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

Wow. Classic Jensen style, he ended the Nvidia vs. custom ASIC competition for good. 🫡 The level of confidence with which he explains. 🎯 He was answering to UBS research analyst question on how custom ASICs will affect NVIDIA or how they are going to compete with custom ASIC.... Basically he says - Your custom chip is a science project in a world where NVIDIA is building revenue-generating AI factories. While the competition is still desperately trying to copy Nvidia's last generation, their roadmap is already at the limits of physics. They don't just sell silicon; they deliver the entire, impossibly complex platform that the industry has already surrendered to and standardized on. When you must bet hundreds of billions on your company's future, there is no alternative—they are the only platform to build on, and everyone knows it. Full transcript below. Question by the Analyst - "Jensen, I wanted to ask about customer ASIC. And I ask because if, you know, we listen to some of the same CSPs that you put up on that slide, and we listen to some of the companies who are making custom ASICs, some of the deployment numbers sound pretty big. So, I wanted to just hear your position, how you're going to compete with custom ASICs, how they can possibly compete with you, and maybe how some of your conversations with these same customers would sort of form your view in terms of how competitive custom ASIC will be to you." Jensen's response "First of all, just because something gets built doesn't mean it's great. Number two, if it's not great, all of those companies are run by great CEOs who are really good at math. And because these are AI factories, it affects your revenues, not just your costs. It affects your revenues, not just your cost. It's a different calculus. Every company only has so much power. You just have to ask them. Every single company only has so much power, and within that power, you have to maximize your revenues, not just your cost. So this is a new game. This is not a data center game, this is an AI factory game. So when the time comes, that simple calculus, as I was using yesterday, that simple math that I was showing yesterday, still has to be done. Which is the reason why so many projects are started and so many are not taken into production. Because there's always another alternative. We are the other alternative, and that alternative is excellent. Not normal excellent, as you know. Everybody's still trying to catch up to Hopper. I haven't seen a competitor to Hopper yet. And here we're talking about 40x more. And so our roadmap is at the limits of what's possible. Not to mention we're really good at it and completely dedicated to it. A lot of people have a lot of businesses to do. I've got this one business to do. And we're all in on this. 35,000 people doing one job. Been doing it for a long time. The depth of capability, the scope of technology, as you saw yesterday, is pretty incredible. And it's not about building a chip; it's building an AI factory. We're talking about scale up, scale out. We're talking about networking and switches and software. We're talking about systems, and these system architectures are insane. Even the systems themselves. Notice, 100% of the computer industry, 100% of the computer industry has standardized on NVIDIA's system. Why? Because try to build an alternative. Building the alternative is not even thinkable because look at how much investment we put into building this one. And so even the system's hard. What people used to think, system is just sheet metal. Hardly sheet metal. 600,000 parts, it's hardly sheet metal. And so all of the technology is hard. We're pushing every single dimension to the limit because we're talking about so much money. The world is going to lay down hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in the next just a couple of two, three years. Let's do the thought experiment. Let's say you want to stand up a data center and you want it to be fully operational in two years' time. When do you have to place the PO on that? Today. So let's suppose you have to place a hundred billion dollar PO on something. What architecture would you place it on, literally based on everything you have today? There's only one. You can't reasonably build out giant infrastructures with hundreds of billions of dollars behind it, hoping to turn it back on and to get the ROIC on it, unless you have the confidence that we are able to provide you. And we can provide you complete confidence. And singularly so. We're the only technology company where if I had to go place a hundred billion dollars on an AI factory... Oh, that's interesting, I did. Literally the only company who's willing to place hundred billion dollar POs across the industry to go build it out. And you guys know, that's our, that's the depth of our supply chain. And we are, and we have. Give me another. Give me another one that has that depth and that length. And now to the point where we've got to go and work with the supply chain upstream and downstream to prepare the world for hundreds of billions of dollars working towards trillions of dollars of AI infrastructure build-out. Our partnerships with power companies and all of the cooling companies, the Vertivs, the Schneiders, our partnerships with BlackRock... The partnership network necessary to prepare the world to go build out trillions of dollars of AI infrastructure, that's undergoing as we speak. What architecture and what ASIC chip do you go select? That doesn't even make sense. It's a weird conversation even. And so, I think that one, the game is quite large. The investment level, therefore the risk level, is quite high. And so the certainty that you're selecting the best is quite important. And the certainty that you can execute, vital. We are the company you can build on top of. We're the company, we're the platform that you can build your AI infrastructure on. And we're the company that you can build your AI infrastructure strategy on. And so, I think it includes chips, but it's much, much more than that." --- From 'GTC Financial Analyst Q&A' session (full link in comment)show more

Rohan Paul

149,413 subscribers

208,032 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политика Образование Наука и технологии

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

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.

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

255,063 просмотров • 8 дней назад

Austen Allred on Gauntlet AI: "We're very up front that we're 80 to 100 hours a week. If you think that that's a terrible idea, please don't come." "We're in Austin, all right? That's a sacrifice for a lot of people. If you don't think like coming to Austin for 100 hours a week and jamming on AI unpaid and just building stuff to figure out how much you can learn and hopefully getting a job on the other side... if you don't think that's awesome, that's totally fine. Please don't come." "There are some psychos out there that think that that's a good time. We wanna collect all those psychos. So come all, come all ye crazy people. And if that's not for you, that's okay." "There are companies that come to us and say, "Hey, we want, you know, 100 engineers that are going to sit in our division of printer drivers and sit there." And I'm like, "They would kill themselves." The people that are coming to Gauntlet would not do that. And so we turn companies down too." So we know who we are, we know what we stand for. You know, it helps that I'm one of those people that would've loved that. So is Ash Tilawat, and so is everybody else that works at Gauntlet. "So it's not hard for us to find other crazy people like ourselves. And that doesn't have to be you. That's okay." "We're not trying to empire build or solve all of humanity's greatest problems. We know that there's a limit to who we're addressing and what we're addressing at any given time." "So our goal is to be the best thing we can possibly be for that weird island of misfits. And for the companies that need a weird island of misfits, we'll be that all day long."

Austen Allred on Gauntlet AI: "We're very up front that we're 80 to 100 hours a week. If you think that that's a terrible idea, please don't come." "We're in Austin, all right? That's a sacrifice for a lot of people. If you don't think like coming to Austin for 100 hours a week and jamming on AI unpaid and just building stuff to figure out how much you can learn and hopefully getting a job on the other side... if you don't think that's awesome, that's totally fine. Please don't come." "There are some psychos out there that think that that's a good time. We wanna collect all those psychos. So come all, come all ye crazy people. And if that's not for you, that's okay." "There are companies that come to us and say, "Hey, we want, you know, 100 engineers that are going to sit in our division of printer drivers and sit there." And I'm like, "They would kill themselves." The people that are coming to Gauntlet would not do that. And so we turn companies down too." So we know who we are, we know what we stand for. You know, it helps that I'm one of those people that would've loved that. So is Ash Tilawat, and so is everybody else that works at Gauntlet. "So it's not hard for us to find other crazy people like ourselves. And that doesn't have to be you. That's okay." "We're not trying to empire build or solve all of humanity's greatest problems. We know that there's a limit to who we're addressing and what we're addressing at any given time." "So our goal is to be the best thing we can possibly be for that weird island of misfits. And for the companies that need a weird island of misfits, we'll be that all day long."

Ben Averbook

12,153 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

I got to ask Jensen a question today at CES 2026. Question: What advice would you give to a new robotics founder for them to choose the right application space or the right idea so that they can have the most impact and most differentiation? Jensen's answer (short summary): The real strategic choice is between a horizontal play and a vertical one. Horizontal competition comes from every direction, but focusing on a specific vertical allows you to solve the hardest problems for a specific industry. Whether it’s EMS manufacturing or surgical robotics, that deep domain expertise is very beneficial. Jensen's full answer: Well, first of all, let's take a step back. As you know, NVIDIA, here we were just talking about AI factories. And that AI factory—our contribution, our chips, systems, infrastructure, which is software, and model technology. Is that right? That's kind of the NVIDIA stack. And that's an AI factory. In order to build robotic systems, you really need three different computers. You need the training computer, which I just described. And then you need another computer for doing simulation, because the robot needs to learn how to practice and be evaluated inside a virtual world that's physically precise, so that it doesn't have to do crazy stuff in the physical world while it's still learning. And so we create a virtual world that obeys the laws of physics, and I've demonstrated it several times, and that virtual world is called Omniverse. And so that's a second computer. And that computer is much more like one of our gaming computers, and the GPU that we use for that is RTX Pro. Basically an RTX. And then the third computer is the computer that goes into the robot. It's the robot brain. And that robot computer we call Orin today, and then the next generation is called Thor. And it has its own stack. So Thor has a super-fast inference stack. It runs a safety operating system, like the safety operating system we have in the car, because you want the robot to stay in its guardrails and not do things that it's not confident in doing. And so, you have your stack, and then you have your model. And the model could be fine articulation, manipulation, and locomotion, and each one of those, it could be system one and system two thinking. The technology necessary to build a robot is incredible. And so I just described for you, in order to be a robotics company, you have to have three computers. You have to understand all three stacks, and you have to build this robotic system, not to mention all the electronics and the mechanicals necessary to do it. It's incredibly hard. However, as you know, these pieces of technology independently have been coming together. Isn't that right? Which is really what happens to a new industry, is when there's enabling technology necessary for the industry itself, but it rides on the contributions of the technology advances in other industry that it doesn't have to worry about. And so the humanoid industry is riding on the work of the AI factories we're building for other mainstream stuff and other AI stuff. And our Omniverse was designed for other applications and different other digital twin capabilities. And so all this stuff is now coming together. The question is for robotics, ultimately, it comes down to a couple of different questions. Do you want to be a horizontal company, or do you want to be a vertically domain-specific company? The benefit of a horizontal company, of course, is that you less worry about the application, you more worry about the technology, and if you succeed, your scale can be quite large. However, horizontal plays are incredibly hard. Your competition comes from every single direction. Now, on domain, if you want to be domain-specific, then you're going to have to understand the particular application quite deeply. So maybe it's something to do with EMS manufacturing, assembly of these AI supercomputers. Maybe it's related to building cars in factories. Whatever the reasons are, your domain expertise—could be surgical robots—domain expertise could really be a benefit. My preference usually—and you asked, so I'll offer—my preference tends to be to go find verticals, but that's kind of my preference. Some companies, some leaders just would prefer to build horizontal capability, and that's fine, too.

I got to ask Jensen a question today at CES 2026. Question: What advice would you give to a new robotics founder for them to choose the right application space or the right idea so that they can have the most impact and most differentiation? Jensen's answer (short summary): The real strategic choice is between a horizontal play and a vertical one. Horizontal competition comes from every direction, but focusing on a specific vertical allows you to solve the hardest problems for a specific industry. Whether it’s EMS manufacturing or surgical robotics, that deep domain expertise is very beneficial. Jensen's full answer: Well, first of all, let's take a step back. As you know, NVIDIA, here we were just talking about AI factories. And that AI factory—our contribution, our chips, systems, infrastructure, which is software, and model technology. Is that right? That's kind of the NVIDIA stack. And that's an AI factory. In order to build robotic systems, you really need three different computers. You need the training computer, which I just described. And then you need another computer for doing simulation, because the robot needs to learn how to practice and be evaluated inside a virtual world that's physically precise, so that it doesn't have to do crazy stuff in the physical world while it's still learning. And so we create a virtual world that obeys the laws of physics, and I've demonstrated it several times, and that virtual world is called Omniverse. And so that's a second computer. And that computer is much more like one of our gaming computers, and the GPU that we use for that is RTX Pro. Basically an RTX. And then the third computer is the computer that goes into the robot. It's the robot brain. And that robot computer we call Orin today, and then the next generation is called Thor. And it has its own stack. So Thor has a super-fast inference stack. It runs a safety operating system, like the safety operating system we have in the car, because you want the robot to stay in its guardrails and not do things that it's not confident in doing. And so, you have your stack, and then you have your model. And the model could be fine articulation, manipulation, and locomotion, and each one of those, it could be system one and system two thinking. The technology necessary to build a robot is incredible. And so I just described for you, in order to be a robotics company, you have to have three computers. You have to understand all three stacks, and you have to build this robotic system, not to mention all the electronics and the mechanicals necessary to do it. It's incredibly hard. However, as you know, these pieces of technology independently have been coming together. Isn't that right? Which is really what happens to a new industry, is when there's enabling technology necessary for the industry itself, but it rides on the contributions of the technology advances in other industry that it doesn't have to worry about. And so the humanoid industry is riding on the work of the AI factories we're building for other mainstream stuff and other AI stuff. And our Omniverse was designed for other applications and different other digital twin capabilities. And so all this stuff is now coming together. The question is for robotics, ultimately, it comes down to a couple of different questions. Do you want to be a horizontal company, or do you want to be a vertically domain-specific company? The benefit of a horizontal company, of course, is that you less worry about the application, you more worry about the technology, and if you succeed, your scale can be quite large. However, horizontal plays are incredibly hard. Your competition comes from every single direction. Now, on domain, if you want to be domain-specific, then you're going to have to understand the particular application quite deeply. So maybe it's something to do with EMS manufacturing, assembly of these AI supercomputers. Maybe it's related to building cars in factories. Whatever the reasons are, your domain expertise—could be surgical robots—domain expertise could really be a benefit. My preference usually—and you asked, so I'll offer—my preference tends to be to go find verticals, but that's kind of my preference. Some companies, some leaders just would prefer to build horizontal capability, and that's fine, too.

The Humanoid Hub

40,043 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

DAVID SACKS ON THE AI RACE: "The US is currently in an AI race, and our chief global competition is China, obviously. They're the only other country that has the talent, the resources, and the technology expertise to basically beat us in AI. And I think whoever wins this AI race, that's going to have tremendous ramifications for both our economy and our national security. Clearly, we want the US to be the winner, just like we were with the internet, and every other technology revolution before that […] We know that to win this AI race, we have to be the most innovative. You can't regulate your way just to beating your competitor. You have to out-innovate them. And we know that in the United States, the innovation comes from the private sector, not the government. So we have to do everything we can to help our companies win, to help them be innovative, and that means getting a lot of red tape out of the way… We have to have the most AI infrastructure in the US. It has to be the easiest place to build it. All of the new data centers that are going in, they require tremendous power, so getting ahead of the curve on energy, making sure we stand up all of this new infrastructure we're going to need to basically produce these AI factories… We want the US technology stack to dominate globally. We want to be the partner of choice for the whole world… I think everyone in Silicon Valley understands that the way that you win a technology race is to have the biggest ecosystem […] You just want everybody to be building on top of your technology stack, and that's what we want for the United States." David Sacks w/Marc Benioff Dreamforce

DAVID SACKS ON THE AI RACE: "The US is currently in an AI race, and our chief global competition is China, obviously. They're the only other country that has the talent, the resources, and the technology expertise to basically beat us in AI. And I think whoever wins this AI race, that's going to have tremendous ramifications for both our economy and our national security. Clearly, we want the US to be the winner, just like we were with the internet, and every other technology revolution before that […] We know that to win this AI race, we have to be the most innovative. You can't regulate your way just to beating your competitor. You have to out-innovate them. And we know that in the United States, the innovation comes from the private sector, not the government. So we have to do everything we can to help our companies win, to help them be innovative, and that means getting a lot of red tape out of the way… We have to have the most AI infrastructure in the US. It has to be the easiest place to build it. All of the new data centers that are going in, they require tremendous power, so getting ahead of the curve on energy, making sure we stand up all of this new infrastructure we're going to need to basically produce these AI factories… We want the US technology stack to dominate globally. We want to be the partner of choice for the whole world… I think everyone in Silicon Valley understands that the way that you win a technology race is to have the biggest ecosystem […] You just want everybody to be building on top of your technology stack, and that's what we want for the United States." David Sacks w/Marc Benioff Dreamforce

Ron Pragides 

231,781 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Whitney Webb "It sucks to find out that the mob runs the world... [so] do you want to say, screw you guys, we're going to... get off your... slave plantation?... [because] we can't really keep losing money and rights without being so deep in a hole that we can't... climb out" This clip of Webb (Whitney Webb), a contributing editor of Unlimited Hangout and author of One Nation Under Blackmail, is taken from an interview with Peter McCormack (The Peter McCormack Show) posted to YouTube on September 4, 2025. -----------------Partial transcription of clip-------------- "It's not just about burning it down, it's about putting something better in its place. Of course. And so I think the solutions there, you know, some people are like, oh, Whitney, your work is so demoralizing. Well, I'm like, yeah, it sucks to find out that the mob runs the world, you know, but the question is, or do you just want to let them keep running it because it bums you out, or do you want to say, screw you guys, we're going to build something else and get off your, you know, slave plantation? "And I am in the group of, I would like to build something else. I have three kids. I do not want them living in a world run by the mob. So what are you going to do about it? I mean, it starts locally, it starts with your community, because that's where we can actually affect change. Voting for left or right, blue or red. I mean, it's just this ping pong thing where nothing fundamental is changing. "And so to affect that change, we have to do it ourselves. And you think this would be a core American value? Individualism, individual responsibility. But a lot of people just don't care. And so, you know, that sucks. But I think those of us that do care need, to take steps to be as independent from the system as possible. Because every so often, this predator class, they do wealth transfers or they orchestrate and manufacture events and they make a big grab, not just for our money, but for our rights. And we're at the point where we can't really keep losing money and rights without being so deep in a hole that we can't climb ourself out. Can't climb out. "So what, what should we do before that happens? There is an important window of time to do something about it in our local community and for our families and our friends and our neighbors. And we have to do something because if we don't and that thing happens. Oh, well, I watched all these podcasts and learned about how corrupt everything is. But, you know, and I think they spend a lot of time trying to keep us distracted on all sorts of things and sucked into things that don't matter. So that we just don't give them the finger, basically. And that's what we really need to do."

Whitney Webb "It sucks to find out that the mob runs the world... [so] do you want to say, screw you guys, we're going to... get off your... slave plantation?... [because] we can't really keep losing money and rights without being so deep in a hole that we can't... climb out" This clip of Webb (Whitney Webb), a contributing editor of Unlimited Hangout and author of One Nation Under Blackmail, is taken from an interview with Peter McCormack (The Peter McCormack Show) posted to YouTube on September 4, 2025. -----------------Partial transcription of clip-------------- "It's not just about burning it down, it's about putting something better in its place. Of course. And so I think the solutions there, you know, some people are like, oh, Whitney, your work is so demoralizing. Well, I'm like, yeah, it sucks to find out that the mob runs the world, you know, but the question is, or do you just want to let them keep running it because it bums you out, or do you want to say, screw you guys, we're going to build something else and get off your, you know, slave plantation? "And I am in the group of, I would like to build something else. I have three kids. I do not want them living in a world run by the mob. So what are you going to do about it? I mean, it starts locally, it starts with your community, because that's where we can actually affect change. Voting for left or right, blue or red. I mean, it's just this ping pong thing where nothing fundamental is changing. "And so to affect that change, we have to do it ourselves. And you think this would be a core American value? Individualism, individual responsibility. But a lot of people just don't care. And so, you know, that sucks. But I think those of us that do care need, to take steps to be as independent from the system as possible. Because every so often, this predator class, they do wealth transfers or they orchestrate and manufacture events and they make a big grab, not just for our money, but for our rights. And we're at the point where we can't really keep losing money and rights without being so deep in a hole that we can't climb ourself out. Can't climb out. "So what, what should we do before that happens? There is an important window of time to do something about it in our local community and for our families and our friends and our neighbors. And we have to do something because if we don't and that thing happens. Oh, well, I watched all these podcasts and learned about how corrupt everything is. But, you know, and I think they spend a lot of time trying to keep us distracted on all sorts of things and sucked into things that don't matter. So that we just don't give them the finger, basically. And that's what we really need to do."

Sense Receptor

46,951 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Steve Jobs on how he learned to run a company: Question: "You're 21. You're a big success. You know, you've just sort of done it by the seat of your pants. You don't have any particular training in this. How do you learn to run a company?" Steve Jobs: "You know, throughout the years in business, I found something, which was that I always ask why you do things. And the answers you invariably get are, oh, that's just the way it's done. Nobody knows why they do what they do. Nobody thinks about things very deeply in business. That's what I found. I'll give you an example. When we were building our Apple I's in the garage, we knew exactly what they cost. When we got into a factory in the Apple II days, the accounting had this notion of a standard cost, where you'd kind of set a standard cost and at the end of a quarter you'd adjust it with a variance. And I kept asking, well, why do we do this? And the answer was, well, that's just the way it's done. And after about six months of digging into this, what I realized was the reason you do it is because you don't really have good enough controls to know how much it costs. So you guess, and then you fix your guess at the end of the quarter. And the reason you don't know how much it costs is because your information systems aren't good enough. But nobody said it that way. And so later on, when we designed this automated factory for Macintosh, we were able to get rid of a lot of these antiquated concepts and know exactly what something cost to the second. So in business, a lot of things are, I call it folklore. They're done because they were done yesterday and the day before. And so what that means is if you're willing to sort of ask a lot of questions and think about things and work really hard, you can learn business pretty fast. It's not the hardest thing in the world. It's not rocket science. It's not rocket science."

Steve Jobs on how he learned to run a company: Question: "You're 21. You're a big success. You know, you've just sort of done it by the seat of your pants. You don't have any particular training in this. How do you learn to run a company?" Steve Jobs: "You know, throughout the years in business, I found something, which was that I always ask why you do things. And the answers you invariably get are, oh, that's just the way it's done. Nobody knows why they do what they do. Nobody thinks about things very deeply in business. That's what I found. I'll give you an example. When we were building our Apple I's in the garage, we knew exactly what they cost. When we got into a factory in the Apple II days, the accounting had this notion of a standard cost, where you'd kind of set a standard cost and at the end of a quarter you'd adjust it with a variance. And I kept asking, well, why do we do this? And the answer was, well, that's just the way it's done. And after about six months of digging into this, what I realized was the reason you do it is because you don't really have good enough controls to know how much it costs. So you guess, and then you fix your guess at the end of the quarter. And the reason you don't know how much it costs is because your information systems aren't good enough. But nobody said it that way. And so later on, when we designed this automated factory for Macintosh, we were able to get rid of a lot of these antiquated concepts and know exactly what something cost to the second. So in business, a lot of things are, I call it folklore. They're done because they were done yesterday and the day before. And so what that means is if you're willing to sort of ask a lot of questions and think about things and work really hard, you can learn business pretty fast. It's not the hardest thing in the world. It's not rocket science. It's not rocket science."

Founder Mode

32,217 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

naenia ¹ ⁶³

29,833 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

"You can either produce excellence or you can avoid criticism. But you cannot do both of those. The reason that you don't have certain excellence that you want is because you are afraid of getting criticized. You are afraid of the judgment that comes with it. You are afraid of standing out. You are afraid of being alone. You are afraid of people looking at you. You are worried about what people think of you. There are 2 categories of things in this world: 1) Things that are up to you 2) Things that are not up to you Which category does your reputation sit in? Your reputation is not up to you. I'm the one who associates your reputation with something, not you. You just do things. What's up to you? How you act. Your decisions. Your actions. That is up to you. Your reputation is not up to you. Here's how I know that: You all have a reputation about me and it's not in my control. I get to say and do whatever I say and do up here. I am in control of saying it. I am in control of doing it. The moment words leave my lips, who has control over what is done with those words? You! You are in control of what you think of me. And there's no way everybody in this room is going to think the exact same thing about me. No way. When it comes to exceptional, what we've got to understand is you can spend your whole life trying to avoid criticism and earn reputation, and it still won't be in your control. We can waste a lot of time missing out on excellence we could have been producing if we were just simply LESS trying to engineer what we wanted other people to think about us."

"You can either produce excellence or you can avoid criticism. But you cannot do both of those. The reason that you don't have certain excellence that you want is because you are afraid of getting criticized. You are afraid of the judgment that comes with it. You are afraid of standing out. You are afraid of being alone. You are afraid of people looking at you. You are worried about what people think of you. There are 2 categories of things in this world: 1) Things that are up to you 2) Things that are not up to you Which category does your reputation sit in? Your reputation is not up to you. I'm the one who associates your reputation with something, not you. You just do things. What's up to you? How you act. Your decisions. Your actions. That is up to you. Your reputation is not up to you. Here's how I know that: You all have a reputation about me and it's not in my control. I get to say and do whatever I say and do up here. I am in control of saying it. I am in control of doing it. The moment words leave my lips, who has control over what is done with those words? You! You are in control of what you think of me. And there's no way everybody in this room is going to think the exact same thing about me. No way. When it comes to exceptional, what we've got to understand is you can spend your whole life trying to avoid criticism and earn reputation, and it still won't be in your control. We can waste a lot of time missing out on excellence we could have been producing if we were just simply LESS trying to engineer what we wanted other people to think about us."

Brian Kight

308,812 просмотров • 1 год назад

Two years ago today, Elon Musk introduced xAI with these words: “The overarching goal of xAI is to build a good AGI with the purpose of trying to understand the universe. I think the safest AI, the safest way to build an AI is actually make one that is maximally curious and truth seeking. So you go for try to aspire to the truth with acknowledged error. Does one ever actually get fully to the truth? It's not clear, but one should always aspire to that and try to minimize the error between what you think is true and what is actually true. My theory behind the maximally curious, maximally truthful as being probably the safest approach is that I think to a superintelligence, humanity is much more interesting than not humanity. One can look at the various planets in our solar system, the moons and the asteroids, and really probably all of them combined are not as interesting as humanity. As people know, I'm a huge fan of Mars, but Mars is just much less interesting than Earth with humans on it. And so I think that that kind of approach to growing an AI, and I think that is the right word for it, growing an AI is to grow it with that ambition. I've spent many years thinking about AI safety and worrying about AI safety. And I've been one of the strongest voices calling for AI regulation or oversight just to have some kind of oversight, some kind of referee, so that it's not just up to companies to decide what they want to do. I think there's also a lot to be done with AI safety, with industry cooperation. I kind of like Motion Pictures association, so I think there's value to that as well. But I do think there's got to be some like in any kind of situation that is, even if it's a game, they have referees. So I think it is important for there to be regulation. Like I said, my view on safety is like try to make it maximally curious, maximally truth seeking. And I think this is, this is important that you to avoid the inverse morality problem. Like if you try to program a certain morality, you can have the, you, you can basically invert it and get the opposite, what is sometimes called the Waluigi problem. If you make Luigi, you risk creating Waluigi at the same time. So I think that's a metaphor that a lot of people can appreciate.”

Two years ago today, Elon Musk introduced xAI with these words: “The overarching goal of xAI is to build a good AGI with the purpose of trying to understand the universe. I think the safest AI, the safest way to build an AI is actually make one that is maximally curious and truth seeking. So you go for try to aspire to the truth with acknowledged error. Does one ever actually get fully to the truth? It's not clear, but one should always aspire to that and try to minimize the error between what you think is true and what is actually true. My theory behind the maximally curious, maximally truthful as being probably the safest approach is that I think to a superintelligence, humanity is much more interesting than not humanity. One can look at the various planets in our solar system, the moons and the asteroids, and really probably all of them combined are not as interesting as humanity. As people know, I'm a huge fan of Mars, but Mars is just much less interesting than Earth with humans on it. And so I think that that kind of approach to growing an AI, and I think that is the right word for it, growing an AI is to grow it with that ambition. I've spent many years thinking about AI safety and worrying about AI safety. And I've been one of the strongest voices calling for AI regulation or oversight just to have some kind of oversight, some kind of referee, so that it's not just up to companies to decide what they want to do. I think there's also a lot to be done with AI safety, with industry cooperation. I kind of like Motion Pictures association, so I think there's value to that as well. But I do think there's got to be some like in any kind of situation that is, even if it's a game, they have referees. So I think it is important for there to be regulation. Like I said, my view on safety is like try to make it maximally curious, maximally truth seeking. And I think this is, this is important that you to avoid the inverse morality problem. Like if you try to program a certain morality, you can have the, you, you can basically invert it and get the opposite, what is sometimes called the Waluigi problem. If you make Luigi, you risk creating Waluigi at the same time. So I think that's a metaphor that a lot of people can appreciate.”

ELON CLIPS

21,519 просмотров • 1 год назад

President Kagame on sports shaping countries’ economies in the future: It's not just the future. When you talk about, for example, the arena, the stadium, it's already happening. People are taking notice of that and counting and knowing that it has employed so many, it has brought in so much. And that interaction around people here and beyond, with the rest of the world, speaks volumes in terms of value. So it has already brought in a lot. And it's a question of growing that. And we also know that statistics show that even across Africa, in terms of sports, it's running into billions as to what sports can bring to the continent, tens of billions. I think what we do as leaders at different levels is to encourage people to be part of realizing that story and reaping the benefits. And it's happening. So it's no longer something you just listen to and think it is for others and not for you. Now people believe, they start by believing. And when they start by believing and see things happening, then they believe even more and get more involved. And, I mean, the sky is the limit.

President Kagame on sports shaping countries’ economies in the future: It's not just the future. When you talk about, for example, the arena, the stadium, it's already happening. People are taking notice of that and counting and knowing that it has employed so many, it has brought in so much. And that interaction around people here and beyond, with the rest of the world, speaks volumes in terms of value. So it has already brought in a lot. And it's a question of growing that. And we also know that statistics show that even across Africa, in terms of sports, it's running into billions as to what sports can bring to the continent, tens of billions. I think what we do as leaders at different levels is to encourage people to be part of realizing that story and reaping the benefits. And it's happening. So it's no longer something you just listen to and think it is for others and not for you. Now people believe, they start by believing. And when they start by believing and see things happening, then they believe even more and get more involved. And, I mean, the sky is the limit.

Presidency | Rwanda

68,776 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

ELON MUSK: We believe the AI5 chip will be roughly comparable performance to an NVIDIA Blackwell, and at much less than 10% of the cost Transcription: I'm super hardcore on chips right now as you may be able to tell. I have chips on the brain. I dream about chips, Literally! Because in order to have a functional robot, you have to have a great AI chip. And it needs to be an inexpensive chip and it needs to be very power efficient So we think we believe the AI5 chip will be probably about a third of the power of say something like a Blackwell, an NVIDIA Blackwell, which is a great chip, for roughly comparable performance. And much less than 10% of the cost. This is a chip that is very much optimized for the Tesla AI software stack. So it's not meant to be a general purpose chip, it's meant to be an amazing chip for the Tesla AI software And I mean a couple of things that I think make... like how is Tesla able to achieve such an improvement? I think it is because we are specialized. We're not trying to... you know, NVIDIA has to serve the superset of all past and future customers. So all of their requirements, all of the software that they've written has to work, which is a very difficult problem. Whereas we just need to make it work for our software. And so we're able to simplify the chip dramatically And then we also, I think we're unique in this, but like we have an integer-based system. And integer operations are fundamentally more efficient than floating point operations. So we can do floating point, but the vast majority of our inference is done in integer. Which is, if you're familiar with sort of logic gates, the simplicity of integer... it's integer is much more power efficient, much more silicon efficient, but you have to, you actually have to train for integer inference, which everyone else is training for floating point. That's kind of like a niche technical detail, but it's actually very important. So, yeah, this is going to be a great chip So this chip will be made in basically in four places: TSMC Taiwan, Samsung Korea, TSMC Arizona, and TSMC Texas. And we already know what improvements to make for AI6. So I'm hopeful that we can within less than a year of AI5 starting production, we can actually transition in the same fab to AI6 and double all of the performance metrics

ELON MUSK: We believe the AI5 chip will be roughly comparable performance to an NVIDIA Blackwell, and at much less than 10% of the cost Transcription: I'm super hardcore on chips right now as you may be able to tell. I have chips on the brain. I dream about chips, Literally! Because in order to have a functional robot, you have to have a great AI chip. And it needs to be an inexpensive chip and it needs to be very power efficient So we think we believe the AI5 chip will be probably about a third of the power of say something like a Blackwell, an NVIDIA Blackwell, which is a great chip, for roughly comparable performance. And much less than 10% of the cost. This is a chip that is very much optimized for the Tesla AI software stack. So it's not meant to be a general purpose chip, it's meant to be an amazing chip for the Tesla AI software And I mean a couple of things that I think make... like how is Tesla able to achieve such an improvement? I think it is because we are specialized. We're not trying to... you know, NVIDIA has to serve the superset of all past and future customers. So all of their requirements, all of the software that they've written has to work, which is a very difficult problem. Whereas we just need to make it work for our software. And so we're able to simplify the chip dramatically And then we also, I think we're unique in this, but like we have an integer-based system. And integer operations are fundamentally more efficient than floating point operations. So we can do floating point, but the vast majority of our inference is done in integer. Which is, if you're familiar with sort of logic gates, the simplicity of integer... it's integer is much more power efficient, much more silicon efficient, but you have to, you actually have to train for integer inference, which everyone else is training for floating point. That's kind of like a niche technical detail, but it's actually very important. So, yeah, this is going to be a great chip So this chip will be made in basically in four places: TSMC Taiwan, Samsung Korea, TSMC Arizona, and TSMC Texas. And we already know what improvements to make for AI6. So I'm hopeful that we can within less than a year of AI5 starting production, we can actually transition in the same fab to AI6 and double all of the performance metrics

X Freeze

305,109 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Mark Cuban says AI will split every company into 2 categories within 3 years "When it's all said and done over the next 3 years, there's going to be two types of companies. Those who are great at AI and those who went out of business" "The biggest challenge for a company is going to be for the CEO to make that decision that we're going to have to blow up a lot of what we do to recreate our company" "We hear a lot of stories about huge public companies that spend a lot of money to try to implement AI and it doesn't really get them a return on investment." "Because you already are running your business the way you've always run it." "The things you've considered outsourcing, your customer call centers, AI agents are perfect for. The stuff you would give to an intern, AI agents are perfect for" "But to really take advantage of AI you have to reformulate your business completely to build it on AI"

Mark Cuban says AI will split every company into 2 categories within 3 years "When it's all said and done over the next 3 years, there's going to be two types of companies. Those who are great at AI and those who went out of business" "The biggest challenge for a company is going to be for the CEO to make that decision that we're going to have to blow up a lot of what we do to recreate our company" "We hear a lot of stories about huge public companies that spend a lot of money to try to implement AI and it doesn't really get them a return on investment." "Because you already are running your business the way you've always run it." "The things you've considered outsourcing, your customer call centers, AI agents are perfect for. The stuff you would give to an intern, AI agents are perfect for" "But to really take advantage of AI you have to reformulate your business completely to build it on AI"

Jaynit

196,612 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Box CEO Aaron Levie's defense of software over vibe-coded, n-of-1 internal tools: "If you're Ford, and you're doing your supply chain on an ERP system, you want that to work the exact same way every single time." "The billions of transactions going through that ERP system, you cannot take for granted. So the idea that you're going to go vibe-code that is not possible, or at least not likely." "The other point is: your company has a fixed amount of IT resources. And you have to decide what you're going to spend your time on as an organization." "Do you want to spend time on rebuilding something that the market can supply you, that's seen best practices thousands of times? Or do you want to go and build that out with your n-of-1 experience?" "Or do you want to spend your limited, scarce resources on building software, and building experiences, that will make you more money, and that will actually be used by your customers?" "I think on the margin the average enterprise is going to spend their time and energy on the latter." "I'm 100% bullish on vibe-coding, 100% bullish that we're going to have 100x more software. But that still doesn't cross the threshold where I would want to go build our own CRM system."

Box CEO Aaron Levie's defense of software over vibe-coded, n-of-1 internal tools: "If you're Ford, and you're doing your supply chain on an ERP system, you want that to work the exact same way every single time." "The billions of transactions going through that ERP system, you cannot take for granted. So the idea that you're going to go vibe-code that is not possible, or at least not likely." "The other point is: your company has a fixed amount of IT resources. And you have to decide what you're going to spend your time on as an organization." "Do you want to spend time on rebuilding something that the market can supply you, that's seen best practices thousands of times? Or do you want to go and build that out with your n-of-1 experience?" "Or do you want to spend your limited, scarce resources on building software, and building experiences, that will make you more money, and that will actually be used by your customers?" "I think on the margin the average enterprise is going to spend their time and energy on the latter." "I'm 100% bullish on vibe-coding, 100% bullish that we're going to have 100x more software. But that still doesn't cross the threshold where I would want to go build our own CRM system."

TBPN

34,529 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Box CEO Aaron Levie's defense of software over vibe-coded, n-of-1 internal tools: "If you're Ford, and you're doing your supply chain on an ERP system, you want that to work the exact same way every single time." "The billions of transactions going through that ERP system, you cannot take for granted. So the idea that you're going to go vibe-code that is not possible, or at least not likely." "The other point is: your company has a fixed amount of IT resources. And you have to decide what you're going to spend your time on as an organization." "Do you want to spend time on rebuilding something that the market can supply you, that's seen best practices thousands of times? Or do you want to go and build that out with your n-of-1 experience?" "Or do you want to spend your limited, scarce resources on building software, and building experiences, that will make you more money, and that will actually be used by your customers?" "I think on the margin the average enterprise is going to spend their time and energy on the latter." "I'm 100% bullish on vibe-coding, 100% bullish that we're going to have 100x more software. But that still doesn't cross the threshold where I would want to go build our own CRM system."

Box CEO Aaron Levie's defense of software over vibe-coded, n-of-1 internal tools: "If you're Ford, and you're doing your supply chain on an ERP system, you want that to work the exact same way every single time." "The billions of transactions going through that ERP system, you cannot take for granted. So the idea that you're going to go vibe-code that is not possible, or at least not likely." "The other point is: your company has a fixed amount of IT resources. And you have to decide what you're going to spend your time on as an organization." "Do you want to spend time on rebuilding something that the market can supply you, that's seen best practices thousands of times? Or do you want to go and build that out with your n-of-1 experience?" "Or do you want to spend your limited, scarce resources on building software, and building experiences, that will make you more money, and that will actually be used by your customers?" "I think on the margin the average enterprise is going to spend their time and energy on the latter." "I'm 100% bullish on vibe-coding, 100% bullish that we're going to have 100x more software. But that still doesn't cross the threshold where I would want to go build our own CRM system."

TBPN

383,762 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

How can OpenAI with $13 billion in revenues make $1.4 trillion of spend commitments? (Source: Bg2 Pod ) Sam Altman: “First of all. We’re doing well more revenue than that. Second of all, Brad, if you want to sell your shares, I'll find you a buyer. I just, enough. I think there's a lot of people who would love to buy OpenAI shares. I think people who talk with a lot of breathless concern about our compute stuff or whatever, that would be thrilled to buy shares. So I think we could sell your shares or anybody else's to some of the people who are making the most noise on Twitter about this very quickly. We do plan for revenue to grow steeply. Revenue is growing steeply. We are taking a forward bet that it's going to continue to grow and that not only will ChatGPT keep growing, but we will be able to become one of the important AI clouds, that our consumer device business will be a significant and important thing, that AI that can automate science will create huge value. There are not many times that I want to be a public company, but one of the rare times it's appealing is when those people are writing these ridiculous OpenAI is about to go out of business. I would love to tell them they could just short the stock, and I would love to see them get burned on that. But we carefully plan. We understand where the technology, where the capability is going to grow and how the products we can build around that and the revenue we can generate. We might screw it up. This is the bet that we're making and we're taking a risk along with that. A certain risk is if we don't have the compute, we will not be able to generate the revenue or make the models at this kind of scale.” Satya Nadella: “And let me just say one thing as both a partner and an investor. There is not been a single business plan that I've seen from OpenAI that they've put in and not beaten it. So in some sense, this is the one place where in terms of their growth and just even the business, it's been unbelievable execution, quite frankly. I mean, obviously, OpenAI, everyone talks about all the success and the usage and what have you. But even I'd say all up, the business execution has been just pretty unbelievable.”

How can OpenAI with $13 billion in revenues make $1.4 trillion of spend commitments? (Source: Bg2 Pod ) Sam Altman: “First of all. We’re doing well more revenue than that. Second of all, Brad, if you want to sell your shares, I'll find you a buyer. I just, enough. I think there's a lot of people who would love to buy OpenAI shares. I think people who talk with a lot of breathless concern about our compute stuff or whatever, that would be thrilled to buy shares. So I think we could sell your shares or anybody else's to some of the people who are making the most noise on Twitter about this very quickly. We do plan for revenue to grow steeply. Revenue is growing steeply. We are taking a forward bet that it's going to continue to grow and that not only will ChatGPT keep growing, but we will be able to become one of the important AI clouds, that our consumer device business will be a significant and important thing, that AI that can automate science will create huge value. There are not many times that I want to be a public company, but one of the rare times it's appealing is when those people are writing these ridiculous OpenAI is about to go out of business. I would love to tell them they could just short the stock, and I would love to see them get burned on that. But we carefully plan. We understand where the technology, where the capability is going to grow and how the products we can build around that and the revenue we can generate. We might screw it up. This is the bet that we're making and we're taking a risk along with that. A certain risk is if we don't have the compute, we will not be able to generate the revenue or make the models at this kind of scale.” Satya Nadella: “And let me just say one thing as both a partner and an investor. There is not been a single business plan that I've seen from OpenAI that they've put in and not beaten it. So in some sense, this is the one place where in terms of their growth and just even the business, it's been unbelievable execution, quite frankly. I mean, obviously, OpenAI, everyone talks about all the success and the usage and what have you. But even I'd say all up, the business execution has been just pretty unbelievable.”

tae kim

1,565,901 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

The most epic 13 minute AI rant I've heard in 2026 PS: My parent's heard this when I was playing it in the car and thought Jason ✨👾SaaStr.Ai✨ Lemkin went OFF like Stephen A Smith does on first take PPS: Full transcript below [17:00] Harry Stebbings: I I just wanted to ask Jason, if the people that we want are fundamentally different, the developers that we used to hire, we don't because AI writes the code for us. The marketers we don't want, the sales people we don't want—who who do we want genuinely? Like what is the attractive profile? Because your Anthropic’s and your OpenAIs are hiring, so so what are the people that we want in the companies of the future? [17:18] Jason Lemkin: Look, I know it sounds trite, but but the answer is simple. It's just the expression each year changes. We want folks that are genuinely AI fluent. It's pretty simple. Now you know, maybe last year we called them prompt engineers, right? That used to be a job. I don't know if you remember that actually used to be the hottest job on planet earth. Now no one needs a prompt engineer because it's pretty easy to prompt all these tools. That job died. Okay. Um and now we need go-to-market engineers. Um I think that job's going to die. We need—everyone needs so many forward deployed engineers. Like you can't hire enough forward deployed engineers. But uh you know um but Palantir just announced in whatever their their big their big event—they've gotten their deployment times down over 90% with forward deployed engineers. So that may become—so the this wave of disruption for the titles and the specificity, it's also exhaustingly accelerating. But it's really simple. You meet anyone for any role—sales, marketing, engineering, product, QA—they're they're either they're either they can't keep all of the ways they use AI to accelerate their job from spewing out of their mouth, or they're staring at you. It's there's nowhere in the middle. Like, and the person that comes in and says—it's it's it sounds Captain Obvious—but like, you know, you just had the whatever from Lovable, the the marketing head that was super popular on the show, right? She's just spewing AI-native insights into Lovable, right? It's not that complicated. You hire her, Elena, or whatever it is. You just hire her. It doesn't matter whether she's still in college or a junior or a senior or a middler, a left or right. And honestly, if you interview people, I would say of all even of the best startups I've invested in, maybe 30% of the management team meets this standard at best. 30%. Maybe less. And of the interviews I do in general, it's single-digit percents. It's just and in in that sense, it's the same as ever. Like you either lower the bar in hiring or you hire someone that's actually great. And someone that's actually great is so far ahead of you in how to apply to to employ the efficiencies of AI in their role, your jaw falls on the table. The difference is we used to need warm bodies. That's what's changing. We used to need warm bodies to answer the call, to do QA, to do code review, to to get the blue pixel to go from the upper left to the lower right. You laugh, but you need you literally needed to brute force this with humans. With AI, every day that goes by, the AI—you do not need brute force human beings on your team. And that's another reason they're shrinking. Why are all these new companies so efficient? They're just not brute forcing things with humans. They're just not. They're choosing not to. And so these team—all the brute forcers out there—everyone talks about how bloated teams got in 2021. I don't agree with that. I think they got as big as they needed to be when growth was high and you needed humans to do everything. All you look at these teams that that doubled—well if growth continued at 60% like the rate in early 2021 for 5 years or can help me do the math and every single thing a software company did required a human. You were understaffed by your 2021 headcount. You'd be sitting here in 2026. You every office in SoMa would be triple packed and you there wouldn't be enough humans to staff your company. It's just the world changed. [20:33] Harry Stebbings: Jason, you live on the bleeding edge. I think me and Rory see that and I think the world sees that when they hear you every week in terms of how you run SaaS. For all of the CEOs and execs who listen to the show, what would you advise them in terms of determining whether someone is AI fluent when they meet them for jobs, for talent? [20:51] Jason Lemkin: Here's I realized I was just asked this. I just did a review with a super fast startup growing just crossing 100 million and I was asked this question. And one of my favorite executives, I thought his answer was pretty dated and because he gave me an answer that was about 6 months old. The answer 6 months old is: "I look for folks in my team, I look for you know at what tools they play with." Okay, that was a great answer in like summer of 2025. Okay, I tried Lovable last week. Okay, the answer in 2026 is: "What commercial AI tool have you brought into your organization this month?" That's the test. Anyone that is on the bleeding edge that you would want to hire—now there are so many great products in the market. Okay, there is no excuse in any role to have not brought one tool a month into your organization. Okay, there—now there's going to be better and better tools and better and better products as the year goes on. What's the one you did? And you will see folks with their deer in the headlights to this question. What what sales tool? What marketing tool? What product tool? What engineering tool? What did you bring in? Why did you pick it? How does it working? Because if you're at remotely at the cutting edge, you're all over this. You're looking for the next agentic tools that will radically improve how you do business. This is—you think everyone thinks SaaS is at the bleeding edge, right? You know, you know, all we do is we're just looking for the tools and trying them. Okay? Okay, we're one year ahead of everybody else because we did the simplest thing in the world. Like we tried the tools early and we trained them. We trained them for a month. Okay, I'll give you—want hear a horrible example from this week? Super hot AI company valued at 6 billion. Okay, I'm not going to name it. Um, this week yesterday told us we had to quadruple what we spent on their product. Okay, their agent told us, right? And why did this happen? Okay. Well, at this $6 billion company, no one had trained the agent on its pricing properly. No one had tested it. They said, "Well, well, we've been in beta." And we said, "Well, when did the beta launch? A year ago." Okay, these are people asleep at at the wheel. You want somebody who the instant this comes up, they exactly know what the issue is. And "Hey, when I was at Lovable Replit, we trained the agent. This is how we did it. I brought in this tool. I brought in this tool that that Rory invested in last week. It solved all these issues." That's what you want to hear. And if they haven't brought in a tool in the last 30 days, at least deeply evaluated it. I don't really care whether they bought it, but gone so far down the funnel they can tell you—pick whatever tool: Fixie, Regie, GC, AIGC—I don't care how you went through it, you looked at it, you can tell me the eight ways it would improve the productivity of your business and three you didn't. Just don't hire that person because they're going to run your company to the ground. This is the job today. The job today is not to screw around on ChatGPT and to be a prompt engineer. The job today is to bring the best AI and agentic products into your organization and leverage all the hard work that the engineers have done building those products. That's your job. You don't have to screw around. You don't have to be a prompt engineer anymore. You have to be an agent deployment expert. A—this is the new job we're making up today. An Agentic Deployment Expert. That's your job from C-level to junior. Agentic Deployment Expert. Don't hire anybody else. You're going to regret it. They're going to stare at the camera. He's good. Stare at the camera. He's honorable. We could probably just I could slip away, get a coffee, and come back. No. And I I sound exasperated, Rory. And I—but the reason I am is I can just see I can see my best companies doing it. And I can see some companies I've invested in not doing it. And I want to cry. I just want to cry when they have no ADs on their team. I just—like you're flushing your years of your life down the toilet by not approaching your how you're building this company this way. [24:33] Rory: Yes. And at the risk of being positive, it's worth pointing out two things he didn't say. Well, something implicit why he said—Jason didn't do the only hire, you know, he didn't commit the um employment law, I think it's a civil penalty of saying only employ people below X who get the new new thing because he implicitly said anyone can do it provided you're willing to learn. And I think that's the big aha that's one of the positive statements to make here right? Look and I think it applies—I'm always wary of being "Hey, coming across, hey this this is the things that you all have to do." I think it applies to everyone including investors right? I mean I will say I have found that unless you're willing to invest the time learning these tools you actually shouldn't be investing in them. One of my partners Andy had this expression: "You know, if you decide you want to stop learning new things you probably should retire within 6 to 12 months and never write another check again." Maybe that's down to 3 to 6 months at this stage, right? And I think, you know, it's— [25:27] Harry Stebbings: Yeah, I actually I actually had a meeting with mine and Jason's biggest investor the other day and I—pretend he's not here—I said I think he's the most equipped investor for this generation of investing because I don't think anyone quite sits at the bleeding edge like he does on the investor side. [25:42] Harry Stebbings: Why in terms of using the equip stuff? Yeah. Yeah. In terms of using the stuff, understanding understanding bottlenecks, constraints. For sure. [25:51] Jason Lemkin: But can I just add one point? We can just cuz it's so important if it helps people. Okay, we are—and thank you Harry. We're going through these phases. Okay, and when AI started to blow up for real for us, uh call it early 2024, right? Maybe late '23, I wasn't equipped. It was too technical. I wasn't going to go in and figure out—I wasn't smart enough to figure out how to deal with a massively hallucinating LLM API and turn that and turn that into something magical. Kudos to investors and others that that got it in early '23, '22. I mean I remember I—I guess it was maybe SaaStr Annual '23. I was with David Sacks and I did a Q&A and I said, "How you thinking about AI at Craft?" He's like, "Well we're all in. We want 80% of '23 of investments to be AI." I'm like, "Great but like show me the show me the great ones in market." He's like, "They're all prototypes. We're all they're all they're all proof of concepts but we're all in anyway." That's where you kind of had to be in '23 if you weren't investing at like the LLM level. Okay, I wasn't smart enough. Then we went through this weird-ass prompt engineer era where like you you could torture these products to do something good, right? But you had to torture them. You had to like craft these crazy things that made no sense. Now we are in the era where mere ordinarily smart generalists can make these tools do magical things. And literally I go to these meetings and people be like, "I don't know how to like this is so scary. I don't know how to do this." And we show them our backends. Do you know how to do a workflow generator? Do you know how to do a a decision tree? Like we've been building these since software in the '90s. Okay, if you—I can show you all of our agents. The how they work is novel. They do have to be trained. You can't be lazy and have these agents work. But honestly, the the UI, the UX, the way we interact with them, it's just software. And so my point is: Pick yourself off the ground. This is your time now. If you felt lost in AI era, if you felt like you're behind, you don't understand what all these people are saying on X and Twitter and their Claude and and their and talking about all the 4.6 point Nano point and it's over—like you just it's not your world. This is your time. This is your time for the generalist that knows how to use software tools really really well. And I—this is my last point but it's so important. If ever in your recent life—and this is why you could be all you need to be is young at heart to Rory's point—if in the last three to five years you have successfully deployed a piece of enterprise software of any sort you yourself, not some agency you hired, but if you have deployed it, you can deploy any agentic tool. Any. And you can become the hero in your company and you can become the hero in your functional area. But I watch folks—I'm literally helping a company now that they're adding hundreds of sales folks this year with a new pre-IPO COO—he's not hasn't brought in a single tool, totally scared of it. Okay, it's not that hard. Did you use SalesLoft? Did you use Outreach? Did you use HubSpot? Do you know these tools? If you can deploy these tools, you can deploy a world-changing AI agent. And so this is the time for people like the folks that that were shut out of the AI revolution right now. The generalist folks that are not that know how to deploy software that don't even know how to build software. Like vibe coding for me was folks who knew how to build software, but you didn't have to be an engineer. Now, you just need to know how to deploy software to win with AI agents. That's all you need to know. So many people have these skills and they're petrified of AI. "How did you do that? How did you deploy an AI BDR?" Well, we bought a piece of software, we figured out how it worked for a day, we set it up in an afternoon, and then and then we did spend 30 months training it, which you didn't do with this old software because in the old days, we just had to manually upload all the data, right? And there was no training. The the only non-intuitive part is training these things. And it's it's it's just work. So that's why when I see folks on the management team not doing this, there's no excuse. You do not need to be technical to win with AI agents in Q2 of '26. You do not need to be even 1% technical. Not at all. So it's your time. Or you're going to get laid off. Or you're going to get laid off because you're not going to matter.

Arjun Mahadevan (Mr. LLC 🇺🇸)

37,411 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

The realization over the last two extensions has come home to roost. There is not going to be a purchase of TikTok with the Chinese algorithm. We know that we can't buy the algorithm so we're gonna have to rewrite this whole thing, but while we're doing that, we're gonna try and solve for all the litigation that social media gets all stemming from the fact that the platform owns the data and the customer doesn't. I think we're gonna have to fix that. So our proposal is to fix that and not use the Chinese algorithm. When you issue a chip, let's say you take an NVIDIA chip, that chip is a queen bee. It sits in the center of the hive and every programmer that uses that chip is the honeybee. It spends millions of hours training on that chip, learning that chip, writing code for that chip and developing AI for that chip. That's the honey. There's only gonna be two kinds of honey on Earth. American or Chinese. Now if you want the world to be running on Chinese honey, stop shipping American queen bee chips, and that is what is happening right now.

The realization over the last two extensions has come home to roost. There is not going to be a purchase of TikTok with the Chinese algorithm. We know that we can't buy the algorithm so we're gonna have to rewrite this whole thing, but while we're doing that, we're gonna try and solve for all the litigation that social media gets all stemming from the fact that the platform owns the data and the customer doesn't. I think we're gonna have to fix that. So our proposal is to fix that and not use the Chinese algorithm. When you issue a chip, let's say you take an NVIDIA chip, that chip is a queen bee. It sits in the center of the hive and every programmer that uses that chip is the honeybee. It spends millions of hours training on that chip, learning that chip, writing code for that chip and developing AI for that chip. That's the honey. There's only gonna be two kinds of honey on Earth. American or Chinese. Now if you want the world to be running on Chinese honey, stop shipping American queen bee chips, and that is what is happening right now.

Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful

43,532 просмотров • 1 год назад

Marc Andreessen explains the 3 Necessities for Start-up Success: "The general criteria for a successful high-tech startup, in my view, you see different sort of rules of thumb from different people. But the three big things you always come back to are, is there a big market? And by the way, that comes in two parts. Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and sort of displace incumbents or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big? So big market. Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that causes you to basically justify having a new company? And that's really important. And the way I always think about that is, is there a 10X change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10X faster or 10X cheaper or 10X better? And if it's not 10X, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs, we really have to ask ourselves like, is it really worth doing? Because it's really hard. I mean, it's really hard to start new companies. new companies generally shouldn't exist. Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. And so for a new company to exist, it not only has to like come in and go into business and bring a product to market, but it has to bring a product to market that's so much better than what already exists that it punches through the sort of status quo. And most customers in most markets are pretty happy buying from the current suppliers and so there has to be a real kind of edge on the thing and we look for that in either a technology change, usually a technology change or an economic change. which are often the same thing. And then the third is team. Is the team outstanding? And if you think about this as an entrepreneur, it becomes a question of the founding team. Some companies are solo founders and they can work, but generally most of us, like myself, we're human beings, we're mortal. You want to have a founding team of complementary skill sets. And so you want to have at least one super strong technologist, quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist and then it often helps to have somebody who's like a product or who's a market or sales person or has a sort of really good understanding of business on the team, certainly helps a lot. And so we sort of look at market, product, and team. And the reality is you need all three. I would say, interestingly, if you're going to compromise as an investor, if we're going to compromise on one of those, it would actually be the product. And the reason I say that is because a great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution than a poor market. Because the problem with a poor market, a small market, is even if you do a great job on the product, there just aren't that many customers. It's hard to ever get big."

Marc Andreessen explains the 3 Necessities for Start-up Success: "The general criteria for a successful high-tech startup, in my view, you see different sort of rules of thumb from different people. But the three big things you always come back to are, is there a big market? And by the way, that comes in two parts. Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and sort of displace incumbents or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big? So big market. Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that causes you to basically justify having a new company? And that's really important. And the way I always think about that is, is there a 10X change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10X faster or 10X cheaper or 10X better? And if it's not 10X, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs, we really have to ask ourselves like, is it really worth doing? Because it's really hard. I mean, it's really hard to start new companies. new companies generally shouldn't exist. Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. And so for a new company to exist, it not only has to like come in and go into business and bring a product to market, but it has to bring a product to market that's so much better than what already exists that it punches through the sort of status quo. And most customers in most markets are pretty happy buying from the current suppliers and so there has to be a real kind of edge on the thing and we look for that in either a technology change, usually a technology change or an economic change. which are often the same thing. And then the third is team. Is the team outstanding? And if you think about this as an entrepreneur, it becomes a question of the founding team. Some companies are solo founders and they can work, but generally most of us, like myself, we're human beings, we're mortal. You want to have a founding team of complementary skill sets. And so you want to have at least one super strong technologist, quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist and then it often helps to have somebody who's like a product or who's a market or sales person or has a sort of really good understanding of business on the team, certainly helps a lot. And so we sort of look at market, product, and team. And the reality is you need all three. I would say, interestingly, if you're going to compromise as an investor, if we're going to compromise on one of those, it would actually be the product. And the reason I say that is because a great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution than a poor market. Because the problem with a poor market, a small market, is even if you do a great job on the product, there just aren't that many customers. It's hard to ever get big."

Founder Mode

39,005 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад