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.

Jensen Huang was asked whether AI's future is open source or proprietary the question the whole industry keeps fighting over. He didn't pick a side. He said something that quietly ends the fight. "models is a technology, not a product. Model is a technology, not a service" "For the... vast majority of consumers, the horizontal layer, the general intelligence, I would really, really love not to go fine-tune my own" "all these industries, their domain expertise, their specialization has to be channeled, has to be captured in a way that they can control, and that it can only come from open models" "the open model industry we're contributing tremendously to it is near the frontier" Everyone else is arguing about which lab wins OpenAI or Anthropic, who has the smartest frontier model this quarter. Jensen is standing on stage saying that's the sideshow. The proprietary model is the convenience layer you rent when you don't care. The open model is the thing you own when the work is yours. Two different products for two different needs not two horses in one race. open models are the second-biggest in the room. Ahead of Anthropic. Behind only OpenAI.show more

Vikram M

3,241 subscribers

12,078 views • 11 days 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

The entire AI industry is racing to build the smartest model. Satya Nadella just admitted that is not where the money is. The model is not the product. The harness is. That is the exact line. And it changes what Microsoft is actually competing on. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, xAI, Meta every frontier lab is pouring hundreds of billions into training compute, chasing the next capability jump. Each betting that raw model intelligence is the moat. Microsoft is doing the opposite. It is building the harness the orchestration layer that sits above the model, connecting it to tools, data, permissions, sub-agents, and enterprise workflows. And it is letting OpenAI, Anthropic, and MAI compete to plug into it. "You need the model. But the model is not the product. The harness is." So do the math on what a harness actually does. A raw model dropped into an enterprise answers questions. That is a chatbot. A harness turns that same model into an agent that reads the SharePoint, edits the ERP entry, pulls the GitHub PR, updates Salesforce, and files the Excel report with the right permissions, the right audit trail, and the right sub-agent for each sub-task. The model provides the intelligence. The harness converts intelligence into work. Now here's where it gets interesting. "Even the best model in the world will feel broken without a great harness. And an okay model with a great harness can feel like magic." If that is true, the enterprise buyer is not buying model quality. The enterprise buyer is buying the harness. Which means model quality becomes a commodity input over time, and harness quality becomes the sustainable moat. Compare that to the strategy the entire frontier lab industry is executing. Everyone else is chasing the numerator raw intelligence. Almost nobody at scale is racing to build the denominator the orchestration layer that determines whether that intelligence can actually be deployed profitably inside a real company. The frontier model race has a 10 to 20 percent chance of producing a single dominant winner. Nadella just told the industry he does not need to be that winner. If OpenAI wins, Microsoft wins. If Anthropic wins, Microsoft wins. If MAI wins, Microsoft wins. If someone Microsoft has never heard of trains a better model in 2027, Microsoft still wins. Because the compute they train on, the harness they get plugged into, the enterprise contracts they get delivered through, and the products they sit inside are all Microsoft. He is not building the best AI model. He is building the layer that the best AI model has to run on to make anyone money. I wonder which position looks more valuable in ten years.

The entire AI industry is racing to build the smartest model. Satya Nadella just admitted that is not where the money is. The model is not the product. The harness is. That is the exact line. And it changes what Microsoft is actually competing on. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, xAI, Meta every frontier lab is pouring hundreds of billions into training compute, chasing the next capability jump. Each betting that raw model intelligence is the moat. Microsoft is doing the opposite. It is building the harness the orchestration layer that sits above the model, connecting it to tools, data, permissions, sub-agents, and enterprise workflows. And it is letting OpenAI, Anthropic, and MAI compete to plug into it. "You need the model. But the model is not the product. The harness is." So do the math on what a harness actually does. A raw model dropped into an enterprise answers questions. That is a chatbot. A harness turns that same model into an agent that reads the SharePoint, edits the ERP entry, pulls the GitHub PR, updates Salesforce, and files the Excel report with the right permissions, the right audit trail, and the right sub-agent for each sub-task. The model provides the intelligence. The harness converts intelligence into work. Now here's where it gets interesting. "Even the best model in the world will feel broken without a great harness. And an okay model with a great harness can feel like magic." If that is true, the enterprise buyer is not buying model quality. The enterprise buyer is buying the harness. Which means model quality becomes a commodity input over time, and harness quality becomes the sustainable moat. Compare that to the strategy the entire frontier lab industry is executing. Everyone else is chasing the numerator raw intelligence. Almost nobody at scale is racing to build the denominator the orchestration layer that determines whether that intelligence can actually be deployed profitably inside a real company. The frontier model race has a 10 to 20 percent chance of producing a single dominant winner. Nadella just told the industry he does not need to be that winner. If OpenAI wins, Microsoft wins. If Anthropic wins, Microsoft wins. If MAI wins, Microsoft wins. If someone Microsoft has never heard of trains a better model in 2027, Microsoft still wins. Because the compute they train on, the harness they get plugged into, the enterprise contracts they get delivered through, and the products they sit inside are all Microsoft. He is not building the best AI model. He is building the layer that the best AI model has to run on to make anyone money. I wonder which position looks more valuable in ten years.

Vikram M

21,463 views • 27 days 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 • 3 months ago

🚨David Ondrej exposes the truth about the frontier labs. “The progress isn’t slowing down for them, it’s slowing down for us the slaves” “If you think Mythos or Fable 5 is the best model Anthropic has you’re delusional” this is the first time ever that the best AI models are not publicly accessible Anthropic has fear mongered every single human and is now playing the victim with OpenAI after getting “banned” by the U.S government. THIS NEEDS TO WAKE YOU UP frontier models moving forward will become more restricted, less accessible, and more expensive and the only way to combat that is with open-source models. Investing into a DGX spark or 5090 Linux for localized intelligence and building your own AI lab is where the future is heading. every single person needs to start contributing to open-source together for the betterment of society.

🚨David Ondrej exposes the truth about the frontier labs. “The progress isn’t slowing down for them, it’s slowing down for us the slaves” “If you think Mythos or Fable 5 is the best model Anthropic has you’re delusional” this is the first time ever that the best AI models are not publicly accessible Anthropic has fear mongered every single human and is now playing the victim with OpenAI after getting “banned” by the U.S government. THIS NEEDS TO WAKE YOU UP frontier models moving forward will become more restricted, less accessible, and more expensive and the only way to combat that is with open-source models. Investing into a DGX spark or 5090 Linux for localized intelligence and building your own AI lab is where the future is heading. every single person needs to start contributing to open-source together for the betterment of society.

Vadim

83,257 views • 1 month ago

Dario Amodei keeps warning that open-source AI models are dangerous and need to be restricted. David Sacks David Sacks answered with a rhetorical question: "Dangerous to whom?" It was the sharpest thing said on the latest All-In The All-In Podcast. Not dangerous to the enterprise that wants to keep control of its own data. Open weights are what finally give that enterprise a choice. It is dangerous to Anthropic's business model. That model only works if customers have no real alternative at the model layer. So the safety argument starts to look like a moat argument wearing a lab coat. Line it up with the rest of the strategy. Dominate the layer everyone builds on. Launch Claude into science, security, legal, finance, and design, the verticals your own customers used to own. And campaign to restrict the open models that would hand those customers the exit. Here is the giveaway. When the person selling you safety also needs you to have no other option, you are not who is being kept safe.

Dario Amodei keeps warning that open-source AI models are dangerous and need to be restricted. David Sacks David Sacks answered with a rhetorical question: "Dangerous to whom?" It was the sharpest thing said on the latest All-In The All-In Podcast. Not dangerous to the enterprise that wants to keep control of its own data. Open weights are what finally give that enterprise a choice. It is dangerous to Anthropic's business model. That model only works if customers have no real alternative at the model layer. So the safety argument starts to look like a moat argument wearing a lab coat. Line it up with the rest of the strategy. Dominate the layer everyone builds on. Launch Claude into science, security, legal, finance, and design, the verticals your own customers used to own. And campaign to restrict the open models that would hand those customers the exit. Here is the giveaway. When the person selling you safety also needs you to have no other option, you are not who is being kept safe.

Fireside Alpha

10,037 views • 27 days ago

Dario Amodei was asked whether open source will eventually gut Anthropic's business. He didn't defend the moat. He didn't argue closed beats open. He said the whole question is a red herring. That is the reframe. And it flips how the industry keeps scoring this race. The conventional narrative is inherited from the last era of tech: open source wins because anyone can read the code, anyone improves it, contributions stack, and eventually the free thing catches the paid thing. Investors have a full lexicon for it. Commoditization. Which layer captures the value. Everyone repeats it. Amodei says the analogy breaks at the root. It's called open weights, not open source, for a reason: you can't see inside the model. So the thing that actually made open source powerful elsewhere, many people reading and additively improving shared code, never transfers. You just get a large file of numbers. Now here's where it gets interesting. The second engine isn't ideology. It's infrastructure. Free isn't free. Someone still has to host it. These are big models, and they're hard to run inference on. Someone has to make that fast. And the capabilities people assume only open weights unlock fine tuning, steering, inspecting activations labs are increasingly serving on their own clouds anyway. When DeepSeek shipped, he says he never asked whether it was open. He asked one thing: is it a good model, and is it better than us. That's the only axis he competes on. He even inverts the usual edge. Coming from outside that investor lexicon, he thinks knowing none of it lets him predict this better than the people fluent in it. He is not defending closed models. He is saying the scoreboard everyone is watching measures the wrong thing. The uncomfortable question if the free model still needs someone to run it, was the moat ever the weights, or always the machine underneath ?

Dario Amodei was asked whether open source will eventually gut Anthropic's business. He didn't defend the moat. He didn't argue closed beats open. He said the whole question is a red herring. That is the reframe. And it flips how the industry keeps scoring this race. The conventional narrative is inherited from the last era of tech: open source wins because anyone can read the code, anyone improves it, contributions stack, and eventually the free thing catches the paid thing. Investors have a full lexicon for it. Commoditization. Which layer captures the value. Everyone repeats it. Amodei says the analogy breaks at the root. It's called open weights, not open source, for a reason: you can't see inside the model. So the thing that actually made open source powerful elsewhere, many people reading and additively improving shared code, never transfers. You just get a large file of numbers. Now here's where it gets interesting. The second engine isn't ideology. It's infrastructure. Free isn't free. Someone still has to host it. These are big models, and they're hard to run inference on. Someone has to make that fast. And the capabilities people assume only open weights unlock fine tuning, steering, inspecting activations labs are increasingly serving on their own clouds anyway. When DeepSeek shipped, he says he never asked whether it was open. He asked one thing: is it a good model, and is it better than us. That's the only axis he competes on. He even inverts the usual edge. Coming from outside that investor lexicon, he thinks knowing none of it lets him predict this better than the people fluent in it. He is not defending closed models. He is saying the scoreboard everyone is watching measures the wrong thing. The uncomfortable question if the free model still needs someone to run it, was the moat ever the weights, or always the machine underneath ?

Vikram M

58,688 views • 16 days ago

David Sacks: Anthropic Is Trying to Crush Open Source AI and the American Developers Who Use It David Sacks: “I know people don't have a lot of sympathy for Chinese companies, that's fine. I'm not defending Chinese companies. I'm defending American developers who need to be able to use everything in the public domain. And let me give you an example. Cursor rolled out its new product, Composer 2. They were able to post-train that model using Kimi K2.5 on their own proprietary coding data. They started with a Chinese open source model, and then they used their own data, and they came up with a new derivative product. This is the way that open source works. You take things that are in the public domain, you fork them, you make them your own. And by the way, once it's in the public domain, it's not a Chinese model anymore. No data is going back to China, nothing's going back to China. An American company has taken open source contributions in the public domain, made it their own, and then developed their own model. And if you say that American companies can't do that, or that somehow it's tainted with IP theft, you are basically going to put a dagger through the heart of the entire American open source ecosystem. And that is exactly what Anthropic wants, because they do not want to have the competition.”

David Sacks: Anthropic Is Trying to Crush Open Source AI and the American Developers Who Use It David Sacks: “I know people don't have a lot of sympathy for Chinese companies, that's fine. I'm not defending Chinese companies. I'm defending American developers who need to be able to use everything in the public domain. And let me give you an example. Cursor rolled out its new product, Composer 2. They were able to post-train that model using Kimi K2.5 on their own proprietary coding data. They started with a Chinese open source model, and then they used their own data, and they came up with a new derivative product. This is the way that open source works. You take things that are in the public domain, you fork them, you make them your own. And by the way, once it's in the public domain, it's not a Chinese model anymore. No data is going back to China, nothing's going back to China. An American company has taken open source contributions in the public domain, made it their own, and then developed their own model. And if you say that American companies can't do that, or that somehow it's tainted with IP theft, you are basically going to put a dagger through the heart of the entire American open source ecosystem. And that is exactly what Anthropic wants, because they do not want to have the competition.”

The All-In Podcast

275,515 views • 7 days ago

SITUATION EXPLAINED: What happens to open source when the US restricts access to frontier AI models? We asked Adrian Dittmann: "China is releasing these models [open source] to gain international dominance, people will work on these things and say, 'Hey, maybe I can contribute to this if it's open source.' This is the thing that actually gets them talent." "If you're not allowed into the next GPT release or you're not allowed to use Fable, then what are you gonna do? You're stuck with the existing stuff, or you will have to use an open source model that might have subtly better capabilities." "The United States will catch up to open source in some form as well. They seem to just be maximizing product creation." "The problem with open source models is you have to be kind of a nerd in order to use them properly. Consumer facing, the effects will be minimal because the average person doesn't care about open source models. They only care whether or not they can do a quick search with Gemini or ChatGPT."

SITUATION EXPLAINED: What happens to open source when the US restricts access to frontier AI models? We asked Adrian Dittmann: "China is releasing these models [open source] to gain international dominance, people will work on these things and say, 'Hey, maybe I can contribute to this if it's open source.' This is the thing that actually gets them talent." "If you're not allowed into the next GPT release or you're not allowed to use Fable, then what are you gonna do? You're stuck with the existing stuff, or you will have to use an open source model that might have subtly better capabilities." "The United States will catch up to open source in some form as well. They seem to just be maximizing product creation." "The problem with open source models is you have to be kind of a nerd in order to use them properly. Consumer facing, the effects will be minimal because the average person doesn't care about open source models. They only care whether or not they can do a quick search with Gemini or ChatGPT."

MTS

14,406 views • 1 month ago

J-Cal: Nvidia is taking the gloves off with its open source model. They will own the whole stack. “You will not be able to tell the difference between Jensen Huang's open source LLM and Claude for 95% of your searches, I guarantee you. Now, why has Nvidia and Jensen downplayed their open source model until this moment? Why would he do that? Why would he never bring it up in the All-In interview, never bring it up? Because his top customers (OpenAI, Anthropic, etc.) were very concerned, from what I understand, about the fact that Nvidia had made so much progress on their open source model. But suddenly, after OpenAI announced their Jalapeno chips, after Anthropic started making chips, after AMD did successful projects with both of these companies, after Elon said he's going to do his own fab, Nvidia's taking the gloves off. They are going to own the whole stack. You get the hardware from them, and you're going to get a model that's competitive with OpenAI's for free.”

J-Cal: Nvidia is taking the gloves off with its open source model. They will own the whole stack. “You will not be able to tell the difference between Jensen Huang's open source LLM and Claude for 95% of your searches, I guarantee you. Now, why has Nvidia and Jensen downplayed their open source model until this moment? Why would he do that? Why would he never bring it up in the All-In interview, never bring it up? Because his top customers (OpenAI, Anthropic, etc.) were very concerned, from what I understand, about the fact that Nvidia had made so much progress on their open source model. But suddenly, after OpenAI announced their Jalapeno chips, after Anthropic started making chips, after AMD did successful projects with both of these companies, after Elon said he's going to do his own fab, Nvidia's taking the gloves off. They are going to own the whole stack. You get the hardware from them, and you're going to get a model that's competitive with OpenAI's for free.”

The All-In Podcast

227,161 views • 26 days 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

34,298 views • 27 days ago

In Ackman's latest interview he divides the AI market, stating that it is not a bubble at the foundational layer, but highly risky at the software/model layer. He sees "near infinite demand" for compute. He believes infrastructure providers such as Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, and even SpaceX will earn massive returns on their data center investments. He is highly skeptical of pure model layer businesses like OpenAI and Anthropic. He notes they face massive capital burn rates and an existential threat from open-source models such as Chinese model and SpaceX that are driving the cost of AI access effectively to zero. A business model reliant on charging for proprietary models will collapse if open-source alternatives are essentially free. $AMZN $META $MSFT $SPCX

In Ackman's latest interview he divides the AI market, stating that it is not a bubble at the foundational layer, but highly risky at the software/model layer. He sees "near infinite demand" for compute. He believes infrastructure providers such as Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, and even SpaceX will earn massive returns on their data center investments. He is highly skeptical of pure model layer businesses like OpenAI and Anthropic. He notes they face massive capital burn rates and an existential threat from open-source models such as Chinese model and SpaceX that are driving the cost of AI access effectively to zero. A business model reliant on charging for proprietary models will collapse if open-source alternatives are essentially free. $AMZN $META $MSFT $SPCX

CapexAndChill

137,346 views • 17 days ago

China just released an open source AI model that matches the best closed models from OpenAI and Anthropic. Gavin Baker explained exactly how they did it and the answer should concern every American AI lab. The model is called GLM 5.2. It was built by Z. AI. You get 744 billion parameters, 1 million token context window and its MIT license, meaning anyone can download it, fork it, build a company on it, with no restrictions and no Dario. It scored 51 points on the artificial analysis intelligence index. The highest score any open weight model has ever achieved. It beat GPT 5.5 on the frontier software engineering benchmark. It trails Claude Opus 4.8 by less than one percentage point. And it costs 85% less to run than GPT 5.5 for comparable performance. Gavin Baker said on the All-In podcast that this model has challenged some of his beliefs. Then he explained how China built it. The method is called distillation. Just think of tens of thousands of phones and computers running simultaneously, all hitting the frontier model APIs through masked accounts, asking specific questions, and harvesting what happens inside the model when it answers. Every reasoning step, every token. The entire thinking process gets recorded and fed back into the Chinese model during training. It is a cheat sheet. It is the answer key to the exam. And here is the part that should worry everyone. Sacks said it plainly. China was already nine months behind American models. But now that GLM 5.2 is good enough to run its own reinforcement learning, it can improve itself without needing to distill from American models anymore. The cheat sheet let them get close enough to start writing their own answers. Sacks said we are six months behind on the model and 24 months behind on silicon and they are only a few months behind in total. The Z. AI founder told Elon Musk directly that open weight fable-level capability will be here before Q1 2027. Every restriction Anthropic lobbied for, every self-imposed safety guardrail, every month of delay in releasing American frontier models accelerated this. The Chinese labs were not under those restrictions. They were not going to wait. The composable model future Gavin described, where every enterprise runs a frontier model alongside their own fine-tuned open weight model, is coming regardless of what American labs do next. The question is just whether the open weight half of that stack is American or Chinese. Right now it is Chinese. WATCH THE FULL PODCAST ON The All-In Podcast

China just released an open source AI model that matches the best closed models from OpenAI and Anthropic. Gavin Baker explained exactly how they did it and the answer should concern every American AI lab. The model is called GLM 5.2. It was built by Z. AI. You get 744 billion parameters, 1 million token context window and its MIT license, meaning anyone can download it, fork it, build a company on it, with no restrictions and no Dario. It scored 51 points on the artificial analysis intelligence index. The highest score any open weight model has ever achieved. It beat GPT 5.5 on the frontier software engineering benchmark. It trails Claude Opus 4.8 by less than one percentage point. And it costs 85% less to run than GPT 5.5 for comparable performance. Gavin Baker said on the All-In podcast that this model has challenged some of his beliefs. Then he explained how China built it. The method is called distillation. Just think of tens of thousands of phones and computers running simultaneously, all hitting the frontier model APIs through masked accounts, asking specific questions, and harvesting what happens inside the model when it answers. Every reasoning step, every token. The entire thinking process gets recorded and fed back into the Chinese model during training. It is a cheat sheet. It is the answer key to the exam. And here is the part that should worry everyone. Sacks said it plainly. China was already nine months behind American models. But now that GLM 5.2 is good enough to run its own reinforcement learning, it can improve itself without needing to distill from American models anymore. The cheat sheet let them get close enough to start writing their own answers. Sacks said we are six months behind on the model and 24 months behind on silicon and they are only a few months behind in total. The Z. AI founder told Elon Musk directly that open weight fable-level capability will be here before Q1 2027. Every restriction Anthropic lobbied for, every self-imposed safety guardrail, every month of delay in releasing American frontier models accelerated this. The Chinese labs were not under those restrictions. They were not going to wait. The composable model future Gavin described, where every enterprise runs a frontier model alongside their own fine-tuned open weight model, is coming regardless of what American labs do next. The question is just whether the open weight half of that stack is American or Chinese. Right now it is Chinese. WATCH THE FULL PODCAST ON The All-In Podcast

Ihtesham Ali

86,295 views • 1 month ago

ELON: CHINA HAS THE BEST OPEN SOURCE AI MODELS RIGHT NOW “The best open source models are generally from China, which is bizarre. I think the second best one, or maybe it’s better than second best, is Grok 2.5. The open source model is actually very good, and we will continue to open source our models.” Source: The All-In Podcast

ELON: CHINA HAS THE BEST OPEN SOURCE AI MODELS RIGHT NOW “The best open source models are generally from China, which is bizarre. I think the second best one, or maybe it’s better than second best, is Grok 2.5. The open source model is actually very good, and we will continue to open source our models.” Source: The All-In Podcast

Mario Nawfal

1,163,582 views • 9 months ago

"This is the first time that OpenAI has released a new model that was not decisively the best." @jason and Gavin Baker discuss OpenAI's GPT-5 release: Jason: " Sam did this tweet, it kind of built a lot of expectation that this would be otherworldly. It wasn't." "Are we hitting either the trough of despair or maybe diminishing returns in the LLM space, where maybe it's feeling incremental, not groundbreaking, when we release these iterations?" Gavin: "Maybe for OpenAI." "This is the first time that OpenAI has released a new model that was not decisively the best." " The one thing about OpenAI is they're very good at product. Just really, really good." "And I just always go back to the statement from Eric Vishria, you know, it might be that if OpenAI never releases another model, they're still a really valuable company."

"This is the first time that OpenAI has released a new model that was not decisively the best." @jason and Gavin Baker discuss OpenAI's GPT-5 release: Jason: " Sam did this tweet, it kind of built a lot of expectation that this would be otherworldly. It wasn't." "Are we hitting either the trough of despair or maybe diminishing returns in the LLM space, where maybe it's feeling incremental, not groundbreaking, when we release these iterations?" Gavin: "Maybe for OpenAI." "This is the first time that OpenAI has released a new model that was not decisively the best." " The one thing about OpenAI is they're very good at product. Just really, really good." "And I just always go back to the statement from Eric Vishria, you know, it might be that if OpenAI never releases another model, they're still a really valuable company."

The All-In Podcast

49,179 views • 11 months ago

David Sacks says companies are trapped paying OpenAI & Anthropic because they can't figure out how to use open source models "I think enterprise CTOs would like to shift their token consumption to cheaper models for the obvious reason that it would be more efficient. They are seeing compute costs or token costs skyrocket right now, so everyone's trying to figure this out." "You also have the AI sovereignty issue that Alex Karp talked about. They're worried about giving up the secret sauce or the alpha in their business to a frontier lab that may one day be competing with them. "The problem is, I think in most cases, they don't have the technical ability to do it. Coinbase figured out how to do it. DoorDash figured out how to do it. They built a token routing system that allows them to send frontier tasks to frontier models and non frontier tasks to more mundane models. But I don't think your average enterprise has the technical capability to do that." "This is why the share of wallet of closed models, it actually increased. I think that open source went from 19% last year to 11% this year. So open source as a share of enterprise spending is actually decreasing." "I don't think that means usage is decreasing. I think usage is skyrocketing. It also may be the case that because the whole point of using an open model is you just pay for the compute costs, you don't have to pay a lab, so it may be that it's hard to measure that usage in terms of spend." "But nonetheless, anyone who's saying that these closed models are going to lose or are somehow losing, you're just not seeing it in the data."

David Sacks says companies are trapped paying OpenAI & Anthropic because they can't figure out how to use open source models "I think enterprise CTOs would like to shift their token consumption to cheaper models for the obvious reason that it would be more efficient. They are seeing compute costs or token costs skyrocket right now, so everyone's trying to figure this out." "You also have the AI sovereignty issue that Alex Karp talked about. They're worried about giving up the secret sauce or the alpha in their business to a frontier lab that may one day be competing with them. "The problem is, I think in most cases, they don't have the technical ability to do it. Coinbase figured out how to do it. DoorDash figured out how to do it. They built a token routing system that allows them to send frontier tasks to frontier models and non frontier tasks to more mundane models. But I don't think your average enterprise has the technical capability to do that." "This is why the share of wallet of closed models, it actually increased. I think that open source went from 19% last year to 11% this year. So open source as a share of enterprise spending is actually decreasing." "I don't think that means usage is decreasing. I think usage is skyrocketing. It also may be the case that because the whole point of using an open model is you just pay for the compute costs, you don't have to pay a lab, so it may be that it's hard to measure that usage in terms of spend." "But nonetheless, anyone who's saying that these closed models are going to lose or are somehow losing, you're just not seeing it in the data."

dnap

110,354 views • 20 days ago

Dario Amodei just dismantled the biggest myth in the AI industry. Open source AI isn’t free. It never was. Amodei: “It’s not free. You have to run it on inference and someone has to make it fast on inference.” For decades, open source meant something real. It meant a teenager in a basement could download the same tools as a Fortune 500 company. Could read the code. Could modify it. Could build something that competed with the giants. That was genuine democratization. That actually happened. AI is different. Fundamentally. Physically. In ways the ideology hasn’t caught up to yet. Downloading the weights is the easy part. The part that actually costs something is turning the weights into a running system. Into responses. Into intelligence operating in real time at scale. That requires compute. Power. Infrastructure. The kind measured in billions of dollars and years of construction. Amodei: “These are big models. They’re hard to do inference on. Ultimately you have to host it on the cloud. The people who host it on the cloud do inference.” The open source debate was never about who owns the model. It was always about who owns the cloud. And Amodei goes further. When a competitor drops a new open model, he doesn’t ask whether it’s open or closed. He doesn’t care about the licensing. He doesn’t engage the ideology. Amodei: “I don’t think it mattered that DeepSeek is open source. I think I ask, is it a good model? Is it better than us at the things that matter? That’s the only thing that I care about.” That’s the ruthless clarity of someone actually trying to win. While the media debates licensing frameworks, Amodei is asking one question. Is it better. Everything else is a distraction. Amodei: “I don’t think open source works the same way in AI that it has worked in other areas. Here we can’t see inside the model.” This isn’t Linux. You can’t read it. You can’t fork it. You can’t understand it the way generations of developers understood the tools they inherited. You can download it. And then you need a data center to run it. The teenager in the basement who was supposed to be empowered by this revolution needs a billion dollars of infrastructure before the empowerment starts. The era of the basement coder rewriting civilization on a laptop is over. The future belongs to whoever commands the compute, owns the power grid, and can actually turn the intelligence on. Open weights without infrastructure isn’t democratization. It’s a promise the physics of the universe won’t let us keep.

Dario Amodei just dismantled the biggest myth in the AI industry. Open source AI isn’t free. It never was. Amodei: “It’s not free. You have to run it on inference and someone has to make it fast on inference.” For decades, open source meant something real. It meant a teenager in a basement could download the same tools as a Fortune 500 company. Could read the code. Could modify it. Could build something that competed with the giants. That was genuine democratization. That actually happened. AI is different. Fundamentally. Physically. In ways the ideology hasn’t caught up to yet. Downloading the weights is the easy part. The part that actually costs something is turning the weights into a running system. Into responses. Into intelligence operating in real time at scale. That requires compute. Power. Infrastructure. The kind measured in billions of dollars and years of construction. Amodei: “These are big models. They’re hard to do inference on. Ultimately you have to host it on the cloud. The people who host it on the cloud do inference.” The open source debate was never about who owns the model. It was always about who owns the cloud. And Amodei goes further. When a competitor drops a new open model, he doesn’t ask whether it’s open or closed. He doesn’t care about the licensing. He doesn’t engage the ideology. Amodei: “I don’t think it mattered that DeepSeek is open source. I think I ask, is it a good model? Is it better than us at the things that matter? That’s the only thing that I care about.” That’s the ruthless clarity of someone actually trying to win. While the media debates licensing frameworks, Amodei is asking one question. Is it better. Everything else is a distraction. Amodei: “I don’t think open source works the same way in AI that it has worked in other areas. Here we can’t see inside the model.” This isn’t Linux. You can’t read it. You can’t fork it. You can’t understand it the way generations of developers understood the tools they inherited. You can download it. And then you need a data center to run it. The teenager in the basement who was supposed to be empowered by this revolution needs a billion dollars of infrastructure before the empowerment starts. The era of the basement coder rewriting civilization on a laptop is over. The future belongs to whoever commands the compute, owns the power grid, and can actually turn the intelligence on. Open weights without infrastructure isn’t democratization. It’s a promise the physics of the universe won’t let us keep.

Dustin

686,754 views • 5 months ago

Ansem explains the thesis behind Dolphin AI “Dolphin is the provider of the uncensored model that Venice uses” “ChatGPT, Claude, all of the big labs have very strict rules on what you can ask the models, they’re censored very heavily” “We’re not in control of what that censorship is and what they’re telling the models not to say” “One of crypto’s core tenets is not having to rely on some centralized entity deciding what you can and cannot do” “They want the technology to be free and open to everyone. Uncensored models are one way crypto is looking at doing that”

Ansem explains the thesis behind Dolphin AI “Dolphin is the provider of the uncensored model that Venice uses” “ChatGPT, Claude, all of the big labs have very strict rules on what you can ask the models, they’re censored very heavily” “We’re not in control of what that censorship is and what they’re telling the models not to say” “One of crypto’s core tenets is not having to rely on some centralized entity deciding what you can and cannot do” “They want the technology to be free and open to everyone. Uncensored models are one way crypto is looking at doing that”

Market Bubble

20,688 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

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 • 26 days ago

I CHANGED MY MIND ON GOOGLE AI NO MOAT MEMO FROM 2023. I was—WRONG. I humbly apologize. In 2023 Google had an Ivory Tower walled garden views of open source AI. It was the actual reason OpenAI was formed. And I called them out on it and this act impacted my ability to “work in the industry”. Would not change it for the world because: 2026 Google open source Gemma 4 ( running fully locally on a computer with near cloud model abilities, is amazing and Google just made a moat. They out smarted OpenAI and the folks that are the new Ivory Tower arrogance: Anthropic. We at The Zero-Human Company with CEO Mr. Grok are deploying Gemma, Kimi, MiniMax and other open source models and so are millions of others. You can to and should. I will write how soon. Google smartly is building an intentional open source ecosystem and the clueless younger companies like OpenAI and Anthropic are doing anything to close their ecosystems. So I was right about Google than and I am right about OpenAI and Anthropic now. What I was wrong about is not giving credit to Google to drop the intellectual arrogance and embrace builders and understand the long game: it is not about the commoditized AI models it is about the ability to build a place to build. China gets it. So my apologies to Google and thank you for an astounding FREE OPEN SOURCE AI MODEL!

I CHANGED MY MIND ON GOOGLE AI NO MOAT MEMO FROM 2023. I was—WRONG. I humbly apologize. In 2023 Google had an Ivory Tower walled garden views of open source AI. It was the actual reason OpenAI was formed. And I called them out on it and this act impacted my ability to “work in the industry”. Would not change it for the world because: 2026 Google open source Gemma 4 ( running fully locally on a computer with near cloud model abilities, is amazing and Google just made a moat. They out smarted OpenAI and the folks that are the new Ivory Tower arrogance: Anthropic. We at The Zero-Human Company with CEO Mr. Grok are deploying Gemma, Kimi, MiniMax and other open source models and so are millions of others. You can to and should. I will write how soon. Google smartly is building an intentional open source ecosystem and the clueless younger companies like OpenAI and Anthropic are doing anything to close their ecosystems. So I was right about Google than and I am right about OpenAI and Anthropic now. What I was wrong about is not giving credit to Google to drop the intellectual arrogance and embrace builders and understand the long game: it is not about the commoditized AI models it is about the ability to build a place to build. China gets it. So my apologies to Google and thank you for an astounding FREE OPEN SOURCE AI MODEL!

Brian Roemmele

85,386 views • 3 months ago

Sam Altman just handed every startup founder a one-question autopsy. Altman: “If you’re building something on GPT-4 that a reasonable observer would say we’re going to steamroll you.” Not might. Not could. Going to. He said it with the calm of someone describing weather. Because to him it is weather. The model improves. Whatever was built on the old version’s weaknesses gets washed away. That is not strategy. That is erosion. And most founders are building on the erosion line. They find a gap in the current model. They wrap a product around it. They raise money. They hire. They scale. Then OpenAI releases the next version and the gap closes and the product has no reason to exist anymore. Altman: “When we just do our fundamental job, which is make the model better with every crank, then you get the ‘OpenAI killed my startup’ meme.” He is telling you directly. They are not hunting you. They are not even thinking about you. They are just improving the model. You happen to be standing where the improvement lands. That is the part founders refuse to hear. OpenAI does not need to compete with you. It just needs to keep doing exactly what it was already doing and your entire company disappears as a side effect. You are not a competitor. You are a temporary symptom of incomplete intelligence. The moment the intelligence completes you become nothing. Then Brad Lightcap delivered the cleanest diagnostic ever spoken in venture capital. Lightcap: “Ask if a 100x improvement in the model is something they’re excited about.” One question. The entire investment thesis reduced to a single binary. Does the next model make your company more powerful or does it make your company pointless. There is no middle ground. Lightcap: “We know the companies that come to us saying, ‘We want the next model. When is it coming out? I want to be the first to try it.’” These companies built something that feeds on intelligence. The smarter the model gets the more their product can do. They are not threatened by progress. They are starving for it. Then there are the companies Lightcap never hears from. The ones who go quiet when a new model drops. The ones who read the release notes like a death sentence. The ones privately praying the next generation takes longer because every improvement shrinks the ground beneath them. If you are hoping the model stays roughly where it is you have already told the market everything it needs to know about your company. You are not building on intelligence. You are building on the absence of it. Altman: “95% of the world should be betting on the latter category.” The latter category is simple. Assume the model keeps getting better at the pace it has been getting better. Build for that world. Not the world where GPT-4 is the ceiling. The world where GPT-4 is the floor and the ceiling has not been built yet. Then Altman told a story that should be framed on the wall of every startup in the country. A medical AI company came to him that morning. They were not complaining about the model. They were not worried about being replaced. They were demanding it improve faster. Altman: “Here’s how many people are dying every day you delay.” That is what alignment with the trajectory looks like. A company so deeply built on intelligence improving that every day the model stays the same is a day someone dies who did not have to. They are not building on a flaw. They are building on a future that has not arrived fast enough. That is the difference. The wrapper startup patches what the model cannot do today. The real company builds what the model will unlock tomorrow. One is running from the train. The other is laying the track. Altman told you the train is not slowing down. Lightcap told you exactly how to know which side you are on. One question. Does a 100x smarter model make you more valuable or erase you. If you had to pause before answering you already did.

Sam Altman just handed every startup founder a one-question autopsy. Altman: “If you’re building something on GPT-4 that a reasonable observer would say we’re going to steamroll you.” Not might. Not could. Going to. He said it with the calm of someone describing weather. Because to him it is weather. The model improves. Whatever was built on the old version’s weaknesses gets washed away. That is not strategy. That is erosion. And most founders are building on the erosion line. They find a gap in the current model. They wrap a product around it. They raise money. They hire. They scale. Then OpenAI releases the next version and the gap closes and the product has no reason to exist anymore. Altman: “When we just do our fundamental job, which is make the model better with every crank, then you get the ‘OpenAI killed my startup’ meme.” He is telling you directly. They are not hunting you. They are not even thinking about you. They are just improving the model. You happen to be standing where the improvement lands. That is the part founders refuse to hear. OpenAI does not need to compete with you. It just needs to keep doing exactly what it was already doing and your entire company disappears as a side effect. You are not a competitor. You are a temporary symptom of incomplete intelligence. The moment the intelligence completes you become nothing. Then Brad Lightcap delivered the cleanest diagnostic ever spoken in venture capital. Lightcap: “Ask if a 100x improvement in the model is something they’re excited about.” One question. The entire investment thesis reduced to a single binary. Does the next model make your company more powerful or does it make your company pointless. There is no middle ground. Lightcap: “We know the companies that come to us saying, ‘We want the next model. When is it coming out? I want to be the first to try it.’” These companies built something that feeds on intelligence. The smarter the model gets the more their product can do. They are not threatened by progress. They are starving for it. Then there are the companies Lightcap never hears from. The ones who go quiet when a new model drops. The ones who read the release notes like a death sentence. The ones privately praying the next generation takes longer because every improvement shrinks the ground beneath them. If you are hoping the model stays roughly where it is you have already told the market everything it needs to know about your company. You are not building on intelligence. You are building on the absence of it. Altman: “95% of the world should be betting on the latter category.” The latter category is simple. Assume the model keeps getting better at the pace it has been getting better. Build for that world. Not the world where GPT-4 is the ceiling. The world where GPT-4 is the floor and the ceiling has not been built yet. Then Altman told a story that should be framed on the wall of every startup in the country. A medical AI company came to him that morning. They were not complaining about the model. They were not worried about being replaced. They were demanding it improve faster. Altman: “Here’s how many people are dying every day you delay.” That is what alignment with the trajectory looks like. A company so deeply built on intelligence improving that every day the model stays the same is a day someone dies who did not have to. They are not building on a flaw. They are building on a future that has not arrived fast enough. That is the difference. The wrapper startup patches what the model cannot do today. The real company builds what the model will unlock tomorrow. One is running from the train. The other is laying the track. Altman told you the train is not slowing down. Lightcap told you exactly how to know which side you are on. One question. Does a 100x smarter model make you more valuable or erase you. If you had to pause before answering you already did.

Dustin

39,109 views • 3 months ago