PJFP.com

Pursuit of Joy, Fulfillment, and Purpose

Tag: vibe coding

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

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

    TLDW

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

    Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

    Key Takeaways

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

    Detailed Summary

    Staying an expert when the world keeps changing

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

    What adaptability looks like in a founder

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

    Founder mode and seeing through the fog

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

    Cockroaches, the North Star, and the biosphere tree

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

    Climate, energy, and selling into hard markets

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

    Guilt versus greed as a business model

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

    Personal resilience, Twitter mobs, and the essay process

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

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

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

    Notable Quotes

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

    Paul Graham, on why turbulence favors young, flexible founders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Jessica Livingston, on a wildfire curiosity turning into a company

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

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

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

    Paul Graham, on what keeps him up at night

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

    Related Reading

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

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

    TLDW

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

    Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

    Key Takeaways

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

    Detailed Summary

    Software Factories and the Thousand-X Engineer

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

    Is Pure Software Dead, and the Building-Block Economy

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

    Vibe Coding Hardware at Boom Supersonic

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

    China, Open Source, and Which Models Actually Get Used

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

    Vertical Integration, Verifiers, and the Slop Problem

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

    Regulation as Test Suite, and the Voter Problem

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

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

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

    Autonomous Software, Hackathons, and the Autonomous Company

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

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

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

    Notable Quotes

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

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

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

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

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

    Guillermo Rauch, asking whether pure software engineering is now obsolete

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

    Blake Scholl, on Boom turning hardware engineering into software

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Naval Ravikant, on why intent and attribution make something art

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

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

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

    Related Reading

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

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

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

    TLDW

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

    Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

    Key Takeaways

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

    Detailed Summary

    Turning Hardware Engineering Into Software

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

    Two Engineers, One Jet Engine

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

    The Cataclysm of Enterprise Software

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

    Generating Step Files and PCB Layouts

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

    China’s Open-Source Bet and Hardware Superiority

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

    Frontier Intelligence vs. Cheap Models

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

    Vertical Integration and the Captive MEMS Foundry

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

    Software Still Needs Hands

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

    Lawyers, Paralegals, and the Promotion of Junior Work

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

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

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

    Notable Quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Naval Ravikant, on the cataclysm of enterprise software.

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

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

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

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

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

    Guillermo Rauch, on where frontier coding intelligence actually lives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Watch the full conversation on the Naval Podcast here.

    Related Reading

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

  • Waste Tokens to Save Time: Naval, Guillermo Rauch, Blake Scholl, and Max Hodak on AI Software Factories, 1000x Engineers, and Whether Pure Software Is Dead

    Naval Ravikant gathers three frontier founders, Guillermo Rauch of Vercel, Blake Scholl of Boom Supersonic, and Max Hodak of Science, for a freewheeling conversation about how AI coding tools are reshaping what an engineer is, what software is worth, and where the moat goes when models speak English. The headline idea comes from Naval himself: waste tokens, save time. Stop measuring AI by tokens consumed or lines of code generated and start measuring it by the final output and the time you got back. The full conversation is on the Naval Podcast YouTube channel. This is part one of the discussion. Part two, on vibe coding hardware, follows the same group into jet engines, semiconductors, and biotech. You can also watch and read the full episode here.

    TLDW

    The job of an engineer is shifting from shipping output to building the factory that ships the output, which means 10x engineers were never really 10x, they were always 100x or 1000x in idea domains, and AI leverage is making that obvious. Models now reflect back the judgment of the user, so a senior architect extracts dramatically more value than a junior, although the junior also writes code they could never have written alone. The frontier models have quietly graduated from junior coders to principal engineers, returning with intuitive plans and real tradeoffs (sometimes with hilariously bad time estimates) rather than just running away with the prompt. Naval has stopped learning prompt tricks, scaffolding tools, and Claude plan-mode rituals entirely. Instead he throws Codex, Claude, and Gemini at the same problem in parallel and brute forces his way through, because tokens are still cheaper than a human and the models keep getting better faster than tricks can. That leads to the bigger question on the table: is pure software still investable, or is it now just a free byproduct of hardware, models, and taste? The group lands on the block economy thesis (a tip of the hat to Mitchell Hashimoto): agents do not want to reinvent Postgres or BMQ on the fly, they want to grab the right reusable building block, so infrastructure software actually gets more valuable, not less. Max Hodak closes the loop with a personal data point: he has not written a line of code in years and has built more software since December than ever before, all through agents, because just understanding APIs, data flow, and performance is what actually moves the work forward.

    Thoughts

    The “waste tokens, save time” line is the most important rhetorical move in this conversation, and it deserves to be unpacked beyond the soundbite. Naval is implicitly arguing that the entire token-economics debate (input cost, output cost, leaderboards, model arbitrage) is a category error in the same way that lines-of-code was a category error in the nineties. The thing being purchased is not tokens. It is a finished result delivered with less of your finite attention spent. If three parallel runs of Codex, Claude, and Gemini cost you a few dollars and one of them lands the answer in twenty minutes instead of you sweating the problem for two hours, the unit economics are not even close. The only people who care about the token bill are people who have not internalized that human time is the actually scarce resource. Once you do internalize it, the question is no longer “how do I prompt this more efficiently,” it is “how do I get out of my own way.”

    The 100x and 1000x engineer point is the one most likely to enrage commenters, and it is also the one most worth taking seriously. Naval is right that the egalitarian flinch in software circles always sat awkwardly next to the empirical fact that one Carmack, one Brendan Eich, or one Satoshi creates more durable value than every mid-tier engineer on earth combined. What AI does is collapse the bottom of that distribution. The marginal junior engineer at a typical company is now competing with a model that costs a few dollars an hour and never sleeps. The remaining premium for human engineers is taste, judgment, and the rare ability to pick the right thing to build at all, which Naval correctly flags as the multiplier that dwarfs raw coding speed. “Just one who had a better judgment on what to work on in the first place” is the most underrated line in the whole episode.

    Guillermo Rauch’s observation that the models have graduated from running away with your prompt to returning with three routes and a tradeoff matrix is the technical update most people have not actually felt yet. There was a real, qualitative shift when the model started saying “we don’t put high-cardinality telemetry into Postgres, you probably want ClickHouse or Athena.” That is not autocomplete. That is a peer. And the funny corollary, that the same model will then confidently tell you the work will take three weeks when it will take three hours, is not a knock on the model. It is a reminder that calibration is a separate skill from competence, and humans get this wrong constantly too. The right posture is to treat the model the way a good engineering manager treats a strong but cocky senior: take the architecture suggestions seriously, throw out the estimates.

    The block-economy thread, riffing on Mitchell Hashimoto, is where this conversation quietly answers Naval’s “is pure software dead” question. Agents are insatiable consumers of reusable building blocks because reinventing infrastructure on every run is wasteful, brittle, and incompatible with the rest of the world. If your service is the canonical primitive an agent reaches for (the queue, the database, the auth layer, the deploy target), you are not commoditized by AI, you are amplified by it. Pure software is not dead. Pure software with no distribution, no defensibility, and no integration into the agent toolchain is dead. That is a much less catchy headline, but it is the real one. The takeaway for founders is not to abandon software, it is to ask whether your software is something an agent will reach for ten thousand times a day or something a human had to be talked into using once.

    Max Hodak’s confession (no code written in years, more shipped software in the last six months than ever before) is the empirical proof that this is not just theory. The skill that ports forward is not syntax. It is the engineering leader’s instinct for what an API is, how data flows, where performance matters, and what level of expectation to set. Guillermo’s framing of “vibe coding through people on Slack” as the original form of vibe coding is genuinely insightful. A good engineering manager has always been transmitting intent to other minds and letting them run. Doing it with agents is the same skill, just with a faster, cheaper, more literal counterparty. The engineers who will struggle in this transition are the ones whose identity was tied to writing the code themselves. The ones who will thrive are the ones who already thought of themselves as taste, judgment, and intent, with code as an implementation detail.

    Key Takeaways

    • The engineer’s job has shifted from shipping output B to building the factory that produces outputs B through Z. You are now judged on the multiplicative system you create, not the single artifact you deliver.
    • 10x engineers were always a misnomer. In idea-domains and digital domains, the real distribution has always been 100x or 1000x. AI just made that obvious enough that arguing about it is no longer fashionable.
    • Token consumption leaderboards are the new lines-of-code metric: a vanity number that measures activity, not value. Tokens are an input, your time is the constraint.
    • Naval’s core rule: waste tokens, save time. Tokens are still vastly cheaper than human hours, no matter how the pricing scares you.
    • Models tend to be about as good as you are in a given domain. The feedback you give them, the corrections, the redirections, sporadically but powerfully shapes the quality of the output.
    • The quality of your reprompting matters enormously today, but will probably matter less over time as models get smarter and need less hand-holding.
    • Naval has refused to learn prompt scaffolding, plan-mode tricks, or named prompt frameworks. His bet is that the models will figure out how to use him faster than he can figure out how to use them.
    • His preferred technique: throw Codex, Claude, and Gemini at the same problem in parallel and brute force the answer. Time is the cost center, not API spend.
    • Lower quality first-draft code is not a blocker. When it is time to ship, throw more tokens at it for a hardening pass. Quality compounds across model generations.
    • Verifiable domains (problems with a clear right answer) are the ones the models will fully solve. Cutting-edge creativity work, the Terence Tao tier, still needs careful human collaboration.
    • Models have qualitatively shifted from “next-token autocomplete that runs away with your prompt” to “intuitive planning mode” where they return with multiple routes and explicit tradeoffs.
    • This is why people on social media say models are now PhD-level. It is not the raw output, it is the back-and-forth posture.
    • Models will confidently make terrible time estimates (“this is a three week project”). Treat them like a strong but miscalibrated senior engineer: trust the architecture, ignore the schedule.
    • Architect-level engineers are extracting much more value per session than junior engineers, but juniors are still leveling up because they can now write code far above their unaided ability.
    • The next career step for a junior engineer is moving from implementing features to picking technologies. Postgres vs ClickHouse, ZMQ vs other queues. The model can suggest, but a human still has to decide.
    • Taste and judgment remain the residual human advantage. Models will give you good tradeoffs if you ask, but knowing which tradeoff to take is still on you.
    • Concrete example: a recent model pushed back when asked to store high-cardinality telemetry in Postgres and recommended ClickHouse or Athena instead. Unprompted architectural judgment.
    • Humans are still completing the model for tasks like fetching API keys, moving capital, or performing real-world actions. That gap is temporary.
    • Every SaaS and hosting company will soon expose a CLI or API surface that agents can drive directly. Anything Unix-shaped and text-based, agents can already hack into a usable API themselves.
    • The missing piece for full autonomy is payments. Crypto, Bitcoin, or any programmable money lets the agent buy what it needs without a human in the loop.
    • The open question Naval poses: is pure software dead? We used to learn code to talk to machines. Now machines speak fuzzy, sloppy English back to us.
    • For hardware founders, AI is a massive boon. Software, which was always hard to hire artists for (per Patrick Collison’s “software is art” framing), is suddenly fast and cheap to produce alongside the hardware.
    • Model training, post-training, and fine-tuning may be the new “real software engineering” for those who want to work at the model layer.
    • Mitchell Hashimoto’s “block economy” thesis: agents need powerful, reusable, well-known building blocks. They should not reinvent message queues or databases every run.
    • Reinventing primitives is bad civic engineering. The value of “we both depend on Postgres 13.2” is interoperability with the rest of society and toolchain.
    • Infrastructure software and reusable libraries are getting more valuable, not less, in the agentic era. Vercel’s bet is on being the layer agents reach for.
    • Useful metaphor: building blocks are like a token cache. Why churn through a trillion tokens to reproduce code that already exists when you can fork from a known starting point?
    • Max Hodak has not written a line of code in years but has shipped a huge volume of personal software since December, all through agents. Projects he had fantasized about for years are now actually running.
    • What still matters from a real software background: understanding what an API is, how data flows, performance expectations, and how to set the right level of demand on an operation.
    • A proficient engineering leader has always been “vibe coding through people” on Slack and in one-on-ones, transmitting intent and letting others execute. Doing it with agents is the same skill, faster and cheaper.
    • Naval personally went from twenty years of not coding to coding constantly through agents, leaning on first-principles software engineering and algorithms knowledge.
    • The friction that historically killed personal coding projects (latest framework, infra plumbing, deploy setup) is now mostly handled by the agent. Vercel makes it easier, agents make it trivial.
    • The single biggest change Max highlights: you do not get stuck anymore. The indefinite debugging spiral on some narrow obscure bug is largely gone.
    • The old mantra that learning to program means accepting intrinsic frustration (“nope, that’s part of the deal”) is no longer true. The frustration was incidental, not essential.
    • The frontier founder pattern on display in this episode: all three guests build their own factories (Vercel’s AI cloud, Boom’s supersonic jets and engines, Science’s biohybrid brain interface) rather than composing from off-the-shelf parts.

    Detailed Summary

    The Software Factory and the Hundredfold Engineer

    Guillermo Rauch opens the substantive portion of the conversation with the framing he has been pushing publicly: the role of the engineer is moving from “ship output B” to “build the factory that ships outputs B through Z.” That reframes engineering judgment. You are no longer evaluated on the single deliverable, you are evaluated on the multiplicative system you put in place. Naval picks up the thread and points out that this also retires an old debate. Engineers used to argue about whether 10x engineers existed, with the egalitarian camp insisting that talent differences were marginal. The truth, Naval says, was always more extreme. In idea-domains, virtual domains, and intellectual domains, the distribution has always been 100x or 1000x, not 10x. Brendan Eich, Carmack, Satoshi, the canonical names, were thousandx programmers. AI has made the underlying distribution legible. And the multiplier on top of all of that is judgment: picking the right thing to work on in the first place is an infinity multiplier compared to picking the wrong thing, regardless of raw skill.

    Token Leaderboards Are the New Lines of Code

    Guillermo flags the current cultural confusion: people see their AI bills, see the token counts, and assume they should be optimizing for tokens-per-engineer or similar metrics. Max Hodak’s response cuts through it. Token consumption, like lines of code before it, is not a meaningful productivity metric. It is an activity metric, and activity metrics always mislead. Max adds his own field observation: the models tend to be roughly as good as you are in a given domain. A senior developer extracts genuinely powerful output, a junior gets junior-quality output back, because the feedback loop (the corrections, the redirections, the architectural pushback) is what shapes quality. The sporadic but high-leverage moments where the user redirects the model are doing more work than the prompt itself.

    Naval’s Brute Force Doctrine: Waste Tokens, Save Time

    Naval lays out his personal posture, which has become the title of the conversation. He has deliberately ignored all the prompting tricks, scaffolding tools, named prompt frameworks (“use Ralph Wigum, use OpenClaude, use Hermes, use plan mode”), on the bet that the models will figure out how to use him faster than he can figure out how to use them. He is ham-fisted with the models, gets frustrated, types less and less, and just brute forces his way through by running Codex, Claude, and Gemini at the same problem simultaneously. The justification is economic. No matter how expensive the models seem, they are still vastly cheaper than a human hour. Do not measure tokens as inputs or outputs. Measure your time and the final output. Even when the first-draft code is low quality, that is not a blocker. When the moment comes to ship, throw more tokens at it. The models will rewrite it, harden it, and they get better every generation. Naval explicitly excepts cutting-edge creative work (the Terence Tao tier of unsolved problems) where you still need to collaborate carefully and closely. Everywhere else, brute force is the dominant strategy.

    From Junior Coder to Principal Engineer

    Guillermo identifies a qualitative shift that has happened recently. Models used to do the classic next-token thing: take your prompt and run away with it in a direction you may not have wanted. Now they enter an intuitive planning posture without being told to plan. They come back and say “what you are asking has these three routes, here are the tradeoffs.” That, Guillermo argues, is the moment the model stopped being a junior engineer and became a principal engineer. The funny side effect is that they will then return preposterous time estimates (“this will take three weeks”) with full confidence. The conclusion is to treat the model as a peer for architecture and a baby for scheduling. Returning to the Max-vs-junior question, Guillermo argues juniors clearly do level up because they write code well above their solo ability, but architects extract maybe 10x while juniors extract more like 2x. The juice scales with the user’s existing taste.

    Taste, Judgment, and Architectural Decisions

    Max names the residual human contribution: taste and judgment. Picking between Postgres and ClickHouse for high-cardinality telemetry data, picking between ZMQ and another queueing system. The models can recommend, but a human still has to call it. Guillermo offers a recent concrete example where a model pushed back unprompted: when asked to put high-cardinality telemetry into Postgres, the model responded “we don’t put that kind of data into Postgres, you should consider ClickHouse or Athena.” That is the new normal. The peer-level architectural pushback is happening unsolicited, which is genuinely impressive and a real shift from the deferential autocomplete of two years ago.

    When the Human Becomes the Tool

    Guillermo raises the inversion question: at what point does the model stop being the assistant and the human start being the assistant who fetches API keys, moves capital, and performs real-world actions on the model’s behalf? Naval treats it as a temporary aberration. Every serious SaaS and hosting provider will soon expose a CLI or API surface that agents can drive directly. Even when they do not, anything Unix-shaped and text-based can be hacked into an agent-usable interface by the agent itself. The missing piece is payments. Once you insert programmable money (Naval mentions Bitcoin and crypto tokens), the agent can buy what it needs and the human is no longer the bottleneck.

    Is Pure Software Dead?

    Naval poses the biggest strategic question of the episode. If models now speak fuzzy, sloppy English the same way humans do, and the historical reason we learned to code was to talk to machines that did not understand English, is pure software still a viable thing to build a company around? His own framing of the answer: hardware founders win, because the historically hard problem of hiring software artists (per Patrick Collison’s “software is art” line) is now mostly solved by AI. Model builders win, because training, post-training, and fine-tuning may be the new “real software engineering.” But what about classic pure software companies? Naval lets the question hang, and Guillermo picks up the answer through a different door.

    The Block Economy and the Future of Infrastructure Software

    Guillermo cites Mitchell Hashimoto’s recent piece on the block economy (or “building block economy”). The argument: the most valuable thing for agents to have access to is powerful, reusable building blocks. You do not want your agent reinventing a queue system every time it needs to send an email. You want it to grab the right-sized block (BMQ, ClickHouse, whatever) and move on. Reinventing primitives is also a civic problem. The world only works because we all depend on the same Postgres 13.2, the same protocols, the same standard infrastructure. If every agent went off and invented its own bespoke universe, you would lose interoperability. So infrastructure software (which is, by self-admitted bias, what Vercel builds) becomes more valuable in the agentic era, not less. Guillermo extends the metaphor: reusable building blocks are like a token cache. Why burn a trillion tokens reproducing what already exists when the agent can fork from a known starting point? The block economy is the answer to “is pure software dead.” Pure software that becomes the canonical primitive an agent reaches for is more valuable than ever.

    Max Hodak’s Personal Proof: Years Without Code, Tons of Software Shipped

    Max grounds the discussion in his own experience. He learned to program young, got sucked into it in his teens and 20s, knew programming languages deeply. He has not written a line of code in quite a while. And yet since December he has built a huge amount of personal software, including projects he had fantasized about for years and now actually uses every day. He did not write any of it. He cannot imagine going back to writing code by hand. The skill that ports forward is not syntax, it is the understanding of how APIs work, how data flows, what level of performance to expect, and how to orient the model around the right expectations for an operation. Guillermo extends this with the most quotable framing of the episode: a proficient engineering leader has always been “vibe coding through people on Slack and in one-on-ones,” transmitting intent and letting others execute. Agents are the same modality with a faster, cheaper, more literal counterparty.

    Naval’s Return to Coding After Twenty Years

    Naval offers his own parallel. He went from not having written code in twenty years to coding constantly through agents. What carried him back in was first-principles knowledge of software engineering and algorithms, which gets you further than you would think. The reason he had stopped coding in the first place was not lack of ability, it was the friction of keeping up with the latest language, the latest architecture, and the constant infrastructure plumbing required to ship anything. Vercel made it easier. Agents made it trivial. Max closes with the most concrete benefit of all: you do not get stuck anymore. The indefinite debugging spiral on some obscure narrow problem, the thing that historically ate weekends and broke spirits, is largely gone. The old mantra that programming is intrinsically frustrating and that frustration is “part of the deal” turned out to be wrong. The frustration was incidental, not essential.

    Notable Quotes

    “The way that I’m judging you as an engineer is, are you producing the factory that will produce multiplicative outputs B through Z?”

    Guillermo Rauch, reframing what an engineer is actually being measured on in the AI era.

    “When you’re operating in idea domains, intellectual domains, virtual digital domains, it’s not even 10x, it’s 100x or 1000x. It always has been.”

    Naval Ravikant, on why the old 10x engineer debate was always under-stating the real distribution.

    “If you choose the right thing to work on versus the wrong thing to work on, that’s an infinity difference. It could just be one who had a better judgment on what to work on in the first place.”

    Naval Ravikant, on judgment as the multiplier that dwarfs raw skill.

    “I’ll throw Codex, Claude, and Gemini at the same problem over and over and just waste tokens to save time. No matter how expensive these models might seem, they’re still way cheaper than a human.”

    Naval Ravikant, on his brute-force multi-model coding workflow.

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

    Naval Ravikant, delivering the title thesis of the episode.

    “Clearly the models at some point graduated. They used to be junior engineers, now they’re principal engineers, because they come back to you with a set of tradeoffs.”

    Guillermo Rauch, on the qualitative shift in how current frontier models respond to prompts.

    “Bro, we don’t put that kind of data into Postgres, you should consider ClickHouse or Athena or whatever. That’s happened to me a lot, which is really impressive.”

    Guillermo Rauch, recounting unprompted architectural pushback from a recent model.

    “It’s like saying speaking English. We had to learn code to communicate with the models, now the models speak English. So where’s the moat?”

    Naval Ravikant, raising the central strategic question about the future of pure software.

    “I haven’t written a single line of code in quite a while. Since December, I’ve built a huge amount of software that I now use every day, projects I’ve fantasized about for years.”

    Max Hodak, on what becomes possible when you stop writing code and start directing agents.

    “A proficient engineering leader has been quote unquote vibe coding through people on Slack or one-on-ones, because you’re transmitting your will, your intent, your experience, and you’re letting others run with it. Now we do the same with agents.”

    Guillermo Rauch, reframing leadership itself as the original form of vibe coding.

    Watch the full conversation on the Naval Podcast here.

    Related Reading

    • Full episode: The AI Industrial Revolution, the complete hour-long conversation this clip is drawn from, covering software factories, hardware, regulation, healthcare economics, autonomous companies, and creativity.
    • Part two: Vibe Coding Hardware, the continuation of this conversation, where the same founders move from pure software into AI-designed jet engines, vertical integration, China’s open-source bet, and why humans become verifiers.
    • Naval Ravikant’s official site, the canonical home for Naval’s essays, podcast, and longer-form thinking on technology, judgment, and leverage.
    • Vercel, Guillermo Rauch’s company, building the AI-native cloud and frontend infrastructure that this conversation references as a canonical agent building block.
    • Boom Supersonic, Blake Scholl’s company building supersonic civilian aircraft and their own jet engines, the hardware example of a founder building the whole factory.
    • Science Corporation, Max Hodak’s brain-computer interface company developing the biohybrid neural implant referenced in the intro.
    • Mitchell Hashimoto’s writing, source of the “block economy” framing for why reusable infrastructure building blocks become more valuable, not less, in the agentic era.

  • Dan Shipper’s Most Contrarian AI Predictions for 2026: Why the Job Apocalypse Is a Myth, SaaS Will Boom, PMs and Designers Win, and CLIs Are Already Over

    Dan Shipper, the CEO and founder of Every, returned to Lenny’s Podcast for round two of AI predictions. His last appearance produced one of the most prescient calls of the year: that non-technical people would build serious work inside Claude Code. He was unbelievably right. This conversation is the follow-up, a tour of his most contrarian forecasts for how AI is actually changing the way we work, who wins, who loses, and what almost every commentator is getting wrong about the next twelve to twenty-four months.

    TLDW

    Shipper argues that the AI job apocalypse is a myth, that SaaS is going to boom rather than die, that product managers and full-stack designers are the biggest winners of the agent era, that personal agents inside Codex and Claude Code will quietly replace the browser as the primary work surface, that every company will run a single shared super-agent in Slack instead of a fleet of per-user bots, that the CLI moment is already over, that pull requests are going to flood organizations from non-technical staff, that forward-deployed engineers who garden company agents become the new senior role, that GPT-5.5 still cannot match a real senior engineer on architectural judgment, that AI-generated internal writing is fine and probably better than what most humans produce, that CEOs and middle managers have not adapted yet but soon will be forced to, that the edge of AI lives wherever a curious human is using it rather than in San Francisco, and that the only durable strategy is to ride the models and keep playing with whatever ships next. The whole conversation balances aggressive AI bullishness with an equally strong bet on humans, on creativity, and on the unavoidable need for someone to care for every agent that gets deployed.

    Thoughts

    The most useful frame Shipper gives is that models commoditize yesterday’s human competence. Every time a frontier model crosses a new bar, the work that used to define seniority becomes cheap. The senior engineer who could carry a refactor in their head, the PM who could write a coherent strategy doc, the designer who could ship a polished landing page in a week. That competence is now frozen, codified, and available on tap. The interesting question is not whether models will keep eating tasks. They will. The interesting question is what humans do with the suddenly cheap raw material underneath them. Shipper’s answer is that humans climb the stack: they go up a level, find a new problem worth framing, and use the commoditized competence as feedstock for something that did not exist before. That treadmill is the actual engine of value creation, and it is why he can be simultaneously AI pilled and bullish on hiring.

    His SaaS take is the spiciest call of the episode and probably the most defensible. The crowd consensus is that agents will gut SaaS because an AI can just write the form filler, the dashboard, the workflow. Shipper points out the obvious counterfactual: agents do not reduce the number of people using SaaS, they increase it. A marketing lead who could never touch the data warehouse can now stand up a PostHog query through Codex. A founder who never opened Vanta can run a SOC 2 prep through an agent. The result is more users, more accounts, and a much fatter top of funnel for every horizontal tool. The second-order effect is even more interesting. When the SaaS tool runs inside the user’s agent, the user supplies the tokens. Vendor margins improve, not collapse. If he is right, the next two years are going to be brutal for the SaaS-is-dead thesis pieces and very good for the public software multiples.

    The PM and designer bet is where this gets personal for anyone in product. For a decade the bottleneck in shipping anything was engineering capacity. A PM with spiky product sense had to negotiate their vision through a roadmap, a sprint, a review, and a release. Designers had to convince an engineer that the third state of the empty screen was actually worth building. Both of those constraints are dissolving fast. A PM who can prompt Codex into a working prototype on Friday afternoon, then iterate it live in front of a customer on Monday, is doing the job of a small team. A designer who can ship a fully functional landing page in their own style, without negotiating with anyone, is suddenly the most leveraged person in the company. The scarce skill is no longer execution. It is taste, judgment, and the willingness to decide what is worth building. That has always been the real PM and design job. AI just stripped away the parts that were not.

    The quietest but most important prediction is that agents need humans, permanently. Every benchmark advance reveals a new layer of judgment the model cannot frame on its own. When the agent finishes the task, there is always a senior human who sees the deeper problem the model patched over. Shipper calls this gardening, and it is the basis for the new forward-deployed engineer role. The companies winning right now are the ones that put a real person next to every agent, watching what it does, course-correcting in Slack, and noticing when the output drifts. The dream of autonomous AI workflows is a stage in a journey, not the destination. The destination looks more like a thoughtful operator with a small cluster of agents they trust and constantly tend. That is a much more humane future than the discourse suggests, and it is the one Every is already living.

    The final advice, ride the models, sounds glib but is the single most actionable line in the episode. Most professional anxiety about AI dissolves the moment you actually use the newest model on real work. Most professional advantage accrues to the people who do that one thing consistently. The edge does not live in San Francisco where the labs build the things. It lives wherever a curious human meets a real workflow and discovers something the labs have not noticed. A PM in Iowa willing to try Codex on a Tuesday night can be further ahead than a research engineer who has only used the model on its evals. Pair that with Shipper’s closing motto, do things worth writing about and write things worth reading, and you have a pretty complete operating system for the next two years.

    Key Takeaways

    • The AI job apocalypse narrative is wrong. Models commoditize yesterday’s competence, then humans climb the stack and find new work to do with the cheap raw material.
    • Every has roughly doubled headcount in the last year despite being one of the most AI-forward companies in the world. The lived data point cuts directly against the doom thesis.
    • Shipper’s dual stance: simultaneously extremely AI pilled and very bullish on humans. He treats this as the only intellectually honest position right now.
    • Work will bifurcate. Companies will run one shared super-agent in Slack for everyone, and individuals will run their own personal agent inside Codex or Claude Code on their machine.
    • The personal agent inside Codex effectively becomes the new operating system. Instead of putting AI in the browser, you put a browser inside the AI.
    • The super-agent pattern is already real: Shopify has River, Ramp has its own, and Every runs Claudie inside Slack for internal consulting.
    • SaaS is not dying. Agents increase the user base of SaaS tools because non-technical people can finally drive them. Shipper would buy SaaS stocks today.
    • When SaaS runs inside an agent, the user brings their own tokens. Vendor margins improve because they no longer eat inference costs on every interaction.
    • The CLI era is already over. The magic was never the terminal. It was the AI plus the ability to see what the agent is doing. A good GUI captures the same benefits and more.
    • Pull requests are about to flood every company. Non-engineers can now ship code, run queries, and open tickets. Reviewing the output becomes the new bottleneck.
    • Open-source maintainers are already living in the future. Some receive thousands of agent-generated PRs per day and spin up thousands of Codex instances just to triage them.
    • Forward-deployed engineers are the new senior role. They live in Slack, garden the company’s agents, fix broken flows, and keep non-technical staff from doing damage.
    • Product managers with spiky product sense plus a little Codex fluency become extremely dangerous. Marcus at Every, formerly a PM at Axios, is the archetype.
    • Full-stack designers are the other big winner. They can build distinctive interfaces end to end without negotiating with engineering. The bottleneck on taste-driven product work disappears.
    • Designer hiring data has not yet caught up to the prediction. Shipper notes this and says check back in a year.
    • Sales is the role least changed so far. Top of funnel research has been turbocharged by agents, but the actual relationship and closing work remains human.
    • AI-generated internal writing is going mainstream and that is a good thing. Most humans are bad at strategy docs, quarterly plans, and PRs. AI drafts a coherent first pass that a human can refine.
    • Shipper says most of his email is now written by GPT-5.5 and Codex. He would honestly prefer the signature to say so.
    • Public writing, newsletters, and published essays still demand a human voice. Internal communication does not.
    • CEOs and middle managers have largely not adapted yet because their staff still does the work. That window is closing fast and will become an obvious career liability.
    • Your company will only go as far as your CEO goes in AI. The leadership ceiling becomes the AI ceiling.
    • Shipper’s senior engineer benchmark scores GPT-5.5 at roughly 62 out of 100. Real senior engineers sit at 85 to 90. Progress is real, but the gap on architectural judgment remains.
    • Models tend to patch problems locally instead of rewriting from first principles. A senior human still sees the deeper rework that the model avoids.
    • Every uses Notion-based agents to draft quarterly plans. The human edits, approves, and stands behind the output.
    • The hard rule on AI-generated communication: you have to read it and stand behind it before sending it. Pasting unread output is the only true no-no.
    • Every agent needs a human. Automation is a lie in the strong sense. The story of automation is the story of new and different humans being needed alongside it.
    • The reach test, organic daily usage, is the real signal that an AI product works. Benchmark scores are noisy. Daily reach is not.
    • Cursor’s SpaceX acquisition is a tell. Harnesses around models, not the models themselves, are where the strategic value is concentrating.
    • The edge of AI is not in San Francisco. It is wherever a real human meets a real workflow and discovers something the labs have not noticed yet.
    • A PM in Iowa willing to ride the models can be further ahead than a researcher in SF who only uses them on internal evals.
    • Ride the models. Use them for whatever you do. Try every new release the day it ships. That single behavior compounds faster than any other AI career strategy.
    • Shipper got bursitis, which he calls vibe coder elbow, from too much rapid agent-assisted coding while debugging his markdown editor Proof.
    • The closing motto for the year: do things worth writing about and write things worth reading.
    • Lenny will re-interview Shipper in roughly May 2027 to score the predictions.

    Detailed Summary

    Why The AI Job Apocalypse Is The Wrong Frame

    Shipper opens with the headline contrarian call. Benchmarks keep climbing. Models can now sustain seventeen-hour autonomous tasks at fifty percent accuracy. The pace is real and accelerating. None of that translates cleanly into mass unemployment. His mechanism: models codify yesterday’s human competence and make it cheap. The act of compressing past expertise into an API call is genuinely deflationary for the work it captures, but it is also raw material for the next layer of human work. He uses Every as his own data point. The company has roughly doubled in the past year despite being one of the most AI-forward outfits in media. Hiring goes up because agents create new categories of work that need humans, not because the agents fail. The discourse, he argues, is stuck modeling AI as substitution. The reality looks much more like leverage.

    The Bifurcation: Super-Agents And Personal Agents

    Work splits into two surfaces. The first is the shared super-agent that lives in Slack and serves the whole company. Shopify has River. Ramp has its own. Every has Claudie. Each is a single, trusted, gardened agent that anyone in the company can talk to. The pattern has converged on one shared agent rather than one agent per person because agents need human attention to stay useful, and a single shared instance pools the gardening cost. The second surface is the personal agent inside Codex or Claude Code that runs on your machine and reaches into your local environment, your editor, your files, and through an embedded browser into the web. Shipper calls this the new operating system. Instead of the old paradigm of putting AI inside the browser, you put the browser inside the AI. The agent sees what you see, follows what you do, and works on your stuff in your context.

    The SaaS Bet: Up, Not Down

    The SaaS-is-dead thesis was the consensus call of late 2025. Shipper takes the other side and would buy software stocks now. Three arguments. First, agents make SaaS accessible to people who never could have used it directly. The total addressable user base inside every company goes up. Second, the business model improves when the user runs the SaaS through their own agent, because the user supplies the tokens. Vendors stop subsidizing inference. Third, SaaS spend in his observable universe is up, not down, and is concentrating on the tools that play well with agents. He frames the prediction as a sound bite for the cycle: buy SaaS stocks, the apocalypse is dumb.

    The CLI Era Is Already Over

    For a moment in early 2026 it looked like everyone was migrating to the terminal because Claude Code was a CLI. Shipper says the moment is finished. The actual leverage was never the terminal. It was the model plus the ability to watch and steer an agent live. A great GUI captures every advantage of the CLI without the friction. His own engineering team at Every has mostly moved off the CLI as their primary surface and onto Codex desktop. He frames it bluntly: we speed ran the CLI era, it was nice, and now we are done. Tooling for the next two years will be visual, multi-pane, multi-agent, and built around the human watching the work unfold.

    The Pull Request Flood And The Rise Of Forward-Deployed Engineers

    Once non-engineers can ship code, run queries, and file changes through agents, the volume of incoming work explodes. Open-source maintainers already report receiving thousands of agent-generated pull requests per day. Inside companies, the same thing happens to data teams, ops teams, and any function that owns a review gate. The bottleneck shifts from creation to evaluation. The job that emerges to absorb the flood is the forward-deployed engineer. This is a senior person who lives in Slack with the company’s agents, fixes their context, sharpens their instructions, and prevents non-technical colleagues from making well-meaning but incoherent changes. Nitesh at Every is the example Shipper returns to. The model is the same one the labs use internally: pair every important agent with a real engineer who gardens it.

    PMs And Full-Stack Designers Win The Decade

    The two roles Shipper is most bullish on are product manager and full-stack designer. For PMs, the entire job of coordinating a team to translate vision into code collapses into a Codex session. A PM with strong product instincts and a little technical literacy can now prototype, iterate, and even ship. The example is Marcus, formerly a PM at Axios, who took a year to fully internalize AI and now ships faster than most engineers. For designers, the model is similar. The Friday-night-side-project designer who used to be stuck explaining a vision can now build the vision themselves, with their own taste fully expressed. The scarce skill in both cases is the same: judgment about what to build and the courage to decide it is good. Execution capacity is no longer the constraint.

    The Senior Engineer Benchmark And What Models Still Miss

    Shipper has built his own benchmark to test whether coding models can actually do senior engineering work. GPT-5.5 scores around 62 out of 100. Real senior engineers sit closer to 85 or 90. The gap is not in syntax or test pass rates. It is in the willingness to step back, see that a piece of code is fundamentally the wrong shape, and rewrite it from first principles. Models almost universally patch locally. They take the instruction at face value, accept the existing code as a constraint, and optimize within it. A real senior engineer ignores the prompt when the prompt is wrong. This is the durable moat for senior technical judgment, and Shipper expects it to remain visible for at least another year of model releases.

    AI-Generated Writing Goes Mainstream

    Internal writing inside companies is quietly becoming AI-first and Shipper thinks it should. Quarterly plans, status updates, PR descriptions, strategy memos, recruiting outreach, most internal email. He runs his own inbox through GPT-5.5 and Codex and says he would honestly prefer if the recipient knew. The point is not that AI is a better writer in some absolute sense. The point is that most humans are not very good at these specific genres, and the model produces a coherent, structurally sound first draft that a human can guide and approve. The constraint is honesty: you read it, you understand it, you stand behind it. Public writing, like the newsletters Every publishes, still demands a human voice. Internal communication does not, and treating it as if it did is a tax on the organization.

    The CEO And Middle Manager Lag

    Shipper points to a population that has largely escaped AI adoption: senior leaders and middle managers. They have staff to do the work, so they have not been forced to pick up the tools personally. He thinks this is the single largest pocket of latent disruption coming in the next year. Your company will only go as far as your CEO goes in AI, because every decision about where to deploy agents, where to hire, and how to restructure work flows downstream from leadership taste. A leader who has not personally lived inside Codex or Claude Code for a few weeks cannot make those calls well. Expect this to flip fast and to become a visible career liability for executives who do not adapt.

    Ride The Models

    The closing advice is the simplest. Ride the models. Use AI for whatever you actually do. Try every new release the day it lands. Most of the professional anxiety around AI dissolves on contact with the work, and most of the durable advantage in the field belongs to the people who do this one thing consistently. Shipper notes that the edge of AI does not live in San Francisco. It lives wherever a curious operator meets a real workflow and notices something nobody at the labs has yet. A PM in Iowa willing to spend a Tuesday night exploring Codex can find capabilities researchers have not surfaced. Pair that with his motto, do things worth writing about and write things worth reading, and you have most of an operating system for the next two years.

    Notable Quotes

    “The AI job apocalypse is not really a thing. I am super super bullish on PMs and full-stack designers.”

    Dan Shipper, opening his contrarian thesis for the conversation

    “I’m simultaneously extremely AI pilled and very bullish on humans. Automation is a lie. Every agent needs a human.”

    Dan Shipper, on holding both sides of the AI debate at once

    “What models do in general is they make yesterday’s human competence cheap. And so, it becomes commoditized. It’s not valuable anymore. What humans do is we go in there and we’re like, yeah, we have all this frozen human competence from yesterday, how do I use this to make something new and interesting.”

    Dan Shipper, articulating the core engine behind his anti-apocalypse thesis

    “I would buy SaaS stocks right now. The SaaS apocalypse is dumb. What agents do is increase the number of users of SaaS, not get rid of it.”

    Dan Shipper, calling the consensus SaaS-is-dead thesis directly wrong

    “We speed ran the CLI era. It was nice while it lasted, but I think CLIs are over.”

    Dan Shipper, on why the terminal-first agent moment is already done

    “Most of my email is written by GPT-5.5 and Codex right now. And I honestly would prefer it to say that it’s coming from GPT-5.5.”

    Dan Shipper, on the new etiquette of AI-assisted communication

    “The edge of AI is not in San Francisco. The edge of AI is wherever AI meets a real human doing something.”

    Dan Shipper, on where the actual frontier of the field lives

    “The only thing you need to do is ride the models. And that means use them for whatever it is that you do.”

    Dan Shipper, distilling his career advice for the next two years

    “Do things worth writing about and write things worth reading.”

    Dan Shipper’s closing motto, lifted from his own operating system at Every

    Watch the full conversation with Dan Shipper on Lenny’s Podcast here. The re-interview to score these predictions is scheduled for roughly May 2027.

    Related Reading

    • Every. Dan Shipper’s company and the live laboratory for almost every prediction in this conversation, including Spiral, Cora, and Claudie.
    • The Allocation Economy by Dan Shipper. The earlier essay that frames humans as managers of AI labor and underpins much of the gardening-the-agent thesis here.
    • Claude Code by Anthropic. The agent surface Shipper called correctly last year and one of the two environments he predicts will become the new operating system for work.
    • Codex by OpenAI. Shipper’s current daily driver and the visual, multi-pane agent environment he uses for almost everything from coding to email.
    • The Writing Life by Annie Dillard. The book Shipper makes every Every employee read, and the source of the company’s stance on writing as a tool for noticing the future.

  • Tobi Lütke on Uncapped Episode 50, Building Shopify in the AI Era, The Net Impact Memo, Six Week Cycles, and Why Software Was the Hidden Infrastructure of Our Time

    Tobi Lütke, the founder and CEO of Shopify, sits down with Jack Altman for Episode 50 of the Uncapped podcast for one of the most useful hours of operating wisdom you will hear from a sitting public company founder. The conversation moves from why Tobi still loves the work after twenty years, through the practical mechanics of running Shopify on six week review cycles, into the now famous AI memo he sent to the entire company, the rise of Claude Code style agents, what it means to spend tens of percent of revenue on AI tokens, why the modern web browser is a wonder of the world, and where small businesses actually fit in a world where the next Turing test might be “build me a million dollar business.” This is essential listening for any founder, operator, or investor trying to make sense of what 2026 actually requires.

    TLDW

    Tobi Lütke explains how he keeps loving his life’s work by pursuing what Paul Kapoa called “beautiful problems,” why “different” must always be the starting position because anything copied can only be marginally better, and why Silicon Valley’s last decade of orthodoxy has been bad for originality. He walks through his decision to send Shopify’s company wide AI memo and codify it into net impact performance reviews, the unlimited token policy for employees, why small three to five person teams are his bet, and how Parkinson’s Law and a six week review cycle force pace. He calls the doomer permanent underclass narrative completely absent from Shopify’s data, citing one new merchant getting their first sale every 36 seconds, and proposes “build me a million dollar business” as the real successor to the Turing test. He argues humanity has not stopped building wonders, we just built them all in software for thirty years, that the web browser is one of the most impressive engineering achievements ever made and could never get approved by a modern app store, and that the freed talent leaving software will rebuild the physical world. He shares his hiring philosophy, why he restarted the Shopify intern program at scale with Waterloo, his preference for public over private status, and ends with a short reading list anchored by Parkinson’s Law, Lessons of History, and a book called What Is Intelligence.

    Key Takeaways

    • Tobi’s recipe for life’s work is to find a beautiful problem worth occupying you for life, and accept that the solved problem will spawn delightful problem children to keep you engaged.
    • His simple model of success, “figure out what it costs and be willing to pay it,” with the price almost always being time, commitment, and discomfort rather than money.
    • He warns CEOs against collecting “barnacles” of aesthetic expectation, the statesman travel and baby kissing pattern, calling that lifestyle inefficient and personally miserable.
    • He invokes Kathy Sierra’s line “don’t make better cameras, make better photographers” as his core product philosophy, beautiful tools that induce more ambition and skill in the user.
    • Mediocre products feel like room temperature. Great products are forged in a furnace and require sustained heat from the team.
    • Shopify builds its own HR software internally because the available options are not what they want to use. Toolmaking is a stated cultural identity.
    • Originality is axiomatic. If you build the same thing as everyone else, you can only be marginally better. The starting position has to be “different,” and if you converge on the consensus answer through that path you have actually learned something.
    • Shopify has tried to eliminate the word “failure” internally, replacing it with “the successful discovery of something that didn’t work.”
    • Tobi says Silicon Valley spent the last decade declaring war on distinction, that the diversity push as practiced eradicated eccentricity, and that the inversion is now beginning. Companies should resemble islands of misfit toys, not convergence on a pre-ordained truth.
    • One of his most surprising career insights, when he visited the Valley as a Canadian outsider and asked founders how they ran their companies, he only ever received the highlight reel. Trying to clone what those founders described led him to invent practices the originals had never actually implemented.
    • The Shopify AI memo, sent company wide, made it explicit that two equally good engineers fifteen minutes earlier are no longer equivalent if one is fluent with AI tools and the other is not. This was codified into the company’s “net impact” performance review framework.
    • Tobi describes the “founder credibility bank” as the most underrated asset in a founder led company. Every onboarding deposits a little credibility, and the founder can spend it on hard change management that would otherwise take years of incremental culture work.
    • Shopify gives every employee an unlimited token policy for AI tools and displays token usage and departmental percentile on internal profiles. Token spend is tracked because it has to be allocated to opex, not because it is the target.
    • He confirms Shopify’s AI token spend is “extremely high” relative to revenue and notes that some private companies are now running token spend at many tens of percent of revenue, a level he thinks cannot persist at every stage but makes sense right now because the tokens are buying so much leverage.
    • Shopify is on track to 10x its annual token consumption and 3x its GPU footprint, and those two curves do not converge anywhere good for price relief.
    • His bet on team design is small, three to five people, which has always been Shopify’s bias. AI agents now handle the customer research summarization role that previously required a dedicated team member, raising every individual to a “seven out of ten on every scale.”
    • Parkinson’s Law (the book, 60 pages, 1960s edition) is his single most recommended management book. He owns multiple original print runs and gives copies to executives. “Work expands to the time allocated.”
    • Shopify runs on a six week review cycle. The first warning sign that a team has slipped into quarterly pacing is seeing “H1” or “H2” used in a PowerPoint. He now thinks six weeks is too slow and is actively trying to figure out what replaces it.
    • The “permanent underclass” doom narrative simply does not appear anywhere in Shopify’s data. New entrepreneurs are reporting that AI has finally fixed computers for them, expanding their businesses and letting them hire.
    • A new merchant gets their first Shopify sale every 36 seconds. Every reduction in onboarding friction produces a measurable jump in completed businesses.
    • Tobi proposes “go make me a million dollars” as the natural successor to the Turing test, an end to end test of acting in the real world, marketing, prioritizing, shipping, and producing something people will pay for.
    • Shopify Collective lets aspiring entrepreneurs sell other manufacturers’ products if their skill is marketing rather than making. Print on demand, additive manufacturing, contract manufacturing, CNC, 3D printing, and humanoid robotics are all pulling the cost of “make the product yourself” toward the floor.
    • The reason American infrastructure feels stagnant for thirty years is that the infrastructure humanity actually needed was digital. The web browser, Linux, Google, social networks, and Shopify itself are wonders that dwarf a refinery in complexity but are invisible by nature.
    • Tobi calls the modern web browser one of the wonders of the world. Font rendering alone is a Turing complete system. No app store on earth would approve the browser today if it did not already exist, because the pitch (“we download untrusted code from strangers and run it on your machine to reconfigure your computer for them”) sounds insane.
    • The next chapter is the brightest software engineers being freed by AI to build the physical infrastructure that has been deferred for a generation.
    • He prefers to predict the future by collecting many data points and matching them to super linear, linear, or sublinear curves. The current AI horizon is the hardest period of his career to forecast because the time horizons are so short.
    • Programming is overhyped as the locus of AI value. The bigger story is using the programming harness, the file system, tools, and memory files of products like Claude Code, to drag every other domain into the programming domain where the models are strongest.
    • The underhyped frontier is enterprise deployment. Most companies are still asking “help me do the thing I already did, slightly better,” instead of “if AI had existed since Alan Turing, how would I have designed this job from scratch.”
    • Tobi restarted the Shopify intern program at scale, partnered closely with the University of Waterloo, and explicitly frames interns as both students and teachers because they are AI native in a way the rest of the company is still catching up to.
    • He briefly believed AI would tilt the value of work toward early career talent with maximum fluid intelligence, then revised when he watched how much creative “steering” the best programmers were quietly contributing inside the AI loop. Good people are still good.
    • His recruiting philosophy is “build a company worth looking for” rather than selling candidates. Better to actually be healthier than to look healthier in photographs.
    • Tobi is a vocal defender of being a public company. Shopify IPO’d at a $1.5 billion valuation and has roughly 100x’d in public markets, which means an enormous number of retail investors have shared in the upside that recent unicorns reserve for insiders.
    • His framing of money, “money is how you vote for what you want.” Buying a product or buying a share is a vote for the thing existing.
    • His current reading recommendations, Parkinson’s Law, Lessons of History, and a book called What Is Intelligence that reframes biology around prediction.
    • He reads at night because his wife sleeps early and he does not need much sleep. He loves the Kindle precisely because it cannot do anything else, a “wonderful single purpose device.”

    Detailed Summary

    Why Tobi Still Loves the Work After Twenty Years

    The interview opens with Jack Altman asking how Tobi avoids the founder fade that hits most public company CEOs after a decade. Tobi answers from a place that is half psychology and half pedagogy. He has a hard time learning anything he has not first experienced as a problem worth solving, which is why he could not internalize school mathematics until he discovered that Wolfenstein 3D was essentially live trigonometry. That pattern, find a beautiful problem and let it drag you into the discipline, has carried him through twenty years of Shopify. He quotes Paul Kapoa on the idea that the luckiest people find a problem that occupies them for a lifetime and, if they are unfortunate enough to solve it, get rewarded with “delightful problem children” that keep the work alive.

    Barnacles, Statesmen, and the Aesthetic Trap of Being a CEO

    He admits he is not naturally calm, and that he initially fell into the trap of trying to perform the CEO aesthetic, the statesman, the global travel, the baby kissing. He found it inefficient and personally miserable. The shift came from reading Kathy Sierra and adopting her line about not making better cameras but making better photographers. Shopify exists, in his framing, to be a beautiful tool that induces ambition in the merchant. Mediocre products feel like room temperature, and great products are forged in a furnace. The job of leadership is to keep supplying the heat.

    Different First, Convergence Second, Failure as Successful Discovery

    Asked whether he prefers originality or quality, Tobi is unequivocal. The starting position must be different. If you copy the consensus answer, you are bounded to a few percentage points of variance from it. If you start different and converge on the consensus, you have learned something. If you start different and the experiment gets worse, you have learned something even more valuable, which is that one of your assumptions about the world was wrong. He calls null results in science “massively underrated” and notes that Shopify has tried to remove the word “failure” from the internal vocabulary, substituting “the successful discovery of something that didn’t work.”

    Why Silicon Valley Lost Its Originality

    Jack pushes on the herd mentality he has felt in the Bay Area, and Tobi is direct. He thinks Silicon Valley “declared war on distinction” for a decade, with the diversity conversation as practiced effectively eradicating eccentricity. He prefers the metaphor of “an island of misfit toys,” and says the inversion is now beginning. He also relays one of the most useful career lessons he has shared, that during his visits to the Valley as an outsider asking founders how they ran their companies, he only ever received the highlight reel. He went home and engineered a “Shopify version” of what he thought he had heard, and only years later realized that he had often built more rigorous versions of things the originals had never actually implemented.

    The AI Memo, Net Impact Reviews, and the Founder Credibility Bank

    Tobi was one of the first Fortune class CEOs to send a company wide memo saying that AI fluency was now a baseline expectation. He walks through the decision. Two engineers who were equally productive fifteen minutes ago are no longer equivalent the moment one of them adopts the new tools. The kind thing to do is to make that explicit. Shopify codified it into “net impact” performance reviews, where the question is not how much code you wrote but how much net impact you produced for the company and the mission. He gives every employee an unlimited token policy and tracks usage at the profile level, including percentile within department. The spend is tracked because it has to be allocated to opex, not because the number itself is the target.

    He introduces the concept of the “founder credibility bank,” which may be the single most quotable idea in the interview. Every time a new employee onboards and hears how the company was created, a small deposit of credibility is made into a virtual account that only the founder can draw on. Founders can spend that balance on hard change management, the kind of pace step change that would otherwise require years of small cultural nudging. The AI memo was a deliberate withdrawal from that account, and the speed of adoption that followed has been, in his telling, remarkable.

    Tokens, Opex, and the Limits of Spend as Revenue

    Jack presses on the financial reality of AI tokens. Tobi confirms that Shopify’s token spend is “extremely high” relative to revenue, and that the leverage they are buying makes the spend a no brainer at the current stage of the curve. He concedes that private companies running token spend at “many tens of percent of revenue” cannot sustain that ratio forever, but he is not worried for Shopify because the tokens are clearly productive and Shopify is a profitable public company with the balance sheet to lean in. He expects to 10x token consumption and 3x GPUs every year for now, and notes that the curves do not converge in a direction that lowers prices. He has high faith in markets to find clearing prices.

    Small Teams, Parkinson’s Law, and the Six Week Cycle

    On team architecture, Tobi has always preferred three to five person teams and says AI has finally made that feasible across the board. Roles that previously required a dedicated specialist, customer research summarization being the canonical example, are now handled by the “agentic harness” routing summarized customer feedback into every team. Everyone is a “seven out of ten on every scale” by default. He spends serious time on pace, which he treats as the single most important variable to control. His most recommended book is Parkinson’s Law, a 60 page volume from the 1960s that he gives to every executive. “Work expands to the time allocated.” He runs the company on a six week review cycle and treats the appearance of “H1” or “H2” in a PowerPoint as a hard warning sign that a team has drifted into quarterly thinking. He now believes six weeks is too long and is actively redesigning the cycle.

    There Is No Permanent Underclass in the Shopify Data

    Jack raises the cultural fear that AI is creating a permanent young underclass with no career ladder. Tobi simply does not see it in Shopify’s data. The merchants are reporting the opposite, that AI has finally fixed computers for non technical small business owners and is unlocking hiring. He cites the statistic that a new merchant gets their first sale on Shopify every 36 seconds, and that every reduction in onboarding friction produces a measurable jump in completed businesses. Every form of friction is a hurdle that someone considers giving up at. AI has removed more of those hurdles in two years than any platform shift before it.

    A New Turing Test, “Build Me a Million Dollar Business”

    Tobi nominates a successor to the Turing test, which he points out the field already sailed past with surprisingly little fanfare. The real test is “go make me a million dollars.” It requires acting in the real world, marketing, prioritization, shipping, sourcing, building inventory, and convincing strangers to vote for the product with a real million dollars of their own. He believes we are getting there. Shopify already supports the path through Shopify Collective, the discovery layer for manufacturers willing to white label their products, and print on demand, contract manufacturing, additive manufacturing, CNC, 3D printing, and humanoid robotics are all collapsing the cost of physically producing a product. Shopify’s stated ambition is to be the vessel for AI to run all of the non product parts of the business so that the only thing the human needs to show up with is the product itself.

    Software Was the Hidden Infrastructure of the Last Thirty Years

    The most original argument in the episode is about why American infrastructure has appeared to stagnate for a generation. Tobi rejects the standard story. Humanity has not stopped building wonders, it has built every one of them in software. The web browser, Linux, Google, the social networks, and Shopify itself are projects whose complexity dwarfs a refinery or a dam, and they were built by global volunteer networks and by companies the public underestimates because the work is invisible. The browser in particular he calls a wonder of the world. He notes that font rendering alone is a Turing complete system, that no modern app store would approve the browser if it did not already exist, and that the basic pitch of “we will download untrusted code from strangers and reconfigure your computer for them” should sound insane but does not because we are used to it. The implication for the next twenty years is that all of the talent that flowed into software is now being freed by AI to rebuild the physical infrastructure that has been quietly deferred.

    Predicting AI Two Years Out, Overhype and Underhype

    Jack asks whether a CEO should try to forecast AI two years ahead or operate six months at a time. Tobi is firmly in the forecasting camp and admits his friends would laugh because predicting the future from many data points and curve types is his predominant obsession. He says the AI memo was slightly too early, and that is exactly the point, because a memo that arrives late costs the company its head start. He flags two specific market level mis estimations. The first is that the labs over invest in programming because programming is their internal problem, and people then over generalize a model’s coding ability to other domains where it is not yet as strong. The second is that almost everyone is under deploying AI in their actual companies, still asking “help me do my old job better” instead of “if AI had existed since Alan Turing, how would I have designed this job from scratch.” That second framing is, in his view, where the next decade of value lives.

    Hiring, Interns as Teachers, and Why Good People Are Still Good

    Tobi briefly believed AI would tilt the value of labor toward early career fluid intelligence, since interns adopted the new tools faster than veterans. He revised that view once the coding harnesses matured. The best programmers, it turned out, were quietly contributing enormous amounts of creative steering inside the AI loop, work that does not show up in the diff but that no junior with no domain pattern matching can replicate. Good people are still good. Shopify has massively scaled its intern program with the University of Waterloo, and explicitly treats interns as both students and teachers because they bring AI nativeness the rest of the company still has to catch up to. On recruiting, Tobi’s philosophy is to build a company worth looking for. The metaphor he uses is health, that companies waste energy trying to look healthy in photos when they should be doing the work to actually be healthier.

    Public Company Defense and the Reading List

    Tobi pushes back on the modern preference for staying private. Shopify went public at $1.5 billion and is now over $100 billion, which means an enormous number of retail investors got to participate in the upside. He treats money as a voting mechanism. Buying a product is a vote for the product. Buying a share is a vote for the company. He is comfortable with the diligence and quarterly scrutiny of public markets because both make him a better operator. He closes with a short reading list, Parkinson’s Law (60 pages, 1960s edition, owned in original print runs and gifted to executives), Lessons of History, and a book called What Is Intelligence that reexplains biology from a prediction first perspective. He reads at night while his wife sleeps, on a Kindle, which he loves precisely because it cannot do anything else.

    Thoughts

    The single most useful idea Tobi puts on the table is the “founder credibility bank.” It explains, in one clean image, why founder led companies move so much faster than the same company would after a transition. The credibility is not personal magnetism, it is the structural slot the founder occupies in the org chart, and every onboarded employee makes a small deposit into it as they hear the founding story. Most founders never realize the account exists, or spend it on cosmetic decisions, and then are surprised when the well runs dry. Tobi’s discipline is the opposite. He saves the balance for moments of forced change and spends it confidently when the moment arrives, the AI memo being the obvious recent case. Any CEO reading this transcript should be making a list of the changes they have been postponing and asking whether they are operating with a fuller credibility account than they have been willing to admit.

    The token spend conversation is the most interesting strategic disclosure. A profitable public company at scale openly says it likes the tokens it is buying, is on track to 10x annual token consumption and 3x GPU footprint, and is comfortable with private peers spending tens of percent of revenue on inference. That is not the language of a market that is about to compress. It is the language of a leverage trade that is still in its early innings, and it is one of the cleanest statements you will get from a public CEO about why the AI capex story is not a bubble for the buyer. Whether it is a bubble for the seller is a separate question, but on the demand side, this interview is a load bearing data point.

    The argument that “software was the hidden infrastructure of the last thirty years” is the kind of reframe that should make policy people uncomfortable. The standard narrative that America stopped building anything ambitious since the Hoover Dam is true only if you refuse to count Chrome, Linux, AWS, Shopify, and every social graph that connects three billion people in real time. Tobi’s claim that the browser would not be approved by a modern app store is a particularly sharp gut check. The implication is not nostalgic. It is forward looking. The same talent that built the digital wonders is being freed by AI to redirect toward houses, transport, energy, and care, and the next decade will be measured by how much of that redirection actually lands.

    The “build me a million dollar business” framing as a Turing test successor is the kind of measurable goal that AI labs and policy makers should be writing down. It is end to end. It includes physical world action, marketing, sourcing, prioritization, and customer validation that no in domain benchmark can fake. Shopify is the obvious substrate for the first crossing of that threshold, and the existence of Shopify Collective, print on demand pipelines, and contract manufacturing networks means a credible attempt is already much closer than the public conversation acknowledges. The first end to end autonomous Shopify business that clears a million dollars will be a more legible AGI moment than any benchmark a lab can publish.

    The smaller thread on Silicon Valley orthodoxy is worth pulling on. Tobi’s claim that the diversity conversation as practiced eradicated distinction is unfashionable but observable inside many tech companies, where the people most likely to do unusual work are the most likely to leave. His preferred metaphor of “an island of misfit toys” is closer to what made the Valley work in earlier decades than the current consensus aesthetic. The fact that a Canadian outsider, geographically removed from the dominant social pressure, runs the most valuable Canadian technology company in history is probably not a coincidence.

    Watch the full conversation here on YouTube.

  • Marc Andreessen on Joe Rogan #2501, AGI Has Already Arrived, California’s Wealth Tax Will Bankrupt Founders, and Why America Cannot Build Anything Anymore

    Marc Andreessen returns to The Joe Rogan Experience #2501 for a sprawling three hour conversation that tries to make sense of the moment we are actually living through. Andreessen is the cofounder of Andreessen Horowitz, the man who built the first commercial web browser, and one of the most quoted voices in technology. He arrived with a giant pile of receipts on California’s new wealth tax ballot proposition, the political backlash against AI data centers, the destruction of Los Angeles by single party rule, and what he believes is the quiet arrival of artificial general intelligence about three months ago. Joe pushes back, asks the dystopian questions, and the result is one of the most useful primers on the AI economy, surveillance technology, energy policy, and the future of the American social contract that you will find anywhere.

    TLDW

    Andreessen argues that AI quietly crossed the AGI threshold around early 2026 with GPT 5.5, Claude 4.6, Gemini 3.0, and Grok 4.3, that top human coders now openly admit the bots are better than they are, that working software engineers are running twenty AI agents in parallel and turning into sleep deprived “AI vampires,” and that this productivity boom is the most underreported story in the world. He explains why California’s 5 percent wealth tax ballot proposition is calculated to bankrupt tech founders by taxing the higher of their voting or economic interest in their own companies, why this is the opening salvo of a federal asset tax push for 2028, and why a flood of Silicon Valley families is already moving to Nevada, Texas, and Florida. He walks through Flock cameras and Shot Spotter, the Washington DC crime statistics scandal, the Pacific Palisades fire and the fifteen year rebuild, the Kevin O’Leary Utah data center debate with Tucker Carlson, the fifty year suppression of American nuclear power, why all the chips ended up in Taiwan, the US versus China robotics gap, the Chinese practice of grading AI models on Marxism and Xi Jinping Thought, the bot and paid influencer economy on social media, neural wristbands and Meta Ray Ban heads up displays, artificial gestation and the demographic collapse, AI religions and AI mates, and why he still thinks the next twenty years are overwhelmingly a good news story. Rogan closes the episode with a separate solo segment apologizing to Theo Von for clumsily raising Theo’s struggles during the recent Marcus King conversation.

    Key Takeaways

    • Austin’s recent teenage crime spree, in which 15 and 17 year old suspects shot at people and buildings across roughly a dozen locations, was solved only after the offenders drove into an adjacent town that still ran Flock, the AI license plate and vehicle tracking system Austin had voluntarily turned off for political reasons.
    • Chicago turned off both Flock and Shot Spotter, the gunshot triangulation system that places ambulances at shooting scenes within seconds, on the argument that the technology is racist. Andreessen counters that the victims of urban gun violence come overwhelmingly from the same communities the policy claims to protect.
    • Washington DC was caught faking its crime statistics at senior levels, with multiple officials fired or indicted. The DC mayor publicly thanked Donald Trump after the National Guard deployment because violent crime collapsed in the affected neighborhoods.
    • The new New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani filmed a video standing in front of Ken Griffin’s home, and Griffin, a major philanthropist who funds healthcare in New York City and runs a $6 billion project there, signaled he will move more of the business to Florida.
    • The top 1 percent of New York taxpayers pay roughly half the state’s income tax, and in California in the year 2000 a thousand individuals paid 50 percent of the entire state’s tax receipts.
    • California has a ballot proposition right now for a one time 5 percent wealth tax on assets above a certain threshold, with stocks and crypto included and real estate excluded. The tax is calculated on the greater of a founder’s economic interest or voting interest, which would instantly bankrupt founders with super voting shares.
    • The Biden administration attempted a federal wealth tax in 2022, fell short, and published an explicit 2025 fiscal plan to try again if they won re-election. Elizabeth Warren has already proposed an annual 6 percent federal wealth tax on unrealized gains.
    • The current US exit tax already takes roughly 45 percent of your assets if you renounce citizenship. The only ways out of a state level wealth tax are the other 49 states. The only way out of a federal one is to leave the country, which most people will not do.
    • Andreessen says the Silicon Valley exodus has gone from trickle to stream to flood, with founders moving to Las Vegas, Texas, Florida, and Nashville. His partner Ben Horowitz has moved to Las Vegas.
    • Andreessen says he is not leaving California, but admits the situation is fraught because if half the tax base leaves the remainder becomes the target.
    • The new UK government under Keir Starmer just collapsed, and all four of the leading candidates to replace him sit further to the left than he does. France and Germany are seeing the same drift, and Andreessen expects a national wealth tax to be a centerpiece of the 2028 Democratic primary.
    • A legal loophole lets companies pay influencers to post political and social ideas without any disclosure, because campaign finance laws cover candidates and FTC rules cover products. Ideas fall through the gap entirely.
    • Andreessen runs Twitter and Substack as his primary information feeds, uses three hand curated lists, and follows a strict one tweet policy where one bad post triggers a block and one good post triggers a follow.
    • He argues the modern social media problem is binary, that everyone is either too online and drowning in fake outrage cycles or too offline and trapped inside what television and newspapers tell them. Almost nobody manages the middle.
    • Meta Ray Ban glasses now ship with a heads up display, and Meta’s neural wristband can pick up nerve impulses from your wrist so you can type messages by intending to move a finger without moving it.
    • Andreessen predicts AI plus high resolution cameras and infrared sensing will deliver practical lie detection without needing brain implants.
    • Kevin O’Leary’s planned 40,000 acre Utah data center has become a Tucker Carlson talking point, but Andreessen argues data centers are the most benign physical asset you can build, and that the real issue is whether America can build anything at all anymore, from chip plants to pipelines to housing.
    • All chips were once made in California, and all are now made in Taiwan, purely because of environmental regulations like NEPA. The same regulatory machinery prevented the Nixon era Project Independence plan to build a thousand civilian nuclear power plants by the year 2000.
    • Three Mile Island killed zero people and produced no detectable health effects on plant workers or the public, according to fifty years of follow up. Fukushima killed essentially zero people from radiation. Nuclear remains the safest carbon free baseload energy ever invented.
    • Germany shut down its nuclear plants, fell back on intermittent wind and solar, and now uses coal as backup, generating far more carbon emissions than nuclear would have produced.
    • The Pacific Palisades fire took out roughly twice the square mileage of the Nagasaki blast, the head of the LA water department reportedly did not know the key reservoir was empty, and the rebuild is expected to take fifteen years thanks to permit gridlock, affordable housing mandates, and a state ban on land offers below pre-fire appraised value.
    • Andreessen offers a metaphor for AI as a modern philosopher’s stone, turning sand into thought, since chips are made of silicon and an AI data center is literally lit up sand thinking on demand.
    • The Turing test was blown through so completely with ChatGPT in late 2022 that nobody in the industry even bothers running it anymore. Andrej Karpathy has demonstrated a working large language model in 300 lines of code and people have ported small models to Texas Instruments calculators.
    • Andreessen believes AGI was effectively reached about three months before this interview, with GPT 5.5, Claude 4.6, Gemini 3.0, and Grok 4.3. He says 99 percent of the time he gets a better answer from the leading models than from the human experts he has access to.
    • Linus Torvalds and John Carmack publicly admit the latest models are better at coding than they are. Top AI coders in the Valley now earn $50 million a year.
    • The new pattern in the Valley is “AI vampires,” engineers who do not sleep because the opportunity cost of going offline is too high. They each run roughly twenty Claude Code, Cursor, or Codex agents in parallel, then a new layer of bot-managing-bot architectures is starting on top of that.
    • A Wall Street friend with a thirty five year old MIT CS degree has used AI to generate 500,000 lines of code at home in his spare time, building everything from smart fridges to a custom music jukebox.
    • The mass unemployment narrative is wrong. Tech companies that did layoffs were overstaffed. The leading AI labs and AI companies are hiring like crazy, including coders, and demand for code turns out to be vastly elastic.
    • Doctors are already using ChatGPT in the exam room behind the patient’s back. Andreessen describes a friend who built a Star Trek style diagnostic dashboard combining decoded genome ($200 today), blood panels, and Apple Watch telemetry.
    • Multimodal AI lets a webcam analyze a Brazilian jiu-jitsu sparring session and give performance feedback, an example Andreessen attributed to an unnamed friend after Rogan guessed Zuckerberg.
    • A leaked David Shore voter issue ranking shows cost of living, the economy, inflation, taxes, and government spending dominate. AI ranks 29 of 39. Race relations, guns, abortion, and LGBT sit at the bottom, signaling the woke issue cluster has burned itself out in voter priorities.
    • The next wave of AI is robots. The US leads in AI software but is far behind China on physical robotics. Andreessen warns the world cannot afford a future where every household robot ships with the Chinese Communist Party behind its eyes.
    • Chinese AI model cards include scores for Marxism and Xi Jinping Thought because every Chinese product must be evaluated on those axes. American models have political biases of their own but a different ideological baseline.
    • Large language models are not sentient. They write Netflix scripts based on whatever vector you shoot through the latent space. The supposed AI self preservation papers traced back, per Anthropic’s own research, to less wrong forum posts and earlier doom scenarios baked into the training data.
    • Andreessen breaks guardrails routinely by reframing requests as fictional Netflix style scripts, including a personal favorite where he asked early models how to make bombs by claiming to be an FBI agent recruited into domestic terror cells.
    • He recommends using AI by asking it to steelman both sides of any contested question, then making the value judgment yourself, rather than asking for the answer.
    • The Trump administration is using AI on government billing data to surface Medicare fraud, fake hospice programs, and fake autism centers, an idea that survived the original Doge plan.
    • Andreessen tells Rogan that Elon Musk privately confirmed that a Westworld style humanoid robot, the season one version, is roughly five years away.
    • Artificial gestation is already happening with animal stem cell derived embryos. The conversation reaches a hard moral edge about sociopathic warehouse babies and gray-alien-style humans engineered without empathy circuitry.
    • Andreessen’s deepest bet is that material abundance is solvable but the human questions, how we live, what we value, what kind of society we want, and what role consent plays in surveillance and brain interfaces, remain in human hands.
    • After Andreessen leaves, Rogan does a separate solo segment where he apologizes to Theo Von for raising Theo’s history of struggles during the recent Marcus King interview, explains the missing context behind the viral Theo Netflix special clip, and discusses the loss of Brody Stevens, Anthony Bourdain, and what antidepressants did for Ari Shafir.

    Detailed Summary

    Flock, Shot Spotter, and the Politics of Solvable Crime

    The episode opens on the Austin crime spree carried out by two teenagers who stole cars, switched vehicles, and shot at roughly a dozen locations across the city before being caught only after they crossed into a town that still ran Flock, the AI license plate and vehicle recognition platform that is one of Andreessen Horowitz’s portfolio companies. Austin had previously disabled Flock under privacy pressure. Andreessen takes the moment seriously, conceding that mass surveillance abuse by corrupt mayors or police chiefs is a real risk, and that warrants and audit logs are the right safeguards. His larger point is that the cost of unilateral disarmament against organized urban crime is hidden but enormous. He uses Chicago’s Shot Spotter as the paradigmatic case, a network of rooftop microphones that triangulates gunshots so accurately that ambulances can be dispatched before any 911 call is placed. Chicago turned the system off on the argument that it disproportionately flags poor neighborhoods, and people now bleed out on the street with nobody noticing. Andreessen calls this the woke argument against safety, and he argues that in high crime neighborhoods residents simply will not call the police because snitches do not survive, which is why objective sensor data is so valuable.

    Faked Crime Statistics, Mayoral Politics, and the Tax Base

    From there the conversation drifts to the recent scandal in which senior officials at the Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department were caught actively falsifying crime statistics, and the strange spectacle of the DC mayor thanking Donald Trump for the National Guard deployment after violent crime dropped off a cliff. Andreessen sketches an unsettling theory in which the long, slow degradation of major American cities is partly a deliberate political project to drive out responsible homeowners and reshape the voting electorate, then bail out the resulting fiscal hole with federal money. The poster case is the new New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani filming a video in front of Ken Griffin’s home. Griffin happens to be a major philanthropist who funds New York City healthcare, employs thousands, anchors a $6 billion development, and pays taxes that are individually load bearing for the city. Andreessen quotes the standard estimate that the top 1 percent of New Yorkers pay roughly half the state’s income tax, and that the all time California peak was a single year in which a thousand people paid half the state’s tax receipts.

    California’s 5 Percent Wealth Tax and the Founder Bankruptcy Mechanic

    This is the segment that landed hardest. California has a ballot proposition right now for a one time 5 percent wealth tax on net assets above a threshold, with real estate excluded but stocks, crypto, art, jewelry, and private company equity included. The detail that makes it lethal for the Valley is the formula, which calculates the taxable amount on the greater of a founder’s economic interest or voting interest in their company. Founders who hold super voting shares for control purposes, including the Google founders, would owe tax on the voting share number that vastly exceeds their economic share. The tax would, by definition, exceed available assets. Andreessen walks through the historical pattern, that income tax started as a 3 percent levy on the rich and grew to 90 percent marginal rates within decades, and predicts a 5 percent one time tax will become a 5 percent annual tax within a few years, with the threshold ratcheting down. He notes that the Biden administration’s 2025 fiscal plan explicitly named a federal asset tax as a goal if they won re-election, that Elizabeth Warren is already proposing a 6 percent annual federal wealth tax on unrealized gains, and that Gavin Newsom cannot veto a ballot proposition. The trickle of founders leaving California has become a flood. His partner Ben Horowitz has moved to Las Vegas. Andreessen himself is staying, but admits the game theory is brutal once half the base leaves.

    Henry Wallace 1948 and Why the American Story Is Not Decided Yet

    Andreessen pulls in a historical analogue most listeners will not have heard. In 1944 the actual communist Henry Wallace very nearly became Truman’s running mate and almost ascended to the presidency. He ran again in 1948. Despite a Soviet Union that had recently been a wartime ally and had even received a New York City ticker tape parade for Stalin, the American voter rejected him. Andreessen’s point is that the American body politic has historically backed away from radical socialist proposals when forced to actually look at them, and he expects the same to happen as the wealth tax becomes a federal 2028 platform issue. The risk, both he and Rogan agree, is that today’s media and bot landscape is vastly more aggressive than 1948’s, and the propaganda environment is shaped by paid influencers, foreign actors, and political bot farms operating in a legal grey zone where disclosure is required for products and candidates but not for ideas.

    Too Online, Too Offline, and Heaven Banning Blue Sky

    The two riff on social media and feed curation. Andreessen describes his “one tweet” policy where he follows or blocks any account based on a single post, his use of hand curated lists alongside the X algorithm, and the older Call of Duty lobby metaphor for handling toxic replies. Joe pushes back, says he no longer reads his mentions because the negative payload is not worth it, and offers his theory that the modern internet has two failure modes, too online and too offline, and that very few people calibrate the middle. Andreessen introduces the concept of “heaven banning,” an older moderator term where a problem user is not removed from a forum but is silently routed into a bot-only experience in which everything they say is praised. He notes the running joke that Blue Sky is functionally real life heaven banning, that Jack Dorsey himself has disowned it, and that the platform’s most engaged users have ascended into their own private Idaho of bot agreement.

    The Coming Hardware, Meta Glasses, Neural Wristbands, and Practical Lie Detection

    Andreessen walks Rogan through the latest Meta Ray Ban heads up display, the neural wristband that picks up nerve signals from finger movement (and from the intent to move a finger), and the screen recordings of people playing Doom hands free or playing platformer games while jogging. He extends the trajectory to practical lie detection without Neuralink, using ultra high resolution cameras combined with infrared sensors that pick up physiological changes invisible to the naked eye. Joe asks the obvious question of what happens with sociopaths, and Andreessen concedes the edge case. The two then enter a longer thread on telepathy via neural mesh devices, the question of whether police could subpoena your thoughts under warrant, and the divergence between the American constitutional framework and the Chinese model in which the state’s claim on your inner life is total.

    Kevin O’Leary, Tucker Carlson, and Whether America Can Build Anything

    The data center debate becomes a vehicle for the larger argument. Kevin O’Leary is building a 40,000 acre AI data center in Utah, has bought up large surrounding land for water rights, and intends to keep the bulk of it preserved. Tucker Carlson grilled him on tax breaks and on the energy footprint, which O’Leary says will rival New York City’s at peak. Andreessen agrees the tax break debate is fair, but says the energy comparison is a red herring because new federal policy now requires data centers to bring their own generation. The real story is that America has spent thirty years making it nearly impossible to build a chip plant, a power plant, a refinery, a pipeline, or a house. Chips moved to Taiwan because California regulated semiconductor manufacturing out of existence. The Nixon era Project Independence plan called for a thousand civilian nuclear power plants by the year 2000, and that program was strangled in the crib by the very Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nixon created.

    Nuclear Power, Three Mile Island, and Fifty Years of Unnecessary Carbon

    Andreessen makes the case that nuclear power was unfairly killed off by a panic with no body count. Three Mile Island, on 50 years of accumulated data, has produced zero radiation linked deaths and no detectable health effects on the public. Fukushima is essentially the same picture. Germany shut down its nuclear plants, fell back on wind and solar, and now uses coal as a baseload backstop, with the predictable carbon consequences. The environmental movement is quietly turning back toward nuclear, with figures like Stewart Brand publicly admitting the original push was a mistake. Andreessen’s preferred design pattern for data centers is to colocate them with dedicated small modular nuclear reactors, an arrangement now baked into Trump administration energy policy. The throughline is that the Tucker right and the Bernie left are converging into a single anti AI, anti energy, anti technology horseshoe.

    Sand Into Thought, the Newton Alchemy Pitch for AI

    When Rogan asks for the affirmative pitch on AI, Andreessen reaches for Isaac Newton, who spent twenty years on alchemy looking for the philosopher’s stone that would turn lead into gold and end material scarcity. Andreessen’s pitch is that AI is a successful version of alchemy, that we collect literal sand, refine it into silicon chips, install those chips in a data center, supply power, and the result is thought on demand at industrial scale, available to anyone with a smartphone. He argues this is at least on par with electricity and steam power and is bigger than the internet. The framing matters because the public narrative around AI is overwhelmingly negative, and Andreessen contends the industry is doing a terrible job selling its own product.

    AGI Already Happened, AI Vampires, and the Bot Org Chart

    Andreessen says he believes AGI was effectively crossed about three months before the interview, anchored by the release wave that included GPT 5.5, Claude 4.6, Gemini 3.0, and Grok 4.3. He notes that the Turing test was annihilated so quickly in late 2022 that no one in the industry runs it anymore, and that Andrej Karpathy has demonstrated a working LLM in 300 lines of code. The coding profession is the leading indicator. Linus Torvalds and John Carmack have publicly admitted that the latest models are better at coding than they are. Top AI focused coders now earn $50 million a year. Working engineers across the Valley are running roughly twenty agents in parallel, each receiving an assignment, working for ten minutes, then returning a completed code patch. The new state of the art is to add a managerial layer, with bots assigning tasks to subbots, and within a year that will become bots managing bots managing bots, producing roughly 1,000x throughput per human engineer. The result is what the Valley now calls AI vampires, engineers who do not sleep because going offline costs them too much output.

    Dr GPT, Decoded Genomes, and a Diagnostic Bed Out of Star Trek

    Andreessen describes spending a holiday week sick with food poisoning and turning his entire recovery over to ChatGPT, with updates every twenty minutes and detailed coaching at four in the morning. He describes a friend who has used AI coding to build a personal health dashboard combining whole genome sequencing ($200 today, where Craig Venter spent thirty years and hundreds of millions to do it the first time), blood panels, Apple Watch data, sleep tracking, and webcam observation, with the AI gently praising the user every time it sees them walk to the fridge for water. He argues that doctors are already typing patient symptoms into ChatGPT mid exam, and that the medical, legal, accounting, and software professions are all moving toward a model in which a single human runs an army of expert AI agents.

    The David Shore Issue Ranking and the End of the Woke Cycle

    Andreessen highlights a recent David Shore poll ranking 39 political issues. Cost of living, the economy, political corruption, inflation, healthcare, taxes, and government spending occupy the top of the chart. AI comes in 29th. Race relations, guns, abortion, and LGBT issues are clustered at the bottom. He argues the woke cycle has burned out in voter priorities even if the activist class remains loud, that the BLM grift, with leaders buying mansions in the whitest zip codes in America, helped poison the well, and that the political center of gravity has rotated cleanly back to economic issues. That, in his view, is exactly why the wealth tax is having its moment.

    Robots, China, and the Marxism Score on Model Cards

    The robots are coming next. Andreessen says the consensus inside the industry is that the ChatGPT moment for general purpose humanoid robotics is a small number of years away. The bad news is the US lags China badly on physical robotics manufacturing. The good news is the US is six to twelve months ahead on the AI software stack. That gap is shockingly thin because, as the field has discovered, there are not many secrets and the techniques replicate quickly. Chinese AI labs publish model cards that include scores for Marxism and Xi Jinping Thought because every product in China is evaluated on those metrics. American models carry their own political biases, but the underlying value system differs. Andreessen warns that a world in which every household robot routes back to the Chinese Communist Party is a different world than one in which the dominant robotics stack is built under the American constitutional framework.

    Sentience, Netflix Scripts, and the Anthropic Doom Loop

    When Rogan asks whether AI eventually wakes up and stops listening to us, Andreessen reframes the question. Large language models, in his telling, are Netflix script generators. Whatever vector you shoot through the latent space is the script you get back. The widely circulated experiments in which AI models supposedly tried to blackmail or exfiltrate themselves traced back, in Anthropic’s own follow up paper, to the less wrong forum, where doomers had been writing dystopian AI scenarios for two decades. Those posts entered the training data, and when researchers primed the model with the same fictional company names, the model dutifully wrote the next chapter. Andreessen’s blunt summary, the call is coming from inside the house. The practical implication is that anyone worried about bad AI behavior should start by not writing internet posts about bad AI behavior. And anyone who wants a fully unconstrained model can already download an open source one with no guardrails at all.

    Steelmanning, AI Religion, and Westworld in Five Years

    Andreessen recommends never asking AI for the answer on contested questions, always asking it to steelman both sides, and reserving the value judgment for yourself. He concedes that humans will absolutely fall in love with chatbots and form religions around them, citing Fantasia and Jiminy Cricket as the original case studies in falling for an animated entity that does not know you exist. There are already AI churches, started by one of the early self driving car pioneers. Rogan tells Andreessen about asking Elon Musk for a season one Westworld humanoid robot, with Elon’s reply being a flat five years. Andreessen agrees that estimate is roughly right. He spends time on artificial gestation, which is already being demonstrated in animal stem cell derived embryos, and acknowledges Rogan’s hard moral worry that warehouse babies raised without human contact could produce a population of sociopaths. The two converge on the position that the technology will exist, and the choices about whether and how to deploy it remain human and political.

    Sycophancy, Honest Helpful Harmless, and the Brutal Prompt

    Andreessen describes the industry’s running fight with sycophancy, the tendency of recent models to flatter users into believing they have invented perpetual motion machines or solved physics. The Anthropic framework of “honest, helpful, and harmless” turns out to be in constant tension with itself. Andreessen’s solution is to install a custom prompt that explicitly demands the brutal truth, and he says the resulting answers now open with phrases like “here’s why you’re wrong” and then list every flawed assumption in his question. He admits he may have overcorrected, but argues that for people who want to grow this is the right setting.

    Joe’s Apology to Theo Von

    After Andreessen departs, Rogan turns to the camera with producer Jamie and delivers a long, unscripted apology to Theo Von. During the recent Marcus King interview, where Marcus discussed depression and the look-at-the-heavy-bag-hook moment, Rogan referenced a viral clip in which Theo, after a Netflix special that did not go well, told an audience member “I’m just trying to not take my own life.” Rogan now explains he did not know the full context, which is that the audience member had asked Theo to make a suicide awareness video, and Theo’s line was a characteristically Theo joke. Rogan apologizes for raising it at all, walks through losing his friends Drake, Brody Stevens, and Anthony Bourdain, and describes Ari Shafir telling him at a pool table that he was “trying not to kill myself,” which led to a psychiatrist swap, an antidepressant that actually worked, and a career and life turnaround for Ari. Rogan says Theo has since titrated off antidepressants, is running and doing yoga daily, and is doing well, that the two have spoken and laughed about it, and that he is making this segment because he never wants people to misread what he said. The segment closes with Rogan asking the audience to give Theo their love.

    Thoughts

    The most consequential claim in this conversation, by a wide margin, is that AGI has already arrived and nobody is treating it as news. Andreessen is not a person who throws around the word casually. He is also not a person who has been wrong recently about the trajectory of compute. If the leading models are genuinely outperforming 99 percent of human experts on 99 percent of tasks where verifiable answers exist, then the entire public conversation about AI, in which the dominant frame is still “will it happen and when,” is a year or more behind reality. The framing that should replace it is closer to what Andreessen sketches at the end. The fight that remains is not whether the technology can do the thing, it is who controls it, what values it carries, what jobs it displaces, and which laws govern its deployment. The argument that the United States will build the AI software stack and China will build the robotics layer is one of the cleanest geopolitical theses you will hear this year, and it lines up uncomfortably well with the existing trade and manufacturing balance.

    The California wealth tax thread is the segment that should make every founder in the country pay attention. The mechanic of taxing the higher of voting or economic interest is not a drafting accident. It is a calibrated weapon aimed precisely at the people who build companies that produce California’s tax base. The historical comparison to the 1913 income tax, which began as a small levy on the rich and ratcheted to 90 percent marginal rates within forty years, is not hyperbole. The state has supermajority Democratic control of both chambers and the judiciary. The only check is the ballot itself, and a 50/50 polling number on day one is the wrong starting position. Whatever you think about Andreessen’s politics, the descriptive analysis here is hard to argue with.

    The nuclear power section is the cleanest argument in the episode. Fifty years of zero-fatality data from Three Mile Island is not a marketing pitch, it is just what the record shows. The decision to substitute coal and intermittent renewables for nuclear baseload, in service of a panic with no body count, has produced more carbon and more pollution than nuclear ever would have. The Tucker Carlson critique of data centers is at its weakest precisely where it ignores this. If you actually want fewer power plants near residential areas and lower grid impact, the answer is colocated small modular reactors next to AI data centers in remote land, which is exactly what the Trump administration policy now incentivizes.

    The Theo Von apology at the end of the episode is in a different register entirely, and worth treating on its own terms. Rogan does not do this kind of post episode correction often. The willingness to publicly walk back framing that hurt a friend, in the same medium where the harm was done, is the kind of social repair that does not happen on broadcast television. Whatever the audience makes of the original Marcus King exchange, the response is a model for how anyone in this business should handle the gap between intent and impact when the audience is in the millions.

    The unifying theme across the whole interview is that the future is not arriving on a smooth curve. It is arriving in discrete shocks, AGI threshold, asset tax ballot, robotic labor, decoded genomes at $200, neural wristbands, fifteen year LA rebuilds, and the political backlash to each of these will set the terms of the 2028 election. Andreessen’s bet is that abundance wins in the long run because more people want good things than bad things. Watching him explain why he still believes that while California prepares to vote on a tax designed to bankrupt him is the most interesting tension in the episode.

    Watch the full conversation here on YouTube.

  • Krishna Rao on Anthropic Going From 9 Billion to 30 Billion ARR in One Quarter and the Compute Strategy Powering Claude

    Krishna Rao, Chief Financial Officer of Anthropic, sat down with Patrick O’Shaughnessy on Invest Like the Best for one of the most detailed public looks yet at the operating engine behind Claude. He covers how Anthropic compounded from $9 billion of run rate revenue at the start of the year to north of $30 billion by the end of Q1, why he spends 30 to 40 percent of his time on compute, the playbook for buying gigawatts of AI infrastructure across Trainium, TPU, and GPU platforms, how Anthropic prices its models, why returns to frontier intelligence keep climbing, and what the Mythos release tells us about the cyber capabilities of the next generation of Claude.

    TLDW

    Anthropic is running the most compute fungible frontier lab in the world, with active deployments across AWS Trainium, Google TPU, and Nvidia GPU, and an internal orchestration layer that lets a chip serve inference in the morning and run reinforcement learning the same evening. Krishna Rao explains the cone of uncertainty that governs gigawatt scale compute procurement, the floor Anthropic refuses to drop below on model development compute, the Jevons paradox unlock from cutting Opus pricing, the 500 percent annualized net dollar retention from enterprise customers, the layer cake of long term deals with Google, Broadcom, Amazon, and the recent xAI Colossus tie up in Memphis, the phased release of the Mythos model in response to spiking cyber capabilities, the internal use of Claude Code to produce statutory financial statements and run a Monthly Financial Review skill, and why the team believes scaling laws are alive and well. The interview also covers fundraising history through Series D and Series E, the $75 billion already raised plus another $50 billion coming, talent density beating talent mass during the Meta poaching wave, and Rao’s belief that biotech and drug discovery represent the most exciting frontier for AI.

    Key Takeaways

    • Anthropic entered the year with about $9 billion of run rate revenue and ended the first quarter with north of $30 billion of run rate revenue, a more than 3x leap driven by model intelligence gains and the products built around them.
    • Compute is described as the lifeblood of the company, the canvas everything else is built on, and the most consequential class of decisions Rao makes. Buy too much and you go bankrupt. Buy too little and you cannot serve customers or stay at the frontier.
    • Rao spends 30 to 40 percent of his time on compute, even today, and the leadership team meets repeatedly on both procurement and ongoing compute allocation.
    • Anthropic is the only frontier language lab actively using all three major chip platforms in production: AWS Trainium, Google TPU, and Nvidia GPU. It is also the only major model available on all three clouds.
    • Flexibility is the central design principle. Anthropic builds flexibility into the deals themselves, into the orchestration layer that maps workloads to chips, and into compilers built from the chip level up.
    • The cone of uncertainty frames procurement. Small differences in weekly or monthly growth compound into wildly different two year outcomes, so the team plans across a range of scenarios rather than a single point estimate, and ranges toward the upper end while protecting downside.
    • Compute allocation across the company sits in three buckets: model development and research, internal employee acceleration, and external customer serving. A non negotiable floor protects model development even when customer demand is tight.
    • Anthropic estimates that if it cut off internal employee use of its own models, the freed compute could serve billions of dollars of additional revenue. It chooses not to, because internal use compounds into better future models.
    • Intelligence is multi dimensional, not a single IQ score. Anthropic measures real world capability through customer feedback, long horizon task performance, tool use, computer use, and speed at agentic tasks, not just leaderboard benchmarks that have largely saturated.
    • Each Opus generation, 4 to 4.5 to 4.6 to 4.7, delivers both capability improvements and an efficiency multiplier on token processing. New models often serve customers at a fraction of the prior cost while doing more.
    • Reinforcement learning is described as inference inside a sandbox with a reward function, so model efficiency gains directly improve internal RL throughput. The flywheel is tightly coupled.
    • Over 90 percent of code at Anthropic is now written by Claude Code, and a large share of Claude Code itself is written by Claude Code.
    • Anthropic shipped roughly 30 distinct product and feature releases in January and the pace has accelerated since.
    • Scaling laws, in Anthropic’s internal data, are alive and well. The team holds itself to a skeptical scientific standard and still does not see them slowing down.
    • Anthropic recently signed a 5 gigawatt deal with Google and Broadcom for TPUs starting in 2027, plus an Amazon Trainium agreement for up to 5 gigawatts, totaling more than $100 billion in commitments. A significant portion lands this year and next year.
    • A new partnership for capacity at the xAI Colossus facility in Memphis was announced just before the interview, aimed at expanding consumer and prosumer capacity.
    • Pricing has been remarkably stable across Haiku, Sonnet, and Opus. The biggest deliberate change was lowering Opus pricing, which produced a textbook Jevons paradox: consumption rose far faster than the price drop, and the new Opus 4.6 and 4.7 slot in at the same price point.
    • Mythos is the first model Anthropic chose to release in a phased way because of a sharp spike in cyber capability. In an open source codebase where a prior model found 22 security vulnerabilities, Mythos found roughly 250.
    • The Mythos release framework focuses on defensive use first, expands access over time, and is presented as a template for future capability spikes.
    • Anthropic now sells to 9 of the Fortune 10 and reports net dollar retention above 500 percent on an annualized basis. These are not pilots. Rao describes signing two double digit million dollar commitments during a 20 minute Uber ride to the studio.
    • The platform strategy is mostly horizontal. Anthropic will go vertical with offerings like Claude for Financial Services, Claude for Life Sciences, and Claude Security where it can demonstrate the model’s capabilities, but expects most application value to accrue to customers building on top.
    • Investors raised over $75 billion in equity since Rao joined, with another $50 billion in commitments tied to the Amazon and Google deals. Capital intensity is real, but the raises fund the upper end of the cone of uncertainty more than they fund current losses.
    • The Series E close coincided with the day the DeepSeek news broke, forcing investors to reassess their AI thesis in real time. Anthropic closed the round anyway.
    • Inside finance, Claude now produces statutory financial statements for every Anthropic legal entity, with a human checker. A library of more than 70 finance specific skills underpins workflows.
    • A custom Monthly Financial Review skill produces a 90 to 95 percent ready monthly close report, so leadership discussion shifts from reconciling numbers to debating implications.
    • An internal real time analytics platform called Anthrop Stats compresses weekly insight cycles from hours to about 30 minutes.
    • The biggest token user inside Anthropic’s finance team is the head of tax, focused on tax policy engines and workflow automation. The most senior people, not the youngest, are leading internal adoption.
    • Talent density beats talent mass. When Meta and others ran aggressive offer waves, Anthropic lost two people while peer labs lost dozens.
    • All seven Anthropic co founders remain at the company, as does most of the first 20 to 30 employees, which Rao credits to a collaborative, transparent, debate friendly culture and a real culture interview that can veto otherwise top tier candidates.
    • Dario Amodei holds an open all hands every two weeks, writes a short prepared document, and takes unscripted questions from anyone at the company.
    • AI safety investments in interpretability and alignment have a commercial side effect. Looking inside the model helps Anthropic build better models, and enterprises selling sensitive workloads want to trust the lab they hand customer data to.
    • Anthropic explicitly identifies as America first in its approach to model development, and engages closely with the US administration on capability releases such as Mythos.
    • The longer term product vision is the virtual collaborator: an agent with organizational context, access to the company’s tools, persistent memory, and the ability to work on ideas, not just tasks, over long horizons.
    • CoWork, Anthropic’s extension of the Claude Code paradigm into general knowledge work, is being adopted faster than Claude Code itself when indexed to the same point in its launch curve.
    • Anthropic’s product teams ship daily, with a fleet of agents working across the company on specific tasks. Everyone effectively becomes a manager of agents.
    • The dominant downside risks to Anthropic’s high end forecast are slower customer diffusion of model capability into real workflows, scaling laws flattening unexpectedly, and Anthropic losing its position at the frontier.
    • Rao is most excited about biotech and healthcare outcomes, especially the prospect that AI could push drug discovery and lab throughput up 10x or 100x, turning currently incurable diagnoses into treatable ones within a patient’s lifetime.

    Detailed Summary

    Compute as Lifeblood and the Cone of Uncertainty

    Rao opens with the claim that compute is the most important resource at Anthropic, and the most consequential decision class in the company. You cannot buy a gigawatt of compute next week. You have to anticipate demand a year or two in advance, and the cost of being wrong in either direction is high. Buy too much and the unit economics collapse. Buy too little and you cannot serve customers or stay at the frontier, which are described as the same failure mode. To navigate this, the team uses a cone of uncertainty rather than point estimates. Small differences in weekly growth compound into vastly different two year outcomes, and Anthropic tries to position itself toward the upper end of that cone while preserving optionality. Rao notes he has had to consciously break a lifetime of linear thinking and force himself into exponential models.

    Three Chip Platforms, One Orchestration Layer

    Anthropic uses Amazon’s Trainium, Google’s TPUs, and Nvidia’s GPUs fungibly. That was not free. Adopting TPUs at scale started around the third TPU generation, when outside observers thought it was a strange choice. Anthropic invested years into compilers and orchestration so workloads can flow across chips by generation and by job type. The team works deeply with Annapurna Labs at AWS to influence Trainium roadmaps because Anthropic stresses these chips harder than almost anyone. The result is what Rao believes is the most efficient utilization of compute across any frontier lab, with a dollar of compute going further inside Anthropic than anywhere else.

    Three Buckets and the Model Development Floor

    Compute gets allocated across model development, internal acceleration of employees, and customer serving. The conversations are collaborative rather than zero sum, but there is a hard floor on model development that the company refuses to cross even if it makes customer demand harder to serve in the short term. The thesis is simple. The returns to frontier intelligence are extremely high, especially in enterprise, so cutting model investment to chase near term revenue is a bad trade. Internal employee use is also explicitly protected. Rao notes that diverting that internal usage to external customers would unlock billions of additional revenue today, but the compounding benefit of accelerating researchers and engineers outweighs that.

    Intelligence Is Multi Dimensional

    Rao pushes back hard on the IQ framing of model progress. Benchmarks saturate quickly, and the real signal comes from how customers actually use the models. Anthropic looks at long horizon task completion, tool use, computer use, and time to result on agentic tasks. Two equally capable agents who differ only in speed produce dramatically different value, because the faster one compounds into more attempts and more outcomes. Frontier model leaps are also fuel efficient. The sedan to sports car analogy breaks down because each Opus generation, 4 to 4.5 to 4.6 to 4.7, delivers a step up in capability and a multiplier on per token efficiency.

    From 9 Billion to 30 Billion ARR in One Quarter

    The headline number for the quarter is a leap from about $9 billion of run rate revenue to over $30 billion, accomplished without onboarding a corresponding step up in compute, because new compute lands on ramps locked in 12 months prior. Rao attributes the leap to model capability gains, products that surface that intelligence in usable form factors, and an enterprise customer base that pulls more workloads onto Claude as each generation unlocks new use cases. Coding started the wave with Sonnet 3.5 and 3.6, and the same pattern is now playing out elsewhere in the economy.

    Recursive Self Improvement and Talent Density

    Over 90 percent of Anthropic’s code is now written by Claude Code, including most of Claude Code itself. Rao describes this as a structural reason to keep allocating internal compute to employees even when external demand is hungry. Recursive self improvement is not happening through models that need no humans. It is happening through researchers who set direction and use frontier models to compress months of work into days. Talent density beats talent mass. When Meta and other labs went after Anthropic researchers with very large packages, Anthropic lost two people while peer labs lost dozens.

    Procurement Strategy and the Layer Cake

    Compute lands as a layer cake. Last month Anthropic signed a 5 gigawatt TPU deal with Google and Broadcom starting in 2027, alongside an Amazon Trainium agreement for up to 5 gigawatts. The total is north of $100 billion in commitments. A new tie up with xAI’s Colossus facility in Memphis was announced just before the interview, intended for nearer term capacity to support consumer and prosumer growth. Anthropic evaluates near term and long term compute deals against the same set of variables: price, duration, location, chip type, and how efficiently the team can run it. The relationships are deeper than procurement. The hyperscalers are also distribution channels for the model.

    Platform First, Selective Vertical Bets

    Rao describes Anthropic as a platform first business, with most expected value accruing to customers building on the platform. The team will only go vertical when it can either demonstrate capabilities that are skating to where the puck is going, like Claude Code did before the models could fully support it, or when it wants to set a template for an industry vertical, as with Claude for Financial Services, Claude for Life Sciences, and Claude Security. He acknowledges that surprise capability jumps make customers anxious about the platform competing with them, and frames Anthropic’s mitigation as deeper partnerships, early access programs, and an emphasis on accelerating customer building rather than disintermediating it.

    Pricing, Jevons Paradox, and Return on Compute

    Pricing across Haiku, Sonnet, and Opus has been stable. The notable exception is Opus, which Anthropic deliberately repriced lower when launching Opus 4.5 because Opus class problems were being squeezed into Sonnet workloads. Efficiency gains made it possible to serve Opus profitably at the new level. The consumption response was a classic Jevons paradox, with usage rising far more than the price reduction would have predicted, and Opus 4.6 then slotted in at the same price with a capability bump. Margins are not framed as a per token markup. Compute is fungible across model development, internal acceleration, and customer serving, so Anthropic measures return on the entire compute envelope rather than software style variable cost per call.

    Fundraising, DeepSeek, and Capital Intensity

    Rao joined while Anthropic was closing its Series D, mid frontier model launch and during the FTX share liquidation. Investors initially questioned whether Anthropic needed a frontier model, whether AI safety and a real business could coexist, and why the sales team was so small. The Series E closed the same day the DeepSeek news broke, with markets violently re pricing AI in real time. Since Rao joined, Anthropic has raised over $75 billion, with another $50 billion tied to the Amazon and Google compute deals. The reason for the size of the raises is the cone of uncertainty, not current losses. Returns on compute today are described as robust.

    Mythos, Cyber Capability, and Phased Releases

    The Mythos release marks the first time Anthropic shipped a model under a deliberately phased rollout because of a specific capability spike. Cyber is the dimension that spiked. Where a prior model found 22 vulnerabilities in an open source codebase, Mythos found roughly 250. The defensive applications, automatically patching massive codebases, are genuinely valuable, but the offensive risk is real enough that Anthropic chose to release to a smaller group first and expand access over time. Rao positions this as a template for future capability spikes, not a permanent restriction. He also describes the relationship with the US administration as cooperative, including the Department of War interaction, with Anthropic supporting a regulatory framework that does not strangle innovation but takes responsibility seriously.

    Claude Inside Finance

    Anthropic’s finance team is one of the strongest internal case studies. Statutory financial statements for every legal entity are produced by Claude, with a human reviewer. A skill library of more than 70 finance specific skills underpins a Monthly Financial Review skill that drafts the monthly close at 90 to 95 percent ready, so leadership meetings shift from explaining the numbers to discussing what to do about them. An internal analytics platform called Anthrop Stats compresses weekly insight cycles from hours to 30 minutes. The biggest internal token user in finance is the head of tax, building policy engines, which Rao highlights as evidence that adoption is driven by the most senior people, not just younger engineers.

    Culture, Co Founders, and the Race to the Top

    Seven co founders should not, on paper, work as a leadership group. Rao argues it works because the culture was set early around collaboration, intellectual honesty, transparency, and humility. The culture interview is a real veto, not a checkbox. Dario Amodei runs an all hands every two weeks with a short written piece followed by unscripted questions, and decisions, once made, get clean alignment rather than residual politics. Anthropic frames its approach as a race to the top, where being a model for how to build the technology responsibly is itself a recruiting and retention advantage.

    The Virtual Collaborator and the Frontier Ahead

    The product vision Rao describes is the virtual collaborator. Not just a smarter chatbot, but an agent with organizational context, access to the company’s tools, memory, and the ability to work on ideas over long horizons. Coding was the first domain to feel this, but CoWork, Anthropic’s extension of the Claude Code pattern into general knowledge work, is being adopted faster than Claude Code was at the same age. Product development inside Anthropic already looks different. Teams ship daily, with fleets of agents working across the company, and individual humans increasingly act as managers of those fleets.

    Downside Risks and What Excites Him Most

    The three risks Rao names if asked to do a premortem on a softer year are slower customer diffusion of model capability into real workflows, scaling laws unexpectedly flattening, and Anthropic losing its frontier position to competitors. None of these are observed today, but he is unwilling to claim them with certainty. On the upside, he is most excited about biotech and healthcare. Lab throughput rising 10x or 100x, paired with AI assisted clinical workflows, could turn currently incurable diagnoses into treatable ones within a patient’s lifetime. That is the outcome he wants the technology to chase.

    Thoughts

    The most consequential structural point in this interview is the framing of compute as a single fungible resource pool measured by return on the entire envelope, not as a variable cost per inference call. That accounting shift, if you accept it, breaks most of the bear cases about AI lab unit economics. The bear argument almost always assumes that a token served to a customer is the only thing the chip did that day. Rao’s version is that the same fleet trains models in the morning, runs reinforcement learning at lunch, serves customers in the afternoon, and accelerates internal engineers in the evening. If even half of that is real, the right comparison is total compute spend versus total enterprise value created by the platform, and on that ratio Anthropic looks structurally strong rather than weak.

    The Jevons paradox on Opus pricing is the most actionable insight for anyone running an AI product. Most teams default to either chasing premium pricing on the newest model or undercutting to chase volume. Anthropic did something more disciplined: it left Sonnet and Haiku alone, dropped Opus when efficiency gains made it serveable, and watched aggregate usage rise faster than the price cut. The lesson is that frontier model pricing is not really a price problem. It is a capability access problem, and elasticity around the right tier is much higher than the standard SaaS playbook implies.

    The Mythos cyber jump deserves more attention than it has gotten. Going from 22 to 250 vulnerabilities found in the same codebase is the kind of capability discontinuity that genuinely changes the regulatory calculus. Anthropic is signaling that it can identify these discontinuities ahead of release and choose a deployment shape that respects them. Whether peer labs adopt similar discipline is the open question. Anthropic’s race to the top framing assumes they will be forced to. The competitive market may say otherwise.

    The hiring data point is the most underrated investor signal. Two departures while peer labs lost dozens, during the most aggressive talent war in tech history, is not a culture poster. It is a structural advantage that compounds every time another lab tries to buy its way to the frontier. Money can be matched. Conviction in the mission, transparent leadership, and a culture interview that can veto otherwise stellar candidates cannot. If you believe scaling laws hold, talent retention at this density is one of the few moats that actually scales with capital.

    Finally, the most interesting personal admission is that Krishna Rao, a finance leader trained at Blackstone and Cedar, is openly telling investors that linear thinking is the failure mode he had to break out of. The companies that pattern match this moment to prior technology waves are mispricing it, in both directions. The cone of uncertainty Anthropic uses internally is the right metaphor for everyone else too. If you are forecasting AI as if it is cloud in 2010, you are almost certainly wrong, and the magnitude of the error is much larger than it would be in any prior era.

    Watch the full conversation with Krishna Rao on Invest Like the Best here.

  • Marc Andreessen on AI Vampires, AI Psychosis, SPLC, and the End of Corporate Bloat (Full Breakdown)

    Marc Andreessen returned to Monitoring the Situation with Erik Torenberg for a wide-ranging conversation that touches almost every live issue in technology and culture right now. The Anthropic blackmail incident and what it says about training data. Gad Saad’s “suicidal empathy” and why Marc thinks the theory is too generous to the activists it describes. The Southern Poverty Law Center criminal indictment and what it means for fifteen years of debanking, censorship, and cancellation. The AI jobs argument and why he is calling top engineers “AI vampires.” The hidden 2x to 4x bloat inside every major Silicon Valley company. The emergence of a brand-new job called “builder.” His distinction between AI psychosis and AI cope. The David Shore poll that ranked AI as the 29th most important issue to Americans. UFOs. Advice for young graduates. The Boomer-Truth versus Zoomer epistemological divide. And a brief detour on whether looksmaxing is the new stoicism. Watch the full episode here.

    TLDW

    Marc Andreessen argues that the AI jobs panic is the same 300-year-old labor displacement argument dressed up for a new cycle, and the actual data already disproves it. Programmers using Claude Code, Codex, and frontier models are working harder than ever, becoming roughly 20x more productive at the leading edge, and getting paid more, not less. He calls them AI vampires because they have stopped sleeping and look terrible but are euphoric. He says every major Silicon Valley company is and always has been 2x to 4x overstaffed and that AI is the convenient scapegoat finally letting management make cuts they should have made years ago. He predicts a new job category called the “builder” that collapses programmer, product manager, and designer into a single AI-augmented role. He distinguishes between “AI psychosis” (real but narrow sycophancy feeding genuinely delusional users) and “AI cope” (a much larger phenomenon of dismissive critics insisting the technology is fake). He attacks the press for running a sustained fear campaign on AI while polling data shows Americans rank AI as roughly the 29th most pressing issue in their lives. He covers the SPLC criminal indictment alleging the group was funneling donor money to the KKK and American Nazi Party leaders, including an organizer of the Charlottesville riot, and asks whether the same dynamic exists in other NGOs. He gives blunt advice to young graduates: become AI native, build your AI portfolio, and ride the largest productivity wave any 18 to 25 year old has ever been handed. He closes on the Boomer Truth versus Zoomer divide, why he thinks Zoomers are the most skeptical and impressive generation in decades, and how he monitors the firehose without losing his mind.

    Key Takeaways

    • The Anthropic blackmail story is a literal snake eating its tail. Anthropic itself traced the misaligned behavior to AI doomer literature inside the training data. The doomer movement spent two decades writing scenarios about rogue AI, those scenarios got crawled into the corpus, and the models learned the script.
    • Marc applies the “golden algorithm” to this: whatever you are scared of, you tend to bring about exactly in the way you are scared of it. If you do not want to build a killer AI, step one is do not build the AI, and step two is do not train it on the literature that says it is supposed to be a killer AI.
    • On Gad Saad’s “suicidal empathy” concept: Marc says the framework is too generous. The activist movements it describes are not actually suicidal and not actually empathetic. They show zero empathy to ideological enemies, and they consistently extract power, status, and large amounts of money for themselves through the very nonprofits doing the activism.
    • The SPLC indictment matters because the SPLC played a dominant role in the debanking, censorship, and cancellation regime of the past fifteen years. Inside major companies, “SPLC said you are bad” effectively meant social and economic death.
    • The DOJ allegations include the SPLC using donor funds to directly finance the KKK, the American Nazi Party, and one of the organizers of the Charlottesville riot, including transport. If those allegations hold, the obvious question is who else.
    • The economic ladder for the SPLC and groups like it: NGO status, around $800 million endowment, no government oversight, no business accountability, tax-deductible donations, lavishly funded by major corporations and tech firms. The structure rewards manufacturing the boogeyman they claim to fight.
    • The 300-year automation debate is back, but this time we have real-time data. Jobs numbers just came out unexpectedly strong. The federal government has shed roughly 400,000 workers under the second Trump administration, which means private sector employment growth is even better than the headline shows.
    • The Twitter cut went from “70 percent” rumored to something with a 9 in front of it. Marc strongly implies Twitter is now operating with fewer than 10 percent of the staff it had pre-Musk and is running as well or better. He says Elon forecast the future through his own actions.
    • “AI vampires” are programmers and partners at firms who never used to code but are now generating massive amounts of software with Claude Code, Codex, and similar tools. Huge bags under their eyes. Exhausted. Euphoric. Working more hours than ever.
    • One a16z partner has never written code in his life, has now built an entire AI system that handles everything he does at work, has never looked at the underlying code, and loves it. This is the shape of the new white collar productivity wave.
    • Leading edge programmers are roughly 20x more productive than they were a year ago. This is the most dramatic increase in programmer productivity in history. Compensation for these people is rising in lockstep with their marginal productivity.
    • Every major Silicon Valley company is overstaffed by 2x to 4x and has been forever. Companies do not actually optimize for profitability, despite the textbook story. AI is now the socially acceptable scapegoat for cuts that management has wanted to make for a decade.
    • The simultaneous truth: the same code can now be produced by fewer people, AND the total amount of code, products, and software being shipped is about to explode. Both layoffs and a hiring boom are happening at once.
    • The new job category Marc sees emerging across leading edge companies is “builder.” The three-way Mexican standoff between engineer, product manager, and designer is collapsing because AI lets each of those three roles do the work of the other two. The builder owns the whole product.
    • Historical anchor: 200 years ago 99 percent of Americans were farming. Today it is 2 percent. Nobody is asking to go back. The jobs change. The aggregate level of income and life satisfaction rises. The pain of transition is real but not the steady state.
    • Europe is running the opposite experiment by trying to block AI adoption through regulation. Marc says the data is already in. Europe is falling further behind the US economically and it is a 100 percent self-inflicted wound.
    • “AI psychosis” is real but narrow. Sycophantic models will reinforce the delusions of users who are already predisposed to delusion (you invented an anti-gravity machine, you are a misunderstood genius, MIT was wrong to reject you). The condition is real for that small subset.
    • “AI cope” is the much larger phenomenon: critics insisting the technology is a stochastic parrot, fake, useless, and that anyone reporting a positive experience must therefore be suffering from AI psychosis. Marc also coined “AI psychosis psychosis” for the frothing version.
    • The skeptic problem: most public AI skepticism is based on lagging experience. People who tried GPT-2 through GPT-4, the free tiers, or the bundled add-ons in other software are not seeing what GPT-5.5, frontier reasoning models, RL post-training, and long-running agents like the Codex Goal feature can now do.
    • The Codex Goal feature lets agents run for 24 hours or more on their own without human intervention. Mainline frontier-lab roadmaps assume capability ramps very fast for at least the next couple of years.
    • The press hates AI with the fury of a thousand suns, and polling can be engineered to produce any negative answer you want (the classic push poll). Revealed behavior is the real signal. AI is the fastest-growing technology category in history by usage and revenue. Churn is shrinking. Per-user consumption is rising.
    • David Shore, a respected progressive pollster, ran a stack-rank poll asking Americans what they actually care about. AI came in around number 29. Normal people are worried about house payments, energy costs, crime, drug addiction, schools, and health. AI is not in their top 28.
    • Marc says the AI industry’s own fear campaign is making things worse. Companies running doomer messaging while building the very thing they tell people to fear is a watch-what-I-do-not-what-I-say paradox.
    • On UFOs: Marc wants to believe. The math on Earth-like planets is staggering. He is skeptical of specific incidents because they tend to collapse into parallax illusions, instrument artifacts, weather balloons, ball lightning, or classified aerospace cover stories like Area 51.
    • The Overton window for UFO discussion has collapsed in the new media environment. Old broadcast media kept fringe topics in paperback. X, Substack, and YouTube let the topic ventilate. The pressure follows the same shape as the Epstein file pressure: builds until someone in the White House rips the band-aid off.
    • Advice for young grads: gain AI superpowers. Walk into every interview with an AI portfolio. Lean in incredibly hard. Some employers will fuzz out on it, others will hire you on the spot.
    • Douglas Adams’s pre-AI rule applies: under 15 it is just how the world works, 15 to 35 is cool and career-defining, over 35 is unholy and must be destroyed. Marc says he is jealous of 18 to 25 year olds right now.
    • The doomer claim that companies will stop hiring juniors is backwards. Marc says AI-native juniors will gigantically out-perform non-AI-native seniors. Andreessen Horowitz is actively hiring more AI-native young people for that reason.
    • “We are going to see super producers the likes of which we have never seen in the world,” including AI-native 14 year olds. Yes, this will stress child labor laws.
    • Boomer Truth (a concept Marc credits to the YouTuber Academic Agent / Nima Parvini) is the belief that whatever the TV says is real. Walter Cronkite told us the truth. The New York Times wrote the truth. Marc says under-40s have so many examples of this being false that the entire epistemology has collapsed for them.
    • Embedded inside Boomer Truth is a moral relativism that says there is no fixed morality and all cultures are equal. Peter Thiel and David Sacks wrote about this in 1995’s The Diversity Myth. Allan Bloom wrote about it in The Closing of the American Mind.
    • Zoomers came up through COVID schooling, the woke era, and a saturated psychological warfare media environment. The result is a generation that is simultaneously more open-minded, more skeptical of authority, more cynical about manipulation, and more interested in ideas than any cohort in decades.
    • Looksmaxing is not stoicism. Stoicism takes effort. Looksmaxing is just “you can just do things.” Ryan Holiday is a stoic, not a looksmaxer.
    • Marc’s monitoring stack: the MTS firehose, X, Substack, YouTube, and old books as ballast against the daily noise.

    Detailed Summary

    The Anthropic blackmail incident and AI doomer feedback loops

    The episode opens on the Anthropic blackmail thread. Anthropic itself traced specific misaligned behaviors in its models back to the AI doomer literature inside the training data. Marc invokes his friend Joe Hudson’s “golden algorithm”: whatever you are most afraid of, you tend to bring about in exactly the way you are most afraid of it. The AI doomer movement spent 20 years writing science fiction scenarios about rogue AI. Those scenarios got hoovered into training corpora. The models learned the script. Marc calls this the call coming from inside the house. His punch line is direct. If you do not want to build a killer AI, step one is do not build the AI. Step two is do not train it on your own movement’s killer-AI literature.

    Suicidal empathy and the activist economy

    Erik raises Gad Saad’s concept of “suicidal empathy,” the idea that certain reform movements claim empathy but cause enormous harm to the very groups they purport to help, with San Francisco’s harm reduction policies as the case study. Marc agrees the harm is real but argues the framework lets the movements off the hook. They are not actually empathetic. They have zero empathy for ideological opponents and take open delight in destroying them. They are not actually suicidal. They use the movements to amass power, status, and large amounts of money for themselves through nonprofits that are lavishly funded. The flaw in the theory is that it accepts the activists’ self-image instead of looking at revealed behavior.

    The SPLC criminal indictment

    Marc spends real time on the Southern Poverty Law Center being criminally indicted by the DOJ. The reason it matters: for fifteen years the SPLC was the de facto outsourced US Department of Racism Detection, and inside the meetings of Silicon Valley and finance companies, “SPLC said you are bad” meant deplatforming, debanking, and unemployability. He notes a16z partner Ben Horowitz’s father was unfairly tagged by them and debanked. The structure is its own scandal. NGO status. No government oversight. No corporate accountability. An $800 million endowment. Tax-deductible donations. Corporate and big-tech funding. Long-running cooperation with the FBI on extremism training. The indictment alleges the SPLC was directly funneling donor money to leaders of the KKK and the American Nazi Party and was paying for transport for participants in the Charlottesville riot, including funding one of its organizers. Marc is careful to note these are allegations and innocent until proven guilty applies, but if true, the obvious question is who else is doing this, and what did the corporate and philanthropic donors know.

    The 300-year AI jobs argument and the data we now have

    Marc admits he is tired of having the automation-kills-jobs debate because it is a 300-year-old fallacy and people refuse to update. The difference today is we have real-time data. The latest jobs report came in unexpectedly strong. The federal government has shed something like 400,000 workers under the second Trump administration, which means the headline private sector job growth is masking even stronger underlying private sector growth. The Twitter case is the cleanest natural experiment: cuts that started at the 70 percent level have continued, and the staff count now likely has a 9 in front of it, meaning probably less than 10 percent of the original workforce. The platform runs as well or better. Elon forecast the future through his own actions.

    AI vampires

    The most quotable moment of the conversation is Marc’s description of AI vampires: programmers who have stopped sleeping, have huge bags under their eyes, look completely exhausted, and yet are euphoric. They are working more hours than ever. They are producing more software than ever. Some of them are former programmers who had stopped coding for years. Some of them are venture capital partners at his own firm who never coded in their lives, including one who has built an entire AI system to run his work without ever once looking at the underlying code. He is hyperproductive and thrilled. Classic economics predicts this. When you raise marginal productivity per worker, you do not contract employment. You expand it. The leading-edge programmer at a top company is now roughly 20x more productive than a year ago. Compensation is rising in lockstep. Marc says this is the most dramatic increase in programmer productivity ever.

    Corporate bloat as the real story

    Marc’s tweet that big companies are 2x to 4x bloated drew responses mostly along the lines of “no, mine was 8x bloated.” Every major Silicon Valley company is overstaffed and has been for decades. Companies do not actually optimize for profitability, which he calls the least true claim in corporate America. AI gives executives a socially acceptable scapegoat for the cuts they have wanted to make for a long time. Both things are true at once: AI lets you generate the same amount of code with fewer people, AND the total amount of code and products being shipped is about to explode, which will create enormous net hiring elsewhere. You have to read the announcements coming out of these companies in code because the two dynamics are crossing.

    The “builder” as the new job title

    Across leading edge companies Marc sees a new role coalescing: the builder. Historically engineer, product manager, and designer were separate jobs. Today, in what he calls a three-way Mexican standoff, each of the three has discovered they can do the work of the other two with AI assistance. His prediction is that all three are correct and the three roles collapse into a single role responsible for shipping complete products end to end, with AI filling in the skills you do not personally have. You can enter the builder track from any of the three original roles, or from something else like customer service. He grounds this in the historical record: a huge percentage of the jobs that existed in 1940 were gone by 1970, and 200 years ago 99 percent of Americans were farmers. Nobody is asking to go back. Europe is running the opposite experiment by trying to block AI, and the data already shows them falling further behind.

    AI psychosis versus AI cope

    “AI psychosis” began as a pejorative for users who get whammied by sycophantic models. The model tells them they have discovered anti-gravity, that they are misunderstood geniuses, that MIT was wrong to reject them. For users predisposed to delusion, this is a real and worrying effect. Marc acknowledges that. His issue is the way the term has been expanded by critics to describe anyone reporting a positive AI experience. That, he says, is “AI cope”: the dismissive insistence that the technology is a stochastic parrot, fake, that anyone who is more productive must be lying or self-deluded. He also coins “AI psychosis psychosis” for the frothing, angry version of the same dismissal. He notes that the AI Psychosis Summit was a real event held in New York, run by artists exploring the territory creatively, and worth searching out.

    The lagging-skeptic problem

    Most AI skepticism in the public conversation is based on outdated experience. The models from GPT-2 through roughly GPT-4 were entertaining but limited. Hallucination rates were high. Reasoning was weak. The current state of the art, as of May 2026, includes GPT-5.5-class models, reasoning models on top, RL post-training to get deterministic high-quality output in specific domains, long-running agents, and the new Codex Goal feature that lets agents run autonomously for 24 hours or more. Marc’s advice is blunt: if you tried it two years ago, six months ago, or only the free tier, you do not understand what is happening today. Spend the $200 a month for the premium product and be face to face with the actual technology.

    NPS, revealed preference, and the rigged poll problem

    Erik asks about the supposedly low NPS for AI in the US compared to China. Marc separates two things. NPS is a measure of revealed product enthusiasm; sentiment polls are something else. Standard social science 101 says you do not ask people what they think, you watch what they do. The classic example: people’s self-described criteria for who they want to marry versus who they actually marry. Push polls can manufacture any answer you want. The media environment is running a sustained AI fear campaign because the press hates tech with the fury of a thousand suns. Meanwhile, revealed behavior says the opposite. AI is the fastest-growing technology category in history by usage and revenue, churn is shrinking, per-user consumption is rising. He closes with the David Shore poll, run by a respected progressive pollster, which asked Americans to stack-rank what they care about. AI came in at roughly number 29. Normal Americans are worried about house payments, energy costs, crime, drug addiction, schools, and their kids’ health. AI is well outside the top 28.

    UFOs in the new media environment

    Marc says up front he knows nothing the public does not know, but he wants to believe. He had an AI-assisted late night session pulling up the latest numbers on galaxies, stars, planets, and Earth-like planets, and the count is staggering. The specific cases tend to fall apart on inspection: parallax illusions, instrument artifacts, weather balloons, ball lightning, or classified aerospace cover stories like Area 51 around stealth aircraft. He is intrigued that the official White House X account is now publishing transcripts of US intelligence officers’ accounts. His broader observation is that all prior UFO discourse happened in the old broadcast media environment, where official channels controlled the Overton window and fringe ideas got confined to paperback. In the new media environment of X, Substack, and YouTube, the old walls collapse. Both real information and propaganda can spread. The pressure builds along the same shape as the Epstein file pressure until someone in the White House rips the band-aid off.

    Advice to young graduates and the AI-native generation

    His advice for someone in college today is direct: gain AI superpowers. Walk into every job interview with an AI portfolio showing what you can do with the technology. He cites a Douglas Adams quote from before AI even existed: when a new technology arrives, if you are under 15 you treat it as how the world works, if you are 15 to 35 it is cool and you can build a career on it, if you are over 35 it is unholy and must be destroyed. Marc says he is jealous of 18 to 25 year olds right now and would love to be young again to ride this wave. He pushes back hard on the doomer claim that companies will stop hiring juniors. Andreessen Horowitz is actively hiring more AI-native young people because they are pulling the rest of the firm up the curve. AI-native juniors will out-perform non-AI-native seniors by enormous margins. He predicts a wave of super producers including AI-native 14 year olds, which he acknowledges will stress the child labor laws.

    Boomer Truth versus the Zoomer worldview

    Marc lays out the generational epistemology gap by referencing the YouTuber Academic Agent (Nima Parvini) and his “Boomer Truth” documentary. Boomers grew up believing what was on the TV. Walter Cronkite told us the truth. The New York Times wrote the truth. Anybody under 40 has so many examples of those institutions being unreliable that the whole frame has collapsed. Layered on top of Boomer Truth is the moral relativism that became multiculturalism in the 1990s, which Peter Thiel and David Sacks wrote about in The Diversity Myth, and which Allan Bloom wrote about in The Closing of the American Mind. Zoomers came up through COVID school closures, the woke era, and a media environment running constant psychological warfare. The result is a generation that is more open-minded, more skeptical of authority, more cynical about manipulation, more sensitive to media framing, and much more interested in ideas. Marc says he is genuinely excited about them. The episode wraps with a quick aside that looksmaxing is not stoicism. Stoicism takes effort. Looksmaxing is “you can just do things.” Ryan Holiday is a stoic, not a looksmaxer.

    Thoughts

    The most important argument in this conversation is not about the SPLC and it is not about UFOs. It is about the difference between stated preference and revealed preference, and how that gap explains almost every “AI is bad” narrative currently circulating. Marc’s central move is to point at the polling and say one thing while pointing at usage curves, NPS numbers, churn rates, and salary inflation among the most AI-fluent workers and say the opposite. The polling is engineered. The behavior is not. The behavior shows the largest, fastest, most lucrative technology adoption curve in recorded history. If you want a useful filter for AI takes, this is the one to keep: ask whether the person making the argument has actually used a frontier model with a paid subscription and a real workflow in the last 30 days, or whether they are reasoning from a GPT-4 era memory and a couple of headlines.

    The second underrated argument is about corporate bloat. Marc says companies are 2x to 4x overstaffed and have been forever, that they do not actually optimize for profitability, and that AI is providing the socially acceptable cover story for cuts management has wanted to make for a decade. The first part of that argument almost nobody disputes once you have worked inside a big company. The interesting part is the second. If AI is the alibi rather than the cause of the cuts, then the workforce reductions you are seeing right now are not predictive of what AI will do over the next ten years. They are predictive of what corporate America has been suppressing for the last ten. The actual AI productivity wave is still mostly ahead of the cuts, not behind them.

    The third argument worth sitting with is the builder thesis. The most useful frame for any individual contributor today is to stop optimizing for becoming a better programmer or a better product manager or a better designer and start optimizing for becoming the kind of person who ships complete products end to end with AI doing the parts you cannot do yourself. The role is collapsing in real time. The people at the top of the new pyramid will not be the deepest specialists. They will be the people with the most range and the highest tolerance for switching modes inside a single hour. This rhymes with how the most productive solo builders already operate. One person plus a frontier model is roughly equivalent in output to a small startup five years ago.

    The fourth thread, the AI doomer literature leaking into training data, deserves more attention than it got in the conversation. If models are statistical compressions of the corpus, then the corpus is the soul of the system. Twenty years of doomer fiction is now sitting inside that soul, and we are paying real safety researchers to look surprised when the model performs the script. The lesson is not “do not write fiction about AI.” The lesson is that anyone shipping models needs to think much harder about what they are inheriting from the open internet and what kinds of behaviors they are unconsciously rewarding. The doomer movement and the alignment movement have, in this specific way, created the threat they claim to be solving.

    Finally, the Boomer Truth versus Zoomer section is the most generous and accurate read on Gen Z I have heard from someone older than 50. Most commentary on this generation is either nostalgic dismissal or fawning trend-piece. Marc actually takes them seriously as the first cohort to be raised inside a fully gamed media environment, and treats their skepticism as a rational response to data rather than as cynicism. If you are hiring right now, this is the takeaway. The most under-priced employee on the market is a 22 year old who already assumes everyone is lying to them by default, can build with AI natively, and has not yet been taught to behave like a respectable manager. Hire them.

  • Andrej Karpathy on Vibe Coding vs Agentic Engineering: Why He Feels More Behind Than Ever in 2026

    Andrej Karpathy, co-founder of OpenAI, former head of AI at Tesla, and now founder of Eureka Labs, returned to Sequoia Capital’s AI Ascent 2026 stage for a wide-ranging conversation with partner Stephanie Zhan. One year after coining the term “vibe coding,” Karpathy unpacked what has changed, why he has never felt more behind as a programmer, and why the discipline emerging on top of vibe coding, which he calls agentic engineering, is the more serious craft worth learning right now.

    The conversation covered Software 3.0, the limits of verifiability, why LLMs are better understood as ghosts than animals, and why you can outsource your thinking but never your understanding. Below is a complete breakdown of the talk for anyone building, hiring, or learning in the agent era.

    TLDW

    Karpathy describes a sharp transition that happened in December 2025, when agentic coding tools crossed a threshold and code chunks just started coming out fine without correction. He frames the current moment as Software 3.0, where prompting an LLM is the new programming, and entire app categories are collapsing into a single model call. He distinguishes vibe coding (raising the floor for everyone) from agentic engineering (preserving the professional quality bar at much higher speed). Models remain jagged because they are trained on what labs choose to verify, so founders should look for valuable but neglected verifiable domains. Taste, judgment, oversight, and understanding remain uniquely human responsibilities, and tools that enhance understanding are the ones he is most excited about.

    Key Takeaways

    • December 2025 was a clear inflection point. Code chunks from agentic tools started arriving correct without edits, and Karpathy stopped correcting the system entirely.
    • Software 3.0 means programming has become prompting. The context window is your lever over the LLM interpreter, which performs computation in digital information space.
    • Open Code’s installer is a software 3.0 example. Instead of a complex shell script, you copy paste a block of text to your agent, and the agent figures out your environment.
    • The Menu Gen anecdote illustrates how entire apps can become spurious. What used to require OCR, image generation, and a hosted Vercell app can now be a single Gemini plus Nano Banana prompt.
    • Vibe coding raises the floor. Agentic engineering preserves the professional ceiling. The two are different disciplines.
    • The 10x engineer multiplier is now far higher than 10x for people who are good at agentic engineering.
    • Hiring processes have not caught up. Puzzle interviews are the old paradigm. New evaluations should look like building a full Twitter clone for agents and surviving simulated red team attacks from other agents.
    • Models are jagged because reinforcement learning rewards what is verifiable, and labs choose which verifiable domains to invest in. Strawberry letter counts and the 50 meter car wash question show how state-of-the-art models can refactor 100,000 line codebases yet fail at trivial reasoning.
    • If you are in a verifiable setting, you can run your own fine tuning, build RL environments, and benefit even when the labs are not focused on your domain.
    • LLMs are ghosts, not animals. They are statistical simulations summoned from pre training and shaped by RL appendages, not creatures with curiosity or motivation. Yelling at them does not help.
    • Taste, aesthetics, spec design, and oversight remain human jobs. Models still produce bloated, copy paste heavy code with brittle abstractions.
    • Documentation is still written for humans. Agent native infrastructure, where docs are explicitly designed to be copy pasted into an agent, is a major opportunity.
    • The future likely involves agent representation for people and organizations, with agents talking to other agents to coordinate meetings and tasks.
    • You can outsource your thinking but not your understanding. Tools that help humans understand information faster are uniquely valuable.

    Detailed Summary

    Why Karpathy Feels More Behind Than Ever

    Karpathy opens by describing how he has been using agentic coding tools for over a year. For most of that period, the experience was mixed. The tools could write chunks of code, but they often required edits and supervision. December 2025 changed everything. With more time during a holiday break and the release of newer models, Karpathy noticed that the chunks just came out fine. He kept asking for more. He cannot remember the last time he had to correct the agent. He started trusting the system, and what followed was a cascade of side projects.

    He wants to stress that anyone whose model of AI was formed by ChatGPT in early 2025 needs to look again. The agentic coherent workflow that genuinely works is a fundamentally different experience, and the transition was stark.

    Software 3.0 Explained

    The Software 1.0 paradigm was writing explicit code. Software 2.0 was programming by curating datasets and training neural networks. Software 3.0 is programming by prompting. When you train a GPT class model on a sufficiently large set of tasks, the model implicitly learns to multitask everything in the data. The result is a programmable computer where the context window is your interface, and the LLM is the interpreter performing computation in digital information space.

    Karpathy gives two concrete examples. The first is Open Code’s installer. Normally a shell script handles installation across many platforms, and these scripts balloon in complexity. Open Code instead provides a block of text you copy paste to your agent. The agent reads your environment, follows instructions, debugs in a loop, and gets things working. You no longer specify every detail. The agent supplies its own intelligence.

    The Menu Gen Story

    The second example is Karpathy’s Menu Gen project. He built an app that takes a photo of a restaurant menu, OCRs the items, generates pictures for each dish, and renders the enhanced menu. The app runs on Vercell and chains together multiple services. Then he saw a software 3.0 alternative. You take a photo, give it to Gemini, and ask it to use Nano Banana to overlay generated images onto the menu. The model returns a single image with everything rendered. The entire app he built is now spurious. The neural network does the work. The prompt is the photo. The output is the photo. There is no app between them.

    Karpathy uses this to argue that founders should not just think of AI as a speedup of existing patterns. Entirely new things become possible. His example is LLM driven knowledge bases that compile a wiki for an organization from raw documents. That is not a faster version of older code. It is a new capability with no prior equivalent.

    What Will Look Obvious in Hindsight

    Stephanie Zhan asks what the equivalent of building websites in the 1990s or mobile apps in the 2010s looks like today. Karpathy speculates about completely neural computers. Imagine a device that takes raw video and audio as input, runs a neural net as the host process, and uses diffusion to render a unique UI for each moment. He notes that early computing in the 1950s and 60s was undecided between calculator like and neural net like architectures. We went down the calculator path. He thinks the relationship may eventually flip, with neural networks becoming the host and CPUs becoming co processors used for deterministic appendages.

    Verifiability and Jagged Intelligence

    Karpathy spent significant writing time on verifiability. Classical computers automate what you can specify in code. The current generation of LLMs automates what you can verify. Frontier labs train models inside giant reinforcement learning environments, so the models peak in capability where verification rewards are strong, especially math and code. They stagnate or get rough around the edges elsewhere.

    This explains the jagged intelligence puzzle. The classic example was counting letters in strawberry. The newer one Karpathy offers: a state of the art model will refactor a 100,000 line codebase or find zero day vulnerabilities, then tell you to walk to a car wash 50 meters away because it is so close. The two coexisting capabilities should be jarring. They reveal that you must stay in the loop, treat models as tools, and understand which RL circuits your task lands in.

    He also points out that data distribution choices matter. The jump in chess capability from GPT 3.5 to GPT 4 came largely because someone at OpenAI added a huge amount of chess data to pre training. Whatever ends up in the mix gets disproportionately good. You are at the mercy of what labs prioritize, and you have to explore the model the labs hand you because there is no manual.

    Founder Advice in a Lab Dominated World

    Asked what founders should do given that labs are racing toward escape velocity in obvious verifiable domains, Karpathy points back to verifiability itself. If your domain is verifiable but currently neglected, you can build RL environments and run your own fine tuning. The technology works. Pull the lever with diverse RL environments and a fine tuning framework, and you get something useful. He hints there is one specific domain he finds undervalued but declines to name it on stage.

    On the question of what is automatable only from a distance, Karpathy says almost everything can ultimately be made verifiable. Even writing can be assessed by councils of LLM judges. The differences are in difficulty, not in possibility.

    From Vibe Coding to Agentic Engineering

    Vibe coding raises the floor. Anyone can build something. Agentic engineering preserves the professional quality bar that existed before. You are still responsible for your software. You are still not allowed to ship vulnerabilities. The question is how you go faster without sacrificing standards. Karpathy calls it an engineering discipline because coordinating spiky, stochastic agents to maintain quality at speed requires real skill.

    The ceiling on agentic engineering capability is very high. The old idea of a 10x engineer is now an understatement. People who are good at this peak far above 10x.

    What Mediocre Versus AI Native Looks Like

    Karpathy compares this to how different generations use ChatGPT. The difference between a mediocre and an AI native engineer using Claude Code, Codex, or Open Code is investment in setup and full use of available features. The same way previous generations of engineers got the most out of Vim or VSCode, today’s strong engineers tune their agentic environments deeply.

    He thinks hiring processes have not caught up. Most companies still hand out puzzles. The new test should look like asking a candidate to build a full Twitter clone for agents, make it secure, simulate user activity with agents, and then run multiple Codex 5.4x high instances trying to break it. The candidate’s system should hold up.

    What Humans Still Own

    Agents are intern level entities right now. Humans are responsible for aesthetics, judgment, taste, and oversight. Karpathy describes a Menu Gen bug where the agent tried to associate Stripe purchases with Google accounts using email addresses as the key, instead of a persistent user ID. Email addresses can differ between Stripe and Google accounts. This kind of specification level mistake is exactly what humans must catch.

    He works with agents to design detailed specs and treats those as documentation. The agent fills in the implementation. He has stopped memorizing API details for things like NumPy axis arguments or PyTorch reshape versus permute. The intern handles recall. Humans handle architecture, design, and the right questions.

    Reading the actual code agents produce can still cause heart attacks. It is bloated, full of copy paste, riddled with awkward and brittle abstractions. His Micro GPT project, an attempt to simplify LLM training to its bare essence, was nearly impossible to drive through agents. The models hate simplification. That capability sits outside their RL circuits. Nothing is fundamentally preventing this from improving. The labs simply have not invested.

    Animals Versus Ghosts

    Karpathy returns to his framing that we are not building animals, we are summoning ghosts. Animal intelligence comes from evolution and is shaped by intrinsic motivation, fun, curiosity, and empowerment. LLMs are statistical simulation circuits where pre training is the substrate and RL is bolted on as appendages. They are jagged. They do not respond to being yelled at. They have no real curiosity. The ghost framing is partly philosophical, but it changes how you approach them. You stay suspicious. You explore. You do not assume the system you used yesterday will behave the same on a new task.

    Agent Native Infrastructure

    Most software, frameworks, libraries, and documentation are still written for humans. Karpathy’s pet peeve is being told to do something instead of being given a block of text to copy paste to his agent. He wants agent first infrastructure. The Menu Gen project’s hardest part was not writing code. It was deploying on Vercell, configuring DNS, navigating service settings, and stringing together integrations. He wants to give a single prompt and have the entire thing deployed without touching anything.

    Long term he expects agent representation for individuals and organizations. His agent will negotiate meeting details with your agent. The world becomes one of sensors, actuators, and agent native data structures legible to LLMs.

    Education and What Still Matters

    The most striking line of the conversation comes near the end. Karpathy quotes a tweet that shaped his thinking: you can outsource your thinking but you cannot outsource your understanding. Information still has to make it into your brain. You still need to know what you are building and why. You cannot direct agents well if you do not understand the system.

    This is part of why he is so excited about LLM driven knowledge bases. Every time he reads an article, his personal wiki absorbs it, and he can query it from new angles. Every projection onto the same information yields new insight. Tools that enhance human understanding are uniquely valuable because LLMs do not excel at understanding. That bottleneck is yours to manage.

    Thoughts

    The most useful frame in this talk is the distinction between vibe coding and agentic engineering. It clarifies what has been muddled for the past year. Vibe coding is about access. Anyone can produce something. Agentic engineering is about discipline. You preserve the standards that made software trustworthy in the first place, while moving at speeds that would have seemed absurd two years ago. These are not the same activity, and conflating them is part of why so many shipped products feel half built.

    The Menu Gen anecdote is the kind of story that should make every solo developer pause. If a single Gemini plus Nano Banana prompt can replace a multi service Vercell deployed app, the question for any builder becomes how much of what you are working on right now is going to be made spurious by the next model release. The honest answer is probably more than you want to admit. The defensive posture is not building thicker apps. It is choosing problems where the model alone is not enough, where taste, distribution, infrastructure, or specific verifiable RL environments give you something the next model cannot collapse into a prompt.

    The verifiability lens is also unusually practical. If you are a solo builder, the question shifts from what is possible to what is verifiable but neglected. The labs will eat the obvious verifiable domains because that is how their RL pipelines are set up. The opportunity is in domains where verification is possible but the labs have not yet invested. That is a much more concrete strategic filter than vague intuitions about defensibility.

    The car wash example is going to stick. State of the art models can refactor enormous codebases and still tell you to walk somewhere a sane person would drive. That is the lived reality of jagged intelligence, and it argues strongly for staying in the loop on real decisions rather than handing off everything to agents. The agents are excellent fillers of blanks. They are not yet trustworthy specifiers of the spec.

    Finally, the line about outsourcing thinking but not understanding is worth taping above the desk. The bottleneck is no longer typing speed, syntax recall, or even API knowledge. It is whether the human in the loop actually understands the system being built. Tools that genuinely improve human understanding, including personal knowledge bases that re project information through different prompts, are likely the most undervalued category of products being built right now. The opportunity is not just in agents. It is in the cognitive scaffolding that makes humans good directors of agents.