0:00I think we spend 30% of our engineering salary on coding tools. It's actually gone down the last 2 months. While tokens, the number of tokens that we've used has actually gone up. Today we welcome Harrison Chase, the founder of Lang Chain, multi-billion dollar company. It is a leader in the ability to create and monitor your agents. And today we welcomed him to the hot seat to discuss why it is so hard to build agents today. What no one knows that everyone should know about what is coming with agents. And then my favorite, some really kooky predictions
0:29which no one else believes will happen, but he knows will definitely happen.
0:33I really underestimated the demand for inference. Everything just works. This market is so big. There's just so much demand for it.
0:52Harrison. Dude, I'm so looking forward to this. I've been looking forward to it for a while cuz I remember Miles telling me about you when he was at Benchmark and just singing your praises. So, wanted to make it happen for a while. So, thank you for joining me.
1:03I'm excited to be here.
1:04Now, for those that don't know, 60 seconds, what is Lang Chain and where do you like sit in the stack?
1:12We build tools to make it easy to build agents. So, we build developer tools primarily. We have an open source framework which basically connects the model to everything else that you need to build a useful agent. So tools, data, computation, things like that. And then we also have Langmith. Langmith is observability and evals. Agents go wrong all the time. How do you know how they go wrong? And how do you measure them so that you can increase their performance over time? That's what Langmith does.
1:38Okay. I ask stupid questions for a living. Um, that's why I'm a podcaster.
1:42Why is it difficult to build agents?
1:45The hard part about building agents is uh they don't behave how you want them to behave. So, so the models are these like non-deterministic black boxes, right? And they take natural language as input and then they output natural language. And inside the black box, they're also nondeterministic. And so what that means is that the input you get is like infinite in dimension. It can be anything. You put a chatbot in front of someone, they can type anything that they want, right? And so that makes it really hard to know what they're going to type. And then once it goes into this model, and by the way, agents are not just one model call. There's a
2:15they're a series of model calls and they're interacting with other tools.
2:18And so you have these small block black boxes that are then put inside this large system and you get basically these cascading types of errors. So you have this this this very big kind of like input space. You have this very big output space because two similar inputs can go in and they can arrive at completely different kind of like uh answers. And the thing that's uh making all this hard is the LLM itself. Yes, they're very very smart, but you don't know exactly what they're going to do.
2:44and they change answers based on small changes to the input. And so you build this system, but it's really non-re. And so getting this system to behave reliably, like that is the hardest part.
2:56Like when we talk about agents 3 years ago, four years ago to agents today, they've gotten a lot better. And the main thing that's happened is one, the models have gotten better, and two, we've figured out how to build systems that basically harness these these models better. And and that second part, the the harnessing of these models is what we focus on.
3:17How does your business change in a way that people don't see as the models get better?
3:23The main way our business changes as the model gets better is we basically have to erase big parts of our product. Um so what I mean by that and cursor said this really well as well. I think this was one of their actual operating principles as a company is like erase the product or delete the product I think is what they called it where basically like these models get better and things that you had to do um 6 months ago you no longer have to do and so this is very relevant in our open source. So open source is all about basically the the harness and the framework for taking
3:52these models and helping them do things. And the right way to take these models and help them do things changes every month, 3 months, 6 months, choose your time period, but it changes pretty rapidly.
4:02How do you build for such an uncertain future? Do you just have to get in bed with the labs to know the road map so you don't waste 6 months building something that then they erase?
4:11There there's no easy answer on on one hand. What are you going to do? Not build. Like that's that's what I like to say to founders who ask this like what do I what do I do like stuff is changing um you know the models are changing uh uh if I build something now it might not be relevant in 6 months what's the alternative you just don't build anything and so I think you have to make kind of like educated guesses as to what parts are going to be around and what parts aren't going to be around in the future so for example early on the way that we would do tool calling in lang chain was by having the model generate
4:41JSON uh DSL and then parsing it and Uh that was something that I think we all thought or knew was like a little bit of a hack at at at the time, but we had to do it because that was the only way to get it to to actually steer things cuz you have to get it to do this type of tool calling. And then and then a few months later, OpenAI came out with tool calling. And I think we recognized pretty early and this is like a more native version of tool calling that's directly in in in the model and in the APIs. And I think we recognized pretty early on that that was the future. And so we invested a lot of efforts and just
5:10completely switched from from JSON parsing to this tool calling. Um and and so I think you have to basically recognize what things are short-term hacks and what things are long-term kind of like will always be there. The models will never know your proprietary data. They will never be able to to kind of like actually get the output of of APIs.
5:30You have to take their like API call, pass it to the API, get the output and then continue in the loop. And so I think the system around the model connecting it to other places will always be there. But a lot of the hacks we do around uh chain of thought or planning or tool calling things that can just be much more closely integrated into the model or into the model API will go away. And I think you just have to be quick to recognize that and and go on.
5:52Why do we need neutral harnesses? We see you know bluntly very brilliant agent builders from the models themselves. Why does your layer not just get eaten by them? I think the reason we need neutral harnesses is that there is a lot of state that you build up either before you build the agent or as part of the agent running. And the state can include things like memory uh whether that's short-term memory or long-term memory. Memory also comes in different
6:22form factors. It can be from interacting with the agent versus from the agent learning from the environment. And the reason that this state gets built up is the agent interacts. It goes out, it learns, it chats and and it learns things to make it better. I think I think one of the most interesting things right now is how to make these agents do better over time and learn. And some of that learning and some of the doing better over time will be in the model weights, but a lot of it is outside the model. And a lot of it is in this in this context. And right now when you build up this context, you really don't
6:50want it to be linked to a single kind of like model provider. Um, and the reason for that is that then it becomes linked there. You can't go to other models.
6:57Being able to change models is very offensive and defensive. So it's offensive in the fact that you want to be able to take advantage of the best model when it comes out no matter who it's coming from. It's defensive in the fact that you don't want to get locked in so they can't raise rates, things like that. So you want to be able to switch models. The harness is uh can be very tied to the model. It can also be neutral. The context right now is really intricately linked to the harness. So the harness's job is to basically take the model and interact with all the other things. All the other things includes data and APIs, but also
7:27includes memory. And so if you build this memory in a way that is linked to the harness and the harness is linked to the model, then you're kind of stuck. You're kind of true of the harness structure, I'm sorry, is the portability of data that it allows the user.
7:42Yeah. Yeah. You you want to you want to basically not be locked in to models.
7:47And if if if memory if context starts building up in a way that is specific to one how one model wants to interact with memory or wants to interact with context, that's very bad for portability. and then that puts you at a disadvantage building your your business going forward. We talk with a lot of people about owning their intelligence and what that means and there's a lot of different versions of that. The version that that that we think like owning your intelligence means we we think there's a few different components of that but one key component is having kind of like this this open and controllable agent
8:16like you want to be able to adjust all the different pieces. You want to be able to adjust the model. You want to be able to adjust the harness as well because sometimes the these these model labs are training harnesses to be really good at the things that are in distribution for them which oftent times is coding and coding is great and there's a ton of use cases around coding but there are a ton of use cases that are aren't coding and maybe they'll write code as part of it but they'll you they're using that as as a way to do sales as a way to do research as a way to do these the law as a way to do these other vertical specific things. And so when you get out of distribution of what
8:44the the model labs are training on you want to have control over like what the what the harness does. And then you also want control over the context as well. So model, the harness itself, and the context make up kind of like this open and controllable uh agent architecture. And we think that's a big part of what it means to own one intelligence.
8:59I just want to back up a little bit when we think about like um agent value so to speak. Some people say that the value is actually in the verification like whether it did well or not because that unlocks the next step which is automation. If value is derived through verification, who wins?
9:23If value is derived through verification, I think the people who win are the domain experts. The people who are able to kind of like quantify what that value means, which is very hard. Like building evals is a very hard job.
9:32And so I think the the the a lot of the value will acrue to whoever can kind of like uh write those verifiers, capture that domain knowledge. I'm I'm massively bullish on vertical agents for different domains for for this reason because I think the domain experts who who are best suited to to write those verifiers or build those eval as as we kind of talk about it um they will be able to build harnesses and models and it it won't be just the harness it won't be just the model it will be some combination of them. So, so very
10:02practically if you're getting started building a a vertical agent, I would highly suggest you start at the harness layer, you do context engineering, uh you you you kind of like tweak the harness and then when you've got users, then you start tweaking the model in post- training. I think I think it's it's much higher ROI to start at the context or harness layer first. And so I think we'll have all these different verticals. they'll be able to quantify what good looks to them um in in in a very domain specific way and that'll let them build uh not only like vertical
10:31agents but also vertical agent experiences. Uh different agents might have different experiences and so I think like a lot of the value will will I I massively bullish on vertical agents and so we want to enable a lot of that. You said like if I was building that I would start at the harness layer. We're seeing a lot whether it's Harvey or I think it's RAMP um build their own models.
10:53To what extent are they actually building their own models? Mike cannon Brooks said the last on show we released today that it's largely kind of respectfully BS and they're fine-tuning open source Chinese models. Is that true? And and how do you think about that?
11:07I think a lot of it is they are post- training open openw weight models.
11:11Absolutely. Um, I I I still think that's a valuable thing to do. I don't think there's I don't think there's kind of like anything wrong with that. I think I think there's different like dimensions that you can go in terms of owning your intelligence. I think the cheapest way is you just control the context. You use an off-the-shelf harness, off-the-shelf model. The next level down is you start tweaking the harness and and that gives you more control than just the context, but it's a it's a little bit uh uh more expensive to do. The next level down is is you post-train an openw weight model.
11:39And so you might take an an existing uh openweight Chinese model and post- train it for your domain. And then and then the very kind of like bottom layer is they actually train a model from scratch. I don't think I don't think many folks are training kind of like a model from scratch. I think most are post- training. I think if you're training a model from scratch, you're probably at Neolab. I think those are one of the few that are doing that. Um but yeah, the ramps and the harveies of the world, they uh they have a ton of talent. They have a ton of data. They have uh a bunch of usage and are trying to think about really optimizing it. And
12:08so they've gotten all the juice they can out of the context, all the juice they can out of the harness, and now they've arrived at basically post- training of these models.
12:14Can I ask you, the jury's kind of out on the efficacy of these specialized models in the post-training realm, like we mentioned there, some reports I've seen say they're massively more efficient and better and some less so. How do you think this will play out? I think what we've seen in regards to post- training is that a lot of the post- training that practically makes sense right now is probably for like simpler tasks that make up a larger harness. So what I mean by that is like when you have a harness
12:43when you have an agent harness that's doing interesting work, it it it's actually very rarely just one model running the loop. That might be the core of it, but there's a bunch of other model calls that happen either as like guard rails or routing or sub aents or subworkflows or things like that. And so a lot of the places where we see post- training being uh efficient now are for simpler tasks like classification or extraction or summarization that might be a tool the agent uses or a guardrail
13:10or things like that. I I I think those types of post training right now make a ton of sense and will continue going forward. I think the question uh that is more unanswered is for this core model that's driving the loop because the main way an agent works is there's an LLM running in a loop calling tools and so the question is for for this model that's driving that loop will those be kind of like post-trained models or or will those be kind of like frontier models and I think this is where we see
13:37uh more of like a back and forth where like um every time a new frontier model comes out the the the better they are at just running this kind of like core loop we do see people like Harvey and Ramp and others kind of like experimenting with post-training models for this core loop. And so I think Harvey recently in the past month or so announced something exactly in that vein. Um I I I think that's an open question. I think um if you were building your own vertical application, would you post train your own or not?
14:07Not to start. Absolutely not to start, but like if we're talking like 5 years in the future, assuming that I'm getting a ton of usage, um I think it could be a realistic possibility. One of the things that harnesses also need to do I imagine is model routing depending on request. How much value is in the model routing layer? Model routing is so interesting.
14:27I think it's one of the hottest and maybe most divisive topics right now. Um so so a few thoughts. First there there's there's a question of where the model routing should even be. Should it be at the harness level or should it be in the gateway level? And this is this is like getting a little bit into the technical we there's a difference. I'm sorry. The difference is in the harness level it's in kind of like the code of of of how it runs and in the gateway it's just an API call. So the benefits of putting it in the gateway level because it's just an API call you can drop it into any harness. You could put this this this
14:55routing that's happening at the gateway level into clawed code into into any harness without having to change the code. The downside and why I think we're more bullish on routing happening in the harness as are I I think factory and cognition have also written things about this is that in the harness you just have more knowledge of what's going on. You have more awareness of the state.
15:15When you have an API it's generally assuming that it's kind of like an open AI uh chat completions API and so it only takes in a certain amount of state.
15:23You have more state in in the harness to know hey uh like what's going on with the prompt cache. If you want to try to keep the prompt cache uh warm and and and available, you can also change the prompt more easily. So, a lot of these models have uh different prompting strategies. And so, if you do the routing at the at the uh harness layer, you can more easily change the the prompt. And so, I think a lot of what we've seen is one this debate between kind of like gateway and harness and where does routing go. I think we
15:52probably believe it belongs in the um and just so we understand the open routers and all the other providers which there are several there are they are in the gateway they are in the gateway a lot of I obviously open router incredible company incredible usage had them on the show love Alex Alex is great I think uh I think a lot of why people use open router and versell and other gateways is largely for the model access so I think there's also a difference between a router and a
16:21gateway and So I would I would probably say most of open routers usage and Alex obviously knows the numbers a lot better than I do but if I had to guess I would guess a lot of it just comes from being a gateway not a router. So people specify the the model they want up front and open router just provides a single API with a single API key for accessing that the ter in terms of like smart routing I think that's actually being done like way less than people think. I think it and I think when it's done it's it's built into the harnesses by folks
16:49like factory. I think factory does a tremendous job about this. They've written a number of technical blogs that are very well done in terms of how they do they do uh routing. But I think right now I I I pretty strongly believe that like routing you have to be harness aware. You have to know what the task is. You have to know what the harness looks like. So I don't think you'll have routing that works for law and works for finance and works for coding and have it all be the same. It's going to be very domain and very harness specific. I'm sorry. When I listen to you, it seems so unwaveringly obvious that routing should be at the harness layer given the
17:19context and memory that's is stored there. When I have such an obvious response, I like to understand why am I stupid? What is the bull case for it being at the gateway layer?
17:30I think when people talk about it at the gateway layer, I think there's maybe like two things that they're talking about. So, one, it makes it way easier to port. So, you don't you can you can take cloud code. People love cloud code, right? If you if you if you tell people, hey, you can't use cloud code, you have to use this other harness. Um, and there are other good harnesses out there, but let's pretend for a second that you love cloud code that and you want you want to let them keep on using that, but you want to do some semblance of of kind of like routing to maybe like a DeepSk or or an open source model or something
17:59like that, then the only way you can do that is at the gateway layer because you don't control the harness. Side note, this is another argument for open source harnesses that you can control and modify. Um, and then the second thing is when when people talk about kind of like routing at the gateway layer, I think they're oftentimes implicitly assuming that there's a domain. So there's kind of like two general domains that you could maybe argue that you can build general routers for. And I actually think open router has uh has done this to some extent. You could argue coding.
18:27Coding is like the the most popular domain. That's where all the uses going.
18:30Let's build a router that works really good for coding. Maybe we won't be like harness aware, but we'll be like use case aware. So we know different models are good for different things in coding and we can put it at the gateway. The other thing you could say is like hey we've got this like general chatbot like we're not trying to be best in the class at law or best in the class at finance but we're just going to be like a general chatbot across the company and like we can know well enough that if you say hi how are you doing? You don't need like opus for that. You can use a cheap model. And so I think when people talk
18:59about routing at the at the gateway level, they're implicitly kind of assuming that you're doing either like general purpose chat or coding um and and you're not doing like a a domain specific thing. As soon as you get into a domain specific thing, I really think it has to be at the harness layer.
19:14You're not going to use an open you're not going to use an off-the-shelf uh gateway router for that. So in 2 to 3 years time you think the majority is within the harness given the benefits that come from that context but for very horizontal task it will sit in gateway.
19:28I think that's exactly right. If you're building a vertical agent I think routing needs to be in the harness. If you're thinking about a general purpose horizontal task like just general chat or coding it it could maybe be in the gateway.
19:41Is it a commodity? Like does everyone just build it?
19:44I don't think routing is a commodity. I I I do think people will build it but I think building it is quite hard uh even today and and I think part of the reason for that is the models just change so rapidly. So like you can argue that certain models are better at different things but then a new opus or a new open AI model comes out and it's just better at everything and so then the value of routing kind of goes down.
20:06I think evals are useful but I wouldn't trust them fully. And so what I mean by that is I I I think I think a lot of the academic evals that are out there that are used when a lot of the models come out are not really that useful anymore.
20:21I don't I think all the models that come out are kind of benchmark maxed against those evals and so you don't learn a lot. I think internal evals that you have and that you build for your domain absolutely can still be useful. And so I would I mean this is the main reason that building evals is such an important part of building a vertical specific agent. I think you have to have some way of of measuring things and and I think you can generally trust th those evals.
20:44Um but even then one of the most important things to do is just look at the data. Just like look at the data and see what it's doing. Don't rely too much on kind of like a single number. I think this is why you want to have traces. You want to look at what's going on. Maybe your evals aren't perfect. Evals are really hard. You can have some sense but maybe models are doing better but in just a different way that you didn't know how to capture before. And so I do think uh yes I think you can trust vertical specific benchmarks but you have to evolve those as well and that's one of the main things that we've seen because these models just get better in
21:13different ways. Can I ask you? You mentioned traces there. If like traces are the like exhaust of agent work, where is the value then? Is it the app, the observability layer, the model layer? Where is it?
21:28If you're building an agent, I think the value is at what makes that agent good at the domain or vertical that you're you're working in. So what I what I mean by that is again I think there's different ways to um to to control what an agent does. There's the context, there's the harness, and there's the model. Having uh specific proprietary things for for any of those can be an advantage. I think controlling the the context is is the easiest and and the most uh obvious thing to do when starting then controlling the harness.
21:58And that would be data, that would be memory, um that would be specific APIs, um specific tools that you can use.
22:06Controlling the harness is like a little bit harder. uh but still you can still put a lot of your domain knowledge around what should do both routing and things in there and then the model is is uh is the hardest control but potentially the highest ceiling the the the the thing that lets you iterate on each of those is eval so there is a ton of value in these but there's only value in that you like capture insights that you bring back to the context or bring back to the harness
22:34or bring back to the model and that exact process can look different so post- trainining great for bringing these insights from traces back to the model. For bringing things back to the context or memory, you're probably going to want to run like another agent over those traces and then just and then have that agent output kind of like learnings for memory. And then for bringing the these learnings in the traces back to the harness, you're probably going to want to run an agent over those traces and update the code of the harness itself. And we actually have something that does this for people. It's called
23:04engine. It's an agent in Langmith that runs over traces and tries to update code. And then and then when you update these things, you're going to need to know that it's actually better. And this is where eval come in handy.
23:13Can I ask how does continual learning change agents and how they work?
23:18Continual learning, I don't think so much changes how agents work, but I think it changes the systems that you want to have running around the agent.
23:30So what I mean by that is is is I think the core loop for a continual learning agent the core inner loop maybe to say will will still largely be the same. It will be an LLM running in a loop calling tools interacting with a model and in an environment. I I think what continual learning adds is an outer loop. Um an outer loop that looks at the exhaust of of agents and then and and then does things with it. And again, what what it does could be different depending on on
23:58what continual learning means for you.
24:00So, I think continual learning is also one of those words that doesn't have a super precise definition or maybe I I would define it as a system that gets better over time um as it runs. And again, there's different ways it could get better over time. It could update the context. It could update the code of the harness or it could update the weights of the model. Um and the outer loop will look roughly the same for all of those. It will look like take traces, get learnings, fix something, measure it to make sure
24:28it improved and repeat. But that exact kind of like changing again updating weights of model very different from updating a text file that is like a memory file.
24:36If we look at the the context like we mentioned data being a part of that, we're seeing data companies scale to hundreds of millions of revenue in the fastest time ever. I mean like ever ever and everyone is selling data. Mhm.
24:49How do you expect this market to play out given your neutrality on not being involved in it, but being adjacent to it? Will this be a market of consolidation in years to come? How do you see it play out?
25:02I actually think the the data market is still like pretty early in the grand scheme of things in so much as we're talking about kind of like a context layer for agents. So, what I mean by that is like there are uh there are a bunch of databases that are Click House is maybe like a really good example of one that's doing incredibly well recently. Um I I think they're still largely focused on kind of like they're they're they're a database. They're good old fashioned database. They're good at storing data and querying data, but it's still um in in pretty kind of traditional ways. Click house existed
25:30pre prei when when we talk about kind of like a context uh layer for agents. And again like there will be a bunch of data produced from like software systems and great like I think like existing databases click house [ __ ] elastic whatever are are are great for that when we talk about a context layer for agents I think a key part of what what exists there is yes there's a database but I actually think there's a system around the database. I I think like a context layer for agents will look more similar to like an agent around a database than
25:59just a database. And the reason for this is that taking all of these learnings and ingesting them into a database, you need some sort of like intelligence to do that. And I think that intelligence is actually really really hard. The hardest part about memory is actually not the database at all. When we talked to a number of uh companies, the way that they do memory is they just store it in a single file. Very very kind of simple. the the hard part is taking all of the observations that happen whether it's from the user interacting with like the let's say it's a traditional SAS
26:27interacting with the the software or the user interacting with the agent and distilling that into information that's valuable enough to go into this context layer. That's the hard part in memory right now.
26:38Why is that so hard?
26:39Because it's tricky to get LMS to do what you want it to do. And this type of like this type of like meta reflection I think is something that LM actually still struggle at a lot like reflecting on um on on on kind of like prompts and improving prompts reflecting on agent architecture improving agent architecture. We should build a benchmark for this internally. We we do have some benchmarks for this in terms of engine which is our agent that's running on things. But I think this type of meta reflection is still really difficult for agents. I think it's also generally like a hard thing for humans
27:07to do as well. Like I don't know if we actually understand, some people probably do, so I shouldn't say this, but I don't know if we understand like like what like what what goes on inside our brain. Like I feel like our brains are still kind of like uh uh uh complex things uh that we don't fully understand. And so if we're trying to now replicate this kind of like learning process in uh in in in in a system, I think there's a bunch of different pieces. And so I think you have to I Yeah, I I I think models aren't great at kind of like reflection.
27:36And I don't think we know what this system should look like. What should the inputs look be? What should the outputs be? What should the harness for this this agent be? What should the different workflows be?
27:44Will the models be meaningfully better at reflection in 12 months?
27:48Probably. I mean, it seems like they'll get better at everything.
27:50Do you think the speed of model improvement will continue in the same manner of acceleration that it has done or do you think we are approaching some form of asmtotic plateauing?
28:00I think the speed of model improvement is something that's probably really tough to say without being inside of a lab. I I I would say I think there are a lot of tasks for which the model improvements will will will kind of like uh flatline in the sense that like it's already good enough like I think there are a bunch of tasks where the models are just good enough which would be like coding yeah coding's getting there um uh like summarization uh routing tasks um there
28:27are probably more difficult tasks and or tasks that we don't even know to think about know to throw a model at I I would probably say like this type of like metalarning is one of those tasks that the models aren't good at now. I would imagine is very important to the labs in terms of kind of like cracking RSI or or or things like that. Um and so I do think the models will get better at that over time and it's possible that that progress actually looks uh much faster than that than than previous. Um I think
28:56it's really tough to have an educated opinion without being inside of a lab. There are some tasks where it's saturated. There are other tasks where I think it will probably just increase faster than before.
29:05What about agents today sounds crazy that you think will be incredibly common in 2 to 3 years?
29:12I mean, I think this memory layer for agents is still massively unsolved. I think one thing about agents that is is rare today but will be incredibly common in the next few years is is this memory layer. So, what I mean by that is if you look at like instinct or muse, I think one of the things that they've nailed is this kind of like personalization and learning and seeming like it's it's something for you, whether it's because it's speaking in the tone or because it's just following up like that proactiveness. And and so I think I think memory is super super early. We've been talking with folks about memory for
29:40like 2 years and trying to do things in the open source. We we we launched an alpha and then and then killed a commercial solution for memory. It's just so early on in memory and it's so domain specific. What memory looks like for Instinct or Muse is actually pretty different than what it probably looks like for a company or or harness and it's pretty different than what it looks like for legal or finance or things like that. So I think memory is is is one thing that really makes a difference.
30:05You see this make a different I think instinct and muse have done a great job at this and so you see how it makes a difference there. Um but I think it's still very very early on and I would expect uh all products in a few years to have some aspect of memory in it. With respect, is that not quite obvious?
30:19I think I think it's I I think the fact that memory will have an impact is quite obvious and that's why you see so many people interested in it and have having it be interested in it for for the past few years. I still think it's nonobvious what the answer is. I still think it's incredibly non-obvious what the answer is. I don't think anyone knows what the answer for memory is.
30:36Why did you kill the commercial solution for it given the obviousness of it and the clear need for it in in almost everything? We didn't we killed it because we didn't find product market fit. I think um why didn't we find product market fit? I think we actually tried to be too general. I think memory is so early right now that I think a lot of the solutions that you want to build are actually very like domain or agent specific and so you would build memory spec like vertically specific memory solutions.
31:06What would you do differently?
31:07Going back to what the hard part of memory is. I think the hard part of memory is that process for learning from facts about about what to remember. Um, and that agent that that that does that remembering, um, as I said, I'm I'm massively bullish in kind of like vertical agents. And so, uh, and I think having those agents be good at learning things specific to their domain is is is a key part of of that. And so, I do think these kind of like learning agents, at least to start, probably have
31:34to be domain specific. Um, and and and I don't know if there's like a general like what what does the what does the harness for these learning agents look like? It probably looks pretty similar to a lot of the harnesses we have now. It probably looks pretty we build deep agents. Deep agents is an agent harness.
31:48Probably looks similar to that. An OL running the loop, but it's got specific instructions and specific tools and maybe there's some specific sub aents that are really good at, you know, uh, navigating existing memory structures or or distilling kind of like facts. And so I think you'll have you'll have agents for remembering things. I just think they'll be domain specific.
32:06Do you think you will have vertical agents for consumer applications?
32:11I understand and I agree with you when you look at finance, accounting, sales, marketing, legal. You mentioned muse and instinct. They would be horizontal agents. Do you think we'll have vertical consumer agents?
32:23I think my take on the consumer space is that you'll have both. You'll have both horizontal and vertical agents. And the horizontal agents will interact with the vertical agents. Where does it make sense to have a vertical agent versus not?
32:34I think for most apps it probably makes sense to have a a vertical agent. And I think the reason that having vertical agents makes sense at all is is is probably twofold. Maybe more, but two that jumped to mind. Um, one, a lot of these apps have uh knowledge about you and can learn things about how you interact with that that app better than a general horizontal agent could. Um, so back to the point about domain specificity, how how you interact with music for say like Spotify um, is is is
33:03very different than how you might interact with Strava, right? And so those those apps are actually probably best at learning things about you. And I think the best way to expose those learnings is probably through an agent.
33:13The other thing is a lot of these apps have a ton of APIs. And so you could say, hey, you know, Spotify, don't build an agent, just expose a bunch of APIs. I actually think it's better for it's a better experience if there is an agent that kind of like wraps those APIs and exposes a single or maybe multiple but like probably a single like natural language interface for a horizontal agent to interact with with that with that vertical agent.
33:37How does the infrastructure change when agents are the fundamental interface with sites? And what I mean by that is, you know, um I wanted tickets to a specific concert and I said check every 5 minutes and buy any seat that comes available and for 3 days they checked every single 5 minutes. The volume of queries was a thousand times what it would have been with humans. How does the infrastructure required change in a world of agent
34:06interaction or human interaction?
34:08When agents are interacting uh it it it makes the number of requests go way up.
34:13I think I think you saw a story about how I think it was resi that blocked uh a user's uh account because they were using instinct to to pull it uh I don't know how frequently but pretty frequently and and and so I think yeah the the infra there's just way more strain on on the infrastructure. How does that percolate down to lower layers? I I don't know if I have an opinion on that yet. I think you have to build systems that can be much more bursty that can scale way broader. I don't I don't know if I have more specifics. Do you think providers will
34:41allow agent usage or not?
34:45I think the future is providers exposing their own agent and having people either interact with that agent or having people's horizontal agents interact with that agent.
34:54So my horizontal agent, sorry, I just understand this would interact with res's vertical agent.
35:00I think that's exactly right.
35:02Why would that work? Cuz that still doesn't solve the two core problems of advertising for a lot of these businesses. they lose that ads model and then upsell they lose the like anything else you might like also on the side so you get reduced basket size why why would agent agent work I think you could include some of those things in the agent response um so you could you could do advertising for specific things on on resi or Etsy or whatever and include that in the agent's response like hey I found these three things you might also want to consider this other thing that's now a natural language response that
35:31goes back to kind of like the the main agent I think also to the point around the strain on the systems if if if you have a vertical agent, it's going to be better and more efficient at interacting with the underlying systems than a third party agent will. So, I think it will make it a lot more efficient for for them to do that.
35:48When we look at the amount of queries and the volume that changes with agents, yeah, it takes a lot of tokens to do all of this work. How does the cost of tokens and cost of that intelligence change over time? Cuz we always thought it would get cheaper. Hasn't got much cheaper. How do we actually think about that?
36:07Cost is one of the big things that we talk with people about right now. I think I think there's a few different dimensions to this. One, I think like the the Frontier models are relatively getting cheaper over time. Astra is like price performance fantastic compared to a lot of things that existed a year ago.
36:23Two, there's just way more demand. When you start talking about agents talking to agents or multi- aent systems, there are just so many more tokens that are getting burned and so the costs are going up. Um we see this in coding primarily. coding costs have skyrocketed and I think a lot of organizations including ours are now thinking about ways to kind of like pair pair those costs back. Um h how does this end up getting resolved? Uh I mean if you look at how we're tackling coding agents I think there's a few hints there. So so um when we're tackling coding agents we
36:52think of it in three steps. One we think of basically just like visibility showing showing kind of like how much things uh will cost how much things have cost to admins. Two is cost control. So you could say something like, "Hey, you know, go get me a reservation, but don't spend more than $5 like doing it." Um, and then uh and then third is actually impacting the harness itself. So I I I think primarily a lot of harness engineering has been done around making the agent more efficient because that's the or sorry a lot of the harness engineering has been done to make the agent just like better, more accurate
37:21because that's the biggest blocker. Um I think as cost becomes more concerned, we're seeing people care more about things like prompt caching which are really good for kind of like reducing costs. We're seeing model providers actually make this easier by and this is getting a little bit in the weeds, but they introduced things like where where you can change the tools that are available to an agent mid-flight.
37:40Previously, this would have busted the cache and cause like a massive increase in in cost. Now, you can just add those dynamically um and and keep the cost the same. So, I think we're seeing more attention to both the model APIs and and harnesses in terms of like controlling costs.
37:54When you talk to large enterprises today, what do they matter most? So what matters most to them? Is it accuracy? Is it cost or is it security?
38:05Uh another thing would be latency by the way. So we run developer surveys every year where where we ask developers what they care about. For the last two years the number one response uh basically double the next two has been accuracy. So that's still the the primary thing.
38:18The next two are latency and cost and security is like a a little bit after that pretty close. Um when when we talk to large enterprises recently, I'd say like cost has has risen in terms of concern. I'd still probably say it's below uh below accuracy, but it's probably higher than than latency. And and then security is for large enterprises, security is is is is higher, but still probably below accuracy and cost.
38:44Can I ask you what percent of your engineering salary give or take? I'm not specifically, but do you spend on on coding tools?
38:54I think we spend probably roughly 30% of our engineering salad on coding tools. It's actually gone down the last uh 2 months. Um while tokens, the number of tokens that we've used has actually gone up. And so this has we've done this by doing uh three steps. First is basically just visibility. We tracked all of all of our coding agent usage to Langmith.
39:12So we could tell who was spending how much, what they were spending it on. We could do analytics over that. Uh second is just basic cost controls. We we set kind of like a budget and and if you if you hit the budget, you can talk to our VP of engineering and and he'll he'll almost always like increase it, but it's just a safeguard against kind of like agents, you know, being used uh incorrectly or going in a in in a bad loop. Um and then third would be we control the harness. Um so one of the things we've done is we actually uh built our own uh in-house cloud coding
39:42agent. So not not a not a not a IDE, not a not a terminal based agent. We we let people use whatever they want for that, but we built our own cloud-based agent, open suite is what we call it. Um it's actually the only way I code anymore because I'm in Slack all the time and so I just message it from Slack and it kicks off. But in that harness, we've done a bunch of work to control costs.
40:00Um so things like prompt caching, but also things like routing we've built into this harness and I actually think that's like a pretty repeatable three-step process for kind of like getting coding agent spend under control. Just first visibility, second like basic controls, third like try to improve the harness itself.
40:16Totally get that. I do just want to unpack that. You mentioned that visibility, see who's spending what were the people spending the most the most effective.
40:25Sometimes the people spending most are the most effective and other times they're not. So what I mean by that is we have a few senior engineers who spend a lot and I I 100% trust that what they're doing is well worth it. No questions there. We've also just had some cases where um due more to like kind of like uh silly mistakes or kind of like improper setup than anything, we've had like massive spikes in usage.
40:50So, so an example of this um we we had uh one or two tasks where the some plugin was being used that basically like would would screenshot or or or take a snapshot of of the DOM of a web page and send that back every turn of the agent because they were doing some front end engineering and they wanted to take what it looked like and just send it back. It would just run this massive loop. So, I think we spent um 40k in a week on on that one thing. And so, you know, when it gets to that, like again, like, you know, I I think we're pretty
41:20kind of like uh liberal as a company and trust people, but I I know that's probably not worth it. And so, that's just like an example of like, you know, again, it wasn't malicious. It wasn't uh it wasn't um it wasn't even intended usage really. It was kind of just a mistaken. So, I just think just like catching that is is is well worth it. So, it depends a bit on on side of the spectrum.
41:4130% of salary as you mentioned.
41:43That's a guesstimate. Yeah, guesstimate. Totally fine. What is that in two years?
41:48I think the hard part about estimating coding agent spend is that orgs are just changing so rapidly. So what I mean by that is I I I think there's a future where orgs are much smaller and coding agent spend is uh you know the same as as human salary or or or more or an order of magnitude more and you have a small number of of people that are uh
42:15driving and executing uh incredibly rapidly and incredibly performantly and I and I think that's uh you know an enticing vision in terms terms of of of what you think about um I think I I don't think many companies including us are are probably there. I think we still see that uh we need a bunch of different people with a bunch of different backgrounds and a bunch of different
42:44expertisees collaborating on things and there's a bunch of communication and overhead and review and like yes it would be ideal to have one person driving a 100 agents and just like driving everything that like makes up you know a large part of the product but I think we just see that it's still a very kind of like human human there's still a very human component to it And so I spend a lot of time thinking about kind of like org design and like is it possible to have like small teams, one person teams, two person teams that are
43:11kind of like driving agents. Um I think it's very tempting and in that situation I would say like you know agent spend maybe 3x the cost of of but then also you know the engineers who can do that are incredibly valuable and so maybe it actually will just stay the same because the people who can actually do that and who can drive all those agents you're you're you're there's fewer people but you're paying them a lot more and so the spend actually stays the same. So I think org design is very very interesting right now and so because of that I think it's actually really hard to answer that question.
43:40To me that number is so central because it is the fundamental determinant of Anthropics enterprise value. If that number goes to 5% then the $2 trillion IPO might be a little bit overpriced. If that number actually goes to 300% like it is in Mccor's case then it's dramatically underpriced. And so that's why I focus so much on it. Do you agree that number underpins anthropics value?
44:06I think it's probably right that that number underpins anthropics value. I think the tricky part is that the only place we've seen agents really have effect is in software engineering so far though and there are a ton of other places within an enterprise that I I would argue have yet to kind of be affected by by agents.
44:28And so I think it's possible again software engineering I think very difficult to to to predict but but I think there's basically two levers here.
44:37One is like what happens in software engineering is it the same as today? Is it more than is it less than but I think I think undoubtedly for the other domains it will be a lot more than it is today. And so I think from that perspective I think that's very bullish on anthropic and open AI and other model providers. I think another question that a lot of people are asking is about kind of the proliferation of open models and how that changes the landscape. Um you work with some very large enterprises. One of my dear friends Jason Lmin from Saster says that I'm not going to do his accent
45:06because I'll butcher it and I've done it before and he got rather he said it wasn't very good. Um uh do you find that large enterprises are fearful of working with open source Chinese models or actually they don't mind? We see that some enterprises are fearful of working with open source Chinese models. We we we see others that don't don't kind of like care. Do you think that fear is justified?
45:27I don't really think that fear is justified. I I think there's um I think there's different concerns. I think one concern, you know, is that uh the the the data that it runs on will will somehow go back to the Chinese labs. And again, if you're if you're using fireworks or hosting it yourself, I think that's just ridiculous. I I I think there's other fears that, you know, the stuff that they've been trained on will cause it to respond in a way that's uh you know, not
45:55um consistent with the the values of of the enterprise or something like that. I think that's where eval comey and I think that's largely unfounded, but like sure maybe for some domains there's there's some realness there. I I think it's probably so I think it's probably largely unfounded but for some domains because of that kind of like response I could see there being some some nuance there.
46:17Do you think in the next 12 months we'll have comparable US open source models?
46:20I think in the next 12 months we will absolutely have comparable open source uh US open source models. I think you look at uh everything that Nvidia is doing to kind of like uh work with the ecosystem. I think they they care about it tremendously. I think uh you look at uh reflection had a model launch recently. Um I think it was still a little bit behind some of the Chinese models on some benchmarks but I think there is a tremendous amount of attention in in that domain and so I think absolutely those will catch up.
46:46Can I ask you when you look at the state of landscape today in terms of open models what does the world not see that you see very clearly given your position?
46:55I think when it comes to open models I think there is a lot of usage of them but I do think they're for more narrow tasks than people think. So, so I think we see a lot of people using more open source models and more post-trained models than than I would have maybe expected a year or a year and a half ago, but I still think they're primarily for these simpler tasks like routing or guard rails or extraction or summarization. I don't think they're really driving the the core agentic loops for a lot of uh the these these
47:25these main um these these main agents.
47:28And and so I think open source models are are kind of divisive because you have some people on on one end who are like great they're they're good enough let's use them for everything and and I don't think they're quite there and then I think you have other people who are like you know the frontier models are just going to keep on getting better and better and cheaper and cheaper and like yes that's true but if you really know what you're going to do so you have to have a high volume use case and if there are a few components of that that are simple enough tasks I think it's I think it's I think it's very good ROI to start kind of like post- training or or yeah post- training models for for those use
47:56cases. So, I I'd say, you know, unfortunately, it's probably like a nuanced uh position that's somewhere in the middle of of what I feel like the extremes on Twitter are.
48:05How do you see the inference market playing out? You mentioned that Fireworks very openly. We're a big investor in Fireworks. I love Lynn and the team, but everyone's trying to do it. You you have you we had Chase on the show from Crusoe who also have that as part of their business. You know, I'm friends with the Nebius guys. they also do it as part of Rebbit. How does this business play out and how do you think about the need to do all of the stack versus inferenceon providers like a fireworks or a base 10?
48:33I think when it comes to how things will play out with respect to inference, one of the things that I there's two things that I I think I really underestimated uh over the from the start of lang chain to now. One is the demand for inference and two is the demand for like coding agents. I think both of those markets are just tremendously bigger than than I thought two 3 four years ago. And so I think um I think actually it's it's Eric Visher at Benchmark who who said this on uh either a tweet or podcast recently where I think he basically said like
49:00everything just works like this this market is so big. I I think uh Thomas Tungst had something around just like the market for inference is just so big that you know I think Eric said it about more broad stuff than just inference but I think applying it to inference I think any inference will work. That's like, you know, there's just so much demand for it and and and I I don't know if it's going to get less anytime soon. And so, yeah, sure, Fireworks will work, AWS will work, Crusoe will work. I just
49:29think there's so much demand for it. Where would you not be investing today like I so I can give you some examples. I think the the customer support space is like wildly uninteresting. 20 providers all funded with over 100 million in the last 18 months. You got Salesforce and Atlassian and big incumbents there too. You got kind of mildly old ones like intercom and talk desk doing it to you.
49:52Okay, cool. Or like robotics, like bold take, but there's so much money going into robotics. We're massively far away from having a chat GPT moment. Humanoids in particular really struggle in form factor. I just think the funding and the excitement exceeds the capabilities significantly would be my answer. I like to think I'm somewhat of an optimist and so I I I I think there I think I do think this
50:19technology is transformative and so I think there will be ton of opportunity. Um I think and so I might answer that and then through that we can back out what I wouldn't invest in. I like I I I think uh inference we already talked about. I think there's a tremendous uh there's tremendous Let's do this. You're you're you're my newest partner in the fund. Welcome.
50:39It's so good to have you on your first day. Number one, we should have inference.
50:43We should have inference. Um, there's going to be way more software written, so we should also invest in like lower level kind of like infrastructure primitives. Modal, incredible company. Uh, Temporal, incredible company. I think uh, they compete with fireworks.
50:57Um, modal does on some things. Yeah.
51:01But they also do more. They do sandboxes. So we've got inference layer one the coding layer co coding uh or I would say inference and then like infrastructure so like low-level infrastructure temporal modal um uh superbase convex um vertical agents I think vertical agents are are are going to be a good layer I I think um any specific verticals I don't know if there's any kind of like
51:30verticals that I would overweight so much. I think the important parts are having like a domain specific kind of like point of view and and really diving deep there. I I think Patrick Collison said this on a recent podcast. I think with Omrad from Replet when he was talking about like what the next uh what startup he would build it's it probably wouldn't be like a sexy area. it would be some area where like technology maybe or at least AI penetration is low but there's a lot of domain expertise built up there and kind of going in there and
52:00and really transforming that. I I I think the key the key part is basically just having some domain expertise that can either be captured in data or logic that goes in the harness um and eventually maybe the model weights but but I wouldn't start there having having some domain expertise that can be captured there and and then putting it to work. Um, I think by the way uh there there there are maybe like three things that I would uh look for in all of these
52:29and I think our prerex if if you look at all of the uh if you look at all of these teams that that are succeeding one I think like the talent that they have is tremendously strong like like modal has an incredibly strong kind of like talent team. Lynn and fireworks right they wrote pietorch like how cool is that right? Um two when we met them you know when you're kind of meeting founders the last time you do the brief intro it's like I built PyTorch that that works. Yeah. Yeah. Good tick in that box.
52:54So so I think to build like especially this really deep infrastructure you have to be like super technically strong and there's just not that many people that that can do that. Two you have to go like really really fast like this this like being able to iterate quickly I think is incredibly important. Um uh the market just changes so rapidly. I think I think speed and execution speed when when I think about kind of like our advantages at lingch chain I I think we integrate really really quickly and I think that's one of the uh advantages we we have over other companies and then the last thing would be brand um I think
53:24like a lot of companies that uh uh you know made it in this AI area AI era basically caught lightning in a bottle and then like rode that wave and captured that. You look at like lane chain early on like we went very viral and have executed against that. cursor a great example they went very viral execute against that Jev uh even claude code GPT like it seems like there's just because I it seems like the space is moving so fast and because there are so many competitors and maybe this is even
53:53because of because there are so many competitors you know there were like a hundred different frameworks that came out in the two months after Lingchain came out but I think we had a brand advantage that was built up and I think that was a durable advantage that we kind of like rode and so instinct another example of is probably a bunch of personal assistance, but like I think if there is a uh like in terms of like it would probably be at like maybe higher valuations than is rational, but in terms of some of these funding rounds that are getting done where there's a a
54:22breakout company with like a really strong technical roster that has proven that they can execute quickly, I think you just don't look at the price and you just invest.
54:31Is being first more important than ever before?
54:33I think so. Absolutely. Yeah, you look at I mean it's possible to catch up. I think OpenAI does an incredible job of catching up with with codecs but being first uh anthropic and cloud code that wow what what an advantage that was.
54:45But to your point you lang chain comes out and then months after more and more come out but instinct same same but actually the durable um brand monopoly that comes from being the halo first is very real.
54:57I think that is is super real. Um I also think that you have to execute incredibly well after that. uh counter example to what I just said like just because you're first doesn't mean that you're guaranteed success. AutoGPT I don't know if you remember the AutoGPT project but it came out uh a few months after Langchain was the fastest growing GitHub project of all time. Um and you know I I I uh I I haven't heard much uh from from them since. And that's not a knock is very hard to kind of like
55:26execute with speed. But I think like just because you're you're first in an area doesn't mean that you'll you'll kind of like survive. I never like to knock people so I find it like helpful to like praise them instead in some respects. If you were to write a memo joining the firm for why we should invest in $9 billion Jev round, what would your bull case be for Jev?
55:45The bullcase for Jev is that there's a new type of inference and new type of model and they're like the the model category is literally named after them.
55:52And so there's they're going to ride that wave. um and they're uh uh uh they're a very talented team that can execute on that. Um I don't know the team super well. I think that would have to be the assumption for for a round at at that value from everything that I've seen. I I that seems to be the case, but but that would be the bull case. They basically invented a new model category are associated with it and have a talented team that can execute on that.
56:18Does taking money from benchmark change the trajectory of a company?
56:22100%. And I I I think Benchmark when when Miles and really the whole Benchmark partnership invested in us, it was me and Ankush. Uh we were two people. Um we we really thought of them as kind of like a a third co-founder. I think there are uh you know when when I think about company building from from two people um to where we are now today, which is like 400 people. They've been kind of like uh our our most consistent kind of like partner in that in that journey for sure. You know, I am I am
56:51not a VC. I've never done VC. There's probably also other market dynamics where great benchmarks involved in that signals thing. And we're very lucky to have Sequoia join us after like 2 months, 3 months after the benchmark round. And they've been a tremendous partner as well.
57:04Who was it from Sequoa?
57:05Sonia from Sequoia who is one of the most plugged in people in the spaces I think.
57:09How do their styles differ?
57:11So they're both very very kind of like intelligent and sharp and and h and have kind of like experience, real experience that they bring. I think benchmark is maybe a little bit more like um what's the uh like what's the core nucleus of of the of the company and like that's like we're we're going to be a sounding board for
57:40that and we're we're going to kind of like help with that. So, so what I mean by that is I feel like uh yeah, a lot of the company building things, positioning things I would go uh I would go to them for and they would spend time there.
57:54Sequoia's style I think is they help with like everything like they are just a machine. So they help with recruiting of IC's of executives, they help with marketing and launches and they'll really operationalize. I uh I think so. Yeah. I mean we've gotten a lot of our candidates from from Sequoia references.
58:10Yeah. They they have a talent network and we've gotten a bunch of really really strong candidates from there.
58:14Would you say to founders it's worth taking a discount for Sequoia?
58:18I think absolutely it's worth taking a discard for Sequoia and Benchmark and and probably other of these top one uh uh or tier one VC firms, but those are the ones that we work with.
58:26What do you know now about fundraising that you wish you could tell yourself when it was just the two of you?
58:30I think there is like this game to fundraising almost. And I I I definitely didn't know that going in. I'm a first-time founder. I also think I I I focus a lot like where I spend all my time is on product basically and so I'm very focused on that. Um I do think there is this game to fundraising where you know you you um you want to fundra without fundraising. You want to like uh once you get one term you want to get one term sheet and then you know tell others you have a term sheet and post a revenue graph on Twitter and then
59:00it leads to all these inbound and yeah.
59:03Do you [ __ ] like this? I [ __ ] hate it. Maybe I'm too old for this game now, but like it's just posturing. It's like Harrison, do you really like me and want to build a business with me? I'll give you the same price and the same money than whatever. Like let let's just do this. Stop the [ __ ] posturing.
59:18I think um I I don't like fundraising at all. I I I think I mean kind of what you were saying like I I want to build something great with people I enjoy working with. I think like uh yeah, like we we especially for the scale of ambitions that we have, we need to fund raise to to get that done. Um I think uh you know I think that was uh I think that the that was the approach that that Benchmark kind of took when when we were fundraising from them as well like hey let's figure out like you know if if we like each other and want to work together by the way that was very good negotiating by them and so I think they
59:48you know uh they're very good negotiators as well. Um, but when we when I look at like our most recent rounds uh that we've done, like we raised from Tom at at IVP, our series B, I I'd been chatting with Tom from like I think right around the Sequoia round for like over like 2 and a half years. And so that was like a relationship that we just built up over over time and I got to know him and he got to know me. And so when it when it came time to to fundraising, I feel like there was like less games in involved there and I really appreciated that.
1:00:16I would love to do a quick fire around.
1:00:17So, I say a short statement and you give me your immediate thoughts. Does that sound okay?
1:00:22Okay. What was your single favorite VC meeting?
1:00:25First pitch with Benchmark.
1:00:29So many legends in the room.
1:00:31Who is the coolest to hang with?
1:00:39Were you intimidated?
1:00:41I think I was too naive to be intimidated.
1:00:44He's also just like a big man. like it's it's an intimidating figure looming over you. Um uh what is the single most important thing you believe about agents that most of the ecosystem would disagree with?
1:00:58It's still really hard to build them like really really hard. Maybe people would agree with that but I think it's just underrated how hard it is.
1:01:05What have you changed your mind on most in the last 12 months?
1:01:09Market for inference is massive. I remember talking with the board about whether we should do a gateway a year and a half ago and we didn't see what value we could add over something like open router and I think that was 100% the wrong decision.
1:01:23What's been the hardest technical thing for you and the team to build?
1:01:27We built our own database for storing agent traces Smith DB.
1:01:32How do you think about competing with ClickHouse and being a customer?
1:01:38Kind of weird or normal? I think there are 500 different companies that we are fremies with and so I think I've personally gotten very used to it.
1:01:47You can invest in one IPO open AI at 1.5 trillion or anthropic at 2 trillion.
1:01:57I think they have more diverse different paths to really tremendous exits valuations.
1:02:08Totally get that. What do you know now that you wish you'd known when you started in 2022?
1:02:13I wish I knew what harnesses today looked like so we could have built them earlier.
1:02:20Final one for you. What are you most excited for when you look forward 5 years?
1:02:25I'm really excited for what we what creative things we can do with AI. I think a lot of AI, you know, in a lot of what we work on is, you know, helping enterprises be more efficient and and delivering outcomes. I think creative things like Sunno are are tremendously interesting and and I wish we'd see more of those.
1:02:42Totally agree. I remember having Mikey on the show. That was a fun one actually. Um and this has been so much fun to do. Harrison, thank you so much for putting up with my waywardness and divergent schedules, but you've been an amazing guest.
1:02:53No, thank you so much for having me.