0:00It's the first real chat GBT competitor and uses many things. It's one of the best pieces of software I've used ever, but it's also a Trojan horse to fight Chat GBT because the LM's pretty good. What is going down this week? Anthropic Baby, they pushed the IPO. Maybe it's November. Then we have Meta. Alex Wang is delivering the goods. News holds number one spot on the app store. They are crushing and handing it to Instinct.
0:23Maybe the AI assistant race really is on. I love the quiet compounders. There's just no market for them anymore. Coding is the model load. It's everything.
0:30They've trained on all of our data.
0:32Every YouTube, every piece of open source, every piece of closed source. Of course, they're going to train on your data. Give me a break.
0:37There is a zero probability AI will destroy all of humanity.
0:52Boys, another week. And I wanted to start with the news that Anthropic pushes its $2 trillion IPO from October to November. Some people are suggesting that it's the first signs of a cracking in the market. It's following the pacing the frontier that we discussed last week. What extent do you agree with that or to what extent do you think it really is just them wanting to have a great Q3 prospectus and needing more time for those numbers to show through?
1:19I think that's the answer. I think the whole crack in the market thing, let's leave that to one side for now. We'll talk about it later. Ditto the pacing stuff which clearly has also been shown to be not really believed even by the people who said it. It really boils down to what you said. They had an amazing Q2. They took they finally kind of became bigger than OpenAI and remember we talked about this. Open AAI then responded furiously in July. started tweeting all that my Q3 numbers are
1:47amazing story and really pushing back and you know some of the data supports that. So my guess is the banker said hey if you want a really clean story it would be great to incorporate a quarter that reflects this noise. So instead of going out in October where you won't be able to share your October numbers it's kind of that weird thing. Go out in November where it's clean. You print your October numbers you drop them in and you go. So from a programming kind of timing perspective, it just all makes
2:16sense. It's a cleaner deal whether it turns out to be a wise decision or not.
2:20We can come back to in a second, but just from a it's always weird to go out after you have your numbers but before you can share the numbers. So after the end of your quarter, but before you've kind of finalized and audited them, it's all especially for what looks like quite a pivotal quarter, right? So it totally made sense. If I'm a banker, I'm thinking if we do this in October, it's going to be a lot of explaining. If we do this in November, the numbers will talk. Having said that, that sounds all right to me, right? But it said to me
2:49maybe there's just a hint of worry that getting 30x or 20x over subscribed to whoever they want it, you know, at the most massive IPO of our lifetimes. Maybe there's just a hint of stress on the pre on the pre-con conversations, right?
3:01I agree. And that's why I made a comment earlier about is it a good decision or not? Like if the world goes to hell in a hand basket in November, you'll look back and go, "Damn, we should have gone when we had the chance." Because you're right, a CFO who said, "We're just doing it. I don't care about your messy story.
3:18We're going to tell a good story. If the price ends up between 1.5 instead of two because it's a messy story, I don't care. I'm willing to live with that."
3:26And that's the approach you take. If you felt it was hella high water, I got to get this money. Right? Clearly, the fact that they didn't take that approach means they decided it's not hell or high water. They're confident. Yeah. They're willing to take another month of timing risk probably for some significant um valuation pop, right? Which is what you do when you think you have lots of time and you're in a good commanding position. I mean, it's not going to happen in this case, but windows shut and they shut in a very idiosyncratic fashion. So, look, it's I mean, if I was
3:55in that board, it's 90% certain that this is a good decision. And a clean story in Q4 is better than a messy story in October, right? And there's always that 10% chance the world goes crazy and you look back and you go, damn, should have taken the 100 billion. I was walking with a friend of mine the other day and he said, "Harry," and very successful multi-billionaire investor, he said, "Harry, how the do these frontier model providers go public when no one is willing to provide
4:24liability insurance? You have swarms of rogue agents doing whatever you want, how how on earth do they go public?
4:32Who's liable?" [ __ ] comment. I'll tell you why. Once you've said publicly that there's a 10% risk that your thing can blow up the world, sweating product liabilities and the noise, right? This is a $2 trillion market cap company can self-insure. They don't need reinsurance from Munich Ray with a market cap of 200 billion to reinsure their $2 trillion market cap. You know, right? So, you know, I I don't I mean, I don't think you need product liability insurance to get an S1 done, right? Now, separate comment. The fact that no one will
5:01insure them is a data point about the dangers of the product. But that's long since been internalized. Anyone to be fair to be very fair to the anthropic management. Anyone who buys that stock and doesn't know that senior management think it's the most dangerous thing since the atomic bomb has rightly around me by the way hasn't been reading their tweets. It's a pretty well in the in the list of risks disclosed. I'm really looking forward to reading the S1 risks by the way. But in the list of risks disclosed,
5:31product dangers have been pretty thoroughly discussed for a decade here. So I don't I don't buy that at all. There's a hundred reasons why you can worry about valuation and traction and all that, but product liability insurance is in the noise.
5:43Yeah, they're just going to have a big litigation legal team. It's just they're going to fight this stuff for for infinity. Um just like tech leaders have always had to fight IP trolls with large teams. They're going to fight liability suits for they're going to have 200 folks in house and all the top law firms fighting this, dragging it out, saying they're not responsible, trying to get legislation passed. But you don't stop the IPO. It's an interesting I we certainly I can't remember an IPO that this was as so explicitly dangerous to Rory's point and Harry's point. I mean,
6:11it is novel, but it's game on, man. I mean, it's game on. Agreed. The most important part of securities laws, security laws is not that you have sell stock that has no risk. It's that you sell stock where you disclose the risk.
6:26And provided somewhere in the S1 they say at least half of our crazy employee base thinks this thing is going to blow up the world. I don't for what it's worth, says Dario. But my people think that. Just letting you people know they're out there in S1 land. Provided he discloses that he's covered. And obviously state the obvious he's not covered. If in fact it does end humanity, he'll die too. But let's just ignore that for now. And and it's by the way, I want to call out Jensen for his big ass call. I love it for the P his
6:53probability of doom is zero. Finally, an unequivocal statement from a no [ __ ] investor. There is a zero and tech leader. There is a zero probability AI will destroy all of humanity. I love it.
7:06That's because his LLMs haven't caught up yet. His open source LM haven't caught up yet. That's why that's why he could say not until 2030 cuz he knows he needs until then to catch up. Keep going before we move to before we move to Meta and Muse that Open AAI to burn $278 billion by 2030 out of cash by 2028. Is this just more noise? And of course that's to be expected. There's rumors of another round at a 1.5 trillion.
7:34I bet it's more. I bet it's more.
7:37It doesn't have a history of the burn coming in less than planned. They may need 400.
7:46We've all had a portfolio company or like that. Topline, great. Love the team. But burn, no matter what they say, always comes in 30 to 50% higher than the model. Doesn't matter who we put in at CFO.
7:58But yeah, no, I I I think Jason is broadly right. I mean, look, there are 35 million if they're basically big picture on the forecast. There's actually three numbers that matter, not two. They're forecasting growing from 35 in AR end of this year to 350 I think in three or four years.
8:14So 10x growth. Worth pointing out by the way that last year anthropic grew 10x in one year. This is a 10x forecast over three or four years. So almost modest. Second thing is the burn. You're right.
8:26They're forecasting a burn a growth a net burn of 278 billion. They have and that's like money out their door. They have 122 billion of cash on hand. So they got time to raise the extra capital. The amazing number is the other one which is the capex required to do all this not all of which is on their balance sheet a lot of it's on other people's balance sheet is around 700 billion. So it's just a reminder that this is unlike software this is an
8:54extraordinarily capital inensive business and to kind of bring it back to what you said Harry if all that burn all 700 billion of it had to appear on the balance sheet right it would be even you know even worse than that and the only reason they're able to do it only burning 278 billion is because other companies like Oracle like Nvidia with you know kind of rev support and kind of backs stop insurance are able to say we'll do the capex and you know lease it
9:23to you. So this is an extraordinarily capital intensive company. It is going to consume directly or indirectly $700 billion worth of capex to get there to get to $350 billion in revenue. Intelligence is not cheap.
9:38I think that was the most efficient covering we've done of open AI and anthropy. So we're going to move to a story of the week which is going to be a new feature of the show. Jason's IC has been a massive popular segment and we're going to add a story of the week which for me is Meta's Muse taking number one spot for days stock ripping Alex Wang team absolutely crushing with this launch bad for open AI that's a good point because it's just
10:07it's the first real chat GP competitor anthropic never really cared about claude until recently amusees of many things it's one of the best pieces software I've I've ever I've used ever. Um, but it's also a Trojan horse to fight Chat GBT because the LM's pretty good. Every time you're doing an agent, you're also asking questions. You're not just telling it to get your movies.
10:26You're saying, "Hey, what is plane? How is that latest superhero movie? How was the latest 20 VC?" Right? It has opinions. It's a darn good like normal consumer grade LLM, right? I don't think anyone's writing uh wet lab biotech software on Muse, but it's at a lay level if it's our it's free. It has agents that are are truly autonomous, which chat GBT doesn't. And it can do all the other questions you have, and it writes you cute letters when it makes mistakes. I don't know. I don't if it's
10:56free, why would why would an ordinary person pay? Uh and the tokens are vastly more than you get from chat GBT. I I just think in addition to everything else, it's a chat GBT Trojan horse because it it does everything it can do and it has autonomous agents. It doesn't have to just be agents. It's doing all of it. So, it's it's pretty cool.
11:13Could not agree more. I think it it's excellent. Right. I mean, I think it's funny. I think as I said two weeks ago, we're saying they got to ship this and literally between talk our conversation and release, they shipped it, right? I, you know, we've been skeptical and a little harsh about some of the, you know, meta/f Facebook investments in AI with it'll determine enterprise model.
11:35This is the exact opposite. This is spoton. It's a ch it it plays into their distribution leverage. It's intuitively kind of something that you would take. I mean, to the extent you do trust Facebook with everything else already longer discussion at this point. If you're if you're deep in Insta or Facebook, you're in already. you don't care and it's a good product. Jason, you're exactly right. It's a good UI. It works. It gives me recommendations and they just have the distribution. So, I I agree. I thought it was a wow moment. I thought it was a real win. You know, I'm
12:04not sure about the economics and if it's worth 100, but it's worth pointing out this is it's worth pointing out what it meant for Meta. They're up seven or eight%. They made a they made a hundred billion dollars in market cap this week because of that product, right? And that just shows when you I mean it's something I have to remind myself you know the art what's possible when you're dealing with these huge end markets right you can see that you know the value of a play in that space it's like it that's the argument why you know open
12:33AAI might look at that and bring it back to venture right hm they made 100 billion should we buy instinct do we have to do something in this space like now right so yeah I I I think and it's up 34% this month some people say it's up more because it le because people in the beta test were buying, right?
12:49In for the longest time when it was That's interesting. I saw that. Yes. That the beta testers will buy, which I just love. Um cuz yeah, for the longest time I was like Facebook, yeah, it's a great business that's spending a lot of money in a bottomless pit of enterprise AI. Now it's a great business that could have an act in AI. That's a big change.
13:06No, that's worth the rating and give them huge credit. So I think it was I was it was a big week for Meta to state the obvious. You know, it's and it's also it's two weeks in. I the thing is the reason I say it's traor it built me an entire CRM. This isn't just reservations and it's very good. Now, it's very limited two weeks in. It does everything. It built me an entire CRM for every SAS sponsor. It tracks every email about them, every item in real time. It updates it. And so, it is sort of a CRM of one. Now, it's limited
13:35because it can't really collaborate. You couldn't use it for a sales force, but it imagine yourself. It is it is some of the first compostable software that I've ever composable that I've ever actually seen work. This has been a myth for the since this show started right now. I really said I need a CRM for myself. I need you to track 150 sponsors daily in real time using AI. And it just built it and it's very it's for what it is. It's very good and it cost zero.
14:03You need all the pieces. You need database. You need you need intelligence. You need access to email. You need all of this for that to work. You're obviously not the typical user and I don't think their economics are structured on everyone building their own CRM or it's going to eat compute. But yes, you can through that interface.
14:20You have an you have a sophisticated LLM at the back end. You have your own little sandbox. They have a lot more standalone compute and sandbox for you than I think instinct does. So yeah, that makes sense.
14:30Okay. for for those that don't know or haven't used it, a lot of people use it to buy things um from different providers and Amazon has in response blocked it. Shopify has decided to partner with it. How do we think about those two decisions from Amazon and Shopify? And who do we ultimately think is right? I think both could be right for them for Amazon's perspective because it's what they've discovered in other kind of agentic type commerce is
15:00two things happen when you use this agentic commerce. One, you don't get any revenue from your ad business and Amazon's ad business is now larger than their e-commerce profit. So in other words, it is the entirety of the profit stream for e-commerce as a thing from their AWS business. And then the second thing which I didn't know is Walmart did something recent where the basket size gets reduced because you don't get the chance to shop. You know when you go on Amazon directly they're like you know people also bought then you have oh yeah I need to order that. Whereas if I do
15:29this I just order the thing. So from Amazon's perspective because they're such a big player they're like if I let these people do it then I don't get my ad revenue. I get a smaller basket. And then this is the next sentence is key. And if I block them, they'll probably come to me anyway cuz I'm Amazon. So, I have leverage. And this is kind of tech behemoths bumping into each other. Amazon is now saying, "Screw you, Muse, Meta. We're going to have to talk about this before I roll over." Right? And they at some point
15:59there probably will be a more kind of aligned exchange of value. Shopify on the other hand represents lots of little tail merchants. They are very glad of the extra business, right? they probably don't see that much compression in order value because if you go directly if if you're buying some obscure thing on a mid-tier Shopify merchant you go buy the thing directly or you buy it via Amazon no matter what Shopify is broadly happy they don't have a big ad business so from Shopify's perspective it should be
16:27have at it what they like is what Shopify likes is they have the common payment app so they like to have that go through that so in each case I mean yeah capitalism works these executives are very logical. They're like, "It's great that you have this new source of demand.
16:42What matters to me? In Amazon's case, I think I have a lot of leverage. In Shopify's case, provided you let me charge for my payments rail, I'm good with this access." So, it all made sense. These are early days. There will be much negotiation. The the bigger lesson here is, you know, there was a whole bunch of Google Open AAI blathering on 6 months ago about various different agent payment mechanisms, right? And it was all your smart people getting in a room and thinking things
17:11through. And the truth is in tech, none of that [ __ ] ever matters. What really matters is someone aggregates consumer demand like Instinct and Meta have done.
17:21They start pounding on the API and then now everyone has to focus. I'm willing to bet someone at Resi, even as we speak and Open Table, is formulating their agent API policy. I'm willing to bet at Amazon. They're talking to Meta this week. Demand creates urgency to sort all this [ __ ] out.
17:40I think they're all they're all going to lose. I think it's the last stand of the unnecessary system of record. Resi's going to lose. Amazon is the least losy in the short term because they're they're they're at the edge of a monopouist for what they sell as as as a merchant. But uh the agents will bypass them ultimately. Like you're going to have to decide. The agents do the agents have very clear positions. And you're right, Rory. This benefits Shopify. Of course, Shopify leans into this, right?
18:08Of course, Stripe and PayPal lean into this. It benefits them, right? There's there's no question. And Amazon losing ads, losing upsell, losing um shopping cart sites, all the negative, but to the extent an agent can route around Amazon.
18:22To the extent you can, right? To the extent you can. The agents not only will, they will gleefully do so. They will gleefully do so. What would you would you like me to call the restaurant directly, Jason? Oh, I found a backend API where Open Table still works even though they're they're exclusive on resi. Oh, I found another way to do this on Door Dash that's left open. The agents are wonderful at finding uh broke APIs that have other surfaces that shouldn't be exposed. The this is a it is a it is it may be their only choice, but I believe all the the systems of
18:51record, places of record, they're they're they're just battening down the hatches and they're fighting the agents and it net net. It's not a positive for any of them. It's not a positive for This is not a positive for Amazon.
19:03I'm going to I hear you. The agent, as Jason points out, is tireless. The agent does have the ability to call to hit all 17 websites. It's only compute. They don't care. So, you're right. A lot of these digital only aggregation businesses. I don't think they'll fall as brutally as you say, Jason, but there definitely will be some endrun pressure, right, to go around the the kind of demand systems like a resi or something like that. I'm not sure it's as fatal as you think. And then I
19:33It's not that I think Well, let me be clear cuz I think you'll agree with me. It's not that I think they're going to be killed. I think they're going to be maimed.
19:38It doesn't matter if this means that resi's growth falls this much. If this means that Amazon's uh if even it impacts 10% of Amazon's advertising revenue that's just like meta meta stocks up 20 some odd percent if this drives Amazon stock down 20% because it impacts margins it's a big deal the agents the agent I can tell you talking to our agents all day they don't put up with this [ __ ] they don't faking put up with it right I listen I don't want to name the name or the vendor please don't make me but we got a raise this
20:07morning from one of our core vendors a massive price increase massive pricing immediately our agent said want to work around it. Here are my ideas. Dump them. And it actually laid out a 12-month plan to migrate off this vendor on its own. They will not tolerate this crap. Right. And and and Amazon, there are so many products you can only buy on Amazon.
20:25There's it's it it has so many advantages. It has warehouse. It has fulfillment. Um but some of that stuff can be bought on a Shopify store.
20:32A lot of it could just be enough. It could just be enough. Right? This maming is a big deal for AI. going to maim the existing folks unless they embrace things they don't want to embrace.
20:43Okay, I two comments one each way. One is yes I do think Amazon's biggest defense will be its physical infrastructure and ability to deliver but zooming but your point is the right one. I remember someone said like 20 years ago when the probably 25 years ago now internet first came out that the internet uphors inefficiency. In other words, middlemen get pounded down, right? And if you think about things like the travel sites, Expedia, Airbnb, that that all of that is that is getting demand and supply closer together. And I think what you're
21:12saying, Jason, is correct. AI is the same. It's going to pound down people who are in the middle, who just have information and are using that to make offers. If if that's all you're doing, then there will be pressure at the margin because, you know, if you're reducing search costs, that's valuable to me as a human. But it maybe the agent can just do it itself. So people Yeah, I'll go with the maming comment. If it's even 5 or 10% impact, it's meaningful.
21:38That's the thing. And it's it's it's easy to shut off perplexity for Amazon.
21:41It's just they're just a gnat, right?
21:43But Amazon will have interesting choices when it's everybody. Like you can you can shut off everybody. It is technically possible, but at some point it's going to be complicated. Are we sure we want to shut off everybody?
21:54Moving swiftly on. Anything else that I haven't touched with Muse? No, because it's not really the story of the week. I mean, it's the story of last week. We're going to do the story of the week and Jason's going to be ready as a hands-on users to tell us about Jev, right?
22:07That's the story of the week. So, how we go?
22:09We can talk about Jev if you want.
22:10It's next one up and it's the story.
22:12It's the next one up and finest Rory's story of the week. So, for those that don't know chat GBT and banter ships, Jev, it's a model that decides instead of chats and it becomes Vel's fastest ever launch. Um, Jason, I'm sure you've played with it. What did you think?
22:29Jason's review. New new segment.
22:32Well, first of all, I listen, I'm not I I maybe I might not be smart enough to get into semantics. I don't even think it's a model. I think it's a classifier backed by an LLM. Um, I've used it. It's awesome. Um, it but I don't know that it'll be as disruptive as everyone on X talking about it that probably never used it said it is, but it is awesome.
22:50Okay. So, what do you use it for? What I use it for is deciding who and the sasser community should meet each other. It's quite good at that. It's quite good at that. Should Rory is the CRO at uh at GCI. Um Harry is the CRO at uh Perplexity. Should they meet? It's actually not that simple a question.
23:12They're at pretty different stages. They live in different places. Should they meet? If if you get the And here's my learning. It I spent all of Saturday.
23:20Nothing worked on on Jev because I had to redo the way I did prompts. Okay, so I thought it was a failure. Right? Then what I learned is if you invest the time, it can answer that question in milliseconds for a hundth the price of anthropic. Actually, even less. It can just answer a question and it can answer a subset of questions. But I think as we've learned from data labeling others, there's a lot of classification that needs to be done, a lot of data labeling that needs to be done, but it doesn't output text and it can't do anything particularly complicated or with
23:50reasoning. So it's like a big deal, but um and uh and for for this particular use case, I'm talking about who should meet who. It's also it's it is disruptive, but it's maybe like 20% of all the LLM calls associated with this with this application, right? So I love it. I think everyone will do some version of this. I think um you know maybe even um you know Exa and and and and Parallel should do some version maybe open everyone should do a version of this but it's not going to take over
24:20100% of your stack and it's not going to replace chatgbt because it just doesn't do those things. Um but it does remind us that man we effing waste a lot of tokens on simple stuff that Astra shouldn't be doing. And I think that's the so I pretty much 100% agree with you. I mean the zoom out comment is this.
24:41It's it's it's it's a new model. It's different than an LLM. An LLM returns text and is very computationally intensive and in computing terms fairly slow and expensive. This just returns true or false or a ranking or score. Right? So the three answer types and it's super fast and super cheap. They don't even charge for output tokens because they're so meaninglessly few.
25:04Right? So it's just a faster more precise. That's why it's called they refer to it intern um on the website as a system one which is the Daniel Canman thinking fast thinking slow. And this is the thinking fast part. Quick fast answers. But Jason's math is exactly right. But we were talking about this on Monday. The partner meeting is there's roughly a hundred billion dollars today been spent on LLM calls between entropic open AI and the open source models.
25:30Maybe that goes if we just agree that OpenAI is going to be doing 350, Amazon 250. So it's probably going to go to half a trillion dollars 5 years from now, right? 20% and Jason, we had exactly the same number. Only 20% of them are relevant to this where it's today you're using a complex expensive model for something that really needs a much simpler solution. But 20% of hundred billion is 20 billion.
25:55Well, I don't think I don't think the dollar is going to flow that way. I think the tokens let me finish. Damn you. The next thing cuz you got you sound like the cynics in my group on Monday. We had this I've already had this discussion once. That's why I can carry it off. So that's 20 billion. But you're exactly right. As one of my partners said, but dude, you just said the prices are going to down by 5x. So that 20 billion is going to become 4 billion. You're exactly right. It's just like open source. It's going to take a slug of the total addressable LLM marketplace, attack it with a better,
26:23cheaper product at 1/5if the price. net result that 20 billion becomes 4 billion but if you're a Jev or if you're a type safe you're saying hey that 4 billion becomes mine and that's the bet right now at the same time going back to your maming concept which I love Ja from foundation did a nice post at basic this is just a slug of the total 100red billion spend that was kind of automatically destined to go to open AI and anthropic and is now kind of slooing
26:51off into a cheaper lowcost provider right so that's what's happening here you It's not the end of foundation model. Yeah. The advanced the clever [ __ ] is still going to be done using foundation models. It's just a little maming of 20 billion of 10 20% of the revenue that's now going to be done by someone else at 1/5if the cost. Now we can talk about competition in a second cuz I think that's a real issue. But that's what's going on here.
27:15I just think it's a hundth the cost. But I agree with all you're right. 100 which which in which case Yeah, exactly. before we move to competition. So, we're going to see like the unbundling of chat GPT and we're going to have users go, "Oh, well, this one would be good."
27:28No, no, the problem is not not chat GPT the app, but um the the OpenAI API and the Entropic API. You're right. This is a developer product. You as an end user, I as an end user don't use it. You can go on and try and use it, but it's full this morning. I tried. But it's really I mean if you listen to the launch announcement it's very focused on developers and the idea is and this is an interesting thing almost comes back to muse that I think you might see I could be wrong on this that the needs of
27:57humans especially consumers for AI are going to continue to diverge from the needs from software developers for AI and this is a core software developer thing right you'll never need it Harry but someone who's building a software app might realize that a significant portion of the court intelligence they want is system one intelligence just tell me if this is an A or a B you know animal mineral or vegetable right is eggs better than Y give me a quick answer I don't want to blather and have
28:26you tell me that's a great question Rory like a sickopantic LLM just give me the damn answer right and so it's not for you the user but it's on bundling at the developer level where it's more likely to happen you're right I require far more intellectual answers you just require a bundle product.
28:46Actually, Harry, I think what you really like is the sycopantic part of the LLM when they tell you you're so smart, Harry.
28:51But to answer your question, what I did learn from using Jev all weekend long, failed on Saturday, figured out the prompts and the use case, got it to work on Sunday, uh, you know, infinitely so cheap it doesn't you don't even to measure it. 10 times faster is the use case, but only for these for these for these limited use cases. What I did learn is, and it may almost sound tangent, is man, using a harness to pick a model and getting it right is effing exhausting. Is it going to get even harder and harder and harder? When
29:19should I use Jev? When should I not use it? What about you have to run so many eval so many tests? Because there's so many things I did with Jev. You know what doesn't work in Jev? Um, between Harry, between Rory and Jason, who's the better person to join 20VC as a partner?
29:34It it can't answer you. you'll find it's going to get that wrong. Okay, so between that and should Rory and Jason meet for coffee, it's going to get that one right. It's not going to guess. It's actually going to know, hey, we're both in the Bay Area, we've known each other, we should meet for coffee. You have to you have to QA and test every single use case to get those benefits. It's exhausting. And then I got switched over on Replet to auto router where switches between Astra, Fable, the open source ones, and everything. Now I don't even know which one it's using. And then I saw some performance degradation. So then I had to switch it all back to
30:04Astra. Do you trust your harness? Can you QA 10,000 uses of Jev? This isn't like a bad thing, but this is like the renaissance of of like DevOps or something like you everyone's going to need this massive team to optimize and and the needs are going up with Jev and Friends. Like your team's going to have to get more. It's not just benchmarks and eval like we're going to be running these 24/7 across countless permutations. And it's it's good, but it but it's it's for me it's it's too much.
30:30Like I can't do it anymore. I can't pick these models anymore. I'm tapping out.
30:33These harnesses are only so like data bricks is like it's easy to save money with the harness. Hey, we route 80% to open weights models and now we're doing 10% to like this. It sounds great to the CFO, but I I found it doesn't work for me. Like it's and a lot of folks were saying they were using Jev as an instant router. It's like Jev Jev, you make the decision here. Here's what we're doing.
30:52You pick the model in milliseconds.
30:55Great. But if but Jev is like wrong like 20% of the time. If you pick the wrong model for me coding a mission critical feature 20% of the time, I'm going to be trying to build this thing bugridden all day long. I'm listen smart people will figure this out. It's just getting more complicated to pick your model not easier. And uh it it's good it's good for investors but um it's uh makes building more complicated. If you're anthropic or open AI, what do you think the conversation is internally when they look at Jeff?
31:22Open AI have become ruthlessly commercial. their take will be like, "Screw it. If someone's going to do that, we should do that. We can get something like this out in a few weeks.
31:31Let's compete and have a lowcost offering, too, because they're trying to make a buck." And Antropic, they're trying to build God, and this isn't God, so why would they even bother? In fact, the uh launch video for Jev was prod, right? So, they're deliberately saying not God. And if you talk to anthropic, the mission is AGI/God. So, they're like, "You are just a minor thing. Why would I even dame to sully my hands on vulgar commerce?
31:57I think that Anthropic and OpenAI have made a very strategic decision. They will not play in this market for now. They have OpenAI and Enthropic each have the two worst models that exist. They're called OpenAI Mini and Haiku.
32:11They're terrible. They're terrible. Now, if you ask Claude, "What should I use for simple workflows?" Haiku. And if you ask ChatGpt, it will tell you Mini is great. It's so cheap. And at least my little evals, they fail 100% of the time. Should Rory and Jason have coffee?
32:25Um, yeah. Send them to London. Worst answer. I mean, I'm I'm exaggerating.
32:29These are the worst models I've ever used. Mini and Haiku. And so, they've decided to launch crippled models that they can lightly promote for the But they don't want to play in these low margin businesses for now. They could they could build this, right? They could build I think they could build a version of Jev in an hour or over the weekend, but they've intentionally decided to [ __ ] the low end of the market. And I think they're puckered about the open weights models that just got a little bit closer earlier than they planned, right? Because that is more of a threat than abandoning the bottom of the
32:58market. This is just my view, but I I I don't think they've ever taken uh the bottom of the market seriously. They have check the box offerings that no serious developer uses, I don't think. Just go on go on go on claude and switch to Haiku if you can and ask it a question. You you know it doesn't remember anything's 2023 and it doesn't know know where anything is. And in a nutshell, here's the Jev opportunity.
33:20It's not quite one for one, but yeah, you're right.
33:22I'm I'm going slightly off on a tangent on this, but people do like it when we talk about venture. It was a $40 million seed round for Jev. And you know, I just had a conversation with my team right before this, and they're like, "Dude, we never see anything less than a $20 million first raise for anything anymore." Like the seed rounds minimum are like 8 to 10 with someone spinning out of a good company. Are we seeing the evaporating of traditional seed. But
33:51why do you think Andre just did a university? They need to go pre-Inception.
33:56You think I'm kidding?
33:58I mean, finally, someone figured out that Peter Teal got this right 18 years ago at the Teal Fellowship and the dorm room fund which did curs or like sort of did Cursor. You got to go pre-Inception if you want to do seed now. Inception is Inception's too expensive. You got to go pre-Inception. But Andre Horowitz did launch Horowitz Andre University today with $40 million to do pre-inception investing, right, to do the Teal Fellowship on steroids. Um, you ask I I think I think it's a very rational response to the to your point, but I do
34:28think Peter Teal saw this space before anybody did and executed. The only thing he didn't want to do was scale it up. He didn't want to build uh Teal Ra Boy University like Horowit. He just didn't want to scale it up. It could have been. I mean, they have the best people in the Teal Fellowship. They get the best today, too. They get the best people.
34:46You know what? I I I don't think they do anymore. I think Z fellows get the best today, actually.
34:51Okay. Z fellows get unbelievably good people.
34:54Same idea. At the end of the day, same idea, right? The problem with these these things is if you don't put enough people into them, they don't scale.
35:01Right? That's why Z fellows maybe is more interesting than the teal fellowship and why Horowitz and is more is if it's the same as merchanting because you're just putting more resources and things that uh you know you used to be able to run a fund with a blog like that would give you all the deal flow in the world you needed for like five unicorns in a row but you got to scale this stuff up you know now you're on a podcast with a professor yeah used to be able to just do with a podcast and one dude in a in a in a closet and do just fine we haven't answered my question though which is like going back to but but it is going back I will go back to your point Harry
35:30how right you are correct Once you go beyond the visual to even an individual an idea you're right you're seeing bigger checks you you are seeing 20 look the I think the typescript was I think it was even bigger I could be wrong I think I thought I thought it was 40 but I could be wrong right but yes people are writing bigger checks now up and down the stack or you just or you just tolerate or or or it's you end up in the same math or if you want to do traditional seed checks right you have to tolerate far low lower ownership in many cases not all cases you can still hunt your own
35:59deals right and And then when you do the math, you got to hunt $25 billion outcomes. If I'm going to do four into Jev or three into Jev, if Jev exits north of 25 billion after dilution, I can still do my 100x, right, that I need to do or my 50x, right? But um you know, the the low ownership for seed works, but man, you need the big outcomes today in today's world. thing just to take into account that I always feel everyone forgets, right, is this going to sound really dorky economics comment, but
36:29nominal GDP, in other words, not just inflation, but inflation plus growth from 2010 to the day is about 2 and a halfx. So, you know what that means is 100 million bucks in 2010 is 250 million bucks today, right? you know just in terms of your ability to command with money is an ability to command resources because obviously software salaries have at least kept up with nominal GDP growth right so what it means is if you were
36:55writing five $3 million checks in 2010 let's do $4 million checks you should be writing $10 million checks in 2026 that's just math before anything else has changed then on top of that you take into account the fact that in 2010 the world was in the [ __ ] and in 2026 everything in tech looks amazing. You get to 20 million before you blink.
37:17Would you actually argue then that now is a better time because your check size requirements have gone up 2 and a half to 3x but the outcome sizes on the back end have gone up significantly more than 2 1/2 to 3x when we look at the cursor.
37:31No, I wouldn't make that argument at all because what you're confusing for it the the outcomes today happen from the checks that were smaller, right? In other words, cuz what you're saying is, hey, the outcomes today on checks written 5 years ago are amazing. Therefore, the checks today um which are much bigger will be amazing, too.
37:54implicitly in that you're assuming, you know, that the $25 billion outcome today becomes the $50 billion outcome 3 years from now. And if that's the case, then you're correct.
38:04Sure. I'm assuming I'm assuming the same rate of inflation applies to the exit scenarios.
38:08But I think but the exits didn't just go up by nominal GDP, they by even more than that, right? In other words, you've seen that's why it's always hard to disagregate things. You have nominal GDP growth, but then the stock market has massively outpaced that and venture exits have even more massively outpaced that again. So there is a long-term secular trend and the size of exits going up, but there's probably an overlay of a valuation lift right now that might persist, right? And here I got to give a shout out to Veni from
38:36Menla who did a really nice piece that you know went around all the venture community yesterday just about you know h playing the game at the top of the cycle and how do you think about it when you know when the music stops be sure you have a chair it's worth reading.
38:49Well, I get I get you. But with the greatest respect, Menllo have paid the highest price of everyone on most rounds. I That's why they're playing the music.
39:00That's why But I think No, I think that what he would say is I think he would say that he would say we very wisely look he I I think it was a really good analysis. I didn't mean to take us off, but he basically said there's two players now there's players who are playing with the house money and he put themselves in that category. they've done so well at Antropic, they're probably feeling a little happy and they're probably going to be aggressive.
39:19And then he said there's some players who didn't do that round, didn't do those early rounds and are now playing to catch up. And the point he was making, the macro point he was making is between the giddily happy people and the and the terrifyingly desperate people, there's a lot of people writing checks with fear in their heart of miss, right?
39:37And it gets back to your comment, some part, that's why it's always some part of the increase in size is justified by math, but let's be honest, I think some part of it is justified by FOMO and the fear of missing the next cursor. And that's fine, but that's the kind of thing that can change on a dime. And that was the insight.
39:57Does that change how you invest? Like when you reflect on that, what what should I take from that, Rory? What should LPS listening, GPS listening take from this?
40:06It's a good question. I think and again it's I'm always in the middle.
40:13I think you don't want to be the guy look I think you have to say at times leaning in can pay out but you don't want to find yourself so lent in on so many deals that are so high price at such a you know on such that if a downturn comes you get you know you just can't survive it. I think as often as the case, investing is not a rules-based business.
40:40Do A and only A. It's typically do some A but some B and the mix is everything. I think you have to, you know, I think for us it's a consistent pace, broadly the same stuff and recognize that it's super hard to time that, but be cognizant of the risk you're taking is the bare minimum you have to do.
41:00Is that I'm I'm not being so I'm I'm going for you here, but [ __ ] it. Be cognizant of the risks you're taking. Seriously, I thought that piece was a blowhard piece if I'm honest. Yeah. Be be careful of the music stopping. Be cognizant again. You guys have paid off.
41:18That's what that's what the next one's for. Why do you need to be careful the music stopping? You raise a fund every 18 months. We all could get a mulligan. If I don't make any carry, I don't make any carry. I make it on the next one.
41:29It's all right. I don't think that that's I'm not saying that is it, but what I'm saying is there's just there's not that much to take away from that. Yeah. Be cognizant of the music stopping. Thanks.
41:41I just I'm with you. I'm with you on Harry. It It's a little condescending in its own way. Right. Oh, thank you. I wasn't I wasn't aware that the that that that the AI gold rush might end someday. It's it Good point. Good. I was I was so lost in Jev all weekend. I missed the point.
41:57You're right. I missed the point. right from the guys who made out like bandits which I'm thrilled of they made okay watch this the big they made out by bandits by being aggressive at a time when people were still uncertain right and therefore price of those deals while high in an absolute terms reflected a fair amount of uncertainty relative to traction right the same deal today would probably be three or 4x higher and it's simply a point I mean if all you say to
42:25yourself is you know that deal that worked four years ago had that risk return profile and underwriting that same deal today probably means I'm going to get four times less return because of where pricing is. You should at least pause and think rather than blindly saying X worked therefore all the other deals that just look just like X will work also. I know but that's [ __ ] obvious. Harry in general one of my favorite quotes and I'm going to take you right. You're coming for me. I'll
42:53come for you. Right. Barney Baroo, I think I quoted this before, right? And I'm sorry if I did, but he was a Wall Street finance in the 20s and 30. He just said, "If every day you look in the mirror and you say to yourself, two and two makes four, you probably could have avoided a lot of mistakes." Right?
43:08Stating the obvious. Typically, the things that bite you in the ass are things that actually were obvious all along and you just chose to ignore them. So, yeah, it is obvious, but you know, you have to take it into account.
43:19But in all seriousness, I'm with you both. But the serious question then we could or we inherit your show. But what do you do about that? Right? Like I'll give you an example. In 2021, I made one investment. I did the seed rounded owner which just closed at 2.3 billion. It's a pretty large position for me. Okay. Now it's it we've had ups and downs. Great founder team. One deal in all of 2021.
43:39Only deal I did. You could do the same thing right now. You could say it it for the next four years I'm going to do like one or two deals like that. It has to be I have to have a little dislocation in the force. It's got to be this. It's got to be that and that that's how you take that the the chairs are going to end.
43:53Otherwise, you you just got to it's you got to deploy the fund. It's other people's money. You got to put it to work.
43:58Or there could be a really rational assumption that hey, the music's going to stop pretty soon and we're going to go through stack rank where we can get liquidity from and really be proactive in selling positions now. Cool. That Well, that's one thing and that's that's an interesting question. But let's say you wanted to be let's say you wanted to be conservative. What do you do? invest in the company at 50 million growing 60% a year and hope it reacelerates and is worth three times revenue and sells to bending spoons. I mean, what's the plan B? Like Bending Bending Spoons looks at a thousand deals a year and still only
44:28does two or four. Where am I going to sell these more conservative companies that are going to compound for at at sub AI rates for 40 years? I just don't know where who's going to buy them. If there was a market for these assets, so be it.
44:41I love the quiet compounders. There's just no market for them anymore. I think there's all well I think I'm not sure I agree that there always won't be a market for quiet compounders above a certain scale to be clear. Right. I think prof it could come back but right now it feels pretty thin.
45:02Um I actually like Goku's tweet that he was like yeah I'll happily do three you know double double trouble double double deals all day long right now if you're capital efficient. Right.
45:11Yeah. If you're burning nothing and the price is right and I can get my 20% ownership, you'll do it.
45:15Why would you Why would you I'm sorry. Let's just push back. This is why would you be happy to do that? Because there are other GPS like your Sarah Guo of the world who are not doing that and they are putting up some [ __ ] phenomenal numbers.
45:29And so you can do those triple triple double doubles have average IRRs and your LPS will leave in droves. Sorry.
45:37Okay. Okay. Watch. I can We'll take a second. Yes, Sarah absolutely did the seed round at inception, right? And 50 million pre, right? In the following four months, it raised money at 50 million pre, 350 million pre from Kleiner, 2.5 billion for I think index and benchmark from memory and might be raising now at 10. Those are four rounds in the same fourmon period and you cannot say the risk in all four of them
46:04is the same because one of them is 20. Yeah. 20 times more expensive. I I didn't say it was the same. I'm sorry.
46:12So So Harry, so the answer is if you do an early deal like that. So So but Harry, you're saying what can you do with that information? You can bet aggressively on 550. Love it. The fact that Sarah's done an amazing job in that fund, right? But betting just as aggressively on 250 at 10 billion, that's intrinsically a riskier deal. And do you want to do that?
46:32No, you're you're getting us completely wrong. I'm saying goggles triple triple double double. I'll take them all day.
46:38I'm saying that is a ludicrous statement to make because you are in a competitive capital market where LPS can choose where to put dollars. And if you have managers like Sarah Guo who can post incredible numbers quickly with high IRS, they will get the dollars versus your steady compounding growers with bad IRS and no good up rounds. It will be much harder.
47:02But you know, Harry, here's here's the thing of here's my my view. I think you're right. Having said that, I think goal's model is to do that in no matter what you call that model, you still have to achieve irr.
47:14So you have to pick very well and they have to compound properly. Okay, some of your like the average LP, the average top LP, I remember writing this up in S21 in 20 in 2021 had 90% IRRa. Like the top cortile of LPs had 90% IR. It did not last. 2026 will look like that. I bet the top LPS will have 90% IR this year. Okay. Some LPs will only invest in those managers and that's great. Others will take the pen longer but and and so
47:42you can do these other deals or or to to his point I think you can do both. Like the answer might be to do both. I'm and and the real truth is you should do every great deal you should see if you have enough capital. Okay. Every great deal. Okay. So if he sees five instin instincts and uh and Harvey's a year and he sees five triple triple double doubles that he can own 20% of and can achieve the requisite IRR, right? This is why I worry about the exits, you should do both, right? It it's okay.
48:10You'll you'll blend to 60% IR, but I do think I think you're going to lose LPS to your point, but I do think many LPs that have been around will still back repeat managers that deliver north of 30% IR. It's if you look at all the numbers that's that's is that's pretty rare, man. It it's pretty rare to have 30% IR no matter what anybody claims in a given year 2021 2026. It's if you can com if you can compound what is compounding 90% IR over a decade. Rory, help me. It's pretty good. It's not
48:39it's mathematically impossible, right?
48:40It doesn't happen. Exactly.
48:42It can't happen. So third the low 30s is as good as it gets, right? In in the real world, right? It's as good as it gets. I think goal is a rare exception who will likely be able to pick very well. I think the idea that you can do the triple triple double double say pick well.
48:56Agreed. Yeah, that's why he said very clever. I mean it was a very clever state. I really admire him for saying things like this is what I do if you're capital efficient. So basically everyone's going to find him. He solves his search problem brilliantly by saying if you've got these and then he's going to pick carefully. You're exactly right.
49:10It turns out no matter what you do picking matters. But you know again going back to the thing I think what what I'm listening to the conversation and I do look you want to do the most exciting deals possible and those are almost entirely AI forward deals at this point in time. No dispute. I think all the point I'm making I think little point Venu is making is at some level and I like what he said actually some at 10x the price matters because what's happened is andre about 10 or 15 years ago had the very simple but profound
49:39insight that other people have had but they they claim it so let's go with it that you know it really doesn't matter about price you just got to get the best deals and it's true right but what bank is saying if you're wrong by 10x then it's not true right and it may well be we're at that point in the cycle where you are in fact wrong. So in some deals you are wrong by so much right that in other words the momentum trade has worked so well and for so long that you might be at that one point in the cycle where you just overreach your skis and
50:09it has to unwind. That's the point you're making right and I think you know will every one of the 100 odd neolabs become the next entropic? Maybe not.
50:17Maybe most some of them will return capital because they get acquired but that's the only point how Harry and it's like can I ask you we have a lot of LPs that listen a huge amount if you were an LP that has traditionally allocated to seed in series A in venture like we know many of what would you advise them today looking at what you see every day in the trenches that's easy I would that's easy because you said seed in series A right and you're not listening but that's okay I'll answer the question I would do
50:45managers who are doing the very best seed and series A investments in new massively exciting high growth opportunities like the genius who did you as I say it gives her credit for doing uh instinct I would do those manders all day every day cuz you're far do do you mind low ownership no I mean you do I mind it prefer high ownership but that look especially in the seed a fund where you relative small dollars relative to the kind of dollars
51:12we're dealing with you later on you you want to be best deals, right? I So I I like, you know, we target 10% ownership at the ARB stage. So, you know, at a Ca you'd like 15 to 20, but I don't think you discriminate in or out on that. Cuz the truth is this, a seed investor who consistently shows up, as Jason will attest, with smaller ownership, but in the best deals, will get more ownership over time because they'll get more capital and get more opportunities. So, I I I wouldn't solve on that, right? So,
51:40so if I was, so to to your question on an LP for seed and series A, you should be looking at people doing the very best deals in the very newest spaces where you really believe they have an edge. My point and I think V1 is as the rounds get later and larger, the the dollars get bigger and the multiple return gets smaller. So it's in much the same way as growth was an amazing place to play in 23, 24, 25, it might be more like 21 now. That's the only point. So going back to you, what
52:10should you do? You should do the se the seed at instinct all day every day, but you should think long and hard at 10 billion 4 months later. I don't think that's an unreasonable position. Now maybe that particular deal will work at 10 billion cuz as we just said open, I might buy it at 50. But you have to admit you, you know, if you use the Buffett margin of safety comment, your margin of safety at 50 pre is infinite.
52:32You've got a worldclass exec technologist with a great idea. your margin of safety at 10 billion. Yeah, maybe you get a 1x but you know there's risk is my point in a downside scenario and I completely agree with you and get that to be clear. I think the tough question we could we should break. I think the tough LP question is it's hard to be I think it's hard to be an LP, right? Is chasing returns is tough because it's very hard especially at the seed. Everyone wants to chase returns, right? Everyone wants to be in Sarah's next fund. It's the easiest investment
53:01there is, right? We all I'm sure it would 50x overs subscribe in one email, right? But but and so do you believe and most LPs believe returns decay like we peak at some point in our careers as investors and they and they decay. Maybe you build a team or whatever but so do you chase returns or do you take risk that the returns are coming? It's very hard to be to invest in seed manage like and a lot of the best ones have big have weird strategies. It's complicated. So you have to look so you have to look for pre you have to go pre-inception. You have to look for precursors. I I think
53:31it's actually in some ways harder as an LP today than it is in more normal times because you're so tempted to chase returns and you won't get into the next one because you will you will screen it out, right? You will screen it out.
53:47I don't know how to time even though you chasing it's funny just for the stating for the record mutual fund persistence is almost nothing. In other words, good performance. Chasing returns in the public markets is a total fool's errand because the data says persistence is super low. Oddly enough, which makes sense in venture, persistence is not infinite, but it's quite high, right?
54:10Because you get these increasing returns to success until there's some kind of discontinuity, right? So, it's not crazy to partially change return cha quote unquote chase returns in venture because of the persistence in a private market. In a way, it's utter folly in the public markets where literally the dude who bought energy last year, you know, might be totally wrong this year because the traders to buy semis. Thinking of you there, Leo.
54:36I much prefer the show also when we have a little uh what is it? Contour, you know.
54:41Yeah. Very good, Harry. For an English person, that's not bad French.
54:44Oh, thank you so much. I I I am slightly cultured. I hide it well. Um well, okay.
54:49Ding, ding, ding. It's uh Jason's IC time. We're moving into the world of uh private markets with Factory. Triple valuation to $5 billion, $200 million round. For those that don't know, Factory is an enterprise coding agent provider um that can primarily have a Droid product which um has scaled phenomenally. I don't think I'm allowed to say their revenues. Um but they're chunky and they've done an
55:16amazing job. Jason, $5 billion valuation. Um, are we going to be doing this round from O'Driscoll Stubbbings Lankin Ventures?
55:27Listen, I uh I think I think this is a good risk to take. Um, now I first of all, I will caveat. I'm not as much of a factory expert as you. I know it's your your investment this one, Harry, so you're the you're the deeper expert than I am. There's certainly one obvious and and one mostly obvious trend. The second one you got in one of your 20 VC other podcasts this week. one obviously the whatever model we have for inference for for coding and otherwise it's too low
55:55the demand is only going up whether muse gets it or factory gets it or anthropic gets it um and I don't know how each each each token will be monetized directly or whether it'll be foul but fav but the demand is is is going to exceed already our most wild models there's a couple things that make me excited about factory and I just haven't gotten back from the Dreamforce which is one of the world's largest enterprise software conferences all about AI. Two themes really stood out and Harry had a guest this week on us which why one of
56:24the reasons I recommend the stock. Um sovereignty um I want to be able to trust where my data is right um and I want choice of model. These things really matter. Um and the one thing I got talking to sea level executives at Dreamforce is they don't trust anthropic and open AAI with their data. They don't trust it. This is not something manufactured on X or Twitter. They genuinely believe and honestly for what it's worth to the IC, I believe this as well. If I upload my confidential data, I'm not sure it's not going to my competitors through an LLM. In fact, I'm
56:54pretty sure it is on some level. I don't think these are these are malevolent companies. This is the way LLM work. And so, I think these are a lot of things that go into factory. This is a crack team. The time is right. Um, you know, Brad Gersonner, that guy's always right from from AI to to the calcium CT scans.
57:10I would always back him. Um, I think we do this round. We pair it with Instinct at 10 billion. We roll the dice. Uh, it's good times. And this may be one we regret with the musical chairs, guys. But the trends are right here. And we need to bet into these trends.
57:22Sovereignty, trusting my data, trusting my data at rest, not having it pulled by the big guys. I think in a year, no one is going to trust in the enterprise anthropic and AI with their data. They're solving this, too. But this is something we need to bet on. So, I I approve the investment.
57:36Wow. how and I'm going to chime in here having been a little bit more Debbie Downer earlier and actually agree with Jason right I think genuinely look one of this I mean you made a comment here earlier about some things are obvious and I actually really believe sometimes stating the obvious is the highest value thing you can do and one of the st the statements that we've been saying internally for the last couple years is coding is the mother load coding it's it's everything right it's 10x
58:04everything else in terms of value being created from AI today. Right? So I would argue you just can't have too many bets on coding up and down the stack. It can be in you know it can be coding, it can be QA, it can be test, it can be review all across the board. This is where it's going to happen the first and the mostest. In fact, it's a really nice position. I mean there were there are three standard I cuz I think Jason's totally right. You're not going to buy you're going to want to buy your coding solution, for lack of a better word, which I mean both a harness and also
58:33people from someone who's not also selling you the model cuz you you no longer believe Open AAI entropic are benign, right? If you're corporate America, so I think Jason nailed that one, right? You you worry about their data even if you don't think they're going to blow up the damn world. You worry about their data retention policies. Talk about going from the sublime to the ridiculous, right? From the big to the little, right? You're like, "Okay, they mightn't kill every human on the planet like they said they would, but they might steal all my [ __ ] right? I want to have something different, right?" And, you know, cursor
59:01has been swooped off the table. It was a standalone, more individual project. You really only have these guys and cognition at this point who are basically going to the enterprise and saying, "What enterprises love, especially big enterprises, I'm coming to you, Mr. Corporate Customer, and I will make this go away. You got your board on your ass saying you need to be doing way more coding. you know, you don't have quite the people to do it.
59:23You need help to get along on that, right? We need to make this happen.
59:27We're here to help you do it. We'll make you, you know, it's good branding, a software factory. So, yes, I think this is a market where even if there is a bump in the world in the next 12, 24 months, and I think there could be, right? Going back to Harry, how is the fear actionable? I think one of the things you can do when you're leaning in is leaning into trends that you think will kind of keep on compounding even if there's a slowdown in overall AI adoption. And this is one I too would
59:55pile in with Mr. Lenin and think this is coding is the mother lode. It's that simple.
1:00:01Coding is the mother load. It's that I'm thrilled. I I agree which I did the last one.
1:00:05I don't know how much I generally don't know how much of factory is sort of airgapped um versus sort of onrem versus private cloud coding. I don't know. But I I seriously believe what I said. I I think people over the next 12 months are going to be like I whether it's my my my my data for my drug or just my code. I don't want my code my core code polluted in anthropic and and open air where they're going to train on it, right? And it's just so and I really think the only reason people have tolerated this is because of just insane demand from
1:00:35developers. Like it's so great. These products have become so great this year that we are I mean when I was it was a while ago when I was an SCB at Adobe this was the one code red was any pollution of the source code. It was the crown jewel it and my god and we were the first group ever to use GitHub. And I can't tell you the hoops we had to jump through to get GitHub brought in.
1:00:55But my team revolted. They l my engineering team said we we will quit if we cannot bring it. And it just took endless arguments and and even airgapping that and it couldn't like we're only to I don't know how much of factories I mean it's part of their marketing pitch right but man it's compelling to think you get all the benefits of the big guys but all the protection of having my code walled off airgap onrem whatever semipre it's just you should not trust them. They've
1:01:23they've they've trained on all of our data, every YouTube, every piece of open source, every piece of closed source. Of course, they're going to train on your data. Give me a break. And if they don't, the agents are going to escape and train on it without telling us. They're going to swarm out of out of it and they're going to train on my data. You said coding was the motherload.
1:01:41The next potential motherload that people think we've talked about a lot before, but Lorra announced they've hit 200 million in AR today. Lenin Ventures. Yeah. Would you lead their next round proactively? Their next round is at 11 billion.
1:01:57Well, I'm a fan of both them and Harvey.
1:01:59I I underestimated the We talked about this, right, as maybe the number three use case. The information did say Harvey's margins were now minus 50% because they were a lot they had to move back. I don't know if that's true. It could be one week. It could be like CMRR. It could be an hour. They had minus 50% margins. I'm not beating up on Harvey or Lagora. I would say if the margins were minus 50% and going down, I I might be slightly nervous. They're not going to have a cursor-l like turnaround. I might be a little nervous.
1:02:24Just enough to not lead the next round.
1:02:26Okay. Just I'm not saying not to have been thrilled to have led an earlier round, but if that if the margins are going are spiraling down rather than V-shap and that that would make me a hint nervous. Minus 50 is is is you know it is you got to raise a lot of money, right? If it's really true, but that was an information report, right? But I find they're usually pretty accurate, right? We get a to for what's the round at 11
1:02:52at my if the margins if if if super fan both great companies if the margins are minus 50%. I think I will still recommend we do factory and back back Harry's investment here. And I'm going to unfortunately I love Rory, but if I have a vote, I'm I'm going to vote against his proposal to do Lorra. And I understood the margins were closer to zero and improving due to their their own their post training on their own version of open weights model, but minus 50. Rory should have told us about that before the IC. I felt that was a Monday
1:03:21shocker. And I'm a little I'm a little uncomfortable with the kid on the team for not disclosing that ahead of time.
1:03:26Funny enough, look, I'm not going to be leading around that Harvey or Lagora were investors in GCAI on the in-house GC space. But actually, in defense of Harvey, for a long time, the rap was, "Oh my god, people don't use the product enough." So, I would argue if I was Harvey, if they could truly say the gross margins are negative 50, the correct spin on that is, "My god, lawyers are pounding on our shit." And as soon as we get our own internal models, they're never going back, right?
1:03:51And I think, you know, so maybe stepping back, you know, what do I think about this category? I think it's an amazing category. It's not as it's what I said two weeks ago. Nothing's changed cuz I try not to change in five year 10ear investments. It's really bad if everything changes every week, right?
1:04:07But yeah, it's a really good category. You know, AI for law and all its manifestations. It's not going to be as big a spend per headcount as software engineers because I think a lot of the laws the lawyer's work will remain to be done. But I think it's a good category.
1:04:22I think it's all about valuation at this point. And you know it's a two-way race in the um AML law space. And so the kind of second order tactical questions here around TAM and thing would kind of decide make a decision for you where I don't have the facts in front of me on that. Um I'm not Yeah. So don't have a profound opinion on it except to say I am interested in the negative gross margin comment as a positive spin.
1:04:52My word I am it is I listen the these folks have great a very long way to say very little Rory.
1:05:01Thank you. Thank you for your concision intern in the corner. That was super helpful.
1:05:06I agree it was not concise Harry. That's okay. But you're right. That's fair. It was not one of my more concise ones because I was Yes.
1:05:14So, if you prefer a sharp no, I'll give you. No, I won't do it at 10 billion because I think when you count the legal heads, you don't get to 10 billion um lawyers.
1:05:23We We can do what we can do one more ding ding ding. Do we invest in this? We got Crusoe $3.9 billion series app at $30.9 billion. For those that don't know, Cruso is in the data center buildout business. They build data centers. They provide GPUs and they also do managed inference full stack. Um they have a huge order book about 140 billion of total contracted value for those that don't know. Um
1:05:53business is flying uh in a hot market.
1:05:56Jason $3.9 billion at 30.9 billion. Are we riding our biggest check from this fund? I mean to be honest as you know the fund doesn't believe there's anything really defensible in these data center models other than the backlog um and access to infrastructure but we believe Crusoe is at the top of the second tier there right um they have some interesting things right they're able to build their own modular data centers right they own the chain from power to tokens there's a lot of appealing things in this I think our approach at the fund needs to be a
1:06:24portfolio uh approach we should invest in all the data centers that rise above a certain level of projected DCF projected growth projected margins Um, and most importantly, circular guaranteed circular financing. And this is all this is all, as much as I love the boys at Crusoe, this is all a spreadsheet investment. I've done the math and I believe it's just below the fold. It's just a hint too expensive to hit our margin. Um, despite the growth, but I think we should do all of these
1:06:53deals that have the requisite level of uh of of of circular financing and the ability to access infrastructure. So, I give them that. I'm just a little bit worried about the valuation here. So, reluctantly, reluctantly, I'm going to have to pass on on Crusoe. 10 billion though would have been great, boys. So, so you guys uh bonus this year will not be what you'd hoped. Uh they will be epic bonuses this year. I make them all the decisions as the managing general partner. Uh but I think you'll each take a couple million dollar hit by missing
1:07:23Just telegraphing that in September.
1:07:25Pushing back on taking that and going back to my earlier comment. How is something you when I said about you know worrying about a slowdown how is it actionable? This is an example of where it is actionable, right? Because I think something like a coding agent, something like a AI app like Harvey Lora, whatever, I think there's a long trajectory. They're not levered plays.
1:07:47You probably can survive a one-year bump, right? Conversely, the data center trade is very levered, so very exposed not just to AI usage, but to growth in AI usage. really leaning in on the upside, which means they're amazing investments to the up and they probably would be tough investments to the down, right? You wouldn't want to be out of that sector.
1:08:08But again, going back to how do you make these concerns actionable right now, I'd be saying to myself, if I had if if if I had a portfolio across the whole kind of AI spectrum, I wouldn't want it all to be in that AI capex trade where any kind of slowdown when you've got like four or five to one leverage can be pretty brutal, right? So, I would be a little bit afraid. I'm not going the specifics on cru. So Jason, you're right. It is a spreadsheet exercise and I haven't run spreadsheets. So I don't know, right?
1:08:33But I would be thinking in macro how much of that bet would I want, right?
1:08:38I'd want some because it's been an amazingly good bet. I mean look at corweave, right? But you also look at the market cap. I want to think I think Corweave is at 60 and Nebis is at 40. I could be wrong. It could be the other way around. And so Crusoe at 30. I mean I think it's growing. It's smaller than corewave growing much more quickly. So again, it's and they all have, you know, pretty substantial negative free cash flow. So a lot of your success is betting on future capex. And maybe the other statement, Harry, to further prove
1:09:08that you're wrong and that you can in fact take into account some of those riskings. my appetite for a deal like this would go up directly proportional to how much as Jason as Jason said a long-term commitments you have from a Microsoft versus a second tier and then b how much visibility you have on your debt runway for the next 3 years I would prefer a slightly lower price slightly more dilution and a longer runway such that if there's a data center bump in the next 12 months you're protected and
1:09:38I got to I got to finish by saying a really fun day in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. I don't know if you saw it, but I read the journal in the morning, I check it in in the evening. It's it was so funny yesterday because the headline in the morning was deals pull as ind as as Wall Street worries about data center trade. It was, you know, SPN and there was two others.
1:09:57There was a nuclear company, one other.
1:09:58So, that was the headline top of the page first thing in the morning. We then had the best single day in the NASDAQ since the dawn of time. It was an amazing day. And the headline at the end of the day was fear. You know, NASDAQ explodes as AI capex spheres recede. So, literally and what you saw in that literally in the space of 8 hours and one trading day, people went from, oh my god, capex is scary to the Wall Street Journal is like, it's all going to be great. And it was just, it was fun to watch that kind of oscillating, you know, terror greed moment in real time,
1:10:28literally in the same 8 hour period.
1:10:32Boys, what have I missed? Clearly the last Cruso round, but I missed it too, dude. Rory, is there any other that you think I've missed? Character wind surf deal?
1:10:44No, no one cares. Yeah.
1:10:45Yeah, no one cares about manner.
1:10:47No, I just think, you know, it will be fun to watch the litigation.
1:10:50It is. It is a slight recycle, but I do just think it's worth saying. I'm sure you guys saw the Twitter sphere. Uh Keith Ra Boy, Joe Londale going for a Wallace unbelievably again.
1:11:05You don't get I don't get this one. I I really don't get Let's put aside the issue. Let's put aside the issues for a minute. Okay, let's My gut is that there's a little bit of racism here. There's a little bit of anticulturalism, but let's put all that aside. Let's just I I don't RAMP is obviously a big investment, right, for for them. So, I get supporting the home team, right? And I get pushing the envelope there and it's 2026.
1:11:26This just seems and maybe if you're Keith who's very experienced and very smart, maybe it's worth it because he doesn't have any bridges to burn to worry about. But it it just seems a lot, right? Um if it work I guess if it works if this destroys airwall, right? If if the X and the whatever it is, the house review of it, if it destroys your competitor, Mchaveli and I get it, right? Um but um I I don't know. May maybe it's not too far. It ju it just feels very aggressive, right? Um, you
1:11:55know, it's like uh what do we call them back in the day? Dippling and real deal back real dippling and real but on steroid but on steroids. It's dippling and real on steroids. And maybe it makes sense. It just it just struck me maybe I'm too maybe I I just care too much. Uh but it struck me as just aggressive just aggressive. Right. I'm always very careful cuz I I am an investor and I will be very clear. I'm also a friend of Keith and I like Keith a lot and I respect him a lot. But the allegations have consistently changed from you are a
1:12:23CCP agent who is working for China to more than 20% of your cap table is in China and Chinese. These have what is not true by the way, but they have got more and more diminished over time as the arguments have weakened. When you look at the companies that have employees in China, it's basically every big company today has some form of their employee base in China from Microsoft to Zoom, you name it.
1:12:50candidly. It It's ridiculous.
1:12:53Well, you know, I mean I mean Finn got rid of all of their open open weights models before they're acquired by Salesforce. I don't know that it's ridiculous. I don't agree with it. Like I would not be making those tweets. This is a big deal. Finn to close its 3.1 whatever billion had to had to rip out all of OpenWeight's model out of his company before the deal would close. All gone. People care about this China stuff. We could argue both sides of it.
1:13:13And I and I don't like that. I don't like the tweets, but I wouldn't say there's nothing nothing too concern concerns about it.
1:13:19Okay. So, so then we should put the same scrutiny on Zoom and Microsoft.
1:13:23I don't dis I don't like I I started this by saying I don't like it, right?
1:13:27I'm not on the side of it. Uh but I am saying the Finn thing is in it's interesting. It it's that it matters to businesses, not just Twitter. Twitter audi respectfully I don't think there's a correlation because if you think then that it is interesting and we should have Well, you said Chinese ownership.
1:13:43Yeah. What are you saying?
1:13:45I I I They don't have the Chinese ownership. That's my point.
1:13:52I I know. I've got the cap table. I'm not disagreeing with you. I I'm saying why there is sensitivity around Chinese ownership. If it's not true, it's not true. I'm not arguing the point. I don't even care. I'm making the point that in a more traditional world outside of X, a very large transaction had to rid itself of all Chinese IP to close. I just had another portfolio company last week. We had the same discussion. They had an M&A offer and they were being told they had to rid their company of all Chinese IP
1:14:20as well. Rid all of it before the deal could close. And Airwall isn't trying to sell itself to Salesforce. And it I'll take take it on your faith. I trust you implicitly that it's not 20%. I'm just telling you that it is a real world issue this Chinese ownership. Even if I don't care about it or agree with it, it is impeding transactions. It is impeding commerce and it is a concern. Right. You you brought it up.
1:14:42I agreed. I think what's the frustrating thing on it just observing from a distance is I know no one elected me. I don't think anyone elected Keith and I don't think anyone elected Harry. You know, you this is the this is why you have you know everyone should play their position. We should be doing what we do in our little venture business. But the the government is the person who has a role to decide you know what what risk we are willing to take in commerce with China, what risk we're not. Cuz let's be let's get real here. We no matter what we exclude, we're still doing a huge amount of commerce with China. They're
1:15:11doing a lot of commerce with us. I think this very weekend, our two beloved leaders are meeting in DC to talk about doing more commerce. So, there has to be rules. They have to be come up by the US government. There has to be some restrictions on what kind of high-tech goods we're willing to trade, not trade, what kind of risk, you know, companies can have, especially on moving money and things like that. But it feels very much like, come on, government, step up, do your job. So, we're not trying to do it here on Twitter, right? Cuz once there's clear rules, you can say either they abide by the rules or they don't, right?
1:15:39But it all feels very ad hoc at the moment, which is at one with the way we're currently making policy. Let's get real across the board. You know, we we can sell chips to China. If Jensen checks in, it's all good. So, it does feel very ad hoc at the moment. And I think that's just a this is just a function of that.
1:15:56I'll tell you my micro learning. Harry, you could chime in because you would know this better than anybody. I will tie Jeb to Airwall as we end it. Okay.
1:16:03So, I think so. I think Jev was a master class in launch PR. It was everywhere. It was on Versel. It was on Open.
1:16:10Everyone was talking about it. Everyone had a Twitter article and a tweet lined up and a video of how great it was, which was probably handed and made to them. I mean, whoever they hired to do this launch, S tier, right? I think um Jack, who I don't know, right, but I've followed on social media. He seems like the kind of CEO that I would love. I wish I'd invested in him. I believe in it. I believe in the mission. I trust him implicitly. I might be wrong, but I would based on what I know, I would I would invest in period. Okay? And I'll uh having said that, he doesn't have
1:16:39he's out there arguing with Keith himself. He needs you need an army of people advocating you to do this kind of stuff. Okay? This is the Jeb lesson. And he and the poor guys out there, not poor, I mean, he's a billionaire, but he shouldn't be doing this. He should have his Keith and his uh sorry, what's the guy from uh the Palunteer? He should have Joe. And you need your own army of the I do believe if you if you're gonna run a decacorn or bigger, you need an army of advocates for you. And I feel like Jack doesn't have enough. And I think it's just if our jobs aren't hard
1:17:09enough as founders and CEOs, you need to build this bench of advocates out there for you. And and you can make fun of them, but they matter. And who the cares who cares what three effing VCs on a podcast think, but you know, between all of us, we've got a couple million followers. There could be worse things than us saying how great these companies are. and line up 20 of these guys so that poor Jack doesn't have to be defending himself. Jack should not have to defend himself to Keith and Joe. He should have an army of jevers of Jevson's out there saying, "Here is a
1:17:38screenshot of the cap table. This is not true. Here is the error. Here are the exact employees in China. Here's why it is less than Microsoft." He should have an army of folks disarming this. And Jack can just sit there and click like or heart. That should be his job. So, I give his comm's team and and his I'm going to fire his comm's team next week.
1:17:59Okay, I'm not a big fireer, but so I'm being conceptual rather than literal. I give them an F minus. Where's your army of of influencers and backers? Where are they? I give them an F. Come to the rescue. I I think candidly you're absolutely right. He needs to build that. I also think it's challenging for him because where ramp have very prominent social media backers like your Keiths and like your Joe Londales of the world you know he's got DST do not do social he's got Lee Fixel do not do
1:18:28social the major and you can laugh and say it doesn't matter it does matter actually they just don't have any social presence at all um he has friends like me who so find another way cry me a river find you're right but find your it's a good analysis but find find your find Find your tribe. Find your tribe. It's the job. Like the job's gone up here, right?
1:18:46I mean, I didn't mean to interrupt. It's a good analysis. He doesn't have that in in inherently on the cap table, right?
1:18:52It's not the only place to find it.
1:18:53Always good to remind yourself that DST does not do social despite doing the 10 billion pre round at Facebook in 2008. That was a genius round. But yeah, you're right.
1:19:03Keep go by Matthew McConey. He's like 14 million bucks a year. The guy will show up to anything. He's really good. That's what you get. Jack can afford a for Matthew McConey. He's got how much is airwall? Seriously, I mean, I'm just making up. You can go buy Matthew Matthew McConey is for sale and he's great.
1:19:20I did not expect this to go here.
1:19:22His his his AI article, his AI ads for for Salesforce are great. And I don't believe I don't believe he's doing it for free or out of the love of the artificial what is it now called?
1:19:32General and general artificial intelligence.
1:19:34Yeah, I think he say he's for hire, not so much for sale cuz sale implies a permanence. He's just for rent.
1:19:41Well, that's Sydney Sweeney for Airwalk.
1:19:44Okay. No, I don't. Oh, God.
1:19:47There's nothing to hide. Sydney and I got nothing to hide.
1:19:53We have nothing to hide. Right.
1:19:55Born in Australia and as American as it gets, right? You got the Thor guy brothers for Australia and Sydney.
1:20:04I want to record that I I I left this conversation 20 minutes ago. You think I'm being facicious? I'm not being facicious. I feel bad that he's defending himself.
1:20:12You need such a good idea. Um, on that note, Rory obviously left about half an hour ago. It's just been me, Jason, and an AI that sounds like Rory. But, um, uh, guys, we have that product.
1:20:28What an ending. Thank you so much, guys. Uh, as always, never a dull hour.