Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

"Consumers are better served when the model provider and the application provider are separate. If the same company owns both, it has an incentive to maximize token consumption rather than optimize for efficiency and customer value. An independent application layer creates competition between models, forcing them to be faster,... show more

Harry Stebbings

594,349 subscribers

29,959 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Palantir CEO Alex Karp on why the model is not the moat. The application layer is: "To make them valuable in an enterprise, like a battlefield, regulated, or manufacturing context, you have to have what's called an application layer." "We have this thing called ontology that now everyone's copying. It takes a large language model and makes it safe and useful and precise." "Safe because it doesn't touch your underlying data." "Safe because it prevents the large language model from caching your data and replicating your business." The tell for any enterprise AI pitch: ask what sits between the model and your data. If the answer is nothing, you are not buying leverage. You are renting a fast way to hand your business to whoever owns the weights. Alex Karp, CEO of Palantir, on CNBC.

Palantir CEO Alex Karp on why the model is not the moat. The application layer is: "To make them valuable in an enterprise, like a battlefield, regulated, or manufacturing context, you have to have what's called an application layer." "We have this thing called ontology that now everyone's copying. It takes a large language model and makes it safe and useful and precise." "Safe because it doesn't touch your underlying data." "Safe because it prevents the large language model from caching your data and replicating your business." The tell for any enterprise AI pitch: ask what sits between the model and your data. If the answer is nothing, you are not buying leverage. You are renting a fast way to hand your business to whoever owns the weights. Alex Karp, CEO of Palantir, on CNBC.

Karl Mehta

31,891 views • 1 month ago

Most developers can't explain how Single Sign-On (SSO) works. This was one of my favorite questions during technical interviews. I love to ask about it because it's not a trivial topic. Here is a 5-minute overview of how Single Sign-On works. We all hate passwords; the less we use them, the better, and SSO helps with that. When you log in to Google once and visit YouTube, Gmail, Drive, and any other connected service without re-entering your password, three players are working behind the scenes: • A user trying to access an application. You, in this case. • The application you want to access. For example, YouTube. • An Identity Provider (IDP) that will verify your identity. Google, in this case. Here is what happens when you try to access one application for the first time: 1. You try to log in to YouTube, and the application redirects you to the Identity Provider (IDP) for authentication. 2. The IDP (Google) checks your credentials and confirms your identity. It creates a new session for you on its server and sets a session cookie in your browser. 3. The IDP also creates a token for YouTube—a small piece of data that contains information about your identity. 4. Your browser grabs the token and presents it to YouTube. 5. YouTube checks the token, and if it is valid, lets you in. But then you want to access Google Drive: 1. You go to Google Drive, and the application redirects you to the IDP. 2. The IDP recognizes that you are still logged in because you have the session cookie. It doesn't need to ask for your credentials. 3. Instead, the IDP generates a new token for Drive. 4. Your browser grabs the token and presents it to Google Drive. If the token is valid, Drive lets you in. You can now access multiple applications without re-entering your password. This is probably one of the best things we've invented since sliced bread! But, of course, implementing Single Sign-On is a nightmare! If you are a developer, don't try to reinvent the wheel. I've been implementing SSO since dinosaurs were around, and I can tell you you want to check out Auth0. Auth0 makes implementing SSO 100x easier. They just updated their free plan, and you get a lot without having to pay a single cent. 25,000 monthly active users, unlimited social connections, and you can go to production with custom domains. FOR FREE! They are sponsoring this post. To save your time, keep your sanity, and have a really solid and secure solution, head over to their website:

Most developers can't explain how Single Sign-On (SSO) works. This was one of my favorite questions during technical interviews. I love to ask about it because it's not a trivial topic. Here is a 5-minute overview of how Single Sign-On works. We all hate passwords; the less we use them, the better, and SSO helps with that. When you log in to Google once and visit YouTube, Gmail, Drive, and any other connected service without re-entering your password, three players are working behind the scenes: • A user trying to access an application. You, in this case. • The application you want to access. For example, YouTube. • An Identity Provider (IDP) that will verify your identity. Google, in this case. Here is what happens when you try to access one application for the first time: 1. You try to log in to YouTube, and the application redirects you to the Identity Provider (IDP) for authentication. 2. The IDP (Google) checks your credentials and confirms your identity. It creates a new session for you on its server and sets a session cookie in your browser. 3. The IDP also creates a token for YouTube—a small piece of data that contains information about your identity. 4. Your browser grabs the token and presents it to YouTube. 5. YouTube checks the token, and if it is valid, lets you in. But then you want to access Google Drive: 1. You go to Google Drive, and the application redirects you to the IDP. 2. The IDP recognizes that you are still logged in because you have the session cookie. It doesn't need to ask for your credentials. 3. Instead, the IDP generates a new token for Drive. 4. Your browser grabs the token and presents it to Google Drive. If the token is valid, Drive lets you in. You can now access multiple applications without re-entering your password. This is probably one of the best things we've invented since sliced bread! But, of course, implementing Single Sign-On is a nightmare! If you are a developer, don't try to reinvent the wheel. I've been implementing SSO since dinosaurs were around, and I can tell you you want to check out Auth0. Auth0 makes implementing SSO 100x easier. They just updated their free plan, and you get a lot without having to pay a single cent. 25,000 monthly active users, unlimited social connections, and you can go to production with custom domains. FOR FREE! They are sponsoring this post. To save your time, keep your sanity, and have a really solid and secure solution, head over to their website:

Santiago

204,895 views • 1 year ago

The most dangerous thing a company can do right now is rent intelligence from the same place as its competitors (Save this). You cannot rent intelligence from the same place that rents it to your competitor as Chamath Palihapitiya points out. If every company in an industry is feeding their workflows into the same frontier model, they are all converging on the same outputs, the same decisions, the same product improvements. The model becomes the equalizer and everyone pays a premium to become more mediocre. This is happening exactly as Chamath predicted, and the evidence is now concrete. Anthropic and OpenAI have established what analysts are now openly calling an emerging model layer duopoly. Anthropic crossed $45 billion ARR in may 2026, more than tripling from $9 billion at the end of 2025, OpenAI was at roughly $24 to $33 billion ARR at the same time. Together, the two companies combined could hit $160 to $240 billion ARR by end of 2026 and Anthropic and OpenAI now control 88% of enterprise LLM spend. That concentration is the structural problem Chamath is pointing at. And Anthropic isn't just winning on merit because it's actively lobbying for regulatory outcomes that would make that duopoly permanent. Dario Amodei has explicitly framed open source models as unsafe, pushing a safety agenda that, if enshrined in regulation, would effectively make it illegal for enterprises to use the cheaper, private, sovereign alternatives locking them into a closed model dependency by government decree rather than by choice. So you have market forces producing a duopoly, and potential regulatory capture moving to enforce it from the top down. This is exactly why the Nvidia Palantir partnership is not just a product announcement but rather a strategic counter to that duopoly. The logic is straightforward from both sides because If you're Palantir, sitting at the application layer, the last thing you want is to be permanently beholden to Anthropic or OpenAI for the intelligence that powers your product. You want competitive model options, sovereignty and be able to tell enterprise customers they can run AI on their own infrastructure with their own data without any of it touching a frontier lab's servers. If you're Nvidia, sitting at the chip layer, an Anthropic-OpenAI duopoly is an existential concentration risk. Right now, Meta, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and dozens of other companies buy Nvidia's hardware. If the model layer consolidates into two players, both of which are building their own chips Nvidia faces a monopsony where its best customers are building the tools to displace it. A healthy open source ecosystem where thousands of enterprises train, fine tune, and deploy their own models is Nvidia's ideal market structure. More buyers, more diversity, more demand, less pricing leverage from any single customer.

The most dangerous thing a company can do right now is rent intelligence from the same place as its competitors (Save this). You cannot rent intelligence from the same place that rents it to your competitor as Chamath Palihapitiya points out. If every company in an industry is feeding their workflows into the same frontier model, they are all converging on the same outputs, the same decisions, the same product improvements. The model becomes the equalizer and everyone pays a premium to become more mediocre. This is happening exactly as Chamath predicted, and the evidence is now concrete. Anthropic and OpenAI have established what analysts are now openly calling an emerging model layer duopoly. Anthropic crossed $45 billion ARR in may 2026, more than tripling from $9 billion at the end of 2025, OpenAI was at roughly $24 to $33 billion ARR at the same time. Together, the two companies combined could hit $160 to $240 billion ARR by end of 2026 and Anthropic and OpenAI now control 88% of enterprise LLM spend. That concentration is the structural problem Chamath is pointing at. And Anthropic isn't just winning on merit because it's actively lobbying for regulatory outcomes that would make that duopoly permanent. Dario Amodei has explicitly framed open source models as unsafe, pushing a safety agenda that, if enshrined in regulation, would effectively make it illegal for enterprises to use the cheaper, private, sovereign alternatives locking them into a closed model dependency by government decree rather than by choice. So you have market forces producing a duopoly, and potential regulatory capture moving to enforce it from the top down. This is exactly why the Nvidia Palantir partnership is not just a product announcement but rather a strategic counter to that duopoly. The logic is straightforward from both sides because If you're Palantir, sitting at the application layer, the last thing you want is to be permanently beholden to Anthropic or OpenAI for the intelligence that powers your product. You want competitive model options, sovereignty and be able to tell enterprise customers they can run AI on their own infrastructure with their own data without any of it touching a frontier lab's servers. If you're Nvidia, sitting at the chip layer, an Anthropic-OpenAI duopoly is an existential concentration risk. Right now, Meta, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and dozens of other companies buy Nvidia's hardware. If the model layer consolidates into two players, both of which are building their own chips Nvidia faces a monopsony where its best customers are building the tools to displace it. A healthy open source ecosystem where thousands of enterprises train, fine tune, and deploy their own models is Nvidia's ideal market structure. More buyers, more diversity, more demand, less pricing leverage from any single customer.

Milk Road AI

34,385 views • 1 month ago

Full interview with Shaun Maguire of Sequoia Capital on SpaceX IPO. "Orbital compute will be the lowest cost provider of inference compute by at least a factor of three over large scale terrestrial compute. As we've learned in any commodity industry, if you're the lowest cost provider, you are going to crush." We discuss: - the growth trajectory and why retail will likely understand this company better than Wall Street does. - Starship and why it's more technically derisked than the public realizes - orbital compute, an inevitability - thermal engineering advantages - his view on why meaningful launch competition is at least a decade away - why Starlink and direct-to-cell will make SpaceX the world's lowest-cost broadband and mobile provider 👇

Full interview with Shaun Maguire of Sequoia Capital on SpaceX IPO. "Orbital compute will be the lowest cost provider of inference compute by at least a factor of three over large scale terrestrial compute. As we've learned in any commodity industry, if you're the lowest cost provider, you are going to crush." We discuss: - the growth trajectory and why retail will likely understand this company better than Wall Street does. - Starship and why it's more technically derisked than the public realizes - orbital compute, an inevitability - thermal engineering advantages - his view on why meaningful launch competition is at least a decade away - why Starlink and direct-to-cell will make SpaceX the world's lowest-cost broadband and mobile provider 👇

Mo Islam

229,096 views • 2 months ago

Chamath: AI Will Kill Brands, Only Abundance Wins The brands that bring abundance will win big. Chamath Palihapitiya: “ If I had to bet, I'm going to bet that brands go to zero.” @jason: “Really?” Chamath: “When you can make things that are as good or better, and you can make them in a cheaper, faster, better way, people want that abundance more than they want an affiliation to a brand. The perfect example is actually what Tesla did to BMW. This is a fundamentally cheaper, faster, better product. Yes, it's got a great brand, but nobody's going to pay a premium for these products. The reason why Y has outsold everything else is because the Model Y is priced better and it's superior on every operational dimension of comparison. Maybe the right word is abundance. The brands that bring abundance, that bring more to the table than their competitors, and they're able to bring more at the same unit cost or less, capture share. That's probably true.”

The All-In Podcast

99,558 views • 4 months ago

$PLTR People should really watch the interview by Alex Karp in trying to understand what the future of enterprise AI is heading towards. The difference between value creation for each enterprise can be and has to be tailored to get the most use. The FDE model that Palantir pioneered is being used by everyone these days but the end goal for every FDE seems to be different. Companies like Palantir are trying to drive value creation for the companies they work with vs. OpenAI and Anthropic who are more about trying to lock enterprise customers down into their respective ecosystems and endlessly consume tokens. I think its becoming clear that businesses are a bit ticked off by the sheer cost of these models without the tangible returns to justify the expense. Companies like Palantir dont sell tokens, they sell value. Palantir is helping customers by delivering value but maximizing efficiency through model selection and limiting spend. The ROI therefore is much more tangible and dare I say predictable. The incentive structure long term I believe ends up in the hands of those who can provide value and not just a blackbox models whose focus is to pad the bottom line at their respective model company. This move by OpenAI and Anthropic to create custom tailored solutions that feed one token budgets scream, "I better pad my profitability up before the IPO"

$PLTR People should really watch the interview by Alex Karp in trying to understand what the future of enterprise AI is heading towards. The difference between value creation for each enterprise can be and has to be tailored to get the most use. The FDE model that Palantir pioneered is being used by everyone these days but the end goal for every FDE seems to be different. Companies like Palantir are trying to drive value creation for the companies they work with vs. OpenAI and Anthropic who are more about trying to lock enterprise customers down into their respective ecosystems and endlessly consume tokens. I think its becoming clear that businesses are a bit ticked off by the sheer cost of these models without the tangible returns to justify the expense. Companies like Palantir dont sell tokens, they sell value. Palantir is helping customers by delivering value but maximizing efficiency through model selection and limiting spend. The ROI therefore is much more tangible and dare I say predictable. The incentive structure long term I believe ends up in the hands of those who can provide value and not just a blackbox models whose focus is to pad the bottom line at their respective model company. This move by OpenAI and Anthropic to create custom tailored solutions that feed one token budgets scream, "I better pad my profitability up before the IPO"

Kris Patel 🇺🇸

75,390 views • 1 month ago

Jason Calacanis: Anthropic, OpenAI and others are trying to kill OpenClaw Why? Because an open source agent platform is an existential threat to frontier model companies. @jason: “ People are going to say I'm a conspiracy theorist, but the number one goal, I believe, in the large language model, frontier model space, is to kill (OpenClaw). This is a giant movement to stop it, because this is the equivalent of having an open source Android-like player in the market, and that could be incredibly disruptive. Because, I believe, open source is going to win the day on the large language models and take 90% of the token usage, and I think the entire frontier model space could be undercut by open source. And I think they realize that SLMs, the smaller language models that are verticalized now, that will run on desktops and laptops and are even starting to run on the top ones, that is their biggest competitive threat, and I hope it happens.”

Jason Calacanis: Anthropic, OpenAI and others are trying to kill OpenClaw Why? Because an open source agent platform is an existential threat to frontier model companies. @jason: “ People are going to say I'm a conspiracy theorist, but the number one goal, I believe, in the large language model, frontier model space, is to kill (OpenClaw). This is a giant movement to stop it, because this is the equivalent of having an open source Android-like player in the market, and that could be incredibly disruptive. Because, I believe, open source is going to win the day on the large language models and take 90% of the token usage, and I think the entire frontier model space could be undercut by open source. And I think they realize that SLMs, the smaller language models that are verticalized now, that will run on desktops and laptops and are even starting to run on the top ones, that is their biggest competitive threat, and I hope it happens.”

The All-In Podcast

64,611 views • 4 months ago

IN NEWS: Baseten raises a $150M series D round. Tuhin Srivastava (Founder & CEO, Baseten) on the future of inference: “I think the token price goes down and inference should get cheaper over time. And that really just means there is going to be more inference.” “Every time we lower prices or optimize models to make it cheaper, four months later customers are spending more anyway.” “Inference prices will go down, but if the world is run by AI in 10 years, there is going to be a lot of inference. It better be cheap.”

IN NEWS: Baseten raises a $150M series D round. Tuhin Srivastava (Founder & CEO, Baseten) on the future of inference: “I think the token price goes down and inference should get cheaper over time. And that really just means there is going to be more inference.” “Every time we lower prices or optimize models to make it cheaper, four months later customers are spending more anyway.” “Inference prices will go down, but if the world is run by AI in 10 years, there is going to be a lot of inference. It better be cheap.”

TBPN

17,057 views • 11 months ago

47 years later, #47 is finishing it! In a fight, when you are clearly the superior force, is it better for both sides for you to strike hard, fast and precise? Yes, much less collateral damage than if you hit soft and drag the conflict out. Hit hard, hit fast and be done.

47 years later, #47 is finishing it! In a fight, when you are clearly the superior force, is it better for both sides for you to strike hard, fast and precise? Yes, much less collateral damage than if you hit soft and drag the conflict out. Hit hard, hit fast and be done.

GABRIEL 🪽

44,162 views • 5 months ago

Gavin on why people misunderstand what makes TSMC so valuable: "One of the most undervalued pieces of the supply chain story is that almost none of these things are buy it once and never talk to the vendor again. You have to go collaborate. That is the most important part of being successful in chips. People look at the tech, and the tech is the best in the world. But the real value is all in the service. TSMC's customer service is way better than I've seen at any company in any industry. If you say, we think you can improve your yield by making this change, they will go run an experiment on their own dime to see if they can get the higher yield. When we found we were right and it worked, they moved it over to the rest of the line. If I go to a steelworks plant and say I want you to change the composition of the steel, they'll say screw you. Not TSMC. It's why they're number one, and why they're going to win."

Gavin on why people misunderstand what makes TSMC so valuable: "One of the most undervalued pieces of the supply chain story is that almost none of these things are buy it once and never talk to the vendor again. You have to go collaborate. That is the most important part of being successful in chips. People look at the tech, and the tech is the best in the world. But the real value is all in the service. TSMC's customer service is way better than I've seen at any company in any industry. If you say, we think you can improve your yield by making this change, they will go run an experiment on their own dime to see if they can get the higher yield. When we found we were right and it worked, they moved it over to the rest of the line. If I go to a steelworks plant and say I want you to change the composition of the steel, they'll say screw you. Not TSMC. It's why they're number one, and why they're going to win."

Invest Like the Best

71,350 views • 1 month ago

Even when you're winning, assume you're losing. — Elon Musk Roblox's David Baszucki says the same thing: "We have to run the company as if there's an imaginary competitor who loves this space, who's going to be faster and better than us in every area we're in." Michael Dell 🇺🇸 said it too: "There's a company that's going to compete in every single area we're in. They're going to be faster, better than us. And we're going to be that company." Even if you don't have a crisis, you make a crisis. Three different founders. Same understanding that complacency kills.

Even when you're winning, assume you're losing. — Elon Musk Roblox's David Baszucki says the same thing: "We have to run the company as if there's an imaginary competitor who loves this space, who's going to be faster and better than us in every area we're in." Michael Dell 🇺🇸 said it too: "There's a company that's going to compete in every single area we're in. They're going to be faster, better than us. And we're going to be that company." Even if you don't have a crisis, you make a crisis. Three different founders. Same understanding that complacency kills.

David Senra

24,063 views • 3 months ago

This is why Ridges AI | SN62 is an absolute monster 🔥 🔵 "If you were to take the top coding systems from these major companies with billions of dollars in funding at multi hundred billion dollar valuations and take their primary product which is coding agents and you stack it up against ours.. Ours is better" 🔵 "It solves more problems faster, for orders of magnitude cheaper, like 70x cheaper to use us than the flagship #Anthropic model to solve these problems.. and we're beating them now" ⚪️ "For way less capital, we've created a system that is way more efficient and actually better at solving problems for multiples cheaper, with a system that is now profitable to run" ⚪️ "With probably less capital than it costs our competitors to pay their engineers to do research in this time" Shakeel $TAO

This is why Ridges AI | SN62 is an absolute monster 🔥 🔵 "If you were to take the top coding systems from these major companies with billions of dollars in funding at multi hundred billion dollar valuations and take their primary product which is coding agents and you stack it up against ours.. Ours is better" 🔵 "It solves more problems faster, for orders of magnitude cheaper, like 70x cheaper to use us than the flagship #Anthropic model to solve these problems.. and we're beating them now" ⚪️ "For way less capital, we've created a system that is way more efficient and actually better at solving problems for multiples cheaper, with a system that is now profitable to run" ⚪️ "With probably less capital than it costs our competitors to pay their engineers to do research in this time" Shakeel $TAO

ＤＲＥＡＤＢＯＮＧＯ

18,356 views • 10 months ago

Grants suck. Slow, political, confusing—for builders and foundations. I’ve been on both sides. Thrive Protocol is flipping the whole model. Here’s a 🔥 clip from Daniel Jacobs - Founder, Thrive Protocol breaking it down. Episode soon 👇. Thoughts? Hit reply or repost if you’ve felt this pain. In his words... And so what you'll notice is that every couple of weeks, there's going to be another major ecosystem that we're supporting, at least for the near term and probably longer. So there are a lot of opportunities to get funding with Thrive. And the other thing is, if you're a builder and you submit an application, here's our commitment to you. You will have a response within a week. Within a week. Right? And then after you get a response, you can be building within three days after that. Right? If the response is that an ecosystem has decided to fund you. So we've really streamlined the process for you to make it as clear and simple to create value and to be rewarded proportionate to the value that you create.

Grants suck. Slow, political, confusing—for builders and foundations. I’ve been on both sides. Thrive Protocol is flipping the whole model. Here’s a 🔥 clip from Daniel Jacobs - Founder, Thrive Protocol breaking it down. Episode soon 👇. Thoughts? Hit reply or repost if you’ve felt this pain. In his words... And so what you'll notice is that every couple of weeks, there's going to be another major ecosystem that we're supporting, at least for the near term and probably longer. So there are a lot of opportunities to get funding with Thrive. And the other thing is, if you're a builder and you submit an application, here's our commitment to you. You will have a response within a week. Within a week. Right? And then after you get a response, you can be building within three days after that. Right? If the response is that an ecosystem has decided to fund you. So we've really streamlined the process for you to make it as clear and simple to create value and to be rewarded proportionate to the value that you create.

papiofficial

33,234 views • 1 year ago

.Chamath Palihapitiya says Palantir CEO Alex Karp is " an incredible, smart, brilliant guy" who "completely nailed it and called out on its face the huge risk" of giving your company's alpha to OpenAI and Anthropic: "If you are a reasonable company, why are you not finding an independent way to access this intelligence in a way that doesn't leak your edge away?" "To do so at this point now is kind of becoming derelict and irresponsible." "Back then, you could be experimenting because you didn't know any better." "Now, when you know all of these data points, to continue to make the same decision is really insanely dumb." Via The All-In Podcast David Sacks david friedberg @jason

.Chamath Palihapitiya says Palantir CEO Alex Karp is " an incredible, smart, brilliant guy" who "completely nailed it and called out on its face the huge risk" of giving your company's alpha to OpenAI and Anthropic: "If you are a reasonable company, why are you not finding an independent way to access this intelligence in a way that doesn't leak your edge away?" "To do so at this point now is kind of becoming derelict and irresponsible." "Back then, you could be experimenting because you didn't know any better." "Now, when you know all of these data points, to continue to make the same decision is really insanely dumb." Via The All-In Podcast David Sacks david friedberg @jason

Jawwwn

503,691 views • 1 month ago

Krishna on how Anthropic thinks about the platform vs. application layer, and when they decide to build their own products like Claude Code. It’s the question every investor and founder is thinking about: “Most of what we're building is platform. There's so many examples of where a platform can accrue a lot of value, but the customers who are building on that platform actually accrue even more value. We will build our own applications on that same platform where a couple of things are true. Number one, if we feel like we have a vision into where the models are going and we can demonstrate that and create customer value in that, that might be something like Claude Code. The second is thinking about ways to demonstrate value for the ecosystem that others might emulate. If you think about Claude for financial services or Claude for life sciences, these are ways in which we've composed the platform. We're building on the same platform as our customers. That creates a level playing field. We also think that there's so much value that's going to accrue in these areas that our customers can win and we can win as well. So I think of our strategy as mostly horizontal. A lot of the value is going to accrue to the customers that are building on top of it. Our goal is build the best models and then build the products and tools and services that allow that intelligence to proliferate within customers."

Krishna on how Anthropic thinks about the platform vs. application layer, and when they decide to build their own products like Claude Code. It’s the question every investor and founder is thinking about: “Most of what we're building is platform. There's so many examples of where a platform can accrue a lot of value, but the customers who are building on that platform actually accrue even more value. We will build our own applications on that same platform where a couple of things are true. Number one, if we feel like we have a vision into where the models are going and we can demonstrate that and create customer value in that, that might be something like Claude Code. The second is thinking about ways to demonstrate value for the ecosystem that others might emulate. If you think about Claude for financial services or Claude for life sciences, these are ways in which we've composed the platform. We're building on the same platform as our customers. That creates a level playing field. We also think that there's so much value that's going to accrue in these areas that our customers can win and we can win as well. So I think of our strategy as mostly horizontal. A lot of the value is going to accrue to the customers that are building on top of it. Our goal is build the best models and then build the products and tools and services that allow that intelligence to proliferate within customers."

Patrick OShaughnessy

113,826 views • 3 months ago

Suppose an AI model fully automates a $200k job. Its economic value - measured in contribution to GDP - will be both far more and far less than $200k. There are two ways of thinking about the model's economic value: (1) It'll be far more than $200k. After all, the human worker's labor was worth $200k; AI workers will have a bunch of advantages over humans, like not needing to sleep and being able to run in parallel, so their labor will be worth even more. (2) It'll be far less than $200k. Competition between labs might drive the price of AI down until it's basically equal to the cost of the GPUs and energy. And this is obviously way lower than the human worker's contribution to GDP. The important idea is that both are right. The marginal contribution to GDP of running an additional instance of this model will probably be relatively low. But we'll end up running way more copies of it, so the model's total contribution to GDP will be way higher than the human workers it replaced.

Suppose an AI model fully automates a $200k job. Its economic value - measured in contribution to GDP - will be both far more and far less than $200k. There are two ways of thinking about the model's economic value: (1) It'll be far more than $200k. After all, the human worker's labor was worth $200k; AI workers will have a bunch of advantages over humans, like not needing to sleep and being able to run in parallel, so their labor will be worth even more. (2) It'll be far less than $200k. Competition between labs might drive the price of AI down until it's basically equal to the cost of the GPUs and energy. And this is obviously way lower than the human worker's contribution to GDP. The important idea is that both are right. The marginal contribution to GDP of running an additional instance of this model will probably be relatively low. But we'll end up running way more copies of it, so the model's total contribution to GDP will be way higher than the human workers it replaced.

Dwarkesh Patel

71,887 views • 1 month ago

A customer at Lowe’s was arguing with an employee about a product return. The situation kept escalating, and the store manager eventually stepped in. After several attempts to calm things down, the manager became visibly annoyed and told the customer that if they didn’t leave the store immediately, she would call the police. Customer service jobs can be challenging, especially when situations become heated. While businesses want to help customers, there are moments when maintaining safety and order in the store has to come first. At what point is it reasonable for a manager to ask a customer to leave a store?

A customer at Lowe’s was arguing with an employee about a product return. The situation kept escalating, and the store manager eventually stepped in. After several attempts to calm things down, the manager became visibly annoyed and told the customer that if they didn’t leave the store immediately, she would call the police. Customer service jobs can be challenging, especially when situations become heated. While businesses want to help customers, there are moments when maintaining safety and order in the store has to come first. At what point is it reasonable for a manager to ask a customer to leave a store?

Dr.L

231,997 views • 5 months ago

Liquid AI (Liquid AI) CEO Ramin Hasani (Ramin) says: "We're bringing the cost of tokens to zero." "The axis was maximizing intelligence at all costs." Foundation models need to optimize across 3 axes: 1.) Intelligence and capability 2.) Efficiency and cost 3.) Substrate: where the intelligence actually runs "Efficiency is not an afterthought. Energy is not abundant." "If you maximize intelligence at all costs, that axis alone is not going to get you to the place that you want to go." "Efficiency and cost of intelligence as a first-class citizen, and not an afterthought." "Where does this intelligence system go? AI is majorly getting hosted in data centers, but you could also bring intelligence on phones, on laptops, on airplanes, on cars." "Imagine if it's not tokens that are actually important. It's just the outcome that actually matters." "Not just thinking about foundation models as the token machines that are generating money and revenue for the foundation model companies that are useless tokens, and getting them into the place where they can actually unlock true value for enterprises."

Liquid AI (Liquid AI) CEO Ramin Hasani (Ramin) says: "We're bringing the cost of tokens to zero." "The axis was maximizing intelligence at all costs." Foundation models need to optimize across 3 axes: 1.) Intelligence and capability 2.) Efficiency and cost 3.) Substrate: where the intelligence actually runs "Efficiency is not an afterthought. Energy is not abundant." "If you maximize intelligence at all costs, that axis alone is not going to get you to the place that you want to go." "Efficiency and cost of intelligence as a first-class citizen, and not an afterthought." "Where does this intelligence system go? AI is majorly getting hosted in data centers, but you could also bring intelligence on phones, on laptops, on airplanes, on cars." "Imagine if it's not tokens that are actually important. It's just the outcome that actually matters." "Not just thinking about foundation models as the token machines that are generating money and revenue for the foundation model companies that are useless tokens, and getting them into the place where they can actually unlock true value for enterprises."

Molly O’Shea

12,816 views • 1 month ago