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.
So, we've been thinking more about the, the Super Bowl that's coming up. We've been thinking more about ads, the response to the ads, the back and forth with the ads. Rune had a good post here. Putting my media observer hat on. Anthropic ads are pretty brilliant because they're dishonest in a way that's only going to rage bait OpenAI heads and certain industry insiders, but are funny and striking to everyone else.
Speaker 1:When you're a call when you're a call option calling calling them a call option kind of a diss. Not expired. Variance is good. Mario Kart blue shell. Are you familiar do you ever played Mario Kart?
Speaker 1:Do you
Speaker 2:understand show? To get the reference.
Speaker 1:I played Mario Kart, I think, so long ago blue shells didn't exist, but I've been playing with my kids. And I've since learned the importance of the blue shell. The blue shell, it targets just the first player, just whoever's in first. It's a great metaphor for what's going on here. When you're in when you're not in first place, you get the blue shell, you can take a shot at the leader without even needing to call them out.
Speaker 1:So you can just say, the category is bad. And everyone assumes you're talking about, you know, who. So I thought that was interesting.
Speaker 2:Trey says, Sam Altman, the Koenigsegg Collector.
Speaker 1:Yes. Yes.
Speaker 2:Yeah. It's that one.
Speaker 1:Yes. Deep
Speaker 2:dive. Anyway, so so every everybody had a take on this yesterday. Yes. It it was perfect in how much kind of controversy it generated. Was wildly entertaining.
Speaker 2:I wanted to kind of I'll read through kind of like my updated take. Yeah. Got a little bit of Processed. Yeah. Got a little bit of pushback.
Speaker 2:I I said they were playing dirty. Yeah. Signal responded to me and said not dirty at all. Mhmm. So I wanted to address that.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Was processing this more. We obviously watched some ads yesterday. We watched the Get a Mac campaign. We watched the Bud Light special delivery one, which is about Bud Light is in a castle.
Speaker 2:They get an order of corn syrup. They're like, we don't use corn syrup. That must be for Coors Light and other other competitors. And so like I was processing them and like the difference there is that those advertisements are truthful. Right?
Speaker 2:Like Yeah. People that have had a PC have probably gotten a virus. Right? So when Mac is like riffing on that Yeah. It's like it's truthful.
Speaker 2:Right?
Speaker 1:Yeah. Not some data to back up.
Speaker 2:I mean not deceitful.
Speaker 1:I would I would say if I'm putting on my mic steel manning Microsoft in 2007 hat or 2003, I would say, hey, we do have Windows PC Defender. We're fighting viruses. And and is it possible to get a virus on a Mac? Probably. Is it is it Is it possible to not get virus on a PC?
Speaker 2:Yes. And on Microsoft's are like, yeah, no one makes viruses for your computers because you don't sell very many. It's not very ROI positive.
Speaker 1:That's a good point.
Speaker 2:And then Bud Light's campaign was truthful, even though it was aggressive, in that you could look up the ingredient list of their competitors and see that they did in fact use corn syrup.
Speaker 1:And you can make your own decision on whether or not you like that ingredient, but they were just drawing awareness
Speaker 2:And to so my point is that I think that anthropics ads are closer to political attack ads and that they're sort of intentionally trying to be deceptive. Right? They haven't broken any laws.
Speaker 1:Yeah. No.
Speaker 2:No. They don't name ChatGPT. They're just sort of like throwing mod at the whole category. Yeah. So anyways, I said they were playing dirty.
Speaker 2:I got some pushback on it. I asked Claude. I said, Claude, how would you define playing dirty?
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:And Claude said, playing dirty generally means achieving your goals through tactics that are deceptive, unethical, or that violate the understood rules and norms of a given context, even if you're not technically illegal. It's the gap between what you can do and what you should do. A few dimensions to it, and it goes into deception, misleading others about your intentions, hiding information, or creating false impressions to gain an advantage. These campaigns do an amazing job creating a false impression of of what ads in in LMs are gonna be like.
Speaker 1:I do think the response, just to chime in some random stuff, but I think the response to the ads, we were wondering like, you know, outside of the, the TPPN, we love ads, ads are fine, and they're not going to do anything weird. We're strong supporters. What will the public's reception be like? Will Claude skyrocket to the top of the charts because these ads are so effective? Will general consumers buy the line?
Speaker 1:Yes, the chat apps are going to get weird with the ads or not. And I was scrolling on Instagram Reels last night completely randomly. I was not looking for Anthropic content. I think I followed the Cloud account, maybe, maybe not. It just targeted me.
Speaker 1:It hits me with a vertical version of the ad. It's called Deception, I think, something like that. No, Violation. Yeah. Violation is
Speaker 2:one It's that not you called Deception. It'd be a little too on the nose.
Speaker 1:I think there is one called Deception. There's a bunch. They all have different names. Anyway, it's called Violation here.
Speaker 2:Oh, yeah. Yeah. I remember. People were like, Anthropic Deception ad is deceptive?
Speaker 1:Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So Violation pops up, it's this and it's a Cloud AI. And it has almost 6,000 likes even when it just got served to me.
Speaker 1:I I my interpretation was like, this is working. This is popular. This is it's not just beautifully shot. It's well edited for vertical.
Speaker 2:Yeah. It's either it's either really resonating or they're putting a massive amount of spend behind it or both.
Speaker 1:This is the funny thing. So in this ad, see the guy struggling to do a pull up. He asks, you know, what's supposed to be an LLM? Create a fitness plan for me. And then the fitness bot says, hey, you know what else can help?
Speaker 1:One inch insoles from HeightMax something like that. And it's like this Licks Max thing. It's very funny. I scroll up. What's the next ad that meta serves me?
Speaker 1:An ad for three inch inserts. Three inch inserts? And and the ad is actually deceptive. It says, it says the guy can go from five nine to six one. That's four inches.
Speaker 1:And so these are full shoes that have the inserts built in. And for some reason, got in even though I'm I'm not in the market for for for insoles, the algorithm just knows that I love these ads because they're very funny and they're very on trend with the Luxmaxing thing. And so I get served these ads constantly. This is all Meta shows me is these height enhancing shoes because I think I actually clicked on them and was digging in.
Speaker 2:So you bought them. Right?
Speaker 1:Of course. Of course. Yeah. You're trying
Speaker 2:to get to seven feet.
Speaker 1:That would be good. That would be good. Tyler, do you have something on this?
Speaker 2:Yeah. I was just gonna say, yeah.
Speaker 3:So I saw on Instagram as well. I saw some of Clot ads. And in the comments, I mean, were riding with Clot.
Speaker 1:They are.
Speaker 2:Yeah. They
Speaker 3:are. Like It was like Normies too. Yeah. They
Speaker 1:No. Totally. Yeah. Like like like like they're winning the vibe war. They've been winning the vibe war with developers, and they've been winning the vibe war on X, and now it feels like they're about to win the vibe war.
Speaker 2:I said two things can be true about the campaign. It's brilliant, well timed, and incredibly strategic for a few reasons I'll outline below. And it's designed to plant a false impression of Chad GPT's forthcoming ad product in the minds of hundreds of millions of Americans. They could argue, oh, we're not trying to do that. But you can't really kind of argue with the effect.
Speaker 2:So Anthropic accomplishes a lot. The campaign entertains America. Right? It's wildly entertaining. Yeah.
Speaker 2:It's it's hilarious. The perfect like sycophancy that you can hear. Can hear em dashes, the pauses. Pause. It's amazing.
Speaker 2:Really good. Mother Mother is the name of the agency that did They're also putting themselves on the map ahead of the IPO. Think in some ways like certain audiences would know more about Anthropic than Claude. Right? Yeah.
Speaker 2:Even if you're just like generally interested in Totally. Investing in AI, you're probably hearing about Anthropic more than you're hearing about Claude.
Speaker 1:Yeah,
Speaker 2:It builds their aura with insiders. If they spend $100,000,000 on this campaign, all it does is help retain a couple of truly elite researchers.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:It's worth it. What are you laughing at?
Speaker 1:I love it. Noah's saying Anthropic is campaigning to get themselves banned. Just like with misinformation just going way too far and it backlashes. That's just funny to
Speaker 2:me. It somewhat continues their like fear based messaging that they've been they've been kind of riding with in general. Yeah. Yeah. Look back at at the essays.
Speaker 2:More nuanced safety. Effectively rage baits open AI, they got fully baited. Completely. Sam switched out of his lower case typing and was like, I gotta go into upper case
Speaker 1:for Lots this of responses.
Speaker 2:And then the other thing is like, it's gonna broadly damage consumer trust in LLMs. Some people will just be like, wait, like they're they've been kind of like making money on me without me knowing. Right? Or or can I trust every output as as like actually good advice or or am I being monetized? So
Speaker 1:Yeah. And this is the one that you think could come back to bite them. The
Speaker 2:other five are pretty good. Potentially. I said Anthropic has consistently told the market they don't care about consumer, but I'm not sure. The argument for ads is that they'll make LMs free for people that can't afford to pay a subscription. But Anthropic has already lost the race to serve billions of people.
Speaker 2:I don't think that when at you Gemini's traction, OpenAI's, Chachiketa Heat traction, it seems like the race to get to 3,000,000,000 monthly actives is over. So the question where I was taking this is, can they deliver a luxury product to a smaller cohort in the hundreds of millions to iPhone numbers? There's roughly 1,500,000,000 iPhones that are active in the world. Those people could all buy a cheaper Android and just cheaper devices. But they've paid a premium for the iPhone because they can.
Speaker 2:And for many people, it delivers a better experience.
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:So I said the iPhone was not the first smartphone. Claude was not the first consumer LLM. The iPhone did differentiate on specs early, not unlike a model card, but Apple did eventually pivot to more emotional arguments for why you should be seen with an iPhone. It tells people you care about the environment, that you don't have adult apps flooding your app store, and that you take privacy seriously. These have had varying levels of success.
Speaker 2:Every tech company was able to tell an ESG story. And I can't imagine an Apple exec even saying the word porn today, even though Steve Jobs was very pointed about it back in 2010. He said, you know, there's a porn store for Android. You can download porn. Your kids can download porn.
Speaker 2:That's a place we don't want to go. So we're not going go there.
Speaker 1:Calling out the competition by name and dropping that is
Speaker 2:Yeah. Key thing here is that it was factual. Was true. Was true. Like it wasn't deceptive.
Speaker 2:No. No. And so I don't think that was edgy, but he wasn't playing dirty.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Consumers deserve choice. It's great if they wanna pay for ad free tiers. Most don't.
Speaker 1:1% in Europe for Facebook, by the way. That's the stat. They all have the option to pay for Facebook, for ad free Facebook, and only one So percent
Speaker 2:consumers deserve choice, they should not be misled about how ad platforms work. Android has generated an immense amount of value for the world, so has Google broadly. Let consumers choose, but let them choose intelligently.
Speaker 1:Yes. My steel man is that they didn't cross the line. They didn't play dirty because they didn't call out CHAP GPT directly. Okay. You can take that whatever you want.
Speaker 1:But Will
Speaker 2:They something like are punching up. They are punching up.
Speaker 1:Yes. There is a world where something like this will happen. There is a world where the ads do get integrated in such a seamless way. If you look at the evolution of Google's 10 blue links, it started with 10 blue links, no ads. Then it was a very clear yellow box with ad and it was very clear that it was an ad.
Speaker 1:And over time the UI evolved to be a lot less aggressive about telling you that it's an ad. And the ads on meta platforms do get creepy sometimes. You talk about something, and then you see the ad. And maybe that's just confirmation bias or some sort of cognitive. You only notice the ones that are weird, so they all feel weird.
Speaker 1:You see a lot of stuff that you weren't talking about. That doesn't trigger anything. But when you see the thing that you were just talking to your friend about, I was just talking to you about sweaters, and I see an ad for sweater. I'm like, how did it know? And realistically, it knows because you just went on Facebook.
Speaker 1:You found that sweater. You bought it. It knows that we're friends. We're DM ing. We're talking.
Speaker 1:We're we're literally friends on the platform. And so it's like, look, Jordi likes this, and they're hanging out all the time, sending each other DMs. Why don't I just show John what I just sold to Jordy? That makes perfect sense. That's something that can be done with just stock vanilla machine learning at, you know, core AI in inside Facebook and Meta, and they do that very effectively.
Speaker 1:But it can feel sort of creepy sometimes, and some people get creeped out by it. The idea that an interaction like that might happen is not complete science fiction. It is possible. And so they are sort of warning that if you want to make sure that this never happens, it's our pledge. That's not even on the table.
Speaker 2:Yep.
Speaker 1:Now, the big question is, when's Anthropic launching ads? We gotta get them to we gotta get them to launch ads.
Speaker 2:Well, I don't think they can now. Zach Kukoff says, every time I see Anthropic and OpenAI, I try to distinguish themselves with comms marketing. Realize how much we are replaying the PC wars from the nineties. Anthropic, tasteful, elegant, opinionated, prosumer, expert, enterprise. OpenAI, populous, broadly appealing low consumer low consumer plus typical enterprise.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah. So Anthropic is the Apple and OpenAI is the Microsoft. And they're also aligned with Microsoft or owned in part by Microsoft.
Speaker 2:It would be interesting to hear Dario just talk for an hour purely about just the risks of advertising in AI. Because that would be powerful. Certainly wouldn't have been as effective as as dragging OpenAI in front of hundreds of millions of people. Yeah. But Matt Turk says, regular startup.
Speaker 2:We closed a few customers and shipped some new features. Good week so far. Anthropic, we destroyed our main rival with our Super Bowl ads and tanked the entire software category in public markets by announcing some plug ins. Good week so far.
Speaker 1:Oh, yeah. We barely even talked about this, but Anthropic launched a lawyer in your pocket. They launched a legal tool or they announced it. I don't know. Is it actually available in the app yet?
Speaker 2:Don't really think it competes with Harvey.
Speaker 1:No, no, no. So I don't think it does because they're selling it direct to consumer, I believe at least. But it seems like an amazing product. Like it seems like the demand for this would be incredible. Yeah.
Speaker 2:There's so many people compete with LegalZoom. Like LegalZoom is down 15% since this announcement. Sure, sure, sure. It's now a $1,380,000,000 company.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's sort of. I mean, LegalZoom's a little bit different because it can actually file you incorporation documents, and they've been they face pressure from Stripe, Atlas for a long time on the front LLCs and whatnot. But, I mean, truly, like, you're getting a job and your employer gives you an offer letter, like, taking that to a lawyer can be really expensive if you're if it's your first job. You're probably not gonna review it. But just being able to just forward the email in or or integrate your Gmail and just say, hey.
Speaker 1:I got this offer letter. Like, does anything in here look weird? Is there anything I should ask about? I don't have a ton of leverage, but I wanna understand this document. Claude should be able to do that, and it makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 1:And I expect OpenAI to launch this product, ASAP.
Speaker 2:He, over on X, says TBH, the anthropic ads are good, but I think they're a bad idea. Normies are not going think, wow, this is what ChatGPT is going be like. I better subscribe to claud.com. They're going to think, wow, this is what AI is going to be
Speaker 1:Oh, yeah.
Speaker 2:That's Rune agrees. He's not biased at all. He says suicide bombing strategy, it's bad for them, but worse for OpenAI. You almost have to respect it.
Speaker 1:Claude also announced a new model from Anthropic, of course, in introducing Claude Opus 4.6. We have Sholto coming on the show at 12:30 to discuss that. It's the smartest model, and it got an upgrade. Opus 4.6 plans more carefully, sustains agentic tasks for longer, operates reliably in massive code bases, and catches its own mistakes. It's also our first Opus class model with a 1,000,000 token context window in beta.
Speaker 1:What was the the benchmark that stuck out to you, Tyler? You said
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 3:I think it was Arc AGI v two. Arc AGI It's now at, like, 69%. I think previous was, I believe it was 5.2, which was at, I wanna say, 55 around. Mhmm. So, like, pretty sizable upgrade.
Speaker 1:In terms of just the vanilla go and ask a question, it's been able to get you a pretty good answer for, like, years now. But it hasn't been able to go and pull a bunch of financial data together, fact check it all, put it in an Excel sheet. This is what they're pushing, and this is what Cluso Investments is so excited about. Oh, says Cluso. Anthropic updates AI model to field complex financial research.
Speaker 1:So Opus four point six is designed to carry out financial research and other work related functions. The company's expansion into new areas, including legal service, has rattled Wall Street and sparked concerns about which companies and services will be disrupted by AI. The SaaSpocalypse is upon us. We will be asking, Sam Altman, is software dead? Or is he coming?
Speaker 1:Who we knows? So OpenAI unveils Frontier, a product for building AI coworkers. This is in The Wall Street Journal, and OpenAI also posted about it. The new platform launched amid market fears over AI's disruption to software is aimed at helping businesses develop AI agents that work alongside humans. And so there are some interesting questions here about
Speaker 2:Think of these as, like, AI coworkers that are actively trying to take your job. Like, they're trying to help, but they're also like want they want your title, they want your comp Yes. They wanna learn everything about what makes you great and
Speaker 1:they want Or be maybe they're just trying to empower you, Jordy. Maybe they're just trying to make you a better you.
Speaker 2:Maybe they're just coming over just cracking jokes trying to distract you Yeah. While learning
Speaker 1:They can so that they can take you literally do both. They can literally do both. Frontier works with OpenAI's previously announced AI agent building tools and makes it easier for businesses to combine sources of data that agents need to perform tasks. The agents will be able to process information from various sources and complete tasks like working with files and running code, OpenAI said. So no more copy paste everything into your into your ChatGPT Enterprise Edition.
Speaker 1:It should have access to your network, plug into all your different systems. You'll be able to write API bindings, I imagine. And there might be some forward deployed engineers or some associates from OpenAI that are helping you actually onboard fully to the agentic workflows that have been promised.
Speaker 2:Yeah. They're hiring how many consultants to help with this go to market?
Speaker 1:They are hiring hundreds of AI consultants to boost enterprise sales.
Speaker 2:This is There we go. Information. Creation.
Speaker 1:Yeah. This is a great gig. Like, I would highly recommend jumping on this if you're in this in if you're in this market. OpenAI is hiring hundreds of new staffers to expand a technical consulting team that helps large corporations develop custom AI applications and agents to automate employee tasks according to a person of knowledge with the company's plans. The hiring effort could help it beat back a competition from arch rival Anthropic, which has also upped its game in catering to enterprises.
Speaker 1:It comes as OpenAI prepares to launch a new enterprise offering that would unify businesses' efforts to use AI. The ChatGPT maker is expanding its number of technical consultants, also known as forward deployed engineers, who can customize OpenAI's model using a client's own data. These engineers can, for example, help T Mobile develop AI to respond to customer service requests or help Intuit provide its customers with tax preparation services. So you have all this data, you want to do long context reinforcement learning on it. Long context reinforcement learning has been very, very successful in the coding world because Git has a complete history of every line of code that's been written, every comment, why it happened.
Speaker 1:You have this perfect record of everything that happened when you built a piece of software, and there's a ton of open source repositories. You can download all of GitHub, basically, and see how software is developed. You so you can train the model on that.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Let's pull up an image. There's a little graphic here that they made.
Speaker 1:From OpenAI's frontier. Openai.com/index/introduce.
Speaker 2:Yeah. If you can zoom in a little bit, at the bottom, you have your system of of record Yes. And you have business context, agent execution, evaluation, and optimization. Your agents, OpenAI agents, third party agents, that feels significant. Mhmm.
Speaker 2:Right? They they they wanna be the the orchestrator. Right? And if you wanna bring in some other other folks in to help out
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:Great. Yep. At least for now. Yeah. And then they have interfaces, which they their ChatGPT Enterprise, OpenAI Atlas, and other business applications.
Speaker 1:I'm a little upset that they didn't go with a Mad Max theme like Gastown. I like the poll cats. I like the mayor. I like the the deacon. I thought that was a fun metaphor.
Speaker 1:They went with something a little more enterprise y, but I I think Frontier is a good name. I don't know. It sounds good. Why is Tyler laughing?
Speaker 3:Tyler's laughing. Yeah. I'm getting flamed in the comments. What's up with Tyler's
Speaker 2:Yeah. Hair
Speaker 1:What happened? Did you did you use shampoo nor conditioner? I need a haircut. I need a haircut. Maybe maybe you need a hat.
Speaker 1:Maybe you can grab one of those TVPN hats over there. You'll be good. Don't worry. Alphabet sales hit record spending to double. They're going all in on AI.
Speaker 1:Google parent, Alphabet, reported an 18% jump in fourth quarter revenue driven by growth in digital advertising. Sales reached nearly $114,000,000,000 ahead of analyst expectations. Net income $34,500,000,000 a 30% increase compared with the period a year earlier. Company reported a record 403,000,000,000 in sales for 2025. Profit, 132,000,000,000.
Speaker 1:Not too bad. Google, like other technology companies, plans to spend tens of billions of dollars to develop AI models and build the data centers needed to train and run them. The company said it expected to spend between $175,000,000,000 and $185,000,000,000 in CapEx in 2026, up from $91,000,000,000 to $93,000,000,000 in 2025. So they're, like, doubling, which is it's exponential growth. Really?
Speaker 1:Get ready for some AI progress.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Somebody I I don't have it pulled up, but somebody was saying that the the 2026 projected CapEx will be more than the lifetime CapEx for Google up to 2021. So in a single year, they're gonna eclipse that, which is just insane. It's good. Buko had a good take.
Speaker 2:He said Google CapEx on purpose tell the market this is what it will take to defeat us before IPOs hit. Yeah. Certainly nerve racking
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:If you're competing with them.
Speaker 1:But Yeah.
Speaker 2:They have the edge on on the capital side and the capital war Mhmm. Over Anthropic and and OpenAI. But the race is still real.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Ad and cloud growth acceleration justify the recent surge in Alphabet stock, but blowout CapEx forecast still takes one's breath away. The motto for the artificial intelligence race today should be, if you've got it, spend it. That's a message that Meta Platforms took to heart during its fourth quarter report last week when the Facebook and Instagram parent announced plans to spend up to a 135,000,000,000 on CapEx compared to about 72,000,000,000 last year. Google managed to up the ante Wednesday with its own plan to spend as much as 185,000,000,000 this year, which would be about doubles last year's outlay.
Speaker 1:Google's annual revenue has now topped 400,000,000,000, about twice as large as Meta's. Still, that new spending target, even for a company that has been firing all cylinders lately, takes one's breath away. Google has both the political and financial capital to lay such a bet. The company's Gemini three model has put it on top of a heap of performance for AI models while the unmatched distribution of its search engine and products like Gmail have quickly driven adoption. Google said Wednesday that it has more than 750,000,000 monthly active users just on its Gemini app, which only represents a portion of Gemini's actual users because it's vended into all the different products.
Speaker 1:What's going on in the chat?
Speaker 2:Four o army has entered the chat. Interesting. They're hitting the chat with hashtag keep four o. Hey. Okay.
Speaker 2:They want to be heard by Sam Allman.
Speaker 1:My question is, like, when does the AI build out stop? Because if you're constantly investing more and more, where does the cash flow come from? Like, as an analyst, you look at this and you say, okay, they're spending 50% of their revenue or 40% of their revenue on the AI build out on data centers, but how long will they need to do this? Like, if they have to do this forever, then you just permanently have a worse business because you're just constantly buying
Speaker 2:Well, yeah. But, I mean, you get a massive capability increase, lots of labor moves into data centers Yeah. And eventually The revenue it's a lot. You can you can enter a scenario where it makes sense to continue to increase CapEx because revenue is accelerating even faster. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Richard says Google is a company that doesn't do hype. For them to go and increase CapEx from 90,000,000,000 to a 180,000,000,000 is probably the most bullish thing long term investors can see as it shows the scale of future revenue growth.
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:I'm shocked that at this stage, most still don't understand this.
Speaker 1:Google made a $130,163,000,000,000 in CFO last year and is now planning to spend a 180,000,000,000 in CapEx next year. Now deaf think acceleration is coming, but wowza. I'd rather go bankrupt than lose the race.
Speaker 2:Joe Wiesenthal says the average person on earth is watching 25 YouTube Shorts every single day. YouTube Shorts average 200,000,000,000 daily views.
Speaker 1:That's a lot. That is just insane. That's a lot. I mean, you can watch a YouTube Short in like, what, five seconds on average. Right?
Speaker 1:Because you skip one, you watch one for five Yep. Seconds, one for fifteen seconds.
Speaker 2:So I don't scroll on YouTube Shorts yet. Yeah. I find if I search for something, like Yep. Let's say I'm looking a car Yeah. It's nice to get a sixty second explanation of it.
Speaker 2:Yep. But I'm not like sitting there scrolling. Yeah. It's still sort of clearly a lot of people are.
Speaker 1:But I I rarely scroll through. Whereas on Instagram, I will scroll the feed of reels. We're staying in the content world. Kalshi shared that just in YouTube generated over 60,000,000,000 last year, more than Netflix. And PolyMouse says YouTube is beating Netflix with this really sneaky content strategy in which their creators make stuff people wanna see and are then rewarded for it with views and money.
Speaker 1:And it is a simple encapsulation of the YouTube strategy. But this one one weird trick. UGC. UGC is a big big business. Who would have thought there is other news as always.
Speaker 1:The number of horses per county? I didn't see this chart. And Chadson says, these are rookie numbers. Should be double, even triple this. Horses everywhere.
Speaker 1:Wall to wall horses.
Speaker 2:I totally agree. I found out, as you know, in the in in escrow on a on a new property and and I was talking to somebody very enthusiastic about horses and I was getting the breakdown on Mhmm. On what kind of horses I'll be able to support on the properties and
Speaker 1:they were gonna
Speaker 2:be the lay of the land. So I hope to Yeah. Contribute to it's gonna be on everyone to get these numbers up Yeah. It's not enough for Totally. One of us I mean,
Speaker 1:Darik Oshashari, CEO of Uber, yesterday came on and said that, you know, 75% of all land in cities is parking lots or something. There's a lot of parking lots. What's gonna happen to them when we don't need them because of autonomous cars? Stables. Yep.
Speaker 1:You take your Waymo or your autonomous Uber into the city, you hop on a steed, and you go from place to place. Excellent execution, Doreen. Excellent execution.
Speaker 2:I love horses.
Speaker 1:I do love horses.
Speaker 2:According to the information Yes. Upcoming Avocado model from Meta is referenced as the most capable model to date internally. This doesn't tell you that much.
Speaker 1:It doesn't. It's the most powerful iPhone ever. We get it. We get it. We get it.
Speaker 1:Like, but even that.
Speaker 2:No? It's like, this is like some they could make the most capable model for Meta Yeah. Could be the least capable if you compare it to Yeah. Their lives.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Yeah. But it's the same thing that that happens in WWC where you stand on stage and you say, it's the most powerful iPhone yet. It's the most battery life of an iPhone ever. But it's very exciting to see that they're making progress and they're sending out memos and they're leaking to the information and they're excitement building.
Speaker 1:And I think that I do think that we are gonna get something pretty powerful. Avocado's a good name. And based on the team and the compute and the money, like, they're gonna jump to the frontier. Like, there's just no question that they'll be really, really close to frontier.
Speaker 2:We gotta go back to the horses. Al Al in the x chat says, they have two horses doing their part. Yes. So, you.
Speaker 1:Oh, thank you, Al. And full circle
Speaker 2:Don't just say, oh, I'm doing my part. I don't like if if
Speaker 1:you You gotta be growing exponentially. You gotta go to four, then eight, sixteen, 32, etcetera.
Speaker 3:We have time. Okay. Just on the on the meta model thing Yes. Again. Historically, food based models with the name with food in the name have done really well.
Speaker 3:Ready? You have nano banana. Yes. You have strawberry.
Speaker 1:Strawberry?
Speaker 3:Yep. Yeah.
Speaker 2:That's all I
Speaker 1:can think of right now. But I
Speaker 3:mean, avocado, it's a good sign.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Okay. Okay. It's good. It's good.
Speaker 1:And It's gonna be a
Speaker 2:great day.
Speaker 1:Have a
Speaker 2:great Have a wonderful day. And evening. We love you.
Speaker 1:Bye. This is what we have.
Speaker 3:Nice work, brothers. I'll see you on the next