos. Assim a gente fica com os benefícios da tecnologia, ajuda ela a avançar os objetivos que importam pra gente, sem jogar uma fração enorme da população mundial numa condição atrasada e numa qualidade de vida pior.Cris: O Brasil está agora, no Congresso, discutindo a escala de seis dias por semana. A regra atual é: você trabalha seis dias e descansa um. E muitas empresas, o comércio principalmente, dizem “vamos fechar as portas”, e os trabalhadores respondem “isso é problema seu, não meu”. É mais ou menos a mesma narrativa dessas empresas de IA: se eu não usar a sua água, a Idade das Trevas está chegando.Falando em Idade das Trevas, e falando em bicicleta: a sua analogia me lembrou uma coisa. Eu gosto de jogo de zumbi, de mundo aberto, e em nenhum deles tem bicicleta. Num desses jogos, instalei um plugin que deixava andar de bicicleta — você acha uma e sai pedalando. E aí entendi por que não tem bicicleta: desbalanceia tudo. Parte da graça do jogo é você precisar achar um carro, e daí pneu, gasolina, comida pra carregar. De bicicleta, você vai a qualquer lugar.E eu pensei: ah, é. Meio que estraguei o jogo pra mim, porque agora tenho uma bicicleta, é incrível. Enfim, em termos práticos: no fim do ano passado, uns meses atrás, a revista Wired publicou um artigo pedindo pra jornalistas de tecnologia contarem como usam IA no trabalho. E cada um usava de um jeito. Você usa IA no seu trabalho? Como?Karen Hao: Eu não uso nenhum sistema de IA generativa no trabalho — nem ChatGPT, nem Gemini, nem Claude. Por três motivos. O primeiro é uma postura ética, depois de tanto investigar essas empresas. O segundo é privacidade de dados: eu investigo essas empresas.Não quero que elas conheçam todo o meu raciocínio enquanto eu apuro o livro, literalmente investigando elas. E o terceiro é que, no meu caso específico, a força do meu trabalho está na capacidade de construir relações fortes com as fontes, pela empatia, e de contar histórias envolventes, pela narrativa. E os grandes modelos de linguagem simplesmente não são a ferramenta certa pra nenhuma das duas coisas.Não vão melhorar a minha empatia nem a minha escrita. Então eu não perco nada com essa postura ética: simplesmente corto essas ferramentas e sigo fazendo o meu trabalho muito bem. Pra outros jornalistas pode ser diferente, e pra quem está em outras áreas o cálculo pode ser outro.Mas eu incentivo as pessoas a pensarem primeiro: quais são as suas forças no trabalho? Quais são os seus objetivos? E aí ir de trás pra frente pra descobrir se a IA é a ferramenta certa, qual tipo de IA é a ferramenta certa, e qual fornecedor você quer de fato usar, apoiar, votar com os pés. Agora, eu uso, sim, IA preditiva.Aquelas ferramentas de IA especializadas, as “bicicletas da IA”, digamos. No livro, tinha um detalhe que eu queria muito ilustrar: como a OpenAI deu um salto quando passou de organização sem fins lucrativos a um empreendimento bancado pela Microsoft. Percebi que as cadeiras do escritório ficaram bem mais caras. Então fotografei as cadeiras de um escritório e as do outro.E joguei tudo na busca reversa de imagens do Google, que é um sistema de IA especializado — não é baseado em grandes modelos de linguagem, não é IA generativa. Assim descobri quanto essas cadeiras costumam custar. No primeiro escritório, cerca de 2 mil dólares por cadeira. No segundo, eram cadeiras de um designer brasileiro famoso, uns 10 mil dólares cada.Coloquei esse detalhe no livro pra ilustrar o tipo de riqueza e de concentração de recursos de que a gente está falando. Esses são alguns dos jeitos como eu uso IA, ainda que de forma bem limitada, sempre pontual, quando acho que vai ajudar. E, claro, uso ferramentas de transcrição por IA — outra IA especializada — em todas as minhas entrevistas.Cris: Essa foi uma das partes em que a minha cabeça explodiu, eu nunca tinha percebido: a OpenAI criou o Whisper. Deixa eu dizer de outro jeito, do meu ponto de vista. A OpenAI liberou abertamente essa ferramenta incrível de transcrição, o Whisper, em que eu jogo o áudio e ela me devolve as palavras que as pessoas disseram. E eu pensei: ah, que generoso da parte deles.Mas o motivo real de terem criado a ferramenta foi pegar todos os vídeos do YouTube, transcrever e alimentar a máquina. E aí é: ah, claro. Enfim, falando de ferramentas e de otimismo — a gente está chegando ao fim da conversa. Eu tenho uma regra desde o episódio dois deste programa, há oito anos: de novo, como eu disse do seu livro, não pode ser só uma lista de reclamações e coisa ruim. E a gente tem se saído bem até aqui.Você falou de caminhos e de bicicletas, mas eu quero ser mais específico. Se isso aqui fosse uma reunião de negócios: qual é o plano de ação, quais são os próximos passos? Só que uma das coisas que eu repito bastante, na vida e neste programa, é que problema sistêmico não se resolve com ação individual. Se eu tomar banhos mais curtos, isso nunca vai salvar o planeta do aquecimento global.E muitos amigos meus simplesmente: não quero falar de IA, não quero usar IA. Voltando aos videogames: leram que tal jogo usa IA e pronto, não vão jogar. E a minha primeira pergunta pra você é: como a gente ocupa esses espaços da IA generativa — ChatGPT, Gemini e por aí vai? Porque o que a gente viu com as redes sociais foi: ah, o Facebook é do mal, vou sair do Facebook. Ah, vou sair do Twitter.E, na esperança de quê, sei lá, talvez alguém diga: ah, sinto falta do Cris, cadê ele? Ah, está no Bluesky. Mas isso deixa o espaço aberto pra os radicais entrarem e postarem o que quiserem, sem ninguém contrapor ou tornar aquilo um lugar melhor. Então como a gente ocupa o espaço da IA — seja qual for a definição de “espaço da IA” que você preferir — com todos esses problemas que a gente vem discutindo?Karen Hao: Acho que tem duas categorias de ação pra gente pensar. Uma é desmantelar o império. A outra é investir e construir novos tipos de sistema de IA, que se tornem alternativas às tecnologias do império. Quando eu digo desmantelar o império, não estou dizendo que quero que a OpenAI, o Google, a Anthropic, seja quem for, simplesmente deixem de existir.É que eu não quero que elas sejam imperiais. Não quero que fiquem extraindo uma quantidade extraordinária de valor sem redistribuir nada em troca. Se elas voltassem a ser negócios que praticam uma troca justa de valor com o mundo, eu ficaria perfeitamente feliz com qualquer tecnologia que estivessem desenvolvendo.E a forma de desmantelar o império, acho, se resume a muita organização de base, que vai pressionar os governos a regular e responsabilizar essa indústria. No último ano, a gente viu uma quantidade incrível dessa organização de base florescendo pelo mundo.Recentemente, lancei com um grupo de jornalistas, pesquisadores de IA e acadêmicos críticos um projeto chamado AI Resist List, que busca documentar parte dessa organização de base pelo mundo. A gente encontrou cerca de 30 exemplos, de todas as regiões, de ações individuais, institucionais e movidas pela comunidade.Tinha ação artística, ação política. E isso mostra bem o seu ponto: não dá pra contar só com a ação individual, mas o indivíduo pode, sim, ter impacto. Até uma ação pequena pode gerar um grande efeito cascata. Claro que se juntar com os vizinhos pra protestar contra o data center é ainda mais eficaz. Se juntar dentro da sua escola ou universidade pra protestar contra a parceria dela com uma empresa de IA também é mais eficaz.Se juntar com os colegas de trabalho de um setor pra barrar a adoção de uma IA que corrói os direitos trabalhistas é mais um jeito eficaz. A gente tem um monte desses exemplos. Um dos meus favoritos é o de uma comunidade sobre a qual escrevi no livro, Quilicura, no Chile, na periferia de Santiago. É uma comunidade da classe trabalhadora, bem pobre, que vem sendo alvo incessante da expansão de data centers.E por isso protestaram de forma bem aguerrida contra essa expansão, porque não acharam bom negócio hospedar essas instalações sem tirar nenhum benefício, enquanto elas consomem uma parte significativa dos recursos naturais da região.E, logo depois que escrevi sobre eles, foram além na resistência e criaram uma plataforma chamada Quili.ai. É um site em que você entra e que parece um chatbot, parece o ChatGPT: tem uma interface de chat pra você digitar. Só que, quando você faz uma pergunta, em vez de um modelo de IA responder, a mensagem é encaminhada pra alguém que mora em Quilicura, no Chile. Aí, se você pede “quero a imagem de um cachorro”, aquilo vai pro artista local deles, o Benji. Ele pega um pedaço de papel, desenha um cachorro, tira uma foto e te manda de volta.Eles fizeram isso essencialmente como um projeto de arte performática, pra fazer as pessoas pensarem duas vezes antes de usar IA generativa pra bobagem. A mensagem era: ei, quando você fica brincando com essas ferramentas em pedido besta, isso afeta comunidades como a nossa, drena os recursos de que a gente precisa pra viver bem.E também queriam levar as pessoas a pensar: por que não perguntar pra alguém da sua própria comunidade aquela receita que você procurava, ou pedir aquela imagem? Porque aí você reconstrói as conexões que estão tão em falta na sociedade — a falta delas é o que nos deixa mais vulneráveis a esse tipo de colonização do império.Eles deixaram o projeto aberto por 24 horas, e qualquer pessoa no mundo podia mandar um pedido. Receberam uma quantidade extraordinária deles. Viralizou de vez. E essa cidadezinha conseguiu uma virada enorme de narrativa sobre a suposta inevitabilidade e necessidade dessa tecnologia, sobre tudo o que o Vale do Silício diz — que, se você não usar, vai ficar pra trás de quem usa.E esse é só um exemplo, entre muitos, de como pessoas comuns, não importa a sua posição na sociedade, podem ter impacto real no debate, na consciência pública e até na regulação. A gente está vendo isso agora com os protestos contra data centers. Nos EUA, em 2025, cerca de 150 bilhões de dólares em projetos de data center foram travados.Isso virou uma das questões políticas mais quentes nos EUA para as próximas eleições de meio de mandato. Tem gente eleita sendo literalmente tirada do cargo por ter aprovado data centers, contrariando a vontade do povo. E isso já está tendo efeito real sobre as empresas e sobre a trajetória do desenvolvimento de IA.A OpenAI teve que encerrar recentemente a sua ferramenta de geração de vídeo, o Sora. Quando lançaram, apresentaram como o segundo produto mais importante desde o ChatGPT. O que aconteceu entre o lançamento e o fim? Uma reportagem do Wall Street Journal apontou três motivos, todos moldados por ação de base. Um: um gargalo enorme de capacidade de computação.Muitos dos data centers travados ou parados eram da OpenAI. Dois: um cenário financeiro bem mais incerto. A OpenAI está se preparando pro IPO, o que significa ficar mais exposta a Wall Street — e Wall Street está cada vez mais nervoso com a capacidade dessas empresas de cumprir o que prometem.E aí a OpenAI teve que reforçar alguns projetos paralelos pra fazer o balanço parecer um pouco melhor aos olhos de Wall Street. E, terceiro: os consumidores simplesmente não estavam usando o produto — o que também é ação coletiva de consumidores. Então, por todo esse tipo de resistência, de várias formas, de baixo pra cima, as pessoas estão de fato tendo impacto real na indústria e responsabilizando ela.Essa é a primeira categoria de ação. A segunda é: ok, que tecnologias de IA a gente usaria como alternativa? E aí a gente precisa investir mais nelas. Muitas vezes, quando converso sobre o livro, a pessoa diz: ok, me convenci de que não quero usar ChatGPT, não quero usar Claude — mas então uso o quê no lugar?E o problema é que eu não tenho muitas respostas pra essa lista de alternativas. Tem umas poucas aqui e ali, uma plataforma, uma empresa.Cris: Dá pra rodar o modelo no seu próprio computador, como o Cory Doctorow faz, mas aí é limitado e…Karen Hao: Exatamente, exige mais habilidade técnica. Mas, pra quem consegue instalar modelos de código aberto no próprio computador, eu incentivo 100%. Só que a gente também precisa de mais gente desenvolvendo interfaces bem fáceis pra esses modelos de código aberto, pra que qualquer pessoa consiga usar.A gente também precisa de mais gente desenvolvendo “bicicletas da IA”, de investidores e governos investindo mais nesse tipo de solução, e de talento — pesquisadores de IA, desenvolvedores e outras pessoas dispostas a sacrificar um pouco e abrir mão dos pacotes de remuneração enormes.Cris: Eu estava começando a achar que agora as empresas precisam ter menos lucro — e isso nunca vai acontecer.Karen Hao: Não, não é a empresa ter menos lucro. É o trabalhador topar abrir mão do pacote de milhões de dólares pra levar o talento dele pra outro lugar. Mais fácil, bem mais fácil. Eu converso com muito pesquisador de IA cansado da abordagem da indústria, porque ela é completamente sem criatividade intelectual.Eu conversei com pesquisadores que não passaram seis anos num doutorado em IA só pra ficar empurrando mais dados na máquina — pra eles, é o trabalho mais chato do mundo. E depois automatizar a programação, que era justamente o que eles gostavam de fazer. Converso com tanta gente que já não acha graça nenhuma nisso. Estão meio presos por “algemas de ouro”.E estão tentando descobrir, dentro de si, que carreira alternativa poderiam ter. Eu costumo incentivar esses pesquisadores a gastar o talento deles construindo um tipo diferente de empresa, que trabalhe com “bicicletas da IA”. E a gente já começa a ver cada vez mais desse talento indo por aí.E a gente precisa que todas as facetas da sociedade invistam num ecossistema muito mais robusto e rico de tecnologias de IA, capaz de substituir as que hoje dominam. Eu ainda tenho as cicatrizes das minhas próprias “algemas de ouro”, mas concordo plenamente.Cris: E as redes sociais são o exemplo — veja o que aconteceu com elas. Tem aquela frase famosa: as mentes mais brilhantes da minha geração passam o tempo fazendo as pessoas clicarem em anúncios. E ainda dizem: ah, isso pode ser o futuro. Pois é.Você contou a história do Quili.ai e isso me lembrou um dos primeiros criadores de conteúdo do Brasil, o Cid Não Salvo. Uns 10, 15 anos atrás, ele tuitou o seguinte: “Gente, eu disse pro meu pai que, sempre que ele precisar pesquisar alguma coisa na internet, é pra ir no Twitter.com e digitar a pergunta na caixa”. E olha que ele tinha milhões de seguidores.E, por uns bons dias, quase um mês, você entrava no Twitter do pai dele e via perguntas tipo “onde eu compro pizza?”. Era engraçadíssimo. No fim, ele contou pro pai — ou talvez não. Mas eu adoro essa ideia. Antes de a gente terminar: você já deve ter respondido isso mil vezes, mas vai continuar cobrindo IA? O que está na sua cabeça, o que vem por aí? Turnê mundial? O que vem pela frente?Karen Hao: Com certeza estou pensando em como continuar responsabilizando essas empresas. Estou envolvida em várias colaborações, com gente incrível, em diferentes projetos ligados a isso. O AI Resist List foi um deles. Também co-criei um programa chamado AI Spotlight Series, com o Pulitzer Center, uma organização jornalística sem fins lucrativos que financia jornalismo investigativo pelo mundo.É um programa que treina jornalistas do mundo inteiro a cobrir IA por uma lente de responsabilização. Até agora, já treinamos mais de 3 mil. E eu sigo pensando em como construir mais capacidade dentro do jornalismo, da sociedade civil, de outros contextos, pra mobilizar ainda mais essa organização de base — pra conter de verdade os impérios da IA e ajudar a desmantelá-los.Cris: Adorei o seu exemplo da moda. É possível, já foi feito. Ou até a indústria automotiva. Ou o grande exemplo que a gente não mencionou, e que o pessoal da OpenAI vive citando: o Projeto Manhattan, a energia nuclear.O mundo não acabou. Quando eu era criança lendo Asimov, achava que ia tudo acabar num fogo nuclear. Enfim — alguma última palavra, alguma mensagem, algum palpite pros jogos do Brasil na Copa, alguma coisa que você queira dizer antes da gente encerrar?Karen Hao: No fim das contas, o que eu espero que fique desta conversa e do livro é o seguinte: neste momento, o Vale do Silício está concebendo a IA como um projeto político. E a característica central desse projeto é tirar a autonomia de todo mundo — a autonomia de moldar de verdade o próprio futuro e o nosso futuro coletivo. Mas, no instante em que você reconhece que já tem uma autonomia significativa pra resistir, o império começa a desmoronar.Então espero que as pessoas encontrem a própria voz, a afirmem, conquistem o seu lugar à mesa e se conectem com os vizinhos, com a comunidade, com os colegas de trabalho, pra criar mais movimentos juntos.Cris: Que ótimo. Karen Hao, o seu livro é O Império da IA: Por dentro da corrida irresponsável pela dominação total. Obrigado por vir ao Brasil conversar com a gente. Foi um prazer.Karen Hao: Muito obrigada.Uma das primeiras perguntas que anotei quando comecei a pensar nessa conversa foi justamente a do final, a da ocupação de espaços. Porque, como eu disse, quando as redes sociais chegaram para ficar, muita gente falou “ah, não vou usar, é do mal” — e aí as pessoas ruins, vamos chamar assim, acabam ocupando esse espaço e falando o que bem entendem. A gente precisa aprender essa lição agora, no mundo da IA.Fora que vejo muita gente falando de IA sem nunca ter usado — ou que usou, sei lá, dois anos atrás, acha que continua tudo igual e já diz que não quer chegar perto.E por quê? Porque essa abordagem de ocupar espaços é o que eu e a Ana Freitas buscamos fazer no IA em Curso, nossa comunidade de letramento contínuo em IA. Foi, aliás, uma conversa que tive com a Karen antes da entrevista: ao mesmo tempo que a gente fala do impacto da IA no mundo, também precisa focar no que é prático, no que dá para fazer hoje com IA, sem vender sonho nem desastre. A analogia que usei foi a de que é que nem quando a gente fazia curso de Word e Excel — é o que eu faço agora que vai facilitar minha vida, me fazer ganhar tempo, botar a IA para me ajudar. Quem viu minha conversa com a Ana aqui no Boa Noite Internet, no fim de 2025, sabe do que estou falando. Se não viu, volta lá e confere.Desde que a gente lançou este episódio, o IA em Curso já passou de 400 pessoas. Tem muita gente colocando projetos pessoais incríveis na rua, tirando do papel aquela ideia que rondava a cabeça há um tempão. E a comunidade tem mentoria ao vivo, aula gravada, newsletter, banco de agentes, grupo de Telegram… que mais? O que não falta é jeito de passar para você o conhecimento sobre IA de que você precisa hoje, agora. Quero te dar a bússola para navegar nesse universo.Se esse é o tipo de abordagem que você quer ter com a IA, passa lá no iaemcurso.com.br e usa o cupom BNI2026 para ganhar 20% de desconto no plano anual. Mas corre, porque daqui a duas semanas vou apagar esse cupom — não é todo dia que a gente dá um desconto desses.É isso. Boa Noite Internet, temporada 2026 começando — como todo ano, com mudança, ideia, projeto. Ou, como diz minha citação preferida de todos os tempos: “vivemos uma fase de transição, como sempre”. Espero ver você por aqui e lá no IA em Curso.Obrigado pelo seu tempo e pela sua atenção. Até o próximo episódio. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit boanoiteinternet.com.br/subscribe
Köhler, Michael www.deutschlandfunk.de, Büchermarkt
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
Story of the Week (DR):‘We faltered': IBM stock collapses after a grave warning about AI Customers are Prioritizing AI Hardware: While IBM mostly sells software nowadays, businesses are currently cutting back on their software budgets. Instead, they are rushing to spend their money on physical computer parts (like chips and servers) needed to build new Artificial Intelligence systems.Board skills/tenureFormer Intel CEO says the chipmaker went off the rails ‘when it started to be run by business people'The inside story of IBM's shocking profit warningXbox CEO Joins Fed AI Jobs Task Force Days After Announcing 3,200 LayoffsXbox CEO Asha Sharma, who previously worked in Microsoft's Core AI group before taking over Xbox, joins Marc Andreessen, co-founder and general partner at Andreessen Horowitz, and Charles I. Jones, a Stanford University economics professor currently on leave at Anthropic.Productivity and Jobs task force, which will study the economic impact of new general-purpose technologies, including AI, as part of the central bank's approach to monetary policy.Marc Andreessen Says AI Is 'Already a Better Doctor Than 99.99% of Human Doctors'Jamie Dimon says he understands why people have grown 'anti-rich'Gallup CEO says colonizing Mars may be closer than fixing today's ‘broken' workplace—where disengagement levels are as high as 2020Elon Musk Says His Goal Is for SpaceX to Be Worth More than the Entire EarthThe U.S. Added 441,000 Millionaires Last Year, While the Typical American Got 20% PoorerJames Murdoch may have reaped as much as $7.5 billion from his pre-IPO investment in Elon Musk's SpaceXPalantir CEO Alex Karp Warns AI Could Become America's Biggest Driver of Wealth Inequality"You now have a revolution where, you know, I could become 20 times wealthier than I am now," he added. Karp said AI is creating a "complete decoupling" between ordinary economic gains and a small group of people accumulating "unimaginable wealth."The AI Backlash Has Tech Executives Fearing for Their Lives MMPeter Thiel and other tech billionaires are publicly shielding their children from the products that made them richAnthropic's New AI Ad Is So Disturbing, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman Thought It Was SatireMeta Oversight Board study: AI chatbots may be the most perfect propaganda machine ever inventedA Majority of Americans Now Support Seizing Wealth From AI IndustryGoodliest of the Week (MM/DR):DR: New York bans data center construction for a year, rattling AI industry AND New York becomes first U.S. state to impose AI data center banMM: FREE FLOAT! MMMicrosoft's emissions rose 25% last year. Experts say they'll surge even more dramatically in the years aheadWe said FIVE YEARS AGO that MSFT board was one of the worst at managing carbon despite setting a net negative target at the timeWe were correctAssholiest of the Week (MM):It's not us, it's youxAI sued a Grok user for allegedly generating deepfakes of child sexual abuseIn the ultimate in tech bro manbaby id, Musk is blaming the USERS for his failure to stop child sex abuseLike a gun company suing a gun owner for using the gun used in murder - gun terms of service!Dimon urges calm over fear about AI's impact on jobs: 'Stop being breathless over it'AI isn't the problem, your breathless fear isRobotaxis Are Turning Passengers Into Horrible and Entitled Menaces to SocietyIt's not the service, it's the user… Meta CTO Says He'd Like to Sue Leakers, Then Audio From That Same Meeting LeaksIt's not what I said that's the problem, it's that you told someonePeter Thiel and other tech billionaires are publicly shielding their children from the products that made them richBut YOUR children should use them, obviouslyIt's the USER's fault now… unless, of course, it's a school - in which case the SCHOOL is to blame:84% of students use AI for homework. Only 3 in 10 schools have rules for itAccessWhite House teleprompter operator investigated over alleged trades on Trump speechesTrump Media to Sell Faster Access to President's Social PostsOpenAI Strikes Bold Deal With Kalshi to Mix Together the Most Hated Technologies in Existence: AI and Prediction MarketsDOJ Defends Musk's Unpermitted Gas Turbines, Saying Shutting Down Grok Threatens National SecurityElon Musk's $1 million offers to voters in Wisconsin election were probably illegal bribes, bipartisan panel rulesParamount Shareholder Sues Ellisons, Board For Alleged Side Deal, Promises To Donald TrumpMichael Dell has nailed his relationship with Donald Trump, and it's paying offMeritocracyPete Hegseth Announces Military Will Test Service Members' Testosterone Levels and Offer Hormone TherapyEveryone is a trans man!Is AI Rejecting Your CV Because of Your Age or Race? Landmark Lawsuit Could Reshape RecruitmentFor Black women hit by anti-DEI backlash, this election is personalAustralia's highest paid CEO makes 500 times the average salaryThe American E.V. Has Been Crushed. Will It Take the U.S. Auto Industry With It?WE WANT THE CARS. Just give us the Chinese ones nowJim Cramer on Meta: “Zuckerberg's Not a Bozo, You Can Quote Me on That”Paul Fucking Atkins and The War on John Cheveddan DR“Regardless of the fate of Rule 14a-8 next season and beyond, I implore all who have a role in the shareholder proposal process to not let it be weaponized by those who represent fringe interests. Annual meetings are not vehicles for political or social debates that have little or no bearing on investors' financial returns.”“This past season, one—yes, one—individual was the sole or lead proponent for approximately 41 percent of the shareholder proposals that were voted upon.[20] Of this individual's proposals, only eight percent received majority support.[21] Simply put, when a single shareholder can seize annual meetings to present scores of proposals on issues that are not generally supported by other shareholders, the system is woefully ineffective and in desperate need of reformation.”That individual is John CheveddanAtkins neglected to mention the rise of anti-ESG filers as a group, and their average of
Kerzenlicht, Kristalle und Zaubersprüche vor der Kamera. Unter dem Hashtag #WitchTok floriert auf TikTok eine Subkultur moderner Hexerei. Die über fünf Millionen Videos haben inzwischen über 60 Milliarden Aufrufe. Die Themen der Social Media Hexen sind Geldsorgen, Beziehungen oder das „Verfluchen“ unliebsamer Zeitgenossen. Was nach harmloser Ästhetik aussieht, hat einen ernsteren Kern: WitchTok mischt jahrhundertealte Vorstellungen von Magie mit Wellness-Trends und Selbstoptimierung und trifft damit besonders bei jungen Menschen einen Nerv. Wir haben uns WitchTok ganz genau angesehen. Wie man uns unterstützen kann, könnt ihr hier nachlesen. Zum HOAXILLA Merchandise geht es hier QR-Code für Überweisung: Die CampfireFM App findet ihr hier QUELLEN: Story der Woche: Snopes: Is Marjorie Taylor Greene Pushing an Anti-Witchcraft Law? Thema der Woche: BBC: What is WitchTok, and how does a WitchTokker prepare for Halloween? Studie: An’ Ye harm none? Discourses of hexes and harm on WitchTok The Conversation: How modern witches are enchanting TikTok The Conversation: WitchTok: the rise of the occult on social media has eerie parallels with the 16th century Nylon: Inside #WitchTok, Where Witches of TikTok Go Viral Longnow: From Witch Trials to WitchTok Analogiezauber in der deutschen Wikipedia YouTube: WitchTok Has Gone TOO FAR YouTube: WitchTok Is a DISASTER Right Now... YouTube: The DELUSIONAL Witches of TikTok
What happens when wholesale distributors realize “CRM” is no longer the real conversation, growth, data, AI, and sales enablement are?In Episode 198 of Around the Horn in Wholesale Distribution, Kevin Brown and Tom Burton unpack the shift they saw firsthand at the Affiliated Distributors Functional Success Summit: distributors are moving beyond traditional CRM adoption questions and toward connected data systems, AI-enabled sales strategy, and future-proofing distribution. The episode connects macroeconomic uncertainty, supply chain risk, AI governance, human judgment, and enterprise growth strategy to the real decisions facing wholesale distribution teams today.What You'll Learn:Why distributors are moving past traditional CRM conversations and focusing instead on how to help sales teams create more value, become more consultative, and grow revenueHow CRM-ERP integration, data warehouses, e-commerce platforms, marketing automation, and disconnected point solutions can limit customer visibility unless they are unified into a true enterprise growth platformWhy inflation measurement, interest rate uncertainty, and prediction markets matter to revenue leaders in distribution making investment and growth decisionsHow Strait of Hormuz disruption, Suez Canal risk, oil volatility, plastics, fertilizers, helium, and global logistics instability can ripple through manufacturing and wholesale distributionWhy AI still needs human judgment, oversight, and strategy, and why many companies miss expected ROI when they assume full automation instead of building a realistic digital transformation planEpisode Highlights:01:16 – Lessons from the Affiliated Distributors Functional Success Summit and why sales enablement is replacing traditional CRM talk03:55 – Why disconnected data across ERP, marketing automation, e-commerce, and point software creates risk for distributors06:37 – Episode 198 begins: how Around the Horn connects the economy, supply chain, M&A, sales, marketing, AI, and robotics to wholesale distribution08:30 – LeadSmart's Meridian 360 Enterprise Growth Platform and the move from Smart CRM to broader business growth engines12:32 – Inflation cooling, gas prices, and why energy volatility still affects distributors, manufacturers, fertilizers, heavy minerals, and supply chains15:23 – Kevin Warsh, Fed measurement reviews, CPI, PPI, the 2% inflation target, and the need for more real-time data20:25 – Prediction markets, PolyMarket, Kalshi, and whether betting markets can offer useful economic signals27:17 – Strait of Hormuz risk, Iran, shipping disruption, oil exposure, the Suez Canal, Houthi rebels, and what it means for global supply chains43:02 – AI watchdogs, model testing, DeepMind, Fable, Mythos, and the role of government QA for high-powered AI systems48:38 – Human judgment in the age of AI, digital twins, job displacement fears, and why AI ROI depends on data readiness and realistic automation expectations56:00 – APR Supply's sales tool adoption gains and how better sales technology can support outside sales revenue growthTools, Frameworks, and Strategies Mentioned:LeadSmart TechnologiesMeridian 360 Enterprise Growth PlatformSales CompassSmart CRMSales Co-PilotAI Co-Pilot for SalesCRM-ERP IntegrationCRM Data Enrichment with AIHidden Revenue DetectionSales Automation Without Losing the Human TouchFuture-Proofing DistributionHybrid Selling ModelsConsultative CommerceData warehouses and data lakesMarketing automationE-commerce data integrationERP data unificationAI-enabled business intelligencePrediction marketsPolyMarketKalshiCPI and PPI measurement reviewsAI model QA and AI watchdog conceptsHuman judgment in AI strategyAPR Supply sales tool adoptionMaster of Distribution Management programClosing Insight:The episode's central message is clear: the future of distribution is not about buying more disconnected technology. It is about connecting data, people, process, and AI into a strategy that helps teams sell smarter, serve customers better, and make better decisions under uncertainty.Leave a Review: Help us grow by sharing your thoughts on the show.Learn more about the LeadSmart AI B2B Sales Platform: https://www.leadsmarttech.com/Join the conversation each week on LinkedIn Live.Want even more insight to the stories we discuss each week? Subscribe to the Around The Horn Newsletter.You can also hear the podcast and other excellent content on our YouTube Channel.Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or TikTok.
Das hat sich Wagner seinerzeit nicht gedacht: Die Bayreuther Festspiele feiern 150-jähriges Jubiläum. Die Festspiele am Grünen Hügel mussten sich immer wieder neu erfinden. Der Streit um Michel Friedman wirft alte Fragen wieder neu auf. Heinemann, Christoph www.deutschlandfunk.de, Interviews
AI is giving cybercriminals capabilities once reserved for elite hackers and powerful nation-states. Cybersecurity expert Nicole Perlroth joins Kara to explain why she fears we're inching closer to an “everything, everywhere, all at once” wave of cyberattacks. Perlroth reveals what she learned in reporting the latest season of her podcast, "To Catch a Thief: North Korea on Our Payroll," a deep dive into North Korean operatives who use stolen identities and American “laptop farms” to land remote jobs at major U.S. companies and funnel money back to the regime and its nuclear weapons program. She also examines China's growing cyber capabilities, threats to critical infrastructure and what Anthropic's Mythos model means for cybersecurity. Plus: how the Trump administration's dismantling of cybersecurity and election-security programs could leave the U.S. vulnerable ahead of the midterms. Questions? Comments? Email us at on@voxmedia.com or find us on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Threads, and Bluesky @onwithkaraswisher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Die Behauptung, dass reiche Europäer für viel Geld auf Opfer in der belagerten Stadt geschossen hätten, lässt sich nicht seriös belegen, das zeigen neue Recherchen des deutschen Journalisten Michael Martens.Die tatsächlichen Verbrechen des Jugoslawienkrieges sind schlimm genug – schadet die Erzählung einer Menschensafari der Aufarbeitung?Darüber diskutieren der Korrespondent Michael Martens, die frühere grüne Justizministerin Alma Zadić, der Balkan-Experte Vedran Džihić sowie der ehemalige ORF-Kriegsreporter Fritz Orter, im Gespräch mit Raimund Löw Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Bank of America Chairman & CEO Brian Moynihan says the deals pipeline is strong while speaking with Bloomberg News' Jonathan Ferro, Lisa Abramowicz and Annmarie Hordern on Bloomberg Surveillance. Moynihan also spoke about borrowing demand as well as AI, including his "serious concern" over models like Anthropic PBC’s Mythos.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Ah! Eine neue Retrospektive! Und diesmal geht es in den Weltraum ... mit tierischen Pilot*innen!In der heutigen Folge sprechen Micha und sein Gast Ziad von Hitstop FM über die Geschichte von Star Fox und nehmen euch mit auf eine Reise durch mehr als drei Jahrzehnte Nintendo-Weltraumgeschichte. Im Mittelpunkt steht dabei nicht nur der große Klassiker Star Fox 64, sondern auch die Frage, wie sich die Serie immer wieder neu erfunden hat: als technisches Vorzeigeprojekt, als experimentelle Reihe und als Franchise, das mit jeder Generation neue Wege ausprobierte.Besonders spannend wird es dort, wo die Reihe ihre unerwarteten Abzweigungen nimmt. So geht es auch um das lange Zeit nur als Mythos bekannte Star Fox 2 und um Star Fox: Assault, das die Serie auf eine ganz eigene, etwas düsterere Weise weitergedacht hat (mit einer kleinen Prise Panzer Dragoon). Wer wissen möchte, welche Spiele die Identität von Star Fox wirklich geprägt haben und warum die Reihe trotz mancher Umwege bis heute so faszinierend bleibt, sollte unbedingt reinhören. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
AI is rewriting the rules of cybersecurity, and this week, massive government and private sector moves show just how quickly the stakes are rising. Find out how regulators, attackers, and defenders are all scrambling to keep up as vulnerabilities surface at record speed. Europe warns their largest banks to prepare for AI attack. The EU launches an action plan for AI Cybersecurity. China considers keeping its budget AI to itself. The UK's NCSC & GCHQ announce their "Cyber Shield". CISA is using Mythos to audit U.S. government code. Microsoft warns of their upcoming patch flood. "RoguePlanet" receives an on-the-fly patch. An underused mode to kid-proof an iPhone. Listener feedback and three new AI attacks HalluSquatting, GhostApproval & GitLost Show Notes - https://www.grc.com/sn/SN-1087-Notes.pdf Hosts: Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte Download or subscribe to Security Now at https://twit.tv/shows/security-now. You can submit a question to Security Now at the GRC Feedback Page. For 16kbps versions, transcripts, and notes (including fixes), visit Steve's site: grc.com, also the home of the best disk maintenance and recovery utility ever written Spinrite 6. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: blackhat.com/us-26 and use code TWIT arcticwolf.com/trends threatlocker.com/twit XBOW.com adaptivesecurity.com cohesity.com/Resilience
AI is rewriting the rules of cybersecurity, and this week, massive government and private sector moves show just how quickly the stakes are rising. Find out how regulators, attackers, and defenders are all scrambling to keep up as vulnerabilities surface at record speed. Europe warns their largest banks to prepare for AI attack. The EU launches an action plan for AI Cybersecurity. China considers keeping its budget AI to itself. The UK's NCSC & GCHQ announce their "Cyber Shield". CISA is using Mythos to audit U.S. government code. Microsoft warns of their upcoming patch flood. "RoguePlanet" receives an on-the-fly patch. An underused mode to kid-proof an iPhone. Listener feedback and three new AI attacks HalluSquatting, GhostApproval & GitLost Show Notes - https://www.grc.com/sn/SN-1087-Notes.pdf Hosts: Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte Download or subscribe to Security Now at https://twit.tv/shows/security-now. You can submit a question to Security Now at the GRC Feedback Page. For 16kbps versions, transcripts, and notes (including fixes), visit Steve's site: grc.com, also the home of the best disk maintenance and recovery utility ever written Spinrite 6. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: blackhat.com/us-26 and use code TWIT arcticwolf.com/trends threatlocker.com/twit XBOW.com adaptivesecurity.com cohesity.com/Resilience
Claude Mythos scrambled American AI policy, leaving us with what Dean Ball calls a de facto involuntary licensing regime from the administration that promised us the opposite. Zhipu's cofounder says China will have a Mythos-class model before the end of the year; IAPS says February 2027. Either way, Beijing is about to face down the same question, but unlike Washington, it already has a form to fill out. Guests: Kevin Xu of Interconnected. Matt Sheehan, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment. We discuss… Why China's answer to Mythos will look like Glasswing — but started by the state, not a lab, with government ministries and central SOEs first in line Whether the CAC's content-testing regime can absorb cyber, and why a Chinese lab dropping a frontier model without a heads-up would be "very bold and self-destructive behavior" The mixed signals on open source — a Reuters report on MOFCOM and NDRC weighing export controls on model weights, versus Minimax and Zhipu founders publicly doubling down, with Xi's WAIC speech as the tiebreaker Whether open weights even matter when running a frontier model adversarially requires a datacenter, and the case that lighting the dark park makes it safer What the US and China can actually agree on — non-state actors, eval methodology sharing, and why labor displacement lessons don't travel Companion-app regulation flowing from Sacramento and Albany to Beijing, the AI policy brain drain into the labs, and whether Sam Altman's five percent is American state capitalism or just a Trump thing song: https://suno.com/s/xZE1pIKrVBtCfTBO Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
AI is rewriting the rules of cybersecurity, and this week, massive government and private sector moves show just how quickly the stakes are rising. Find out how regulators, attackers, and defenders are all scrambling to keep up as vulnerabilities surface at record speed. Europe warns their largest banks to prepare for AI attack. The EU launches an action plan for AI Cybersecurity. China considers keeping its budget AI to itself. The UK's NCSC & GCHQ announce their "Cyber Shield". CISA is using Mythos to audit U.S. government code. Microsoft warns of their upcoming patch flood. "RoguePlanet" receives an on-the-fly patch. An underused mode to kid-proof an iPhone. Listener feedback and three new AI attacks HalluSquatting, GhostApproval & GitLost Show Notes - https://www.grc.com/sn/SN-1087-Notes.pdf Hosts: Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte Download or subscribe to Security Now at https://twit.tv/shows/security-now. You can submit a question to Security Now at the GRC Feedback Page. For 16kbps versions, transcripts, and notes (including fixes), visit Steve's site: grc.com, also the home of the best disk maintenance and recovery utility ever written Spinrite 6. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: blackhat.com/us-26 and use code TWIT arcticwolf.com/trends threatlocker.com/twit XBOW.com adaptivesecurity.com cohesity.com/Resilience
AI is rewriting the rules of cybersecurity, and this week, massive government and private sector moves show just how quickly the stakes are rising. Find out how regulators, attackers, and defenders are all scrambling to keep up as vulnerabilities surface at record speed. Europe warns their largest banks to prepare for AI attack. The EU launches an action plan for AI Cybersecurity. China considers keeping its budget AI to itself. The UK's NCSC & GCHQ announce their "Cyber Shield". CISA is using Mythos to audit U.S. government code. Microsoft warns of their upcoming patch flood. "RoguePlanet" receives an on-the-fly patch. An underused mode to kid-proof an iPhone. Listener feedback and three new AI attacks HalluSquatting, GhostApproval & GitLost Show Notes - https://www.grc.com/sn/SN-1087-Notes.pdf Hosts: Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte Download or subscribe to Security Now at https://twit.tv/shows/security-now. You can submit a question to Security Now at the GRC Feedback Page. For 16kbps versions, transcripts, and notes (including fixes), visit Steve's site: grc.com, also the home of the best disk maintenance and recovery utility ever written Spinrite 6. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: blackhat.com/us-26 and use code TWIT arcticwolf.com/trends threatlocker.com/twit XBOW.com adaptivesecurity.com cohesity.com/Resilience
AI is rewriting the rules of cybersecurity, and this week, massive government and private sector moves show just how quickly the stakes are rising. Find out how regulators, attackers, and defenders are all scrambling to keep up as vulnerabilities surface at record speed. Europe warns their largest banks to prepare for AI attack. The EU launches an action plan for AI Cybersecurity. China considers keeping its budget AI to itself. The UK's NCSC & GCHQ announce their "Cyber Shield". CISA is using Mythos to audit U.S. government code. Microsoft warns of their upcoming patch flood. "RoguePlanet" receives an on-the-fly patch. An underused mode to kid-proof an iPhone. Listener feedback and three new AI attacks HalluSquatting, GhostApproval & GitLost Show Notes - https://www.grc.com/sn/SN-1087-Notes.pdf Hosts: Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte Download or subscribe to Security Now at https://twit.tv/shows/security-now. You can submit a question to Security Now at the GRC Feedback Page. For 16kbps versions, transcripts, and notes (including fixes), visit Steve's site: grc.com, also the home of the best disk maintenance and recovery utility ever written Spinrite 6. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: blackhat.com/us-26 and use code TWIT arcticwolf.com/trends threatlocker.com/twit XBOW.com adaptivesecurity.com cohesity.com/Resilience
Contemporary technology governance has shifted from rule-based regulation to a landscape defined by administrative leverage and directive-driven decisions. This dynamic is seen in both the cybersecurity and AI sectors, where agencies such as the U.S. Department of Defense and companies including OpenAI and Anthropic navigate obligations and approvals through administrative action rather than statutory change. As a result, MSPs and IT service providers must recognize that the durability of their offerings and client architectures increasingly hinges on how they respond to rapid, unpredictable shifts in the governing environment rather than on fixed compliance deadlines or product release dates. A notable example of this mechanism is the Department of Defense's suspension of the rollout of Phase Two of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC), as reported by Federal News Network. About 80,000 companies had been preparing for new third-party assessment requirements, but these assessments have been paused pending a 60-day review. Despite the pause, the underlying data protection requirements for defense contractors remain in force, demonstrating that while compliance deadlines can disappear overnight, fundamental security obligations persist. Additional cases amplify the trend toward directive-based governance. The U.S. Commerce Department lifted export restrictions on Anthropic's Fable 5 and Mythos 5 AI models after new safeguards were implemented, following the same pattern previously used to impose those restrictions. Similarly, OpenAI's GPT 5.6 model was released to the public only after a voluntary government review concluded, illustrating that administrative reviews, not boardroom decisions, can dictate technology availability. Concurrently, other governments such as China are employing similar tactics, with Reuters reporting that Chinese authorities have met with local AI firms to discuss restricting overseas access to advanced models. These parallel moves across geopolitical boundaries indicate a structural reliance on executive discretion rather than legislative clarity. The operational impact for MSPs, IT service providers, and technology leaders is a heightened exposure to contract risk and pricing volatility. Service commitments anchored to deadlines, default settings, or product availability are susceptible to abrupt policy reversals or administrative interventions, translating to sudden revenue shortfalls and reactive client management. The recommended response is to audit current commitments, identify those pegged to mutable triggers rather than enduring obligations, and systematically re-anchor contract language and client communication to core outcomes and standing requirements. This preparation mitigates the risk of unpaid work, scope renegotiation, and unplanned operational disruption when another directive-driven policy shift occurs. 00:00 Three Government Switches in Three Weeks 04:07 Why AI Is Governed by Leverage, Not Law 06:46 CMMC Paused — Your Obligations Didn't 09:27 Why Do We Care? Supported by: Pax8 Guardz
AI is rewriting the rules of cybersecurity, and this week, massive government and private sector moves show just how quickly the stakes are rising. Find out how regulators, attackers, and defenders are all scrambling to keep up as vulnerabilities surface at record speed. Europe warns their largest banks to prepare for AI attack. The EU launches an action plan for AI Cybersecurity. China considers keeping its budget AI to itself. The UK's NCSC & GCHQ announce their "Cyber Shield". CISA is using Mythos to audit U.S. government code. Microsoft warns of their upcoming patch flood. "RoguePlanet" receives an on-the-fly patch. An underused mode to kid-proof an iPhone. Listener feedback and three new AI attacks HalluSquatting, GhostApproval & GitLost Show Notes - https://www.grc.com/sn/SN-1087-Notes.pdf Hosts: Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte Download or subscribe to Security Now at https://twit.tv/shows/security-now. You can submit a question to Security Now at the GRC Feedback Page. For 16kbps versions, transcripts, and notes (including fixes), visit Steve's site: grc.com, also the home of the best disk maintenance and recovery utility ever written Spinrite 6. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: blackhat.com/us-26 and use code TWIT arcticwolf.com/trends threatlocker.com/twit XBOW.com adaptivesecurity.com cohesity.com/Resilience
Der legendäre Zulu-König Shaka soll das Schicksal Südafrikas geprägt haben. Er war ein blutdurstiger Tyrann, erzählt überwiegend die weiße Geschichtsschreibung in Europa. Die Zulu feiern ihn als Nationalhelden, als Stifter von Identität und Selbstbewusstsein. Shaka ist über seine Taten als Militärgenie hinaus zum Mythos geworden. Ein Podcast von Frank Halbach (BR 2025)
How are large language models changing the way security vulnerabilities are found? Richard chats with Sami Laiho about the rapidly changing landscape in security exploits. Certain LLM models like Anthropic's Mythos and Microsoft MDASH are optimized to find software vulnerabilities - and potentially fix them. And so there is an arms race of sorts, repairing old vulnerabilities before LLMs in the hands of black hats can exploit them. But what about everyone else? Sami talks about getting LLMs working for your organization to test for potential security risks and assess the impact of new vulnerabilities as they appear. Links Palo Alto Networks Claude Mythos Microsoft MDASH Zero Day Clock Security Update Guide Recorded June 19, 2026
The gang moves out and scopes in.Our Show's WebsiteOur PatreonOur Social Media Manager Mads!CrockettWaveshaperMarcus DPinnacle Entertainment Group
Claude Mythos scrambled American AI policy, leaving us with what Dean Ball calls a de facto involuntary licensing regime from the administration that promised us the opposite. Zhipu's cofounder says China will have a Mythos-class model before the end of the year; IAPS says February 2027. Either way, Beijing is about to face down the same question, but unlike Washington, it already has a form to fill out. Guests: Kevin Xu of Interconnected. Matt Sheehan, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment. We discuss… Why China's answer to Mythos will look like Glasswing — but started by the state, not a lab, with government ministries and central SOEs first in line Whether the CAC's content-testing regime can absorb cyber, and why a Chinese lab dropping a frontier model without a heads-up would be "very bold and self-destructive behavior" The mixed signals on open source — a Reuters report on MOFCOM and NDRC weighing export controls on model weights, versus Minimax and Zhipu founders publicly doubling down, with Xi's WAIC speech as the tiebreaker Whether open weights even matter when running a frontier model adversarially requires a datacenter, and the case that lighting the dark park makes it safer What the US and China can actually agree on — non-state actors, eval methodology sharing, and why labor displacement lessons don't travel Companion-app regulation flowing from Sacramento and Albany to Beijing, the AI policy brain drain into the labs, and whether Sam Altman's five percent is American state capitalism or just a Trump thing song: https://suno.com/s/xZE1pIKrVBtCfTBO Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Fresh out of the studio, Jing Yang, Asia Bureau Chief at The Information, joins us to explore how China is building frontier AI under chip constraints, state capital, and open source ambition. Jing breaks down her scoop on DeepSeek's $7.4 billion round at a $50 billion valuation, unpacking a deal structure in which the founder wrote two-fifths of the check and outside investors got no voting rights. She explains why Chinese AI valuations trail US labs, why seven to eight language model players refuse to consolidate, and why DeepSeek chose Huawei chips before Huawei knew about it. Last but not least, Jing shares the indicators she is watching from now to 2027."This is one of the things that really surprised me when I was working on this story: DeepSeek had spent a lot of time last year retrofitting their models and software with Huawei chips. I think a lot of people assumed it's because the government ordered DeepSeek to work with Huawei to embrace the domestic ecosystem, but it's actually the opposite. It was DeepSeek that voluntarily started using Huawei, experimenting with the Huawei chips, and Huawei actually only found out after. Then they started sending people to DeepSeek to help..." - Jing Yang, Asia Bureau Chief, The InformationEpisode Highlights:[00:00] Quote of the Day by Jing Yang from The Information[01:30] What changed since September: the ByteDance mystery resolved[03:00] Why China's AI must be read on its own terms[04:10] Breaking the story of DeepSeek on their 7.4B fundraise[05:40] How the valuation went from $10 to $50 billion[08:30] The lab that became famous for rejecting scaling laws[10:15] Unpacking the DeepSeek deal structure: four types of investors[12:40] Five-year lock-up and no secondary market trading[14:20] Reverse due diligence: DeepSeek vetting its own investors[16:40] Balancing open source, AGI research and IPO pressure[17:45] The irony: inclusive vision, exclusive deal structure[20:35] How Anthropic's Mythos preview changed Liang's mind[21:30] Why Chinese AI valuations look tiny next to US labs[23:00] Why Chinese founders go consumer when they go global[26:45] "The worst of customers" — price sensitivity and zero loyalty[27:45] The compute constraint that caps every Chinese lab[28:40] New labs in China: weaker infrastructure, harder exit[30:30] Can China leapfrog on hardware the way it did on models?[32:50] Stricter compliance, not political muscle[34:30] Founder power when your company becomes strategic[36:40] Junyang Lin's new lab and the scarcity premium[38:00] Open source influence versus sustainable commercial models[39:30] Zhipu versus MiniMax: how sentiment diverged after IPO[42:30] What is the right mental map for China's AI ecosystem?[43:20] The consolidation that still hasn't happened[45:00] Seven to eight serious players and nobody giving up[46:40] The one thing Jing wishes people would ask[47:20] Nobody ordered DeepSeek to use Huawei chips[50:00] Indicators to watch from now to 2027[55:30] ClosingProfile: Jing Yang, Asia Bureau Chief from The InformationThe Information Profile: https://www.theinformation.com/u/JingYangLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jing-yang-33548123/X: https://x.com/jingyanghkPodcast Information: Bernard Leong hosts and produces the show. The proper credits for the intro and end music are "Energetic Sports Drive." G. Thomas Craig mixed and edited the episode in both video and audio format.
Im 259. WildMics-Special sprachen wir über die Kommunikation der Bundesregierung. Warum empfinden wir den Kommunikationsstil der Bundesregierung um Kanzler Merz als so schlecht? Welchen Einfluss hat politische Kommunikation eigentlich? Und wen spricht Friedrich Merz eigentlich an? Das alles erklärte uns Dana Buchzik. Diese Sendung wurde am 14.07.2026 aufgezeichnet. Die Bücher von Dana* *Affiliate Link Wie man uns unterstützen kann, könnt ihr hier nachlesen. Zum HOAXILLA Merchandise geht es hier QR-Code für Überweisung: Die CampfireFM App findet ihr hier
AI is rewriting the rules of cybersecurity, and this week, massive government and private sector moves show just how quickly the stakes are rising. Find out how regulators, attackers, and defenders are all scrambling to keep up as vulnerabilities surface at record speed. Europe warns their largest banks to prepare for AI attack. The EU launches an action plan for AI Cybersecurity. China considers keeping its budget AI to itself. The UK's NCSC & GCHQ announce their "Cyber Shield". CISA is using Mythos to audit U.S. government code. Microsoft warns of their upcoming patch flood. "RoguePlanet" receives an on-the-fly patch. An underused mode to kid-proof an iPhone. Listener feedback and three new AI attacks HalluSquatting, GhostApproval & GitLost Show Notes - https://www.grc.com/sn/SN-1087-Notes.pdf Hosts: Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte Download or subscribe to Security Now at https://twit.tv/shows/security-now. You can submit a question to Security Now at the GRC Feedback Page. For 16kbps versions, transcripts, and notes (including fixes), visit Steve's site: grc.com, also the home of the best disk maintenance and recovery utility ever written Spinrite 6. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: blackhat.com/us-26 and use code TWIT arcticwolf.com/trends threatlocker.com/twit XBOW.com adaptivesecurity.com cohesity.com/Resilience
In der Nacht zum 14.7.1881 wird in einem Schlafzimmer in New Mexico Billy the Kid erschossen. Er wird nur 21 Jahre alt. Seine Revolverhelden-Legende lebt bis heute. Von Burkhard Hupe.
My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers in America and around the world:If my podcast guest today is correct, the emergence of generative artificial intelligence "heralds a transformation more profound than anything since Homo sapiens acquired the capacity for abstract thought." That's about as pure a distillation of the San Francisco Consensus view on the importance of this technology as it gets.Today on Faster, Please!—The Podcast, I am joined by Sebastian Mallaby, the Paul A. Volcker Senior Fellow for International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations and a widely read columnist for The Washington Post. He is also the author of the new best-selling book The Infinity Machine: Demis Hassabis, DeepMind, and the Quest for Superintelligence. (Spoiler: It's tremendous book about the man, the company, and the technological revolution. I really liked it.)We discuss The Infinity Machine and the life of Demis Hassabis, including how his original vision for artificial superintelligence compares with the propulsive race unfolding today. We also explore how that competitive acceleration has affected the focus on safety, what role government regulation should play, and why many people may still be underestimating how transformative AI will become.The Quest for “Success” (0:27)Inside the Mind of Hassabis (8:29)The Race for Monopoly (12:31)The Economics of AI Anxiety (17:05)Governing the AI Race (24:17)The Biggest Leap Since Abstract Thought (30:13)A lightly edited transcript of our conversation will appear in my Week in Review issue on Saturday. (Another option is using the Substack auto transcript function.)But here are some edited highlights from the chat:On where AI is heading…You look backwards; you see how fast the progress has been. To merely extrapolate forwards is probably to undersell the speed at which we'll accelerate in the future because there's an accelerating phenomenon here where the more advanced you are, the easier it is to get to the next level.On Hassabis's belief that AI development would look more like the Manhattan Project than a multi-country, multi-company competition …In retrospect, it's crazy. All one can say is that ex ante, the atmosphere in the community of AI builders when Demis began his company in 2010 was that this was a thing that simply didn't work. AI could not recognize the photograph of a cat. AI could do nothing. It was deep AI winter. And so, under those conditions, you could assemble the entirety of the world's strong AI believers in one conference in San Francisco, and it felt like a single community. So, this sort of Singleton scenario where you just have one lab, it was a natural outgrowth of that moment in time.How AI competition has overwhelmed that vision…Before 2022, Demis had the freedom because he was clearly the leader to define what the next project should be. He chose at one point to go and do this protein folding project. …This is kind of AI with a smiley face painted on it. Whereas once the chatbot went viral at the end of 2022, ChatGPT, then everybody had to pile in and build a competitor and there's a lot less leeway to define your own path. So, I think the agency of the individual was quite strong until 2022 and thereafter the power of the race dynamic takes over.What skeptics, such as many economists, have gotten wrong and right…The number of improvements before even we talk about Mythos and the cyber capabilities of that one, I mean, it's been an extraordinary ride in what is actually less than four years. So, I don't take back anything I say about the speed of the advance of the frontier. Now that's different to the speed of the deployment. There I have a lot of sympathy with the economist.On the difficulty of AI regulation…I'm actually quite optimistic in terms of the ability of a government agency to regulate… People often think of AI as a bunch of code that flies around cyberspace and you really can't control it. But actually, it's also a bunch of data centers which are huge physical installations. The government knows precisely where they are. They can't be moved or hidden.On his superintelligence timeline…To be honest, I would say it's already true. I mean, you try using Fable and if people are listening and they're inclined not to agree with me, I just ask you, spend a couple of hours with Claude Fable and then see if you disagree with me…I think it is smarter than me by quite a long shot on any topic I ask it about.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were Promised This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe
Anthropic had a really bad week.
Treibsand gilt oft als übertriebene Hollywood-Fantasie – doch an einem Strand in Adelaide wurde die Gefahr plötzlich Realität. Ein Vorfall zeigt, wie unberechenbar der scheinbar harmlose Untergrund sein kann. Barbara Barkhausen berichtet über den Fall und die Risiken von Treibsand.
Ein Schock für das politische Washington: Der Republikaner Lindsey Graham stirbt völlig unerwartet an einem Aorta-Riss. Ingo Zamperoni und seine Frau Jiffer Bourguignon würdigen den 71-jährigen Senator als "außenpolitischen Falken" und als "wichtigen Unterstützer der Ukraine". Seine Wandlung in den letzten Jahren vom Trump-Kritiker zum Trump-Vertrauten sehen die beiden allerdings kritisch - und sinnbildlich für den Wandel der Partei von den Reagan-Republicans hin zur MAGA-Partei.Angesichts der knappen Mehrheitsverhältnisse im Senat könnte es für die Republikaner nun problematisch werden, sagt Jiffer. Sie müssten so schnell wie möglich nach geeignetem Ersatz suchen, damit sie bei den Kongresswahlen ihre Mehrheit behalten."Für Trump gibt es keine Alternative als die Zwischenwahlen im Herbst zu gewinnen", sagt Jiffer. Um dieses Ziel zu erreichen, scheint ihm fast jedes Mittel recht zu sein. Gerade hat Trump drei Mitglieder einer unabhängigen Wahlkommission gefeuert. Diese Behörde soll eigentlich Sicherheit und Fairness bei US-Wahlen gewährleisten, erklärt Ingo. Möglich wurde Trumps Manöver aber, weil das Oberste Gericht zuletzt die Macht des Präsidenten über unabhängige Bundesbehörden deutlich ausgeweitet hatte. Mit offensichtlichen Folgen.Ihr habt Fragen an Jiffer und Ingo? Schickt uns eine Sprachnachricht oder schreibt uns an podcast@ndr.de!Wie geht es weite mit der Straße von Hormus?https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/asien/iran-usa-strasse-hormus-102.htmlVom Trump-Gegner zum Trump-Freundhttps://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/amerika/graham-politische-karriere-100.htmlUnser Podcast-Tipp: Wem gehört Wacken? Metal, Mythos und Millionenhttps://1.ard.de/wackenAlle Folgen des Podcasts "Amerika, wir müssen reden!"https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/amerika-wir-muessen-reden,podcast4932.htmlHier könnt ihr den Instagram-Broadcast-Channel von Ingo und Jiffer abonnierenhttps://www.instagram.com/channel/Abb9Z5-eRUUKudGl/
Don’t let the AI wave crush you. Subscribe to our Newsletter: https://theultimatepartner.com/ebook-subscribe/ Check Out UPX: https://theultimatepartner.com/experience/ Dive into the seismic shifts happening within the AWS Marketplace and discover how AI, self-service product-led growth (PLG), and advanced co-selling strategies are redefining partner success. Matt Yanchyshyn, VP of Marketplace at AWS breaks down the recent announcements from the summit, illustrating how agility and adaptation are crucial to surviving the new agentic future. From lowering professional services fees to the explosion of business applications like ServiceNow, this conversation reveals the hidden mechanics of modern cloud procurement and how you can position your organization to capture massive enterprise opportunities before your competitors do. https://youtu.be/gaWxU1kgCLk Key Takeaways Adapting to the new agentic future requires agility rather than fighting the influx of AI tools. Lowering the listing fee for professional services from 2.5% to 0.5% drastically improves partner economics. Organizations without a self-service or PLG motion on the marketplace are literally leaving money on the table. Millennial buyers increasingly initiate complex enterprise procurements through self-service and AI-driven research. New AI-powered opportunity scoring empowers partners to prove their value internally and to AWS. Marketplace success hinges on optimizing metadata for AI agents, not just traditional SEO. 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: AWS Marketplace, agentic workflow, med pick scoring, phoenix.ai, Cara Cloud, branded storefronts, product-led growth strategy, intrinsic value boost, SaaS evolution, self-service motion, Databricks credit model, Trend Micro companion app, MCP servers, opportunity score tracking, PPA drawdown, concurrent agreements, AAMI structural debt, CXML procurement Transcript: Matt Y Audio Podcast [00:00:00] Matt Y: The ability to adapt with change and kind of roll with punches. ’cause a lot of people are saying like, agents are gonna destroy everything. And, and the opposite has been true. [00:00:08] 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. [00:00:19] 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. [00:00:42] Vince Menzione: It is the strategy because being in the room changes everything. [00:00:46] Matt Y: Let’s start. [00:00:50] Vince Menzione: And now on to the really important stuff. So, Matt, I don’t wanna butcher it ’cause I, a couple people have told me how to pronounce your last name and they said use the word magician and you’ll get close to it. But I’m just gonna introduce you as Matt Wy and I’m gonna ask you to pronounce your name on stage, but I want to have you join us. [00:01:08] Vince Menzione: So excited to have Matt wy. After a super busy day and night last night, come over from Brooklyn and join us today. Matt, so great to have you. Thanks. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Alright, so pronounce your name for us. [00:01:23] Matt Y: Anyone wanna guess? Ian’s? It’s like magician. [00:01:27] Vince Menzione: It’s not that hard, [00:01:28] Matt Y: it’s not that [00:01:28] bad, [00:01:28] Vince Menzione: but I don’t wanna butcher. [00:01:29] Vince Menzione: I wanted to let you do it. Good. [00:01:30] Matt Y: What calls me Matt White. [00:01:31] Vince Menzione: That’s great. [00:01:32] Matt Y: Yeah. [00:01:32] Vince Menzione: So 13 years. [00:01:34] Matt Y: Four coming up on 14 next month. Yeah. [00:01:36] Vince Menzione: Wow. Congratulations. Yeah. So you’ve been there, you’ve been there since the early days. And we, we had a conversation. I had some Microsoft, former Microsoft colleagues. Uh, Theresa Carlson, for those of you who knew the public sector business. [00:01:48] Vince Menzione: Yeah. Who started, I mean, Andy came out, it was so funny because I was there and she was hosting Andy for a dinner and with all the CIOs of the federal government. [00:01:57] Matt Y: Yeah. [00:01:58] Vince Menzione: And she was still at Microsoft and it was actually kind of an interesting time. And she came over and did a lot of great things for a number of years. [00:02:04] Matt Y: Yeah. She [00:02:05] Vince Menzione: and a lot of great [00:02:05] Matt Y: business. [00:02:06] Vince Menzione: Yeah. She really like, it went from employee number one to 7,000. [00:02:09] Matt Y: Yeah. [00:02:09] Vince Menzione: And you, you were, you’ve been there all that whole time. Pretty much. [00:02:12] Matt Y: Yeah, I guess when I started in New York, just down the road, we were, uh, in a Regis facility. There were like 11 of us in, uh, just sitting around a table and we had to speak quietly sometimes because there was a, um. [00:02:21] Matt Y: Some type of a financial services organization down the hall and they’d listen to try and get stock tips on Amazon. Yeah, [00:02:28] Vince Menzione: I love it. [00:02:29] Matt Y: Never leaked. That’s [00:02:29] Vince Menzione: good. I love it. [00:02:30] Matt Y: Yeah, [00:02:30] Vince Menzione: you probably got some great stories and, um, we won’t have time for today ’cause I wanna leave some room for conversations on marketplace end questions. [00:02:38] Matt Y: Yeah. [00:02:38] Vince Menzione: But I would love to invite you back for a real, like, in-depth podcast and I would love to get the whole genesis story. [00:02:44] Matt Y: Let’s do it. [00:02:45] Vince Menzione: We’ll do it. Okay, so let’s talk about, let’s talk about yesterday for you. Uh, some, some really big announcements as well. I thought maybe you could recap a little bit of what’s been going on in the marketplace business and it’s an, it’s been an exciting time. [00:02:58] Matt Y: Yeah. Yeah. You know what’s, I think what was really nice yesterday is it was sort of the combination of bringing, uh, our partner services like Partner Central and all those other services together closer to marketplace. We’ve been doing that over, over several years. So Marketplace has some of its own. [00:03:12] Matt Y: Big announcements, like, uh, we have a, we formalized our list and sell initiative. For example. We have a new, so it we essentially reducing the cost, uh, to list on marketplace through a partner program. [00:03:22] Vince Menzione: Yep. [00:03:22] Matt Y: And incentives associated with that. We have a new AI powered listing experience, which I think is particularly important ’cause I think many of you are like me and watching your SEO numbers go down and watching your agent traffic go up. [00:03:33] Matt Y: And so having, uh, an AI assistance in marketplace to optimize your listings for not just to, you know, retain what you can of your SEO, but prepare for the newent future and improve your GEO as we’re calling it. So that, [00:03:45] Vince Menzione: so it’s GEO now? [00:03:46] Matt Y: Yeah. You know, there’s a little debate right now in the acronym Moral A A EO versus GO I’m going, I’m on the G team, so, yeah. [00:03:52] Vince Menzione: Alright. GEO [00:03:54] Matt Y: It’s like the, the, yeah, they’re gonna win. They’re like the Knicks, but the, um, [00:03:57] Vince Menzione: yeah, yeah, exactly. [00:03:57] Matt Y: But yeah, so AI assisted, uh, I mean, making. The most of, like, essentially marketplace is an excellent conversion engine. And so using AI to help improve that conversion engine in the form of your PDPs for both humans and agents. [00:04:08] Matt Y: So that was an exciting launch. Um, I got the most applause when I announced that. We lowered, we made the economics better for, uh, consulting offers professional services, nice to marketplace. We lowered the listing fee from 2.5 to, to 0.5% and wow, it goes even lower in certain circumstances. So just improving the economics. [00:04:24] Matt Y: I’m really excited to. Really partner with a lot of you to reinvent services through, through the marketplace like we did with SAS and other areas. Uh, and we’re doing with agents right now. So that was a big one. And then a whole series of announcements around, um, how we’re making it easier and more cost effective and more efficient to partner with AWS. [00:04:41] Matt Y: So using AI to, uh, using med pick scoring to automatically progress opportunities so you don’t have to kind of wait on a human. To, to click and progress, you know, that that can take days. And, uh, if you, if you wanna have an opportunity and have that be cos sold with AWS, that can be through a mix of agents for the long tail and with humans in the, in the sort of top end and more complex. [00:05:00] Matt Y: And allowing AI to help all the partners improve their opportunity quality so that we can better co-sell together. So. Yeah, I said AI a lot intentionally. Um, [00:05:09] Audience Guest: yeah, [00:05:10] Matt Y: AI sort of in the whole cycle for buyers, for sellers, uh, for operational efficiency, cost of sales. So a lot of announcements. I think I hit the big ones, so yeah. [00:05:18] Matt Y: I’m Might have missed something there. There we go. [00:05:21] Vince Menzione: George. [00:05:21] Matt Y: Oh, and storefront. Yeah. Thanks George. See, I look at George to see what I missed. Uh, we, we acquired a great company called phoenix.ai late last year. Okay. And you, you actually were said Caresoft and Yeah. Be down. Uh, [00:05:30] Vince Menzione: yeah. [00:05:30] Matt Y: So if you’re familiar with Cara Cloud, they have a procurement portal. [00:05:33] Matt Y: It’s heavy use by the US government, and they, um. Uh, we, we acquired them, uh, the really great growth company. They have over 70 logos now, and they help you build a branded storefront on marketplace, which obviously is important in the government space. If you’re procuring on a certain contract with a certain reseller, um, you know, there’s a certain set of products you’re allowed to buy. [00:05:51] Matt Y: But what we’re finding is even down on Wall Street, you hear, um, enterprises are, are using storefronts for internal procurement and they wanna have a curated collection of, of partner products and, and your own ecosystems internally. So we’re selling to both customers. And also to channel partners to build custom storefronts, branded storefronts for, and [00:06:07] Vince Menzione: it makes total sense, right? [00:06:08] Vince Menzione: Yeah, because you wanna li you wanna limit the, the viewing and, uh, and get, because I mean, how many different listings do we have? Like over 30,000? [00:06:16] Matt Y: Yeah. Yeah. There’s, I think the official numbers over th we have over 36,000. I was checking from over 6,000 vendors. Um, it’s a lot. And, and that’s gonna explode with the AI powered, uh, listing, uh, experience that we launched. [00:06:26] Matt Y: We’re gonna make it easier. And I guess what I’ve been telling partners is. You know, customers aren’t clicking through categories anymore. They’re using AI to search. And so it doesn’t matter how big our catalog is, what matters is being found. And what matters is converting that buyer. So if you have a. [00:06:39] Matt Y: If you’re running a demand gen campaign for say, like, you know, life sciences in, in Jersey and there’s a specific buyer at j and j, you wanna capture, that person doesn’t wanna be just dropped onto a generic marketplace, 30,000 listings. They wanna be dropped in a very specific place where they’re seeing like life sciences offers from Accenture, for example, coupled with a life sciences power thing with Elastic, you know, like, but a solution. [00:07:00] Matt Y: And that they want to land in a curated place where that highly intention buyer can be converted effectively. So that, that’s what we’re doing with all this. [00:07:06] Vince Menzione: And that’s where the GEO comes in because [00:07:09] Matt Y: Yeah. ’cause that buyer might be an agent That’s right. With, and that agent has is even more fickle, honestly. [00:07:14] Matt Y: And you know, what used to be milliseconds for the human before they kind of click away is, is now perhaps microseconds. Yeah. And so, uh, you know, having the right metadata and, and the right positioning, uh, the right story that an agent or a human can pick up to ultimately. Uh, complete their product research and choose your product is, is critical. [00:07:30] Vince Menzione: Very cool. Very cool. So before I, I, I’ve been asked to ask you this because I, I’ve had this con, people have brought come to me and said, you gotta ask Matt about music. He’s a big music guy. And, uh, so what are your favorite bands? [00:07:49] Matt Y: So, I mean, the, the real answer is, uh. I, I go to about a show about every week. [00:07:54] Matt Y: As, as Mike Trill knows, uh, we heard a show last night. Um, we were, uh, just a few hours ago, really? And, uh, um, favorite band, uh, well, I’ll tell, I’ll tell a story. I, I had a side hustle with MTV for years. Um, I used to run a music website. Um, oh, that’s cool. I didn’t know that. It got, it got kind of popular. It got sponsored by, if, if anyone’s into like early hip hop. [00:08:16] Matt Y: It got sponsored by a group called Jurassic Five. ’cause he, one of them reached out to me and said, nice. Hey, uh, you know, I’ve been, I like your website. And he ended up paying for a web, hosting a Dream host, if you remember, of cost back then. [00:08:26] Vince Menzione: Oh, Jesus. [00:08:26] Matt Y: Because I was broke and couldn’t afford it. And then, uh, and then this band sent me like a, a single and said, Hey, you know, trying to get the word out about our little band, can you help us out? [00:08:35] Matt Y: And I put their, uh, I put their, you know, single up on my, on my website and it blew up. And that band is Vampire Weekend. So they’re kind of big now. Wow. Yeah. Um, and uh, that got picked up by like Vanity Fair and all these other guys. And then I got sponsored by MTV to essentially write. Music reviews for years on the side. [00:08:51] Matt Y: So I was working for the Associated Press, laying cable in sports and war and, and, uh, yeah. So Vampire Weekend was good to me that, that they, they kind of paved a way to go to a lot of free shows over the years and a lot of bands and see a lot of great music. But yeah. [00:09:03] Vince Menzione: That is very cool. And that, and how did that get your day? [00:09:05] Vince Menzione: WS It was just a, it was just the technology path that was like, [00:09:09] Matt Y: I mean, it’s a, it’s a, I guess it’s a bit of a long story, but, um, the. There’s many versions of this story. I’ll tell the, tell the one quickly. I was living for free in a Fulbright scholarship house in West Africa. You, we can talk about how that happened another time. [00:09:23] Matt Y: And, uh, a guy had sort of fallen down on the floor ’cause he’d had too much to drink. And I, I sort of lay down beside and be like, Hey man, are you all right? And, um, he, uh. He worked, he, he worked for the Associated Press and next day I had the job, um, being West Africa, head of technology for West Africa. [00:09:37] Matt Y: And because of that, um, and as I learned years later, the AP didn’t have dr they had no disaster recovery. Yeah. And I, I can tell you that now ’cause um, you know, 16 years since I worked there, but they, uh, I put the DR in, um, on AWS and we’re talking like, yeah, 16, 17 years ago. This is early. It was early days. [00:09:56] Matt Y: And I, I swear to God, I paid for. Uh, our AWS bill using, um, taxi receipts, fake taxi receipts that I bought in on Nigerian market, um, because there was no budget and so, you know, it was like 30 bucks. [00:10:08] Vince Menzione: I was gonna say swipe a credit card, but they didn’t [00:10:09] Matt Y: knew that this is the entire press this before. [00:10:11] Vince Menzione: This is before, yeah. [00:10:12] Matt Y: Yeah, like the entire ap. Um, and, uh, so AWS called me like, who are you? Like, why, why are you paying on like this like low limit credit card for like the ap? Like, who are you? And, uh. Next day I had the job. Well, a week later I had the job with aw WS. That so cool. So that’s the story’s [00:10:29] Vince Menzione: cool thing. [00:10:29] Matt Y: Yeah. [00:10:30] Vince Menzione: Very cool. [00:10:31] Vince Menzione: Uh, sports teams. So Knicks fan. [00:10:34] Matt Y: Yeah, I mean, I like the Knicks. Um, they’re h hockey, I’m not allowed to say anything different. No. I appreciate them. Uh, I’m a Raptors fan. I grew up in Toronto mostly. Yeah, yeah. Uh, so, and you know, when they won, uh, that was very exciting as well. So no, Nicks are great. I like the Knicks. [00:10:49] Matt Y: Nothing against the Knicks. Um. They’re fine. Yeah. [00:10:54] Vince Menzione: Hockey, hockey fan. Favorite hockey teams? [00:10:56] Matt Y: Oh yeah. Itron. Maple leaf. Maple leaf. Yeah. They’re gonna, they’re gonna win. Of course. Of course. Yeah. Um, like every year they’re actually, we [00:11:02] Vince Menzione: have some Canadians laughing in the sand. [00:11:03] Matt Y: Well, the leaf are, are, are the Knicks of hockey? [00:11:05] Matt Y: Like Yes, they are. You know, it’s 67 years out, coming up on 68 since they won, so That’s crazy. 53 is nothing. I know. Pain. So. Yeah, definitely the least. Yeah. [00:11:15] Vince Menzione: I love it. I love it. It’s so cool. Yeah. So what was the, uh, what was the, what was the last concert you went to? [00:11:22] Matt Y: Well, literally last night. Oh, it was last, [00:11:23] Vince Menzione: oh, that [00:11:24] Matt Y: was actually concert were my favorite bar in the world. [00:11:26] Matt Y: This place called Sunny’s. Uh, it’s, you know, I, I took Mike and, and Matt from, from Texas and from TGS down there to sort of see my neighborhood and they’re like, where are we? And I’m like, yeah, I live here. Uh, sort of an industrial part of Brooklyn. And, and we went to see, um, I dunno what you would call it, like. [00:11:40] Matt Y: I guess it’d be like roots music. There was a woman with an accordion and a guy with a big cowboy hat. Yeah, it was, it was fun. Yeah. [00:11:47] Vince Menzione: That is so funny. Alright, we’re gonna shift back years. Um, important time right now for partners. What, what should partners be looking out for the most? What would you say to them in terms of what’s the, what’s their real headline for them? [00:11:59] Matt Y: Well, I, I, you know, to borrow from you actually, you know, I liked, uh, the, the principles you had up there and, and with agility, um, you know, there’s a lot of fud flying around right now. You know, people. People were like, oh, it’s the demise of sis with the arrival of ai, you know, everyone’s gonna be using agents. [00:12:13] Matt Y: And then it turns out it’s been a huge boon for most, uh, you know, system integrators and consulting companies that I work with. They all have, you know, the, the good ones especially have vibrant consulting practices now, and everyone is deploying fds, uh, you know, um, the new, the new cool acronym. But it’s, it’s essentially created a huge opportunity for the consulting space. [00:12:31] Matt Y: Uh, and similarly, uh, you know, there there’s this narrative around the sa sa apocalypse, which I really hate, you know, ’cause it was, uh, premature and kind of a trigger reaction from the stock market. And, you know, just look, look what Snowflake did. And, you know, they did what a lot of SaaS companies are doing, but they, they added a nice sort of glaze of positioning and, and, you know, their stock popped and they did pretty well. [00:12:50] Matt Y: And so I think the ability to adapt with change and kind of roll with the punches. ’cause a lot of people are saying like, agents are gonna destroy everything. And, and the opposite has been true. For the more successful consulting companies and software companies who have become agentic. But SaaS hasn’t gone away, you know? [00:13:05] Matt Y: No. Look at our own marketplace. We have this agent marketplace, but people aren’t buying atomic agents at scale. They’re buying ified SaaS solutions with sort of agent sidecars, which has created new opportunities for candidly additional licenses, [00:13:16] Vince Menzione: right? [00:13:16] Matt Y: Um, as customers sort of want to consume more AI services on top of their. [00:13:20] Matt Y: On top of their SaaS solutions. So I think being agile, you know, you see like ServiceNow as part of our billionaires club. Yes. They’re not going anywhere. They’re, yeah. They’re gentrifying. You know, Salesforce has pivoted to this headless model, um, along with Asian Force and using sort of Slack as the operating system. [00:13:34] Matt Y: And, you know, you said like a lot of companies from the seventies aren’t around anymore. They’re gonna be winners and losers. Yeah. Um, but the winners are gonna win even more. And so I, I think what’s so important right now for partners is to not, not bite too hard at the, the latest trend. You know, models are changing and everyone’s like, oh, you know, philanthropics really in the world and they’re wonderful, great to work with, amazing technology. [00:13:55] Matt Y: That’s what people are saying about open AI six months ago. That’s right. And before that, you know, and it, I, I was with Fireworks AI yesterday, a great company and they have some really cool stuff with sort of, um, they believe in more cost effective, uh, open source models essentially, that you can find tune. [00:14:08] Matt Y: Maybe that’s gonna win. I don’t know. Um, is it gonna be sort of domain specific models? Is it gonna be highly capable LLMs? Are LLMs gonna level off as soon as Fable and Mythos are allowed to launch? Maybe. I, I don’t think anyone can predict the future right now. So you have to be agile and you have to kind of seize the opportunities and take a couple punches. [00:14:25] Vince Menzione: Yeah. [00:14:26] Matt Y: You know, and marketplace too, like we’re, you have to be unafraid to experiment right now. Um, you know, that’s hard if your stock’s taking a beating. Um, but this is, it’s a, it is a disruptive time, uh, but it’s creating actually enormous opportunities for growth for partners and, and we really see that, you know, in marketplace specifically within AWS. [00:14:45] Vince Menzione: It, it, it does still feel like the deer in the headlights moment. Right. Would you agree? Like you’re probably taking a lot of meetings and, and calls from ISVs specifically? [00:14:54] Matt Y: Well, [00:14:54] Vince Menzione: that are still trying to figure it out. [00:14:56] Matt Y: Yeah. But it’s everyone. Yeah. I think what’s really interesting, I had a meeting [00:14:58] Vince Menzione: with, it’s not just one. [00:14:59] Matt Y: Yeah. I, well, I had a meeting with one of the leading AI companies, like one of the biggest ones. And they, uh, they demonstrated how they work and they were really proud. They were like, you know, look at our agentic workflow. And I came out at me. I’m like, that’s it. Ours is way better. Like really like, you know, ’cause we we’re, we’re using quick desktop with MCP servers and connectors and all this, and you know, we, we have our own sort of ecosystem of partners, a mix of homegrown software and third party. [00:15:20] Matt Y: And I kinda walked out there and, and looked at, you know, my phone, which has been populated by agents this morning with all the, and I was like, I have a way better agent workflow than this world’s leading supposedly AI company. And I think, um, that really, so during, I, I would, during the headlights, you can call it deer in the headlights, I call it chaos. [00:15:36] Matt Y: And in times of chaos there are people who create. Opportunity again. And so, yeah, there are some people who are stuck and who don’t know what to do, who are over worried about token costs, um, who are not experimenting. But there are a lot of companies, uh, taking this opportunity to kind of pivot their business. [00:15:53] Matt Y: Um, I think, I think we’re in a moment and, uh, yeah, I, I candidly I see more of the latter. I see more experimenting. [00:15:59] Vince Menzione: You mentioned ServiceNow. Any other great examples of that? Organizations that really embraced it? [00:16:04] Matt Y: Uh, yeah. Well, you know, ServiceNow is part of this business applications category, as we call it, in marketplace. [00:16:09] Matt Y: That outside of AI, I think is the fastest growing category in marketplace, which is wild when you think about it. ’cause we’ve historically been an infrastructure partner marketplace with security and data and analytics and, you know, security with channel partners, et cetera. But Salesforce, ServiceNow, Workday, Adobe, you know, I could go on. [00:16:23] Matt Y: They, they are actually. You know, our fastest growing category and yeah, ServiceNow, obviously reinventing itself for ai, Salesforce, but Workday, you know, the workday’s done some, who knows if it’s gonna work, but they, they’re experimenting with essentially like a Databricks, uh, credit style model for like, units of work, uh, which I think is fascinating. [00:16:41] Matt Y: Like everyone’s talking about value-based, outcome-based pricing and meter. And, and you have companies that are ERP companies, you know, like traditional business applications, experimenting with effectively like a metered pay as you go, value based credit model. Again, like who knows if it’s gonna work. [00:16:54] Matt Y: But I think that’s really amazing to see and we need more ISVs experimenting. I, I was talking about trend ai and I know they’re, they’re, they’re one of the sponsors yesterday. You know, many of you know them as Trend Micro back in the day. They’ve successfully reinvented themselves. They built that companion app. [00:17:10] Matt Y: Um, you know, that I think we’re seeing. Just a ton of experimentation in the market across categories. Uh, I could go on and on about partners. Um, yeah, there, I I wouldn’t pick a winner right now. Yeah. [00:17:24] Vince Menzione: You, you, we’ve talked about ai. We’ve talked, talk more about the buying journey and how that’s changing, because again, it feels, it feels like that’s also [00:17:33] Matt Y: Yeah. [00:17:33] Matt Y: So, you know, one of, one of the core, uh, strategic objectives, or we’ll say like the philosophy marketplace is that. Um, financial incentives are important, you know, EDP or PPA drawdown, uh, credits. Like we need to act as an efficient and effective vehicle for allowing buyers to exercise their discounts for, and, and sort of partners to exercise their credits, et cetera. [00:17:55] Matt Y: That, that’s actually important. But what, what a lot of people over rotate on that, and we’re really, one of the things we say a lot inside at Amazon or at AWS marketplace is we want to continue to boost the intrinsic value of marketplace beyond the financial incentives. And well over a quarter of all private offers, private pricing, private, uh, custom terms, et cetera. [00:18:14] Matt Y: Um, begin with a self-service or PLG motion. And partners who don’t have a PLG or self-service motion are literally leaving money on the table. Like if you look at like a Databricks for example, and they did a good job integrating buy with a WS within their SaaS application. They have free trials, they have really strong pego and, and, uh, and PLG motion. [00:18:33] Matt Y: They’re making, I can’t share their numbers obviously, but they’re making a ton of money. On purely self-service motions. And importantly, they’re acquiring new business, new logos that they nurture, you know, really like not just leads but closed opportunities, right? That they lead, they’re growing, uh, at a reasonable conversion rate or or success rate into the next big logos. [00:18:50] Matt Y: And these are over multi-year horizons. They’re patient, you know, they bring in these new logos with PLG, and they’re also bringing banking, a lot of large enterprises. Through self-service. I, I was with data Mask. There’s this great little startup from New Zealand. They’re a New Zealand based company. Um, super nice guy. [00:19:06] Matt Y: And, and, uh, they, they got huge logos. I think they got, what was it? A DP and some huge American logos. Okay. And this like logo in, I think it was Chile, or no, it was Peru. They’ve never been to Peru. They don’t have sales in Peru. Um, and they. Buyers were discovering them self-service and they, they, I think they got something like 13 logos entirely through a self-service motion. [00:19:26] Matt Y: One password will tell you the same thing. I was just with them in Toronto and companies big and small startups and the largest are getting enterprise wins in addition to net new small logos through that PLG. Buyer motion. And that’s because you have a whole generation of CFOs, CTOs, CROs, whatever. The C is [00:19:43] Vince Menzione: millennial [00:19:43] Matt Y: who grew up on their phones. [00:19:45] Vince Menzione: Yeah. [00:19:45] Matt Y: And, and it sounds like, you know, hyperbole, but it’s true. They, they want immediate apps, immediate access. And that actually, you’re like, oh, that never translates to business applications. Turns out it does. It does. And they might not be buying on their phone, but what they are doing is researching and we see the numbers, the amount of customers who are doing their research, and then eventually landing on the page from chat, GPT. [00:20:06] Matt Y: From major financial, like Fortune 500 companies is extremely high. Yeah. Uh, you have procurement team, sourcing team, uh, developers who are starting the research increasingly, like in clawed in chat, GPT, and then, you know, building a proposal and then handing it to their enterprise procurement team. Yeah. [00:20:22] Matt Y: Which is still largely unchanged. So buyer behavior is on the front end, on the research side is really changing. So the [00:20:29] Vince Menzione: discovery is happening through PLG. [00:20:32] Matt Y: Yeah. [00:20:32] Vince Menzione: And then the backend work on private offers and things like that sometimes still happens the old way. [00:20:36] Matt Y: Yeah. Well, and so, you know, it’s [00:20:37] Vince Menzione: fax machine, [00:20:38] Matt Y: some people Yeah, sure. [00:20:39] Matt Y: They’re bringing the deal directly to Marketplace last minute. But even if that deal goes direct, sometimes they’re still beginning their research journey and increasingly using Marketplace as a research vehicle, which is why we launched Agent Mode, um, to help you sort of help you and agents do research. [00:20:51] Matt Y: But that I think if, if I have one piece of device for any partner consulting or ISV is. Don’t leave those leads and that money on the table by not having a PLG self-service strategy like you’re fooling yourself. Uh, and it’s, it’s a huge, it’s a huge, huge business for us. The, the majority of all customers by far on marketplace don’t even have a PPA, uh, and a huge percentage of even those with PPA spend beyond the p. [00:21:17] Matt Y: And so if you’re just think if you’re just using marketplaces as like BPA retirement, you are literally losing money. [00:21:22] Vince Menzione: Yeah. [00:21:22] Matt Y: Yeah. [00:21:23] Vince Menzione: We have a session with Vinod. We’re gonna talk a little bit about that right after. Great. So good. Um, so I, yeah, I think, um. We talked about, we talked about agents, we’ve talked about the millennial buyer, the change in buying behavior. [00:21:40] Vince Menzione: What other, what other areas of aspect I, I, I, I do wanna think about like opening it up though for a second. I think that maybe with maybe nine minutes left. Sure. I just want to get a read from the people in the room. People have questions for Matt that we weren’t able to ask them. Yeah, I think, I think we probably have a few of those. [00:21:57] Vince Menzione: I think that would probably be great. [00:21:58] Matt Y: I can sense the hardball coming. [00:22:00] Vince Menzione: You’ve known each other [00:22:00] Matt Y: a long time. [00:22:01] Vince Menzione: Yeah. No, no. Hardball. We have a mic back here. Okay. I’ll just, we’ll, we’ll, we’ll get you a mic as we are recording. So good. Thank you. [00:22:11] Audience Guest: Uh, Boris Geller with a, a Click PLG is near and dear to my heart. [00:22:17] Audience Guest: We’ve been doing a lot of business in marketplace and I’m still struggling to sell my vision internally on, on, uh, on PLG. Uh, I think. Ag Agent AI is gonna be one of the drivers, and we are already on, uh, agent Marketplace, but I would appreciate guidance on, uh, best practices. How do we kind of, uh, operationalize it? [00:22:41] Audience Guest: It’s, it’s on us, not on you. [00:22:43] Matt Y: Well, no, I think it’s on both of us. You know, we, uh. One thing that we’re trying to do is give you more data to, to sell to your internal stakeholders in your executive suite. The value of co-sell with AWS all up, like finally with what we launched at, uh, the summit yesterday, you now get an opportunity score. [00:23:02] Matt Y: You, you get a number. People have been asking for this for years, so, so you can say when we do this and we, when we give AWS this information. The score goes up and we have a higher propensity to be cos sold by humans or agents before you had to kind of, it was like this mystery you had to guess. And similarly with marketplace, um, we, we have new dashboards that you can use to sort of, you used to have to sit down with us and go through spreadsheets to trace sort of lead to trace the funnel to sort of a close opportunity. [00:23:28] Matt Y: And we’re gonna continue to launch more there. But you now have more data that you can show. You can be like, listen, these are our inbound leads, this how’s converting, and now we have PRM, the partner revenue measurement where we can say like, this is what it’s translating into in terms of. AWS service revenue driven by our product. [00:23:41] Matt Y: And so that being able to tie from that inbound lead from your demand gen campaign through to a converted opportunity to what you actually drive from an AWS impact perspective, so you can, and then what your opportunity score is that data you can use to sell. Not only internally, but to us as well. Yeah, to a skeptical sales team or whatever who’s not maybe, you know, hype on partners in the, in the US West. [00:24:03] Matt Y: You can be like, listen, I don’t care what you think about my business. This is what I’m gonna drive for you with your quarter retirement from an AWS perspective, and this is how the shape of your customer accounts are gonna change. And this is why you should pay attention to my opportunities. ’cause my opportunity score is, is crazy high and I’m giving you insights into business that AWS would not otherwise have. [00:24:19] Vince Menzione: That’s your brand story we’re talking about. [00:24:21] Matt Y: Yeah. [00:24:22] Vince Menzione: Building your story up with within [00:24:25] Matt Y: So it’s, it’s about the data, I guess. And, and you should, you know, you should all actually be [00:24:28] Vince Menzione: Yeah. [00:24:29] Matt Y: Asking me for more data, so, you know, and tell me like, what do you need to sell to your internal stakeholders? ’cause if I can draw a clear line. [00:24:35] Matt Y: From your demand chain campaign that lands on a marketplace, which I know is a conversion machine, it has way better than industry levels of, of conversion rates. And then you can show, hey, if we have a PLG strategy and we land those leads on marketplace, we will convert them with high efficiency, low cost of sales and, and, and have sort of a bifurcated where we can close some through self service, some through express private offers and some through private offers, depending on deal size. [00:24:57] Matt Y: Like you tell A CFO that, and they’re my number one customer now and they love it ’cause they see cost of sales going down, cost of operations going down and business going up. Um, so I think we have more data than we used to use that data. And let me know what other data do you need to make that pitch and make that pitch to the CFO go around the head of sales, all those other people. [00:25:15] Matt Y: Honestly, the CFO is where we get the best leverage. [00:25:18] Vince Menzione: Awesome. Great question. [00:25:23] Matt Y: Gonna bring your mic. [00:25:23] Vince Menzione: We’re, we’re gonna get your mic here. There you go. Oh, [00:25:25] Audience Guest: thank you. So my name’s Jody Cheval and I’m a consultant now, but I was at Workday during when they adopted AWS and it, a sales organization needs propensity to buy data. [00:25:34] Audience Guest: To really drive the sales team to realize the opportunity kind of makes them visualize it. We didn’t struggle, but it was challenging to get that data because at that time we’re getting spreadsheets. So does AWS have a vision of making that API based data that our client, my clients, can get at and bring into a tool to start building account hypothesis based on that data? [00:25:57] Audience Guest: ’cause it really is important to an enterprise sales guy to have the sense that OAWS can help me close this deal. [00:26:03] Matt Y: Yeah. I mean. Part of that. So we, we launched, we’ve been launching part of that in stages and we’re not done. There’s, there’s more coming. Um, part of that is embedded really within the new, uh, partner agent workflows. [00:26:13] Matt Y: We are giving sort of more, uh, information back to you, not just about like what funding programs you’re eligible for, but like, you know, and when, when we will co-sell this deal with you, which is effectively a signal like we, we see this as a high value opportunity, that you have a likelihood of winning internally. [00:26:28] Matt Y: We, we have this solution matching engine that we’re using and we announced. That, that that ties you the partner to a customer specific opportunity that you have a high propensity or the partner has a high propensity to assist with and ultimately win. And now we’ve tied that to our express private offers, which we announced this week. [00:26:44] Matt Y: So it’s an indirect answer to what you’re asking, but a rep can essentially say. Send a private priced offer to the customer on behalf of the partner without having to ring up the partner because they have a high propensity to win this deal with the customer. So we’re progressively launching features like that. [00:26:59] Matt Y: In addition to the propensity to buy data that we do now share. It used to be kind of, again, manual magic depending on who you knew we could share. Now we do share that programmatically, and there’s more to come specifically in that space. Uh, I’d say watch that space. In the next few months, there’s gonna be more data coming away, but we do have the APIs, we have the agent. [00:27:16] Matt Y: We have things like express private office solution matching, and we have been sort of in that space progressively launching features over the last six to 12 months. And, and you should expect to see some more there soon, not just from us or from our partners. [00:27:27] Vince Menzione: Nice. Any announcement dates? [00:27:30] Matt Y: I can’t commit to a date or else my engineers will get mad at me. [00:27:33] Vince Menzione: It looks like we Another question number. Is the mic still back there? Okay. There’s a gentleman over here [00:27:40] Audience Guest: first Go leaves. Um, it’s awesome. I’m right next to. I was right next. [00:27:46] Vince Menzione: We’ve got a lot of great plants here, so, [00:27:49] Audience Guest: um, so this may be a little bit myopic or, or a challenge that we run into, but I love a lot of the innovation that’s looking forward and all the future things that we’re doing. [00:28:00] Audience Guest: One of the things that we’re struggling with is a little bit of almost like tech or structural debt. How do you think about bringing flexibility to the core pieces that underpin all of the innovation, which is. We are self-hosted. So one of our listings is an a MI. You can’t amend an a MI, you have to cancel and start over. [00:28:18] Audience Guest: So a lot of the building blocks, when you think about PLG, if somebody wants to add to that in an a MI listing, it’s, it’s sort of broken. So how are you thinking about taking all of the, the rapidly changing buyer behavior and then looking back at the structural foundation that underpins all of those things, like offers and, and amendments and changes and all of that? [00:28:39] Matt Y: Yeah. I, I promise I didn’t seed that question, but that, that’s a great one. Um, so not to get too in the weeds, but fundamentally, marketplace was built up, um, a bit like AWS like a set, a series of services somewhat independently. And each product type was effectively its own service, SaaS, server images, ais. [00:28:59] Matt Y: Um, what we’ve done recently is now we, we have, we got rid of product types basically on the backend. You, you don’t see it, but what that means, for example, like another thing AAMIs don’t support today, future data agreements. Um, or concurrent agreements, uh, they will all be supported by amis before the end of the year. [00:29:14] Matt Y: ’cause what we’re doing, this fundamental thing that you won’t even see called product offer decoupling. Uh, and it’s a fundamental piece of things that we need to unwind. ’cause we built up, we were moving very quickly over the years. We had a distributed engineering model and we built each product type independently. [00:29:28] Matt Y: And so yeah, if you’re a seller and you’re selling containers, agents, SaaS, amies, um, we’re breaking down the silos between those so that each of them will get the same benefits. And, and by the way, we’re taking the same approach to international. Hopefully you’ve noticed now that. It’s not like a feature launches in the US only and then takes five years to launch in either public sector or another country. [00:29:48] Matt Y: We, we’ve taken a global approach to feature launch and increasingly a product type neutral approach to feature launches. Uh, that’ll be largely resolved before the year’s out. We’re working on it right now. So again, it’s, it should be transparent to you, like you shouldn’t actually see any difference in the, in the experience. [00:30:05] Matt Y: Except that all of those features will be available. So, so that is, uh, actively under work. And that’s actually something if you’d like to try, um, you’re, you’re welcome to. So, yeah, [00:30:17] Vince Menzione: we have time for maybe one more question and we we’re actually gonna have you up here with a couple partners. [00:30:24] Matt Y: Sounds [00:30:24] Vince Menzione: good. Kind of fun. [00:30:32] Audience Guest: Hey, Matt, uh, met Natasha from Dondo. Uh, quick. So great announcements. And you know, you talked about the million, multi-billion dollar, uh, club, and, uh, that’s all great. Uh, in terms of the. Propensity data. I think that’s coming at the center of a lot of things, right? You know, for enterprises, oh, there’s an investment and you tap into that investment. [00:30:53] Audience Guest: But also there’s the other side of the procurement where a lot of customers, sometimes we work with, they’re like, they still wanna go direct for whatever reason, right? So I think there’s an education piece there, but also trying to understand like how we can work together to, you know, get some of that side of the things sorted out as well. [00:31:11] Audience Guest: You know? ’cause a lot of times it’s not about. Just, you know, retiring the, uh, the, the spend comets, but also like, Hey, I’m used, I’m already used that for something else. So maybe that’s not an, uh, something that applies here. And in also in tying that the PLG motion, uh, you know, for the customers you said, you talked about, you know, if there is. [00:31:34] Audience Guest: Leads on the TA table, like where the, it’s not the enterprise, but you know, the others. Um, I feel like it’s more to do, changing the business model at some times. Like with the enterprises, you have the revenue stream coming through, say large deals, right? And all of a sudden you tap into this, you know, PayGo. [00:31:51] Audience Guest: Where it flips the whole equation with, you know, the financing and the, and the, and the revenue measurement. So I think there’s two aspects of how do you kind of cons reconcile those things in terms of, you know, the revenue measurements going forward. [00:32:05] Matt Y: Yeah. So, so two things real quick on the procurement. [00:32:07] Matt Y: Um, yeah, like, yeah, I sort of alluded to this earlier, but, uh. Procurement is a bit late to the AI ag agentic transformation. They’re trying, and there’s a lot of great new incumbents in this space. And the big leaders like, you know, Coupa and Ariba and Oracle are, are, are evolving their products, albeit a bit slowly. [00:32:26] Matt Y: Um, but the, I think, uh, it’s still the long pole in the tent. You know this. And so like, there are two reasons why deals tend to go direct, because it kind of hits a wall of. Legal, uh, you know, procurement, governance, like all that kind of after the selection’s been made, et cetera, or, or they’re, you know, we can’t change. [00:32:44] Matt Y: People are gonna optimize for, for finance, you know, they’re, they’re going to, if they’re getting big discounts. I mean, that is life. I always say it’s like sellers at the most agented company are still gonna chase quota no matter how, you know, crazy. Uh, your, your company is, and it’s the same with, um, with the chief, uh, financial officer and chief procurement officer. [00:33:01] Matt Y: They are going to, they’re literally. Paid to find discounts. And so we’re not, we’re not gonna get rid of financial engineering. That’s a, that’s a thing. What we can do is reduce the friction for procurement. So we launched, for example, like mandatory purchase orders. That was a big thing. We, we have buyer notifications, now we’re making other procure to pay enhancements. [00:33:17] Matt Y: I mean, procurement systems still use like CXML. It’s like, that was, that was cool when I worked for the ap. And like I, I have teenagers that are old, like older than, so they, I, I think, um. Procurement needs to evolve and we’re gonna help it evolve. We’re gonna push it forward and, and we need to make it more seamless for procurement teams so that we remove those objections. [00:33:38] Matt Y: Uh, I can’t remove the financial engineering objection, like, you know, that’s just life. Um, but I can make it irresponsible not to use marketplace ’cause it’s so easy to use. And, uh, that, that’s kind of the approach we’re taking on, on the front end. Uh, you, you know, I think you, you, again, I didn’t see this question. [00:33:52] Matt Y: You, you stepped into a trap. Un unwittingly, um, PLG is not just is for enterprise. And, and PLG doesn’t necessarily mean pego or self-service. Uh, doesn’t necessarily like, uh, most of our self-service efforts are actually focused on private offers. And not necessarily for pego. Uh, when, when I say self-service and, and PLG, uh, it, it can mean all kinds of things like it. [00:34:14] Matt Y: We have requested private offer, requested demo call to actions, buttons that you can put on your listing. For example, you don’t necessarily need a free trial or a metered pay as you go listing to take advantage of those inbound self-service leads. So, and those inbound self-service leads are often massive enterprise deals, like I mentioned specifically, uh, the data mask. [00:34:31] Matt Y: Those giant enterprise deals that they launched came from an enterprise like Fortune 1000 Enterprise in the US that organically discovered their solution on the marketplace using our AI search. And that was a massive enterprise. And so I, I think yes, there is the long tail, you wanna capture a new logo acquisition, but you should think of your product like growth in your self-service strategy as a way to, um, acquire all kinds of leads, including large enterprise. [00:34:54] Matt Y: And so when I say leave money on the table, I’m not just talking about things that are gonna mature over two years or tiny little deals. These could be massive deals. Uh, and, and you’ll accelerate those deals by accelerating their discovery and, and research so that I think that, so, and my advice is don’t, you don’t have to go all in if you don’t have, if you don’t have metering, if you don’t have PayGo, that’s cool. [00:35:13] Matt Y: Start with something simple. Start with a public listing, with a request to private offer like that. That is a, a huge step. That doesn’t take much, and, and it kind of blows my mind still that a lot of companies aren’t doing that yet. [00:35:25] Vince Menzione: Great answer. Well, it’s now time we’re gonna bring, we’re gonna bring, it’s time. [00:35:29] Vince Menzione: We, we’ve got some great partners coming up here, Nvidia Elastic, Accenture gonna all join us for a conversation. Great. And I’m glad that you’re gonna stay with us. And let’s, let’s, well, let’s thank Matt, by the way, for that session. [00:35:41] Matt Y: Thanks. [00:35:42] Vince Menzione: And [00:35:42] Matt Y: thanks for listening to the Ultimate [00:35:44] Vince Menzione: Partner Podcast. If today’s conversation resonated, share it with a partner leader in your network. [00:35:51] 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, October 26th through October 28th. Until next time, keep showing up in the rooms that matter because being in the room changes everything.
Ireland takes Faeries seriously. Don't believe me? Take a drive down one of its largest highways, and you'll notice the road diverting around a certain tree favored by the Fair Folk. While we often refer to stories as “just fairy tales,” Irish culture knows that they should not be so easily dismissed, as they demonstrate our relationship to the world beyond the ordinary.The close to our Ireland series explores Faeries (Fairies, Sidhe, Aos Sí, Good People) in Irish folklore. History, mythology, folktales, and stories of personal experience paint a picture of the liminal world outside our grasp.Mythos & Logos are two ancient words that can be roughly translated as “Story & Meaning.”Support the channel by subscribing, liking, and commenting to join the conversation!Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/mythosandlogos00:00 Introduction00:20 Spirit of the Night by John Atkinson Grimshaw00:35 Hawthorn at Wall, Lichfield, from the Lines Family Sketchbook01:06 Female Dancer in Fairy Ocnstume by Sergey Chekhonin01:19 The Fair Folk01:37 Leprechauns at Blarney Castle, photographed by CEllen, licensed under Creative Commons01:45 Illustration from Celtic Fairy Tales by John Dickson Batten01:51 Iris by John Atkinson Grimshaw02:24 The Banshee Appears by R Prowse02:35 La Belle Dame Sans Merci by Henry Meynell Rheam02:40 Riders of the Sidhe by John Duncan03:39 The Garden of Paradise, Fairy of the Garden by Edmund Dulac03:58 Spirited Away04:07 At That Moment She Was Changed by Magic to a Wonderful Little Fairy by John Bauer04:54 Illustration from Myths and Legends; The Celtic Race by Stephen Reid05:11 The Stolen Child by George William Russell05:31The Stolen Child by William Butler Yeats05:44 The Sleeping Princess by John Duncan06:53 Crossing The Sea08:22 Dullahan, the Headless Horseman, by William Henry Brooke09:08 Conclusion: The Liminal World09:32 Illustration from Irish Fairy Tales by Arthur Rackham09:53 Puck and the Fairies by R DaddAll works of art are public domain unless stated otherwise. Ambiment- The Ambient by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.
Can governments decide who gets access to advanced AI models? Are third-party breaches becoming impossible to control? And why are so many CISOs reaching burnout? In this special Cybersecurity Today Month in Review Panel, host Jim Love is joined by cybersecurity experts Laura Payne, David Shipley, and Mike Kim (Mycroft) to examine the biggest cybersecurity stories and trends from June 2026. The panel explores the controversy over U.S. export controls on Anthropic's Mythos and Fable AI models, what they reveal about digital sovereignty, and whether governments should be able to restrict access to frontier AI. They also discuss the continuing wave of third-party breaches, including Salesforce ecosystem compromises and the Clue breach, and why organizations must move beyond compliance toward practical risk management. The conversation examines FortiBleed, exposed administrator portals, credential reuse, and the difficult balance between software flaws, operational mistakes, and secure-by-default design. The panel also tackles one of cybersecurity's biggest human challenges: CISO burnout, executive accountability, organizational culture, and what separates successful security leaders from those set up to fail. The episode concludes with encouraging developments in international cybercrime enforcement, including Operation Riptide, and why better intelligence sharing and improved operational security are making it harder for cybercriminals to hide. Whether you're a CISO, security practitioner, IT leader, or simply interested in the rapidly changing cybersecurity landscape, this discussion offers practical insight into the trends shaping the industry. Panel Jim Love (Host) Laura Payne David Shipley Mike Kim (Mycroft) Topics covered AI export controls and digital sovereignty Anthropic Mythos and Fable Third-party and supply chain risk Salesforce ecosystem security FortiBleed and Fortinet security Secure-by-default strategies CISO burnout and executive accountability Operation Riptide Cybercrime investigations Security leadership and governance Chapters 00:00 Sponsor NordLayer 00:38 Meet the Panel 02:40 Author Scam Warning 04:51 Emotion Is the Target 08:47 AI Model Export Controls 10:01 Hype vs Real AI Security 15:01 Sovereignty and Dependency 20:35 Governments Push Back 24:14 AI Internal Voice Risks 26:12 Third Party Breach Fatigue 30:05 Compliance Limits on Risk 32:15 Blame Game to Risk Focus 33:18 Standards and Priorities 33:39 When Security Vendors Fail 34:35 FortiBleed Numbers Explained 35:44 Process Failures vs Bugs 37:32 Why Fortinet Gets Heat 39:05 Secure by Default Basics 41:04 Budget Reality and Culture 44:36 CISO Burnout and AI Pressure 46:16 Liability and Shared Ownership 50:12 What Great CISOs Do 53:07 Operation Riptide Wins 56:10 Deterrence and Due Process 58:14 Sharing Intel for ROI 59:09 Hopium and Wrap Up 01:00:46 Sponsor NordLayer Message
Nach Kriegsende liegt Deutschland in Trümmern. Die Alliierten bestimmen am 10.7.1946 per Gesetz den Einsatz von Trümmerfrauen. Doch den Großteil des Schutts räumen andere weg. Von Franziska Rempe.
Adam Mosseri is the Head of Instagram, where he oversees an app used by over 3 billion people. He also leads the team building Threads. Adam has run Instagram for longer than its founders did, after taking over from Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger in 2018. A designer by training, he spent over 15 years at Meta, starting as a designer on Facebook's mobile app, rising to lead Facebook's News Feed, and eventually chosen to lead Instagram. During his tenure, Instagram's user base has more than tripled.In our in-depth conversation, we discuss:1. How the canonical product team structure is changing in 2026, from baker's-dozen specialist teams to lean pods of four to six generalists2. The rise of the “product staff” role—a blending of PM, design, data science, and research into one generalist operator3. Why Adam is bullish on designers even as functional boundaries dissolve, and which roles are most at risk4. What the Instagram algorithm knows about you, and why it's only now catching up to what people assumed it knew years ago5. Why the rise of AI-generated content is a tailwind for Instagram, and how the company is thinking about creator identity in a synthetic-content world6. The two biggest product failures of Adam's career—Facebook Home and the first version of Reels—Brought to you by:WorkOS—Make your app enterprise-ready, with SSO, SCIM, RBAC, and more: https://workos.com/lennyMercury—Radically different banking, now with Command: https://mercury.com/command?utm_source=lennys&utm_medium=sponsored_newsletter&utm_campaign=26q3_brand_campaign—Episode transcript: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/adam-mosseri-ai-is-a-tailwind-for—Archive of all Lenny's Podcast transcripts: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/yxi4s2w998p1gvtpu4193/AMdNPR8AOw0lMklwtnC0TrQ?rlkey=j06x0nipoti519e0xgm23zsn9&st=ahz0fj11&dl=0—Where to find Adam Mosseri:• X: https://x.com/mosseri• LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/mosseri• Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mosseri• Threads: https://www.threads.com/@mosseri—Where to find Lenny:• Newsletter: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com• X: https://twitter.com/lennysan• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lennyrachitsky/—In this episode, we cover:(00:00) Introduction to Adam Mosseri(02:09) How product teams are changing inside Meta(05:48) Blurring roles and career anxiety(14:01) Hiring traits that matter now(16:48) How AI is resetting who succeeds at work(19:38) How Meta thinks about token spend and AI costs(23:23) Where human judgment still matters(25:56) Why AI is not automatically great at strategy(30:36) Why great product leaders are curators(34:23) What Instagram's algorithm actually knows about you(38:08) Why chronological feeds often disappoint users(40:56) Why AI content may be a tailwind for Instagram(43:42) The future of AI and human content in the feed(48:00) What Adam admires about other social platforms(52:05) How he handles public criticism(56:31) Lessons from the Instagram feed redesign backlash(01:00:21) Adam's biggest failure: Instagram on iPad(01:03:03) His approach to kids, screens, and social media(01:06:56) What Adam wants listeners to remember—Referenced:• What happens after coding is solved? | Fiona Fung (Manager of the Claude Code and Cowork Teams): https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/building-the-most-ai-pilled-engineering• Claude Code: https://www.anthropic.com/product/claude-code• Claude Cowork: https://www.anthropic.com/product/claude-cowork• Head of Claude Code: What happens after coding is solved | Boris Cherny: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/head-of-claude-code-what-happens• A rational conversation on where AI is actually going | Benedict Evans: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/a-rational-conversation-on-where• OpenAI's CPO on how AI changes must-have skills, moats, coding, startup playbooks, more | Kevin Weil (CPO at OpenAI, ex-Instagram, Twitter): https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/kevin-weil-open-ai• Mythos: https://www.anthropic.com/claude/mythos• Fable: https://www.anthropic.com/claude/fable• Pluralistic: The Reverse-Centaur's Guide to Criticizing AI: https://pluralistic.net/2025/12/05/pop-that-bubble• Plastic Dream Sequence on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticdreamsequence• TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com• Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal• Facebook Home: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Home—Production and marketing by https://penname.co/. For inquiries about sponsoring the podcast, email podcast@lennyrachitsky.com.—Lenny may be an investor in the companies discussed. To hear more, visit www.lennysnewsletter.com
China se está planteando cerrar el grifo de sus modelos de IA más avanzados, justo lo que le ha dado ventaja en modelos de código abierto. Estados Unidos ya lo ha hecho con Mythos. Dos rivales, sin hablar entre ellos como de costumbre, llegando a la misma conclusión sobre el límite de la IA. Loop Infinito, podcast de Xataka, de lunes a viernes a las 7:00 (hora peninsular española). Presentado por Javier Lacort. Editado por Alberto de la Torre. Contacto: lacort@xataka.com, @lacort en X.
Accenture confirms a data breach. An Australian telecom investigates a nationwide outage. It's shields up for the UK. CISA eyes September for its critical infrastructure reporting rule. NewsJunkie fakes CTV ad traffic. Agentic AI triggers EDR. CISA taps Mythos for vulnerability scans. Meta faces trillion dollar fines in state lawsuits. Our guest is Russ Anderson, COO and co-founder of RapidFort, sharing a coordinated industry effort to harden the world's most critical open source software against AI-enabled cyber threats. When it comes to breaches, mum's the word. 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 Russ Anderson, COO and co-founder of RapidFort, is sharing the Linux Foundation's Akrites initiative, a coordinated industry effort to harden the world's most critical open source software against AI-enabled cyber threats. Selected Reading Accenture confirms breach after hacker offers stolen data for sale (Bleeping Computer) Nationwide Telstra outage disrupts thousands, raises questions of foreign launched cyberattack (The Nightly) Britain plans to build autonomous AI 'Cyber Shield' to defend nation (The Record) CISA Eyes September Date for Final Cyber Incident Reporting Rule (MeriTalk) HUMAN Security Disrupts CTV Device Spoofing Operation "NewsJunkie" (Globe Newswire) When AI agents look like attackers: what behavioral telemetry tells us (SOPHOS) Space Force adds Relativity, Impulse Space to national security launch program. (Space News) CISA Deploys Anthropic's Mythos AI to Hunt Vulnerabilities in U.S. Government Code (Security Affairs) Mark Zuckerberg's biggest legal nightmare yet could cost Meta $1.4 trillion (The Independent) Most cybersecurity workers have been told to conceal a breach, report finds (Cybersecurity Dive) 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
Jul 8, 2026 – AI expert Dr. Alan D. Thompson joins Financial Sense Newshour to discuss the latest breakthroughs and global power plays in artificial intelligence, including Anthropic's Mythos superintelligence, the escalating arms race between...
Brian Kilmeade reacts to the absolute implosion of Maine Democratic nominee Graham Platner as top Democrats rapidly withdraw their support following devastating new allegations. Plus, former CIA officer Daniel Hoffman joins to break down Donald Trump's high-stakes arrival at the NATO summit and what it means for Putin's war in Ukraine. Later, AI expert Nate Soares reveals the terrifying national security implications of Anthropic's compromised "Mythos" super-hacker AI. [00:00:00] Kayleigh McEnany [00:18:26] Allen West [00:29:11] Dylan Nealis [00:55:14] Nate Soares [01:13:38] Daniel Hoffman [01:32:02] Ned Ryun Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
A landmark Supreme Court decision shakes up digital privacy, setting new limits on police surveillance and potentially redefining personal data rights in the age of AI and location tracking. Plus, Chinese AI models are rapidly gaining ground while American companies battle lawsuits, regulatory crackdowns, and soaring chip shortages. The global race for AI dominance is wide open! US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections Musk's X poses "serious risk to Americans' privacy," advocates warn FTC The World Cup added $1 billion in security systems. What happens after the games end? U.S. Lifts Restrictions on Anthropic's Most Powerful A.I. Models OpenAI floats giving Trump administration 5 percent cut of AI boom Cloudflare to block cynical search-and-scrape bots from ad-supported web pages Companies Are Throttling Employees' AI Use Because It's Too Expensive Chinese A.I. Models Gain Ground on Anthropic and OpenAI Swedish court orders Google to pay $1.5 billion to Klarna in antitrust damages Google loses final appeal over $4.7 billion EU Android antitrust fine Google warns EU's plans to weaken its monopoly could expose user data Google's AI buildout drove 37% increase in electricity use in 2025 America Is Having MacBook Sticker Shock Apple may struggle to get clearance for Chinese RAM, even for Chinese iPhones BYD Sells the Most Battery Electric Cars Again NASA mission to rescue the falling Swift observatory has launched NASA inspector general suggests Boeing's Starliner will now be a decade late South Korea to spend $1T on more memory chip production and humanoid robots Spotify deletes streams of chart-topping song after suspicious Kalshi bets Prediction Markets Let You Bet on Whether a Wildfire Will Burn Down Your Town Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Jason Hiner, Lisa Schmeiser, and Owen JJ Stone Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: blackhat.com/us-26 and use code TWIT canary.tools/twit - use code: TWIT zscaler.com/security box.com/AI helixsleep.com/twit expressvpn.com/twit
This was upside down week in AI news.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
