TBPN Live - Citrini Research’s viral piece, AI and the economy, 90s Nostalgia | Diet TBPN

Episode Date: February 24, 2026

Diet TBPN delivers the best of today’s TBPN episode in 30 minutes. TBPN is a live tech talk show hosted by John Coogan and Jordi Hays, streaming weekdays 11–2 PT on X and YouTube, with each episode posted to podcast platforms right after.Described by The New York Times as “Silicon Valley’s newest obsession,” the show has recently featured Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, Mark Cuban, and Satya Nadella.TBPN is made possible by:Ramp - https://Ramp.comAppLovin - https://axon.aiCisco - https://www.cisco.comCognition - https://cognition.aiConsole - https://console.comCrowdStrike - https://crowdstrike.comElevenLabs - https://elevenlabs.ioFigma - https://figma.comFin - https://fin.aiGemini - https://gemini.google.comGraphite - https://graphite.comGusto - https://gusto.com/tbpnKalshi - https://kalshi.comLabelbox - https://labelbox.comLambda - https://lambda.aiLinear - https://linear.appMongoDB - https://mongodb.comNYSE - https://nyse.comOkta - https://www.okta.comPhantom - https://phantom.com/cashPlaid - https://plaid.comPublic - https://public.comRailway - https://railway.comRestream - https://restream.ioSentry - https://sentry.ioShopify - https://shopify.com/tbpnTurbopuffer - https://turbopuffer.comVanta - https://vanta.comVibe - https://vibe.coFollow TBPN: https://TBPN.comhttps://x.com/tbpnhttps://open.spotify.com/show/2L6WMqY3GUPCGBD0dX6p00?si=674252d53acf4231https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/technology-brothers/id1772360235https://www.youtube.com/@TBPNLive

Massive sell off in the markets, thanks to a friend of the show, Satrini. Lots of crazy reaction really broke through with something that, you know, is framed as sort of, you know, fan fiction, low probability. It's always interesting when someone post something and they're like, I think there's a 10% chance of this happens. So it's worth talking about. And I'm like, what's the 90% scenario? No one's getting any clicks for the 90% scenario. And it gets completely written out.

Yeah. And throwing out something like, oh yeah, like 10% chance of this crazy thing happens. People don't react to it, like it's a 10% scenario or whatever percentage you put on, a 20% chance, 30% P-Doom. They only take away from what you said. It's over. Like, as soon as you say something crazy happens, no matter how low the percentages, like, that's what you're going to be known for forever. So be careful out there with those predictions. Okay, so Sunday yesterday, doing family stuff, don't really have a bunch of time to, like, sit down and read something.

And the entire day, I'm just seeing people quoting it being like, this is the best essay that I have ever read. So many people that I think are generally pretty smart. And then by the time I actually, after the kid's bedtime last night, by the time I actually sat down and started reading it, almost every paragraph I was experiencing some element of gelman's amnesia where like you have like three sentences that are like maybe somewhat coherent and then like a statement that feels like so wrong.

Sure, sure, sure. Specifically, I think a lot of people obviously called out the door to dash. The DoorDash comment, which there's so many businesses that you could have chosen in DoorDash's place, but it didn't matter. My experience with it was you had mentioned to me that they're like, oh, it's the current thing, and I was pretty offline. And then by the time I actually started refreshing the timeline, I was like, oh, I'm like clearly like stuck on some search feature because I'm only seeing Citrin posts and like posts reacting to it and reacting to the reaction. And it had done a full news cycle, both a backlash and then a backlash to the backlash. And Tay Kim's getting in there fighting and people are posting rebuttals. And someone posted a fully AI generated, just like turn it up another notch version, which is hilarious.

So we can maybe go through some of the reactions. I mean, the futures were read last night. The market is down broad. Yeah. And it's interesting. A lot of people were saying, guys, there's no way that futures are read just because of this Satrini essay that is obviously science fiction. Yeah. And then it turns out Bloomberg this morning came out and actually stated that it's the Satrini sell-off. Yeah, yeah, but I mean there were also the

tariff things that the the tariff news was sort of digested on Friday, Saturday, so there was totally like that could be possible there's a lot of other stuff going on. The quote from the terminal software payment stocks slide after Satrini post on AI risk. DoorDash and American Express led declines in software and on Monday. And we were debating like, you know, PayPal had gotten beat up and there was a question about like, what is the strategy going forward? PayPal's always been an interesting situation because like absolutely goaded founding team,

but they're all disinterested in jumping back in and turning it around. It does seem like there's some value there. There's some stickiness and it'll be interesting to see does it go private, does the new management come in? I mean, they already have some new management. So I'm not exactly sure where it goes, but it feels like the, the, the, the, you know, the the payment rail thing will be sticky for a while. Young Macro had a take quote tweeting Citrini.

Good and interesting piece, but a necessary caveat is that it's essentially a hypothetical conditioned on severe institutional failure rather than some sort of macro inevitability. As the piece itself notes, one of its two failure modes, liquidity stress and capital impairment, includes a liquidity component that the Fed can address quickly with liquidity

facilities and asset purchases, repo lines, quality of easing, as seen in recent episodes of banking stress. Losses from impaired assets won't disappear, but can in principle be moved where the broadest shoulders are? It's an odd situation because you're seeing all of this capital evaporate from the public tech markets, but the labs aren't public yet. So they can't fully absorb it, like they sort of can, but it's much more opaque. And it's not like most, like the average investor can't just read this piece and be like, okay, I believe it. I am worried about software stock, so I'm going to rotate into a basket of anthropic, OpenAI and SpaceX.

They don't have that option yet. They might by the end of the year. You can buy Nvidia. You can buy Google. There's plenty of ways. Yeah, totally. Plenty in this hypothetical economy, much more than before, he says. There will be plenty of broad shoulders.

Couldn't they just tax Anthropic into paying all your pensions in this hypothetical scenario? This would be done through regulatory or fiscal mechanism. The second failure mode and aggregate demand shortfall for massive unemployment can be addressed through fiscal policy, transfers, wage subsidies, etc. The piece argues that this may be constrained by falling tax revenues, but in a deflationary low inflation environment, the Treasury can run large deficits and the Fed can buy as much of that debt as it needs to, leaving aside that we'd expect the tax structure to change. the political process is unlikely to be as meaningful as a bottleneck as the piece claims, as the hypothetical fiscal hawks pointing to unsustainable deficits would not have much of a point,

given the economy in this hypothetical will have much higher potential output. The first principle's intuition obviously tells you something is awry when we're told that people will want, at least as many real things as before, and the economy will have the means to produce more real things than before. but the people won't be getting the amount of real things that they want or need. This is because that typically requires major policy slash institutional frictions or delay in translating capacity into purchasing power. If you suddenly have two loaves of bread in your house instead of one in your house and you weren't starving with one, you probably shouldn't starve when there's two, but if by some hypothetical through the complexity of the novel two breadloaf production process, you suddenly get tangled and can no longer access the cupboard. then it's quite possible you will starve.

I thought that was a good take. It is interesting how this moved the markets way more than AI 2027. Like, it's sort of the same piece, and it has a lot of the same sort of extrapolations based on AI progress, a lot of same implications. But like AI 2027, probably... Like, the market reaction was, like, invest more in the labs

at the time, because it was kind of aimed for more of a West Coast audience in general. general. Yeah. I just mean, let me, let me, if you had taken AI 2027 and you had just asked, like, I own this basket of public company stocks, what should I be doing? And AI 2027 is your backbone, you would probably sell a lot like you're selling right now. Like the AI 2027, situational awareness, PDFs, like those are the Leopold Aschen Brenner philosophy that is now being reflected in the market, but, you know, he didn't go long any of these stocks. Anyway, Sorry, really quickly.

I wonder how much that is just because of, like, who is actually writing it? Totally. People are, like, you know, very San Francisco coded, like, vaguely EA, maybe, say, PS people, where this is like, okay, they're like a financial research firm. And it's written with a financial audience in mind, and it speaks in that language. So it's been somewhat translated. Interesting that it took almost a year for it to be translated in this way. I did think it would be helpful to kind of provide a summary of the summary of the

I think the original essay, it feels like they use quite a lot of AI to write it. I'm going to use AI to summarize it for you. There we go. So anyway, so this scenario, you should have got to this at the beginning, but by late 2025, agentic AI tools become vastly better at coding and complex tasks. Obviously, that was historical. Firms found they could use AI to replicate work normally done by humans, radically cutting labor costs. Productivity looks great on paper.

GDP and productivity metrics stored because AI output counted in the official numbers, but most of that value didn't translate into real consumer spending. So like businesses are spending money, but they're spending it on data centers, and that is not, as opposed to labor, where if you give somebody money, they'll buy a house, they'll do home improvement, they'll buy cars, they'll put their kids in school.

Consumption. Consumption, right? So they're calling this ghost GDP economic output that doesn't actually circulate in the real economy. And then they identify an emerging negative feedback loop, which is companies lay off white-collar workers reinvest savings into more AI. Displace workers have less spending power, consumer demand weakens, especially for discretionary goods. Companies facing weaker demand invested even more

in AI to maintain margins, and this creates a negative feedback loop with no natural break. The next step is market and credit stress. So they talk about private credit, having lent to a bunch of these different SaaS companies that are now being threatened, defaults, climbing, as this sort of like perceived recurring revenue ends up not being fully recurring. There's a whole segment talking about how like a lot of value capture in the world is actually just humans like not wanting to deal with frictions. It's like not switching car insurance, even though you know you're paying more than you should, it's just kind of a hassle. But if you could have an AI agent go and do that, then maybe you do that more often and that pulls out some potential earnings from the system.

The other thing they talk about is like all these different tech hubs and how many like prime mortgages there are that might not be so prime if there's a layoff and somebody ends up having to switch, you know, switch career paths or something like that. So generally talking about unemployment surging, consumer spending collapsing, severe drawdown in the stock market, and then even our sort of normal economic indicators hiding the sort of overall weakness. Anyways, takeaway AI being great and powerful may not equal all the markets ripping, but... Well, two different things. Market ripping, GDP growth, and individual companies. And median incomes. There are three wildly different things. You can see asset prices rise massively based on future promise of GDP growth.

If it's guaranteed that GDP growth is going to happen 10 years from now, the market will price that in today. And then if all of that GDP growth goes to one person, you're not going to see median incomes rise. You're not going to see like broad prosperity in America. Worth maybe noting like the kind of companies they call out in the piece by name. So poor all these companies. Let's check in with service now, which is which is one of the companies that was most heavily yet down for almost four and a half percent today. So they talk about a bunch of the SaaS tools. They call out Monday.com, Asana, Zapier.

Zapier is kind of funny because in some ways like it was just like, work automation before work automation was even that cool. MasterCard and Visa, they talk about suffering revenue pressure because an AI agent would just opt for stable coins, which feels like, again, something that many people on the show have come on and made the case for why agents will leverage stable coins or prefer stable coins. Seems like a possibility, but unlikely that that will just, you know, all payment volume will shift over there. overnight. Amex, they called out specifically because of their consumer base being just generally weakened by labor displacement. And then a bunch of others, travel booking insurance, real estate,

tax, et cetera. Travel booking, I thought was funny because most travel agents, like, don't actually take fees from the consumer. They take fees from the side of the, like, hotel, the airline, whatever. The thing that just keeps sticking out to me is, like, and I was debating with Salger and Jetty about this as well. Like, he was telling me like, AI is the only thing holding up the economy. I was like, no, AI is actually doing very little for the economy right now. It's doing a lot for the markets. It's doing a lot for the future. But like in terms of the actual economic impact of AI, it's very low. And we just know that because you add up the actual AI revenues from the AI labs. And you're talking about like 30, 40 billion dollars. And okay, maybe there's like a 5x

multiple on that. And so you're generating $200 billion of GDP on top of those tokens. But like, that's just not that much in the grand scheme of the actual America's GDP. And so there's this disconnect between like the market, which is pricing future GDP, future cash flows, future value creation. Then you have what is actually driving GDP today. And then you have like the actual workforce and what what Americans do. There's this odd disconnect. And I keep coming back to the Tyler Cowan, like, slow takeoff philosophy. What's actually holding up the American economy? It's like healthcare jobs.

And there's a lot of jobs that are, they feel very AI resistant. I don't know, maybe something changes, but like it just feels like the number of people that are software developers, less than 1% of America, the number of people that, like, work at tech companies broadly is less than 10%.

And so even if there's some massive, like, reallocation there, and then you go into like, even in like white collar, if everything shifts, like the rest of world is hit. And there's just a lot of other dynamics that feel like you can see crazy gyration in the markets and you can see really quick reallocation of 10% of capital, billions of dollars flowing around. But that doesn't immediately translate to what is happening in the real economy. There's always this disconnect.

John Lober wrote a great piece very quickly after this called Contra Citrini. He says popular markets. commentator Satrini recently published a compelling and popular piece of AI doomer fiction. Admittedly with some small probability of occurring, but I'm old enough to have seen many cycles of economic doom saying, I want to present a critique of Satrini's work and show a much likely or more positive view of the future. One, never underestimate institutional momentum. In 2007, people thought the U.S. was geopolitically done under peak oil. In 2008, they thought the U.S. dollar was just shy of collapse. In 2014, they thought AMD and VD. and video were done. Then

came Chachybt and they thought Google was done. Every time existing institutions with momentum have proven themselves far more durable than on-lickers thought. When worried about institutional turnover and rapid labor displacement, it's very funny that Satrini writes, even places we thought insulated by the value of human relationships prove fragile. Real estate, where buyers had tolerated five to six percent commissions for decades because of information asymmetry between agent and consumer. People have been calling for the end of the real estate broker for 20 years. You don't need super intelligence for this. All you need is Zillow or Redfin or Open Door. This example actually shows the very opposite of Satrini's point. We have the type of labor that most people consider obsolete,

and yet market inertia and regulatory capture have made the real estate broker far more resilient than anyone would have bet a decade ago. My wife and I bought a house a few months back. The transaction required us to have an agent, ostensibly for the above reasons, our buyer's agent made about $50,000 on the deal for about 10 hours of form filling and party coordination that it could have done myself. This market will eventually be efficient and price this labor fairly, but it takes a long time to get there. I know a lot about inertia and change management. I built and sold a company that focused on moving insurance brokerages from service to software, and the main thing I learned is the iron rule of dealing with human reality. Everything is always more complicated and takes much longer than

you think it will, even if you already know about the iron rule. That doesn't mean that a meaningful change in the world won't happen, but that the change will be more gradual, giving us the time to respond and adjust. Second point, software has infinite demand for labor. The software sector has been struggling in recent months as investors fear that companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, can now be easily replicated and that the value of their back-end systems is indefensible. Satrini and others talk of AI coding is a spell of the end of jobs at SaaS companies are one, the products become obsolete, zero margin, and two, the jobs themselves disappear. What everyone seems to be missing is this. These products effing S-U-C-K. That's his opinion. My own personal call-out here is like until we see a

round of layoffs at a company that is 5,000 software engineers at once, it's hard to believe that AI is replacing software engineers versus just making them a lot more productive. If somebody's a lot more productive, you'll pay at least the equivalent amount to maintain them. This was probably the best point from his response. Re-industrial realization. There will be some labor displacement, of course. Driving stands out. Many types of white-collar work, as Satrini suggests, will undergo some gyration as some jobs disappear and others change meaningfully. AI may be the straw that breaks the camel's backs for jobs like the real estate broker, where the job had actually already disappeared a long time ago, but the pay was still there. The saving grace here is that in the U.S.

We have virtually limitless capacity and need for reindustrialization. You may have heard about bringing back manufacturing, but it's more than that. We largely no longer know how to create and don't have the facilities for making the core building blocks of modern life, batteries, motors, small semis, the whole electric stack is something we are almost entirely dependent on China and other countries for. We can barely make fertilizer. Out of every example, they could have chosen they went with DoorDash, the barrier to entry for launching a delivery app is not and has never been software.

It's distribution, restaurant adoption, user adoption, and, of course, driver adoption. It would be really funny to be using like the vibe-coded version where somebody's like, yeah, I just launched a delivery app and your food will be here in four hours. If I was Tony, I'd be flying to find Satrini having to work face-to-face. Open it up a can of... I know where you're going. I was thinking about Amazon basics. That hasn't destroyed every company, every brand.

And why is that? Is that a good analogy that, like, okay, the big AI labs will have Amazon basics for SaaS. But people will probably still want certain brands. There will be certain people that are locked in. Okay, yes, I know the Amazon Basics paper towels are cheaper, but I just happen to like this particular brand that's a little bit more tailored for me. But Amazon Basics was like, hey, you buy paper towels from this brand normally. We're going to sell you the same product with our logo.

Effectively the same product. And I think the AI disruption that is much more real is like you have entirely new paradigms for software, an entirely new relationship with software. And it's not just like, oh, you know, somebody built the exact same version of Salesforce. It's like somebody built an app that automatically sets your schedule every day and you're not even, you're not even thinking about like, oh, I need to be monitoring this dashboard. Yeah, no, I agree.

I think the, I think the Amazon basics of Salesforce, it probably is not that big of a business opportunity because the whole value prop is that it's lower margin. And so Amazon basics is not driving Amazon's market capital. Well, yeah, Amazon has solved the distribution. They're like, we have the customer. But when you have a lower margin profile and you don't have the customer yet, naturally means you can't spend as much money to acquire customers and build out sales and distribution and all the stuff.

It's very different situation. It's not like people are just going to like the SaaS supermarket. Very funny posts from Dime to Square Holdings. You think this is crazy, but just wait until next weekend when I publish my sub-sableness. stack article, you should freak out and kill yourself right now. People are really having fun with this. What was this next one? Wow, Dimes is on a roll.

Average 2026 AI macro research now. I am legend. This may be the most terrifying novel you will ever read. That might be the most market-moving piece ever written, says Cluoso investments. That seems accurate. And I don't know, maybe it's a buying opportunity. Maybe it's a warning to everyone else, but it certainly broke through. Steve asked, does Tyler clap for each ad reader?

Is that a soundbite? It is real. He clapped. Yeah, I clap for every single one. Horrors coming out of Mexico yesterday. Crazy. Really sad situation. Our very own Joe Wisenthal had been in the Porto Varyarta area and had just left.

I think he got out of there an hour, an hour before the chaos erupted. So very grateful for that. I hope everyone who's down there is safe. Somebody said, Weston, Puerto Viarta, won't honor late checkout with streets closed. I am Platinum Elite. No way. Over 1,000 Lifetime Marriott Nights. Wait, I thought that was a joke.

I didn't realize somebody actually posted this. Keevi is on fire due to the cartel setting fires and buses, cars and buses on fire all over the city. The airport is closed and Uber's and taxis are not running. I asked for a 4 p.m. checkout, which I'm entitled to based on availability. They won't extend past 2 p.m. and said we would have to use the hospitality suite. We're supposed to be leaving for Buceros this afternoon. That isn't looking very good. Worst Bonvoy property I have ever experienced.

I don't think anyone will be checking in today. So there's no reason to not, to at least not extend us. Does this person just not understand the scale of what's happening? Maybe you could break it down for anyone who's living under your data center. Like what actually happened in Mexico? Because it was not just fires and a few cars. This was like a military operation, correct? My wife texted me yesterday afternoon while I'm on X,

monitoring all the open source intel you texted me you texted me and I was like oh what's like job like wow I've expected something like this for a long time given the attention down there and then I'm just watching this my wife text me our friends want to go to Mexico in April can we go and a long weekend and I was like are you are you are you joking a really really sad situation basically leader of the cartel Cj NG which is like effectively as paramilitary group, any, like, if you looked at any photo or video of them over the last 10, 20 years, they look like their special forces. Yeah.

I think the story is that many of them actually did train at some point with U.S. special forces and then flipped. Or probably the Mexican military. Yeah, no, they were, but the U.S. special forces have trained the Mexican military. Okay, okay. And so these guys are like, they have their own version. Yeah. It's not a LARP, like, oh, they just, like, picked up something.

and then they watch like a video on YouTube. Yeah, I mean, I'm sure some of them are not elite, but in general, this is like a paramilitary organization. It's like one of the largest, like private armies in the world, probably the largest private army in the world. And so Almencha, their main guy gets taken out. And then they respond by starting to just like blow up like roads, took over an airport, I guess.

They just start causing mass chaos. Yeah, because they're leader less. And so this person in Portoviarta, if you look at any video of Portoviarta, if you just went outside yesterday and looked around. There's like fires rising up everywhere it looks like, literally looks like a war zone. So for somebody to be hitting Reddit at this moment and being frustrated, it's like, hey, maybe just, you know, the State Department put out like almost exactly when this person was posting a security alert.

Due to ongoing security operations and road blockages and criminal activity, U.S. citizens in the following location should shelter in place until further notice. And like you're getting a shelter in place warning and you're mad at. about your Marriott points. But I want to move on to some nostalgia. We are going to get Tyler Cosgrove up to speed on what it was like to live in the 90s in the early 2000s. The 90s and early 2000s were iconic,

and we got to get Tyler Cosgrove up to speed on what it was like. These were the vibes, the blockbuster. So much consumer electronics. Like everything had a, you had a different device for everything. A Walkman, a Game Boy, an Xbox. I had an Xbox. You had an Xbox? Yeah, we had Mod Retros right here.

Okay, okay, so you're maybe up to speed. Well, there's another one that talks about the liquid metal object design. And I found this very informative to show how technology in the digital world actually shaped the physical world. So we can play this. Liquid metal object design. I feel like this is overdue for a comeback. It's pretty close. Good music too.

Other terms floating around were blobism, organism, minimalism, and biomorphic design. Biomorphic design. It's easy to see that industrial designers were trying to push past the squareness of ease. And had a futuristic vision for things like sportswear, watches, music players. A clear, clear case. So good. Of when technology influences form. CAD, a modeling software, introduced what is called nerves.

NURBS. Non-uniform rational beast blinds. What this allowed is for industrial designers to create mathematically smooth curves to be calculated with precision. It enabled people to make... So before you had to just like use blocks, basically, and like you'd get like a sphere. And that was it. You could do like a sphere and a cube, but you couldn't really do whatever shape. And back then, they were rocking this kind of hardware when they were saying that all retail stores.

Yes. Globally will be wiped out within the next five to ten years. I mean, we're reflecting on the dot-com boom, I think. is particularly interesting right now. The takeaway from the dot-com boom, when most people, when most people pull up the dot-com boom, they're just like, oh, it's a bubble and everything's going to zero.

And like, that's not quite the lesson because the internet was still like actually the most powerful force for economic growth and change. And it did radically change society. It just did so over two decades instead of like one year. So there's an article in the New York Times that's sort of comparing the dot-com boom to the AI boom. People loved the dot-com boom.

The AI boom, not so much. The tenor around the dot-com era, yes, there was a lot of froth. Yes, there was Y2K, and people were worried about that. But the stats weren't quite the same. Were you, like, aware of Y2K? Extremely aware. How did you process it? Because my parents were trying to explain to, like, a five-year-old.

Yeah, if you're not familiar with Y2K, basically the idea was computers were programmed, to store dates as two-digit numbers. So you would just say it's 86, then it's 95, 96, 97, 99. What happens when you get to 2000? It just says zero-zero, and all of a sudden all your interest calculations for your bank account freak out, you have negative money, the whole financial system collapses, anything that's planned, right?

All of this was like the fear of what might happen. Tyler? Yeah, that doesn't make any sense, right? Why? Well, like, didn't they have any... Easy for you to say, Tyler, you weren't born for... It's like, oh my gosh, the numbers are resetting all of a sudden. Like, you can see... It's like a calendar.

You had to be there, Tyler. Yes. You had to be there. Didn't no one have foresight? It wound up being something like hundreds of billions of dollars were spent in the lead up to... to Y2K. Yeah, but okay, so Gregorian calendar goes into place 1582. Yeah.

So you have like 400 years to figure this out. So I... And we did, but it cost us $100 billion. Y2K was like, it was very much. It was very millenarian. People were dooming about the apocalypse, but these were like fringe sort of cult types. The same thing happened with 2012. I don't know if you remember 2012 apocalypse stuff. Y2K was the same thing. But it was not widespread. AI doom is truly widespread. More than 30% of Americans are concerned that AI could end human life on Earth.

Like that is a wildly high number compared to how many people believed 2012 was going to be the end or 2000 was going to be the end. My takeaway was that the average American believes that they are in Terminator Judgment Day, but they still have to go to CyberDion systems and do their fake email job right up until the bombs drop. That's the general tenor around AI. The vibes are rough. Like nearly every dot-com prediction had some directionally correct element to it. The internet rollout continued even during the bubble and the bubble popping and pushback and all sorts of different things. AI will continue as well.

But I think it's important to refocus the conversation on actual impact. a moment of silence for international business machines. What happened? Falls over 10% actually 11% now after Anthropic announces that Claude can streamline cobal code. Oh no, there we go. Wild times this. I'm going to say Anthropic announces they're going to launch

an international business machine. We are an international business. There is a game called Data Center on Steam, which lets you build and manage your own data. center this is low-key genius the best way to educate people on the new trait hyper scalers should lean should learn a thing or two about edutainment edutainment this is fantastic tyler somebody was saying this it's not out yet it's coming out March 31st oh okay mark your calendars yeah

productivity is gonna fall somebody was saying it's like it could easily be an enders game scenario where it's just it's just those racks weren't simulated those were real nvL 72 Yeah, I love that. Apparently there's another game called, just called Insider Trading coming to Steam. If you're good at insider trading, you're gonna love this game.

Steam has a game called Insider Trade and Get Ready. It's a rogue-like deck builder that lets you literally pump and then crash the market. But hilarious and says a lot about the society, but I think it's, I don't know, I'll give it a try. I wonder if it will have micro-transactions. That's the big question. or if it's pure for the love of the sport, love of the game.

Apparently, OpenClaw-Fueled ordering frenzy creates Apple Mac shortage. Hmm. It's a really happening. Delivery for high unified memory units now ranges from six days to six weeks. I called it. Demand for AI is continuing unabated. People are using this stuff. My culture is not your costume, Brian Johnson.

Because Brian said he decided to live life on Friday. He was spotted. Just playing some video games, having some Taco Bell. Some pizza, some Dr. Pepper. having a lot of fun looking, not his, not his usual self, but locked in on the big game or something like that. Anthropic posted earlier, we've identified industrial scale distillation attacks on our models by Deep Seek, Moonshot and Minimax. Wow. These labs created over 24,000 fraudulent accounts and generated over 16 million exchanges with Claude extracting its capabilities to train and

improve their own models. People were having a lot of fun with this. They said, no crying in the Copyright Casino in all caps. Luke brought up a vintage growing Daniel post. Oh, did someone take your hard work and use it to train a model to mimic your expertise without compensation? Computer. Leave us five stars. Make sure everyone in the audience has the best evening of their life. And sign up for the TBPN newsletter at TBPN.com.

Goodbye.