Odd Lots - Why the Tech World Is Going Crazy for Claude Code

Episode Date: January 19, 2026

In the AI industry, there's always a hot new thing. First it was ChatGPT. Then it was the image generators. There was the DeepSeek moment. In the latter half of last year, everyone was excited about how good Google's Gemini was. In January 2026, the new hot thing everyone is talking about is Claude Code. But of course, the AI models have been able to generate lines of code for a long time now. So what is it about Claude Code that has people so excited? Why is it that people are asking: "Is this AGI?" On this episode, we speak with Noah Brier, the co-founder of Alpehic, a consultancy firm that helps large organizations implement AI technology. Noah has been using the Large Language Models for longer than just about anyone, since even before ChatGPT existed. He explains to us the evolution of AI-assisted coding, what Claude Code actually is, and why it is that traditional software firms have been getting destroyed in the stock market lately. Read more:Meta Begins Job Cuts as It Shifts From Metaverse to AI DevicesAI Coding Startup Replit Nears Funding at $9 Billion Valuation Only http://Bloomberg.com subscribers can get the Odd Lots newsletter in their inbox each week, plus unlimited access to the site and app. Subscribe at  bloomberg.com/subscriptions/oddlots Subscribe to the Odd Lots NewsletterJoin the conversation: discord.gg/oddlotsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The news doesn't stop on the weekends. Context changes constantly. And now Bloomberg is the place to stay on top of it all. Hi, I'm David Gurra. Join us every Saturday and Sunday for the new Bloomberg this weekend. I'm Christina Rafini. We'll bring you the latest headlines, in-depth analysis, and big interviews. All the stories that hit home on your days off.

And I'm Lisa Mateo. Watch and listen to Bloomberg this weekend for thoughtful, enlightening conversations about business, lifestyle, people, and culture. On Saturday mornings, we put the past week's events into context, examining what happened in the markets and the world. That on Sundays, we speak with journalists, columnists, and key political figures to prepare you for the week ahead. Join us as soon as you wake up and bring us with you wherever your weekend plans take you. Watch us on Bloomberg Television.

Listen on Bloomberg Radio, stream the show live on the Bloomberg business app, or listen to the podcast. That's Bloomberg this weekend. Saturdays and Sundays starting at 7 a.m. Eastern. Make us part of your weekend routine on Bloomberg Television, and wherever you get your podcasts. Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News. Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots podcast.

I'm Joe Wisenthal. And I'm Tracy Allaway. So Tracy, you're cool, like if I like, you know, just start doing this part-time as I like build out my software business, right? Like, you're cool about that, right? I was going to say, I've been thinking about AI and productivity. And so far, your productivity has gone down, Joe. Instead of doing odd lots things, you're coding your own software.

Except that I'm creating content for the Odd Lots newsletter about coding, and that is productivity accretive. Debatable. Debatable. But you're cool with that. You're cool with like me, like, I'm just going to like check in part-time on Odd Lots when we have a recording. No, of course not. Okay, good. Good.

That's the right answer. I want you to be really sad. But like a few other people, you know, I have like caught the sort of like bug of like AI coding. and I'm totally blown away. I've, like, played with it from the beginning. I started playing around with it last year. But then over the holidays, and I've been writing about this in the newsletter,

suddenly, like, my Twitter feed is like, Claude Code, Claude Code, Claude Code. I had you just cursor before, which I was very impressed by at the time. And so when I got home from vacation, one of the first things I did is, like, figure out how to install Claude Code on my computer. And I was like, oh, I am, like, hooked.

And this is actually, like, I see why half my Twitter feed is just like people posting about this. All right. So I have to say I have not tried it because I only have a work computer and I can't install new software. And I probably definitely cannot install new software that then makes changes to existing software. I don't think Bloomberg would like that. But I have seen the hype.

Lots of people talking about it. Have you seen Claude Co-work? Have you heard of that? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. So one of the criticisms of Claude code was that, you know, like, okay, you code. but you still need some background knowledge in coding because like, you know, the interface is kind of like 1980s

and all of that or 1990s. Co-work apparently like goes a step further for normal people in coding. It makes it super, super easy. And the funniest thing is that apparently Claude Code actually coded co-work. So this really relates to my experience last year and then this year, which is that even last year, like, trying to use the AI coding tools, it was an annoying process because there are various things that you had to do in the actual command line of the computer that were like,

I don't know command line vernacular, and you have to, like, install these libraries and stuff. So there was this sort of, like, barrier that existed. And but what's really changed in the last year, or with Claude Code, which has actually been around for a while, and I should have like played with it before, is that like because it sits on your computer, it sort of takes away, it de-obstracts this.

And so when you talk about like, it actually does the stuff. It does it. It just like, oh, it's like, oh, we're going to need to install this open source natural language processing library. It just does it automatically instead of me trying to figure out like what are the right keystrokes to pull that in or why is this not going into the right file folder or whatever. And so like what, like co-work, it's like all like all of these sort of like little frictions, like these technical things, like command line user, very rapidly are like dissipating.

Yeah. And so that like then you have something like cowork where it's just like they, no, they're taken care of that. And so you get this like user interface that's just like, it's just getting easier and friendlier. There's almost no technical frictions at all anymore. Also, it feels very iterative. Like the code is improving upon itself at this point.

And I think that was one of Claude's main selling points. Well, this is like you've seen like people talk about like, oh, is AGI here? And this is like part of the debate because the prompt, one of the ideas, I guess, behind AGI is like, well, what happens when you have software that can train itself and so forth? And I don't really know if I buy that, but you do just see like how fast the iteration cycles are. And I think we want to get into this. In part, they're fast because a bunch of people are suddenly getting excited. So then the human provides this sort of like we're sowing the seeds of our own demise because we're so enthusiastically participating in the evolution. But I just like, it's suddenly clear like, oh, this is going to change, I think, computing.

And the other thing is the code works. Like it creates code that like this is like there's no bugs. You know, it works. Did you see, speaking of automating yourself, do you see there was a post on Reddit from a lawyer who said he's basically used Claude Code to automate like his entire job and he hasn't told anyone? I'm not exactly surprised because the other thing that I experimented with is, and I haven't a hundred percent vera. this. But on Jobs Day last week, I downloaded the full PDF and I just typed into the cloud code, like, find the most interesting details and make some charts based on, and it did in like a couple minutes. I have no like ability to like, I've never like built charts myself

by hand or whatever or like designing or whatever. And I didn't totally confirm yet that the data was all correct, but I'm pretty sure it was because everything I spot check. So I didn't. Just that crucial detail. I know. I didn't, that's why I didn't want to like, oh, like, here's what, here's the today's jobs report and charts. But what application did it actually build it in, the charts? I don't know. I just had a file. Like that's the thing.

I had a file on my computer at that point. What kind of file? Like a PNG file. Like an image file. Yeah. That's the crazy thing. I don't know. And so there was just this image that had a bunch of charts.

And my spot checks did suggest, like, I didn't see anything off. And people get paid money to, like, build that kind of stuff for, like, analysts and stuff like that. Right. So this is the other. big question. If everyone can build their own software, what actually happens to software? And I was reading something, I forget who it was by, but someone used Claude Code to create. They wanted a website that would basically make them money for doing nothing. And that was the prompt. Did they do it? Yeah. So the idea that the model came up with was you can sell prompts, packages of

good prompts and sell them for like 40 bucks and you'll make tons of money. And I was thinking about that like, okay, it's possible to make money that way. But also, why wouldn't I just use Claude Code to do the same thing? There are many big questions that we as an economy are going to have to think about. And I think my main takeaway is we're going to have to think about these sooner rather than later. But what is Claude Code? Why is everyone so hyped about it? Like, what is it about this particular piece of software versus what exists from Open AI and Gemini and all this stuff? Like, why is this captured everyone's imagination? We really do have the perfect guys because it's someone who, unlike me,

has been getting their hands dirty and this stuff for longer. One of the few people that I know who is into LOMs before chat GPT existed and was actually using them via the API and was actually talking about their technical capacity to do things like coding even before November of 2022. So truly the perfect guest. We're going to be speaking with Noah Breyer. He is the co-founder of Alephic, which is a consultancy that helps big companies deal with AI stuff. So Noah, thank you so much for coming on odd lots. Thank you for having me. What is 11? What's the deal? How are you like using LLMs before chat GPT existed?

I don't know. I know very few people who were doing that. I had the good fortune of shutting down a startup in 2022. And so I had a lot of free time on my hands. And then how are you using it though? Like how did you, like how did you wear that there was this thing that could be of potential used to you? So my very first thing I was doing was using GitHub co-pilot, which at the time was built into VS code and it was auto-complete inside VS code. So it was a nice and pretty immediately realized that there were certain coding tasks that it could just handle completely. Anything that was very pattern-based. So if you write code, you write a lot of tests. If you write tests, every test kind of follows the same pattern.

And you want it to follow the same pattern. You're looking for that structure. And over time, because it was looking at your code base, it was able to basically auto-complete it. I also started playing with the GPT3 API, which had come out. I think that came out in November of 2021. And that was the first time it was publicly available to everybody. And they had a large language bottle, as we know it today, available to them. So I was just testing and building things.

And I pretty immediately realized the very first thing I did where it just blew my mind was I built a web scraper. So I was just trying to pull pricing data from a website. And I've done a lot of this in my career. It's maybe the most annoying task you have to do in all of coding because HTML is the most miserable language to have to parse. and I just had this thing where I took the page, I took the content, I took the text, and I gave it to the AI, and I asked it to give me back the pricing table,

and it gave me back the pricing table, and I just thought I'll never do it the other way again. That's it. That HTML mention just brought up, like, memories of me in like the mid-90s on HTML goodies. Do you remember that site? Yeah, I wonder if it's still up. That would be wild.

Does Claude code, does that count as AGI? This seems to be the debate, right? Is it AGI? I try not to wait into what's AGI and what's not. I think my guess on AGI for what it's worth is that it's probably going to be a conversation like the Turing test where everybody thought it was really, really important for a really long time. We thought the Turing test was the biggest thing for 70 years or whatever. And then Chatsy-B-T very clearly passed the Turing test.

And now everybody pretends like we... It's not just that they forgot. they pretend that it never mattered. Oh. And so I am kind of guessing that that's going to be what the conversation is like. It's just going to be a sort of forever moving goalpost because it turns out that the idea we had for what general intelligence looks like is not quite that. But I also think, you know, the computer scientists and the sort of serious AI researchers would say that much of what's going on inside QuadCode is not the model itself. It's the model paired with a human.

And I think that is a pretty important distinction, but I don't know about AGI. This is Tom Keene, inviting you to join us for the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. It's about making you smarter every business day. I'm Paul Sweeney. We bring you complete coverage of the U.S. market open. We cover stocks, bonds, commodities, even crypto, all the information you need to excel. And I'm Alexis Christophress. Bloomberg Surveillance also brings you the analysis behind the headlines.

We do that through conversations with the smartest names in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. We do all this live each and every weekday, then bring you the best analysis in our daily podcast. Search for Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or anywhere else you listen. On the East Coast, listen at lunch. And on the West Coast, listen as soon as you wake up. That's the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast with Tom Keene, Paul Sweeney, and me, Alexis

Christophorus. Subscribe today, wherever you get your podcasts. Surveillance, essential listening each and every business day. What separates good leaders from transformational ones? I'm Jessica Chen, and in season two of Leading By Example, we'll sit down with executives like Grace Chen of Bertie Gray to find out. It's important to understand where you spike, but also really acknowledge where you don't and find people who can fill those gaps.

Listen to leading by example. executives making an impact on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Well, okay, so you were using GPT to code prior to the release of Chad GPT. So therefore, coding models have been around a long time. So what is, for those who haven't played around with it, what is Claude Code? Because, again, coding models have been around for a long time. People maybe have heard of cursor or copilot or some of these other harnesses.

etc. What is cloud code? So if we back up first and we go to copilot, so copilot was the first sort of commercial application of a large language bottle by most accounts. And what co-pilot did in its initial instantiation was just auto-compet. It's a Microsoft product? It's a Microsoft product. So Microsoft owns GitHub, GitHub develop copilot. It was Microsoft had the partnership with OpenAI, and so they built it in. And what it was doing was doing autocomplete. So if you're writing code, a lot of writing code is boilerplate or trying to remember the name of a function. And, you know, the reason Stack Overflow existed was because you can never remember the exact name of that function or the exact rejects that you need to use in order to find and replace something. And so you would go search for it.

And they realized that you could just build that into the ID, your code editor, and have it auto-complete for you. And it was pretty amazing. Yeah. Then chat GPT came out. And even before that, I had built a simple chatbot for myself because I realized that, hey, I could just ask this. And instead of going and searching Stack Overflow, it was totally capable of answering code questions. And it was capable of writing Reg X or doing these things. And did it make mistakes?

Yes. But like, there's famous mistakes on Stack Overflow of incorrect regex that now exists in every code base in the world. And so, you know, there were a lot of us just kind of playing with these things and realizing, they were a huge boon. And so I think really the next step is Curser comes out, and the thing Curseor realized that co-pilot didn't was that it wasn't good enough to have auto-complete. You also needed the Q&A because you have these things that you can't just autocomplete.

You want to be able to ask the question and answer it. And then chat CPT came out, and everybody was switching between IDE. And then I think really the next big piece is that ClodCode came out. And what ClodCode did that was so remarkable was they took the same set of models, really, and they took them out of the chatbot and they really just gave it some very basic functionality to operate within your machine, right? And so, you know, if you really look at kind of

what exists within cloud code, you're calling out to a model and they gave it capability around sort of two big things. One is you can read and write files on your computer. And then two is that you can operate Unix, the base commands, the bash commands that exist in your environment. And again, because these models were trained on the Internet and there's no greater source of information on the Internet than how to make the Internet, they know how to use Unix commands incredibly well, right? Because Unix has existed for whatever it is, 60 years.

And the way these commands were designed, they're all designed to be very, very simple. There's a find command and, you know, there's a thing called GREP and it can search through a codebase. And Unix has this sort of beautiful way of tying one command to another so you can take the output of one command and send it. to another. And they kind of just gave the model access to these two or three very simple things. And it kind of turned out that it unlocked a whole bunch of functionality. And I don't think even the people who built it fully realized. Like one example that I think about a lot is just the challenge you have with all of these AI models is that they're stateless. So every time you talk to chat GPT, it's sending your entire conversation history back to chat GPT because it has

no saved history of that chat, right? And that's fine. It's the way it works. It's just fact, but it means that, you know, it forgets things. It doesn't know conversation to conversation. And one very easy way to save your state is just write it to a file. And so you give it right access and it can create files. And now all of a sudden, you've overcome this, like, probably the single biggest challenge that exists inside these large language models, which is that they're fundamentally stateless. So Claude writes itself little like memory notes, right, to remember the entire context of the conversation.

And that's how it solved that problem? No. So there's sort of two things going on in Claude Code beneath the hood. There's one thing that works exactly like chat GPT or any of these other ones, which is it's maintaining a conversation history. So every message you send it and every action it takes, it's recording to a log, which is just one big file. that's really no different than what chat chpT can do.

Where it gets really interesting, though, is it can also write files that it can then read. So whereas that conversation history is all saved off, and eventually that conversation gets too long and it needs to do a thing called compaction. And when it compacts it, it tries to sort of just remember the bits because the total window is large, but I mean, it's like 100,000 tokens, 200,000 tokens. Yeah, that's what I mean by memory notes, right? It compacts the information into the important stuff that it can then retrieve. It does that.

It only does that at the end. Like once it runs out of space, once it runs out of context window. So it has 200,000 tokens, I think. And 200,000 tokens in rough terms is probably 150,000 words. It says, okay, it's time for me to compact all of this stuff. And so it still saves your whole history on your computer. You still have the entire message. But for that session, it just compacts it down to this, you know,

maybe 25,000 token memory of what it was. Yeah. And is this like something that was not obvious before as a solution? Like this compaction, how important is it for this being like, okay, as a human, I can work on this on a project for a long time. Like how much of an unlock was that? I'm not sure compaction was the unlock. I think the compaction functionality is helpful. Okay.

The way ChatGPT does it, for what it's worth, is they don't do compaction. They just forget your messages eventually. So if you're in one chat, eventually your oldest message is going to fall off the back. For coding, that's probably less helpful. But there are tradeoffs. Both techniques work. I think fundamentally the thing that is special about cloud code is not the compaction. It's the ability to write and read files on your computer, which means you can always write off memories.

And then... What does that mean write off memory? So you could say, hey, it's really important that I remember this thing for future sessions. I want to always work this way. So in a code base of mine, I have a set of documentation that explains how I like to do things. And Claude Codd Code makes a mistake. And so the next time I can write a memory, essentially, it's written as a thing they call a skill. And you can write it off and you say, hey, whenever you run into this, I want you to operate in this kind of way.

and that existing across every session is really a thing you can only do when you can store it as a file. It's a thing you can't do in quite the same way when you're operating in this environment where it's just going back and forth to the API. So this access to the file system is one really big piece. And then the second is just the Unix commands.

I mean, every computer program lives on top of these sort of baseline functions and the way that the designers of Unix built them is really elegant and they're very small. They all do one thing and they're all composable and in coding terms, composable means they can be they can be chained together, right? And so you can say, hey, look for files that mention this word and then from those files, I want you to take this second action and then from the output of that action, I want you to take a third action and that's just built into Unix. You literally just put a little pipe in between and you just

pipe them from one to another. And that's it. And so you give it access to write these commands. And all of a sudden it gets these sort of second and third order effects that are just incredibly powerful and built over a really long time. So how much of Claude code the way it's different to other models, how much of that was overcoming technological challenges versus like just having a good idea? Because hearing you describe it, I mean, giving access to a computer seems like kind of obvious. Like, let's just do that. I don't have a good answer to that. I think that it was kind of just a good idea. Yeah. I think they did some patterns really well. They're clearly incredibly talented, not just

engineers, but kind of thinkers about how to structure it, like the primitives inside Claude Code are just smart. And then the thing that they've done and Boris Churney, who's the lead developer on ClaudeCode Anthropic, he talks about latent demand a lot, right? And latent demand is basically just, hey, look at the ways people are using these systems and then figure out ways to make that a part of the product itself. I think what they've done brilliantly, and this is kind of easy when you have a community of developers who are nerds who want to go talk about all the ways that they're using these things, is they have, I am amazed at the speed in which, you know, I have a small community of 15 CTOs who all use this stuff religiously. And, you know, when we first started that community, it took them a month to, I'm a I would see it in the chat and then a month later it would get built into cloud code. And then increasingly it's like a day later. It feels like they're just listening to it. But I think they're just not only tapped in, but they're really fundamentally, you know, they're dog fooding.

They use their own products. When you, you know, they talk about the productivity, engineering productivity at Anthropic, you know, despite growing at a crazy clip, it continues to go up. And, you know, anybody who's built had to manage large scale piece. of software large-scale code bases, knows that's not the norm. So VS code and cursor, these are IDs. Claude code is not an IDE. What is it? It's called a C-L-I.

A C-L-I, a command-line interface. Got it. And the other labs now, they also have C-LIs. So why are we all talking about ClaudeCode? And chat GPTs is called Codex. I don't know what Gemini's is called. I think it's just called the Gemini-C-L-I. Why are we all talking about Claude Code rather than the other

CLA is that kind of have the same thing? Like, what is the difference? I think first and foremost, they were first. Okay. So, and I think they've had a lot more. And, you know, from my very personal opinion, I think they've done something smarter and better as far as the permissioning model. So, you know, one of the really dangerous things is you've got this thing running on your computer. You don't want it to go and delete everything.

Right. And they have a very fine-grained permissioning model where you can say, hey, I want to allow this just this one time. I want to always allow it. I always click always allow. I'm living on the edge. You can, next time you run it, you can just do a flag that says dangerously skip permissions. And it'll just, they call it YOLO mode. I think more fundamentally, though, if I look at Codex versus ClaudeCode, I think it's a difference in philosophy around what you want AI to do.

To me, Codex, which is excellent, is very focused on. building an agent that you can just give something to, and it'll just go do it. So I want to give it that task. I don't want to intercede. I don't want to give it any more feedback. And Claude code is much more designed to be kind of a pair programmer. And so, you know, in engineering, pair programming has existed for a while. It's a really weird sort of productivity thing where you put two engineers on the same problem, and it turns out that you can get better code. It's a force multiplier. Yeah. And it sort of makes up for the fact. that obviously, you know, you're doubling the staff on it, but because of how many fewer

bugs, because you've both sets of vise, it has seemed to work out for many folks. Most companies don't practice it. But I think ClaudeCode fundamentally is much more designed in that way. It's a pair program. It's they, you know, whenever I start a project, I start in plan mode. So you start in plan mode. You put together a plan. I really, I mean, it has been a lot of time in plan mode.

You go through. It gives you a plan back. It asks you how you feel. You can give it a whole bunch of direction. And then it's only. then that it goes off and it goes into it. So, you know, we're working together. And I actually have a whole system now that I've designed where I use a task management system called linear. So I have Claudecode, write tasks off to linear. And then I've worked with Claudecode to write a document that helps sort of

decide a set of heuristics to decide when you should assign it to Codex versus when you should give it to Claude Code. And so if it's tightly defined enough and simple enough, I just send it off to Codex and it does it totally independently. And then if it's complicated enough that I think it requires my time and attention, then it saves it for me, us to do together and we'll work on it together. And so if it's, it's sort of touching a kind of important enough, if it's changing some part of the data model, there's these other kind of, you know, fairly basic set of criteria that I use. And, but that to me is the fundamental distinction. And, you know, I find, cloud code in that way to be just, it sort of fits what I want to do and how I want to work,

much better. Talk a little bit more about how it actually impacts the workflow of an engineer, because, you know, my impression was people can code, right? Like, the coding problem is kind of solved at this point. And even if you can't code, even if you're not a professional engineer, you can hire someone from, like, India or Indonesia or wherever. to just write you a code. Maybe it'll take them a week instead of like two days with Claude Code. But how much does this actually change the workflow for an engineer?

As completely as it could be changed. I mean, I would say that over the last three months, I've written personally, I don't know, a few hundred lines of code. Like I am mostly a manager of a set of agents who are writing code on my behalf. And, you know, increasingly, what I think is interesting, I've been thinking about this bunch lately, is like, in some ways it's just bringing me back to the core challenge that has always existed in software development, which is how do you manage a large scale software development project? Right. It's coordination, right? It has become a coordination problem. And I spend a lot of time sort of now designing my Claude Code system to ensure that code goes through all the proper checks and that it has all these things. The other thing that makes code a particularly good place to do this is that code is verifiable in a way that most other work is not. So, you know, with code, you can verify that the build works, right?

So you can say, hey, I want to build this package. I want to make sure that it's actually going to build and that there's going to be no failures. That's a very easy check. It's either true or it's not true. There's also coders use linting. And so linting is a way to kind of look at its static code analysis. So it basically tries to sort of find things in your code base that are not going to work ahead of time where you can predict that. Obviously, you can't predict Alan Turing, prove that you can't predict with certainty whether code is going to run.

But there are certain patterns and things that it can find. It's essentially does static pattern analysis. And so, you know, you have it run all these things. but the more kind of opinionated you can be about that and the more steps you can have it go through. So I find now I'm kind of the designer, which honestly as an entrepreneur and as a CEO of companies, like that's kind of always been my job. I've been less and less been a person who writes code and more and more have been a person who designs a system in that case of company with a bunch of people who write code. One of the funny things it seems to me is that setting aside Claude Code,

The cloud itself has a reputation for it's a nicer chat to talk to. People find it. And, you know, chat GPT seems to really be psychophantic. I still think it's, I know it's improved, but I actually don't think it's improved to not. I still, people like the prose style of Claude, Claude. And I'm curious that in the pair trading, or just pair trading, I'm thinking about finance, the pair engineering model, whether there is also an edge there, which is like,

here is a chat bot that is not annoying to talk to while you're iterating and whether that is like a meaningful distinction between, you know, coding with codex or whatever. Yeah, I don't know. It still can be very annoying, I will tell you, and it'll still sometimes be overly effusive with me about a design choice I may or sort of noticing something, which I could live without. So I'm working on this project that's doing this linguistic things. And I eventually had to say, like, give it to me straight. How bad is this?

And then so I said, I said, actually what I said was, assume for a moment that you are quantitative linguistics with a PhD. Give me your honest assessment of where we are with this. And it said, like, you've developed a nice toy. And there's no evidence that it actually does. And I was like, okay, that's nice to hear. I actually like, you know, I appreciate that. And it was like, you're very blunt.

Not, you know, it's still like polite. But it was like, this doesn't, you haven't really shown anything. You haven't really established at all that your software does what it claims to. Yeah, I think. So I think stylistically, I kind of personally agree. My theory, by the way, on Claude versus Open AI chat GPT models is I think Claude is actually better at sort of reflecting what you give it. And so I think part of why we think it's better is it's better at pretending it's us.

Yeah. And so we tend to like that. This is purely speculation, but that's always been my theory on... So it flatters you in a different way. I think it's flattering you in a much more sort of way. Yeah. Interesting. But for a long time, just Anthropic has been producing the best coding models.

You know, I mean, there's, there can be some debate there now. But, you know, there's a great story from Cursor, actually, where Cursor basically wasn't that good. And then Sonnet 3.5 came out. And all of a sudden, Cursor was amazing. And Cursor became a tool that everybody started using. But it wasn't until this other model came out and they made that the default model. And for what it's worth, I think the other takeaway from that, which is a kind of big theme. We see in the market as a thing that the Claude Code team has talked about is you just constantly have to be building ahead with AI in a way that is very unique in the world of software where you kind of always want to build things that are working at like 70 or.

80% because if you really spend the time to get it up to 90 or 100, you're going to lose all the gains you get when the next model comes out. And with the amount of KAPX being spent at these models, like there's a next model that's going to come out that's going to be awesome. And you just kind of want to be downstream from that. And you don't want to waste six months getting an extra 3% when that new model is going to give you an extra 7. Yeah, this is the only certainty with AI is like there's always going to be a new model. The worst model I ever used is the one that we're That's right. That's right. San Francisco.

On April 4th, 2023, around 2 in the morning, a man was found stabbed multiple times on a sidewalk in downtown San Francisco. Hey, who did this to you? What happened next

turned the story into a political firestorm. Reports have identified the victim as Bob Lee, the founder of Cash App. From Bloomberg Podcasts, this is Foundering, the Killing of Bob Lee,

beginning April 16. What separates good leaders from transformational ones? I'm Jessica Chen and in season two of Leading By Example, we'll sit down with executives like Grace Chen of Bertie Gray to find out. It's important to understand where you spike, but also really acknowledge where you don't and find people who can fill those gaps. Listen to Leading by Example,

executives making an impact on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get. your podcasts. Are we all going to become coding illiterate? Are we just going to forget how to code if everyone's using, you know, general language to do it? Forget. I never learned. Yeah, okay. You know what I've been thinking about? You know that Scott Carp, the CEO of Palantir, and he has that line. He's like, when I was young, I was too poor to have a car, or so I didn't get a, so I never learned to drive. And now I'm too rich, so I never learned to drive. I feel like, when I was young, I was too dumb to learn to code. And now, you leaped ahead. You leaped ahead.

Yeah, now I'm too smart to learn Python or HTML or whatever. I have a couple takes on this one personally. So the first one is I just think like this is the worry of all technology ever. There was a paper that came out that showed that people were, you know, they were forgetting more things or something because they were using chat GPD. But, you know, in Phadris, Plato was worried that people were going to forget things because they started writing things down. And, you know, I think the tradeoff there was pretty good. We got the scientific revolution, a couple of other things. So, you know, I think that's the sort of natural knee-jerk.

With that said, it is, it's very strange when you have people, you know, the Claude Code team is talking about how little code they write. Now, I draw a distinction between the sort of vibe coding and the kind of amateur people who have never written code. And I think that is amazing, by the way. And I think there's a lot of software developers who are really mad about that because they claim it's for safety reasons or whatever. But I think fundamentally it's just they've got people on their turf. But I think that's incredible. I mean, my nine-year-old vibe-coded a website. Oh, wow.

And for Secret Santa, she's now 10. She would get bad at me if I called her 9. But I think she vibe-coded when she was 9. But that's awesome, right? I don't know. That's amazing. That's a way for people to express themselves in a way that they couldn't before you did your linguistice project. That's fun and interesting. But yeah, I also think the other, the thing that's happening with professional software developers when you hear from Anthropic or, you know, when I'm talking about, it's, you know, the code is going through this process. And, you know, all the code still gets reviewed by people. We're not letting it get out the door if it's not at the same level as human. And it's just, but it What's amazing is I'm running five of these sessions at a time, right? And so I've got like software being developed in parallel in a way that is unimaginable. And, you know, the other thing is just now the best software engineers wrote the lease code anyway.

You know, the sort of classic story of like the difference between a junior developer and our senior developer is that a junior developer gets a problem and they sit down and they put their fingers on the keyboard and they start writing code. and a senior developer gets a problem and sits there for three hours and tries to figure out what the best way to solve it is and then spends five minutes writing code to get it done. True elegance is restraint. That's what I say. What are you seeing in the companies you're working for? Like, I find it hard to believe, and I was maybe skeptical of this, but it feels like right now we're here with technology where like if I were like companies like, like I said, you can build charts of data in a way that used to be like someone would have had to get their hands dirty or et cetera. And the companies that you talk to is right now this having an effect on how they think about what positions they're hiring for and the skills they're looking for and so forth. I think that it's hard to answer right now.

I think that certainly, I do think, I personally think if I look at the sort of layoffs in the technology industry of the last couple of years, I think some part of that is just looking at the output of these models and saying, hey, these models are able to produce it. the median, and I have a whole bunch of middle managers who are producing at the 65th percentile, and it's like I can produce median for $1.50 per million tokens, or I can produce 65th percentile for however many hundreds of thousands dollars a year. It's a sort of fairly simple tradeoff. I think, so I do think there's a lot of downstream effects. I think the other thing that's happening is kind of like middle management is under threat because it's the realization that, hey, like part of what these models are amazing at is, I think, them as like a fuzzy interface, they can sort of turn any data into any other data, right? You can

sort of transform data from one format to another. You can take a PDF and you can turn it into charts, right? And there's whole people who exist or, you know, if you think about what product managers do, a lot of what product managers do is they take how people are using a product and they try to transform it into a format that engineers can then use to figure out what to do. And I think a lot of those kind of a lot of those pieces that used to just be kind of transferring knowledge. I've always said, Tracy, I think one of the most important roles in any organization is essentially translation work, and you see it in the newsroom where it's like, here is a team specialized in emerging market currencies, and then they have to then tell the senior editors what they're

working on. But the senior editors, who are maybe more generalists, don't. really know why, like, some sort of, like, you know, Juan Yan, Kerry is important, and that a really important role within any organization is essentially the team that can translate between the generalist team and the specialist team. Absolutely. And so that's an interesting observation in the sort of engineering world of like, okay, these are tools that are in some sense translation tools. So we talked to, I agree completely, by the way, but we talked about vibe coding and Joe has

this application that I don't think you're looking to monetize. No, I'm just trying to make it for the good of the world. Right. Okay. When did that become a crime? I'm not monetizing it. But like this opens up massive questions for software as a service, right, for SaaS? Because if everyone can write their own software, you can replicate anything that's out there that is currently charging money.

What's going to happen to software? I think software is pretty screwed. A lot of it, at least. Not all of it. You know, you still, it depends on whether you call the cloud provider software or not. you still need to run this stuff somewhere. And I think there's certain kinds of software that, you know, you just don't really want to be in the business of writing. You know, I've had someone who's tried to build a project management system.

I'd really rather, I don't think anybody should be in that business. But I do think fundamentally, I mean, we see this every day inside enterprises. The sort of build versus buy pendulum has just swung. And, you know, I mean, I used to run a SaaS company and we sold to. enterprises and, you know, for a long time that, that I think that made a lot of sense, right? Because like, hey, it just didn't make sense to try to build this thing on your own. And so, but the price of that was, you know, won the price, right? Like, and it got to be more and more expensive.

The other price was that you were paying for a lot of stuff you didn't need, right? Because the whole job of building SaaS is you need to generalize problems. And so you build things that are going to work for everybody. And that means either you have to sort of adapt or you have to build. this sort of very configurable software. And I think, and what I see just firsthand, is that inside these organizations, you can now solve very specific problems that are highly valuable. And not only can you solve them better than generic software, but you can actually,

in a lot of ways, do it for less money because you're trying to tackle less stuff. You didn't need the 16 other features. You bought it for the one that you really, really care. about. And so I think that part of it, you know, I don't like there's, I definitely think there are pieces of the software industry that are going to, you know, come out the other side. You're going to, nobody wants to deal with payroll, right? Like, you know, somebody, you're still going to buy some payroll software and you're still going to have that. But, you know, I do think there are a lot of pieces where the software existed essentially as a kind of wrapper around a database. And now you're just

going to, you know, with just the database, you can do that. And then, you know, the other piece I'd say here is it's this is not this is a kind of confluence of circumstances where it's not just the coding it's also the fact that you have AI to do a whole bunch of work so you know if we pick on CRM for a second right like you know Salesforce.com Salesforce.com we can you know you look at what the interface of that is and essentially it has existed to get salespeople to take unstructured data which is sales meetings and turn it into structured data that so can be stored in the database and And now you have AI, and AI is very capable of taking unstructured data directly from the source. So you have people recording meetings.

And then it can structured into any data that you want. This is one of the very first sort of mind-blowing moments I had was that I could give it a JSON interface. I could describe exactly what I wanted the data structure to be. And it would give me back that information and that data structure. And we've just basically been having a bunch of humans do that. at work for a very long time, whether it's in CRM or project management or any of these other places. And the ability to just kind of get rid of that whole thing, I think it really does bring into question the value of a lot of these software companies. Well, so we have seen like a lot of software stocks. They look like melting ice cubes right now.

Maybe they, so what is it? I want to talk, I mean, this is like, you know, our listeners or investors, there's a pretty high stakes question of like what residual value there is. But talk a little bit more about Salesforce. Maybe this would be a time to learn what sale. What it actually does. As it's massively being disrupted, now we get around to learning what Salesforce is. But I know it's like many things. There are apps that people built on to Salesforce. But this sounds like we're hitting on one. I think probably one of the crucial questions for the future of the software industry.

So talk a little bit more about like the current approach and what people are buying when they buy a package or subscribe to a service from Salesforce. And then what the unlock opportunity is from having AI live in the same world as all your files. Yeah, so I think if we take CRM, as the general category, so, you know, the biggest players there are... That's customer relationship management. That's like where, you know, Salesforce does it. SAPP does it. HubSpot does it for the mid-market. You know, when I think about that product and I think about the way we've used it inside enterprise sales organizations, essentially, you know, it's a database of companies, it's a database of contacts, it's a database of deals you have in the pipeline,

and it's a way to track all those deals. you guys hit on something before that I think is really it, which is like inside companies, there is a huge group of people and who exist to answer the question from management of what is the status of something. Right. And, you know, that can be sales management. It can be product management. It doesn't matter, right?

It could be within a newsroom. Somebody wants to know what the status is and somebody else exists to go figure out what the answer to that question is. And so fundamentally, I think those CRM tools are bought first and foremost, to answer what is the status, right? What's my pipeline look like? And to answer what your pipeline looks like, you need a bunch of salespeople putting deals in, and those deals are associated with contacts and companies,

and they say, when is that deal going to close? And essentially, you were asking the salespeople to make the updates in the system to do that. And just very tactically, I mean, you know, I run a company now. We talk to a lot of, we have a lot of sales calls. We record those calls, and they get transcript.

and the AI then looks through them and makes decisions about where this deal should be in the process. And it's much better than having somebody try to go updated because those people never update it anyway. The secret of all of this enterprise software is that nobody was using it the way that anybody wanted to anyway. And so, you know, I think that that is sort of, you know, a lot of what's happening there again. It's sort of some of it's the coding. Some of it's just the core capabilities. And then, you know, you still need databases, right? So it's like, you know, you look at what data bricks and stuff.

Like, you know, I think those folks are still sort of genuinely sitting in a pretty good place where, you know, all software has to sit on side on top of some database that you can sort of read and write to. But, you know, I think some of those categories that were specifically focused on kind of like human input. Now, of course, you know, Salesforce has a whole AI thing. And they're saying, hey, you shouldn't have humans input again. Salesforce, you know, sales is just one. small piece, they have a whole customer support thing, which obviously also has an interesting implication where, you know, you're doing support with AI agents. And so some of it comes back to seats. I mean, you know, it gets to be fairly complicated. But I do think, I think the

fundamental underlying thing is anybody who buy a software that is, you know, SaaS, you're always buying for a subset of the functionality. Nobody is using 100% of the functionality of SaaS. And so there's always a tradeoff that's happening there where you know you're spending more money than you need to because you're not using all of these pieces. And so, you know, if you can more narrowly focus that, that is where you could say, hey, we could solve this kind of more narrow problem. And not only can we solve it more narrowly, we can solve it way more effectively because, you know, the trick with AI is that the more specific you are with it, the better the output is, right? So it's like if, you know, if outside of coding, if you just ask chat GPZ to

write you a story, it's going to write you a very, very media. story, right? Sort of exactly the median. But if you work with it and you, you know, then you're going to get it, the more of your own expertise you imbue in it, the further up above the median it's going to be. And it's going to be, you know, of course, that also means it's less where the line is between what's AI and what's not AI is going to continue to get bluer. Joe, how much does Claude Code actually cost? Do you know? Well, I paid for the 200 a month, $200 a month version. But like... High roller.

Yeah, I know. But, you know, I think it's, you could get it with the pro version of like or whatever the version of that below $20. But I hit a limit fairly quickly. And I was like, I didn't have my website up. So like, and then I bought the five, then I paid $5 for the extra compute. And I was like, this is dumb. I think I'm just, yeah.

Okay. So we're going out to two nice dinners in a month. That's not, you know, when I think about that way, it doesn't seem that big of a deal. It's worth it to you. Yeah. Okay. So I think so. I think we can all agree this is like a valuable service that Claude Code is providing,

but we touched on this in the intro. It seems like the models just keep replicating themselves really, really quickly. So anything that Claude Code can do, I would expect another model will come in in like a month, maybe less and do the exact same thing. What does that mean for the actual like valuations of these companies and the models? Like how are they going to monetize it when it seems so difficult? to actually differentiate yourself, especially for like a substantial portion of time. Yeah.

Well, so again, here I think we have to distinguish between Claude Code and the Claude model. So in Claude Code's case, if you're using, you know, the latest version, you're using Opus 4.5, which is the model. Opus 4.5 has a price of, I don't know, something in the $1.50 to $2 for a million input tokens and whatever it is on the output, which is like roughly the going rate for Cuttick Edge bottles, Gemini, 3,000. Pro is the same price. OpenAI, chatGPT, 5.2 is they're all the same price. So the first thing is you have to differentiate between those. And so I think a big part of what Anthropic is trying to do is they're trying to lock people into Claude Code.

In fact, there was just some controversy amongst some nerds where OpenCode, which is a competitor to Claude Code, used to let you use your Claude Max $200. So the trick with the Claude Max plan is if you're just buying those, that number of tokens, it would cost you significantly more than $200. It is a super, super discounted plan. So like you are probably, you have the access. I have the access to use, I would guess, in the $1,000 or $2,000 of tokens for my $200 a month. So it's a very, very heavily subsidized plan.

And OpenCode, which is an open source version of Claude code, a sort of competitor. they had found a way that they would let you use your Claude Max plan with open code. And Anthropic last week shut that down. Yeah. And some open code people got very upset because they said like, this is not what you're supposed to do. Or I'm not sure exactly what they said. I never felt like I got a particularly good argument out of it. But, you know, I do think part of what they're trying to get at because is that, you know, at the very top models,

like these are all amazing. Like the Google OpenAI and Anthropic, their best models are all on par with each other. I mean, I would move them around a little bit. I still think Opus 4.5 is the best model out there. But, you know, I mean, that might change tomorrow. And that's where something like CloudCode is really interesting because it's a product that is very, it's just theirs. It's a piece of software. It's not an AI model.

And so it's less able to be disrupted. Now, again, I think if somebody else wanted to copy that exactly, they could. Codex has one. Gemini has one. I just think they take a very different tact with it where it's much less. And so, you know, I think what they're trying to do is get developers like me to feel very comfortable inside that so that when we go open, I still open codex or try Gemini or I was playing with open code the other day. And it just doesn't feel familiar in the same way that, you know, if you're trying to move somebody, from a PC to a Mac. It doesn't feel familiar.

Right. They want to own like the ecosystem. The environment. The environment. What a world. Noah, thank you so much for coming on Adelots. I was like dying to do an episode about this topic. Thanks for having me. By the way, I don't have AI psychosis. I have a Claude Complex.

Why is everyone making that joke? Wait, which joke? The psychosis joke. I thought you were going to be proud of me for saying Claude Complex. Oh, oh, that is very good. I do one pun finally for Tracy. And she's just like, why was it was over making that joke? Well, I was thinking about the joke.

I was handing you a certain. I finally make a pun and you just jump right over it. Well, everyone keeps saying that Claude Code is AI psychosis for smart people, right? Like, how did that become a thing? Yeah, all right. But that was a good fun, right? It's also very brocoded, I find. You think so?

All of AI is pro-coded. This is true. We should talk more about this. You know we should have David Shore on? He's been doing a lot of polling about various demographics and how they feel about AI. We should, and he had some interesting stuff. I'd be into that. Yeah.

we should do that. Anyway, Noah, thank you so much for coming on off of us. Thanks for having me. Well, that was fun, Tracy. I really, like, it's just obvious to anyone who's been within five minutes, five feet of me for the last two weeks. I'm like totally addicted and going down, I know going down the rabbit hole and stuff, but like I, for the first time, unironically, I'm like, okay, this is transformative technology beyond being very impressive technology. Right. So I've been coming to a conclusion, which is that, you know, AI can be both underhyped and overvalued simultaneously.

Like, and I feel like that's kind of where we are at the moment. Is that where you're making your stock call? Yeah. No, but seriously, like, it's a big deal. It's going to change the way we work, but is it monetizable? Can you differentiate the actual models? The better the technology gets, like, the easier it is to just do what everyone else is doing. And also, like, the compute gets cheaper and cheaper.

I just don't know how you monetize this. Well, so that's very interesting, his point, which is that the tokens are heavily subsidized still. Yeah. And so that if you're paying and actually using that $200 max program and you actually use it to the limit, Claude is going to lose money on this. Right. And then the prices keep dropping. And I know like Claude code is, okay, they're attempting to create something that

resembles a traditional software ecosystem that you feel as a user that you're locked into. But so far, in my various, like since November 2022, when I started playing with AI, it hasn't felt like anyone has established lock-in with anything. And it's very movable. And I suspect, even though I have this file now on my desktop that has a file called ClaudeMD that gives instructions, et cetera, I'm certain that if I open this file with Codex or Googles, I could probably just pick it up the same. Yeah. I also think there's a fundamental issue. with the lock-in strategy, because when you're talking about technology and the internet, like, it just feels very against the grain to try to lock people into anything. And we've seen

various projects over the years, and it's a lot harder than it looks. Yeah, I mean, I guess I would say it's a lot harder than it looks, but then we also know the flip side, which is that tons of people are locked into software that they hate, right? People are, oh, I hate, how many times of you, oh, I hate Outlook, right? Or I hate Microsoft Teams. And I hate this and I spend money on it every month and my organization can't move off of it or we can't migrate off of it. So I do think that cuts both ways. I do think he offered the best explanation I've heard of why the AI coding models are a threat to a lot of pretty big software businesses. Yeah.

Especially the point about how the user never uses all of the features that they actually, that the software got built for. and therefore maybe the build versus buy calculation really starts to shift when they can just design that one feature very quickly. I totally agree on the software side. It seems like an existential threat. But just like the locked in ecosystem of a particular model, I know he said it's not actually a model, but that seems like a bigger issue to me. I don't know. I guess we'll see. We're going to see. And I don't know.

I kind of think we're going to see quickly. Yeah. Again, that's the only certainty is like stuff is happening. That is happening now. Yeah. Okay. Shall we leave it there? Let's leave it there.

This has been another episode of the Odd Lots podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me at Tracy Allaway. And I'm Joe Wisenthall. You can follow me at the stalwart. Follow our guest, Noah Breyer. He's at Hey, it's Noah. Follow our producers, Carmen Rodriguez, at Carmen Armin, Dashel Bennett at Dashbot, and

Kale Brooks at Kail Brooks. And for more Oddlaws content, go to Bloomberg.com. We have a daily newsletter and all of our episodes. And you can chat about all of these topics 24-7 in our Discord. Discord.g.g slash oddlots. And if you enjoy Oddlots, if you like it when we talk about advances in AI, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes.

Absolutely ad-free. All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening. You can get the news whenever you want it with Bloomberg News Now. I'm Amy Morris. And I'm Karen in Moscow here to tell you. you about our new on-demand news report delivered right to your podcast feed. Bloomberg News Now is a short five-minute audio report on the day's top stories. Episodes are published throughout the day with the latest

information and data to keep you informed. Yes, there are other products like this from a variety of news organizations, but they usually rerun their radio newscasts throughout the day. That's not what we do. We create customized episodes that can only be heard on Bloomberg News Now. And we don't wait an hour to publish breaking news. When news breaks, we'll have an episode up in your podcast feed within minutes. So you're always getting the latest stories and developments. Get the reporting and the context from Bloomberg's 3,000 journalists and analysts. We're all over the world.

Listen to the latest from Bloomberg News Now on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere you listen. What separates good leaders from transformational ones? I'm Jessica Chen, and in season two of Leopardy, leading by example, we'll sit down with executives like Grace Chen of Bertie Gray to find out. It's important to understand where you spike, but also really acknowledge where you don't and find people who can fill those gaps. Listen to leading by example, executives making an impact on the IHeart radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.