Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
TBPN is a live tech talk show hosted by John Coogan and Jordi Hays, streaming weekdays from 11–2 PT on X and YouTube, with full episodes posted to Spotify immediately after airing.
Described by The New York Times as “Silicon Valley’s newest obsession,” TBPN has interviewed Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, Mark Cuban, and Satya Nadella. Diet TBPN delivers the best moments from each episode in under 30 minutes.
This Anthropic IPO, it's the most important story of the day after the amount of days till Christmas. Let's count it down. We're very close. Fifty nine days till Christmas. Do you think
Speaker 2:Anthropic is...
Speaker 1:Oh, Peter Thiel's 59 years old. There you go. Yeah. It's interesting. They're pro...
Speaker 1:Anthropic seems to be sending us
Speaker 2:Incredible innovation
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:At TBPN that we tie random fun facts
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:To the Christmas countdown.
Speaker 1:I I also like that. Just to clarify, it's not that Peter Thiel is 59 years old today. Right?
Speaker 2:No. He's just 59.
Speaker 1:I think his birthday was two weeks ago. I think his birthday was two weeks ago.
Speaker 2:He just happens to be 59.
Speaker 1:To that age. So it's just not bad. Days. Because over the weekend, I was thinking about we did Jeff Bezos at 62 on the sixty two days till Christmas. And I was like, was it Jeff Bezos' birthday, or was that just a random fun fact?
Speaker 1:And it appears to be just a random fun fact. Anyway, so do you think Anthropic with... By dropping the s one on exactly fifty nine days till Christmas is trying to send, like, some sort of subliminal message? Some new What would that message be? Oh, just that it's fifty nine days, so you should go into the S one, control f for the number 59 to find, the hidden meaning of the S one.
Speaker 2:Or go to page 59.
Speaker 1:Go to page 59. Maybe you should.
Speaker 2:Have you been yet?
Speaker 1:Oh, I've been to page 59. I think I know exactly what they're trying to say with this. It's fifty nine days till Christmas. Open up the s one, control f, hit 59, page down to page 59. What do you see?
Speaker 1:It says, we may not have the ability to raise the funds necessary to repay the principal and accrued interest of our outstanding. Yeah. It's just a it's just a random page. I don't think there's anything going Anyway, there are a bunch of interesting facts. You gotta dig through it.
Speaker 1:The the the s one is huge, obviously. I mean, it's a massive company raising a massive amount of money. The exact amount of money that they're raising is not... Has not been listed yet. There's there's speculation in The Wall Street Journal around $100,000,000,000 raised.
Speaker 1:Bloomberg contextualized the IPO filing as Anthropic files for IPO in global race to raise cash for AI. The interesting thing is that Anthropic has a lot of cash. They also have a lot of revenue, dollars 67,200,000,000 in annualized revenue, and that's up 45% quarter on quarter at this scale. Incredible. Super, super, super fast growth.
Speaker 1:And full Q3 numbers aren't in the initial S1, but that number that was rumored from the Anthropic Investor Day is now in the actual S1. Cash on hand, dollars 131,700,000,000. That's a lot of cash, and they've been super capital efficient. People are saying it might be the most capital efficient company in history. They, of course, brought in $110,800,000,000 in first half.
Speaker 2:Yeah. It's one the most remarkable stories in business history, period. Yeah. And the s one came out, I think, some ways, like the leak around the s one that had happened maybe a a week or two ago Yeah. Around this, like...
Speaker 2:The number that everyone fixated on was this $80,000,000,000
Speaker 1:Loss.
Speaker 2:Loss Yep. This accounting charge. I think people now have had an opportunity to dig in Yep. And the funny thing is the nature of having access to Claude and Chad GBT and other agents is people can process the s one a lot faster. Totally.
Speaker 2:So we're already getting, like, a lot of... It it used to be, like, an s one would would release, and the VCs would have
Speaker 1:Like an analyst hours for...
Speaker 2:They've had twelve hours to pull out interesting stuff. Yeah. Now it's... Now it's like you you... It's it's all coming out in real time.
Speaker 2:And and it and it's... Yeah. Totally remarkable. I think it's amazing for the AI trade overall.
Speaker 1:It feels like a beat. It feels like this beat expectations.
Speaker 2:Totally.
Speaker 1:It didn't, like, surprise, oh, they're actually doing a 100,000,000,000 in revenue or something. But, I mean, really, really solid people haven't found anything that's like, oh, I I didn't understand that the business was actually shaped a very different way or something. Like, this this sort of meets expectations.
Speaker 2:I yield Harry said, you know it's a decent s one when Ed Zitrin hasn't tweeted anything
Speaker 1:out yet. I I think this is a beat on the expectations of the s one.
Speaker 2:Well, he's doing the old command f.
Speaker 1:And then that's
Speaker 2:f. He has the command f. Right?
Speaker 1:Command f, bad. Command f, sad. Command f, problem. The Nasdaq is up 1%, and it feels like the AI trade is starting to get put back on. Obviously, there's been a lot of selling in the further risk on the further out on the risk curve assets in the AI trade.
Speaker 1:Some of neo cloud is down a lot. But if you look into what Anthropic is doing, it seems like they're going to be buying a lot of compute from neo clouds. There's this interesting thing where they raised $110,000,000,000 They have $130,000,000,000 in cash. How much did they spend in the first half of the year on CapEx? This is the company that wants to serve AI at scale, and how much do they actually spend buying computers, building computers that they own?
Speaker 1:$482,000,000. Less than $500,000,000. I mean, now, of course, over time, they'll build more. They'll do all sorts of stuff.
Speaker 2:Yeah. They've been renting computers.
Speaker 1:At least in the first half of the year, the strategy has been to rent. And then also, they have a pretty huge amount of backlog with the the hyperscalers. And it looks like this scary number. I think it's like $690,000,000,000 of commitments. Really not that much, 10 x of of revenue currently if they keep scaling.
Speaker 2:But over a multiyear period.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Yeah. So there's there's Google. Google, Amazon, and Microsoft are all in the forty to a hundred and thirty billion dollar range. I can pull up the exact numbers, but the but the contracts are how much that they have to spend on compute through 2033.
Speaker 1:Some of them go all the way out to 2036, which is really, really, really far. So, they have a lot of time to actually work through that. So Google Cloud, their their commitment is $114,500,000,000 and that's minimum cloud spending through July 2033. So they're just renting and it's over a long period of time. Is there any scenario where they don't have the demand to actually parcel out $20,000,000,000 of spend over the next six years, seven years, it seems like they're in a good position there.
Speaker 1:AWS is $110,000,000,000 and that's stretched out to 2036. And then Azure is only $45,000,000,000 and that's minimum cloud spending through 2033. Now they do have $120,000,000,000 with SpaceX AI. That's up to that's the maximum. And then nScale is at 45,000,000,000 Lambda is at $42,000,000,000 and Broadcom's at $161,000,000,000 for a total of $637,000,000,000 in spending commitments.
Speaker 1:But again, over five, six, maybe eight years in some of these scenarios. So pretty healthy there. The other interesting surprises... I mean, people are pretty happy about the margins. So compute cost as a function of revenue, they were at 72%.
Speaker 1:You can think about this as like cost of goods. 72% of every dollar they made was getting eaten up by compute costs. That's down to 48% compute costs divided by revenue. So that's rapidly improving efficiency quarter on quarter. Then the adjusted operating margin gained 32 percentage points quarter on quarter for almost $1,000,000,000 in GAAP profit.
Speaker 1:They went from negative 13% to 19% operating margin. And then the big number that that people are excited about is the big customers. So they have, I think, over a thousand customers spending over $1,000,000, something like that. And then...
Speaker 2:Over 10,000 spending over 100 k.
Speaker 1:Over... Yeah. Over 10,000 spending a 100 k, and net revenue retention is 900% on those. So they got in early in 2024, 2025, and then all of those companies scaled up. So maybe they had a smaller subscription, smaller.
Speaker 1:They were using the APIs here and there. And then we went to the token maxing era. They were in the right place. And so many companies scaled their spend that, on average, it was basically a 10x increase for organizations. But that makes sense.
Speaker 1:We've all seen this as more and more people are like, Hey, it's not just the early adopter on the team that has an AI agent running all the time. It's actually spread to everyone. It's spread to the marketing organization, the operations teams using it. And so these services are going out all over the place. They have more than half of the Fortune five hundred spending over $100,000 annually.
Speaker 1:That actually felt low to me. Obviously, it's really impressive. It's great. But I'm sort of... Like, I I was under the assumption that all of the Fortune five hundred was spending a lot on, like, every single model.
Speaker 1:Yeah. And I would have said, oh oh, of the Fortune five hundred, 100 k annually. The Fortune five hundred is probably spending 100 k annually on open source models and OpenAI and Google and Microsoft and and Anthropic.
Speaker 2:I wouldn't assume what what that half is... What they're up to.
Speaker 1:I mean, some of them might just be in industries that don't write any software really, but it feels like every company in the... If you're in
Speaker 2:the Fortune 500, you have some
Speaker 1:software, like...
Speaker 2:It's kind of bearish any way you put it. It is. I do know I do know... I was this was maybe six months ago, but I was talking to someone at a fortune... Relatively high up at a fortune 500 and they said that they had...
Speaker 2:They were basically running like boilerplate Gemini that like the whole org had access to, and that was, like, their AI tool. They were telling everyone, just use this. Yep. And so there's there's, I'm sure, examples of that.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Just... And so, yeah, maybe maybe you see, like, 50% has spending over 100 k on Anthropic, and then there's some there's some slice that's on OpenAI, some slice on Gemini and Google, and then some slice on some other section of the market.
Speaker 1:But, I mean, it's odd because, like, even Meta is probably spending over 100 ks annually on Anthropic. I have to imagine that Google employees, some of them have access to Anthropic models to the tune of 100 ks. And so that was sort of interesting. The other interesting update was on the distillation revenue. So coming out of the Investor Day, it felt like we finally got a number on how much of this revenue is distillation, how much of it might go away if Anthropic figures out how to prevent distillation.
Speaker 1:And the number that was floated was 5% to 7%. Totally reasonable. It was not like a it's over moment. It was like, oh, like, that's significant. It's crazy that companies that these that these distilleries are spending...
Speaker 1:I don't know if that's the right word, but we're gonna go with it. That these distilleries are are willing to spend, like, 5% of $70,000,000,000 ARR.
Speaker 2:It's way less than some of the the peanut gallery on X would like to say. Yeah. Half their revenue.
Speaker 1:Revenues. That's ridiculous. But still, it's crazy that there are companies out there or, like, I don't even know what you call them, like bot farms, organizations, like Distilleries. They're distilleries. They're illegal distilleries.
Speaker 1:Like, they're criminals, basically. They're they're they're TOS violation companies. But they're networks. They're organized. And what's interesting is that it's not just, you know, oh, some, you know, enterprising, scrappy, data broker, sales guy, like, figured out how to, like, puppeteer a couple clawed accounts and sneak some tokens out and, like, resell them into, like, somebody who's selling it to Kimmy or whatever.
Speaker 1:It's like... No. People are deploying, like, billions of dollars to this strategy, and it seems pretty pretty organized. Yeah. At the same time, the wrinkle that we got from the s one is that that five to 7% number that was leaked out from the Investor Day, it's not explicitly listed as distillation revenue.
Speaker 1:It's just terms of service violation. So it could be people that are doing adult content or cybercrime or hacking or bio weapon development, anything that's going to get you banned. I would imagine that the vast majority of it is still distillation because what else is going to generate that many tokens than that much revenue. But it is worth noting that it's not entirely distillation attack. I like that we still have the Christmas trim up.
Speaker 1:It's very, very good. The other one. Speaking of Christmas, there apparently is a war on Christmas going on and and it's hurting Anthropic significantly. We have some real numbers on how much Christmas hurts the AI trade. It's apparently 20%.
Speaker 1:So a... API consumption, effectively revenue in December for the last two weeks will be down 20% as as engineers, as vibe coders, as startups, as everyone goes on holiday, they're celebrating Christmas, people will be buying...
Speaker 2:Well, there's been some speculation. Obviously, they announced what their ticker is gonna be ant during the the the road to Christmas.
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:But if you put the, you know, the the dollar sign Yes. It looks like the start of Santa. Saint. And so speculation that they're...... Related.
Speaker 2:Yeah. It's a sort of, yeah, it's an... It's kind of a nod to
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Saying it.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You know, that that does make perfect sense. What is the opposite of an ant?
Speaker 1:Like, the animal. Opposite of an ant. Like, you had to think of, like, the animal, the ant, and then the opposite... Because this is the whole Elon Musk philosophy is, like, you're destined to become the opposite of whatever you are branded as. So the bile...
Speaker 1:The biological opposite of an ant is an anteater. Yeah. So maybe they're destined to become an anteater. I don't know. Size opposite would be an elephant.
Speaker 1:It is an elephant of a stock. I mean, two... Going out of 2,000,000,000,000 is gonna be the biggest IPO ever. And so maybe that's the destination. I was thinking whale.
Speaker 1:Whale? Yeah. I mean, it's good for all... Can be a lot of whales moving into the stock. Right?
Speaker 1:Anyway,
Speaker 2:is a fun time.
Speaker 1:Fun time.
Speaker 2:Hoffman. Yeah. It says seven people... So basically, she's pulling out the founder voting structure in the s one, which is... Which spells out, we believe that our seven co founders Mhmm.
Speaker 2:As a group are distinctly equipped to be stewards of our mission. Immediately prior to the completion of this offering, we will issue a single share. They're calling it the golden share of class f common not
Speaker 1:actually calling it the golden share but it is a golden tick.
Speaker 2:It's The class very f common stock, a special class of our common stock to a limited liability company of which our seven co founders will initially be the sole members of the quote, Founder LLC, our Class F common stock will be entitled to an aggregate number of votes that equals 50.1% of the total voting power of our outstanding shares of capital stock with respect to matters submitted to stockholders generally, including the election of our directors other than the class t directors. So missed opportunity to call it my precious LLC Mhmm. But I think that Founder LLC...
Speaker 1:The ring?
Speaker 2:If they actually have Founder LLC, that's very cool because it means, like, they some... Obviously, like, somebody over the years would have sniped that LLC and then they could either sort of grant the sort of grant the name to someone else, they can sign off on it. It might just be a placeholder name. But it seems like they might actually have it, which is very cool. And, yeah, it's kind of funny that we have, like...
Speaker 2:Okay. We have this public benefit corporation and that's super important for...
Speaker 1:For economic redistribution is the...
Speaker 2:For for... Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And then you have, like, just a good old fashioned like LLC that can offer one vote.
Speaker 2:Yeah. The thing that would have been interesting is like if they... If this would have been seven votes and that they would have been public like where the line was, but this allows them to effectively have their own disagreements internally, not have there any be any visibility externally.
Speaker 1:Interesting. Okay. So that's the benefit.
Speaker 2:So you could have like you could have like... It'd be like a four three vote. Yeah. People are like, you know, massively infighting, but all all we see
Speaker 1:is is
Speaker 2:a single vote. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Got it. Okay. Interesting. I thought it was more about, like, passing down. Because if you have seven votes, seven shares, then would your l...
Speaker 1:Like, if you die and you... In your will, you're like, oh, I wanna, like, pass this LLC down to my five children, then do they become voting members? Do they have a voting... A separate... I mean, the LLC probably has its own voting structure.
Speaker 1:Right?
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Agreement. So it could be it could... Within that LLC, there could be one per... One member of the LLC that has 90% of the shares in that LLC. So they could have one con...
Speaker 1:One person control, potentially. Like, we have no idea the structure of that LLC, which which is interesting. Right?
Speaker 2:Yeah. We just know that it... We know it's... They're precious.
Speaker 1:What's also interesting is, like, I don't understand how the board works now because there's the there's the board that's independent with, like, Ben Bernanke on it, and they appoint the executives, I think. But they were supposed to have control, but now it seems like this has control that supersedes that. So there's a lot of interesting there's a lot
Speaker 2:of Interesting complexity.
Speaker 1:Yeah. It's really it's really full employment for Cory Weinberg. I understand why the New York Times is like, we gotta get this guy from the information. Because, like, he's gonna have full time employment. Because every time he writes a breakdown or a scoop or something, Anthropic's like, here's another twist.
Speaker 1:Here's another plot twist. Let's... Good luck figuring this one out. It's a very, very interesting setup. I wonder if if this will become more common.
Speaker 1:Like with AI...
Speaker 2:Well, So Zuck is in this position where later on, like, he's had, like, total control of Meta. Now he's like, okay. I need to raise equity. Yep. And so he's creating this new class so that he doesn't dilute himself so much.
Speaker 2:But in the fullness of time, he could be diluted down. This structure enables them to never... Could sell everything. They could all own basically nothing and be happy because they still have Control. The golden vote.
Speaker 1:The golden vote.
Speaker 2:The golden.
Speaker 1:Interesting. I'm so I'm so interested to understand how this how this LLC votes because... I mean, even if it's just even if it's just seven equal founder votes, which is cool. Like, you got seven cofounders. Everyone's on the same page.
Speaker 1:That's awesome. Also, it's just nice to have seven because you... You'll never have a three three v three. But, like, what happens in succession planning? Like, what happens if someone has multiple kids?
Speaker 1:What if somebody gets divorced? What if somebody dies? Like, there are these weird things that, like, the perfect structure probably doesn't hold up under. Like, if if one of the cofounders dies with no children and they're just like, I don't... Then it's just six to six and it's six people, then you're back to three v three.
Speaker 1:Is that a problem? I don't know. Like, there's just so many different dynamics of what of what could happen.
Speaker 2:We need to study
Speaker 1:--...
Speaker 2:Talking about... The dynamics of ant colonies.
Speaker 1:Maybe. I don't know. Maybe that's maybe that's what it is. Or maybe it's maybe it's elephants. I don't know.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Our class f's common stock will not have any economic rights. Interesting. Class f common stock entitled to 50.1% of total voting power. I wonder how that's treated for tax purposes.
Speaker 1:Like, they say it doesn't have any economic rates, but, like, if it has if it has incredible power over something valuable, like, can it have a fair market valuation? Like, certainly, there are plenty of people that would pay a lot for that one share. Right? Like, if you were to market to market and you just ran an auction, like, you know, like, Google and NVIDIA and Microsoft would all be like, well, yeah, I'll pay, like, a billion dollars for that share or 10,000,000,000 or a $100,000,000,000 for that share because I would get control over this amazing asset. So, like, it has value, but you just never market to market.
Speaker 2:I mean, it could be written into the operating agreement that that none of... They they can't be transferred or sold or or...
Speaker 1:But you could do a forward contract against it. The most mind blowing stats Semi Analysis has seen about the Anthropic s one is as of 06/30/2026, quote, we had raised an aggregate of a $141,000,000,000 of capital and had cash and cash equivalents of a 112,400,000,000 and short term investments of 19.3. Means today, they've burned 9,800,000,000. They are growing at rapid pace and are profitable on an operating income basis as of June quarter. This is likely the most efficient scaling of a business in the history of capitalism.
Speaker 1:So when is this going out? What do we know? What don't we know? We know the ticker, dollar sign, ant, obviously, reference to Santa Claus. Yes.
Speaker 1:But we don't know how much they're raising. It's rumored to be a 100,000,000,000. We don't know the valuation. People are saying somewhere between 1.5 or 2,000,000,000,000. 2,000,000,000,000 feels like it's on the table now.
Speaker 1:When the market was selling off and there was, like, a lot of discussion over the revenue deceleration, there was a question about will they need to pull it back. Probably still could. It doesn't really matter at the end of the day. It's still huge up round based on the last evaluation, puts a bunch of money on the balance sheet, whether it's 5% dilution, 7% dilution, not the biggest deal. The IPO should be happening the week of November 16.
Speaker 1:As a reminder, we will be at tomorrow x around that time, and it should be an incredible time for us to be doing the show because we have an insane guest lineup with some of the biggest, greatest capital allocators in tech and business. And so we will be able to get everyone's take live as this is progressing, whether... Even if it's delayed another week, we're gonna have a lot of great stuff to talk about as everyone gets ready to position, maybe go along, give their thesis, give their take, maybe they're already in Anthropic, maybe they bought pre IPO shares. Risk factors. Nick Carter, Sharon, a satirical risk factor.
Speaker 1:What does he actually say? People are talking about time travel and stuff. What else is in there? The only one... I mean, everyone sort of knew that the that the IPO risk factor was gonna have catastrophic risk, sort of like the AI doom, the doom scenario.
Speaker 1:It did make it into the s one. The market seems to have digested it and been like, yeah. We know. Yeah. You guys have been talking about this for a long time.
Speaker 1:We're still gonna underwrite it. Like, there's not really anything you can change about your underwriting. You're not gonna put that in your DCF. You're just gonna say, okay. I hope that doesn't happen.
Speaker 1:What's interesting is, like, it's not even, a cost line item. Like, we've seen the marketing dollars scaled significantly. So in 2023, they spent just $2,000,000. I'd love to know what they were spending $2,000,000 on in 2023 for ads. Was that like was that like Facebook ads or something?
Speaker 1:Like, what were they advertising? I don't remember there any
Speaker 2:Could have been
Speaker 1:odd ads in 2023 because they were sort of like they just But couldn't you couldn't
Speaker 2:you bundle, like, events? Maybe.
Speaker 1:Maybe. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Maybe they did, like, a dev day or something. But then it started ballooning. So in 2025, they spent 568,000,000. And then first half twenty twenty six, they're they're spending $3,170,000,000 on marketing. Lots of money in marketing.
Speaker 1:I didn't see a line on safety. I I didn't see, like, a blind item on, like, how much are they spending on AI safety, which is sort of interesting. I don't know if I just missed it, but if you're putting the catastrophic scenario in the risk factors, you would think that that would also flow to other parts of the income statement as a cost item because you would say, hey. Look. Like, one of the weird things about this business is that we invest a lot of compute, a lot of cost, a lot of headcount in AI safety.
Speaker 1:And so expect that to grow with revenue or expect that to grow with headcount or expect that expect that to grow whatever. They're doing great. You mentioned, what, 6,000,000 per employee revenue scale or something like that?
Speaker 2:Yeah. Somewhere around there. It's interesting how many billions of, you know, very, very anti ads as a business model, but a lover of ads as a business.
Speaker 1:Oh, interesting.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Billions. Probably Ads for the them the number one advertiser. Like one of the one of the certainly the number one advertiser in AI. I would be surprised if, you know, Google could could have topped that.
Speaker 2:Maybe. Who knows?
Speaker 1:No. No. No. That is a very, very interesting scenario. Anyway, what what else?
Speaker 1:They have a $125,000,000,000 equipment lease with with Broadcom. 48% of revenue is coming through the cloud marketplaces. So that was something people were talking about, how much is accounted for in that different revenue recognition way. It doesn't really matter when you look at the operating income. Clearly, that factors that out.
Speaker 1:But that was a question that people had and then AI accelerating beyond its limits to...
Speaker 2:We gotta give a round of applause to Spark Capital.
Speaker 1:Oh, yeah.
Speaker 2:Huge. The back pulled out the amount that they had invested at different points or at least an estimate of that. Mhmm. And you can see they started by leading the series c Mhmm. Which they have a 131 x on, and then they just kept doubling down through
Speaker 1:Pretty good. D through h.
Speaker 2:Total of $777,000,000 invested, which would give them roughly an $18,000,000,000 stake at a $2,000,000,000,000 market cap. Really fantastic return, early conviction, and Yasmeen is the only venture capitalist on the board. Yeah. So I... You know what I'm you know what I'm thinking?
Speaker 2:What? Top of the Midas list.
Speaker 1:Oh, for sure.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Like, she should probably just jump straight to the front.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Hard to make an argument against that.
Speaker 2:Okay. So
Speaker 1:So they got hacked.
Speaker 2:Yeah. So Cathedral, you you know what they were trying to do.
Speaker 1:This was a white hat safe harbor hack. This was not the same thing that you've been seeing.
Speaker 2:So Elizabeth in the Washington Post says in less than twelve hours, a group of ex Doge cyber researchers were able to penetrate Anthropic systems. Using AI agents including Slack channels where the most sensitive models are discussed. This is just weeks after
Speaker 1:take
Speaker 2:that Christmas this one.
Speaker 1:It looks kinda silly. There we go.
Speaker 2:There we go. Anthropic whistle... This is just weeks after Anthropic whistleblower Joseph Cox in charge of the company with launching a hubristic gamble from a private company Slack.
Speaker 1:Launching a hubristic?
Speaker 2:Anyway, so the the interesting thing was Cathedral, like, seemingly wanted to drop this the day that... The the day of the IPO. Yeah. Assuming that it would just be this like crazy bombshell. Yeah.
Speaker 2:I do think it's an important interesting story. Yeah. But the S1 was just so good that it's kind of I drowning just it hold it. Yeah. We were talking about this over the weekend.
Speaker 2:Were saying you think that there should be like at least a 10,000,000,000, 20,000,000,000 like white hat program potentially.
Speaker 1:I don't I don't fully understand the scale of the economic damage of like the Quest Labs hack and the other like, how how serious is the risk that, like, the banking infrastructure shuts down or, like, the grid goes down? But, like, if if there's really a risk of, like, the grid going down, you're looking at economic damages in the billions, if not hundreds of billions, like, you'd just be so disruptive. It would be like like, you could imagine a COVID like scenario where the Internet is disrupted and all of a sudden, just have, like, a like a 20% nuke in GDP because... Like we did with COVID, where everyone was like, can't go out to restaurants. So the restaurant industry is zeroed for this quarter.
Speaker 1:And if if something like that happens, the economic damage is so high, you have to incentivize it. Right now, there is an incentive, which is just Anthropic and OpenAI are, like, racing with each other. So they want to be, like, the the savior. And so they have Daybreak and Mythos or Glasswing to to, like, you know, kind of help out and make money and also earn PR wins for, you know, disclosing bugs and and patching things. But it would be interesting to see it go a lot further.
Speaker 1:I was I was comping it to, like, what was the Intel deal? Like, 20,000,000,000 or something? Like, if the US government was just, we're doing a $20,000,000,000 bug bounty, like, let's secure America. And all the labs are, okay. Well, like, this is actually gonna move the needle for us.
Speaker 1:Like...
Speaker 2:People in Miami are selling courses on how to get your first white hat bounty. Yeah. Anyone can become a a millionaire.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Maybe maybe it winds up being a little misused.
Speaker 2:Go to hugging face, get an obliterated model. Yep. Go point it. I mean But that would actually
Speaker 1:good use of time and money. Like, you need a lot of people to to test a bunch of different ideas, all the long tail stuff, figure out
Speaker 2:It would be very chaotic.
Speaker 1:Hardware hack. It'd be extremely chaotic, but if it's all white hat and they're all doing it because, like, yeah, I got into
Speaker 2:How white hat can it be if there's a guy in Miami selling a course on how to use obliterated models to hack?
Speaker 1:Think that there are... I think you'd be surprised by the number of, like, hackers who would break into something like Quest Labs and be, between, like, having a bunch of Brian Johnson's blood work and just like a check from the government for 6 figures, like I'm taking the check for the government. Like, don't actually care about the underlying data.
Speaker 2:It it would be just extremely chaotic and potentially have some like massive negative externalities.
Speaker 1:Because you're just
Speaker 2:in You're incentivizing a bunch of people that have never... That have no experience, like, handling sensitive data.
Speaker 1:Yeah. But you could also restrict the bug bounty program just to big companies.
Speaker 2:An account called Log four j has been having an absolute field day with their Samsung TV over the last few days. Where should we even start?
Speaker 1:I mean, at the high level, I love the I love the idea of getting a dumb TV in 2026. The smart TVs, we've complained about them a ton. Palmer Lucky's complained about them. Like, they're slow. You always have to update them.
Speaker 1:They have a whole bunch of unnecessary features. You just want it to turn on and look good. You probably need a settings panel with some of, like, the color correction and some of the some of the some of the decisions that you make to make sure, like, the frame rate matches whatever your input source is. But by and large, I don't need the ads, but I also don't need the ability to stream Netflix on the device directly. I just want it to be a dumb panel, and that's just a product that's not for sale.
Speaker 1:Right? Yeah. Everything is ad supported. Everything is spyware and calling home and listening to you, and it's all very annoying for no other... For...
Speaker 1:If if... Even if you're fine being spied on, it's just annoying because it's slow. Yeah. Just a bad product.
Speaker 2:That's the biggest thing.
Speaker 1:Amazon has a ton of ads. At least it loads quickly. Yeah. Right? But...
Speaker 1:And so Log four j has been hacking his his Samsung TV and seeing some solid progress. Says, another development might
Speaker 2:Realizing that the the TV is watching... He's watching the TV while the TV watches him.
Speaker 1:It's brutal. So the TV has a camera. Apparently, the Samsung TV loads a region specific convolutional neural network, which tracks your usage in the app. Like in YouTube, it's looking for videos you watch, ads you skip, progress in a video. So glad they're interested in me.
Speaker 1:Code for facial recognition within the content was also found. I think that would be facial recognition for who's on screen. So it's like, oh, you're watching Mr. Beast. That's a fact.
Speaker 2:But it seems I like think it's it's it's watching to see who's watching.
Speaker 1:I think that might be what's going on. But, yeah, the TV the TV industry has just sort of been able to, like, skate by on different rules. Like, Apple's done all of this work around privacy, and and even Meta has, well, yeah, we have camera glasses, but there's gonna be a light on. And the TV industry just isn't under the same amount of pressure or scrutiny. So I think they can just kinda do whatever they want.
Speaker 2:Today, Instagram announced they are testing long form horizontal videos called features.
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:The platform wants to be a place where you watch a ninety second video and a ninety minute video all on your TV. They are also testing lives in the reels tab, a hub for series and more. So coming straight for YouTube, I like it. I think more more competition is good. I'm interested to see how YouTube responds to this, you know.
Speaker 2:When when Netflix started courting YouTubers. YouTube said, hey, if you put your videos there, we're gonna destroy your reach. We'll see what they do here. The the feature that I think is most interesting, so
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Masary was talking about this on Colin and Samir show. Cool. Right now, there's... We have a big problem. And we may have played a part in it.
Speaker 2:But the big problem is that you get a clip. Right? And you get like the the... This really interesting moment.
Speaker 1:And... We're all looking for the guy who did this.
Speaker 2:Yeah. We're all looking for the guy who did this. But you get this bit, you get you get this interesting, you know, thirty seconds, let's say. And some percentage of the people watch the clip and then go find the full length thing. But most of the people get like, they feel some emotion whether it's joy or rage.
Speaker 1:Some percentage, like two basis points. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah. We've we've noticed this where like our our core show Yeah. The recording of the live and the diet, they just sort of grow at a steady rate every single day. But like a viral clip here and there doesn't actually drive like a a huge uptick. Yes.
Speaker 2:And so that's just proof that But
Speaker 1:can drive like a conversation.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Drive
Speaker 1:a of like, wait, that's all they talk about all day? You know, like people can see it as like
Speaker 2:a And so what I think is interesting here, and I'm sure that YouTube will respond in in some way, it feels relatively straightforward to implement, is like, you'll be able to watch a clip and then just click into the... Like, while in Instagram, click into the main, the full video Yep. To that to that point and then you can, like, watch the whole conversation around it. Cool. I think it's gonna be very healthy because...
Speaker 1:Yeah. This is... I...
Speaker 2:That's good. Yeah. Because we... We've had instances in the past where, like, someone watches one of our clips, gets angry at it, and, like, because of something that we said, you know, immediately outside of that, like, short little bit. It's like, no, we understand that that's, like, a reality of this situation, and and that could potentially be bad or good or whatever it is.
Speaker 1:Yeah. How about this arrow?
Speaker 2:But I think just, like, more more competition is good.
Speaker 1:And and because I I think I didn't have my question, and and I was like, oh, I I I actually asked exactly what you're saying in the question, but we didn't clip the question. So it looked like the answer was not aware of that or something. I don't know. Yeah. It happens all the time.
Speaker 2:Yeah. But anyways, I will be very curious if people start watching Instagram on on TV. Anyway... It's been a great day. It's that time.
Speaker 1:Yeah. It's... We're so close to... We're so close to Christmas.
Speaker 2:We're just hours away.
Speaker 1:Next week's gonna be rough. This week's gonna be rough. Give us five stars.
Speaker 2:We love you.