I don't buy Dario anymore. He may well be the second greatest founder of all time behind Elon, but I am just so burned out of the boy who cries wolf.
Starting off on the agenda, Anthropic unveils Mythos, but withholds it from public release because it's too good at hacking. Number two, public software stocks tumble to new lows with Citi saying there really is no cause for optimism. And then finally, Meta debuts Muse Spark. It's Alex Wang's first model from Meta's Super Intelligence Labs. Does it save Meta in the race to catch up?
So, I'm pretty bullish actually on OpenAI in the enterprise.
I think it's a two-way fight. Anthropic has the advantage of clarity and focus. OpenAI has the advantage of the consumer business.
If your agents are only 60% as good, you're in a slow death spiral. It appears to be the most expensive IPO at scale of all time.
The Elon discount rate is zero and the Elon probability of failure rate is zero to get to 2 trillion. I can't open the Strait of Hormuz myself. I can't do this like enough already. Let me just use my tokens.
Ready to go.
Guys, I am so excited for this show. As we always have, we're going to start with Anthropic. What else could we start with but Anthropic unveiling Mythos, with the preview withheld from public release because it is too good at hacking, discovered thousands of zero-day vulnerabilities, admittedly some were quite old. How did we think about this? Did it deserve the reaction that it got?
Which reaction are you talking about, Harry?
I would say widespread fear that there was then shown in a loss of market cap of a lot of public companies in the US. Let's leave to one side the was it a marketing stunt, whether they have enough compute. Let's focus on what Mythos does in terms of cybersecurity and what your correct response to that would be.
And you know, if you read a lot of the stuff, it finds a whole ton of vulnerabilities, including some that have been lying there for years, right? So that's kind of the oh my god, that's scary. And then you see, and that's why they withheld it and shared it with a bunch of security vendors, right? And then you see a bunch of kind of counterarguments that basically some version of this, which is using older models and using them well, you can actually get to the same outcome, right? You can find the same security vulnerabilities, right? And that's the counterargument. And there was a whole bunch of Twitters that said this is not a big deal. And you know, I'm processing this from the outside, and my conclusion is those people who said it's not a big deal are wrong, and Anthropic is right. And I was thinking about the metaphor here today, right? Because what they were saying is, and it's actually very interesting about the whole agentic revolution, it's kind of a microcosm that allows us to talk about a lot of things. It's like basically they are right, which is, sorry, the naysayers are right, which is that you can take an older model, you can point it at some of these issues, you can kind of query, you can direct it a couple of times, and someone actually did the exercise of here's how I found the same bugs. I have to steer the model a little bit, and you got it, right? But the comment is Mythos just kicked off on its own, agentically goes and looks at all the code and finds them on its own, right? And the metaphor I was trying to look at here is very simple. It's like it's the difference between a rifle and a machine gun in one sense. Both of them can kill someone, right? But one shoots one bullet and then stops and reloads, and the other just spews bullets out. And in the First World War, you know, we all tragically learned that machine guns are... it might be the same thing, but quantity makes a huge difference. And I think that's what's really going on here. The speed at which this can process and reason across large code bases means that they're just going to find more bullets. They're going to shoot more bullets. So it's not so the kind of the Twitter cynical 'it's not that different' isn't true, because it's the capabilities to do so much so quickly with such little human direction that makes it definitely a quantum step difference in terms of real capability.
My big aha was it's not overblown in the sense it can find stuff. I think that AI is enabling every single breach possible, every security hole to be found. Not a subset of the hottest companies, not folks trying to attack OpenAI APIs, but everyone. And like for example, you know, the other day MyFitnessPal bought Cali, right? Cool story, right? What was it, Harry? $100 million. 19-year-old kid from Miami, something like that, right? A great story. Two days later, it was instantly breached. All the records were stolen. 3.2 million records. Everyone's single use. Everyone, all the data on you, all your HIPAA data, every single thing on you was stolen within days, and it became a sport for a hacker. They just stole it all. Now the root cause was, and actually this is surprisingly common, it's an issue Supabase and others had to deal with. They didn't have any authentication on Firebase. But as most databases are now built by AI, as more and more apps are built by AI, the number of issues is going to explode. And if Mythos and friends lets bad actors find every site the second it launches with any PII and steal it, I think we may enter an era later where sites get more secure as it's flipped on the other side. But I think we're going to go through a transition phase where security is just getting worse and worse and worse because every single website can be instantly hacked and stolen from. And the whole Mythos run, they said, I think Claude said it took him, I don't know, I'm sorry, I'm going to misquote the numbers. It took him $20,000 of credits or a couple hours or something like that. Right. And hey, that's enough that I'm not going to do it against SaaStr's website. But if I could simplify that and distribute it against every single thing with any PII on it, you know, bad actors are just going to hit everybody. I think it's a big deal. Whether this is a publicity stunt for not having enough capacity, I don't know, maybe a little bit, right? But everything's going to be found, every security hole.
Right. Agreed. Which is why the second comment I'll make is I thought that, so the second comment is that the reaction to it in terms of security stocks going down to me didn't make sense because I'm like, what this says is there's no doubt that the process of going forward, part of the process of security will be to use Anthropic or another code model to check your code before you deploy to find these vulnerabilities. This will be a thing, right? But someone's going to have to administer that. Someone's going to have to build frameworks and harnesses to do pre-screening code. And then, but then more importantly, everyone's going to have to operate on the assumption that if you miss anything, they're going to find it, which is different than if you miss anything and you're really strategic, they might find it. Right? To Jason's point, if the other side now have machine guns, then you've got to build tanks, right? So what security is might change. The vendors who step up and meet the challenge will triumph, and the ones who don't will fall away. If Anthropic say that their model now allows anyone to find any vulnerabilities and are going to withhold it for six months, that means that in six months and one day, every bad guy on the planet is going to be pinging your code and trying to find the bad bits, right? So you bet you're going to be investing in cyber. So I think the part that made sense was the this is a big deal. The part that didn't make sense is the cyber stocks should go down because I think you're going to want way more defenses because the bad guys are more heavily armed. And yes, as I say, it is an arms race.
Do you buy Dario's 'it's too powerful, we can't release to the public'? Is it just great marketing?
I don't buy it anymore. I'll tell you something. One thing that changed with me with the Mythos thing, for what it's worth, I don't buy Dario anymore. What I mean is, listen, he may well be the second greatest founder of all time behind Elon. Look what he's done in five years, right? Five years to $30 billion. The greatest grudge startup of all time, right? I mean, it's hard as a founder to not, your heart not to fall on the ground. But I am just so burned out of the boy who cries wolf. Every job's going to be destroyed. Everything is insecure. Everything, like enough already. And like I've heard it so many effing times. And then about Mythos, I have to hear that like he's created the spawn of evil if we're not careful. Like I just can't, like I'm, I've rotated back to team Sam after all this because I just can't take the endless boy who cries wolf. It's like even if you're right, I can't open the Strait of Hormuz myself. I can't do this like enough already. Let me just use my tokens. Seriously, I've lost confidence in him, not in him as a CEO, but this endless marketing machine. I'm tuning it out now. I don't care anymore what he says about this stuff. I don't care.
What specifically, what specifically do you not buy? I'm just trying to understand.
Listen, if every Dario's like 80% of jobs are going to be destroyed in two years, we'll need no programmers by next week. Okay, that endless thing. Maybe he's right, but what can I do about it? I heard you. I heard you the 11th time. I heard you the 80th time. I heard you on Joe Rogan. I heard you on TBPN. I heard you on Harry. I just can't. And then the Mythos thing, and they were holding it back, and it's like I believe you're a safety guy, but if you talk your game too much, I just got to check out at some point. Show me something that's inspiring. Like I actually, I honestly feel like his message is uninspiring. That's the problem. It's uninspiring.
I'm going to push back a little on that. But in the following way, I think a lot of the doom warnings are wrong, and the doom warnings to date have been wrong. If you look at the unwillingness to release ChatGPT-2, which in retrospect was overdone, but I think the concerns are sincerely held, right? And yeah, it also is good marketing, I acknowledge that too. But I think the starting point is there is belief here that these things could happen. To be very concrete, I think it's totally wrong about the economic 50%. I think that's beyond madness, and I'm not worried about it in the slightest. But I do believe, and I thought about this a lot because what I realized is if I'd met them at the seed, which I didn't because it was outside our price bracket, but if I'd met them, I would have done exactly what you did, Jason. I would have listened to the doom warnings and I would have said, 'That's all silly and wrong. Therefore, I won't do the deal.' Right? And what I've learned is something more nuanced. I think a lot of Silicon Valley companies have a culture that's overreaching, and you listen, you go, the grandiosity, if you're kind of a grounded person, you reject the grandiosity. But what I've internalized is the grandiosity is a rallying cry, is sincerely held, because I don't believe you can portray grandiosity consistently for five years if you don't believe it. So unless you're really psychopathic, sociopathic, I should say. So I think it's sincerely held, and I think it has a huge unifying effect on a company. Like take for example Elon and we're going to Mars. Like the minute we had to file an S-1 and someone had to say you might have to go to prison if you say things wrong, we said we're not going to Mars, we're going to the moon. Right? So you could be cynical. If I'd looked at that deal much earlier on, I would have said the cynical but incorrect approach would have been to say I don't think they're going to Mars for here's 10 reasons. Therefore, I'm not going to do the deal. The more evolved approach, and this is why I'm pushing back on Anthropic, is I don't think they're going to go to Mars, but I do think the Mars vision over 20, 30 years is a rallying cry that will allow them to do amazing things in the short term, which they've done. And I think the same thing applies with Dario here. It's like I think it's all overblown. I think half of Silicon Valley, I'm going to say it here, is running around thinking they're inventing the next thing after the atom bomb. And I simply don't. I don't think we're going to unemploy 50% of white-collar workers. I think it's madness. I think it has some legitimate dangers in cybersecurity and bioterrorism, but they're manageable. I think we're all, it's all overwrought, but that overwrought, I won't say hysteria, that overwrought intensity, right, has allowed them to build a culture where they had no churn, it's given them mission clarity, and then it's given them a $30 billion revenue line and a possibly trillion-dollar market cap. And what I've learned, and it's really hard for me because I find all this problematic. Like it's like the Airbnb. Remember the Airbnb was the sharing economy and Uber was the, you remember the sharing economy. It sounded like a bunch of communism. We're all going to sleep on each other's, you know, air mattresses. That was a visionary fairy tale. That turns out what really is going to happen is people are going to buy houses and rent them out, right? So what I've learned, you know, Steve Jobs was a bicycle for the mind. It turns out we're all just going to sit on our phones and, you know, watch Instagram and get depressed about other people's lives. But the visionary bit, it just helps keep the machine of innovation churning here, people. So what I've learned to do, which is really hard, is literally listen to the idealism. Don't say do I agree or not, say to myself will it motivate people enough to do something where there is economic advantage to be obtained, and that's a very cynical old person's perspective. But that's the context in which I say I think Dario believes all that stuff, and I think it's useful for them, and I think it's wrong. But it's damn useful, and it's worked.
Jason, I get you. What do you want him to say then? Like you said, oh, I don't find him inspiring enough. What would make you happy? What do you think he should say? And I think before things got tougher, I think Sam was good at teasing at this. I want him to take us to Mars. I want to see the good side. Even Vinod, who is very direct that there's going to be a lot of job losses. Right or wrong, Rory disagrees, but Vinod's very direct, his point is it's going to be okay, right? We will figure this out with AGI. Everyone will pay more taxes, even in California. It's okay. Marc Andreessen, his point is we're entering an era of deflation and abundance, right? I don't need too much on the other side. I don't need the fluff, but I just need a little inspiration that there's some good. And I'm not saying maybe the third hour of Dario's speeches have it, but everything I see on social media feels like he's an inverted Debbie Downer. And it's just, I'm tuning out. I'm just tuning out now. And maybe in the enterprise he's got to, we'll just see. Listen, I don't run a $30 billion [company]. It may almost have to change as the years go on as this works less well with the million-dollar customers, right? You may have to be more positive about the benefits in your workflow.
I think, Jason, the odd thing is we're actually agreeing on one thing. Tune out the noise and just, you know, in the words of Haldeman, you know, don't look at what we say, look at what we do. I always love quoting the Nixon White House as what used to be the most cynical White House we've ever seen, but we can come to that another day. And you know, ignore what all, ignore the people that people are saying, 'Oh my god, this could eliminate white-collar jobs,' and wringing their hands and saying, 'This is awful.' Look at what we're doing. We're shipping code. We're shipping software. We're doing $30 billion in run rate. Oh, it's amazing. Turns out you're not buying the guilt. I mean, you're not buying the guilt. You're not buying the hand-wringing. You're actually buying the revenue. And the revenue is amazing.
I've spent a lot of the last year attempting to help founders that they genuinely need to move more quickly, that they are too complacent in their approach to AI, that what they have is at best a 60% solution, a 60% answer to the problem. I've tried to vibe code in public. I've tried to build my own apps. I've tried to share how we've rebooted our teams to three humans and 28 [AI]. I've done all this, and I know it's profoundly helped a lot of people. I get so many messages, so many public company CEOs, leaders reach out to me. Even me, I'm like, I'm almost done with this phase. Like, I have alerted you, okay? If after me with my 10 trillion tweets and 2,000 blog posts and 5420 VC pods together, if you haven't heard the message that you got to catch up in AI, maybe I'm no Dario, but even I'm ready to move on to the new world. I'm leaving the past behind. And if we're all going to live in a world of robots and AI lawyers, so be it. Like, you know, I'm ready to move on to the new world. And I'm frankly ready to write off a lot of portfolio companies and a lot of public companies. It's time to move on, guys. If you're not going to get there in April of 2026, then so be it. So be it. Well, let's mark it down and call it a day. And good luck to you. I'm going to close with the Oppenheimer quote. All of these founders have their Oppenheimer moment. They want to be Vishnu, destroyer of worlds. And that's been, you know, they all reference the book. Obviously, everyone, you know, so obviously channeling Sam and channeling their kind of all Oppenheimer moment, you know, with the new atomic bomb. My favorite moment in that movie was when Harry Truman says, 'Get that crybaby out of the White House.' In the end, Harry correctly says, 'I dropped the bomb.' The equivalent of that is if a whole bunch of people are fired, Jamie Dimon will fire them. He doesn't need you wringing your hands with guilt, Dario. It's okay. Right? And it was a great moment when Harry Truman correctly said, 'History won't say, Robert Oppenheimer, you killed all those people. History will say, you built the bomb.' And history will say, 'I dropped it.' Right? And so, in other words, get over your guilt. Ship the product in a methodical fashion. Do be careful. I do think he was right to keep that product back, but in the end, you know, it's not stoppable. I appreciate that you, I actually think he's very thoughtful about it. So, I'm on his side on being thoughtful. I don't think it's fake, but this is going to happen and other people are going to own the problem. Onwards.
Onwards. The final element which is connected but not the same, which is Mythos was trained entirely on Amazon's Trainium.
I don't think that's correct, straightforwardly. What makes you... I'm sorry, I cut you off there because I've had too much coffee, but whatever.
It feels like a three-cup morning for Rory, doesn't it, Harry? What are you saying?
Sorry, keep going. Keep going because I'll let you finish your sentence.
Well, apparently Mythos was trained entirely on Amazon's Trainium chips. Jassy disclosed that it's now a $20 billion annualized business growing triple digits. Trainium now is nearly sold out. Uber among one of their biggest customers. Question being, if this is the case, are we slightly seeing a loosening of Nvidia's stronghold on the market? And does this change how we feel about Nvidia?
First of all, I think you need to be really precise here because I checked, I didn't know this point, so I checked it. It sounds like you're saying a couple of things. It sounds like you're saying, 'Oh my god, they're shipping Trainium chips to others who are buying chips and using them.' They're not. They don't, to a rounding error, have a merchant silicon business. They're not competing directly with Nvidia. What is true is Amazon, instead of buying Nvidia chips, is buying its own chips and then offering cloud hosting services and, you know, inference services and model training services. So it's not... so think of it as less 'oh my god, someone's buying chips and competing with Nvidia,' it's that Amazon is not buying Nvidia chips, instead using its own chips, and most of that run rate is internal purchasing. So what they're really saying is Amazon is saying we have a capex budget of $200 billion a year this year, which probably means about half of that typically is chips. It's $100 billion. So where we can, we're buying our own chips, of course we are. And where we're not, we're going to have to buy Nvidia just like everyone else. So that's true. And then in terms of who's quote-unquote a customer, all they're saying is this is when they're doing training runs for Anthropic, which I'm sure they are, or they're doing inference runs, which I'm definitely sure they are because that's a product that they offer through Bedrock. When they're doing that, they're running it on their Trainium. So yes, in that sense, some of the Mythos model was probably trained on Trainium chips, but not because Anthropic said, 'Yo, I love Trainium.' It's because to the extent that Amazon is offering them compute, some of that compute is on Trainium. That's all that's happening here. But all that said, it's still $20 billion of dollars that didn't go to Nvidia that went to Amazon. So it is at the margin meaningful. It's 10% of kind of Nvidia's revenue, a little less than 10%. So it's not a mega competitor. It's just an in-house bundled product at some significant scale.
I'm loving this, Rory. Jason, aren't you?
You know, 10% is material. Like, we don't need to spend all day on it. 10% is material, right? And I guess...
The bear case is just everyone's building their own chip or deploying their own chip. Everyone's trying, especially on inference. And, you know, this is, and that just, Nvidia is dented. It's dented sufficiently to see multiple compression. It's dented sufficiently that our 401ks go down more, right? It's really just that. It's that when things are priced to perfection, there's a dent. Right? Fortnite. Maybe...
Nvidia may have its own Fortnite moment, as crazy as it sounds. It just may be the first 30 seconds of the game on a relative basis. But yeah, but no one knows this better than Jensen, right? No one is friends with his frenemies and friends of partners and friends of better than Jensen. No one's played this game in the history of mankind of being kind to everybody, pulling back, being right, understanding the dynamics, and still winning. So crazy, crazy good at it, right? Doesn't get his dander up on this stuff like most of us do.
And remember, I think Amazon and Nvidia famously have a famously difficult relationship. So they're probably the company most interested in not buying from Nvidia. So I think what you're saying is fair at the margin. It's $20 billion, like to have 10% is not meaningless market share.
Yeah. But, you know, the big picture comment is compute is scarce, chips are scarce, they're pretty much sold out, the stock's at 194, and, you know, it didn't super accelerate when they did that trillion-dollar backlog comment, but it didn't go down either. So, you know, I think we're up against the constraint limit rather than anything else.
We're going to stick on Anthropic, but Anthropic to now compete with Lovable directly. They launched recently in the last 48 hours a competitive product.
You sure it was launched?
Okay.
Harry, see, Harry's a media guy. He thinks when things are announced that they're real. Jason is a software guy. He actually thinks you have to ship product.
No, it's all about the announcement. Surely you've seen that in the last few days.
As the Lovable, Replit guru here. Look, I mean, Claude Code is clearly directly competitive with Cursor, and then you have this slightly different segment. I'd love your opinion, Jason, on kind of the Lovable, Replit segment. What do you think the competitive threat from Anthropic is to those players? I mean, because...
Well, look, Eric from Bolt on these screenshots. Eric from Bolt said, 'Oh, we all...' I was at a dinner with the CTO of Lovable. We all knew this was coming. It was just a question of when. And then I asked him if he thought the screenshots were real, and he said it didn't really matter because it was coming, right? So that's a number three or number four player's view. The meta question, you know, if this were 52 episodes ago, I'd be like, well, you know, it could happen, but it's not important enough. They're going to have to get into databases and hosting and identity management and OAuth and end-user support, like consumer-level end-user support. Like it's a whole bunch of things culturally that they don't want to do, right? But the pace of innovation at Anthropic is so intense that on a whiteboard, it's hard not to want to grab a couple billion of extra revenue from vibe coding, right? Because you're just a database and an OAuth and a few other things, for them it's 30 days of work, right? So I don't know, but the classic, the old school VC would be like, it's distracting. Even if they launch it, they're not going to maintain it. They're not going to have support. They're not going to put all the resources you need to maintain it. But the truth is, and maybe Eric from Bolt's point is, maybe if they don't directly compete at the prosumer level, right? Even if they don't build a direct Lovable, Replit competitor, they might just go halfway there, and that might be enough. Like it might be something that developers use who just want to get something going, right? It might be something that more technical product teams use, which is like the number one highest-ROI category for Replit and Lovable, these product teams, and they may only target the nerdier, the more technical part of the market, and that might be sufficient to again maim the folks, right? It doesn't have to be 100%. They don't have to replace shopping sites and stuff like that to have a material presence. So, but you know, Anton and Amjad and everyone thinks about this 26 hours a day. How do we stay ahead, right? How do we stay ahead? And it may just be maiming. If it happens, it may just be maiming, but maiming hurts.
But Jason, those product teams could just use Figma Make, right? I mean...
Don't feed. Now you're just poking the bear. Harry, please leave the bear alone.
Well, we could talk about...
And he's off. And he's off.
Well, let's stay on this topic. It actually ties to, if we talk about software stocks, why I've become more pessimistic since the last show on them, but...
Oh, no. Why have you become more pessimistic?
Because we are kind of ahead in this agentic thing, right? At least in the real world. I do talk to lots of teams, lots of senior product teams, lots of CEOs at massive, more than I ever done in the last 10 years combined. Okay, every week, multiple Zooms, multiple calls, and there are exceptions for sure. But I would say here's why I'm pessimistic and why I think that the drawdown is accurate. Even though I don't understand the public markets, I think almost everybody's building a 60% solution, and Make is an example. You look at what Claude did or prompting did last November, and you spent the last four to six months building something that's kind of similar to what these products were like five to six months ago, but you can't really afford the tokens. You're worried about the cost. You can't build all the features. You're trying to use cheap models to bring cost down. You're trying to limit it, and you end up with Make. But everyone has a Make. Why is Make so crappy? It's because you didn't care enough to spend the money or put the team in. Make is a good copy of Replit or Lovable from last summer, right? That's what happens. And by the time Make catches up to Replit and Lovable today, and then they decide it's too expensive, and then they decide they have to lock it down because they can't afford the agents and tokens, now you're nine months behind and 12 months behind. And so what I mean is, and so it's not just that you have a 60% competitive solution. Here's the meta problem for the incumbents. You can't charge for a 60% solution. Here's the problem. If you could charge 60% of what Claude charges or Lovable charges or Replit charges, that'd be great. That's enough to charge 60%. But a 60% product has to be free. It has to be included with your base charge. And while we're recording this, for example, today, HubSpot's launching its next group of AI agents, right? And I'm excited to try them, and I will be supportive. If they're only 60% as good as standalone solutions, HubSpot cannot really charge for these things. You can't get away with charging another $20,000, $40,000, $60,000 to a HubSpot customer. If your agent is fine, it works in isolation. When I meet with internal product teams at large companies at scale, they are so effing proud of themselves. They show me their agent that they built. They show me their vibe coding thing, and if I didn't use any other products, I'd think they were great too. Or if this was 51 weeks ago, I would think these products were great. And they're so insular at their 2,000-person company in their fancy campus wherever they are with their mugs, bringing their mugs to the meetings, because at their pace, and they're failing even as they're proud of themselves with their 60% solution because the market will not pay. They will use your 60% solution, but they're not going to pay for it. They're not going to pay for it. And so you're stuck in this doom loop of, yes, I have an AI product as a public B2B company, but no one is willing to pay for it, for a 60% solution. They're not willing to pay 60%. And so we can say all these companies have moats, and ServiceNow has the biggest moat of all, so it shouldn't be sold off and this and that. But if your agents are only 60% as good, you're in a slow death spiral. And that's what I see. I can't think of maybe one or two exceptions of everyone at scale where their agents are as good as either a standalone company or just what I can do in Claude. Now, I can't maintain Claude, there's a whole bunch of issues, but if it's only 60% as good, there's no way I'm going to pay this AE that just called me up $100,000 for it. I'm not going to do it. It's not good enough. Checking the box does not work with agents. The check-the-box feature cannot be monetized in the AI era. And this is why I think they're all properly sold down because they all have 60% solutions. All of them. All of them. And they should be. It's do or die, guys, because you can't sell these things. You can't sell these things, right? And there's two counterexamples. We could argue over Agentforce, and the direct Wix one may not save Wix, right, which has repurchased like 30 or 40% of its company, but at least they made a bet that got them beyond a 60% solution, right, to nine figures in revenue.
I agree. I think there's a lot to unpack on what's happening in SaaS, but I think I've internalized that Jason has articulated one of the big truths, which is unless you have a product that's good enough to charge for independently, you won't have revenue acceleration of any meaningful scale. And if you don't have revenue acceleration, then you're in a different valuation metric. And I'll talk about how to value mature companies with probably persistent users, but stock-based comp issues and no growth issues. And you can do that. And you know, one of my rules is price clears all markets. There's a price at which ServiceNow and...
Salesforce are all quote unquote worth something. So zoom out a million miles. Jason is right. If you can't charge for it, you won't reaccelerate. And if you reaccelerate, you instantly move to another valuation bucket, right? So I actually, I've listened to you a few times and I think there's a clarity of simplicity there because you can talk a lot about, hey, we're doing this or the other, but the gut level test is can you charge for it? So I really, it's a big freaking comment, right? Because I've been wrestling with what do you use to sort out all these public SaaS companies and you know, what are the, how do you think about it, right? And if you're in a market where there is high, if you're in a very workflow...
Now there might be other things that are more payments related or stuff like that where I think there's different dynamics. But if you were in a workflow-centric world for the last two decades like Salesforce and ServiceNow, you are in an agentic world now. And if you're in a world now, you better have exactly what Jason says: agents that are worth the money, which means they do the work. It's actually a very brilliant test. And I think if I was, I'm literally looking at the horizontal software applications list for Morgan Stanley, and Jason, you're right that it was probably the first, if I'm thinking about how to value this bucket of 1.66 trillion, that is the first test. If yes, then you're on the increasing value scale and you can make it out. And it's still going to be hard. See Wix for details. If no, then you're in the how do you value a company with, you know, mid-single to high-single digits growth rate at best. Probably I think an example, sales are very sticky and you know, you might be hit. And I think that's a separate valuation question, right? I think that, you know, at nine times these things are trading now at eight to nine times cash flow, you might be hitting a point where just the money allows you to be a deep value player. You're, you know, the PEs of something like Salesforce excluding stock-based comp are, it's 11 or 12 times forward PE when the market's 20, right? This is unparalleled, right? So if you want to make yourself a value play, money can still be made, but it's a grim way to make money. The only way to still be a growth play is to pass the Jason test. So that's my zoom out comment here, right? And again, you said it in financial terms a few weeks ago, which is reacceleration, but today you're actually articulating the predecessor test. If you have agentic workflows, then you will have reacceleration. Then you'll be in the Jason happy bucket. And if not, then you'll be in this tragic value bucket and you will have to do hard things that would make Dario and Sam cry. If you're going to make this thing cash flow, it's going to involve SBC reduction. It's going to involve headcount reduction. It's going to involve a bunch of grim. And you can probably still make money, but you're also top stopped. Nothing magical will ever happen to a high single-digit growth rate tech company that's kicking off cash. At best, you build a mini version of IBM and the top five executives make money. It's not going to be fun, right? So you're right, Jason. Would you buy ServiceNow?
No, I wouldn't buy any of them. I wouldn't buy because I'm looking for products that are more than a 60% solution. I don't, it's just the world's moving too fast and no one wants... When we started this pod, I wasn't sure if I believed it or not. I was probably on the fence, but there was definitely a sense that the models might plateau, right? That there'd be parity. That they're all pretty good. They all basically could do a chatbot. It's clearly not the case today. If we tie it to the beginning of this conversation, the models have radically accelerated their power since December, right? Since Opus 4.5 and more, and we haven't used Mythos or whatever, it's going to be even more powerful. And so I'm not optimistic that anybody building to last year's spec slowly can compete. It's too furious. It's too furious. And I also think that the problem with moats is they keep your customers in, but they don't lure any new ones in. No one's excited to cross the moat except the folks that want to breach the castle walls. This whole moat discussion, I think, is at the edge of moronic, right? It's at the edge of hooray, you have a moat and your customer, I signed a five-year, you know, the average ServiceNow deal between three and five years. So what? That doesn't bring in anybody new. It doesn't bring in agentic revenue. It just means I'm trapped. Prisoners don't create growth other than at the margin, right? Other than with the margin.
First of all, I love the moat analogy. That's great. And what you're basically saying, because I've listened to this, is that what you're basically saying is Jason is not a buyer of any stock that's not a growth story, right? I think it's good, right? And I think so, and I've come to the conclusion you were right on that. And one of the reasons I enjoy doing this pod is when we argue, sometimes I change my mind, right? Because let's, I want to play out the value track just for another few minutes, right? I think the problem with the value play, I think at this price, I think you make money on Salesforce, but unless they get regrowth, you're going to make single-digit returns and the overall Ibbotson small cap is 11. So are you going to underperform? I actually think the other thing you're wrestling with in terms of these stocks is the following: the weird thing right now is the public markets don't have access to the growth side of software. They have, if so, right now the trade is sell SaaS, buy semis, which effectively means sell software, buy AI, making AI, right? What you don't have yet in the public markets is AI-native companies starting with Anthropic and OpenAI, right? And therefore, you know, Mythos is a wonderful word because in fact you're comparing the practical values of owning Salesforce with the mythical values of owning this company that's growing 10x where you've never seen the actual financials. No one's seen GAAP financials, but oh my god, it's amazing. And everyone's always going to want the myth, you know, pick your girlfriend, boyfriend analogy. It's the, you know, the practical realities of the person you're with now versus the mythical example of something that could be. So my other aha is these stocks aren't going to trade in the same fashion until five or six public, of these two of the foundation models and four or five other AI, GenAI-native companies are public. And then you can finally as a public market investor say, okay, now I can choose. Do I want, let's put, right, do I want Anthropic growing at that one, probably 5x at 30 times revenues with huge losses and big stock-based comp, or do I want boring-ass Salesforce growing at 10% with 30% operating margins and at that point no stock-based comp loss, right? At least now you can have a choice. And then what'll happen is then we'll find out how to evaluate those two things and that, you know, it's probably going to take six, 12 months after the IPOs. My point is until then what you're dealing with is the mythical desire for the as-yet-unrealized relationship, right? So these stocks are going to trade for until then is my big aha because no one's going to be able to value them, right? The only people that get out of that mess now are what Jason said. If you manage to claw your way to growth as a public SaaS company, then you do actually have some kind of chance of trading up. And but if you got to trade on fundamental value, you're always going to be chasing this kind of fear that the model companies can do everything you can. I don't think they can. I think when the model companies go public, people are going to realize, oh yeah, Salesforce in its current form, it's probably going to be there for the next couple of decades. It's worth it cash flow. But Jason is still right. Unless it gets its together and makes great agents, it's another IBM. And you know, when did you last even, I don't even know the price of IBM because why would you? I believe someone's probably made money, but it's not my problem, right? You just become a boring-ass old thing. So I think, Jason, summary, you're right, Jason. If you don't have growth, and it's an interesting question, and Wix is interesting because...
Because I think that's an, they're kind of, they've done what you suggested, Jason, they're trying to get growth and they're getting growth. And as yet, you're right, they did a buyback and the stock's down 20% since then. So my aha from that is they've done 1.66 to buy back nearly 30% as they bought it at $92 and the stock fell 23% on the week. And whenever that happens, you got to say to yourself that wasn't a good week, right? It's, that's kind of like an inverse Bill Gurley. Instead of selling stock and then it goes up, you buy stock and then it goes down. That's like the IPO premium but the other way. It's like, oh my god, that hurts even more. Talk about leaving money on the table. And I think the aha is to Jason's point, they did one thing brilliantly, which is figure out they got a product out the door. Maybe they should have sat on their capital for another six or 12 months, kept it in reserve to maybe buy another AI product or invest behind their AI product because I don't think, I think these stocks are going to bounce around in value trap land for a long time. So now we may be wrong if they really nailed their growth on the new product and the kind of vibe coding product really accelerates and you know, you look back six months from now and you know, growth's at 15% and the stock's way up, you'll go, oh yeah, it was fine, it was just the knee-jerk reaction thing. But the point is fix the Jason problem, which is core growth, before you try and do financial engineering. You can, and in Salesforce, don't fix financial engineering is useful, but it's not the solution. In the end, if all you can do is grow at 8%, you can screw with your balance sheet to your little heart's content. You're never going to matter a damn. As I said, you'll be IBM. They've screwed around with that stock forever, but nobody cares. You got to do the Jason thing first and put all your effort on that. It is tough that, you know, Salesforce did a big buyback too, right? I think they bought 25, they did 25 billion of debt to buy back stock. On a spreadsheet, this looks brilliant, right? We can support it, right? Um, yeah, we wish the debt was a little bit cheaper, right? It was a little, but this is the simplest thing we can do. Retire a significant amount of our shares, right? Drive up our EPS and keep going our agentic transition. But arguably, you know, the market at best shrugged it off. At best, it already priced it before it happened, but in the short term, no benefit. All this financial engineering that looks great on a spreadsheet amounted to nothing in the short term, but 25 billion of debt.
I totally agree, J. Not only that, but I think one of the big advantages you have as a public company with cash flow positive is your financial flexibility. I wouldn't trade that for anything. Because look, one of two things that happens: if the AI wave rolls on without a blip, then your stocks, and you don't have a growth story as a public company, then your stock's going to be cheap two years from now. There's no hurry to buy it. Right. Second thing is if there's a blip, then the guy in the market with a public currency and 25 billion in cold hard cash, maybe you buy five big things in private land that allows you to compete. Maybe you buy not Anthropic but a second-tier foundation model company. Maybe you buy one of the big apps companies if you can, but if you can afford it, Salesforce is one of the few people that can make a big bet here. It's one of the... point is this, that's why I would have kept my 25 billion in my back pocket, right? Like it's what you... around short term with your stock and the number of shares. The only people who care about that don't matter. You got to win the war. And there's some chance that in the next two years there's a blip in the market. All these AI companies are burning money. And if you're sitting there with $25 billion, you could have been saying, 'Come to daddy. I got money. Let's talk about how I'm going to be an AI behemoth.' And I think that would be a better use of your time and your money. Come to daddy, I got money.
On that topic, Alex Wang, founder of Scale, obviously now at Facebook following the acquisition of Scale. Meta debuts Muse Spark, first model from Meta Super Intelligence Labs, which obviously Alex runs. I mean, the candid truth is I did okay. It was decent. My question to you on the back of this, it was decent. Not quite as good as the others, but good enough. Is this Facebook back in the game? And is this an encouraging sign for Facebook where you feel more optimistic post it or less given it didn't blow anything out of the water?
I think it's a win. If you're not in the game and then you get back in the game, that's a win. So if you're fifth, you're in the game. So I told, I mean, you read all the reviews, you know, I haven't got hands on the model. I don't have the level of sophistication to evaluate, but I did read a lot of the reviews of people who did. And you're right, the summary is good in some of the things that they were working on at Scale AI a year ago, not so good at some of the newer things that the advanced labs have been developing for the last 12 months, which totally makes sense. You took your knowledge from a year ago and you implemented it, right? But I mean, leaving aside the question of does it make sense to be in this game at this level, leaving that aside, if you decide as Mr. Zuckerberg that you want to be in this game, then you achieved your mission. You spent $14 billion and you're back in the game. Now you got to move up the league table. But yeah, I felt this was a few, because you know, had you done all this and you did a Llama 4, which was disappointing where people are like, it's not even, you know, credible, then you'd have felt like a, and you don't. So I think it was a win. Also worth noting that they're talking much, being much more closed source, which is a significant thing because at some point someone's going to need the American version of open source and Llama was that, and now they're pivoting more to being more closed source, which has implications across the ecosystem and is a bit of a bummer. But yeah, no, I think it was like a few exhale, um, not sure why we're playing this game, but if we're going to play it, I'm glad we're not losing anymore. Stepping back though to where we're going toward the back half of 2026. Um, I don't think if I'm Zuck and I'm looking that Google owns its own models, which have become extremely competitive, right? Um, that's one of my big direct and adjacent competitors. If I want to be in the big leagues, maybe I just have to own this. Like, I don't, I'm not Apple. I don't want to be stuck buying tokens from Anthropic or OpenAI. I'm Meta. I have one of the dominant consumer advertising and other platforms on the internet. I have the dominant social networks and I sure better own this. It turns out it is not a commodity. And maybe this is, it's way too much money down the drain, but this is core to our existential existence just like it is for Google. And I don't want to wither. It may not have been where this all started, right? But the goal of Facebook is not to provide API tokens like Anthropic. This is not the direct goal, right? Or it certainly isn't to encourage the open source community to rise up and use Meta products. This is to stay in the top echelon of software, of consumer software companies, and it's worth 14 billion. It's worth 14 billion, right? If you just don't want to become Apple and dependent on everyone else's models, you just don't want to be that, right? And, you know, if you can just do better than the Kimi open source, etc. stuff Cursor is doing, it might be worth it just for that, just to be in that zone between what I can just rework purely from open source into what I can buy from Anthropic. If I'm close enough and this is my core, it might be worth owning. Ruthless. This is as competitive a company as exists on planet earth, right? This might be the most competitive company on planet earth is Meta, right? Ruthless.
Yeah, I mean, if you look at the big play scoreboard for that, it's like bet a billion on Instagram, win 100 billion, plus maybe 400 billion. Bet 70 billion on Meta and the VR, lose it all. Bet 14 billion on this and clearly have a win. And you know, somewhere in the middle between those two outcomes and you feel good. I agree. The other thing, just, and again, it's not totally my expertise, but when, again, when I look back, when we started this show, a lot of folks thought AI would kill Google search and maim Facebook, that Facebook was dying as a platform and that why Google search was, of course, dead, ChatGPT was going to destroy Google, right? Fast forward today, these are record growth businesses now, right? Google search, we started the show talking about AI overviews and other things, and Google search is a better business than it has ever been, as is Facebook and Instagram. So it makes sense to triple down there. This is not a time to retreat. This is not a time to retreat for either of them. It is not a time to retreat. It is a time to get that lance out, go straight into battle, just knock those other guys off.
Meta surpassed Google, I'm sure you both saw, is the largest ads engine in the world. I think Meta, 243 billion.
I didn't kill it yet. Hope that stock price comes back.
Speaking of ads engine, OpenAI projects 2.5 billion in ad revenue for 2026. The ads pilot was 100 million annualized in just six weeks. There were 600 advertisers. We touched on it before, but they're guiding to 11 billion in 2027, 25 billion in 28, 53 billion in 29. Is ads the great comeback for OpenAI in H2 2026? Is this the shining light that we should be directed towards?
It's both obvious and inevitable that a consumer product like OpenAI ChatGPT is going to have to be ad-supported. So yes, they're making the moves, exactly the moves you'd expect, right? And yeah, and the little chatter of, oh my god, that's a bad idea or it's not doing enough that we saw from before a few weeks ago, it's all said. This is just going to happen. Three people have done it at super scale already. Google has done it in 2004, Meta themselves have done it in 2008, really 2007 and 8, and in 2012 in mobile. And then we always forget Amazon, I think got to about 100 billion plus on ad revenue in the last, you know, kind of half a decade or probably seven or eight years at this point, right? So the movie is clear, right? And yes, they got to get, and they're talking about getting to 100 billion dollars in four years. It all makes sense, right? The funny thing is, and I looked at all that and I thought, yep, that, and I'm, you know, it's funny, I'm mentally giving them 100% credit for getting that. OpenAI is typically not unaggressive in its projections. So let's assume these projections are aggressive. This is going to sound really awful and I hate even saying it. Oh my god, 100 billion is amazing, but it's not enough relative to the market cap. In other words, so the bigger hop for me is you can build a 100 billion dollar ad business in ChatGPT, which makes sense, and in the context of a total trillion dollars of total ads with Meta already having 300 of that, Google already having 200 of that, Amazon already having 100 of that, and TV's got to eat too, you know, right? That's probably a realistic high-end estimate, right? What it means is you need another 100 billion plus from your enterprise business. That was the big aha for me is consumer alone ain't going to be enough to feed this beast because your competitor who's all in on enterprise is, you know, already at 30, right? And you're, so that was my, as I say, I almost feel like a jerk saying it's like, hey, congratulations on your 100 billion dollar ad business, probably one of the three or four best ad businesses ever, one of the best launches ever, but it may be that corporations want to buy more intelligence than consumers do and that 100 billion consumer ads won't support your burn. You need more.
The 100 billion is what, 15% of ad spend, right? Of... 10. 10 at a trillion worldwide. 10 something, 15. I like this as a goal for 2030 because it's clear what people should be doing. We can't just add 100 million of ads to ChatGPT. We have to build something that is essentially as big as several of our competitors. It's well understood why it works. We're not directly in commerce. We don't have the advantages that Amazon does, right? But can we achieve the scale of Facebook and others? Yes. This is our job. This is our job, guys. And every week we're going to iterate on it. We're going to improve it. We're going to make it better. It is mathematically possible. This is not as aspirational as the enterprise stuff, right? It's mathematically possible. This is our effing job. We're going to review it every week. We're going to put some of our best team on it. And, you know, it's doable. And if it comes up short a year or two like Elon, I mean, it would suck for the IPO, but it's not the, it's doable. It is achievable, right? And so I think because it is achievable, it will be achieved. I actually think it will be achieved.
I think you're exactly right. And it's clarity on a whole bunch of things they've been lacking. Clarity on the enterprise side. I will say one thing. You know, there was this memo from this week that leaked from Denise Dresser, right? Who's the CRO president saying, wow, well, first of all, Anthropic's overstating their revenue. We're still ahead. And saying, hey, we have all, you know, we have the capacity. They're out of capacity. And blah, blah, blah. Okay. At first blush, this memo to me, I mean, it seemed like a flashback to something that Marc Benioff might write, who I love, but more appropriate for Salesforce than for OpenAI when I first read it, right? And her last gig was CEO of Slack, right? So my first blush, I thought it seemed out of place at an AI leader, but then I thought about it and I'm like, this is the exact type of messaging you want to win traditional enterprise customers. So I'm pretty bullish actually on OpenAI in the enterprise because all this enterprise DNA they have, which probably didn't help a snail's inch the last 12 months, in the future when all the models are so powerful and big enterprises are trying to make decisions between a couple of top brands. I think the ability to sell this directly to enterprise versus coming in from the bottom, coming in through the CTO, coming through the other, coming in from functional groups is going to be very powerful. So I think it may be hiring the, you know, OpenAI said they're going to double in size, right? And a lot of it's around selling motions to the enterprise. I think it's going to work. I think they're going to run a lot of the traditional playbook, which is going to work better and better in 2027 than when it did when the last year was ask your developer. That was the land, and that's why Anthropic won. Ask your developer, I don't want Copilot, I want Opus, and your developer picked everything. Developer picked it for your app. And I'm using the old Twilio mantra because it worked for years until it didn't, and I think it's going to work for LLMs until it doesn't, until you go deep into traditional enterprises. And if OpenAI, which is, you know, it's going to be the number one or number two brand for as long as we do this show, I think they may be able to outsell it versus, hey, the world's going to end from Dario. Thanks for letting me in the lobby. Everyone's going to be unemployed next week. That one may cast a chill in the CIO's office. Thanks guys for having me. Most of you won't have a job next week.
I would have two comments because I'm not quite in that place. Maybe three comments, right? And one is the one aha I had from this is that, you know, the comment on compute is the ball game, right? Is, you know, whatever about the long-term overinvestment, and I still angst about that, there's no doubt in my mind that right now everyone is compute scarce and there's going to be no restraint. No one's going to blink on their investments for 2026. You actually know the next four quarters of Nvidia announcements. You know the next four quarters of everyone, one of the infrastructure advantages, which is every single thing we can make. If you can count the wafer starts at TSMC, you can predict Nvidia's revenues. Everything is going to be sold out from now and for the next 12 months because if the rate-limiting constraint is compute, then everyone's just going to buy compute, right? So that was the first big thing, compute. And yeah, they've got some interesting position relative to Anthropic in that they were more aggressive, so they have more compute. So yeah, that's one thing. It also means, by the way, the second consequence is you're going to see some compute rationing. People are going to start allocating tokens to the highest, effectively the highest bidder. You're going to see a lot of throttling. Like you're going to see these plans, like that's why they shot Sora. You're going to see some of the Claude plans get throttled down. You know, that's what money is for. It's to allocate scarce resources. It's actually the definition of economics. It's the study of the allocation of scarce resources, right? And they're going to start allocating those scarce resources of compute via price. So that's one big trend. The second one, I don't know if you're going to see that level of flip from, oh my god, it's all Anthropic to oh my god, it's OpenAI. I think it's a two-way fight. Anthropic has the advantage of clarity and focus. OpenAI has the advantage of the consumer business, right? And they're going to have to slug it out, right? I think Anthropic has just the way they've played the last 12 months, have a slightly better lead right now, both in terms of perception and in terms of developer friendliness, but OpenAI is not going to roll away and die, right? I think I want to come back to a point I made earlier, which I've only processed through now, but sometimes it's important to say the big very clearly, right? If you do consumer versus enterprise, typically the biggest things have been a consumer... I mean, if you look at Google, Google's consumer business and ads is two-thirds of the value, and you know, maybe the cloud is maybe one-third roughly, right? And the big money has been in consumer, right? Bear with me when I say the obvious, but consumers actually don't want to, they want really great ChatGPT. There might be some models like, you know, kind of friends and companion models, but fundamentally when I go home I want to buy Netflix, when I go to work I want to buy intelligence. It may well be that the zoom out comment from all this is enterprise is two-thirds of the ball game in AI and consumer is one-third or less, which is the flip of the last time because you would have thought two years, three years ago when ChatGPT exploded that that was a really great launching point, right? But if in fact enterprise is the better place, then yeah, you're going to have a good consumer business, but the ball game may be compute, but the ball game from a customer's perspective may be two-thirds enterprise, one-third consumer, which is the mirror opposite of the internet. And that's just one of those, huh, big picture comment because I realize I don't go home and want to do cognition. I go home and I want Netflix. I go to work and I want thinking, and they're selling thinking. It's an enterprise business. And by the way, you get into a really fun and interesting discussion, which is above my pay grade, but I started to see comments about it, is do the things you do to make the model consumer friendly, you know, the happy, like does the same model continue to work really amazingly well for both? You know, if the enterprise wants clarity and concision, if the consumer wants a little more friendly answers, do you really find that divide, the tone and the persona of the consumer model and the enterprise model start to become different? I don't know if that has implications, it's above my pay grade, but it's in a category of something to think about.
I think very much so. And I think you've seen it on like consumer research studies. So they've seen that actually younger people like OpenAI because it's much more supportive of their emotional challenges. And you're exactly right. And in business, I don't want support. I want to be told these five things are good and these three things are bad. Like when we're doing investing, we don't want supportive. We want decision. It's almost the exact opposite. I want harsh critique. This is a stupid deal. I want the AI to say, this is a stupid deal, Rory. You looked at this three years ago. It was dumb then, it's dumb now. Stop, you idiot. Here are five fact-based reasons why this is wrong. And if you give that in a consumer app, you're not going to have great lifetime value or retention.
That was interesting. You know, Aaron Levie had a tweet this week about his latest roadshow meeting with CIOs from Box. And he talked about how so many of the CIOs he's meeting with now are token maxing. And what he meant was they are creating ideally fixed token budgets, really, dollar budgets rather than numeric tokens for the coming year, and they're making the departments fight it out per project. Now, this is where I think the game is going to change again with the leaders because when most of the budget is essentially rogue, when it's developer teams picking Anthropic almost universally last year, when you're giving them the budget because the throughput is so intelligent, you're finding budget for that team. Or you're using discretionary budget to bring in little agents. It's one thing. When the CIO takes control again of how many tokens across a large enterprise, that's a very different calculus of which vendor I choose from. And if the CIO prefers to buy OpenAI because it's got a more traditional sales motion, it's packaged better, it's better used. And there will be exceptions. There will be exceptions in departments. They will get exceptions. But overall for the enterprise, I'm standardizing on OpenAI for 2028. It is the right choice for our Fortune 2000 company. It's just a different world when, you know, whatever the 60 billion in OpenAI and ChatGPT revenue, all the enterprise stuff is still in some sense rogue today. So much of it is rogue. It is out of budget. It is out of band. And as that changes, it will change which vendor we buy from.
If you are correct, and I'm not sure you are, what it says is the people who should go into guidance counseling are Microsoft and OpenAI because they need to get their relationship back together again. Because who is the dominant path to every single enterprise in the world? It's Microsoft. They need to get some couples therapy. They need to accept that they're different. They have differences, but they can reconcile, and they need to start because otherwise they're going to get the clock cleaned. And that, frankly, I think that's an indulgence that OpenAI can no longer afford. Right. And because you're right, the other guys have stolen a march on the kind of developer love. Microsoft can go top down. I don't care about your long-term competitive dynamics. You need to kiss and make up here, people. So if you want it, and if we agree that enterprise is two-thirds of the game, Microsoft is the key. And so, you know, figure it out, go to therapy, talk to your issues, and get this thing back together again. And then the other comment to make is I just want to give an advert for Aaron, is that I read his tweet last week about his, you know, comments from the roadshow. And look, I said this before, we were lucky enough to back Aaron 16 years ago, and many years, in fact, last year we had him back at our annual meeting just to talk. Aaron is a walking investment insight. I mean, I read his tweets and I'm like, literally, I send it out to the group and say, this is the latest thinking on what you should be thinking.
about what CIOs are thinking about. Just read this and then you'll know, right? It's just so that was such an insightful tweet about agents. He's not a doomer on employment at all. He's like, 'People are going to be rolling this thing out and if you understand what they're doing, you will have a role here.' And he has a really good feeling that you... he talked about token maxing. It's like beyond Silicon Valley, there are going to be meaningful budgets, there are going to be constraints and this thing, you know, just a real sense of how CIOs on the front line are rolling out AI. I just think it's excellent. So I follow him all the time.
I thought it was so excellent. I actually messaged him and said, 'Do you want to come on the show this week and do it?' And he said, 'I would love to. Let's do it tomorrow.' And that was this morning. So I'm actually doing a show with him tomorrow about this tweet thread.
