Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

Really interesting parallel from Ben, comparing Google to Berkshire Hathaway. He says Google's search business is See's Candies. Its AI bet is Berkshire's move into the railroad: "They have See's Candies. Tremendously high margin business. The problem with a lot of high margin businesses is the percentage profit you... can make is very high, but the absolute profit is small. So the brilliance of the BNSF Railway thing was they took the See's Candy profits and said, here's another industry whose margins are worse, but the absolute dollar amounts are so large that those worse margins result in absolute profits that are much larger. BNSF in one year threw off more free cash than See's Candies had thrown off in its entire lifetime. The reason why I find that story so interesting is it seems to capture where Google itself might be going. This unbelievable high margin business of search, one of the most perfect, beautiful business models of all time. And meanwhile there's this AI opportunity which requires astronomical spend. It's a cash incinerating machine. But if AI is intelligence and its TAM is basically all white collar work and eventually more, the margins are lower but the absolute profits available are much larger. Will we look back and say Google was See's Candies? It feels like that's happening. In that world, you use all your free cash flow. They've done that. You tap the debt markets to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. They've done that. You issue equity. What does an equity issue do? It dilutes your interest in your shareholders. So you have a smaller percentage of the pie. Well, you have a smaller percentage of an astronomically larger pie. At the end of the day, no one's going to be complaining. Berkshire is actually not just an investor in Google, but a model for Google and where they're going."show more

Patrick OShaughnessy

350,330 subscribers

125,399 просмотров • 4 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Наука и технологии Образование Финансы

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

The Biggest Opportunity in Consumer AI: Google Going Full OpenClaw David Sacks: “Google is going to compete very vigorously for the consumer because it is existential to them. It's very clear that search and AI chat are kind of merging into one space. I also think that Google is in an outstanding position to do the whole OpenClaw thing because they already have access to your calendar, your documents, your email. The agent doesn't really have to earn your trust because you already trust Google with all of your stuff.” Chamath Palihapitiya: “They're the only one that has so much free cash flow that they can almost view it as two separate companies, which it effectively is. GCP over here runs the enterprise play, and then Google Consumer over here runs the consumer chatbot play. And they can keep them segregated. That's so much harder for a startup to do because on top of just keeping everybody organized, you have the financing problem of constantly having to raise more money because you don't yet have a profit engine that spits out cash. They're probably the only one. And you can see it in the valuations. People believe the durability of Google more than they believe the durability of anything else.” @jason: “Google has announced Google Workspace Studio to do AI automation, and people are playing with it already. So they have joined the OpenClaw party.”

The Biggest Opportunity in Consumer AI: Google Going Full OpenClaw David Sacks: “Google is going to compete very vigorously for the consumer because it is existential to them. It's very clear that search and AI chat are kind of merging into one space. I also think that Google is in an outstanding position to do the whole OpenClaw thing because they already have access to your calendar, your documents, your email. The agent doesn't really have to earn your trust because you already trust Google with all of your stuff.” Chamath Palihapitiya: “They're the only one that has so much free cash flow that they can almost view it as two separate companies, which it effectively is. GCP over here runs the enterprise play, and then Google Consumer over here runs the consumer chatbot play. And they can keep them segregated. That's so much harder for a startup to do because on top of just keeping everybody organized, you have the financing problem of constantly having to raise more money because you don't yet have a profit engine that spits out cash. They're probably the only one. And you can see it in the valuations. People believe the durability of Google more than they believe the durability of anything else.” @jason: “Google has announced Google Workspace Studio to do AI automation, and people are playing with it already. So they have joined the OpenClaw party.”

The All-In Podcast

75,225 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Google is making $62 billion a quarter destroying the websites it NEEDS to survive. This is literally a death spiral that ends with Google killing itself. Let me explain what's going on... Google added AI summaries to the top of every search result in 2024. When you Google something now, the answer sits right there on Google's page. You never have to click anywhere. Google took the information from someone else's website, summarized it, and kept you inside Google's ecosystem. The result: 60% of all Google searches now end without a single click to any website. Small publishers lost 60% of their traffic in one year. Medium publishers lost 47%. Even the biggest names in media, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Business Insider, all saw traffic fall between 22% and 55%. The Axios CEO called it "a referral extinction event for the ad-supported web." Google's response to all of this was to tell publishers they can "opt out" of having their content summarized. But opting out also REMOVES your description from normal search results. So the choice Google gives you is let us steal your content for free, or become invisible on the internet. That's extortion. The Washington Post laid off another round of journalists this year because of it. Stereogum, one of the most respected music publications on the internet, had to BEG readers for donations. Business Insider cut 21% of its staff. Dozens of smaller publishers have shut down entirely. The people who actually CREATE the information Google summarizes are going bankrupt while Google posts record revenue. But here's where this gets interesting and where everyone stops thinking: Google's AI summaries are only as good as the content they summarize. If the publishers who write the original articles, run the original investigations, and create the original data go out of business, there is nothing left for Google to summarize. The AI starts recycling old information, the answers get stale, the quality drops, and users start noticing that Google's summaries are increasingly wrong, outdated, or useless. Google is essentially strip-mining the internet for short-term revenue. They are extracting all the value from content creators without paying for it, driving those creators out of business, and then wondering why the quality of their own product is declining. This is exactly what Napster did to the music industry in the early 2000s: Made content free, creators went broke, and quality collapsed. It took a decade to rebuild. Google is doing the same thing to the entire internet at 100x the scale. Rolling Stone, Variety, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, and Billboard are now suing Google for antitrust violations. Chegg, the education platform, lost 49% of its traffic and is suing too. The UK's competition authority just ordered Google to let publishers opt out without being punished. The DOJ already ruled Google is an illegal monopoly. And Google's defense in court is genuinely unbelievable. They argue that publishers CHOOSE to let Google index their content and can leave anytime they want. That's like saying you choose to pay protection money to the mob because technically you could close your business and move to another city. Google controls 90% of search. Leaving Google means leaving the internet. Meanwhile Google is investing billions in custom AI chips to make these summaries cheaper at scale. Every quarter the problem gets worse. The internet as we've known it for 25 years ran on a simple deal: Publishers make content. Google sends traffic. Advertisers pay for the traffic. Everyone wins. But Google just BROKE that deal and kept all the money.

Google is making $62 billion a quarter destroying the websites it NEEDS to survive. This is literally a death spiral that ends with Google killing itself. Let me explain what's going on... Google added AI summaries to the top of every search result in 2024. When you Google something now, the answer sits right there on Google's page. You never have to click anywhere. Google took the information from someone else's website, summarized it, and kept you inside Google's ecosystem. The result: 60% of all Google searches now end without a single click to any website. Small publishers lost 60% of their traffic in one year. Medium publishers lost 47%. Even the biggest names in media, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Business Insider, all saw traffic fall between 22% and 55%. The Axios CEO called it "a referral extinction event for the ad-supported web." Google's response to all of this was to tell publishers they can "opt out" of having their content summarized. But opting out also REMOVES your description from normal search results. So the choice Google gives you is let us steal your content for free, or become invisible on the internet. That's extortion. The Washington Post laid off another round of journalists this year because of it. Stereogum, one of the most respected music publications on the internet, had to BEG readers for donations. Business Insider cut 21% of its staff. Dozens of smaller publishers have shut down entirely. The people who actually CREATE the information Google summarizes are going bankrupt while Google posts record revenue. But here's where this gets interesting and where everyone stops thinking: Google's AI summaries are only as good as the content they summarize. If the publishers who write the original articles, run the original investigations, and create the original data go out of business, there is nothing left for Google to summarize. The AI starts recycling old information, the answers get stale, the quality drops, and users start noticing that Google's summaries are increasingly wrong, outdated, or useless. Google is essentially strip-mining the internet for short-term revenue. They are extracting all the value from content creators without paying for it, driving those creators out of business, and then wondering why the quality of their own product is declining. This is exactly what Napster did to the music industry in the early 2000s: Made content free, creators went broke, and quality collapsed. It took a decade to rebuild. Google is doing the same thing to the entire internet at 100x the scale. Rolling Stone, Variety, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, and Billboard are now suing Google for antitrust violations. Chegg, the education platform, lost 49% of its traffic and is suing too. The UK's competition authority just ordered Google to let publishers opt out without being punished. The DOJ already ruled Google is an illegal monopoly. And Google's defense in court is genuinely unbelievable. They argue that publishers CHOOSE to let Google index their content and can leave anytime they want. That's like saying you choose to pay protection money to the mob because technically you could close your business and move to another city. Google controls 90% of search. Leaving Google means leaving the internet. Meanwhile Google is investing billions in custom AI chips to make these summaries cheaper at scale. Every quarter the problem gets worse. The internet as we've known it for 25 years ran on a simple deal: Publishers make content. Google sends traffic. Advertisers pay for the traffic. Everyone wins. But Google just BROKE that deal and kept all the money.

Ricardo

250,997 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Dan has a distinctive lens for understanding companies and his view on LLMs as a blend of Netflix and Spotify is particularly interesting: "You are spending a ton of money upfront to train these models. You go sell them at extremely high incremental margins. You don't know what the revenues are going to be, but you want to sell as much as possible so that you can get the cash flow to build the next model. That's very similar to Netflix. When you're an early mover in this fixed asset business, you invest heavily, you get the revenues, and you spread it out over an increasing number of people. The difference is Netflix's content was differentiated. The models are more similar than they are different at any given time. That's where the Spotify analogy comes in. The differentiating factor will not necessarily be that Google gives you a better answer. However, the personalization matters. The first mover advantage is the more that these models know about you, you build up this data history and it becomes very sticky. What makes Spotify have pricing power? It's because they've tailored the service to take a product which is a commodity, and personalize it to the point where you're willing to pay a premium for that commodity."

Dan has a distinctive lens for understanding companies and his view on LLMs as a blend of Netflix and Spotify is particularly interesting: "You are spending a ton of money upfront to train these models. You go sell them at extremely high incremental margins. You don't know what the revenues are going to be, but you want to sell as much as possible so that you can get the cash flow to build the next model. That's very similar to Netflix. When you're an early mover in this fixed asset business, you invest heavily, you get the revenues, and you spread it out over an increasing number of people. The difference is Netflix's content was differentiated. The models are more similar than they are different at any given time. That's where the Spotify analogy comes in. The differentiating factor will not necessarily be that Google gives you a better answer. However, the personalization matters. The first mover advantage is the more that these models know about you, you build up this data history and it becomes very sticky. What makes Spotify have pricing power? It's because they've tailored the service to take a product which is a commodity, and personalize it to the point where you're willing to pay a premium for that commodity."

Patrick OShaughnessy

58,906 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Warren Buffett explains why the best inflation hedge isn't gold or real estate — it's a business that can grow without requiring much additional capital During a Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, Buffett was asked whether a high-return, capital-light business like See's Candies remains the best protection against inflation, or whether capital-intensive assets like railroads have become more attractive. His answer was clear: the capital-light business still wins. The reasoning is simple. When inflation rises, businesses that can increase revenue without needing large amounts of new capital are in the strongest position. Buffett compares it to your own earning power. “The ultimate test is your own earning ability. If you’re an outstanding doctor, lawyer, teacher, as inflation goes along, your services will command more and more in dollar terms and you don’t have to make any additional investment in yourself.” By contrast, businesses tied up in inventory and receivables need more and more capital just to maintain the same level of business as prices rise. He then points to See's Candies, one of Berkshire's most successful investments. When Berkshire acquired the company, it generated about $30 million in sales with just $9 million in tangible assets. Years later, sales had grown to more than $300 million while requiring only around $40 million in tangible assets. Berkshire invested just $30 million of additional capital over that entire period, producing roughly $1.5 billion in pre-tax earnings. “If the price of candy doubles, we don’t have any receivables to speak of. Our inventory turns fast. The fixed assets aren’t big. That is a much better business to own than a utility business if you’re going to have a lot of inflation.” His ideal business is even simpler: “You want a royalty on somebody else’s sales. All you do is get a royalty check every month based on their sales volume. You have no receivables, no inventory, no fixed assets. That kind of business is real inflation protection.” Charlie Munger jokes that they didn't always understand this—and sometimes still forget it. Buffett agrees. “It shows how continuous learning is absolutely required to have any significant achievement at all in the world.” As for Berkshire's investments in railroads and other capital-intensive businesses, Buffett says it isn't because his philosophy changed. It's because there simply aren't enough businesses like See's Candies large enough to deploy Berkshire's enormous amounts of capital. “We’d love to find them. But we can’t find them in the quantity.” Source: Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholders Meeting (2004)

Warren Buffett explains why the best inflation hedge isn't gold or real estate — it's a business that can grow without requiring much additional capital During a Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, Buffett was asked whether a high-return, capital-light business like See's Candies remains the best protection against inflation, or whether capital-intensive assets like railroads have become more attractive. His answer was clear: the capital-light business still wins. The reasoning is simple. When inflation rises, businesses that can increase revenue without needing large amounts of new capital are in the strongest position. Buffett compares it to your own earning power. “The ultimate test is your own earning ability. If you’re an outstanding doctor, lawyer, teacher, as inflation goes along, your services will command more and more in dollar terms and you don’t have to make any additional investment in yourself.” By contrast, businesses tied up in inventory and receivables need more and more capital just to maintain the same level of business as prices rise. He then points to See's Candies, one of Berkshire's most successful investments. When Berkshire acquired the company, it generated about $30 million in sales with just $9 million in tangible assets. Years later, sales had grown to more than $300 million while requiring only around $40 million in tangible assets. Berkshire invested just $30 million of additional capital over that entire period, producing roughly $1.5 billion in pre-tax earnings. “If the price of candy doubles, we don’t have any receivables to speak of. Our inventory turns fast. The fixed assets aren’t big. That is a much better business to own than a utility business if you’re going to have a lot of inflation.” His ideal business is even simpler: “You want a royalty on somebody else’s sales. All you do is get a royalty check every month based on their sales volume. You have no receivables, no inventory, no fixed assets. That kind of business is real inflation protection.” Charlie Munger jokes that they didn't always understand this—and sometimes still forget it. Buffett agrees. “It shows how continuous learning is absolutely required to have any significant achievement at all in the world.” As for Berkshire's investments in railroads and other capital-intensive businesses, Buffett says it isn't because his philosophy changed. It's because there simply aren't enough businesses like See's Candies large enough to deploy Berkshire's enormous amounts of capital. “We’d love to find them. But we can’t find them in the quantity.” Source: Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholders Meeting (2004)

Finance Nerd

15,692 просмотров • 27 дней назад

Google has a Gemini Problem, and Chamath has a plan to fix it 📈 On E225, the besties discussed how Google can cut ChatGPT's lead over Gemini without killing its $200B/year search ads business. David Sacks: "I think the problem that Google has with respect to ChatGPT, is Gemini is not getting the usage, and ChatGPT is just growing like crazy." "If you look at how these models perform according to the benchmarks, Gemini is actually really good, but they have not caught up on the usage side." david friedberg: "Chamath, you're the CEO of Google, you've got a $200B run rate search ad business." "What's the right integration of Gemini such that you don't massively disrupt the search ad business overnight?" "Or do you not care and you're just gonna do it? I think that's the conundrum (Google) is dealing with." Chamath Palihapitiya: " The more difficult question is, what does the integration look like?" "They're already inserting Gemini in all kinds of uncomfortable ways." "So for example, if you use Gmail, or if you use Google Workspace, what happens today is all these random Gemini pop-ups come up all over the place." "That is an implementation that happened at way too junior a level by people that have no product taste." "And if you use the products every day, it would be hard for you to disagree with me." David Sacks: " The Google homepage, would you replace that with an AI chatbot?" Chamath Palihapitiya: " No. Here's what I would do: I would first go to the critical other points that are around, that today do not cannibalize the blue links." "If you look at the traffic patterns, almost as a Sankey diagram, the real thing you should be looking at here is where are the entry points into Google that then result in a clickable link." "And what it would show you is that there are certain places that are highly de-optimized today for revenue generating events." "They happen as a byproduct, but they don't happen as the use case." "So in that example, you would put Gmail as a critical place, the Google one subscription, and there's like five or six other places." "That's where I would put Gemini as the front door and start to habituate 300 to 500 million people a week in using that." "I think then you can figure out over time how much money you can make from all of that, or how it directs derivative revenue, and figure out what to do with Google dot com last." "But my point is, the experience in Gmail should be done today." "The experience in YouTube should be done today." "The experience in Google one should be done today."

Google has a Gemini Problem, and Chamath has a plan to fix it 📈 On E225, the besties discussed how Google can cut ChatGPT's lead over Gemini without killing its $200B/year search ads business. David Sacks: "I think the problem that Google has with respect to ChatGPT, is Gemini is not getting the usage, and ChatGPT is just growing like crazy." "If you look at how these models perform according to the benchmarks, Gemini is actually really good, but they have not caught up on the usage side." david friedberg: "Chamath, you're the CEO of Google, you've got a $200B run rate search ad business." "What's the right integration of Gemini such that you don't massively disrupt the search ad business overnight?" "Or do you not care and you're just gonna do it? I think that's the conundrum (Google) is dealing with." Chamath Palihapitiya: " The more difficult question is, what does the integration look like?" "They're already inserting Gemini in all kinds of uncomfortable ways." "So for example, if you use Gmail, or if you use Google Workspace, what happens today is all these random Gemini pop-ups come up all over the place." "That is an implementation that happened at way too junior a level by people that have no product taste." "And if you use the products every day, it would be hard for you to disagree with me." David Sacks: " The Google homepage, would you replace that with an AI chatbot?" Chamath Palihapitiya: " No. Here's what I would do: I would first go to the critical other points that are around, that today do not cannibalize the blue links." "If you look at the traffic patterns, almost as a Sankey diagram, the real thing you should be looking at here is where are the entry points into Google that then result in a clickable link." "And what it would show you is that there are certain places that are highly de-optimized today for revenue generating events." "They happen as a byproduct, but they don't happen as the use case." "So in that example, you would put Gmail as a critical place, the Google one subscription, and there's like five or six other places." "That's where I would put Gemini as the front door and start to habituate 300 to 500 million people a week in using that." "I think then you can figure out over time how much money you can make from all of that, or how it directs derivative revenue, and figure out what to do with Google dot com last." "But my point is, the experience in Gmail should be done today." "The experience in YouTube should be done today." "The experience in Google one should be done today."

The All-In Podcast

100,683 просмотров • 1 год назад

Mark Cuban reveals why OpenAI will never make back the trillion dollars they're planning to spend on AI infrastructure "They'll never get it. They're just burning away that money at scale. It's not that AI is not going to work but look at Apple, right? They haven't spent next to anything but they've got a foundation where they can just plug and play into their devices" "We don't know if the business of foundational models, the ChatGPTs, Geminis, Grok, Claude, is going to be like the streaming industry where there's one leader and a bunch of players that make money, or search where there's effectively one company" "A lot of the numbers that they're throwing out there aren't going to come to fruition. Those who have just gone all in, some of them are spending more cash than they have available" "They need to raise all the money, go all in, kiss all the rings they need to kiss around the world in hopes of being the one. If you don't go all in like that, you're in deeper trouble. If you're not the winner, you've got problems"

Mark Cuban reveals why OpenAI will never make back the trillion dollars they're planning to spend on AI infrastructure "They'll never get it. They're just burning away that money at scale. It's not that AI is not going to work but look at Apple, right? They haven't spent next to anything but they've got a foundation where they can just plug and play into their devices" "We don't know if the business of foundational models, the ChatGPTs, Geminis, Grok, Claude, is going to be like the streaming industry where there's one leader and a bunch of players that make money, or search where there's effectively one company" "A lot of the numbers that they're throwing out there aren't going to come to fruition. Those who have just gone all in, some of them are spending more cash than they have available" "They need to raise all the money, go all in, kiss all the rings they need to kiss around the world in hopes of being the one. If you don't go all in like that, you're in deeper trouble. If you're not the winner, you've got problems"

Jaynit

229,894 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

"We acquire their businesses for part cash and part equity. You use the free cash flow from the businesses to buy Bitcoin, and you give the business owners this bridge to tomorrow" Nico Lechuga explains the Bitcoin model built around stagnant family businesses "What if you went after these businesses that are good businesses, but they're at a point of stasis? They're not growing, so they're not really targets for private equity. They're completely uncorrelated with anything in the Bitcoin space. Generally these are family run businesses that have been held in the family for decades, they have good margins in EBITDA" "They're not ready to fully transition, but they're looking to offload some of the risk of their business. So what does that look like? In us building this bridge for tomorrow, what we came up with was Orange Juice" "Eventually, after you've proved out the thesis and you have enough businesses under the belt, the intention is to take Orange Juice public"

"We acquire their businesses for part cash and part equity. You use the free cash flow from the businesses to buy Bitcoin, and you give the business owners this bridge to tomorrow" Nico Lechuga explains the Bitcoin model built around stagnant family businesses "What if you went after these businesses that are good businesses, but they're at a point of stasis? They're not growing, so they're not really targets for private equity. They're completely uncorrelated with anything in the Bitcoin space. Generally these are family run businesses that have been held in the family for decades, they have good margins in EBITDA" "They're not ready to fully transition, but they're looking to offload some of the risk of their business. So what does that look like? In us building this bridge for tomorrow, what we came up with was Orange Juice" "Eventually, after you've proved out the thesis and you have enough businesses under the belt, the intention is to take Orange Juice public"

The Wolf Of All Streets

29,627 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Marc Bhargava (Marc Bhargava) Managing Director at General Catalyst on how 'AI Roll-Ups' are unlocking software-like margins for a much larger TAM "Why hasn't everyone in VC rushed to invest in services businesses? like accounting legal IT insurance? Well they historically have not been that profitable. So they sort of break-even generally in many cases, well obviously as you get to scale in that $1T of revenue in software the marginal cost is really low & they can become very profitable & have amazing cash flow Companies like CrowdStrike or ServiceNow or others you know kind of show this model And of course the hyper scalers like Amazon, Google, Microsoft There are all these amazing proven examples in the software field of having very strong free cash flow & on high margins. Our thesis somewhat is well these un-sexy services industries that were break even or 15 to 20% EBITDA margins net income obviously much lower they can look like software from a margin profile 'Cause once you take out the repetitive tasks & you take out 30-40-50% of what people do & free them up to do the hard stuff with the same cost basis you can 50% grow the revenue or double the revenue ..your margin profile now looks much much more similar to software. So we think in this much larger TAM than software, you can have software-like margins."

Molly O’Shea

27,038 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

#WATCH | On announcing 25% tariff, plus a penalty on India, US President Donald Trump says, "...Prime Minister Modi is a friend of mine, but they don't do very much business in terms of business with us. They sell a lot to us, but we don't buy from them...Because the tariff is so high. They have one of the highest tariffs in the world now. They are willing to cut it very substantially. But we will see what happens...." He further says, "We are negotiating right now and it's also BRICS. BRICS, which is basically a group of countries that are anti the United States and India is a member of that...It is an attack on the dollar and we are not going to let anybody attack the dollar. So it's partially BRICS and it's partially trade...We had a tremendous deficit. Prime Minister Modi is a friend of mine, but they don't do very much business in terms of business with us. They sell a lot to us, but we don't buy from them...Because the tariff is so high. They have one of the highest tariffs in the world. Now, they are willing to cut it very substantially. But we will see what happens. We are talking to India now. We will see what happens. It doesn't matter too much whether we have a deal or we charge them a certain tariff. But you will know at the end of this week..." (Source: The White House)

#WATCH | On announcing 25% tariff, plus a penalty on India, US President Donald Trump says, "...Prime Minister Modi is a friend of mine, but they don't do very much business in terms of business with us. They sell a lot to us, but we don't buy from them...Because the tariff is so high. They have one of the highest tariffs in the world now. They are willing to cut it very substantially. But we will see what happens...." He further says, "We are negotiating right now and it's also BRICS. BRICS, which is basically a group of countries that are anti the United States and India is a member of that...It is an attack on the dollar and we are not going to let anybody attack the dollar. So it's partially BRICS and it's partially trade...We had a tremendous deficit. Prime Minister Modi is a friend of mine, but they don't do very much business in terms of business with us. They sell a lot to us, but we don't buy from them...Because the tariff is so high. They have one of the highest tariffs in the world. Now, they are willing to cut it very substantially. But we will see what happens. We are talking to India now. We will see what happens. It doesn't matter too much whether we have a deal or we charge them a certain tariff. But you will know at the end of this week..." (Source: The White House)

ANI

591,429 просмотров • 1 год назад

Peter Thiel on why the best businesses never compete: "Most people believe that capitalism and competition are synonyms. I believe capitalism and competition are antonyms." His point is simple: "A capitalist is someone who's in the business of accumulating capital. A world of perfect competition is a world where all the profits are competed away." Peter explains that the most important distinction in business is one nobody talks about enough. "There are two kinds of companies in this world. There are companies that are competitive and there are companies that have monopolies." His go-to example of a bad business? Restaurants. "Opening a restaurant is super competitive and nobody ever makes any money doing it." His example of a great business: Google. "Google has had no competition in search since 2002 when it definitively distanced itself from Microsoft and Yahoo, and it's been making enormous profits for the dozen years or so ever since." So what should founders actually aim for? "If you're a one-of-a-kind company, a happy company that's doing something different, you are a monopoly. It is the goal of every founder, every entrepreneur—it should be their goal to try to build a monopoly business." True market power means never having to compete in the first place.

Peter Thiel on why the best businesses never compete: "Most people believe that capitalism and competition are synonyms. I believe capitalism and competition are antonyms." His point is simple: "A capitalist is someone who's in the business of accumulating capital. A world of perfect competition is a world where all the profits are competed away." Peter explains that the most important distinction in business is one nobody talks about enough. "There are two kinds of companies in this world. There are companies that are competitive and there are companies that have monopolies." His go-to example of a bad business? Restaurants. "Opening a restaurant is super competitive and nobody ever makes any money doing it." His example of a great business: Google. "Google has had no competition in search since 2002 when it definitively distanced itself from Microsoft and Yahoo, and it's been making enormous profits for the dozen years or so ever since." So what should founders actually aim for? "If you're a one-of-a-kind company, a happy company that's doing something different, you are a monopoly. It is the goal of every founder, every entrepreneur—it should be their goal to try to build a monopoly business." True market power means never having to compete in the first place.

Big Brain Business

73,938 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Bill Ackman reveals the exact difference between valuing a stock and valuing a bond that most people never learn "A bond pays a 5% coupon interest rate. You get that every year, and it's very predictable. If it's a US Government Bond, you know you're going to get it. That's a pretty easy thing to value" "A stock is an interest in a business. It's like owning a piece of a company. A profitable business is like a bond in that it generates these coupons or these earnings or cash flow every year" "The difference is that a bond is a contract. You know what you're going to get. With a stock, you have to make predictions about the business" "How many widgets are they going to sell this year? How many next year? What are their costs going to be? How much money do they need to reinvest to keep the business going?" "What we do is try to find businesses where with a very high degree of confidence we know what those cash flows are going to be for a very long time. There are very few businesses you can have a really high degree of certainty about. Many investments are speculations because it's really very difficult to predict the future"

Bill Ackman reveals the exact difference between valuing a stock and valuing a bond that most people never learn "A bond pays a 5% coupon interest rate. You get that every year, and it's very predictable. If it's a US Government Bond, you know you're going to get it. That's a pretty easy thing to value" "A stock is an interest in a business. It's like owning a piece of a company. A profitable business is like a bond in that it generates these coupons or these earnings or cash flow every year" "The difference is that a bond is a contract. You know what you're going to get. With a stock, you have to make predictions about the business" "How many widgets are they going to sell this year? How many next year? What are their costs going to be? How much money do they need to reinvest to keep the business going?" "What we do is try to find businesses where with a very high degree of confidence we know what those cash flows are going to be for a very long time. There are very few businesses you can have a really high degree of certainty about. Many investments are speculations because it's really very difficult to predict the future"

Jaynit

160,132 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Google is a vaccine company?! "One thing people need to know, is that Google is a vaccine company. Google's parent company alphabet and Verily have this this a series of sister subsidiaries of Google's, actually manufactured vaccines flu vaccines and other vaccines and they're making and they're partnering with all the pharmaceutical companies. So Google has a seven hundred and sixty one million dollar partnership with Glaxo and what they're doing is they're harvesting medical information. That's a huge part of their business and then they're selling it to the pharmaceutical companies. But they're partnering with pharmaceutical companies that they can use that medical they can tell what you're buying habits are they can hear you cough listening to the theory and that all of these, you know, the surveillance systems they're erecting and the informational systems and how we use them and what we purchase is Is all turned into sellable data. Now going to the vaccine companies and the big pharmaceutical companies and they're partnered with them. They're really just part of the big part of the industry."

Google is a vaccine company?! "One thing people need to know, is that Google is a vaccine company. Google's parent company alphabet and Verily have this this a series of sister subsidiaries of Google's, actually manufactured vaccines flu vaccines and other vaccines and they're making and they're partnering with all the pharmaceutical companies. So Google has a seven hundred and sixty one million dollar partnership with Glaxo and what they're doing is they're harvesting medical information. That's a huge part of their business and then they're selling it to the pharmaceutical companies. But they're partnering with pharmaceutical companies that they can use that medical they can tell what you're buying habits are they can hear you cough listening to the theory and that all of these, you know, the surveillance systems they're erecting and the informational systems and how we use them and what we purchase is Is all turned into sellable data. Now going to the vaccine companies and the big pharmaceutical companies and they're partnered with them. They're really just part of the big part of the industry."

Bridgett Fertig

49,678 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Chamath: Tesla and Google are best positioned to win AI because they are building the full-stack Jason: "The game here is who wins the AI prize five years from now?" "Chamath, who's your number one and number two?" Chamath: " Tesla's one and Google's two." "And the reason is because they are the closest to having that vertically integrated stack that I spoke about." TESLA 1⃣ "I think that Tesla has the best vision models." "Now with xAI, they'll have one of the best LLMs and reasoning models." "And they'll be able to eventually stick that on Dojo." "And then all of that will be in all of the physical AI that you will interact with in your daily life." "Whether it's a robot, or whether it's a car, or whether it's a Robotaxi. So that's number one." GOOGLE 2⃣ "And then number two, for many of the same reasons, I think Google." "Because you'll have the Gemini family of models, which just absolutely kick ass." "Like Veo 3, which we haven't really spoke about, is gonna destroy Hollywood in the next year, like Hollywood is done, I think." "But they're landing model after model." "They have the TPU, and the next generation TPU I think is exceptional." "They're baking quantum." "And then they have an entire funnel of billions of people that they can direct experiences to." "So Tesla one, Google two."

Chamath: Tesla and Google are best positioned to win AI because they are building the full-stack Jason: "The game here is who wins the AI prize five years from now?" "Chamath, who's your number one and number two?" Chamath: " Tesla's one and Google's two." "And the reason is because they are the closest to having that vertically integrated stack that I spoke about." TESLA 1⃣ "I think that Tesla has the best vision models." "Now with xAI, they'll have one of the best LLMs and reasoning models." "And they'll be able to eventually stick that on Dojo." "And then all of that will be in all of the physical AI that you will interact with in your daily life." "Whether it's a robot, or whether it's a car, or whether it's a Robotaxi. So that's number one." GOOGLE 2⃣ "And then number two, for many of the same reasons, I think Google." "Because you'll have the Gemini family of models, which just absolutely kick ass." "Like Veo 3, which we haven't really spoke about, is gonna destroy Hollywood in the next year, like Hollywood is done, I think." "But they're landing model after model." "They have the TPU, and the next generation TPU I think is exceptional." "They're baking quantum." "And then they have an entire funnel of billions of people that they can direct experiences to." "So Tesla one, Google two."

The All-In Podcast

7,919,160 просмотров • 1 год назад

Gavin's takes on Microsoft, Google, Meta, & Amazon: Microsoft ($MSFT): "I like Satya, I admire him. He's an exceptional CEO, and I give him a lot of credit for the decisions he's made. But he did go from, "We're going to make Google dance," to being the product manager of Copilot in 3 years. The decision Satya is making now, which the market has punished him for, but I think is the right decision — who knows how fast Azure could be growing if they were willing to just sell GPUs to OpenAI. 'We're going to use our compute internally to make our own products better.' One reason Copilot was so bad, or has been so bad, is that there wasn't enough compute available. They're fixing that. He's making good decisions that are risky decisions, to position Microsoft for this world where frontier models are no longer API-accessible. It's a really courageous decision that I give him a lot of credit for. Microsoft probably would be an $800 stock today if they were using their GPUs to serve solely OpenAI and Anthropic's capacity instead of using them for their own products." Google ($GOOG): "Google was incredible last year because they had that TPU advantage, which is now gone. The reason I think they're still in a great position is they have the most compute of everyone. We talked about the value of installed bases being higher as a result of shortages — they have the biggest installed base of compute. Google I/O is this week. If they don't release something that even slightly leapfrogs OpenAI and/or Claude, that's interesting. It's not a disaster for Google, it's just interesting. Between the amount of data they have, the YouTube data, the amount of compute, the search business — Google's never not going to be in a good position. You see that with GCP going crazy." Meta ($META): "You've got to give Zuckerberg immense credit, for what he's done in terms of making Meta an AI-first company internally. He is the only one of those true internet giants to have done that. I give him a lot of credit for paying up when he did for contracts, that talent. And Muse was a really big upside surprise. It was the first model from MSL, and it's not on the Pareto frontier with xAI, Google's one entrant, OpenAI and Claude, but it's pretty close. That was very impressive to me. So Meta is in a better position — still not as strong of an absolute position as Google, but a better position." Amazon ($AMZN): "Amazon is in a really strong position because of Trainium. You're going to see real P&L efficiencies from robotics over the next 18 months in their retail business. I actually think Nova — their internal models are not where Muse is, but they're better than they get credit for. The two companies who are the most deeply engaged with startups are Amazon and Nvidia by a mile. It's going to end up being a pretty big advantage for Nvidia and Amazon — with Google right behind them — to have this engagement that you just don't see from these other hyperscalers."

Gavin's takes on Microsoft, Google, Meta, & Amazon: Microsoft ($MSFT): "I like Satya, I admire him. He's an exceptional CEO, and I give him a lot of credit for the decisions he's made. But he did go from, "We're going to make Google dance," to being the product manager of Copilot in 3 years. The decision Satya is making now, which the market has punished him for, but I think is the right decision — who knows how fast Azure could be growing if they were willing to just sell GPUs to OpenAI. 'We're going to use our compute internally to make our own products better.' One reason Copilot was so bad, or has been so bad, is that there wasn't enough compute available. They're fixing that. He's making good decisions that are risky decisions, to position Microsoft for this world where frontier models are no longer API-accessible. It's a really courageous decision that I give him a lot of credit for. Microsoft probably would be an $800 stock today if they were using their GPUs to serve solely OpenAI and Anthropic's capacity instead of using them for their own products." Google ($GOOG): "Google was incredible last year because they had that TPU advantage, which is now gone. The reason I think they're still in a great position is they have the most compute of everyone. We talked about the value of installed bases being higher as a result of shortages — they have the biggest installed base of compute. Google I/O is this week. If they don't release something that even slightly leapfrogs OpenAI and/or Claude, that's interesting. It's not a disaster for Google, it's just interesting. Between the amount of data they have, the YouTube data, the amount of compute, the search business — Google's never not going to be in a good position. You see that with GCP going crazy." Meta ($META): "You've got to give Zuckerberg immense credit, for what he's done in terms of making Meta an AI-first company internally. He is the only one of those true internet giants to have done that. I give him a lot of credit for paying up when he did for contracts, that talent. And Muse was a really big upside surprise. It was the first model from MSL, and it's not on the Pareto frontier with xAI, Google's one entrant, OpenAI and Claude, but it's pretty close. That was very impressive to me. So Meta is in a better position — still not as strong of an absolute position as Google, but a better position." Amazon ($AMZN): "Amazon is in a really strong position because of Trainium. You're going to see real P&L efficiencies from robotics over the next 18 months in their retail business. I actually think Nova — their internal models are not where Muse is, but they're better than they get credit for. The two companies who are the most deeply engaged with startups are Amazon and Nvidia by a mile. It's going to end up being a pretty big advantage for Nvidia and Amazon — with Google right behind them — to have this engagement that you just don't see from these other hyperscalers."

Invest Like the Best

52,492 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Mark Cuban: “A lot of data centers will be turned into pickleball courts.” Mark Cuban: “What's happening now is the market leaders, Google, Meta. etc, they're borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars. And there's already a private credit problem right now. Just layer on private credit, and then you have these huge companies that have cash flow, but they're spending all their cash flow on CapEx, and then they're borrowing on top of that. That's planning for perfection. And that's going to be hard. And we're building these data centers, and if there's a price-performance curve on AI that minimizes the power requirements, there's going to be a lot of data centers that are going to be turned into pickleball courts. Everybody thinks that there's going to be so much more utilization. And there will be. It'll just scale like everybody expects. But there's going to be technological breakthroughs as well. Just like we saw fiber back in the day, it was all about putting in fiber. Then it went from 1GB fiber, to 10GB, to 100GB, and then there wasn't a fiber problem anymore. There wasn't a bandwidth problem anymore.” @jason: “It was quite the opposite. We had dark fiber that people bought for pennies on the dollar.” Cuban: “Just sitting there, right? And how is it not going to be the case that we don't get the same price performance improvements on the AI side and on the data center side?” ------------------------------ Thanks to our partners for making this possible! Most advertisers have never heard of the platform with an $11B annual run rate in ad spend. AppLovin Ads — 1B+ daily active users, full-screen video ads watched for a median of 35 seconds, and businesses are profitably spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a day on it. Advertiser access is in closed beta. The window is open at Starting a business? Northwest Registered Agent LLC gives you everything you need to build a complete Business Identity including free tools and built-in privacy. Get more at

Mark Cuban: “A lot of data centers will be turned into pickleball courts.” Mark Cuban: “What's happening now is the market leaders, Google, Meta. etc, they're borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars. And there's already a private credit problem right now. Just layer on private credit, and then you have these huge companies that have cash flow, but they're spending all their cash flow on CapEx, and then they're borrowing on top of that. That's planning for perfection. And that's going to be hard. And we're building these data centers, and if there's a price-performance curve on AI that minimizes the power requirements, there's going to be a lot of data centers that are going to be turned into pickleball courts. Everybody thinks that there's going to be so much more utilization. And there will be. It'll just scale like everybody expects. But there's going to be technological breakthroughs as well. Just like we saw fiber back in the day, it was all about putting in fiber. Then it went from 1GB fiber, to 10GB, to 100GB, and then there wasn't a fiber problem anymore. There wasn't a bandwidth problem anymore.” @jason: “It was quite the opposite. We had dark fiber that people bought for pennies on the dollar.” Cuban: “Just sitting there, right? And how is it not going to be the case that we don't get the same price performance improvements on the AI side and on the data center side?” ------------------------------ Thanks to our partners for making this possible! Most advertisers have never heard of the platform with an $11B annual run rate in ad spend. AppLovin Ads — 1B+ daily active users, full-screen video ads watched for a median of 35 seconds, and businesses are profitably spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a day on it. Advertiser access is in closed beta. The window is open at Starting a business? Northwest Registered Agent LLC gives you everything you need to build a complete Business Identity including free tools and built-in privacy. Get more at

The All-In Podcast

183,287 просмотров • 26 дней назад

Mohnish Pabrai: "See's is a wonderful business. It taught [Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger] a lot. It taught them more than they ever thought they'd learn from a stupid candy business." "Both [Warren] and Charlie were amazed that you could have a business where you are continuously raising prices significantly above the rate of inflation — and there is no resistance from the customer base to accepting those prices. That gave them a huge lesson in brands." "They paid 3x book value for See's. They were choking almost when they paid that amount. I think they bought See's for $25 million. Looking back, they could have paid $200 million and it [still] would have been great." "If they had not bought See's, they would have never bought Coke. The lessons that they learned about branding and the power of brands is what led to the Coke investment — which was a much bigger home run." (h/t My First Million)

Mohnish Pabrai: "See's is a wonderful business. It taught [Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger] a lot. It taught them more than they ever thought they'd learn from a stupid candy business." "Both [Warren] and Charlie were amazed that you could have a business where you are continuously raising prices significantly above the rate of inflation — and there is no resistance from the customer base to accepting those prices. That gave them a huge lesson in brands." "They paid 3x book value for See's. They were choking almost when they paid that amount. I think they bought See's for $25 million. Looking back, they could have paid $200 million and it [still] would have been great." "If they had not bought See's, they would have never bought Coke. The lessons that they learned about branding and the power of brands is what led to the Coke investment — which was a much bigger home run." (h/t My First Million)

Kevin Carpenter

52,963 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

American Autoimmune Doctor explaining how the medications that are prescribed for autoimmune diseases are not meant to make you better, they’re meant to keep you sick forever This is pure evil “It's interesting, the more that I practice functional medicine, the more I realize that the whole system is really set up against you. And the reason why I say that is that, for example, the most common cause of autoimmune disease is actually an infection. But when you go to the rheumatologist, all you're going to get is Xeljanz, Sulfasalazines, you're going to get Humira, Enbrel, you're going to get those things which actually suppress your immune system. So if the number one root cause, according to authors, right, of autoimmunity is an infectious issue, what's going on here? If you're suppressing your immune system, you're always going to have autoimmunity if your trigger is an infection. So it is the definition of a vicious circle, but it's almost like it was set up so that you will always be on those medications, which by the way, highest profit margin in pharmaceutical science and pharmaceutical sales are these immune modulating medications. So remember, there's no vested interest for you to get better.”

American Autoimmune Doctor explaining how the medications that are prescribed for autoimmune diseases are not meant to make you better, they’re meant to keep you sick forever This is pure evil “It's interesting, the more that I practice functional medicine, the more I realize that the whole system is really set up against you. And the reason why I say that is that, for example, the most common cause of autoimmune disease is actually an infection. But when you go to the rheumatologist, all you're going to get is Xeljanz, Sulfasalazines, you're going to get Humira, Enbrel, you're going to get those things which actually suppress your immune system. So if the number one root cause, according to authors, right, of autoimmunity is an infectious issue, what's going on here? If you're suppressing your immune system, you're always going to have autoimmunity if your trigger is an infection. So it is the definition of a vicious circle, but it's almost like it was set up so that you will always be on those medications, which by the way, highest profit margin in pharmaceutical science and pharmaceutical sales are these immune modulating medications. So remember, there's no vested interest for you to get better.”

Wall Street Apes

448,544 просмотров • 1 год назад

Chamath: Frontier AI Leaders “Created a Total F*cking Mess” Short-sighted fearmongering and immaturity from frontier AI leaders has created deep mistrust, threatening AI’s potential as an open engine of economic mobility. That mistrust gives hyperscalers the chance to position themselves as trusted gatekeepers, using KYC, audit trails, and compliance infrastructure to turn AI into an oligopoly. Chamath Palihapitiya on the All-In Pod: “I think the leaders of the frontier labs leave a lot to be desired. I think what we're seeing is a consistent pattern of evasiveness and immaturity, and I think that does a huge disservice to the entire movement of AI. The key to a vibrant life is rooted in economic mobility, and I think AI is the grand leveler. It is the thing that can enable everyone to have unique amounts of economic mobility because they are unencumbered to figure out what their upper bound is. And against that backdrop, we have to live in this constant doomerism, hype cycle, naivety, and I think it holds us back. How does it hold us back? Tactically, number one, it creates mistrust. I think that Silicon Valley was already decaying in the prestige that it held in American society. We built important things. Then we veered away from that, and we started building less important things. And now we're at a point where we've potentially started to rebuild important things again, but we have this veneer of negativity and mistrust that are created in large part because we just cannot get our sh*t together. And the leaders of the frontier labs are public enemy number one. Number two, I think what it creates, which I think is bad, but what it creates is an incredible opportunity for the hyperscalers. And the very simple opportunity is to convince governments all around the world, not just America, that they should be the gatekeeper. A: You can't trust these guys. B: These models are all over the place. C: Let us be the ones that provision them to the world. We will wrap it in KYC. I've been now talking about KYC for a while, right? Who are these customers? Do they have identification? Why are they allowed to run these models? What are they prompting? Let's keep them so that there's an audit trail. All of these things are going to become issues. The Frontier Lab folks made it an issue because of how they've handled all of this up until now. And what does that create? Now that creates an oligopoly for AI, the most powerful economically leveling instrument we've ever seen in the hands of maybe a handful of hyperscalers, who by the way, would make an incredibly compelling argument, and they would be right. And the only counterfactual to it would be, ‘Well, trust us, guys, it should actually be much more open and in a far more distributed environment.’ Can you imagine the cost and the complexity if you ask the neoscaler to build the same robust KYC or the same VPC infrastructure that Amazon and Microsoft and Google have spent decades investing trillions of dollars in? It's an impossibility, Jason. So you can take all of those datacenters off the map. You can take all of the neoscaler market off the map. All of this was preventable. So instead of a diverse, robust, open ecosystem giving a tool that is the fundamental unlock for humans, we are now going to debate gatekeeping and duopoly versus oligopoly. They have created a total f*cking mess, and it's a shame.”

Chamath: Frontier AI Leaders “Created a Total Fcking Mess” Short-sighted fearmongering and immaturity from frontier AI leaders has created deep mistrust, threatening AI’s potential as an open engine of economic mobility. That mistrust gives hyperscalers the chance to position themselves as trusted gatekeepers, using KYC, audit trails, and compliance infrastructure to turn AI into an oligopoly. Chamath Palihapitiya on the All-In Pod: “I think the leaders of the frontier labs leave a lot to be desired. I think what we're seeing is a consistent pattern of evasiveness and immaturity, and I think that does a huge disservice to the entire movement of AI. The key to a vibrant life is rooted in economic mobility, and I think AI is the grand leveler. It is the thing that can enable everyone to have unique amounts of economic mobility because they are unencumbered to figure out what their upper bound is. And against that backdrop, we have to live in this constant doomerism, hype cycle, naivety, and I think it holds us back. How does it hold us back? Tactically, number one, it creates mistrust. I think that Silicon Valley was already decaying in the prestige that it held in American society. We built important things. Then we veered away from that, and we started building less important things. And now we're at a point where we've potentially started to rebuild important things again, but we have this veneer of negativity and mistrust that are created in large part because we just cannot get our sht together. And the leaders of the frontier labs are public enemy number one. Number two, I think what it creates, which I think is bad, but what it creates is an incredible opportunity for the hyperscalers. And the very simple opportunity is to convince governments all around the world, not just America, that they should be the gatekeeper. A: You can't trust these guys. B: These models are all over the place. C: Let us be the ones that provision them to the world. We will wrap it in KYC. I've been now talking about KYC for a while, right? Who are these customers? Do they have identification? Why are they allowed to run these models? What are they prompting? Let's keep them so that there's an audit trail. All of these things are going to become issues. The Frontier Lab folks made it an issue because of how they've handled all of this up until now. And what does that create? Now that creates an oligopoly for AI, the most powerful economically leveling instrument we've ever seen in the hands of maybe a handful of hyperscalers, who by the way, would make an incredibly compelling argument, and they would be right. And the only counterfactual to it would be, ‘Well, trust us, guys, it should actually be much more open and in a far more distributed environment.’ Can you imagine the cost and the complexity if you ask the neoscaler to build the same robust KYC or the same VPC infrastructure that Amazon and Microsoft and Google have spent decades investing trillions of dollars in? It's an impossibility, Jason. So you can take all of those datacenters off the map. You can take all of the neoscaler market off the map. All of this was preventable. So instead of a diverse, robust, open ecosystem giving a tool that is the fundamental unlock for humans, we are now going to debate gatekeeping and duopoly versus oligopoly. They have created a total f*cking mess, and it's a shame.”

The All-In Podcast

141,660 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Chamath Explains Why AI is So Unpopular in America: Terrible Communication from Industry Leaders “ ICE is more popular than AI. That's where AI is.” Why is this happening? Three reasons according to Chamath Palihapitiya: “Entrepreneurs are A/B testing what it takes to raise money.” “At least some parts of the AI ecosystem have decided that this crazy, scary doomerism is the best way to raise money.” “Where they come out and say, ‘All the jobs will be destroyed; this thing is sentient.’ Anthropic, you know, Dario says that.” “And investors are like, okay, here's $10B, here's $50B, here's $100B.’ Then the investors are like, ‘Hey, where's the revenue?’ And so then they start selling everywhere.” “All of a sudden you flip-flop. You become sort of an unserious, dilettante-like partner to the American government.” “All of that to me is an industry that's still in its very early phases and still figuring out what its place in society is.” “The problem is the following two clips.” Palantir CEO Alex Karp: “ These technologies are dangerous societally. If you are going to disrupt the economic and therefore political power, significantly, of one party's base, and you feel like that's gonna work out politically, you're in an insane asylum.” OpenAI CEO Sam Altman: “ We see a future where intelligence is a utility like electricity and people buy it from us on a meter…” “If you take those three messaging veins on a spectrum, one is ‘We have a sentient super god, we're the only ones that can protect you from it.’ That's Dario.” “Alex, which is, ‘Hey, hold on a second. You can't have it both ways.’” “And then Sam's, which is, ‘We want to sell tokens as a service.’” “The result of those three messages: AI is slightly above the Democratic Party and an autocratic state. ICE is more popular than AI.” “To me this is really at the crux of this.” “That revenue traction, if anything else, has distracted people from actually getting on the same page and being much more methodical, and much more reliable and trustworthy in explaining all of this and managing the expansion of this.”

Chamath Explains Why AI is So Unpopular in America: Terrible Communication from Industry Leaders “ ICE is more popular than AI. That's where AI is.” Why is this happening? Three reasons according to Chamath Palihapitiya: “Entrepreneurs are A/B testing what it takes to raise money.” “At least some parts of the AI ecosystem have decided that this crazy, scary doomerism is the best way to raise money.” “Where they come out and say, ‘All the jobs will be destroyed; this thing is sentient.’ Anthropic, you know, Dario says that.” “And investors are like, okay, here's $10B, here's $50B, here's $100B.’ Then the investors are like, ‘Hey, where's the revenue?’ And so then they start selling everywhere.” “All of a sudden you flip-flop. You become sort of an unserious, dilettante-like partner to the American government.” “All of that to me is an industry that's still in its very early phases and still figuring out what its place in society is.” “The problem is the following two clips.” Palantir CEO Alex Karp: “ These technologies are dangerous societally. If you are going to disrupt the economic and therefore political power, significantly, of one party's base, and you feel like that's gonna work out politically, you're in an insane asylum.” OpenAI CEO Sam Altman: “ We see a future where intelligence is a utility like electricity and people buy it from us on a meter…” “If you take those three messaging veins on a spectrum, one is ‘We have a sentient super god, we're the only ones that can protect you from it.’ That's Dario.” “Alex, which is, ‘Hey, hold on a second. You can't have it both ways.’” “And then Sam's, which is, ‘We want to sell tokens as a service.’” “The result of those three messages: AI is slightly above the Democratic Party and an autocratic state. ICE is more popular than AI.” “To me this is really at the crux of this.” “That revenue traction, if anything else, has distracted people from actually getting on the same page and being much more methodical, and much more reliable and trustworthy in explaining all of this and managing the expansion of this.”

The All-In Podcast

45,219 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Sarah Guo (Conviction) says founders fear the wrong thing, because a giant like Google only ever has one A-team and your product is its 27th priority. "One really important thing for founders to think about is, who are you really competing with? If you are competing with Google Search and Google Ads, you're competing with the A-team at Google. They're pretty good, right? They do know how to do that stuff... But the vast majority of products that any large incumbent has is not staffed by the A-team, because there's only one A-team, right? And so if your product is the 27th priority for Google, it's actually not that scary."

Sarah Guo (Conviction) says founders fear the wrong thing, because a giant like Google only ever has one A-team and your product is its 27th priority. "One really important thing for founders to think about is, who are you really competing with? If you are competing with Google Search and Google Ads, you're competing with the A-team at Google. They're pretty good, right? They do know how to do that stuff... But the vast majority of products that any large incumbent has is not staffed by the A-team, because there's only one A-team, right? And so if your product is the 27th priority for Google, it's actually not that scary."

Fireside Alpha

275,981 просмотров • 1 месяц назад