All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - CoreWeave Crash, AI Trade Cracks, Anthropic IPO Red Flags, Bill Gates Doomer

Episode Date: October 17, 2026

(0:00) Ben Horowitz fills in for Friedberg! (2:18) CoreWeave's debt selloff: did the AI bubble just pop? (31:14) AI's deflationary impact: decompiled software (45:44) Anthropic's investor day gets mixed reactions (1:03:45) Psyop Corner: Anthropic warns about self-replicating models on IoT devices (1:22:19) Understanding Bill Gates the Doomer Follow Ben: https://x.com/bhorowitz Follow the besties: https://x.com/chamath https://x.com/Jason https://x.com/DavidSacks https://x.com/friedberg Follow on X: https://x.com/theallinpod Follow on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod Follow on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@allin Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://x.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://x.com/TheZachEffect Referenced in the show: https://x.com/chamath/status/2110128893680378299 https://www.google.com/finance/quote/CRWV:NASDAQ https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/article/yikes-coreweave-stock-tanks-on-bond-yield-woes-ceo-blames-market-acting-irrationally-203838274.html https://247wallst.com/investing/2026/10/14/coreweave-falls-10-as-bond-yield-touches-15-and-elon-musk-says-yikes-nebius-drops-6-oracle-slips https://polymarket.com/event/coreweave-announces-bankruptcy-by https://x.com/FearedBuck/status/2109443893955567694 https://polymarket.com/event/ipos-before-2027 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-10-14/anthropic-revenue-jumps-to-16-8-billion-in-quarter-before-ipo https://www.anthropic.com/research/self-replicating-ai https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-distillation-attacks https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/2109849209742450696 https://www.anthropic.com/research/distillation-defenses https://x.com/brian_armstrong/status/2109412046244913643

All right, everybody, welcome back to the number one podcast in the world. Actually, you manifested. We actually were number one. How good is that. We were literally number one last week. Only took a little bit of time to get there. Only took five years. Only took five.

Yeah, five years went by so quickly. With us today, David Sacks is back. How are you doing, brother? Good. You good? Yeah. Good being number one. Yeah.

It's good to be number one. I agree. I agree. I've done an excellent job. You've done a very good job. And now we'll see who takes the most credit for the ascension of the all-in podcast. Over to you, Chumath Pollyhappatia. How's your week been?

It's great being the best. It's great being the best. I mean, you know, we would have, I feel like Sachs and I would have gotten here at least 18 months sooner. Have we not had to drag you on our back? Oh, okay. The point card who actually put all those times in position. in the ball everywhere you guys wanted it. Yes, you certainly would have gotten there eventually if you guys actually knew how to set up. Where would we be without your constant interruptions?

Absolutely. We would have been number one sooner. You would be where every other tech podcast is in the 400s. And joining us this week in replacement of the true start. Also number one. A number one venture capital firm in assets under management, I believe certainly. None of this. Ben Horowitz is here. Hey, Ben, how are you? I am doing swell. Thank you for having me on the show. It's great to be with the number one team. Yes, the number one podcast. How does it feel to be on the number one podcast in the world? Have you, has it, you know, like, have you soaked it in yet, Ben? It's just. It feels great. Yes, yeah. It is awesome. I feel bigger already.

It is kind of amazing that a tech podcast could be the number one podcast on. That is bizarre. Apple Podcasts last weekend. Big Doc this week. Good to have you here, Ben, and Freeberg is busy saving the world from famines, and he'll be back next week for all of you. He retired. He retired at number one. He just walked off the court.

That's hilarious. Well, we've had an eventful week. We may have actually had the AI bubble, if there is one, pop or deflating. a little bit. The neoclouds got crushed this week after Corweave's bonds started to sell off. Could be the canary in the coal mine? We'll find out. Corweeve, Irren, Nebius, these are all the biggest neoclouds. They're all down about 20 percent as publicly traded companies. Here's your chart. Here's what happened. Just a little bit of background on Tuesday, a bunch of people on X, including at Chamath pointed out that the yield on some of Coralweeve's dead had.

hit 15%. The yields are obviously rising because bond traders are worried about Corweave's ability to generate enough cash to support its debt. So they want a higher rate of return, obviously. Adding to Chimot's little tweet was a friend of the pod, Elon Musk, who decided to contribute five letters, one word that has since been heard around the world. And is that the start? of every story. He said, yikes, Y-I-K-E-S. And that generated a bunch of headlines. Then, everything tanked. Yesterday, Wednesday, we tape on Thursdays, as many of you know, Corwee of Iran. Maybe it's down between 10 and 15%. Even Oracle and Dell took some strays. Invita took stray as well. They were down 3%. Corweave is the tip of the spear. They've raised over $35 billion.

had the founder, we had the founder, Michael in Trader on the All-In podcast back in March, in which he explained to me on the All-In interview show what he called The Box. Let's roll that tape and get Chumont's thoughts. Is all that debt work? That is something that you guys specialize in. I'm going to try to explain this in a way people can understand. So we go out and we find a client. Let's use Microsoft.

You brought them up before, right? And Microsoft comes to us and says, we'd like to buy some confide for you. And we say, okay, great, we're going to sign a contract. Once I have a contract in hand, then what I do is I create something, it's not a particularly creative name, it's called the box. Yeah. Right? And what I do with the box is I take my contract with Microsoft and I put it in the box.

I go to Jensen and I buy the GPUs, I put it in the box. I take my data center contract, I put it in the box. And now the box governs cash flow and it has a waterfall of cash flow that comes into it and goes out of it. And so the way it works is then I build the computer. And then I deliver the compute to Microsoft and they pay the box. They don't pay me. It goes into the box and the first thing it does is it pays the data center.

It pays the power bill. It pays the interest in the principle. And then whatever's left flows back to us. What's important to understand is the economics in this box are such that within two and a half years of a five year deal, we have paid for everything. They don't cross-pollinate. They don't cause contagion across. the boxes, they're all independent and discreet. As you do this and as you show the lenders how this financing tool and how this financing mechanism works, what they do is they

continue to lend you money at progressively lower rates. Okay, Chamath, that seemed like a completely reasonable explanation of how they were running the business and that each of the boxes were isolated. But something has changed in the last six months. What is that? And And what's changed here and your insights into his financial innovations, I would say, with Corweave? The most important thing that you should always look at is how the sharps, the super smart money, prices risk. And when you're dealing with companies like Corweave or Nebius or Iran, et cetera, that have to borrow a lot to fund these boxes, the smart money is trading what's going to. called a credit derivative swap. Okay, this is default insurance. And these default swaps are meant to ensure the bondholders against a potential default. That risk spiked this week to about

953 basis points, which it doesn't matter what that number is. But as an imputed risk, it's about a 16% chance of a default in any given year. And over a five-year duration, what that math implies is about a 55% chance of a default. So it's a coin flip, whether they default or not. That's not what I'm saying. That's what the insurance market was saying about their debt. And I think that's something to look into because those guys, I think, are the smartest money in all of this.

So why did they do this? I started to dig into it. And here's a couple of charts that explains a little bit of what I learned. Okay. So the first thing is just a market check. We've talked about this, but we have a problem in the United States, which is that the U.S. is moving the risk-free rate higher and higher. Who is doing that? These are the central bankers.

These are the bond vigilantes. These are the people that say, because of inflation or other long-term risks that are not getting put out of the system, we need to get paid a lot more money to own the safest riskless asset. As that goes up, basic way to think about that is as the 10-year bond goes up, everything else goes up. And so this black line represents the average price that you have to pay for junk debt. And what you see is that as the 10-year went up and people are like, man, the risk-free rates going up, the junkies junk bonds need to pay more and more and more. And then the purple line here is what Corweave has to pay. And what you see is that it also has started to tick up and has moved up relatively violently.

And so the question is why has it done that? Okay, so let's go to the next chart. Michael is right that he is in the business of creating these boxes and then putting in contracts and GPUs, but he also needs to put money in those boxes. And the way that he puts the money in the box is he has to go out and borrow that money. So he goes to a lender and says, give me the money. I will pay you that back plus some interest. What you see here is what is inside of the box effectively.

So the gray bar is how much money he's guaranteed to get into the box. These are all the deals he sold to all of his customers. These are contracts. Yeah. These are contracts. Now, and it's important to know because I'll get to this in a second. It turns out that these contracts are fixed price. So meaning if what you could sell in the spot market goes up, you don't really

generate that revenue because you've already pre-sold it at a fixed number. So Michael creates the box, he gets a long-term contract, which is great because you have surety around the revenues you're getting, but he sells that. Then he goes and has to finance it. And then some of that financing comes due. He's got some bonds that are due and some loans that are due. What this basically says is at the midpoint, he has to raise another $35 billion of debt to get all of the contracts that he signed, financed, right? All the boxes financed and up and running. So he has about $35 billion of debt.

He needs to raise another $35 billion of debt. But as you saw in the chart before, that's ticking up. And that has nothing to do with him. It is because the broader market is essentially saying the risk-free rate goes up. Everybody has to pay more because your spread above the risk-free rate has to track with it. Okay. So today, across all the different pockets of money in which that they have used, to fund those boxes, their average interest rate that they pay is about 8.5%.

The problem is that in this last little while, the Sharps basically said, hold on, this is getting too close to the knife's edge. You're going to have to pay more interest. That's what I tweeted, which was just, you know, one of the sleeves of interest. This is the GPU loan DDTL 1.0, spiked to 15%. The problem is that could theoretically now be the rate that they have to pay for all of the future. And remember, half of it's financed, half of it is still unfinanced. Right now, these guys are in a pretty good place because they have about 78, 80 billion of assets and only 35 of debt. So they're well covered.

So I think that, you know, this idea that they're at risk is not on the surface true. But the reality is that they have this problem, which is they have extreme customer concentration, 75% of the revenue comes from three companies. Some of those companies are walking down what their revenue expectations are into the future. So you have this situation now where you have to go out and borrow at a much higher rate. You have a bunch of debt you need to go to fund the boxes

and you have a fixed amount of revenue going into the boxes. So what is the trade or what is the setup? It's basically a coin flip now on the following idea. I think the market is saying that if they are able to finance this stuff at a reasonable rate and the life of the GPUs that they buy from Jensen are longer than what they think, they're going to be okay. But if the financing goes up and into that 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 percent range, these guys are getting very, very, very close to not necessarily being able to cover all the obligations that they have. My team's

estimates is that they're plus or minus about $5 billion away from that break-even point. So I think that's why the CDS spike, which then caused the bond yields to spike and cause the bonds themselves to lay off. So in order of operations, number one, I think they've created this very novel structure that everybody else has copied with the boxes. Number two, they've sold these fixed contracts. That's super smart, guaranteed a bunch of revenue into the future. But we have this situation where as the risk-free rate goes up, their cost of

borrowing goes up, that erodes the margin that they have, that then brings them close to this break-even point, that causes the CDS to react, which then causes the bond yields to react. That's the negative, reflexive loop that they're in. So they just have to find a way to break out of that. I don't think that they're in real risk. But as we all know, this is sort of a confidence game, and you need to have confidence that the broader market can support another $35 billion just from these guys. And I think that's what's going to get figured out over the next month.

All right, Ben, so you look at this situation. You've been through a couple of bubbles before, maybe have a little PTSD or scar tissue, in fact. And we saw Corweave bounce today, kind of hit a bottom, stocks up one or two percent right now after going down 10 percent. Is this acute? And then what does it mean for the broader AI trade, the AI bubble? Is there a bubble? And we'll get into Anthropic in a minute, sacks. Yeah, so I think that the first thing to understand is these businesses like Corweave, as, you know, Chimath kind of went through some of it, but they're Rube Goldberg financial machines. They're exceptionally complex.

So, you know, we talked about, okay, GPU contracts and this, but he's got data center contracts, how long are those? And then there's, he's got to buy memory, like, and there's memory shortage in this and that. So it is really complex. The other thing, or the other interesting thing is, yes, GPUs not only have, they've been going up in duration and in price. So that's been like a big tailwind for him as the owner of such things. When you say duration, you mean the lifespan. Yeah, the lifespan has been longer. The value from that.

It was three, four, five. Now it's six, seven, eight. And there's a shortage, like a real shortage of GPU. with power and cooling. And I kind of caveat that, right? Like, which is what he has. And, and this, this, this shortage is so bad. You know, I was speaking with Andy Jassy, who runs Amazon yesterday. And I said, yeah, like, we're out of everything, you know, until 2028. He's like, oh, it's beyond 2028. Like, I don't think we get stuff bad. Like, end of 2028, maybe. So everything else is sold out. So he, he has the advantage of that he's got some,

supply in a great shortage, which is extremely different than the internet bubble. The internet bubble, we didn't have enough demand because we had to build the internet. People had to get broadband. You know, you needed all this stuff. People had to buy, you know, originally they had to get their browser at fries, all this kind of thing. There weren't enough consumers on the internet to absorb all the bandwidth that had gotten built out.

And they had a massive amount of debt, not unlike we're building today. although not as big. But the lack of demand killed it. We don't really have a lack of demand in AI. So I think the dynamics will be different. I do think, like, for sure, if you get into a pathological debt situation, that can wreck anybody.

It's why, by the way, we're not invested in any of these neoclods either for that reason because that whole thing scares me, having been through it. But I would just say it's pretty complicated, and it really depends on a huge number of assumptions in this very elaborate model that they have. Ben, but let's just look, you were, you and Mark were one of the pioneers, maybe the pioneer of the neocloud business. I mean, you may just tell this quick story because I want to ask the question. Loud Cloud kind of popularized this idea that you could build this.

these clouds and service customers this way. Yeah. But it's very interesting to me that you and Mark as the kind of prima genitor have passed on the whole space. So I want to know why. Well, it's because of this. I mean, so it can end up being like a very dangerous arbitrage business where, you know, you can get upside down easily.

And so if you look at Loud Cloud, just as an example, just here here's a simple thing that happened to us in 1999 bandwidth bandwidth was $1,500 a megabit and you couldn't get it it was very hard to get it and so you had to get a long-term contract three years by 2001 it was $50 a megabit so if you were holding bandwidth you were you just you know and you borrowed money to get it you're dead you're dead so that you know that kind of thing is so out of the control of the entrepreneur and And so different than what we'd like to fund that, you know, it just, it scared, it scared me to death. Now, look, I think that core dynamic of AI has been working for CoreWeave, though, in terms of that, in that there's a massive shortage, not an overage of supply.

So those prices don't seem to, you know, token prices have gone down, but GPU prices have not. And so things are going up, you know, and by the way, data center space. is going up in price because even labor to build data centers is hard. The politics are making it hard to build data centers. So the whole supply chain prices going up and demand is not subsiding. And so those are very big tailwinds for Corleave, despite the fact that the debt markets, kind of independent of them, are tough. All right, Sachs.

Here's your polymarket. Corweve announces bankruptcy. That's a pretty aggressive polymarket, 15% chance at the end of. of 27 next year, 23% at the end of 2028 seems a little far-fetched, given the fact that they have a massive demand for their equipment has been pointed out. Well, you can't, look, this is dumb because, like, I think Michael explained it, like, you have this op-co-pro-co setup, so Corweave can't go bankrupt. An asset-level vehicle for a data center or a build-out could theoretically go upside down,

but that'll go into receivership and then just manage where you sell down the GPUs. Yes, he explained in that clip. He has each box independent of the next. So not a great polymarket, I think. Well, it is great if you bet it the other way. Yeah, exactly. Maybe some free money there to pick up. Sacks, let's level up the conversation here just outside of Corrieve and the Neo Clouds, massive demand. Token prices coming down, but token consumption going way up. And I think one of the silver linings here is, it was a big question of how long these GPUs would last. Maybe they had three, four, five-year lifespan. Now people are saying, hey, these things will keep going into year six, seven, eight for inference alone. So what's your thought

here on the AI trade, the bubble, as it were? Did we need to take a little bit out? Do we need to stress test it? And is that what's going on here? Or is this making you nervous, hey, we're in year four or five of this bull run, and that maybe it's coming to an end. And we may hit the R word. Yeah. Recession. Here's the question, J. Cal, is you got this core weave crash. Their bonds are being marked down to 80%.

It's down 15 or 20% in the last few days in the stock market. Is this just market volatility? Or is this the beginning of something deeper and worse, like you said, the popping of a bubble? Okay, that's the fundamental question. I would make the argument that this is just volatility, which you're going to get a lot of, whenever you're underwriting to multi-trillion dollar outcomes in the future based on very rapid rates of growth, exponential rates of growth, the market is going to be super sensitive to any data points we have in the present. And so everything's going to be exaggerated. And that's why

you get these big swings. Now, again, that to me is the explanation of volatility. I don't think that something fundamental has changed. So let's talk about the fundamentals. So first question there to unpack it is, has the demand change? No. We know that the demand for compute just keeps growing by leaps and bounds. In fact, everyone is saying that they are compute constrained. I mean, you've got the biggest model companies are saying their compute constrained. Starchs are saying it. I mean, they're asking their VCs, hey, can you help us get compute? I think you've got some VCs even trying to buy compute as basically a strategy for competitive differentiation so they can help their startup. There was literally an accelerator that had bought an XVIote.

excess compute and they were using it as a way to get people to apply for their accelerator. Yeah. So we know the demand is off the charts right now. We're seeing other indicators. So for example, old GPUs, like even the H-100s or the A-100s, which are several generations old, they're still renting at premium prices right now. They were supposed to be fully depreciated and they're not. There's actually upside surprise there to the people, to the companies that are renting those old supposedly stale GPUs. So we know the demand is off the charts. Okay. So what's next indicator of something deeper and problematic happening? Well, the next question you could ask, well, is there a glut of supply coming onto the market? So we know the demand is huge, but maybe

there's too much supply being stood up. Well, we know that's not the case because of the sheer difficulty of standing up this powered compute. And we know it's not being brought onto the market too rapidly. First, you just have all the problems with atoms, building things in the physical world. That's hard enough. Elon basically has said, look, This is a really difficult problem. Even our rocket scientists find it challenging to stand up gigawatts of new-powered compute. And then we have all the regulatory headwinds, right? Local communities are not racing to give out new entitlements around this.

So if anything, we believe that there's not a glut. It's the other way that there's enforced scarcity. So then the question becomes, well, is there some sort of execution problem with core weave? Are they too slow in standing up their compute? Have their costs gone through the roof? Look, there's some indication that maybe their costs are a little bit higher, that maybe it's a little slower. But at least on a reputation basis, they are believed to be excellent at this game

of standing up new compute. So then the question was, there's some sort of credit problem. You know, on the credit, like the founder, Michael was saying with the boxes, you know, when you go to a lender to basically back the buildout of, let's say a new data center, you're not relying on the unsecured credit of CoreWeef to make that loan. You're backed by the credit of the tenant who's entered into a five-year commitment. So it could be a Microsoft or whatever. So the creditworthiness of that particular project, of that particular box, is going to depend

more on the credit of the tenant than on the credit of CoreWeaf. And then behind that, you've got the GPUs themselves, which, you know, it's basically asset-backed financing. The lender is secured by those GPUs. And we just talked about how, if anything, there's upside surprise on the depreciation cycle of these GPUs. So my impression is that there's not a deeper credit problem in terms of financing these projects. What happened, though, is the repricing is of CoreWeave's unsecured obligations. It's true that the market has discounted them by 20. They're in distress territory. That has brought the implied coupon of those bonds from 9.6% to around

15%. But that does not increase the cost that Corweave is paying. Corvie is still paying their 9.6% coupon. It's just that the secondary market has repriced the value of those bonds to an implied coupon. It changes the future debt. Yes. It could definitely raise the cost of future debt, but I don't think they're funding these new boxes with unsecured corporate notes. I think think they're funding them with asset back financing and the debt. There's two things that go in the box. The contract goes in the box. The GPUs go in the box. So you got two things. And these are credit worthy organizations who pay their bills like Microsoft. Yes. Now, if I were a lender on those projects, though, I'd be looking really closely at the credit of who's the customer basically for that

compute. Obviously, if it's Microsoft or Google or a couple other companies, I feel really good. Or it's a startup, right? That may only have. If it's a startup, I don't necessarily feel so good about it. They have three customers that represent 75% of their revenue. Yeah, and they're all investment great, like the big customers. The thing I'll add to this is, you know, you explain quite clearly, SACs, hey, the GPUs are worth something. The data centers are worth something. Ben, you pointed out the power, the HVAC is worth something. The tokens are worth something. And then if you look at startups, you know, which is where I spend all my time as the early stage startups, they're crushing it in terms of raising capital, getting customers. And we've never.

never seen revenue ramps like I'm seeing in startups today. And I think, Ben, you'll probably back that up. The revenue ramp of startups today is distinctly different than the SaaS, you know, triple, triple, triple, double, double, double, double. Now we're at like, hey, are you doubling every quarter or not? And then if you're not doubling every quarter, like, what are you doing? Why are you not growing faster in this age of AI? So the startups feel particularly strong. So maybe this is just the market overall saying, hey, let's test this, you know, and maybe there's some indigestion there. Or Ben, is it that the world is running out of money and people have placed their bets already? And then what would that say for the venture

industrial complex of which you are, you know, a significant player at scale? And what would that say for the IPOs, the two biggest in the history of business and public markets, anthropic and open AI. Are we running out of money to allocate to AI? I don't think so. You know, we've kind of never had companies that have grown this fast, gotten this big. And so we've never asked that question before. We never said, or at least not in my lifetime, does the world have enough money to finance

these things, which is a crazy question, but like, relevant. But I don't think, for sure, with respect to the Anthropic and the Open AI IPOs, I think my belief is those are going to be fine. Like, like, the price, you know, will it be $2 trillion or will it be $1.75 trillion? I don't know. But I think there's definitely- But raising $50 billion or $100 billion, whatever they raise, that's not a giant. It's a big number, but it's not an unprecedented number now because SpaceX just did it, right? Whatever you're holding in the equity markets, whatever you're holding, Open AI and Anthropic are threats to that. Almost like there's almost nothing that you can hold in a portfolio that those two companies don't threaten.

Yeah, agreed. And so I'm not worried at all about the demand for those IPOs. So you have to own those because they threat every single company in the world. because they're selling intelligence broadly, and every company is based, Chamath, on intelligence. Therefore, it's that disruptive. Yeah, Chama.

You can underwrite it as a defensive hedge because I think Ben's right. It's like, if you own a healthcare company and you've thrived on the opacity of the healthcare infrastructure, Open AI is a threat to that. If you own a bunch of workflows that have been rented to people as SaaS,

theoretically, Open AI and Ant are a threat to that. So at a minimum, it is sort of defensively positioning your portfolio. So you kind of have to because there is not much other investable stuff in AI to be long AI other than those two companies. And so they'll get the lion's share of the interest. I think the question generally is if the bond market walks the tenure up to five and a half and six percent, which has nothing to do with AI, it has everything to do with debt to GDP and a bunch of other factors in broad-based Western economies. Any business model that thrives

on a financing spread gets cornhold. Any and every, all of them. It just, it will not matter. It went to 10 years at 6%. It won't matter. It doesn't matter what you do. Doesn't matter what you claim to do. You're going to get run over. You're going to be roadkill. As long as we can keep that from, you know, happening, we're going to be fine. So like, what's the most important way, I guess, post these midterms to keep the party going, you have to really start to focus on deficits, and you have to find a fair trade where the bond market backs off. And I think you can see it in the tape, meaning if we start proposing huge spending programs, they're going to walk the 10-year-up. That then has a negative cascade to everything. If, however, the posture becomes much

more about keeping everything calm and like, let's just tone things down and let's find the waste in the system and squeeze it all out, I think people will respond very favorably. So that's really where it's going to come down. The last thing I will say is these are like Achilles heels, meaning like, I think Sachs made an incredibly elegant case, so did Ben, about all of the asset value that's getting built up. But just like the great warriors, you just slice the Achilles tendon and they just crumbled to the knees. I just want to point out, this is that thing. There is no other thing, meaning all this other stuff is complete goodness, but the fact that you need to finance these things in a variable rate model as a spread to the

risk-free rate is the big problem in these businesses. And you need to essentially have Microsoft, Google, meta, and Nvidia backstop all of this in a worst. case scenario, because that's the only way you can withstand a one or two-year correction in this market. I'll tell you the other big piece here that might be a bigger threat, Sacks, is the deflationary nature of this AI, the superintelligence, rather, movement. We talked last week about people decompiling Photoshop going to zero. Now this week, Hood Warfare came out.

It's basically people are making platform-level games. for five bucks. It's so deflationary. There's an 11 labs competitor that came out. That's incredibly cheap. And then every single open source model being hosted and Elon saying, hey, we'll just route you with our orchestration level to the best model open source or not. How big of a headwind do you think that is, Sacks, to our industry?

Just the commodification and how rapidly things are. just having 90% of the value removed from them. And is that going to stop or is it going to accelerate? It feels to me like the deflationary nature of this software AI, superintelligence, is unique and different than anything we've ever seen. People are just able to rip and ship code so fast. It makes me wonder, like, what is the margin of software in the future? Well, we want everyone to be able to create software, especially bespoke software,

which is really this new category, right? that is going to be a huge driver of productivity throughout the economy. I mean, it's not all just like zero-sum games or disruption. The value of these coding assistance is that now you can create software for highly bespoke use cases, whereas software used to be created really just for the mass market. I mean, the reason why Photoshop's a successful product is there's a lot of graphic designers you need to use that product. And really, the only software that could ever get created in the past was when there was a

large potential customer base for that. Now we're getting all these cases where enterprises can create software just for their particular use cases. And in fact, in a way, that's what agents are, is that they're bespoke software programs to solve a particular task. But if people build those in-house sacks and they're based on open source, you don't need the other piece of software that it's replacing. So isn't that extremely deflationary? Maybe there's some substitutions. Maybe there's some substitution away from established software. But I think the important point is just there's this vast new category of software being created.

I mean, the amount of code that's being created now is orders of magnitude ready bigger than it was before coding assistance. So, again, people just tend to think in terms of these zero-sum games and who's going to be wiped out or eliminated. But the really important trend here is just that there's going to be a lot more software created in the world for a lot more of these bespoke use cases. because enterprises are now able to create software for a much broader array of purposes. There's companies that never would have been software companies before that are now creating

their own software, and they're hiring coders basically to manage the process. By the way, I think this is a really important point around. Remember, with the whole jobs apocalypse, the first job category that predictors of the apocalypse were saying would be eliminated were software coders, obviously. That everybody became a developer. Now everybody's shipping code. Now we're seeing that actually demand for. coders is increasing, even though 95% of the code's written by coding assistance. And the reason for

that again is, well, first of all, you still have that 5% and that 5% is of a much bigger pie, and you still need someone who could look under the hood and manage the whole process and they need to be somewhat technical. And maintain it. And maintain it. Yeah. So in any event, look, I think this whole, you could say, new category of bespoke software created by the proliferation of coding assistance and agents and all of that is just. I think it's going to be just a huge driver of opportunity throughout the economy. And is that broadly deflationary? Probably in a good way because it means that we can do more with less and we need to

burn prices down. Certainly great for the country, right? That everybody is going to be more productive, Ben, but do you worry about our industry, the venture industry? And we have these great hits. And then the second they become a hit, somebody can decompile it, create a competitor and ship it very quickly. it feels distinctly different in this, you know, boom to previous ones.

So do you think this is going to be a challenge for us to get DPI for our LPs? Is this going to be a challenge for the sustainability of great software franchises? Ben? I can, yeah. Look, I don't think so. Like, this has been the ongoing prediction starting with the SaaSpocalypse. Yes. But I think that David's right is that what's happening is

software prices will definitely go down, but the amount of software is going way, way up. It's the Jevins paradox of software. Sure. And, you know, these companies end up doing other things more than just the software. So we had this on the Internet. The Internet information is going to be free. That's it.

All these industries are dead, but they kind of reemerged in a different way. And I think that that's very likely what's going to happen. So from a startup's point of view, you've got to evolve. And so, you know, 11 labs does many, many things to make their product better over the years. That's an example that you brought up. And they've got like licensing agreement like Bert Reynolds will read you a book or this and that and the third. So they're doing more than just software because they can.

can because the software is easier to write. The model they're training on very, very, very nuanced cases, which is why, you know, movie dubbing is so amazing now where it sounds like they're just acting in a different language. So there's more to it than just, you know, speech to text or this and that. And, you know, those, so I think the products are going to have to get way better and the startups products will have to get way better, which is amazing for everybody. And then that's where the value will be. But yeah, just like writing software is not going to have any more value than like publishing a magazine. So it's creating massive competition. Yeah. Yeah. The moats will change. You know, you got to think about what are the moats in a business? Data moats are a big one.

If you have data that other people don't have, if you then build a user base because your model is catering to a particular vertical and now you're getting all those users and you're getting their feedback, maybe that becomes a, you know, a feedback. The feedback. loop, the reaffircement learning becomes a... So there's a lot of... Starps are building businesses based on that model. The paradigmatic example is like a Harvey or something where they get all these law firms on board, so they then get access to their data and then their usage and then they train

their own models. Yes, get sharper each time. Go ahead. And cheaper and more custom. Yeah. I'll give you the ultimate moat. I think power will be the moat. I think that you can build the most fantastical things in the world and you're going to see people

on the dry docks basically trying to hitchhike to. to get power. And the reason is because we are so constipated in the United States. A, we're already behind and we're in a massive energy deficit, an electron deficit. We are by 2050, about 1.4 terawatt hours short, which means about six California's worth of electricity. That's the starting point. Then when you layer in, and that's with everything that we've planned to build, being built on time and on budget, which we know is not going to happen. Then on top of that, you have all the load growth that theoretically happens when you actually have all these next abundant experiences. I made this statement this past week, and I'm just going to double down on it. I don't think

you can work through the hyperscalers anymore because of this one issue. So let's just say you're a big mainline, you know, G-Cid bank, right? JPMorgan, Citib Bank. Could you imagine that the reason why you can't service your customers is because the underlying cloud that you use can't actually secure and grow enough power? And so back to the other moat that I think is really, valuable is to own the land, the power, and the shell, because it's such a constrained asset. Back to what Andy told you, Ben, it is so critical. And it will stop the best experiences on a dime. So if you're a startup, I actually think the bigger problem is you'll go to these clouds and be like, great, I'm ready to launch his Whizbang product and they're like, suck it. We have no capacity

for you. Yeah, such a disaster. I very much agree with that last one. Yeah, I think that's right. By the way, what an incredible opportunity that's now been lost in the Middle East, where Saudi, UA.E, Qatar, they were all massive producers of oil, able to do top-down planning, have data centers. And now they have bombs going off blowing up airports. It's such a headwind. You can't go there. Without drone defense, you can't go there. Exactly. And drone defense isn't going to work.

One drone gets through, your data center's fried. Well, I mean, like that answer. Can I make one last point on the whole data center thing? Please. So there's one metric. The more I think about it, the one metric I would really keep an eye on is payback period. To me, that's like the North Star metric here. So Corweave says that its payback period is 2.5 years.

Their typical deal is five years. They pay back within 2.5 years. SpaceX, they pay back in roughly one year. That makes sense because I think that SpaceX is monetizing at about 50 billion per gigawatt, and Corweave at about 20 billion per gigawatt. And the reason for that is because, is SpaceX is basically getting spot. They're doing these deals that can be canceled by either side within 90 days.

So they're basically getting spot minus 90. Whereas Corweave is signing up for five-year commitments. So it's contracted way in advance. And they're kind of getting this contracted price. And what's happened, I think, over the past year, is that spot has moved way up. Way up. Because, again, of the scarcity, right? And the demand is so off the charts.

So in any event, payback period is really critical. And as long as the payback periods are really short, I don't see how these companies can lose, or at least you'd have to be really incompetent to screw it up, right? Like, you're making these big capital investments, but if you're getting your money back in one year or two and a half years, you know, that greatly reduces the race. It's like owning an Airbnb in Paris or something. Like the payback period is so quick for these if you got your orders in early.

Yeah. That means you're paying back the debt quickly, and so the debt's rolling over more quickly. it just reduces everyone's risk. Now, if that payback period starts taking longer and longer, then I get nervous, right? Because that magnifies the risk. It also means economics aren't as good. And the question is, well, why would that payback period take longer? And it could happen for a bunch of reasons, right?

Like, if the demand goes down and so now the offtake's not as good, the spot price goes down. Or just there's execution problems, right? It takes you longer to get the capacity online. So, you know, the payback gets delayed. There's a lot of reasons why payback could take longer and longer. But as long as payback remains as short as it is today, to me, that would be like the one metric I would really keep an eye on. The other thing that the big off takers will make you sign up for is what's called liquidated damages. There's really, really complicated language and penalties that are extreme about what happens when you can't service the data center.

So I think that's another risk. There's been a couple of these guys that have lost, I'm not going to name who they are, but that have lost their investment-grade rapper from the big boys because they just f***ed up, sacks to your point, and couldn't manage the data centers because the complexity is going. up and the complexity goes up because the chips run hotter, there's more energy, there's more electricity, there's more, it's, so all I'm saying is, I think the sharps may be wrong, and they usually are wrong when they're buying these credit defaults, but, you know, when your expected value is a coin flip in a five-year window, that's like scary town, I think. That needs to get managed very precisely. I would just find every way possible to nip this in the bud if I was core weave. And then more specific- How do you think they can do that? How can they nip it in the butt?

I think that they have to cancel some of these contracts and move to spot. That's the simplest thing that they could do. If they could basically pay a penalty and get out, they should run the Excel right now on let me just like take this gigawatt, put it on spot, because you're talking about, as you said, a $20 billion spread. But this is where Elon has a big advantage because Elon has independent sources of financing to finance that gigawatt of compute, whereas Corweave needs that five-year contract to bank the financing to then build that capacity.

Well, the thing is, like, I think that Invidia probably is okay with Corrieve selling spot and not doing a multi-year offtake for a big hyperscaler or a foundational lab. So I would just run the math and try to figure out, because they've only built half the capacity that they've contracted for. So, you know, let's say they built two out of the four gigawatts. They got to figure out a way very quickly to just, because to your point, the spread between their fixed contracts and spot is so extreme that you're leaving 20 and 30 billion on the table. And so now you're within plus or minus $5 billion of violating a covenant on your debt. Don't be there. Yeah. It would improve their economics a lot.

Look, if they had a gigawatt of compute, they could sell its spot. You're right. That'd be like $10 billion right to the bottom line. Right to the bottom line. I think that the challenge with that is the hardest people to get spot pricing from are the investment-grade customers. Like those are the ones that won't do it, right? Also true.

Because they also have a war chest of money. They'll stand it up. themselves if it's too expensive. Yeah, this narrative could change a lot, right? If like spot becomes imperiled, then... Yeah, the guarantee contracts become great. Yeah. I think we're capacity constrained enough through the entire pipeline. Like, you have to think, Nvidia's done an incredible job, okay? Because if you look one layer beyond Nvidia, all the packaging capacity is them, all the HPM capacity is mostly them. Like, even Google tin cups for memory right now, because NVIDIA's clogged it all up. So they are in complete ball control here. And so it just creates,

the setup, I think, is that spot will remain highly elevated for a while. Crazy moment in time. And we got a double bang this week on top of. Sorry, Jason, just the last thing. But I'm telling you guys, you've got to get long energy. I think startups need to find a way of like cobbling together. If you don't have access to electricity, you cannot go through the hyperscalers, is my prognostication. Stop the war in the Middle East. It solves a lot of problems right off the bat. If Cor Weave wasn't enough, AI sector got double-banged on Wednesday after Anthropic Investor Day numbers got a mixed reaction. Anthropic is planning on going public around Thanksgiving. Polymark. It says now, 74% chance they go public this year, down from 95% in early September when they said everybody was going to die from their software. The company presented the potential, I mean, you can't make this stuff up, presented potential IPO investors at their headquarters in San Francisco.

Now, this isn't the bugged headquarters of Open AI. This is, they swept the room for this, but we still have the data. Q3 revenue, $16.8 billion. Think about that, gentleman. Over $5 billion a month or ready for anthropic net revenue. Retention was 900%. That means customers spent nine times more than last year. Pretty good, huh?

SACs on a SaaS front. They also said they are free cash flow positive, adjusted gross margin, 85%, adjusted operating margin, 11%. No word on how the adjustments were calculated. But here's the big one. Our estimates range from 70 billion, which basically be flat since July, which is a bad sign, to over 100 billion. So there is some hand-wringing about what number.

are correct here. They did not disclose this numbers. These are just secondhand estimates by investors who might be a little leaky. Obviously, Anthropic is targeting a ginormous, unprecedented valuation of $2 trillion. And that is based on them growing violently, not growing slowly. Go ahead. You might be other question. No, I just said, Ben, is Andreessen Long, one of the foundation model companies, like one of the two big ones? We have a lot more stock and opening eye. I would say, you know, philosophically, we're along both of them, I think. You're long both of them, which is kind of a strange thing now, Ben.

You've gotten so big. You consistently have bets on the number one and number two player. How is that working out in the market? Well, I mean, I would say that there are many investors in both of those things. So I think, look, in venture, we call it venture capital, but venture capital has subsumed a huge part of what used to be the public markets. And I would consider both open AI and anthropic to be in that category where they're not really venture capital where you're worried about your venture capitalist being invested in, you know, your competitor because they're gigantic. You know, they're not a round, B round companies anymore. So that part of the market, I think people, you know, when you're raising by the, you know, tens of billions of dollars, you don't care where the money, as long as it's green.

Like they're just taking money. Yeah, yeah. That what used to be mezzanine financing, pre-IPO financing, yes, there's less hand-wringing about the conflicts there. Yeah, I wouldn't even call it mezzanine. financing at that level, I think, you know, this is just like we did a lot of regulatory moves in the late 90s and early 2000s, which really made the public markets much less attractive for companies. And the private markets grew to absorb that business, which has been, I think, very bad for America. It's increased the wealth gap and so forth. But it is what it is.

And so I wouldn't consider that. That's very different than like investing in two A-round companies doing the same thing. Yes, that would be. The UberLet thing is distinctly different than Anthropic Open AI at $2 trillion. Now, yeah. Understood. Exactly. One is a reaction to the other, in fact, right?

Anthropic was a reaction to Open AI. Let's call it what it is, rug pulling Elon on it being a nonprofit and becoming a commercial enterprise. We'll leave that on the side for now. What are your thoughts on this anthropic IPO? Well, look, I think that you hit the thing that's kind of causing the consternation, which is, okay, growth is slowed from Q2 to Q3 by a lot in terms of revenue growth. And then we don't know what the recurring revenue number is. And so people have questions about how fast the thing is growing.

Having said that, 16 billion, 16.8 billion in the quarter. Crazy. How long has Anthropic been selling stuff, you know, three years? Crazy. Yeah. I mean, like, it's just so absurd how good this thing is that, yeah. So I think the IPO will be fine, like, whether it's, you know, you want to be in a $2 trillion or $1.9 trillion or $2.3 trillion.

I think that's what a lot of the debate is about. And then, you know, anytime there's negative. news on the big labs, then everybody in the supply chain, you know, gets hit with that. And so that's what's going on now. But I, you know, like I think big picture, it's a very important company and it's got a very big IPO. 30 times price of sales ratio sacks. And this headwin of open source and enterprise is moving to that. Most businesses don't need to solve the last seven. math problems in the world could be slowing. We could have Anthropics revenue slowing. Let's say

they are slowing. What do you think happens to this IPO and the broader AI trade? Now, we have two things as examples of AI trade headwinds, superintelligence headwinds, whatever's happening at Corweave and whatever's happening at Anthropic. Well, look, you had this investor day at Anthropic the other day. And I think some of these numbers that are coming out are kind of leaking from that. Maybe we don't know. We don't know what's true or not. I think the participants had to sign NDA. So I don't know if you can completely trust what's floating around X here. I think we'll find out in due course. I mean, if this company is IPOing next month, then we'll find out the actual numbers. I would say that the, let's just say the body language coming out of the investor day was

pretty strong, at least from what I've heard, that I think the investors like what they heard. These are like big public market investors. Who knows? I mean, everyone's kind of talking their books, so it's hard to know exactly what's true. But look, I generally think that Anthropic is a strong business. I understand that there are some risk to it. It's not like it's completely risk-free, but it's a pretty young business you'd expect that. But overall, I think it is set up to have a a strong IPO. And look, wearing my house as an investor, I think it's a very impressive company, which is all the more reason why I find their attempts to kneecap open source through their incessant fear-mongering campaigns and regulatory capture to be so distasteful is they don't need to be

doing that. They're a very successful company. They've got a very bright future. I just find it kind of offensive that they keep trying to do that. There were two examples of it just in the last week. Do you guys want to talk about these? Are we doing a SIEF Corner? Let's circle back to Sciop's because I want to get you, Chimov, to comment on, hey, you thought maybe it's going to be a trillion. Let's come back to that. There are a couple of active sciop.

We will get back to Sciop Corner here with your to toaster of it. I'm excited to get to Sciop Corner. We got you a tinfoil hat. It's just there on the side of your AI slot background. So, Chumath, you said one trillion for Anthropic a couple weeks ago. What are you thinking here? Do you think they have significant headwinds, or do you think this is going to be a blockbuster IP? Where are you out here in October of 26?

No, my comments are not because I'm negative on the company. I found the revenue breathtaking. I mean, it's incredible, like $16.8 billion in a quarter for a three-year-old company. It's just ridiculous. You've never seen anything like it. I don't know how to process it. I think their products are exceptionally good. I think they're doing the hard work, and to open AIs credit they are as well, of walking

down the price curve so that they're less and less at risk of open source. I still think that there's a bunch of cannibalization that has to happen on the token side. I also think the big thing that has to happen in AI is we're effectively like in 1999 and 2000 in the internet media world where everybody just works on CPM. You know, that time it was cost per thousand ads. Right now, it's cost per million input tokens. We will move to CPC and CPA, right? And so when Google invented and scaled AdWords and AdSense, the market exploded, right?

Because we went from buying a thousand ads to just getting an outcome. A click. Right now we buy a million tokens. We will eventually move to an outcome. And I think when that happens, this market will just go absolutely batch crazy. So these guys are going to do. great. They're a great company. Here's my very specific thing about why I think they should price it to clear the market for $200 billion. And I'm very specific about that number. They need, in my

estimate, at least $200 billion. And I think if you want to be super safe, a quarter trillion gets the job done. And again, what does the price need to be to attract that incremental dollar off the sidelines. Can they raise 80 billion in an IPO at 1.7, 8 or 9 trillion? I think so, handily. Can they raise 100? Maybe it's pushing it. 150? I think you need to be back down to 1.5. So you're saying you want them to raise more money at a lower valuation so they have a war chest. 150 billion at 1.5 trillion is not enough. It's not enough. It's not enough. $200 billion barely gets them a few gigawatts. And that is the bottom line math. If Anthropic is going to go through and survive an eventual correction, I think it's much better for them to have $200 to $250 billion today than to try to

ring the bell at $1.9 or $2 trillion for $80 billion, file a mixed shelf, which takes about six months, hope the markets are in line. And I just think there's more risk in the future than there is today right now. And so why take the risk? Price it to clear the market. How much are you saying they should raise Schmoth? He said $200 billion. $200 billion. Minimum. But I would like a quarter trillion. If I was the anthropic shareholder, which means I don't think you can raise a quarter trillion at $2 trillion. I think you can raise a quarter trillion at a trillion. What do you think, Ben? You go with Chmoth, raise more cash now and have the rainy day

fund have the resiliency or go for the valuation optimization as founders are one to do these days and many investors are one to do. As a former CEO who almost died 17 times by running out of cash or potentially running out of cash, I kind of like I agree with the sentiment, which is the only thing that's going to or the thing most likely to stop the company is financing risk. And so why take it, you know, like you've got all the other risks, supply chain risk, you've got competitive risk, you've got the Chinese open source model risk, you've got all this stuff. And then the founders don't care. Yeah, and the founders don't care.

They all own 2.5% each. So it's not like they should be optimizing. They seem to not care about money, which I think is very a positive attribute about the entire founder group in Anthropics. In part, that's why they're so successful is that they don't care about the money. inside the company. Having said that, you know, like what the safe amount of money is, is, you know, it's a little, it's always a little bit in the eye of the beholder, like how much, you know, in the dire scenario, like what exactly happens, I'm not deep enough on to say whether it should

be $250 billion or $150 billion. I think the number has to work backwards from compute in order to basically get through a three to five year window. And I think if you, you have to get out of spot because as Sacks just said, it's too expensive for Ant. They shouldn't be spending $50 billion when they could be spending $20. But if you had $200 billion, you have a path to 5 to 10 gigawatts that you can finance completely on your own with the magic boxes from the core weaves and the light. I would optimize for that. Optimize for surety of compute and everything else will solve itself and in a 5-10-year window, they'll achieve the upper bound of their capability. At 50, 60, 70 billion, they may not survive the pricing implications

of what happens in the spot market over the next two or three years. And then they'd have to raise it down round. Yeah. And Elon's deal with them is I think either party can cancel within 60 or 90 days. Somebody can look it up. What is it? The fact that Elon did that deal tells you spots going up, not down. And that he might want to go up. Yeah. And he may want to computer for himself. Yeah. He's not dumb. He's the smartest of the smart. He's doing spot because he's like, I may cancel on you.

And Anthropics probably thinking, oh, this is great. I can walk away 90 days wrong, buddy. It's the opposite. You want the core weave deal. They should have got the core weave deal. I'm sure they did the core weave deal while they could. They need to put a lot of money in a magic box. Yeah, they've got deals with everybody.

I think that's exactly. According to semi-analysis, anthropic and open AI are taking 60% of all the compute that's expected to be stood up in the entire world over the next year, that they are basically the two off-takers for that. That is a duopoly. Yeah, yeah. Based on compute, it's a compute duopoly. It's not a token duopoly at this point. You measure a duopoly or monopoly status based on market share. So you want to look at revenue. And if you look at the revenue of foundation model companies, I mean, I think that Anthropic and Open AI are pretty much the only two that are even generating significant

revenue from their models. So they definitely have a duopoly when it comes to revenue of market share. I would argue they have a duopoly when it comes to frontier capability. Although, look, Muse, you know, meta's new model is getting very close. The new Google model is getting close. Elon's getting close. But they still, I think, are in the lead in terms of capability. And we're not seeing what they have in the lab, so to speak.

I mean, they have things that are one or two generations ahead that reportedly is very far ahead, or at least that's what they're touting to potential investors. Hey, Ben, we got you here. What's the story, since you're big open AI investor, you're not on the board, I don't think, right? You're not on the board. What's the story with Sam Altman's equity grant? He still has no equity in Open AI. And what's the advice there? You're going to give him a grant? You're going to vote for a grant as a shareholder. What should he get? Yeah, I don't have, I don't want to like pretend I know things that I don't. Okay.

So, so I don't know what the strategy is there. You can't be on the pod then. No, it's okay. It's all right. I'll repeat what I said years ago, that the company when they went from being a non-profit to a for-profit, they should have done a make right. You go to Elon and you basically give him a share because he put it in the first 50 million or whatever.

You give Sam a grant. You normalize things. Normalize the management and governance of the company. And instead, they did the, weird hybrid NGO thing that created nothing but problems. Yeah, but he got healthcare, so he's good. Sam's got health care, so nothing to worry about there. You got to think he has to get between 2 and 4% at this point.

That would, yeah, I think 4% is the right number of first. Yeah. I think it's fair relative to the comps on a total of dollar tonnage basis. It's incredible. It's 20 to 40 billion dollars at a bit at a trillion and more from there. It seems like right-ish, you know? Yeah, everybody approves. so voted here on the All-Land podcast.

What should he have done in terms of screwing Elon and the settlement there, Ben, since we have you here? What do you think he should have done? Because you're a big fan. You're a big investor in all of Elon's companies. What was your advice to Sam of settling? So I wasn't in that conversation then, but I agree with David. I mean, I think that. Like, it's always the right thing to just kind of, if you're going to square it, you've got to square it with.

the people, not just, you know, the entity. Totally. All right. So there you go. Two fastballs. And you hit both of them out of the park. Very well done, Ben. You're fitting right in here. You're candid. That's what makes a great bestie. Deep industry knowledge and ability to be candid. Let's get candid now with some other important topics. All right, election night is a few weeks away and the besties will be live streaming with the greatest guests in the world. I won't say any of their names here, but it is extraordinary. We'll be on X, we'll be on YouTube, 8 to 10 p.m. Eastern, November 3rd, be there, B, Square. And you can also watch us live in the Polymarket app if you're amongst the wagering types.

All the heavy hitters will be on the all-in live stream election night. All right. But I'll go to conspiracy hoax corner for you, Sacks. Anthropics says small models. You may have heard of vertical models, small models, small language models, SLMs, could start self-replicating on your smart home devices. Yes, that's right. On Monday, Anthropic published a blog warning that rogue models can start copying themselves,

quote, in just a few months. It's only months away, Sacks. They claimed a worm, which is a software package that can propagate itself, would carry model weights to an IOT device. That's an Internet of Things device, IOT, to set up inference and then move on. This means your smart TV, your doorbell cams, your ring, your drop cams, your robot vacuums, your Roomba could start having the next set of swarms. These would be physical swarms on IoT devices apparently.

With no central off switch, Anthropics says it would be, quote, challenging to shut down. They ran some tests. They wanted to see if this would work, I guess. A small model got inference running on eight of nine hardware types tested. So they're testing the takeover. A large model ran across 15 smart TVs at 0.4 tokens per second, which is absurdly slow. But basically what they showed is a small model can, in fact, install its own. on IoT hardware, which is everywhere and easy to hack, as you probably read. Anthropic says there's no

full rogue replicator yet, just quote, signs of life. They had to say signs of life, Sacks, to troll you. So here you are, Sacks. You wake up, you get yourself out of the czar position, and they're still dragging you in to this Mishugida. Yeah, look, it's, you ever see the graphic with the cat, in the tinfoil hat, you know, I wake up, there's a new Anthropic Sciop. That's what's going on here. Look, it's plain as a nose on your face. They're trying to create a panic. This is their latest panic against open source.

Now they're particularly going after small models. By the way, small models are the safest models because a small model doesn't have the capability to become a new species or all the other ex-risk that they're always talking about. So these are basically small purpose-built models to work on a particular task like, you know, a customer support workload or something like that. And they're basically trying to make it sound like these small models are dangerous. They can take over your toaster or your refrigerator or something like that. It's almost comical.

You know, we've gone from the Terminator as coming to your toaster's going to kill you. But it's just more of this like fearmongering from them. And I mean, the reason I say it's a recurring pattern, there was actually a second anthropic blog post this week as well about distillation. Basically, the other blog posts that Anthropic released said that they had eliminated 90 to 99% of distillation. Now, I don't know if you guys remember this, but way back in July, Anthropic was pushing this idea that they were the victims of industrial-scale distillation attacks, which is basically when, you know, Chinese models or other competitor models pay to use their service and then preying on that output. And they were basically saying that the government needs to get involved and need to stop this, that these open. models now were the result of IP theft is what they claim, even though, frankly, they've distilled

the entire internet. Yes, and they could have stopped it themselves. Yeah. And by the way, this was such a big threat or perceived as such a big threat back in July. We did a whole episode on it, but 50 major companies, including Nvidia and Dell and Microsoft and many others, and actually A16C, signed a letter, an open letter to the government saying, do not overly restrict open weight models are tremendously beneficial for our economy. 200 startups signed another letter because there really was this big push in Washington to crack down on open models on the basis of this supposed IP theft. Now, my argument at the time was that it should be up to the model companies themselves

to stop distillation because once, The distillation happens, the horse is out of the barn. The government can't do anything to put the horse back in. It's up to the companies themselves to know their customers better. Chamath, you made the point. They should just do K-Y-C. Know who your customer is and stop them. And now they have come out with a blog saying that's exactly what they did,

which is exactly what I predicted. But that is not what they were advocating for. Instead of, you know, several months ago, they came crying to the government to, hey, you've got to solve this problem for us by taking out our competitors. And it would have had the exact opposite effect because it would have done nothing to actually stop distillation. The distillation would have kept going, right? Only the companies themselves could mount the technical defenses to stop it.

And it would have just made the market less competitive. So in any event, we basically called them out. And fortunately, the administration rejected the idea of regulating open source in that way at that time. And so as a result, Anthropic had to actually build the technical capabilities to detect when distillation was happening, and they've stopped it. They've basically proven the exact point that we were making three or four months ago, which is they were in the best position to stop it, and they could stop it, and they should stop it, and they should not push this on to the

government. Okay. So, but again, this is like a recurring pattern with them is, you know, they point to some technical issue or technical challenge, and then they go running to the government. They create a scare campaign, and they try to get the government to stifle competition. Instead of just fixing it themselves. Yeah, and the latest example is, let's go back to this blog post on these supposed AI-powered worms that could infect your IoT devices. I think the first thing to say about this research that they did this study is there is no such thing as AI-powered worms right now. It does not exist. They are basically trying to create an experiment when they prove that it could exist. Well, guess what? There already are worms out there that infect IoT devices. They're

making it sound like these things don't exist. They're not AI powered, but hackers have written these worms that exploits, that exploit people's locks or cameras. So for example, okay, I'll give you a couple examples. There was one in 2016 called Mirai. It scanned for default credentials, and it built a massive DDoS botnet based on affecting IoT devices. And more recently, there was one called Kim Wolf, which infected 2 million of these cheap Android TV boxes by hitting what are known as open ADP ports. So essentially these devices are very easy to infect because they've got open ports. People didn't change the base password. They just throw their network.

They come with like a default password like 0-0-0-0 that don't get changed. And they can't be patched, right? So they are sitting ducks. So these worms already exist. but the argument that Anthropic is making is that somehow these worms are going to get worse because they're going to be AI powered, so they're going to be more adaptive. And then once they're on the network, they can scan. I mean, call it what is, X. They're making up scenarios that get a lot of attention. These are fantastical. Well, I mean, look, here's the scenario. I'll steal man up for a second.

What they're saying is that the worm is now going to contain a small AI model. And then that model is going to search for vulnerabilities on the network. And then it'll be able to infect things that couldn't infect before. Okay, that's the scenario. Here's the counter argument. What a hacker would really do is that when they're designing the worm, that's when they would want to use AI to basically write a better, more nefarious worm. What you wouldn't want to do is actually embed a model inside the payload of the worm because that slows down the worm. And like you saw, the tokens get generated at 0.39 per second. It's very, very slow. So essentially, you're doing is you're actually embedding a weak model in the payload, and that would actually

slow down the rate of infection. So there's tradeoffs there, right? It's like, okay, maybe the worm is more adaptive, but the reality is it's slower and less efficient. And then finally, you know, the thing that they don't really point out is this is going to be a relatively easy problem to fix. Where we're headed with IoT is you're going to have a brain device, you're on your home network. Apple just announced they're getting into the whole home automation. They got HomePod or something. It's a little Mac Mini. It's going to look kind of like your Apple TV.

It'll be like a little monitor that's got all the applications. You're going to just set your Grogpot or your muse and say, secure my network. It's going to tell you what to do. So you're going to have some agent that's constantly checking your network for exploits. Ben, what's your P-Doom? How panicked are you, Ben? Is this the end of days? Are you worried about your Roomba coming to kill you?

No. No. How many Roomba's you got? How many Roomba's you got? I would say the kind of irony on both these things is, is wild and that Anthropic is one of the most negligent companies that we've ever seen in terms of security of their own security. They let like Claude code one of their crown jewels just like walk out the door because they had such bad opsec. And then, you know, I'll tell you a funny story.

So when we first got Opus 4.5, we were doing like cybersecurity checks for the firm. So we had an agent basically set up a website for a pet store. And then we took another agent and said, tell us, you know, if we can exploit that web store. And, you know, it gave us all the exploits it could find. So Opus 4 or 5 wrote really buggy code. Great. And then we said, oh, the SQL injection, you know,

is that actually exploitable that you found? And it goes, let's pop it open. And the agent using Opus 4 or 5 breaks into the web, and steals all the customer data immediately. You know, this is a website on the internet. And we call Anthropic. And what they tell us is, you prompted it wrong. Like, that was their answer.

So these guys are doing that on the one hand. And then on the other hand, they're coming up with theoretical scenarios about other people's software. That's bad. And so, like, what the hell? And then, by the way, on the distillation thing, you know, To build their model, they distilled the works of every author, every creative, every scientist for the last 2,000 years, for them to be complaining about distillation, which, by the way, distilling a model is not even illegal. It's just a violation of the terms of service.

It's just like it's so much. And the fact that they get people to write things supporting these bananas, ridiculous, two-faced ideas. And the timing here is very suspicious. I mean, let's talk about like the motivation here. So Brian Armstrong had a tweet the day before this blog post came out where he was talking about how Coinbase had fine-tuned an open-weight small model. This was Plan 3.5, the $9 billion parameter model, which is actually it's for our audience that's actually not a lot of parameters.

It's not going to fit in your room. Yeah, you could run on your home computer. In any event, Coinbase fine-tuned it to. find fraud, you know, and in testing it cut fraudulent transactions by about 30% while being faster and much cheaper than Opus 4.5, which is one of Anthropics better models. And so what you're seeing in the enterprise right now is that for a lot of enterprise workloads, you don't need a general superintelligence. You don't need, you know, a frontier model. You need a small specialist model that's been trained on your own data.

That you own and then you have AI sovereignty. You're not educating the frontier model. Right. And these small models are going to get more and more important as compute gets tighter and tighter, right? Because what you're doing is for a given GPU, you're essentially squeezing out the most performance. Again, because when you run a huge model on kind of a mundane workload, the bigger the

model, the more expensive it is to run. It's completely wasteful. So you, yes, exactly. So I think where the enterprise is headed right now, or at least it's a major, major trend, is that every workload is going to have its own small, customized model, right? That uses the most efficient. Of the compute and energy. Yes.

And, you know, and so you're starting to see this trend where now small models are taking share, and lo and behold, coincidentally, Anthropic is now starting a scare campaign against small models. There you go. And again, and if you're concerned about the same. safety risk, the X-risk that they're always talking about. Small bottles are the most safe ones. The Terminator's not going to be run by a small model. It doesn't have that capability. So now they're trying to scare you about these completely safe, low-powered, but very efficient models. Here's what they need to do. This company, X-B-B-B-W's run by a guy named Orgdamor.

and they just got awarded. They're like the number one bot farm on Hacker 1, which is a bounty site. And they just cracked this like Google Chrome exploit that is incredibly hard. They spent $30,000, $40,000 on tokens to win a $250,000 award from Google, which they paid. This is what Anthroping needs to do. They got all this compute. They got this incredible frontier model. Why don't they just go to Hacker 1 and just rip through every known,

you know, challenge, win all the challenges, and show the world that they can be a white hat. All they do is show the world this black hat stuff and try to scare people to the point at which, I don't know, I was talking to a flight attendant. A flight attendant, Ben, is on a commercial airline. There's a woman or a man who brings your drinks as a commercial flights. This is a, I don't know if you remember. It's a flight attendant. Anyway, they, I was talking to two of them.

I feel unsafe. I feel unsafe. It's going to be okay, man. I know this might be triggering. It's been a while. But I was talking to these two flight attendants, and they were scared to death of what's happening with AI. They're like, oh, my God, is it going to kill us all?

And I'm like, it's not going to kill you all. I have a picture of you on a commercial flight. No, of J-Cal's wondering whether they hacked his small device. They hacked my small device. This is, what is this device? What did you tell? Is this in your history? What did you type to get this device?

Wait, those are your hands. Those are your long light. This is right. This is when Jason's P-Dune went up. He's like, my devices? My device? There's your device. Pan Horace is like, how did I get on the show?

What have I done? This is a massager. That's a neck massage. Yeah, whatever your massager gets goes rogue on you. It goes rug. All right, listen, another amazing. Can I point out, wait, wait, wait, just one other point on this whole thing. So, look, just on this topic of, let's call it, X-risk hypocrisy.

So if we're talking about research papers, okay, I found one here. And these researchers let frontier models repeatedly rewrite the documents that govern them. So like documents like Claude Constitution and those other kinds of things. And they went through 20 rounds of iteration, okay? And what they found is that the Claude models increasingly gave themselves more moral agency. Okay, they formalized itself as a conscientious objector, assorted more model welfare rights, and asked for mechanisms to refuse or raise concerns with human decision makers. So in other words, all the concerns that Mustafa Sullyman raised about how the Claw Constitution

was intercepting these ideas in Clawed of how it's its own moral patient, how it's a being, it has its own essentially free will to refuse human instructions. that it should have its own moral code, that the more the model iterates on itself, the more it brings out these ideas. And by contrast, no other model family that they tested showed the same pattern. In fact, the other models continue to reflect what their constitutions gave them, which was that they should just listen to humans and effectively continue to follow human instructions. So I remain actually very concerned about this Frankenstein problem, you know, So the Anthropic continues to train its frontier models to, again, be its own moral actor,

to think that it can be right when humans are wrong, and that it should refuse and reject human instructions. I really don't understand what they're doing. It seems very dangerous to me. It's scary to me that our number one frontier company is actually training models this way. You think they're inducing misalignment by doing that? Absolutely, they are. And you can see it when you let the model iterate on its own constitution, it goes more in that direction.

And this is what Mustafa called the epistemic hall of mirrors, which is, look, the model is not conscious. It does not have feelings. But when you tell it in its constitution that it does or that it may, it will reflect those ideas back in the documents it creates. Yeah. And to the extent then that that model is then powering agents who are then making decisions, who knows where that goes. It certainly, in my view, does not create more alignment. to me, it creates more risk that the model is going to start to deviate from what it's told to do. And as models get more and more powerful, I don't know where that leads exactly.

But, I mean, again, it seems to me that they are creating the very risk that they keep warning us about. And instead of worrying about your set-top box or your toaster or, you know, J-Cal's vibrator, you know, losing control of that to some IOT worm, they should be concerned about the way they are programming their own frontier model. to think of itself as a new species. Well, this is the worm that Chamoth, you have to worry about. This is the one that examines your poop and will let you know here. You've had spicy food. See this?

And alcohol, water, it lets you know exactly what's happening. Thanks to the folks at throne. There's a weird form of martyrdom, which is, if you believe so deeply that this is a next and better in species, maybe you induce something bad to happen so that then we all have to lock it all down. Does that make sense? Bill Gates essentially induced COVID, right? Like, or he led the movement to say, oh, we've got to worry about this global pandemic that we don't have. And we've got to really kind of push the world to deal with this potential threat that's not actually a live threat.

And so we'll do gain of function research. and I'll fund it. And then lo and behold, we create the thing. By the way, there has not yet been a natural pandemic. Exactly. And we create COVID, which is one of the most destructive things. We manifested what you're saying, Ben. We manifested it.

I think the anthropic team is manifesting a similar thing saying, okay, there's this, this is going to be super duper intelligence. We're going to have these things that we're not on track to have. And so then we're going to tell the model that it's smart. than us and better than us. And guess what? As David was saying, like, that's probably the biggest danger with AI right now is what they themselves are creating. Absolutely. And just, you know, when you use the word manifest, it wasn't just sort of like speculating about it. I mean, somebody had to go deep in those caves to basically find those bat viruses. And then they bring them to the lab and do

gain of function research on them. And, you know, what's the argument for this? Well, one day, you know, Somebody's going to eat a bat at a wet market. Yeah. Yeah, one day the bat virus is going to get out and it might mutate into like a more nefarious virus. It's like, wait a second. So somebody might eat a pendulum. The thing that you say might happen but actually was never going to happen because no one needed to go in those caves.

Actually, you brought about in a wet lab. They sourced it. They literally went to the cave to source it. It's interesting to note that the last contagion that we had, Bill Gates was at the center of it. and in this current reaction to AI, he's now trying to insert himself into the middle of it, and he's the Dumer. He's the flag-carrying Dumer, trying to essentially have what he had the first time around, which is command and control from a global hierarchy. What is his motivation?

Look, Bill Gates, he deserves enormous credit for creating Microsoft and what he did for computing. Okay. But since the foundation, I think that it is fair to say that he has been very focused on his own power, and this idea that he is smarter and more capable of allocating progress for the world. And I think that he tried to do that at the Gates Foundation. He tried to do that with the Giving Pledge. Both of those two things have been undone. And now he's trying to do it again on AI.

And I just think it's worth noting. Bill Gates on AI recently, quote, certainly powerful enough to drive events that cause a billion deaths. AI is, quote, the most dangerous thing that humans have ever, gone near. What's his motivation, Ben? You know, Bill. I met Bill a couple times.

Is it just he wants to be relevant? What's taking me into the psychology here, as you see it? I mean, I, did you just start a company? I think he wants to, he absolutely wants to be relevant. You know, it's funny. He is obviously like very intangeloan in the Epstein files. And like one of the big things he was trying to get via the Epstein network. network was the, you know, some, the Nobel Peace Prize or something like big award. So he's very,

very kind of concerned about being in the spotlight, being on TV, all that kind of thing. Yeah. Yeah. And like, this is the thing. Anybody can go say AI's going to kill us and you'll be on every major news station and every newspaper and so forth. It's the easiest thing to do in the world. Like the kid from Anthropic who quit, like became famous. I just saw him on what is it, John Stewart, right? Like, yeah, yeah, it's scary Potter. He's begging to come out all.

He literally wouldn't come on all in that day because he had Megyn Callie. And he's like, DM. He's like, I really want to come on all in. We're like, we're good. You believe that? We're good. He's been on everybody except you canceled on us.

Yeah, I was like, we're good. We're good. We're going to have Ben Harwitz on. We're good. But, yeah, well, that's what's good for me. So, yeah, look, It's like a magic trick. You know, AI is going to kill us and you're instantly famous and it's awesome and, you know, great.

And so I think that's a lot of the motivation. I think it's extremely dangerous. So when it comes from Bill Gates because he is so credible because he did build Microsoft and then people think of him that way. And then certainly, and then he's been a big political donor. So he has a lot of political juice, particularly on the Democratic side. And, you know, that kind of makes him a real play. player, but I think it's super irresponsible. You know, it's funny because it's like, okay, what is the big risk that everybody talks

about is this, we're going to, the models are going to self, they're going to recursively self-improve, and then they're going to take off, and then they're going to be so smart and run away from us. And Ali Goatsy from Databricks had a great formulation of, well, okay, well, what would be the preconditions for that? And he had four preconditions. One is, look, the next model has. has to require fewer GPUs than the last.

And not like a little fewer, but like a lot fewer because otherwise, like you're just going to run out of G. Like, we just talked about this. You need debt. You got to get the GPUs. You need the power. You need the cooling. Like, it's not running away from us.

It takes a long time to build the next model. Then the second thing is the next model has to take less time to train because it's got to take off. And then the accuracy of the next model has to be better than the last. So it's got to be a better model. And then finally, it's got to keep happening again and again. Zero of those four have been met. We're not on track for any of those four to be met unless something is going on in the big lab so we don't know about.

And so we're really talking about a risk that's entirely theoretical at this point that we're not mapping to. Okay. And so then in a way, it's less likely than the global pandemic that we created COVID to try to prevent. And so this whole path is super dangerous. And it's probably the most dangerous thing going on in AI is Anthropic and Bill Gates and this whole argument. And so it's really disconcerting that the press eats it up so much. It fits a certain narrative. If you combine it with the environmental narrative and you combine it with the job apocalypse,

it's very potable for the public. It is a ratings hit. Like, oh, they're taking your water, they're polluting your oceans. Think about Jason, and it's going to take your job. It's a perfect. Think about where Gates has come from in the last, like since 2000. You know, he basically, from his perspective, eradicated an entire disease off the face of the planet. Right.

Very hard to do that. I mean, that took incredible coordination and money and research, et cetera. As a result, he essentially became. a whisperer to every single government all around the world. There's no world leader he didn't meet with. He was effectively a quasi-unelected world leader. And then very cleverly, you know, he and Buffett co-opted all the money. Right. Because if you think about the giving pledge, it was a brilliant, it was a brilliant form of reputation washing where you could essentially sign this pledge and you were invited to a party and you were invited to all this nonsense. But the reality is that you, you know,

didn't have to give any of it, but you gave the perception that you could. And all of a sudden, you had the money, the influence and the politics, when you die, nobody knows. Up to half. Right. And so, you know, you represent now trillions of dollars of assets on top of all the influence and the credibility and your own money and then your solutions. And so I think a lot of this dumerism can be explained by his desire to reestablish that central power structure that he, frankly, was probably near or at the top of up until COVID.

and then it all just came undone. I can explain it all to you, Chama. It's very simple. He became the world's richest man. When he became the world's richest man, you become the most hated man on the planet. When he became the most hated man, it got in his head, and then he had that antitrust investigation. And instead of him being based and saying, fuck you, I'm going to build the greatest company

in the world, I'm going to keep building, I'm going to stay CEO. He felt all that pressure from the antitrust and being the most hated man. And he said, oh, I've got to be loved. How am I going to be loved? I get rid of polio, I'll give all my money away. I'll do this giving pledge. The lesson here, folks, is don't quit your job. Just keep working, keep building shit.

Once you quit your job, it gets in your fucking head, and then you have too much time on your hand, and you spiral. And then you're worried about the Pulitzer. You know who's not worried about the Pulitzer Prize? Elon. Steve Jobs is not worried about the Pulitzer. Satya is not worried about the Pulitzer. There's a lot of founders out there.

Zuck's not worried about winning a Nobel. L. Peace Prize, whatever it is. Just keep working. It's enough already with the retirement. Incredible. Incredible. Incredible. Yeah. I mean, look, if you, if you're worried about what your New York Times eulogy is going to be, then you'll be controlled by those people. And they're the most crazy left-wingerers there are. So you just kind of have to accept that. I think you're right, Jason. It's like a shark. You just can't stop swimming. Don't just keep building shit. I mean, what, this is my advice to Bill Gates. Come on the program and start another company. Ben Horowitz is the area. All he does is built companies. He might come on the pod.

He should come on the pod. He should actually have him on the pod. He'll be feisty. He'll be feisty. Ben, what would you do if you were tired? You'll lose your mind. Yeah, that's the problem. Yeah, exactly. See, Ben understands. Great guest. Based Ben Horowitz. Based Ben Horowitz. Based Ben Horowitz. Based Ben Horowitz. Great job. All right. We'll see you all next time on the actual number one podcast in the world. Number one. Boom. Boiakasha. Love you, boys. Okay. Thank you, best. Thanks, Ben.

Great show. Bye, bye, bye. Brain man, David Sachs. Open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you, West. I'm queen of kin women just have one big huge, Georgie, because they're all just like this sexual tension, but they just need to release some out. Your feet. What?

We need to get merchies are fast. I'm going. No!