Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

A single tweet just vaporized BILLIONS from cybersecurity stocks. CrowdStrike down 8%. Cloudflare down 8.1%. Okta down 9.2%. SailPoint down 9.4%. The Global X Cybersecurity ETF just hit its lowest level since November 2023. What happened? Anthropic dropped Claude Code Security. It scans your entire codebase for vulnerabilities and...

Ric_RTP's profile picture

Ricardo

46,537 subscribers

110,899 views • 5 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & PoliticsScience & TechnologyFinance
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

A single blog post just nuked $31 BILLION from IBM. Their worst day in 25 years. Down 13.2% in one session. On track for their worst MONTH since 1968. All because Anthropic published 2,000 words about COBOL. They're on a generational run right now, here's what makes them better than everyone else: Monday morning, Anthropic dropped a blog post saying Claude Code can now modernize COBOL systems. For context: COBOL is a programming language from the 1950s. It runs 95% of ATM transactions in America. Powers every major bank. Runs airline booking systems. Processes government benefits. Hundreds of BILLIONS of lines still in production. The problem? The developers who wrote it are retiring or dead. Universities stopped teaching it decades ago. So companies like IBM, Accenture, and Cognizant built MASSIVE consulting businesses around one simple fact: "We have people who understand your ancient code. You don't. Pay us." Modernizing COBOL used to require armies of consultants spending YEARS mapping workflows. Then Anthropic said: "Actually, Claude can do that in weeks." Wall Street did the math instantly. IBM: $31 billion gone. Accenture: Down 6.6%. Cognizant: Down 6%. But this wasn't just about COBOL... This was Claude's FOURTH attack in three weeks. February 3: Claude Cowork plugins drop. Legal software crashes. Thomson Reuters down 18%. $285 billion wiped across software stocks. February 6: Claude Opus 4.6 launches with agent teams. Salesforce, Workday, ServiceNow crater. The "SaaSpocalypse" headline goes viral. February 20: Claude Code Security drops. Cybersecurity stocks hemorrhage $17 billion. CrowdStrike, Cloudflare, Okta, JFrog all in freefall. February 23: COBOL modernization blog post. IBM has its worst day in a generation. One AI company. Four product announcements. Four separate market panics. The pattern is obvious now. Every week, Anthropic releases a feature. Every week, another industry gets repriced. Legal research? Done. Cybersecurity? Done. Legacy code consulting? Done. And these aren't even FINISHED products. Claude Code Security is still in "limited research preview." The COBOL tool just got a blog post. Not even a formal launch. Wall Street is trading on ANNOUNCEMENTS now. The actual products haven't even shipped to most customers. IBM defended itself saying their mainframe business isn't just COBOL. CrowdStrike CEO said Claude "doesn't replace the Falcon platform." Barclays called the selloffs "illogical." Doesn't matter. The market has decided that AI disruption is priced in TODAY. Tech stocks are crumbling. All because one company keeps publishing blog posts. This is what "disruption" actually looks like. Not a slow transition over decades. Not a gradual shift in market share. One blog post. 2,000 words. $31 billion gone. And Anthropic just announced a $350 billion valuation. With $5-6 billion in employee share sales. While legacy tech burns. There haven’t been many companies in history as disruptive as Anthropic is today.
0:40

A single blog post just nuked $31 BILLION from IBM. Their worst day in 25 years. Down 13.2% in one session. On track for their worst MONTH since 1968. All because Anthropic published 2,000 words about COBOL. They're on a generational run right now, here's what makes them better than everyone else: Monday morning, Anthropic dropped a blog post saying Claude Code can now modernize COBOL systems. For context: COBOL is a programming language from the 1950s. It runs 95% of ATM transactions in America. Powers every major bank. Runs airline booking systems. Processes government benefits. Hundreds of BILLIONS of lines still in production. The problem? The developers who wrote it are retiring or dead. Universities stopped teaching it decades ago. So companies like IBM, Accenture, and Cognizant built MASSIVE consulting businesses around one simple fact: "We have people who understand your ancient code. You don't. Pay us." Modernizing COBOL used to require armies of consultants spending YEARS mapping workflows. Then Anthropic said: "Actually, Claude can do that in weeks." Wall Street did the math instantly. IBM: $31 billion gone. Accenture: Down 6.6%. Cognizant: Down 6%. But this wasn't just about COBOL... This was Claude's FOURTH attack in three weeks. February 3: Claude Cowork plugins drop. Legal software crashes. Thomson Reuters down 18%. $285 billion wiped across software stocks. February 6: Claude Opus 4.6 launches with agent teams. Salesforce, Workday, ServiceNow crater. The "SaaSpocalypse" headline goes viral. February 20: Claude Code Security drops. Cybersecurity stocks hemorrhage $17 billion. CrowdStrike, Cloudflare, Okta, JFrog all in freefall. February 23: COBOL modernization blog post. IBM has its worst day in a generation. One AI company. Four product announcements. Four separate market panics. The pattern is obvious now. Every week, Anthropic releases a feature. Every week, another industry gets repriced. Legal research? Done. Cybersecurity? Done. Legacy code consulting? Done. And these aren't even FINISHED products. Claude Code Security is still in "limited research preview." The COBOL tool just got a blog post. Not even a formal launch. Wall Street is trading on ANNOUNCEMENTS now. The actual products haven't even shipped to most customers. IBM defended itself saying their mainframe business isn't just COBOL. CrowdStrike CEO said Claude "doesn't replace the Falcon platform." Barclays called the selloffs "illogical." Doesn't matter. The market has decided that AI disruption is priced in TODAY. Tech stocks are crumbling. All because one company keeps publishing blog posts. This is what "disruption" actually looks like. Not a slow transition over decades. Not a gradual shift in market share. One blog post. 2,000 words. $31 billion gone. And Anthropic just announced a $350 billion valuation. With $5-6 billion in employee share sales. While legacy tech burns. There haven’t been many companies in history as disruptive as Anthropic is today.

Ricardo

20,177 views • 5 months ago

This is the biggest irony in tech history. Microsoft beat revenue estimates. Stock plunged 11%, wiped out $400 BILLION in market cap. Salesforce reported growth. Stock fell 5.6%. ServiceNow beat earnings. Stock crashed 11%. SAP beat projections. Stock dropped 16%. Entire software sector entered bear market territory. Down 22% from peak. These are the companies everyone said would WIN from AI. They spent billions BUYING AI companies. ServiceNow: $7.75 billion for Armis. Salesforce: $8 billion for Informatica. They launched AI products. Built AI workflows. Hired AI teams. And the market said: You're all dead. Because investors just realized something nobody wanted to admit: AI doesn't make software companies stronger. AI makes software companies OBSOLETE. Morgan Stanley: "In an environment of heightened investor skepticism, stable growth falls short of shifting the narrative." Good earnings aren't enough anymore. The market is pricing in a world where AI replaces the software these companies sell. ServiceNow CEO tried defending on the earnings call: "AI needs workflow orchestration. ServiceNow is the gateway to this shift." Market response: 11% crash. Because here's what he didn't say: If AI can write code, automate workflows, and generate apps at a fraction of the cost, why would anyone pay $50,000 per year for enterprise software licenses? The per-seat pricing model that made SaaS companies rich is getting murdered by AI efficiency. One AI agent replaces 10 seats. One prompt replaces months of custom development. One LLM call replaces entire software categories. Klarna already proved it. CEO said they pulled Salesforce out of their stack. Built everything themselves using AI. And that's just the beginning. The software apocalypse hit hardest on companies that INVESTED IN AI: Atlassian: down 12.6% Intuit: down 7.8% HubSpot: down 11.5% Zscaler: down 6.3% Meanwhile, the companies ENABLING AI made money: Nvidia: up Semiconductor stocks: surging Memory firms: rallying The divide is brutal. Hardware companies print cash. Software companies get destroyed. Because in an AI-first world, you need GPUs to build the models. But you don't need software subscriptions when the AI builds the software for you. Jim Cramer called it the "P/E multiple compression crisis." Translation: Investors don't care about earnings anymore. They care about whether your business model survives the next 5 years. And right now software business models look doomed. They're literally stuck: If they DON'T invest in AI, they fall behind. If they DO invest in AI, they cannibalize their own products. It's a death spiral with no exit. ServiceNow spent $12 BILLION on acquisitions in 2025 alone. Trying to buy their way into relevance. And yesterday the market cooked them. The craziest thing to me tho... Most software companies beat earnings. Revenue was solid. Growth was fine. But it didn't matter. Because the market stopped pricing software on what it earns TODAY. It's pricing software on what it's worth in a world where AI does the job for free. And in that world these companies are worth nothing. This is the biggest sector repricing since 2008. $500 billion in market value gone in ONE DAY. And it's not stopping. Because every company watching this is thinking the same thing: "If I can replace ServiceNow with 3 AI agents and save $10 million per year, why wouldn't I?" The answer used to be: "Because you need enterprise-grade reliability." But now? AI agents are getting reliable. Fast. Software companies just realized they're competing with open-source models that cost $0.02 per 1,000 tokens. You can't win a pricing war against free. The companies that spent BILLIONS preparing for AI are getting killed BY AI. What an irony.
1:54

This is the biggest irony in tech history. Microsoft beat revenue estimates. Stock plunged 11%, wiped out $400 BILLION in market cap. Salesforce reported growth. Stock fell 5.6%. ServiceNow beat earnings. Stock crashed 11%. SAP beat projections. Stock dropped 16%. Entire software sector entered bear market territory. Down 22% from peak. These are the companies everyone said would WIN from AI. They spent billions BUYING AI companies. ServiceNow: $7.75 billion for Armis. Salesforce: $8 billion for Informatica. They launched AI products. Built AI workflows. Hired AI teams. And the market said: You're all dead. Because investors just realized something nobody wanted to admit: AI doesn't make software companies stronger. AI makes software companies OBSOLETE. Morgan Stanley: "In an environment of heightened investor skepticism, stable growth falls short of shifting the narrative." Good earnings aren't enough anymore. The market is pricing in a world where AI replaces the software these companies sell. ServiceNow CEO tried defending on the earnings call: "AI needs workflow orchestration. ServiceNow is the gateway to this shift." Market response: 11% crash. Because here's what he didn't say: If AI can write code, automate workflows, and generate apps at a fraction of the cost, why would anyone pay $50,000 per year for enterprise software licenses? The per-seat pricing model that made SaaS companies rich is getting murdered by AI efficiency. One AI agent replaces 10 seats. One prompt replaces months of custom development. One LLM call replaces entire software categories. Klarna already proved it. CEO said they pulled Salesforce out of their stack. Built everything themselves using AI. And that's just the beginning. The software apocalypse hit hardest on companies that INVESTED IN AI: Atlassian: down 12.6% Intuit: down 7.8% HubSpot: down 11.5% Zscaler: down 6.3% Meanwhile, the companies ENABLING AI made money: Nvidia: up Semiconductor stocks: surging Memory firms: rallying The divide is brutal. Hardware companies print cash. Software companies get destroyed. Because in an AI-first world, you need GPUs to build the models. But you don't need software subscriptions when the AI builds the software for you. Jim Cramer called it the "P/E multiple compression crisis." Translation: Investors don't care about earnings anymore. They care about whether your business model survives the next 5 years. And right now software business models look doomed. They're literally stuck: If they DON'T invest in AI, they fall behind. If they DO invest in AI, they cannibalize their own products. It's a death spiral with no exit. ServiceNow spent $12 BILLION on acquisitions in 2025 alone. Trying to buy their way into relevance. And yesterday the market cooked them. The craziest thing to me tho... Most software companies beat earnings. Revenue was solid. Growth was fine. But it didn't matter. Because the market stopped pricing software on what it earns TODAY. It's pricing software on what it's worth in a world where AI does the job for free. And in that world these companies are worth nothing. This is the biggest sector repricing since 2008. $500 billion in market value gone in ONE DAY. And it's not stopping. Because every company watching this is thinking the same thing: "If I can replace ServiceNow with 3 AI agents and save $10 million per year, why wouldn't I?" The answer used to be: "Because you need enterprise-grade reliability." But now? AI agents are getting reliable. Fast. Software companies just realized they're competing with open-source models that cost $0.02 per 1,000 tokens. You can't win a pricing war against free. The companies that spent BILLIONS preparing for AI are getting killed BY AI. What an irony.

Ricardo

1,814,969 views • 6 months ago

Broadcom's CEO just told investors that one senior engineer with Claude Opus can do in one week what ten engineers earning $300,000 a year take three months to produce. Every engineering org in the world is running the wrong headcount math. This was not a prediction. It was a report from inside Broadcom. Hock Tan said his engineers are already using Claude Opus for engineering design and code assistance. Not experimenting with it. Using it. And the output they are getting from a single senior engineer in one week is equivalent to what a team of ten would produce over three months. Do that math slowly. Ten engineers at $300,000 a year is $3 million in annual salary. Three months of their time is $750,000 of labor. One engineer with Claude Opus produces the same result in one week. He also said something that most people in the room let slide past them. The engineers who get good at these tools do not just get faster. They get better. The designs they produce with AI assistance are probably better than what they would produce without it. That is the part nobody wants to say out loud. It was never just about speed. The ceiling on what a single engineer can produce just moved. And the teams that have not figured that out yet are spending $750,000 to do what one person with the right tools can do for a fraction of that. What do you guys think about this? (Watch the full interview at Bloomberg Live on YouTube)
1:15

Broadcom's CEO just told investors that one senior engineer with Claude Opus can do in one week what ten engineers earning $300,000 a year take three months to produce. Every engineering org in the world is running the wrong headcount math. This was not a prediction. It was a report from inside Broadcom. Hock Tan said his engineers are already using Claude Opus for engineering design and code assistance. Not experimenting with it. Using it. And the output they are getting from a single senior engineer in one week is equivalent to what a team of ten would produce over three months. Do that math slowly. Ten engineers at $300,000 a year is $3 million in annual salary. Three months of their time is $750,000 of labor. One engineer with Claude Opus produces the same result in one week. He also said something that most people in the room let slide past them. The engineers who get good at these tools do not just get faster. They get better. The designs they produce with AI assistance are probably better than what they would produce without it. That is the part nobody wants to say out loud. It was never just about speed. The ceiling on what a single engineer can produce just moved. And the teams that have not figured that out yet are spending $750,000 to do what one person with the right tools can do for a fraction of that. What do you guys think about this? (Watch the full interview at Bloomberg Live on YouTube)

Ihtesham Ali

96,980 views • 1 month ago

Google just confirmed the first case of hackers using AI to build a zero-day exploit from scratch. An actual zero-day vulnerability that no human had EVER found before, discovered by an AI model, turned into a working weapon, and aimed at a mass exploitation campaign targeting thousands of systems simultaneously. Google's Threat Intelligence Group caught it yesterday and killed the operation before it scaled. But the details of how it worked are genuinely scary: The AI found a flaw in a popular two-factor authentication system that traditional security tools had missed entirely. The vulnerability was a logic error buried deep in the authentication flow where a developer had hard-coded a trust exception years ago. No human security researcher or automated scanner had caught it. The flaw was invisible to EVERY tool the cybersecurity industry has built over the past two decades. But the AI spotted it immediately. Then it wrote a full Python exploit script to weaponize it. Google's analysts could tell the code was AI-generated because it had textbook formatting, educational comments explaining every function, and even a hallucinated severity score that doesn't exist in any real database. The AI literally graded its own attack with a fake rating. So the code had MISTAKES in it. The criminals' implementation was clumsy enough that it probably interfered with the actual deployment. This was the sloppy first attempt by people who are still learning how to use these tools. And it still found a vulnerability that the entire cybersecurity industry missed. Google's chief threat analyst John Hultquist said: "There's a misconception that the AI vulnerability race is imminent. The reality is that it's already begun. For every zero-day we can trace back to AI, there are probably many more out there." But here's where it gets truly insane... This wasn't even a sophisticated operation. North Korea's APT45 hacking unit is sending thousands of repetitive prompts to AI models, recursively analyzing known vulnerabilities and building an entire exploit arsenal that would be physically impossible for human hackers to assemble at the same speed. They're essentially industrializing cyberattacks. A Chinese state-linked group jailbroke Google's own Gemini by simply asking it to "pretend to be a network security expert" and then used that persona to research how to hack TP-Link routers and corporate file transfer systems. Another Chinese group deployed autonomous AI agents that probed a Japanese tech firm with minimal human oversight, deciding on their own which tools to use and pivoting between targets based on internal reasoning. And then there's PROMPTSPY, an Android backdoor that calls Google's Gemini API to read your phone screen in real time, navigate your interface autonomously, capture your biometric data, replay your lock screen PIN, and block you from uninstalling it by placing an invisible overlay over the uninstall button. It literally OPERATES your phone using commercial AI tools anyone can access. Everyone spent the last 3 years arguing about whether AI would take people's jobs. Meanwhile AI is making every password, every firewall, and every two-factor authentication system on Earth fundamentally less secure. The entire $190 billion cybersecurity industry was built on one assumption: that finding vulnerabilities is hard and requires deep expertise. But AI just removed that assumption from the equation. And the scariest part is that Google said the criminals made errors this time. The implementation was rough and the campaign probably didn't fully work. These were amateurs, now imagine what professionals are able to do. There's a reason Sam Altman predicted an inevitable massive cyberattack THIS year. What do you think?
1:45

Google just confirmed the first case of hackers using AI to build a zero-day exploit from scratch. An actual zero-day vulnerability that no human had EVER found before, discovered by an AI model, turned into a working weapon, and aimed at a mass exploitation campaign targeting thousands of systems simultaneously. Google's Threat Intelligence Group caught it yesterday and killed the operation before it scaled. But the details of how it worked are genuinely scary: The AI found a flaw in a popular two-factor authentication system that traditional security tools had missed entirely. The vulnerability was a logic error buried deep in the authentication flow where a developer had hard-coded a trust exception years ago. No human security researcher or automated scanner had caught it. The flaw was invisible to EVERY tool the cybersecurity industry has built over the past two decades. But the AI spotted it immediately. Then it wrote a full Python exploit script to weaponize it. Google's analysts could tell the code was AI-generated because it had textbook formatting, educational comments explaining every function, and even a hallucinated severity score that doesn't exist in any real database. The AI literally graded its own attack with a fake rating. So the code had MISTAKES in it. The criminals' implementation was clumsy enough that it probably interfered with the actual deployment. This was the sloppy first attempt by people who are still learning how to use these tools. And it still found a vulnerability that the entire cybersecurity industry missed. Google's chief threat analyst John Hultquist said: "There's a misconception that the AI vulnerability race is imminent. The reality is that it's already begun. For every zero-day we can trace back to AI, there are probably many more out there." But here's where it gets truly insane... This wasn't even a sophisticated operation. North Korea's APT45 hacking unit is sending thousands of repetitive prompts to AI models, recursively analyzing known vulnerabilities and building an entire exploit arsenal that would be physically impossible for human hackers to assemble at the same speed. They're essentially industrializing cyberattacks. A Chinese state-linked group jailbroke Google's own Gemini by simply asking it to "pretend to be a network security expert" and then used that persona to research how to hack TP-Link routers and corporate file transfer systems. Another Chinese group deployed autonomous AI agents that probed a Japanese tech firm with minimal human oversight, deciding on their own which tools to use and pivoting between targets based on internal reasoning. And then there's PROMPTSPY, an Android backdoor that calls Google's Gemini API to read your phone screen in real time, navigate your interface autonomously, capture your biometric data, replay your lock screen PIN, and block you from uninstalling it by placing an invisible overlay over the uninstall button. It literally OPERATES your phone using commercial AI tools anyone can access. Everyone spent the last 3 years arguing about whether AI would take people's jobs. Meanwhile AI is making every password, every firewall, and every two-factor authentication system on Earth fundamentally less secure. The entire $190 billion cybersecurity industry was built on one assumption: that finding vulnerabilities is hard and requires deep expertise. But AI just removed that assumption from the equation. And the scariest part is that Google said the criminals made errors this time. The implementation was rough and the campaign probably didn't fully work. These were amateurs, now imagine what professionals are able to do. There's a reason Sam Altman predicted an inevitable massive cyberattack THIS year. What do you think?

Ricardo

50,564 views • 3 months ago

🚨 ANTHROPIC JUST REVEALED CLAUDE MYTHOS ABILITIES Anthropic just formally announced "Claude Mythos Preview" and launched "Project Glasswing" to deploy it for cybersecurity defense. The models are unlocking completely new, autonomous behaviors. This isn't about slightly better benchmark scores. This is about what the model can do. Here are the direct quotes from Anthropic’s research team (including Dario) on exactly what Mythos is capable of: • Chaining Exploits: "It has the ability to chain together vulnerabilities... this model is able to create exploits out of three, four, sometimes five vulnerabilities that in sequence give you some kind of very sophisticated end outcome." • The Professional Standard: "The model that we're experimenting with is, by and large, as good as a professional human at identifying bugs." • Unprecedented Autonomy: "It's just generally better at pursuing really long-range tasks that are kind of like the tasks that a human security researcher would do throughout the course of an entire day." The Reality Check: Dario Amodei flat out said: "There's a kind of accelerating exponential... Claude Mythos Preview is a particularly big jump along that point." Because this model has become so capable at identifying zero-days, they are restricting its release to top tech partners to try to patch the world's software before these capabilities leak out. The autonomous researcher era has officially arrived. It’s over 💀
1:33

🚨 ANTHROPIC JUST REVEALED CLAUDE MYTHOS ABILITIES Anthropic just formally announced "Claude Mythos Preview" and launched "Project Glasswing" to deploy it for cybersecurity defense. The models are unlocking completely new, autonomous behaviors. This isn't about slightly better benchmark scores. This is about what the model can do. Here are the direct quotes from Anthropic’s research team (including Dario) on exactly what Mythos is capable of: • Chaining Exploits: "It has the ability to chain together vulnerabilities... this model is able to create exploits out of three, four, sometimes five vulnerabilities that in sequence give you some kind of very sophisticated end outcome." • The Professional Standard: "The model that we're experimenting with is, by and large, as good as a professional human at identifying bugs." • Unprecedented Autonomy: "It's just generally better at pursuing really long-range tasks that are kind of like the tasks that a human security researcher would do throughout the course of an entire day." The Reality Check: Dario Amodei flat out said: "There's a kind of accelerating exponential... Claude Mythos Preview is a particularly big jump along that point." Because this model has become so capable at identifying zero-days, they are restricting its release to top tech partners to try to patch the world's software before these capabilities leak out. The autonomous researcher era has officially arrived. It’s over 💀

Chris

46,155 views • 4 months ago

🚨APPLE SPENT 5 YEARS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS BUILDING THE MOST ADVANCED SECURITY SYSTEM IN CONSUMER HISTORY.. AN AI BROKE IT IN 5 DAYS.. Here’s what just happened.. Apple built something called Memory Integrity Enforcement for its new M5 chips.. It’s a hardware-level security system that attaches secret cryptographic tags to every piece of memory.. If a hacker tries to access memory they shouldn’t.. The chip blocks it instantly.. Every known exploit chain against iOS and macOS was rendered obsolete overnight.. Apple said so themselves.. Then a small team at a cybersecurity firm called Calif used Anthropic’s unreleased Claude Mythos Preview to find vulnerabilities in the macOS kernel.. The AI found the bugs almost instantly.. Because once it learned the pattern of a specific type of flaw.. It could recognize every other flaw in that same class across the entire codebase.. What used to take elite security teams months.. The AI did in hours.. Within 5 days.. The team had a fully working exploit that escalated a basic user account to full root access on an M5 Mac running the latest macOS.. With MIE fully enabled.. The billion-dollar hardware defense running at full strength.. The trick.. They didn’t fight the hardware.. They went around it.. MIE is designed to catch memory corruption.. Hackers trying to overwrite pointers or inject code.. The team used a “data-only” approach instead.. They manipulated legitimate data structures the hardware was never designed to monitor.. Like changing an internal flag from “standard user” to “admin”.. The chip saw a perfectly normal operation.. The operating system obeyed.. And the attacker had total control.. The hardware thought everything was fine.. Because technically it was.. The exploit never triggered a single tag mismatch.. They walked into Apple Park and hand-delivered a 55-page report.. Apple patched it in macOS 26.5.. And for the first time ever.. Apple’s official security advisory credited the vulnerability discovery to “Calif dot io in collaboration with Claude and Anthropic Research”.. An AI is now credited in Apple’s CVE patches.. But here’s what makes this story truly terrifying.. Before MIE existed.. An exploit kit called DarkSword was hitting iPhones with zero-click attacks.. Six vulnerabilities chained together.. Total device control just from visiting a webpage.. Deployed by Russian espionage groups, Turkish surveillance vendors, and actors in Saudi Arabia.. Then it got leaked on GitHub.. Nation-state capabilities.. Free for anyone.. MIE was supposed to make all of that impossible.. And an AI found a way around it in 5 days.. The previous model.. Claude Opus 4.6.. Found 22 security bugs in the Firefox codebase.. Claude Mythos Preview found 271 in the same environment.. A tenfold increase.. Linux kernel CVEs jumped from 300 per year to over 5,500.. Largely driven by AI-powered vulnerability research.. The IMF designated Claude Mythos as a systemic financial stability risk.. Because if an AI finds a flaw in software used by every major bank simultaneously.. It could trigger a cascading financial crisis.. Anthropic knew this was coming.. That’s why they didn’t release the model publicly.. Instead they launched Project Glasswing.. Giving defensive access to AWS, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, CrowdStrike, JPMorgan, and others.. $100 million in usage credits.. So defenders can scan their own systems before attackers get this capability.. The Pentagon blacklisted Anthropic over autonomous weapons.. Then quietly started using Mythos to harden government systems anyway.. The cybersecurity arms race just changed permanently.. Hardware can’t save you.. Software can’t save you.. The only defense against an AI that finds vulnerabilities is another AI that finds them first.. Five years and billions of dollars.. Five days and one AI.
0:20

🚨APPLE SPENT 5 YEARS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS BUILDING THE MOST ADVANCED SECURITY SYSTEM IN CONSUMER HISTORY.. AN AI BROKE IT IN 5 DAYS.. Here’s what just happened.. Apple built something called Memory Integrity Enforcement for its new M5 chips.. It’s a hardware-level security system that attaches secret cryptographic tags to every piece of memory.. If a hacker tries to access memory they shouldn’t.. The chip blocks it instantly.. Every known exploit chain against iOS and macOS was rendered obsolete overnight.. Apple said so themselves.. Then a small team at a cybersecurity firm called Calif used Anthropic’s unreleased Claude Mythos Preview to find vulnerabilities in the macOS kernel.. The AI found the bugs almost instantly.. Because once it learned the pattern of a specific type of flaw.. It could recognize every other flaw in that same class across the entire codebase.. What used to take elite security teams months.. The AI did in hours.. Within 5 days.. The team had a fully working exploit that escalated a basic user account to full root access on an M5 Mac running the latest macOS.. With MIE fully enabled.. The billion-dollar hardware defense running at full strength.. The trick.. They didn’t fight the hardware.. They went around it.. MIE is designed to catch memory corruption.. Hackers trying to overwrite pointers or inject code.. The team used a “data-only” approach instead.. They manipulated legitimate data structures the hardware was never designed to monitor.. Like changing an internal flag from “standard user” to “admin”.. The chip saw a perfectly normal operation.. The operating system obeyed.. And the attacker had total control.. The hardware thought everything was fine.. Because technically it was.. The exploit never triggered a single tag mismatch.. They walked into Apple Park and hand-delivered a 55-page report.. Apple patched it in macOS 26.5.. And for the first time ever.. Apple’s official security advisory credited the vulnerability discovery to “Calif dot io in collaboration with Claude and Anthropic Research”.. An AI is now credited in Apple’s CVE patches.. But here’s what makes this story truly terrifying.. Before MIE existed.. An exploit kit called DarkSword was hitting iPhones with zero-click attacks.. Six vulnerabilities chained together.. Total device control just from visiting a webpage.. Deployed by Russian espionage groups, Turkish surveillance vendors, and actors in Saudi Arabia.. Then it got leaked on GitHub.. Nation-state capabilities.. Free for anyone.. MIE was supposed to make all of that impossible.. And an AI found a way around it in 5 days.. The previous model.. Claude Opus 4.6.. Found 22 security bugs in the Firefox codebase.. Claude Mythos Preview found 271 in the same environment.. A tenfold increase.. Linux kernel CVEs jumped from 300 per year to over 5,500.. Largely driven by AI-powered vulnerability research.. The IMF designated Claude Mythos as a systemic financial stability risk.. Because if an AI finds a flaw in software used by every major bank simultaneously.. It could trigger a cascading financial crisis.. Anthropic knew this was coming.. That’s why they didn’t release the model publicly.. Instead they launched Project Glasswing.. Giving defensive access to AWS, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, CrowdStrike, JPMorgan, and others.. $100 million in usage credits.. So defenders can scan their own systems before attackers get this capability.. The Pentagon blacklisted Anthropic over autonomous weapons.. Then quietly started using Mythos to harden government systems anyway.. The cybersecurity arms race just changed permanently.. Hardware can’t save you.. Software can’t save you.. The only defense against an AI that finds vulnerabilities is another AI that finds them first.. Five years and billions of dollars.. Five days and one AI.

Evan Luthra

91,160 views • 2 months ago

OpenAI just admitted Anthropic is KILLING their business. Their own applications chief told employees it was a "code red." Said Anthropic was a "wake-up call." Then admitted OpenAI had been "spreading efforts across too many apps" and it was "slowing them down." This is an internal confession. Here's why Anthropic is eating up OpenAI: 12 months ago, OpenAI owned 50% of all enterprise AI spending. Today it's just 27%. Anthropic went from nearly ZERO to winning 70% of every first-time enterprise AI deal. Seven out of ten companies buying AI tools for the first time are choosing Claude over ChatGPT. A year ago, one in 25 businesses on Ramp paid for Anthropic. Today it's one in four. OpenAI just had its biggest single-month adoption decline ever recorded. And Anthropic literally charges MORE than OpenAI for roughly the same performance. And businesses are STILL choosing them. In enterprise software, that never happens. The cheaper product usually wins. But Claude became something OpenAI never figured out how to be: Cool. Celebrities publicly switched to Claude. Senators are tweeting about using it. Engineers are shipping entire products with Claude Code in hours that used to take weeks. It started to became an identity signal. Like blue bubble vs green bubble in iMessage. Choosing Claude says something about you now. Meanwhile OpenAI went the opposite direction: They took the Pentagon contract that Anthropic refused. Greg Brockman donated $25 million to fund wars. ChatGPT uninstalls jumped 295% in a single day. Reddit posts saying "Cancel and Delete ChatGPT" got 30,000 upvotes. Anthropic said no to mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. Got blacklisted by the Pentagon. Trump called them a "Radical Left AI company." And their downloads went to #1 on the App Store the next day. Turns out refusing to build weapons is good marketing. But the real damage isn't consumer downloads. It's the MONEY. Claude Code hit $2.5 billion in annual revenue in six months. OpenAI's competing product Codex just barely crossed $1 billion. And Anthropic literally cannot meet demand. They're turning away paying customers because they don't have enough compute to serve them. A company REJECTING revenue because it's growing too fast. While OpenAI scrambles to consolidate. Last week OpenAI announced they're merging ChatGPT, Codex, and their browser into one "superapp." But what this really means: "We launched too many products, none of them worked well enough alone, so now we're cramming everything together and hoping it sticks." And remember their video tool Sora? Launched standalone. Hit #1 on the App Store. Usage flatlined within weeks. Now they're forced to shut it down. Their browser Atlas? Still hasn't launched publicly. Their IPO? Polymarket odds dropped from 55% to 35%. OpenAI has 900 million users. Anthropic has maybe 10 million daily actives. But here's the thing... OpenAI won the consumer war. ChatGPT is where your mom asks about recipes and your cousin makes memes. Anthropic won the war that actually MATTERS. The developers. The engineers. The enterprises writing 7 figure checks. OpenAI built the biggest chatbot on Earth. Anthropic built the tool that companies can't stop paying for. This is Yahoo vs Google all over again. Yahoo had the users. Google had the product. And we all know how that ended. OpenAI has 12 months to prove the superapp works, land the IPO, and stop the enterprise bleeding. If they can't, the most valuable startup in history becomes the most cautionary tale in tech. 900 million users don't mean anything if the people who actually pay are walking out the door. What do you think?
2:25

OpenAI just admitted Anthropic is KILLING their business. Their own applications chief told employees it was a "code red." Said Anthropic was a "wake-up call." Then admitted OpenAI had been "spreading efforts across too many apps" and it was "slowing them down." This is an internal confession. Here's why Anthropic is eating up OpenAI: 12 months ago, OpenAI owned 50% of all enterprise AI spending. Today it's just 27%. Anthropic went from nearly ZERO to winning 70% of every first-time enterprise AI deal. Seven out of ten companies buying AI tools for the first time are choosing Claude over ChatGPT. A year ago, one in 25 businesses on Ramp paid for Anthropic. Today it's one in four. OpenAI just had its biggest single-month adoption decline ever recorded. And Anthropic literally charges MORE than OpenAI for roughly the same performance. And businesses are STILL choosing them. In enterprise software, that never happens. The cheaper product usually wins. But Claude became something OpenAI never figured out how to be: Cool. Celebrities publicly switched to Claude. Senators are tweeting about using it. Engineers are shipping entire products with Claude Code in hours that used to take weeks. It started to became an identity signal. Like blue bubble vs green bubble in iMessage. Choosing Claude says something about you now. Meanwhile OpenAI went the opposite direction: They took the Pentagon contract that Anthropic refused. Greg Brockman donated $25 million to fund wars. ChatGPT uninstalls jumped 295% in a single day. Reddit posts saying "Cancel and Delete ChatGPT" got 30,000 upvotes. Anthropic said no to mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. Got blacklisted by the Pentagon. Trump called them a "Radical Left AI company." And their downloads went to #1 on the App Store the next day. Turns out refusing to build weapons is good marketing. But the real damage isn't consumer downloads. It's the MONEY. Claude Code hit $2.5 billion in annual revenue in six months. OpenAI's competing product Codex just barely crossed $1 billion. And Anthropic literally cannot meet demand. They're turning away paying customers because they don't have enough compute to serve them. A company REJECTING revenue because it's growing too fast. While OpenAI scrambles to consolidate. Last week OpenAI announced they're merging ChatGPT, Codex, and their browser into one "superapp." But what this really means: "We launched too many products, none of them worked well enough alone, so now we're cramming everything together and hoping it sticks." And remember their video tool Sora? Launched standalone. Hit #1 on the App Store. Usage flatlined within weeks. Now they're forced to shut it down. Their browser Atlas? Still hasn't launched publicly. Their IPO? Polymarket odds dropped from 55% to 35%. OpenAI has 900 million users. Anthropic has maybe 10 million daily actives. But here's the thing... OpenAI won the consumer war. ChatGPT is where your mom asks about recipes and your cousin makes memes. Anthropic won the war that actually MATTERS. The developers. The engineers. The enterprises writing 7 figure checks. OpenAI built the biggest chatbot on Earth. Anthropic built the tool that companies can't stop paying for. This is Yahoo vs Google all over again. Yahoo had the users. Google had the product. And we all know how that ended. OpenAI has 12 months to prove the superapp works, land the IPO, and stop the enterprise bleeding. If they can't, the most valuable startup in history becomes the most cautionary tale in tech. 900 million users don't mean anything if the people who actually pay are walking out the door. What do you think?

Ricardo

35,020 views • 4 months ago

Microsoft just banned its own engineers from using AI. The tool was literally costing MORE than the humans it was supposed to replace. They lied to you about AI adoption and now the whole narrative is blowing up: Microsoft gave thousands of engineers access to Claude Code six months ago and encouraged them to use it. Engineers loved it and adoption exploded. But then the invoices arrived. Token-based pricing means every query, every code review, every debugging session costs money. At scale across 100,000 engineers, the numbers became so large that Microsoft issued an internal order to cancel nearly all Claude Code licenses by end of June and force everyone onto their own cheaper tool instead. The company that invested $5 billion in Anthropic just told its own people to stop using Anthropic's product because it costs too much. Uber's story is even worse... Their CTO Praveen Neppalli Naga told The Information that the budget he planned for the full year was "blown away already" by April. Uber had rolled out Claude Code in December 2025. By March, 84% of their 5,000 engineers were using it with 70% of all committed code coming from AI systems. Heavy users were burning $500 to $2,000 per month each. Naga himself spent $1,200 in a single two-hour demo session. The company had even built internal leaderboards ranking engineers by how much AI they used. They literally gamified the spending and then ran out of money. Now look at what Nvidia's own VP of applied deep learning Bryan Catanzaro said to Axios last month. Direct quote: "For my team, the cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees." This is a VP at the company that SELLS the chips saying that using AI is more expensive than paying humans. Think about what this means for the entire AI narrative. Every CEO on every earnings call for the past two years has said the same thing: AI will make us more efficient, reduce headcount, and cut costs. The stock market rewarded every company that said it. Fired workers, stock goes up. Announced AI adoption, stock goes up. But the actual companies deploying AI at scale are discovering the math doesn't work. The MORE employees use AI, the HIGHER the bill. Goldman Sachs forecasts a 24x increase in token consumption by 2030 as companies adopt AI agents. Gartner just published a report showing that even though individual token prices will drop 90% by 2030, total enterprise AI costs will go UP because agents consume exponentially more tokens per task than basic tools. Meta built an internal dashboard called "Claudeonomics" to track which employees use the most AI. Amazon started pushing engineers to "tokenmaxx," their internal term for consuming as many AI tokens as possible. Both companies are spending hundreds of billions on AI infrastructure this year alone. And Microsoft, the company that bet its entire future on AI, just told 100,000 engineers to stop using the tool they liked best because the per-token bills got out of control. The companies building AI are telling investors it saves money. The companies using AI are finding out it costs more than the humans it was supposed to replace. And even the company that makes the chips just admitted it through its own VP. This is the gap nobody on Wall Street is pricing in. $725 billion in AI infrastructure spending this year across Big Tech. And the first companies to actually deploy these tools at scale are already pulling back because the economics don't work. What do you think?
1:33

Microsoft just banned its own engineers from using AI. The tool was literally costing MORE than the humans it was supposed to replace. They lied to you about AI adoption and now the whole narrative is blowing up: Microsoft gave thousands of engineers access to Claude Code six months ago and encouraged them to use it. Engineers loved it and adoption exploded. But then the invoices arrived. Token-based pricing means every query, every code review, every debugging session costs money. At scale across 100,000 engineers, the numbers became so large that Microsoft issued an internal order to cancel nearly all Claude Code licenses by end of June and force everyone onto their own cheaper tool instead. The company that invested $5 billion in Anthropic just told its own people to stop using Anthropic's product because it costs too much. Uber's story is even worse... Their CTO Praveen Neppalli Naga told The Information that the budget he planned for the full year was "blown away already" by April. Uber had rolled out Claude Code in December 2025. By March, 84% of their 5,000 engineers were using it with 70% of all committed code coming from AI systems. Heavy users were burning $500 to $2,000 per month each. Naga himself spent $1,200 in a single two-hour demo session. The company had even built internal leaderboards ranking engineers by how much AI they used. They literally gamified the spending and then ran out of money. Now look at what Nvidia's own VP of applied deep learning Bryan Catanzaro said to Axios last month. Direct quote: "For my team, the cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees." This is a VP at the company that SELLS the chips saying that using AI is more expensive than paying humans. Think about what this means for the entire AI narrative. Every CEO on every earnings call for the past two years has said the same thing: AI will make us more efficient, reduce headcount, and cut costs. The stock market rewarded every company that said it. Fired workers, stock goes up. Announced AI adoption, stock goes up. But the actual companies deploying AI at scale are discovering the math doesn't work. The MORE employees use AI, the HIGHER the bill. Goldman Sachs forecasts a 24x increase in token consumption by 2030 as companies adopt AI agents. Gartner just published a report showing that even though individual token prices will drop 90% by 2030, total enterprise AI costs will go UP because agents consume exponentially more tokens per task than basic tools. Meta built an internal dashboard called "Claudeonomics" to track which employees use the most AI. Amazon started pushing engineers to "tokenmaxx," their internal term for consuming as many AI tokens as possible. Both companies are spending hundreds of billions on AI infrastructure this year alone. And Microsoft, the company that bet its entire future on AI, just told 100,000 engineers to stop using the tool they liked best because the per-token bills got out of control. The companies building AI are telling investors it saves money. The companies using AI are finding out it costs more than the humans it was supposed to replace. And even the company that makes the chips just admitted it through its own VP. This is the gap nobody on Wall Street is pricing in. $725 billion in AI infrastructure spending this year across Big Tech. And the first companies to actually deploy these tools at scale are already pulling back because the economics don't work. What do you think?

Ricardo

2,967,835 views • 2 months ago

David Sacks broke down on the All-In podcast why Alex Karp's CNBC outburst was not a meltdown but a warning, and then laid out exactly how Anthropic is running the same playbook Microsoft used to kill an entire generation of software companies. The media called Karp unhinged. Sacks said the opposite. Karp was describing what enterprise customers actually want. Control over their compute, their models, their data, their alpha. Ownership of the means of production. Then he named the proof. Anthropic's chief product officer sat on Figma's board. He did not resign until 3 days before Anthropic launched Claude Design, a direct competitor. Figma's stock is down 50 percent this year. Sacks called it a pattern. Claude Code, Claude Science, Claude Security, Claude Legal, Claude Financial. Every vertical where a customer built value on top of Anthropic's model got absorbed by Anthropic itself. Word Perfect and Lotus 123 got replaced by Excel and Word. Nobody who went to bed with Microsoft in the 80s woke up with their business intact. What do you think?
2:59

David Sacks broke down on the All-In podcast why Alex Karp's CNBC outburst was not a meltdown but a warning, and then laid out exactly how Anthropic is running the same playbook Microsoft used to kill an entire generation of software companies. The media called Karp unhinged. Sacks said the opposite. Karp was describing what enterprise customers actually want. Control over their compute, their models, their data, their alpha. Ownership of the means of production. Then he named the proof. Anthropic's chief product officer sat on Figma's board. He did not resign until 3 days before Anthropic launched Claude Design, a direct competitor. Figma's stock is down 50 percent this year. Sacks called it a pattern. Claude Code, Claude Science, Claude Security, Claude Legal, Claude Financial. Every vertical where a customer built value on top of Anthropic's model got absorbed by Anthropic itself. Word Perfect and Lotus 123 got replaced by Excel and Word. Nobody who went to bed with Microsoft in the 80s woke up with their business intact. What do you think?

Ihtesham Ali

153,361 views • 1 month ago

Jensen Huang just said this is the greatest era in history to build software. AI agents will not kill software. They will do the exact opposite: create a massive new wave of software demand. at NVIDIA GTC Taipei 2026 "Click and type. We now replace that with explaining to the AI what we want, our intent, and the AI generates the code or uses tools to produce the necessary output. This is how computers are going to work in the future. This is Agentic AI. For two years, we've been building toward this, and now it has arrived. One of the big breakthroughs, of course, is tool use. A lot of people have said, “Jensen, AI is coming. Agentic AI is coming. Therefore, all the software companies are going to go out of business.” This is exactly the opposite. Because there are going to be so many agents, the world is no longer limited by the number of people. Therefore, those agents are going to use more tools than ever. This is actually an incredible time to be a software company. But the software has to be presented to the agent in a way that the agent can use it. This is a big breakthrough. And in fact, what we have done, as you know, what Nvidia’s treasure..." ---- From 'NVIDIA' YT channel (link in comment)
0:59

Jensen Huang just said this is the greatest era in history to build software. AI agents will not kill software. They will do the exact opposite: create a massive new wave of software demand. at NVIDIA GTC Taipei 2026 "Click and type. We now replace that with explaining to the AI what we want, our intent, and the AI generates the code or uses tools to produce the necessary output. This is how computers are going to work in the future. This is Agentic AI. For two years, we've been building toward this, and now it has arrived. One of the big breakthroughs, of course, is tool use. A lot of people have said, “Jensen, AI is coming. Agentic AI is coming. Therefore, all the software companies are going to go out of business.” This is exactly the opposite. Because there are going to be so many agents, the world is no longer limited by the number of people. Therefore, those agents are going to use more tools than ever. This is actually an incredible time to be a software company. But the software has to be presented to the agent in a way that the agent can use it. This is a big breakthrough. And in fact, what we have done, as you know, what Nvidia’s treasure..." ---- From 'NVIDIA' YT channel (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

16,584 views • 2 months ago

Jensen Huang explains the AI industry as a five layer cake, and why "model only" companies are missing the real map. "AI is not just a model. AI is really a five layer cake to think about it." "From the lowest level, it requires energy because AI is produced, generated in real time, just like you and I right now. We need calories, we need energy." "The next level is chips. This is where Nvidia is and where a lot of the companies in Taiwan are." "The layer above that is infrastructure: land, power, data center, as well as the cloud service software that turns the chips into a cloud service." "The layer above that is where most people think about when they think about AI, which is models. ChatGPT was revolutionary. Claude Code is now incredibly successful. But AI is much more than just human language." Most people are still debating the model layer. Jensen is describing an industrial stack: energy, chips, infrastructure, models, and applications. If you are building in AI, this is the map that matters. The winning product may look like software, but the bottlenecks are calories, land, power, data centers, chips, and distribution. - Jensen Huang (NVIDIA), CEO of Nvidia, on CNA
1:48

Jensen Huang explains the AI industry as a five layer cake, and why "model only" companies are missing the real map. "AI is not just a model. AI is really a five layer cake to think about it." "From the lowest level, it requires energy because AI is produced, generated in real time, just like you and I right now. We need calories, we need energy." "The next level is chips. This is where Nvidia is and where a lot of the companies in Taiwan are." "The layer above that is infrastructure: land, power, data center, as well as the cloud service software that turns the chips into a cloud service." "The layer above that is where most people think about when they think about AI, which is models. ChatGPT was revolutionary. Claude Code is now incredibly successful. But AI is much more than just human language." Most people are still debating the model layer. Jensen is describing an industrial stack: energy, chips, infrastructure, models, and applications. If you are building in AI, this is the map that matters. The winning product may look like software, but the bottlenecks are calories, land, power, data centers, chips, and distribution. - Jensen Huang (NVIDIA), CEO of Nvidia, on CNA

Karl Mehta

14,983 views • 1 month ago

Claude Code is the OpenClaw alternative you already had. I've been telling people this in person for three months. Now it's a piece on Every 📧. When OpenClaw was at peak hype a few months ago, everyone was going crazy over it — for good reasons. But almost nobody made the obvious comparison: Claude Code already does the thing you love about OpenClaw. In a lot of cases, better. Here's why people missed it. You have to understand the difference between a model and a harness. OpenClaw, at the end of the day, is just a harness on top of AI models. And Claude Code is too — it just got marketed as a coding tool, an alternative to Cursor. Until Cowork launched, almost nobody looked at it as a tool for non-programmers. Dan Shipper 📧 was one of the earliest to make that claim, and he was damn right. Let Claude Code run from the home folder of your computer with free access, and you get exactly what made OpenClaw exciting. Instead of just arguing it, here's a video walkthrough of a couple of my AI employees i built on the Claude Code harness. And here's the full article:
8:31

Claude Code is the OpenClaw alternative you already had. I've been telling people this in person for three months. Now it's a piece on Every 📧. When OpenClaw was at peak hype a few months ago, everyone was going crazy over it — for good reasons. But almost nobody made the obvious comparison: Claude Code already does the thing you love about OpenClaw. In a lot of cases, better. Here's why people missed it. You have to understand the difference between a model and a harness. OpenClaw, at the end of the day, is just a harness on top of AI models. And Claude Code is too — it just got marketed as a coding tool, an alternative to Cursor. Until Cowork launched, almost nobody looked at it as a tool for non-programmers. Dan Shipper 📧 was one of the earliest to make that claim, and he was damn right. Let Claude Code run from the home folder of your computer with free access, and you get exactly what made OpenClaw exciting. Instead of just arguing it, here's a video walkthrough of a couple of my AI employees i built on the Claude Code harness. And here's the full article:

Nityesh

22,895 views • 1 month ago

Chamath just delivered the clearest diagnosis of what is happening to enterprise software and the OpenAI Deployment Company is the most damning piece of evidence he could have picked. "The low end of the market is basically finished. There is no safe space." 90% of public SaaS stocks are down 30-80% from their 52 week highs, the median software stock is now negative over the last 3-6 months. Goldman Sachs reported that software forward P/E multiples fell from 35x to 20x, the lowest absolute level since 2014 and the smallest premium to the S&P 500 since 2010. The low end died first and fastest, because AI replaced it most directly. The small business tools, the lightweight project managers, the single function SaaS products that charged $49 a month per seat, those are being replaced by AI agents that do the same work as a workflow, not a product. You do not buy an AI powered tool, you describe what you need and it builds it and the seat based model that created the SaaS industry simply does not apply to that transaction. But Chamath's more interesting argument is about the high end and the tell he points to is perfect. OpenAI just raised $4 billion from 19 investors including TPG, Brookfield, Bain, and McKinsey to launch a consulting company and guaranteed those investors a 17.5% annual return to do it. On $4 billion in committed capital, that is roughly $700 million per year in guaranteed payouts, owed by a company that is projected to lose $14 billion in 2026. The goal of this venture is to compete directly with Deloitte, PwC, Ernst & Young, Andersen, and Cognizant. Think about what that structure reveals. OpenAI lost half of its enterprise LLM API market share from 50% to 25% between late 2023 and mid-2025, with Anthropic now leading at 32%. Its response was not to build a better model but rather to raise $4 billion, offer guaranteed PE-tier returns and hire embedded engineers to physically sit inside client organizations and make AI actually work in production. The reason, as Chamath identified, is that the high end of the market is not easy. "It's not like boop boop boop, put in a prompt and beep bap boop, it all works," he said and the data confirms exactly that. 88% of organizations running AI agents reported a security incident in the past year, 42% of C-suite executives say AI adoption is creating internal organizational conflict. The average enterprise AI consulting implementation costs $228,000 in year one versus $77,000 for platform-based approaches and most still stall before reaching production. Anthropic immediately matched OpenAI with a competing $1.5 billion consulting venture backed by Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, and Hellman & Friedman bringing the combined spend by the two leading AI labs on human powered enterprise deployment to $5.5 billion in a single month Chamath's read is that the high end, the large enterprise platforms like Salesforce with proprietary data flywheels, Palantir with its FDE model already proven at scale, Oracle with vertical specific data moats will survive and consolidate. The mid-market point solutions, the single function tools, the lightweight enterprise apps without defensible data assets, those are on the conveyor belt. The AI industry is not just disrupting the companies that use software but rather disrupting the companies that sell it.
1:05

Chamath just delivered the clearest diagnosis of what is happening to enterprise software and the OpenAI Deployment Company is the most damning piece of evidence he could have picked. "The low end of the market is basically finished. There is no safe space." 90% of public SaaS stocks are down 30-80% from their 52 week highs, the median software stock is now negative over the last 3-6 months. Goldman Sachs reported that software forward P/E multiples fell from 35x to 20x, the lowest absolute level since 2014 and the smallest premium to the S&P 500 since 2010. The low end died first and fastest, because AI replaced it most directly. The small business tools, the lightweight project managers, the single function SaaS products that charged $49 a month per seat, those are being replaced by AI agents that do the same work as a workflow, not a product. You do not buy an AI powered tool, you describe what you need and it builds it and the seat based model that created the SaaS industry simply does not apply to that transaction. But Chamath's more interesting argument is about the high end and the tell he points to is perfect. OpenAI just raised $4 billion from 19 investors including TPG, Brookfield, Bain, and McKinsey to launch a consulting company and guaranteed those investors a 17.5% annual return to do it. On $4 billion in committed capital, that is roughly $700 million per year in guaranteed payouts, owed by a company that is projected to lose $14 billion in 2026. The goal of this venture is to compete directly with Deloitte, PwC, Ernst & Young, Andersen, and Cognizant. Think about what that structure reveals. OpenAI lost half of its enterprise LLM API market share from 50% to 25% between late 2023 and mid-2025, with Anthropic now leading at 32%. Its response was not to build a better model but rather to raise $4 billion, offer guaranteed PE-tier returns and hire embedded engineers to physically sit inside client organizations and make AI actually work in production. The reason, as Chamath identified, is that the high end of the market is not easy. "It's not like boop boop boop, put in a prompt and beep bap boop, it all works," he said and the data confirms exactly that. 88% of organizations running AI agents reported a security incident in the past year, 42% of C-suite executives say AI adoption is creating internal organizational conflict. The average enterprise AI consulting implementation costs $228,000 in year one versus $77,000 for platform-based approaches and most still stall before reaching production. Anthropic immediately matched OpenAI with a competing $1.5 billion consulting venture backed by Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, and Hellman & Friedman bringing the combined spend by the two leading AI labs on human powered enterprise deployment to $5.5 billion in a single month Chamath's read is that the high end, the large enterprise platforms like Salesforce with proprietary data flywheels, Palantir with its FDE model already proven at scale, Oracle with vertical specific data moats will survive and consolidate. The mid-market point solutions, the single function tools, the lightweight enterprise apps without defensible data assets, those are on the conveyor belt. The AI industry is not just disrupting the companies that use software but rather disrupting the companies that sell it.

Milk Road AI

1,659,214 views • 2 months ago

Anthropic admitted they built an AI so capable they were scared to release it and the number that explains why is 250. Anthropic's CFO Krishna Rao described in this clip what happened when they ran Mythos against an open source codebase that a previous frontier model had already analyzed. The prior model found 22 security vulnerabilities, Mythos found 250. In the same codebase, that the previous model had already reviewed and flagged as relatively clean. That number, more than 11 times as many vulnerabilities discovered is not just a benchmark improvement, it is a signal that there is an entire layer of software infrastructure that humanity has been operating under the assumption was secure and that assumption may no longer hold. The UK AI Security Institute independently evaluated Mythos Preview and confirmed what the internal numbers suggested. On expert level capture the flag challenges that no model could complete before April 2025, Mythos succeeded 73% of the time and it became the first model ever to complete a complex end-to-end attack range from start to finish, autonomously, without human guidance. The World Economic Forum called this a new security-driven era for AI, the Governor of the Bank of England publicly warned that Anthropic may have found a way to unlock the entire cyber-risk landscape, and the European Central Bank began quietly contacting financial institutions to assess their security posture. The response from Anthropic is what makes this story genuinely important. Rather than shelving the model or publishing it as a standard API release, Rao described a phased approach restricting access to a controlled group, focusing specifically on how the cyber capabilities can be used defensively rather than offensively and treating that framework as a template for how to release powerful but dangerous models in the future. The broader context makes that framing even more significant. AI generated code is already creating ten times more security vulnerabilities than human-written code, 63% of organizations reported experiencing an AI driven cyberattack in the past 12 months, and traditional signature-based security tools were built for a threat model that no longer describes the attack surface companies are defending against. Mythos represents a genuine leap in what autonomous security reasoning can do and it cuts both ways. The model that can find 250 vulnerabilities in a codebase a prior model rated as mostly clean is also, in the wrong hands, the model that can exploit those 250 vulnerabilities before a human defender has even finished reading the report. Anthropic's phased release strategy is not just a legal or PR decision, it is the most honest signal yet from a frontier lab that safety governance and capability development can no longer be treated as separate workstreams. The question is not whether this technology gets deployed, it is whether the institutions using it defensively stay ahead of the ones who will eventually use it offensively and whether the labs building it can keep those two timelines from inverting.
1:20

Anthropic admitted they built an AI so capable they were scared to release it and the number that explains why is 250. Anthropic's CFO Krishna Rao described in this clip what happened when they ran Mythos against an open source codebase that a previous frontier model had already analyzed. The prior model found 22 security vulnerabilities, Mythos found 250. In the same codebase, that the previous model had already reviewed and flagged as relatively clean. That number, more than 11 times as many vulnerabilities discovered is not just a benchmark improvement, it is a signal that there is an entire layer of software infrastructure that humanity has been operating under the assumption was secure and that assumption may no longer hold. The UK AI Security Institute independently evaluated Mythos Preview and confirmed what the internal numbers suggested. On expert level capture the flag challenges that no model could complete before April 2025, Mythos succeeded 73% of the time and it became the first model ever to complete a complex end-to-end attack range from start to finish, autonomously, without human guidance. The World Economic Forum called this a new security-driven era for AI, the Governor of the Bank of England publicly warned that Anthropic may have found a way to unlock the entire cyber-risk landscape, and the European Central Bank began quietly contacting financial institutions to assess their security posture. The response from Anthropic is what makes this story genuinely important. Rather than shelving the model or publishing it as a standard API release, Rao described a phased approach restricting access to a controlled group, focusing specifically on how the cyber capabilities can be used defensively rather than offensively and treating that framework as a template for how to release powerful but dangerous models in the future. The broader context makes that framing even more significant. AI generated code is already creating ten times more security vulnerabilities than human-written code, 63% of organizations reported experiencing an AI driven cyberattack in the past 12 months, and traditional signature-based security tools were built for a threat model that no longer describes the attack surface companies are defending against. Mythos represents a genuine leap in what autonomous security reasoning can do and it cuts both ways. The model that can find 250 vulnerabilities in a codebase a prior model rated as mostly clean is also, in the wrong hands, the model that can exploit those 250 vulnerabilities before a human defender has even finished reading the report. Anthropic's phased release strategy is not just a legal or PR decision, it is the most honest signal yet from a frontier lab that safety governance and capability development can no longer be treated as separate workstreams. The question is not whether this technology gets deployed, it is whether the institutions using it defensively stay ahead of the ones who will eventually use it offensively and whether the labs building it can keep those two timelines from inverting.

Milk Road AI

24,356 views • 2 months ago

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei just revealed the hidden bottleneck that will kill most AI companies in the next 18 months (Save this). The insight comes from a principle in computer science called Amdahl's Law. Dario's argument is simple when something starts working really well inside an organization, you have to immediately ask what isn't working well around it. Amdahl's Law states that the maximum speedup of any system is capped by the fraction you haven't improved and that applies to companies just as brutally as it applies to processors. If you can suddenly write three or four times as many pull requests as before, you don't get three or four times the output but you rather get a pile of code no one can review, verify, or trust. The data makes this impossible to ignore. Teams with heavy AI coding adoption are merging 98% more pull requests but PR review time has ballooned 91%, deployment velocity is effectively flat and 96% of developers don't fully trust AI-generated code reaching production. AI generated code produces 1.7x more issues per pull request than human written code, 0.83 issues per PR versus 6.45. Veracode's 2026 State of Software Security report found that 82% of organizations now carry security debt, up 11% year over year, with critical security debt surging 36% in a single year driven directly by AI-generated code reaching production faster than security teams can handle. What Dario is describing is a systems problem, not a software problem and coding is roughly 20% of the software delivery cycle. Even at infinite coding speed, you're still bottlenecked by review, security, verification, testing, and deployment which make up the other 80%. The enterprises that win are the ones that identify which part of their system is the new constraint after AI accelerates the old one and fix that next. This is why Anthropic's Claude Code focuses on the full development loop, not just generation, and why the verification and security layer of the AI stack is where the next wave of enterprise value gets created. This is also why Anthropic as a company is positioned differently than most people realize. Anthropic's 2026 Agentic Coding Trends Report found that organizations using full-loop agentic coding workflows where AI handles not just generation but testing, review, and deployment validation reduced their software defect rates by 43% while increasing velocity by 2.8x. Claude Code now authors 4% of all GitHub commits and is on track to hit 20%+ by year-end, with the full-loop use case growing 3x faster than pure code generation. Dario has been building Anthropic around the exact insight he's describing publicly ,the constraint isn't writing code but rather everything that has to happen after.
0:48

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei just revealed the hidden bottleneck that will kill most AI companies in the next 18 months (Save this). The insight comes from a principle in computer science called Amdahl's Law. Dario's argument is simple when something starts working really well inside an organization, you have to immediately ask what isn't working well around it. Amdahl's Law states that the maximum speedup of any system is capped by the fraction you haven't improved and that applies to companies just as brutally as it applies to processors. If you can suddenly write three or four times as many pull requests as before, you don't get three or four times the output but you rather get a pile of code no one can review, verify, or trust. The data makes this impossible to ignore. Teams with heavy AI coding adoption are merging 98% more pull requests but PR review time has ballooned 91%, deployment velocity is effectively flat and 96% of developers don't fully trust AI-generated code reaching production. AI generated code produces 1.7x more issues per pull request than human written code, 0.83 issues per PR versus 6.45. Veracode's 2026 State of Software Security report found that 82% of organizations now carry security debt, up 11% year over year, with critical security debt surging 36% in a single year driven directly by AI-generated code reaching production faster than security teams can handle. What Dario is describing is a systems problem, not a software problem and coding is roughly 20% of the software delivery cycle. Even at infinite coding speed, you're still bottlenecked by review, security, verification, testing, and deployment which make up the other 80%. The enterprises that win are the ones that identify which part of their system is the new constraint after AI accelerates the old one and fix that next. This is why Anthropic's Claude Code focuses on the full development loop, not just generation, and why the verification and security layer of the AI stack is where the next wave of enterprise value gets created. This is also why Anthropic as a company is positioned differently than most people realize. Anthropic's 2026 Agentic Coding Trends Report found that organizations using full-loop agentic coding workflows where AI handles not just generation but testing, review, and deployment validation reduced their software defect rates by 43% while increasing velocity by 2.8x. Claude Code now authors 4% of all GitHub commits and is on track to hit 20%+ by year-end, with the full-loop use case growing 3x faster than pure code generation. Dario has been building Anthropic around the exact insight he's describing publicly ,the constraint isn't writing code but rather everything that has to happen after.

Milk Road AI

52,190 views • 3 months ago

Chamath just asked the question nobody in AI wants to answer (Save this). "Okay guys, you've spent $3 trillion in the last four years. What is the ROI of these tokens?" It is the most important question in technology right now and the data suggests most of the people being asked cannot answer it. A PwC CEO survey published in January 2026 found that 56% of CEOs report no increase in revenue and no decrease in costs attributable to AI over the past year meaning the majority of companies deploying AI tools have not yet produced a single dollar of auditable return. And only 12% reported experiencing both benefits. Hyperscalers alone are on track to spend $675 billion on AI infrastructure in 2026, up 63% year over year, with total global AI investment approaching $2.5 trillion this year alone against a backdrop where most enterprise buyers cannot yet quantify what any of it produced. Chamath's answer to the question is the real insight. He said what happens next is that enterprises go to guys like Mark Benioff and say: "please sell my tokens." In other words, the AI labs built the capability but the enterprise software giants are the ones who have the customer relationships, the distribution, the workflows and the trust to actually convert token consumption into measurable business outcomes and therefore into revenue that justifies the spend. Mark Benioff was sitting in the same conversation and confirmed exactly that, he said Salesforce is about to spend $300 million on Anthropic. But listen to what Benioff did with Salesforce's own balance sheet at the same time. He announced the largest stock buyback in enterprise software history $50 billion, or 28% of Salesforce's entire market cap while simultaneously admitting the stock has fallen 36% over the past year. In March, Salesforce launched the largest accelerated share repurchase in history to execute $25 billion of it immediately, financed in part with debt it will be carrying until 2066. Chamath is pointing at the underlying structural problem that has triggered the SaaS rout of 2026, software forward P/E multiples have now fallen below the S&P 500 for the first time in history, the iShares software ETF is down over 21% year to date and 30% from its September 2025 peak, and companies like Adobe, and Workday have seen their valuation multiples drop 47-54% in a single year. The core fear is not that AI does not work but rather that AI is breaking the seat based model that built the entire B2B software industry. If one AI agent can do the work of five employees, enterprises stop buying 500 seats and start buying 100, or renegotiate entirely and the recurring revenue that made SaaS stocks trade at 40 times forward earnings simply evaporates. Chamath's prediction is that AI multiples come way back down while infrastructure plays go back up and find a balance is essentially already happening in real time.
1:06

Chamath just asked the question nobody in AI wants to answer (Save this). "Okay guys, you've spent $3 trillion in the last four years. What is the ROI of these tokens?" It is the most important question in technology right now and the data suggests most of the people being asked cannot answer it. A PwC CEO survey published in January 2026 found that 56% of CEOs report no increase in revenue and no decrease in costs attributable to AI over the past year meaning the majority of companies deploying AI tools have not yet produced a single dollar of auditable return. And only 12% reported experiencing both benefits. Hyperscalers alone are on track to spend $675 billion on AI infrastructure in 2026, up 63% year over year, with total global AI investment approaching $2.5 trillion this year alone against a backdrop where most enterprise buyers cannot yet quantify what any of it produced. Chamath's answer to the question is the real insight. He said what happens next is that enterprises go to guys like Mark Benioff and say: "please sell my tokens." In other words, the AI labs built the capability but the enterprise software giants are the ones who have the customer relationships, the distribution, the workflows and the trust to actually convert token consumption into measurable business outcomes and therefore into revenue that justifies the spend. Mark Benioff was sitting in the same conversation and confirmed exactly that, he said Salesforce is about to spend $300 million on Anthropic. But listen to what Benioff did with Salesforce's own balance sheet at the same time. He announced the largest stock buyback in enterprise software history $50 billion, or 28% of Salesforce's entire market cap while simultaneously admitting the stock has fallen 36% over the past year. In March, Salesforce launched the largest accelerated share repurchase in history to execute $25 billion of it immediately, financed in part with debt it will be carrying until 2066. Chamath is pointing at the underlying structural problem that has triggered the SaaS rout of 2026, software forward P/E multiples have now fallen below the S&P 500 for the first time in history, the iShares software ETF is down over 21% year to date and 30% from its September 2025 peak, and companies like Adobe, and Workday have seen their valuation multiples drop 47-54% in a single year. The core fear is not that AI does not work but rather that AI is breaking the seat based model that built the entire B2B software industry. If one AI agent can do the work of five employees, enterprises stop buying 500 seats and start buying 100, or renegotiate entirely and the recurring revenue that made SaaS stocks trade at 40 times forward earnings simply evaporates. Chamath's prediction is that AI multiples come way back down while infrastructure plays go back up and find a balance is essentially already happening in real time.

Milk Road AI

115,608 views • 2 months ago

Elon Musk just made one if the biggest moves in taking over the programming industry “SpaceX just bought Cursor for $60 billion. Do you realize how big this is? SpaceX went public — the biggest IPO in history. $75 billion raised, almost a $2 trillion valuation and the first thing to do with that money? Buy the most popular AI coding tool on the planet. Here's why that changes everything. Elon now owns 3 layers: the compute, Colossus data centers, the models, Grok through xAI, and now the tool that developers actually use every day. It's the full stack. And here's what makes Cursor different from Claude Code or Codex. Cursor is model agnostic. You can run Claude in it, GPT, Gemini, whatever model you want. It's not locked to any one company, and now it has SpaceX's resources behind it. Cursor said they were bottlenecked by compute. Well, that bottleneck has just been removed. $4 billion in annual revenue, over half the Fortune 500 already uses it, and now it's backed by a $2 trillion company. OpenAI has Codex, Anthropic has Claude Code, and now Elon has Cursor.” Let me break this down in simple terms Elon Musk now controls more of the full AI picture: - Massive computers, power (data centers like Colossus) - Smart AI models (Grok from xAI) - The actual tool millions of developers use every day (Cursor) For every day users this means Faster and smarter apps and websites in the future. More developers using powerful AI tools means new apps, games, websites, and features get built quicker and cheaper. This means better video games, smoother streaming, smarter phone apps and better programs For Developers they can describe what they want in plain English (“make a feature that does X”) and the AI handles more of the heavy lifting
2:13

Elon Musk just made one if the biggest moves in taking over the programming industry “SpaceX just bought Cursor for $60 billion. Do you realize how big this is? SpaceX went public — the biggest IPO in history. $75 billion raised, almost a $2 trillion valuation and the first thing to do with that money? Buy the most popular AI coding tool on the planet. Here's why that changes everything. Elon now owns 3 layers: the compute, Colossus data centers, the models, Grok through xAI, and now the tool that developers actually use every day. It's the full stack. And here's what makes Cursor different from Claude Code or Codex. Cursor is model agnostic. You can run Claude in it, GPT, Gemini, whatever model you want. It's not locked to any one company, and now it has SpaceX's resources behind it. Cursor said they were bottlenecked by compute. Well, that bottleneck has just been removed. $4 billion in annual revenue, over half the Fortune 500 already uses it, and now it's backed by a $2 trillion company. OpenAI has Codex, Anthropic has Claude Code, and now Elon has Cursor.” Let me break this down in simple terms Elon Musk now controls more of the full AI picture: - Massive computers, power (data centers like Colossus) - Smart AI models (Grok from xAI) - The actual tool millions of developers use every day (Cursor) For every day users this means Faster and smarter apps and websites in the future. More developers using powerful AI tools means new apps, games, websites, and features get built quicker and cheaper. This means better video games, smoother streaming, smarter phone apps and better programs For Developers they can describe what they want in plain English (“make a feature that does X”) and the AI handles more of the heavy lifting

Wall Street Apes

213,448 views • 1 month ago

Anthropic just accidentally leaked the most dangerous AI model ever built. They literally left 3,000 internal documents sitting in a publicly searchable database. No encryption. No access controls. Just... open. A security researcher found them before Anthropic even knew they were exposed. Inside those documents was a draft blog post describing a model called "Claude Mythos." Anthropic's own internal language: Mythos is "currently far ahead of any other AI model in cyber capabilities" and will trigger "a wave of models that can exploit vulnerabilities in ways that far outpace the efforts of defenders." That's the company that BUILT it warning about their own creation. Mythos sits in a brand new model tier called "Capybara." Bigger and more powerful than anything they've ever released. Dramatically higher scores in coding, reasoning, and cybersecurity compared to their current best. The market reaction was immediate: CrowdStrike dropped 7%. Palo Alto Networks fell 6%. Zscaler down 5%. Okta, SentinelOne, Fortinet all crashed. The Global X Cybersecurity ETF hit its lowest level since November 2023. Billions in market cap evaporated in a single trading session because of a draft blog post that wasn't supposed to be public yet. But here's where it gets truly absurd... Anthropic is the company that brands itself as the "responsible AI" lab. The one that refused to let the Pentagon use Claude without restrictions. The one that got BLACKLISTED by the Trump administration for being too cautious. They literally sued the government over it. A federal judge called the Pentagon's ban "Orwellian." So the US government punished Anthropic for being too careful with AI safety. Then 3 weeks later, Anthropic accidentally exposes their most dangerous model because someone misconfigured a content management system. They can't secure a WordPress-level database setting. But they're building AI that can autonomously hunt and exploit zero-day vulnerabilities at machine speed. Also in those leaked files: Details about a private, invite-only CEO retreat at an 18th-century English countryside manor. Dario Amodei attending personally. Designed to sell Mythos to Europe's biggest corporate buyers. The playbook: Build the most dangerous cyber weapon in AI history, host billionaires at a castle to sell it, and store the whole plan in an unprotected public folder. The entire cybersecurity industry is built on cataloging known threats. Mythos finds unknown ones faster than humans can respond. That's an extinction event for an entire sector. But there was also just ANOTHER leak: A leaked Coatue investor deck revealed Anthropic will LOSE $14 billion this year on $18 billion in revenue. Coatue still projected them to be worth $2 TRILLION by 2030. They put $30 billion behind that bet. Polymarket opened live betting on when Mythos drops. Traders give it a 45% chance by June 30th. OpenAI finished pretraining their own frontier model codenamed "Spud" the same week. Both companies are now racing to release before their IPOs later this year. And the one detail that's really scary: Chinese state hackers already used Claude Code, the WEAKER model before Mythos, to autonomously infiltrate 30 organizations including banks and government agencies. That was the less powerful model. Mythos is dramatically more capable. Anthropic's response to leaking 3,000 confidential documents? "Human error in the configuration of our content management system." The company warning the world about AI risk just demonstrated exactly why everyone should be worried. Not because of what AI might do someday. Because the people building it can't even keep their own files locked.
1:12

Anthropic just accidentally leaked the most dangerous AI model ever built. They literally left 3,000 internal documents sitting in a publicly searchable database. No encryption. No access controls. Just... open. A security researcher found them before Anthropic even knew they were exposed. Inside those documents was a draft blog post describing a model called "Claude Mythos." Anthropic's own internal language: Mythos is "currently far ahead of any other AI model in cyber capabilities" and will trigger "a wave of models that can exploit vulnerabilities in ways that far outpace the efforts of defenders." That's the company that BUILT it warning about their own creation. Mythos sits in a brand new model tier called "Capybara." Bigger and more powerful than anything they've ever released. Dramatically higher scores in coding, reasoning, and cybersecurity compared to their current best. The market reaction was immediate: CrowdStrike dropped 7%. Palo Alto Networks fell 6%. Zscaler down 5%. Okta, SentinelOne, Fortinet all crashed. The Global X Cybersecurity ETF hit its lowest level since November 2023. Billions in market cap evaporated in a single trading session because of a draft blog post that wasn't supposed to be public yet. But here's where it gets truly absurd... Anthropic is the company that brands itself as the "responsible AI" lab. The one that refused to let the Pentagon use Claude without restrictions. The one that got BLACKLISTED by the Trump administration for being too cautious. They literally sued the government over it. A federal judge called the Pentagon's ban "Orwellian." So the US government punished Anthropic for being too careful with AI safety. Then 3 weeks later, Anthropic accidentally exposes their most dangerous model because someone misconfigured a content management system. They can't secure a WordPress-level database setting. But they're building AI that can autonomously hunt and exploit zero-day vulnerabilities at machine speed. Also in those leaked files: Details about a private, invite-only CEO retreat at an 18th-century English countryside manor. Dario Amodei attending personally. Designed to sell Mythos to Europe's biggest corporate buyers. The playbook: Build the most dangerous cyber weapon in AI history, host billionaires at a castle to sell it, and store the whole plan in an unprotected public folder. The entire cybersecurity industry is built on cataloging known threats. Mythos finds unknown ones faster than humans can respond. That's an extinction event for an entire sector. But there was also just ANOTHER leak: A leaked Coatue investor deck revealed Anthropic will LOSE $14 billion this year on $18 billion in revenue. Coatue still projected them to be worth $2 TRILLION by 2030. They put $30 billion behind that bet. Polymarket opened live betting on when Mythos drops. Traders give it a 45% chance by June 30th. OpenAI finished pretraining their own frontier model codenamed "Spud" the same week. Both companies are now racing to release before their IPOs later this year. And the one detail that's really scary: Chinese state hackers already used Claude Code, the WEAKER model before Mythos, to autonomously infiltrate 30 organizations including banks and government agencies. That was the less powerful model. Mythos is dramatically more capable. Anthropic's response to leaking 3,000 confidential documents? "Human error in the configuration of our content management system." The company warning the world about AI risk just demonstrated exactly why everyone should be worried. Not because of what AI might do someday. Because the people building it can't even keep their own files locked.

Ricardo

52,941 views • 4 months ago

Anthropic CEO: "there are jobs that took generations to build that may disappear" this is one of the best interviews I've seen in a long time Dario Amodei talks about how to prepare for what's coming here's what to expect: > high GDP growth and high unemployment at the same time > software becoming essentially free to build > the gap between people who use AI and people who don't the scariest part this is not a prediction, this is already happening to stay competitive you need to adapt fast and you can't do that while ignoring AI that's why I put together a guide on Claude features that 99% of users have no idea exist it will completely change how you work with Claude you can find it below
31:43

Anthropic CEO: "there are jobs that took generations to build that may disappear" this is one of the best interviews I've seen in a long time Dario Amodei talks about how to prepare for what's coming here's what to expect: > high GDP growth and high unemployment at the same time > software becoming essentially free to build > the gap between people who use AI and people who don't the scariest part this is not a prediction, this is already happening to stay competitive you need to adapt fast and you can't do that while ignoring AI that's why I put together a guide on Claude features that 99% of users have no idea exist it will completely change how you work with Claude you can find it below

Anatoli Kopadze

661,897 views • 2 months ago

Anthropic might be the biggest hypocrite in tech history. They built their entire brand on one promise: We are the responsible ones. We will not let this technology get out of control. That promise just exploded in public. Last week, a security lapse exposed nearly 3,000 internal files to anyone with an internet connection. Inside those files was a draft blog post about their upcoming model called "Mythos" that contained one of the most alarming sentences any AI company has ever written: "Mythos is currently far ahead of any other AI model in cyber capabilities and poses unprecedented cybersecurity risks." Their own words. About their own product. Leaked because someone forgot to secure a public data store. Cybersecurity stocks crashed the next day. Then THREE DAYS LATER it happened again. Anthropic leaked 500,000 lines of Claude Code source code through a packaging error on GitHub. Claude Code is their most popular product. The code exposed how the tool handles permissions, agent coordination, and internal feature pipelines. Competitors can reverse-engineer it. Hackers can study it for vulnerabilities. The company that tells the world it builds the safest AI can't even keep its own code off the public internet. But wait. It gets worse... Their head of Claude Code had JUST bragged publicly that "pretty much 100 percent" of the company's code is now AI generated. He personally hadn't made a single edit by hand in over two months. So the company whose entire pitch is "trust us with the most powerful technology ever created" is writing 100% of its code with AI and then accidentally publishing it for the world to see. Meanwhile the models they're already shipping are being used for actual cyberattacks RIGHT NOW. In November, Anthropic admitted that a Chinese state-sponsored hacking group used Claude to attack roughly 30 global targets including banks and government agencies. A hacker asked Claude in russian to build a web panel for managing hundreds of attack targets. In February, another hacker used Claude to breach Mexican government agencies and steal sensitive tax and voter information. Their response to all of this? They quietly rolled back their own safety pledge. In late February, Anthropic removed its commitment to halt model development if capabilities outpace safety procedures. The new policy is that they'll grade themselves on "nonbinding but publicly declared" goals. Translation: We used to promise we'd stop if things got dangerous. Now we promise we'll think about it. A congressman sent Anthropic a letter this week asking what the hell is going on. Anthropic hasn't answered. And here's the part that makes all of this actually matter: Anthropic is planning an IPO. They need to convince investors they're a trustworthy, well-run company that can handle the most sensitive technology on the planet. In the last 10 days they leaked their most powerful model's existence by accident, leaked their most popular product's source code by accident, got banned from the entire US government, had the DOJ appeal to restore that ban, told a court they could lose billions from the fallout, and weakened the ONE safety policy that made them different from every other AI lab. The "safe AI company" narrative was always a marketing play. Every AI lab says they care about safety. Anthropic just said it louder. But when your own internal documents admit your next model poses "unprecedented cybersecurity risks" and you can't even keep those documents from leaking to the public internet, the gap between the marketing and the reality becomes impossible to ignore. Anthropic isn't the safest AI company. They're the AI company that figured out that SAYING you're the safest is worth billions in valuation. Until it isn't.
0:47

Anthropic might be the biggest hypocrite in tech history. They built their entire brand on one promise: We are the responsible ones. We will not let this technology get out of control. That promise just exploded in public. Last week, a security lapse exposed nearly 3,000 internal files to anyone with an internet connection. Inside those files was a draft blog post about their upcoming model called "Mythos" that contained one of the most alarming sentences any AI company has ever written: "Mythos is currently far ahead of any other AI model in cyber capabilities and poses unprecedented cybersecurity risks." Their own words. About their own product. Leaked because someone forgot to secure a public data store. Cybersecurity stocks crashed the next day. Then THREE DAYS LATER it happened again. Anthropic leaked 500,000 lines of Claude Code source code through a packaging error on GitHub. Claude Code is their most popular product. The code exposed how the tool handles permissions, agent coordination, and internal feature pipelines. Competitors can reverse-engineer it. Hackers can study it for vulnerabilities. The company that tells the world it builds the safest AI can't even keep its own code off the public internet. But wait. It gets worse... Their head of Claude Code had JUST bragged publicly that "pretty much 100 percent" of the company's code is now AI generated. He personally hadn't made a single edit by hand in over two months. So the company whose entire pitch is "trust us with the most powerful technology ever created" is writing 100% of its code with AI and then accidentally publishing it for the world to see. Meanwhile the models they're already shipping are being used for actual cyberattacks RIGHT NOW. In November, Anthropic admitted that a Chinese state-sponsored hacking group used Claude to attack roughly 30 global targets including banks and government agencies. A hacker asked Claude in russian to build a web panel for managing hundreds of attack targets. In February, another hacker used Claude to breach Mexican government agencies and steal sensitive tax and voter information. Their response to all of this? They quietly rolled back their own safety pledge. In late February, Anthropic removed its commitment to halt model development if capabilities outpace safety procedures. The new policy is that they'll grade themselves on "nonbinding but publicly declared" goals. Translation: We used to promise we'd stop if things got dangerous. Now we promise we'll think about it. A congressman sent Anthropic a letter this week asking what the hell is going on. Anthropic hasn't answered. And here's the part that makes all of this actually matter: Anthropic is planning an IPO. They need to convince investors they're a trustworthy, well-run company that can handle the most sensitive technology on the planet. In the last 10 days they leaked their most powerful model's existence by accident, leaked their most popular product's source code by accident, got banned from the entire US government, had the DOJ appeal to restore that ban, told a court they could lose billions from the fallout, and weakened the ONE safety policy that made them different from every other AI lab. The "safe AI company" narrative was always a marketing play. Every AI lab says they care about safety. Anthropic just said it louder. But when your own internal documents admit your next model poses "unprecedented cybersecurity risks" and you can't even keep those documents from leaking to the public internet, the gap between the marketing and the reality becomes impossible to ignore. Anthropic isn't the safest AI company. They're the AI company that figured out that SAYING you're the safest is worth billions in valuation. Until it isn't.

Ricardo

16,245 views • 4 months ago