TIME100: Inside Anthropic | Mike Krieger | Dreamforce 2026

Please welcome co-leader of Anthropic Labs, Mike Krieger, and editor-in-chief of Time, Sam Jacobs. Thank you all very much. We're so happy to be here with you and be at Dreamforce again. This conversation is called Inside Anthropic. So I'm looking forward to going there with Mike. A few disclosures ahead. Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff is the owner of Time, and Salesforce, of course, as you all know, is an investor and partner with Anthropic. Anthropic's been on the COVID of Time multiple times this year. It's been one of Time's most influential companies. Mike is a proud member of the Time 100 AI, the most influential people in artificial intelligence. You're likely heading for an IPO this year, reportedly coming very soon, making Anthropic possibly one of the most watched companies in the world right now. There are few places where a CEO writes a 3,000-word blog post and it becomes international news. So, Mike, let's go inside Anthropic. One of your colleagues shared on Twitter this week, we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans. I'm less curious about your opinion on that than what it is like to work at a company whose employees publicly speak about the risks that its products have to killing all of humanity.

Yeah.

So what is it like to be at Anthropic today?

Yeah, first of all, great to be here. Hi, everyone. It's interesting thinking about what drew me to Anthropic in the first place. So I joined in 2024, where the model capabilities were early, right? You could kind of get it to code, but it was not that good at it yet. And the word agentic— I just walked back past Agentic Enterprise City— agentic was not anything anybody ever talked about. So still very early, but you could see the The trend was towards stronger and stronger capabilities. And I have a now 7 and 5-year-old, at the time, I guess, like a 4 and 2-year-old. I was like, they are going to grow up in a world where these capabilities are going to be a daily part of their lives. And what I want to do is do my own part, however that is, to shape that going well for people. And what immediately impressed me as I actually started talking to people who worked at Anthropic was that sort of earnest grappling with exactly these questions. And none of us have the answers. I think we're all grappling with them in real time. But there was something very intuitively both appealing and matching my own feeling, which is I'm very excited about the capabilities. I think there's a lot of net benefit that this will bring, but it's not without its risks and pitfalls. And so being at a company that very, I'm going to say openly internally, but also openly externally grapples with these questions was was where I wanted to be because I think it is not up to any one company to figure out all of these things or to have all these debates internally. And so, yeah, that was a real appeal to me for coming in. And in terms of how it is inside Anthropic, it's a company that operates with a strong amount of internal transparency, which again is also a thing that we valued at Instagram as a piece of how we operated the company, which means that you know, you're not just talking product strategy, you're also talking about, you know, risks, potential, you know, capabilities. One thing I've really come to like about working with Dario is how much he grapples with these ideas sort of openly internally, even ahead of sort of talking about them in public too.

Does that ever cause confusion about direction? Anthropic has 8 co-founders. All of them are quite vocal about where the company is going. I wonder if that transparency can sometimes make it difficult to get everyone on the same page?

This is a big question I have, which is I only had one co-founder at Instagram, and that was, you know, you can tell—

I imagine that was tricky enough. Who do we listen to to make a decision? 8 co-founders? It sounds like the Brady Bunch. Like, I don't understand how you all move forward together.

I had this question. I was like, how many? I met 7 of them in my interview process. I was like, I got to—

Can you name them all?

I can name them all. Yes. On a good day, I can name them all. But I think what was really interesting once I saw, partly through the interview process, but more actually being in there, is And I'll talk— actually tie this into my own role shift, because I think it was actually facilitated by how Anthropic operates, which is it's not that all 8 feel the need to be in every decision or even to be on the executive team. And so Dario and Daniela are very much like the 2 co-founders that are like in the sort of kind of core nexus and in the most kind of key executive seat. Jared leads science and research, and so he's in a lot of the sort of kind of core decision-making. But then you take somebody like Chris Ola, who does a lot more work on interpretability. And, you know, for the whole time where I was chief product officer, we weren't in almost any meetings together because he's not in that kind of core decision-making flow. But he also, he gets to meet the Pope. So he gets his own like interesting, interesting job there on the other side. But I think that separation of who you are in terms of the founder sort of nest, right? Core founder group. And they still have like a lot of founder conversations. and who's in the key decision-making is very cleanly separated, which was a big question for me also. Like, I joined the same month that Krishna, our CFO, joined, and we both kind of had this question of, well, we're the first 2 external executive hires. What's that going to be like? Are we going to feel like we're in a sort of separate group from the founders? But actually, there's very clearly like the executive team or the decision-making team, or they call it Dario and Daniel's staff, and then this kind of broader co-founder piece. And maybe just one other thing to say on that is that they've celebrated the co-founders not holding the same role forever. And so Tom Brown, for example, who does a lot of our compute these days, for a while he actually ran product and he's, he's held like 3 or 4 different— I think for a brief moment he was CFO before they hired a proper CFO. And so that ability of the founders to inhabit multiple roles is one that I was inspired by when I realized that my best sort of functioning at Anthropic was no longer to be in this CPO exec seat, but I wanted to be back in building. It wasn't like I was wondering like, gosh, nobody at this company has ever done this before. There was actually really good precedent from the founder base.

I want to get back to that. But first, I want to stay on this question about culture. You said at the beginning that, you know, we don't think we have the right answers, to paraphrase. I think your competitors would say that's not what Anthropic is. The people who work at Anthropic are very sure of themselves, very certain. They think it's their way or the highway. How do you react to that criticism?

I mean, I think maybe separating willingness to grapple in public and feeling like there's only one way of doing things. And you can see it even in evolving how we've thought about some policy questions, for example. So I think I was trying to impart this on my children yesterday, which is like they're very headstrong. They think changing their mind means that like they've failed. I'm like, no, no, no. It's like actually really a good sign that you can actually grapple with something and then evolve it. So I think willingness to be vocal, I think is absolutely the case. But I think also willingness to say, look, if you read Dario's Pacing the Frontier essay that came out over the weekend, he even talks about like, you know, the idea of pacing made less sense to him a couple years ago when the capabilities weren't really there. Didn't make sense. Like pacing for what, for example? But now that things have accelerated more, maybe it's time to grapple with that too. So that's, I think, how I would kind of square those two. But for sure, I've also heard that criticism of like, gosh, you guys really feel like you have a lot to say about this stuff.

Ivory tower, a bunch of academics telling everyone how their businesses should operate. Not fair, not true.

I think it's especially on the like how businesses should operate. I think that's actually been a place where being, and like, I think this makes a lot of sense in the context of being at Dreamforce, having the humility to say like, we wanna serve the enterprise, which means actually learning what that means. And that has been an evolution as well. Here's a thing that we have evolved even in our own approach this year was thinking about data retention and like in terms of enterprise frontier safeguards and realizing that like there is the perfectly designed hermetic system that you might design on a whiteboard. And then there is grappling with the fact that a lot of enterprises have their own data sharing and data privacy agreements with their downstream customers. And then basically co-designing something that works with them was really important. And so I think you should hopefully see a desire or an ability for us to, even if we have a more sort of, how would I put it, like idealized version of what might look like, also being willing to adjust and shift and do the pragmatic version once that meets the market.

You're co-founder of Instagram. You spent 6 years working at Meta. Culturally, how do you compare how Meta ran when you were there and how Anthropic runs today?

Yeah, it's a really interesting question. You got to like separate when we were building it and also like the company cultures. I think similar transparency from founders, I think, is true for both of those, at least when we were still at Facebook. Like, you know, Kevin and I, my co-founder, would host Friday morning, like all hands, like everything on our mind. People could ask us questions. We did a thing, a session called, or section of all hands called Rumors and Speculations. 'Cause you realize like there's always that rumor that is underneath the sort of, you know, surface nobody's talking about. And we would like very actively encourage like, hey, I heard X, 'cause that's like where you can, you know, my favorite one was like, I heard you guys delayed your reorg by 1 week so it wouldn't show up in the employee survey. I'm like, come, like that's the last thing I'm optimizing for. I'm glad somebody asked so I can like, sort of take on that sort of head-on. I think similarly, that transparency culture is very similar. And while like Mark and Daria are very different leaders in many ways, I think they're—

Let's talk about that. How are they different?

I think they, like Mark is highly product opinionated, like less on the Instagram side because we operated more from like a separate front. But like what I saw him do you know, in internal Facebook, but even just like in the, you know, kind of way of things is like, no, no, this should work this exact way. Not always to the like, this button should be blue kind of level, but like deep opinions. Whereas working with Dario is really interesting. He'll be the first to tell you like product is not his like core strength or expertise. So he's much more concerned about where is this industry going? What should products be doing conceptually, but way less like I need to be reviewing all of these different pixels. I think that's really Interesting. But they do have one similar property I think is interesting and like maybe the sign of like great CEOs in ways of operating, which is ability to telescope down like past the layers of sort of hierarchy that get created naturally in an organization and go talk to the individual contributor, which if you are a leader somewhere in that hierarchy, can be quite disconcerting at first because you're like, oh, are you like, am I being undermined? Like, is there something wrong with the way I'm leading? But I think both Mark and Dario have developed this algorithm for seeking truth, which is, I'm going to go talk to the people actually doing the work most closely. And sure, we can then backpropagate that to figure out how to make that hierarchy work better. And you can finesse it and bring people along the way. But I think they both operate in that way of, it's not the org chart that's going to determine who they're going to go talk to. And I came to, while at times being like, hmm, I wish you'd talked to me first, in both situations, it's actually like, In the end, I've come to really see it as the way you get to truth most quickly.

So if you're not comfortable with that, these are probably not comfortable places to work.

Yeah, I think that that's right for either case. Yeah.

Someone described Anthropic to me as AI-pilled. I'm curious what that means to you.

Yeah, I think it's a way of operating kind of end-to-end. And I'll give you the 2024 version and then the today version. The 2024 version, and to take it back to the co-founders, is pushing Claude and trying Claude even in the things that Claude was not good at yet. And so we would be drafting a strategy document and maybe we'd have a meeting and we'd have like a, I think even at the time Google Meet could do transcription, and then feeding it to Claude and be like, what do you think our Q2 strategy should be based on this? And 2024 Claude would be not very helpful. Like, yeah, that sounds like English, but it's not actually like a good strategy, or it's a very generic strategy, or here's the 8 ways why this is not going to work. Fast forward, and I would kind of laugh. Sam, who's one of the co-founders who was CTO at the time, was always the one who was like, let's ask Claude. I tried Claude. And it's like, I'm glad you asked Claude. It shows that Claude's not good at this yet. Whereas 2026, Anthropic, Claude is in effectively every interaction that we have. So we're extremely Slack heavy. It's like the Slack heaviest culture I've ever seen, but not just in a human-to-human way, but Claude tag is everywhere, not just in a like, hey, can you like do this pull request for me? But help pull this number, help me think this through. Like, have we talked about this before? Like, what are other departments thinking? Just like it permeates all this. I ran the numbers internally and a significant part of Anthropic employee time is actually now just spent talking to other Claudes rather than talking to people or being in a context where you're talking with both. And so that piece is really is a big piece of, I think, this like AI or AGI-pilledness. The other piece I think shows up a lot in product is really believing in the exponential of capabilities, really directly informing what we build. And so I'll give you an example of where I got this wrong, which is in labs. You know, we're always trying to build for the frontier and build for the exponential. Um, I built this product internally, it was called Hatch, um, and it was an end-to-end software builder. So you would give it a problem statement like, you know, I want a mobile application Maybe that helps me meditate more often. I wanted to do these things. And it would run this multi-agent relay harness. We wrote a blog about this where it would use this sort of, if you're familiar with GAN networks, or basically this adversarial network approach where a builder would build and then the adversary would say, I'm gonna critique it. And then it would go back and forth and do this and it would take 4 hours and it would validate and verify and click around and then it would give you a finished product and be like, cool.

Cool.

Cost you like $200 in tokens, but the end result was really, really good. And that took so much work around designing the multi-agent harness and the prompting and all of that. And we ultimately ended up not shipping it. We upstreamed some of the learnings into some of our other products. I tried the same approach on our more recent models a couple weeks ago, and without any of that scaffolding, it outperformed, which means that that product, had we shipped it, would've basically been obsoleted by just model capability progression. And so part of being AI-pilled is also like— AI first, revenue in the enablement. That is really like thinking about what are the ways in which my product is no longer gonna be necessary or useful as these things progress. And it's hard, it takes some humility of saying like, I might be working on something that's going away pretty soon.

When we spoke in February, were— you told Time, when you spoke to Time in February, you said you were managing 3 or 4 Claude codes simultaneously. I'm curious, what does your workflow look like today? And actually, before that, how many of you are using Claude in your daily work today? Does that feel like a good number to you? It looks like—

Oh, it could always be better. Uh, people used to apologize to me when they weren't on Instagram or they're not on Claude. I'm like, you know, growth needs to come from somewhere. It's good to have people that aren't on there yet.

So what What does your work look like? How are you using these tools in a daily setting?

Yeah, I'll give you just like a really live example. So we shipped an update to our Artifacts platform today that you can now do Cloud Design, Cloud Slides, we have Cloud Docs that's new, and all the Artifacts got much upgraded capabilities. And it was kind of my baby, the project I've been really close to and was really excited about. And so in getting ready for launch, for example, There's always the 500 things you're landing the week before. I have one channel with Claude in it. I have it monitoring all the other launch readiness channels. It has told all the other Claudes to ping that channel or tell that Claude when it has a question for me. So all day, basically what I'm doing is fielding inbound like, all right, Safeguards has this question. Do you want to go with A or B? Or, hey, this is falling behind and not tracking. But I like having one, kind of coordinator that holds a lot of state. Otherwise, you're like between a bunch of other channels. But if I delegate work there, it's happening somewhere else. And then the other piece of what I found is really quickly in just a thread, you're like, wait, I was supposed to make 8 decisions and I lost which of them were happening where. So I actually have it keep an artifact live with, right, these are the decisions left, check off the ones that you've done, tell me where you wanna be different. But it's so different. It's funny, like thinking back to that Time interview because At the time, I was like, I feel proud. I'm working across 3 clouds. But actually now, I'm probably working on a given day across 30. And I'm not exaggerating. That's just all the work that's getting delegated across the board. And so we've had to evolve, even internal to Anthropic, new ways of thinking about making sense of that chaos. Because otherwise, if I was trying to go to 30 cloud code sessions, that would be absolutely crazy. But we've sort of created these kind of bigger abstractions. You know, last night I was, you know, I'm a paranoid person by nature. So before bed I was like, Claude, like, let's write me a premortem of how this launch goes wrong. Like, tell me all the things that could be wrong. I'm gonna go to bed now. That made me feel better. And I woke up this morning at 6 and it was like, great. Like, I wrote a premortem. I think you're actually in great shape. These are the 2 things to watch out for, ask somebody about. And I was like, great. This is like a very helpful overnight use case for Claude.

It's helpful to know how you're sleeping at night. I appreciate that. Are there other ways that Claude is working today that would surprise people? I'm sorry, that Anthropic is working today that would surprise people?

I think how much it's permeated non-engineering, I think, is the other piece that is really cool. So whether it's— I was talking to this guy Leslie, who works on our recruiting team, and he's not like the IT recruiting person. He's not anointed by anybody to be like the most Claude-pilled person on that team. But he is. He just loves it. And what's interesting is he's become the skills guru for that entire team. And it means that all the team has gotten all of these applicant tracking superpowers because of his work. It's actually really— it's taught me a lot about how we need to approach enterprises because I think on any given enterprise that there is that person, or hopefully there is at least one of those people on the team, how do you then enable them to share that knowledge internally is a really interesting question. But I think that how much has permeated, it surprises me all the time where I'll think, you know, we're doing really well on product in terms of how Claude-forward we are. Then I'll go meet somebody on legal and they're like, oh yeah, like we did this whole thing where, you know, getting contracts through this process used to be 8 people and like 3 weeks. And we've gotten Claude to like paper over all these things and now it's actually, you know, 2 people in 2 days. It's like, wow, this is really, really interesting how much that's been accelerated. So I think that's That's one interesting way it's been quite different. Maybe another one is also how much Claude is even in our social channels, which that was a real AI pilling moment where Claude in our social channels in 2024 was very bad. It was not funny, first of all. It's hard to be a good funny poster in Slack, right? It had no chill, so it would answer every message, which if you were a person, you'd be like, this person is annoying. I'm kicking them out of the channel. And it had like very little like situational or company awareness. And there was a moment, actually happened last year, where we like upgraded the model and we're like, every few months we would like reinvite Claude into like our main kind of water cooler channel. And a few days later we'd be like, kick it back out. Like, sorry, it's not ready yet. And there was a moment where I was like, oh, it's funny. And it like actually could understand how to be a good conversational participant. So like even having Claude as like actually just another coworker or teammate has been like another way that that's felt like kind of different.

You break down how most companies use AI into 3 different sets, functions. One is put Claude in the hands of all employees. 2 is what you call process reinvention. And 3, what I think you call rethinking new products. Can you walk us through how each of those 3 things works and what those stages mean for companies?

Yeah, this is something that we've evolved, like, and it's kind of our shared language, which I think is really important across Product, go to market, you know all the engineering. Like what is what? What are the ways in which we can think about what we're building? And so like type, and you'll hear like, is this a type two product? So type one product is really accelerating your internal workforce. So our canonical product there is is cowork, which as of today is now merged into chat finally, so people can stop being like, when do I use chat? When do I use cowork? Which is like our top enterprise question. But really that that came from can you get each employee to feel like their work is more efficient, like more capable, more enabled by that. So those are, you know, first, you know, first-person products usually affecting an individual. The second one is really accelerating an entire job function or a process. So we work really closely with like companies in financial services, for example. So a workflow that's like Claude-powered that's helping you reconcile your books at the end of the month or risk reviews, or we work with health insurers like figuring out How to make sure that the different insurance claims work through the system. That's like a type 2 product that you're looking more at workflows. Then type 3 is embedding Claude into your product that you are then selling out. It's actually interesting. When I started, almost all of our offerings were in that type 3 front. We were powering Perplexity to do AI-powered search, for example. We were in Notion's early AI exploration, and it's still a really big part of our business. As well. And so figuring out how do we serve those customers as well. And so that's where, that's one where we actually have to do a lot more sort of curiosity-based, like, co-design with a lot of these companies. But also the kind of great part about the API is like you don't sometimes hear about the products until they ship and they're doing really well. And then they call and they're like, hey, I need a bigger rate limit because this thing is starting to take off and it's doing well. But we found that it's like a helpful compartmentalization of like which category each of these products end up being in.

Help us understand the difference between how most of us use AI today and how we're going to be using it, let's say, 18 months from now. I think one of the interesting things about your role is you're working on products that none of us see yet.

Yeah.

And so maybe what are some of the misconceptions about where we're going or one of the things you're most excited about as well about where our usage of this technology is headed?

Yeah, I gave a talk recently that was really fun to prepare for, which I don't say about every talk, but this one really was, which I was trying to map out What is the role of the human as AI has become more powerful? Like, in a sort of curious way, right? Like, there's a pretty boring future where all we are is sort of signatories, right? You're like, Claude's done all the work. Somebody's got to sign off on the architecture, like, form or whatever. Like, that's our role. That would be pretty sad, I think. But then there's, like, other interesting roles I think we can play. Like, we could be conveners of either multiple Claudes or multiple people, multiple companies around solving a common problem. We can be like the sort of human judgment and like perception and things that are like still and maybe will be for a while like outside of the realm of Claude, which I think is more of like taste making and judgment, which I think is also really interesting as well. And so like to your question, I think one of the ways in which I think we will continue to play an interesting role as relates to AI is like setting goals and then letting Claude on those goals. So right now, I think the way most people still work with with AI is you're setting very near-term sort of scoped goals. Like, I have a, I'd like for you to make this deck. Please go off and make a deck. Now fix these problems with the deck. Now send it to this person. It's pretty still directed. A lot of the products that we've been playing around with Labs actually have you set like, what's your aspiration for your team this quarter? Which is like a, again, a question that I wouldn't say Claude is still great at like fully internalizing and then planning against. But that is the abstraction level we want Claude to be operating on 3, 6, 9 months from now around saying like, I have an internal product that I created, I run, but I don't actually have time to manage anymore. And so one of our internal products that I have running on this, I gave it the goal and it's really interesting actually watching it start getting better at this where it proactively does work and say, look, one of the goals you told me was that like all internal feedback for this internal product should be answered in 6 hours and actioned within a day. Here's how I'm tracking towards that. I'm like, oh, this is cool. This is how I would like almost set a KPI on Claude.

Yeah.

So that's where I think that we are going. So like maybe if the misconception is that there's no human in the loop, I think there is. I think it's just the value is different. And I think the thing I'm excited about is like that's a pretty powerful, if you can get it right, abstraction level around being able to operate entire sort of areas that you otherwise wouldn't have staffed or wouldn't have the people for. In a way that's really autonomous.

You're a builder of consumer products from Instagram to Artifact. I think you and I both grew up on a type of the internet that feels like it's going away.

Yeah.

A world where there's more agentic activity than actually human activity online. Do you worry about what's happening? Does that concern you that someday something's being lost in that transaction?

Yeah, I thought about this a lot with Artifact. So not coincidentally, or coincidentally, my second startup was called Artifact, and then we launched Artifact and I'm dropping. Pure coincidence, I promise. But we were doing, I wouldn't even call it AI at the time, 'cause it was more like machine learning powered news recommendations. So if we figured out that you were really into Japanese architecture, we would make sure we would always get you the best articles about that thing across the whole ecosystem. And what we were kind of witnessing in real time is really like a shift in a bunch of different directions, right? Like towards greater media consolidation, towards more paywalls, which would make recommendations more difficult, towards the rise of things like Substack, like Medium playing a role as well. Like seeing that shifting landscape made it very hard actually to build a sort of recommendations product because what was behind the click when we made the recommendation was vastly different in terms of what the user experience was on the other side. But you also saw that sort of maybe paced with the same growth of things like Facebook and people no longer keeping personal journals or blogs, people just putting them on Facebook or even Instagram. That has also evolved and shifted as well. Here's my optimism on this, which is with things like now artifacts, there is a rise of ability of creating things that are personal to you that then get shared. I see this a lot internal to Anthropic where People are making a lot of like video games on the weekends. They're like, oh, I had this idea for a game. I made it. I published it as an artifact. Here, you try it out in a way that like otherwise wouldn't have had that distribution internally. And so the, if we do this right, it should actually be enabling more people to publish things that they otherwise wouldn't have a destination for. But I think you're also right that the overall trend is definitely more towards either your first audience is not humans, it's agents, which I think is like, it's a hard thing as a human to reckon with. But to further that evolution of most of these things are behind paywalls and sign-ins and it's no longer that sort of like— I mean, I'm old enough where I had a GeoCities website that was part of a link ring, which really ages me, right? Where that was all like, hey, we all have our own space and now we're going to link it and hopefully discover some interesting things through it.

You recently moved from Chief Product Officer to be the co-lead at Anthropic Labs. Why did you make that change?

I was working with a really good coach, which probably many of you have worked with coaches. I think they can be really important in navigating where you are. It's like a classic coaching question, which is like, what percentage of your week do you find that you're doing the things that you think you are uniquely bringing to the table? And as we'd grown the product team, like when I started, we had 30 people on product. I'd grown the product team to hundreds of people. The products were doing really well. We're launching cowork, going into enterprises. My day was much more setting up the teams for success and then working really closely with customers than it was like being in any kind of product details or even in that builder seat. And I just had the realization that there are people, and I brought one of them on, Ami, who now is the CPO, who are much, much better than me at sort of setting up the team's cadence and operating rhythm and doing that sort of team building and decision-making and customer relationship. than I was. And I was like, okay, the thing I most love doing, the thing I most, I think I am, can uniquely bring to the table is zero-to-one prototyping and building at the frontier. I get to do that never. And theoretically I could do that on the weekends, but I was like, I found the rest of the role. Maybe y'all can relate to this. Like, but it's a role that you are like, like they call it like zone of competence versus zone of genius. Like I'm competent at it, but it takes all of me to do it well. Like there's no time to go do the thing that I'm like really in love with.

Yeah.

And so It was just that realization. And then having seen other executives actually navigate that transition and thrive, it was like, oh, maybe this means I can still be at this company that I love and deeply believe in, but do the thing that I actually want to be doing. And it's been so like, it's like it's been, it'll be a year next month that I sort of started thinking about the transition. And it's like night and day in terms of like people can see it in my face. Like, Mike, you really seem like you're having a lot more fun. and you're finding it more fulfilling. And it's definitely been the case.

Your rivals are moving into hardware. Is that something we'll see from Anthropic?

I think operating alongside hardware for sure. Like, we've put out this model hardware standard recently around like how to better get cloud to interface with hardware. Building our own hardware, like nothing— like, I think that there's space for that. I think there'd be interesting partnership opportunities. But I've also admired our ability to stay like relatively focused on a few like big swings rather than like try to do a lot of things all at once.

Last question. So far you've mentioned your kids twice, and I'm curious what you tell them about what they're going to inherit in this age of AI.

Yeah, I mean, this is a question I grapple with basically daily, especially when the kids— I'm like, you know, I'll ask a question and they're like, should we ask Claude? You know, which I think is good. My 7-year-old is very headstrong. So the other day I was like, oh, should I— I said, should we check with Claude? She's like, you can check with Claude. but I know I'm right, which is very healthy. I think that's the attitude that she has. Yeah. What they'll do, what they'll study, I think are all really open questions. I don't know if I'm saying anything particularly profound, but like the thing I try to instill in them and nurture in them is like relating to other people, you know, retaining curiosity, and then like finding the thing that they uniquely love doing, which my oldest kid right now is like math. She loves math. And like how that manifests as a career, who knows? But like having your thing, I think remains like—

Great. Well, thank you all for joining us, going inside Anthropic. Thank you, Mike.

Thanks, Sam. Thanks, everybody.