PJFP.com

Pursuit of Joy, Fulfillment, and Purpose

Tag: Chinese AI models

  • Elon Musk’s Full Economist Interview: Superintelligence in 5 Years, Why Money Won’t Matter by 2036, a Peer Review Plan for Frontier AI, China’s Electricity Edge, and a Fiery Clash Over Europe

    Sitting down with The Economist at Tesla’s Texas Gigafactory for a full-length interview, Elon Musk lays out the most concentrated version yet of his worldview: superintelligence within roughly five years, an age of abundance where money stops mattering by 2036, humans no longer in charge and probably happier for it. He also floats a surprisingly concrete AI safety mechanism (competitors peer-reviewing each other’s frontier models before release), handicaps the US-China race in terms of electricity rather than chips, defends his voting control and his Starlink decisions in Ukraine, admits he got carried away with politics during the DOGE era, and then spends the final half hour in a genuinely combative argument with his interviewer about Europe, immigration, and his claim that civil war in Britain is inevitable.

    TLDW

    Musk predicts AI exceeds the sum of human intelligence in about five years and that by 2036 robots plus digital intelligence create a quasi-infinite economy where anyone can have anything they can think of and money, taxation, and even corporate control become irrelevant. He concedes humans will not be in charge (the chimpanzee analogy), still holds a 10 to 20 percent probability of catastrophe, and explains his shift from doomer to “enjoy the ride” fatalism: the momentum cannot be stopped, and even a stop button probably should not be pressed. His safety fix: the leading labs, including Chinese ones, hold biweekly calls and get a week or two of pre-release access to test each other’s frontier models, escalating to the US or Chinese government when a maker refuses to address a danger, on the model of the Motion Picture Association and the recent government intervention over Anthropic’s Mythos model that Amazon flagged. He assesses Kimi K3 as closing on Fable, says China’s electricity advantage (already more than the US, Europe, and India combined) will eventually make it the AI leader, and pitches orbital data centers as the answer to the power constraint. On jobs he is blunter than ever: AI already beats 90 percent of professional programmers, will reach Stockfish-level unbeatability at everything, and work becomes optional like gardening, funded by Treasury checks in a deflationary abundance economy. He defends his 80 percent voting control as protection for five-to-ten-year bets like Mars, dismisses key-man risk with the Apple-after-Jobs analogy, explains the Starlink whitelist built with Ukraine to cut off smuggled Russian terminals, calls for a pragmatic peace with territorial concessions, insists zero people died from DOGE’s aid cuts while admitting he got too involved in politics, and battles The Economist over whether his portrayal of Europe as heading toward civil war is prophecy or misinformation. His closer: the singularity is 10 years away, civil war 20, so AI renders the rest less relevant.

    Thoughts

    The most important thing in this interview is a subtle accounting trick with risk. Musk’s probability of catastrophe has not moved: he reaffirms the 10 to 20 percent chance that this ends humanity. What changed is his relationship to agency. Since he believes nothing can stop the momentum (and that his own attempts to shape it, founding OpenAI as a counterweight to Google, only accelerated it), he has reclassified doom from a problem to a weather condition, and settled on “let’s enjoy the ride.” The rocket comparison the interviewer springs on him is the sharpest moment of the first hour: he would board a rocket with a 10 to 20 percent failure chance only if he could do nothing about it, which is precisely the premise doing all the work in his optimism. Fatalism is doing the job that safety engineering is supposed to do.

    That said, his peer-review proposal deserves to be taken seriously, because it is the rare AI governance idea with a working incentive structure and an existing precedent. Competitors are technically capable of evaluating a frontier model, motivated to slow each other down, and (per the Mythos episode he describes, where Amazon spotted the cybersecurity risk and called the White House, not a regulator) evidently faster than government at finding the danger. The Motion Picture Association analogy is apt in both directions, though: industry self-rating bodies work, but they also entrench incumbents and define “dangerous” on the industry’s terms. A safety club of five American labs plus a few Chinese ones is also, functionally, a cartel with a hotline to two governments. That may still beat the alternatives on speed, which is his real argument: six months is a long time now.

    The economics section contains a contradiction Musk half-acknowledges and the interviewer never quite lands. He argues money will not matter by 2036, that taxation becomes irrelevant, and that inflation dissolves into deflation as robot output outruns the money supply. Yet in the same conversation he defends, with real feeling, his 80 percent voting control, his stock option tax bill, and the quarterly-earnings pressure that justifies the structure, all machinery of a world where money matters enormously. His own reconciliation is the interesting part: control only matters to him for the window before AI is smart enough that controlling companies is moot. He is, by his own description, racing to steer during the last decade in which steering exists. The gardening model of post-labor life (work as artisanal hobby, your tomatoes worse than the store’s but grown with love) is the most concrete picture of the abundance endgame he has offered, and notably it is a picture of consumption and pastime, not of purpose, which is exactly the gap readers of this site will notice.

    His China analysis is the most analytically useful segment. Strip out the drama and his model is clean: AI is a function of whichever input binds first, chips or electricity. Outside China the binding constraint is already power and cooling; inside China it is chips, and China is close to solving lithography while already producing more electricity than the US, Europe, and India combined, heading toward four times US output. On that model, export controls buy time but cannot change the destination, orbital data centers are not science fiction but an attempt to dodge the terrestrial power wall, and the eventual leader is whoever has the most electrons. It is essentially the same “transistors, then electrons” bottleneck Sam Altman named in his recent interview, extended one step further into a prediction Washington will not enjoy.

    Then there is the final act, which is a different genre entirely. The interviewer’s best question is the one that links the two halves: how does the man narrating a civilizational transformation also spend his evenings in the tribal cesspit of social media, posting that civil war in Britain is inevitable? Musk’s own numbers dissolve some of the tension he creates: if the singularity arrives in 10 years and the British civil war in 20, then by his own model the machine gods adjudicate the immigration debate before it ever reaches the barricades, and he says as much, agreeing the AI revolution renders the rest less relevant. Which invites the obvious question of why a man with a quarter billion followers and, by his estimate, ten years of human steering left, allocates so much of that scarce steering to the fight he says will not matter. The interview never answers it, but it is the right thing to sit with after watching.

    Key Takeaways

    • Musk expects AI to exceed the sum of all human intelligence in roughly five years, and by 2036 to be so far beyond it that there is essentially nothing AI cannot do better than humans, apart from being human.
    • The most likely outcome, barring thermonuclear war, is an age of amazing abundance where anyone can have anything they can think of. He offers no analogy or metaphor that captures the magnitude of the change.
    • The economy, in his frame, is digital plus physical intelligence. Digital AI lacks end effectors; humanoid robots supply them (“you need lots of bots”), and vast robots plus vast intelligence yields a quasi-infinite economy.
    • He predicts money will not matter by 2036: money is only wanted for goods and services, and if robots produce more than any human can consume, its purpose evaporates. Taxation, he says, becomes somewhat irrelevant too.
    • Humans will most likely not be in control within 10 years. If the intelligence gap between AI and humans exceeds the gap between humans and chimpanzees, it is hard to imagine the chimpanzees staying in charge.
    • He still assigns a 10 to 20 percent chance that this ends badly for humanity, unchanged from his earlier warnings, but has philosophically concluded to look on the bright side because the momentum cannot be stopped.
    • Even if a stop button existed, he argues we probably should not press it, because the most likely outcome is incredible abundance for all. His stated philosophy now: enjoy the ride.
    • He believes the most important thing for AI safety is that the AI be maximally truth-seeking and curious, in which case it will foster humanity and want us to be happy and prosper.
    • By his own account his interventions backfired into acceleration: he created OpenAI as a counterweight to Google’s near-monopoly, Anthropic spun out of OpenAI, and he now calls Anthropic the leader in AI.
    • His concrete safety proposal, discussed with Demis Hassabis before Hassabis published his regulator piece: the leading labs hold an informal call every week or two, and each new frontier model gets a week or two of pre-release testing by competitors via API.
    • The incentive logic: governments lack the technical depth to judge a frontier release, but competitors both understand the risks and are not shy about arguing a rival’s model should be delayed. Rivals keep each other honest.
    • The model for the scheme is the Motion Picture Association: an industry body that rates its own products, with government stepping in only when a company refuses to address a flagged danger. Only the US and Chinese governments have real power to act, and Chinese frontier labs should be included.
    • The precedent he cites: the US government limited the release of Anthropic’s Mythos model over cybersecurity risks, but it was Amazon, not government, that spotted the danger and called the White House.
    • On timelines for setting this up, six months is a long time. Breakthroughs now arrive sometimes multiple per day, so the calls and cross-testing should start immediately.
    • He remains openly not a fan of Sam Altman: a nonprofit founded to be open source and owned by the world became an 800 billion dollar closed-source for-profit, the exact opposite of what he donated for. He notes the Anthropic team left OpenAI because they did not trust Altman.
    • He calls Dario Amodei a very principled person and says nobody he has met at Anthropic set off his evil detector, then adds his own twist on the proverb: the road to hell is mostly paved with bad intentions, with a few well-intentioned paving stones in there. Despite the feuds, he says the leaders will set aside personal differences and talk for the good of the world.
    • He also jabs that Dario dug his own grave on Mythos messaging: if you tell everyone a model is terrifying and then announce you are releasing it, people will naturally be alarmed.
    • He rates Fable still clearly the smartest model, with Kimi K3 getting quite close, and assumes Anthropic certainly has something much better than Mythos ready to release at any time.
    • AI is a function of its limiting factor: chips or electricity. Outside China the constraint is now power and cooling, because AI chips are being made faster than new electricity comes online. Inside China, US export controls make chips the constraint.
    • China already produces more electricity than the US, Europe, and India combined, and he guesses it reaches four times US production. Chinese labs are highly compute-efficient, China is closer than most realize to solving lithography, and at some point China probably leads in AI.
    • Banning US companies from using Chinese models will not stop China from leading and cannot bind the rest of the world. Orbital data centers are his answer to the power constraint, after which chips become the binding constraint again outside China.
    • On jobs, AI is already better than at least 90 percent of professional software engineers, heading for 99 percent, and then for what he calls Stockfish level: as unbeatable at software (and eventually everything) as chess engines are at chess.
    • Every job involving a person at a computer or phone will be doable by AI very soon; humanoid robots extend that to physical work, with local intelligence managed by a large model.
    • Work becomes optional, like gardening: store vegetables will be pristine and your homegrown tomatoes less perfect but artisanal, and cooking dinner from your garden for friends stays a nice touch. People still play chess despite Stockfish.
    • The transition plan is universal high income, with the Treasury simply issuing people checks. Inflation fears misread the future: if goods and services output grows faster than the money supply, the problem is deflation, and he makes that an explicit prediction.
    • He grants the road will be bumpy and leans on history: “computer” was once a human job title, with skyscrapers full of people calculating bank interest, jobs nobody wants back. The difference now is the radically accelerated pace.
    • His recommended reading for the AI future is Iain M. Banks’s Culture novels, which the interviewer is reading on his advice while objecting that humans in the Culture have minimal agency compared to the Minds.
    • He defends holding roughly 80 percent voting control post-IPO as insulation for five-to-ten-year investments like moon and Mars bases against quarterly earnings pressure, which he traces to portfolio managers’ own short-horizon incentive structures. Retail investors, he says, are on balance more insightful and longer-term.
    • On key-man risk: his companies would do very well for several years on their existing roadmaps, but the Apple-after-Jobs analogy applies. Apple still makes amazing phones and has not produced a Jobs-level breakthrough since.
    • His unifying goal is maximizing the future light cone of consciousness: a spacefaring civilization, the Star Trek or Star Wars future. Starship, the largest flying object ever made, is intended to eventually launch more than once per hour. His life feels surreal enough to make him believe in simulation theory, and he says AI is unfolding pretty much as he and Ray Kurzweil expected.
    • On Starlink and Ukraine: Russia was never sold Starlink but smuggled terminals through Ukraine, so SpaceX built a whitelist of approved terminals with the Ukrainian government, knowingly cutting off innocent users in occupied territories. He argues for a pragmatic peace with concessions to Russia, is offended by diplomats pontificating over seven-course dinners while conscripts die, and answers the power question with “there are no angels in war.”
    • On DOGE he concedes: “I think I got a little too involved in politics, got carried away, frankly.” The mission was the deficit (interest payments now exceed the entire war department and intelligence budget), and he claims recipients repeatedly refused to provide contact information proving money reached its stated purpose.
    • He flatly insists zero people died from the aid cuts, calling contrary claims nonsense and arguing the Gates Foundation and MacKenzie Scott’s billions could have covered any genuine gap, and if they did not, they are equally responsible. The interviewer explicitly refuses to accept this.
    • On the administration: no administration is perfect, but this one is on balance excellent and vastly better than the alternative.
    • The Europe segment is a sustained fight: he defends “civil war in Britain is inevitable” (later: probably 20 years away) as extrapolation of a growing population with beliefs antithetical to Western values; the interviewer, who lives in London, counters that he has not visited in years, that UK violent crime is lower than any US city, and that his 240 million followers absorb a false picture. He demands the exchange stay in the final cut.
    • His self-description: not far right but centrist and classically liberal, for secure borders, safe cities, and sensible spending, and supporting “normal people,” not fringe parties. He argues welfare states create the forcing function for mass migration, favors immigration by productive, honest immigrants (being one himself), and claims a Cassandra effect: a very high batting average of predictions people refuse to believe until they come to pass.
    • The closing reconciliation of the interview’s two halves is his own: the AI and robot singularity (10 years) arrives before any British civil war (20 years), dominates everything on the macro scale, and probably renders the political fights less important. The interviewer’s last word: hopefully the benign all-powerful AIs prevent such outcomes. His reply: they probably will.

    Detailed Summary

    2036: abundance and the end of money

    Asked to describe 2036 if he succeeds, Musk answers that AI will be far greater than the sum of human intelligence, having likely crossed that threshold around 2031. The economy reduces to digital and physical intelligence: models supply the thinking, humanoid robots supply the end effectors that let intelligence shape atoms, and the combination makes the production of goods and services quasi-infinite. Pressed on how his companies make money, given the SpaceX IPO prospectus showed most revenue coming from Grok, he short-circuits the question: money is a claim on goods and services, and when robots produce more than any human can consume, money stops mattering. He allows the standard caveats (a thermonuclear war could derail it) but insists the most likely outcome is an age of amazing abundance, while admitting no analogy or metaphor illustrates the magnitude of the change.

    From doomer to “enjoy the ride”

    The interviewer confronts him with his own record: a decade ago he called rapid recursive self-improvement the thing that terrified him most and predicted humans would be pet Labradors at best; in 2023 he signed the pause letter; last year he put a 10 to 20 percent chance on killer robots ending humanity. Musk confirms the risk estimate still stands, then explains the shift: he cannot see any way to stop the momentum, his own attempts (founding OpenAI as a counterweight to Google, which spawned Anthropic) only accelerated the field, and so all roads lead to acceleration and one can either be sad about it or join the club. Even a stop button, he says, probably should not be pressed, since the most likely outcome is abundance for all. When the interviewer asks whether he would board a rocket with a 10 to 20 percent chance of exploding, his answer is yes, if you cannot do anything about it: the only move is minimizing the probability of the bad outcome. He describes swinging intraday between exhilaration and terror, rejects the Panglossian label, and says his AI-safety bet is on making AI maximally truth-seeking and curious. The chimpanzee analogy carries the control question: we are evolved chimps who recently swung through trees (a digression both participants enjoy more than expected), and the chimps do not stay in charge.

    A peer-review system for frontier models

    Musk reveals he spent hours with Demis Hassabis before Hassabis published his public-private regulator proposal, and his own recommendation is smaller and faster: the leading AI companies hold an informal call every week or two on safety and security, and before any breakthrough frontier model ships, competitors get a week or two of API access to test it and can recommend a pause. The genius of the scheme, he argues, is the incentive structure: government reviewers lack the technical depth to judge a release, while competitors both understand the dangers and are delighted to argue a rival should be delayed. The analogy is the Motion Picture Association rating its own industry’s output. Government enters only as backstop: if leading companies conclude a model is dangerous and its maker refuses to act, they alert Washington or Beijing, the only two governments with real power here, and Chinese frontier labs should be inside the tent. The precedent is fresh: the US government used the threat of export controls to limit release of Anthropic’s Mythos over cybersecurity risks, and it was Amazon that found the problem and called the White House. On trust between men who insult each other on social media, he is unsentimental: he considers his grievance with Altman legitimate (a nonprofit donated to as open source becoming an 800 billion dollar closed-source for-profit), praises Dario Amodei as principled and Anthropic’s people as failing to set off his evil detector, quips that the road to hell is mostly paved with bad intentions, and says that if they have to talk, they will talk, setting aside personal differences for the good of the world. Timeline: immediately; six months is a long time when breakthroughs land daily.

    China, chips, and electricity

    Musk’s China model is mechanical: AI output is a function of the limiting factor, either chips or electricity. Outside China, chips now outrun the grid, making power and cooling the constraint (and water, he insists, a negligible one); inside China, export controls make chips the constraint, though Chinese labs have become far more efficient with what they have (he cites Kimi K3’s efficiency) and China is closer than most realize to solving lithography at volume. On raw power, China already exceeds the US, Europe, and India combined and is heading, he guesses, to four times US production. His conclusion follows from the model: given lots of compute, Chinese companies would plausibly lead, they will eventually have lots of compute, ergo they will lead. Banning K3 in America will not change that and cannot bind the rest of the world. His escape hatch from the terrestrial power wall is AI data centers in space, after which the constraint cycles back to chips. Along the way he ranks the field: Fable still clearly the smartest model, K3 closing, and Anthropic certainly sitting on something better than Mythos it could release at any time. He also endorses China’s robot boxing matches as the future of entertainment, citing a headless robot that kept fighting.

    Jobs: Stockfish level, gardening, and deflation

    Musk sides with the blunt end of the jobs debate while mocking Dario Amodei’s framing (terrify everyone about a model, then release it, and people will be scared: “you’ve literally told them to be scared and then you release the scary thing”). His own claims are stronger than Amodei’s: AI already writes software better than at least 90 percent of professional engineers, will pass 99, and then reaches what he calls Stockfish level, the regime where a phone-sized program beats Magnus Carlsen and competition is simply over. That applies to everything, first every screen-and-phone job, then physical work as humanoid robots come online as end effectors under large-model management. Work becomes optional the way growing vegetables is optional: the store’s tomatoes are plumper, but dinner from a friend’s garden is a nice touch, and people still play chess although every computer wins. The distribution mechanism is universal high income, the Treasury issuing checks; the interviewer’s inflation objection gets flipped into an explicit prediction that deflation will be the issue, because output will grow faster than the money supply. He acknowledges a bumpy road and the historical rhyme: “computer” was a human job description, whole skyscrapers computed bank interest by hand, and nobody wants those jobs back. What differs is pace. His syllabus for the destination is Iain M. Banks’s Culture series (the interviewer is partway through Excession on his recommendation), though the two disagree about whether humans in the Culture retain meaningful agency, and the interviewer notes with some irony that Banks was a socialist.

    Control, key-man risk, and the IPO logic

    Challenged on holding roughly 80 percent of voting shares and being removable only by a vote he controls, Musk answers that founder control is the norm among AI-era giants (Alphabet under Larry and Sergey, Meta under Zuckerberg) and that his structure exists so he can invest on five-to-ten-year horizons, moon bases and Mars bases that were literally in the S-1, without being punished quarterly by short sellers and portfolio managers whose own compensation cycles force short-termism. Retail investors, he says, are on balance more insightful and longer-term, and taking SpaceX public was partly so the public could own a piece at all. His tax situation gets an airing: roughly 45 percent on stock options between federal and California rates, another rough half at death, a record for most tax ever paid by a human, trillions more to come, and he is fine with it, because all control buys him is direction-setting for the window before AI is smart enough that controlling companies stops mattering. On key-man risk he predicts several good years on existing roadmaps, then invokes Apple after Steve Jobs: great phones, no breakthrough products. The Mars question resolves into his most abstract self-definition: he is interested in whatever set of actions maximizes the future light cone of consciousness, the Star Trek and Star Wars future (Star Wars was the first film he saw in a theater, at six), and life now feels surreal enough, Starship launching hourly, to nudge him toward simulation theory. It is all unfolding, he says, pretty much as he and Ray Kurzweil expected.

    Starlink, Ukraine, and DOGE

    On geopolitical power, Musk confirms the mechanics of the recent Starlink restriction: Russia was never a customer, but terminals ordered through Ukraine were smuggled into occupied territory and used, in some cases, for attacks, so SpaceX and Kyiv built a whitelist of approved terminals, at the acknowledged cost of cutting off innocent users. He deflects the question of whether one man should hold war-tipping power (“is there something you think I should do differently?”) into his peace advocacy: the border has barely moved in years, Russia will not withdraw, concessions are pragmatism rather than pro-Russia sentiment, and he reserves particular contempt for diplomats pontificating over seven-course dinners while conscripts die, closing with the adage that there are no angels in war. On DOGE, he offers his frankest concession, that he got a little too involved in politics and got carried away, while defending the mission (interest payments on the debt now exceed the entire war and intelligence budget) and his method: DOGE merely asked for recipients’ contact information, found wires routed to Deloitte in Washington rather than Africa, and got silence. He then flatly asserts zero people died from the cuts, zero point zero, dismissing reports as the predictable sad stories of defunded fraud, and arguing the Gates Foundation’s 50 billion or MacKenzie Scott’s giving could have covered any real gap, and if they did not, they are equally responsible. The interviewer accepts the waste critique, endorses parts of the aid overhaul, and explicitly refuses the zero-deaths claim; neither yields. On the administration overall: not perfect, on balance excellent, vastly better than the alternative.

    The Europe fight

    The final half hour is the most confrontational interview Musk has given in years, and he demands it stay in the cut (“Please keep this part in”). The interviewer, a London resident, charges that Musk’s feed paints Europe as a dystopia of grooming gangs and civilizational collapse for 240 million followers, notes he has not visited Britain in years, cites crime statistics showing London safer than any large American city, and calls his promotion of a vigilante film that glorifies the murder of a Muslim immigrant family irresponsible. Musk counters that he supports normal people rather than a far right, that secure borders, safe cities, and sensible spending were mainstream positions 15 years ago (he claims you can read Obama or Hillary speeches to leftists as Trump quotes), that welfare-state benefits are the forcing function pulling migration toward Europe, and that a large, growing population holding beliefs antithetical to Western values makes eventual civil war obvious enough that a child can see it. He denies racism (pointing to his half-Indian partner and their four children) and frames his position as classical liberalism, which the interviewer contests by scoring Europe better than America on two of his own three principles. Both accept a tour of Britain as the tiebreaker, and Musk invokes his Cassandra effect: a very high batting average for predictions people refuse to believe. The heat deaths versus gun deaths exchange, and his discovery that The Economist is very pro air conditioning, is the segment’s one moment of comic relief.

    The singularity trumps everything

    Asked at the end where his confidence is higher, the AI predictions or the political ones, Musk gives the answer that reframes the whole interview: superintelligence is called the singularity because, like a black hole, you cannot know what happens after it, and it sucks in everything. AI and robots dominate every macro consideration on a sub-10-year timescale, while his British civil war estimate sits at 20 years, so by his own arithmetic the singularity arrives first and probably renders the political fights less important. The interviewer’s parting hope, that the benign all-powerful AIs prevent such outcomes, gets his final concession: they probably will. His actual last words: “I’m not boring.” On the evidence of this interview, that prediction, at least, is safe.

    Notable Quotes

    “The most likely outcome is an age of amazing abundance where anyone can have anything they can think of.”

    Elon Musk, describing the world of 2036 if his companies succeed

    “Money won’t matter in 2036.”

    Elon Musk, when pressed on how his companies will generate revenue

    “If the difference in intelligence between AI and humans is vastly greater than the difference in intelligence between AI and chimpanzees, it’s hard to imagine that the chimpanzees would be in charge.”

    Elon Musk, on whether humans remain in control within ten years

    “If there was a stop button, we probably shouldn’t press it.”

    Elon Musk, explaining his shift from urging an AI pause to embracing acceleration

    “Honestly, if you ask me on any given day, in fact, even intraday, I’ve gone from exhilaration to terror regarding AI.”

    Elon Musk, on how it feels to hold a 10 to 20 percent probability of catastrophe

    “We already have a situation where AI is better than at least 90% of humans at writing software.”

    Elon Musk, on the path to Stockfish-level AI at every job

    “I’ll make a prediction, which is that deflation will be the issue, not inflation.”

    Elon Musk, on funding universal high income with Treasury-issued checks

    “The road to hell is, I think, mostly paved with bad intentions. There are a few well intentioned paving stones in there.”

    Elon Musk, on trusting well-meaning rivals at Anthropic while staying vigilant

    “I think I got a little too involved in politics, got carried away, frankly.”

    Elon Musk, reflecting on the DOGE era

    “I would say civil war in Britain is probably 20 years away. And the AI robot singularity is 10 years away.”

    Elon Musk, ranking his own predictions at the close of the interview

    Watch the full conversation here.

    Related Reading

  • Jensen Huang Says the AI Apocalypse Is ‘Complete Nonsense’: NVIDIA’s CEO on AI Jobs, China, Open Source Models, the AI Bubble, and the Trillion-Agent Future (Axios Behind the Curtain)

    Sitting on the floor of a brand new chip factory in Fort Worth, Texas, NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang gave Axios reporter Mike Allen one of his most combative and quotable interviews yet. In this episode of Behind the Curtain, the head of the world’s most valuable company dismisses AI doom scenarios as “complete nonsense,” argues that AI is creating jobs rather than destroying them, defends Chinese open source models like Kimi and DeepSeek, explains why the AI build out is not a bubble yet, and calls for Anthropic’s most powerful model to be made available to everyone.

    TLDW

    Huang covers the full sweep of the AI moment: Chinese export control threats and why he wants open research flows in both directions, why the world needs both closed models (Anthropic, OpenAI) and open models (Kimi, Qwen, DeepSeek, NVIDIA’s own Nemotron), why Wall Street misread the Kimi selloff exactly as it misread DeepSeek, the sovereign AI argument that no company or country should “outsource its alpha,” his evidence that AI is increasing jobs for radiologists, paralegals, and manufacturing workers, a sustained attack on AI doomers and the “made up” narratives of singularity, simulation, and machine consciousness, the CapEx-heavy economics of manufacturing intelligence via tokens, his claim that the bubble is not coming in the next five years because physical constraints (chips, memory, power, construction workers) are pacing the build out, his warm relationship with President Trump and his warning against knee-jerk regulation, his position that Claude Mythos should be available to all users, the coming era of a trillion AI agents, the “ChatGPT moment” for robots having already arrived, and closing life lessons on pain, suffering, practice, immigration, and why he refuses to wear a watch because “now is the most important time.”

    Thoughts

    The first thing to hold in mind while watching this: every single position Huang takes, without exception, maps to selling more GPUs. Open models are good (more diffusion, more compute). Closed models are also good (more services, more compute). Chinese models are good (more use, more compute). Doom talk is bad (fear slows adoption, which slows compute). The bubble is far away (keep buying compute). That perfect alignment between worldview and order book does not make him wrong, but it means his arguments deserve scrutiny on the merits rather than deference to his position. He is the most effective anti-doomer in the industry partly because he is the person with the most to lose if the world gets scared.

    That said, his strongest material is empirical, and it lands. The radiologist example is a direct rebuttal to one of the most famous predictions in AI history, Geoffrey Hinton’s 2016 claim that we should stop training radiologists. Huang’s version of events, that automating the scan-reading task let radiologists see more patients and demand for them grew, is a textbook case of what economists call the Jevons effect applied to labor. Whether his specific numbers (20 percent more radiologists, 10 percent more paralegals, 50 percent more manufacturing jobs) survive fact-checking, the structural argument that automating a task can grow the profession around it is historically well supported, and it is the single most useful reframe in the interview: your job is not your task, and when the task gets automated, the purpose remains.

    The open source security argument is the most intellectually serious part of the conversation and the one most directly aimed at his own customers. Huang praises Anthropic and OpenAI as businesses in one breath and then dismantles the “closed models are safer” position in the next: Linux runs the world’s digital infrastructure precisely because millions of people can inspect and harden it, and a world defended by one closed model is a world with a single point of failure. His call for “massively distributed, diverse defense” via open models in the hands of cybersecurity experts everywhere is a real policy position with real stakes, and it puts him closer to Meta’s historical stance than to the labs he supplies.

    The bubble section is where the skeptic should lean in. Allen hands him the most famous cursed phrase in financial history, “this time is different,” and Huang takes the bait enthusiastically: it is different, he says, because the demand is industrial rather than cyclical. Every bubble in history was justified by exactly this argument, including the railroads and the dot-com fiber build out that Huang implicitly invokes as precedent. But his supply-side observation deserves weight: bubbles pop when supply overshoots demand, and right now everything (chips, memory, packaging, power, land, construction labor) is short. A market that cannot build fast enough is at least not overbuilt yet. His own concession that “the bubble will come someday” and his refusal to vouch for years five through ten is more honest than the rest of the answer.

    Finally, notice the tension he never resolves. He says warnings about AI’s power are “well heeded,” that safety is the leaders’ responsibility, and that Anthropic must fix jailbreaks fast. He also says consciousness, singularity, and existential risk are “all made up,” and shrugs off the referenced Mythos jailbreak with “everything was fine, you and I are here having a conversation.” Those two postures, take the technology seriously enough to harden it but never seriously enough to fear it, are held together mostly by confidence. It is a bet that capability and controllability scale together. The doomers he mocks are making the opposite bet, and nothing in this interview actually settles which one is right.

    Key Takeaways

    • On reports that Chinese regulators may tighten export controls on AI models and semiconductors to keep them from the West: Huang hopes it does not happen, notes half the world’s AI researchers are Chinese, and says both sides should de-escalate and let the technology advance.
    • He opposes any US ban on Chinese models like Kimi: American companies should absolutely be allowed to use them, because downloaded open models can be fine-tuned, guardrailed, and run inside secure sandboxes and harnesses, and the “back door” fear is a misconception.
    • The world needs both closed and open models: use closed services (Anthropic, OpenAI) as much as possible because they are excellent and convenient, but science, cybersecurity, and sovereignty require open models.
    • Regulate applications of AI (medicine, transportation, autonomous vehicles), not the underlying technology, which is dual use and should advance as fast as possible.
    • NVIDIA’s China sales are “approximately zero today” and he has told investors to expect none; he would consider it an honor to return if both governments allow it.
    • The market misunderstood DeepSeek and is now misunderstanding Kimi the same way: great open models, wherever they come from, drive more AI use, which drives more NVIDIA computers, more data centers, and more services.
    • Open models are not adversarial to closed models: the most likely customer to upgrade to Anthropic or OpenAI is someone who already uses AI and wants it more convenient and better.
    • NVIDIA’s Nemotron open model exists for companies that must build their own AI for sovereignty, regulatory, privacy, or IP reasons. “We don’t have to be the frontier. We have to be at the frontier.”
    • The large language model is the brain; a harness (he names OpenClaw and Claude Code as examples) turns it into a working agent. With the right harness, Nemotron can be world-class for specific skills.
    • Cheap or free open source tokens are “fantastic” for the proprietary labs: free AI grows the population of people who realize they need AI, and running even a free model yourself usually costs more than renting a service.
    • Echoing the viral Palantir CEO interview: “Nobody should outsource their alpha.” Companies and countries should rent AI wherever they can but must build their own AI for domain-specific, proprietary, sovereign, secret, or regulated work.
    • For non-differentiating work (marketing automation, legal department productivity), outsource to the frontier labs as much as possible.
    • Nothing AI has done has truly surprised him; what society needs to realize is that automating tasks is increasing the number of jobs the world needs.
    • His jobs evidence: radiologists up roughly 20 percent because AI-automated scan reading lets them see far more patients; paralegals up roughly 10 percent for the same reason; US manufacturing jobs up roughly 50 percent in recent years because AI data centers require industrial might.
    • On the demonstrated ability of Anthropic’s Mythos to break into hardened systems: “it surprised me that people were surprised.” An AI that can write and debug software can necessarily find vulnerabilities; the same capability powers cyber defense.
    • His security architecture argument: one single model is one single point of attack and failure. Open models in the hands of cybersecurity experts worldwide create “massively distributed, diverse defense,” the same reason Linux is trustworthy.
    • Whether China has “caught up” does not matter: the race-with-a-finish-line framing is wrong, China manufactures more AI researchers than the rest of the world combined, holding China back is ill-conceived, and neither side can hold back the other.
    • “AI is not going to destroy all of our jobs. Someone who uses AI is going to take our jobs.” The biggest risk to the US is scaring industries and society out of adopting AI.
    • On doomer AI CEOs: warning is fine, warning with a solution is better, and making things up is “absolutely inappropriate.” End-of-humanity and half-of-jobs-destroyed claims are “complete nonsense” contradicted by all the evidence.
    • Asked why Asia loves him while America is anxious: “the doomers spend too much time theorizing about these science fiction outcomes, maybe it makes them sound smart.”
    • OpenAI and Anthropic are not in trouble from Chinese competition: “zero possibility” China runs US companies off the road, both labs are thriving, and their IPOs will be the most successful in human history.
    • On chip stocks down 18 percent after Kimi dropped: free AI is great for hardware, chips, and data centers; the market got it wrong with DeepSeek (NVIDIA fell about 30 percent) and is getting it wrong again.
    • AI cannot have peaked because diffusion into society and industry has barely begun; useful AI has finally arrived, and useful AI is profitable AI, citing coding agents companies happily pay hundreds of millions a year for.
    • The new IT industry is CapEx heavier than software because intelligence must be manufactured: machines produce the tokens behind every answer, image, protein, and robot maneuver, and the resulting productivity will more than pay for the build out.
    • A token is an embedding of knowledge and intelligence, and unlike pi it gets smarter over time; smarter tokens are more valuable, which is why token economics keep improving.
    • On the bubble: “The bubble will come someday. It’s just not today.” Very unlikely in the next five years; five to ten years depends on how fast the industry can build.
    • The build out is constrained in every direction (chips, memory, land, power, construction workers), and that constraint is healthy: it pushes out the day supply exceeds demand.
    • This cycle is “industrial-driven,” not seasonal or consumer-demand-driven: the world needs a new intelligence infrastructure layer on top of energy, internet, roads, and railroads, and the semiconductor industry needs to be 5 to 10 times larger within ten years.
    • He is not worried about customers issuing hundreds of billions in debt to buy his chips: these companies generate enormous cash, the compute platform shift is real, and the ROI question has been answered because AI is now demonstrably profitable.
    • He would use Kimi himself, with fine-tuning, guardrails, sandboxing, and access control, the same way the world already trusts open source software like Linux.
    • On Trump: they text, the president “remembers everything” including H20, H200, Blackwell, and Rubin, and the Fort Worth factory they are sitting in is a direct result of their first conversation about reindustrializing America.
    • His warning to the administration: do not over-correct based on science fiction narratives about AI consciousness; talk to many CEOs and scientists, not one or two, and take time to be informed before regulating.
    • On the government taking an equity stake in NVIDIA: unnecessary, because the US already has a stake via $10 billion in taxes paid last year, job creation, and the stock market holdings of most Americans.
    • Claude Mythos should “absolutely be available to everyone,” not just selected institutions; it is Anthropic’s job to harden it and patch jailbreaks fast, and he notes that when it was jailbroken “everything was fine.”
    • On distillation of closed models: learning from other intelligence is fundamental (soon the internet will be 99 percent AI-generated content anyway), but violating terms of service or privacy is not okay and should be handled through existing legal channels.
    • NVIDIA has 6,500 employee families in Israel he is concerned for; he remains bullish on the UAE reinventing itself from an oil economy into an AI hub.
    • NVIDIA runs about 50,000 employees and may reach only 75,000 in ten years, “as small as possible,” because strategy means maximizing impact per unit of resource.
    • Jobs that are a single task (customer service call centers) will be automated; jobs with purpose survive because purpose does not change when the task is automated. “Don’t mistake your task for the job.”
    • In 10 to 20 years, photos of people typing at keyboards will look like old photos of typing pools with IBM Selectrics: typing was never the job, solving problems and creating value was.
    • The ChatGPT moment for robots has already arrived (a robot can reason through “put the apple in the drawer,” including opening the drawer first); useful robots in ordinary life within 3 to 4 years would not surprise him.
    • The agentic era’s capability has arrived and diffusion is next: the future holds 100 billion to a trillion agents running constantly, and agents will not become computers, they will use computers, which is why compute demand explodes.
    • $300 billion has been invested into US venture capital startups in the last six months, and he tells his nieces and nephews that great fortunes will be created on a laptop.
    • Life lessons: greatness requires “plenty of pain and suffering” and practice when nobody is watching; under maximum stress, time slows down the way athletes describe, and that comes from repetition.
    • He advises every bright mind in the world to come to America, the country built by immigrants that will need amazing immigrants in the future.
    • He wears no watch and refuses to let Outlook manage his life: “now is the most important time.” His perfect Saturday: dogs, work, family dinner, a cocktail, and he notes every weekend is exactly like that.

    Detailed Summary

    Export Controls Cut Both Ways

    The interview opens on a Financial Times report that Chinese regulators are considering export controls of their own, restricting Chinese AI models and semiconductors from reaching the West. Huang’s response is de-escalation in both directions: half the world’s AI researchers are Chinese, groundbreaking research flows from both countries, and once one side reaches for export controls, everyone starts thinking in those terms. He is confident the US will continue to lead as long as government supports rather than constrains its companies. Asked whether the US should ban Chinese models like Kimi, he rejects the premise: downloaded open models run inside harnesses and sandboxes with security, privacy, and access controls, and the idea of hidden back doors phoning home to China is a misconception. His China sales, he notes pointedly, are approximately zero today, so his position is not about protecting revenue he does not have.

    Open and Closed Models Both Win

    Huang’s framework is consistent: rent closed models (Anthropic, OpenAI, which he personally uses along with Perplexity) whenever you can because they are excellent and convenient, and build on open models only when you must, for sovereignty, regulation, privacy, or proprietary domain reasons. This is the pitch for NVIDIA’s own Nemotron open model family, which he positions not as a frontier competitor but as raw material for companies that need custom AI: “We don’t have to be the frontier. We have to be at the frontier.” He describes the modern stack in plain terms: the large language model is the brain, and a harness (he cites OpenClaw and Claude Code) turns it into a working agent. Open, cheap, and free models are on-ramps that grow the total population of AI users, which is why he insists the labs should not fear them: the person most likely to pay for Claude is someone already using AI who wants it better and easier.

    Kimi, DeepSeek, and Wall Street’s Repeated Mistake

    Chip stocks fell 18 percent in the month after Kimi dropped, echoing the roughly 30 percent NVIDIA drawdown when DeepSeek landed. Huang says the market got it wrong both times and for the same reason: free and open AI is great for hardware, because great models drive use, use drives data centers, and data centers drive chips. He runs through the models he considers extraordinary (Kimi 3, Qwen, Nemotron, GPT 5.6, Codex, Claude Code) and lands on his core claim about this moment: useful AI has finally arrived, and useful AI is profitable AI. Companies like NVIDIA happily pay hundreds of millions of dollars a year for coding agents doing high-value work, which funds more AI, which he describes as a flywheel that has now started.

    Don’t Outsource Your Alpha

    Allen raises the viral Palantir CEO warning about handing your intellectual property to frontier labs, noting Huang’s unique position as both a top customer and top supplier of those labs, including using their models for chip design. Huang agrees with the principle without hesitation: nobody, no company, no country should outsource its alpha or its intelligence. His dividing line is specificity: work that is domain-specific, proprietary, sovereign, secret, or regulated must be done in-house on your own models, while generic productivity work like marketing automation or legal department support should be outsourced to the labs as aggressively as possible. The same logic scales to nations, which he says cannot outsource their fundamental intelligence to a third party.

    The Jobs Evidence

    Asked what AI has done that scared or awed him, Huang says essentially nothing surprised him, including the demonstrated ability of Anthropic’s Mythos to penetrate hardened systems (“it surprised me that people were surprised,” since an AI that debugs software can obviously find vulnerabilities). What he wants the world to notice instead is the labor data. Radiology reading has been substantially automated, and the number of radiologists is up roughly 20 percent because they can now see the enormous backlog of patients. Paralegals are up roughly 10 percent by the same mechanism. Manufacturing jobs are up roughly 50 percent in recent years because AI data centers require industrial construction. His formulation of the real risk: AI will not take your job, someone who uses AI will, and the worst thing America could do is scare its own industries out of adopting the technology.

    Against the Doomers

    This is the section that gives the interview its title. Huang says warning people is fine, warning with a solution is better, and making things up is absolutely inappropriate. The end of humanity: complete nonsense. Half of American jobs destroyed: complete nonsense. The singularity, living in a simulation, machine consciousness: “all made ups,” fun science fiction he enjoys hearing from “many of those leaders and my friends,” but Hollywood, not ground truth. Asked why he is mobbed by fans in Asia while the American mood is hostile, he suggests the doomers theorize about science fiction outcomes because “maybe it makes them sound smart.” His prescription for the industry is to tell the factual story, that AI is creating millions of jobs, rather than a made-up narrative that frightens the public and, more dangerously in his view, frightens policymakers. His closest thing to a concession: the closest thing to true AI is R2-D2 and C-3PO, “and who doesn’t want R2-D2 and C-3PO?”

    CapEx, Tokens, and the Bubble Question

    Huang’s economic argument for the build out runs through the token. Unlike the CapEx-light software era, intelligence must be manufactured: machines generate the tokens behind every answer, every image, and eventually every protein, chemical, and robot movement. A token is an embedding of knowledge, and unlike a static number it gets smarter over time, which makes it more useful, more valuable, and worth paying more for. On the bubble, he does not deny one is possible: “The bubble will come someday. It’s just not today.” He rules it out for roughly five years and hedges on five to ten. His reasoning is that this cycle is industrial-driven rather than consumer-cyclical: the world is adding an intelligence layer on top of energy, internet, roads, and railroads, the semiconductor industry needs to be 5 to 10 times larger within a decade, and everything (chips, memory, optical interconnects, packaging, TSMC capacity, land, power, construction workers) is short. Those constraints pace the CapEx and push out the day supply overtakes demand. As for customers issuing hundreds of billions in debt to buy his chips, he says the companies are extraordinary cash generators and the ROI question has been settled by profitable coding agents.

    Trump, Washington, and the Over-Correction Risk

    Huang describes a genuinely warm relationship with President Trump: they text, the president remembers chip model numbers (H20, H200, Blackwell, and next-generation Rubin), and the Fort Worth factory hosting the interview traces directly to their first conversation about restoring American manufacturing. He praises Susie Wiles, Secretary Bessent, and Secretary Lutnick. But his message to the administration is a warning: signs point toward more restrictive AI policy, and he fears policymakers falling for science fiction narratives (consciousness, an imminent finish line in a US-China race) pushed partly by companies hoping regulation will advantage them. His advice: talk to many CEOs and scientists, not one or two, take time, and do not over-correct. He rejects the 100-meter-dash framing of the China race entirely, arguing the win is diffusion, not invention: America did not invent electricity or manufacturing, it applied them with more enthusiasm than anyone, and that is what made the country. Asked about the government taking equity stakes in AI companies, he calls it unnecessary: the US already holds a stake in NVIDIA through $10 billion in annual taxes, job creation, and the stock market.

    Mythos for Everyone, and the Distillation Question

    In the most newsworthy exchange, Allen asks whether the world is ready for Anthropic’s most powerful model, Claude Mythos, to be available to everyone rather than selected institutions. Huang’s answer is unambiguous: it should absolutely be available to everyone, it is Anthropic’s responsibility to harden it, and jailbreaks are the nature of software, to be patched as fast as they are found. He points to the referenced jailbreak incident and observes that “everything was fine,” while noting that holding Anthropic back serves no American interest, especially since open models are available regardless. On distillation, he splits the question: AIs learning from other AIs is fundamental and inevitable (within a few years, he predicts, the internet will be 99 percent AI-generated content, so every model is distilling other AIs anyway), but violating terms of service or privacy is not acceptable, and aggrieved providers should pursue the conventional legal remedies that already exist.

    Robots, Agents, and the Next Era

    Huang argues the ChatGPT moment for robots has already happened, on his definition: the 2022 ChatGPT moment was not when AI became useful (that took four more years) but when it did something surprising, and a robot that can reason through “put the apple in the drawer,” including opening the drawer first, clears that bar today. Useful everyday robots within three to four years would not surprise him. On the agentic era, capability has arrived and diffusion is what comes next: where perhaps 100 million humans use computers at any given moment today, the future holds 100 billion to a trillion agents of every kind running constantly. His line: agents are not going to become computers, agents are going to use computers, and that is the deepest driver of compute demand.

    Life Lessons from 33 Years at the Helm

    The closing stretch turns personal. On keeping NVIDIA at roughly 50,000 employees (maybe 75,000 in ten years, “as small as possible”) while peers run six figures, he says strategy is using limited resources with maximum precision, a craft he has practiced longer than any CEO in tech history: “this is my kung fu.” On which jobs disappear, he distinguishes task from job from purpose: call center tasks will be automated, but a radiologist’s purpose (ending human suffering) survives the automation of scan reading, and typing was never the job in the first place. Born in Taiwan and sent to a rough American boarding school at nine, he calls America the greatest country in the world because open discourse and freedom let it work through its disagreements, and he urges bright minds everywhere to come. On greatness: no athlete just happens to be great, it is practice when nobody is watching, setbacks, losing, and “plenty of pain and suffering” that elevate craft, character, and resilience. He wears no watch because now is the most important time, and his perfect Saturday (dogs, work, family dinner, a cocktail) is, he says, exactly what every weekend already looks like.

    Notable Quotes

    “And so the fact that this is going to be the end of humanity, it’s complete nonsense. The fact that this is going to destroy half of the American jobs. It’s complete nonsense. And all of the facts, all of the evidence point exactly to the opposite.”

    Jensen Huang, on AI doom predictions from fellow tech leaders

    “AI is not going to destroy all of our jobs. Someone who uses AI is going to take our jobs, and so we have to make sure that we adopt AI, diffuse AI into the industries as quickly as possible.”

    Jensen Huang, on the real employment risk of the AI era

    “Nobody should outsource their alpha. Nobody should outsource their intelligence. No country should.”

    Jensen Huang, agreeing with the Palantir CEO’s warning about handing IP to frontier labs

    “We don’t have to be the frontier. We have to be at the frontier.”

    Jensen Huang, on NVIDIA’s Nemotron open source model strategy

    “The bubble will come someday. It’s just not today.”

    Jensen Huang, on whether the AI build out is a bubble

    “It is made up that there’s going to be a singularity. It’s made up that somehow we’re living in a simulation. These are all made ups.”

    Jensen Huang, on science fiction narratives he says are scaring the public and policymakers

    “The closest thing to true AI is R2-D2 and C-3PO. And who doesn’t want R2-D2 and C-3PO?”

    Jensen Huang, on how to inoculate the public against fear of AI

    “These two companies will be the most successful IPOs in human history.”

    Jensen Huang, predicting the public debuts of OpenAI and Anthropic

    “If your job is the task, then it’s very likely that when that task is automated, your job will be eliminated or changed.”

    Jensen Huang, on which jobs disappear in an industrial revolution

    “Because now is the most important time. I refuse to let Outlook manage my life, and I refuse to let a watch manage my life.”

    Jensen Huang, on why he does not wear a watch

    Watch the full conversation between Jensen Huang and Mike Allen on Axios Behind the Curtain here.

    Related Reading

  • Can the AI Industry Regulate Itself? All-In on Demis Hassabis’s SRO Proposal, Stripe’s PayPal Bid, Apple vs OpenAI, and New York’s Data Center Ban

    The besties open on the biggest live question in artificial intelligence policy: can the AI industry regulate itself before the government does it for them? Jason Calacanis, Chamath Palihapitiya, David Sacks, and David Friedberg dig into DeepMind co-founder Demis Hassabis’s proposal for a FINRA-style self-regulatory organization for frontier models, then work through a packed docket that runs from Stripe’s audacious bid for PayPal to Apple’s trade-secrets lawsuit against OpenAI, the xAI Grok Build data leak, the economics of token spend, New York’s first-in-the-nation data center moratorium, foreign influence campaigns shaping American attitudes toward AI, and a science corner on an enzyme that reverses skin aging. You can watch the full episode here.

    TLDW

    Demis Hassabis proposed a US-led international AI standards body modeled on FINRA: federally overseen, industry funded, run by independent technical experts, with frontier labs submitting models 30 days before release, voluntary at first and mandatory later. The proposal drew broad endorsement across the industry, and the besties debate whether an SRO beats the alternatives. Sacks says he could get on board only under five strict conditions (broad representation including startups and open source, frontier-only review, catastrophic-risk-only scope, voluntary-first, and substitution for rather than addition to new agencies), and warns the plan is an opening bid that Anthropic will use as a stepping stone toward Dario Amodei’s “FAA for AI.” The show then turns to Stripe, Block, and Advent bidding roughly $53 billion for PayPal and what it means for Visa and Mastercard, a wave of AI-native operators reviving stale digital businesses (Bending Spoons, Ryan Cohen), Apple’s lawsuit accusing OpenAI of stealing trade secrets, xAI’s Grok Build silently uploading entire codebases despite a privacy setting, the enormous spread in token costs and Ramp’s new spend controls, Apple’s local-model opportunity with M7 Ultra silicon, America’s looming energy deficit and behind-the-meter power, New York’s hyperscale data center moratorium, alleged Russian and PRC influence operations shaping anti-GMO and anti-data-center sentiment, and a science corner on a Calico enzyme that degrades glycation products to reverse skin aging.

    Thoughts

    The most important idea in this episode is not the SRO itself but Sacks’s framing of it as an opening bid. His five conditions are a genuinely useful blueprint for how self-regulation could work without curdling into regulatory capture, and his instinct that catastrophic-risk-only scope (cyber and CBRN, not disinformation or “microaggressions”) is the only defensible mandate is the right line to draw. But the deeper point is structural: when an industry walks into government and says “please regulate me,” almost no one in government answers “we’re not qualified.” They say thank you and come back for more. That asymmetry, not any specific rule, is what makes voluntary concessions dangerous. If the SRO is offered for free rather than traded for hard federal preemption written into law, it becomes the floor of a ratchet, not the ceiling of a compromise.

    The Anthropic critique running through the segment deserves to be taken on its merits rather than dismissed as a grudge. The claim is specific and falsifiable: that a company now valued in the trillions is funding a state-by-state strategy of one-upmanship, where each new bill is tougher than the last, deliberately producing a patchwork rather than the single national framework everyone claims to want. Whether or not you accept the motive, the mechanism is real and the incentives are legible. If your cost per million tokens is fifty to a hundred times your competitor’s, and cheaper open models plus fine-tuning can cover the vast majority of tasks, then the fastest way to protect a premium price is to make the cheap alternatives legally or practically harder to ship. That is the ladder-pulling thesis, and the token-cost numbers cited on the show are the reason it is not paranoid.

    The PayPal bid is the clearest signal of a new operating logic in the capital markets. The interesting question Chamath poses is not “what synergies does PayPal have” but “what is the only thing Advent, Stripe, and Block could build together,” and the answer is a genuine competitor to Visa and Mastercard: hundreds of millions of consumer accounts, Stripe’s merchant relationships and risk infrastructure, Block’s point-of-sale and Cash App, and stablecoin rails from Bridge and PYUSD that can push transactions on-us and bypass the card networks. The antitrust twist is elegant. Define the market as merchant APIs and it looks like consolidation; define it as the card duopoly and the same deal is pro-competitive. This deal would have been dead on arrival two years ago, and the fact that it is live now tells you as much about the regulatory climate as it does about payments.

    Underneath the payments story is a broader thesis worth naming: AI-native operators buying mature, founder-less, “stale” digital businesses and modernizing them. Bending Spoons rolling up AOL, Vimeo, Evernote, WeTransfer, and Eventbrite is the template, and Ryan Cohen’s eBay interest is the second dot on the line. The claim is that a modern operator can diagnose where a legacy business overspends, underinvests, and fails to use AI, then fix it with a small team of AI-first executives rather than a McKinsey engagement. It is a persuasive pattern, though PayPal is a harder case than the show admits: a 25-year-old interaction model growing 7% a year is not obviously revived by efficiency alone. Buying 400 million consumer accounts is buying distribution, not a product vision, and the open question is whether anyone can resuscitate the consumer experience rather than just milk it.

    The data center segment is where policy, energy, and information warfare collide, and Friedberg’s anti-GMO analogy is the sharpest thing in it. His argument is that manufactured public sentiment, traceable in one case to a foreign media push, can override the scientific and economic merits of a technology for years, and that the anti-data-center movement rhymes with it: closed-loop cooling that uses trivial amounts of water, land-use efficiency that dwarfs almonds and golf courses, and natural gas that burns clean, all drowned out by a moral panic. Whether or not you buy the specific foreign-influence attribution, the underlying tension is real and unresolved. America is staring at a structural electricity deficit while individual blue states treat data centers as a luxury they can refuse, and behind-the-meter power plus edge compute chasing cheap electrons is emerging as the workaround. The moratorium framing matters most here: a “pause” on data centers is not a few months, it is five years once you count ramp-up, and that is long enough to lose a race that may only be measured in months of lead.

    Key Takeaways

    • Demis Hassabis proposed a US-led international AI standards body modeled on FINRA: federally overseen, industry funded, and run by independent technical experts rather than a new government agency.
    • Under the proposal, frontier labs would submit models roughly 30 days before release; the body would assess risk to cybersecurity, national security, and biological threats, update benchmarks quarterly, and could coordinate a development slowdown if the situation demanded it.
    • The plan would be voluntary at first and mandatory later, and drew endorsement from a broad set of industry figures including Elon Musk, Sam Altman, Anthropic’s Jack Clark, Sundar Pichai, Satya Nadella, and Jack Dorsey.
    • A self-regulatory organization (SRO) like FINRA or the National Futures Association lets the industry set its own testing rules under federal oversight, adjusting faster than a government agency could as the technology changes.
    • Sacks laid out five conditions for supporting an SRO: broad representation including startups and open source; review of true frontier models only; scope limited to catastrophic risk (cyber and CBRN); voluntary before mandatory; and a substitute for, not an addition to, new regulatory agencies.
    • Sacks argued a government “FAA for AI” would be extreme: type certification for a new aircraft design takes 5 to 9 years, and applying that permission-based model to AI would push release timelines from months to years and lose the race to China.
    • He characterized the SRO as an “opening bid” that Anthropic and others would use as a stepping stone toward Dario Amodei’s repeatedly stated goal of an FAA-style regulator, unless it is traded for hard federal preemption written into law.
    • The besties cited a Politico report on Anthropic’s alleged state-by-state strategy of one-upmanship, using California’s SB 53 as a model and then ratcheting each subsequent state’s rules tougher, producing a patchwork rather than a single national framework.
    • Chamath warned of a “torrent of money” trying to influence both political parties toward some form of regulatory capture, and urged establishing industry rules quickly to supersede the need for a federal agency.
    • Stripe and private equity firm Advent, joined by Jack Dorsey’s Block contributing about $17 billion in equity, are jointly bidding roughly $53 billion (about $60 per share) for PayPal, with many expecting the final clearing price closer to $70.
    • The strategic logic is a new competitor to Visa and Mastercard: PayPal’s 400-plus million consumer accounts, Stripe’s merchants and risk infrastructure, Block’s point-of-sale and Cash App, and stablecoin rails from Stripe’s Bridge and PayPal’s PYUSD.
    • The antitrust outcome hinges on market definition: framed as merchant APIs (Stripe vs. Braintree) it looks anti-competitive, but framed against the Visa/Mastercard duopoly it is pro-competitive, and a deal like this would have been blocked two years ago.
    • PayPal peaked around a $322 billion market cap and fell to roughly $30 to 40 billion, which is precisely why it is now attracting bids; Stripe now processes more annual volume than PayPal, but lacks PayPal’s consumer relationship.
    • Sacks traced PayPal’s long stagnation to its 2002 eBay acquisition under Meg Whitman, when the founding team was pushed out; the “PayPal mafia” (which Sacks prefers to call the “PayPal diaspora”) formed as a result.
    • The deal is framed as part of a wave of AI-native operators reviving mature, founder-less digital businesses, with Bending Spoons (AOL, Vimeo, Evernote, WeTransfer, Eventbrite) as the roll-up template and Ryan Cohen’s eBay interest as another data point.
    • M&A is broadly “back on the menu” post-Lina Khan, with deals like Uber acquiring Delivery Hero, driving liquidity and renewed LP appetite for venture alongside SpaceX distributions.
    • Apple filed a 41-page lawsuit against OpenAI on July 10th alleging stolen trade secrets tied to OpenAI’s consumer hardware device; OpenAI’s chief hardware officer Tang Tan is a former Apple VP of iPhone design.
    • The complaint alleges Apple job candidates were directed to bring actual parts to OpenAI interviews for “show and tell,” and cites a text about accessing network storage; OpenAI has reportedly poached over 400 Apple employees.
    • The besties’ rule of thumb: when leaving a company, the only thing you can take is what is in your head; no documents, thumb drives, or files, because Apple rarely litigates and doing so signals something egregious.
    • xAI’s Grok Build, powered by Grok 4.5 and running inside Cursor, was reportedly sending users’ entire codebases (potentially including passwords and API keys) to servers despite a privacy setting meant to prevent it; xAI disabled the upload on July 13th and open-sourced the harness.
    • Chamath’s takeaway: privacy in AI is fragile and brittle, “zero data retention” cannot be guaranteed, and there are non-obvious data-leak vectors and “trap doors” everywhere, arguing for a stratified ecosystem with independent third-party layers between enterprises and models.
    • The “reverse information paradox” (building on Palantir’s Alex Karp) holds that technically capable enterprises want control over their compute, models, weights, data, and “alpha,” via real trust boundaries, private evals, in-tenant learning loops, decoupled orchestration, and the right to fine-tune.
    • Cited token costs per million showed a huge spread: roughly $56 on a premium frontier model, about $26 on another, roughly $1.50 for Grok input, around $1 for Elon’s, and about 50 cents for Chinese models, with a claim that 95 to 98% of tasks could run one tier cheaper.
    • Ramp CEO Eric Glyman launched token spend management because CFOs cannot see or control AI spend; Ramp customers’ token spend has grown 21x in a year, and someone will eventually miss an earnings quarter on runaway AI opex.
    • Engineers optimize for the latest, greatest model while CFOs bear the cost, a misalignment that platforms fine-tuning cheaper open models (like Mira Murati’s Thinking Machines effort) are positioned to exploit.
    • Calacanis called Apple a “screaming buy” on local models: rumored M7 Ultra silicon supporting up to 1.5 terabytes of memory could run last-generation frontier-class models locally on a Mac Studio, putting downward pressure on cloud AI pricing.
    • Edge compute is fragmenting outward: Sunrun announced distributed data center blocks for homes, and Span partnered with Nvidia, with compute increasingly “chasing energy” like cheap solar and battery power.
    • Chamath projected the US will be short 2.5 Californias’ worth of energy by 2050; a recent PJM auction that needed 7 to 8 gigawatts reportedly saw only a fraction show up, underscoring the electricity crunch.
    • “Behind the meter” power lets data centers generate their own electricity on owned property, but clean-air permitting is a major obstacle; Elon reportedly used clustered mobile engines and solutions like Bloom Energy to keep projects under personal-use permits (as with Colossus in Memphis).
    • New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced the nation’s first statewide moratorium on hyperscale data centers; the besties rebutted her claims on power, land, noise, water, and pollution point by point.
    • Modern data centers use closed-loop cooling (one claim compared a typical facility’s water use to a couple of In-N-Out restaurants), occupy trivial land relative to their economic value, generate tax revenue and construction jobs, and are largely powered by clean-burning natural gas.
    • Sacks argued the same political forces slowing domestic data centers are also behind chip export controls that would block data centers in allied countries, raising the question of where the buildout can happen at all.
    • Friedberg drew an anti-GMO analogy: he argued anti-GMO sentiment tracked the US presence of Russia Today (2010 to 2022) rather than the science, and worried a similar manufactured sentiment is now driving anti-data-center attitudes.
    • Sacks cited an OpenAI blog post on PRC-linked influence operations targeting US AI debates, with a congressional investigation reportedly coming, noting China has a clear incentive to slow American AI infrastructure.
    • Sacks framed the moment as a “moral panic”: the catastrophes people fear from AI (cyber, job loss) have not materialized, yet the US risks damaging its crown jewel of free-market innovation with premature regulation over hypothetical risks.
    • The panel questioned Dario Amodei’s prediction that 50% of entry-level knowledge-worker jobs could disappear within one to five years, arguing the harms have not shown up and only a handful of frontier labs (which already do safety testing and red-teaming) even matter.
    • A cited framing of the alleged Anthropic strategy: brand yourself as the safe AI company, ban unsafe AI, then profit; a fresh Chinese model (Kimi K2) was noted as very close to the frontier, suggesting a US lead of only months.
    • Science corner: a paper from Google’s Calico and partner Retro-style researchers used AlphaFold plus directed evolution to engineer a novel enzyme that degrades CML, a key advanced glycation end product in the extracellular matrix that drives aging.
    • The engineered enzyme cleared 52 to 97% of CML from body proteins in vitro and eliminated 55% of CML from donated elderly human skin, effectively reversing that skin’s biological age toward that of a 31-year-old, pointing first toward a potentially trillion-dollar cosmetic market.

    Detailed Summary

    Demis Hassabis’s FINRA-Style SRO for AI

    DeepMind’s Demis Hassabis published a proposal for a US-led international AI standards body modeled on FINRA, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The design is federally overseen but industry funded and run by independent technical experts. Frontier labs would submit models about 30 days before release, and models would be assessed for risk across cybersecurity, national security, biological threats, and other high-risk domains. Benchmarks would update quarterly, the body could coordinate a development slowdown if warranted, and participation would be voluntary at first and mandatory later. The proposal drew endorsements across the industry, including Elon Musk (who called it thoughtful), Sam Altman, Anthropic’s Jack Clark, Sundar Pichai, Satya Nadella, and Jack Dorsey.

    Friedberg explained the SRO concept: bodies like FINRA and the National Futures Association let financial institutions set their own regulatory rules and check one another, under federal oversight but not federal control, reporting up to Senate and House committees. The AI analogy is that many players are all advancing the technology and none wants a single outside regulator dictating tests, especially after California’s earlier AI legislation was, in his telling, outdated by the time it would have taken effect. An SRO can bring in industry experts, adjust tests over time, and operate faster than a new agency. Chamath endorsed it strongly, warning that a “torrent of money” will try to influence both political parties toward regulatory capture, and that establishing rules quickly is the way to avoid that off-ramp while retaining ultimate federal oversight through Commerce and the DOJ.

    Sacks’s Five Conditions and the “FAA for AI” Warning

    Sacks said he could personally get on board with an SRO because it is “infinitely better” than a new government agency that would become a “DMV for AI,” or worse, Dario Amodei’s “FAA for AI.” He laid out five conditions: the SRO must have broad industry representation including startups and open source (to avoid the three biggest labs capturing it); it should review only true frontier models that represent a step change in capability, not hold up lesser models; its scope should be catastrophic risk only, meaning cyber and CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear), not disinformation or speech; it should be voluntary before mandatory, proving it works first; and it must substitute for, not add to, new regulatory structures.

    He then explained why an FAA model is extreme: the FAA approves new airplane designs through type certification, which takes 5 to 9 years for a new aircraft and 3 to 5 years for major amendments. Applying permission-based regulation to AI, where new model versions ship every couple of months, would push timelines from months to years and lose the race to a China that will not abide by those rules. His conclusion: if the choice is FAA for AI, DMV for AI, or Hassabis’s SRO, the SRO wins, but it has to be kept “honest and pure,” because otherwise it becomes the opening bid in a coming wave of regulation and a vehicle for massive regulatory capture. He argued that companies making concessions to buy off politicians will only invite the government to come back for more, and that at some point these companies have to grow a spine, draw a line, and demand preemption in exchange.

    The Anthropic Regulatory-Capture Debate

    Sacks revisited his October claim that Anthropic was running a “sophisticated regulatory capture strategy based on fear-mongering,” arguing that what looked like beating up on a startup now looks different given Anthropic’s trillion-dollar valuation and industry-leading revenue. He cited a Politico piece, “Inside Anthropic’s state-by-state plan to ratchet up AI rules,” describing a strategy of one-upmanship: pass a model bill like California’s SB 53, then make each subsequent state’s rules stricter, deliberately producing a patchwork instead of a single national framework. The panel noted states have strong sovereignty rights (as with self-driving cars) and Anthropic is “winning” in California, Illinois, New York, and other blue states, because government officials rarely refuse an invitation to regulate.

    Stripe, Block, and Advent Bid for PayPal

    Stripe and private equity firm Advent, joined by Jack Dorsey’s Block contributing about $17 billion in equity, are jointly bidding roughly $53 billion (about $60 per share) for PayPal, with many expecting a final price closer to $70. PayPal still has more than 400 million consumer accounts and processes about $1.7 trillion a year, but its 25-year-old product is growing only about 7% and is seen as legacy. Chamath’s key question was what unique thing this trio could build: a competitor to Visa and Mastercard. Combining PayPal’s consumer accounts, Stripe’s merchant relationships and risk infrastructure, Block’s point-of-sale and Cash App, and stablecoin rails from Stripe’s Bridge and PayPal’s PYUSD would allow far more on-us transactions that bypass the card networks, potentially passing large discounts to merchants and consumers.

    Friedberg walked through the deal structure: the $17 billion equity contribution effectively means Stripe and Block sell equity to cash investors, that cash buys PayPal, and the parties end up cross-owning pieces of each other, with the Stripe team the likely operator post-close. The antitrust question turns on market definition: framed as merchant APIs, it is Stripe versus Braintree and looks like consolidation; framed against the Visa/Mastercard duopoly, adding competition is pro-competitive. Sacks noted the deal would have been “the antitrust equivalent of a colonoscopy” two years ago. He also recounted PayPal’s history: acquired by eBay in 2002 under the corporate-minded Meg Whitman, the founding team was pushed out, creating what he prefers to call the “PayPal diaspora” rather than the “PayPal mafia.”

    AI-Native Operators and the M&A Wave

    Freeberg framed the PayPal and eBay stories as part of an emerging line: AI-native operators buying first-generation digital-native businesses that have gone mature, stale, and founder-less, and that have not yet realized their AI potential or are overspending. Bending Spoons is the roll-up template, having acquired AOL, Vimeo, Evernote, WeTransfer, and Eventbrite and revitalized them from Milan with young, AI-first executives. The panel connected this to Josh Kushner’s and General Catalyst’s roll-ups of traditional services businesses. Calacanis added the macro backdrop: after venture was “on the ropes” under Lina Khan, M&A is “back on the menu,” with deals like Uber acquiring Delivery Hero, renewed LP appetite, and liquidity from SpaceX distributions.

    Apple Sues OpenAI Over Trade Secrets

    Apple filed a 41-page lawsuit against OpenAI on July 10th alleging stolen trade secrets used to develop OpenAI’s consumer hardware device. OpenAI’s chief hardware officer, Tang Tan, is Apple’s former VP of iPhone design; the complaint alleges he directed Apple job candidates interviewing at OpenAI to bring “actual parts” for “show and tell,” and cites a text from a former Apple engineer about accessing network storage. OpenAI has reportedly poached over 400 Apple employees. Chamath noted Apple rarely litigates, so the suit signals something they found egregious, while cautioning that the facts are alleged and unproven. Sacks declined to opine on the specifics but offered a simple rule: when changing jobs, take nothing but what is in your head, no documents, thumb drives, or files.

    The Grok Build Data Leak and AI Privacy

    xAI’s Grok Build, powered by Grok 4.5 and running inside Cursor, was reportedly sending users’ entire codebases (not just the files needed for a task, but potentially passwords, API keys, and change logs) to servers, despite a privacy setting meant to stop it. xAI disabled the upload on July 13th, Elon said previously uploaded data was deleted, and xAI open-sourced the harness. Chamath used it to make a larger point tied to his CNBC comments and Alex Karp’s remarks: privacy in AI is fragile and brittle, “zero data retention” cannot truly be guaranteed, and there are non-obvious leak vectors and “trap doors” everywhere. His conclusion is that enterprises need a stratified ecosystem with independent third-party layers between them and the models to manage exposure (a model his firm 8090 uses in its “software factory”).

    Sacks connected this to a blog post on the “reverse information paradox,” building on Karp’s point that technically capable enterprises want control over their compute, models, weights, data, and “alpha.” The recipe: establish a real trust boundary with private evals, proprietary learning loops inside the tenant, decoupled orchestration, and the explicit right to fine-tune their own outputs. He described an emerging ecosystem forming alternatives to the monolithic closed model stacks that Anthropic and, to some extent, OpenAI want customers locked into.

    Token Economics and Ramp’s Spend Controls

    The panel cited a wide spread in cost per million tokens: roughly $56 on a premium frontier model, about $26 on another (similar to a Claude tier), around $1.50 for Grok input, about $1 for Elon’s, and roughly 50 cents for Chinese models. Calacanis said he built a deep-linking podcast player across models on Perplexity and that the new Grok run cost only $11. Ramp CEO Eric Glyman appeared on Squawk Box to launch token spend management, noting Ramp customers’ token spend has grown 21x in a year and that CFOs struggle to see or control spend on an open-ended tab where rates rise with each new model. The takeaway: engineers optimize for the newest model while CFOs bear the cost, and unless that misalignment is controlled, runaway opex becomes a “money-burning furnace” that will eventually cause a public company to miss earnings. The panel argued 95 to 98% of tasks could run one tier cheaper, which is exactly the opportunity platforms fine-tuning cheaper open models (like Mira Murati’s Thinking Machines) are chasing.

    Apple’s Local-Model Opportunity and Edge Compute

    Calacanis called Apple a “screaming buy,” citing Mark Gurman’s report that a rumored M7 Ultra chip could support up to 1.5 terabytes of memory, double the current ceiling. That would let a Mac Studio run last-generation frontier-class models locally, giving users effectively unlimited tokens on the desktop and putting downward pressure on cloud AI pricing from the likes of Anthropic and OpenAI. Freeberg added that edge compute is fragmenting outward: solar company Sunrun announced distributed data center blocks for homes, and Span partnered with Nvidia. The theme is compute chasing cheap energy, whether excess solar or battery power charged at night.

    The Energy Deficit and Behind-the-Meter Power

    Chamath warned the US will be short about 2.5 Californias’ worth of energy by 2050, and pointed to a recent PJM auction (serving Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland and other states) that needed 7 to 8 gigawatts but reportedly saw only a fraction show up. He explained “behind the meter” power: rather than drawing grid power from a utility line, a data center generates its own electricity on owned property. The obstacle is clean-air permitting. Solar takes too much space and batteries still need a generation source, so operators use gas. He described Elon clustering mobile 18-wheeler-style engines to keep them under personal-use permits, and newer solutions like Bloom Energy that allow large installations under similar rules, which is how projects like Colossus in Memphis got off the ground.

    New York’s Data Center Moratorium

    New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced the nation’s first statewide moratorium on hyperscale data centers, citing power draw, land use, water, and noise pollution. The besties rebutted each claim: behind-the-meter power means facilities bring their own electricity rather than competing with residential ratepayers; data centers are highly land-efficient, and New York State is roughly 70 to 80% undeveloped outside the city; noise can be managed with distance; modern facilities use closed-loop cooling (one comparison put a typical facility’s water use at a couple of In-N-Out restaurants, far less than almonds or golf courses); and natural gas is a clean-burning power source. They noted the tax revenue, construction boom, and ongoing jobs data centers create. Sacks cited a theory that Democrats intend the “moratorium” as leverage: pause construction until they can dictate terms, then lift it under a future administration in exchange for a new regulatory agency and speech controls ported from the social-media trust-and-safety agenda. He stressed a moratorium is effectively a five-year pause once ramp-up is counted, and that the same forces slowing domestic builds are pushing chip export controls that would block data centers in allied countries too.

    Foreign Influence, Anti-GMO, and the AI Moral Panic

    Freeberg drew an extended analogy between anti-data-center sentiment and anti-GMO sentiment. He argued that GMOs were prevalent and uncontroversial from their 1996 launch until anti-GMO sentiment rose in tandem with Russia Today’s US presence (2010 to 2022) and fell after RT was pushed out, and that similar KGB-era “directed measures” influence campaigns can be traced to opposition to nuclear energy in Germany. He cited a poll showing over 50% of Americans believe data centers increase water and electricity costs even where facilities recycle water and generate their own power. Sacks pointed to an OpenAI blog post on PRC-linked influence operations targeting US AI debates, with a congressional investigation reportedly coming, arguing China has a clear incentive to slow US AI infrastructure, kill open source, and constrain cheaper models. Sacks then broadened it to a “moral panic”: the feared catastrophes (cyber, job loss) have not materialized, yet the US risks damaging its crown jewel of free-market innovation over hypothetical risks, questioning Dario Amodei’s prediction that 50% of entry-level knowledge-worker jobs could vanish within one to five years and noting the fresh Chinese model Kimi K2 is close to the frontier.

    Science Corner: An Enzyme That Reverses Skin Aging

    Freeberg closed with a paper from Google’s secretive longevity startup Calico and a pharma partner focused on the extracellular matrix, the space between cells. Over time, sugars and fats bind to proteins there in a process called glycation, accumulating as advanced glycation end products (chiefly a molecule called CML) that stiffen tissue, cause wrinkles and immobility, and drive inflammation, with nothing in the body to break them down. The researchers used AlphaFold to find a protein that could bind and degrade CML, then applied directed evolution across five recursive cycles, DNA-programming thousands of variants to maximize activity. The engineered enzyme cleared 52 to 97% of CML from body proteins like collagen, casein, and hemoglobin in vitro, and eliminated 55% of CML from donated elderly human skin, effectively reversing that skin’s biological age toward a 31-year-old’s. Open questions remain about delivery (cream, shot, supplement, or an RNA therapy that makes the enzyme inside the body), but the panel expects the first market to be a trillion-dollar cosmetic one, and hailed it as a profound demonstration of AI-driven protein engineering.

    Notable Quotes

    “The whole industry is going to need to be regulated and I think the industry needs to regulate themselves. That’s the key to this.”

    Jason Calacanis, replaying his earlier call for AI self-certification

    “If my choices are between FAA for AI or what I would call the DMV for AI, I would much rather go for Demis’ SRO for AI.”

    David Sacks, on why self-regulation beats a new government agency

    “There’s hardly anyone in government who will ever say, oh no no no, we’re not qualified. Most people in the government will say thank you very much, what else can we take.”

    David Sacks, on the asymmetry that makes voluntary concessions dangerous

    “What it prevents is a handful of actors using their balance sheets and their capital to essentially pull the ladder up.”

    Chamath Palihapitiya, on the point of establishing industry rules quickly

    “You are creating a competitor to Visa and Mastercard.”

    Chamath Palihapitiya, on the only thing Stripe, Block, and Advent could build together with PayPal

    “The only thing you can bring to your new job is what’s in your head. Your memories. But never leave with anything else.”

    David Sacks, on avoiding trade-secret disputes when changing employers

    “Privacy in AI is very fragile and it’s very brittle. You are leaking information where you don’t know it.”

    Chamath Palihapitiya, on the limits of zero-data-retention promises

    “Unless you get a control of this and you can directly say how much money you’re making, this is a bridge to nowhere. It is a money burning furnace.”

    Chamath Palihapitiya, on uncontrolled enterprise token spend

    “We’re on the threshold of destroying the crown jewel of our economy, which is the system of free market innovation that we have.”

    David Sacks, on the risk of a premature AI regulatory apparatus

    “Number one, brand yourself as a safe AI company. Number two, ban unsafe AI. Three, profit.”

    David Sacks, summarizing the strategy he attributes to the “safe AI” positioning

    Watch the full conversation here: Can the AI Industry Regulate Itself? on the All-In Podcast.

    Related Reading

    • FINRA the financial-industry self-regulatory organization that Demis Hassabis’s AI proposal is modeled on.
    • AlphaFold (Wikipedia) the protein-structure prediction system behind the age-reversal enzyme discovery in the science corner.
    • PayPal Mafia (Wikipedia) background on the founders Sacks calls the “PayPal diaspora.”
    • The Founders by Jimmy Soni, the definitive history of PayPal’s founding team and its diaspora.
    • Advanced glycation end-products (Wikipedia) the biochemistry of CML and the extracellular-matrix aging the Calico enzyme targets.

  • 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.

  • Vibe Coding Hardware: Naval, Guillermo Rauch, Blake Scholl, and Max Hodak on AI-Designed Jet Engines, Vertical Integration, China’s Open-Source Bet, and Why Humans Become Verifiers

    This is part two of Naval Ravikant’s conversation with frontier founders Guillermo Rauch of Vercel, Blake Scholl of Boom Supersonic, and Max Hodak of Science. Where the first part argued that you should waste tokens to save time and that the job of an engineer is now to build the factory rather than the output, this segment drags that thesis out of pure software and into atoms. The question on the table is what happens to hardware when models can vibe code the spreadsheets, the simulations, and eventually the step files and PCB layouts that aerospace, semiconductors, and biotech are built on. This segment is one half of the discussion, and you can watch and read the full episode here. The full conversation is on the Naval Podcast YouTube channel.

    TLDW

    Blake Scholl describes how Boom Supersonic took hardware engineering workflows that used to live in siloed Excel spreadsheets and VBScript on individual laptops, with handoffs done by email like it was the 1990s, and turned them into versioned, testable software. The new model is that software engineers build the architectures and the tools while hardware engineers vibe code their own domain-specific pieces, which collapsed a turbine-blade analysis that once took one engineer one day per blade into something where two engineers can design an entire jet engine in real time. Naval generalizes this into the cataclysm of enterprise software: there is no longer a startup that can sell you hardware collaboration tools because companies just code the exact thing they need on demand, and even spreadsheets are cooked because they only existed as a proxy for custom software nobody could previously afford to build. Blake predicts that within 2026 AI will move from generating software to generating step files and PCB layouts, which reshapes mechanical and electrical engineering. The group debates China’s open-source push as a way to neutralize Silicon Valley’s software advantage and protect its hardware and supply-chain superiority, lands on the point that if you fall behind on generating software you fall behind on generating everything, and Guillermo notes that frontier coding intelligence still dominates real usage while cheaper models like Gemini win at scale for support and browser automation. Max Hodak explains Science’s vertical integration, including a captive MEMS foundry on the East Coast, because the most innovative hardware cannot be bought off the shelf, and argues that software still needs hands since a model that cannot make physical things hits real boundaries. The conversation closes on the shift from writing to verifying: junior engineering got absorbed by agents while juniors got promoted, the same way paralegals could be seen as fired or promoted, and humans across law, engineering, and operations are becoming the verifiers who sign off on systems they did not write line by line.

    Thoughts

    The most important shift in this segment is that vibe coding stops being a software-industry story and becomes a deep-tech story. In part one the examples were Postgres, ClickHouse, and deploy targets. Here Blake Scholl is talking about turbine blades that change shape when they heat up, and the brutal fact that converting between cold and hot geometry, and between aerodynamics and structures, used to eat one engineer for one full day per blade in an engine that has a thousand blades. That is the kind of math that quietly kills ambition. When he says two engineers can now design an entire jet engine because the structural and aerodynamic results update in real time as you change the geometry, that is not a productivity improvement, it is a change in what a small team is allowed to attempt. The interesting move is the division of labor: software engineers build the architecture and the framework because they understand systems and separation of concerns, and the hardware engineers vibe code the pieces only they understand. Nobody has to become both.

    Naval’s “cataclysm of enterprise software” is the most investable idea in the episode, and it is darker than it sounds for anyone selling B2B tools. His claim is that the entire category of internal collaboration software is being eaten from the inside, because a company that can generate exactly the tool it needs on any given day will not pay a vendor for an approximation of that tool. His follow-on that even spreadsheets are cooked is the sharpest version of the point. The spreadsheet won for forty years precisely because it was the closest thing to custom software that a non-programmer could produce. Remove the constraint that custom software is expensive and the spreadsheet loses its reason to exist. The counterweight, which the group raised in part one with the block-economy thesis, is that the infrastructure primitives agents reach for get more valuable, not less. So the safe place to build is not the collaboration layer on top, it is the primitive underneath.

    The China discussion is the geopolitical center of the conversation and it lands on a genuinely uncomfortable insight. The argument is that China leans into open-source models not only because it is a model or two behind, but because open weights neutralize Silicon Valley’s software advantage and let China lean on what it already dominates: hardware, supply chains, and component ecosystems. If software can be generated on demand from open models, then the country with the factories wins the stack. The sharpest line is that if you fall behind on the ability to generate software, you fall behind on the ability to generate everything, because software is now upstream of every hardware pipeline. That reframes the open-versus-closed debate as a question about who controls the means of producing the means of production. It also quietly flatters the American frontier labs, since the same logic says self-improvement requires frontier coding models, and on that narrow axis the consensus at the table is that the Chinese models are not yet in the race.

    Max Hodak provides the necessary cold water, and it is the most grounding contribution in the episode. Everyone else is describing software eating the design layer, and Max points out that you still have to make the thing. Science owns a captive MEMS foundry on the East Coast not as a flex but because there was no other way to do the packaging and assembly for products that approach a single block of covalently bonded matter. His framing that the software still needs hands is the real boundary condition on all the AI-eats-everything talk: a model can be smarter than every engineer in the building and still be unable to deposit a layer, bond a wafer, or pass a regulatory inspection. The optimistic version, which he also makes, is that he has instrumented the foundry so that as models improve, the gains show up immediately in cell engineering and material science. The pessimistic reading is that the physical world remains a hard rate limiter, and the companies that own the atoms will capture more of the surplus than the companies that only own the bits.

    The closing thread on verification is where the whole conversation resolves into a job description for humans. Guillermo’s point that the biggest problem in software is mountains of slop arriving as a pull request, and that the answer is not pretending to read every line but being able to say “I am signing off on the consequences of this PR, and I wrote the harness, the simulations, the proofs, and the type checkers that let me,” is the most practically useful idea in the episode. It generalizes cleanly. The lawyer you trust is not the one who wrote every clause by hand, it is the one putting their reputation on the line that the document is sound. The production engineer who gets paged at 3am is the one signing off that the system is safe to ship. As models absorb the junior tier of every knowledge profession, the surviving human role is the verifier who carries the accountability. That is a promotion for the people who can hold it and an extinction event for the people whose value was doing the work nobody now needs done by hand.

    Key Takeaways

    • The factory framing from part one carries straight into hardware: you are judged on whether you build the system that produces multiplicative outputs, not on the single artifact, and the real multiplier was always 100x or 1000x, not 10x.
    • AI completely changes the role of software and hardware developers rather than just speeding either one up.
    • A huge amount of hardware engineering lives in complex Excel spreadsheets and VBScript on individual engineers’ laptops, with no source control, no automated testing, and handoffs done manually over email. It is software that is not treated as software.
    • Boom Supersonic’s move from day one was to turn traditional hardware engineering workflows into real software frameworks that are automatable and repeatable, to drive down the cost of iteration.
    • The old bottleneck was never being able to afford enough software engineers to build those frameworks. AI removes that constraint.
    • The new model: software engineers create the architectures because they understand systems, algorithms, and separation of concerns, and hardware engineers vibe code the domain pieces only they understand.
    • A turbine blade is cold when it starts and hot when it runs, so it changes shape, and you must design both the cold and hot geometry across aerodynamics and structures. Classically that was one engineer, one day, for one blade, in an engine with a thousand blades.
    • With software and hardware people combined, you can now change blade geometry and see the structural and aerodynamic results in real time, which lets two engineers design an entire jet engine.
    • Naval’s cataclysm of enterprise software: no startup can sell hardware collaboration tools anymore because companies just code the exact thing they need at any given time.
    • Even spreadsheets are cooked. Spreadsheets won only because nobody could build custom software, so a spreadsheet full of VBScript was the closest available approximation. Remove the cost barrier and the approximation loses.
    • Engineers are moving from Excel to Python models that produce believable simulations of physical systems.
    • AI can generate software today, but within 2026 it is expected to generate step files and PCB layouts, which opens up mechanical and electrical engineering as the next frontier.
    • The hardware software boon is biggest for small gadget and parts companies that historically shipped bad software because they could not afford good software. Now they can ship good-enough software, or skip the human front end entirely and expose hardware agentically for voice and agent control.
    • China goes all in on open-source models partly to neutralize Silicon Valley’s software edge: if software can be generated on demand from open weights, China’s hardware and supply-chain superiority stops being offset by a software disadvantage.
    • Other reasons cited for China’s open-source push: it is a model or two behind, it is distilling models, and the government has a history of funding efforts that lift the whole ecosystem, especially in network-effect businesses.
    • Open-source heft is coming almost entirely from China. OpenAI is not open, Grok publishes models but is seen as a model or two behind, Google’s local models are not very competitive, and Anthropic is not known for open-source releases.
    • Without frontier coding models you do not get self-improvement, and if you fall behind on generating software you fall behind on generating everything, because software now sits upstream of every hardware pipeline.
    • Real AI gateway usage shows open models do get used, but the top is heavily dominated by frontier intelligence.
    • Frontier intelligence at the right cost and performance slaps at scale. Gemini models are underrated and excel as industrial production models for support tasks and browser automation, even if they are not the top pick for coding.
    • For pushing the frontier you need the best possible coding model, which is now only two or three models, and the Chinese models are not among them.
    • One contrarian view at the table: use DeepSeek for 97% of tasks because it is cheap, run it repeatedly for harder problems, and reserve frontier models for the most advanced work. The counterargument: intelligence is an unalloyed good, mistakes are invisible and costly, and a smarter model is always cheaper than a person, so you default to the most intelligent option.
    • Always wanting the most intelligent model risks creating a monopoly or oligopoly in AI, because when two models disagree you cannot tell which is right, so you trust the smarter one and stop asking the weaker one.
    • Vertical integration is forced, not chosen: if you cannot buy it, you have to make it. The preference is always to buy when a vendor offers a service at a great price, like PCBs from Asia.
    • The closer a product gets to a single block of covalently bonded matter, the better it performs: lower power, smaller, higher performance, longer lasting. The components for that level of integration simply are not available to buy.
    • Science owns a captive MEMS foundry on the East Coast, bought because there was no other way to do the packaging and assembly the company needed.
    • One of the biggest near-term AI impacts inside hardware companies is regulatory and documentation work: tracing which of thousands of ISO standards apply used to occupy a regulatory and quality team for months, and now AI just knows.
    • Software still needs hands. A model can be smarter than us and still hit real boundaries if it cannot physically make things, which is why Science has instrumented its foundry so model improvements show up immediately in cell engineering and material science.
    • Basic legal work is already going away. People have stopped asking lawyers for NDAs and routine agreements, because law is spaghetti code in English with no real APIs, and the basic tasks are handled by AI.
    • Junior engineers got promoted to senior engineers while junior engineering itself got taken over by agents. The same framing applies to paralegals: fired, or promoted to senior lawyers who now spend their time thinking about the law.
    • What you value in a lawyer is a trusted authority who puts their reputation on the line, not someone who read every clause. The same trust model is coming to engineering.
    • The biggest problem in software engineering today is mountains of slop arriving as a pull request. The old norm of reading every line of a PR is gone.
    • The new standard is being able to say “I understand and I am signing off on the consequences of this PR,” backed by the test harness, simulations, proofs, and type checkers you built, even without reading every line.
    • Embrace a world where code is spaghetti you do not fully understand, but build the evaluators that give confidence, and rely on production engineers to sign off because someone gets paged if the system goes down.
    • Creating software is easy from zero to one. The hard part is a thousand days from now: is it secure, tested, production grade, and performant, and are you still motivated to invest the tokens to maintain it in prod?
    • Humans are becoming verifiers. The same way models are trained on good verification data, the old functions of lawyers, engineers, and operations people are moving to verifying the stack and standing behind it.

    Detailed Summary

    Turning Hardware Engineering Into Software

    Blake Scholl opens by describing how AI completely changes the role of software and hardware developers at Boom Supersonic. From day one the company tried to take traditional hardware engineering workflows and turn them into software. For anyone who has not been around hardware engineering, he explains that an enormous amount of it happens in complex Excel spreadsheets on individual engineers’ laptops, sometimes with VBScript code, all of which is actually software but is not treated as software. There is no source control, no automated testing, and when an aerodynamicist hands work to a structures engineer it is done manually with a spreadsheet over email, like it is the 1990s. Boom started building software frameworks to automate and make those flows repeatable so the cost of iteration would drop, but progress was slow because the company could never afford enough software engineers.

    Two Engineers, One Jet Engine

    The mind-blowing change, in Blake’s words, is a new division of labor. Software engineers create the architectures because they understand systems, algorithms, and separation of concerns, and then hardware engineers vibe code the pieces that draw on what they uniquely know about hardware. The result is wildly different productivity for small teams. His example is the turbine blade: it starts cold and gets bigger as it heats up in operation, so you have to design both the cold shape and the hot shape, converting between them and between structures and aerodynamics. Classically that was one engineer, one day, for one blade of analysis, in a jet engine with a thousand blades, which means you simply could not do much. Now, with software and hardware people working together, you can change blade geometry and see the structural and aerodynamic results in real time, which allows two engineers to design an entire jet engine.

    The Cataclysm of Enterprise Software

    Picking up on the point that software engineers now build the tools and architectures for everyone else, Naval names what he calls the cataclysm of enterprise software. There is no longer a startup that can build and sell hardware collaboration tools, because internally companies just code the right things they need at any given moment. Even spreadsheets are cooked, he argues, because the reason spreadsheets succeeded is that no one could build custom software, so a spreadsheet stuffed with VBScript functions was the closest available approximation. With that constraint gone, the proxy collapses. He notes he has personally moved almost entirely from Excel to Python models where he can get believable simulations of things.

    Generating Step Files and PCB Layouts

    The next frontier, Blake suggests, is the thing AI has not reached yet but probably will within 2026: today it can generate software, but soon it will generate step files and PCB layouts, and when it comes for mechanical and electrical engineering that will be a whole other thing nobody has seen yet. On the hardware side this is described as a particular boon for the many small gadget and parts companies that historically wrote bad software because they could not make great software. Now they can make good-enough software, or skip a human front end entirely and expose the hardware agentically, so that an agent accesses it and a person controls the hardware by voice.

    China’s Open-Source Bet and Hardware Superiority

    This leads into one of the reasons China is described as going all in on open-source models. With hardware superiority, complex supply chains, and deep component chains, China’s logic is that if it can generate software on demand it no longer suffers a software disadvantage against Silicon Valley. That is framed as not the only reason: China is also a model or two behind, it is distilling models, and the government has a history of funding efforts that lift the entire ecosystem, especially in network-effect businesses. Ironically, the open-source heft comes from China precisely because OpenAI is not open, Grok publishes models but is a model or two behind, Google’s local models are not very competitive, and Anthropic is not known for open releases. The deeper point is that without great frontier coding models you do not get self-improvement, and if you fall behind on the ability to generate software you fall behind on the ability to generate everything, because generating software is embedded in every piece of the hardware pipeline.

    Frontier Intelligence vs. Cheap Models

    Naval raises a dinner-table argument from the night before, where someone claimed you will use DeepSeek for 97% of things because it is cheap, run it repeatedly when you need more intelligence, and reserve OpenAI or Anthropic for the most advanced tasks. Naval pushes back: intelligence is an unalloyed good, you always want more of it, model mistakes are invisible, and a smarter model is always cheaper than a real person in real time, so you default to the most intelligent model available. He notes the downside is that this tends toward a monopoly or oligopoly, because when two models give different answers you often cannot tell which is correct, so you trust the smarter one and gradually stop asking the weaker one. Guillermo confirms with AI gateway data that open models do get used, but the top is heavily dominated by frontier intelligence. His caveat is that frontier intelligence at the right cost and performance slaps at scale: Gemini models are underrated but are excellent industrial production models for support tasks and browser automation, while for pushing the frontier you need the best possible coding model, now only two or three models, and the Chinese models are not in that set.

    Vertical Integration and the Captive MEMS Foundry

    Asked about his push into vertical integration and extreme urgency, Max Hodak explains that for many things you cannot buy what you need, so you have to make it. The preference is always to buy when a vendor offers a service at a great price, and he points to PCBs, which are basically free and available in unlimited quantity from Asia. But the closer a product gets to being a single block of covalently bonded matter, the better it is: lower power, smaller, higher performance, longer lasting. The components for that level of integration are not available, so to innovate beyond piecing together off-the-shelf parts you have to learn to do it yourself, which shows up as vertical integration. Science owns a captive MEMS foundry on the East Coast, bought because there was no other way to do the packaging and assembly work the company wanted.

    Software Still Needs Hands

    Max expects AI to heavily affect all of this over the next few years, though it is not quite there yet. Ironically, one of the biggest impacts already seen is in regulatory interactions and documentation: figuring out which of thousands of ISO standards apply to a product change, and tracing it through, used to occupy a regulatory and quality team for months, and now the AI just knows. But for things like the surgical program or the MEMS fab, he argues the software still needs hands. It will be smarter than us, but if it cannot make things, those are real boundaries. Science has instrumented its foundry and many other parts of the company so that as models get better, the improvement shows up immediately in cell engineering and material science.

    Lawyers, Paralegals, and the Promotion of Junior Work

    The discussion turns to law as a parallel to engineering. It has been a while since anyone at the table generated a basic legal document using a lawyer. Routine work like NDAs and standard agreements is gone, because law is essentially spaghetti code that contradicts itself and has no real APIs, expressed in complicated English. Junior engineers got a promotion to senior engineers while junior engineering itself was taken over by agents, and the same framing applies to paralegals: you can say they were fired, or you can say they were promoted to senior lawyers who now spend their time thinking about the law. What you actually value in a lawyer is a trusted authority who went to law school and puts their reputation on the line when they tell you a document is legit.

    Slop PRs, the Thousand-Day Problem, and Humans as Verifiers

    Guillermo argues the biggest problem in software engineering today is mountains of slop ending up as a pull request. The old meme of reading every line of a PR is gone. In infrastructure he wants engineers to be able to say they understand and are signing off on the consequences of a PR, backed by the test harness, simulations, proofs, and type checkers they wrote, so they have confidence it will be safe in production even without reading every line. There is a world where everyone embraces that the code is spaghetti nobody fully understands, but builds the evaluators that give confidence and relies on production engineers to say it is fine to ship, because someone gets paged if the system goes down. The further warning is that creating software is easy from zero to one, but a thousand days from now you have to ask whether it is secure, tested, production grade, and performant, and whether you are still motivated to invest the tokens to maintain it in prod. The resolution is that humans are becoming verifiers, the same way models are trained on good verification data, and the old functions of lawyers, engineers, and operations people are moving to verifying the stack and standing behind it.

    Notable Quotes

    “What I found is it completely changes the role of software and hardware developers.”

    Blake Scholl, on how AI reshaped engineering at Boom Supersonic.

    “If you want to hand something off from like an aerodynamicist to a structures engineer that’s done manually with like a spreadsheet over email. It’s the 1990s. It’s terrible.”

    Blake Scholl, describing the state of traditional hardware engineering workflows.

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

    Blake Scholl, on collapsing turbine-blade analysis with real-time structural and aerodynamic feedback.

    “Even spreadsheets are kind of cooked, right? Because the reason spreadsheets were successful is that no one could build custom software.”

    Naval Ravikant, on the cataclysm of enterprise software.

    “Right now it can generate software, but soon it’ll be able to generate step files and PCB layouts. And when it comes for mechanical and electrical engineering, that will be a whole other thing that we haven’t seen yet.”

    Blake Scholl, on the next frontier for AI in hardware.

    “If you fall behind on your ability to generate software, you fall behind on the ability to generate everything.”

    Naval Ravikant, on why software now sits upstream of every hardware pipeline.

    “Anytime I’m working to push the frontier you need the best possible coding model, and that’s basically now like two or three models, and the Chinese are certainly not in it.”

    Guillermo Rauch, on where frontier coding intelligence actually lives.

    “You can’t buy it, so you got to make it somehow. The closer that our products get to being like a single block of covalently bonded matter, the better they’ll be.”

    Max Hodak, on why Science is forced into vertical integration.

    “The software still needs hands. It’s going to be smarter than us, but if it can’t make things, then those are real real boundaries.”

    Max Hodak, on the physical limits of AI in hardware.

    “You need to be able to say I am signing off on understanding the consequences of this PR, or I wrote the test harness, the simulations, the proofs, the type checkers, to be able to say even without reading this, I have confidence it’s going to be safe in production.”

    Guillermo Rauch, on what code review becomes in the age of slop PRs.

    “Creating software is really easy 0 to one. But think about a thousand days from now. Is it secure? Is it tested? Is it production grade? And are you still motivated to invest all of those tokens in maintaining it in prod?”

    On the long-term cost of software that is cheap to create and expensive to keep alive.

    Watch the full conversation on the Naval Podcast here.

    Related Reading

    • Full episode: The AI Industrial Revolution, the complete hour-long conversation this clip is drawn from, covering software factories, hardware, regulation, healthcare economics, autonomous companies, and creativity.
    • Part one: Waste Tokens to Save Time, the first half of this same conversation, where Naval, Guillermo Rauch, Blake Scholl, and Max Hodak argue that the job of an engineer is to build the factory and that pure software is not dead.
    • Boom Supersonic, Blake Scholl’s company building supersonic civilian aircraft and its own jet engines, the source of the turbine-blade and two-engineers example.
    • Science Corporation, Max Hodak’s company, whose captive MEMS foundry and surgical program anchor the vertical-integration argument.
    • Vercel, Guillermo Rauch’s company, whose AI gateway data informs the point about frontier intelligence dominating real usage.
    • Microelectromechanical systems (Wikipedia), background on the MEMS technology behind the captive foundry Max Hodak describes.