Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella's new interivew: Explains how the next AI moat will not be the model you use, but the learning loop only your company can run. He is really asking what happens to the firm when intelligence becomes something you can rent. For a century, companies protected...

rohanpaul_ai's profile picture

Rohan Paul

153,494 subscribers

83,263 görüntüleme • 29 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

Haberler & PolitikaBilim & Teknoloji
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Satya Nadella reveals why every company may need its own AI model: the model becomes the new company database. "To me, a model is like the database market." "A firm should be able to take the tacit knowledge it has and embed it inside weights in a model that they control." "When somebody asks me how many models should there be, I'll say as many models as firms in the world." The contrarian part: the value may not sit in one universal frontier model. It sits in each company turning its private operating knowledge into a controlled model.
1:44

Satya Nadella reveals why every company may need its own AI model: the model becomes the new company database. "To me, a model is like the database market." "A firm should be able to take the tacit knowledge it has and embed it inside weights in a model that they control." "When somebody asks me how many models should there be, I'll say as many models as firms in the world." The contrarian part: the value may not sit in one universal frontier model. It sits in each company turning its private operating knowledge into a controlled model.

Karl Mehta

467,008 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Satya Nadella talks about Microsoft’s new AI strategy. Asks “if you’re [only] a consumer of foundation models…how can you create enterprise value?” In his view, companies should combine their internal IP and tacit knowledge with an AI “hill-climbing machine” (reinforcement learning, custom evals) that is model agnostic. Obviously, he positions Microsoft as a partner because they have already gone through that process (namely by diversifying AI efforts away from only OpenAI). “We built a multi-tenant SaaS application,” Nadella says. “We can turn that into a multi-tenant hill climbing service where the data and the environment and the models and the traces and the outcomes are owned by the company.”
4:02

Satya Nadella talks about Microsoft’s new AI strategy. Asks “if you’re [only] a consumer of foundation models…how can you create enterprise value?” In his view, companies should combine their internal IP and tacit knowledge with an AI “hill-climbing machine” (reinforcement learning, custom evals) that is model agnostic. Obviously, he positions Microsoft as a partner because they have already gone through that process (namely by diversifying AI efforts away from only OpenAI). “We built a multi-tenant SaaS application,” Nadella says. “We can turn that into a multi-tenant hill climbing service where the data and the environment and the models and the traces and the outcomes are owned by the company.”

Bearly AI

139,960 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft, says every company now runs on two kinds of capital, and leaking one of them is a one-way door: "This economy is going to be shaped going forward by both human capital and, let's call it, this token capital. That is true for Microsoft, that is true for a new startup, that's going to be true for any bank that's been in existence for 100 years." "The interplay between human capital and token capital, and compounding the returns of it, is what you need to do." "What is the tacit knowledge of an enterprise or a firm? It's the unique ways that you're able to operate, pass judgment, have taste." "The model, in some sense, is able to extract that tacit knowledge through human trajectories, and then code it in a set of weights in a model." "Every enterprise now needs to be more mindful about that interplay of humans and their digital estate working together, those trajectories training the models that they keep as IP versus leak it." "Because if you leak it, it's a one-way door. You're done in some sense." The moat was never the data sitting in your warehouse. It was the judgment your people apply to it, and AI now turns that judgment into weights you either own or hand away. Treat your tacit knowledge like a patent, not a prompt. The firms that pipe a hundred years of taste into someone else's frontier model are trading a permanent edge for a quarter of convenience.
1:34

Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft, says every company now runs on two kinds of capital, and leaking one of them is a one-way door: "This economy is going to be shaped going forward by both human capital and, let's call it, this token capital. That is true for Microsoft, that is true for a new startup, that's going to be true for any bank that's been in existence for 100 years." "The interplay between human capital and token capital, and compounding the returns of it, is what you need to do." "What is the tacit knowledge of an enterprise or a firm? It's the unique ways that you're able to operate, pass judgment, have taste." "The model, in some sense, is able to extract that tacit knowledge through human trajectories, and then code it in a set of weights in a model." "Every enterprise now needs to be more mindful about that interplay of humans and their digital estate working together, those trajectories training the models that they keep as IP versus leak it." "Because if you leak it, it's a one-way door. You're done in some sense." The moat was never the data sitting in your warehouse. It was the judgment your people apply to it, and AI now turns that judgment into weights you either own or hand away. Treat your tacit knowledge like a patent, not a prompt. The firms that pipe a hundred years of taste into someone else's frontier model are trading a permanent edge for a quarter of convenience.

Karl Mehta

34,573 görüntüleme • 27 gün önce

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.
3:19

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 görüntüleme • 27 gün önce

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.
2:51

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.

Vikram M

12,078 görüntüleme • 11 gün önce

Gabbit Robotics co-founder Nicole Mattero on why the next AI winners won't fight over your screen, they'll fight to get closer to you: She kicks things off with what she admits is a hot take: "My hot take is that hardware is the only moat going forward because anyone's going to be able to spin up a model and make it really good and really cheap." Her logic is simple. Once a strong model is cheap and easy for anyone to build, the model alone can't set you apart. So what actually protects you? "Where does that leave you? Basically companies that have tactile modes such as hardware are the only ones that actually survive." Hardware, though, is only one piece of her argument. The second piece is data: "The models that win in the long run are the ones where private data is their [moat]." From there, Mattero ties the two together. Hardware gives a company one moat. The ability to gather unique personal data gives it another. Put both in place and the edge starts to multiply: "When you have a company that has hardware as a [moat], but then B is able to collect really unique personal data, that also becomes a [moat]." And that, she says, is the reason so many foundation model companies are reaching beyond the screen and into the physical world: "That's why I think a lot of these foundation models are like, let's get something in the home or on the person. It gives them an edge on both fronts."
0:45

Gabbit Robotics co-founder Nicole Mattero on why the next AI winners won't fight over your screen, they'll fight to get closer to you: She kicks things off with what she admits is a hot take: "My hot take is that hardware is the only moat going forward because anyone's going to be able to spin up a model and make it really good and really cheap." Her logic is simple. Once a strong model is cheap and easy for anyone to build, the model alone can't set you apart. So what actually protects you? "Where does that leave you? Basically companies that have tactile modes such as hardware are the only ones that actually survive." Hardware, though, is only one piece of her argument. The second piece is data: "The models that win in the long run are the ones where private data is their [moat]." From there, Mattero ties the two together. Hardware gives a company one moat. The ability to gather unique personal data gives it another. Put both in place and the edge starts to multiply: "When you have a company that has hardware as a [moat], but then B is able to collect really unique personal data, that also becomes a [moat]." And that, she says, is the reason so many foundation model companies are reaching beyond the screen and into the physical world: "That's why I think a lot of these foundation models are like, let's get something in the home or on the person. It gives them an edge on both fronts."

Big Brain AI

19,195 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Anthropic has created an AI model that “can get into almost any software in the world,” former AI company founder and CEO Matt Shumer says — but the company is not releasing it to the public: “I have never seen something like this — a company that is about to IPO and having such a moral compass.” Shumer shares what makes the AI model so powerful and potentially dangerous.
4:55

Anthropic has created an AI model that “can get into almost any software in the world,” former AI company founder and CEO Matt Shumer says — but the company is not releasing it to the public: “I have never seen something like this — a company that is about to IPO and having such a moral compass.” Shumer shares what makes the AI model so powerful and potentially dangerous.

CBS Mornings

98,756 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

"The jig is up." - Alex Karp on frontier models Everyone is asking whether AI models will k*ll software. Karp & Dylan Field (Dylan Field) think that's the wrong question. Karp argues the winners won't be whoever has the best model. They'll be whoever owns their data, models, & compute. Field made the same point at Config. "The narrative seems to be software is kaput. But a lot of software will do just fine or actually even amazing." What lasts, he says, is software where the data compounds into its own flywheel. The data is the moat, not the model.
1:48

"The jig is up." - Alex Karp on frontier models Everyone is asking whether AI models will k*ll software. Karp & Dylan Field (Dylan Field) think that's the wrong question. Karp argues the winners won't be whoever has the best model. They'll be whoever owns their data, models, & compute. Field made the same point at Config. "The narrative seems to be software is kaput. But a lot of software will do just fine or actually even amazing." What lasts, he says, is software where the data compounds into its own flywheel. The data is the moat, not the model.

Molly O’Shea

45,256 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Dario Amodei just told software engineers exactly how long they have. Six to twelve months. Amodei: “I have engineers within Anthropic who say I don’t write any code anymore. I just let the model write the code, I edit it, I do the things around it.” The people building the most powerful AI in history have already stopped writing code. That is not a forecast. That is the current working condition inside the lab closest to the frontier. Amodei: “We might be six to 12 months away from when the model is doing most, maybe all, of what SWEs do end-to-end.” The tech industry spent a decade making software engineers its highest-paid, most protected class. That era has a last day now. When a model can execute an entire software build end-to-end, the ability to write syntax stops being a skill. It becomes a credential for a job that no longer exists. Amodei: “And then it’s a question of how fast does that loop close.” That is the sentence everyone skipped. The code was never the hard part. The hard part was everything around it. The model just learned everything around it. Writing the code is already nearly gone. Testing is next. Deployment is next. When all three collapse into a single autonomous execution loop, the machine no longer needs a human in the chain at all. The corporation or sovereign state that closes that loop first does not gain a competitive advantage. It gains a category of speed that biological engineers cannot match, track, or reverse. That is not disruption. That is replacement at a systems level. Amodei is not describing a future disruption. He is describing the current state of his own building. The loop is already closing. The only question is whether you are inside it or outside it when it seals.
0:27

Dario Amodei just told software engineers exactly how long they have. Six to twelve months. Amodei: “I have engineers within Anthropic who say I don’t write any code anymore. I just let the model write the code, I edit it, I do the things around it.” The people building the most powerful AI in history have already stopped writing code. That is not a forecast. That is the current working condition inside the lab closest to the frontier. Amodei: “We might be six to 12 months away from when the model is doing most, maybe all, of what SWEs do end-to-end.” The tech industry spent a decade making software engineers its highest-paid, most protected class. That era has a last day now. When a model can execute an entire software build end-to-end, the ability to write syntax stops being a skill. It becomes a credential for a job that no longer exists. Amodei: “And then it’s a question of how fast does that loop close.” That is the sentence everyone skipped. The code was never the hard part. The hard part was everything around it. The model just learned everything around it. Writing the code is already nearly gone. Testing is next. Deployment is next. When all three collapse into a single autonomous execution loop, the machine no longer needs a human in the chain at all. The corporation or sovereign state that closes that loop first does not gain a competitive advantage. It gains a category of speed that biological engineers cannot match, track, or reverse. That is not disruption. That is replacement at a systems level. Amodei is not describing a future disruption. He is describing the current state of his own building. The loop is already closing. The only question is whether you are inside it or outside it when it seals.

Dustin

318,457 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Chamath: AI advantage may come less from models than from private inputs. "When labs can build similar models, the real win comes from one unique ingredient in order to monetize it well. Here is a basic thing about machine learning that is worth knowing: if you take 1,000 of the same inputs and give them to Facebook, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, they will all come up with the same machine learning model. But if you have one extra thing, one little ingredient that all of those other companies do not have, your output can be markedly different. It is like giving two great chefs three ingredients, but giving the third chef one extra ingredient. That person has the ability to do something very special. Right now, we are in a world where everybody is crawling the open web. We are going to move to a world where, as everybody gets sophisticated enough and information is widely available, somebody is going to say, “You know what? This site, I am not going to allow anybody else to access. It is only for me, only for my models.” Those models will become better. So we have to let that play out a little bit. It is going to be a really interesting arms race. The next wave of M&A, for example, could be companies like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook looking at these companies and saying, “Can they be viable inputs to my large language models or to my other machine learning and AI models?” --- A company with unique workflows, transactions, medical records, industrial logs, legal archives, design files, or user behavior can turn boring private data into a compounding advantage. Some startups may never become great public companies on their own, yet still become valuable because they own a data stream that makes a larger AI system sharper, more differentiated, or harder to copy. That turns acquisition strategy upside down: the buyer may not be purchasing revenue, brand, or even software, but a private ingredient for intelligence. ---- From "iConnections" YouTube channel, (link in comment)
1:18

Chamath: AI advantage may come less from models than from private inputs. "When labs can build similar models, the real win comes from one unique ingredient in order to monetize it well. Here is a basic thing about machine learning that is worth knowing: if you take 1,000 of the same inputs and give them to Facebook, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, they will all come up with the same machine learning model. But if you have one extra thing, one little ingredient that all of those other companies do not have, your output can be markedly different. It is like giving two great chefs three ingredients, but giving the third chef one extra ingredient. That person has the ability to do something very special. Right now, we are in a world where everybody is crawling the open web. We are going to move to a world where, as everybody gets sophisticated enough and information is widely available, somebody is going to say, “You know what? This site, I am not going to allow anybody else to access. It is only for me, only for my models.” Those models will become better. So we have to let that play out a little bit. It is going to be a really interesting arms race. The next wave of M&A, for example, could be companies like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook looking at these companies and saying, “Can they be viable inputs to my large language models or to my other machine learning and AI models?” --- A company with unique workflows, transactions, medical records, industrial logs, legal archives, design files, or user behavior can turn boring private data into a compounding advantage. Some startups may never become great public companies on their own, yet still become valuable because they own a data stream that makes a larger AI system sharper, more differentiated, or harder to copy. That turns acquisition strategy upside down: the buyer may not be purchasing revenue, brand, or even software, but a private ingredient for intelligence. ---- From "iConnections" YouTube channel, (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

143,134 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Larry Ellison just told every AI company on Earth they’re fighting the wrong war. The entire industry is racing to build the smartest model. More parameters. Better benchmarks. Faster inference. Ellison isn’t building a model. He’s controlling what every model needs to be useful. Every frontier AI trains on the same public internet. Same scraped pages. Same recycled text. When everyone has the same data, it’s not an advantage. It’s a floor. The only data that creates separation is private. Medical records. Financial models. Defense systems. Proprietary research locked behind firewalls for decades. That data already lives inside Oracle databases. Not Google’s. Not Microsoft’s. Not Amazon’s. Ellison didn’t enter the model war. He positioned himself above it. He rebuilt the database so AI can reason on private data without ever absorbing it. Training folds your data into the model permanently. Once it’s in, it never comes back out. Reasoning thinks with your data and hands back only the answer. The data never moves. One is surrender. The other is sovereignty. Ellison: “These are remarkable electronic brains.” He didn’t build the brain. He owns what the brain needs to think. Everyone is building the most powerful mind in human history. A mind is only as valuable as what it’s allowed to know. Own the knowledge and it doesn’t matter who builds the brain. That pattern has held through every era of human civilization. AI doesn’t break it. It proves it.
2:07

Larry Ellison just told every AI company on Earth they’re fighting the wrong war. The entire industry is racing to build the smartest model. More parameters. Better benchmarks. Faster inference. Ellison isn’t building a model. He’s controlling what every model needs to be useful. Every frontier AI trains on the same public internet. Same scraped pages. Same recycled text. When everyone has the same data, it’s not an advantage. It’s a floor. The only data that creates separation is private. Medical records. Financial models. Defense systems. Proprietary research locked behind firewalls for decades. That data already lives inside Oracle databases. Not Google’s. Not Microsoft’s. Not Amazon’s. Ellison didn’t enter the model war. He positioned himself above it. He rebuilt the database so AI can reason on private data without ever absorbing it. Training folds your data into the model permanently. Once it’s in, it never comes back out. Reasoning thinks with your data and hands back only the answer. The data never moves. One is surrender. The other is sovereignty. Ellison: “These are remarkable electronic brains.” He didn’t build the brain. He owns what the brain needs to think. Everyone is building the most powerful mind in human history. A mind is only as valuable as what it’s allowed to know. Own the knowledge and it doesn’t matter who builds the brain. That pattern has held through every era of human civilization. AI doesn’t break it. It proves it.

Dustin

97,673 görüntüleme • 20 gün önce

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.
2:28

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 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Big pharma just handed the AI industry one of the most important reality checks of 2026 (Save this). david friedberg revealed that Anthropic approached major life sciences companies with a pitch, share your proprietary data, sign an NDA and we will give you early access to a specialized life sciences model and nearly every company they spoke with said no. Here is what these pharma companies understood that many enterprises still have not. A large pharmaceutical company may have spent decades and tens of billions of dollars generating proprietary datasets, clinical trial results, genomic sequences, drug interaction data, compound libraries. That data is the business and the competitive moat that separates them from every other player in the industry lives in those datasets. Handing it to an AI lab in exchange for early access to a model is essentially handing your most valuable asset to a company whose entire business model depends on combining your data with everyone else's and then selling the output back to you and to your competitors. Palantir CEO Alex Karp made this exact point that enterprise leaders are paying for AI tokens that generate no tangible business value while simultaneously surrendering their most sensitive operational data to external providers. He called this transferring a company's alpha, the unique advantage that secures the business directly to a third-party lab. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella echoed the same concern independently, warning that entire sectors might find their accumulated knowledge commoditized if they do not build their own data and model ownership layers. The structural problem is not unique to pharma but it applies to every enterprise sector. Every time an employee runs a query through a third-party frontier model, proprietary workflows, customer data, and strategic processes pass through infrastructure the enterprise does not control. The data already shows the market moving, Open-source captured 67% of all AI tokens processed in the first half of 2026, up from a fraction of that just twelve months earlier. The performance gap between proprietary frontier models and open-source alternatives has nearly closed, DeepSeek costs approximately 1/36th of GPT-5 for comparable workloads. What pharma figured out and what enterprises across every sector are starting to realize is that the model is not the moat but the data is. And once you hand your data to a model company, you have permanently surrendered the asset that took you decades and billions of dollars to build.
3:21

Big pharma just handed the AI industry one of the most important reality checks of 2026 (Save this). david friedberg revealed that Anthropic approached major life sciences companies with a pitch, share your proprietary data, sign an NDA and we will give you early access to a specialized life sciences model and nearly every company they spoke with said no. Here is what these pharma companies understood that many enterprises still have not. A large pharmaceutical company may have spent decades and tens of billions of dollars generating proprietary datasets, clinical trial results, genomic sequences, drug interaction data, compound libraries. That data is the business and the competitive moat that separates them from every other player in the industry lives in those datasets. Handing it to an AI lab in exchange for early access to a model is essentially handing your most valuable asset to a company whose entire business model depends on combining your data with everyone else's and then selling the output back to you and to your competitors. Palantir CEO Alex Karp made this exact point that enterprise leaders are paying for AI tokens that generate no tangible business value while simultaneously surrendering their most sensitive operational data to external providers. He called this transferring a company's alpha, the unique advantage that secures the business directly to a third-party lab. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella echoed the same concern independently, warning that entire sectors might find their accumulated knowledge commoditized if they do not build their own data and model ownership layers. The structural problem is not unique to pharma but it applies to every enterprise sector. Every time an employee runs a query through a third-party frontier model, proprietary workflows, customer data, and strategic processes pass through infrastructure the enterprise does not control. The data already shows the market moving, Open-source captured 67% of all AI tokens processed in the first half of 2026, up from a fraction of that just twelve months earlier. The performance gap between proprietary frontier models and open-source alternatives has nearly closed, DeepSeek costs approximately 1/36th of GPT-5 for comparable workloads. What pharma figured out and what enterprises across every sector are starting to realize is that the model is not the moat but the data is. And once you hand your data to a model company, you have permanently surrendered the asset that took you decades and billions of dollars to build.

Milk Road AI

16,317 görüntüleme • 25 gün önce

SITUATION EXPLAINED: Thinking Machines just published their mission statement. • Mission: build AI that extends human will and judgment, not replaces it • The tacit knowledge argument: central planning fails not because of insufficient intelligence but because productive knowledge is local, fleeting, and held privately, the same reason a single AI alignment spec will fail • The "intelligence curse": power that needs nothing from people loses the incentive to care for their needs. A single locus of AI value alignment becomes a locus of power to be captured • Decentralized alignment: human values resist consolidation just like human knowledge does... today the values and voice of AI are decided in a handful of places, and that's dangerous • Today each lab trains its next flagship model on its previous one... whatever character emerges from that loop, everyone gets the same one, each generation inheriting the traits of the last • Their answer: AI that is more capable because it encourages human participation... alignment that arises from diverse AIs shaped by the people who own them sof 𓋹: "This is going to be very soon the winning narrative. People are gonna get so sick of hearing super intelligent stuff because they're like, I don't see anything that proves that right now. All this messaging is just gonna start becoming like, oh, make you the best human, make you a superhuman, make you awesome." Theo Jaffee: "I think it's a way better vision for AI to be customized to people in different organizations rather than to have just one Claude that is the same everywhere. Kind of like a deity."
17:08

SITUATION EXPLAINED: Thinking Machines just published their mission statement. • Mission: build AI that extends human will and judgment, not replaces it • The tacit knowledge argument: central planning fails not because of insufficient intelligence but because productive knowledge is local, fleeting, and held privately, the same reason a single AI alignment spec will fail • The "intelligence curse": power that needs nothing from people loses the incentive to care for their needs. A single locus of AI value alignment becomes a locus of power to be captured • Decentralized alignment: human values resist consolidation just like human knowledge does... today the values and voice of AI are decided in a handful of places, and that's dangerous • Today each lab trains its next flagship model on its previous one... whatever character emerges from that loop, everyone gets the same one, each generation inheriting the traits of the last • Their answer: AI that is more capable because it encourages human participation... alignment that arises from diverse AIs shaped by the people who own them sof 𓋹: "This is going to be very soon the winning narrative. People are gonna get so sick of hearing super intelligent stuff because they're like, I don't see anything that proves that right now. All this messaging is just gonna start becoming like, oh, make you the best human, make you a superhuman, make you awesome." Theo Jaffee: "I think it's a way better vision for AI to be customized to people in different organizations rather than to have just one Claude that is the same everywhere. Kind of like a deity."

MTS

14,305 görüntüleme • 22 gün önce

The AI industry is optimizing for a definition of intelligence that does not exist. Andrew Ng just said it out loud. Ng: “AGI, to me, should be less about AI that already knows everything under the sun. That seems very challenging, doesn’t seem practical.” The human brain is not the most powerful economic asset in history because of what it holds. It is powerful because of what it can pick up. Ng: “The amazing thing about the human brain is its plasticity, or its ability to learn.” That same biological hardware that earns a PhD in quantum physics could have been trained on chess, surgery, or rewriting global supply chains from scratch. Ng: “That same human brain, just given different training, could have been a chess master, or could have been amazing at playing tennis.” General intelligence is not omniscience. It is the structural capacity to master whatever you point it at. Ng: “It is through learning that we then gain these incredibly specialized intelligences.” The winner is not whoever builds the biggest model. It is whoever builds the most adaptable one. The AI that walks into a domain it has never touched and executes before a human analyst finishes reading the brief. Ng: “What makes the human brain so valuable for economic tasks, is its ability to just learn to do whatever is needed.” Every corporation on earth pays for human labor because humans adapt. Not because they already know everything. AGI is the digitization of that exact capability. At machine speed. At infinite scale. Ng: “A lot of what makes the human brain so general is not that my brain or your brain already knows everything under the sun. It’s our ability to adapt, to learn a huge range of things.” The most powerful economic asset in history was never specialized knowledge. It was the raw capacity to acquire any knowledge, in any domain, on demand. The winning AI is not an encyclopedia. It is the force that makes encyclopedias irrelevant. And once that exists, the question stops being what the AI knows. It becomes what you can teach it before your competitor wakes up. Most people dominating this conversation have not understood that yet.
1:16

The AI industry is optimizing for a definition of intelligence that does not exist. Andrew Ng just said it out loud. Ng: “AGI, to me, should be less about AI that already knows everything under the sun. That seems very challenging, doesn’t seem practical.” The human brain is not the most powerful economic asset in history because of what it holds. It is powerful because of what it can pick up. Ng: “The amazing thing about the human brain is its plasticity, or its ability to learn.” That same biological hardware that earns a PhD in quantum physics could have been trained on chess, surgery, or rewriting global supply chains from scratch. Ng: “That same human brain, just given different training, could have been a chess master, or could have been amazing at playing tennis.” General intelligence is not omniscience. It is the structural capacity to master whatever you point it at. Ng: “It is through learning that we then gain these incredibly specialized intelligences.” The winner is not whoever builds the biggest model. It is whoever builds the most adaptable one. The AI that walks into a domain it has never touched and executes before a human analyst finishes reading the brief. Ng: “What makes the human brain so valuable for economic tasks, is its ability to just learn to do whatever is needed.” Every corporation on earth pays for human labor because humans adapt. Not because they already know everything. AGI is the digitization of that exact capability. At machine speed. At infinite scale. Ng: “A lot of what makes the human brain so general is not that my brain or your brain already knows everything under the sun. It’s our ability to adapt, to learn a huge range of things.” The most powerful economic asset in history was never specialized knowledge. It was the raw capacity to acquire any knowledge, in any domain, on demand. The winning AI is not an encyclopedia. It is the force that makes encyclopedias irrelevant. And once that exists, the question stops being what the AI knows. It becomes what you can teach it before your competitor wakes up. Most people dominating this conversation have not understood that yet.

Dustin

19,808 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

JD Vance just admitted the White House could take ownership of every major AI company in the US. Why? Because even governments are starting to realize the same thing: AI will create trillions in value, and at this rate, only a few Big Tech companies will benefit. Right now, billions of people are training AI every day through their data, actions, and online behavior. Yet almost all of the value flows back to a few billionaires and shareholders. That doesn't seem fair. At Action Model, we're building a different future. A people-owned AI model where those helping train it can share in the value they help create. If AI is built by the people, it should benefit the people too. Sign up to the Action Model movement and join the 500k+ users already contributing to a community-owned AI.
1:16

JD Vance just admitted the White House could take ownership of every major AI company in the US. Why? Because even governments are starting to realize the same thing: AI will create trillions in value, and at this rate, only a few Big Tech companies will benefit. Right now, billions of people are training AI every day through their data, actions, and online behavior. Yet almost all of the value flows back to a few billionaires and shareholders. That doesn't seem fair. At Action Model, we're building a different future. A people-owned AI model where those helping train it can share in the value they help create. If AI is built by the people, it should benefit the people too. Sign up to the Action Model movement and join the 500k+ users already contributing to a community-owned AI.

Action Model

19,658 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

"We're not a consumer company, we're the shortest path to artificial labor." - Bernt Bornich, founder of 1X "It just happens to be that the shortest path is through consumer, because you need to live and learn among people." "Model intelligence comes from the diversity of your AI dataset. There isn't enough variance (if you are just) in a factory." "We want to deploy robots there (in homes), where we get data through a truly intelligent machine that doesn't just repeat a motion."
2:34

"We're not a consumer company, we're the shortest path to artificial labor." - Bernt Bornich, founder of 1X "It just happens to be that the shortest path is through consumer, because you need to live and learn among people." "Model intelligence comes from the diversity of your AI dataset. There isn't enough variance (if you are just) in a factory." "We want to deploy robots there (in homes), where we get data through a truly intelligent machine that doesn't just repeat a motion."

TBPN

15,742 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Elon Musk just confirmed when humans exit the AI development loop entirely. Not eventually. Not theoretically. He gave a date. Musk: “Humans are gradually getting less and less in the loop on the recursive self-improvement. Every successive model is built by the one before it.” The market still assumes thousands of engineers are hand-coding the next frontier model. The compute already took over the build. Musk: “That is happening to a large degree, but it’s not yet fully automated. It may be there, if not this year, but not later than next year.” Once biological friction is fully automated out of the loop, the AI arms race detaches from human comprehension. Permanently. Global markets are still planning for a gradual transition. That timeline is already dead. Interviewer: “Do you see a hard takeoff at that point?” Musk: “We’re in the hard takeoff. Right now.” Musk: “I go to sleep, there’s some massive AI breakthrough. And when I wake up there’s another one.” You don’t outrun autonomous, self-improving intelligence by hiring more biological engineers. By the time the hiring sprint finishes, the model has already iterated into something the job description can’t describe. The architects of intelligence are no longer biological. And the thing building itself didn’t ask for the job.
0:56

Elon Musk just confirmed when humans exit the AI development loop entirely. Not eventually. Not theoretically. He gave a date. Musk: “Humans are gradually getting less and less in the loop on the recursive self-improvement. Every successive model is built by the one before it.” The market still assumes thousands of engineers are hand-coding the next frontier model. The compute already took over the build. Musk: “That is happening to a large degree, but it’s not yet fully automated. It may be there, if not this year, but not later than next year.” Once biological friction is fully automated out of the loop, the AI arms race detaches from human comprehension. Permanently. Global markets are still planning for a gradual transition. That timeline is already dead. Interviewer: “Do you see a hard takeoff at that point?” Musk: “We’re in the hard takeoff. Right now.” Musk: “I go to sleep, there’s some massive AI breakthrough. And when I wake up there’s another one.” You don’t outrun autonomous, self-improving intelligence by hiring more biological engineers. By the time the hiring sprint finishes, the model has already iterated into something the job description can’t describe. The architects of intelligence are no longer biological. And the thing building itself didn’t ask for the job.

Dustin

322,907 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Mark Zuckerberg says he is not an AI researcher -- so here is the one number he obsesses over to win the superintelligence race: "I'm not an AI researcher. So it's not like I'm in there telling them what research ideas to do." "The things that I can do as CEO of the company are: I can make sure that we have the very best people and talent density. I can make sure that we have by far the highest compute per researcher, and that we do whatever it takes to go build out all that capacity." "We're building this Prometheus cluster, which is going to be the first gigawatt-plus single cluster, a contiguous cluster for training, coming online next year." "We're building a cluster in Louisiana that is going to be 5 gigawatt, and we're building several more clusters like that that are just going to be multiple gigawatts." "We're talking about many hundreds of billions of dollars of capital. So you both need to have a good business model that can support it, and you need to believe in it." The tell: the richest lab in the world is not optimizing headcount. It is optimizing compute-per-researcher, and betting hundreds of billions that whoever owns the biggest contiguous cluster owns the frontier. Talent gets you into the room. Watts decide who leaves with the model.
1:06

Mark Zuckerberg says he is not an AI researcher -- so here is the one number he obsesses over to win the superintelligence race: "I'm not an AI researcher. So it's not like I'm in there telling them what research ideas to do." "The things that I can do as CEO of the company are: I can make sure that we have the very best people and talent density. I can make sure that we have by far the highest compute per researcher, and that we do whatever it takes to go build out all that capacity." "We're building this Prometheus cluster, which is going to be the first gigawatt-plus single cluster, a contiguous cluster for training, coming online next year." "We're building a cluster in Louisiana that is going to be 5 gigawatt, and we're building several more clusters like that that are just going to be multiple gigawatts." "We're talking about many hundreds of billions of dollars of capital. So you both need to have a good business model that can support it, and you need to believe in it." The tell: the richest lab in the world is not optimizing headcount. It is optimizing compute-per-researcher, and betting hundreds of billions that whoever owns the biggest contiguous cluster owns the frontier. Talent gets you into the room. Watts decide who leaves with the model.

Karl Mehta

255,560 görüntüleme • 28 gün önce

How can you solve complex tasks using a Large Language Model? Here is a 2-minute introduction to everything you need to know to 10x the quality of your results. Let's talk about three techniques, in order of complexity, starting with the easiest one: • In-Context Learning • Indexing + In-Context Learning • Fine-tuning In-Context Learning The team that trained GPT-3 found something they couldn't explain: You can condition a model using examples of how you want it to behave. I included an example prompt in the attached video. You can "teach" the model how you want it to interpret questions, select the correct answers, and format the results by giving a few examples. You can also give specific knowledge to the model that will be helpful when formulating answers. We call this approach "grounding the model." There's another example in the video. Indexing + In-Context Learning Unfortunately, there is a limit to how much data you can include in a prompt. We call this the "context size." One version of GPT-4 supports a context of approximately 6,000 words, while the other supports 25,000 words. Although this sounds like a lot, many applications need more than that. Imagine you wrote a book and want to build an application to answer any questions about your story. What happens if your book is longer than the context? That's where Indexing comes in. Using a model, you can turn every book passage into an embedding. These are vectors, numbers that "encode" the passage's text. You can then store these embeddings in a particular database that supports fast retrieval of these vectors. You can then turn any question into an embedding and search the database for the list of passages that are similar to that query. Instead of using the entire book to ask the model, you can now use the relevant passages as in-context information, effectively working around the context size limitation. Fine-tuning Fine-tuning can give you an extra boost to get reliable outputs from your LLM. It is, however, the most complex approach on the list. There are different approaches to fine-tuning a model with your data. A popular technique is to process your data with your LLM and use the outputs to train a new classifier that solves your specific task. Notice that here you aren't modifying the LLM. Instead, you are chaining it with your trained classifier. Another approach is to modify the parameters of the LLM using your data. Think of this as "rewiring" the model in a way that solves your particular task. The results and costs will vary depending on how many layers you want to fine-tune from the original model. Many companies think that fine-tuning is the solution to their problems. In my experience, many will benefit from exploring the other two approaches. I love explaining Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence ideas. If you enjoy in-depth content like this, follow me Santiago so you don't miss what comes next.
4:50

How can you solve complex tasks using a Large Language Model? Here is a 2-minute introduction to everything you need to know to 10x the quality of your results. Let's talk about three techniques, in order of complexity, starting with the easiest one: • In-Context Learning • Indexing + In-Context Learning • Fine-tuning In-Context Learning The team that trained GPT-3 found something they couldn't explain: You can condition a model using examples of how you want it to behave. I included an example prompt in the attached video. You can "teach" the model how you want it to interpret questions, select the correct answers, and format the results by giving a few examples. You can also give specific knowledge to the model that will be helpful when formulating answers. We call this approach "grounding the model." There's another example in the video. Indexing + In-Context Learning Unfortunately, there is a limit to how much data you can include in a prompt. We call this the "context size." One version of GPT-4 supports a context of approximately 6,000 words, while the other supports 25,000 words. Although this sounds like a lot, many applications need more than that. Imagine you wrote a book and want to build an application to answer any questions about your story. What happens if your book is longer than the context? That's where Indexing comes in. Using a model, you can turn every book passage into an embedding. These are vectors, numbers that "encode" the passage's text. You can then store these embeddings in a particular database that supports fast retrieval of these vectors. You can then turn any question into an embedding and search the database for the list of passages that are similar to that query. Instead of using the entire book to ask the model, you can now use the relevant passages as in-context information, effectively working around the context size limitation. Fine-tuning Fine-tuning can give you an extra boost to get reliable outputs from your LLM. It is, however, the most complex approach on the list. There are different approaches to fine-tuning a model with your data. A popular technique is to process your data with your LLM and use the outputs to train a new classifier that solves your specific task. Notice that here you aren't modifying the LLM. Instead, you are chaining it with your trained classifier. Another approach is to modify the parameters of the LLM using your data. Think of this as "rewiring" the model in a way that solves your particular task. The results and costs will vary depending on how many layers you want to fine-tune from the original model. Many companies think that fine-tuning is the solution to their problems. In my experience, many will benefit from exploring the other two approaches. I love explaining Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence ideas. If you enjoy in-depth content like this, follow me Santiago so you don't miss what comes next.

Santiago

384,510 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce