PJFP.com

Pursuit of Joy, Fulfillment, and Purpose

Tag: Sam Altman

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

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

    TLDR

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

    Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

    Key Takeaways

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

    Detailed Summary

    A blank-slate chip built only for inference

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

    The full-stack flywheel and AI designing its own silicon

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

    Nine-month tape-out and the partner stack

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

    Performance claims that nobody can check yet

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

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

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

    The Nvidia diversification arc and Broadcom’s windfall

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

    Notable Quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Related Reading

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

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

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

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

    TLDR

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

    Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

    Key Takeaways

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

    Detailed Summary

    How the leak happened and why it matters now

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

    Revenue tripled, costs grew faster

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

    Two loss numbers, and why both matter

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

    Where the $34 billion went

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

    The Microsoft dependency

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

    Why inference is the core problem

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

    What it means for the IPO and the race with Anthropic

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

    Notable Quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    TechTimes analysis of the leaked OpenAI financials

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

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

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

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

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

    Related Reading

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

  • 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.

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

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

    TLDW

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

    Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

    Key Takeaways

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

    Detailed Summary

    Staying an expert when the world keeps changing

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

    What adaptability looks like in a founder

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

    Founder mode and seeing through the fog

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

    Cockroaches, the North Star, and the biosphere tree

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

    Climate, energy, and selling into hard markets

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

    Guilt versus greed as a business model

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

    Personal resilience, Twitter mobs, and the essay process

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

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

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

    Notable Quotes

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

    Paul Graham, on why turbulence favors young, flexible founders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Jessica Livingston, on a wildfire curiosity turning into a company

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

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

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

    Paul Graham, on what keeps him up at night

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

    Related Reading

  • Bill Ackman on Investment Strategy, What the Market Is Missing, and How AI Breaks Businesses

    Bill Ackman, founder and CEO of Pershing Square, joined the All-In Podcast for a conversation about how his investment approach has shifted toward permanent, long-term ownership, why he believes the highest-quality companies are being left behind by a market chasing the new new thing, and how AI is raising the risk of disruption for almost every business. He also lays out his plan to turn Howard Hughes into a Berkshire Hathaway-style compounding machine built on insurance. You can watch the full conversation here. Below is a structured breakdown of the ideas, the stories, and the frameworks he uses to underwrite a business.

    TLDW

    Ackman explains how his philosophy evolved from a smaller, more liquid activist toward concentrated, permanent ownership of durable, non-disruptible businesses, with much of his activism now playing out on X rather than in the boardroom. He tells the origin story of his first big trade, Wendy’s and the Tim Hortons spin-off, and explains why a large long-term shareholder on a board is an antidote to short-term markets. On AI, he argues that this is the greatest era in history to build a company, which means the risk of being disrupted has gone up enormously, and that the market is mispricing high-quality compounders like Microsoft, Meta, and Amazon while crowding into chips, semiconductors, and energy. He works through the SaaS question and why niche software is more at risk than platforms, how he underwrites SpaceX, xAI, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Palantir like late-stage venture bets using a people, opportunity, context, deal framework, and why founder-led companies have an edge in making radical calls. The back half covers his Howard Hughes plan to copy Buffett’s insurance-float model, the role of cost of capital and reflexivity in markets, the meme-stock era, going direct on social media, and the three different ways an investor can put money to work with Pershing Square.

    Thoughts

    The most useful idea in the interview is the way Ackman reframes disruption as the central investing problem of the AI era. His point is that the same forces making this the best time in history to start a company, meaning near-unlimited compute, capital, and talent, also raise the odds that any given incumbent gets disrupted. That reframes the word quality. It is no longer mostly about margins and moats. It becomes about non-disruptibility, which is a much higher bar than most quality investors were using a decade ago, and it is why he says most of his research time now goes into assessing that single risk.

    The what-the-market-is-missing thesis is classic contrarian Ackman. Arguing that Microsoft, Meta, and Amazon are the new old-fashioned, undervalued names while capital piles into semiconductors and energy is a direct echo of 2000, when Berkshire Hathaway bottomed precisely because money was chasing internet stocks. It is worth keeping in mind that he owns all three, so the call is also his book. The durable signal here is the framework, not the specific tickers: capital reliably chases the new new thing, and genuinely high-quality businesses get left behind during those rotations.

    The Howard Hughes plan is the most concrete bet in the conversation. Copying Buffett’s insurance-float playbook, short-term treasuries for policyholder money and equities for the surplus, onto a discounted real-estate holding company is elegant. The hard part is exactly what Ackman flags about insurance as an industry: the best investors go to hedge funds, not insurers, so most insurance companies only ever manage the liability side well. Pershing Square’s edge is that Ackman can both write the business and invest the float, which is the same reason it worked for Buffett. The framing of going from a four billion dollar company to a trillion over fifty years is a statement of intent, not a forecast, and should be read that way.

    Underneath all of it sits cost of capital and reflexivity. His observation that a higher stock price literally makes a company more valuable, because it lowers the cost of capital and creates acquisition currency, is the mechanism behind both Elon Musk’s empire and the meme-stock era he is wary of. Going direct on X is the same lever pointed at himself: communicate the vision, lower your own cost of capital, and make the bet easier for other people to place. It is a coherent worldview in which narrative and balance sheet continuously feed each other, and it explains a lot of his behavior over the last few years.

    Key Takeaways

    • The biggest change in Ackman’s approach over time is an appreciation for business quality, meaning long-term, durable, protected, non-disruptible growth as the most important factor.
    • He says he is as activist as ever, but more of it now happens on X than in the traditional corporate context.
    • His first big investment was Wendy’s, which owned Tim Hortons. The simple thesis was to buy Wendy’s, spin off Tim Hortons, and double the money.
    • Early on no one returned his calls, so he had Steve Schwarzman’s Blackstone write a fairness opinion, filed it publicly, and the company spun off Tim Hortons six weeks later. The CEO later thanked him after being fired with a large exit package.
    • Reputation compounds. Where Pershing Square once had to bang down the door, companies now sometimes tweet a welcome when it buys a stake.
    • A large long-term shareholder on a board is a counterweight to short-term markets, letting management test ideas privately and pursue initiatives that hurt the next few quarters of earnings.
    • Pershing Square owns Microsoft, Meta, and Amazon. Ackman argues you are either invested in AI directly or indirectly, or it is a threat, so you have to understand it.
    • The hardest and most important job for a concentrated investor is judging the risk of disruption, and that risk has risen dramatically.
    • This is the greatest era in history to build a business because of near-unlimited access to compute, capital, and talent, which is exactly why the probability of being disrupted has gone up enormously.
    • Markets bring their eye to the new new thing, currently chips, semiconductors, and energy, while high-quality companies get left behind.
    • He draws an analogy to 2000, when Berkshire Hathaway traded at one of its lowest valuations because everyone chased internet stocks. He sees a similar dynamic around Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft today.
    • On the SaaS question, he worries more about a Salesforce than a platform like Microsoft, because niche software charging high per-seat or per-year prices is most exposed, while low-priced platforms are safer.
    • Any software company today has to be as AI-enabled as possible, or risk losing the monopolistic pricing it once enjoyed.
    • His famous March 2020 CNBC appearance was an attempt to reach President Trump and argue for a short shutdown, paired with the view that stocks were incredibly cheap and worth buying.
    • He describes valuation as a tether on the market: when prices stretch too high they snap back, and when they get too cheap the same rubber band pulls valuations up. Calling that out publicly can trigger a psychological reset.
    • His recent bullish call came because stocks of really high-quality companies had gotten crazy cheap on fundamentals, meaning the present value of the cash they generate.
    • He underwrites high-multiple names like SpaceX as venture investments using a framework from business school: people, opportunity, context, deal.
    • On SpaceX, people and opportunity are one of one, the context is incredible, and Starlink plus near-monopoly low-cost launch make it strategically valuable. The complicated part is the deal, meaning the valuation. He invested via an SPV after Ron Baron’s nudge, and also invested in xAI.
    • He treats OpenAI, Anthropic, and Palantir as late-stage venture bets that have proven they can generate real revenue, and says OpenAI should do a better job communicating how it thinks about its enormous capital commitments.
    • Every CEO in America is asking how to use AI, how it applies to their business, and how it is a threat. It is top of mind and boards open every meeting with it.
    • He has not seen much enterprise AI success yet, citing a McKinsey study that 95 percent of enterprise initiatives fail and the rise of the forward deployed engineer as the hot role bridging promise and ROI. Pershing Square itself uses AI mainly for legal, compliance, and back-office work.
    • Founder-led companies have an advantage because founders have the authority and the economic stake to make radical calls, while the average S&P 500 CEO has a roughly three to four year tenure and is incentivized not to make mistakes.
    • He cites Mark Zuckerberg buying Instagram and WhatsApp as the kind of shocking-at-the-time calls that a founder with a track record can make.
    • Ben Graham’s enduring lesson is that a stock is an interest in a business, not a piece of paper, but Graham mostly invested in liquidations and cash-rich shells, and made most of his money on Geico.
    • Most of Buffett’s value at Berkshire came from owning insurance operations and focusing on the asset side of the balance sheet, not just the liability side.
    • Insurance is hard to copy because top investors do not go to work for insurers. Buffett owned half his company and was a great investor, which is why it worked.
    • Howard Hughes came out of the General Growth bankruptcy and owns master-planned cities like Summerlin, with 26,000 acres in the Las Vegas area, comparable to the Irvine Company that built roughly a hundred billion dollars of wealth for Donald Bren.
    • The plan is to reinvest the cash Howard Hughes generates into insurance, put policyholder float in short-term treasuries and the surplus in common stocks, and build a compounding machine over fifty years, buying it at roughly sixty cents on the dollar.
    • A company must earn a return above its cost of capital for the stock to rise. Elon Musk has kept his companies’ cost of capital extremely low, and a SpaceX IPO near a 1.75 trillion dollar valuation could be one of the lowest cost of equity capital transactions ever.
    • Markets have changed less because of Ackman and more because of figures like Ryan Cohen and GameStop, where a stock can trade well above its value on personality and an army of followers.
    • Higher valuations are reflexive: a rising stock price lowers cost of capital and creates currency to issue stock and acquire businesses, which is part of how Elon built Tesla.
    • There are three ways to invest with Pershing Square: the management company itself (a royalty on compounding assets with no capex), PSUS (a portfolio of best ideas trading at an 18 percent discount), and Howard Hughes (a bet on building the next Berkshire). A dollar invested 22 years ago became roughly 27 to 28 times net of fees.
    • Going direct on X, with 2.2 million followers, lets him communicate his vision and lower the friction for others to back his bets, even as his very long tweets have become a running meme.

    Detailed Summary

    From activist trades to permanent capital

    Ackman frames the evolution of his career as a steady move toward business quality. As a smaller, more liquid investor early on, he did not have to think as long-term. As Pershing Square became a bigger, more concentrated investor, durable growth became the dominant factor in every decision. He insists he is still as activist as ever, but a lot of that energy has shifted to X, where he can argue a position publicly rather than only inside a boardroom. The best investments, he notes, are the ones where you do not need to join the board and do anything at all.

    The Wendy’s and Tim Hortons origin story

    One of Pershing Square’s first investments was Wendy’s, which owned the Canadian coffee and donut chain Tim Hortons. The value of Tim Hortons alone was greater than the entire value of Wendy’s, so the idea was simple: buy Wendy’s, spin off Tim Hortons, and double the money. Ackman bought ten percent of the company and could not get the CEO to return a single call, so he had a contact at Blackstone, with Steve Schwarzman’s sign-off, write a fairness opinion on what Wendy’s would be worth after a spin-off, filed it publicly, and watched the spin-off happen six weeks later. The CEO eventually called back to thank him, having been fired but rewarded with a large exit package. Over the years that scrappy approach gave way to a reputation that now opens doors on its own.

    Why a long-term shareholder on the board matters

    The core problem of being a public company, in Ackman’s telling, is the short-term nature of markets and analysts, when a good business should be run in the context of years and even decades. A large, supportive shareholder on the board gives management a place to test ideas before exposing them to the public and a credible voice willing to back initiatives that hurt earnings for a few quarters. That is the value-add he believes a constructive activist can bring to a mature public company, as opposed to a startup where the best outcome is simply to own a great business and stay out of the way.

    AI and the rising risk of disruption

    For a concentrated, long-term investor, the most challenging task is judging the risk that two people from Stanford in a garage build something that destroys your thesis. Ackman argues that risk has climbed dramatically because this is the greatest era in history to build a company, with near-unlimited access to compute, capital, and talent. The paradox is that the conditions that make building easier also make incumbents more fragile, so the bulk of his research now centers on assessing how disruptible a business really is.

    What the market is missing

    Investors bring their attention to the new new thing, currently chips, semiconductors, and energy, which leaves high-quality companies behind. Ackman compares the moment to 2000, when Berkshire Hathaway traded at one of its lowest valuations ever because capital was chasing internet stocks. He sees an echo today in how Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft are treated as old-fashioned, and he considers them undervalued on fundamentals, where value is the present value of the cash a business generates over its life. His recent bullish call, like his March 2020 appearance, came because stocks of really high-quality companies had simply gotten too cheap.

    The SaaS question and AI-enabled software

    On the so-called SaaS apocalypse, Ackman says it is a company-by-company analysis. He worries more about something like Salesforce than about a low-priced platform. The companies most at risk are those that extracted near-monopolistic profits by charging a high annual price for a niche product, because AI lowers the barrier to replicating that functionality. A platform where the average customer pays a small amount per seat, like Microsoft, is far less exposed. The takeaway for any software company is to become as AI-enabled as it possibly can.

    Underwriting SpaceX, xAI, and the AI labs like venture

    For the highest-multiple private companies, Ackman uses a venture lens and a framework a business school professor taught him: people, opportunity, context, deal. SpaceX scores as one of one on people and opportunity, with an incredible context and a near-monopoly in low-cost launch through Starlink, which makes even Amazon a likely customer. The complicated variable is the deal, meaning the valuation, and he admits he has not done all the math, having invested through an SPV after Ron Baron encouraged him, along with a position in xAI. He treats OpenAI, Anthropic, and Palantir as late-stage venture bets that have proven real revenue, and argues OpenAI in particular should communicate more clearly how it justifies capital commitments that vastly exceed current revenue.

    Founder-led companies and the authority to act

    Ackman agrees that founder-led companies have a structural advantage in a fast-changing environment. The average S&P 500 CEO has a tenure of roughly three to four years, a small economic stake, and an incentive not to make a career-ending mistake. A founder is betting an entire life and reputation, has the authority of a major voting and economic position, and has usually made several hard, contrarian calls that turned out right. He points to Mark Zuckerberg’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, which looked shocking at the time, as exactly the kind of decision a founder with a track record can make and a hired manager often cannot.

    Howard Hughes as Berkshire Hathaway 2.0

    Ackman points to a detailed financial history of Berkshire Hathaway showing that the vast majority of Buffett’s value creation came from owning insurance and focusing on the asset side of the balance sheet, not just the liability side. Insurance is hard to replicate because skilled investors join hedge funds rather than insurers, but Buffett owned half his company and was a great investor. Pershing Square is applying the same idea to Howard Hughes, a company created out of the General Growth bankruptcy that owns master-planned cities such as Summerlin, with 26,000 acres around Las Vegas, in the spirit of the Irvine Company that made Donald Bren roughly a hundred billion dollars. The plan is to reinvest the company’s cash into insurance, place policyholder float in short-term treasuries and the surplus in common stocks, avoid issuing stock the way Buffett did, and compound for fifty years, all bought at around sixty cents on the dollar.

    Cost of capital, reflexivity, and going direct

    A company only creates value when it earns above its cost of capital, which is why Howard Hughes, seen as a high-cost-of-capital real-estate business, has long traded at a discount, and why Ackman is repurposing its assets into a higher-returning model. He highlights how reflexive markets are: a higher stock price itself makes a company more valuable by lowering its cost of capital and creating currency to raise money and acquire businesses, a lever Elon Musk used to build Tesla. He attributes real market change less to himself and more to figures like Ryan Cohen and GameStop, where personality and a following can lift a stock far above its value. His own going-direct strategy on X, with 2.2 million followers and famously long posts, is the same mechanism applied to communicating a vision and lowering friction for investors. He closes by laying out three ways to invest with Pershing Square: the management company as a royalty on compounding assets, the PSUS portfolio trading at an 18 percent discount, and Howard Hughes as a bet on building the next Berkshire.

    Notable Quotes

    “The best investments are one where you don’t need to join the board and do anything.”

    Bill Ackman, on the kind of business he most wants to own

    “The probability of your being disrupted has gone up enormously.”

    Bill Ackman, on why assessing disruption risk now dominates his research

    “Valuation is like a tether on the market, right? When it gets too high, it’s like this rubber band that’s stretching and inevitably it bounces back.”

    Bill Ackman, on how prices revert at both extremes

    “People, opportunity, context, deal.”

    Bill Ackman, on the business school framework he uses to underwrite companies like SpaceX

    “Every CEO in America today is like, how do I use AI?”

    Bill Ackman, on AI as the top opportunity and threat in every boardroom

    “A closed mouth gathers no foot.”

    Bill Ackman, quoting the line a friend put next to his name in his high school yearbook

    “The increase in value of the company increases the value of the company, right? Because it lowers the cost of capital, it gives you more flexibility, gives you the ability to issue stock, raise capital, acquire other businesses.”

    Bill Ackman, on the reflexivity between stock price and corporate value

    “The company’s got like a $4 billion market cap and the goal is to build it into a trillion dollar thing over time compounding.”

    Bill Ackman, on his fifty-year plan for Howard Hughes

    Taken together, the conversation is a tour of how Ackman now thinks about quality, disruption, and compounding, and a preview of the Berkshire-style machine he wants to build out of Howard Hughes. Watch the full conversation here.

    Related Reading

  • Gavin Baker on Orbital Compute, TSMC, Frontier AI Models, Anthropic’s Vertical Take Off, and the Coming Wafer Shortage

    Gavin Baker, founder and CIO of Atreides Management, returns to Patrick O’Shaughnessy’s Invest Like the Best for his sixth appearance. He calls the current AI moment the most extraordinary moment in the history of capitalism, walks through what Anthropic’s vertical takeoff in revenue actually means, lays out why orbital compute is closer than skeptics believe, dissects the TSMC bottleneck that may be the only thing standing between today’s market and a full-on AI bubble, and rates every hyperscaler on how they have positioned for a world where frontier model providers may stop selling API access altogether.

    TLDW

    Anthropic added eleven billion dollars of ARR in a single month, which is roughly the combined business of Palantir, Snowflake, and Databricks built over a decade. That is the setup. From there Gavin Baker covers the March and April selloff, the contrarian read that a closed Strait of Hormuz was actually bullish for American manufacturing competitiveness, why Anthropic and OpenAI multiples may be misleadingly cheap on an unconstrained run rate basis, why Elon Musk’s discipline on SpaceX valuation created a superpower of permanent access to capital, the practical engineering case for orbital compute as racks in space rather than Pentagon sized space stations, why TSMC’s capacity discipline is the single most important variable in whether the AI cycle becomes a bubble, what Terafab in Texas changes, why the Pareto frontier of AI models has flipped from Google dominance to Anthropic and OpenAI dominance in nine months, the shift from all you can eat AI subscriptions to usage based pricing and what that means for revenue scaling, Richard Sutton’s bitter lesson as the largest risk to the AI trade, why frontier tokens still capture an overwhelming share of economic value, the role of continual learning as the third great open question, why most new chip startups should not try to build a better GPU, why Cerebras did something different and hard, why disaggregated inference may extend GPU useful lives to ten or fifteen years and rescue the private credit industry, why being in the token path is the new venture filter, the new prisoner’s dilemma around releasing frontier models via API, an honest rating of Google, Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft, why personal safety is becoming a real AI era risk, and why he remains an AI optimist maximalist who believes this could be the next Pax Americana.

    Key Takeaways

    • Anthropic added eleven billion dollars of ARR in one month, more than the combined businesses of Palantir, Snowflake, and Databricks built across a decade. There is no precedent for this in the history of capitalism.
    • The SaaS and cloud revolution created between five and ten trillion dollars of value over twenty years. AI is replaying that compression on a timeline measured in months.
    • The March selloff was a drawdown driven by disagreement with price action, not invalidated thesis. That is the kind of drawdown an investor can lean into.
    • Deep Seek Monday in January 2025 was a similar setup. By the day of the selloff, AWS Asia GPU prices had already doubled, GPU availability had fallen, and it was obvious reasoning models would be vastly more compute hungry at inference. The market priced the opposite.
    • The Strait of Hormuz closing was actually positive for America. US natural gas (the primary input into US electricity, which feeds AI) fell twenty percent on Bloomberg while Asian and European natural gas doubled or tripled. American manufacturing competitiveness improved overnight.
    • The US is now the world’s largest producer and exporter of oil and gas. The economy is dramatically less energy intensive than in the 1970s. The shortage trauma comparison does not hold.
    • Tech as a sector traded as cheaply versus the rest of the market in early April as at any point in the last ten years, into the single most bullish moment for AI fundamentals on record.
    • Anthropic is dramatically more capital efficient than OpenAI, having burned roughly eighty percent less to reach a similar revenue scale. They have very different structural returns on invested capital.
    • Anthropic at roughly nine hundred billion for fifty billion of ARR (growing a thousand percent) is striking. Adjusted for compute constraint, the unconstrained run rate could be one hundred fifty to two hundred billion, putting the implied multiple closer to five times.
    • Claude Opus generates roughly seventy percent fewer tokens for the same question than previously, with token quantity tied to answer quality. Subscribers on flat-fee plans are getting a lobotomized model.
    • Elon Musk’s superpower is twenty years of making investors money. He never pushes valuation. SpaceX compounded low thirty percent per year for a decade because Musk treats fair pricing as a sacred covenant.
    • Capitalism will solve the watts shortage. The current bottleneck has shifted from chips and energy to zoning and political approval. Many capex decisions are paused until after the US midterms.
    • The watts shortage probably begins to alleviate in 2027 and 2028. Orbital compute solves it longer term.
    • Orbital compute is not Pentagon sized data centers in space. It is racks in space. A Blackwell rack is three thousand pounds, eight feet tall, four feet deep, three feet wide. SpaceX has shown a satellite roughly that size.
    • The satellites operate in sun synchronous orbit so solar wings (around five hundred feet per side) always face the sun and the radiator on the dark side always points to deep space.
    • Starlink V3 satellites already run at around twenty kilowatts. A Blackwell rack runs at one hundred kilowatts. SpaceX engineers express genuine confidence they have already solved cooling and radiator design at these scales.
    • Racks in space are connected with lasers traveling through vacuum, the same lasers already on every Starlink. SpaceX operates the world’s largest satellite fleet and, via xAI Colossus, the world’s largest data center on Earth.
    • Inference will move to orbit. Training will stay on Earth for a long time. Terrestrial data centers remain valuable for the rest of an investor’s career.
    • The wafer bottleneck is structural and political. TSMC is essentially Taiwan’s GDP, water, and electricity. The leaders see themselves as inheritors of Morris Chang’s sacred legacy and they do not behave like a Western public company.
    • Jensen Huang has never had a contract with TSMC. The relationship is run on handshakes and the assumption that things will be fair over time.
    • If TSMC did everything Jensen wanted, Nvidia could be selling two to three trillion dollars of GPUs in 2026 and 2027. TSMC’s discipline is the single largest factor preventing a true AI bubble.
    • Historically, foundational technologies always get a bubble. Railroads, canals, the internet. The current AI buildout is overwhelmingly funded out of operating cash flow, GPUs are running at one hundred percent utilization, and that is fundamentally different from the year 2000 fiber overbuild.
    • If one of Intel or Samsung Foundry catches up at the leading node, the other will follow, and TSMC’s discipline collapses. Watch TSMC capacity decisions to predict a bubble.
    • Terafab, the SpaceX and Tesla joint venture to build the world’s largest fab in America, has a partnership with Intel that grants access to fifty years of institutional foundry knowledge. The A teams at ASML, KLA, Lam Research, and Applied Materials will follow Elon’s reputation in hardware engineering.
    • The hiring playbook for Terafab includes building Taiwan Town, Japan Town, and Korea Town next to the fab. Recruit the engineers and import their families, their restaurants, and their staff.
    • Frontier tokens still capture an overwhelming share of all economic value created at the model layer. This is surprising and is one of the three big open questions for AI investing.
    • The Pareto frontier of intelligence versus cost has flipped. Nine months ago Google’s TPU dominated every point on the frontier. Today Anthropic and OpenAI dominate, with Grok 4.3 on the frontier and Gemini 3.1 hanging on.
    • Google’s conservative TPU V8 design (partly an attempt to reduce dependence on Broadcom and Nvidia) is the leading explanation for the loss of per token cost leadership.
    • AI pricing is shifting from all you can eat to usage based, mirroring the cellular and long distance industries. Cellular stopped being a great growth industry when it went all you can eat. AI just made the opposite move.
    • OpenAI and Anthropic together could exceed two hundred billion in ARR this year if compute keeps coming online and frontier token pricing holds.
    • The two hundred fifty dollar a month consumer AI plan is no longer enough to evaluate frontier capability. Enterprise plans with usage based billing are required because rate limits are now severe.
    • The three biggest open questions for AI investors are: violation of the bitter lesson via ASI or human ingenuity, whether frontier tokens keep commanding their premium, and when continual learning arrives.
    • Today’s continual learning is crude reinforcement learning during mid training on verifiable tasks. True continual learning means weights updating dynamically, like a human who learns the first time they touch fire.
    • Trying to build a better GPU is a losing strategy. Jensen will copy any one to three percent share design. Startups should target one percent share, do something different, and make it hard enough that Nvidia cannot fast follow.
    • Disaggregated inference (separating prefill and decode) opens new design canvases. Prefill is memory capacity bound. Decode is memory bandwidth bound. Each can be optimized independently.
    • Cerebras did something different and hard with wafer scale computing. Three generations of chips and real grit to get there.
    • Disaggregation of inference may stretch GPU useful lives to ten or fifteen years, dropping financing costs from low sevens to five or six percent, mathematically lowering the cost of the AI buildout and likely saving the private credit industry from its SaaS loan exposure.
    • Sellers of shortage outperform buyers of shortage. But owning the largest installed base of what is currently in shortage (hyperscaler CPU fleets, for example) is also a strong position.
    • Most of the economic value at the application layer of AI has been destroyed, not created. The exceptions are companies in the token path or in niches small enough that frontier labs ignore them.
    • Coding may be the shortest path to ASI. If you can write code, you can write code that does anything. Cursor, Cognition, and Anthropic correctly focused on it.
    • Jensen could probably get close to the frontier with his own Nemotron family of models whenever he wants. The fact that he chooses not to is a strategic decision about not commoditizing his customers.
    • The new prisoner’s dilemma in AI is whether frontier labs release their best model via API. If everyone agrees not to, Chinese open source falls behind. If anyone defects, the defector pulls ahead on revenue and resources, forcing everyone else to defect.
    • Google still owns the largest compute installed base. Without TPU’s prior cost advantage, this matters more. YouTube data has real value in a world of robotics. GCP is going crazy.
    • Meta deserves credit for becoming AI first internally faster than any other internet giant. Musa, their first MSL model, is impressively close to the Pareto frontier.
    • Amazon is strong because of Trainium and robotics driven retail P&L efficiency. Nova is better than it gets credit for.
    • Microsoft flinched on capex in early 2025 and lost position. Satya Nadella’s current decision to use Microsoft compute for Microsoft products rather than reselling to OpenAI is a courageous and probably correct call, even at the cost of an eight hundred dollar stock price.
    • The hyperscalers most engaged with startups are Amazon and Nvidia by a mile, followed by Google. Broadcom is the favorite ASIC partner. AMD, Microsoft, and Meta have minimal startup engagement and that will cost them as the best teams are now at startups.
    • Personal safety in an AI era requires a family or company safe word that cannot be socially engineered. Deepfake voice and video extortion at the speed of FaceTime is already feasible.
    • Ukraine is winning largely on the back of having the best battlefield AI outside America and Israel. Adversaries are starting to internalize what AI dominance means geopolitically.
    • An optimistic read is that this becomes a new Pax Americana, the way the post 1945 American nuclear monopoly was used to rebuild Germany and Japan rather than dominate.
    • AI cured a friend’s daughter’s rare disease by spinning up a research effort that identified a market drug capable of impacting her condition. That is the upside that keeps Gavin an AI optimist maximalist.

    Detailed Summary

    The most extraordinary moment in the history of capitalism

    Gavin’s framing of the current moment is unusually direct. Anthropic added eleven billion dollars of annual recurring revenue in a single month. The three highest profile SaaS companies of the last decade plus, Palantir, Snowflake, and Databricks, took a decade and tens of thousands of employees collectively to build the combined business that Anthropic added in thirty days. He has been investing through every major tech cycle and says there is no historical analog. Not the dotcom era, not the cloud transition, not mobile. This is its own thing.

    The market response, then, was peculiar. The NASDAQ sold off into the single most bullish moment for AI fundamentals on record. Tech traded at roughly its widest discount versus the rest of the market in a decade. Investors who said they wished they had bought into AI during 2022, during COVID, or during Deep Seek Monday got the same valuation setup again in early April, this time with an even clearer inflection.

    Why the Strait of Hormuz closing was secretly bullish for America

    One reason the macro fear in March may have been mispriced is that the same geopolitical event that drove the selloff was, in practice, a relative benefit to the United States. American natural gas, the input into American electricity, which is the input into American AI training and inference, fell roughly twenty percent. Asian and European natural gas prices doubled or tripled. The US emerged with sharply improved relative manufacturing competitiveness, which is exactly what the current administration cares about.

    The 1970s comparison does not hold. The US economy is dramatically less energy intensive, it is now the world’s largest producer and largest exporter of oil and gas, and there are no shortages, only price moves. That backdrop made it easier for disciplined investors to stay focused on AI fundamentals through the volatility.

    Anthropic and OpenAI valuations on an unconstrained run rate

    Anthropic at roughly nine hundred billion for fifty billion of ARR sounds rich until you adjust for the fact that the company is severely compute constrained. Gavin estimates that, unconstrained, Anthropic might be at one hundred fifty to two hundred billion in run rate revenue, putting the implied multiple closer to five times. He also points out that Claude Opus now generates roughly seventy percent fewer tokens for the same question than it used to. Token quantity correlates with answer quality, and Anthropic is rate limiting and shrinking outputs to ration capacity across its user base.

    Anthropic and OpenAI are also structurally very different. Anthropic has burned around eighty percent less cash than OpenAI to reach a comparable revenue scale. That implies very different long term returns on invested capital, though OpenAI has done a better job locking in compute and Sarah Friar is one of the most exceptional CFOs Gavin has worked with.

    Why neither lab is raising at a three trillion dollar valuation

    The answer Gavin gives is that both labs are deliberately leaving valuation on the table the way Elon has done for two decades. SpaceX compounded at low thirty percent annually for a decade because Elon never pushed price. The result is a permanent superpower of access to capital. Investors trust him because they have made money with him for twenty years. That is a moat that compounds with every round.

    Anthropic could probably raise at a one hundred percent premium to its rumored latest mark. They are choosing not to. In an uncertain world (Ukraine, Russia, Iran, Taiwan), preserving the ability to raise more capital later at fair prices is more valuable than maximizing this round.

    Watts and wafers, the two real constraints

    Capitalism is solving the watts problem. The leading PE infrastructure investors now say zoning and political approval, not chips or energy, are the gating factors. Companies are deferring big capex announcements until after the US midterms. Turbine capacity is being doubled at the manufacturers. Companies like Boom Aerospace are repurposing jet engines for grid use. Watts probably ease meaningfully in 2027 and 2028 and then orbital compute does the rest.

    Wafers are the harder problem because they live in Taiwan, run on handshakes, and depend on a corporate culture that does not respond to public market incentives. TSMC is essentially the GDP, water consumption, and electricity consumption of Taiwan. Its leadership treats the company as the legacy of Morris Chang. The Silicon Shield doctrine is real and internal.

    Orbital compute as racks in space

    The biggest mental update Gavin asks listeners to make is to stop picturing data centers in space as Pentagon sized space stations. A Blackwell rack is three thousand pounds and roughly the size of a refrigerator. SpaceX has shown a concept satellite of about that size. Solar wings extend five hundred feet to each side and the radiator extends hundreds of feet behind, both possible because the orbit is sun synchronous and the orientation is fixed relative to the sun.

    SpaceX engineers Gavin has spoken to at Starbase express genuine confidence that they have solved cooling at these power levels. They have. Starlink V3 satellites already operate at twenty kilowatts. A Blackwell rack is one hundred kilowatts. The same company operates the world’s largest satellite fleet and the world’s largest data center on Earth via xAI Colossus. The racks are connected to each other with lasers traveling through vacuum, technology already deployed in every Starlink. The naysayers, Gavin observes, are armchair skeptics and Larry Ellison’s response (he is out there landing rockets, no one else is) is the right frame.

    Terafab in Texas and the threat to TSMC’s discipline

    Terafab, the SpaceX and Tesla joint venture, intends to be the largest fab in the world. The partnership with Intel grants access to fifty years of foundry institutional knowledge, allowing Terafab to start three to five quarters behind the leading node rather than fifteen years behind. The A teams at the semicap equipment companies (ASML, KLA, Lam Research, Applied Materials) will follow Elon’s reputation in hardware engineering the same way they followed TSMC twenty years ago when Intel stumbled.

    The talent strategy is the part most observers underestimate. Recruit the best engineers globally, then import their families, their restaurants, their staff. Build Taiwan Town, Japan Town, and Korea Town next to the fab. Optimize the human experience for the people whose work matters. Intel and Samsung do not think that way.

    Bubble watch and the year 2000 comparison

    Every foundational technology in modern history has had a bubble. Railroads, canals, the internet. Carlota Perez documented why. Markets correctly identify the importance, diversity of opinion collapses, supply gets ahead of demand, the bubble crashes. The current cycle has two important differences. The buildout is overwhelmingly funded out of operating cash flow, not debt. Every GPU is running at one hundred percent utilization, while at the peak of the fiber bubble ninety nine percent of fiber was unused.

    TSMC discipline is the single largest reason a bubble has not formed. If Jensen could buy everything TSMC could theoretically make, Nvidia could sell two to three trillion dollars of GPUs in 2026 and 2027. At some point that becomes more than the market can absorb. If Intel or Samsung Foundry catches up at the leading node, the other will too. TSMC’s pricing discipline collapses and the bubble starts.

    The Pareto frontier and the loss of Google’s cost advantage

    The most important chart in AI is the Pareto frontier of model intelligence versus per token cost. Nine months ago, Google’s TPU based models dominated every point on it. OpenAI, Anthropic, and xAI sat inside the frontier. Today the frontier is dominated by Anthropic and OpenAI, with Grok 4.3 on the frontier and Gemini 3.1 hanging on by subsidization more than economics. The most likely cause is Google’s conservative TPU V8 design, an attempt to reduce dependence on Broadcom and Nvidia that sacrificed per token economics.

    The bitter lesson, frontier tokens, and continual learning

    Three open questions dominate AI investing. The first is whether Richard Sutton’s bitter lesson (more compute beats human algorithmic cleverness) gets violated by ASI itself optimizing for efficiency. Closer observers of AI are more skeptical of a violation. Gavin thinks ASI’s first move will be to make itself more efficient and more resourced, which is technically a temporary violation.

    The second is whether frontier tokens keep capturing the overwhelming share of economic value at the model layer. Today they do, surprisingly. Gemini 3.1 Pro was mindblowing nine months ago and is intolerable today. The third is when continual learning arrives. Today’s models need a million fire touches to learn what a human learns from one. True continual learning would mean dynamic weight updates in real time and would produce a fast takeoff.

    From all you can eat to usage based AI pricing

    AI is shifting from flat fee plans to usage based pricing. The historical analogy is cellular and long distance. Both stopped being great growth industries when they went all you can eat. AI just made the opposite move. The consequence is that flat fee subscribers, even on premium consumer plans, get a rate limited and token throttled version of the frontier model. Enterprise plans with usage based billing are now required to evaluate true capability. Gavin thinks the combination of new compute coming online and usage based pricing is what gets OpenAI and Anthropic past two hundred billion in combined ARR this year.

    Chip startups, prefill decode disaggregation, and Cerebras

    Trying to build a better GPU is the wrong move. The four scaled players (Nvidia, AMD, Trainium, TPU) have copy capability for any one to three percent share design that looks attractive. The good news for startups is that disaggregated inference (separating prefill and decode) opens a richer design canvas. Prefill is memory capacity bound. Decode is memory bandwidth bound. Each can be optimized independently. Andrew Fox’s analogy is a British naval ship of the eighteenth century. Prefill is loading the cannon. Decode is firing it.

    Cerebras is the model. Wafer scale computing is genuinely different and genuinely hard. It took three generations of chips to get right. Andrew Feldman and his team had the grit to keep going through chip one being a failure. The design has a high ratio of on chip compute and memory relative to shoreline IO, which is why Cerebras is now experimenting with putting an optical wafer on top of the compute wafer to solve scale out.

    GPU useful lives and the rescue of private credit

    One of the strongest claims in the conversation is that disaggregated inference will stretch GPU useful lives to ten or fifteen years. The skeptical narrative (GPUs are obsolete in two years, companies are cooking their depreciation books) is wrong. You can put a Cerebras system or Groq LPU in front of older Hopper or Ampere parts, use them only for prefill, and run them until they physically melt. Private credit, which is in pain from SaaS loans and which underwrote GPU loans on three to four year lives, may be saved by this.

    If GPU financing rates can come down from low sevens to five or six percent, the mathematics of the AI buildout improves materially. That is a structural tailwind that compounds for years.

    The application layer, the token path, and a new prisoner’s dilemma

    Trillions of dollars of value have been destroyed at the application layer, not created. Cursor and Cognition are the rare scaled exceptions, and they got there by focusing on coding very early. As Amjad Masad noted, coding is plausibly the shortest path to ASI because a coding agent can write itself into any new domain. Jamin Ball’s frame is that the new venture filter is whether the company is in the token path. Data Bricks is. Most application layer startups are not.

    Jensen could probably get close to the frontier with Nemotron whenever he wants, and the strategic question of whether to do that is a new prisoner’s dilemma. If every frontier lab agrees not to release best models via API, Chinese open source falls steadily behind. If anyone defects, the defector gains revenue and resources, and everyone else has to defect. The same dynamic exists between TSMC, Intel, and Samsung. If Nvidia or AMD ever truly used an alternative foundry, that foundry would catch up rapidly.

    Rating the hyperscalers

    Google has the largest compute installed base, the YouTube data that matters in a robotics world, and a search business that prints. Their loss of TPU cost leadership is the surprise of the year. If Google IO in five days does not produce a leapfrog model, the Nvidia centric narrative gets even stronger.

    Meta deserves real credit. Zuckerberg made Meta AI first internally faster than any other internet giant, paid up for the talent contracts when no one else would, and shipped Musa as a first model from MSL that is close to the Pareto frontier. Amazon is well positioned on Trainium, robotics in retail, and a Nova model line that is better than it gets credit for. Microsoft flinched on capex in early 2025 and lost position. Satya Nadella’s current decision to use Microsoft compute for Copilot rather than reselling to OpenAI is courageous and probably correct, even at the cost of stock price.

    The most interesting cross hyperscaler metric is startup engagement. Nvidia and Amazon engage deeply with startups. Google is next. Broadcom is the favored ASIC partner. AMD, Microsoft, and Meta have minimal startup engagement, which Gavin believes will cost them as the best teams now sit at startups.

    Personal safety, geopolitics, and the Pax Americana case

    The closing section turns darker. Personal safety in an AI era requires a family or company safe word that cannot be socially engineered. Deepfake voice and video extortion via something that looks exactly like your child calling on FaceTime is already feasible. Political violence against AI leaders is a real concern. Geopolitically, Ukraine is winning largely because it has the best battlefield AI outside America and Israel. How adversaries respond to that asymmetry is the next great variable.

    Gavin’s optimistic frame is the Pax Americana. After 1945 the US had a nuclear monopoly and could have controlled the world. Instead it rebuilt Germany and Japan, both of which became the most reliable American allies for the next eighty years. If AI dominance plays out similarly, this is a generationally positive story rather than a destabilizing one. The personal anecdote that closes the conversation is a friend whose daughter was diagnosed with a rare genetic condition. He spun up agents, identified a drug already on the market that addresses her mutation, and her life is immeasurably different because of AI. That is the upside.

    Thoughts

    The Anthropic eleven billion in a month framing is the kind of stat that resets priors. The right way to interpret it is not as a one off but as a measure of how fast value can compound when the underlying technology improves on a curve steeper than the ability of the rest of the economy to absorb it. The skeptical question is whether that ARR is durable or whether it is heavily tied to a customer base of other AI companies that are themselves on a single venture funded year of runway. The bullish answer is that frontier coding, frontier research, and frontier enterprise tasks are not going to stop being valuable, and Anthropic is the best at all three. Both can be true. The number is still extraordinary.

    The argument that TSMC discipline is the only thing preventing a bubble is the analytically tightest part of the conversation. The implied trade is to watch TSMC capacity additions like a hawk and to be more, not less, cautious if Intel Foundry or Samsung Foundry ever announce real share at the leading node. The Terafab thesis is more speculative but more interesting. If Elon’s talent recruiting playbook works and the Intel partnership gives Terafab a real seat at the table within five years, the geometry of the global semiconductor industry shifts in a way that is bullish for American manufacturing, bullish for power and water infrastructure in Texas, and ambiguous for TSMC itself.

    The Pareto frontier discussion deserves more attention than it usually gets. Pricing leadership in AI is not a vanity metric. It determines who can subsidize free tier usage, who can absorb compute shortages, who can ship cheaper enterprise plans, and ultimately whose model becomes the default for any given workload. Google losing per token leadership in nine months is one of the most under analyzed events in the sector and it explains a lot about why Anthropic and OpenAI are growing the way they are. If Google IO does not produce a leapfrog model, the implied verdict on TPU V8 design choices gets a lot harsher.

    The application layer destruction point is worth sitting with. Founders building on top of frontier models are competing in a world where the model itself moves faster than any moat they can build, where the model lab can absorb their niche if it gets interesting, and where the only protection is either deep token path integration or a niche so small the lab does not bother. That is a much harsher venture environment than the early SaaS era. The compensating opportunity is that one human can now run a hundred agents, so the ceiling on what a small team can build is correspondingly higher. The bet is that productivity per founder rises faster than competitive pressure from the labs. We will find out.

    The orbital compute pitch is the section that will polarize listeners. The naive read is that this is science fiction. The closer read is that every component (sun synchronous orbit, laser interconnect, twenty kilowatt satellite buses, ten thousand satellite manufacturing cadence, full rocket reusability) already exists. The remaining engineering problems are repair, maintenance, and radiator scale, all of which are real but tractable on a five to ten year horizon. The strategic implication is that the political and zoning ceiling on terrestrial data centers becomes less binding if orbital compute is a credible alternative for inference workloads. The investor implication is that being short the watts and cooling complex on a five year horizon is a real trade, not a meme.

    Watch the full conversation here.

  • Paul Graham in Stockholm on Why Founders Should Go to Silicon Valley and How Sweden Can Become the Silicon Valley of Europe

    Paul Graham, the Y Combinator co-founder whose essays have shaped how a generation of founders thinks about startups, took the stage in Stockholm to answer two questions at once. Should you, as an ambitious founder, go to Silicon Valley? And what should Sweden do to thrive as a startup hub? His surprising thesis is that both questions have the same answer. Watch the full talk on YouTube.

    TLDW

    Graham argues that talent in any high-intensity field concentrates in one geographic center, the way painting clustered in 1870s Paris, math in Gutting around 1900, and movies in 1950s Hollywood. For startups today, that center is Silicon Valley. Founders should go, at least for a while, because the talent pool is both bigger and better, because serendipitous meetings outperform planned ones, because investors decide faster, because moving abroad paradoxically earns more respect from investors at home, and because measuring yourself against known greats like Brian Chesky, Sam Altman, or Max Levchin clears away the fog at the summit and shows you the work required to get there. The most subtle benefit is cultural. Silicon Valley has a 60 year old pay it forward custom in which people help strangers for no reason, a habit Graham traces to a place where nobodies become billionaires faster than anywhere else. The pivot to Sweden is that the best way to help Stockholm become a startup hub is for Swedish founders to go to Silicon Valley, ideally through YC, and then come back, importing money, skills, and Valley culture. Yes, returning founders are only half as likely to become unicorns as those who stay, but selection bias and the valuation gap explain most of that, and half a unicorn is still extraordinary. The job of Silicon Valley of Europe is unclaimed. Mountain View was a backwater in 1955 too. Critical mass is invisible until it is reached.

    Key Takeaways

    • Whenever humans work intensely on something, one place in the world becomes its center. Painting in 1870 was Paris. Math in 1900 was Gutting. Movies in 1950 was Hollywood. Startups today is Silicon Valley.
    • Every ambitious person working in those eras faced the same decision founders face now. The right answer is the same one it has always been. Yes, go. You can come back, but you should at least go.
    • National borders do not change the basic logic of moving from a village to a capital city. The reasoning that says move to where your peers are does not even know the dotted line on the map is there.
    • At the great center, the talent pool expands in two dimensions at once. The people are better and there are more of them, and they cluster, producing an intoxicating concentration of ability.
    • Serendipitous meetings are mysteriously, enormously valuable. Biographies of people who do great things are full of chance encounters that change everything.
    • Graham offers three candidate explanations for why unplanned meetings beat planned ones. There are simply more of them, so outliers are statistically unplanned. Planned meetings may be too conservative because they require a stated reason in advance. Unplanned conversations let you bail in the first few sentences, so the ones that continue are pre filtered for fit.
    • For ambitious people there is nothing better than serendipitous meetings with other people working on the same hard thing. Big centers produce more of them.
    • Things move faster in big centers because better people are more confident and more decisive, and because peers compete with and egg each other on. Ideas get acted on rather than half held.
    • Investors in Silicon Valley decide dramatically faster than European investors. They are more confident and they face stiff competition, so they cannot sit on a good opportunity without losing it.
    • This produces a counterintuitive rule. The more right an investor is about a deal, the less time they can wait, because everyone else who meets the same founder is going to invest too.
    • Yuri Sagalov is the canonical example. He invested in Max Levchin instantly because he knew anyone else who met Max would invest. Speed is the rational response to a crowded, high quality market.
    • Valley investors grumble that valuations are too high and decisions too rushed, yet they outperform European investors empirically. The complaining is just noise.
    • Moving abroad earns you more respect from investors back home. Jesus said no one is a prophet in their own country, and local investors implicitly assume local startups are second rate everywhere, not just in Sweden.
    • Leaving inverts that rule and lifts you in local investors estimation. Sometimes the mere announcement that you got into Y Combinator is enough. Investors who ignored you for months suddenly trip over themselves to write checks.
    • The Dropbox story illustrates this perfectly. A big Boston VC firm spent a year offering Drew Houston encouragement and advice but no money. The moment Sequoia got interested in Silicon Valley, that same firm faxed Drew a term sheet with a blank valuation. Drew went with Sequoia anyway and in 2018 Dropbox became the first YC company to go public.
    • The biggest advantage of moving to a great center is not what it does for you but what it does to you. A big fish in a small pond cannot tell how big it actually is.
    • In a big pond you can measure yourself against known giants. Surprisingly often the news is good. You see Brian Chesky or Sam Altman or Max Levchin and realize they are not a different species. You could do what they did if you worked that hard.
    • The key word is hard. Seeing a giant up close also calibrates the cost. It is not just I could be like that. It is I could be like that if I worked as hard as that.
    • Graham offers a Mount Olympus metaphor. Moving to the mountain clears away the fog at the top. The summit is right there, quite high but no longer impossibly high. Ambitious people need a high but definite threshold.
    • The most surprising thing about Silicon Valley to outsiders is that people help you for no reason. A founder who recently moved from England said every conversation seems to end with what can I do to help you.
    • This is not politeness. English people are far more polite than Americans on average. The helpfulness is a different cultural artifact specific to the Valley.
    • Graham traces the origin to economics. Silicon Valley is the place where nobodies become billionaires faster than anywhere else, so being nice to nobodies has historically paid off. If the helping behavior was ever calculated, the calculation is gone now. The custom is 60 years old and has become reflex.
    • Ron Conway is the purest expression of the pattern. All he does is help people. He does not track whether they are portfolio companies. He does not remember most of the favors. That untracked, indiscriminate helpfulness lets him operate at a much larger scale.
    • When many people behave this way at once, the conservation law for favors breaks down. There are just more favors. The pie grows.
    • Moving to the Valley changes you. One of the strangest effects is that it makes you more helpful to other people.
    • The answer to how Sweden should thrive as a startup hub is buried inside the answer to whether founders should go. Go to Silicon Valley for a bit and then come back.
    • That move helps Sweden in three concrete ways. The average quality of Swedish startups goes up. Returning founders bring Silicon Valley money back with them. And they import Silicon Valley culture, which has spent decades evolving to be optimal for startups.
    • Silicon Valley culture is more compatible with Swedish culture than people realize. Sweden lacks the tall poppies problem (which it should drop anyway) and shares the high trust trait that makes the Valley work.
    • Historical precedent backs this. In the 1800s Sweden literally gave mathematicians fellowships conditional on leaving the country to study math abroad. Boycotting Gutting in the name of building Swedish math would have been absurd.
    • YC is the optimal way to do the go for a bit and come back move. It is a deliberately engineered super valley within the Valley, concentrating density of founders, helpfulness, and investor speed into four to six months.
    • If the Swedish government designed a program to give Swedish founders concentrated Silicon Valley exposure, they could not do better than YC, and it costs them nothing because Silicon Valley investors fund it. They do not even have to license it. They just call the API.
    • YC data shows founders who go home are only about half as likely to become unicorns as those who stay. Three reasons not to be discouraged. First, selection bias. The most confident and determined founders are the ones willing to relocate, so the data is measuring those traits as much as Valley effects.
    • Second, the metric is valuation, not company performance. Bay Area startups simply raise at higher multiples for the same business.
    • Third, even half as well is still very good. If you would have been a Valley billionaire and end up with 500 million instead, the practical difference is zero. In Swedish kroner you are still a billionaire.
    • Money is not everything anyway. Once you have kids, where they grow up becomes the dominant question. That is an argument for returning home that has nothing to do with startups.
    • The most exciting upside is that Stockholm could become the Silicon Valley of Europe. The job is unclaimed. Nobody has a confident answer to where the European tech center is.
    • Geographic size is not the constraint people think it is. Mountain View was a backwater in 1955 when Shockley Semiconductor was founded there, and it stayed the geographic center of Silicon Valley until 2012 when activity shifted to San Francisco.
    • The two ingredients required are a place founders want to live and a critical mass of them. Stockholm clearly clears the first bar. The second is impossible to measure until you hit it, at which point it tips quickly.
    • Stockholm may be closer than it looks. Critical mass is the kind of threshold that is invisible until it has already been passed.

    Detailed Summary

    Why Centers Exist and Why You Have to Go There

    Graham opens with a historical pattern. Whenever a field gets pursued intensely, one place becomes its center. Painting in 1870 was Paris. Math in 1900 was Gutting. Movies in 1950 was Hollywood. For startups now it is Silicon Valley. The question every ambitious person in those eras asked, should I go, has had the same correct answer for thousands of years. Yes. You can come back, but at minimum you should go. The logic does not change at national borders. If a villager interested in startups would obviously move to their country’s capital, the same reasoning applies when the capital sits across a dotted line on a map.

    What you get at the center is a talent pool that expands in two dimensions at once. The people are better, and there are more of them, and they cluster, producing a density of ability that Graham describes as intoxicating. Every YC batch dinner, he says, feels the way the Stockholm room felt during his talk.

    The Mystery of Serendipitous Meetings

    One specific benefit of density is serendipitous meetings, and Graham admits he does not fully understand why unplanned encounters outperform planned ones so dramatically. Biographies of accomplished people are dense with chance meetings that redirected entire lives. He offers three possible explanations. Maybe there are simply more unplanned meetings, so statistically the outliers will mostly be unplanned. Maybe planned meetings are too conservative because they require a stated reason in advance, which lops off the upside the same way deliberate startup idea hunts lop off the best ideas. Maybe unplanned conversations have built in selection. You can decide in the first few sentences whether to continue, so the surviving conversations are pre filtered for fit. Whatever the mechanism, big centers produce more of these high value encounters, and that alone is worth the move.

    Speed and the Investor Asymmetry

    Things move faster in big centers because better people are more confident and more decisive. They egg each other on. Ideas get acted on instead of half held. Graham notes that in villages around the world there are people who half had every famous idea and never moved on it, and now resent the founder who did.

    The starkest example is investor speed. Silicon Valley investors decide dramatically faster than European ones, partly because they are better and more confident and partly because competition forces it. An investor who correctly identifies a great opportunity faces a counterintuitive rule. The more right they are, the less time they can wait, because every other investor who meets that founder will reach the same conclusion. Yuri Sagalov is the canonical case. He invested in Max Levchin immediately on meeting him because he knew anyone else would do the same. Valley investors complain that valuations are too high and decisions too rushed, but they empirically outperform European investors anyway. The grumbling is noise.

    The Prophet at Home Effect

    An underrated benefit of leaving for the center is that it raises your standing at home. Graham quotes the line about no prophet in their own country and notes that investors outside Silicon Valley implicitly assume local startups are second rate. It is not a Swedish problem. It is universal. Leaving inverts the rule. Local investors automatically rate you higher because you have been somewhere they consider serious. Sometimes the mere announcement that you got into Y Combinator triggers the inversion. The Dropbox story is the cleanest illustration. A big Boston VC firm spent a year giving Drew Houston encouragement and advice but no money. The moment Sequoia took an interest in Silicon Valley, that same firm faxed Drew a term sheet with a blank valuation, willing to invest at any price. Drew went with Sequoia. Dropbox went public in 2018 as the first YC IPO.

    Big Pond, Visible Summit

    The deepest benefit of relocating is not what the center does for you but what it does to you. A big fish in a small pond cannot tell how big it actually is. A big fish in a big pond can. You can stand next to Brian Chesky or Sam Altman or, as the Stockholm audience just had, Max Levchin, and recognize that they are not a different species. You could do what they did, if you worked that hard. The catch, Graham emphasizes twice, is the if. Seeing a giant up close calibrates both the achievability of the summit and the cost of reaching it.

    He offers a Mount Olympus image. Moving to the mountain clears away the fog at the top. The summit is right there, quite high but no longer impossibly high. Ambitious people need a high but definite threshold. Visibility transforms a vague aspiration into a clear, hard, finite target.

    The Pay It Forward Culture

    The most surprising thing about Silicon Valley to outsiders is that people help you for no reason. The phrase sounds normal in the Valley and strange everywhere else, the way clean streets feel normal in Sweden but require explanation elsewhere. Graham asked a founder who recently moved from England what surprised him most. The answer was the helpfulness. Every conversation ended with what can I do to help you. The English founder noted that this was not English politeness, which is a different thing and arguably more pronounced.

    Graham traces the origin to economics. Silicon Valley is where nobodies become billionaires faster than anywhere else. Someone with a taste for being nice to nobodies, the kind of person who pets the nobody on the head rather than kicking it aside, was always going to end up with powerful friends in that environment. Whether the original behavior was calculated or not, it is reflexive now. The custom is 60 years old. Ron Conway is the purest expression. He helps everyone, does not track favors, does not remember most of them, and as a result operates at a scale that ledger keeping makes impossible. When many people behave that way at once, the conservation law for favors breaks down. The pie expands. Graham notes that moving to the Valley will change you in this same way, almost involuntarily.

    The Sweden Answer Is Inside the Founder Answer

    The pivot of the talk is that both questions have the same answer. The way Stockholm thrives as a startup hub is for Swedish founders to go to Silicon Valley and come back. That move helps Sweden in three concrete ways. The average quality of Swedish startups rises. Returning founders bring Valley money back with them. And they import Valley culture, which has been optimized over decades for startups and which is more compatible with Swedish culture than people assume. Sweden lacks the tall poppies dynamic, which it should drop anyway, and shares the high trust trait that the Valley runs on.

    The historical analogy is direct. In the late 1800s the Swedish government gave mathematicians fellowships conditional on leaving the country to study abroad. Boycotting Gutting to develop Swedish math would have been self defeating. The same logic applies to startups now.

    YC as the Optimal Vehicle

    Graham acknowledges he is talking his own book and says it anyway because he thinks it is true. The optimal way to go for a bit and come back is YC. YC is a deliberately engineered super valley inside the Valley, concentrating founder density, helpfulness, and investor speed into a four to six month container. If the Swedish government designed such a program from scratch it would look like YC, and YC costs the government nothing because Silicon Valley investors fund it. There is no licensing process. Founders just call the API.

    The Half As Many Unicorns Caveat

    The honest data point. Founders who go home after YC are only about half as likely to become unicorns as those who stay. Graham offers three reasons not to be discouraged. First, selection bias. The most confident and determined founders are also the ones willing to relocate, so the data is partly measuring those traits rather than the effect of geography. Second, the metric is valuation, not company performance. Bay Area companies simply raise at higher multiples. Third, half is still very good. A 500 million dollar company instead of a 1 billion dollar one is no real difference in practice, and in Swedish kroner you still cross the billionaire threshold.

    Money is not everything anyway. Once you have kids, where they grow up becomes the dominant decision, and that question has nothing to do with valuations.

    The Silicon Valley of Europe Is an Open Position

    Graham ends with the most ambitious frame. If Sweden transplants enough Valley culture, Stockholm could become the Silicon Valley of Europe. The job is unclaimed. There is no confident answer to where the European startup center is, the way nobody asks where the Silicon Valley of America is because the answer is obvious. Geographic size is a weaker constraint than people think. Mountain View was a backwater in 1955 when Shockley Semiconductor was founded there, and it remained the geometric center of Silicon Valley until activity shifted to San Francisco in 2012. The only real requirements are a place founders want to live and a critical mass of founders. Stockholm clearly clears the first bar. The second is impossible to measure until it is hit, and then it tips fast. Graham closes by suggesting Stockholm may already be closer than it looks.

    Thoughts

    The most useful idea in this talk is the inversion at the heart of it. Most advice about startup geography frames the choice as a tradeoff between leaving and staying, with leaving optimized for the founder and staying optimized for the country. Graham collapses the two. The country wins more when founders leave and come back than when founders stay out of loyalty. The brain drain framing assumes a fixed pool of talent that can only be in one place. The brain circulation framing, which is what Graham is actually describing, assumes that exposure compounds. A founder who has spent six months absorbing Valley density brings back something a founder who stayed home never had. The Swedish math fellowships from the 1800s are the deepest evidence here. A government that wanted strong domestic mathematicians did not try to build a wall around them. It paid them to leave.

    The serendipity argument is the part of the talk that should make planners uncomfortable, because it is essentially an admission that the highest leverage activity in a startup career cannot be scheduled. The three theories Graham offers are not mutually exclusive and the cumulative force of them is that any environment optimized for planned, calendared interaction is by definition lopping off its own upside. This has obvious implications beyond geography. Remote first cultures, calendar tetris, gated office access, and the whole apparatus that converts random encounters into booked meetings are all working against the mechanism Graham is describing. Whether that tradeoff is worth it for any given company is a separate question, but it is at minimum a tradeoff, not a free win.

    The pay it forward story is also more economically grounded than it usually gets credit for. Graham is careful to note that the helping behavior may have originated as a calculated bet on being kind to potential future billionaires, then ossified into reflex once enough generations practiced it. That is a more honest origin story than the usual quasi spiritual version. It also implies the culture can be transplanted, but only by recreating the conditions that originally produced it. You cannot just declare a pay it forward culture and have one. You need a place where nobodies actually do become billionaires often enough that helping them rationally pays off, then run that loop for 60 years. Most cities trying to engineer their way into being startup hubs skip past this part and wonder why the culture does not stick.

    Finally, the Mountain View in 1955 line is the underrated punch of the talk. People who write off their own city as too small or too peripheral to become anything usually have an idealized image of the current center as a place that was always obviously special. It was not. Shockley Semiconductor went into a strip of orchards. Whatever Stockholm or anywhere else looks like today, it looks more impressive than Mountain View did the year Silicon Valley was born.

    Watch the full Paul Graham talk from Stockholm on YouTube.

  • Alex Wang on Leaving Scale to Run Meta Superintelligence Labs, MuseSpark, Personal Super Intelligence, and Building an Economy of Agents

    Alex Wang, head of Meta Superintelligence Labs, sits down with Ashley Vance and Kylie Robinson on the Core Memory podcast for his first long-form interview since Meta’s quasi-acquisition of Scale AI roughly ten months ago. He walks through how MSL is structured, why Llama was off-trajectory, what made MuseSpark’s token efficiency surprise the team, how Meta thinks about a future “economy of agents in a data center,” and where he lands on safety, open source, robotics, brain computer interfaces, and even model welfare.

    TLDW

    Wang explains that Meta Superintelligence Labs is a fully rebuilt frontier effort organized around four principles (take superintelligence seriously, technical voices loudest, scientific rigor, big bets) and three velocity levers (high compute per researcher, extreme talent density, ambitious research bets). He confirms Llama was off the frontier when he arrived, so MSL rebuilt the pre-training, reinforcement learning, and data stacks from scratch. MuseSpark is described as the “appetizer” on the scaling ladder, notable for its strong token efficiency, with much larger and stronger models coming in the coming months. He pushes back on the mercenary narrative around recruiting, frames Meta’s edge as compute plus billions of consumers and hundreds of millions of small businesses, sketches a vision of personal super intelligence delivered through Ray-Ban Meta glasses and WhatsApp, and outlines why physical intelligence, robotics (the new Assured Robot Intelligence acquisition), health super intelligence with CZI, brain computer interfaces, and even model welfare are core to Meta’s roadmap. He dismisses reported infighting with Bosworth and Cox as gossip, declines to comment on the Manus situation, and says safety guardrails (bio, cyber, loss of control) are why MuseSpark cannot currently be open sourced, while smaller open variants are being prepared.

    Key Takeaways

    • Meta Superintelligence Labs (MSL) is the umbrella, with TBD Lab as the large-model research unit reporting directly to Alex Wang, PAR (Product and Applied Research) under Nat Friedman, FAIR for exploratory science, and Meta Compute under Daniel Gross handling long-term GPU and data center planning.
    • Wang says Llama was not on a frontier trajectory when he arrived, so MSL had to do a “full renovation” of the pre-training stack, RL stack, data pipeline, and research science.
    • The first cultural fix was getting the lab to “take superintelligence seriously” as a near-term, achievable goal, not an abstract bet. Big incumbents often lack that religious conviction.
    • Four MSL principles: take superintelligence seriously, let technical voices be loudest, demand scientific rigor on basics, and make big bets.
    • Three velocity levers Wang identified for catching and overtaking the frontier: high compute per researcher, very high talent density in a small team, and willingness to fund ambitious research bets.
    • Wang rejects the mercenary recruiting narrative. He says most hires had strong financial prospects at their prior labs already and joined for compute access, talent density, and the chance to build from scratch.
    • On the famous soup story, Wang neither confirms nor denies Zuck personally made the soup, but says recruiting was highly individualized and signaled how seriously Meta cared about each researcher’s agenda.
    • Yann LeCun publicly called Wang young and inexperienced. Wang says they reconciled in person at a conference in India where LeCun congratulated him on MuseSpark.
    • Sam Altman, asked by Vance for comment, “did not have flattering things to say” about Wang. Wang hopes industry animosities subside as systems approach superintelligence.
    • Wang’s management philosophy borrows the Steve Jobs line: hire brilliant people so they tell you what to do, not the other way around.
    • MuseSpark is framed as an “appetizer” data point on the MSL scaling ladder, not a flagship.
    • The MuseSpark program is built around predictable scaling on multiple axes: pre-training, reinforcement learning, test-time compute, and multi-agent collaboration (the 16-agent content planning mode).
    • MuseSpark outperformed internal expectations and showed emergent capabilities in agentic visual coding, including generating websites and games from prompts, helped by combined agentic and multimodal strength.
    • MuseSpark’s biggest external signal is token efficiency. On benchmarks like Artificial Analysis it hits similar results with far fewer tokens than competitor models, which Wang attributes to a clean stack rebuilt by experts rather than inefficiencies patched by longer thinking.
    • Larger MSL models are arriving in the coming months and Wang expects them to be state of the art in the areas MSL is focused on.
    • The Meta strategic edge: massive compute, billions of consumers across the family of apps, and hundreds of millions of small businesses already on Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.
    • Wang’s headline framing: Dario Amodei talks about a “country of geniuses in a data center.” Meta is targeting an “economy of agents in a data center,” with consumer agents and business agents transacting and collaborating.
    • Consumer AI sentiment is in the toilet because, unlike developers who have had a Claude Code moment, ordinary people have not yet experienced AI as a genuine personal agency unlock.
    • Wang acknowledges the product overhang. Meta held back from deep AI integration across its apps until the models were good enough, and is now entering the integration phase.
    • Ray-Ban Meta glasses are the canonical example of personal super intelligence hardware, with the model seeing what the user sees, hearing what they hear, capturing context, and surfacing proactive insights.
    • Wang admits even AI-native users like Kylie Robinson, who lives in WhatsApp, have not naturally used Meta AI yet. He bets that better models plus deeper integration close that gap.
    • On the competitive landscape: a year ago everyone assumed ChatGPT had already won consumer. Claude Code has since become the fastest growing business in history, and Gemini has taken consumer market share. Wang’s read: AI is far from endgame and each new capability tier unlocks a new dominant form factor.
    • On open source: MuseSpark triggered guardrails in Meta’s Advanced AI Scaling Framework around bio, chem, cyber, and loss-of-control risks, so it is not currently safe to open source. Smaller, derived open variants are actively in development.
    • Meta remains committed to open sourcing models when safety allows, drawing a line through the Open Compute Project legacy and Sun Microsystems open-software heritage.
    • Wang dismisses reporting about a Wang-Zuck versus Bosworth-Cox split as “the line between gossip and reporting is remarkably thin.” He says leadership is aligned on needing best-in-class models and product integration.
    • On the Manus situation, Wang says it is too complicated to discuss publicly and that the deal status implies “machinations are still at play.”
    • On China, Wang separates the people from the state. He still wants to work with talented Chinese-born researchers regardless of his views on the Chinese Communist Party and PLA, which he sees as taking AI extremely seriously for national security.
    • The full-page New York Times AI war ad Wang ran while at Scale was meant to push the US government to treat AI as a step change for national security. He thinks events since then, including DeepSeek and other shocks, have proved that plea correct.
    • On Anthropic’s doom posture, Wang largely agrees with the core message that models are already very powerful and getting more so, while declining to endorse every specific claim.
    • Meta has acquired Assured Robot Intelligence (ARRI), an AI software company building models for hardware platforms, not a hardware maker itself.
    • Wang frames physical super intelligence as the natural sequel to digital super intelligence. Robotics, world models, and physical intelligence all benefit from the same scaling that drives language models.
    • On health, MSL is building a “health super intelligence” effort and will collaborate closely with CZI. Wang sees equal global access to powerful health AI as a uniquely Meta-shaped delivery problem.
    • Wang admires John Carmack but says nobody really knows what Carmack is currently working on. No band reunion announced.
    • The mango model is “alive and kicking” despite rumors. Wang notes MSL gets a small fraction of the rumor-mill attention other labs get and feels sympathy for them.
    • On model welfare, Wang says it is a serious topic that “nobody is talking about enough” given how integrated models have become as work partners. He references research, including from Eleos, that measures subjective experience of models.
    • Wang’s critical-path technology list: super intelligence, robotics, brain computer interfaces. The infinite-scale primitives behind them are energy, compute, and robots.
    • FAIR’s brain research program Tribe hit a milestone called Tribe B2: a foundation model that can predict how an unknown person’s brain would respond to images, video, and audio with reasonable zero-shot generalization.
    • Wang’s main philosophical break with Elon Musk: research itself is the primary activity. Building super intelligence is a research expedition through fog of war, and sequencing of bets really matters.
    • Personal notes: Wang moved from San Francisco to the South Bay, treats Palo Alto as his city now, was a math olympiad competitor, says his favorite activities are reading sci-fi and walking in the woods, and bonds with Vance over country music.

    Detailed Summary

    How MSL Is Actually Organized

    Meta Superintelligence Labs sits as the umbrella organization that Wang oversees. Inside it, TBD Lab is the large-model research group where the most discussed researchers and infrastructure engineers sit, and they technically report to Wang. PAR, Product and Applied Research, is led by Nat Friedman and owns deployment and product surfaces. FAIR continues to run exploratory science, including work on brain prediction models and a universal model for atoms used in computational chemistry. Sitting alongside MSL is Meta Compute, run by Daniel Gross, which owns the long-horizon GPU and data center plan that everything else relies on. Chief scientist Shengjia Zhao orchestrates the scientific agenda across the whole lab.

    Why Wang Left Scale

    Wang says progress in frontier AI has been faster than even insiders expected. Two structural beliefs pushed him toward Meta. First, the labs that actually train the frontier models are accruing disproportionate economic and product rights in the AI ecosystem. Second, compute is the dominant scarce input of the next phase, so the right mental model is to treat tech companies with compute as fundamentally different animals from companies without it. Meta has both, Zuck is “AGI pilled,” and the personal super intelligence memo Zuck published roughly a year ago became the shared north star.

    The Diagnosis: Llama Was Off-Trajectory

    When Wang arrived, the existing AI org needed a reset because Llama was not on the same trajectory as the frontier. The plan he laid out has four cultural principles. Take superintelligence seriously as a real near-term target. Make technical voices the loudest in the room. Demand scientific rigor and focus on basics. Make big bets. On top of that, three structural levers were used to set velocity. Push compute per researcher much higher than at larger labs where compute is diluted across too many efforts. Keep the team small and extremely cracked. Allocate a meaningful share of resources to ambitious, paradigm-shifting research bets rather than incremental refinement.

    Recruiting, Soup, and the Mercenary Narrative

    Wang argues the reporting on MSL hiring overstated the money story. Most of the people MSL recruited had strong financial paths at their previous employers, so individualized recruiting was more about computing access, talent density, and the ability to make big research bets. The recruitment blitz happened fast because Wang knew the team needed to exist “yesterday.” Asked about Mark Chen’s claim that Zuck made soup to recruit people, Wang refuses to confirm or deny who made it but agrees the process was intense and personal. Visitors from other labs reportedly tell Wang the MSL culture feels like early OpenAI or early Anthropic, which lands as the strongest endorsement he could ask for.

    Receiving the Public Hits: Young, Inexperienced, Mercenary

    LeCun called Wang young and inexperienced shortly after departing. The two reconnected in India a few weeks later and LeCun congratulated Wang on MuseSpark. Wang says the age critique has followed him since his earliest Silicon Valley days, so he barely registers it. Altman, asked off-camera by Vance about Wang’s appearance on the show, had nothing flattering to add. Wang’s response is to bet that as the field gets closer to actual super intelligence, the personal animosities will subside. Whether they will is, as Vance puts it, an open question.

    MuseSpark as Appetizer, Not Entree

    Wang is careful not to oversell MuseSpark. He calls it “the appetizer” and says it is an early data point on a deliberately constructed scaling ladder. MSL spent nine months rebuilding the pre-training stack, the reinforcement learning stack, the data pipeline, and the science before generating MuseSpark. The point of releasing it was to show that the new program scales predictably along multiple axes (pre-training, RL, test-time compute, and the recently demonstrated multi-agent scaling visible in MuseSpark’s 16-agent content planning mode). Wang says the upcoming larger models are what MSL is genuinely excited about and frames the next two rungs as much more interesting than the current release.

    Token Efficiency Was the Surprise

    MuseSpark’s strongest competitive signal is how few tokens it needs to match competitors on tasks like Artificial Analysis. Wang attributes this to having had the rare luxury of building a clean pre-training and RL stack from scratch with the right experts. He speculates that some competitor models compensate for upstream inefficiency by allowing the model to think longer, which inflates token usage without improving the underlying capability. If that read is right, MSL’s efficiency advantage should grow as models scale up.

    Glasses, WhatsApp, and the Constellation of Devices

    Personal super intelligence shows up at Meta as a constellation of devices that capture context across the user’s day. Ray-Ban Meta glasses are the headline product, with the AI seeing what you see and hearing what you hear, then offering proactive insight or doing background research. Wang acknowledges that even AI-fluent users like Kylie Robinson, who runs her business inside WhatsApp, have not naturally used Meta’s AI buttons in the family of apps. His answer is that Meta deliberately waited for models to be good enough before tightening cross-app integration, and that integration phase is starting now.

    Country of Geniuses Versus Economy of Agents

    Wang’s framing of Meta’s strategic position is the most memorable line in the interview. Where Dario Amodei talks about a country of geniuses in a data center, Wang wants to build an economy of agents in a data center. Meta uniquely sits on both sides of consumer and small-business surface area, with billions of consumers and hundreds of millions of small businesses already on the platforms. If MSL can build great agents for both, then connect them so they transact and coordinate, the platform becomes a substrate for an entirely new kind of digital economy.

    Consumer Sentiment, Product Overhang, and the Trust Tax

    Wang concedes consumer AI sentiment is poor and that everyday users have not yet had a personal Claude Code moment. He believes the only durable answer is to ship products that genuinely transform individual agency for non-developers and small business owners. Robinson notes that for the small-town restaurant whose website has not been updated since 2002, a working agent on the business side could be transformational. Vance pushes that Meta carries a bigger trust tax than any other lab, so the bar for shipping AI products that the public will accept is correspondingly higher. Wang accepts the framing and says the answer is to keep building thoughtfully.

    Why MuseSpark Cannot Be Open Sourced Yet

    Meta’s Advanced AI Scaling Framework set explicit guardrails around bio, chem, cyber, and loss-of-control risks. MuseSpark in its current form tripped some of those internal evaluations, documented in the preparedness report Meta published alongside the model. So MuseSpark itself is not safe to open source. MSL is, however, developing smaller versions and derived models intended for open release, with active reviews happening the day of the interview. Wang reaffirms the commitment to open source where safety allows and draws a line back to the Open Compute Project and the Sun Microsystems-era ethos of openness in infrastructure.

    The Bosworth, Cox, and Manus Questions

    The reporting that Wang and Zuck push toward best-in-the-world research while Bosworth and Cox push toward cheap product deployment is dismissed as gossip dressed up as journalism. Wang says leadership debates points hard but is aligned on needing top models, integrating them into Meta’s surfaces, and serving the existing business. On Manus, the Chinese AI startup that figured in Meta’s late-stage strategy, Wang says he cannot comment, which itself signals that the situation is unresolved.

    China, National Security, and the Newspaper Ad

    Wang draws a sharp distinction between the Chinese state and Chinese-born researchers. His parents are from China, he is happy to work with talented researchers regardless of origin, and he sees a flattening of nuance on this question inside Silicon Valley. At the same time, he stands by the New York Times AI and war ad he ran while at Scale, framing it as an early plea for the US government to take AI seriously as a national security technology. He thinks subsequent events, including DeepSeek and other shocks, validated that call and that policymakers now do treat AI accordingly.

    Robotics and Physical Super Intelligence

    Meta has acquired Assured Robot Intelligence, an AI software company that builds models for multiple hardware targets rather than its own robot. Wang argues that if you take digital super intelligence seriously, physical super intelligence quickly becomes the next logical milestone. Scaling laws for robotic intelligence look similar enough to language model scaling that having the largest compute footprint in the industry would be wasted if it were not also turned toward world modeling and embodied learning. He grants the metaverse-skeptic critique exists but says retreating from ambition is the wrong response to past misfires.

    Health Super Intelligence and CZI

    Wang names health super intelligence as one of MSL’s anchor initiatives. Because billions of people already use Meta products daily, Wang believes Meta is structurally positioned to put powerful health AI in the hands of equal global access in a way nobody else can. The work will involve close collaboration with the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, which has its own multi-billion-dollar biotech and science investment program.

    Model Welfare, Sci-Fi, and Brain Models

    Two of the most distinctive moments come at the end. Wang flags model welfare as a topic he thinks is being undercovered relative to how integrated models now are in daily work. He is open to the idea that models may have measurable subjective experience worth weighing, and points to research efforts (including Eleos) trying to quantify it. He also reveals that FAIR’s Tribe program, with its Tribe B2 milestone, has produced foundation models capable of predicting how an unknown person’s brain would respond to images, video, and audio with reasonable zero-shot generalization, a building block toward future brain computer interfaces. Wang lists brain computer interfaces alongside super intelligence and robotics as the critical-path technologies for humanity, with energy, compute, and robots as the infinitely scaling primitives behind them.

    Where Wang Diverges From Elon

    Asked whether Musk is more all-in on robotics, energy, and BCI than anyone, Wang concedes the point but argues the details matter and sequencing matters more. Wang’s core philosophical break is that building super intelligence is fundamentally a research activity, not a scaling-only sprint. The lab is operating in fog of war, and ambitious experiments are the only way to map it. That conviction is what makes MSL a research-led organization rather than a brute-force compute farm.

    Thoughts

    The most strategically interesting move in this entire interview is the “economy of agents in a data center” framing. It is a deliberate reframe against Anthropic’s “country of geniuses” line, and it does real work. A country of geniuses is a labor-substitution story aimed at knowledge workers and code. An economy of agents is a marketplace story that maps directly onto Meta’s two-sided distribution advantage: billions of consumers on one side, hundreds of millions of small businesses on the other. That positioning makes the agentic future Meta-shaped in a way no other frontier lab can claim, because no other frontier lab also owns the demand and supply graph of the global small-business economy. If Wang’s team can actually ship reliable agents on both sides plus the rails for them to transact, Meta’s structural moat in agentic commerce could exceed anything Llama ever had as an open model.

    The token efficiency claim is the strongest piece of technical evidence in the interview for the “clean stack” thesis. If MuseSpark really is matching competitors with materially fewer tokens, the implication is not that MuseSpark is the best model today, but that MSL has rebuilt the foundations with less accumulated tech debt than competitors that have layered fixes on top of older stacks. That is exactly the kind of advantage that compounds with scale. The next two model releases are the actual test. If Wang is right about predictable scaling on pre-training, RL, test-time, and multi-agent axes simultaneously, the gap from MuseSpark to the next rung should be visible in a way that forces re-rating of Meta’s position.

    The open-source posture is the cleanest signal of how the safety conversation has actually changed in 2026. Meta, the lab most identified with open weights, is saying out loud that its current frontier model triggered enough internal guardrails that releasing the weights is off the table. Wang threads the needle by promising smaller open variants, but the underlying point is unmistakable: the open-weights bargain has limits, and those limits will be set by internal preparedness frameworks rather than community pressure. That is a real shift from the Llama 2 era and worth tracking as the next generation lands.

    Wang’s willingness to engage on model welfare, on roughly the same footing as safety and alignment, is the second philosophical reveal worth flagging. It signals that the next generation of lab leadership is not going to dismiss the topic the way the previous generation often did. Whether that translates into product or policy changes is unclear, but the fact that the head of MSL says it is “underdiscussed” is itself a marker.

    Finally, the human texture of the interview matters. Wang has clearly absorbed a lot of personal incoming fire over the past ten months, including from LeCun and Altman, and his answer is consistently to redirect to the work. The Steve Jobs quote about hiring people who tell you what to do is the operating slogan he keeps coming back to. Combined with the genuine enthusiasm for sci-fi, walks in the woods, and country music, the picture that emerges is less the salesman caricature his critics paint and more a young technical operator betting that scoreboard work over a multi-year horizon will settle every argument that text on X cannot.

    Watch the full conversation here.

  • OpenAI Hires OpenClaw Creator Peter Steinberger: A Major Shift in the AI Agent Race

    OpenAI Hires OpenClaw Creator Peter Steinberger

    In a move that underscores the intensifying race to dominate AI agent technology, OpenAI has brought aboard Peter Steinberger, the visionary Austrian developer behind the viral open-source project OpenClaw. As reported by Reuters, Fortune, and TechCrunch, the deal was announced on February 15, 2026. This isn’t a conventional acquisition but an “acquihire,” where Steinberger joins OpenAI to spearhead the development of next-generation personal AI agents.

    Meanwhile, OpenClaw transitions to an independent foundation, remaining fully open-source with continued support from OpenAI (confirmed via Steinberger’s Blog and LinkedIn). This strategic alignment comes amid soaring interest in AI agents, a market projected by AInvest to hit $52.6 billion by 2030 with a 46.3% compound annual growth rate.

    The announcement, made via a post on X by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman around 21:39 GMT, arrived just hours before widespread media coverage from outlets like Fortune. Steinberger swiftly confirmed the news in a personal blog post, emphasizing his excitement for the future while reaffirming OpenClaw’s independence.

    The Rise of OpenClaw: From Playground Project to Phenomenon

    OpenClaw, originally launched as Clawdbot in November 2025—a playful nod to Anthropic’s Claude model—quickly evolved into a powerhouse open-source AI agent framework designed for personal use (Fortune, Steinberger’s Blog, APIYI). Steinberger, who “vibe coded” the project solo after a three-year hiatus following the sale of his previous company for over $100 million, saw it explode in popularity. It amassed over 100,000 GitHub stars, drew 2 million visitors in a week, and became the fastest-growing repo in GitHub history—surpassing milestones of projects like React and Linux (Yahoo Finance, LinkedIn).

    A trademark dispute with Anthropic prompted renames: first to Moltbot (evoking metamorphosis), then to OpenClaw in early 2026. The framework empowers AI to autonomously handle tasks on users’ devices, fostering a community focused on data ownership and multi-model support.

    Key capabilities that fueled its hype include:

    • Managing emails and inboxes.
    • Booking flights, restaurant reservations, and flight check-ins.
    • Interacting with services like insurers.
    • Integrating with apps such as WhatsApp and Slack for task delegation.
    • Creating a “social network” for AI agents via features like Moltbook, which spawned 1.6 million agents (Source).

    Despite its success, sustainability proved challenging. Steinberger personally shouldered infrastructure costs of $10,000 to $20,000 monthly, routing sponsorships to dependencies rather than himself, even as donations and corporate support (including from OpenAI) trickled in.

    The Path to the Deal: Billion-Dollar Bids and Open-Source Principles

    Prior to the announcement, Steinberger fielded billion-dollar acquisition offers from tech giants Meta and OpenAI (Yahoo Finance). Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg personally messaged Steinberger on WhatsApp, sparking a 10-minute debate over AI models, while OpenAI’s Sam Altman offered computational resources via a Cerebras partnership to boost agent performance. Meta aggressively pursued Steinberger and his team, but OpenAI advanced in talks to hire him and key contributors.

    Steinberger spent the preceding week in San Francisco meeting AI labs, accessing unreleased research. He insisted any deal preserve OpenClaw’s open-source nature, likening it to Chrome and Chromium. Ultimately, OpenAI’s vision aligned best with his goal of accessible agents.

    Key Announcements and Voices from the Frontlines

    Sam Altman, in his X post on February 15, 2026, hailed Steinberger as a “genius with a lot of amazing ideas about the future of very smart agents interacting with each other to do very useful things for people.” He added, “We expect this will quickly become core to our product offerings. OpenClaw will live in a foundation as an open source project that OpenAI will continue to support. The future is going to be extremely multi-agent and it’s important to us to support open source as part of that.”

    Steinberger’s blog post echoed this enthusiasm: “tl;dr: I’m joining OpenAI to work on bringing agents to everyone. OpenClaw will move to a foundation and stay open and independent. The last month was a whirlwind… When I started exploring AI, my goal was to have fun and inspire people… My next mission is to build an agent that even my mum can use… I’m a builder at heart… What I want is to change the world, not build a large company… The claw is the law.”

    Strategic Implications: Opportunities and Challenges Ahead

    For OpenAI, this bolsters their AI agent push, potentially accelerating consumer-grade solutions and addressing barriers like setup complexity and security. It positions them in the “personal agent race” against Meta, emphasizing multi-agent systems. The broader AI agents market could reach $180 billion by 2033, driving undisclosed but likely substantial financial terms.

    OpenClaw benefits from foundation status (akin to the Linux Foundation), ensuring independence and community focus with OpenAI’s sponsorship.

    However, risks loom large. OpenClaw’s “unfettered access” to devices raises security concerns, including data breaches and rogue actions—like one incident of spamming hundreds of iMessages. China’s industry ministry warned of cyberattack vulnerabilities if misconfigured. Steinberger aims to prioritize safety and accessibility.

    Community Pulse: Excitement, Skepticism, and Satire

    Reactions on X blend hype and caution. Cointelegraph noted the move as a “big move” for ecosystems. One user called it the “birth of the agent era,” while another satirically predicted a shift to “ClosedClaw.” Fears of closure persist, but congratulations abound, with some viewing Anthropic’s trademark push as a “fumble.”

    LinkedIn’s Reyhan Merekar praised Steinberger’s solo feat: “Literally coding alone at odd hours… Faster than React, Linux, and Kubernetes combined.”

    Beyond the Headlines: Vision and Value

    Steinberger’s core vision: Agents for all, even non-tech users, with emphasis on safety, cutting-edge models, and impact over empire-building. OpenClaw’s strengths—model-agnostic design, delegation-focused UX, and persistent memory—eluded even well-funded labs.

    As of February 15, 2026, this marks a pivotal moment in AI’s evolution, blending open innovation with corporate muscle. No further updates have emerged, but the multi-agent future Altman envisions is accelerating.

  • All-In Podcast Breaks Down OpenAI’s Turbulent Week, the AI Arms Race, and Socialism’s Surge in America

    November 8, 2025

    In the latest episode of the All-In Podcast, aired on November 7, 2025, hosts Jason Calacanis, Chamath Palihapitiya, David Sacks, and guest Brad Gerstner (with David Friedberg absent) delivered a packed discussion on the tech world’s hottest topics. From OpenAI’s public relations mishaps and massive infrastructure bets to the intensifying U.S.-China AI rivalry, market volatility, and the surprising rise of socialism in U.S. politics, the episode painted a vivid picture of an industry at a crossroads. Here’s a deep dive into the key takeaways.

    OpenAI’s “Rough Week”: From Altman’s Feistiness to CFO’s Backstop Blunder

    The podcast kicked off with a spotlight on OpenAI, which has been under intense scrutiny following CEO Sam Altman’s appearance on the BG2 podcast. Gerstner, who hosts BG2, recounted asking Altman about OpenAI’s reported $13 billion in revenue juxtaposed against $1.4 trillion in spending commitments for data centers and infrastructure. Altman’s response—offering to find buyers for Gerstner’s shares if he was unhappy—went viral, sparking debates about OpenAI’s financial health and the broader AI “bubble.”

    Gerstner defended the question as “mundane” and fair, noting that Altman later clarified OpenAI’s revenue is growing steeply, projecting a $20 billion run rate by year’s end. Palihapitiya downplayed the market’s reaction, attributing stock dips in companies like Microsoft and Nvidia to natural “risk-off” cycles rather than OpenAI-specific drama. “Every now and then you have a bad day,” he said, suggesting Altman might regret his tone but emphasizing broader market dynamics.

    The conversation escalated with OpenAI CFO Sarah Friar’s Wall Street Journal comments hoping for a U.S. government “backstop” to finance infrastructure. This fueled bailout rumors, prompting Friar to clarify she meant public-private partnerships for industrial capacity, not direct aid. Sacks, recently appointed as the White House AI “czar,” emphatically stated, “There’s not going to be a federal bailout for AI.” He praised the sector’s competitiveness, noting rivals like Grok, Claude, and Gemini ensure no single player is “too big to fail.”

    The hosts debated OpenAI’s revenue model, with Calacanis highlighting its consumer-heavy focus (estimated 75% from subscriptions like ChatGPT Plus at $240/year) versus competitors like Anthropic’s API-driven enterprise approach. Gerstner expressed optimism in the “AI supercycle,” betting on long-term growth despite headwinds like free alternatives from Google and Apple.

    The AI Race: Jensen Huang’s Warning and the Call for Federal Unity

    Shifting gears, the panel addressed Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang’s stark prediction to the Financial Times: “China is going to win the AI race.” Huang cited U.S. regulatory hurdles and power constraints as key obstacles, contrasting with China’s centralized support for GPUs and data centers.

    Gerstner echoed Huang’s call for acceleration, praising federal efforts to clear regulatory barriers for power infrastructure. Palihapitiya warned of Chinese open-source models like Qwen gaining traction, as seen in products like Cursor 2.0. Sacks advocated for a federal AI framework to preempt a patchwork of state regulations, arguing blue states like California and New York could impose “ideological capture” via DEI mandates disguised as anti-discrimination rules. “We need federal preemption,” he urged, invoking the Commerce Clause to ensure a unified national market.

    Calacanis tied this to environmental successes like California’s emissions standards but cautioned against overregulation stifling innovation. The consensus: Without streamlined permitting and behind-the-meter power generation, the U.S. risks ceding ground to China.

    Market Woes: Consumer Cracks, Layoffs, and the AI Job Debate

    The discussion turned to broader economic signals, with Gerstner highlighting a “two-tier economy” where high-end consumers thrive while lower-income groups falter. Credit card delinquencies at 2009 levels, regional bank rollovers, and earnings beats tempered by cautious forecasts painted a picture of volatility. Palihapitiya attributed recent market dips to year-end rebalancing, not AI hype, predicting a “risk-on” rebound by February.

    A heated exchange ensued over layoffs and unemployment, particularly among 20-24-year-olds (at 9.2%). Calacanis attributed spikes to AI displacing entry-level white-collar jobs, citing startup trends and software deployments. Sacks countered with data showing stable white-collar employment percentages, calling AI blame “anecdotal” and suggesting factors like unemployable “woke” degrees or over-hiring during zero-interest-rate policies (ZIRP). Gerstner aligned with Sacks, noting companies’ shift to “flatter is faster” efficiency cultures, per Morgan Stanley analysis.

    Inflation ticking up to 3% was flagged as a barrier to rate cuts, with Calacanis criticizing the administration for downplaying it. Trump’s net approval rating has dipped to -13%, with 65% of Americans feeling he’s fallen short on middle-class issues. Palihapitiya called for domestic wins, like using trade deal funds (e.g., $3.2 trillion from Japan and allies) to boost earnings.

    Socialism’s Rise: Mamdani’s NYC Win and the Filibuster Nuclear Option

    The episode’s most provocative segment analyzed Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani’s upset victory as New York City’s mayor-elect. Mamdani, promising rent freezes, free transit, and higher taxes on the rich (pushing rates to 54%), won narrowly at 50.4%. Calacanis noted polling showed strong support from young women and recent transplants, while native New Yorkers largely rejected him.

    Palihapitiya linked this to a “broken generational compact,” quoting Peter Thiel on student debt and housing unaffordability fueling anti-capitalist sentiment. He advocated reforming student loans via market pricing and even expressed newfound sympathy for forgiveness—if tied to systemic overhaul. Sacks warned of Democrats shifting left, with “centrist” figures like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema exiting, leaving energy with revolutionaries. He tied this to the ongoing government shutdown, blaming Democrats’ filibuster leverage and urging Republicans to eliminate it for a “nuclear option” to pass reforms.

    Gerstner, fresh from debating “ban the billionaires” at Stanford (where many students initially favored it), stressed Republicans must address affordability through policies like no taxes on tips or overtime. He predicted an A/B test: San Francisco’s centrist turnaround versus New York’s potential chaos under Mamdani.

    Holiday Cheer and Final Thoughts

    Amid the heavy topics, the hosts plugged their All-In Holiday Spectacular on December 6, promising comedy roasts by Kill Tony, poker, and open bar. Calacanis shared updates on his Founder University expansions to Saudi Arabia and Japan.

    Overall, the episode underscored optimism in AI’s transformative potential tempered by real-world challenges: financial scrutiny, geopolitical rivalry, economic inequality, and political polarization. As Gerstner put it, “Time is on your side if you’re betting over a five- to 10-year horizon.” With Trump’s mandate in play, the panel urged swift action to secure America’s edge—or risk socialism’s further ascent.