Latent Space: The AI Engineer Podcast - ⚡️Satya Nadella: No Priors x Latent Space Crossover Special at Microsoft Build

Episode Date: June 3, 2026

We’ve informally heard that Satya is a listener to LS for a couple years now, but it was still absolutely surreal to meet him and do a live pod at Build, together with our friends at No Priors, the leading VC AI Podcast that we also greatly admire!We covered the MAI model technical takeaways on yesterday’s AINews, so I will focus our recap of Satya’s main messages around three elements:* Satya’s adaptation of the Bill Gates Line for positioning Microsoft as the Frontier Intelligence Platform — customers must gain much more value from the Microsoft ecosystem than Microsoft itself, by building on multi-model harnesses like OpenClaw and Scout, drawing on the full enterprise context exposed by context layers like Work IQ (heavily dogfooded by his C-suite), and building up private evals and traces as a new form of Token IP* AI ROI: On one hand, enterprises are having difficult conversations around Tokenmaxxing and Layoffs, and on the other hand, there are serious re-evaluations of the End of SaaS since the Build vs Buy equation has changed so much. Our previous SemiAnalysis guest had… interesting comments on Microsoft’s position on this as the ur-SaaS titan, and Satya had great answers* Making the Impossible Possible: Kevin Scott’s inspiring framing around what the most ambitious version of applying AI and technology at large to business and social problems, like education and social impact.Enjoy!Full VideoTranscriptVoiceover: Welcome swyx, Sarah Guo, Elad Gil,, and Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Microsoft, Satya NadellaSarah Guo: Welcome to a crossover episode of No Priors and Lane Space with Satya Nadella. Um, congratulations on an amazing build. No, thank you so much, and it’s great to be with both of you. I listen to both of you or b- both the podcasts all the time. It’s great to be on it.Thank you so much. [00:01:00] So you’re just talking about, um, these amazing, uh, announcements from across the Microsoft estate all morning for, I think, three hours. What is the, uh, what’s the most important reflection or takeaway you have?AI as an Ecosystem PlatformSarah Guo: I, I’d say there are, uh, perhaps the, the biggest one for me is let’s sort of conceptualize this more as an ecosystem play as opposed to a single model or even a single platform, right?Satya Nadella: I mean, you know, whatever I... At least for me, having grown up at Microsoft, having seen, whatever, four major platform shifts, uh, I sort of fall into that, um, uh, camp where a platform is defined by fundamentally its ability to create more value about the platform versus what’s captured in the platform. And so if you, you view what’s happening right now, I think this morning’s keynote was how can any company, whether it’s an AI native company or a traditional enterprise company, participate as a first-class participant where they can point to AI they created, [00:02:00] right?It’s not that they don’t use other people’s AI. Of course they will. But to me, what’s the path? What’s the recipe? How do I do it? What does a stack look like? What does the tooling look like? What is valuable? How do you do that? That’s it. That’s sort of our job to do. Yeah. Ecosystem strategy is, uh, very complicated, right?Sarah Guo: Because you end up building certain components, partnering for certain components, supporting them. You just announced this big suite of models. Like, tell us a little bit about the, uh, training strategy for Microsoft now. Yeah.MAI Models & Training StrategySarah Guo: So, so the thing that we wanted to do with the MAI models was to build, and as Mustafa talked about, first of all, a great lineage, right?Satya Nadella: Starting with pre-training, uh, with very good data quality, uh, doing all the ablations, making sure because in, in some sense it’s becoming even harder to build a clean lineage model just because there’s so much stuff out there, uh, that you truly need to ablate out to be able to have a fantastic [00:03:00] pre-trained model.In fact, that’s one of the challenges of a lot of the open weight models is they look great on one benchmark or two, but they’re not great on practice. So that’s why, in fact, even in the RFDEs are, they, they are pretty gone really excited about these MAI models because how the heck can a small five B model hill climb?Uh, and it goes back a little bit to what I think is ultimately the key thing to do, which is try to pursue finding that cognitive core. Uh, so to me, starting with a clean lineage- Then creating that ability for companies to be able to use this, right? Not just as a generalist, but to create their own specialist by building this hill climbing scaffold around it, right?So it’s not just the model, but you have a hill climb scaffold around it, then you will start building your RLE. You will start collecting the traces. Most importantly, you’ll have private evals because we know all the evals out there are good, interesting, [00:04:00] but they’re not really that critical- They’re work, yeahSwyx: at this point because they all can be maxed. And so the point is each company will have its own private eval. And so that end-to-end platform story around our models is sort of, uh, what I think is interesting. And then the one other thing, Sarah, since you brought that up, is I do feel there’s a new frontier.Satya Nadella: Like people talk about the frontier and are you operating at the frontier. Um, interestingly enough, if you add a little temporality to it, you can use, let’s say, in, in, in fact, the, the Lando Lakes demo we showed was pretty cool. We used, whatever, GPT-55, right? Then you collected a bunch of traces, and then you took a 5B reasoning model and achieved higher.Sarah Guo: Uh, so that is another aspect of what it means to appear... uh, you know, operate at the frontier Yeah. I, I think, uh, I first of all have to congratulate you on basically building a frontier neo lab inside of Microsoft in two years. Um, I’m wondering, you know, you have all this AI strategy that you’re rolling out.Lessons from Two Years of AI DevelopmentSwyx: I’m wondering, what do you know now that you wish you would tell yourself two years ago where- or two or [00:05:00] three years ago? Three years for the Jensen partnership, two years for, uh, MEI. Yeah, I mean, I think the, the thing when, that I reflect quite a bit, right, which is sort of obviously I got into all this when I got excited by the, the scaling laws paper and, you know, when, you know, even the OpenAI partnership came about when those folks said, “Hey, we’re gonna really throw a lot of computer transformers.”Satya Nadella: Uh, and they’ve helped. I- the thing that I always look back and say, “Wow, these things, uh, do have capability that they’re climbing up.” W- I mean, this, you know, this crude way of saying it is intelligence is log of compute kind of works. Now what I think we underestimated perhaps is the real-world complexity of deploying these so that they actually deliver the value in the real world, right?So the outcomes as measured by any benchmark is interestingly important, but the true eval is when people out there are able to do unique things that they only can value, and it’s very [00:06:00] measurable, right? That I wish we had sort of even, like, had more in our consciousness, right? Which is as an industry.Sarah Guo: Because right now I think when people say, “Wow, I don’t want a token max,” it’s an artifact of us not having thought ourselves as an industry that we are using tokens to create value every step of the way. So I think that’s kind of what I wish we had gotten there, but I’m glad we are here.Real-World Value & Use CasesSarah Guo: What are some of the use cases that you’ve seen that have created the most value for your customers?Because I know that people talk a lot about code, and I think it’s pretty clear that that’s something that’s having very large scale impact. Are there other areas that you find in common that your customers are really benefiting from? Yeah. I think, yeah, to your point, obviously coding is now got... But it’s interesting, by the way, Elijah, to even talk about the coding, right?Satya Nadella: Which is coding has worked so well that we now have to rebuild the IDE, right? I mean, it’s kind of nuts to see what we sh- launched is like, oh my God, I have these hundred agent sessions. I... The cognitive load it transfers back to me as a human is so [00:07:00] excessive that now I need a new UI. Uh, oh, by the way, I, like the, the chat as the only artifact was also impossible, so that’s why we need a canvas.So it’s kind of interesting for all the things about where is software needed or where is UI needed, uh, you kind of need that even for code, right? In a fully agentic world. But that said, one of the things that we are starting to see, we started seeing with co-work, but even some of the work we, we showed with auto com- uh, um, autopilot Right on what you see with claws is a good one because if you sort of think about a lot of human capital is doing the glue work, right?If you now can augment that with tokens/agents that are long-running, durable, right, then your ability to scale even what is still judgment and glue work gets amplified like coding does. Uh, so you can... Like, I’m positive that six months from now we’ll all be saying, “Oh, wow,” like, all through ni- the night there was a bunch of stuff that [00:08:00] all these autopilots that I have working on my behalf with my delegated authority, so to speak, right?I can... Sort of given even my identity, did a bunch of work, then of course I’ll need my new ADE to say, “Well, what did you do?” Like, I might... “Did I do this work?” And so on. So I think that that’s where compressing of workflows, uh, completing of tasks, uh, that’s where I think a lot of the value gets created. I think you raised a really interesting point, which is there’s the actual agent that’s doing the code, and then there’s a harness around it, and that’s the environment, that’s the context, that’s everything you’re setting up as a developer around actually a coding agent.The Harness Concept for Enterprise AISarah Guo: What is the harness for the enterprise? Is there an equivalent concept for broader productivity work, or how do you think about that concept sort of generalized? That’s right. So, so in some sense you kind of want the harness to define the models, the, the data, uh, and the tools, and so that you have a loop across those three.Satya Nadella: And so what we are trying to, first of all, make sure is each of our products that we build, right, whether it’s GitHub Copilot or the security copi- the, the [00:09:00] stuff we showed with MDASH or even the discovery for science, it doesn’t matter, all of them are multi-model harnesses, um, with tools access so that you can do this progressive, uh, disclosure of tools even so that they’re token efficient.Uh, and then you’re feeding it with very rich context because that’s sort of the other hard lesson we have learned in the last two years is, oh my God, the amount of work you need to do to prep the context layer, uh, such that your plan can execute in the most efficient way is where the magic is. So we have, in our case, we have the GitHub harness, which essentially we’re using across all our products.It’s available in Foundry, and we are open, like you can use your Llama harness, whatever. Or you can use the, um, uh, you know, any open harness or any harness of yours and train with your tools and multiple models and your context. And so that’s the pitch. Because right now a lot of dialogue is, um, “Hey, if I train the harness plus tools and the model together, you get [00:10:00] evals.”Elad Gil: And what we are proving out is... And the best example of that is what we did with MDASH, right? Because when it launched, uh, it found bugs or vulnerabilities that were not found by Mythos Uh, and so there is existence proof, I would claim, that you can have a multimodal harness, uh, that can in fact be more, uh, performant in the real world So a premise behind the, uh, training at the independent frontier labs is really, you know, we’re gonna have these models, and we’ll have an API business, and we’ll support enterprises and startups.Sarah Guo: ButPlatform Strategy & Developer EcosystemSarah Guo: a first-party product, be it productivity or code or search, drives the majority of revenue. That’s a different value equation than you’re describing, I think, with the Microsoft ecosystem. Uh, if, if that’s the case, tell me if it’s the case, uh, ‘cause obviously you have first-party products and you have enablement products.Satya Nadella: Um, what is the role of the develop- Like what is gonna be hard and the set of skills and the value capture the developer has in that world? Yeah. So I think that there’s always [00:11:00] gonna be the case that someone who is super successful in- as a platform builder can also have first-party products. It was true with Windows.It is true, uh, with, uh, the, the SaaS side and the cloud side as well with us and others and so on. But the thing that is, is it should not be a limiter to other people achieving that same success, right? That I think is the core difference, which is the, the network effects this time around, around intelligence are such because they learn from data, and not really lots of data.It’s just a few samples that you have to see to understand what’s novel about something. So that’s why the game becomes how to protect. So that’s why I would say every company, having private evals may be the biggest IP, right? Think about it, like what’s that private eval that you can then use even a frontier model to hill climb on and not leak the traces may be one of the biggest [00:12:00] drivers, uh, of IP.Like, so in other words, another te- acid test is you have an eval that’s private. You’re using, uh, a g- a Model A. Can you switch it to Model B and e- you know, climb up? If you can, then you’re in control. If you can’t, you’re not in control, and that’s where even the harness decision becomes super important, right?swyx So therefore, having an open harness, letting all models come in, having your evals, your context, your tools help you hill climb, I think is the skills that an AI native startup needs, a SaaS company needs, or every enterprise needs. Yeah, I think in, in a very real way you are ... Microsoft historically is an operating systems company and th- then become a cloud company.Maybe like the third act is that you’re a harness or evals company. Whatever w- ... whatever the, the sort of conglomerate of concepts that you wanna put together. Um, and, and I think like enabling every company to have like frontier intelligence or what- what- Yeah ... I forget the, the [00:13:00] exact term that you used, um, is the, is the mission, right?Satya Nadella: That’s it. Like that is, that is the platform promise, that you build with us, you will get your intelligence, uh, for your data. That’s it. That ... To, to me, that is the ... Like if there was one tagline, uh, for this entire developer conference is- Can everybody operate at the frontier with their frontier intelligence, right?To me, that is so important because otherwise it, I, I don’t know how you achieve stable equilibrium, right? Which is how do I then go and say, “Well, my company is gonna have a terminal value because I now know how to continuously compound-” Yeah ... on top of what’s a platform that gets better,” right? So when, like Windows obviously came out, Adobe built, Autodesk built, uh, or even like take what Jensen said.We built DX and he built, you know, CUDA on top of it. Um, right? I mean, I always say to Jensen, “God, I got the short end of that,” right? “I wish, uh, we had recognized it.” But nevertheless, but that, that idea that you can build a platform layer [00:14:00] that someone else can then extend out, um, and build their own intelligence layer in this case, I think is everything, right?Without it, why have a developer conference? I can just come and have you all sort of just worship at the altar of one model. Yeah. But that’s not a developer conference. Uh,IP, Evals & Company Valueswyx: backstage we, we had a discussion about what is IP or what is the, the value in a company. It used to be the length of, uh, human experience at a company, and now it’s this other thing which is the evals, the, uh, experience in sort of applying agents to the company. Can you... I just want you to like flesh that out a bit more ‘cause- Yeah ... it was very insightful.Satya Nadella: It’s a great way to frame it, right? Because yeah, at the end of the day, every company is gonna have both the human capital that is still gonna be super valuable, uh, because humans, uh, and their ability to find the gaps that exist at all times is going to be the way we all will create value, right?I mean, so I’m definitely in the camp that this is going to be about expressing new forms of human agency and ambition even as token capital goes up, right? So let’s say a cor- any corporation [00:15:00] has lots of tokens and lot of human capital. The question is how do you compound the two? So if you have a... Like if you take in Teams I have a bunch of agents doing work and a bunch of humans doing work, and the traces between those, that is really important context of how that enterprise is creating value.Then that goes back to train not a generalist model, but to train the company veteran agent, uh, right? That is super valuable again, right? Which is when a company goes says, “It should in fact go onto the balance sheet,” is how I think about it, right? That’s so... In fact, there may be... Like human capital was never possible to go put on a balance sheet, uh, because you didn’t know how to capture the tacit knowledge.swyx: Whereas now I think you can with the agents that have learned through the h- through, through time, through all the traces. Uh, so that’s what at least we think will happen. I, I think the SEC is gonna have to have accounting standards- ... for token, uh, expertise Uh, y- y- you’re talking about the equilibrium [00:16:00] state, um, and a stable equilibrium where companies have this compounding value and can see terminal value for themselves.Future of SaaS & Business ModelsSarah Guo: Another challenge to, you know, the considered equilibrium of, okay, there are applications and workflows that are sort of common to a vertical or a horizontal. Um, and this was, like, the generation of SaaS companies and, you know, Microsoft has lots of SaaS properties as well. And then there are things that are very specific to every enterprise that they’re differentiated against.Elad Gil: Um, I’m sure you have heard much and participate in much of the debate about the end of software because all these workflows are, are cheap to generate now. Um, do you think the equilibrium looks different between what agents get built- Yeah ... in enterprises versus in their vendors in the future? Yeah. So I think what’s happening there is, see, we, we had a particular way we captured, um, I would say workflow in apps, right?Satya Nadella: Because we built a, a data model, right? We schematized some part of some business process. Mm-hmm. We then built a bunch of business logic. Yep. And then we put a bunch of UI [00:17:00] on top of it, right? So that’s kind of what every SaaS company- And a little configuration. For, like, 20, 20 years that was the plan.Right, that- Yeah ... and that was it. So interestingly enough, now you kind of get to re-litigate that vertical stacking, right? So I still think, for example, that data model that you built underneath every SaaS application is super good, right? Like, why reinvent it? Like, I, I, my general ledger better be a general ledger.I don’t need new schema creation. No. Uh, in fact, that entity relationship, uh, is actually pretty good, robust thing that I want to feed. And you want it to be stable. That’s right. Yeah. Then same thing with business logic, right? If, if you look at, uh... We have this product called Power BI, right? It is like dashboards galore people created.The beauty underneath that dashboard is a very rich semantic model, right? Someone took the pain to create a dashboard and do all the measures, and you want that. That’s business logic, right? I want that to be available to me. So I think the [00:18:00] challenge of the SaaS business model is we packaged one way. We now have to learn how to unbundle these things and rebundle in new ways and discover new business models, right?I mean, if you look at it, d- what’s happening today with Microsoft 365 is a great example, right? We have this thing called Work IQ. In fact, like, what we are realizing is, oh my God, like, you know, if you look at... In fact, there’s a pa- historical parallel too, right? We sold first Exchange and SharePoint and, uh, you know, before Teams, we had a thing called Lync Server and what have you, and we thought, “Oh, that’s all gonna move to the cloud.”But little did we realize that, um, the number of people who will use servers in the cloud is 10X, 100X, right? Because people were not buying servers, they were just buying a subscription. Mm-hmm. The same thing is now happening with M365 because with Work IQ, we have exposed what is perhaps the most important database in a company that never got used as a database because it was only captive to our apps.Mm-hmm. Right? It, it was all email operated on it, Teams operated [00:19:00] on it, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, SharePoint. But now, like this is one of the coo- coolest things I get to do with Work IQ. I go to a GitHub repo and I say, “Hey, I attended a bunch of design meetings last week related to this repo. Can you capture all that and tell me what changes I should make?”I mean, think about that, right? It literally can go look at all those transcripts, come back with a plan to change a code base, right? Previously, you could never have thought of using M365 for something like that. So the value creation opportunity now in the agent world is in fact 10X more, but it does require us to have...Sarah Guo: For example, there’s going to be usage around M365, right? Which is going to be perhaps more than even the e- end users and we have to even re-architect. Like, in fact, like what I use to serve an inbox or a mailbox cannot be used to serve an agent. Uh, and so that’s sort of what we are doing.Pricing Models: Per-User, Consumption & OutcomesSarah Guo: I don’t believe in, like, permanent business models for any of these domains, but in the [00:20:00] near term, do you have a prediction between, uh, you know, outcomes-based pricing, token-based pricing?Elad Gil: Enterprise bundles Yeah. The way I- I think about this is always we’ve had... Like, let’s even take the per-user pricing. Mm-hmm. The per-user pricing is really an artifact of someone creating a budget needing certainty, right? Because it’s the most important thing. Like, somebody wants a budget- Mm-hmm ... they need a per user.Satya Nadella: And, and per user is just a set of entitlements to usage, right? That’s kind of what it is. And so the way is, if the first bundling will be take some usage, bundle it into per user stacks and, you know, then sell subscriptions. So subscriptions I think are gonna be there, per user is gonna be there. Then the next big thing will be consumption.So people will say, “I want consumption.” And it’s also possible that people will say, “I don’t even want to pay for any of the subscriptions or the consumption’s outcome.” Mm. But remember, most people love outcomes until they have an outcome, because once you have an outcome, it’s like giving away royalty, [00:21:00] right?Mm. I mean, like I, I’ve talked to customers who love, you know, outcome-based pricing, and I say, “I’m all in,” until they, “Oh my God,” like, “what are you talking about? You’re sharing in my outcome? No, no, no. I want you to go back to per-user pricing, and I want you to consumption price,” right? So I think that debate will go on.Uh, but and all, all, all of these business models have a particular time and a place versus one to rule them all. And if anything, if you’re a SaaS vendor or you’re a platform vendor, having that flexibility... And quite frankly, we face this with GitHub, right? We just recently announced a per-user pricing on GitHub because little, you know, we- GitHub Copilot was constructed at a per-user level before we understood even, uh, the intensity of usage of agents, right?It was an interactive way for a developer to use code complete, maybe tasks. It was not like, oh, I launched 10,000, you know, agents that are going on all day, right? So that is what the adjustment is about. So now that we really want, there will [00:22:00] always be a per user, but there will have to be a consumption meter.Durability of SaaS & Build vs BuySarah Guo: How do you think about the durability of SaaS more generally? One thing I’ve observed is in a lot of enterprises internally, there will be teams that almost have agent euphoria. They’re so excited about the explosion of things they can build that they’re trying to rebuild a lot of applications or going to their SaaS vendors and saying, “We’re not gonna work with you anymore,” or, “We’re considering an internal project.”And it seems like in six to nine months, maybe some of those people will come back and say, “Actually, we, we can’t rebuild everything.” How do you think about what’s durable in this world and what isn’t? Yeah, it’s a... It... I think we have to go through one full budget cycle on this to really see the, um- Uh, the sort of the emergence of the equilibrium, because at the end of the day, there’s marginal cost to even generating the app, right?Elad Gil: In, in fact, there can be even a, a simple way to say it, like if you should always acquire something if the marginal cost of building and maintaining, uh, something on your own is higher. Uh, right? That should be like it’s a quantifiable- Yeah. Right? A quantifiable thing. And [00:23:00] the maintenance part is important, right?Even, like you got to remember like, hey, you know, all the security stuff that now AI will find, you better fix them too fast. Uh, of course, there’s a coding agent to help you with, but then that burns tokens, right? So whose responsibility is it? It’s kind of like a, a cycle that you’ve got to think through.And I think we have gone through the excitement that I can generate a lot of software. I think the next thing would be what software do I really want to generate? Mm-hmm. What software do I want to use from others? How do I compose these two into some agentic workflow that I have agency over, right?Sarah Guo: Because I think there’ll be very little tolerance for anybody who’s inflexible, uh, at the vendor level. Uh, but at the same time, I think that anyone who has got that flexibility shows up, delivers the value, will be back at again, right? We’re selling software, uh, but with just different business models, in fact Uh, speaking about building software, um, one of my favorite moments from, I think, a previous build maybe one or two years ago was they had a b- they, they...Swyx: There was a section of you building your [00:24:00] own software. I’m curious if you’re building anything now. Yeah. So I, I think the... You know, first of all, let’s face it, right? Building software has made it possible for even the incompetence of a CEO of a company- ... like ours, uh, you can build, so thank God. But that said, I, I, I, I do feel that, you know, something like, um, GitHub Copilot to me, and especially the new Sessions app or the new app, has just made it so much more possible for you to have agency over artifacts that you felt you couldn’t touch before, right?Satya Nadella: So to, for me as a CEO, even to go to a code base, uh, to be able to learn about it, like I remember joining Microsoft long back, you know, first and then you say, man, everybody had to go in and look at, you know, whatever, Cutler’s, Malik, or what have you to learn how to do good C, uh, C++ code. Um, so now that ability to be more full stack up and down is so good, but that doesn’t mean every one of us should be doing the same thing.The question is: [00:25:00] how do you then have the ability to inspect things, learn things, see things, um, I think is just so much more. And so to me, what I’m building a lot of is these long-running Foundry agents. Uh, right? So there’s autopilots. So the easiest thing is, to me, I think I just built one, uh, even last week, where the idea was, hey, can I have an agent that is continuously monitoring essentially my own chief of staff autopilot, right?We’re gonna have that obviously in, uh, Scout. That’s what, uh, uh, we showed. But it is so easy and trivial to build. I took Work IQ. I said, “Take Work IQ, go, uh, and build a Foundry long-running agent.” Uh, store all the memory in, um, uh, using Ray Fin, right? Basically at my backend as a service. And lo and behold, it built it, and not only built it, I could say publish to Teams, and it published the damn thing to Teams.Sarah Guo: So the ability, uh, to have a, you know, some end-to-end project like this complete is just pretty [00:26:00] miraculous. How do you think, uh,Future Engineering RolesSarah Guo: that impacts the different types of engineering roles that exist in the future? Because right now I think there’s, you know, a dozen different types of engineers that you can be, from QA, front end, et cetera.You know, there’s a big swath. I’ve heard some people argue that in four or five years we’ll basically end up with four engineering roles. It’ll be people who are managing agents, it’ll be four deployed engineers or FDEs, it’ll be security engineers, and then people working on large scale infrastructure for a small number of services, and then everything else just collapses into the agentic world.Satya Nadella: Yeah, I- Do you think that’s a correct view of the world? Yeah, I mean, I think, I think we’ll have to experiment our way through it. But what you said is what... There are some very at scale things. At LinkedIn, they did structurally change- Mm-hmm ... uh, and it, you know, basically built up a new discipline called full stack builder, right?So they went and said, “Hey, let’s bring, uh, people from design and product management, front end engineering, all put them together.” Uh, but also have an edge, right? It’s not like the design person still doesn’t have the design edge, or the front end [00:27:00] person doesn’t have the front end edge, but you can give yourself bigger scope in roles so that you’re not confined to one role.Um, and then r- equally, infrastructure has become very critical, right? So in other words, like, I mean, RLEs, I mean, one thing we’ve realized is even for the Excel team, for example. Mm-hmm. Building the RLE in which a reward can be learned is actually one of the hardest sort of infrastructure problems.Mm-hmm. Uh, and so you kind of need even new talent, right? Distributed systems people even in what was considered an end user app team, uh, because it’s a different skill set. So yes, infrastructure, science is the other one, obviously. Um, so I think we’ll see how these evolve, right? Where’s the s- real... I mean, always the world will have a bunch of specialists.Okay. Um, you know, I think the generalist role is going to be the most exciting, right? Because the leverage of a generalist- Mm-hmm ... um, is where we are going to see the maximum returns, right? When, when you said, “Hey, are you coding?” I’m now a gen- Like, what... I’ve basically translated [00:28:00] knowledge work Right?Which I did, where I created a Word document or a spreadsheet, or even, uh... And now I can build an app, right? It’s in the same sentence. Uh, right? That idea that, “Oh, wow, my generalist skills have gotten higher leverage,” I think is what we’re gonna see across the board. Music to the ears of CEOs and VCs that are, like, a little dangerous and a lot of- Golden age for idea peopleSarah Guo: idea people. Yeah. Uh- With a lot of agency. I- if you take that idea of personal agency and you just zoom it out to the organizational context, um, uh, my partner Mike Renall, who, uh, actually started his career at Microsoft, just wrote an essay where one of the big takeaways is i- it’s an age where you can be much more ambitious, and you need to be, given the pace of the environment and how quickly, actually, users and companies are open to adopting new technologies.Satya Nadella: Um, how do you think about... I, I feel silly asking this of somebody running a, you know, trillion-dollar-plus company already, butAmbition & Making the Impossible PossibleSatya Nadella: how do you think about how Microsoft can be more ambitious now? It’s a great question. Um, I [00:29:00] think, um- I think the, the thing in these type of transitions is to have a conceptual model of how work can change to go after outcomes that you could hardly imagine previously, right?In fact, Kevin Scott has this nice line, right, which is, um, when you can make the impossible... Like, when you’re making hard things easier, that’s sort of one point of leverage. But true ambition is about making the impossible possible. So now the thing that is missing a little bit in all of our organizations is what is that new conceptual model of what can we build?What was impossible and what can we build? And I’ll give you one example of this, right, which is I take great inspiration from sort of the people who were managing the Azure net- network. And they came to the... This was from even last year. You know, we were scaling. You saw that I, I [00:30:00] talked about sort of how we built in the last 15 months more Azure capacity than we built in the first 15 years.I mean, it’s crazy. Wild. Yeah. Right? It’s pretty wild. And it’s the same team. So they saw that and they said, “Bob, this just ain’t gonna work if we don’t reconceptualize our work.” So they built... Essentially they said, “Our job is not to do Azure networking. Our job is to build the agentic system does, that, that does Azure networking,” right?These are the folks managing the 500-plus fiber operators managing the VAN, right, all over. And fiber operations ultimately is a physical operation. Things get cut, things get, uh, you know, have to be repaired. You know, we have fancy words called DevOps and so on. Basically, emails are coming in and you gotta go respond to them, take care of it.So they built this agentic system. They even have a character for it. It’s called Miles, and it sort of does all this stuff, right? They started sort of screaming for more tokens and so on. And so they were saying, “Look, uh, we don’t need a headcount. We need tokens in order to be able to [00:31:00] manage, uh, our operation.”That reconceptualization- Mm-hmm ... of what their work is, right? They, they basically took their work and made it meta, right? That meta work is now their new work. Mm-hmm. Right? In the ‘80s, if somebody had come to us and said, “4 billion people are gonna get up in the morning and start typing,” my model would’ve been, we need 4 billion typists?But we’re not doing typing, we’re doing knowledge work. So that, to me, I think is it, right, which is whether it’s Microsoft or whether it’s any organization, is to give ourselves permission to do new types of metacognition, meta work, using these new tools to change the outputs that matter, uh, and then really make the impossible possible.Sarah Guo: So completing that dot or the, the connective tissue across those, I think, is where a lot of the enterprise value will get created.Data Center Build-Out & Community ImpactSarah Guo: Should we talk about data centers? Yeah, please ask. Oh, okay. Well, uh, uh, w- we-- this leads nicely into the data center build-up. I always think, I- I just-- I’m just impressed at the sheer scale of the [00:32:00] build-out from Microsoft, but also everyone else, that this is redefining what it means to be a hyperscaler.And I just feel like that, that, that is at unprecedented scale on finances, uh, on the way you run the company, but also the communities that are, that are impacted. Um, yeah, just talk a bit more about what you’re seeing on the ground, like when you visit your- Yeah, I think there are two aspects of it.Satya Nadella: Obviously, the, the build-out is, uh, extraordinary. Um, you know, nothing like this has happened, and it’s great to be, uh, one of the participants in it. Uh, but you brought up the other part, right? I think at this point it’s clear that unless we as an industry, uh, are very principled about ensuring that the benefits of all the stuff we’re talking about are felt in real ways, uh, at the community level, right?Because this is not just a, a campaign, um, right? It has to be real, where people are saying, “Look, this is not ch- changing the prices on energy for me.” In fact, if anything, it’s bringing down prices because long term there’s going to be a better [00:33:00] grid, there is going to be more energy. Water consumption is, in fact, not sort of, uh...In fact, water is being replenished, right? You gotta really, you know, educate folks on truly what’s happening, the cl- uh, the closed loop systems we are building. We have to invest in the training, the jobs, the tax base. In fact, the least talked about stuff is the amount of jobs that get created during construction, after construction.What’s the tax base that’s there in the community? And, and all this has to be real. Um, and, and if that is the case, then we will have permission. If it is not, we won’t have permission. It’s as simple as that, right? Which is, uh, we, we... I think we have to take it as an industry pretty seriously. Uh, I think it’s good for communities to be skeptical, ask the hard questions, for us to do the hard work, earn that.Um, but at the end of the day, if there’s-- if we can really be the produ-- Wait. I’ve always felt like in human history, if you use a lot of energy but also create a lot of value for society- The story has been fantastic. If you don’t [00:34:00] do that, it’s not been that great. And this time around, I’m a firm believer that ultimately if you do have a token economy that drives productivity, that drives economic growth, that drives broad spread, um, you know, participation, better health outcomes, um, then I think we’ll be in a great place.Sarah Guo: Uh, and that’s at least what we all have to be focused on. Yeah. It, it makes me think actually that with all these initiatives that you’re doing, might be e- easier to see ROI in the communities first before in enterprise. Yeah. I, I mean, I think both sides. Yeah. In fact, it comes back together. It has to be the people in the communities are going to be employed, are going to be participants, uh, in the real economy, right?Satya Nadella: That’s I think the question is. Like, if we- if the broad economy is doing well and the communities are doing well, the dots get connected. It’s sort of the market forces are such that we will connect the dots. And that I think is it. Like, you ought to be able to see the evidence. You can’t be about o- any one company, uh, but it has to be broad economic growth and broad [00:35:00] ec- you know, community permission.Elad Gil: Yeah. I guess I wanna talk aboutSocietal Impact & Optimism About AIElad Gil: what you’re most optimistic about currently or what have you most updated your personal models on regarding societal impact of AI? So you’re saying what’s the, the, the- What have you updated most on in terms of societal impact of AI? Yeah. I think the, um, the p- the most, um- Critical thing is the first question we even started with, which is we need to tell the story and make it real that everybody has a real shot to participate as a first-class participant in this new economy.Satya Nadella: Right? That’s kind of, I think we- in the next 12 months, 18 months, we need a way for people to say, “Oh, wow, I get it.” Right? There’s going to be tremendous capability, tremendous amount of infrastructure, but I can see what is going to happen, whether it’s the benefits like health outcomes or my ability to create a startup or my ability to run my [00:36:00] local sort of, uh, store more efficiently.It’s just happening, and I see that, uh, benefit myself, right? That to me, you know, earning that permission in a path-dependent way, we can’t wait. See, the one thing, Eli, that I’ve now learned is I think the world is gonna be very skeptical of tech and tech companies that say, “Trust us, we’ve got it. The g- future is gonna be glorious.”Sarah Guo: Uh, you kind of have to deliver tangible benefits. Um, and quite frankly, politicians winning elections, uh, because they have advocated for that. That will be at least my adjustment because without it, um, thinking that somehow... Because it’s too important this time around. It’s too much of the economy for it not to be the case So one very simple framework I have for, you know, what are, what is gonna be the broad benefit of AI, um, beyond the communities just working in technology, are, are sort of wealth creation- Yepit’s [00:37:00] gonna happen in a ton of different companies, startups and large companies. Then you have healthcare. Uh, you, you had amazing demos today. There are companies like Open Evidence. I think that is happening. Um,Education & Future of LearningSarah Guo: education seems like another one that’s an- Yep ... obvious good where we haven’t seen as much impact as I’d expect.Swyx: Do you have a hypothesis on why that might be, or if it’ll come? Yeah, I mean, I think this is where, again, how we think about education, how... You know, recently I met with, uh, the founders of Alpha School and learnt a lot about what they were going and going about, and it’s fascinating to listen, uh, to how to even rethink- MmSatya Nadella: uh, what does education really look like. Because I think it’s actually very important. Mm. Uh, and I’m not saying anything traditionally being done is less important, right? I was even looking at the, uh... It’s fascinating to see. I, I, I forget the which Stanford class it was, uh, the, the Asian guidelines for CS something.Mm. Uh, because you still need people to learn. Uh, like it was an interesting AI class that they were making sure people were learning how to apply softmax appropriately versus saying, “Hey, fix my training run.” Mm-hmm. Uh, so I think learning concepts is important. It’s going to [00:38:00] be, uh, critical. But the way we create the incentives, what are the credentials, how we value those credentials, what is the employment opportunity for those credentials?So I think that there’s a complete change that has to happen, uh, given the way to get to information, way to educate yourself, way to continuously keep yourself updated has changed so much. So I think interestingly enough, maybe the next big startup and success story could be someone who builds a new university, um, or a new, um, pedagogy even of how to get someone to go through a curriculum and find economic opportunity, uh, that’s highly valuable.Well, that has felt, uh, perhaps impossible for a long time, but it’s a great note to end on and something that might be possible. It’s still possible. Yeah. Thank you, Satya. Thank you so much. Thank you. Yeah. I appreciate it. Thank you all. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.latent.space/subscribe

Please welcome Swix, Saragoa, Alad Gill, and Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Microsoft, Satyne Della. I'm so excited to be here. Welcome to a crossover episode of No Pryors in Lane Space with Satyneadella. Congratulations on an amazing build. No, thank you so much, and it's great to be with both of you. I listen to both of you or both the podcasts all the time. It's great to be on it.

Thank you so much. So you're just talking about these amazing announcements from across the, Microsoft estate all morning for, I think, three hours. What's the most important reflection or takeaway you have? I'd say there are perhaps the biggest one for me is, let's conceptualize this more as an ecosystem play as opposed to a single model or even a single platform, right? At least for me, having grown up at Microsoft,

having seen whatever, four major platform shifts, fall into that camp where a platform is defined, by fundamentally its ability to create more value about the platform versus what's captured in the platform. And so if you view what's happening right now, I think this morning's keynote was, how can any company, whether it's an AI-native company or a traditional enterprise company, participate as a first-class participant where they can point to AI they create it. It's not that they don't use other people's AI. Of course, they will.

But to me, what's the path? What's the recipe? How do I do it? What does a stack look like? What does the tooling look like? What is valuable? How do you do that? That's it.

That's a job to do. Yeah. Ecosystem strategy is very complicated, right? Because you end up building certain components, partnering for certain components, supporting them. You just announced this big suite of models. Tell us a little bit about the training strategy for Microsoft. Yeah.

So the thing. thing that we wanted to do with the MAI models was to build, and as Mustafa talked about, first of all, a great lineage, starting with pre-training, with very good data quality, doing all the ablations, making sure, because in some sense it's becoming even harder to build a clean lineage model, because there's so much stuff out there that you truly need to ablate out to be able to have a fantastic pre-trained model. In fact, that's one of the challenges of a lot of the open weight models is they look great on one benchmark or two, but they're not great on practice. So that's why, in fact, even our FDEs are pretty gone really excited about these

MAI models, because how the heck can a small 5B model hill climb? And it goes back a little bit to what I think is ultimately the key thing to do, which is try to pursue finding that cognitive core. So to me, starting with a clean lineage, then, creating that ability for companies to be able to use this right not just as a generalist but to create their own specialist by building this hill climbing scaffold around it right so it's not just the model but you have a hill climb scaffold around it then you will start building your RLE you will start collecting the traces most importantly you'll have private e-vals

because we know all the evals out there are good interesting but they're not really that critical at this point because they all can be maxed and so the point is each company will have its own private eval and so that end-to-end platform story around our models is what I think is interesting and then the one other thing Sarah since you brought that up is I do feel there's a new frontier like people talk about the frontier and are you operating at the frontier interestingly enough if you add a little temporality to it you can use let's say in in fact the Landau Lake's demo we showed was pretty cool.

We used, whatever, GPD-5-5, right? Then you collected a bunch of traces, and then you took a 5B reasoning model and achieved higher. So that is another aspect of what it means to operate at the frontier. Yeah, I think, first of all, I have to congratulate you

on basically building a frontier NeoLab inside of Microsoft in two years. I'm wondering you have all this AI strategy that you're rolling out. What do you know now that you wish you would tell yourself two or three years ago, for the Jensen Partnership, two years for M.A.

Yeah, I think the thing that I reflect quite a bit, which is obviously I got into all this when I got excited by the scaling loss paper and when even the Open AI partnership came about when those folks said, hey, we're going to really throw a lot of computer transformers. And they've helped. The thing that I always look back and say, wow, these things do have capability that they're climbing up with this crude way of saying it is intelligence is log of compute kind of works. now what I think we underestimate it perhaps is the real world complexity

of deploying these so that they actually deliver the value in the real world, right? So the outcomes as measured by any benchmark is interesting, important, but the true Eval is when people out there are able to do unique things that they only can value and it's very measurable. Right? That I wish we had even had more in our consciousness, right, which is as an industry.

Because right now, I think when people say, wow, I don't want a token max, it's an artifact of us not having thought ourselves as an industry that we are using tokens to create value every step of the way. So I think that's what I wish we had gotten there, but I'm glad we are here. What are some of the use cases that you've seen that have created the most value for your customers? because I know that people talk a lot about code, and I think it's pretty clear that's something that's having very large-scale impact. Are there other areas that you find in common that your customers are really benefiting?

Yeah, I think, to your point, obviously, coding is now got... But it's interesting, by the way, Lodges, to even talk about the coding, right? Which is, coding has worked so well that we now have to rebuild the IDE, right? It's guts. To see what we launched is, oh, my God, I have these 100-agent sessions. The cognitive load, it transfers back to me as a human, is so excessive that now I need a new UI.

Oh, by the way, the chat as the only artifact is also impossible, so that's where we need a canvas. So it's interesting for all the things about where is software needed or where is UI needed. You need that even for code, right, in a fully agentic world. But that said, one of the things that we are starting to see, we start seeing with co-work, but even some of the work we showed with autopilot on what with claws is a good one.

Because if you think about a lot of human capital is doing the glue work, right? If you now can augment that with tokens slash agents that are long-running, durable, then your ability to scale, even what is still judgment and glue work, gets amplified like coding does. So you can, I'm positive that six months from now we'll all be saying, oh, wow, all through the night there was a bunch of stuff that all these autopilots that I have working on my behalf with my delegated authority, so to speak, right? I can, given even my identity, did a bunch of work. Then, of course, I'll need my new ADE to say, what did you do? Did I do this work and so on? So I think that's where compressing of workflows, completing of tasks, that's where I think a lot of the value gets created. I think you raised a really interesting point, which is there's the,

actual agent is doing the code and then there's a harness around it and that's the environment, that's the context, that's everything you're setting up as a developer around actually a coding agent. What is the harness for the enterprise? Is there an equivalent concept for broader productivity work or how do you think about that concept? That's right. So in some sense, you call the harness to define the models, the data, and the tools, and so that you have a loop across those three. And so what we are trying to, first of all, make sure is each of the,

our products that we build, whether it's GitHub co-pilot or the security copilot stuff we showed with MDASH or even the discovery for science. It doesn't matter. All of them are multi-model harnesses with tools access so that you can do this progressive disclosure of tools even so that they're token efficient. And then you're feeding it with very rich context because that's the other hard lesson we've learned in the last two years is, oh my God, the amount of work you need to do. And, then you're feeding it. do to prep the context layer such that your plan can execute in the most efficient way is where the magic is. So we have, in our case, we have the get-up harness, which essentially we're using across all our products. It's available in Foundry. And we're open, like you can use your llama

harness, whatever, or you can use any open harness or any harness of yours and train with your tools and multiple models and your context. And so that's the pitch. Because right now a lot of dialogue is hey, if I train the harness plus tools and the model together, you get e-vals. And what we are proving out is, and the best example of that, is what we did with M-Dash, right? Because when it launched, it found bugs or vulnerabilities that were not found by mythos. And so there is existence proof. I would claim that you can have a multimodal harness that can, in fact, be more performant in the real world. So a premise behind the training at the independent Frontier Labs is really we're going to have these models,

and we'll have an API business and we'll support enterprises and startups, but a first-party product, be it productivity or code or search, drives the majority of revenue. That's a different value equation than you're describing, I think, with the Microsoft ecosystem, if that's the case, tell me if it's the case, because obviously you have first-party products and you have enablement products. what is the role of the developer, like what's going to be hard and the set of skills and the value capture the developer has in that world? Yeah, so I think that there's always going to be the case that someone who is super successful as a platform builder can also have first-party products. It was true with Windows.

It was true with the SaaS side and the cloud side as well with us and others and so on. But the thing that is, it should not be a limiter to other people achieving that same success. That I think is the core difference, which is that network affects this time around around intelligence as such because they learn from data and not really lots of data. It's just the few samples that you have to see to understand what's novel about something. So that's why the game becomes how to protect. So that's why I would say every company having private e-valves, maybe the biggest IP. I think about it. What's that private e-val that you can then use even a frontier model to hill climb on and not leak the traces?

Maybe one of the biggest drivers of IP. So in other words, another acid test is you have an e-val that's private. You're using Model A. Can you switch it to model B and climb up? If you can, then you're in control. If you can't, you're not in control. And that's where even the harness is. decision becomes super important, right?

So therefore, having an open harness, letting all models come in, having your evals, your context, your tools help you hill climb. I think is the skills that an AI native startup needs, a SaaS company needs, or every enterprise needs. Yeah, I think in a very real way, you are Microsoft historically as an operating systems company

and then become a cloud company. Maybe like the third act is that your harness or e-vals, company, whatever the sort of conglomerate of concepts that you want to put together. I think enabling every company to have like frontier intelligence or whatever, I forget the exact term that you use, is the mission, right? That's it. That is the platform promise that you build with us. You will get your intelligence for your data.

That's right. To me, that is the, there was one tagline for this entire developer conferences. Can everybody operate at the frontier with their frontier? intelligence, right? To me, that is so important because otherwise, I don't know how you achieve stable equilibrium, right, which is how do I then go and say, my company is going to have a terminal value because I now know how to continuously compound on top of what's a platform that gets better, right? So when like Windows obviously came out, Adobe built, Autodesk built, or even take what Jensen said, we built DX and he built Kuda on top of it.

I always say to Jensen, God, I got the short end of that, right? I wish we had recognized it. But nevertheless, but that idea that you can build a platform layer that someone else can then extend out and build their own intelligence layer in this case, I think is everything. Without it, why have a developer conference? I can just come and have you all just worship at the altar of one model. But that's not a developer conference.

Backstage, you had a discussion about what is IP or what is the value in a company it used to be the length of human experience at the company. And now it's this other thing, which is the evils, the experience in applying agents to the company. I just want you to flesh that all a bit more. Yeah, it's a great way to frame it, right? Because at the end of the day, every company is going to have both the human capital that is still going to be super valuable because humans and their ability to find the gaps

that exist at all times is going to be the way we all will create value. So I'm definitely in the camp that this is going to be about expressing new forms of human agency and ambition, even as token capital goes up. So let's say any corporation has lots of tokens and a lot of human capital. The question is, how do you compound the two? So if you have a, if you take in teams, I have a bunch of agents doing work and a bunch of humans doing work and the traces between those, that is really important context of how this. that enterprise is creating value. Then that goes back to train not a generalist model, but to train the company veteran agent.

That is super value again, which is when a company goes says it should in fact go onto the balance sheet is how I think about it. In fact, there may be, like human capital was never possible to go put on a balance sheet because you then know how to capture the tacit knowledge. Whereas now I think you can. With the agents that have learned through the structure,

through time, through all the traces. So that's what at least we think will happen. I think the SEC is going to have to have accounting standards for token expertise. You're talking about the equilibrium state and a stable equilibrium where companies have this compounding value and can see terminal value for themselves. Another challenge to be considered equilibrium of, okay, there are applications and workflows that are common to a vertical or a horizontal. and this was like the generation of SaaS companies,

and Microsoft has lots of SaaS properties as well, and then there are things that are very specific to every enterprise that they're differentiated against. I'm sure you have heard much and participated in much of the debate about the end of software, because all these workflows are cheap to generate now. Do you think the equilibrium looks different between what agents get built in enterprises

versus in their vendors in the future? Yeah, so I think what's happening there is, received, we had a particular way we captured, I would say, workflow in apps, right? Because we built a data model, right? We schematized some part of some business process. We then built a bunch of business logic. Yep. And then we put a bunch of UI on top of it, right?

So that's what every SaaS company. And a little configuration. For 20 years. And that was it. So interestingly enough, now you get to relitigate that vertical stacking. So I still think, for example, that data model that you built underneath every SaaS application is super good, right? Like, why reinvent it? My general ledger better be a general ledger.

I don't need new schema creation. In fact, that entity relationship is actually pretty good, robust thing that I want to feed. And you want to be stable. That's right. Then same thing with business logic, right? If you look at, we have this product called Power BI, right? It was like dashboards galore people created. The beauty underneath that dashboard is a very rich semantic model, right?

Someone took the pain to create a dashboard and do all the measures. And you want that, that's business logic, right? I want that to be available to me. So I think the challenge of the SaaS business model is, we packaged one way, we now have to learn how to unbundle these things and re-bundle in new. ways and discover new business models, right? If you look at it, what's happening today with Microsoft 365 is a great example. We have this thing called Work IQ.

In fact, what we are realizing is, oh my God, if we look at it, in fact, there's a historical parallel to, right? We sold first exchange and SharePoint and before Teams, we had a thing called Link Server and what have you. And we thought, oh, that's all going to move to the cloud. But little did we realize that the number of people who will use servers in the cloud 10x, 100x, right? Because people were not buying servers,

they were just buying a subscription. The same thing is now happening with M365, because with Work IQ, we have exposed what is perhaps the most important database in a company that never got used as a database, because it is only captive to our apps. There's email operated on it, Teams operated on it, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, SharePoint.

But now, like, this is one of the coolest things I get to do with Work IQ. I go to a GitHub repo, and I say, hey, I I attended a bunch of design meetings last week related to this repo. Can you capture all that and tell me what changes I should make? Think about that. It literally can go look at all those transcripts, come back with a plan to change a code base. Previously, you could never have thought of using M365 for something like that.

So the value creation opportunity now in the agent world is in fact 10x more. But it does require us to have, for example, there's going to be usage around. M365, which is going to be perhaps more than even the end users. And we have to even re-architect. In fact, what I use to serve an inbox or a mailbox cannot be used to serve an agent. And so that's what we're doing. I don't believe in permanent business models for any of these domains, but in the near term, do you have a prediction between outcomes-based pricing,

token-based pricing, enterprise bundles? Yeah, the way I think about this is always we've had, let's even take the per user pricing. The per user pricing is really an artifact of someone creating a budget, needing certainty, right? Because it's the most important thing. Somebody who wants a budget, they need a per user. And per user is just a set of entitlements to usage. Right, that's what it is. And so the way is, the first bundling will be take some usage, bundle it into per user,

stacks and sell subscriptions. So subscriptions, I think, are going to be there, per user is going to be there. Then the next big thing will be consumption. So people will say, I want consumption. And it's also possible that people will say, I don't even want to pay for any of the subscriptions or the consumption. It's outcome. But remember, most people love outcomes until they have an outcome. Because once you have an outcome, it's like giving away royalty. I've talked to customers who love outcome-based pricing. And I say, I'm all in until they, oh, my God, what are you talking about you're sharing in my outcome no no I want you to go back to per user pricing and I want you to consumption price right so I think that debate will go

on and all all of these business models have a particular time and a place versus one to rule them all and if anything if you're a SaaS vendor or you're a platform vendor having that flexibility and quite frankly we faced this with get up right we just recently announced upper user pricing on get up because little get up co-pilot was instructed at a per-user level before we understood even the intensity of usage of agents. Right? There's an interactive way for a developer to use code complete, maybe task.

It was not like, oh, I launched 10,000 agents that are going on all day. So that is what the adjustment is about. So now that we really want, there will always be a per user, but they will have to be a consumption meter. How do you think about the durability of SaaS more generally? One thing I've observed is in a lot of enterprises internally, there will be teams that almost have agent euphoria. They're so excited about the explosion of things they can build that they're trying to rebuild a lot of applications,

they're going to their SaaS vendors and saying, we're not going to work with you anymore, or we're considering an internal project. And it seems like in six to nine months, maybe some of those people will come back and say, actually, we can't rebuild everything. How do you think about what's durable in this world and what isn't? I think we have to go through one full budget cycle on this

to really see the sort of the emergence of the equilibrium. Because at the end of the day, there's marginal cost to even generating the app. In fact, there can be even a simple way to say you should always acquire something if the marginal cost of building and maintaining something on your own is higher. That should be like it's a quantifiable thing.

And the maintenance part is important, right? Even, like, you've got to remember, hey, all the security stuff that now AI will find, you better fix them too fast. Of course, there's a coding agent to help you with, but then that burns tokens, right? So whose responsibility is it? It's like a cycle that you've got to think through.

And I think we have gone through the excitement that I can generate a lot of software. I think the next thing would be, what software do I really want to generate? What software do I want to use from others? How do I compose these two into some agentic workflow that I have agency over? because I think there will be very little tolerance for anybody who's inflexible at the vendor level.

But at the same time, I think that anyone who has got that flexibility shows up, delivers the value, will be back again. We're selling software with just different business models, in fact. Speaking about building software, one of my favorite moments from, I think, a previous build, maybe one or two years ago, was they had a section of you building your own software. I'm curious if you're building anything now. Yeah, so I think the, first of all, let's face it, right? Building software has made it possible for even the incompetence of a CEO of a company like ours. You can build, so thank God. But that said, I do feel that something like GitHub co-pilot to me,

and especially the new Sessions app or the new app, has just made it so much more possible for you to have agency over artifacts, that you felt you couldn't touch before, right? So for me as a CEO, even, to go to a code base, to be able to learn about it. Like, I remember joining Microsoft long back first, and then you say, man, everybody had to go in and look at whatever, Cutlers, Malik,

or what have you, to learn how to root good C++ code. So now that ability to be more full stack up and down is so good. But that doesn't mean every one of us should be doing the same thing. The question is, how do you then have the ability to inspect things, learn things, see things, I think is just so much more. And so to me, what I'm building a lot of is these long-running foundry agents. So there's autopilots.

So the easiest thing is, to me, I think I just built one even last week where the idea was, hey, can I have an agent that is continuously monitoring, essentially my own chief of staff autopilot, right? We're going to have that, obviously, in Scout. That's what we showed. But it is so easy and trivial to build. I took work IQ. I said take work IQ, go and build a foundry long-running agent,

store all the memory in using Ray Finn, right, basically at my back end as a service. And lo and behold, it built it. And not only built it, I could say publish to teams. And it published the damn thing to teams. So the ability to have some end-to-end project like this, complete is just pretty miraculous. How do you think that impacts the different types of engineering roles that exist in the future? Because right now, I think there's a dozen different types of engineers that you can be from

QA, front end, et cetera. It's a big swath. I've heard some people argue that in four or five years will basically end up with four engineering roles. It'll be people who are managing agents. It'll be four deployed engineers or FDEs. It'll be security engineers. And then people working on large-scale infrastructure for a small number of services. And then everything else just collapses into the agenic world.

Do you think that's a correct view of the world? Yeah, I think we'll have to experiment our way through it. But what you said is what there are some very at-scale things. At LinkedIn, they did structurally change. And it basically built up a new discipline called Full Stack Builder, right? So they went and said, hey, let's bring people from design and product management, front-end engineering, all put them together. But also have an edge, right?

It's not like the design person still doesn't have the design edge or the front-end person doesn't have the front-end edge, but you can give yourself bigger scope in roles so that you're not confined to one role. And then equally, infrastructure has become very critical. So in other words, RLEs, one thing we've realized is even for the Excel team, for example, building the RLE in which a reward can be learned is actually one of the hardest sort of infrastructure problems. you need even new talent, right, distributed systems, people even in what was considered an end-user app team, because it's a different skill set. So yes, infrastructure, science is the other one, obviously. So I think we'll see how these evolve, right? Where's the real, always the world will have a bunch of specialists.

I think the generalist role is going to be the most exciting, right? Because the leverage of a generalist is where we are going to see the maximum returns, right? When you said, hey, are you coding? I'm now a general, I basically translated knowledge work, right, which I did, where I created a word document or a spreadsheet or even, and now I can build an app, right? It's in the same sentence. That idea that, oh, wow, my generalist skills have gotten a higher leverage, I think is what we're going to see across the board. Music to the ears of CEOs and VCs that are like a little dangerous at a lot of things. Cold and age for idea of people. Idea people, man, with a lot of agency.

If you take that idea of personal agency and you just zoom it out to the organizational context, my partner Mike Mernal, who actually started his career at Microsoft, just wrote an essay where one of the big takeaways is it's an age where you can be much more ambitious, and you need to be given the pace of the environment and how quickly actually users and companies are open to adopting new technologies. How do you think about, I feel silly asking this

of somebody running a trillion-dollar-plus company already, But how do you think about how Microsoft can be more ambitious now? It's a great question. I think the thing in these type of transitions is to have a conceptual model of how work can change to go after outcomes that you could hardly imagine previously, right? In fact, Kevin Scott has this nice line, which is when you can make the impossible like when you're making hard things easier, that's one point of leverage,

but true ambition is about making the impossible possible. So now the thing that is missing a little bit in all of our organizations is what is that new conceptual model of what can we build? What was impossible and what can we build. And I'll give you one example of this, which is I take great inspiration from the people who were managing the Azure network. And they came to the, this was from even last year, we were scaling. You saw that I talked about how we built in the last 15 months more Azure capacity than

we built in the first 15 years. That's crazy. It's pretty wild. And it's the same team. So they saw that and they said, Bob, this just ain't going to work if we don't reconceptualize our work. So they built, essentially they said, our job is not to do Azure networking. Our job is to build the agentic system does Azure networking.

These are the folks managing the 500 plus fiber operators managing the van all over. And fiber operations ultimately is a physical operation. Things get cut. Things have to be repaired. We have fancy words called DevOps and so on. Basically, emails are coming in and you've got to go respond to them, take care of it. So they built this agentic system. They even have a character for it.

It's called Miles and it does all this stuff. right, they started screaming for more tokens and so on. And so they were saying, look, we don't need headcount. We need tokens in order to be able to manage our operation. That reconceptualization of what their work is, right? They basically took their work and made it meta. Right? That meta work is now their new work.

In the 80s, if somebody had come to us and said, four billion people are going to get up in the morning and start typing, my model would have been, we need four billion typists. But we're not doing typing, we're doing knowledge work. So that, to me, I think, is it, which is, whether it's Microsoft or whether it's any organization, is to give ourselves permission to do new types of metacognition, meta work, using these new tools to change the outputs that matter and then really make the impossible possible. So completing that dot or the connective tissue across those, I think, is where a lot of the enterprise value will get created.

Can we talk about data centers? Yeah, please ask. Oh, okay. This leads nicely into the data center buildup. I always think I'm just impressed at the sheer scale of the buildout from Microsoft, but also everyone else, that this is redefining what it means to be a hyperscaler. And I just feel like that has unprecedented scale on finances, on the way you run the company, but also the communities that are impacted.

Then just talk a bit more about what you're seeing on the ground, like when you visit your... Yeah, I think there are two aspects. of it, obviously the build-out is extraordinary. Nothing like this has happened, and it's great to be one of the participants in it. But you brought up the other part, right? I think at this point it's clear that unless we as an industry are very principled about ensuring that the benefits of all the stuff we're talking about are felt in real ways at the community level, right?

Because this is not just a campaign. It has to be real where people are saying, look, this is not changing the prices on energy for me. In fact, if anything, it's bringing down prices because long term there's going to be a better grid. There is going to be more energy. Water consumption is in fact not, in fact, water is being replenished, right? You've got to really educate folks on truly what's happening, the closed-loop systems we're building. We have to invest in the training, the jobs, the tax base. In fact, the least talked about stuff is the amount of jobs that get created during construction, after construction, what's the tax base that's there in the community.

And all this has to be real. And if that is the case, then we will have permission. If it is not, we won't have permission. It's as simple as that, right? Which is, I think we have to take it as an industry pretty seriously. I think it's good for communities to be skeptical, ask the hard question, for us to do the hard work, earn that. But at the end of the day, if we can really be the produce, I've always felt like in human history, if you use a lot of energy but also create a lot of value for society, the story has been fantastic.

If you don't do that, it's not been that great. And this time around, I'm a firm believer that ultimately if you do have a token economy that drives productivity, that drives economic growth, that drives broadspread participation, better health outcomes, then I think we'll be in a great place, and that's at least what we all have to be focused on. Yeah. It makes me think, actually,

that with all this initiatives that you're doing, it might be easier to see ROI in the communities first before in the enterprise? I think both sides. In fact, it comes back together. It has to be the people in the communities are going to be employed, are going to be participants in the real economy.

That's, I think, the question is, If the broad economy is doing well and the communities are doing well, the dots get connected. The market forces are such that we will connect the dots. And that I think is it. You ought to be able to see the evidence. You can't be about any one company, but it has to be broad economic growth and broad community permission. What is most optimistic about currently, or what have you most updated your personal models on regarding societal impact of AI? So you're saying what's the...

What have you updated most on in terms of societal impact of the... Yeah, I think the most critical thing is the first question we even started with, which is we need to tell the story and make it real that everybody has a real shot to participate as a first-class participant in this new economy. That's, I think, in the next 12 months, 18 months, months, we need a way for people to say, oh, wow, I get it. There's going to be tremendous capability, tremendous amount of infrastructure, but I can see what is going to happen, whether it's the benefits like health outcomes, or my ability to create a startup, or my ability to run my

local store more efficiently. It's just happening, and I see that benefit myself, right? That to me, earning that permission in a path-dependent way, we can't wait. See, the one thing I've now learned is, I think the world is going to be very skeptical of tech and tech companies that say, trust us, we've got it, the future is going to be glorious. We have to deliver tangible benefits. And frankly, politicians winning elections, because they have advocated for that.

that will be at least my adjustment, because without it, thinking that somehow, because it's too important this time around, it's too much of the economy for it not to be the case. So one very simple framework I have for what is going to be the broad benefit of AI beyond the communities just working in technology. Wealth creation.

It's going to happen in a ton of different companies, startups and large companies. Then you have healthcare. You had amazing demos today. There are companies like Open Evidence. I think that is happening. Education seems like another one that's an obvious good where we haven't seen as much impact as I'd expect.

Do you have a hypothesis on why that might be or if it'll come? Yeah, I think this is where, again, how we think about education, how recently I met with the founders of Alpha School and learned a lot about what they were going and going about. And it's fascinating to listen to how to even rethink what does education really look like? Because I think it's actually very important. And I'm not saying anything traditional.

being done is less important, right? I was even looking at the, it's fascinating to see, I forget which Stanford class it was, the Asian guidelines for CS something, because you still need people to learn. It was an interesting AI class that they were making sure people were learning how to apply softmax or appropriately versus saying, hey, fix my training run. So I think learning concepts is important. It's going to be critical. But the way we create the incentives, what are the credentials, how we value those credentials, what is the employment opportunity for those credentials? So I think that there's a complete change that has to happen

given the way to get to information, way to educate yourself, way to continuously keep yourself updated has changed so much. So I think, interestingly enough, maybe the next big startup and success story could be someone who builds a new university or a new pedagogy even of how to get someone, to go through a curriculum and find economic opportunity, that's highly valuable.

That has felt perhaps impossible for a long time, but it's a great note to end on and something that might be possible. Thank you, Sanya. Thank you so much. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you all.