Kind: captions
Language: en
I<00:00:00.400> am<00:00:00.640> getting<00:00:01.199> burned<00:00:01.600> out<00:00:02.159> on<00:00:02.720> struggling
I am getting burned out on struggling
CEOs<00:00:04.000> on<00:00:04.319> Twitter<00:00:04.720> sharing<00:00:05.120> performative<00:00:05.839> AI
CEOs on Twitter sharing performative AI
data<00:00:06.480> when<00:00:06.640> they're<00:00:06.799> not<00:00:06.960> AI<00:00:07.279> companies.
data when they're not AI companies.
Like,<00:00:07.839> show<00:00:08.000> me<00:00:08.160> the<00:00:08.320> money.<00:00:08.720> If<00:00:08.960> you<00:00:09.040> can<00:00:09.200> be
Like, show me the money. If you can be
the<00:00:09.599> largest<00:00:10.080> tech<00:00:10.400> company<00:00:10.719> on<00:00:10.880> the<00:00:11.040> planet
the largest tech company on the planet
and<00:00:11.519> still<00:00:11.759> not<00:00:11.920> make<00:00:12.160> money,<00:00:12.559> you<00:00:12.719> might<00:00:12.800> have
and still not make money, you might have
oversized<00:00:13.599> your<00:00:13.840> ambitions<00:00:14.240> a<00:00:14.480> little<00:00:14.559> and<00:00:14.799> it
oversized your ambitions a little and it
might<00:00:15.120> pay<00:00:15.360> to<00:00:15.519> come<00:00:15.679> back<00:00:15.839> a<00:00:16.000> bit.<00:00:16.320> This<00:00:16.480> is
might pay to come back a bit. This is
20BC<00:00:17.279> with<00:00:17.359> me,<00:00:17.600> Harry<00:00:17.840> Stepping,<00:00:18.240> and<00:00:18.400> today
20BC with me, Harry Stepping, and today
it's<00:00:18.880> my<00:00:19.119> favorite<00:00:19.359> show<00:00:19.600> of<00:00:19.680> the<00:00:19.840> week.<00:00:20.080> Rory
it's my favorite show of the week. Rory
O'Driscoll,<00:00:21.119> Jason<00:00:21.439> Lanin<00:00:22.080> coming<00:00:22.320> together
O'Driscoll, Jason Lanin coming together
to<00:00:22.960> discuss<00:00:23.279> the<00:00:23.600> biggest<00:00:24.000> news<00:00:24.320> that's
to discuss the biggest news that's
happened<00:00:24.800> in<00:00:25.039> the<00:00:25.199> last<00:00:25.359> 7<00:00:25.600> days.<00:00:26.000> Software
happened in the last 7 days. Software
companies<00:00:26.800> in<00:00:26.960> the<00:00:27.119> age<00:00:27.279> of<00:00:27.439> AI<00:00:27.760> are<00:00:28.000> either
companies in the age of AI are either
accelerating<00:00:28.800> or<00:00:29.039> irrelevant.<00:00:29.599> AI<00:00:29.920> is<00:00:30.160> going
accelerating or irrelevant. AI is going
to<00:00:30.320> be<00:00:30.480> like<00:00:30.720> the<00:00:30.880> oil<00:00:31.199> situation<00:00:31.519> in<00:00:31.679> the
to be like the oil situation in the
Persian<00:00:32.079> Gulf<00:00:32.399> today.<00:00:32.800> This<00:00:32.960> is<00:00:33.120> the<00:00:33.440> only
Persian Gulf today. This is the only
podcast<00:00:34.160> that<00:00:34.399> you<00:00:34.559> need<00:00:34.719> to<00:00:34.880> listen<00:00:35.040> to<00:00:35.600> every
podcast that you need to listen to every
week<00:00:36.160> to<00:00:36.480> stay<00:00:36.719> uptodate<00:00:37.280> on<00:00:37.520> what<00:00:37.760> matters<00:00:38.079> in
week to stay uptodate on what matters in
tech.<00:00:38.800> Poor<00:00:39.120> Warren<00:00:39.440> Buffett<00:00:39.760> is<00:00:39.920> like,<00:00:40.079> "It's
tech. Poor Warren Buffett is like, "It's
time<00:00:40.399> for<00:00:40.559> me<00:00:40.640> to<00:00:40.800> die<00:00:41.040> cuz<00:00:41.280> you<00:00:41.520> people<00:00:41.600> have
time for me to die cuz you people have
lost<00:00:42.000> the<00:00:42.160> plot."<00:00:42.640> As<00:00:42.879> we<00:00:43.120> record<00:00:43.360> this,<00:00:43.680> greed
lost the plot." As we record this, greed
will<00:00:44.160> still<00:00:44.320> trump<00:00:44.640> fear,<00:00:45.040> right?<00:00:45.440> Ready<00:00:45.680> to
will still trump fear, right? Ready to
go,<00:00:47.160> [music]
boys.<00:00:58.800> It<00:00:59.039> is<00:00:59.120> the<00:00:59.359> holiday<00:00:59.840> edition,<00:01:00.399> baby.
boys. It is the holiday edition, baby.
Coming<00:01:01.199> to<00:01:01.440> you<00:01:01.600> from<00:01:01.840> the<00:01:02.000> British<00:01:02.320> Riviera.
Coming to you from the British Riviera.
Um,<00:01:03.840> I'm<00:01:04.159> looking<00:01:04.400> forward<00:01:05.500> [laughter]<00:01:05.840> I
Um, I'm looking forward [laughter] I
always<00:01:06.320> say<00:01:06.479> this<00:01:06.640> is<00:01:06.799> like,<00:01:06.960> you<00:01:07.040> know,<00:01:07.200> the
always say this is like, you know, the
UK's<00:01:07.760> San<00:01:07.920> Trape<00:01:08.479> and<00:01:08.640> then<00:01:08.880> people<00:01:09.040> look<00:01:09.200> up
UK's San Trape and then people look up
Franon<00:01:10.240> and<00:01:10.400> they're<00:01:10.560> like,<00:01:10.640> "Huh?"<00:01:11.520> Um,
Franon and they're like, "Huh?" Um,
Americans<00:01:12.640> don't<00:01:12.799> get<00:01:12.960> the<00:01:13.119> British<00:01:13.439> sarcasm
Americans don't get the British sarcasm
is<00:01:14.080> my<00:01:14.240> lesson<00:01:14.479> from
is my lesson from
>> Yeah,<00:01:14.880> I<00:01:15.040> get<00:01:15.200> too<00:01:15.520> car.
>> Yeah, I get too car.
>> Uh,<00:01:16.720> we<00:01:17.040> have<00:01:17.200> we<00:01:17.439> have<00:01:17.520> a<00:01:17.600> lot<00:01:17.759> of<00:01:17.840> news<00:01:18.000> today.
>> Uh, we have we have a lot of news today.
I<00:01:18.479> wanted<00:01:18.640> to<00:01:18.880> start<00:01:19.040> on<00:01:19.439> what<00:01:19.680> I<00:01:19.920> think<00:01:20.000> is
I wanted to start on what I think is
probably<00:01:20.799> one<00:01:21.040> of<00:01:21.119> the<00:01:21.280> biggest<00:01:21.520> topics<00:01:21.840> of
probably one of the biggest topics of
the<00:01:22.080> day,<00:01:22.640> which<00:01:22.960> is<00:01:23.600> more<00:01:23.840> a<00:01:24.080> m<00:01:24.400> macro<00:01:24.880> topic
the day, which is more a m macro topic
or<00:01:25.360> meta<00:01:25.680> topic,<00:01:25.920> but<00:01:26.080> it<00:01:26.240> was<00:01:26.400> brought<00:01:26.560> to
or meta topic, but it was brought to
light<00:01:26.880> by<00:01:27.040> Brian<00:01:27.360> Armstrong<00:01:27.759> and<00:01:27.920> Coinbase,
light by Brian Armstrong and Coinbase,
which<00:01:28.880> is<00:01:29.119> Coinbase<00:01:30.159> spend<00:01:30.720> down<00:01:31.280> 50%<00:01:31.920> this
which is Coinbase spend down 50% this
quarter,<00:01:32.720> but<00:01:33.040> usage<00:01:33.520> up<00:01:33.840> with<00:01:34.159> regards<00:01:34.479> to
quarter, but usage up with regards to
how<00:01:34.960> they're<00:01:35.280> utilizing<00:01:36.000> open-source,<00:01:37.200> and
how they're utilizing open-source, and
that's<00:01:37.920> taking<00:01:38.240> away<00:01:38.400> from<00:01:38.560> their<00:01:38.720> frontier
that's taking away from their frontier
model<00:01:39.520> usage.<00:01:40.960> How<00:01:41.200> did<00:01:41.360> we<00:01:41.520> read<00:01:41.840> this?<00:01:42.240> Is
model usage. How did we read this? Is
this<00:01:42.640> the<00:01:42.880> new<00:01:43.119> normal?<00:01:43.680> Is<00:01:43.920> this<00:01:44.079> a<00:01:44.320> frontier
this the new normal? Is this a frontier
company<00:01:45.040> with<00:01:45.280> a<00:01:45.439> frontier<00:01:45.920> founder<00:01:46.320> doing
company with a frontier founder doing
frontier<00:01:47.200> things<00:01:47.439> in<00:01:47.759> terms<00:01:47.920> of<00:01:48.320> switching<00:01:48.799> so
frontier things in terms of switching so
efficiently?<00:01:50.159> How<00:01:50.320> do<00:01:50.479> you<00:01:50.560> read<00:01:50.799> this?
efficiently? How do you read this?
>> I<00:01:51.600> have<00:01:51.680> a<00:01:51.840> lot<00:01:51.920> of<00:01:52.079> thoughts,<00:01:52.960> but<00:01:53.439> um<00:01:53.600> I've
>> I have a lot of thoughts, but um I've
and<00:01:54.479> this<00:01:54.640> got<00:01:54.799> so<00:01:55.040> much<00:01:55.200> traction,<00:01:55.600> right?
and this got so much traction, right?
And<00:01:55.920> I<00:01:56.079> think<00:01:56.159> it's<00:01:56.320> an<00:01:56.479> important<00:01:56.799> topic,<00:01:57.280> but
And I think it's an important topic, but
I<00:01:58.159> I'm<00:01:58.560> just<00:01:58.799> getting<00:01:59.040> burned<00:01:59.280> out<00:01:59.520> on
I I'm just getting burned out on
performative<00:02:00.560> social<00:02:00.880> media<00:02:01.520> from
performative social media from
struggling<00:02:02.479> CEOs<00:02:03.520> that<00:02:03.840> aren't<00:02:04.079> an<00:02:04.320> AI
struggling CEOs that aren't an AI
companies<00:02:05.200> trying<00:02:05.439> to<00:02:05.600> act<00:02:05.840> as<00:02:06.079> if<00:02:06.240> they're<00:02:06.399> at
companies trying to act as if they're at
the<00:02:06.719> bleeding<00:02:07.040> edge.<00:02:07.439> I'm<00:02:07.600> I<00:02:07.680> I<00:02:08.160> really<00:02:08.479> don't
the bleeding edge. I'm I I really don't
care<00:02:09.679> what<00:02:09.920> a<00:02:10.080> lot<00:02:10.160> of<00:02:10.239> these<00:02:10.479> CEOs<00:02:11.039> think
care what a lot of these CEOs think
about<00:02:11.599> the<00:02:11.920> performance<00:02:12.480> of<00:02:12.720> the<00:02:12.959> latest<00:02:13.360> LLM
about the performance of the latest LLM
on<00:02:14.160> their<00:02:14.400> boring<00:02:14.959> old<00:02:16.239> AI%
on their boring old AI%
or<00:02:19.040> or<00:02:19.200> or<00:02:19.760> crypto<00:02:20.160> company<00:02:20.560> but<00:02:20.800> man<00:02:21.120> I'm<00:02:21.360> just
or or or crypto company but man I'm just
enough<00:02:22.319> of<00:02:22.480> the<00:02:22.640> crap<00:02:22.959> from
enough of the crap from
>> Brian<00:02:24.239> Chesy<00:02:24.720> and<00:02:24.879> the<00:02:24.959> AR<00:02:25.200> I<00:02:25.360> mean<00:02:25.440> these<00:02:25.599> are
>> Brian Chesy and the AR I mean these are
generative<00:02:26.319> generational<00:02:26.959> founders<00:02:27.360> use
generative generational founders use
Harry's<00:02:27.840> words<00:02:28.080> but<00:02:28.239> I'm<00:02:28.400> just<00:02:28.640> it's<00:02:28.879> just
Harry's words but I'm just it's just
performative<00:02:30.239> like<00:02:30.640> put<00:02:30.879> the<00:02:31.040> numbers<00:02:31.280> up
performative like put the numbers up
boys<00:02:31.840> sorry<00:02:32.080> we're<00:02:32.239> in<00:02:32.400> a<00:02:32.480> crypto<00:02:32.800> winner
boys sorry we're in a crypto winner
sorry<00:02:33.760> Airbnb<00:02:34.400> is<00:02:34.560> still<00:02:34.800> below<00:02:35.120> its<00:02:35.360> IPO
sorry Airbnb is still below its IPO
price<00:02:36.080> go<00:02:36.319> do<00:02:36.480> something<00:02:36.640> about<00:02:36.879> it.<00:02:37.599> Go
price go do something about it. Go
[ __ ]<00:02:38.239> do<00:02:38.400> something<00:02:38.640> about<00:02:38.879> it.<00:02:39.120> I've<00:02:39.360> had
[ __ ] do something about it. I've had
enough.<00:02:40.239> I<00:02:40.480> I'm<00:02:40.800> in<00:02:40.959> a<00:02:41.200> totally<00:02:41.680> different
enough. I I'm in a totally different
place.<00:02:42.800> Right.<00:02:43.360> So,<00:02:43.920> um<00:02:44.160> because<00:02:44.400> I<00:02:44.560> actually
place. Right. So, um because I actually
thought<00:02:44.800> it<00:02:44.879> was<00:02:44.959> a<00:02:45.120> really<00:02:45.280> great<00:02:45.440> piece<00:02:46.080> and
thought it was a really great piece and
and<00:02:46.560> in<00:02:46.720> one<00:02:46.800> sense,
and in one sense,
>> hang<00:02:47.680> on,<00:02:47.840> let<00:02:47.920> me<00:02:48.080> finish.
>> hang on, let me finish.
>> In<00:02:49.040> one<00:02:49.200> sense,<00:02:49.440> let<00:02:49.599> me<00:02:49.760> agree<00:02:50.160> in<00:02:50.319> one<00:02:50.480> sense.
>> In one sense, let me agree in one sense.
It's<00:02:51.200> precisely<00:02:51.840> because<00:02:52.400> in<00:02:52.720> the<00:02:52.879> continuum
It's precisely because in the continuum
from<00:02:54.959> frontier<00:02:55.599> amazing<00:02:56.160> AI<00:02:56.560> company<00:02:56.959> to
from frontier amazing AI company to
boring,<00:02:57.760> stodgy<00:02:58.239> corporate<00:02:58.640> America,
boring, stodgy corporate America,
Coinbase<00:03:00.000> is<00:03:00.239> now<00:03:00.560> plus<00:03:00.800> or<00:03:01.040> minus<00:03:01.280> in<00:03:01.440> the
Coinbase is now plus or minus in the
middle.<00:03:02.000> This<00:03:02.159> is<00:03:02.319> your<00:03:02.560> point.<00:03:02.879> It's<00:03:03.120> not<00:03:03.280> a,
middle. This is your point. It's not a,
you<00:03:03.920> know,<00:03:04.159> it's<00:03:04.640> four<00:03:04.800> or<00:03:04.959> five<00:03:05.120> year<00:03:05.519> since
you know, it's four or five year since
been<00:03:06.000> public.<00:03:06.400> It's<00:03:06.720> it's<00:03:07.120> not<00:03:07.280> a<00:03:07.519> bright
been public. It's it's not a bright
shining<00:03:08.159> frontier<00:03:08.560> AI<00:03:08.879> company,<00:03:09.200> which<00:03:09.440> is
shining frontier AI company, which is
what<00:03:09.760> makes<00:03:10.000> the<00:03:10.159> piece<00:03:10.480> so<00:03:10.720> good<00:03:11.519> to<00:03:11.760> me.<00:03:11.920> It
what makes the piece so good to me. It
was<00:03:12.319> like<00:03:12.560> a<00:03:12.800> just<00:03:13.040> a<00:03:13.360> common<00:03:13.760> garden<00:03:14.080> tech<00:03:14.400> CEO
was like a just a common garden tech CEO
saying<00:03:15.760> I<00:03:16.000> was<00:03:16.239> spending<00:03:16.800> X<00:03:17.680> a<00:03:17.920> year<00:03:18.080> ago.<00:03:18.800> It
saying I was spending X a year ago. It
exploded<00:03:20.239> in<00:03:20.480> the<00:03:20.640> last<00:03:21.280> five<00:03:21.599> six<00:03:21.840> months
exploded in the last five six months
primarily<00:03:22.800> because<00:03:23.040> of<00:03:23.200> the<00:03:23.440> ability<00:03:23.680> to<00:03:23.840> do
primarily because of the ability to do
code<00:03:24.239> generation<00:03:25.040> and<00:03:25.280> I<00:03:25.440> got<00:03:25.599> to<00:03:25.760> grips<00:03:26.000> with
code generation and I got to grips with
this<00:03:26.400> thing<00:03:26.720> and<00:03:26.959> I<00:03:27.120> reduced<00:03:27.440> my<00:03:27.599> spend<00:03:27.840> by<00:03:28.080> 50%
this thing and I reduced my spend by 50%
in<00:03:28.959> the<00:03:29.120> last<00:03:29.440> two<00:03:29.680> months<00:03:30.000> and<00:03:30.239> here's<00:03:30.560> how<00:03:30.640> I
in the last two months and here's how I
did<00:03:31.040> it.<00:03:31.360> Right?<00:03:31.680> It's<00:03:32.000> precisely<00:03:32.480> because<00:03:32.879> it
did it. Right? It's precisely because it
wasn't<00:03:33.599> some<00:03:33.920> frontier<00:03:34.560> leading<00:03:34.959> company
wasn't some frontier leading company
that<00:03:35.599> it<00:03:35.760> makes<00:03:35.840> it<00:03:36.080> more<00:03:36.239> relevant<00:03:36.720> because<00:03:37.040> I
that it makes it more relevant because I
think<00:03:37.760> every<00:03:38.159> single<00:03:38.560> company<00:03:39.040> spending<00:03:39.680> 50
think every single company spending 50
million<00:03:40.959> 10<00:03:41.200> million<00:03:42.080> on<00:03:42.480> Claude<00:03:42.879> is<00:03:43.120> going<00:03:43.200> to
million 10 million on Claude is going to
look<00:03:43.440> at<00:03:43.519> this<00:03:43.680> and<00:03:43.920> say<00:03:44.319> if<00:03:44.560> we<00:03:44.720> haven't<00:03:44.959> done
look at this and say if we haven't done
all<00:03:45.440> these<00:03:45.760> three<00:03:46.080> things<00:03:46.319> in<00:03:46.560> the<00:03:46.720> next<00:03:46.959> month
all these three things in the next month
someone's<00:03:48.000> head's<00:03:48.239> going<00:03:48.319> to<00:03:48.480> roll.<00:03:48.879> It's
someone's head's going to roll. It's
cost<00:03:49.440> management<00:03:50.000> 101.<00:03:50.879> But<00:03:51.040> what<00:03:51.280> it<00:03:51.440> said<00:03:51.599> is
cost management 101. But what it said is
in<00:03:52.239> the<00:03:52.400> space<00:03:52.640> of<00:03:52.799> two<00:03:52.959> months<00:03:53.200> by<00:03:53.440> getting<00:03:53.599> to
in the space of two months by getting to
grips<00:03:54.080> with<00:03:54.239> your<00:03:54.400> spend<00:03:54.959> you<00:03:55.120> can<00:03:55.360> continue
grips with your spend you can continue
to<00:03:55.920> innovate<00:03:56.560> continue<00:03:56.799> to<00:03:57.040> generate<00:03:57.360> more
to innovate continue to generate more
tokens<00:03:57.920> but<00:03:58.159> cut<00:03:58.319> your<00:03:58.560> spend<00:03:58.799> by<00:03:59.040> half.
tokens but cut your spend by half.
Right?<00:04:00.799> So,<00:04:01.040> I<00:04:01.200> thought<00:04:01.280> it<00:04:01.439> was<00:04:01.519> a<00:04:01.680> really
Right? So, I thought it was a really
great<00:04:02.000> piece.
great piece.
>> It<00:04:02.640> It<00:04:02.799> is.<00:04:02.959> It's<00:04:03.120> just<00:04:03.360> Coinbase<00:04:03.920> fell<00:04:04.879> uh
>> It It is. It's just Coinbase fell uh
minus<00:04:05.840> 30%<00:04:06.400> was<00:04:06.640> its<00:04:06.879> last<00:04:07.040> quarter.
minus 30% was its last quarter.
>> Yeah,<00:04:07.840> but<00:04:08.000> it's<00:04:08.159> those<00:04:08.319> things.
>> Yeah, but it's those things.
>> No,<00:04:08.959> I'm<00:04:09.040> not<00:04:09.200> disagreeing<00:04:09.599> with<00:04:09.680> you.<00:04:09.920> I'm
>> No, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm
just
>> And<00:04:11.280> I<00:04:11.360> think<00:04:11.439> the<00:04:11.599> graph<00:04:11.920> and<00:04:12.080> the<00:04:12.159> chart<00:04:12.400> were
>> And I think the graph and the chart were
great.<00:04:12.959> I'm<00:04:13.200> just<00:04:13.360> burn<00:04:13.680> out.<00:04:14.159> I<00:04:14.319> want<00:04:14.480> a
great. I'm just burn out. I want a
leader<00:04:15.040> doing<00:04:15.200> this.<00:04:15.599> I<00:04:15.760> want<00:04:15.920> a<00:04:16.079> leader<00:04:16.320> doing
leader doing this. I want a leader doing
this.
>> What<00:04:16.880> about<00:04:17.040> an<00:04:17.199> even<00:04:17.440> shittier<00:04:17.840> company<00:04:18.000> and
>> What about an even shittier company and
you<00:04:18.320> know,<00:04:18.400> we<00:04:18.560> got<00:04:18.720> lots<00:04:18.880> of<00:04:18.959> shitty<00:04:19.680> pick<00:04:19.840> on
you know, we got lots of shitty pick on
if<00:04:20.320> one<00:04:20.479> of<00:04:20.560> the<00:04:20.720> man<00:04:21.040> if<00:04:21.280> one<00:04:21.440> of<00:04:21.519> the
if one of the man if one of the
automotive<00:04:22.639> manufacturing<00:04:23.199> companies<00:04:23.520> which
automotive manufacturing companies which
are<00:04:23.840> fundamental<00:04:24.400> business<00:04:24.720> challenges<00:04:25.360> also
are fundamental business challenges also
did<00:04:25.759> the<00:04:25.919> same<00:04:26.080> thing<00:04:26.160> and<00:04:26.400> said<00:04:26.560> we<00:04:26.720> were
did the same thing and said we were
spending<00:04:27.199> a<00:04:27.199> h<00:04:27.280> 100red<00:04:27.520> million<00:04:27.759> on<00:04:27.919> AI<00:04:28.320> now
spending a h 100red million on AI now
we're<00:04:28.639> spending<00:04:28.960> 50.<00:04:29.280> it<00:04:29.520> would<00:04:29.600> be<00:04:29.759> just<00:04:29.919> as
we're spending 50. it would be just as
relevant.<00:04:30.800> I<00:04:31.120> don't<00:04:31.360> think<00:04:32.000> and<00:04:32.160> in<00:04:32.320> fact<00:04:32.479> I
relevant. I don't think and in fact I
would<00:04:32.720> argue<00:04:33.040> it's<00:04:33.280> precisely<00:04:33.840> those
would argue it's precisely those
companies<00:04:35.040> that<00:04:35.360> are<00:04:35.600> under<00:04:35.919> cash<00:04:36.320> pressure
companies that are under cash pressure
and<00:04:36.960> earnings<00:04:37.440> pressure<00:04:38.080> that<00:04:38.320> are<00:04:38.479> going<00:04:38.639> to
and earnings pressure that are going to
get<00:04:38.880> their<00:04:39.120> [ __ ]<00:04:39.360> together<00:04:39.680> on<00:04:39.919> not<00:04:40.160> spending
get their [ __ ] together on not spending
too<00:04:40.639> much<00:04:40.800> money<00:04:40.960> on<00:04:41.199> AI<00:04:41.680> which<00:04:41.840> is<00:04:42.000> why<00:04:42.160> it's
too much money on AI which is why it's
more<00:04:42.880> and<00:04:43.280> frankly<00:04:43.600> that's<00:04:43.840> most<00:04:44.080> companies
more and frankly that's most companies
very<00:04:45.040> few<00:04:45.280> companies<00:04:45.600> have<00:04:45.759> the<00:04:45.919> luxury<00:04:46.240> of<00:04:46.400> a
very few companies have the luxury of a
venture-backed<00:04:48.240> AI<00:04:48.720> forward<00:04:49.120> startup<00:04:49.520> that
venture-backed AI forward startup that
can<00:04:49.919> say<00:04:50.080> you<00:04:50.400> just<00:04:50.560> get<00:04:50.720> this<00:04:50.960> done<00:04:51.199> no<00:04:51.199> matter
can say you just get this done no matter
what<00:04:52.000> most<00:04:52.240> companies<00:04:52.479> have<00:04:52.639> cost
what most companies have cost
discipline.<00:04:53.520> Is<00:04:53.759> optimizing<00:04:54.240> your<00:04:54.479> LL<00:04:54.800> spend
discipline. Is optimizing your LL spend
really<00:04:55.360> going<00:04:55.520> to<00:04:55.600> help<00:04:55.759> if<00:04:56.000> your<00:04:56.160> if<00:04:56.320> your
really going to help if your if your
revenue<00:04:56.800> is<00:04:57.040> shrinking<00:04:57.440> minus<00:04:57.759> 20<00:04:58.000> to<00:04:58.240> 30%.<00:04:58.720> I
revenue is shrinking minus 20 to 30%. I
just<00:04:59.040> don't<00:04:59.120> see<00:04:59.280> it's<00:04:59.440> going<00:04:59.520> to<00:04:59.759> like
just don't see it's going to like
reignite<00:05:00.880> growth<00:05:01.280> in<00:05:01.440> in<00:05:01.759> your<00:05:01.919> in<00:05:02.080> your
reignite growth in in your in your
crypto
>> base.<00:05:03.919> Again,<00:05:04.479> you're<00:05:04.720> just<00:05:04.880> you're<00:05:05.120> just
>> base. Again, you're just you're just
being<00:05:05.360> a<00:05:05.520> grump<00:05:05.840> guy.<00:05:06.080> He<00:05:06.240> didn't<00:05:06.400> say<00:05:06.560> it's
being a grump guy. He didn't say it's
going<00:05:06.800> to
going to
>> I<00:05:07.360> think<00:05:07.440> it's<00:05:07.600> a<00:05:08.000> Harry<00:05:08.320> asked<00:05:08.560> what<00:05:08.720> we
>> I think it's a Harry asked what we
thought.<00:05:09.199> I<00:05:09.440> think<00:05:09.520> it's<00:05:09.680> a<00:05:09.919> sign.<00:05:10.560> I<00:05:10.800> think
thought. I think it's a sign. I think
the<00:05:11.120> data<00:05:11.360> is<00:05:11.600> valuable.<00:05:12.000> Like<00:05:12.400> let's<00:05:12.639> move
the data is valuable. Like let's move
on,<00:05:13.120> right?<00:05:13.360> I<00:05:13.520> think<00:05:13.680> it's<00:05:13.919> great,<00:05:14.720> but<00:05:14.960> I<00:05:15.280> am
on, right? I think it's great, but I am
getting<00:05:16.080> burned<00:05:16.400> out<00:05:16.960> on<00:05:17.600> struggling<00:05:18.320> CEOs<00:05:18.880> on
getting burned out on struggling CEOs on
Twitter<00:05:19.520> sharing<00:05:20.000> performative<00:05:20.720> AI<00:05:21.039> data
Twitter sharing performative AI data
when<00:05:21.520> they're<00:05:21.680> not<00:05:21.840> AI<00:05:22.160> companies.<00:05:22.400> It's
when they're not AI companies. It's
like,<00:05:22.639> "Show<00:05:22.880> me<00:05:23.039> the<00:05:23.199> money.<00:05:23.680> Show<00:05:23.840> me<00:05:23.919> the
like, "Show me the money. Show me the
revenue
>> growth."<00:05:25.120> I'm<00:05:25.280> going<00:05:25.360> to<00:05:25.440> argue<00:05:25.840> again.<00:05:26.479> I
>> growth." I'm going to argue again. I
think<00:05:26.800> it<00:05:27.039> was<00:05:27.120> a<00:05:27.360> fact.<00:05:27.759> I<00:05:28.000> actually<00:05:28.160> really
think it was a fact. I actually really
liked<00:05:28.560> it<00:05:28.639> because<00:05:28.800> it<00:05:28.960> was<00:05:29.039> a<00:05:29.199> factbased
liked it because it was a factbased
piece.<00:05:30.160> And<00:05:30.320> by<00:05:30.479> the<00:05:30.560> way,<00:05:30.720> you<00:05:30.800> know,<00:05:30.960> it<00:05:31.120> just
piece. And by the way, you know, it just
showed<00:05:31.600> here's<00:05:31.919> our<00:05:32.080> spend<00:05:32.400> by<00:05:32.560> month.<00:05:33.039> Here's
showed here's our spend by month. Here's
our<00:05:33.440> tokens<00:05:33.840> generated<00:05:34.320> by<00:05:34.560> month.<00:05:35.120> Here's
our tokens generated by month. Here's
our<00:05:35.520> peak<00:05:36.000> and<00:05:36.160> here's<00:05:36.400> how<00:05:36.560> we<00:05:36.720> were<00:05:36.800> able<00:05:36.960> to
our peak and here's how we were able to
clip<00:05:37.360> 50%<00:05:37.919> off<00:05:38.080> it.<00:05:38.320> Right?<00:05:38.560> Let<00:05:38.720> me<00:05:38.800> put<00:05:38.960> it
clip 50% off it. Right? Let me put it
this<00:05:39.199> way.<00:05:39.440> Rather<00:05:39.759> than<00:05:39.919> arguing<00:05:40.240> with<00:05:40.320> you,
this way. Rather than arguing with you,
Jason,<00:05:40.960> which<00:05:41.120> is<00:05:41.360> usually<00:05:41.600> not<00:05:41.840> productive
Jason, which is usually not productive
for<00:05:42.320> either<00:05:42.560> of<00:05:42.720> us,<00:05:43.039> I'm<00:05:43.360> willing<00:05:43.600> to<00:05:43.759> bet
for either of us, I'm willing to bet
that<00:05:44.400> every<00:05:44.800> single<00:05:45.280> CFO<00:05:46.240> in<00:05:46.479> the<00:05:46.639> Fortune<00:05:47.120> 500
that every single CFO in the Fortune 500
sent<00:05:48.160> some<00:05:48.400> version<00:05:48.639> of<00:05:48.800> that<00:05:49.039> article<00:05:49.360> to
sent some version of that article to
their<00:05:49.759> CIO<00:05:50.160> and<00:05:50.320> said,<00:05:50.479> "Dude,<00:05:51.199> look<00:05:51.360> what
their CIO and said, "Dude, look what
this<00:05:51.759> smart<00:05:52.080> guy<00:05:52.240> in<00:05:52.400> the<00:05:52.479> valley<00:05:52.639> is<00:05:52.800> doing.
this smart guy in the valley is doing.
Figure<00:05:53.440> your<00:05:53.600> [ __ ]<00:05:53.840> out."<00:05:54.400> Right?<00:05:55.120> So,<00:05:55.360> I
Figure your [ __ ] out." Right? So, I
think<00:05:55.680> actually,<00:05:55.919> let's<00:05:56.160> leave<00:05:56.400> Coinbase<00:05:56.880> out
think actually, let's leave Coinbase out
of<00:05:57.039> it.<00:05:57.280> Let's<00:05:57.440> pretend<00:05:57.600> we<00:05:57.840> don't<00:05:57.919> even<00:05:58.080> know
of it. Let's pretend we don't even know
the<00:05:58.560> name<00:05:58.800> of<00:05:58.960> the<00:05:59.199> person<00:05:59.360> who<00:05:59.600> wrote<00:05:59.840> that
the name of the person who wrote that
article,<00:06:00.479> right?<00:06:00.720> Let's<00:06:01.039> ignore<00:06:01.199> it.<00:06:01.600> I<00:06:01.759> think
article, right? Let's ignore it. I think
the<00:06:02.080> really<00:06:02.320> interesting<00:06:02.639> question<00:06:02.880> is<00:06:03.280> what
the really interesting question is what
does<00:06:03.600> this<00:06:03.840> mean<00:06:04.160> for,<00:06:04.960> you<00:06:05.039> know,<00:06:05.199> revenue
does this mean for, you know, revenue
traction<00:06:06.000> for,<00:06:06.560> you<00:06:06.639> know,<00:06:06.720> the<00:06:06.800> hot<00:06:07.039> sexy
traction for, you know, the hot sexy
foundation<00:06:07.680> models,<00:06:08.160> right?<00:06:08.479> Because<00:06:08.720> I<00:06:08.960> was
foundation models, right? Because I was
looking<00:06:09.199> at<00:06:09.360> the<00:06:09.520> numbers<00:06:09.840> in<00:06:10.080> one<00:06:10.240> sense,<00:06:10.479> oh
looking at the numbers in one sense, oh
my<00:06:10.880> god,<00:06:11.199> you<00:06:11.440> reduce<00:06:11.759> your<00:06:11.919> spend<00:06:12.160> by<00:06:12.400> 50%.
my god, you reduce your spend by 50%.
That's<00:06:13.360> terrifying<00:06:13.919> if<00:06:14.160> you're<00:06:14.319> the<00:06:14.479> company
That's terrifying if you're the company
getting<00:06:14.960> that<00:06:15.199> revenue.<00:06:16.080> On<00:06:16.240> the<00:06:16.400> other<00:06:16.479> hand,
getting that revenue. On the other hand,
the<00:06:16.880> positive<00:06:17.199> spin,<00:06:17.520> it<00:06:17.759> only<00:06:18.000> went<00:06:18.240> back<00:06:18.400> to
the positive spin, it only went back to
the<00:06:18.720> spend<00:06:19.039> they<00:06:19.199> were<00:06:19.360> doing<00:06:19.520> in<00:06:19.759> I<00:06:19.919> think
the spend they were doing in I think
November.<00:06:21.199> In<00:06:21.360> other<00:06:21.600> words,<00:06:22.319> if<00:06:22.560> you<00:06:22.720> look<00:06:22.800> at
November. In other words, if you look at
it,<00:06:23.360> basically<00:06:23.759> all<00:06:24.000> that<00:06:24.240> happened<00:06:24.479> here<00:06:24.720> was
it, basically all that happened here was
all<00:06:25.759> these<00:06:26.080> companies<00:06:26.400> were<00:06:26.560> spending<00:06:26.880> and
all these companies were spending and
growing<00:06:27.440> pretty<00:06:27.680> aggressively<00:06:28.160> in<00:06:28.400> terms<00:06:28.560> of
growing pretty aggressively in terms of
their<00:06:28.880> spend<00:06:29.280> with<00:06:29.919> probably<00:06:30.319> anthropic<00:06:30.960> and
their spend with probably anthropic and
open<00:06:31.600> AI.<00:06:32.160> And<00:06:32.319> then<00:06:32.479> in<00:06:32.639> November,<00:06:33.120> December
open AI. And then in November, December
with<00:06:33.759> coding,<00:06:34.080> it<00:06:34.319> exploded.<00:06:35.120> It<00:06:35.360> took<00:06:35.600> about
with coding, it exploded. It took about
5<00:06:36.080> months<00:06:36.319> for<00:06:36.479> everyone<00:06:36.720> to<00:06:36.800> get<00:06:36.960> their<00:06:37.120> [ __ ]
5 months for everyone to get their [ __ ]
together<00:06:37.520> and<00:06:37.759> say<00:06:37.919> we<00:06:38.080> can't<00:06:38.240> be<00:06:38.400> doing<00:06:38.639> this.
together and say we can't be doing this.
Let's<00:06:39.680> cut<00:06:39.840> the<00:06:40.000> burn.<00:06:40.319> And<00:06:40.479> then<00:06:40.720> they
Let's cut the burn. And then they
figured<00:06:41.280> out<00:06:41.600> and<00:06:42.240> kind<00:06:42.479> of<00:06:42.560> reduced<00:06:42.800> it<00:06:42.960> by
figured out and kind of reduced it by
50%<00:06:43.680> back<00:06:43.840> to<00:06:44.000> roughly<00:06:44.319> the<00:06:44.479> spend<00:06:44.720> in
50% back to roughly the spend in
November.<00:06:45.520> Now<00:06:45.759> the<00:06:46.000> interesting<00:06:46.319> question
November. Now the interesting question
is<00:06:47.199> does<00:06:47.440> that<00:06:47.680> imply<00:06:48.000> and<00:06:48.240> I'm<00:06:48.400> not<00:06:48.479> saying<00:06:48.639> it
is does that imply and I'm not saying it
does<00:06:49.039> to<00:06:49.199> be<00:06:49.280> clear.<00:06:49.759> Does<00:06:49.919> that<00:06:50.160> imply<00:06:51.039> that
does to be clear. Does that imply that
you<00:06:51.440> know<00:06:51.600> Antropic<00:06:52.160> which<00:06:52.400> last<00:06:52.560> year
you know Antropic which last year
exploded<00:06:53.440> from<00:06:54.160> 1<00:06:54.400> billion<00:06:54.639> run<00:06:54.880> rate<00:06:55.039> at<00:06:55.199> the
exploded from 1 billion run rate at the
start<00:06:55.520> to<00:06:55.759> 9<00:06:56.000> billion<00:06:56.319> at<00:06:56.479> the<00:06:56.639> end<00:06:56.960> to<00:06:57.360> 44
start to 9 billion at the end to 44
billion<00:06:58.240> mid<00:06:58.560> this<00:06:58.800> year.<00:06:59.520> You<00:06:59.680> know<00:06:59.840> the<00:07:00.080> I'm
billion mid this year. You know the I'm
not<00:07:00.479> saying<00:07:00.639> this<00:07:00.880> but<00:07:01.039> you<00:07:01.199> could<00:07:01.280> say<00:07:01.520> oh
not saying this but you could say oh
you're<00:07:01.840> saying<00:07:02.000> that<00:07:02.160> their<00:07:02.400> revenue<00:07:02.639> is
you're saying that their revenue is
going<00:07:02.880> to<00:07:02.960> go<00:07:03.039> down<00:07:03.199> by<00:07:03.360> 50%<00:07:03.840> that<00:07:04.080> are<00:07:04.160> going
going to go down by 50% that are going
to<00:07:04.319> be<00:07:04.400> at<00:07:04.479> a<00:07:04.639> 22<00:07:04.960> billion<00:07:05.199> run<00:07:05.440> rate.<00:07:05.759> I'm<00:07:05.919> not
to be at a 22 billion run rate. I'm not
but<00:07:06.720> it's<00:07:06.960> going<00:07:07.039> to<00:07:07.120> have<00:07:07.280> some<00:07:07.520> impact<00:07:07.759> on
but it's going to have some impact on
the<00:07:08.080> growth<00:07:08.319> rate<00:07:09.199> and<00:07:09.360> that's<00:07:09.599> the
the growth rate and that's the
>> I<00:07:10.000> think<00:07:10.160> so.
>> I think so.
>> Yeah.
>> I<00:07:11.280> think<00:07:11.440> there's<00:07:11.680> two<00:07:11.840> two<00:07:12.160> issues<00:07:12.560> here.<00:07:13.199> One
>> I think there's two two issues here. One
is<00:07:14.400> it<00:07:14.560> it<00:07:14.880> sharpens<00:07:15.360> the<00:07:15.599> question<00:07:16.000> of<00:07:16.479> does
is it it sharpens the question of does
the<00:07:16.960> rise<00:07:17.759> of<00:07:18.080> open<00:07:18.400> source<00:07:18.720> and<00:07:19.039> others
the rise of open source and others
actually<00:07:19.919> going<00:07:20.000> to<00:07:20.160> impact<00:07:20.479> the<00:07:20.720> growth<00:07:21.680> of
actually going to impact the growth of
the<00:07:22.400> frontier<00:07:22.880> models<00:07:23.440> more<00:07:23.680> than<00:07:23.840> we<00:07:24.080> ever
the frontier models more than we ever
predicted?<00:07:24.800> That's<00:07:24.960> a<00:07:25.120> big<00:07:25.360> question<00:07:25.919> and<00:07:26.080> I'm
predicted? That's a big question and I'm
going<00:07:26.400> to<00:07:26.479> say<00:07:26.639> I<00:07:26.880> don't<00:07:26.960> know<00:07:27.199> on<00:07:27.360> June<00:07:27.599> 30th.
going to say I don't know on June 30th.
It's<00:07:28.319> easy<00:07:28.560> to<00:07:28.720> say<00:07:28.880> that<00:07:29.199> we<00:07:29.440> could<00:07:29.520> point<00:07:29.759> to
It's easy to say that we could point to
a<00:07:30.000> lot<00:07:30.080> of<00:07:30.240> data.<00:07:31.039> I<00:07:31.360> I<00:07:31.680> think<00:07:31.759> maybe<00:07:32.000> that's
a lot of data. I I think maybe that's
the<00:07:32.400> topic<00:07:32.639> here.<00:07:32.880> I<00:07:33.039> think<00:07:33.120> there's<00:07:33.360> a<00:07:33.599> second
the topic here. I think there's a second
point<00:07:34.319> in<00:07:34.560> the<00:07:34.720> that<00:07:34.960> where<00:07:35.199> Coinbase<00:07:35.680> was
point in the that where Coinbase was
really<00:07:36.080> helpful.<00:07:36.400> It's<00:07:36.639> that<00:07:36.800> like<00:07:37.039> the<00:07:37.199> less
really helpful. It's that like the less
uh<00:07:38.000> dramatic<00:07:38.479> version<00:07:38.639> of<00:07:38.800> what<00:07:38.960> I<00:07:39.120> was
uh dramatic version of what I was
saying.<00:07:39.440> I<00:07:39.680> do<00:07:39.840> think<00:07:39.919> there's<00:07:40.160> a<00:07:40.319> second
saying. I do think there's a second
point<00:07:41.599> that<00:07:41.919> the<00:07:42.080> post<00:07:42.319> made<00:07:42.560> that<00:07:42.800> people
point that the post made that people
maybe<00:07:43.360> missed<00:07:44.240> which<00:07:44.479> is<00:07:44.639> that<00:07:45.360> as<00:07:45.599> we<00:07:46.000> round
maybe missed which is that as we round
into<00:07:46.639> the<00:07:46.880> second<00:07:47.120> half<00:07:47.360> of<00:07:47.680> 26,<00:07:49.120> folks<00:07:49.520> are
into the second half of 26, folks are
realizing<00:07:50.639> they<00:07:51.120> radically<00:07:51.599> ramped<00:07:51.919> up<00:07:52.080> their
realizing they radically ramped up their
AI<00:07:52.560> spend<00:07:52.880> on<00:07:53.120> product.<00:07:54.319> It<00:07:54.560> it<00:07:54.560> it<00:07:55.120> seems<00:07:55.440> to
AI spend on product. It it it seems to
have<00:07:56.000> worked<00:07:57.199> subjectively,<00:07:58.160> qualitatively,
have worked subjectively, qualitatively,
but<00:07:59.120> the<00:07:59.280> productivity<00:07:59.759> isn't<00:08:00.080> there<00:08:00.240> to
but the productivity isn't there to
justify<00:08:00.800> it.<00:08:01.360> I<00:08:01.599> think<00:08:01.680> that's<00:08:01.919> what<00:08:02.080> Brian
justify it. I think that's what Brian
was<00:08:02.639> really<00:08:02.960> saying.<00:08:03.440> He<00:08:03.599> wasn't<00:08:03.840> that<00:08:04.080> the
was really saying. He wasn't that the
data<00:08:04.560> didn't<00:08:04.720> say<00:08:04.800> it,<00:08:04.960> but<00:08:05.120> he's<00:08:05.360> like,
data didn't say it, but he's like,
"Listen,<00:08:06.560> if<00:08:06.720> if<00:08:07.039> we<00:08:07.199> had<00:08:07.440> shipped<00:08:07.759> so<00:08:08.000> many
"Listen, if if we had shipped so many
new<00:08:08.400> products<00:08:08.639> to<00:08:08.879> Coinbase,<00:08:09.360> if<00:08:09.520> our<00:08:09.680> product
new products to Coinbase, if our product
velocity<00:08:10.400> had<00:08:10.639> quintipled<00:08:11.280> because<00:08:11.520> our
velocity had quintipled because our
token<00:08:12.000> spend<00:08:12.319> quintipled,<00:08:12.960> I'm<00:08:13.120> all<00:08:13.280> in."
token spend quintipled, I'm all in."
Like,<00:08:14.160> if<00:08:14.319> that<00:08:14.479> flipped<00:08:14.800> him<00:08:14.960> around<00:08:15.120> from
Like, if that flipped him around from
minus<00:08:15.680> 30%<00:08:16.080> growth<00:08:16.319> to<00:08:16.479> plus<00:08:16.800> 30%<00:08:17.199> growth,<00:08:17.680> I
minus 30% growth to plus 30% growth, I
don't<00:08:18.000> think<00:08:18.080> we'd<00:08:18.319> be<00:08:18.639> we<00:08:18.879> he<00:08:19.039> might<00:08:19.120> have
don't think we'd be we he might have
still<00:08:19.440> done<00:08:19.599> what<00:08:19.759> he's<00:08:20.000> doing,<00:08:20.160> token
still done what he's doing, token
routing<00:08:20.800> a<00:08:20.960> model,<00:08:21.440> he<00:08:21.599> wouldn't<00:08:21.919> be<00:08:22.160> making
routing a model, he wouldn't be making
this<00:08:22.720> point.<00:08:22.960> I<00:08:23.280> think<00:08:23.360> if<00:08:23.599> you<00:08:23.680> look<00:08:23.840> across
this point. I think if you look across
even<00:08:25.280> any<00:08:25.520> of<00:08:25.599> our<00:08:25.840> port<00:08:26.160> many<00:08:26.319> of<00:08:26.479> our
even any of our port many of our
portfolio<00:08:27.039> companies<00:08:27.280> that<00:08:27.440> are<00:08:27.680> doing<00:08:27.919> well
portfolio companies that are doing well
that<00:08:29.120> are<00:08:29.360> not<00:08:29.919> purely<00:08:30.560> reselling<00:08:31.120> tokens,
that are not purely reselling tokens,
they're<00:08:32.320> coming<00:08:32.560> to<00:08:32.719> the<00:08:32.880> conclusion<00:08:33.120> that
they're coming to the conclusion that
I'm<00:08:33.599> not<00:08:33.680> quite<00:08:33.919> sure<00:08:34.000> what<00:08:34.159> the<00:08:34.320> hell<00:08:34.479> I<00:08:34.719> I
I'm not quite sure what the hell I I
know<00:08:34.959> I<00:08:35.120> want<00:08:35.279> to<00:08:35.440> do<00:08:35.599> this.<00:08:35.839> I<00:08:36.000> can't<00:08:36.159> put<00:08:36.240> the
know I want to do this. I can't put the
genie<00:08:36.719> back<00:08:36.880> in<00:08:37.039> the<00:08:37.120> bottle.<00:08:37.760> AI<00:08:38.159> is<00:08:38.399> great.
genie back in the bottle. AI is great.
Uh<00:08:39.519> but<00:08:39.760> it's<00:08:40.000> not<00:08:40.159> lines<00:08:40.560> of<00:08:40.719> code.<00:08:41.279> What<00:08:41.440> the
Uh but it's not lines of code. What the
hell?<00:08:42.000> And<00:08:42.159> and<00:08:42.479> so<00:08:42.640> many<00:08:42.800> folks<00:08:43.039> are<00:08:43.279> not
hell? And and so many folks are not
seeing<00:08:44.000> the<00:08:44.320> the<00:08:44.880> lift<00:08:45.680> from<00:08:46.000> net<00:08:46.320> revenue,
seeing the the lift from net revenue,
net<00:08:47.120> productivity<00:08:47.839> they<00:08:48.080> thought<00:08:48.399> from
net productivity they thought from
agentic<00:08:49.760> coding.<00:08:50.399> It<00:08:50.640> it's<00:08:50.880> almost<00:08:51.120> a
agentic coding. It it's almost a
conflict,<00:08:52.160> but<00:08:52.480> it's<00:08:52.720> something<00:08:52.959> we're<00:08:53.200> that
conflict, but it's something we're that
we're<00:08:53.839> all<00:08:54.000> going<00:08:54.080> to<00:08:54.160> have<00:08:54.240> to<00:08:54.320> deal<00:08:54.480> with<00:08:54.560> in
we're all going to have to deal with in
the<00:08:54.800> second<00:08:54.959> half.<00:08:55.200> And<00:08:55.279> it's<00:08:55.440> not<00:08:55.600> the<00:08:55.839> same
the second half. And it's not the same
as<00:08:56.240> cutting<00:08:56.560> costs.<00:08:56.959> It's<00:08:57.200> saying,<00:08:57.360> "Jesus,<00:08:57.920> I
as cutting costs. It's saying, "Jesus, I
spent<00:08:58.320> an<00:08:58.560> extra<00:08:58.880> 10<00:08:59.120> million<00:08:59.680> in<00:08:59.920> the<00:09:00.080> first
spent an extra 10 million in the first
half<00:09:00.399> of<00:09:00.480> the<00:09:00.720> year,<00:09:01.440> and<00:09:01.680> we<00:09:01.920> grew<00:09:02.160> the<00:09:02.399> same
half of the year, and we grew the same
as<00:09:02.720> we<00:09:02.880> did<00:09:03.040> the<00:09:03.200> prior<00:09:03.440> two<00:09:03.680> quarters."<00:09:04.080> Like,
as we did the prior two quarters." Like,
where's<00:09:04.560> the<00:09:04.640> lift,<00:09:04.959> boy?<00:09:05.200> Show<00:09:05.279> me<00:09:05.519> show<00:09:05.680> me
where's the lift, boy? Show me show me
the<00:09:06.000> lift,<00:09:06.399> right?<00:09:06.560> And<00:09:06.720> and<00:09:06.800> and<00:09:07.200> there<00:09:07.519> and
the lift, right? And and and there and
CFOs<00:09:08.320> are<00:09:08.480> struggling<00:09:08.720> with<00:09:08.880> that,<00:09:09.200> too.<00:09:09.839> Even
CFOs are struggling with that, too. Even
if<00:09:10.160> the<00:09:10.240> business,<00:09:10.480> my<00:09:10.640> point<00:09:10.800> is<00:09:10.959> even<00:09:11.120> if<00:09:11.279> the
if the business, my point is even if the
business<00:09:11.600> is<00:09:11.839> doing<00:09:12.000> well,<00:09:12.320> they're
business is doing well, they're
struggling<00:09:12.800> with<00:09:12.959> it<00:09:13.120> now.<00:09:13.481> [snorts]
struggling with it now. [snorts]
>> Yeah.<00:09:14.160> depending<00:09:14.560> on<00:09:14.720> the<00:09:14.959> company<00:09:15.760> this<00:09:16.000> AI
>> Yeah. depending on the company this AI
spend<00:09:16.720> on<00:09:16.959> engineering<00:09:17.839> if<00:09:18.000> you're<00:09:18.160> a
spend on engineering if you're a
software<00:09:18.720> company<00:09:19.120> it<00:09:19.279> should<00:09:19.519> credibly<00:09:20.000> give
software company it should credibly give
you<00:09:20.320> lift<00:09:20.880> revenue<00:09:21.279> lift<00:09:21.519> because<00:09:21.680> you're
you lift revenue lift because you're
making<00:09:22.080> more<00:09:22.560> the<00:09:22.800> thing<00:09:22.959> you<00:09:23.120> make<00:09:23.279> is
making more the thing you make is
software<00:09:24.000> you're<00:09:24.160> making<00:09:24.320> more<00:09:24.560> software<00:09:24.880> you
software you're making more software you
should<00:09:25.200> give<00:09:25.360> more<00:09:25.519> revenue<00:09:25.839> lift<00:09:26.160> or<00:09:26.320> if
should give more revenue lift or if
you're<00:09:26.560> a<00:09:26.640> digital<00:09:26.959> goods<00:09:27.200> company<00:09:27.440> so<00:09:27.680> you're
you're a digital goods company so you're
right<00:09:27.920> Jason<00:09:28.240> if<00:09:28.399> you're<00:09:28.560> Coinbase<00:09:28.959> you're
right Jason if you're Coinbase you're
like<00:09:29.440> I'd<00:09:29.680> like<00:09:29.760> to<00:09:29.920> have<00:09:30.000> seen<00:09:30.240> revenue<00:09:30.640> lift
like I'd like to have seen revenue lift
here<00:09:31.200> right<00:09:31.760> I<00:09:31.920> think<00:09:32.000> it's<00:09:32.240> even<00:09:32.480> applicable
here right I think it's even applicable
for<00:09:33.279> companies<00:09:33.839> the<00:09:34.000> further<00:09:34.320> you<00:09:34.480> are<00:09:34.640> from<00:09:34.800> a
for companies the further you are from a
digital<00:09:35.279> good<00:09:35.839> yeah<00:09:36.160> silly<00:09:36.480> example<00:09:37.040> if<00:09:37.279> you
digital good yeah silly example if you
have<00:09:37.519> a<00:09:37.839> tech<00:09:38.160> team<00:09:38.959> and<00:09:39.279> you're<00:09:40.160> um<00:09:40.399> a<00:09:40.640> car
have a tech team and you're um a car
manufacturer<00:09:41.360> going<00:09:41.519> back<00:09:41.680> to<00:09:41.760> it<00:09:41.920> again
manufacturer going back to it again
you're<00:09:42.320> not<00:09:42.399> going<00:09:42.480> to<00:09:42.560> get<00:09:42.640> a<00:09:42.800> whole<00:09:42.959> ton<00:09:43.120> of
you're not going to get a whole ton of
lift<00:09:43.440> from<00:09:43.680> your<00:09:43.839> extra<00:09:44.240> software<00:09:44.640> unless
lift from your extra software unless
you're<00:09:45.279> Tesla<00:09:45.680> with<00:09:45.839> FSD.<00:09:47.120> But<00:09:47.279> at<00:09:47.440> a<00:09:47.600> minimum,
you're Tesla with FSD. But at a minimum,
you<00:09:48.080> should<00:09:48.240> be<00:09:48.320> seeing<00:09:48.640> savings.<00:09:49.200> You<00:09:49.360> know,
you should be seeing savings. You know,
if<00:09:49.600> you<00:09:49.680> were<00:09:49.920> spending<00:09:50.320> 100<00:09:50.560> million<00:09:50.800> on
if you were spending 100 million on
software<00:09:51.279> and<00:09:51.440> now<00:09:51.600> you're<00:09:51.839> spending<00:09:52.080> 10
software and now you're spending 10
million<00:09:52.480> on<00:09:52.640> tokens,<00:09:53.200> at<00:09:53.360> a<00:09:53.519> minimum,<00:09:53.839> you
million on tokens, at a minimum, you
should<00:09:54.160> be<00:09:54.320> seeing<00:09:54.480> savings.<00:09:54.880> And<00:09:55.040> if<00:09:55.120> you're
should be seeing savings. And if you're
not<00:09:55.440> seeing<00:09:55.680> either,<00:09:56.399> you're<00:09:56.640> going<00:09:56.720> to<00:09:56.800> be
not seeing either, you're going to be
looking<00:09:57.120> at<00:09:57.279> this<00:09:57.440> with<00:09:57.600> a<00:09:57.760> pretty<00:09:57.920> jaundest
looking at this with a pretty jaundest
eye.<00:09:59.200> Yeah.<00:09:59.839> And<00:10:00.000> I<00:10:00.160> think<00:10:00.240> that's<00:10:00.399> what's
eye. Yeah. And I think that's what's
happening.<00:10:01.920> Yeah.<00:10:02.160> I<00:10:02.320> have<00:10:02.399> a<00:10:02.560> portfolio
happening. Yeah. I have a portfolio
company<00:10:03.279> that<00:10:03.600> that<00:10:04.000> is<00:10:05.200> every<00:10:05.519> number
company that that is every number
software<00:10:06.240> company,<00:10:06.640> every<00:10:06.800> number<00:10:07.040> is<00:10:07.200> green,
software company, every number is green,
right?<00:10:08.800> Way<00:10:09.120> overloaded<00:10:09.680> with<00:10:09.839> investors,
right? Way overloaded with investors,
way<00:10:10.720> overloaded<00:10:11.200> with<00:10:11.360> everything.<00:10:11.680> Hit<00:10:11.920> the
way overloaded with everything. Hit the
first<00:10:12.160> half<00:10:12.399> of<00:10:12.480> the<00:10:12.640> plan.<00:10:13.040> Everything's
first half of the plan. Everything's
great,<00:10:13.680> right?<00:10:13.839> You<00:10:14.000> would<00:10:14.079> love<00:10:14.240> all<00:10:14.399> all<00:10:14.640> the
great, right? You would love all all the
numbers.<00:10:16.000> Uh<00:10:16.399> but<00:10:16.640> at<00:10:16.800> the<00:10:16.959> last<00:10:17.120> board
numbers. Uh but at the last board
meeting,<00:10:17.920> they<00:10:18.160> came<00:10:18.240> in<00:10:18.399> and<00:10:18.640> wanted<00:10:18.800> to
meeting, they came in and wanted to
double<00:10:19.200> their<00:10:19.360> token<00:10:19.680> spend,<00:10:20.000> which<00:10:20.240> was
double their token spend, which was
massive<00:10:20.720> in<00:10:20.959> the<00:10:21.040> first<00:10:21.200> half<00:10:21.360> of<00:10:21.440> the<00:10:21.600> year.
massive in the first half of the year.
And<00:10:22.399> it<00:10:22.640> was<00:10:22.880> enough<00:10:23.200> to<00:10:23.360> to<00:10:23.760> move<00:10:23.920> the<00:10:24.160> burn
And it was enough to to move the burn
from<00:10:24.640> no<00:10:24.880> big<00:10:25.120> deal<00:10:25.279> to
from no big deal to
>> big<00:10:26.320> deal.<00:10:26.880> Even<00:10:27.120> even<00:10:27.440> for<00:10:27.600> a<00:10:27.839> company<00:10:28.079> in<00:10:28.320> the
>> big deal. Even even for a company in the
top<00:10:29.040> half<00:10:29.360> percent<00:10:29.839> even<00:10:30.079> folks<00:10:30.320> were<00:10:30.480> like
top half percent even folks were like
that's<00:10:30.880> a<00:10:31.040> lot<00:10:31.200> of<00:10:31.360> extra<00:10:31.680> budget<00:10:32.720> and<00:10:32.880> and<00:10:33.040> the
that's a lot of extra budget and and the
feed<00:10:33.600> for<00:10:33.760> the<00:10:34.000> first<00:10:34.160> time<00:10:34.399> the<00:10:34.640> board<00:10:34.880> was
feed for the first time the board was
like<00:10:35.680> okay<00:10:36.000> but<00:10:36.240> if<00:10:36.320> you<00:10:36.399> want<00:10:36.560> our<00:10:36.720> approval
like okay but if you want our approval
like<00:10:37.600> tie<00:10:37.839> it<00:10:38.000> to<00:10:38.160> ROI<00:10:39.040> and<00:10:39.360> this<00:10:39.680> amazing<00:10:40.079> team
like tie it to ROI and this amazing team
couldn't<00:10:40.640> they<00:10:40.880> they<00:10:41.120> couldn't<00:10:41.440> like<00:10:41.600> the<00:10:41.680> the
couldn't they they couldn't like the the
velocity<00:10:42.480> is<00:10:42.880> everyone<00:10:43.200> wants<00:10:43.440> to<00:10:43.600> invest<00:10:44.160> but
velocity is everyone wants to invest but
it<00:10:44.640> didn't<00:10:44.880> directly<00:10:45.279> tilt<00:10:45.600> the<00:10:45.760> curve.<00:10:46.079> So
it didn't directly tilt the curve. So
there<00:10:46.399> is<00:10:46.560> a<00:10:46.720> point<00:10:46.880> for<00:10:47.120> even<00:10:47.279> the<00:10:47.519> highest
there is a point for even the highest
flyers<00:10:49.279> where<00:10:49.600> you're<00:10:49.839> going<00:10:49.920> to<00:10:50.079> say<00:10:50.320> Jesus
flyers where you're going to say Jesus
you<00:10:50.959> got<00:10:51.120> to<00:10:51.360> I<00:10:51.600> got<00:10:51.760> to<00:10:52.000> see<00:10:52.160> the<00:10:52.320> ROI<00:10:53.279> and<00:10:53.519> I
you got to I got to see the ROI and I
think<00:10:53.839> that's<00:10:54.079> the<00:10:54.320> big<00:10:54.959> that's<00:10:55.279> just<00:10:55.440> time
think that's the big that's just time
you<00:10:56.000> know<00:10:56.160> we<00:10:56.320> went<00:10:56.480> to<00:10:56.640> token<00:10:57.040> maxing<00:10:57.519> where
you know we went to token maxing where
like<00:10:57.920> everyone<00:10:58.240> just<00:10:58.399> try<00:10:58.640> stuff<00:10:58.959> that<00:10:59.120> made
like everyone just try stuff that made
sense<00:10:59.839> right<00:11:00.800> um<00:11:00.959> and<00:11:01.279> that<00:11:01.519> led<00:11:01.839> to<00:11:02.880> the<00:11:03.200> early
sense right um and that led to the early
folks<00:11:03.760> that<00:11:04.000> got<00:11:04.160> whiplash<00:11:05.120> like<00:11:05.440> cursor
folks that got whiplash like cursor
having<00:11:06.160> to<00:11:06.240> go<00:11:06.399> open<00:11:06.720> source<00:11:06.959> really<00:11:07.200> early
having to go open source really early
and<00:11:07.600> that's<00:11:07.680> an<00:11:07.920> interesting<00:11:08.160> niche<00:11:08.399> issue<00:11:08.640> on
and that's an interesting niche issue on
X<00:11:09.120> but<00:11:09.279> the<00:11:09.440> real<00:11:09.600> issue<00:11:09.839> is<00:11:10.079> just<00:11:10.480> um<00:11:10.800> we<00:11:11.040> just
X but the real issue is just um we just
can't<00:11:11.519> show<00:11:11.839> enough<00:11:12.399> lift<00:11:12.880> from<00:11:13.200> this<00:11:13.440> spend
can't show enough lift from this spend
that<00:11:14.079> it's<00:11:14.320> going<00:11:14.399> to<00:11:14.480> stress<00:11:14.720> even<00:11:14.959> the<00:11:15.120> best
that it's going to stress even the best
of<00:11:15.360> us<00:11:15.519> not<00:11:15.760> just<00:11:15.920> Coinbase.<00:11:16.399> It's<00:11:16.480> going<00:11:16.560> to
of us not just Coinbase. It's going to
stress<00:11:16.880> everybody<00:11:17.200> and<00:11:17.600> so<00:11:17.839> be<00:11:17.920> it.<00:11:18.160> It's<00:11:18.480> It's
stress everybody and so be it. It's It's
time<00:11:18.800> for<00:11:19.040> the<00:11:19.200> next<00:11:19.360> mature<00:11:19.760> phase<00:11:20.399> of<00:11:20.640> token
time for the next mature phase of token
spending<00:11:21.360> and<00:11:21.519> software<00:11:21.839> development.<00:11:22.160> It's
spending and software development. It's
just<00:11:22.480> time,<00:11:22.640> boys,<00:11:23.040> to<00:11:23.827> [laughter]<00:11:24.000> to<00:11:24.240> grow
just time, boys, to [laughter] to grow
up,<00:11:24.800> right?
up, right?
>> If<00:11:25.360> you're<00:11:25.519> an<00:11:25.600> anthropic<00:11:26.160> shareholder,
>> If you're an anthropic shareholder,
though,<00:11:26.800> and<00:11:26.959> you<00:11:27.120> see<00:11:27.279> Dario<00:11:27.839> say,<00:11:28.000> "Hey,<00:11:28.640> we
though, and you see Dario say, "Hey, we
need<00:11:29.120> a<00:11:29.360> trillion<00:11:29.760> dollars<00:11:30.000> in<00:11:30.240> revenue<00:11:30.560> or
need a trillion dollars in revenue or
close<00:11:31.040> to<00:11:31.519> for<00:11:31.760> this<00:11:31.920> business<00:11:32.160> to<00:11:32.399> be<00:11:32.480> viable
close to for this business to be viable
or<00:11:32.959> we<00:11:33.120> will<00:11:33.279> be<00:11:33.440> bankrupt."<00:11:34.160> Maybe<00:11:34.399> he<00:11:34.560> says
or we will be bankrupt." Maybe he says
it<00:11:34.800> kind<00:11:34.959> of<00:11:35.120> superiliously<00:11:35.760> or<00:11:35.920> glibly,<00:11:36.320> but
it kind of superiliously or glibly, but
like<00:11:36.800> he<00:11:37.040> says<00:11:37.279> it.<00:11:37.839> And<00:11:38.000> then<00:11:38.240> you<00:11:38.399> see<00:11:38.560> the
like he says it. And then you see the
dominance<00:11:39.360> of<00:11:39.600> open<00:11:39.920> source<00:11:40.240> now<00:11:40.480> pervading
dominance of open source now pervading
into<00:11:41.279> a<00:11:41.440> lot<00:11:41.519> of<00:11:41.680> usage.<00:11:43.040> You<00:11:43.279> have<00:11:43.440> to<00:11:43.600> be
into a lot of usage. You have to be
concerned<00:11:44.079> that<00:11:44.320> it<00:11:44.480> will<00:11:44.640> cannibalize<00:11:45.279> that
concerned that it will cannibalize that
pathway<00:11:45.920> to<00:11:46.079> a<00:11:46.240> trillion<00:11:46.560> in<00:11:46.720> revenue.
pathway to a trillion in revenue.
>> You<00:11:47.839> at<00:11:47.920> least<00:11:48.240> some<00:11:48.480> concerns<00:11:49.040> which<00:11:49.279> will
>> You at least some concerns which will
say<00:11:49.839> yes<00:11:50.160> I<00:11:50.399> mean<00:11:50.959> which<00:11:51.200> will<00:11:51.440> segue<00:11:52.000> to<00:11:52.720> one
say yes I mean which will segue to one
is<00:11:53.200> going<00:11:53.360> to<00:11:53.440> be<00:11:53.519> in<00:11:53.680> part<00:11:53.920> our<00:11:54.160> discussion
is going to be in part our discussion
next<00:11:54.800> on<00:11:55.120> distillation<00:11:55.839> and<00:11:56.640> entropics
next on distillation and entropics
perspective<00:11:57.760> on<00:11:58.000> these<00:11:58.240> open<00:11:58.560> source
perspective on these open source
companies<00:11:59.120> stealing<00:11:59.440> their<00:11:59.680> IP<00:12:00.000> as<00:12:00.160> they
companies stealing their IP as they
would<00:12:00.480> say.<00:12:01.040> We<00:12:01.279> will<00:12:01.440> leave<00:12:01.600> the<00:12:01.760> irony<00:12:02.079> for<00:12:02.320> a
would say. We will leave the irony for a
later<00:12:02.720> discussion.<00:12:03.680> But<00:12:03.920> yeah,<00:12:04.160> I<00:12:04.399> mean<00:12:04.640> it<00:12:04.800> is
later discussion. But yeah, I mean it is
plausible<00:12:05.920> that<00:12:06.160> you<00:12:06.399> have<00:12:06.480> a<00:12:06.639> world<00:12:06.880> where
plausible that you have a world where
the<00:12:07.200> front<00:12:07.519> remember<00:12:08.000> even<00:12:08.240> if<00:12:08.399> the<00:12:08.560> bulk<00:12:08.880> of
the front remember even if the bulk of
the<00:12:09.200> tokens<00:12:09.760> are<00:12:10.000> generated<00:12:10.480> using<00:12:10.800> open
the tokens are generated using open
source<00:12:11.360> models,<00:12:11.680> it<00:12:11.839> is<00:12:11.920> plausible<00:12:12.240> that<00:12:12.480> the
source models, it is plausible that the
bulk<00:12:12.800> of<00:12:12.959> the<00:12:13.200> revenue<00:12:13.920> will<00:12:14.240> still<00:12:14.480> obviously
bulk of the revenue will still obviously
come<00:12:15.279> from<00:12:15.920> state-of-the-art<00:12:17.040> frontier
come from state-of-the-art frontier
models,<00:12:18.079> right?<00:12:18.639> So,<00:12:19.360> but<00:12:19.680> the<00:12:19.920> question<00:12:20.480> and
models, right? So, but the question and
therefore<00:12:21.040> there's<00:12:21.279> clearly<00:12:21.519> a<00:12:21.680> very<00:12:21.839> big
therefore there's clearly a very big
business<00:12:22.320> here,<00:12:22.720> right?<00:12:23.279> And<00:12:23.440> it's<00:12:23.680> and
business here, right? And it's and
that's<00:12:24.160> all<00:12:24.320> great.<00:12:24.720> It's<00:12:24.959> to<00:12:25.120> your<00:12:25.279> point,
that's all great. It's to your point,
Harry,<00:12:26.000> if<00:12:26.240> you've<00:12:26.720> constructed<00:12:27.200> your<00:12:27.440> world
Harry, if you've constructed your world
in<00:12:27.920> such<00:12:28.079> a<00:12:28.240> way<00:12:28.560> that<00:12:28.880> only<00:12:29.200> a<00:12:29.360> trillion
in such a way that only a trillion
dollars<00:12:30.000> is<00:12:30.320> good<00:12:30.480> enough<00:12:30.880> and<00:12:31.120> you<00:12:31.279> end<00:12:31.440> up
dollars is good enough and you end up
with<00:12:31.680> the<00:12:31.839> consolation<00:12:32.480> prize<00:12:32.959> of<00:12:33.519> half<00:12:33.760> a
with the consolation prize of half a
trillion<00:12:34.399> dollars,<00:12:35.279> right?<00:12:35.680> Which<00:12:35.839> is<00:12:36.000> still,
trillion dollars, right? Which is still,
you<00:12:36.560> know,<00:12:36.720> the<00:12:37.040> largest<00:12:37.600> company,<00:12:38.000> I<00:12:38.160> mean,
you know, the largest company, I mean,
I'm<00:12:38.399> just<00:12:38.480> trying<00:12:38.639> to<00:12:38.720> think<00:12:38.880> here,<00:12:39.120> either
I'm just trying to think here, either
the<00:12:39.600> second<00:12:39.760> or<00:12:40.000> third<00:12:40.240> largest<00:12:40.560> company<00:12:40.800> by
the second or third largest company by
revenue<00:12:41.440> on<00:12:41.600> the<00:12:41.760> planet,<00:12:41.920> and<00:12:42.079> it<00:12:42.240> would<00:12:42.399> be
revenue on the planet, and it would be
the<00:12:42.639> largest<00:12:42.959> digital<00:12:43.440> company<00:12:43.680> on<00:12:43.920> the
the largest digital company on the
planet.<00:12:44.720> If<00:12:44.959> that's<00:12:45.440> if<00:12:45.680> you<00:12:45.839> can<00:12:46.000> be<00:12:46.160> the
planet. If that's if you can be the
largest<00:12:46.880> tech<00:12:47.279> company<00:12:47.519> on<00:12:47.760> the<00:12:47.920> planet<00:12:48.079> and
largest tech company on the planet and
still<00:12:48.560> not<00:12:48.800> make<00:12:49.040> money,<00:12:49.519> you<00:12:49.680> might<00:12:49.839> have
still not make money, you might have
oversized<00:12:50.639> your<00:12:50.800> ambitions<00:12:51.279> a<00:12:51.519> little<00:12:51.600> and<00:12:51.839> it
might<00:12:52.160> pay<00:12:52.399> to<00:12:52.639> come<00:12:52.720> back<00:12:52.880> a<00:12:53.120> bit.<00:12:53.519> And<00:12:53.760> that's
might pay to come back a bit. And that's
exactly<00:12:54.399> right<00:12:54.639> is<00:12:54.880> that<00:12:55.440> there's<00:12:55.760> no<00:12:56.320> nothing
exactly right is that there's no nothing
in<00:12:56.880> this<00:12:57.120> Coinbase<00:12:57.680> memo<00:12:58.079> or<00:12:58.320> a<00:12:58.399> 100<00:12:58.800> Coinbase
in this Coinbase memo or a 100 Coinbase
memos<00:13:00.079> says<00:13:00.720> says<00:13:01.200> implies<00:13:01.760> anything<00:13:02.000> like<00:13:02.240> oh
memos says says implies anything like oh
my<00:13:02.560> god<00:13:02.720> these<00:13:02.959> are<00:13:03.120> not<00:13:03.279> going<00:13:03.360> to<00:13:03.440> be<00:13:03.600> amazing
my god these are not going to be amazing
companies<00:13:04.720> with<00:13:05.040> great<00:13:05.360> products<00:13:05.600> that<00:13:05.920> have
companies with great products that have
differentiation.<00:13:07.279> It's<00:13:07.519> just<00:13:07.680> as<00:13:07.920> you<00:13:08.079> say
differentiation. It's just as you say
correctly<00:13:09.040> if<00:13:09.279> you've<00:13:09.519> built<00:13:09.680> a<00:13:09.839> cost
correctly if you've built a cost
structure<00:13:10.399> and<00:13:10.480> a<00:13:10.639> capex<00:13:10.959> spend<00:13:11.200> that<00:13:11.440> you
structure and a capex spend that you
need<00:13:11.680> it<00:13:11.839> all<00:13:12.399> then<00:13:12.720> the<00:13:12.959> last<00:13:13.200> thing<00:13:13.360> you<00:13:13.519> need
need it all then the last thing you need
are<00:13:13.920> cheap<00:13:14.160> open<00:13:14.480> source<00:13:14.720> alternatives<00:13:15.279> at
are cheap open source alternatives at
1/5if<00:13:15.839> the<00:13:16.079> price.<00:13:16.399> Before<00:13:16.880> we<00:13:17.040> move<00:13:17.200> on<00:13:17.360> to
1/5if the price. Before we move on to
Anthropic's<00:13:18.399> perspective<00:13:18.800> on<00:13:19.120> distillation,
Anthropic's perspective on distillation,
Jason,<00:13:20.560> I<00:13:20.720> I<00:13:21.040> love<00:13:21.120> you,<00:13:21.360> my<00:13:21.519> friend,<00:13:21.680> but<00:13:22.240> what
Jason, I I love you, my friend, but what
do<00:13:22.639> you<00:13:22.800> want<00:13:22.959> from<00:13:23.200> these<00:13:23.519> CEOs<00:13:24.160> then?<00:13:24.800> Like,
do you want from these CEOs then? Like,
candidly,<00:13:26.399> he's<00:13:26.720> being<00:13:28.000> very<00:13:28.560> factual<00:13:29.200> and
candidly, he's being very factual and
innovative<00:13:30.000> in<00:13:30.320> how<00:13:30.480> he's<00:13:30.720> presenting<00:13:31.279> what
innovative in how he's presenting what
the<00:13:31.680> company<00:13:31.839> is<00:13:32.079> doing.<00:13:32.320> Like,<00:13:32.639> what<00:13:32.800> do<00:13:32.959> you
the company is doing. Like, what do you
want<00:13:33.200> from<00:13:33.360> him<00:13:33.600> to<00:13:33.760> just<00:13:33.920> shut<00:13:34.079> up<00:13:34.160> and<00:13:34.320> do<00:13:34.399> the
want from him to just shut up and do the
work?
>> I<00:13:35.040> want<00:13:35.120> to<00:13:35.279> see<00:13:35.440> how<00:13:35.839> AI<00:13:36.880> Listen,<00:13:37.200> I<00:13:37.440> value<00:13:37.680> the
>> I want to see how AI Listen, I value the
data.<00:13:38.320> Okay?<00:13:38.560> I'm<00:13:38.800> not<00:13:38.959> I'm<00:13:39.120> I'm<00:13:39.200> I'm<00:13:39.519> I'm<00:13:40.160> not
data. Okay? I'm not I'm I'm I'm I'm not
being<00:13:40.560> facitious.<00:13:41.200> I<00:13:41.360> do<00:13:41.519> feel<00:13:41.680> this<00:13:41.920> way.<00:13:42.399> I
being facitious. I do feel this way. I
value<00:13:42.880> the<00:13:43.040> data.<00:13:43.279> So,<00:13:43.440> I<00:13:43.600> appreciate<00:13:43.920> that.
value the data. So, I appreciate that.
But<00:13:44.800> I<00:13:44.880> I<00:13:45.200> want<00:13:45.279> to<00:13:45.440> see<00:13:45.519> how<00:13:45.760> AI<00:13:46.399> I<00:13:46.639> want<00:13:46.720> to<00:13:46.880> see
But I I want to see how AI I want to see
how<00:13:47.200> AI,<00:13:47.600> if<00:13:47.760> at<00:13:48.000> all,<00:13:48.480> can<00:13:48.800> give<00:13:49.120> Coinbase<00:13:49.839> a
how AI, if at all, can give Coinbase a
revenue<00:13:50.399> lift.<00:13:50.639> That's<00:13:50.800> what<00:13:50.880> I'd<00:13:51.040> like<00:13:51.120> to
revenue lift. That's what I'd like to
see.<00:13:51.760> Even<00:13:51.920> if<00:13:52.079> it's<00:13:52.320> just<00:13:52.639> them<00:13:52.959> I<00:13:53.200> mean,
see. Even if it's just them I mean,
listen,<00:13:53.600> Coinbase<00:13:54.079> is<00:13:54.240> subject<00:13:54.480> to<00:13:54.560> the<00:13:54.720> whims
listen, Coinbase is subject to the whims
of<00:13:55.120> the<00:13:55.279> crypto<00:13:55.600> market,<00:13:56.079> okay?<00:13:56.320> And<00:13:56.560> and
of the crypto market, okay? And and
investors<00:13:57.440> should<00:13:57.680> understand<00:13:58.000> that.<00:13:58.560> And
investors should understand that. And
when<00:13:58.959> crypto<00:13:59.600> roars<00:14:00.079> back,<00:14:00.480> Coinbase<00:14:00.959> has
when crypto roars back, Coinbase has
grown<00:14:01.440> at<00:14:01.680> rates<00:14:02.000> that<00:14:02.480> uh<00:14:02.560> are<00:14:02.880> almost
grown at rates that uh are almost
entropic<00:14:03.680> levels<00:14:03.920> for<00:14:04.160> brief<00:14:04.399> periods<00:14:04.639> of
entropic levels for brief periods of
time,<00:14:05.040> right?<00:14:05.279> So<00:14:05.440> So<00:14:05.680> it's<00:14:05.839> part<00:14:06.000> of<00:14:06.399> being<00:14:06.720> on
time, right? So So it's part of being on
a<00:14:07.120> non-recurring<00:14:07.920> revenue<00:14:08.320> journey<00:14:08.639> in<00:14:08.800> a
a non-recurring revenue journey in a
very<00:14:09.199> volatile<00:14:09.600> market.<00:14:10.240> But<00:14:10.399> I'd<00:14:10.639> love<00:14:10.800> to
very volatile market. But I'd love to
see<00:14:11.120> how<00:14:11.440> growth<00:14:11.760> is<00:14:12.000> 5%<00:14:12.560> higher<00:14:13.839> from<00:14:14.720> from<00:14:15.199> AI
see how growth is 5% higher from from AI
AI<00:14:16.240> something<00:14:16.560> in<00:14:16.800> crypto.<00:14:17.199> I'd<00:14:17.360> love<00:14:17.519> to<00:14:17.680> see
AI something in crypto. I'd love to see
how<00:14:18.800> it's<00:14:19.120> driving<00:14:19.440> up<00:14:19.680> insurance<00:14:20.160> premiums
how it's driving up insurance premiums
and<00:14:20.800> insur<00:14:21.120> I<00:14:21.199> mean<00:14:21.360> insurance<00:14:21.680> margins.<00:14:22.079> I
and insur I mean insurance margins. I
just<00:14:22.399> want<00:14:22.480> to<00:14:22.560> see<00:14:22.720> how<00:14:22.959> where<00:14:23.199> this<00:14:23.440> where
just want to see how where this where
this<00:14:24.079> um<00:14:24.320> magical<00:14:24.880> boost<00:14:25.279> is<00:14:25.760> from<00:14:26.720> from<00:14:27.120> this
this um magical boost is from from this
utility.<00:14:27.920> The<00:14:28.160> LLMs<00:14:28.720> are<00:14:28.800> a<00:14:29.040> utility,<00:14:29.440> right?
utility. The LLMs are a utility, right?
They're<00:14:29.839> tokens.<00:14:30.240> They're<00:14:30.399> they're<00:14:30.639> they're
They're tokens. They're they're they're
not<00:14:31.199> fungeible<00:14:31.760> utility.<00:14:32.160> Like<00:14:32.480> we're<00:14:32.720> kind
not fungeible utility. Like we're kind
of<00:14:32.880> teasing<00:14:33.199> at<00:14:33.440> whether<00:14:33.839> they're<00:14:34.160> becoming
of teasing at whether they're becoming
fungeible<00:14:35.120> utilities,<00:14:35.519> right?<00:14:35.680> Is<00:14:35.920> one<00:14:36.079> token
fungeible utilities, right? Is one token
replaceable<00:14:36.959> for<00:14:37.199> another<00:14:37.519> is<00:14:37.680> the<00:14:37.760> meta
replaceable for another is the meta
issue.<00:14:38.560> I<00:14:38.720> just<00:14:38.880> want<00:14:38.959> to<00:14:39.120> see<00:14:39.199> a<00:14:39.360> boost.<00:14:39.600> I<00:14:39.839> I'm
issue. I just want to see a boost. I I'm
tired<00:14:40.480> of<00:14:41.120> folks<00:14:41.440> like<00:14:41.600> Adobe<00:14:42.079> saying<00:14:42.320> we<00:14:42.560> have
tired of folks like Adobe saying we have
500<00:14:43.279> million<00:14:43.680> of<00:14:44.079> agentic<00:14:44.639> revenue<00:14:44.880> and
500 million of agentic revenue and
missing<00:14:45.360> the<00:14:45.519> quarter.<00:14:45.920> That's
missing the quarter. That's
performative,<00:14:46.880> too.<00:14:47.279> And<00:14:47.440> listen,<00:14:47.760> what
performative, too. And listen, what
would<00:14:48.079> I<00:14:48.240> be<00:14:48.320> doing<00:14:48.480> if<00:14:48.639> I<00:14:48.800> was<00:14:48.880> the<00:14:49.040> CEO<00:14:49.279> of<00:14:49.360> a
would I be doing if I was the CEO of a
company<00:14:49.760> not<00:14:50.079> accelerating<00:14:50.639> the<00:14:50.800> age<00:14:50.959> of<00:14:51.040> AI?
company not accelerating the age of AI?
Man,<00:14:52.320> I<00:14:52.480> might<00:14:52.639> be<00:14:52.720> doing<00:14:52.880> the<00:14:53.040> same,<00:14:53.199> but<00:14:53.360> I
Man, I might be doing the same, but I
don't<00:14:53.680> respect<00:14:54.000> it.<00:14:54.560> But<00:14:54.720> I<00:14:54.880> want<00:14:54.959> to<00:14:55.120> see<00:14:55.199> the
don't respect it. But I want to see the
real<00:14:55.600> boost.<00:14:55.920> I<00:14:56.320> Everyone's<00:14:56.880> faking
real boost. I Everyone's faking
everyone's<00:14:58.079> feeling<00:14:58.320> like<00:14:58.560> they<00:14:58.720> have<00:14:58.880> to<00:14:58.959> be
everyone's feeling like they have to be
part<00:14:59.279> of<00:14:59.360> the<00:14:59.519> AI<00:14:59.920> age,<00:15:00.560> but<00:15:00.880> they're<00:15:01.120> not
part of the AI age, but they're not
delivering,<00:15:01.839> Harry.<00:15:02.560> They're<00:15:02.800> they're<00:15:03.040> not
delivering, Harry. They're they're not
delivering.
>> I<00:15:03.839> want<00:15:03.920> to<00:15:04.160> applaud<00:15:04.639> Jason<00:15:04.959> for<00:15:05.120> his
>> I want to applaud Jason for his
consistency<00:15:06.000> and<00:15:06.160> disagree<00:15:06.639> slightly.<00:15:07.279> I
consistency and disagree slightly. I
think<00:15:07.600> you<00:15:08.000> first<00:15:08.160> of<00:15:08.240> all<00:15:08.480> I<00:15:08.639> give<00:15:08.800> you<00:15:08.959> credit
think you first of all I give you credit
you<00:15:09.279> have<00:15:09.440> been<00:15:09.600> remarkably<00:15:10.160> consistent<00:15:10.560> on
you have been remarkably consistent on
this<00:15:10.880> and<00:15:11.040> I'm<00:15:11.199> going<00:15:11.279> to<00:15:11.360> paraphrase<00:15:11.760> what
this and I'm going to paraphrase what
you're<00:15:12.160> saying<00:15:12.720> software<00:15:13.199> companies<00:15:13.600> in<00:15:13.760> the
you're saying software companies in the
age<00:15:14.079> of<00:15:14.240> AI<00:15:14.560> are<00:15:14.800> either<00:15:15.120> accelerating<00:15:15.680> or
age of AI are either accelerating or
irrelevant<00:15:17.040> and<00:15:17.199> you're<00:15:17.440> exactly<00:15:17.839> right.<00:15:18.240> I
irrelevant and you're exactly right. I
would<00:15:18.639> say<00:15:18.800> in<00:15:19.040> fairness<00:15:19.360> I'm<00:15:19.519> going<00:15:19.600> to<00:15:19.680> exa<00:15:20.079> I
would say in fairness I'm going to exa I
don't<00:15:20.399> think<00:15:20.560> crypto<00:15:20.959> gets<00:15:21.199> an<00:15:21.360> automatic
don't think crypto gets an automatic
lift<00:15:22.000> from<00:15:22.240> AI<00:15:22.480> so<00:15:22.639> I<00:15:22.800> think<00:15:22.880> you're<00:15:23.040> being<00:15:23.199> a
lift from AI so I think you're being a
bit<00:15:23.519> harsh<00:15:23.760> on<00:15:24.000> that<00:15:24.160> company<00:15:24.480> but<00:15:24.720> your<00:15:24.880> Adobe
bit harsh on that company but your Adobe
example<00:15:25.519> is<00:15:25.760> exactly<00:15:26.079> correct<00:15:26.720> and<00:15:26.880> it'll
example is exactly correct and it'll
come<00:15:27.360> actually<00:15:27.600> it'll<00:15:27.920> segue<00:15:28.240> to<00:15:28.399> the
come actually it'll segue to the
Microsoft<00:15:28.959> discussion<00:15:29.360> later<00:15:29.600> on.<00:15:30.000> I<00:15:30.240> do
Microsoft discussion later on. I do
agree<00:15:30.639> and<00:15:30.959> again<00:15:31.680> I<00:15:31.839> give<00:15:32.000> you<00:15:32.160> credit<00:15:32.399> for
agree and again I give you credit for
this<00:15:33.040> strong<00:15:33.360> principle<00:15:33.839> strongly<00:15:34.240> held.<00:15:34.800> Um
this strong principle strongly held. Um
if<00:15:35.440> you're<00:15:35.680> not<00:15:35.839> accelerating<00:15:36.480> in<00:15:36.720> the<00:15:36.800> age<00:15:36.959> of
if you're not accelerating in the age of
AI<00:15:37.839> and<00:15:38.079> you're<00:15:38.240> a<00:15:38.480> software<00:15:38.880> company,<00:15:39.360> you've
AI and you're a software company, you've
got<00:15:39.680> a<00:15:39.839> problem.<00:15:40.160> That's<00:15:40.320> your<00:15:40.560> point<00:15:40.720> and<00:15:40.880> I
got a problem. That's your point and I
think<00:15:41.120> you're<00:15:41.360> correct.<00:15:42.000> So<00:15:42.320> if<00:15:42.480> you<00:15:42.720> if<00:15:42.880> if<00:15:42.959> if
think you're correct. So if you if if if
that<00:15:43.600> tweet<00:15:43.839> let's<00:15:44.000> put<00:15:44.079> it<00:15:44.240> this<00:15:44.399> way,<00:15:44.480> if
that tweet let's put it this way, if
that<00:15:45.519> tweet<00:15:45.839> had<00:15:46.079> come<00:15:46.240> from<00:15:46.480> the<00:15:46.639> CEO<00:15:47.120> of
that tweet had come from the CEO of
Adobe,<00:15:48.160> you<00:15:48.320> would<00:15:48.480> be<00:15:48.560> totally<00:15:48.880> correct<00:15:49.120> in
Adobe, you would be totally correct in
saying<00:15:49.759> that's<00:15:50.160> great,<00:15:50.800> but<00:15:51.360> dude,<00:15:52.000> you<00:15:52.160> need
saying that's great, but dude, you need
more.<00:15:53.199> Exactly.<00:15:53.600> So<00:15:53.759> I<00:15:53.920> I<00:15:54.160> do<00:15:54.320> agree<00:15:54.480> with<00:15:54.639> you.
more. Exactly. So I I do agree with you.
I<00:15:55.040> I<00:15:55.360> would<00:15:55.440> exempt<00:15:55.759> Coinbase<00:15:56.320> from<00:15:56.480> that
I I would exempt Coinbase from that
because<00:15:57.040> I<00:15:57.199> lump<00:15:57.440> them<00:15:57.600> more<00:15:57.759> in<00:15:57.920> the
because I lump them more in the
financial<00:15:58.480> than<00:15:59.199> the<00:15:59.519> software<00:15:59.920> space.<00:16:00.480> But
financial than the software space. But
in<00:16:00.800> the<00:16:00.959> software<00:16:01.279> space,<00:16:01.519> you<00:16:01.680> are<00:16:01.839> correct.
in the software space, you are correct.
If<00:16:02.320> you're<00:16:02.399> not<00:16:02.560> getting<00:16:02.720> on<00:16:02.880> board<00:16:03.040> this
If you're not getting on board this
train,<00:16:03.519> you're<00:16:03.680> getting<00:16:03.839> left<00:16:04.000> behind.<00:16:05.040> Even
train, you're getting left behind. Even
sometimes,<00:16:05.680> and<00:16:05.920> I<00:16:06.079> love<00:16:06.160> them,<00:16:06.320> we<00:16:06.480> all<00:16:06.880> three
sometimes, and I love them, we all three
of<00:16:07.040> us<00:16:07.199> love<00:16:07.279> them.<00:16:07.519> Even<00:16:07.680> sometimes<00:16:08.079> for<00:16:08.160> a
of us love them. Even sometimes for a
while,<00:16:08.480> I<00:16:08.720> would<00:16:09.120> get<00:16:09.360> tired<00:16:09.600> of<00:16:09.839> Aaron<00:16:10.160> Levy's
while, I would get tired of Aaron Levy's
constant<00:16:11.279> AI<00:16:11.680> stuff.<00:16:12.320> But<00:16:12.639> but<00:16:12.959> but<00:16:13.199> to<00:16:13.440> answer
constant AI stuff. But but but to answer
your<00:16:13.839> question,<00:16:14.399> it<00:16:14.639> has<00:16:14.800> led<00:16:14.959> to<00:16:15.040> a<00:16:15.199> boost<00:16:15.440> at
your question, it has led to a boost at
Box.<00:16:16.000> It<00:16:16.160> hasn't<00:16:16.480> turned<00:16:16.720> box<00:16:17.120> into<00:16:17.360> a<00:16:17.519> 100%
Box. It hasn't turned box into a 100%
grower.<00:16:18.399> It's<00:16:18.639> gotten<00:16:18.800> it<00:16:19.040> back<00:16:19.120> to<00:16:19.279> double
grower. It's gotten it back to double
digit<00:16:19.839> growths.<00:16:20.880> Some<00:16:21.040> of<00:16:21.199> Aaron's<00:16:21.680> stuff<00:16:21.920> is
digit growths. Some of Aaron's stuff is
a<00:16:22.320> little<00:16:22.399> bit<00:16:22.639> too<00:16:23.040> to<00:16:23.279> me<00:16:23.360> and<00:16:23.519> I<00:16:24.000> and<00:16:24.160> I<00:16:24.320> we
a little bit too to me and I and I we
all<00:16:24.639> learn<00:16:24.800> from<00:16:24.959> it,<00:16:25.199> right?<00:16:25.440> Some<00:16:25.519> of<00:16:25.600> it's<00:16:25.839> a
all learn from it, right? Some of it's a
little<00:16:26.000> bit<00:16:26.160> too<00:16:26.399> AI<00:16:26.800> reflective,<00:16:27.279> but<00:16:27.519> he
little bit too AI reflective, but he
ties<00:16:27.839> it<00:16:28.000> to<00:16:28.240> his<00:16:28.480> revenue<00:16:28.800> and<00:16:28.959> his<00:16:29.120> plan.
ties it to his revenue and his plan.
He's<00:16:29.519> like,<00:16:29.759> "This<00:16:30.079> is<00:16:30.160> how<00:16:30.320> it<00:16:30.399> worked<00:16:30.560> at
He's like, "This is how it worked at
Box.<00:16:31.199> We're<00:16:31.440> processing<00:16:32.000> documents.<00:16:32.480> We're
Box. We're processing documents. We're
processing<00:16:33.120> content.<00:16:33.600> Here's<00:16:33.839> how<00:16:34.000> it
processing content. Here's how it
literally<00:16:34.880> ties<00:16:35.199> to<00:16:35.440> our<00:16:35.680> business<00:16:36.000> model."
literally ties to our business model."
So,<00:16:37.920> it's<00:16:38.160> okay<00:16:38.320> if<00:16:38.560> some<00:16:38.720> of<00:16:38.800> it<00:16:38.959> is<00:16:39.040> is<00:16:39.360> a
So, it's okay if some of it is is a
little<00:16:39.759> bit<00:16:40.160> um<00:16:40.720> uh<00:16:41.120> performative.<00:16:41.839> I<00:16:42.000> I<00:16:42.320> give
little bit um uh performative. I I give
if<00:16:42.959> but<00:16:43.120> I<00:16:43.360> I<00:16:43.600> give<00:16:43.680> Aaron<00:16:44.240> a<00:16:44.480> huge<00:16:45.199> thumbs<00:16:45.440> up
if but I I give Aaron a huge thumbs up
on<00:16:45.759> it,<00:16:45.920> but<00:16:46.079> the<00:16:46.240> Brian<00:16:46.560> one<00:16:46.800> I<00:16:46.959> just<00:16:47.199> Anyhow,
on it, but the Brian one I just Anyhow,
it's<00:16:47.839> all<00:16:47.920> good.<00:16:48.320> It's<00:16:48.480> great<00:16:48.639> to<00:16:48.800> have<00:16:48.880> the
it's all good. It's great to have the
data.<00:16:49.759> I<00:16:50.079> just<00:16:50.320> have<00:16:50.399> a<00:16:50.639> little<00:16:51.120> I<00:16:51.360> I<00:16:51.759> just
data. I just have a little I I just
become<00:16:52.240> a<00:16:52.480> skeptic<00:16:53.360> when<00:16:53.680> it's<00:16:53.839> not<00:16:54.000> tied<00:16:54.240> to
become a skeptic when it's not tied to
their<00:16:54.560> business.<00:16:54.880> That's<00:16:55.040> all.<00:16:55.279> I'm<00:16:55.440> a
their business. That's all. I'm a
skeptic<00:16:56.000> of<00:16:56.480> what<00:16:56.720> what<00:16:57.040> the<00:16:57.440> um<00:16:58.000> what<00:16:58.240> the
skeptic of what what the um what the
goal<00:16:58.639> is<00:16:58.800> here.<00:16:59.120> That's<00:16:59.279> all.<00:16:59.680> You<00:16:59.839> know,<00:17:00.000> Rory
goal is here. That's all. You know, Rory
Jason<00:17:00.720> is<00:17:00.959> not<00:17:01.120> only<00:17:01.279> consistent,<00:17:01.759> but<00:17:02.000> he's
Jason is not only consistent, but he's
also<00:17:02.800> precient<00:17:03.279> in<00:17:03.519> being<00:17:03.680> ahead<00:17:04.000> of<00:17:04.160> the
also precient in being ahead of the
times<00:17:04.720> because<00:17:05.039> he's<00:17:05.439> also<00:17:06.000> cited<00:17:06.480> his<00:17:07.360> I
times because he's also cited his I
don't<00:17:07.679> know<00:17:07.679> if<00:17:07.839> I<00:17:08.000> could<00:17:08.079> say<00:17:08.319> disliking,<00:17:08.880> but
don't know if I could say disliking, but
his<00:17:09.679> favoring<00:17:10.160> now<00:17:10.400> Sam<00:17:10.720> and<00:17:10.880> Open<00:17:11.120> AAI<00:17:11.439> over
his favoring now Sam and Open AAI over
Anthropic<00:17:12.400> and<00:17:12.559> his<00:17:12.720> kind<00:17:12.880> of<00:17:13.199> boredom<00:17:13.679> of
Anthropic and his kind of boredom of
Dario<00:17:14.720> saying<00:17:14.959> that<00:17:15.120> we're<00:17:15.199> all<00:17:15.360> going<00:17:15.439> to
Dario saying that we're all going to
lose<00:17:15.760> our<00:17:15.919> jobs.<00:17:16.480> It<00:17:16.640> seems<00:17:16.880> the<00:17:17.120> world
lose our jobs. It seems the world
doesn't<00:17:17.520> like<00:17:17.760> Dario<00:17:18.319> right<00:17:18.480> now.<00:17:18.799> And<00:17:18.959> Dario
doesn't like Dario right now. And Dario
has<00:17:20.160> uh<00:17:20.400> continued<00:17:20.799> to<00:17:20.959> whine.<00:17:21.600> Uh<00:17:21.839> sorry,
has uh continued to whine. Uh sorry,
that's<00:17:22.240> unfair.<00:17:22.559> And<00:17:22.720> Rory<00:17:23.039> did<00:17:23.280> not<00:17:23.439> say
that's unfair. And Rory did not say
that.<00:17:24.079> Dario<00:17:24.640> has<00:17:24.880> criticized<00:17:25.679> Chinese
that. Dario has criticized Chinese
models<00:17:27.520> for<00:17:27.839> stealing,<00:17:28.400> for<00:17:28.799> brazen<00:17:29.440> theft<00:17:30.400> of
models for stealing, for brazen theft of
their<00:17:30.960> work<00:17:31.360> through<00:17:31.679> distillation<00:17:32.240> of<00:17:32.400> their
their work through distillation of their
models.<00:17:33.760> How<00:17:34.000> do<00:17:34.160> we<00:17:34.559> respond<00:17:35.360> and<00:17:35.679> think
models. How do we respond and think
about<00:17:36.640> anthropics<00:17:37.360> commentary<00:17:37.919> on<00:17:38.240> whether
about anthropics commentary on whether
or<00:17:39.600> not<00:17:40.640> Chinese<00:17:41.120> models<00:17:41.520> are<00:17:41.919> stealing<00:17:42.240> their
or not Chinese models are stealing their
>> Sure.<00:17:43.520> I<00:17:43.679> mean,<00:17:43.840> you<00:17:44.000> have<00:17:44.080> to<00:17:44.240> power<00:17:44.640> through
>> Sure. I mean, you have to power through
the<00:17:45.120> irony<00:17:45.600> before<00:17:45.919> you<00:17:46.160> can<00:17:46.320> have<00:17:46.480> the
the irony before you can have the
discussion.<00:17:47.200> And<00:17:47.360> we<00:17:47.600> all<00:17:47.760> understand<00:17:48.160> the
discussion. And we all understand the
irony<00:17:49.039> which<00:17:49.280> is<00:17:49.520> all<00:17:49.679> the<00:17:49.840> foundation<00:17:50.320> models
irony which is all the foundation models
including<00:17:51.200> Entropic<00:17:52.000> were<00:17:52.320> trained<00:17:52.559> on<00:17:52.799> other
including Entropic were trained on other
people's<00:17:53.440> IP<00:17:54.240> to<00:17:54.400> the<00:17:54.559> point<00:17:54.720> where<00:17:54.880> Entropic
people's IP to the point where Entropic
recently<00:17:55.919> settled<00:17:56.320> litigation<00:17:57.200> with<00:17:57.440> a<00:17:57.600> whole
recently settled litigation with a whole
bunch<00:17:57.840> of<00:17:58.000> copyright<00:17:58.480> holders<00:17:58.799> on<00:17:58.960> books
bunch of copyright holders on books
because<00:18:00.080> they<00:18:00.320> had<00:18:00.559> quote<00:18:00.880> unquote<00:18:01.280> unfairly
because they had quote unquote unfairly
to<00:18:02.080> use<00:18:02.240> Dario's<00:18:02.799> word<00:18:03.039> applied<00:18:03.360> to<00:18:03.520> Chinese
to use Dario's word applied to Chinese
leverage<00:18:04.400> their<00:18:04.640> intellectual<00:18:05.200> property.<00:18:05.679> So
leverage their intellectual property. So
the<00:18:06.480> I<00:18:06.799> do<00:18:06.960> admire<00:18:07.360> the<00:18:07.520> element<00:18:07.840> of<00:18:08.000> hypocrisy
the I do admire the element of hypocrisy
of<00:18:09.039> being<00:18:09.200> appalled<00:18:09.600> when<00:18:09.840> someone<00:18:10.000> else<00:18:10.240> does
of being appalled when someone else does
it<00:18:10.559> to<00:18:10.640> you<00:18:10.799> or<00:18:11.039> having<00:18:11.200> done<00:18:11.360> it<00:18:11.520> to<00:18:11.679> other
it to you or having done it to other
people<00:18:12.080> yourselves.<00:18:13.039> Be<00:18:13.280> that<00:18:13.520> as<00:18:13.760> it<00:18:13.919> may,
people yourselves. Be that as it may,
let's<00:18:14.480> move<00:18:14.559> on<00:18:14.799> from<00:18:14.960> that.<00:18:15.200> just<00:18:15.440> wallow<00:18:15.760> in
let's move on from that. just wallow in
a<00:18:16.160> second<00:18:16.400> but<00:18:16.559> then<00:18:16.799> move<00:18:16.960> on<00:18:17.600> is<00:18:17.840> it<00:18:18.320> you<00:18:18.480> know
a second but then move on is it you know
what's<00:18:19.520> happening<00:18:19.840> again<00:18:20.240> stepping<00:18:20.559> back<00:18:20.720> for
what's happening again stepping back for
folks<00:18:21.200> is<00:18:22.080> the<00:18:22.400> allegation<00:18:23.039> which<00:18:23.360> actually
folks is the allegation which actually
dar<00:18:25.039> also<00:18:25.360> which<00:18:25.600> entropic<00:18:26.240> let's<00:18:26.400> not
dar also which entropic let's not
personalize<00:18:26.960> it<00:18:27.120> entropic<00:18:27.679> the<00:18:27.840> company<00:18:28.080> said
personalize it entropic the company said
actually<00:18:28.480> in<00:18:28.640> a<00:18:28.720> letter<00:18:28.880> to<00:18:29.039> the<00:18:29.200> senate
actually in a letter to the senate
banking<00:18:29.840> committee<00:18:30.160> recently<00:18:30.880> that
banking committee recently that
basically<00:18:31.760> the<00:18:32.000> Chinese<00:18:32.400> open<00:18:32.720> source
basically the Chinese open source
companies<00:18:33.360> are<00:18:33.600> bootstrapping<00:18:34.880> their<00:18:35.840> um
companies are bootstrapping their um
development<00:18:36.960> of<00:18:37.120> of<00:18:37.600> their<00:18:37.919> state-of-the-art
development of of their state-of-the-art
models<00:18:39.039> by<00:18:40.080> effectively<00:18:40.559> breaching<00:18:40.880> the
models by effectively breaching the
terms<00:18:41.280> of<00:18:41.440> service<00:18:41.679> of<00:18:41.840> Antropic<00:18:42.400> and<00:18:42.559> sending
terms of service of Antropic and sending
literally<00:18:43.280> millions<00:18:43.600> of<00:18:44.320> prompts<00:18:44.640> to
literally millions of prompts to
Entropic<00:18:45.520> recording<00:18:45.919> the<00:18:46.160> answers<00:18:46.720> and<00:18:46.960> using
Entropic recording the answers and using
that<00:18:47.440> as<00:18:47.760> training<00:18:48.160> data<00:18:48.480> to<00:18:48.720> start<00:18:49.039> training
that as training data to start training
their<00:18:49.600> models.<00:18:50.480> It's<00:18:50.720> basically<00:18:51.200> taking<00:18:51.600> and
their models. It's basically taking and
to<00:18:52.080> some<00:18:52.240> extent<00:18:52.480> they<00:18:52.640> would<00:18:52.799> say<00:18:52.880> it's
to some extent they would say it's
taking<00:18:53.919> yeah<00:18:54.160> Anthropic's<00:18:54.799> IP<00:18:55.440> and<00:18:55.679> using<00:18:55.919> it
taking yeah Anthropic's IP and using it
to<00:18:56.320> build<00:18:56.480> open<00:18:56.799> source<00:18:57.039> models<00:18:57.360> which<00:18:57.600> then
to build open source models which then
compete<00:18:58.160> against<00:18:58.400> them.<00:18:58.960> So<00:18:59.200> that's<00:18:59.360> the<00:18:59.600> kind
compete against them. So that's the kind
of<00:18:59.919> comment<00:19:00.240> here,<00:19:00.640> right?<00:19:01.440> And<00:19:02.640> it's<00:19:03.039> and<00:19:03.360> so
of comment here, right? And it's and so
yeah,<00:19:04.160> so<00:19:04.400> other<00:19:04.640> than<00:19:04.799> so<00:19:05.039> what<00:19:05.280> and<00:19:05.600> how
yeah, so other than so what and how
that's<00:19:06.160> funny,<00:19:06.880> right?<00:19:07.360> What<00:19:07.679> happens<00:19:07.919> after
that's funny, right? What happens after
that?<00:19:08.559> Well,<00:19:08.720> the<00:19:08.880> first<00:19:09.039> thing<00:19:09.120> is<00:19:09.679> the<00:19:09.919> main
that? Well, the first thing is the main
thing<00:19:10.320> is<00:19:10.559> is<00:19:10.720> it<00:19:10.960> illegal,<00:19:11.600> right?<00:19:11.760> And<00:19:12.000> the
thing is is it illegal, right? And the
interesting<00:19:12.400> thing<00:19:12.480> here<00:19:12.640> is<00:19:12.880> it's<00:19:13.039> clearly
interesting thing here is it's clearly
in<00:19:13.440> breach<00:19:13.600> of<00:19:13.760> Entropic's<00:19:14.320> terms<00:19:14.559> of<00:19:14.720> service
in breach of Entropic's terms of service
and<00:19:15.440> that's<00:19:15.679> very<00:19:16.000> clearly<00:19:16.400> expressed,
and that's very clearly expressed,
right?<00:19:17.360> But<00:19:17.520> that's<00:19:17.679> not<00:19:17.919> a<00:19:18.000> legal<00:19:18.480> that's<00:19:18.720> a
right? But that's not a legal that's a
contractual<00:19:19.840> problem<00:19:20.240> between<00:19:20.640> Entropic<00:19:21.360> and
contractual problem between Entropic and
the<00:19:21.679> Chinese<00:19:22.080> model<00:19:22.400> companies,<00:19:22.799> and<00:19:22.960> they're
the Chinese model companies, and they're
more<00:19:23.280> than<00:19:23.440> welcome<00:19:23.679> to<00:19:23.840> sue<00:19:24.080> each<00:19:24.240> other<00:19:24.960> in,
more than welcome to sue each other in,
you<00:19:25.679> know,<00:19:26.240> you<00:19:26.480> knock<00:19:26.720> yourself<00:19:27.039> out<00:19:27.280> in
you know, you knock yourself out in
Beijing.<00:19:28.000> Good<00:19:28.240> luck<00:19:28.320> with<00:19:28.480> the<00:19:28.640> lawsuit,
Beijing. Good luck with the lawsuit,
dude.<00:19:29.520> Right.<00:19:29.919> I<00:19:30.160> think<00:19:30.240> the<00:19:30.559> interesting
dude. Right. I think the interesting
thing<00:19:31.200> and<00:19:31.440> that's<00:19:31.600> why<00:19:31.760> the<00:19:31.919> Senate<00:19:32.240> Banking
thing and that's why the Senate Banking
Committee<00:19:33.120> thing<00:19:33.600> is<00:19:33.919> interesting<00:19:34.400> is<00:19:35.760> you
Committee thing is interesting is you
could<00:19:36.240> imagine<00:19:36.640> a<00:19:36.880> world<00:19:37.120> where<00:19:37.440> cuz<00:19:38.559> as<00:19:38.799> well
could imagine a world where cuz as well
as<00:19:39.120> just<00:19:39.360> being<00:19:39.520> in<00:19:39.679> breach<00:19:39.840> of<00:19:40.000> terms<00:19:40.240> of
as just being in breach of terms of
service,<00:19:40.799> it<00:19:41.039> is<00:19:41.200> also<00:19:41.520> arguable<00:19:41.919> that<00:19:42.160> you
service, it is also arguable that you
have<00:19:42.480> copyright<00:19:43.039> issues<00:19:43.520> and<00:19:43.760> our<00:19:44.000> trade
have copyright issues and our trade
secrets<00:19:44.799> acts<00:19:45.440> and<00:19:45.679> they<00:19:45.919> go<00:19:46.480> above<00:19:46.960> the<00:19:47.200> level
secrets acts and they go above the level
of<00:19:47.679> contractual<00:19:49.120> and<00:19:49.360> then<00:19:49.679> start<00:19:49.840> to<00:19:50.080> get
of contractual and then start to get
into<00:19:50.480> actual<00:19:50.880> leg,<00:19:51.200> you<00:19:51.360> know,<00:19:51.520> kind<00:19:51.679> of<00:19:52.320> legal
into actual leg, you know, kind of legal
issues<00:19:52.799> that<00:19:52.960> the<00:19:53.120> government<00:19:53.360> might<00:19:53.520> take<00:19:53.679> an
issues that the government might take an
interest<00:19:54.080> in.<00:19:54.640> Or<00:19:54.799> maybe<00:19:55.039> at<00:19:55.200> its<00:19:55.440> most
interest in. Or maybe at its most
extreme,<00:19:56.559> I<00:19:56.799> could<00:19:56.960> see<00:19:57.120> Entropic<00:19:57.840> saying<00:19:58.000> to
extreme, I could see Entropic saying to
the<00:19:58.320> government,<00:19:58.640> hey,<00:19:59.120> these<00:19:59.440> are<00:19:59.600> strategic
the government, hey, these are strategic
US<00:20:00.400> assets,
US assets,
um,<00:20:02.400> you<00:20:02.559> know,<00:20:02.880> we're<00:20:03.360> getting<00:20:03.679> regulated
um, you know, we're getting regulated
separately<00:20:04.799> on<00:20:05.120> how<00:20:05.280> we<00:20:05.520> produce<00:20:05.760> our
separately on how we produce our
products.<00:20:06.880> You've<00:20:07.200> got<00:20:07.280> to<00:20:07.520> stick<00:20:07.760> up<00:20:07.919> for<00:20:08.160> us
products. You've got to stick up for us
and<00:20:08.640> say,<00:20:09.039> you're<00:20:09.280> not<00:20:09.440> going<00:20:09.520> to<00:20:09.600> let<00:20:09.760> this
and say, you're not going to let this
happen<00:20:10.160> and<00:20:10.400> put<00:20:10.559> the<00:20:10.720> full<00:20:10.880> weight<00:20:11.200> of<00:20:11.360> the<00:20:11.600> US
happen and put the full weight of the US
government<00:20:12.160> behind<00:20:12.480> it.<00:20:13.039> And<00:20:13.280> that<00:20:13.520> takes
government behind it. And that takes
what<00:20:14.080> was<00:20:14.320> a<00:20:14.559> contractual<00:20:15.200> dispute<00:20:15.600> between
what was a contractual dispute between
two<00:20:16.160> parties<00:20:17.120> and<00:20:17.440> makes<00:20:17.600> it<00:20:17.840> the<00:20:18.000> US
two parties and makes it the US
government<00:20:18.640> putting<00:20:18.880> the<00:20:19.039> thumb<00:20:19.200> on<00:20:19.360> the
government putting the thumb on the
scales.<00:20:19.840> And<00:20:19.919> I<00:20:20.160> clearly<00:20:20.400> that's<00:20:20.559> what
scales. And I clearly that's what
they're<00:20:20.880> angling<00:20:21.280> for.<00:20:21.919> Like<00:20:22.240> going<00:20:22.480> back<00:20:22.559> to
they're angling for. Like going back to
the<00:20:22.799> Coinbase<00:20:23.280> com,<00:20:23.760> what<00:20:24.000> happens<00:20:24.320> if<00:20:24.559> in
the Coinbase com, what happens if in
return<00:20:25.200> for<00:20:26.320> mythos<00:20:27.600> kind<00:20:27.840> of<00:20:28.080> complying<00:20:28.640> with
return for mythos kind of complying with
US<00:20:29.360> government<00:20:29.760> restrictions<00:20:30.240> on<00:20:30.559> overseas
US government restrictions on overseas
access,<00:20:31.840> the<00:20:32.000> quidd<00:20:32.400> proquo<00:20:32.960> in<00:20:33.200> the<00:20:33.360> next
access, the quidd proquo in the next
piece<00:20:33.679> of<00:20:33.840> legislation<00:20:34.559> is
piece of legislation is
no<00:20:36.480> Chinese<00:20:37.039> model<00:20:37.360> that<00:20:37.679> has<00:20:37.919> been<00:20:38.080> proven<00:20:38.480> in
no Chinese model that has been proven in
a<00:20:38.880> US<00:20:39.200> court<00:20:39.440> of<00:20:39.600> law<00:20:40.159> to<00:20:40.480> distill<00:20:40.960> using<00:20:41.520> US
a US court of law to distill using US
foundation<00:20:42.400> model<00:20:42.799> technology<00:20:43.520> can<00:20:43.840> be<00:20:43.919> used
foundation model technology can be used
by<00:20:44.320> a<00:20:44.559> US<00:20:44.880> company.<00:20:45.760> It's<00:20:46.000> not<00:20:46.240> crazy.<00:20:46.640> This<00:20:46.799> is
by a US company. It's not crazy. This is
the<00:20:47.200> kind<00:20:47.440> of<00:20:47.600> So<00:20:47.840> I<00:20:48.080> you<00:20:48.240> can<00:20:48.400> see<00:20:48.559> where<00:20:48.720> they
the kind of So I you can see where they
want<00:20:49.039> to<00:20:49.200> go.<00:20:49.600> I<00:20:49.840> mean,<00:20:50.080> they're<00:20:50.320> not<00:20:50.480> just
want to go. I mean, they're not just
kind<00:20:50.880> of<00:20:50.960> crying<00:20:51.280> because<00:20:51.520> it's<00:20:51.760> unfair<00:20:52.720> in<00:20:52.960> my
kind of crying because it's unfair in my
view.<00:20:53.360> They're<00:20:53.679> laying<00:20:53.919> the<00:20:54.080> pipe<00:20:54.880> for<00:20:55.120> a<00:20:55.280> set
view. They're laying the pipe for a set
of<00:20:55.600> trades<00:20:56.400> to<00:20:56.720> push<00:20:56.960> back<00:20:57.120> on<00:20:57.280> this<00:20:57.520> open
of trades to push back on this open
store<00:20:58.080> stuff<00:20:58.320> if<00:20:58.559> they're<00:20:59.120> in<00:20:59.280> fact<00:20:59.520> viewing
store stuff if they're in fact viewing
distillation.<00:21:00.400> So,<00:21:00.559> that's<00:21:00.720> I<00:21:00.960> think<00:21:01.200> the
distillation. So, that's I think the
what's<00:21:01.760> going<00:21:01.919> on<00:21:02.080> here.<00:21:02.720> That's<00:21:02.880> what<00:21:03.039> I<00:21:03.200> I
what's going on here. That's what I I
I'm<00:21:03.760> not<00:21:04.159> claiming<00:21:04.480> to<00:21:04.559> be<00:21:04.799> that<00:21:04.960> that's<00:21:05.120> what
I'm not claiming to be that that's what
I<00:21:05.360> I<00:21:05.760> whether<00:21:06.320> to<00:21:06.559> to<00:21:06.640> to<00:21:07.039> Harry's<00:21:07.360> point
I I whether to to to Harry's point
whether<00:21:07.840> he's<00:21:08.480> no<00:21:08.640> longer<00:21:08.960> become<00:21:09.200> a
whether he's no longer become a
successful<00:21:09.919> communicator<00:21:10.640> right<00:21:10.960> at<00:21:11.200> this
successful communicator right at this
point.<00:21:11.919> Whether<00:21:12.159> the<00:21:12.559> uh<00:21:12.720> whether<00:21:13.039> the<00:21:13.520> spite
point. Whether the uh whether the spite
startup<00:21:14.320> vibe<00:21:14.720> of<00:21:14.960> we're<00:21:15.120> the<00:21:15.280> safe<00:21:15.600> guys<00:21:15.919> has
startup vibe of we're the safe guys has
expired<00:21:16.720> and<00:21:16.960> led<00:21:17.120> to<00:21:17.280> conflict<00:21:17.679> with<00:21:17.840> Trump.
expired and led to conflict with Trump.
Putting<00:21:18.400> that<00:21:18.559> aside,<00:21:19.440> I<00:21:19.600> think<00:21:19.679> he<00:21:19.919> wants<00:21:20.080> the
Putting that aside, I think he wants the
models<00:21:20.559> banned<00:21:20.880> for<00:21:21.120> use<00:21:21.280> by<00:21:21.520> US<00:21:21.760> companies.
models banned for use by US companies.
The<00:21:22.159> chi<00:21:22.400> I<00:21:22.559> think<00:21:22.640> he<00:21:22.799> wants<00:21:23.039> Chinese<00:21:23.360> models
The chi I think he wants Chinese models
banned<00:21:24.000> for<00:21:24.159> use<00:21:24.320> by<00:21:24.559> US<00:21:24.799> companies.<00:21:25.200> And<00:21:25.360> I
banned for use by US companies. And I
think<00:21:26.080> in<00:21:26.320> an<00:21:26.480> area<00:21:26.880> in<00:21:27.120> an<00:21:27.360> era<00:21:27.520> where<00:21:28.000> SBF<00:21:28.480> may
think in an area in an era where SBF may
get<00:21:28.880> pardoned,<00:21:29.360> the<00:21:29.600> founder<00:21:29.840> of<00:21:29.919> Binance
get pardoned, the founder of Binance
already<00:21:30.640> got<00:21:30.799> pardoned.<00:21:31.200> This<00:21:31.360> is<00:21:31.440> pretty
already got pardoned. This is pretty
imaginable.<00:21:32.320> I<00:21:32.559> think<00:21:32.640> it<00:21:32.799> might<00:21:32.960> be
imaginable. I think it might be
perfectly<00:21:33.440> logical<00:21:33.679> for<00:21:33.840> them<00:21:34.000> to<00:21:34.159> get<00:21:34.240> around
perfectly logical for them to get around
the<00:21:34.640> table,<00:21:35.120> especially<00:21:35.760> when<00:21:36.080> we're<00:21:36.320> when
the table, especially when we're when
we're<00:21:36.799> when<00:21:36.960> we're<00:21:37.120> jostling<00:21:37.760> in<00:21:38.480> on
we're when we're jostling in on
geopolitical<00:21:39.200> level<00:21:39.360> and<00:21:39.440> say,<00:21:39.520> "Listen,
geopolitical level and say, "Listen,
we're<00:21:40.000> just<00:21:40.159> going<00:21:40.240> to<00:21:40.720> we're<00:21:40.960> going<00:21:41.039> to<00:21:41.200> ban
we're just going to we're going to ban
it<00:21:41.520> or<00:21:41.760> we're<00:21:41.840> going<00:21:41.919> to<00:21:42.000> say<00:21:42.159> any<00:21:42.400> or<00:21:42.640> we're
it or we're going to say any or we're
going<00:21:42.880> to<00:21:42.960> do<00:21:43.039> some<00:21:43.200> weird<00:21:43.520> tariff<00:21:44.080> on<00:21:44.320> any<00:21:44.640> US
going to do some weird tariff on any US
startup<00:21:45.280> that<00:21:45.440> uses<00:21:45.679> a<00:21:45.840> Chinese<00:21:46.159> model.<00:21:46.559> I
startup that uses a Chinese model. I
have<00:21:46.799> to<00:21:46.880> pay<00:21:47.120> 100%<00:21:47.600> tariff<00:21:48.080> tax.<00:21:48.640> That's
have to pay 100% tariff tax. That's
beyond<00:21:49.120> my<00:21:49.280> skill<00:21:49.440> set.<00:21:49.760> But<00:21:49.840> clearly<00:21:50.159> they
beyond my skill set. But clearly they
just<00:21:50.559> want<00:21:50.960> US<00:21:51.360> company.<00:21:51.760> You<00:21:51.919> can't<00:21:52.159> stop
just want US company. You can't stop
China<00:21:52.640> from<00:21:52.799> doing<00:21:52.960> what<00:21:53.120> China's<00:21:53.520> I<00:21:53.679> just<00:21:53.840> got
China from doing what China's I just got
back.<00:21:54.320> You<00:21:54.480> ain't<00:21:54.640> going<00:21:54.799> to<00:21:54.880> stop<00:21:55.039> China<00:21:55.280> from
back. You ain't going to stop China from
doing<00:21:55.600> it<00:21:55.760> for<00:21:55.840> for<00:21:56.159> a<00:21:56.320> million<00:21:56.559> reasons.<00:21:57.039> But
doing it for for a million reasons. But
just<00:21:57.760> put<00:21:57.919> an<00:21:58.080> end<00:21:58.240> to<00:21:58.320> what<00:21:58.480> Curser<00:21:58.880> and
just put an end to what Curser and
Harvey<00:21:59.360> are<00:21:59.520> doing.<00:22:00.000> No<00:22:00.240> more.<00:22:01.360> You<00:22:01.520> guys
Harvey are doing. No more. You guys
can't<00:22:01.840> do<00:22:01.919> it<00:22:02.080> anymore.<00:22:02.400> You<00:22:02.559> guys<00:22:02.720> have<00:22:02.880> to<00:22:03.200> on
can't do it anymore. You guys have to on
grounds<00:22:03.679> of<00:22:03.840> national<00:22:04.240> security.<00:22:05.200> This<00:22:05.360> is
grounds of national security. This is
this<00:22:05.919> is<00:22:06.159> theft<00:22:06.480> of<00:22:06.640> our<00:22:06.720> IP.<00:22:07.200> This<00:22:07.280> is<00:22:07.440> theft
this is theft of our IP. This is theft
of<00:22:07.840> our<00:22:08.000> data.<00:22:08.320> We<00:22:08.480> can't<00:22:08.720> trust<00:22:08.960> them.<00:22:09.679> Um<00:22:09.919> and
of our data. We can't trust them. Um and
hey,<00:22:10.400> Kurser<00:22:10.720> and<00:22:10.880> Harvey,<00:22:11.200> your<00:22:11.360> models<00:22:11.600> are
hey, Kurser and Harvey, your models are
just<00:22:11.919> destroyed.<00:22:12.480> Your<00:22:12.640> business<00:22:12.880> models.
just destroyed. Your business models.
Thank<00:22:13.520> god<00:22:13.679> you<00:22:13.840> sold<00:22:14.000> for<00:22:14.159> 60<00:22:14.480> billion
Thank god you sold for 60 billion
because<00:22:15.919> Chinese<00:22:16.240> open<00:22:16.480> source<00:22:16.720> is<00:22:16.880> banned.<00:22:18.320> I
because Chinese open source is banned. I
don't<00:22:18.640> think<00:22:18.720> it's<00:22:18.960> implausible.<00:22:19.520> I<00:22:19.679> I<00:22:19.679> I
don't think it's implausible. I I I
let's<00:22:20.720> Is<00:22:20.960> it<00:22:21.039> on<00:22:21.200> Khi?<00:22:21.760> I<00:22:21.919> It<00:22:22.080> seems<00:22:22.240> to<00:22:22.320> be
let's Is it on Khi? I It seems to be
more<00:22:22.559> than<00:22:22.720> a<00:22:22.880> 10%<00:22:23.280> chance<00:22:23.520> it's<00:22:23.840> going<00:22:23.919> to
more than a 10% chance it's going to
happen.
>> Would<00:22:24.730> [snorts]<00:22:24.799> you<00:22:24.960> not<00:22:25.120> say<00:22:25.280> it's<00:22:25.520> actually
>> Would [snorts] you not say it's actually
almost<00:22:26.320> inevitable,<00:22:27.039> not<00:22:27.520> plausible<00:22:27.919> when
almost inevitable, not plausible when
you<00:22:28.320> know<00:22:28.480> when<00:22:28.640> you<00:22:28.720> look<00:22:28.799> at<00:22:28.960> both<00:22:29.200> Sam<00:22:29.600> and
you know when you look at both Sam and
Dario<00:22:30.400> advocating<00:22:30.960> for<00:22:31.120> it<00:22:31.280> and<00:22:31.520> the<00:22:31.679> people
Dario advocating for it and the people
around<00:22:32.159> the<00:22:32.400> administration<00:22:32.960> advocating<00:22:33.520> for
around the administration advocating for
it<00:22:33.919> too?<00:22:34.480> You<00:22:34.720> don't<00:22:34.880> exactly<00:22:35.200> have<00:22:35.360> an
it too? You don't exactly have an
opposing<00:22:36.080> side.
opposing side.
>> Well,<00:22:37.120> well,<00:22:37.360> you<00:22:37.600> should<00:22:37.840> have<00:22:38.320> because<00:22:38.880> you
>> Well, well, you should have because you
know<00:22:39.200> this<00:22:39.360> is<00:22:39.600> and<00:22:39.919> Bill<00:22:40.159> Gurley<00:22:40.480> is<00:22:40.640> great<00:22:40.799> on
know this is and Bill Gurley is great on
this.<00:22:41.280> This<00:22:41.440> is<00:22:41.679> regulatory<00:22:42.240> capture<00:22:42.640> in<00:22:42.880> the
this. This is regulatory capture in the
extreme,<00:22:43.760> right?<00:22:44.320> The<00:22:44.559> truth<00:22:44.720> is<00:22:45.280> there's<00:22:45.600> two
extreme, right? The truth is there's two
separate<00:22:46.559> because<00:22:46.799> there's<00:22:47.039> two<00:22:47.200> separate
separate because there's two separate
issues<00:22:47.679> that<00:22:47.840> they're<00:22:48.080> brilliantly
issues that they're brilliantly
conflating.<00:22:49.440> One<00:22:49.679> is<00:22:50.000> should<00:22:50.240> they<00:22:50.480> be<00:22:50.640> b
conflating. One is should they be b
quote<00:22:51.200> unquote<00:22:51.520> banned<00:22:51.840> because<00:22:52.080> they<00:22:52.320> they
quote unquote banned because they they
distilled<00:22:53.440> our<00:22:54.080> prompts<00:22:54.480> and<00:22:54.640> as<00:22:54.880> such<00:22:55.120> got<00:22:55.280> a
distilled our prompts and as such got a
leg<00:22:55.600> up<00:22:55.760> on<00:22:55.919> that.<00:22:56.480> Naughty<00:22:56.960> them<00:22:57.200> if<00:22:57.360> they<00:22:57.520> did
leg up on that. Naughty them if they did
just<00:22:58.240> like<00:22:58.480> naughty<00:22:58.880> entropic<00:22:59.440> and<00:22:59.600> naughty
just like naughty entropic and naughty
open<00:23:00.400> AI<00:23:00.720> for<00:23:00.880> stealing<00:23:01.200> your<00:23:01.440> 1.5<00:23:02.000> million
open AI for stealing your 1.5 million
books,<00:23:02.960> right,<00:23:03.280> to<00:23:03.520> leverage<00:23:03.840> your<00:23:04.080> property
books, right, to leverage your property
three<00:23:04.640> years<00:23:04.799> ago.<00:23:05.200> So<00:23:05.440> pay<00:23:05.600> the<00:23:05.760> naughty<00:23:06.159> fine
three years ago. So pay the naughty fine
and<00:23:06.799> move<00:23:06.960> on,<00:23:07.360> right?<00:23:07.760> No<00:23:07.919> one's<00:23:08.159> banning
and move on, right? No one's banning
Open<00:23:08.720> AI<00:23:09.039> and<00:23:09.120> Anthropic<00:23:09.600> because<00:23:09.679> they<00:23:09.840> were
Open AI and Anthropic because they were
naughty.<00:23:10.400> So<00:23:10.880> logically<00:23:11.679> the<00:23:11.919> distillation
naughty. So logically the distillation
thing<00:23:14.000> shouldn't<00:23:14.559> result<00:23:14.799> in<00:23:14.960> banning.
thing shouldn't result in banning.
Separate<00:23:16.240> thing<00:23:16.480> is<00:23:16.799> and<00:23:17.280> conflating<00:23:17.760> the<00:23:17.919> two
Separate thing is and conflating the two
is<00:23:18.400> are<00:23:18.640> you<00:23:18.799> really<00:23:19.120> saying<00:23:19.760> are<00:23:20.000> you<00:23:20.159> really
is are you really saying are you really
trying<00:23:20.559> to<00:23:20.720> find<00:23:20.880> a<00:23:21.039> motivation<00:23:21.679> from<00:23:21.919> the
trying to find a motivation from the
government<00:23:22.320> that<00:23:22.640> says<00:23:22.880> ban<00:23:23.360> not<00:23:23.600> because<00:23:23.760> of
government that says ban not because of
the<00:23:24.080> naughtiness<00:23:24.880> but<00:23:25.120> because<00:23:25.600> Chinese<00:23:26.000> open
the naughtiness but because Chinese open
source<00:23:26.559> running<00:23:26.960> USI<00:23:27.679> sounds<00:23:27.919> scary<00:23:28.640> right
source running USI sounds scary right
and<00:23:29.280> I<00:23:29.440> can<00:23:29.600> imagine<00:23:29.840> that<00:23:30.080> there<00:23:30.320> are<00:23:31.200> you
and I can imagine that there are you
know<00:23:31.600> products<00:23:31.919> that<00:23:32.159> the<00:23:32.320> interest<00:23:32.559> of
know products that the interest of
national<00:23:33.039> security<00:23:33.520> like<00:23:33.760> Huawei<00:23:34.240> are<00:23:34.480> banned
national security like Huawei are banned
in<00:23:34.960> the<00:23:35.039> US.<00:23:35.360> So<00:23:35.520> it's<00:23:35.760> not<00:23:35.919> crazy<00:23:36.480> that<00:23:36.720> if<00:23:36.960> we
in the US. So it's not crazy that if we
believe<00:23:37.360> Frontier<00:23:37.760> models<00:23:38.080> are<00:23:38.240> equivalent
believe Frontier models are equivalent
that<00:23:39.200> you<00:23:39.360> could<00:23:39.520> see<00:23:39.679> that<00:23:39.919> kind<00:23:40.080> of<00:23:40.240> thing.
that you could see that kind of thing.
Now<00:23:40.799> the<00:23:40.960> argument<00:23:41.200> that<00:23:41.440> every<00:23:41.679> tech<00:23:42.000> CEO
Now the argument that every tech CEO
will<00:23:42.799> and<00:23:43.120> should<00:23:43.360> be<00:23:43.520> making<00:23:43.840> is<00:23:44.240> these<00:23:44.480> are
will and should be making is these are
open<00:23:44.880> source<00:23:45.200> models<00:23:45.760> that<00:23:46.000> are<00:23:46.880> sourced<00:23:47.360> and
open source models that are sourced and
running<00:23:49.039> in<00:23:49.280> the<00:23:49.440> US<00:23:49.840> on<00:23:50.080> US<00:23:50.480> inference.
running in the US on US inference.
There's<00:23:51.200> literally<00:23:51.600> nothing<00:23:52.320> going.<00:23:52.640> Yeah.
There's literally nothing going. Yeah.
The<00:23:53.280> code<00:23:53.520> is<00:23:53.679> open<00:23:53.919> toection<00:23:54.720> inspection.
The code is open toection inspection.
There's<00:23:55.679> no<00:23:56.000> back<00:23:56.320> door<00:23:56.640> here.<00:23:57.280> There's<00:23:57.520> zero
There's no back door here. There's zero
risk<00:23:58.159> involved.<00:23:58.880> Right.<00:23:59.600> But<00:23:59.760> to<00:24:00.000> make<00:24:00.159> that
risk involved. Right. But to make that
argument<00:24:01.520> implies<00:24:02.000> that<00:24:02.159> you<00:24:02.320> have<00:24:02.400> on<00:24:02.559> the
argument implies that you have on the
other<00:24:02.880> side<00:24:03.039> of<00:24:03.120> the<00:24:03.280> table<00:24:03.520> a<00:24:03.760> government
other side of the table a government
entity<00:24:04.400> willing<00:24:04.640> to<00:24:04.799> listen<00:24:05.039> and<00:24:05.280> do<00:24:05.520> nuance
entity willing to listen and do nuance
and<00:24:06.720> that's<00:24:06.960> hard.<00:24:07.440> So<00:24:07.679> I<00:24:07.919> think<00:24:08.080> that<00:24:08.640> you
and that's hard. So I think that you
could<00:24:09.120> imagine<00:24:10.400> um<00:24:10.799> in<00:24:11.039> the<00:24:11.200> absence<00:24:11.520> of<00:24:11.760> a
could imagine um in the absence of a
sensible<00:24:12.799> regulatory<00:24:13.440> function,<00:24:14.240> you<00:24:14.400> know,
sensible regulatory function, you know,
that<00:24:15.679> you<00:24:15.919> conflate<00:24:16.480> the<00:24:16.640> the<00:24:16.880> naughty<00:24:17.279> tax
that you conflate the the naughty tax
for<00:24:17.760> stealing<00:24:18.080> the<00:24:18.240> intellectual<00:24:18.799> property,
for stealing the intellectual property,
the<00:24:20.080> security<00:24:20.480> risk<00:24:20.880> because<00:24:21.120> it's<00:24:21.440> China,
the security risk because it's China,
and<00:24:22.240> then<00:24:22.400> the<00:24:22.559> deep<00:24:22.799> dark<00:24:23.120> secret<00:24:23.440> is<00:24:23.679> the
and then the deep dark secret is the
foundation<00:24:24.400> the<00:24:24.559> frontier<00:24:24.960> models<00:24:25.279> are
foundation the frontier models are
actually<00:24:25.760> just<00:24:26.000> trying<00:24:26.159> to<00:24:26.320> defend<00:24:26.640> their
actually just trying to defend their
their<00:24:27.440> vast<00:24:27.840> capex<00:24:28.320> spend<00:24:28.640> by<00:24:28.880> eliminating<00:24:29.279> a
their vast capex spend by eliminating a
lowcost<00:24:30.000> competitor.<00:24:30.799> And<00:24:30.960> it<00:24:31.200> all<00:24:31.440> comes
lowcost competitor. And it all comes
together<00:24:32.000> in<00:24:32.240> a<00:24:32.400> big<00:24:32.720> kind<00:24:32.880> of<00:24:33.039> policy
together in a big kind of policy
mismatch<00:24:34.960> in<00:24:35.840> um<00:24:36.480> you<00:24:36.720> know<00:24:37.760> in<00:24:38.080> in<00:24:38.400> return<00:24:38.720> for
mismatch in um you know in in return for
some<00:24:39.120> of<00:24:39.200> these<00:24:39.440> restrictions<00:24:40.320> on<00:24:41.120> you<00:24:41.279> know
some of these restrictions on you know
security<00:24:41.919> and<00:24:42.240> our<00:24:42.799> usage<00:24:43.679> right
security and our usage right
>> there's<00:24:44.240> also<00:24:44.400> a<00:24:44.559> middle<00:24:44.799> ground<00:24:45.039> too<00:24:45.200> or<00:24:45.279> or<00:24:45.600> a
>> there's also a middle ground too or or a
or<00:24:46.080> a<00:24:46.320> partial<00:24:46.720> win<00:24:47.039> for<00:24:47.279> for<00:24:47.520> for<00:24:48.240> anthropic
or a partial win for for for anthropic
and<00:24:48.799> open<00:24:49.120> eye<00:24:49.279> is<00:24:49.440> just<00:24:49.760> listen<00:24:50.080> we<00:24:50.320> can't
and open eye is just listen we can't
stop<00:24:50.960> cursor<00:24:51.760> which<00:24:51.919> they<00:24:52.080> could<00:24:52.320> we<00:24:52.480> can't
stop cursor which they could we can't
stop<00:24:52.799> cursor<00:24:53.200> and<00:24:53.279> Harvey<00:24:53.600> but<00:24:53.679> you<00:24:53.760> know<00:24:53.840> what
stop cursor and Harvey but you know what
we<00:24:54.080> can<00:24:54.240> do<00:24:54.799> we<00:24:54.960> can<00:24:55.120> make<00:24:55.279> every<00:24:55.600> single
we can do we can make every single
Fortune<00:24:56.400> 500<00:24:56.799> company<00:24:57.120> uncomfortable
Fortune 500 company uncomfortable
banning<00:24:58.400> open<00:24:58.720> source<00:24:59.520> like<00:24:59.679> they're<00:24:59.919> not
banning open source like they're not
comfortable<00:25:00.320> able<00:25:00.559> from<00:25:00.799> security.<00:25:01.679> There's
comfortable able from security. There's
enough<00:25:02.159> ambiguity<00:25:02.880> out<00:25:03.120> there<00:25:03.840> that<00:25:04.080> it's
enough ambiguity out there that it's
just<00:25:04.480> not<00:25:04.720> worth<00:25:04.880> it.<00:25:05.120> Right?<00:25:05.279> Whether<00:25:05.520> a
just not worth it. Right? Whether a
startup<00:25:06.000> can<00:25:06.159> take<00:25:06.320> a<00:25:06.640> startups<00:25:07.039> can<00:25:07.200> cut
startup can take a startups can cut
corners<00:25:07.679> that<00:25:08.000> enterprises<00:25:08.480> are<00:25:08.640> not
corners that enterprises are not
comfortable<00:25:09.200> cutting,<00:25:09.600> right?<00:25:09.840> All<00:25:10.000> you<00:25:10.159> have
comfortable cutting, right? All you have
to<00:25:10.320> do<00:25:10.880> is<00:25:11.200> make<00:25:11.360> it<00:25:11.600> look<00:25:11.840> dangerous<00:25:12.720> to
to do is make it look dangerous to
enterprises<00:25:14.159> and<00:25:14.640> they<00:25:14.960> can<00:25:15.039> just<00:25:15.279> ban<00:25:15.520> any
enterprises and they can just ban any
open<00:25:16.080> source<00:25:16.320> use<00:25:16.480> in<00:25:16.720> their<00:25:16.880> company.<00:25:17.200> Right?
open source use in their company. Right?
That's<00:25:17.600> the<00:25:17.760> fallback<00:25:18.159> position.<00:25:18.559> That's<00:25:18.720> a
That's the fallback position. That's a
good<00:25:18.960> win.<00:25:19.617> [snorts]<00:25:19.760> I'm<00:25:19.919> going<00:25:20.080> to
good win. [snorts] I'm going to
distinguish<00:25:21.520> something.<00:25:21.840> They<00:25:22.000> wouldn't<00:25:22.159> say
distinguish something. They wouldn't say
ban<00:25:22.640> open<00:25:22.880> source.<00:25:23.120> they<00:25:23.360> would<00:25:23.520> say<00:25:24.159> ban<00:25:25.520> non
ban open source. they would say ban non
US<00:25:26.480> Chinese-based<00:25:27.840> um<00:25:28.000> companies<00:25:28.400> distilled
US Chinese-based um companies distilled
on<00:25:28.960> US<00:25:29.200> models<00:25:29.520> cuz<00:25:29.760> you<00:25:29.840> know<00:25:29.919> they're<00:25:30.080> not<00:25:31.120> a
on US models cuz you know they're not a
pool<00:25:31.520> sauce<00:25:31.840> poolside<00:25:32.559> cuz<00:25:32.799> look<00:25:32.960> at<00:25:33.120> some<00:25:33.360> one
pool sauce poolside cuz look at some one
of<00:25:33.600> the<00:25:33.840> interesting<00:25:34.159> things<00:25:34.400> here<00:25:34.640> is
of the interesting things here is
clearly<00:25:35.760> I<00:25:35.919> mean<00:25:36.320> all<00:25:36.480> these<00:25:36.720> US<00:25:36.960> companies
clearly I mean all these US companies
don't<00:25:37.520> want<00:25:37.760> Chinese<00:25:38.159> open<00:25:38.400> source<00:25:38.720> they<00:25:38.880> want
don't want Chinese open source they want
open<00:25:39.360> source<00:25:39.840> and<00:25:40.000> at<00:25:40.159> some<00:25:40.320> point<00:25:40.559> there's
open source and at some point there's
going<00:25:40.880> to<00:25:40.960> be<00:25:41.039> an<00:25:41.279> interesting<00:25:41.600> opportunity
going to be an interesting opportunity
for<00:25:42.320> a<00:25:42.559> US<00:25:43.279> open-<00:25:43.600> source<00:25:43.919> company<00:25:44.159> like
for a US open- source company like
reflection<00:25:44.960> like<00:25:45.120> poolside<00:25:45.840> to<00:25:46.080> take<00:25:46.240> some<00:25:46.480> of
reflection like poolside to take some of
this<00:25:46.799> revenue<00:25:47.279> but<00:25:47.440> you're<00:25:47.600> right<00:25:47.840> Jason<00:25:48.480> you
this revenue but you're right Jason you
know<00:25:48.880> some<00:25:49.120> version<00:25:49.440> of<00:25:50.080> banning<00:25:50.640> these
know some version of banning these
companies<00:25:51.440> that<00:25:51.679> have<00:25:51.919> been<00:25:52.080> found
companies that have been found
quotequote<00:25:53.039> guilty<00:25:53.440> of<00:25:53.679> distillation<00:25:54.559> that
quotequote guilty of distillation that
are<00:25:55.039> based<00:25:55.279> exus<00:25:55.840> in<00:25:56.000> China<00:25:56.320> is<00:25:56.640> plausible.<00:25:57.200> I
are based exus in China is plausible. I
mean,<00:25:57.679> stepping<00:25:58.080> back,<00:25:58.320> one<00:25:58.640> thing<00:25:58.720> I<00:25:58.960> noticed
mean, stepping back, one thing I noticed
here<00:26:00.080> that<00:26:00.320> entropic<00:26:00.880> wrote<00:26:01.120> to<00:26:01.200> the<00:26:01.360> Senate
here that entropic wrote to the Senate
Banking<00:26:02.080> Committee.<00:26:02.880> Obviously,<00:26:03.279> the
Banking Committee. Obviously, the
minority<00:26:04.240> um<00:26:04.400> head<00:26:04.559> of<00:26:04.720> the<00:26:04.799> Senate<00:26:05.120> Banking
minority um head of the Senate Banking
Committee<00:26:05.679> is<00:26:05.919> Liz<00:26:06.159> Warren.<00:26:06.799> You<00:26:07.039> really<00:26:07.279> have
Committee is Liz Warren. You really have
to<00:26:07.600> want<00:26:07.679> to<00:26:07.919> get<00:26:08.000> something<00:26:08.320> done.<00:26:08.640> Whether
to want to get something done. Whether
it's a<00:26:09.039> tech<00:26:09.279> company,<00:26:09.520> you<00:26:09.760> say,<00:26:09.840> "What<00:26:10.080> I'm
it's a tech company, you say, "What I'm
going<00:26:10.320> to<00:26:10.400> do<00:26:10.559> is<00:26:10.720> pull<00:26:10.880> in<00:26:11.039> Liz<00:26:11.279> Warren<00:26:11.600> on<00:26:11.760> my
going to do is pull in Liz Warren on my
side."<00:26:12.480> Very<00:26:12.799> few<00:26:13.039> tech<00:26:13.360> companies<00:26:13.679> say,
side." Very few tech companies say,
"That's<00:26:14.080> what<00:26:14.159> I<00:26:14.320> really<00:26:14.480> need<00:26:14.720> here<00:26:14.960> today,
"That's what I really need here today,
right?"<00:26:15.840> And<00:26:16.000> it<00:26:16.240> just<00:26:16.400> shows<00:26:16.720> that<00:26:16.960> you're
right?" And it just shows that you're
trying<00:26:17.360> to,<00:26:18.080> you<00:26:18.240> know,<00:26:18.400> get<00:26:18.640> something
trying to, you know, get something
interesting<00:26:19.279> done<00:26:19.520> here.
interesting done here.
>> Guys,<00:26:20.799> personally,<00:26:21.360> and<00:26:21.600> you<00:26:21.760> don't<00:26:21.919> have<00:26:22.080> to
>> Guys, personally, and you don't have to
answer,<00:26:22.480> but<00:26:22.640> I'm<00:26:22.799> just<00:26:22.880> intrigued.<00:26:23.360> Do<00:26:23.520> you
answer, but I'm just intrigued. Do you
think<00:26:23.760> we<00:26:23.919> should<00:26:24.159> ban<00:26:24.480> them?
think we should ban them?
>> No.
Um<00:26:27.520> because<00:26:27.840> I<00:26:28.159> think<00:26:28.240> you<00:26:28.400> have<00:26:28.480> to<00:26:28.559> be<00:26:28.720> very
Um because I think you have to be very
pragmatic<00:26:29.440> in<00:26:29.679> terms<00:26:29.760> of<00:26:29.919> what<00:26:30.159> you<00:26:30.480> and<00:26:30.720> again
pragmatic in terms of what you and again
will<00:26:31.600> be<00:26:31.760> great<00:26:32.159> there's<00:26:32.400> two<00:26:32.559> separate
will be great there's two separate
issues.<00:26:34.080> If<00:26:34.320> they've<00:26:34.640> done<00:26:34.720> the<00:26:34.960> naughty<00:26:35.600> then
issues. If they've done the naughty then
they<00:26:36.000> should<00:26:36.159> pay<00:26:36.240> the<00:26:36.480> naughty<00:26:36.880> tax.<00:26:37.840> They
they should pay the naughty tax. They
should<00:26:38.320> pay<00:26:38.559> exactly<00:26:38.880> as<00:26:39.039> much<00:26:39.200> as<00:26:39.360> entropic
should pay exactly as much as entropic
had<00:26:40.159> to<00:26:40.320> pay<00:26:41.600> to<00:26:41.760> the<00:26:41.919> book<00:26:42.159> guys<00:26:42.400> and<00:26:42.720> they
had to pay to the book guys and they
should<00:26:43.039> have<00:26:43.120> paid<00:26:43.279> to<00:26:43.360> entropic.<00:26:43.919> It's
should have paid to entropic. It's
easily<00:26:44.320> priced<00:26:44.799> and<00:26:45.039> we<00:26:45.279> could<00:26:45.360> use<00:26:45.520> the<00:26:45.760> argue
easily priced and we could use the argue
I<00:26:46.240> mean<00:26:47.120> and<00:26:47.360> that<00:26:47.520> would<00:26:47.679> make<00:26:47.840> things<00:26:48.080> quote
I mean and that would make things quote
unquote<00:26:48.720> fair.<00:26:49.200> So<00:26:49.440> from<00:26:49.679> a<00:26:49.919> so<00:26:50.159> from<00:26:50.320> a
unquote fair. So from a so from a
distillation<00:26:51.120> perspective<00:26:51.679> no<00:26:52.400> separate
distillation perspective no separate
comment<00:26:53.120> from<00:26:53.279> a<00:26:53.440> national<00:26:53.760> security
comment from a national security
perspective.<00:26:54.640> Again,<00:26:54.960> as<00:26:55.200> I<00:26:55.360> understand<00:26:55.679> it,
perspective. Again, as I understand it,
if<00:26:56.480> you<00:26:56.640> are<00:26:56.799> downloading<00:26:57.279> the<00:26:57.520> model,<00:26:57.840> the
if you are downloading the model, the
code<00:26:58.240> is<00:26:58.400> open<00:26:58.640> for<00:26:58.799> inspection,<00:26:59.520> the<00:26:59.679> weights
code is open for inspection, the weights
are<00:27:00.159> available,<00:27:00.559> and<00:27:00.799> there's<00:27:01.039> nothing
are available, and there's nothing
running<00:27:01.600> and<00:27:01.919> no<00:27:02.720> um<00:27:02.880> telemetry<00:27:03.440> back<00:27:03.600> to
running and no um telemetry back to
China,<00:27:04.080> then<00:27:04.240> I<00:27:04.400> don't<00:27:04.559> think<00:27:04.640> there's<00:27:04.880> any
China, then I don't think there's any
danger.<00:27:05.440> So,<00:27:05.520> I<00:27:05.679> think<00:27:05.760> you<00:27:06.000> probably
danger. So, I think you probably
shouldn't<00:27:06.559> ban<00:27:06.880> them,<00:27:07.919> right?<00:27:08.799> Um<00:27:09.200> that<00:27:09.440> would
shouldn't ban them, right? Um that would
be<00:27:09.600> my<00:27:09.760> take.<00:27:10.480> I<00:27:10.720> think<00:27:10.880> that<00:27:11.760> AI<00:27:12.159> is<00:27:12.320> going<00:27:12.480> to
be my take. I think that AI is going to
be<00:27:12.720> like<00:27:12.960> the<00:27:13.120> oil<00:27:13.440> situation<00:27:13.760> in<00:27:13.919> the<00:27:14.080> Persian
be like the oil situation in the Persian
Gulf<00:27:14.640> today.<00:27:15.679> And<00:27:15.919> what<00:27:16.080> I<00:27:16.320> mean<00:27:16.400> is<00:27:16.720> it's<00:27:17.039> too
Gulf today. And what I mean is it's too
the<00:27:17.679> we<00:27:17.919> are<00:27:18.080> so<00:27:18.559> as<00:27:18.799> econom<00:27:19.360> as<00:27:19.520> an<00:27:19.760> economy<00:27:20.080> in
the we are so as econom as an economy in
the<00:27:20.480> US<00:27:21.360> we<00:27:21.600> are<00:27:21.840> so<00:27:22.400> addicted<00:27:22.960> to<00:27:23.120> this<00:27:23.440> our
the US we are so addicted to this our
401ks
our<00:27:25.600> stock<00:27:25.919> market<00:27:26.559> everything<00:27:26.880> we<00:27:27.120> do<00:27:27.600> every
our stock market everything we do every
bet<00:27:28.320> every<00:27:28.559> re-election<00:27:29.200> for<00:27:29.440> every
bet every re-election for every
politician
um<00:27:32.559> we<00:27:32.880> are<00:27:33.039> so<00:27:33.279> tied<00:27:33.679> to<00:27:33.840> the<00:27:34.000> AI<00:27:34.400> boom<00:27:34.640> I'm<00:27:34.799> not
um we are so tied to the AI boom I'm not
going<00:27:35.039> whether<00:27:35.279> we<00:27:35.440> can<00:27:35.600> debate<00:27:35.919> whether<00:27:36.080> it's
going whether we can debate whether it's
a<00:27:36.320> bubble<00:27:36.640> right<00:27:36.799> I<00:27:36.880> mean<00:27:36.960> at<00:27:37.120> some<00:27:37.279> level<00:27:37.520> it
a bubble right I mean at some level it
has<00:27:37.760> to<00:27:37.840> be<00:27:37.919> a<00:27:38.000> bubble<00:27:38.320> we<00:27:38.480> are<00:27:38.640> all<00:27:38.799> so<00:27:39.120> we're
has to be a bubble we are all so we're
all<00:27:39.600> on<00:27:39.760> this<00:27:39.919> journey<00:27:40.159> together<00:27:40.559> 40%<00:27:41.120> of<00:27:41.520> the
all on this journey together 40% of the
S&P<00:27:42.159> 500<00:27:42.640> is<00:27:42.880> tied<00:27:43.120> to<00:27:43.279> this<00:27:43.440> bubble<00:27:44.320> I<00:27:44.480> I<00:27:44.559> I<00:27:44.799> I
S&P 500 is tied to this bubble I I I I
think<00:27:45.279> we<00:27:45.520> have<00:27:45.679> to<00:27:45.840> protect<00:27:46.159> it.
think we have to protect it.
>> And<00:27:47.679> you<00:27:47.760> know,<00:27:47.919> Sarah<00:27:48.240> Frier<00:27:48.559> or<00:27:48.640> whatever<00:27:48.880> a
>> And you know, Sarah Frier or whatever a
year<00:27:49.120> ago<00:27:49.520> saying<00:27:49.679> that<00:27:49.919> the<00:27:50.080> US<00:27:50.320> government
year ago saying that the US government
should<00:27:50.880> should<00:27:50.960> should<00:27:51.600> back<00:27:51.919> all<00:27:52.080> of<00:27:52.159> our
should should should back all of our
data<00:27:52.640> centers.<00:27:53.039> That<00:27:53.200> was,<00:27:53.600> you<00:27:53.679> know,<00:27:53.840> I
data centers. That was, you know, I
think<00:27:54.080> it<00:27:54.159> was<00:27:54.320> her<00:27:54.480> that<00:27:54.640> was<00:27:54.720> flamed<00:27:55.039> for
think it was her that was flamed for
saying<00:27:55.360> that,<00:27:55.600> right?<00:27:55.840> She's<00:27:56.320> she's<00:27:56.799> probably
saying that, right? She's she's probably
it<00:27:57.279> was<00:27:57.440> true.<00:27:58.129> [laughter]
it was true. [laughter]
And<00:27:58.960> I<00:27:59.120> and<00:27:59.360> she<00:27:59.520> probably<00:27:59.760> shouldn't<00:28:00.000> have
And I and she probably shouldn't have
said<00:28:00.240> it<00:28:00.399> the<00:28:00.559> way<00:28:00.640> she<00:28:00.880> said<00:28:00.960> it<00:28:01.120> off.<00:28:01.360> I<00:28:01.520> think
said it the way she said it off. I think
it<00:28:01.760> was<00:28:01.840> offhand<00:28:02.240> in<00:28:02.399> a<00:28:02.559> in<00:28:02.720> a<00:28:02.880> in<00:28:03.039> a<00:28:03.520> comment.<00:28:04.000> I
it was offhand in a in a in a comment. I
mean,<00:28:04.720> everything<00:28:05.120> I<00:28:05.360> think<00:28:05.520> what<00:28:05.679> I<00:28:05.840> mean<00:28:05.919> is
mean, everything I think what I mean is
everything's<00:28:06.640> going<00:28:06.720> to<00:28:06.799> be<00:28:06.960> circular
everything's going to be circular
because<00:28:08.880> we<00:28:09.200> it's<00:28:09.520> like<00:28:09.679> we<00:28:09.840> can<00:28:10.000> say<00:28:10.159> we<00:28:10.399> don't
because we it's like we can say we don't
need<00:28:10.640> that<00:28:10.880> oil<00:28:11.200> because<00:28:11.440> we<00:28:11.679> make<00:28:11.840> plenty<00:28:12.080> of
need that oil because we make plenty of
it<00:28:12.399> from<00:28:12.640> from<00:28:13.200> um<00:28:13.600> from<00:28:13.919> fracking,<00:28:14.399> but<00:28:14.640> but
it from from um from fracking, but but
look<00:28:15.039> at<00:28:15.200> the<00:28:15.360> impacts,<00:28:15.840> right?<00:28:16.080> Even<00:28:16.240> if<00:28:16.399> gas
look at the impacts, right? Even if gas
prices<00:28:17.039> go<00:28:17.200> up<00:28:17.360> a<00:28:17.520> dollar<00:28:17.679> a<00:28:17.919> gallon,<00:28:18.640> people
prices go up a dollar a gallon, people
are<00:28:19.120> freaking<00:28:19.440> out.<00:28:19.679> And<00:28:19.840> if<00:28:20.000> their<00:28:20.240> 401ks<00:28:20.960> go
are freaking out. And if their 401ks go
down<00:28:21.440> 20%.<00:28:22.159> If<00:28:22.480> Nvidia<00:28:23.039> stops<00:28:23.360> selling<00:28:23.760> chips,
down 20%. If Nvidia stops selling chips,
if<00:28:24.960> if<00:28:25.360> all<00:28:25.600> of<00:28:25.679> this<00:28:25.919> moves<00:28:26.159> to<00:28:26.399> OP,<00:28:26.799> I<00:28:26.799> I<00:28:27.039> don't
if if all of this moves to OP, I I don't
know.<00:28:27.440> I<00:28:27.679> think<00:28:27.760> we're<00:28:28.000> going<00:28:28.080> to<00:28:28.159> end<00:28:28.320> up
know. I think we're going to end up
doing<00:28:28.960> everything<00:28:29.360> we<00:28:29.679> can<00:28:29.919> as<00:28:30.159> a<00:28:30.399> society<00:28:30.720> to
doing everything we can as a society to
prop<00:28:31.360> up<00:28:32.480> uh<00:28:32.720> prop<00:28:33.039> this<00:28:33.279> up.<00:28:33.679> I<00:28:33.840> I<00:28:34.159> think<00:28:34.240> we're
prop up uh prop this up. I I think we're
all<00:28:34.559> going<00:28:34.640> to<00:28:34.799> be<00:28:35.360> um<00:28:35.679> and<00:28:35.919> I<00:28:36.080> think<00:28:36.159> it<00:28:36.399> may
all going to be um and I think it may
even<00:28:36.720> be<00:28:36.880> more<00:28:37.120> important<00:28:37.360> than<00:28:37.520> the<00:28:37.679> other
even be more important than the other
issues.<00:28:38.240> We<00:28:38.399> just<00:28:38.480> don't<00:28:38.720> we<00:28:38.880> just<00:28:39.039> don't<00:28:39.200> want
issues. We just don't we just don't want
unemployment.<00:28:40.159> We<00:28:40.320> don't<00:28:40.480> want<00:28:40.559> these<00:28:40.720> things
unemployment. We don't want these things
to<00:28:41.039> happen.<00:28:41.200> And<00:28:41.360> we're<00:28:41.520> all<00:28:41.679> we're<00:28:41.840> all<00:28:42.000> we're
to happen. And we're all we're all we're
all<00:28:42.480> we're<00:28:42.799> all<00:28:42.960> all<00:28:43.279> in<00:28:43.440> on<00:28:43.600> this<00:28:43.760> whether<00:28:44.000> we
all we're all all in on this whether we
realize<00:28:44.399> it<00:28:44.559> or<00:28:44.720> not.<00:28:45.440> I<00:28:45.679> think<00:28:45.760> we're<00:28:45.919> all
realize it or not. I think we're all
we're<00:28:46.320> all<00:28:46.480> tied<00:28:46.640> to<00:28:46.799> the<00:28:47.120> economy.
we're all tied to the economy.
It's<00:28:48.880> all<00:28:49.039> about<00:28:49.200> me.<00:28:50.240> I<00:28:50.559> care<00:28:50.720> about
It's all about me. I care about
unemployment.<00:28:52.000> I<00:28:52.240> care<00:28:52.399> about<00:28:52.960> But<00:28:53.039> but<00:28:53.279> my
unemployment. I care about But but my
401k,
don't<00:28:55.360> touch<00:28:55.600> it,<00:28:55.840> man.<00:28:56.480> You<00:28:56.640> think<00:28:56.799> I'm
don't touch it, man. You think I'm
kidding?<00:28:57.360> I<00:28:57.600> think<00:28:57.679> we're<00:28:57.919> all<00:28:58.080> in<00:28:58.320> in<00:28:58.720> just
kidding? I think we're all in in just
like<00:28:59.200> the<00:28:59.440> price<00:28:59.679> of<00:28:59.840> gas.<00:29:00.159> Like<00:29:00.320> we<00:29:00.720> Yeah,<00:29:01.200> you
like the price of gas. Like we Yeah, you
know,<00:29:01.440> I<00:29:01.600> feel<00:29:01.679> a<00:29:01.840> little<00:29:01.919> bad<00:29:02.080> about<00:29:02.320> but
know, I feel a little bad about but
don't<00:29:02.640> raise<00:29:02.799> the<00:29:02.960> price<00:29:03.120> of<00:29:03.279> my<00:29:03.440> gas.<00:29:03.760> Don't
don't raise the price of my gas. Don't
touch<00:29:04.080> my<00:29:04.240> 401k.<00:29:04.799> These<00:29:04.960> are<00:29:05.200> Don't<00:29:05.360> Don't
touch my 401k. These are Don't Don't
touch<00:29:05.840> it.<00:29:06.640> Don't<00:29:06.880> touch<00:29:07.039> those<00:29:07.279> high<00:29:07.520> paying
touch it. Don't touch those high paying
jobs.<00:29:08.640> What<00:29:09.120> you're<00:29:09.440> saying<00:29:10.240> might<00:29:10.720> be<00:29:10.960> true,
jobs. What you're saying might be true,
Jason.<00:29:12.000> I'm<00:29:12.240> not<00:29:12.399> sure<00:29:12.720> it<00:29:12.960> is,<00:29:13.120> but<00:29:13.360> it<00:29:13.520> might
Jason. I'm not sure it is, but it might
be<00:29:13.760> true.<00:29:14.080> But<00:29:14.159> if<00:29:14.320> it<00:29:14.480> is<00:29:14.640> true,<00:29:15.600> what<00:29:15.919> is
be true. But if it is true, what is
implicitly<00:29:17.120> what's<00:29:17.440> implicit<00:29:17.840> in<00:29:18.080> that
implicitly what's implicit in that
statement<00:29:18.559> is<00:29:18.799> really<00:29:18.960> very<00:29:19.200> negative.<00:29:19.600> In
statement is really very negative. In
other<00:29:20.000> words,<00:29:20.640> because<00:29:21.039> what<00:29:21.279> you're<00:29:21.520> saying
other words, because what you're saying
is<00:29:21.919> keep<00:29:22.159> up<00:29:22.320> the<00:29:22.640> price<00:29:23.039> of<00:29:23.440> AI<00:29:24.159> as<00:29:24.480> an<00:29:24.640> input
is keep up the price of AI as an input
to<00:29:25.279> the<00:29:25.440> rest<00:29:25.520> of<00:29:25.679> the<00:29:25.840> economy<00:29:26.559> by<00:29:26.880> protecting
to the rest of the economy by protecting
protecting<00:29:27.840> these<00:29:28.159> foundation<00:29:28.559> models
protecting these foundation models
pricing<00:29:29.440> structure<00:29:30.080> so<00:29:30.240> that<00:29:30.480> they<00:29:30.640> can<00:29:30.799> get<00:29:30.880> a
pricing structure so that they can get a
trillion<00:29:31.440> dollars<00:29:31.679> in<00:29:32.000> revenue.<00:29:32.559> And<00:29:32.720> the
trillion dollars in revenue. And the
loser<00:29:33.679> as<00:29:33.919> always<00:29:34.159> is<00:29:34.320> the<00:29:34.480> case<00:29:34.640> with<00:29:34.880> trade
loser as always is the case with trade
restrictions<00:29:35.679> is<00:29:35.840> the<00:29:36.000> rest<00:29:36.080> of<00:29:36.240> the<00:29:36.399> economy
restrictions is the rest of the economy
who<00:29:36.880> won't<00:29:37.039> get<00:29:37.200> cheap<00:29:37.520> intelligence.
who won't get cheap intelligence.
They'll<00:29:38.480> get<00:29:38.640> deer<00:29:39.039> intelligence.<00:29:39.679> So<00:29:39.919> what
They'll get deer intelligence. So what
it<00:29:40.320> means<00:29:40.480> is<00:29:41.520> the<00:29:41.679> the<00:29:42.080> stocks<00:29:42.399> in<00:29:42.559> your<00:29:42.720> 401k
it means is the the stocks in your 401k
that<00:29:44.399> are<00:29:44.720> making<00:29:45.039> AI<00:29:45.600> will<00:29:45.919> continue<00:29:46.240> to<00:29:46.480> make
that are making AI will continue to make
money<00:29:47.120> and<00:29:47.360> the<00:29:47.600> stocks<00:29:47.840> in<00:29:48.080> your<00:29:48.399> 401k<00:29:49.039> that
money and the stocks in your 401k that
should<00:29:49.440> be<00:29:49.600> getting<00:29:49.840> the<00:29:50.000> lift<00:29:50.320> from<00:29:50.559> AI<00:29:50.960> are
should be getting the lift from AI are
going<00:29:51.279> to<00:29:51.360> lose<00:29:51.520> money.<00:29:51.760> It's<00:29:51.919> it<00:29:52.159> would<00:29:52.240> be
going to lose money. It's it would be
like<00:29:52.559> as<00:29:52.720> if<00:29:53.360> in<00:29:53.679> 1981<00:29:54.799> or<00:29:55.120> 82<00:29:56.240> the
like as if in 1981 or 82 the
government's<00:29:57.279> um<00:29:57.679> I<00:29:57.919> give<00:29:58.080> it<00:29:58.559> IBM<00:29:59.279> IBM
government's um I give it IBM IBM
licensed<00:30:00.399> MS<00:30:00.799> DOS<00:30:01.600> and<00:30:01.840> they<00:30:02.080> should<00:30:02.320> have
licensed MS DOS and they should have
protected<00:30:02.960> it<00:30:03.200> and<00:30:03.440> instead<00:30:04.240> everyone<00:30:04.559> was
protected it and instead everyone was
able<00:30:04.960> to<00:30:05.039> clone<00:30:05.360> it<00:30:05.520> like<00:30:05.679> compact.<00:30:06.240> It<00:30:06.399> would
able to clone it like compact. It would
be<00:30:06.640> like<00:30:06.799> the<00:30:07.039> US<00:30:07.279> government<00:30:07.679> coming<00:30:07.919> in<00:30:08.080> and
be like the US government coming in and
says<00:30:08.880> no<00:30:09.200> compact,<00:30:09.760> no<00:30:10.000> Dell.<00:30:10.399> You<00:30:10.640> can't<00:30:10.880> make
says no compact, no Dell. You can't make
clones<00:30:11.600> of<00:30:11.760> the<00:30:11.919> IBM.<00:30:12.640> We've<00:30:12.880> got<00:30:12.960> to<00:30:13.039> keep<00:30:13.279> IBM
clones of the IBM. We've got to keep IBM
stock<00:30:14.159> price<00:30:14.559> up<00:30:15.200> and<00:30:15.440> therefore<00:30:15.919> we're<00:30:16.080> going
stock price up and therefore we're going
to<00:30:16.320> ban<00:30:16.559> the<00:30:16.720> clones<00:30:17.279> and<00:30:17.520> we're<00:30:17.760> going<00:30:17.840> to
to ban the clones and we're going to
keep<00:30:18.080> the<00:30:18.320> PC<00:30:18.720> industry<00:30:19.120> a<00:30:19.360> small<00:30:19.760> tiny
keep the PC industry a small tiny
profitable<00:30:21.120> industry<00:30:21.440> for<00:30:21.600> IBM.
profitable industry for IBM.
>> It<00:30:23.760> could<00:30:23.919> happen<00:30:24.159> in<00:30:24.320> this<00:30:24.559> case<00:30:24.799> because<00:30:25.279> the
>> It could happen in this case because the
dynamic<00:30:25.919> of<00:30:26.159> overseas<00:30:26.640> national<00:30:26.960> security
dynamic of overseas national security
makes<00:30:27.520> it<00:30:27.679> happen,<00:30:28.000> but<00:30:28.240> it<00:30:28.399> would<00:30:28.559> be<00:30:28.720> for<00:30:28.960> the
makes it happen, but it would be for the
record<00:30:29.840> so<00:30:30.480> freaking<00:30:31.120> dumb.<00:30:32.080> So<00:30:32.240> I<00:30:32.399> hear<00:30:32.480> you.
record so freaking dumb. So I hear you.
>> Well,<00:30:33.039> here's<00:30:33.279> the<00:30:33.360> counter-argument.<00:30:34.240> I'm
>> Well, here's the counter-argument. I'm
not<00:30:34.559> saying<00:30:34.880> you<00:30:35.039> might<00:30:35.120> be<00:30:35.279> right.<00:30:35.520> might<00:30:35.760> be
not saying you might be right. might be
dumb,<00:30:36.080> right?<00:30:36.320> I<00:30:36.480> think<00:30:36.559> if<00:30:36.799> you<00:30:36.880> step<00:30:37.039> back
dumb, right? I think if you step back
for<00:30:37.279> a<00:30:37.360> minute,
for a minute,
>> to<00:30:37.919> be<00:30:38.000> clear,<00:30:38.320> dumb<00:30:38.640> things<00:30:38.880> happen<00:30:39.039> all<00:30:39.200> the
>> to be clear, dumb things happen all the
time,<00:30:39.600> especially<00:30:39.840> when<00:30:40.080> governments<00:30:40.399> are
time, especially when governments are
involved.<00:30:41.039> I<00:30:41.279> have<00:30:41.360> high<00:30:41.679> confidence<00:30:42.080> in
involved. I have high confidence in
dumb.<00:30:42.640> See<00:30:42.880> Harry<00:30:43.200> for<00:30:43.360> details.<00:30:43.679> I'm<00:30:43.840> in<00:30:44.000> the
dumb. See Harry for details. I'm in the
UK.
>> Sorry,<00:30:45.360> Harry.
>> Sorry, Harry.
>> I<00:30:46.080> think<00:30:46.240> just<00:30:46.320> to<00:30:46.480> tie<00:30:46.640> all<00:30:46.799> the<00:30:47.120> meta<00:30:47.360> issue,
>> I think just to tie all the meta issue,
>> see<00:30:48.000> Harry<00:30:48.320> for<00:30:48.480> details<00:30:48.880> and<00:30:49.039> I<00:30:49.279> was<00:30:49.360> really
>> see Harry for details and I was really
hurt<00:30:49.760> there,<00:30:50.080> Rory.
hurt there, Rory.
>> No,<00:30:51.051> [laughter]<00:30:51.120> no,<00:30:51.360> no.<00:30:51.840> Sorry.
>> No, [laughter] no, no. Sorry.
>> If<00:30:52.559> you<00:30:52.720> look<00:30:52.799> at<00:30:52.880> the<00:30:53.120> history<00:30:53.360> of<00:30:53.600> LLMs<00:30:54.159> on
>> If you look at the history of LLMs on
this<00:30:54.480> show<00:30:54.640> since<00:30:54.880> it<00:30:55.120> started,<00:30:55.520> right,<00:30:56.080> what
this show since it started, right, what
has<00:30:56.559> really<00:30:56.799> changed<00:30:57.039> and<00:30:57.200> Coinbase<00:30:57.679> is<00:30:57.840> just
has really changed and Coinbase is just
one<00:30:58.159> example<00:30:58.480> of<00:30:58.640> this.<00:30:59.360> We<00:30:59.679> we<00:31:00.000> are<00:31:00.399> probably
one example of this. We we are probably
leaving<00:31:01.120> the<00:31:01.600> igopical<00:31:02.080> age,<00:31:02.559> right?<00:31:02.799> And<00:31:03.039> we
leaving the igopical age, right? And we
had<00:31:03.360> an<00:31:03.600> oligopical<00:31:04.480> when<00:31:04.720> we<00:31:04.880> started<00:31:05.039> the
had an oligopical when we started the
show.<00:31:05.760> Actually,<00:31:06.080> you<00:31:06.320> could<00:31:06.399> argue<00:31:06.720> they
show. Actually, you could argue they
were<00:31:06.960> two<00:31:07.200> monopolies.<00:31:07.679> Okay,<00:31:08.000> anthropic
were two monopolies. Okay, anthropic
owned<00:31:08.720> coding.<00:31:09.360> Elon<00:31:09.760> Musk<00:31:10.000> when<00:31:10.159> we<00:31:10.240> started
owned coding. Elon Musk when we started
this<00:31:10.640> said<00:31:10.880> those<00:31:11.120> anthropic<00:31:11.600> guys<00:31:11.760> have
this said those anthropic guys have
something<00:31:12.240> special.<00:31:12.480> I<00:31:12.720> can't<00:31:12.880> compete<00:31:13.120> in
something special. I can't compete in
coding.<00:31:14.080> Open<00:31:14.399> AAI<00:31:14.720> owned<00:31:15.039> consumer,<00:31:15.679> right?
coding. Open AAI owned consumer, right?
They<00:31:16.480> both<00:31:16.720> had<00:31:16.880> sort<00:31:17.120> of<00:31:17.200> weird<00:31:17.760> pricing.
They both had sort of weird pricing.
They<00:31:18.399> made<00:31:18.640> up<00:31:18.799> and<00:31:19.039> were<00:31:19.200> losing<00:31:19.520> lots<00:31:19.760> of
They made up and were losing lots of
money.<00:31:20.159> But<00:31:20.240> it<00:31:20.480> was<00:31:20.559> and<00:31:20.720> and<00:31:20.960> they<00:31:21.120> had<00:31:21.279> these
money. But it was and and they had these
sort<00:31:21.760> of<00:31:22.399> dominant.<00:31:22.799> Now<00:31:23.120> then<00:31:23.279> we<00:31:23.520> end<00:31:23.679> then
sort of dominant. Now then we end then
as<00:31:24.080> as<00:31:24.559> we<00:31:25.440> began<00:31:25.760> to<00:31:25.919> begin<00:31:26.080> this<00:31:26.240> year,<00:31:26.399> we
as as we began to begin this year, we
entered<00:31:26.720> an<00:31:27.039> igopical<00:31:27.600> era<00:31:27.760> where<00:31:27.919> we<00:31:28.080> had<00:31:28.240> two
entered an igopical era where we had two
leaders.<00:31:29.120> Okay.<00:31:30.000> And<00:31:30.240> for<00:31:30.480> a<00:31:30.640> while<00:31:30.960> what
leaders. Okay. And for a while what
happens<00:31:31.360> in<00:31:31.600> oligopoulies<00:31:32.559> traditionally<00:31:33.120> is
happens in oligopoulies traditionally is
you<00:31:33.520> compete<00:31:33.919> aggressively<00:31:34.640> on<00:31:34.880> features<00:31:35.279> and
you compete aggressively on features and
not<00:31:35.679> on<00:31:35.840> price.<00:31:36.159> You<00:31:36.399> essentially<00:31:37.279> soft
not on price. You essentially soft
collude<00:31:38.000> on<00:31:38.240> price<00:31:38.799> and<00:31:39.039> the<00:31:39.200> models<00:31:39.519> were
collude on price and the models were
somewhat<00:31:40.080> similarly<00:31:40.399> priced.<00:31:40.640> OpenAI<00:31:41.120> would
somewhat similarly priced. OpenAI would
be<00:31:41.279> like<00:31:41.440> oh<00:31:41.600> we're<00:31:41.840> half<00:31:42.000> the<00:31:42.159> price<00:31:42.320> for
be like oh we're half the price for
codeex<00:31:42.960> but<00:31:43.120> not<00:31:43.200> really<00:31:43.440> we're<00:31:43.600> as
codeex but not really we're as
competitive<00:31:44.399> right<00:31:45.360> and<00:31:45.519> then<00:31:45.840> typically<00:31:46.480> I
competitive right and then typically I
mean<00:31:47.120> Harry's<00:31:47.440> the<00:31:47.600> the<00:31:47.840> the<00:31:48.320> master<00:31:48.559> here.
mean Harry's the the the master here.
When<00:31:49.039> you<00:31:49.200> leave<00:31:49.600> oligopical<00:31:50.559> stages<00:31:51.200> there's
When you leave oligopical stages there's
massive<00:31:52.399> price<00:31:52.799> erosion<00:31:53.039> because<00:31:53.200> you're<00:31:53.440> no
massive price erosion because you're no
longer<00:31:53.760> competing<00:31:54.000> on<00:31:54.159> features<00:31:54.480> you're
longer competing on features you're
competing<00:31:54.880> on<00:31:55.039> price.<00:31:55.200> And<00:31:55.360> that's<00:31:55.519> exactly
competing on price. And that's exactly
what<00:31:55.919> we're<00:31:56.159> seeing.<00:31:56.880> And<00:31:57.120> governments<00:31:57.519> do
what we're seeing. And governments do
support<00:31:58.240> igopolies<00:31:58.799> all<00:31:58.960> the<00:31:59.120> time<00:31:59.360> when<00:31:59.600> it's
support igopolies all the time when it's
when<00:32:00.080> and<00:32:00.240> they<00:32:00.399> they<00:32:00.720> and<00:32:00.880> the<00:32:01.039> cl<00:32:01.279> the<00:32:01.519> number
when and they they and the cl the number
one<00:32:01.840> example<00:32:02.159> in<00:32:02.480> e<00:32:02.720> is<00:32:02.960> medical<00:32:03.279> device
one example in e is medical device
companies<00:32:04.000> and<00:32:04.399> medicare<00:32:04.960> right<00:32:05.760> uh<00:32:06.000> you<00:32:06.240> fix
companies and medicare right uh you fix
pricing<00:32:06.960> so<00:32:07.200> you<00:32:07.360> can<00:32:07.440> get<00:32:07.600> innovation<00:32:08.240> and<00:32:08.480> I
pricing so you can get innovation and I
>> when<00:32:09.279> you<00:32:09.440> fix<00:32:09.679> pricing<00:32:10.080> because<00:32:10.399> you<00:32:11.039> you<00:32:11.279> fix
>> when you fix pricing because you you fix
pricing<00:32:11.840> because<00:32:12.080> of<00:32:12.240> regulatory<00:32:12.720> capture<00:32:13.120> I
pricing because of regulatory capture I
I<00:32:13.600> agree<00:32:13.760> with<00:32:13.919> what<00:32:14.080> you're<00:32:14.240> saying<00:32:14.399> is<00:32:14.799> yes
I agree with what you're saying is yes
oligopies<00:32:16.480> are<00:32:16.640> great<00:32:16.799> for<00:32:16.960> the<00:32:17.120> people
oligopies are great for the people
involved<00:32:17.840> because<00:32:18.159> yeah<00:32:18.320> you<00:32:18.480> can<00:32:18.640> have<00:32:18.720> a
involved because yeah you can have a
>> sometimes<00:32:19.519> for<00:32:19.679> innovation
>> sometimes for innovation
>> if<00:32:22.320> you<00:32:22.399> look<00:32:22.559> at<00:32:22.559> the<00:32:22.799> study<00:32:23.120> when<00:32:23.360> you<00:32:23.600> have
>> if you look at the study when you have
folks<00:32:24.159> that<00:32:24.399> are<00:32:24.640> brutally<00:32:25.200> like<00:32:25.440> we're<00:32:25.679> still
folks that are brutally like we're still
competing
But<00:32:26.960> if<00:32:27.200> we<00:32:27.519> agree<00:32:28.159> that<00:32:28.399> that<00:32:28.480> that<00:32:28.960> basically
But if we agree that that that basically
listen<00:32:29.919> we're<00:32:30.240> 200<00:32:30.559> bucks<00:32:30.799> each<00:32:31.039> for<00:32:31.200> our<00:32:31.360> max
listen we're 200 bucks each for our max
program<00:32:32.000> and<00:32:32.240> we're<00:32:32.399> going<00:32:32.480> to<00:32:32.559> charge<00:32:32.799> this
program and we're going to charge this
much<00:32:33.120> per<00:32:33.360> token.<00:32:34.000> How<00:32:34.159> do<00:32:34.320> you<00:32:34.480> win?<00:32:34.799> You<00:32:34.960> win
much per token. How do you win? You win
because<00:32:35.440> Anthropic<00:32:36.000> comes<00:32:36.159> in<00:32:36.320> and<00:32:36.480> builds
because Anthropic comes in and builds
this<00:32:36.880> this<00:32:37.519> disruptive<00:32:38.159> coding<00:32:38.559> model<00:32:38.960> and
this this disruptive coding model and
takes<00:32:39.519> all<00:32:39.760> that<00:32:40.000> revenue,<00:32:40.799> right?<00:32:41.120> That's
takes all that revenue, right? That's
how<00:32:41.519> you<00:32:41.679> win<00:32:42.480> in<00:32:42.640> an<00:32:42.960> oligopical<00:32:43.600> market<00:32:43.919> when
how you win in an oligopical market when
you<00:32:44.320> when<00:32:44.559> pricing<00:32:44.960> doesn't<00:32:45.200> matter<00:32:45.440> and
you when pricing doesn't matter and
features<00:32:46.000> do<00:32:46.240> and<00:32:46.480> it<00:32:46.640> and<00:32:46.880> it<00:32:47.039> actually<00:32:47.200> can
features do and it and it actually can
be<00:32:47.600> great<00:32:47.760> for<00:32:47.919> innovation<00:32:49.039> in<00:32:49.279> the<00:32:49.440> short
be great for innovation in the short
term<00:32:49.840> but<00:32:50.080> maybe<00:32:50.240> not<00:32:50.399> in<00:32:50.559> the<00:32:50.720> maybe<00:32:50.960> not<00:32:51.039> in
term but maybe not in the maybe not in
the<00:32:51.360> long<00:32:51.519> term,<00:32:51.760> right?
the long term, right?
>> I<00:32:52.159> mean<00:32:52.320> include<00:32:53.120> me<00:32:53.279> out<00:32:53.440> on<00:32:53.600> that.
>> I mean include me out on that.
Competition<00:32:54.640> works.<00:32:55.200> I<00:32:55.440> mean,<00:32:55.519> again,<00:32:55.840> going
Competition works. I mean, again, going
back,<00:32:56.399> yeah,<00:32:56.799> I<00:32:57.120> I<00:32:57.200> I<00:32:57.360> think<00:32:57.519> any<00:32:57.840> number<00:32:58.000> of
back, yeah, I I I think any number of
examples<00:32:58.720> say<00:32:59.360> you<00:32:59.519> just<00:32:59.679> got<00:32:59.840> to<00:33:00.000> let
examples say you just got to let
competition<00:33:00.799> rip.<00:33:01.120> You<00:33:01.279> got<00:33:01.360> to<00:33:01.440> let<00:33:01.600> the<00:33:01.840> open
competition rip. You got to let the open
source<00:33:02.399> providers<00:33:02.880> rip.<00:33:03.360> You<00:33:03.679> we're<00:33:03.919> going<00:33:04.000> to
source providers rip. You we're going to
want<00:33:04.399> I<00:33:04.559> mean,<00:33:04.720> again,<00:33:04.960> it's<00:33:05.120> the<00:33:05.279> Coinbase
want I mean, again, it's the Coinbase
example.<00:33:06.320> You<00:33:06.480> know,<00:33:06.559> the<00:33:06.720> the<00:33:06.960> counter<00:33:07.440> the
example. You know, the the counter the
counter<00:33:08.480> what's<00:33:08.640> it<00:33:08.880> counterfactual<00:33:09.679> is<00:33:10.159> if
counter what's it counterfactual is if
those<00:33:10.799> if<00:33:11.120> those<00:33:11.760> open<00:33:12.000> source<00:33:12.320> product
those if those open source product
didn't<00:33:12.880> exist,<00:33:13.279> the<00:33:13.440> Brian<00:33:13.760> Armstrong<00:33:14.880> quote
didn't exist, the Brian Armstrong quote
would<00:33:15.600> tweet<00:33:15.919> would<00:33:16.080> have<00:33:16.240> been<00:33:16.720> we<00:33:16.880> were
would tweet would have been we were
paying<00:33:17.360> $10<00:33:17.519> million<00:33:18.159> six<00:33:18.399> months<00:33:18.559> ago<00:33:18.880> for
paying $10 million six months ago for
our<00:33:19.840> AI<00:33:20.240> intelligence.<00:33:21.039> Now<00:33:21.200> we're<00:33:21.440> paying
our AI intelligence. Now we're paying
60.<00:33:22.159> What<00:33:22.320> the<00:33:22.399> freak<00:33:22.640> do<00:33:22.720> I<00:33:22.880> do?<00:33:23.120> It<00:33:23.279> wouldn't
60. What the freak do I do? It wouldn't
have<00:33:23.519> been<00:33:23.679> as<00:33:23.840> good<00:33:23.919> a<00:33:24.080> tweet,<00:33:24.480> right?<00:33:24.960> We
have been as good a tweet, right? We
need<00:33:25.440> competition<00:33:25.919> to<00:33:26.080> make<00:33:26.240> this<00:33:26.399> [ __ ]
need competition to make this [ __ ]
happen.<00:33:26.960> So,<00:33:27.200> I<00:33:27.360> hear<00:33:27.519> you,<00:33:27.760> Jason.<00:33:28.240> It<00:33:28.480> might,
happen. So, I hear you, Jason. It might,
by<00:33:28.880> the<00:33:28.960> way,<00:33:29.120> it<00:33:29.279> might<00:33:29.440> happen.<00:33:30.080> You<00:33:30.240> might
by the way, it might happen. You might
see<00:33:30.720> some<00:33:31.039> pressure,<00:33:31.440> but<00:33:31.679> I<00:33:31.760> think<00:33:31.840> it<00:33:32.000> would
see some pressure, but I think it would
be<00:33:32.159> a<00:33:32.320> bummer.<00:33:33.200> Move<00:33:33.440> on.
be a bummer. Move on.
>> Hard<00:33:34.080> to<00:33:34.240> predict<00:33:34.480> at<00:33:34.559> least,<00:33:34.880> right?<00:33:35.120> Hard
>> Hard to predict at least, right? Hard
hard<00:33:35.600> to<00:33:35.760> predict<00:33:36.320> as<00:33:36.799> as<00:33:37.039> of<00:33:37.200> this<00:33:37.360> date.<00:33:37.519> I
hard to predict as as of this date. I
think<00:33:37.840> hard<00:33:38.080> to<00:33:38.159> predict.
think hard to predict.
>> We're<00:33:38.960> going<00:33:39.039> to<00:33:39.120> jump<00:33:39.360> around<00:33:39.600> a<00:33:39.840> little<00:33:39.919> bit
>> We're going to jump around a little bit
here,<00:33:40.320> but<00:33:40.559> few<00:33:40.799> companies<00:33:41.120> have<00:33:41.360> had<00:33:41.519> the
here, but few companies have had the
competitive<00:33:43.760> tussle<00:33:44.240> when<00:33:44.480> it<00:33:44.640> comes<00:33:44.799> to
competitive tussle when it comes to
regulation<00:33:46.320> uh<00:33:46.559> and<00:33:46.960> government
regulation uh and government
intervention<00:33:47.840> or<00:33:48.000> trying<00:33:48.240> to<00:33:48.559> than
intervention or trying to than
Microsoft.<00:33:49.760> Microsoft<00:33:50.320> is<00:33:50.799> in<00:33:51.120> a<00:33:52.080> pretty<00:33:52.399> poor
Microsoft. Microsoft is in a pretty poor
state.<00:33:53.120> It's<00:33:53.279> the<00:33:53.519> worst<00:33:53.760> month<00:33:54.080> since<00:33:54.640> 2000,
state. It's the worst month since 2000,
I<00:33:55.600> found.<00:33:56.399> Uh,<00:33:56.960> and<00:33:57.440> I<00:33:57.679> mean,<00:33:57.840> they're<00:33:58.080> down
I found. Uh, and I mean, they're down
16%<00:33:59.919> 16.5%<00:34:00.960> as<00:34:01.200> of<00:34:01.440> today.
16% 16.5% as of today.
What<00:34:03.360> is<00:34:03.600> going<00:34:03.840> on?<00:34:04.960> I'm<00:34:05.200> a<00:34:05.360> holder<00:34:05.600> of
What is going on? I'm a holder of
Microsoft<00:34:06.240> and<00:34:06.399> just<00:34:06.559> when<00:34:06.720> I<00:34:06.880> think<00:34:06.960> it<00:34:07.200> can't
Microsoft and just when I think it can't
go<00:34:07.519> lower,<00:34:07.919> it<00:34:08.240> does.<00:34:09.119> Guys,<00:34:09.520> can<00:34:09.599> you<00:34:09.760> help<00:34:09.919> me
go lower, it does. Guys, can you help me
out<00:34:10.320> here?<00:34:10.960> Is<00:34:11.119> this
out here? Is this
this<00:34:13.040> a<00:34:13.200> permanent<00:34:13.599> cell?<00:34:14.240> I<00:34:14.480> don't<00:34:14.639> have<00:34:14.720> a
this a permanent cell? I don't have a
theory<00:34:15.119> of<00:34:15.280> the<00:34:15.440> case<00:34:15.679> of<00:34:15.919> why<00:34:16.240> this<00:34:16.639> month<00:34:16.960> it
theory of the case of why this month it
suddenly<00:34:17.599> kind<00:34:17.760> of<00:34:17.839> dawned<00:34:18.240> on<00:34:18.480> everyone<00:34:19.359> that
suddenly kind of dawned on everyone that
his<00:34:19.919> strategic<00:34:20.399> position<00:34:20.800> was<00:34:20.960> weak.
his strategic position was weak.
Ironically,<00:34:21.839> just<00:34:22.000> when<00:34:22.159> they<00:34:22.320> had<00:34:22.480> one<00:34:22.720> of
Ironically, just when they had one of
their<00:34:22.960> big<00:34:23.200> announcements<00:34:23.599> in<00:34:23.760> Satia<00:34:24.159> and
their big announcements in Satia and
made<00:34:24.480> all<00:34:24.639> this<00:34:24.879> conversation<00:34:25.359> about<00:34:25.839> their
made all this conversation about their
direction<00:34:26.399> on<00:34:26.639> AI,<00:34:27.520> maybe<00:34:27.760> it<00:34:28.000> suddenly
direction on AI, maybe it suddenly
opened<00:34:28.639> people's<00:34:28.879> eyes<00:34:29.040> because<00:34:29.200> we've<00:34:29.440> been
opened people's eyes because we've been
saying<00:34:29.679> for<00:34:29.919> the<00:34:30.000> last<00:34:30.159> year,<00:34:30.480> look,<00:34:30.879> they
saying for the last year, look, they
don't<00:34:31.280> have<00:34:31.359> the<00:34:31.599> standalone<00:34:32.159> model.<00:34:33.119> Their
don't have the standalone model. Their
AI<00:34:34.000> story<00:34:34.399> really<00:34:34.720> is<00:34:35.760> we<00:34:36.000> spent<00:34:36.159> a<00:34:36.320> lot<00:34:36.399> of
AI story really is we spent a lot of
money<00:34:36.639> on<00:34:36.879> capex,
money on capex,
which<00:34:38.800> we<00:34:39.119> do<00:34:39.280> to<00:34:39.520> support<00:34:39.839> open<00:34:40.159> AI.<00:34:40.800> We<00:34:41.040> have
which we do to support open AI. We have
a<00:34:41.280> good<00:34:41.359> investment<00:34:41.679> in<00:34:41.919> open<00:34:42.159> AI<00:34:42.480> which<00:34:42.639> is
a good investment in open AI which is
looking<00:34:42.960> pretty<00:34:43.200> good<00:34:43.359> though<00:34:43.599> perhaps<00:34:43.919> not
looking pretty good though perhaps not
as<00:34:44.320> good<00:34:44.399> as<00:34:44.560> it<00:34:44.720> was<00:34:44.879> a<00:34:45.040> year<00:34:45.200> ago<00:34:46.159> but<00:34:46.399> our
as good as it was a year ago but our
core<00:34:46.960> software<00:34:47.359> business<00:34:47.760> doesn't<00:34:48.079> have<00:34:48.159> a
core software business doesn't have a
compelling<00:34:48.960> AI<00:34:49.599> product<00:34:50.480> and<00:34:50.720> let's<00:34:51.040> get<00:34:51.200> real
compelling AI product and let's get real
co-work<00:34:52.720> and<00:34:53.440> claude<00:34:53.839> code<00:34:54.240> are<00:34:54.399> eating<00:34:54.720> the
co-work and claude code are eating the
two<00:34:55.200> core<00:34:55.440> parts<00:34:55.760> of<00:34:55.919> the<00:34:56.079> Microsoft
two core parts of the Microsoft
franchise<00:34:57.359> back<00:34:57.599> in<00:34:57.760> the<00:34:57.920> day<00:34:58.160> which<00:34:58.400> was<00:34:58.960> you
franchise back in the day which was you
know<00:34:59.280> offers<00:34:59.599> for<00:34:59.760> the<00:34:59.920> individual<00:35:00.400> knowledge
know offers for the individual knowledge
worker<00:35:01.040> which<00:35:01.200> is<00:35:01.280> what<00:35:01.520> co-work<00:35:02.400> is<00:35:02.640> becoming
worker which is what co-work is becoming
and<00:35:04.560> um<00:35:04.880> developers<00:35:05.440> developers<00:35:05.839> as<00:35:06.079> Steve
and um developers developers as Steve
Balmer<00:35:06.640> used<00:35:06.800> to<00:35:06.960> say<00:35:07.119> which<00:35:07.359> is<00:35:07.440> what<00:35:07.599> claude
Balmer used to say which is what claude
code<00:35:08.240> is<00:35:08.480> becoming.<00:35:09.280> So<00:35:09.680> when<00:35:09.839> you<00:35:10.079> zoom<00:35:10.240> out<00:35:10.400> a
code is becoming. So when you zoom out a
million<00:35:10.880> miles,<00:35:11.680> Microsoft,<00:35:12.240> which<00:35:12.480> is<00:35:12.560> in
million miles, Microsoft, which is in
the<00:35:12.880> software<00:35:13.200> business<00:35:13.520> unlike<00:35:13.920> Apple,<00:35:14.240> and
the software business unlike Apple, and
therefore<00:35:14.880> can't<00:35:15.200> afford<00:35:15.599> to<00:35:15.920> stay<00:35:16.079> apart
therefore can't afford to stay apart
from<00:35:17.040> the<00:35:17.280> great<00:35:17.520> AI<00:35:17.920> wars<00:35:18.960> other<00:35:19.280> than<00:35:19.440> its
from the great AI wars other than its
equity<00:35:20.000> ownership<00:35:20.480> in<00:35:21.119> Open<00:35:21.440> AI<00:35:21.839> doesn't<00:35:22.079> have
equity ownership in Open AI doesn't have
anything<00:35:22.720> compelling<00:35:23.599> to<00:35:23.839> bring<00:35:24.000> to<00:35:24.240> the
anything compelling to bring to the
table.<00:35:24.640> And<00:35:24.800> I<00:35:24.960> think<00:35:25.040> the<00:35:25.280> market's<00:35:25.599> looking
table. And I think the market's looking
at<00:35:25.920> that<00:35:26.079> and<00:35:26.320> going,<00:35:26.800> you're<00:35:27.040> not<00:35:27.119> going<00:35:27.280> to
at that and going, you're not going to
zero,<00:35:27.839> Harry.<00:35:28.160> Don't<00:35:28.320> panic.<00:35:28.640> You've<00:35:28.800> had
zero, Harry. Don't panic. You've had
your<00:35:29.119> hit.<00:35:29.440> I<00:35:29.599> mean,<00:35:30.079> you<00:35:30.320> don't<00:35:30.560> get<00:35:30.720> the<00:35:30.960> lift
your hit. I mean, you don't get the lift
that<00:35:32.079> you<00:35:32.240> get<00:35:32.400> from<00:35:32.560> the<00:35:32.720> growth<00:35:32.960> story.<00:35:33.200> It's
that you get from the growth story. It's
Jason's<00:35:33.839> comment.<00:35:34.079> Do<00:35:34.240> you<00:35:34.400> really<00:35:34.560> have<00:35:34.640> an<00:35:34.880> I
Jason's comment. Do you really have an I
mean<00:35:35.359> they'll<00:35:35.680> say<00:35:35.760> they<00:35:36.000> have<00:35:36.079> an<00:35:36.160> AI<00:35:36.480> growth
mean they'll say they have an AI growth
story
but<00:35:38.800> if<00:35:39.040> you<00:35:39.200> break<00:35:39.440> it<00:35:39.680> out<00:35:39.760> in<00:35:40.000> the<00:35:40.160> numbers
but if you break it out in the numbers
which<00:35:40.640> they<00:35:40.880> don't<00:35:40.960> do<00:35:41.280> a<00:35:41.440> lot<00:35:41.520> of<00:35:41.599> that<00:35:41.760> is
which they don't do a lot of that is
just<00:35:42.160> hey<00:35:42.400> we're<00:35:42.560> selling<00:35:43.200> inference<00:35:43.680> to<00:35:43.839> open
just hey we're selling inference to open
AI<00:35:44.560> so<00:35:44.720> we<00:35:44.800> have<00:35:44.880> a<00:35:45.040> growth<00:35:45.280> story<00:35:45.760> but<00:35:46.000> what
AI so we have a growth story but what
they<00:35:46.320> don't<00:35:46.480> have<00:35:46.640> is<00:35:46.880> a<00:35:47.040> compelling<00:35:48.079> end
they don't have is a compelling end
customer<00:35:48.960> growth<00:35:49.359> story<00:35:49.680> here<00:35:49.839> that<00:35:50.079> they<00:35:50.240> own
customer growth story here that they own
themselves.<00:35:51.520> So<00:35:51.680> I<00:35:51.920> think<00:35:52.000> the<00:35:52.240> market's
themselves. So I think the market's
finally<00:35:52.880> caught<00:35:53.040> up<00:35:53.200> with<00:35:53.280> the<00:35:53.440> [ __ ]
finally caught up with the [ __ ]
Look,<00:35:54.160> I<00:35:54.240> I<00:35:54.560> don't<00:35:54.640> know<00:35:54.720> the<00:35:54.960> answer<00:35:55.119> either,
Look, I I don't know the answer either,
right<00:35:55.680> there<00:35:56.079> because<00:35:56.320> it's<00:35:56.560> a<00:35:56.720> very<00:35:56.880> complex
right there because it's a very complex
business<00:35:57.520> model,<00:35:57.920> Microsoft,<00:35:58.320> right?<00:35:58.480> It
business model, Microsoft, right? It
just<00:35:58.720> has<00:35:58.880> it's<00:35:59.040> it's<00:35:59.119> it's<00:35:59.440> a<00:35:59.599> conglomerate
just has it's it's it's a conglomerate
with<00:36:00.320> it's<00:36:00.560> got<00:36:00.720> Xbox,<00:36:01.280> which<00:36:01.520> I'm<00:36:01.680> not<00:36:01.760> a
with it's got Xbox, which I'm not a
total<00:36:02.240> expert<00:36:02.560> on,<00:36:02.800> and<00:36:02.960> a<00:36:03.119> whole<00:36:03.200> bunch<00:36:03.359> of
total expert on, and a whole bunch of
pieces.<00:36:04.480> I<00:36:04.720> think<00:36:04.800> for<00:36:05.440> so<00:36:05.599> I<00:36:05.760> I<00:36:05.760> I<00:36:06.160> don't<00:36:06.240> have
pieces. I think for so I I I don't have
any<00:36:06.480> opinion.<00:36:06.800> I<00:36:07.119> think<00:36:07.440> stepping<00:36:07.760> back<00:36:07.920> for<00:36:08.079> a
any opinion. I think stepping back for a
minute,<00:36:08.480> I<00:36:08.640> think<00:36:08.720> what<00:36:08.880> is<00:36:09.119> troubling<00:36:10.160> is
minute, I think what is troubling is
Microsoft<00:36:11.599> guiding<00:36:12.079> that<00:36:12.240> Azour<00:36:12.720> growth<00:36:12.960> is
Microsoft guiding that Azour growth is
decelerating.<00:36:13.839> And<00:36:14.000> I<00:36:14.240> think<00:36:14.400> anytime<00:36:14.880> you
decelerating. And I think anytime you
see<00:36:15.280> deceleration<00:36:16.079> at<00:36:16.320> all,<00:36:16.560> right?<00:36:16.800> And<00:36:16.880> and
see deceleration at all, right? And and
and<00:36:17.520> Rory<00:36:17.839> can<00:36:18.000> say,<00:36:18.079> "Jesus<00:36:18.480> Christ,<00:36:18.720> how<00:36:18.800> can
and Rory can say, "Jesus Christ, how can
you<00:36:19.040> keep<00:36:19.200> growing<00:36:19.440> 40%<00:36:19.920> at<00:36:20.079> this<00:36:20.240> at<00:36:20.480> this
you keep growing 40% at this at this
size,<00:36:20.960> right?<00:36:21.200> law<00:36:21.440> of<00:36:22.000> gargantuan<00:36:22.880> numbers,
size, right? law of gargantuan numbers,
right?<00:36:23.599> Sort<00:36:23.839> of<00:36:24.400> massive.<00:36:25.599> But<00:36:25.760> I<00:36:26.079> think<00:36:26.240> I
right? Sort of massive. But I think I
think<00:36:26.960> just<00:36:27.200> as<00:36:27.440> a<00:36:27.599> student,<00:36:28.240> the<00:36:28.560> only<00:36:28.800> way
think just as a student, the only way
you<00:36:29.599> can<00:36:29.839> your<00:36:30.079> stock<00:36:30.320> price<00:36:30.480> is<00:36:30.640> going<00:36:30.720> to
you can your stock price is going to
trade<00:36:30.960> up<00:36:31.119> is<00:36:31.280> if<00:36:31.440> you<00:36:31.680> if<00:36:31.839> is<00:36:32.160> if<00:36:32.320> you<00:36:32.880> beat
trade up is if you if is if you beat
raise<00:36:33.760> and<00:36:33.920> grow.<00:36:34.320> You<00:36:34.480> have<00:36:34.560> to<00:36:34.720> accelerate
raise and grow. You have to accelerate
in<00:36:35.359> this<00:36:35.520> market<00:36:35.680> and<00:36:35.839> and<00:36:36.160> you<00:36:36.240> can<00:36:36.400> be<00:36:36.480> an
in this market and and you can be an
oldie<00:36:37.200> like<00:36:37.520> Octa<00:36:38.000> and<00:36:38.160> Twilio<00:36:39.040> and<00:36:39.359> just<00:36:39.599> your
oldie like Octa and Twilio and just your
stock<00:36:40.079> can<00:36:40.320> blow<00:36:40.480> up<00:36:40.640> or<00:36:40.880> even<00:36:41.040> Navon<00:36:41.599> if<00:36:41.839> you
stock can blow up or even Navon if you
reacelerate<00:36:43.280> but<00:36:43.520> the<00:36:43.760> market's
reacelerate but the market's
expectations<00:36:44.800> are<00:36:45.040> so<00:36:45.280> high<00:36:45.839> that<00:36:46.720> um<00:36:47.119> you
expectations are so high that um you
know<00:36:47.520> guiding<00:36:47.920> to<00:36:48.320> 37%<00:36:49.040> from<00:36:49.280> 40%<00:36:49.760> growth<00:36:50.079> is<00:36:50.240> a
know guiding to 37% from 40% growth is a
fail.<00:36:51.119> It's<00:36:51.280> a<00:36:51.440> fail<00:36:51.680> for<00:36:51.839> Azur<00:36:52.240> and<00:36:52.400> it's<00:36:52.560> just
fail. It's a fail for Azur and it's just
this<00:36:53.760> is<00:36:53.920> why<00:36:54.079> maybe<00:36:54.400> that<00:36:54.640> regulation<00:36:55.119> is
this is why maybe that regulation is
coming<00:36:55.520> for<00:36:55.839> those<00:36:56.240> Chinese<00:36:56.640> open<00:36:56.880> source
coming for those Chinese open source
models<00:36:57.520> because<00:36:57.680> we<00:36:57.839> just<00:36:58.000> can't<00:36:58.160> afford<00:36:58.880> the
models because we just can't afford the
deceleration.<00:36:59.839> we<00:37:00.000> just<00:37:00.160> can't<00:37:00.240> afford<00:37:01.119> you
deceleration. we just can't afford you
know<00:37:01.599> uh<00:37:01.760> so<00:37:02.240> but<00:37:02.480> it's<00:37:02.640> not<00:37:02.800> the<00:37:02.960> only<00:37:03.200> Azur<00:37:03.599> is
know uh so but it's not the only Azur is
not<00:37:03.920> the<00:37:04.079> only<00:37:04.400> factor<00:37:04.960> right<00:37:05.200> but<00:37:05.440> it's<00:37:05.599> so
not the only factor right but it's so
important<00:37:06.240> and<00:37:06.480> it's<00:37:06.640> it's<00:37:06.960> almost<00:37:07.119> a<00:37:07.280> canary
important and it's it's almost a canary
in<00:37:07.760> the<00:37:07.839> coal<00:37:08.079> mine<00:37:08.560> that<00:37:08.800> if<00:37:08.960> there's<00:37:09.200> any
in the coal mine that if there's any
issue<00:37:09.520> in<00:37:09.680> Azur<00:37:10.079> we<00:37:10.240> should<00:37:10.400> at<00:37:10.400> least<00:37:10.720> reflect
issue in Azur we should at least reflect
on<00:37:11.280> why<00:37:11.520> it<00:37:11.760> is<00:37:12.000> right<00:37:12.240> if<00:37:12.480> there's<00:37:12.720> any
on why it is right if there's any
slowdown<00:37:14.000> in<00:37:14.320> this<00:37:14.560> era<00:37:14.720> where<00:37:14.960> we're
slowdown in this era where we're
claiming<00:37:15.520> we're<00:37:15.760> all<00:37:15.839> going<00:37:15.920> to<00:37:16.079> be<00:37:16.240> running
claiming we're all going to be running
20<00:37:16.880> agents<00:37:17.359> 24/7<00:37:18.480> Azour<00:37:18.960> should<00:37:19.119> be<00:37:19.760> shouldn't
20 agents 24/7 Azour should be shouldn't
it<00:37:20.240> be<00:37:20.400> accelerating<00:37:20.960> even<00:37:21.119> at<00:37:21.280> this<00:37:21.440> scale
it be accelerating even at this scale
>> well<00:37:23.119> yes<00:37:23.520> bec<00:37:23.760> I<00:37:23.920> mean<00:37:24.079> again<00:37:25.200> because<00:37:25.520> as<00:37:26.000> I
>> well yes bec I mean again because as I
mean<00:37:26.240> I<00:37:26.480> cited<00:37:26.960> developers<00:37:27.839> and<00:37:28.480> end<00:37:28.720> user<00:37:29.200> a<00:37:29.680> a
mean I cited developers and end user a a
and<00:37:30.240> knowledge<00:37:30.560> workers,<00:37:30.880> but<00:37:31.119> you're
and knowledge workers, but you're
talking<00:37:31.599> about<00:37:31.760> the<00:37:32.000> separate<00:37:32.320> aspect<00:37:32.640> of<00:37:32.720> the
talking about the separate aspect of the
business<00:37:33.040> which<00:37:33.200> is<00:37:33.359> the<00:37:33.520> cloud<00:37:33.760> business<00:37:34.320> and
business which is the cloud business and
you're<00:37:34.640> right<00:37:35.280> and<00:37:35.599> yeah<00:37:35.760> the<00:37:35.920> Azure<00:37:36.400> cloud
you're right and yeah the Azure cloud
business<00:37:37.040> de<00:37:37.200> accelerates<00:37:37.680> but<00:37:37.839> I<00:37:38.000> think<00:37:38.079> more
business de accelerates but I think more
fundamentally<00:37:39.520> a<00:37:39.760> huge<00:37:40.000> slug<00:37:40.240> of<00:37:40.400> the<00:37:40.480> Azure
fundamentally a huge slug of the Azure
cloud<00:37:41.200> business<00:37:41.520> is<00:37:41.839> simply<00:37:42.160> just<00:37:42.480> inference
cloud business is simply just inference
for<00:37:43.760> you<00:37:43.920> know<00:37:44.079> other<00:37:44.320> providers<00:37:44.640> like<00:37:44.800> open
for you know other providers like open
AI<00:37:45.359> so<00:37:45.599> yes<00:37:45.760> I<00:37:45.920> I<00:37:46.079> agree
AI so yes I I agree
>> but<00:37:46.400> it<00:37:46.560> should<00:37:46.720> accelerate<00:37:47.200> right<00:37:47.520> that<00:37:47.680> that
>> but it should accelerate right that that
should<00:37:48.160> accelerate
should accelerate
>> yeah<00:37:49.359> if<00:37:49.599> you<00:37:49.760> recollect<00:37:50.560> and<00:37:50.800> this<00:37:50.880> is<00:37:50.960> a
>> yeah if you recollect and this is a
harsh<00:37:51.359> comment<00:37:51.760> three<00:37:52.000> years<00:37:52.079> ago<00:37:52.560> Satia<00:37:53.040> did
harsh comment three years ago Satia did
they<00:37:53.520> were<00:37:53.680> going<00:37:53.760> to<00:37:53.920> make<00:37:54.640> you<00:37:54.880> know<00:37:55.200> Google
they were going to make you know Google
dance<00:37:56.000> comment<00:37:56.800> and<00:37:57.040> the<00:37:57.200> truth<00:37:57.359> is<00:37:57.680> since
dance comment and the truth is since
then<00:37:58.160> Google's<00:37:58.560> massively<00:37:58.960> outperformed<00:37:59.520> and
then Google's massively outperformed and
for<00:37:59.839> all<00:38:00.000> their<00:38:00.160> faults<00:38:00.480> and<00:38:00.640> I<00:38:00.800> still<00:38:00.960> think
for all their faults and I still think
they<00:38:01.359> have<00:38:01.760> significant<00:38:02.400> issues<00:38:03.359> and<00:38:03.760> risks
they have significant issues and risks
they<00:38:04.800> at<00:38:04.800> least<00:38:05.119> have<00:38:05.280> their<00:38:05.599> standalone
they at least have their standalone
model<00:38:06.480> and<00:38:06.640> a<00:38:06.880> product<00:38:07.040> to<00:38:07.280> sell.<00:38:07.599> The<00:38:07.839> truth
model and a product to sell. The truth
is<00:38:08.320> today<00:38:09.200> Microsoft<00:38:09.760> has<00:38:10.000> a<00:38:10.160> 30%<00:38:10.720> ownership
is today Microsoft has a 30% ownership
interest<00:38:11.760> in<00:38:12.000> open<00:38:12.240> AI<00:38:12.560> and<00:38:12.800> doesn't<00:38:13.040> have<00:38:13.119> a
interest in open AI and doesn't have a
state-of-the-art<00:38:13.920> frontier<00:38:14.320> model
state-of-the-art frontier model
themselves.<00:38:15.359> That's<00:38:15.520> a<00:38:15.760> big<00:38:15.920> difference.
themselves. That's a big difference.
>> You<00:38:16.560> know,<00:38:16.640> it'll<00:38:16.800> be<00:38:16.960> interesting<00:38:17.119> if<00:38:17.280> if
>> You know, it'll be interesting if if
Anthropic<00:38:17.920> really<00:38:18.079> does<00:38:18.240> IPO<00:38:18.640> in<00:38:18.720> the<00:38:18.880> coming
Anthropic really does IPO in the coming
months,<00:38:19.280> right?<00:38:19.440> If<00:38:19.599> it<00:38:19.680> stays<00:38:19.920> on<00:38:20.079> track,<00:38:20.640> I<00:38:20.800> I
months, right? If it stays on track, I I
have<00:38:21.200> to<00:38:21.280> imagine<00:38:21.520> it's<00:38:21.680> going<00:38:21.760> to<00:38:21.839> be<00:38:21.920> one<00:38:22.079> of
have to imagine it's going to be one of
the<00:38:22.160> most<00:38:22.320> volatile<00:38:22.720> stocks<00:38:23.040> out<00:38:23.119> there,
the most volatile stocks out there,
right?<00:38:23.599> Even<00:38:23.760> a<00:38:23.920> hint<00:38:24.079> of<00:38:24.240> news<00:38:24.480> will<00:38:24.720> send<00:38:24.880> it
right? Even a hint of news will send it
up<00:38:25.119> and<00:38:25.359> down.<00:38:25.920> Ma<00:38:26.240> ma<00:38:26.560> I<00:38:26.720> mean<00:38:26.800> even<00:38:27.040> service
up and down. Ma ma I mean even service
is<00:38:27.599> massively<00:38:28.079> volatile<00:38:28.560> right<00:38:29.040> but<00:38:29.280> if
is massively volatile right but if
Microsoft<00:38:30.000> has<00:38:30.160> this<00:38:30.400> level<00:38:30.560> of<00:38:30.720> volatility<00:38:31.599> I
Microsoft has this level of volatility I
you<00:38:31.920> know<00:38:32.000> we're<00:38:32.240> going<00:38:32.320> to<00:38:32.400> be<00:38:32.480> reading<00:38:32.880> every
you know we're going to be reading every
every<00:38:33.520> teleafly<00:38:34.079> want<00:38:34.400> anthropic<00:38:34.880> entropic
every teleafly want anthropic entropic
looks<00:38:35.680> perfectly<00:38:36.079> linear<00:38:37.119> I<00:38:37.280> guess<00:38:37.359> it's<00:38:37.520> I
looks perfectly linear I guess it's I
guess<00:38:37.839> it's<00:38:38.000> exp<00:38:38.720> it<00:38:38.880> all<00:38:39.040> looks<00:38:39.280> perfect<00:38:39.520> and
guess it's exp it all looks perfect and
up<00:38:39.839> to<00:38:39.920> the<00:38:40.000> right<00:38:40.240> today<00:38:40.400> while<00:38:40.640> it's<00:38:40.800> private
up to the right today while it's private
right<00:38:41.440> all<00:38:41.599> these<00:38:41.839> rounds<00:38:42.320> but<00:38:43.040> man<00:38:43.359> I<00:38:43.520> wonder
right all these rounds but man I wonder
how<00:38:43.839> the<00:38:44.079> volatility<00:38:44.560> in<00:38:44.720> that<00:38:44.960> stock
how the volatility in that stock
[laughter]<00:38:45.359> price
[laughter] price
a<00:38:47.200> hint<00:38:47.359> of<00:38:47.520> bad<00:38:47.839> news
a hint of bad news
boom
>> well<00:38:51.680> the<00:38:51.920> experts<00:38:52.320> in<00:38:52.480> volatility<00:38:53.119> are<00:38:53.280> Khi
>> well the experts in volatility are Khi
and<00:38:54.480> Khi<00:38:55.440> are<00:38:55.680> apparently<00:38:56.320> raising<00:38:56.640> a<00:38:56.880> new
and Khi are apparently raising a new
round<00:38:57.280> at<00:38:57.599> $40<00:38:57.839> billion.<00:38:58.720> They<00:38:58.960> raised<00:38:59.200> their
round at $40 billion. They raised their
last<00:38:59.599> round<00:38:59.839> in<00:39:00.079> May<00:39:00.640> at<00:39:01.119> $22<00:39:01.520> billion.
last round in May at $22 billion.
Is<00:39:03.440> this<00:39:03.680> just<00:39:03.839> the<00:39:04.160> ultimate<00:39:04.560> sign<00:39:04.720> of<00:39:04.960> kind
Is this just the ultimate sign of kind
of<00:39:05.200> the<00:39:05.359> casinoization<00:39:06.240> of<00:39:06.480> society<00:39:07.359> and<00:39:07.760> risk
of the casinoization of society and risk
on<00:39:08.320> mentality<00:39:08.880> from<00:39:09.280> consumers?
on mentality from consumers?
They<00:39:11.839> recently<00:39:12.160> announced<00:39:12.480> being<00:39:12.640> at<00:39:12.880> 2
They recently announced being at 2
billion<00:39:13.200> in<00:39:13.520> revenue.
billion in revenue.
How<00:39:15.520> do<00:39:15.680> we<00:39:15.839> feel<00:39:16.000> about<00:39:16.240> this?
How do we feel about this?
>> People<00:39:17.280> like<00:39:17.520> to<00:39:17.680> bet
>> People like to bet
and<00:39:19.839> you<00:39:20.079> know<00:39:20.320> they<00:39:21.200> US<00:39:22.240> had<00:39:22.400> a<00:39:22.560> prohibition
and you know they US had a prohibition
and<00:39:23.440> we<00:39:23.680> talked<00:39:23.839> about<00:39:24.000> this<00:39:24.160> last<00:39:24.400> week.<00:39:24.560> They
and we talked about this last week. They
had<00:39:24.800> a<00:39:24.960> prohibition<00:39:25.280> on<00:39:25.440> gambling<00:39:25.839> and<00:39:26.000> sports
had a prohibition on gambling and sports
for<00:39:26.400> the<00:39:26.480> longest<00:39:26.880> time.<00:39:27.440> Poor<00:39:27.760> Pete<00:39:28.000> Rose
for the longest time. Poor Pete Rose
never<00:39:28.640> got<00:39:28.800> into<00:39:28.960> the<00:39:29.119> Hall<00:39:29.359> of<00:39:29.440> Fame<00:39:29.760> because
never got into the Hall of Fame because
he<00:39:30.240> bet<00:39:30.560> on<00:39:30.720> himself.<00:39:31.920> And<00:39:32.160> now<00:39:32.400> we<00:39:32.560> have,<00:39:32.880> you
he bet on himself. And now we have, you
know,<00:39:33.040> a<00:39:33.200> couple<00:39:33.440> hundred<00:39:33.680> billion<00:39:33.920> dollar<00:39:34.079> a
know, a couple hundred billion dollar a
year<00:39:34.320> industry<00:39:34.720> doing<00:39:34.960> exactly<00:39:35.359> the<00:39:35.599> same.<00:39:35.920> So
year industry doing exactly the same. So
they're<00:39:37.760> just<00:39:38.240> riding<00:39:38.640> that<00:39:38.880> trend.<00:39:39.440> And
they're just riding that trend. And
they,<00:39:39.760> you<00:39:39.839> know,<00:39:39.920> they<00:39:40.079> got<00:39:40.240> other<00:39:40.480> products.
they, you know, they got other products.
It's<00:39:41.040> not<00:39:41.200> all<00:39:41.440> sports<00:39:41.760> betting,<00:39:42.160> but<00:39:42.320> it's
It's not all sports betting, but it's
about,<00:39:42.640> I<00:39:42.880> think,<00:39:43.040> 70%<00:39:43.760> plus<00:39:44.079> sports<00:39:44.400> betting.
about, I think, 70% plus sports betting.
And,<00:39:46.720> you<00:39:46.880> know,<00:39:47.200> it's<00:39:47.760> it<00:39:48.000> it's<00:39:48.320> killing<00:39:48.560> it
And, you know, it's it it's killing it
in<00:39:48.880> revenue.<00:39:49.440> So<00:39:49.680> it's<00:39:50.320> it's<00:39:51.119> makes<00:39:51.440> it
in revenue. So it's it's makes it
totally<00:39:51.920> makes<00:39:52.079> sense.<00:39:52.480> Will<00:39:52.720> Koshi<00:39:53.280> be<00:39:53.359> a
totally makes sense. Will Koshi be a
hundred<00:39:53.760> billion<00:39:54.079> dollar<00:39:54.400> company<00:39:54.640> in<00:39:54.960> 12
hundred billion dollar company in 12
months<00:39:55.520> time?
months time?
>> I<00:39:56.560> I<00:39:56.880> doubt<00:39:57.040> it.<00:39:57.280> Uh<00:39:57.440> I<00:39:57.680> mean<00:39:57.760> look,<00:39:58.000> you<00:39:58.160> get
>> I I doubt it. Uh I mean look, you get
there<00:39:58.400> one<00:39:58.560> of<00:39:58.720> two<00:39:58.880> ways.<00:39:59.119> Either<00:39:59.440> sports
there one of two ways. Either sports
betting<00:40:00.160> continue<00:40:00.560> to<00:40:00.720> expand<00:40:01.119> and<00:40:01.280> they<00:40:01.440> can
betting continue to expand and they can
take<00:40:01.760> disproportionate<00:40:02.560> market<00:40:02.800> share.
take disproportionate market share.
That's<00:40:03.599> one<00:40:03.839> option.<00:40:04.400> Or<00:40:04.640> the<00:40:04.800> other<00:40:04.960> at<00:40:05.280> that
That's one option. Or the other at that
is<00:40:06.079> the<00:40:06.320> whole<00:40:06.640> crypto<00:40:07.200> perpetuals<00:40:08.000> business
is the whole crypto perpetuals business
which<00:40:08.720> I<00:40:08.960> just<00:40:09.119> really<00:40:09.440> started<00:40:09.680> to<00:40:09.920> learn
which I just really started to learn
about<00:40:10.400> which<00:40:10.640> is<00:40:10.800> effectively<00:40:12.000> you<00:40:12.160> know<00:40:12.320> kind
about which is effectively you know kind
of<00:40:12.640> futures<00:40:13.119> on<00:40:13.359> crypto<00:40:13.760> which<00:40:13.920> is<00:40:14.079> g<00:40:14.320> you<00:40:14.400> know
of futures on crypto which is g you know
which<00:40:14.720> is<00:40:15.839> which<00:40:16.000> is<00:40:16.160> gambling<00:40:16.560> to<00:40:16.720> the<00:40:16.880> end
which is which is gambling to the end
right?<00:40:17.440> either<00:40:17.920> that<00:40:18.079> business<00:40:18.400> turns<00:40:18.560> out<00:40:18.720> to
right? either that business turns out to
be<00:40:18.960> much<00:40:19.119> bigger<00:40:19.359> than<00:40:19.520> we<00:40:19.760> realize,<00:40:20.320> which<00:40:20.560> is
be much bigger than we realize, which is
not<00:40:20.880> impossible,<00:40:21.839> right?<00:40:22.079> I<00:40:22.320> mean,<00:40:22.400> look,<00:40:22.720> I
not impossible, right? I mean, look, I
ICE,<00:40:23.599> not<00:40:23.839> the<00:40:24.000> ICE,<00:40:24.320> but<00:40:24.800> ICE<00:40:25.040> as<00:40:25.280> in<00:40:25.440> the
ICE, not the ICE, but ICE as in the
inter<00:40:25.920> the<00:40:26.240> owners<00:40:26.560> of<00:40:26.720> NASDAQ,<00:40:27.359> the<00:40:28.079> I<00:40:28.320> think
inter the owners of NASDAQ, the I think
intercontinental<00:40:29.280> exchange<00:40:29.920> has<00:40:30.160> a<00:40:30.320> big
intercontinental exchange has a big
ownership<00:40:30.960> stake<00:40:31.200> in<00:40:31.440> poly<00:40:31.760> market.<00:40:32.160> Why
ownership stake in poly market. Why
that's<00:40:32.640> relevant<00:40:32.960> is<00:40:33.200> that's<00:40:33.440> a<00:40:33.680> company<00:40:34.480> that
that's relevant is that's a company that
runs<00:40:35.359> ICE<00:40:35.680> that<00:40:35.920> runs<00:40:37.280> stock<00:40:37.599> trading<00:40:38.400> and<00:40:38.720> you
runs ICE that runs stock trading and you
know<00:40:39.280> real<00:40:39.599> financial<00:40:40.079> markets<00:40:41.119> taking<00:40:41.440> an
know real financial markets taking an
significant<00:40:42.480> I<00:40:42.640> think<00:40:42.720> around<00:40:42.960> 20%<00:40:43.440> ownership
significant I think around 20% ownership
interest<00:40:44.480> in<00:40:44.800> the<00:40:44.960> other<00:40:45.359> big<00:40:45.839> kind<00:40:46.079> of<00:40:46.400> online
interest in the other big kind of online
betting<00:40:48.079> prediction<00:40:48.480> market<00:40:48.800> player<00:40:49.119> poly
betting prediction market player poly
market<00:40:49.920> and<00:40:50.160> they're<00:40:50.320> clearly<00:40:50.640> saying<00:40:50.960> this
market and they're clearly saying this
is<00:40:51.200> a<00:40:51.440> huge<00:40:51.680> thing<00:40:51.839> that<00:40:52.079> can<00:40:52.320> have<00:40:52.960> 50<00:40:53.119> or
is a huge thing that can have 50 or
hundred<00:40:53.680> billion<00:40:54.000> dollar<00:40:54.480> kind<00:40:54.640> of
hundred billion dollar kind of
valuation.<00:40:55.599> So<00:40:56.160> it's<00:40:56.480> not<00:40:56.720> crazy<00:40:57.520> but<00:40:57.680> it
valuation. So it's not crazy but it
happens<00:40:58.079> one<00:40:58.319> of<00:40:58.400> two<00:40:58.640> ways.<00:40:58.880> Either<00:40:59.280> A<00:40:59.839> sports
happens one of two ways. Either A sports
betting<00:41:00.560> gets<00:41:01.200> ultra<00:41:01.440> huge<00:41:02.480> and<00:41:02.720> they<00:41:02.960> don't
betting gets ultra huge and they don't
get<00:41:03.280> tied<00:41:03.599> up<00:41:03.760> by<00:41:04.000> regulation<00:41:04.640> and<00:41:05.040> the<00:41:05.280> whole
get tied up by regulation and the whole
um<00:41:05.920> issues<00:41:06.240> around<00:41:06.480> that<00:41:06.960> or<00:41:07.280> B<00:41:07.839> the
um issues around that or B the
non-sports<00:41:08.880> betting<00:41:09.359> side<00:41:09.760> of<00:41:10.079> prediction
non-sports betting side of prediction
markets<00:41:11.040> in<00:41:11.200> particular<00:41:11.520> the<00:41:11.760> financial
markets in particular the financial
products<00:41:13.200> becomes<00:41:13.599> huge.<00:41:14.160> I<00:41:14.400> don't<00:41:14.560> think
products becomes huge. I don't think
predicting<00:41:15.200> who's<00:41:15.440> the<00:41:15.680> next<00:41:15.920> who's<00:41:16.160> going<00:41:16.240> to
predicting who's the next who's going to
win<00:41:16.480> the<00:41:16.640> general<00:41:16.880> election<00:41:17.359> or<00:41:17.520> in<00:41:17.760> the<00:41:17.839> UK<00:41:18.079> or
win the general election or in the UK or
who's<00:41:18.560> going<00:41:18.640> to<00:41:18.720> be<00:41:18.800> the<00:41:18.960> next<00:41:19.119> president<00:41:19.599> in
who's going to be the next president in
the<00:41:20.000> US<00:41:20.400> is<00:41:20.640> a<00:41:21.200> huge<00:41:21.599> enormous<00:41:22.160> ginormous
the US is a huge enormous ginormous
business.<00:41:23.200> I<00:41:23.359> love<00:41:23.440> it.<00:41:23.680> I<00:41:23.839> find<00:41:24.000> it<00:41:24.240> fun.<00:41:24.560> It's
business. I love it. I find it fun. It's
actually<00:41:25.040> the<00:41:25.200> most<00:41:25.359> interesting<00:41:25.680> part<00:41:25.839> of
actually the most interesting part of
Poly<00:41:26.400> Market<00:41:26.640> and<00:41:26.880> Calry,<00:41:27.520> but<00:41:27.760> that's<00:41:28.000> not
Poly Market and Calry, but that's not
going<00:41:28.240> to<00:41:28.319> get<00:41:28.400> you<00:41:28.560> to<00:41:28.720> 100<00:41:28.960> million<00:41:29.200> bucks
going to get you to 100 million bucks
because<00:41:29.839> the<00:41:30.000> number<00:41:30.160> of<00:41:30.240> people<00:41:30.400> who
because the number of people who
actually<00:41:30.800> really<00:41:31.040> want<00:41:31.119> to<00:41:31.280> bet<00:41:31.440> on<00:41:31.599> the<00:41:31.760> next
actually really want to bet on the next
president<00:41:32.319> is<00:41:32.560> actually<00:41:32.800> pretty<00:41:33.040> low.<00:41:33.520> It's
president is actually pretty low. It's
either<00:41:34.480> sports<00:41:34.880> betting,<00:41:35.280> which<00:41:35.520> works
either sports betting, which works
because<00:41:35.920> we<00:41:36.079> all<00:41:36.240> love<00:41:36.480> sports.<00:41:37.359> Um,<00:41:37.680> good
because we all love sports. Um, good
luck<00:41:38.079> tomorrow,<00:41:38.480> Harry.<00:41:39.440> And<00:41:40.400> uh,<00:41:40.560> and<00:41:40.800> then
luck tomorrow, Harry. And uh, and then
or<00:41:41.440> it's<00:41:41.839> financial<00:41:42.319> betting,<00:41:42.720> which<00:41:42.880> we<00:41:43.040> all
or it's financial betting, which we all
love<00:41:43.359> betting<00:41:43.680> because<00:41:43.839> we<00:41:44.000> all<00:41:44.160> love<00:41:44.319> money.
love betting because we all love money.
[clears throat]<00:41:45.440> And<00:41:45.839> I'm<00:41:46.079> sure<00:41:46.240> if<00:41:46.480> you,<00:41:46.720> you
[clears throat] And I'm sure if you, you
know,<00:41:47.280> you've<00:41:47.520> got<00:41:47.680> sports,<00:41:48.079> you've<00:41:48.240> got
know, you've got sports, you've got
money.<00:41:48.560> If<00:41:48.720> you<00:41:48.800> could<00:41:48.880> bet<00:41:49.119> on<00:41:49.280> sex,<00:41:49.520> you'd
money. If you could bet on sex, you'd
have<00:41:49.839> the<00:41:50.000> trifecta.<00:41:50.720> It's<00:41:50.960> the<00:41:51.119> human
have the trifecta. It's the human
desires.<00:41:51.760> It's<00:41:51.839> the<00:41:52.000> big<00:41:52.400> to<00:41:52.560> get<00:41:52.720> to<00:41:52.880> make<00:41:53.040> a
desires. It's the big to get to make a
big<00:41:53.359> picture.<00:41:53.760> To<00:41:53.920> get<00:41:54.000> a<00:41:54.160> big<00:41:54.400> ass<00:41:54.720> company,
big picture. To get a big ass company,
you<00:41:55.440> need<00:41:55.520> to<00:41:55.680> cater<00:41:56.079> big<00:41:56.319> markets<00:41:56.880> and
you need to cater big markets and
predictions<00:41:58.160> on<00:41:58.960> politicians<00:41:59.680> is<00:41:59.920> a<00:42:00.079> small
predictions on politicians is a small
market.<00:42:00.960> Betting<00:42:01.359> is<00:42:01.520> a<00:42:01.680> big<00:42:01.839> market<00:42:02.079> on
market. Betting is a big market on
sports.<00:42:02.720> People<00:42:02.880> love<00:42:03.119> sports.<00:42:03.520> Betting<00:42:03.839> on
sports. People love sports. Betting on
money<00:42:04.960> is<00:42:05.119> a<00:42:05.280> big<00:42:05.440> market.<00:42:05.680> That's<00:42:05.839> my<00:42:06.000> point.
money is a big market. That's my point.
>> Dude,<00:42:06.480> I<00:42:06.640> totally<00:42:06.880> agree.<00:42:07.119> I<00:42:07.200> I<00:42:07.440> did<00:42:07.599> a<00:42:08.160> a<00:42:08.800> deal
>> Dude, I totally agree. I I did a a deal
into<00:42:09.440> FOMO,<00:42:10.160> which<00:42:10.319> just<00:42:10.640> got<00:42:10.880> their<00:42:11.040> new
into FOMO, which just got their new
round<00:42:11.359> done<00:42:11.520> by<00:42:11.680> index<00:42:11.920> and<00:42:12.079> USV,<00:42:12.560> and<00:42:12.720> their
round done by index and USV, and their
new<00:42:13.119> product<00:42:13.280> is<00:42:13.440> PES,<00:42:13.839> which<00:42:14.000> obviously
new product is PES, which obviously
allows<00:42:14.560> you<00:42:14.640> to<00:42:14.800> do<00:42:15.680> uh<00:42:16.000> much<00:42:16.400> simpler,<00:42:17.280> you
allows you to do uh much simpler, you
know,<00:42:17.599> up<00:42:17.839> or<00:42:18.079> down<00:42:18.240> on<00:42:18.400> stock<00:42:18.720> prices<00:42:19.040> for
know, up or down on stock prices for
consumers.
>> I was<00:42:19.839> meant<00:42:20.000> to<00:42:20.160> actually<00:42:20.319> try<00:42:20.560> that
>> I was meant to actually try that
product.<00:42:21.200> That<00:42:21.280> looks<00:42:21.680> incredible.<00:42:22.240> It's
product. That looks incredible. It's
amazing.
>> No,<00:42:24.240> I<00:42:24.400> mean,<00:42:24.560> you<00:42:24.640> know,<00:42:24.800> poor<00:42:25.200> Warren
>> No, I mean, you know, poor Warren
Buffett<00:42:25.839> is<00:42:26.000> like,<00:42:26.079> "It's<00:42:26.319> time<00:42:26.400> for<00:42:26.560> me<00:42:26.720> to
Buffett is like, "It's time for me to
die<00:42:27.119> because<00:42:27.280> you<00:42:27.520> people<00:42:27.680> have<00:42:27.839> lost<00:42:28.079> the
die because you people have lost the
plot."<00:42:28.880> But<00:42:29.040> if<00:42:29.200> you<00:42:29.359> want<00:42:29.599> action,<00:42:29.920> if<00:42:30.160> you
plot." But if you want action, if you
want<00:42:30.400> action<00:42:30.800> on<00:42:31.040> the<00:42:31.200> table,<00:42:31.520> then<00:42:31.760> Perks<00:42:32.160> is
want action on the table, then Perks is
your<00:42:32.560> boy,<00:42:33.119> you<00:42:33.280> know,<00:42:33.440> right?<00:42:34.079> If<00:42:34.240> you<00:42:34.400> have<00:42:34.480> a
your boy, you know, right? If you have a
strong<00:42:34.960> feeling<00:42:35.280> on<00:42:35.440> where<00:42:35.599> the<00:42:35.760> market's
strong feeling on where the market's
going<00:42:36.319> the<00:42:36.560> next<00:42:36.720> hour,<00:42:37.040> then<00:42:37.200> go<00:42:37.359> for<00:42:37.520> it.
going the next hour, then go for it.
Also,<00:42:38.160> also<00:42:38.480> like<00:42:38.720> when<00:42:38.960> you<00:42:39.119> look<00:42:39.200> at<00:42:39.440> TAM
Also, also like when you look at TAM
expansion,<00:42:40.960> Perks<00:42:41.520> is<00:42:41.760> a<00:42:42.000> brilliant<00:42:42.480> way<00:42:42.720> to
expansion, Perks is a brilliant way to
expand<00:42:43.359> a<00:42:43.599> TAM<00:42:44.000> to<00:42:44.160> a<00:42:44.480> mega<00:42:44.880> mega<00:42:45.200> market.
expand a TAM to a mega mega market.
Like,
>> yeah,
>> very<00:42:47.359> exciting.<00:42:48.160> Okay.<00:42:48.880> Um,<00:42:49.440> SpaceX,<00:42:50.560> has
>> very exciting. Okay. Um, SpaceX, has
SpaceX<00:42:51.680> IPO<00:42:52.480> frozen<00:42:53.200> the<00:42:53.520> AI<00:42:54.000> IPO<00:42:54.560> market<00:42:55.040> for
SpaceX IPO frozen the AI IPO market for
now?<00:42:56.079> Given<00:42:56.400> the<00:42:56.720> size,<00:42:57.440> magnitude,<00:42:58.319> weight
now? Given the size, magnitude, weight
of<00:42:58.800> it,<00:42:59.760> does<00:43:00.000> it<00:43:00.960> put<00:43:01.200> barriers<00:43:01.760> up<00:43:02.240> to
of it, does it put barriers up to
subsequent<00:43:02.960> IPOs?
subsequent IPOs?
>> I<00:43:04.240> mean,<00:43:04.640> worth<00:43:04.960> pointing<00:43:05.280> out<00:43:05.760> that<00:43:06.000> the
>> I mean, worth pointing out that the
anti-<00:43:07.520> AI<00:43:08.240> IPO<00:43:08.880> is<00:43:09.119> about<00:43:09.280> to<00:43:09.520> happen<00:43:09.760> today.
anti- AI IPO is about to happen today.
Lily,<00:43:10.560> we're<00:43:10.800> recording<00:43:11.200> this<00:43:11.520> on<00:43:12.079> Tuesday,<00:43:13.040> I
Lily, we're recording this on Tuesday, I
think<00:43:13.359> June<00:43:13.760> 30th.<00:43:14.560> Bending<00:43:15.119> Spoons<00:43:15.520> is<00:43:15.760> going
think June 30th. Bending Spoons is going
to<00:43:16.000> go<00:43:16.160> public<00:43:16.560> tomorrow,<00:43:17.200> July<00:43:17.599> 1st.<00:43:18.240> And
to go public tomorrow, July 1st. And
this<00:43:18.640> will<00:43:18.800> come<00:43:18.880> out<00:43:19.040> on<00:43:19.280> July<00:43:19.520> 2nd.<00:43:20.000> And<00:43:20.079> and
this will come out on July 2nd. And and
literally<00:43:20.560> Bending<00:43:20.880> Spoons<00:43:21.119> is<00:43:21.280> the<00:43:21.440> antiPO.
literally Bending Spoons is the antiPO.
It's<00:43:22.560> by<00:43:22.880> company<00:43:23.200> and<00:43:23.359> they<00:43:23.520> own<00:43:23.599> AOL<00:43:24.160> for
It's by company and they own AOL for
God's<00:43:24.640> sake,<00:43:24.960> right?<00:43:25.359> Which<00:43:25.599> by<00:43:25.760> the<00:43:25.839> way,<00:43:26.079> I
God's sake, right? Which by the way, I
remember<00:43:26.640> has<00:43:26.960> killed<00:43:27.280> their<00:43:27.520> AOL<00:43:28.400> email
remember has killed their AOL email
product,<00:43:29.119> but<00:43:29.359> still<00:43:29.520> is<00:43:29.680> an<00:43:29.839> ad<00:43:30.079> network.
product, but still is an ad network.
They<00:43:30.640> own<00:43:30.800> Evernote.<00:43:31.359> They<00:43:31.520> own<00:43:31.680> a<00:43:31.839> bunch<00:43:31.920> of
They own Evernote. They own a bunch of
stuff<00:43:32.240> like<00:43:32.400> that.<00:43:32.960> So<00:43:33.119> that's<00:43:33.280> a<00:43:33.520> company
stuff like that. So that's a company
that<00:43:34.000> it<00:43:34.240> literally<00:43:34.560> is<00:43:35.520> 20-year-old
that it literally is 20-year-old
software<00:43:36.400> companies<00:43:36.800> going<00:43:37.040> public<00:43:37.280> at<00:43:37.520> $20
software companies going public at $20
billion.<00:43:38.480> So<00:43:38.800> it's<00:43:39.040> not<00:43:39.200> like<00:43:39.280> the<00:43:39.440> IPO<00:43:40.000> market
billion. So it's not like the IPO market
is<00:43:40.480> shut,<00:43:40.880> right?<00:43:41.119> Which<00:43:41.280> is<00:43:41.359> what<00:43:41.520> I<00:43:41.599> thought
is shut, right? Which is what I thought
you<00:43:42.000> were<00:43:42.319> saying.<00:43:42.560> What<00:43:42.720> you're<00:43:42.880> basically
you were saying. What you're basically
saying<00:43:43.440> is,<00:43:43.920> is<00:43:44.160> the<00:43:44.400> hidden<00:43:44.720> question<00:43:45.119> here,
saying is, is the hidden question here,
Harry,<00:43:46.640> has<00:43:46.880> the<00:43:47.040> volatility<00:43:47.599> around<00:43:48.000> SpaceX
Harry, has the volatility around SpaceX
made<00:43:49.520> OpenAI<00:43:50.240> and<00:43:50.400> Antropic<00:43:51.040> nervous<00:43:51.440> about
made OpenAI and Antropic nervous about
going<00:43:52.000> out?<00:43:52.240> Is<00:43:52.480> that<00:43:52.640> really<00:43:52.880> your<00:43:53.200> question?
going out? Is that really your question?
>> Yeah,
>> I<00:43:54.480> thought<00:43:54.640> this<00:43:54.880> was<00:43:54.960> more<00:43:55.200> interesting<00:43:55.359> when
>> I thought this was more interesting when
I<00:43:55.680> added<00:43:55.839> it<00:43:55.920> to<00:43:56.079> the<00:43:56.160> list,<00:43:56.400> but<00:43:56.560> as<00:43:56.800> I<00:43:56.960> reflect
I added it to the list, but as I reflect
on<00:43:57.440> it,<00:43:58.400> um<00:43:58.640> I<00:43:58.880> think<00:43:59.040> as<00:43:59.280> long<00:43:59.359> as<00:43:59.440> the<00:43:59.599> IPO
on it, um I think as long as the IPO
remains<00:44:01.760> up,<00:44:02.079> right,<00:44:02.480> I<00:44:02.720> think<00:44:02.800> they'll<00:44:03.040> be
remains up, right, I think they'll be
fine.<00:44:03.520> Um<00:44:04.160> it<00:44:04.400> the<00:44:04.640> volatility<00:44:05.200> has<00:44:05.440> been<00:44:05.599> high
fine. Um it the volatility has been high
and<00:44:06.079> extreme.<00:44:06.720> Um<00:44:07.119> but<00:44:07.280> I<00:44:07.520> think<00:44:07.920> um<00:44:08.960> I<00:44:09.200> I<00:44:09.599> think
and extreme. Um but I think um I I think
as<00:44:10.079> we<00:44:10.240> record<00:44:10.640> this<00:44:11.119> uh<00:44:11.280> greed<00:44:11.599> will<00:44:11.839> still
as we record this uh greed will still
trump<00:44:12.240> fear,<00:44:12.640> right?<00:44:13.040> But<00:44:13.200> but<00:44:13.280> but<00:44:13.680> it's<00:44:14.079> it's
trump fear, right? But but but it's it's
it's<00:44:14.240> it's<00:44:14.880> uh<00:44:14.960> the<00:44:15.200> volatility<00:44:15.599> has<00:44:15.760> been
it's it's uh the volatility has been
sufficiently<00:44:16.319> high<00:44:16.480> enough<00:44:16.720> you<00:44:16.880> could
sufficiently high enough you could
imagine<00:44:17.359> that<00:44:18.000> changing<00:44:18.640> right<00:44:18.960> before<00:44:19.280> now
imagine that changing right before now
and<00:44:19.680> the<00:44:19.760> day<00:44:20.000> anthropic<00:44:20.400> IPOs.<00:44:21.040> So<00:44:21.680> I'm<00:44:22.000> sure
and the day anthropic IPOs. So I'm sure
the<00:44:22.800> bankers<00:44:23.119> who<00:44:23.359> have<00:44:23.520> less<00:44:23.680> to<00:44:23.839> do<00:44:24.000> are
the bankers who have less to do are
monitoring<00:44:24.640> this<00:44:24.880> every<00:44:25.119> day.<00:44:25.599> Um<00:44:26.319> and<00:44:26.560> I
monitoring this every day. Um and I
think<00:44:26.880> the<00:44:27.119> board<00:44:27.359> and<00:44:27.520> Daario
think the board and Daario
will<00:44:29.119> think<00:44:29.280> about<00:44:29.440> it<00:44:29.599> weekly,<00:44:30.079> right?<00:44:30.319> Just
will think about it weekly, right? Just
making<00:44:30.800> sure<00:44:30.880> it<00:44:31.119> is<00:44:31.200> the<00:44:31.440> right<00:44:31.520> time.<00:44:31.760> There
making sure it is the right time. There
it<00:44:32.240> definitely<00:44:32.480> shows<00:44:32.720> there's<00:44:33.040> risk.<00:44:33.280> It
it definitely shows there's risk. It
isn't<00:44:33.760> the<00:44:33.920> right<00:44:34.079> time.<00:44:34.319> It<00:44:34.480> shows<00:44:34.720> there<00:44:34.880> is
isn't the right time. It shows there is
some<00:44:35.200> risk<00:44:35.359> that<00:44:35.520> Enthropic<00:44:36.160> might<00:44:36.319> delay<00:44:36.560> its
some risk that Enthropic might delay its
IPO.<00:44:37.280> It's<00:44:37.599> it<00:44:38.000> the<00:44:38.160> volatility<00:44:38.640> says<00:44:38.800> it's
IPO. It's it the volatility says it's
not<00:44:39.040> a<00:44:39.119> slam<00:44:39.359> dunk,<00:44:39.520> but<00:44:39.839> up<00:44:40.079> is<00:44:40.240> up.<00:44:40.480> Like
not a slam dunk, but up is up. Like
everyone's<00:44:41.520> except<00:44:41.839> for<00:44:41.920> the<00:44:42.079> poor<00:44:42.319> Korean
everyone's except for the poor Korean
bank<00:44:42.880> that<00:44:43.119> forgot<00:44:43.359> to<00:44:43.520> put<00:44:43.599> in<00:44:43.760> their<00:44:43.920> orders.
bank that forgot to put in their orders.
Uh<00:44:44.960> every<00:44:45.200> everyone<00:44:45.680> most<00:44:45.920> folks<00:44:46.240> that<00:44:46.720> at
Uh every everyone most folks that at
least<00:44:47.040> bought<00:44:47.200> in<00:44:47.280> the<00:44:47.440> IPO<00:44:47.760> are<00:44:48.000> up.<00:44:49.119> Rory
least bought in the IPO are up. Rory
Rory,<00:44:49.839> you<00:44:50.000> you<00:44:50.240> brought<00:44:50.400> up<00:44:50.640> Bending<00:44:51.040> Spoons.
Rory, you you brought up Bending Spoons.
When<00:44:52.240> we<00:44:52.400> look<00:44:52.560> at<00:44:52.800> multiples<00:44:53.440> attached<00:44:53.839> to
When we look at multiples attached to
IPOs,<00:44:54.560> you<00:44:54.640> know,<00:44:54.800> Bending<00:44:55.119> Spoons<00:44:55.520> going<00:44:55.599> to
IPOs, you know, Bending Spoons going to
go<00:44:55.839> out<00:44:56.000> at<00:44:56.319> 20<00:44:56.480> billion,<00:44:57.599> which<00:44:57.920> will<00:44:58.160> be<00:44:58.240> a
go out at 20 billion, which will be a
pretty<00:44:58.720> hefty<00:44:59.200> multiple.<00:44:59.599> I<00:44:59.760> think<00:44:59.839> it's
pretty hefty multiple. I think it's
about<00:45:00.160> a<00:45:00.400> 12<00:45:00.720> to<00:45:01.040> 14x<00:45:02.079> given<00:45:02.400> revenues<00:45:02.880> of<00:45:03.040> 1
about a 12 to 14x given revenues of 1
and<00:45:03.359> a<00:45:03.440> half.<00:45:04.160> Um
and a half. Um
>> yeah,<00:45:04.720> one<00:45:04.880> and<00:45:04.960> a<00:45:05.119> half<00:45:05.280> in<00:45:05.520> trailing<00:45:06.000> but<00:45:06.319> 600
>> yeah, one and a half in trailing but 600
million<00:45:06.960> in<00:45:07.119> Q1.<00:45:07.599> Yeah.<00:45:07.839> So<00:45:08.079> probably<00:45:08.640> yeah<00:45:09.040> 8
million in Q1. Yeah. So probably yeah 8
9x<00:45:09.920> forward<00:45:10.240> revenue.<00:45:10.560> Yeah.<00:45:10.720> Healthy
9x forward revenue. Yeah. Healthy
multiple
>> for<00:45:11.760> the<00:45:12.000> antithesis<00:45:12.800> of<00:45:13.040> AI<00:45:13.599> company.
>> for the antithesis of AI company.
Is<00:45:15.359> that<00:45:15.520> not<00:45:15.760> an<00:45:16.000> extremely<00:45:16.640> juiced<00:45:17.040> up
Is that not an extremely juiced up
multiple?
>> It<00:45:18.720> is<00:45:18.960> funny<00:45:19.280> because<00:45:19.520> you're<00:45:19.839> exactly
>> It is funny because you're exactly
right.<00:45:20.319> It's<00:45:20.640> like<00:45:20.800> you<00:45:20.960> have<00:45:21.040> a<00:45:21.280> whole<00:45:21.440> bunch
right. It's like you have a whole bunch
of<00:45:22.319> single<00:45:22.800> product<00:45:23.119> crap,<00:45:23.680> you<00:45:23.839> know,<00:45:24.000> B2B
of single product crap, you know, B2B
SAS<00:45:24.880> companies<00:45:25.200> that<00:45:25.440> have<00:45:25.680> slowed<00:45:25.920> out<00:45:26.079> to
SAS companies that have slowed out to
10%<00:45:26.960> growth<00:45:27.520> and<00:45:27.680> are<00:45:27.920> trading<00:45:28.160> at<00:45:28.319> three
10% growth and are trading at three
times<00:45:28.800> revenues<00:45:30.079> and<00:45:30.240> then<00:45:30.480> you<00:45:30.640> have<00:45:30.800> this
times revenues and then you have this
company<00:45:31.440> which<00:45:31.599> is<00:45:31.680> an<00:45:31.920> elomeration<00:45:32.560> of<00:45:32.720> a
company which is an elomeration of a
whole<00:45:33.119> bunch<00:45:33.359> of<00:45:33.599> tired<00:45:34.640> consumer<00:45:35.200> products
whole bunch of tired consumer products
that<00:45:35.760> were<00:45:35.920> growing<00:45:36.160> at<00:45:36.400> 10%<00:45:37.119> until<00:45:37.440> these
that were growing at 10% until these
guys<00:45:38.000> took<00:45:38.240> them<00:45:38.319> over.<00:45:38.560> And<00:45:38.720> when<00:45:38.880> you<00:45:38.960> read
guys took them over. And when you read
the<00:45:39.359> S1,<00:45:39.760> you<00:45:40.000> realize<00:45:40.560> they<00:45:40.800> don't<00:45:41.040> get
the S1, you realize they don't get
organic<00:45:41.680> growth,<00:45:42.000> they<00:45:42.160> don't<00:45:42.240> get<00:45:42.400> new
organic growth, they don't get new
users,<00:45:42.880> they<00:45:43.040> just<00:45:43.280> raise<00:45:43.599> prices,<00:45:44.079> cut
users, they just raise prices, cut
costs,<00:45:45.040> and<00:45:45.280> suddenly<00:45:45.599> that's<00:45:45.839> being<00:45:46.079> valued
costs, and suddenly that's being valued
at,<00:45:47.200> you<00:45:47.359> know,<00:45:47.599> 8<00:45:47.839> n<00:45:48.160> 10<00:45:48.319> times<00:45:48.560> revenue.<00:45:49.040> So
at, you know, 8 n 10 times revenue. So
it<00:45:49.680> definitely<00:45:50.160> feels<00:45:50.720> kind<00:45:50.880> of<00:45:50.960> a<00:45:51.119> little
it definitely feels kind of a little
weird.<00:45:51.520> It<00:45:51.680> would<00:45:51.760> be<00:45:51.920> like<00:45:52.000> as<00:45:52.240> if<00:45:52.960> all<00:45:53.200> the
weird. It would be like as if all the
SAS,<00:45:53.839> it's<00:45:54.000> not<00:45:54.160> quite<00:45:54.319> the<00:45:54.480> same.<00:45:54.720> It<00:45:54.800> would
SAS, it's not quite the same. It would
be<00:45:55.040> like<00:45:55.200> all<00:45:55.359> the<00:45:55.440> SAS<00:45:55.760> companies<00:45:56.240> that<00:45:56.400> were
be like all the SAS companies that were
slow<00:45:56.880> growth<00:45:57.119> were<00:45:57.280> trading<00:45:57.520> at<00:45:57.680> two<00:45:57.839> times
slow growth were trading at two times
revenues<00:45:58.720> and<00:45:59.040> constellation<00:45:59.760> software
revenues and constellation software
which<00:46:00.480> is<00:46:00.560> a<00:46:00.720> roll<00:46:00.880> up<00:46:01.040> of<00:46:01.200> SAS<00:46:01.520> companies<00:46:02.480> was
which is a roll up of SAS companies was
trading<00:46:02.960> at<00:46:03.119> nine<00:46:03.359> times.<00:46:03.760> It<00:46:04.000> definitely
trading at nine times. It definitely
feels<00:46:04.720> like<00:46:05.040> wow<00:46:05.280> that<00:46:05.440> was<00:46:05.520> a<00:46:05.680> clever<00:46:06.079> way<00:46:06.240> to
feels like wow that was a clever way to
make<00:46:06.560> money<00:46:07.119> right<00:46:07.680> and<00:46:07.920> you<00:46:08.079> do<00:46:08.240> kind<00:46:08.400> of<00:46:08.720> you
make money right and you do kind of you
know<00:46:08.960> it's<00:46:09.119> a<00:46:09.280> wellexecuted<00:46:10.079> strategy<00:46:10.560> maybe
know it's a wellexecuted strategy maybe
and<00:46:11.440> it's<00:46:11.680> worked<00:46:12.000> clearly<00:46:13.119> there's<00:46:13.680> clearly
and it's worked clearly there's clearly
value<00:46:14.480> being<00:46:14.720> created.<00:46:15.119> You<00:46:15.280> do<00:46:15.440> wonder<00:46:15.760> is<00:46:15.839> it
value being created. You do wonder is it
a<00:46:16.079> little<00:46:16.240> frothy<00:46:16.640> but<00:46:16.880> you<00:46:16.960> know<00:46:17.119> good<00:46:17.280> luck
a little frothy but you know good luck
to<00:46:17.599> them.<00:46:17.920> I<00:46:18.160> mean,
to them. I mean,
>> I<00:46:18.640> think<00:46:18.720> it's<00:46:18.960> going<00:46:19.040> to<00:46:19.119> do<00:46:19.280> well.<00:46:19.520> I<00:46:19.680> think
>> I think it's going to do well. I think
over<00:46:20.079> the<00:46:20.240> medium<00:46:20.560> term.<00:46:20.880> Here's<00:46:21.119> why.<00:46:22.000> I
over the medium term. Here's why. I
mean,<00:46:22.319> listen,<00:46:23.599> God,<00:46:23.839> don't<00:46:24.000> take<00:46:24.160> risk
mean, listen, God, don't take risk
factors<00:46:24.720> in<00:46:24.880> a<00:46:25.040> perspectus<00:46:25.520> seriously,
factors in a perspectus seriously,
right?<00:46:26.079> Or<00:46:26.240> whatever<00:46:26.560> Perspectus<00:46:27.040> said.<00:46:27.359> But,
right? Or whatever Perspectus said. But,
but<00:46:27.760> there's<00:46:27.839> a<00:46:28.000> grain<00:46:28.160> of<00:46:28.319> truth.<00:46:28.480> They<00:46:28.640> said
but there's a grain of truth. They said
there's<00:46:29.040> at<00:46:29.040> least<00:46:29.280> a<00:46:29.440> thousand<00:46:29.839> businesses
there's at least a thousand businesses
they've<00:46:30.560> already<00:46:30.880> identified<00:46:31.200> that<00:46:31.359> that<00:46:31.599> are
they've already identified that that are
material<00:46:32.079> can<00:46:32.319> move<00:46:32.400> the<00:46:32.560> needle.<00:46:33.119> I<00:46:33.280> think<00:46:33.440> if
material can move the needle. I think if
they're<00:46:33.839> this<00:46:34.079> good<00:46:34.400> at<00:46:34.720> buying<00:46:35.200> repackaging
they're this good at buying repackaging
these<00:46:36.160> companies<00:46:36.480> and<00:46:36.640> there's<00:46:36.880> a<00:46:36.960> thousand
these companies and there's a thousand
targets,<00:46:38.640> they<00:46:38.960> can<00:46:39.119> maintain<00:46:39.680> outlier
targets, they can maintain outlier
growth<00:46:40.560> rates<00:46:40.880> for<00:46:41.200> longer<00:46:41.599> than<00:46:41.760> we<00:46:42.000> would<00:46:42.160> be
growth rates for longer than we would be
in<00:46:42.400> the<00:46:42.560> stock,<00:46:42.960> right?<00:46:43.119> So,<00:46:43.280> can<00:46:43.440> they<00:46:43.599> rate<00:46:44.000> I
in the stock, right? So, can they rate I
guess<00:46:44.400> the<00:46:44.560> meta<00:46:44.960> question<00:46:45.200> is<00:46:45.599> going<00:46:45.920> back<00:46:46.000> to
guess the meta question is going back to
the<00:46:46.319> Microsoft<00:46:46.800> issue.<00:46:47.280> I<00:46:47.440> know<00:46:47.680> Rory's<00:46:48.000> gonna
the Microsoft issue. I know Rory's gonna
think<00:46:48.240> it's<00:46:48.480> an<00:46:48.640> odd<00:46:48.800> tie,<00:46:49.119> but<00:46:49.520> can<00:46:49.760> they
think it's an odd tie, but can they
maintain<00:46:50.240> this<00:46:50.480> outlier<00:46:50.880> growth<00:46:51.119> for<00:46:51.359> five
maintain this outlier growth for five
plus<00:46:51.839> years,<00:46:52.160> right,<00:46:52.319> to<00:46:52.560> justify<00:46:53.119> some<00:46:53.359> sort
plus years, right, to justify some sort
of<00:46:53.599> premium?<00:46:54.000> We<00:46:54.079> can<00:46:54.240> debate<00:46:54.400> whether<00:46:54.640> the
of premium? We can debate whether the
premium's<00:46:55.200> too<00:46:55.359> high,<00:46:55.760> but<00:46:56.000> outlier<00:46:56.480> growth
premium's too high, but outlier growth
gets<00:46:56.960> a<00:46:57.599> a<00:46:57.760> premium.<00:46:58.400> I<00:46:58.640> think<00:46:58.800> for<00:46:59.040> without
gets a a premium. I think for without
question,<00:46:59.599> if<00:46:59.760> they<00:46:59.920> can<00:47:00.079> execute<00:47:00.319> at<00:47:00.560> the
question, if they can execute at the
level<00:47:00.880> they<00:47:01.119> have,<00:47:01.520> it's<00:47:01.920> justified<00:47:02.640> for<00:47:03.119> 5
level they have, it's justified for 5
years<00:47:03.599> because<00:47:03.760> there's<00:47:04.240> there's<00:47:04.640> a<00:47:04.800> thousand
years because there's there's a thousand
targets.<00:47:06.079> Um,<00:47:07.119> and<00:47:07.359> I<00:47:07.520> think<00:47:07.599> there's<00:47:07.920> also
targets. Um, and I think there's also
going<00:47:08.319> to<00:47:08.400> be<00:47:08.560> another<00:47:08.880> bending<00:47:09.280> spoons<00:47:09.680> in
going to be another bending spoons in
B2B<00:47:10.400> that's<00:47:10.640> going<00:47:10.720> to<00:47:10.800> nail<00:47:11.040> this.<00:47:11.359> They're
B2B that's going to nail this. They're
going to<00:47:11.760> buy<00:47:11.839> these<00:47:12.160> horrific<00:47:12.640> products
going to buy these horrific products
like<00:47:13.200> Marquetto<00:47:13.839> and<00:47:14.079> others,<00:47:15.040> put<00:47:15.280> a<00:47:15.520> few
like Marquetto and others, put a few
smart<00:47:16.240> people<00:47:16.480> in<00:47:16.720> it,<00:47:17.280> and<00:47:17.520> just<00:47:17.920> boost<00:47:18.240> the
smart people in it, and just boost the
NR.<00:47:19.359> They're<00:47:19.520> just<00:47:19.680> going<00:47:19.760> to<00:47:19.839> boost<00:47:20.079> the<00:47:20.240> NR
NR. They're just going to boost the NR
and<00:47:20.720> a<00:47:20.880> few<00:47:20.960> other<00:47:21.119> things.<00:47:21.359> And<00:47:21.520> so,<00:47:21.680> I<00:47:21.920> think
and a few other things. And so, I think
there's<00:47:22.480> there's<00:47:22.800> a<00:47:22.960> chance<00:47:23.119> for<00:47:23.359> several
there's there's a chance for several
bending<00:47:24.240> spoons<00:47:24.800> to<00:47:25.119> take<00:47:25.359> the<00:47:25.680> struggling
bending spoons to take the struggling
uh<00:47:27.920> software<00:47:28.400> companies<00:47:29.119> and<00:47:29.440> do<00:47:29.599> a<00:47:29.760> revenue
uh software companies and do a revenue
arbitrage<00:47:30.560> because<00:47:30.720> they<00:47:30.960> can<00:47:31.040> package<00:47:31.359> them
arbitrage because they can package them
together<00:47:31.760> into<00:47:32.079> something<00:47:32.319> high<00:47:32.560> growth.<00:47:32.800> I<00:47:32.960> I
together into something high growth. I I
think<00:47:33.280> there's<00:47:33.440> five<00:47:33.680> good<00:47:33.839> years<00:47:34.000> here.
think there's five good years here.
[snorts]
>> I<00:47:34.720> think<00:47:34.880> that's<00:47:35.119> smart,<00:47:35.359> Jason,<00:47:35.680> because
>> I think that's smart, Jason, because
you're<00:47:36.000> exactly<00:47:36.240> right.<00:47:36.400> Like<00:47:36.560> cuz<00:47:36.880> if<00:47:37.040> you're
you're exactly right. Like cuz if you're
one<00:47:37.359> of<00:47:37.440> those<00:47:37.599> thousand<00:47:38.000> privately<00:47:38.319> held
one of those thousand privately held
companies<00:47:38.800> and<00:47:38.960> let's<00:47:39.119> assume<00:47:39.280> they're<00:47:39.440> all
companies and let's assume they're all
consuming.<00:47:40.000> There's<00:47:40.160> nowhere<00:47:40.319> else<00:47:40.480> to<00:47:40.640> go.<00:47:41.040> I
consuming. There's nowhere else to go. I
mean<00:47:41.280> that's<00:47:41.440> the<00:47:41.599> big<00:47:41.760> attraction.<00:47:42.400> These
mean that's the big attraction. These
guys<00:47:42.880> are<00:47:43.119> the<00:47:43.359> only<00:47:43.520> way<00:47:43.680> out.<00:47:44.160> So<00:47:44.319> they<00:47:44.640> they
guys are the only way out. So they they
they<00:47:45.280> can<00:47:45.440> lock<00:47:45.839> at<00:47:45.920> least<00:47:46.160> until<00:47:46.480> someone
they can lock at least until someone
else<00:47:46.800> comes<00:47:47.040> along,<00:47:47.359> they<00:47:47.520> can<00:47:47.680> lock<00:47:47.839> in<00:47:48.160> some
else comes along, they can lock in some
kind<00:47:48.480> of<00:47:48.640> rev<00:47:48.960> arbitrage.
kind of rev arbitrage.
>> Yeah,<00:47:50.319> that's<00:47:50.640> interesting.<00:47:51.040> And<00:47:51.200> yeah,<00:47:51.440> you
>> Yeah, that's interesting. And yeah, you
should<00:47:51.760> be<00:47:51.920> looking<00:47:52.000> at<00:47:52.160> it<00:47:52.319> for<00:47:52.400> B2B.
should be looking at it for B2B.
>> I<00:47:54.000> suspect<00:47:54.560> I<00:47:54.720> and<00:47:54.880> I<00:47:55.040> don't<00:47:55.200> mean<00:47:55.359> to<00:47:55.440> be
>> I suspect I and I don't mean to be
unfair.
>> Jason,<00:47:56.720> you<00:47:56.960> you<00:47:57.280> are<00:47:57.359> the<00:47:57.599> new<00:47:57.839> CEO<00:47:58.560> of<00:47:58.880> Ben
>> Jason, you you are the new CEO of Ben
Goes<00:47:59.920> B2B<00:48:00.720> and<00:48:00.960> you<00:48:01.119> are<00:48:01.280> able<00:48:01.520> to<00:48:01.680> choose
Goes B2B and you are able to choose
three<00:48:02.400> targets<00:48:03.119> for<00:48:03.440> your<00:48:03.760> opening<00:48:04.240> quarter.
three targets for your opening quarter.
>> Yeah.<00:48:05.599> Which<00:48:05.839> three<00:48:06.160> targets<00:48:06.640> would<00:48:06.880> you
>> Yeah. Which three targets would you
choose?
>> I<00:48:07.680> mean,<00:48:07.760> Betting<00:48:08.079> Smith<00:48:08.319> has<00:48:08.480> one<00:48:08.640> trick,
>> I mean, Betting Smith has one trick,
which<00:48:09.040> is<00:48:09.200> it<00:48:09.359> uses<00:48:09.839> a<00:48:10.079> lot<00:48:10.160> of<00:48:10.240> folks<00:48:10.400> in<00:48:10.560> Italy
which is it uses a lot of folks in Italy
that<00:48:11.040> are<00:48:11.200> lower<00:48:11.440> cost<00:48:11.680> for<00:48:11.839> engineering,
that are lower cost for engineering,
right?<00:48:12.880> But<00:48:13.040> I<00:48:13.280> assume<00:48:14.000> the<00:48:14.240> other<00:48:14.400> trick<00:48:14.640> it
right? But I assume the other trick it
has<00:48:14.960> is<00:48:15.200> it's<00:48:15.440> able<00:48:15.680> to<00:48:15.839> incent<00:48:16.400> GMs<00:48:16.880> to<00:48:17.119> do<00:48:17.200> a
has is it's able to incent GMs to do a
decent<00:48:17.680> job<00:48:17.760> on<00:48:17.920> these.<00:48:18.240> Like<00:48:18.400> find<00:48:18.640> kids,<00:48:18.960> and
decent job on these. Like find kids, and
then<00:48:19.280> these<00:48:19.520> kids<00:48:19.680> may<00:48:19.839> be<00:48:20.000> 60<00:48:20.319> and<00:48:20.480> not<00:48:20.720> 16,
then these kids may be 60 and not 16,
well,<00:48:21.280> 26,<00:48:21.680> but<00:48:22.000> find<00:48:22.319> kids<00:48:22.559> to<00:48:22.800> run<00:48:23.040> these
well, 26, but find kids to run these
event<00:48:23.760> brights<00:48:24.160> and<00:48:24.319> AOLs.<00:48:24.800> And<00:48:24.960> let's<00:48:25.200> assume
event brights and AOLs. And let's assume
you<00:48:25.599> have<00:48:25.839> a<00:48:26.079> steady<00:48:26.319> enough<00:48:26.559> flow<00:48:26.720> of<00:48:26.880> these
you have a steady enough flow of these
kids<00:48:27.200> they<00:48:27.359> give<00:48:27.440> a<00:48:27.680> [ __ ]<00:48:28.000> Okay?<00:48:29.040> Then<00:48:29.280> I
kids they give a [ __ ] Okay? Then I
would<00:48:29.680> start<00:48:29.839> to<00:48:30.000> buy<00:48:30.240> up<00:48:30.640> almost<00:48:31.119> any<00:48:31.440> B2B
would start to buy up almost any B2B
company<00:48:32.880> with<00:48:33.200> nine<00:48:33.520> figures<00:48:33.839> in<00:48:34.079> revenue
company with nine figures in revenue
with<00:48:34.640> a<00:48:34.800> sticky<00:48:35.119> customer<00:48:35.359> base<00:48:35.760> because<00:48:36.640> I<00:48:36.880> I
with a sticky customer base because I I
mean<00:48:37.200> literally<00:48:37.599> our<00:48:37.760> wor<00:48:38.000> I<00:48:38.160> know<00:48:38.240> I<00:48:38.400> talk
mean literally our wor I know I talk
about<00:48:38.800> our<00:48:39.040> worst<00:48:39.440> and<00:48:39.760> the<00:48:40.079> worst<00:48:40.400> product
about our worst and the worst product
that<00:48:40.880> we<00:48:41.040> use<00:48:41.200> today<00:48:41.359> is<00:48:41.520> our<00:48:41.680> most<00:48:41.839> expensive
that we use today is our most expensive
product.<00:48:42.559> It's<00:48:42.800> Marqueta.<00:48:43.359> Rory<00:48:43.599> will
product. It's Marqueta. Rory will
remember<00:48:44.079> it.<00:48:44.240> And<00:48:44.400> they<00:48:44.640> threaten<00:48:45.040> us.<00:48:46.079> They
remember it. And they threaten us. They
threaten<00:48:46.559> us.<00:48:46.800> The<00:48:46.960> API<00:48:47.359> doesn't<00:48:47.520> work.<00:48:47.760> It
threaten us. The API doesn't work. It
breaks<00:48:48.240> every<00:48:48.559> day.<00:48:49.280> They<00:48:49.520> just<00:48:49.760> told<00:48:49.920> us
breaks every day. They just told us
they're<00:48:50.319> raising<00:48:50.640> prices<00:48:51.119> 20%<00:48:51.760> next<00:48:52.079> year
they're raising prices 20% next year
like<00:48:52.880> betting<00:48:53.280> spoons<00:48:53.599> but<00:48:53.839> without<00:48:54.240> any
like betting spoons but without any
features<00:48:54.960> or<00:48:55.200> functionality.<00:48:55.760> The<00:48:55.920> site<00:48:56.160> went
features or functionality. The site went
down<00:48:56.480> for<00:48:56.640> a<00:48:56.800> full<00:48:57.040> day<00:48:57.280> the<00:48:57.520> other<00:48:57.680> day.<00:48:58.000> You
down for a full day the other day. You
put<00:48:58.240> a<00:48:58.400> kid<00:48:58.559> in<00:48:58.640> here<00:48:58.800> that<00:48:59.040> gives<00:48:59.200> a<00:48:59.359> crap,
put a kid in here that gives a crap,
okay,<00:49:00.400> and<00:49:00.559> you<00:49:00.720> say,<00:49:00.880> "I<00:49:01.200> just<00:49:01.359> want<00:49:01.440> you<00:49:01.599> to
okay, and you say, "I just want you to
take<00:49:02.000> whatever<00:49:02.400> Marquetto<00:49:02.960> still<00:49:03.040> has<00:49:03.200> at
take whatever Marquetto still has at
Adobe,<00:49:04.000> 300<00:49:04.319> million<00:49:04.559> of<00:49:04.720> revenue<00:49:05.040> left,
Adobe, 300 million of revenue left,
right?<00:49:05.520> It's<00:49:05.680> probably<00:49:05.920> decaying.<00:49:06.559> Take<00:49:06.720> that
right? It's probably decaying. Take that
300<00:49:07.280> million<00:49:07.520> and<00:49:07.760> give<00:49:07.920> a<00:49:08.079> crap.<00:49:08.480> Don't
300 million and give a crap. Don't
threaten<00:49:09.040> your<00:49:09.280> customers<00:49:10.240> like<00:49:10.640> actually
threaten your customers like actually
launch<00:49:11.359> some<00:49:11.599> features<00:49:12.240> like<00:49:12.640> remove<00:49:12.960> the
launch some features like remove the
rate<00:49:13.359> limits<00:49:13.680> on<00:49:13.839> the<00:49:14.000> API<00:49:14.640> like<00:49:15.200> do<00:49:15.680> something
rate limits on the API like do something
so<00:49:16.960> that<00:49:17.200> to<00:49:17.440> retain<00:49:17.680> your<00:49:17.839> base.<00:49:18.160> It<00:49:18.400> would
so that to retain your base. It would
work<00:49:18.800> like<00:49:18.960> we<00:49:19.280> even<00:49:19.599> our<00:49:19.760> worst<00:49:20.000> software,<00:49:20.319> we
work like we even our worst software, we
would<00:49:20.720> stay<00:49:20.960> it's<00:49:21.280> not<00:49:21.440> that<00:49:21.599> hard.<00:49:21.920> So<00:49:22.079> I
would stay it's not that hard. So I
would<00:49:22.400> take<00:49:22.559> all<00:49:22.720> these<00:49:22.960> ones<00:49:23.680> that<00:49:24.000> have<00:49:24.160> a
would take all these ones that have a
sticky<00:49:24.800> base<00:49:25.119> and<00:49:25.359> buy<00:49:25.599> and<00:49:25.680> and<00:49:26.000> listen<00:49:26.240> you
sticky base and buy and and listen you
then<00:49:26.640> you<00:49:26.800> take<00:49:27.520> 10<00:49:27.920> folks<00:49:28.240> at<00:49:28.400> 200<00:49:28.720> million.
then you take 10 folks at 200 million.
You<00:49:29.119> got<00:49:29.200> a<00:49:29.359> $2<00:49:29.599> billion<00:49:30.079> business<00:49:30.480> growing<00:49:30.960> 30
You got a $2 billion business growing 30
40%<00:49:31.839> and<00:49:32.079> stack<00:49:32.319> it.<00:49:32.559> You<00:49:32.720> got<00:49:32.880> something
40% and stack it. You got something
pretty<00:49:33.280> nice.
pretty nice.
>> So<00:49:34.000> Jason,<00:49:34.319> can<00:49:34.480> you<00:49:34.559> buy
>> So Jason, can you buy
>> but<00:49:35.200> the<00:49:35.280> problem<00:49:35.440> is<00:49:35.599> they're<00:49:35.839> just<00:49:36.000> putting
>> but the problem is they're just putting
mediocre<00:49:36.720> people<00:49:36.880> in<00:49:37.040> charge<00:49:37.200> of<00:49:37.280> these<00:49:37.599> like
mediocre people in charge of these like
the<00:49:37.920> non-bending<00:49:38.559> spoons<00:49:39.359> are<00:49:39.599> having<00:49:39.920> PE
the non-bending spoons are having PE
firms<00:49:40.720> put<00:49:40.960> these<00:49:41.280> recycled<00:49:41.920> mediocre
firms put these recycled mediocre
executives<00:49:43.040> in<00:49:43.200> charge<00:49:43.359> of<00:49:43.520> it<00:49:43.599> that<00:49:43.839> are
executives in charge of it that are
going<00:49:44.160> on<00:49:44.480> learning<00:49:44.800> tours<00:49:45.119> for<00:49:45.359> 90<00:49:45.599> days<00:49:46.079> and
going on learning tours for 90 days and
coming<00:49:46.640> up<00:49:46.800> with<00:49:46.960> no<00:49:47.200> ideas.<00:49:47.599> That's<00:49:47.839> just<00:49:48.000> not
coming up with no ideas. That's just not
going<00:49:48.240> to<00:49:48.400> work.<00:49:48.720> Can<00:49:48.960> you<00:49:49.119> buy<00:49:49.440> Can<00:49:49.599> you<00:49:49.760> buy
going to work. Can you buy Can you buy
these<00:49:50.240> assets<00:49:50.640> for<00:49:50.800> a<00:49:51.040> reasonable<00:49:51.440> price?
these assets for a reasonable price?
>> I<00:49:52.720> think<00:49:52.800> you<00:49:53.040> can<00:49:53.200> buy<00:49:53.440> some.<00:49:53.920> Yeah.
>> I think you can buy some. Yeah.
>> Yeah.<00:49:54.640> I<00:49:54.880> mean,<00:49:55.599> what's<00:49:56.000> funny<00:49:56.160> about<00:49:56.400> this<00:49:56.559> is
>> Yeah. I mean, what's funny about this is
the<00:49:57.040> minute<00:49:57.200> you<00:49:57.359> ask<00:49:57.599> this,<00:49:57.839> you<00:49:58.000> can<00:49:58.079> tell
the minute you ask this, you can tell
Jason<00:49:58.640> that<00:49:58.880> I'm<00:49:59.119> going<00:49:59.200> to<00:49:59.280> do<00:49:59.359> it,<00:49:59.599> too.<00:49:59.920> You
Jason that I'm going to do it, too. You
have<00:50:00.319> this<00:50:00.480> hot<00:50:00.640> button<00:50:00.960> of<00:50:01.200> these<00:50:01.440> are
have this hot button of these are
markets<00:50:02.000> that's<00:50:02.240> been<00:50:02.400> bugging<00:50:02.640> you<00:50:02.880> and
markets that's been bugging you and
companies<00:50:03.359> where<00:50:03.520> you're<00:50:03.599> like,<00:50:03.760> for<00:50:04.000> God's
companies where you're like, for God's
sake,<00:50:04.559> will<00:50:04.720> you<00:50:04.880> do<00:50:05.040> something?<00:50:05.359> And<00:50:05.599> yeah,<00:50:05.839> I
sake, will you do something? And yeah, I
think<00:50:06.160> the<00:50:06.319> Marquetto<00:50:07.280> marketing<00:50:07.680> automation
think the Marquetto marketing automation
space<00:50:08.400> is<00:50:08.640> one<00:50:08.800> we<00:50:09.040> both<00:50:09.280> know<00:50:09.440> and<00:50:09.680> there's
space is one we both know and there's
something<00:50:10.079> to<00:50:10.240> be<00:50:10.400> done<00:50:10.559> there.<00:50:11.119> You<00:50:11.280> know,
something to be done there. You know,
there's<00:50:11.680> other<00:50:12.079> I<00:50:12.240> mean,<00:50:12.400> I<00:50:12.559> think<00:50:12.640> I'll<00:50:12.960> give
there's other I mean, I think I'll give
you<00:50:13.200> two<00:50:13.359> examples.<00:50:13.839> One<00:50:14.000> of<00:50:14.079> which<00:50:14.240> has
you two examples. One of which has
traded<00:50:14.880> already.<00:50:15.520> Um,<00:50:15.839> I<00:50:16.000> mean,<00:50:16.160> I<00:50:16.400> know<00:50:16.559> Jason
traded already. Um, I mean, I know Jason
hates<00:50:17.119> the<00:50:17.280> first<00:50:17.440> market,<00:50:17.680> I<00:50:17.839> said<00:50:18.000> it
hates the first market, I said it
before.<00:50:18.400> Seamrush.<00:50:19.280> Seamrush<00:50:19.839> is<00:50:20.000> the<00:50:20.240> old
before. Seamrush. Seamrush is the old
SEO<00:50:20.960> optimization.<00:50:21.920> It's<00:50:22.160> so<00:50:22.480> obvious<00:50:23.359> that
SEO optimization. It's so obvious that
every<00:50:23.920> one<00:50:24.079> of<00:50:24.160> those<00:50:24.400> customers<00:50:24.800> is<00:50:25.040> going<00:50:25.119> to
every one of those customers is going to
need<00:50:25.440> GEO,<00:50:26.160> you<00:50:26.319> know,<00:50:26.720> AI<00:50:27.119> optimization.<00:50:28.400> You
need GEO, you know, AI optimization. You
should<00:50:28.800> buy<00:50:29.040> Seamrush,<00:50:30.240> buy<00:50:30.559> some<00:50:30.720> other
should buy Seamrush, buy some other
little<00:50:31.359> tool<00:50:31.680> and<00:50:31.920> just<00:50:32.240> bundle<00:50:32.559> them
little tool and just bundle them
together<00:50:33.040> and<00:50:33.280> sell<00:50:33.440> them.<00:50:33.760> You<00:50:33.920> can't<00:50:34.079> do
together and sell them. You can't do
that<00:50:34.319> now<00:50:34.480> because<00:50:34.720> Adobe<00:50:35.119> bought<00:50:35.280> Samrush
that now because Adobe bought Samrush
for<00:50:36.000> under<00:50:36.319> two<00:50:36.480> times<00:50:36.800> revenues.<00:50:37.599> Great
for under two times revenues. Great
deal,<00:50:38.400> right?<00:50:38.720> You<00:50:38.960> could<00:50:39.040> have<00:50:39.200> turned<00:50:39.440> that
deal, right? You could have turned that
thing<00:50:39.760> into<00:50:40.000> something.<00:50:40.240> And<00:50:40.400> then<00:50:40.559> another
thing into something. And then another
example<00:50:41.520> which<00:50:41.920> you<00:50:42.000> know<00:50:42.079> the<00:50:42.319> world
example which you know the world
continues<00:50:42.880> to<00:50:42.960> poke<00:50:43.200> at<00:50:43.359> is<00:50:43.520> Pedro<00:50:43.920> duty<00:50:44.559> which
continues to poke at is Pedro duty which
is<00:50:44.880> a<00:50:45.119> company<00:50:45.280> that's<00:50:45.599> been<00:50:45.760> out<00:50:45.839> there.<00:50:46.079> It
is a company that's been out there. It
has<00:50:46.400> commanding<00:50:46.960> market<00:50:47.280> share<00:50:47.520> and<00:50:47.760> it's
has commanding market share and it's
never<00:50:48.319> added<00:50:49.040> AI<00:50:49.599> enabled<00:50:50.559> incident
never added AI enabled incident
resolution<00:50:51.839> and<00:50:52.079> those<00:50:52.319> are<00:50:52.400> just<00:50:52.559> two
resolution and those are just two
markets.
>> Yeah.<00:50:53.440> Put<00:50:53.520> a<00:50:53.680> kid<00:50:53.760> on<00:50:53.920> if<00:50:54.079> you<00:50:54.160> can<00:50:54.240> buy<00:50:54.400> pedag
>> Yeah. Put a kid on if you can buy pedag
duty<00:50:54.960> for<00:50:55.040> what<00:50:55.200> it's<00:50:55.440> put<00:50:55.599> a<00:50:55.680> kit<00:50:55.839> on<00:50:55.920> it<00:50:56.079> that
duty for what it's put a kit on it that
really<00:50:56.480> that's<00:50:56.800> really<00:50:57.040> motivated
really that's really motivated
>> it<00:50:58.319> could<00:50:58.480> work.
>> it could work.
>> I<00:50:59.119> totally<00:50:59.440> agree.<00:50:59.760> a<00:51:00.000> businessoriented
>> I totally agree. a businessoriented
executive<00:51:02.079> who<00:51:02.400> maybe<00:51:02.640> picks<00:51:02.880> up<00:51:03.040> a<00:51:03.280> YC,<00:51:04.079> you
executive who maybe picks up a YC, you
know,<00:51:04.480> failed<00:51:05.119> SWE<00:51:06.400> kind<00:51:06.640> of<00:51:06.800> software
know, failed SWE kind of software
incident<00:51:07.599> automation<00:51:08.079> software<00:51:08.559> product<00:51:09.119> and
incident automation software product and
put<00:51:09.520> it<00:51:09.760> together<00:51:10.000> and<00:51:10.240> just,<00:51:10.559> you<00:51:10.720> know,<00:51:10.880> as
put it together and just, you know, as
Jason<00:51:11.520> says,<00:51:11.680> if<00:51:11.839> you're<00:51:12.000> not<00:51:12.079> reacelerating,
Jason says, if you're not reacelerating,
you're<00:51:13.040> dying.<00:51:13.839> But<00:51:14.160> drive,<00:51:14.400> I<00:51:14.559> mean,<00:51:14.640> if<00:51:14.720> you
you're dying. But drive, I mean, if you
could<00:51:14.960> get<00:51:15.119> reaceleration<00:51:15.920> to<00:51:16.160> 20%<00:51:16.720> by<00:51:16.960> just
could get reaceleration to 20% by just
upselling<00:51:17.599> a<00:51:17.760> slug<00:51:18.000> of<00:51:18.160> the<00:51:18.319> installer<00:51:18.720> base.
upselling a slug of the installer base.
Yeah.<00:51:20.160> At<00:51:20.400> at<00:51:20.559> 2x<00:51:20.960> revenues,<00:51:21.359> you<00:51:21.599> could<00:51:21.680> be
Yeah. At at 2x revenues, you could be
Jason<00:51:22.400> Lkins<00:51:23.040> bend<00:51:23.440> be<00:51:23.839> bending<00:51:24.240> spoons<00:51:24.640> B2B
Jason Lkins bend be bending spoons B2B
BS<00:51:25.440> B2B.<00:51:26.240> I<00:51:26.400> think<00:51:26.480> what<00:51:26.720> folks<00:51:26.960> don't<00:51:27.200> realize
BS B2B. I think what folks don't realize
is<00:51:28.400> um<00:51:28.720> it's<00:51:28.880> so<00:51:29.040> many<00:51:29.200> of<00:51:29.200> these<00:51:29.440> companies
is um it's so many of these companies
we're<00:51:30.079> talking<00:51:30.319> about,<00:51:30.720> right?<00:51:31.119> I<00:51:31.280> can<00:51:31.359> tell
we're talking about, right? I can tell
you<00:51:31.599> because<00:51:31.760> we<00:51:32.000> interact<00:51:32.240> with<00:51:32.400> these
you because we interact with these
people,<00:51:32.800> they've<00:51:33.040> given<00:51:33.280> up.<00:51:33.920> The<00:51:34.240> entire
people, they've given up. The entire
team,<00:51:35.280> their<00:51:35.599> their<00:51:35.680> their<00:51:36.240> customer<00:51:36.640> success
team, their their their customer success
team<00:51:37.200> has<00:51:37.440> become<00:51:37.680> a<00:51:37.920> a<00:51:38.079> a<00:51:38.319> force<00:51:38.640> of<00:51:38.800> evil,
team has become a a a force of evil,
right?<00:51:39.839> Uh<00:51:40.079> they<00:51:40.319> threaten<00:51:40.559> you<00:51:40.720> with
right? Uh they threaten you with
lawsuits,<00:51:41.440> they<00:51:41.680> threaten<00:51:41.839> you<00:51:42.000> with<00:51:42.160> every,
lawsuits, they threaten you with every,
you<00:51:42.480> know,<00:51:42.640> they've<00:51:42.800> given<00:51:43.200> you<00:51:43.359> can<00:51:43.520> smell
you know, they've given you can smell
that<00:51:44.000> their<00:51:44.160> their<00:51:44.480> culture<00:51:44.800> is<00:51:45.440> we<00:51:45.680> we<00:51:45.920> it's
that their their culture is we we it's
not<00:51:46.240> that<00:51:46.400> we're<00:51:46.559> not<00:51:46.640> in<00:51:46.800> terminal.<00:51:47.200> Like<00:51:47.359> I
not that we're not in terminal. Like I
used<00:51:47.599> to<00:51:47.680> have<00:51:47.760> a<00:51:47.839> guy<00:51:47.920> on<00:51:48.079> my<00:51:48.240> sales<00:51:48.400> team
used to have a guy on my sales team
whose<00:51:49.040> last<00:51:49.200> job<00:51:49.440> was<00:51:49.599> working<00:51:49.760> for<00:51:49.920> the
whose last job was working for the
yellow<00:51:50.240> pages,<00:51:50.800> okay?<00:51:51.280> and<00:51:51.520> his<00:51:51.760> job<00:51:52.240> he<00:51:52.400> got<00:51:52.559> a
yellow pages, okay? and his job he got a
huge<00:51:52.960> bonus<00:51:53.280> if<00:51:53.599> his<00:51:53.839> patch<00:51:54.400> shrunk<00:51:54.880> less<00:51:55.119> than
huge bonus if his patch shrunk less than
20%<00:51:55.839> each<00:51:56.000> year<00:51:56.240> he<00:51:56.400> was<00:51:56.480> one<00:51:56.640> of<00:51:56.720> the<00:51:56.800> top
20% each year he was one of the top
performers<00:51:57.520> right<00:51:58.240> his<00:51:58.480> patch<00:51:58.880> shrunk<00:51:59.200> like
performers right his patch shrunk like
16%<00:52:00.319> okay<00:52:00.559> every<00:52:00.800> year<00:52:00.960> I<00:52:01.119> mean<00:52:01.280> at<00:52:01.440> some<00:52:01.520> point
16% okay every year I mean at some point
you<00:52:01.839> got<00:52:01.920> to<00:52:02.000> move<00:52:02.160> on<00:52:02.319> from<00:52:02.480> that<00:52:02.720> job<00:52:03.200> I<00:52:03.359> feel
you got to move on from that job I feel
like<00:52:03.599> this<00:52:03.760> is<00:52:03.920> working<00:52:04.079> with<00:52:04.240> the<00:52:04.400> Marquetto
like this is working with the Marquetto
team<00:52:05.119> and<00:52:05.280> other<00:52:05.440> teams<00:52:05.680> we<00:52:05.920> work<00:52:06.000> with<00:52:06.240> that
team and other teams we work with that
the<00:52:06.640> knives<00:52:06.960> are<00:52:07.119> out<00:52:07.440> okay<00:52:07.760> so<00:52:08.160> it<00:52:08.400> is<00:52:08.640> my
the knives are out okay so it is my
point<00:52:09.040> is<00:52:09.359> it<00:52:09.599> is<00:52:09.839> not<00:52:10.160> hard<00:52:10.559> to<00:52:10.880> turn<00:52:11.119> around<00:52:11.359> a
point is it is not hard to turn around a
team<00:52:11.760> that<00:52:12.000> has<00:52:12.240> completely<00:52:12.720> given<00:52:13.040> up<00:52:13.520> right
team that has completely given up right
if<00:52:14.480> they<00:52:14.720> have<00:52:14.880> a<00:52:15.119> sticky<00:52:15.440> customer<00:52:15.680> base<00:52:16.079> this
if they have a sticky customer base this
is<00:52:16.319> not<00:52:16.559> but<00:52:16.720> you<00:52:16.880> got<00:52:16.960> to<00:52:17.040> find<00:52:17.280> people<00:52:17.440> that
is not but you got to find people that
want<00:52:17.760> it<00:52:18.000> and<00:52:18.160> the<00:52:18.319> cultures<00:52:18.720> are<00:52:18.880> just<00:52:19.119> broken
want it and the cultures are just broken
it's<00:52:20.000> not<00:52:20.160> just<00:52:20.319> Marquetto<00:52:20.960> are<00:52:21.119> broken
it's not just Marquetto are broken
everywhere,<00:52:22.400> right?<00:52:22.559> These<00:52:22.800> cultures<00:52:23.119> have
everywhere, right? These cultures have
given<00:52:23.599> up<00:52:24.240> and<00:52:24.800> um<00:52:25.200> so<00:52:25.440> I<00:52:25.680> like<00:52:25.839> I<00:52:26.079> like<00:52:26.240> this
given up and um so I like I like this
model<00:52:26.640> and<00:52:26.800> I<00:52:26.960> like<00:52:27.040> the<00:52:27.200> thousand<00:52:27.680> I<00:52:27.839> think
model and I like the thousand I think
there's<00:52:28.079> a<00:52:28.160> thousand<00:52:28.559> targets<00:52:28.960> for<00:52:29.200> bending
there's a thousand targets for bending
spoons<00:52:30.000> and<00:52:31.040> um<00:52:31.599> you<00:52:31.760> know<00:52:31.920> I<00:52:32.160> almost<00:52:32.400> wonder
spoons and um you know I almost wonder
if<00:52:32.880> Constellation<00:52:33.520> needs<00:52:33.760> I<00:52:34.000> listen<00:52:34.400> they've
if Constellation needs I listen they've
been<00:52:34.720> wildly<00:52:35.119> successful.<00:52:35.599> I<00:52:35.760> wonder<00:52:35.920> if
been wildly successful. I wonder if
their<00:52:36.240> model<00:52:36.480> needs<00:52:36.720> to<00:52:36.880> be<00:52:36.960> rebooted<00:52:37.359> so<00:52:37.599> they
their model needs to be rebooted so they
can<00:52:37.839> get<00:52:37.920> enough.<00:52:38.160> I<00:52:38.319> don't<00:52:38.400> know<00:52:38.400> if<00:52:38.640> these
can get enough. I don't know if these
kids<00:52:39.119> want<00:52:39.200> to<00:52:39.359> work<00:52:39.440> for<00:52:39.680> Constellation<00:52:40.240> or
kids want to work for Constellation or
not.<00:52:41.119> Um<00:52:42.319> in<00:52:42.480> in<00:52:42.800> the<00:52:42.960> portfolio<00:52:43.440> company<00:52:43.599> that
not. Um in in the portfolio company that
where<00:52:44.079> I've<00:52:44.319> watched<00:52:44.720> PE<00:52:45.119> take<00:52:45.280> them<00:52:45.440> over,
where I've watched PE take them over,
right?<00:52:46.640> They're<00:52:46.960> not<00:52:47.200> running<00:52:47.440> the<00:52:47.680> right
right? They're not running the right
model<00:52:48.240> that<00:52:48.720> I<00:52:48.880> because<00:52:49.119> I've<00:52:49.280> sold<00:52:49.440> a<00:52:49.599> lot<00:52:49.680> of
model that I because I've sold a lot of
companies<00:52:50.000> to<00:52:50.240> PE,<00:52:50.559> right?<00:52:50.720> And<00:52:50.800> I'm<00:52:50.960> not
companies to PE, right? And I'm not
close<00:52:51.119> to<00:52:51.280> them,<00:52:51.359> but<00:52:51.599> I<00:52:51.680> watch<00:52:51.920> them.<00:52:52.319> They're
close to them, but I watch them. They're
still<00:52:52.800> bringing<00:52:53.040> in<00:52:53.200> 2021<00:52:53.839> managers.<00:52:54.880> They're
still bringing in 2021 managers. They're
bringing<00:52:55.440> in<00:52:55.920> folks<00:52:56.240> that<00:52:56.800> that<00:52:57.599> yeah,
bringing in folks that that yeah,
they're<00:52:58.079> they're<00:52:58.400> never<00:52:58.559> a<00:52:58.720> CEO<00:52:59.040> before.<00:52:59.440> They
they're they're never a CEO before. They
were<00:52:59.839> never<00:53:00.160> really<00:53:00.559> a<00:53:00.880> great<00:53:01.119> success<00:53:01.520> on
were never really a great success on
their<00:53:01.839> own,<00:53:02.000> but<00:53:02.160> they<00:53:02.319> have<00:53:02.400> a<00:53:02.559> good<00:53:02.800> set<00:53:02.960> of
their own, but they have a good set of
logos<00:53:03.599> on<00:53:03.760> their<00:53:04.000> account<00:53:04.240> and<00:53:04.480> they're<00:53:04.640> a
logos on their account and they're a
people<00:53:05.119> person.<00:53:05.920> Jason's<00:53:06.400> really<00:53:06.559> a<00:53:06.800> people
people person. Jason's really a people
person.<00:53:07.280> He's<00:53:07.520> going<00:53:07.680> on<00:53:07.839> a<00:53:08.000> speaking<00:53:08.240> tour.
person. He's going on a speaking tour.
He's<00:53:08.960> going<00:53:09.200> around<00:53:09.440> the<00:53:09.599> world<00:53:09.680> for<00:53:09.920> 90<00:53:10.240> days
He's going around the world for 90 days
to<00:53:10.640> just<00:53:10.800> meet<00:53:11.040> with<00:53:11.200> the<00:53:11.440> team<00:53:11.760> and<00:53:12.000> then<00:53:12.480> I
to just meet with the team and then I
want<00:53:12.800> to<00:53:12.960> meet<00:53:13.200> back<00:53:13.359> with<00:53:13.520> the<00:53:13.680> board<00:53:13.920> in
want to meet back with the board in
three<00:53:14.400> or<00:53:14.559> four<00:53:14.720> months<00:53:14.880> and<00:53:15.119> come<00:53:15.200> up<00:53:15.359> with<00:53:15.520> my
three or four months and come up with my
ideas.<00:53:16.400> Like<00:53:16.720> that<00:53:16.960> don't<00:53:17.200> work<00:53:17.359> today,<00:53:17.680> boys.
ideas. Like that don't work today, boys.
Okay,<00:53:19.119> that<00:53:19.359> was<00:53:19.599> great<00:53:19.839> when<00:53:20.079> you<00:53:20.240> bought
Okay, that was great when you bought
when<00:53:21.119> Tabo<00:53:21.520> Bravo<00:53:21.839> bought<00:53:22.000> you<00:53:22.160> in<00:53:22.400> 2021,
when Tabo Bravo bought you in 2021,
right?<00:53:23.440> We<00:53:23.680> need<00:53:23.839> the<00:53:24.000> bending<00:53:24.559> I<00:53:24.720> bet<00:53:24.800> at
right? We need the bending I bet at
bending<00:53:25.280> spoons<00:53:25.520> when<00:53:25.680> you<00:53:25.760> buy<00:53:25.920> that<00:53:26.079> thing,
bending spoons when you buy that thing,
man,<00:53:26.559> crap<00:53:26.880> happens<00:53:27.200> the<00:53:27.440> first<00:53:27.680> 30<00:53:27.920> days.
man, crap happens the first 30 days.
People<00:53:28.880> are<00:53:29.040> moved<00:53:29.359> out,<00:53:29.680> people<00:53:29.839> are<00:53:30.079> moved
People are moved out, people are moved
in,<00:53:30.960> products<00:53:31.359> are<00:53:31.520> shut<00:53:31.760> down.<00:53:32.319> We<00:53:32.559> need<00:53:32.640> that
in, products are shut down. We need that
level<00:53:33.040> of<00:53:33.200> action,<00:53:33.680> man.<00:53:34.240> pushing<00:53:34.559> on<00:53:34.720> that.
level of action, man. pushing on that.
It<00:53:35.119> may<00:53:35.359> be<00:53:35.520> in<00:53:35.760> part<00:53:37.200> because
It may be in part because
and<00:53:39.119> I<00:53:39.280> could<00:53:39.440> be<00:53:39.520> wrong<00:53:39.839> but<00:53:40.079> what<00:53:40.240> Betty
and I could be wrong but what Betty
Spoon<00:53:40.960> is<00:53:41.200> trying<00:53:41.359> to<00:53:41.599> do<00:53:41.839> is<00:53:42.240> similar<00:53:42.640> to<00:53:42.800> what
Spoon is trying to do is similar to what
constellation<00:53:43.520> and<00:53:43.680> PE<00:53:44.000> was<00:53:44.160> doing<00:53:44.319> 5<00:53:44.640> 10
constellation and PE was doing 5 10
years<00:53:44.960> ago<00:53:45.280> in<00:53:45.520> B2B<00:53:45.920> SAS<00:53:46.319> in<00:53:46.400> other<00:53:46.559> words
years ago in B2B SAS in other words
don't<00:53:47.040> change<00:53:47.280> the<00:53:47.520> business<00:53:47.839> all<00:53:48.079> that<00:53:48.319> much
don't change the business all that much
but<00:53:49.359> just<00:53:49.599> optimize<00:53:50.160> it<00:53:50.480> and<00:53:50.640> you're<00:53:50.800> right<00:53:51.040> so
but just optimize it and you're right so
that's<00:53:51.359> an<00:53:51.599> easier<00:53:51.920> task<00:53:52.319> I<00:53:52.480> think<00:53:52.559> what
that's an easier task I think what
you're<00:53:52.880> saying<00:53:53.119> Jason<00:53:53.440> I<00:53:53.599> think<00:53:53.680> it's<00:53:53.920> true<00:53:54.160> is
you're saying Jason I think it's true is
if<00:53:54.880> you<00:53:55.200> buy<00:53:56.160> a<00:53:56.400> B2B<00:53:57.040> software<00:53:57.520> company<00:53:58.000> today
if you buy a B2B software company today
it's<00:53:59.119> preAI<00:53:59.839> it<00:54:00.000> is<00:54:00.079> highly<00:54:00.400> unlikely<00:54:00.880> that
it's preAI it is highly unlikely that
simply<00:54:01.680> optimizing<00:54:02.319> and<00:54:02.640> pressing<00:54:02.960> the
simply optimizing and pressing the
buttons<00:54:03.440> will<00:54:03.680> be<00:54:03.920> enough,<00:54:04.800> right?<00:54:05.200> In<00:54:05.359> other
buttons will be enough, right? In other
words,<00:54:05.839> you<00:54:06.079> can<00:54:06.160> play<00:54:06.319> the<00:54:06.480> Vista<00:54:06.960> moves<00:54:07.280> from
words, you can play the Vista moves from
2021,<00:54:08.960> you<00:54:09.119> can<00:54:09.280> cut<00:54:09.440> the<00:54:09.680> cost,<00:54:10.000> you<00:54:10.160> can<00:54:10.240> move
2021, you can cut the cost, you can move
headcount<00:54:11.119> overseas,<00:54:11.920> etc.,<00:54:12.400> etc.<00:54:12.800> But<00:54:12.960> I
headcount overseas, etc., etc. But I
think<00:54:13.280> what<00:54:13.440> you're<00:54:13.599> saying<00:54:13.760> is<00:54:14.000> correct.
think what you're saying is correct.
Unless<00:54:14.640> you're<00:54:14.880> kind<00:54:15.040> of<00:54:15.200> generating<00:54:15.680> new
Unless you're kind of generating new
revenue<00:54:16.240> from<00:54:16.400> AI<00:54:17.040> and<00:54:17.680> significantly
revenue from AI and significantly
re-engineering<00:54:19.200> the<00:54:19.440> company,<00:54:19.760> which<00:54:20.000> is<00:54:20.160> a
re-engineering the company, which is a
bigger<00:54:20.640> ask<00:54:21.440> than<00:54:21.760> just,<00:54:22.079> you<00:54:22.240> know,<00:54:22.400> optimize
bigger ask than just, you know, optimize
the<00:54:23.119> existing<00:54:23.599> thing,<00:54:24.160> right?<00:54:25.200> It<00:54:25.440> won't<00:54:25.599> be
the existing thing, right? It won't be
successful.<00:54:26.319> So<00:54:26.559> to<00:54:26.800> that<00:54:26.960> extent<00:54:27.280> I<00:54:27.440> think
successful. So to that extent I think
that<00:54:28.559> Jason's<00:54:29.040> B2B<00:54:29.680> B2B<00:54:30.240> dot<00:54:30.880> sorry<00:54:31.280> bending
that Jason's B2B B2B dot sorry bending
spoons<00:54:32.000> B2B<00:54:32.559> run<00:54:32.720> by<00:54:32.960> Jason<00:54:33.599> will<00:54:33.839> be<00:54:34.000> actually
spoons B2B run by Jason will be actually
a<00:54:34.400> harder<00:54:34.720> managerial<00:54:35.359> task<00:54:35.920> than<00:54:36.160> bending
a harder managerial task than bending
spoons<00:54:36.960> because<00:54:37.119> I<00:54:37.280> think<00:54:37.359> all<00:54:37.599> bendings<00:54:38.079> all
spoons because I think all bendings all
bending<00:54:38.960> spoons<00:54:39.359> had<00:54:39.520> to<00:54:39.599> do<00:54:39.760> was<00:54:40.000> take
bending spoons had to do was take
Evernote<00:54:40.960> take<00:54:41.280> AOL<00:54:42.079> and<00:54:42.400> just<00:54:42.559> ruthlessly
Evernote take AOL and just ruthlessly
raise<00:54:43.520> prices<00:54:43.839> and<00:54:44.079> optimize.<00:54:44.640> It's<00:54:44.800> it's<00:54:45.040> a
raise prices and optimize. It's it's a
little<00:54:45.599> there<00:54:45.839> was<00:54:45.920> a<00:54:46.079> little<00:54:46.240> less
little there was a little less
innovation<00:54:47.599> required<00:54:48.079> than<00:54:48.319> I<00:54:48.480> think<00:54:48.559> would
innovation required than I think would
be<00:54:48.960> required<00:54:49.280> in<00:54:49.440> B2B<00:54:49.920> now<00:54:50.160> just<00:54:50.319> thinking
be required in B2B now just thinking
aloud.<00:54:50.960> I<00:54:51.119> hadn't<00:54:51.280> thought<00:54:51.440> about<00:54:51.599> that<00:54:51.760> until
aloud. I hadn't thought about that until
now
>> but<00:54:53.040> yeah<00:54:53.440> but<00:54:53.599> I<00:54:53.839> think<00:54:54.000> the<00:54:54.160> upside<00:54:54.559> can<00:54:54.720> be
>> but yeah but I think the upside can be
bigger.<00:54:55.200> You<00:54:55.359> also<00:54:55.680> need<00:54:55.760> a<00:54:55.920> monster
bigger. You also need a monster
checkbook.<00:54:56.720> I<00:54:56.960> mean,<00:54:57.839> page<00:54:58.000> of<00:54:58.160> duties<00:54:58.559> market
checkbook. I mean, page of duties market
cap<00:54:59.040> say<00:54:59.440> 750.<00:54:59.920> You<00:55:00.000> buy<00:55:00.079> it<00:55:00.240> at<00:55:00.400> 2x,<00:55:00.720> you're<00:55:00.880> a
cap say 750. You buy it at 2x, you're a
billion<00:55:01.440> five<00:55:01.599> on<00:55:01.920> one<00:55:02.079> asset.<00:55:02.880> We<00:55:03.040> we<00:55:03.440> times
billion five on one asset. We we times
that<00:55:03.839> by
that by
>> No,<00:55:04.400> you<00:55:04.480> buy<00:55:04.559> it<00:55:04.720> at<00:55:04.960> 760.
>> No, you buy it at 760.
No<00:55:07.040> one<00:55:07.200> no<00:55:07.359> one's<00:55:07.920> buying<00:55:08.319> pedy<00:55:08.880> for<00:55:09.040> 2x.
No one no one's buying pedy for 2x.
>> The<00:55:11.359> board<00:55:11.599> would<00:55:11.760> have<00:55:11.920> to<00:55:12.079> take<00:55:12.240> that<00:55:12.400> deal
>> The board would have to take that deal
in<00:55:12.880> six<00:55:13.359> seconds<00:55:13.599> from<00:55:13.680> a<00:55:13.839> fiduciary
in six seconds from a fiduciary
obligation.
>> Sell<00:55:15.359> at<00:55:15.599> 760.
>> Sell at 760.
>> I<00:55:17.040> think<00:55:17.200> any<00:55:17.520> public<00:55:17.839> company<00:55:18.240> today,<00:55:18.559> I
>> I think any public company today, I
mean,<00:55:18.800> Rory's<00:55:19.280> lived<00:55:19.520> this<00:55:19.680> more<00:55:19.839> than<00:55:19.920> I
mean, Rory's lived this more than I
have.<00:55:20.160> I<00:55:20.400> think<00:55:20.559> any<00:55:20.880> public<00:55:21.119> company<00:55:21.359> in
have. I think any public company in
decline<00:55:21.920> today<00:55:22.160> that<00:55:22.400> gets<00:55:22.480> an<00:55:22.720> offer<00:55:22.880> a
decline today that gets an offer a
premium<00:55:23.359> of<00:55:23.599> even<00:55:23.839> 15%.<00:55:24.960> They<00:55:25.119> have<00:55:25.200> a
premium of even 15%. They have a
fiduciary<00:55:25.839> duty<00:55:26.079> to<00:55:26.160> take<00:55:26.319> that<00:55:26.480> very
fiduciary duty to take that very
seriously.<00:55:27.599> They<00:55:27.839> have<00:55:28.000> to<00:55:28.079> come<00:55:28.240> back<00:55:28.480> and
seriously. They have to come back and
say<00:55:29.599> we<00:55:29.839> believe<00:55:30.079> we<00:55:30.319> genuinely<00:55:30.880> believe<00:55:31.119> this
say we believe we genuinely believe this
thing<00:55:31.520> we<00:55:31.680> got<00:55:31.760> to<00:55:31.839> go<00:55:32.000> hire<00:55:32.160> an<00:55:32.319> investment
thing we got to go hire an investment
bank<00:55:32.800> and<00:55:32.960> say<00:55:33.119> it's<00:55:33.280> underpriced<00:55:33.760> at<00:55:34.000> a<00:55:34.400> 15%
bank and say it's underpriced at a 15%
premium<00:55:35.359> to<00:55:35.599> market<00:55:36.000> and<00:55:36.240> then<00:55:36.319> management
premium to market and then management
with<00:55:36.800> their<00:55:36.960> earnout.<00:55:37.599> They're<00:55:37.760> going<00:55:37.839> to
with their earnout. They're going to
take<00:55:38.079> that<00:55:38.240> deal<00:55:38.400> in<00:55:38.559> a<00:55:38.640> heartbeat.<00:55:38.960> I<00:55:39.119> get<00:55:39.200> to
take that deal in a heartbeat. I get to
leave.<00:55:39.520> I<00:55:39.680> get<00:55:39.839> to<00:55:40.000> I<00:55:40.160> get<00:55:40.319> to<00:55:40.400> bail<00:55:40.640> out<00:55:40.800> of
leave. I get to I get to bail out of
this<00:55:41.040> this<00:55:41.280> sinking<00:55:41.760> rat<00:55:42.079> hole.<00:55:42.559> I'm<00:55:42.960> I'll
this this sinking rat hole. I'm I'll
take<00:55:43.440> this.<00:55:43.680> Like<00:55:43.920> management<00:55:44.319> is<00:55:44.400> going<00:55:44.480> to
take this. Like management is going to
be<00:55:44.720> so<00:55:44.880> aligned<00:55:45.280> to<00:55:45.440> take<00:55:45.599> any<00:55:45.760> deal<00:55:46.000> where<00:55:46.240> I
be so aligned to take any deal where I
mean<00:55:46.480> some<00:55:46.559> of<00:55:46.720> them<00:55:46.800> they<00:55:46.960> just<00:55:47.119> get<00:55:47.280> fired.
mean some of them they just get fired.
They're<00:55:47.760> not<00:55:47.920> going<00:55:48.000> to<00:55:48.079> be<00:55:48.160> excited<00:55:48.480> about
They're not going to be excited about
that,<00:55:49.040> right?<00:55:49.839> They<00:55:50.160> just<00:55:50.400> had<00:55:50.559> a<00:55:50.720> good<00:55:50.880> day
that, right? They just had a good day
and<00:55:51.200> are<00:55:51.359> up<00:55:51.440> a<00:55:51.599> few<00:55:51.920> but<00:55:52.079> yes<00:55:52.240> I<00:55:52.400> mean<00:55:52.480> it's<00:55:52.720> 78
and are up a few but yes I mean it's 78
$800<00:55:53.359> million.<00:55:53.839> You're<00:55:54.079> right.<00:55:54.400> I<00:55:54.559> mean<00:55:54.720> but
$800 million. You're right. I mean but
that's<00:55:55.119> because<00:55:55.440> Jason<00:55:55.839> wanted<00:55:56.079> to<00:55:56.240> start<00:55:56.400> at
that's because Jason wanted to start at
the<00:55:56.720> hund00<00:55:56.960> million<00:55:57.520> level.<00:55:57.760> I<00:55:57.920> mean<00:55:58.079> you
the hund00 million level. I mean you
could<00:55:58.400> do<00:55:58.480> the<00:55:58.640> bending<00:55:59.040> spoons<00:55:59.359> thing<00:55:59.760> and
could do the bending spoons thing and
start<00:56:00.160> with<00:56:00.319> smaller<00:56:00.720> deals<00:56:00.880> and<00:56:01.119> roll<00:56:01.280> up<00:56:01.359> to
start with smaller deals and roll up to
it.
>> Well<00:56:02.000> that's<00:56:02.160> what<00:56:02.319> they<00:56:02.480> did.<00:56:02.640> I<00:56:02.799> mean<00:56:02.880> they
>> Well that's what they did. I mean they
very<00:56:03.520> it's<00:56:03.760> a<00:56:03.920> very<00:56:04.079> long<00:56:04.319> journey.<00:56:04.720> This
very it's a very long journey. This
company<00:56:05.040> is<00:56:05.280> you<00:56:05.440> I<00:56:05.599> think<00:56:05.760> 15<00:56:05.920> years<00:56:06.160> old.
company is you I think 15 years old.
>> The<00:56:07.200> point<00:56:07.359> is<00:56:07.599> I<00:56:07.760> think<00:56:07.839> the<00:56:08.000> meta<00:56:08.319> point
>> The point is I think the meta point
Jason<00:56:08.880> may<00:56:09.040> think<00:56:09.200> is<00:56:09.359> correct<00:56:09.520> is<00:56:09.680> that
Jason may think is correct is that
especially<00:56:10.799> in<00:56:10.960> a<00:56:11.200> world<00:56:11.599> where<00:56:12.319> you<00:56:12.559> know
especially in a world where you know
standalone<00:56:13.359> IPOs<00:56:14.000> you<00:56:14.160> need<00:56:14.319> 500<00:56:14.799> million<00:56:15.040> and
standalone IPOs you need 500 million and
30%<00:56:15.839> growth.<00:56:16.559> There<00:56:16.799> are<00:56:16.960> a<00:56:17.119> whole<00:56:17.280> lot<00:56:17.520> of
30% growth. There are a whole lot of
companies<00:56:17.920> that<00:56:18.240> aren't<00:56:18.640> that<00:56:19.680> right<00:56:19.920> that
companies that aren't that right that
are<00:56:20.240> sub<00:56:20.480> that<00:56:20.799> scale<00:56:21.520> that<00:56:21.839> you<00:56:21.920> know<00:56:22.000> this<00:56:22.160> is
are sub that scale that you know this is
going<00:56:22.319> to<00:56:22.400> sound<00:56:22.559> stupid<00:56:22.799> when<00:56:22.960> I<00:56:23.040> say<00:56:23.200> but
going to sound stupid when I say but
aren't<00:56:23.680> family<00:56:24.000> businesses<00:56:24.400> you<00:56:24.559> leave<00:56:24.720> to
aren't family businesses you leave to
your<00:56:25.040> kids<00:56:25.680> they're<00:56:26.000> venturebacked<00:56:26.720> things
your kids they're venturebacked things
with<00:56:27.119> a<00:56:27.280> CEO<00:56:27.599> and<00:56:27.760> at<00:56:27.920> some<00:56:28.000> point<00:56:28.160> everyone
with a CEO and at some point everyone
gets<00:56:28.559> old<00:56:28.880> everyone<00:56:29.040> wants<00:56:29.200> to<00:56:29.359> do<00:56:29.520> something
gets old everyone wants to do something
else<00:56:30.160> and<00:56:30.480> all<00:56:30.720> those<00:56:31.440> businesses<00:56:31.920> have<00:56:32.079> to
else and all those businesses have to
find<00:56:32.400> a<00:56:32.559> home<00:56:33.440> right<00:56:33.920> so<00:56:34.240> yeah<00:56:34.480> I<00:56:34.640> I<00:56:34.720> I<00:56:35.040> don't
find a home right so yeah I I I don't
think<00:56:35.200> it's<00:56:35.599> I<00:56:35.760> think<00:56:36.079> I'd<00:56:36.319> love<00:56:36.480> to<00:56:36.559> see<00:56:36.640> the
think it's I think I'd love to see the
bending<00:56:37.200> spoons<00:56:37.839> consumer<00:56:38.319> list<00:56:38.559> of<00:56:38.720> a
bending spoons consumer list of a
thousand<00:56:39.119> names<00:56:39.440> but<00:56:39.599> I<00:56:39.760> believe<00:56:39.920> it<00:56:40.079> would<00:56:40.240> be
thousand names but I believe it would be
there<00:56:40.720> you<00:56:40.799> know<00:56:41.280> good<00:56:41.520> digital<00:56:41.920> assets<00:56:42.319> that
there you know good digital assets that
are<00:56:42.720> just<00:56:42.880> like<00:56:43.040> eh<00:56:43.520> not<00:56:43.680> matters<00:56:44.079> enough
are just like eh not matters enough
Jason<00:56:44.799> I<00:56:44.960> push<00:56:45.119> you've<00:56:45.440> got<00:56:45.599> Marcato<00:56:45.839> shadow
Jason I push you've got Marcato shadow
one.<00:56:46.640> What<00:56:46.799> are<00:56:46.960> the<00:56:47.040> other<00:56:47.200> two<00:56:47.520> targets
one. What are the other two targets
we're<00:56:48.079> going<00:56:48.240> for?
we're going for?
>> Patriot<00:56:50.240> was<00:56:50.319> a<00:56:50.480> good<00:56:50.559> one,<00:56:50.799> right?<00:56:50.960> I<00:56:51.119> mean,
>> Patriot was a good one, right? I mean,
you<00:56:51.359> did<00:56:51.599> need<00:56:52.319> Rory's<00:56:52.720> right.<00:56:52.960> That's<00:56:53.119> that's
you did need Rory's right. That's that's
that's<00:56:53.599> a<00:56:53.760> very<00:56:53.920> good<00:56:54.079> one<00:56:54.319> because<00:56:54.880> um<00:56:55.119> I
that's a very good one because um I
mean,<00:56:55.520> you've<00:56:55.760> got<00:56:55.839> the<00:56:56.079> right<00:56:56.240> customer
mean, you've got the right customer
base,<00:56:57.040> right?<00:56:57.359> Um<00:56:58.079> Data<00:56:58.400> Dog's<00:56:58.720> extremely
base, right? Um Data Dog's extremely
expensive.<00:56:59.520> They<00:56:59.760> have<00:56:59.839> cheaper<00:57:00.079> competitor.
expensive. They have cheaper competitor.
I<00:57:00.559> mean,<00:57:00.720> Pat<00:57:01.119> Patri<00:57:01.599> got<00:57:01.760> crushed<00:57:02.000> from<00:57:02.160> all
I mean, Pat Patri got crushed from all
sides<00:57:02.640> and<00:57:03.119> across<00:57:03.520> its<00:57:03.760> whole<00:57:03.920> suite,<00:57:04.319> right?
sides and across its whole suite, right?
But<00:57:04.720> it's<00:57:04.880> it's<00:57:05.280> uh<00:57:05.680> it's<00:57:06.000> customer<00:57:06.400> count<00:57:06.640> is
But it's it's uh it's customer count is
flat,<00:57:06.960> but<00:57:07.119> it's<00:57:07.280> real.<00:57:07.599> Still<00:57:07.760> got<00:57:07.920> 15,000
flat, but it's real. Still got 15,000
customers<00:57:08.880> or<00:57:09.040> so<00:57:09.280> paying<00:57:09.520> for<00:57:09.680> this<00:57:09.920> product
customers or so paying for this product
constantly.<00:57:10.880> That<00:57:11.359> that<00:57:11.680> was<00:57:11.760> a<00:57:11.920> good<00:57:12.079> one.
constantly. That that was a good one.
Um,
>> a<00:57:13.760> sauna.
>> a sauna.
>> Boy,<00:57:15.200> I<00:57:15.359> have<00:57:15.520> too<00:57:15.680> much<00:57:15.920> scar<00:57:16.240> tissue
>> Boy, I have too much scar tissue
attempting<00:57:16.960> to<00:57:17.040> use<00:57:17.280> that<00:57:17.440> product.<00:57:17.760> I<00:57:18.000> I<00:57:18.160> I<00:57:18.240> I
attempting to use that product. I I I I
I<00:57:18.640> I<00:57:18.720> I<00:57:19.280> I
I I I I
but<00:57:21.119> probably.<00:57:21.599> Yeah.<00:57:21.839> I<00:57:22.000> mean,<00:57:22.160> listen,<00:57:22.720> you
but probably. Yeah. I mean, listen, you
have<00:57:23.040> a<00:57:23.280> company<00:57:23.599> literally<00:57:24.160> where<00:57:24.400> the
have a company literally where the
billionaire<00:57:25.040> founder<00:57:25.359> just<00:57:25.520> up<00:57:25.680> and<00:57:25.839> quit<00:57:26.079> a
billionaire founder just up and quit a
year<00:57:26.400> and<00:57:26.480> a<00:57:26.640> half<00:57:26.720> ago.<00:57:27.520> Okay.<00:57:28.079> I<00:57:28.319> mean,
year and a half ago. Okay. I mean,
that's<00:57:28.720> one<00:57:28.880> that<00:57:29.040> that<00:57:29.119> that<00:57:29.359> that<00:57:29.839> you<00:57:30.000> got
that's one that that that that you got
to<00:57:30.240> be<00:57:30.319> a<00:57:30.799> got<00:57:30.880> to<00:57:30.960> be<00:57:31.119> some<00:57:31.280> way<00:57:31.359> to<00:57:31.520> turn<00:57:31.680> this
to be a got to be some way to turn this
thing<00:57:32.079> around<00:57:32.400> in<00:57:32.640> a<00:57:33.040> uh<00:57:33.440> in<00:57:33.599> a<00:57:33.839> space<00:57:34.079> that
thing around in a uh in a space that
listen<00:57:34.880> that<00:57:35.040> that<00:57:35.280> has<00:57:35.440> existential
listen that that has existential
challenges,<00:57:36.640> right?<00:57:36.880> Do<00:57:37.040> agents<00:57:37.520> need<00:57:37.760> a
challenges, right? Do agents need a
sauna?<00:57:38.319> agents<00:57:38.720> don't<00:57:38.880> need<00:57:39.040> a<00:57:39.200> sauna,<00:57:40.000> but<00:57:40.160> I
sauna? agents don't need a sauna, but I
think<00:57:40.480> you<00:57:40.640> can<00:57:40.799> make<00:57:40.960> it<00:57:41.119> more<00:57:41.359> agent
think you can make it more agent
friendly.<00:57:42.240> I<00:57:42.480> think<00:57:42.559> you<00:57:42.799> can<00:57:42.880> do<00:57:43.040> better.
friendly. I think you can do better.
Probably<00:57:43.839> do<00:57:44.000> better.<00:57:44.240> This<00:57:44.400> is<00:57:44.480> easy<00:57:44.720> for<00:57:44.799> me
Probably do better. This is easy for me
to<00:57:45.119> I<00:57:45.280> I<00:57:45.440> don't<00:57:45.520> want<00:57:45.599> to<00:57:45.680> be<00:57:45.839> too<00:57:45.920> much<00:57:46.000> of<00:57:46.000> an
to I I don't want to be too much of an
armchair<00:57:46.640> quarterback<00:57:46.960> from<00:57:47.119> a<00:57:47.280> product<00:57:47.440> that
armchair quarterback from a product that
feels<00:57:47.920> terminal,<00:57:48.640> but<00:57:48.880> I<00:57:49.040> it's<00:57:49.280> probably<00:57:49.359> a
feels terminal, but I it's probably a
good<00:57:49.520> one.<00:57:49.680> I<00:57:49.839> think<00:57:49.920> it's<00:57:50.079> a<00:57:50.240> good<00:57:50.319> candidate,
good one. I think it's a good candidate,
right?<00:57:50.960> It<00:57:51.119> is.<00:57:51.280> It<00:57:51.520> is.<00:57:51.599> It's<00:57:51.839> a<00:57:52.000> good
right? It is. It is. It's a good
candidate<00:57:52.849> [snorts]
candidate [snorts]
without<00:57:53.839> all<00:57:54.000> the<00:57:54.240> pressure,<00:57:54.720> too.<00:57:55.040> Right.
without all the pressure, too. Right.
>> Okay.<00:57:56.799> I<00:57:57.040> feel<00:57:57.119> like<00:57:57.280> there's<00:57:57.520> a<00:57:57.839> a<00:57:58.160> private
>> Okay. I feel like there's a a private
company<00:57:58.960> fundraising<00:57:59.440> that<00:57:59.680> we<00:57:59.839> need<00:57:59.920> to
company fundraising that we need to
touch<00:58:00.240> on<00:58:00.480> before<00:58:00.720> we<00:58:00.799> do<00:58:00.960> a<00:58:01.119> rage<00:58:01.440> paper<00:58:01.760> reel.
touch on before we do a rage paper reel.
Uh,<00:58:02.720> Chimath<00:58:03.359> Palihapeter<00:58:04.400> raises<00:58:05.760> 135
Uh, Chimath Palihapeter raises 135
million<00:58:06.480> for<00:58:06.640> his<00:58:06.799> AI<00:58:07.119> startup<00:58:08.000> 8090<00:58:08.880> or<00:58:09.119> 8090,
million for his AI startup 8090 or 8090,
whatever<00:58:10.000> he<00:58:10.160> calls<00:58:10.319> it.<00:58:10.799> Uh,<00:58:11.119> but<00:58:11.359> he<00:58:11.599> also<00:58:11.839> is
whatever he calls it. Uh, but he also is
now<00:58:12.480> CEO.<00:58:13.520> Um,<00:58:14.640> uh,<00:58:15.040> for<00:58:15.440> people<00:58:15.599> that<00:58:15.839> don't
now CEO. Um, uh, for people that don't
know,<00:58:16.319> what<00:58:16.559> do<00:58:16.640> they<00:58:16.799> do?<00:58:17.040> It's<00:58:17.200> a<00:58:17.359> software
know, what do they do? It's a software
factory<00:58:18.079> platform<00:58:18.400> that<00:58:18.559> lets<00:58:18.799> teams
factory platform that lets teams
collaborate<00:58:19.599> with<00:58:19.839> AI<00:58:20.160> to<00:58:20.400> handle<00:58:20.640> the<00:58:20.799> full
collaborate with AI to handle the full
software<00:58:21.520> development<00:58:22.000> cycle<00:58:22.640> from<00:58:22.880> new
software development cycle from new
builds<00:58:23.440> to<00:58:23.680> code<00:58:23.920> refactoring<00:58:25.040> complete<00:58:25.440> with
builds to code refactoring complete with
governance.<00:58:27.040> What<00:58:27.200> did<00:58:27.359> we<00:58:27.520> think<00:58:27.599> about<00:58:27.760> this
governance. What did we think about this
one<00:58:28.160> team?<00:58:29.040> I<00:58:29.359> just<00:58:29.599> love<00:58:29.920> the<00:58:30.160> fact<00:58:30.319> that<00:58:30.480> you
one team? I just love the fact that you
had<00:58:30.799> Chimatn<00:58:31.520> in<00:58:31.680> the<00:58:31.760> ragebait<00:58:32.319> category.<00:58:33.440> I
had Chimatn in the ragebait category. I
mean<00:58:33.839> that<00:58:34.000> in<00:58:34.160> and<00:58:34.240> of<00:58:34.319> itself<00:58:34.720> was<00:58:34.960> progress,
mean that in and of itself was progress,
right?<00:58:36.240> I<00:58:36.480> I<00:58:36.880> all<00:58:37.119> credit<00:58:37.359> to<00:58:37.520> him.<00:58:37.680> I<00:58:37.839> mean<00:58:37.920> at
right? I I all credit to him. I mean at
the<00:58:38.240> risk<00:58:38.400> of<00:58:38.559> making<00:58:38.720> the<00:58:38.880> cliche,<00:58:39.760> you<00:58:39.920> know,
the risk of making the cliche, you know,
he<00:58:40.160> used<00:58:40.319> that<00:58:40.559> quote<00:58:40.720> a<00:58:40.960> long<00:58:41.119> time<00:58:41.200> ago,<00:58:41.520> but
he used that quote a long time ago, but
give<00:58:41.839> him<00:58:42.000> credit.<00:58:42.400> You<00:58:42.480> know,<00:58:42.720> he<00:58:43.040> did<00:58:43.280> he<00:58:43.520> did
give him credit. You know, he did he did
the<00:58:43.920> man<00:58:44.079> in<00:58:44.240> the<00:58:44.400> arena<00:58:44.799> quote<00:58:45.599> and<00:58:45.760> and<00:58:46.000> he
the man in the arena quote and and he
got<00:58:46.319> slammed<00:58:46.640> for<00:58:46.720> it.<00:58:46.880> Well,<00:58:47.040> now<00:58:47.119> he<00:58:47.359> is<00:58:47.440> the
got slammed for it. Well, now he is the
man<00:58:47.760> in<00:58:47.920> the<00:58:48.079> arena<00:58:48.319> and<00:58:48.559> all<00:58:48.799> credit<00:58:49.040> to<00:58:49.200> him
man in the arena and all credit to him
for<00:58:49.440> trying.<00:58:49.920> Good<00:58:50.079> luck,<00:58:50.640> right?<00:58:51.119> It's<00:58:51.280> a
for trying. Good luck, right? It's a
great<00:58:51.760> it's<00:58:52.000> a<00:58:52.079> super<00:58:52.319> interesting<00:58:52.640> market.
great it's a super interesting market.
There's<00:58:53.359> obviously<00:58:53.760> a<00:58:54.079> ton<00:58:54.319> a<00:58:54.559> ton<00:58:54.799> of
There's obviously a ton a ton of
competition,<00:58:56.079> but<00:58:56.319> it<00:58:56.640> as<00:58:56.880> he<00:58:57.040> said<00:58:57.200> in<00:58:57.359> his
competition, but it as he said in his
tweet,<00:58:58.240> it's<00:58:58.480> the<00:58:58.640> most<00:58:58.880> exciting<00:58:59.280> space
tweet, it's the most exciting space
you've<00:58:59.920> seen<00:59:00.079> in<00:59:00.640> decades.<00:59:01.839> You<00:59:02.000> know,<00:59:02.160> how<00:59:02.400> is
you've seen in decades. You know, how is
all<00:59:02.880> of<00:59:03.040> software<00:59:03.520> going<00:59:03.599> to<00:59:03.760> be<00:59:03.920> remade?<00:59:04.559> So,
all of software going to be remade? So,
I<00:59:04.880> just<00:59:04.960> give<00:59:05.119> him<00:59:05.200> huge<00:59:05.520> credit<00:59:05.680> for<00:59:05.920> going
I just give him huge credit for going
for<00:59:06.240> it<00:59:06.799> and<00:59:06.960> and<00:59:07.280> good<00:59:07.520> luck.<00:59:07.920> One<00:59:08.079> of<00:59:08.079> the
for it and and good luck. One of the
things<00:59:08.319> I'm<00:59:08.480> trying<00:59:08.559> to<00:59:08.720> do,<00:59:08.960> how<00:59:09.200> it's<00:59:09.359> like<00:59:10.400> I
things I'm trying to do, how it's like I
don't<00:59:10.720> have<00:59:10.799> to<00:59:10.960> be<00:59:11.040> a<00:59:11.200> snark<00:59:11.599> all<00:59:11.760> the<00:59:12.000> time<00:59:12.799> if
don't have to be a snark all the time if
you<00:59:13.200> know<00:59:13.359> cuz<00:59:13.520> it's<00:59:13.680> easy<00:59:13.839> to<00:59:13.920> be<00:59:14.079> snarky<00:59:14.319> at
you know cuz it's easy to be snarky at
someone<00:59:14.720> like<00:59:14.880> Traumat<00:59:15.280> who<00:59:15.440> just<00:59:15.599> lends
someone like Traumat who just lends
himself<00:59:16.160> so<00:59:16.400> well<00:59:16.640> to<00:59:16.799> snarkiness<00:59:17.440> given<00:59:17.839> his
himself so well to snarkiness given his
stuff.<00:59:18.480> But<00:59:18.640> let's<00:59:18.880> just<00:59:19.040> kind<00:59:19.200> of<00:59:19.280> take<00:59:19.359> the
stuff. But let's just kind of take the
high<00:59:19.760> ground<00:59:19.920> and<00:59:20.240> say<00:59:20.400> well<00:59:20.720> done,<00:59:21.520> good
high ground and say well done, good
luck.<00:59:22.400> Um,<00:59:22.880> you<00:59:23.040> know,<00:59:24.319> go<00:59:24.559> team.
luck. Um, you know, go team.
>> I<00:59:25.680> don't<00:59:25.760> mean<00:59:25.920> to<00:59:26.000> be<00:59:26.079> snarky.<00:59:26.559> I<00:59:26.720> will<00:59:26.880> say
>> I don't mean to be snarky. I will say
one<00:59:27.119> thing<00:59:27.359> just<00:59:27.520> in<00:59:27.680> general,<00:59:28.000> right?<00:59:28.240> This
one thing just in general, right? This
is<00:59:28.480> abstracting<00:59:29.040> away<00:59:29.200> from<00:59:29.440> Chimath.<00:59:30.000> I<00:59:30.319> and
is abstracting away from Chimath. I and
and<00:59:30.720> there<00:59:30.880> are<00:59:31.040> counter<00:59:31.359> examples.<00:59:31.760> I<00:59:32.000> can
and there are counter examples. I can
give<00:59:32.160> a<00:59:32.319> few<00:59:32.400> counter<00:59:32.640> examples,<00:59:32.960> but<00:59:33.280> I<00:59:34.079> my
give a few counter examples, but I my
scar<00:59:34.720> tissue<00:59:35.760> I<00:59:36.079> don't<00:59:36.319> believe<00:59:36.640> he's<00:59:36.880> working
scar tissue I don't believe he's working
100%<00:59:37.760> on<00:59:37.920> this.<00:59:38.160> I<00:59:38.319> I<00:59:38.640> don't<00:59:38.799> believe<00:59:39.200> every
100% on this. I I don't believe every
waking<00:59:40.000> hour<00:59:40.319> is<00:59:40.640> on<00:59:40.880> this.<00:59:41.119> I<00:59:41.359> believe<00:59:41.440> he's
waking hour is on this. I believe he's
got<00:59:41.839> a<00:59:42.000> team,<00:59:42.319> right?<00:59:42.720> And<00:59:43.359> um<00:59:44.559> uh<00:59:44.880> at<00:59:45.119> this
got a team, right? And um uh at this
point<00:59:45.359> in<00:59:45.599> life,<00:59:46.000> I<00:59:46.240> just<00:59:47.200> when<00:59:47.839> wealthy
point in life, I just when wealthy
folks,<00:59:49.520> especially<00:59:50.000> VCs,<00:59:50.559> want<00:59:50.720> to<00:59:50.960> be<00:59:51.119> a<00:59:51.280> CEO,
folks, especially VCs, want to be a CEO,
but<00:59:51.920> they're<00:59:52.160> not<00:59:52.480> working<00:59:52.880> at<00:59:53.359> the<00:59:54.000> insane
but they're not working at the insane
rate<00:59:55.200> of<00:59:55.599> a<00:59:55.920> traditional<00:59:56.480> founder<00:59:56.960> CEO.<00:59:57.920> I
rate of a traditional founder CEO. I
just<00:59:58.480> find<00:59:58.720> those<00:59:58.960> run<00:59:59.119> out<00:59:59.280> of<00:59:59.359> energy.<01:00:00.799> And
just find those run out of energy. And
I'm<01:00:01.119> not<01:00:01.280> saying<01:00:01.440> he's<01:00:01.680> not<01:00:01.760> the<01:00:01.920> exception<01:00:02.240> to
I'm not saying he's not the exception to
the<01:00:02.480> rule,<01:00:02.799> right?<01:00:02.960> I<01:00:03.200> know<01:00:03.280> the<01:00:03.520> Spotify<01:00:03.920> guy
the rule, right? I know the Spotify guy
that<01:00:04.240> Harry's<01:00:04.640> close<01:00:04.799> with<01:00:05.520> uh<01:00:05.680> runs<01:00:05.920> the
that Harry's close with uh runs the
scanning<01:00:06.640> company,<01:00:06.960> too.<01:00:07.200> That<01:00:07.359> one<01:00:07.520> we<01:00:07.680> have
scanning company, too. That one we have
a<01:00:07.839> lot<01:00:07.920> of<01:00:08.000> CEOs<01:00:08.480> running<01:00:08.720> side<01:00:08.960> companies
a lot of CEOs running side companies
that<01:00:09.440> are<01:00:09.599> very<01:00:09.839> successful,<01:00:10.480> right?<01:00:10.720> Listen,
that are very successful, right? Listen,
anyone<01:00:11.520> that<01:00:11.680> started<01:00:11.920> a<01:00:12.079> startup,<01:00:12.880> it's<01:00:13.119> all
anyone that started a startup, it's all
fun<01:00:13.599> and<01:00:13.680> games<01:00:13.920> in<01:00:14.160> the<01:00:14.240> early<01:00:14.400> days.<01:00:14.640> If<01:00:14.799> you
fun and games in the early days. If you
have<01:00:14.960> any<01:00:15.200> money,<01:00:15.680> you<01:00:15.839> pull<01:00:16.079> together<01:00:16.319> a
have any money, you pull together a
team,<01:00:16.799> there's<01:00:16.960> a<01:00:17.040> lot<01:00:17.119> of<01:00:17.200> whiteboard
team, there's a lot of whiteboard
talking,<01:00:18.640> you<01:00:18.799> use<01:00:18.960> your<01:00:19.119> brand<01:00:19.359> to<01:00:19.599> get
talking, you use your brand to get
Accenture,<01:00:20.240> whoever's<01:00:20.640> backing<01:00:20.960> you.<01:00:21.200> It's
Accenture, whoever's backing you. It's
all<01:00:21.520> kind<01:00:21.680> of<01:00:21.839> fun<01:00:22.160> until<01:00:22.400> the<01:00:22.720> S<01:00:22.880> hits<01:00:23.119> the
all kind of fun until the S hits the
fan.<01:00:24.400> But<01:00:24.720> do<01:00:24.960> you<01:00:25.040> want<01:00:25.200> to<01:00:25.359> be<01:00:25.520> running<01:00:25.839> this
fan. But do you want to be running this
services<01:00:27.280> AI<01:00:27.839> business<01:00:28.319> forever,<01:00:29.040> 100<01:00:29.359> hours
services AI business forever, 100 hours
a<01:00:29.839> week,<01:00:30.160> or<01:00:30.480> do<01:00:30.640> you<01:00:30.799> want<01:00:30.960> to<01:00:31.119> like<01:00:31.839> be
a week, or do you want to like be
hosting<01:00:32.799> $25<01:00:33.280> million<01:00:33.839> fundraisers<01:00:34.400> in<01:00:34.640> your
hosting $25 million fundraisers in your
palatial<01:00:35.359> home?<01:00:35.599> I<01:00:35.760> mean,<01:00:36.000> I<01:00:36.160> don't<01:00:36.240> know<01:00:36.319> that
palatial home? I mean, I don't know that
you<01:00:36.640> can<01:00:36.799> do<01:00:36.960> both<01:00:37.280> successfully.<01:00:38.160> I<01:00:38.400> know
you can do both successfully. I know
there<01:00:38.720> are<01:00:38.880> examples.<01:00:39.280> I<01:00:39.520> just<01:00:39.680> wouldn't<01:00:40.079> like
there are examples. I just wouldn't like
I<01:00:40.720> just<01:00:40.880> wouldn't<01:00:41.119> invest.<01:00:41.440> There's<01:00:41.680> certain
I just wouldn't invest. There's certain
things<01:00:42.000> for<01:00:42.240> me<01:00:42.400> personally,<01:00:42.720> I<01:00:42.799> have<01:00:42.960> scar
things for me personally, I have scar
tissue.<01:00:44.000> I've<01:00:44.319> written<01:00:44.640> small<01:00:44.960> checks<01:00:45.359> into
tissue. I've written small checks into
successful<01:00:47.040> founders<01:00:47.440> doing<01:00:47.680> multiple
successful founders doing multiple
things<01:00:48.240> just<01:00:48.400> for<01:00:48.640> fun<01:00:49.040> and<01:00:49.280> they're<01:00:49.440> all
things just for fun and they're all
zeros,<01:00:50.880> right?<01:00:51.119> And<01:00:51.200> I<01:00:51.440> and<01:00:51.520> I<01:00:51.599> remember<01:00:51.760> one
zeros, right? And I and I remember one
of<01:00:52.000> them<01:00:52.079> I<01:00:52.240> asked<01:00:52.400> this<01:00:52.640> successful<01:00:52.880> founder,
of them I asked this successful founder,
I'm<01:00:53.280> like,<01:00:53.520> I<01:00:53.760> don't<01:00:54.079> really<01:00:54.400> need<01:00:54.559> to<01:00:54.720> know
I'm like, I don't really need to know
what<01:00:55.359> I<01:00:55.520> don't<01:00:55.599> care<01:00:55.760> about<01:00:55.920> the<01:00:56.079> valuation.<01:00:56.960> I
what I don't care about the valuation. I
don't<01:00:57.440> just<01:00:57.680> are<01:00:57.839> you<01:00:58.160> are<01:00:58.480> are<01:00:58.640> you<01:00:58.799> telling
don't just are you are are you telling
me<01:00:59.119> this<01:00:59.280> is<01:00:59.359> the<01:00:59.520> only<01:00:59.680> thing<01:00:59.760> you're<01:00:59.920> going
me this is the only thing you're going
to<01:01:00.079> be<01:01:00.160> doing?<01:01:00.319> He's<01:01:00.480> like,<01:01:00.559> yeah,<01:01:00.799> this<01:01:00.880> is
to be doing? He's like, yeah, this is
the<01:01:01.040> only<01:01:01.119> thing<01:01:01.200> I'm<01:01:01.359> going<01:01:01.440> to<01:01:01.520> doing.<01:01:01.680> And
the only thing I'm going to doing. And
30<01:01:02.240> days<01:01:02.400> later,<01:01:02.480> I<01:01:02.640> see<01:01:02.799> I'm<01:01:02.960> working<01:01:03.040> on
30 days later, I see I'm working on
another<01:01:03.520> startup.<01:01:04.240> Right.<01:01:04.480> So<01:01:04.640> I<01:01:04.880> I'm<01:01:05.200> I'm
another startup. Right. So I I'm I'm
out.<01:01:06.160> If<01:01:06.400> Ch<01:01:06.640> if<01:01:06.880> literally<01:01:07.280> Chimoth<01:01:08.480> drops
out. If Ch if literally Chimoth drops
everything<01:01:09.359> but<01:01:09.760> 8090<01:01:10.559> everything<01:01:10.880> and<01:01:11.119> I<01:01:11.280> see
everything but 8090 everything and I see
the<01:01:11.599> sweat<01:01:11.920> from<01:01:12.079> his<01:01:12.240> brow<01:01:12.559> and<01:01:12.799> I<01:01:13.040> see<01:01:13.280> all
the sweat from his brow and I see all
and<01:01:13.760> I<01:01:13.920> see<01:01:14.160> and<01:01:14.400> I<01:01:14.559> see<01:01:14.720> that<01:01:15.200> because<01:01:15.520> the
and I see and I see that because the
dude's<01:01:16.160> fit.<01:01:16.480> He's<01:01:16.720> looking<01:01:16.960> good,<01:01:17.440> right?<01:01:17.760> He
dude's fit. He's looking good, right? He
he<01:01:18.319> uh<01:01:18.480> he<01:01:18.720> just<01:01:18.960> had<01:01:19.280> a<01:01:19.520> massive<01:01:20.000> the<01:01:20.240> massive
he uh he just had a massive the massive
largest<01:01:21.040> win<01:01:21.200> of<01:01:21.359> his<01:01:21.520> career<01:01:21.680> as<01:01:21.920> an
largest win of his career as an
investor.<01:01:23.119> I<01:01:23.440> want<01:01:23.520> to<01:01:23.680> see<01:01:24.000> the<01:01:24.400> I<01:01:24.640> want<01:01:24.720> to
investor. I want to see the I want to
see<01:01:24.880> the<01:01:25.119> ponchy<01:01:25.599> middle,<01:01:26.319> the<01:01:26.559> hair<01:01:26.799> loss,
see the ponchy middle, the hair loss,
the<01:01:28.319> his<01:01:28.640> right-hand<01:01:29.200> person<01:01:29.599> quitting<01:01:29.920> on
the his right-hand person quitting on
him.<01:01:30.480> Then<01:01:30.720> then<01:01:30.960> I'll<01:01:31.200> invest.
him. Then then I'll invest.
>> Not<01:01:33.200> until<01:01:33.520> then.<01:01:33.839> I<01:01:34.000> have<01:01:34.079> too<01:01:34.240> much<01:01:34.400> scar
>> Not until then. I have too much scar
tissue<01:01:34.960> here.<01:01:35.119> It's<01:01:35.359> too<01:01:35.599> It's<01:01:35.839> too<01:01:36.000> easy<01:01:36.160> to
tissue here. It's too It's too easy to
start<01:01:36.559> up<01:01:36.720> today.<01:01:37.200> Whether<01:01:37.520> you<01:01:37.920> whether<01:01:38.160> you
start up today. Whether you whether you
launch<01:01:38.559> into<01:01:38.880> YC<01:01:39.280> and<01:01:39.440> raise<01:01:39.599> at<01:01:39.839> 30<01:01:40.079> pre<01:01:40.319> when
launch into YC and raise at 30 pre when
you<01:01:40.640> started<01:01:40.880> 3<01:01:41.119> weeks<01:01:41.280> ago.<01:01:41.599> It's<01:01:41.839> not<01:01:42.000> easy,
you started 3 weeks ago. It's not easy,
but<01:01:42.400> it's<01:01:42.559> too<01:01:42.720> easy.<01:01:43.599> It's<01:01:43.839> just<01:01:44.079> too<01:01:44.240> easy<01:01:44.400> to
but it's too easy. It's just too easy to
start<01:01:44.720> up<01:01:44.960> today.<01:01:46.079> So,<01:01:46.240> I'm<01:01:46.480> out.<01:01:47.280> Seeds
start up today. So, I'm out. Seeds
[snorts]<01:01:47.599> for<01:01:47.760> suckers,<01:01:48.240> boys.<01:01:48.559> It's<01:01:48.799> for
[snorts] for suckers, boys. It's for
suckers.
>> It's<01:01:50.400> for<01:01:50.559> suckers.<01:01:50.960> We're<01:01:51.200> making<01:01:51.359> the
>> It's for suckers. We're making the
t-shirts.<01:01:52.160> I<01:01:52.400> really<01:01:52.559> raged<01:01:52.880> the<01:01:53.119> internet
t-shirts. I really raged the internet
again<01:01:53.680> this<01:01:53.839> week.<01:01:54.240> Turned<01:01:54.480> down<01:01:54.640> a<01:01:54.880> founder
again this week. Turned down a founder
this<01:01:55.440> week.<01:01:55.920> Why?<01:01:56.400> They<01:01:56.640> were<01:01:56.799> finishing<01:01:57.200> the
this week. Why? They were finishing the
year<01:01:57.599> at<01:01:57.839> 1.5<01:01:58.480> million<01:01:59.119> R,<01:01:59.680> finishing<01:02:00.160> next
year at 1.5 million R, finishing next
year<01:02:00.640> at<01:02:00.960> 5<01:02:01.200> million<01:02:01.839> R.<01:02:02.559> today.<01:02:03.280> Brutal<01:02:03.680> as<01:02:03.839> it
year at 5 million R. today. Brutal as it
is,<01:02:04.319> this<01:02:04.559> isn't<01:02:04.799> good<01:02:05.040> enough<01:02:05.200> to<01:02:05.359> raise<01:02:05.599> a
is, this isn't good enough to raise a
good<01:02:06.000> series.<01:02:06.400> A<01:02:07.119> opportunity<01:02:07.839> cost<01:02:08.079> of<01:02:08.319> cash
good series. A opportunity cost of cash
is<01:02:08.880> real.<01:02:10.240> Now,<01:02:10.559> I<01:02:10.880> deleted<01:02:11.359> it<01:02:12.079> because
is real. Now, I deleted it because
honestly,<01:02:12.799> no<01:02:12.960> one<01:02:13.119> engaged.<01:02:13.920> It<01:02:14.160> got<01:02:14.480> 30
honestly, no one engaged. It got 30
likes<01:02:15.119> after<01:02:15.440> an<01:02:15.599> hour,<01:02:15.839> which<01:02:16.480> is<01:02:16.720> not<01:02:16.880> very
likes after an hour, which is not very
much<01:02:17.839> for<01:02:18.000> our<01:02:18.240> tweets.<01:02:18.880> And<01:02:19.040> so,<01:02:19.440> I<01:02:19.760> took<01:02:20.000> it
much for our tweets. And so, I took it
down<01:02:20.240> cuz<01:02:20.480> no<01:02:20.640> one<01:02:20.799> cared<01:02:21.119> and<01:02:21.359> it<01:02:21.520> looks<01:02:21.680> bad
down cuz no one cared and it looks bad
on<01:02:22.079> my<01:02:22.319> timeline.
on my timeline.
[laughter]<01:02:24.319> And<01:02:24.480> then<01:02:24.720> they<01:02:25.040> took<01:02:25.359> it<01:02:25.520> back<01:02:25.760> up
[laughter] And then they took it back up
and<01:02:26.559> it<01:02:26.799> became<01:02:27.119> a<01:02:27.359> thing.
and it became a thing.
Do<01:02:29.359> you<01:02:29.440> think<01:02:29.599> I<01:02:29.760> was<01:02:29.920> wrong?<01:02:30.880> I<01:02:31.200> think<01:02:31.359> you
Do you think I was wrong? I think you
okay<01:02:32.319> I<01:02:32.559> can<01:02:32.640> answer<01:02:33.040> yes<01:02:33.440> I<01:02:33.839> think<01:02:34.160> that<01:02:35.359> the
okay I can answer yes I think that the
state<01:02:35.920> the<01:02:36.160> factual<01:02:36.720> statement<01:02:37.119> you<01:02:37.440> made<01:02:38.160> is
state the factual statement you made is
correct<01:02:39.920> in<01:02:40.240> the<01:02:40.400> kind<01:02:40.640> of<01:02:40.799> growth<01:02:41.040> rates
correct in the kind of growth rates
you're<01:02:41.680> seeing<01:02:42.000> now<01:02:42.559> the<01:02:42.799> bar<01:02:43.119> the
you're seeing now the bar the
opportunity<01:02:44.000> cost<01:02:44.319> of<01:02:44.480> doing<01:02:44.799> something<01:02:45.040> with
opportunity cost of doing something with
a<01:02:45.359> lower<01:02:45.599> it's<01:02:45.839> not<01:02:46.000> impossible<01:02:46.480> we<01:02:46.640> have<01:02:46.799> done
a lower it's not impossible we have done
deals<01:02:47.200> with<01:02:47.440> those<01:02:47.680> kind<01:02:47.839> of<01:02:48.000> growth<01:02:48.240> rates
deals with those kind of growth rates
which<01:02:48.880> would<01:02:49.040> have<01:02:49.119> been<01:02:49.280> very<01:02:49.520> top<01:02:49.920> quartile
which would have been very top quartile
in<01:02:51.040> the<01:02:51.200> age<01:02:51.359> of<01:02:51.520> SAS<01:02:51.920> but<01:02:52.079> isn't<01:02:52.400> in<01:02:52.559> the<01:02:52.640> age
in the age of SAS but isn't in the age
of<01:02:52.960> AI<01:02:53.599> I<01:02:53.839> can<01:02:53.920> imagine<01:02:54.799> doing<01:02:55.119> some<01:02:55.280> of<01:02:55.440> those
of AI I can imagine doing some of those
deals<01:02:55.839> but<01:02:56.000> it's<01:02:56.240> the<01:02:56.400> exception<01:02:56.799> and<01:02:56.960> you'd
deals but it's the exception and you'd
need<01:02:57.359> some<01:02:57.520> other<01:02:57.760> extenduating<01:02:58.480> factor<01:02:59.200> so
need some other extenduating factor so
as<01:03:00.079> a<01:03:00.319> matter<01:03:00.559> of<01:03:00.799> pure<01:03:01.760> truth.<01:03:02.400> You<01:03:02.559> were<01:03:02.799> it
as a matter of pure truth. You were it
was<01:03:03.040> a<01:03:03.200> correct<01:03:03.440> reflection<01:03:03.760> of<01:03:03.920> the<01:03:04.000> current
was a correct reflection of the current
venture<01:03:04.559> market.<01:03:05.200> Were<01:03:05.440> you<01:03:05.599> correct<01:03:06.000> to<01:03:06.240> put
venture market. Were you correct to put
it<01:03:06.559> up?<01:03:07.040> If<01:03:07.200> you're<01:03:07.359> not<01:03:07.599> careful,<01:03:08.160> I<01:03:08.319> find<01:03:08.480> as
it up? If you're not careful, I find as
a<01:03:08.880> VC<01:03:09.920> when<01:03:10.160> you're<01:03:10.319> saying<01:03:10.720> your<01:03:10.960> 1<01:03:11.119> and<01:03:11.200> a
a VC when you're saying your 1 and a
half<01:03:11.520> to<01:03:11.839> 5<01:03:12.079> million<01:03:12.319> deal<01:03:12.559> isn't<01:03:12.880> quote<01:03:13.119> good
half to 5 million deal isn't quote good
enough,<01:03:13.599> you<01:03:13.760> really<01:03:13.920> have<01:03:14.079> to<01:03:14.240> phrase<01:03:14.559> it
enough, you really have to phrase it
carefully<01:03:15.520> so<01:03:15.680> you<01:03:15.920> don't<01:03:16.160> sound<01:03:16.319> like<01:03:16.480> an
carefully so you don't sound like an
obnoxious<01:03:17.359> prick<01:03:18.480> and<01:03:18.720> telling<01:03:18.960> people<01:03:19.280> their
obnoxious prick and telling people their
life's<01:03:19.760> work<01:03:19.920> is<01:03:20.079> not<01:03:20.240> good<01:03:20.400> enough.<01:03:20.640> And
life's work is not good enough. And
that's<01:03:21.039> tricky,<01:03:21.359> Harry.
that's tricky, Harry.
>> Well,<01:03:22.400> I'm<01:03:22.799> I'm<01:03:22.960> I'm<01:03:23.280> really<01:03:23.520> sorry<01:03:23.839> if<01:03:24.079> that's
>> Well, I'm I'm I'm really sorry if that's
going<01:03:24.400> to<01:03:24.559> ruin<01:03:24.799> your<01:03:24.960> day.<01:03:25.359> Don't<01:03:25.520> be<01:03:25.599> a
going to ruin your day. Don't be a
[ __ ]<01:03:26.160> founder.<01:03:26.640> Life's<01:03:27.039> harder<01:03:27.280> than<01:03:27.440> a<01:03:27.599> VC
[ __ ] founder. Life's harder than a VC
tweeting<01:03:28.400> and<01:03:28.480> it<01:03:28.640> ruining<01:03:28.960> your<01:03:29.119> day.<01:03:29.280> Yeah,
tweeting and it ruining your day. Yeah,
I<01:03:29.599> agree.<01:03:30.079> Agreed.
I agree. Agreed.
>> But<01:03:31.359> but<01:03:31.359> but<01:03:31.839> I<01:03:32.000> think<01:03:32.160> life<01:03:32.319> is<01:03:32.640> but<01:03:32.799> it's
>> But but but I think life is but it's
precisely<01:03:33.359> because<01:03:33.599> the<01:03:33.839> rest<01:03:33.920> of<01:03:34.079> your<01:03:34.240> life
precisely because the rest of your life
is<01:03:34.559> so<01:03:34.799> hard<01:03:35.200> that<01:03:35.440> a<01:03:35.680> little<01:03:35.760> bit<01:03:35.920> of
is so hard that a little bit of
compassion<01:03:36.559> from<01:03:36.799> the<01:03:36.960> capital<01:03:37.280> wouldn't
compassion from the capital wouldn't
hurt.<01:03:38.079> But<01:03:38.240> your<01:03:38.480> message<01:03:38.720> is<01:03:38.960> correct.
hurt. But your message is correct.
>> And<01:03:39.520> I<01:03:39.680> had<01:03:39.839> loads<01:03:40.079> of<01:03:40.240> found<01:03:40.559> and<01:03:40.799> VCs<01:03:41.200> be
>> And I had loads of found and VCs be
like,<01:03:41.599> "Oh,<01:03:42.160> classic<01:03:42.720> child."<01:03:42.960> I<01:03:43.119> was<01:03:43.200> like,
like, "Oh, classic child." I was like,
"Dude,<01:03:44.000> Lora,<01:03:44.799> lovable<01:03:45.520> Mccor.<01:03:46.960> Look,<01:03:47.200> you
"Dude, Lora, lovable Mccor. Look, you
could<01:03:47.920> I'm<01:03:48.160> just<01:03:48.319> pushing.<01:03:49.039> Look,<01:03:49.440> yes,<01:03:49.920> you
could I'm just pushing. Look, yes, you
>> you<01:03:51.119> a<01:03:51.280> lot<01:03:51.359> of<01:03:51.520> people<01:03:51.760> say<01:03:52.559> you're<01:03:52.880> mean,<01:03:53.200> but
>> you a lot of people say you're mean, but
what<01:03:54.400> you're<01:03:54.559> saying<01:03:54.799> is<01:03:55.039> correct,<01:03:55.440> but
what you're saying is correct, but
again,<01:03:56.480> you<01:03:56.640> want<01:03:56.799> to<01:03:57.200> look,<01:03:57.440> we<01:03:57.599> we've
again, you want to look, we we've
discussed<01:03:58.160> this<01:03:58.400> before.<01:03:58.799> Rage<01:03:59.039> is<01:03:59.200> still
discussed this before. Rage is still
engagement.<01:04:00.000> So,<01:04:00.160> you're<01:04:00.400> all<01:04:00.559> happy.<01:04:00.960> Okay,
engagement. So, you're all happy. Okay,
now<01:04:01.440> I'm<01:04:01.520> going<01:04:01.599> to<01:04:01.680> say<01:04:01.760> my<01:04:02.000> important<01:04:02.400> I
now I'm going to say my important I
definitely<01:04:02.880> don't<01:04:03.039> think<01:04:03.200> you<01:04:03.359> should<01:04:03.520> have
definitely don't think you should have
taken<01:04:03.839> it<01:04:04.000> down<01:04:04.160> cuz<01:04:04.319> that<01:04:04.480> looked<01:04:04.720> like<01:04:04.799> you
taken it down cuz that looked like you
were<01:04:05.119> blinking<01:04:05.920> and<01:04:06.240> you<01:04:06.400> know,<01:04:06.880> yeah,<01:04:07.119> that
were blinking and you know, yeah, that
was<01:04:07.359> a<01:04:07.520> mistake.<01:04:07.839> You<01:04:08.079> blinked,<01:04:08.400> dude.<01:04:09.039> That
was a mistake. You blinked, dude. That
That's<01:04:09.599> the<01:04:09.760> bad<01:04:10.000> part.
That's the bad part.
>> Can<01:04:10.559> I<01:04:10.720> can<01:04:10.880> I<01:04:11.039> break<01:04:11.119> it<01:04:11.280> down<01:04:11.440> just<01:04:11.599> a<01:04:11.680> little
>> Can I can I break it down just a little
bit<01:04:11.839> on<01:04:12.000> the<01:04:12.400> on<01:04:12.559> the<01:04:12.720> tweet?<01:04:13.200> First<01:04:13.359> of<01:04:13.440> all,<01:04:13.599> I
bit on the on the tweet? First of all, I
think<01:04:14.240> um<01:04:14.480> listen,<01:04:14.799> I'm<01:04:14.960> supportive<01:04:15.359> if<01:04:15.520> I
think um listen, I'm supportive if I
would<01:04:15.760> have<01:04:15.839> retweeted<01:04:16.240> it<01:04:16.400> and<01:04:16.559> also<01:04:16.880> be
would have retweeted it and also be
supportive<01:04:17.359> here.<01:04:17.760> I<01:04:17.920> think<01:04:18.000> the<01:04:18.240> problem
supportive here. I think the problem
with<01:04:18.480> the<01:04:18.720> and<01:04:18.960> I<01:04:19.119> want<01:04:19.200> to<01:04:19.280> share<01:04:19.440> a<01:04:19.599> story.
with the and I want to share a story.
The<01:04:20.240> problem<01:04:20.319> with<01:04:20.480> the<01:04:20.559> tweet<01:04:20.720> is<01:04:20.880> there's
The problem with the tweet is there's
two<01:04:21.280> things<01:04:21.440> going<01:04:21.680> on,<01:04:21.920> right?<01:04:22.160> The<01:04:22.319> first
two things going on, right? The first
part<01:04:22.640> of<01:04:22.720> the<01:04:22.880> tweet<01:04:23.039> is<01:04:23.119> the<01:04:23.280> state<01:04:23.440> of<01:04:23.599> the
part of the tweet is the state of the
series<01:04:24.000> A<01:04:24.240> market.<01:04:25.039> The<01:04:25.280> second<01:04:25.520> part<01:04:25.920> which
series A market. The second part which
is<01:04:26.960> uh<01:04:27.119> which<01:04:27.359> is<01:04:27.520> more<01:04:27.760> triggering<01:04:28.319> although
is uh which is more triggering although
people<01:04:28.799> might<01:04:28.960> not<01:04:29.119> miss<01:04:29.280> it<01:04:29.440> is<01:04:29.599> opportunity
people might not miss it is opportunity
cost<01:04:31.119> of<01:04:31.280> cash<01:04:31.520> is<01:04:31.680> real<01:04:31.839> because<01:04:32.000> those<01:04:32.160> are
cost of cash is real because those are
different<01:04:32.559> points.<01:04:33.119> Okay<01:04:33.839> I<01:04:34.079> I'll<01:04:34.319> tell<01:04:34.400> you
different points. Okay I I'll tell you
something<01:04:34.640> that<01:04:34.799> I<01:04:34.960> think<01:04:35.039> is<01:04:35.200> subtly<01:04:35.680> toxic
something that I think is subtly toxic
that<01:04:36.240> all<01:04:36.400> these<01:04:36.559> nice<01:04:36.799> VCs<01:04:37.200> are<01:04:37.359> doing.<01:04:37.760> It's
that all these nice VCs are doing. It's
subtly<01:04:38.319> toxic.<01:04:38.720> I've<01:04:38.880> watched<01:04:39.039> two<01:04:39.280> portfolio
subtly toxic. I've watched two portfolio
companies<01:04:40.000> I<01:04:40.160> have<01:04:40.319> recently<01:04:41.280> that<01:04:41.599> were
companies I have recently that were
growing<01:04:42.079> at<01:04:42.240> great<01:04:42.480> rates.<01:04:42.880> Okay,<01:04:43.039> are<01:04:43.280> going
growing at great rates. Okay, are going
to<01:04:43.440> compound<01:04:43.760> to<01:04:43.920> huge<01:04:44.240> winners.<01:04:44.720> Okay,
to compound to huge winners. Okay,
they're<01:04:45.520> they're<01:04:45.839> like<01:04:46.240> that<01:04:46.400> are<01:04:46.559> capital
they're they're like that are capital
efficient<01:04:47.920> but<01:04:48.079> they're<01:04:48.319> not<01:04:48.480> quite<01:04:48.720> at
efficient but they're not quite at
Harry's<01:04:49.280> level.<01:04:49.599> Now<01:04:49.760> not<01:04:49.839> at<01:04:49.920> the<01:04:50.079> A<01:04:50.240> at<01:04:50.319> the<01:04:50.480> B
Harry's level. Now not at the A at the B
or<01:04:50.720> the<01:04:50.880> C.<01:04:51.280> Okay,<01:04:51.680> I've<01:04:51.920> watched<01:04:52.240> all<01:04:52.400> the<01:04:52.559> VCs
or the C. Okay, I've watched all the VCs
say<01:04:53.280> good<01:04:53.440> luck<01:04:53.680> guys.<01:04:53.839> Go<01:04:54.079> go<01:04:54.079> go<01:04:54.079> go<01:04:54.079> go<01:04:54.240> do
say good luck guys. Go go go go go do
your<01:04:54.559> round.<01:04:55.280> I<01:04:55.520> do<01:04:55.680> this<01:04:55.839> thing<01:04:55.920> where<01:04:56.160> I
your round. I do this thing where I
built<01:04:56.559> an<01:04:56.720> AI<01:04:57.039> pitch<01:04:57.359> deck<01:04:57.520> generator<01:04:57.920> that
built an AI pitch deck generator that
uses<01:04:58.319> all<01:04:58.480> the<01:04:58.640> benchmarks<01:04:58.960> from<01:04:59.280> iconic<01:04:59.520> and
uses all the benchmarks from iconic and
benchmark.<01:05:00.000> It<01:05:00.160> tells<01:05:00.240> you<01:05:00.400> honestly<01:05:00.720> your
benchmark. It tells you honestly your
odds.<01:05:01.520> It<01:05:01.760> told<01:05:02.000> all<01:05:02.240> of<01:05:02.319> them<01:05:02.720> that<01:05:03.039> that<01:05:03.599> for
odds. It told all of them that that for
a<01:05:04.160> round<01:05:04.640> they're<01:05:04.880> a<01:05:05.039> B.<01:05:06.000> Okay,<01:05:06.240> it<01:05:06.480> will<01:05:06.559> tell
a round they're a B. Okay, it will tell
you.<01:05:06.799> Go<01:05:06.960> to<01:05:07.039> Sasteri<01:05:07.839> use<01:05:08.079> pitch<01:05:08.480> just<01:05:08.640> upload
you. Go to Sasteri use pitch just upload
your<01:05:09.039> pitch<01:05:09.280> deck.<01:05:09.520> It<01:05:09.599> will<01:05:09.760> tell<01:05:09.839> you<01:05:10.079> not<01:05:10.319> a
your pitch deck. It will tell you not a
single<01:05:10.720> VC<01:05:11.039> in<01:05:11.280> either<01:05:11.440> of<01:05:11.520> these<01:05:11.760> companies
single VC in either of these companies
would<01:05:12.400> be<01:05:12.559> honest<01:05:12.880> with<01:05:13.039> the<01:05:13.280> founders.<01:05:14.079> I
would be honest with the founders. I
I've<01:05:14.880> tried<01:05:15.119> in<01:05:15.280> the<01:05:15.440> past<01:05:15.680> I<01:05:15.920> get<01:05:16.079> my<01:05:16.240> head<01:05:16.400> cut
I've tried in the past I get my head cut
off<01:05:16.799> in<01:05:16.960> both<01:05:17.119> of<01:05:17.200> these<01:05:17.440> cases<01:05:17.760> now.<01:05:18.000> I<01:05:18.240> said
off in both of these cases now. I said
well<01:05:19.200> why<01:05:19.440> don't<01:05:19.680> you<01:05:20.240> back<01:05:20.799> here's<01:05:21.039> my<01:05:21.200> new
well why don't you back here's my new
thing.<01:05:21.599> I'm<01:05:21.839> like,<01:05:22.000> the<01:05:22.240> high<01:05:22.480> companies<01:05:22.720> in
thing. I'm like, the high companies in
your<01:05:23.119> space<01:05:23.359> are<01:05:23.599> basically<01:05:24.000> they're<01:05:24.240> later
your space are basically they're later
stage,<01:05:24.960> right?<01:05:25.200> They're<01:05:25.440> getting<01:05:25.599> funded<01:05:25.920> at
stage, right? They're getting funded at
like<01:05:26.319> 30x<01:05:26.799> AR.<01:05:27.599> Okay,<01:05:28.319> backsolve<01:05:29.039> into<01:05:29.359> what
like 30x AR. Okay, backsolve into what
numbers<01:05:30.000> you<01:05:30.240> would<01:05:30.480> need<01:05:30.640> to<01:05:30.960> get<01:05:31.760> to<01:05:32.000> raise
numbers you would need to get to raise
at<01:05:32.480> 30x<01:05:32.960> AR,<01:05:33.440> right?<01:05:33.599> This<01:05:33.680> is<01:05:33.839> me<01:05:34.000> trying<01:05:34.160> to
at 30x AR, right? This is me trying to
be<01:05:34.960> to<01:05:35.359> guide<01:05:35.760> founders<01:05:36.240> there.<01:05:36.559> It's<01:05:36.799> too
be to guide founders there. It's too
subtle.<01:05:37.280> They<01:05:37.440> don't<01:05:37.599> listen.<01:05:37.920> And<01:05:38.000> then<01:05:38.640> two
subtle. They don't listen. And then two
months<01:05:38.960> later,<01:05:39.680> they're<01:05:39.920> like,<01:05:40.160> hey,<01:05:40.319> I'm
months later, they're like, hey, I'm
growing,<01:05:41.359> you<01:05:41.440> know,<01:05:41.599> at<01:05:41.760> this<01:05:42.640> still<01:05:43.039> top<01:05:44.400> 10%
growing, you know, at this still top 10%
rate,<01:05:45.359> but<01:05:45.599> not<01:05:45.839> enough.<01:05:46.480> And<01:05:46.640> no<01:05:46.880> one's
rate, but not enough. And no one's
honest.<01:05:47.599> So,<01:05:47.760> the<01:05:48.000> honesty<01:05:48.400> of<01:05:48.640> Harry's<01:05:49.039> thing
honest. So, the honesty of Harry's thing
was<01:05:49.440> very<01:05:49.680> helpful.<01:05:50.400> the<01:05:50.640> opportunity<01:05:51.039> of
was very helpful. the opportunity of
cash<01:05:51.760> is<01:05:52.000> a<01:05:52.240> little<01:05:52.315> [laughter]
cash is a little [laughter]
it's<01:05:53.280> it's<01:05:53.520> a<01:05:53.599> it's<01:05:53.839> a<01:05:53.920> it's<01:05:54.160> a<01:05:54.240> little<01:05:54.400> it's<01:05:54.559> a
it's it's a it's a it's a little it's a
more<01:05:55.119> for<01:05:55.280> people<01:05:55.440> in<01:05:55.520> the<01:05:55.760> process.<01:05:56.160> Right.
more for people in the process. Right.
>> For<01:05:56.640> what<01:05:56.799> it's<01:05:56.960> worth,<01:05:57.280> I<01:05:57.440> do<01:05:57.599> agree<01:05:58.240> and
>> For what it's worth, I do agree and
maybe<01:05:58.799> I<01:05:59.039> don't<01:05:59.119> know<01:05:59.200> if<01:05:59.359> I<01:05:59.520> don't<01:05:59.760> think<01:05:59.920> I'm
maybe I don't know if I don't think I'm
changing<01:06:00.559> my<01:06:00.799> mind,<01:06:01.520> but<01:06:01.760> I<01:06:01.920> like<01:06:02.000> what<01:06:02.240> you
changing my mind, but I like what you
said,<01:06:02.559> Jason,<01:06:02.880> because<01:06:03.119> I'm<01:06:03.359> playing<01:06:03.680> the
said, Jason, because I'm playing the
pattern<01:06:04.160> back<01:06:04.400> and<01:06:04.559> I've<01:06:04.799> seen<01:06:04.960> the<01:06:05.200> same
pattern back and I've seen the same
thing<01:06:05.520> where<01:06:05.760> you<01:06:05.920> look<01:06:06.000> at<01:06:06.160> these<01:06:06.400> companies
thing where you look at these companies
and<01:06:06.799> you're<01:06:06.960> like<01:06:08.000> they're<01:06:08.319> planning<01:06:08.559> to
and you're like they're planning to
raise.<01:06:09.280> Everyone<01:06:09.599> around<01:06:09.920> the<01:06:10.079> table<01:06:10.480> knows
raise. Everyone around the table knows
that<01:06:11.119> that's<01:06:11.359> not<01:06:11.520> a<01:06:11.680> deal<01:06:12.000> they<01:06:12.240> do,<01:06:12.720> but<01:06:12.960> they
that that's not a deal they do, but they
say<01:06:13.359> to<01:06:13.520> the<01:06:13.680> company,<01:06:13.920> you<01:06:14.000> know,<01:06:14.160> have<01:06:14.240> a<01:06:14.400> go.
say to the company, you know, have a go.
And<01:06:14.640> they're<01:06:14.799> not<01:06:14.960> being<01:06:15.280> they're<01:06:15.520> not,<01:06:16.160> you
And they're not being they're not, you
know,<01:06:16.480> they're<01:06:16.640> looking<01:06:16.799> at<01:06:16.960> the<01:06:17.119> growth<01:06:17.359> rate
know, they're looking at the growth rate
and<01:06:17.760> they're<01:06:18.000> saying<01:06:18.559> that's<01:06:18.799> not<01:06:19.039> compelling
and they're saying that's not compelling
compared<01:06:19.760> to<01:06:19.839> the<01:06:20.000> other<01:06:20.160> things<01:06:20.319> I'm<01:06:20.559> seeing.
compared to the other things I'm seeing.
Just<01:06:21.680> have<01:06:21.760> a<01:06:21.920> go<01:06:22.079> when<01:06:22.319> perhaps<01:06:22.559> the<01:06:22.799> better
Just have a go when perhaps the better
advice<01:06:23.440> might<01:06:23.760> be<01:06:24.480> if<01:06:24.640> you're<01:06:24.880> only<01:06:25.039> growing
advice might be if you're only growing
at<01:06:25.520> 50%.<01:06:26.480> You<01:06:26.640> know,<01:06:26.720> should<01:06:26.960> you<01:06:27.039> converge<01:06:27.440> on
at 50%. You know, should you converge on
profitability?<01:06:28.319> Should<01:06:28.480> you<01:06:28.720> raise<01:06:28.960> a<01:06:29.200> lower
profitability? Should you raise a lower
amount?<01:06:30.079> Right.<01:06:30.400> But<01:06:30.640> you're<01:06:30.799> right.<01:06:31.280> sending
amount? Right. But you're right. sending
people<01:06:32.000> out<01:06:32.240> to<01:06:32.480> get<01:06:32.640> a<01:06:32.799> harsh<01:06:33.200> message,<01:06:33.920> harsh
people out to get a harsh message, harsh
message<01:06:35.599> from<01:06:35.920> the<01:06:36.160> market<01:06:36.720> just<01:06:36.960> cuz<01:06:37.119> you're
message from the market just cuz you're
too<01:06:37.440> big<01:06:37.680> or<01:06:37.760> worse<01:06:38.000> to<01:06:38.160> give<01:06:38.240> it<01:06:38.400> in<01:06:38.559> the
too big or worse to give it in the
boardroom<01:06:39.440> is<01:06:39.760> actually<01:06:40.079> a<01:06:40.400> pretty<01:06:40.720> pathetic
boardroom is actually a pretty pathetic
act.<01:06:41.440> And<01:06:41.599> I<01:06:41.760> do<01:06:41.920> agree<01:06:42.079> with<01:06:42.160> you,<01:06:42.400> Jason.<01:06:42.799> And
act. And I do agree with you, Jason. And
so<01:06:43.200> to<01:06:43.440> some<01:06:43.599> extent,<01:06:44.319> and<01:06:44.720> backing<01:06:45.039> into
so to some extent, and backing into
Harry's,<01:06:45.839> maybe<01:06:46.079> people
Harry's, maybe people
>> No,<01:06:46.880> do<01:06:46.960> you<01:06:47.119> know<01:06:47.119> what<01:06:47.280> I<01:06:47.440> told<01:06:47.599> this<01:06:47.760> I<01:06:48.000> told
>> No, do you know what I told this I told
this<01:06:48.400> founder,<01:06:48.720> which<01:06:48.880> is<01:06:48.960> why<01:06:49.119> I<01:06:49.200> actually
this founder, which is why I actually
tweeted,<01:06:49.920> I<01:06:50.079> told<01:06:50.240> this<01:06:50.480> founder<01:06:50.799> exactly
tweeted, I told this founder exactly
this,<01:06:51.520> no<01:06:51.760> [ __ ]<01:06:52.319> He<01:06:52.400> said,<01:06:52.640> you<01:06:52.720> know,
this, no [ __ ] He said, you know,
that's<01:06:53.119> really<01:06:53.280> helpful.<01:06:53.599> I<01:06:53.760> had<01:06:53.920> no<01:06:54.079> idea
that's really helpful. I had no idea
that<01:06:54.559> wasn't<01:06:54.799> good<01:06:54.880> enough.<01:06:55.359> And<01:06:55.520> so<01:06:55.760> he<01:06:55.920> was
that wasn't good enough. And so he was
super<01:06:56.400> receptive.<01:06:56.880> He<01:06:56.960> was<01:06:57.039> like,<01:06:57.200> I
super receptive. He was like, I
honestly,<01:06:57.760> dude,<01:06:57.920> I<01:06:58.079> didn't<01:06:58.240> know<01:06:58.319> that.
honestly, dude, I didn't know that.
That's<01:06:58.799> really<01:06:59.039> helpful.<01:06:59.440> and<01:06:59.599> I'll<01:06:59.839> change
That's really helpful. and I'll change
how<01:07:00.240> I<01:07:00.480> project<01:07:01.200> future<01:07:01.599> revenues.
how I project future revenues.
>> To<01:07:02.559> dig<01:07:02.799> deeper,<01:07:03.039> maybe<01:07:03.200> Harry<01:07:03.520> doesn't<01:07:03.599> want
>> To dig deeper, maybe Harry doesn't want
to<01:07:03.760> go<01:07:03.920> this<01:07:04.079> deep.<01:07:04.240> I<01:07:04.480> do<01:07:04.640> think<01:07:04.960> there's<01:07:05.280> a
to go this deep. I do think there's a
logic.<01:07:06.079> Here's<01:07:06.319> the<01:07:06.480> what's<01:07:06.799> wrong<01:07:06.880> in
logic. Here's the what's wrong in
Harry's<01:07:07.520> tweet.<01:07:07.920> Okay,<01:07:08.400> Harry's<01:07:08.880> tweet<01:07:09.119> is
Harry's tweet. Okay, Harry's tweet is
turn<01:07:09.760> down<01:07:09.920> a<01:07:10.079> founder<01:07:10.400> 1.5<01:07:11.119> finishing
turn down a founder 1.5 finishing
finishing<01:07:12.160> next<01:07:12.480> year<01:07:12.640> at<01:07:12.960> five.<01:07:13.520> That's<01:07:13.760> not
finishing next year at five. That's not
good<01:07:14.000> enough<01:07:14.160> to<01:07:14.319> raise<01:07:14.480> a<01:07:14.640> series<01:07:14.960> A.<01:07:15.200> If<01:07:15.440> if
good enough to raise a series A. If if
this<01:07:15.839> was<01:07:15.920> a<01:07:16.079> long<01:07:16.319> tweet,<01:07:16.720> it<01:07:16.960> might<01:07:17.119> be<01:07:18.240> or
this was a long tweet, it might be or
maybe<01:07:18.799> it<01:07:18.960> is,<01:07:19.200> but<01:07:19.440> you<01:07:19.599> might<01:07:19.680> have<01:07:19.839> to<01:07:19.920> meet
maybe it is, but you might have to meet
150<01:07:20.720> VCs.<01:07:21.359> That's<01:07:21.520> what<01:07:21.680> I<01:07:21.839> would<01:07:22.160> kind<01:07:22.400> of
150 VCs. That's what I would kind of
add.<01:07:22.799> And<01:07:23.039> so,<01:07:23.200> I<01:07:23.359> think<01:07:23.440> if<01:07:23.680> if<01:07:23.920> you're<01:07:24.079> if
add. And so, I think if if you're if
people<01:07:24.480> are<01:07:24.720> honest,<01:07:25.760> I<01:07:25.920> think<01:07:26.000> they<01:07:26.240> should
people are honest, I think they should
be<01:07:26.480> like,<01:07:26.559> "Listen,<01:07:26.880> you're<01:07:27.119> at<01:07:27.280> the<01:07:27.359> edge.
be like, "Listen, you're at the edge.
you<01:07:28.480> there's<01:07:28.799> nothing<01:07:29.039> wrong<01:07:29.200> with<01:07:29.520> one<01:07:29.839> five
you there's nothing wrong with one five
to<01:07:30.240> five<01:07:30.640> like<01:07:31.119> you<01:07:31.359> did<01:07:31.520> better<01:07:31.760> than<01:07:31.920> I<01:07:32.079> did
to five like you did better than I did
back<01:07:32.400> in<01:07:32.559> the<01:07:32.640> day.<01:07:32.880> There's<01:07:33.119> nothing<01:07:33.520> and<01:07:33.599> and
back in the day. There's nothing and and
and<01:07:34.160> the<01:07:34.319> math<01:07:34.640> put<01:07:34.720> it<01:07:34.880> on<01:07:34.960> a<01:07:35.119> spreadsheet.<01:07:35.520> If
and the math put it on a spreadsheet. If
your<01:07:35.839> burn<01:07:36.079> is<01:07:36.240> low<01:07:36.400> and<01:07:36.640> you<01:07:36.880> don't<01:07:37.039> quit,<01:07:37.760> you
your burn is low and you don't quit, you
can<01:07:38.160> build<01:07:38.319> a<01:07:38.559> generational<01:07:39.039> company<01:07:39.280> with
can build a generational company with
those<01:07:39.680> numbers.<01:07:40.079> But<01:07:40.720> but<01:07:41.119> and<01:07:41.200> and<01:07:41.520> but<01:07:41.839> what
those numbers. But but and and but what
it<01:07:42.240> means<01:07:42.400> is<01:07:43.440> the<01:07:44.000> when<01:07:44.319> I<01:07:44.559> mean<01:07:45.119> I<01:07:45.359> mean
it means is the when I mean I mean
literally<01:07:45.920> faking,<01:07:46.400> you<01:07:46.559> know,<01:07:46.960> Higsfield
literally faking, you know, Higsfield
where<01:07:47.839> I<01:07:48.079> invested<01:07:48.400> in<01:07:48.559> Seed<01:07:48.799> and<01:07:48.960> Harry
where I invested in Seed and Harry
invested,<01:07:49.520> you<01:07:49.599> know,<01:07:49.680> they're<01:07:49.920> just
invested, you know, they're just
crossing<01:07:50.559> 500<01:07:50.960> million<01:07:51.280> in<01:07:51.520> revenue<01:07:52.240> in<01:07:52.480> less
crossing 500 million in revenue in less
than<01:07:52.799> 18<01:07:53.119> months.<01:07:53.440> Okay.<01:07:53.599> And<01:07:53.760> when<01:07:53.839> I<01:07:54.000> when<01:07:54.240> I
than 18 months. Okay. And when I when I
thought<01:07:54.480> about<01:07:54.640> that<01:07:54.799> this<01:07:55.039> day<01:07:55.200> is<01:07:55.440> I<01:07:55.839> I
thought about that this day is I I
looked<01:07:56.480> back<01:07:56.640> at<01:07:56.799> my<01:07:56.880> email.<01:07:57.039> I'm<01:07:57.200> like,<01:07:57.359> why
looked back at my email. I'm like, why
didn't<01:07:57.680> I<01:07:57.839> invest<01:07:58.079> even<01:07:58.319> more?<01:07:58.640> And<01:07:58.799> so<01:07:59.039> then<01:07:59.200> I
didn't I invest even more? And so then I
get<01:07:59.680> another<01:08:00.240> email<01:08:00.559> from<01:08:00.799> a<01:08:01.039> portfolio
get another email from a portfolio
company<01:08:02.000> growing<01:08:02.400> at<01:08:02.559> decent<01:08:02.799> rates.<01:08:03.200> It's
company growing at decent rates. It's
hard<01:08:03.440> to<01:08:03.520> even<01:08:03.680> pay<01:08:03.839> attention,<01:08:04.799> right?<01:08:05.039> It's
hard to even pay attention, right? It's
hard<01:08:05.359> to<01:08:05.520> even<01:08:05.760> pay<01:08:06.079> attention.<01:08:07.440> Um,<01:08:07.839> and<01:08:08.000> so
hard to even pay attention. Um, and so
you<01:08:08.319> have<01:08:08.480> to<01:08:08.559> realize<01:08:08.960> just<01:08:09.200> getting<01:08:09.359> the
you have to realize just getting the
attention's<01:08:10.079> hard<01:08:10.319> in<01:08:10.480> this<01:08:10.720> crazy<01:08:10.960> world.
attention's hard in this crazy world.
And<01:08:11.440> you've<01:08:11.599> got<01:08:11.680> to<01:08:11.839> hunt<01:08:12.079> Higsfield<01:08:12.559> or
And you've got to hunt Higsfield or
better.<01:08:13.839> That<01:08:14.079> that's<01:08:14.240> that's<01:08:14.559> your<01:08:14.799> job,
better. That that's that's your job,
right?<01:08:15.760> And<01:08:15.920> the<01:08:16.080> fact<01:08:16.159> that<01:08:16.640> the<01:08:16.880> fact<01:08:16.960> that
right? And the fact that the fact that
when<01:08:17.279> I<01:08:17.359> started<01:08:17.520> talking<01:08:17.679> about<01:08:17.839> Higsfield
when I started talking about Higsfield
on<01:08:18.239> the<01:08:18.319> show,<01:08:18.480> nobody<01:08:18.719> even<01:08:18.960> heard<01:08:19.040> of<01:08:19.199> it.
on the show, nobody even heard of it.
You<01:08:19.520> know,<01:08:19.679> you<01:08:19.839> know<01:08:19.920> why<01:08:20.159> that's
You know, you know why that's
interesting?<01:08:20.640> It<01:08:20.799> means<01:08:21.040> go<01:08:21.199> find<01:08:21.359> it.<01:08:21.839> Go
interesting? It means go find it. Go
find<01:08:22.560> and<01:08:22.799> stop<01:08:23.359> stop<01:08:23.759> worrying<01:08:24.080> about<01:08:24.319> the
find and stop stop worrying about the
1.5<01:08:25.199> to<01:08:25.359> five.<01:08:25.600> If<01:08:25.759> you<01:08:25.920> talk<01:08:26.080> to<01:08:26.640> 150
1.5 to five. If you talk to 150
investors,<01:08:27.440> you're<01:08:27.600> going<01:08:27.679> to<01:08:27.759> find<01:08:28.000> someone
investors, you're going to find someone
that<01:08:29.120> believes<01:08:29.359> in<01:08:29.600> you<01:08:30.400> and<01:08:30.719> says,<01:08:31.040> because
that believes in you and says, because
the<01:08:31.440> 1.5<01:08:32.000> to<01:08:32.239> 5<01:08:32.400> doesn't<01:08:32.640> really<01:08:32.799> matter,<01:08:33.120> does
the 1.5 to 5 doesn't really matter, does
it?<01:08:33.520> It's<01:08:33.679> where<01:08:33.839> it's<01:08:34.080> going<01:08:34.080> to<01:08:34.159> go<01:08:34.319> over<01:08:34.560> the
it? It's where it's going to go over the
next<01:08:34.880> decade,<01:08:35.440> right?<01:08:35.600> And<01:08:35.839> someone<01:08:36.080> may<01:08:36.319> take
next decade, right? And someone may take
that<01:08:36.719> bet,<01:08:37.440> but<01:08:37.759> don't<01:08:38.239> run<01:08:38.480> a<01:08:38.799> process.<01:08:39.759> Don't
that bet, but don't run a process. Don't
build<01:08:40.159> a<01:08:40.400> data<01:08:40.719> room.<01:08:41.199> Give<01:08:41.520> people<01:08:41.839> one<01:08:42.080> week
build a data room. Give people one week
to<01:08:42.480> look<01:08:42.719> at<01:08:42.880> it<01:08:43.839> um<01:08:44.159> and<01:08:44.319> and<01:08:44.640> ask<01:08:44.880> for<01:08:45.120> checks,
to look at it um and and ask for checks,
right?<01:08:46.000> Uh<01:08:46.400> give<01:08:46.560> it<01:08:46.719> give<01:08:46.880> it<01:08:47.040> time.
right? Uh give it give it time.
>> No<01:08:47.600> one<01:08:47.600> run<01:08:47.839> fast<01:08:48.159> process.<01:08:48.560> I<01:08:48.719> I<01:08:48.880> I<01:08:49.120> think
>> No one run fast process. I I I think
yes,<01:08:50.319> some<01:08:50.560> versions<01:08:50.880> of<01:08:50.960> why<01:08:51.120> you're<01:08:51.279> saying
yes, some versions of why you're saying
you're<01:08:51.759> right.<01:08:52.319> If<01:08:52.480> you're<01:08:52.640> the<01:08:52.799> one<01:08:52.960> and<01:08:53.040> a
you're right. If you're the one and a
half<01:08:53.359> to<01:08:53.679> five,<01:08:54.239> it<01:08:54.480> has<01:08:54.640> to<01:08:54.799> be<01:08:54.960> the<01:08:55.920> if<01:08:56.159> you
half to five, it has to be the if you
want<01:08:56.400> to<01:08:56.480> raise<01:08:56.799> money,<01:08:57.120> just<01:08:57.440> understand<01:08:57.920> the
want to raise money, just understand the
facts,<01:08:58.799> which<01:08:58.992> [snorts]<01:08:59.040> are<01:08:59.199> the<01:08:59.440> deals<01:08:59.600> that
facts, which [snorts] are the deals that
people<01:09:00.159> the<01:09:00.400> deals<01:09:00.560> that<01:09:00.719> are<01:09:00.880> getting<01:09:01.120> swept
people the deals that are getting swept
off<01:09:01.600> are<01:09:01.839> going<01:09:02.000> one<01:09:02.159> and<01:09:02.239> a<01:09:02.400> half<01:09:02.560> to<01:09:02.880> 15,
off are going one and a half to 15,
right?<01:09:03.920> You're<01:09:04.159> not<01:09:04.319> that.<01:09:04.640> So<01:09:04.880> that<01:09:05.040> has
right? You're not that. So that has
consequences.<01:09:06.000> It<01:09:06.239> has<01:09:06.400> consequences<01:09:06.960> in
consequences. It has consequences in
terms<01:09:07.359> of<01:09:07.600> number<01:09:07.759> of<01:09:07.839> people<01:09:08.000> you'll<01:09:08.319> have<01:09:08.400> to
terms of number of people you'll have to
talk<01:09:08.719> to,<01:09:09.600> the<01:09:09.839> range<01:09:10.080> of<01:09:10.319> people<01:09:10.480> you<01:09:10.640> have<01:09:10.719> to
talk to, the range of people you have to
talk<01:09:10.960> to,<01:09:11.199> the<01:09:11.359> amount<01:09:11.520> of<01:09:11.600> capital<01:09:11.839> you<01:09:12.080> can
talk to, the amount of capital you can
realistically<01:09:12.719> raise,<01:09:13.199> etc.<01:09:13.600> I<01:09:13.839> don't
realistically raise, etc. I don't
discount<01:09:14.400> the<01:09:14.560> fact,<01:09:14.719> but<01:09:14.960> I<01:09:15.120> just<01:09:15.279> want<01:09:15.359> to
discount the fact, but I just want to
say<01:09:15.600> this<01:09:15.839> because<01:09:16.799> founders<01:09:17.279> listening,<01:09:17.759> I
say this because founders listening, I
do<01:09:18.080> agree<01:09:18.239> with<01:09:18.319> you,<01:09:18.480> Jason.<01:09:18.960> You<01:09:19.120> can<01:09:19.199> be<01:09:19.359> one
do agree with you, Jason. You can be one
and<01:09:19.600> a<01:09:19.759> half<01:09:19.920> to<01:09:20.080> five<01:09:20.239> and<01:09:20.480> still<01:09:20.560> end<01:09:20.719> up<01:09:20.799> with
and a half to five and still end up with
an<01:09:21.120> amazing<01:09:21.440> generational<01:09:22.000> company<01:09:22.400> because
an amazing generational company because
yeah<01:09:23.520> we've<01:09:23.759> seen<01:09:23.920> that<01:09:24.080> data<01:09:24.400> I<01:09:24.640> can't
yeah we've seen that data I can't
remember<01:09:24.960> when<01:09:25.199> but<01:09:25.679> uh<01:09:25.920> there<01:09:26.159> is<01:09:26.319> a
remember when but uh there is a
correlation<01:09:26.880> but<01:09:27.120> it's<01:09:27.359> modest<01:09:27.759> between
correlation but it's modest between
initial<01:09:28.480> growth<01:09:28.719> rate<01:09:28.880> and<01:09:29.120> overall<01:09:29.440> outcomes
initial growth rate and overall outcomes
and<01:09:30.080> companies<01:09:30.319> that<01:09:30.480> have<01:09:30.640> grown<01:09:30.880> slowly<01:09:31.199> at
and companies that have grown slowly at
the<01:09:31.440> start<01:09:31.679> have<01:09:31.839> been<01:09:32.000> huge<01:09:32.239> at<01:09:32.319> the<01:09:32.400> end.
the start have been huge at the end.
Procore<01:09:33.199> was<01:09:33.279> a<01:09:33.440> slow<01:09:33.679> grower<01:09:34.319> and<01:09:34.560> then
Procore was a slow grower and then
became<01:09:35.040> a<01:09:35.199> huge<01:09:35.440> outcome.<01:09:35.839> So<01:09:36.159> I<01:09:36.319> do<01:09:36.480> agree<01:09:36.719> you
became a huge outcome. So I do agree you
it's<01:09:37.040> not<01:09:37.359> what<01:09:37.600> we're<01:09:37.759> not<01:09:38.080> what<01:09:38.239> you<01:09:38.400> don't
it's not what we're not what you don't
want<01:09:38.560> to<01:09:38.640> be<01:09:38.799> saying<01:09:38.880> to<01:09:39.040> a<01:09:39.199> founder<01:09:39.440> is<01:09:39.679> your
want to be saying to a founder is your
dream<01:09:40.000> is<01:09:40.159> impossible<01:09:40.719> go<01:09:40.880> away<01:09:41.040> and<01:09:41.199> die
dream is impossible go away and die
because<01:09:41.600> that's<01:09:41.759> just<01:09:41.920> not<01:09:42.159> productive
because that's just not productive
especially<01:09:42.880> when<01:09:43.120> they're<01:09:43.279> growing<01:09:43.600> 1
especially when they're growing 1
million<01:09:44.239> 1.5<01:09:44.799> to<01:09:45.040> 5.<01:09:45.359> What<01:09:45.600> you<01:09:45.679> do<01:09:45.920> want<01:09:46.000> to
million 1.5 to 5. What you do want to
say<01:09:46.319> is<01:09:47.040> if<01:09:47.279> this<01:09:47.440> is<01:09:47.679> your<01:09:47.920> reality,<01:09:48.480> you
say is if this is your reality, you
better<01:09:48.960> think<01:09:49.120> about<01:09:49.279> how<01:09:49.440> to<01:09:49.600> cut<01:09:49.759> your<01:09:49.920> cloth
better think about how to cut your cloth
accordingly<01:09:51.199> and<01:09:51.359> how<01:09:51.520> you<01:09:51.679> plan<01:09:51.839> your<01:09:52.080> race
accordingly and how you plan your race
>> and<01:09:52.719> maybe<01:09:52.880> you're<01:09:53.040> not<01:09:53.120> a<01:09:53.279> venture<01:09:53.679> asset
>> and maybe you're not a venture asset
anymore<01:09:54.320> in<01:09:54.480> a<01:09:54.560> new<01:09:54.719> world<01:09:54.960> of<01:09:55.040> venture<01:09:55.360> and
anymore in a new world of venture and
that's<01:09:55.840> totally<01:09:56.239> fine<01:09:56.560> too.<01:09:56.880> But<01:09:57.120> like<01:09:57.840> that's
that's totally fine too. But like that's
okay.<01:09:59.040> You<01:09:59.199> might<01:09:59.360> be.<01:09:59.600> I<01:09:59.760> still<01:09:59.920> think<01:10:00.159> listen
okay. You might be. I still think listen
I<01:10:00.640> just<01:10:00.719> think<01:10:00.880> I<01:10:01.040> think<01:10:01.120> there's<01:10:01.360> two
I just think I think there's two
different<01:10:01.840> tweets<01:10:02.159> in<01:10:02.320> your<01:10:02.480> tweet,<01:10:02.880> right?
different tweets in your tweet, right?
For<01:10:03.760> to<01:10:04.000> Rory's<01:10:04.480> point,<01:10:05.120> the<01:10:05.360> reality<01:10:05.600> is<01:10:06.000> 90
For to Rory's point, the reality is 90
95%<01:10:07.520> of<01:10:07.679> investors<01:10:08.159> you're<01:10:08.320> going<01:10:08.400> to<01:10:08.480> meet
95% of investors you're going to meet
today<01:10:08.880> are<01:10:08.960> going<01:10:09.040> to<01:10:09.120> say<01:10:09.280> the<01:10:09.440> opportunity
today are going to say the opportunity
cost<01:10:10.080> of<01:10:10.239> cash<01:10:10.480> is<01:10:10.719> too<01:10:10.880> high<01:10:11.120> here,<01:10:11.520> right?
cost of cash is too high here, right?
They're<01:10:11.920> going<01:10:12.000> to<01:10:12.080> believe<01:10:12.320> that.<01:10:12.800> And<01:10:12.960> even
They're going to believe that. And even
if<01:10:13.280> they<01:10:13.360> don't<01:10:13.520> believe<01:10:13.679> it,<01:10:13.840> their<01:10:14.000> job's<01:10:14.239> on
if they don't believe it, their job's on
the<01:10:14.560> line.<01:10:15.120> They<01:10:15.360> have<01:10:15.440> to<01:10:15.600> find<01:10:16.159> a<01:10:16.320> high<01:10:16.560> fly.
the line. They have to find a high fly.
Like<01:10:17.199> even<01:10:17.440> if<01:10:17.600> they<01:10:17.760> even<01:10:18.000> if<01:10:18.080> they'd<01:10:18.239> be
Like even if they even if they'd be
happy<01:10:18.480> to<01:10:18.640> do<01:10:18.800> this<01:10:18.880> deal,<01:10:19.120> they<01:10:19.280> might<01:10:19.440> get
happy to do this deal, they might get
fired,<01:10:19.920> right?<01:10:20.159> If<01:10:20.320> they<01:10:20.400> don't<01:10:20.560> run<01:10:20.640> the
fired, right? If they don't run the
place,<01:10:21.120> right?<01:10:21.360> So<01:10:21.440> they've<01:10:21.760> got<01:10:21.920> to<01:10:22.080> find
place, right? So they've got to find
everyone's<01:10:22.800> got<01:10:22.880> to<01:10:23.040> have<01:10:23.199> one<01:10:23.360> of<01:10:23.440> these
everyone's got to have one of these
light<01:10:24.320> lighthouse<01:10:24.880> investments<01:10:25.280> in<01:10:25.520> their
light lighthouse investments in their
portfolio<01:10:26.560> or<01:10:26.800> you<01:10:26.960> just<01:10:27.120> might<01:10:27.280> not<01:10:27.440> be<01:10:27.600> part
portfolio or you just might not be part
of<01:10:27.840> the<01:10:28.000> next<01:10:28.239> fund,<01:10:28.560> right?<01:10:28.960> This<01:10:29.120> is<01:10:29.199> a
of the next fund, right? This is a
reality<01:10:29.760> issue,<01:10:30.239> right?<01:10:30.480> So<01:10:30.640> there<01:10:31.199> that's<01:10:31.520> a
reality issue, right? So there that's a
different<01:10:32.080> tweet<01:10:32.400> than<01:10:32.800> what<01:10:32.960> are<01:10:33.120> the<01:10:33.280> odds
different tweet than what are the odds
if<01:10:33.840> you're<01:10:34.000> at<01:10:34.159> 1.5<01:10:34.719> going<01:10:34.960> to<01:10:35.120> five<01:10:35.280> that
if you're at 1.5 going to five that
you're<01:10:35.600> going<01:10:35.600> to<01:10:35.679> raise<01:10:35.920> funding<01:10:36.239> today.
you're going to raise funding today.
They're<01:10:36.640> just<01:10:36.800> different<01:10:37.040> tweets.<01:10:37.440> And
They're just different tweets. And
listen,<01:10:38.239> I<01:10:38.400> I<01:10:38.560> I<01:10:38.800> got<01:10:38.880> your<01:10:39.040> back.<01:10:39.360> But<01:10:39.440> you
listen, I I I got your back. But you
gave<01:10:39.840> people<01:10:40.000> two<01:10:40.320> different<01:10:40.480> reasons<01:10:40.800> to<01:10:40.960> get
gave people two different reasons to get
triggered<01:10:41.440> and<01:10:41.760> uh<01:10:41.920> you<01:10:42.080> saw<01:10:42.320> the<01:10:42.480> the
triggered and uh you saw the the
reaction,<01:10:43.120> right?<01:10:43.360> Doesn't<01:10:43.600> mean<01:10:43.679> any<01:10:43.840> of<01:10:43.920> it
reaction, right? Doesn't mean any of it
was<01:10:44.159> It<01:10:44.320> was<01:10:44.480> all<01:10:44.640> correct,<01:10:44.880> though.<01:10:45.120> It's<01:10:45.280> all
was It was all correct, though. It's all
correct.
>> Yeah.<01:10:46.159> You<01:10:46.320> you<01:10:46.640> should<01:10:46.800> just<01:10:46.960> run<01:10:47.120> the<01:10:47.280> Jack
>> Yeah. You you should just run the Jack
Nicholson,<01:10:48.159> you<01:10:48.400> can't<01:10:48.640> handle<01:10:48.960> the<01:10:49.120> truth
Nicholson, you can't handle the truth
quote.<01:10:50.000> You<01:10:50.159> know,<01:10:50.400> that<01:10:50.640> little<01:10:50.800> film<01:10:51.120> of
quote. You know, that little film of
Jack,<01:10:51.679> you<01:10:52.000> doing<01:10:52.239> the<01:10:52.800> in<01:10:52.960> the<01:10:53.199> movie.<01:10:53.520> That's
Jack, you doing the in the movie. That's
what<01:10:53.840> you're<01:10:54.000> saying,<01:10:54.159> Harry.<01:10:54.400> They<01:10:54.560> just
what you're saying, Harry. They just
can't<01:10:54.880> handle<01:10:55.040> the<01:10:55.280> truth.
can't handle the truth.
>> I<01:10:55.920> I<01:10:56.000> I<01:10:56.560> agree.<01:10:56.960> That's<01:10:57.199> going<01:10:57.280> to<01:10:57.360> really
>> I I I agree. That's going to really
>> You<01:10:57.920> are<01:10:58.080> You<01:10:58.239> are<01:10:58.400> a<01:10:58.560> little<01:10:58.719> bit<01:10:58.880> punky.<01:10:59.360> You
>> You are You are a little bit punky. You
are<01:10:59.679> a<01:10:59.840> little<01:10:59.920> bit<01:11:00.080> punky.
are a little bit punky.
>> It's<01:11:00.560> going<01:11:00.640> to<01:11:00.719> work<01:11:00.800> in<01:11:00.960> my<01:11:01.120> favor,<01:11:01.440> isn't
>> It's going to work in my favor, isn't
it?<01:11:01.760> Really<01:11:02.080> win<01:11:02.239> them<01:11:02.480> back<01:11:02.640> with<01:11:02.800> that<01:11:02.960> one,
it? Really win them back with that one,
Rory.
>> Yeah,<01:11:04.000> you're<01:11:04.159> really<01:11:04.400> going<01:11:04.480> to<01:11:04.560> win<01:11:04.800> them
>> Yeah, you're really going to win them
back.<01:11:05.280> You're<01:11:05.440> really<01:11:05.600> going<01:11:05.679> to<01:11:05.760> win<01:11:06.000> them
back. You're really going to win them
back.
Yeah,<01:11:07.840> one<01:11:08.080> thing<01:11:08.239> I<01:11:08.400> would<01:11:08.560> be<01:11:08.719> curious<01:11:09.040> to
Yeah, one thing I would be curious to
get<01:11:09.360> people's<01:11:09.679> thoughts<01:11:09.920> on<01:11:10.159> the<01:11:10.320> whole<01:11:10.560> and
get people's thoughts on the whole and
you<01:11:10.880> mentioned<01:11:11.199> here<01:11:11.520> claude<01:11:11.840> tag<01:11:12.320> and<01:11:12.640> claude
you mentioned here claude tag and claude
tag<01:11:13.199> in<01:11:13.440> Slack.<01:11:13.760> Jason,<01:11:14.080> I'd<01:11:14.239> love<01:11:14.320> to<01:11:14.480> get
tag in Slack. Jason, I'd love to get
your<01:11:14.719> thoughts<01:11:14.880> on<01:11:15.040> that.
your thoughts on that.
>> Can<01:11:15.679> we<01:11:15.920> just<01:11:16.080> provide<01:11:16.239> some<01:11:16.480> context?<01:11:16.800> What
>> Can we just provide some context? What
is<01:11:17.120> claude<01:11:17.440> tag<01:11:17.760> for<01:11:17.920> those<01:11:18.080> that<01:11:18.320> don't<01:11:18.560> know?
is claude tag for those that don't know?
Just<01:11:19.520> context<01:11:20.080> that<01:11:20.239> here.<01:11:21.600> It's<01:11:21.920> basically
Just context that here. It's basically
the<01:11:22.480> ability<01:11:22.800> to<01:11:23.040> have<01:11:24.159> uh<01:11:24.320> Claude<01:11:24.719> as<01:11:24.880> a<01:11:25.040> fully
the ability to have uh Claude as a fully
present<01:11:25.840> member<01:11:26.320> of<01:11:26.560> a<01:11:26.800> Slack<01:11:27.199> channel
present member of a Slack channel
focused<01:11:28.400> just<01:11:28.640> on<01:11:28.800> whatever<01:11:29.120> that<01:11:29.280> is<01:11:29.440> be,<01:11:29.760> you
focused just on whatever that is be, you
know,<01:11:30.000> if<01:11:30.080> you<01:11:30.159> look<01:11:30.239> at<01:11:30.400> the<01:11:30.800> announcement,
know, if you look at the announcement,
be<01:11:31.520> it<01:11:31.760> your<01:11:32.000> legal<01:11:32.320> team,<01:11:32.560> it's<01:11:32.800> a<01:11:33.360> it's<01:11:33.600> a
be it your legal team, it's a it's a
clawed<01:11:34.080> agent<01:11:34.320> that's<01:11:34.640> legal<01:11:35.040> that<01:11:35.280> that's
clawed agent that's legal that that's
just<01:11:35.840> focused<01:11:36.080> on<01:11:36.239> legal<01:11:36.560> that<01:11:36.800> just<01:11:36.960> has
just focused on legal that just has
access<01:11:37.440> to<01:11:37.679> that<01:11:38.159> sort<01:11:38.400> of<01:11:38.560> information,<01:11:39.199> but
access to that sort of information, but
is<01:11:39.600> a<01:11:39.760> fully<01:11:40.000> present<01:11:40.320> member<01:11:40.560> of<01:11:40.640> your
is a fully present member of your
channel.
>> Yeah.<01:11:42.080> And<01:11:42.320> and<01:11:42.560> and<01:11:43.199> in<01:11:43.520> theory,<01:11:43.840> it's
>> Yeah. And and and in theory, it's
autonomous.
>> Yes.<01:11:45.440> Right.<01:11:45.760> That's<01:11:46.080> that's<01:11:47.199> not<01:11:47.360> just<01:11:47.440> that
>> Yes. Right. That's that's not just that
it<01:11:47.840> has
it has
>> Well,<01:11:48.800> listen.<01:11:49.040> First<01:11:49.199> of<01:11:49.280> all,<01:11:49.520> I<01:11:49.760> don't<01:11:49.840> know
>> Well, listen. First of all, I don't know
because<01:11:50.239> I<01:11:50.480> tried<01:11:50.640> to<01:11:50.800> deploy<01:11:51.199> tag,<01:11:51.679> right?
because I tried to deploy tag, right?
But<01:11:52.080> you<01:11:52.320> have<01:11:52.480> I'm<01:11:52.719> not<01:11:53.360> I'm
But you have I'm not I'm
>> Well,<01:11:55.920> you<01:11:56.159> might<01:11:56.320> have<01:11:56.400> to.<01:11:56.560> I<01:11:56.719> I<01:11:57.040> think<01:11:57.120> we're
>> Well, you might have to. I I think we're
just<01:11:57.679> I'm<01:11:58.000> just<01:11:58.239> not<01:11:58.400> on<01:11:58.560> the<01:11:58.800> right
just I'm just not on the right
enterprise<01:11:59.520> plan<01:11:59.920> and<01:12:00.159> claude<01:12:00.480> is<01:12:00.640> the
enterprise plan and claude is the
biggest<01:12:00.960> issue.<01:12:01.120> So,<01:12:01.280> I<01:12:01.360> haven't<01:12:01.520> used<01:12:01.600> it,
biggest issue. So, I haven't used it,
right?<01:12:01.920> I<01:12:02.080> tried<01:12:02.239> to<01:12:02.320> use<01:12:02.400> it<01:12:02.560> for<01:12:02.719> the<01:12:02.880> show,
right? I tried to use it for the show,
right?<01:12:03.440> So,<01:12:04.000> like<01:12:04.239> a<01:12:04.400> lot<01:12:04.480> of<01:12:04.560> things<01:12:04.719> like
right? So, like a lot of things like
cloud<01:12:05.280> design<01:12:06.320> before
cloud design before
the<01:12:08.239> internet<01:12:08.560> and<01:12:08.800> information<01:12:09.280> says<01:12:09.520> the
the internet and information says the
world<01:12:09.840> has<01:12:10.000> ended.<01:12:10.320> Let's<01:12:10.480> give<01:12:10.560> it<01:12:10.800> let's
world has ended. Let's give it let's
actually<01:12:11.440> see<01:12:11.679> how<01:12:12.000> important<01:12:12.400> this<01:12:12.719> product
actually see how important this product
is<01:12:13.199> to<01:12:13.600> anthropic.<01:12:14.480> If<01:12:14.719> this<01:12:14.880> product<01:12:15.120> is
is to anthropic. If this product is
existentially<01:12:16.159> important<01:12:16.400> to<01:12:16.640> enthropic,
existentially important to enthropic,
this<01:12:18.320> is<01:12:19.040> could<01:12:19.360> be<01:12:19.440> the<01:12:19.679> biggest<01:12:20.080> deal<01:12:20.400> for
this is could be the biggest deal for
traditional<01:12:21.440> software<01:12:21.840> there<01:12:22.080> ever<01:12:22.239> is,
traditional software there ever is,
right?<01:12:22.800> It<01:12:22.960> runs<01:12:23.120> across,<01:12:23.520> it<01:12:23.679> runs<01:12:23.840> crop
right? It runs across, it runs crop
platform,<01:12:24.400> it<01:12:24.560> runs<01:12:24.719> on<01:12:24.800> Salesforce,<01:12:25.199> it<01:12:25.360> runs
platform, it runs on Salesforce, it runs
on<01:12:25.520> HubSpot,<01:12:25.920> it<01:12:26.080> runs<01:12:26.159> on<01:12:26.320> all<01:12:26.400> these<01:12:26.640> other
on HubSpot, it runs on all these other
things.<01:12:27.280> If<01:12:27.440> the<01:12:27.600> agent<01:12:27.920> can<01:12:28.080> run<01:12:28.320> 24/7
things. If the agent can run 24/7
autonomously,<01:12:29.760> take<01:12:29.920> all<01:12:30.080> your<01:12:30.239> data<01:12:30.400> in,
autonomously, take all your data in,
build<01:12:30.880> all<01:12:30.960> the<01:12:31.120> analytics,<01:12:31.679> build<01:12:31.840> all<01:12:31.920> the
build all the analytics, build all the
dashboards,<01:12:32.560> run<01:12:32.719> autonomously<01:12:33.360> out<01:12:33.520> of<01:12:33.600> it.
dashboards, run autonomously out of it.
Um,<01:12:34.960> then<01:12:35.199> your<01:12:35.360> data<01:12:35.679> can<01:12:35.840> flow<01:12:36.080> between<01:12:36.400> apps
Um, then your data can flow between apps
and<01:12:36.800> you<01:12:36.960> won't<01:12:37.120> even<01:12:37.280> care<01:12:37.440> where<01:12:37.600> it<01:12:37.760> lives.
and you won't even care where it lives.
And<01:12:38.080> all<01:12:38.159> the<01:12:38.320> fears<01:12:38.640> about<01:12:38.880> headless<01:12:39.360> become
And all the fears about headless become
true<01:12:39.920> because<01:12:40.239> cloud<01:12:40.560> is<01:12:40.640> your<01:12:40.800> head<01:12:40.960> and<01:12:41.120> and
true because cloud is your head and and
you<01:12:41.520> don't<01:12:41.600> need<01:12:41.760> and<01:12:42.000> they<01:12:42.159> and<01:12:42.400> Salesforce
you don't need and they and Salesforce
and<01:12:43.040> HubSpot<01:12:43.520> really<01:12:43.679> do<01:12:43.840> become<01:12:44.080> dumb
and HubSpot really do become dumb
databases.<01:12:44.880> Like<01:12:45.120> there<01:12:45.280> is<01:12:45.440> a<01:12:45.600> version<01:12:45.760> of
databases. Like there is a version of
this<01:12:46.400> where<01:12:46.640> Enthropic<01:12:47.199> puts<01:12:47.360> its<01:12:47.600> best
this where Enthropic puts its best
people<01:12:48.000> on<01:12:48.159> and<01:12:48.400> doesn't<01:12:48.640> quit<01:12:48.960> where<01:12:49.120> it<01:12:49.280> is
people on and doesn't quit where it is
existential<01:12:50.239> to<01:12:50.480> everything.<01:12:51.520> Um
existential to everything. Um
let's<01:12:53.520> give<01:12:53.679> it<01:12:53.840> a<01:12:54.080> week,<01:12:54.640> right?<01:12:55.199> Or<01:12:55.520> is<01:12:55.679> this
let's give it a week, right? Or is this
Zapier<01:12:56.480> on<01:12:56.640> steroids?<01:12:57.440> Um<01:12:57.679> or<01:12:57.920> is<01:12:58.080> it<01:12:58.239> even
Zapier on steroids? Um or is it even
very<01:12:58.719> good?<01:12:59.040> Because<01:12:59.280> Slack<01:12:59.600> has<01:12:59.760> a<01:12:59.920> Slackbot
very good? Because Slack has a Slackbot
which<01:13:00.640> is<01:13:00.800> pretty<01:13:00.960> good,<01:13:01.199> right?<01:13:01.520> So<01:13:02.000> one<01:13:02.159> of
which is pretty good, right? So one of
the<01:13:02.320> things<01:13:02.560> that<01:13:02.640> pressed<01:13:02.880> was<01:13:03.040> like<01:13:03.199> why<01:13:03.360> is
the things that pressed was like why is
Salesforce<01:13:04.000> supporting<01:13:04.320> this<01:13:04.480> when<01:13:04.640> they
Salesforce supporting this when they
launched<01:13:05.120> their<01:13:05.280> own<01:13:05.440> version<01:13:05.600> of<01:13:05.760> this<01:13:06.000> a
launched their own version of this a
couple<01:13:06.400> months<01:13:06.560> ago?<01:13:06.960> Well,<01:13:07.120> what<01:13:07.280> choice<01:13:07.440> do
couple months ago? Well, what choice do
you<01:13:07.760> have,<01:13:07.920> right,<01:13:08.080> at<01:13:08.320> some<01:13:08.480> level?<01:13:09.199> But<01:13:09.360> I
you have, right, at some level? But I
wouldn't<01:13:09.840> be<01:13:10.000> surprised<01:13:10.719> if<01:13:10.960> this<01:13:11.199> is<01:13:11.440> not<01:13:12.080> if
wouldn't be surprised if this is not if
if<01:13:12.640> the<01:13:12.880> if<01:13:13.199> the<01:13:13.440> this<01:13:13.760> vector<01:13:14.320> does<01:13:14.560> not
if the if the this vector does not
maintain<01:13:15.120> so<01:13:15.280> much<01:13:15.440> energy<01:13:15.679> that<01:13:16.000> Slackbot
maintain so much energy that Slackbot
isn't<01:13:16.800> better,<01:13:17.040> right?<01:13:17.360> That'd<01:13:17.600> be<01:13:17.760> the<01:13:17.920> most
isn't better, right? That'd be the most
logical<01:13:18.400> thing.<01:13:18.719> But<01:13:18.800> we<01:13:19.040> could<01:13:19.120> be<01:13:19.280> wrong.
logical thing. But we could be wrong.
Like<01:13:19.920> enterprise<01:13:20.320> is<01:13:20.480> the<01:13:20.640> big<01:13:20.800> battlefield.
Like enterprise is the big battlefield.
And<01:13:22.640> uh<01:13:22.960> TAG<01:13:23.600> as<01:13:23.840> as<01:13:24.000> much<01:13:24.159> as<01:13:24.400> TAG<01:13:24.719> created
And uh TAG as as much as TAG created
some<01:13:25.280> anxiety<01:13:25.600> at<01:13:25.840> Salesforce,<01:13:26.719> it<01:13:26.960> might<01:13:27.040> be
some anxiety at Salesforce, it might be
the<01:13:27.280> Trojan<01:13:27.679> horse<01:13:27.920> and<01:13:28.080> in<01:13:28.239> six<01:13:28.400> months<01:13:28.719> it's
the Trojan horse and in six months it's
like<01:13:29.280> it's<01:13:29.520> a<01:13:29.679> big<01:13:29.840> effing<01:13:30.239> deal.<01:13:30.480> But<01:13:30.719> we<01:13:30.960> have
like it's a big effing deal. But we have
no<01:13:31.280> evidence<01:13:31.520> of<01:13:31.679> that,<01:13:32.000> right?<01:13:32.239> We<01:13:32.400> have<01:13:32.480> no
no evidence of that, right? We have no
evidence<01:13:33.040> design<01:13:33.520> is<01:13:33.760> going<01:13:33.920> to<01:13:34.080> kill<01:13:34.320> Figma
evidence design is going to kill Figma
in<01:13:34.960> any<01:13:35.040> way,<01:13:35.280> shape,<01:13:35.440> or<01:13:35.600> form<01:13:35.760> at<01:13:36.000> this
in any way, shape, or form at this
point.<01:13:36.560> We<01:13:36.719> have<01:13:36.880> no<01:13:37.040> evidence<01:13:37.360> there's<01:13:37.600> a
point. We have no evidence there's a
long-term<01:13:38.159> commitment<01:13:38.480> to<01:13:38.640> that.<01:13:38.880> So,<01:13:39.120> I'm
long-term commitment to that. So, I'm
I'm<01:13:40.000> skeptical,<01:13:40.640> but<01:13:41.199> existentially,<01:13:42.000> man,
I'm skeptical, but existentially, man,
could<01:13:43.360> disrupt<01:13:43.760> everything<01:13:44.000> in<01:13:44.239> software.
could disrupt everything in software.
>> In<01:13:45.440> business<01:13:45.679> software.
>> In business software.
>> That's<01:13:46.480> a<01:13:46.719> good<01:13:46.880> semi,<01:13:47.280> Jason.<01:13:47.600> I<01:13:47.679> I<01:13:47.920> agree.<01:13:48.239> I
>> That's a good semi, Jason. I I agree. I
I<01:13:48.719> think,<01:13:48.880> you<01:13:49.040> know,<01:13:49.120> someone<01:13:49.360> did<01:13:49.520> the<01:13:49.679> why
I think, you know, someone did the why
does<01:13:50.080> Salesforce<01:13:50.480> let<01:13:50.640> it<01:13:50.800> happen.<01:13:51.040> They<01:13:51.199> have
does Salesforce let it happen. They have
no<01:13:51.440> choice.<01:13:51.679> They<01:13:51.840> own<01:13:52.000> Slack.<01:13:52.400> they<01:13:52.640> have<01:13:52.719> the
no choice. They own Slack. they have the
Slackbot,<01:13:53.840> but<01:13:54.159> you<01:13:54.320> can't<01:13:54.560> be<01:13:54.800> the
Slackbot, but you can't be the
cross-platform<01:13:55.840> comms
cross-platform comms
um<01:13:57.920> you<01:13:58.080> know<01:13:58.239> communications<01:13:58.880> platform<01:13:59.280> for
um you know communications platform for
your<01:13:59.679> company<01:13:59.920> and<01:14:00.159> then<01:14:00.480> not<01:14:00.719> allow<01:14:01.280> access
your company and then not allow access
to<01:14:02.239> you<01:14:02.400> know<01:14:02.800> to<01:14:03.280> an<01:14:03.520> agent<01:14:03.840> that's<01:14:04.080> enabling
to you know to an agent that's enabling
you<01:14:04.640> to<01:14:04.719> do<01:14:04.880> better<01:14:05.040> work<01:14:05.199> because<01:14:05.440> that<01:14:05.600> just
you to do better work because that just
pushes<01:14:06.000> people<01:14:06.159> away<01:14:06.400> from<01:14:06.560> you.<01:14:06.719> So<01:14:06.800> I<01:14:07.199> I
pushes people away from you. So I I
think<01:14:07.440> the<01:14:07.600> interesting<01:14:07.920> thing<01:14:08.080> here<01:14:08.400> look<01:14:08.640> is
think the interesting thing here look is
if<01:14:09.120> you're<01:14:09.360> if<01:14:09.600> you're<01:14:09.760> lurking<01:14:10.080> on<01:14:10.239> a<01:14:10.400> Slack
if you're if you're lurking on a Slack
channel<01:14:11.120> as<01:14:11.360> an<01:14:11.520> AI<01:14:11.920> you<01:14:12.080> really<01:14:12.239> just<01:14:12.400> do<01:14:12.640> get
channel as an AI you really just do get
a<01:14:12.960> very<01:14:13.120> good<01:14:13.360> handle<01:14:13.679> on<01:14:13.920> how<01:14:14.159> people<01:14:14.480> do<01:14:15.280> you
a very good handle on how people do you
know<01:14:15.440> the<01:14:15.679> the<01:14:15.920> bit<01:14:16.159> you<01:14:16.239> know<01:14:16.400> the<01:14:16.560> context
know the the bit you know the context
part<01:14:17.120> of<01:14:17.280> work<01:14:17.520> that<01:14:17.760> you<01:14:17.920> know<01:14:18.000> that<01:14:18.480> lovely
part of work that you know that lovely
post<01:14:18.960> from<01:14:19.199> Ja<01:14:19.600> and<01:14:19.760> Foundation<01:14:20.320> Capital
post from Ja and Foundation Capital
talking<01:14:21.120> about<01:14:21.600> capturing<01:14:22.159> context
talking about capturing context
basically<01:14:23.040> which<01:14:23.199> is<01:14:23.360> a<01:14:23.520> a<01:14:23.840> fancy<01:14:24.159> word<01:14:24.400> for
basically which is a a fancy word for
capturing<01:14:25.520> all<01:14:25.760> the<01:14:25.920> weird<01:14:26.239> [ __ ]<01:14:26.560> people<01:14:26.960> do
capturing all the weird [ __ ] people do
on<01:14:27.840> top<01:14:28.000> of<01:14:28.159> the<01:14:28.400> actual<01:14:28.719> apps<01:14:29.360> which<01:14:29.679> reflects
on top of the actual apps which reflects
how<01:14:30.320> they<01:14:30.719> actually<01:14:31.120> do<01:14:31.280> their<01:14:31.520> work<01:14:32.000> and<01:14:32.239> how
how they actually do their work and how
they<01:14:32.640> configure<01:14:33.040> their<01:14:33.280> work<01:14:33.520> to<01:14:33.840> suit<01:14:34.159> the
they configure their work to suit the
SAS<01:14:34.800> apps<01:14:35.360> which<01:14:35.520> is<01:14:35.679> what<01:14:35.840> happened<01:14:36.080> in<01:14:36.400> prior
SAS apps which is what happened in prior
generation<01:14:37.120> of<01:14:37.360> software<01:14:38.000> and<01:14:38.320> capturing
generation of software and capturing
that<01:14:39.040> context<01:14:39.840> is<01:14:40.159> really<01:14:40.480> useful<01:14:40.800> because<01:14:41.040> it
that context is really useful because it
allows<01:14:41.600> you<01:14:42.080> it<01:14:42.239> allows<01:14:42.560> an<01:14:42.719> AI<01:14:43.120> to<01:14:43.280> automate
allows you it allows an AI to automate
that<01:14:43.920> work.<01:14:44.400> And<01:14:44.560> the<01:14:44.719> truth<01:14:44.960> is<01:14:45.120> a<01:14:45.280> lot<01:14:45.360> of
that work. And the truth is a lot of
that<01:14:45.600> context<01:14:46.000> exists<01:14:46.320> in<01:14:46.480> Slack.<01:14:47.040> So<01:14:47.199> if
that context exists in Slack. So if
you're<01:14:47.600> watching<01:14:47.840> people<01:14:48.080> interact<01:14:48.560> on<01:14:48.719> Slack
you're watching people interact on Slack
and<01:14:49.199> if<01:14:49.360> you<01:14:49.520> watch<01:14:49.760> it<01:14:50.159> autonomously<01:14:50.880> for
and if you watch it autonomously for
weeks<01:14:51.520> and<01:14:51.679> months<01:14:51.840> on<01:14:52.080> end,<01:14:52.239> you<01:14:52.400> probably
weeks and months on end, you probably
will<01:14:52.800> get<01:14:52.880> a<01:14:53.040> pretty<01:14:53.199> good<01:14:53.360> handle<01:14:53.840> on<01:14:54.080> how
will get a pretty good handle on how
people<01:14:54.560> do<01:14:54.800> work<01:14:55.040> and<01:14:55.280> you<01:14:55.440> know<01:14:55.600> how<01:14:55.760> does
people do work and you know how does
Jason<01:14:56.320> and<01:14:56.560> Rory<01:14:56.960> handle<01:14:57.440> whatever<01:14:57.920> exception
Jason and Rory handle whatever exception
we're<01:14:58.640> dealing<01:14:58.880> with<01:14:59.120> and<01:14:59.360> when<01:14:59.600> we're
we're dealing with and when we're
talking<01:14:59.920> about<01:15:00.080> it<01:15:00.239> on<01:15:00.400> Slack.<01:15:00.719> So<01:15:00.800> I<01:15:00.960> think
talking about it on Slack. So I think
it's<01:15:01.280> an<01:15:01.440> interesting<01:15:01.920> entry<01:15:02.320> point.<01:15:02.719> You're
it's an interesting entry point. You're
right.<01:15:03.199> It's<01:15:03.280> only<01:15:03.440> an<01:15:03.600> entry<01:15:03.840> point.<01:15:04.080> It's
right. It's only an entry point. It's
not<01:15:04.400> the<01:15:04.560> end<01:15:04.640> of<01:15:04.800> the<01:15:04.960> world,<01:15:05.679> but<01:15:05.920> I<01:15:06.080> think
not the end of the world, but I think
Salesforce<01:15:06.640> is<01:15:06.880> right<01:15:07.040> to<01:15:07.199> say,<01:15:07.360> "Okay,
Salesforce is right to say, "Okay,
you're<01:15:07.920> in<01:15:08.000> there<01:15:08.239> now<01:15:08.400> and<01:15:08.560> we're<01:15:08.719> going<01:15:08.719> to
you're in there now and we're going to
have<01:15:08.960> a<01:15:09.120> damn<01:15:09.760> we're<01:15:10.080> going<01:15:10.159> to<01:15:10.239> make<01:15:10.480> sure
have a damn we're going to make sure
that<01:15:11.040> the<01:15:11.280> Slackbot<01:15:12.159> is<01:15:12.400> better<01:15:12.640> and<01:15:12.960> remains
that the Slackbot is better and remains
better."<01:15:13.679> So,<01:15:13.840> yeah,<01:15:14.000> I<01:15:14.239> said<01:15:14.560> I<01:15:14.719> I<01:15:14.880> agree<01:15:15.199> your
better." So, yeah, I said I I agree your
assessment.<01:15:16.400> Super<01:15:16.800> interesting.<01:15:17.760> Watch
assessment. Super interesting. Watch
this<01:15:18.320> space,<01:15:19.120> but<01:15:19.440> definitely<01:15:19.840> an
this space, but definitely an
interesting<01:15:20.560> entry<01:15:20.880> point<01:15:21.199> into<01:15:21.520> capturing
interesting entry point into capturing
what's<01:15:22.239> going<01:15:22.400> on<01:15:22.880> at<01:15:23.120> the<01:15:23.280> context<01:15:23.679> graph
what's going on at the context graph
level.
>> I<01:15:25.120> mean,<01:15:25.280> by<01:15:25.440> the<01:15:25.520> end<01:15:25.600> of<01:15:25.679> this<01:15:25.760> year,
>> I mean, by the end of this year,
Enthropical<01:15:26.560> have<01:15:26.719> more<01:15:26.880> revenue<01:15:27.199> than<01:15:27.440> every
Enthropical have more revenue than every
public<01:15:27.920> software<01:15:28.320> company<01:15:28.640> combined,<01:15:29.360> right?
public software company combined, right?
So,<01:15:30.239> you<01:15:30.480> have<01:15:30.560> to<01:15:30.719> wonder.
So, you have to wonder.
>> Armstrong<01:15:31.760> has<01:15:31.920> his<01:15:32.080> way<01:15:32.239> and<01:15:32.400> cuts<01:15:32.640> it<01:15:32.719> in
>> Armstrong has his way and cuts it in
half.<01:15:33.760> It<01:15:34.000> may<01:15:34.159> be,<01:15:34.320> but<01:15:34.880> it's<01:15:35.040> just<01:15:35.199> it's<01:15:35.440> just
half. It may be, but it's just it's just
for<01:15:35.920> predictive<01:15:36.560> we<01:15:37.360> you<01:15:37.520> know<01:15:38.080> we<01:15:38.320> just<01:15:38.480> have
for predictive we you know we just have
to<01:15:38.719> wonder<01:15:38.960> does<01:15:39.199> is<01:15:39.440> some<01:15:39.679> of<01:15:39.760> the<01:15:39.920> stuff<01:15:40.080> that
to wonder does is some of the stuff that
we<01:15:40.480> think<01:15:40.560> is<01:15:40.719> very<01:15:41.360> in<01:15:41.520> and<01:15:41.679> the<01:15:41.760> media<01:15:42.000> and
we think is very in and the media and
the<01:15:42.239> X<01:15:42.560> like<01:15:42.719> it<01:15:42.880> just<01:15:43.040> may<01:15:43.199> not<01:15:43.360> be<01:15:43.520> material
the X like it just may not be material
to<01:15:44.320> anthropic<01:15:44.719> innov
they they<01:15:50.400> just<01:15:50.560> may<01:15:51.120> it<01:15:51.280> may<01:15:51.440> be<01:15:51.600> like<01:15:51.760> the
they they just may it may be like the
early<01:15:52.239> day<01:15:52.640> when<01:15:52.800> when<01:15:53.040> I<01:15:53.199> started<01:15:53.360> in<01:15:53.600> B2B<01:15:54.000> as
early day when when I started in B2B as
a<01:15:54.239> founder<01:15:54.400> and<01:15:54.640> when<01:15:54.719> I<01:15:54.880> first<01:15:55.040> met<01:15:55.199> Rory<01:15:55.520> most
a founder and when I first met Rory most
folks<01:15:55.840> thought<01:15:56.080> it<01:15:56.320> was<01:15:56.400> just<01:15:56.560> too<01:15:56.719> small<01:15:57.520> it
folks thought it was just too small it
just<01:15:57.840> wasn't<01:15:58.080> worth<01:15:58.239> anybody's<01:15:58.640> time<01:15:58.800> these
just wasn't worth anybody's time these
markets<01:15:59.280> were<01:15:59.440> just<01:15:59.600> too<01:15:59.760> small<01:16:00.080> now<01:16:00.239> they're
markets were just too small now they're
they<01:16:00.719> got<01:16:00.880> big<01:16:01.520> but<01:16:01.840> AI<01:16:02.159> got<01:16:02.400> so<01:16:02.560> much<01:16:02.719> bigger
they got big but AI got so much bigger
And<01:16:03.920> they<01:16:04.080> may<01:16:04.239> not<01:16:04.400> it<01:16:04.640> just<01:16:04.800> may<01:16:04.880> not<01:16:05.040> be
And they may not it just may not be
worth<01:16:05.360> Daario's<01:16:05.920> time<01:16:06.159> to<01:16:06.480> worry<01:16:06.719> about
worth Daario's time to worry about
whether<01:16:07.120> he's<01:16:07.280> disrupting<01:16:07.760> Salesforce.<01:16:08.400> It's
whether he's disrupting Salesforce. It's
just<01:16:08.880> it's<01:16:09.120> not<01:16:09.280> even<01:16:09.440> the<01:16:09.760> Salesforce's<01:16:10.320> 42
just it's not even the Salesforce's 42
billion.<01:16:11.040> He<01:16:11.199> may<01:16:11.280> be<01:16:11.440> looking<01:16:11.520> at<01:16:11.679> the<01:16:11.760> net
billion. He may be looking at the net
new<01:16:12.159> bookings.<01:16:12.480> What<01:16:12.560> is<01:16:12.719> Salesforce<01:16:13.120> adding
new bookings. What is Salesforce adding
at<01:16:13.600> 10%<01:16:14.080> 8<01:16:14.320> billion?<01:16:15.120> He's<01:16:15.360> like<01:16:15.840> because<01:16:16.239> you
at 10% 8 billion? He's like because you
know<01:16:16.480> materiality<01:16:17.199> has<01:16:17.360> always<01:16:17.600> been<01:16:17.760> 10%.
know materiality has always been 10%.
Right?<01:16:18.719> So<01:16:18.800> if<01:16:18.960> I<01:16:19.120> can't<01:16:19.280> make<01:16:19.520> 10<01:16:19.920> 20<01:16:20.159> bill<01:16:20.480> 10
Right? So if I can't make 10 20 bill 10
billion<01:16:21.199> plus<01:16:21.520> I<01:16:21.679> don't<01:16:21.760> know<01:16:21.760> if<01:16:21.920> Anthropic
billion plus I don't know if Anthropic
can<01:16:22.560> get<01:16:22.640> out<01:16:22.800> of<01:16:22.880> bed<01:16:23.120> for<01:16:23.280> something<01:16:23.440> that's
can get out of bed for something that's
not<01:16:23.920> doesn't<01:16:24.159> generate<01:16:24.480> 10<01:16:24.640> billion<01:16:24.880> of
not doesn't generate 10 billion of
revenue.<01:16:25.600> It's<01:16:25.760> not<01:16:26.159> that's<01:16:26.480> always<01:16:26.640> been<01:16:26.719> the
revenue. It's not that's always been the
definition<01:16:27.199> of<01:16:27.360> materiality<01:16:28.000> in<01:16:28.239> my
definition of materiality in my
experience.<01:16:28.880> I<01:16:29.120> think<01:16:29.199> it<01:16:29.280> was<01:16:29.440> even<01:16:29.600> the
experience. I think it was even the
SEC's,<01:16:30.320> right?<01:16:30.480> 10%<01:16:30.960> you<01:16:31.120> got<01:16:31.199> to<01:16:31.360> disclose<01:16:31.600> it
SEC's, right? 10% you got to disclose it
in<01:16:31.920> the<01:16:32.080> old<01:16:32.159> days,<01:16:32.800> right?<01:16:33.840> I<01:16:34.000> don't<01:16:34.080> know<01:16:34.080> if
in the old days, right? I don't know if
Enthropic<01:16:34.800> can<01:16:34.880> get<01:16:34.960> out<01:16:35.120> of<01:16:35.199> bed<01:16:35.360> for<01:16:35.520> less
Enthropic can get out of bed for less
than<01:16:35.760> 10<01:16:35.920> billion<01:16:36.239> of<01:16:36.320> revenue<01:16:36.560> by<01:16:36.640> the<01:16:36.719> end<01:16:36.800> of
than 10 billion of revenue by the end of
the<01:16:36.960> year.<01:16:37.120> It's<01:16:37.199> just<01:16:37.360> not<01:16:37.520> enough.<01:16:37.840> Now,
the year. It's just not enough. Now,
it's<01:16:38.320> one<01:16:38.480> thing<01:16:38.560> to<01:16:38.800> just<01:16:39.440> do<01:16:39.600> an<01:16:39.840> experiment
it's one thing to just do an experiment
or<01:16:40.480> build<01:16:40.719> or<01:16:40.880> build<01:16:41.120> something<01:16:41.280> that<01:16:41.440> makes
or build or build something that makes
Claude<01:16:42.080> better,<01:16:42.480> right?<01:16:42.800> That's<01:16:42.960> an
Claude better, right? That's an
integration.<01:16:43.520> Like,<01:16:43.679> we'll<01:16:43.840> make<01:16:44.000> Claude
integration. Like, we'll make Claude
better.<01:16:44.560> We'll<01:16:44.719> integrate.<01:16:45.120> They<01:16:45.280> want<01:16:45.440> to
better. We'll integrate. They want to
integrate<01:16:45.840> more<01:16:46.080> with<01:16:46.239> every<01:16:46.480> single<01:16:46.719> app<01:16:46.960> and
integrate more with every single app and
take<01:16:47.360> in<01:16:47.520> the<01:16:47.679> data,<01:16:48.000> but<01:16:48.159> but<01:16:48.880> I<01:16:49.040> don't<01:16:49.199> think
take in the data, but but I don't think
they<01:16:49.440> they<01:16:49.679> may<01:16:49.840> not<01:16:50.000> care<01:16:50.159> about<01:16:50.320> that
they they may not care about that
revenue<01:16:50.880> that<01:16:51.120> the<01:16:51.280> leaders<01:16:51.600> are<01:16:51.760> terrified
revenue that the leaders are terrified
of<01:16:52.239> losing.<01:16:53.360> That's<01:16:53.600> probably<01:16:53.760> why<01:16:53.920> there<01:16:54.080> was
of losing. That's probably why there was
that<01:16:54.400> crazy<01:16:54.719> disconnect<01:16:55.199> with<01:16:55.760> the<01:16:56.000> guy<01:16:56.159> from
that crazy disconnect with the guy from
leaving<01:16:56.640> the<01:16:56.719> Figma<01:16:57.120> board,<01:16:57.520> right?<01:16:57.760> And<01:16:58.000> like
leaving the Figma board, right? And like
it<01:16:58.320> was<01:16:58.480> such<01:16:58.719> drama<01:16:59.120> to<01:16:59.280> to<01:16:59.679> Dylan<01:17:00.560> to
it was such drama to to Dylan to
Enthropic.<01:17:01.120> They're<01:17:01.280> like,<01:17:01.360> "Oh,<01:17:01.520> we<01:17:01.679> didn't
Enthropic. They're like, "Oh, we didn't
know<01:17:01.920> you'd<01:17:02.159> care."<01:17:03.043> [laughter]
know you'd care." [laughter]
>> Gotcha.
>> Like<01:17:04.320> this<01:17:04.480> isn't<01:17:04.719> even<01:17:04.880> important.<01:17:05.280> Like,
>> Like this isn't even important. Like,
oh,
>> we're<01:17:07.199> sorry.
>> we're sorry.
>> Sorry.<01:17:08.719> Genuinely<01:17:09.360> sorry.<01:17:09.760> We<01:17:10.000> didn't<01:17:10.080> even
>> Sorry. Genuinely sorry. We didn't even
It<01:17:10.560> wasn't<01:17:10.719> even<01:17:11.199> We<01:17:11.440> don't<01:17:11.600> even<01:17:11.760> talk<01:17:11.920> about
It wasn't even We don't even talk about
this<01:17:12.320> each<01:17:12.560> week<01:17:12.719> at<01:17:12.880> the<01:17:13.040> at<01:17:13.199> the
this each week at the at the
>> I<01:17:14.400> It's<01:17:14.640> the<01:17:14.960> You<01:17:15.040> know,<01:17:15.120> when<01:17:15.360> elephant
>> I It's the You know, when elephant
stands,<01:17:16.239> the<01:17:16.400> little<01:17:16.640> people<01:17:16.880> get<01:17:17.040> trampled.
stands, the little people get trampled.
Exactly.
>> Sorry.
>> Yeah.<01:17:21.679> Whoopsie.<01:17:22.560> Next<01:17:22.800> time<01:17:22.960> we'll<01:17:23.199> be<01:17:23.360> more
>> Yeah. Whoopsie. Next time we'll be more
careful.
>> I<01:17:24.640> love<01:17:24.880> that.<01:17:26.080> I'm<01:17:26.400> pretty<01:17:26.640> sure<01:17:26.800> of<01:17:27.040> it
>> I love that. I'm pretty sure of it
actually.
>> Boys,<01:17:29.440> it's<01:17:29.679> a<01:17:29.840> wrap<01:17:30.080> from<01:17:30.239> the<01:17:30.400> British
>> Boys, it's a wrap from the British
beach.<01:17:31.360> Uh,<01:17:31.760> thank<01:17:31.920> you<01:17:32.080> so<01:17:32.320> much<01:17:32.400> for<01:17:32.560> this,
beach. Uh, thank you so much for this,
Roy.<01:17:33.040> Always
Roy. Always
killer<01:17:35.120> line<01:17:35.280> at<01:17:35.440> the<01:17:35.520> end<01:17:35.679> there.<01:17:35.920> What<01:17:36.000> is
killer line at the end there. What is
it?<01:17:36.320> When<01:17:36.560> elephants<01:17:37.040> dance,<01:17:37.440> the<01:17:37.600> little
it? When elephants dance, the little
people<01:17:38.159> get<01:17:38.400> trampled.
people get trampled.
>> I<01:17:39.520> think<01:17:39.600> it's<01:17:39.760> something<01:17:40.000> about<01:17:40.159> mice<01:17:40.560> get
>> I think it's something about mice get
trampled<01:17:41.040> or<01:17:41.199> something.<01:17:41.679> Whatever.<01:17:42.080> Yeah.
trampled or something. Whatever. Yeah.
Well,<01:17:43.040> Harry,<01:17:43.280> I've<01:17:43.440> got<01:17:43.520> a<01:17:43.600> time.<01:17:43.760> We<01:17:44.080> by<01:17:44.239> the
Well, Harry, I've got a time. We by the
time<01:17:44.480> this<01:17:44.719> comes<01:17:44.960> out,<01:17:45.199> we'll<01:17:45.520> know<01:17:45.760> how<01:17:46.400> the
time this comes out, we'll know how the
US<01:17:46.960> and<01:17:47.199> England<01:17:47.520> have<01:17:47.760> done.<01:17:48.080> And<01:17:48.880> by<01:17:49.120> the
US and England have done. And by the
time<01:17:49.360> I<01:17:49.600> see<01:17:49.679> you<01:17:49.920> next<01:17:50.159> week,<01:17:50.400> hopefully
time I see you next week, hopefully
you'll<01:17:51.040> we'll<01:17:51.280> both<01:17:51.600> be<01:17:51.760> progressing<01:17:52.320> to<01:17:53.040> let
you'll we'll both be progressing to let
me<01:17:53.280> see<01:17:53.440> the<01:17:53.600> round.
me see the round.
>> Yeah.<01:17:55.280> I'm<01:17:55.520> going<01:17:55.679> I'm<01:17:55.920> going<01:17:56.080> I'm<01:17:56.320> going
>> Yeah. I'm going I'm going I'm going
down.