Big Technology Podcast - Perplexity’s CEO on Its Plan to Displace Google Search With AI Answers — With Aravind Srinivas

Episode Date: February 14, 2024

Aravind Srinivas is the CEO of Perplexity, an AI-powered search engine that answers queries with a few paragraphs in natural language. Srinivas joins the show to discuss how his company might threaten Google search, and whether conversational AI search is actually similar to traditional search at all. Tune into the second half where we discuss Aravind's perspective on how AI search might help or hurt news publishers. We also discuss Jeff Bezos's investment in Perplexity and where the cutting edge of AI is moving next. Tune in for a candid conversation with the CEO of the hottest AI startup in the world. ---- Enjoying Big Technology Podcast? Please rate us five stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ in your podcast app of choice. For weekly updates on the show, sign up for the pod newsletter on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/6901970121829801984/ Questions? Feedback? Write to: [e-mail]

The CEO of the hottest AI startup in the world joins us to talk about talent, tech, and his challenge to Google. All that and more coming up right after this. Welcome to Big Technology Podcast, a show for cool-headed, nuanced conversation of the tech world and beyond. Let's go deep today with the CEO of the one startup that's really changing the way that we think about AI and how it can have a role in challenging incumbents. And not surprisingly, it's coming in the world of search. We're joined today by Arvin Srinivas. He's the CEO of Perplexity, and he's here to talk to us all about his company and also the state of the industry. Arvin, welcome to the show.

Thank you for having me, you're Alex. Let me start with this. You have 10 million users, last count. Your company is a search company. So instead of going to Google, you'd go to Perplexity, you type your question in, you get a paragraph or two in conversational AI with some links at the top telling people where to go and it's really taking off. When I look around thinking about what other generative AI startups there are that have gained, traction. It's not a very long list. I mean, Character AI is worth a billion dollars, but I don't hear anybody using that. But your company people use. You're ranked above Google Calendar on the

App Store. I think you were number nine on the top charts last time I checked. Is this, what would you attribute this struggle for startups to take off in the generative AI space too? And is my view of this kind of close-minded or am I hitting on something that's right here? It's mostly accurate. There's some nuance. For example, you don't hear people around you using character AI because it's also not a product that people would be very proud of saying they use it. It's use cases are more meant for these lonely people who are like, you know, looking for companionship in their life. So it's sort of more like a personal activity and also it's more popular among the younger generation, like 50 to 60% of their user base is under the age of 20. Because they're using it to talk

imaginary anime characters and things like that. So it's a very different sector product. We're more on the entertainment sector and less on the productivity or utility sector. So we are in the productivity sector. And as for like, you know, in general, for any startup, it's pretty hard to gain widespread adoption. First of all, it's hard to launch a good product. But this technology is supposed to change the world. People are talking about how it's going to be the end of civilization for something that powerful, you would imagine there would be more. Yeah, but it takes time. For example, it takes a lot of time for people to change their habits, um, adopt a new, new, I mean, how many times do you adopt a new app? Like, you know, like,

it took me personally a very long time to start using Instagram, Twitter, even WhatsApp, even, like, like I'm only started using WhatsApp a lot more recently. And I used to stick to like, I just want to stick to FP Messenger or like Google chat. So it takes a while for you to like truly change your habits. And, you know, and we are also facing this, right? Like, it's all relative, okay, relative to other products and generally as startups, we have more adoption, but then relative to chat, GPT or Google, we are like way lower, right? So it takes time and like, you know, I'm not very negative about other startups.

I also think there are products outside the sector that you're focusing on that are taking off. Like Levin Labs is a startup that has a lot of adoption. As a podcast that you might be aware of it. There are a lot of tools there to like, you know, edit stuff. And then many other, many other interesting companies. But for us, the potential is a lot bigger than any of these others because the quest for knowledge and information is. the ultimate thing ever since like humanity has like started evolving as a society right we've

always sought more information always sought more knowledge uh sought a better understanding of the world so i think that's why like this product has no upper bound honestly so let's talk a little bit about the product because yeah if you're so you're creating an ai search engine you've created it what is the problem with search today that you're trying to solve because It's one thing to say, hey, we have this cool technology. Let's just apply it in like a logical way. But you have to see a glaring issue with this multi-trillion dollar business of search to be like, okay, we're actually going to do something different. So the fundamental problem with search today is that you waste a lot of time, right?

Like you're looking for something. You get a bunch of links. These links are sort of not exactly ordered in the way that should save your time, but order in the way that makes Google more. money. You're getting the answer that 10 salespeople are trying to give you at the same time. Not the answer that a friend of yours who have used all these different services for products comes and tells you in a nice summarized way of what is good or bad. Let's say you are like going and asking a friend of yours like which car you should buy. They're not going to tell you what's the best thing about each, you know, car or like each of these cars

are trying to bid for against one another to get your attention. What they're going to tell you is like, hey, look, I use all these things. I use all the other, I use two or three cars, and this is the best thing about this, this is the best thing about that. And what do you want? Like, what is it that you're interested in? There will be a back and full interaction with you.

Oh, like I actually like mileage more. Like, I'm looking for electric car because I care about the environment. Like, that sort of an interaction, that sort of personalization doesn't happen today in search, right? And there is no incentive for Google to save your time in searches, by the way. because the whole point for them is that you spend as much time opening like 10 tabs on Chrome the browser they control and give the analytics to all of these independent website publishers and brands of like how much traffic they're driving to each of you based on how many users

are driving to each of you right so they're working for the advertiser not for the not for the user so there is an opportunity for a new entrant here that can directly work for the user and build a business model that's more aligned with the user interest than with the advertiser interest. So that's what we are trying to do. Yeah, but it's interesting because it is almost like a different category of search, right?

You've talked about it already, like it's curiosity, right? Like, Google's almost like, I need to get to the facts right away, like, hit me with them. Or like, where's this? What is the answer to this question? Well, I guess you guys could do that too. But you actually inspire different queries, right? Like, I saw in your Twitter feed,

you were asking perplexity, what's the next trillion? company. And it said it was the OZMPIC maker. And it's like these type of searches are completely, I would say, incremental and new and different than the actual searches we would do with Google. Yeah. I mean, I generally think that there's like a new segment of searches that these products like perplexity or chatty are creating, which is like, you know, making people actually ask well-informed questions. Because we were not asking questions until now. We were just entering keywords. Like in Google, Google kind of spoiled us over two decades to just type in

keywords. And we wouldn't even type the full keyword. They would auto-completed for us. And like we would just like click all that, go and read the links and waste time, right? So the first time you have this unique power to talk to a computer like a human where you can just go and ask questions. Now we all need to get used to that power first. We suddenly got it. we never knew this was coming. It was not incrementally given to us. It just happened all of a sudden. And then you're like, okay, what do I do with it?

Now you're like thinking about what to do with it. But the reality is this should have been the way you interacted with search engines all along. Like, you're not coming and talking to me, Arvin, and asking like, you know, Google, perplexity, right? You're like asking, what is perplexity doing that Google cannot do? Like, why is Google not able to do this? Like, these are actual questions. Now you've got the unique ability to ask the same kind of questions in the same conversational way to an AI.

But I'm also wondering how big this can actually be because it's interesting. Like Kevin Rousse wrote this story, I'm sure, I mean, you spoke to him for it. Can this AI powered search engine replace Google it has for me? But it's not actually a full replace. He even writes later in the article that he's not gotten rid of Google. And so I do wonder like if this is something that can fully replace. Google or is it just going to be something that you would use for a subset of questions you might not type into a traditional search engine. Yeah, let me let me give you a more nuanced perspective here.

So there are two points on a line. The left point is navigational searches. Right point is directly giving you an answer. So the left is traditional search engine. Right is answer engine. We are in the right and Google can be considered on the left. Except Google has done a lot of work already to move more towards the right by preserving as much as possible up to left. By the way, I don't want you to think about it like left thing, right wing here. Yeah, yeah, no, no, we're not going there. It's just like mathematical. Now, Google is trying to keep its link UI, link interface, but also try to give you answers whenever possible. That could include weather, time, sports, election results, all sorts of things.

Or, like, just getting to a website really quickly, the browser navigation. Now, perplexity is giving you answers all the time, but that's not the only way you want to interact with the web. You sometimes just want the, like, you're doing mathematic calculations sometimes. You're doing, if you want the time in a particular city, and then you want, like, NBA scores, and like you want, if there's an ongoing election, you want to track, like, you know, how many seats each part of candidates won. So all that stuff doesn't need a large language model that can pull sources from different parts of the web and summarize these sources. So we are approaching the problem from a different end of the line, and Google's approaching a problem from a different end of the line, except we don't have any business model to defend. But what I'm trying to say is it might not actually be you versus Google.

It might be you and Google. Possible, you know. I don't want to think about it as them versus us either. My sense is that if we are the place for de facto information and accurate information on the internet, it will definitely make a dent on them. I'm not, you know, clearly like, look, their whole image is that they are the only place on the internet for facts. Is that really their image? Well, yeah, like, you go, you go ask anybody, is this a have you Googled it, right?

Have you Googled it? You know, that means like... I buy that. Yeah. So I think that that will definitely change. There's going to be more ways in which you can learn about anything. I mean, the behavior is also so different. I mean, so let's see, this is a stat that actually perplexity pulled out for me,

so fact check it. But in October 2023, it said you had 40. 35 million visits and the average session duration, and this is like the really interesting thing, 21 minutes and 58 seconds, which you would imagine on site of Google page, it's just might be a minute. So that's the thing, right? Like I just feel like the idea in our product is to make people more curious and engage and ask more questions. In fact, the whole idea of a follow-up question was something we innovated on, where we would suggest to you what follow-up question to ask. You know why we did that?

There's number one skill that actually is a bottleneck for these products to really take off is stability to ask good questions. Oh, yeah. Yeah, human mind is not great at articulating a question. We are all very curious. We're all super curious people, but not all of us have the skill to translate that curiosity into a well-informed question. Definitely.

It's like with Wikipedia. No one goes to like the Wikipedia homepage and is like, what am I going to explore today? You end up on Wikipedia through search. So you have that query in mind. But then you read the whole page. You read the whole page that's written for everybody but not personalized to you.

You care about only some parts of it. And that's why like we wanted to create an experience of a dynamic personalized Wikipedia for you. Like you just get an article on the fly. Have you spoken with Jimmy Wales over there and are they going to build their own GPT? What's going on with Wikipedia? They're not going to build their own GPT. I've spoken to him and he uses our product and he likes our product a lot and, you know, he used it when he was in Amsterdam and was looking for museums for his kids. That was like within a few meters from his

hotel and he said like Google sucked out of this and chat GPT elucinated and like we got the answer right. So he really liked that. I'm surprised. I would think that they would build one. He wanted to do some things like, oh, if I just wanted to create a perplexity experience, but just on Wikipedia articles alone, how can I do that? He wanted to build something of that nature, which we already had, by the way, like in our focus searches, you could just pick one domain and ask questions. I told them about it, but he's like, I wanted to be on Wikipedia.com. And I told them, hey, dude, like Wikipedia people go there only through a search engine. They don't go there automatically and start exploring. But he's like, okay, what if I had this?

on the Wikipedia domain, then maybe people will do that. So that was his idea at that point. I don't know what's the status of that idea today. There's so many things that you're going to come up against. I mean, you're already coming up against in this battle. The first is data, right? You have far less users. And we all know that Google, Microsoft Bing, even use the data that they have to refine their searches and that feedback to help improve the quality of results. So what's your answer to them on that front? Yeah. So look, the whole point, The whole amazing part about this generative AI is that it doesn't actually need as much user data as you think.

Yeah, share more about that because that's against the common thought about it. I mean, that's why Open AI is a disruption. Why shouldn't research lab like Open AI be able to create a better chatbot than Google that has like so much more data or like meta that has so much more chat data? the reason is that like we were able to learn this generic knowledge of like language itself common sense understanding just by predicting the next word on the internet that is the gpd model all it does is take all the internet curated reasonably well so that you only train on signal instead of noise and try to predict the next word from the previous words but by doing that you get

such a good understanding of how the world works how language works basic common common instance reasoning, mathematical reasoning. And that enables you for the first time in decades to be able to use little data, learn on the fly, and do a lot more things. Right. So somebody who has access to such an amazing intelligence API, which has been exposed to all the developers of the world through Open AI and Azure and things like that, can now program it in ways they want, program it for a search engine, program it for a companion bot program. it for a coding system. All these things are possible with one generic intelligence layer. And also, companies like Mera have open source these ways. So you don't even, the flexibility

in the programming is even more than what it started off with. So the first time, for the first time, we have had intelligence outside Google, like artificial intelligence outside Google, that's of higher quality than what is inside Google, which a new startup like us is able to harness take advantage and get it out to the users before Google can. That's really what has happened. We benefited a lot from open AI and meta all like making so much progress on large language models and getting them to the user base, developers, other other small startups to build amazing products that would never have been done before with way less data because you can just few short prompted or like fine tune it on a small subset of

data that you required. So the advantage is that the incumbents had in terms of having a large volume of data has gone away. I'm not saying you don't need user data at all. All I'm saying is you need a fraction of what was needed earlier for the first time. Arvin Cernivas is here with us. He's the CEO of Perplexity. We're going to keep up this conversation right after the break. Hey, everyone. Let me tell you about the Hustle Daily Show, a podcast filled with business, tech news, and original stories to keep you in the loop on what's trending. More than two million professionals read The Hustle's daily email for its irreverent and informative takes on business and tech news. Now, they have a daily podcast called The Hustle Daily Show, where their team of

writers break down the biggest business headlines in 15 minutes or less and explain why you should care about them. So, search for The Hustle Daily Show and your favorite podcast app, like the one you're using right now. And we're back here on Big Technology Podcast with Arvin Cernivas. He's the CEO of Perplexity, which is the hottest AI startup in the world right now. It has 10 million users. It's a search tool that you have a search engine that you could use, but it's more than search. And it's fascinating. We're just talking before the break about how you don't need as much data for perplexity as you would for other applications.

That is one of the innovations that we're seeing in AI. But what you do need is news, right? And I do, you have a very interesting approach to UI where you'll put four links. not always news sometimes it's a YouTube video like when I searched you on perplexity I found a couple of your YouTube interviews and those go at the top if if you're not training on vast amounts of data actually urgency and it being in the moment is crucial I would imagine I mean you even look at some of the suggested searches you have and that's there I'm curious from your perspective how do you think news and information creators are going to factor into this

world. The Times is already suing open AI. I go back and forth because I run a content business about whether I should let these bots crawl or not. Talk a little bit about what you think there and who would actually benefit. So our thinking here has been to rely on our background as academics. First of all, like when we launched and Chad GPDA launched one fundamental differences, we give people information on where the answer is coming from, the source. Right at the top, which I love. right at the sources, the citations, right? And that, I believe, is a way to attribute the creator of the content.

Okay, you know what? I'm not stealing your content. I'm actually attributing it to you. I'm telling the user exactly where it's coming from. And I'm going to drive traffic to you if they actually want to learn more about other stuff on that website. So in academia, this is a similar concept as writing a citation. And if someone's interested, they go and read the cited paper actually on their own. You know, we don't have to like tell them to go read it.

They read it on their own because they think it's important. And I think that's very fair use of other people's content. We're not stealing it. We're actually like just being a middleman between them and the end reader. And we're giving them more visibility, right? So it's a different kind of visibility. Until now, the internet economy has been built around, like, how much traffic am I getting? Now you're going to be like, how much awareness am I getting?

How much awareness am I getting? Like, how many times has some content on my site being viewed by people? It may not, it can be viewed in a different way, too. It can be viewed through somebody else. It can be viewed directly on me. As long as the user knows it's from me. It's not. Right.

That's where we differ from Google or chat GPT. sorry, not Google, I guess Google barred and chat GPT, Google itself is going to be pretty transparent about the links. And our sense is also that the value of a link click on perplexity will be more than on Google. Because someone has to be way higher intent to still leave the site and go, right? Your pitch is very similar to the one that publishers make to advertisers that like it's not only about clicks it is about awareness and you know when you get traffic from a

good publisher it's going to be high quality traffic that being said like if you don't have eyeballs on your site it's very difficult to make money from it but we'll see how this plays out i think it's still an open question it's an open question that's i i'll clearly establish that here that we don't have complete answers to all this today how are you thinking about making money i mean you have a pro version that's $20 a month. You don't have ads yet, but you talk very eloquently about the idea that you might eventually have ads and how that could be even better than your experience. You know, you just, you talked about Google earnings at the top. I mean, they just added an incremental $6 billion in advertising in the quarter, an incremental, six billion. That

would be the 11th biggest advertising business on the globe, period outside of China, according and Brian Weiser from Madison and Wall. So people end up spending, what do we say, like 30-something minutes, 21 minutes and 58 seconds on perplexity, and not just zinging out to websites through Google. How are you going to make money on that? And how does that change the economics of the Internet? I think that we just need to rethink what advertising means, right? You go to the first principle of what advertising means.

Advertising is a way for the creator of the content or the brand, owner to maximize their awareness to the end user or viewership. Now, Tendlil Links is one way to connect the reader and the creator, but not the most efficient way, right? The more efficient way is actually answering parts of what exists on your website to the end user directly. what exactly do you want the user to know about you

which you're putting on your site anyway you don't have to tell us you don't have to like pay us for that in fact I believe it's fair it's more fair to the advertiser to like not be the middle guy telling and I'll figure out how to sort the order you pay me money for that

but rather you you write about yourself in the most honest transparent way that you want the end user to know about you and let the AI do the job of taking that and reaching the end user more efficiently than before. But advertising interrupts though. Like so it's very difficult, very different to be like a blue link on the side or above versus like you're having a conversation and then like perplexity ads come in and like,

hey, wait a second. You should know about this. Yeah, yeah. So what I'm trying to say here is advertising has to be rethought from the perspective of, oh, I just want traffic versus I want more aware. awareness. And what tools can I use to increase that? How can I write the content on my website even better to reach the end user for certain kind of questions? And you are in charge of that yourself as a creator. You don't have to be under the mercy of someone creating an auction system

and exploiting you. Right. By the way, the internet can be very fair. We, perplexity is not trying to be creating a trillion dollar economy on top of ads or on top of all the searches that we get and trying to take all of it and not give away much to others. Like nobody won, only Google won in the past era where, you know, the telecom providers did not win, the publishers did not win. They took all the Mullah out for themselves. We want to change that and create a more fair world. And that's why I think like people will be more willing to work with us. I mean, it also doesn't just change like the traditional search model. It can change commerce, too.

I mean, if you're on Amazon, you could search Amazon and just type a, you know, conversationally into a search bar there. And they're actually starting to do this. I think it's a product called Rufus. And that obviously minimizes their amount to make ads. But it's also, how do you think, yeah, I'm curious. How do you think it's going to change e-commerce? Well, it's good.

I think it's all like, think about it. short term and long term, right? Yeah. You may think it minimizes your ads, but what if people just purchase more because they're able to make better choices now? Yeah. Right?

Most of the time, people don't end up purchasing. They end up shopping a lot, but they don't actually make a purchase because they're not sure what to buy. But when you have a great shopping assistant that directly gets to what the user wanted, the conversion to a transaction could be much higher. Right.

And the retention could be higher, The number of purchases, cumulative number of purchases could just get higher for user. And you don't have to rely on other people anymore. And the merchants are happier, so they're willing to pay you a little more for being displayed on your site. So you can create a different kind of economy, right? So, by the way, for Amazon to do this hard, obviously, because they do rely on advertising revenue on Amazon.com to keep Amazon.com profitable. So they have like similar problems. to Google there. But look, they can, they are such a massive company and have revenue from

AWS and like can definitely make up for like any short term hits here. You have Jeff Bezos as an investor. Yeah, I do. Have you made this argument to him? No. By the way, I want to establish that he doesn't, you know, he, he, he's not like actively involved in Amazon and his investment in us has no tight. He's a chairman. He's a chairman. He's, he, his investment in us has nothing to do with, us working with Amazon. It's an independent investment. How did you recruit Bezos or did he just come in the front door? I'm sure it's a great story. It's not as crazy as you think. We got connected to his, you know, Bezos expeditions fund and, you know, obviously in his style, they asked us for like a memo. Memo and, you know, like that was sort of the process. And we, we had a

pitch deck and all that and like demo and all these things. But yeah, they made a decision very fast and it definitely changed our fortune in terms of being seen as a widely aware, like the awareness that we got through this investment is tremendous. Interesting. Very quickly as we come into a landing, you worked at OpenAI. I guess like the fashionable thing would be to ask you about their governance troubles. So if you want to comment on that, fine.

But what I'm hearing about from them is they keep signaling that huge stuff is coming down the pike this year. Just like the way that they're talking is that it sounds like some serious advances are going to happen this year. Do you have any sense as to what those might be? And I don't understand like what could what could inspire such talk. Is it a much? I mean, if it's a slightly better GPT model, okay, but it sounds like something more. I mean, I don't know what has been said publicly. Maybe you hear something more privately, but I guess I'll just go by what Sam Altman told Bill Gates.

I was listening to it like two days ago, which is they'll have a lot more reliable models. So right now, sometimes one in a 10 or one in a hundred completions of a GPT4 model is hallucinatory, can say arbitrary things. It's not reliable. It's not deterministic programs. So I think they'll address that. They'll also address the fact of the models being like more multimodal. Like right now it supports images and input, but the most general version will support audio, video as inputs and also as outputs. Well interface with text.

I think they'll make some advances there. I think the third thing they'll make some advancements on is reasoning. whatever reasoning GPT4 is able to exhibit today is already amazing but it's still pretty limited and I think they'll make some more progress there in terms of multi-step reasoning and like doing back and forth thinking you want models to be able to like think for a while and then come back and give you some things right so they'll probably make more progress on those things and I guess the fourth thing that Altman mentioned was like just like reducing the costs,

increasing the personalization of all these models so that people can program all these things in a more reliable way. Like, for example, why should all the products with on GPT4

respond in the same way with the same style of like moralizing the user and like telling them what not to ask and like same kind of like diplomatic positioning of things? You want to have like more variety and diversity in the product experience

is created on top of GPT4. And I think that is something they'll probably address, long context reasoning, things like that. So these are all, like when I say these things, it looks boring to you, right? Long context, better models, better reasoning, more reliability, multimodal, such boring answers. But when these actually happen together, when these all really happen at the same time, it'll look like the next generation model dropped. With Anthropic, what do you think about the clawed model? and does it hold a candle to GPT's? So far, not, to be very honest,

but I'll tell you one thing. There are people in the world who actually like Claude a lot more than GPT. In terms of response styles and eloquence, they like Claude a lot more. It's more natural. It feels more like talking to a human than to an AI if you top to Claude.

So we offer Claude as an option on the perplexity product for pro users. And I know a lot of people who still use clot instead of GPD4, even though GPT4 is a more capable reasoner because they like the way Claude response. So Anthropics certainly has something. Now, can they create a model better than GPT4? I definitely think they can. And if they don't, they are kind of doomed, in fact.

This year in 2024, if they don't create a model better than GPT4, all the funding and the race is not being put to good use. but I actually think they will end up creating a model better than GPT4 this year. Like, it's sort of almost guaranteed to happen. So I believe it's going to happen with clot three. Now, does it mean open AI is in trouble? I don't think so either. I'm sure there's a GPT 4.5 or 5 that will stay ahead.

So it really is going to be a cat-in-mouse game there where Anthropics playing catch-up and open-AIs ahead through multimodal capabilities, reasoning capabilities, and things like that. Now, the question is, like, how long can opening keep on staying in the lead? If the delta between them and their competitors are slowly reducing, what is the thing that's going to keep them ahead? That's what I'm not clear.

And when Lama 3 comes out, and Lama 3 is as good as Cloud 3 or very close to GPT4, and the weights are just given out to everybody, it threatens the whole economy that these companies are creating through APIs, it doesn't demolish it because just because somebody gave you the weights doesn't mean you can take it and serve inference yourself. You still need someone to serve inference for you in a more efficient way and like all the trickery to like make an inference efficient is still not like easy or open source. But it certainly reduces the monopoly power of like these closed source model providers. And Google is also going to play in that market through Geminias and EPI too, right? So it's going to be interesting to see. I think

open AIS value will lie in the chat GPD product itself, the end-to-end product, and they're going to face competition there too. Like, meta is going to have their own AI assistant, there's barred. It's all sorts of like Microsoft has Bing Chat co-pilot. So it's a, it's a market. It's a tough market. It's like, there are a few players and they're all going to keep competing. And like, you know who's really winning? Consievers. Yeah. And Nvidia. And Nvidia, exactly. So everybody's using Nvidia. I mean, of course, Google doesn't use Nvidia chips.

Right. You know, I guess Sam Altman is trying to create his own chip company and things like that. So we'll see. Yeah. All right, Arvin, I know you are pressed for time. Keep shipping. And if people want to check out Perplexity, where can they find it? Perplexity.com.

Okay. Excellent. Thank you for joining. I hope it's not the last time. Really illuminating conversation. Great point to end on. Thanks again for being here. Thank you, Alex.

All right, everybody. Thank you for listening, and we'll see you next time on Big Technology Podcast.