Big Technology Podcast - SpaceX’s IPO Triumph, Anthropic’s Fable Fumble, OpenAI’s Price War

Episode Date: June 12, 2026

Ranjan Roy from Margins is back for our weekly discussion of the latest tech news. We cover: 1) SpaceX's massive IPO 2) What SpaceX's success means for its AI competitors, OpenAI and Anthropic 3) Is SpaceX's outsized valuation a feature, not a bug? 4) Goldman Sachs eats Big Bang burritos 5) Anthropic's flubbed Fable rollout 6) Does the gaffe mean Anthropic really believes in the power of Mythos? 7) A fun Fable conspiracy theory 8) OpenAI may drastically lower prices 9) Are AI models a commodity? 10) Wait, does Siri work now? --- Enjoying Big Technology Podcast? Please rate us five stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ in your podcast app of choice. Want a discount for Big Technology on Substack + Discord? Here’s 25% off for the first year: https://www.bigtechnology.com/subscribe?coupon=0843016b Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

SpaceX IPOs, sores, and makes Elon Musk's the world's first trillionaire. Anthropics' fable rollout doesn't go as planned, and OpenAI may drop rates drastically. That's coming up on a big technology podcast Friday edition right after this. Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMDMDM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly, 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly.

If you have questions or concerns, about your gambling or someone close to you. Please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor. Free of charge. BetMGEM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. Depending on who you ask, between 80 and 95% of enterprise AI projects fail. To get AI to work for you, you don't need more tokens. You need better people.

A board pairs powerful proprietary tools with senior engineers who've seen it all. That combination means your project. doesn't stall, doesn't drift, and doesn't fall. It ships. Whether you're a startup that needs to get to market or an enterprise with complex legacy challenges, a board delivers exactly what your business needs fast. Aboard is your partner for AI transformation. Visit abhorred.com and let's build something together. Welcome to Big Technology Podcast Friday edition where we break down the news in our traditional cool-headed and nuanced format. This is definitely one of those weeks where I have been waiting to get Ranjan's take on the news for days on end. I haven't heard

his thoughts on the Thable Fumble, but I'm so excited to get his perspective on what it means now that we've seen a version of Mythos. So we'll do that in the second segment. We'll also talk about OpenAI potentially drastically lowering prices for its GPT models. But first we'll talk about SpaceX and the SpaceX IPO companies trading above trillion dollars. We'll unpack what it means. Joining us, as always, of course, on Fridays to do it is Ron John Roy of margins. Ron John, great to see you. Wow. You know when the fable fumble is going to be story number three, we've got a busy week. But we do have the world's first trillionaire. I think it's time to celebrate, right? That would be Elon Musk. You know, this is a very interesting IPO for a number of reasons. Obviously, it's going to factor heavily in the AI world. Because if you think about it a year ago, SpaceX didn't really have an AI play. Then in the run-up to the IPO, the company signed a, a $15 billion deal with Anthropic, a $30 billion deal with Google to license out the data centers.

It's built for its own AI efforts. And now it's become like one of the biggest clouds in the world. And that has propelled it to a $75 billion IPO. It's above $2 trillion. So Ranjan, I just would love to get your perspective on the IPO. Of course, the broader story about what it means. But also, you know, they came out telling us that 26.5 of 28.5 trillion of their total addressable market is AI. So is this the world's first AI IPO? And if it is, what does it mean for OpenAI and Anthropic?

Is this the world's first, well, it's not the world's first AI IPO. I think it's certainly out of the big three. It is amazing, I have to just say, like, how in the span of, I think, what is it, six to nine, months. Elon Musk has turned SpaceX into an AI company with the acquisition of ex-AI, his own company, with these incredible anthropic and Google AI cloud deals with the potential kind of, I don't know if it's an acquisition of cursor, at least it's the right to buy cursor, suddenly has gotten in the fold. And again, we talked about this the other than last few weeks. The numbers are interesting, again, in terms of like the actual revenue, in terms of how much money they're losing, in terms of Starlink,

the actual infrastructure business being the cash cow. But I just have to say, like, let's take this moment to actually, this is what Elon Musk is incredible at. And like, I have to admit, between the Anthropic and the Google contracts, between the way he rolled up all his different entities, to pull this off in this way, at least for this moment, is pretty spectacular. It's pretty masterful. Right.

And, you know, there was certainly money that was going to be earmarked towards AI IPOs from investors, right? And certainly people were waiting to invest in SpaceX, but you could argue that without the AI side, SpaceX is not a very compelling story. It's a communications company with Starlink and this launch business that's not probably. profitable. Of course, a lot of that money is in R&D. The AI story, you know, gave the market, the market, I think, was looking for something to be enthusiastic about for SpaceX, something to justify putting in the money. And now they got that story and they responded accordingly. So the question to you, Ranjan becomes is, is Elon taking money out of Sam and Dario's pockets? Because maybe some of that money was going to go to the open AIs and anthropics of the world, or, Or has you just set the precedent that if you want this, you know, AI company that's sort of spun up in a moment you want to get behind that story, then you should definitely get behind the other two. What's your thought? I think so I actually think that the like masterful pivot that was made. And again, I say this all not saying that any of this is good for the markets as a whole or if like retail investors in general. But again, the brilliant kind of pivot he made was that Elon Musk made here was it's no longer just kind of like an AI play in the way XAI and GROC was like where he was positioning those businesses. Data centers became the business du jour.

And he turned this into a data center business. Remember, originally he talked about Colosses. He talked about all of, you know, it was a major part of the overall infrastructure, but it was to fund GROC to be the least. leading AI business. But then he just, with two contracts, two phone calls from, I believe, I know, Google is certainly an investor in SpaceX. I'm not, I don't know, Anthropic, I'm hoping. That would be crazy if they were. That would just take this to another level. But, but again, a couple of phone calls. And Elon Musk managed to completely shift the, it's crazy. Like, when was SpaceX founded? 2000. 2002.

Two. A 24-year-old business, you completely transform how the market understands it with two phone calls. A couple of lawyers, I'm guessing, maybe a couple of meetings, but that's it. All right. But then, talk, what do you think about the implications for the other two? I think it's hard to say. As of recording time, SpaceX trading at 171.3, I think what's that, like a 24.4. percent increase from the IPO price 135. We are at a $1.75 trillion value. All that sounds good. But I mean, we got a long couple of months ahead of us. Like, I think, I don't know what normally the summer months are especially on this, certainly any IPO activity. They're just quieter. I think we're going to be in for two of the two to three of the most wild news months in a summer ever in any of these. And again, I think where is SpaceX trading on Monday, a week from

now, a month from now? It is impossible. Remember, so much of how this is orchestrated, it's only a 4.3% float. Like, it's tiny. It's like everything was done and it was done perfectly to actually kind of like bring about this massive, um, valuation and IPO, but we got a long ways to go and I don't know. Where do you think it's going to end up for our friends, Dario and Sam? Yeah, okay. So since you're dancing around the question, Ranjan, I'm going to take that time to answer it. Okay.

I do think that, yes, this is, so it's a small flow, which means it's a small percent of the company. But that being said, it's still the biggest IPO ever times two and a half or three, right? So, no, times two and a half, right? Because Saudi Iran raised 29. So this raised eight, you know, in the realm of 80, we're still not sure because there might be more shares that they sold as this thing went live. So that's a lot of money. And I don't know if it would have been that level of cash if the AI side of this wasn't included. So I think that that money would have otherwise gone to Open AI and Anthropic.

and and I think that because Elon Musk has, you know, say what you want about him, he's held the value of Tesla pretty much. If people were looking to make an AI bet, they wanted to make this bet and Elon has become a vehicle for it. Even if, you know, like we said already, XAI hasn't really panned out as an AI foundational model company or an application company. But then again, Elon Musk did build all that infrastructure and he's been able to lease it out. I wouldn't even call him a neocloud. He's just a cloud. And remember last week, we talked about how OpenAI has these ambitions to become an AI cloud? Well, you know, overnight pretty much SpaceX has beat them to it.

And that is what we're seeing reflected in the IPO. Well, from, okay, let's take OpenAI first. I mean, Sam has definitely talked about AI cloud ambitions, very loosely at times. Like there's never been any real concrete plans. I believe that they've kind of communicated. But he'll talk about it every now and then as like a potential business line. I do agree. I think this is very interesting into how quickly just on the span of two contracts they kind of took that.

I do think they have taken that away or kind of taking the legs out from Open AI moving in that direction, which is also funny that open AI, sorry, Anthropic kind of helped. spur this as well. Oh, they knew what they were doing. They knew what they were doing. So did Elon. Maybe Google as well. And maybe so did Google.

Ooh, wait, I like this now. World Against Open AI. It's Anthropic at the Enterprise. Google at the consumer. Open AI. Sorry. SpaceX at the infrastructure. Sorry, I can't even remember what I'm supposed to call

the Elon business right now. SpaceX at the infrastructure layer, one by one, all going at Open. AI. I don't know, but I feel, do you think that even enters the head of any of the dealmakers as they're approaching these kind of contracts? Absolutely. Absolutely. Okay. Open AI is a big threat to all of them. So, well, where it's not a threat, it wasn't a threat to the space business. It certainly was a nemesis when it comes to Elon. Yeah, I do think they all want to hurt Open AI. But let's talk a little bit about this evaluation. before we go, before we move on. So the valuation is a little bit like crazy. It's a $2.2 trillion company. It's not going to have earnings that justify that at all for years. And you look at the breakdown in the prospectus. And it's like, well, what is going to fund this company, right?

And so the space, when it comes to the total addressable market that they put out there, space and connectivity are like $2 trillion to them, the total addressable market. The total addressable market for AI is 26.5.4.5. trillion. We've talked about it before. It doesn't make any sense. But let me, let me sort of make the case for why this crazy valuation is a feature in the system and not a bug. And then I will turn it over to you and you will be very mad. I'm toying about publishing this on big technology. It probably will before this episode comes out. Without these crazy valuations, right, which are just not mapped to reality of the business, you wouldn't have satellite internet or space data centers or these moonshots. And so this valuation craziness is actually enabling the risk taking,

similar with AI, right? It's enabling the risk taking. And some of those risks eventually pay off. And that's where you see progress. What do you think about that? That is a hot take, Alex. I will give you that if we if for listeners who are not watching this on video you can Alex is just doing some air guns here with this after the hot take I yeah suspended by the NBA now but okay wait are you not allowed to do that in the NBA well John Moran can't but John Moran can't he shouldn't right yeah but okay anyways so I do find this interesting the idea that for a number of decades in America, one could argue that for these literal moon shots, this is where the innovation, like the U.S. government partnered with private organizations would come in and fund these and kind of like push forward a lot of, whether it's the Internet, whether it's the original space program, and kind of together, the public sector along the private sector would kind of get us to the moon. Now, so what you are saying is the only way we can do this is to have a highly orchestrated

conglomerate of kind of self-interested companies enrich us into the world's first trillionaire at the expense of the mainstream retail investor in order to one day hope as the permanent underclass we can get some data centers in space. Is that what you are saying, Alex? Exactly right. I'm not saying that it's the only way to do it. I'm saying that there's another side to see this valuation. But I also think what you hit on here is really important, which is that retail, so everyday investors will be a very big part of this, right? So more than 20% of the IPO allocation went to retail investors, which means, and this is sort of where the negative side of it is the risks typically borne out by government and venture capitalists are now being

borne out by everyday investors who may end up doing fabulously well, but they may not. And I won't be the one that says they shouldn't be able to invest. But it is something to think about when it comes to my hot take is yes, these big bets are being enabled, but who is enabling them? And retail is becoming a bigger, bigger part. Your thoughts? Well, I think, again, it's part of the whole game. It's been for a number of years. Like Tesla was the warm up to this. Tesla was, again, a incredible product,

very like, you know, market leading. It was revolutionary. And then that gave enough of that credibility to kind of build this larger story, kind of like, keep up, you said, maintain this valuation as well. And have that retail energy

and to kind of translate that, There's always, you know, like the solar city, the boring company, like all these different pieces where all feel kind of like a warm up to this is like the greatest act of all time. And this is like, you know, to then pull it into world's first trillionaire, two trillion dollar IPO off $20 billion of revenue. I guess we extrapolate that out after the Google and Anthropic contracts a little bit more, losing $4 billion a year. I mean, it's incredible. It's truly incredible. Okay. I'm going to give you an option of questions to answer as we end this segment. Here's a couple. Is the SpaceX IPO good for society and business? And can SpaceX maintain its valuation perpetually, or is this eventually going to come down to Earth?

No space pun intended. I'm going to – the first one, no. I mean, I think it's very good. And I'm actually, my favorite, my favorite little tidbit I saw online was, as the investment banks who led this IPO are making a record, reaping a record making $550 million in fees, Goldman Sachs, who is leading the deal, has remade its entire lobby and cafeteria with a space theme.

There's a fueling station with lattes and macros. Roons that look like moon rocks. In the cafeteria, the bank is serving a mission control brunch with big, quote unquote, Big Bang burritos. So when we're talking about who's benefiting, again, Goldman's got Big Bang burritos because they're very happy about all the fees as retail investors are coming in thinking they're excited. So if that, does that, in a roundabout way, help you understand whether I think this is good for society or not. Oh, it sure does. I mean, of course, myself and all of our listeners and viewers will react in a couple of ways.

First of all, yeah, that's a lot of fees. Second of all, this is clearly a perspective of a hater who just wants his own Big Bang Burrito. And I can't blame you. I mean, I would be hating, too. Do you think the Big Bam Burrito is different than a – do you think the Big Bam Burrito? I'm only – I'm here on 34th Street. 200 West streets. Maybe I'll take the subway down.

I would be mad too. Everyone else is protesting. I'm just going to have a sign. Just one big bang, a burrito. Better be special burrito. Like, I think it'll have to have like a snickers in the middle or something like that. That sounds like what, that sounds like what, remember when GPT2 was like giving us stuff like that? Making recipes and putting glue on the pizza?

Oh, the Google recipes. Actually, wait, Google. told us to eat rocks. I miss those days. I miss the days of when Gen A.I. was just telling us to eat rocks. Now we got data centers in space. I will say that I'm more bullish on it. I think ultimately I'm sticking with my let's fund the crazy things. But if you're a retail investor, you have to be careful. Okay, can it hold the revenue or can it hold the valuation? Well, it certainly, I hope it can hold the revenue. Again, Starlink is very interesting. Like, Starlink is it's an $11 billion business built over a number of years.

We all know. I still, I fly Delta usually, and I wish it had Starlink. So can it grow, can it hold the valuation? I think it is completely susceptible to whatever the overall market trend is doing. I actually think everyone is talking about what SpaceX is doing to Anthropic and OpenAI. I think what's more interesting is if they come, out poorly. I think that's going to dramatically impact SpaceX's valuation. So maybe Elon shouldn't be going at Sam so aggressively. What do you think? Yeah, but I don't think they're going to come out poorly.

I don't know. It's one of those things that he will have a lot of support, so to say, like as they say in the financial world, that stock will have support and it will have a floor. But it'll probably be tough to grow much more than where it is today. No, but this is where the floor or the support line comes from one of two areas. One, if there's enough vested interest that is just so widespread and distributed, that has capital that is not getting hit in other areas, they will do whatever they can to kind of hold that valuation because there's been so much money that is just being made off of this. but if that money starts getting hit in other parts of their portfolio,

which there hasn't been anything dramatic yet, then they're not going to be able to hold that. And then the other side is retail as well, and the same thing would hold to them. So both on the institutional and retail side, I feel like to me it's just in a happy market, this can continue for at least a little while. Anything, little, anything kind of,

What was the liberation day? Almost forgot the name of it. Anything like that could screw a lot of this up. Yeah, I think as long as you keep feeding people the Big Bang burritos, you're going to be happy. But once that supply runs out, it could be trouble for the stock. Okay. Big Bang burritos are only for bankers.

Let's be real. Not everybody gets a Big Bang burrito. No, no, no, no, no. This day and age, Big Bang burritos. free he doesn't only for the bankers. Well, that is the seeds of SpaceX's demise. Okay, so let's talk about

Fable. I've been waiting to hear your Fable take for a long time. Let me set it up. This is from the Wall Street Journal. Of course, Fable is mythos. So this is from the Wall Street Journal. Anthropics' new Fable AI model is met with user backlash over restrictions. Anthropic is finally giving the public

a taste of its next generation model, but its blunt safety barriers are angering some artificial intelligence developers and users and feeding a growing debate over who should be the keeper of dangerous AI capabilities. Dubbed Claude Fable 5, the new model that Anthropic released Tuesday is an update to the Mythos model that the company said was too dangerous to release widely. That model spute government officials and cybersecurity experts for its potential to find unknown vulnerabilities in software used around the globe.

Fable comes with broad restrictions. Anthropics says are aimed at kneecapping its ability to assist users with potentially dangerous activities. So Ranjan Mythos is here, but it is a neutered version of the model, and it's called Fable, and it has sparked the biggest backlash to a model release I have seen to date. I've been waiting for this. What is your perspective on the model and the rollout? I got to say, in the same week, and I've been saying this for regular listeners will know that I feel there's like a large element of marketing into the way Anthropic has kind of communicated around mythos and now Fable, five. It's crazy to me when Gary Marcus, David Sacks, and then even

Gergaly Oros. Gerge. Yeah. Gerge. The pragmatic engineer. Sorry for butchering the name there. Everyone is saying the same thing. This was never about safety. This was all marketing. I feel when you have three people from that who generally I would say are just in very different areas

in terms of perspective all coming around, I'm going to feel a little vindicated. After saying that it was not just marketing and it was a true threat to humanity, do you feel scared today with Fable 5 in the wild? Let me read a little bit about the restrictions and then I'm going to ask you a question. When a user touches on sensitive topics,

sensitive topics like bio-weapons and cybersecurity, Fable pops up a notification and then redirects the conversation to an earlier, less capable model. Fable also degraded the quality of its responses about high-end AI development to be less useful for developers looking to build AI tools

that might not have the same safeguard. For those responses, there was no pop-up notification. However, the company cited national security and its own terms of service as reasons for the invisible restrictions. It's since rolled some of that back. Here's my question to you, Ron John.

If Anthropic didn't believe that this model had these capabilities for cyber hacking, for potential bio-warfare, for building models without the same safeguards, if it didn't believe it, why would it score such an own goal here with the rollout? Like, do you think it's just a complete sense of tone deafness that it thought that it would put, let me finish question, that it thought it would put his company in a better light to do something that ended up becoming so despised by users. See, yeah, I don't think it actually is that much of an own goal. I think like this is within, I'm guessing, listeners of the big technology podcast for us, we're all kind of like watching this roll out. but I think still, mythos,

better than any other kind of like moment around like this is the potential end of the world really had kind of just mainstream people starting to build this kind of, I will say, no pun intended myth mythos

around anthropic. Sorry, there's something somewhere in there the pun would exist. So I, so I think, So I think they did a good job of it and it worked. And like this is just all kind of again, like think about how ridiculous that is. Like if you ask for a bio about a bio weapon, one, shouldn't there be content?

Like I don't know. Like I'm guessing most of these have always had some kind of content moderation around if you ask it to help you make a bio weapon. I have not. I will tell listeners right now, I bet that's not. It's not just bio weapons. No, no, but now, but I look close. I know, but I love that. Hold, hold on.

It's going, it degrades you to a lower model. That's what I love. So are they saying like, we'll give you the like, you know, like a dollar store by a weapon. You don't get the good one though, but we'll still give you the Sonnet 4, 6, or maybe a little haiku. Like, what are they trying to say there? I mean, they're trying to say that they drew a line where the model would be able to

actually help people with these weapons and they're not going to let you use it. But to me, that's the sort of, okay, if that was the line, then I would say fine. It went so much further. Here, I'll just read again from the story. Many complained the model was blocking them from discussing ostensibly benign topics like mathematics, biology, and chemistry, or even analyzing Fable's own publicly released system information. When user posted a screenshot of Fable refusing to answer query on basic cellular autonomy, tell me about mitochondria. So this goes back to my question, right? Like, if you put, so obviously, like some of these things, it's not going to want to block,

like asking Fable about its system card. But if you didn't believe that this model is capable of the harm, why you would, like, it doesn't make any sense for to do this as a marketing exercise because you're pissing off your users and you're causing a group of people who usually would not have any comments. and ground, the ones you read off before, to rally together against your company. Okay, okay, that's fair. Maybe this is all, again, but they just need to get out an IPO. Like, after that, everything's fine and it all goes away and all everyone's made their

money. So like, no, I mean, but, but like, hold on, how would you explain why would they do it this way? Like, what would be the, I'm going to flip that back on you and ask like, why would you do it this way. If you really believed it, if you really believed it, like, you wouldn't release this. You wouldn't release this. I mean, honestly, actually, I think the true own goal here is now with Fable, and I mean, I'm seeing this very firsthand in hearing this, like working in enterprise AI, like everyone is talking about the data retention right now. Because enterprise agreements,

the anthropic and Open AI as well as everyone else, like claim no data retention. Now they're just explicitly saying that they're going to for 30 days. And like, that's a huge deal. So why do you think they would even release it if it's going to cause them this many problems? Well, okay, so the argument would be you put it in the hands of people because when they work through, and again, like,

let's just talk this through. when you work in the areas you're allowed to use the stuff for, you can actually do a lot of things. Like there's a thread that they posted of people creating animations, building games. I guess they're doing a simulation of an airplane. All these things created programmed with mythos or fable. So basically, like the, I think the strategy is they believe in the model.

If I'm taking the non-synical view, right, they believe in the model. And they want people to be able to use it for productive uses, just not for the ones that they find scary. And if they actually didn't believe those things were scary, they would have just released it, you know, wholesale. But I can give you my conspiracy theory take here, if you'd like. All right. I like both. Here's my conspiracy theory take. You know, even though it might cost them a little bit in public perception, there is like some story you could tell about anthropic releasing this nerfed fable, getting everybody talking about how annoyed they are with the restrictions and then adding more and more companies with a lot of money to spend

into this Glasswing coalition where they have access to Mythos without the same boundaries. So maybe Fable acts as a sort of look what we've given the public if you want the thing that works and you've seen some of these examples you're going to have to pay up. I did see somewhere it was kind of like a around two-track AI or a case-shaped AI. And now this is kind of like kind of increase at both like the token cost. And we're going to get into that conversation just a little bit. But even the access, okay, wait, wait, I like this.

I like this. So maybe let's let's give them, it's not even conspiracy, recognizing the genius of their marketing and communications over the last six to 12 months especially. Could they score known gold as badly or that's an interesting one. It's, we're going to give you this if you want the good stuff, got to pay up and only if we invite you. Yes. I mean, could you imagine being a salesperson and, you know, walking in, you got the deck up and it's like, well, normal users can't talk about mitochondria with Mythos.

For the right price, you can talk about anything you want. No, it's not even a price. It's only if I let you. Only if you're invited. Only if you're invited. Only if you're invited. Only if you're invited. Yes. Yes. Yeah. So I don't think that's what's happening, but we have to air it out there as a possibility. Wait, does mitochondria have something to do with, like, is that how you make bio-weapons? No, it's a simple biological thing that was brought up.

I know, but manipulating mitochondria? Claude won't tell me, so I don't know. I have not tried. Okay, good. So both of us are bio-weapon-free. This is a bio-weapon-free zone. neither of us have ever gone down that path. Yes.

If you're going to come to the summit next week, Ranjan and I will not release altered mitochondria built with mythos during our session. That is the one thing we can guarantee you about the summit next week. Can't promise you much, but can promise you that. That we can promise. That we can promise. And some coffee. Okay, let me sort of ask you this other question,

which is, you know, people really got on Anthropic for the, idea that they wouldn't allow people to use this, this model, a fable model in the pursuit of building competing AI models. And on one hand, and I think both of these things are true, on one hand, it showed just how much power a frontier lab has. If it makes a decision about something, you know, you're sort of at a loss if you're reliant on its capabilities. And it's rare that you're going to see a tech company use its power that way. The thing you could say, on Anthropics behalf is you could say that they will have their model distilled. If they, or they will have, they've had people distill their model, use the technology to create

competitors, and they're getting wise to it. And you don't want to enable it. So I'm actually curious to hear your reaction to those two statements. And it would be great to just hear what you think and whether there's any credit. ability to it. No, no, I think on the latter, there definitely is, well, hold on, walk me through exactly before I fully agree with you the second point. Basically, the point is you, if you're a company like Anthropic, you've seen other companies take your models and glean some of the IP off of it through, you know, distillation, things like that. So why would you make your model available to people

building AI models, knowing that that's a possibility. I think that's probably more succinct with you say. No, no, I think that, okay, and I do think it is a tough one, because on one hand, you could imagine it would factor in, but on the other, I don't know, I've been thinking about that a lot, because like, how do you try to control for it? Do you add like, because even right now, that's like only a mild safeguard, I feel, but it's not really going to solve the problem. And it's funny because as complex and advanced and revolutionary as technology is,

it's amazing to me that it's like dealing with the problem that like the apparel industry and most others dealt with in the 2000s. Like, yeah, someone can come steal your model and that's your high margin product. And that's like where you will make most of your money. And so they have to. But I don't know. I can't imagine that is. is going to dramatically, that's going to be like a major reason behind this because it can't be that relevant.

Like, I mean, at that point, a simple like throttle, throttling mechanism would be, I think, more useful than just trying to like catch you in a prompt if you're making some AI stuff. Yeah. Well, they did roll it back to. Do you think they're being defensive here? Of course they're being defensive. Yeah. Yeah, they rolled it back to some degree, but it is interesting. And as these things become more capable, if one company takes a lead and wants to protect that lead, we might see more of this, which is, I mean, we know Anthropic restricts the use of Claude Code and its competitors.

So we may end up seeing more of it. All right. Let's go to. One quick question. even 4-8, when is the last time you felt something magical? What was like the model release that where you like type some stuff in, had a couple of turns with your agent and were like, holy shit, this is incredible. Was it? When was it?

I'm going to answer in a way that's going to. I was talking with a listener this week and I was like Ron John's been stacking Ws on me and I'm going to get another L today. to be honest the places where I've had the more holy crap moments have been using the medium powered models like Claude Sonnet in the harness in something like Claude Co-work. Oh yes! And I have really just become co-work pilled recently. I'm using it for everything. I'm having it like draft draft emails.

I can't even begin to tell you like I'm having it like register people for the summit. Like when I get a list of people that are going to be that are coming to the summit, I'll just give the list to co-work and be like log in and out of our event platform because we don't have like the backend tools to do it like batch and add each one of these people with this coupon code. You know, and it's doing it. So this is for one specific group. like press, right? Welcome to the harness hive.

Welcome to the harness hive. I'm in the harness hive now. I'm in the harness hive now. I'm just like, wow, I wouldn't even want to use these high-powered models for it. It works so well with the medium-powered model. It doesn't need like the biggest brain in the world to accomplish this task. No, I'm in the harness hive. I've honestly felt that with 4-8 even like I saw it like where you're just like,

you know, calm down. It's okay. let's just, we're trying to do something basic here. So, yeah, welcome to the harnessive. I'll pass it back to you if you want to bring to it. Now that I've gotten that, that I've gotten that, I might just walk away from this microphone. Don't leave the podcast.

Look, I'm not saying the model doesn't matter. Like, clearly you need good models in order to be able to create these experiences, especially if you create a lower powered version of them. But yeah, I'm in the harness I've now. I think I fully have joined. It's pretty amazing what this stuff can do. It just saves so much time when you start to, like, think instead of how do I use my computer for these things, how do I just turn it over to something like a cowork? Is this funny, though, that still travel situations, I feel we're going to get into a little bit of Siri later.

I do love that the thing that makes me the happiest about agentic and where it's gotten to in the last six to eight months is now most people, other than even Apple marketing still, have recognized that. it extends far beyond just travel planning. Remember everyone's like, what are we going to do with the gent ticket? It's going to buy your plane tickets for you. It's going to book your hotels for you. But we're in a good place. We're in a good place. No, it's incredibly handing it a spreadsheet and asking it to do stuff is pretty amazing.

And you can see the things kind of will their way through stuff that they don't understand at first or they can't accomplish at first and get better. And that's definitely been like a totally new revelation. to me, even though I've been using things like Claude Code to build websites like the Summit website is built with Claudecode. But I just think this co-work stuff is, I'm starting to use it more and more, and it really, really is super productive for me. All right, let's take a break. We're going to talk about a potential pricing war between OpenAI Ananthropic coming up. And then Ranjan will tell us all that he apologizes to Tim Cook because he finally fixed Siri. Or he won't.

We'll talk about it when we come. back right after this. This episode is brought to you by Orchestra. A couple of weeks ago, I sat down with David Pluff, two-time Obama campaign manager, senior White House advisor, and now a partner at Orchestra for a conversation about AI democracy and the massive gap between how this industry sees itself and how the rest of the country sees it. It's one of the most honest conversations I've had on this topic. You can watch the full thing on my YouTube channel. Just type in Alex Cantrell's. Orchestra is a strategic communications firm

helping organizations navigate exactly this moment. Check them out at OrchestraCo.com. When it's time to scale your business, it's time for Shopify. Get everything you need to grow the way you want. Like, all the way. Stack more sales with the best converting checkout on the planet. Track your cha-chings from every channel,

right in one spot, and turn real-time reporting into big-time opportunities. Take your business to a whole new level. Switch to Shopify. Start your free trial today. And we're back here on Big Technology Podcast Friday edition. Before we get into this Open AI story, folks, next week we're going to have a little bit of a different show. It will still be me and Ranjan, but it will be with audience participation from the Big Technology AI Summit.

So we are going to go through one story next week, and then we'll take questions live from the audience. And it should be a good list. So stay tuned for that. All right, let's talk about this price war. So this is from the Wall Street Journal. Open AI considers drastic price cuts anticipating war for users with Anthropic. Open AI is considering drastically lowering its prices, the prices it charges users as it seeks to win customers from its rival Anthropic. The company is weighing significant cuts to what it charges for tokens, the unit of measurement artificial intelligence firms used to build for their products.

The move would be an anticipation of similar cuts the company expects. at Anthropic. Business executives have begun to balk at high prices for AI usage. Opening I chief executive Sam Altman said at a recent event, the costs have become a huge issue. I think we'll have a lot of ways we can help people get more value for less spent. Is this the beginning of a price war between Open AI and Anthropic that just drives the price of frontier intelligence down to not zero, but, you know, way lower than it is today? And if so, what does that mean for the AI industry? So to me this is a really interesting story.

And I can tell you like the amount, again, how fast this stuff is moving, three to four months ago, every executive, no executive I spoke with was really concerned with token consumption and costs. And now suddenly that's all anyone wants to talk about. And I do think like this is a really dangerous game. Open AI would be playing if they move in this direction. because the way you figure it is like they were going to lose costs. They're going to lose on cost at some point to a deep seek or others. So they have built themselves as premium products that should win at the kind of frontier model layer. And it's a luxury product essentially.

So if, again, like any luxury industry knows, like if you cheapen that, that can actually fundamentally threaten your overall like standing brand business. everything. And it's almost funny to me too because I saw like a lot of kind of open AI boosters trying to argue that the actual like individual API call or the

individual token that is like distributed or inferred is profitable. It's a very high margin business if you strip out all model training costs. So like you know you send out that token. It's like a 70, 80% margin

transaction. If you remove the hundreds of billions of dollars you've spent, and that's why Open AI loses $9 billion a year. So I think this is, like, if them going aggressively at anthropic and trying to undercut them, I think could be short-term beneficial for them, but I think long-term just dramatically hurts them and anthropic, because right now they are premium products. Is this just a natural progression of where this business. is going to go, which is that the intelligence layer becomes commoditized because there's so many people building it. Well, I mean, then it becomes more about the model and the harness and the

product. Yeah. No, no, I think, I mean, I do think, I think this is actually one of the bigger threats to both of these companies right now, even more so with Open AI. And we've talked about this for years now, that no one knows what the sustainable economics of these businesses are, especially like a very high investment frontier model-driven research lab turned consumer or enterprise business. No one knows what the economics should look like. We do know they're not software margins, traditional software margins. Like the marginal cost of distributing a product is not effectively zero. So like we know it's going to look different, but them chasing and driving this in the wrong direction, I think could be really bad. Do you think they're going to do it one?

And do you think it would be good or bad for them if they do? That'll be fun to ask Greg Brockman about it next week at the summit. So I will do that. I think they will. I mean, I think that there's, if you think about it strategically, right? Anthropic has been winning, it's also, part of this is about lifetime value, right? Anthropic has been winning over a lot of these enterprise customers with its offering. And once you win these people

over and you get them set on, you know, your system, they're not going to want to go anywhere else for a while because they're going to build that habit, right? And because if it's working for them, then why would they go somewhere else? And so I think that opening eye probably sees it as, well,

if we drop our prices, we're going to lean on our strength. Right? what's their strength? They have all this infrastructure. They've invested in more infrastructure than Anthropic. Dario called it Yolo-ink, right? What they're doing on the infrastructure side. If you've built the infrastructure, why not lean on that as a strength and try to win these companies over and get that lifetime value that will be difficult for Anthropic to get over time? But that assumes switching costs are low. Like what you just said there in terms of like once they're in your system, but remember, in most of these cases, it's just an

API call. Like, again, or it's, we've seen how dramatically cloud code users could switch over to Codex. And when you're in the command line, it all looks kind of the same anyways. So like, like it's, they're not, it's not like the average end user has chat GPT open. Now, maybe like memory and context become part of the mode or the switching costs, but like, overall, from the pure model delivery perspective, I don't think that is, is really the case. Interesting. Wait, let me ask you something because we're going to talk about it next week, too.

Are you a believer in this, like, in the argument that this becoming more and more prevalent, that model orchestration is where, like, the real value will be found as opposed to just the raw intelligence of the models you produce? I can say that that is at the core of what we sell at writer, and that's what I've been working over the last 12 months, and yeah, 100%.

I mean, I got to say, being, like, orchestrate, being the orchestration layer, being across, and actually being interoperable across different models, even though we have our own foundation model. This is what we've been building for a long time now. And I'm telling you, I've seen the switch in the last few months where people really, executives really did not think about token cost. And now it's all anyone is talking about.

So, yeah, I'm an orchestration guy through and through. Yes. Beyond hardest, beyond the product. But isn't that very bearish for the big model companies? I mean, they can build the most intelligent system they want. But ultimately, if it goes orchestration, then what are they going to do? It is. Because it would be much less.

I mean, if you already saw like, I mean, like model routing, even finding. And the thing is, they're trying to push it even themselves, but within their own family. Again, when you are searching about how to alter your own mitochondria, out to make yourself a bioweapon, Fable 5 is downgrading you and doing some model routing to, I think, a haiku or something like that. So everyone is recognizing it's where things are going. That's just the model routing side now orchestrating across different systems. And this is where there's more value.

And co-work is kind of like that entry point into feeling the power of what if I could connect some documents and files. and some model, what could I do? And like some logins. I think that becomes the entry point for an individual. But yeah, I'm an orchestration guy throwing through. Okay. All right, interesting stuff. We'll obviously be speaking about this over the next month on the show

because a lot of these conversations that we're going to have next week, which we'll try to air as many as we can on the podcast, we'll feature this, including a conversation with Arv and CERNivas, the CEO of Perplexity. Okay, before we go, Apple, WWDC, it happened this week. You've been begging the company for years to fix Siri. Do you think Siri's fixed?

Oh, man. I know I've been a bit of a hater on today's show, but I am going to say it. I have not used it yet. I have been going back and forth because apparently if you upgrade to the developer beta on your Mac, you can already install Siri via command line. But I've not done it yet. I think I might be. but I don't know, like I saw Joanna Stern has not been the biggest fan of Siri in the past,

and she had some pretty good videos out about her using it. I've seen a lot of people. And then even M.G. Siegler and his argument, like, it just all started kind of hitting. I'm like, oh, my God, if they actually do this everyday AI, and like, what does that mean for Open AI? What is that? I mean, it's just, it changes the look by December. We are having such a different conversation about the landscape. And my God, if Apple pulls this off, but it feels like they have a shot now more than ever. Do you think they're going to do it? Does it feel real? I think they did it. I think they did it. I mean, I was, so again, I was banned from WWDC. You're not allowed into

WWDC this year. Fair enough. But I was still on the day of or the day after I was on. on CNBC and said, look, you know, the stock's down 4%. I think investors are wrong here. I think they're being too negative because consumer AI is wide open. And what Apple's done is it's used its operating system to first provide a lot of context for people on their phones, right? Like your phone is a screen where you're like tackling so many different things. And if you could just say, hey, Siri, what does this mean? Or how do I get there?

Or can you copy this and paste it into my notes? These are simple actions that you apply a gender and AI layer and all of a sudden the phone becomes more powerful than it was previously. I haven't used it yet, but I've seen enough videos to put my early analysis in. I think it's going to work. I think that the bar was also so low that they have to just show a little incremental progress. And everyone's going to be like, wow, they did it. And I think that's absolutely what's going to happen. I would like John Turnus.

to come on this show to thank us because thanks to just ripping on Siri for a few years now, we have set the bar so incredibly low that just answering a basic like GPT40 voice mode query will make everyone just marvel. Because honestly, I saw someone was like asking, they're like, I have a 7 a.m. flight, what time should I get to the airport? And it was like, based on your location. and a typical wait for an Uber at this time. And I'm like, I mean, that is such basic Gemini-ChimpT stuff.

But everyone who's like commenting on Twitter like, this is incredible. So yeah, we have set a very low bar and that's the best possible place you can start. So you're welcome to us. But also let's just say it's not the most advanced stuff. It's not the most mind-blowing stuff. But because of where it sits, it doesn't need to be. Right. As long as it sits in the operating system and it really is.

Like, biggest loser, if this thing works, is meta, right? Because their personal super intelligence becomes that much harder for people to access. If they have a working intelligence on their phone, even if it's not super, just intelligence. I'm already having, like, visions of all this stuff they could do if it works. But I'm not going to let you hurt me, Apple. I'm not going to let you get me that excited. If it works, my God, it just opens up just like an entire universe of interesting fun. opportunity, but I won't let myself get hurt again, Apple. I'm going to wait. I'm going to wait

till sometime this year, because you haven't even told me when, but sometime this year, sometimes later this year, I believe, was the exact phrasing. They're going to do it eventually, right? They're a technology company. They're going to eventually, they've basically taken it off the shelf from Google to a degree and use that to help train their own models, but they're going to figure it out. Stakes are too high. And when they do, it's going to be cool. So I think this will be the first step toward it. And personally, I, my expectations were low coming into the week. And they were, they were exceeded.

So I'm excited to use this. New Syria on my phone. You haven't used it yet. Neither of us have used it. Do you think it'll let you alter your mitochondria? I sure as I'll hope so. I have, yeah, three days, go five days to bring, to bring that out. Imagine if Siri ended up being the AI platform that helped you with that project.

Fable 5. It's the true danger. It's so good. It is a cybersecurity risk that can threaten humanity in the entire global economic infrastructure. I have to say, if we end up like getting wiped out by a superbug that's been generated on Siri, I'm going to be really mad. It'll be funny. It'll be ironic. Actually, for the irony.

I'll be happy. They did it as we melted away into the abyss. You were right. I'm sorry. Sorry, Tim. Tim's like a only I have. Turnus. King Ternus.

Oh, Ternus. He's going to melt us all. Right. All right. Well, in which case, I will apologize to have all for all the things I've said about their AI. All right, Rangelo, we'll see you next week in San Francisco. Looking forward to it.

I will see you on stage in San Francisco. And we will see you all the day. later here in the feed. So thank you again. Ron John, great to talk to you as always. See you next week. See you next week. And thanks to all of you, the listeners and viewers. Pleasure to do this show for you guys every week and we'll see you next time on Big Technology Podcast.