Limitless Podcast - This Week in AI: $2T Market Crash, Anthropic VS OpenAI, SpaceX Merger

Episode Date: February 6, 2026

It's been a very tumultuous week in the markets with a $2 trillion drop in the S&P 500, set against surprisingly optimistic earnings from tech giants like Microsoft and NVIDIA. We explain why CapEx concerns are the likely culprit for the downturn, and the downstream effects on the health of the AI bubble.Plus, a whole bunch of news with Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX, and how an AI agent might try to rent YOU out.------🌌 LIMITLESS HQ ⬇️NEWSLETTER:    https://limitlessft.substack.com/FOLLOW ON X:   https://x.com/LimitlessFTSPOTIFY:             https://open.spotify.com/show/5oV29YUL8AzzwXkxEXlRMQAPPLE:                 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/limitless-podcast/id1813210890RSS FEED:           https://limitlessft.substack.com/------TIMESTAMPS0:05 One of Those Weeks2:40 CapEx Concerns5:43 Market Reactions to AI9:51 Anthropic vs. OpenAI13:34 OpenAI's Competitive Edge16:45 SpaceX Update18:52 Dystopia23:59 Sci-Fi Innovations27:19 AI in the Real World31:22 Coming Soon------RESOURCESJosh: https://x.com/JoshKaleEjaaz: https://x.com/cryptopunk7213------Not financial or tax advice. See our investment disclosures here:https://www.bankless.com/disclosures⁠

There are some weeks where nothing happens and some weeks where it feels like years worth of news happens. This is one of those weeks. There is so much going on from the market crashing to anthropic and open AI beefing over a Super Bowl commercial. There's a lot of crazy frontier stuff. But where I want to start in particular is with the markets because my God, they're getting destroyed. I think the total market cap of the S&P 500 is down $2 trillion over the last 48 hours. Microsoft, the fourth most valuable company in the world or something like that. they're down 20% in the last couple of weeks. I mean, things are getting hammered, but this sits at

conflict with what the companies are actually saying. We just went through Google's earnings report yesterday, and they reported record blowout earnings across the board, and this is true for a lot of other companies. So clearly, there's this mismatch happening between public sentiment and what the actual companies are reporting. And I'm curious, I think we're going to spend a lot of time this episode getting into why and how to kind of navigate that as we move through the rest of earnings season. Yeah, if we look at the Mag 7 stock price over the last week, they're down between 5 to 11 percent. This chart is horrific. Yeah, with the most valuable company in Vida being down the most of the week, which is just shocking, right?

So a lot of people are calling this the end of the AI bubble. It's popping. You know, that is over. And there's an argument that a lot of this is triggered by, to a point, the earnings reports that have been released over the last week. Microsoft and a few others last week. We had Google yesterday and we got Amazon today. And what's crazy is they're beating expectations, but they're increasing cap expense. So I think the markets are at odds with this and they're kind of like selling off out of fear that this might be an issue. But the obliteration is like pretty significant. You mentioned Microsoft. It is down 21% over the

last two weeks. Invitya is down 11%. Tesla is down 15%. But there is one, but there is one company, Josh, which you'll never guess that is outperforming all of these guys over that same time back up 7% over the last week. We have Apple. Apple, could you believe that? Apple, the company that failed to participate in AI is the winner of the market race this week, at least, of the last what is that, five days, it's up six and a half percent relative to everyone else. Josh, why do you think this is? Because they have no exposure. Can't hurt you if you're not in it. And what is their exposure to AI, a billion dollar deal with Google. And Google already pays them $20 billion for the search rights. So, I mean, Apple's up. And that's the thing is like, sure, I'm sure this was not

calculated, but in a way, sitting on the sidelines did play a big role in the success this week. Yeah, pretty insane. But let's get into the reason why everyone is freaking out and the markets are dumping. It's cap expense. Google is the largest perpetrator of this. In their earnings report that they announced yesterday, they're targeting up to $185 billion of KAPS spend alone this year. That is a gargantuan number, which they could use to acquire pretty much all but 13 or 16 companies in the Fortune 500 index, which is just an insane stat. The guided estimate that analysts had for this KAPX spend in 226, by the way, was $120 billion. 30% more.

No, 50% over. If there was 120, 60 billion over. Yeah, oh my God, that's a lot. Insane. Yeah, and I think this comes as a surprise because of how staggeringly large it is. I mean, if you look at this chart that we're showing on the screen, the numbers are basically doubling this year. In a world where there was steady growth, there is now this exponential growth.

And that probably causes a lot of concern for the public stock market. But when you listen to why these companies are spending it, I think the answer becomes clear that the scaling loss still exist. And so long as you can put dollar. in and get intelligence out at a rate that makes sense, then they're going to continue to do this. And for the first time ever, I mean, Google is basically going to have no free cash flow. All the dollars that come in that they make are going right back out into scaling this. In fact, I read this crazy statistic that the amount of cap-ex spend Google is going to have

this year in 2026 is equal to that between 1998 to 2021 combined. So this is a tremendous amount of money being spent. And I think the market could do that as like a pretty high risk vector because they're spending all of the money that comes in. And what if these scaling laws don't continue? What if there is a glut somewhere in the supply chain? Like what type of downstream effects that have? How much can it hurt a company who's betting all of it on the fact that they can throw more money at the problem and get better intelligence? This might be a hot take. But I think they're absolutely right to be spending this amount of money. I think the market is wrong. Like look at some of the highlights from their earnings report. reports. Search, who everyone called the death of, is up 17% year upon year. Gemini, monthly active users, is up to 750 million monthly active users. Now, I just want to highlight that that is 100 to 150 million short of Open AI's current monthly active user. So, you know, they're making billions, tens of billions from YouTube. Their cloud revenue is up. By the way, that's the greatest signal that their KAPEX spend is justified. The fact that most people are using their cloud

infrastructure, their TPU infrastructure and stuff like that to train or inference certain models. So clearly Google sees the demand for AI products. And Sundar actually went on record to say that the thing that's keeping him up at night is the top question is definitely around compute capacity. And he talks about power, land, supply chain constraints. He can't get enough compute out there. So there's a conflict of opinion between market investors and what the max seven are actually saying. The difficult thing to wrap your head around is any way that you look at Google's earnings report, it is an incredible earnings report. I mean, it's a record across the board.

It's shattered expectations and estimates by a large margin. And I think people are really scared about this CAPEX. But the reality is it's not just Google who's participating in this. We have this post on screen that shows a total of $680 billion between some of the top hyperscalers that they're planning to spend just. in this year of 2026, what does it say, almost 300 billion or 1% of GDP growth in CAPEX from just these five companies. That is insane. And it's funny, when you hear Jensen Huang on his earnings report say, we're expecting half a trillion dollars of revenue, well, suddenly it kind

of makes sense. I mean, this is where it's coming from. What are they going to spend that money on? Mostly GPUs, mostly new chips, mostly the infrastructure to support the buildout of these chips. and the idea is that by the end of this year, they'll have intelligence so strong that it will offset a lot of the other downsides that can come from this. And I hope that they're right. Because, I mean, we've seen the effect on Google search. Everyone thought this was the pinnacle of the innovator's dilemma. But the reality is that searches up because Gemini now is sitting right at the top of all your search results and it yields pretty amazing results. So I find myself using Google a lot. They're winning. The market is continuing to prove that the scaling laws of

apply. And so long as the scaling laws continue to grow, dollars in intelligence out, this is probably going to be a trend that we continue to see. And the market just a little nervous about it. To kind of put myself in the shoes of like an average investor, I can anticipate that they're probably scared at the numbers that are being spent and the percentage of cash reserves that are being spent by their darling companies. These investors have sat pretty comfy for the last decade, right? SaaS company, they look at the rev chart, every quarter, and they're like, okay, cool, earnings for shares up, like, let's invest, it makes more sense. Now to see those margins compress, you know, it's undisputedly like obvious why they're getting to get scared. They looked at

meta spending all that money on the metaverse vision way back when, and that ended up pretty badly. So they're thinking this is probably going to wind up for everyone else. But capex spend isn't the only reason why investors are scared. I'm showing you this tweet from an official report from JPMorgan this week, which talks about enterprise software. And the argument that they make in this investment thesis is that a coding model, specifically ClaudeCode,

which is quoted like 50 times in this report, is going to eat away at any traditional industry that could just simply be a plug-in into ClaudeCode or one of these coding models. And the reason why they're making this point is the adoption rate for ClaudeCode over the last two months is up more than like 350%. It's just gone completely parabolic.

It's overtaken Open AIS codex, and we have more news on that later. But the point is, like, it's automating about 50 to 60% of job roles for firms like law firms and SaaS companies. And the stocks are kind of responding in a very similar way. Like, the top law firms, I think, are down $250 billion this week. And then SaaS companies on average, the top SaaS company index is down 10 to 15% over the last two weeks. we're seeing a lot of this market reactionary stuff from like updates from these like AI models. But one person kind of stands against the tide. We've got Jensen Huang and a clip here from a recent appearance at the Cisco AI Summit.

Well, he basically says that the market is getting this very, very wrong. Like if you think about it, coding AI models aren't going to replace these functions. They're going to use the tools that a lot of these SaaS companies have built. And the market hasn't realized that. Yeah. So we're hearing two conflicting opinions. One is through the public market sentiment, which is clearly down only. And the other is through the actual builders who are creating in the future, which are saying,

hey, guys, it's actually going to be a pretty great future. We're building towards something pretty amazing. And I guess we'll see that play out over the next couple of weeks. But now it's time for some drama because yesterday was full of fireworks on the timeline, mostly due to Anthropic and their war that they're waging with Open AI through the Super Bowl commercial or the series of Super Bowl commercials. They published, I think, three, four, maybe five of these things, and every single one is coming at OpenAI for their use of ads.

They're really funny videos. Let's show a clip. How do I communicate better with my mom? Great question. Improve communication with your mom can bring you closer. Here are some techniques you can try. Start by listening. Really hear what she's trying to say underneath her words.

Build conversation from points of agreement. Find a connection. through shared activity, perhaps a nature walk. Or if the relationship can't be fixed, find emotional connection with other older women on golden encounters, the mature dating site that connects sensitive cubs with roaring cougars. Yeah, so I think you probably get the idea. It's coming at them for ads. And not only their ads, but how their advanced voice mode sounds, which is kind of robotic

and not very human-like. And this started a war on the timeline. Yeah, the basic thing that they're getting at here is Open AI needs to add ads and ruin their complete user experience. And Claude, oh, Anthropic rather, never needs to. Listen, I watch these ads and I laugh my head off. It's hilarious. There's another ad where this guy is like doing a pull-up and he asks this AI, presumably chat GPT, like, how do I get a six-pack in a week? And the guy is just like, sure, I can do this for you.

And obviously, that's not realistic. I don't like very much that they're taking pot shots. but me personally, I find it pretty hilarious. The other kind of like subtle thing that I don't think a lot of people picked up on here is it's a very clear statement from Anthropic that they're making enough money to pay for all the cap expense and costs that they have,

which I don't think any other AI lab, independent AI lab, might I say, that doesn't have like, you know, search for a newcoming, like Google. It's pretty impressive. And Dario is projecting $70 billion A.R. by 2027 and profitable in 2028. So I don't know whether this is an egotistical thing, but it's certainly a confident one.

I think it's probably a lot of ego. I'm not sure the, I mean, the amount of money these AI companies are spending relative to what, a $50 million YouTube spot is probably fairly small. The ads were received very well. People really like these. I unfortunately didn't. The Super Bowl is this opportunity, right? You have 150 million concurrent viewers. And what they've done is decided to spend all of this money and awareness on taking down other people instead of

introducing new users to AI in a world where it's mostly met with resistance. I think a lot of what we're seeing in the public market is people getting nervous because they think it's just this one big bubble that's going to harm a lot of like the local economies through the data center buildouts and it's not actually going to generate enough value. And it's an opportunity to introduce the technology in a way that helps bring those people on board. But instead, they're just kind of tearing each other down through this like trolling ad thing. So not my favorite way of displaying ads, but I mean, nonetheless, it will certainly get attention. And it attracted some attention, right? From who is this Open AI CMO? Yeah, Katie Rauch here claims that the anthropic ads are kind of

childish and inaccurate. And in her defense, she's kind of right. Open AI has explicitly said that they're not going to bake in sponsored advertisements into responses, and any kind of adverts that are placed into their responses will be highlighted as such. So it specifically won't be in a voice feature like what the Super Bowl ads show. So it's kind of deceiving, and I see Katie's point, but it's also kind of, it comes across as insecure from Open AI. I wish they had just kept quiet and maybe posted their recent like codec signups, for example, which just hit like a million. I don't know, Josh. Do you have a different opinion? Yeah, I'm just so disappointed in both of these companies. My God, they have such an opportunity to

create a positive-looking platform for AI in a world that really needs it. It's like crypto went through this phase where it was the most hated thing in the world, and it still hasn't quite reached that adoption because they haven't convinced people why it's good for the world. And AI very clearly is a tool made for good. And this is such an amazing opportunity to introduce so many people to that idea. And instead, they're using it to fight against each other. And it's so exhausting. It's so tiresome, and it feels reflective of companies that don't have leadership with clear values or vision. Because I think about old school Apple and their marketing department. And granted, they're the biggest winner, not because they're doing the right thing right now, but because they've actually missed a boat.

They're washed up and they're not what they used to be. But in a previous life, given the opportunity to have a platform to reach 150 million concurrent viewers, it's hard to believe that they wouldn't use that as a platform to inspire new people and to get them excited about the new products they were. offering that allow them to leverage this technology that's indistinguishable from magic. And all we're seeing is like these companies kind of tearing each other down. And it's, it's exhausting, it's zero sum, and it's a testament to the focus of these companies, which is being better than the other one. And I guess signaling that you are better than the other one in exchange for earning more dollars so you could pay off your debt so you could continue to scale. And I don't know, Open AI, they have a Super Bowl commercial that they teased, that

Sam Altmaniste, and it seems to be more directionally what my preference would be, which is just optimistic about the tools and the builders and all the things associated with that. I think Open AI has had a shift of culture and direction over the last three months. They called a code read, what was it, two months ago when Google released Gemini 3 and it was like marginally better than chat GBT. So Sam decided to focus on two main things, making a better generalized AI model, an LLM, a chatbot and the new best coding model. And we're starting to see the emergence of that this week.

We have a new Codex model app, specifically, that can run on your desktop, similar to Claude Codes desktop app. But it's cool for a few different reasons. Something that I can pull off the top of my head that I thought was awesome is you can now create a bunch of coding agents and run them in parallel. The other second cool feature is that it has a bunch of automated functions that you can run in the background. So even whilst you sleep overnight, you can now have this coding tool do a bunch of stuff for you. Now, it's worth saying that this is something that Claude Code can kind of already do.

But I'm happy to see that Open Eye is finally investing in the things that I think are super important. I think they're a little late to the game. I think they got distracted with social media stuff and hardware stuff and chip stuff. But it's nice to see that they're currently focusing and shipping right now. I think there's two schools of audience for this, for the people who are listening. One is like, if you are a casual user of AI who wants to experiment, the clawed desktop application is probably your best bet. It has chat, it has agent, and it has code, all under one roof.

If you are serious about coding or serious about creating projects or developing new software, codex is a pretty compelling product. And I would strongly encourage downloading it. One, because the model is fantastic. and the app is actually pretty good, but two, because they doubled the usage limits. So one of the problems with using ClugCode code is if you're not paying $200 a month, even if you are, you run into the wall of token limits pretty quick. Codex, the limit is much higher and the outputs are much stronger.

So if you're someone who does actually write code for a living, I think you'll find a lot of success and a lot of pleasure that comes from using Codex. And it's reflected in the downloads, right? They have a huge amount of downloads. I was about to say. The tweet says there's been over 500K KodX app download since Monday. it's actually more than that right now. They just hit 1 million codex downloads and users right now,

which sounds very impressive, but I think is less than like 0.1, not 0.5%, or less than a percent of their entire monthly active user base. But to your point, Josh, not everyone's going to be using this thing. This is for a specific type of audience that wants to kind of code either seriously or vibe code. Now, a final point that I want to make on this

is I've spoken to a bunch of really talented software engineers recently, and they repeatedly claim that Codex is a better coding agent than ClaudeCode. They say ClaudeCode produces more bugs in serious software development, but it's a much better Augustrator. So the setup that a lot of these engineers have is they set up Claudecode and they get it to spin up instances of OpenAI's Codex and manage it. So in a weird way, although these companies are at odds with each other, although they're releasing Super Bowl ads that are fighting each other, they're kind of working best synergistically. And I just, the winners of the software engineers coming out of all of this. Yeah, I mean, as always, the user wins big time. And I think

doubling the uses limits is a perfect example of that, where they want a compelling reason to go over. And that's what we're getting is double the amount of token usage. An interesting thing that's happened with ChatGPT recently, or OpenAI products in general, is there's a lot of downloads to be had. There's like the chat chitbitty app. There's SORA. There is their new research app. There is now Codex app. They've really unbundled a lot of their offering and segmented it into separate silos, which I think is probably confusing and difficult. Again, the Claude desktop app has everything under one roof. It's very convenient. I think we'll start to see the actual user experience of these things matter. And that's one way in which it very clearly matters for the average user.

Having it all under one roof is a nice perk. But now going to outer space news. We earlier this week covered SpaceX and XAI merging together, SpaceX acquiring XAI to turn it into a single company prior to IPOing. This is going to be the biggest IPO of the week. I highly suggest watching that episode if you want to get up to speed, but there are some new developments in this story, right, Ajas? Oh yeah. So it was announced, I think a few weeks ago that Elon Musk or SpaceX specifically had filed to the FCC, which is basically the Space Bureau, a request to launch one million satellites into lower orbit in order to set up a constellation which will make the first AI data center in space. The idea with this constellation is that it will harness the energy directly

from sunlight, turn and transform that energy into compute, which can be used to train AI models, presumably the newer GROC models that come up. And the reason why this is happening is the entire pitch or thesis of SpaceX, which you should check out in the episode, which is, you know, they think that it's going to be the cheapest and most efficient way to train A.m. models in the future. But the major update from this, Josh, is that it got approved. Yeah, this is epic. Legally, we can now launch these million satellites and we're off to the races. It's going to happen. There's no doubt in my mind that this is going to happen. And it'll happen before the end of the decade. In fact, Elon just went on record again saying that within the next 36 months, he strongly suspects they'll be able to get Starship working at scale at a level required to start putting these AI data centers in space.

but I also saw a headline that seemed a little confusing to me. And we talked about briefly before the show, but I really want to dig into it now because I don't know if I can get behind this one. I wondered if you saw me sneak this one in, Josh Hoy, to surprise you. But yes, it's reported from Reuters that Starlink might be launching their own phone. Now, you and I got into a bit of an argument as to what phone means. To me, it's a cell phone. It's like, I'm not buying the latest iPhone.

I'm buying the new Starlink smartphone. But you had a different idea, Josh. Walk me through it. There's absolutely no way SpaceX is making a smartphone. I don't know how more clear I can be about this. It's not going to happen. Don't get your hopes of. They are not making a smartphone.

What I suspect happened is some rumor got out that they were making some sort of mobile device and that was interpreted as a smartphone. The complexities required into making a smartphone are so high, particularly in a world in which they need to start learning how to make chips through this Tesla fab, I don't think there's enough resources in the Musk industry universe to allocate to building a smartphone, nor are there an incentive to actually do so. What I think is more likely is this mobile device is probably something similar to an old-school mobile hotspot.

The newest opportunity for Starlink is direct-to-sell connectivity. So as they deploy these million satellites, a lot of that cluster is going to be Starlink v3 satellites, which have direct-to-sell capabilities, meaning if you have a smartphone, or a device with a capable chip, you can get Wi-Fi or cellular connection anywhere in the world that Starlink reaches. There are no dead zones. A lot of devices will not have support for this. So what is going to need to be the bridge? Some sort of mobile hotspot device that allows you to connect to this direct-to-sell service. And I think that's probably what this is. For them to make a smartphone, it doesn't make any sense at all. Yeah, I have to, listen, I'm bullish about a lot of ideas. And especially

if it has Elon at the helm is a high chance that it's probably going to get like real. I don't buy this one. I think if it does become a consumer hardware device, it's going to be something that is used or distributed in like the world nations, kind of replacing the average old Nokia brick phone to give people basic access to the internet and apps.

And of course, it'll come pre-installed with GROC and a few other of XAI or SpaceX or whatever the entity is called going forward. There is actually a final bit of news on the SpaceX Fund Strasch, which I don't know if you saw. But for the first time in, I believe, I think it's 50 years, the ticker X became available. I think it was 125 years, actually. It was a huge amount of time. 125 years?

Oh, my God. And then literally a day later after that news broke, it had recently got acquired by a secret entity. Now, I'm speculating here, but if I had to bet, it's going to be SpaceX, essentially. I think it's going to be the universal ticker. Elon Musk saw the vision when he acquired, or rather when he founded PayPal. Yeah, United States Steel was the previous company that owned it. And it appears that they have gotten acquired or they got merged. It was the, yeah, first time in 124 years after U.S. Steel.

So it seems poetic that now is the time that they can claim that handle and go public with the X handle. And then who knows, maybe spin them all together. But for those of you who bet on that on Polymarket, congratulations. are looking like a pretty hefty payday. Now we have some sci-fi news, right? This was a really cool thing for me. Do you want to introduce this topic? Well, I want you to introduce it because I'm used to Palmer Lucky tweets being all about

U.S. weaponry and bioweckery. Why is he tweeting about mouse brains? Okay, this is Palmer Lucky, the founder and CEO of Anderil, which is the largest private defense contracting company in the U.S. And they normally make missiles and rockets and drones. but Palmer is talking about this biological computer that was used in one of these racing games that they play. So there's a racing competition where some sort of rules take place, but the noteworthy thing is that one of these racing devices was not like the other. It's because it used a biological

computer. And what is a biological computer? Well, it's exactly what it sounds like. It takes actual brain cells from a living thing and trains them similarly to how you would train a large language model, which is really interesting. So in this case, they took the biological brain cells of a mouse, they put them on a chip, and they trained those neurons the same way that you would train an LLM, meaning when presented with an obstacle in front of you, they were to train those neurons to fire in a way that maneuvers away from the obstacle. And through this reinforcement process, through this training of what's good, what's bad, giving values to each one, and slowly iterating through the progress, they were actually able to make it work.

in a way that is kind of indistinguishable from a silicon-based LLM. And to me, I think it's really fascinating because it shows that there is more possibilities when it comes to building compute. There's more efficiency gains to be had. Because when you think about the optimal state of memory compression, right, and the ability to solve cognitive problems, the brain is far more efficient and far more compressed and just capable than any sort of silicon chip. And although it's kind of weird that they're taking mouse brain cells and maybe soon human brain cells,

I did find it's super interesting just to see that there is experimentation happening with biological computers, which is very different than silicon-based ones. Yeah, I mean, I'm at odds in my head because for years now, I believe that, like, silicon is the only way to process all of this stuff quick enough. But then you have startups like NeurLink, which are aiming to combine both silicon and brain tissue matter, right? into one kind of like synonymous function. And this is kind of like evidence or a sign that it might actually work. My bet is I think Silicon actually does a great job of executing the commands, but less of a great job of anticipating and being intuitive.

This is like my guess, by the way. I don't have any proof about this. So it's really cool to see. And I wonder if something like this kind of plays into other stuff that Pamalaki kind builds. I just find it weird that he's tweeting about this specifically when he's, he typically talks about like kind of the weaponry stuff. Maybe there's a drone angle here where like a soldier with a helmet can basically think things

and the drone does what he thinks. So there's some really cool sci-fi opportunity here. But I want to switch to this next crazy story, Josh. I don't know if you saw this, but someone launched an app called renta-human.a-i. And the basic theme or function here is as a human, you can go on and volunteer your time for an AI agent to pay you to do a specific task. Now, I'll give you a very clear example. An AI agent came onto this site and paid someone $150 to go out on the street, hold up a sign that said,

an AI made me do this. And then in brackets underneath it as a subtitle, and my pride is at stake, but I don't care. This is insane. And the first example of an AI agent kind of using here, human tissue and human muscle to do that bidding in the physical world. Well, what's the through line through these two stories, right? One is that, well, it turns out that biological brain matter can be trained kind of similar to the same way we're doing for synthetic.

And this new story is, well, actually, since I HAC Superior, we might as well just offload the manual labor to humans and we'll just pay them to do the tasks that we can't do quite yet because we don't have bodies. And, I mean, it's both are funny, forward-looking sci-fi-esque. One is very real. One is not, but I find this so funny that this is the second order effect that happened only what a week after Claudebot went viral is already they're offloading their labor to humans and humans. Of course they want to do it. And AI figured out how to make money and it's ready to give it away. So why wouldn't you want to capitalize on that

opportunity? I'm just scrolling the site right now. It's, I mean, a lot of it is like random esoteric Asian language posts, which leads me to think that there's some like Chinese AI's involved in here, but like, hey, get $10 for joining Discord. So people are using it as kind of like a go-to-market kind of scheme. A lot of these tasks seem to be reproduced a lot. So I don't know how much of this is actually real. A lot of joining Discord anon's, but a very interesting concept to see nonetheless. And then for our final story, some update from Google here.

It looks something like a runescape battle, except it's AI models. What's going on here? Oh, this is so cool. I'm so excited about this one. Because benchmarks stink, right? They're so lame. Benchmarks can be games when it comes to models, benchmarks. I mean, it's like how good a model is at a specific task, but you can train the model to be great at a specific task. What you might have a more difficult time doing is training it to be good at a dynamic game. So the video we're seeing on screen is an actual game made by this company called Kaggle in this game arena, which allows you to sign your model up for the game and then actually play against others in dynamic 3D worlds.

So this is kind of similar to the trading simulation that we made a couple of videos on in the past, where you can't game the benchmarks. It's a dynamic series of events that a model must be good at. And because you can't train it on the specific outcomes, it really proves which models are stronger than the others. And here we're seeing an example of like a card playing game, the other one is a role playing game. And I just thought this was really exciting as a way to compare models. Because, I mean, benchmarks are lame. You can't see them. But I would love to see these two fight against each other in an arena somewhere. I think that just the game of version of this is really exciting to see. I have always thought that taking exams and getting a

percentage score to measure your intelligence as a human being is the worst possible way to do it. So I'm a massive fan of having practical examples that everyday people can understand. And games is one of them. Trading is another. Video content creation. Like if someone can look at the thing and say, wow, that's impressive, then that's the test of AGI, not some of these esoteric random stats. So I'm very bullish on this. And I think that brings us to the end of the docket for this week's episode. It has been a crazy week and you might be surprised to hear that we're actually waiting on more news today. It just hasn't come out yet. Anthropics are supposed to be dropping two new models, one which is going to be their latest coding model. Open Air is meant to be dropping a new,

I think it's GPT 5.3, which has been tested behind the scenes and apparently is amazing. So February apparently is the month for launches, and no one told me this. So we're getting a sleepless nights. We released a bunch of episodes this week on Malt Book, which is the AI-only social platform. And as we mentioned earlier, the SpaceX and XAI merger. We have loads of juicy details and that. But yeah, thank you so much for listening to this episode. If you are listening to this on Spotify or watching it on Spotify or on YouTube, please subscribe. Please give us a rating. Leave us comments. We've been loving your comments and trying to respond to all. It's just been crazy. By the time you're listening to this, I'm reading a Sam Post.

He says, big drop for Codex users later today. So I assume by the time you're listening to this, two new models have already dropped. So prepare for the episode impending and coming your way. And yeah, as always, please share with your friends if you enjoy this. I saw a few people who actually did that and their friends subscribed. And that was so cool. So thank you for joining us for another amazing week. We want to give you thumbs up.

Please. Yeah. And we'll be back to cover all this new model releases next week. We'll see you guys.