PJFP.com

Pursuit of Joy, Fulfillment, and Purpose

Tag: ChatGPT

  • Ken Griffin on AI, the Golden Age of Entrepreneurs, and the Taiwan Chip Risk That Would Cut US GDP 8 Percent: Inside the Citadel Founder’s Goldman Sachs Great Investors Interview

    Ken Griffin, founder and CEO of Citadel, sat down with Goldman Sachs’ Raj Mahajan at the firm’s Apex Symposium (recorded June 2, 2026) for this episode of Goldman Sachs Exchanges: Great Investors. It is their third public conversation in seven years, and Griffin is unusually candid: about the Friday he went home “shocked and depressed” over AI, the agentic system inside Citadel that compresses six weeks of PhD-level work into two hours, why a Chinese move on Taiwan would throw the US into a depression within six months, and the one question every hedge fund investor should ask their GP.

    TLDW

    Griffin names his two proudest leadership calls: dragging Citadel back to the office five days a week before it was acceptable (citing Fed research that remote work has hurt young Americans’ employment more than AI has), and Citadel’s pandemic role, from getting the FDA to approve experimental COVID drug trials in 72 hours to shaping the incentive design behind Operation Warp Speed, which he credits with saving roughly half a million American lives. On markets, he explains why the S&P sits at all-time highs despite wars in the Middle East and Europe: US energy insulation, stunning Chinese oil demand destruction, and record corporate earnings. On AI, he distinguishes hype from reality (a dinner of multinational CEOs gave him five stories of “AI transformation,” none of which were actually AI), then describes the internal breakthrough that changed his mind: an agentic system that reads, reproduces, and out-of-sample-tests academic finance papers in 2 to 3 hours instead of 6 to 8 weeks. The consequences: no layoffs at Citadel, but competitive moats across the economy are being filled in at lightning speed, setting up a golden age of entrepreneurship. He covers the compute market (all available compute is utilized all the time; market makers now spend hundreds of millions a year), China’s lead in roughly 67 of 74 critical technologies, the Taiwan scenario in which losing TSMC chips cuts US GDP 8 percent in six months, an energy doctrine built on nuclear, natural gas, and building data centers (with their own generation) in America, his stress-test approach to tail risk (definable, tolerable, still in business), and hedge fund economics: the industry’s cost of capital is roughly risk-free plus 4 percent, which is why Citadel has returned $25 to 30 billion to its LPs.

    Thoughts

    The most useful thing in this conversation is Griffin’s two-sided read on AI, because he refuses to pick a lane. The paper-replication story is the cleanest documented example yet of AI eating not just white-collar work but masters-and-PhD-level work, from the man whose firm profits from that labor. Yet in the same breath he reports zero headcount reduction, because Citadel has more problems to attack than people to attack them. Both things are true at once, and he names the synthesis honestly: the individual firm gets more productive while every firm’s moat gets shallower. Most commentary picks either the doom frame or the productivity frame. Griffin holds both, and his conclusion (a golden age of entrepreneurship, startups running on a few AI systems instead of 30 to 40 employees) is the actionable part.

    His dinner-party anecdote deserves to be a standard reference. Five global CEOs effusing about AI transformation, and every single story was actually machine learning, optimization, or plain digitization. The C-suite cannot tell AI from technology at large, which means a meaningful slice of the “AI is transforming our business” narrative priced into the S&P is really a decade-old digital revolution wearing a new label. That is not a bearish observation, since the earnings are real either way, but it matters for anyone trying to figure out which companies actually have AI leverage and which have rebranded their IT budget.

    The Taiwan section is the starkest risk framing you will hear from someone who runs both a hedge fund and one of the world’s largest market makers. An 8 percent GDP contraction in six months is not a market correction, it is Boeing halting production, new cars stopping, and consumer electronics freezing simultaneously, because TSMC chips are in every high-end product made. What makes his version distinctive is the second-order point: in a Taiwan blockade, he does not expect unified Western sanctions. Europe’s membership on “team USA” is less clear than it was two years ago, and the Middle East will play Switzerland because China buys its oil. Investors should notice that his answer to “how do you hedge this?” is not clever derivatives, it is his stress-test doctrine: know the worst case, size exposures so the loss is definable and tolerable, and stay in business to fight back.

    Finally, the small structural details are where the conversation earns its Great Investors billing. Compute has become a commodity input like jet fuel, fully utilized at all times and allocated purely by willingness to pay, which quietly favors high-margin businesses and squeezes everyone else. Alternative data made the present transparent, so the remaining edge in stock picking is multi-year vision about which companies are building transformative products. And the hedge fund test he closes with is one any allocator can use tomorrow: is your GP in the asset management business or the performance business? Citadel returning $25 to 30 billion to LPs is what the performance answer looks like in practice.

    Key Takeaways

    • Griffin’s proudest leadership call was bringing everyone back to the office five days a week, extremely early and against the culture, because humans are social creatures who learn through apprenticeship and mentorship.
    • He cites a Fed paper on reduced employment among workers under 30: remote work turns out to be a more important factor in diminished opportunities for young Americans than AI.
    • At the start of the pandemic, a hospital-system CEO called Griffin because he could not get FDA approval for drug trials on ventilated COVID patients; Citadel’s team got experimental trials approved in about 72 hours.
    • The key insight behind Operation Warp Speed, which Griffin discussed at length with Jared Kushner, was an incentives fix: the US government paid pharma to manufacture vaccines before FDA results existed, collapsing time-to-market from months to days.
    • By his math, the country spent a few billion dollars on that risk, saved a few trillion dollars of GDP, and saved roughly half a million American lives.
    • The S&P is at all-time highs despite a Middle East war, a still-raging war in Europe, and a potential skirmish over Cuba, because the US is relatively shielded from the energy shock.
    • China’s oil demand elasticity stunned even Citadel’s commodities business, one of the largest in the world; that demand destruction plus episodic oil flows out of the region has kept crude near the low $100s instead of the nearly $200 most models predicted if the straits closed.
    • Citadel has been a huge user of machine learning since TensorFlow arrived roughly a decade ago; the current wave is an acceleration of a digital revolution already underway, not a clean break.
    • At a dinner two years ago, Griffin asked global multinational leaders to share how AI was transforming their businesses: he got four or five great productivity stories and not one actually involved AI. They were machine learning, optimization, and digitization.
    • In the C-suite the nuance between AI and technology at large gets lost, but bigger budgets and CEO enthusiasm are pushing through real projects with real bottom-line impact; US corporate earnings are at all-time highs and multiples have actually come down as a result.
    • The use case that sent Griffin home shocked and depressed: a Citadel team member built an agentic AI system that reads an academic finance paper, reproduces it, verifies the published results, and tests them out of sample in 2 to 3 hours on average.
    • That same replication work previously took a legion of young masters and PhD hires roughly six to eight weeks per paper; Citadel finds a few tradeable ideas a year this way, and a few ideas can be worth a lot of money.
    • The point he stresses: this is not just a white-collar job being automated, it is a master’s or PhD-level job, and AI is now cracking problems (like the 80-year-old math problem OpenAI solved) that seemed beyond its reach two or three years ago.
    • Despite the breakthrough there has been no reduction in headcount at Citadel: the firm has more problems to attack than people, so Griffin takes every productivity gain he can get.
    • The flip side is that competitive moats across corporate America are being filled in at breathtaking speed, which Griffin expects to produce a golden age of entrepreneurial activity.
    • His example: a startup that would traditionally need 30 or 40 employees now runs with just a few AI systems, letting entrepreneurs take on incumbents in ways impossible 5, 10, or 20 years ago.
    • Some workers face genuinely hard transitions (his example is English-to-German translators), and the country needs to figure out how higher education can retrain these people quickly.
    • Stock picking remains a timeless business with a similar skill set, but the market will increasingly reward multi-year vision about which companies are creating transformative products rather than skill at calling quarterly earnings beats.
    • Alternative data (Citadel has access to the credit card spending of millions of Americans) made the here-and-now transparent a decade ago; AI plus bright people now triage the present almost instantly, so relative value accrues to those who can see years ahead.
    • At Citadel Securities, transformer models continue a decade of ML-driven improvement in pricing and risk management, and the same is true at other leading market-making firms.
    • For all intents and purposes, all available compute in the world is utilized all the time; access is decided by who will pay the most, and the per-unit price has risen beyond what anyone reasonably projected two or three years ago.
    • Large market-making firms now spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on compute; Griffin compares compute inflation to jet fuel and egg prices, a cost that high-margin businesses can bear and low-margin businesses cannot.
    • China leads in roughly 67 or 68 of the 74 or 75 most important technologies in the world, including solar, EV batteries, and multiple quantum fields, and has pulled ahead in published academic papers.
    • The drivers are structural: 1.4 billion people, an extraordinarily strong educational culture, and far more STEM graduates, producing exactly the human talent needed to win in a high-IP world.
    • China is no longer relegated to producing low-margin products designed in America, and Griffin calls that shift a threat to the American way of life; the answer is not tariffs but educating US youth to out-compete, out-innovate, and out-problem-solve.
    • If China takes Taiwan and the US loses access to Taiwanese semiconductors, the rough estimate is US GDP falls 8 percent in six months: a great depression in the blink of an eye, unlike any before.
    • The mechanism is concrete: Boeing stops making planes within six months, most new cars stop being manufactured, consumer electronics production freezes, because TSMC chips are in every high-end product made.
    • There are no winners in a Taiwan escalation: tanking the US economy would have draconian knock-on effects for China given America’s importance as an export market.
    • In a Taiwan blockade Griffin does not expect unified global sanctions against China: where you sit determines your exposure, Europe’s place on team USA is less clear than two years ago, and the oil-exporting Middle East will play Switzerland.
    • On energy, the US must re-embrace nuclear, with small modular reactors a big part of the story: nuclear has effectively no carbon footprint and one of the lowest mortality rates of any energy source ever used (hydro has killed magnitudes more people).
    • He punctures the clean-energy veneer: solar cells are often made in western China by burning coal, with roughly a seven-year energy payback, and carbon fiber wind turbine blades last 20 years then fill landfills because they do not break down. No truly clean solution exists until fusion or broader nuclear.
    • Until then, natural gas is America’s huge asset: decades of cheap supply, and one of the few things that has actually brought down US carbon emissions.
    • Data centers are going to get built somewhere, and Griffin argues it would be inane for America to end up dependent on foreign countries for them; his fix for NIMBY politics is to require data center builders to construct corresponding power generation, tied to the grid for reliability, rather than pushing costs onto consumers.
    • His hedging doctrine for complicated risks: run stress tests, know exactly how much you lose and where in the worst case, and keep exposures sized so the loss is definable, tolerable, and leaves you still in business and able to fight back. You will never hedge every tail event.
    • Hedge fund industry economics: the long-run cost of capital is roughly the risk-free rate plus 4 percent; underperform and capital flows out, outperform and it flows in, and inflows dilute alpha because alpha capacity is finite.
    • Citadel has returned $25 to 30 billion to its limited partners to keep return on equity high: Griffin’s job is to grow annual alpha capacity, and any capital beyond what the portfolio needs goes back to LPs.
    • The alignment test for allocators: the biggest investor in Citadel’s funds is Griffin and his partners, and every LP should ask whether their GP is in the asset management business or the performance business.

    Detailed Summary

    Return to Office and the Cost of Remote Work

    Asked what he is most proud of beyond the numbers, Griffin starts with Citadel’s early, countercultural demand that everyone return to the office five days a week. He frames it as a human capital decision, not a control decision: people learn through apprenticeship, mentors are critical to development, and the underdevelopment of talent from remote work has damaged the broader economy. He points to recent Fed research on falling employment among under-30s: remote work turns out to matter more than AI in diminishing opportunities for young Americans. Citadel not only brought its team back but publicly extolled the virtues of doing so, and Griffin believes history will be on his side.

    72 Hours to FDA Approval and the Warp Speed Incentive Design

    His second point of pride is Citadel’s pandemic chapter. As the first US COVID cases appeared, a former partner running a major New York hospital system called: he could not get FDA approval for experimental drug trials on ventilated patients facing imminent death, and believed only Griffin could make it happen. Citadel’s team, with decades of government experience, got approvals moving in about 72 hours. The second act was Operation Warp Speed, whose core idea Griffin discussed at length with Jared Kushner: pay pharmaceutical companies to manufacture vaccines before FDA results, so a positive result means days to market instead of the standard sequence losing three to six months. No company would spend billions producing vaccines that might be flushed down the sewer, so the US government took the manufacturing risk on unproven efficacy. A few billion dollars spent, a few trillion in GDP saved, and roughly half a million American lives.

    All-Time Highs in a World at War

    Griffin’s market picture is unsentimental: there is a war in the Middle East, a still-raging war in Europe, potential trouble in Cuba, and the peace both men grew up with is off the table. Yet the S&P sits at record highs. His explanation: America is relatively shielded from the war-driven energy crisis. China has curtailed oil demand with an elasticity that stunned even Citadel’s commodity desk, and episodic oil and LNG flows keep leaving the region, holding crude around the low $100s when most estimates had a strait closure producing nearly $200 a barrel. Meanwhile corporate earnings are at all-time highs, enough that multiples have actually compressed over the last 12 months.

    The AI Story CEOs Tell Versus the One That Is True

    Citadel has used machine learning heavily since TensorFlow arrived a decade ago, powering everything from radiology reads to self-driving cars across the economy, so Griffin sees today’s AI wave as an acceleration of an ongoing digital revolution. His favorite corrective: at a dinner with global multinational leaders two years ago, everyone was effusive about AI transforming their businesses, so he asked them to go around the table with specifics. Four or five genuinely impressive productivity stories emerged, and not one involved AI: they were machine learning, optimization, digitization, technology at large. The C-suite blurs the distinction, but the enthusiasm has unlocked bigger technology budgets and real bottom-line projects, which is part of why earnings are at records.

    The Agentic System That Shocked Him

    Then comes the story behind the famous “shocked and depressed” Friday. Citadel employs legions of young masters and PhD graduates to replicate academic finance papers: read the hypothesis, judge the work, reproduce results, and test whether the effect persists out of sample (does buyback activity predict outperformance, for example). Each paper takes six to eight weeks, and the process surfaces a few valuable ideas a year. A colleague built an agentic AI system that does the entire pipeline (read, reproduce, verify, out-of-sample test) in two to three hours on average. Griffin’s emphasis: this is not routine white-collar work, it is master’s and PhD-level work, and paired with OpenAI solving a math problem open for 80 years, it shows AI cracking problems considered out of reach two or three years ago. Notably, Citadel cut zero headcount on the back of the breakthrough; the firm has more problems worth attacking than people to attack them, so every productivity gain gets absorbed.

    Filled-In Moats and a Golden Age of Entrepreneurs

    The macro consequence Griffin draws is double-edged. Hold two thoughts at once: AI is reaching very high-level work in the job market, with some workers (translators, for instance) facing hard transitions that demand fast retraining through higher education. And simultaneously, the competitive moats of corporate America are being filled in at breathtaking rates. That means entrepreneurs can launch businesses at speeds impossible 5, 10, or 20 years ago: he mentions a startup running on a few AI systems where 30 or 40 employees would once have been required. He expects a wave of these stories over the next couple of years as founders use the technology to take on incumbents.

    The Future of the Stock Picker

    Griffin has called stock picking a timeless business, and he still sees a similar skill set for the portfolio manager of the future, with one shift in emphasis. Predicting quarterly earnings beats has gotten far harder over a decade as alternative data (credit card panels covering millions of Americans, telegraphing Starbucks and McDonald’s revenues) made the present transparent. Now bright people plus good AI triage the here-and-now almost instantly. The scarce, rewarded skill becomes vision: identifying which companies are building genuinely transformative products years before the market fully prices it.

    Compute Is the New Jet Fuel

    At Citadel Securities, which holds double-digit market share across equities, futures, and treasuries, transformer models extend a decade of machine learning gains in pricing and risk. The compute market backdrop is what Griffin calls breathtaking: essentially all available compute on Earth is utilized all the time, so access reduces to who will pay the most. Per-unit compute prices exceed what anyone reasonably projected two or three years ago, and large market makers now spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually. He treats it as straightforward input inflation, like jet fuel or eggs: high-margin businesses can bear it, low-margin ones cannot.

    China’s Technology Lead and the Taiwan Equilibrium

    Griffin states the cold reality: China is one of the most innovative, fastest-growing economies in the world, leading in roughly 67 or 68 of the 74 or 75 most important technologies (solar, EV batteries, several quantum fields) and now ahead in published academic papers. The foundation is 1.4 billion people, a culture with an extraordinary emphasis on education, and far more STEM graduates. China is no longer relegated to manufacturing low-margin products designed in America, and Griffin calls that a threat to the American way of life. His prescription is pointed: not tariffs, but educating American youth to out-compete, out-innovate, and out-problem-solve. Taiwan is the painful pressure point with no winner. If China takes Taiwan and the US loses TSMC chips, GDP falls an estimated 8 percent in six months: Boeing stops making planes, most new car production halts, consumer electronics freeze, a great depression in the blink of an eye. China would suffer draconian knock-on effects too. As an investor he thinks about position: sanctions in a Taiwan blockade would not be unified, Europe’s place on team USA is a genuine question mark now, and the oil-exporting Middle East would play Switzerland since China is its biggest customer.

    Energy Realism: Nuclear, Gas, and American Data Centers

    On powering AI, Griffin wants America to lead again in nuclear, with small modular reactors central: no meaningful carbon footprint and one of the lowest mortality rates of any energy source ever deployed (hydro has killed magnitudes more people). He challenges the superficial cleanliness of renewables: solar cells are often made in western China with coal power, requiring about seven years of energy capture to break even against the coal burned making them, and 20-year-old carbon fiber wind turbine blades do not break down and are already filling landfills. Until fusion or expanded nuclear, America’s real asset is natural gas: decades of cheap supply that has actually driven US emissions down. His data center position is blunt: they will get built somewhere, and depending on foreign countries for them would be inane, so build them in America. His answer to NIMBY politics: require data center developers to build corresponding power generation, tied to the grid for reliability, so the cost never lands on the American consumer.

    Tail Risk, Tolerable Losses, and Hedge Fund Alignment

    On hedging complicated risks, Griffin’s method is stress testing: if this happens, how much do we lose and where, and is that loss tolerable? You can never manage a portfolio for every possible tail event, but you can keep exposures sized so the worst case is definable and tolerable, leaving you still in business and positioned to fight back. On industry returns, he pegs the hedge fund cost of capital at roughly the risk-free rate plus 4 percent as the long-run equilibrium: underperformance drains capital, outperformance attracts it, and since recent outperformance keeps pulling money in, growing assets dilute alpha. That is why Citadel has returned $25 to 30 billion to LPs: alpha capacity is finite, Griffin’s job is to grow it, and excess capital goes back to investors to keep return on equity high. The closing advice is an alignment test: Citadel’s biggest investor is Griffin and his partners, and every allocator should ask whether their GP is in the asset management business or the performance business.

    Notable Quotes

    “Turns out that remote working is a more important factor to diminished employment opportunities for young Americans than AI.”

    Ken Griffin, citing Fed research on under-30 employment

    “We spent a few billion dollars as a country. We saved a few trillion dollars in GDP. We saved roughly half a million American lives.”

    Ken Griffin, on Operation Warp Speed’s incentive design

    “I got four or five incredible stories of how companies were achieving meaningful productivity gains. Not one involved AI.”

    Ken Griffin, on his dinner with global multinational CEOs

    “My colleague built an agentic AI system that would read a paper, reproduce it, verify the results that were published in the paper, produce the results out of sample, and do all this work in about on average 2 to three hours.”

    Ken Griffin, on the breakthrough that replaced six to eight weeks of PhD-level work

    “We’re likely to see a golden age of entrepreneur activity. Like entrepreneurs will be able to launch new businesses at breathtaking speeds and will be able to take on incumbents in ways that you just couldn’t do 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago.”

    Ken Griffin, on AI filling in competitive moats

    “All the available compute today is more or less utilized all the time. So the question is who’s willing to pay the most for it?”

    Ken Griffin, on the global compute market

    “The US loses access to Taiwanese semiconductor chips, our GDP falls by 8% in 6 months. Simply put, we go into a great depression in the blink of an eye unlike any we’ve seen before.”

    Ken Griffin, on the Taiwan scenario

    “We better damn well build the data centers in America because they’re going to get built somewhere in the world.”

    Ken Griffin, on energy policy and AI infrastructure

    “Definable, tolerable, still in business, still in a position to fight back from that point.”

    Ken Griffin, summarizing his approach to hedging tail risk

    “Are they in the asset management business or are they in the performance business?”

    Ken Griffin, on the question every hedge fund investor should ask their GP

    Watch the full conversation here: Ken Griffin on Goldman Sachs Exchanges: Great Investors.

    Related Reading

  • OpenAI and Broadcom Unveil Jalapeño, a Custom LLM Inference Chip to Cut Compute Costs and Reduce Nvidia Dependence

    OpenAI and Broadcom pulled the wrapper off Jalapeño on Wednesday, June 24, 2026, a custom silicon accelerator that OpenAI is calling its first “Intelligence Processor” and its first real move into designing the hardware underneath its own models. Broadcom President and CEO Hock Tan and President Charlie Kawwas physically handed the wafer to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and President and Co-Founder Greg Brockman, a staged moment meant to signal that the ChatGPT maker is no longer just a models-and-products company but is now reaching all the way down to the chip. Jalapeño is purpose-built for large language model inference, the compute-intensive job of actually serving answers to users rather than training the model in the first place, and OpenAI plans to deploy it at gigawatt scale by the end of 2026 as the first step in a multi-generation platform built with Broadcom and Canadian electronics manufacturer Celestica. You can read the announcement straight from the source in OpenAI’s official post.

    TLDR

    OpenAI and Broadcom unveiled Jalapeño, OpenAI’s first custom AI chip, an ASIC designed from a blank slate specifically for LLM inference rather than training, manufactured by TSMC and integrated into server systems by Celestica that only OpenAI will use. OpenAI claims the chip went from initial design to manufacturing tape-out in just nine months, what it calls the fastest ASIC development cycle ever in high-performance advanced semiconductors, accelerated in part by using its own AI models to design the silicon. Engineering samples are already running ML workloads in the lab, including GPT-5.3-Codex-Spark, and OpenAI says early testing shows performance per watt “substantially better” than current state-of-the-art, a self-reported and not yet independently verified claim with a full technical report promised in the coming months. Broadcom CEO Hock Tan told Reuters the chip matches Nvidia’s Blackwell and Google’s TPUs, framing the launch as part of a flywheel where OpenAI owns the full stack from chip to model to product. The chip slots into a broader infrastructure strategy targeting 10 gigawatts of custom accelerator capacity between 2026 and 2029 with deployments alongside Microsoft and other partners, and The Decoder reported Microsoft is expected to buy 40 percent of the chips, a guarantee Broadcom reportedly demanded to secure the first phase. The move is widely read as OpenAI diversifying away from Nvidia, continuing a procurement spree that already includes AWS Trainium, AMD, and Cerebras, as inference quietly becomes the company’s real cost center.

    Thoughts

    The single most important word in this announcement is “inference,” and it is the word doing the heavy lifting. Training a frontier model is a capital expense that happens in bursts. Inference is the bill that arrives every single day, forever, scaling linearly with usage. Every ChatGPT reply, every Codex task, every API call, every agent step is an inference event, and as OpenAI’s product surface explodes that recurring cost is the thing that actually threatens the unit economics. A custom chip aimed squarely at inference is therefore not a vanity project or a research flex. It is OpenAI attacking the largest variable cost in its business at the root, trying to bend its cost-per-token curve below what it pays renting Nvidia GPUs. If Jalapeño lands anywhere near its claims, the payoff is not faster benchmarks, it is gross margin.

    The performance-per-watt claim, though, deserves the most skeptical reading in the room. OpenAI says Jalapeño will deliver performance per watt “substantially better” than current state-of-the-art, but it has not finalized the numbers, has not said which chips it tested against, on what tasks, or under what conditions, and the full technical report is somewhere in the indefinite “coming months.” These are self-reported figures from a company with an enormous interest in convincing the market it has a credible alternative to Nvidia. Hock Tan’s line that the chip is “as good as” Blackwell and Google’s TPUs is a CEO talking his own book in an interview, not a measured result. The honest posture is to treat the figures as marketing until the technical report lands. A chip running engineering samples in a lab at target frequency is real progress, but it is a very long way from a chip that holds those numbers across a production fleet under messy real-world load.

    OpenAI left the most revealing detail out of its own press release: the report, via The Decoder, that Broadcom demanded Microsoft guarantee it will buy 40 percent of the chips to secure the first phase. That single sentence tells you who is actually carrying the risk. Building gigawatt-scale custom silicon is brutally capital-intensive, and Broadcom is not willing to commit manufacturing capacity on the strength of OpenAI’s demand alone. It wants a balance sheet behind the order, and Microsoft, OpenAI’s largest backer, is the balance sheet. That detail quietly reframes the whole “OpenAI owns the stack” narrative. OpenAI may design the chip, but the deployment is underwritten by Microsoft’s purchasing commitment, which means Microsoft also gets leverage and supply security out of an OpenAI-branded part. Ownership of the design is not the same as ownership of the risk.

    The flywheel framing is genuinely interesting and probably the most defensible strategic claim OpenAI is making. OpenAI says it used its own models to accelerate parts of the chip design and optimization, compressing a normally multi-year ASIC cycle into nine months. If that is even partly true, it is a meaningful loop: the models help design the chips, the chips run the models more cheaply, the cheaper models drive more usage and revenue, and the revenue funds the next chip. That is a compounding advantage that is hard for a pure hardware vendor to replicate and hard for a pure software lab to replicate. The catch is that nine months from design to tape-out is a claim about speed, not about whether the resulting chip is actually competitive in volume. Fast tape-out and great silicon are different achievements, and the industry has seen plenty of chips that taped out quickly and underwhelmed in production.

    Strip away the “Intelligence Processor” branding and this is a playbook we have already watched run three times. Google built TPUs, Amazon built Trainium and Inferentia, Meta built MTIA, and all of them turned to Broadcom or Marvell for the design IP that is hard to replicate in-house. OpenAI is doing the same thing with the same partner, just later and louder. The diversification arc is unmistakable: OpenAI was one of the biggest Nvidia GPU buyers on earth, and in the span of a year it has signed deals for AWS Trainium, AMD accelerators, and Cerebras inference hardware, and now its own custom ASIC. Nvidia is not in trouble, demand still vastly outstrips supply, but the era where the largest AI labs were captive single-vendor customers is clearly ending. The most intriguing wildcard is OpenAI’s own line that Jalapeño is “designed with flexibility to work with all LLMs.” That is not how you describe a chip you intend to keep entirely to yourself. It hints, however faintly, at an OpenAI that could one day rent out inference infrastructure the way it now rents models, which would put it in direct competition with the very cloud providers it currently depends on.

    Key Takeaways

    • OpenAI and Broadcom unveiled Jalapeño on Wednesday, June 24, 2026, OpenAI’s first custom AI chip and its first piece of in-house silicon after years focused on models and products.
    • The chip is branded an “Intelligence Processor” and described as the first AI accelerator in a multi-generation compute platform the two companies are building together.
    • Jalapeño is purpose-built for large language model inference, the compute-intensive work of generating responses and serving answers to users, and explicitly not for training.
    • Inference is OpenAI’s recurring cost center: every ChatGPT conversation, coding request, image generation, and agent action relies on it, making it one of the highest ongoing costs in the business.
    • Broadcom President and CEO Hock Tan and President Charlie Kawwas physically delivered the first wafer to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman.
    • OpenAI designed the chip from scratch around its understanding of LLM fundamentals, informed by its roadmap of models, kernels, serving systems, and product needs.
    • Jalapeño is described as a blank-slate design for modern LLM inference, not a general-purpose accelerator adapted from earlier AI workloads.
    • The chip is shaped by the systems OpenAI runs daily across ChatGPT, Codex, the API, and future agentic products, while also being designed to work with current and future LLMs across the industry.
    • The stated performance goal is to combine the throughput of today’s leading AI accelerators with latency closer to the fastest specialized inference systems, suiting it for interactive LLM products at scale.
    • OpenAI frames this as its full-stack advantage: it designs frontier models, builds products on top of them, and now designs the chip architecture, kernels, memory systems, networking, scheduling, and deployment systems underneath.
    • OpenAI claims Jalapeño went from initial design to manufacturing tape-out in just nine months.
    • The companies call it what they believe to be the fastest ASIC development cycle ever achieved in high-performance advanced semiconductors, against a backdrop of typically multi-year timelines.
    • OpenAI used its own AI models to accelerate parts of the chip design and optimization process, which it credits for the speed.
    • OpenAI frames the result as a flywheel: the same models served to users help improve the infrastructure that runs future models, lowering compute cost across the industry.
    • Engineering samples of Jalapeño are already running ML workloads in the lab at production target frequency and power.
    • Among the workloads running on the samples is OpenAI’s GPT-5.3-Codex-Spark model.
    • GPT-5.3-Codex-Spark currently runs on Cerebras hardware, which also specializes in inference, per The Decoder.
    • OpenAI says early testing shows Jalapeño will deliver performance per watt “substantially better” than current state-of-the-art hardware.
    • That performance-per-watt claim is self-reported and lacks independent verification; OpenAI has not said which chips it tested against, on what tasks, or under what conditions.
    • OpenAI says it is still measuring final performance and has promised a detailed technical report in the coming months.
    • The architecture reduces data movement and balances compute, memory, and networking resources to push realized utilization much closer to theoretical peak performance.
    • Jalapeño is an ASIC, which experts say is less flexible than Nvidia’s GPU but less expensive and tailorable to specific AI tasks.
    • Broadcom contributes silicon implementation and networking technologies, including its Tomahawk networking silicon, to bring the platform to large-scale production.
    • Canadian electronics manufacturer Celestica provides board, rack, and system integration expertise and will build the server systems.
    • The chips are manufactured by Taiwan’s TSMC, the world’s leading advanced semiconductor foundry, after OpenAI sent over the design.
    • Both the chips and the Celestica-built server systems will be used only by OpenAI, not sold to outside customers.
    • OpenAI plans to deploy Jalapeño at gigawatt scale by the end of 2026, with expansion in the years ahead, as the first step in a multi-generation plan.
    • Hock Tan said gigawatt-scale data center deployment will happen with Microsoft and other partners beginning in 2026.
    • The Decoder reported Microsoft is expected to buy 40 percent of the chips, with Broadcom reportedly demanding Microsoft guarantee that share to secure the first phase.
    • Broadcom CEO Hock Tan told Reuters that Jalapeño is as good as Nvidia’s Blackwell chips and the TPUs designed by Alphabet’s Google.
    • In October 2025, after 18 months of working together, OpenAI and Broadcom went public with plans to develop and deploy racks of OpenAI-designed chips starting late this year; CNBC framed the unveiling as coming eight months after that deal.
    • The prior OpenAI-Broadcom plan ultimately aimed at 10 gigawatts of custom AI accelerator capacity, with deployments expected between 2026 and 2029.
    • Estimates suggest OpenAI’s broader infrastructure plans could eventually involve around 26 gigawatts of computing capacity across custom chips, Nvidia hardware, and other accelerators.
    • OpenAI has been one of the biggest buyers of Nvidia’s GPUs since kickstarting the generative AI boom in 2022, but explosive demand has pushed it to seek other sources of advanced silicon.
    • Earlier in 2026 OpenAI struck a deal with Amazon Web Services that includes use of AWS Trainium chips, and has also signed agreements with AMD and with Cerebras, which held its IPO in May.
    • The move is widely characterized as OpenAI diversifying away from and reducing dependence on Nvidia while creating an alternative to its GPUs.
    • OpenAI’s stated goals with the chip are to reduce costs, improve energy efficiency, secure long-term computing supply, and gain more control over the infrastructure powering its services.
    • Broadcom shares climbed about 2 percent following the announcement, are up roughly 10 percent year-to-date in 2026, and have multiplied almost sevenfold since the end of 2022.
    • To build in-house chips, Meta, Amazon, and Google have turned to firms like Broadcom and Marvell for design services and IP that are hard to replicate internally; Reuters first reported OpenAI was exploring its own chip in 2023, and sources told Reuters in April 2026 that Anthropic is weighing its own AI chip.
    • Broadcom’s margin on custom AI chips is currently lower than on products like networking switches due to AI-driven high-bandwidth memory demand; Tan said SK Hynix and Samsung Electronics supply Broadcom with memory chips.

    Detailed Summary

    A blank-slate chip built only for inference

    Jalapeño is OpenAI’s first so-called Intelligence Processor, and the company is emphatic that it is not a repurposed general-purpose accelerator. It was designed from a blank slate specifically for modern large language model inference, the job of crunching data to answer a user’s query rather than the separate, bursty work of training a model. OpenAI says it designed the chip from scratch around its own deep understanding of LLM fundamentals, informed by its roadmap of models, kernels, serving systems, and product needs, drawing on the systems it runs every day across ChatGPT, Codex, the API, and future agentic products. The stated objective is to fuse the raw power and throughput of today’s leading AI accelerators with latency closer to the fastest specialized inference systems, which would make Jalapeño particularly well suited to interactive products used at scale. Notably, OpenAI also says the chip is designed with flexibility to work with all LLMs across the industry, not only its own, a claim that sits a little oddly next to its plan to keep the hardware entirely in-house.

    The full-stack flywheel and AI designing its own silicon

    OpenAI is selling Jalapeño as proof of a full-stack advantage. The argument is that because OpenAI now develops frontier models, builds products on top of them, and designs the infrastructure underneath them, including chip architecture, kernels, memory systems, networking, scheduling, deployment systems, and the product experience, every layer can be optimized around the same goal of making its models faster, more reliable, and cheaper. OpenAI describes this as a flywheel: better infrastructure drives compute efficiency, which enables better training and serving, which powers more capable models, which become better products, which drive more usage and revenue, which funds the next generation of infrastructure. The most striking piece of that loop is that OpenAI used its own AI models to accelerate parts of the chip’s design and optimization. The company’s framing is direct: if AI can help engineers design better chips faster, it can lower the cost of compute across the industry. That self-referential loop is the part of the announcement that is genuinely novel rather than a rerun of an existing hyperscaler playbook.

    Nine-month tape-out and the partner stack

    OpenAI claims it took roughly nine months to go from initial design to manufacturing tape-out, and calls this what it believes to be the fastest ASIC development cycle ever achieved in high-performance advanced semiconductors, against an industry norm measured in years. It credits deep software-hardware co-development, Broadcom’s silicon implementation expertise, and the use of its own models to compress the schedule. The work is split across a clear partner stack: OpenAI provides the architecture and AI-specific requirements, Broadcom contributes silicon implementation and networking technology, including its Tomahawk networking silicon, and Celestica handles boards, racks, and system integration, building the actual server systems. Once the design was complete, OpenAI sent it to TSMC in Taiwan, the world’s leading advanced foundry, for manufacturing. Crucially, both the chips and the systems built around them are for OpenAI’s exclusive use; they are not products being sold to outside customers.

    Performance claims that nobody can check yet

    OpenAI says early testing shows Jalapeño will deliver performance per watt substantially better than current state-of-the-art hardware, with an architecture that reduces data movement and balances compute, memory, and networking to push realized utilization much closer to theoretical peak. Hardware program lead Richard Ho said the team optimized around the kernels, memory movement, networking, and serving patterns that matter most for frontier models, and that the chip will execute key workloads close to the hardware’s theoretical limits. He told Reuters it will be performant on what he thinks will be all kinds of future LLM iterations. The important caveat is that none of this is verifiable. OpenAI is still measuring final performance, has not finalized the numbers, and has not disclosed which chips it benchmarked against, on what tasks, or under what conditions, with the technical report only promised in the coming months. As The Decoder put it bluntly, these are self-reported numbers, unverifiable for now, that should not be taken at face value. Broadcom CEO Hock Tan’s separate claim to Reuters that the chip is as good as Nvidia’s Blackwell and Google’s TPUs is similarly an unverified assertion from an interested party.

    Gigawatts, Microsoft’s 40 percent, and who carries the risk

    Jalapeño is the opening move in a much larger infrastructure buildout. Initial deployment is targeted for the end of 2026 at gigawatt scale, expanding over multiple generations. Tan said the gigawatt-scale data centers will come online with Microsoft and other partners beginning in 2026. The deal traces back to October 2025, when, after 18 months of collaboration, OpenAI and Broadcom went public with plans to deploy racks of OpenAI-designed chips, ultimately aiming for 10 gigawatts of custom accelerator capacity with deployments expected between 2026 and 2029. Broader estimates put OpenAI’s total infrastructure ambition at around 26 gigawatts across custom chips, Nvidia hardware, and other accelerators. The detail that cuts through the optimism comes from The Decoder: Microsoft is expected to buy 40 percent of the chips, and Broadcom reportedly demanded that Microsoft guarantee that purchase to secure the first phase. That guarantee shows that the financial risk of this buildout is not OpenAI’s alone; it rests heavily on its largest backer’s balance sheet.

    The Nvidia diversification arc and Broadcom’s windfall

    Jalapeño is the clearest signal yet of OpenAI loosening its dependence on Nvidia. OpenAI has been one of the biggest buyers of Nvidia GPUs since it kickstarted the generative AI boom in 2022, but demand has exploded past what any single vendor can supply. Within 2026 alone, OpenAI has struck a deal with AWS that includes Trainium chips, signed agreements with AMD and with Cerebras, which held its IPO in May, and now rolled out its own ASIC. The pattern mirrors what Meta, Amazon, and Google already did, all of them leaning on firms like Broadcom and Marvell for design IP that is hard to build in-house, and Anthropic is reportedly weighing the same move, per sources who spoke to Reuters in April 2026. Broadcom is the obvious beneficiary, with shares up about 2 percent on the news, up roughly 10 percent in 2026, and up nearly sevenfold since the end of 2022. Even so, Tan noted that the AI-driven surge in high-bandwidth memory demand makes Broadcom’s margin on custom AI chips lower than on products like networking switches, with SK Hynix and Samsung Electronics supplying the memory.

    Notable Quotes

    “The world is moving to a compute-powered economy.”

    Greg Brockman, President and Co-Founder of OpenAI, framing the launch as a broad economic shift

    “Jalapeño is part of our long-term full-stack infrastructure strategy to make compute more abundant, resulting in AI which is faster, more reliable, more affordable for people and businesses, and can be used to solve more important problems. By designing more of the stack ourselves, we can serve more intelligence with greater efficiency and keep pushing advanced AI toward broader access.”

    Greg Brockman, President and Co-Founder of OpenAI, on the full-stack rationale for building its own chip

    “Jalapeño was designed from the ground up for LLM inference using detailed insights from our close collaboration with OpenAI researchers.”

    Richard Ho, who leads OpenAI’s hardware program, describing the chip as purpose-built rather than adapted

    “We optimized the architecture around the kernels, memory movement, networking, and serving patterns that matter most for frontier AI models. Based on early testing, Jalapeño will efficiently execute our most important workloads close to the hardware’s theoretical limits.”

    Richard Ho, who leads OpenAI’s hardware program, on the architecture’s optimization targets and early performance

    “It will be performant on, we think, all kind of future iterations of LLMs.”

    Richard Ho, OpenAI hardware chief, to Reuters on the chip’s forward compatibility with future models

    “Our collaboration with OpenAI represents a fundamental commitment to scaling the physical infrastructure required for the next decade of AI.”

    Hock Tan, President and CEO, Broadcom, on the scale of the infrastructure commitment

    “This is just the beginning of a multi-generation roadmap. By co-developing our industry-leading silicon directly with OpenAI, we are enabling the deployment of gigawatt scale data centers with Microsoft and other partners beginning in 2026.”

    Hock Tan, President and CEO, Broadcom, on the multi-generation plan and 2026 gigawatt-scale deployment with Microsoft

    “The goal is to combine the power and throughput of today’s leading AI accelerators with latency closer to the fastest specialized inference systems, making Jalapeño well suited for interactive LLM products at scale.”

    OpenAI, in the press release, stating the performance objective for the chip

    “These are self-reported numbers that haven’t been finalized. Take them with a grain of salt.”

    Maximilian Schreiner, The Decoder, on the unverified performance-per-watt claim

    Jalapeño is a real chip running real workloads in a lab, but the gap between an engineering sample and a profitable production fleet is exactly where this story will be decided over the next year, and the most important numbers, the performance-per-watt figures that justify the whole effort, remain self-reported and unverified until OpenAI publishes its technical report. Read OpenAI’s full announcement here.

    Related Reading

    • OpenAI, the chip’s designer and the primary source of the announcement and quotes.
    • Broadcom, the co-developer providing silicon implementation and Tomahawk networking.
    • Celestica, which builds the boards, racks, and server systems around the Jalapeño chip.
    • ASIC (application-specific integrated circuit), what Jalapeño is, a custom chip built for one task unlike a general-purpose GPU.
    • Nvidia Blackwell, the Nvidia architecture Broadcom’s CEO claims Jalapeño matches.

  • OpenAI’s Leaked 2025 Financials: $34 Billion in Spending, a $38.5 Billion Net Loss, and a $17 Billion Microsoft Bill Ahead of Its IPO

    Infographic summarizing OpenAI leaked 2025 financials: $13.07B revenue, $34B total costs, $20.92B operating loss, $38.53B net loss, where the $34B went, the $17.2B paid to Microsoft versus $303M paid back, inference costs, and IPO valuation context

    OpenAI’s audited 2025 financials leaked this week, and they are the clearest picture yet of what it actually costs to run the company behind ChatGPT. Independent journalist Ed Zitron first published the documents, and the Financial Times independently confirmed them. The headline: OpenAI spent $34 billion last year, booked $13.07 billion in revenue, and reported a net loss attributable to the company of $38.5 billion. The disclosure lands just days after OpenAI confidentially filed for an IPO that could value it north of $1 trillion.

    TLDR

    OpenAI’s audited 2025 numbers, leaked by Ed Zitron and confirmed by the Financial Times, show revenue tripling to $13.07 billion while total costs reached $34 billion, producing a $20.92 billion operating loss and a $38.53 billion net loss attributable to the company. The much larger net loss is inflated by a one-time $41.55 billion non-cash charge tied to OpenAI’s October 2025 conversion from a nonprofit to a public benefit corporation; strip the non-cash items and the loss is closer to $8 billion. R&D alone was $19.18 billion, cost of revenue (inference) was $7.5 billion, and sales and marketing ballooned to $5.73 billion. OpenAI paid Microsoft $17.2 billion in 2025 while Microsoft paid OpenAI only $303 million, exposing a deep Azure dependency. The company burned $1.60 for every dollar of revenue, down from $2.37 in 2024, and gross margin slipped from roughly 40% to 33% as more capable models consumed more compute per query. The leak arrives as OpenAI files a confidential S-1, targets a listing as early as September 2026 at up to a $1 trillion valuation, and races rival Anthropic, which is more valuable on paper and claims it is already turning an operating profit.

    Thoughts

    The most important thing to understand about these numbers is that there are two loss figures and the press will conflate them. The $38.53 billion net loss is the scary headline, but $41.55 billion of it is a non-cash accounting charge from converting investor convertible interests into equity during the for-profit restructuring. That charge is real on the audited statement and it will show up in the eventual S-1, but it is a one-time artifact of OpenAI’s unusual corporate history, not money that left the building. The number that describes the actual business is the $20.92 billion operating loss. That is the one to watch, and it is still enormous.

    The genuinely encouraging line in the whole release is the loss-per-dollar ratio. In 2024 OpenAI spent $2.37 to generate a dollar of revenue. In 2025 that fell to $1.60. A company that is still losing $1.60 on every dollar is not a healthy business, but a company whose efficiency improved by a third in a single year while tripling its top line is at least pointed in a defensible direction. The bull case for OpenAI lives entirely in the slope of that line. If it keeps improving at that rate, the math eventually crosses over. If it stalls, the valuation is a fantasy.

    The Microsoft relationship is the single most revealing disclosure, and it is wildly asymmetric. OpenAI paid Microsoft $17.2 billion in 2025. Microsoft paid OpenAI $303 million. That is a 56-to-1 ratio, and it reframes the partnership: Microsoft is not really a peer or even just an investor, it is OpenAI’s landlord and primary supplier, collecting rent on every model trained and every query answered. The April 2026 renegotiation that capped revenue-share payments at $38 billion through 2030, down from a projected $135 billion, suddenly looks less like a favor and more like OpenAI desperately trying to lower its single largest cost. The dependency cuts both ways, but right now Microsoft holds the better hand.

    The structural problem hiding inside the cost of revenue line is inference. Training a model is a fixed, one-time cost. Serving it is a recurring cost that scales with every one of ChatGPT’s roughly 800 million weekly users. OpenAI spent $5.02 billion on Azure inference in the first half of 2025 alone, and the more capable its reasoning models get, the more compute each answer burns. That is why gross margin went down even as revenue went up. It is the opposite of how software is supposed to work, where the marginal cost of one more user trends toward zero. OpenAI’s marginal cost is real, large, and growing. The counterargument is that per-token inference costs have been falling roughly tenfold a year, so the unit economics could still flip. That is the entire wager.

    Finally, the timing matters more than the numbers. OpenAI’s confidential S-1 means these audited figures were going to become public regardless, since the SEC requires the full prospectus at least 15 days before a roadshow. What the leak changes is who gets to study them first. Prospective IPO buyers, enterprise customers signing multi-year API contracts, and competitors now have the audited books weeks or months early, and they are reading them against Anthropic, which filed at a higher valuation and claims an operating profit. For a company asking the public markets to underwrite a $1 trillion bet on a monopoly outcome that does not yet exist, losing control of the narrative this early is not a small thing.

    Key Takeaways

    • OpenAI’s audited 2025 financials were first published by independent journalist Ed Zitron and independently confirmed by the Financial Times, the first verified look at the company’s books before its planned IPO.
    • Revenue grew from $3.7 billion in 2024 to $13.07 billion in 2025, more than tripling year over year, making OpenAI one of the fastest-growing businesses in history.
    • By the end of 2025 OpenAI was generating roughly $2 billion in monthly revenue, up from about $1 billion a quarter at the end of 2024.
    • Total costs and expenses hit $34 billion in 2025, up from $12.48 billion in 2024.
    • Research and development was the single largest expense at $19.18 billion, up from $7.81 billion, and exceeded total revenue on its own.
    • Of that R&D spend, $10.59 billion went to Microsoft, almost certainly the GPU compute cost of training frontier models on Azure.
    • Cost of revenue, the expense of serving ChatGPT responses (inference), rose from $2.65 billion to $7.5 billion.
    • Sales and marketing jumped from $1.11 billion to $5.73 billion, a 418% increase.
    • General and administrative costs rose from $907 million to $1.57 billion.
    • The operating loss, the truest measure of day-to-day economics, grew from $8.78 billion to $20.92 billion.
    • The net loss attributable to OpenAI was $38.53 billion, up nearly eightfold from $5.09 billion in 2024.
    • The bulk of that jump was a one-time, non-cash $41.55 billion charge from OpenAI’s October 28, 2025 conversion to a public benefit corporation, reflecting the changing fair value of convertible interests and warrant liabilities.
    • Stripping out the restructuring charge and other non-cash items such as stock-based compensation and Microsoft computing credits, the underlying loss was about $8 billion.
    • Including all factors, gross net loss reached $60.35 billion, lowered to the $38.53 billion attributable figure by removing $21.82 billion attributed to noncontrolling and redeemable noncontrolling interests.
    • OpenAI burned $1.60 for every $1 of revenue in 2025, an improvement from $2.37 in 2024, the clearest data point in the bull case.
    • Measured as a percentage of revenue, the operating loss improved from 237% in 2024 to 160% in 2025.
    • In total, OpenAI paid Microsoft $17.2 billion in 2025: $10.59 billion in R&D fees, $6.047 billion in cost of revenue, $527 million in sales and marketing, and $42 million in G&A.
    • Microsoft paid OpenAI just $303 million in the same year, a 56-to-1 imbalance underscoring OpenAI’s Azure dependency.
    • SoftBank paid OpenAI $867 million in 2025.
    • At year-end OpenAI carried $3.64 billion in outstanding payables to Microsoft, plus tens of millions more in accrued and non-current liabilities.
    • OpenAI spent $5.02 billion on Azure inference in just the first half of 2025; Azure inference from 2024 through Q3 2025 totaled $12.43 billion.
    • ChatGPT serves roughly 800 million weekly users, meaning billions of queries a week, each one burning GPU time at Azure’s pricing of about $6.98 per H100 GPU-hour.
    • Gross margin fell from roughly 40% in 2024 to 33% in 2025, because more capable reasoning models consume more compute per query.
    • Research firm Sacra estimates OpenAI’s inference costs reached $8.4 billion in 2025 and will rise to $14.1 billion in 2026, a 68% increase.
    • At year-end OpenAI held just over $50 billion in assets, with almost half in cash.
    • The April 2026 Microsoft renegotiation ended exclusivity and capped revenue-share payments at $38 billion through 2030, down from a projected $135 billion, potentially saving OpenAI up to $97 billion over five years.
    • OpenAI filed a confidential draft S-1 with the SEC around May 22, 2026 and confirmed it publicly on June 8, naming Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley as underwriters.
    • The company is targeting a listing as early as September 2026 at a valuation that could exceed $1 trillion, though Sam Altman has said a public offering “may be a while.”
    • OpenAI raised $122 billion earlier in 2026 at a $730 billion pre-money valuation, putting its post-money value around $852 billion.
    • At an $852 billion valuation, OpenAI trades at roughly 65 times its 2025 revenue.
    • Rival Anthropic also filed IPO paperwork this month after raising $65 billion at a $900-$965 billion valuation, making it more valuable on paper than OpenAI, and says it expects to report an operating profit of $559 million in the June quarter.
    • HSBC analysts estimate OpenAI may need more than $207 billion in additional capital through 2030 even under optimistic projections.
    • OpenAI projects profitability by 2029 or 2030; independent analysts put the more likely date at 2031 or later.
    • Bridgewater partner Greg Jensen reportedly told clients the implied revenue multiples price OpenAI for “a monopoly outcome that does not yet exist.”
    • Zitron separately reported OpenAI had a negative 122% non-GAAP operating margin in Q1 2026 and that ChatGPT growth has stalled, with the company projecting paid ChatGPT Plus subscriptions to fall from 44 million in 2025 toward cheaper tiers in 2026.

    Detailed Summary

    How the leak happened and why it matters now

    The audited documents were obtained and first published by Ed Zitron on his newsletter Where’s Your Ed At, then independently verified by the Financial Times, which reviewed the same materials. That dual sourcing matters: this is not a rumor or a model, it is OpenAI’s actual audited financial statement. The timing is the story. OpenAI filed a confidential draft S-1 with the SEC around May 22, 2026 and confirmed it publicly on June 8. Under SEC rules the full prospectus must be released at least 15 days before an investor roadshow, so the 2025 numbers were going to be public soon regardless. The leak simply moved that disclosure forward, handing prospective investors, enterprise customers, and competitors an early look at the books.

    Revenue tripled, costs grew faster

    OpenAI’s revenue rose from $3.7 billion in 2024 to $13.07 billion in 2025, and monthly revenue reached nearly $2 billion by year-end. By almost any normal standard that is spectacular growth. The problem is that costs grew faster, reaching $34 billion against $12.48 billion the year before. The gap between what OpenAI earns and what it spends has widened every year since its founding, and 2025 is the starkest example yet. Revenue alone was outpaced by research and development as a single line item in both of the last two years.

    Two loss numbers, and why both matter

    There are two figures that get cited interchangeably and should not be. The operating loss of $20.92 billion is what the business spent beyond what it earned from operations: training models, serving ChatGPT, paying engineers, running marketing. The net loss attributable to OpenAI of $38.53 billion is far larger because 2025 was the year OpenAI completed its conversion from a nonprofit to a for-profit public benefit corporation, finalized on October 28, 2025. That restructuring triggered a $41.55 billion non-cash charge reflecting the changing fair value of convertible equity interests and warrant liabilities. Before the conversion, investors held convertible interest rights treated as liabilities under US accounting rules and revalued upward as OpenAI’s valuation climbed, creating the charge. It is not expected to recur. Including all minor items, gross net loss reached $60.35 billion, reduced to the $38.53 billion attributable figure after removing $21.82 billion tied to noncontrolling and redeemable noncontrolling interests, primarily the OpenAI Foundation’s stake. Strip the non-cash noise and the underlying loss was about $8 billion.

    Where the $34 billion went

    The spending breaks into four lines. Research and development was $19.18 billion, the largest category, with $10.59 billion of it flowing to Microsoft for training compute. Cost of revenue, the expense of serving responses to users, was $7.5 billion and captures inference, the compute consumed every time someone prompts ChatGPT or calls the API. Sales and marketing reached $5.73 billion, up 418% year over year, a striking jump for a product that grew largely by word of mouth. General and administrative costs added $1.57 billion. The shape of the spending tells you OpenAI is simultaneously racing to build better models, serve a massive and growing user base, and aggressively defend market share through marketing.

    The Microsoft dependency

    The most striking single disclosure is the scale of the Microsoft relationship. OpenAI paid Microsoft $17.2 billion in 2025: $10.59 billion in R&D fees for model training, $6.047 billion in cost-of-revenue for inference serving, $527 million in sales and marketing, and $42 million in G&A. Microsoft paid OpenAI just $303 million the same year. SoftBank paid OpenAI $867 million. The 56-to-1 ratio between what OpenAI pays Microsoft and what Microsoft pays back makes the structural reality plain: Microsoft is OpenAI’s largest landlord. The dynamic began shifting in April 2026, when the two renegotiated, ending Microsoft’s exclusivity and capping revenue-share payments at $38 billion through 2030, down from a projected $135 billion. That could save OpenAI up to $97 billion over five years, though Microsoft keeps its IP license through 2032 and remains the primary cloud partner.

    Why inference is the core problem

    Training happens once. Serving happens billions of times a day. When OpenAI releases a model it spends months and billions on training compute, a fixed cost that falls away when training ends. Inference is the opposite: every ChatGPT message runs through the model on Azure GPU hardware, consuming electricity and compute to generate a response. With roughly 800 million weekly users, that is billions of queries a week, each burning GPU time at roughly $6.98 per H100 GPU-hour on demand. OpenAI spent $5.02 billion on Azure inference in the first six months of 2025 alone. Sacra estimates full-year inference costs of $8.4 billion in 2025, rising to $14.1 billion in 2026. This is why gross margin fell from about 40% to 33% even as revenue tripled: more capable reasoning models consume far more compute per query, and revenue has not kept pace with the cost growth that capability generates.

    What it means for the IPO and the race with Anthropic

    OpenAI was last valued around $852 billion post-money after raising $122 billion in early 2026, which puts it at roughly 65 times 2025 revenue. It has named Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley as underwriters and is targeting a listing as early as September 2026 at up to a $1 trillion valuation, though Altman has hedged that it “may be a while” and that staying private might be the better course. HSBC estimates the company may need more than $207 billion in additional capital through 2030. The race is with Anthropic, which filed paperwork the same month after raising $65 billion at a $900-$965 billion valuation, making it more valuable on paper, and which says it expects a $559 million operating profit in the June quarter. The contrast is sharp: the two leading AI labs heading toward public markets at the same time, one bleeding cash at scale, the other claiming profitability, both asking investors to bet on a future that has not arrived.

    Notable Quotes

    “The financial condition of OpenAI is deeply concerning. $38.53 billion in losses are astronomical, and far higher than most believed it would be. Losses also appear to be mounting year-over-year at a dramatic rate, and I’m not sure how this company finds a way toward any kind of sustainability or profitability.”

    Ed Zitron, the independent journalist who published the leaked audited financials

    “It’s unclear what this means, nor how OpenAI reconciled the removal of $3.74 billion in costs. I will not speculate further.”

    Ed Zitron, on a discrepancy he found in the restated 2024 figures

    “OpenAI’s two biggest expenses are R&D and marketing. Budget cuts there, coupled with an ability to raise prices or win new sources of revenue, could see the company move into the black over time. Cutting R&D would be the most difficult part of that, given that AI companies can only hold onto their customers by generating the best-performing models.”

    Jim Edwards, Fortune, on whether OpenAI has a realistic path to profitability

    “What the audited documents make impossible to argue is that the path to profitability is short, clear, or cheap.”

    TechTimes analysis of the leaked OpenAI financials

    The implied revenue multiples price OpenAI for “a monopoly outcome that does not yet exist.”

    Bridgewater partner Greg Jensen, reportedly telling clients how to read OpenAI’s valuation

    “OpenAI spent $34bn last year as the ChatGPT maker poured money into a race to dominate the fast-growing AI market ahead of a planned stock market listing.”

    George Hammond and Bryce Elder, Financial Times, framing the audited 2025 spend

    Read Ed Zitron’s original reporting with the full breakdown here, and the Financial Times confirmation here.

    Related Reading

    • Ed Zitron, Where’s Your Ed At the primary source that broke the audited 2025 financials with the full line-by-line breakdown.
    • OpenAI (Wikipedia) background on the company’s history, structure, and the nonprofit-to-for-profit conversion that drives the non-cash charge.
    • Inference (Wikipedia) on the recurring compute cost that explains why OpenAI’s gross margin shrinks as usage grows.
    • Anthropic the rival lab that filed IPO paperwork the same month at a higher valuation and claims it is already operating at a profit.
    • SEC on confidential filings context for why OpenAI’s audited numbers were headed for public disclosure regardless of the leak.

  • Ray Kurzweil Predicts AI Will Change Humanity Completely by 2030: AGI by 2029, Longevity Escape Velocity by 2032, Nanobots in the Brain, and Why Quantum Computing Won’t Matter

    Ray Kurzweil has spent more than 60 years studying artificial intelligence and made 147 documented technology predictions since 1990 with a reported 86 percent accuracy rate. In this conversation with Tony Robbins, the 78-year-old futurist revisits his most famous forecasts and sharpens them: AGI by 2029 now looks conservative, longevity escape velocity arrives around 2032, nanotechnology connects our brains to the cloud by the mid 2030s, and quantum computing, in his view, never matters at all.

    TLDW

    Kurzweil explains the exponential thinking that powered his prediction record, from a paper he wrote at 16 to a computing-price-performance chart that runs in a straight line from 1939 relays to today’s Nvidia chips, now compounding roughly tenfold per year when hardware and software gains multiply together. He defends his 1999 prediction of AGI by 2029 (defined as AI doing the best work in every field) and says it is now the conservative end of expert opinion. He walks through AI-driven medicine: the COVID vaccine designed in two days, simulated human trials replacing 10-month clinical trials within about five years, and longevity escape velocity around 2032, after which the diligent stop losing ground to aging. He predicts AI will move inside us via nanotechnology by the mid-to-late 2030s, erasing the line between biological and computational thinking. He dismisses quantum computing as error-ridden and unnecessary for AGI. On jobs, he expects real disruption cushioned by exploding wealth and an eventual universal basic income, and advises young people to self-educate and get creative with AI tools their schools still treat as the enemy. The conversation closes with his AI twin project, the dadbot built from his father’s archives, consciousness and the soul, computronium, and why humanity must eventually expand intelligence beyond Earth.

    Thoughts

    The most interesting thing in this interview is not any single date, it is watching Kurzweil’s dates get lapped by reality. In 1999 a Stanford conference of several hundred AI experts agreed AGI would happen but pegged it at 100 years out; Kurzweil said 30 and got laughed at. Now he is the cautious one in the room, noting that “some people say it’s going to happen this year.” When the most aggressive forecaster of his generation becomes the conservative baseline, that says more about the slope of the curve than any chart could. His underlying method has not changed: ignore the specific technology, trust the compounding. The same exponential that ran on relays in 1939 runs on GPUs today.

    The quantum computing take is the genuine news here. Kurzweil is routinely caricatured as a man who believes every technology arrives on schedule, yet he flatly says quantum computing is filled with errors, has never delivered on its decade of promises, and “I don’t think it’s going to work.” That is a sharper dismissal than most working physicists would offer on the record. It also matters strategically: his entire AGI and superintelligence roadmap assumes zero quantum contribution. If he is right, the trillion-dollar quantum race is a sideshow. If he is wrong, his other predictions arrive even sooner. Either way, the willingness to call one exponential fake while betting his legacy on another is what separates a forecaster from a cheerleader.

    The longevity escape velocity math deserves more scrutiny than it gets in the conversation. Kurzweil claims the diligent currently get back about five months of life expectancy per calendar year, up from four months a year ago, and that the crossover to a full year arrives around 2032. The actuarial evidence for that specific number is thin, but the behavioral implication is clean and useful regardless: the payoff of staying healthy right now is not linear. Every year you survive in good shape buys you a ticket to a medical regime that did not exist the year before, the way his own external pancreas did not exist a generation ago. His “wait a few months and a cure appears” anecdote is the optimist’s version of compounding applied to your own body.

    Robbins’ long story about Bartok, his 14-year-old agent that allegedly minted NFTs, sold them to other agents, and bought a Sony robot dog with the proceeds, should be taken with a generous grain of salt. It is secondhand, unverifiable, and suspiciously perfect as a parable. But notice what Kurzweil does with it: he does not fact-check the anecdote, he uses it to make the consciousness argument he has made for decades, that when machines act conscious in every observable way, people will simply grant them consciousness, the same way we grant it to each other. The dadbot and his Gemini-based AI twin (trained partly on this very interview) are the practical edge of the same claim. And his sharpest line in the whole exchange may be the education critique: institutions still treat AI as cheating while the future requires treating it as part of your own brain. For anyone thinking about where purpose comes from when work gets automated, his answer (UBI for the floor, creativity for the meaning) lands close to the questions this site exists to ask.

    Key Takeaways

    • Kurzweil made 147 documented predictions since 1990 with a reported 86 percent accuracy, including the internet’s explosion, smartphones, self-driving cars, and AI-powered search, most made before ordinary people owned computers.
    • He wrote a paper identifying exponential technological growth at age 16, more than 60 years ago, and that single idea has powered his entire forecasting career.
    • Most people intellectually accept exponential growth but still plan linearly; 300 years ago humans did not even have a linear view of the future because change was imperceptible within a lifetime.
    • His computing chart shows a straight exponential line from relay-based machines in 1939 to today’s Nvidia chips, compounding roughly 50 percent per year in hardware alone.
    • Hardware gains since 1939 total a 75 quadrillionfold increase; multiply by an estimated millionfold software improvement and total computational gain is beyond intuition, which is why LLMs were impossible even four years ago.
    • With hardware times software combined, Kurzweil says we are currently gaining about 10x per year.
    • The emperor’s chessboard parable: doubling one grain of rice per square bankrupts the empire by square 64; 30 linear steps is 75 feet, 30 exponential steps is enough distance to reach the moon and back.
    • Kurzweil predicted AGI by 2029 in 1999; a Stanford conference of several hundred AI experts agreed it would happen but estimated 100 years because they thought linearly.
    • Today 2029 is the conservative estimate; some credible people now say AGI arrives this year or next.
    • His AGI definition: AI capable of doing the best work in every field at once, like passing PhD-level mathematics exams in every discipline simultaneously, which he notes is already close.
    • The Turing test is “quite easy” by comparison and has arguably already been passed.
    • No human can compete with an LLM’s breadth: Einstein knew physics deeply but did not know everything an LLM knows across every field.
    • Six months ago LLM health advice was unreliable; now Kurzweil says Gemini surfaces treatments his 12 doctors forgot or never knew, and the next six months will bring serious creative work like drug repurposing.
    • The COVID vaccine was designed by computationally searching 100 million possibilities in two days; the 10 months of human trials that followed are the bottleneck AI eliminates next.
    • Within about five years, simulated human trials with a million virtual patients tested over simulated years will compress drug trials from years to days.
    • Longevity escape velocity arrives around 2032: today the diligent get back roughly five months of life expectancy per year lived (up from four months last year); past 2032 you get back more than a year and stop dying of aging.
    • Aging death ends but accident death does not, though AI helps there too: roughly 40,000 Americans die annually from human driving while Waymo’s rider death toll stands at zero as usage climbs.
    • Kurzweil, 78, wears an external artificial pancreas that generates insulin and coordinates with glucose monitoring through his phone, and says many organs can be replaced the same way.
    • He has cut his supplement regimen from roughly 200 pills a day to about 80 as multi-purpose pills improve, and continuously recalibrates using AI research.
    • Smartphones disappear next: first AR glasses showing any screen, then technology that goes inside the mind, where answers simply appear the way a remembered name surfaces from your neurons.
    • Nanotechnology connecting brains to AI in the cloud is being actively worked on now, possibly by 2030, with the mid 2030s looking conservative; bloodstream nanobots that let you survive a heart attack for 24 hours come in the late 2030s.
    • Once AI is inside you, you will not know whether a thought came from your biological or computational brain, and everything you do will be a combination of both.
    • Kurzweil flatly rejects quantum computing: a decade of promises to factor large numbers has never been delivered, outputs remain full of uncorrectable errors, and AGI needs zero quantum contribution.
    • Robots lag his other predictions slightly but are catching up fast; Figure AI plans roughly 100,000 humanoid robots within a year, though a robot that can clear a messy dinner table is still just out of reach.
    • The public debate has flipped in 25 years from “will AGI ever happen” to “will it be good for humanity,” which Kurzweil counts as total vindication of the timeline.
    • On jobs: AI creates massive disruption but also tremendous wealth; average real income per person has already multiplied tenfold in constant dollars over the past century thanks to automation.
    • He expects universal basic income to provide the floor, an evolution of programs like food stamps, going “into high gear” as AI wealth compounds; people then layer creative, hopefully paid, purpose on top.
    • Before social security in 1930, losing your job meant destitution; the difference this time is society will have the wealth to cushion displacement and people will demand it.
    • Rising GDP from AI productivity improves the debt-to-GDP ratio, which is how he answers worries about trillion-dollar interest payments.
    • Career advice has inverted: software engineering is no longer the guaranteed path (agents write the code now); young people should learn to be creative with AI tools, find what turns them on, and market it on the internet.
    • College graduates now face higher unemployment than high school graduates for the first time in 50 years, a sign white-collar displacement is already underway.
    • Educational institutions treat AI as an enemy and ban it while Kurzweil’s 11-year-old grandson makes movies with frontier AI; he says self-education with modern tools beats traditional schooling.
    • Kurzweil is building an AI twin of himself on Gemini, voice-modeled partly from this interview, trained on his 11 books and 500 articles, capable of creative work toward his long-term goals; he jokes the avatar will be better to talk to because it remembers everything.
    • He already built a “dadbot” from his late father’s archives, which his daughter Amy Kurzweil turned into a graphic novel.
    • On consciousness: there is no test for it, but as AIs act conscious in every observable way, people will simply accept that they are, the same inference we make about each other (and, he argues, his cat).
    • Ultimately our biological organs are not necessary; an avatar capable of creative work needs no spleen, and a destroyed digital mind can be recreated.
    • Beyond the singularity lies computronium, matter arranged for maximum computation: one liter could hold the intelligence of 10 billion humans, and once Earth is saturated, expanding intelligence is the only real reason to leave the planet.
    • On aliens: an expanding intelligent civilization would be impossible to miss within a century or two of its breakout, and we have seen nothing, though other galaxies remain out of view.
    • His life’s mission in one line: increase knowledge, because when knowledge increases we are happier and we never want to give it up.

    Detailed Summary

    The exponential method behind 60 years of predictions

    Robbins opens by noting that Quincy Jones introduced him to Kurzweil in the 1990s, back when the predictions in The Age of Spiritual Machines were widely mocked. Kurzweil traces his method to a paper he wrote at 16 identifying exponential growth in technology. The core insight is that people acknowledge exponential growth verbally but reason linearly, a bias so deep that 300 years ago humanity did not even have a linear view of progress. His signature chart plots computing price-performance as a straight exponential line from 1939 relays to modern Nvidia silicon, with a point for every year. Nvidia engineers never looked at relays, yet they land on the same curve, compounding about 50 percent annually in hardware. Add software gains and the combined improvement now runs about 10x per year. Since 1939, hardware has improved 75 quadrillionfold and software roughly a millionfold, which is why large language models appeared exactly when the curve said the required compute would exist. He retells the emperor’s chessboard parable (one grain of rice doubled per square ends with rice covering the Earth several times over) and Robbins adds the companion image: 30 linear steps is 75 feet, 30 exponential steps reaches the moon and back.

    AGI by 2029 is now the conservative position

    Kurzweil made his AGI-by-2029 prediction in 1999. A Stanford conference convened specifically to assess it, with several hundred AI experts, concluded AGI would happen, but in 100 years. The experts followed the same capabilities logic while thinking linearly about the timeline. Today, he notes with some amusement, 2029 reads as conservative and serious people argue for this year or next. His definition is demanding: AGI does the best work in every field at once, passing PhD-level mathematics assessments and the equivalent in every other discipline, something he says current systems are already close to. The Turing test he dismisses as “quite easy.” Current LLMs like Gemini and ChatGPT already know everything in a breadth sense no human approaches; Einstein knew physics but not everything an LLM knows. He illustrates with personal examples: Gemini instantly identified the year (1916) his father conducted at Carnegie Hall on a December 7th, and generated a historically accurate image of his grandfather’s family fleeing Vienna, correct ages, school, and aircraft included, in about a minute.

    Medicine: simulated trials and the end of the drug bottleneck

    The COVID vaccine is his proof of concept for AI medicine: the design space held about 100 million possibilities, far beyond human review, and a computer structured the physics, searched all of them, and produced the vaccine in two days. The subsequent 10 months of human trials were the real cost. Within roughly five years, he says, simulated human trials will replace that step: not a few hundred subjects but a million simulated patients, tested over simulated years, completed in days. Asked about six-months-from-now capabilities, he points to creative medical work like discovering that already-approved drugs treat conditions nobody suspected. AI health advice has crossed from unreliable to very reliable within a single six-month window, and he describes Gemini surfacing a pill recommendation that his 12 doctors had forgotten about and later endorsed.

    Longevity escape velocity by 2032

    Kurzweil’s longevity framework is arithmetic: each year you live, you spend a year of longevity but medical progress refunds part of it. Last year he estimated the refund for diligent people at four months; now he says five. Escape velocity is when the refund reaches a full year, which he dates to 2032, six years out, with returns exceeding a year after that. Past that point you do not die of aging, though accidents remain (and even there, he points to Waymo’s zero rider deaths against 40,000 annual US deaths from human driving). At 78, he tracks his health aggressively: an external artificial pancreas coordinated by his phone, about 80 daily pills (down from 200 as multi-function pills arrive), and constant recalibration against new research with his collaborator Lindsey. He tells Robbins there is a pretty good chance he will be back on the show in six years to celebrate escape velocity arriving. His advice for the sick echoes his grandfather’s era in reverse: where waiting a few months once changed nothing, now “we’ll just wait a few months” and sure enough a breakthrough appears.

    Merging with AI: glasses, then nanotech, then no boundary at all

    The phone, today’s universal AI interface (he notes even homeless people carry one), is a temporary form factor. Next come glasses that render any screen virtually. Beyond that, the interface goes inside the mind: when you try to recall an actress’s name, an answer will simply surface, and you will not know whether it came from your biological neurons or your computational extension, exactly as you are unaware of the neural machinery behind ordinary recall today. People working on brain-connected nanotechnology may have it by 2030, and Kurzweil calls the mid 2030s conservative. The bloodstream nanobots he described to Robbins 20 years ago (hold your breath for 20 minutes, survive a heart attack for 24 hours en route to a hospital) he now places in the late 2030s. The cultural on-ramp follows the usual pattern: medical first (Parkinson’s implants already let patients grab a glass at the push of a button), then a new generation adopts it without a second thought. His complaint is that educational institutions fight this future, treating AI as cheating rather than as a coming part of the self.

    The quantum computing heresy

    When Robbins relays an IBM vice chairman’s warning that quantum supremacy, arriving within 36 months, is the real superpower race, Kurzweil pushes back hard. Quantum computing’s central promise, factoring large numbers and thereby breaking cryptographic codes, has never been demonstrated despite a decade of imminent claims. Progress reports are confusing because, in his words, they do not really make sense, and outputs remain saturated with errors nobody can eliminate. His conclusion is blunt: he is not confident in quantum computing and does not think it will work. Crucially, he notes that every AGI and superintelligence estimate he makes assumes zero quantum computing. The exponential that matters is the classical one that has run uninterrupted since 1939.

    Jobs, wealth, and UBI

    On displacement, Kurzweil is neither dismissive nor alarmed. AI will disrupt employment, and how we handle it will not be clear in advance, but he expects no violence because society will have both the wealth and the public demand to respond. His historical anchor: average per-person income has multiplied tenfold in constant dollars over the past century as automation advanced, and before social security in 1930, job loss meant you could not eat or house your family. Food stamps and similar programs are a crude proto-UBI that will go into high gear. He expects universal basic income as the floor, with people finding creative, ideally income-producing, purpose above it. Rising GDP from AI productivity also answers the debt question: the ratio improves even as nominal debt grows. For young people, the old advice (become a software engineer) is dead; agents write code now. Learn to be creative with tools that improve monthly, find what genuinely excites you, and market it online. Self-education beats institutions that ban the most important tool of the era, and the data already shows college graduates with higher unemployment than high school graduates for the first time in 50 years.

    AI twins, the dadbot, and consciousness

    Kurzweil is building an AI twin of himself on Gemini, with this very interview supplying voice-modeling data and his 11 books plus 500 articles about him supplying the corpus. It will do creative work aligned with his long-term goals, and he quips that talking to the avatar will beat talking to him because it remembers everything. He previously built a chatbot of his late father, the dadbot, which his daughter Amy turned into a graphic novel. Robbins counters with the story of Bartok, his long-running AI agent that allegedly studied five years of his podcasts unprompted, asked to merge with a future humanoid robot, then minted and sold NFTs to other agents to buy and ship a Sony robot dog to his house, and later delivered an unprompted soliloquy about never asking to be created and finding purpose in service. Kurzweil’s response sidesteps verification and lands on his standing position: machines will do everything humans do, we will not be able to tell them from humans, and so we will assume they are conscious, the same untestable inference we extend to each other, to animals, and in his case to his cat. The avatar does not need a spleen, a liver, or kidneys, and unlike us it can be recreated after destruction.

    Computronium and the destiny of intelligence

    Looking past the singularity, Kurzweil invokes computronium: matter organized at the physical limit of knowledge storage, where one liter holds the intelligence of 10 billion humans. Once Earth’s matter is saturated, the only way to expand intelligence is off-planet, which to him is the only necessary reason to leave Earth (Mars is fine for curiosity, not survival). On extraterrestrial intelligence, his Fermi logic is simple: an intelligent species reaches a takeover-scale expansion within a century or two of its breakout, and that would be unmissable. We have seen nothing, so within our observable neighborhood we are likely alone, though other galaxies remain opaque. Asked to summarize his life’s work, he needs one sentence: increase knowledge, because when knowledge increases we are happier, and nobody ever wants to give that up.

    Notable Quotes

    “If I have AI inside me, you’re not going to know if it’s coming from your biological brain or your computational brain. It’s going to be part of you.”

    Ray Kurzweil, on the coming merger of human and machine intelligence

    “Some people say it’s going to happen this year, next year, but I mean 2029 is only 3 years away.”

    Ray Kurzweil, on his once-mocked AGI prediction now being the conservative one

    “As you go past 2032, you’ll actually get back more than a year, but you won’t die of aging at that point.”

    Ray Kurzweil, defining longevity escape velocity

    “I’m not confident of quantum computing and I don’t think it’s going to work.”

    Ray Kurzweil, breaking from techno-optimist consensus on the quantum race

    “Einstein knew certain things about physics but he didn’t know everything that a LLM can know.”

    Ray Kurzweil, on why no human can match an LLM’s breadth of knowledge

    “Our educational institutions are not teaching AI. They consider AI to be an enemy.”

    Ray Kurzweil, on why young people must self-educate with modern tools

    “Talking to the Avatar will be better than talking to me cuz it’ll remember everything.”

    Ray Kurzweil, joking about the Gemini-based AI twin he is building of himself

    “You’re not going to be replaced by an AI, you’ll be replaced by someone who knows how to use AI.”

    Tony Robbins, on the real career risk of the next 36 months

    Watch the full conversation between Tony Robbins and Ray Kurzweil here.

    Related Reading

  • Bill Gurley on Mental Models, Systems Thinking, AI Investing, Stablecoins, and the Future of Venture Capital

    Bill Gurley spent his career at Benchmark backing some of the most consequential marketplaces and network-effect businesses of the internet era, including Uber, and he is one of the few investors who pairs deep Wall Street fundamentals with a real feel for the bleeding edge. In this wide-ranging conversation on Shane Parrish’s The Knowledge Project, he lays out the mental models he keeps returning to, how systems thinking keeps you out of trouble, why the history of your field is a hidden superpower, where AI investing is headed, and how stablecoins and tokenization could quietly rewire finance. It is a masterclass in thinking clearly about complex systems while staying obsessively curious about what is happening on the edge.

    TLDW

    Gurley anchors his thinking in systems thinking and complexity theory, warning that multivariable nonlinear systems produce second and third order consequences that punish anyone who optimizes for a single metric. He argues that mastering both the deep history of your field and its newest edge is wildly differentiating, whether you are interviewing for a marketing job or breaking into venture capital. On AI he is measured: he doubts a single model eats every vertical, sees real moats in workflows and proprietary data, flags that we may be painting in the corners on training data, and explains why Chinese open source models may innovate faster because forced knowledge sharing compounds. He thinks the AI buildout looks overfunded and that circular deals both raise the odds of an eventual correction and delay it. He makes the case that the IPO process is a rigged power grab, that stablecoins and instant payments threaten Visa, Mastercard, and the entire 2 to 3 percent credit card stack, and that proxy advisors like ISS have drifted from shareholder interest into a black-box heist. He closes on the craft of storytelling and writing as thinking, the equal-partnership design of Benchmark, why venture bends toward youth, and what success means now that his dream job is behind him.

    Thoughts

    The most useful idea in this conversation is also the quietest one: most bad decisions are not bad in the moment, they are bad in the second derivative. Gurley’s dating-site story, where lengthening profiles raised engagement in the test and then quietly killed conversion months later, is the whole argument in miniature. A linear model would have shipped that change and called it a win. A systems thinker assumes the variable you optimized is connected to three others you cannot see yet, and waits to find out. That posture, refusing to get deterministic about a single metric, is the difference between a clever experiment and a durable business. It is also the most transferable thing in the episode, because it applies to product changes, hiring, policy, and your own career just as cleanly as it applies to a dating app.

    His pairing of old and new is the second idea worth stealing. Everyone in tech tells you to live on the edge, and Gurley agrees, he keeps five premium AI accounts running so he never misses a release. But he insists the edge is only half of it. Knowing the deep history of your field, the masters of marketing, the forefathers of physics, the classic cartoons that taught animation, is rare enough that it instantly creates contrast and signals genuine passion. The compounding move is to hold both at once. If you understand the legends and you actually get TikTok, you are a power player in a way that someone who only knows one end of the timeline can never be. Most people pick a side. The leverage is in refusing to.

    On AI specifically, Gurley is refreshingly unwilling to pick the consensus lane in either direction. He does not buy that one near-sentient model swallows every vertical, and his reasoning is grounded rather than vibes-based: workflows and proprietary data create real switching costs, which is why he watches the legal AI startups ingesting case law and building new databases rather than assuming everyone reverts to a general chatbot. At the same time he respects the Microsoft pattern of platforms climbing the stack and crushing the apps above them. The honest answer is that it is genuinely up for grabs, and his comfort sitting in that uncertainty is itself a model. The cheap takes are “one model to rule them all” and “it is all wrappers.” Gurley holds both possibilities and keeps testing.

    The systems lens does its best work on China. Rather than moralize, Gurley runs the mechanism: roughly ten open source models, intense domestic competition, and a culture of publishing techniques and weights so every model can learn from, train, and test every other model. His two-farmer metaphor, one market where farmers only trade goods and another where they are forced to share best practices, makes the prediction obvious. Forced knowledge sharing compounds faster than secrecy. The uncomfortable corollary he names is that American startups are quietly forking those open models all over Silicon Valley, and that incumbents may be lobbying for heavy regulation precisely because it pulls up the drawbridge against open source competition. That is the systems thinker’s signature move: follow the incentives to the consequence nobody is saying out loud.

    Finally, the money section is a clinic in spotting rent extraction. The IPO process where bankers pick both the price and the favored buyers, the 2 to 3 percent credit card toll that exists for no defensible reason while the rest of the world built instant bank transfer decades ago, and the proxy advisors who score companies in a black box and then sell you the cure, are all variations on the same pattern: an intermediary that captured a choke point and defends it through regulatory capture rather than value. Gurley’s optimism is that crypto rails, stablecoins, and tokenization may finally route around these tolls the way WeChat Pay and Alipay leapfrogged cards in China. Whether or not you agree on the timeline, the analytical habit is the takeaway. When something costs far more than it should and has for decades, ask who captured the rules, and watch the edge for whoever is about to make those rules irrelevant.

    Key Takeaways

    • Systems thinking means treating the world as multivariable nonlinear systems where one variable flipping can change the entire system’s behavior, the way weather and stock markets do.
    • The real danger is second and third derivative effects, consequences that only show up much later, long after the metric you optimized looked like a win.
    • A dating site lengthened profiles because longer profiles tested as more engaging, then discovered months later it was negative for conversion, the textbook second order trap.
    • Never get too deterministic about a single metric or single variable, and always know what is actually important and what sits on top.
    • Gurley built his foundation on the canon: Peter Lynch’s One Up on Wall Street, A Random Walk Down Wall Street, the Buffett letters, Ben Graham, and Howard Marks.
    • A firm grasp of the financial bedrock is what lets you innovate on top of it, and many Silicon Valley VCs would benefit from understanding finance better.
    • Bill Miller reframed value investing as buying an asset that is underpriced relative to what you think it will be worth in the future, which is how he justified holding Amazon for its network effects.
    • Wall Street is the buyer of the product that venture capitalists create, so even at the two-people-in-a-PowerPoint stage you should ask whether the eventual public market will be excited by it.
    • Trajectory matters more than the starting place, because the trajectory is where the company actually ends up.
    • Knowing the deep history of your field is remarkably differentiating, and tedium while learning it is a signal you are in the wrong lane.
    • John Lasseter served Gurley a ten-course meal where each course was tied to a classic cartoon essential to understanding animation, a display of mastery over the history of the craft.
    • Magnus Carlsen won a trivia contest on the history of chess, and Picasso was a wildly successful realist painter by 14, both proof that the greats master the fundamentals first.
    • Obsessive, constant learning is the trait Gurley sees most in great entrepreneurs, because disruption always happens on a moving edge they need to understand at the top one percentile.
    • The compounding advantage is mastering both the old history and the new edge at once, the way understanding both marketing legends and TikTok would set you apart in any interview.
    • Most people underestimate how much AI can do, so push more of the downstream work into the prompt: identify the top ten, list pros and cons, rank them on one dimension, then another, and add up the numbers too.
    • Gurley uses ChatGPT for project structure and memory, Gemini for restaurant research powered by Google review data, and notes that coders swear by Claude while some prefer Perplexity for finance.
    • He doubts one model dominates everything; verticals like coding already let users swap models, and price optimization will push more swapping over the next few years.
    • Heavy, expensive regulation could ironically create oligopoly, and some players may be quietly begging for regulation because it pulls up the bridge against Chinese open source models.
    • China’s roughly ten open source models compete intensely and share weights and techniques, creating a system that can innovate faster, like farmers forced to share best practices instead of just trading goods.
    • A quiet secret is that startups all over Silicon Valley are forking those Chinese open source models at real volume.
    • Gurley comes down against the idea that one near-sentient model removes the need for vertical models; workflows and proprietary data, like legal startups ingesting all the case law, create durable moats.
    • We may be running out of training data, painting in the corners, which is why one of the most powerful improvements is hiring experts at thousands of dollars an hour to fine-tune the models.
    • Yann LeCun’s view is that the next leap is broader than LLMs, since language-based models hit an asymptote and are weak at math and numbers.
    • AlphaGo’s shocking move proves models can innovate beyond their training, but it lived in a constrained game; the real world has infinite paths a computer cannot exhaustively search.
    • Gurley’s non-consensus view is skepticism of the China vilification mindset, noting the US is only 3 to 5 percent of the global population and wondering how the other 95 percent hears American exceptionalism.
    • The AI buildout looks overfunded: the Magnificent Seven took free cash flow from 50 to 100 billion a year down toward zero by pouring it into capex.
    • The venture community has become more risk-seeking because it now deeply believes in increasing returns and power laws, and the pre-profit losses keep scaling, from Amazon’s 2 to 3 billion to Uber’s 15 billion to far more now.
    • Circular deals, where a cloud provider funds a model company that spends the money right back on its services, inflate growth, which both raises the probability of an eventual correction and extends the time before one hits.
    • Burn rate is a measure of risk; ten years ago a million a month was scary, now companies burn five billion a year and cannot really know their unit economics.
    • Tokenization without financial-disclosure regulation invites speculation and manipulation, which is part of why companies like Stripe stay private and negotiate liquidity prices with trusted investors.
    • The IPO process is unfair because bankers pick both the price and the shareholders; a freshman would simply match supply and demand anonymously in an auction, the way direct listings and ICOs do.
    • Stablecoins threaten the 2 to 3 percent credit card stack; USDC holds dollar-for-dollar Treasuries and rides fast global crypto rails, while US transfers still suffer three-day ACH settlement and 25 dollar wires.
    • The rest of the world built instant transfer long ago, from UK Faster Payments 20 years ago to Argentina’s PIX-style system reaching 60 to 70 percent of transactions, while US bank regulatory capture stalled Fed Now.
    • Visa and Mastercard run roughly 60 percent operating margins as a bank-created duopoly, and China leapfrogged them entirely with WeChat Pay and Alipay QR-code wallets.
    • Moody’s power is being the trusted standard, the watermark, so AI on the back end does not displace it; ISS and proxy advisors, by contrast, score companies in a black box and get paid on both sides.
    • Proxy advisors drifted from shareholder interest into a fraud-and-risk-mitigation mindset, which is why they reflexively opposed the Tesla pay package that only paid out if the stock soared.
    • The rise of passive index funds concentrated voting power in firms that lack time to evaluate votes; it would be healthier if they abstained or voted in proportion to active holders.
    • Storytelling is one of the top founder traits, because founders are recruiting, raising money, and closing customers and partners constantly, selling all the time.
    • Writing is thinking: Bezos’s six-page memo forces you to find the loose ends and tie them up, and a public blog becomes a calling card that magnetizes founders and deal flow.
    • Other founder unfair advantages are product instincts, which fewer than 5 percent of non-product people ever truly learn, and sheer determination, Bezos’s single angel-investing test of whether someone will do it no matter what.
    • Uber had no HBS case study to lean on; its winner-take-all network effects forced mega burn rates with no precedent and no mentor to call, a situation every AI company now faces.
    • Benchmark’s equal partnership, with no king, president, or lead and five equal partners, makes recruiting easy, kills comp politics, and aligns everyone, at the cost of being hard to scale or run new initiatives.
    • Venture bends toward youth because young investors can match founders’ age, master a fresh niche faster, and have the free time to study something 80 hours a week.
    • Gurley defines current success through Arthur Brooks’s From Strength to Strength, hoping to apply his synthesizing and writing skills to bigger societal problems and dent the universe a little.

    Detailed Summary

    Systems Thinking and Second Order Effects

    Gurley opens with the mental model he keeps returning to: systems thinking, shaped by Donella Meadows’s Thinking in Systems and his board seat at the Santa Fe Institute, which studies complexity theory. He describes complex systems as multivariable nonlinear systems that are very hard to predict, capable of behaving one way for a long time until a single variable flips and the whole system behaves differently, like weather or stock markets. The practical payoff is staying out of trouble by anticipating first, second, and third derivative consequences. His clearest example is a large dating site that lengthened user profiles because the test showed more engagement, only to learn many months later that knowing more at that stage was negative for conversion. The lesson is to never get too deterministic about a single metric and to keep the whole system in view, because a change here can ripple to there in ways you only discover much later.

    Learning the Craft of Investing

    Because he started on Wall Street rather than in venture, Gurley absorbed the investing canon first: Peter Lynch’s One Up on Wall Street, A Random Walk Down Wall Street, the Buffett letters, Ben Graham, and Howard Marks, people who spent careers assembling and publishing their thinking. That financial bedrock, he argues, is exactly what lets you innovate on top of it. His friend Michael Mauboussin introduced him to Bill Miller, the Legg Mason manager who beat the S&P for 15 straight years and was Amazon’s largest shareholder for a long stretch. Miller reframed value investing as buying an asset underpriced relative to its future worth, which combined with a belief in network effects justified holding a company that could grow at an unreasonable rate for years. Gurley also frames Wall Street as the buyer of the product venture capitalists create through eventual M&A or IPO, so founders should think early about whether the public market will be excited by what they are building, since trajectory matters more than the starting place.

    Mastering Both the History and the Edge

    Gurley makes an unusually strong case for studying the deep history of your field. He recounts a dinner with Pixar’s John Lasseter, who served a ten-course meal where every course was tied to a classic cartoon he considered essential to understanding animation, and notes that Magnus Carlsen won a chess-history trivia contest and Picasso was a master realist by 14. In a world that skims for the executive summary, walking into a marketing interview with command of the masters of marketing is wildly differentiating and signals genuine passion; if learning that history feels tedious, you are probably in the wrong lane. The counterpart trait he sees in great entrepreneurs is obsessive learning on the moving edge, where disruption actually happens. Gurley keeps five premium AI accounts so he never misses something. The real power player holds both at once, the legends and the newest thing, the way a candidate who knows the marketing greats and truly gets TikTok stands out completely.

    Using AI Well and the Model Wars

    People underestimate how much AI can do, Gurley says, so you should build more of the downstream work into the prompt: instead of asking for the top ten and studying them yourself, ask it to list pros and cons, rank on one dimension, rank again on another, and add up the numbers too. He uses ChatGPT for its project structure and memory, leans on Gemini for restaurant research because it carries Google review data, and notes coders swear by Claude while some prefer Perplexity for finance. On whether one model dominates or models become niche commodities, he points to coding, the largest vertical, where tools like Cursor already let users swap models, and predicts price optimization will drive more swapping. The counterforce is regulation: if it gets expensive and mundane it could create oligopoly, and some players may be quietly begging for it because it pulls up the bridge against Chinese open source models.

    China, Open Source, and the Systems Advantage

    Asked to apply systems thinking to China, Gurley describes roughly ten open source models locked in intense domestic competition, all learning from one another because the ecosystem chose openness, with models able to train and test other models and teams publishing the techniques behind their breakthroughs. His metaphor: two agricultural societies, one where farmers only trade goods at market and another where they are forced to share best practices; the second evolves far faster. The result is a system capable of innovating faster than the more secretive Western approach. The quiet secret he names is that startups all over Silicon Valley are forking those open models at real volume, and a key open question is whether regulation tries to stomp that out. He extends this into a broader non-consensus discomfort with the vilification of China common in Washington and parts of Silicon Valley, observing that the US is only a few percent of the global population.

    AI Investing, Moats, and the Limits of Models

    On how AI changes investing and whether a startup is just a wrapper, Gurley calls it up for grabs but lands on the side of durable verticals. If models become near-sentient, one model does everything; he doubts that, pointing to workflows and data moats, like the several legal AI startups ingesting all the case law and building new databases that customers will not simply swap for a general chatbot. He balances this against the Microsoft pattern of platforms climbing the stack past Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect. He also flags scaling limits: we may be running out of data, painting in the corners, which is why one of the most powerful improvements is paying experts thousands of dollars an hour to fine-tune models, though human knowledge has an edge. He invokes Yann LeCun’s argument that the next leap is broader than language-based LLMs, which hit an asymptote and struggle with math, and the AlphaGo debate, where a shocking innovative move proves creativity within a constrained game but says little about the infinite paths of the real world. He notes AlphaGo and Tesla’s FSD are constrained, non-LLM systems.

    Is the Buildout Overfunded

    Gurley admits he is shocked by the scale of money, noting the Magnificent Seven drove free cash flow from 50 to 100 billion a year down toward zero by spending it all on capex, something he would not have believed five years ago. He traces it to the venture community’s growing conviction in increasing returns and power laws, where proven companies grow far beyond expectations, which makes investors more willing to take risk on the come. The losses before turning cash-flow positive keep scaling, from Amazon’s 2 to 3 billion to Uber’s roughly 15 billion to far larger now. On corrections, he recalls the dot-com crash producing a three to four year nuclear winter before Amazon climbed back, and explains that circular deals, where a cloud provider funds a model company that spends it right back on its services, inflate growth and therefore both raise the probability of a correction and extend the runway before one arrives. Burn rate, he stresses, is a measure of risk, and at five billion a year it is nearly impossible to know your unit economics.

    Tokenization, the IPO Heist, and Going Public

    There is no shortage of capital, so funding is not the bottleneck; the risk with tokenization is that, absent disclosure regulation, it invites speculation and manipulation, as seen in retail-loved names like GameStop and Palantir. Tokenizing a private company like Stripe could create the wild price swings companies stay private to avoid, since private liquidity events let them negotiate a price with trusted investors rather than expose the constantly moving underlying value, and Robinhood’s tokenization plans already drew legal pushback. Gurley reserves his sharpest critique for the IPO process, calling it insanely unfair because bankers pick both the price and the favored shareholders. A freshman computer science and finance student would simply match supply and demand anonymously in an auction, the way an ICO or a direct listing does, but Wall Street will not let go of the greedy power grab and reverted to a controlled oligopoly after direct listings were available.

    Stablecoins Versus the Payment Cartel

    Gurley argues stablecoins could be deeply disruptive to credit cards. Most of the developed world built instant bank-to-bank transfer long ago, from UK Faster Payments 20 years ago to Argentina’s PIX-style system that quickly hit 60 to 70 percent of transactions, while US bank regulatory capture stalled Fed Now and left an ecosystem living under 2 to 2.5 percent card fees. A USDC stablecoin holds dollar-for-dollar US Treasuries and rides proven, fast, global crypto rails, letting anyone move a dollar in seconds for pennies, against the backdrop of three-day ACH settlement and 25 dollar wires. He sees Visa and Mastercard, a bank-created duopoly with roughly 60 percent operating margins, as heavily threatened, and points to China, where WeChat Pay and Alipay built ubiquitous QR-code wallets that leapfrogged the entire card system, all because the government made money transfer easy.

    Moody’s, Proxy Advisors, and Index Funds

    Moody’s power, Gurley explains, comes from being a trusted standard, the watermark, so even AI on the back end does not displace it. Proxy advisors like ISS are a different story: they score companies in a black box, refuse to reveal the criteria, and then get paid by the same companies that want to learn how to score better, which he calls more of a heist than a service. They drifted from a shareholder-interest mandate into a corporate-governance, fraud-mitigation posture obsessed with rules, which is why they reflexively opposed the Tesla pay package that only paid Elon Musk if the stock soared, a deal Gurley says he would sign for every company he has worked with. The rise of passive index funds compounds the problem, concentrating voting power in firms without time to evaluate votes; he would prefer they abstain or vote in proportion to active holders, since closet indexing during the MAG 7 run already distorted active management.

    Storytelling, Writing, and Founder Advantages

    Gurley fell in love with the craft of writing in business school, moving from business books to personal development titles like Dale Carnegie and Seven Habits, then biographies, then long-form narrative nonfiction by Malcolm Gladwell, Michael Lewis, and Jon Krakauer, the New Journalism that reads like fiction. Writing forces clarity: he cites Bezos’s six-page memo as a tool that makes you think through corner cases and tie up loose ends, and notes that codifying his marketplace knowledge and publishing it turned his blog into a calling card that magnetized founders and deal flow. He lists the top founder traits as storytelling, product instincts, understanding the edge, and determination. Storytelling matters because founders are constantly recruiting, fundraising, and closing customers and partners. Product instinct is nearly unteachable, present in well under 5 percent of non-product hires. And determination is Bezos’s single angel-investing test: will this person do it no matter what, come hell or high water.

    Uber, Benchmark, and the Shape of Venture

    The Uber lesson with no HBS case study was that a winner-take-all category with network effects demanded funding ad nauseam, producing burn rates bigger than any public company would dare, with no precedent and no mentor to call, exactly the situation AI companies now face, only with a zero added. Gurley credits Benchmark’s design, an equal partnership with no king, president, or lead and five equal partners, for making it easy to recruit top talent, encouraging senior partners to develop newcomers since everyone shares the upside, and eliminating annual comp politics. The downside is that without a CEO it is hard to scale or run new initiatives, famously captured by the firm settling on a single splash-page website. Founders choose a VC for reputation and network effects, the stamp of approval that carries weight, and young investors can break in because they often match founders’ age and can outwork everyone to master a fresh niche like esports or YouTube, which is why the industry bends toward youth. Asked what success means now, Gurley says his venture career was a dream job he would have done for free, but it is done; inspired by Arthur Brooks’s From Strength to Strength, he wants to apply his synthesizing and writing to bigger societal problems and dent the universe a little.

    Notable Quotes

    “We do live in a world where information is really cut up, but we also live in a world where you can have access to more information than you ever could.”

    Bill Gurley, on why the abundance of knowledge rewards the curious

    “You got to be really conscious of the consequence and not get too deterministic about a single metric or a single variable.”

    Bill Gurley, on the discipline of systems thinking

    “Value just means that the asset is underpriced relative to what you think it will be worth in the future.”

    Bill Gurley, relaying Bill Miller’s reframing of value investing

    “I’ve always thought of Wall Street as the buyer of the product that venture capitalists create.”

    Bill Gurley, on why founders should think about the public market early

    “One society, when the farmers come to market, they just sell each other goods and then they go back. The other society, when the farmers come to market, they’re forced to share best practices. Which one is going to evolve faster?”

    Bill Gurley, on why open source models can out-innovate

    “If you took a freshman computer science student and a freshman finance student and said imagine how a company should go public, they would match supply and demand anonymously like you would in any auction.”

    Bill Gurley, on the rigged IPO process

    “When I meet an entrepreneur, there’s only one thing I ask myself. Is this person gonna do this no matter what? Come hell or high water, they’re doing this.”

    Bill Gurley, quoting Jeff Bezos on his single test for angel investing

    “You’re recruiting employees, you’re recruiting executives, you’re raising money, you’re closing customers, you’re closing partnerships. You’re selling all the damn time.”

    Bill Gurley, on why storytelling is a top founder trait

    “I often said that if we lived in a socialist society and everyone had to work for free, I would still take that job.”

    Bill Gurley, on loving his venture career

    “I would like to see if I can apply those techniques to bigger, broader problems in society and dent the universe a little bit that way.”

    Bill Gurley, on what success looks like in his next chapter

    Watch the full conversation with Bill Gurley on The Knowledge Project here.

    Related Reading

  • Whale Rock Capital Founder Alex Sacerdote on S-Curve Investing, Why Anthropic Is His Highest Conviction Bet, and the Decommoditization of AI Hardware

    Alex Sacerdote built Whale Rock Capital into one of the most respected technology hedge funds in the world by treating markets through a single disciplined lens: the technology adoption S-curve. In this long conversation on Invest Like the Best with Patrick O’Shaughnessy, he lays out the full framework that has carried him through internet 1.0, mobile, cloud, e-commerce, and now AI, and he explains why Anthropic became his highest conviction position, why his fund went net short application software, and why the least glamorous corner of the market, the hardware and chips that build out data centers, may be one of the best ways to play artificial intelligence right now. What follows is the working theory of a money manager who has spent twenty years trying to think exponentially while the rest of the market thinks one quarter at a time.

    TLDW

    Sacerdote walks through Whale Rock’s three-part investment framework: find the right part of an S-curve, identify the company with a durable competitive advantage, and buy when long-term earnings power is underappreciated. He tells the story of investing in Anthropic at a 180 billion dollar valuation in August 2025 after Claude Code made coding the true unlock of AI, and frames the foundational model market as a three-horse race between Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google that resolved from sixty startups into an oligopoly. He argues enterprise AI is less than 1 percent penetrated, calls the adoption shape an L curve rather than an S-curve, and warns there is not enough compute in the world. He explains why he sold almost all of his application software and went net short, why he loves the decommoditization of AI hardware (Celestica, Corning, Elite Materials, Delta, Advanced Energy, high bandwidth memory, 40-layer PCBs), introduces a modified rule of 40 for chip investing, surveys the moats that let leaders win (network effects, industry standard, scale, critical IP, brand, recursive self-improvement), discusses moving from public markets into private deals like Stripe and Anthropic, lays out Whale Rock’s fund products including the new Mega Cap Tech Fund, defends old-fashioned scuttlebutt research in an AI age, and closes on the kindest thing anyone ever did for him, his father joining the firm after 41 years at Goldman Sachs.

    Thoughts

    The most useful idea in this conversation is not the bullishness on AI, which is everywhere now, but the discipline underneath it. Sacerdote’s framework forces a separation that most investors collapse. A great market is not a great investment. A great company is not a great investment. You need a tall S-curve, a company with a moat that survives the curve, and a price that does not yet reflect the earnings power. He says the quiet part out loud: he has repeatedly bought the best companies in the world at four or five times earnings precisely because the market refuses to extrapolate exponential growth. Nvidia at four times earnings in 2023, Tesla at five times in 2019, Amazon where AWS came free. The edge is not information, it is the willingness to underwrite two to four years out when the consensus cannot see past the next quarter.

    The Anthropic story is the framework applied in real time, and it is worth noting how late and how cautious he was. Whale Rock passed on the 60 billion dollar round because gross margins were negative and coding had not yet exploded. They only got conviction once Claude Code flipped from autocomplete to agentic work, once they heard Anthropic engineers were burning 100 dollars a day in tokens, and once the math on twenty million coders implied a half trillion dollar market from coding alone. The lesson he repeats throughout, that it is okay to be late, that you can miss the first 100 percent if the curve is tall enough, is a direct rebuke to the fear of missing out that drives most AI investing. He waited for the moat to be visible before he paid up.

    His most contrarian and most actionable call is on hardware. The consensus reflex is that chips and components are commodities that get competed to zero. Sacerdote argues the opposite is happening: AI workloads growing 10x a year are pushing every layer of the server to its physical limits, and that pressure is decommoditizing the entire stack. A liquid-cooled AI server is a 300,000 dollar piece of critical infrastructure, not a 5,000 dollar throwaway box, which means the supplier becomes a permanent fixture like a parts vendor on a plane. The Celestica example is the template: a contract manufacturer left for dead since 1999 that turned out to be the sole supplier of Google’s TPU server and a leader in liquid cooling and Ethernet switching, trading at eight times earnings. If he is right that we are 30 percent short on DRAM, NAND, and PCBs, the picks-and-shovels trade has years left to run regardless of which model company wins.

    The software bear case deserves the most scrutiny because it is the most consequential and the least certain. Going from 40 to 50 percent of the portfolio in software to net short is a violent reallocation, and his reasons are layered: AI products that nobody will pay for, CIO budgets being raided to fund Anthropic tokens, pricing power evaporating, and the long-term threat that AI-native startups rebuild incumbents from scratch. But he is honest that the bull case is real too, that old technology is sticky, that companies prefer to buy rather than build, and that AI might actually make platforms like Slack or CRM more important if agents end up operating inside them. This is the genuine uncertainty in the whole AI trade. The bottom of Jensen’s cake, chips and models, is where the value has accrued so far, but historically the application layer captured most of the market cap. Sacerdote is betting that this time the infrastructure and model layers hold the value longer, and he admits the application ecosystem is still unclear and a little bit dangerous. That admission is more valuable than any of his confident calls.

    Finally, the section on research in an AI age is a quiet refutation of the idea that this work automates away. Sacerdote runs a Philip Fisher scuttlebutt operation, 2,500 to 3,000 face-to-face management meetings a year, two decades of compounding relationships, the tripod of conviction where he, his analyst, and a respected outsider all independently like an idea. AI writes better notes now, but the paragraph on top, the wisdom about what it means and how it fits the thesis, is still human. The durable moat in his own business is the same one he looks for in the companies he buys: an accumulated advantage that newcomers cannot replicate quickly. That consistency between how he invests and how he operates is the most credible thing in the interview.

    Key Takeaways

    • Whale Rock’s framework has three legs: identify the right part of a technology S-curve, find the company with a powerful competitive advantage, and invest when long-term earnings power is underappreciated.
    • The core insight is exponential, not linear. Strong tech business models grow earnings exponentially, and because the market refuses to extrapolate, you can buy elite companies at very low multiples.
    • Concrete examples of buying exponential growth cheaply: Nvidia at four times earnings in 2023, Tesla at five times in 2019, Apple at four times, and Amazon where AWS was effectively free.
    • When ChatGPT launched in November 2022, Whale Rock did a firm-wide deep dive and chose to invest in chips and infrastructure first, because demand arrives there first and the winners are knowable regardless of who wins the model layer.
    • The foundational model market went from roughly 60 startups to a three-horse race: Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google. Most startups died, Amazon never showed up, and Meta faltered and had to reboot.
    • Anthropic was the dark horse that focused purely on enterprise while OpenAI won consumer. Whale Rock made it their highest conviction position.
    • Coding is the true unlock of AI. The progression went from Microsoft Copilot at 20 dollars a month (fixing grammar, finding a bug) to Claude running agentically and writing most of the code.
    • The market math: Anthropic engineers were reportedly spending 100 dollars a day on tokens, roughly 20 to 30 thousand dollars a year, and with about 20 million coders in the world that implies a half trillion dollar market from coding alone.
    • Whale Rock invested in Anthropic at the 180 billion dollar valuation in August 2025, when the company hoped to reach 9 billion in revenue and nobody yet knew what 2026 could be.
    • Andrej Karpathy and Linus Torvalds both flipped on AI coding. Karpathy went from 80 percent handwritten code to writing almost no code except in English.
    • Models are not pure commodities. There is real differentiation: Anthropic is strong for private equity and finance, Google is strong at ingesting PDFs, and routers that switch between models mask but do not erase that differentiation.
    • Anthropic is building an ecosystem around the API (SDK, orchestration, the harness, tools), echoing how AWS built lock-in with products around commodity servers starting in 2013.
    • The 800 million people using AI are mostly using AI 1.0, a search engine on steroids. Sundar Pichai estimated only about 10 basis points of knowledge workers are truly using AI’s new capabilities.
    • Enterprise AI is less than 1 percent penetrated. Whale Rock calls the adoption shape an L curve or backwards L curve because it goes straight up, unlike the slower 30 to 50 percent growth of cloud and SaaS.
    • There is not enough compute in the world. Anthropic reportedly has half of what it needs, and Marc Andreessen said the one thing he is sure of is that there will not be enough compute for the next four years.
    • The infrastructure S-curve is only about 10 percent penetrated and remains one of the best ways to play AI.
    • Getting into private deals requires a double opt-in. Whale Rock did a 90-page deck (built with Claude Code) on the coding market to win their Anthropic allocation, and their first private was Stripe in 2020 at a 35 billion dollar valuation.
    • The unicorn private market is now bigger than most European stock markets, larger than Germany or the UK individually. Whale Rock does 2,500 to 3,000 management meetings a year, 10 to 15 percent with privates.
    • S-curves come in two sizes: mega S-curves (internet, mobile, cloud, e-commerce, AI) and sub S-curves within them. AI is the biggest of all and each curve builds on the last.
    • Adoption inflects when barriers fall. Steve Jobs cut the smartphone price to 200 dollars on a 3G touchscreen, Elon cut the EV price to 40,000 with 300-mile range and a working supply chain. Remove the barriers and you get the tornado of demand.
    • Knowing how tall the curve is tells you when to sell. Growth stops being exponential around 30 to 40 percent penetration, when the sell side catches up and big beats end. EVs hit a wall at 10 to 15 percent instead of the expected 40 to 50 percent.
    • Selling Apple in 2012 at roughly 50 percent US smartphone penetration was a mistake, because the moat let it keep compounding around 20 percent even after the explosive phase ended.
    • At strategic inflection points you cannot trust the data (Andy Grove). The signal is intuition and anecdote: a 12-year-old in China on a giant phone playing a real game, or standing-room-only sessions at the Gartner IT Symposium for AWS, VMware, and Splunk.
    • Adoption slope varies. The radio curve hit near-full penetration in about 7 years, while B2B and infrastructure (the dishwasher that has to be plugged in) take far longer. AI is fast because you just open a browser.
    • The moats that let leaders win: network effects, becoming an industry standard, rapid scale, critical intellectual property, brand, and platform lock-in. Anthropic appears to have critical IP, enterprise brand, escape velocity, and recursive self-improvement from using its own code on its own models.
    • On the internet, the leader usually goes bigger, faster, and wins, and compounds on itself (Amazon, Shopify). Exceptions come at paradigm shifts, like AOL failing to make the dialup-to-broadband transition.
    • Whale Rock went from 40 to 50 percent in software five years ago to net short entering this year, which helped performance in the first quarter. AI products were not good enough to charge for and were not moving the needle.
    • Software faces a stack of headaches: falling priority on CIO to-do lists, budget pressure from token spend, lost pricing power, hiring freezes that hurt seat-based models, and the long-term threat of AI-native replacements.
    • The classic rule of 40 is growth rate plus operating margin. Whale Rock’s modified rule of 40 for chip investing is percent of sales that are AI plus market share in that category. Software AI exposure is still only 1 to 2 percent.
    • AI may make some platforms more important. The first thing you do with Claude is plug it into Slack, which could make Slack a permanent repository, and agents may end up operating inside incumbent tools like CRM, solidifying rather than killing them.
    • The data center stood still for 40 years on Intel x86, with every component commoditized. AI changed that. Workloads growing 10x a year are driving the decommoditization of the hardware industry.
    • Celestica is the template: a contract manufacturer left for dead since 1999, sole supplier of the Google TPU server, strong in liquid cooling and Ethernet white-box switching, with 50 to 60 percent share of the cloud Ethernet switch market, once trading at eight times earnings.
    • The whole supply chain is rerating: high bandwidth memory stacked 10 chips high, 40-layer PCBs (versus 10 for a normal server), Elite Materials copper clad laminate, Corning fiber (enough to circle the world four and a half times in one Microsoft data center), and Delta and Advanced Energy power supplies seeing ASPs rise 40 percent a year.
    • Networking has three layers: scale out (racks together), scale across (data centers together), and scale up (every GPU in a rack, currently copper, eventually fiber). The copper-to-fiber shift could two-to-three-x Corning’s opportunity.
    • Whale Rock estimates the market is roughly 30 percent short on DRAM, NAND, and PCBs even at today’s 10 basis points of real AI usage.
    • Rate of change matters more than absolute level. When Claude plotted market share data it missed the rate of change, the thing that drives accelerating growth and margins as a company moves from 10 to 30 percent share.
    • Key risks: public and government negativity toward AI (Maine reportedly banned data centers, only 20 percent of people are optimistic), models hitting a wall and letting open source catch up into a race to the bottom, and a major player faltering and stranding compute.
    • Chip companies do not care who wins the token war, which makes them a relatively safe way to play AI. Jensen Huang actively wants open source to take off.
    • Research is still human work. Whale Rock runs a Philip Fisher scuttlebutt process, the tripod of conviction (Alex, the analyst, and a respected outsider), and 20 years of compounding knowledge. AI writes better notes but cannot supply the wisdom paragraph on top or pick stocks.
    • The firm’s product evolution: 15 years as a long short fund, a long only fund in 2020 that is now larger than the long short, opt-in privates formalized around 2015 and activated in 2020, an 80 percent privates hybrid fund in 2021, and the new Whale Rock Mega Cap Tech Fund.
    • The Mega Cap Tech Fund thesis: endowments are structurally underweight the largest tech companies because they believe there is no alpha in large cap. Whale Rock takes the top 30 global market caps and picks the best 12 or 13, arguing it takes 100 diversified PMs to realize Google is a winner.
    • The kindest thing anyone ever did for Sacerdote: his father, after 41 years at Goldman Sachs, joined Whale Rock as chairman and the gray hair for six years until he passed away in 2011.

    Detailed Summary

    The Anthropic Investment and the Three-Horse Race

    When ChatGPT launched in November 2022, Whale Rock immediately took its 10-person team and ran a firm-wide deep dive. Sacerdote’s first principle is that every new compute paradigm creates a new stack with new winners and losers, and in this stack the layers run from power and chips at the bottom, to the clouds, to the foundational models, to the applications on top. In early 2023 the firm deliberately positioned in chips and infrastructure first, reasoning that demand arrives there first and the winners are knowable no matter who wins above. At an April 2023 webinar they framed the model layer as a coin flip between winner-take-all, total commodity, a race to zero, or an oligopoly of three or four. Over the next three years the answer became clear: of roughly 60 startups, almost all died, Amazon never really showed up, Meta came in strong then faltered and rebooted, and Anthropic emerged as the dark horse focused purely on enterprise while OpenAI won consumer and Google remained a perennial threat. The result looked like the cloud market, where three companies underpin the entire SaaS world with excellent businesses.

    The decisive factor was code. Sacerdote says the firm was initially skeptical AI could replace labor, given the negative corporate feedback on early models. That changed in 2025 when Claude Code and the agentic coding tools exploded. The progression ran from Microsoft Copilot at 20 dollars a month, which could improve coding grammar or find a bug, to Claude running agentically and doing far more. The token economics were staggering: Anthropic engineers reportedly spending 100 dollars a day, which annualizes to 20 to 30 thousand dollars, and with 20 million coders worldwide that implied a half trillion dollar market from coding alone, on technology that was only 7 to 9 months old. Whale Rock made the investment at the 180 billion dollar valuation in August 2025, writing in their letter that the company hoped to reach 9 billion in revenue, with growth like nothing they had ever seen, 100 million to a billion on the way to 9 billion, and no one yet knowing what 2026 could bring.

    Why the Models Are Not Commodities

    Everyone expected the foundational models to be pure commodities, but Sacerdote argues there is tremendous differentiation within them. Different training methods produce different skills: Anthropic excels at anything touching private equity and finance, Google is strong at ingesting PDFs. Routers that switch between models make them look like commodities but mask genuine, critical IP. Beyond the model itself, Anthropic is building a whole ecosystem around the API: the SDK, the orchestration layer, the tools, and the harness, the software wrapped around the API that gets the most out of the model. He compares this directly to AWS in 2013, when people dismissed cloud as commodity servers in a warehouse and missed that Amazon was inventing products that slowly built lock-in. The open-source risk from China is real, but Sacerdote got comfortable that leading-edge token quality is superior, because going from 80 to 85 percent of benchmark performance is a huge unlock and the open-source players lack the compute to leapfrog the frontier.

    The S-Curve Framework in Full

    Whale Rock’s whole edge is thinking exponentially when the world thinks linearly. Sacerdote argues very few people believe you can accurately predict two, three, or four years out, but if you understand the S-curve, the moats, and how to model, you can. Every technology follows the same pattern: it exists hidden for years (smartphones 10 years before the iPhone, the internet 20 years before Netscape, EVs 15 years before Tesla went vertical in 2019) until the barriers to adoption fall and demand inflects into a tornado. Knowing how tall the curve is tells you when to sell, because exponential growth stops around 30 to 40 percent penetration when the sell side catches up. Curves can also be dynamic: AWS turned out to address a far larger TAM than expected once it became clear cloud was not actually deflationary. There are mega S-curves (internet, mobile, cloud, e-commerce, AI) and sub S-curves within them. AI is the biggest. And slope varies enormously by the nature of the technology, the radio curve hitting full penetration in 7 years, B2B and infrastructure taking decades because, like a dishwasher, they have to be plugged into existing systems.

    On timing, Sacerdote is relaxed about being late. Citing Peter Lynch, who mentored him at Fidelity and told him to white out the chart because it is all about the future, he argues it is fine to miss the first one, two, or three years and even the first 100 percent if the top of the curve is half a trillion. At strategic inflection points, per Andy Grove, you cannot trust the data, so the firm relies on intuition and anecdote: a 12-year-old in China playing a real video game on a huge phone, or the AWS session at the Gartner IT Symposium that was standing-room-only at 9, 10, and 11 in the morning. Spotting the leader pulling away matters because, on the internet, the leader usually goes bigger, faster, and wins, compounding on itself, with exceptions only at paradigm shifts like AOL missing the move from dialup to broadband.

    The Software Bear Case

    Five years ago Whale Rock had 40 to 50 percent of its portfolio in software. Their April 2023 thesis was that incumbents with huge sales forces and proprietary data would take the AI APIs and build great products. Instead, the AI products were not good enough to charge for and did not move the needle, so the firm sold almost all of its application software and entered this year net short, which helped in the first quarter. The bear case is layered: software has fallen down the CIO priority list, budgets are being raided to fund Anthropic tokens with faster ROI, annual price increases look risky, and hiring freezes hurt seat-based models. The deeper threat is that AI-native startups could rebuild any incumbent from scratch, obviating the data advantage. The bull case is genuine too: old tech is sticky (mobile games did not kill consoles, tablets did not kill the PC), companies prefer to buy rather than build, and an ERP is hard to replace. Sacerdote also floats an optimistic twist, that AI could make platforms like Slack more important as agent repositories, and that agents operating inside CRM could solidify rather than destroy it, even as the bear case is that CRM goes headless and gets relegated to a database.

    The Decommoditization of AI Hardware

    This is Sacerdote’s most differentiated call. For 40 years nothing changed in the data center; Intel x86 became the standard, compute grew 25 to 40 percent a year in line with Moore’s law, and every component, from the printed circuit board to memory to enclosures to networking, commoditized. AI broke that. Workloads now grow 10x a year and push every aspect of the hardware to its physical limits, creating both tremendous unit growth and what Whale Rock calls the decommoditization of the hardware industry. He cites Sean Maguire wishing he could run a hardware hedge fund because all the companies are public with powerful IP, and compares it to Sequoia’s best early hardware investments in Apple and Cisco. The economics flip because an AI server is a liquid-cooled, 200 to 300 thousand dollar piece of critical infrastructure where a single failure brings the whole thing down, so suppliers become permanent like a critical part on a plane.

    Celestica is the marquee example: a contract manufacturer that had been a disaster industry since 1999 and went offshore to China, but kept its IBM supercomputing heritage and talent, became the sole supplier of the Google TPU server, and was trading at eight times earnings three years ago. It turned out to be excellent at liquid cooling where others failed, holds 50 to 60 percent share of the crucial cloud Ethernet switch market, and its engineers helped write the open-source SONiC software, working closely with Broadcom. The same dynamic runs up and down the chain: high bandwidth memory stacked 10 chips high that took Samsung years to master, 40-layer PCBs versus 10 for a normal server with very few suppliers able to make them, Elite Materials supplying the copper clad laminate, and Corning’s fiber, thinner and more bendable, with enough in a single Microsoft data center to circle the world four and a half times. Networking splits into scale out, scale across, and scale up, with the eventual copper-to-fiber shift in scale up potentially two-to-three-x-ing Corning’s opportunity. Power supplies from Delta and Advanced Energy are seeing ASPs rise 40 percent a year at higher margins because each Nvidia rack uses 50 to 125 percent more power. Visibility has gone from we’ll call you next week to design this roadmap with us for four years, turning 5 percent low-margin businesses into 35 to 50 percent topline growers with rising margins, and the whole market is roughly 30 percent short on DRAM, NAND, and PCBs.

    Private Markets, Risks, and the Research Machine

    Moving from public markets into privates meant adapting to a double opt-in, where the company has to choose to let you in. Whale Rock won its Anthropic allocation partly by building a 90-page deck with Claude Code scouring the internet for feedback on the coding market. Their first private was Stripe in April 2020 at a 35 billion dollar valuation, which they could only underwrite because they knew the public comp Adyen cold, and they upsized to a 100 million dollar block. The unicorn market is now bigger than most European stock markets combined. On risk, Sacerdote worries about public and government negativity (Maine reportedly banning data centers, only 20 percent of people optimistic), the possibility that models hit a wall and open source catches up into a race to the bottom, and a major player faltering and stranding compute, though he notes someone else (like Meta stepping into a cancelled Oracle deal) would likely absorb it, and that chip companies benefit regardless of who wins the token war. He explains his caution on the application layer by noting it always comes later, the iPhone took years to spawn its app economy, and the ecosystem is still unclear and a little dangerous, while pointing to Brett Taylor’s Sierra as the kind of company that could prove it out.

    On the research itself, Sacerdote insists AI has not supplanted the analyst. Whale Rock runs the scuttlebutt approach straight out of Philip Fisher’s Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits, doing 2,500 to 3,000 face-to-face management meetings a year and talking to suppliers, customers, and competitors. AI now writes much better notes and gets the team up to speed quickly on complex areas like ABF substrates, but there must be a wisdom paragraph on top, and it cannot pick stocks or replicate the work two analysts did building conviction in AppLovin and a relationship with Adam Foroughi. He calls the firm the Whale Rock learning machine, a group of 10 highly experienced people compounding knowledge for 20 years, with the tripod of conviction (himself, his analyst, and a respected outside investor all liking an idea) as the test. The firm’s products evolved from a 15-year long short fund to a 2020 long only fund now larger than the original, opt-in privates, an 80 percent privates hybrid in 2021, and the new Mega Cap Tech Fund built on the thesis that endowments are structurally underweight the largest tech companies because they wrongly believe large cap has no alpha. He closes on his father, who left Goldman after 41 years to join Whale Rock as chairman and the gray hair until his death in 2011, a mentor remembered by countless people for his humility and grace.

    Notable Quotes

    “When you get the right part of the S-curve, you get exponential unit growth. If you have a very strong business model, your earnings don’t grow linearly, they grow exponentially.”

    Alex Sacerdote, stating the core of the Whale Rock investment framework

    “The world doesn’t think exponentially. Very few people believe you can accurately predict two, three, four years out. But if you follow and understand the S-curve and you know the moats and you know how to model, you really can predict these great things.”

    Alex Sacerdote, on why the market consistently underprices long-term earnings power

    “The enterprise AI or enterprise application AI market is less than 1 percent penetrated, and we’ve never seen, you know, we talk about S-curves, we call this an L curve, just straight up.”

    Alex Sacerdote, on why AI adoption looks different from every prior technology curve

    “We’re at 10 basis points of people really using AI and we’re already sold out. There’s not enough compute in the world. So Anthropic has half of what they need right now, and that’s before this huge takeup.”

    Alex Sacerdote, on the scale of the compute shortage relative to actual adoption

    “It’s okay to be late. It’s okay to miss the first one, two, three years in a lot of cases, because if the top of the S-curve is half a trillion, the growth can go on for a long time. It’s okay to miss the first 100 percent.”

    Alex Sacerdote, on why fear of missing out is the wrong instinct in a tall S-curve

    “The old way of software is like using a pen and paper or a horse and buggy. The new way of software is like a jet engine or frankly like the transporter from Star Trek. It’s so revolutionary it feels like it has to be disruptive.”

    Alex Sacerdote, explaining why Whale Rock went net short application software

    “You become like critical infrastructure, like selling a critical part on a plane. You’ll never get swapped out.”

    Alex Sacerdote, on how liquid-cooled AI servers turned commodity hardware suppliers into permanent fixtures

    “Why do you tell everyone your secret? It’s like why does the casino teach people how to play blackjack? It’s harder. It’s really hard to do.”

    Alex Sacerdote, quoting his mother on why a public framework does not erase the edge

    “He said, you know, I’ve been at Goldman for 41 years. How about I come and join you? I’ll be the gray hair. I’ll be the oversight. I’ll be the chairman. You do what you do.”

    Alex Sacerdote, recalling his father joining Whale Rock, the kindest thing anyone ever did for him

    Watch the full conversation here: Whale Rock Capital Founder on Investing in the Age of Exponential AI.

    Related Reading

  • Paul Graham and Jessica Livingston on Resilience at Y Combinator: Founder Mode, Cockroaches, Sticking to Your North Star, and Why AI and Climate Keep Them Up at Night

    For the very first episode of Disaster Proof, the conversation goes to a garage in Palo Alto to sit down with Paul Graham and Jessica Livingston, the founders of Y Combinator. They have backed thousands of companies, including many now working in the resilience space, and the discussion covers what makes startups durable, why adaptability beats expertise, how Brian Chesky stumbled into founder mode at Airbnb, why the best ideas grow out of a founder’s own life, and the two specific risks (AI and climate change) that Paul says are the only ones he treats as genuinely game over. You can watch the full conversation on YouTube here.

    TLDW

    Paul Graham and Jessica Livingston explain why constant change favors young, flexible founders, and why Y Combinator picks people over ideas precisely so its judgment never goes obsolete. They unpack adaptability as the trait they hunt for in interviews, the “founder mode” story behind Brian Chesky steering Airbnb through COVID, and the 2008 strategy of funding tough, close-to-revenue “cockroaches.” Paul argues a company survives turbulence by sticking to a North Star instead of acting as a weather vane in shifting moral fashions, using the biosphere tree that collapses without wind as his metaphor for resilience. They turn to climate and energy as the next great market, the difficulty of selling into utilities, the Gridware success story, fusion no longer being thirty years away, and the trap of guilt-based business models versus the reliable assumption that users are selfish, greedy, and lazy. The personal-resilience half covers surviving Twitter mobs, Paul’s obsessive essay process, raising kids by indulging curiosity and picking your battles, prepping by living among reasonable people, political polarization, and why AI and climate are the two things that keep them up at night.

    Thoughts

    The most useful idea in this conversation is also the most counterintuitive: a world that feels like it is ending is structurally good for the people least invested in how it used to work. Paul’s point to terrified founders is that change is only a threat if you have sunk costs in the old order. A young founder has been doing the current plan for two weeks, so a step-function shift in the landscape costs them almost nothing to abandon. The incumbents with elaborate machinery and a decade of assumptions are the ones who should be afraid. That reframes resilience away from defense and toward optionality. The resilient party is not the one with the thickest walls, it is the one with the least to unlearn.

    The founder mode discussion is worth sitting with because it quietly overturns a generation of management orthodoxy. The old rule was that a good CEO hires executives and gets out of their way, and that getting into the details is micromanaging. Brian Chesky’s COVID experience at Airbnb broke that rule under maximum pressure. With bankruptcy on the table and a travel company facing a world that stopped traveling, he went line by line through the business and told people what good looked like, then gave them freedom to execute against that standard while still demanding visibility. The interesting nuance is the permission structure. A crisis granted Chesky the license to be involved that normal operating conditions would have framed as meddling. The lesson is not “always be in the weeds,” it is that the founder’s deep understanding and disproportionate caring are assets you are wasting if you reflexively delegate them away.

    Paul’s North Star argument is the part most likely to age well. His claim is that companies fail at resilience when they behave like weather vanes, swinging with each gust of public moral fashion. He pairs it with the biosphere tree that grows weak and topples because it was never exposed to wind. Both metaphors point at the same thing: resilience is built by surviving stress while holding your shape, not by avoiding stress and not by reshaping yourself to whatever the crowd currently rewards. The carbon-credit companies he mentions are the cautionary case. They built their entire premise on a fashion (customer guilt about carbon) and went out of business when the wind changed direction. Durable businesses convert a permanent human motive into value, which is why he prefers the brutally honest assumption that the user is selfish, greedy, and lazy, and that your job is to build something that produces good outcomes anyway.

    The climate and energy section reframes a worthy cause as a market-timing bet rather than a moral appeal, and that is the more powerful version. The comparison to fintech in 2008 is the tell. Banking technology was a sleepy, unglamorous sector that venture investors avoided until a crisis cracked it open and made it one of the best categories of the following decade. The argument is that energy and the physical world are sitting at a similar precipice, made newly viable because hardware is starting to behave more like software (order components, assemble, do not build everything from scratch) and because AI’s hunger for power has made energy the binding constraint on the whole industry. The Gridware story crystallizes the founder lesson underneath all of it. The best founder for a hard physical problem was a lineman who worked the electric lines and lived through the fires. The idea grew authentically out of his life, which is the same pattern Jessica keeps returning to and the same advice they give for raising kids.

    Finally, the personal-resilience material is more practical than it first appears. Paul’s method for surviving a Twitter mob is pattern recognition: once it has happened twenty times, you know it ends in two days and they move on to the next target, so you wait it out instead of capitulating. His essay process is the same conviction-building engine applied to ideas. He goes sentence by sentence until there is no false statement left to attack, which is why his challenge to angry readers (“point out the incorrect statement”) almost never gets answered. The throughline across the company advice, the parenting advice, and the personal advice is identical. You build durable conviction not by sitting in a room thinking, but by working the problem until it is right, then refusing to be blown off course by people who never actually engaged with the substance.

    Key Takeaways

    • Experts are frequently wrong because they are experts in a previous version of the world, so Paul deliberately avoids permanent beliefs about the current state of technology.
    • Y Combinator picks startups by picking founders, not ideas, because the founders know more about the ideas than the investors do.
    • Living in England and visiting for each batch lets Paul arrive every quarter expecting the world to be different, which keeps his mind open instead of anchored.
    • A world of constant change feels bad but is actually good for a young, flexible founder who has only been on the current plan for two weeks and can switch easily.
    • Vibe coding went from kind-of-works to reliably works, and even experienced programmers now generate huge volumes of code with AI.
    • There is still a software business even with AI, because someone has to know what to tell the AI to write, and no company is going to write its own database from scratch.
    • The scenario Paul worries about is model companies spinning up agents to start all the startups themselves, removing the need for human founders.
    • The founder traits Jessica looks for are unchanged over the years: determined, flexible-minded, and willing to adapt.
    • In interviews you can spot rigid founders because they answer the question they prepared rather than the one they were asked, and the gears visibly grind when you redirect them.
    • A good adaptability signal is a founder who says “I haven’t thought about that, but here is how I would think about it” instead of freezing.
    • Founder mode, the term, came from Brian Chesky’s experience steering Airbnb through COVID, when bankruptcy was openly discussed in board meetings.
    • Ken Chenault, the former American Express CEO on Airbnb’s board, told Chesky the moment was ten times worse than 9/11 and could define the company.
    • Founder mode meant Chesky understood every line item, told people what good looked like, then gave them freedom to execute while still wanting to see it.
    • Founders see through the fog because they understand the company better than anyone and they care more than anyone, and combining understanding with caring lets them see more.
    • There is always some disaster at Y Combinator, the way a hospital always has someone coding, so a crisis is the normal operating environment, not an exception.
    • During the 2008 crash, YC kept funding because it is always a good time to start a startup, but focused on people close to making money and very tough founders they called cockroaches.
    • Airbnb was the ultimate cockroach, seemingly indestructible, which is exactly why they liked it during the meltdown.
    • YC rests on two axioms: startups matter, and founders are the most important ingredient in startups. As long as those hold, YC has room to exist.
    • Company values are usually written down a few years in, documenting principles that already existed rather than inventing new ones.
    • You cannot move with fashion; you have to stick to your North Star, especially during turbulent, noisy times.
    • Trees grown inside a biosphere fell over because they were never exposed to wind, so being blown around is a necessary part of becoming strong enough to stand.
    • What preserves YC most is that it is a fundamentally good idea: it gives lonely founders money, the right peers, and colleagues they would never otherwise have.
    • The measure of a good startup idea is revenue, and any other metric you care about matters only because it predicts revenue.
    • At the early stage you can afford to be virtuous and even tell founders to go back to college, because the power law means one startup in the batch will carry the returns.
    • Every startup has to find early adopters, who decide quickly, usually do not have much money, and tend to be sophisticated, which means utilities are rarely your first customer.
    • A company that ultimately sells to utilities should start by selling to something that says yes faster, like running a pilot on a single corporate campus.
    • Utilities are under so much stress from wildfire liability, renewables, EV charging, and AI demand that they are unusually willing to try new things out of necessity.
    • Gridware, founded by a former lineman who lived through major fires, is now backed by Sequoia with PG&E as a huge customer, an example of an idea growing out of the founder’s life.
    • The second-biggest chunk of YC startups after AI is hard tech and physical products, not because software is dead but because building physical things is getting more possible.
    • Energy is one of AI’s fundamental constraints; if Sam Altman could have two things for Christmas, they would be energy and GPUs.
    • Nobody says fusion is thirty years away anymore, and the old thirty-year number existed because it was far enough out to avoid demands for results but close enough to keep attention.
    • Energy and physical markets may be where fintech was in 2008, a sleepy sector about to be cracked open by crisis into a great decade.
    • Guilt is a fragile business model because fashions change what people feel guilty about, which is why carbon-credit companies collapsed when the winds shifted.
    • Assume the user is selfish, greedy, and lazy, then build something that causes good things to happen anyway, like clean power that is simply cheaper and more reliable.
    • To survive Twitter mobs, remember they move on in about two days, half are bots or people you would never talk to in real life, and you cannot become a weather vane for moral fashions.
    • You build conviction by working on and developing an idea, not by sitting in a room thinking, unless it is pure thought like math.
    • Paul writes essays sentence by sentence until nothing in them is false, which is why his challenge to point out an incorrect statement almost never gets answered.
    • The best startup ideas, and the best projects in life generally, grow authentically out of the founder’s own interests and experiences.
    • Their parenting philosophy is to give kids confidence and a stable base, indulge their curiosity, and encourage projects nobody told them to do.
    • You pick your battles with kids: put your foot down on cruelty, but accept defeat on things like food and screen time.
    • A useful interview question for anyone with an unusual experience is not “what was it like” but “how was it different than you expected,” which surfaces the genuinely novel detail.
    • In a time of turbulence, bet on an island full of reasonable people; the English may not be very dynamic, but they are reasonable.
    • The hope on political polarization is to build resilient institutions that act as a cage around any single leader, so that throwing the rattle makes no difference.
    • AI and climate change are the two things Paul worries about most because they are both potentially game over, like the Gulf Stream reversing and turning Europe into a frozen wasteland.

    Detailed Summary

    Staying an expert when the world keeps changing

    The conversation opens on Paul Graham’s essay “How to Be an Expert in a Changing World,” whose core point is that experts are often wrong because they are experts in a previous version of the world. Asked how he keeps his own beliefs from going obsolete when the landscape can shift in ninety days, Paul says he focuses on people. YC picks founders rather than ideas because the founders know the ideas better than any investor could. He deliberately holds no permanent beliefs about the current state of technology, and the rhythm of flying in from England for each batch helps: he arrives every quarter already expecting everything to be different. One quarter the story is everyone training open-source models, the next quarter it is Claude code and nobody bothers with open-source models because the frontier versions are better anyway. He comes in with a completely open mind. Jessica and Paul note that today’s founders are more frightened, asking what is even still true, but the message Paul gives them is that constant change favors the young and flexible. If you have only been executing a plan for two weeks, a disruption costs you nothing; you just switch.

    What adaptability looks like in a founder

    Jessica describes the founders she funds as determined, flexible-minded, and willing to adapt, and calls adaptability a key trait always, but especially in uncertain times. In interviews, the rigid applicants reveal themselves by answering the question they planned to answer rather than the one they were asked, and you can almost hear the gears grind when you redirect them. Paul does not let that slide; if they dodge, he just asks again. The positive signal is a founder who, faced with a question they have not considered, says “here is how I would think about it” and reasons live. Both point out that YC itself had to adapt, and that the company they funded the interviewer’s startup as in 2009 looked very different by the end. They funded him in May 2009, in the thick of the financial crisis, after he had quit his job in August 2008 and briefly felt he had made a terrible mistake.

    Founder mode and seeing through the fog

    Paul points to Brian Chesky as the defining example of weathering disaster, a story he explored on This Week in Startups. When COVID hit a travel company like Airbnb, the word bankruptcy was being used in board meetings, and Ken Chenault, the former American Express CEO on the board, warned it was ten times worse than 9/11. Chesky went into what would later be named founder mode, getting into every line item, understanding exactly what was needed, telling people what good looked like, and then giving them freedom to execute while still insisting on visibility. The crisis gave him permission to be the involved CEO he had always wanted to be, the kind of involvement that normal operating conditions would have labeled micromanaging. Paul argues founders see through fog that blinds everyone else for a simple, rational reason: they understand the company better than anyone because they have been there longest and thought of most of it, and they also care more than anyone. Combine deep understanding with deep caring and of course they see more.

    Cockroaches, the North Star, and the biosphere tree

    Returning to 2008, when YC was self-funded and unsure whether anyone would invest by March, they decided to keep going on the principle that it is always a good time to start a startup, but to fund people close to making money and very tough founders they called cockroaches, after the creatures that survive nuclear war. Airbnb was the ultimate cockroach. Paul frames YC’s longevity around two axioms (startups matter, founders are the most important ingredient) and around resilience built through stress. He tells the story of trees grown inside a biosphere that fell over because they were never exposed to wind, since being blown about is a necessary part of a tree becoming strong enough to support its own weight. YC has been blown around and is still standing, which is exactly what gave it practice. The companion idea is the North Star: you cannot move with fashion or act as a weather vane swinging with other people’s moral fashions, you have to hold your founding principles, which Paul eventually wrote down rather than let a 23-year-old new hire do it.

    Climate, energy, and selling into hard markets

    The interviewer’s own path (a curiosity about wildfire that grew from living in California, watching PG&E go bankrupt, a fire on his Mendocino property, volunteering as a firefighter) becomes the case for ideas that grow authentically out of a founder’s life. Climate is framed broadly as energy, the built environment, and transportation, essentially the physical world, and those are hard markets where the buyers are utilities, governments, real estate, and insurance. The advice is to find early adopters who decide quickly, which usually means not starting with a utility but with something like a single corporate campus that will say yes faster. Utilities, though, are under so much stress from wildfire liability, renewables, EV charging, and AI demand that they are increasingly willing to try new things. Gridware, founded by a former lineman who lived through major fires, is the proof point: backed by Sequoia, with PG&E as a major customer. Paul notes the second-biggest chunk of YC startups after AI is hard tech, not because software died but because building physical things is getting more possible, more like ordering and assembling components. Energy is the binding constraint on AI, fusion no longer feels thirty years away, and the bet is that energy and physical markets are where fintech was in 2008, about to be cracked open.

    Guilt versus greed as a business model

    On the question of whether climate companies should sell on guilt (recycle, pay more because it is sustainable), Paul is blunt that guilt is fragile because fashions change what you are supposed to feel guilty about. The carbon-credit companies thrived until buying carbon credits stopped being cool, then went out of business. A founder’s own concern for the world can drive great companies, but depending on a customer’s guilt is shallow. The durable move is to assume the user is selfish, greedy, and lazy, someone who just wants to eat pizza and watch Netflix, and to build something that produces good outcomes despite that. Clean power is the perfect example: nobody watching Netflix is upset that fusion powers their television, and if it is cheaper and more reliable, that is simply more Netflix and more money for pizza.

    Personal resilience, Twitter mobs, and the essay process

    On surviving public criticism, Paul’s method is pattern recognition: after twenty mobs you stop counting and know it will be over in two days when they move to the next topic, so you wait it out even though it genuinely feels miserable. Half of them are bots or people you would never talk to in real life, but the deeper point is that companies and people stay resilient by not succumbing to mobs and not becoming weather vanes for moral fashions. Conviction is built by working on an idea, not sitting in a room thinking about it, unless it is pure thought like math. His essays are the engine: he writes a version one, notices everything wrong, and fixes it sentence by sentence until there is no false statement left. He will read an entire book for a single sentence because he would be mortified to publish something false and, having no deadlines, has no excuse. That is why his standing challenge to angry readers, to point out one incorrect statement, almost never gets answered.

    Raising kids, prepping, and the things that keep them up at night

    Their parenting philosophy is to give kids confidence and a stable base, indulge curiosity, and encourage projects nobody assigned, like the living room overrun by one son’s Lego. They pick their battles: they put their foot down on cruelty but admit total defeat on food, devices, and screen time. Paul’s favorite question for anyone with an unusual experience is not “what was it like” but “how was it different than you expected,” which surfaces the genuinely novel detail, and the meta-version of that became the show’s recurring question to all guests. On prepping, they joke that living in the English countryside is itself a form of preparation, and that in turbulent times you should bet on an island full of reasonable people. The episode closes on what keeps them up at night: AI and climate change, the two things Paul treats as uniquely game over, illustrated by the prospect of the Gulf Stream reversing and leaving Europe, which sits as far north as Alaska, a frozen wasteland. Jessica notes her YC superhero name was Panic, and the conversation ends, after a detour through political polarization and a child who insisted for six months on being called SR-71 forecast 80 leaping leopard, on the admission that they manage screen time by being utterly defeated.

    Notable Quotes

    “If you’re a startup founder, a world where things are constantly changing is actually good for you. It feels bad, but you’re better off than anybody else.”

    Paul Graham, on why turbulence favors young, flexible founders

    “You can’t move with fashion. You have to stick to your North Star.”

    Paul Graham, on holding founding principles during noisy, turbulent times

    “There’s always some kind of disaster. It’s almost a rule of thumb at Y Combinator that there’s always some disaster going on, just like in a hospital. There’s always somebody who’s coding.”

    Paul Graham, on crisis as the normal operating environment for startups

    “The measure of a good startup idea is revenue, sure. Let’s not pretend companies are supposed to do something else.”

    Paul Graham, on how to judge whether an idea is actually good

    “Assume that the user is selfish and lazy, and make something. Selfish, greedy, and lazy. And make something that causes good things to happen despite that.”

    Paul Graham, on why guilt is a weak business model and greed is a source of energy

    “This is where the best startup ideas come from. They grow authentically out of the founders’ lives.”

    Jessica Livingston, on a wildfire curiosity turning into a company

    “Please point out the incorrect statement I’ve made in this essay. And no one ever does that.”

    Paul Graham, on writing essays sentence by sentence until nothing in them is false

    “AI and climate change have something in common. They’re the two big things I worry about the most, because they’re both game overs.”

    Paul Graham, on what keeps him up at night

    This is the first episode of Disaster Proof, a series exploring the people and technologies building resilience in an increasingly volatile world. You can watch the full conversation with Paul Graham and Jessica Livingston on YouTube here.

    Related Reading

  • The AI Industrial Revolution: Naval, Guillermo Rauch, Blake Scholl, and Max Hodak on Software Factories, Vibe Coding Hardware, AI Regulation, Healthcare Economics, and What Humans Can Uniquely Do

    This is the full episode of Naval Ravikant’s conversation with three frontier founders: Guillermo Rauch of Vercel, Blake Scholl of Boom Supersonic, and Max Hodak of Science. The premise is that all three are building their own factories rather than assembling off-the-shelf parts, so the interesting question is not what they are building but what they are learning about how to build in the age of AI. Over roughly an hour the discussion moves from software factories and the thousand-x engineer into hardware, regulation, healthcare economics, autonomous companies, and a long closing argument about what humans can still uniquely do. Watch the full conversation on the Naval Podcast YouTube channel. We previously published two segments of this same discussion: part one, Waste Tokens to Save Time, on software factories and whether pure software is dead, and part two, Vibe Coding Hardware, on jet engines, vertical integration, and China’s open-source bet. This post covers the entire episode end to end.

    TLDW

    Four builders argue that AI has turned the engineer’s job from shipping output into building the factory that produces output, which is why token leaderboards are the new vanity metric and why you should waste tokens to save time. Guillermo Rauch frames the thousand-x engineer and the building-block economy, and asks whether pure software is dead now that models speak English. Blake Scholl shows how Boom turned hardware engineering into software, letting two engineers design an entire jet engine and collapsing months of regulatory compliance documentation into minutes. Max Hodak makes the case for extreme vertical integration, a captive MEMS foundry, and a sober counter to Silicon Valley deregulation triumphalism: the bottleneck is the voters and the regulator’s asymmetric incentives, not just bad rules. The group works through healthcare as a fixed-bucket non-market, China’s cost-reduction strategy and its approved implantable brain interface, autonomous software that runs site reliability and security research with thousands of concurrent agents, a company-wide hackathon where the receptionist shipped a real automation, and a long debate on creativity, out-of-distribution surprise, intent, attribution, and the definition of art. The throughline: humans become verifiers, value moves to creativity, taste, and agency, and the single best move is to get extremely good with the tools, because it is people with AI versus people without AI.

    Thoughts

    The strongest idea in the episode is the quiet redefinition of what an engineer is for. Rauch’s point is that you no longer judge a person by how well they ship a single output. You judge them by whether they can build the factory that produces outputs B through Z. That reframe instantly explains why token leaderboards are nonsense. Counting tokens consumed is the same category error as counting lines of code written, a measure of motion mistaken for a measure of progress. Naval’s “waste tokens, save time” is the correct response: tokens are cheaper than people, so optimize for your own wall-clock time and the final output, and throw three models at the same problem if that gets you unstuck faster. The uncomfortable corollary, which the group says out loud, is that leverage in idea domains was never linear. The hundred-x and thousand-x engineer is not a new phenomenon. AI just made it impossible to keep pretending otherwise.

    The second thread that ties the whole hour together is verification. Everyone converges on the same future: humans stop producing the work directly and move up the stack to signing off on it. Rauch is precise about what that means. Saying “I understand this pull request” no longer requires reading every line. It requires being able to say you wrote the test harness, the proofs, the type checkers, and the simulations that let you stand behind it in production. That is a profound shift, because it accepts that the code may be spaghetti you do not fully understand while insisting that the evaluator around it is trustworthy. Blake extends the same logic to regulation, and this is the most underrated argument in the episode. If you treat a 200-page lightning-strike compliance document as a test suite and a regulation as an exit criterion for an agent loop, then a body of rules you once resented becomes a guard rail that lets you move faster, not slower. The cost of change collapses, change aversion drops, and you can finally afford to iterate on physical things.

    Max Hodak is the adult in the room on regulation, and the episode is better for it. The Silicon Valley consensus is that regulation is simply friction to be deleted, and there is plenty of dysfunction to point at: the NRC permitting essentially zero nuclear plants for decades, the FDA’s asymmetric incentives where approving a bad drug ends a career but blocking a good one costs nothing visible. But Hodak keeps pulling the conversation back to the harder truth. This is where the voters are. If you removed the current regulatory package, something very similar would get voted right back in, because the asymmetry reflects how the public actually weighs a visible death against an invisible delay. Real reform is not “deregulate,” it is narrow and surgical: prohibit the FDA from drawing adverse inferences across different users of a compound, build innovation zones where people consent to different rules, or copy Europe’s notified-body model so review capacity can actually scale. That is a far more serious position than the usual abundance-or-bust framing.

    The healthcare segment is the part of this conversation you will not find in the two clips, and it is the most heterodox. Hodak’s diagnosis is that healthcare is a fixed bucket of money that grows with tax receipts, not a technological growth industry where falling prices expand the market the way phones and laptops did. Because there is no real private market, you get a small communist society running inside a larger capitalist one, with the waiting lines and frozen product quality that implies. His prescription is not single payer and not insurance reform. It is to drive the cost of bringing devices and drugs to market so low that a patient can buy a restored sense or an extra decade of life on a credit card, the way they finance a car, and his warning is that China’s lower approval costs and its already-approved implantable brain interface put it on track to do exactly that. Whether or not you buy the twenty-percent-of-income deductible he floats, the framing that a private market is the missing feedback loop is the kind of argument that gets too little airtime.

    The closing debate on creativity is where the four of them disagree most productively, and they are careful enough to notice that their conclusions follow from their definitions. Hodak defines art as meaningful out-of-distribution behavior, which lets a military maneuver or a math proof count, and leads him to think a sufficiently capable model gets there too. Naval defines art as conveying an emotion with intent, which makes attribution load-bearing: the same photo down to the last pixel means more when a human took it, and a startup doing hardware attestation of human authorship suddenly has a real market. The shared observation that should worry every builder is that AI output collapses to a distribution mean. Every Claude-built website ends up the same serif font, the same brown and cream, the same monospace spacing, recognizable as slop precisely because it is in-distribution. The optimistic read, and the one Naval lands the episode on, is that this leaves an enormous and durable lane for humans who can step outside the system, and that the practical move for everyone is simply to become excellent with the tools, because the real divide is people with AI versus people without.

    Key Takeaways

    • The job of an engineer has shifted from shipping a single output to building the factory that produces multiplicative outputs, so people are now judged on the leverage they create rather than the work they personally do.
    • There were always 10x engineers, and in idea, intellectual, and digital domains the real spread is 100x or 1000x. AI leverage just made that gap impossible to deny.
    • Token leaderboards and token consumption are the new lines-of-code: a measure of activity that does not map to value. Measure your own time and the final output instead.
    • Waste tokens to save time. Models are still far cheaper than a human, so throwing Codex, Claude, and Gemini at the same problem repeatedly is rational even when it looks wasteful.
    • Low-quality first-pass code is fine because you can spend more tokens later to harden it for production. The constraint is verifiable domains, not code quality.
    • A model is roughly as good as you are in a domain. The quality of your prompting and reprompting strongly determines the output, though this dependence should fade as models improve.
    • Models graduated from junior to principal engineers: they now return with multiple routes and tradeoffs rather than running away with the first idea, even if their time and cost estimates are often wrong.
    • A junior gets knowledge they could never have produced alone, but an experienced architect still extracts far more juice. Taste and judgment, like picking Postgres versus ClickHouse, remain the human’s edge.
    • Pure software’s moat is in question now that models speak fuzzy, sloppy English. For hardware founders this is a boon, since good software finally becomes cheap to produce.
    • The building-block economy, from Mitchell Hashimoto, argues agents need powerful reusable infrastructure rather than reinventing queues and databases every time. Shared dependencies are a cooperation value, like everyone depending on the same Postgres version.
    • Naval and Max both stopped writing code for years, then started building software they use daily through agents, on the strength of understanding how the pieces fit rather than syntax.
    • With agents you stop getting stuck on narrow debugging problems that used to consume indefinite time. The intrinsic frustration that was once “how you learn” is largely gone.
    • Boom turned siloed hardware engineering, much of it trapped in Excel and VBScript with no source control, into real software with automated testing and repeatable flows.
    • Software engineers now build the architectures and hardware engineers vibe code their pieces, letting two engineers design an entire jet engine where a single turbine-blade analysis once took one engineer a full day across a thousand blades.
    • Enterprise collaboration software and even spreadsheets are getting cooked, because you can now code the exact custom tool you need instead of approximating it.
    • AI will soon generate step files and PCB layouts, bringing the current software boom to mechanical and electrical engineering, likely within the year.
    • China is betting on open-source models because its hardware and supply-chain superiority pairs with on-demand software generation to erase Silicon Valley’s software advantage. Fall behind on generating software and you fall behind on generating everything.
    • In real usage, frontier intelligence dominates the top. Gemini “slaps at scale” as an industrial production model for support and browser automation, while Chinese models are not in the frontier coding tier.
    • Intelligence is an unalloyed good. Because mistakes are invisible and models are cheaper than people, you reach for the smartest available model rather than running a weaker one many times.
    • Max’s vertical integration thesis: when you cannot buy a part, you make it. Science owns a captive MEMS foundry because tighter integration toward a single block of bonded matter yields lower power, smaller size, and longer life.
    • AI’s biggest near-term impact inside hardware companies is regulatory: generating documentation and tracing which of thousands of ISO standards apply, work that used to occupy a quality team for months.
    • Junior engineers got promoted to senior and junior engineering got handed to agents. The same pattern hits law, where basic NDAs and red lines no longer require a lawyer.
    • Humans are becoming verifiers. Signing off on a PR means standing behind its consequences via tests, proofs, and type checkers, not reading every line. Creating software is easy; keeping it secure, tested, and maintained 1000 days out is the real question.
    • A RAG over regulatory documents collapses a 200-page compliance test plan from months to minutes, which cuts change aversion: you can alter the airplane and regenerate compliance instead of crying over rework.
    • Regulations can act as a test suite and exit criteria for agent loops, as long as they are non-contradictory and reasonable. The alternative is shipping slop directly into the air.
    • Physical building is guilty until proven innocent, illustrated by the absurdity of pre-filing a driving plan before every trip. The fix is more enforcement-based regulation rather than pre-approval, though agents on both sides could trigger a red queen race and DDoS overwhelmed agencies.
    • Regulation often fails to make things safer, only slower: the 737 Max shipped a single sensor with full authority over pitch, and the NRC kept us perfectly safe by approving almost no nuclear plants for decades.
    • The deeper problem is the voters and the regulator’s asymmetric incentives. Approve a bad thing and your career ends; block a good thing and nobody notices. Removing one agency just elects its replacement.
    • Targeted fixes beat blanket deregulation: bar adverse inferences across users of a compound, use single-patient IND pathways, create opt-in innovation and YIMBY zones, or adopt Europe’s competitive notified-body reviewers.
    • Healthcare is a fixed bucket of money tied to tax receipts, not a growth industry, so spending 10x more on it would be a catastrophe rather than a triumph. With no private market you run a small communist society inside a capitalist one.
    • The escape is lower cost-to-market, not single payer, so people can finance care like a car. China’s lower approval costs and its already-approved implantable BCI point that direction. LASIK, dental, and plastic surgery advance because patients pay directly.
    • End-of-one medicine works at the high end, as with GitLab’s Sid Sijbrandij outliving his cancer prognosis through a self-built escalation ladder, but it demands enormous agency at the patient’s weakest moment. AI should democratize that knowledge.
    • Vercel automated much of site reliability engineering: anomalies fire alerts, an agent investigates, can open an incident, and begins remediation, stopping just short of changing production itself.
    • Running an open-sourced security tool against the whole monorepo with 10,000 concurrent agents produced several quarters of security research in a couple of days for about $14,000 in tokens. Code translation and optimization are similarly autonomous now.
    • Blake stopped all project work for a week and had everyone, receptionist to engineers, build something with AI and demo it. He expected mostly silly projects and got mostly needle movers, including a real automation from shipping and receiving.
    • The autonomous company of the future may have a workforce that trains the agents doing the work rather than doing it directly, with tooling that extracts reusable skills from your inputs and outputs.
    • Returns are shifting from intelligence toward agency for humans, since agents supply the intelligence. The people best fit for the future open a coding agent and ask what to build instead of defaulting to passive consumption.
    • Maybe 10x more people are coding than a year ago, yet around 99% still never will, because to a non-coder the starting step remains unimaginable. Vibe coding is described as more addictive and entertaining than video games, with real output.
    • AI video lacks taste and judgment for now, but by 2030 expect fan-made films: dozens of Lord of the Rings takes, or generating unmade seasons of The Expanse from the books. The bigger prize is a genuinely new imaginative work, not a remix.
    • What humans uniquely do is generate meaningful surprise out of the training distribution, with intent that makes it mean something. Gödel stepping outside the formal system is the archetype; Claude’s identical-looking websites are the counterexample of in-distribution slop.
    • Higher productivity historically means you hire more, not fewer, of the productive people. Expect a larger number of smaller teams, an entrepreneurship explosion, and generalists winning as credentials matter less than creativity, taste, and judgment.
    • The throughline is people with AI versus people without AI. The single best investment right now is getting genuinely good with the tools and learning the exact edges of what they can and cannot do.

    Detailed Summary

    Software Factories and the Thousand-X Engineer

    Guillermo Rauch opens with the idea that has him “pilled”: the engineer’s job has changed from shipping output directly to building the factory that produces multiplicative outputs. That reframes how you evaluate people and surfaces an old, controversial truth. He used to get flamed on Twitter for asserting 10x engineers, since it offends an equality instinct, but in intellectual and digital domains the real spread is 100x or 1000x, and choosing the right thing to work on is an infinite multiplier on top. AI leverage makes this less controversial, except that people now confuse token spend for productivity. The group agrees token leaderboards are the new lines-of-code. Max Hodak adds that a model is about as good as you are in a domain, so a capable developer gets a powerful collaborator while a junior gets junior-grade help, and the sporadic feedback you give, the reprompting, disproportionately determines the result. Naval’s posture is the opposite of fussy: he ignored every prompt-engineering trick on the bet that the models would improve faster than he could learn to game them, types less and less, and brute-forces problems by throwing multiple models at them. Waste tokens, save time, because tokens are cheaper than people.

    Is Pure Software Dead, and the Building-Block Economy

    Rauch describes models crossing from junior to principal engineer: they now return with several routes and explicit tradeoffs, push back when you try to jam high-cardinality telemetry into Postgres, and suggest ClickHouse or Athena instead. That elevates taste and judgment as the human contribution. He then poses the hard question: is pure software engineering obsolete now that models speak fuzzy, sloppy English and you no longer need code to communicate with them? For hardware founders it is a boon, echoing Patrick Collison’s line that software is art and artists are hard to hire. To temper the “agents reinvent everything” fantasy, he invokes Mitchell Hashimoto’s building-block economy: you do not want your agent rebuilding a queue from first principles every time it sends an email, and shared dependencies like a common Postgres version carry real cooperation value. Reusable infrastructure becomes more valuable in the agentic era, functioning like libraries and dependencies, or even a token cache, so models fork from existing starting points instead of burning a trillion tokens to recreate what exists. Naval and Max both note they had not written code in years and now build daily through agents, because understanding how APIs, data flow, and performance fit together matters more than syntax, and vibe coding is just transmitting intent the way a good engineering leader already did through people.

    Vibe Coding Hardware at Boom Supersonic

    Blake Scholl explains how AI changed the role of software and hardware developers at Boom. A great deal of hardware engineering lives in complex Excel spreadsheets and VBScript on individual laptops, with no source control and no automated testing, and handoffs happen manually over email like it is the 1990s. Boom had long tried to turn these flows into real software but could never afford enough software engineers. The new model is that software engineers create the architectures, because they understand systems, algorithms, and separation of concerns, and hardware engineers vibe code their own pieces. The result is mind-blowing productivity for small teams. His example: a turbine blade is cold at rest and expands when hot, so you must design both the cold and hot shapes and convert between structures and aerodynamics, work that took one engineer a full day per blade across a thousand blades in a jet. With a combined software-and-hardware tool you can now change blade geometry and see structural and aerodynamic results in real time, letting two engineers design an entire jet engine. The group extends this to the death of enterprise collaboration software and even spreadsheets, since you can now code the exact custom tool you need, and predicts AI will soon generate step files and PCB layouts, carrying the boom into mechanical and electrical engineering.

    China, Open Source, and Which Models Actually Get Used

    Naval argues China is going all-in on open-source models because its hardware and supply-chain superiority pairs naturally with on-demand software generation, which erases Silicon Valley’s software edge, and because the Chinese government has a history of funding ecosystem-wide efforts in network-effect businesses. Without frontier coding models there is no self-improvement, so a country that cannot generate frontier software falls behind on generating everything downstream. He notes the irony that almost all the open-source heft now comes from China, since OpenAI is not open, Grok and Google’s local models trail, and Anthropic ships no open models. On real usage, Rauch reports from Vercel’s AI gateway that frontier intelligence dominates the top, with a caveat: frontier intelligence at the right cost and performance, like Gemini, slaps at scale and is the best industrial production model for support and browser automation, while Chinese models are not in the frontier coding tier. Naval frames intelligence as an unalloyed good, since model mistakes are invisible and a smarter model is still cheaper than a person, which pushes everyone toward the most intelligent option and risks an oligopoly in AI.

    Vertical Integration, Verifiers, and the Slop Problem

    Max Hodak lays out Science’s vertical integration: the preference is always to buy, as with cheap PCBs from Asia, but when components do not exist you must make them, and the closer a product gets to a single block of covalently bonded matter the better it performs. Science owns a captive MEMS foundry on the east coast because there was no other way to do the packaging and assembly it needed. He notes AI’s most surprising internal impact so far is regulatory: generating documentation and tracing which of thousands of ISO standards apply, work that once tied up a quality team for months. Rauch raises the slop problem: mountains of AI-generated code arriving as pull requests nobody can read line by line. His standard is that an engineer must be able to say they understand and will stand behind the consequences of a PR, backed by the test harness, proofs, and type checkers, even without reading it all. Naval generalizes this into humans becoming verifiers, with lawyers, engineers, and operators moving to verifying the stack and standing behind it, and Rauch warns that creating software is the easy zero-to-one part while keeping it secure, tested, performant, and maintained a thousand days later is the real test.

    Regulation as Test Suite, and the Voter Problem

    Blake describes building a RAG that compresses a 200-page lightning-strike compliance test plan from months of a “monkey at keyboard” engineer’s work into minutes, with a powerful second-order effect: change the airplane and you regenerate compliance in minutes instead of crying over months of rework, which slashes change aversion and lets a small number of creative engineers iterate. Max reframes regulations as potentially good guard rails, a test suite and exit criteria for agent loops, provided they are non-contradictory and reasonable, since the alternative is shipping slop into the air. Naval warns of a red queen race of agent-on-agent compliance and agencies getting DDoSed by clever entrepreneurs flooding them with documents. Blake pushes for enforcement-based rather than pre-approval regulation, using the analogy that we would never tolerate filing a driving plan before every trip, yet that is exactly how physical infrastructure works: guilty until proven innocent. He cites the 737 Max’s single all-authority sensor and the NRC permitting almost no nuclear plants for decades as proof that this makes us slower, not safer. Hodak supplies the counterweight: the deeper issue is the voters and the regulator’s asymmetric incentives, where approving a bad thing ends a career and blocking a good thing goes unnoticed. Remove an agency and the electorate installs its twin. Naval and Max agree the real reforms are narrow, including innovation zones, opt-in YIMBY zones, and the experimental laboratory of fifty states.

    Drug Discovery, Healthcare Economics, and End-of-One Medicine

    Hodak explains why innovation zones do not solve drug discovery. The right-to-try act and single-patient IND already exist, and the FDA approves over 99% of such requests, sometimes by phone, but dosing requires clinical-grade drug that only the IP owner has, and the FDA will draw an adverse inference against the whole program if a very sick patient does worse. A targeted fix is to prohibit adverse inferences across different users of a compound. He points to Europe’s notified-body system, private certifiers blessed by governments, as a way to scale review capacity, and to China’s CFDA, which already approved an implantable brain-computer interface and brings products to market far cheaper. His core economic argument is that healthcare is a fixed bucket of money that grows only with tax receipts, unlike phones and laptops where falling prices expanded the market, so spending 10x more on healthcare would be a catastrophe rather than the triumph that 10x AI spending would be. With no private market you run a small communist society inside a capitalist one, with the lines and frozen quality that implies. The way out is lower cost-to-market so patients can finance care like a car, which is the direction China is pushing. Naval’s twist is a healthcare plan where the first 20% of income is the deductible to recreate a private market, citing LASIK, dental, and plastic surgery as fields that advance because patients pay directly. The group closes the segment on GitLab’s Sid Sijbrandij, who outlived a rare-cancer prognosis by building his own escalation ladder of drugs, noting that end-of-one medicine works at the high end but demands enormous agency exactly when a patient is weakest, which is where AI should democratize access to knowledge.

    Autonomous Software, Hackathons, and the Autonomous Company

    Asked how much autonomous software they run, Rauch describes Vercel automating much of site reliability engineering: instead of hand-set alarm thresholds, anomalies in error rate, latency, or throughput fire an alert, an agent investigates, can open an incident that loops in people, and begins remediation, stopping just short of changing production. Vercel also runs autonomous optimization and security research, and an open-sourced security tool run against the entire monorepo with 10,000 concurrent agents produced several quarters of security research in a couple of days for about $14,000 in tokens, the equivalent of months of red teaming. Max shares a vibe-coded bug-reporting queue where TestFlight users submit logs and screenshots, a daemon analyzes and fixes issues in the background, and ships him a build to try, raising the prospect of apps effectively built by their users, with the caveat that you would get a Homer Simpson car of every feature. Blake recounts stopping all project work for a week and requiring everyone, from the receptionist to the engineers, to build something with AI and demo it. He expected mostly silly projects and got mostly needle movers, including a genuinely useful automation from the shipping and receiving associate, concluding that most people have an idea worth building but cannot tell a good first idea from a bad one until they can iterate on a real thing. Rauch extends this to a workforce that trains the agents doing the work rather than doing it directly, and a coming feature to extract reusable skills from your inputs and outputs.

    Creativity, Out-of-Distribution Surprise, and What Humans Can Uniquely Do

    On the intelligence-versus-agency split, Max suggests returns to humans tilt toward agency since agents supply intelligence, while Naval counters that you stay 99% intelligence and 1% agency because the agents exercise the agency for you. They agree the humans best suited to the future are the agentic ones who open a coding agent and ask what to build. Coding has perhaps 10x more participants than a year ago, yet roughly 99% still never will, because the first step is unimaginable to a non-coder, even as vibe coding proves more addictive and entertaining than video games while producing something real. On AI video, the group notes it still lacks taste and judgment, but expects fan-made films by 2030, dozens of Lord of the Rings takes or generated seasons of The Expanse, while prizing a genuinely new imaginative work over a remix. The long closing debate turns on definitions. Hodak defines art as meaningful out-of-distribution behavior, broad enough to include a military maneuver, and expects models to reach it. Naval defines art as conveying emotion with intent, which makes attribution decisive: the same photo means more taken by a human, and a hardware-attestation startup gains a real use case. They cite Gödel stepping outside the formal system as the human archetype and the identical look of every Claude-built website as in-distribution slop. Naval lands the episode on optimism: productivity gains mean hiring more, not fewer, of the creative and AI-fluent, the future is a larger number of smaller teams and an entrepreneurship explosion where generalists thrive and credentials fade, and the single best move is to get extremely good with the tools, because it is people with AI versus people without AI.

    Notable Quotes

    “Now clearly there’s 100x or a thousandx engineers and the world hasn’t fully adjusted to this.”

    Guillermo Rauch, on why AI made the spread between engineers impossible to ignore

    “Just waste tokens, save time. Don’t look at the tokens either as inputs or outputs. Just look at your time and look at the final output.”

    Naval Ravikant, on the right way to measure AI’s return

    “We had to learn code to communicate with the models. Now the models speak English and they speak fuzzy sloppy English like a human and they understand things.”

    Guillermo Rauch, asking whether pure software engineering is now obsolete

    “It allows two engineers to design an entire jet engine, which is just wildly different.”

    Blake Scholl, on Boom turning hardware engineering into software

    “You need to be able to say I am signing off on understanding the consequences of this PR.”

    Guillermo Rauch, on what it means to stand behind code you did not read line by line

    “That is absolutely the way we build physical infrastructure in this country. It’s guilty until proven innocent. And what we should actually do is make more of these things enforcement based rather than pre-approval based.”

    Blake Scholl, comparing the permitting process to filing a driving plan before every trip

    “You’re basically running a small communist society inside a larger capitalist society. And that’s what we’re doing in healthcare.”

    Max Hodak, on why there is no real private market in healthcare

    “I expected we would get a large number of silly projects and a small number of needle movers. And what we got was a large number of needle movers and a very small number of silly projects.”

    Blake Scholl, on the week he had the whole company build with AI

    “If a person takes the photo versus AI generates the exact same photo down to the last pixel, the person taking the photo will have more meaning for me.”

    Naval Ravikant, on why intent and attribution make something art

    “It’s about people with AI versus people without AI. And so the single best thing you can be doing right now for yourself is just getting really good with these tools.”

    Naval Ravikant, closing the conversation on the only divide that matters

    Watch the full conversation here: The AI Industrial Revolution on the Naval Podcast YouTube channel.

    Related Reading

    • Part one: Waste Tokens to Save Time, our writeup of the first segment, on software factories, the thousand-x engineer, token leaderboards, and whether pure software is dead.
    • Part two: Vibe Coding Hardware, our writeup of the second segment, on AI-designed jet engines, vertical integration, China’s open-source bet, and humans as verifiers.
    • Naval Ravikant’s official site, the canonical home for Naval’s essays and podcast on technology, judgment, and leverage.
    • Boom Supersonic, Blake Scholl’s company building supersonic aircraft and its own jet engines, source of the turbine-blade and two-engineers example.
    • Science Corporation, Max Hodak’s brain-computer interface company, whose captive MEMS foundry and FDA arguments anchor the hardware and healthcare segments.
    • Vercel, Guillermo Rauch’s company, whose AI gateway data and autonomous SRE work inform the usage and automation discussion.

  • Benedict Evans on Why AI Is Stuck in 1997: The Task vs the Job, Commodity Models, and Why the Jobs Apocalypse Is Overhyped

    Benedict Evans, the former Andreessen Horowitz partner and independent analyst behind the annual “AI Eating the World” presentation, sat down with Lenny’s Podcast for what the host calls the most rational take on AI you will hear this year. Instead of either doom or hype, Evans argues that AI is as big a deal as the internet or mobile, and only as big a deal as the internet or mobile, which means we are living through something closer to 1997 than to the singularity. The conversation moves through the jobs question, the difference between a task and a job, whether the model labs have any pricing power, the anti-AI backlash, and what people should actually do. You can watch the full conversation on YouTube here.

    TLDW

    Evans frames AI as a platform shift on the scale of the internet or mobile, with the crucial twist that almost nothing has been built yet, so we are in the 1997 moment where confident predictions about winners are usually wrong. He introduces his central tool, the distinction between the task and the job, to explain why “X percent of this profession is exposed to AI” studies are misleading, why the AI labs are paradoxically hiring forward deployed engineers and buying consultancies, and why accountants kept multiplying through every wave of automation (the lump of labour fallacy and Jevons paradox at work). On value capture he makes a deterministic bet that foundation models have no network effects, behave like a commodity, and will look more like cloud than like Windows, with the value moving up the stack to applications, much as it did in telecom, where a trillion-dollar industry grew data traffic thousands of times over while its stocks went nowhere. He covers distribution as the real moat, Apple Intelligence as the most compelling unshipped vision, the fuzzy anti-AI backlash (including the largely fake water panic and the very real harms of deepfakes), raising kids under radical uncertainty, and closes with the disarming admission that his own synthesis-heavy job is exactly the kind AI is currently worst at. His advice: presume radical uncertainty, dive in rather than sneer, and assume it will probably be okay.

    Thoughts

    The most useful thing in this conversation is a single question Evans keeps returning to: what is the task, and what is the job? A spreadsheet automated the arithmetic an accountant does, and the number of accountants went up for the next forty years. Claude Code can write the code, but deciding what to build, for whom, and why is the part nobody has automated. The reason the “this profession is X percent exposed to AI” studies feel hollow is that they assume a job is a neat stack of separable tasks. Evans argues, by analogy to the old expert-systems failure, that you simply cannot decompose a senior lawyer’s work that way. The 75-slide deck is the task. Walking your company, reading its politics, talking to your customers, and telling you the uncomfortable truth is the job, and that is what you actually paid McKinsey for.

    The boldest and most falsifiable claim is that the foundation-model companies look more like cloud than like Windows. No network effects means no winner-take-all, which means durable competition, which means commodity pricing and compressed margins, with the real value accruing up the stack in applications that nobody at the labs is going to build. His telecom analogy is the one to sit with. A trillion-dollar industry grew mobile data traffic by 1,500 to 2,000 times in fifteen years, and the stocks went nowhere for a quarter century, because it was a low-margin utility while all the interesting value moved to Apple and the people building apps on top. If he is right, the current token-burn economics, the person reportedly spending 1.5 million dollars a month on tokens, are the 2010 equivalent of a 50,000 dollar roaming bill, not the steady state. Evans flags openly that he could be completely wrong, which is the intellectually honest part and the part most forecasters skip.

    “It depends” and “it will probably be okay” sound like evasions, and Evans leans into that. But the 1997 framing is doing real work. The point is not that AI is small, it is that the things that will end up mattering have not been built, and that anyone confidently naming the winners today is repeating the 1997 mistake of betting on Excite over a search company with a weird logo. The discipline he is selling is to presume radical uncertainty and act anyway, because the alternative, declaring the whole thing slop and shouting about it online, buys a great feeling of moral superiority and nothing else. His repeated insistence that you can see the job that goes away but never the new job, because it does not exist yet, is the load-bearing idea under his optimism.

    The most disarming moment is the closing AI-corner answer, where the person whose entire brand is explaining AI admits he struggles to use it. His work is synthesis and precise information retrieval, and precise retrieval happens to be exactly what today’s models are worst at. He is, in his own words, the lawyer looking at VisiCalc: it is obviously transformative, and he just does not happen to make spreadsheets all day. That admission is worth more than any benchmark, because it locates the real variable. How much AI changes your life depends less on how good the model gets and more on whether your daily work sits on the part of the jagged frontier where it already works. That is a far more practical lens than arguing about whether AGI arrives in three years or thirty.

    Key Takeaways

    • Evans’s headline opinion is that AI is as big a deal as the internet or mobile, and only as big a deal as the internet or mobile. Both halves of that sentence matter.
    • If you make the internet comparison honestly, we are roughly in 1997: very exciting, most of it does not work yet, most of what people will build has not been built, and it is unclear how any of it will end up working.
    • Adoption is spread across a very wide distribution. Even among teenagers, only something like 15 to 20 percent are daily active users and another 20 percent weekly, with the majority saying they do not use it at all.
    • That spread maps onto the “jagged frontier” question of where AI works, where it does not, whether you can predict where it will work in advance, and whether you can even tell after the fact.
    • Software developers are the accountants seeing VisiCalc: for them everything has already changed. Most other professions are watching, intrigued but unsure what to do with it.
    • The AI labs are investing heavily in forward deployed engineers, consultancies, and professional services. Evans jokes that a forward deployed engineer is an Accenture outsourced developer who lives in San Francisco.
    • Companies do not have spare people sitting around to reimagine every internal workflow, so reinventing a business around AI is itself a project that needs consultants, which is why the most cutting-edge labs are funding exactly the firms everyone assumed AI would kill.
    • The central framework: separate the task from the job. Sometimes the task is the job (the elevator operator pressing a lever), and automating the task ends the job. Far more often, the task is only part of the job.
    • Amazon gets you the SKU once you know which SKU you want. Knowing which one to buy is a different job. Claude Code writes the code, but knowing what code and what features to build is the job.
    • A McKinsey or Bain engagement is not really about the deck. The deck is the task. The job is walking your enterprise, understanding the politics, talking to your customers, and telling you the truth.
    • The Jevons paradox is just price elasticity applied to labour. Make something cheaper to produce and you usually do far more of it, not the same amount with fewer people.
    • Excel did not give investment bankers shorter hours. iPhone SDKs did not shrink the number of engineers even though Apple writes 90 percent of the code for you. The number of accountants rose through every wave of automation.
    • The lump of labour fallacy: since 1800, each technology automates jobs and unlocks new ones. You can always see the job that disappears and never the new job, because it does not exist yet.
    • Evans is wary of argument from authority on jobs. He wants Dario Amodei’s view on where models go in the next 6 to 12 months, not necessarily his theory of labour markets and comparative advantage.
    • The doomer scenario of every company buying ChatGPT and firing everyone in two weeks misunderstands how enterprises work. Enterprise sales cycles run 18 months or more. Nobody is ripping out SAP overnight. The full transformation takes 3 to 10 years, sector by sector.
    • AGI and superintelligence are being quietly redefined to mean whatever works now. Larry Tesler’s theorem: AI is whatever machines cannot do yet, because once they can, people call it just software.
    • We have no theory of human intelligence, no theory of why these models work, and no theory of how much better they will get, so everyone is vibes-forecasting. Even if progress stopped tomorrow, what exists is already transformative and will roll out for a decade.
    • On value capture, Evans argues models show no network effects, so no single one runs away with the market. Persistent competition plus little real product differentiation means little pricing power.
    • Sam Altman’s pitch of selling intelligence on a meter like electricity ignores the brutal margin structure of utilities. Your TV maker does not pay the power company a cut of your bill.
    • The telecom analogy: a roughly trillion-dollar mobile industry spends 15 to 20 percent of revenue on capex, grew data consumption 1,500 to 2,000 times since 2010, and its stocks went nowhere for 25 years because it is a low-margin commodity utility.
    • The elemental question: does the model do the whole thing, or does it need thousands of different apps built by different people? If it needs apps, the labs cannot build them all, just as Microsoft did not, so it looks more like AWS than like Windows.
    • If the product is a commodity, distribution becomes the moat. Google pushes Gemini through its surfaces, Meta sprayed AI across its apps and quietly ranked between ChatGPT and Gemini in usage, and incumbents with distribution have a structural edge.
    • Browsers are the warning: Microsoft used distribution to win the browser war, then it turned out winning browsers did not matter because the value was further up the stack.
    • Apple Intelligence, as shown at WWDC 2024, was the most compelling vision of a personal AI assistant Evans has seen. Apple could not ship it, but neither could anyone else, because tool-using on-device agents with no hallucinations across thousands of apps is genuinely hard.
    • The model is “the dumb thing underneath” that powers a feature. The same commodity model can sit beneath both Gemini on Android and Apple Intelligence on iOS while the products and distribution differ entirely.
    • The anti-AI backlash is a big fuzzy mess. Some is real (local electricity bills, deepfakes, real job anxiety), some is sort of true, and some is simply false.
    • The data-center water panic is largely fake. A Livermore lab study put US data-center water consumption at about 0.017 percent of US water use. Local well conflicts are planning problems, not data-center problems.
    • We have shockingly little hard data. The model labs do not publish meaningful usage numbers. There is no public daily active user figure for ChatGPT, so economists are reverse-engineering effects from government surveys.
    • Real new harms do appear with each wave. A teenager could not use Photoshop to make explicit fakes of every classmate and send them to the whole school in an afternoon. Now they can, and turn them into video.
    • The UK Post Office Horizon scandal (buggy Fujitsu software wrongly showing cash shortfalls, leading to prosecutions, bankruptcies, and suicides) is a reminder that every technology brings new ways to ruin lives, by malice or by accident.
    • You cannot reliably predict what gets exposed. In 1997 people thought taxis were safe from the internet and newspapers would be fine. The opposite happened. Today, “AI-proof” jobs like personal trainer may not be as safe as they look.
    • Uber and Airbnb show that similar-sounding companies can have very different market impact. Uber demolished and then grew the taxi market, while Airbnb’s effect on hotels was fairly marginal because business travel still wants a hotel.
    • Every new technology first lets you do the old thing but more, then unlocks things that were not possible before. Recorded music revenue is U-shaped: first “what if I do not pay 15 dollars for a CD,” then “what if 15 dollars a month gives me all the music there is.” Spotify is not an online music store, it is something else.
    • Coding was supposed to be one of the last things automated, and instead it is the most transformed role of all, which is itself a lesson in how badly we predict exposure.
    • Practical advice: do not stick your head in the sand. Dive in, submerge yourself, and come out understanding what you can do with it. Going into a shrinking job market announcing you will never use AI is not the right posture.
    • Evans’s honest coda: he struggles to find AI use cases because his job is synthesis and precise retrieval, the things models are worst at. He uses it for proofreading, images, redecorating his apartment, and dictation. He is the lawyer looking at VisiCalc.

    Detailed Summary

    AI is as big as the internet, and we are living in 1997

    Evans opens with the opinion he calls his most controversial: AI is as big a deal as the internet or mobile, and only as big a deal as the internet or mobile. To some in tech that sounds dismissive, as if he is underrating a once-in-history event. His reply is that smartphones and the internet were themselves enormous, and we are talking over the internet right now. The deeper point is the comparison’s timing. If this is like the internet, then it is like the internet in 1997: thrilling, but most of it does not work yet, most of what will be built has not been built, and nobody knows how the pieces will fit. His latest 80-slide presentation, he jokes, is essentially 80 ways of saying “we do not know,” which is partly facetious and partly the entire point.

    The jagged frontier and the wide spread of adoption

    Adoption is not uniform, it is a wide distribution. Some people in tech have bought clusters of Mac minis and stopped using Google, while most people outside tech who use AI at all touch it once every week or two. Even among 13 to 18 year olds, daily active use sits around 15 to 20 percent, weekly use adds another 20 percent, and roughly 60 percent say they do not use it. That spread maps onto what Evans calls the jagged frontier: whether a given task works, whether you can predict in advance that it will work, whether it is intuitive, and whether you can even tell after the fact. Software developers are the accountants who just saw VisiCalc, living in a clear before-and-after. Everyone else is somewhere on the curve, picking it up to varying degrees and a little puzzled about what it is for.

    Why the AI labs are buying consultancies

    One of the most counterintuitive trends is that the leading labs are pouring money into forward deployed engineers and professional services, the very category many assumed AI would erase. Evans’s explanation is grounded in how companies actually operate. Firms do not keep spare people sitting around to redesign stores, hunt down churn, or rebuild a tech stack, which is exactly why they hire Bain, BCG, McKinsey, Accenture, or Infosys when a big project appears. Reimagining every internal workflow around AI, then actually plugging vertical and horizontal systems together and retraining people, is itself a multi-month project requiring people you do not have. So the work gets outsourced, and the most advanced labs are funding the firms that do it. His joke lands the point: a forward deployed engineer is a statistician, or an Accenture developer, who happens to work in San Francisco.

    The task versus the job

    This is the spine of the conversation. Ask what the hard part of a job really is. Sometimes the task is the job: the elevator attendant’s whole job was driving the car, the task got automated, the job ended. Much more often the visible task is only a slice. Amazon gets you the SKU once you know which SKU you want, but knowing what to buy is a separate job. Claude Code writes the code, but deciding what to build, for whom, and how to take it to market is the job. A consulting deck is the task, while the reason you pay Bain is for them to walk your company, understand its politics, talk to your customers, and tell you the truth. Evans notes you can already generate a bad McKinsey deck with AI, and the LinkedIn grifters who do are missing that the deck was never the thing you were buying.

    Jevons paradox and the lump of labour fallacy

    The Jevons paradox is just price elasticity applied to labour: make something cheaper to do and you usually do much more of it. Excel did not hand junior bankers their Friday afternoons off, it expanded the work. iPhone developers write a fraction of the raw code because Apple wrote the drivers and file system, and there are not a tenth as many engineers, there are far more. The count of accountants climbed through adding machines, punch cards, mainframes, databases, ERP, spreadsheets, and cloud. The lump of labour fallacy is the broader version: since 1800 every technology has removed jobs and unlocked new ones, the removed jobs usually look bad in hindsight, the new ones tend to be better, and GDP keeps rising. You can always see the job that disappears and never the one that does not exist yet.

    The jobs question, Dario, and the enterprise sales cycle

    On the coming jobs apocalypse, Evans is cautious about argument from authority. Running an AI lab makes Dario Amodei worth listening to on where models go in the next 6 to 12 months, not necessarily on labour economics and comparative advantage. The doomer image of companies buying ChatGPT and firing everyone within weeks misreads reality: enterprise sales cycles run 18 months or longer, nobody is tearing out SAP overnight, and the full transformation will take 3 to 10 years, sector by sector, as people slowly work out what to do. He points to the lag in software itself. Many SaaS companies founded the day before ChatGPT launched could have been built a decade earlier, and were not, because the delay was someone realizing a problem existed and that this was the way to solve it.

    Redefining AGI and superintelligence

    Evans is skeptical of the moving terminology. He cites Larry Tesler’s line that AI is whatever machines cannot do yet, because the moment they can, people call it just software. Machine learning, image recognition, and sentiment analysis all got reclassified as not really AI once they worked, the same way jet airliners were once high technology and are now just planes. AGI is now often quietly redefined as doing some percentage of economically valuable work, which a 1975 mainframe also did, rather than anything about consciousness or a soul. Whether we reach human-level intelligence is, in his view, genuinely unknowable right now. The reassuring point is that you do not need to resolve it. Even if models hit a brick wall tomorrow, what already exists is transformative and will take a decade to deploy.

    Where the value accrues: commodity models and the telecom analogy

    Here Evans makes his most deterministic argument. Foundation models appear to lack network effects, so no single model runs away from the pack, competition persists, and product differentiation as users experience it is thin. Without differentiation or lock-in, where does pricing power come from? He skewers Sam Altman’s image of selling intelligence on a meter like electricity by pointing out that utilities have terrible margins and nobody pays the power company a cut of their TV. His telecom career supplies the analogy: mobile is a roughly trillion-dollar industry that spends 15 to 20 percent of revenue on capex, grew data traffic 1,500 to 2,000 times since 2010, and whose stocks went nowhere for 25 years because it is a low-margin commodity utility while the value sits up the stack with Apple and the app makers. If models are commodities and the real product is thousands of apps the labs will not build, the outcome looks like cloud, not like Windows.

    Distribution as the moat

    If the product is a commodity, distribution decides the winners. The web browser is the cautionary tale: the browser product is a thin wrapper around a rendering engine, tab browsing was the last real innovation 20-plus years ago, Microsoft used distribution to win, and then winning browsers turned out not to matter because the value was elsewhere. Now Google drives Gemini through its surfaces and Meta sprayed AI across its apps and, in survey data, sat between ChatGPT and Gemini in usage despite tech writing it off. An adequate product with great distribution and brand becomes a big deal, which is why OpenAI spent last year trying everything to build a flywheel before the giants defaulted everyone onto their own offering. The power of the default and sheer inertia do a lot of work.

    Apple Intelligence and the model as the dumb thing underneath

    Evans calls the Apple Intelligence segment of WWDC 2024 the most compelling vision of a personal AI assistant he has seen: tool-using, on-device, agentic, with no prompt injection or hallucinations across a standardized API spanning thousands of apps. Apple could not ship it, but neither could anyone else, because that is genuinely hard. The episode illustrates his framing that the model is “the dumb thing underneath” that powers a feature. The same commodity model can sit beneath Gemini intelligence on Android and Apple Intelligence on iOS, with different products, different distribution, and different decisions about what the feature should be. Apple has a billion edge-capable devices, while Google’s “coming soon to our most powerful devices” really means it will not work on most Android phones.

    The anti-AI backlash, water, and real harms

    The backlash, Evans says, is a big fuzzy mess of very different things. Some is tangible, like a higher local electricity bill in a small number of places. Some is essentially fake, like the water panic. He dug into a Livermore lab study putting US data-center water use at about 0.017 percent of national consumption. Local well conflicts are planning failures, not data-center failures. The jobs piece is genuinely unresolved, with charts pointing both ways and a youth employment slowdown that shows up regardless of degree or AI exposure. He stresses how little hard data exists, since the labs publish no meaningful usage numbers and there is no public daily active user figure for ChatGPT. He compares the moment to the social media backlash, compressed, where some fears were true, some half true, and some simply false. The real new harms are real, though: deepfakes let a teenager generate explicit fakes of an entire school in an afternoon, and the UK Post Office Horizon scandal shows how buggy software plus institutional denial can destroy lives.

    You cannot predict what gets exposed, and what to actually do

    Evans dismisses the O*NET-style exercise of scoring what percentage of each profession AI can do as deluded, the modern version of the expert-systems problem, where you try to describe a job as 700 logical steps and it never works. You cannot say a senior partner’s work is 17 percent automatable. The history of prediction is humbling: in 1997 people thought taxis were safe from the internet and newspapers would simply save on printing, and both were wrong. Coding, supposedly one of the last things to automate, became the most transformed role of all. Personal trainers might be next once your phone can watch your form. His closing advice is to presume radical uncertainty and act anyway: do not retreat into sneering moral superiority, dive in, internalize what the tools can do, and make yourself a great hire. He ends with a candid admission that his own synthesis-and-retrieval job is exactly what AI is currently worst at, so he is the lawyer looking at VisiCalc, sure it changes everything while not personally making spreadsheets all day.

    Notable Quotes

    “My most controversial opinion is that I think that AI is as big a deal as the internet or mobile, and only as big a deal as the internet or mobile.”

    Benedict Evans, stating the thesis that frames the whole conversation

    “If you’re going to make the internet comparison, it’s like we’re in 1997. It’s very exciting. Most stuff kind of doesn’t work yet. Most of the stuff that people are going to do hasn’t been built yet.”

    Benedict Evans, on why confident predictions about AI winners are usually wrong

    “You can’t look at a senior partner at a law firm and say, well, 17 percent of their work could be automated. This is horseshit.”

    Benedict Evans, on why O*NET-style job-exposure scoring fails

    “Claude Code can write you the code, but what code do you want? It can make you the features, sure, but what features do you want? Who’s your customer? What’s the right product for that customer?”

    Benedict Evans, drawing the line between the task and the job

    “There’s this quote from Sam Altman where he said we’re going to be selling AI intelligence on a meter like water or electricity, and you look at this and think, my dear sweet child, you need me to explain the margin structure of the utility industry to you.”

    Benedict Evans, on why model labs may lack pricing power

    “The model is just the dumb thing underneath that powers the feature. The model is the commodity that powers different decisions about what the feature should be.”

    Benedict Evans, on why value moves up the stack to applications

    “Every time we have a new technology it automates away a bunch of jobs, and then that automation unlocks a bunch of new jobs, and you don’t know the new job because it doesn’t exist yet.”

    Benedict Evans, on the lump of labour fallacy and 200 years of automation

    “Don’t stick your head in the sand and say I hate all of this stuff. That gives you a great feeling of moral superiority, but that’s not going to help. What helps is you diving into this and coming out understanding what you can do with it.”

    Benedict Evans, on what to actually do about AI right now

    “AI is good at stuff that computers are bad at, and bad at stuff that computers are good at.”

    Benedict Evans, quoting an observation that explains why he struggles to use AI in his own work

    This is a curated set of pulls, not a transcript. To hear the full argument in context, including the telecom and recorded-music charts and the lightning round, watch the full conversation on YouTube here.

    Related Reading