Why is Gen Z hates AI?

Young people have been told their jobs are going away. It might not be that they're scared. They feel like they've been double-crossed. That Google and Eric Schmidt representing Google has bad intent. They know that the horse has left the barn and they understand that there just aren't going to be the number of jobs for them.

Suddenly they're trying to get an apartment, pay for their own healthcare. This really just highlights the gap between business excitement about AI and the average consumer.

A lot of them did their degrees in the age of ChatGPT. These people have had ChatGPT for 2 years. Been using it. They understand it really well.

I think This Week in Startups is brought to you by Vanta. Compliance and security shouldn't be a deal breaker for startups to win new business. Vanta makes it easy for companies to get a SOC 2 report fast. Get $1,000 off for a limited time at vanta.com/twist. Sentry. Your team should be focused on shipping features, not chasing down bugs. New users can get $240 in free credits when they go to sentry.io/twist. Io/twist and use the code TWIST. And Deal. Founders scale faster on Deal. Set up payroll for any country in minutes, hire anyone anywhere, get visas handled fast, and get back to building. Visit deal.com/twist to learn more.

Hey everybody, May— oh my God, it's May 18th, 2026. Ski season long behind us, summer long gone, right around the corner. My Lord, I've got a lot of summer plans. I gotta be around the globe doing All In stuff in Paris and Founder University in Japan. But, uh, we're gonna have an, a Twist All-Star Summit. We're gonna do our All-Stars again, the top 10 guests of all time. We're gonna try to get them to come back and then reveal them. So over like 6 weeks of the summer, we're gonna have the top 10 Twist All-Stars. If you want to just tweet at us, DM us on all the social platforms, uh, give us your best suggestions. But I know people are gonna want like Chris Sacca back or, you know, Brian Alvey, my friend. He always like interviews me. That's kind of fun. Uh, just so many great guests we've had over the years who have just been, uh, Rory Sutherland. Everybody thinks I vibe with Rory really well. So we're going to try to do those Twist All-Stars for the summer so we have something to look forward to when we're at the beaches or whatever. Uh, you know, you get your Kindle, you read a book, whatever. You can also listen to a great pod.

We love a summer, we love traveling, and we're going to make sure everyone, that Twist does not stop no matter what goes on. 3 shows a week, Monday, Wednesday, Friday. The train rolls on.

I mean, this thing has been going for 15 years. I'm like, somebody's like, are you ever gonna stop? I'm like, I like it, so no, it's, it's a lot of fun. So let's keep going.

Yeah, let's do it. Uh, first though, Jason, I think we should give a quick applaud. Applauds. Applause. There you go.

We could applaud. And, uh, yeah, I'm just gonna press here, get my haptic. I wear my plot on my wrist some days. Uh, because I don't like the way it hangs on my t-shirt. I prefer it on my wrist. When I'm wearing a suit, I prefer it on my suit. Okay, uh, different strokes for different folks. This thing has been incredible for me hiking and rucking. Yesterday I did massive rucking. I had— I dropped my daughter off at, uh, like a Game Show Kids birthday party. They didn't want the parents in there, so I got 2 hours to walk around the Dominion, which is like this incredible, like, super mall in North Texas. Like, you just— like, everything's there. Patsy Grimaldi's Pizzeria from Brooklyn opened an outlet there. There's an Apple Store, obviously, and everything in between. But I'm walking around, I put my notes on, I walk. That's when I get all my great ideas. So I'm rocking with a 20-pound pack on my back, and, uh, man, I'm just giving all my ideas to my Plod. Sync it up when I get home, look at my notes, and I am back in business. No ideas left behind.

Is this the Dominion Ridge Shopping Center, Jason, that you're referring to?

Am I pronouncing— Christ, is it the Domain or Dominion?

There's Domain in in Texas— in Austin, I mean— and then there's the Dominion in San Antonio. Okay, here it's big, y'all, trust me. I looked it up, it's large, it's giant.

Uh, and, um, it is like— to call it a shopping center is a huge understatement. What it is is a town. Like, it's almost like they made a town, and the town has some streets that are open to cars, most streets are not, and they put a bunch of housing there and then they put a bunch of retail there. It's nuts how much stuff there is in this sprawling complex. It's about 15 minutes north of like 6th Street, if everybody knows going to 6th Street.

Uh, you need a Plaud note pen S, and if you want to save a couple bucks when you turn your note-taking life on its head for the better, go to plaud.ai/twist, P-L-A-U-D dot A-I slash twist. Use the code twist, save 10%. Don't lose track of what matters. All right, Jason, the biggest news I think over the weekend that everyone couldn't stop talking about was the popularity of bringing up artificial intelligence at university and college commencements. People just ate this up. They couldn't help themselves.

Yeah, it turns out AI, surprisingly unpopular at commencement addresses. We're in that commencement season. And of course, you want your most successful alumni to give a commencement speech, or your biggest donors. I don't know how it exactly works, but Eric Schmidt, famous former CEO of Google, essentially went to University of Arizona, I guess, and he gave a talk that I guess I should just play here, or we should play here, and I'll just give some feedback on it. Here's 2 minutes, and I'll, I'll, uh, talk over it, I guess. Uh, but it's pretty wild and I'll say pause if I want to interject.

All right, here we go.

So today we stand on this edge of another technological transformation, one that will be larger, faster, and more consequential than what came before. It will touch every profession, every classroom, every hospital, every laboratory, every person, and every relationship you have. Relationship. I know what many of you are feeling about that. I can hear you. There is a fear.

A fear.

Oh, that's a serious move.

There is a fear in your generation. Oh, in your generation. If the future has already been written, that the machines are coming, that the jobs are evaporating, that the climate is breaking, that politics is fractured, and that you are inheriting a mess that you did not create. And I understand that fear. It's rational. And it's amplified every day by social media platforms with algorithms that are learned with great precision.

Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, Twitter.

And their anxiety drives engagement.

Yeah. Okay.

But I want to say something to you this evening as clearly as I can.

Okay.

To speak of the future as though it has already been decided is to surrender the one thing that actually matters. You are surrendering your agency. The future does not simply arrive. It gets built in laboratories, in dormitories, in startups, in classrooms, in legislators. And the people building it will be you and people like you. The question is not whether AI will shape the world. It will. The question is whether you will help shape artificial intelligence. We do not know. We do not know.

Okay, so let's pause here. This is, uh, you know, and there's like a 6-minute version. Um, the whole talk has not been released. Young people have been told that their jobs are going away and they are hearing this, and then they're talking to people who've graduated ahead of them, right? So they were freshmen at one point, now they're seniors graduating. They've got friends who went into the job market already, and they're probably going into the job market. They might have siblings, and certainly they have parents, and they're seeing that Big Tech is laying off a ton of jobs. The leaders of Big Tech are talking about UBI, about no work, about half the jobs going away. When they hear Dario at Anthropic or, you know, Elon talk about, hey, it's gonna be a world of abundance and working's gonna be optional. And this kind of stuff, you know, I think resonates with young people because they're thinking, well, what am I inheriting here? Like, what is the job that I'm going to have? And the problem with his speech is he was kind of talking down to them a bit. It felt a little bit condescending. He's like, hey, I know you're scared. It might not be that they're scared. It might be they're— they feel like they've been double-crossed. It might feel to them like, um, you have bad intent, that Google and Eric Schmidt representing Google has bad intent. So instead of him saying, hey, the AI industry needs to listen and the AI industry has to be thoughtful about this and Let me tell you all the ways this is gonna be great. And then he kind of lectures them, hey, and you know what? You guys can't pretend like you're not going to have a role in this. You're gonna have a role in this. And they know that's kind of bullshit. They know that they don't have a role in it. They know that the horse has left the barn. They see it because a lot of them did their degrees in the age of ChatGPT. These people have had ChatGPT for 2 years. They've been using it. Their students are like startups. They're looking for edge. They're looking for ways and tools to try. They've been using ChatGPT to get through school. They understand it really well, I think, and they understand that there just aren't gonna be the number of jobs for them. I know we're gonna keep having this debate over and over again, and people are gonna look at different numbers, but they're gonna just have, uh, a harder time in the job force. That's my personal belief. That's their belief. Clearly, founders scale faster on deal. That's the deal. You can grow your company without borders and you can set up payroll for any country in minutes. Hire anyone anywhere like a modern startup or large company does. And DL is gonna get all the visas handled fast so you can get back to building. There's a great talent war that's going on right now and you need people with superpowers for your startup to be competitive, to beat your competitors, to get your products to market. But anytime you try to grow your team with overseas hires, oh my Lord, you've got to reinvent the wheel and you gotta navigate a tangled web of international laws, regulations, and you can't get these things wrong, folks. You want to onboard new staffers in other countries? You want to get them set up on your network nice and secure? IT access, all that good stuff? You want to manage their benefits? Trust me, this is all a nightmare unless you partner with Deel. They are the people stack for startups. They're going to take care of all the onboarding, payroll, HR, IT, benefits, everything you need quickly in one place, done perfectly. So visit deel.com/twist. That's deel.com/twist. And they think AI I think is also, uh, lame and inauthentic. I think there's like a little bit of a cultural thing, but I don't know the nature of the school. I think there's also like the anti-billionaire thing, like why is a rich guy coming here telling me that like my relationships are going to be mitigated by AI? That was another weird one. Like, he's like, your relationships, like hospitals, everything's going to be AI. I don't think people want that future. Certainly these kids don't want that future.

No, I think this really just highlights the gap between business excitement about AI and the average consumer, especially, I would say, the recent college graduate who is going into the workforce probably for the first time. Suddenly they're trying to get an apartment, pay for their own healthcare, and then they're coming to age in this kind of AI era. But Jason, this is not the only clip from this commencement cycle that shows a very public complaint about AI. So go ahead and give a quick listen to this.

Okay, this is one I haven't seen. Yeah.

University of Central Florida, and watch how surprised this woman is.

Who is this woman?

Gloria Caulfield. She's a real estate development exec. That was one of the speakers. Oh, there it is right there on the screen. Uh, the Tavistock Development Company VP of Strategic Alliances. So a local business leader is how I think about her. Okay, here we go.

That said, we are living in a time of profound change. That's an understatement, right? Profound change. Change is exciting, very exciting. And let's face it, change can be daunting. The rise of artificial intelligence is the next industrial revolution. Oh, whoa, wow, she's shocked. They both were kind of taken aback. Okay, I struck a chord. Yeah, you did. Yeah, she's a bit frazzled.

There's one more round of booze.

It was not a factor in our lives. Hmm, interesting. Biden. Okay, we, we've got a bipolar topic here, I see. Okay, uh, and now AI capabilities are in the palm of our hands. And, and wow, can't believe it.

She can't believe it. Also, I think she meant polarizing, not bipolar. But you know what, when you're extemporizing on the podium, I forget.

Yeah, I mean, sure, uh, two, two different polars. I think we get the drift here. She's, uh, hit on something. I think both of these have hit on something. This generation maybe feels like this isn't in the best interest of humanity. By the way, it's kind of what we've all been saying in our own industry, is like, this is good Uh, is screen time good? After what people saw from social media and screen time and the algorithm, which, by the way, the algorithm, which Eric Schmidt mentioned in his first one, that was kind of the first manifestation of machine learning that hit consumers in a major way that they became aware of as well. Self-driving would be the other one. Yep. So when they think about AI, they think, oh, it knows what I'm thinking. It's listening to me. It's giving me targeted ads. It's sending me videos it thinks I'm going to be interested in, and then if I interact with them, it sends me more. And self-driving is like the other piece. And I think they're probably looking at it going, yeah, this tech stuff is toxic and it's, it's not good for society, and we probably want to hang out with our friends and not have this in the palm of our hands. I think it's— they're going to opt out of it. I think they might be looking at it going, if you don't want us as workers, we're going to figure something else out.

It would be weird to have kind of a countercultural moment à la the hippies in the '60s. Jason, because of AI, but we could actually have one from that perspective.

I—

it feels like the anti-war movement. I think that's a very good observation. It does feel like Vietnam or something. They're like, this is their Vietnam. Like, we don't want anything to do with this. You guys are shoving it down our throat. We do not want to be, um, drafted into your AI army.

I think that's it.

Like, it's a really interesting analogy between now and the '60s. I don't want to be drafted to go to Vietnam and go to this war halfway around the world. And I, I think these kids are like, I don't wanna be drafted into some AI slavery where I'm using these tools that's sucking my life outta me and it's replicating me and then I'm out of a job. Yeah. It, it, this is an interesting moment in time.

I wanna bring up a data point that I saw that I think is really salient to this conversation. So, um, the University of Utah's Kemsey Gardner Policy Institute put out a very interesting paper, Jason. And these are the critical charts. So when the kids are talking about, you know, concern about the job market, I think this is a good data point. For those on the audio version, this is 4 charts. Essentially, we're looking at the construction workforce for all US data centers through 2030, those in Utah, and then the US data center operations workforce growth over time. And then the same for Utah, because again, it's from a Utah university. But what matters, Jason, is if you look at this, the construction jobs that data centers are supposed to create will dramatically decline after those projects are done, which kind of makes sense. But what about the jobs that will be created by them directly? Well, the answer is in the low automation case here, they total about 65,000 by 2030. Technology companies have already cut 100,000 jobs this year. So all the data center jobs by 2030 are less than the layoffs we've seen in the first quarter and a half. Of course. And that, I think, just underscores why people are worried. And maybe, maybe rightly so. I don't think we can afford to not invest in the future. I'm still a free market capitalist guy, but I empathize with these poor students. I remember being an afraid college graduate worrying about getting an apartment and buying forks.

Yeah. And there's a socialist movement kind of moving— the Democratic Socialist Movement, the Uh, the government should take better care of its citizens. We should have universal health care. Uh, there should be more job loyalty. All of this stuff is kind of coalescing in an anti-billionaire, anti-progress, pro-socialist kind of, uh, maelstrom. And here we are, folks. It's— I guess a commencement address is when the generations come together, and this generation apparently does not like to be talked down to and told how exciting this is because they don't see it as exciting.

No, no, totally fine. There was a viral essay from the New York Times that came out, uh, over the weekend. It was called What AI Did to My College Class, written by a Stanford University senior called Theo Baker. Jason, I'm just going to read you a couple of quotes from this.

Okay.

And I think it explains why college students who are the most AI-forward, I think generation correctly, as you said, are maybe a little bit skeptical. So quoting from Theo here. AI is everything. We talk about it at the dining halls and in history classes, on dates and while smoking with friends, at the gym and in communal dorm bathrooms. For some, AI has opened the door to staggering wealth. But for many who came to Stanford when a degree seemed like a guaranteed ticket to a high-paying job, the door has been slammed shut. Going on, cheating has become omnipresent. I don't know a single person who hasn't used AI to get through some assignment in college. Moving on, in our tech-enabled, newly AI-powered world, students were increasingly fudging just about everything. They would embezzle dorm funds to spend on their and lie about having COVID to get the Uber Eats credit the school offered to those in quarantine. Half of laptops in any lecture seem to be open to ChatGPT or Claude, etc., etc., etc. So it seems that AI arrived all at once to universities and instantly dissolved the foundations of kind of a liberal arts higher education much faster than it crushed the workforce. So these students in their cynicism are saying, we're up to our necks in this and we don't like it. And that makes me legitimately concerned about the future.

It's the worst nightmare of every founder. You've built a product, everything's working great, then real All users start flooding in and suddenly it all breaks. What a disaster. You need to get it back up and running and you gotta do that fast. You're looking like an amateur. That's why you need a partner like Sentry. Applications can break in many different ways, but Sentry sees everything. You'll get all the relevant details like stack traces, commits, releases, and even the developers who push that problem code in the first place. With Sentry, you're not gonna be jumping around between different tools trying to figure out what happened. And Sear, Sentry's AI debugging agent, uses all this data and context to identify the root cause of the problem and suggest a fix. It can even take a look at your code before it ships and warn you if any problems are likely. Try Sear and Sentry for free. If you're a This Week in Startups listener, at sentry.io/twist, use the code TWIST for $240 in Sentry credits. Make sure you use that code. Make sure you use that URL sentry.io/twist. So they know your Uncle J Cal sent you. Will they get jobs? Yeah, I think they're probably— most of them will get jobs. They're super smart. There is a weird thing going on in the Bay Area where the people who did go work for the Frontier models are like instantly being worth $10 million in liquid stock, that there's like a massive secondary. And so there's been a lot of hand-wringing about that. Basically a have and have-nots in Silicon Valley. Where one group of people hit this generation's Google slash Uber slash, you know, pick the company that, uh, Meta, Facebook. And if you hit one of those, you know, you made a couple million bucks in your stock options. If you held them for a couple years, you made maybe $10 million, $20 million, and you could buy a house. Well, now it's like really weird because the frontier models are in such competition for this specific type of person. The people at those are now, they're the haves. And they have a lot because these companies went to a trillion-dollar valuation very quickly, which previously only happened with like a handful of companies got to a trillion, right? We're talking about rarefied air there. Yeah. So, um, yeah, there's a little bit of resentment between the 0.1% and the 0.05%. No, it's like literally like the top 10th of a percent versus the bottom 10th of that same first percent. Like they're all in the 1%, but there's some animosity there or some hand-wringing about it. And then there's also like, what is my, what is the point of all this? That's the P-Doom that people are feeling. What is the point of anything if the machines can do everything? And once you've experienced that where you're like, I can do my homework with ChatGPT and nobody cares. And my professors like reading the essays with ChatGPT. This is all a farce. It's all performative. Or. I'm building something at my company, and there was an Atlassian employee who got laid off who explained everything they built, and it's obviously super, uh, competent person. And he was kind of lamenting, like, I did all this stuff and then I basically trained AI to replace me. There's people who are well aware in our industry that the work they're doing replaces themselves. And so we're, we're Getting to— yeah, there it is. Former Aussie tech employee reveals what he built in viral video. It's a very interesting video. I watched like half of it. It's incredibly technical. He goes through step by step everything he built, and then he got laid off. And you're like, this guy's a genius. How did he get laid off?

He fired that guy. Well, I mean, ultimately, I think now layoffs, Jason, have gone from a shameful act to actually one that signals to investors two things. One, that you're finding efficiencies from AI automation already. And two, that you're conserving capital, aka gunpowder, if you will, for the future to be more AI-first. So I think investors dig it, but sucks for people who are suddenly cut loose. It's brutal for them.

This is a level of choppiness I didn't exactly expect all at once. Pretty interesting.

Can I actually underscore something you told me a few months ago? So we were talking about this issue because we've been talking about it now for 18 months or so.

Sure.

You said that people should go out there and start a company. And I thought that was a little bit tricky because not everyone has resources, access, network, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But I think the reason why I like that now is to me, it is the only way to escape the permanent underclass. Because if you are a worker for someone else, you're a cost center. But if you own your own company at any size, you're at least in control of your own destiny. So I don't know if that's the way to dramatic wealth as we consider it in technology circles. But I think if you own your own company in whatever it is you do, at a minimum, you have some buffer or bulwark against these layoffs we're seeing. So I think I've come around to your thinking on that.

Well, the writing was on the wall, and I just extrapolated. If this continues, if the layoffs continue and there's not a lot of hiring, so then what is the best thing to do? Now, there is this, uh, preconceived victimhood, like, uh, talking down to people, like, oh, you know, not everybody can start a company. Not everybody has the motivation. Not everybody has the skillset. Like I've been doing this for a while. I've invested in 600 or 700 companies. Like I can tell you, anybody can do it. Like anybody can do it at this point in time. Anybody can do it. Sure. Anybody can put up a shingle. Anybody can build a website. Anybody can start, you know, a sales process. All the answers are out there. ChatGPT and You know, Claude and everything will do half the work for you. So if you are going to get laid off and you don't want to do this dance anyway, building, you know, a large number of small companies, and small companies means like making $500K to $5 million a year, not venture scale, but delightful scale for the people who own them. Okay, here we go. And in media, we've seen this happen. So if you look at the Substack podcasting, everybody leaving big media, they've already experienced it. They experienced massive layoffs over the last 20 years since newspapers and magazines contracted. BuzzFeed and Huffington Post and Vox, all the things that were supposed to replace them, they also imploded. They also either shut down or laid everybody off. Vice is the other one. You know, all those are gone. So what did they do? They went and they started independent publications, podcasts, consultancies to work. Those are the same people. Those are the same journalists in a lot of cases who are like, that's terrible advice, Jake Howe. You know, not everybody can start a company. And I'm like, except you guys all just did that.

Except you all just did that.

And it's like, then people realize, oh, if necessity forces me to start it, then I will start it. And so that is when there's a fire, you know, and like, You're running out of money, you will get very creative. And the fear of starting a startup is a lot better than working at Starbucks as a professional. You know, like that would be the, uh, the disaster case for like somebody who is a writer at Gawker or Vice.

Why isn't someone right now talking about removing obstacles and barriers and friction to making small companies more viable? Like, why haven't we talked more about healthcare portability? Why aren't we actually trying to support these people? Because I agree with 98% of what you just said. Call it that. And I think that you're right. It is possible. But if you have kids and you're a one-income family and you need to quit your job to go do a thing, that's a big barrier. I want to—

Oh, that is for sure. Down.

I want to decimate it. I want to let people be free. But I feel like we're not addressing some of the structural things that would take your point and just turbocharge it and help a lot of people.

If healthcare is the issue, just move to Europe and start a company there, you know, and then you get the healthcare, and then you have to just pay more in taxes, and there's some regulations, and it might take you 6 months to get your company fired up. So what you have to do is keep your company domiciled in America and then live in— and live in Spain or Italy or France or Canada, somewhere where they have socialized medicine, and the problem is solved. But of course, people are also scared of moving But, you know, we've lived for many decades with a beautiful, safe, you know, employment environment that maybe we should have appreciated more when we were complaining about it. Uh, and now it's a bit chaotic and you're kind of, uh, on your own. You were on your own all that time. It just, um, you just had companies that would keep you employed for 20 or 30 years.

Yeah.

And Americans, when they came to America, guess what? They were on their own too. They had to go figure it out. So we just had like a 100-year delusion where it was just like really easy. Now it's going back to like it was for our forefathers and mothers who came here, and it was hard. It's just going to be hard, folks, and you're going to have to figure it out for yourself. Radical self-reliance. Self-reliance is what people need to learn in school. Self-reliance, like radical self-reliance. Like, I will survive through sheer force of will. And, you know, for some people it's like, I would rather survive through Mondami making the buses free and, you know, whatever, you know. And then other people are like, I'll just move to Texas, I'll figure it out.

The Information reports that Anthropic and OpenAI generate 89% of all AI startup revenue, or basically revenue made by AI startups, Jason. And there's this particularly, uh, terrifying chart. I'm curious what you think about this and if this is bad news for startups, but as you can see here, going back to July of 2023, there's been a dramatic ramp in revenue from the major AI companies. And then if you see those little gray bars, that's pretty much everyone else in the AI startup game. Kind of a shocking dataset.

Sure. Uh, tokens are being sold at an alarming rate by two major companies. Cursor has a couple of billion in revenue, $2 billion, I think $3 billion. Cognition. And then 29 others are sharing like $7 billion, it looks like. Uh, if this is correct, and this is a quarterly chart, uh, I think this is as the data is released.

I don't think we have exact months.

Well, no, it's monthly. Yeah, it looks like it's monthly. Um, so the scale is monthly, or is it 1, 2, 3, 4? No, it's quarterly chart. Um, are there indentations between the quarters? Yes. Okay, so it is a monthly chart. So it's a monthly chart based on estimates that the information pulled together from a total of 30 companies, 32, 34, including OpenAI and Anthropic. Yep, it's not your imagination. Risk and regulation really are ramping up quickly. Your customers don't just want assurances from you, they expect proof of your security just to do business with you. That is why Vanta is a game changer for you and your startup, for your business. Vanta's AI-powered platform automates your entire compliance process. Whether you're preparing for a SOC 2 or you're running an enterprise GRC program or you're doing an audit, Vanta is going to worry about the security so your team can focus on building a great product, moving your business forward. Some of our favorite companies like Ramp and Ryder, they're spending 82% less time on their audits right now because they work with Vanta. We've all heard the rumors about shady compliance and security companies. I don't need to get into the details. They were taking shortcuts, apparently, with their clients' accounts. Allegedly. That's why you need a trusted partner like Vanta now more than ever. So get started today at vanta.com/twist. That's vanta.com/twist. Okay, so there's a long tail of companies obviously providing stuff, and this is only startups. This doesn't have the revenue from Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, and Azure, right? They're not included in here.

Not included in here. But it's worth noting that Anthropic doesn't take out the 20% or so it pays to certain cloud providers when reporting its annualized run rate. So there is a little bit of that kind of hidden inside the data, Jason, but not enough to really change the overall picture.

Yeah. So I guess the question is, is it a duopoly now? Uh, certainly is starting to look like one in terms of how people are using tokens. Yes, it would be a duopoly. And the companies that— the interesting thing is those other 30 companies, many of them are probably using— there's like a double counting here. So like, uh, some number of them are using Claude or OpenAI as their backend. So maybe the revenue is getting double counted. There is the other possibility. But $80 billion in revenue is the total here, or something?

$80 billion in annualized revenue, about $6.6 billion per month. One more data point for people following along. 6 months ago, the two major labs, Anthropic and OpenAI, were actually 4.5% less of the total startup AI revenue out there. So they're actually gaining share on these startups, which is a little staggering because we've seen companies like Cursor grow quickly, Cognition grow quickly. ElevenLabs is a rocket ship, Harvey, Lagora, etc. And they're still losing ground. This actually has me worried, like legitimately concerned about startups in the app layer.

For now, like it, uh, it's really two different things. This is like combining the app layer and the infrastructure layer. It— tokens feel more like infrastructure to me than the actual end product. So these companies are selling tokens, uh, at a massive loss right now. So the other way to look at this is this is like Uber versus Lyft in those days where they were both losing a lot of money per ride. And then at some point they've got to, you know, make these profitable businesses, but they did kind of build a duopoly. And it looks like now then who's the Uber, who's the Lyft in this?

That's interesting. So you think that their gross margins on inference today are negative?

Of course. Yeah. With all the infrastructure they're building out, all the, you know, I mean, the humans they have working for them, even if they're paid massively, uh, probably a small percentage of their costs. It's really the infrastructure. So they're, they're certainly losing money as they build out this infrastructure, and the infrastructure is questionable how long it has a practical use, you know, 4 years, 5 years, 6 years. CoreWeave, Amazon, all—

we've talked about this on the show—

have had this, yeah, debate and discussion of like what's the reasonable life, and then what do they do after their, you know, primary lifespan? Do they have a use or not? They probably do have some use.

Okay, but the Anthropic, uh, SpaceX deal I think actually puts a floor underneath the value of GPUs? Because I think most of the processors in Colossus-1 from xAI are like H100s, I think, which is now a pretty dated chip, frankly. But Anthropic wants it, they're going to power up the whole data center. Sure.

I mean, they're 2 years old. So if they're 2 years old, yeah, it's definitely—

A little bit less time than I thought, I guess.

I guess they're probably in year 3 of their life, somewhere between year 2 and 3. Maybe they're at like 24 months, 30 months of lifespan. So they probably have half of it left to go. Yeah, there is going to be a consolidation in this. And then this obviously doesn't show open source tokens or other, uh, services. So it's, it's, it's an interesting, um, it's an interesting mental model to start building is where is the revenue going? And right now it's on tokens. People want to buy tokens and that means there'll be many people selling tokens soon.

You've talked a lot about how you know, there's a risk to building on top of other people's models because you're at risk of training them with your own use about what they're, um, so, so when I look at this chart, Jason, I wonder if these major AI labs now have access to so much information from startups that use them that actually application layer startups today that are building on top of these models are just gonna fall backwards down the slope because look at how fast Cowork is advancing, look at how fast Codex is improving. They're building OpenGLO into Codex. I mean, it feels like If you're a startup, you're just hoping that your market is not big enough to warrant a new set of Anthropic co-work plugins that could just rip the ground out from underneath you. And it makes me bummed that startups seem to be at such a disadvantage to these companies.

If you own, uh, the tokens and you have the foundational model building an application like Harvey into OpenAI or building Codex into OpenAI, like, yeah, that is a significant risk. to those other products. You do need to actually think, are they going to, in their search for revenue and profits, going to go direct and there'll be OpenAI for lawyers, OpenAI for accountants, OpenAI for creatives, et cetera. But, you know, this doesn't account, this doesn't account for Gemini's, uh, revenue because it's not a startup. So it's not a, this is not a complete picture. This is defined as Startups, and it removes many of the players.

What happened to Google's AI prowess? Do you remember the end of last year when, uh, Gemini 3 preview dropped and everyone was like, oh, they're on top, Google's running away with it, back from the dead, and then they just didn't say anything for like 6 months?

It's— yeah, uh, great people. Well, they're— they've got, I think, more users using AI than OpenAI, um, because of putting it at the top of search. So I think they have more technically users, not dedicated AI users. Yeah, but this really is just about selling tokens, and you have two token providers, and then you have applications all put into a bucket of startups. Startups design, I guess, is defined by not yet public. So this is a look at private companies, not— and it excludes the public ones, which gives it, you know, a bit of— I'm sure if you put Google and Amazon and Azure's revenue from this space, it would look much different.

Yeah, actually, that's fun. I'll do that for Wednesday because I think we got some better, more concrete AI revenue reporting from the hyperscalers. So I'll see what I can dig up for us.

Are they breaking that out? I wonder if they're breaking out like their, what percentage of, you know, their revenue is tokens being purchased from them. Because they're, if they're selling H100s for $6 an hour, H200s for $6 an hour, that's different than providing tokens. So this is like apples and bananas and a, you know, a fruit bowl all being counted in the same kind of, you know, bucket. It is interesting to look at though, for sure. Two companies are running away with the revenue.

A lot of things like Google saying revenue from products built on GenAI models grew by 800%. That's not so helpful.

Yeah. Anyways, they're not going to break it out.

All right. Now, Jason, um, I want to do a shout out to everyone who's done our bounties. We have two bounties running. We have the AI sidebar, which by the way, we just got a demo turned in that takes into account your changes, just getting the two people talking through. I played with it this morning. Incredible. Oh, really? Jason, I almost wanted to declare it the winner when I started playing.

But we wanted to do one thing, just so we are clear, just do the fact checking. I think I made that decision on the last one because we had so many different personas. I can't even follow it when it's doing it. So we said just do the fact checking. Do fact-checking. I see here the personas should have a troll and a comedy writer. That's not actually accurate. We said last week— so Jacob, make sure this is correct and everybody understands it— just do the real-time fact-checker. One simple solution, one simple part of this that we should, uh, then judge everybody by. And we're going to give everybody another week to just finalize what they're working on. But you actually used one? Yeah. And was it doing the fact-checking in real time?

It was doing the fact-checking in real time and it had these simply amazing customization features. You could say, only give me answers after 80 words, only give me responses after 160 words. You could change the personality, you could change how they talk. And it's a website. You don't have to download it. I didn't have to download a GitHub repo, build a codex, install it on my damn Mac.

Awesome.

Friday, we're gonna have another round of demos for that. And then also Jason, tell people about the annotated.com bounty. This is one that we're all very excited about internally.

Sure. And we have thisweekinstartups.com/bounties, plural, or bounty, singular. Either one. Yeah. Or you can go to bounties. So I always tell everybody, make both in case we make a mistake on air. So if you type in bounties or /bounty, it should work. This is like a little tip from J Cal to employees who, um, don't think about the users. If you think about users, like they may hear bounty and type in bounties, or I might say bounties instead of saying bounty. Why not have both redirect to the right page? So we have a page here. We're gonna I'll keep doing these, I think, on This Week in Startups because it's fun and it's interesting and we get to meet people who are builders. Uh, for Annotated, I wanted to build a service that let you clip something on the web. And so at the webpage, if you click on it, um, you know, the concept here— whoops, sorry, I'm on the page— um, is to create a sidebar anywhere you are on the web. You highlight something, let's say it's a YouTube video and it says, okay, what do you want to clip from this YouTube video? You pick this starting point, this ending point, you know, these 30 seconds of this podcast. It then makes a landing page with a piece of that media. It could be text from a New York Times article. It could be the transcript in the video of Eric Schmidt we talked about earlier on the program. When he was getting booed. And then you could put comments under it. So you log in with your Twitter, your Google, whatever. You have a sidebar, you can clip it, it makes a landing page. So annotated.com/alex/eric-schmidt-commencement. And then if it always links to the original— yes, author's work. So it's not stealing, it's fair use because you're doing commentary. So this is a fair use This isn't like Archives or other places that like let you remove a paywall. The intent is not to be removepaywall.com, which, you know, listen, everybody uses, is very popular. If you don't have like some niche St. Louis Herald subscription and people want to jump the paywall, I think people are kind of cool with it. Um, but we don't want to be like wholesale stealing. What we want is you take a small piece and you annotate it and you put your opinion, you put your thoughts on it. Now. If Alex and I both put in the URL of the same, uh, New York Times story, now we can see this New York Times story was also annotated by these other users, and then you can see what they annotated. But nobody can take the whole story. You could take a paragraph, I take a paragraph, that I could respond to yours, you could respond to mine, and the original— it's clear who the original author is, but you get to do some commentary on it. And this is— came from my frustration with places that just steal content. And also very often I want to take something and make a new landing page and comment on it and then share it with somebody.

Yeah.

Kind of like a bookmark. Yeah. But a little bit more with these modern tools. That's my goal.

Now, if I go to, let's say that I have the, the, the Chrome extension sidebar installed for annotated.com and I go to a website that I've annotated and you've annotated, do I automatically under your vision see both annotations or do I have to go into the app itself to kind of see the collection of notes about that page?

Great question. I mean, I, I don't have the answer. I do know when you're on that New York Times story, it should show in the annotated sidebar, like the number 7. Okay. And if you click that, then when you're, when you're walking around the web and you're on a YouTube page and it's like, here's some new audio track, uh, here's the new, you know, or here's a Dire Straits song that 3 people have commented on, it shows you the number 3. So it's, it's basically a global annotation system for the web, for podcasts, et cetera. So during a Joe Rogan podcast, you could put in the link to Spotify or the YouTube link or wherever it's hosted, and you could see multiple comments on it, but it's not on Spotify, it's not on YouTube, it's on Annotated. Not the whole podcast, just the part you want to comment on. And then if that gets taken down eventually, this acts as a mini archive of that moment.

Yes. Which by the way, really fricking matters. All of FiveThirtyEight.com just got taken offline. Talk about link rot. Just gone.

Yeah. Just gone.

That's so depressing. Now, while we're talking about bookmarks, Jason, can I show you something really cool?

Really quick? Of course.

Okay.

And I don't know if people are building this anyway. And then, uh, I reserve the right to split the prize if I think there's like multiple good winners.

Fair enough. It is literally the Jason Bounty. So I believe you are in charge of it. Um, There's a company called Think with Mark, that's their website, thinkwithmark.com, and they made an AI bookmark about a year ago. It was like $129, and I forgot about it entirely after it came out. They're back with a new one. I want to show this to you because I think this is the first real AI gadget apart from Plaud that I really want in my life. Take a listen. Last year, our viral Mark launch blew the internet away.

A bookmark that kept track of what you're reading.

But amidst all the noise, we wanted to create something that truly felt like it was built for you.

It highlights passages, records your thoughts, and builds a personal library of everything you choose to keep.

And with customization, it's a great way to show the world your taste. Highlighter is where magic happens.

It has a scanner allowing you to save your favorite quote and a voice recorder for your favorite ideas. Allowing you to engage with their readings without leaving the moment.

Yes. So you can literally just take half this bookmark, take your book or your e-reader or whatever it is you're reading in 100 languages, scan it, and then you don't forget the cool quotes. Literally, I just had to return my copy of Gulag Archipelago to the Athenaeum up the street, and that means that I lost all the sections that I had marked for later reference, but it was overdue, so I had to give it back. Yeah, I would have literally used this in my life like 20 minutes ago. $159, and it's an AI gadget that rocks. See, it's possible.

I think there's like personal gadgets, um, that are down the long tail. Like, I wouldn't use this one myself.

Sure.

Why? Because I buy books. I don't ever want to rent books or use a library. I like to buy them and have them because they're so cheap anyway, and then I have a stack of them. And, um, I use my Kindle. My Kindle has all those type of features in it. You can take notes in your Kindle, you know, and the same thing with Audible. So since my primary place is those two places. This doesn't super appeal to me, but I do think for people who are readers, they're going to love this. Just like Plaud, you know, and these note-takers, they have unlocked, you know, a very specific use case for a very specific group of people. If you're a leader, if you're a writer, if you're a researcher, you need these kind of tools. And I could see this one, um, getting better and better. Now there is this Uh, axiom: the best camera is the one you have with you. Uh, and so the question is always, you know, what do you have with you at the time? And if you have your phone, what would be nice with this device is if you forget your device or you're doing something else, you can take a picture with your phone of that page, and it also allows input from that. So I'm always thinking of like multiple ways to get input into it, but what would be great about this is putting it in your brain eventually and being able to have your agent have all this knowledge. And that's really something I've been thinking about. There's something called Obsidian that people are obsessed with, which is some sort of bookmarking knowledge tool for nerds. Uh, I've been thinking about this with the domain name beginn.com where I just— and Annotated is kind of like in my same thinking, which is I just want to have all my bookmarks in one place. But I use the bookmarking system in TikTok and I use the bookmarking system in Instagram and the bookmarking system in Twitter with folders. I want all of those to be collected into one location. And then my agent to have that knowledge. So when I'm like, you know, I really, I was, you know, in this book, I remember talking, they were talking about this specific, uh, designer and I also bookmarked that designer and their You know, perfect t-shirt. Okay, tell me about that. And it knows, it's like, oh yeah, well, you read this book and you heard about Calvin Klein and Calvin Klein made this t-shirt and then this Japanese company was the origin. Boom. It all comes together in one place. Yeah. I think that's what we're all trying to use AI for is to build like a little backup brain before Neuralink kind of does this for us.

I, I agree. I kind of a mind palace of our own. Uh, before we move on to flock safety and preventing tragedy, I just wanna say Libraries do have a use case that we didn't mention. And I agree with you. I mean, look behind me. This is just a fraction of my family's library. We're huge fans of books. We buy more than we can read. But the best part about a library is you're browsing for free. Like you just walk around. I found like 6 or 7 books about Soviet economics and I just took 'em all home. I read like 10 pages of some of them and I read the whole book, but I just don't care 'cause it's free. Yeah. Anyways. It's wild.

What did you learn about Soviet economics? It's fucked.

Did you know that central— that centralizing authority in one country as part of a larger union doesn't work. I mean, for like 10 billion different reasons. If you want to get really, really opposed to centralized planning, just go study the Soviet economy. It'll, it'll radicalize you in a funny way. All right, Jason Garrett Langley, the founder and CEO of Flock.

He's been on the program.

He's been on the program several times. You talked to him, episode 1249, July '21. I talked to episode 2134 in June of '25. So last year. Now, what's going on? Well, this is the thing that you flagged, and it's him discussing how his group, Flock Security, they make cameras and such, helped solve a crime while looking at data from a town that wasn't where the crime was committed. So why does this capture your eye?

So there was a shooting in Austin yesterday when I was doing my rucking and I was at the domain. I got like these alerts. It— my daughter has a phone now, it came up on her phone. And it was like, hey, stay out of this area, there's police activity. Then it gave the all clear or whatever. And apparently there was a shooting. Now, Flock is very controversial because privacy. And do you want your license plates and where you're going in a database? No, is everybody's answer. Like, just, of course I don't. But then if there is a shooting or a robbery in your neighborhood, do you want the criminal's license plate, uh, recorded so you can capture them and get your money back or arrest them before they harm anybody or rob another house? Of course you want that. So most people have a hard time deciding my personal privacy and where I was and where my license plate got picked up or the Edge case, which is a certainty in the United States. You're going to have a crime at some point unless, I don't know, maybe you live way out in Montana. But if you live in a city, there's crime happening all day long.

Yes.

So if you assume there's, you know, tens of thousands of crimes in a city, there's hundreds a day, you then have to make a very simple equation. Am I willing to give up my license plate data and somebody could abuse that and then publish it, or it could get hacked and every single place I've been, every single location. Let's say you were at a casino. Let's say you were at an adult entertainment venue. Let's say you were at, I don't know, a place you're not supposed to be in the middle of the day. I don't, you know, pick your vice that somebody was involved in. I don't know. Somebody was scoring drugs in a drug alley. Or you just were out late at night, maybe you don't want people to know. Do you— are you willing to give up that privacy and risk that abuse for catching criminals more quickly? Now, how does this relate to Austin? Austin is incredibly Democratic and woke in the middle of Texas, so we do have some of the same issues that San Francisco has, like a prosecutor who won't prosecute, you know, crimes as, uh, maybe it— you would get in Dallas or Houston or San Antonio. Sure. Put it all aside. Austin City Council got rid of Flock for privacy reasons.

Yep.

Intellectual people, whatever. The shooting happened. They couldn't find the guys driving around who were involved in a multi-shooting spree. I don't know what the motivation for this spree was, but they went to multiple locations and discharged a firearm multiple times. They then went to— was it Lockhart County? They went to a county outside of Austin, got picked up on FLOCK immediately because somebody had the license plate number, and they were captured immediately. So here yesterday, 12 shootings reported across Austin led to a manhunt. That involved 200 officers including SWAT, air, and canine support over several hours. The suspects were found and arrested as they entered Flock-supported Manor. I'm sorry, it wasn't Lockhart, it was Manor, M-A-N-O-R. Um, if Flock Safety wasn't able to aid Manor PD and Austin PD in this case, how many more could have been harmed? So that's basically the message from Garrett Langley. I thought I would bring it up because I am conflicted on this issue myself.

I am too. I just thought I'd go ahead and show some people what this looks like in practice. So there's a— how to phrase this— a community activist group of people who are finding these cameras and putting them on a map. So here is a dataset from Deflock showing my town of Providence. And these are all the cameras that have been reported. Now, these are not all flock. There's 177 cameras in this shot of my local area. 155 of them are from Flock. So mostly when we're talking about license plate readers and such, we're talking about Flock. Their argument to Jason, as I had this talk with the CEO about it, is if you're on a public road, you have no expectation of privacy. And that to me is actually a pretty good argument. The problem is I also share your unease about this. I don't really want to be surveilled. And I don't mean to dredge up old, you know, 1776 quotes, but the idea that those who would give up Liberty for security deserve neither, uh, does come to mind. Why, why did this happen without a national conversation is what I'm kind of stuck on. A bit like AI earlier.

Yeah, technology moves quick and everybody had security cameras. So then if you have a security camera and AI comes out, um, AI all of a sudden is like, I can tell you what type of car that is, what model it is, what color it is, what the license plate is, and I can tell you who's driving it. And literally, my security systems at my residences— sure— have a plate reader, face reader, car reader, animal reader. It reads everything, puts it all into a database, and I know when a license plate comes onto the ranch if that license plate or not is, um, in the database and approved. So I have approved license plates. And then you can take these things a step further. Now the gate can open or close based on license plates. You can open and close doors and gates based on facial recognition. Now on a private property, you can do whatever the heck you want. I was about public property. Okay, um, you can also do this. So this is a technology that didn't exist when the forefathers thought of all this stuff. So what is the concern? The concern is the police state abuse, the Stasi nightmare scenario. How do you solve for that? Well, with new technology, it's a very easy solution. You track every single request that gets made and authorized, and you audit it, and then the data is kept for 6 months or a year, and then it is destroyed. And destroying data, pretty hard these days because everything's backed up and, uh, in cloud. So even when people think they've deleted something, is it actually deleted? We saw that with Savannah Guthrie's mother being kidnapped. They didn't have a subscription to the Nest camera, and Google was able to recover the clip of it. So you're like, wait a second, it's like, okay, Google is running the paid version on everybody's camera, even if they don't have it, or maybe they're running the last week.

Yeah, Recover is doing a lot of work in that, in that room. I saw the same word that you did. Um, I will say that there does seem to be a public backlash to this stuff. Do you recall the Super Bowl advertisement from Ring that was going to call the cops if dogs were out and about in the neighborhood?

And my friend Jamie Siminoff's company.

Yeah, there was enough blowback to that. Ring is actually— Amazon, the parent company, has scrapped that police partnership because people were so mad. Their pitch for public safety became a privacy nightmare. So there is still a limit about what people will take and won't take. And I, you know, we were talking about states' rights a week or two ago, and this is going to be one of those issues. But I think it's reasonable for people to be concerned about this. I think that absolutely there's been a lot of people that are like, oh, you just want murders, then you're a murderer. Calm down, everybody.

It is— I have a—

I have—

I have another concept here. So number one is there has to be an audit trail. There has to be a cost paid if you abuse it, just like Facebook had to deal with and Google had to deal with people spying on their exes, right? Yep. Uh, pretty well documented cases of that. They put audit trail. So an audit trail basically means if somebody looks at something they're not supposed to, they get fired, they get sanctioned, et cetera. And then retention is the other piece. So there has to be, uh, a retention policy. Then there's another idea. If crime is above a certain level, these things are deployed. If crime is below a certain level, maybe it's not as necessary. So, you know, if you lived in the Tenderloin and you went to anybody who lived in the neighborhood in San Francisco, that's famously rough and tumble. I mean, as rough and tumble as this kid from Brooklyn in the '70s and '80s would tell you.

It's bad.

Like, it was scarier to me than the scariest places in New York I'd been because there were hundreds of people out at night high as fuck and chaos and no police presence. And just, you would literally feel like you were in, like, literally hell. Like, anything could go wrong. If you told 100% of the people who are not addicts in that group and not homeless, we want to put up these cameras to, like, you know, dissuade this stuff and have facial recognition, they would say, thank you so much, I appreciate you so much. So I think people's, um, belief in these systems versus giving up privacy depends on the chances of a crime happening to them.

Yeah, I think that's right, because people— the, the people's preferences will shift dramatically based on what they're seeing and what they need. Now, when you think about where it's being deployed, though, Jason, I want to show this map again and show you Texas.

This is Deflock.

This is the Deflock map, which we're using because I don't think there's as public one from Flock itself. This is roughly Texas. You can see Dallas. And I think this is Houston down here. Tons and tons of cameras. I'm a little surprised that in Texas, the, you know, the Lone Star Freedom State, there's this much surveillance and it's acceptable by people that are there. I would have thought there'd be more of a pushback. So I wonder if I'm actually overindexing on people's aversion to these cameras, given that they seem to be all the rage in a place that's famous for independence and straight shootin'?

Here's the thing. These are deployed locally. So this is bottoms up, not top down. Your local community makes the decision and pays for these. It's not like the state of Texas deployed 21,000 flock cameras, if that's the right number. You have— that means Manor and Lockhart and Dripping Springs and Westlake. And, you know, if it was the Tenderloin, whatever, each of those communities has to opt into it. So that actually to me means people are, have agency and are making their own decisions. In my community, I want to know what's going on. And I don't mind security cameras, everybody accepts. So then is it AI-enabled security cameras becomes the issue? Oh, and the database.

I think the problem is that it's not the Stasi. It is a third party that is, that is fueling the Stasi. So there's two potential boogeymen here for people to worry about. It's not just the central government.

Then Flock shouldn't have access to the data. So that, that's an easy solution. I don't I don't remember from my conversation with him, but he told me everybody sets their local standards. Yes. So the retention policy's local, et cetera. And I, I think I did ask him like, do you have like a minimum or a maximum? And he is like, yeah, no, we don't. And we, we have to think about that if I remember correctly. But it was very early on. This was like 5 or 6 years ago.

Yeah.

So today, you know, he could just say, listen, we don't have access to this. It's encrypted. You are the only people with the keys. We do have, we do enforce a log system. So you have to have a log, you have to use a biometric. So our software is designed that in order to look at the reader, you gotta put in your thumbprint and you gotta do an IR scan. If you don't want that, you can't have the system. That's our safeguard. So they could create like a very low benchmark or, you know, for basic use of their system. You can't keep data over 36 months. You can set it from 0, 1 month to 36 months, so they probably will. Self-regulate their own system, and then the government will probably come to them at some point if they're not self-regulating, and then regulate them. And that's what you really want in a vibrant, high-functioning democracy, is that local folks can have input and make decisions, and then people self-regulate to the point at which citizens feel like they've done a decent job. Nobody's complaining about the rating system for movies, uh, or explicit language on music. When I was a kid, that was the entirety of the discussion in the '80s. This album, you know, N.W.A. or Shocking Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, you know, that's where the PG-13 rating came from. Now people are like, yeah, there's a rating on it, just read the rating. And yeah, smoking's dangerous, there's a label on it. So, you know, at certain points, society just labels things properly. People have decisions, and there's some personal freedom. So I don't see the— when I see that chart of Texas, I don't see people not having personal freedom. I see people having personal freedom. They're making a decision in their community, and they're electing to put these cameras in. I may not like it as somebody who's privacy concerned, but it is what it is.

I don't— I just, from a very high level, I don't love that I don't recall voting for cameras in Providence. And also I don't like that my location information on my phone is so widely commercially available. It feels like I am now not able to functionally live in society and maintain a private location. And that to me is a bit of a bummer. But also I don't know how we could have not gotten here given our generally permissive approach to technology and the pace of its expansion. But it does make me slightly leery. Anyways, Jason, putting that aside.

Be vigilant.

Be vigilant. Um, do you have time for a couple of Nodey Gang questions?

Sure.

Let's do it. Uh, so Channing Hodges, and I've cleaned up his question just a little bit here for you. Sure. What does Jason think about startups using AI to help file patents instead of using expensive lawyers?

Oh, that's a great question. Um, patents are a pretty sophisticated, uh, area of the law. It's not like just filing a trademark. Or incorporating a business or doing an employment agreement or doing a convertible note. So if you were to look at all the things you could possibly work on as a startup, that would be litigation. Um, and, um, patents would be like amongst the most high-risk areas, high stakes. Areas where you wouldn't want to rely on AI. You could use AI with human in the loop. In other words, you could do all you want with AI and then go talk to an attorney. Now, if you didn't have money and you thought, hey, I can just file a bunch of patents and this AI is making it work and it's the only option you have. Okay, fine. Do it. Um, you just might need the wisdom of a patent attorney. At some point. And if people are filing patents, it tends to be a lot at stake. Like you're building some rocket or some incredible technology and some, you know, something that really needs to have IP protection for some period of time, like a drug. And so, yeah, that would not be the place to try to save money. But most startups don't need patents. That's the other piece is like these business process patents, all these patents, like I almost never see them come into play. In business.

It's the world's most annoying vanity metric. Do you know who has the most patents per year? IBM.

IBM does a lot of core research. Yeah, they have a lot of patents.

Yeah, big impact. All right, um, Russell, again translating here, says, what does Jason think about people buying high-end or lower-end hardware to run AI models at home? Are this— is this a fad? Essentially the MacBook Minis, the, um, yeah, yeah, Mac Studios.

Mac Studios. It's not a fad, it's the future. So it's my personal belief. Is these models are going to be so good you're going to want to run them without looking at the price tag of the tokens. And until tokens become, you know, much cheaper, it's going to be much easier to just run these things locally, uh, for a certain group of people, uh, depending on the application. Uh, and I don't see a time when you wouldn't want a corporation to have the privacy and not educate the, you know, to our first story today about, or second story about all the, uh, money being made by the top 2 token providers. You also have the privacy issues, like do you want your venture capital company secrets and all your investing secrets and all your documents and knowledge being uploaded to Anthropic? Probably not. People are doing it, But, you know, now Anthropic understands the entire venture business, uh, or understands your documents. And then when the next person makes documents, they just draft off of yours. It's kind of, you gotta be thoughtful about it. And then data leaking, something leaks into one of these LLMs, it could be really problematic.

It could be incredibly problematic. All right, Jason, uh, before we let our friends go, do you want to do a quick row.co plug?

Uh, sure. row.co, I take it. To get GLPs. You can go to ro.co/twist and they'll tell you if your insurance will cover it. And here's the good news: when I started on my weight loss journey 4 or 5 years ago and lost 40 pounds, um, I did it through fasting, I did it through rucking, I did it through getting better sleep, and I did it through GLPs. At that time they were $3,000 a month, $2,000 or $3,000 a month.

Really?

Yeah, it was absurdly expensive to come out of pocket. They were only for— these drugs were only for people doing— who had diabetes. And the off-label use 5 years ago was, hey, maybe these work for weight loss. That's when I started using them. I heard Kevin Rose talk about it. Now you can get into them for $150, $300 a month. It's literally 5-10% of the cost of 5 years ago. Don't be scared about paying for it out of pocket. Your insurance will probably cover it. I think you have to probably have a BMI— I think my BMI at the peak was 32, which was crazy, and I was technically obese. And so it got covered, or some portion of it got covered, and now you don't have to worry about that. So ro.co/twist.

Absolutely.

I highly recommend looking into it.

Hard agree. And for everyone who's a big TWIST fan, on Wednesday we have two absolute banger guests coming on the show, Jason, including one in the fintech banking space, let's say, that you're not going to want to miss. So we'll see everyone here live on Wednesday.

All right, bye-bye.