Chamath: How many PRs you think are going to get pushed to the core structural internet in 100 days? What's the overunder number? Cuz I'll give you a number.

Sachs: You're going to say zero. My my answer to that is

Chamath: I'll say like 10,000. But it's going to be immediately

Brad: if it prevents your browser history from being released to everybody in the world, Chamath, that may be something that you're willing to, you know, let 100 days pass on.

Jason: I think you got Chimat's attention when you said browser history.

Chamath: What about the dickpicks?

Jason: Chamat is he's going to release them himself. We'll let your winners ride. We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you. All right, everybody. Welcome back to the number one podcast in the world. David Freeberg is out this week. But in his place, the one, the only, our fifth bestie, Brad Gersonner. I mean, why don't you ever give me puts a little namaste in your payday anymore? You used to be

Chamath: I'm going to bring back the greatest moderator, but now it's just kind of You know what? These guys beat me up. They beat me up and they just beat the the joy out of me doing this program.

Jason: It's because you're a Roana apologist now.

Chamath: No, I We'll get into it. Okay. Save it for the [ __ ] Roana apologist. just because I said like, "Hey, they've stopped [ __ ] maxing and they've started doing like some logical things." Uh, yeah. Okay, here we go.

Brad: It's great to be here. Great to be here.

Jason: Good to have you. Good to have you here. And of course, uh, we have David Saxs is back. Everybody wants to hear from David Sax. We missed you last week, bestie.

Sachs: We didn't beat the joy out of you. We just try to beat some of the hot air.

Jason: any any fluff that you can put on the show that just involves you talking and saying nothing is

Sachs: that's the stuff we got.

Jason: Turn up. Yeah. Turn up. Okay. Yeah, we'll cut it right out. Um we'll cut it out and we'll just put a promo in for the syndicate.com. Thank you. Also with us, Jamalet is here. How's your [ __ ] maxing going since last week? Did you have a a a [ __ ] maxing full weekend? Did you have a good full weekend of just smoking cigars in the back deck and not ruminating about all the chaos you've caused in the last 20 years?

Chamath: I think I've done generally more good than than not.

Jason: Oh, you have. But there's been some chaotic moments. Don't think about it.

Chamath: You can't, bro. You can't have ups without downs, man. It's like, what are you there to do? Just like plate everybody and be a loser? Are you there to be a winner? Yes, you're in the arena, but have you stopped going to therapy after realizing ruminating?

Sachs: What's up with this uh sudden interest in [ __ ] maxing? Are you like the clavvicular for [ __ ] maxing?

Chamath: No, the world finally caught up with me. That's it. What do you I mean, I've been [ __ ] maxing this whole time. THEY JUST DIDN'T HAVE A name for it, guys.

Jason: Wow. Okay. Eli's videos are really good. I watched two more this week. What take us through what's so appealing about not ruminating, smoking a cigar, and just living your life?

Chamath: Because what he says actually works at every level of society and every sort of thing that you may want to achieve. Even if you're trying to like climb the rungs, you very quickly learn that the more you want something, the less you're going to get it. And I think that's like his real message is let go, live life, and just try stuff or don't try stuff. And I think that that detachment is really healthy for people. I like it. I like it a lot.

Sachs: Who's the guy who says this? I actually didn't know.

Chamath: Elisha Long. Well, Eli, I think, is how he goes by.

Jason: But he's fantastic. He Mark YouTube channel.

Sachs: Mark Andre found him

Chamath: and he's like, "This is this guy is the new guy.

Jason: Modernday philosopher. He gives you a road map for how to live your life, right? A new age sage.

Chamath: What's the name of the guy? The character's name from Dune.

Sachs: I was into girls books. I was dating girls.

Chamath: He's the Lison Algib of the modern internet.

Jason: This is why we need Freeberg here is to explain these deep holes. All right, listen. We got a lot to get to. Don't The basic point is build something and don't ruminate. Okay, ruminating is just not worth it. Just everybody go for it.

Chamath: No, just do stuff. Stop blathering in your own head. Just do stuff.

Jason: Absolutely. All right. Listen, speaking of doing so, Anthropic is withholding its newest model, Mythos. I'm using the Greek uh pronunciation, its newest model, Mythos, uh saying it is far too dangerous for any of us to have access to it. According to the company, the model autonomously found thousands of vulnerabilities, including bugs in every major operating system and web browser. This uh little study they did included 20 year old exploits that had been missed by security audits for decades. Uh some examples, they found a 27y old vulnerability in OpenBSD used in firewalls and critical infrastructure. They found a 16-year-old bug in FFmpeg that was missed by automated tools after 5 million scans. The Linux kernel, all kinds of uh bugs they found. They released a hype video hyping up why they were not going to share this model. Here's Dario. Come on the program anytime, brother.

Dario Amodei (Video): But as a side effect of being good at code, it's also good at cyber. The model that we're experimenting with is by and large as good as a professional human at identifying bugs. It's good for us because we can find more vulnerabilities sooner and we can fix them. It has the ability to chain together vulnerabilities. So what this means is you find two vulnerabilities, either of which doesn't really get you very much independently, but this model is able to create exploits out of three, four, sometimes five vulnerabilities that in sequence give you some kind of very sophisticated end outcome.

Jason: All right, Brad, uh, by the way, that set they're using there, that's the same room those guys play Dungeons and Dragons in every Sunday. Brad, you're Brad, you're an investor in this company. Is this virtue signaling or is it reality? Is this a good move by them to not release this model and be thoughtful, give it to a handful of people and just find all the bugs it can before releasing it to the public? And we've got a lot more issues to discuss.

Brad: I I actually think they deserve a ton of credit here and let me walk you through why, right? They the company could have just released Mythos, broken a lot of core things on the internet. Often times in Silicon Valley, we say move fast and break things. In this case, it means just releasing the model to move further ahead of your competition. But here the company realized it would wreak havoc. They ran their own vulnerability testing. They saw that it would allow offensive hacking and people to expose browsers and browser history, expose credit cards, you know, on the internet. So, you know what I like about this is they didn't need government to hold their hand on this. We have plenty of government regulations. They know it's in the best long-term interest of the company and the industry, you know. So, they set up Project Glass Wing. It's an AIdriven, you know, kind of cyber coalition. Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, JP Morgan, 40 of the most important companies. And their goal is very simple. Let's spend a 100 days use advanced AI to find and to fix and to harden these software vulnerabilities before hackers exploit them. Now, what I think this represents, Jason, is a threshold that we're crossing. Mythos and Spud, which is going to be out from OpenAI any day now, which is the first Blackwell trained model at OpenAI. They represent the beginning of what I would call AGI models. These are models with massive step function improvements and intelligence. Um, and they're just too smart to be released immediately, you know. And by the way, there was nothing that said that every time you you finish a model, you got to immediately release it GA. So they set up this idea of sandboxing, building defensive alliances, you know, in order to move away from that regime. I I think it shows, and Saxon and I have talked about this a lot, so I'm interested to hear what he thinks. It shows you can trust the industry and market forces in coordination with the government. They were talking to the government about this. But they're not relying on some top- down regulation in order to do this. They laid out a blueprint that seems to me very pragmatic that now that we're at this threshold, we're going to sandbox these things. I think that open AAI will end up doing the same thing. I think Google will end up doing the same thing. It's an aggressive way to keep the RA, you know, the pressure on and and win the race at AI while making the tradeoffs to protect safety. So, you know, I think you're always going to have to make these trade-offs. I think in this case, it was a great move by Dario and team and I think they deserve a lot of credit.

Jason: Sachs, when you look at this, we had Emil Michael on the program a couple weeks ago. It might have been four or five weeks ago, and we had a very thoughtful discussion about, hey, if the government is going to have these tools, you know, an anthropic wants to withhold them and, you know, what is the proper relationship there, you have to think that the government, and I know you don't speak for all parts of the government. If you were just going to run through the game theory, they must have gone to the government and said, "Listen, this thing is so powerful, it can put together two or three hacks, create a novel attack vector, and this is incredibly dangerous. What if China has it? And if this thing is as powerful as Daario says it is, then this is an offensive weapon as well for us to take out, let's just pick, you know, uh, a pressing issue, the North Korea's ballistic missile program. This is equivalent the way it's being described as the Manhattan project perhaps. So what are the chances two-part question for you Sax that China already has this and is using it and do you think Daario is doing the right thing by regulating themselves?

Sachs: I think Anthropic has proven that it's very good at two things. One is product releases. The second is scaring people. And we've seen a pattern in their previous releases of at the same time they roll out a new model or new model card, something like that. They also roll out some study showing really the worst possible implication of where the technology could lead. We saw this last year about a year ago. They rolled out this blackmail study where supposedly the new model could blackmail users. There's been a whole bunch of these things. Actually, I went back to Grock and I just asked, "Hey, give me examples where Antropic has basically used scare tactics and it's it's a pattern." Okay, it's a pattern.

Jason: Okay,

Sachs: these guys, I'm not saying it's not sincere, but they have a proven pattern of using fear as a way to market their new products. And if you think back to, again, my favorite example is this blackmail study where they prompted the model over 200 times to get the result they wanted. And that result was was clearly reverse engineered and it it got them the headlines they wanted. And I would say the proof that it's reverse engineered is we're now a year later. There's a bunch of open- source models out there that have the same level of capability that that anthropic model had. And have you seen any examples of blackmail in the wild? I don't think so. So in other words, if that study were true in the sense of being a likely outcome of that model, I think you would see examples in the wild of that behavior. And we haven't seen any of that in the past year. Now, let's talk about this specific example with cyber hacking. I actually think that this one is more on the legitimate side. I mean, look, the reason why I bring this up is anytime Anthropic is scaring people, you have to ask, is this a tactic? Is this part of their Chicken Little routine? or is it real? You know, are they crying wolf or not? I actually would give them credit in this case and say this is more on the the real side. It just makes sense, right? So that as the coding models become more and more capable, they're more capable of finding bugs. That means they're more capable of finding vulnerabilities. And like one of their engineers said, that means they're more capable of stringing together multiple vulnerabilities and creating an exploit. And so I do think that over say the next 6 months we're going to have this call it one-time period of catching up where AIdriven cyber is going to be able to detect a whole range of of bugs that maybe have been dormant over the past 20 years across a wide range of systems. And so I do think that there is real risk here. And I do think therefore that having this pre-release period makes a lot of sense where they're giving the capability to all these software companies that have existing code bases to use the tool to detect the vulnerabilities for themselves so they can patch them before these capabilities are widely available. And by the way, it won't just be anthropic that makes these capabilities available. We know that like let's say the Chinese open source models like Kimmy K2, it's about 6 months behind. So we have a window here of maybe 6 months where we're still in this pre-release period where I think companies that have large code bases can get advanced access to this model and uh I guess open AI is going to release a similar thing in the next few weeks. I do think that every company or IT department or CISO that is managing code bases should take this seriously and use the next few months to detect any again like dormant bugs or vulnerabilities and and roll out patches. If everybody does their job and reacts the right way, then I do not think it will be the doomsday scenario that Anthropic is sort of portraying. But it's one of these things where the fear might end up being a good thing in order to drive people to in order to drive the correct behavior. So sure, I ultimately think this is going to work out fine, but you do need everyone to kind of pay attention, use the capabilities, fix the bugs, then we're going to get into a big arms race between AI being used for cyber offense and AI being used for cyber defense, but it'll be a more normal sort of of period.

Jason: Chimath, we have uh Daario and uh you know a number of the participants here are taking this super seriously. They're making a big statement. Zach's very nuanced uh I think take there. What's your take on how do these companies have it both ways? Hey, this is shouldn't be regulated. This should be regulated. If this is in fact a cataclysmic, oh my god, they're going to hack everything. What if the Chinese have this right now? That would speak to more government either coordination, regulation, or some kind of relationship between the CIA, the FBI for domestic stuff, and these companies because there it is a non-zero chance that the Chinese have an equal capability here. We're assuming they're behind, but who knows what they're doing behind closed doors. So, what's your take on this? Is it uh The Boy Who Cried Wolf, or is this the real deal? Now,

Chamath: I think it's mostly theater.

Jason: Okay.

Chamath: In February of 2019, when Daario was still at OpenAI, they did the same thing with GPT2. That was a 1.5 billion parameter model, which sounds like a total fart in the wind in 2026. But at that time, this 1.5 billion parameter model was supposed to be the end of days. And it was supposed to unleash this torrent of spam and misinformation. And that was the big bugaboo at the time. And so what happened? They went through this methodical roll out over six or nine months. They started releasing the smaller parameter models and then they scaled up to the big 1.5 billion parameter model. And at the end of it, it was a huge nothing burger. If you actually think that Mythos is capable of doing what it says it can do, two things are true. One is a very sophisticated hacker can probably do those things right now with Opus. And two, if these exploits are this easy to find, whether you use Opus or whether you use Mythos, the reality is you'd have to shut down the internet for about 5 years to patch them all. So when you see like a large multi- trillion dollar gang, it's a bit of theater. Why? What do you think they can actually accomplish in 2 months? Do you actually think that if there's these vulnerabilities, it's all going to get fixed? Let's give them six months. Let's give them nine months. But the reality is that capitalism moves forward, the funding needs moves forward, and the need for these guys to build adoption moves forward. And that's going to supersede what this is. So I do think that Sax is right that they have figured out a very clever go-to market muscle here and a go to market motion that activates hyper attention and hyper usage and so I give them tremendous credit and I'll maintain what I've maintained before. Anthropic is shooting the lights out right now. This is like Steph Curry going bananas from every everywhere on the court. These guys are hunking threes.

Jason: It's all in that. Okay. So huge kudos to Anthropic, but we've seen it before. We saw it when these folks were the principal architects at OpenAI who are now seeing the same playbook here. I think we'll look back and I think what we'll say are these two things. One is if we're really going to patch all these security holes, we need to shut down the internet for some number of years, honestly, literally years. And the second is an advanced hacker can probably do this today with Opus if they really wanted to. Okay. Hey Brad, I gota I'll get you in here for the for the last word. I I'm going to go with Yeah, maybe they did uh Crywolf before, but based on what I see with these models advancing and using them and I'm using a lot of the open source ones right now from China. I think that this is like code red kind of moment. This is Defcon. like we should be taking this deadly seriously and I think these companies got to coordinate with the CIA and this is uh equally a defensive as offensive opportunity. Do you think this

Chamath: you're asking for the nationalization of AI now?

Jason: No, I actually I I I don't think it should be nationalized. Um although I did see people sort of insinuating that. I think these companies need to build a group Brad that work and coordinate with the CIA. I assume that they're already doing this. I'm assuming you Emil Michael and uh you know Trump and everybody have these people in a room and that they've given the defcon and said hey how can our government use this to stop bad actors and this is already being coordinated with the CIA and the FBI. I am 100% certain of that that Dario went to them and said look what we found. This is the real deal. I'll give you the last word on this Brad since you're an investor in both companies and you know them quite well.

Brad: the frontier model forum which was which was put together in 23 um is cooperating on anti- and adversarial distillation stuff as we speak right they don't want to make it easy on you know so Google and and open AAI and and anthropic they're coordinating on this stuff you know there are times where I've pushed back on anthropic because I thought it was you know perhaps regulatory capture or something else this is very different in my mind right he could have easily Dario could have easily come out and said oh my god we passed a threshold we need to have a government moratorum. Remember, even our friend Elon called for a six-month moratorium in 2023 because of civilization risk. This guy didn't do that. Instead, he said, "Okay, what what should we do? I'm going to get 40 of the leading companies together. We're going to spend a 100 days sandboxing, hardening the systems, and then we're we're we're going to keep pushing forward."

Chamath: What do you honestly think is going to get accomplished in a 100 days? How many PRs you think are going to get pushed to the core structural internet in 100 days? What's the overunder number? Cuz I'll give you a number. You're gonna say zero. My my answer to that is

Brad: I'll say like 10,000, but it's going to be immediate.

Chamath: But if it prevents your browser history from being released to everybody in the world, Chimat, that may be something that you're willing to, you know, let a 100 days pass on.

Jason: I think you got Chimat's attention when you said browser history.

Sachs: What about the dickpicks?

Jason: As Chimat is, he's going to release them himself right now. CHIMAT'S LIKE, "HEY, CHINESE HACKERS, HERE ARE MY DICKPICKS. Please put them out." Oh my god. we have to be out there complimenting when they're doing the right things or relying on the market rather than running to the nanny state and saying do more of this. So this to me was just an example of of a of a good balance. I'm sure we're going to have plenty of debates about this in the future. But you know this is one I would like to see more of.

Sachs: This is why to use your word Jake I tried to have a more nuanced take is because we have no choice but to take this seriously. Whether it's total theater, whether it's fear-mongering, and they do have a pattern around this, we can't take the risk, right? And it does logically make sense that as these models become more and more capable at coding, they're going to get better at cyber. And there's going to be that one time period where you're moving from preAI to post AAI, and you need a patch for that. So, my guess is we're going to see a lot of patches over the next few months. I think that that will resolve the problem. I think this is a case where I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt. I I think that, you know, I've criticized him in the past. I think that blackmail study was embarrassing to the level of being a hoax, but I think in this case, I'm going to give him credit and say that I think that it's legit.

Jason: So, it's not the anthropic hoax. This could be legit. I, you know, looking at

Sachs: we have no choice but to treat it that way.

Jason: Of course. Yeah. I mean, even if two things could be true at the same time, Saxs, they could have used this tactic before. It could be performative, like the video with the dramatic music in the background. It does have a little bit of drama to it, and the way they presented it is very dramatic, but it does make logical sense that the one company that made the bet on code bigger than anybody else would be the one who would discover this quickest. And you know in a 100 days that's a pretty good um that's a pretty big advantage versus the hackers. But let me think one more point there Jimat

Chamath: the most important thing that people haven't talked about here is the amount of code being pushed right now because of these tools is 10x 100x in most organizations. So we need to have this type of security embedded in these new coding tools to do it in real time. That's the opportunity. There should be real time correcting of this. If this was real, they picked the wrong companies. Meaning, there are energy companies, folks that control nuclear reactors. There are airplane companies that are flying hundreds of thousands of people in essentially manufactured missiles of like streaming gas going at 500 miles an hour. None of those companies were the ones that were included in this. And so I think if you really thought that this was end of days, at a minimum we can agree maybe we should have expanded the circle a touch.

Jason: Well, maybe those are customers of the ones they're including here. Anyway, uh this is a really important story. We'll obviously track it in the coming weeks to see what turns out to be reality. And uh Daario, do come on the program at some point. Hey uh Brad, will you get Dario to come on the program? I've invited him like three times. I got his phone number. He's ghosted me. I don't know why.

Brad: Wait, he he's ignored you? I get

Jason: I literally got an introduction from the number like one of the number one venture capitalists in the world. He's on the cap table very early. He just won't respond. I don't know why.

Brad: I would tell you Daario's podcast with Dwarkish who I think is an excellent podcaster. I've listened to that three or four times taken notes every time. It is a really exceptional piece really exceptional piece of work by by by them.

Jason: All right, let's keep moving. We got a lot on the job. You may once again be tarred with your affiliation with us. Poor you. I mean, I don't care. Literally, I I've got friends on both sides of the aisle. I have friends of course you do. Even JCAL. Even JCAL has friends everywhere. Let me ask Brad a question here just while we're on the topic of anthropic. There was a really interesting story or tweet I guess you could say by the founder of OpenClaw that Peter. Peter. Yeah. What's his name? Peter Steinber. Steinberger. Steinberger. Steinberger. Yeah. renowned coder created openclaw which is kind of the thing that launched this whole agent era now you I guess you could say any event he said that anthropic was cutting off his access to was it was to claw is that the next topic this is on the docket it's a little bit nuanced everybody using openclaw would take their $200 a month subscription to anthropic which was essentially like a people were using more tokens and it's an average the people from openclaw it is very verbose and those people are 100x the usage of the average subscriber. So he said you can't use your 200, you have to use the API. You move from the $200 plan to the API, add a zero to your token use. So or more. And so they essentially anchored Open Claw and then 10 days later or less they released or announced their new agent technology which is according to them a safer better version of OpenClaw. So, hey, all fair in love and war and they have basically shot a huge cannon across the bow of openclaw.

Sachs: Wait, can you just explain that exactly? So, so I think you're right that they systematically copied feature by feature of open claw, incorporated that into clawed and then the coupross was basically cutting off open oxygen. Can you just explain exactly what they did?

Jason: Okay, very simply, when you buy a subscription to these services, they have blended your usage across many users. So there's, you know, nine out of 10 users use less than the tokens they're paying for and the top 10% use much more. When OpenClaw became a phenomenon, the number one open source project in history on GitHub with all of this usage, people went crazy. And you heard me talking about how crazy I went for it. those people with the $200 subscriptions were using $2,000 $20,000 worth of tokens. So they said you can no longer use your subscription to, you know, either your professional or enterprise subscription at $200 and plug that into your open claw. You now have to go to the API and pay per usage. So no more like unlimited.

Sachs: If you use Anthropic's own agent harness, are you part of the bundled flat rate? You can assume that that's what they'll do, which if you were thinking on an antirust level might be token dumping or price dumping. I'm not saying like I'm ratting them. No, it's like bundling, isn't it? Well, price dumping or bundling. When you price something under the market price in antitrust, that would be price dumping, right? And if you were to bundle, it would be like the bundling issue.

Brad: Critically important. You can use openclaw via claw API and every company has a right to set the price for its products. It's just saying that you were for under their current regime, they were selling dollars for 10 cents via OpenClaw because these were such power users and now they're just saying we have to price this rationally, but we're happy to have you guys use the API. So, okay.

Sachs: Okay. But Brad, when you use the OpenClaw competitor that Anthropic now offers, correct? Are they subsidizing that? Are you paying?

Brad: We don't know yet because it's in closed beta.

Sachs: So in other words, what I'm saying is if they charge for API usage, right, their own first party agent harness or system, then that would be apples to apples. But if if they end up charging the bundled flat rate, let's say, for their stuff, but then charge the metered rate for third party stuff, you could make a bundling argument. Sure. Sure. And you could say it's anti-competitive assuming that Anthropic has dominant market share in coding, which I think most people would say they do at this point.

Brad: And assuming that it's the same product, I mean, the reason most enterprises will probably use the Anthropic uh version of this agentic product is because it meets all of your security parameters, right? So, Altimter runs, you know, a lot of stuff on Enthropic. They're already integrated within our our data warehouse, our data lake, things of that nature. So just letting openclaw loose on the uh altimeter you know data set would not be wise and so it's a different fundamental product.

Jason: No I get that and I think that anthropic has a huge advantage let's say cloning open claw and just building it into claude. I'm not denying that to me that would be the reason why they don't need to do price discrimination is because there's already a very good reason to use the let's call it the bundled offering on a featured basis. But the question I'm specifically asking is whether they're giving themselves a price advantage because I think Brad is giving the the most generous interpretation. You're taking a more cynical one. I'm with you, Saxs. I'm 100% on the cynical side. Open Claw is so powerful. It's got so much momentum that not only is anthropic trying to ankle it. I believe when Sam Waltman bought it, it was uh and he didn't buy OpenClaw itself, he hired Aqua hired Peter. I believe it was to subvert the open- source project to get Peter's next set of genius ideas inside of OpenAI as opposed to letting them go there. People are going to say I'm a conspiracy theorist, but this is the number one focus and let me just give you a list of who is trying to kill OpenClaw/compete with them. Obviously, you have Anthropic, but also Perplexity Computer launched. It's awesome. I've been using it. Anthropic has this clawed managed agents. They dropped that on Wednesday, April 8th. uh yesterday uh today's Thursday when we tape you you guys listen on Fridays and then you have Hermes agent that was released on February 25th that's also open source and very good so that's in the open source camp Alibab is coming out with one that's going to be based on their Quinn model then you have Elon who said he's got something called rock computer coming out of macro hard which is a play on words for Microsoft in addition to that Amazon and Apple are preparing uh new releases of their uh [ __ ] maxing assistants Alexa and Siri that will be less [ __ ] in this new version and then nothing out of uh SAT and Microsoft yet. So the number one goal I believe in the large language model frontier model space is to kill this open source product.

Chamath: No, I mean come on like why they're building multi-functioning agents that can move from answering questions to actually doing something for you. like you got to do that because that's what consumers and enterprises wants. It doesn't mean that it's about killing OpenClaw. just this is an obvious thing right to do it

Jason: but this is a giant movement to stop it because this is the equivalent of having an open-source Android like player in the market and that could be incredibly disruptive these I believe open source is going to win the day on the large language models and take 90% of the token usage and I think the entire frontier model space could be undercut by open source and I think they realize that SLMs the the smaller language models that are verticalized now that will run on you know, desktops and laptops and is even starting to run on the top ones. That is their biggest competitive threat and I hope it happens. All due respect to your investments, Brad, I think this technology and the interface is uh you know, he placed bets, but I I think it's imperative that the agent level, which is essentially your entire life, you don't give that to Anthropic. You don't give that to OpenAI. That's your entire business, your entire life. It is foolish for you, Brad, to give your entire business and all the knowledge you have to anthropic through that. unless you're just going it to boost your um your your investment in those companies. But I would be very concerned if I was you with putting all of your knowledge that you've earned over a lifetime into any of these large language models.

Chamath: All right, Jake, let me ask you. Can I ask a question? Thank you for that impassioned monologue. Um actually, I want to ask my TED talk.

Sachs: I Yes, thank you for that TED talk. Um I have a yes no question for each of you. Do you believe that anthropic has dominant market share in coding? right now? Yes. No,

Brad: no.

Chamath: In in coding, yes, they had the lead, but not that they had the lead, but not dominating.

Brad: I think it's a trillion dollar market, and these guys have less than 10% of it today. So, it's hard to make a case that

Sachs: What percent of coding tokens do you think that anthropic is providing the market right now?

Brad: Greater than 50%.

Sachs: Yeah, that's true. Okay, that's called dominant market share.

Chamath: Uh, I don't know about that. More than 50% of the market. You got to look at what you got to look at what the TAM is. with the Tan, right? There are lot of people who provide, you know, that that are in this tiebreaker before we move on to the next. I'm not saying it's a permanent condition, but if you're telling me that today Anthropic is delivering over half of the coding tokens, that's clearly a dominant position in the market for coding. It's an early market. It could change, but if I were representing them, David, I would say nine months ago, everybody t called us uh, you know, out of the game. We were being destroyed by open AI in three months. Now people are saying we have dominant market position. This is the fastest changing most competitive market in the world. I think it would be very hardressed to walk into, you know, some district court make the case that these guys have somehow already formed a monopoly against Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Open AI, etc.

Sachs: Well, I'm not saying it's a it's already a permanent monopoly, but I am just asking about market share. And I do think you guys all agree that Shimov, go ahead. They probably have 50 to 60% market share because I think codeex is actually quite broadly used as well. But that belies the more important point which is AI enabled coding I think is still 5% of the broad market. So it's kind of a nothing burger. Yes, they're leading but they're leading in something that isn't that big yet. Now you would say how could it not be big? And what I would say is because most of the stuff that's being written is still white sheet denovo code. And I think the ugly truth is I don't care what model you have, but the long horizon ability for any of these models to actually build enterprisegrade software is still shiit [ __ ] And that's the actual lived experience. Not for me, but when I call on our customers, half a trillion dollar banks, hundred billion dollar insurance companies, none of these guys are like, "Wow, it just works out of the box." It doesn't work. So, most of it is still handtuned. So, until I can honestly tell you that we can point a model at this with the right guard rails, which I can't today, what I would say is it's a small market that will become large as these models become better. But we are in the world where we have 50 years of accumulated tech debt as a world. And I suspect when you enumerate the number of lines that that represents, it's hundreds of trillions of lines of just pretty marginal mediocre code to bad code. On top of that, we have all these legacy languages. I'll tell you one of our customers, they have to go and get 60year-old pensioners to come into the office to interpret cope. No, I'm not joking. This is a snowball for trend. This is a hundred billion dollar a year revenue company and that's how they solve these problems. It's not opus just solves it. So I I would just keep in mind that most of the tech debt in the world that exists 99% of it is still poorly addressed by these models. We are untying this Gordian knot. It's going to take decades to do it right. So all the breathlessness about all this other stuff, I really think it's not where the money is. It's not the big time stuff. And you can tell me, "Oh yeah, it's going to be the future." And I would say, "Tell this business that's a hundred billion dollars a year of revenue and 50 million billing relationships that all of a sudden you're going to open claw your way to a solution." It's [ __ ] Not to say that you can't have a great chief of staff, and not to say you can't do some useful stuff and trickery and, you know, have a good knowledge base. I'd like that, too. But the core things that your lived experience sits on today is a mess of tech debt that will get very slowly replaced. And that's just the reality of life.

Jason: And there are competitors that are extremely disruptive. I'll tell you about one. We talked about Bit Tensor Tao on this program a couple weeks ago when we had the um Jensen interview. You brought it up actually Chimath. There's a there's a project that's subnet 62. It's called Ridges AI. And what they're doing is a competitor that is not only open- source but anybody can contribute to it. They spent about a million dollars in tow like rewards and in 45 days they hit 80% of what Claude 4 is and they did that in under 45 days. The way that works is they give rewards for people who and they can do this anonymously make that coding product which is like codeex or claude code better. that flywheel is racing right now with participation in the same way Bitcoin is. So you're going to see a lot of open- source and these crypto open-source combinations and uh anybody who's not investigated this, I highly recommend you investigate this.

Chamath: I do think you're right about one specific thing. I would put zero, literally the probability zero of any important company worth anything more than a dollar having and outsourcing their production code to an open source project. That'll never happen. However, what will happen though is when you look at the cost of training this 10 trillion parameter model on Blackwell and when you look in the future let's just say in six or nine months that a 15 or 20 trillion perm model is going to get trained on Vera Rubin I think Jason where you are right I have zero and just to be clear I have no investments in this at all I'm to be so super clear I'm just observing because another project other than Bit Tensor that someone brought up to me is Venice. The concept of opensource training and orchestration is a hugely disruptive idea which is the complete orthogonal attack vector to this idea that you have to raise tens and tens of billions of dollars to train your models because if the capital markets run out of 10 and 20 billion dollar checks to give people the only solution is to be totally distributed. I tend to agree with you Jason that there is going to be at some point a very successful open source project for pre-training. Absolutely. Will there never ever be an open- source way where a real company that has any skin in the game says here guys re-engineer my codebase as an open source project. Never going to happen. Yeah, I I think the coding tools will. And if you look at the history of open source, Brad, you actually I think had a lot of bets in this space. Linux, Kubernetes, Apache, Postgress, like Terraform, like these open source projects are deep inside of enterprises. Deep. And we're sitting here 15, 20 years ago, the same argument was made. Nobody will ever adopt these inside the enterprise. You got to go with Oracle, whatever. And fair enough, many people do. But I think this is this $29 ridges um subscription to do this versus 200. It's starting to take hold inside of startups. And that's where I always look at the tip of the spear. Startups love to, you know, use open source products. I think this could be the next big thing. But listen, I I I invest in things that have a 90% chance of going to zero. So do your own research. No crying in the casino. Can I just make a a final few points? So just just quickly so number one is with respect to this market for code or code tokens whatever you want to call it it might be 5% today meaning 5% of the codes AI generated versus human generated I think it's going to 95% I mean I bet any amount of money on that the only question is when probably over the next few years so that's point number one point number two is it's possible that if you're the early leader in coding as a AI model company let's say you have 50 to 60% of market share. You have the most developers using it. Therefore, you have the most access to code bases. You might get the most training tokens. There is a potential flywheel there where you can see the early market leader consolidating its lead because it's generating the most code tokens and it's getting access to the most existing code. Now, I'm not saying for sure that's going to happen. is possible that the other guys catch up, but I think there is a possibility of a flywheel there and strong, I guess you'd call it data scale effects, things like that. So, I do believe that the market for coding tokens could be monopolized. Third, Anthropic's revenue run rate, as based on what I can tell and what's been publicly released, is the fastest growing revenue run rate at scale that I think we've ever seen. Uh, we perfect segue. It's the next story. Okay, maybe pull up the the tweets. But this thing is ramping at a rate we've never seen before. We can get into that in a second. But just one last final point is I think it's pretty clear that where we go from here is agents and coding gives you a huge step up on agents because you know one of the main things that agents need to do is is write code to be able to enable them to complete tasks. Correct. And so if it is the case that coding is this huge market that's going to be dominated by one or two companies and then that leads to another huge market which is agents. My point is just I think all these companies need to behave in a very clean way and not engage in tactics that later the government might say you know what that was anti-competitive. Everyone should just I think play fair. Do not engage in discrimination against other people's products. engage in fair pricing. I'm not accusing anyone of breaking any of the rules, but what I'm saying is that eventually the government's going to look at this market with the benefit of 2020 hindsight and I think everyone should just basically, you know, keep it keep your nose clean. Keep it tight. Keep it tight. Keep it tight. Tight is right. I think is an excellent point. Let's talk about the revenue ramp of Anthropic. This is just unprecedented. Anthropic's revenue run rate has topped 30 billion with a B. Early 2023, they turned on revenue. They started charging for API access. End of 2024, they're at a billion dollar run rate. February 25, they launched Claw Code. That was the starter pistol. Mid 2025, $4 billion run rate. End of 2025, $9 billion run rate. Just a couple of months later in April, $30 billion run rate. Yes, that's right. Triple. Uh and the way they did this is enterprise uh customers are a major part of the spend. Dario announced a couple of months ago that there's over a thousand enterprises paying over 1 million annually. This is truly mindboggling when you think about it because those are the most coveted customers in the world. These are the big fish that you just uh when people are running enterprise software, they they dream Slack dreamed of getting these million-dollar customers. Uh Salesforce dreams of getting these million-dollar customers. Brad, you're an investor. I guess uh Sam famously on BG2 asked you to sell your uh OpenAI stock back to him. You didn't. You demired, but you're an investor in both. How shocking is it to you to place both of those bets and then see one of them come from so far behind? You know, Chat GPT has 900 million users. I don't know if they've they've passed a billion officially yet, but they are the Verb, right? They're the Uber. They're the Xerox. They're the Polaroid of AI, but they didn't go after the enterprise. Daario made that and Daario worked. He was the co-founder of OpenAI. He left and according to the New Yorker story that came out from Ronan Farrell this week, he was basically left because of his disgust in working with Sam Alman. Your thoughts?

Brad: Well, you know, before we go down the OpenAI rabbit hole, let's just really contextualize like what's going on here. You know, check I I I have this additional chart. you showed one, you know, they added 4 billion of revenue in January, 7 billion in February, 11 billion of annualized run rates, um, or 10 or 11 billion in March, just to put in perspective, that's data bricks plus Palanteer combined that they added in a single month, right? So we started with everybody at the start of the year ringing their hands including you know Gurley and others saying we're in a big bubble asking whether the AI revenues would show up to justify all of this investment and bam you have the largest revenue explosion in the history of technology. So the company's plans were to end the year at about a $30 billion ex exit run rate. They got there by the end of March right and I suspect that it's continuing in April. So you have to ask what's going on and what's the big so what the first thing for me is that model and product capability just hit this threshold we talked about earlier near AGI whatever the hell you want to call it and everybody like alimter said damn this is so good I have to have it this is no longer about my IT budget this is about labor augmentation and labor replacement and by the way co-work is growing even faster than Claude go at the same stage of development So what it showed is we have a near infinite TAM. It turns out that the TAM for intelligence is radically different than anything that we've seen before. And I think the best example of this, right? This is millions of self-interested parties, consumers, enterprises, a thousand now over a million dollars. Right? It's not that there was some great go to market and anthropic that all of a sudden, you know, they snuck up and blew everybody away. No, it was companies demanding the product. They're getting throttled on the product. Why? Because it's so good. It makes them better at their business. We are all self-interested actors. And when millions of those people are all making the same decision, there's a huge tell. And the tell here is that the TAM is as big as Daario and Sam and others have been saying. We knew intelligence was going to scale on the exponential. The question was whether revenue will scale on the exponential, and that's what we're seeing. And remember, they're doing this with only 1 1/2 to 2 gawatt of compute, right? These guys are massively compute constrained. They're each going to be adding 3 GW of compute this year. And so that will unlock they would be growing even faster. But for that, and then Jason, to your point about the open source models that we all want to be a part of this solution, I've talked to a lot of big companies, 65 to 70% of their token consumption is open-source model, right? are these cheap Chinese and other tokens. So these revenue ramps are happening while the world is already using open source. This is not frontier only. This is Frontier plus open source. We're going to see massive token optimization over the course of the year. But what happens on this Jebans paradox is the co the unit costs right of intelligence is plummeting. Not the cost of tokens. The unit cost of intelligence is plummeting because the capabilities of these models is so much better. I look at what it does for Altimeter day in and day out. I talked to a major uh company yesterday. They're on a run rate to do a hundred million of token consumption this year on about $5 billion in opex. They think that we're now nearing peak employment in their company, but that their token their intelligence consumption, okay, let's not call it token consumption, right? because tokens may go up a lot, but their intelligence consumption is going to go up, you know, a lot. So, I would leave you with this. We're early to Chimas's point. We have low penetration of the global 2000. We have low penetration of the use cases. We have low penetration of of within the use cases that they're already using. And the models are only getting better. So I think when you look out toward the end of the year, I would not be shocked if you see Anthropic exiting this year at 80 to 100 billion in revenue. And by the way, doing it at the same time that OpenAI, who is also on the wave, they'll be releasing an incredible model in the next imminently. They're going on that wave and you're going to see an inflection in their revenues as well.

Jason: Okay, Chimath, question one has been answered. The question of hey, does this stuff actually have utility? that went from a question mark to an exclamation point. Of course, it's got utility. People are getting value from it. And it might be variable. Some people get more value than others. Number two, the revenue ramp was a big question. Now, that's turned into an exclamation point. The final piece of the puzzle that you've brought up many times is can this be profitable? And these companies are burning through a large amount of cash. So, what is your take on when these companies can get out of the J curve? We talked about this, I think, three episodes ago. I estimated like we're going to be looking at $4500 billion in investment into these data centers at a minimum and then they have to climb out of that to get to profitability. So what are your thoughts on these becoming profitable companies? Do you remember the investor that published this list Jason where he put all of the terms you talk about when one of the terms you can't talk about is profit. It's a list where it's like if you can't talk about free cash flow, you talk about IBIDA. When you can't talk about IBIDA, you talk about margina. When you can't talk about that, you talk about revenue. And then when you can't talk about revenue, you talk about gross revenue bookings. So you can kind of figure out, I think, where we are in any part of any cycle by just indexing into what does everybody talk about. I think where we are is we are between gross revenue and net revenue. That's where the discussion is. Okay. There was another article I think today in I think maybe it was the information that tried to categorize and distinguish that anthropic presents gross, open AI presents net. They're different. We don't know what the various take rates are. So they're saying that there's a difference. If it's not true, there's been no clarity provided by these companies. So, at a minimum, you have this confusion where there's the breathless talk. Then there's people that don't even know the difference between actual recognized revenue and run rate revenue and how to multi. I mean, so we're definitely there, okay? We can quibble about the details, but we are not at the place where people are like, "Oh, here's your steadystate, you know, free cash flow margin, and here's what your EBA does." We're never we're we're years from that. They're gonna have token maxing IBA like IB at the Wii.

Chamath: The thing that we need to understand is how gross margin negative is this revenue growth.

Sachs: We don't know that and at least we don't as outsiders. Brad might know.

Brad: Brad may know. I I I I will tell you think about this. What are their big cost inputs? The number one cost input is the cost of compute. Cost of compute. Right? I just told you they only have a gigawatt and a half of compute. and they have that gigawatt and a half of compute whether they have a billion in revenue or whether they have 80 billion in revenue. So you might actually expect to see these companies their gross margins are exploding higher like the fastest increase in gross margins I've probably seen out of any technology company. So this is not gross margin negative you're saying?

Sachs: No definitely not gross margin negative. And what I would tell you so that they must be hugely profitable then

Brad: well you may see accidental why I call it accidental profitability. They may not be able to spend this revenue fast enough chamath on compute. And remember it's only 2500 people. Google crossed this revenue threshold when they had 120,000 people. These guys have 2500 people. So the only thing you can really spend money on, right, is compute. And they can't stand up the compute fast enough.

Chamath: But none of this foots to me then to be honest because if you were on a threshold of 90% plus gross margin, I'm not saying it's there. I'm not saying it's 90% plus. I'm just saying it's gone from meaningfully negative 18 months ago to, you know, very very positive. I've seen rumored out out there 50% is what you're saying. The trend is there. Let me just say this. I think if you're an incumbent, you want the cost of compute to go down. I think if you're not an incumbent, so specifically, who do I mean? Meta, Google, and SpaceX. I think those three people who have all three of them, well, sorry, Meta and Google have a fortress balance sheet. I think by the end of June, SpaceX will also have a fortress balance sheet. What they will want to do is they will want to make this a compute problem because they will control the the conditions on the field. You already see this today. Yeah. Meta's models today, what people's general reviews are it's okay, but the one thing that people say is it's incredibly performant. The model quality is okay, but the performance is great, which speaks to Meta's huge advantage. They have a massive compute infrastructure. So if you're if you're not open AI and anthropic, they'll want to make this a capital problem because then they can win it. If you're anthropic and open AI, you want this thing to be as efficient as possible. I think where we are is very much in the early innings. And we're bumbling around talking about gross margins and you know revenues. We are not at profitability. And what is true for Facebook and what was true for Google was irrespective of where they got to a billion. Who g cares? They were profitable by year three and they never looked back. I was there. I remember it was glorious.

Jason: Okay, here we go, guys. We're going to go to the third rail here. We got to catch up on the Iran war. Here's the latest. Two weeks into a ceasefire have started just two days ago at the taping of this VP JD Vance, friend of the pod is a and some special consultants Wikoff and friend of the pod Jared Kushner are headed to Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan for talks this very weekend. So while you're listening to this event, they are going to be working on the peace deal. Easter Sunday, Trump posted a truth stating, "Open the [ __ ] straight, you crazy bastards, or you're going to be living in hell. Just watch." Praise be to Allah. On Tuesday morning, Trump posted uh a another threat on social media. A whole civilization will die tonight. Never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen, but it probably will. Tweets were obviously discussed uh a lot over the last week. He gave him an 8:00 p.m. deadline. At 6:30 p.m. POTUS announced on Truth Social that he had agreed. President Trump had agreed to a two-week ceasefire if Iran opens the straight. He also said, "Hey, listen. We got the straight. Maybe there'll be a toll booth, but we'll take the majority of the toll and we'll split it with Iran." Here's the quote. We received a 10-point proposal from Iran, and we believe it's a workable it is a workable basis on which to negotiate. And apparently Netanyahu took the ceasefire to mean level Lebanon dropping 160 bombs in 10 minutes yesterday. Saxs, uh, you were out last week. Everybody wants to know your position on the war. I'll hand it off to you. What are your thoughts on how on the two ceasefire and everything that's occurred up until this point?

Sachs: Well, look, I have to preface what I'm about to say, which is I'm not part of the foreign policy team at the White House. And the last time I commented on the war on this show, it somehow made international headlines that Trump advisor says XYZ. And I'm not a Trump adviser on this issue. I think that'd be a fair headline to write if it was a technology issue, but this is not. So whatever I say is just my personal opinion, but then the media is going to somehow portray it or attribute it to the White House or try and create an issue out of it. So, I feel like I'm limited in what I can say except that to say that I think it's terrific that we have the ceasefire. I think it's great that there's going to be this meeting in Islamabad to hammer it out. And I think what the president's accomplished so far with the ceasefire is it's a great thing because what happens with these wars is they take on a life of their own, meaning they tend to go up the escalation ladder, right? And there's a lot of podcasts that are discussing the so-called escalation trap and supposedly there are stages to this based on historical patterns. And so I think it's actually very hard to pull out of these things and I give the president tremendous credit for negotiating the ceasefire that we've achieved so far and then sending the team to hopefully work this out.

Brad: First, on March 4th, I tweeted the Trump doctrine in Iran. Massively destroy all military capa capabilities. Kill the people building lethal weapons to use against us and get out. Reserve the right to do it again if needed. Zero efforts to build Misonian democracy. Iran's going to have to build what comes next. And I think what the market has said right if you look back at last year on tariffs Jason the top tobottom draw down was about 15% on the NASDAQ intraday is down 22%. Okay, the draw down in this period over Iran was only down about 5 to 7% on S&P and NASDAQ, right? So, the market has said, listen, re trust Trump at his words. He said he's not going to get into an entangled war here. I think he terrifies the hell out of people with his tweets about, you know, destroying civilization and all this other stuff. But I think people, even though they don't like to hear it, they've resolved for themselves that when he says he's going to get out, he will in fact get out. Of course, there was a lot of hand ringing, but if you look at the markets today, we basically bounced all the way back from where we were pre-Iran on both the S&P and the NASDAQ. If in fact we land the plane, if JD lands the plane, and by the way, on Lebanon, yes, they were bombing yesterday, but Netanyahu has now said that you're going to have direct government talks between Israel and Lebanon. So, if the if we land the plane on these two things, I think it's off to the races in the market. By the way, while everybody's focused on Iran, stay tuned. I think we're getting close to a deal on Ukraine, Russia, right? Venezuela is, you know, kind of going seemingly very well. I think there's also going to be news on Cuba. You could envision a world there's risk to the downside. Certainly, I will stipulate, but you also have to pay attention to the risk to the upside. If you land the plane on those things heading into America 250 July 4th, the market could really take off.

Chamath: I mean, the person that decides is the president of the United States. some foreign leader isn't getting to call the shots in the United States. I think very practically speaking, the markets are effectively pricing in that this was a small blip for whatever people think. That's just what the best prediction market that we have is telling us. I think that's important to acknowledge that we're probably in the endgame here. And the second thing to acknowledge is if I was Israel, I would really be concerned that unless I help find an offramp quickly, the risk that Israel loses America as a predictably steadfast ally could go down. And I think that that's problematic for Israel far more than is problematic for the United States. So all of that kind of tells me that we will find an offramp. A because I think economically it makes sense and then B geopolitically I think Israel will want to make sure that this doesn't burn a long-standing relationship.

Sachs: Well, I noticed in my feed today that Naftali Bennett, who's a major Israeli politician who was a former prime minister, tweeted polling that showed that Israel was becoming very unpopular in the US and he was expressing concern about that and expressing the need to to basically address that or fix that. So, I think you're starting to see Israeli politicians raising that as an issue. And I think that's probably a good thing. Yeah, there it is. And it's really cool actually how X now just automatically translates things from foreign languages, in this case, Hebrew, and it puts it in your feed. So, yeah. So, here's Naftali Bennett, former prime minister, saying, "This is a serious situation. There's a lot of work ahead of us to fix everything." Now, obviously, this is not Netanyahu. this is one of his um political opponents. But yeah, I mean this is something for Israel to consider and think about and I think that they would improve their popularity uh if they got behind the ceasefire and I have no indication that they won't but that would certainly be a good place to start. I have to say just as an aside, this auto translate feature has done more for understanding across borders than anything I've ever seen. And it is the most impressive tech feature I I've seen released in years. Putting AI and large language models aside for people who don't know what's happening because of Grock being really good at doing auto translate. They've taken the pockets of the best of what's happening in Japan, what's happening in Israel, what's happening in France, and they're surfacing it auto translated. Then when you reply as an American to somebody in Japan, they see it autorated as well, which has led to people who don't speak the same language engaging on X in a very nuanced, fun, interesting way. And that for as a truth mechanism is just absolutely extraordinary. I think this is going to have such a profound effect. Maybe Elon and the X team should get like a Nobel Peace Prize award for this. I think it's going to change. I mean, I hate to be hyperbolic, but have you been using this feature, Chamat? Has it been coming up in your feed? And which language is up in your feed right now?

Brad: English. Okay. So, you're not part of the translation thing. Brad, has this hit your feed yet? And and which regions are you? Definitely. Definitely see it in on the Middle East stuff. Um, and uh, you know, I've seen on Chinese, I've seen it on on the Russian Japanese super helpful.

Sachs: Let me tell you, bass Japanese is a whole another level of beast. Whoa. Man, base Japanese makes like Fentes and Alex Jones seem tame. They're like, look at this group of people. Insert whatever group of immigrants you like. And they're like, this is unacceptable behavior. This is not Japanese culture. These people need to be get the hell out of Japan. It is wild, folks. And if you don't have an X account, you are missing out. Go to X.com and sign up for this reason only because you think about the velocity. Like journalists are not even taking the time to translate and cover what's going on in those areas. And this is happening automatically in real time. So you start thinking about what happened in Ukraine. If you had people Russia and Ukraine doing this and having conversations with each other, it would be wild. You're like a such a good hype man. The problem is you hype buttered bread the same way you hype a nuclear reactor. And so it's hard to really tell, you know, what you're really hyping because your level of excitement, the intonation is exactly the same. Yo, man, there's nothing better than a slice of great toast. I mean, if this is very this in in a way, it is like sliced bread. It's very simple, but it is so powerful in the experience. This has been It is true. X is better today than it's ever been. And remember, they have 70% fewer employees than they had the day Elon walked into the building. And so if there were ever a debate about this, like, and I remember everybody saying, "Oh, it's going to tip over. Oh, it's going to be a crappy experience." The fact of the matter, here's we are a few years later, 70% fewer employees, and every other company in Silicon Valley is looking at that. I think for a lot of these tech companies, we've hit peak employment. We're going to create a tremendous number of new jobs, but for the existing jobs, these companies are all realizing they can do more with less.

Jason: All right, listen. We missed you, Freeberg, but this is the best episode in two years. Uh Freeird at the end of the show. And we will see you all at the liquidity summit except for the 400 people on the wait list who aren't going to get in. We got an email from the guys at Athena because we were just Oh my god. the they they're they're going to hire like 500 new Athena assistants. Yes, they had a thousand people after last week when we mentioned how much we love Athena. Go to Athena.com. But that's amazing. Those are like 500 hardworking men and women who are like working in the Philippines. Sax have great jobs. Sax, I'm going to get you a couple Athena assistants as a birthday present. That's what I'm going to get. You're going to love this, Sax. H Athena assistants are the best. Congratulations to my friends over there. All right, everybody. We'll see you next time. Love you boys on tonight favorite podcast. Let your winners ride. Rain and we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you queen of winners. Besties are gone. That is my dog taking out your driveways. Oh man, my appetiter will meet. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy cuz they're all just useless. It's like this like sexual tension that we just need to release somehow. That's going to be good. We need to get merch. I'm going all in.