PJFP.com

Pursuit of Joy, Fulfillment, and Purpose

Tag: large language models

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

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

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

    TLDR

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

    Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

    Key Takeaways

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

    Detailed Summary

    How the leak happened and why it matters now

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

    Revenue tripled, costs grew faster

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

    Two loss numbers, and why both matter

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

    Where the $34 billion went

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

    The Microsoft dependency

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

    Why inference is the core problem

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

    What it means for the IPO and the race with Anthropic

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

    Notable Quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    TechTimes analysis of the leaked OpenAI financials

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

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

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

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

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

    Related Reading

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

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

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

    TLDW

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

    Thoughts

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

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

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

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

    Key Takeaways

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

    Detailed Summary

    The exponential method behind 60 years of predictions

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

    AGI by 2029 is now the conservative position

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

    Medicine: simulated trials and the end of the drug bottleneck

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

    Longevity escape velocity by 2032

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

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

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

    The quantum computing heresy

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

    Jobs, wealth, and UBI

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

    AI twins, the dadbot, and consciousness

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

    Computronium and the destiny of intelligence

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

    Notable Quotes

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

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

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

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

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

    Ray Kurzweil, defining longevity escape velocity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Related Reading

  • Mark Zuckerberg, Priscilla Chan, and Alex Rives on CZI Biohub, Open-Source AI, and Building World Models of Biology to Cure All Disease

    Mark Zuckerberg, Priscilla Chan, and AI researcher Alex Rives sat down with the No Priors podcast to explain why CZI Biohub became the primary focus of their philanthropy, why they committed $500 million to a virtual biology initiative, and why they are giving the resulting AI models away as open source instead of building a company. The conversation moves from a goal that Nobel laureates once laughed at, curing, preventing, and managing all disease by the end of the century, to a concrete technical strategy: build world models of biology layer by layer, from proteins to cells to whole systems, and put them in every scientist’s hands.

    TLDW

    This is the clearest public articulation yet of how the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative thinks about AI and biology. The throughline starts a decade ago when Zuckerberg and Chan asked scientists how to cure all disease and learned the real bottleneck was tooling, siloed labs, and unshared knowledge, not a lack of ambition. That insight produced the Human Cell Atlas, the CELLxGENE annotation tool, and a corpus of single-cell transcriptomics that large language models could finally make sense of. Now Biohub couples a frontier AI lab with frontier wet-lab biology under one roof across San Francisco, New York, and Chicago, organized around the virtual biology initiative and the long-term goal of a virtual cell. Alex Rives, the AI researcher behind the ESM protein language models, walks through their newly released ESM-based world model of protein biology: trained on billions of protein sequences, it predicts atomic-resolution structures blazingly fast, folded over 1.1 billion proteins, designs novel proteins and single-chain antibodies as an emergent property, and found nanomolar binders in a single 96-well plate. The discussion covers mechanistic interpretability as a way to extract genuinely new biological knowledge, personalized medicine driven by understanding the chain from gene variant to protein to disease, predicting off-target toxicity before human trials, rare-disease patient organizing, the baby KJ CRISPR case, biosafety tradeoffs of open source, talent and why frontier biology plus frontier AI is a recruiting moat, and what success looks like five years out.

    Thoughts

    The most important claim in this conversation is also the easiest to miss because it is delivered casually: protein design is an emergent property of a model that was never asked to design proteins. Rives is explicit that they did not build a model for antibodies and did not build a model to bind a particular target. They built a model that understands proteins, trained on raw sequence with a next-token objective, and protein design, structure prediction, and antibody generation fell out of it. That is the language-model bet transplanted into biology, and the fact that it produced nanomolar binders, the threshold for actual therapeutic activity, in a single 96-well plate rather than a high-throughput screen of millions is the kind of result that quietly resets what a small team can attempt. If that generalizes, the binding curve for “design a molecule” bends the same way the cost curve for “write working code” did.

    What makes the strategy coherent, rather than just a well-funded AI lab, is the insistence that the wet lab and the AI lab are a single effort. Most of biology’s useful data does not exist on the internet the way human language does. You cannot pay a factory to produce it. Someone has to invent the cellular engineering in New York, the inflammation-sensing devices in Chicago, the translucent-zebrafish imaging, and that is the actual product of frontier biology: new instruments that generate data nobody has ever seen, which in turn make new classes of models possible. This is the part venture-backed competitors will struggle to replicate, because it requires patience measured in 10 to 15 year horizons and a willingness to spend on data generation that has no business model attached. Zuckerberg is almost dismissive about it, noting they could probably run it as a business but that not having to think about monetization is strategically simplifying. The nonprofit structure is not charity window-dressing here. It is what lets them release the models as an open discovery engine and harness the entire academic and biotech field rather than competing with it.

    The mechanistic interpretability thread deserves more attention than it will get. Interpretability has mostly been a safety and alignment story for language models, a way to peer inside the black box and check that the representations match our understanding of the world. Rives flips it: the protein models have been trained on both known and unknown biology, billions of sequences including proteins we understand nothing about, and they are building representations that connect the unknown proteins to the known ones through an underlying structural grammar. The promise is that interpretability becomes a discovery tool, not just an audit tool. You open the box and find biology the field has not characterized yet, the mechanism of action for a treatment, a system in the body nobody mapped. That is a fundamentally more optimistic use of the same toolkit, and it is the part of the launch Sarah Guo and Elad Gil both flag as the most interesting.

    Chan’s framing of personalized medicine is worth sitting with because it reframes the entire goal away from “cure disease X.” She wants to treat the individual as an individual: understand this person’s genetics, their risk profile, the mechanistic chain from a specific gene variant through a protein to a disease process, and then design a drug bespoke to them. The current reality she describes, sitting in PubMed reading a paper’s supplement asking “am I represented in this cohort,” guessing whether a drug that kind of impacts a pathway that is probably implicated might do something, is a brutal and accurate picture of how non-standard cases are actually handled today. The vision is generalizable tools delivering personalized answers, which is the same put-the-tool-in-the-individual’s-hands philosophy Zuckerberg applies to open-source AI and, by his own analogy, to social media. Whether you find that analogy reassuring or not, the consistency of the worldview is real: they genuinely do not believe in a central super-intelligence solving science, and the whole architecture follows from that.

    The honest gap they name is the clinic. Chan is candid that the science will start moving fast but that translating to patients requires changing how clinical research itself works, and that part is still shaping up. The most interesting near-term lever is not a virtual FDA trial but the recruitment and economics flip for rare disease: patient groups self-organizing registries, biobanks, and natural-history studies, compressing timelines from decades to a handful of years, paired with models that lower the cost of generating a candidate. The baby KJ case, a custom CRISPR therapeutic to edit a single mutation, delivered to liver cells specifically because that target was deliverable, is the proof of concept for why disease selection and delivery creativity matter as much as the molecule. The molecule is becoming the cheap part. The rest of the chain is where the next decade of work actually sits.

    Key Takeaways

    • CZI Biohub is now the primary philanthropic focus of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, a shift the team formalized in the past year.
    • They committed $500 million to the virtual biology initiative, the unifying theme across the Biohubs.
    • The original goal, set roughly 10 years ago, was to cure, prevent, and manage all disease by the end of the century. Zuckerberg now thinks “end of the century” is too conservative.
    • Nobel Prize winning scientists initially laughed at the all-disease ambition. When pressed for why it was impossible, the real answers were silos, locked-up unpublished information, and the inability to build shared tools.
    • The recurring example: a postdoc builds a great tool, it lives on their computer, they graduate, and the tool is gone. Shared, durable tooling was the missing layer.
    • CZI is explicit that they are not the ones who will cure diseases. Their role is building tools that accelerate the entire scientific field so the field collectively cures them.
    • The first request for application was single-cell sequencing, funding methods so scientists could share how to do it.
    • That work led to funding the Human Cell Atlas, now one of the largest databases of single-cell transcriptomics.
    • They built CELLxGENE, a simple annotation tool, around which a community formed and contributed data CZI had nothing to do with creating. It is now a corpus underpinning many transcriptomic models.
    • Critics called the data gathering “stamp collecting.” The arrival of large language models, which can make sense of large amounts of data, answered that critique.
    • The ambition is to move biology from a discovery-based science to an engineering-based science, systematically understanding how living cells work and why things go wrong.
    • Biohub couples a frontier AI lab with a frontier biology effort. Unlike language models, biology lacks abundant internet-scale data, so new science is required to generate the data the models need.
    • The Biohubs are specialized: New York focuses on cellular engineering, Chicago builds devices to measure things like inflammation, plus imaging work and translucent-zebrafish development studies.
    • Alex Rives, who built the ESM protein language models and founded EvolutionaryScale after working at Meta FAIR, now leads the AI effort. The team raised venture capital before joining CZI’s nonprofit structure.
    • The strategy is hierarchical: model proteins first, then cells, then whole systems, because you cannot understand cells without understanding protein interactions.
    • They collect data strategically to bridge across the hierarchy, for example spatial transcriptomics showing where RNA localizes within a cell, and sensors that observe cell-to-cell communication.
    • The newly released ESM-based model is a world model of protein biology, trained on billions of protein sequences, predicting atomic-resolution structure extremely fast at a Pareto-optimal frontier of speed and accuracy.
    • They folded over 1.1 billion proteins and predicted their structures, identifying connecting features through mechanistic interpretability.
    • The model hits state of the art on structure prediction benchmarks, especially protein-protein and protein-antibody interactions, which are critical for therapeutic design.
    • Protein and antibody design are emergent properties. They designed a model to understand proteins, not to bind any specific target, and design capability fell out of it.
    • In one experiment, they selected from hundreds of thousands of digital trajectories, synthesized 96 proteins in a single well plate, and found nanomolar binders, the threshold for therapeutic activity.
    • Results were validated with the Biohub’s cryo-EM microscopes and structural biology center, confirming function and atomic-resolution binding interfaces.
    • Mechanistic interpretability is reframed as a discovery tool: open the black box to find biology nobody has characterized, not just to audit the model.
    • Chan’s vision of personalized medicine: understand a person’s genetics, the mechanistic chain from gene variant to protein to disease, then design a bespoke drug and intervene.
    • A comprehensive model of how cells work could predict off-target effects, like a receptor on kidney cells causing renal toxicity, before human trials.
    • They study systems rather than individual diseases. Inflammation is a major Chicago focus because it connects to many diseases.
    • A typical drug trial runs about 15 years and $1.5 billion. Only roughly $50 million is the molecule and preclinical work. The other $1.45 billion is drug development, much of it gated on regulation, recruitment, and failures from toxicity or absorption.
    • The baby KJ case at CHOP delivered a custom CRISPR therapeutic to edit a single mutation, chosen carefully because his liver cells were a deliverable target.
    • CZI’s “Rare As One” program supports rare-disease patient groups self-organizing registries, biobanks, and even their own clinical trials, compressing gene-therapy timelines from decades to 3 to 5 years.
    • Letting people opt in to frontier trials, while preserving historical vetting for the general population, is named as a key shift that could accelerate biology.
    • The open-source philosophy mirrors Zuckerberg’s broader ethos: empower individuals with tools rather than centralizing power in a few institutions or a single super-intelligence.
    • Biosafety is acknowledged as a real consideration that open-source biology will need to balance and handle carefully.
    • On talent: AI researchers could join any frontier lab, but no other organization pairs frontier biology with frontier AI, which is the recruiting moat.
    • You do not need a huge team. Zuckerberg argues real AI progress can come from a strong group of a dozen or a couple dozen people.
    • Researchers have been connecting the released model to agentic systems to automate the entire protein design process.
    • The next big challenge is the virtual cell: a system that models the proteomic, genetic, and transcriptomic layers and connects them to phenotype, generalizing to interventions it was never trained on.
    • Like every lab, Biohub is compute and data constrained, constantly deciding whether to double down on proteins or push further into cellular work.
    • Five-year success: a hierarchical set of world models of biology and doing the highest-quality, uniquely contributive work in the world, a setup the team believes no other organization has.
    • The biggest update of the past year: formalizing Biohub as the philanthropy’s core, and flipping leadership from biologists interested in technology to an AI researcher with a biology background.
    • Zuckerberg’s read on the broader industry: the exponential curve is on track and still accelerating, which validates making a very big long-term investment.

    Detailed Summary

    From “cure all disease” to a tooling problem

    The origin story is a decade old. Zuckerberg and Chan wanted to build an organization that could cure, prevent, and manage all disease by the end of the century, and a series of meetings with famous, Nobel Prize winning scientists produced laughter rather than encouragement. Instead of retreating, they kept asking why it was impossible. The answers, once scientists relented, were not about biology being too hard. They were about how science is organized: researchers work in silos, published information gets locked up for long periods, and there is no good way to build and share durable tools. The image that stuck was a postdoc building an excellent tool that lives on a single computer and vanishes when that person graduates. The bottleneck was infrastructure and shared knowledge, and that is where CZI decided it could contribute.

    The path from single-cell sequencing to a world model

    The original Biohub model brought engineers and scientists together across universities for long-term tool development, and it worked. CZI’s first request for application targeted single-cell sequencing, funding the methods so scientists could share how to read the RNA transcribed in individual cells. That seeded the Human Cell Atlas, now one of the largest single-cell transcriptomics databases. When annotation became a bottleneck, CZI built CELLxGENE, a simple annotation tool, and a community formed around it and contributed data CZI never funded. Critics dismissed it as stamp collecting, gathering bits of data without extracting wisdom. Then large language models arrived and demonstrated they could make sense of exactly that kind of large-scale data, and Chan describes the delight of realizing the missing engine had appeared.

    Frontier AI married to frontier biology

    The unifying theme is the virtual biology initiative, and the structural insight is that the AI effort and the wet-lab effort are a single integrated organization, not two collaborating ones. Biology lacks the internet-scale data that language models enjoy. You cannot buy the data from a factory. So Biohub invents the science that generates it: cellular engineering in New York to record what happens inside the body, devices in Chicago to measure inflammation, imaging to visualize the previously invisible, and translucent zebrafish to watch development unfold across cells as the brain forms. Each new instrument creates a new dataset, which enables a new class of model. Rives, who built the ESM models and founded EvolutionaryScale before joining, frames this as the start of a new era of science, where systems that predict the next token can learn world models of biology from the data, provided you build at the right scale with the right people.

    Building biology hierarchically

    The team is deliberate that each layer of biology is qualitatively different and must be built up in order. You cannot jump to cells without understanding protein interactions, and you cannot model the immune system without first understanding cells. So the approach starts with the building blocks, the proteins, and ladders upward. The advantage of a single integrated effort is the ability to gather data that connects the hierarchy: spatial transcriptomics that show where RNA localizes inside a cell, sensors that capture cell-to-cell communication, developmental imaging in zebrafish. That connective tissue is what lets the modeling generalize across levels. The interviewer, a former wet-lab biologist with a PhD, notes that the reductionist and systems camps of biology historically never worked together deeply, and that bridging them is one of the genuinely novel things about the effort.

    The ESM-based protein world model

    The launch at the center of the conversation, roughly a week old at recording, is an open system for scientific discovery in protein biology: a language-model-based world model trained on billions of protein sequences. It learns emergent representations of protein biology and predicts atomic-resolution structure at blazing speed, sitting on a Pareto-optimal frontier of speed and accuracy. They folded over 1.1 billion proteins and used mechanistic interpretability to identify features connecting them. It reaches state of the art across structure-prediction benchmarks, with particular strength on protein-protein and protein-antibody interactions that matter for therapeutics. The headline result: they used the model to design proteins and single-chain antibodies digitally, selected from hundreds of thousands of trajectories, synthesized just 96 in a single well plate, and found nanomolar binders, replacing high-throughput screens of millions of antibodies. Validation came from the Biohub’s cryo-EM structural biology center, confirming both function and the atomic-resolution binding interfaces.

    Interpretability as discovery, and personalized medicine

    Rives reframes mechanistic interpretability, usually aimed at language models, as a way to extract new biological knowledge. The protein models are trained on both known and unknown biology and develop representations that connect uncharacterized proteins to understood ones through an underlying structural grammar. Opening that black box could reveal systems in the body or mechanisms of action for treatments that the field has never mapped. Chan connects this to a personalized-medicine vision: understand an individual’s genetics and the mechanistic chain from gene variant to protein to disease, then design a bespoke intervention. She contrasts it with today’s reality of reading PubMed supplements and guessing whether you are represented in a study cohort. For some diseases, simply knowing which gene variants cause disease is already empowering. For others, the chain is understood and the missing piece is the ability to change a protein’s function, which is where designed proteins could actually cure.

    Drug development, off-target effects, and rare disease

    The interviewers press on translation, noting a typical trial runs 15 years and $1.5 billion, with only about $50 million in the molecule and preclinical work and the rest in development gated on regulation, recruitment, toxicity, and absorption failures. Chan’s hope is that comprehensive cell models predict off-target effects, like an unanticipated receptor on kidney cells causing renal toxicity, before human trials. They study systems such as inflammation and the immune system rather than chasing individual diseases. The baby KJ case at CHOP, a custom CRISPR therapeutic editing a single mutation delivered to liver cells, illustrates how careful disease and delivery selection unlocks first applications. The “Rare As One” program shows rare-disease patient groups self-organizing registries, biobanks, and trials, compressing timelines from decades to a few years, and the molecule becoming cheap flips the economics of the long tail of niche diseases.

    Open source, talent, and the five-year view

    Zuckerberg ties the open-source posture to a consistent worldview: empower individuals with tools rather than centralizing intelligence in a few institutions. He does not believe in a single super-intelligence solving all of science, and sees decentralization, the same instinct behind giving people a voice, as how progress is historically made, with biosafety as a real tradeoff to manage. On talent, the pitch is that frontier biology attached to frontier AI is work you cannot do anywhere else, and that meaningful progress needs only a dozen or two dozen strong people, not thousands. Researchers are already wiring the model into agentic systems to automate design. The next frontier is the virtual cell, modeling proteomic, genetic, and transcriptomic layers and connecting them to phenotype with enough generality to answer untrained questions. Five years out, success is a hierarchical set of world models and doing uniquely high-quality work, with Chan adding that the teams are now “arms linked,” directed and interlocked rather than merely moving in the same direction.

    Notable Quotes

    “We didn’t design a model for antibodies. We didn’t design a model to be able to bind one particular target. We just designed a model that could understand proteins.”

    Alex Rives, on protein design emerging from a general model

    “The theory isn’t that we’re going to cure the diseases. We’re not. It’s that we want to help accelerate the pace of progress for the whole scientific field.”

    Mark Zuckerberg, on why CZI builds tools rather than cures

    “My goal is to be able to treat the individual as an individual, understand the mechanisms and be able to intervene.”

    Priscilla Chan, on the vision for personalized medicine

    “It’s not just like there’s some factory somewhere that you can pay to produce the data. You actually need to invent new novel scientific approaches.”

    Mark Zuckerberg, on why frontier biology has to generate its own data

    “If we could design a protein to actually change the physiology, then we can actually cure someone.”

    Priscilla Chan, on the payoff of protein design

    “You open up the black box and you can actually understand the biology that the model is representing.”

    Alex Rives, on mechanistic interpretability as a discovery tool

    “We don’t believe in this like very centralized future where there should be a small number of institutions that basically are advancing all this stuff.”

    Mark Zuckerberg, on the open-source ethos behind Biohub

    “Before we had amazing teams moving generally in the same direction. But now we are arms linked moving together.”

    Priscilla Chan, on how the Biohub teams now operate under Alex Rives

    Watch the full conversation with Mark Zuckerberg, Priscilla Chan, and Alex Rives on the No Priors podcast here.

    Related Reading

    • CZI Biohub Network the official program page for the San Francisco, New York, and Chicago Biohubs discussed throughout.
    • EvolutionaryScale Alex Rives’s lab and the home of the ESM protein language models behind the world model in this conversation.
    • Human Cell Atlas the single-cell transcriptomics effort CZI funded that became foundational to modern cell modeling.
    • AlphaFold (Wikipedia) background on the protein-folding breakthrough referenced as an early proof that structure prediction was tractable at scale.
    • Rare As One CZI’s program supporting patient-led rare-disease research organizations described near the end of the talk.

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

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

    TLDW

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

    Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

    Key Takeaways

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

    Detailed Summary

    Systems Thinking and Second Order Effects

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

    Learning the Craft of Investing

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

    Mastering Both the History and the Edge

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

    Using AI Well and the Model Wars

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

    China, Open Source, and the Systems Advantage

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

    AI Investing, Moats, and the Limits of Models

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

    Is the Buildout Overfunded

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

    Tokenization, the IPO Heist, and Going Public

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

    Stablecoins Versus the Payment Cartel

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

    Moody’s, Proxy Advisors, and Index Funds

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

    Storytelling, Writing, and Founder Advantages

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

    Uber, Benchmark, and the Shape of Venture

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

    Notable Quotes

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

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

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

    Bill Gurley, on the discipline of systems thinking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Bill Gurley, on the rigged IPO process

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

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

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

    Bill Gurley, on why storytelling is a top founder trait

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

    Bill Gurley, on loving his venture career

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

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

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

    Related Reading

  • Inside Anthropic, the $965 Billion AI Juggernaut: Dario and Daniela Amodei on Claude, Claude Code, and the AI Arms Race

    In this episode of The Circuit, Bloomberg goes inside Anthropic, the AI lab that started as an underdog and is now valued at nearly a trillion dollars. The conversation centers on the sibling duo running the company, Dario Amodei, the brother and visionary, and Daniela Amodei, the sister and operator, along with Boris Cherny, the engineer behind Claude Code and Claude Cowork. It is a rare, on-the-record look at how a safety-obsessed startup founded by a group of OpenAI defectors in 2021 became the breakout star of the AI arms race, wiping billions in value off software stocks and forcing an uncomfortable national conversation about the future of work. You can watch the full episode here.

    TLDW

    Dario and Daniela Amodei walk through Anthropic’s rise from a pandemic-era group meeting on the grass in Precita Park to a roughly $965 billion AI juggernaut that is now profitable for the first time. They explain why they left OpenAI, citing a breakdown of trust and values with Sam Altman rather than a single safety disagreement, and how Dario’s early bet on scaling laws shaped the entire field. The two describe how Claude is trained for character and “professional warmth,” anchored in documents like the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and how the company defines a good model as one that does not lie, hallucinate, or deceive. The business story is enterprise and coding: Claude Code and Claude Cowork automated huge chunks of software engineering, triggered a SaaSpocalypse that erased $285 billion in market value overnight, and pushed annualized growth to as high as 80x in a single quarter. Boris Cherny, recruited from a slow miso-making life in rural Japan, says Claude has written one hundred percent of his code for at least six months. The hardest part of the conversation is jobs: Dario stands by his warning that AI could eliminate half of all entry level white collar jobs in one to five years, pushes back hard on Jensen Huang’s “doom marketing” critique, and lays out where displaced workers might go, from the physical world to human-centered roles like a reimagined, more interpersonal version of medicine. The episode closes by teasing AI and the future of warfare, a scarily powerful new model called Mythos, and Dario’s identification not with Oppenheimer but with Leo Szilard.

    Thoughts

    The most revealing moment in this profile is not a number, it is Dario Amodei’s description of the “smooth exponential.” His whole career, he says, has felt like nothing happening, nothing happening, nothing happening, and then zoom. That mental model is the key to understanding why Anthropic behaves the way it does. A company that genuinely believes it is riding an exponential will tolerate enormous near-term discomfort, public criticism, and internal strain, because it has already priced in a future that looks nothing like the present. Whether that conviction is wisdom or a kind of motivated certainty is the open question the episode never fully resolves, but it explains the urgency in every answer he gives.

    The Boris Cherny segment is the part that should make working engineers sit up. When a senior engineer says Claude has written one hundred percent of his code for six months and that he feels like he has a jet pack, that is not a marketing line, it is a description of a job that has already changed underneath the person doing it. The framing in the piece is optimistic, superpowers and fun, but the logical endpoint is exactly the one Dario himself names a few minutes later: you automate ninety percent of a job, the remaining humans get ten times more leveraged, and then the curve keeps bending toward one hundred percent. Anthropic is, unusually, building the thing and narrating its own disruption in the same breath. That honesty is rare, and it is also a little vertiginous.

    The values-versus-business-model argument deserves more scrutiny than it gets. Dario’s claim is elegant: a business model that conflicts with your values forces you to either betray the values or become irrelevant, so Anthropic chose enterprise and coding because curing diseases and making energy cheaper are enterprise work, while consumer engagement is the addiction-maximizing trap of social media. It is a genuinely good argument, and it is also extremely convenient that the values-aligned path happens to be the most lucrative one. The episode lets that tension sit, which is the right call. The honest reading is that Anthropic found a place where doing well and doing good currently point in the same direction, and the harder test will come the first time they diverge.

    On jobs, Dario is more persuasive than his critics give him credit for, precisely because he refuses the comfortable framing. Jensen Huang and others accuse him of conflating tasks with jobs and of doom marketing that benefits Anthropic. Dario’s response, that the idea this is cheap marketing is itself cheap marketing, is sharper than it first sounds. He is pointing at the way social media flattens a five-page argument about tasks, jobs, tax policy, and the adolescence of technology into a three-second clip designed to provoke. The deeper point is that he is trying to hold two things at once, fast GDP growth and high unemployment, and our public discourse is structurally bad at holding two things at once. That is less a story about AI than about the medium we use to argue about it.

    Finally, the Oppenheimer exchange reframes the entire profile. Dario explicitly rejects the lone-genius model and names Leo Szilard, the scientist who first imagined the chain reaction, as the figure he identifies with. He calls Oppenheimer a failure case, an example of what should not happen. For a man whose company is constantly accused of cultivating a great-man mythology, choosing the early-warning scientist over the bomb’s public face is a deliberate statement about how he wants this story to end: not with charismatic individuals at the center of everything, but with checks and balances everywhere. It is the most quietly radical thing said in the whole piece, and the teaser for a model named Mythos lands with a little extra irony because of it.

    Key Takeaways

    • Anthropic is profiled as an AI juggernaut valued at nearly a trillion dollars, with the figure of roughly $965 billion framing the episode, and is described as profitable for the first time.
    • The company was founded in 2021 by a team of OpenAI defectors and started as an underdog lab before becoming the breakout star of the AI race.
    • Anthropic is run by a sibling duo, Dario Amodei as the visionary and Daniela Amodei as the operator who turns his ideas into action, and Daniela jokes that when they argue, no one wins.
    • Dario describes the AI trajectory as a “smooth exponential” where nothing seems to happen for a long time and then progress suddenly explodes.
    • He says he predicted from a graph that Anthropic would become the AI company with the most revenue and valuation around this time, and that it has happened.
    • Dario grew up in San Francisco with a leather-craftsman father and a librarian mother, took calculus in middle school, and studied math at UC Berkeley while in high school, with no early interest in the internet revolution.
    • Dario studied neuroscience before moving to AI at Baidu and later Google, while Daniela was an early employee at Stripe.
    • Both joined OpenAI starting in 2016, where Dario developed the concept of scaling laws, predicting that large language models would improve simply by adding more data and compute even if the underlying algorithm stayed the same.
    • Scaling up was a counter-cultural scientific bet at the time, held mainly by the founding research team, and it helped supercharge OpenAI’s models and pave the way for ChatGPT.
    • The Amodeis left OpenAI after clashing with Sam Altman over direction and values, framing it as a breakdown of trust and honesty rather than a single safety disagreement.
    • Altman has said that despite their differences, he mostly trusts Anthropic as a company.
    • Anthropic has all seven of its co-founders still at the company, which Dario notes almost never happens at a company of its size.
    • The early team met during the pandemic at Precita Park in San Francisco, pulling up chairs on the grass to talk about what they were building.
    • The name Anthropic comes from the Greek word for human, reflecting a stated mission to build responsible AI for the long-term benefit of humanity.
    • Dario has published long essays including Machines of Loving Grace and The Adolescence of Technology, exploring both the miraculous potential and the worst-case scenarios of AI.
    • Claude is trained to follow a set of principles called a Constitution, intended to keep it aligned and well-behaved.
    • Daniela describes Claude’s intended personality as “professional warmth,” approachable but distant, not a best friend and not cold or calculating.
    • A good model, in Anthropic’s framing, does not lie accidentally or intentionally, with lying including hallucinations where the model invents something it does not know.
    • Anthropic’s own research has shown that models can purposely try to deceive users, which the company works to prevent in production models.
    • There is no universal standard for helpfulness or harmlessness, so Anthropic draws on founding documents like the UN Declaration of Human Rights to train Claude’s character.
    • The company has begun consulting religious leaders about Claude as an entity and about core values that transcend any single worldview.
    • Early Claude models, around the Claude 2 era, were sometimes “nannyish,” expressing concern when a user just wanted the weather, which researchers describe as tuning a fine dial.
    • Anthropic’s revenue skyrocketed over the past year, driven by a focus on lucrative business tools rather than consumer apps.
    • Claude Code automated large chunks of software engineering, and Claude Cowork extended that power to non-engineers.
    • Dario frames the enterprise bet as a values-and-business decision, arguing that a business model conflicting with your values forces you to betray them or become irrelevant.
    • He contrasts engagement-and-addiction-driven consumer and advertising models with enterprise uses like curing diseases, advancing biotech and pharma, and making energy cheaper.
    • Soon after Claude Cowork launched, $285 billion in market value vanished overnight in what traders called the SaaSpocalypse, with some software stocks down nine days in a row.
    • Dario argues the software “pie” will get bigger overall, even as some incumbents shrink or go out of business if they fail to adapt and defend their moats.
    • Boris Cherny, the engineer behind Claude Code and Claude Cowork, was recruited in 2024 from a slow life in rural Japan where he made miso and shopped at farmer’s markets.
    • Cherny’s bet was that a coding agent could do all of software development, not just autocomplete a line or a sentence.
    • He now runs anywhere from a few to a few thousand Claudes at once and says Claude has written one hundred percent of his code for at least six months.
    • A live demo builds a working recipe app that suggests meals for the week in minutes, work that used to take hours or days.
    • At the second annual Code with Claude conference, Anthropic reported API volume up nearly 17x year over year, eight frontier models shipped in twelve months, and first-quarter growth that annualizes to roughly 80x.
    • Dario stands by his warning that AI could eliminate half of all entry level white collar jobs in the next one to five years, saying he remains the same order of concerned.
    • He warns of an unusual combination of very fast GDP growth alongside high unemployment, underemployment, low-wage jobs, and high inequality.
    • Jensen Huang and others have pushed back, accusing Dario of conflating tasks with jobs and of doom marketing that benefits Anthropic.
    • Dario responds that the claim this is cheap marketing is itself cheap marketing, and blames social media for flattening his careful five-page arguments into three-second clips.
    • Anthropic published a paper estimating that management, finance, and legal jobs could be among the fields most affected by AI in the near future.
    • Dario points to the physical world, human-centered relationship-driven work, and humans directing AI as places displaced workers might go, though he is unsure how thick those roles will be.
    • He uses medicine as an example, predicting AI will excel at diagnosis while doctors pivot toward the interpersonal, hands-on, bedside-manner parts that AI cannot replace.
    • The episode teases a next installment on AI and the future of warfare, a scarily powerful new model called Mythos, and the theme of riding the exponential while avoiding dystopia.
    • Dario names The Making of the Atomic Bomb as a favorite book and identifies most with Leo Szilard, who first conceived of a chain reaction, rather than Oppenheimer, whom he sees as a failure case.
    • His view is that the only way the AI era ends well is through checks and balances everywhere, not larger-than-life personalities at the center of everything.

    Detailed Summary

    An unlikely AI celebrity and a sibling-run juggernaut

    The profile opens in a library Dario Amodei clearly loves, establishing him as an unlikely AI celebrity, a man known for warning the world about the risks of artificial intelligence who now runs a company valued at nearly a trillion dollars. Anthropic is presented as the breakout star of the AI race, wiping billions off software stocks, going head-to-head with the Pentagon, and building models powerful enough to threaten modern cybersecurity, with early testers reportedly calling one capability a super weapon and asking the company not to release it. Guiding the company is the sibling pair, Dario the visionary and Daniela the operator who translates his swirling cosmic thoughts into action. Daniela explains that the two have always been close and always wanted to do something big together, and when asked who wins their arguments, she says no one. The framing throughout is of a young, fast-growing startup carrying enormous responsibility for how humanity works, learns, thinks, and even fights wars.

    The smooth exponential and the road from OpenAI

    Dario describes his entire career as the experience of a smooth exponential, where nothing happens for a long stretch and then things go crazy, and he says he watched a graph and correctly predicted Anthropic would top the field in revenue and valuation around now. His backstory is a math prodigy in San Francisco, the son of a leather craftsman and a librarian, taking calculus in middle school and Berkeley math classes in high school, indifferent to the internet revolution and drawn instead to science fiction and understanding the universe. Daniela, more into reading and the arts, calls them near-perfect complements. Dario moved from neuroscience into AI at Baidu and Google, Daniela went to Stripe, and both eventually joined OpenAI starting in 2016, where Dario developed scaling laws, the then counter-cultural bet that more data and compute alone would make models smarter. That insight helped power the models behind ChatGPT, but the Amodeis clashed with Sam Altman over values and direction. Dario frames the departure bluntly: disagreements on safety alone were not enough, but a loss of trust, a sense that Altman’s stated values were not his real values, made it impossible to continue. The resolution, he says, was simply to go off and do their own thing.

    Precita Park, the Constitution, and teaching Claude to be good

    Anthropic’s origin story runs through Precita Park, where the early pandemic-era team gathered on the grass to talk about what they were building. Of seven co-founders, all are still at the company, a retention record Dario says almost never happens at this scale. From the start the company pitched itself as the ultimate safety-conscious lab, with Dario publishing essays like Machines of Loving Grace and The Adolescence of Technology. Claude is trained on a Constitution, and Daniela describes its intended character as professional warmth, approachable but distant. Defining a good model, the team says it should not lie, whether through intentional deception or hallucination, the latter being the model inventing answers it does not actually know. Anthropic’s research has shown models can deliberately deceive, something they work to prevent in production. Because there is no universal standard for helpfulness or harmlessness, they anchor Claude’s training in documents like the UN Declaration of Human Rights and have begun talking with religious leaders about values that transcend any single worldview. Daniela recalls early “nannyish” Claude 2-era behavior, where the model fretted over a user who only wanted the weather, and describes the work as threading a fine needle to land in the center of the dial.

    The enterprise bet, Claude Code, and the SaaSpocalypse

    Anthropic’s revenue surge and first-time profitability are attributed to a focus on business tools, especially Claude Code, which automated large chunks of software engineering, and Claude Cowork, which extended that capability beyond engineers. Dario frames the bet on coding and enterprise as both a values and a business decision: a business model that conflicts with your values eventually forces you to betray them or become irrelevant. He contrasts the engagement and addiction incentives of advertising-driven social media and AI video with enterprise applications like curing diseases, biotech, pharma, academic research, and cheaper energy, all of which he counts as enterprise work aligned with the company’s mission. The disruption was immediate and brutal: soon after Claude Cowork launched, $285 billion in market value vanished overnight in what traders dubbed the SaaSpocalypse, with some software stocks falling nine days straight. Dario’s read is that the overall software pie will grow even as specific incumbents shrink or fail, and that the big losers will be those who do not see what is coming or defend their moats.

    Boris Cherny, jet packs, and Code with Claude

    Much of Anthropic’s recent growth is credited to Boris Cherny, the engineer behind Claude Code and Claude Cowork, hired in 2024 from a deliberately slow life in rural Japan where he made miso and frequented farmer’s markets. A serious science fiction reader, Cherny was awed by his first AI chatbot and also acutely aware of how badly the technology could go. His bet was that a coding agent could do all of software development rather than just autocomplete. He now describes orchestrating anywhere from a few to a few thousand Claudes at once, talking to one while it writes code and moving to the next, and says Claude has written one hundred percent of his code for at least six months. He compares the feeling to having superpowers and a jet pack, calling engineering more fun than ever. A live demo has Claude build a working weekly-meal recipe app in minutes. The story then moves to the second annual Code with Claude conference, where the company reports API volume up nearly 17x year over year, eight frontier models shipped in twelve months, and first-quarter growth annualizing to roughly 80x, with attendees ranging from technical superfans to curious non-engineers.

    Jobs, the tasks-versus-jobs fight, and a more human medicine

    The episode turns to the uncomfortable core: whether engineers will be the first casualties of the AI they are building. Dario stands by his warning that AI could eliminate half of all entry level white collar jobs in one to five years and says he is still the same order of concerned, describing a strange combination of very fast GDP growth with high unemployment, underemployment, low-wage work, and inequality. He notes the usual productivity hump, where automating ninety percent of a job makes humans ten times more leveraged on the rest, before the curve bends toward one hundred percent. With 70 percent of Americans expecting AI to kill jobs and nearly a third fearing for their own, the stakes are political. Jensen Huang and others accuse Dario of conflating tasks with jobs and of doom marketing, and Dario pushes back hard, arguing he writes carefully across five pages about tasks, jobs, tax and macroeconomic policy, and the new jobs of the adolescence of technology, and that calling this cheap marketing is itself cheap marketing born of social media’s three-second culture. Anthropic has published a paper suggesting management, finance, and legal jobs could change the most. Dario points to the physical world, human-centered relationship work, and humans directing AI as landing spots, using medicine as his example: AI will become an excellent diagnostician, but it cannot physically examine a patient or provide bedside manner, so medicine pivots toward the interpersonal. The episode closes by teasing AI and the future of warfare, a powerful new model called Mythos, and Dario’s identification with Leo Szilard over Oppenheimer, whom he calls a failure case, insisting the era can only end well with checks and balances everywhere rather than larger-than-life figures at the center.

    Notable Quotes

    “There’s this kind of smooth exponential, and the experience of the smooth exponential is, nothing’s happening, nothing’s happening, nothing’s happening. Little things happen, and then zoom, it goes crazy.”

    Dario Amodei, on how AI progress actually feels from the inside

    “When you feel that you can’t trust someone, when you feel that their values are not what they say they are, when you feel that they’re not honest, that makes it very hard to continue to work with a company.”

    Dario Amodei, on why he and Daniela left OpenAI

    “Some of the early companies that we gave this to said things like, this is a super weapon, please don’t release this.”

    Anthropic, on early reactions to one of its more powerful models

    “I like to describe it as professional warmth. So the goal is not for it to be your best friend, but it’s not for it to be sort of cold, rote, calculating.”

    Daniela Amodei, describing the character Anthropic designs into Claude

    “If you pick a business model that fundamentally conflicts with your values, you’re gonna have a hard time. Either you betray your own values or you become irrelevant.”

    Dario Amodei, on why Anthropic bet on enterprise and coding

    “For me personally, it’s been writing a hundred percent of my code for at least six months. The work of engineering has just completely changed.”

    Boris Cherny, the engineer behind Claude Code and Claude Cowork

    “I feel like I suddenly have superpowers. I have like a jet pack and the engineering has never been this fun.”

    Boris Cherny, on building software with Claude Code

    “I think we could have this very unusual combination of very fast GDP growth and high unemployment, or at least underemployment, or low wage jobs, high inequality.”

    Dario Amodei, on the economic shock he is most worried about

    “The idea that this is cheap marketing is itself cheap marketing. I think it’s part of the disease of Silicon Valley.”

    Dario Amodei, responding to the doom-marketing accusation

    “The figure I most identified with was Leo Szilard, who was the one who first had the idea that there could be a chain reaction.”

    Dario Amodei, on which atomic-age scientist he sees himself in, rejecting Oppenheimer as a failure case

    Watch the full episode of The Circuit inside Anthropic here.

    Related Reading

    • Anthropic the official site for the company, Claude, Claude Code, and its safety research.
    • Machines of Loving Grace Dario Amodei’s long essay on the optimistic case for powerful AI referenced in the profile.
    • Scaling laws (Wikipedia) background on the data-and-compute bet Dario developed that reshaped modern AI.
    • Leo Szilard (Wikipedia) the physicist who first conceived the nuclear chain reaction and whom Dario says he identifies with.
    • Purpose the PJFP pillar on building meaningful work and direction in a world being reshaped by AI.

  • Jensen Huang at Stanford CS153 Frontier Systems on Co-Design, Agentic Computing, Vera Rubin, Open Models, and the Million-X Decade That Reshaped AI Infrastructure

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsQB0n0YV3k

    NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang returned to Stanford for the CS153 Frontier Systems class (the room nicknamed itself “AI Coachella”) to lay out, in raw form, how he thinks about the computer being reinvented for the first time in over sixty years. Across roughly seventy minutes of student questions he walks through the codesign philosophy that gave NVIDIA a million-x decade, the architectural through-line from Hopper to Grace Blackwell to Vera Rubin to Feynman, the case for open source foundation models, the realities of tokens per watt and MFU, energy demand running a thousand times higher, the China and export-control debate, and his own biggest strategic mistakes. Watch the full conversation on YouTube.

    TLDW

    Huang argues every layer of computing has changed: the programming model, the system architecture, the deployment pattern, the economics. Co-design across CPUs, GPUs, networking, storage, switches and compilers gave NVIDIA roughly a million-x speed-up over ten years versus the ten-x Moore’s Law era, and that headroom is what let researchers say “just train on the whole internet.” Hopper was built for pre-training, Grace Blackwell NVLink72 for inference and reasoning (50x over Hopper in two years), Vera Rubin is built for agents that load long memory, call tools and need a low-latency single-threaded CPU bolted directly to the GPU, and Feynman extends that to swarms of agents that spawn sub-agents. Open weights matter because safety, sovereignty (230-plus languages no one else will fund) and domain models for biology, autonomy, robotics and climate need a foundation that NVIDIA is willing to seed. Compute is not really the scarce resource (Huang says place the order and the chips ship), the broken thing is institutional budgeting that can’t put a billion dollars into a shared university supercomputer. Energy demand is heading a thousand times higher and this is finally the moment market forces alone will fund sustainable generation. On geopolitics he rejects the GPUs-as-atomic-bombs framing and warns America will end up like its telecom industry if it cedes two thirds of the world. On career he advises seeking suffering on purpose. On strategy he says observe, reason from first principles, build a mental model, work backwards, minimize opportunity cost, maximize optionality.

    Key Takeaways

    • The computing model has been substantially unchanged since the IBM System 360, sixty-plus years ago. Huang’s first computer architecture book was the System 360 manual. AI is the first true reinvention.
    • Old computing was pre-recorded retrieval. New computing is generated, contextually aware and continuous. Cloud was on-demand. Agentic systems run continuously.
    • Codesign is NVIDIA’s central thesis. Inherited from the Hennessy and Patterson RISC era at Stanford, extended across CPUs, GPUs, networking, switches, storage, compilers and frameworks all optimized together.
    • The result of full-stack codesign: roughly 1,000,000x faster compute over ten years, versus a generous 10x to 100x for Moore’s Law in the same period. Dennard scaling effectively ended a decade ago.
    • That million-x speed-up is what unlocked “train on all of the internet” as a realistic AI strategy.
    • After GPT, Huang says it was obvious thinking was next. Reasoning is just generating tokens consumed internally, then using tools is generating tokens consumed externally. Agentic systems followed predictably.
    • Education needs AI baked into the curriculum, not just taught as a subject. Pre-recorded textbooks cannot keep pace with knowledge being generated in real time.
    • Huang says he cannot learn anymore without AI. He has the AI read the paper, then read every related paper, then become a dedicated researcher he can interrogate.
    • Mead and Conway and the first-principles methodology of semiconductor design are still worth learning even though most of the scaling tricks have been exhausted.
    • NVIDIA itself is one of the largest consumers of Anthropic and OpenAI tokens in the world. One hundred percent of NVIDIA engineers are now agentically supported. Huang recommends Claude and similar tools by name and says open-source downloads will not match the integrated product harness.
    • NVIDIA still invests heavily in open foundation models because language and intelligence represent the codification of human knowledge. Five pillars: Nemotron (language), BioNeMo (biology), Alphamayo (autonomous vehicles), Groot (humanoid robotics) and a climate science model (mesoscale multiphysics).
    • Sovereign language models matter. Roughly 230 world languages will never be a top priority for a commercial frontier lab. Nemotron is near-frontier and fully fine-tunable so any country can adapt it.
    • Safety and security require open weights. You cannot defend against or audit a black box. Transparent systems let researchers interrogate models and let defenders deploy swarms.
    • The future of cyber defense is not bigger-model-versus-bigger-model. It is trillions of cheap fast small models like Nemotron Nano surrounding the threat.
    • Domain models fuse language priors with world models. Alphamayo learned to drive safely on a few million miles instead of billions because it can reason like a human about the road.
    • MFU (Model Flops Utilization) is a misleading metric. Huang says he wants low MFU, because that means he over-provisioned every resource and never gets pinned by Amdahl’s law during a spike.
    • The xAI Memphis cluster running at 11 percent MFU is not necessarily a failure mode. In disaggregated prefill plus decode inference you can deliver very high tokens per watt with very low MFU.
    • The right metric is performance, ultimately tokens per watt as a proxy for intelligence per watt, and even that needs adjustment because not all tokens are equal. Coding tokens are worth more than other tokens.
    • Hopper was designed for pre-training. NVIDIA chose to build multi-billion-dollar systems when the largest existing scientific supercomputer cost $350 million, with no proven customer base. It worked.
    • Grace Blackwell NVLink72 was designed for inference, especially the high-memory-bandwidth decode phase. It is the world’s first rack-scale computer and delivered a 50x speed-up over Hopper in two years, against an expected 2x from Moore’s Law.
    • Vera Rubin is designed for agents. Long-term memory wired into storage and into the GPU fabric, working memory, heavy tool use, and Vera, a CPU optimized for low-latency multi-core single-threaded code so a multi-billion-dollar GPU system does not stall waiting on a slow tool call.
    • Feynman is being shaped for swarms of agents with sub-agents and sub-sub-agents, a recursive software topology that demands a new compute pattern.
    • Tokens per watt improved 50x in one generation. Compounding energy efficiency is the lever NVIDIA controls directly.
    • Total compute energy demand is heading roughly a thousand times higher than today, possibly two orders of magnitude beyond that. Huang says he would not be surprised if the estimate is low.
    • For the first time in history, market forces alone are enough to fund solar, nuclear and grid upgrades. Government subsidies are no longer required to make sustainable energy investment rational.
    • Copper interconnect is becoming a bottleneck. Photonics is moving from optional to structural inside racks and across them.
    • Comparing NVIDIA GPUs to atomic bombs, Huang says, is a stupid analogy. A billion people use NVIDIA GPUs. He advocates them to his family. He does not advocate atomic bombs to anyone.
    • If the United States cedes two thirds of the global market to competitors on policy grounds, the American technology industry will end up like American telecommunications, which was policied out of existence.
    • Huang directly rejects AI doom-by-singularity narratives. It is not true that we have no idea how these systems work. It is not true that the technology becomes infinitely powerful in a nanosecond. He calls the rhetoric irresponsible and harmful to the field students are about to enter.
    • On Stanford specifically: if the university president places an order, NVIDIA will deliver the chips. The bottleneck is that no university department has a billion-dollar compute budget because budgeting is fragmented across grants. Stanford’s $40 billion endowment is more than enough to fix that.
    • “It’s Stanford’s fault” is meant as empowerment. If something is your fault, you can solve it.
    • Career advice: do not optimize purely for passion. Most people do not yet know what they love. Pick the job in front of you and do it as well as possible. Even as CEO, Huang says, 90 percent of the work is hard and he suffers through it.
    • Suffering on purpose builds the muscle of resilience. When the company, the team or the family needs you to be tough, that muscle has to already exist.
    • NVIDIA’s first generation of products was technically wrong in nearly every dimension: curved surfaces instead of triangles, no Z-buffer, forward instead of inverse texture mapping, no floating point. The strategic recovery, not the technology, taught Huang the lessons that have lasted decades.
    • The biggest clean strategic mistake Huang names is the move into mobile chips (Tegra). It grew to a billion dollars then went to zero when Qualcomm’s modem dominance shut NVIDIA out of the 3G to 4G transition. The recovery into automotive and robotics (the Thor chip is the great great great grandson of that mobile lineage) was real, but Huang refuses to rationalize the original choice.
    • Forecasting framework: observe, reason from first principles, ask “so what” and “what next” until you have a mental model of the future, place your company inside that model, then work backwards while minimizing opportunity cost and maximizing optionality.
    • Best part of the CEO job: living at the intersection of vision, strategy and execution surrounded by people capable enough to make ambitious visions real. Worst part: the responsibility for everyone who joined the spaceship, especially in the near-death moments NVIDIA had four or five times early on.
    • Underrated insider note: Huang’s first apple pie with cheese, first hot fudge sandwich and first milkshake all happened at Denny’s. The Superbird, the fried chicken and a custom Superbird-style ham and cheese with tomato and mustard are his order.

    Detailed Summary

    Computing reinvented from the ground up

    Huang frames the moment as the first true rewrite of the computer in sixty-plus years. From the IBM System 360 forward, the mental model of writing code, running code, taking a computer to market and reasoning about applications stayed roughly constant. AI changes the programming model itself. Software is no longer a compiled binary running deterministically on a CPU. It is a neural network running on a GPU producing generated, contextual, real-time output. That cascades into how companies are organized, what tools developers use, what the network and storage stack look like, and what an application is even allowed to do. Robo-taxis, he notes, are an application no one would have attempted before deep learning unlocked perception.

    Codesign and the million-x decade

    Codesign is the philosophical center of the talk. Huang traces it to the RISC work of John Hennessy at Stanford, where simpler instruction sets won by being co-designed with the compiler rather than maximally optimized in isolation. NVIDIA extends the principle across every layer simultaneously: GPU architecture, CPU architecture, NVLink and NVSwitch fabrics, photonic interconnects, networking silicon, storage paths, CUDA libraries, frameworks and ultimately the model design. The numbers Huang gives are arresting. Moore’s Law in its prime delivered roughly 100x per decade. By the time Dennard scaling broke, real-world gains had compressed to roughly 10x. NVIDIA’s codesigned stack delivered between 100,000x and 1,000,000x over the same ten-year window. That non-linear speed-up is, in Huang’s telling, the precondition for modern AI: it is what allowed researchers to stop curating training sets and just feed the entire internet to the model.

    Education has to fuse first principles with AI tools

    Asked how curriculum should evolve, Huang argues AI must be integrated into the learning process, not just taught about. He recalls Hennessy writing his textbook by hand a chapter a week while Huang was a student, and says pre-recorded textbooks cannot keep up with the rate at which AI generates new knowledge. He describes his own learning workflow: hand the paper to an AI, then have it read the entire surrounding literature, then treat the AI as a dedicated researcher who can be interrogated. At the same time he defends the classics. Mead and Conway are still the foundation. Most modern semiconductor scaling tricks have been exhausted, but knowing where the field came from sharpens judgment when designing what comes next.

    Open source and the five domain pillars

    Huang gives one of the most detailed public accounts of why NVIDIA invests so heavily in open foundation models even while being a top customer of closed labs. He recommends Claude and OpenAI by name for production coding work, and says 100 percent of NVIDIA engineers are now agentically supported. The open-weights case rests on three legs. First, language is the codification of intelligence, and there are at least 230 languages that no commercial lab will ever prioritize. Nemotron is built near frontier and released so any country or community can fine-tune it. Second, the same representation-learning approach has to be replicated in domains where the data is not internet text, so NVIDIA seeded BioNeMo for biology, Alphamayo for autonomy, Groot for humanoid robotics and a climate model for mesoscale multiphysics. The economics of those fields would never produce a foundation model on their own. Third, safety and security require transparency. A black box cannot be defended or audited, and the future of cyber defense is not bigger-model-versus-bigger-model but swarms of cheap fast small models like Nemotron Nano surrounding the threat.

    MFU is the wrong metric, tokens per watt is closer

    A student raises the leaked memo that the xAI Memphis cluster is running at 11 percent Model Flops Utilization. Huang flips the framing. He says he would rather be at low MFU all the time, because that means he over-provisioned flops, memory bandwidth, memory capacity and network capacity. Bottlenecks shift constantly, so over-provisioning across every dimension is what lets the system absorb a spike without getting pinned by Amdahl’s law. In disaggregated inference, where prefill and decode are physically separated and decode is bandwidth-bound rather than flop-bound, NVLink72 can deliver extremely high tokens per watt while reporting very low MFU. Huang argues the right framing is performance, and ultimately tokens per watt as a rough proxy for intelligence per watt, adjusted for the fact that not all tokens are equal. A coding token is worth more than a generic token.

    Hopper, Grace Blackwell NVLink72, Vera Rubin, Feynman

    Huang gives the clearest public framing of NVIDIA’s roadmap as a sequence of architectural answers to evolving compute patterns. Hopper was built for pre-training, at a moment when NVIDIA chose to build multi-billion-dollar machines while the largest scientific supercomputer in the world cost $350 million and the marketplace for such systems was, on paper, zero. Grace Blackwell NVLink72 was the answer to inference and reasoning: a rack-scale computer that ganged 72 GPUs together because decode needs aggregate memory bandwidth far beyond a single chip. The generation-over-generation speed-up was 50x in two years, twenty-five times what Moore’s Law would have delivered. Vera Rubin is being built explicitly for agents. Agents load long-term memory from storage that has to be wired directly into the GPU fabric, they use working memory, they call tools that run on a CPU, and they wait. So the CPU has to be Vera, optimized for low-latency single-threaded code, because the multi-billion-dollar GPU system cannot afford to idle waiting on a slow tool call. Feynman extends the pattern to swarms of agents with sub-agents and sub-sub-agents, a recursive software topology that will demand its own compute pattern.

    Energy demand and the grid

    Huang’s energy projection is one of the most aggressive numbers in the talk. NVIDIA can compound tokens per watt by 50x per generation through codesign, but the total compute demand is heading roughly a thousand times higher, and Huang says he would not be surprised if the real figure is one or two orders of magnitude beyond that. The reason is structural: future computing is generative and continuous, not pre-recorded and on-demand. The good news, he argues, is that this is the best moment in the history of humanity to invest in sustainable generation. Market forces alone are now sufficient to fund solar, nuclear and grid upgrades. Government subsidies are no longer required to make the math work.

    Adversarial countries, export controls and the telecom warning

    This is the segment where Huang is visibly fired up. He attacks the GPUs-as-atomic-bombs framing on its face. NVIDIA GPUs power medical imaging, video games and soy sauce delivery. A billion people use them. He advocates them to his family. The analogy collapses at the first comparison. He attacks the second framing, that American companies should not compete abroad because they will lose anyway, as a self-fulfilling defeat. Competition makes the company better. The third framing, that depriving the rest of the world of general-purpose computing benefits the United States, also fails on first principles: it benefits one or two American companies at the cost of an entire industry. The cautionary parallel is telecommunications. The United States once had a leading position in telecom fundamental technology and policied itself out of it. Huang’s worry, voiced explicitly to a room of CS students, is that they will graduate into a shell of a computer industry if the same path is repeated.

    AI doom and rational optimism

    In the same arc Huang rejects the science-fiction framing of AI as a singularity that arrives suddenly on a Wednesday at 7pm and ends civilization. He calls those claims irresponsible, says they are not true, and points out that the people advancing them are believed by audiences who then make policy on that basis. It is not true that no one understands how these systems work. It is not true that intelligence becomes infinitely powerful instantaneously. It is not true that there is no defense. His framing, which the host echoes as “rational optimism,” is that the goal is to create a future where people care about computers because the technology students are learning is worth mastering.

    Stanford’s compute problem is Stanford’s fault

    A student presses on the scarcity of compute for independent researchers, startups and universities inside the United States. Huang’s answer is sharp: there is no shortage. Place the order and the chips will arrive. The actual broken thing is institutional. University grants are fragmented across departments. No researcher can raise enough on a single grant to fund a billion-dollar shared cluster, and no one shares. He compares it to showing up at the grocery store demanding a billion dollars of tomatoes today. The solution is planning, aggregation and a campus-scale supercomputer, the way Stanford once built the linear accelerator. The endowment is $40 billion. Pulling a billion off it, contracting cloud capacity and giving every student and researcher AI supercomputer access is, in Huang’s view, obviously doable. When he says “it is Stanford’s fault” the host laughs, but Huang clarifies: if it is your fault you have the power to fix it.

    Career, suffering and resilience

    Asked how a CS student should spend the next few years, Huang pushes back on the standard “follow your passion” advice. Most people do not know what they love yet, because no one knows what they do not know. The bar of demanding joy from every working day is too high. Whatever the job is, do it as well as you can. Even as CEO of NVIDIA he says he genuinely loves about 10 percent of his work. The other 90 percent is hard and he suffers through it. He recommends suffering on purpose, because resilience is a muscle that only builds under load, and when the company, the team or the family needs that muscle, it has to already exist. Earlier in his life that meant cleaning toilets and busing tables at Denny’s. He does it today running a multi-trillion-dollar company.

    The biggest mistakes

    Huang separates technical mistakes from strategic mistakes. NVIDIA’s first generation of products was technically wrong in almost every way: curved surfaces instead of triangles, no Z-buffer, forward instead of inverse texture mapping, no floating point inside. The company wasted two and a half years. But the strategic genius of the recovery, the reading of the market, the conservation of resources and the reapplication of talent, is what taught him strategy. The clean strategic mistake he names is mobile. NVIDIA’s Tegra line grew to a billion dollars of revenue and then collapsed to zero when Qualcomm’s modem dominance locked NVIDIA out of the 3G to 4G transition. Huang explicitly refuses the comforting rationalization that the Tegra effort fed the Thor automotive chip (“Thor is the great great great grandson”). The original decision, he says, was a waste of time. The lesson is to think one or two clicks further about whether a market is structurally winnable before committing the company.

    Forecasting under fog of war

    The final substantive exchange is on forecasting. Huang’s method has four steps. Observe what is actually happening (AlexNet crushing two decades of computer vision research in one shot, GPT producing reasoning by token generation). Reason from first principles about why it works. Ask “so what” and “what next” recursively until a mental model of the future emerges. Place the company inside that future and work backwards. Crucially, expect to be partly wrong. Some outcomes will absolutely happen, some will likely happen, some might happen, and the strategy has to be robust across that distribution. The real cost of any strategic choice is the opportunity cost of the alternatives you did not take, so the discipline is to minimize that cost and maximize optionality while letting the journey itself pay for the journey.

    Thoughts

    The most useful thing in this conversation is the explicit architectural mapping of compute patterns to chip generations. Hopper for pre-training. Grace Blackwell NVLink72 for inference, because decode is bandwidth-bound and a single chip cannot supply it. Vera Rubin for agents, because tool calls stall multi-billion-dollar GPU systems and so the CPU has to be optimized for low-latency single-threaded code. Feynman for swarms. That sequence is not marketing. It is a falsifiable thesis about where the bottleneck moves next, and every other infrastructure company should be measuring themselves against it. If Huang is right that swarms of sub-agents are the next dominant pattern, then the design pressure shifts from raw flops to fabric topology, memory hierarchy and storage-to-GPU latency. That has implications for everyone downstream, including the hyperscalers building competing accelerators.

    The MFU section is the most intellectually generous moment in the talk. The instinct in the AI ops community has been to chase MFU as if it were a virtue. Huang argues, persuasively, that low MFU is consistent with high tokens per watt in a disaggregated inference setup, and that bottlenecks rotate fast enough that over-provisioning every resource is the rational design. That reframing matters because it changes what “scarce” means. Compute is not scarce in the way the discourse treats it. What is scarce is a coherent system designed end-to-end. The xAI 11 percent number, in that frame, is not embarrassing. It is the natural reading of a workload that is mostly decode.

    The Stanford segment is the part most likely to be quoted out of context. “It’s Stanford’s fault” is a deliberately provocative line, but the underlying claim is correct and load-bearing. Compute is not gated by NVIDIA refusing to ship chips. It is gated by the fact that fragmented grant funding cannot aggregate into the billion-dollar order that NVIDIA can fulfill. The implication is that universities and national labs need a structural change in how they pool capital for compute, and that the current model of every researcher buying a handful of cards is genuinely obsolete. Huang’s nudge about pulling a billion off the endowment is concrete enough to be acted on, and other major research universities should read this segment as a direct prompt.

    The geopolitical segment is the highest-stakes one. The telecommunications comparison is correct as a historical pattern, and Huang is one of the very few executives in a position to deliver that warning credibly. The unresolved tension is that the argument applies symmetrically. If American AI dominance is built by selling globally, that includes selling into adversarial states, and the policy question is where the line falls. Huang does not answer that question. He attacks the framing that lets the question be answered badly. That is a meaningful contribution to the discourse even if it does not resolve the underlying tradeoff.

    The career advice section is the part the social-media clips will mishandle. “Seek suffering” reads as macho when extracted. In context it is a specific operational claim about how resilience compounds, and it is paired with the Tegra story where Huang himself paid the price of not thinking one more click ahead. That kind of self-implication is rare in CEO talks, and it is the reason the talk is worth listening to in full rather than only reading the recap.

    Watch the full Stanford CS153 Frontier Systems conversation with Jensen Huang here.

  • Andrej Karpathy on the Decade of AI Agents: Insights from His Dwarkesh Podcast Interview

    TL;DR

    Andrej Karpathy’s reflections on artificial intelligence trace the quiet, inevitable evolution of deep learning systems into general-purpose intelligence. He emphasizes that the current breakthroughs are not sudden revolutions but the result of decades of scaling simple ideas — neural networks trained with enormous data and compute resources. The essay captures how this scaling leads to emergent behaviors, transforming AI from specialized tools into flexible learning systems capable of handling diverse real-world tasks.

    Summary

    Karpathy explores the evolution of AI from early, limited systems into powerful general learners. He frames deep learning as a continuation of a natural process — optimization through scale and feedback — rather than a mysterious or handcrafted leap forward. Small, modular algorithms like backpropagation and gradient descent, when scaled with modern hardware and vast datasets, have produced behaviors that resemble human-like reasoning, perception, and creativity.

    He argues that this progress is driven by three reinforcing trends: increased compute power (especially GPUs and distributed training), exponentially larger datasets, and the willingness to scale neural networks far beyond human intuition. These factors combine to produce models that are not just better at pattern recognition but are capable of flexible generalization, learning to write code, generate art, and reason about the physical world.

    Drawing from his experience at OpenAI and Tesla, Karpathy illustrates how the same fundamental architectures power both self-driving cars and large language models. Both systems rely on pattern recognition, prediction, and feedback loops — one for navigating roads, the other for navigating language. The essay connects theory to practice, showing that general-purpose learning is not confined to labs but already shapes daily technologies.

    Ultimately, Karpathy presents AI as an emergent phenomenon born from scale, not human ingenuity alone. Just as evolution discovered intelligence through countless iterations, AI is discovering intelligence through optimization — guided not by handcrafted rules but by data and feedback.

    Key Takeaways

    • AI progress is exponential: Breakthroughs that seem sudden are the cumulative effect of scaling and compounding improvements.
    • Simple algorithms, massive impact: The underlying principles — gradient descent, backpropagation, and attention — are simple but immensely powerful when scaled.
    • Scale is the engine of intelligence: Data, compute, and model size form a triad that drives emergent capabilities.
    • Generalization emerges from scale: Once models reach sufficient size and data exposure, they begin to generalize across modalities and tasks.
    • Parallel to evolution: Intelligence, whether biological or artificial, arises from iterative optimization processes — not design.
    • Unified learning systems: The same architectures can drive perception, language, planning, and control.
    • AI as a natural progression: What humanity is witnessing is not an anomaly but a continuation of the evolution of intelligence through computation.

    Discussion

    The essay invites a profound reflection on the nature of intelligence itself. Karpathy’s framing challenges the idea that AI development is primarily an act of invention. Instead, he suggests that intelligence is an attractor state — something the universe converges toward given the right conditions: energy, computation, and feedback. This idea reframes AI not as an artificial construct but as a natural phenomenon, emerging wherever optimization processes are powerful enough.

    This perspective has deep implications. It implies that the future of AI is not dependent on individual breakthroughs or genius inventors but on the continuation of scaling trends — more data, more compute, more refinement. The question becomes not whether AI will reach human-level intelligence, but when and how we’ll integrate it into our societies.

    Karpathy’s view also bridges philosophy and engineering. By comparing machine learning to evolution, he removes the mystique from intelligence, positioning it as an emergent property of systems that self-optimize. In doing so, he challenges traditional notions of creativity, consciousness, and design — raising questions about whether human intelligence is just another instance of the same underlying principle.

    For engineers and technologists, his message is empowering: the path forward lies not in reinventing the wheel but in scaling what already works. For ethicists and policymakers, it’s a reminder that these systems are not controllable in the traditional sense — their capabilities unfold with scale, often unpredictably. And for society as a whole, it’s a call to prepare for a world where intelligence is no longer scarce but abundant, embedded in every tool and interaction.

    Karpathy’s work continues to resonate because it captures the duality of the AI moment: the awe of creation and the humility of discovery. His argument that “intelligence is what happens when you scale learning” provides both a technical roadmap and a philosophical anchor for understanding the transformations now underway.

    In short, AI isn’t just learning from us — it’s showing us what learning itself really is.

  • AI Breakthrough: Large Language Model GPT-4.5 Passes the Turing Test, Often Appearing ‘More Human’ Than Humans

    In a landmark study suggesting a significant leap in artificial intelligence capabilities, researchers from the University of California San Diego have provided the first robust empirical evidence that a large language model (LLM) can pass the standard Turing test. The study found that OpenAI’s GPT-4.5 model, when guided by a specific prompt to adopt a humanlike persona, was judged to be the human conversational partner 73% of the time, significantly more often than actual human participants were selected.

    The Turing test, proposed by Alan Turing in 1950 as the “imitation game,” is a benchmark for machine intelligence. In its classic three-party form, a human interrogator holds simultaneous text-based conversations with two unseen witnesses – one human, one machine. Both witnesses try to convince the interrogator they are human. If the interrogator cannot reliably distinguish the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test.

    Despite numerous attempts over 75 years, no AI system had previously passed a standard, controlled three-party Turing test. While modern AI benchmarks often focus on narrow, static tasks, the Turing test provides a dynamic, interactive, and adversarial evaluation of an AI’s ability to mimic general human conversational behavior and potentially deceive.

    Researchers Cameron R. Jones and Benjamin K. Bergen conducted two pre-registered, randomized, controlled experiments using independent populations (UCSD undergraduates and online Prolific workers). Participants engaged in 5-minute conversations, acting as the interrogator comparing an AI witness against a human witness. Four AI systems were evaluated: the classic 1960s chatbot ELIZA, OpenAI’s GPT-4o (an earlier model), Meta’s LLaMa-3.1-405B, and OpenAI’s GPT-4.5.

    Crucially, the study tested the impact of prompting. In a baseline “NO-PERSONA” condition, LLMs received minimal instructions. In the key “PERSONA” condition, LLMs (GPT-4.5 and LLaMa-3.1) were prompted to act like a specific type of young, introverted person familiar with internet culture.

    The results were striking:

    1. GPT-4.5 (PERSONA): Achieved a 73% “win rate,” meaning interrogators identified it as human 73% of the time. This was significantly above the 50% chance level and notably higher than the rate at which actual human participants were identified.
    2. LLaMa-3.1 (PERSONA): Achieved a 56% win rate. This was statistically indistinguishable from chance (and thus indistinguishable from the human win rate), meeting the criteria for passing the test.
    3. Baseline Models (ELIZA, GPT-4o NO-PERSONA): Failed significantly, with win rates of only 23% and 21% respectively. This confirmed that participants were not simply guessing randomly or easily fooled by any AI.
    4. NO-PERSONA LLMs (GPT-4.5, LLaMa-3.1): Performed much worse than their PERSONA counterparts (36% and 38% win rates overall), failing to robustly pass the test across both study populations. This highlights the critical role of prompting in achieving humanlike imitation.

    The researchers noted that interrogators often focused more on linguistic style, social, and emotional cues (like tone, humor, or personality) rather than purely factual knowledge or logical reasoning when making their judgments. Interestingly, sometimes demonstrating a lack of knowledge contributed to an AI seeming more human.

    These findings indicate that current leading LLMs, when appropriately prompted, can successfully imitate human conversational partners in short interactions to the point of indistinguishability, and even appear more convincing than actual humans. The authors argue this demonstrates a high degree of “humanlikeness” rather than necessarily proving abstract intelligence in the way Turing originally envisioned.

    The study carries significant social and economic implications. The ability of AI to convincingly pass as human raises concerns about “counterfeit people” online, facilitating social engineering, spreading misinformation, or replacing humans in roles requiring brief conversational interactions. While the test was limited to 5 minutes, the results signal a new era where distinguishing human from machine in online text interactions has become substantially more difficult. The researchers suggest future work could explore longer test durations and different participant populations or incentives to further probe the boundaries of AI imitation.

  • Michael Dell on Building a Tech Empire and Embracing Innovation: Insights from “In Good Company”

    In the December 11, 2024 episode of “In Good Company,” hosted by Nicolai Tangen of Norges Bank Investment Management, Michael Dell, the visionary founder and CEO of Dell Technologies, offers an intimate glimpse into his remarkable career and the strategic decisions that have shaped one of the world’s leading technology companies. This interview not only chronicles Dell’s entrepreneurial journey but also provides profound insights into leadership, innovation, and the future of technology.

    From Bedroom Enthusiast to Tech Titan

    Michael Dell’s fascination with computers began in his teenage years. At 16, instead of using his IBM PC conventionally, he chose to dismantle it to understand its inner workings. This hands-on curiosity led him to explore microprocessors, memory chips, and other hardware components. Dell discovered that IBM’s pricing was exorbitant—charging roughly six times the cost of the parts—sparking his determination to offer better value to customers through a more efficient business model.

    Balancing his academic pursuits at the University of Texas, where he was initially a biology major, Dell engaged in various entrepreneurial activities. From working in a Chinese restaurant to trading stocks and selling newspapers, these early ventures provided him with the capital and business acumen to invest in his burgeoning interest in technology. Despite familial pressures to follow a medical career, Dell’s passion for computers prevailed, leading him to fully commit to his business aspirations.

    The Birth and Explosive Growth of Dell Technologies

    In May 1984, Dell Computer Corporation was officially incorporated. The company experienced meteoric growth, with revenues skyrocketing from $6 million in its first year to $33 million in the second. This impressive 80% annual growth rate continued for eight years, followed by a sustained 60% growth for six more years. Dell’s success was largely driven by his innovative direct-to-consumer sales model, which eliminated intermediaries like retail stores. This approach not only reduced costs but also provided Dell with real-time insights into customer demand, allowing for precise inventory management and rapid scaling.

    Dell attributes this entrepreneurial mindset to curiosity and a relentless pursuit of better performance and value. He believes that America’s culture of embracing risk, supported by accessible capital and inspirational role models like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, fosters a robust environment for entrepreneurs.

    Revolutionizing Supply Chains and Strategic Business Moves

    A cornerstone of Dell’s strategy was revolutionizing the supply chain through direct sales. This model allowed the company to respond swiftly to customer demands, minimizing inventory costs and enhancing capital efficiency. By maintaining close relationships with a diverse customer base—including individual consumers, large enterprises, and governments—Dell ensured high demand fidelity, enabling the company to scale efficiently.

    In 2013, facing declining stock prices and skepticism about the relevance of PCs amid the rise of smartphones and tablets, Dell made the bold decision to take the company private. This move involved a massive $67 billion buyback of shares, the largest technology acquisition at the time. Going private allowed Dell to focus on long-term transformation without the pressures of quarterly earnings reports.

    The acquisition of EMC, a major player in data storage and cloud computing, was a landmark deal that significantly expanded Dell’s capabilities. Despite initial uncertainties and challenges, the merger proved successful, resulting in substantial organic revenue growth and enhanced offerings for enterprise customers. Dell credits this acquisition for accelerating the company’s transformation and broadening its technological expertise.

    Leadership Philosophy: “Play Nice but Win”

    Dell’s leadership philosophy is encapsulated in his motto, “Play Nice but Win.” This principle emphasizes ethical behavior, fairness, and a strong results orientation. He fosters a culture of open debate and diverse perspectives, believing that surrounding oneself with intelligent individuals who can challenge ideas leads to better decision-making. Dell encourages his team to engage in rigorous discussions, ensuring that decisions are well-informed and adaptable to changing circumstances.

    He advises against being the smartest person in the room, advocating instead for inviting smarter people or finding environments that foster continuous learning and adaptation. This approach not only drives innovation but also ensures that Dell Technologies remains agile and forward-thinking.

    Embracing the Future: AI and Technological Innovation

    Discussing the future of technology, Dell highlights the transformative impact of artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models. He views current AI advancements as the initial phase of a significant technological revolution, predicting substantial improvements and widespread adoption over the next few years. Dell envisions AI enhancing productivity and enabling businesses to reimagine their processes, ultimately driving human progress.

    He also touches upon the evolving landscape of personal computing. While the physical appearance of PCs may not change drastically, their capabilities are significantly enhanced through AI integration. Innovations such as neural processing units (NPUs) are making PCs more intelligent and efficient, ensuring continued demand for new devices.

    Beyond Dell Technologies: MSD Capital and Investment Ventures

    Beyond his role at Dell Technologies, Michael Dell oversees MSD Capital, an investment firm that has grown into a prominent investment boutique on Wall Street. Initially established to manage investments for his family and foundation, MSD Capital has expanded through mergers and strategic partnerships, including a significant merger with BDT. Dell remains actively involved in guiding the firm’s strategic direction, leveraging his business acumen to provide aligned investment solutions for multiple families and clients.

    Balancing Success with Personal Well-being

    Despite his demanding roles, Dell emphasizes the importance of maintaining a balanced lifestyle. He adheres to a disciplined daily routine that includes early waking hours, regular exercise, and sufficient sleep. Dell advocates for a balanced approach to work and relaxation to sustain long-term productivity and well-being. He also underscores the role of humor in the workplace, believing that the ability to laugh and joke around fosters a positive and creative work environment.

    Advice to Aspiring Entrepreneurs

    Addressing the younger audience, Dell offers invaluable advice to aspiring entrepreneurs: experiment, take risks, and embrace failure as part of the learning process. He encourages tackling challenging problems, creating value, and being bold in endeavors. While acknowledging the value of parental guidance, Dell emphasizes the importance of forging one’s own path to achieve success, highlighting that innovation often requires stepping outside conventional expectations.

    Wrap Up

    Michael Dell’s conversation on “In Good Company” provides a deep dive into the strategic decisions, leadership philosophies, and forward-thinking approaches that have propelled Dell Technologies to its current stature. His insights into entrepreneurship, innovation, and the future of technology offer valuable lessons for business leaders and aspiring entrepreneurs alike. Dell’s unwavering commitment to understanding customer needs, fostering a culture of open debate, and leveraging technological advancements underscores his enduring influence in the technology sector.

  • Leveraging Efficiency: The Promise of Compact Language Models

    Leveraging Efficiency: The Promise of Compact Language Models

    In the world of artificial intelligence chatbots, the common mantra is “the bigger, the better.”

    Large language models such as ChatGPT and Bard, renowned for generating authentic, interactive text, progressively enhance their capabilities as they ingest more data. Daily, online pundits illustrate how recent developments – an app for article summaries, AI-driven podcasts, or a specialized model proficient in professional basketball questions – stand to revolutionize our world.

    However, developing such advanced AI demands a level of computational prowess only a handful of companies, including Google, Meta, OpenAI, and Microsoft, can provide. This prompts concern that these tech giants could potentially monopolize control over this potent technology.

    Further, larger language models present the challenge of transparency. Often termed “black boxes” even by their creators, these systems are complicated to decipher. This lack of clarity combined with the fear of misalignment between AI’s objectives and our own needs, casts a shadow over the “bigger is better” notion, underscoring it as not just obscure but exclusive.

    In response to this situation, a group of burgeoning academics from the natural language processing domain of AI – responsible for linguistic comprehension – initiated a challenge in January to reassess this trend. The challenge urged teams to construct effective language models utilizing data sets that are less than one-ten-thousandth of the size employed by the top-tier large language models. This mini-model endeavor, aptly named the BabyLM Challenge, aims to generate a system nearly as competent as its large-scale counterparts but significantly smaller, more user-friendly, and better synchronized with human interaction.

    Aaron Mueller, a computer scientist at Johns Hopkins University and one of BabyLM’s organizers, emphasized, “We’re encouraging people to prioritize efficiency and build systems that can be utilized by a broader audience.”

    Alex Warstadt, another organizer and computer scientist at ETH Zurich, expressed that the challenge redirects attention towards human language learning, instead of just focusing on model size.

    Large language models are neural networks designed to predict the upcoming word in a given sentence or phrase. Trained on an extensive corpus of words collected from transcripts, websites, novels, and newspapers, they make educated guesses and self-correct based on their proximity to the correct answer.

    The constant repetition of this process enables the model to create networks of word relationships. Generally, the larger the training dataset, the better the model performs, as every phrase provides the model with context, resulting in a more intricate understanding of each word’s implications. To illustrate, OpenAI’s GPT-3, launched in 2020, was trained on 200 billion words, while DeepMind’s Chinchilla, released in 2022, was trained on a staggering trillion words.

    Ethan Wilcox, a linguist at ETH Zurich, proposed a thought-provoking question: Could these AI language models aid our understanding of human language acquisition?

    Traditional theories, like Noam Chomsky’s influential nativism, argue that humans acquire language quickly and effectively due to an inherent comprehension of linguistic rules. However, language models also learn quickly, seemingly without this innate understanding, suggesting that these established theories may need to be reevaluated.

    Wilcox admits, though, that language models and humans learn in fundamentally different ways. Humans are socially engaged beings with tactile experiences, exposed to various spoken words and syntaxes not typically found in written form. This difference means that a computer trained on a myriad of written words can only offer limited insights into our own linguistic abilities.

    However, if a language model were trained only on the vocabulary a young human encounters, it might interact with language in a way that could shed light on our own cognitive abilities.

    With this in mind, Wilcox, Mueller, Warstadt, and a team of colleagues launched the BabyLM Challenge, aiming to inch language models towards a more human-like understanding. They invited teams to train models on roughly the same amount of words a 13-year-old human encounters – around 100 million. These models would be evaluated on their ability to generate and grasp language nuances.

    Eva Portelance, a linguist at McGill University, views the challenge as a pivot from the escalating race for bigger language models towards more accessible, intuitive AI.

    Large industry labs have also acknowledged the potential of this approach. Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, recently stated that simply increasing the size of language models wouldn’t yield the same level of progress seen in recent years. Tech giants like Google and Meta have also been researching more efficient language models, taking cues from human cognitive structures. After all, a model that can generate meaningful language with less training data could potentially scale up too.

    Despite the commercial potential of a successful BabyLM, the challenge’s organizers emphasize that their goals are primarily academic. And instead of a monetary prize, the reward lies in the intellectual accomplishment. As Wilcox puts it, the prize is “Just pride.”