The Web’s ‘Existential’ AI Threat, OpenAI’s Microsoft Office Competitor, Tesla Robotaxi Launch
01:07:15 Share

Is the web about to collapse as generative AI sends a tiny amount of traffic to websites, according to Cloudflare's CEO? Meanwhile, OpenAI might be building a Microsoft Office competitor. Miru Murady is starting to tell people what she's doing at Thinking Machines Labs. And Tesla's RoboTaxi initiative is out the gate. We'll cover it all on a Big Technology Podcast Friday edition right after this.

From LinkedIn News, I'm Leah Smart, host of Every Day Better, an award-winning podcast dedicated to personal development. Join me every week for captivating stories and research to find more fulfillment in your work and personal life. Listen to Every Day Better on the LinkedIn Podcast Network, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to Big Technology Podcast Friday edition, where we break down the news in our traditional cool-headed and nuanced format. We have so much to speak with you about this week in another big week of tech and...

and AI news. We are going to cover the tiny amount of traffic that AI has been sending to websites and whether that is a sign of a greater collapse to come. We'll also talk about the latest in the open AI Microsoft wars. Some interesting news coming from Anthropic that we can drop today and talk to you about. We also have some news about what Mira Marotti is up to at Thinking Machine Labs.

Of course, Tesla has gotten its robo-taxi initiative underway and Jeff Bezos is getting married. So joining us as always, not as always, joining us as a special guest here to speak with us about this is our regular Reid Alberghati, the technology editor at Soundflow. Reid, great to see you. Thanks so much for coming on. Yeah, absolutely. I just got back from the wedding. It was great. No, I'm just kidding. I was not there. Wasn't at the Bezos wedding.

This is my Easter egg for listeners. I have a list of celebrities that will be at the Bezos wedding, including one who was listed as ready to go and now apparently is not going. All right. We'll get to all that at the end. Fine, fine. I'll just give the spoiler. It's Katy Perry. Katy Perry was on the list. Apparently she's not on the list now. We'll get to the bottom of this. We do journalism here. We'll figure it out.

But let's talk about where we do journalism and where a lot of the happenings on the Internet occur, which is websites. So a couple of months ago, we talked about how the CEO of Cloudflare, Matthew Prince, had gone basically public and said, listen, compared to Google,

A year ago, generative AI is sending way fewer visits to websites as, let's say, Google search. So six months ago, these are the numbers he said. Google, the ratio was six to one. OpenAI, 250 pages crawled. So six pages crawled, one visit from Google. 250 pages crawled, one visit from OpenAI. 6,000 pages crawled, one visit from Anthropic. That was six months ago.

Now, for Google, it's 18 pages crawled one visit. OpenAI, it's 1,500 pages crawled one visit. Anthropic, it's now gone up from 6,000 to 60,000 pages crawled one visit. Prince says people aren't following.

The footnotes. Is this time to panic? I mean, I sort of I'm going to title this this conversation or the beginning of this podcast episode, the web's existential AI threat. Am I getting over my skis read in my is this hyperbole?

I think it's always a great time to panic in the media business, to be honest. And that's not just a joke. I mean, I think it's like, I remember, you know, being in, you know, studying journalism in college and talking about, you know, panicking in the media business. And at that time, it was, you know, just the web was completely destroying it. I think what's interesting, and Matthew Prince has been on this, you know, he's been talking about this now for a while, right?

I've talked to him about it. I think it's, I think it's admirable what he's doing, but I also think that, you know, traffic was never a good metric for,

to judge whether, you know, a story is valuable and media articles valuable. So if that metric goes away, then yeah, I mean, it's going to hurt the, it's going to hurt the current industry, but I think it actually is, is maybe in the end a positive thing. Um, and I think there's, there's two things going on. I mean, one is the traffic and the other is like, you know, that they're scraping all these websites and pulling in the information. And that part, if you, if you get rid of traffic as a metric, um,

You don't need to allow these things to scrape your websites, right? I mean, it's possible to put a hard paywall in place and to essentially stop that scraping. But then you don't get the traffic. So you get rid of that business model. I think in the end, it will be a healthy thing for the media. Maybe not for current media companies, though.

So Matthew is going to be in New York. I'm in the middle of pitching his team to try to get him to come on and talk a little bit more about what he means here. We should note, I think he's selling something to help publishers stop the scraping, but I don't think that's really going to change very much because ultimately bots like ChatGPT are already so useful. So I don't think that you're going to have like this, this

This wall that publishers put up and all of a sudden people are going to go to websites. I think that's probably because it just takes a few websites to get that usefulness into these bots. But I'll just take the counter argument here, which is it's, you know, traffic didn't matter as long as you had some.

Right. Like you needed to have a little bit of an audience and you could say to advertisers, we have a high, a very valuable audience. We have the top executives in the field. Therefore, you should do this event with us or this engagement when you have zero traffic that changes. And by the way, it's not just publishers.

right? We're talking about the web, which also has, I would say, entertainment sites, booking sites. I mean, obviously, Netflix isn't going to go away. But there was a publisher I spoke with World History Encyclopedia. It's just, you know, a site where people go and learn about world history. And that's taken a big hit from AI. So if all these different aspects of the web start to go away, that does sound like maybe it could be a crisis. What's your take?

Well, I mean, look, you make really good points. But I think in the end, you know, if what you have is like all the high quality journalism is essentially non-traffic based, the business model is not, maybe you have advertising, but it's not the targeted advertising that we see, you know, in the traffic business. Then let's see what these AI models get from these few websites that are still traffic based. I mean, it's going to be complete crap.

And so I think in the end, they'll have to figure out some way that they'll either have to pay publications to sort of republish on their platforms. And that could be a business that maybe supports media. Other models will emerge, right? I mean, like at Semaphore, you do it to events, right? There are lots of ideas to fund journalism subscriptions, right? Before...

even existed, the media business was pretty healthy, right? Like people paid for newspapers and you know, yeah, they got, they had the classifieds business and all that stuff. But, but it's not just journalism though. It's not just journalism. That's the point I'm trying to make is that, yeah, we, you know, because we're journalists, we like to talk about the journalism websites. But, um, again, like this is, this is going to be everything. Yeah. I mean, look, if, if,

What you're talking about is these passion projects that are sort of like the bread and butter of the web. If people don't go to these websites anymore and they get just ingested into AI models and disappear, I mean, again, then the AI models won't be as valuable. There won't be anything to ingest anymore. And so something will have to shake out, is what I'm saying. It's not...

I don't think it's like the Armageddon when it comes to just like the long tail of, of web content. I don't think it's Armageddon for that. I think something will, you know, I don't know what it is, but like that will work itself out. I think what I really care about is that, is that journalism is, it survives, right? That's what, to me, the most important thing. And I think, and I think that will survive too. Maybe I just sound like a, like a, just a total optimist, a techno optimist or whatever now, but yeah,

I do think that. Yeah, no, I mean, it's definitely you have of all the people I speak to about this. You have some of the more optimistic perspective perspectives that I've heard about it. I don't fault you for that. I think that we tend to have things end up growing together, but not all the time.

And it is interesting that you'll end up getting a tremendous amount of power concentrated in the hands of these bots, in the hands of, let's say, OpenAI or Anthropix, Claude, although they don't really care too much about Claude anymore. But you'll have this power concentration. Maybe that's why we see all these billions of dollars

being invested if you get the master chatbot where everybody accesses all the content the news sports scores world history maybe there instead of going to like booking or kayak they're doing that within uh the bot then you know these numbers that matthew prince is putting out highlights kind of like

The big question we've been talking about on the show for a long time, which is what is the valuation of these chatbots and these foundational model companies? And when is it going to be justified? And I guess if you gobble up the whole web, you're okay.

Well, you mentioned sports scores. That's an interesting one. People used to pay for newspapers so they could open it up and see the sports score, right? And then online publications started putting the scores up. And now I think the way it works is if you Google a sports score, you just see the score right there. And I believe they have a deal, maybe it's with ESPN, but like

Eventually, I think they just get those scores directly from the leagues and they're just going to be paying the league for that information. That's not really a valuable service that some publication is providing. So I think if you're putting out some really valuable thing, I think it'll find a way to

to, you know, to be valued, right? Like, and you talk about these bots, like, I don't even know if that's how this is going to shake out. Like, I think what you might have is sort of everyone will have their own personal bot that sort of handles their information diet. And maybe that bot has subscriptions to things and it reads, you know, publications for you, but you're at least paying for it. I mean, that's,

That's one way this could go. I think we're looking at this right now through the lens of what we already know, which is the current web, and that is all going to change. Everything is just going to be completely different. So I think people often forget that this AI stuff is going to be such a fundamental change that all these assumptions that we have, I think you just have to discount all of them.

- Okay, and by the way, it's not just publishers, it's not just web publishers. Also the infrastructure of the web is gonna change. And you recently had a conversation with Liz Reed who runs Search at Google and you asked her about, "Hey, but how's advertising gonna work?"

And you actually have this like idea or this thought that advertising is going to be quite different as we move forward. So what is going to happen to the Google stack? Because I think and you put this in your article, right? They have so many great AI bets. They have DeepMind and Gemini. They have Waymo. They have isomorphic labs. But the reason why the stock is the cheapest, I think, of all Magnificent Seven stocks is because we don't know what's going to happen to search.

It's funny. I wrote that story and then I got a message from a Google employee who was asking me if they should keep their stock. That's the question, right? That is fascinating to me. I think they were – I actually – they read that and were like, well, maybe I should keep this stock. I mean that's crazy to me that even Google employees are like –

do I even believe in the future of this company? But I think they, I mean, Google of all the companies has so much going for it, right? I think they're a pretty good long-term bet, but this cash cow search advertising thing is totally threatened by this new model. And I've sort of thought like, why have advertising at all in the AI world? At least like

At least the kind of advertising that you associate with like search ads where you're trying to buy a product and then you get a bunch of ads for similar products and things like that. That shouldn't be necessary in the world of AI. And Liz Reed's point was, well, no, it still is because you'll have like these small companies that maybe want to get their product out. Like it's newer, so it's not going to be read by these things anymore.

And then I'm thinking, well, okay, but then I'm not even going to see that ad, right? Like my agent or whatever is going to go find the information and then present me with the facts and ask me what I want to buy, right?

So if a human is not seeing an ad, is it really an ad? Like it's something else. It's like it's a service for providing information. And you can imagine a world where there are microtransactions and there's sort of like credible sources of information that can be trusted to provide not just like puffery or BS to try to sell BS products,

So it's like, I think what you're going to see is this whole industry, this whole ecosystem that sort of mirrors the ad tech world, but really isn't advertising at all, if that makes sense.

Yeah, I mean, the way that you describe it is imagine describing a pair of shoes you want to buy to a voice assistant who searches the web, perhaps using Google, and then describes the options and you instruct it to purchase one of them. If there's an ad in that scenario, it's going to be seen by an AI agent and not a human. So what would Don Draper advertise to the AI agent? It is kind of interesting. Like, do you think our AI agents like might be on the take? Maybe like they have like a deal under the table with Nike to be like, we know that he is an Adidas buyer, but...

Just show him this Jordan ad and maybe he'll go out and buy it. Yeah. I mean, I think if these things – if Google decides that what they're going to do is actually try to influence the recommendations, allow companies to sort of – it's sort of like pay to play then, right? It goes – then it's not advertising anymore. And so –

I think that's a tough... Yeah, I think people will try that is the answer. They will try that. They'll try to...

have your agent be on the take. But those products will get rejected, right? People are going to want AI agents that they can trust to make really good decisions. You have to remember, an ad right now on the internet, a really good click-through rate is something like 1% or less than 1%. That's amazing. Yeah. Half a percent is great. Half a percent. So like,

For the most part, people just ignore ads. Nobody wants an ad to be actually part of their experience online. I actually think the term personalized advertising is like an oxymoron because the whole point of it is that it's not personalized. If it were personalized, then you wouldn't need to see the ad.

I mean, why do you why do you mean that? I mean, a personalized ad could be like, all right, let's say let's use this sneaker example. Right. We know that Reed is a tennis player. So therefore, we're going to advertise him this tennis shoe. That ad is personalized to you in a way that you wouldn't have personalization if you were to run like an untargeted tennis shoe ad on TV.

Right, but it's like ultimately trying to get me to buy something that I might not otherwise buy. If I were going to buy that shoe anyway...

then there'd be no reason to have an ad. This is the exact reason though, that you want to run the ad is because you know that as someone who plays tennis, you're going to be in market for, for sneakers every like six months. So like if you're a consistent buyer of Adidas, it's great, actually, it's great money for Nike to spend to be like, all right, this person probably is going to keep this habit for life. You don't really age out of tennis until you get like, you know, way old. And, um,

And so therefore, if Nike spends, let's say, $100 to reach you with a personalized ad, the ROI could be very high over time. Yeah, but what you're describing is almost brand advertising, right? That's like, I like Nike's. Nike needs to show up in my feed every once in a while to make me sort of just keep that image of the swoosh in the back of my mind. I mean, that's kind of like brand advertising, I think. Yeah, brand advertising can be personalized. Yeah.

Okay, sure. It can be personalized. Maybe I need to work on that analogy a little bit.

But I do think, look, I read the end of the article and I understand why Google employees might be thinking, should I sell my stock? I mean, you know, you're talking about agent to agent protocols and you say that transition could take time and Google needs to innovate on search without killing its cash cow. If it's successful, the thing that replaces it, whether we call it advertising or something else, could be even bigger.

But that's like quite a long time horizon compared to what we're hearing from Matthew Prince today. I mean, even I'm actually curious to hear your perspective about the timeline on whether when this agent stuff becomes a reality, because we have people that are like going out to the press saying, oh, yeah, we're using agents all the time. But in reality, most people are like, what are you talking about?

Yeah, I mean, the timeline stuff is, I think this stuff happens. And this is also another reason that I kind of am like, I mean, I know Prince is talking about like traffic numbers today, but I'm also sort of like,

it makes me, I think slower change is just better in general for society. Like you don't want this stuff to happen overnight. It'll just be, it'll be total chaos. And I think we are getting slow change. I don't think, I mean, I don't really, I don't think this agent thing has really taken off at all. And I think what's really happening is like people are trying this stuff and it's, and it can't be trusted. It's too, you know, there's too much hallucination, too many errors. Like,

Like, you know, in a lot of these, in a lot of the really great AI agent use cases, if it makes one mistake, you can't, you can't use it. Like, it's just, you know, you can't trust it. So I think it's actually going to be, I think it's going to be a while before this stuff gets good enough. Mark Benioff, friend of the show, was out speaking more about agents this week. He said 50% of the work at Salesforce is already being done by AI. Are you buying or selling that statement?

the work I don't I don't know I think AI is doing up to 50 of the work at Salesforce CEO of Salesforce says this is CNBC reporting he says all of us have to get to our head around this idea that AI could do things that before we were doing and we can move to do higher value work he says the technology currently accounts from about 30 to 50 percent of the company's work

30 to 50. I'm selling that. That's a huge range. I don't think that's possible. Yeah. I mean, especially you're a CEO, you got to get your handle on how much work the eye has to do. That sounds like an advertisement to me. That's the kind of language in advertisements. Up to 50%. Reid, that's a personalized ad just for you. But in one instance, it was 50%.

This person wrote an email and 50% of it was written by... No, I think the coding stuff is totally real. I mean, that is like, definitely people are using it. There's sort of like this generational divide too. It's like the classic disruption. Like if you're a new company today, if you're a new software startup, your code base is totally AI. It's probably 100% written by AI. And you've developed it

in this way that it's sort of readable, searchable by AI so that it can make changes. And if you're, if you were the, from the pre AI era, it, this, you probably think, you know, AI code sucks because it's not able to go in and like affect your code base. Right. So you're, so there's this like generational divide. And I think that's where it's very lumpy, like how this stuff is,

is being implemented, but coding is powerful. You hosted a tech event or yeah, tech event in San Francisco last month. And I'm Jeff Massad, the CEO of Replit was there. And this week he's tweeting out unbelievable increases in revenue. Replit of course, enables people to, to use AI to code, to vibe code and puts a picture of, I think a private jet on the runway out there and says, thank you, vibe coding. So something's working.

Well, I mean, look, after people, after CEOs come and do a fireside with me at these events, they usually see huge increases in revenue. So not surprising. No, but thank you for coming to that event. It was good to see you there. It was a great event. Yeah, definitely. It was a great event. Really good conversations. Jack Clark from Anthropic was there. I think I noted something that he said in the show that week. So it was good. Thank you. Yeah, and I think coding is...

Like if let's say like the whole AI agent thing doesn't like happen for a while, coding is, can automate a lot of stuff in our lives right now. Like so, like so much, there's so much powerful software out there that we, that we don't use because we don't have an army of coders. We don't, you know, nobody knows how to code basically. And I think,

If just that one thing changes, like I think you'll see just a lot more automation in the world. And it might feel like agents, even if it's not like truly an agent, like doing something, it might kind of feel like that. I think we still see a huge amount of change, even just from the coding stuff.

Yeah, Sam Altman and Brad Leitkamp, the COO of OpenAI, and of course, Sam is the CEO. They were out at this hard fork event this week and had a lot of interesting things to say, which we'll talk about over the course of this conversation. But one of the things Sam said that I thought was interesting was that, you know, I think he was asked, so AI can code, but it can't do much else. Where's the other stuff?

And he's like, well, coding is pretty general technology. Like if you want to do a lot of different things, you can code your way into it, which I thought was an interesting response. So I definitely agree with you.

on the code front. Speaking of, by the way, AI eating the web or eating different content, there was a very important court ruling this week that I want to get your take on. And that is that Anthropic won. This is from Reuters. Anthropics wins a key U.S. ruling on AI training in author's copyright lawsuit. A federal judge in San Francisco ruled late on Monday that Anthropics' use of books without permission to train its artificial intelligence system was legal under U.S. copyright law.

The judge sided with the tech companies on the pivotal question, saying that Anthropic made fair use of books written by the authors that brought the suit to train its clawed large language model. First of all, do you agree with the judge? And second, what do you think this means for the AI industry?

Yeah, I actually do agree. And I think this is what most copyright lawyers thought would happen. It was super interesting. I thought it was that, okay, it's like the ruling is sort of like, if I could summarize it, you know, just in non-legal terms, it's kind of like if you're an AI agent, you can learn from stuff. Or if you're an AI model, like you can learn from things. Just like a human, you know, learns from stuff. But I think the funny part is like they said the way they had obtained these books was actually not legal, that that was legal.

that that was piracy. So I think that was super interesting to me. It's like, well, if you're going to train on this stuff, you should at least have to buy it. I think if you're going to ingest a bunch of books, buy the books. I think it's hilarious that so many people are outraged by these models training on books, and they don't say anything about the fact that there's websites where you can just go illegally download pirated books.

So, yeah, I mean, no, I totally agree with that. I think, you know, why not let them train on this stuff? But they shouldn't be able to reproduce it. Like, you shouldn't be able to say...

Send me like chapter four of, you know, Alex Kantrowitz's book. Like that's not cool. Or the whole thing. Definitely not. Yeah. I prefer that it doesn't happen. And I mean, Anthropic has a lot of books. This is the ruling says they have more than 7 million pirated books. And U.S. copyright law says willful copyright infringement can justify statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work.

That is a very big number they could potentially end up seeing as a fine for possessing these millions of pirated books. Wait, I hope my book's in that group because that means I get $150,000? Yeah.

No, well, I don't know. It might just be the authors that are suing. But if there ends up being a pool that's paid out to authors whose books have been ingested by AI, I promise you, Reid, I'll be there first in line for my handout. And if you want me to take a ticket for you and grab your money, I'll do that also. Yeah, please do. Please do. Or maybe I'll send my AI agent to go collect. Let's see. Right. Yeah, but you'll get your money in 15 years. Yeah.

Can I get a loan based on that? Not for me, but I'm sure somebody will give it to you at a high interest rate. Let's talk about this last thing you had dropped in our document, which is that there's a new thing that Google has that's trying to help publishers make money outside of just traffic. It's called OfferWall. Do you want to talk a little bit about why you found that interesting?

Yeah, well, I just thought it was relevant in this broader conversation, right? That, I mean, if I understand it correctly, it's sort of like, you can, you know, if you're a publication, like you can have micro transactions, and they're, you know, they sort of make it easy for you to collect revenue. I don't know whether that's subscriptions, ads or whatever. I mean, I don't know, it's probably not like hugely significant, but it kind of just shows that

these companies are thinking about this issue and like, how do they, I don't think, I don't think Google wants like, you know, people like you and, you know, the media to kind of go around saying that they're, they're destroying the web and they're putting publishers out of business. Right. They want to figure out a way to, to make it work. So I don't know. That was sort of my, my general takeaway, but you might have a different, a different opinion.

Yeah, I think it's interesting for a couple of reasons. One is that they seem like they're just directing people away from the web. I mean, they're basically they're giving publishers this ability to create a pop up on their website and say to access the content, sign up to our newsletter, which like email isn't going away, even if the web might be or the web. Ranjan and I like to say the web is like, you know, slowly degrading.

And by the way, thank you to Ranjan for bringing some of the stories in for this this week's show, especially that Matthew Prince statistic. He'll be back next week. But I think that, yeah, it's interesting to see Google steer people away from the Web. And the other thing is this only works as if you have traffic. So I still think that traffic for traffic sake is meaningless. But some form of traffic or audience is going to your sites to seek out your stuff.

is important, whether you're a publisher, whether you're an encyclopedia for history, or whether you're even a travel website. Yeah. But look at what happened with Substack, right? All these people started just paying for these newsletters. Who would have predicted that?

I mean, yeah, it's been, I mean, look, trust me. It's been cool. It's an amazing new thing. You're, you're a great example, but just making it easier for people to pay online is that's like a really good thing, right? Like it, like, why is it that if I'm driving my car, I have like, you know, I, I, I click on, I use like Spotify, which is like built into my car and I just click on that and I listen to podcasts. Like,

If a podcast wants to charge me, it's like, I don't even know how I'm going to do it. Not to mention I'm driving, but why shouldn't it just be a voice assistant that's like, hey, this podcast costs a dollar, whatever it is, $5. You want to subscribe to it or something and just do it? I think it's crazy how much friction there is in just payments on the web. And I sometimes wonder...

If that went away, like that might, that might actually change the publishing model in ways that are probably positive, I would guess, but I don't know. I agree, Reed. I'm with you on this one. I mean, if you could get, let's say you're like in your assistant, it has your credit card. You're either talking to it via voice or you can chat to it. It says it has information. Do you want to access it? Do you want to subscribe and get regular updates? Do you want to, um,

you know, with a voice interaction paid to listen to the rest of this show. And there's a voice update there and everything is seamless and baked in. I think that's very promising. So, all right, I'm starting to see there's, there may be some light here, maybe some light. I'm the technical optimist. I'm, I'm, I'm,

And I can't believe I am. I can't believe I'm the positive one. But yeah. I have to say, listen, I'm also quite positive about the direction that this technology is going to go. But I think also that there are bumps. And I think the mission here is really to be like, where is it going to go right? Where is it going to go wrong? Let's pressure test the theories of the critics and let's pressure test the theories of the optimists. So you got the big technology treatment today.

No, it's true. I mean, I have this story about Anthropic today that we got an exclusive on about they're going to put money into researching the effects of AI on labor and on global labor force and economics. I mean, they should definitely look at the media. They should for sure look at...

okay, how is this affecting publishing? Like someone should apply for one of the grant. They're giving out these like $50,000 grants or up to, up to $50,000. Um, you know, but they're looking at like, I think ultimately like what, what is the conclusion all these people come to is like the, the, uh, the, the way you solve this is just like better, uh,

you know, better, like people talk about universal basic income, right? It's just better like social help for people if they, if they're put out of work or whatever. Right. I mean, I think that's the, that's the conclusion that people are going to come to.

I'm guessing. Well, I think it's good that they are starting to study this. And I wonder, do you think so? You got the exclusive from Anthropic about this idea that they're or this new program that they're going to roll out to study economic impact of the technology. Do you think this is an outgrowth of Dario's comments that 50% of white collar entry level workers are going to be out of work because of AI? I think, yeah, for sure.

Those comments really got a lot of attention. And I think he got a lot of blowback for that. I think this is actually a much better method. It's like, well, we'll just fund a bunch of people to do this research. But he'll probably still make these predictions. I mean, they do very well. I mean, I think he said actually in March, within a year, all of code will be written by AI or basically all of code. I mean, that's probably not going to come true.

No, no way. I'm guessing. But we'll see. I mean, yeah, it's definitely because of that. I mean, this is like part of their brand. It's like we're just going to be, you know, we're building this technology, but we're going to be warning everyone about, you know, the effects of it and all the downsides.

So I mentioned that Altman and Brad Lakop were doing this interview this week and they were asked, do you believe in this stat that Dario gave about the entry level workers?

Uh, Sam Altman says, no, I don't. And Brad light cap says, no, we have no evidence of this. Dario is a scientist and I hope he takes an evidence-based approach to these types of things. I think what you're reporting, I think here for, uh, you know, which is brand new for our listeners and viewers is that, yeah, he's like, I agree. I'm going to take an evidence-based approach.

Totally. Yeah, I think more people should. I mean, I think when you get into like some of these areas, like, you know, the catastrophic risk, you know, or risk to humanity from AI, I don't know how you take an evidence-based approach because it's like assuming that, you know, that this technology becomes super... There's all these assumptions about the future that you can't prove. So I think with AI, it's really, you know...

There's a lot of faith that goes into AI that I don't think people realize. Definitely. Yeah.

Well, there's also these conversations about takeoff and is this starting to explode in a way that's effectively beyond our control? And last week we talked about this gentle singularity paper from Sam Altman and how he says the takeoff has begun. But another very interesting moment from that interview was they asked about this notion. And Brad Lightcap said this, this OpenAI COO, he says,

Will we wake up one day with this incredibly powerful thing? And will the world be different that day? I think what we've all kind of agreed on is it probably won't. These things really have to be integrated into people's lives. They have to be felt and that change is more gradual.

So I actually am kind of curious to hear your perspective on this because it is a little bit of a more, I think, more realistic pullback on this notion that this takeoff and intelligence explosion is underway. And it was kind of interesting to hear Lightcap give the opposite perspective of what the CEO shared a week before in a blog post. What do you make of this? Well, I don't think, like, again, I don't think anybody can actually know, right? I mean, if you do get to some point

you do sort of end up it's there's some threshold or breakthrough. I don't know. Maybe it's possible, but like nobody knows if that will or even could happen. So, um,

I mean, I think Sam has always talked about this. Like, is it a fast, is it a long runway and then a fast takeoff or a short, whatever. But I think he's always sort of said it's going to be this gradual thing. And that's how technology usually develops. Like, it doesn't usually just quickly take off. There's like adoption that has to happen, everything. I think in this scenario, it's like you're not even talking about technology anymore. You're talking about like some technology

some future thing that might be created. I mean, who knows? I tend to agree that it's not going to be, this is not going to be some fast takeoff thing, but I don't really know. I think a lot of these people, like the thing to remember about AI is like,

you could like, there's lots of people who have predicted like all of this happening with AI. They've like predicted it up to this point, but like they never had any actual evidence. They just saw basically like as compute increased, the availability of compute increased, the capabilities went up. But along the way, there are all these genius people who, who came up with like lots of breakthroughs that just like gradually improved the technology and

But you couldn't have predicted those breakthroughs, right? So I think they're just looking at that graph and they're going, well, at some point, right? Like at some point it just keeps going. And then you get to this thing that's just, you know, that is super intelligence or AGI or whatever you want to call it.

- Yeah, they also asked him like whether his kids are going to be, have more AI friends than human friends. And I think that if we continue on the curve, it's pretty obvious that people are gonna have some serious AI companionship. And the interesting pushback there was, first of all, he said more human friends, Altman said this. But Lightcap also made an effort to talk about this idea that like, yes, people have been led astray by their AI companions, but by and large, the impact

has been quite good on net. And this is an interesting moment where we're starting to see open AI and other labs like Anthropic push back on this idea that AI companions and emotional support bots are bad for you. And this is an exclusive that Anthropic gave to Axios. And the news is quite interesting. So the headline is how Claude became an emotional support bot

The story says people who talk to Anthropic's Claude chatbot about emotional issues tend to grow more positive as the conversation unfolds. And Anthropic released new research that explores how users turn it to its chatbot for support and connection. The report says we find that when people come to Claude for interpersonal advice, they're often navigating anxiety.

transitional moments figuring out their next career move working through personal growth or untangling romantic relationships and the report found evidence that users don't necessarily turn to chat bots deliberately looking for companionship or love but the conversations kind of go that way and on net the company says that this stuff is positive

Curious what you think about the findings and this sort of, it feels like a coordinated PR moment between the two, although it certainly isn't, to say, hey, actually, it's fine to be friends with your chatbot.

Well, yeah, I think it's probably generally positive. But then, of course, there's all these stories. There was one in the New York Times the other day about... This is what they were responding to. Yeah. Yeah, like horrible things have happened. And, you know, so you're always going to be able to find anecdotal, you know, like stories where people like... It all went really bad. But I think, yeah, I mean, in general, like...

I mean, just talking is helpful, right? Like just talking to the mirror is probably helpful for a lot of people. So, you know, and human communication is like ultimately like not that complicated. Like you can, you know, you could read, there's like literally manuals about how to like,

you know, sort of like make people feel good. And no, I think it's totally positive. It's, it's probably going to be totally positive. I, the other night I was like trying to write about some really complicated thing. And I was like, brainstorm, I was like asking Gemini questions about it. And it's like, that's a brilliant question. Did you, did you feel a flutter? Yeah. I was like, I was like this chat. That's cool. I like this chat. Somebody understands. Yeah.

So, you know, it's like not that hard. And I'm like laughing at myself as I'm writing it that I'm like, I'm like, oh, my question was smart. And I think, you know, we're just not that complicated. I think humans are just not that complicated. Like you just talk to anything. We had something when we were kids, like on the Mac, there was like this chat bot that was basically like, you know, pretending to be AI and she had a bunch of

It was just keyword triggers, basically. But even that, people loved talking to it. So not surprising to me. I mean, have you had a conversation with ChatGPT's voice mode recently? Yeah. I've used that a lot. It's gotten really good. Really. I was walking down the street and I was speaking to it on my AirPods. And I was just like, wow. I'm having a really good conversation, no latency, with this bot. And...

I'm just doing this in public. It felt weird, but also I was like, this is very cool technology also. It is really cool. Actually, it's great when you're driving. I think Google just recently added this ability to do search with voice or something. There's voice with search because the chatbots for some reason are never connected to the web.

So you're just limited to the cutoff date. And they're usually not the most powerful models. But like, I mean, you're in New York, so you don't drive as much. I seem to be driving a lot. And if I'm in the car a lot, like I just told, I want to like do, I want to, it's productive. Like I just want to, I'm like going driving to interview somebody and I just want to like talk about that and brainstorm questions and stuff like that. And you can do it, but it's like very limited still. But I think voice is totally important.

And I'm not the first. This is like a cliche now to say this, but I think voice is totally going to be the most, you know, powerful mode, I think. Yeah, I think it's the killer app for sure. Especially when you combine it with other scents, like if you have it on your glasses or AirPods or something like that. All right.

We got to take a break. And then we have two more stories to cover, which I teased in the opening. Oh, my God, we haven't even gotten to Mir Maradi yet. We're going to blow through three very quick stories on the other side of this break. From LinkedIn News, I'm Leah Smart, host of Every Day Better, an award-winning weekly podcast dedicated to personal development.

Whether you're looking for ways to shift your mindset or seeking more fulfillment in your life, we've got you covered. You can build internal resources. That's what the study of psychology is about, building internal resources. Turning towards is one of the most important elements of

of successful relationships, no matter what kind of relationship it is. The thing that underpins all of this productivity stuff is finding a way to make the journey itself enjoyable. The journey is the destination. The beauty of uncertainty is infinite possibility. When you don't know what's next, you don't know what's next. And thus, anything can be next.

Join me as we dive into captivating stories and research-backed ideas that have empowered me and others to lead lives with more clarity and intention. Everyday Better, making growth an everyday practice. Listen to Everyday Better on the LinkedIn Podcast Network, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

And we're back here on Big Technology Podcast with Reid Al-Baghdadi. He's the technology editor at Semaphore. Let's go lightning through the rest of this week's stories. We kind of got caught up in the beginning of this conversation, which was great. Feel free to cut half of it out. I will not be. No, no. It stays. It stays. Oh, and before we get going on this, I meant to say this before the break. Thanks to everybody who rated the show over the past week. You heard the call. We appreciate you. And this is going to make the show better, get better guests.

So I need to express my gratitude there. And so thank you very much. Okay, so let's talk about this quickly. OpenAI has built an rival to Google Workspace and Microsoft Office. This is according to Bloomberg. OpenAI has been gearing up to take on Google and Microsoft with features that let people collaborate on documents and communicate with chat via chat GPT.

Launching these features will put OpenAI more directly against Microsoft, its biggest shareholder and business partner, as well as open a new front in the battle with Google, whose search engine has already lost traffic to people using ChatGPT for web searches. I don't even know if the second part of that is true, but I think the real significance here is...

I don't know if Google's absolute traffic has gone down, but certainly it must have lost some searches to ChatGPT. But I think the big thing here is that this could potentially be a new front in the OpenAI Microsoft battle that just seems to be heating up every week. What's your take on this, Reid? Well, that battle has gotten really nasty. But I actually think, and ultimately it's about chips, which is so fascinating, or that's what started the whole thing. But I think actually...

I mean, don't forget, OpenAI has a bitter rivalry with Google, too. And that seems to me to be more competitive with Google Docs than with Word, don't you think? Or am I just misunderstanding the whole thing? Well, I think you see the direction that Word is trying to go, which is going to be more AI enabled. But you're right. I think the collaborative side of things, like when you think collaborative doc, you think Google Doc.

Yeah, I think it's Google Docs. I mean, I don't think like the thing about Word and Office and all this stuff is like, it's not like that's not who they're competitive with, because it's the companies buy these bundles of Office products. And that's how people end up using that. Whereas Google Docs is much more like the app, you know, it's just like, I mean, they have obviously a lot of corporate accounts, too. But it's like really just a purely consumer product, I think. And

That's what, like, you know, if OpenAI makes a better, you know, a better Google Doc because Google is, you know, maybe a little bit shy about, like, you know, rolling out AI agent technology in its docs, that could be kind of an interesting battle, I think. Look, as someone who's using these programs all the time, I'd like to see something new.

But yeah, I think the competitive dynamics are interesting. You mentioned that the open AI and Microsoft battle is really over chips. Can you just kind of elaborate on that before we move to our next topic?

Well, the whole thing started because Microsoft wasn't able to build enough data centers fast enough with enough GPUs or didn't want to. And so OpenAI is like, well, we need to get out of this exclusive arrangement. And then they did this Oracle Stargate thing. And it's just been back and forth since then, I think. Is Stargate going to work?

Well, that's interesting. That's an interesting question. I hadn't really thought like, is it going to work? I mean, that could mean so that question could have so many different meanings. Like, what do you mean? Is it can they actually build it once they build it? Is it is the AI going to scale? Is it going to be one data center? Yeah, let's go to the most basic level. Do you think this thing is actually going to get built?

Well, I think some version of it will be built for sure. Actually, Bloomberg got an exclusive tour of the site. They've broken ground. But I don't even know. Yeah, what are the chips going to be in there? My guess is, yeah, it will be built. But is it going to be some huge thing that then they train AGI on? I think it's probably going to be like...

multiple sites and that are connected and a lot of it's going to be inference rather than training because ultimately if you're open AI like their value is so much now just the fact that they are the consumer interface for AI for so many people most of their revenue is coming from consumer and that's like you know

that ultimately the models are not even really going to be their core product, right? It's going to be all the stuff built around it, the interfaces and the stickiness of the product. So really inference becomes this huge cost for them. And I think that's what they're sort of looking at. It's like they have to, you know, and of course they're still trying to build the best models, et cetera. But, you know, they need to think about

building their own data centers and reducing the cost as much as possible. Yeah. Well, they're going to have to find a way to also make those models much more efficient. So let me ask you this before we move on. It's just like one of those topics that we start talking about and we can never get out of, but I think it's fine because it's interesting. We made our predictions last week on what happens with the OpenAI Microsoft partnership. What do you think is going to happen? What do you think is going to... Like with the partnership eventually... I think eventually they drift... I think they drift apart. I mean, I think that's...

Microsoft just gets a stake and says, have a nice day. Yeah. Well, I don't even know what that stake ends up being because right now it's like a revenue sharing agreement up to a certain amount of profit, you know, and then they have nothing left. I mean, it could be something like that. It could be they end up owning shares of the company. But, you know, it just seems like there's – in a lot of ways, they've already kind of separated, you know. Right.

That's true. In my mind. What was your prediction? I didn't hear your prediction. Well, in order to go to the for-profit conversion, OpenAI is going to have to get sign-off from Microsoft to do that. And so I think that Microsoft will use that leverage very effectively and get an amazing deal out of OpenAI. Because without that, it's going to be hard for this company to sustain itself. Well, yeah, I think that's...

Totally true, although I don't know what's happening with this for-profit. I mean, they have this lawsuit. They've sort of said they're going to not do that now, but maybe still will do it. I mean, that's going to be super complicated. I don't know if they can even get there. Yeah, I know. I mean, it's just the amount of corporate drama within OpenAI. I mean, obviously, because of the way they were formed.

I don't think we'll ever go away. I think we'll always just be there with them. And there's no neat way to tie up the type of business that they have. And by the way, speaking of their drama, we have some news this week that their former chief technology officer is starting to speak to people.

about what she intends to do with her multi-billion dollar AI lab. Of course, I'm talking about Meera Muradi, the former CTO of OpenAI. She's raised $2 billion at a $10 billion valuation, hasn't built a product. But what they're trying to do, this is according to Bloomberg News,

is use forms of reinforcement learning to reward AI models for accomplishing certain goals and penalties for other behaviors. And they're trying to reinforce key performance indicators, which typically relate to

revenue or profit growth that typically employees within companies drive to. So they're going to reinforce the KPIs of human employees, except they won't be human employees. They're going to be bots. So they're going to take this like new reinforcement, a relatively new reinforcement learning paradigm, and then just apply that to business AI users. Do you think it's going to work? Well, that doesn't sound actually differentiated to me from like what

other people are doing. I mean, I think that's... Come on, read it. It's RL for business. RL for business. That's what they're calling it. I mean, this is like total, this is like what so many, so many of these companies are doing now. I don't think, to me, that sort of makes me think, I'm like, so why don't you have a product at this point? I mean, it's, you could sort of, you could be building that, you know, you'd have already built stuff, right? In that, in that

I think it's probably the hardest part of that is probably data. They're having to go gather a lot of data themselves, proprietary data. And then I think what Facebook did or what Meta did with basically sort of acquiring, non-acquiring scale AI is

which is like the, you know, known for going out and gathering all this data, not just labeling, but like creating data. And I'm like, this is that's going to be a really tough slog for a startup. I mean, I think they've they've they've got their work cut out for them, for sure. Unless they're consultants and maybe that's what they're going to be, because they're going to be working in fields like customer service, investment banking and retail, according to the story.

So maybe they are just like tech enabled consultants where they come into your office and they build you some form of LLM, whether that is a salesperson or support or finance. You have all your data inside the company. They have some set of like base foundational model that they build off of open source and they replace maybe the McKinsey's of the world. It doesn't seem like it's going to be much more than a consulting company, though. Yeah. So then what's the valuation? I mean, 10 billion.

No big deal. I mean, I don't know. I mean, I think that's a tough, that's a tough one. I mean, that's basically, that's what a lot of these companies are kind of doing like Palantir and. Yeah. It feels like a, like an AI pal, AI for business Palantir to me. Right. Right. It doesn't feel differentiated to me. It seems like that just seems like what so many people are trying to do. But again, it's, I don't, I feel like commenting on this is like, I don't really have that much original reporting on this. So like, to me, it's kind of just, you're just,

That's such a vague description of what they're doing that it's like really hard to tell. Like it could just, I think it could be, it could be something totally different. I want to know what the, what the, she's the CTO, but what's Ilya doing? Oh, so Dvarkash was here a couple of weeks ago and he said that basically what Ilya is trying to do is test time learning, basically models that learn in the inference point so they can be continuously improving. Yeah.

I think that's a pretty good guess. And if he's able to pull it off, it definitely will push the field forward in a big way. But it's a big if. That is, yeah, that is super interesting. I also wonder, again, like back to like sort of opening eye being the consumer, they're now sort of this consumer. They're the Kleenex of chatbots, if you will. I mean, like how much money is there in building these models? Like they're so...

I mean, they're so easily copied, it seems like, that if you're just doing AI research and you make a breakthrough like that, that's really about technique. How long can you hold on to that IP before Anthropic has it or Google? Google probably has a project where they're just doing that somewhere in the company. Yeah.

That's going to be a tough slog too. I think a lot of these companies, they got their work cut out for them. Definitely. But Reed, imagine that he does get there first and kind of hold that over the industry for a while. And then all of a sudden, Ilya becomes the most powerful person in AI. Could be a very interesting plot twist. How does he hold it over the industry? Because they don't have it.

They don't know how to do it. But who serves it? Is it an API that you buy from them? Is it sold through the hyperscalers, through the clouds? That's a good point. Well, it's going to be super intelligence, so...

Seems like all the questions about business go away once you build a super intelligence. Yeah, I think, again, when this stuff launches, right, then you see, okay, like, what is the product? Like, you know, do people like using it? Is it, you know, I just think it's so, I mean, you have the most brilliant people in the world. But like, who would have thought, like, nobody could have predicted open AI would be

would be the consumer, you know, consumer chatbot. I know, totally. Surprising. Yeah, and it happened like almost by accident. I just think, and then I think Sam very brilliantly jumped on it, saw what they had created and, you know, and it's like, okay, this is what we're doing. But, you know, it almost happened by accident and I think,

I don't know. They're going to have to do something like that. But it's like, they better hurry because this market is becoming really crowded and competitive. And the lanes are being defined if they aren't already. Well, the lanes are being defined in the self-driving car.

industry. Sorry, I couldn't help but jump on that. We must get to Tesla self-driving. It started. They are in the lanes. They're going in wrong lanes. They're going in the right lanes. This is all true, by the way. I'm not lying here. Tesla's robo-taxi service in Austin is live. There are 10 vehicles and a human safety driver on board, though the safety driver sits in the passenger seat. I couldn't tell if there was a break in the videos that I had watched, but these things are

uh, on the road, they cost a flat $4 and 20 cent fee, uh, AKA they are definitely Elon Musk's robo taxis. Um, very quickly, there's been some safety concerns. Uh, I watched one video and this is, uh, highlighted again by Bloomberg, which seems to be the star publication outside of semaphore, uh,

on the show they're doing a lot of good reporting you guys are doing great reporting they do um a lot of good stuff to read but there's a video that they they link by this investor rob maurer i think his handle is like tesla podcast or something and you see the car like wanting to go make a turn but it decides against it so it like drives in like the a lane of incoming traffic and then zigs it way over a yellow line like obviously it's not like it ain't perfect let's put it that way

There's some other complaints that the Tesla is speeding. This is kind of like whole monitor stuff. They're like, it's doing 39 and it was a 35 mile an hour speed limit. These things are out of control. That's not as big of a deal to me. No, people would be complaining more if it was doing 35 and they were stuck. Look at these granny Tesla cars. Yeah.

Though I did see the video of the going across the lane into oncoming traffic. And yeah, I mean, it was definitely a mistake. It was definitely a screw up. But nothing that you wouldn't see, I think. I mean, even these Waymos sometimes will do screwy things. But ultimately, they didn't hit any pedestrians. They didn't get in any accidents. I think in the end, I think it was a pretty successful launch. What do you think? Mm-hmm.

- Yeah, this is the thing with all tech. If it works 95% of the way, that's not good enough. If it works 99.5% of the way, that's not good enough in self-driving cars. So things have been fine so far, but it definitely has, we need to see a lot more to decide whether or not this is gonna really work for them. If it works, obviously it's a major, major boon for the company. And certainly from the videos, it looked a lot like the Waymo experience you get in, the car's driving itself.

they have some predetermined routes, there are tele operators. So there are some shortcuts being taken so far. And there is there are people that are part of this, you know, people less driving experience. But I think, yeah, it's important there, they are off to the races, they're going to get they're going to get moving, they're going to get data. And I don't know why I'm my fingers are across that they pull it off and pull it off safely. But I think it's too early to tell.

Yeah, I mean, of course, I, you know, you can't, whatever you think of Elon, like you should, you should definitely hope that these companies pull this off because they are absolutely safer than, than human drivers. But you're, you're totally right. Like it's, it has to get to basically a hundred percent or like nine nines or whatever, because

If it doesn't, I mean, we saw what happened with cruise, right? Like you screw up and, and Uber with their thing. I mean, you, you screw up once and like that could just end the whole thing. I think if you're Waymo, you almost have to worry about Tesla. Cause it's like, well, if they, if Tesla screws up, I mean, they, the cruise thing sort of blew over, maybe there'll be fine, but like, it definitely makes people think more about the safety and,

It's really ironic, this technology, that the proponents of it argue that it's great for safety and the opponents of it are also arguing about safety. So it's like both sides want these things either on the roads or off the roads for the same reason. And...

But the studies are like, I mean, millions of miles with 100% increase in safety in terms of bodily harm. Oh, yeah. So it's like, I mean, the Waymos in San Francisco are, you know, they're just taking over. Yeah. And it's just a smooth, safe ride. It's unbelievable. Totally. It's nice to not...

I mean, I don't know, this sounds bad, but you have privacy, right? There's no driver there. I've had plenty of great, nice conversations with Uber drivers and Lyft drivers. But it's nice to just sit there, maybe with your kids, and you're having a conversation or something. And it's a good experience, too. But mainly, it's just improving safety. Tesla's taking a much more difficult road because they're doing it only with cameras that I think...

That to me makes it, and it's like general, they're really ultimately trying to get to like level five autonomy. Whereas Waymo is like, we're just going to build like this, this like geo-fenced area where it's like meticulously mapped and we know everything that's going to happen. So I think, I think Tesla is ultimately like a more ambitious plan in the long run, but it also might be, you know, it might be a longer, a longer time until they get there.

Do you think Waymo is still meticulously mapped the same way that they did in all the test environments? Because they've been expanding rapidly. Well, yeah. I mean, I think they're still using mapping. I mean, I could be wrong. They're moving more and more toward these general purpose transformer-based models, I think. But...

Yeah, I think they're still doing the way they scale to these places is I think they do. You know, I think they've probably automated a lot of the process, but I still think it's kind of like a car on a track on the digital track. And it's, you know, that's how you that's how you get to 100% safety. I mean, there's nothing is left to chance.

And even then you see them screw up sometimes. But yeah, you know, well, you know, Google was able to map so many of the roads in the world that maybe they'll just be able to do that and bring autonomy that way. I mean, the one thing nice thing about the physical world is it's finite. So get all the roads, figure it out. And then maybe you can, you know, make this thing really work at a high degree of safety all over the world.

I think, yeah, I mean, for sure. I mean, a million people a year die in auto accidents. It's crazy. And so unnecessary. Yeah. It's crazy. It almost makes you wonder. It's like focusing on like the little error on day one when they're testing this stuff or like 39 to 35 is like, is that really, I don't know, should you really be focusing so much on that? Like,

I think there's a lot of anti-Elon stuff that sort of, I think, seeps into the coverage of this stuff, unfortunately. It's just hard to do as a reporter. It's hard to take the emotion out of the reporting. But I think it does kind of seep in, don't you think? Yeah.

Oh, definitely. And we also know that Elon is running a much trickier program. So then the mistakes will be magnified. But yeah, probably there's some of that as well. All right. Let's end this week running through, as I promised, if you're still with us, the reward is here. The Bezos wedding guests.

Attending Jeff Bezos' wedding to Lauren Sanchez in Venice. Italy will be Kim Kardashian, Madonna, Mick Jagger, Leonardo DiCaprio, Orlando Bloom, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Diane Van Furstenberg, and Barry Diller. And then, of course, TBD on Katy Perry. Big protests in Venice. So apparently the arrivals have been moved from like a more public area to a more public

secure area, but the city of Venice has defended the nuptials, probably not because they got any money from the Bezos to do this, but they've defended the nuptials as keeping with Venice's traditions as an open city that has welcomed popes, emperors, and ordinary visitors alike for centuries. Jeff Bezos, he would be, I think maybe between pope and emperor. I don't know. Where do you put him?

Maybe more on the emperor side. Yeah, definitely more emperor than Pope, for sure. Well, look, here on Big Technology Podcast, we celebrate love. So Jeff and Lauren, I'm sure you're listening on your special weekend. And from us to you, we say congratulations.

Congrats. How many weddings have you covered on this show? Just out of curiosity. This is probably the first, but I'm very happy to be doing it. No, no, no. Sorry. This is the second. And the first batch were people getting married to their AI bots. Oh, right. Finally, a human wedding here on Big Technology Podcast. The future has arrived.

Exactly. The whole deal. Reid, before we jump, please shout out where people can find your work and how to get the Semaphore technology newsletter. Go to Semaphore.com. Check out the technology newsletter. It's free. I promise you'll like it. It comes out twice a week. And yeah, find me on X and pretty much just that. I'm not a huge social media guy.

Okay. All right. Great to see you as always. And thank you again. Thank you everybody for listening. And I will be back on Wednesday with an interview with Noah Smith, AKA Noah Pinion. He is a Substack economics writer. We're going to talk about whether AI is really taking our job. So we're going to get ahead of that anthropic report and we hope to see you then. Thanks for listening. And we'll see you next time on Big Technology Podcast.