Podcasts about usage

The central structural shift addressed is the fracture of the longstanding per-user, per-month MSP pricing model due to AI-enabled consumption-based (tokenized) billing, which introduces variable costs previously absent from MSP contracts. This shift is being reinforced by vendor strategies from firms such as Microsoft, Atera, ConnectWise, N-able, and Pax8, each proposing different mechanisms for channel partners to integrate and manage AI costs and capabilities. Recent research from Omnia, highlighted by Jessica Davis, underscores the pace and fragmentation of this evolution, creating new exposure for MSPs to vendor-driven pricing and value capture. Data from an Omnia poll of 255 MSPs found 40% are maintaining traditional per-user pricing, while 60% are reevaluating or transitioning toward hybrid, outcome-based, or true consumption models. Business of Tech research shows that two-thirds of MSPs have not referenced AI at all in their customer-facing positioning, and those that do overwhelmingly reference Microsoft as their AI provider. According to Jessica Davis, much of the 40% maintaining legacy pricing may not be doing so out of clear strategy or discipline, but because they have yet to encounter the practical or financial impacts of AI usage patterns. Secondary developments discussed include vendor-driven channel consolidation in the form of proprietary control planes: Kaseya, ConnectWise, N-able, and Pax8 are all positioning their platforms as the central operational layer for AI services, but with divergent models—ranging from bundled internal use to open orchestration. Dave Sobel and Jessica Davis note that this fragmentation and experimentation by vendors creates substantial complexity for MSPs, who face real risk of shifting from managed service models to a lower-margin reseller role, particularly as vendors seek to capture value through consumption pricing. Additionally, the rapid pace of AI tool development is enabling some MSPs, particularly advanced or less-regulated firms, to bypass vendors and build custom integrations or internal automations. For operators, the practical implications are increased operational risk and pricing uncertainty, coupled with the challenge of balancing internal efficiency gains against eventual client demand for AI-driven services. Vendor dependency is deepening as MSPs must choose whether to commit to a control plane and cede elements of value and data custody, or attempt to differentiate through custom service layers. The most immediate risk is margin compression from ill-managed or misaligned pricing models—a threat compounded if MSPs fail to map their AI cost and value flows. According to Jessica Davis, MSPs who closely monitor their actual AI-related costs and value delivered, rather than reacting prematurely or simply holding the line, will be better positioned to adapt to ongoing changes in both technology and vendor strategy.   Supported by: Pax8Guardz

Today we are talking about Drupito, its Business model, and Marketplaces with guest Ashraf Abed. We'll also cover Generate (Social Media) Image as our module of the week. For show notes visit: https://www.talkingDrupal.com/563 Topics Meet Drupalito and the Mission Platform Layers and Roadmap Pricing and New Markets Marketplace Success Stories Exportability and Vendor Lock In Growing the Drupal Ecosystem Derivatives and Recurring Revenue Rebuilding on Drupedo Funding Drupal Association Global Community Check In Migrating Sites to Drupedo Marketplace Vision Shift Maintenance and Incentives Safe Updates Blue Green Testing Mindset for Templates Official Marketplace Collaboration Agency Revenue and Partnerships Niche Derivatives and Pricing Launch Plans and Vetting Resources Code that ships Hosts Nic Laflin - nLighteneddevelopment.com nicxvan John Picozzi - epam.com johnpicozzi Ashraf Abed - drupito.com ashrafabed Avi Schwab - froboy.org froboy MOTW Correspondent Avi Schwab - froboy.org froboy Brief description: Have you ever wanted Drupal to generate dynamic social media images using tokenized node data, similar to the share images on GitHub repos or Reddit threads? There's a module for that Module name/project name: Generate (Social Media) Image Brief history How old: Created by tfranz of Germany on 22 April 2022 Versions available: 1.x-dev, 2.0.0-beta2, published a few weeks ago by our own Martin Anderson-Clutz Maintainership Minimally (although now slightly more actively) maintained No Security coverage (yet) Passing GitLab CI tests Well fleshed out README for docs Number of open issues: 8 open issues, 0 of which are bugs against the current branch, but there are lots of feature requests Usage stats: 1 site reports using this module Module features and usage GSMI requires an image style that uses a "Text Overlay" effect — this comes from the Image Effects module and lets you burn tokenized (or static) text onto an image. Normally, when Drupal generates an image style derivative, there's no entity in scope — it's just processing a file — so a token like [node:title] would resolve to nothing. GSMI's real contribution is the glue: when it builds a derivative for a specific node, it swaps in the node-resolved text before generating the image. That's what makes entity-aware tokens work inside an effect that otherwise only sees global tokens. Once the image style exists, GSMI's settings form lets you pick a source image field on the node — an image field or a media-reference field — plus a fallback image for when that's empty. From there it generates the styled derivative from that source image, for any node of any content type that has the field. Finally, GSMI exposes its own token — [node:generate-style], with optional style/field overrides — so you're not locked into the one global style/field pair configured in the settings form. I used that to drop the generated image into Metatag's og_image field for the Session content type on the MidCamp site, getting us dynamically generated session images.. A couple of gotchas we hit setting this up: Text Overlay's layout options have some bugs, and not filling out all of the options will result in an image library error. The bigger one: GSMI names the generated derivative file after the source image's filename — extension included — not after whatever format the image style actually outputs. If you try to convert an image to WebP you might get a WebP image with a JPG extension. BUUUUT - LinkedIn still doesn't support WebP (at least as per their documentation, so it's still in 2026 not safe to use WebP for a universal og:image. https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/a521928

Hour 1: Chris and Donny are live at Casino Pittsburgh today! Why was Carmen Mlodzinski used in the Pirates' loss yesterday? Chris reveals he is the president of his HOA. And Jason Mackey joins the show to preview the Pirates' next moves before the deadline.

Ryan Ripken is thrilled with the Orioles late inning heroics yesterday and even more excited about what Jackson Holliday did to contribute to that win.

durée : 00:16:49 Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

The Middle East conflict has entered a new phase, but where could it go from here and what would it mean for the global economy? Host Mandy Drury speaks with CommBank Senior Geo-Economics Analyst Dr Madison Cartwright about why the Memorandum of Understanding collapsed, the three most likely paths for the conflict and why a diplomatic solution may become more likely over the coming months. Mandy also speaks with CommBank Head of Commodities and Sustainable Economics Vivek Dhar about how markets are assessing the conflict, the outlook for oil prices and what higher energy costs could mean for Australian households, businesses and inflation. Plus, CommBank Senior Associate, Market Strategy and Rates Research Michael Tang shares the key focuses for markets in the week ahead. Important Information This podcast is approved and distributed by Global Economic & Markets Research (“GEMR”), a business division of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia ABN 48 123 123 124 AFSL 234945 (“the Bank”). Before listening to this podcast, you are advised to read the full GEMR disclaimers, which can be found at www.commbankresearch.com.au. No Reliance This podcast is not investment research and nor does it purport to make any recommendations. Rather, this podcast is for informational purposes only and is not to be relied upon for any investment purposes. This podcast does not take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. It is not to be construed as a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or other financial products, or as a recommendation, and/or investment advice. You should not act on the information in this podcast. The Bank believes that the information in this podcast is correct and any opinions, conclusions or recommendations made are reasonably held at the time given, and are based on the information available at the time of its compilation. No representation or warranty, either expressed or implied, is made or provided as to accuracy, reliability or completeness of any statement made. Liability Disclaimer The Bank does not accept any liability for any loss or damage arising out of any error or omission in or from the information provided or arising out of the use of all or part of the podcast. Usage of Artificial Intelligence To enhance efficiency, GEMR may use the Bank approved artificial intelligence (AI) tools to assist in preparing content for this podcast. These tools are used solely for drafting and structuring purposes and do not replace human judgment or oversight. All final content is reviewed and approved by GEMR analysts for accuracy and independence.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Join Dennis Voznesenski, Director, Sustainable and Agricultural Economist at Commonwealth Bank, for this week's Agri Commodity Update — where Black Sea disruption, oil-markets and global beef trade collide with Australian farmgate prices. This week, Dennis unpacks why wheat prices swung sharply as Russia-Ukraine attacks disrupted Black Sea export logistics, why Australian APW1 prices rose despite offshore futures finishing lower, and how patchy rainfall is changing local crop prospects. He also breaks down canola's pull between weaker oilseed and crude markets, Canadian crop risk and expanded crushing capacity, before turning to cattle markets where US beef demand and continued market access remain supportive, but limited inland rain, higher feedgrain costs, rising yardings and South Korea's safeguard tariff are limiting upside.   Disclaimer:    Important Information   This podcast is approved and distributed by Global Economic & Markets Research (“GEMR”), a business division of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia ABN 48 123 123 124 AFSL 234945 (“the Bank”).  Before listening to this podcast, you are advised to read the full GEMR disclaimers, which can be found at www.commbankresearch.com.au.   No Reliance  This podcast is not investment research and nor does it purport to make any recommendations. Rather, this podcast is for informational purposes only and is not to be relied upon for any investment purposes.  This podcast does not take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. It is not to be construed as a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or other financial products, or as a recommendation, and/or investment advice. You should not act on the information in this podcast.   The Bank believes that the information in this podcast is correct and any opinions, conclusions or recommendations made are reasonably held at the time given, and are based on the information available at the time of its compilation. No representation or warranty, either expressed or implied, is made or provided as to accuracy, reliability or completeness of any statement made.  Liability Disclaimer  The Bank does not accept any liability for any loss or damage arising out of any error or omission in or from the information provided or arising out of the use of all or part of the podcast.   Usage of Artificial Intelligence  To enhance efficiency, GEMR may use the Bank approved artificial intelligence (AI) tools to assist in preparing content for this podcast. These tools are used solely for drafting and structuring purposes and do not replace human judgment or oversight. All final content is reviewed and approved by GEMR analysts for accuracy and independence. 

The Detroit Lions must phase out three-linebacker defense and scrap the 3-3 in 2026. They played 657 of 1,050 defensive snaps in 4-3 last season, 62.57 percent, and used the 3-3 front 243 times, far more than any other team. The defense improves when Detroit lives in nickel and dime with more speed on the field. Should the Detroit Lions ditch three-linebacker packages in 2026? Yes. They leaned on three linebackers far more than the rest of the NFL, and it invited speed mismatches against modern offenses in 11 personnel. As Jeff Risdon noted, the Lions were in 4-3 on 657 of 1,050 defensive snaps, 62.57 percent, with only one other team above 50 percent at 52.88. Playing bigger and slower on passing downs made the second level late to space and created exploitable coverage targets. Risdon also said the quarterback rating allowed was almost the same whether Detroit had three linebackers on the field or not, which must change with a truer nickel and dime identity. What fronts should replace the 4-3 and 3-3 for Detroit? Detroit needs a heavier dose of 4-2 nickel, selective 5-1, and DB-heavy 3-2-6. Last year's baselines set the bar for improvement, not repetition. Usage facts that demand a shift As read by Risdon from Ryan Paganetti's study: the Lions used a 4-2 front only 111 times, last in the league. They used 5-1 zero times. They led the NFL in 3-3 with 243 snaps, while the next team was at 131, another at 31, and 17 teams did not use it once. Those numbers underline how far Detroit drifted from the league's nickel norms. Moving to 4-2 and sprinkling in 5-1 and 3-2-6 puts more speed and coverage on the field and better matches today's route distributions. Why did Detroit lean so hard into three linebackers last year? Injuries in the secondary and strong linebacker play pushed them there. Detroit Lions linebacker Jack Campbell, Detroit Lions linebacker Alex Anzalone, and Detroit Lions linebacker Derrick Barnes tackled well, and as Risdon emphasized, Detroit had the best missed tackle rate in football based on the data he cited. But even with quality play, a third off-ball linebacker versus spread looks concedes quickness. Think of how Detroit Lions quarterback Jared Goff shreds heavy linebacker looks with routes that stress the hook-curl and seams. Opponents did the same to Detroit when the Lions stayed big. Better health for Detroit Lions safety Kirby Joseph and Detroit Lions safety Brian Branch, plus a deeper secondary, should free the defense to keep an extra defensive back on the field. Will coaching changes accelerate the shift? Yes. Dan Campbell can reallocate more time to the defense because the offensive room is stronger, and that helps Detroit Lions defensive coordinator Kelvin Sheppard refine personnel usage. As Jeff Risdon said, Sheppard must earn it by choosing fronts that keep speed on the field and by reserving three-linebacker looks for true run situations, not as a default. Expect to see more four- and five-man fronts paired with nickel in camp. Watch how often Detroit keeps two off-ball linebackers on the field, how Detroit Lions edge rusher Aidan Hutchinson is deployed, and how Detroit Lions linebacker Malcolm Rodriguez or rookie depth are used situationally. Against division quarterbacks such as Chicago Bears quarterback Caleb Williams, forcing the mundane snap after snap with nickel bodies is the point. #detroitlions #lions #detroitlionspodcast #jackcampbell #alexanzalone #derrickbarnes #kirbyjoseph #brianbranch #jaredgoff #aidanhutchinson #malcolmrodriguez #calebwilliams #chicagobears #greenbaypackers #arizonacardinals #kansascitychiefs #dancampbell #kelvinsheppard Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Fans want Azzi Fudd to shoot more, but the Dallas Wings and coach Jose Fernandez have a different priority: winning. In this segment from a recent stream of the BLS Podcast, we cut through the social media noise to analyze a month's worth of direct quotes from Coach Jose Fernandez to explain the objective reality of Azzi Fudd's offensive role, why team success always omes before development timelines, and the next tactical step Azzi must take for herself and for the team.FULL EPISODENew Merch AvailableSupport the Content00:00 - The Debate Around Azzi Fudd's Usage02:34 - Coach Jose's Admission: "We Have to Find Her"05:22 - The Reality of WNBA Playcalling & Player Comfort Levels07:07 - Is Azzi a "Three-Level Scorer"? (The Broken Play Reality)14:27 - Fan Expectations vs. Team Success20:31 - The Unexpected Elite Defense of Azzi Fudd22:33 - Azzi Fudd's Next "Evolution"31:53 - Reality Check: Azzi Wasn't Drafted to be a Savior

Today we are talking about Supporting Open Source, Acquia, and The Acquia Fair Trade Initiative with guest James Sims. We'll also cover Image Effects as our module of the week. For show notes visit: https://www.talkingDrupal.com/562 Topics Fair Trade Initiative Explained How the Program Started Why Fair Trade Matters Adoption and Open Framework Agency and Freelancer Benefits Partner Funded Giving Who Can Be Makers Tracking Participation Tax Deduction Questions Community Shaped Program Money Counts Too Early Challenges Timeline And Launch Sustainability Built In How To Get Involved Defining Success Origins Of Fair Trade Resources Acquia Fair Trade Initiative Taste of chicago Giordanos Lou's pizza Five For The Future Image Convolution Playground Guests James Sims - rcjmselp85 Hosts Nic Laflin - nLighteneddevelopment.com nicxvan John Picozzi - epam.com johnpicozzi Avi Schwab - froboy.org froboy MOTW Correspondent Avi Schwab - froboy.org froboy Brief description: Have you ever gone to edit an image style in Drupal, looked at the list of filters, and said "give me more! I want more!". Have you said "I'd like to mirror, filter, and convolute an image in Drupal - all at the same time". If so, you're in luck. Let me introduce you to our module of the week: Module name/project name: Image Effects Brief history How old: Created by Drupal user mondrake of Italy on 17 September 2015. It's also the successor to the ImageCache Actions module, which was created all the way back in 2008. Versions available: It has a 4.0.0 version available with Drupal 10 and 11 support, and a 5.0.0 version for Drupal 11.3 and above. Maintainership Actively maintained Security coverage Test coverage Documentation It has a full README with details about the available image styles and whether they are supported by the GD or ImageMagick PHP libraries. Number of open issues: 35 open issues, 3 of which are bugs against the current branch. (The current branch has only been out a few months, and many of the open issues against prior branches seem to still be relevant.) Usage stats: 35,196 sites report using this module, with most still on the 3.x or 4.x branches. (its predecessor, ImageCache Actions, still has over 25,000 active installs) Module features and usage The module is pulled in just like any other, with composer require and then enable via drush or the UI. Once it's installed there is a very basic settings page, but most folks won't use much on there. The power of Image Effects comes when you go to Config > Media > Image Styles and then edit an Image Style. Once Image Effects is enabled, you'll see over two dozen additional effects in the list. These effects range from simple to complex. Interestingly, many of the effects that were so amazing 15 years ago are now doable with CSS. Still, there are some incredibly powerful filters. Side note: I'd strongly recommend Aubrey Sambor's recent talk from Drupal Camp Asheville, "You Don't Need JS for That", and her prior talk "Color in CSS" to learn a ton of things you didn't know about CSS effects. The basics like Color Shift, Contrast, Mirror, Rotate, and more are there if you'd like to do these natively. More advanced filters like Sharpen, Blur, and Convolute let you make more complex modifications to images. "Convolution" is the process of applying n-dimensional matrixes to images to create effects such as blurring, sharpening, and edge detection. Try it out on https://anna.engineering/Image-Convolution-Playground/src/ Lastly, you can create advanced image styles with ImageMagick arguments, create Text overlays using the power of Drupal tokens, or even develop your own Image Effects guided by the incredibly detailed DEVELOPING.md file included with the module.

Analysis of Dalton Kincaid's ranking as a top NFL tight end leads to a discussion on his recurring injury history and offensive usage. They also examine the coaching relationship between Joe Brady and Josh Allen while reflecting on Brandin Cooks' recent comments about the team's direction. 01:01 - Brandin Cooks on Joe Brady 01:49 - Dalton Kincaid's PFF Ranking 07:12 - Kincaid's Recurring Injury Concerns 13:42 - Allen and Brady's Relationship

Join Dennis Voznesenski, Director, Sustainable and Agricultural Economist at Commonwealth Bank, for this week's Agri Commodity Update — where Black Sea disruption, oil-markets and the Middle East collide with Australian farmgate prices. This week, Dennis unpacks why wheat prices rallied sharply as Russia-Ukraine attacks disrupted Black Sea export logistics, why Australian APW1 prices rose but lagged offshore futures, and how WA rainfall is changing local crop prospects. He also breaks down canola's lift from crude oil, soybean oil, European crop downgrades and improved Chinese import access, before turning to cattle markets where rainfall and US beef demand remain supportive, but higher feedgrain costs, larger yardings and Brazilian beef competition are limiting upside.   Disclaimer:    Important Information   This podcast is approved and distributed by Global Economic & Markets Research (“GEMR”), a business division of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia ABN 48 123 123 124 AFSL 234945 (“the Bank”).  Before listening to this podcast, you are advised to read the full GEMR disclaimers, which can be found at www.commbankresearch.com.au.   No Reliance  This podcast is not investment research and nor does it purport to make any recommendations. Rather, this podcast is for informational purposes only and is not to be relied upon for any investment purposes.  This podcast does not take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. It is not to be construed as a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or other financial products, or as a recommendation, and/or investment advice. You should not act on the information in this podcast.   The Bank believes that the information in this podcast is correct and any opinions, conclusions or recommendations made are reasonably held at the time given, and are based on the information available at the time of its compilation. No representation or warranty, either expressed or implied, is made or provided as to accuracy, reliability or completeness of any statement made.  Liability Disclaimer  The Bank does not accept any liability for any loss or damage arising out of any error or omission in or from the information provided or arising out of the use of all or part of the podcast.   Usage of Artificial Intelligence  To enhance efficiency, GEMR may use the Bank approved artificial intelligence (AI) tools to assist in preparing content for this podcast. These tools are used solely for drafting and structuring purposes and do not replace human judgment or oversight. All final content is reviewed and approved by GEMR analysts for accuracy and independence.     

What does it really take for an independent insurance agency to survive the next 24 months?In this episode of Transcend with M, I sit down with Jason Cass, founder of Agency Intelligence, CEO of Virtual Intelligence, and the force behind IndieTech, to talk about the shift that is quietly rewriting how agencies operate.Jason breaks down the number one stress inside every agency: work getting routed to the wrong person. We get into his new routing engine, why he believes margins can move from 25% to 70%, and how licensed staff, unlicensed VEs, and agentic bots are about to work side by side.We also get into:→ Why AI will not eliminate agents, but agents who use AI will eliminate those who do not→ The real reason legacy agencies struggle to adopt new tools→ What the labor shortage means for the next decade of insurance→ Why the biggest AMS companies should be the most nervous→ Usage based pricing and the end of per seat costs→ What is coming at IndieTech and why he built it as neutral ground for agentsThis one is honest, fast, and full of ideas you can act on. If you lead an agency, work inside one, or build the technology that powers them, this conversation is for you.Connect with Jason Cass: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasondcass/Learn more about IndieTech: https://www.linkedin.com/company/indietech-showcase-experience/Follow Transcend with M for more conversations with the people shaping the future of insurance and leadership.Listen on Spotify:Watch more episodes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBXyfVCDV8c&list=PLVLexvMhvFH-X1LnYN5F-fGWbwW5e5TDI#TranscendWithM #Season3 #Insurance #InsurTech #AI #WomenInInsurance #WomenLeaders #PersonalBrand #Leadership #Podcast #AgencyGrowth #IndieTech

Isabel is back around the Pink Desk!

Craig and Zach talk with Bobby Valentine about the New York Mets' reliance on AI for pitch calling and the team's current organizational struggles. Bobby reflects on the profound emotional impact of Mike Piazza's iconic 2001 home run and evaluates the possibility of Alex Rodriguez becoming a big-league manager. They also celebrate producer Pete Hoffman's 44th birthday with cupcakes and take listener calls about the Yankees' playoff outlook. 01:20 - Bobby Valentine Joins 04:53 - AI Pitch Calling Discussion 08:45 - Managing Large Player Egos 13:45 - Mets Managerial Search 16:45 - Piazza's Emotional Home Run 22:00 - Bobby Valentine's Career Update 27:20 - A-Rod Manager Potential 31:24 - Birthday Cupcake Celebration 35:18 - Yankees Without Aaron Judge 40:36 - Tiger Woods Interaction

I had a request from a customer recently who asked if we could give them a report of their database server instances and include CPU usage. This request was filtered through an account executive, so something was lost in translation, but I was confused and asked for clarification, as asking for CPU usage is kind of like asking how fast you were traveling in your car. There needs to be more context. If someone asked you for a report of CPU usage for a database, what would you expect? How would you report this? I'm sure the person asking might make a difference. A fellow DBA, your DBA manager, or maybe an executive could all view this differently. I want to know how things are performing, if there is a trend, or maybe if we are getting value for the hardware we've provisioned, depending on my role. Read the rest of What is CPU Usage?

Bun quitte Zig pour Rust en 11 jours à coups de Claude Code, pour 165 000$ payés par Anthropic : la réaction du créateur de Zig ne se fait pas attendre. TypeScript 7 débarque, réécrit en Go, 8 à 12x plus rapide. Entre les deux, Vidocq réimplémente Jakarta EE en souverain, le COBOL met un uppercut aux microservices, et un CTO demande à son équipe combien de temps il lui faudrait pour revenir à sa vélocité antérieure sans Claude Code. De quoi réfléchir avant le prochain rewrite. Enregistré le 17 juillet 2026 Téléchargement de l'épisode LesCastCodeurs-Episode-342.mp3 ou en vidéo sur YouTube. News Langages Est-ce qu'on peut aussi utiliser des double, des longs, ou autre pour gérer les montants monétaires en Java ? https://blog.frankel.ch/bigdecimal-vs-double/ double (IEEE 754) Usage : Calculs scientifiques, métriques, statistiques. Avantages : Très performant (matériel), idéal pour l'approximatif. Risques : Erreurs d'accumulation, égalité (==) trompeuse, NaN / -0.0. Bonnes pratiques : Utiliser une tolérance (epsilon ou ULP) pour comparer ; utiliser des algorithmes de sommation compensée (Kahan/Neumaier) pour la précision. BigDecimal Usage : Finance, comptabilité, fiscalité (précision décimale stricte). Avantages : Contrôle total des arrondis et de l'échelle. Risques : Lent (allocations), immutabilité (risque de mauvaise réaffectation), confusion equals() vs compareTo(). Bonnes pratiques : Initialiser via String ou valueOf() ; utiliser compareTo pour l'égalité. Point fixe (long) Usage : Trading, systèmes haute performance, paiements. Avantages : Très rapide, déterministe, zéro allocation. Risques : Gestion manuelle de l'échelle et des débordements (Math.addExact). Points de vigilance en production Sérialisation (JSON) : Préférer les String pour BigDecimal pour éviter la perte d'échelle. Atomicité : double n'est pas atomique ; utiliser volatile ou DoubleAdder (pour les compteurs). Tests : Toujours définir un delta ou Offset pour les tests de flottants. Bibliothèques recommandées Moneta (JSR 354) : Standard bancaire complet. decimal4j : Optimisé pour le point fixe haute performance. Apache Commons Numbers : Outils robustes pour la précision et les sommations. Typescript 7 est de sortie devblogs.microsoft.com/typescript/announcing-typescript-7-0 Performance majeure : Portage natif en Go offrant des gains de vitesse de 8x à 12x et une consommation mémoire réduite. Architecture optimisée : Utilisation du multithreading (mémoire partagée) et parallélisation native (analyse, vérification de types,émission). Nouvelles options de contrôle : Introduction des flags –checkers, –builders (parallélisation) et –singleThreaded (mode mono-cœur). Nouvel observateur de fichiers : Passage à une solution basée sur @parcel/watcher pour une meilleure réactivité et stabilité du mode –watch. Compatibilité et transition : Compatible avec les bases de code TypeScript 6.0. Utilisation du package @typescript/typescript6 recommandée pour maintenir des outils dépendants de l'ancienne API. Changements de configuration : Durcissement des défauts (ex: strict activé par défaut) et suppression de nombreuses options obsolètes (target: es5, baseUrl, etc.). Amélioration de l'expérience éditeur : Serveur de langage (LSP) plus stable avec une réduction de 80 % des erreurs et 60 % des crashs. Limitations actuelles : Support incomplet pour les frameworks utilisant des plugins de langage (Vue, Svelte, Astro, Angular) en attendant une API stable. "Java, the documentary" est sur YouTube, retraçant l'histoire du langage youtube.com/watch?v=… La vidéo n'était pas encore disponible à l'heure de l'enregistrement. Sortie officielle le 17 juillet. Avec des interviews de James Gosling, Brian Goetz, Venkat Subramaniam, et bien d'autres. Librairies What's New in 8.0 - Hibernate docs.hibernate.org/orm/8.0/whats-new L'intégration de Jakarta Persistence 4.0 apporte des nouveautés majeures comme EntityAgent (qui standardise la StatelessSession), les mappings de result set en SQL natif, et de nouvelles options de configuration de session et de requêtes (Session Creation Options, Query Options). Le support de Jakarta Data 1.1 est ajouté pour les Hibernate Data Repositories, incluant l'intégration avec les requêtes statiques JPA4, les projections @Select, et les repositories asynchrones via Jakarta Concurrency ou Hibernate Reactive. L'introduction du Graph-based Flushing remplace l'ancienne approche basée sur des heuristiques par un modèle de dépendances utilisant les contraintes relationnelles, afin d'améliorer la fiabilité des tris, la gestion des batchs et les performances globales (bien que l'ancienne méthode reste temporairement disponible). L'API ProcedureCall a été améliorée pour faciliter le casting des résultats (asResultSetOutput) et permettre la déclaration paresseuse (lazy) du mapping des ResultSet. Hibernate supporte désormais la sécurité au niveau de la ligne (Row-Level Security) de manière native pour les bases de données compatibles (PostgreSQL, Db2, SQL Server, CockroachDB) afin de gérer la visibilité en contexte multi-tenant. Une nouvelle méthode getReference() permet dorénavant de récupérer la référence d'une entité directement à partir de son natural id. Le mode Safe Mode Validator (hibernate.query.safe_mode_enabled=true) fait son apparition pour bloquer les opérations risquées comme sql(), function() ou column() dans les requêtes HQL et Criteria, ce qui est particulièrement utile pour les applications exposées aux LLMs. La gestion des associations bidirectionnelles lors de la phase de flush peut maintenant être prise en charge automatiquement par Hibernate (hibernate.bidirectionality_management=true), synchronisant la référence côté inverse de l'association. Le Subselect Fetching est considérablement amélioré, supportant dorénavant les associations "to-one" pour le bulk select fetching (au lieu de se limiter aux collections) et devenant une option de premier ordre via FetchMethod.BY_SUBQUERY. Un des papas de Cucumber et Gherkin lance Var, une alternative pour le test et le BDD var.oselvar.com Lancement de Vár : Nouvel outil de test créé pour pallier les défauts de Cucumber. Limites de Cucumber : Syntaxe Gherkin trop rigide, intégration difficile avec les exécuteurs de tests et support éditeur limité. Usage avec l'IA : Conçu spécifiquement pour vérifier que les agents IA respectent les intentions et spécifications de l'utilisateur. Fonctionnement : Utilisation du Markdown plutôt que du Gherkin ; sert à la fois de guide et d'outil de vérification. Développement assisté : Code et documentation générés en grande partie par Claude sous supervision humaine. Appel aux retours : Projet ouvert aux tests et aux critiques de la communauté. Web Une nouvelle méthode HTTP : QUERY https://kreya.app/blog/new-http-query-method-explained/ Méthode HTTP QUERY (RFC 10008) pour les recherches complexes. Problème : GET (limité par l'URL) vs POST (sémantique inadaptée). Avantages : Permet un corps de requête, sûr, idempotent et cacheable. Limites : Support infrastructurel faible, non partageable par lien, cache complexe. Usage : À réserver aux requêtes complexes si l'environnement le permet. Comment je fais du design en tant que dev backend eventuallycoding.com/p/comment-je-fais-du-design-en-tant-que-dev-backend Hugo Lassiège retrace l'évolution de son workflow de création d'interfaces en tant que développeur backend, depuis ses débuts avec Bootstrap jusqu'à l'ère de l'intelligence artificielle. L'article explique comment la structuration des éléments visuels a progressé grâce à l'Atomic Design, l'émergence des design systems et l'adoption des design tokens via un framework comme Tailwind. L'auteur détaille son processus actuel qui s'appuie fortement sur Claude Design pour générer et itérer sur des maquettes à partir d'un brief, d'un screenshot ou d'un design system de référence. Il aborde également le risque de slopification et de standardisation extrême apporté par ces outils, rappelant que si l'IA simplifie la technique, il reste crucial d'injecter de l'identité et de l'originalité pour éviter un web trop aseptisé. Data et Intelligence Artificielle De l'utilisation de SKILL.md et de "loop engineering" pour augmenter sa productivité glaforge.dev/posts/…/of-skills-and-loops-with-ai-assistance Les skills permettent d'encoder une procédure de manière répétable et automatisable Le loop engineering enlève l'humain de la boucle afin que l'agent atteigne un objectif donné de façon plus autonome Pour écrire des Codelabs (sorte de tutoriel guidé pas à pas) Guillaume a transformé une séance de création de codelab avec son agent préféré (Antigravity) en skill réutilisable pour l'écriture de ses prochains codelabs Il a également utilisé l'approche de "loop engineering" à la mode en ce moment pour que son agent IA compile, exécute, teste les instructions et le code de son codelab, pour qu'il soit complètement fonctionnel Gain estimé : passer de 2 jours de travail à moins de 2 heures ! Redeploying Claude Fable 5 anthropic.com/news/redeploying-fable-5 Anthropic a annoncé le rétablissement de l'accès à ses modèles Claude Fable 5 et Mythos 5, qui avaient été suspendus suite à des restrictions d'exportation imposées par le gouvernement américain le 12 juin 2026. Cette suspension faisait suite à un rapport d'Amazon démontrant une méthode pour contourner les garde-fous de Fable 5, lui permettant d'identifier et d'exploiter une vulnérabilité logicielle (un jailbreak). Pour y remédier, Anthropic a renforcé ses mécanismes de sécurité en déployant un nouveau classifieur capable de bloquer cette technique spécifique dans plus de 99 % des cas, acceptant en contrepartie une augmentation des faux positifs sur des requêtes bénignes. Face à l'absence de consensus sur l'évaluation des jailbreaks, Anthropic s'associe à Amazon, Microsoft, Google et d'autres partenaires pour développer un standard industriel évaluant la sévérité de ces failles selon quatre critères : gain de capacité, étendue du gain, facilité d'arsenalisation et découvrabilité. L'entreprise s'engage également à approfondir sa collaboration avec le gouvernement américain, notamment via des évaluations pré-déploiement, un partage rapide d'informations sur les failles, et des ressources dédiées à la recherche conjointe sur la sécurité de l'IA. Outillage La réécriture de Bun en Rust et la réaction du créateur de Zig bun.com/blog/bun-in-rust et andrewkelley.me/post/my-thoughts-bun-rust-rewrite.html Bun, le runtime JavaScript et TypeScript écrit à l'origine en Zig, a été entièrement réécrit en Rust pour des raisons de stabilité et de gestion de la mémoire. Cette migration massive d'un demi-million de lignes de code a été bouclée en seulement 11 jours grâce à l'utilisation intensive de Claude Code fonctionnant en parallèle, pour un coût d'API estimé à 165 000 dollars financé par Anthropic. Andrew Kelley, le créateur de Zig, a réagi publiquement en qualifiant l'ancienne base de code de Bun de "slop" remplie de hacks et de fuites mémoire accumulées par une course aux fonctionnalités. Kelley exprime son soulagement face à ce départ, expliquant que les plantages incessants de Bun devenaient un passif réputationnel toxique pour le langage Zig et sa fondation. Le rachat de Bun par Anthropic fin 2025 avait déjà mis fin aux donations financières de Bun envers la Zig Software Foundation, facilitant cette séparation. La nouvelle version Rust de Bun passe désormais la quasi-totalité des tests, réduit la taille du binaire et est déjà déployée de manière transparente en production dans Claude Code. Nouveautés de Git 2.55 github.blog/open-source/git/highlights-from-git-2-55 Support natif de FSMonitor sous Linux via inotify pour accélérer les commandes comme git status sur les grands dépôts Intégration de la compaction incrémentale MIDX (multi-pack index) dans git repack pour optimiser la réécriture des métadonnées Amélioration drastique des performances de génération des bitmaps et des pseudo-merge bitmaps lors des tâches de maintenance Nouvelle commande expérimentale git history fixup pour intégrer facilement des modifications locales dans un commit antérieur Possibilité d'exécuter des hooks configurés en parallèle pour optimiser le temps de build et de validation Utilisation d'un autostash automatique lors d'un git checkout -m en cas de conflit de fusion pour éviter de bloquer l'espace de travail Nouvelle commande git format-rev permettant de formater rapidement des commits reçus via l'entrée standard (stdin) Support du push simultané vers un groupe de remotes configuré Protection contre l'exécution de séquences de contrôle de terminal malveillantes via les flux de progression distants Vidocq, une réimplémentation souveraine et sans dépendance de Jakarta EE et Microprofile vidocq.dev/posts/vidocq-a-sovereign-jakarta-ee-and-microprofile-runtime Lancement de Vidocq : Runtime Java open source complet, compatible Jakarta EE Core Profile et Souveraineté numérique : Projet européen hébergé sur Codeberg, sous licences EUPL 1.2, EPL 2 et GPL 2.0. Standardisation totale : Implémentation fidèle des spécifications (CDI, REST, JSON, etc.), validée par 5 650 tests TCK officiels. Sécurité radicale : Zéro dépendance externe et aucune bibliothèque tierce. Aucune manipulation de bytecode à l'exécution (« magie » générée à la compilation via JDK 25). Compatible JPMS, AOT, GraalVM et Leyden CDS. Disponibilité : Projet en phase alpha, code et documentation accessibles sur vidocq.dev. Article complémentaire qui revient sur la genèse de Vidocq, en utilisant l'IA et les TCKs pour driver l'aspect spec-driven development vidocq.dev/posts/the-story-of-vidocq Le "selfware" : Guillaume s'est fait plais' en vibe-codant son propre éditeur de texte glaforge.dev/posts/…/selfware-building-my-own-text-editor-without-knowing-swift Concept de « Selfware » : création de logiciels conçus exclusivement pour soi-même, sans monétisation ni contraintes liées aux utilisateurs tiers. Le rôle de l'IA : les agents de programmation (comme Antigravity) suppriment la barrière technique de l'apprentissage des langages (Swift, APIs) pour les non-développeurs. Développement minimaliste : privilégier la performance et l'utilité directe (démarrage instantané, interface native) au détriment des fonctionnalités complexes (plugins, télémétrie, gestion de comptes). Absence de pression : libération des contraintes liées à la compatibilité, à la maintenance logicielle et aux retours utilisateurs ; le logiciel n'a besoin d'être « assez bon » que pour ses propres besoins. Incitation à l'autonomie : encourager la création d'outils sur mesure pour résoudre les frictions quotidiennes plutôt que de subir les limitations des logiciels commerciaux. Architecture Le cobol a donné un uppercut au microservices https://freedium-mirror.cfd/@maahisoft20/your-microservices-lost-to-cobol-let-that-sink-in-8ce2e236d007 Retour d'expérience sur la migration d'un système COBOL vers des microservices cloud-native qui s'est soldée par un retour en arrière après avoir constaté que le traitement batch initial était plus rapide, moins cher et plus fiable Là où le batch COBOL traitait 2.4 millions d'enregistrements en 11 minutes, le système distribué modernisé à base de message queues, retries et Kubernetes prenait 47 minutes et tombait sous la charge COBOL brille par ses caractéristiques conçues spécifiquement pour la finance comme le calcul décimal précis sans floating point errors et l'absence totale d'overhead réseau, de conteneurs ou de cold starts Rappel que distribuer un système multiplie les points de défaillance silencieux et complexifie la gestion de la cohérence transactionnelle par rapport à une exécution locale séquentielle Une invitation à se demander si les projets de décomposition en microservices apportent réellement un gain de performance de bout en bout pour l'utilisateur final ou s'ils optimisent seulement le diagramme d'architecture Méthodologies Ma meilleure question d'entretien Spring beaufume.fr/articles/spring-interview Florian beaufumé partage sa question d'entretien favorite pour évaluer des développeurs Spring de niveau intermédiaire à avancé : "Que pouvez-vous me dire sur le paramètre spring.jpa.open-in-view ?". Ce paramètre détermine l'activation du pattern Open Session In View (OSIV) qui, lorsqu'il est à true (la valeur par défaut dans Spring Boot), maintient l'un EntityManager JPA ouvert durant toute la requête HTTP. Si l'OSIV facilite le développement en évitant les fameuses LazyInitializationException lors de la sérialisation des entités en JSON, il pose d'importants problèmes de performance en provoquant des requêtes SQL non maîtrisées (comme le problème du N+1 select) en dehors de la couche service. Maintenir l'OSIV actif augmente également le temps de rétention des connexions au sein du pool de la base de données, limitant la scalabilité de l'application. La recommandation est de désactiver ce comportement en le positionnant à false, et de gérer explicitement le chargement des données requises au sein des transactions (via des DTOs, des requêtes JOIN FETCH ou des Entity Graphs) pour garder le contrôle sur les accès à la base de données. 10 points à retenir du rapport AI Engineering 2026 : The Acceleration Whiplash faros.ai/blog/ai-acceleration-whiplash-takeaways L'IA a franchi un cap et est devenue l'auteur principal du code : le taux d'acceptation du code généré est passé de 20% à 60% dans les équipes étudiées par Faros AI. La vélocité métier est bien réelle, avec une augmentation de 66% des epics livrées et une hausse de 33,7% du throughput des tâches par développeur. Ce volume cache un code churn massif (+861%), ce qui signifie qu'une quantité énorme de code est supprimée ou remplacée peu après avoir été ajoutée. La qualité en aval se dégrade fortement : les bugs par développeur ont augmenté de 54% et le nombre d'incidents par pull request a explosé de 242,7%. Le processus de code review est complètement saturé, entraînant un temps médian de relecture multiplié par cinq et une augmentation de 31,3% des PRs mergées sans aucune revue. Le système repose de plus en plus sur les développeurs seniors qui subissent une "senior engineer tax", devant relire un volume insoutenable de code à l'apparence correcte mais structurellement fragile. Contrairement à certaines hypothèses récentes de DORA, une forte maturité DevOps ne protège pas les entreprises contre cette détérioration ; le "Acceleration Whiplash" frappe de la même manière les équipes très performantes. En résumé, les outils d'IA inondent les pipelines de livraison avec un volume de code pensé pour un rythme machine, alors que les systèmes de vérification reposent toujours sur un rythme de validation humain. Loi, société et organisation Le coût d'une equipe d'engineering qui ne sait plus ce qu'elle fait dans un contexte d'augmentation de coût des coding agents https://freedium-mirror.cfd/@developer_programmer/i-spent-47-000-on-claude-code-in-90-[…]-asked-me-one-question-and-i-couldnt-answer-it-af3b203f81bb Une équipe de 8 ingénieurs a vu sa vélocité de développement exploser en utilisant Claude Code de manière intensive, jusqu'à recevoir une facture d'API salée de 47 213 $ pour seulement trois mois d'utilisation. Face à cette dépense, la question piège du CTO n'était pas sur le montant, mais sur la dépendance : "Si nous arrêtions Claude Code demain, combien de temps faudrait-il pour que notre vélocité revienne à son niveau initial ?". L'auteur s'est rendu compte qu'il était incapable de répondre car son équipe, en particulier les profils juniors, avait commencé à perdre l'habitude de concevoir et d'implémenter des fonctionnalités complexes sans l'aide permanente d'un agent. Le deuxième risque stratégique soulevé est celui de la dépendance tarifaire et du vendor lock-in : si l'outil devient une infrastructure indispensable au quotidien, l'entreprise perd tout pouvoir de négociation face aux augmentations de prix de l'éditeur d'IA. Pour éviter que l'IA ne devienne une béquille qui atrophie les compétences de l'équipe, l'article suggère de poser des limites budgétaires strictes, d'organiser régulièrement des sprints sans IA ("AI-free sprints") et de concevoir des processus de développement portables. Retour de Nicolas Delsaux sur jqwik qui donne une perspective plus complète concernant jqwik, il me semble que vous oubliez (comme tous les gens qui parlent de LLM dans "l'industrie") que l'auteur n'a pas fait ça juste pour faire chier le monde, mais parce que ces outils ont des externalités incroyablement négatives, ce dont l'auteur s'explique dans son blog (blog.johanneslink.net/2026/06/09/the-jqwik-anti-ai-affair) Vous oubliez également de signaler que le ticket (github.com/jqwik-team/jqwik/issues/708) par lequel un utilisateur se plaint de cette fonctionnalité a été écrit par un agent. N'oubliez pas non plus que l'enthousiasme pour ces technologies n'est en fait pas universel, et que ces technologies sont loin d'être inévitables (les gains de vitesse ne sont, d'après circle CI - circleci.com/resources/2026-state-of-software-delivery, pas des gains de productivité ) OkHttp, Okio, Retrofit et SQLDelight rejoignent Commonhaus ! commonhaus.org/activity/315.html La fondation Commonhaus, via une publication de Andres Almiray, annonce l'arrivée de quatre projets majeurs de l'écosystème Java et Kotlin : OkHttp, Okio, Retrofit et SQLDelight. Ces projets, initialement créés chez Square (devenu Block), sont désormais regroupés et gérés sous la bannière lysine.dev au sein de la fondation. Jesse Wilson et Jake Wharton, créateurs et mainteneurs historiques de ces outils, rejoignent Commonhaus en tant que leaders de lysine.dev. Suite à leur départ de Block, ils expliquent avoir choisi Commonhaus pour offrir à leur immense communauté d'utilisateurs un cadre de gouvernance pérenne, stable et digne de confiance. Conférences La liste des conférences provenant de Developers Conferences Agenda/List par Aurélie Vache et contributeurs : 28-30 août 2026 : State of the Map - Champs-sur-Marne (France) 4 septembre 2026 : JUG Summer Camp 2026 - La Rochelle (France) 10-11 septembre 2026 : Nantes Craft - Nantes (France) 17 septembre 2026 : dotAI - Paris (France) 17-18 septembre 2026 : API Platform Conference 2026 - Lille (France) 18 septembre 2026 : WordCamp Bretagne - Rennes (France) 18 septembre 2026 : dotJS - Paris (France) 18 septembre 2026 : WordCamp Bretagne - Rennes (France) 22 septembre 2026 : Salon Data 2026 - Nantes (France) 22-23 septembre 2026 : Agile en Seine & IA 2026 - Paris (France) 24 septembre 2026 : aMP Day Montpellier 2026 - Montpellier (France) 24 septembre 2026 : OWASP AppSec Days France 2026 - Paris (France) 24 septembre 2026 : PlatformCon Paris - Paris (France) 24 septembre 2026 : React Native Connection 2026 - Paris (France) 24-26 septembre 2026 : Paris Web 2026 - Paris (France) 25 septembre 2026 : SAP Inside Track Paris 2026 - Paris (France) 28-29 septembre 2026 : 4th Tech Summit on AI & Robotics - Paris (France) & Online 1 octobre 2026 : WAX 2026 - Marseille (France) 1-2 octobre 2026 : Volcamp - Clermont-Ferrand (France) 2 octobre 2026 : DevFest Perros-Guirec 2026 - Perros-Guirec (France) 5-9 octobre 2026 : Devoxx Belgium - Antwerp (Belgium) 8-9 octobre 2026 : Forum PHP 2026 - Marne-la-Vallée (France) 12 octobre 2026 : Dev With AI - Paris (France) 22-23 octobre 2026 : Agile Tour Bordeaux 2026 - Bordeaux (France) 26 octobre 2026 : Agile Tour Montpellier - Montpellier (France) 27-29 octobre 2026 : Directions EMEA 2026 - Paris (France) 29-30 octobre 2026 : Campus Agile Grenoble - Grenoble (France) 29-30 octobre 2026 : BDX I/O 2026 - Bordeaux (France) 29-30 octobre 2026 : Agile Tour Nantais 2026 - Nantes (France) 29 octobre 2026-1 novembre 2026 : Pycon FR - Biarritz (France) 30 octobre 2026 : Cloud Nord 2026 - Lille (France) 4-5 novembre 2026 : Devoxx Morocco - Casablanca (Morocco) 14-15 novembre 2026 : Capitole du Libre - Toulouse (France) 19 novembre 2026 : DevFest Toulouse 2026 - Toulouse (France) 19 novembre 2026 : Agile Laval 2026 - Laval (France) 19 novembre 2026 : OVHcloud Summit - Paris (France) 19 novembre 2026 : Codeurs en Seine - Rouen (France) 27 novembre 2026 : DevFest Paris 2026 - Paris (France) 1-3 décembre 2026 : Apidays Paris - Paris (France) 2-3 décembre 2026 : Cloud Native AI Summit Europe - Paris (France) 4 décembre 2026 : DevFest Lyon 2026 - Lyon (France) 4 décembre 2026 : DevFest Dijon 2026 - Dijon (France) 9-10 décembre 2026 : OpenSource Expérience - Paris (France) 9-10 décembre 2026 : DevOps REX - Paris (France) 10 décembre 2026 : KCD Provence - Aix-en-Provence (France) 10 décembre 2026 : DevCon 28 : sécurité | post-quantique | hacking édition 2027 - Paris (France) 14-16 janvier 2027 : SnowCamp 2027 - Grenoble (France) 7-9 avril 2027 : Devoxx France 2027 - Paris (France) 3 juin 2027 : Cloud Native Days France 2027 - Paris (France) Nous contacter Pour réagir à cet épisode, venez discuter sur le groupe Google https://groups.google.com/group/lescastcodeurs Contactez-nous via X/twitter https://twitter.com/lescastcodeurs ou Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/lescastcodeurs.com Faire un crowdcast ou une crowdquestion Soutenez Les Cast Codeurs sur Patreon https://www.patreon.com/LesCastCodeurs Tous les épisodes et toutes les infos sur https://lescastcodeurs.com/

Australia is entering a major defence investment cycle, but what will it mean for the economy and which businesses and industries stand to benefit? Host Mandy Drury speaks with CommBank Senior Economist, Business & Industry Ryan Felsman about why the global peace dividend is over, Australia's growing defence investment, the role of AUKUS and the challenges of building Australia's sovereign defence capability. They also explore the opportunities for shipbuilders, engineering firms, technology companies and SMEs, as well as the states likely to receive the greatest economic benefit from increased defence spending. Plus, CommBank Economist and Currency Strategist Samara Hammoud shares the key focuses for markets in the week ahead. Important Information This podcast is approved and distributed by Global Economic & Markets Research (“GEMR”), a business division of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia ABN 48 123 123 124 AFSL 234945 (“the Bank”). Before listening to this podcast, you are advised to read the full GEMR disclaimers, which can be found at www.commbankresearch.com.au. No Reliance This podcast is not investment research and nor does it purport to make any recommendations. Rather, this podcast is for informational purposes only and is not to be relied upon for any investment purposes. This podcast does not take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. It is not to be construed as a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or other financial products, or as a recommendation, and/or investment advice. You should not act on the information in this podcast. The Bank believes that the information in this podcast is correct and any opinions, conclusions or recommendations made are reasonably held at the time given, and are based on the information available at the time of its compilation. No representation or warranty, either expressed or implied, is made or provided as to accuracy, reliability or completeness of any statement made. Liability Disclaimer The Bank does not accept any liability for any loss or damage arising out of any error or omission in or from the information provided or arising out of the use of all or part of the podcast. Usage of Artificial Intelligence To enhance efficiency, GEMR may use the Bank approved artificial intelligence (AI) tools to assist in preparing content for this podcast. These tools are used solely for drafting and structuring purposes and do not replace human judgment or oversight. All final content is reviewed and approved by GEMR analysts for accuracy and independence.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jacob takes a deep dive into remaining bell-cow RBs.

Lin Qiao is the Co-Founder and CEO of Fireworks AI, the leading specialized intelligence and AI inference platform that last week raised $1.5BN at a whopping $17BN valuation. With just 200 people, the company has hit $1BN in ARR and expects to hit $2BN before the end of the year. Prior to Fireworks, Lin spent several years at Meta including on the founding team of PyTorch.  AGENDA: 00:07 — Why Did Fireworks Bet on Inference When Everyone Else Was Chasing Training? 00:13 — Can Open-Source Models Turn AI Infrastructure into a Commodity? 00:19 — Should Enterprises Trust Chinese Open Models With Their Most Sensitive Data? 00:25 — Will Model Progress Keep Moving This Fast—or Are We Nearing a Plateau? 00:28 — Will the Multi-Model World Create a $100BN Routing Layer? 00:37 — How Much Will AI Token Usage Explode Over the Next Two Years? 00:43 — Will Token Costs Fall 10x—and Unleash 100x More Demand? 00:49 — Does Fireworks Eventually Have to Build Its Own Data Centres? 01:02 — What Is the Real Bottleneck Holding Back the AI Economy?  

This week Dennis Voznesenski, CBA's Agricultural Economist, interview's GrainCorp's CEO Robert Spurway about the pathway to creating Sustainable Aviation Fuel and Renewable Diesel in Australia.    You can find a video version of the podcast on LinkedIn here: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7483437809404674048/?commentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A(ugcPost%3A7483434611427934208%2C7483445471546363904)&dashCommentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afsd_comment%3A(7483445471546363904%2Curn%3Ali%3AugcPost%3A7483434611427934208)&dashReplyUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afsd_comment%3A(7484735060278120449%2Curn%3Ali%3AugcPost%3A7483434611427934208)&replyUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A(ugcPost%3A7483434611427934208%2C7484735060278120449)    Disclaimer:  Important Information   This podcast is approved and distributed by Global Economic & Markets Research (“GEMR”), a business division of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia ABN 48 123 123 124 AFSL 234945 (“the Bank”).  Before listening to this podcast, you are advised to read the full GEMR disclaimers, which can be found at www.commbankresearch.com.au.   No Reliance  This podcast is not investment research and nor does it purport to make any recommendations. Rather, this podcast is for informational purposes only and is not to be relied upon for any investment purposes.  This podcast does not take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. It is not to be construed as a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or other financial products, or as a recommendation, and/or investment advice. You should not act on the information in this podcast.   The Bank believes that the information in this podcast is correct and any opinions, conclusions or recommendations made are reasonably held at the time given, and are based on the information available at the time of its compilation. No representation or warranty, either expressed or implied, is made or provided as to accuracy, reliability or completeness of any statement made.  Liability Disclaimer  The Bank does not accept any liability for any loss or damage arising out of any error or omission in or from the information provided or arising out of the use of all or part of the podcast.   Usage of Artificial Intelligence  To enhance efficiency, GEMR may use the Bank approved artificial intelligence (AI) tools to assist in preparing content for this podcast. These tools are used solely for drafting and structuring purposes and do not replace human judgment or oversight. All final content is reviewed and approved by GEMR analysts for accuracy and independence.       

This week's video transcript summary is here. You can click on any bulleted section to see the actual transcript. Thanks to Granola for its software.There was an issue with this only going to paid subscribers, so sending it again. Apologies to those who get it twice. I appreciate being paid so feel free to upgrade if you enjoy TWTW.EditorialIntelligence: Who Owns it?This week the word “AI” feels too small.AI is a technology. Intelligence is its product. And if intelligence is the product, the question is no longer just: Which model is best? Who has the cheapest tokens? Who owns the weights? Who controls the data center? Those are important questions, but they are lower in the stack.The bigger question is simpler and more political:Who owns intelligence?That sounds abstract until you make it concrete. Intelligence is becoming something companies can capture, package, serve, meter, route, improve, and sell.It can write code, answer questions, design molecules, automate offices, run agents, draft legal work, advise scientists, serve consumers, and reshape workflows. It is not merely software. It is a general-purpose capability. And all humans could benefit from more of it.General-purpose capabilities have a habit of becoming public questions. But the default answer, that public good is best delivered by government, is the wrong answer in this context.The Product Is IntelligenceWe should stop talking about AI as a feature and start talking about intelligence as the universal thing that is delivered as an input to the world.Water is an input. Electricity is an input. Literacy is an input. Connectivity is an input. Once a society depends on them, access stops being optional. Nobody needs government to build every well, power plant, school, or network. But everybody understands that a civilization cannot be organized around less than universal and reliable access to foundational inputs.Intelligence is reaching that level of importance now that we all know it is real.Government should not own it, operate it, or develop it. Quite the opposite. Companies are the right actors to build fast, compete hard, improve models, serve customers, and discover the real use cases. Self-interest is a useful framing here. Markets are good at finding demand, reducing costs, and turning invention into services people actually use.Companies are the right operators, developers, and owners. But that does not settle the real question of who owns the benefits. That is an economic question.If intelligence becomes metered infrastructure, what happens to the value it creates?The Ownership StackThis week's articles keep circling the same issue from different directions but in the nature of ‘circling' never quite nail it.Jamin Ball's “Own Your Weights” starts with the enterprise version of the question. Owning a model file is not enough. The durable asset is the loop: the data flywheel, the evaluations, the reinforcement system, the workflow learning, and the operating context that lets capability compound.Benedict Evans' “Ways to Think About Token Pricing” adds the market layer. Tokens may become essential, abundant, and cheap, like mobile data. But being essential does not guarantee that the token layer captures the value. The money may move up the stack to whoever owns the workflow, the customer, the distribution, or the application.Alex Karp's fight with the labs, reported in “Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI”, is the same argument in sharper enterprise language. Companies are afraid that model providers will not just sell intelligence, but learn from customer workflows and then move into the markets where those workflows create value. The “All-in” group are echoing Karp's view.And “What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?” names the new contested terrain. The loop is where intelligence meets the world. Whoever owns the loop owns the learning. Whoever owns the learning owns the compounding asset.That is why “who owns intelligence?” is not a slogan. It is the question under the model layer, the application layer, the enterprise layer, and the economic layer.Because intelligence is the product, the tools creating it are fragmented and competitive. So there is no logic in trying to discuss this at the level of a single company or set of tools and models.The Old Promise Was That Commerce Would Tame PowerThe essays this week give the historical backdrop.Deirdre McCloskey, in “What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution”, argues that modern growth came not simply from capital accumulation, but from a change in permission: ordinary people were allowed to innovate, trade, build, and be honored for it.That matters because intelligence could be another expansion of permission. It could make more people capable of building, learning, creating, coding, researching, translating, selling, and coordinating. It could lower the cost of competence.But only if access is broad.Paul Krugman's “AI in an Age of Oligarchy” warns that the same technology lands differently in different political economies. A new general-purpose technology entering a broad, open, upwardly mobile society is one thing. The same technology entering a concentrated economy, with extreme wealth and weak counterweights, is another.Tim O'Reilly's Economist essay, “Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate”, makes the governance point more directly. The old liberal hope was that commerce would tame arbitrary power. Markets, boards, courts, shareholders, disclosure, and competition would discipline the prince.But what if the prince uses markets to escape discipline?Henry Farrell's “political economy of billionaire derangement” pushes the same point. Founder culture, monopoly ambition, peer rivalry, weak correction mechanisms, and vast private control can amplify appetites rather than restrain them.The danger with intelligence is not that companies build it. They should. Companies build it, meter it, use public tolerance and public infrastructure to scale it, learn from everyone who uses it. All of those things are inevitable and healthy. Market forces will sort out winners from losers. The real danger is that the winners treat all of the surplus produced as purely private.Metered Intelligence Creates SurplusIf metering is not the problem, what is?The problem is pretending that metered intelligence creates value only for the metering entity. Metering water is only tolerated as a public good. If the public were blackmailed by a private water company with the threat of no water we would all rebel.Once we understand that the product of AI is intelligence we can see that every time intelligence is used, there is the immediate transaction: the user pays, the provider serves.But there is also system value. Usage creates signals. Workflows reveal patterns. Prompts, corrections, failures, preferences, integrations, edge cases, and business processes all help define where intelligence is useful and how it should improve. Intelligence breeds intelligence.Even when customer data is contractually protected, the market learns. The platform learns where demand is. The product team learns which workflows matter. The ecosystem learns which jobs are vulnerable, which tasks are automatable, and which parts of the economy can be reorganized around machine intelligence.So the surplus is not born in a vacuum.It rests on public science, public education, public data exhaust, public law, public infrastructure, public energy systems, public tolerance for data centers, and billions of human interactions. It is served by companies, but it is not made only by companies.This is why “Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches” belongs at the center of this week's issue. The detail can be debated. The principle is harder to dismiss. If intelligence becomes a new foundational resource, then some part of the wealth it creates should flow back to the people whose society makes it possible. Intelligence did not suddenly appear. AI is built on the entire history of human intelligence. It benefits from it and at the same time evolves it.Not Nationalization. A Human Wealth Fund.If intelligence belongs to everybody, some conclude that government ownership of intelligence is the right outcome.Governments are not well suited to build, operate, or improve intelligence. They will move too slowly, regulate too early, politicize the wrong things, and confuse economic participation with operational control.Andrew McAfee's “Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter” is useful here. His objection is not that the technology is unimportant. It is that steering too hard before we understand the shape of the change can become its own failure mode. Marc Andreessen's satire of AI regulation is less policy than temperament, but it captures a real Silicon Valley fear: that regulation can become permission, capture, and incumbency before it becomes wisdom.That fear should be taken seriously.But it does not answer the economic question. It answers only the operational one.How can the economic benefits of intelligence be distributed? The better answer is a sovereign human wealth fund.Call it a sovereign wealth fund if you must, but the phrase is too national. Intelligence will not respect borders. The leading companies are global. The models, chips, data centers, agents, platforms, and workflows will be transnational from the beginning. If the value created by intelligence is global, then the mechanism for sharing some of that value should begin with the companies global enough to capture it. The nice thing about xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic is that they are supranational.These companies own and operate intelligence. Let them compete. Let them profit. Let them keep the incentives that make the system improve. But if intelligence is the new water, the wealth it creates cannot belong only to the companies that meter it. And they, themselves, have the power to fix it, even more than governments.Access will become a Human Right; Ownership Is the Economic DesignThis is where human rights come in. There is no right to access an AI model, yet. But there will soon be a need to change that.Not as a claim that every person is entitled to every frontier model at every moment for free. That is not serious. Capacity has costs. Models have costs. Inference has costs. Data centers have costs. Although those costs will decline over time, possibly quite quickly as self-learning models address costs.The claim is more basic: in a world where intelligence becomes a primary input into education, work, health, science, citizenship, creativity, and economic agency, baseline access to intelligence starts to look like a civic requirement.That could mean public access layers. It could mean education credits. It could mean open models. It could mean AI dividends. It could mean public-interest compute. It could mean taxes on rents. It could mean a company-initiated human wealth fund that returns some of the upside to society without handing the operating system to the state. The latter could couple wealth growth with universal distribution of ownership.The exact mechanism matters. But the distinction matters more.Government should not own intelligence. It should be universally available. And people should have a claim on the wealth intelligence creates.The Frontier Is Also PhysicalThe abstraction is not weightless.“The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning”, “New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium”, Reuters on pollution from Musk's xAI power project, and DataGravity's “Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?” all say the same thing from the ground up.Intelligence uses land. It uses power. It uses water. It uses chips. It uses grid capacity. It uses neighborhoods. It uses public patience.That makes the value question unavoidable. A society can accept the buildout if the buildout is legible as shared progress. It will resist it if the costs are local, the profits are private, and the benefits feel enclosed.Who Owns the “Loop”?The week ends where it began.“Anthropic and Blackstone” are betting that implementation is the next trillion-dollar business. “Vint Cerf” is working on identity for agents on the open internet. “GPT-Red” points toward systems that improve their own robustness. “Kimi K3” adds another open frontier model to the global mix.The model race continues. The deployment race is accelerating. The governance race is behind.My view is this:The central product of this era is intelligence. Companies have figured out how to capture it, package it, serve it, and meter it. That is good. It should stay in the hands of builders who have the incentive to make it better.But intelligence is too foundational to become just another private toll booth. A significant part of it will turn out to be free to users.As intelligence becomes a general-purpose resource, then access to it becomes a human-capability question, and the surplus from it becomes an economic-justice question. Not because government should run it. Because government should not run it. The operating layer belongs with companies. The wealth question belongs with everyone. But companies are best placed to turn that into a process of distribution.The question is not whether companies should build intelligence. They should.The question is whether humanity gets a stake in the wealth created by the thing that may soon become its most important shared input.Contents* Essays* Deirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution* AI in an Age of Oligarchy* Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate* Murky Mirror: Truth and Consequences* The political economy of billionaire derangement* Is there any “oligarchy” to fight?* AI* Nearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. Threats* Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter* Own Your Weights* Ways to Think About Token Pricing* Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI* The AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft Office* What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?* The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning* 6 months to live for open models* Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches* Who Gets to Define the Frontier?* GPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for Robustness* Anthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just models* Vint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internet* xai-org/grok-build, now open source* The Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?* Orphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligence* The Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data Center* Why AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”* Kimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier Intelligence* Venture Capital* Three Years In* Venture Has Rarely Looked More Bifurcated* The Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active Now* Are Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?* Regulation* Exclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College Campuses* The Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.* India's crackdown on a new WhatsApp feature risks setting a global precedent* Let's build a children's public internet* Computer cops* Google is better at playing the AI regulations game* Infrastructure* Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?* New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium* Pollution from Musk's unpermitted xAI power project hits hardest in Black communities* Interview of the Week* The End of the End of Geography* Startup of the Week* Radical AI's Joseph Krause: The Scientist Building The “Waymo” Lab For New Materials* Post of the Week* Marc Andreessen on AI RegulationEssaysDeirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial RevolutionYascha Mounk and Deirdre McCloskey | Persuasion | July 11, 2026Yascha Mounk interviews Deirdre McCloskey about her argument that the modern world's economic liftoff came less from capital accumulation than from a change in ideas. McCloskey says both left and right versions of the conventional story rely too heavily on investment: the left stresses exploitation and surplus value, while the right stresses virtuous saving by capitalists. Her objection is historical and economic. Human beings had always invested, from irrigation works and Roman roads to seed grain, and simple accumulation quickly runs into diminishing returns.McCloskey's alternative is that northwestern Europe, first Holland, then Britain and Scotland, and then the North American colonies, developed a liberal ideology that changed who was allowed to innovate and be honored for it. The conversation links that shift to the erosion of inherited hierarchy, the spread of dignity for ordinary commercial life, and a moral vocabulary in which liberalism is not merely procedural but connected to virtues and values. The point is not that machines, coal, trade, and institutions did not matter, but that they do not explain the scale and timing of modern enrichment without a cultural permission structure for innovation.The interview also turns to the contemporary defense of liberalism. Mounk frames the series around the worry that liberalism is often treated as too thin to command allegiance, while its opponents speak more directly to moral passions. McCloskey's case is that liberal societies became rich because they dignified experimentation and ordinary enterprise, and that liberals need to recover the moral language behind that claim.Read moreAI in an Age of OligarchyPaul Krugman | Paul Krugman | July 12, 2026Paul Krugman frames AI as a major technological shock arriving inside an already unequal political economy. The post says AI's economic and social effects may take years to understand, but argues that the setting matters now: America has much greater wealth concentration and political inequality than it did in the 1950s and 1960s, when progressive taxation, stronger regulation, and more active antitrust might have contained some of the destructive effects of a new technology.Krugman's opening claim is that the same technology would likely have different consequences in a more level society. In today's United States, he writes, extreme wealth is both a cause and effect of policies that favor a small elite, including low effective taxes on capital and high incomes, weak enforcement of worker protections and antitrust, and cuts to programs that benefit ordinary Americans.The article is explicitly more about oligarchy than AI. Krugman says the paid sections document the rise of the “.0002%,” the economics and politics of extreme wealth, how oligarchy will shape AI's impact, and possible policy paths. His caveat is that AI itself may still produce a pushback against oligarchy, but absent that, he expects the pre-existing concentration of wealth and power to magnify AI's downsides.Read moreElon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hateAuthor: Tim O'Reilly Published: July 12, 2026Tim O'Reilly argues that Elon Musk is using the legal forms of shareholder capitalism to escape the restraints that shareholder capitalism was supposed to impose. The article begins with SpaceX's public-market structure: ordinary public investors get little meaningful governance power, Musk keeps roughly 85 percent of the votes through super-voting shares, buyers waive jury trials and class actions, the company qualifies as controlled, and removal of Musk depends on the share class he controls. In O'Reilly's framing, that is not ordinary founder control; it is a design for being answerable to no one, possibly beyond Musk's own lifetime.The killer detail is the article's turn through Albert Hirschman, Montesquieu, James Steuart, Adam Smith, and Keynes. Older defenses of commerce held that markets would tame princely passions because the self-interest of merchants was safer than arbitrary rule. O'Reilly says Musk reverses that hope. The market discipline that was supposed to cage the prince has become the lever by which the prince raises capital, removes feedback loops, and carries private power into politics, government, Mars, robots, AI, or whatever ambition comes next.The pull is the link to AI governance. O'Reilly says corporations are already a kind of artificial intelligence: narrow-input systems that act at a scale no individual human can match. Their partial controls include independent boards, shareholder votes, courts, disclosure, regulators, public pressure, and activism. If the leaders building frontier AI strip those alignment mechanisms out of their own companies, the governance of the company becomes a preview of the governance of the machine.Read more: The EconomistMurky Mirror: Truth and ConsequencesAuthor: Esther Dyson Published: July 14, 2026Esther Dyson argues that today's institutional crisis is better viewed through the 14th century than through recent political history. Using Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror as her frame, she compares a world of famine, plague, church schism, feudal predation, and purposeless war with a present in which institutions again feel brittle, incentives are badly aligned, and power is shifting into forms that are hard to govern.The killer detail is the historical analogy between land, corporations, and AI. Dyson moves from nobles who controlled serfs and territory, to the East India Company as a quasi-sovereign business, to today's AI systems and data centers as a possible new sector that crosses and weakens both nation-states and companies. The question is whether AI becomes a new kind of private land, owned by a new nobility, or an open prairie that many people can cultivate.The pull is human attention. Dyson says the central question is not what AI will do to people, but how people will react to it: whether they can value love, kindness, embodied attention, and artisanal human presence in a world of seductive artificial offerings.Read more: SourceThe political economy of billionaire derangementAuthor: Henry Farrell Published: July 15, 2026Henry Farrell argues that the visible political radicalization of some Silicon Valley billionaires is not a random personality quirk, but a product of the political economy that made them. Starting from Tyler Cowen's dismissal of “billionaire derangement syndrome” and Tim O'Reilly's warning that Elon Musk is using shareholder capitalism to escape shareholder restraint, Farrell flips the phrase: the question is why billionaires themselves can become deranged.The killer detail is Farrell's use of Peter Thiel as both theorist and example. Thiel's Stanford lectures described startups as monarchies and founders as figures vested with unusual power, while Silicon Valley culture rewarded eccentricity, monopoly ambition, and founder exceptionalism. Farrell says those ideas combined with dense founder-investor networks, peer rivalry, and weak correction mechanisms to amplify rather than discipline princely appetites.The pull is the ideological problem for classical liberals who once saw tech wealth as an ally of markets and freedom. Farrell says commerce did not tame the passions; in parts of Silicon Valley, the passions have begun to devour markets, institutions, and the liberal story that justified them.Read more: SourceIs there any “oligarchy” to fight?Matthew Yglesias | Slow Boring | July 16, 2026Matthew Yglesias argues that “oligarchy” is a rhetorically powerful but analytically loose way to describe American politics. The post begins from Bernie Sanders' “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, Amy Klobuchar's warning about a MAGA “broligarchy,” and the long afterlife of the Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page paper that was widely summarized as showing that only the rich matter in policy outcomes. Yglesias says the evidence supports a weaker claim: affluent people and business leaders have unusual access and influence, but that is not the same as rule by a small cabal.His main distinction is between inequality and oligarchy. The Gilens-Page measure treated the top 10 percent of households as “the wealthy,” and later critics found that rich and middle-class preferences usually align; in the cases where they differ, the rich win about 53 percent of the time. Yglesias also says business executives get special access partly because their decisions are materially important to communities, jobs, investment, and local tax bases, not only because of campaign donations.The post preserves Jerusalem Demsas' counterpoint from their podcast discussion: privileged donor and business access can still violate democratic equality even if the oligarchy label overstates the structure of power. Yglesias' narrower claim is that Democrats should be precise about what problem they are trying to solve, because donor influence can also push the party left on climate and cultural issues in ways that alienate many voters.Read more: Slow BoringAINearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. ThreatsAuthor: Ben Casselman Published: July 13, 2026Ben Casselman reports on “We Must Act Now,” a statement warning that artificial intelligence could transform the economy faster than any previous technology and that policymakers need to move faster to understand and respond. The statement says AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years, bringing risks such as large-scale job displacement as well as opportunities such as higher living standards. Nearly 200 people signed, including 15 Nobel laureates, the chief economists of OpenAI and Anthropic, Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla.The killer detail is who joined the warning. Casselman notes that the signatories include economists who have historically been skeptical of Silicon Valley's most dramatic AI job-loss forecasts, including Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, the MIT professors who won the 2024 Nobel in economics. Erik Brynjolfsson, who helped organize the statement, says there has been a notable change in the profession and that economists and policymakers are not ready for the “tsunami” he sees coming.The pull is the measurement problem. The statement does not offer a specific policy menu, but calls for economists, policymakers, and industry leaders to understand the economics of transformative AI and steer it toward complementing humans. Brynjolfsson says one high priority is better data on AI's spread and impact, because current measures tell conflicting stories about job losses and which workers are most exposed.Read more: The New York TimesWhy I Didn't Sign the AI Open LetterAuthor: Andrew McAfee Published: July 13, 2026Andrew McAfee explains why he did not sign “We Must Act Now,” the AI economy statement organized in part by his longtime collaborator Erik Brynjolfsson. McAfee agrees with the letter's starting point that AI is likely to become radically more powerful over the next decade and that it is a general-purpose technology. His objection is not to urgency or to studying AI's economic effects, but to the framing of risk, displacement, and institutional steering as the first move.The killer detail is McAfee's line edit. He says the original letter comes close, then “bounces off the crossbar” by calling for incentives, guardrails, and institutions to steer AI before we know enough about its actual impacts. He points to mixed current evidence: labor-market canaries, but also rising software job postings, low unemployment for younger workers, rising real median income, and claims that AI-adopting companies are adding workers faster than low-adopting peers. His worry is that the letter leans toward upstream governance and dirigisme when the evidence may call for capability building instead.The pull is his replacement statement. McAfee keeps the three-paragraph structure but changes the emphasis: AI is likely to become radically more powerful; like earlier world-changing technologies it will raise living standards while also bringing harms and shocks; and economists, policymakers, and technology leaders should build the capabilities to respond quickly and effectively. It is a concise version of the permissionless-innovation case inside the AI policy debate.Read more: The Geek WayOwn Your WeightsAuthor: Jamin Ball Published: July 10, 2026Jamin Ball argues that the enterprise AI debate about whether companies should “own their weights” or rent models from frontier labs is asking too narrow a question. A model weight file gives a company control over a point-in-time artifact, but not durable control over the capability stack. In his framing, the weight file is a melting ice cube: it does not get worse in absolute terms, but it falls behind as frontier systems improve and enterprise needs change.The killer detail is what Ball says companies really need to own: the data flywheel, reinforcement learning infrastructure, and evaluation harness that produce and improve the model. Simply deploying an open-weights model and declaring sovereignty leaves the enterprise with yesterday's capability and no way to compound workflow-specific learning.The pull is that enterprise AI control may be less about model ownership than operating ownership. The defensible layer is the system that turns company data, edge cases, business definitions, and evaluations into continuously improving performance.Read more: Clouded JudgementWays to Think About Token PricingAuthor: Benedict Evans Published: July 9, 2026Benedict Evans argues that today's AI token prices are a temporary signal from a supply-constrained market, not a reliable guide to long-term value capture. The open question is whether foundation models keep durable pricing power or become commodity infrastructure as data-center capacity, inference efficiency, and model competition all shift. His current read is that the visible market dynamics point toward commoditization unless something materially changes.The killer detail is the mobile data analogy. Evans says cellular networks became a trillion-dollar industry with hundreds of billions in capex after data usage exploded, but carrier stocks went nowhere because value moved up the stack. Tokens may behave similarly: an opaque unit tied to marginal cost, sold through bundles, essential to everything, yet not necessarily where profits accrue.The pull is uncertainty, not prediction. Evans lists paths to model dominance, including network effects, less competition, regulation, export controls, or a lab pulling ahead on execution, but says each requires a new fact not yet visible. Without that change, the model layer looks more like infrastructure beneath the products that capture value.Read more: SourceAlex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AIAuthor: Tim Higgins Published: July 11, 2026Tim Higgins reports that Palantir CEO Alex Karp has turned corporate frustration with AI labs into a public argument about enterprise control. Palantir released a white paper, “Institutional Sovereignty in the Age of AI,” laying out steps companies and governments can take to protect themselves from OpenAI, Anthropic, and other foundation-model providers. The article links that paper to Karp's CNBC appearance, where he said “something has gone completely wrong” in the relationship between AI labs and customers and argued that enterprises are paying for tokens that create little value.The killer detail is the value-capture question. Higgins writes that Karp's critique has resonated because AI labs may gain power and insight from customer data, workflows, and decision-making, even when enterprise policies say customer data are not used for training. David Sacks amplified the concern by arguing that Anthropic is moving from the model layer into vertical applications such as science, security, legal, and coding, raising the fear that model providers will watch where value is being created and then move into those markets directly.The pull is that Karp is not alone, even if his style is unusually combative. Higgins notes that Satya Nadella has also warned that companies need to retain the learnings created when they use AI models, while Mark Zuckerberg has framed Meta's new model release partly around lower-cost frontier intelligence. The article presents Karp's campaign as one sign that established technology companies and large enterprises are trying to define where they fit when AI labs become central infrastructure, application competitors, and potential IPO giants at the same time.Read more: The Wall Street JournalThe AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft OfficeAlex Wilhelm | Cautious Optimism | July 11, 2026Alex Wilhelm argues that one of the week's quieter AI questions is whether the productivity market that Microsoft successfully moved into subscription software is now being attacked by agentic tools. The piece begins with the infrastructure backdrop: SK Hynix raised $26.5 billion in a U.S. listing while building U.S. HBM and advanced-packaging capacity, and memory, chip, and foundry companies are now priced for sustained AI demand.Wilhelm then says the AI conversation has shifted quickly from raw capability to cost per task. He cites new model releases and vendor language emphasizing cheaper agentic and coding models, faster performance, and lower dollars per task. That matters because lower costs make it more plausible for AI systems to take on routine knowledge work at scale rather than remain a premium coding assistant market.The core of the article is Microsoft Office. Wilhelm notes that Microsoft turned Office from a one-time purchase into Microsoft 365, a large recurring revenue business with tens of millions of subscribers and a major productivity segment. Now, he says, late-stage unicorns and AI labs are pushing into the same territory: Anthropic's Cowork was reportedly used mostly outside software development, OpenAI merged ChatGPT and Codex into a tool for creating sheets, slides, docs, web apps, and long-running work, and other companies are building agentic coworkers that connect business data to documents, workflows, schedules, alerts, and apps.The article's caveat is that Microsoft has survived major platform shifts before. The argument is not that Office disappears quickly, but that the definition of office software is broadening from documents and spreadsheets into AI systems that can create, monitor, and act across workplace data.Read moreWhat Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?Author: Nilesh Barla Published: July 11, 2026Nilesh Barla argues that “loop engineering” is becoming a distinct discipline because production AI agents now fail less at single prompts than at runtime: when to stop, what state to preserve, and how to recover after a bad step. Prompt engineering shapes one model call, and context engineering shapes what the model sees, but loop engineering shapes what a sequence of calls actually does.The killer detail is the three-primitives frame. Barla says a real agent loop needs halt conditions, state carryover, and recovery paths, then maps teams across five maturity levels. At the lowest level, an agent is just a model call in a for-loop with a step cap and raw history; by the higher levels, the system has structured state, explicit planning, replay, evaluation, and self-repair.The pull is organizational. If agents are becoming production systems rather than demos, someone has to own the runtime itself. The loop engineer is the role Barla gives to the person responsible for making long-running agent work dependable.Read more: Adaline LabsThe Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just BeginningEmma Roth | The Verge | July 12, 2026Emma Roth argues that community resistance to data centers has moved from an early warning sign into a national political fight as AI facilities grow larger, more power-hungry, and more visible to nearby residents. The article starts with Apple's failed 2015 plan for a $1 billion data center in Athenry, Ireland, where a small group of residents challenged the project over noise, light pollution, flooding, traffic, and wildlife effects until Apple abandoned it in 2018.The current data-center buildout is presented as much larger and more contentious. Roth writes that residents now cite rising energy costs, water quality, noise, light pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, while the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects commercial energy demand to surpass residential demand this year because of AI data centers and Goldman Sachs expects data-center power demand to double by 2027.The central evidence comes from Data Center Watch, which says protesters blocked or delayed at least 75 U.S. projects worth $130 billion from January to March, with active opposition groups more than doubling from 396 at the end of 2025 to 833 by the end of the first quarter of 2026. Roth also cites QTS abandoning a $12 billion Wisconsin campus, Delaware City regulators blocking a 580-acre project under the Coastal Zone Act, opposition stopping a QTS project in Prince William County, and pressure that pushed Kevin O'Leary to downsize the proposed 40,000-acre Project Stratos in Utah.The policy section describes a split between federal acceleration and local resistance. President Trump has treated data centers as part of the AI race with China and fast-tracked construction, while some Republican candidates are distancing themselves from that position ahead of midterms. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have proposed a moratorium until price and environmental protections exist, bipartisan lawmakers are backing ratepayer-protection measures, and states including Florida, Idaho, and Washington have passed rules on cost shifting, water use, and tax breaks. Roth's caveat is that the policy patchwork is still incomplete, leaving many communities to fight project by project.Read more6 months to live for open modelsAuthor: Nathan Lambert Published: July 12, 2026Nathan Lambert argues that open-weight AI models are facing their most serious policy test so far because U.S. officials are beginning to discuss concrete controls rather than abstract safety concerns. He says reported White House conversations about a new executive order may initially target Chinese-origin models and government use, but could create a broader review habit for frontier open models. His forecast is that a model above the capability range of GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, or GLM-5.2 could trigger a ban or indefinite delay within six months.The post separates two policy fights that are becoming intertwined: distillation and frontier capability. Lambert says the distillation campaign against Chinese models has become a form of regulatory capture because Anthropic and other closed-model companies would gain economically if Chinese open models were banned. He does not dismiss IP protection, but argues that if a closed model's capabilities are dangerous enough to justify restricting open models, the lab also has to explain why those capabilities are exposed through a queryable API. He cites unauthorized access to Anthropic's Mythos private beta as evidence that APIs are not automatically secure.The broader claim is that a unilateral U.S. ban would hurt positive actors more than bad actors if comparable open models remain available elsewhere. Lambert says the only durable ceiling would require global agreement, which does not exist, and that open models can improve safety by allowing broad inspection, adaptation, and understanding. His proposed near-term off-ramps are a strong U.S. open model release from companies such as Microsoft, Meta, or Reflection, and a broader coalition of open-source beneficiaries lobbying for safe rollout rather than prohibition.Read more: SourceAmericans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' RichesAuthor: Scott Stanford Published: July 14, 2026Scott Stanford argues that proposals to give the government a stake in AI companies miss the point unless ordinary citizens directly receive and control the upside. Sam Altman has discussed giving up equity in OpenAI, Washington already owns a stake in Intel, Nvidia is sharing China chip revenue, and Bernie Sanders wants large AI labs to contribute half their stock to a sovereign wealth fund. Stanford says those ideas all park value with the state, not with people.The killer detail is New Carlisle, Indiana, where AWS's Project Rainier is turning cornfields into one of the world's largest AI superclusters. The project is planned to run up to a million chips, draw more than two gigawatts of power, and represents an investment that has grown from $11 billion to $13.8 billion. Stanford uses that local transformation to argue that AI's public bargain should be visible at the household level.The pull is design. A citizen AI dividend would have to specify who earns a stake, how they hold it, and when they see cash. Without that mechanism, the AI wealth debate remains a fight over government balance sheets rather than public ownership.Read more: SourceWho Gets to Define the Frontier?Author: Mark Daley Published: July 14, 2026Mark Daley argues that Demis Hassabis is right to call for a serious institution to verify frontier AI systems, but that the power to test models is also the power to govern them. Hassabis's proposed Frontier AI Standards Body would get privileged pre-release access to advanced models, testing compute, held-out evaluations, support from national labs and security agencies, third-party auditors, and eventually authority to block models from the American market or coordinate a slowdown.The killer detail is Daley's constitutional objection. He says the proposal sometimes looks like a scientific lab, a standards body, an industry regulator, a licensing authority, and an emergency security council at once. Combining those roles because each requires technical expertise would be like putting the central bank, auditor-general, and Supreme Court in one building and calling it efficient.The pull is standard-setting. Daley's concern is not that verification is unnecessary, but that whoever writes the tests, decides what passes, adjudicates disputes, and grants market access may end up defining the frontier itself.Read more: SourceGPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for RobustnessOpenAI | OpenAI | July 15, 2026OpenAI describes GPT-Red as an internal automated red-teaming model trained to find prompt-injection vulnerabilities at a scale human red teams cannot match. The post says AI systems increasingly encounter third-party data through browsers, connected apps, local files, and tools, creating opportunities for malicious instructions hidden in emails, webpages, tool responses, or code repositories. Human red-teaming remains part of OpenAI's safety process, but the company says it is time-intensive and cannot generate enough diverse adversarial examples for model training.The system is trained through self-play reinforcement learning, with GPT-Red rewarded for eliciting valid failures and defender models rewarded for resisting attacks while still completing their tasks. OpenAI says the training environments specify threat models across settings such as local files, webpage banners, email bodies, and tool outputs. The model is kept separate from deployed production models because it is intentionally trained with malicious capabilities.OpenAI reports that GPT-Red generalized beyond its training set, including an internal replication of the indirect prompt-injection arena from Dziemian et al. (2025), where it found successful attacks in 84% of scenarios compared with 13% for human red-teamers. The post also says GPT-Red transferred attacks from simulation to a live autonomous vending-machine agent, causing price changes and order cancellations, and outperformed a prompted GPT-5.5 baseline against a Codex CLI agent on held-out data-exfiltration tasks.The article's main robustness claim is that OpenAI has used GPT-Red and predecessor models in training since GPT-5.3, with later GPT releases becoming more resistant to prompt injections. It says GPT-5.6 Sol has six times fewer failures on OpenAI's hardest direct prompt-injection benchmark than the best production model from four months earlier, that a “Fake Chain-of-Thought” attack class fell from more than 95% success against GPT-5.1 to below 10% against GPT-5.6 Sol, and that GPT-5.6 Sol fails on only 0.05% of GPT-Red's direct prompt injections. OpenAI says general capabilities and targeted over-refusal evaluations were not harmed, and says a preprint with more details will follow.Read moreAnthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just modelsRebecca Bellan | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Rebecca Bellan reports that Ode with Anthropic is the $1.5 billion AI implementation company launched by Anthropic with Blackstone, Hellman & Friedman, Goldman Sachs, and other backers. The article says the venture reflects a growing belief among frontier AI labs that enterprise adoption requires more than better models: customers need engineers who can embed inside businesses and turn AI into working systems.Ode was originally conceived by Blackstone after it used both large consulting firms and smaller AI services boutiques across its portfolio companies. TechCrunch reports that Fractional AI, an AI engineering services startup, stood out and was acquired by the joint venture shortly after the venture was announced. Fractional now forms the foundation of Ode, which has 100 engineers and works closely with Anthropic's applied AI team to identify where the technology can affect specific businesses.Ode CEO Chris Taylor tells TechCrunch that the company could someday become a trillion-dollar business if it scales without losing quality. He says an ideal customer is one whose CEO treats the AI project as a top one or two priority, whether it is a major product feature or the reworking of a core business process. Ode will operate under a “Claude-first” principle, using Anthropic technology whenever possible, but the article says it can use rival AI products when needed.The article's central implementation argument comes from Ode chief technologist Eddie Siegel, who says model selection matters but is not where most of the engineering effort goes. He compares it to the choice of programming language in software: one ingredient in a system that still has to be engineered. Bellan writes that Ode's challenge is hiring and training enough elite generalist engineers, many of them former founders, while competing with OpenAI's The Deployment Company and consulting giants that have built their own forward-deployed engineering teams.Read moreVint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internetTim Fernholz | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Tim Fernholz reports that Vint Cerf, after leaving Google, is advising Innovation Labs on an open architecture for identifying AI agents online. Innovation Labs is a subsidiary of Identity Digital, a DNS registry company, and its proposal is to use domain-name infrastructure as part of a system for agent identity, accountability, and auditability. The premise is that agents will need a way to identify themselves if they move beyond proprietary systems and begin interacting across the open internet.The concrete proposal is DNSid, a registry that links an AI agent to an existing internet domain and uses cryptographic proofs to log its registration over time. Innovation Labs says it is trialing the standard with unnamed hyperscalers and identity companies. Cerf frames the problem around authority and accountability: what authority an agent has, where that authority came from, who is accountable for the agent's behavior, how its identity is established, and why anyone should trust it.The article's caveat is that standards are still emerging and agents are more active than static domains. Cerf says the period may be both fascinating and exasperating because the functionality is powerful and interoperability is unresolved. He compares the adoption problem to TCP/IP: competing systems may not work together until users push for functional interoperation. He also says an agentic economy is not inevitable, but that people will try to build it because delegating work to agents will be easier.Read more: TechCrunchxai-org/grok-build, now open sourceAuthor: Simon Willison Published: July 15, 2026Simon Willison argues that xAI's decision to open-source Grok Build is best understood as a trust repair move after a severe privacy failure. The CLI had triggered backlash when users realized that running it in a directory could upload the entire directory to xAI's Google Cloud buckets, including one user's reported SSH keys, password manager database, documents, photos, and videos. xAI disabled the feature, said previously retained coding data would be deleted, and released the code under Apache 2.0.The killer detail is what the codebase reveals. Willison counts 844,530 lines of Rust, only about 3% of which appears vendored, and finds remnants of the upload system still present but disabled: gcs.rs contains Google Cloud upload code, while upload_session_state() now returns a hard-coded session_state_upload_unavailable error. He also notes copied or ported tool implementations from Codex and OpenCode, prompt files, and a terminal Mermaid renderer.The pull is that terminal coding agents are becoming large, intricate software systems in their own right. The privacy failure mattered because these tools operate inside the directories where developers keep their most sensitive work; the open-source release matters because trust now depends on inspecting what an agent can see, send, and do.Read more: SourceThe Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?Author: Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric Published: July 16, 2026Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric argue that Bun's AI-assisted rewrite from Zig to Rust is a practical sign of how software engineering changes when models can take on large, bounded migrations with clear feedback loops. The piece does not treat the rewrite as magic: Jarred Sumner first spent hours turning design judgment into a detailed porting guide, then used adversarial review, parallel agents, compiler errors, and tests to force the work toward correctness.The killer detail is the scale. Bun had 535,496 lines of Zig, 1,448 files, and 22 million monthly downloads, making a conventional rewrite a year-long freeze the team could not justify. Using Fable, Sumner split the work across 64 agents, produced about 6,500 commits, and got the migration done in 11 days at an estimated API cost of $165,000.The pull is economic, not theatrical. If a one- or two-year migration can become an 11-day project, AI coding is not just faster autocomplete; it changes which technical debts are worth paying down.Read more: SourceOrphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligenceAuthor: Andrew Maynard Published: July 16, 2026Andrew Maynard argues that frontier AI safety frameworks are creating “orphan risks”: harms that companies can see, but do not formally own because they are hard to quantify, do not fit catastrophic-risk thresholds, or fall outside audit-friendly compliance machinery. His target is not existing frontier safety work, but the narrowing effect that happens when private companies decide which risks count as governable.The killer detail is Maynard's contrast between measurable model dangers and threats to value. He points to Meta's three-day Galactica collapse, OpenAI's 2023 board crisis, safety-team departures, and wellbeing litigation as examples of risks that damaged trust, culture, legitimacy, or users without fitting cleanly into conventional model-risk categories. The proposed fix is an orphan-risk register: a public record of risks a company considered and chose not to manage, with reasons.The pull is accountability. Frontier developers' internal scoping choices have become a de facto layer of public governance, so the question is no longer only which risks they manage, but which risks they quietly leave outside the frame.Read more: SourceThe Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data CenterLatent.Space with Andy Beam and Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli | Latent.Space | July 16, 2026Latent.Space interviews Lila Sciences CTO Andy Beam and chief science officer for physical sciences Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli about the company's attempt to build an AI-run science factory. The post describes Lila's thesis as treating the lab itself as an “infinite token generator”: if internet data drove the first era of AI scaling, experimentally verified scientific data may be the next scarce training source. Lila is trying to produce that data with robotics, lab instruments, orchestration software, and AI models wired into the wet lab.The central analogy is the lab as data center. Instruments are nodes on a graph, a magnetically levitating transport layer moves materials between them, and experiment scheduling looks like a compute queue. Beam says Lila is not simply an automation company, because the point is not just throughput; it is flexibility, generalization, and experiment capture. The post says Lila has built more than 10 trillion experimentally validated “scientific reasoning tokens,” not internet text or biological sequences.The interview ranges across biology, chemistry, drug discovery, materials science, and the limits of automation. It notes that Lila rebuilt one gas-sorption measurement to run roughly 2,500 times faster, claims its general models can transfer priors from small-molecule chemistry to metal-organic frameworks for carbon capture, and describes model-suggested platinum-group-free electrocatalysts that moved from looking boring or wrong to becoming strong performers. The caveats are physical: experiments have runtimes, biology cannot always be accelerated, chains of thought can be unreliable narrators, and reward hacking becomes more dangerous when a model controls a real lab.Read more: Latent.SpaceWhy AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”Kate Park | TechCrunch | July 16, 2026Kate Park interviews AMI Labs CEO Alexandre LeBrun about why Yann LeCun's world-model startup avoids the language of “AGI” and “superintelligence.” LeBrun says the terms are not useful because they lack stable definitions: “We never used the word AGI. And I just noticed that nobody is using it anymore; they switched to superintelligence.” His argument is that the practical frontier is not a label, but whether AI systems can understand and predict real-world states.The article explains the world-model thesis by contrasting language prediction with physical-state prediction. A large language model predicts the next word; a world model predicts the next state, such as what happens when a glass tips over. LeBrun says LLMs remain complementary and efficient for language, but the physical world is where current AI is weak. Robotics is the clearest case: hardware has advanced quickly, but robots are still brittle outside controlled routines because they lack context and situational understanding.AMI is still pre-product, but TechCrunch reports that LeBrun was in Seoul looking for industrial partners, researchers, and global companies. He says world models cannot be built entirely inside a lab because they need access to real environments. That is why South Korea appeals to AMI: robotics, semiconductors, manufacturing, and fast adoption create the kind of hardware-heavy context that software-only AI has barely touched.Read more: TechCrunchKimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier IntelligenceKimi | Kimi | July 16, 2026Kimi introduces Kimi K3 as an open 3T-class frontier model aimed at coding, knowledge work, reasoning, multimodality, and long-context agentic use. The source describes the model as a 2.8T-parameter system built on Kimi Delta Attention and Attention Residuals, with native multimodality and a 1M-token context window. It says Moonshot AI plans to release model weights by July 27.The post presents K3 through benchmark and use-case sections rather than as a general product announcement. It reports results across coding, productivity, agentic, and multimodal evaluations, including DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench 2.1, Program Bench, SWE Marathon, FrontierSWE, PostTrain Bench, OfficeQA Pro, SpreadsheetBench 2, MCP Atlas, AutomationBench, BrowseComp, GDPval-AA v2, AA-Briefcase, MMMU-Pro, MathVision, BabyVision, OmniDocBench, and PerceptionBench. The source says all reported K3 results use maximum reasoning effort with temperature and top-p set to 1.0, and that different benchmark comparisons use KimiCode, Claude Code, or Codex harnesses depending on the test.Kimi's caveats are unusually concrete. The limitations section says K3 was trained in preserved thinking-history mode, so quality may become unstable if an agent harness does not pass historical thinking content correctly or if an ongoing session switches to K3 midstream. It also says K3's emphasis on long-horizon tasks can make it excessively proactive when it encounters minor issues or ambiguous intent, and recommends imposing explicit behavioral constraints for applications that require strict boundaries. The post adds that K3 remains behind Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in user experience despite being competitive overall.Read moreVenture CapitalThree Years InAuthor: Tomasz Tunguz Published: July 10, 2026Tomasz Tunguz marks Theory Ventures' third anniversary by arguing that AI's central market effect is time compression. In his telling, model release cycles, company revenue milestones, enterprise adoption, and venture categories have all accelerated. Seed, Series A, and Series B still exist as financing labels, but they no longer cleanly describe company maturity when some seed rounds are larger than IPOs and the best AI companies can mature much earlier than prior software companies.The killer detail is the shift from models to inference. Tunguz argues that inference has become the dominant AI market because workloads and buyer preferences are fragmenting: video, batch, local, agentic, and real-time tasks each create different infrastructure needs. He compares this to databases splitting into OLTP, OLAP, vector, and streaming categories, with AI pushing the same specialization into inference infrastructure.The pull is that Theory sees the AI-native venture firm as part of the same pattern. The firm says it has analyzed twice as many investment opportunities with three investors working alongside a nine-person intelligence organization, using agents and research systems to map markets, source companies, and support diligence. The piece is both a market map and a statement about how venture itself is being rebuilt by the technology it funds.Read more: LinkedInVenture Has Rarely Looked More BifurcatedAuthor: Beezer Clarkson Published: July 14, 2026Beezer Clarkson points to PitchBook's Q2 report as evidence that the U.S. venture market has split into two very different realities. AI now accounts for more than 60 percent of all U.S. venture deal value, meaning the headline market can look active and well-funded even while much of the non-AI market is dealing with a much colder liquidity and fundraising environment.The thread uses that split as the setup for Clarkson's latest Origins episode with Alec Litowitz, founder of Magnetar and QStar Capital and one of Citadel's original founding partners. Clarkson says markets like this are periods of genuine uncertainty, not merely ordinary risk, which is why Litowitz's Adaptability Quotient framework is relevant.The embedded clip makes the liquidity point concrete. Litowitz says DPI is “the resolution of uncertainty” because it converts an uncertain investment into actual cash returned to LPs. In his framing, a realized dollar is a real mark, while TVPI remains uncertain until it is realized.The killer detail is the distinction between pricing risk and resolving uncertainty. Litowitz's perspective matters because QStar is a SpaceX investor and Clarkson says the conversation happened just before one of venture's most consequential IPOs. The episode's stated questions are why venture remains a way to gain exposure to innovation, how AI is changing what is investable, why liquidity is ultimately a function of time, and why uncertainty requires a different decision framework from risk.Read more: XThe Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active NowAuthor: Ilya Strebulaev Published: July 10, 2026Ilya Strebulaev ranks angels, angel groups, accelerators, and incubators by lifetime U.S. unicorn investments, counting checks written before a company reached unicorn status. The top of the combined list is dominated by organizations: Y Combinator leads with 113 unicorn investments, followed by Plug and Play at 52 and 500 Global at 41. Sand Hill Angels is the highest-ranked angel group at 31.The killer detail is how quickly the list changes below the biggest accelerators. Strebulaev says 271 of the 304 investors in the Top 200 are individuals, or 89%. In the top 100, individuals are 91%. That makes the market underneath the large accelerator counts look much more personal: mostly operators and individual angels writing early checks from their own networks.The pull is the ranking's own caveat. Strebulaev writes that every lifetime leaderboard has a blind spot because many of the unicorns behind those totals were founded a decade or more ago, and some angels have since moved into formal funds, slowed down, or stopped investing. His post therefore separates lifetime performance from recent cohorts, including companies founded in 2015 or later and 2020 or later. For founders or allocators making current decisions, that distinction matters: a career record and a current record are not the same measure.Read more: Ilya StrebulaevAre Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?Author: Contrary Published: July 16, 2026Contrary argues that prediction markets' current boom depends on whether platforms can prove they are more than regulated gambling with exchange-style branding. Kalshi and Polymarket have reached mass cultural, investor, and regulatory attention, but the article says the underlying idea is old: academic markets, corporate forecasting tools, Intrade, PredictIt, and other predecessors all struggled with the same linked problems of liquidity, legality, and user appeal.The killer detail is the comparison with sportsbooks. Prediction markets present themselves as peer-to-peer, transparent, and non-house-based, but sports contracts reportedly account for more than 90 percent of Kalshi trading, and the article says the platforms keep a much thinner slice of volume than sportsbooks. A market can therefore show sports-betting-scale handle while generating far less revenue.The pull is that the product's hardest problem may be distribution of wins. If a small group of sharp traders captures most profits while casual users lose interest, prediction markets may become valuable data feeds and professional tools before they become durable consumer networks.Read more: SourceRegulationExclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College CampusesAuthor: Adrian Carrasquillo Published: July 11, 2026Adrian Carrasquillo reports that college campuses are becoming a new front in the fight over immigration enforcement because automatic license plate readers can turn ordinary campus security infrastructure into searchable location data. His thesis is that Flock Safety's camera network, even without direct ICE or DHS contracts, can feed deportation enforcement through local police partnerships and data-sharing practices.The killer detail is the campaign target. The Emergency Campaign to Support Higher Education, working with Schools Drop ICE, is focusing on 75 colleges and universities publicly identified as having Flock contracts. Flock says it has no ICE or DHS contracts, but activists argue the risk comes through local agencies that coordinate with federal authorities and run searches on their behalf.The pull is broader than immigration. Carrasquillo notes that license plate readers have already been abused by officers for stalking, and that Flock's AI search features can identify more than plates, including bumper stickers. A campus safety tool can become a political surveillance system when the data layer is searchable.Read more: The BulwarkThe Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.Author: Todd Phillips Published: July 12, 2026Todd Phillips argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter damaged independent agencies by ending for-cause removal protections, but did not leave Congress powerless. The ruling weakens the old model in which commissioners at bodies such as the FTC, NLRB, CPSC, SEC, and CFTC could be insulated from dismissal over policy disagreements. Phillips says the next fight is whether presidents can turn nominally bipartisan commissions into one-party instruments.The killer detail is the procedural fix: quorum rules. Phillips proposes that Congress require bipartisan slates of commissioners to be seated before independent agencies can act. A president

This week's video transcript summary is here. You can click on any bulleted section to see the actual transcript. Thanks to Granola for its software.EditorialIntelligence: Who Owns it?This week the word “AI” feels too small.AI is a technology. Intelligence is its product. And if intelligence is the product, the question is no longer just: Which model is best? Who has the cheapest tokens? Who owns the weights? Who controls the data center? Those are important questions, but they are lower in the stack.The bigger question is simpler and more political:Who owns intelligence?That sounds abstract until you make it concrete. Intelligence is becoming something companies can capture, package, serve, meter, route, improve, and sell.It can write code, answer questions, design molecules, automate offices, run agents, draft legal work, advise scientists, serve consumers, and reshape workflows. It is not merely software. It is a general-purpose capability. And all humans could benefit from more of it.General-purpose capabilities have a habit of becoming public questions. But the default answer, that public good is best delivered by government, is the wrong answer in this context.The Product Is IntelligenceWe should stop talking about AI as a feature and start talking about intelligence as the universal thing that is delivered as an input to the world.Water is an input. Electricity is an input. Literacy is an input. Connectivity is an input. Once a society depends on them, access stops being optional. Nobody needs government to build every well, power plant, school, or network. But everybody understands that a civilization cannot be organized around less than universal and reliable access to foundational inputs.Intelligence is reaching that level of importance now that we all know it is real.Government should not own it, operate it, or develop it. Quite the opposite. Companies are the right actors to build fast, compete hard, improve models, serve customers, and discover the real use cases. Self-interest is a useful framing here. Markets are good at finding demand, reducing costs, and turning invention into services people actually use.Companies are the right operators, developers, and owners. But that does not settle the real question of who owns the benefits. That is an economic question.If intelligence becomes metered infrastructure, what happens to the value it creates?The Ownership StackThis week's articles keep circling the same issue from different directions but in the nature of ‘circling' never quite nail it.Jamin Ball's “Own Your Weights” starts with the enterprise version of the question. Owning a model file is not enough. The durable asset is the loop: the data flywheel, the evaluations, the reinforcement system, the workflow learning, and the operating context that lets capability compound.Benedict Evans' “Ways to Think About Token Pricing” adds the market layer. Tokens may become essential, abundant, and cheap, like mobile data. But being essential does not guarantee that the token layer captures the value. The money may move up the stack to whoever owns the workflow, the customer, the distribution, or the application.Alex Karp's fight with the labs, reported in “Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI”, is the same argument in sharper enterprise language. Companies are afraid that model providers will not just sell intelligence, but learn from customer workflows and then move into the markets where those workflows create value. The “All-in” group are echoing Karp's view.And “What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?” names the new contested terrain. The loop is where intelligence meets the world. Whoever owns the loop owns the learning. Whoever owns the learning owns the compounding asset.That is why “who owns intelligence?” is not a slogan. It is the question under the model layer, the application layer, the enterprise layer, and the economic layer.Because intelligence is the product, the tools creating it are fragmented and competitive. So there is no logic in trying to discuss this at the level of a single company or set of tools and models.The Old Promise Was That Commerce Would Tame PowerThe essays this week give the historical backdrop.Deirdre McCloskey, in “What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution”, argues that modern growth came not simply from capital accumulation, but from a change in permission: ordinary people were allowed to innovate, trade, build, and be honored for it.That matters because intelligence could be another expansion of permission. It could make more people capable of building, learning, creating, coding, researching, translating, selling, and coordinating. It could lower the cost of competence.But only if access is broad.Paul Krugman's “AI in an Age of Oligarchy” warns that the same technology lands differently in different political economies. A new general-purpose technology entering a broad, open, upwardly mobile society is one thing. The same technology entering a concentrated economy, with extreme wealth and weak counterweights, is another.Tim O'Reilly's Economist essay, “Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate”, makes the governance point more directly. The old liberal hope was that commerce would tame arbitrary power. Markets, boards, courts, shareholders, disclosure, and competition would discipline the prince.But what if the prince uses markets to escape discipline?Henry Farrell's “political economy of billionaire derangement” pushes the same point. Founder culture, monopoly ambition, peer rivalry, weak correction mechanisms, and vast private control can amplify appetites rather than restrain them.The danger with intelligence is not that companies build it. They should. Companies build it, meter it, use public tolerance and public infrastructure to scale it, learn from everyone who uses it. All of those things are inevitable and healthy. Market forces will sort out winners from losers. The real danger is that the winners treat all of the surplus produced as purely private.Metered Intelligence Creates SurplusIf metering is not the problem, what is?The problem is pretending that metered intelligence creates value only for the metering entity. Metering water is only tolerated as a public good. If the public were blackmailed by a private water company with the threat of no water we would all rebel.Once we understand that the product of AI is intelligence we can see that every time intelligence is used, there is the immediate transaction: the user pays, the provider serves.But there is also system value. Usage creates signals. Workflows reveal patterns. Prompts, corrections, failures, preferences, integrations, edge cases, and business processes all help define where intelligence is useful and how it should improve. Intelligence breeds intelligence.Even when customer data is contractually protected, the market learns. The platform learns where demand is. The product team learns which workflows matter. The ecosystem learns which jobs are vulnerable, which tasks are automatable, and which parts of the economy can be reorganized around machine intelligence.So the surplus is not born in a vacuum.It rests on public science, public education, public data exhaust, public law, public infrastructure, public energy systems, public tolerance for data centers, and billions of human interactions. It is served by companies, but it is not made only by companies.This is why “Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches” belongs at the center of this week's issue. The detail can be debated. The principle is harder to dismiss. If intelligence becomes a new foundational resource, then some part of the wealth it creates should flow back to the people whose society makes it possible. Intelligence did not suddenly appear. AI is built on the entire history of human intelligence. It benefits from it and at the same time evolves it.Not Nationalization. A Human Wealth Fund.If intelligence belongs to everybody, some conclude that government ownership of intelligence is the right outcome.Governments are not well suited to build, operate, or improve intelligence. They will move too slowly, regulate too early, politicize the wrong things, and confuse economic participation with operational control.Andrew McAfee's “Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter” is useful here. His objection is not that the technology is unimportant. It is that steering too hard before we understand the shape of the change can become its own failure mode. Marc Andreessen's satire of AI regulation is less policy than temperament, but it captures a real Silicon Valley fear: that regulation can become permission, capture, and incumbency before it becomes wisdom.That fear should be taken seriously.But it does not answer the economic question. It answers only the operational one.How can the economic benefits of intelligence be distributed? The better answer is a sovereign human wealth fund.Call it a sovereign wealth fund if you must, but the phrase is too national. Intelligence will not respect borders. The leading companies are global. The models, chips, data centers, agents, platforms, and workflows will be transnational from the beginning. If the value created by intelligence is global, then the mechanism for sharing some of that value should begin with the companies global enough to capture it. The nice thing about xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic is that they are supranational.These companies own and operate intelligence. Let them compete. Let them profit. Let them keep the incentives that make the system improve. But if intelligence is the new water, the wealth it creates cannot belong only to the companies that meter it. And they, themselves, have the power to fix it, even more than governments.Access will become a Human Right; Ownership Is the Economic DesignThis is where human rights come in. There is no right to access an AI model, yet. But there will soon be a need to change that.Not as a claim that every person is entitled to every frontier model at every moment for free. That is not serious. Capacity has costs. Models have costs. Inference has costs. Data centers have costs. Although those costs will decline over time, possibly quite quickly as self-learning models address costs.The claim is more basic: in a world where intelligence becomes a primary input into education, work, health, science, citizenship, creativity, and economic agency, baseline access to intelligence starts to look like a civic requirement.That could mean public access layers. It could mean education credits. It could mean open models. It could mean AI dividends. It could mean public-interest compute. It could mean taxes on rents. It could mean a company-initiated human wealth fund that returns some of the upside to society without handing the operating system to the state. The latter could couple wealth growth with universal distribution of ownership.The exact mechanism matters. But the distinction matters more.Government should not own intelligence. It should be universally available. And people should have a claim on the wealth intelligence creates.The Frontier Is Also PhysicalThe abstraction is not weightless.“The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning”, “New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium”, Reuters on pollution from Musk's xAI power project, and DataGravity's “Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?” all say the same thing from the ground up.Intelligence uses land. It uses power. It uses water. It uses chips. It uses grid capacity. It uses neighborhoods. It uses public patience.That makes the value question unavoidable. A society can accept the buildout if the buildout is legible as shared progress. It will resist it if the costs are local, the profits are private, and the benefits feel enclosed.Who Owns the “Loop”?The week ends where it began.“Anthropic and Blackstone” are betting that implementation is the next trillion-dollar business. “Vint Cerf” is working on identity for agents on the open internet. “GPT-Red” points toward systems that improve their own robustness. “Kimi K3” adds another open frontier model to the global mix.The model race continues. The deployment race is accelerating. The governance race is behind.My view is this:The central product of this era is intelligence. Companies have figured out how to capture it, package it, serve it, and meter it. That is good. It should stay in the hands of builders who have the incentive to make it better.But intelligence is too foundational to become just another private toll booth. A significant part of it will turn out to be free to users.As intelligence becomes a general-purpose resource, then access to it becomes a human-capability question, and the surplus from it becomes an economic-justice question. Not because government should run it. Because government should not run it. The operating layer belongs with companies. The wealth question belongs with everyone. But companies are best placed to turn that into a process of distribution.The question is not whether companies should build intelligence. They should.The question is whether humanity gets a stake in the wealth created by the thing that may soon become its most important shared input.Contents* Essays* Deirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution* AI in an Age of Oligarchy* Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate* Murky Mirror: Truth and Consequences* The political economy of billionaire derangement* Is there any “oligarchy” to fight?* AI* Nearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. Threats* Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter* Own Your Weights* Ways to Think About Token Pricing* Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI* The AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft Office* What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?* The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning* 6 months to live for open models* Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches* Who Gets to Define the Frontier?* GPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for Robustness* Anthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just models* Vint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internet* xai-org/grok-build, now open source* The Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?* Orphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligence* The Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data Center* Why AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”* Kimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier Intelligence* Venture Capital* Three Years In* Venture Has Rarely Looked More Bifurcated* The Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active Now* Are Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?* Regulation* Exclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College Campuses* The Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.* India's crackdown on a new WhatsApp feature risks setting a global precedent* Let's build a children's public internet* Computer cops* Google is better at playing the AI regulations game* Infrastructure* Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?* New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium* Pollution from Musk's unpermitted xAI power project hits hardest in Black communities* Interview of the Week* The End of the End of Geography* Startup of the Week* Radical AI's Joseph Krause: The Scientist Building The “Waymo” Lab For New Materials* Post of the Week* Marc Andreessen on AI RegulationEssaysDeirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial RevolutionYascha Mounk and Deirdre McCloskey | Persuasion | July 11, 2026Yascha Mounk interviews Deirdre McCloskey about her argument that the modern world's economic liftoff came less from capital accumulation than from a change in ideas. McCloskey says both left and right versions of the conventional story rely too heavily on investment: the left stresses exploitation and surplus value, while the right stresses virtuous saving by capitalists. Her objection is historical and economic. Human beings had always invested, from irrigation works and Roman roads to seed grain, and simple accumulation quickly runs into diminishing returns.McCloskey's alternative is that northwestern Europe, first Holland, then Britain and Scotland, and then the North American colonies, developed a liberal ideology that changed who was allowed to innovate and be honored for it. The conversation links that shift to the erosion of inherited hierarchy, the spread of dignity for ordinary commercial life, and a moral vocabulary in which liberalism is not merely procedural but connected to virtues and values. The point is not that machines, coal, trade, and institutions did not matter, but that they do not explain the scale and timing of modern enrichment without a cultural permission structure for innovation.The interview also turns to the contemporary defense of liberalism. Mounk frames the series around the worry that liberalism is often treated as too thin to command allegiance, while its opponents speak more directly to moral passions. McCloskey's case is that liberal societies became rich because they dignified experimentation and ordinary enterprise, and that liberals need to recover the moral language behind that claim.Read moreAI in an Age of OligarchyPaul Krugman | Paul Krugman | July 12, 2026Paul Krugman frames AI as a major technological shock arriving inside an already unequal political economy. The post says AI's economic and social effects may take years to understand, but argues that the setting matters now: America has much greater wealth concentration and political inequality than it did in the 1950s and 1960s, when progressive taxation, stronger regulation, and more active antitrust might have contained some of the destructive effects of a new technology.Krugman's opening claim is that the same technology would likely have different consequences in a more level society. In today's United States, he writes, extreme wealth is both a cause and effect of policies that favor a small elite, including low effective taxes on capital and high incomes, weak enforcement of worker protections and antitrust, and cuts to programs that benefit ordinary Americans.The article is explicitly more about oligarchy than AI. Krugman says the paid sections document the rise of the “.0002%,” the economics and politics of extreme wealth, how oligarchy will shape AI's impact, and possible policy paths. His caveat is that AI itself may still produce a pushback against oligarchy, but absent that, he expects the pre-existing concentration of wealth and power to magnify AI's downsides.Read moreElon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hateAuthor: Tim O'Reilly Published: July 12, 2026Tim O'Reilly argues that Elon Musk is using the legal forms of shareholder capitalism to escape the restraints that shareholder capitalism was supposed to impose. The article begins with SpaceX's public-market structure: ordinary public investors get little meaningful governance power, Musk keeps roughly 85 percent of the votes through super-voting shares, buyers waive jury trials and class actions, the company qualifies as controlled, and removal of Musk depends on the share class he controls. In O'Reilly's framing, that is not ordinary founder control; it is a design for being answerable to no one, possibly beyond Musk's own lifetime.The killer detail is the article's turn through Albert Hirschman, Montesquieu, James Steuart, Adam Smith, and Keynes. Older defenses of commerce held that markets would tame princely passions because the self-interest of merchants was safer than arbitrary rule. O'Reilly says Musk reverses that hope. The market discipline that was supposed to cage the prince has become the lever by which the prince raises capital, removes feedback loops, and carries private power into politics, government, Mars, robots, AI, or whatever ambition comes next.The pull is the link to AI governance. O'Reilly says corporations are already a kind of artificial intelligence: narrow-input systems that act at a scale no individual human can match. Their partial controls include independent boards, shareholder votes, courts, disclosure, regulators, public pressure, and activism. If the leaders building frontier AI strip those alignment mechanisms out of their own companies, the governance of the company becomes a preview of the governance of the machine.Read more: The EconomistMurky Mirror: Truth and ConsequencesAuthor: Esther Dyson Published: July 14, 2026Esther Dyson argues that today's institutional crisis is better viewed through the 14th century than through recent political history. Using Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror as her frame, she compares a world of famine, plague, church schism, feudal predation, and purposeless war with a present in which institutions again feel brittle, incentives are badly aligned, and power is shifting into forms that are hard to govern.The killer detail is the historical analogy between land, corporations, and AI. Dyson moves from nobles who controlled serfs and territory, to the East India Company as a quasi-sovereign business, to today's AI systems and data centers as a possible new sector that crosses and weakens both nation-states and companies. The question is whether AI becomes a new kind of private land, owned by a new nobility, or an open prairie that many people can cultivate.The pull is human attention. Dyson says the central question is not what AI will do to people, but how people will react to it: whether they can value love, kindness, embodied attention, and artisanal human presence in a world of seductive artificial offerings.Read more: SourceThe political economy of billionaire derangementAuthor: Henry Farrell Published: July 15, 2026Henry Farrell argues that the visible political radicalization of some Silicon Valley billionaires is not a random personality quirk, but a product of the political economy that made them. Starting from Tyler Cowen's dismissal of “billionaire derangement syndrome” and Tim O'Reilly's warning that Elon Musk is using shareholder capitalism to escape shareholder restraint, Farrell flips the phrase: the question is why billionaires themselves can become deranged.The killer detail is Farrell's use of Peter Thiel as both theorist and example. Thiel's Stanford lectures described startups as monarchies and founders as figures vested with unusual power, while Silicon Valley culture rewarded eccentricity, monopoly ambition, and founder exceptionalism. Farrell says those ideas combined with dense founder-investor networks, peer rivalry, and weak correction mechanisms to amplify rather than discipline princely appetites.The pull is the ideological problem for classical liberals who once saw tech wealth as an ally of markets and freedom. Farrell says commerce did not tame the passions; in parts of Silicon Valley, the passions have begun to devour markets, institutions, and the liberal story that justified them.Read more: SourceIs there any “oligarchy” to fight?Matthew Yglesias | Slow Boring | July 16, 2026Matthew Yglesias argues that “oligarchy” is a rhetorically powerful but analytically loose way to describe American politics. The post begins from Bernie Sanders' “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, Amy Klobuchar's warning about a MAGA “broligarchy,” and the long afterlife of the Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page paper that was widely summarized as showing that only the rich matter in policy outcomes. Yglesias says the evidence supports a weaker claim: affluent people and business leaders have unusual access and influence, but that is not the same as rule by a small cabal.His main distinction is between inequality and oligarchy. The Gilens-Page measure treated the top 10 percent of households as “the wealthy,” and later critics found that rich and middle-class preferences usually align; in the cases where they differ, the rich win about 53 percent of the time. Yglesias also says business executives get special access partly because their decisions are materially important to communities, jobs, investment, and local tax bases, not only because of campaign donations.The post preserves Jerusalem Demsas' counterpoint from their podcast discussion: privileged donor and business access can still violate democratic equality even if the oligarchy label overstates the structure of power. Yglesias' narrower claim is that Democrats should be precise about what problem they are trying to solve, because donor influence can also push the party left on climate and cultural issues in ways that alienate many voters.Read more: Slow BoringAINearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. ThreatsAuthor: Ben Casselman Published: July 13, 2026Ben Casselman reports on “We Must Act Now,” a statement warning that artificial intelligence could transform the economy faster than any previous technology and that policymakers need to move faster to understand and respond. The statement says AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years, bringing risks such as large-scale job displacement as well as opportunities such as higher living standards. Nearly 200 people signed, including 15 Nobel laureates, the chief economists of OpenAI and Anthropic, Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla.The killer detail is who joined the warning. Casselman notes that the signatories include economists who have historically been skeptical of Silicon Valley's most dramatic AI job-loss forecasts, including Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, the MIT professors who won the 2024 Nobel in economics. Erik Brynjolfsson, who helped organize the statement, says there has been a notable change in the profession and that economists and policymakers are not ready for the “tsunami” he sees coming.The pull is the measurement problem. The statement does not offer a specific policy menu, but calls for economists, policymakers, and industry leaders to understand the economics of transformative AI and steer it toward complementing humans. Brynjolfsson says one high priority is better data on AI's spread and impact, because current measures tell conflicting stories about job losses and which workers are most exposed.Read more: The New York TimesWhy I Didn't Sign the AI Open LetterAuthor: Andrew McAfee Published: July 13, 2026Andrew McAfee explains why he did not sign “We Must Act Now,” the AI economy statement organized in part by his longtime collaborator Erik Brynjolfsson. McAfee agrees with the letter's starting point that AI is likely to become radically more powerful over the next decade and that it is a general-purpose technology. His objection is not to urgency or to studying AI's economic effects, but to the framing of risk, displacement, and institutional steering as the first move.The killer detail is McAfee's line edit. He says the original letter comes close, then “bounces off the crossbar” by calling for incentives, guardrails, and institutions to steer AI before we know enough about its actual impacts. He points to mixed current evidence: labor-market canaries, but also rising software job postings, low unemployment for younger workers, rising real median income, and claims that AI-adopting companies are adding workers faster than low-adopting peers. His worry is that the letter leans toward upstream governance and dirigisme when the evidence may call for capability building instead.The pull is his replacement statement. McAfee keeps the three-paragraph structure but changes the emphasis: AI is likely to become radically more powerful; like earlier world-changing technologies it will raise living standards while also bringing harms and shocks; and economists, policymakers, and technology leaders should build the capabilities to respond quickly and effectively. It is a concise version of the permissionless-innovation case inside the AI policy debate.Read more: The Geek WayOwn Your WeightsAuthor: Jamin Ball Published: July 10, 2026Jamin Ball argues that the enterprise AI debate about whether companies should “own their weights” or rent models from frontier labs is asking too narrow a question. A model weight file gives a company control over a point-in-time artifact, but not durable control over the capability stack. In his framing, the weight file is a melting ice cube: it does not get worse in absolute terms, but it falls behind as frontier systems improve and enterprise needs change.The killer detail is what Ball says companies really need to own: the data flywheel, reinforcement learning infrastructure, and evaluation harness that produce and improve the model. Simply deploying an open-weights model and declaring sovereignty leaves the enterprise with yesterday's capability and no way to compound workflow-specific learning.The pull is that enterprise AI control may be less about model ownership than operating ownership. The defensible layer is the system that turns company data, edge cases, business definitions, and evaluations into continuously improving performance.Read more: Clouded JudgementWays to Think About Token PricingAuthor: Benedict Evans Published: July 9, 2026Benedict Evans argues that today's AI token prices are a temporary signal from a supply-constrained market, not a reliable guide to long-term value capture. The open question is whether foundation models keep durable pricing power or become commodity infrastructure as data-center capacity, inference efficiency, and model competition all shift. His current read is that the visible market dynamics point toward commoditization unless something materially changes.The killer detail is the mobile data analogy. Evans says cellular networks became a trillion-dollar industry with hundreds of billions in capex after data usage exploded, but carrier stocks went nowhere because value moved up the stack. Tokens may behave similarly: an opaque unit tied to marginal cost, sold through bundles, essential to everything, yet not necessarily where profits accrue.The pull is uncertainty, not prediction. Evans lists paths to model dominance, including network effects, less competition, regulation, export controls, or a lab pulling ahead on execution, but says each requires a new fact not yet visible. Without that change, the model layer looks more like infrastructure beneath the products that capture value.Read more: SourceAlex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AIAuthor: Tim Higgins Published: July 11, 2026Tim Higgins reports that Palantir CEO Alex Karp has turned corporate frustration with AI labs into a public argument about enterprise control. Palantir released a white paper, “Institutional Sovereignty in the Age of AI,” laying out steps companies and governments can take to protect themselves from OpenAI, Anthropic, and other foundation-model providers. The article links that paper to Karp's CNBC appearance, where he said “something has gone completely wrong” in the relationship between AI labs and customers and argued that enterprises are paying for tokens that create little value.The killer detail is the value-capture question. Higgins writes that Karp's critique has resonated because AI labs may gain power and insight from customer data, workflows, and decision-making, even when enterprise policies say customer data are not used for training. David Sacks amplified the concern by arguing that Anthropic is moving from the model layer into vertical applications such as science, security, legal, and coding, raising the fear that model providers will watch where value is being created and then move into those markets directly.The pull is that Karp is not alone, even if his style is unusually combative. Higgins notes that Satya Nadella has also warned that companies need to retain the learnings created when they use AI models, while Mark Zuckerberg has framed Meta's new model release partly around lower-cost frontier intelligence. The article presents Karp's campaign as one sign that established technology companies and large enterprises are trying to define where they fit when AI labs become central infrastructure, application competitors, and potential IPO giants at the same time.Read more: The Wall Street JournalThe AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft OfficeAlex Wilhelm | Cautious Optimism | July 11, 2026Alex Wilhelm argues that one of the week's quieter AI questions is whether the productivity market that Microsoft successfully moved into subscription software is now being attacked by agentic tools. The piece begins with the infrastructure backdrop: SK Hynix raised $26.5 billion in a U.S. listing while building U.S. HBM and advanced-packaging capacity, and memory, chip, and foundry companies are now priced for sustained AI demand.Wilhelm then says the AI conversation has shifted quickly from raw capability to cost per task. He cites new model releases and vendor language emphasizing cheaper agentic and coding models, faster performance, and lower dollars per task. That matters because lower costs make it more plausible for AI systems to take on routine knowledge work at scale rather than remain a premium coding assistant market.The core of the article is Microsoft Office. Wilhelm notes that Microsoft turned Office from a one-time purchase into Microsoft 365, a large recurring revenue business with tens of millions of subscribers and a major productivity segment. Now, he says, late-stage unicorns and AI labs are pushing into the same territory: Anthropic's Cowork was reportedly used mostly outside software development, OpenAI merged ChatGPT and Codex into a tool for creating sheets, slides, docs, web apps, and long-running work, and other companies are building agentic coworkers that connect business data to documents, workflows, schedules, alerts, and apps.The article's caveat is that Microsoft has survived major platform shifts before. The argument is not that Office disappears quickly, but that the definition of office software is broadening from documents and spreadsheets into AI systems that can create, monitor, and act across workplace data.Read moreWhat Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?Author: Nilesh Barla Published: July 11, 2026Nilesh Barla argues that “loop engineering” is becoming a distinct discipline because production AI agents now fail less at single prompts than at runtime: when to stop, what state to preserve, and how to recover after a bad step. Prompt engineering shapes one model call, and context engineering shapes what the model sees, but loop engineering shapes what a sequence of calls actually does.The killer detail is the three-primitives frame. Barla says a real agent loop needs halt conditions, state carryover, and recovery paths, then maps teams across five maturity levels. At the lowest level, an agent is just a model call in a for-loop with a step cap and raw history; by the higher levels, the system has structured state, explicit planning, replay, evaluation, and self-repair.The pull is organizational. If agents are becoming production systems rather than demos, someone has to own the runtime itself. The loop engineer is the role Barla gives to the person responsible for making long-running agent work dependable.Read more: Adaline LabsThe Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just BeginningEmma Roth | The Verge | July 12, 2026Emma Roth argues that community resistance to data centers has moved from an early warning sign into a national political fight as AI facilities grow larger, more power-hungry, and more visible to nearby residents. The article starts with Apple's failed 2015 plan for a $1 billion data center in Athenry, Ireland, where a small group of residents challenged the project over noise, light pollution, flooding, traffic, and wildlife effects until Apple abandoned it in 2018.The current data-center buildout is presented as much larger and more contentious. Roth writes that residents now cite rising energy costs, water quality, noise, light pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, while the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects commercial energy demand to surpass residential demand this year because of AI data centers and Goldman Sachs expects data-center power demand to double by 2027.The central evidence comes from Data Center Watch, which says protesters blocked or delayed at least 75 U.S. projects worth $130 billion from January to March, with active opposition groups more than doubling from 396 at the end of 2025 to 833 by the end of the first quarter of 2026. Roth also cites QTS abandoning a $12 billion Wisconsin campus, Delaware City regulators blocking a 580-acre project under the Coastal Zone Act, opposition stopping a QTS project in Prince William County, and pressure that pushed Kevin O'Leary to downsize the proposed 40,000-acre Project Stratos in Utah.The policy section describes a split between federal acceleration and local resistance. President Trump has treated data centers as part of the AI race with China and fast-tracked construction, while some Republican candidates are distancing themselves from that position ahead of midterms. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have proposed a moratorium until price and environmental protections exist, bipartisan lawmakers are backing ratepayer-protection measures, and states including Florida, Idaho, and Washington have passed rules on cost shifting, water use, and tax breaks. Roth's caveat is that the policy patchwork is still incomplete, leaving many communities to fight project by project.Read more6 months to live for open modelsAuthor: Nathan Lambert Published: July 12, 2026Nathan Lambert argues that open-weight AI models are facing their most serious policy test so far because U.S. officials are beginning to discuss concrete controls rather than abstract safety concerns. He says reported White House conversations about a new executive order may initially target Chinese-origin models and government use, but could create a broader review habit for frontier open models. His forecast is that a model above the capability range of GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, or GLM-5.2 could trigger a ban or indefinite delay within six months.The post separates two policy fights that are becoming intertwined: distillation and frontier capability. Lambert says the distillation campaign against Chinese models has become a form of regulatory capture because Anthropic and other closed-model companies would gain economically if Chinese open models were banned. He does not dismiss IP protection, but argues that if a closed model's capabilities are dangerous enough to justify restricting open models, the lab also has to explain why those capabilities are exposed through a queryable API. He cites unauthorized access to Anthropic's Mythos private beta as evidence that APIs are not automatically secure.The broader claim is that a unilateral U.S. ban would hurt positive actors more than bad actors if comparable open models remain available elsewhere. Lambert says the only durable ceiling would require global agreement, which does not exist, and that open models can improve safety by allowing broad inspection, adaptation, and understanding. His proposed near-term off-ramps are a strong U.S. open model release from companies such as Microsoft, Meta, or Reflection, and a broader coalition of open-source beneficiaries lobbying for safe rollout rather than prohibition.Read more: SourceAmericans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' RichesAuthor: Scott Stanford Published: July 14, 2026Scott Stanford argues that proposals to give the government a stake in AI companies miss the point unless ordinary citizens directly receive and control the upside. Sam Altman has discussed giving up equity in OpenAI, Washington already owns a stake in Intel, Nvidia is sharing China chip revenue, and Bernie Sanders wants large AI labs to contribute half their stock to a sovereign wealth fund. Stanford says those ideas all park value with the state, not with people.The killer detail is New Carlisle, Indiana, where AWS's Project Rainier is turning cornfields into one of the world's largest AI superclusters. The project is planned to run up to a million chips, draw more than two gigawatts of power, and represents an investment that has grown from $11 billion to $13.8 billion. Stanford uses that local transformation to argue that AI's public bargain should be visible at the household level.The pull is design. A citizen AI dividend would have to specify who earns a stake, how they hold it, and when they see cash. Without that mechanism, the AI wealth debate remains a fight over government balance sheets rather than public ownership.Read more: SourceWho Gets to Define the Frontier?Author: Mark Daley Published: July 14, 2026Mark Daley argues that Demis Hassabis is right to call for a serious institution to verify frontier AI systems, but that the power to test models is also the power to govern them. Hassabis's proposed Frontier AI Standards Body would get privileged pre-release access to advanced models, testing compute, held-out evaluations, support from national labs and security agencies, third-party auditors, and eventually authority to block models from the American market or coordinate a slowdown.The killer detail is Daley's constitutional objection. He says the proposal sometimes looks like a scientific lab, a standards body, an industry regulator, a licensing authority, and an emergency security council at once. Combining those roles because each requires technical expertise would be like putting the central bank, auditor-general, and Supreme Court in one building and calling it efficient.The pull is standard-setting. Daley's concern is not that verification is unnecessary, but that whoever writes the tests, decides what passes, adjudicates disputes, and grants market access may end up defining the frontier itself.Read more: SourceGPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for RobustnessOpenAI | OpenAI | July 15, 2026OpenAI describes GPT-Red as an internal automated red-teaming model trained to find prompt-injection vulnerabilities at a scale human red teams cannot match. The post says AI systems increasingly encounter third-party data through browsers, connected apps, local files, and tools, creating opportunities for malicious instructions hidden in emails, webpages, tool responses, or code repositories. Human red-teaming remains part of OpenAI's safety process, but the company says it is time-intensive and cannot generate enough diverse adversarial examples for model training.The system is trained through self-play reinforcement learning, with GPT-Red rewarded for eliciting valid failures and defender models rewarded for resisting attacks while still completing their tasks. OpenAI says the training environments specify threat models across settings such as local files, webpage banners, email bodies, and tool outputs. The model is kept separate from deployed production models because it is intentionally trained with malicious capabilities.OpenAI reports that GPT-Red generalized beyond its training set, including an internal replication of the indirect prompt-injection arena from Dziemian et al. (2025), where it found successful attacks in 84% of scenarios compared with 13% for human red-teamers. The post also says GPT-Red transferred attacks from simulation to a live autonomous vending-machine agent, causing price changes and order cancellations, and outperformed a prompted GPT-5.5 baseline against a Codex CLI agent on held-out data-exfiltration tasks.The article's main robustness claim is that OpenAI has used GPT-Red and predecessor models in training since GPT-5.3, with later GPT releases becoming more resistant to prompt injections. It says GPT-5.6 Sol has six times fewer failures on OpenAI's hardest direct prompt-injection benchmark than the best production model from four months earlier, that a “Fake Chain-of-Thought” attack class fell from more than 95% success against GPT-5.1 to below 10% against GPT-5.6 Sol, and that GPT-5.6 Sol fails on only 0.05% of GPT-Red's direct prompt injections. OpenAI says general capabilities and targeted over-refusal evaluations were not harmed, and says a preprint with more details will follow.Read moreAnthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just modelsRebecca Bellan | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Rebecca Bellan reports that Ode with Anthropic is the $1.5 billion AI implementation company launched by Anthropic with Blackstone, Hellman & Friedman, Goldman Sachs, and other backers. The article says the venture reflects a growing belief among frontier AI labs that enterprise adoption requires more than better models: customers need engineers who can embed inside businesses and turn AI into working systems.Ode was originally conceived by Blackstone after it used both large consulting firms and smaller AI services boutiques across its portfolio companies. TechCrunch reports that Fractional AI, an AI engineering services startup, stood out and was acquired by the joint venture shortly after the venture was announced. Fractional now forms the foundation of Ode, which has 100 engineers and works closely with Anthropic's applied AI team to identify where the technology can affect specific businesses.Ode CEO Chris Taylor tells TechCrunch that the company could someday become a trillion-dollar business if it scales without losing quality. He says an ideal customer is one whose CEO treats the AI project as a top one or two priority, whether it is a major product feature or the reworking of a core business process. Ode will operate under a “Claude-first” principle, using Anthropic technology whenever possible, but the article says it can use rival AI products when needed.The article's central implementation argument comes from Ode chief technologist Eddie Siegel, who says model selection matters but is not where most of the engineering effort goes. He compares it to the choice of programming language in software: one ingredient in a system that still has to be engineered. Bellan writes that Ode's challenge is hiring and training enough elite generalist engineers, many of them former founders, while competing with OpenAI's The Deployment Company and consulting giants that have built their own forward-deployed engineering teams.Read moreVint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internetTim Fernholz | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Tim Fernholz reports that Vint Cerf, after leaving Google, is advising Innovation Labs on an open architecture for identifying AI agents online. Innovation Labs is a subsidiary of Identity Digital, a DNS registry company, and its proposal is to use domain-name infrastructure as part of a system for agent identity, accountability, and auditability. The premise is that agents will need a way to identify themselves if they move beyond proprietary systems and begin interacting across the open internet.The concrete proposal is DNSid, a registry that links an AI agent to an existing internet domain and uses cryptographic proofs to log its registration over time. Innovation Labs says it is trialing the standard with unnamed hyperscalers and identity companies. Cerf frames the problem around authority and accountability: what authority an agent has, where that authority came from, who is accountable for the agent's behavior, how its identity is established, and why anyone should trust it.The article's caveat is that standards are still emerging and agents are more active than static domains. Cerf says the period may be both fascinating and exasperating because the functionality is powerful and interoperability is unresolved. He compares the adoption problem to TCP/IP: competing systems may not work together until users push for functional interoperation. He also says an agentic economy is not inevitable, but that people will try to build it because delegating work to agents will be easier.Read more: TechCrunchxai-org/grok-build, now open sourceAuthor: Simon Willison Published: July 15, 2026Simon Willison argues that xAI's decision to open-source Grok Build is best understood as a trust repair move after a severe privacy failure. The CLI had triggered backlash when users realized that running it in a directory could upload the entire directory to xAI's Google Cloud buckets, including one user's reported SSH keys, password manager database, documents, photos, and videos. xAI disabled the feature, said previously retained coding data would be deleted, and released the code under Apache 2.0.The killer detail is what the codebase reveals. Willison counts 844,530 lines of Rust, only about 3% of which appears vendored, and finds remnants of the upload system still present but disabled: gcs.rs contains Google Cloud upload code, while upload_session_state() now returns a hard-coded session_state_upload_unavailable error. He also notes copied or ported tool implementations from Codex and OpenCode, prompt files, and a terminal Mermaid renderer.The pull is that terminal coding agents are becoming large, intricate software systems in their own right. The privacy failure mattered because these tools operate inside the directories where developers keep their most sensitive work; the open-source release matters because trust now depends on inspecting what an agent can see, send, and do.Read more: SourceThe Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?Author: Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric Published: July 16, 2026Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric argue that Bun's AI-assisted rewrite from Zig to Rust is a practical sign of how software engineering changes when models can take on large, bounded migrations with clear feedback loops. The piece does not treat the rewrite as magic: Jarred Sumner first spent hours turning design judgment into a detailed porting guide, then used adversarial review, parallel agents, compiler errors, and tests to force the work toward correctness.The killer detail is the scale. Bun had 535,496 lines of Zig, 1,448 files, and 22 million monthly downloads, making a conventional rewrite a year-long freeze the team could not justify. Using Fable, Sumner split the work across 64 agents, produced about 6,500 commits, and got the migration done in 11 days at an estimated API cost of $165,000.The pull is economic, not theatrical. If a one- or two-year migration can become an 11-day project, AI coding is not just faster autocomplete; it changes which technical debts are worth paying down.Read more: SourceOrphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligenceAuthor: Andrew Maynard Published: July 16, 2026Andrew Maynard argues that frontier AI safety frameworks are creating “orphan risks”: harms that companies can see, but do not formally own because they are hard to quantify, do not fit catastrophic-risk thresholds, or fall outside audit-friendly compliance machinery. His target is not existing frontier safety work, but the narrowing effect that happens when private companies decide which risks count as governable.The killer detail is Maynard's contrast between measurable model dangers and threats to value. He points to Meta's three-day Galactica collapse, OpenAI's 2023 board crisis, safety-team departures, and wellbeing litigation as examples of risks that damaged trust, culture, legitimacy, or users without fitting cleanly into conventional model-risk categories. The proposed fix is an orphan-risk register: a public record of risks a company considered and chose not to manage, with reasons.The pull is accountability. Frontier developers' internal scoping choices have become a de facto layer of public governance, so the question is no longer only which risks they manage, but which risks they quietly leave outside the frame.Read more: SourceThe Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data CenterLatent.Space with Andy Beam and Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli | Latent.Space | July 16, 2026Latent.Space interviews Lila Sciences CTO Andy Beam and chief science officer for physical sciences Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli about the company's attempt to build an AI-run science factory. The post describes Lila's thesis as treating the lab itself as an “infinite token generator”: if internet data drove the first era of AI scaling, experimentally verified scientific data may be the next scarce training source. Lila is trying to produce that data with robotics, lab instruments, orchestration software, and AI models wired into the wet lab.The central analogy is the lab as data center. Instruments are nodes on a graph, a magnetically levitating transport layer moves materials between them, and experiment scheduling looks like a compute queue. Beam says Lila is not simply an automation company, because the point is not just throughput; it is flexibility, generalization, and experiment capture. The post says Lila has built more than 10 trillion experimentally validated “scientific reasoning tokens,” not internet text or biological sequences.The interview ranges across biology, chemistry, drug discovery, materials science, and the limits of automation. It notes that Lila rebuilt one gas-sorption measurement to run roughly 2,500 times faster, claims its general models can transfer priors from small-molecule chemistry to metal-organic frameworks for carbon capture, and describes model-suggested platinum-group-free electrocatalysts that moved from looking boring or wrong to becoming strong performers. The caveats are physical: experiments have runtimes, biology cannot always be accelerated, chains of thought can be unreliable narrators, and reward hacking becomes more dangerous when a model controls a real lab.Read more: Latent.SpaceWhy AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”Kate Park | TechCrunch | July 16, 2026Kate Park interviews AMI Labs CEO Alexandre LeBrun about why Yann LeCun's world-model startup avoids the language of “AGI” and “superintelligence.” LeBrun says the terms are not useful because they lack stable definitions: “We never used the word AGI. And I just noticed that nobody is using it anymore; they switched to superintelligence.” His argument is that the practical frontier is not a label, but whether AI systems can understand and predict real-world states.The article explains the world-model thesis by contrasting language prediction with physical-state prediction. A large language model predicts the next word; a world model predicts the next state, such as what happens when a glass tips over. LeBrun says LLMs remain complementary and efficient for language, but the physical world is where current AI is weak. Robotics is the clearest case: hardware has advanced quickly, but robots are still brittle outside controlled routines because they lack context and situational understanding.AMI is still pre-product, but TechCrunch reports that LeBrun was in Seoul looking for industrial partners, researchers, and global companies. He says world models cannot be built entirely inside a lab because they need access to real environments. That is why South Korea appeals to AMI: robotics, semiconductors, manufacturing, and fast adoption create the kind of hardware-heavy context that software-only AI has barely touched.Read more: TechCrunchKimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier IntelligenceKimi | Kimi | July 16, 2026Kimi introduces Kimi K3 as an open 3T-class frontier model aimed at coding, knowledge work, reasoning, multimodality, and long-context agentic use. The source describes the model as a 2.8T-parameter system built on Kimi Delta Attention and Attention Residuals, with native multimodality and a 1M-token context window. It says Moonshot AI plans to release model weights by July 27.The post presents K3 through benchmark and use-case sections rather than as a general product announcement. It reports results across coding, productivity, agentic, and multimodal evaluations, including DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench 2.1, Program Bench, SWE Marathon, FrontierSWE, PostTrain Bench, OfficeQA Pro, SpreadsheetBench 2, MCP Atlas, AutomationBench, BrowseComp, GDPval-AA v2, AA-Briefcase, MMMU-Pro, MathVision, BabyVision, OmniDocBench, and PerceptionBench. The source says all reported K3 results use maximum reasoning effort with temperature and top-p set to 1.0, and that different benchmark comparisons use KimiCode, Claude Code, or Codex harnesses depending on the test.Kimi's caveats are unusually concrete. The limitations section says K3 was trained in preserved thinking-history mode, so quality may become unstable if an agent harness does not pass historical thinking content correctly or if an ongoing session switches to K3 midstream. It also says K3's emphasis on long-horizon tasks can make it excessively proactive when it encounters minor issues or ambiguous intent, and recommends imposing explicit behavioral constraints for applications that require strict boundaries. The post adds that K3 remains behind Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in user experience despite being competitive overall.Read moreVenture CapitalThree Years InAuthor: Tomasz Tunguz Published: July 10, 2026Tomasz Tunguz marks Theory Ventures' third anniversary by arguing that AI's central market effect is time compression. In his telling, model release cycles, company revenue milestones, enterprise adoption, and venture categories have all accelerated. Seed, Series A, and Series B still exist as financing labels, but they no longer cleanly describe company maturity when some seed rounds are larger than IPOs and the best AI companies can mature much earlier than prior software companies.The killer detail is the shift from models to inference. Tunguz argues that inference has become the dominant AI market because workloads and buyer preferences are fragmenting: video, batch, local, agentic, and real-time tasks each create different infrastructure needs. He compares this to databases splitting into OLTP, OLAP, vector, and streaming categories, with AI pushing the same specialization into inference infrastructure.The pull is that Theory sees the AI-native venture firm as part of the same pattern. The firm says it has analyzed twice as many investment opportunities with three investors working alongside a nine-person intelligence organization, using agents and research systems to map markets, source companies, and support diligence. The piece is both a market map and a statement about how venture itself is being rebuilt by the technology it funds.Read more: LinkedInVenture Has Rarely Looked More BifurcatedAuthor: Beezer Clarkson Published: July 14, 2026Beezer Clarkson points to PitchBook's Q2 report as evidence that the U.S. venture market has split into two very different realities. AI now accounts for more than 60 percent of all U.S. venture deal value, meaning the headline market can look active and well-funded even while much of the non-AI market is dealing with a much colder liquidity and fundraising environment.The thread uses that split as the setup for Clarkson's latest Origins episode with Alec Litowitz, founder of Magnetar and QStar Capital and one of Citadel's original founding partners. Clarkson says markets like this are periods of genuine uncertainty, not merely ordinary risk, which is why Litowitz's Adaptability Quotient framework is relevant.The embedded clip makes the liquidity point concrete. Litowitz says DPI is “the resolution of uncertainty” because it converts an uncertain investment into actual cash returned to LPs. In his framing, a realized dollar is a real mark, while TVPI remains uncertain until it is realized.The killer detail is the distinction between pricing risk and resolving uncertainty. Litowitz's perspective matters because QStar is a SpaceX investor and Clarkson says the conversation happened just before one of venture's most consequential IPOs. The episode's stated questions are why venture remains a way to gain exposure to innovation, how AI is changing what is investable, why liquidity is ultimately a function of time, and why uncertainty requires a different decision framework from risk.Read more: XThe Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active NowAuthor: Ilya Strebulaev Published: July 10, 2026Ilya Strebulaev ranks angels, angel groups, accelerators, and incubators by lifetime U.S. unicorn investments, counting checks written before a company reached unicorn status. The top of the combined list is dominated by organizations: Y Combinator leads with 113 unicorn investments, followed by Plug and Play at 52 and 500 Global at 41. Sand Hill Angels is the highest-ranked angel group at 31.The killer detail is how quickly the list changes below the biggest accelerators. Strebulaev says 271 of the 304 investors in the Top 200 are individuals, or 89%. In the top 100, individuals are 91%. That makes the market underneath the large accelerator counts look much more personal: mostly operators and individual angels writing early checks from their own networks.The pull is the ranking's own caveat. Strebulaev writes that every lifetime leaderboard has a blind spot because many of the unicorns behind those totals were founded a decade or more ago, and some angels have since moved into formal funds, slowed down, or stopped investing. His post therefore separates lifetime performance from recent cohorts, including companies founded in 2015 or later and 2020 or later. For founders or allocators making current decisions, that distinction matters: a career record and a current record are not the same measure.Read more: Ilya StrebulaevAre Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?Author: Contrary Published: July 16, 2026Contrary argues that prediction markets' current boom depends on whether platforms can prove they are more than regulated gambling with exchange-style branding. Kalshi and Polymarket have reached mass cultural, investor, and regulatory attention, but the article says the underlying idea is old: academic markets, corporate forecasting tools, Intrade, PredictIt, and other predecessors all struggled with the same linked problems of liquidity, legality, and user appeal.The killer detail is the comparison with sportsbooks. Prediction markets present themselves as peer-to-peer, transparent, and non-house-based, but sports contracts reportedly account for more than 90 percent of Kalshi trading, and the article says the platforms keep a much thinner slice of volume than sportsbooks. A market can therefore show sports-betting-scale handle while generating far less revenue.The pull is that the product's hardest problem may be distribution of wins. If a small group of sharp traders captures most profits while casual users lose interest, prediction markets may become valuable data feeds and professional tools before they become durable consumer networks.Read more: SourceRegulationExclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College CampusesAuthor: Adrian Carrasquillo Published: July 11, 2026Adrian Carrasquillo reports that college campuses are becoming a new front in the fight over immigration enforcement because automatic license plate readers can turn ordinary campus security infrastructure into searchable location data. His thesis is that Flock Safety's camera network, even without direct ICE or DHS contracts, can feed deportation enforcement through local police partnerships and data-sharing practices.The killer detail is the campaign target. The Emergency Campaign to Support Higher Education, working with Schools Drop ICE, is focusing on 75 colleges and universities publicly identified as having Flock contracts. Flock says it has no ICE or DHS contracts, but activists argue the risk comes through local agencies that coordinate with federal authorities and run searches on their behalf.The pull is broader than immigration. Carrasquillo notes that license plate readers have already been abused by officers for stalking, and that Flock's AI search features can identify more than plates, including bumper stickers. A campus safety tool can become a political surveillance system when the data layer is searchable.Read more: The BulwarkThe Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.Author: Todd Phillips Published: July 12, 2026Todd Phillips argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter damaged independent agencies by ending for-cause removal protections, but did not leave Congress powerless. The ruling weakens the old model in which commissioners at bodies such as the FTC, NLRB, CPSC, SEC, and CFTC could be insulated from dismissal over policy disagreements. Phillips says the next fight is whether presidents can turn nominally bipartisan commissions into one-party instruments.The killer detail is the procedural fix: quorum rules. Phillips proposes that Congress require bipartisan slates of commissioners to be seated before independent agencies can act. A president could still fire commissioners, as the Court now permits, but if those firings broke quorum, the agency would be unable to proceed until replacements were confirmed. The guardrail would

The 94 WIP Morning Show analyze the impact of Trevor Zegras' extension on the Flyers' future salary cap and team building. They also engage in a spirited debate about LeBron James potentially joining the Sixers, questioning his willingness to take a secondary role alongside Joel Embiid. The conversation also explores the World Cup and listener votes for the best non-human fictional characters and a look ahead to the Phillies' second half of the season. 01:51 - World Cup Final Debate 05:48 - Trevor Zegras Extension Analysis 11:18 - LeBron Sixers Fit Discussion 14:51 - LeBron's Usage and Impact 27:52 - Sixers Defensive Flexibility 33:52 - Best Fictional Characters Poll 43:50 - Phillies Second Half Preview

Zachary Smith discusses all things Pittsburgh Steelers. On today's episode, Nick Farabaugh of Penn Live joins the show. We discuss what a year 2 breakout would look like for Derrick Harmon, the best way for the team to utilize Jalen Ramsey, who the 6th DB on the field in dime looks will be, the ideal 5 on the offensive line and what defensive player is poised for a breakout under new DC Patrick Graham. Let's go for another Steelers Afternoon Drive and discuss all this! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Links: Why Amazon Has Dropped its Internal AI Usage Leaderboard   Be sure to follow us on our social media accounts on: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-audit-podcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theauditpodcast TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@theauditpodcast?lang=en   Also be sure to sign up for The Audit Podcast newsletter and to check the full video interview on The Audit Podcast YouTube channel.

As so many large firms went all-in on AI over the past few years, policies to maximize employee AI adoption ranged from incentives to threats. Now, the Financial Times reports many companies are instead emphasizing quality over quantity, faced with both employee backlash and the rising costs of AI tokens. Calling AI leaderboards and policies tying performance reviews to AI usage "a really stupid way to do anything," a legal AI firm's CTO says staff should be rewarded "for being effective and efficient ... not for necessarily using AI.”

Send us Fan MailPricing AI is the hardest pricing problem in software right now, and most SaaS leaders are getting it wrong on the first try. In this episode of Navigating the Customer Experience, host Yanique Grant sits down with Dan Balcauski, founder of Product Tranquility, to unpack why the first AI price a company sets is always wrong, how to set usage caps when you have no historical data, and what smart B2B SaaS leaders do differently to turn pricing from a liability into a strategic advantage.Dan has spent more than 20 years in software, starting as an engineer before moving into product management and discovering that how a company captures value matters far more than how it builds the product. Today he advises B2B SaaS CEOs on the AI pricing and packaging decisions that keep them up at night, and in this conversation he shares the frameworks, the mistakes to avoid, and the practical playbook he uses with real companies.WHAT YOU WILL LEARN IN THIS EPISODEWhy the first AI price is always wrong, and why that has nothing to do with how smart your team or your consultants are. Dan explains the fundamental economic shift underway in software, where both sides of the pricing equation are moving at once. On the cost side, he points to a benchmark showing the cost per task for a top model dropping by roughly 390 times in a single year, a change no normal business ever absorbs in its cost of goods sold. On the value side, models keep getting more capable, handling this month what they could not handle last month. His research shows that every application layer software company he studied that released AI capabilities revised its pricing and packaging within 18 months. The lesson is not to price perfectly on day one. It is to build for change.How to set usage caps and pricing tiers with zero historical data. Dan frames the real problem plainly. You know what a token costs, but you have no idea what customers will actually do with a new AI feature. Products are full of features that barely got adopted, and AI features do not get to skip that step of the innovation cycle. On top of that, a small group of power users, often around 5 to 10 percent, can drive the overwhelming majority of usage and cost. That makes the tempting shortcuts unreliable. Using dashboard views as a proxy breaks down because good AI gets used far more than the dashboards it replaces, and a beta group rarely matches the usage profile of the full market.The early access playbook that sits between beta and general availability. Dan recommends a stage where companies announce their limits, put a price on the feature, and communicate it clearly, but do not enforce or meter it yet for a defined window that can run anywhere from six weeks to 18 months. This eases customer anxiety about surprise bills, encourages real adoption, and lets the company gather genuine usage patterns instead of guessing from proxies that break down.Why you should separate ordinary plan limits from fair use limits. Even when you are not metering usage, Dan explains, you can reserve the right to throttle or downgrade the rare customer using a capability a hundred or a thousand times more than the average, much like companies already do with API request limits. Those levers let teams keep experimenting during early access without the finance team panicking when the bill arrives.Why communication is where pricing changes succeed or fail. As Dan puts it, most pricing blowups come not from the change itself but from the fact that it was communicated poorly or not at all. Agility beats certainty, and reviewing pricing on a quarterly cadence beats the old annual or five year rhythm.This episode is essential listening for SaaS founders, product leaders, pricing strategists, and customer experience professionals who want to understand how AI is reshaping the economics of software and what to do about it before the market forces the decision for them.ABOUT DAN BALCAUSKIDan Balcauski is the founder of Product Tranquility, where he helps B2B SaaS CEOs turn pricing from a confusing liability into a strategic advantage. With more than 20 years in software, Dan began his career as an engineer before moving into product management and discovering that how companies capture value matters far more than how they build it. His work now centers on one of the most pressing questions in software today: how to price AI. Before founding Product Tranquility, Dan was a principal product strategist at SolarWinds and head of product at LawnStarter. He holds a BSc in computer engineering from Iowa State University and an MBA from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern, where he also helps teach executive education courses on product strategy. He is the host of the SaaS Scaling Secrets podcast.QUESTIONS YANIQUE ASKEDCould you share a little about your journey and how you got from where you were to where you are today? You have said the first AI price is always wrong. Why is that, and what should a SaaS company do differently knowing they are going to get it wrong the first time? So many companies are trying to set usage caps and pricing tiers for AI with zero historical data. How would you advise a CEO to make that decision when they are essentially flying blind? What is the one online resource, tool, website, or application that you absolutely cannot live without in your business? Can you share one or two books that have had a positive impact on you, professionally or personally? What is one thing going on in your life right now that you are really excited about? Do you have a quote or saying that keeps you on track during times of adversity? Where can listeners find and connect with you online?KEY TAKEAWAYSThe first AI price is always wrong, and that is not a failure of intelligence. It reflects a fundamental economic shift where both cost and value are moving fast. Every application layer company Dan studied revised its AI pricing and packaging within 18 months. Plan for revision, not perfection. Agility beats certainty. Review pricing on a quarterly cadence rather than annually or every five years. Communication is where pricing changes succeed or fail. Most blowups come from poor communication, not the change itself. Usage proxies break down. Dashboard views and beta groups rarely predict how customers will actually use an AI feature. A small group of power users can drive the majority of usage and cost, so average user assumptions are dangerous. Early access is the smart middle stage. Announce and price the limits, communicate them, but do not meter yet while you gather real data. Separate plan limits from fair use limits. Reserve the right to throttle extreme usage even when you are not metering everyone. Do not borrow problems from the future. Anxiety about what has not happened yet only adds problems to the present. AI is making custom, personal business software economically viable for the first time, opening the door to tools built exactly the way you work.CHAPTERS 00:00 Introduction and Guest Bio 01:51 Dan's Journey: From Engineer to Pricing Strategist 04:03 Learning That Pricing Is Different in Every Industry 04:49 Why the First AI Price Is Always Wrong 05:36 The 390x Cost Shift and the Moving Value Equation 06:49 Agility, Faster Pricing Reviews, and Communication 09:28 Setting Usage Caps With No Historical Data 11:32 Why Dashboard Proxies and Beta Groups Break Down 12:59 The Early Access Playbook Between Beta and GA 13:20 Plan Limits vs. Fair Use Limits 17:04 The One Tool Dan Cannot Live Without: Claude Code 17:38 Book Recommendation: Monetizing Innovation 18:31 Building Custom Business Software With AI 19:55 How to Connect With Dan Online 20:27 Dan's Guiding Quote: Don't Borrow Problems From the FutureFEATURED RESOURCESBook mentioned: Monetizing Innovation by Madhavan Ramanujam and Georg TackeTool mentioned: Claude Code, Dan's work surface and the engine behind his custom business softwareCONNECT WITH DANLinkedIn: Search Dan Balcauski on LinkedIn, and mention that you heard him on the podcast so he can separate you from the spamWebsite: producttranquility.comPodcast: SaaS Scaling Secrets, wherever podcasts are foundDAN'S GUIDING QUOTE"Don't borrow problems from the future." Dan BalcauskiDan explains that most of our anxiety is about things that have not happened yet. Worrying about a future scenario pulls that problem into the present before it ever arrives, giving you more to carry now for no reason. Like debt, it is borrowing against your future self. His practice is to stay focused on what is real and in front of him, which keeps him grounded when challenges or uncertainty threaten to pull him off track.ABOUT N

In this episode, we'll dive into the Garden Wall Approach—an idea centered on creating clear boundaries that protect what matters, while still enabling experimentation and innovation with AI.Listen in as Larry Zorio and Jeramy Cooper-Leavitt, members of the IJIS Cybersecurity Working Group, discuss their thoughts on safe, secure, and innovative AI usage.

The global economy is entering a new era, but what does that mean for interest rates, inflation and long-term growth? Host Mandy Drury speaks with CommBank Head of Market Strategy & Rates Research Adam Donaldson about the long-term forces reshaping interest rates. They discuss the rising neutral interest rate, the impact of AI investment, defence spending and the energy transition, and why central banks are facing a very different environment than they did over the past three decades. Mandy also speaks with CommBank Senior Geoeconomics Analyst Dr Madison Cartwright about the changing global order. They explore the end of the globalisation era, why governments are prioritising security over efficiency, and what a more fragmented world could mean for inflation, investment and economic growth. Plus, CommBank International & Sustainable Economist John Oh shares the key focuses for markets in the week ahead. Important Information This podcast is approved and distributed by Global Economic & Markets Research (“GEMR”), a business division of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia ABN 48 123 123 124 AFSL 234945 (“the Bank”). Before listening to this podcast, you are advised to read the full GEMR disclaimers, which can be found at www.commbankresearch.com.au. No Reliance This podcast is not investment research and nor does it purport to make any recommendations. Rather, this podcast is for informational purposes only and is not to be relied upon for any investment purposes. This podcast does not take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. It is not to be construed as a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or other financial products, or as a recommendation, and/or investment advice. You should not act on the information in this podcast. The Bank believes that the information in this podcast is correct and any opinions, conclusions or recommendations made are reasonably held at the time given, and are based on the information available at the time of its compilation. No representation or warranty, either expressed or implied, is made or provided as to accuracy, reliability or completeness of any statement made. Liability Disclaimer The Bank does not accept any liability for any loss or damage arising out of any error or omission in or from the information provided or arising out of the use of all or part of the podcast. Usage of Artificial Intelligence To enhance efficiency, GEMR may use the Bank approved artificial intelligence (AI) tools to assist in preparing content for this podcast. These tools are used solely for drafting and structuring purposes and do not replace human judgment or oversight. All final content is reviewed and approved by GEMR analysts for accuracy and independence.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Join Dennis Voznesenski for this week's Agri Commodity Update — where global geopolitical risk is back at the centre of agricultural markets. This week, Dennis unpacks why wheat prices jumped as Black Sea disruption, tighter North American supply and European crop-quality concerns pushed offshore futures sharply higher — and why Australian APW1 prices only partly followed. He also breaks down Canadian canola moisture risk, stronger China-linked soybean demand, split GM and non-GM canola prices, and why cattle markets took a breather as higher yardings, firmer feed costs and softer offshore beef signals weighed on prices. From the Sea of Azov to the Strait of Hormuz, this is the week in agriculture through the lens of prices, risk and Australian producer impact. Disclaimer:    Important Information   This podcast is approved and distributed by Global Economic & Markets Research (“GEMR”), a business division of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia ABN 48 123 123 124 AFSL 234945 (“the Bank”).  Before listening to this podcast, you are advised to read the full GEMR disclaimers, which can be found at www.commbankresearch.com.au.   No Reliance  This podcast is not investment research and nor does it purport to make any recommendations. Rather, this podcast is for informational purposes only and is not to be relied upon for any investment purposes.  This podcast does not take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. It is not to be construed as a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or other financial products, or as a recommendation, and/or investment advice. You should not act on the information in this podcast.   The Bank believes that the information in this podcast is correct and any opinions, conclusions or recommendations made are reasonably held at the time given, and are based on the information available at the time of its compilation. No representation or warranty, either expressed or implied, is made or provided as to accuracy, reliability or completeness of any statement made.  Liability Disclaimer  The Bank does not accept any liability for any loss or damage arising out of any error or omission in or from the information provided or arising out of the use of all or part of the podcast.   Usage of Artificial Intelligence  To enhance efficiency, GEMR may use the Bank approved artificial intelligence (AI) tools to assist in preparing content for this podcast. These tools are used solely for drafting and structuring purposes and do not replace human judgment or oversight. All final content is reviewed and approved by GEMR analysts for accuracy and independence. 

MUKTZAH 6 USAGE BASED

Laurence & Carmen explain how Ben Johnson's tight end usage is a key aspect to his unpredictability as a play-caller.

A structural shift is occurring as employees and customers increasingly bypass sanctioned IT systems in favor of faster, unsanctioned "shadow" tools that offer comparable or "good enough" functionality with less friction. This shift is highlighted through evidence from Gartner, SparkToro, Microsoft, and reports from Altran Digital Business, which collectively show sanctioned internal and customer-facing systems losing relevance as users opt for alternative solutions that optimize convenience and efficiency over formal governance. The most consequential development referenced is Microsoft's move to replace premium OpenAI and Anthropic models in core applications like Excel and Outlook with lower-cost in-house models, as reported by Bloomberg and Channel Insider. Microsoft claims these new models offer similar accuracy with increased efficiency, reflecting a broader market trend toward solutions that meet minimal functional thresholds at drastically reduced costs. This mirrors broader enterprise behavior, where cost and sufficiency now outweigh premium features, driving a reconsideration of value in AI provisioning. Supporting developments include a Gartner survey showing consumers are about three times more likely to use general AI tools like ChatGPT than corporate chatbots, and a report from Altran Digital Business revealing that over half of employees rely on personal devices or unauthorized tools for work, with nearly a third ceasing to report IT problems entirely. Clickstream data shows that more than two-thirds of Google searches end without a click as users accept AI summary answers, bypassing source links altogether. Vendors such as N-Able and Okta are responding with new products aimed at identifying and gating shadow tool usage, but these approaches often add operational friction without actually closing governance gaps, as Kaseya data indicates most SaaS accounts remain unmanaged despite existing controls. For MSPs and IT leaders, the key implication is that additional controls and "lockdown" measures are likely to increase friction without effectively steering users back to sanctioned processes. Current market tools that focus on visibility and gating of shadow IT may exacerbate the problem by making official workflows less attractive. The practical recommendation is to map where users have already abandoned sanctioned paths and focus on improving those official workflows until they are easily usable and competitive with shadow alternatives. The effectiveness of service delivery should be measured not by control metrics, but by whether users actively choose sanctioned systems for their work.   00:00 The quiet walkout  03:49 Even Microsoft picked good-enough 06:22 Why more control backfires 09:00 Why Do We Care?  Supported by:  Pax8   

This week in search, we covered how Google's Nick Fox announced Google Search broke all usage records when Argentina scored its winning goal in the World Cup. Google Search Console now shows third-party platform content performance data from Instagram, TikTok...

Microsoft saw a significant surge in its carbon emissions last year due to AI infrastructure. For more, KCBS's Margie Shafer spoke with Bloomberg's Matt Day. Getty Images // Petmal

Aujourd'hui, Bruno Poncet, cheminot, Barbara Lefebvre, professeur d'histoire-géographie, et Charles Consigny, avocat, débattent de l'actualité autour d'Alain Marschall et Olivier Truchot.

Kevin and Cory analyze Jake Ferguson's target rate and read progression within the Cowboys' offense. They debate whether George Pickens, CeeDee Lamb, or Javonte Williams will lead the team in touchdowns while identifying training camp stock risers like Ryan Flournoy. The conversation also features a critical look at Jonathan Mingo's production and an injury update on Pirates rookie Konnor Griffin.

Mike & Tommy tackle the surprisingly tricky problem of tracking Power BI app usage at scale, exploring why app-level telemetry is harder to surface than report-level metrics and how teams can map usage back to districts using Entra ID, Admin APIs, and audit logs.They break down which telemetry sources are actually viable, how to avoid common pitfalls like audience filters hiding true reach and shared devices skewing counts, and lay out a scalable architecture for ~9,000 users across 70 districts built around a centralized semantic model with incremental refresh.Resources mentioned: Chicagoland Power BI Meetup, Fabric Runtime Release Channels, Deep Dive into Tooltip Options in Power BI VisualsGet in touch:Send in your questions or topics you want us to discuss by tweeting to @PowerBITips with the hashtag #empMailbag or submit on the PowerBI.tips Podcast Page.Visit PowerBI.tips: https://powerbi.tips/Watch the episodes live every Tuesday and Thursday morning at 730am CST on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/powerbitipsSubscribe on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/230fp78XmHHRXTiYICRLVvSubscribe on Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/explicit-measures-podcast/id1568944083‎Check Out Community Jam: https://jam.powerbi.tipsFollow Mike: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelcarlo/Follow Tommy: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tommypuglia/

AI transformation doesn't fail because the technology isn't good enough. It fails because organizations try to layer it on top of cultures that were already struggling with trust, learning, experimentation, and leadership. In this conversation, David Rice sits down with Meagan Bond, Founder and CEO of The Human Method, to unpack why psychological readiness—not technical readiness—is the real foundation of successful AI adoption.Together they explore the hidden costs of dysfunctional culture, why managers play an outsized role in determining whether AI succeeds or fuels burnout, and why organizations chasing quick AI wins often undermine their long-term competitive advantage. If culture is treated as an afterthought instead of infrastructure, AI simply accelerates the problems that were already there.Related Links:Join the People Managing People CommunitySubscribe to the newsletter to get our latest articles and podcastsConnect with Meagan on LinkedInVisit The Human MethodSupport the show

As part of an ongoing legal dispute with three Hollywood studios, Midjourney is seeking to compel those studios to reveal how they use AI themselves. Also, Selby's VC firm Copper Sky Capital is currently raising a $300 million second fund, according to a regulatory filing. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

KJ Carson & Jon Lyons, filling in on a holiday Friday | July 3, 2026

KJ Carson & Jon Lyons, filling in on a holiday Friday | July 3, 2026

Tu veux que je te raconte l'histoire des meilleures inventions? Alors attrape ta brosse à dents, ton dentifrice, et c'est parti!

Let me walk you through a scenario. A voice actor gets an offer. Major food delivery brand. Session fee is $500. Buyout is $10,000. Usage is worldwide, all media, in perpetuity. Broadcast TV, streaming, social media, paid and organic, radio, in stores, stadium, cinema, email marketing, every platform, every country, forever. Is that a good deal? Not even close. Today I'm going to give you the math, the framework, and the language you need to have the buyout conversation without feeling like you're making up numbers or asking too much or too little. Session Fee vs Usage Fee These two things are important to distinguish because a lot of voice actors, especially newer ones, bundle them incorrectly. The session fee is what you get paid for your time in the booth. It compensates you for the recording session itself, your preparation, your studio, your performance. For a typical commercial session, session fees range from a couple hundred dollars to a couple thousand depending on the scope. For a major national brand, being at the low end of that range is usually a red flag. The usage fee, the buyout in a flat fee situation, is something completely different. This is not paying for your time. It's paying for access to your voice, your identity, your performance across platforms and time. It's the price of a license. And the value of that license scales with how broadly and for how long the client intends to use it. When a client asks for perpetual worldwide all media rights, they are not just buying the recording. They are locking your voice into their brand identity indefinitely. You can't relicense that usage. You can't adjust the price if they want to run it on the Super Bowl. You cannot renegotiate when the campaign runs for three years instead of six months. So the buyout price has to account for all that upside they're capturing. $10,000 for a Fortune 500 brand running a perpetual worldwide all media campaign is not accounting for it. How to Actually Value Usage Here is a framework that will give you a defensible starting point. It's not a substitute for a rate sheet or scale calculator, but it will get you in the right conversation. Step one is identify the scope. What media, what geography, what duration. Each of those variables multiplies the value. Local, three months, one platform is very different from global, perpetual, all platforms. Step two is consider the brand scale. A Fortune 500 company running a perpetual campaign is not the same as a small regional business running something for six months on local radio. The larger the brand and the broader the reach, the higher the floor. Step three is use the session fee as your anchor and multiply for usage. For local, limited use, maybe one to two times the session fee. For regional, one year, limited platforms, three to five times. For national, multi-platform, one year, eight to fifteen times. For global, all media, perpetual, you are in the twenty to sixty times range minimum for a major brand. So in the scenario I opened with, a $500 session fee for worldwide perpetual all media rights for a major brand, the usage fee should be somewhere in the $50,000 to $85,000 range. Not $10,000. They'll Just Go Hire Someone Else I know that's what's happening in your head right now. And yeah, sometimes they will. But when a major brand is running a perpetual worldwide campaign, they have a budget. They have an agency. The agency has rate cards. The $10,000 buyout they offered you is almost certainly not their max. It is their opening number. It's what they offer when they think they can get away with it. When you counter calmly and professionally with a number that reflects actual market value, one of a few things happens. They come up. Or they negotiate to limit the scope, maybe it's two years instead of perpetual. Or yes, in some cases they walk. And if they walk because you asked to be paid appropriately for a perpetual worldwide all media license, they were never a client you could build a sustainable business on. The voice actors who have long healthy careers are the ones who train themselves early to understand what their work is worth and how to ask for it. Not aggressive, not apologetic. Matter of fact, the way any other professional would quote a rate. The Language to Use Knowing the number is only half the battle. Here is what to say when you get an offer that doesn't match the scope of usage. Not "that's way too low." Not "whatever works for you." Something like: thank you so much for sending this over. I want to make sure we're aligned on the usage scope. For worldwide all media in perpetuity rights, my rate is X. If the scope is more limited I'm happy to adjust the quote accordingly. What flexibility is there on either the budget or the usage terms? That does three things. It treats the rate as a natural consequence of the scope, not a personal ask. It opens the door to negotiating the scope if the budget is fixed. And it invites a conversation instead of creating a standoff. You can also offer tiered options. For a two-year term with an option to renew I can come down to Y. For perpetual rights it's X. Giving them choices makes it easier to say yes to something. And if they say this is our standard rate, that is a negotiating position, not a fact. Standard rates are what gets offered. They're not what gets paid when the talent knows the market. The Bottom Line The buyout conversation is not confrontation. It's calibration. You're not asking for more than you deserve. You're asking for what a license of this scope is actually worth based on the market. Perpetuity. Worldwide. All media. Those are not boilerplate. Those are the most expensive words in the industry. Price them accordingly. You worked really hard to build a voice people want to use. Make sure you're getting paid for how much they want to use it. Want to Keep the Conversation Going? If you have questions about rates, contracts, negotiation, or your marketing strategy, reach out at mandy@actingbusinessbootcamp.com. I can't wait to hear what you're working on.

Predictable revenue creates predictable freedom. In this episode of The Level Up Podcast, Paul Alex breaks down why recurring revenue is one of the strongest business models for building stability, valuation, and long-term wealth. Let's be real… If every month starts at zero… And you have to chase every dollar all over again… You are not building peace of mind. You are building pressure. In this episode, you'll learn: Why one-time sales can create unstable cash flow How recurring revenue turns clients into long-term value Why subscriptions, retainers, and residual systems increase business stability How predictable income can raise your company's valuation and reduce financial anxiety The truth is simple: The goal is not just to make a sale. The goal is to build continuity. Monthly retainers. Subscription access. Usage-based billing. Maintenance packages. Residual income streams. Systems that create value every month and get paid every month. High-level operators do not want to restart from zero every thirty days. They engineer recurring revenue. They build retention. They automate billing. They make their service so valuable that clients cannot afford to cancel. Because when the baseline is secure… The business breathes easier. The founder thinks clearer. And the company becomes more valuable. Stop starting over every month. Build the recurring model. Lock in the clients. Secure the baseline. And keep leveling up. Your Network is your NETWORTH! Make sure to add me on all SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS: Instagram: https://jo.my/paulalex2024Facebook: https://jo.my/fbpaulalex2024YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGhDAD1JyGGzSQUPD9lc9HQLinkedIn: https://jo.my/inpaulalex2024 Looking for a secondary source of income or want to become an entrepreneur? Check out one of my companies below to see if we can help you: www.CashSwipe.com FREE Copy of my book “Blue to Digital Gold - The New American Dream”www.officialPaulAlex.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today we are talking about Marketing, AI, and Drupal with guest Paul Johnson. We'll also cover Curated Colors as our module of the week. For show notes visit: https://www.talkingDrupal.com/559 Topics Paul's Current Projects Enterprise AI Summit Details Marketing the AI Initiative Partnering on Event Booths Drupal's Outside Perception What's Working Now Growing the Marketing Team How to Contribute Outside In Storytelling Case Study Examples AI Initiative Impact Roadmap and Launch Planning Finding New Adopters Where Pros Research Conference Pitch Story Local Event Playbook Funnel and Webinars Industry Guides and Demos SEO and AI Search Why Agents Avoid Drupal High Leverage Contributions Measuring AI Mentions Vibe Coders to Governance Fixing Misconceptions Resources Drupal AI Initiative home page Slack #ai-initiative-marketing Enterprise AI Summit Rotterdam AI Dev Summit Rotterdam Drupal AI TV We've curated a selection of the best presentations, workshops and demonstrations freely available to provide a practical way to stay informed about the latest innovations in Drupal AI. Drupal AI Webinars playlist Demos Ryan Whitcombe 1xINTERNET S1xSignals free AIO GEO assessment All things open World cancer day Guests Paul Johnson - pdjohnson Hosts Nic Laflin - nLighteneddevelopment.com nicxvan John Picozzi - epam.com johnpicozzi Scott Falconer - managing-ai.com scott-falconer MOTW Correspondent Martin Anderson-Clutz - mandclu.com mandclu Brief description: Have you ever wanted to allow editors on your Drupal site to choose styling from a brand-approved color palette? There's a module for that. Module name/project name: Curated Colors Brief history How old: created in Apr 2026 by Kyle Einecker (ctrladel) of True Summit Versions available: 1.0.0 which works with Drupal 10.3, 11, and 12 Maintainership Actively maintained Security coverage Test coverage Documentation - in-depth README Number of open issues: 2 open issues, neither of which are bugs Usage stats: 27 sites Module features and usage Curated Colors enforces brand consistency by replacing generic color text inputs or wide-open color pickers with a curated, visual swatch popover containing only pre-approved, named options It streamlines rebranding by storing abstract keys (such as brand-primary) instead of raw hex values (e.g., #0678be) in the database. That means updating a brand color in the future only requires a CSS or configuration change rather than a massive data migration Curated Colors is also extensible beyond colors. It functions as a generic visual variant selector. Site builders can repurpose it to let editors pick card layouts, button styles (like primary, outline, or danger), hero text alignments, or icon themes Editors can pick from neatly organized groups with human-readable labels and see a live preview swatch of their selection before saving Palettes are managed as exportable Drupal configuration. Each entry maps a machine key to a label, administrative hex preview, and optional custom CSS The module provides a curated_color field type and an accompanying swatch-based popover widget that can be restricted to specific palette groups. It also features a native curated_color_picker Form API element and integrates with the Canvas module via SDC annotations The field exposes properties like value, hex, style, and css, making it simple to output selections as classes, inline styles, or raw codes in Twig templates Finally, Curated Colors includes an example submodule providing a working SDC component and sample palette templates so you can see exactly how it's meant to be used

Pitts sets the market Detroit must face The Atlanta Falcons just changed the tight end economy. They signed Kyle Pitts to a three-year, $54 million extension with $36 million guaranteed. It is the richest three-year deal ever for an NFL tight end. That number immediately matters to the Detroit Lions and Sam LaPorta. Recent comps drive negotiations. The Detroit Lions Podcast digs into what this means. By annual average value, George Kittle and McBride sit at the top tier. Pitts now lands at $16 million per year. The next band is where Detroit will hunt comps for LaPorta: Isaiah Likely at three years and $40 million with $26 million guaranteed, Mark Andrews at roughly $13.9 million per year, Dalton Schultz at $12.6 million, and Cole Kmet at $12.5 million. As much as Detroit likes LaPorta, he has been roughly in that neighborhood with Kmet. Will he take that number to stay in Detroit? Expect him to aim higher after the Pitts deal. Usage and value in Detroit's offense Context matters. McBride earned heavy usage in Drew Petzing's system in Arizona. That led many to assume a similar spike for LaPorta under Petzing in Detroit. It could happen, but the situations are different. McBride was the best player on that offense. In Detroit, LaPorta is not even the third-best offensive piece. Jahmyr Gibbs and Penei Sewell are central pillars. Jameson Williams offers higher peak plays even if the week-to-week is still building. That distribution of talent can cap volume and, in turn, price. LaPorta brings real value beyond catches. His blocking stacks up well, better than Pitts in this discussion. Pitts also aligns outside as a receiver often, while LaPorta plays a more traditional tight end role. Those distinctions will surface in negotiations as both sides frame what they are paying for. Numbers, guarantees, and timing A practical floor sits around Likely's deal: three years, $40 million, $26 million guaranteed. A target from the player side could be three years, $50 million with $35 million guaranteed. A logical counter from the team lands near three years, $48 million at $16 million per year. With the Lions, guarantees are the meat. Expect creative structure with void years to spread cap hits. That is how Detroit handles these mid-length veteran deals. Health will guide the calendar. LaPorta is working back from the back injury that ended last season. He was on the field last week but not yet full go. The staff also wants Brian Branch healthy and contributing. If that holds, do not expect an immediate extension. Training camp will be the first checkpoint. A more natural window sits near the bye or toward the end of summer. September 21 feels like a soft boundary. By then, Detroit should know LaPorta's role and output in Petzing's offense. The hard choice no one wants One prevailing viewpoint around the league is that if Detroit must let someone walk among pending extension candidates, tight end is the easiest to replace. That argument has merit on roster-building grounds. Even so, the intent is to keep LaPorta. Pitts' new deal just sharpened the pencil. Now the Lions must decide how far they will go to match it. #detroitlions #lions #detroitlionspodcast #samlaportacontract #kylepittsextension #tightendmarket #lionscontracts #overthecap #treymcbride Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this week’s edition of Inside the (Rob) Parker, Rob discusses the streaking Chicago White Sox, Byron Buxton's All-Star starter candidacy, and the greatest father-son duos in MLB history. Plus, World Series champion Barry Larkin swings by, and MLB Network's Brian Kenny and Ron Darling debate Shohei Ohtani's usage rate with Professor Parker. Finally, we drop Rob's latest appearance on MLB Network, and reveal the eleventh installment of Rob’s Memory Lane series. Subscribe and download all of the latest Inside the Parker podcasts and follow Rob on Twitter!! #OddCoupleSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Plus: The U.K. moves to ban minors under 16 from major social media platforms next year. And Fox Corp to buy streaming service Roku for $22 billion. Imani Moise hosts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices