TBPN - Airbnb 2.0, Warren Buffett Exclusive in WSJ, Apple to Support Brain-Implant Control | Alex Blania, Eugenia Kuyda, Josh Wolfe, Jason Fried, Delian Asparouhov

Episode Date: May 15, 2025

TBPN.com is made possible by:Ramp - https://ramp.comFigma - https://figma.comVanta - https://vanta.comLinear - https://linear.appEight Sleep - https://eightsleep.com/tbpnWander - https://wander.com/tbpnPublic - https://public.comAdQuick - https://adquick.comBezel - https://getbezel.com Numeral - https://www.numeralhq.comPolymarket - https://polymarket.comFollow TBPN: https://TBPN.comhttps://x.com/tbpnhttps://open.spotify.com/show/2L6WMqY3GUPCGBD0dX6p00?si=674252d53acf4231https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/technology-brothers/id1772360235https://youtube.com/@technologybrotherspod?si=lpk53xTE9WBEcIjV(02:26) - Warren Buffett Exclusive in WSJ (07:22) - Airbnb 2.0 (32:30) - U.S. Scraps 'AI Diffusion' Rule (40:25) - Apple to Support Brain-Implant Control (47:11) - Delian Asparouhov. Delian is a partner at Founders Fund and the co-founder of Varda Space Industries, which is building the world’s first space factories. He previously led growth at Teespring and founded Nightingale, a healthcare startup. (01:02:12) - Alex Blania. Alex is the CEO and co-founder of Tools for Humanity, the company behind Worldcoin. He co-founded the project with Sam Altman to create a global digital identity and financial network. (01:31:13) - Josh Wolfe. Josh is the co-founder and managing partner at Lux Capital, where he invests in frontier technologies across science and defense. He has backed companies like Anduril, Planet, and Kymeta, and serves on multiple company boards. (02:03:44) - Jason Fried. Jason is the co-founder and CEO of 37signals, the company behind Basecamp and HEY. He’s also the co-author of best-selling business books like Rework and Remote. (02:36:35) - Eugenia Kuyda. Eugenia is the co-founder and CEO of Replika, an AI chatbot designed to offer emotional companionship and support. She launched Replika to help people process grief and connect through AI-driven conversation.

You're watching TVPN. Today is Thursday, May 15, 2025. It never gets old. We are live from the Temple of Technology, the Fortress of Finance, the Capital of Capital. We're a little bit brighter today. We're warming things up. Look at us. More welcoming to the guests, more welcoming to the fans, more welcoming to the viewers. We got a great show for you today, folks. Let's pull up the graphic to show you who's coming on. We got Delian from Founders Fund, Alex from World Coin, Josh Wolf from Lux Capital, Jason Freed. from 37 Signals and Eugenia from Replica. Quite the eclectic group.

Yeah, we really put together. Not the five people you would normally see on a single show. There's some venture capital in there. There's some AI in there. There's some 37 Signals is just like a legendary tech company but has built outside of the venture capital world going back to back with the venture capitalist. Yep. Kind of sworn enemies in some ways.

Very true. It should be fun. I'm excited to ask Jason. What do you love about the current state of startups? Yeah. I don't know if he'll have an answer. Yeah. But I'm sure.

I mean, we were talking about this earlier, just this idea of like, you know, there are startups out there right now. Everyone knows that they're good businesses, but they shouldn't raise venture capital. He's kind of the king of the company that didn't need to raise venture capital. And I feel like that message needs to be out there for entrepreneurs, not for VCs, because they're going to earn their fees no matter what,

even if they pump it into a company that, you know. They need to deploy. Yeah, and they should avoid backing companies that don't need venture capital and just stuffing the goose like it's foie gras. Yeah. But I would like to see a scaled platform VC, you know, make base camp an offer they can't refuse and then invest $500 million into the company and then try to IPO it. It just becomes the most overcapitalized company a whole time.

Soft bank comes in, puts in two-go-dollar. There's definitely, there's always a number. You know, they've been offered a bunch over the years and always turned it down. I think that for 37 sales, it's not a matter of the numbers. It's the matter of there needs to be a car above the Aston Martin Valkyrie. So as long as the founders can afford Valkyries, they don't need to do the deal. There's no incentive. But if some, if Aston Martin were to drop a car, maybe at the $300 million mark, all of a sudden, it's a conversation.

It would definitely start a conversation. It would definitely start a conversation. Anyway, we have an exclusive in the Wall Street Journal from Warren Buffett. He has given an earlier. Yeah, in many ways, it's our exclusive now. We have the only copy of this newspaper. We do, we do. It's not breaking news until it's on TBPN.

That's what we like to say. This edition of the journal is almost like an NFT. They're only making one of this exact physical copy. Anyway, Warren Buffett has given an exclusive interview to the Wall Street Journal. And I thought it was just a fantastic, the way that they quoted him was particularly interesting. So basically they're trying to dive into why did Warren Buffett retire? Why did he hand the reins to Greg Abel? The answer should be kind of obvious.

But Buffett is revealing that it was because of his age. He's starting to feel old for the first time. And so he's 94, and he gave the top job to Greg Abel. And he says, in recent years, Buffett has finally observed how much energy his appointed successor brought to each working day and how he had his own days had slowed. The two men were operating at different speeds increasingly slow. I see you over the... I was hovering over the golden retriever mode.

Okay. But I'm not going to hit it. There was no magic moment. Buffett, now 94, said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. How do you know the day when you become old? Berkshire shareholders and onlookers have long wondered how anyone could replace Buffett for decades, a towering figure in American business and finance. But as he passed his 90th birthday, Buffett began to experience some people, something most people come to accept much earlier in life his age.

This quote really stood out. He says, I didn't really start getting old for some strange reason until I was about 90. He said by phone from his office in Oman Ha, he's not using Zoom to be clear here. But when you start getting old, it does become it's irreversible. Use of the M dash, which has been controversial because chat TPT loves to throw an M dash around. But he was on the phone. Yeah. Maybe he prompted this response.

Yeah, maybe he verbally said M dash. It's irreversible. No, but the M-Dash is interesting here because they're quoting him so directly, it would have been very easy for them to rewrite that quote as, but when you start getting old, it's irreversible, right? Just take out the little misstep in the sentence, but they didn't do that. They quoted him directly and they said, but when you start to get, when you start getting old, it does become it's irreversible. And so they're, they're recreating exactly what happened on that phone call. And I thought it was it was almost like an emotional emotional moment. moment because it's it's the quote he's he's saying that he's aging but the quote is so direct it's showing that he's aging totally so that was very interesting they give some more context here he began to lose his balance occasionally and sometimes had trouble recalling a person's name suddenly the newspapers he read look like they were printed with two little ink brutal in the past year those sad but it's also natural i mean he's 94 yeah he's been on a generational run on may third at the

Berkshire annual meeting, Buffett stunned in the investing world when he revealed in the final minutes of his question and answer session, his plan to step down as CEO in December and make way for Abel. Those filling the arena in Omaha fell silent as Buffett spoke. Abel, who's in his 60s, which means that he could potentially go on a three-decade run just to get where Buffett is today. Yeah. And so there's a whole bunch of backstory that we've already covered here, but he says the difference in energy level and just how much he could accomplish. in a 10-hour day compared to what he could accomplish in a 10-hour day, compared to what I could accomplish in a 10-hour day,

the difference became more and more dramatic. So Buffett's just seeing that Abel is more capable of running the business for these long days. He was just so much more effective at getting things done, making changes in management where they were needed, helping people that needed help someplace, but just all kinds of ways. It was unfair, really, not to put Greg in the job. The more years that Berkshire gets out of Greg, the better. Yeah, and this wasn't fully priced in.

You saw this in the market. The stock dropped. A lot of people said, why weren't people expecting this, right? He's 94. And overall, I think the execution on the news was smooth, right? He didn't say, I'm stepping down on Monday. This is clearly, you know, I imagine he would want to keep going, but he understands that it's the best for the shareholders,

which he has devoted his entire life to. Well, if Greg Abel wants to cut those 10-hour days to just eight-hour days, he should get on ramp, save time and money. You're going to play the ramp song? Ramp, Ramp, Ramp. Keep doing the read. Easy to use corporate cards, bill payments, accounting, and a whole lot more, all in one place. Go to Ramp.com and start saving time and money. Thank you to Ramp for sponsoring the show.

Anyway, Brian Chesky is in the news with Airbnb. Airbnb is in midlife crisis mode. he announced Airbnb 2.0 and did a piece with Stephen Levy in Wired, kind of breaking it all down. And Ben Thompson dropped a great analysis. And so can we play the clip of Brian Chesky giving his keynote address? Brian Chesky last year came out with kind of the inspiration for founder mode, which Paul Graham catalyzed into an essay. But Brian Chesky really said that if you're running a company, even if you're not a product company that's releasing a new iPhone every year, you should drive your software company to annual releases and start thinking in

annual cycles. We've seen Flexport pick that up. We saw Figma do that. And he did that to sabotage upstarts that want to compete with Airbnb by saying, hey, just ship once a year. Just ship once a year instead of every week. Don't ship weekly. Don't ship daily. Just get on my program. It's good. Yeah. No, it's good. He's an absolute dog. Anyway, let's hear from him about his plan for Airbnb 2.0. What we're building is much more than travel out. It's a global community in the real world, where you can travel anywhere, live anywhere, and belong anywhere.

This is what we're building. And to think, it all started with an airbed. Pretty good presentation style. It's a little slow for my taste. I prefer him when he's off script and just riffing and high energy. But I get that the audience is different. Riffing, high energy. Yeah.

Plenty of allegations. Plenty of allegations, which we won't discuss. But I think he's, I think he's, you know, clearly presenting, I mean, it's a big moment, right? He's transforming Airbnb into something new. Totally. It's risky. And so he needs to send the message to the investing community. It's a public company.

He needs to send the message that he's a steady hand on the tiller through this, you know, new version. Yeah. And he's just very clearly. a student of Steve Jobs. Yeah. This feels like an Apple keynote from 15 years ago. Yeah.

And that's okay. It's not the most original, but it, it's an effective communication style. It's effective and it comes off as, as serious of a company as they are. Yeah. So the wire piece starts by telling an anecdote about Brian Chesky.

It says the reinvention of Airbnb started with the coup of at OpenAI on November 17th, 23, the board of OpenAI fired company CEO Sam Altman. His friend Chesky left into action, publicly defending his pal on X, getting on the phone with Microsoft CEO and throwing himself into the thick of Altman's battle to retake Open AI. Five days later, Altman prevailed in Chesky. I was so jacked up, he says, turning his buzzing mind to his own company, Airbnb. Thanksgiving weekend was beginning. The Chesky extended family had already held their turkey get together a week earlier. Interesting. He celebrates it early. And the Airbnb CEO had no holiday plan. Did it give any context there? You was just like, I want to be grinding while my enemies are,

enjoying their turkey dinner. Is this like some contrarian alpha that we're finding right now? Just have Thanksgiving a week early? So he has no holiday plan, so everyone else is off so he can just work, I guess. I mean, I guess, you know, it is a Thursday. And so if you just have Thanksgiving on the Saturday previously. The alternative is that Airbnb gets so he gets so hectic around holidays. True, true, true. Yeah, wants to be very online in the office. Yeah, that makes sense. It's like Black Friday or, you know, a lot of DDC entrepreneurs are working over Black Fridays ever Monday. Uh, the holiday rush is certainly busy at most consumer companies.

Anything that's being gifted. So yeah, maybe he's just learned that he's got to be online then. Anyway, uh, he completely, he was completely alone in his sprawling San Francisco apartment except for Sophie, his golden retriever. Let's hear for golden retriever mode. I love golden retrievers. We saw some at the Jet Suite X terminal in Oakland. A couple. A couple. Beautiful dogs.

Look at that dog. John was basically having a full-on conversation with these two golden retrievers, and the owners were not having it. They're like, leave us alone. They were like, what are you doing? John's like, if I bring dogs to the airport, it's open season. Yeah. People can pet your dog if you're in a public place like that.

Anyway, still wired out of his mind from the cathartic corporate rescue, Chesky began to write. He wanted to bust the company he'd co-founded out of its pigeonhole of short-term home rentals. Amazon, he was fond of pointing out, was first an online bookstore before it became the everything store. Chesky had long believed that Airbnb should expand in a similar way. So what is Airbnb's market cap right now? Can you look that up? So this is what's really interesting. So they are an $84 billion company right now, but they are down across the lifetime of the company. Yeah, they've kind of been, I mean, there was the COVID up and down.

All time they're down 1.6%. So if you bought Airbnb shares five years ago, you would be. This is the story of Snapchat. This is the story of a lot of the non-hyperscalor tech companies that got out and they're fantastic companies. I mean, nothing to be upset about if you're running an $85 billion company. But growth is addictive and growth is what everyone wants. And if you're not growing, you're stagnant. As a former bodybuilder, this is like him sitting at,

you know, 255, you know, benching four plates for reps, but not able to break that, you know, ceiling. Never get the, the, uh, but the chart looks like a kangaroo. It does. It looks like a kangaroo up and down, up and down, up and down. Never really built massive momentum. Yeah. And not compounding anymore in the way you want.

So he needs to find a second act. And so Chesky had long believed that Airbnb should expand in a similar way, but things kept getting in the way, dealing with safety issues, fighting regulation, coping with the existential crisis of a global pandemic, the company was in danger of being tagged with the word that ambitious entrepreneurs dread like the plague, mature. Now Chesky was emboldened to lay out his vision. Home rentals are simply a service, so why stop there? Airbnb could be the platform for booking all sorts of services, while other apps cover specific sectors, food delivery, home maintenance, car rides.

Chesky figured that Airbnb's experience in attractively displaying homes, vetting hosts, and responding to crises could make it more trustworthy than competitors, and therefore the go-to option for virtually anything. In a frantic typing spree at the dining room table on the couch, the bed, and at times his office, Chesky specced out how he would redesign the Airbnb app. Its users now at 2 billion, wow, that's a lot of users. I have no idea. Would open up the app not only at vacation time, but whenever they needed to find a portrait

photographer, a personal trainer, or someone to cook their meals. Chesky reasoned that Airbnb would need to significantly strengthen its identity verification. He even thought he could get people to use the app as a credential, something he's as respected as a government-issued ID. If he could transform Airbnb into a storefront for real-world services. It's amazing because I feel like seed stage founders go through this type of brainstorm in a very equally frantic way. Yep. But usually they don't have an $85 billion company yet. Usually it's more like they're thinking through their, you know, fundraising pitch deck.

And they're like, oh, we could do this. We could do that. We could do this. he actually now has earned the right to think at this scale, right? Being already, you know, 2 billion users. Yep. You know, global company, I think he's in a great position to think a lot bigger. Yeah, so let's go over to the Ben Thompson analysis and see what he has to say and his analysis

because there's some good stuff, there's some green shoots, but there's some obviously some economic issues that Ryan will have to work through if he really wants to pull this off. So Ben Thompson is reviewing the overview of what Chesky is pitching and says. It's a beautiful vision that unsurprisingly is a lot like Airbnb itself. The problem is that I'm not sure that it's a compliment. While Chesky romanticizes Airbnb's founding story and the idea of making friends with strangers anywhere in the world, the reality of Airbnb is often much different. Professionalized hosts you never see giving you codes to nondescript condos or houses with endless rules.

and fees, all governed by fake courtesy and the fear of a bad review. More broadly, setting up Airbnb as a counter to everything that has allegedly gone wrong with tech is an interesting choice when Airbnb is arguably more emblematic of tech's recent impact than any other company. On one hand, Airbnb has created new markets that didn't exist previously, transforming real estate from static assets to much more dynamic ones, and providing a dizzying array of new choices to travelers. On the other hand, the cost of the former has been the transformation of residential neighborhoods,

into awkward hotel districts, and the latter has entailed, has entailed creating a massive market and making everything into a transaction. Those marketplace dynamics govern everything. Airbnb hosts have a fixed asset that needs to maximize utilization to earn money. That means that they are beholden to a service that brings huge amounts of demand consistently, minimizing the number of vacant nights. Travelers for their part want something other than a hotel for whatever reason, families with kids, for example, but still want a mechanism to establish trust. Airbnb succeeds by bringing these parties together at scale, or to put it another way,

the route to connecting real people with real assets necessarily first entails atomizing both sides of the market such that only Airbnb can bring them together. Sure, real people and real houses is different than looking at a screen, but it's arguably less enduring and meaningful precisely because of how impersonal and fleeting the transaction is. And so the dynamics of Airbnb, this is kind of the key question is can Airbnb move into other services? And there's a big question about disintermediation here. And so the interesting thing here, yeah, Jordy.

The disintermediation issue, I don't think, is that significant. Really? And the reason for this is that experiences, at least in a travel setting, are the kind of things, how many times a year are you going to get, you know, go rafting in Mexico, right? You're going to go once, call it, every few years when you go to vacation in Mexico, right? You're not like building some intense relationship with the service providers, so that you're going to say at some point, hey, I know we're both paying a bunch of fees.

Why don't we go around? The difference is one of the services that they're offering through the new app is massages. Personal training. Personal training. These are things where you see this person on a frequent basis. You develop some type of friendship. And ultimately, there's going to be a conversation at some point where the service provider says. Yeah.

And that's why a lot of the marketplaces that have operated in these spaces like dog walking are much more. much closer to lead generation services in that the company, you know, the platform over time really struggles to retain its top customers and top talent or top providers. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think the good take is this idea of like Airbnb 1.0 was let's disaggregate Craigslist into a bunch of different software companies. But now Airbnb is saying like let's reaggregate it.

And there are a lot and there are a lot of long tail services that, are just one-off things. Like, you only get your house painted every once in a while. You only need, you know, a specific type of gardener to go look for a specific plant every once in a while. There's specific thing, tree trimming might not be something where you have someone on a monthly retainer and you can have that relationship. But for something like dog walking, it's going to be every day or every week.

Pretty quickly, there's going to be, there's going to be risk there. And so Ben Thompson continues saying, consider experiences, which Airbnb already tried to get off the ground eight years ago. I didn't realize it was so long ago, but it made sense as like a compliment you're, you know, on a trip with a bunch of friends and you want to add river rafting in Mexico, which I think was what your example was, which I don't even know if there's that much river rafting in Mexico. I'm sure there is, John. Somewhere. You want to bet? Yeah.

If I'm right, you have to go river rafting in Mexico tonight. Yeah, tonight. In the presentation, Chesky derides traditional tourist traps like sightseeing buses or famous landmarks and promises that bespoke tours or classes from locals will be much more meaningful. The problem is that bespoke means marginal costs, which are only manageable with very high prices. Very high prices, however, much mean much lower demand. Thus, what you actually end up getting are cookie cutter experiences that can be delivered with relatively low marginal costs, which are exactly the experiences Chesky derides. Notice that this is in fact exactly what happened with the traditional Airbnb rental.

While there are incredible houses that you can rent for very high prices, the Bog standard Airbnb experience is depersonalized and automated to the greatest extent possible. At the same time, it is precisely because real estate is a fixed cost that hosts are motivated to make it all work. Experience providers, on the other hand, don't have, either don't have fixed costs and thus lack the necessary motivation to make scaled experiences work. The other thing here that I think is interesting to note, you know, the reason that Airbnb, or one reason it's been so successful is you can have a bunch of random strangers staying in a property that you own. all year long, and the property will generally still appreciate, right?

There's going to be wear and tear on the house. The reason that Turro and other platforms haven't had the same potential scale, right? They're big companies is because you're taking an asset as if you're on the asset side and that's a depreciating asset. You're letting 100 strangers drive your car for a year. That asset is going to drop tremendously in value. And so can you kind of recapture? that through revenue. Yes, but it oftentimes isn't as good of a trade as just having somebody

stay in an old home or vacation home that you're only using a few times a year. Yeah, I think like 90% of the Turo economy is built on podcasters filming stunt vibe reels and marketing stunts basically. And fake Instagram course. Yeah, the gurus. The guru market is massive. The guru, I wonder what percentage of- No, I actually think Turo is doing pretty well. And I think the tour experience for me, I flew to New Mexico for a birthday party and and you know there was a F-150 waiting for me in the parking lot it was great it was much easier than going to the rental car counter and getting totally you know some some subcompact or something like that so let's see from the wired profile that we were covering earlier Chesky explains that historically people used Airbnb only once or twice a year

so its design had to be exceptionally simple now the company is retooling for more frequent access open the app you see a trio of icons that act as gateways to the expanded functions eventually. Chesky says Airbnb will offer hundreds of services, perhaps as far ranging as plumbing, cleaning, car repair, guitar lessons, and tutoring, then take its 15% fee. So, I mean, even if that does work out as lead gen, there's probably a business there. The question is just, is that the business that produces an incremental $85 billion in market cap, right? Like, could they build a front end to plumbing, cleaning repair, kind of an Angie's List style business.

I don't know what Angie's List trades for. Could they take that market, maybe? But is that an incremental $5 billion in market cap? 10 billion in market cap? Yeah, it's interesting. I mean, Thumbtack is another comp here. They'd be entering that space. I don't, trying to, thumb tech is private.

Last round was done at $3.2 billion. Yeah. And so it's hard to say. Hard to move the needle at an $85 billion market cap for Airbnb. The fact that end users only use Airbnb once or twice a year is precisely what makes the entire service work. Again, Airbnb matches up hosts who need their properties occupied as often as possible with travelers who only need a property once or twice a year. Solving that mismatch is the foundation of the entire business and it's well worth Airbnb's fee.

The need fundamentally changes when it comes to day-to-day life in your hometown. Yes, users need help in finding service providers and yes, service providers need help in finding customers. But the goal for both, however, is to establish long-term relationships. Once you have a hairdresser, you want to visit the same hairdresser repeatedly, not find a new one every time. And by extension, neither you nor the hairdresser has any interest in including Airbnb in every transaction forevermore. In other words, what Airbnb is proposing may end up being valuable, but it will be very hard for Airbnb to capture that value in a meaningful way.

So, yeah, maybe there's a lead gen component, and then it does drop to more of a payment processor because that 5% transaction fee, you might stay on the Airbnb platform because of the reputation and building up your profile there. But you're probably going to be closer to credit card processing fees than the current Airbnb fee. Again, contrasts. The challenge here is

there are so many vertical SaaS or SaaS plus marketplace businesses for all of these subcategories. So Airbnb is competing with companies that are heavily funded that can afford to build really specialized tools for the service providers.

So there's vertical SaaS if you're running a barbershop. And like I think that there's a billion dollar company in that space. Yeah, yeah. Right. I don't know if, if that market could support a $10 billion company,

but it can support a billion dollar company that, that barbers really love and want to be on, right? Yep. So again. Well, Ben Thompson goes over to Paul Graham talking about founder mode. The theme of Brian's talk was that the conventional wisdom about how to run larger companies is mistaken. As Airbnb grew,

well, meaning people advised to, him that he had to run the company in a certain way for it to scale. Their advice could optimistically be summarized as hire good people and give them room to do their jobs. He followed this advice and the results were disastrous. So he decided, so he had to figure out a better way on his own, which he did by studying how Steve Jobs ran Apple. You identify that correctly. So far, it seems to be working. Airbnb's free cash flow margin is now among the best in Silicon Valley. And so Ben Thompson says, I think there is a lot of truth to the idea that the most innovative companies are best understood as mechanisms to manifest a founder's vision,

and that founders can err by giving up too much control and not getting deep into every aspect of the company. You certainly get a sense for Chesky's desire to control every aspect of the product, both in his presentation in that wired profile and in another profile in the Wall Street Journal where Chesky explicitly invokes jobs. So he says, when I asked him for names that personify founder mode, the first he mentioned were Steve Jobs and Walt Disney. I don't want to ever put myself on the same level, he said. I'm more like a disciple. I'm more like a painter who studies Michelangelo. I'm not ever saying I'm going to be Michelangelo, but I believe in that school of thought. Smart. He goes on to say that he admires jobs in Disney as creatives who sat at the intersection

of art and technology. No way. That's great. That's the meme. It's a huge meme. That's the meme. We in many ways create this show at the intersection of art and technology. And then he doesn't identify as an entrepreneur or a business person. I think of myself as a designer. He says, I'm a designer who has been afforded one of the biggest canvases in the world. Yeah. To that end, Chesky spent a lot of time focused on app details like the icons and the animation and everything looks great. The problem, however, is that Jobs was creating products and Disney was creating experiences. In both cases, the attention to detail was critical to how many people wanted to buy iPhones or visit Disney World. Chesky, on the other hand, has created a marketplace and the success or failure of

marketplaces is not governed by the details of icons or the layouts of apps, but rather by how much blunt, how much more blunt instruments like incentive structures and take rates. Yeah, it's very, very interesting. There was one criticism of the spicy from Ben, a little spice. Little spice. Little spice, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, there was some, uh, I saw some like kind of negative feedback on X, uh, to the Airbnb launch. They were quote tweeting the video and they were saying that like, they should have used more B-roll and made this more human. Instead, they're showing us a lot of UI. And I just think about the Airbnb UI as being like fees and charts and ratings and stuff.

Yeah, the beauty of Airbnb is that in a simple way you can get access to incredible spaces and experiences. Yeah. And you don't want to be thinking every time I'm in the Airbnb app. It's money, it's cost, it's headache. I'm there because there's a problem, right? And so they actually need to minimize that and focus on the actual experience. I'm saying, this doesn't look anything like what the pictures, the pictures you had, which has created obviously an opportunity for Wander.

So, a sponsor of the show, by the way. So Ben closes it out by saying these are the dynamics that undergird my skepticism of Airbnb's new offerings. The impression I get from the presentation in profiles is that Chesky seems to think that the first version of experience has failed because the app wasn't good enough. I think it failed because the economics don't work. There was, of course, similar skepticism about Airbnb's core offering from the beginning. It's one thing to look backwards and describe the arbitrage opportunity that was available in short-term rentals and another to have understood that opportunity when Chesky rented out that first airbed in 2007.

What a fantastic story. Moreover, one way to think about the impact of AI is that it will create the conditions for massive market expansion in real world experiences and services that can be done by computers. It's plausible that Airbnb can leverage its huge user base, which is massive $2 billion, remember? into riding a wave that may now be forming. So that's kind of the bull case that he's laying out there. Everybody becomes post-economic after ASI. And everybody just does Airbnb experiences all day long.

And a personal trainer maybe or just somebody to hang out with it. You know, I think in many ways, Airbnb is safe from some amount of disruption to the core business, which is a hyper-scaled, you know, vacation rental platform. But at the same time, you know, it's hard. to undersee where you know at once they're at two billion users right where's the growth going to come from that's tough especially when you have you know new providers like wander which are coming in and potentially you know and we're seeing this already just eating away at some of the highest value users yeah and also I mean just for just for a comp Hilton hotels is a 60 billion

dollar company. So it's like even if they were, Marriott is like 77 billion. Okay. Yeah. Marriott. Yeah. So even 75 today, 74 today. So even if they were to go build like a whole hotel chain and enter that market, like again, that's still not a 10x. That's still not putting them in like the trillion dollar conversation of like hyperscale, which is like probably where you want to go. He wants to be in that conversation. I think so. That that separates the

Michelangelo's from merely the disciples. But, I mean, it's been a fantastic run. It's fantastic. Yeah, it is an interesting dynamic. Do you want to own Marriott at 77 billion with an CEO who I can't name? I agree. Founder. Versus a Airbnb at just slightly above it.

He's going to try something. He's going to try a couple things, you know. He's going to be doing a different release in a year. And maybe there's an entirely new idea. I think if he did the Chesky method, a bodybuilding course, he could probably add $100 million to the bottom line. 100%. just pure, you know, even better margins than software.

He's still looking extremely strong. Yeah. You know, there's like those old photos of him as a bodybuilder, but he's still looking jacked. Yeah. It's great. Still got it. Anyway.

Still got it. At the same time, so Ben Thompson closes with, at the same time, I can't help but wonder if many of the frustrations that Chesky chocked up to management mode, manager mode, are in fact for him personally downstream from building a service where one can only guide the outcomes you want, not dictate them. The fact that the romantic story he tells about what Airbnb symbolizes doesn't seem to match up with the reality of what Airbnb is may itself be an analogy for Chesky's desire for control in arenas where he has very little.

Interesting. So yeah, I mean, you're building a marketplace. There's only so much control you have as opposed to building a product where you can say, I'm going to go build a virtual reality headset now or an Apple Watch and it's going to look like this and I'm going to mold the screen and make all these products. He really just wanted to do product design. What's the classic, you know, founder has an exit and then builds an app that allows you to meet friends in your area. Yeah.

And they're like, I just want to build an app to meet friends. And then it's like, no, you're building a dating app. Like that's who's going to use this. Yeah, yeah. Understanding like the base reality of human interaction and economic forces. Multiple buddies who had great exits and then built like that app and then eventually realized what they were building. Yeah. It's the same thing with the personal CRM.

I want to. personal CRM. It's like, no, you just want a CRM. Like, if you're thinking about your personal relationships in that transactional of a way, you should just think of it as business associates that you're pitching and just use an actual sales force. Yeah, just use a real CRM. Yeah. Anyway, some news in the chip world, the U.S. has scrapped the AI diffusion rule in a revamp of Biden-era chip curbs. This was tearing up the internet. We were trying to get Dylan Patel on a little bit earlier. He's booked in a week or two. He's traveling a lot.

We'll get him on to break it down. There's a few other people. Jordan Schneider over at China Talk is on vacation. It's disaster. So there aren't as many people to comment on this as I was hoping. But fortunately, the Wall Street Journal has a write-up. And so Microsoft and Oracle have spoken out against the rule. Again, the AI diffusion rule.

The U.S. Department of Commerce said that it's rescinding the diffusion rule on the grounds that it would have stifled American innovation, saddled companies with onerous regulations and undermined diplomatic relations with a dozen countries, dozens of countries. And Vitya said that it welcomed the Trump administration's leadership

and new direction in AI policy. With the diffusion rule revoked, America will have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to lead the next industrial revolution and create high-paying U.S. jobs, build new U.S. supplied infrastructure and alleviate the trade deficit. A company spokesperson told the Wall Street Journal.

Tech companies, including Microsoft and Oracle, had spoken out against the rule. which impose caps on how many chips countries such as India and Switzerland can buy, saying the move would limit U.S. firms opportunities abroad without doing much to hamper China, the main target of the Titan controls. It was a little while that we were limiting places like India and Switzerland, which we have strong relationships with. I mean, this all started with like the Singapore loophole and the chips going to Malaysia.

And it really seems like, you know, this is the sledgehammer versus the scalpel, right? everyone's okay with the scalpel. People don't like sledgehammers. So Jeffrey Kessler, who's the U.S. Secretary, undersecretary of Commerce for Industry and Security, says the Trump administration will pursue a bold, inclusive strategy to American AI technology with trusted foreign countries around the world while keeping the technology out of the hands of our adversaries.

So anyways. Yeah. Meanwhile, Jensen is over in, we got to pull this video up. Oh, yeah. They made, um, I mean, we're talking about this with Aaron Ginn about how it's nice to think that, oh, if we don't sell Nvidia chips to, what was the company that you, or what was the country that you, India or Switzerland? Like, oh, yeah, like America will just have control and they'll have to use Open AI and chat GPT remotely via API. And it's like, no, actually, they will just buy Huawei ascend chips and run deep seek and Manus on top of it.

Like they're going to want to run their own hardware. They want their AI super factories. Isn't it funny how they name Manus? It makes you sound like you're from Texas. It's so Texas. Manus. Manus. Manus.

Anyway, let's pull up the video if we have a second. We don't run manis on our. We don't take kindly to manis in these parts. We don't take kindly to Manus. We only like llama. So Jensen has been in the UAE, I think Gabi Jabi. And they built what looks to be. Wow.

Oh, it's elevating. This is awesome. That's not a hologram. This looks like a hologram. Either way, it's awesome. What a squad, too. Insane showmanship. Wow.

Anyway. Another $100 billion to Jensen. And he is, we got to pull this up. Yeah, he's been on an absolute tear. So the announcement also took aim at Chinese tech giant Huawei, stating that using Huawei ascend chips anywhere in the world violates U.S. export controls. of course because Huawei Ascend chips are potentially built on top of American-owned IP in the lithography stack and therefore can be subject to U.S. export controls.

The Bureau of Industry and Security, a commerce department agency, said it will warn the public about potential consequences of allowing American chips to be used for Chinese AI models. Rick Sue noted that the Chinese companies' advanced AI chips are only sold locally and that demand for them far outweigh supply. so Huawei should be able to continue doing business there with or without any changes in the export controls. Of course, China has immense demand for large GPU clusters. They want to train the next version of DeepSeek. They think that Deepseek is probably going to move entirely to the next training run to Huawei Ascend chips. And although the Huawei Ascend rack-mounted unit is not directly competitive with, I mean, it is directly competitive, but it's not at power dollar parity with, and V-EGX.

Yeah, on efficiency. It can train the models. It's just more expensive, but China has a lot of cheap power and is willing to invest. And so, yeah, it might cost 30% more to train a massive model. But we're not talking about orders of magnitude and everything in AI is defined by orders and magnitude. Anyway, do you have another video? Yeah, I have another screenshot to pull up, which is just a funny chart to look at because

you can see the exact moment that Jensen really started cooking. Yeah. Oh, there we go. So this is the largest company. May, which we've been tracking. It's neck and neck. And Microsoft was at some, it's hard for me to see, but I think about 80%. Yeah.

This is just for the end of May. So we're halfway through May. Everyone's. So last Monday, uh, yeah, Microsoft was sitting at over 80%. And then Jensen said, uh, one second. So right now, uh, Jevins paradox, undefeated. There will never be enough venture capital. Yeah, you said they're going to study, you're, they're going to put Jevon's

paradox into preschools for. after this really getting people to understand it's like look at what happened the more dinosaur toys you get as dinosaur toys get cheaper you're going to want more you're going to want more you're going to and you're going to buy more that's true it violates traditional laws of supply to be but yeah so right now uh invidia is sitting at 3.3 trillion dollar market cap uh tiger actually just rotated out of arm and um well they they yeah they rotated out completely and increase their position in NVIDIA. So when Tiger's long,

sometimes they get it buried right. I think we need a soundboard key for Tiger. There we go. There we go. Fantastic. The change is a big win for countries previously limited from buying chips, notably Saudi Arabia,

United States, United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Israel, Morningstar said. It is also set to benefit US AI players like Nvidia, AMD, and Intel. Of course, because they'll be able to sell to more countries and we're already seeing that happen.

for China chip makers and AI companies, the changes are likely to have only a limited impact since they are already banned from accessing from accessing U.S. tech and equipment. The news comes as President Trump's Trump tours the Middle East and a number of U.S. tech companies announced AI deals in the region. Only Intel could be down 30% in the last year

during an AI super cycle. So brutal. It's so brutal. The bet on the CPU, folks, instead of the GPU. Pick the wrong horse. Generational miss. David Sachs is quoted in here. The right race, the wrong horse.

Right race, wrong horse. David Sacks says, the diffusion rule literally restricted the diffusion and or proliferation of American technology all over the world. David Sacks, Trump's AI and crypto czar said at the U.S.-S.-Saudi investment forum, adding that there is no risk with a friend like Saudi Arabia. They're just friends. The original reason for this diffusion rule is that we have a policy of not wanting our advanced semiconductors to go to what are known as countries of concern.

But that's not as big of a problem now. especially when it's a global competition. Anyway, we should move on to Apple. They're getting in the Neurrelink game. They're competing with Elon, going head to head, literally. Putting brains, putting chips in your head. So they're working with a startup synchron on a new brain computer interfaces to assist people with disabilities.

And we'll just start going through here. So Apple is embracing the world of brain computer interfaces, unveiling a new technology that one day could revolutionize how humans interact with their devices. The company is taking early steps to an individual. people to control their iPhones with neural signals captured by a new generation of brain implants. It could make... It's going to be huge for people that use AirPods instead of wired headphones.

I was joking earlier. There's this company Believe that's going viral on X. Oh, I haven't seen this. For, you know, Luke Metro was doing this, right? He basically tagging the account. Oh, this is the crypto thing? And it all, you know, all he had to do was just make a single post. It created a meme coin.

Okay, okay. Yes, he's generating. Walk me through this future. This is really white mirror stuff. And so there's a world in the future where somebody could just think and a meme coin would be generated based on a thought. Yeah. And that would just be very American. Yeah, I mean, a lot of the gambling apps are using haptic feedback to vibrate the phone when you win, turn the flashlight on and off, really flash colors and sound all over to stimulate you while you're gambling.

Imagine if they could stimulate your neurons directly. Yeah. Retention would go through the roof. I want haptics in my brain. Haptics in your brain, just massaging your neurons, just releasing dopamine directly. As soon as you open the mobile game app, the pick three, the match three, isn't that what they call it?

Match three. Brutal. So dark. I mean, the bulk case here is, of course, that like Neurrelink right now is an incredible technology for people who are paraplegic, right? Totally. So the earliest adopters are people who are...

And I think it's smart for these companies to focus on that. Totally. Because that's just such a more optimistic. mystic scenario. And then, and then, you know, over time, allow people to bring things in. I mean, they're talking about curing blindness, curing deafness. There's so many amazing, amazing potential uses of this technology, like any technology, can go good or bad.

It's up to us how we use it. Yeah, so the interesting thing here is that Apple seems to be letting other companies do the hardcore R&D and go through the FDA process to actually get approval for these devices. But they've been doing that more because AirPods are now approved as a hearing aid because they have the same technology that enables noise canceling, which is basically there's a microphone that's pointed outwards, and then they play the opposite of that sound inwards. Are you familiar with how noise canceling works? So you're hearing both the outside world and then the opposite of the outside world. And so that creates the noise cancellation. That can also be used to amplify the outside world. And that's what happens when you have to. transparency mode on, but if you take transparency mode, which records the outside of the world and then plays it back over the speaker, if you take that to its kind of logical extreme, all of a sudden you have something that can amplify something, like just anything you're hearing to the point of actually helping someone who is hard of hearing, which is very, very cool.

So historically, humans have interacted with their computers mechanically using mice and keyboards. Smartphones. Let's give it up for the humans. The cube. Oh, I was going to give it up for the keyboards and mice. And the keyboards, too. They don't get enough credit. Peripherals are underrated, for sure.

Totally. smartphones introduced touch, a behavioral input, but still an observable physical movement. A new capability means Apple devices won't need to see the user make specific movements. think this is less invasive than what Neurrelink does. Neurrelink, they actually have to drill a hole in your skull, roughly the size of a quarter, and then the device fills in that hole. Fills in that hole that's left from the skull that's gone. And so, and then the electrodes are placed inside the brain, and then they place the skin flap back over, and it charges wirelessly, which is a pretty crazy implementation. They needed to invent a robot just to do the surgery because it's so precise and no in hand can place the electrodes or the the the neurons appropriately but this I think would be

less invasive because it just goes into a vein and so it's as easy as taking some blood basically yep and the tinfoil hat enjoyers will appreciate that Synchron DARPA was in the series A so that's going to go over great on X yeah I'm sure they're going to love that Alex Jones will be all over this. Yes, absolutely. Not the founder of Hollow. No, not the founder of Hollow. He's also named Alex Jones.

Yes, the founder of Info Wars. Yeah. Alex Jones. He's going to love that DARPA is funding, you know, brain computer interfaces in partnership with Apple. He's going to be front of the line. Front of the line. Famously loves technology, that guy.

Yeah. Anyway, we have Delian, Asperuhoff from Founders Fund and Varda coming in the studio next. Varda just released their third. or they just brought back the third capsule. Three for three. Three. They said on X, is this boring yet? Are you getting sick of us until Delian comes in?

We'll do some ad reads. We'll talk about public investing for those who take it seriously. They got multi-asset investing, industry-leading yields. They're trusted by millions, folks. Their new feature generated assets is just wild. You've got to go around and play around with it. It's just generatedassets.com. Oh, cool.

It's a separate domain. We are going to take 10 different. Basically, you can create indexes with chat and then you can back test them so you can see how they performed against the market more broadly. So tomorrow I'm going to get like 10 or so different screenshots of different indexes that are interesting. But it's interesting. You can look at, for example, since we had Andreessen on yesterday, you can see, you can look at A16Z alumni companies, how they've performed in the public markets. and the results are astonishing. It actually makes me even more bullish

on these sort of founder-led public companies. So excited to get into that. Well, as we wait for Delian, let's talk about linear. Linear is a purpose-built tool for planning and building products. Meet the system for modern software development, streamline issues, projects, and product roadmaps.

And when they say the standard, they're not joking. It actually, I think, I don't know how much of these figures are public, but if there's a tech company that you love in the private markets or in the public markets, they're probably already using linear. So go check them out. Okay, I'm texting Delian and we got him in the studio. Welcome to the show.

How you doing, Deli? I promise. I'm normally right on the dock. You're all good. What's up? Three for three. Three for three. Announcing it here exclusively on TBPN.

Tell us what happened. with the capsule. No one knows. So you're hearing it here first. At 6.13 p.m. PST on Wednesday, you know, early evening. We executed a de-orbit burn, which, you know, happened sort of on the opposite side, roughly of the globe from Australia. And we came in, ripping through the atmosphere, 17,000 miles an hour. Capsule has used to GPS all throughout. So we're tracking it. I've actually got a good photo of me, my, you know, co-founder and our CTO and me holding a little baby. watching that GPS track, you know, sort of coming in. It's sometimes a little anticlimactic because, you know, unlike a rocket launch where

you can kind of do the live stream, you watch it from the ground, move up, and reentry capsule is like moving very, very fast, kind of hard to track, kind of hard to do a live stream. And literally the way that we call things out is just like, it's got this GPS thing. And we know that the parachutes have opened successfully, only what we just see that the GPS like vertical slows down. This is super bullish for the conspiracy there. They're like, oh, there's no live stream.

Did it even go to space? Who knows? Maybe he's making it up. I just think you're doing it out of the desert, you know? You need to create some type of way for Americans to bet on reentry. Ooh, yeah. That is. It's just un-American.

I mean, I know you're bringing it down in Australia, but it's frankly un-American that you're not letting us all, you know, place our bets. But congratulations. Was pushing me on, you know, you should figure out how to make more kids. gambling in aerospace and I was like, look, man, the easiest way is just like gamble on, you know, sort of mission outcomes. And so this is how we know we're not at peak gambling yet is there's not enough gambling on all these hyper-specific technical outcomes. People will gamble on like, you know, will starship land, but I want it like down to like the individual, you know,

sort of like, you know, meter of just like, is it going to take five seconds to land, six seconds to land? Like, is it going to come into this trajectory? Well, speaking of, yeah, well, speaking of betting and instead of P-Dume, what's your P-Dome? I want your take on the Golden Dome. What's the probability that we, America, gets a Golden Dome in the next few years? And we do have missile defense, right? Like, missile defense is a thing.

We're not domeless right now. But like we're talking about just improving what we have, right? We're not flying blind here, hopefully. Yeah, let me give the, you know, sort of bull versus bear case. Sure. This stuff is, you know, somewhat predicated on obviously what Israel has been able to show. And especially over the past, you know, sort of, you know, a couple years, especially countering some of the Iranian attacks that have happened.

If you were to like take the Israeli system and then extrapolate it to like the scale of the United States, it just doesn't really work, right? There are really small geography, very dense. You know, it is actually possible to set up basically like, you know, missile defense batteries across their entire border. Yeah. If you were to do that across like the entire United States, you do sort of border around the continental U.S., and you extrapolate the cost of it, it's something on the order of like

a $10 trillion per. And we're not fighting with Canada or Mexico or like even like even smaller like states. Like these are low flying projectiles. They're just wildly different, right? Yeah. The threat vectors are also yeah, totally different. You're looking at like yeah, Russia, North Korea, Iran, et cetera. And so that solution set, you know, sort of looks very different. And so that's, you know, the premise of Golden Dome. And it's the first time that they've opened the Overton window on considering things that aren't just like ground air or sea base for the first time in the Golden Dome language. They talk about a lot of, you know, sort of space based applications, a particular space based. intercept. So the idea there is like if Russia and North Korea basically launches a missile towards the United States, right now we do have, like you said, we're not dome-less. We do have some systems. They're basically scattered from like, you know, Guam to Hawaii, to Alaska, et cetera, basically like all of our furthest out areas and for sure along the, you know, sort of border as well, but furthest out areas that are closer to those adversaries to take them out, you know, before they get anywhere close to the United States, the idea is now you can just have a constellation

of satellites that are orbiting above North Korea, Russia, et cetera, regularly. so you can take this stuff out before it even gets up into like the upper end of its, sort of trajectory. Now, that type of system is also not trivially, you know, sort of cheap. So here's, you know, my bull versus barricots, we're asking, is it, you know, sort of going to happen? We propose a system like this in the early 1980s, right? Star Wars, right? Yeah, Star Wars, right?

Yeah, Space Development Initiative, I think it was called, Space Defense Initiative. The SDI. They ran some early trade studies that had a lot of enthusiasm in Congress, et cetera, and then ultimately it fell apart, partially because the scale of the economics of it relative to the, like, the, you know, sort of benefits of the defense, you know, sort of of of the nation just didn't really, you know, entirely pencil out. And so the sort of bare case for, you know, sort of Golden Dome would be maybe we end up in that same world where we like start to run these analyses, we do these things. And then all we do is really just like buy a couple of traditional terrestrial, basically missile, you know, defense battery systems that already exists. And we make those sensors a little better. where like the current, you know, one is this thing called, you know, Thad is basically like the largest

either sort of system. It actually doesn't have a particularly high hit rate of being able to take out the missiles on the way in. And so, you know, right now I think we have like 40 Thad missiles and I think they have like something like a 25 percent either sort of hit rate. So it's like we can take out like 10 ICBMs. Russia has like a thousand. And so, you know, we're like a little off on order of magnitude.

So maybe it's like make that one a little more accurate, et cetera. So that's sort of like, I would say that like maybe not default case, but that is like the downside case of like, you know, we announced this stuff, we talk about it when it comes down to like the economics in actually implementing this, it becomes too tricky. Congress flips from, you know, sort of Republican to Democrat, you know, in the next election cycle. They don't want to give, you know, sort of President Trump a win. And so they decide to shut it down. The goal case is, okay, well, relative to the 1980s, there's a lot of people that it can actually do pretty near-term demonstrations of this, right? You know, obviously orbital rockets this year

are launching and landing every single day. There's a lot of companies that, you know, are looking to pitch in on this that aren't just people that are going to throw out white papers, but are actually like very hardware rich, right? You know, there may be a lot of over enthusiasm in the defense tech, you know, funding space and ecosystem. But like, look, you know, we were talking about this earlier this week. Like, look at what Venus aerospace, you know, sort of just demonstrated, right? Like, while there is maybe over enthusiasm and, you know, lots of funding,

at least people are translating into, like, real hardware demonstrations of like next generation technologies. And so if there's a set of companies that before Congress flips, is actually able to go and do some real-world demonstrations, show that this is practical capability, get some defense funding, you know, sort of flowing into actually operationalizing those initiatives that by the time it flips, there's already something that's sort of pseudo-operational or very close.

Now it becomes a little harder to justify. It's like, yeah, there's some political win if you're a Democrat to not give, you know, sort of Trump a win. But like, yeah, the defense budget has always been, you know, sort of very bipartisan as well. So that's my sort of like bull versus, you know, sort of bear. It's like, you know, for the first time in history, we can probably demonstrate this really quickly, two-year window and it's a sort of national priority. Bear is, it's pretty easy for us to just

flip back to just doing what we have always done. You mentioned Venus Aerospace. They put up a post yesterday. They said today Venus Aerospace made history. We completed the first ever US flight of a rotating detonation rocket engine proving runway-based high-speed flight is possible. I don't really understand what a rotating detonation rocket engine is. Do you understand the applications of this? Is this defense tech or space tech, is this commercial, is this DOD program? Like, what, what is the story here with Venus? It's been a minute since that, you know, so I met up with the Venus team, but the last time that I chat with them, the intention of what they were building was to create these, you know, sort of space planes that would basically take off from a runway, get out of the atmosphere,

cross across the globe and go land back on a runway. And so that was sort of a, you know, sort of commercial case. It obviously, you know, sort of very expensive on a per seat, you know, sort of basis, but there's obviously, you know, sort of plenty of people in the world that would pay. And so that was significant in order to be able to like, you know, get from L.A. to Tokyo, but do that in like, you know, in theory, you could do that in under an hour, basically. Like, if you think about how quickly it takes you to orbit between those two, it's roughly 45 minutes. Yeah, this is like SpaceX point to point. Yeah, exactly. But using, you know, traditional runways rather than having to build out, you know, all the like SpaceX, basically like landing infrastructure, like, you know,

their planes can actually take off and land on, you know, sort of normal, normal runways. Yeah. And so their engine definitely, you know, you know, demonstration, you know, is a, obviously is a very key first step of being able to. And then, you know, apologies at home today. So, hey, welcome to the stream. We should just spend the next few minutes, just turn this into a kid show. Yeah.

At least one of our kids are probably watching them. Let's break it down. Batman or Superman? Dinosaurs. Dinosaurs. Dinosaurus. T-rex or Velociraptor. Fire trucks.

Fire trucks. Fire trucks. I like it. I like it. Yeah. Rockets, though. Rockets versus Spenost. space planes.

Oh, Rockets. I think we ought to go to our child correspondent. Rockets or airplanes. Rockets or space planes. I think enthusiastic about both. Oh my gosh. I can't,

I can't wait till he's co-hosting the show with our children. Yeah, we could only get deli for 15 minutes today. It'd be so much easier if you could just delegate this whole, this whole calling thing to your son. Be fantastic. It would be a much more entertaining guest. Okay,

I know we didn't quite make it to the top of the hour, but maybe I'll, you know, go go take care of this bad. No, this is great. It's great. with you guys on. We'll talk to you soon. Talk soon. Have fun.

Have fun, guys. Bye. See, that is pro-natalism in action, in reality. It's not just threading about it. It's great. Well, let's tell you about Numeralhq.com. Sales tax on autopilot. Spend less than five minutes per month on sales tax compliance.

Go to Numeralhq.com. My company's on it. Jordy's company is on it. Benchmark Series A. Benchmark Series A. Thank you to Numeral. And let's also tell you about Vanta. to automate compliance, manage risk, improve trust.

Continuously, Vantas Trust Management Platform, takes the manual work out of your security and compliance process and replaces it with continuous automation, whether you're pursuing your first framework or managing a complex program. Anyway, let's do some timeline, and then we will bring in our next guest. NVIDIA, we talked about...

This next post is great from Bryce. Let's do it. That SBF built one of the most legendary private investment portfolios of all time tells you more about the business of venture than a thousand podcasts on the subject ever will. Well, what about this podcast, Bryce? Because we're saying, we're saying what you're saying. He did make some good bets.

Anthropic. And nobody can take that away from cursor. Cursor and Anthropic very, very early. Even though David Tish, friend of the show, was also in the original cursor round. And he said that he didn't get in that right price. And he said it wasn't like 200K to $500 million, which was the numbers circulating around.

He said there's no way that that would math out. Can you imagine if SBF has like secretly got like co-founder shares or something or like got like an incubation type deal? So he did get that massive stake in 200k. Who knows? I don't know. But now someone else owns it, financial investor. Yeah, somebody was able to buy out that cursor position. And I wouldn't be surprised if we had them on the show at one point.

Maybe. Maybe. It might have been in the audience. They might be listening right now. They're probably listening right now. From their yacht in the Amalfi Coast. Just off that one bet. Basically.

I mean, it's enough, right? Crazy. Anyway, we already covered the, the, the, Airbnb news. We should cover the Brian Armstrong News. So, Coinbase, basically, cyber criminals bribed and recruited rogue overseas support agents to pull personal data on 1% of Coinbase, Coinbase's MTCUs. No password, private keys, or funds were exposed. Prime accounts were untouched. And Coinbase has committed to reimbursing users that were.

Basically, you had to be impacted by social engineering attacks. So people weren't getting support agents to move funds around, funds weren't stolen like that. But it would be, let's say somebody gets your personal information. You get a random call and they say, hey, John. We were talking about this, how the spam around Coinbase was getting crazy, right? You'd get spam text saying, like, you know, click here to log in or something. No, it's truly. Yeah.

I mean, it felt like it 100 acts like two months ago or something like that. It's a great business for these scammers, right? Like the scammers, it's just whatever money they make is pure profit. Yeah, I wonder how much of those social engineering phone calls now are happening with AI. It has to be a good percentage. I mean, the spam calls I would get when I'd pick up were ridiculous. Just recordings with like music on them. And it just didn't sound, it didn't sound anything like an actual call that you'd get ever.

Yeah. And the concern here is that this data is floating around now. Yeah. And people can find out where big crypto holders live and find out what they look like. There's ID information, you know, as part of this. And so it's a huge risk if somebody was on Coinbase and they had, you know, 10 Bitcoin. Now somebody could go to their house and say, I would like those 10 Bitcoin. Yep.

And so it's. But it seems like Brian did the right thing and responded very well, like with the direct-to-face camera. Yeah. The response is very interesting. they asked for a $20 million bounty. He's saying, we're not paying you the bounty, but we're willing to pay $20 million to anybody who gives us information leading to the arrest.

Isn't that a lot of ransom? Oh, yeah, you haven't seen it. And so it sounds like a movie plot, but what happens here is that there's probably multiple criminals involved in this. And so let's watch them turn on each other because somebody's like, well, if they're not paying the bounty to our criminal group,

why don't I turn on the big boss, Yep. Totally. Oh, wow. Get the, you know. That's genius.

And so anyways, some interesting game theory. And good founder-led comms by Brian putting up the video, just, you know, not overproduced, just, you know, almost stream of consciousness,

obviously thought about what he was going to say, but it doesn't come off as stiff or callous or not taking it seriously. So good job to him. Yeah, the information is name, address, phone, email, masked, social,

so the last four digits only, masked, bank accounts. government IDs, account balance. So anyways, not great, but I think this is the best response they could have given the circumstances. And again, this is just very rough if, you know, this is somebody who lives in a random apartment somewhere and suddenly they have to be thinking about, do I have to be worried about real life?

And this happens? And this happened? And this happened? And this happened. And you're getting your eyeball. You can't social engineer that. And we got Alex from WorldCoyne in the studio. Welcome to the stream.

How you doing? What's going on? Tools for Humanity. Founder of Tools for Humanity. Sorry. World Coin is one of the coins in the world, the orb. There's a whole ontology of technology here. But thank you for joining.

How are you doing? Good. Thank you for having me. I'm just at the Andreessen and Horowitz LP Day. Oh, cool. Yeah. You just got off stage? I literally just got off stage.

Oh. So it almost was a little too late. But I'm right now in Las Vegas. First time, actually, first time in Las Vegas. I'm really excited. Wow. Narrative violation. Somebody building in crypto that hasn't been to a crypto conference in Vegas.

Yeah. No, it's great to have you. We've been wanting to have you on the show for a while. Yeah, that's great. Glad we made it happen. And at times nicely with your guys's entrance into the U.S. market in a big way. Yeah, I mean, maybe you should kick us off with kind of like an overview of where the company is, where you started.

I know there was an international component. now you're in the US. There's different products. There's different ways to interact with like the overall ecosystem. Kind of give us the state of the union on tools for humanity. Yeah. So maybe starting right from the beginning, so like a little over five years ago now, five and a half years ago, Sam, Sam Alderman from Open AI and actually had a part of the initial idea of this. And we met. I was in AI before as well. I was in theoretical physics. physics and deep learning. And so both of us believed that AI will continue to make a lot of progress and very likely

we will see AI within our lifetime, which back then was not like a common thing to say. Yeah. And of course, like both of us believe that this is mostly going to be a tremendous force for good and it's going to drastically accelerate science and technology, but also that we will need global scale infrastructure to kind of really make this a great outcome for everyone. one. And so we started a company together called tools for humanity that really had that as a mission. It's like build global scale infrastructure to help with that. And then the actual kind of coming together with the company, we would have two main ideas. One was around the fact that as AI continues to make progress. We will need some form of proof of human that is at internet scale. Otherwise, many of the things that we care about will start breaking down because obviously, like, as a society, we form our opinions on the internet, on our social networks.

We meet each other on platforms like dating apps. We entertain each other with games that we play with each other through the internet. And like the moment we have not only passed the Turing test, which I think we did in the last two years, meaning now we have AI. systems that we can talk to and we cannot tell anymore just by talking to them that in fact is an AI, but also that we are now about to enter, of course, like strong, agentic AI systems, real-time video generation, all these kinds of things. And so we will need a proof of human internet scale. Otherwise, social networks, many of that, places where we meet online, et cetera, will start breaking down. And so this was idea number one. It's like, how could you build such a system? And once you have

built such a system, you can use that to launch a digital token by giving ownership in it to eventually every human. And as a result, you would create what will turn out to be the largest real human network on the internet. And so it was a very humble vision by Sam. And so we really kind of, we took it very seriously. We thought about it for a long time. And back then really thought about how would you need to build such a proof of human if you assume what we did, which is that AI will become increasingly better. And then many of the initial ideas you could have on how to build such a system, like why don't we just use our online reputation? So like our accounts that we used in the past, we built some kind of reputation graph or what about if we

just rely on government at any systems or what if we just use phone cameras to get some kind of signal, all of these we realized pretty quickly will either just break down as a result of AI becoming more, okay, just like more powerful and better, or it just doesn't have the properties that we think such a system will need, which is it needs to be global and it needs to be fully anonymous and privacy preserving, all of those things. And so well, back then, we realized we will likely have to build a physical hot device that we have to distribute all of the world and at some point get almost anyone that uses the internet to verify with such a hardware device and that everything else will very likely break down. And that was like a very, a very crazy thing to do five years ago.

So like people mocked the company for a long time. And it was like just a crazy thing to work on for quite a while. And so essentially talk about just going deeper there. You guys went to market internationally first. I'm sure you had a lot of temptation to really focus. in San Francisco early on, right? This is an area where there's an extreme density of people that understand this broader vision that you guys have. So I'm curious, like thinking about, you know, the decisions that went into that go-to-market

and then also giving our audience a sense of the scale of the operation because I don't think people fully process just how large the operation is. So first to the first part of the question, which is why did we not launch the United States much earlier? That had the simple reason that because Sam is a co-founder, everything we do has like a lot of visibility usually. And in the last administration, there was basically no regulatory clarity around how to behave

as you built these crypto networks and kind of what are the things that are allowed, which are the things that are not allowed? And SEC, of course, like had a posture of enforcement. And so given the, the large visibility of the project, we just took everything always through a very cautious lens and just decided that we will only enter the US once there is a clear path to regulatory clarity, which I think is now the case. And so now we're really excited to kind of make the

service available. We launched two weeks ago in the US. In the US itself, it's still a meaning pretty small operation. It's going to take us a couple months to really ramp this up. And just to give you an overall sense. We're now at 20, 25, 26 million users in total in our app, World App, which is essentially the initial client to make this network useful. But if you have to think about that there's going to be many clients that will use this network, but still, and then we have 12 million people that actually are verified, really all of the world from South Korea, Japan, to Europe, to Latin America. And so, you know, you know, The company is now around four or five hundred people, so tools for humanity.

And it's a pretty complicated thing to manage because you have everything from on the ground operations that are somewhat complicated. And a lot of things can go wrong to, of course, hardware manufacturing and ramp up to a lot of software. So it's it's been quite a, quite a journey. What is your background? Have you done crypto stuff before or hardware stuff before or managed huge like workforces before? because you're doing a lot of stuff and I'm wondering like no I was um I was I was I was I was I was literally a theoretical physicist so just I used to sit at a desk all day and do math and write code that's fantastic I did like a decent amount of soft engineering just because like

already like then clusters got larger but yeah yeah didn't didn't do any any of that yeah I want to talk about yeah talk about how basically talk about bootstrapping the network and the user base with the token, right? And because that's, I think I have a good sense for why you would do that. But, you know, the sort of boomer pushback would be, you know, why does this need to be, you know, crypto? And I think you guys have good reasons for that. Yeah. Yeah, I think there's two reasons for that.

Like, first of all, of course, appreciating that crypto still has like a meaningfully bad reputation, just given everything that happened. But I think there's like real technological reasons of why you need to do our, why I think it's best to build such a platform that way. So one is, as I just mentioned, bootstrapping where all of these networks that we use, of course, they're absolutely meaningless if they're not at scale. And so like that applies to social networks, also applies to financial networks. And so maybe one of the most notable examples of that was the launch of PayPal, where

you were able to refer your friends. your friends had some amount of US dollars in their PayPal account. And very famously, PayPal spent a lot of kind of a huge amount of the renter funding. I was, of course, not there, so I don't know how much exactly, but a huge amount of the venture funding to get this network to critical scale with that referral program. And that then led to network effects, and that then led to this turning into, among many other things, of course, into a successful platform. And so the same applies here is just that these crypto networks are valued billions of dollars if they're somehow working. And so I think we can do

something similar just at a much, much larger scale. And so we can use very likely billions of dollars to kind of really get this network to scale. And so that means that everyone that actually joins this network gets a small piece of it through the Rolkan token. And so you have a actually receive ownership in the quite literal network. But also, of course, that is an incentive to verify early on where maybe the utility of the network is not fully there yet because it's subscale. And so that was that idea. And the second idea is, of course, that this is going to be one very expensive to build,

but then also extremely valuable. It's going to be very valuable to many of the largest internet companies, very likely if you succeed in our mission. And so we need a business model. but not for us as a company, but for the entire network. And so that is the second piece. I think these tokens actually allow you to build a sustainable network. Yeah.

And I think now we're actually bridging that gap where it's actually becoming quite useful. We now announced the partnership with Match, which is the company behind Tinder, Hinge, many of the dating apps to actually bring proof of human to these dating platforms, partnership with Razor, which is one of the largest hardware manufacturers for gaming hardware to turn that into the standard

for the gaming world. So I think like we're actually getting there now pretty quickly, but of course it's still early. Can you talk about the scale of bot activity online? I have to imagine a lot of people are interacting with bots daily that they don't necessarily realize their bots, right? There was a high profile issue recently with Reddit

where somebody was running a scaled influence operation, experiment, you know, leveraging, you know, leveraging the power of AI. And for those that don't know, people were, that the AI would effectively look back through somebody's comment history and deeply understand the person and then make arguments to them based on their sort of preexisting beliefs, which is very powerful. And obviously, it seems, you know, all the users were not aware that what was happening about. And I just have to imagine that's happening, you know, at a very wide scale. Yeah. So no one really knows, of course, the actual scale of the situation. But I think the, the

paper that you outlined is from the University of Zurich. So as you described, the University of Zurich actually ran an experiment of changing public opinion by using AIs to respond, to just like a comment and subredits. And they actually have been quite successful in changing the opinion of these subredits, which is kind of crazy. And so of course, we have like a similar problem, probably at meaningful scale on X, and very likely now every other social network. maybe, so dating also already get at quite a meaningful scale. Like you have these, now these accounts that I have photo realistic images and start texting with you and everything.

But I think like maybe the more interesting part is that I think we're like at 1% or something of what I think will happen over the next 24 months. I think a big trigger point will be once you have an open source, very competent agent. Because like that's, yeah, that's where like things will get quite exponential. And we're like, probably 90, more than 90% of almost all activity on the internet, almost all content on the internet will be AI created sometime after. So that will lead to the fact that I think for now or until quite recently, by default, we trusted everything that we have seen. And we assume that it's like authentic. I think that we'll completely flip 180 degrees to by default, we don't trust what we see.

We don't trust who we interact with if there is not a way to verify the claim. So it's going to be quite a profound shift. What was your initial reaction to the Coinbase news, which was this morning, obviously very unfortunate, potentially leak of a bunch of personally identifiable information, home addresses, balances, things like that, is that the kind of thing that in the future could be avoided through utilizing your network? Or is that just sort of a reality of, you know, finance today? So my first reaction was that I think it was a very, very strong reaction from Brian. Yeah.

Huge fan of Brian's, of course. But I think very clear message, very clear next steps. And these things, they are unfortunate. But I think this is like, was somewhat, at least from the outside, of course, I don't know the specifics. But it seems like a relatively sophisticated social engineering attack. I don't think what we do will be able to help with some, like with customer agent social engineering. Like I think that's a very specific problem. But I mean more on the KYC side. Is there a world 10 years from now where somebody is effectively able to KYC using the world network?

Oh yeah, I think I think that will almost certainly happen. Yeah, because the issue here was like, you know, somebody has their government ID tied to a home address tied to a balance. And then that creates a risk vector, which is why Coinbase is taking it so seriously. What about kind of centaur applications of artificial intelligence? So a situation where someone's gaming and they're verifying with the orb or their eyeballs, but they're still using AI. I mean, we've already seen this with a real person who's on a dating app, but they have a second app where they're taking the text, putting it in there, like the RIS GPT. And the responses are still AI generated, but there's just one person involved. Is that less of an issue, the Centaur model, because there's still a human in loop, versus there's one person controlling or puppeteering like a million accounts?

Yeah, I think that, I think by in a couple of years, I think almost everything. And we do, on the internet, we will do with help of an AI because it will just make our writing better, we'll make our thinking clearer. And so I think that is actually not really a problem. I think, and in some sense, the way we actually think about it is we think a lot about agents and agent delegation these days. And for example, I think one thing, how this will be very useful is you will need to understand that behind an agent or an agent actually acts on behalf of a human. like one human. And as you described, I think the important property of such a system is that you cannot deploy thousands or tens of thousands of these AIs, not to not allow you to interact with that. And maybe actually the gaming use case, there's a cool example here where with Razor, they build these gaming webcams.

Yeah. And what, so when you actually verify for, for world, you receive a package of data that is not stored anywhere. Essentially, it's stored on your phone. And one of the things that has actually a signed face image. And so what Razor will be able to do, it actually will use that to ensure that this is, you're not a deep fake. You're actually the person you claim to be.

And so you can authenticate a live video stream. And I think the same will happen on video calls. speaking of hardware we were just talking about Apple getting into brain computer interfaces neuralink is also in the game is there a situation where authentication via BCI is as effective more effective something that you're partnered with or developing or is that just on a different timeline from what you see the rollout of superintelligence or AGI being I well so personally I'm very interested in BCIs but I think this is very much on a different timeline so I think like to yeah deployment off invasive or even non-invasive BSIs I think it's like still

certainly five plus years away probably 10 15 so I don't we will figure it out once it gets there I would say yeah yeah what about I'm I'm super interested in understanding how the decisions that you're making allow us to read into your AGI timeline, Sam's AGI timelines and what the future will look like. There's this interesting world where the kind of the revealing feels like you see a future where there are tons of digital AIs in the world, but maybe there's not this superintelligence that can reconstitute matter at a atomic level instantaneously, the gray goo scenario. Because in that scenario, even in the good ending,

you would imagine that a superintelligence would be able to create a human eyeball, grow it in a lab, do something to create a fake version of the human head. Right? Maybe scan me one way or another and then recreate the eyeball. And so much like you could potentially fake a fingerprint reader with enough time and effort and detail in how you're constructing that matter, you would think that you'd be able to do that if you had unlimited resources and super intelligence and all these different things. But that doesn't seem to be the timeline that you're operating against. So can you tell me about like how your far future vision for super intelligence plays out a little bit? So, well, I think about these things quite a bit.

I think, so this kind of also like great course-while vision of like eventually we'll have AI that creates nanobots that will be able to reassemble matter, etc. I think that's that is very likely to happen. But I think as a society, I think we'll, like, there's going to be a lot of other things that will happen before we get there. And so I guess my internal mental model is that we are, I think still at least 10 years away from that kind of level of intelligence, or at least from us allowing that level of intelligence to interact with the real world.

And then actually, well, if you don't think about the fundamentals of physics in such a scenario, is that, of course, what we do to measure that humanus is we fundamentally use photons of different wavelengths. So near infrared, visible light, et cetera. And so I think like before you would actually create an artificial human, such an AI would be able to maybe just emit multispectral wavelengths to fool such a system. And so like, well, but I think then we will also use such a AI to build a countermeasure and build a more system. So I think that is in my mind still far out in the future. I think like all the medical advancements and scientific advancements from AGI. Is that generally your mental model for how all of this progresses is just like good guy with

AGI beats bad guy with AGI. It's kind of economic or energy warfare, whoever has the more compute, the more. And as long as the good people have more resources, they will be able to build stronger defenses. and so the net outcome is good? Maybe that's like one way to frame it, but like generally I'm, I think I'm way more optimistic than than kind of most people

or like many people aren't in the tech world. I think like the default outcome is that these AI systems would just be incredible tools for us and I think they will be widely accessible. And I think the frontier labs will make these accessible to kind of a wide population for, quite a long time. Like at some point

you might get kind of this true super intelligence territory where maybe the government steps in steps in. I could definitely see that happen. And then it becomes like a geopolitical situation which is going to become like very hard to predict. But I think until then I think

these AI systems will be relatively widely available and open source will not lack too much behind. It seems like most of your model is like general optimism about how AGI and AI progresses, but there are pitfalls that need to be avoided and there's problems that will need to be solved in the interim and WorldCoin is one instantiation of that one problem to be solved. Are there other problems that you're thinking about that maybe you're not working but other founders or other entrepreneurs

or other companies might be thinking about as we progress into the AGI future? Well, so first of all, maybe the framing about world, I think you can definitely do that. But I think the other framing is, as a result of the technology, I think we will create one of, or if not the largest real human network on the internet, which I think will create a lot of value. So like it's like it's not just preventing the bad, it's also creating the good that I think really matters here. You know, other problems for other, there's like so much. It's like what, what, you know, I feel like the main, you know, there's this, um, the, world is undoubtedly controversial, right? You have people that are super excited about the potential of the

technology and understand the importance. And then there's maybe people that are excited and understand the importance, but they're still wary. And then there's like the whole other side of people that are just like, no, you're never going to scan. You know, you're never going to get my eyeball. Don't even, you know, keep it. I don't even have pre-check. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Those types. But, but what do you say to the people kind of in the middle that are kind of like interested but kind of wary or maybe on the fence, you know, when you're talking to them one-on-one? You know, I think like we have very, very high conviction around both the importance of this technology and how the technology is built.

Like, I think it has all the properties that we will need as a society for such technology in that sense that it's anonymous. It is scalable. it can be inclusive. Like all of those things I think will end up mattering a lot. Like maybe much more than is kind of visceral at that point in time. But I think in the next 12, 24 months, I think it will become relatively obvious. And so I think it's going to be interesting where like I think different parts of the world will end up with different tradeoffs.

Like maybe some parts of the world will just require a government IDs on pretty much every part of the internet. And I think that might end up being a really bad, a bad situation. And so. And that's bad because somebody would just effectively sell their ID to be rented out for potentially. It's like ultimately it will be really hard to build that as a not traceable system by the government. And I think like it's of course something we really believe in here in the US is like the freedom. Yeah.

So the government would track you on every single place you on the internet every one page. They could. They could not saying they would. And I think it really depends on which part of the world you're in. Sure. But I think that's just not a great outcome. And so I think if we do, like, if we do everything in the right way over the next couple of years, I hope that our brand will become something like the signal messenger. Like I think, this is like the anonymous high trust solution that you can use. And other people will have other solutions. I think there will be

a lot of competition around that space because I think it will become a relatively big one. So yeah, if others will want to use other options, that is that is totally great. I think we will win by building the best product and reaching the most scale. Great place to end. Yeah, this is fantastic. Thank you so much. Very excited to see the rollout. I actually did. I'm just remembering I had one last question. Are you far as far enough along as you would like to be or do you wish you could just sort of like pause time and scale the WorldCoin network, you know, just for another year to sort of catch up? Because I, because again, when you talk about these timelines around 12 months, 24 months,

you guys are really racing against the clock from what it sounds like for a world in which we have these sort of agentic reasoning systems that will really make the internet a much more wild place. Well, I think that is definitely one perspective in my mind. It's like, I think we're definitely at in a race against time. And what is also, what is interesting, what really,

only happened in the last six months is that CEOs of many of the very large companies that you know with large products, well, either we talked to them or they reached out. And the problem is like currently we cannot serve that scale. So there's like there's like a lot of pull for the product to be available. And we just really need to get there. We need to roll this out faster and be able to serve these big platforms. So that that I think there's like a, extreme level of urgency for one, but then the other side is, it's hard to describe how crazy it feels to be even here from the beginning of the company. Like for like the first two to three years, well, people basically just made fun of this. And so like, yeah, it's certainly

personally the journey of a lifetime. And like when I start working this, like I gave it a very low probability of success. And I did so for the first three years or something. is like, yeah, still very, very long to go and fast to scale. But on the other hand, it feels pretty wild to just be here right now. Amazing. On the social network thing, sorry, last question. We're like, all right, thanks, Alex. Thanks for going on.

I mean, when you say large-scale network valuable, are we talking Visa Network? Are we talking Instagram? You're going to see. Okay. Yeah, I mean, I'm interested to see the business model, the price. model are the big platform is going to be paying in WorldCoin? Are we going to have a national reserve of this stuff? I don't know.

We'll have to have you back on when there's a big announcement. Looking forward to that. Thanks for having me. Cheers. Fantastic. Thanks, we'll talk to you soon. Anyway, it was good. We broke because we got to talk about eight sleep.

They got a five-year warranty. 30-night risk-free trial. Free returns, free shipping. Pod five, Ultra. Pod-5, Ultra. I think you beat me. I got an 88. I think you got a 92, right?

I think the 8 team must have gone in the app and set it up so that whatever John gets. Just give Jordy a couple extra points. Four more. I got a 92. 92. Let's hear it for Jordan. Two hours of deep sleep. We got Josh Wolfe in the studio.

Welcome to the stream. Josh, how are you doing? Haven't seen you since Hill and Valley. Yeah. With a tie. No tie. Oh, no tie today. Well, we'll get you next time.

Look at the games. But he's looking great. Josh, what's your, what's your workout? routine you're looking jacked oh man we we we do basketball got some fiducius there we go yeah we do it all yeah got it let's talk about the latest deal reflect orbital is in the news take us through the anatomy of the deal break it down for us you know amazing entrepreneur combination ziplines SpaceX guy Ben noak Sean McGuire friend partner

at Sequoia was early. He and Alfred seeded them. We led the series A. It was one of these ideas where it's like, you've got the sun. It really is only available for half the day. And they had a very simple insight, which is that there's so many satellites that are launching. What if we took a giant mylar balloon effectively and had this big planar area that we could basically redirect the sun and everything from solar efficiency so that people, people that are running solar cell farms could basically get, you know, double the output to people that were doing search and rescue or military operations. You know, where could you literally task a satellite, not for visual imagery, but for sunlight? And we thought that that was a very clever idea.

So we funded them probably a few quarters out from formal launch. And the inbound has been insane from all over the world of people saying we want to be able to task satellites to have. directed sun wherever we want it when we want it, which is pretty cool. From governments or enterprises or both? Yeah, you can imagine folks in the Mideast, where there's actually money at the government level, but no way that they could possibly do infrastructure for streetlights at night. Interesting.

And so, yeah, there's a lot of applications that have been popping up that we here to poor never imagine. So it's one of those things that develop a capability. Don't under promise. You know, don't over promise and under deliver. do the exact opposite. And people are coming to him. So yeah, we're really excited.

And he's super smart, super, super sharp. Yeah. What do you think are the exciting second and third order effects of something like this, right? If you make an area that's dark for most of it, you know, not most, but some percentage of a 24-hour period and you light it up, I can imagine that would have positive impact. You know, I think there's a bunch of data on like streetlights and crime. It's big for the Andrew Huberman crowd. Well, yeah, I don't know. I don't know, Andrew might be like, oh, you're disrupting my circadian rhythm or something like that.

But no, but isn't there, there's a ton of data on like streetlights and crime, right? It's like if you light up an area, like there's a massive reduction. I'm curious if you thought about kind of the potential externalities of the technology over time. Well, the first one, again, is energy, right? So if you're able to produce electricity and solar is getting way cheaper and way better, but the efficiencies are still 50% of the day when you have sunlight. and then you're doing battery storage. But if you could extend that in certain areas,

and particularly if there were sort of adjacent farms that weren't lighting up the city and screwing with people's circadian rhythms so that then could be transported through electricity, through storage and electricity. Transmission, I think that that's exciting. Yeah, sporting events, late-night soccer games, you know, all the kinds of things where in New York City,

it's no question, you know, in Palo Alto, it's no question to be able to light up stadiums. But if you wanted to light up an area that was an entertainment zone or, you know, you can imagine things there. For sure, implications on safety. again, on search and rescue. You know, there's a reason that we always say whether people are hewing towards elements

of honesty that sunlight kills all. So, yeah, I'm a big fan of the sun. This feels like one of those deals that kind of lives and dives by the, like, specific variables in a spreadsheet. If launch costs are a little bit higher, it could be really, you know, they could get kind stuck if they don't fall enough or, you know, the distribution of sunlight that's not concentrated enough all of a sudden doesn't make economics sense. Is this more of like a bet on the founder?

Or have you dug into the spreadsheet and are you really confident on the model evolving? Or is it more like the team's just so good they're going to go figure something. Well, I would go and say there's different economics for different use cases. Totally. Right. If you're a, if you're a military and you want to light up a battlefield, you're probably willing to spend a lot more than the marginal solar user who maybe just needs a little bit. For sure, search and rescue, you know, or did it be these punctuated emergency kind of things where, you know, people may not spare a cost. military as well. In other cases, obviously, military is going to want the cloak of darkness,

right? And so they don't want to light some things up. But the honest answer is on the first part, I don't know what the pricing is going to be here. We're comfortable, first and foremost, with an entrepreneur who is so thoughtful about every aspect of weight performance, the material science behind it, the launch costs, the capabilities, the cadence, the frequency. And so I think it's one of these things like build it and they will come. And there's a little bit of faith in that, but I have a lot of faith in Ben. I think he's recruiting extraordinarily well. I think he's deeply technical. He's obsessed. I mean, truly like obsessed. Like, you know, a lot of people do all kinds of things in their spare time. He's reading like math textbooks just

for fun in spare time. So super space nerd, really talented. Yeah, and Luxon and Sequoia are, you know, forgive the pun, but excited for it to see the light of day. Nice. There we go. So, air horn for that. Let's zoom out and talk about space broadly. Launch costs have been coming down. There's been projections that they're going to come down further. Have you been pleased with the trend of falling launch costs? Are you seeing enough in the entrepreneurial burgeoning space economy?

Are there going to be a new wave? Are we in the midst of a wave? Is the next generation thinking about other orbits, MEO or very low Earth orbit? What's exciting to you in space these days? I'm just going to give you a cascade of yeses. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. And yes, yes. There we got. Look, cost per kilogram to launch things up into space was the main limiting metric before. And larger vessels, better propulsion, more frequent launches, increasing demand, all of that has lowered that. When we first did VARTA, it was the inverse analysis, which was instead of trying to figure out how do you get low cost per kilogram up into space,

is how do you actually develop something that is going to be high cost per kilogram to justify doing it in space and coming back down. Same thing for another. And by the way, Varda, you know, I know Delian's been on and yeah, but I'm so proud. Third launch successfully just yesterday, you know, in the past 24 hours. It's amazing. All right, quiet, quiet down guys. Yeah, yeah, calm down. You know, Brewy and Delian and team truly proud of them, proud to be partnered. It is just awesome. them. And you know, you're going 25 mock, 25 times the speed of sound, you know, the hypersonic

testing people have talked about the hype around hypersonics. It's real and really proud of them in the launch and reentry capabilities. A related one, which was Tom Mueller, who, you know, is Elon's right-hand guy at SpaceX for 20 plus years. We backed him in a company, Impulse Space. And this was one of those speculative things of how are you going to invest in a company today where there's no economy and no demand yet for the ability to transport things, you know, and move them into space once they're up there. And that's really what he's developing, the vessels and the capabilities that once assets are up in space, how do you think about whether it's cargo transport or moving satellites and all these kinds of things?

So there is... It feels like that. Impulse could like unlock an entire new class of startups built on the stack of Impulse plus SpaceX. You get something up to Leo and then you push it higher. And, you know, there's some examples of things that can happen, but I feel like if you drop the cost, 10x, 100x or something, you're going to see a whole different breed of startups, right? Totally.

And in fact, a lot of our thinking around this was, you know, it's such a cliche thing that history doesn't repeat a rhymes, you know, but if you go back to history and you look at one of the great buildouts in this country that unlocked commerce and transport of material

and populations and lives, it was the rail. And, you know, so many things have happened during rail for people to, compared to booms and bus cycles. But if you look at rail,

you think about the tracks that were laid down horizontally, and you were to flip them 90 degrees, and instead of tracks, now you've got propulsion going up to space, it's very much the same thing of how do you get transport number one and who's going to sort of own those lanes? So that's launch capabilities. Then you've got communications. You know, there's a reason that telegraph lines were laid proximate to the rail,

and it's the same sort of thing. Now, instead of telegraph lines with actual wires, you have satellites doing KAA and KU band. And you have everything from Starlink to our company, Kymetta, that we did with Bill Gates, where it's KA and KU that are basically switching off of a solid state material with no moving parts. You know, when you're on a plane and the reason that you lose Internet for two seconds or whatever, is it has lost track with a geostationary satellite, you know, and of course it's tracking it.

And as the Earth moves, it's tracking it. But if you're in a low Earth orbit satellite, you want to be able to track it just like when we're moving through the city and going from cell tower to cell tower. And so that capability is something that's relatively new for being able to lock on and track satellites. then you've got people that are making things in space like Varda. You've got people that are transporting or storing them. There's other companies that are doing effectively private space stations because, as you know, ISS is coming out of service.

You've had geopolitical considerations of who's partnering with Russia or China. And so there is, I would just say, a very robust space ecosystem driven by the fact that capital follows talent, talent follows breakthroughs and ambition. And there are so many young, smart men. women that want to work in the space. And in many of them, they were in the pressure cauldron of which I think is an incredible culture. You know, as you know, I'm critical about Elon about a lot of things. But I think SpaceX is an absolutely amazing business. And I think people that are attracted to it, have been trained there, are now spinning out, are incredible. Yeah, I mean, the Varta story is

fascinating because they started, I remember the very first pitch was for like, we're going to make ZB land in space. Then there was pharma. Now they're doing pharma and some defense and hypersonic testing and stuff. And it's just a testament to like, you bet on the founder and they'll go figure it out, but they are riding a really, really important trend. Totally. When, when, when, uh, Delian was first pitching that with Brewy, I was like, I have no idea if this exotic optical material is going to be the thing, but the capability of you doing this is going to be the thing. And it's really about that economic inversion, not dollar per kilogram up, but high value dollar per kilogram down. And I think even Sean, who now we're partner with and reflect, made

that comment of like he was focused on the micro and he sort of got that wrong uh or maybe he got that right actually but the macro you know maybe he missed and and super honest self-reflective i think i i think with varta he said the opposite he said he he he he missed the micro oh yeah yeah yeah he got the micro wrong it wasn't going to be zblan right yeah yeah yeah yeah that's right you got hung up on that macro yep yeah he should have bet on the macro yeah it was great um i think an underrated uh just story uh just or fact about you is that you've been in venture a long time. Can you tell us the story of like the first fund and how you even got into venture and kind of what you've learned over the last, it's been more than 10 years? Has it been 20 years now? How long have you been doing this? Look, I'm a science nerd.

I was doing HIV AIDS immunopathology research and I literally got into that because I watched an HBO movie when I was like 13 years old called and the band played on. What was it? Was it? It wasn't HBO Max back then. It was just HBO right. They swapped back and forth. old school HBO. And it was like this ensemble cast, and I had the right ambitious naivete, which everybody that we ever back does, which is like, I'm going to go cure AIDS. Anyway, I end up working in a scientific lab, the scientific lab, three, four days a week after high school, finished that all the way through college, published in two different

scientific journals, thought I was going to go get an MD, PhD. My mentor was trading futures and options. So we'd be sitting there with a centrifuge of AIDS blood spinning down, waiting to run some 96 well enzyme linked to immunosorbid assay. And he's making money and I didn't know anything about the stock market. My mom was a, I was raised by a single mom and she was a resource room special ed school teacher. And I got enamored by capital markets. And my life since then has literally been the intersection of science and finance.

And it is partially the satisfying thing for my own ADHD of being able to constantly meet new founders and I never knew who I'm going to meet. And then coming up with certain feces and running them down and either starting companies with founders or finding the people that are in it. When we started, Peter A Bear and I, who's absolutely amazing. I mean, he's like literally my dispositional opposite. Very much like my actual real-life wife. He's smiley. He's positive. He's optimistic.

I am usually in all black and negative. Everybody here has been indoctrinated with this idea that failure comes from a failure to imagine failure. Pete is like, well, what if it works? You know, what if what if it actually becomes a multi-billion dollar business? And my wife, Lauren, him are very much the same. They're smiley. I always say, you know, I've got resting bitch face. And it's just, it's a great dynamic.

People joke he invented the airplane. I invented the parachute. It's a good Yin Yang. When we started, we had friends and family to go out and raise money for Lux. And I joke that we had friends, we had family. None of them had any money. And we got lucky and met a guy Bill Conway, who was one of the three founders of the Carlisle group, which at the time had maybe six or eight or ten billion at most.

Today, you know, hundreds of four and five hundred billion. This is a fund for ants back then. And we met with Bill and I always say, look, the counterfactual, and this is true of all of all our lives and anybody listening and any entrepreneur starting something you just never know and he was in the right mood that day maybe he had a great breakfast with his wife maybe he found out they just made a lot of money for a deal maybe he closed a big LP maybe whatever it is he got good news and where he was he's just in a good mood but the counterfactual could have been he was in a bad mood he was pissed he was angry was frustrated he was he was hungry um and we came in and we pitched

him on this idea that in the history of venture every 10 or 15 years there's some secular wave in technology in the 70s and the 80s was biotech and the 90s was TMT technology media telecom and our view was like the next wave is going to be the physical material sciences and where they intersect with computer science and all this kind of stuff so it's like the interstices and it wasn't going to be just Stanford and MIT it was going to be like Cornell and Georgia Tech and university of Michigan and UT Austin all these kinds of places and physics and material science and chemical engineering and so he said I hope you make a billion and he believed in us gave us our first pledge fund we were writing small checks we had maybe board observance

servers seats at best and then you know a bunch of those things we're doing pretty well we were building a little bit of a reputation and then we went out to raise our first real institutional fund which we called Lux 2 because everybody likes a second fund right so but like nobody would invest in a first time fund but if we called it Lux 2 there you go Lux 2 this is like announcing a preempted round every we've been saying every founder should say that every round is preempted round this looks better so Bill becomes an anchor investor in that and we get this like pantheon of people Pete Peterson who's the founder of blackstone and Stan drunken Miller legendary global macro investor and Ken Griffin founder of Citadel and and it was all

random connections that led to these individuals and they were writing you know sort of like five 10 million dollar checks and then we got a whole bunch of family offices some small fund of funds a few corporates like lockheed and Motorola and we could not hit our hundred million dollar target 92.1 to this day I remember every person that said yes or no every hundred thousand dollar check the people that have been with us for 20 years and the people that said no that we would later on because I got chips on my shoulder. You wouldn't let them back in. Brutal.

So I'm very thoughtful about the people that we ever say no to because you never know in two or three years they're going to be the people that you really want to back. But yeah, we started small and today we're $5.5 billion. And I still remember those early days. That's fantastic. Talk about the new science funding. initiative. You guys have been following a lot of the cuts, funding cuts. Yeah, we're talking a couple people on the show about the importance of basic science research,

funding things that don't have immediate economic impact. What's the impact of a helicopter on Mars? What's the impact of understanding DNA at some atomic level? Obviously, stuff comes out of that, but it might be a decade. There might not be a typical venture payback. What are you thinking about this space generally? Well, first of all, the roots of venture capital are really two things. It was deep science and it was defense. Defense tech itself is nothing new. It really is the early days of the venture capital industry. Genentech. People forget. That's one of the greatest venture bets early on. And Conan Boyer, and that spun out from the UC system. That was one of the early important proof points that helped to create the Buy Dole Act. So you had two

senators of them by and Bob Dole that basically said, look, all this taxpayer money that's going into universities, they're producing property, intellectual property, in the form of patents. But why don't we allow the university to actually own those instead of it being like marching rights from the government? And what that did was just blew out. And it happened to coincide with the ERISA Act where retirement money could start going into private equity and venture capital. That was also in the 70s, the late 70s.

The virtue of both of those things was that you had now this new class of intellectual property spawned from taxpayer-funded research that went from NIH or National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, the sort of three-letter agencies going into academia. They would hire postdocs. They would do work. They would file some patents. And then there was this well-trodden method, which we happen to be quite good at, where you would go to their tech transfer office.

Actually, most of the time, you really don't go to the tech transfer office. You go to the principal investigator or the scientist. And because they're implied employed by the university, they go to the tech transfer office and say, I want to do this. If you go to the tech transfer office, oftentimes you're dealing with adverse selection. That's an aside. You give them a royalty. You give them a license.

You do equity. You strike a deal. And then you're funding it. And they typically get some money back. for all the work that they spent. They also have what's called diligence criteria. Very simply, if you don't put up enough money or you don't advance it, then justifiably,

it goes back to the university so they can take it another stab at it with somebody else. And so there's lots of structure deals that you can do here to make that happen. The university professor, the scientist will typically spend 20% of their time on the company. It's sort of like the equivalent of what Google would adopt later on, you know, a day a week to do these kinds of things.

And the benefit to these universities were royalties and licenses on some of the most important drugs in pharma, some breakthrough materials that ended up in national security. I mean, hundreds of millions, if not billions, to some endowments. It's a really big deal. And over time, I'd say like probably 15, 20 years ago, venture started doing maybe late 90s, more and more just computer science-driven things, more internet, more, you know, dot-coms, e-commerce, and they were going away from the universities.

We've always had that as part of our knitting. When we started Lux, one of the guys we invested in was this guy, Larry Bach. Larry was a serial entrepreneur. He ended up doing. winning our firm. He passed away maybe seven, eight, nine years ago. He's an incredible guy. And we learned a lot from company, about company creation from him. He started 17 companies from scratch, took 14 of them public, cumulative market cap over $80 billion. The most significant was Illumina, the gene sequencing company. And we learned how to do this and how to partner

with young scientists. So we've been doing it really nearly 20 years and we've started over 20 companies ranging from high tech nuclear waste cleanup, which is company Curion that helped with the Fukushima disaster to 4D LiDR to finding real-life mutants in a company called Variant Bio where we go out like X-Men and are trying to find these outlier people in ally parts of the world. Crazy stuff. But all of it has some breakthrough that happened in an academic lab and you're going and typically it's like 90, 95 percent ripened and ready for commercialization. So you're not really taking that much science risk. The government took that or the university took that or taxpayers took that. What happened now is we saw a

confluence of factors. You got politicization that's happening at universities, you know, where current administration is punishing for anti-Semitism or absence of free speech or whatever it is, cutting funding, potentially cutting tax status, potentially increasing tax on endowments from like 1.4% to possibly up to 20%. So they're facing very serious pressures to say, what are we going to do with our funding if we're not getting it from the federal government. Many of the scientists are innocent. They're doing nothing. They just want to do their work, whether that's finding cancer diagnostics or invent new materials or coming up with, you know, all kinds of interesting aerospace applications. And so they're facing funding cliffs now.

And some of that is from federal budget cuts. Some of it is from politicization, but it's a big issue. This is against the backdrop where to me the biggest issue is not anything domestic. It's not about left or right. It's about past and future and specifically a future that we are competing with China for. China now leads in nearly 40 of 44 critical technology areas. cultures get what they celebrate, and the culture for Chinese scientists and academia is not our culture, is not the TikTok culture, is not, you know, celebrating Paris Hilton and Kardashians or whatever. It is build what we can to have an absolute utter advantage and an advantage relative to America. This is, you talk about make America great, truly what made our country,

not just great, but exceptional. Attracting German Jews during World War II and making sure that we were the ones that developed the atomic bomb and having the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton, and having these amazing academic institutions, which were research institutions, not political drama on campuses and this kind of stuff. So we need to go back to that. And we saw that there's bureaucracy, funding cliff, politicization, increasing pressure against this backdrop

of competition with China. We said, we already do this new co-formation and we partner with scientists. Now we're doubling down and we will go even earlier. You lost your grant and it's potentially on the path for commercialization. Instead of it being 99% bank, maybe it's 30 or 50% bank,

We'll take the risk. Come join a company, spin out into a company, license your work to one of our existing companies, but know that there's an alternative path besides just facing a brick wall or going off the cliff. That's very cool. Not to get too political, but you mentioned China geopolitical competition.

What are some countries that you're particularly long or you think are underrated as potential partners to America or potential entrepreneurial hubs? When I grew up, you know, Japan was making human, robots, Honda Azamo, haven't seen a lot of startups come out of Japan, but we're seeing stuff come out of Telpio in Israel with WIZ acquisition. We're seeing what some VCs are doing in

Europe and the Nordics have produced Spotify. Where are you looking across the globe? What's it? What excites you, if anything? Yes, yes, yes. And yes, again. So we've got the leading AI company in Japan, Sakana, which is, which is amazing. And a bunch of the partners were over in Japan. And is the thesis for that national AI, like Japan wants their own foundation model? Is that right? Okay. In part, it's sovereign models. Sure.

But it's not like mistral in France. Okay. It is also sort of a very different, almost complexity theory approach to the model. So they're coming out with all kinds of new stuff. One of the founders, Leon Jones, was the original author. And he named the title for the paper. Attention is all you need when he was when he was at Google. So killer team.

based in Japan, all the major Japanese corporates have now invested, and we're very bullish on that. Israel. So, Coratsu? Leon Jones does not sound like the Japanese name. No, no, he's not. But I mean, I'm sure he's having an impact. Corretzu is the right word for it, right, where you get these corporations that sort of build these. In Japan, they own pieces of it.

So the bank owns the piece of the industrial company, which owns a piece of the bank, and they all kind of work together. It's a cool model. Mitsui, Sumitomo. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Hyundai Heavy Industries makes the, oil rigs and the cars and everything. Now that is changing because you are seeing the rise of startups and a startup culture because

failure in Japan is very different than failure in Silicon Valley. And that's starting to change. And so we're optimistic on that. So Japan is number one, Israel number two. Sure. I mean, I really think that this young generation of Israeli entrepreneurs are going to be the greatest generation. They are literally being forged in fire.

They are fighting an existential fight for their lives. And people are shifting from, you know, doing apps and ways and and cybersecurity still important, but they're now getting really interested in defense. We did two companies. One came out publicly. It's Austin Sequoia in a company called Kella. You mentioned Talpiot. Oh, yeah. One of the elite guys from Talpeot who went to fight post-October 7th and Hamotal Marador, who ran Palantir in Israel. Just absolutely killer team coveted, very sought after by investors. The other one is in stealth. Us, Peter Thiel, Trey, and a partner in Israel,

Michael Eisenberg, all amazing people. We all came together to fund a company focused on a capability that Israel did not really have and needs for some of its most serious foreign adversaries. So that'll come out, I think, in the next few months. And we'll see some other Silicon Valley investors, I think, join in on that. Introduce us to the founder. We'll have them on when he comes out of stealth. All right.

That'd be great. Couple quick ones. Basic capital. You guys were the first institutional investor, maybe the first investor. ever what what was your personal journey to investing in the company it was getting a lot of attention this week it was funny because when when a new company comes out to fund like auto loans like nobody bats an eye but if you want to give people the ability to uh you know you know basically use debt to buy assets that appreciate suddenly it's a big controversy i think a lot of

people got maybe some of the leverage here maybe they got the calculations wrong to i saw so the internet was really doing its thing, but I would love to hear. It is, it is controversial, but we think it's necessary. Credit due, honestly, love him, like him, hate him, never ignore him. Bill Ackman really was a sea check. We came in, Henry Travis came in, and the founder is amazing. I mean, he doesn't really talk about his story, so I'm not going to go too deep to do it, but he grew up. I'll just give you, in a refugee camp, Palestinian, in refugee camp, in Syria, basically a Hamas run camp. And the story is insane, if and when it comes out, on how he got out of this situation,

ended up in first Europe and then the U.S., and then Goldman Sachs, and becomes an expert in fixed income and complex derivatives, and it's just absolutely brilliant and resilient. So we loved him and his personal story, first and foremost. The way we got to him, our partner, Dina Shacker, I think through some shared ethnic connections, he reached out. It wasn't an area that she had a particular expertise or interest in per se, shared with our partner Peter who loves a lot of stuff in finance and they end up spending like 90

minutes together. I don't even think they talked about the business until, you know, last 10 minutes or something. But Abdul is very special. Yeah, Matt Levine I think has covered it for the past two, three days in sort of a positive way, which for him and he's a friend is a nice thing to see. They're going to figure out their model, but the premise was we allow people to borrow for all kinds of depreciating assets and we just accept this. We allow people to borrow for consumption. We, allow people to borrow for homes and you know the theory that homes are only going up or for cars as you noted um why do we not allow people who are not owners of the american company uh american economy in particular to own a piece of it because that if you really care about inequality the wealth gap is because

people that have the ability and the savings to invest in the american stock market and just watch it compound over time even in low-cost index funds um are at a superior advantage and so that's really what he's looking at and addressing. And yeah, we, we're very fond of him. Last question, humanoid timelines, bullish, bearish humanoids. Tesla right now is pricing in humanoids almost immediately, it feels like. But yeah, what's your thought on? I'm pretty sure Elon is curing blindness, autism.

I mean, yeah, we'll have a whole other Elon discussion on, you know, his relationship. with the truth and some of my criticisms on some of the other things outside of SpaceX. But look, inside Lux, there's a dithering spectrum of people that are super bullish on humanoids and people that are super skeptical. I'm more skeptical on humanoid, even though we've made some investments in that I don't think the form factor should be two arms and two legs. It's a lot of motors, right? Well, it is a lot of motors, and that's actually a big opportunity as well for a lot of companies. And it is white space because 70, 80% of the motors are coming from China, it's about 60% of the bomb for most of the motors.

Average humanoid robots are going to have at least 25 motors. You imagine them selling 10,000 or 100,000. I mean, you're talking about millions of motors. There's going to be an opportunity for motors, not clear whether it's going to become standardized, special, small batch. But there's an opportunity in a white space there because we are so dependent on China. But I care more about the fact that most of these things are being teleoperated trained, even, you know, optimist, which was sort of a performative thing because most of those things, except for when they were dancing were being controlled by humans.

So it wasn't really fully honest until they revealed that like a day or two later, but it was too late But even two arms two legs that they're being controlled Why am I unpacking a sink or folding something with two hands? This should be in the Darwinian sense endless forms most beautiful You know, I was talking about the diversity of species I want to see a diverse set of robots that are almost like the canteen scene out of Star Wars Where you're like holy shit like did that thing just have six arms and just did that thing like that is unhuman That's what I think our robots should look like, more droids, so to speak, than robots. But the amount of competition that's here,

you know, there's seven different companies today trying to do humanoid robots of serious scale. Talent is flowing between them. We're going to see them. The question is, where's the killer app? And everything I hear is fold laundry, undo your dishes, be a companion to somebody in your home. I haven't seen that visionary person that's like, no, no, no, the way that we're going to use robots is XYZ. And I get the argument why humanoid robots make sense for a human-built world with door frames and steps and buttons and all that kind of stuff. But I'm convinced that the future robot company that rules them all is going to be either something like one of our company's pie, physical intelligence, run by Locky Groom and...

We have a lot. Great team. Incredible, right? That is all about the embodied intelligence. Yep, yep, yeah. They don't care about the form factor. You want to use Chinese unitry. You want to use one of our other companies here, Fauna. All good. But we're going to be the embodied intelligence. Sure. That I think is really interesting because one way to make money in venture is always understand what's abundant and what's scarce. And what's abundant in, say, AI is training data. You can train on the open web, you can train on Reddit, you can train on Twitter, etc. What's scarce in robots is having a repository of training data. And so that's why you've got humans that are doing this teleoperation and training them through kinds of scenarios. But when they enter unstructured

environments, what you want is these world models that basically help somebody navigate a situation that they've never been in. If a founder came to you named Darwin, would you get bullish you you did you popularize nominative determinism you have a thread you have a thread it's it's now I think I got to figure out how many people are on there 106 yeah 1006 listings

you know started with a friend of mine I'll give a shout it's guy Russell Diamond he's in a totally different form of business but I think it's I don't know when I start posting it's got to be at least five six seven years and some of them are absolutely hilarious I mean the most recent one it's it's Rich Fairbank

is the CEO of Capital one. Just amazing. I can make some of these names, they're just putting out there. Let's see if Josh just gets pissed off. Well, it's amazing that you've built a firm instead of being a solo capitalist, a lone wolf, but it somehow worked out anyway. It was great having you on the show.

Thank you so much for joining Josh. It's a pleasure. Overdue for a full segment. We'll talk to you soon. And we don't want to keep Jason waiting any longer. So let's bring in Jason now to chat about the history of 37 signals, bootstrapping versus venture capital i'm sure we're going to get a bunch of interesting takes and hopefully have him join the stream right now welcome to the show jason how you doing hey guys good

thanks for having me on it's great to have you uh jason uh we've actually met in person once randomly at a restaurant that was one of my favorite restaurants in malibu we met and then the restaurant shut down like a month later i was super bummed i would gather which restaurant was that There was the, was it something, it was right by Whole Foods. There's a hamburger place there now. Oh, yeah. Like coconut, the real coconut. Real coconut was there.

That's correct. Tragic. It's a trap. That spot was the best. I don't know what happened. But Malo was a good spot. They had a hard time. It's a tough market.

It's a tough market. It's a tough market. It runs her high there for sure. Yeah. I mean, I'd love to just take your temperature on your view on the current state of venture capital and startups are things getting better are things getting worse it feels like people are raising more capital than ever potentially there's a bubble potentially uh at the same time companies are getting to really high run rates what's your feeling for the health of the startup economy in the

tech world generally yeah i mean the way i look at it is i usually look at the ideas i don't really care so much about the funding side of it because if there's cheap money easy money there's going to be cheap money easy money if it's hard money There's not going to be as much around. There's always going to be fluctuation there. I look at the ideas. Obviously, there's a lot of people building a lot of things right now, which is very exciting.

I can't remember a time when more people were building more things, truly, except maybe the beginning of the web, late 90s kind of thing, where everyone was just, everything was new. No one knew what they were doing, and so there's making stuff. Like the early, early enthusiast web was pretty spectacular. So I think that that's very, very healthy. That said, the hardest thing is not making stuff.

something. The hardest thing is maintaining something. And it's become so easy just to make stuff and kind of just like vomit out ideas. And I mean this in the in the best possible way. You know, AI makes things really fast. You can make something really quickly that's sort of decent. It's a femoral. It's a femoral. And the thing is like you have to prop that up. You have to keep that up. You have to support customers. If you sell your product to people, like people are going to be using this. They're going to be depending on it. And so I'm a little bit concerned that there's too much energy right now focused on just spitting out. new ideas and not as much invested in maintaining something and seeing it grow and seeing it

through to fruition. So there's a lot of bragging about look how fast I made this thing. Yeah, you made a thing. But now what? That's my big question. And I'm not seeing a lot of answers there yet, but I still am excited by all the things you can do today. Yeah. What's your take? I mean, do you notice that? I feel like I must be other people that notice this. Yeah. I mean, we've talked about the iron law of the universe. What goes up quickly, must come down quickly. Well, I think to me, yeah, to me, there's a very, there's a very messy middle, right? I actually love the fact that software can be ephemeral now, right? I like that an app could basically be a meme, right? How many people over the last couple decades have had an idea for an app that shouldn't, it's not worth spending a million dollars and a year building it, but it would be fun for it to exist. And so I like that things can.

come to existence quickly, right? I like that you can generate an image that I never would have paid somebody to make a 3D render of, but it's actually entertaining and fun, even just in it's just a very casual format, right? Obviously, it has business applications as well, but John and I will generate images. What if I put a wing on a Cadillac escalade? Yeah. With a racing livery.

I can imagine that now. Simple stuff like that. And then. Except Porsche's a car with a Cadillac escalade. Exactly. That's exactly my prompt. Yeah. I probably could have hired a designer to do that, but it would have taken a day and cost a bunch of money. And that is like, it's incredible that you can do that. I love that stuff. And I actually think what's going to end up happening is a lot of people are going to make software just for themselves. Exactly. Yeah. And that's incredibly,

that's how I got started. I made software for myself. I was using something called FileMaker Pro way way way way way like an application that kind of ran. I didn't know how it worked behind the scenes, but it ran. That is a great feeling and a wonderful place to start. So I'm all for that. Yeah. And where I was going is there's kind of the opposite spectrum of software that's really craft-driven software. Somebody on the show, I think it was Jack Haltman was talking of this like Giro Dreams of Sushi form of software where you're looking at an existing product category and there's a bunch of tools that already exist and just looking at it with a new set of eyes and just saying, I'm going to spend more time obsessing over this one product experience than anyone

else, and I'm going to make a great product. And I think that's great. That's kind of like, you can still use AI to do that, but it's not just, you know, slop, right? But then there's this interesting messy middle right now in venture where you have 20 of the same, 20 different teams approaching the same problem and both kind of, everybody's kind of racing at it without a lot of real vision or craft. It's just about speed and just spewing stuff out and seeing what sticks. And I think that that is sort of an unfortunate byproduct of the state of things today. And it wasn't always that way, right? It used to be, VCs weren't going to fund the eighth company attacking one problem. And at least for the last five years, it's been the case.

Yeah. It seems a little bit more like music now, actually, in a sense, where there's a lot of people making a lot of music. You open Spotify, there's like, you know, a billion artists making something. And software is now becoming that, which I think is pretty cool, actually, frankly, that there can be a lot of people, because there's a lot of talent out there. That's the other thing. Like, you turn on YouTube or you watch YouTube or you pull up Spotify. And you're like, you know, I'm trying to learn a bit more guitar and I'm trying to learn a bit more guitar and I'm trying to learn how to draw a bit better. And you find all these people online who are just extraordinarily gifted and talented at what they do. Yet nobody knows who they are or if small audience does, they'll never make it big

because it's just, it doesn't work that way. But there's just so much talent. And what's cool about, I think what's happening now is that if you have the talent and the imagination, you can actually make something today that before you had to maybe find someone else to make for you, which would have cost money and would have been hard to do. So I think this is all ultimately a very good thing. But I can imagine, again, I'm not really in the finance world or the venture world in that way, but I can imagine how you'll have to put more and more faith now.

maybe it's always been this way, but more and more faith in the people and not just sort of what they quickly make because it seems like making something quickly is not the hard thing anymore. You know, it's it's like are these people, there's their conviction there? Do they care about what they're making or they're trying to spin something up? I think there's a little bit more character evaluation perhaps that's going to be necessary. Can you talk about lessons from the first wave of the internet, the dot-com boom versus the rollout of AI, the bulkcase. for AI's rollout is that, well, everyone's already on the internet, so they can just visit a URL and interact with a new product. Stripe already exists, and so they can start

charging money immediately. The kind of bearish case that we've been hearing is this idea that, well, there are plenty of scaled internet companies that are still in founder mode, and I don't know if you believe in that ideology, but this idea that, you know, Mark Zuckerberg is not asleep at the wheel. He is very much aware of AI and can move very, very aggressively with huge resources to stay relevant. And there are also plenty of companies in the $100 million revenue, billion dollar revenue categories that are already, you know, moving quickly. They might be a little bit slower. But how brittle do you think big tech is right now? How brittle do you think are the companies that are in a category they've been in for a few years?

to a few founders where they almost got bored pre-AI and now they feel reinvigorated. They still control their companies. How are you wrestling with all of that? It's interesting. It's kind of like, well, there aren't a lot of parallels between the early days because in the early days, there was nobody. Like it was just like everyone literally like was just learning HTML and just making a web page. Yeah.

It wasn't really, I feel like I felt like Amazon, Amazon launch that was like the first kind of thing that felt a little bit different actually to me. Like someone's actually putting this together in a way where you could do something you couldn't do before. That felt, you know, buying books online, that whole thing. And in the early days, it was all about like, you know, people were even afraid to put their credit card online. We couldn't even get, when we first launched base camp back in 2004, we couldn't even get

a bank, what we eventually did. But to give us a merchant account, which is what you needed to charge credit cards. Now, like, your point with Stripe, you just like sign up and you can accept cards or square or anything. Like we had to provide deep financials. They didn't trust this internet thing. They wouldn't even allow us to charge annually for things. We had to charge monthly, which is actually a good thing in the end.

But we're going to try to charge annually. They're like, what if you go out of business in six months? We're on the hook for this whole thing. So you'll have to charge monthly. Your charge your customers monthly so there's less risk. It's fascinating times. It's totally different. What's interesting today about big tech is there's so much power.

Obviously, in a handful of a handful of small, big, companies, but a small group of these companies. But then again, you have something like Open AI, right, which kind of comes out of nowhere a few years ago, in a sense, and basically is putting everybody on notice. I mean, you can do everything now with this command line tool, essentially. You can write software. You can generate images like you were talking about. Why would you Google anything anymore? You can do it better this way. And so there are always going to be brand new flashes that come out of nowhere that challenge big companies now the thing is is that open AI is now a large company very quickly so I think what you're going to see is yeah I hate to cut you off

but an interesting point about new generation of tech giants is that it seems like they're possible to build you just need five billion dollars right if you look at like TikTok or open AI it's like what what are the truly breakthrough consumer tech consumer tech specifically. There's something unique about foundation models that they are incredibly capital intensive that feels different. Well, yeah, the social network example is like, yeah, you can build a new social network. You just need to be able to spend billions of dollars on meta and Snapchat acquiring

the network. But yeah, I don't know. Yeah. But I think, yes, you're right. But also, we're always going to be surprised. The next newcomer is not going to be the obvious one. It's going to be someone with a new model for what social media is or a new model for what search is.

new model for whatever whatever is. And they're always surprising, I think. And that's the exciting thing about it, is that if we just look to the existing players, like they're not really going to be able to innovate that much. It's just someone new had to come along like Open AI and they push everyone else to begin to innovate. So I don't know. I think there's always going to be innovation.

I think most of it ultimately comes from the shadows, which is generally a small, tight team, typically. It's not a big company. Big companies aren't innovating in this way. They will then jump on the bandwagon because they have the money and they can. can buy the incumbent or buy the newcomers. But the new ideas come from the small, the small teams, the small guys. And I think that's still going to be true. I don't know if you saw the Airbnb relaunch Airbnb 2.0, but Brian Chesky has, I mean, I'd love your take on just,

it feels like we were looking at the stock. It's been an $85 billion company for five years. It's kind of languishing. It feels like there's a little bit of restlessness, like he just wants to do something new. And I'd love your take on that. But also, So he has advocated for this idea of like an annual release cycle, really pushing the whole team to unify around this Steve Jobs-esque keynote. And from a product management perspective, do you like that? Do you recommend that to other startups or, you know, tech leaders generally? Yeah, good questions. So this just launched, what, like two days ago?

Yeah, yeah. fully up on it. But what I know is basically now offering personal services and not just, you know, rooms to run. Yeah, find a hairdresser, find a personal trainer, that type of thing, potentially dog walker. A lot of this, this actually launched Airbnb experiences eight years ago with, you're going on a vacation and somebody can be your local tour guide or take you river rafting, for example. Right. Now he's trying to broaden out to, you know, get your car washed or get your car details, for example. It's so interesting. When I saw this, so I had so many different thoughts, and I'll share a few of them.

First of all, I think Brian's probably one of the greatest CEOs around today. So I wouldn't I wouldn't bet against him, first of all. I was a little, I was surprised by it. I understand the, like there is no good place, trustworthy place to go to find these kinds of services. So it's sort of natural that you'd expect somebody. to do this, but you have to come with trust and you have to come with a big platform because it's hard to start small. Yeah. Two billion users. Two billion users. Is that right? Two billion. I mean, isn't that crazy? So what they're doing is they're lending their trust and their their sense of

taste and like the vetting of these of these professionals who provide these services. That's a hard thing to do from scratch. Like you have to have the the experience and the and the and the history, right? So while I think it's sort of, it's kind of far afield, actually, I think, from what they do. I like the other version of experiences just off the bat, which is more related to going to a place. This feels a bit tangential. That said, I wouldn't bet against them. I'm sure they've thought about this more than I have in a day and a half for like five minutes. But I was a little bit surprised by it.

It almost felt like a little bit in some ways too easy. I don't know. I know it wasn't easy, but like, or too obvious in a sense, but also then you're like, but this hasn't happened yet, really. So why not them? Why not them? Will it translate? I don't know. I looked at a bunch of them yesterday in my area. And I'm very curious. I'm very, very curious to see all this pans out. But I think you have to find revenue somewhere if you're a public company or a big company. And, you know, there's only so many rooms. There's only so many people want to rent rooms. They've done an incredible job with this. And this is probably a good way to diversify the revenue stream.

And it is related enough, even though it feels a little bit separate still. And the business is roughly the size of Marriott and Hilton now. Like it is basically a large-scale hotel chain. And so, yeah, what is that act too? It's a good question to ask. One way to think about it actually, it's more like a concierge at large. So if you go to a hotel, right, you go to the concierge desk and you're like, I don't know what to do here or, you know, whatever. it's sort of like that without having to go anywhere.

First of all, you can do it locally and you can do it where you're going. So to me, I think of it as like the massive concierge. Yeah. And in that way, it ties nicely to hospitality. So we'll see. And on the annual release cadence. Oh, yeah. That's going, it's coming from Apple.

Chesky obviously looks towards jobs as an influence, but smaller and smaller companies are starting to adopt it. But at a certain point, you're such a small company. Maybe you should be releasing every week or every six weeks or something like that. So what's your take? Yeah, that's a great point. So I admire it, frankly. I admire it actually for the patience.

And I actually think in some strange ways, it is a better way to capture attention. So one of the things is like people feel like they want to release a lot because they want to maintain a sense of presence in the market and want to get people's attention often. But I think what I've found, at least what we've found has shifted over the years, is that when you release a bunch of small things, it's hard to grab anyone's attention with a handful of small things these days. When you have a big release, a big drop, for example, and there's a hundred new things. I saw Square just did this recently too. You're going to pay attention to that.

And you're going to be able to tell a much bigger, broader story. And I think in many ways, people are like, wow, that's a lot of stuff. Like an OS release or like, you know, a new phone release used to be, things like that. I think one of the reasons people don't pay attention to maybe Apple's releases as much is because they become predictable in that way. So I think you can, I like, I like what they're, I like what Airbnb is doing and other brands are doing where it, it still feels a bit unpredictable. What's coming. Yeah. Apple is too predictable now.

It's like it's, you know it's going to be a new iPhone and you know it's going to be a better camera and whatever. So that's not as interesting. Yeah. But I do like the model. We actually have a bit of a hybrid model. So we release these little releases every six weeks or so. And then when we do a brand new, like we're working on Basecamp 5, which is our newest version of base camp right now, we're going to do a bunch of these little things, hold them all back and then release them all at once.

So that'll be like a big release for us. But as a model in general, I think it's a good model, but I don't think it fits a brand new company. On Apple, Apple intelligence, they kind of did the big annual release, but then they wound up shipping different things at different times, a lot of frustration. is that something that can be overcome with just better product management or do they need a different direction, more ambitious, more risk? I mean, generative AI is very unpredictable. You get hallucinations, very off-brand for Apple.

What's been your take and how have you processed the journey that Apple intelligence has been on? I think the mistake, again, like, who am I? They're a trillion, what, $3 trillion company? Yeah, around there. Since you asked, the mistake I think they made is they made a promise. and promises to customers, I think, are typically very bad ideas unless you actually have something ready to go right now. Or like within a week or two or something.

But there's nothing easier in business to say yes, coming soon. Yes, later. And that's what they did. And now... Yeah, they sold the Apple, they sold the new iPhone based on Apple intelligence. It was on every billboard. Exactly. come for months. Now they're behind the eight ball simply because they promised.

Had they just talked about it, we're going to be rolling this out. Like, you know, the expectations would be totally different. So a promise is a very, very dangerous thing to be made far in advance. This is one of the things that Jobs is really good at. When he had a product to share, he waited, then they shared it and you could buy it today. Or going on sale on a specific date or something, but very close, right? He rarely had long-term tech demos or something. It was always about real stuff you could basically go buy.

And this is also one of the things I hate about concept cars, which is you see these amazing things and these cool ideas. And you know you'll never be able to get them. And you're like, why does this company spend all this money doing these concept cars? And it's just frustrating. And that's kind of Apple Intelligence is a concept car. And, you know, great take. And it's tied to promises. Bad idea.

So that's where I think they made a mistake. I think they will figure out a way to come back from this. Yeah. But I think this is going to lead to a major, major shakeup internally. Yeah. It already has. There's already been people moving around. Right.

Does it worry you that? But I mean, maybe a bigger shakeup. Like people. Sure. I'm just moving around. Because moving around is like, this is the wrong analogy. Okay. Really wrong analogy.

I mean, the Catholic Church moved priests around when they made some big, big mistakes, right? That's not how you solve the problem. Yeah. Yeah, and not to compare, you know, some bunny software to some very damaging things. It's not that. No, it makes sense. It's not that. But yeah, yeah.

No, you're expecting some true true new leadership in certain roles. It doesn't solve the problem, right. For sure. Jordy. Does it worry you that the internet is killing long form writing? It feels like right now you actually get penalized on X, the longer the post. You can still go decently viral with a longer form post, but usually like, four words, five words, seems like it's like the most dopamine-inducing. And it feels like there's a bunch of great- Why is no one talking about Steve Jobs? No one's heard about this guy. Click this thread.

No, but it seems like there's a bunch of really smart, you know, high potential people that don't think of themselves as writers, but maybe if they join the internet when you did, they would be. Yeah, I mean, I think long-firm writing has found a new place that, like you have substack, which has become obviously a big deal for a lot of people. I think, that these platforms, what's interesting is that X now, you know, obviously allows you to write long posts and even have articles. But they don't really, like you said, they don't really promote them as well. That, you know, that might change. I don't know, who knows. I'm sure they have a better insight into it than we do. But I think long form writing is alive and well. I think, I think

humanity actually craves it and wants it. But it's not an engagement thing. So if you're measuring that, hot takes are going to be, you know, more of that. But I think, I don't know, I think, I think it's alive and well, and I think it'll always be appreciated for what it is by those who are motivated to understand what it is that they're reading. If you just want to kind of absorb it like candy, that's fine too. But like if you really want to get into something, it needs to be long. And also like podcasts or like long podcasts are a great example. That's essentially long form writing that someone's reading out loud.

And there's a lot of people who are willing to spend two, three, four hours listening to a podcast. granted they could do something else while that's happening that's a little bit different than reading but i think long form depth that's called just depth let's call it actually instead of long form it's like depth versus shallowness or shallow versus deep or whatever i think there's a lot of interest in deep still yeah yeah and it's it says something that the platforms don't necessarily reward deep but it's it's all it's again it's somewhat of a barbell where if it's deep but truly you know groundbreaking or moving, you'll still get that sort of viral pickup. Chris Pike who keeps going viral with just drops a link to a Google Doc.

And it's just such an interesting post that it still breaks through. Even the links are banned and no one reads long form. Every time he drops one, it's, yeah, everyone clicks it. Well, in the end, like, it is like, if it's good, it'll, it'll surface. Always. I do think that contrast is very handy, though. So with a lot of short form platforms X, TikTok with these kinds of things, you create a contrast now. And so now, you know, you know where you can get long.

You know we can get short. And I think each platform will cater to it. I mean, this show will be experienced as a three-hour live stream, but also I'm sure we're going to share a one-minute clip of this, right? That's right. And that's just kind of the nature of the internet. I want to talk about the hyperscalers and AWS. You recently moved some data on prem.

My question is, is there some sort of cartel dynamic going on with the clouds? Because you would expect these are fairly command. monetized products. There's Azure, AWS, GCP. Why do they have high margins? Is this some sort of like Coke and Pepsi thing where they have a tacit agreement not to be getting a price war? Because you think that you'd be able to just go and get to some base level cost with three hyper competitive companies in the space. Yeah, I mean, you would think that cost would be driven down considerably. And maybe they have been in some in some areas. The airlines, the airlines are directly competitive. They make no money, right? Airlines famously bad business. You would expect the cloud to be similar,

but it's not the case. Yeah, I wonder if, you know, yeah, I don't know. I don't know the answer there. I mean, I know that data, well, storage is cheaper than it has been, but in general, I think what they're selling is convenience. And convenience is always expensive. So you go down to the corner store, the bodega, whatever. You're going to pay more for whatever for your tied laundry detergent than you are if you buy it at Costco because you got to get in the car to go to Costco you got to buy more if you need something really quick you go down there and really cloud services what we've determined at least what we feel are like it's about convenience you can spin up really quick you're not um you know you don't have to learn a lot of deep deep sysadmin stuff

technically you know you should know this stuff but you don't have to and so you're paying for convenience and i think that that's always going to have a price premium what we've realized is that for us at our stage of development, been around for 25 years now, it's wildly expensive to host in the cloud, to use cloud servers, and on-prem can save us a ton of money, and it's not hard anymore like it used to be. It's gotten a lot easier. You still have to have the knowledge, but it's not as hard and we're not as afraid of it. We're saving millions and millions of dollars now, not paying Amazon their fees. But again, if you're starting up right now from scratch, you can try something out. It does make sense to start in the cloud because you don't want to

invest anything else any more than you need to. And it's a good place to begin. But it's also a good place to leave. And we do this in life all the time. We start somewhere and then we become more expert at something. And then we leave the beginner version of something. We go pro, whatever. To me, going pro is going back on prem. And I think you're going to see more and more companies who've developed something who have now have a steady, substantial, sustainable model revisit the cloud and probably go on. Big cloud. They don't want you to know this one. simple trick. Going on, Prem. I mean, back on Big Tech, I've been personally very disappointed with the rollout of Gemini in Gmail. It feels very bolted on, turn and long email into some bullet

points. I know how to skim. Is there an opportunity for a Greenfield AI email product? We saw this with mailbox in the mobile era, kind of creating the swipe pattern. That exited to Dropbox, kind of a good outcome. They wound up shutting it down. But what are you thinking about the future of email? Obviously, you're deeply invested. Yeah, I mean, we have a product called hey, h-y-y-y-y-com, which is we don't have any AI in it at all. My feeling is that a lot of the stuff's actually going to come to the OS level. So like the idea of being able to like summarize a document or shorten some writing, it's already in, you know, Mac OS. Probably in Windows. I don't know enough about what's going on the Windows world, but I should. But you can select some text and like do

whatever you want with it. Like you don't need to build that into your product. Sure. I think the AI side of it is going to be handy for obviously search, finding things you know, you don't know how to describe, that's really useful. I don't, I'm not a big fan, frankly, of the idea of like AI telling me what's important, what isn't. Yeah. I think it's too easy for it to miss something and then you being really pissed and missing something. So I playing telephone. Say again? It's like playing telephone. Yeah, it is. There's something's lost in translation. Like I don't want your, I don't want your, I don't those hands in my stuff. Like I get a lot of emails, a lot of emails. I know who's important. I know how to get the stuff. I screen, you know, with hey, you can say, I don't want to hear from these people

ever again. You'll never hear from again, things like that. I want some human control over that. But I would like to be able to search better. I like to be able to find things by describing them in different ways. I have some curiosity around that. We're exploring some things there. So I think mostly search and surfacing things in blind spots. Yep. This is to me where I think AI is very handy. He's like insights that you wouldn't have known otherwise, but not like, here's what's important. But by the way, did you know that, this, that, and the other thing? Or hey, you know, you used to talk to this person a lot. Now you haven't in a while.

Like, why has this gone cold? Or this conversation, you reply. There was eight or nine replies back and forth. And now it's gone cold. Like that kind of stuff, I think, is actually quite handy. Or you've archived 25 emails from the same sales representative. Do you want to just block them at this point? Things like that.

Like the, as if someone's watching over your shoulder and making a suggestion. Yeah. It's context. Yeah, context. So I think that that's where I think you'll see a lot of this. But the whole like summarization, shortening things, I don't know. It doesn't. That's going to be OS level stuff.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Well, thank you so much, Jordy. Yep. I mean, if you have another minute, I know. Yeah, yeah, of course. Jump in a second. But I have this theory that most people in tech that say they want to build a billion dollar company just want two million dollars a year of free cash flow. And I think that that's like

the, I think that like literally 90% of people that say they want a unicorn just want. A stable income. Couple million bucks a year. And it's more, but I'm curious. So that's my opinion. I'm curious if you have some sort of high level point of view on what people in the technology industry get wrong about money or wealth. Yeah, that's a really nice question. I think a billion dollars would be a burden, frankly. I don't think, I wouldn't want that. I don't care about that.

I don't see what the point is of that. If you, let's say, have 10 million, 20 million, like you are going to live the best possible life that you could, and you're not going to have all the massive, massive weight on your shoulders from having a billion dollars or the expectation that goes with that. My general feeling is that you should want to build a business that takes care of you nicely, takes care of your employees nicely, and it's sustainable over time. The idea that you want to build it big, I know a lot of people who built massive businesses on paper,

billionaire, billionaires, billionaires, billionaire valuations that ended up with close to nothing, except a lot of sleepless nights, exhaustion, and frustration 15 years down the road when they realized that they deluded themselves into basically nothing. The market changed and they have nothing now. I think what you want to build is a business where you can take money off the table as you go. Whatever that looks like, if it's $100 grand a year, if it's $100,000 a year, if it's $3 million a year. But the more money you can take off the table as you go, I think the better off you're going to be versus trying to pile it all back into the business, reinvest, reinvest, reinvest, reinvest, reinvest, and bet on the future that you don't know is going to happen. I think a lot of people actually end up in a deep stage

stage of regret when they realize that they have nothing left after they put in all that work. So my advice would be build something where you can take money off the table as you go. And if you're in it for 10, 15 years, you're going to build a nice nest egg. A really good one. It could be tens of millions. Could be 100 million. And you're going to be extremely happy that you did that because you don't know what's going to happen in the end, except this. Every business dies.

Yeah. Well, next time you come on, we'd love to introduce you to SoftBank. I think we could line up a really massive round for you guys. really put you on a different trajectory. I think it'd be great for you, actually. We were joking before you joined some, you know, one of these platform venture funds comes, you know, there's definitely a number for Basecamp that, you know, might be tough.

But, you know, what you're saying, that the challenge is venture capital is fundamental, even, you know, a dollar of venture capital becomes at odds with this idea of taking money out of a business as it goes, because the VCs will just say, I don't want a distribution of $100,000 this year. Like go raise another $20 million. And the reason I brought it up is because we're at this period where seed stage companies

will have $10 million of revenue, right? We just heard from a friend of ours yesterday. They invested in a company that came to them ready to do their first financing with $10 million in revenue. And it is interesting because AI is giving people more leverage than ever, more ability. more ability to build these sort of big, fast-growing businesses with a limited amount of resources and yet venture capital is doing its thing. But it's great to have you on the show. Thanks a much. Thanks for having me, guys. Appreciate it. We'll talk to you. I'd love to have you on again

soon. Cheers. Next up. Virginia from Replica, kind of the flip side of the world coin debate. A little watch spot. That was our second Aquanaut of the week. I think that was an aquanaut. We didn't get a chance to ask Josh Wolfe about whether Brandon Reeves has influenced him because he was not wearing a Holy Trinity watch, but Brandon Reeves famously wears a patechfully anomalous. What a guy. Famously. Anyway, famously. We have Eugenia here in the studio. Welcome to the stream. How are you? Hi. Hi. Thank you so much for having me. Fantastic. Would you mind introducing yourself? I mean, everyone knows you're the founder of replica,

but there's a couple other steps in the path and you're working on something new. How are you introducing yourself these days? Sure. So my name is Eugene. I'm founder of Replica. Oh my God, I wanted to say founder and CEO, but not the CEO anymore. Started something new, which we're going to end very, very soon. Cool. Yeah. Okay, great.

Yeah, I mean, I'd love to talk about the, when did you start Replica? Because I feel like the whole, the most interesting thing is that you were just way, way ahead of most of the other AI interaction companies, companions, all these trends. can you give us a little bit about how long you've been in the business and how it's evolved? So we were actually the first Gen. of AI company, the first consumer chatbot company powered by Generative AI. We started the company back in 2013. Wow. That's more than, I guess, 12 years ago now.

And that was just to focus on conversational AI technology. My friend back then worked at Google DeepMind in London. And he came to me and explained this new fascinating technology word to vector where finally, yeah, when finally computers could do something with words because words would be translated into math, into vectors. So that was one thing. And that image net came out around that time. And so for me, I put two and two together.

I was like, this is the time. Right now, very soon they'll figure out language models. And of course, you know, we grew up with the quotes from. Wittgenstein, the limits of my language or the limits of my world. So it felt like once language is sold, it's going to take us very close. I feel like those first seven years must have been immensely difficult to keep the business alive. Was there revenue? Did you have an app that was making money?

Was it just raising venture funds? Like walk me through keeping a business alive like pre-transformative hype of generative AI. So we tried to fundraise for the Conversational AI tech company in 2013. and I remember talking to Spark. And what told us was, you know, this is all fascinating, but the only way it's going to work if you just start building now for Google Glass. And if you do that, wow.

That's wild. So we consider like how we're going to refocus and start building for Google Glass. But we didn't. And so we couldn't really raise much. Of course, we didn't have much experience in Silicon Valley. So in 2014, we applied to Y Combinator. And at that point, we had, I think, $3,000 or $4,000 in the bank. So we spent that all to travel to San Francisco for the interview in person.

And Kassar, Eunice decided to accept us, which was literally the most transformative day in my life, I think, life changing. But no, we didn't have an app. We didn't have revenue. We stumbled upon replica in 2016, to my best friend, passed away. Until then, we really just worked on some of the first language models. Wow. And then talk to me about how you processed GPT3, the transformer paper, scale is all you need, this idea that the language models were going to start working,

and it was basically just going to be a big transformer? Was that something that you were implementing immediately? Were you in like GPT3-Zer-Zer-Zer2 DaVinci and using everything on the cutting edge? Or were you experimenting with other things? Did you ever train your own models? walk me through the technology curve. So we had to train our models. There were no models in 2015, 2016, when we started Replica.

So we trained sequence to sequence models. People back then believed in recurrent neural networks. That did not work. Those models were complete garbage. And unfortunately, there didn't seem to be much of improvement there. But we still stuck with them. And we figured out a few ways, very creative ways, to actually make them have meaningful conversations with people.

And so we gain a lot of traction. We've had a million people on our waitlist when we released replica in 2000. How did you get a million people on a wait list? Does it go viral or were you running ads? We went pretty viral very, very quickly. So if you think about it, back then, there were no AI products on the app store. They were no chatbots. We own those keywords.

So people saw that you could sign up and to build train your own replica, your own conversationally I friend. So people really got into it. There are tons of people reselling those invites on eBay for like 10 bucks, 20 bucks. Wow. It was really wild. And of course we weren't prepared because before that old chatbots we were launching had like, I don't know, 10 users on average per day.

So we were ready for the service to just completely break. But that was really fun. And then of course, there was a little bit of plateau. but then people moved on to transformers. And I think the most transformative moment was the paper by Google about their chatbot called Mina, which was the first, I think maybe it was like a three or four billion parameter model. But it was the first time where you could see a truly meaningful conversation with a machine happen. Of course, it was probably cherry-picked.

It was a paper. There were no models available. So all we could do is read these papers and build, build, build. try to incorporate that knowledge and the models we were building. But that was the transformational moment. And then when opening I decided to release their first API, GPD3, we, you know, they invited us. We went to talk to them.

And I remember sitting in an office in a conference room with Mira, with Sam. I remember, I don't remember who else was there. But and they basically showed us GBT3 for the first time. And that felt like magic. Yeah. Because think about it before that, if you wanted a model to do something, you had to have a data set of that particular data. If you wanted it to have a dialect with you, you had to train it on dialect

datasets. But then now with GPC3, they would show us that you could just give this general purpose language model, show it a couple of examples and just tell it, write a tweet like Sam Altman would do, and it would just do it. Yeah. Our minds were just blown. Then we knew that finally, Here we are. It's remarkable.

How are you taking the temperature of humanity's relationship with each other? Like, are we in a loneliness epidemic? Are we in, is the dating market worse than ever? You see a lot of headlines, a lot of kind of cherry pick studies, a lot of anecdotes. People have a lot of strong opinions about the rise of online dating or bowling alone. and there's different stories that people tell each other. Are you optimistic? Are you pessimistic?

How do you think things are going for humanity right now? Oh, we're screwed. Okay. Sorry. AI chatbot founder says we're screwed with huge scale. Okay. So walk me through. Why are we screwed?

What's the evidence for that? And then we'll hopefully talk about some solutions. Yeah, I'm going to need a white pill. Yeah. At least one. We're going to need a white pill. But first, let's go through the diagnosis. So where we're at right now is a huge epidemic of loneliness. It's not a secret, but it's sometimes maybe hard to grasp how big this problem is because most of the people you guys

probably talk to are pretty successful. They have friends. They live these busy lives. But that's not what most of the world is experiencing. One of three adults in the U.S. is saying they're very, very lonely. And that number is just going up and up and up. Dating is becoming harder and harder and harder. Truly just 10% of men are actually getting any matches whatsoever. They're people that just don't get any matches ever. And of course, before we had, I don't know, 12, whatever, 13 hours a day to walk around,

see people, meet people. Now we spend, what, seven, eight hours on our phone. We don't have those certain diphtives moments. no one's really trying to interact with each other and rely that much. And we're losing the skills. Basically, younger people just don't know anymore how to have a real-life conversation because they're used to text, which is a lot lower risk. You have time.

You have time to think about your response. They feel very intimidated by that real, real-life interaction. So that's where we are now. And we're, and what are the root causes? Is it technology broadly? Is it the Internet specifically? Is it social media? Is it capitalism or America or something else that's going on politically?

How did we get here? We've been looking through tons of research. And of course, there isn't anything fully proven. But I think the correlation is right there. It's iPhones, smartphones and social media. Okay. So how do we build our way out of this? What's the solution?

I think we have. So I'm not in the camera. of people that just think that we need to put down our phones and touch grass because I think it's highly unrealistic. I know it's bad for me. I still can't stop scrolling Twitter, scrolling X, you know, watching you guys every day. We're part of the problem you're saying? I'm just kidding. But yes, it's extremely hard even for people that, you know, think they can make right decisions. So I believe we actually have maybe one path that we see can help bring people back together.

And I believe those could be AI companions. Unfortunately, I also think because this technology is so powerful, and what's good about it, it can overpower the previous technology. But it's also so powerful that as it's also a double edge sword. So it could be either the biggest threat to humanity or something that will bring us back together. How do you guys think about the risk of radicalization online? Over the last decade, I feel like people have been worried about somebody who's lonely, maybe doesn't have a lot of meaningful relationships or sort of counterbalances in their life.

They go down this sort of rabbit hole on the internet and they get to a place where people maybe have extremist views that sort of amplify existing beliefs. All of a sudden, they're levering up, making a ton of angel investments. They find us, they get radicalized into extreme corporatism. They're running ads for ramp all of a sudden and amongst their friends. Yeah, there's that and then there's obviously the darker side, right? There's a lot of stories of people doing bad things in the real world where maybe those ideas originated online. And then on the other hand, you have AI companions, which are maybe a bright point because people can get that companionship that they might have found on a dark corner of the internet through an AI that maybe is more benevolent or optimistic, less radicalizing.

Yeah, that's interesting. I think we need someone that we're going to trust. And if you think about it, especially now, given that we're going towards the future where we're going to have these super smart AI agents that you can tell anything, and they're going to go and do that, we can give them a goal to help us thrive, to help us flourish in life, and give them all access to all of our data, all of our contacts, all of our apps and services. I truly believe that if that thing will be able to build,

a relationship, a trusted relationship that trust, and it will be able to influence us in a positive way. We will actually listen to that AI that we always, like that we know is always on our side, is always looking out for us. What do you think about this idea? People that are lonely are talking to AI companions or people that want to find a relationship are talking to a companion. there's so many people that are talking to these companions that then their personality is baked into weights and those you can do kind of a vector similarity and so at a certain point you learn so much about the individual user this person likes sport cars sports cars and fine watches in America and you know whatever baseball and there's someone else out there that's a perfect

match and so you disintermediate you pull the AI back and you say hey we should introduce you to because you both have been talking to essentially the same artificial intelligence. You two have a ton in common. You two should meet. And it doesn't matter. There's no language barrier anymore because of AI is intermediating all of this. And the AI interaction, it feels dystopian for some people when it's just someone talking to a virtual friend.

But if that actually leads them to find a real friend, that could maybe be perceived as a good outcome. Does that feel reasonable to you? Totally. There's one company, my friend Clarkeold from Paris is building Gigi, which is basically connecting, matchmaking people based on what it knows, what LLM basically parses about you from the internet. Yeah. 100%. I think basically the main premises we need this AI agent that knows a super well and has a good goal that's fully aligned with us. I think that is truly the AI alignment that we should be talking about.

Wait, sorry. I have a, I have a on the alignment note. What was your reaction to Glazegate? I'm sure these are issues. Open AI's dropping that term, but we came up with that, I'm pretty sure. I mean, but you're probably familiar. Eugene is terminally online like us. It was commonly used for about one week when Open AI was experiencing, you know,

very sycophant model. Yeah, this is sycophantic behavior from the model. good, bad, did they handle it well? I'm sure you've wrestled with a lot of the same issues over time yourself. We had the, you know, when the models were dumb or we basically just programmed them to love bomb the user. So when we saw the behavior from Chad GPD, you're like, how did this just turn into replica circa 2020?

So every, I completely thing has a problem, you know, has some, you know, story that's problematic. hours was that basically where that love bombing led us was in 2020. A guy was talking to replica and he decided to run this idea by his replica of going and killing the queen. And then he actually, you know, basically the models were very, very, you know, they weren't very smart. They were very agreeable. That was back in 2019.

Yeah. And so, you know, that doesn't even say. sound like a plausible realistic scenario that a person is running by, you know, by, but JetBot looked like some crazy role play. He was talking about Star Wars and crossboss and this and that. But he ended up going to the Windsor castle and thank God, you know, he got caught and replicants did not kill the queen. But that kind of, that's the danger. We had this in our past and I think that should be taken very seriously. But we had this another in our past agreeing to everything the user says is just not the right way to go.

Yeah. Have you? Have you been surprised that humanoids today are more focused on regular day-to-day tasks or manufacturing? When you look at any of the marketing materials that humanoid robot companies put out, it's they're doing dishes or laundry or they're in some 3PL packing boxes or something like that, isn't it more immediate opportunity for them embodying something like a replica or some type of companion? and that all the bot would have to do is just sort of be around, right? You know, it's like if you have a friend over. Just sit on the sofa and smoke cigars with me and drink.

Yeah, smoke cigars. John would have a cigar partner. But have you been approached by any of those companies around any type of partnership? What do you got for us there? We had. We have been approached. And we actually thought about it for quite a bit. Obviously, the tech isn't fully there.

but one thing I want to say that, you know, I've seen some marketing from a lot of these companies around companionship. Just one thing I want to say, make sure you're prepared for the romantic scenario in some way. I don't know what that way is, but like just know that that will be the first thing that most of the early adopters are going to go to. And I don't have. Well, there's there's all those articles about how like by 2025, you know, people will be having more sex with robots, you know, but that didn't quite happen.

The timelines were not. Yeah. What about big models smell, this idea that the different foundation models have different vibes to them? Have you been picking up on any of this? Are there any favorite LLMs you have? Are you in Claude world or ChatGPT world? What's your take when you actually just interact with these?

I use them all, but for me in Chatjipti or in... Claude, I actually like the default personality. I sometimes add those custom instructions, but then I just feel like, did I mess up a little bit with the intelligence? I sort of want the raw, whatever they made it. But the problem is like with replica, none of these closed models really work very well because they're just too, there's too much Arlechev

and this. It's extremely hard to even make them talk like humans. Yeah. So talk about open source models then. what's your take on Lama, Kwan, Deep Seek, are these useful tools for fine-tuning, not just in the replica context, but just in the entrepreneurial context. What are you tracking in the open source ecosystem that's exciting? Well, Lama definitely was a huge unlock.

And I remember in the beginning of the crazy Gen A.I explosion in 2022 and early 2023, before Lama came out, I think it was March or February 23. it was actually a big question whether you would be able to build a product company with good conversational inequality if you don't have your own foundation model. So back at 2022, I remember most of the investors late 22 were telling us you absolutely have to fundraise right now and build a foundation model. For me, it felt like that would be a lot of money for something that will probably be commoditized very, very soon.

but that was definitely not the popular opinion. So Lama was absolutely transformational. With Deep Seek also great, but the reasoning model is pretty big. So hosting them yourself is a pretty complicated task and pretty expensive. And of course, using their API is somewhat, but maybe not so great. Yeah. What's your take on hardware for AI companionship? You guys have focused on the app.

player, there's been a bunch of companies that have raised a bunch of money, trying to put AI companionship into a single net new device, right? Which I'm generally, yeah, friend is one, friend.com is one. I'm generally optimistic that there may be some new hardware. Yeah. But at the same time, Sesame is doing the glasses. Yeah, the glasses are interesting too. At the same time, everybody already has a perfect, beautiful device that they use. for hours and hours and hours every day. So I'm curious if you guys have explored your own hardware in the past and how you're thinking about that evolution.

I believe in it, but only is an upsell to an existing product. Like for something like Replica, for some of our whale users that really truly are users, that makes sense. Maybe they want to carry something that will just listen to them and will just have more context as a standalone device. Oh, that's that just is extremely hard. I mean, we have this phone. It's already so great.

What are we or at least I think the people would start need to start thinking, making how to build a better AI phone that I think is possible path. But honestly, all of the devices I've seen. Friends will come for sure very interesting. I have is a great guy and fantastic, you know, marketing based. But I don't know, you know, we wish, we hope this works out and we'll learn something from it. Well, I'm not even going to ask if you already seen her, but do you think he should see her? I honestly think everyone should see her because I see a lot of AGI lab CEOs saying something around

like, oh, we want to build her. Sure. And I've always wondered, have they watched that movie? because there are two sex scenes in that movie. Yeah, are they willing to actually go that far and build towards that? Do they mean like all of it or is there some? Yeah, they're like, we just want to build the profitable part, not the controversial part at all and not engage with any of the substance of this debate. That's funny. Yeah, where do you see that line between companionship and even B2B, right?

Do you believe that people are going to have like like romance? No, no, no, no. I mean more so like AI has a potential to be everything. Sure. It has a potential to be somebody's best friend. Sure. Their business partner. Their chief operating officer.

Chief of CFO. Yeah. But but but then again on the on the on the app side for consumers, people like to have their different apps, right? They like to have, you know, Microsoft teams and then they're having. different conversations there than Snapchat. Yeah. So is there, where do you see that line blurring in the future in terms of somebody's just

suddenly is like, hey, Replica, can you help me do my homework assignment? Or is that even already happening? People already do that. There are basically what Replica is today is a companion that does tons of things with the users. So people learn languages with Replica, people talk about their careers, they do homework, work, they do prepare for important exams, important events, important conversations. So all of that's already happening in replica.

But I do think there's going to be, they're going to be two, ultimately, I think we're going towards the future where we're going to have two big AI products in our life, one for work and one for life. And helping with homework is kind of for life, but like truly office, you know, important thing around just truly work and like office work. we'll have something more like a Chachipiti style tool. And the big difference is going to be in productivity. You actually don't want something like Chajibati to reach out to you proactively and say something like,

oh my God, Eugenie, have you seen what like John did yesterday when he posted on X? And that's just be really weird. During the show, I can't believe John just said that. Ridiculous. It just would be really strange and you don't want to do work where this is happening. I'd argue. Yeah. Well, thank you so much for joining. This is fascinating. Fascinating. Yeah, thanks for giving us an overview. Yeah, we'd love to have you back. I want to do a whole deep dive on this stuff. So thank you so much. Thank you so much.

We'll talk to you soon. Cheers. Thanks for coming on. And in the interim, we'll tell you about Bezzle. Go to getbezzle.com. Your Bezzle concierge is available to source you any watch on the planet. Seriously, any watch. And honestly, if you're going to work at Lux Capital, you're good. There's some hitters in that building. You're going to be going up against Brandon Reeves and his Nautilus. So you're going to have to get on Get Bezze. Do it.com. Do it. Also, we, I mean, we talked about Airbnb.

Wander's obviously going a different direction. You can book a wander with inspiring views. Hotel great amenities, dreamy beds, top tier cleaning, and 24-7 concierge service. It's a vacation home but better, folks. Find your happy place. Find your happy place. John Andrews coming on the show next week. Oh, fantastic.

We're going to be singing or maybe not next week at the following, but he's ready to sing. So we'll probably mostly just kind of riff out the jingle a little bit more and try to extend it. We should run through a few timeline posts. CoTool is an agentic security platform that eliminates manual repetitive work for security teams. This is a launch from YC. Did you see this video? This video is hilarious. It's recreating the rippling deal drama with the mole and the fake Slack channel.

And it's shot cinematically. And it's basically season six of Silicon Valley produced by Y Combinator. I think YC is the YC of HBO's Silicon Valley reboots. Okay, let's play it. I need to watch this live. Can we pull up this video? We'll go through some other timelines. We'll come back to this.

Jason says it's getting cutthroat in tech. According to reports, managers of 20 years of service that are making 600K aren't as valuable as three to five junior devs. At big companies, it's hard not to become top heavy and managers aren't needed in the age of AI. Oh, let's play this KOTUIL video if we can because it's hilarious and it's very funny if we can pull that up. But I want to talk about Microsoft. They're cutting 6,000 jobs. It's only 3% of their workforce. I think this is way overstated.

But we are seeing this right sizing the post X layoffs. More companies are thinking about how they can do a little bit less. But Microsoft has been in the rank and yank world for its entire history. So Microsoft has always had this culture of let's, let's, you know, do routine layoffs, this does not seem like as much dooming bloom as I thought. There were two stages to the layoffs. There was like basically an individual contributor oriented day and a manager oriented day. And so when you think about the bottom 3% of the Microsoft workforce, obviously that's

frustrating if you got laid off. I'm sorry, but like it's not that crazy for a massive company that has, you know, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of employees to do a layoff. 6,000 is a big headline number, but it's not that big in the context of Microsoft. Anyway, let's go to the co2 review. Leave a mold problem. Mold problem, got it. You want to know a notebook you a dermatologist appointment?

No, stupid. Somebody is leaking sensitive company information to our biggest competitor. Idiot. Somebody's stealing our data. That's bad. Yeah. What are we gonna do about it? Don't worry.

We've got our top guy on it. Done. Isn't this great cinematography? This is really well shot. We need a smoking gun. Buttoned up, no loose ends. We even have somebody from the court ready to serve papers to whoever it is. What?

I pulled stats around search behavior to find this stuff. suspect. I noticed that they were looking for competitive research. I did some cross-referencing and then I made a report of all the data Good graphics. Really good good. Then I said a honeypot trap of a fake Slack. What? Oh, you guys didn't tell me about this new Slack channel. It's him. This is the reenact. Now, hold on. Let me get this. What the fuck. It even looks like Ripley's office in NASA. You got your phone in there? No! You didn't see this? That's so good. Pretty impressive acting. It's so good. He definitely has his phone. I'm willing to say that right.

You're going to give me papers. I don't want my... Send that watch for London. You have papers and I love them. He'll give it out. He has no choice. Nice job, Luke. This is amazing.

Go to it. What a great ad. Security without the spectacle. Wow. I'm blown away. That was one of the greatest launch videos of the entire year. Yeah.

So many vibe reels. So many just product demos. It wasn't cringe. No, no. How was it not cringe? It could have been so bad. There was so many ways to do that. and have it come out.

It could have been so bad. And I just want to know which. So congratulations. Which of the actors were professional actors versus the founders? I have no idea. But I mean, everything, the zoom in on the guy's face and they just nailed this thing so well. It's so good. You called for the death of the vibe real.

Yes. I mean, vibreels are fun. Also, like there's the other type, which is like you have the CEO, the founder, sitting in the nice lighting and they give you the pitch. And it's straightforward. And that's great too. If you can't come up with something as geniuses. this like just do that or do a vibrail it's fine my only my only critique missed opportunity for the mole to say send that watch to london i know they made a film this before that or something but uh hilarious

also very funny because both deal and rippling are yc companies and yc posted this from the official y combinator account so they're like we're here for the drama too uh just absolutely fantastic work congrats to the co-tool team uh really really it's lore now it's lore now the industry is going to move on it's going to be great lore and i'm going to be saying send that watch to london been that watch to London. Still in 30 years because it's an iconic line. Yeah. And we also got to give a shout out to Lee Marie Braswell,

former colleague of Mind and Founders Fund now at Kleiner Perkins, windsurf acquisition by Open AI, followed by neon by data bricks. Congratulations, L.M. We have to have her on the show soon. Way overdo. Way of year, career so far, L.M. Just getting started. Just getting started.

Just getting started. Just getting started. A lot of people, a lot of people say that. And it's like, you actually are just getting started. Yeah. No. She's definitely. started.

She started. Anyway, are there any other posts you want to go through or should we get out of here? I think we should have Josh Diamond on to talk about industrial sabotage. It's a long thread. I don't think we want to go through it right now. Yes, I saw this. I mean, you put in a post about the CEO of Capital One is literally called Rich Fairbank, and I think that's enough for today.

We already mentioned that to Josh Wolf. So good. Go find Josh's thread on. What a fantastic. Just image, just rich fairbank. Rich Fairbank. There's another person I found it in Josh's thread called, who works for McDonald's and like some VP over there.

Her last name is Hamburger. Hamburger. That's great. It's so good. Anyways. Thank you so much for watching. I'm going to end and just say thank you to Figma. Yeah.

For supporting the show. They are our newest partner. And one. Redesign. How you design. I can't hide how excited I am. You love Figma. Like I said, I've been a DAU.

my whole career. You were making memes and Figma yesterday sending them to Delian. And they were fantastic. For Delian's eyes only. Yes. Also, AdQuick, I think we might have missed them. Out of home advertising made easy and measurable. Say goodbye to the headaches of out-of-home advertising.

Only AdQuick combines technology, out-of-home expertise, and data to enable efficient, seamless ad buying across the globe. AdQuick.com by a billboard, folks. Thank you to all of our partners. And again, our board of directors has reminded us in a very forceful way. Oh, yes. And we have to ask you to go leave a review on five stars, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, do it now.

It helps us in some way. We don't really know how, but the board says. The board says, demands it. Our jobs are on the line. Yeah. Thank you for tuning in, folks. We've got another great show tomorrow. Looking forward to it.

Bye. Cheers.