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.

Ken Griffin just asked the question everyone in AI is too scared to answer. Data center spending in the US this year alone is over $500 billion. Half a trillion dollars. To raise that kind of money, you have to make a promise. And the promise has to be... big. "AI needs to be your savior almost. How else are you going to write $500 billion of checks in a single year?" He's not saying AI is fraud. He's saying the hype is structurally necessary. You can't fund a buildout at this scale without narrative that matches it. The real question is what AI actually delivers at the end. In some areas Griffin says it's going to be profound. Call centers. Software engineering productivity. Those are real, measurable, already happening. But in white collar work more broadly, he's more skeptical. A Harvard paper recently coined a term for it: AI Work Slop. Output that looks impressive on the surface. First few sentences read like genuine insight. Then you go deeper and it's all garbage. Griffin's colleague runs their commodities business. Got handed a report generated by an AI engine. First paragraph, genuinely good. The rest, useless. The model that can write a compelling opening can't yet think through the substance underneath it. This is the AI investing tension right now. The infrastructure spend is real. The hype is real. The productivity gains in specific verticals are real. But the blanket assumption that AI transforms every white collar job equally has not been proven yet.show more

Milk Road Macro

16,994 subscribers

125,923 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics Science & Technology Finance

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Citadel CEO Ken Griffin on why the AI boom might be the most overhyped tech cycle we have ever seen: This year alone, data center spending in the United States is projected to exceed $500 billion. And Griffin wants to know what all of that money is actually buying. "You're not going to generate this kind of spend unless you're going to make a promise. You're going to profoundly change the world." In his view, the scale of the capital commitment demands the scale of the promise. And when the promise has to be that big, hype becomes inevitable. "Is it hype? Of course." Griffin isn't arguing that AI is worthless. He sees real impact in certain areas like call centers and software engineering. But for the broader white collar workforce, he's far less convinced. He points to a recent Harvard paper that coined the term "AI work slop." It looks impressive on the surface, but falls apart the moment you look closer. He saw it firsthand inside Citadel. A colleague running their commodities business handed him a report generated by an AI engine. "The first few sentences like, 'Wow, that's really insightful.' And then you go down below that and it's all garbage." For Griffin, this is the defining tension of the current AI cycle. The industry needs to promise transformation to justify the investment. But the actual productivity gains, for most jobs, haven't shown up yet. We have seen this pattern before. Transformative technology attracting massive capital well ahead of proven results. When the hype finally settles, will AI have actually changed anything at all?

Citadel CEO Ken Griffin on why the AI boom might be the most overhyped tech cycle we have ever seen: This year alone, data center spending in the United States is projected to exceed $500 billion. And Griffin wants to know what all of that money is actually buying. "You're not going to generate this kind of spend unless you're going to make a promise. You're going to profoundly change the world." In his view, the scale of the capital commitment demands the scale of the promise. And when the promise has to be that big, hype becomes inevitable. "Is it hype? Of course." Griffin isn't arguing that AI is worthless. He sees real impact in certain areas like call centers and software engineering. But for the broader white collar workforce, he's far less convinced. He points to a recent Harvard paper that coined the term "AI work slop." It looks impressive on the surface, but falls apart the moment you look closer. He saw it firsthand inside Citadel. A colleague running their commodities business handed him a report generated by an AI engine. "The first few sentences like, 'Wow, that's really insightful.' And then you go down below that and it's all garbage." For Griffin, this is the defining tension of the current AI cycle. The industry needs to promise transformation to justify the investment. But the actual productivity gains, for most jobs, haven't shown up yet. We have seen this pattern before. Transformative technology attracting massive capital well ahead of proven results. When the hype finally settles, will AI have actually changed anything at all?

Big Brain AI

400,298 views • 3 months ago

In just 3 minutes, Ken Griffin (Citadel) & Larry Fink (BlackRock) explain the current state of government overspending, AI hype, & 2026 $600B data center CapEx "The world needs a savior, & the hope is that AI is the savior that we need for productivity." "The the area of recklessness is the spending of governments around the world, who are all, with little exception, all spending well beyond their means." Big issue: "Will AI create the productivity acceleration that is honestly just hoped for in Washington & in the halls of government around the world as a ways to overcome the profligate spending that we're currently engaged in?" Citadel BlackRock World Economic Forum . . . Ken Griffin "Let's take a step back and and talk about where we are right here right now. The the area of recklessness is the spending of governments around the world, who are all, with little exception, all spending well beyond their means. That's the recklessness of this moment in history. This is not a parallel to the 1920s in terms of the recklessness of the of the private capital markets. It's a story of the recklessness of government spending. Within the private sector there's a huge question as to where AI will take us. And I, I was carefully taking notes and listening to what Larry has to say, or to what Madame Lagarde has to say, because this is one of the big issues of our moment. Will AI create the productivity acceleration that is honestly just hoped for in Washington and in the halls of government around the world as a ways to overcome the profligate spending that we're currently engaged in? The world, the world needs a savior, and the hope is that AI is the savior that we need for productivity. And the challenge with this is it is, it may or may not be. We just don't know yet. Now there's a tremendous amount of hype around AI, and in some sense the large AI companies need to create that hype to raise the tens — or actually 100, hundreds of billions, right — of billions of dollars of investment that are going into the field. Like you wouldn't be able to raise hundreds of billions of dollars. We'll spend — and Larry can probably correct me on this — but roughly $600 billion this year in cap ex for data centers in the United States. Larry Fink "I think it could be larger." Andrew Ross Sorkin "But does that mean that it's getting hyped up too much, or it's just the the hype is required as a sales mechanism?" Larry Fink "First of all, so much of the data centers are being built for cloud, right? And and the big issue is gonna be in terms of monetization of of of the spend. The data centers are being built for AI requires more advanced chips. The question is what is the lifetime of that chip. If we have new technological changes in the lifetime of the chip in one year, then that spend is gonna be really a bad spend. If the lifetime as they expect it to be is 4 or 5 years and then those chips can be used for cloud, then then I think these investments are gonna prove to be good investments. So I think it's it's gonna be — you know, if the speed of technology changes and all these investments now, they're gonna be — it's gonna be a challenge. But I agree with Ken. I think we don't know enough, but I'm personally very optimistic on how AI is gonna affect the world economy."

In just 3 minutes, Ken Griffin (Citadel) & Larry Fink (BlackRock) explain the current state of government overspending, AI hype, & 2026 $600B data center CapEx "The world needs a savior, & the hope is that AI is the savior that we need for productivity." "The the area of recklessness is the spending of governments around the world, who are all, with little exception, all spending well beyond their means." Big issue: "Will AI create the productivity acceleration that is honestly just hoped for in Washington & in the halls of government around the world as a ways to overcome the profligate spending that we're currently engaged in?" Citadel BlackRock World Economic Forum . . . Ken Griffin "Let's take a step back and and talk about where we are right here right now. The the area of recklessness is the spending of governments around the world, who are all, with little exception, all spending well beyond their means. That's the recklessness of this moment in history. This is not a parallel to the 1920s in terms of the recklessness of the of the private capital markets. It's a story of the recklessness of government spending. Within the private sector there's a huge question as to where AI will take us. And I, I was carefully taking notes and listening to what Larry has to say, or to what Madame Lagarde has to say, because this is one of the big issues of our moment. Will AI create the productivity acceleration that is honestly just hoped for in Washington and in the halls of government around the world as a ways to overcome the profligate spending that we're currently engaged in? The world, the world needs a savior, and the hope is that AI is the savior that we need for productivity. And the challenge with this is it is, it may or may not be. We just don't know yet. Now there's a tremendous amount of hype around AI, and in some sense the large AI companies need to create that hype to raise the tens — or actually 100, hundreds of billions, right — of billions of dollars of investment that are going into the field. Like you wouldn't be able to raise hundreds of billions of dollars. We'll spend — and Larry can probably correct me on this — but roughly $600 billion this year in cap ex for data centers in the United States. Larry Fink "I think it could be larger." Andrew Ross Sorkin "But does that mean that it's getting hyped up too much, or it's just the the hype is required as a sales mechanism?" Larry Fink "First of all, so much of the data centers are being built for cloud, right? And and the big issue is gonna be in terms of monetization of of of the spend. The data centers are being built for AI requires more advanced chips. The question is what is the lifetime of that chip. If we have new technological changes in the lifetime of the chip in one year, then that spend is gonna be really a bad spend. If the lifetime as they expect it to be is 4 or 5 years and then those chips can be used for cloud, then then I think these investments are gonna prove to be good investments. So I think it's it's gonna be — you know, if the speed of technology changes and all these investments now, they're gonna be — it's gonna be a challenge. But I agree with Ken. I think we don't know enough, but I'm personally very optimistic on how AI is gonna affect the world economy."

Molly O’Shea

33,210 views • 5 months ago

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

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

Rohan Paul

16,584 views • 1 month ago

Asked by Ben Smith about how he views the politics of AI and the data center build out, Governor Josh Shapiro says: "AI is being developed. The real question is, is it going to be developed here in the US or in communist China? My view is that all of us should want it developed in the US. The US should lead on this. This is a national security issue. I think this is an issue that threatens our freedom if we allow China to overtake us when it comes to AI development."

Asked by Ben Smith about how he views the politics of AI and the data center build out, Governor Josh Shapiro says: "AI is being developed. The real question is, is it going to be developed here in the US or in communist China? My view is that all of us should want it developed in the US. The US should lead on this. This is a national security issue. I think this is an issue that threatens our freedom if we allow China to overtake us when it comes to AI development."

Semafor

99,123 views • 7 months ago

"The one thing that's going to be truly future proof is judgment. What is the biggest challenge when you have a thousand AI engineers writing code? AI slop. In an era when you can do everything, the question is which of these things matter. On the engineer side, it is evaluating the code. Which of this code is even valuable? You can have AI engineers writing beautiful code that could be wrong, that could have bugs in it, that could be vulnerable. Someone needs to review it. Make sure to have a human review at some point, especially critical code that is in the core of your system. On the product side is judgment around what needs to be built and evaluating. And similarly in design, you have to have judgment around, does it make sense in the broader design system. I think this judgment is the number one thing that humans are going to bring in an era of infinite productivity."

"The one thing that's going to be truly future proof is judgment. What is the biggest challenge when you have a thousand AI engineers writing code? AI slop. In an era when you can do everything, the question is which of these things matter. On the engineer side, it is evaluating the code. Which of this code is even valuable? You can have AI engineers writing beautiful code that could be wrong, that could have bugs in it, that could be vulnerable. Someone needs to review it. Make sure to have a human review at some point, especially critical code that is in the core of your system. On the product side is judgment around what needs to be built and evaluating. And similarly in design, you have to have judgment around, does it make sense in the broader design system. I think this judgment is the number one thing that humans are going to bring in an era of infinite productivity."

Patrick OShaughnessy

24,818 views • 5 months ago

AI cannot make money. ChatGPT costs billions to run. Generates almost nothing in return. So why is Amazon, Microsoft, Google and Meta tripling their AI investment every year? Because they are all investing in each other. It is a circle. Nobody is making money. Everyone is pretending they will. There is only one solution to a bubble this big. The government. Three days after Trump's inauguration — Operation Stargate. $500 billion for AI data centers. Not because AI is profitable. Because the government needs the surveillance infrastructure that AI makes possible. AI needed the government to survive. The government needed AI to control. They found each other. And you are paying for it.

AI cannot make money. ChatGPT costs billions to run. Generates almost nothing in return. So why is Amazon, Microsoft, Google and Meta tripling their AI investment every year? Because they are all investing in each other. It is a circle. Nobody is making money. Everyone is pretending they will. There is only one solution to a bubble this big. The government. Three days after Trump's inauguration — Operation Stargate. $500 billion for AI data centers. Not because AI is profitable. Because the government needs the surveillance infrastructure that AI makes possible. AI needed the government to survive. The government needed AI to control. They found each other. And you are paying for it.

Predictive History

19,635 views • 2 months ago

David Sacks says the biggest risk of AI was described not by James Cameron in The Terminator but by George Orwell in 1984. “I almost feel like the term ‘woke AI’ is insufficient to explain what’s going on because it somehow trivializes it.” “What we’re really talking about is 'Orwellian AI.' We’re talking about AI that lies to you, that distorts an answer, that rewrites history in real time to serve a current political agenda of the people who are in power.” “To me, this is the biggest risk of AI... It’s not The Terminator, it’s 1984.” David Sacks

David Sacks says the biggest risk of AI was described not by James Cameron in The Terminator but by George Orwell in 1984. “I almost feel like the term ‘woke AI’ is insufficient to explain what’s going on because it somehow trivializes it.” “What we’re really talking about is 'Orwellian AI.' We’re talking about AI that lies to you, that distorts an answer, that rewrites history in real time to serve a current political agenda of the people who are in power.” “To me, this is the biggest risk of AI... It’s not The Terminator, it’s 1984.” David Sacks

a16z

16,352,107 views • 8 months ago

Naval Ravikant: "I'm not scared of AI. I'm scared of what a very small number of people who control AI do to the rest of us." On E215, Naval broke down his main AI fear: consolidated control enabled by regulatory capture. "If you really think you're going to create God, do you want to put God on a leash with one entity controlling God?" "That to me is the real fear." "I'm not scared of AI. I'm scared of what a very small number of people who control AI do to the rest of us, 'for our own good.'" "I'm not an AI doomer. I don't think AI is going to end the world. That's a separate conversation." "But, there's this religion that comes along in many faces, which is that, 'Oh, climate change is going to end the world. AI is going to end the world. Asteroid's going to end the world. COVID-19 is going to end the world.' And it just has a way of fixating your attention, right? "It captures everybody's attention at once. So it's a very seductive thing." "And I think in the case of AI, it's really been overplayed by incentive bias. Motivated reasoning by the companies who are ahead and they want to pull up the ladder behind them." "I think they generally believe that there is safety risk, but I think they're motivated to believe in those safety risks and then they pass that along." "But it's kind of a weird position because they have to say, 'Oh, it's so dangerous that you shouldn't just let open-source go at it. And you should let just a few of us work with you on it. But it's not so dangerous that a private company can't own the whole thing.'" "Because if it was truly the Manhattan Project, if they were building nuclear weapons, you wouldn't want one company to own that." "So to me, the real issue boils down to, how do you push AI forward while not having just a very small number of players control the entire thing?"

Naval Ravikant: "I'm not scared of AI. I'm scared of what a very small number of people who control AI do to the rest of us." On E215, Naval broke down his main AI fear: consolidated control enabled by regulatory capture. "If you really think you're going to create God, do you want to put God on a leash with one entity controlling God?" "That to me is the real fear." "I'm not scared of AI. I'm scared of what a very small number of people who control AI do to the rest of us, 'for our own good.'" "I'm not an AI doomer. I don't think AI is going to end the world. That's a separate conversation." "But, there's this religion that comes along in many faces, which is that, 'Oh, climate change is going to end the world. AI is going to end the world. Asteroid's going to end the world. COVID-19 is going to end the world.' And it just has a way of fixating your attention, right? "It captures everybody's attention at once. So it's a very seductive thing." "And I think in the case of AI, it's really been overplayed by incentive bias. Motivated reasoning by the companies who are ahead and they want to pull up the ladder behind them." "I think they generally believe that there is safety risk, but I think they're motivated to believe in those safety risks and then they pass that along." "But it's kind of a weird position because they have to say, 'Oh, it's so dangerous that you shouldn't just let open-source go at it. And you should let just a few of us work with you on it. But it's not so dangerous that a private company can't own the whole thing.'" "Because if it was truly the Manhattan Project, if they were building nuclear weapons, you wouldn't want one company to own that." "So to me, the real issue boils down to, how do you push AI forward while not having just a very small number of players control the entire thing?"

The All-In Podcast

300,830 views • 1 year ago

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

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

Milk Road AI

115,490 views • 2 months ago

To contrast, this is what Ken said just 3 months ago at WEF: “There was a recent Harvard paper on this they called it AI work slop — that it looks good but if you sort of peel back the onion, the substance isn't there. I was with one of my colleagues who runs our commodities business, and they handed a report on that we were generating with an AI engine. Doesn't matter what the topic was, the first few sentences — wow, that's really insightful — and then you go down below that and it's all garbage.”

To contrast, this is what Ken said just 3 months ago at WEF: “There was a recent Harvard paper on this they called it AI work slop — that it looks good but if you sort of peel back the onion, the substance isn't there. I was with one of my colleagues who runs our commodities business, and they handed a report on that we were generating with an AI engine. Doesn't matter what the topic was, the first few sentences — wow, that's really insightful — and then you go down below that and it's all garbage.”

Brett Caughran

179,200 views • 2 months ago

Travis Kalanick: Tesla is the Google of the Physical AI Era “I like to break down the physical AI stack: (it) includes computation, a physical AI model, all the things you think of.” “What about land? Development? That should be in that stack. What about chemistry? That needs to be in the stack. Manufacturing needs to be a stack.” “When you look at the stack, you're like, ‘Damn, Tesla's got this sh*t.’ They are the Google of this era.” “What I mean by that is, if you were doing a startup in the 2000s, the first question you would get is, ‘Why isn't Google gonna kill you?’ Or, ‘Why isn't Google just gonna do it?’ They’re not even gonna know that they killed you.” “And before that, it was Microsoft in the late 90s. Uber had a time, 2010s.” “But in the physical AI space, that's sort of a Tesla thing.” -------------------------------------------- Thanks to our partner for making this happen!: EY (EY) Austin vibes meet AI innovation. Thanks to EY for co‑hosting with us at #SXSW. Discover what executives are saying about AI transformation in the latest AI Pulse Survey.

Travis Kalanick: Tesla is the Google of the Physical AI Era “I like to break down the physical AI stack: (it) includes computation, a physical AI model, all the things you think of.” “What about land? Development? That should be in that stack. What about chemistry? That needs to be in the stack. Manufacturing needs to be a stack.” “When you look at the stack, you're like, ‘Damn, Tesla's got this sh*t.’ They are the Google of this era.” “What I mean by that is, if you were doing a startup in the 2000s, the first question you would get is, ‘Why isn't Google gonna kill you?’ Or, ‘Why isn't Google just gonna do it?’ They’re not even gonna know that they killed you.” “And before that, it was Microsoft in the late 90s. Uber had a time, 2010s.” “But in the physical AI space, that's sort of a Tesla thing.” -------------------------------------------- Thanks to our partner for making this happen!: EY (EY) Austin vibes meet AI innovation. Thanks to EY for co‑hosting with us at #SXSW. Discover what executives are saying about AI transformation in the latest AI Pulse Survey.

The All-In Podcast

94,872 views • 4 months ago

Mistral CEO Arthur Mensch walked into the French parliament this week and told lawmakers Europe has exactly two years to build independent AI infrastructure or hand over one trillion dollars in spending to American tech companies. The math he laid out should be front-page news. This is not a technology story. It is a macroeconomic one. Global wages are fifty trillion dollars. AI will cost around ten percent of that. Europe's share is nine trillion. Which means over one trillion dollars in AI spending over the next five years flowing somewhere. Europe already sends 250 billion dollars a year to the US in digital services. Every dollar that leaves funds American R&D. None of it comes back. Mario Draghi's competitiveness report last year made the same point from a different angle. Europe needs eight hundred billion euros in annual investment just to close its existing productivity gap with the US. AI dependency makes that gap structural. You cannot close a productivity gap when the tool driving productivity is owned by your competitor. Mensch compared it to gas. The same way Europe discovered too late what energy dependence costs in a crisis, it is standing at the same crossroads with AI right now. The compute is being allocated today. The chips are being spoken for today. Europe is watching it happen and calling it a technology debate. It is not. It is a sovereignty one. Watch the full podcast on YouTube at CNBC International

Mistral CEO Arthur Mensch walked into the French parliament this week and told lawmakers Europe has exactly two years to build independent AI infrastructure or hand over one trillion dollars in spending to American tech companies. The math he laid out should be front-page news. This is not a technology story. It is a macroeconomic one. Global wages are fifty trillion dollars. AI will cost around ten percent of that. Europe's share is nine trillion. Which means over one trillion dollars in AI spending over the next five years flowing somewhere. Europe already sends 250 billion dollars a year to the US in digital services. Every dollar that leaves funds American R&D. None of it comes back. Mario Draghi's competitiveness report last year made the same point from a different angle. Europe needs eight hundred billion euros in annual investment just to close its existing productivity gap with the US. AI dependency makes that gap structural. You cannot close a productivity gap when the tool driving productivity is owned by your competitor. Mensch compared it to gas. The same way Europe discovered too late what energy dependence costs in a crisis, it is standing at the same crossroads with AI right now. The compute is being allocated today. The chips are being spoken for today. Europe is watching it happen and calling it a technology debate. It is not. It is a sovereignty one. Watch the full podcast on YouTube at CNBC International

Ihtesham Ali

154,823 views • 27 days ago

Peter Jackson talks about AI in Hollywood. Calls it “a tool” like stop-motion or CGI before and what ultimately matters is “imagination, originality” of whoever uses the tool: “I think AI — used in the right way — is a tool like any other tool. [The original] King Kong…was stop-motion and done by a person moving a rubber creature. Why shouldn't somebody on a computer using AI software be able to create their own imagery? They should. It's a tool. It's no different from many other tools that have existed over the years. But the other side of it is that it's always going to come down to the imagination and originality of the person feeding the instructions into the AI program. It's not that you're going to type in an instruction and it's going to generate your shot, and that's that. The question is: is it actually interesting? Is it funny? Is it imaginative? And are you going to stitch it together to make a narrative, a story? Some people will make really great films that way. Some people will do exactly the same process and their film will be crap, just like in the normal film industry. Whether it's AI or anything else, it comes down to whether the person behind it — or the people behind it — have originality, imagination, and an ability to entertain people.”

Peter Jackson talks about AI in Hollywood. Calls it “a tool” like stop-motion or CGI before and what ultimately matters is “imagination, originality” of whoever uses the tool: “I think AI — used in the right way — is a tool like any other tool. [The original] King Kong…was stop-motion and done by a person moving a rubber creature. Why shouldn't somebody on a computer using AI software be able to create their own imagery? They should. It's a tool. It's no different from many other tools that have existed over the years. But the other side of it is that it's always going to come down to the imagination and originality of the person feeding the instructions into the AI program. It's not that you're going to type in an instruction and it's going to generate your shot, and that's that. The question is: is it actually interesting? Is it funny? Is it imaginative? And are you going to stitch it together to make a narrative, a story? Some people will make really great films that way. Some people will do exactly the same process and their film will be crap, just like in the normal film industry. Whether it's AI or anything else, it comes down to whether the person behind it — or the people behind it — have originality, imagination, and an ability to entertain people.”

Bearly AI

43,816 views • 2 months ago

$AI shouldn’t be controlled by a single company or person, and the reason why most AI tools are "free" is because you are the product. Your data is more valuable to them, than the tool itself. That's why Action Model is different. We use tokens so: • Every AI action has a real cost • That cost is transparent • Value flows back to contributors, not one corporation The token represents a fractional stake in the AI itself; economic rights, governance rights, and participation in its growth. And that’s how you run AI without centralized control.$

AI shouldn’t be controlled by a single company or person, and the reason why most AI tools are "free" is because you are the product. Your data is more valuable to them, than the tool itself. That's why Action Model is different. We use tokens so: • Every AI action has a real cost • That cost is transparent • Value flows back to contributors, not one corporation The token represents a fractional stake in the AI itself; economic rights, governance rights, and participation in its growth. And that’s how you run AI without centralized control.

Action Model

47,164 views • 5 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

14,946 views • 13 days ago

🚨NEW: David Sacks, Chamath, and Naval make the case for AI optimism and say that AI will *create* more jobs than it displaces SACKS: "We don't know that jobs are actually going to be lost. You're making a huge assumption thats buying into doomerism. Have any jobs been lost by AI? We've had AI for two years and so far it's just been a better search engine and it's helped kids cheat on their essays." NAVAL: "Technology does destroy jobs but it replaces them with opportunities that are better. AI is a productivity tool, it allows the worker to become more valuable. We will see job creation by AI that will be *faster* than job destruction. New opportunities will be created." SACKS: "Whenever you have a new technology you get productivity gains, you get some job change, and there is some job loss. The third category will follow the historical trend which is the first two categories are always bigger and you end up with more net productivity and wealth creation." David Sacks Chamath Palihapitiya Naval The All-In Podcast

🚨NEW: David Sacks, Chamath, and Naval make the case for AI optimism and say that AI will create more jobs than it displaces SACKS: "We don't know that jobs are actually going to be lost. You're making a huge assumption thats buying into doomerism. Have any jobs been lost by AI? We've had AI for two years and so far it's just been a better search engine and it's helped kids cheat on their essays." NAVAL: "Technology does destroy jobs but it replaces them with opportunities that are better. AI is a productivity tool, it allows the worker to become more valuable. We will see job creation by AI that will be faster than job destruction. New opportunities will be created." SACKS: "Whenever you have a new technology you get productivity gains, you get some job change, and there is some job loss. The third category will follow the historical trend which is the first two categories are always bigger and you end up with more net productivity and wealth creation." David Sacks Chamath Palihapitiya Naval The All-In Podcast

Autism Capital 🧩

316,935 views • 1 year ago

“The white collar labor will be the first to go because until you can move atoms, the thing that can be replaced first is anything that involves digital. If it involves tapping keys on a keyboard and moving a mouse, the computer can do that, the AI can do that.” This was January 6. Now we’re seeing it unfold in real time. Even today’s AI is already capable of replacing roughly 50% of white-collar jobs. The only thing holding it back is inertia. Once that inertia breaks and adoption accelerates, we’ll witness a sweeping elimination of white-collar roles on a much larger scale. So what’s the plan?

“The white collar labor will be the first to go because until you can move atoms, the thing that can be replaced first is anything that involves digital. If it involves tapping keys on a keyboard and moving a mouse, the computer can do that, the AI can do that.” This was January 6. Now we’re seeing it unfold in real time. Even today’s AI is already capable of replacing roughly 50% of white-collar jobs. The only thing holding it back is inertia. Once that inertia breaks and adoption accelerates, we’ll witness a sweeping elimination of white-collar roles on a much larger scale. So what’s the plan?

Rothmus 🏴

41,445 views • 2 months ago

"We're about to see the explosion of analog." Gary Vaynerchuk wants to open a restaurant that makes you check your phone in at the door and seats you at communal tables. "Extreme AI is creating extreme analog. I think it's a barbell." "I could not be more interested in physical retail, event-driven businesses, in concerts and venues." "There are a lot of interesting non-digital realities that are coming as a countermove to the insanity of AI advancements." "We're literally within a half decade of not believing a single video that's on the internet. In 5 years, if we're having this interview, most of the audience is trying to figure out if we're real or not." "That is very real, and has substantial counter-opportunities." "Any real entrepreneur, they're not crying about AI killing them. They're curious about how AI at scale is going to create opportunity for them."

"We're about to see the explosion of analog." Gary Vaynerchuk wants to open a restaurant that makes you check your phone in at the door and seats you at communal tables. "Extreme AI is creating extreme analog. I think it's a barbell." "I could not be more interested in physical retail, event-driven businesses, in concerts and venues." "There are a lot of interesting non-digital realities that are coming as a countermove to the insanity of AI advancements." "We're literally within a half decade of not believing a single video that's on the internet. In 5 years, if we're having this interview, most of the audience is trying to figure out if we're real or not." "That is very real, and has substantial counter-opportunities." "Any real entrepreneur, they're not crying about AI killing them. They're curious about how AI at scale is going to create opportunity for them."

TBPN

193,221 views • 27 days ago

"We're about to see the explosion of analog." Gary Vaynerchuk wants to open a restaurant that makes you check your phone in at the door and seats you at communal tables. "Extreme AI is creating extreme analog. I think it's a barbell." "I could not be more interested in physical retail, event-driven businesses, in concerts and venues." "There are a lot of interesting non-digital realities that are coming as a countermove to the insanity of AI advancements." "We're literally within a half decade of not believing a single video that's on the internet. In 5 years, if we're having this interview, most of the audience is trying to figure out if we're real or not." "That is very real, and has substantial counter-opportunities." "Any real entrepreneur, they're not crying about AI killing them. They're curious about how AI at scale is going to create opportunity for them."

"We're about to see the explosion of analog." Gary Vaynerchuk wants to open a restaurant that makes you check your phone in at the door and seats you at communal tables. "Extreme AI is creating extreme analog. I think it's a barbell." "I could not be more interested in physical retail, event-driven businesses, in concerts and venues." "There are a lot of interesting non-digital realities that are coming as a countermove to the insanity of AI advancements." "We're literally within a half decade of not believing a single video that's on the internet. In 5 years, if we're having this interview, most of the audience is trying to figure out if we're real or not." "That is very real, and has substantial counter-opportunities." "Any real entrepreneur, they're not crying about AI killing them. They're curious about how AI at scale is going to create opportunity for them."

TBPN

318,740 views • 2 months ago