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.
The big news of the day, more news out of Nvidia GTC, lots of Nvidia announcements. The stock is up. It's a $4,440,000,000,000 company. That is big. But the big news out of Nvidia yesterday was that Nvidia says it's restarting production of AI chips for sale in China specifically.
Speaker 1:Jensen Huang says the company's supply chain is fired up after months of mixed signals from the Chinese market. We've been tracking this for a long time. Of course, chips were banned first from sale for sale to China in 2022 by Joe Biden under the CHIPS Act. That also unlocked billions of dollars in incentives for American chip manufacturing. And then the narrative flipped back and forth, back and forth on what are the risks and what are the costs and benefits of actually selling chips to China.
Speaker 1:Back in 2022, after the CHIPS Act, which you if you wanna read up more on it, we've interviewed Chris Miller, the author of Chip War. It's a great book. And the calculus has always been pretty clear, like on the first pass, the first order effects. AI is an important technology. America wants an advantage in the AI race, the AI build out.
Speaker 1:So less chips for China means more chips for America, stronger
Speaker 2:economic Massive chip shortage right now. Yeah. You see old chips Yeah. Being valued basically more Yeah. Than they were when they launched.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Which implies there's plenty of demand in America. Yep. So you'd want to keep those here.
Speaker 1:And plenty of demand at TSMC from American chip makers, specifically. Yeah. I mean, even Apple is sort of getting crowded down there on the two nanometer, which I think is better for phones than for GPUs. But they're grappling with what the compute boom, what the AI build out boom will be for their business. In the past, China's dependence on foreign technology companies has been seen as a key bargaining chip.
Speaker 1:Why would China invade Taiwan when they need to keep TSMC's manufacturing facilities online? Chip manufacturing is extremely precise. One of these factories isn't going to withstand a rocket hitting it. So if there is any sort of broad military action in Taiwan, TSMC probably gets a little bit damaged. Mean, even the tiniest earthquake Right.
Speaker 2:They they have to track the weather
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:Outside of the facility. Exactly. So the weather outside of the facilities
Speaker 1:is fluctuating at inside. Yeah. Taiwan is famous or TSMC is famous where they don't even need apparently a like a like a detection system or a push notification to their employees if there's an earthquake. If the employees sense that there's an earthquake, they just get up and go to the factory and start working on things. They it's not like they need to like, oh, we need to email all the employees.
Speaker 1:The employees just know because that's the level of sensitivity over the TSMC fab. So if you want to keep TSMC producing chips, you can't invade Taiwan. And so by banning the export of chips to China, the cost to China of a Taiwan invasion decreases. And so if China can't access TSMC chips anyway, it's a lot less risky to go to war. And that was always the risk with hardcore chip bans.
Speaker 1:In 2022, the Russia Ukraine war was about six months old. Global conflicts have grown significantly since then. Obviously, we've been tracking the Iran war. And America's military is is potentially stretched thin, so the risks of a Taiwan conflict are higher than ever. And so you add to the fact that everyone agrees that we will be in chip constrained, the chip shortage, through at least 2030.
Speaker 1:And the need to keep TSMC supplying chips to American companies is extremely important. It's always been difficult to parse the various arguments around selling chips to China because there's an insane amount of money at stake and many, many people whose basically, full time job is to advocate for a particular position.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Not to mention how much of everyone's retirement accounts Nvidia actually makes up.
Speaker 1:Holding up the world economy. Right? That's the meme. There are good arguments on both sides. One that keeps getting trotted out is, you know, it's important to keep China dependent on the American AI stack, it's reasonable.
Speaker 1:The better argument might just be dependent on a functional TSMC fab. But there are benefits to the CUDA ecosystem and to the idea that whatever models get built there will be applicable here, we'll be able to transfer that research and development that happens over there very quickly. The more the economies are interlinked, the less likely there is a conflict. So all of this underscores the importance of TSMC Arizona, Samsung, Intel broadly, as well as startup fab projects like the TeraFab. TeraFab.
Speaker 1:Well, we're traveling this long and narrow road, but I'm coming around to the idea that selling some chips to China is the best possible move at this particular moment in time. It was easy to to stick with like the first order logic of just we want the chips because we can use them to power our economy, so we should have them.
Speaker 2:Even if they are getting chips Yeah. It's not like the the party is gonna say, actually, the domestic our domestic supply chain is no longer important because we're getting a a drip of h 2 hundreds.
Speaker 1:Yeah. So there's
Speaker 2:Keep the they're still gonna keep the momentum that they have. It just wouldn't be wouldn't be like them.
Speaker 1:There's a lot of debate over that because momentum comes from Yeah.
Speaker 2:You can take some of the wind out of the sails Yes. But they can just spend
Speaker 1:more money on the dollar. That's the argument, is by limiting demand, like there's a local fab in China that just says chipmaker. A chipmaker that says, Okay, well, our demand is half as much, so we're going to so we can't afford to scale. Sure, we have the money, but we don't really need to deliver this because there's no buyer, so you don't get the process level of execution. You don't get the excellence that comes from actually needing to run the real business.
Speaker 1:It becomes more of like NASA than SpaceX. That that's always the risk with like, you know, you're just throwing government money after it. Nvidia and the Trump administration have been involved in a complicated tango over the sales of its advanced artificial intelligence chips in China. Last April, the Commerce Department halted exports of the H20 processor Nvidia designed explicitly for the China market. That was the nerfed H200 that was not supposed to be able to train as advanced of models, but it was reported that the high flyer team behind DeepSeek sort of figured out how to use those chips effectively.
Speaker 1:So there was a debate over is the H20 actually just as useful as the H200 or close to it or closer? Well, it's sort of a moot question now because H200 is coming to China, which is the more advanced version, the not nerfed version. So the company's fortunes turned again in December when The U. S. Said it would allow Nvidia to sell its H200 processor, a chip that is a generation behind its most powerful series of GPUs, as long as the company shared 25% of its sales with the U.
Speaker 1:S. Government. So there's basically an export tariff. GPUs or graphics processing units are powerful chips used in AI training AI models. I think everyone knows this.
Speaker 1:But until Tuesday, the status of the b 200 in or the h 200 in China was unclear. In Nvidia's most recent earnings report, the company said that although it had received approval to ship small amounts of H200 products to China, to date, we have not generated any revenue from those sales. Wang said that in recent weeks, demand signals out of China have strengthened. We have been licensed for many customers in China. We've received purchase orders from many customers, and we're in the process of restarting our manufacturing.
Speaker 1:Our supply chain is getting fired up.
Speaker 2:In other news, JRR Tolkien used Gen Z brain rot slang over seventy years ago. That's how ahead
Speaker 1:No way.
Speaker 2:He was. And the quote maggots jeered that and cigars, you're cooked.
Speaker 1:You're cooked.
Speaker 2:White skins will catch you and eat you. They're coming.
Speaker 1:Oh, he's like using it literally. Like you that you will be You're by cooked. The some some I don't know, villain, I suppose. So the orcs will cook you if you if you fall behind, I suppose. Nvidia's biggest GTC announcement was a $20,000,000,000 bet on the same problem that Cerebris solved six years ago, says Andrew Feldman, the CEO and founder of Cerebris.
Speaker 2:Shots fired.
Speaker 1:Shots fired indeed. He says their next gen inference chip, not available yet, has a 140 times less memory and less memory bandwidth than Cerebras. To run a single 2,000,000,000,000 parameter model, you need 2,000 Grok chips. On Cerebras, that's just over 20 wafers. Even paired with GPUs, Groks maxes out at 1,000 tokens per second.
Speaker 1:We run at thousands of tokens per second today and every day in production now. Why? When you connect 2,000 chips together, every Internet connect has latency, every cable has overhead. It doesn't matter what your memory bandwidth is on paper if you're bottlenecked by the wiring between the thousands of tiny chips. We solved this with WaferScale, one integrated system, little interconnect tax.
Speaker 1:Jensen told the world that fast inference is where the value is. He's right. It's why the world's leading AI companies and hyperscalers are choosing Cerebrus. And so he puts up a little graphic of Cerebrus versus Rubin plus Grok together on one system, and he is touting 90 times the amount of memory, 90 times the number of chips needed to run a 2,000,000,000,000 parameter model. Bubble Boy is having some criticism of GTC because apparently people are getting up and asking questions that are intended to pump bags.
Speaker 1:He says GTC has turned into a conference less about tech and innovation and more about pumping your bags by getting a Jensen sound bite on some niche supply chain player.
Speaker 2:They say LinkedIn is the only social platform where you can post a sloppy reaction poll and it will get tons of engagement.
Speaker 1:We need to do this.
Speaker 2:Wow. They're just really throwing shots. I I We need give LinkedIn a chance. On a long enough timeline, they will all come to x. Yeah.
Speaker 2:It might take thirty, forty years. They'll make it over to the dive bar eventually. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Maybe. I like that semi analysis leans into the particular, like, rough edges of every platform. Like, I follow them on Instagram, and they actually post just, like, hilarious vibe reels and brain rot.
Speaker 3:It's just like brain rot. Yeah. Yeah. But often, it's I'm the only one that's liking them. I I comment on a of the videos.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I comment too. It's amazing. Like, they are not having broad success. But as far as, like, what Instagram
Speaker 3:Well, it's like, you know, fine details of Yeah. You know, inference max or something.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 3:And then it's like Minecraft parkour a
Speaker 1:little Yeah.
Speaker 2:Apple cracks down on vibe coding apps. It's over for you, Tyler. Apple's moves come as vibe coding apps help people create apps.
Speaker 1:Vibe coding apps, not vibe coded apps.
Speaker 2:I know. It's over for him times two.
Speaker 1:No. Because he doesn't he doesn't vibe code on a phone.
Speaker 2:I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I'm kidding.
Speaker 1:He doesn't vibe code on a phone.
Speaker 2:I'm kidding.
Speaker 1:But let let's Apple's
Speaker 2:move comes as vibe coding apps help people create apps for Apple devices as well as web apps that aren't listed in the App Store. Apple has quietly prevented AI vibe coding apps such as Replit and VibeCode, which help people create games and other applications from releasing updates to their mobile apps on the App Store unless they make modifications. Mhmm. The company confirmed it has told some app developers that the Vibe coding capabilities violate long standing App Store rules that say an app can't run code that changes the way it or other apps function. Apple's crackdown is happening at a time when vibe coding apps are emerging as a potential threat to the company by helping developers create web apps that aren't listed on its app store, a key source of revenue and profits for Apple.
Speaker 2:Some of these vibe coding apps also help developers create apps for Apple devices. The that ability has likely contributed to the explosion of new apps launching on the App Store in recent months, leading to a slowdown in approval process in some cases, developers say. It sounds like you're able to basically, like, generate an app with Replit and then, like, use a preview of it that maybe is functioning a little too much and effectively allowing Replit, the app, to do things that Apple didn't approve of.
Speaker 1:If you search VibeCode, you get an ad for Replit as the first response. Replit is number three in DevTools, has 14,005 star reviews or or reviews. Then VibeCode is listed as VibeCode Website Builder, has 3.3 k. Pretty solid. It's it doesn't look like it's charting, but it says learn how to VibeCode, no experience needed, build websites with professional designs.
Speaker 1:Much more focused, I think, on static content. But there's been a number of these, like, website builders in the App Store for a very long time. Then Replit ranks number two when you search for Vibe Code, because it says, Replit, Vibe Code apps. Would you download this app, Jordy? I don't know if you can see.
Speaker 1:It's insane. I don't know if can see, but it's
Speaker 2:like Definitely Vibe Code at the App Store preview.
Speaker 1:It's like a graphic, like an AI image of the of the Gigachad using the computer. It's very funny. But, man, there is so much IP infringement. Love a code. Not from Lovable.
Speaker 2:Love a code.
Speaker 1:With vibe code. They're like, I wonder who they're trying to SEO against. Do you remember that company that was doing vibe coding on the on the iPhone and they would tap your phone and basically airdrop you the app. We we we talked to them at YC Demo Day last year.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1:And and there's a number of these companies that are, you know, trying to be like the the AI game store, sort of like the the meta simulator, like build a simulator and and create a harness that's really good at vibe coding a game. It feels like a really valuable category if you can crack it, but you are gonna be bumping up against the App Store all
Speaker 3:the time.
Speaker 2:Have to compete with Sam Altman. Yeah. Dario Amade.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Maybe.
Speaker 2:I'm Judd. I do I do
Speaker 1:wonder if there will be some sort of or or I mean, Roblox would be like the bigger one. Maybe? Or does it come out of Codecs and Cloud Code instead? Like
Speaker 2:For gaming, I just think Roblox is just gonna continue to be like Roblox is the Roblox of vibe coding.
Speaker 1:And yet, we did not build our simulators in Roblox.
Speaker 2:Yeah. But they're not like massive multiplayer games.
Speaker 1:And we want people to be able to click a link and and use it on their phone immediately. We
Speaker 2:actually
Speaker 1:We
Speaker 2:have a new simulator coming, by the
Speaker 1:way.
Speaker 2:We're addicted to simulation.
Speaker 1:We do love simulators.
Speaker 2:And this one, we're putting a little bit more effort into. And John's already addicted.
Speaker 1:I would say this one is just actually fun.
Speaker 2:We're going for impact. We're going for fun.
Speaker 1:But Apple's had this long standing policy around do they not want to review the software. And so you can't create an app that rewrites its software.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I wonder if Apple can do anything to create more like a peer like a mini sort of peer to peer experience. Because I remember I was learning how to build iOS apps when I was an And early I was so frustrated that I had built Pong, but I couldn't just share it with my dad and say, hey, you can play this. It just wasn't it was We can do TestFlight, right? Yeah, TestFlight. But TestFlight is still it's certainly not designed for acts like airdrop social peer to peer experience.
Speaker 1:Like, you still have to opt into the TestFlight network or do all these jumps. Like, for some reason, it is weird that it kicks me out of the Apple ecosystem when I get a test flight
Speaker 2:Gold Rock says high key Tyler could make better Siri and replet with a thousand dollar budget. Better Siri replet. For his last thousand dollars. He's down to his last he's down to his last thousand bucks.
Speaker 1:That's a good challenge.
Speaker 2:Question is how much is Apple itself vibe coding? Because the software quality in the apps that I use
Speaker 1:Mark Gurman said they're using they're using Cloud all the time. Right?
Speaker 2:Yeah. So Yeah. But but but to me, I'm saying, so far, my experience recently, I've had an issue with the most important application on my phone Yeah. Which is You
Speaker 1:were complaining about the photos app.
Speaker 2:The the That was just poor design.
Speaker 1:The phone app has gotten a
Speaker 2:lot Yeah. John finally came around because the phone app is like
Speaker 1:Phone app.
Speaker 2:You're like, okay. I'm gonna hit this button. Yeah. I might be calling this person Yep. Out of the blue Yep.
Speaker 2:Even though I just wanna
Speaker 1:And I'm not sure what phone line I'm calling them on. I I guess they're designing for a world where people only have one phone number, but I still have a lot of people this is blowing your mind, Tyler. But back in the
Speaker 3:day Kinda like a
Speaker 1:home phone? Back in the day, people used to have multiple phone lines, multiple phone numbers. That's true. I'm so unk.
Speaker 3:But yes. Like a work phone.
Speaker 1:Like a like, yeah, like a work phone. I mean, I when I was at FF, had two phones, but Two two phones. Phones. That's right. But a lot of people will have a a home phone and a mobile phone.
Speaker 1:And so that was the thing that you saved in your contact book a long time. And the problem with the new the new iOS phone app is that I've been calling randomly people on their home phone if I have it saved. So I need to maybe go delete those numbers or put them in like a comment field so that it always calls their iPhone. Because I have moved to just calling people on their mobile phones, but
Speaker 2:We gotta go over to SF
Speaker 1:with Yeah. Martin Wait. Oh, okay. This is part two? We're just jumping straight into the
Speaker 2:straight into part two.
Speaker 1:Okay. We're going straight into part two. Take your time.
Speaker 2:He says, have you ever had the thing that you know a lot about become the current thing? That's now with peptides. Holy s h I t. I don't know where to start.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:Pharma basics. Most people obsessed with peptides don't know a few things. Peptides as pharmaceuticals have been around since the nineteen fifties.
Speaker 1:Overnight success.
Speaker 2:Peptide is just a small protein. Peptides peptides have extremely short half lives often on the order of seconds or minutes. So if you're saying you're interested in peptides, you're saying, I'm interested in biopharmaceuticals, but only drugs with very weak. Pharmacokinetics. Cocokinetics.
Speaker 2:Pharmacokinetics, that's a new word for it. Drugs of which peptides are a subgroup usually have a specified target. This is an electrostatic interaction, usually hydrogen bonding between the atoms of the drug and the atoms of the target, typically but far from always a receptor. If you can't tell me what the target is and how the drug is binding to it, you do not have a drug. You have delusion.
Speaker 2:Next, drugs are rigorously tested rigorously not only for safety reasons, just identifying the pharmacokinetics of a substance, how it travels in the body. Pharmacokinetics. Pharmacokinetics.
Speaker 1:It's a collab.
Speaker 2:Between pharma They're linking and building. Exactly. Is arguably the most important starting point for any medicine. How is it metabolized? What its half life?
Speaker 2:Without this basic information, you can't even begin to have a medicine. You can start pharmacokinetics in animals and scale to humans, but you also need a therapeutic hypothesis. Yes. This is a thoroughly vetted biological idea considered a priority as to why this medicine just might work? You very rarely discover these after the fact.
Speaker 2:Determining target engagement requires assays. Assays. Assays.
Speaker 1:This is gonna be a rough one. This is a
Speaker 2:rough one. Also guess I didn't
Speaker 1:preori, not a priori. Brutal.
Speaker 2:A priori assumptions. Brutal. Exposed. What assay was your drug tested in? What did it show?
Speaker 2:Direct target engagement is very important to falsify your biological hypothesis. And you can continue, John.
Speaker 1:Preclinical studies are so manufactured and fraudulent in today's day that I wouldn't rely on them for biological hypotheses unless they are from an incredible lab, were done a priori, etcetera.
Speaker 2:There we go.
Speaker 1:Clinical reality is far harsher. Without a double blind placebo controlled study, there is often nothing to talk about. If I hear, but I know dozens of people one more time, exclamation point, exclamation point, exclamation point, point, screw the FDA and pharma. Really? Really?
Speaker 1:Coming from Martin Scarelli, he is saying, maybe don't screw the FDA and pharma When most of the SF and elsewhere crowd talks about peptides, they're not thinking, and this is going be a hard one for me, octreotide. They're thinking some random stuff has been thrown in animal models and is not FDA approved. Look, I'm not a softy. If there was a drug that could help me or my family, I'd find a way to get it. But I'm also not stupid and spent twenty years looking at pharmaceuticals.
Speaker 1:Drug companies like to make money. Drug companies love looking at random molecules and putting them in clinical trials. There are thousands of biopharmaceutical companies that are publicly traded. It is not hard to do a trial a clinical trial from a university. If your drug has never been tested, there is a reason.
Speaker 1:The reason is not that you are a biopharmaceutical genius who has found something cool that everyone else missed. The FDA plays an important role. They make sure that whatever is on the label is actually in the drug. That's why prescriptions are important. If I operated one of these research chemical shops, wildly illegal, I might add, I would just ship people alanine or something.
Speaker 1:No one would have any idea that it was that it wasn't BPC BS or whatever is popular right now. The other side of the argument, there has to be some unapproved drug out there that's useful to take. Yes. There are plenty. That is how I made a living, says Martin Screlly.
Speaker 1:But it is not for you, world traveler, to think about this. The things you know do not apply to pharmaceuticals. It's not that you're not smart. I'm sure you're smarter than I. It just takes practice and time to understand medicine.
Speaker 1:I believe some places will even require you to go school before you can decide who takes what drug. Just ask your doctor for medical advice. There's a reason you don't do surgery on yourself, fly a plane by yourself, etcetera. But Martin, I want to optimize my health.
Speaker 2:You could fly a seven forty seven then.
Speaker 1:I could. I that that that I that is That's take.
Speaker 2:I agree. We don't we don't need studies. I don't need you could land the seven forty seven.
Speaker 1:If if if I needed to.
Speaker 2:I If you if if it was asked of you.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Oh, 100%. But Martin, I want to optimize my health. No. Stop it.
Speaker 1:You're not sick. It's all nonsense. Leave medicine to physicians. You do not know what you are doing. Become a physician if you are that interested or spend a lot of time and money on biopharma.
Speaker 1:I have zero doubt you'll change your mind. There are no health care professionals that I know of who give an SHIT about these unapproved research chemicals. There are actual dying people in the world: Duquesne muscular dystrophy, pecan, Lafora. Go fix those diseases. You'll make someone in their family a lot happier than LARPing that you know about medicine.
Speaker 1:This has to end. Lots of debate.
Speaker 2:Yeah. So We we are going to We have debate. Max Marchioni Okay. From Superpower will be coming on Monday Mhmm. At twelve to debate Martin Shkreli, the professor himself.
Speaker 2:Mhmm.
Speaker 1:So
Speaker 2:we're gonna have a little debate. Superpower, I believe, sells Mhmm. These small proteins.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And so it'll be an interesting conversation. So Monday at twelve Pacific, we can look forward to the great debate.
Speaker 1:When people talk about peptides, they mostly mean things like retitrutide, RETA, which is in stage three clinical trials and looking extremely good, or BPC 157, has tons of clinical and anecdotal evidence. Your critique is just self aggrandizing fluff that falls apart when you apply it to the actual examples most people are using. So he's saying, look, most people aren't using this stuff that's like crazy far out there. They're just pulling forward things that are actively being worked on by the Yeah.
Speaker 2:Pharmacy. Just another pod guy says, great post. Would be even better if you were in a flow state with a low dose of Retta.
Speaker 1:Martin does not think he doesn't like BPC one hundred fifty seven. He says BPC one hundred fifty seven has no evidence LMAO. Retrutide is literally a biopharmaceutical from Eli Lilly, pirate
Speaker 2:Yeah, mean, the concern with BPC one hundred seven has always been that it could accelerate cancer growth. Yes. It stimulates growth. Yes. And so because it hasn't been studied well enough in humans, that is a risk that people, I think
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Should be aware of.
Speaker 1:How much of this is actually because of people's AGI timelines? Is there a real overlap in San Francisco between like, yes, it might give me cancer in twenty years, but I think we will cure cancer in ten. So if it makes me look good in the next five
Speaker 2:But I think it's all about people just want some type of edge. Yeah. They wanna alter their states. Yep. It's somewhat basically human nature.
Speaker 3:Yeah. What's the You can make the same argument for for why you should wait though, because then in ten years
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 3:AGI will create like a super drug that will just instantly make me jacked.
Speaker 2:Oh. Right? Okay.
Speaker 3:It's like you can do it But either
Speaker 2:but but you're if Yeah.
Speaker 1:You wanna be jacked now because the because all things equal, if the cancer risk of both scenarios is zero, you'd rather be jacked for forty five years as opposed to forty
Speaker 2:How much how much would we have to pay you a day to not lift anything heavier than a single piece of paper?
Speaker 3:There's no amount of money.
Speaker 1:There's no amount
Speaker 2:That's of right.
Speaker 1:Exactly.
Speaker 2:You can't wait ten years. Private credit and the AI value reallocation. Starts with a quote, the essence of technology is in a lofty sense ambiguous. Such ambiguity points to the mystery of all revealing, I e of truth. Martin Heidegger.
Speaker 2:A familiar intuition about the emergence of any new technological paradigm is that new methods of engaging with the world create uncertainty, which is most easily interpreted through the lens of perceived negative outcomes. As private credit market deteriorate, it's tempting to not only to blame AI for that decline, but also to extrapolate any dislocation to its logical extreme. That is where rising default expectations among software companies are increasingly framed as early signs of a global systemic crisis. The most convenient analogy is the G.
Speaker 1:And and yesterday, carried no interest was giving a little bit of a doomer take around some of these software private equity deals, but he was not ringing alarm bells to the tune of the global financial crisis.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Correct? He was just saying that some of these deals are underwater. Some of those investment professionals might be needing to join different firms to find different opportunities, sort of the bull case for special situations. Right?
Speaker 2:Leaving the firm would be like, no, I didn't really work on it. I I was an investor, but I didn't do much investing during 2018 to 2022. I was I was mostly just sitting there saying, guys, like, I don't
Speaker 1:know Yeah.
Speaker 2:We should do this deal. The the I guess the the beauty of private credit is that you have all these different funds Mhmm. That are being deployed Mhmm. That have been deployed on different time horizons Mhmm. That have longer time time horizons in general.
Speaker 2:Right? Yeah. And so, you're gonna have basically like a rolling collapse versus like a like a versus versus like an like a run on the bank. Yeah. Where you have like one day Yeah.
Speaker 2:Where everyone realizes A
Speaker 1:rolling collapse.
Speaker 2:It's kind of like the worm. Like, you were doing the worm Yeah. Yesterday Yeah. Kind of like a that.
Speaker 1:That does not seem great. It's like a wait. Like when you start When you start a the worm. Yeah. When you start a and it gets bigger and bigger and bigger.
Speaker 1:This framing is incomplete, says Eric Zufert in Mobile Dev Memo. Says it isolates the destructive effects of AI while ignoring the mechanisms through which those effects propagate and where value ultimately accrues. In this piece, he makes the case that contemporary economic conditions bear no resemblance to those leading up to the global financial crisis of two thousand and eight, any weakening in various categories of the software landscape as a result of AI will not only mostly remain contained there but will likely lead to economically expansionary productivity gains and efficiencies that offset potentially disproportionately losses in private credit. That's very exciting. I'm only on my second diet coke, okay?
Speaker 1:Don't talk to me until I've had my tenth energy drink. This is what the Fed had to say. Private credit has emerged as one of the fastest growing segments of nonbank financial intermediaries, NBFIs, over the past fifteen years or so, reaching a total asset class size of 1,340,000,000,000.00 in The US alone by the 2024. A report from Morgan Stanley published in October 2025 estimated the size of the private credit market at the start of twenty twenty five at 3,000,000,000,000. Private credit is an asset class that functions as a parallel banking system.
Speaker 1:Don't call it a shadow banking system. It's just merely parallel in the darkness.
Speaker 2:Look, I'm going to be concerned. Here's what I'm going be concerned. And you have leaders at these private credit firms that say, look, private credit's amazing. Yeah. But it's unfair that we're keeping all of these gains private and we need to make them public.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2:So some type of like federal kind of involvement sector could make sense.
Speaker 1:It would also be really, really bad if like one of the most respected leaders of one of the biggest banks in the world was to compare the industry Cockroach. To like Yeah. So like some really like, you know, some bug. That would be that that would be a You
Speaker 2:don't wanna be compared to to a scottolling No.
Speaker 1:No. No. Maybe a soaring eagle instead. There are some soaring eagles in this in this in this portfolio of private credit assets.
Speaker 2:Il Gurley says, I fear that AI has decimated the traditional email inbox as we know it. Too many personalized sloppy mails slip through the spam filter. Hope someone builds a better mousetrap. This one is cooked in its current form. Great use of the word cooked.
Speaker 2:Interesting. Nikita was saying February 11 prediction in less than ninety days. All channels that we thought were safe from spam and automation will be so flooded that they will no longer be usable in any functional sense. IMessage, phone calls, Gmail. Email inbox certainly feels that way.
Speaker 2:Nikita says spam laws will need to be rewritten soon. Machines should be prohibited from communicating with humans unprompted. So this will actually make your job just actually just hitting like the button because like, no, a machine didn't send that. A human did. Yeah.
Speaker 2:The human hit the button and you're gonna have to press a button like, you know, 10,000 times a day if you're BDR sending sending sales emails.
Speaker 1:We'll see you tomorrow. Goodbye.
Speaker 3:Flashback.