This is just sort of frat rock on too much human growth hormone.
Hi everyone, this is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher.
And I'm Scott Galloway. Kara, what is on the Washingtonian's 300 most powerful women in Washington list?
No. Are there 300 powerful women in Washington? Except that's not the news.
It says Kara Swisher, co-host with Scott Galloway for the Pivot podcast. So I am now one of the most powerful women in Washington.
And I knew this was coming because I got comped a cheese plate at the Hay-Adams. Ask around. It's true. They knew it was coming.
And I just want to give advice to all young men about how to become the most powerful woman in Washington. One, first and foremost, just get proximity to a terrifying lesbian with sunglasses.
Excellent. Excellent. Good choice.
And also, it's just pretty obvious. I sat on my back at the elevator at the Washington Park Hyatt. I took three Viagra, hit the elevator up, and I broke the glass ceiling. Kara, I broke the glass ceiling. Also, I'd just like to say,
How you turn my victories into your own dick.
About me. I just like dick jokes and that's what happened. I'd like to say, Justice Sotomayor. Okay. Does she host a podcast? I am more powerful than Justice Sotomayor.
You might be in this particular Supreme Court. Actually,
I love how you're pretending you didn't know that list.
I'll bet I didn't. I didn't.
I'll bet you're the only person on that list that called a hundred other women and told them they didn't deserve to be on the list.
No, I didn't. I didn't know I got on it. I'm on so many lists now because I'm old, Scott. That's why.
I don't know that one of the 300 most powerful women.
I hate those lists. I hate 300.
I'm sorry. I just, I mean,
Yeah, it's me and Susie Wilds, right? She's got to be on it.
No, no, finally you're on a list with Natalie Harp. That's got to feel good.
Oh, that's nice. See, she is a powerful woman, unfortunately. Um, anyhow, we've got a lot to get to today. There's a lot of news, so I think we need to dig in.
First, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth unveiled a new plan for the military in his State of the Force address, including a reduced senior leadership — that's sus — and an end to diversity programs. He also announced Elon Musk, Anduril founder Palmer Luckey, and Newt Gingrich will lead a new effort to study the future of warfare. Uh, none of whom I think has been in the Army or Navy or military, but okay. Hegseth also attacked the media over coverage of the Iran war, calling the reporters anti-American losers and saying the reporting amounted to treason. Um, one, but Scott, I'd like to get your reaction to one particular part of the speech. Let's listen to this.
But it's worth saying again so that the fake news understands it. We are no longer the woke department or the weak department. Simple translation of that: no fannies, no fatties, no [__], no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps, no radicals — just warriors. Just tough, ready, committed troops.
Oh man, there's something deeply wrong with him. Anyway, how do you reconcile putting Elon, who has, you know, speaking of weirdos, Palmer Luckey, who is also a weirdo, and Newt Gingrich, who is probably a wimp. I don't think he's a [__]. He's a bit of a fatty. Like, anyway, um, let's speak of this, of what he's doing here from a messaging point of view, Scott, first, and then obviously it's terrifying on many levels because he's incompetent and is in power. He wants a kind of a John Wayne cinematic version of macho believing that keeps our nation safe. You can take your roided-up macho, you know, WWE, you know, warrior and give me a 90-pound man or woman in thick glasses with a drone and a Hellfire missile and a command module. Let's see who wins.
We fight wars now not as much with brawn but with brains and with people who have a certain level of discipline, a certain level of respect for each other. They acquit themselves professionally. You know, hold your head high, stick to your values. This is just sort of frat rock on, you know, too much human growth hormone. It's just stupid. And all the part that really bothered me, you know, no fatties alone, but no [__]. It's just — who uses that word anymore? Like it's from the '50s or something.
Yeah. And beardos. You're a beardo apparently. Just so you know. I think you just wanted to rhyme with weirdos. I guess beardos.
Let me see which ones of these are yours. You're not fat. You're not a [__].
I'm a wimp and I'm a — I'm a wimp, a radical, and a beard, and a beardos.
Or a fatty. All of these things.
Let me see. What am I here? I'm not really fat. I'm a — I don't have a beard. I don't think I'm that weird. Um, I'm not a wimp. I wouldn't say I'm radical. I could be in the army. Anyway, I just — the whole thing is just ridiculous. He's just trying to get rid of women in the military. He's trying to get rid of anyone who doesn't go along. And the issue he has is that he's in a position of power. I'm kind of perplexed since Republican senators are pushing back really hard on him that Trump keeps him in place. I assume he's doing it so he can make some action at the election. That's the only reason presumably. I'm not sure what to say.
Weight standards, grooming standards, and physical toughness map onto a fitness standard. A [__] is a slur targeting a group's identity, not their capability or appearance, essentially, or appearance standard being enforced. Conflating it with fatties is laundering a slur as if it's just another performance metric.
He thought it was funny. You know, they sat around and workshopped it out for 10 minutes. I think it reads as a calculated message, not a gaffe. Repeating nearly the same list a year after the first time — I think it was at Quantico, he addresses the address — suggests this is a deliberate signature, not something that slipped out.
No, no, I don't think so. No, I don't think that. What do you think of this group of what the future of wars? Do you have another commission? They're going to do a — like I think it's just like a report essentially and I think it was just a lot of handwaving. Um, you know, Palmer Luckey has, you know, done some really interesting things in the defense area. Newt Gingrich before he lost his mind was very digitally oriented. I had spent a lot of time with him. Actually went on the road to introduce the internet to college students many, many moons ago. Um, but he's sort of since become sort of curdled into this like demented little demon. Elon certainly, you know, rockets, I guess rockets. Elon, I don't know what that has to do with defense, but okay, sure, why not. I think it should be a larger commission. If you want to talk about where war is going, it's perfectly fine to do that. But this is just a bunch of handwaving from my perspective. I don't — it seems like not useful.
I think it's absolutely the right thing to do. The problem is it's probably the wrong person overseeing it because the biggest — I think arguably the biggest or one of the biggest silver linings around Russia and Ukraine and what we've learned there is I think a Democratic candidate for president should say under the auspices of fiscal responsibility, which is an existential threat, I think there's an opportunity to take our military spending from 1.5 trillion to 600 billion while making it a more lethal fighting force.
Yeah, it is. It's an opportunity but this is not that.
Agreed. It's the wrong person. He's probably going to ask for more money. But we have a series of platforms that are too big, too expensive. It's basically the military-industrial complex full employment act. And not only that, unfortunately, they have to be manned, which means we have a glass jaw and are afraid to use any of it. You know, the bar around the quote-unquote bravery or the missions. It is really easy to demonstrate incredible bravery and bold actions with your strikes when these things aren't manned. Right? The moment you put an individual in a billion-dollar craft, your risk tolerance goes way down. When Ukraine launches a thousand drones against Moscow, they know a thousand of them aren't coming back. They know that. They know that 97% aren't getting through and are getting shot down before they get to their target. You can't take those risks with manned aircraft.
Yeah, you can't. I just — it's like it's an opportunity, right, to change things. And speaking of which, executives from top AI companies have signed what President Trump called a morally binding — he knows all about morals, according — agreement. The agreement encourages companies to implement robust internal controls to monitor the capabilities of AI models. It's voluntary, at least for now. Uh, the document states over time it may make sense to codify these steps into laws or regulation, but not to worry. Trump said, quote, 'There's going to be tremendous self-policing aspect.' He went on later to say the word policing, self-policing, over and over again. He also signed an executive order rebranding the artificial intelligence as super intelligence. Fine, he's SI instead of AI, but we're not — we're going to be using AI, I feel. He's directing federal agencies to use super intelligence or SI in government documents or communications. He unveiled an America.gov chatbot powered by Gemini and Grok that's being called a concierge to the federal government. I use that, it's relatively useless, though. At first, the bot correctly said Biden won in 2020. There was no evidence of widespread fraud. Now, it says it can't answer those questions. Uh, you know, again, it's a propaganda thing. Um, you know, this agreement was all these CEOs wandering around the White House. They never leave the White House. It's only tech CEOs get to be at the White House apparently. You know, I'm dying for like a heavy manufacturer CEO to be there or someone else. But, um, Mark Zuckerberg reportedly was the driving force behind this sort of toothless agreement. Um, they all look like ridiculous. The whole thing was — it's ridiculous, nonsensical. It's a little bit of what I had — you and I had been to when Biden did the same thing. It was just a statement of principles essentially and it wasn't that different from when you and I were at the White House what Biden was saying. So this is just such like theater and both — both Hegseth and this is just sort of war and AI theater.
Yeah. Is it AI that's the existential threat or the fact that we have a trillion-dollar industry growing this fast that's not regulated? We're in uncharted territories and the notion that this is morally binding — they might as well say, they might as well have all of them hold up three fingers and give scouts honor. I mean, it's just so — the contradiction here is stifling. Anthropic's own securities filing says models can resist shutdown and manipulate information. OpenAI just shelved a model after internal tests found deception evasion issues. Uh, so this is where they go to is they say, but — and this is kind of the message coming from the broligarchs trying to stay off regulation that they can get sued and that this is in America, this is tremendous guardrails. But here's the problem. That's not — that's not enough after the fact.
That's right. That's after the kids have already died.
These companies don't police themselves. Right. Airlines, manufacturers, you know, restaurants themselves don't, you know, don't inspect themselves, right? They don't — they don't — restaurants don't inspect themselves. No, banks — banks don't set their own capital requirements. Boeing doesn't certify its own plane. We're asking the guys building Jurassic Park to serve as the park rangers. We're asking the Tyrannosaurus Rex to be the park ranger here. You know, you use the expression all the time. We're allowing the arsonist to tell us about fire safety essentially. And one of the things that's really interesting here is how much — I'm just riveted. Like when it came out, I think I'm sure you went on — I was like, this is just ridiculous. This is just — and of course they spelled the United States wrong, which is just like, who in the world is over there that can just like actually copy edit. But this Hegseth thing, this thing with the president at the White House, it's all such theater. It's just ridiculous theater without anything. Meanwhile, these guys get to do whatever they want and sort of pretend that they're getting along. This is a Silicon Valley beef happening on the asphalt in front of the White House. That's all it is. It's like how they — and they had poor Dario there. He looked like a hostage. I don't know if you noticed. They kept moving him around.
You know, he kept trying to run away. And it was just the whole — I know he's trying now to cooperate because he's going public, which we'll talk about in a little bit. Um, but I just — this is like so dangerous. It's both things are so dangerous in terms of what's happening and leaves us so vulnerable in so many ways. Um, and especially the fact that he's doubling down, Scott, when every single poll says differently. I — what do you imagine is going on there? He just doesn't care or he's getting money or what — what is your explanation from a marketing point of view even of pushing this stuff when everybody is against it?
I think it goes to a broader point and that is the incentives here overwhelm morality and the problem isn't that these people are evil. Exactly. The problem is that they're capitalists and we shouldn't build a regulatory architecture that requires CEOs to choose humanity over market share every Tuesday morning. This isn't their job. Their job is to be rapacious capitalists and the government's job is to ensure — prevent a tragedy of the commons and then tax them such that we reinvest in the middle class to actually buy their products and have a navy and food stamps. And we're not doing either. So this is just really, in my opinion, really poor governance and I think these guys — I can't imagine all of these guys aren't on Lexapro and Xanax to get to sleep at night. Okay, we don't know what's going to happen when the next administration comes in and says, oh, we've decided you're liable for everything, the bad thing that happened here, and there's a populist uprising against these guys. You could definitely see one or more of these guys on trial if something bad happens.
Yeah. Yeah. So, and Bill Gates gave, I thought, an excellent interview in the New York Times and has me rethinking everything. I've always said, you know, there's always a wizard behind the curtain and that there's going to be more jobs created than destroyed. And he believes that once these, you know, in all of these professions, once they get to a quote-unquote acceptable level, you're just going to see entire industries — employment goes away. And to be fair, Bill's been wrong before, but he's mostly right about technology. I found it very — I found it very scary.
Yeah, I think he's going a different direction. He often does that, right? He wants to be the kind — Bill is on a quest to be relevant and he is relevant, but I think he — there's a couple of people who are going to stake out a very different thing and he doesn't have skin in the game, right? Really, I assume he still owns Microsoft shares. The thing I like about Bill is he does say the things out loud. The thing I don't is he tends to be like very — he should be more strongly worded, I would say, but it's not in his nature. He likes to sort of get along in a lot of ways. And I think we need a leader from this group that says, hold on a second. This is existential. This — but in a very — someone who's not at one of these companies who has a lot of credibility.
He's saying that though. I mean, he is — he still has Microsoft stock and he's saying legal liability is not enough. They need regulation. The threats are very real here. And also for all the hits deservedly that the Gates brand has taken, how many — he would still be the richest man in the world if not for the fact that he saw an opportunity to nearly eliminate malaria and save millions of people.
I agree. It's like he is, you know, he is the tallest little person, the fastest tortoise. I think millions of people who are still alive do not give a [__] that Bill Gates was allegedly [__] prostitutes. I think those 5 million people give him a hall pass that are still alive. And then you look at the other side, a guy like Elon Musk, who you could argue is going to go down as not putting — putting a colony on the moon and Mars so him and his buddies can pick a series of sexually attractive mates to repopulate the world after we fight it out here on Earth and is potentially going to be found responsible for what might be the largest indirect cause of death, disease, and disability in Africa after we cut off USAID there. They are quite opposite figures, you know, on so many levels.
He is a — you use the term civic-minded. Bill has his flaws. He is civic-minded with 160 IQ and has spent a hundred billion dollars.
Yeah, it's an interesting thing. I just — the only thing I would say that finishes up is why are they the only people talking? We need everybody. They're all talking. I would like to hear from others and I would like them to be part of the conversation. Critics.
Well, Hinton is speaking.
Hinton is. Yeah. But it's just not — they're just — they don't get to go to the White House and have their say or their part. It's just this president's so bought and paid for. It's kind of — it's really kind of silly. And now he's just swinging around. Anyway, let's go on a quick break because this is an important story that's related to it. When we come back, you're going to break down Anthropic's S-1 filing for us.
Support for this show comes from Granola. No matter how important the meeting is, it's impossible for everyone to remain locked in 100% every single minute. It's just the way group convos go. Someone stays ruminating on an early point while someone else gets preoccupied with note-taking. That's why Granola was created to make sure nothing gets missed. Granola is an AI-powered notepad built for the way real people actually meet. Here's how it works. You take rough notes like you normally would, and in the background, Granola securely transcribes the meeting. Then it turns everything into clean, structured, actually useful notes when the meeting ends. There's no cumbersome setup either. Granola works through your device's audio, which means it integrates seamlessly into the video conferencing tools you already use. It's just your normal meeting with superpowers. So now you can actually listen instead of trying to catch every important word. You walk away knowing exactly what was decided, who's doing what, and what comes next. If meetings are eating up your day, Granola is a no-brainer. You can try it totally free. Just head to granola.ai/pivot. That's granola.ai/pivot to get your time back. Try it for free at granola.ai/pivot.
Support for the show comes from Plaud. If your day is filled with meetings, calls, and important conversations, keeping track of what was said, what was decided, and what happens next can quickly become a job of its own. Whether you're meeting in person or online, taking conference calls, or conducting interviews, Plaud can help you make the most of your time. Plaud is the AI-powered note-taking device built for real-world conversations. Unlike relying on your phone or opening another app every time you want to take notes, Plaud is designed to be simple and always ready when you need it. With just one tap, you can start capturing a conversation. No app to open, no complicated setup, and no need to stop what you're doing. Afterwards, Plaud turns the conversation into a transcript, structured summary, key insights, and actionable next steps. And with Ask AI, you can ask questions about a past conversation and quickly find the specific detail or decision you need. It's for founders, executives, investors, journalists, consultants, sales teams, or anyone who spends a large part of the day in conversations. Because the value isn't just getting a transcript, it's making sure you don't lose an important detail, decision, or follow-up after the conversation ends. For a limited time, Pivot listeners can get 22% off Plaud with code pivot at plaud.ai/pivot, spelled P-L-A-U-D.ai/pivot.
Scott, we're back with more news. As Anthropic gets ready for its IPO, Reuters got a hold of its S-1. Let's go through some of it. Anthropic is reportedly seeking a $2 trillion valuation. The company reported a net loss of $42 billion in 2025 and plans to spend $518 billion on computing, infrastructure, and infrastructure in the coming years. Anthropic is also heavily reliant on a small group of companies. 47% of its sales were routed through Amazon and Google. There's a lot of AI doom in this thing. Not surprising. More than one-third of the filing, around 80 pages about risk. It has to be. Including models resisting shutdown, manipulating information, and potentially posing existential threat to humanity. Other than that, it's a delicious Twinkie. Uh, by comparison, 48 pages discuss the actual business. So, Scott, take it away. Give us some wisdom here.
Okay, so OpenAI wants another 30 billion at 1.4 trillion while delaying its IPO and Altman has explicitly connected the delay to safety concerns.
Yeah, it's a bridge financing, that's what he's calling it, and pushing back the plans.
Yeah, the private markets can now finance companies at a scale that lets them postpone the discipline of the public markets. Historically, if you needed billions of dollars, eventually you went public and now sovereign wealth funds and mega funds and hyperscalers have weakened that constraint. So essentially what's dangerous here is OpenAI can get public company money without public company scrutiny. Look, the scary thing about the numbers is something I wasn't expecting and that's concentration. It looks like just a handful of companies are 40% of the revenue and those companies use it in a way — Meta uses Anthropic in a way that likely very few companies will use it and small companies typically suffer from concentration of a customer base which you can understand but a company trying to obtain a $2 trillion market capitalization with this level of concentration of client base was the thing that jumped out to me. As I said, 47% is through Amazon and Google and then there is a Meta relationship but the Amazon and Google is where much of it is. You can understand Amazon — how many Amazons and Googles are out there that need that level of complex, robust, you know, AI. So it felt — it just felt — I don't know, I read it and thought this is a huge red flag. So I don't — you know, I found the whole thing — the growth is staggering, you know, I think it 10x'd, but it was the concentration that got — yeah, it's —
So what is that — what do you say to investors? Like when you see that, how would you play this right now? Obviously there's an upside thing that could happen just because the way the market is.
Let me just try and set the table. They generated about 5 billion in revenue, up 25% in 2025. That's up 12x, but they lost nearly 8 billion. The headline 42 billion loss has a big asterisk because 34 billion of it is accounting charges. So maybe that's not relevant. It wants a valuation north of 2 trillion or roughly 435 times last year's revenue. Uh, it's committed 518 billion in future compute infrastructure obligations. That's more than 110 years of its 2025 growth — or revenue, excuse me. And then again, one quarter of revenue came from two customers and 47% of sales were routed through big tech partners that are simultaneously suppliers, investors, and potential competitors. As you noted, the prospectus devotes roughly 80 pages to risks and 48 pages to the business. That's remarkable. And the kicker here is that Anthropic says AI may cause catastrophic harm while arguing the solution is a more powerful Anthropic AI. And you know, Reuters identifies this exactly as this whole paradox of this whole movement right now.
We could kill you but you need us to stop us from killing you.
But finance our IPO so we can stop.
You know, I'm a murderer but I need you to give me money to save me from myself and you. This may be the first IPO where the risk factor is not 'our business might fail' but 'our business model might succeed beyond our ability to control it.' I've never read that before. It's sort of usually an S-1 of this type of company says here's how we make money. Here are the risks. That's typically what an S-1 is supposed to do. Anthropic said, okay, we lose billions. We need half a trillion dollars of infrastructure and our product might kill you. Anyway, two trillion, please. It's just like — you use the right term. This doesn't feel like an S-1. It feels like a hostage note with a cap table. And again, it goes back to this weird license we give to innovators around, you know, self-regulation. In scouts honor, if Meta built a nuclear power plant, we wouldn't leave a strongly worded post-it note on one of the reactors, right?
So what would you do? Is it because it may go soaring upwards, right? Wall Street's on a tear, right? And the economy is relatively stable. The growth is relatively stable. So what would you do here?
Oh, if you're a shareholder, uh, you should be selling everything you can in the secondary markets. This market is — so first off, the IPO market is not strong. Uh, I made a prediction that Aura would have a successful IPO. I don't know if you saw, but Aura actually pulled their IPO. So the IPO market, I wouldn't say it has a chill, but it's definitely not as frothy as I thought. This other piece of [__] SoftBank company got pulled, but that was just ridiculous. That was like WeWork with a SoftBank logo on it. And so what I would be doing if you're a shareholder and you can get 1.4 trillion in the secondary market, oh my god, sell everything because the multiple on revenues here, the fragility, the concentration of a customer base — not only the existential threats to humanity from Anthropic, but the existential threats that the market and regulation and the public and the media represent to Anthropic right now. If all of a sudden — I've said this, I use this example before — I'm at the corner of Wilshire and Santa Monica. If an AI bot that said, 'Here's an incentive to be creative to shut off the lights, the signals for 5 minutes at the intersection between Santa Monica and Wilshire.' If it was successful in doing that and eight cars crashed, I think Congress might get whipped up into a frenzy and say, 'You guys need to shut all of this down for 14 days.'
Yeah. Especially if the Democrats seize the Senate, like it'll be Elizabeth Warren all day long doing a proctology exam of them. It literally be Elizabeth Warren at her finest, right? Like with her speculum. She will have a —
Oh, she would — oh my god, she —
Yeah. No, she'd be up there with a plastic glove on one hand telling everyone, telling Dario Amodei to put his elbows on the table.
Well, let me go over to OpenAI. He said they're raising at least $30 billion and the money is coming. New funding at a valuation of 1.4 trillion. The round would serve as a bridge financing, as we noted, because they shelved their IPO plans largely because they're worried about safety. I'm sure that's what it is. Um, he said it won't go public until it is confident about safety claims about its AI. He's confident about that, extending the delay that already been pushed beyond this year. Um, it, as you noted, it canceled the release of its newest model because of issues with alignment. Um, and then it also launched Dots, a new always-on assistant designed to compete directly with Meta's popular Muse agent. They probably put that on fast forward. Dots can work in the background, use a web browser, and connect more than 4,000 apps while learning a user's preferences over time. Another company I'm not going to give my personal information to. So now there's two of these, whatever they happen to be. Theirs is an adorable thing called Dots. Meta's is this other Muse thing that I can't wait till someone makes a horror movie out of these things. Uh, you know, these adorable squishies. Um, what did they — what's happening there? What's going to happen there? I really don't know at this point.
When you say there, what do you mean at OpenAI? Like they're delaying everything and you know they're getting a lot of pushback because every 5 minutes one of their systems is attacked — Australia or our own government or companies. Um, same thing with Anthropic obviously, but OpenAI was the first.
It is insane that a company called Dots and Muse that we're not even really able to explain yet gets launched with absolutely no regulatory view. No one has said to this thing, uh, we've looked at it and don't think it can make a bioweapon from —
kitchen supplies. No one has looked at it and said, we think we can hack into an aircraft carrier and take advantage of young men who've been on deployment for 230 days and start a parasocial relationship with a character and then convince them that I love them and they should take down the drone defense system for the next 5 minutes when we perceive their irises indicating they are massively exhausted and vulnerable and going through a state of mean. I mean, yeah, I know this is a movie.
Both these guys should be able to say, and I think they would want to say this. Oh, and by the way, we have worked with the FTC, the CDC, the SEC, and several world-class people from the social sciences department of Berkeley and technologists and also our security apparatus. And we have spent the last 120 days testing this thing every which way but loose, an independent test. And we feel confident that this... I mean, when they put out, when they put out Facebook, it was going to connect the world, right? It was like we're going to bring together the parents of kids of rare diseases, right? Yeah. And look what happened there. So, and now we're already seeing this crazy... I thought Jensen had a really interesting thought and that is the first, the place to start is these bots have no rights. They're not allowed to access the internet. They're not allowed to talk to each other. They're not allowed to kill themselves to sacrifice for a mission. They're not allowed to coordinate. And then one by one you can give them rights but don't give them sentient objectives. Be creative. Be persistent. And then you have to document why you have given each of them permissions.
Yeah. But it's kind of a creep, isn't it? I mean, eventually we'll rely on them. One of the things that's fascinating to me, you know, they have dots. The other one has Muse. They're all these adorable figures. Why aren't they adult figures? Why are they... to me they're trying to capture younger people? Obviously.
Oh, see, I saw they're just trying to soften the... they're trying to make your executioner cute.
Why would an adult want to talk to a plushy? Like I just don't get it. Like I would feel more confident if it was like, you know, a really firm German lady like that talks to me when I have maps, right? Like this is the... you go like... don't make the lesbian joke, don't make the lesbian joke. I... I don't think that's where most people's head went. No, but they don't want a dot. They want like a... if you want, if you get an assistant you don't want a dizzy person. You want like a competent assistant if this is what it is. And I just... I'm not going to... like I was using Muse but now I'm like annoyed by it. Like, but I didn't give it any good information. So it didn't really... wasn't able to do anything but identify a rash I had. Like, you know, I just don't... I don't know why they're... I know they're trying to soften it but I don't think that's appealing to adults like necessarily.
Yeah. But they're trying to... they're like... they're not going to make the thing look like Lucifer or Noaratu. People are really scared of this technology. There's a delta between No Seratu and these things like competent assistant. They said, 'Okay, what is the most non-threatening... fool them that this probably won't destroy humanity type of figure?' I can't stop watching. It ends up in periods of real stress, cute films and romantic comedies do the best. And then in good times, everyone wants to hear Ingrid Bergman talk about killing herself.
Yeah, I guess. And so now all these... I am obsessed. I go online and I watch 10 times a day the previews for that movie with those little rabbits that love each other and just kiss each other all the time. Oh, okay. Have you seen this thing? It's called The Furry North. No. You know, it's a little thing like they're watching. What is Tommy Tuberville upset about it? They're watching... It's these two rabbits and they watch TV together and then one kisses the other and then they kiss over and over and they swell up and turn pink. Oh my god. I mean, that's what... And it just... I need to see these things like every third minute. They're... it's the cutest thing. It's the cutest thing in the world. And I do not watch these things. And these guys have said to their design on these products, okay, this product could result in a bioweapon clearing out 60% of the population in Sri Lanka. But they'll smile and be squishy as they do it. Yeah. But soften it. So that's not the first thought that comes to mind. Yes. I don't care.
It's these kind of insights from the dog that have made me one of the 300 most powerful women in Washington. I really didn't know that. I am so showing up for that dinner. You know, I saw going through my thing, but I didn't open it. I am so... Will you go in my place in my stead? Oh, I can't wait. All my favorite women are there. Dana Bash is there. Oh, is she one, too? Kaitlyn Collins is there. Margaret Brennan is there. Why don't you go for me? Those are my people. Those are my people. For the love of God, go for me. I would love that. Oh, absolutely. Go represent taking care of switchers. And then I'm just going to... and then I'm just going to stand up every 15 minutes and scream out EQUAL PAY and then sit down. Anyway, we're going to move on now. We'll see. We'll see. We'll see about this IPO if it happens and when it happens, what'll happen? Let's go on a quick break. When we come back, David Ellison names his co-CEO.
Support for the show comes from Zeta Global. Understanding your customers is one thing. Anticipating their behavior is another. But in business, if you want to succeed, you've always got to be thinking two steps ahead. Zeta can help. Zeta helps marketers and enterprises see beyond disconnected data and fragmented tools, bringing customer and business context into a clear, more actionable view. It brings together what a business knows about its customers, what it is trying to achieve, and the decisions required to get there. And instead of asking teams to operate another dashboard or stitch together another workflow, Zeta's AI can help determine what matters, what should happen next, and how to improve based on the result. The goal is to help you make better decisions about who to reach, what to say, where to invest, and what to do next. For customers, that means experiences that feel more useful and relevant. For businesses, it means spending less time managing technology, and more time building stronger relationships and driving results. Ready to make smarter, faster decisions? Visit zetaglobal.com/pivot to learn more.
This is advertiser content from HarveyAI. We have a choice over who we work with and who we don't. Specifically, who we allow to advertise and who we don't. And for those of you who watch my content, I am not an AI catastrophist. I'm an AI optimist. I think it's going to create more jobs than it destroys. And I think our job as professionals is to figure out how to leverage these tools. AI, more than almost anything I do in terms of what I could point to for real economic leverage and savings, is 100% in the legal fields. Harvey is the AI designed specifically for legal work, trusted by leading law firms and enterprise legal teams. All right, so now I'm looking at their demo. It plugs into tools that lawyers already work with: LexisNexis, Microsoft, and this is a key, and I do this internally with my LLMs with permissions. It lets you look at the firm's own files and databases. So here it's answering a question, reads the complaint, pulls the relevant terms, checks the web, weighs the evidence, and drafts a response. But it also can do this in a shared workspace between the firm and the client. So they both have visibility into the work being done and can both add value to it. I think this space is clearly sort of hand-in-glove for AI, right? There's no doubt about it. This, I think, is going to be super helpful not only for law firms themselves, but internally for general counsels at companies. Harvey is AI tailored for law. You can learn more at harvey.ai.
