The Exchanges

Q Dragons in every Sunday. Brad, you're, uh, sorry. Brad, you're an investor in this company. Is this virtue signaling or is it reality? Is this a good move by them to not release this model and be thoughtful, give it to a handful of people, and just find all the bugs it can before releasing it to the public? And we've got a lot more issues to discuss about this.

A I mean, I, I, I actually think they deserve A ton of credit here, and let me walk you through why, right? They, the company could have just released Mythos, broken a lot of core things on the internet. Oftentimes in Silicon Valley, we say move fast and break things. In this case, it means just releasing the model to move further ahead of your competition, but here the company realized it would wreak havoc. They ran their own vulnerability testing. They saw that it would allow offensive hacking and people to expose browsers and browser history, expose credit cards, you know, on, on the internet. You know, what I like about this is they didn't need government to hold their hand on this. We have plenty of government regulations. They know it's in the best long-term interest of the company and the industry, you know, so they set up Project Glasswing. It's an AI-driven, you know, kind of cyber coalition. Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, JP Morgan, 40 of the most important companies, and their goal is very simple. Let's spend a hundred days, use advanced AI, To find and to fix and to harden these software vulnerabilities before hackers exploit them. Now, what I think this represents, Jason, is a threshold that we're crossing. Mythos and Spud, which is going to be out from OpenAI any day now, which is the first Blackwell-trained model at OpenAI, they represent the beginning of what I…

AI assessment note: “I actually think they deserve A ton of credit here, and let me walk you through why”

Q Can you, by the way, before you get to your counterpoints, what is the hawkishness that the market is specifically?

A The idea of hawkishness is that you're going to do quantitative tightening. That means you're going to pull money out of, out of the system, right? By allowing debt to roll off and not repurchasing. You know, mortgages or other things. Number two, it's that you won't lower rates as much as other people might have lowered rates. So that's what the market is kind of fearful of because he's been very critical in the past as we were on this podcast, right? Of Jerome Powell in June of 21, it was obvious to everybody in the world that inflation was skyrocketing and the fed sat on its hands. So, but let me give you a couple of thoughts. Number one, They've said very clearly, and he said clearly, that he really thinks that Greenspan got it right in the nineties, right? That sometimes you can have really high rates of growth without inflation. That comes from productivity in the nineties. That was driven by the internet. Today it's driven by AI. He thinks AI will be very deflationary. And so he's more likely to let the economy run so that we can have these four or five percent You know, GDP prints without panicking and saying, oh my gosh, I gotta, I gotta raise rates. Number two, when you look at the balance sheet, the Fed's balance sheet peaked at nine trillion dollars in 22. It's already rolled off to six and a half trillion. We've had quantitative tightening to the tune of two and a …

AI assessment note: “The idea of hawkishness is that you're going to do quantitative tightening.”

Q Why are the, um, Futures markets still trading up one and a half points, and why are things still ready?

A You know, I, I think that, listen, The, the, the stock markets ripped the last two days, assuming that Biden's going to win. And I think what the markets are starting to price in is that this is not going to be a blue wave. There's no mandate here for massive tax reform. There's going to be a divided Senate. It's going to be hard to pass legislation. That's going to be overly onerous. That the stimulus package is going to be smaller, not larger, which is why the, the rates are backing up. So I think from a, I think from a public markets perspective, the idea that we're going to have some checks and balances in place, it can live with either the, the devil we know, uh, or it can live with Biden, but it doesn't want Biden with Elizabeth Warren as treasury secretary.

AI assessment note: “what the markets are starting to price in is that this is not going to be a blue wave”

Q Yes. If enough people, though, do what you're saying, Brad, and they just retreat to quality at some point that quality, those quality companies would then become fully valued, maybe even overvalued. And thus the cycle begins again or not. So how long does that take?

A No, you nailed it. What happened last year, 20, 21 dispersion collapsed. Go check out Jam and Ball, who does incredible software analysis on our team. Dispersion collapsed between the best cohort and the worst cohort of software companies last year. The first thing that happened is dispersion returns. We pay a higher price for the best shit, and we pay a lower price for the low quality stuff, right? Then when we start to recover, when there's more predictability in the world, when we resolve the war, when we understand the path of inflation, Right? The stuff close in on the risk curve, that'll start being fully valued. So then we will be brave enough to walk a little further out on the ice on the lake, testing it. Is it safe to walk here? And then you walk out a little further and sadly, right? Eventually we're in the exact same pattern we've been before, which is we'll know we're at a market top five or six or seven years from now. When we repeat the same asinine behavior that we just went through, when everybody becomes complacent again, And overbidding this stuff way out on the risk curve. I'm just suggesting to you the number one question I get from GPs, venture capitalists, and others right now is when are we going to bounce back? Let me be absolutely clear. There is no bouncing back to where we were the last 18 months. That was the outlier. That was the make-believe. What…

AI assessment note: “we'll know we're at a market top five or six or seven years from now”

Q certain firms, some of your competitors in the growth stage side ripping capital into companies every 24 hours or 48 hours. Where, where does that been normalized? Because aren't we setting up a dynamic where if you have a bunch of growth firms pricing crazy rounds, whose valuations can then will not be able to be held up in the public markets, aren't we creating a different kind of problem?

A Well, um, you know, you and I have watched this dynamic play out probably four or five times over the course of the last 15 years where there's this inversion. Private capital markets. Private markets are actually overvalued relative to public markets. I just look at a few IPOs this week over the last couple of weeks. Deliveroo, hot private company down 30% in the IPO. Applovin came out this week, 20% down in the IPO. Right? At the end of the day, The great day, you know, as, as Munger likes to say, you know, the markets are a voting machine and the public markets are a brutal voting machine. Um, and so, you know, it just is going to take, remember when Groupon got done that last private round at twenty billion and then about nine months later is trading at five billion or Zynga. I mean, you and I can go through the list. We've watched this, you know, so it just takes the smack down and people losing actual money. Um, and, and however, So that's the one side, right? This is a temporary dynamic. Markets will clear. I think it is possible. You referenced, you know, a good friend of mine, you know, who's supposedly writing a term sheet every two days, you know, at Tiger. The truth of the matter is you can hop, you can hold simultaneous troops. You can believe the next three months that we're likely to have more multiple compression in the public markets, right? You could hedge you…

AI assessment note: “so it just takes the smack down and people losing actual money”

Q Brad, any thoughts here on this open source catch up the data being sold to China and our adversaries? Are you concerned about these open source models and then us providing data to them?

A First, you know, I'm in absolute agreement with David that we want maximum competition at, as we sit here today, the US is winning. We talked about it at the start. Our frontier labs are winning. Our open source is winning, and we have fairly limited regulations, right? She's coming here in September in a bilateral meeting to meet with the president. We're advancing relations on a variety of fronts. So I think everything looks good and you want to continue down that path. With that said, I will tell you that this will irritate people in Washington who feel that this, along with distillation and other things, um, could be the export of chips, all of which at a certain level makes sense, cause people to wonder whether or not we're making it too easy on the Chinese labs to catch up with American labs, uh, you know, in the race to frontier intelligence. So it, you know, it's the type of story, Jason, that I think will continue to muddy the waters, that will continue, uh, to be monitored. The reason I don't think it will cause us to change our stance with respect to China is because we're winning. But if the president asks his advisors, you know, one of these days, six months down the line, are we winning against China? And all of a sudden he gets a response. No, we're no longer winning. They've caught up. They passed us, et cetera. Then these things will get a lot more scrutiny, uh…

AI assessment note: “I don't think it will cause us to change our stance... because we're winning.”

Q to be deploying. So maybe you could talk a little bit about this austerity measures coming or just belt tightening, or some people may be getting out of the venture business who shouldn't have been in it to begin with. All of this seems like a great setup for more discipline and more disciplined founders. If the VCs have to be disciplined, doesn't that trickle down to the portfolio companies?

A 100%, but it, and while this might happen, while this might happen, I'm going to take the other side. I don't think that's what the lived experiences of most VCs in Silicon Valley today on Series A, Series B, Series C is certainly not in the area we're competing. We're seeing four or five, six hundred million dollar deals get done on zero revenue, two, three million dollars in revenue, and so let me just throw out perhaps an alternative view as to why this might look a little different than the world of austerity that we saw in 2002, 2003, 2009, 10, 11. The first is, right, the stock market is near an all-time high, and we know that, you know, the venture markets are reflexive to the stock market. We talked about that. The second reason, which I think is interesting is most firms on average are a lot bigger. Okay. That creates two issues. We have a situation where younger partners and principals who all did deals that were overvalued over the last few years. They want to put some points on the board in a repriced deal because they have to have some winners. So you have this principal agent problem. The people who used to check them were the senior partners, right? The, the investment committee, but now they have a lot of mouths to feed. So when you put money to work, you pull down more fee, and so, you know, these funds now, I mean, if you're Tiger or some of these big funds, y…

AI assessment note: “I don't think that's what the lived experiences of most VCs in Silicon Valley today”

Q Which we don't know exactly what their intent is because they're doing this behind closed doors. Brad, what's your take on this?

A I think there, Dave and I talked about this the other night. I think there's something bigger playing out here. I mean, clearly he's the expert on real politic and, you know, but it seems to me that we have had decades of military diplomacy. Right. And, and most recently, the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force. We don't want to make the same mistake we made in Vietnam. So, like, we're going to go in with full force. And, you know, basically the public doesn't support, you know, military adventureism anymore. Right. And so now we have, maybe we'll call it the Blinken Doctrine, which is the Powell Doctrine equivalent, but for economic force. It's the nuclear economic weapon. That is on full display by the West right now that I think has really significant implications, right? It's reunited the West. Um, and I don't think this is just about Putin. And I think the reason that the US and Western Europe is slow playing this a bit is they're sending a message to the Chinese as well, which is that we w we are unified and we will use an economic weapon of mass destruction. If, right, you don't play by global norms. And so the box I think we're in from a negotiating perspective, right, uh, in Ukraine right now is not a box around neutrality. I mean, neutrality is already clear. I mean, we had, Zelensky didn't even ask for a no-fly zone. He's not even asking for NATO membership. They'v…

AI assessment note: “I think there's something bigger playing out here.”

Q Brad, any concerns about the militarization in the country that is occurring from you?

A Well, I think, listen, nobody wants abusive tactics, but let me just give you some numbers that cause me to believe this feels more like, you know, a bipartisan issue, and, and we have kind of the pendulum swinging back more than, you know, something that should cause us concern. Court-ordered removals and deportations average 200,000 per year, 1997 to 2000. That's under Clinton. 200,000 a year. They averaged 300,000 a year, peaking at 400,000 under Obama. Right? Deportations plummeted under Biden. At the same time, we know that illegal crossings into this country kind of exploded higher. And now they estimate that Trump is back to the trend line of 300 to 400,000 illegal, you know, deportations and removals. These are court ordered removals. So I might have expected the Trump number to be way higher, given that we just went through this massive step up in illegal crossings. But I think it's really important to point out that this has been a bipartisan, consistent thing that has happened in this country for 30 years. I'm not talking about tactics, exactly how it's going on, but the deportations have been going on by both parties, and we never, it hasn't been an issue before. And so it is curious that it is more of an issue now. And then the other thing I would just underscore is if you look at what Daniel Lurie is doing in the city of San Francisco, he is live blogging on Twitt…

AI assessment note: “this feels more like... the pendulum swinging back more than... something that should cause us concern.”

Q probably have some good insights since you've talked to them on a regular basis. Chances they get out in the next six to nine months, both of them, you'd say a hundred percent chance, unless there's some outside event, you know, blockade of Taiwan, some black swan event that we're not anticipating. What do you think the chances are they're public when we're sitting here and I'm skiing in Hokkaido?

A Yeah, I think, I think it's very high, but let me, let me first say, you know, the SpaceX IPO where we were also investors and we also bought in the IPO. I mean, it was textbook. It was a hugely successful IPO. They raised seventy five billion dollars at 1.75 trillion. Ok, so it went out below where we are today. It's up 25%, you know, and let's call it on thirty five billion of forward revenue. So if you think about that revenue multiples trading at two trillion, On roughly thirty five billion of forward revenue. It's an incredible achievement. I think it was textbook. I think Anthropic and OpenAI were watching very closely because frankly, we had not had an IPO of that size and to Elon's credit and to the team's credit, Brett and Gwen, they really pioneered some really smart and interesting things as part of that IPO. So You know, you heard from Gavin. Anthropics rumored to be, you know, trending over a hundred billion in revenue compared to the 35, right? If they exit the year at a hundred, that means their gap revenue next year could be well over a hundred. So based on the SpaceX success, I think it would be a blockbuster IPO. And I think SpaceX has shown them the way on things like the total raise, pricing, liquidity, inclusion into the indexes, how to do the lockup, like I think they've gone to school.

AI assessment note: “Yeah, I think, I think it's very high, but let me, let me first say”

Q minutes and, and they did say that they're not raising rates, but they do expect two more 25 basis point rate hikes later this year. Maybe you can tell us what market data is indicating. Is that actually the case? And is the fed not giving a, a, a clean reading on economic activity and inflation as it's being published in other places than what the fed is currently reading?

A Well, I'm, I mean, I think the most interesting thing here, and perhaps the most non consensus thing here is the fed kind of seems to be orchestrating a pretty soft landing. Right? Nobody wants to hear it. The market fought it for the first half of the year. The Nasdaq was just up 39% in the first half, and most people didn't participate, so everybody wants to talk this down and say that inflation's still out of control. Chamath's been talking about inflation higher for longer, but notice he doesn't say that's a problem or the economy, therefore, is going to crash. It's just like inflation's going to be a little stickier on the way down. Rates are going to be a little bit higher for longer. I think when you look at this in totality, The reason they hit pause is because they've come a long way quickly. They know that things are starting to trend in the right direction, so their own forecast for CPI is that it comes down a lot by the end of the year. Goldman Sachs is now at 3.3%, and I know we have readings like true inflation that say the inflation today is actually lower than that, but you don't even need to get to the debate between true inflation and CPI. They're both trending a lot lower, but we got a really interesting reading this morning because like, Why do we want to, you know, raise rates? Well, we want to cool off the economy. And so everybody's looking for that indic…

AI assessment note: “you don't even need to get to the debate between true inflation and CPI”

Q seem if Elon does with Twitter, what seems to have been leaked here correctly, according to all reports, And there's a 20% riff at Facebook, and we start to see people take the medicine. Is that the ultimate setup for now? Hey, these companies are being run to throw off cash. And we have some way out of this, what people think is going to be a very hard landing.

A Well, I mean, you know, first just let's talk about, you know, where rates are, you know, today, you know, we're at four, three on the, on the tenure. I mean, technology's performed incredibly well for a long period of time with rates in this, in this range. So the adjustment period is very difficult, right? And so when you, when you look at the convexity and going from zero percent interest rates to four and a half, like that has been a shock to the system. It has been destabilizing to multiples. Multiples were basically infinite last year, and now multiples have come back to reality, and so I don't question, in fact, I actually think Free capital was a weapon of economic destruction, right? Free capital hurt good companies from being great companies. They hired too many people. Their margins were too low. You know, SoftBank funding all of these rideshare companies around the world to compete with Uber meant that Uber, even though they're a market leader, did not have market leadership economics, and so the ringing out of the system of that excess, that grift, that stupidity, That's gonna be good for the fundamentals of these business, but the transition from, you know, that low-rate environment to the high-rate environment, it's dislocating for investors. It's dislocating for management at these companies, and it's gonna be, this is not, you know, a, a six-month phenomenon. W…

AI assessment note: “ringing out of the system of that excess, that grift, that stupidity, That's gonna be good”

Q Like, do you have, do you have any belief that you could even get a meeting with the CEO and management where they would listen to you appropriately?

A We've certainly got meetings with management before. So yes, I believe we could, whether or not that impacts, you know, how they build product, how they, how they run the business, you know, the influence, et cetera. But again, I, I, I think that's not really the problem here, but the point I would totally agree with you on Chema. We've had 10 years Of where the cost of capital was zero. 10 years of hyper growth for these social networks. Right? In each of the last five years, Facebook has hired more people in each of the last five years than they had 10 years after the company was founded. Okay? So as we've seen this growth begin to turn over, I have seen the companies really slow to react. To right size their behavior that they had over the course of the last decade. To put themselves in a position to compete for the next decade. So it's one thing just to throw your hands in the air and say, well, this is all Apple. We couldn't do anything about it, but we, we really haven't seen leadership in terms of cost control. We really have, we all know these companies could run.

AI assessment note: “We've certainly got meetings with management before. So yes, I believe we could”

Q these companies doing hiring freezes, layoffs, at the same time that the housing market tanks, at the same time crypto tanks, at the same time the stock market tanks, this feels like a major shock to the system. Is it time to maybe reconsider some of these, um, No. You know, for the Fed to reconsider, or just slow and steady wins the race here? What, what's the best option?

A First, we should erect statues to Senator Manchin for saving the Republic by vetoing STEMI-II. That would have been devastating. That would have been devastating. So we'll revisit that. Listen, the Fed said two really important things this week. They said, number one, our communications have been helpful in shifting market expectations. What that means, the Fed is the air traffic control. They said to the markets at the beginning of the year, you're 90 degrees off runway heading. Get your ass back on runway heading. It was a slap in the face to markets, and it was a radical adjustment. Now you hear the Fed in these little statements. This week they said, hey, we're well positioned this year to assess the effects of policy firming in the back half. So they're saying we're going to hit it with fifty-fifty, and then we're going to take a look. So now think of it as air traffic control. You're two degrees to the left. You're two degrees to the right. They're steering us on runway heading. I don't think the Fed wants to do anything at this moment to lose credibility in the inflation fight. We're going to get 50. We're going to get another, another 50. But they're doing what they want to do, which is keeping markets sufficiently tight, right? They wanted to take the crypto market down. They wanted to take all the excessive risks in the stock market down, right? You're absolutely righ…

AI assessment note: “All the things they needed to do, they're doing. Right? They need to stay the course.”

Q And you also got to get through Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna who are going to try to stop you. Are they going to try to stop you from doing this? Are they giving you blowback because they don't want to give Trump the win, which is Totally retarded, but.

A No, listen, I, I, I give credit where credit is due, you know, Cory Booker's come out and supported these, and Gavin Newsom, Governor Wes Moore, you know, John Fetterman, Senator from Pennsylvania, so there are plenty of Democrats who are able to get over that hurdle, but you bring up a good point, and I said this on CNBC yesterday, On the one hand, you have Bernie and Mondami. They want to take and tax all these corporations. They want to control all that money in Washington and decide who gets it right. It's a very dependent on Washington model. On the other side, you have the president and this administration, and frankly, a lot of Democrats who are more in the orthodoxy, closer to the center, who say, no, let's set up a private account for every kid in America. Let's fund them. Let's not make them dependent. Let's make them independent of the government to build wealth on their own, financial literacy on their own, more likely to graduate from high school, start a business, buy a home. Those are two very different world views for America, and I think the antidote to more socialism is more capitalism, and as I told the president, this is more capitalism.

AI assessment note: “Cory Booker's come out and supported these, and Gavin Newsom, Governor Wes Moore”

Q What's your take on minimum wage and universal healthcare, Brad? How do you think about it as a capitalist, as an innovator, and in the face of AI, which could have a dramatic impact on these issues?

A You know, like Zach's, I, you know, to me, I haven't spent a ton of time thinking about those, except that as a society, we're 38 trillion dollars in debt. We haven't been able to afford to deliver those things. I generally think the market works out those issues better than the government top down trying to, you know, the government gets more and more involved in health care, and the only thing that happens, it gets more expensive. So we've all seen the charts of the most expensive categories where we've had inflation, education, health care, et cetera. It's where the government's involved. I actually think if you just let the markets work, we're entering into an age of abundance. A lot of these problems are going to be solved. People are going to have a lot of AI coaches in healthcare and education, et cetera. Let the market work. Government stay at bay. Keep things safe. We're on a good March.

AI assessment note: “I generally think the market works out those issues better than the government”

Q uh, eye test. It does seem like consumers are still spending money, but the cost of goods in some cases is coming down. I mean, how do you look at the consumer and try to make sense of what's going on here? Because it does seem the United States is in its own little bubble here world of just over employment. Still, even though we're seeing these layoffs in tech.

A Well, I would say number one, uh, that the pop we've seen in rates, which impacts consumers by way of higher mortgages, higher Variable expenses on their credit cards was offset over the last few months by lower energy costs. So their cost of gasoline went down. Add in the things that Chamath's talking about, and I'm not sure you took a lot of money out of people's pockets. I would say this, that again, what we're talking about here, retail sales have continued to do really well. E-commerce sales in January were, were, were quite strong. That would all be consistent with the soft landing. But here we are, you know, again, talking about macro. I think when you spend this much time talking about macro, doing what we do, you know, like last year, I'll be the first to raise my hand and say, you know, like our friend Bill Gurley would say, it leads you in the wrong direction. The fact of the matter is it's totally unknown and unknowable where we're going to go over the course of the next three or four months. I think there's a better ability to predict maybe over the course of the next couple of years. Um, but the fact is, if you would have told any, I was just with a bunch of, uh, investors, you probably represent a trillion dollars of public market demand, 10, uh, or so long only investors. If you would have told any of them that the tenure was going to be at three, nine, six, the…

AI assessment note: “it's totally unknown and unknowable where we're going to go”

Q What is driving that? Just explain to the audience what's driving it. Is it token use? Is it Claude subscriptions?

A We crossed a threshold with Opus 4.6, right? And we saw it again with ChatGPT 5.4. Where the models and the agents on top of them, whether it's Cloud Code, Codex, ChatGPT, they're no longer competing with IT budgets. They're now augmenting labor. They're competing with labor budgets. You could not possibly have a six billion dollar month. It is impossible to do that by displacing IT budgets. Millions of other companies across America say, oh my God, let's spin up these agents and have them do things for us, and we're willing to pay for it because the product of that effort is worth the money to us. And the revenue and the usage momentum, I will tell you in the month of March continues, and it only accelerates from here. As Kevin Weil has said, the models and the agents are the dumbest today they will ever be, right? We're in the early innings of compute and algorithmic, uh, capability. And so, you know, like that to me is the observation of this moment. Should they go public? I've said yes, they should go public for several reasons. There's tons of institutional demand. They need cheap access to money to continue to build out, uh, the compute they need to support. They, they, there is more compute constraint in these businesses this very day than they've had any time in the last three years, so they need access to the capital. And then finally, I think you have to have the reta…

AI assessment note: “They're now augmenting labor. They're competing with labor budgets.”

Q across the life cycle of companies. Obviously, you're in some private companies we all know very well. Famously, Snowflake, uh, I think your biggest win ever. Correct me if I'm wrong, uh, in terms of a private. How do you look at this when you're a steward of capital? Public markets, private markets, and then just Yolo, just put it into, you know, some T-bills or, yeah, bonds or whatever.

A I mean, first let's just frame, right, the chart that you showed. I think you should, it said, you know, X open AI, I don't know, something like 10 or eleven billion dollars has been invested into some 500 AI companies. I mean, I happen to agree with Doug that this is a platform shift on the same magnitude as the internet or mobile itself. In fact, it may be bigger. Than both of those. But, you know, when I look at 10 or eleven billion dollars, you know, let's put it in context. Meta's gonna spend twenty billion in one year alone on AR VR. And this is on an entire platform. So I, I don't know. I, I, I think whenever you have something as tectonic as mobile or internet, it deserves a lot of investment. And yes, it's going to be messy. And yes, Chamath's right. The cost of capital, frankly, is limiting the amount of money going into these businesses already. So we see a lot of dry powder sitting on the sideline that's chasing new ideas. I think one way, one way to frame it as well is like, think about in 2000. We all knew that the internet was going to be big. We may have been lucky enough to conclude that search was going to be big. But if you invest in, in Yahoo or InfoSeq or AOL or Excite.

AI assessment note: “first let's just frame, right, the chart that you showed”

Q Would that happen two or three times, though? Would you do it all at once like this? Or might it happen over, you know, a series ABC kind of situation where you build a position?

A Well, I would say, you know, we're not writing, I, you know, we haven't written a hundred million dollar check into a series A, and I don't think most of the people, to Chema's point that you're talking about, are writing a hundred million dollar checks into those series A's. The Mr. L round that you reference, I imagine the lead check into that was maybe 50, maybe 50. So listen, larger fund sizes enable you to participate in companies that require more capital and, and these companies do require more capital. So you may take the position that all these companies are going to zero. That's not my position. My position simply is that I do believe there is a bit of over exuberance That too many things are getting funded, right? And that some, you know, like the margin of safety, the margin of return being required is probably lower than it should be. But there's no doubt out of this vintage in my mind that you're going to have some epic companies. Now, I don't know if what Mustafa and Reid Hoffman are doing at inflection is, you know, building pie to take on chat GPT and to take on bar to be the intelligent assistant. The ambition is extraordinary. The cost of compute is high, but the first mover advantage is also high, right? Because whoever secures this position, you know, Bill Gates said he's been playing around with it. It's one of his favorite agents or whatever. That's an in…

AI assessment note: “My position simply is that I do believe there is a bit of over exuberance”