The Vergecast - How Claude Code Claude Codes

Episode Date: February 24, 2026

Few AI products have found the kind of product-market fit we’ve seen from Claude Code. On the eve of the product’s first anniversary, Anthropic’s Boris Cherny explains why Claude Code is so powerful, all the work left to do, and why he no longer writes any code himself. After that, The Verge’s Hayden Field joins the show to talk about how we should think about giving our data (and our computers) to AI, even when it seems useful. Finally, The Verge’s Allison Johnson helps David answer a question from the Vergecast Hotline (866-VERGE11) about whether you should go buy a phone, like, right now. Further reading: Claude Code is suddenly everywhere inside Microsoft Claude has been having a moment — can it keep it up? The AI security nightmare is here and it looks suspiciously like lobster  OpenClaw’s AI ‘skill’ extensions are a security nightmare  Humans are infiltrating the social network for AI bots  Anthropic connects Claude to Microsoft Teams, Outlook, and OneDrive  MCP extension unites Claude with apps like Slack, Canva, and Figma  The RAM shortage is coming for everything you care about  Subscribe to The Verge for unlimited access to theverge.com, subscriber-exclusive newsletters, and our ad-free podcast feed.We love hearing from you! Email your questions and thoughts to [e-mail] or call us at 866-VERGE11. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome to the Vergecast, the flagship podcast, of pointing an LLM at just a bunch of text files to see what happens. I'm a friend David Pierce, and I am sitting here getting ready for the next season of version history. Version history, if you don't know, is our tech rewatch show about the most interesting, good and bad products in history. It's a very fun show. And for this season, I have had to do research that has taken me down rabbit holes about Apple history, like deep into Apple's history, and into the history of the monopoly that AT&T had for decades over the phone business in the United States. And that in particular is a story I just frankly knew nothing about. And I found myself reading a bunch of tech history books, which is delightful.

First of all, I should read more books. We should probably all read more books. At this moment in time, my information system is just insane. I'm on social media. I'm scrolling through apps. I'm on Reddit. I probably read more words than I ever have. but it's this like discombobulated galaxy of just stuff all the time.

And to sit down and just open up a book and stare at it for three hours has been like genuinely cathartic in some really interesting ways. So all of this is to say, Go Books is the official stance of the Vergecast in 2026. But that's not what we're here to talk about on this episode. We're going to do two things on this episode. We're going to talk actually a bunch about AI. The first thing we're going to do is talk to Boris Churney,

who created ClaudeCode at Anthropic. Claude Code came out a year ago today, Tuesday, February 24th, as you're hearing this, and I think has kind of become the single most important AI product out there. So we're going to talk to Boris about where it came from, what happened at the end of last year that really made it take off

and where all of this goes from here. I also have a bunch of product support questions that I'm going to make him answer because I can because he's coming on the podcast. After that, the Virgin's Hayden Field is going to come on and talk to us about how to think about your own interactions with AI, particularly as it pertains to data privacy and security.

We talked a bunch about this stuff with OpenClaw and MaltBook a couple of weeks ago, but I really want to get into this idea of like, if I'm going to turn one of these things loose on my computer to build software and interact with my apps, how do I think about that as a person in the world with data and privacy and secrets? Reckoning with that feels important. We're going to talk about it. We also have a really fun hotline question.

about gadget buying in the year 2026 and why it's about to be so complicated. All of that is coming up in just a second, but I have a chapter of this Macintosh book to finish insanely great by Stephen Levy, highly recommend. And I have to go get Claudecode to finish something before Boris gets here. This is the Burgecast. We'll be right back. Support for the show comes from Retool. Too many companies run critical operations on duct taped spreadsheets, slack workflows, and whatever else they could cobble together.

Not because they want to, but because building internal tools means weeks of waiting on someone else's backlog. That's where Retool comes in. Build custom internal tools just by describing what you need. Proms something like, build me a revenue dashboard on our Salesforce data. And Retool actually builds it on your company's data, in your cloud, with enterprise security built in. Go to Retool.com slash Verchcast. We all need to retool how we build software. What's up, y'all? I'm Skyler Diggins, seven-time WMBA All-Star, Olympic gold medalist, and mom.

And I'm Cassidy Hubbard, host and reporter for nearly 20 years, covering the biggest names and stories in sports and mom. And this is Am Mom, a community for athletes, game changers, and moms of all kinds. Dropping May 14th. Tap in with us. Do you ever wonder what's in your lotion? If you look at the back of the bottle, it could contain more than a dozen ingredients. and they may not all be regulated. The threshold is so high that only 11 cosmetic ingredients have been restricted by the FDA since 1938.

This week on Explain It to Me, the chemicals lurking in your cosmetics. New episodes, Sundays, wherever you get your podcasts. All right, we're back. So for all intents and purposes, we're about a year into the vibe coding experience. And I think vibe coding to me is the most interesting piece of the AI equation right now. I'm continually skeptical of the idea that chatbots are the future of anything. I think there's a lot of interesting technology in a lot of these LLMs. I think agents are a cool idea whose time has not yet come and maybe never will.

But the idea that you can use AI to write good code is just true. That thing has found product market fit. and all of the external questions about, you know, the way that these models are trained and the energy that they consume. All of that is real. But the idea that you can just write code by prompting is here and it is real and it is powerful. Let me just give you one example in my own life. So I am constantly switching productivity apps, which means I have a bunch of notes in like 10 different apps. This is a terrible system because I can never find anything. But I take notes on meetings. I have like interview transcripts, I have all kinds of stuff just sort of scattered around. And over the last couple of days, I've been using ClaudeCode to pull all of that data out of all

of these different apps, put it all into one place in this app, Obsidian, and then actually structure it in a way that makes sense. So I have, without any manual labor or moving stuff around or messy copying and pasting on my own, I have just been able to tell Claudecode, in this case, co-work, which is a version of CloudCode, where my stuff is and just, have it go do the busy work for me. That's powerful and meaningful and a big deal and is a thing that would have taken me a much, much longer amount of time to actually do. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of what tools like Claude CodCode promise.

So CoddCode launched, like I said earlier, a year ago today, Tuesday, as you're hearing this. And this felt like a good moment for a variety of reasons to check in on where we are with ClaudeCode in particular, but also with this idea of giving everyone the tool. to write software in general. So Boris Charny, who created ClaudeCode at Anthropic, uh, by accident is probably too strong, but certainly not imagining that it would become what it has. He and I talked about what vibe coding means, where it's going to go from here, whether or not there is a future of something like ClaudeCodecode that is actually

useful and usable for most people, and how we're supposed to feel about the end of people writing code at all. It's a really interesting conversation. I really enjoyed it. Learned a lot about how to think about cloud code and other things like it in my own life. I think you'll enjoy it too. Let's get into it. Boris Churny, welcome to the Vergecast. Yeah, thanks for having me. You've talked a lot about kind of the history of cloud code and where it came from and how you made it and now that it's year old. I think the thing I'm particularly curious to talk about is your relationship with coding now. One of the things I saw in all of those interviews I've been watching is everybody does the YouTube thing where they like

grab the splashy quote at the beginning and do it as sort of the cold open and then they get into the interview. And over and over, it's you saying, I don't write any code anymore. Claude Code does 100% of my coding. And this is like, this is a big revelatory statement to have made. And I want to get into what that actually looks like. But over the course of the last year or so as you've been building it. Have you undergone basically like a complete re-identification of what it means to be a coder and developer at this point? It's surprising how little of a change it's actually felt like as someone that that writes code. I think part of it might be that in some ways engineers are used to change because our text tax changes all the time. There's always a new

technology. There's always a new framework, a new language. It's just kind of part of the job is always re-learning and kind of re-I don't know it's like it's like every new every three years there's a new stack and a new language that's popular and so we're just used to kind of you know figuring it out and learning the latest thing in some ways it felt like a big jump because you know the big change over the last year is I don't work with source code anymore like I don't look at the code of the program as much as I used to I don't write any of it anymore and that's been kind of a big change back when we released quad code originally in February that was like Sonnet 3.5 new

or every couple of terrible name we gave that model. I think it was 3.5 new. We should have called it like 3.6 or something. Yeah, AI model name's not famously great in the industry right now. It's not our strong suit, not our strong suit. But so we released it. And back then, you know, Quadico was writing maybe 10% of my code. When we released Sonnet 4 in Opus 4 in May,

I think that jumped to maybe like 30% or something. It kind of creeped up over time. But back in November, when we launched Opus 4.5, that's when it just suddenly jumped for me from like 50% to 100%. And that was actually very sudden, but it also just felt very natural.

What does that change look like? Do you just wake up one day and realize, oh, I'm not, this thing has stopped making mistakes. I don't need to do it anymore. Yeah, as an engineer, the way that you would code maybe like, I don't know, like middle of the year last year, is you kind of start to work in an agent. and an agent does the first pass.

But then the code isn't perfect. There's a bunch of stuff that doesn't work. So then I have to go in. I have to test the code. I have to open it in a text editor to make some final changes to it. And what I realized around Opus 4.5 is, one, Opis is now testing my code.

So this is kind of cool. Like, you know, it's like it's running the test, but also it's able to open the browser and it's able to kind of verify that, you know, the website works correctly. It can click around. If something's off by a few pixels, it'll kind of move it over.

and fix it. And then the second thing is the code is just really good. So I don't have to open a text editor anymore. I don't have to fiddle with it by hand. And those are actually kind of nice, because that means I can move on to the next thing and just write a little bit more code, a little faster. It really does feel like that clawed moment sort of happened overnight.

It was like everybody went home for the holidays, got bored, used cloud code, went, oh, my God, and we were sort of off and running. But it seems like you as the person who pays incredibly close attention to it all the time also had that big a kind of overnight shift in how you think about it. Was it just big new model all of a sudden had this new capability that no one was expecting it to do this well? Like what accounts for that big a change that quickly?

For Thethropic, for the longest time, coding has been a thing that we just want the model to be really good at because, you know, essentially the road to safe AGII, like this model is going to be very, it's going to be intelligent. At some point, it's going to be super intelligent. Our job at Anthropic is to make sure that goes well and that it's done in a safe way. So the model doesn't do bad stuff. And so, you know, this is kind of aligned with the interests

of what the users want and of humanity broadly. And the model is software. And the way that it interacts with the world is through tools and through other software that it writes. And so for us, for the longest time, we've had this belief that the way to safe AGI is through coding and then kind of tool use and then computer use. So this kind of increasing capabilities

to interact with the world, but it's always mediated through code. So it always goes through code. When you do model training, you try a lot of stuff. There's a lot of experiments. There's a lot of new ideas that people are trying all the time. A lot of times it just doesn't work, but sometimes it does. And for Opus 4.5, the direction was kind of set early on because we knew where we want to be headed. But it just turned out that a bunch of good ideas worked and there was just a big step change. It was just as surprising for me as it was for everyone else. One of the things I have been trying to figure out, and one of the things we've talked a lot about on this show

and at the Virgin General, is ultimately who the end user of something like CloudCode is. And I think right now it's fairly clear, right? Especially for a product in the terminal, it is a developer product for developers. Is that fair to say right now? We designed it as a developer product for developers, but even from the earliest days,

all sorts of non-developers started using it. And this was just the craziest surprise. But also, you know, the best possible thing that you can see in product is people want to use it so much. They jump through hoops to use it. Yeah, that is definitely a thing we've seen with a lot of these tools. I mean, I was playing around with some like OpenClawn and some of the stuff like that. And the amount of work you have to do as a just normal layperson to get some of these things up and running is pretty remarkable. And yet people are willing to do it.

I suspect there are a lot of people who had never heard of their terminal until CloudCode started to happen. in their lives. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. And, you know, like now all, you know, all the biggest companies in the world use quad code. It's like Spotify, Shopify, like Ramp, Netflix, Nova Nordus, like Nvidia, snowflake, sales, everyone uses quad code. The small startups use it. But also the thing that we're starting to hear is even at these bigger companies, a lot of people that are not engineers are using quad code. And so I think like Ramp just tweeted about this pretty recently that they have a bunch of product managers, data scientists, a lot of people using it. So even at these biggest companies, this is kind of what we're saying. And this was also,

by the way, like the reason we launch co-work is we see people using quad code for things that are not coding. And we're like, all right, I think we can do better than a terminal for you. And so we build a thing that we think they would actually want to use. And this is a thing we're still learning about and we're seeing how people actually use it. Yeah. So talk to me about that early signal a little bit. When you start to see people who are not developers, who are not traditionally people who would be in an ID and thinking about code and thinking about the terminal, start to use this product. I remember walking to the office and Brandon, who's our data scientist, was using quad code in a terminal to do data analysis. And he had like little charts in the terminal and stuff.

And I was like, this is just crazy. Like, there's no way this is the best way to do it. And he was like, no, it's great. And the next day he had like three quad codes running at the same time doing like data analysis in peril. And then all the data scientists started using it. But I actually still didn't really get it because I thought there's something weird about, you know, maybe people that work at Anthropic, maybe they're very early adopters, more willing to try these new tools. Because, you know, it's like engineers are always the early adopters. And, you know, they try a thing. And then eventually everyone else tries the thing.

But I think by the time that I think now like half of our sales team uses quad code every week, I think when that started happening, that's when I really started to get it. That this is a product that's not just for engineers. And we got to make that easier. So yeah, I would think that realization would lead you in one of two directions. One is to say, okay, actually we're giving people access to a developer tool and maybe we should do it in developer ways, right? That maybe have people understanding what the terminal is on their computer is not the worst thing in the world. And if people are willing to go through these hoops to do this thing, maybe we're on to something. Maybe we don't need to sort of radically rethink the UI because people are figuring it out.

or you look at that and say, we need to radically rethink the UI because these people are having to jump through these crazy hoops just to do the work that they want to do. Do you have a stance on which one of those is the right reaction? Yeah, so I mean, look,

we started in a terminal, but pretty quickly we started experimenting with other form factors too. So, you know, we have like ID extensions for like VES code, cursor, JetBrains IDEs. There's, we have like iOS and Android apps. I actually do like probably a third of my code

on the iOS app nowadays. Really? I never would have predicted that, but that's where we are. We have like a web surface. There's a desktop app. So like, you know, the same desktop app that has co-work, it also has quad code in it. So, you know, you can use the exact same quad code. So we're just like always experimenting with this. But yeah, it's like the surface is just a little bit different for different kinds of users. Yeah. So co-work under the hood is just quad code. It's like the same agent SDK. It's the, you know,

it's an awesome agent and it's the same exact one that's running everywhere. But for people that aren't engineers, we want it to be a little less footgunny. Like, we don't want people to mess up their system and things like this. So we actually ship like a whole virtual machine. We have deletion protection built in. There's a whole bunch of things that we built for less technical users that engineers would actually find kind of annoying and they wouldn't want in the way. Versus for engineers, there's something a little bit different about the tool because

engineers love to customize everything. If you talk to like two engineers, they're going to use their tools totally differently. There's no two engineers that have the same setup. And so the way that we build quad-coct across every surface, across terminal, IDE, desktop, everything, is we want it to be the single, most customizable dev tool that anyone has used.

So it's very, very configurable. You can hold it however you want. You can customize it however you want. There's hundreds of ways to configure it. And what's also kind of cool is because quad code is code. You can just ask quad code to configure it for you. So you can just be like, you know, change the theme or, you know, like change the setting or change the setting.

It can just do that for you. See, this is one of the things I have really enjoyed about my own experience with ClaudeCode is there's so much of it that is sort of re-learning what's possible in certain ways. Like the idea of asking Claude Code to re-skin itself because I don't like the color scheme. It had just never occurred to me. I don't like the color scheme. And I would like a different one.

But it literally had just never occurred to me to ask this thing that is writing code for me to write that bit of code for me. And I feel like this is kind of why I'm curious about your own relationship with writing code is it just, yes, there are certain things you have to do, but I feel like, I don't know, I would think of learning a new coding language is like learning how to play a new kind of instrument, right? Where it's, so a lot of the behavior is the same, just pointed in new directions with new details and new systems to figure out. But this is like, you know, you used to play the violin and now you're on the soccer team. It's just like, it's a completely different way of thinking

about how to use your body. Do you know what I mean? Yeah, yeah, yeah. The way I will think about it like you used to play the violin and now you're like you're conducting the orchestra. Okay. That's like that's a good way to think about it. But it's also, yeah, I mean, the hardest thing for me is just changing expectations every time a model comes out. It's just so quick. You know, like this thing that just never would have worked for Sonnet 4, Sonnet 3.7, now with Sonnet 4.6,

it just works. And I just have to constantly rewarn this. All the stuff that I would have thought, you know, didn't work. I just assume it'll work at some point. Do you have like a list? of all the things that are broken that you try every time a new model comes out and just check some things off the list? Essentially, anything that I do by hand. Oh, interesting. Okay.

Yeah, yeah. So, for example, like, Sonnet 4, Opus 4, and even, like, 4.5, it was okay at this, but 4 was, like, not great at it. We have, like, a feedback group. We have this, like, Slack channel where all the anthropic employees get feedback about quad code. We also have a lot of external feedback channels for customers and GitHub and things like this. And before, the model was not very good at looking at the feedback channel and deciding what to do. and what to fix. But now, actually, a lot of the code that we ship for quad code,

you know, like quad code is 100% written by quad code at this point. But also, I would say maybe 20, 30% of that is quad code just looking at the feedback group, figuring out the kinds of things people are reporting and then automatically fixing it. And this kind of proactivity just would not have been possible with older models. But with like, with Opus 4.5, Opus 4.6, it actually just started working. Yeah. What have you learned with co-work in particular? Because I would assume, like you said, there's a different set of person coming to co-work than to Cloud Code with a different set of expectations and a different set of knowledge.

Are they using it kind of radically differently and making you rethink this whole system all over again? You know, the most surprising thing, so at this point, Cloud Code, there was some study that it writes like 4% of all the commits in the world, you know, like all the code in the world. I think the number is actually quite a bit higher than that because it's not including private code and also our growth has inflected. since that study, it's actually going up even faster than before. So I think it's actually quite a bit higher. In the early days, though, Clothcode did not grow very fast. It was not a hit originally. It took like a few months to catch on because it was just such a new idea.

Co-work, on the other hand, has been a hit immediately. So, like, as soon as we launched it, it's just been, you know, exponential sense. And this is what we like to see because we also, we think in exponentials. So I think the biggest thing that's been surprising is just how quickly it's been growing, how quickly people have figured out how to use this. Why do you think that is? What do you feel like you got right about co-work? There was just a pent-up demand, I think.

That was, like, the biggest thing, like, just for something a little more understandable. Yeah, more understandable. Like, you saw all these people on Twitter that are using, like, quad code to, they were a growing tomato plants, like, recovering corrupted photos off of, like, off of a hard drive. Like, someone, like, used to recover wedding photos. Pietro, I think, who actually used to work at Anthropic, he used it to, I think it was, like, genome analysis. He got his, like, genome sequence. And then he's like Quotcode to look at like, you know, like specific sequences and stuff. Quot code not intended for medical advice, but he did use it to the, there's someone that's using it for like for MRIs.

So I think just this like this pent up demand is the single greatest thing that you can see in product. Because it just means like people are knocking down the door and they're jumping through hoops for, you know, this terminal thing that wasn't really designed for this. Yeah. So it was pretty obvious, I think, that it would have been a hit. one of the most interesting things about co-work in particular to me has been that the product itself is really focused on sort of busy work, I guess is the way I would put it. Like it's you open it up and one of the first things it offers is to organize your screenshots, right? Where it's not, it's not build a dashboard of your entire life.

Like one of the jokes we always make on the show is that everybody looks at AI tools and the first thing they say is I want to build a daily planner because all of my information is ever. This is like the first idea everybody has about what to be. build with AI is just a thing to tell me what matters in my life. But I think the real truth of like software forever is that this thing, this stuff all starts by just sort of solving relatively straightforward, relatively simple problems for people. Like I need to do math. And so spreadsheets exist, right? Like this is what it is. And I think to me, one of the most eye-opening things about co-work was it just has a bunch of ideas of little things it can do for me. that would take me a long time to do on my own that aren't hard.

They're just, this is a tool that will automate away a bunch of my busy work on my computer. And my sense is that is the kind of thing that has just every single person in the world resonates with the idea of that in a way that strikes me is very powerful. And it's not as open-ended as you can build any kind of software you can imagine or you can talk to this chatbot about anything. It's organize your screenshots. And I think that is like a surprisingly powerful bit of product to put in there like that. Yeah, absolutely. And if you want to build something, you just, you know, hit the code tab in the desktop app and you can go build whatever. Right.

If you want to organize your desktop, like I actually, I use core work for a lot of stuff. Like I used it to pay a parking ticket the other day. I was up in Seattle. We went clamming and I used it to purchase a clamming license. So that was pretty awesome. I just did something else. And it navigated this like actually kind of annoying government website to do it. Someone on the team is using it to pay their tax.

taxes right now. So also not financial advice. But it's actually quite useful for all this different kinds of stuff. This is one of the things that's like also kind of hard to explain to people is like people ask, what do I use it for? And my answer is well, kind of everything. It's like all the toil, like all the stuff you didn't want to do by hand, it can just do so you can do the stuff you actually want to do. Yeah. So I think, okay, let's talk about doing taxes, which I know is just an example off the top of your head. But I think is a useful. sort of middle ground of the kinds of stuff that I think about a lot with AI, where organize my screenshots is relatively low risk, right?

Like the idea of it might delete a thing that I didn't want it to delete, but in general, it's just going to put things in places and delete stuff off of my computer that I don't want. And I think you can get people comfortable with doing things like that on their computers fairly quickly. Have co-work do my taxes just has naturally more consequences. Right. And I think part of, I know a question you get asked a lot. And also a thing that I think is tricky with a lot of these tools is it's one thing to have it right code that I can then go check. Even if I don't, right, the responsibility is back on me to check it and make sure that I understand what it is and code is legible to me as a developer. But if I'm just a person and I'm like, co-wrick, go do my taxes for me, how much faith is it reasonable or fair or rational to have in? co-work or cloud code or any tool to go just execute that entirely on my behalf at this point. The tools are not perfect, and it's still early, but they are surprisingly good at things that people often expect they would not be good at. And again, it just improves with every model.

For something like taxes, I would definitely double-check it. So like have core work do the tax. And actually the thing that I would do is say, do the taxes, but then triple check your results. It's just half-co work do that work for you. And then by the time you check it, there's a very high it's just going to be pretty good. Yeah. Actually, to your point about you, you can have it test itself, that actually, I think that there's something very powerful about that too. But part of the reason I bring up taxes is because the last innovation in tax software was that it will scan your W-2s for you. I remember this being a very big deal in my life where I didn't have to type out that I could

just upload the PDF of my W-2 and it would just pull in all the information. And I remember for a minute, it was like, okay, you have to check that because the scanners, the getting a system isn't perfect. The software won't get it exactly right. But now, like, I don't remember the last time I double checked the numbers. I just, you just upload the W2. It shows up in the field and you move on with your life. And I wonder, it feels like we are just barreling towards that with all of these tools too. That it's like, there's going to be a beat of, I mean, I guess it's like your experience with Claude Code. There's going to be a beat of, I need to check its work. And then a beat of, well, I'll spot check it. And then we get to, I'm just not worried about it anymore. And that's like, that's the right end state. It just, it just. It just. It just. It doesn't feel like we're quiet there yet. Right, right. I mean, it's like two things that happen at the same time. It's like the model gets better and the product gets better. And then also as like as users, we get more comfortable with this thing.

And like both things kind of happen at the same time. Before we release co-work, I was using it to do all of our project management for the team when I was like for assessing it out. And I still actually use it for this like every week. So we have a spreadsheet of kind of all the things the team is working on. And we ask the team to just like fill out their status every week. So just say like, is it on track? Is it off track? And so I just have co-work, like, ping people on Slack if they haven't filled it out.

And so all I do is on my K-co-work, open the spreadsheet, and then for anyone that hasn't filled it out, message them on Slack. It'll just do it perfectly. There's actually one person's name that it, for some reason, can't figure out on Slack. So I have to do that. But otherwise, it just does it. And I was actually, like, kind of taken aback because I didn't even realize that it would be able to do this. So I would just, like, experiment with this, double check until you're comfortable. but I think we'll be there pretty soon.

In a case like that, does it message people on Slack as you or as like a bot? I asked it to sign its messages as cowork. Oh, that's smart. Okay. Yeah. And Co-Work actually, it supports this thing. In Quad code, we have this idea called clod.md. It's just like a special file, but essentially it's like all the instructions you want Cloud to take into account every time.

So, co-work also supports this now. So you can just say, like, whenever you message people on Slack, sign yourself as, you know, send a message as like coworker or bod or something. It'll just do that. Yeah, that's smart. Yeah, I think that kind of, there's a little bit of transparency there that I think it's interesting. Like I remember you said in one interview I was watching that,

uh, co-work would occasionally in the course of doing stuff for you go and tweet on your behalf and that that always felt kind of strange. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's funny. Actually, Quad code does this too pretty consistently now. When, when I'm like debugging something, sometimes Quad will be like, hey, this code is kind of weird.

When you, like, look at the history. So to look at the history of the code in Git, once in a while, it sees a really weird change by someone, and it will message that engineer on Slack just to get context. It'll wait on the response. And then I've also seen it push back. So, like, the engineer is like, yeah, I did this change for this reason. And then quad code is like, well, I don't think that's a very good reason. And I think you actually introduced a bog. So let me, like, go ahead and fix that.

How are you thinking about the rest of the UI around this stuff? I think like so much of Claude and co-work are. very chat-based still. Does that feel like the right UI to you going forward, or is there more work to do there? We are constantly experimenting with new ideas. I think the UI of the future has not been discovered yet. So we have a lot of experiments in flight. I would expect it to change. There's going to be a lot of things that we test. The single most important thing is just seeing what people want. And so, like, you know, I'm on Twitter and threads all day and so lose a lot of the team. We just love talking to people. We love getting the feedback because, you know, we have a lot

of ideas, but the only way to figure out what the right ideas are are to see what people say and to see what people enjoy. I agree with you that the UI of the future has not been discovered yet. Do you have a hypothesis at this moment in early 2026 about what it might be? I don't yet. I don't think we found it, to be honest. I think there's a lot of ideas around like proactivity and Claude kind of jumping in when it knows that you're going to need health. But it's kind of hard to get this boundary right. Because you don't want to end up with some. something like flippy. And it speaks to, I think, the progression you're talking about a little bit, A, from, you know,

playing the violin to conducting the orchestra, it's just a different set of tools that are available to you when that's what you're thinking about. But also, you mentioned going from basically code to tool use to computer use. Can you just walk me through what that progression looks like as we go through? Because I think we've heard a lot about agents to the point where I think the word agent essentially means nothing. Agent is just like magic that happens on your computer. And it's like, sure, whatever. But I think you're thinking about this in a much more sort of practical,

how do we give this thing more powers kind of way? Why does it go code, tool use, computer use? Yeah, oh my God. Don't get me started. Like the word, okay, I will get started. The word agent, I feel like, I feel like everyone just misuses it. Like, it has a really specific meaning when you talk about like AI research, when you talk about engineering.

So an agent is an LLM that you talk to, but the LLM can use tools. This is the thing that makes it an agent. It's like it can use tools. And so if you think about without tool use, the agent can write code. So let's say you give it a prompt and it can kind of write some HTML or something.

And then as a user, you take this and you kind of copy and paste it into like ID or something like this. So this is just like the coding capability. And as the model gets smarter, it gets better and better at working, with big code bases. But there's still kind of this problem that you hit

where at some point you just can't give it all the context it needs, but the model actually does know the context that it needs because it's able to search around and it's able to look throughout the entire code base. It's able to look at Slack. It's able to look at like the history of the code. It's able to do all of this.

But it's just too much information. Like you wouldn't be able to give it all the information up front. And so the answer is tools. You give the model tools and it can use a tool to look at the code. It can pull in more files. I can look at history. It can do all the stuff.

And so this is why tool use is important. It's the same as a person. If you don't have tools, like you actually can't do a lot, like just with your hands, right? You need like keyboard. You need shovels. You need like if you're cooking in the kitchen, you need a whisk.

Like these things are just very, there's not a lot you can do without it. So it's kind of the same thing for a model. And then when you think about computer use, there's just like a lot of things that are kind of hard to interact with. just with tools. So if you think about, like,

what can you actually do with a tool on a computer? It's something like MCP or it's an API or it's a command line interface, but not everything has that. So, you know, like if you have like, I don't know, like this, this, like, clamming thing.

I was getting this, like, clamming license. And, you know, there's no API for that, but there's a website. And to use the website, you want the model to be able to use a browser. You want it to be able to use a computer. And so this is kind of this natural revolution. So you start with coding.

then you move on to tools and this is the way to interact with the world and so you don't have to spoon-feed the model context it can just use the tools to pull in context and then computers are kind of the last thing because then the model can just use everything. Okay. Do you think as AI continues to grow and if it sort of takes over

all of software and computing the way that a lot of people think is going to that the computer use part eventually becomes sort of obviated. Like, if there were enough tools and enough MCP access and enough of the stuff that you're talking about, does computer use just sort of an elegant hack that gets around the stuff that maybe will exist later and we won't need it? Early on, in the early days of using the model for coding, people were talking about designing special programming languages to make it so the model can code better.

Right. And I always thought this was kind of silly because the model can just figure it out. you know, it's not like us where, you know, there's like a programmer that likes Python, there's another one that likes JavaScript and like won't touch Python. The model's not like that. It can just write whatever language. It doesn't care. So I think it's kind of the same thing here. I think over time the model doesn't care. Whatever tools you give it, it will be able to figure it out. And it can use those tools to do, you know, things for you. Talk to me about how people should think about kind of their own risk profile in giving access to their data and their computer and their files and their photos and whatever.

a system like cloud code or co-work. I think you have, you know, lots of incentive to tell me that it's totally fine. You can have all this stuff on my computers. We're putting the safeguards in. But how should people think about what it means to give cloud code access

to a folder on my computer? Even something like that. Yeah. Totally. So I would think about it on a few levels. So the most basic level is like, why does Anthropic exist? We exist to make safe AGI. We, you know, initially we have a bunch of founders that, you know, left a different AI lab and came and started anthropic.

Once of people have heard of. Yeah, I'm familiar. But this is the reason we exist. And there's a lot of quarrelies to safety. You know, like the security is actually very important if you want to get safety right. Privacy is very important if you want to get safety right. And all of this stuff we sort of have to do, we're very lucky that we care about safety. And so does our most important target customer, which is enterprise.

and companies. You know, there's a lot of, like, consumers that use anthropic products. This is awesome, and this is something we love to see. We will build for you. But actually, like, the main market we care about is Enterprise as a company. And we're very lucky, and we pick this market on purpose because we know enterprises care a ton about safety and security and privacy. And so we build for them.

And so, like, if you look at the product, it's actually kind of annoying for me because, like, if someone has, like, a Quad Code bug report or something, I literally cannot see your data. So, like, I need you to, like, give me reproduction stuff. so I can reproduce it. But I literally can't access the data to, you know, like, see this issue. So there's a lot of, like, controls like that in place. Also, because we care about safety a lot, there's a lot of work that goes into just making

the model inherently more aligned and interpretable. And this is also just, it's very important and also very related to this. And, yeah, I mean, the final thing is, like, there's just a lot of stuff that we build into the product. Like, cowork can only see the folders that you give it access to. We cannot see anything else on your computer. We put an entire virtual machine in co-work to make sure it's a really hard security boundary. So you can't access stuff that you don't give it access to.

The biggest thing to worry about is attacks, like prompt injection, anything like this that would kind of exfiltrate your data. We have a lot of protections in place for this. And Opus 4.6 is just the most aligned model that we've ever built for prompt injection in particular. And there's also a lot of like runtime classifiers and kind of safeguard that we put in place for this. But this is the biggest thing that I will think about is as you have co-work, as you have code, interact with the internet, just be thoughtful about what websites it is using. And it will ask you for permission. But it's a thing to keep an eye on because this is not a solved problem yet.

It's quite good, but it's not yet solved. That's a good one. All right. Give me one like normal human co-work activity that lots of people should do, that you've either done or building or you've heard from people that not everybody might expect that they should go do and then I'm going to let you go. Oh, a normal human.

Okay, one is just like responding to email. Just like open my Gmail, look at the top three things I should respond to draft responses. So you can do that quite well. A second one that I do is just like canceling subscriptions. So I actually use it to cancel like, I canceled like a TV thing that I wasn't watching. That's the most.

unbelievably annoying thing to do. I'm going to make CloudCode unsubscribe to all of my email newsletters that I don't want anymore. This is going to work for me. Yeah, yeah. I love this like dual track. Like you can use it for your,

write the emails and also unsubscribe for email. Yeah, exactly. I just never want to look at my email ever again. If Cloud can make that happen, we will have accomplished something. A.G. All right. Boris, thank you so much.

I really appreciate you doing this. Yeah, yeah. Thanks, David. We'll be right back. Support for this show comes from Shopify. Every thriving successful business has to start somewhere. A good place to start is a relatively simple question. What if, given the right tools, I really put my all into this.

One tool that can help grow your sprouting business to new heights is Shopify. Millions of businesses around the world rely on Shopify for e-commerce. They offer a host of helpful tools you can take advantage of, from payment processing to analytics to website design. Their design studio includes hundreds of templates to help you create the exact website you've been envisioning for your business. If you're wondering, what if I need help, then no worries, because you're never left to fend for yourself.

Shopify's award-winning customer support is available 24-7. It's time to turn those what-ifs into a thriving business with Shopify today. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at Shopify.com slash vergecast. Go to Shopify.com slash vergecast. That's Shopify.com slash vergecast. Support for the show comes from LinkedIn. If you're a small business owner, you know that every hire counts, but time and resources are limited.

Finding, connecting with, and screening the right candidates takes up valuable time you could be giving to your customers. That's where LinkedIn Hiring Pro comes in. It's built to be your hiring partner, helping you find the right candidates faster. That way you can hire with confidence without turning it into another full-time job. Hiring Pro streamlines the entire process from drafting your job to shortlisting candidates and conducting AI-powered interviews for initial screenings.

Its updated conversational interface lets you describe what you need in plain language. Nearly 60% of hirers find a candidate to interview within a week. With Hiring Pro, you spend less time searching and more time connecting with the right talent. And instead of getting buried in resumes, you get a focus shortlist that actually moves your hiring forward. Join the 2.7 million small businesses using LinkedIn to hire. Get started by posting your job for free at LinkedIn.com slash track. Terms and conditions apply. Support for this show comes from whatnot.

Whether you're selling online or out of a storefront, you already know the challenge. You're simply hoping for people to find your listing or, waiting for them to walk in. But What Not flips that. They say they're the live shopping marketplace where you can shop, sell, and connect around the things you love. On Whatnot, you go live and sell directly to people in real time. They see what you've got, ask questions, and buy. And they keep coming back. Whether it's beauty, collectibles, electronics, luxury fashion, and yes, even cookies. Sellers are building real thriving businesses. And for a limited time,

What Not says they'll match your first $150 sold in the first month. You can visit Whatnot.com slash sell to start selling. That's W-H-A-T-N-O-T dot com slash sell. What-N-O-T-com slash sell. All right, we're back. Hayden Field, Verged Senior

AI reporter is here. Hi, Hayden. Hi. So you were here recently, and we were talking about Maltbook and OpenClaw and all of the insane things that you can do on your computer with AI tools and AI agents. And we talked a little bit about privacy and kind of how to think about whether or not you should engage with these tools and install them and what kind of data you should give to them. And I've realized I've been having kind of varying levels of existential crises about AI tools. Starting with, like, I had a real experience with OpenClaw where I downloaded the installer for OpenClaught onto my computer. I have a MacMany and I have a MacBook Air. And I was on the

MacBook Air and I downloaded OpenClawn and I was like, I'm going to use this, get into it, see what it's like, try the whole thing out. And I got literally halfway through the install process and was like, this is so stupid. Like, this computer is full of all the information I care about in the world and all of this stuff that I know about everyone that I know, including like important confidential information as a journalist, giving this unknowable AI agent access to this is insane. So that's one level. But then even like I use, I mostly use Claude for AI stuff. And one thing Claude really wants you to do is connect your Gmail and connect your Google calendar. And I've had moments of being like, is this an irresponsible thing to do? Like, am I being stupid giving Claude access to my email?

So what I want to do as best we can is just try to think through sort of how to think about your data and AI framework. Does that seem reasonable? Perfect. I've been asking the same questions. Okay. So let's just start kind of big picture. I want to get into some sort of nitty-gritty. I literally want you to tell me if I should give Claude access to my Gmail. But we'll get to that. You've been reporting on this a lot and talking to experts and trying to think through this for yourself. Do you have kind of big picture guidance on just how people should be thinking about this stuff? Yes. And this is perfect because the big picture is the easiest to get at, you know, because it's really

different, it's a different decision for each person depending on their risk tolerance and like the other ways they live their life. So honestly, the big picture is the easiest to kind of square and then everyone can kind of make the rules for themselves. But I did a bunch of expert interviews this week just to make sure my instincts are kind of on track with what actual privacy experts and, you know, tech leaders are thinking. And it seemed like they were in that basically it's hard to give people good advice on this stuff that stays current. over time. That's what some of the privacy experts I was talking to said. You know, it's like every six months things could change every month, every year. So, you know, as of this moment in time,

a lot of people are essentially kind of ignoring the way that they usually, you know, evaluate their risk tolerance and just kind of adopting AI tools that are going viral or being talked about a lot just because of FOMO or like, you know, the promise of making your life a lot easier. We all as humans want to make our lives easier. You know, one expert I talked with said it was like the siren song or like teenager mode. It's like, you know, you're just, you want to have the short term gain and make your life easier. You don't really want to think about the long term stuff sometimes.

That's fine. Teenager mode is such a good way to think about it. Yeah, that was incredible. It's like not quite full like YOL mode, like LOL, nothing matters. But it's a little bit like my brain is just not yet fully developed. Yeah. And exactly dark taste told me that. I was like, you know, doing your seatbelt versus just being like, ah, it's a little bit of

fine. I'll just drive fast on the highway. So yeah, exactly. It's like, you know, basically you need to treat AI tools the exact same as you would treat any other service that was requesting a lot of data from you. And maybe even with a sharper eye, because these companies are newer, they're less time tested, and they're also more incentivized to move quickly, and they have a little bit less, you know, regulatory frameworks on them. So, you know, a lot of times they're voluntarily complying with certain rules, you know, and that's a little bit of. And that's, you know, and that's, all well and good. But, you know, something that a bunch of experts told me is, yeah, they can change that at any time. You know, they can kind of on the DL, like, shift that voluntary framework,

shift that little like our mission, any time, you know, and there's no hammer coming down on them if they do. They are just, it's voluntary. So they're doing it as a favor. And, you know, that means that they can shift at any given time and change how they treat your data, who they share your data with, how they use your data to train their own systems or not. And the other thing is, these companies may get bought eventually. You know, one expert I spoke with was like, if you wouldn't feel comfortable with your employer, knowing certain things about you, five years from now when opening I gets sold and, you know, they're selling off the info to the highest bidder. Again, that was like an extreme scenario. But he was like, yeah, don't share it. So, you know,

that's something to keep in mind, too, with like sharing health stuff. Like, do you want insurance companies to find out certain things about you and change your premium? Again, that's an extreme scenario. Hopefully it would never happen. But you never really know because all this stuff is so new. So it's like, I'm never going to be like, don't do X, Y, or Z. For you, I can do that because I know you. But like, you know, other listeners are going to be like, no, I want to give my health data to chat. It helped me so much. Like the medical system is failing me. That's fine. Yeah, the medical system sucks. So if you do want to find Patterns, in your health records and you feel comfortable with that level of risk tolerance, okay, just if you do that, of course, make sure you're doing it, like, within, like, chat-treaty health and not, like, just regular chat-bop. But it's still pretty risky. Yeah, I think to continue using the teenage analogy, I feel like it's a little bit like the advice you hear a lot of parents give to, like, their teenage children who are sending, let's say, sensitive pictures, this idea of, like, you should assume that anything you send to someone,

or create digitally will eventually be public. And that that is your framework, is you shouldn't share anything that you wouldn't share with everybody. And I think everybody draws that line really differently, right? And there's kind of no wrong or right place to draw that line. But that is, it's a pretty extreme way to draw that line. But given all of the stuff you're saying,

we just don't know now and isn't regulated and isn't even sort of industry accepted yet, I think that there are a lot of ways that, you know, we give a lot of information to Google, and we give a lot of information to Facebook and whatever. But there are at least now sort of accepted norms in how that data is treated, and there would be real problematic ramifications if that changed. It doesn't seem like any of that exists in AI right now. And it's also hard because even if they do have those protections in place,

you know, like most of these companies do retain some semblance of your data, even if it's like, you know, anonymized or the personal stuff is stripped out. they like use it in some degree usually. And so, and we've seen, like, in the past, like, 10 years, it's pretty easy to de-anonomize data. And it's also imperfect science on, like, what a system knows is sensitive versus not. Like, you know, Margaret Cunningham from Dark Trace was telling me, like, it's hard for chatbots to tell the difference between a phone number and a social security number. Or, you know, like, a street address. an account number. So it's tough because, one, even if they're trying their best, the guardrails here

are not perfect. And even if they do work great, you can deanonomize data. You know, it's, I don't know for sure if, you know, like, if Chachapiti Health, like, would be able to do that. But I'm just saying, like, in general, it's a pretty understood rule that anonymization systems for, you know, protecting personal data are very, very imperfect. So it's like, Like, you know, you just really need to know the risks here before you make a decision. And if you do want to give your data over, that's fine. It's just you need to do it in an informed way without just like, you know, taking off your seatbelt and being like, whatever. Like, you know, this may come back to invite me in 10 years, but I don't care.

If you want to be like that, sure, but do it with an informed take. That's all I'm asking. Yeah, I am very much of the generation that shared every photo that anyone took at every party in college on Facebook. and then boy did we all learn several years later to go back and pretty ruthlessly combed through all of the pictures that we had shared on Facebook. And it feels like this is the generation that's going to go through that exact same thing. I remember I used to climb on my high school's rooftop with my friends. It was like so fun.

We would like go up the trellis and just hang out up there. And I can never share the photos on Facebook because my mom was a teacher at the school. The building has now been torn down so I can share that story. But it's like, yeah, I mean, that was like, thank God I decided not to share those. But yeah, we were just being super willy-nilly about everything because we grew up in the age of the internet and we wanted to have people writing on our walls and like, you know, liking our Facebook albums. So, yeah, it's tough. Like I think people should, you know, kind of apply the same thought process here. Even though it feels private because it seems like a one-on-one conversation, you know, we've seen like chat DVD records go public. because like the link became searchable, you know, and like company execs were like giving financial data from their company into the system and then like any public person could search it. That has since been fixed, but things like that can happen and you never know how, when, or why they're going to happen because this technology is relatively new. Yeah. One thing I see a lot of people wondering about and being fearful of is this idea that these companies are going to use my data. to train their models.

And that's both sort of the facts of our interaction, but also like you said, the important financial data that I upload into chat GPT is going to be used to train the next version of chat GPT and that that is a privacy risk or breach in some way. What do you make of that? How should people think about what of their data is being used to train AI models

and what that means privacy-wise? It's hard because these companies will be very careful with their wording. you know, so you never really know the full extent on how or why or if they're using your data to train their models. Like they will say, for example, chat GPT Health, they say explicitly your health data will be kept confidential and it won't be used to train their AI models.

But does that mean some anonymized, stripped down version of what you say won't be in some way used to train? train the models, don't know. That's the thing. They don't really go into the how here. And they don't have to because it's all voluntary. So the other part of it is it can change. You know, they can change their mind at any time. So I would say, you know, if they explicitly say for any given service, we don't use your data to train our models, you can be pretty sure that they don't, for the most part at least for that, but that may change and certainly not for the ones that they don't

explicitly say that. The other thing to keep in mind here is that if it's a free product, you are the product. So like, you know, if you're paying for a product, there's less of a chance there using your data to train or at least to a lesser extent. But if it's free, like all bets are kind of off. That's what we learned with OpenClaw and what we've learned with like a million products way before that. But yeah, I would say you're a little bit safer if you're paying. And if you're an enterprise user of something, you're way safer. You know, Chad to VD Health specifically, you're pretty safe because they're pretty explicit about that stuff. But that's just for now. Who knows? You know, Anthropic has a similar product like that's hippoc compliant. But still, like,

you know, you're not bound. So I don't know. It's just a tough thing. You need to kind of operate with a little bit of a grain of salt here. Yeah, that's good. Can I read you on that I found that just like flummoxed me forever. Yes. And I think is a good proof of what you're talking about. So this is from Anthropics terms of service for Claude. It says, we do not train our models on your Gmail or calendar integration data, ensuring your private information remains private.

Simple, straightforward, right? Again, this is, so much of this comes from, I use Claude. I like the idea of being able to pull information from my Google Drive and my Gmail in Claude as I look for things. Do I do this? So I'm reading this, looking this up. That sentence makes perfect sense, right? We do not train our models.

This is the next sentence. Note, if you are using our consumer products, e.g. Claude, free, pro, and max, when using Claude code with those accounts, that was a double parentheses I just read to you, by the way. And you have chosen to allow us to use your chats and coding sessions for model training, then any content you copy, paste from your Gmail or calendar

or Claude's responses, which include specific information from these integrations, maybe used to improve our models. What? Exactly. This is what I'm saying. It's like you can't really know. They will be pulling all sorts of double parentheses on you.

They will be doing double negatives. You just don't know. So that's my thing too. It's like, yeah, okay, like maybe it's not going to directly use your emails. But if you're copy and pasting things from your email into it, okay, it seems like it'll use that based on what you just said. And what if it's returning stuff from your email and saying, hey, here's a summary of all the email. as you got today. Okay, it seems like that's also going to be used to trade the boat. So it's like, okay, and again, like I said, they didn't mention Enterprise there. So it's like,

enterprise is pretty safe, but the consumer products, you don't really know. It's just tough because there's not a lot of hard and fast rules here and the fact that they can change these things at any time. The thing you just read, maybe that'll look a little bit different in a week or two. I have a tracker set up for when these companies change, like, their mission statements. And, like, you have no idea how often I see an alert that's like, oh, this changed slightly. You know, I mean, usually it's something dumb, like they took out a couple parentheses, but sometimes it's not. So, yeah, I think it's like, we should treat these documents as, like, living documents that are drafts and constantly changing. And if you're not okay with, you know, that policy looking different in a couple months,

you know, err on the side of caution is how I operate. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, I think one really interesting outcome of this whole experiment for me has been that it all sort of leads to Gemini in a really funny way because Gemini offers a lot of the same things, right? Gemini can go find your YouTube information. It can go find stuff in Google Drive. It can go find stuff in Gmail.

I can find stuff in your calendar. And I found the same thing in Google's terms of service. It says when enabled, Gemini accesses your data to answer your specific request and to do things for you. And because of this data already lives at Google securely, you don't have to send sensitive data elsewhere to start personalizing your experience. This is a key differentiator. Like, I think that's true. This is such, I wrote this thing a few weeks ago about how Gemini is winning. And this to me is one of the key pieces of it that's like, okay, I feel uncomfortable giving my email to someone who doesn't already have email. You know who already has access to all of my Gmail is Google. And so this idea that actually privacy ends up being a win for Gemini. is so against what I would have expected coming into this, especially for a company like Apple, which bills itself as the privacy company,

but is going to ask for all kinds of access to other data from other platforms. Most of the stuff that I care about already lives inside of Google. So for better or for worse, I have made this privacy agreement with Google already. And I think there are in an increasing number of good reasons to get as much of your stuff out of Google as possible. But to the extent that you're comfortable

with the amount of information that Google already has on you, which for most of us is all of it. Totally. Gemini ends up becoming a much simpler security tradeoff, right? It's like I'm giving my Google data over here to Google over here, not crossing some new corporate barrier. Totally. And just like with the security of anything else,

like the more complex you make it and the more organizations that have a hand in something, the less secure it is. It's the same reason why, like, you know, if you're really, really trying to like meet a whistleblower on the DL with like no trace, you meet them in person somewhere. Like, it's like just the more people that have a hand at something, the less secure it is. Actually, I was watching Tell Me Lies this weekend. Same thing. The more people that found out about a secret, it leaked the next day. So, yeah, I mean, I think I was talking to a guy at checkmarks, Darren Meyer, and he said, like, we have a history in tech of

giving our data to an organization to get something of value, like a tradeoff. And then when we find out later that they used our data in a way we weren't okay with, we get upset, and AI companies haven't done anything to show us they're any different, and in fact are probably even more so like that because they haven't been time tested. So it's like, you know, yeah, I think it is interesting because I've always thought when you keep most of your stuff in one ecosystem, you know, the AI agent that can help you parse that ecosystem is probably going to operate better because it's been trained in that ecosystem. And it's going to be a little bit more useful. useful and have less of a learning curve, less friction. So, I mean, it makes sense that, you know,

Jim and I would be working well and be a little bit more secure potentially. I mean, it's such a funny thing, right? Because it is you can give good security advice on both opposite ends of that spectrum, right? There is a good and reasonable case to be made that the best thing you can do for your personal data is put at a lot of places, right? So that you have fewer, the risk of each individual sort of vector of attack is smaller and the possibility of something going wrong in a huge catastrophic way goes down. I mean, you hear these stories about people whose Gmail accounts accounts get locked for whatever reason and their life falls apart, right? That like if you have all of your stuff in one place, all of your eggs in one basket,

if something happens, it's a disaster. So put your stuff in lots of places. It's better. The flip side of that is now all of a sudden, if you believe in an AI future, what I'm actually doing is then re-centralizing all of that stuff into a new place, which is a new vector for problems. Right. I think that it kind of depends on how many services you're connecting. Like, so, you know, if you have all your stuff in different places, yeah, that's clearly more secure.

And each company has less of a complete profile on you. But if you're connecting Google to Cloud and you're connecting Google to chat GPT, then it's like even more companies have a fuller profile on you. So I think that's- three companies with everything instead of three companies with a little or one company with a lot. Right. I think of it kind of like diversifying like your assets or whatever like financially. Like, you know, if you like, sure, if you have everything in like different banks, great. But if you have like, and this can't happen. So this is a bad metaphor. But if you had everything and every bank, okay, that's kind of worse. So yeah, I think it's the same thing here. It's like, you know, for example, okay, last week you and I were laughing really hard on like the chatypte trend on asking it.

to create a caricature of you based on everything and new about you and your job. Now, I often use CHATT with the memory turned off, like, logged out because I just don't really need it creating like an intense profile on me. Do I have accounts where I let it? Yeah, because I need to test it and I'm an AI reporter. But, you know, if I'm just like doing something random, there's a lot of times that I'm like, you know what, I don't really need this to go into like my, the understanding of me and what I want. And so the account that I used to do that, I had only used it for like five conversations like that were recorded. And so it didn't have that much info on me and it did generate me in a hilarious way, like just like travel like Paris, string lights.

Like it was like very basic. But yeah, I'm like it only had five conversations to go on and some of them were like wedding planning tips. So who knows? Yours was of course like more tied to like your work. But it was just funny to see like, you know, that's a kind of good example of, you know, the type of profile that these companies are building on you based on your conversations and like what chat ghat itself or clod itself knows about you based on everything you put into it. So it's like you got to think critically about everything you're putting into these systems. Yeah. So it sounds like again, everybody can make this decision for themselves. Lay your privacy framework where you want to. You know me. You know what what I do and think about in the chaos that is my computing life.

it sounds like you would tell me that I should probably not put all of my Google data into cloud. I think not, but I also understand the temptation because emails suck. As you know, from other conversations we've had on this podcast, I have like 13,000 unread emails in one account. Because you're a monster. Yeah, so I get it. I think that like, you know, if it's not that much like personal stuff, like or not that much sensitive information, you could connect it. Like, you know, if it's like work-related stuff that's like, you know, more sensitive, that's when I wouldn't ever for you.

But like, you know, if you just have like your personal Gmail in there and it's like a lot of appointment reminders and stuff, like, again, like for other people, maybe I'd say no, but knowing that you value like the ease of organization and stuff so much, I would say, like, go for it. If there's not much sensitive information in there. But also it's like we all have so, if you delete your emails, for example, like I keep every email I've ever had and I just like pay for the two, terabytes of data or whatever, even in my personal account. So it's like the amount of stuff goes back so far. I don't even know what's there. I wouldn't connect it. But if you like delete

emails when you're not using them and stuff and like you keep it pretty like manicured, why not? Yeah. Yeah. It's an interesting way because I do think my use case is exactly what you described, right? Like I just want to be able to ask Claude what my Delta frequent flyer number is and it can tell me by finding it in my email. Like that's fine. But what you're also making me realizes, I remember when Alexa and Google Assistant were first coming out, my running theory was that actually what we need is not one all-encompassing AI assistant that everything funnels into. That is like, I use Alexa to talk to my TV and to my speakers and to my car and to everything. But that actually eventually what we're going to have is this like incredibly distributed thing

where every tool is going to have something that is more specific to it that like instead of addressing Alexa to talk to my TV, I just address my TV. And that is we got part of the way there with some of the voice assistants, but not all the way there. And I wonder if maybe I should be rooting for that outcome with AI too, is that rather than connecting everything to Claude, that there should be, I should use Gemini for my Gmail and I should use something else for my television and I should use something like that maybe the future is many AIs and not just one. I think that that is a lot more secure for sure and sometimes more efficient. you can argue either way. Like, in a way, it's less efficient because obviously not everything's in one place. But also, like, you know, chatbots on certain systems are going to work better if they've been trained in that environment. Like, we've learned that through, like, tons of, like, RL research and stuff. It's like, the environment you train in is the environment you operate the best in. So, you know, like, Gemini probably would operate better within the Google ecosystem. And, you know, that makes sense. Same with, like, a chatbot for your TV that would, like, trained specifically on only those use. So, I mean, it kind of like may lead to less friction, even though it's kind of annoying to have everything in a ton of different places. It's also more secure. Like, yeah, I think you can't really go wrong with that. It does feel, it also feels more, if not more secure than at least more understandable, right? Or it's like I can, I can make a clearer decision on what my TV should know about me than I can this sort of all encompassing needs to know everything about me. And this goes back to OpenClaw, right? Or it's like, okay, if I'm just giving this thing complete unfettered access to my computer, That's actually a really hard decision to make thoughtfully.

You can either just say, you know, Yolo, it's worth it. And to your point about the tradeoff we've made, these companies are statistically speaking correct to assume that we will trade privacy for features and convenience. We always have. Is that the right decision? Has it been the right decision every time? Often no. We have made that trade off every time. Everybody who has ever bet that users will make that tradeoff has been right.

So I wonder if A, that will turn because AI is asking so much more, or B, if these companies can just keep barreling through knowing that we will continue to make that tradeoff. But my hope is that at least it becomes a little more readable, right? The idea that, like, I at least know the tradeoff that I'm making in order to use this product feels very hard with a lot of these AI tools. And I think distributing it a little bit more would at least make it more parsible that way. I totally agree. And yeah, I think that's the most important thing is knowing what you're giving up so that you can actually make an informed decision on like, am I getting enough benefit from this service to make it worth it for me? Like everyone knows everything's a deal.

Like, you know, it's a tradeoff. But do you understand the tradeoff or not? And, you know, these companies need to make it crystal clear what the tradeoff is and in what cases and not try to like try any funny business with like the double negatives and the double parenthetical. Like just be honest, what are you giving up and let people make that decision for them? and, you know, a ton of people will be like, yeah, I'm fine with that. You know, everyone knows everything about me anyway. Don't care. A ton of people will be like, whoa, I don't want to do that at all,

especially because this company is, like, only a few years old, and I don't know what is going to happen three years from now, four years from now. Yeah, I mean, and also, like, you know, people that – I remember when, like, fridges became smart for the first time, and people were really worried that, like, you know, if you bought a ton of beer and, like, not enough fruit, that health insurance companies would somehow get that data. It's like, you just – I don't know. You just need to know the trade-off you're making and then see if it's worth it for you.

For me, like a smart fridge, it's not something I really need. I don't need to be seeing ads on the front screen of my fridge either, you know? But like, you know, for a chat bot that's like parsing all your, my 12,000 emails, maybe it's worth it. Who knows? But like, yeah, you just need to be able to accurately understand what you're giving up. Yeah, I agree. All right. Well, I should confess here at the end that I already connected my Gmail to Claude. And I am now regretting that decision. So I'm going to go undo that for now. but Hayden, thank you as always for being here. This is great. I appreciate it. Thanks so much.

All right, we've got to take a break. We'll be right back. Support for the show comes from MongoDB. If you're tired of database limitations and architectures that break when you scale, it's time to think outside of rows and columns. Because let's be honest, you didn't get into tech to babysit a broken database. You got into it to actually build something. MongoDB lets you do that.

It's flexible, developer first. Acid compliant, enterprise ready, and built for the AI era. Say goodbye to bottlenecks and legacy code. Start innovating with MongoDB. There's a reason it's trusted by so many of the Fortune 500. And that's because it's a platform built by developers for developers. MongoDB. It's a great freaking database.

Start building at MongoDB.com slash build. Support for the show comes from LinkedIn. If you're a small business owner, You know that every hire counts, but time and resources are limited. Finding, connecting with, and screening the right candidates takes up valuable time you could be giving to your customers. That's where LinkedIn HiringPro comes in. It's built to be your hiring partner,

helping you find the right candidates faster. That way you can hire with confidence without turning it into another full-time job. Hiring Pro streamlines the entire process from drafting your job to shortlisting candidates and conducting AI-powered interviews for initial screenings. Its updated conversational interface lets you describe what you need in plain language. Nearly 60% of hires find a candidate to interview within a week. With Hiring Pro, you spend less time searching and more time connecting with the right talent. And instead of getting buried in resumes, you get a focused shortlist that actually moves your hiring forward.

Join the 2.7 million small businesses using LinkedIn to hire. Get started by posting your job for free at LinkedIn.com slash track. Terms and conditions apply. Complex and unprecedented, the Spanish authorities are calling it. Passengers who'd been stuck aboard the Hanta or maybe Hanta virus-stricken Dutch cruise ship disembarked in the Canary Islands this weekend, prompting the highest stakes game of where are they now since maybe COVID? But some of the evacuees, American and French, have since tested positive for the virus.

And yet public health officials seem remarkably calm. We do have one individual who was taken to the biocontainment unit early, early this morning. And we assess that individual. They are doing well. Possibly because this is not the one to freak out over. Today, explain, drops every weekday afternoon. All right, we're back. Let's do a question from the Virchcast hotline.

As always, the number is 866, verge 1-1. the email is Vergecast at theverge.com. We're not that hard to fight. Like, it's not, there are no good excuses for not hitting up the Vergecast hotline. Do you know what I mean? Here with me this time, The Verge's senior phone reviewer, Alison Johnson. Hello. Hello.

I caught you just before you were about to disappear into the beginnings of phone season. Yes, my family will not see me for a week and a half. I'm going to be just among the phones. Yeah, so it's Samsung Unpacked and then Mobile World Congress. Yeah. Which is in Spain still? It is in Spain. Okay.

And then we think potentially maybe an iPhone like right after that, right? Yeah, just for fun. Everybody was just like, what if an iPhone? You know, why not? Yeah. What if we iPhone? Let's do it. So our question is actually sort of tangentially about this.

And I think is the kind of question a lot of people either are asking or about to start asking very quickly about their phone purchases. Let me just play this question for you. Hi, Virchcast. My name is Lucas. And I was wondering if I should do a kind of mid-cycle upgrade for my phone right now. So I've got a 15 Pro Max. I've had it, you know, a couple of years, and it works fine.

It's a perfectly fine iPhone. It'll probably be fine for another year or two. But I'm worried that with the price of RAM constantly going up, that the next phone I get is going to be significantly more expensive. And I'm wondering if I should do just like a mid-cycle upgrade now to kind of future-proof so I don't have to worry about something really expensive later. So, Allison, agree or disagree that this question either is or should be on a lot of people's minds right now. Totally legitimate concern.

I'm going to be honest, I was in the kind of, like, like, oh, sure, RAM is a problem, but I don't build PCs. Like, so whatever kind of camp. Our friend and colleague, Sean Hollister, wrote a great article about why the RAM crisis is coming for all of us. So definitely check that out if you haven't. Yeah. And I think it is, I'm already, like, fielding this question on our internal Slack, you know. And people in the similar situation as.

Lucas that are sort of like, I was thinking I would probably upgrade maybe a year or two from now, but should I pull that timeline forward? And I think the question is real. I think that price increases in one way or another are coming for smartphones and everything else, apparently. Okay. So let's take this very tactically in two directions. I think the one is Lucas specifically has a 15. 15 Pro Max, presumably once another iPhone.

And I think, so 15 Pro Max is now a two generations old phone. I think you would probably assume that Lucas would be looking to upgrade, especially if you're a person as a Pro Max, not this cycle, but potentially next cycle. Like I think Lucas is probably going to buy like a 19 Pro Max would be my guess. Yeah. Right? Skip the 17. That's fine.

The 18 will be what it's going. going to be, but like in the normal course of events where he's probably two years away from an upgrade. But I think the question of should I buy now to reset that cycle to give myself four more years for this to get better, what do you think? Here's where I've kind of landed. I think it is a factor to consider, but I don't think it should be the only one. The 15 Pro Max is an interesting case of like, yeah, you are probably after, you're more interested in the latest and nicest hardware, probably more so than someone else. So that seems like a factor towards maybe upgrade a little sooner. But I, there's a lot of things I'm unsure about how this is

actually going to shake out for prices. Apple especially hates raising prices on the iPhone. And they'll do that sneaky thing that they all do where they kind of like just take away the lower priced option, take the like lower storage option off the table. So they didn't really raise the price, but, you know, you can't buy that cheaper version anyway. So maybe that's not going to affect Lucas directly. But there are all kinds of pressures, I think. You know, the weirdness with tariffs that's been happening. the RAM thing and there's, it's going to manifest in ways that I think lead to a more expensive iPhone, but I don't think, I think you should buy a new phone when it's the time to buy a new phone,

you know, in thinking of the RAM situation could be one factor in that purchase. Yeah, I think I agree. And I think for Lucas in particular, and the reason I want to focus on his use case super specifically, is I did not expect my advice to be wait, but I think the answer is wait. Like the 15 Pro Max is still a very good phone that will be a very good phone for at least two or three more years, right? Like the idea of it being sort of so vastly outdated that the camera is not up to snuff and that it can't do the things that you want to do, I think is pretty unlikely in, let's say, the next two years. years. And, you know, knock on wood, it also seems pretty unlikely that all of the things that have led to this particular ram shortage being this bad right now are also pretty unlikely to all be accelerating at this pace still in the next couple of years. Either the bubble is going to pop and a bunch of

weird stuff is going to happen or people will start to ramp up the capacity to build more of this stuff. Like one way or another, I think we are headed to a not a permanent RAM shortage. Fast forward to 2029 and somebody plays this clip back to me and reminds me of what a moron I am. Like, maybe. Uh-oh. But it does seem to me that like if you're in the position of saying, okay, my phone is going to be very good for two more years. Is that a risk worth taking? I would kind of say the answer is yes.

Where I feel differently is people who are like, I was going to buy a phone sometime in the next year or so, right? people who are like, I'm not, I'm not tied to the upgrade cycle. I buy a new phone when I need a phone. Most of those people right now, I would tell to just go buy a phone. Yeah. Do you agree with that? Yeah. Like, the case in our internal Slack was someone had a pixel 7A. Perfect example.

Yeah. And I'm like, you know what? You've gotten your money's worth on that phone. I think you're in, you're safely in the zone of like upgrade now, upgrade next year and just adding that factor of the RAM situation, maybe that tips you toward, like, yeah, upgrade now. But yeah, I do think it's, it kind of has to be time already, not sort of, oh, maybe next year will be time or next year I'm going to start thinking about it. That's where I'm landing. And like, you know, look and you can always change out the battery.

there's always refurbished options, you know, in a year or two if the flagship home prices are crazy. I think, I don't know. Do you remember during the pandemic when the car prices went nuts and not only did new car prices go nuts, used car prices went nuts? Like we had a harder time buying a used car than a new car in like 2021. It was insane. And so part of me is worried that like everybody's going to have the, oh, I'll just buy a refurbished idea. And actually that's going to become a strange market too. Yeah.

But in general, I think you're right. That it's not, if you're less of the mode of like, I need the best phone right now the minute it comes out, you do have a much larger set of probably more stable options. Yeah. So is there anyone you would tell to wait a minute? And like, we're about to go into phone season. We're going to get Samsung phones. People are going to hear and watch this on Tuesday. Very soon after, we're going to get new Samsung phones.

You're going to MWC to see stuff. We're hearing some inklings about, you know, there's presumably more pixels to come. There's more iPhones to come. Is there anything that you are like, wait, there's something coming. Don't buy it until you at least see what the new thing is. I think the good answer is like, no, phones are kind of boring right now, which works in our favor, you know. if this is a time when they're getting more expensive, it's just not as important to upgrade every year, every two years, even every three years. I think you're fine, you know.

So, and I think that the manufacturers, you know, we're already seeing this with the, I think the Pixel 10A was a very iterative, like, hardware upgrade, maybe in an effort to keep that price point down, considering everything. So it's kind of a good thing that phones are boring right now, and it might be the case for a little bit. That's a really interesting point, actually, that maybe the outcome is not that your iPhone is about to get, you know, several hundred dollars more expensive, but that actually the upgrade from this one to the next one is going to be even smaller so that they can keep the price in range.

And I think, yeah, and we might not see, I think it's pretty likely we won't see you know, like incremental increases in RAM every year the way we have been. And yeah, Apple hates putting a higher price tag on something. So I think they will pull all kinds of strings before they have to do that. Yeah. So, okay, I think this feels right. So if you have a device that you like and you feel confident about for a couple more years, you can feel okay waiting.

But if you're like, oh, I should probably go get a new, go get it. Yeah. Like, don't wait. Just go get the thing. All phones are good now. It's going to be fine. Just go buy the thing. This is how I feel.

I just bought a, I bought new Sony headphones not that long ago for exactly this reason. It's like tariffs, all the shortages, everything is complicated. Like, I need a new pair of headphones. I'm just going to go. I'm going to go do it. I don't need them this minute, but I'm going to need them soon and I'm just going to go to it. Yeah, yeah.

We did that with the PS5, which we were so late to the PS5. But we were like, it's time to get one. And then the price increases kind of came up. is like, okay, now's the time. And I have zero regrets about that. Yeah, that's a perfect example. Yeah. All right, Lucas, I hope this helps.

Let us know what you end up deciding. I feel like, given that Lucas has a 15 pro max, the odds of him hearing this and going, screw you on buying a 17 pro max is like pretty high. Yeah. But Lucas, let us know what you do. Allison, thank you as always. Yeah, no problem.

All right, that's it for the Vergecast. Thank you to Allison and Hayden and Boris for being here. And thank you, as always, for watching and listening. As always, if you have thoughts, feedback, if you want to keep sending me stuff that you're vibe coding, this has been my favorite thing in my email inbox over the last couple of weeks, is I asked on this show for people to send me examples of things that you've been vibe coding. And I have heard incredible stuff.

I think at some point on the show, I'm just going to sit here and just like read people's emails out loud for 10 minutes because you should hear some of the stuff that other folks are building. It's so cool and so interesting. And if you're building something that you think is cool and exciting, I want to hear about it. 866 Verge1 is the hotline. Verge at the verge.com is the email.

keep it all coming. This show is a production of The Verge and the Vox Media Podcast Network, and this episode was produced by Eric Gomez, Brandon Kiefer, and Travis Larchuk. I'll be back with Neely on Friday to talk about all of the news. There's policy stuff still happening. There's Epstein Files, stuff still happening. Gadget season is back.

We got Samsung phones. We have a lot to talk about. It's going to be awesome. We'll see you then. Rock and roll.