PJFP.com

Pursuit of Joy, Fulfillment, and Purpose

Tag: Patrick Collison

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

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

    TLDW

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

    Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

    Key Takeaways

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

    Detailed Summary

    Software Factories and the Thousand-X Engineer

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

    Is Pure Software Dead, and the Building-Block Economy

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

    Vibe Coding Hardware at Boom Supersonic

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

    China, Open Source, and Which Models Actually Get Used

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

    Vertical Integration, Verifiers, and the Slop Problem

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

    Regulation as Test Suite, and the Voter Problem

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

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

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

    Autonomous Software, Hackathons, and the Autonomous Company

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

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

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

    Notable Quotes

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

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

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

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

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

    Guillermo Rauch, asking whether pure software engineering is now obsolete

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

    Blake Scholl, on Boom turning hardware engineering into software

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Naval Ravikant, on why intent and attribution make something art

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

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

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

    Related Reading

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

  • Elad Gil on the AI Frontier: Compute Constraints, the Personal IPO, and Why Most AI Founders Should Sell in the Next 12 to 18 Months

    Elad Gil sat down with Tim Ferriss for a wide ranging conversation that pairs almost perfectly with his recent Substack post Random thoughts while gazing at the misty AI Frontier. Together, the podcast and the post lay out the cleanest framework I have seen for what is actually happening in AI right now: a Korean memory bottleneck capping every lab, a class wide personal IPO across the research community, the fastest revenue ramps in capitalist history, and a brutal dot com style culling that most founders do not yet want to admit is coming. Below is a complete breakdown.

    TLDW (Too Long, Didn’t Watch)

    Elad Gil argues that AI is producing the fastest revenue ramps in capitalist history while setting up the same brutal power law that wiped out 99 percent of dot com companies. OpenAI and Anthropic each sit at roughly 0.1 percent of US GDP today, on a path to 1 percent of GDP run rate by end of 2026, which is insanely fast by any historical standard. The current ceiling on capabilities is not chips but Korean high bandwidth memory, and that constraint will likely hold all major labs roughly comparable in capability through 2028. Talent has just experienced a class wide personal IPO via Meta led bidding, with packages running tens to hundreds of millions per researcher. Most AI companies should consider exiting in the next 12 to 18 months while the tide is high. Right now consensus is correct. Save the contrarianism for later.

    Key Takeaways

    • OpenAI and Anthropic are each at roughly 0.1 percent of US GDP. With US GDP near 30 trillion dollars and each lab at a roughly 30 billion dollar revenue run rate, AI has gone from essentially zero to 0.25 to 0.5 percent of GDP in just a few years. If the labs hit 100 billion in run rate by year end 2026 (which many expect), AI hits 1 percent of GDP run rate inside a single year.
    • The AI personal IPO is real. 50 to a few hundred AI researchers across multiple companies just experienced a class wide IPO event due to Meta led bidding, with top packages reportedly tens to hundreds of millions per person. The closest historical analog is early crypto holders around 2017.
    • The bottleneck is Korean memory, not Nvidia chips. High bandwidth memory from Hynix, Samsung, Micron, and others is the binding constraint. Expected to hold roughly two years. After that, power and data center buildout become the next walls.
    • No lab can pull dramatically ahead before 2028. Because every lab is compute constrained on the same input, OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, xAI, and Meta should remain roughly comparable in capability through that window, absent an algorithmic breakthrough that stays inside one lab.
    • Compute is the new currency. Token budgets now define what an engineer can accomplish, what a company can spend, and what business models are viable. Some companies (neoclouds, Cursor) are effectively inference providers disguised as tools.
    • The dot com base rate is the AI base rate. Around 1,500 to 2,000 companies went public in the late 1990s internet cycle. A dozen or two survived. AI will likely look the same.
    • Most AI founders should consider selling in the next 12 to 18 months. If you are not in the durable handful, this is your value maximizing window. A handful of companies (OpenAI, Anthropic) should never sell.
    • Buyers are bigger than ever. One percent of a 3 trillion dollar market cap is 30 billion dollars. That math makes massive AI acquisitions trivial for hyperscalers, vertical incumbents, and adjacent giants.
    • Underrated exit path: merger of equals. Two private AI competitors destroying each other on price should consider just merging. PayPal and X.com did exactly this in the 1990s.
    • 91 percent of global AI private market cap sits in a 10 by 10 mile square. If you want to do AI, move to the Bay Area. Remote work for cluster industries is BS.
    • Want money? Ask for advice. Want advice? Ask for money. The inverse also works: offering useful advice frequently leads to inbound investment opportunities.
    • AI is selling units of labor, not software. The shift is from selling seats and tools to selling cognitive output. This is why Harvey can win in legal, where decades of legal SaaS failed.
    • AI eats closed loops first. Tasks that can be turned into testable closed loop systems (code, AI research) get automated fastest. Map jobs on a 2×2 of closed loop tightness vs economic value to see where AI hits soonest.
    • Headcount will flatten at later stage companies. Multiple late stage CEOs told Elad they will not do big AI layoffs but will simply stop growing headcount even as revenue grows 30 to 100 percent. Hidden layoffs are also hitting outsourcing firms in India and the Philippines first.
    • The Slop Age could be the golden era of AI plus humanity. AI produces useful slop at volume, humans desloppify it, leverage is high, and the work is fun. This window may close as AI gets superhuman.
    • Market first, team second (90 percent of the time). Great teams die in bad markets. The exception is when you meet someone truly exceptional at the very earliest stage.
    • The one belief framework. If your investment memo needs three core beliefs to be true, it is too complicated. Coinbase was an index on crypto. Stripe was an index on e-commerce. That was the entire memo.
    • The four year vest is a relic. It exists because in the 1970s companies actually went public in four years. Today the private window has stretched to 20 years and venture has eaten what used to be public market growth investing.
    • Boards are in-laws. You cannot fire investor board members. Take a worse price for a better board member, because as Naval Ravikant said, valuation is temporary, control is forever.
    • Right now, consensus is correct. Save the contrarianism. The smart move is to just buy more AI exposure rather than try to outsmart the obvious.
    • Distribution wins more than founders admit. Google paid hundreds of millions to push the toolbar. Facebook bought ads on people’s own names in Europe. TikTok spent billions on user acquisition. Allbirds (yes, the shoe company) just raised a convert to build a GPU farm.
    • Anti-AI sentiment will get worse before it gets better. Maine banned new data centers. There has been violence directed at AI leaders. Expect more political and activist backlash, especially as AI is blamed for harms it has not yet caused while its benefits are mismeasured.
    • Use AI as a cold reader. Elad uploads photos of founders to AI models with cold reading prompts and reports surprisingly accurate personality assessments based on micro features.

    Detailed Summary

    The Numbers Are Insane and Mostly Underappreciated

    The most stunning data point in either source is the GDP math. US GDP is roughly 30 trillion dollars. OpenAI and Anthropic are each rumored to be at roughly 30 billion dollars in revenue run rate, putting each one at 0.1 percent of US GDP. Add cloud AI revenue and the picture gets stranger: AI has grown from essentially zero to between 0.25 and 0.5 percent of GDP in only a few years. If the labs hit 100 billion in run rate by year end 2026, AI will be at roughly 1 percent of GDP run rate inside a single year. There is no historical analog for that pace. Elad notes that productivity gains from AI may end up mismeasured the way internet productivity was undercounted in the 2000s, which would have downstream consequences for regulation: AI gets blamed for the bad (job losses) and credited for none of the good (new jobs, education gains, healthcare improvements). His half joking aside is that the real ASI test may be the ability to actually measure AI’s economic impact.

    The AI Personal IPO

    The most underdiscussed phenomenon in AI right now, according to Elad, is what he calls a class wide personal IPO. When a company IPOs, a subset of employees become wealthy, lose focus, and either start companies, get into politics, fund passion projects, or check out. Meta started aggressively bidding for AI talent. Other major labs had to match. The result was 50 to a few hundred researchers, scattered across multiple labs, suddenly receiving compensation in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars range. The only historical analog Elad can think of is early crypto holders around 2017. Some chunk of these newly wealthy researchers will redirect attention to AI for science, side projects, or quiet quitting. The aggregate field stays mission aligned, but the distribution of attention has shifted.

    The Korean Memory Bottleneck

    Every major AI lab today is building giant Nvidia clusters paired with high bandwidth memory primarily from Korean fabs and a few other suppliers. They run massive amounts of data through these clusters for months, and the output is, almost absurdly, a single flat file containing what amounts to a compressed version of human knowledge plus reasoning. Right now, the binding constraint on this whole stack is HBM memory from Hynix, Samsung, Micron, and others. Korean memory fab capacity has been below the capacity of every other piece of the system. Elad estimates this constraint persists for roughly two years. After that, the next walls are likely data center construction and power. The strategic implication is enormous. While memory constrains everyone, no single lab can buy 10x the compute of its rivals, so capabilities should stay roughly comparable across the major labs. Once that constraint lifts, possibly around 2028, one player could theoretically pull dramatically ahead, especially if AI assisted AI research closes a self improvement loop inside one lab.

    Compute Is the New Currency

    The blog post sharpens a framing that runs throughout the podcast: compute, denominated in tokens, is now a unit of economic value. Token budgets define what an engineer can accomplish, what a company can spend, and what business models work. Some companies are effectively inference providers wearing tool costumes. Neoclouds are the cleanest example. Cursor is another, subsidizing inference as a user acquisition strategy. The most absurd recent example: Allbirds, the shoe company, raised a convertible to build a GPU farm. Whether this becomes the AI version of Microstrategy’s Bitcoin trade or a cautionary tale, it tells you where the cost of capital believes the next decade is going.

    The Dot Com Survival Math

    Elad walks through the brutal arithmetic that AI founders should be internalizing. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 internet companies went public. Of those, roughly a dozen or two survived in any meaningful form. Every cycle has looked like this: automotive in the early 1900s, SaaS, mobile, crypto. There is no reason AI will be different. Most current AI companies, including those ramping revenue today, will see the market, competition, and adoption turn on them. The question every AI founder should be asking is whether they are in the durable handful or not.

    Most AI Companies Should Consider Exiting in the Next 12 to 18 Months

    This is the most actionable and most uncomfortable take in either source. While the tide is rising, every AI company looks unstoppable. Whether they actually are, in a 10 year frame, is a separate question. Founders running successful AI companies should take a cold honest look at whether the next 12 to 18 months is their value maximizing window. Companies typically have a 6 to 12 month peak before some headwind hits, often visible in the second derivative of growth. The best signal that you should sell is when growth rate is starting to plateau and you can see why. A handful of companies (OpenAI, Anthropic, the durable winners) should never exit. Many others should, while everything is still on the upswing.

    What Makes an AI Company Durable

    Elad lays out four lenses for evaluating durability at the application layer:

    1. Does your product get dramatically better when the underlying model gets better, in a way that keeps customers loyal?
    2. How deep and broad is the product? Are you building multiple integrated products embedded in actual workflows?
    3. Are you embedded in real change management at the customer? AI adoption is mostly a workflow change problem, not a tech problem. Workflow embedding is durable.
    4. Are you capturing and using proprietary data in a way that creates a system of record? Data moats are often overstated, but sometimes real.

    At the lab layer, Elad believes OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google are durable absent disaster. He predicted three years ago that the foundation model market would settle into an oligopoly aligned with cloud, and that prediction has roughly held.

    Selling Work, Not Software

    The deepest structural insight in the conversation is that generative AI is shifting what software companies sell. The old model was selling seats, tools, and SaaS subscriptions. The new model is selling units of cognitive labor. Zendesk sold seats to support reps. Decagon and Sierra sell agentic support output. Harvey can win in legal even though selling to law firms was historically considered terrible business, because Harvey is not selling tools, it is augmenting lawyer output. This shift opens markets that were previously closed and dramatically grows tech TAMs. It is also why founder limited theories of entrepreneurship currently understate how many opportunities exist.

    AI Eats Closed Loops First

    One of the cleanest mental models in the blog post is the closed loop framework. AI automates first what can be turned into a testable closed loop. Code is the canonical example: outputs can be tested, errors detected, models can iterate. AI research is similar. Both have tight feedback loops and high economic value, which puts them at the top of the AI impact ranking. Map jobs on a 2×2 of closed loop tightness vs economic value and you can see where AI hits soonest. The interesting forward question is which jobs become more closed loop next. Data collection and labeling will keep growing in every field as a result.

    The Harness Matters More Than People Think

    For coding tools and increasingly for enterprise applications, what Elad calls the harness, the wrapper of UX, prompting, workflow integration, and brand around the underlying model, is becoming sticky. It is not just which model you call. It is the environment built around it. Cursor and Windsurf demonstrate this in coding. The interesting open questions are what the harness looks like for sales AI, for AI architects, for analyst workflows. Those gaps leave room for startups even as model capabilities converge.

    Hidden Layoffs and the Developing World

    Most announced AI driven layoffs are probably just COVID era overhiring corrections wrapped in a more flattering narrative. But real AI driven labor displacement is happening, and it is hitting outsourcing firms first. That means countries like India and the Philippines, where many outsourced services jobs sit, are likely to be the most impacted earliest. Several developing economies built their growth ladders on services exports. If AI takes those jobs first, the migration and economic patterns of the next decade may shift in ways nobody is yet planning for.

    The Flat Company

    Multiple late stage CEOs told Elad they will not announce big AI layoffs. Instead, they will simply stop growing headcount. If revenue grows 30 to 100 percent, headcount stays flat or shrinks via attrition. Existing employees become dramatically more productive. The very best people who can leverage AI will see compensation inflate. Sales and some growth engineering keep hiring. Almost everything else flatlines. This is mostly a later stage and public company phenomenon. True early stage startups should still scale aggressively after product market fit, just with more leverage per person.

    Exit Options for AI Founders

    Elad lays out four exit categories. First, the labs and hyperscalers themselves: Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Meta. Second, vertical incumbents like Thomson Reuters for legal or healthcare giants for clinical AI. Third, the underrated category of merger of equals between two private AI competitors who are currently destroying each other on price. PayPal and X.com did this in the 1990s. Uber and Lyft reportedly almost did. Fourth, large adjacent tech companies: Oracle, Samsung, Tesla, SpaceX, Snowflake, Databricks, Stripe, Coinbase. The market cap math has changed in a way that makes acquisition trivial. One percent of a three trillion dollar market cap is 30 billion dollars, which means a hyperscaler can do massive acquisitions almost casually.

    Geographic Concentration Is Extreme

    Elad’s team analyzed where private market cap aggregates. Historically half of global tech private market cap sat in the US, with half of that in the Bay Area. With AI, 91 percent of global AI private market cap is in a single 10 by 10 mile square in the Bay Area. New York is a distant second and then it falls off a cliff. For defense tech, the cluster is Southern California (SpaceX, Anduril, El Segundo, Irvine). Fintech and crypto skew toward New York. The remote everywhere advice is, Elad says, just BS for anyone trying to break into an industry cluster.

    How Elad Got Into His Best Deals

    Stripe started with Elad cold emailing Patrick Collison after selling an API company to Twitter. A couple of walks later, Patrick texted that he was raising and Elad was in. Airbnb came from helping the founders raise their Series A and being asked at the end if he wanted to invest. Anduril came from noticing that Google had shut down Project Maven and asking if anyone was building defense tech, then meeting Trey Stephens at a Founders Fund lunch. Perplexity came from Aravind Srinivas cold messaging him on LinkedIn while still at OpenAI. Across all of these, the pattern is the same: be in the cluster, be helpful, be talking publicly about technology nobody else is talking about, and be useful to founders before any money is on the table.

    The One Belief Framework

    Investors love complicated 50 page memos. Elad believes the actual decision usually collapses into a single core belief. Coinbase: this is an index on crypto, and crypto will keep growing. Stripe: this is an index on e-commerce, and e-commerce will keep growing. Anduril: AI plus drones plus a cost plus model will be important for defense. If your thesis needs three things to be true, it is probably not going to work. If it needs nothing, you have no thesis.

    Boards as In-Laws

    Elad emphasizes that founders should treat board composition like one of the most important hiring decisions of the company. You cannot fire an investor board member. They have contractual rights. So if you are going to be stuck with someone for a decade, take a worse valuation for a better human. Reid Hoffman’s framing is that the best board member is a co-founder you could not have otherwise hired. Naval Ravikant’s framing is that valuation is temporary but control is forever. Elad recommends writing a job spec for every board seat.

    The Slop Age as a Golden Era

    One of the warmest takes in the blog post is the framing of the current moment as the Slop Age, and the suggestion that this might actually be the golden era of AI plus humanity. Before the last few years, AI was inaccessible and narrow. Eventually AI may become superhuman at most tasks. Today, AI produces useful slop at volume, which means humans are still needed to desloppify the slop, but the leverage on time and ambition is real. That makes the work fun. If AI displaces people or starts doing more interesting work, this golden moment fades. Elad also notes the obvious counter, that the era of human generated internet slop preceded the AI slop era. AGI may end the slop age, or alternately may be the thing that finally cleans up all the prior waves of human slop.

    Anti-AI Regulation and Violence Will Increase

    This is one of the more sobering threads in the blog post. Real world AI driven labor displacement has been small so far, but anti-AI sentiment is already strong and growing. Maine just banned new data centers. There has been actual violence directed at AI leaders, including a recent attack on Sam Altman. Elad’s view is that AI leaders should work harder on optimistic public framing, real political lobbying, and reining in the doom narrative coming from inside the field. Otherwise the regulatory and activist backlash will get much worse, and likely on the basis of mismeasured impacts.

    Right Now Consensus Is Correct

    The headline contrarian take from the episode is that contrarianism right now is wrong. There are moments in time when betting against the crowd pays. This is not one of them. The smart bet is just buying more AI exposure. Trying to find the clever angle, the underlooked hardware play, the secret macro thesis, is overthinking it. Save the contrarian moves for later in the cycle.

    Distribution Almost Always Matters

    Elad pushes back on the founder mythology that great products win on their own. Google paid hundreds of millions of dollars in the early 2000s to distribute its toolbar through every popular app installer on the internet. Facebook bought search ads against people’s own names in European markets to seed network liquidity. TikTok spent billions on user acquisition before its algorithm could lock people in. Snowflake spent enormous sums on enterprise sales and channel partnerships. Sometimes the best product wins. Often the company with the best distribution wins. Founders should plan for both.

    AI as a Cold Reader and a Research Partner

    Two of the more practical AI workflows Elad describes: First, uploading photos of founders to AI models with cold reading prompts that ask the model to identify micro features (crows feet from genuine smiling, brow patterns, posture cues) and infer personality traits, sense of humor, and likely social behavior. He reports the outputs are surprisingly specific. Second, running deep dives across multiple models in parallel (Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini), asking each for primary sources, summary tables, and cross checked data. He recently used this approach to investigate the rise in autism and ADHD diagnoses, concluding that diagnostic criteria shifts and school incentives drive most of it, and noting that maternal age has a stronger statistical association with autism than paternal age, despite paternal age getting all the public discourse.

    The First Ever 10 Year Plan

    For someone who has been compounding aggressively for two decades, Elad has somehow never written a 10 year plan until now. He knows it will not play out as written. The point is that the act of imagining a decade out shifts what you choose to do in the near term. He explicitly rejects the AGI in two years therefore plans are pointless framing as defeatist. There will be interesting things to do regardless of how the AGI timeline plays out.

    Thoughts

    This is one of the more useful AI investor conversations of 2026, mostly because Elad is willing to put numbers and timelines on things that are usually left vague. Pairing the podcast with the underlying Substack post is the right move because the post is where the GDP math, the closed loop framework, and the Slop Age framing actually live. The podcast is where Elad explains how he thinks rather than just what he thinks.

    The 12 to 18 month sell window framing is the most actionable single idea in either source, and probably the most uncomfortable for AI founders sitting on multi billion dollar paper valuations. The math is unforgiving. A dozen winners out of thousands. If you are honest with yourself about whether you are in the dozen, you know what to do.

    The Korean memory bottleneck framing explains a lot of current behavior. The talent wars make more sense once you accept that compute is not going to be the differentiator for two years, so people become the only remaining lever. The convergence of capabilities across OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and xAI starts to look less like coincidence and more like the structural inevitability of a supply constrained input. The 2028 inflection date is the one to watch.

    Compute as currency is the cleanest reframing in the blog post. Once you start pricing companies in tokens rather than dollars, everything from Cursor’s economics to Allbirds raising a convert to build a GPU farm becomes legible. The interesting question is whether this is a permanent unit of denomination or a transitional one that fades when inference costs collapse.

    The software to labor argument is the structural framing that I think will hold up the longest. Once you internalize that we are not selling seats anymore but selling cognitive output, every vertical that was previously locked behind ugly procurement and IT inertia opens up. Harvey is the proof of concept. There will be 30 more Harveys across every white collar profession.

    The closed loop framework is the cleanest predictor of which jobs get hit hardest and soonest. If you want to know whether your role is exposed, the questions to ask are whether outputs can be machine evaluated, how tight the feedback loop is, and how high the economic value is. The intersection is where AI lands first.

    The geographic concentration data is genuinely shocking. 91 percent of global AI private market cap in a 10 by 10 mile area is the kind of statistic that should make everyone outside that square think very carefully about what game they are playing.

    The Slop Age framing is the most emotionally honest moment in the post. We are in a window where humans still meaningfully add value on top of AI output. That window is finite. Enjoy it.

    The anti-AI backlash thread is the one I think most people in the industry are still underweighting. Maine banning new data centers is a leading indicator, not a one off. The fact that the impacts are likely to be mismeasured by official statistics makes the political dynamics worse, not better. AI will get blamed for harms it did not cause and credited for none of the gains. If the field’s leaders do not start communicating better and lobbying smarter, the regulatory environment in 2028 will be much worse than in 2026.

    Finally, Elad’s first ever 10 year plan stands out as the most quietly important moment in the episode. The implicit message is that even people who have been compounding aggressively for two decades benefit from forcing a longer time horizon onto their thinking. Most plans fail. The act of planning still changes what you do today.

    Read the original Elad Gil post here: Random thoughts while gazing at the misty AI Frontier. Find Elad on X at @eladgil, on his Substack at blog.eladgil.com, and on his website at eladgil.com. Tim Ferriss publishes the full episode at tim.blog/podcast.