Speaker 1: Azo Media.
Speaker 2: Hello and welcome to the second of this week's Better
Speaker 2: Offline Monologues.
Speaker 3: I'm your host ed Zetron.
Speaker 2: It's been a funny few weeks watching the little spurts
Speaker 2: of air coming out of the AI bubble. It's unclear
Speaker 2: when it will burst, what will burst it, really even.
Speaker 3: What's going on.
Speaker 2: Half the time, they just all seem to be running
Speaker 2: around like a billion mister beans. But I get the
Speaker 2: sense that everything will accelerate dramatically based on one or
Speaker 2: two big events, things that just knock the confidence of everyone.
Speaker 2: Maybe it's an AI company dying, or a funding ground
Speaker 2: not coming together, or maybe it's a hyperscalar cutting Capex
Speaker 2: Goldin SAX analyst Rich Pirotovsky said last week that he
Speaker 2: believed that everybody was spending simply to remain competitive. Fucking
Speaker 2: love that, don't you, and added that the first hyperscala
Speaker 2: to signal that it can slow the pace of spending
Speaker 2: would likely see its share price rewarded. If I had
Speaker 2: to bet, I think it's between Meta and Microsoft, the
Speaker 2: latter of which has made numerous noises about using cheaper
Speaker 2: AI models like deep Seek and its co pilot cowork
Speaker 2: product Yeah and Also, I should add the Sacha and
Speaker 2: Adela keeps doing interviews where he's like, yeah, no, one
Speaker 2: company should have all that power. We shouldn't rely on
Speaker 2: one lab, one lab being able to be shut down
Speaker 2: at any times bad.
Speaker 3: We can't.
Speaker 2: It's really funny watching this guy change his chew and
Speaker 2: considering how a year and a half ago, a year
Speaker 2: ago he was rock hard for open AI, and six
Speaker 2: months after that rock harder for Anthropic. It's almost as
Speaker 2: if he's just doing random shit based on what he
Speaker 2: thinks might work, you know, like a fucking cargo cult. Anyway,
Speaker 2: as I've mentioned over the last few months, both Anthropic
Speaker 2: and open Ai both started to charge their enterprise customers
Speaker 2: companies with over one hundred and fifty users for the
Speaker 2: actual cost of the AI tooken spend as of the
Speaker 2: middle of Q one, twenty twenty six. To explain, when
Speaker 2: you use a regular chat, GPT or claud account, you
Speaker 2: burn tokens, each one about three quarters of a word,
Speaker 2: up to a five hour or weekly limit, depending on
Speaker 2: what kind of model you're using. So with Anthropic on
Speaker 2: their clause subscription Opus four point eight and Fable when
Speaker 2: it was around, had a specific limit to themselves. But anyway,
Speaker 2: just the more powerful the model powerful being meshed by
Speaker 2: the companies, of course, the more it burns and the
Speaker 2: less you can use it. On a regular subscription you're
Speaker 2: able to burn and I am not kidding eight thousand
Speaker 2: dollars worth of tokens a month on Claude and fourteen
Speaker 2: thousand dollars a month on open Aiy's chet GPT codec subscription.
Speaker 3: All for two hundred bucks a month.
Speaker 2: Pretty good deal, right, you know? It's like the discount
Speaker 2: prices sketch from Tim and Eric that I reference every
Speaker 2: so often just to see if anyone emails me. And
Speaker 2: so Yeah, after years of being able to burn thousands
Speaker 2: of dollars of tokens for two hundred dollars a month,
Speaker 2: enterprises are suddenly having to pay the actual costs. The
Speaker 2: result is multiple companies capping their workers token spend. As
Speaker 2: I've reported, both T Mobile and Brecks have done so,
Speaker 2: and others have reported that Uber, Meta, Walmart, Coinbase, and
Speaker 2: Cisco have all done so. Meta notably had a token
Speaker 2: maxing leaderboard. Very funny again, just changing direction based on
Speaker 2: random signals. None of these people have a plan, none
Speaker 2: of them. None of these companies have a plan. Nobody
Speaker 2: integrating AI has a plan. If they did, they would
Speaker 2: have been like, Yeah, let's make sure we know how
Speaker 2: much this is gonna cost, or let's make sure we
Speaker 2: know whether this is good or not, whether we can
Speaker 2: measure the roy you know, anything that would suggest anyone
Speaker 2: knew what the hell they're doing, but they don't. And
Speaker 2: four o four media reports that Management Consultancy Firm and
Speaker 2: Evil Corporation Accenture, which is an insane way of saying
Speaker 2: that I'm just going to keep has seen what it
Speaker 2: calls soaring token spend based on leaked audio recordings, with
Speaker 2: much of that token spend being driven by non engineers
Speaker 2: doing things like combining PDFs into presentation slides. I love
Speaker 2: this shit is the easiest stuff in the world made
Speaker 2: slightly easier but probably worse, costing way more. You could
Speaker 2: definitely hire an extra, but you could just hire a
Speaker 2: contract to do this. You could iira a bloke at
Speaker 2: forty five bucks an hour to do that for you.
Speaker 2: Maybe the happiest man alive probably cost your less thought too.
Speaker 2: I know, Ugh, God, this stuff is exhausting. You ever
Speaker 2: sit and wonder what you could do with the rest
Speaker 2: of that money I could have, Oh no, not like
Speaker 2: millions of dollars a month. I could have like a
Speaker 2: week's worth of diet coke. Anyway, it turns out that
Speaker 2: telling your workers that AI can do basically anything and
Speaker 2: to use it as much as possible starts costing you
Speaker 2: a lot of money when you actually pay what it costs.
Speaker 2: As I've said before, we're barely three months into enterprises
Speaker 2: paying the actual cost of AI, and they're already screeching
Speaker 2: like they're being pecked to death by birds. And that
Speaker 2: joke is a courtesy of Kisei Kugawa, whos said that
Speaker 2: to me about a year ago when we talked about
Speaker 2: the amount of money that Anthropic was allowing people to
Speaker 2: burn on Claude subscriptions. Meanwhile, the threat of open source
Speaker 2: models appears to be getting more serious. I've heard from
Speaker 2: numerous sources that Chinese AI lab z poos GLM five
Speaker 2: point two coding model is competitive with Anthropic Sopus four
Speaker 2: point eight at somewhere between a quarter and a sixth
Speaker 2: of the price, but that seems to vary based on
Speaker 2: the cost of the task. As far as whether GLM
Speaker 2: five point two is actually competitive goes it appears that
Speaker 2: the hype is somewhat real, but it's kind of you
Speaker 2: kind of had to check your saucing. Open source AI
Speaker 2: coding company Cliin ran benchmarks on a natural bug from
Speaker 2: its repo and found that while GLM used twice as
Speaker 2: many tokens to fix it, it also did so at
Speaker 2: a cheaper cost forty one cents versus OPUS four point
Speaker 2: eights eighty one cents. Opus was quicker, taking one point
Speaker 2: six minutes versus glm's four point seven minutes, but one
Speaker 2: thing that stood out was the GLM to quote client
Speaker 2: cleaned up dead code and verified the build compiled before
Speaker 2: completing something that Opus, the more expensive frontier model run
Speaker 2: by the company that uses billions of dollars, apparently didn't
Speaker 2: bother to do. It's just one bug, but GLM five
Speaker 2: point two seems to score well on many of the
Speaker 2: major benchmarks, coming third on cybersecurity firms semgreps cyber benchmarks,
Speaker 2: with the top two being semgp's own harness, so their
Speaker 2: own thing that they put on top of the models
Speaker 2: running Opus four point eight and GPT five point five,
Speaker 2: followed by GLM five point two, which is interesting.
Speaker 3: It's very interesting if.
Speaker 2: I was Glamy Samuel when I'd be looking at this
Speaker 2: and getting a little worried. I'd genuinely be looking at
Speaker 2: them and even saying, oh, why don't I train my own?
Speaker 2: But you know, that might actually be a bad idea,
Speaker 2: even though it's fully possible, because GLM five point two
Speaker 2: is a true open weights model. It's released under something
Speaker 2: called the unrestricted MIT license, which means you can anyone,
Speaker 2: by the way company, a regular person whomever, can self
Speaker 2: host on, fine tune it, or use it in any
Speaker 2: way they wish. And yeah, I mean in theory, any
Speaker 2: company that wants to use LMS could either run their
Speaker 2: own version of it locally or be on a rig
Speaker 2: that cost tens of thousands of dollars, or pay an
Speaker 2: inference provider like base ten to spin up and train
Speaker 2: their own version. Now, I must be clear that there's
Speaker 2: not a ton of evidence that running GLM five point
Speaker 2: two is profitable for the inference provider. In fact, there's
Speaker 2: really note I genuinely have looked, nor do we have
Speaker 2: any significant signs that customers are moving away way on
Speaker 2: mass from open AI and anthropics models. People generally like
Speaker 2: name brands, and they even though Anthropic shit is constantly broken.
Speaker 2: Go look at their stability page, stability page, uptime page.
Speaker 2: I don't know what you call that. Email me if
Speaker 2: you know what they call that, or I could just
Speaker 2: look after this.
Speaker 3: I'm going to keep going though. Nevertheless, people want name brands.
Speaker 2: People like paying for a company that ostensibly works on
Speaker 2: this and keeps it updated.
Speaker 3: How true is that? Who knows.
Speaker 2: I don't think people are buying lllms because of particularly
Speaker 2: sensible reasons anyway. But what might change things would be Microsoft,
Speaker 2: Amazon or Google offering GLM five point two via their
Speaker 2: foundry Bedrock or Vertex AI platforms. And even then it's
Speaker 2: how does left customers are excited about AI or just
Speaker 2: paying open AI and Anthropic to use buzzy models? Really
Speaker 2: isn't clear. We should know by now. All that being said,
Speaker 2: now does feel like the perfect time for a shift
Speaker 2: towards open source models, se if only because everyone is
Speaker 2: crapping themselves about costs. Everyone is really freaking out, And
Speaker 2: I think that this is going to be the time
Speaker 2: when we start separate the wheat from the chaff, the
Speaker 2: people that actually like this stuff versus the people who
Speaker 2: just feel good because they're doing AI and they don't
Speaker 2: know what else to do with their time, and they
Speaker 2: like forcing people to use it.
Speaker 4: Now I'll get to who actually does in a minute.
Speaker 2: Open Routers ranking show a dramatic move away from Frontier labs.
Speaker 2: The top ten most popular models are all open source
Speaker 2: safe for Opus four point seven at six, Opus four
Speaker 2: point eight at eight, and Sonnet four point six at ten,
Speaker 2: as well as a mysterious new model called al Alpha,
Speaker 2: which is currently free to use, which is probably why
Speaker 2: it's trending. To be clear, anthropics models still dominate the
Speaker 2: top models by task across the board, and that's based
Speaker 2: on the spend on the task. I hate to give
Speaker 2: him any credit though, I really don't like doing this,
Speaker 2: but Scott Gallaway recently made the point that China could
Speaker 2: thrive by AI dumping high quality open source models into
Speaker 2: the ecosystem as a means of destabilizing the major model providers.
Speaker 2: And I hate to say that's what's happening. It's like
Speaker 2: a fucking broken clock. I guess. Zepu and Minimax are
Speaker 2: both partially government funded by the Chinese government and also
Speaker 2: both wofully unprofitable, but neither do so at the scale
Speaker 2: of anthropic or open aim. While both do the kfabe
Speaker 2: discussion of AGI and autonomous compute and all that bullshit,
Speaker 2: they seem far more focused on creating open weight models
Speaker 2: to compete with them. And just for the differentiation here,
Speaker 2: open source means you can share some of it. Open
Speaker 2: weights means you actually can deddle with the model itself.
Speaker 2: That's a flattening. Someone's gonna email. They're gonna be mad
Speaker 2: at me.
Speaker 3: I don't care.
Speaker 2: Sorry, Like it gets the point across, all right, just
Speaker 2: right on the subreddit if.
Speaker 3: You're mad anyway.
Speaker 2: In truth, I think the future of lms will end
Speaker 2: up being locally run models and expensive specialist hardware. The
Speaker 2: underlying economics of cloud based GPU compute do not make
Speaker 2: sense for anybody. You need to make sure the GPUs
Speaker 2: are saturated. You have to buy in advance, otherwise you
Speaker 2: won't like, you just won't be able to get the capacity.
Speaker 2: And if you have less people than you expect, you
Speaker 2: will lose money for sure.
Speaker 3: And if you have.
Speaker 2: More people than you expect, you have to get more compute,
Speaker 2: which means you'll also lose money. So as long as
Speaker 2: you can goldilocks this bullshit, maybe you'll eke out the
Speaker 2: world's worst gross margins in history, or you'll just lose money,
Speaker 2: which is what everyone's doing.
Speaker 3: But I think there may be.
Speaker 2: A point at which ZEPU, minimacs or even American model
Speaker 2: developers start focusing more on services driven custom deployments and
Speaker 2: become boring, ugly licensed driven monstrosities like Oracle.
Speaker 3: And that's the thing.
Speaker 2: I've talked to quite a few people recently and they
Speaker 2: are all saying the same thing. They've even in Vidia
Speaker 2: is moving into this realm and they're selling these giant
Speaker 2: hundred grand machines. I think that's kind of interesting. And
Speaker 2: like I said, that GPU compute, it requires a certain
Speaker 2: critical mass of customer demand that I don't believe will
Speaker 2: exist once the cargo culture of the AI bubble passes,
Speaker 2: because GPU commitments are done a few years in advance,
Speaker 2: and any drop Paul Lull kills the margins of even
Speaker 2: a cheap to run model. Remember Baseten just they're an
Speaker 2: influence provider. They just raise one and a half billion dollars.
Speaker 2: They're not profitable. I mean, ZEPU isn't profitable, and they
Speaker 2: do the same thing open ai does with their stuff
Speaker 2: where they say, oh yeah, yeah, our cost of revenue,
Speaker 2: it's lower than our revenue. However, when you add the
Speaker 2: sales and marketing, it's actually it's actually unprofitable as well.
Speaker 2: Oh also we lose hundreds of millions of dollars because
Speaker 2: of training. Other than that, we're super profitable. Yeah, it's
Speaker 2: really fucking stupid industry. And look, even if GLM five
Speaker 2: point two can do things at half the cost of
Speaker 2: OPAHS four point eight, that's still half of what in
Speaker 2: some cases is hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars
Speaker 2: a month. I've heard tell from multiple source is that
Speaker 2: that hardware demand is growing and that customers at big
Speaker 2: companies are starting to look into those high end hardware solutions.
Speaker 2: And I think that that is the only future for
Speaker 2: this stuff, and I think it would reduce the cost
Speaker 2: significantly for the end user, probably keep this shit off
Speaker 2: the internet, massively marginalize the damage that LM based code
Speaker 2: can do by focusing on people actually give enough of
Speaker 2: a shit to buy the buy the actual machines. And
Speaker 2: ah No, I feel like an actual serious fiscal commitment
Speaker 2: makes companies take things a little bit more seriously, unless,
Speaker 2: of course, your Microsoft, Google and Amazon and meta buying GPUs,
Speaker 2: at which case you gives a shit. But I mean,
Speaker 2: if this takes off, it is it's curtains vazousha. It's
Speaker 2: it's a bad time for Open AI and Anthropic unless
Speaker 2: they too start doing these hardware driven things. This is
Speaker 2: just a guess. This is just a guess they would
Speaker 2: ever think about that. But I think it's possible. I
Speaker 2: think it's really the only economically viable end for this
Speaker 2: unless there are just going to be companies that lose
Speaker 2: billions of dollars a year for no apparent reason. I
Speaker 2: just don't think that's gonna happen. It's not enough money
Speaker 2: to do it. And goddamn, please go and listen to
Speaker 2: the Open AI will not get bailed out AI is
Speaker 2: not too big to Fail podcast They did.
Speaker 3: I'm tired of.
Speaker 2: Getting Please don't please stop emailing me.
Speaker 3: I love hearing from you.
Speaker 2: I really I would love to hear from you all
Speaker 2: more other than the people who email me saying I
Speaker 2: think the GPUs all for surveillance.
Speaker 1: I think it's all that. I think it's a big
Speaker 1: going s that's called Oracle. Oracle's first client was the CIA.
Speaker 1: Oracle has a giant government gpu array. They have several
Speaker 1: of them.
Speaker 2: Jesus Christ, that's already happening, and they're not doing surveillance
Speaker 2: on that. They did that with Maven, they did it
Speaker 2: with the promise software. Jesus fucking Christ. Sorry, I understand
Speaker 2: that I sound agitated here. It's just that if the
Speaker 2: only choice you can make when looking at something is
Speaker 2: to say, well, bad thing will definitely happen, that's not
Speaker 2: actually an intellectual pursuit. It's just crapping yourself. It's just saying, well,
Speaker 2: everything's bad, so everything stays bad. I actually want to
Speaker 2: bring you a message of hope. I don't think these
Speaker 2: companies get bailed down. I don't think they get anything.
Speaker 2: I think that they get allowed to die. I think
Speaker 2: partner assets might be scooped up by Amazon, Google and Microsoft.
Speaker 2: I think the government might take a chunk out of them.
Speaker 2: Perhaps they get some sort of bridge financing. But I
Speaker 2: actually don't know if the government could even extend that
Speaker 2: because AI is very unpopular with regular people. Regular people
Speaker 2: do not like this, and they hate data centers, and
Speaker 2: they have intelligently connected data centers, these horrible AI companies,
Speaker 2: and so in the end, I tell you please stop
Speaker 2: emailing me. The surveillance thing. Hey, it's not true. You're wrong.
Speaker 2: You sound you sound like someone that wants to be
Speaker 2: paranoid but doesn't want to do the reading well enough
Speaker 2: to be paranoid. If you want to be paranoid, go
Speaker 2: read the promised software. Go look at Oracle like Go
Speaker 2: look at the actual history of these companies if you
Speaker 2: want to be freaked out by something.
Speaker 3: But in truth, the AI industry is just.
Speaker 2: A direction the zeg Grigor of capital bumbles about and
Speaker 2: is only kept alive by a belief system that's mostly
Speaker 2: growth focused and doesn't really understand how to run a
Speaker 2: business anymore or even build innovation or technology. And it's
Speaker 2: blatantly obvious that lms are at best a classic risk
Speaker 2: versus reward software tool for the real sickos that know
Speaker 2: what they're getting into. But the problem is it's been
Speaker 2: sold as this mass market panacea for basically any problem.
Speaker 2: And I'll say that my thesis remains undeterred. I believe
Speaker 2: a great deal of AI usage is cargo cult shit
Speaker 2: driven by executives that don't do any work and people
Speaker 2: that feel pressured into adopting AI by their peers on
Speaker 2: the media, or of course, people that spend twelve to
Speaker 2: eighteen hours a day on Twitter who just follow the algorithm.
Speaker 2: I call it the Dunce's Casino because you just crank
Speaker 2: the thing and a bunch of insane people come out.
Speaker 2: And all of these people come out and they're like, if.
Speaker 3: You don't use agents, you're going to die.
Speaker 2: They're going to kill your wife, They're going to eat
Speaker 2: your dog.
Speaker 1: If you don't use loops, Boris Journey's going to blow
Speaker 1: up your house. Ah.
Speaker 2: Twitter is driving people insane using AI, but not because
Speaker 2: of groc or anything, but because it just fire hoses
Speaker 2: nutters into your feed who will constantly make you feel
Speaker 2: terrible for not picking up the next AI thing. It's
Speaker 2: this insane. It's I keep saying cargo cult because that's
Speaker 2: what it is. It's people just going around being like, yeah,
Speaker 2: you know, this is the big thing now.
Speaker 3: We all like that, right, we love it, We love it.
Speaker 3: It's good.
Speaker 2: If we all follow this, the great prophecy will come
Speaker 2: true and everyone then everyone will make money somewhere somehow.
Speaker 2: I think it's sickness. It's a genuine sickness. So I
Speaker 2: went a little Tucker cos and there, what's going on?
Speaker 2: Why are we using lms.
Speaker 3: What are they going to do to us? What are
Speaker 3: they going to do to your family?
Speaker 2: But anyway, back to the podcast, back to the monologue,
Speaker 2: I apologize for out libbing. I must be clear as well.
Speaker 2: I do love hearing from you because I keep getting
Speaker 2: emails from people that actually use AI, and I got
Speaker 2: one just before I started recording this from a bloke
Speaker 2: who said, and I quote, he's used it to deliver
Speaker 2: a good work and seeing it tried to submit absolute cramp.
Speaker 2: And that really is the AI industry. Hey, you know,
Speaker 2: sometime it works, and when it does, it's all right,
Speaker 2: and when it doesn't is dogshit. Yay, great, I'm so
Speaker 2: glad we sunk a trillion plus dollars into this. Look,
Speaker 2: these are specialist tools that are being forced to solve
Speaker 2: generalist problems, and they're probabilistic models that fail to do
Speaker 2: deterministic things, and they're really just an eternal financial black
Speaker 2: hole for anyone trying to scale them into a Google
Speaker 2: search or a meta sized business. And it's never going
Speaker 2: to work like that. Just before this, as well, I
Speaker 2: saw that Broadcom and open Ai announced their Jalipino chip
Speaker 2: is giant dinner place sized motherfucker.
Speaker 3: Dinner place, dinner plate. I'm not fixing that.
Speaker 2: And it's funny because everyone's doing the cargo culture around it.
Speaker 2: They're all like, oh, well, it's going to bring down
Speaker 2: inference costs. If they did that, that would fix everything.
Speaker 2: If Kalapino fixes everything, then everything will work out. There's
Speaker 2: no proof that that's the case. Actually, here's the thing.
Speaker 2: If you want if you want to like, here's a
Speaker 2: specific request if you have an information subscription. At some
Speaker 2: point in the last year, I know there was an
Speaker 2: information story that suggested that the Broadcom's open Ai chip
Speaker 2: would have modest gains. If you bring that to me,
Speaker 2: I will fuck it. I will venmo you five dollars
Speaker 2: if you can bring me that story. Seriously, I need
Speaker 2: that story because I'm pretty sure that if Broadcom's chip
Speaker 2: was going to change everything for open Ai, open Ai
Speaker 2: would sink every fucking dollar they had into it. Open
Speaker 2: Ai would dispense within video. Instead, it's like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 2: we're getting Microsoft to pay for some of it, and
Speaker 2: it'll be there in twenty twenty seven.
Speaker 3: Maybe. Uh oh no.
Speaker 2: Sounds like something you pre ordered on Kickstarter and you
Speaker 2: got it and it kind of sucks and it turns
Speaker 2: out the video is AI generated, which I did just
Speaker 2: see with this thing where someone had done a Kickstarter
Speaker 2: where it's a yeah, you can build things using real
Speaker 2: principles and you pour your own cement, but it's really
Speaker 2: small and the whole thing is AI generated. Fucking how
Speaker 2: this industry really is miserable?
Speaker 3: Isn't it?
Speaker 2: All the people every other era, other than of course
Speaker 2: crypto and the metaverse, when something cool happened. Even in
Speaker 2: the augmented reality era, there were still people doing goofy,
Speaker 2: funny shit. There were still people doing really interesting things
Speaker 2: with computer vision. There were people doing interesting things with
Speaker 2: depth sensing. The fact you can measure stuff on your
Speaker 2: iPhone I'm pretty sure you can do on Android too,
Speaker 2: is because of depth sensing cameras and augmented reality.
Speaker 3: It's cool.
Speaker 2: The snap spectacles are embarrassing, and if you get them,
Speaker 2: I assume that people will just come and beat you up.
Speaker 2: I mean it triggers a deep bully instinct. I think
Speaker 2: in ninety percent of human beings, you look like Roy Orbison,
Speaker 2: but so much worse and with so much less talent.
Speaker 2: Hell no, this whole era pisses me off. That's the
Speaker 2: long and shure of it. I think you've probably got
Speaker 2: that by this point. I and apologize that I've been
Speaker 2: a little all over the place of this monologue. But
Speaker 2: it has been a long few months. I've still got
Speaker 2: plenty of energy, but this has definitely been a tough
Speaker 2: few But it's hard to tell what happens next. I
Speaker 2: know it's hard. I know you asked me when it
Speaker 2: will burst. I truly don't know. But I'm gonna do
Speaker 2: my best every week to inform you, keep you up
Speaker 2: to date, and to try and explain what the fuck
Speaker 2: is going on, because quite frankly, I don't think most
Speaker 2: people have any idea, and I think that that's actually
Speaker 2: the story of the moment, because when you look around
Speaker 2: the tech industry right now, does this strike you as
Speaker 2: an industry full of leaders or followers? Meta is apparently
Speaker 2: working on a polymarket competitor after releasing some new three
Speaker 2: hundred dollars fucking glasses that only perverts will wear. What
Speaker 2: Microsoft a year ago was saying open source was bad,
Speaker 2: now it's good. Six months ago, Anthropic was good. Now
Speaker 2: most of a Sulliman says they're too expensive and they're
Speaker 2: going to stop working with them. This is an industry
Speaker 2: full of people working things out as they go along.
Speaker 2: Except the difference between you and them is that they
Speaker 2: have billions of dollars, billions and dollars, billions and dollars
Speaker 2: I'm keeping it billions of dollars, and also all the
Speaker 2: talent and all the resources and all the ability to
Speaker 2: raise that they could do anything.
Speaker 3: And they choose to do this.
Speaker 2: Remember that even when this era ends, remember that this
Speaker 2: is what they chose to do. This is the intentional
Speaker 2: choice of Google, Microsoft, Meta and Amazon. They could have
Speaker 2: done anything else, anything, And there are real problems they
Speaker 2: could solve. There are problems they could solve with their
Speaker 2: own fucking problems that they've caused with their apps. They
Speaker 2: could make Facebook better or Instagram better, except doing so
Speaker 2: with lower their revenue.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Microsoft could redesign the office suite to work to actually
Speaker 2: work to They could make Microsoft teams stable. Google Search
Speaker 2: could work again again. It would lower the growth, It
Speaker 2: would make the growth go down. And I think by
Speaker 2: the time these fuck nuts realize that they have a
Speaker 2: real problem, they'll realize that they've pissed away the only
Speaker 2: opportunity they really had to change direction, because had they
Speaker 2: started this era and just been like, we're out of
Speaker 2: hypergrowth ideas now. They probably wouldn't say it in those
Speaker 2: exact words. They could have said, this is the era
Speaker 2: of experimentation, this is finding our new business lines the
Speaker 2: next Google search and announced it like some world's fair bullshit.
Speaker 2: Oh no, Maybe the markets wouldn't have been quite as happy,
Speaker 2: but they'd be happier that they're going to be at
Speaker 2: the end of this era. And I think in the end,
Speaker 2: it's frustrating to watch because logic and reason have gone
Speaker 2: out the window. But gravity exists and this era will
Speaker 2: come to an end. And next week we've got an
Speaker 2: awesome interview something that's not about AI for once, with
Speaker 2: two writers from The Wall Street Journal about the greasy, nasty,
Speaker 2: freaky world of poly markets influencer marketing involving all sorts
Speaker 2: of weird shit, like ads that include fake bets on
Speaker 2: fake poly market websites, genuinely weird shit, And that'll be
Speaker 2: coming up next Wednesday. I enjoy hearing from you. Please
Speaker 2: email me itron a Easyatbetter Offline dot com. Jesus Christ,
Speaker 2: I messed up my own email. It's been a long
Speaker 2: few weeks, folks, but I'm loving hearing from you. Please
Speaker 2: email me, please jump on the subreddit. I love to
Speaker 2: hear from you. I love feedback. I love feedback. That's reasonable.
Speaker 2: If you send me a typo correction, I'm only going
Speaker 2: to get mad.
Speaker 3: But I do.
Speaker 2: Love hearing from you, even the typo correctors, even the pedants.
Speaker 2: I love having the feedback.
Speaker 3: And I love you all. I love you all. I
Speaker 3: enjoy hearing from you.
Speaker 2: I enjoy being here and speaking to you, and I'll
Speaker 2: speak to you next week.
Speaker 3: Zitron out