Big Technology Podcast - The Web’s ‘Existential’ AI Threat, OpenAI’s Microsoft Office Competitor, Tesla Robotaxi Launch

Episode Date: June 27, 2025

Reed Albergotti is the technology editor at Semafor. He's back for our weekly discussion of the latest tech news. We cover 1) Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince says AI is disappearing the web 2) Will there be new business models that replace the current web-based models? 3) Is the AI Agent thing really happening? 4) Vibecoding riches 5) Court rules Anthropic can train on books (but not steal them) 6) Anthropic will study AI’s economic impact 7) Is chatbot companionship good for us? Anthropic says yes 8) OpenAI works on office productivity tools 9) Why OpenAi and Microsoft have tension 10) Will Stargate work? 11) Mira Murati’s Think Machines plan 12) Tesla Robotaxi Rollout 13) Jeff Bezos gets married, who's coming?? --- Enjoying Big Technology Podcast? Please rate us five stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ in your podcast app of choice. Want a discount for Big Technology on Substack? Here’s 25% off for the first year: https://www.bigtechnology.com/subscribe?coupon=0843016b Questions? Feedback? Write to: [e-mail]

Is the web about to collapse as generative AI sends a tiny amount of traffic to websites, according to Cloudflare's CEO? Meanwhile, OpenAI might be building a Microsoft Office competitor. Mirroo Moradi is starting to tell people what she's doing at Thinking Machines Labs, and Tesla's Robotaxy Initiative is out the gate. We'll cover it all on a Big Technology Podcast Friday edition right after this. Welcome to Big Technology Podcast Friday edition, where we break down the news in our traditional cool-headed and nuanced format.

We have so much to speak with you about this week in another big week of tech and AI news. We are going to cover the tiny amount of traffic that AI has been sending to websites and whether that is a sign of a greater collapse to come. We'll also talk about the latest in the OpenAI Microsoft Wars. Some interesting news coming from Anthropic that we can drop today and talk to you about. We also have some news about what Mira Miramara is. up to at Thinking Machine Labs. Of course, Tesla has gotten its Robotaxy initiative underway and Jeff Bezos is getting married. So joining us as always, not as always, joining us as a special

guest here to speak with us about this is our regular Reed Albergotti, the technology editor at 7-4. Reed, great to see you. Thanks so much for coming on. Yeah, absolutely. I just got back from the wedding. I'm just kidding. I was not there. Wasn't at the Bezos wedding. This is my Easter egg for listeners, I have a list of celebrities that will be at the Bezos wedding, including one who was listed as ready to go and now apparently is not going. All right. We'll get to all that at the end. Fine, fine. I'll just give the spoiler. It's Katie Perry. Katie Perry is on the list. Apparently, she's not on the list now. We'll get to the bottom of this. We do journalism here. We'll figure it out. But let's talk about where we do journalism and where a lot of the

happenings on the internet occur, which is websites. So a couple months ago, we talked about how the CEO of Cloudflare, Matthew Prince, had gone basically public and said, listen, compared to a year ago, Jennervei is saying, sending way fewer visits to websites as, let's say, Google search. So six months ago, these are the numbers, he said. Google, the ratio was six to one. Open AI, 250 pages crawled. So six pages crawled, one visit from Google. 250 pages crawled one visit from OpenAI. Six thousand pages crawled one visit from Anthropic. That was six months ago. Now for Google, it's 18 pages crawled one visit. Open AI, it's 1,500 pages crawled one visit. Anthropic, it's now gone up from 6,000 to 60,000 pages crawled.

one visit. Prince says people aren't following the footnotes. Is this time to panic? I mean, I sort of, I'm going to title this this conversation or the beginning of this podcast episode, the web's existential AI threat. Am I getting over my skis read? Am I, is this hyperbole? I think it's always a great time to panic in the media business, to be honest. And that's not just a joke. I mean, I think it's like, I remember, you know, being in, you know, studying journalism in college and talking about, you know, panicking in the media business. And at that time, it was, you know, just, just the web was, was completely destroying it. I think what's interesting, and Matthew Prince has been on this, you know, he's been talking about this now for a while.

I've talked to him about it. I think it's, I think it's admirable what he's doing. But I also think that, you know, traffic was never a good metric to judge whether, you know, a story is valuable, media article is valuable. So if that metric goes away, then yeah, I mean, it's going to hurt the, it's going to hurt the current industry. But I think it actually is maybe in the end positive thing. And I think there's two things going on. I mean, one is the traffic. And the other is like, you know, they're scraping all these websites and pulling in the information. And that part, if you get rid of traffic as a metric, you don't need, you don't need to allow these things to scrape your websites, right? I mean, it's possible to put a hard paywall in place

and to essentially stop that scraping. But then you don't get the traffic. So you get rid of that business model. I think in the end, it will be a healthy thing for the media. Maybe not for current media companies, though. So Matthew is going to be in New York. I'm in the middle of pitching his teams try to get him to come on and talk a little bit more about what he means here. We should note, I think he's selling something to help publishers stop the scraping, but I don't think that's really going to change very much because ultimately bots like Chachip-B-T are already so useful. So I don't think that you're going to have like this wall that publishers put up and all

of a sudden people are going to go to websites. I think that's probably because it just takes a few websites to get that usefulness into these bots. But I'll just take the counter argument here, which is it's, you know, traffic didn't matter as long as you had some right like you needed to have a little bit of an audience and you could say to advertisers we have a high a very valuable audience we have the top executives in the field therefore you should do this event with us or this engagement when you have zero traffic that changes and by the way it's not just publishers right we're talking about the web which also has I would say entertainment sites booking sites I mean obviously Netflix isn't going to go away but

There was a publisher I spoke with World History Encyclopedia. It's just a site where people go and learn about world history. And that's taken a big hit from AI. So if all these different aspects of the web start to go away, that does sound like maybe it could be a crisis. What's your take? Well, I mean, look, you make really good points. But I think in the end, you know, if what you have is like all the high quality journalism is essentially non-traffic-based, the business model is not is not, maybe you have advertising, but it's not the targeted advertising that we see

in the traffic business, then let's see what these AI models get from these few websites that are still traffic based. I mean, it's going to be complete crap. And so I think in the end, they'll have to figure out some way that they'll either have to pay publications to sort of republish on their platforms. And that could be a business that maybe supports media. Other models will emerge, right? I mean, like, you know, at Semaphore, you do it to events, right? There are lots of ideas to fund journalism subscriptions, right? Before traffic even existed, the media business was pretty healthy, right? Like, people paid for newspapers. And, you know, yeah, they got, they had the classifieds business and all that stuff. But it's not just journalism,

though. It's not just journalism. That's the point I'm trying to make is that, yeah, we, you know, because we're journalists, we like to talk about the journalism websites. But again, like this is this is going to be everything yeah i mean look if if what you're talking about is like these passion projects that are sort of like the bread and butter of the web if people don't go to these websites anymore and they get just like ingested into AI models and disappear i mean again like then the AI models won't like they won't be as valuable like there won't be anything to ingest anymore and so there's something will have to shake out is what i'm saying like it's not, I don't think it's like the Armageddon. When it comes to just like the long tail of web

content, I don't think it's Armageddon for that. I think something will, you know, I don't know what it is, but like that will work itself out, I think. What I really care about is that is that journalism is it survives, right? That's what to me, the most important thing. And I think, and I think that will survive too. Maybe I just sound like a like a, like a, just a total optimist, a techno optimist or whatever now but I do think that yeah no I mean it's definitely you have of all the people I speak to about this you have some of the more optimistic perspective perspectives that I've heard about it I don't fault you for that I think that we tend to have things end up growing together but not all the time and it is interesting that you'll end up getting a tremendous amount of power concentrated

in the hands of these bots in the hands of let's say open AI or anthropic clawed, although they don't really care too much about cloud anymore. But you'll have this power concentration. Maybe that's why we see all these billions of dollars being invested. If you get the master chat bot where everybody accesses all the content, the news, sports cores, world history, maybe there instead of going to like booking or kayak, they're doing that within the bot. Then, you know, these numbers that Matthew Prince is putting out highlights kind of like the big question we've been talking about on the show for a long time, which is what is the valuation of these chatbots and these foundational model companies? And when is it going to be justified? And I guess if you

gobble up the whole web, you're okay. Well, you know, like you mentioned sports scores. That's an interesting one. Like people used to pay for newspapers so they could open it up and see the sports score, right? And then, you know, online publication started putting the scores up. And now, I think the way it works is if you, if you Google a sports score, you just see the score right there. And I believe they have a deal. Maybe it's with ESPN, but like eventually it's, it's going to, I think they just get those scores directly from the leagues and they're just going to be paying the league for that

information. This is not really a, it's not, that's not really like a valuable service that somebody is that some publication is providing. So I think if you're developing, if you're putting out some really valuable thing, I think it'll find, they'll find a way to, you know, to be valued, right? Like, and you talk about these bots, like, I don't even know if that's how this is going to shake out. Like, I think what you might have is sort of everyone will have their own personal bot

that sort of handles their information diet. And maybe that bot has subscriptions to things and it reads, you know, publications for you, but you're at least paying for it. I mean, that's one way this could go. I think, like, we're looking at this right now through the lens of what we already know. which is like the current web and that is all going to change but everything is just going to be completely different so i think people often like forget that like this is such a fun this this a i stuff is going to be such a fundamental change that like all these assumptions that we

have or i think you just have to discount all of them okay and it's by the way it's not just publishers it's not just web publishers also the infrastructure of the web is going to change and you recently had a conversation with liz read who runs search at google and you had you asked her about about how is advertising gonna work? And you actually have this idea or this thought that advertising is gonna be quite different as we move forward. So what is gonna happen to the Google stack?

Because I think, and you put this in your article, right? They have so many great AI bets, they have DeepMind and Gemini, they have Waymo, they have isomorphic labs. But the reason why the stock is the cheapest, I think of all magnificent seven stocks, is because we don't know what's gonna happen to search. It's funny, I wrote that story.

And then I got a, message from a Google employee was asking me if they should keep their stock. That's the question, right? That is fascinating to me. I'm like, you know, I think they were, I actually, they read that and were like, well, maybe I should keep the stock. I mean, that's crazy to me that even Google employees are like, what, you know, do I even believe in the future of this company?

But I think they, I mean, Google of all the companies has so much going for it, right? I think they're a pretty good long-term bet, but this cash cow, you know, search advertising thing is like totally threatened by this new model. And I've sort of thought, like, why have advertising at all in the AI world, at least like, at least the kind of advertising that you associate with like search ads where you're trying to buy a product and then you get a bunch of ads for similar products and things like that. That shouldn't be necessary in the world of AI. And Liz Reed's point was, well, no, it still is because you'll have like these small companies that maybe want to get their product out like it's newer so it's not going to be read by

these things and then i'm thinking well okay but then i'm not even going to see that ad right like my my agent or whatever is going to go find the information and then present me with the facts and ask me what i want to buy so if a human is not seeing an ad is it really an ad like it's it's something else it's like it's a it's a service for providing information and you You can imagine a world where there are micro transactions and there's sort of like credible sources of information that can be trusted to provide, you know, not just like puffery or BS to try to sell BS products. So it's like I think what you're going to see is this whole industry, this whole ecosystem

that sort of mirrors the ad tech world but really isn't advertising at all, if that makes sense. Yeah, I mean, the way that you describe it is imagine describing a pair of shoes you want to buy to a voice assistant who searches the web, perhaps using Google, and then describes the options, and you instruct it to purchase one of them. If there's an ad in that scenario, it's going to be seen by an AI agent and not a human. So what would Don Draper advertise to the AI agent? It is kind of interesting, like, do you think our AI agents, like, might be on the take? Maybe, like, they have, like, a deal under the table with Nike to be like, we know that he's an Adidas buyer, but just like show him this Jordan ad and maybe he'll go out and buy it.

Yeah. I mean, I think if these things, if Google decides that what they're going to do is actually try to influence the recommendations, allow companies to, you know, to sort of, it's sort of like pay to play then, right? It goes, then it's not advertising anymore. And so, you know, I think that's a tough, yeah, I think people will try that is the answer. They will try that. They'll try to have your agent be on the take. But those, those products will get rejected, right? You're going to want, people are going to want AI agents that they can trust to make really good decisions. You have to remember, like, an ad right now in the internet is like, like a really good click through rate is something like, you're like 1% or like less than 1%.

Yeah, half a percent is great. Half a percent. So like, for the most part, people just ignore ads. So, like, you don't want, nobody wants an ad to be actually part of their, part of their experience online. I actually think the term, like, personalized advertising is like an oxymoron because the whole point of it is that it's not personalized. Like, if it's personalized, then you wouldn't need to see the ad. I mean. But why do you, why do you mean that? I mean, a personalized ad could be like, all right, let's say, let's use this sneaker example, right? We know that Reed is a tennis player, so therefore we're going to advertise him this tennis shoe.

That ad is personalized to you. way that you wouldn't have personalization if you were to run like an untargeted tennis shoe ad on TV. Right. But it's not, but it's like ultimately trying to get me to buy something that I might not otherwise buy. If I were going to buy that shoe anyway, then there'd be no reason to have an ad. This is the exact reason, though, that you want to run the ad is because you know that as someone who plays tennis, you're going to be in market for sneakers every like six months. So like if you're consistent buyer of Adidas. It's great, actually. It's great money for Nike to spend to be like, all right, this person probably is going to keep this habit for life. You don't really age out of tennis

until you get, like, you know, way old. And so therefore, if Nike spends, let's say, $100 to reach you with a personalized ad, the ROI, it could be like very high over time. Yeah, but what you're describing is almost brand advertising, right? That's like, I like Nike's, Nike needs to, like, you know, show up in my feet every once in a while to make me sort of like just keep that image of the swoosh in the back of my mind. I mean, that's sort of, that's kind of like brand advertising, I think. Yeah, brand advertising can be personalized. Okay, sure. It can be personalized.

Maybe I need to work on that analogy a little bit. But I do think, look, I read the end of the article and I understand why Google employees might be thinking, should I sell my stock? I mean, you know, you're talking about agent-to-agent protocols, and you say that transition could take time, and Google needs to innovate on search without killing its cash cow. If it's successful, the thing that replaces it, whether we call it advertising or something else, could be even bigger. But that's like quite a long time horizon compared to what we're searing from Matthew Prince today. I mean, even I'm actually curious to your perspective about the timeline on when this agent stuff becomes a reality, Because we have people that are, like, going out to the press saying, oh, yeah, we're using agents all the time. But in reality, most people are like, what are you talking about?

Yeah. I mean, the timeline stuff is, I think this stuff happens. And this is also another reason that I kind of am like, I know Prince is talking about, like, traffic numbers today. But I'm also sort of like, it makes me a, I think slower change is just better in general for society. Like, you don't want this stuff to happen overnight. it'll just be it'll be total chaos and i think we are getting slow change i don't think i mean i don't really i don't think this agent thing has really taken off at all and i think what's really happening is like people are trying this stuff and it's and it can't be trusted it's too you know there's too much

hallucination too many errors like you know in a lot of these in a lot of the really great AI agent use cases if it makes one mistake you can't you can't use it like it's just you know you can't trust it. So I think it's actually going to be, I think it's going to be a while before this stuff gets good enough. Mark Benioff, friend of the show, was out speaking more about agents this week. He said 50% of the work at Salesforce is already being done by AI. Are you buying or selling that statement? The work? I don't. I don't know. I think it. AI is doing up to 50% of the work at Salesforce, CEO of Salesforce says, this is CNBC reporting. He says, all of us have to get to our head around this idea that AI could do things, that before we were doing

and we can move to do higher value work. He says the technology currently accounts from about 30 to 50% of the company's work. 30 to 50. I'm selling that. I don't think that's possible. Yeah. I mean, especially you're a CEO, you got to get your handle on how much work the eye sounds like an advertisement to me. That's the kind of language in advertisements, up to 50%. Read, that's a personalized up just for you. But in one instance, it was 50%. This person wrote an email and 50% of it was written by. No, I think the coding stuff is totally real. I mean, that is like definitely people are using it. There's sort of like this generational divide too. It's like the classic disruption. Like if you're a new company today, if you're a new like software

startup. Your code base is totally AI. It's probably 100% written by AI. And you've developed it in this way that it's sort of readable, searchable by AI so that it can make changes. And if you're, if you were the from the pre-AI era, it this, you probably think, you know, AI code sucks because it's not able to go in and like affect your code base, right? So you're, so there's this like generational divide. And I think that's where it's very lumpy, like how this stuff is, is being implemented. But coding is powerful. You hosted a tech event or yeah, tech event in San Francisco last month. And I'm Jeb Massad. The CEO of Replit was there. And this week, he's tweeting out unbelievable increases in revenue. Replit, of course, enables people to use AI to code,

to vibe code and puts a picture of, I think, a private jet on the runway out there and says, thank you, vibe coding. So something's working. Well, I mean, look, after people, after CEOs come and do a fireside with me at these events they usually see huge increases in revenue so not surprising um no but thank you for coming to that event that was good to see you there's a great event yeah definitely it was a great event really good conversations at jack clark from anthropic was there i think i noted something that he said in in the show that week so it was good thank you yeah and i think coding is like if let's say like the whole AI agent thing doesn't like happen for a while coding is can automate a lot of stuff in our lives right now. There's so much powerful software out there

that we don't use because we don't have an army of coders. We don't, you know, nobody knows how to code basically. And I think if just that one thing changes, like I think you'll see just a lot more automation in the world. And it might feel like agents, even if it's not like truly an agent, like doing something. I might kind of feel like that. I think we still see a huge amount of change even just from the coding stuff. Yeah, Sam Altman and Brad Lightcap, the C.O. of OpenAI, and of course, Sam is the CEO. They were out at this hard fork event this week and had a lot of interesting things to say, which we'll talk about over the course of this conversation. But one of the things Sam said that I thought was interesting was that, you know, I think he was asked.

So AI can code, but it can't do much else. Where's the other stuff? And he's like, well, coding is pretty general technology. Like if you want to do a lot of different things, you can code your way into it, which I thought was an interesting response. So I definitely agree with you on the code front. Speaking of, by the way, AI eating the web or eating different content, there was a very important court ruling this week that I want to get your take on. And that is that Anthropic won. This is from Reuters.

Anthropics wins a key U.S. ruling on AI training and author's copyright lawsuit. A federal judge in San Francisco ruled late on Monday that Anthropics' use of books without permission to train its artificial intelligence system was legal under U.S. copyright law. The judge sided with the tech companies on the pivotal question, saying that Anthropic made fair use of books written by the authors that brought the suit to train its clawed large language model. First of all, do you agree with the judge? And second, what do you think this means for the AI industry? Yeah, I actually do agree. And I think this is what most copyright lawyers thought would happen.

It was super interesting. I thought was that, okay, it's like the ruling is sort of like, if I could summarize it, you know, just in non-legal terms. It's kind of like if you're, if you're an AI agent, you can learn from stuff or if you're an AI model, like you can learn from things, just like a human, you know, learns from stuff. But the funny part is like they said the way they had obtained these books was actually not legal, that that was that was piracy. So I think that's, that was super interesting to me. It's like, well, if you're going to train on this stuff, you should at least have to buy it. Like I think, you know, if you're going to ingest a bunch

of books, like, buy the books. I think it's hilarious that, like, so many people are outraged by these models training on books, and they don't say anything about the fact that, like, there's websites where you can just go illegally download pirated books. So, yeah, I mean, no, I totally agree with that. I think, you know, why not let them train on this stuff? But they shouldn't be able to reproduce it. Like, you shouldn't be able to say, send me, like, chapter four of you know Alex Cantorowitz's book like that's not cool um or the whole definitely not yes yeah I prefer that that doesn't happen and I mean Anthropic has a lot of books this is the ruling said they have more than seven million pirated books and US copyright law says

willful copyright infringement can justify statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work that is that is a very big number they could potentially end up seeing as a fine mine for possessing these millions of pirated books. Wait, I hope my book's in that, in that group, because that means I get $150,000. I, no, well, I don't know. It might just be the authors that are suing, but if there ends up being a pool that's paid out to authors whose books have been ingested by, I promise you read, I'll be there first in line for my handout.

And if you want me to take a ticket for you and grab your money, I'll do that also. Yeah, please do, please do. Or maybe I'll send my AI agent to go collect. Let's see. Right. Yeah, but you'll get your money in 15 years. Can I get a loan based on that? Not for me.

But I'm sure somebody will give it to you at a high interest rate. Let's talk about this last thing you had dropped in our document, which is that there's a new thing that Google has that's trying to help publishers make money outside of just traffic. It's called Offer Wall. Do you want to talk a little bit about why you found that interesting? Yeah. Well, I just thought it was relevant in this broader conversation, right? I mean, if I understand it correctly, it's sort of like you can, you know, if you're a publication, like you can have micro transactions and they sort of make it easy for you to collect revenue.

I don't whether that's subscriptions, ads or whatever. I mean, I don't know. It's probably not like hugely significant, but it kind of just shows that these companies are thinking about this. issue and like how do they i don't think i don't think google wants like you know people like you and you know the media to kind of go around saying that they're they're destroying the web and they're putting publishers out of business right they want to figure out a way to to make it work so i don't know that was sort of my my general takeaway but you might have a different a different opinion yeah i think it's interesting for a couple reasons one is that they're they seem like they're just

directing people away from the web i mean they're basically they're giving public this ability to create a pop-up on their website and say to access the content, sign up to our newsletter, which like email isn't going away, even if the web might be or the web. Ranjan and I like to say the web is like, you know, slowly degrading. And by the way, thank you to Ranjan for bringing some of the stories in for this week's show, especially that Matthew Prince, a statistic he'll be back next week. But I think that, yeah, it's interesting to see Google steer people away from the web. And the other thing is, this only works as if if you have traffic. So I still think that traffic for traffic's sake is meaningless,

but some form of traffic or audience is going to your sites to seek out your stuff is important. Whether you're a publisher, whether you're an encyclopedia for history, or whether you're even a travel website. Yeah. But look at what happened with like with substack, right? Like all these people, you know, started just paying for these newslet. Like who would have predicted? that. I mean, it's been, I mean, look, trust me, it's been cool. It's an amazing new thing. You're a great example. But just making it easier for people to pay online is, that's like a really good thing, right? Like it, like, why is it that if I'm driving my car, I have like, you know, I, I click on, I use like Spotify, which is like built into my car. And I just click

on that and I listen to podcasts. Like, if a podcast wants to charge me, it's like, I don't even know how I'm going to do, like, you know, not to mention I'm driving, but like, why shouldn't it just be like a voice assistant that's like, hey, like, this is, this podcast costs a dollar, whatever it is, you know, $5, you want to subscribe to it or something and just do it. Like, we need, I think it's crazy how much friction there is in just like payments on the web. And I sometimes wonder, like, if that went away, like, that might, that might actually change the publishing model in ways that are probably positive, I would guess. but I agree, Reid.

I'm with you on this one. I mean, if you could get, let's say you're like in your assistant. It has your credit card. You're either talking to it via voice or you can chat to it. It says it has information. Do you want to access it? Do you want to subscribe and get regular updates? Do you want to, you know, with a voice interaction paid to listen to the rest of this show

and there's a voice update there and everything is seamless and baked in? I think that's very promising. So, all right, I'm starting to see. There may be some light here. Maybe some light. I'm the techno optimist. I'm, I can't believe I am. I can't believe I'm the positive one.

But yeah. I have to say, listen, I'm also quite positive about the direction that this technology is going to go. But I think also that there are, there are bumps. And I think the mission here is really to be like, where is it going to go right? Where is it going to go wrong? Let's pressure test the theories of the critics and let's pressure test the theories of the optimists. So you got the big technology treatment today. No, it's true.

I mean, I have this story about Anthropic today that we got like an exclusive on about they're doing that they're going to put money into researching the effects of AI, right? On labor and on, you know, global labor force and economics. I mean, they should definitely look at the media. Like they should, they should for sure look at, you know, okay, how is this affecting publishing? Like someone should apply for one of the grant. They're giving out these like $50,000 grants or up. to up to $50,000. You know, but they're looking at like, I think ultimately like what

is the conclusion all these people come to is like the, the way you solve this is just like better, you know, better like people talk about universal basic income, right? It's just better like social help for people if they, if they're put out of work or whatever, right? I mean, I think that's the, that's the conclusion that people are going to come to. I'm guessing. But Well, I think it's good that they are starting to study this. And I wonder, do you think, so you got the exclusive from Anthropic about this idea that they're, well, this new program that they're going to roll out to study economic impact of the technology.

Do you think this is an outgrowth of Dario's comments that 50% of white collar entry-level workers are going to be out of work because of AI? I think, yeah, for sure. Those comments really got a lot of attention. And I think he got a lot of blowback for that. I think this is actually a much better method. It's like, well, we'll just, like, fund a bunch of people to do this research. But he'll probably still make these predictions.

I mean, they do, you know, they do very well. I mean, I think he said actually, like, in March, within a year, all of code will be written by AI or basically all of code. I mean, that's probably not going to come true. No, no way. I'm guessing. But we'll see. I mean, yeah, it's definitely because of that. I mean, they're, they're, this is like part of their brand.

It's like we're just going to be, you know, we're building this technology, but we're going to be warning everyone about, you know, the effects of it and all the downsides. So I mentioned that Altman and Bride LaCap were doing this interview this week. And they were asked, do you believe in this stat that Dario gave about the entry level workers? Sam Altman says, no, I don't. And Brad Lightcap says, no. we have no evidence of this. Dario is a scientist, and I hope he takes an evidence-based approach to these type of things.

I think what you're reporting, I think here for, you know, which is brand new for our listeners and viewers, is that, yeah, he's like, I agree. I'm going to take an evidence-based approach. Totally. Yeah, I think more people, yeah, more people should. I mean, I think when you get into, like, some of these areas, like, you know, the catastrophic risk, you know, or risk to humanity from AI, I don't. know how you take an evidence-based approach because it's like assuming that you know that this

technology becomes super pet there's all these assumptions about the future that you can't prove um so that's i think with a i it's really you know it's there's a lot of faith that goes into into i they don't think people realize you know definitely well there's also these these conversations about like takeoff and is this starting to explode in a way that's affecting beyond our control. And last week we talked about this gentle singularity paper from Sam Altman and how he says the takeoff has begun. But another very interesting moment from that interview was they asked about this notion. And Brad Lightcap said this, this Open AI COO. He says, will we wake up one day with this incredibly powerful thing and will the world be different that day?

I think what we've all kind of agreed on is it probably won't. These things really have to be integrated into people's lives, uh, they have to be felt and that that change is more gradual. So I actually am kind of curious to hear your perspective on this because it is a little bit of a more, I think more realistic pullback on this notion that this takeoff and intelligence explosion is underway. And it was kind of interesting to hear light cap give the different, um, the opposite perspective of what the CEO shared a week before in a blog post. What do you make of this? Well, I don't think, like, I, like, again, I don't think anybody can actually know, right? I mean, if you do get to some, you do sort

of end up, there's some threshold or breakthrough, I don't know, maybe it's possible. But like, nobody knows if that will or even could happen. So, I mean, I think Sam has always talked about this. Like, is it a fast, is it a long runway and then a fast takeoff or a short, whatever? But I think he's always sort of said, it's going to be, it's going to be this gradual thing. And that's how technology usually develops. Like, it doesn't, doesn't usually just quickly take up. There's like adoption that has to happen. I think in this scenario, it's like you're not, you're not even talking about technology anymore. You're talking about like some some future thing that might be created. I mean, who knows? I tend to agree that it's not

going to be. This is not going to be some fast takeoff thing, but I don't really know. I think a lot of these people, like the thing to remember about AI is like you could, like there's lots of people who have predicted like all of this happening with AI. They've like predicted it up to this point. But like they never had any actual evidence. They just saw basically like as compute increased, the availability of compute increased, the capabilities went up. But along the way, there are all these genius people who came up with like lots of breakthroughs that just like gradually improved the technology. But you couldn't have predicted those breakthroughs, right? So I think they're just looking at that graph and they're going, well, at some point, right?

Like at some point, it just keeps going. And then you get to this thing that's just, you know, that is super intelligence or AGI or whatever you want to call it. Yeah, they also asked him like whether his kids are going to be, have more AI friends than human friends. And I think that if we continue on the curve, it's pretty obvious that people are going to have some serious AI companionship. And the interesting pushback there was, first of all, he said more human friends, Altman said this. But Lightcap also made an effort to talk about this idea that, like, yes, people have been led astray by their AI companions, but the, by and large, the impact has been quite good on net. And this is an interesting moment where we're starting to see Open AI and other labs like Anthropic pushback on this idea that AI companions and emotional support bots are bad for you. And this is an exclusive that Anthropic gave to Axios.

And the news is quite interesting. So the headline is how Claude became an emotional support bot. The story says people who talk to Anthropics Claude Chatbot about emotional issues tend to grow more positive as the conversation unfolds. And Anthropic released new research that explores how users turn it to its chatbot for support and connection. The report says, people come in come to clod for interpersonal advice they're often navigating transitional moments figuring out their next career move working through personal growth or untangling romantic relationships and the report found evidence that users don't necessarily turn to chat bots deliberately

looking for companionship or love but the conversations kind of go that way and on net the company says that this stuff is positive curious what you think about the findings and the this sort It feels like a coordinated PR moment between the two, though it certainly isn't to say, hey, actually, it's fine to be friends with your chatbot. Well, yeah, I think it's probably generally positive. But then, of course, there's all these stories. There was one in the New York Times the other day about these people were. This is what they're responding to.

Yeah. Yeah, like horrible things have happened. And, you know, so you're always going to be able to find anecdotal, you know, like stories where people, like, it all went really bad. But I think, yeah, I mean, general, like, I mean, just talking is helpful, right? Like, just talking to the mirror is probably helpful for a lot of people. So, you know, and human communication is, like, ultimately, like, not that complicated. Like, you can, you know, you could read. There's, like, literally manuals about

how to, like, you know, sort of, like, make people feel good. And, no, I think it's totally positive. It's, it's probably going to be totally positive. The other night I was, like, trying to write about some really complicated thing. And I was like, brain, I was like asking Gemini questions about it. And it's like, that's a brilliant question. Did you, did you feel flutter? Yeah. I was like, I was like, this chat. That's cool. I like this chat. Somebody understands. So, you know, it's like not that hard. And I'm like laughing at myself as I'm writing it that I'm like, I'm like, oh, my question was smart. And I think, you know, we're just not that complicated. I think humans are just not that complicated. Like, you just talk to

anything. We had something when, when we were kids, like on the Mac, there was like this chat bot that was basically like, you know, pretending to be AI and she just had a bunch of a bunch. It was just keyword triggers basically, right? But like, even that, like people loved talking to it. So not surprising to me. I mean, have you had a conversation with chat TPT's voice mode recently? Yeah. I've talked. Yeah, I used that. I, I, use that a lot. It's gotten really good. Really, I was walking down the street and I was speaking to it on my AirPods.

And I just like, wow, I'm having like a really good conversation, no latency with this bot. And I'm just doing this in public. It felt weird. But also it was like, this is very cool technology also. It is really cool. Actually, it's great when you're driving. And like the thing, I think Google just recently added this ability to do search with voice or something. There's voice with search.

because the downside, like the chatbots for some reason are never connected to the web. So you're just limited to the cutoff date. And they're usually not the most powerful models. But like, I mean, you're in New York so you don't drive as, like, I seem to be driving a lot. And if I'm in the car a lot, like, I just told, I want to like, do, I want to, it's productive. Like, I just want to, I'm like going driving to interview somebody. And I just want to, like, talk about that and brainstorm questions and stuff like that. And like, you can do it, but it's like very.

limited still. But I think voice is totally, and I'm not the first, this is like a cliche now to say this, but I think voice is totally going to be the most powerful mode, I think. Yeah, I think it's the killer app for sure, especially when you combine it with other scents, like if you have it on your glasses or AirPods or something like that. All right. We got to take a break. And then we have two more stories to cover, which I teased in the opening. Oh my God, we haven't even gotten to Miramarie yet. to blow through three very quick stories on the other side of this 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 2 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 Hustled 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 Rita Albergati. He's the technology editor at Semaphore.

Let's go lightning through the rest of this week's stories. We kind of got caught up in the beginning of this conversation, which was great. Feel free to cut half of it out. I will not be. No, no. It stays. It stays. Oh, and before we get going on this, I meant to say this before the break.

Thanks to everybody who raided the show over the past week. You heard the call. We appreciate you. and this is going to make the show better, get better guests. So I need to express my gratitude there. And so thank you very much. Okay, so let's talk about this quickly. OpenAI has built an rival to Google Workspace and Microsoft Office.

This is according to Bloomberg. Open AI has been gearing up to take on Google and Microsoft with features that let people collaborate on documents and communicate with chat via chat GPT. Launching these features will put OpenAI more directly against Microsoft. its biggest shareholder and business partner, as well as open a new front in the battle with Google whose search engine has already lost traffic to people using chat GPT for web searches.

I don't even know if the second part of that is true, but I think the real significance here is, well, I don't know if Google's absolute traffic has gone down, but certainly it must have lost some searches to chat GPT. But I think the big thing here is that this could potentially be a new front in the OpenAI Microsoft battle that just seems to be heating up every week. What's your take on this, Reid?

Well, that battle has gotten really nasty. But I actually think, and it's like ultimately it's like about chips, which is like so fascinating or that's what started the whole thing. But I think actually, I mean, don't forget Open AI has a bitter rivalry with Google too. And that seems to me to be more competitive with Google Docs than with Word, don't you think? Or am I just misunderstanding the whole thing? Well, I think you see the direction that Word is trying to go, which is going to be more AI-enabled.

But you're right. I think the collaborative side of things, like when you think collaborative doc, you think Google Doc. Yeah, I think it's Google Docs. I mean, I don't think, like, the thing about Word and Office and all this stuff is like, it's not, like, that's not who they're competitive with because it's the companies buy these bundles of office products and that's how people end up using that. Whereas Google Docs is much more like the, you know, it's just like, I mean, they have obviously a lot of corporate accounts too, but it's like really just a purely consumer product, I think. And that's what, that's what like I, you know, if Open AI makes a better, you know, a better Google doc because Google is, you know, maybe a little bit shy about like, you know, rolling out AI agent technology in its docks. That could be kind of an interesting battle, I think. Like, as someone who's using these programs all the time, I'd like to see something new. But, yeah, I think the competitive dynamics are interesting. You mentioned that the Open AI and Microsoft battle is really over chips.

Can you just kind of elaborate on that before we move to our next topic? Well, the whole thing started because Microsoft wasn't able to build enough data centers fast enough with enough GPUs or didn't want to. And that, and so Open AI is like, well, we need to get out of our, you know, we need to get out of this exclusive arrangement. and we have to use, you know, and then they built this, they did this Oracle Stargate thing. Right. And it's just been back and forth since then, I think. Is Stargate going to work? Well, that's interesting.

That's an interesting question. I hadn't really thought, like, is it going to work? I mean, that could mean so, that question could have so many different meanings. Like, what do you mean? Is it can they actually build it once they build it? Is the AI going to scale? Is it going to be one day? is center. Yeah. Let's go to the most basic level. Do you think this thing is actually going to get built?

Well, I think some version of it will be built for sure. Actually, Bloomberg got like an exclusive tour. They got a visit. Right. They're, they're, you know, they've broken ground. Um, but I, I don't even know, like, yeah, what are the chips going to be in there? I think it's, my, my guess is like, yeah, it will be built, but like, is it going to be some huge thing that then they like train and train AGI on? I, I think it's, my guess is it. it's probably going to be like multiple sites and that are connected and a lot of it's going to be inference rather than training because ultimately if you're open AI like their value is so much now just the fact that they are the consumer interface for AI for so many people

most of their revenues coming from consumer and that's like you know that all the Ultimately, the models are not even really going to be their core product, right? It's going to be all the stuff built around it, the interfaces and the stickiness of the product. So really, inference becomes this huge cost for them. And I think that's what they're sort of looking at. It's like they have to, you know, of course, they're still trying to build the best models, et cetera. But, you know, they need to think about building their own data centers and reducing the cost as much as possible. Yeah. Well, they're going to have to find a way to also make those models much more efficient.

So let me ask you this before we move on. It's just like one of those topics that we start talking about. We can never get out of. But I think it's fine because it's interesting. We made our predictions last week on what happens with the opening eye Microsoft partnership. What do you think is going to happen? What do you think is going to? Like with the partnership eventually, I think eventually they drift. I think they drift apart. I mean, I think that's way it's headed. Microsoft just gets a stake and says, have a nice day. they'll yeah well whether i don't even know what that stake ends up being because right now it's like a revenue sharing agreement up to a certain amount of profit you know and then they and then they have nothing left i mean could be something like that it could be they end up owning shares of the company but you know they'll it just seems like there's they've in a lot of ways they've already kind of separated right you know that's true in my mind what was your prediction did you

I didn't hear your prediction. Well, in order to go to the for-profit conversion, Open AI is going to have to get sign off from Microsoft to do that. And so I think that Microsoft will use that leverage very effectively and get an amazing deal out of Open AI. Because without that, it's going to be hard for this company to sustain itself. Well, yeah, I think that's totally true. Although I don't know what's happening with this for-profit. I mean, they have this lawsuit. They've sort of said they're going to.

not do that now, but maybe, you know, still will do it. I mean, what, that's, that's going to be super complicated. I don't know if they can even get there. Yeah, I know. I mean, we could, we could, it's just the amount of corporate drama within Open AI. I mean, obviously, because of the way they were formed, I don't think we'll ever go away. I think it will always just be there with them. And there's no neat way to tie up the type of business that they have. And by the way, speaking of their drama, we have some news this week that their former chief technology officer is starting to speak to people about what she intends to do with her multi-billion-dollar AI lab. Of course, I'm talking about Mira Murati, the former CTO of OpenAI.

She's raised $2 billion at a $10 billion at a $10 billion valuation, hasn't built a product. But what they're trying to do, this is according to Bloomberg, is use forms of reinforcement learning to reward AI models for accomplishing certain goals and penalties for other behaviors. And they're trying to reinforce key performance indicators, which typically relate to revenue or profit growth, that typically employees within companies drive to. So they're going to reinforce the KPIs of human employees, except they won't be human employees.

They're going to be bots. So they're going to take this like new reinforcement or relatively new reinforcement learning paradigm. and then just apply that to business AI users. Do you think it's going to work? Well, that doesn't sound actually differentiated to me from like what other people are doing. I mean, I think that's- Read it's RL for business.

RL for business. That's what they're calling it. This is like total, this is like what so many, so many of these companies are doing now. I don't think, to me that sort of makes me, I'm like, so why don't you have a product at this point? I mean, it's, you could sort of, you could be building that, you know, you've already built stuff, right, in that, in that

vein. I think it's probably the, the hardest part of that is probably data. They're having to go gather a lot of data themselves, proprietary data. And then I think of, then I think what Facebook did or what meta did with, you know, basically sort of acquiring, non-acquiring scale AI, which is like the, you know, known for going out and gathering all this data, not just labeling, but like creating data. And I'm like, this is, that's going to be a really tough slog for a startup. I mean, I think they've, they've got their work cut out for them for sure. Unless they're consultants. And maybe that's what they're going to be. Because they're going to be working in fields like customer service, investment banking and retail according to the story. So maybe they

There are just like tech-enabled consultants where they come into your office, yeah, they come into your office and they build you some form of LM, whether that is a salesperson or support or finance. You have all your data inside the company. They have some set of like base foundational model that they build off of open source. And they replace maybe the McKinsey's of the world. It doesn't seem like it's going to be much more than a consulting company, though. Yeah.

So then what's the valuation? I mean. 10 billion. No big deal. I mean, I don't know. I mean, I think that's a tough one. I mean, that's basically, that's what a lot of these companies are kind of doing, like Palantir and, you know, it feels like an AI, AI for business Palantir to me.

Right, right. It doesn't feel differentiated to me. It seems like, that just seems like what so many people are trying to do. But again, it's, I don't, I feel like commenting on this is like, I don't really have that much original reporting on this. So, like, to me, it's kind of just, you're just, that's such a vague. description of what they're doing that it's like really hard to tell like it could just i think it could be could be something totally different i want to know what the what the she's the ctio but what's ilia

doing his oh so duarkish was here yeah so dwarfish was here a couple weeks ago and he said that basically what ilia is trying to do is uh test time learning uh basically models that learn in the inference point so they can be continuously improving uh i think that's a pretty good guess And if he's able to pull it off, it definitely will push the field forward in a big way, but it's a big if. That is, yeah, that is super interesting. I also wonder, again, like back to like sort of opening eye being the consumer. They're now sort of this consumer.

They're the Kleenex of chatbots, if you will. I mean, like the, like, how much money is there in building these models? Like, they're so, I mean, they're so easily copied, it seems like, that. you know, if you're just doing AI research and you make the like a breakthrough like that, that's really about like technique and, you know, how long can you hold on to that IP before, you know, Anthropic has it or Google, you know, Google probably are, Google probably has a project where they're just doing that, right? Somewhere in the company. So yeah, that's going to be a tough slug too. I think a lot of these companies are, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, they got their

working out for them. Definitely. But read, imagine that he does, uh, get their first. and kind of hold that over the industry for a while and then all of a sudden, Ilya becomes the most powerful person in AI. Could be a very interesting plot twist. How does he hold it over the industry? Because they don't have it. But who serves it?

Is it an API that you buy from them? Do they hold? Is it sold through the hyperscalers to the clouds? That's a good point. Well, it's going to be super intelligence. So it seems like all the questions about business go. away once you build a superintelligence yeah i think again when this stuff launches right then you see okay like what is the product like how you know do people like using it is it you know i just think it's so

i mean you have the most brilliant people in the world but like who would have thought like i nobody could have predicted open i would be would would be the consumer you know i know it's totally that everybody surprised i mean it's yeah and it happened like almost by accident i just think And then I think Sam very brilliantly jumped on it, saw what they had created and, you know, and it's like, okay, this is what we're doing. But, you know, it almost happened by accident. And I think, I don't know, they're going to have to do something like that. But it's like, they better hurry because this market is becoming like really crowded and competitive. And the lanes are being defined like if they aren't already.

Well, the lanes are being defined in the self-driving car industry. Sorry, I couldn't help but jump on that. We must get to sell Tesla self-driving. It started. They are in the lanes. They're going in wrong lanes. They're going in the right lanes. This is all true, by the way.

I'm not lying here. Tesla's Robotaxi service in Austin is live. There are 10 vehicles and a human safety driver on board. Though the safety driver sits in the passenger seat, I couldn't tell if there was a break in the videos that I had watched. But these things are on the road. They cost a flat $4.20. cent fee, aka they are definitely Elon Musk's robo-taxies. Very quickly, there's been some safety

concerns. I watched one video, and this is highlighted again by Bloomberg, which seems to be the star publication outside of Semaphore on the show. They're doing a lot of good reporting. You guys are doing great reporting. A lot of good stuff to read. But there's a video that they link by this investor, Rob Maurer, I think his handle is like Tesla podcast or something. and you see the car like wanting to go make a turn but it decides against it so it like drives in like the lane of incoming traffic and then zigz it way over a yellow line like obviously it's not like it ain't perfect let's put it that way there's some other complaints that the Tesla is speeding this is kind of like whole monitor stuff they're like it's doing 39 and it was a 35 mile an hour speed limit these things are out of control but that's not as big of a deal to me no people would be complaining more if it was doing 35 and they were stuck. Look at these granny Tesla cars. Though I did see the video of the going across the lane into oncoming traffic. And yeah, I mean, it was definitely a mistake. It was definitely a screw up.

But nothing that you wouldn't see, I think, from, I mean, even these Waymoes sometimes will do screwy things. But ultimately, like, you know, they didn't hit any pedestrians. They didn't get in any accidents. I think, you know, in the end, I think it was a pretty successful. launch what do you think yeah this is the thing with all tech if it works 95% of the way that's not good enough it works 99.5% of the way that's not good enough in self-driving cars so things have been fine so far but it definitely has we need to see a lot more to decide whether or not this was this is going to really work for them if it works obviously it's a major major boon for the company and certainly from the videos it looked a lot like the waymo experience you get in the cars driving

itself. They have some predetermined routes. There are teleoperators. So there are some shortcuts being taken so far. And there is, there are people that are part of this, you know, peopleless driving experience. But I think, yeah, it's important. They are, they are off to the races. They're going to get, they're going to get moving. They're going to get data. And I don't know. My fingers are across that they pull it off and pull it off safely. But I think it's too early to tell. Yeah. I mean, of course, I, you know, you can't, whatever you think of Elon. You should definitely hope that these companies pull this off because they are absolutely safer than human drivers. But you're totally right. It's it has to get to basically

100% or like 9-9s or whatever because if it doesn't, I mean, we saw what happened with Cruz, right? Like you screw up and an Uber with their thing. I mean, you screw up once and like that could just end the whole thing. I think if you're Waymo, you almost have to worry about Tesla because it's like, well, if Tesla screws up, I mean, the cruise thing sort of blew over, maybe they'll be fine, but like, it definitely makes people think more about the safety. It's really ironic this technology that, like, the proponents of it argue that it's great for safety, and the opponents of it are also arguing about safety. So it's like both sides are want these things either on the roads or off the roads for the same reason. And, but they're, but

The studies are like, I mean, millions of miles with a hundred percent increase in safety in terms of like bodily harm. Oh, yeah. So it's like, I mean, the Waymo's in San Francisco are, you know, they're just taking over. Yeah. Yeah. And it's just a smooth, safe ride. It's unbelievable. Totally.

It's much, it's nice to not. I mean, I don't know, this sounds bad, but like, you know, you have privacy, right? Like, there's no driver there. I've had plenty of great, nice conversations with Uber drivers and Lyft drivers. but it's like it's nice to just sit there you know with maybe you're with your kids and you're having a conversation or something and it's you know it's a good

experience too but mainly it's just improving safety Tesla is taking a much more difficult road because they're doing it only with cameras you know that I think that to me makes it and it's like general per they're really ultimately trying to get to like level five

autonomy whereas Waymo's like we're just going to build like this this like geo-fenced area where it's like meticulously mapped and we know everything that's going to happen. So I think, I think Tesla is ultimately like a more ambitious plan in the long run, but it also might be, you know, it might be a longer, a longer time until they get there. Do you think Waymo is still meticulously mapped, you know, the same way that they did in all the test environments? Because they've been expanding rapidly. Well, yeah. I mean, I think,

I think they're still using mapping. I mean, I could be wrong. They're moving more and more towards these like general purpose like transformer based models i think but yeah i think they're still doing the way they scale to these places is i think they do you know i think they've probably automated a lot of the process but i still think it's kind of like a car on on a track on a digital track and it's yeah you know and that's how you that's how you get to 100% safety i mean there's nothing is left a chance and even then you see them screw up sometimes but Yeah. Well, you know, Google was able to map so many of the roads in the world that maybe they'll just be able to do that and bring autonomy that way. I mean, the one nice thing about the physical world is it's finite. So get all the roads, figure it out. And then maybe you can, you know, make this thing really work at a high degree of safety all over the world.

I think, yeah, I mean, for sure. I mean, a million people a year die in auto accidents. It's crazy. And so unnecessary. Yeah. It's crazy. It's almost, it almost makes you wonder. It's like focusing on like, like, a little error on day one when they're testing this stuff or like 39 and 35 is like, is that really, I don't know. Should you really be focusing so much on that? Like, I think there's a lot of anti-Elon stuff that sort of, I think, seeps into the coverage of this stuff. Unfortunately, it was just hard to do as a reporter. Like you, you know, it's hard to take your, to take the emotion out of the reporting. But I think it's does kind of seep in, don't you think? Oh, definitely. And we also know that Elon is running a much trickier program. So then the mistakes will be magnified. But yeah, probably there's some of that as well. All right. Let's end this week running through, as I promised. If you're still with us, the reward is here. The Bezos wedding guests. Attending Jeff Bezos's wedding to

Lauren Sanchez in Venice, Italy will be Kim Kardashian, Madonna, Mick Jagger, Leonardo DiCaprio Orlando Bloom, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Diane Van Furstenberg and Barry Diller, and then of course TBD on Katie Perry. Big protests in Venice. So apparently the arrivals have been moved from like a more public area to a more secure area. But the city of Venice has defended the nuptials, probably not because they got any money from the Bezos to do this. But they've defended the nuptials as keeping with Venice's traditions as an open city that has welcomed Pope's emperors and ordinary visitors alike for centuries. Jeff Bezos-in-Santis, he would be, I think maybe between Pope and Emperor.

I don't know. Where do you put him? Maybe more on the Emperor's side. Yeah, definitely more Emperor than Pope, for sure. Well, look, here on Big Technology Podcast, we celebrate love. So, Jeff and Lauren, I'm sure you're listening on your special weekend. And from us to you, we say congratulations. Congratulations. How many weddings have you covered on this show? Just out of curious.

This is probably the first, but I'm very, very happy to be doing it. And no, no, no, sorry, this is the second. And the first batch were people getting married to their AI bots. So. Oh, right. Finally, a human wedding here on Think Technology podcast. The future has arrived. Pope's emperors. AI bots. Exactly. The whole deal. Before we jump, please shout out where people can find your work and how to get the Semaphore Technology newsletter. Go to Semaphore.com. Check out the technology newsletter. It's free. I promise you'll like it. Comes out twice twice a week. And yeah, find me on X and that pretty much just that. I'm not a huge social media guy. Okay. All right. Great to see you as always. And thank you again. Thank you everybody for listening. I will be back on Wednesday with an interview with Noah Smith, aka Noah Opinion.

He is a substack economics writer. We're going to talk about whether AI is really taking our job. So we're going to get ahead of that anthropic report. And we hope to see you then. Thanks for listening. And we'll see you next time on Big Technology Podcast.