The a16z Show - Technology, Culture, and the Next AI Interface with signüll

Episode Date: April 16, 2026

Erik Torenberg and Anish Acharya, general partners at a16z, speak with signüll about how technology reshapes culture, relationships, and the products we build. The conversation covers tacit knowledge versus intellectual knowledge, dating apps and their effect on human connection, AI relationships, why Claude feels artisan while other models feel utilitarian, and what consumer founders should actually care about.   Resources: Follow signüll on X: https://twitter.com/signulll Follow Anish Acharya on X: https://twitter.com/illscience Follow Erik Torenberg on X: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg Stay Updated:Find a16z on YouTube: YouTubeFind a16z on XFind a16z on LinkedInListen to the a16z Show on SpotifyListen to the a16z Show on Apple PodcastsFollow our host: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

It's funny how the internet now, everybody can comment on everything. Every technology cycle to me is increasingly harder because you're probably going into a different part of how the human mind operates. Right now we're developing personality. That's insane. There's technology. There's culture, which is collective. And then there's our individual progress as a human species. Culture is changing.

Technology is improving. Where are we as people? I can't believe the scale of which we're at now. Like, it's absolutely unbelievable. I was at Open AI, we were discussing a bunch of things around how do you think about personality, development of models, and these are really technically hard problems. I think the number one challenge, even Open AI mentioned,

is that how do we make the power of the models more easily accessible and useful in terms of what they can do? And I think this is happening with agents, but it still seems very primitive and very inaccessible to a lot of individuals. I think that the number one way you change the NPS of AI is you make important things cheap quickly. Shakespeare argued brevity is the soul of wit. Prediction markets bet that crowds know the future better than experts,

and dating apps turn the most universal human desire into a design problem that technology may have made worse, not better. These three ideas seem unrelated, but they share a root, the gap between what people know formally and what they understand intuitively. Economists called us tacit knowledge. It's a knack for reading a room, fixing an engine or sensing when a product is right before the data confirms it. Most of Silicon Valley still rewards the formal kind.

But something is shifting, and one of the sharpest observers of that shift has been writing about it online under a Shakespeare avatar. I speak with Signal, online commentator alongside A16Z general partner, Anisha Charya. Here live with Signal, the great culture commentator of our time. opinions on everything from, you know, what's happening in AI, both as a consumer, but also the industry to what's happening in all the big tech companies, to what's happened in dating markets more broadly, to how the product should be developed. There's no commentator like you. How do you sort of make sense of yourself on the internet in terms of how you thread these topics together, what sort of threads at all? I mean, I could have an opinion on Iran and dating at the same

time. Maybe even Iranian dating. You're like, by the way. How does it work there? Are they using Tinder? I don't know. I mean,

there's probably several jokes about there about love bombing and stuff. I apologize. Don't apologize. Okay, I have this weird tendency to where I like to add humor into things that are maybe not inappropriate. Anyway, I think, look,

it's funny how the internet now everybody can comment on everything. Yeah. There's a lot of people that have a great perspective in a singular dimension. Got Ben Thompson writing about technology and markets. And if you want to have an analysis of an earnings report of Microsoft, I mean, who better in the world than Ben Thompson? I mean, you can, you can, pecky rates about deep tech and crazy, I think 40-page papers about industries and things. And really fun to read, really great things. What I noticed is,

like, I've been in technology for such a long time since I was a kid. And I'm particularly fascinated with culture in general as well. And I think that intersection of tech and culture is so fascinating to me. And I like to relate everything back to computer science and how I've learned about the world through computer science and computers in general. And I think all my tweets and things are really,

in essence, relating the idea of life to technology and culture to technology and maybe an interesting or this how my mind works. I think my writing is all a reflection of the prompt that happen in my brain that get translated somehow into words that are in the right order that other people can interpret and therefore have a reaction to and maybe generate a little bit of hate online or a little bit of love.

And I think that's actually quite beautiful. Most poetic thing I've ever heard about. I do have a Shakespeare profile photo. Exactly. And, you know, I think that's been great. I grew up playing a game called SimCity, and in SimCity you can increase the simulation speeds. It's a button that allows you to increase the simulation of the city

and the cars move faster and the people move faster and the disasters happen faster and everything is just increased. And I feel like in the recent, maybe obviously in the last 20 years with respect to iPhone and whatnot, but man, in the last two, three, four years, holy shit. Who the hell hit the 100x speed? Like it feels ridiculous. Like if I talk to somebody that something happened last month,

it feels like it happened like 10 years ago. Nicholas Maduro got pulled from Venezuela and brought to America in the most amazing outfit and people forgot about this. Like it's just incredibly fascinating the way that the world is moving so fast and technology is accelerating that. I mean, it's the fuel that is empowering that engine

and I don't know what we did, but it's moving really, really fast. And then do you think if I was to almost separate the three ideas, you know, there's technology, there's culture, which is collective, And then there's a sort of however you measure our individual progress as a human species. Culture is changing. Technology is improving.

Where are we as people? Are we more spiritually mature, less spiritually mature than we were 50 years ago, 500 years, or 5,000 years ago? Or are we just basically, you know, Neanderthals with iPhones? I think generally technology should help us understand ourselves in a better way such that we are able to have intellectual, spiritual, potential growth as a species. as a collective and the individual, I suspect. And I think I firmly believe that I'm like pro technology helping achieve it. I love using AI to be able to understand myself. Like if I say something, it's like, wait, does this make sense?

Is this more interesting? Like, how do I personally think about it? What am I missing? And those are really things that help me grow intellectually, spiritually, personally, relationships, all of those things. So inherently, I mean, if I understand your question correct, it's more like these things are really helping us experience ourselves much better. And I think that probably is the greatest achievement you can possibly have.

I mean, we're tool builders. And every tool that we've ever built has helped us progress as a human species or individually, whether it's art or the wheel or whatever. And I can't believe the scale of which we're at now, right? Like, it's absolutely unbelievable. And I think what's shocking to me is that the collection, has not caught on yet. Do you think the norms around AI relationships

with boyfriend, girlfriend, or just best friendships are going to be something in the next five to ten years extreme to a degree that seems unimaginable right now for the average person? What do you think? When you have ease of access and reward structures around it and a human desire paired with it that's deep, I think you get some interesting outcomes.

and the desire and the pursuit of connection is an incredible and important element of any human's existence. And the idea that AI can help you facilitate that with depth and scale and ever-ending, AI doesn't get tired. What else is surprising you most about how people are interacting with AI, particularly the different models, or what are you observing as you're looking at the landscape and trying to make sense? of where things are going. Well, first of all, I don't think most people are utilizing them anything beyond the basics. Like, it's fascinating to me that every single time we're focused on really advanced

capability demonstration. Holy crap, this is a PhD researcher or whatever. Yet, I don't think most people are utilizing in such a fashion, obviously. And I think most people are utilizing them very, very, very basic tasks. And so I think I'm in like the stone ages of how people view and perceive and use these things, even though there's a billion people utilizing them, but they're not utilizing them to the full of capabilities. Like, I think the number one challenge for,

even I think opening I mentioned is, is that how do we make this stuff, the power of the models, more easily accessible and useful in terms of what they can do? And I think this is happening with agents. It's happening today, but it still seems very primitive and very inaccessible to a lot of individuals.

I think this, I personally like to think about this, because the way that I like to think about the world, one of my favorite Shakespeare quotes, and this is why the Shakespeare picture exists, is brevity is the soul of wit. And Shakespeare was able to capture an essence of the world in very simple, like, not simple terminology. Maybe I don't know back in it, it was simple,

but in a few words or a few sentences. And I think we need to make this stuff much more easily accessible and useful for individuals. I don't know how that will be, what that will look like, but it's certainly something that I love to think about personally. And I don't know where we'll end up, but I view it more as an art than a science

at the moment. Yeah. But it's cool. It's a fun time to exist as a technologist. A lot of people are wondering what to even work on in the age of sort of the big labs, like what to start, how to think about what could be a real company versus something that they'll end up doing or what's just worth doing. How have you thought about it or how do you advise people think about that?

A lot of AI today is very much the big labs kind of are dominating consumer territory when it's open AI and anthropic. and then tons and tons of people trying to find a business use case for it in various verticals. It's interesting. I personally focus on what I'm passionate about. Like I was at a demo day or whatever.

There's a lot of individuals who I thought clearly they were, they found the idea through AI to work up, what to work on. It's fascinating. I was like, are you really interested in real estate? Like, I don't know. Or do you want to spend your time working on this?

And is this an interesting problem? I'm like, I don't think about it from a technology perspective, like screw AI. I don't care about what area are you interested in? What thing drives you? If I were an investor, I think that's probably the only thing that matters is, are you going to keep going into this problem space if you're not that interested in it? Look, we're having a lot of fun doing this.

And I think if you're not having a lot of fun doing stuff, you probably shouldn't work on it. It's something that, like, it's a privilege thing, obviously. And often a lot of people don't find work fun. They have to do it because it's economically necessary. but if you're going to build a company, try to have fun with it. There's a great quote in the Bhagwad Gita, which I read recently again, and I was like, you know, you're not entitled to the fruits of your labor.

And I never think about the outcomes. I just try to figure out what I enjoy, what kind of, how much fun I like to have and the problems that I like thinking about. I like, all this account that I have is just pure fun. I get, I really enjoy talking and, and thinking about this, and my brain prompts me to think about it.

We were talking about, you know, the real prompt is in your brain? Like, that is where it originate. And then you're translating that into some text that you're sending into AI, where we call that a prompt. And sure, yeah, but, like, without the spark in your existence,

in your inner self, nothing would happen. Just some Rick Rubin shit, man. It's true. Like it's fucking, it's so fucking true. Like how? We should get you together with Rick. This is why, you know, I think,

Rick Rubin, people meet fun of him. No, he's amazing. He's incredible. He's incredible because he was ahead of the curve. Oh, totally. And I think music is such a, I know, Anish, you're a giant, you know, your DJ music, but like,

it's such a, you have to feel it. Yeah. You have to feel it. And there's such an important element to it. I think when you're doing anything new, building a company, you have to feel it. Okay, so I have a question for you. So there's two different archetypes of great consumer founders. Okay, I'd say there's the, maybe the modern archetype is somebody like, you know, Boris is working on Cloud Code or, of course, Dario, or, you know, Sam and some of his co-founders who are so extraordinarily technical, they're, like, willing these things into existence that were unimaginable five years ago.

Okay, and that's great. And Chat, CheapT is the fastest product, too. to what I think is a billion users, et cetera, et cetera. There's a other archetype from the Web 2.0 days, right? These are like the gentle sort of consumer, I don't know, philosophers whose canvas was technology, right? Think Ev, think Kevin Rose, all these people were just cut from a different cloth and they were perhaps more students of culture than technology.

Okay, and you got two very different forms of types of companies. And I don't quite know where I'd put Zuck, but let's set them aside for a moment. Do you think that there's a preferred model? Is the gentle builder more of a New York informed model, and the technical builder is more of an SF-informed model? Is it just something that matches with the product cycle? And then maybe talk a bit about what you think your strengths are and how it meets the moment.

I think of most people as one type of artist or another. And they have like brushstrokes that you use. I was like Monet, and it was like, I loved, what I love is, I love going in and looking at the actual brushstrokes of the painting, then you get these like pixel level understanding of like, wow, he used this color for this brush stroke, whatever. And then you zoom out and you're like, oh, my God, I see this wonderful little painting. And I'm deeply inspired by it. So it's just like I think people are utilizing different styles and different forms of like a different type of,

but it's in the end when you're doing anything new. It is just a Like the painting And you know Some people like hard edge paintings And you know Those Renaissance style And some people like modern art

And some people like this You know water lilies of clay And I think just a different form And at least all the initial versions of it Going back to the Web 2 era With Kevin Rose And It was a very different time

Because Building network products like that Whether it's dig or Twitter fundamentally different than developing personalities of a model. Like, holy crap, I was at Open AI. We were discussing a bunch of things around how do you think about personality development of models and the fact that you can't really easily change them

or how do you reduce the sycifancy of the models. And these are really technically hard problems. I think every technology cycle to me is increasingly harder because you're probably going into a different part of how the human mind or the human like operates. Right now we're like developing personality. That's, that's insane. Like if you asked 10 years ago,

we were going to build personalities for computers, you would have kind of been like, wait, what? Yeah. What does that really mean? Yeah. And these guys were with Kevin and Jack and whatnot, they were architecting, um,

I think delivery vehicles in some sense, right? Like they were developing architecture for humans to, add payload and then send it to another human. Whether it's broadcast or one-to-one, you know, with Dick was the news and people posted in the comments and Twitter was like another version of that. Now I think we're kind of designing this upper echelon of how a human personality works and how intelligence works.

And I think that's a grant, like it's such a, it's no longer feels like a delivery vehicle. it feels like the actual thing in the payload and the underlying. I don't know if that makes sense. This is how my mind works. I don't know if you guys think about it that way. But in some sense, we've moved up-leveled a lot, and the complexity is increased drastically.

Training a model and then, you know, reinforcement learning, human feedback, what's interesting. There's like multiple different types of ways that things engage. I think these are just... And talk a little bit more about where you've observed in terms of the personality differences, between models or what you think particularly makes, you know, called so interesting?

You know, I think one of the things that they focused on it, going back to the Rick Rubin point, right, it's like it feels artisan. It feels like it's got a soul. Whereas I think in some sense, the other models feel a little bit more robotic, a little bit more utilitarian, if you will. And, you know, if you think about what AGI is,

and I think art, there's a great, Simpsons episode, right, where one of the, Bart sells his soul for $5 to Millhouse was one of the most profound, interesting episodes of the Simpsons. And, okay, well, he wrote Bart's soul

on a piece of paper and then handed it to him. And then he felt it. Like, he felt like he didn't have a soul. And I found that really interesting because, you know, it sort of explores the idea of, like, I think going back to our point. Like, what is a human and what, what are we? What are we doing here? How does technology help us in terms of understanding ourselves and the way that we exist? I felt like there's like less sycophancy.

There's this pushback. It's like talking to a real human being. It's personified. Like, it's called Claude. Claude is known as a person. So it is, it feels very crafted artisan slash, dare I say, premium to a certain extent. And I think it's been really fun. And, One of my, my sister is a doctor, and she randomly just, she was using Chad GBT for a few years, and she canceled. And she was like, I'm using Claude now. And I got a weird. I was like, what? How did you find out about this?

What? What? It's nuts. And I think it just goes to show you the proliferation and the marketing and the storytelling of Claude has been aesthetically, really next level. It's been really fun to watch. I like good products. I like talking about good products. And I like praising the people who make good products.

That's what we're about here, right? Like it's like give credit where credit is you. They've made a beautiful little tool. And when paired with like a thing in your pocket that is also crafted an artisan with Apple and iPhone. And then you get this like really magical, intelligent experience on your device wherever you are. How do you think about what these product experiences might look like in a couple of years? Like how do you see the interface evolving? or what are you sort of predicting in terms of what's on the horizon?

I think the most interesting thing to me is they seem like in a very infant state, in some sense. I don't know. I mean, they're really powerful in one end of the dimension, right? But they're also like, it's unclear to me. Experiencing intelligence through just conversation back and forth is one way, but the ambient layers are really fun and interesting to think about. Like, we were building a fun little product that woke you up with AI, right? and it's like a very primitive thing.

Everybody wakes up in the morning, a couple of a bit otherwise, but how is it going to weave into your daily existence as if it's not a chatbot, but more as a sort of ethereal entity that exists. I mean, obviously movies have personified this and, you know, there's been her and whatnot, but it is going to be fascinating to see how it weaves into your daily life,

whether it's your home or work, and in a very ambient state. I know it's not about like listening to you all the time, potentially or it's not about, but I think there's a lot of these explorations that have yet to be done at the interface layers. How does AI talk to you first? Today that's a push notification, I think, roughly. Is that it? I don't know. How does Apple integrate AI into iOS and weave it into the operating system and how do we use applications or specific types of things? necessary anymore. Do we even need an interface if we're just talking to it? I don't know. I think

it was really interesting questions. I personally like the ambient AI layer. I think that's, you're seeing a little bit of this with like open claw and whatnot and sort of working, agents working in the background and kind of surfacing the right things at the right time. There's a great product a while ago that didn't work called Google Now. The whole purpose of Google Now was to kind of predict a search, right? It's like, what are you going to search for next, Eric? Possibly, like in some sense, right? and it was ahead of its time in some sense but when you marry it with context and intelligence

I think that is actually a huge vector for how to think about what the future of AI and how the stuff will weave into our lives and I don't think anybody's there's not going to be a single person who doesn't use this stuff it's just a matter of when yeah right that's going to be interesting I don't know I remember asking Bologi.

I was like, Bologi, how do you know so much about, you know, crypto and economics and bio and math and science and, you know, all these things? Like, give me all the books you read. He's like, books. I don't read books. I just get in fights with people on the Internet. And then just that's how I like internalize all the information. It's real time. I need to know.

I learn what I need to know to win the argument. And then he's like really remembers. Conceptually, those are really fun. ways to have these discussions. I mean, obviously, some of it's not kosher to possibly say or do out loud, but I think that's actually really cool. Learning from other people is what we do best. Like monkeys or like, you know, apes or watching other people, other, they use tools because they learn how to use. That's wonderful. Imagine if I'm using a tool wrong, like hammer or backwards or whatever. Somebody's like, no, you're an idiot. This is how you use it. Wonderful. Now I've benefited

maybe that other person got a dopamine hit because they proved me wrong. And I think in the end we all win. It's great. And I think that's how I treat my account in some ways. It's almost as if I'm not really trying to gain anything. It's just I don't have anything to lose. Like what do I lose by being wrong?

So I have a question for you. There's a study that came out a few weeks ago that generated a bunch of conversation, which is that in China, AI is highly popular. in the U.S. AI is very unpopular. In fact, it's even less popular than ICE right now.

Okay. The NPS of AI is not great in this country. How would you fix that? I'll always think about movements, right? When people create movements, and all the movements are rooted in simple storytelling.

In some ways, we're in like a fear-driven development, you know, like there's a lot of fear that's being generated as a result of this. And I think there's a problem, positive framing to all of this. Look, I think we're moving towards the world where hopefully there's highly abundant elements of everything. Like, right now we all feel like we're fighting for resources,

right? Whether it's capital, labor, whatever. Like, people think of the world as a finite amount of things, finite. Like, a lot of people have this, like, you know, in Silicon Valley, we have this classic thing where it's like, everything is growing the pie, you know? Yeah, positive Some. Positive some. Everything is positive some. Normal people don't really think about that. They don't really think about growing the pie.

At least, I don't know, I'd love to get your perspective on this, which is like, we're fortunately, we are, in some sense, primitive, and then we are competing for resources, competing for finite things and whatnot. But I think the framing has to be around, like, hopefully we are, if we do our jobs, while we're moving towards a world that's highly abundant in everything that humans might actually neat. I think that the number one way you change the NPS of AI is you make important things cheap quickly, like soon, okay? And we've all seen the famous chart that Mark has tweeted a thousand times, right, which is the diffusion of products, prices on a per product category basis, right? So this is

the famous one where it's 1970, everything is essentially, you know, reference to that date, and then certain things get more expensive, certain things get cheaper. The number one thing that gets cheaper is flat screen TVs. So flat screen TVs are asymptoting to essentially zero dollars. Yep. The things that are getting expensive are healthcare education and housing. Okay. There's actually a little bit of math, and I did this math a few months ago that you can do to show how you can make education and healthcare cheaper with AI very, very quickly. And by cheaper, I don't mean disinflation, which is a reduced rate of inflation. I mean actual deflation, like cheaper than it was last year. Okay. So here's the math, just consider it for a moment. Education is actually the easiest one. Education,

if you restore student administrator ratios to what they were 10 years ago, and you make professors modestly more productive, modestly, then you can actually just have education in school getting cheaper every year. Like the explosion of administrators, not professors, not teachers, but administrators is totally underd disgust and it's insane. So you can make education cheaper. Like, we could do it right away. We already have all the technology. We just have to make. a different set of choices. For healthcare, 45% of health care cost is administration. It's all this overhead. And if you've done the healthcare thing, we've all done it, right? The revenue cycle management, all the back office stuff, all the nurses phoning you to tell

you what drugs to take the night before you get a procedure. Like all of that stuff is overhead and all that adds to cost. If you can take a bunch of the cost out of that with models, and by the way, these are the number, by category, the number one consumer of open AI models, for example, our healthcare companies and healthcare startups, you can make healthcare cheaper year over year. So I think we should, our like moonshot as an industry should be to make these two things

way cheaper in the next five years, and that's how we're going to win the hearts in mind. Would you subsidize it? What do you mean? As in, like, effectively, like, should the model companies give it away for free to these industries? Maybe. Yeah, maybe.

I don't know how you subsidize it. Maybe it costs or whatever, something like that. But it's very interesting because actually, And Dixon said this a while ago, which really got me thinking. And he's like, how many of our problems in society are actually intelligence bound versus being collective action problems? And that's why the third category I mentioned health care, education, housing. Housing has nothing to do with intelligence or technology.

It's entirely collective action. Totally. We could just build skyscrapers in Marin tomorrow, and it would be abundant cheap housing for everybody. But we have to decide to do that together. I wonder if giving stuff away or making free. I wonder if people will realize it, you know? I think generally the world has gotten cheaper and cheaper and cheaper.

Like, you can go to Walmart and buy a hairdryor five bucks. That's ridiculous. Like, I remember I, not to do this again, but I tweeted about this. Of course I remember you. I'm an encyclopedia of signals. I was like, bro. I tweeted about. I remember.

No, it's like the billionaires drink the same Coke as you are. They're using the same goddamn iPhone. They're using Claude and ChatGBTGBT, just like you are. And like the underlying essence of equality or the access is pretty much like incredibly similar. Like, I mean, but they don't have the same health care you have. And we should fix that.

That's true. If you get sick as a billionaire versus a normal person, what's a Delta? Dude, you'd be surprised. I mean, look at New York State right now, right? Your beloved New York City. Assuming you have insurance, right? Like, that's probably the...

In New York State, they're about to make it, illegal at the state level to get, to give or receive health advice or financial advice via a model. Oh my God. Like how fucked up is that, right? So what does that mean? People who have lawyers and doctors are going to be unaffected and people who use the models for lawyers and doctors are once again set back enormously. Like, how can we be okay with that, you know? So a lot of these are own goals. It's crazy. If you look, the state of Massachusetts made it illegal to buy Apple stock because it was too speculative when Apple was going public.

It was like the early 80s, you know, the home of Elizabeth Warren. It's like, we must protect the consumers from these enormous financial gains. You know, like, the number of ridiculous things that are done in the name of protection, you know, and I think that is a fundamental

underestimation of the average consumer. Yeah. Right? I think people are pretty smart, pretty savvy. They talk, they'll figure things out, and if you don't prevent them from access the tools, like, they'll use those tools to make their lives better, you know? I have a weird idea.

Tell me. The fact that we don't allow normal people to have equity share or stakes in open AI and clawing. Like, imagine if normal people were like, I own a piece of these things. I mean, maybe that would feel much better and they would have this ownership mentality.

And right now all this concentration is happening in Silicon Valley and a few people. Yeah. Give people access to create and a sense of ownership. Yeah. Earlier. And therefore, like,

imagine if a billion people had stock in Open AI in some way, shape, or form. Maybe that's a dumb idea, but would they be more bought in in AI? Would they have a positive view of AI? Or what if their kids did? What if you rolled it into the Trump accounts?

You know? And it's like, look, I have my job and I think I'll be okay. And now I know that my kids will be okay too. Yeah, they have a stake in the future. That's right. Quite literally. No, you could market it that way.

That, to me, has been a very weird development where I do think, people perceive tech individuals as they're hoarding or concentrating resources and wealth. For example, we're all privileged in technology. And it's wonderful, and a lot of us are exposed to this, whether it's via equity or whatnot, or even just usage, you know, you're like,

but I think there's potentially a perception with all the power outcomes that happen that there is a concentration or a hoarding whether if you want to use a negative terminology like that. Yeah. And that creates a weird dynamic. Right. Like, I'm going to get left behind, yep, while the guys in San Francisco are going to be enormously wealthy.

And that's probably one. I've heard people feeling this way and especially, you know, there's potentially a negative sentiment in technology. And the NPS score probably reflects that, right? Yeah. And that is not, I think that's something. something to be fixed, and ownership might fix that. But any, I mean, I love, I think there's this, the power law dynamic that Peter

introduced is really fascinating to me because it was like business outcomes. Yeah. And the internet drives power law outcomes in a variety of different other scenarios as well, not just business. And I think people are starting to catch up and people are seeing this sort of wealth discrepancy that exists. And technology is a crazy accelerator. Like we talked about this right at the beginning. And this, this, this entity is, is accelerating and returns. I think that's maybe something to look at. I don't know if the right answer or whatever, but I did see that tweet about

the concentration of like the inaccessible private, the companies are staying private longer. Yeah. What does that really mean? That's crazy. Right. Maybe we should have a law that says you have to go public at some point before X, Y, Z. I'm somewhat to have that with the way RIS users structured and things like that. Anything you want to tease or how do you want to? Oh, that's a great question. We are building a fun little consumer product and I'm excited to kind of storytall on this. That's like a little bit different.

I mean, we're three people having fun, building a fun little, you know, interfaces of consumer AI and what we think might be really interesting for average normal people to experience. and it works out of the box. So I'm very excited for that. That's been really fun. It's what we've been up to. One of the fundamental things that I just don't want to talk to talk, I want to walk to walk.

And I'm excited to be able to share what we're up to. I mean, it's small, it's fun. It's interesting. And, you know, we're going to see how well it lands. Thanks for listening to this episode of the A16D podcast. If you like this episode, be sure to like, comment, subscribe,

leave us a rating or review and share it with your friends and family. For more episodes, go to YouTube, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify. Follow us on X at A16Z and subscribe to our substack at A16Z.com.

Thanks again for listening, and I'll see you in the next episode. As a reminder, the content here is for informational purposes only. Should not be taken as legal business, tax, or investment advice, or be used to evaluate any investment or security and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any A16Z fund.

Please note that A16Z and its affiliates may also maintain investments in the companies discussed in this podcast. For more details, including a link to our investments, please see A16Z.com forward slash disclosures.