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.
Obviously, Mistral is in the news. Incredibly bullish for Mistral. Obviously, very unfortunate, drama happening in the Anthropic world. We'll go through all of that. But, if the if the sovereign AI thesis could not get any stronger right now, this weekend really showed, a lot of countries, hey, maybe we do want a national champion.
Speaker 1:Hey, maybe we do want someone that will provide us models forever. SpaceX IPO, we have Gavin Baker joining in thirty minutes. And we're recapping UFC Freedom two fifty. It happened at the White House last night. Jordy, take us through your reactions.
Speaker 1:Introduce our first guest to the show.
Speaker 2:Okay. Quick intro on the event overall. Yeah. I am a UFC fan.
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:It's one of the few sports, maybe the only sport, where I actually know the names of the people that are competing. Mhmm. Our guest in just a few minutes is is one of those people.
Speaker 1:And are you more of a fan of the UFC or more of a fan of the government? Because a lot of people were watching just because they're fans of the government, And they're and they said, oh, I will watch any I watch C SPAN all day. I'm gonna watch anything that happens if it involves the government. This was an interesting cross
Speaker 2:No. More more seriously. Mhmm. I as a UFC fan
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:And as an American Mhmm. I'm excited for the for the UFC to do well. I'm excited for the fighters to have a platform. I was a little bit wary of this event overall Sure. Just because the aesthetics of putting on this crazy party
Speaker 1:High stakes.
Speaker 2:In this moment
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:When there is a ton to black pill about.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Not after Interest rates, except
Speaker 2:for states.
Speaker 1:All this other stuff going on.
Speaker 2:And yeah. So war raging, gas prices are high, house prices are high Yeah. Rates were going up.
Speaker 1:Having a partner.
Speaker 2:A lot of people in America are not having a good time.
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:And it really felt like a bread and circuses moment. Sure. But the bread and circuses, John, it worked on me.
Speaker 1:Top notch.
Speaker 2:It worked on me. Some of the best ever. It was it was
Speaker 1:Why was it so good compared to a normal UFC event?
Speaker 2:Well, you didn't watch. So I guess it's I guess it's hard.
Speaker 1:Was it the aesthetics or the actual
Speaker 2:Well, so one, the production value one, the card was absolutely stacked. It was eight fights. Yeah. No filler. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Wall to wall. Yeah. Really really fights that had a lot of they carried a lot of weight. Right? So like the the main title fight, Gaethje versus Ilya Tapuria.
Speaker 2:Mhmm. That changed both fighters careers.
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:Like, full stop. Yeah. Right? And even with Bo Nickel joining in just a few minutes, you know, Bo, that was the biggest possible stage
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:That any athlete could be on and especially in the UFC at least here in in America. So anyways, going into it, I thought the aesthetics were bad. I was excited to watch the fights. Yep. Turned out, it was just really cool.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And sure, there's still gonna be people that are upset that the the that the the president and the admin is like platforming something like this. Turned out to be really fun. It was it was a cool night. Yeah. And I think America kinda needed it.
Speaker 2:Yeah. A lot of
Speaker 1:people are saying it's not unprecedented because Teddy Roosevelt held a boxing match in the White House almost a hundred years ago around that time. And apparently, he fought in the boxing match, which is crazy.
Speaker 3:Yeah. He was a big big boxer.
Speaker 1:He was a big boxer. And so
Speaker 2:I just didn't imagine.
Speaker 1:So this is like a light a light craziness. Anyway.
Speaker 2:But anyways. Yeah. You know, the the event was was incredible. Mhmm. And I came away thinking that big parties and sporting events are potentially the most underutilized political strategy.
Speaker 2:Right? Would actually expect the the admins like overall popularity
Speaker 1:To go up.
Speaker 2:Approval rating to go up based on based just on this event because there were so many iconic images. Funny enough, the most iconic image Yeah. Is of a Brazilian named Diego Diego Lopez, which we had up on the screen there.
Speaker 1:Standing up on that.
Speaker 2:But but anyways, really really wild.
Speaker 1:So the other big topic over the UFC was the fact that Dario Ahmadye was not in attendance. He wasn't front row. Mark Zuckerberg was. Yeah. And it sort of underscores this odd situation that Anthropic's in where like they just got dealt this weird hand where like they're doing so well and the admin could not be more misaligned aesthetically with Anthropic.
Speaker 2:Their their whole brand.
Speaker 1:Yeah. But their whole brand. They're very, very different.
Speaker 2:And and I was, you know, I read the article yesterday Mhmm. That that Anthropic staff were going to Yeah. Washington DC. Some people were like, oh, this this this is, you know, this is bad. Like, if there was they could if they could solve the issue easily, they could they could do it over the phone.
Speaker 2:Not how this works. You always go. Serious issue.
Speaker 1:Everybody goes.
Speaker 2:Show, you know, yeah. You would obviously go. But going to wash flying to Washington DC to try to solve an issue on a Sunday, there was not a worse
Speaker 1:People will be here.
Speaker 2:No. No. I know. But you can imagine you land there. You're like, okay.
Speaker 2:Like, where is everyone? Let's let's, like, meet as a big issue. Let's meet. Meet. Is important.
Speaker 2:The national security is on the line. Like, let's figure this And they're like, where is everyone?
Speaker 1:And, like, if you take safety seriously, cybersecurity seriously, biosecurity seriously, export control seriously, like like UFC could not be less aligned with that, the stakes there. And so, like, there is this big gap between the administration and Anthropic. And I think that everyone should like, every American should care about bridging this gap. Like, private enterprises should be able to flourish in The United States. Everyone agrees with that.
Speaker 1:And the government should be able to enact reasonable regulations to protect America's interests. And both of those need to find a way to play together, but there is just a really, really broad gap between these two organizations. And so everyone's hoping that things resolve quickly. And it seems like the right wheels are in motion. The flights have been booked or already taken, and things are moving along.
Speaker 1:But just to recap on the play by play, March 4, Anthropic received a depart Department of War supply chain risk letter. That, of course, got rolled back eventually. April 7 miss was the Mythos preview announcement alongside Project Glasswing. June 9 was the Fable five launch last Monday. Mythos with guardrails around cyber, bio, and AI research.
Speaker 1:And on June 12, just five days after the end of the week, Fable five gets suspended after the Commerce Department issues export control directive. So Anthropic explained in a blog post that the US government is restricting both Fable five and Mythos five from being used by any foreign national, whether inside or outside The US, including foreign national Anthropic employees. And so that's a huge compliance burden, very sudden, and that led Anthropic to completely suspend the use of those models for all users, not just foreign national employees because they need to, at least if they want to comply with this, do all the KYC, understand how different organizations are using the model, who at those organizations has access. If something's being vended through an API and it's showing up in another product, does that product do all of the proper authorizations? And so it's a big wrench in the gears of the rollout of this model.
Speaker 1:Then the information reported that Andy Jassy at Amazon had raised concerns with the senior administration officials about jailbreaking the risk of jailbreaking Fable and getting access to all of Anthropic. Anthropic countered in their blog post saying, We reviewed a demonstration of this specific technique being used to identify a small number of previously known minor vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities all appear relatively simple, and we have found that other publicly available models are able to discover them as well without requiring a bypass. So they're saying, This isn't that big of a jailbreak. This isn't that big of a deal.
Speaker 1:We can move forward safely. We've taken safety seriously. But that is the debate that's going on between the admin and Anthropic. So as everyone knows, the rollout of Fable five has been a bit rocky. Incredible demos, incredible benchmarks, but offset by the odd decision to silently degrade the quality of answers related to frontier AI development instead of just refusing the request like cyber and bio prompts, which that was the main thing that everyone was really confused about.
Speaker 1:The actual rationale behind AI development refusal is pretty sound. Like people are upset about that if they're working on machine learning systems, recommender systems, anything that requires instantiating an AI product, let alone if you're just, Hey, I'm just doing open source AI research and I'd love to use the latest and greatest models to help me, now it's not an option. But at the same time, just think about the logic. If a model doesn't let you hack a system, just have the model build you an unrestricted model that does let you hack your system that system. And so clearly, in that scenario, it makes sense to restrict.
Speaker 1:If you want to restrict hacking or bio, you also have to restrict the tool that makes the tool that hacks the system or develops the bio weapon, in theory. And so but the choice to silently degrade responses responses was was not not well well received. Received. These are important issues, and there's another timeline where AI leaders are cut from the same cloth as America's elected officials. But we're in a world where Anthropic has to make their case for safety in an age of RSI during a UFC fight on the White House lawn.
Speaker 1:It's a very bizarre timeline, but here we are. Most of the big tech CEOs, they have figured out how to work with the administration effectively, showing up to large dinners, photo ops, the occasional movie screening to make their case about hot topics. Many of these CEOs also have business relationships with Anthropic, either on the customer side or on the investor side. And that's what's really complicated about the Amazon relationship. Obviously, Amazon uses Anthropic models, also is an investor in Anthropic, also provides compute to Anthropic.
Speaker 1:And so they have a very hairy, complex, circular relationship. And so that clouds the discussion over whether or not is Anthropic going to try and help Anthropic get through this? Are they doing everything above board? At the same time, you know, people were sort of putting out that like, did did Amazon like spike the ball on this? And at the same time, if the government comes to you and asks like, hey, you're a big tech company.
Speaker 1:You've been using this model a lot. Close partner to Were you able to jailbreak it at all? And your security team just issued a report like, yeah, we actually were able to just jailbreak it a little bit. Like, you're not gonna withhold that from the government. You're going to turn that over.
Speaker 1:That's different than calling and saying, Hey, I really think it's dangerous. You've got to put pressure on them. So there's this wide range of levels of interaction that can go both ways. You can be a lab partnered with a big tech company. That big tech company can have a really established government relations group that is actually helping you get through to the admin.
Speaker 1:On the flip side, you could have a big tech company that is competing with you or frustrated by your business and is actively trying to put their thumb on the scale the other way. So I'm sure we'll learn more in the future. Many of these CEOs have business relationships with Anthropic, so we'll see how all of this develops. And they're always renegotiating these contracts too, which makes things more complex, and they're competing across multiple markets. So expect the four d chess to be on full display all summer long in Washington.
Speaker 1:Anyway, what else is going on? Meta is doing according to Amir over at The Information, trying to be the vanguard of token minimizing. I think the token maxing, token minimizing thing is so silly because do do you know where maxing comes from, really? Like, comes from gamer lingo usually and
Speaker 2:Adopted by the Luxmaxing community?
Speaker 1:I I don't know if Luxmaxing community was the first one. They certainly made it really
Speaker 2:popularized, like I feel like through Yeah. Effectively through Clav's clipping Yeah.
Speaker 1:Maxing maxing
Speaker 2:idea of like doing anything like, oh, I'm I'm computer maxing today.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Mean, isn't
Speaker 3:it from like min maxing?
Speaker 1:Min maxing. And that's what I'm getting at. Like, you shouldn't be token maxing or token minning. You should be token min maxing. And the idea of min maxing is when you're in a video game, you want to get the most resources for the lowest cost.
Speaker 1:So if you're playing League of Legends, you're going to put just the right amount of of gold into this particular item or this particular stat point in an RPG, and you're going to try and find the optimal build based on your resources. You have confined resources. And somehow, it feels like these tech and all these companies went through some sort of hallucinatory period where they lost sight of that they should always have been min maxing because that is the goal of business at all times in all things. You would never say like, oh, yeah, we're ad maxing this quarter. We're gonna buy as many ads as possible.
Speaker 1:Oh, no. It didn't work. We we spent way too much on ads. They were not effective. We need to admin, spend as little as possible on marketing.
Speaker 1:It's like And there was always wanna be spending. You always wanna be getting the most return on ad spend, the highest leverage output.
Speaker 2:Yeah. There was and again, unsubstantiated post. Yes. But somebody was saying they talked to somebody at Meta. Yeah.
Speaker 2:And there was one engineer that spent $90,000 in one day. Oh. And was quickly terminated.
Speaker 1:Oh. Really?
Speaker 2:Terminated within three days. So again, could just be entirely fake news, but Okay. Yeah. It seems somewhat informed.
Speaker 1:The crazy thing is that is that like the lesson from that will This
Speaker 3:guy is
Speaker 2:like, I'm not getting fired. I'm gonna use AI more than anyone else in the whole company. Ride loops. $90,000 bill.
Speaker 1:The I mean, the so so the lesson that will be learned from that is is don't spend $90,000 a day. But the Super Bowl is literate for a marketer. The Super Bowl is spend 5,000,000 in one day, and it works sometimes. And sometimes Super Bowl ads deliver 20,000,000
Speaker 2:Yeah. But but what do teams do when they run Super Bowl ads? Right? We ran our Super Bowl ad. Yeah.
Speaker 2:We trained our own model Yeah. In order to Yeah. Yeah. Kidding. No.
Speaker 2:But to No.
Speaker 1:We made sure that ours was ROI positive. And we only bought the ad in a small market, and we did it before the game. Where our audience was. So for a very low cost, we were able to get a very high of val high value. So I believe we got a very high return on investment.
Speaker 1:We midmaxed the Super Bowl. Now there were some companies that sort of just Super Bowl maxed and they just spent a ton of money. And when you looked at the data on how they were received by audiences, it seemed like, oh, they definitely didn't get $5,000,000 in brand value back. In fact, maybe that ad was poorly received, some of the AI generated ads.
Speaker 2:See, I gotta I gotta give it up to UFC for the for the Ads? Level of advertising during the event yesterday.
Speaker 1:They're running full full ads in the middle?
Speaker 2:No. So one of interesting thing
Speaker 1:Just in
Speaker 2:with the new Paramount deal, there's a lot of ads.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:But one, Dana White was in a lot of the ads Oh. That were running. So so, like, Dodge was doing a TRX ad. Mhmm. It was Dana White driving.
Speaker 1:That's cool.
Speaker 2:There was another ad. I forget the brand. Yep. I guess it was bad ad. But Dana White was they faked a podcast set where it was an Oh.
Speaker 2:With an insurance company. And Dana was having a conversation about business insurance with the the CEO of the company. Interesting. So it looks like a podcast. So So I I thought it was interesting they were casting data and all of them.
Speaker 2:Then second, the the the level of advertising just in Yeah. The octagon was out of this world. There was so many different ways to gamble. Every there was like like, there's no like UFC cannot do like a gambling deal with anyone. Right?
Speaker 2:Because it's, like, they have it's crypto.com. It's Okay. Polymarket. It's bet three $6.05. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Any possible way that you could wanna, like, a gamble?
Speaker 1:Bet three 6five. So the only day you're cape you're taking off is leap day. Every four years, you take one day off of gambling. That's
Speaker 2:the That's kind like the mission.
Speaker 1:The one day off every four years.
Speaker 2:And then and then Calci's running ads during the event.
Speaker 1:Oh, so Calci and Polymarket are
Speaker 2:doing So Polymarket is in the Octagon.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:But Calci's running a bunch of ads.
Speaker 1:Against it?
Speaker 2:Against it.
Speaker 1:And they're buying directly through Paramount? Because you streamed it on Paramount. Is that correct?
Speaker 2:Yeah. I don't
Speaker 1:Did you have to pay for it in addition to No. No. No. Okay. So you pay for Paramount on a monthly basis, and then you get UFC for free.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Got it. Gambling is just min maxing done poorly. That's true. So the the the news around Meta is Meta's doing a one eighty, trying to be the vanguard of token minimizing.
Speaker 1:Two months ago, Meta epitomized token maxing on trend, on track to spend billions a year on cloud, etcetera. We've seen an exponential increase in AI usage, we are tracking to spend billions on internal use alone in 2026. The memo said, at the same time, individuals and teams have limited visibility into and control over how they use AI. In 2027, we expect Meta will move towards managing AI tokens in a more structured way with budgets, allocation decisions, and supporting tools. That makes sense.
Speaker 1:You have a marketing budget. You should also have a token budget as part of
Speaker 2:I saw something they have, like, Meta code, which is their internal
Speaker 1:Yeah. That makes sense. I mean, they're they're, like, you know, catching up to the frontier with
Speaker 3:Yeah. I mean, it's like you've talked about this. There's bunch of, like, these leaked calls where Suck is,
Speaker 1:like Yeah.
Speaker 3:You know, you you should imagine that met employees are gonna be better than, like, the the average open source Yeah. Contributor. So it's like the the basically quality of of coding data within Meta should be super good. You can train some
Speaker 1:model on that. It's the same pitch as take a frontier model, bring them in through some sort of consulting partner. They fine tune on your business workflow. They automate your business process. But your business process, in this case, if your meta is generating code that makes your social networks better.
Speaker 3:Yeah. And it's especially good because, like, in meta, all of the, like, you know, internal business, like, whatever data. It it's already in, like, code format. You you know, you don't have to, like, scan in a bunch of papers
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 3:Into, you know Yeah. Like, digital still I
Speaker 2:still don't know what Meta is actually building. And I think there there comes a time soon that they should probably communicate that to the market.
Speaker 1:Personal super intelligence, baby. What's not to what's there not to understand?
Speaker 2:No. It's just So 1.5 What does that mean? Does that mean?
Speaker 1:75% as valuable as SpaceX, buddy. Come on.
Speaker 2:It's crazy. SpaceX, well
Speaker 1:SpaceX is 2.3.
Speaker 2:Well, if things keep going the way they're going, we'll see even more of a divergence. No. But I think like it's so unclear. You
Speaker 1:should be able to put a lot of the SpaceX bull case on Meta. Right? It's like, sure, they maybe maybe Colossus was built a little bit faster, but Meta's pretty fast.
Speaker 2:I think they're wildly Rescaling? I think they're they're couldn't be more different. With Meta right now, it's the bull case is it's potentially the greatest business in the history Yeah. That is not threatened by AI.
Speaker 1:Totally. Totally.
Speaker 2:That actually is accelerated by AI. Yeah. And and I don't think any anyways. But I do think I do think I would expect some communication from Meta around what their real strategy is
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Over the next month or so because Yeah. It's killing them that they just keep saying, oh, we're super personal super intelligence but Yeah. Wait, they're building like a coding harness Yeah. And they're and they're working on coding, like, are they gonna sell that externally or is it gonna be internal?
Speaker 1:Coding?
Speaker 2:Are they gonna are they gonna try to
Speaker 1:Coding seems like it makes sense. Like, they're
Speaker 2:model on an API and get into enterprise? Like That's the big question is like, do they take the leap? They kinda did that with Manus. Yeah. But that's getting unwound.
Speaker 1:Fox is buying Roku, the streaming service for $25,000,000,000. It's in the Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 2:25 or 22?
Speaker 1:25,000,000,000 in the Wall Street Journal here. Let me refresh the page, see if they updated it. It still says 25. Weird. Eric is
Speaker 2:reporting 22,000,000,000.
Speaker 1:Oh, okay. But who knows? Somewhere in the north of 1,000,000,000, sub 100,000,000,000. Let's be very conservative with our estimates.
Speaker 2:Yeah. CNBC, also 22,000,000,000. Weird that the journal is
Speaker 1:The journal may have inside information given that it's News Corp property related there. Right? Yeah. Anyway, let's read through the journal piece. Let me just give you some facts and then you can sort of, give me some takes and and and contextualize it with more information.
Speaker 1:So, Fox Corp said it's acquiring Roku in a deal valued around 25,000,000,000. So The Wall Street Journal is saying around? Is 22 around? Maybe. Making a major bet on the future of ad supported streaming.
Speaker 1:Ad supported streaming, obviously, Netflix pivoted to ads after saying we don't know we're not gonna do ads. Turned out to be a great business. Ads are undefeated and Consumers more people want
Speaker 2:down with ads.
Speaker 1:They're just down with ads, especially for good ads. Anyway, the Fox, the the deal. The deal is Fox's largest to date. It brings together a media company known for its live news and sports programming with the biggest provider of streaming platforms for connected TVs. It will add scale to Fox's streaming business, currently home to free ad supporting streaming service Tubi, which the company bought for 400,000,000 in 2020 and subscription based Fox One and Fox Nation.
Speaker 1:Addition to
Speaker 2:TBP, from my understanding, has been a home run. Yes. Like, I don't remember exactly what the revenue is, but they bought it for 400. It's in the billions Yeah. Now.
Speaker 1:And all all the metrics about actual audience size are huge. And getting to tens of millions of dollars in revenue, hundreds of millions of dollars in ad sales against a big audience like the TV viewership when you have the Fox machinery behind it makes a ton of sense. Yeah. In addition to distributing other streaming services through connected TVs and devices, Roku has its own ad supported Roku channel. The combined company will better compete with the likes of amazon.com and Netflix for ad dollars.
Speaker 1:Bringing these two companies together will really help define the future of television in The United States and in many other markets around the world, Fox chief executive Lachlan Murdoch told investors on a call Monday. Fox will pay around a $160 per share, 96 in cash, and 099693 Fox class a shares. The deal is valued at around 22,000,000,000 on an enterprise basis. Fox expects to fund the cash portion of the transaction with 12,000,000,000 in new debt as well as cash on hand. The combined company expects to cut around 400,000,000 in annual costs.
Speaker 1:Fox plans to keep Tubi and the Roku Channel as separate offerings. Consumers are increasingly opting for free and lower cost ad supported streaming options as the cost of subscriptions marches ever higher. Ad supported streaming plans now represent almost 50% of all premium subscription ad, video on demand sign ups in The US, up from 39% just two years ago. More than a 100,000,000 global households stream with Roku, Roku is the largest streaming platform for connected TVs with 25% market share. Samsung's Tizen is number two at 23.
Speaker 1:And then I'm sure, probably Amazon's Fire TV is not far behind. Fox remained on the sidelines during the heady early days of streaming boom, pouring money instead into programming for its cable channels and buying up sports rights. It launched Fox Nation in 2018 and introduced direct to consumer Fox One, which includes sports and Fox News. Last year. Fox said last month that TBP had nearly 100,000,000 monthly active users, and its revenue had grown by 23% in the fiscal third quarter.
Speaker 1:And so Fox's stock is down today. Roku is down 0.2%, something like that. And the market doesn't like it. Take him has a take here. We can read through his opinion.
Speaker 1:He says, I don't understand how this Roku deals makes any sense. Bringing together the most valuable live
Speaker 2:I'll tell you how it makes
Speaker 3:sense.
Speaker 1:How does it make sense?
Speaker 2:No. So I think it makes sense. One, Fox, they have a a great product in Tubi. Mhmm. Right?
Speaker 2:It's again, there there are certain people that are that are happy with their with their HBO or Netflix or whatever. But Tubi has has a great niche. It's been a great acquisition Mhmm. For Fox, north of a billion dollars of revenue. That is a product.
Speaker 2:Roku is a platform. They have over 20% market share in connected TVs. I was looking at the data. They have over 40% of the engagement with connected TVs. So when you think about it from an advertising potential, right, it's not just that they have 20% of the connected TV market.
Speaker 2:They have over 40% of like the watch time effectively. Right? So looking at the potential from an advertising standpoint and how many dollars are still yet to shift from traditional television to connected TV. So from that lens, I think it's I think it's great. Roku is also a much younger demo.
Speaker 2:So like a lot of media Mhmm. A lot of media properties, right, especially television related are gonna be, you know, older demos that are that are eventually gonna be aging out at least of like prime consumers. But these are consumers that are in their, you know, prime earning years, prime years as consumers. And and so ultimately, I think it makes sense. I think it makes sense for for Fox.
Speaker 2:Next, the thing that I hope that they can do as a consumer is rebundle. Right? We've just gone Sure. We've gone through this era of unbundling Yeah. And the fact that you got a new TV and you're like, okay, great.
Speaker 2:Let me log in to, you know, fifteen, ten different services, something like that. I would like to see them do I would like to see them do something in bundling for for consumers. So again, looking at it from the lens of like having north of 40% of like watch time
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:Right? That is a super valuable property and like with the right ad driven approach, I think I think it'll pay off.
Speaker 1:I wonder how windowing fits into this. Like, I I when when I grew up, I didn't have cable, but you would get a prestige movie played on ABC like once a week. And for a while, that was the flow on Netflix. And HBO was like its own premium subscription. You could open up the HBO app.
Speaker 1:It's all premium series and movies. And then some of that would trickle down, but then it feels like the ecosystem sort of branched a little bit where Netflix stopped getting like the James Cameron library for a while. And Disney started hoovering up some of that, keeping some of the really popular movies, the Marvel franchise, off of Netflix, even for a later run a year or two after, because there was more competition from the actual different pieces of the the the different studios. So I wonder if Roku will be able to to provide some sort of like neutral territory in some ways where where viewers can pick up something that's in the premium end, some things that's, you know, a sequel to a franchise that they know and love, but it's not seen as as competitive as as, you know, Disney versus HBO or whatever. We'll we will see.
Speaker 2:Overall, real platform.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:They already have a product that sits on top of it. Tons of of advertising potential and I think that regardless of whatever the market reaction is today, expect that people will will get it over time.
Speaker 1:Tyler Cowen shared some more thoughts on the recent mythos, brouhaha. It's a good term. We this was all over. We talked about this earlier, but he says, According to not yet confirmed but likely true reports, it was shown that the model could be jailbroken. There's debate over this now.
Speaker 1:The released mythos already restricted bio and AI improvement queries rather than strictly in fact rather strictly in fact. So now we are back to the model not being available. Here are a few of the constraints on the U. S. Government, not the only ones, I might add.
Speaker 1:One, it needs for the main companies to stay in business. On top of that, it wants their IPOs to go reasonably well. And it's now much harder for the top companies to recruit foreigners, which is a significant share of their highest quality workforce. Demis, Ilya, Andre, for a start, are all international engineers. It is much harder for the main competitors to drum up foreign business in a credible manner and sustainable manner.
Speaker 1:That's interesting. We haven't seen many breakout charts of how much revenue is domestic versus international, but we have seen reports of OpenAI and Anthropic doing big deals with international companies. Some of these companies, Fortune 500s, they just have global footprints, so they got to use the models everywhere, ideally, unless they do all of their software engineering in Silicon Valley. One b, how are American multinationals operating abroad supposed to use top systems moving forward? That's literally what I just said.
Speaker 1:I just predicted the next line. Oops. I am a am a stochastic parrot. It wants to use model access as a tool of both hard and soft power, so model access has to be possible at some level. But it is very hard to control what foreign agents will do with partial model access when they get it in the future.
Speaker 1:Three, The US needs to stay ahead of China in the AI race. This is a big question. We have Aaron Ginn from Hydrohost joining in just ten minutes. We'll ask him for his perspective on this. Four, The US needs to issue restrictions that are actually enforceable, and US citizens only doesn't fit that bill.
Speaker 1:That's a good point. Furthermore, markets and everything, he it is easy enough to hire a traitorous American to access tools of wrongdoing. That's a really good point. How can you verify that every American is is loyal? Or for a matter, it is not that difficult to fake citizenship in various ways.
Speaker 2:Yeah. There's been there's been people over the last fifty years that have gotten caught, like, passing on or basically selling, you know, secrets around our various military aircraft Yeah. For example.
Speaker 1:Yeah. There's a very controversial story of Virgil Griffith, cryptocurrency researcher, who I actually met once. He worked at Caltech, was deep in math, and very excited about cryptocurrency. And he went and gave a talk on cryptocurrency in North Korea, explaining how cryptocurrency works and how crypto cryptography works. And that was seen as a violation of export controls, he was sent to prison.
Speaker 1:And the crypto community is very upset about that because they they maintain that math should not be illegal. This information should not be illegal. The the government side is defense,
Speaker 2:was he like thinking that he was gonna liberate the North Korean people by giving them access to effectively or explaining how code
Speaker 1:Can be used to create a a store of value that that is that is unsanctionable essentially. And so it was seen as a violation violation of sanctions by the US government.
Speaker 2:And and more importantly they have a North Korean stable coin?
Speaker 1:I don't know. I don't know. They had a
Speaker 2:lot of They're calling it the most sanctioned stablecoin
Speaker 1:Potentially. Potentially. One, number five by Tyler Cowen, was a little bit controversial. He says, the US government cannot nationalize these companies and then proceed to run them effectively. And people are debating that, saying that it might be possible for the US government to to own the labs in some way and and and leave them to their own devices to actually roll these things out?
Speaker 1:What do
Speaker 2:you Yeah.
Speaker 3:I mean, if you're, like, super RSI pilled, right, you don't need the employees at all because because the AI just improved
Speaker 1:the stuff. So the government just says continue to improve? Yeah. That's it. So you don't actually
Speaker 3:You know, the the extreme scenario.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Yeah. And then and then on the other side, it's that, Okay, these systems are actually extremely complex. You look at the uptime of some of these systems, the research taste. In fact, you need so many employees to make these products effective.
Speaker 1:You actually need the international employees as well because they come up with great ideas. And so those are the two sort of sides of the debate. Six is Chinese and open source models do in fact improve at some reasonable pace, even though they are right now considerably behind the best proprietary models. And that's something that I want to dig into more. It does seem like the pace of open source development in China is slowing.
Speaker 1:I'm not entirely sure what's driving it. It feels like there's a number of different things. Gavin Baker said it's about compute and they're turning their backs on the Blackwells that they had the opportunity to buy. I think it might be research ideas that are more locked down now in tighter controlled circles in San Francisco. It also might be the data.
Speaker 1:It might be but you'd have to imagine that they have lots of people that are writing code, lots of people that are inferencing those models, and then full data and information capturing of those rollouts. There are a number of different reasons why that pace might be slowing. And we'll see. Maybe there's a big jump in the graph. Maybe we have another deep seek moment in the next couple of months.
Speaker 1:We'll see. Clearing order in Leave us five stars on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Sign up for newsletter at tbpn.com, and we will see you tomorrow at 11AM Pacific. Goodbye.
Speaker 2:Technology's Daily Show. Technology in Motion.