OpenAI and Microsoft Tension Boils, Amazon’s Job Automation, Zuck’s Spending Spree

Channel: Alex Kantrowitz

Published at: 2025-06-23

YouTube video id: OLTeIieANTM

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLTeIieANTM

Welcome to Big Technology Podcast Friday
edition where we break down the news in
our traditional coolheaded and nuanced
format. We have so much to speak with
you about this week because the AI news
cycle just rose rolls on with bigger
stories each week. We have a fascinating
battle between Microsoft and Open AI
that's just really heating up and might
eventually prevent OpenAI's for-profit
conversion. We also have this very
interesting memo from Andy Jasse about
uh Generative AI and what it might mean
for Amazon's workforce and of course
Mark Zuckerberg is spending that cash
and doesn't seem like he's stopping. So
we'll pick up that thread from last
week. Joining us as always on Fridays to
do this is Ranjan Roy of Margins.
Ranjan, good to see you. Good to see
you. AI news doesn't sleep. Another
another week sure doesn't never a dull
moment. And leading this week is this
really interesting conversation uh that
we've we've had on the show and we will
continue to have because it could
influence the future of the AI industry
and that is what's going to happen with
OpenAI and Microsoft. This is from the
Wall Street Journal. OpenAI and
Microsoft tensions are reaching a
boiling point. Tensions between OpenAI
and Microsoft over the future of their
famed AI partnership are flaring up.
OpenAI wants Microsoft's grip on its AI
products and computing resources to
loosen, and it also wants to secure the
tech giant's blessing for its conversion
into a for-profit company. Microsoft's
approval of the conversion is key to
OpenAI's ability to raise more money and
go public. But the negotiations have
been so difficult in recent weeks that
OpenAI's executives have discussed what
they view as a nuclear option, accusing
Microsoft of anti-competitive behavior
during their partnership. That effort
could involve seeking federal regulatory
review of the terms of the contract for
potential violations of antitrust laws
as well as a public campaign. Well, what
do we call this? the not so gentle
singularity. I mean, this escalated in a
hurry. I mean, okay, so a few points on
this. I think we'll definitely get into
the for-profit company conversion, which
is incredibly complex. We've talked
about for months and months and months.
Like, let's not even forget, remember
Elon Musk sued over this conversion.
They're they're getting hit from many
different sides. And the fact that
Microsoft is actually kind of acting as
a hurdle is definitely a big issue and
that can prevent them from 20 billion of
that sweet masa softbank money. So
that's going to be a huge issue for
openai this year. But the the federal
regulatory review of anti-competitive
behavior, I love this. I mean, they are
saying that the deal that they struck is
anti-competitive
from what I understand. Like, what else
could it mean? They're saying the money
we took from Microsoft and then that
whole arrangement is bad for the
industry and us OpenAI as well. But c
can you read it another way? It is
bananas. I mean, it's one of those
things where OpenAI needed a partner
like Microsoft to be able to get to the
place where it is today because of
course the most important ingredient in
growing its products up until this point
has been compute. And what did Microsoft
had had that compute? What was OpenAI?
It was a nonprofit. Uh I mean, it's
interesting because the ambitions were
artificial general intelligence. So, it
wasn't like uh OpenAI uh wasn't thinking
big, but it's almost like the company
surprised itself with how uh successful
it's been. It's almost like it wrote in
that clause in the contract that both
entities wrote in that clause in the
contract that OpenAI and Microsoft's
deal dissolves once OpenAI hits AGI. not
really thinking that that would ever be
possible because now it's really coming
into a place where they are going to um
they're going to have to work through
these issues. And uh we right now have
OpenAI owing I think 20% of its profits
to Microsoft. This is coming from uh the
information. OpenAI wants Microsoft to
have roughly a 33% stake in the reshaped
unit in exchange for foregoing its
rights to future profits. Uh, if the
companies don't change the 20% cut
OpenAI owes to Microsoft, Microsoft
could be in line to get 35 billion in
payments in 2030 when OpenAI has
projected it will generate 174 billion
in revenue. Now, OpenAI is on track to
generate 10 billion in revenue this
year. So, that's one hell of a
projection. Uh, it's a good projection.
It's a good extrapolation. You got to
extrapolate in this. Yeah. Kudos to the
person who put together the spreadsheet
and kudos to whichever investor believed
the PowerPoint. Yeah.
Uh but it really does come down to this
is like OpenAI again, they made the
deal. They needed what Microsoft had.
They agreed to like, all right, if we're
doing really well, you're going to do
really well. I don't see where OpenAI
has the wiggle room to back out of this.
Well, they certainly have the wiggle
room when Whimo comes to New York City
and we declare AGI, which we'll get into
later, but but no, no, I I I agree that
from a pure financial standpoint or a
pure contractual standpoint, they don't
have a lot of wiggle room. They don't
even have leverage. Which is why I think
that Hail Mary of the whether it's
through the FTC or that anti-competitive
review, it feels like a Hail Mary, but
it is because I don't think OpenAI has
much standing in any other direction.
But again, I think going back to, as you
said, they're on track to make 10
billion. They're losing tons of money.
Microsoft's share is in the profit, not
revenue. and there's no sign that
they're going to be turning a profit
even though they're projecting one by
2029. So I think in a certain way a lot
of this is moot anyways other than like
from a financial standpoint cuz the
money is not going to actually change
hands based on any kind of like current
trajectory of revenue and profit. So it
really is about control and I think like
it's telling that they are they're
competing incredibly directly like we're
seeing it more and more.
going after the same use cases,
customers, audiences. Let's put a pin in
that. And I want to talk a little bit
about the control part because that is I
think crucial. So this is also a new
detail that emerged in the reporting
this week that uh OpenAI has uh deal the
deal with Microsoft is that Microsoft
gets the right to use OpenAI's IP
through 2030 which by the way if you do
the math is like well beyond a lot of
these uh lab leaders predictions for
when we get artificial general
intelligence. I don't I don't I don't
know. I'm I'm not bought in that AGI is
going to be here by 2030, but we'll
luckily hopefully we'll be doing the
show and if it does I'll, you know, eat
crow on the air and put together my army
of millions of agents to shame me on
Twitter or whatever it is. But um but
well, I'm going to create anic workflow
just to shame Alex for when AGI is
declared. Well, it really wouldn't be
very different from all the bots on
Twitter that came after me for my
perplexity acquisition take. But anyway,
I digress. But there's another this
control is important because it's not
just OpenAI's IP. Um, the areas that
OpenAI is expanding to uh also will end
up competing with Microsoft and also are
of interest to Microsoft to control. So,
here's another detail from the journal
story. OpenAI and Microsoft are at a
standoff over the terms of the startup's
$3 billion acquisition of the coding
startup Windsurf. Microsoft currently
has access to all of OpenAI's IP. Uh it
offers but it offers its own AI coding
product GitHub copilot that competes
with OpenAI and OpenAI doesn't want
Microsoft to have access to Windsurf's
intellectual property. I mean, if we
think that coding is going to be one of
the big applications of Gen AI in the
near term, this is really bad for OpenAI
because it effectively the deal that it
struck again serves to um put it in
service of Microsoft and not expand its
own offering. You know what, maybe I am
starting to feel this anti-competitive
uh posturing a little bit because I
guess it's true. They are competing
incredibly directly like right now even
Microsoft co-pilot across the entire
like 365 ecosystem
competes very directly with chatbt
enterprise like basically this kind of
always on assistant and agent it's a
direct competitor and I'm sure in like
when sales people are going in and
there's been more reporting that
salespeople at Microsoft have been
complaining that they charge $30 per
user per month chatpt BT Enterprise,
it's competing directly, but they could
be discounting it, meaning they're
trying to undercut Microsoft's pricing,
which is kind of hilarious because
they're heavily invested and part owned
by Microsoft. But I think overall it
does present a good amount of problems
in terms of they're trying to do the
same things, going after the same
customers, probably indirect competition
when going through any kind of
enterprise sales cycle. So at some point
something has to give. And one could
argue that Microsoft by giving its
compute because of its size as this tech
giant is acting in an anti-competitive
bullying fashion. So maybe if Lena Khan
was still here, she might uh she might
agree, but she's not. And let me point
again to the fact that OpenAI signed the
deal. This is your deal. You signed it.
You wouldn't be here without it.
Wait, I want I'm trying to think of an
example where a company ever took a lot
of money and then called that funding or
acquisition anti-competitive. I mean, it
actually I how could it happen? Like,
you know what you call that? It's the
the Sam Alman special. Yeah, the Sam
Alman special. Give me money and then
I'm going to go and say that you're
bullying me for giving me that money and
investment. But also if you think about
it, Microsoft holds OpenAI's financial
future in its hands as well because so
open AI look it's a capital inensive
field shall we say to to put it lightly
AI you need money to build servers to
grow we have this Stargate thing that
OpenAI is trying to build um and your
funders are not going to really be into
giving you all that money if Microsoft
really has control over your future or
control over your a good chunk your
sizable profits. That's why I think
SoftBank uh told OpenAI, you better
convert to a for-profit or um or we're
we're not going to or we have the right
to withdraw our money. And so I just
want to ask you this, Ranjan. I mean,
what does OpenAI have to stand on here?
Again, funded by Microsoft, really built
by Microsoft,
competing with Microsoft. Um, where
where can it tell how what am I crazy
that OpenAI uh shouldn't be able to
dictate the terms to Microsoft? Like
where in Microsoft interest is it to
change this deal? No, no. I Okay, I
agree. in any normal
uh like flow of logic, they would have
no right to dictate the terms given.
They they took not only took the deal,
they probably pushed the deal themselves
to work like this because it basically
rather than kind of like traditional
venture funding where they would have
had to be growing even faster, seeing
more returns more immediately. It really
was this sweetheart deal where it was
just kind of a lot of compute, a lot of
like futureelooking
projections and possible financial
returns, but I mean it was a pretty
sweet deal for them and to try to say
that it was problematic or back out of
it now again is ridiculous the Sam Alman
special, but it is becoming more I don't
want to say existential, but it's
becoming more problematic right now the
way this is unfolding. Do you think
Microsoft may just say to Open AAI,
"Sorry, I know this is important to your
future, but this is what we agreed upon.
So, even if you're worth a little less
in the future because of your your
inability to spend the money you need to
get bigger, uh we're just going to keep
it as is. Thanks for playing." Yeah, I
think they're going to have to and and
again like there's been a lot of chatter
around uh in terms of like the success
of co-pilot products and whether they're
actually working or how happy people are
using them versus chat GPT enterprise
and open AAI on the product side keeps
swimming along. So, at a certain point,
maybe Microsoft does start to uh be a
little bit anti-competitive and a little
bit bullying and they have the deal in
the contract to allow them to and OpenAI
signed that deal. So, I could definitely
see it start to yeah explode. I think
this the more I'm thinking about this,
this is going to explode in some
direction this year. And again, like I
don't see how this is anti-competitive.
I mean, it's simply a company trying to
hold another company to the deal that it
signed. And if you think about it,
Microsoft has already been more than
generous in allowing OpenAI to go and
work with other companies for compute.
It's allowed it to work with Oracle for
Stargate. And there's recently news that
it's going to work with Google to build
the infrastructure it needs to run. I'm
trying I'm trying here to to take the
other in the interest of nuanced
conversation trying to figure out what
could be anti-competitive but I mean I
don't think it is in this context in
another context where like like
Microsoft again Microsoft using its
ecosystem to push its own products in a
preferential way in any other context
you can start to see how that's kind of
like classic anti-competitive behavior
but not when it's the company that you
funded and gave them all the good terms
and sweetheart like uh part I don't know
like it we will take uh you know
projected profits down the road even
though you're losing billions of dollars
and that's all we're asking in exchange
for giving you billions of dollars of
compute and and cash like I mean yeah I
tried I tried I'm just imagining the
meeting between Sam Alton Sam Alman
Sadella where Sam goes, Satya, you
helped open AI become what it is today.
We owe you billions of dollars, but here
is a different idea. How about we owe
you less billions of dollars?
I mean, that is exactly what this is.
You know,
speaking of anti Go ahead. Go ahead. No,
no, no. I mean, if anyone somehow could
pull that off, I don't know. Sam
Baldman's pulled off a lot over the last
few years, so who knows? I I can just
imagine Sadia Nadella just like hating
this guy right now. Yeah. But also,
let's not forget there is a political
element of this that could kind of start
to filter in if this if there's serious
and this really starts to kind of move
into the realm of like federal review.
Let's not forget that Sam Alman and the
Stargate announcement got some uh got
some good press for the administration.
Is I'm not sure at this exact moment
where he stands with the administration,
but like overall he's had some good
moments. Satcha I don't think Satcha was
at the inauguration, right? Correct.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. So like maybe
starting to use that as a as a lever in
this negotiation could be one way.
Maybe. But I think we like we started
the Trump administration with like Zuck
and Sundar and Bezos and Musk uh all
behind Trump in the inauguration. But
he, you know, as tends to happen in
politics, he has bigger things to worry
about right now. The tariff stuff, the
trade war, Iran, I don't think he even
remembers who Sam Alman is. And I think
that's fair. And now imagine you know
you mentioned open AAI and Microsoft
selling the same thing whether it's
chatpt enterprise or co-pilot right very
similar uh imagine you're open AI and
you are going to um
go into federal court to argue or make
some plea that to argue Microsoft is
anti-competitive and you're doing this
this is from this is from the
information a software company that has
that purchased open AI models through
Microsoft over the past years was in
talks to sign a new agreement to spend 8
million on the models over the next 3
years, according to a Microsoft
salesperson involved in the talks. But
that firm notified Microsoft that OpenAI
had offered it a 20% discount on the
same models, reducing the cost over 3
years by $1 million. Microsoft
salespeople asked the company's finance
department if they could match the
discount, but were rebuffed. As a
result, the firm told Microsoft that it
was choosing to buy the models through
OpenAI instead. I mean, this is exactly
this is exactly what must be happening
now and is going to only grow in scale.
These exact kind of negotiations and
again Microsoft is a publicly traded
company that has to show like certain
projected financial metrics. Open AAI
can light cash on fire right now. So
they can they can be pretty aggressive
and literally undercut at every step of
the way using Microsoft's capital and
cash and compute. Could you imagine
being that salesperson? I mean that's a
pretty nice commission on an $8 million
deal I would imagine. Yeah. Have that
man taken from underneath you. Same
model from OpenAI. This partnership is
is in trouble. So let's just look ahead.
Ranjam, what do you think is going to
happen with OpenAI and Microsoft? like
what are your the scenarios you're
thinking about? I I somehow still think
OpenAI comes out ahead mainly because
the product at the consumer level at a
like it's not going to just be crushed
by Microsoft in that conventional way
anytime soon. I think from like a
courtroom contractual legal standpoint,
I think Microsoft certainly has both
like standing and like the legal
firepower to, you know, hold this over
OpenAI. But I don't know. I I I don't
see how what Microsoft can do to stop
this at this moment. Like they can't be
like just shut it down. They can't be
like, "Don't you have a separate sales
force, but you are not allowed to
undercut our pricing." So, what what
could they do? I think that they just
say, "We're not making we're not going
to budge an inch and we're not going to
let you get this money. We're not going
to let you IPO unless we get some better
terms stuff that like holds to the
earlier agreements that we had." Uh, and
maybe they end up owning 40% of the
company or something like that and
everybody just has to go about their
business. But I don't think Microsoft,
you know, made the what some people
called like the tech bet of the century
in OpenAI only to lose it because OpenAI
worked. Oh, that's a Okay,
I can I can agree with that. I think
it's uh Yeah, I think that's a good way
to put it. I have an idea why Sam Alman
uh may have thought this would work with
Microsoft.
Go on. Go on. that is that uh he's using
chat GPT too much because there was a
study this week and written up in time
that chat GPT may be eroding critical
thinking uh skills. Here's the story.
Does chat GPT harm critical thinking
abilities? A new study from researchers
at MIT Media Lab has returned some
concerning results. The study divided 54
subjects 18 to 39 year olds from the
Boston area into three groups and asked
them to write several SAT essays using
open AI chatbt Google search engine and
nothing at all. Researchers used an EEG.
I guess that's yeah it's a machine that
records writers brain activity across 32
regions and found that of the three
groups chap GPT users had the lowest
brain engagement and consistently
underperformed at neural linguistic and
behavioral levels over the course of
several months. Chat GPT users got
lazier with each subsequent essay and
often resorted to copy and paste by the
end of the study. Uh there were some
people on X that were being like look at
the way that these people designed this
study. They hate AI. They were trying to
set traps for people to fall into. It
studies garbage. I I my reaction here is
totally not surprising. I mean, are we
are we even going to debate that this is
happening? Well, one, if Microsoft
investing in OpenAI was the tech bet of
the century, I think you just nailed the
segue of the century with that
transition right there. I'm trying, man.
But, uh, okay. So this study I I was
thinking about a lot because like how or
if generative AI will totally alter our
brains is something I have wondered
about like I always think of maps and I
literally like I grew up in the Boston
area and when I was first driving and
before any kind of Google maps I
literally knew how to get all over the
city all around my town just by memory.
I've been in New York for many years now
and have a car now and I cannot get to
JFK or LaGuardia driving without Google
Maps. Like I don't know directions from
driving. But I think that's okay. I mean
if if if the entire like uh internet
collapsed I might be in a little trouble
there. But the way I learned kind of
location is completely changed. But I
can now do it at a scale that it was
unimaginable before. I can go into a new
loca local locality and like just move
around and navigate. So it's a different
way of using the brain. I think this is
again writing an SAT essay was already
it's such a specific kind of mindless
thing. I think like in reality the act
of doing it is not actual like
intelligence in my mind and I say this
as someone who went through the process.
It's like it's uh so to use that really
specific thing I do think is kind of
misleading because taking a very
mindless task and then of course the
person using chat GBT it's not going to
trigger the level of brain activity
because it was already a mindless task
anyways and it's perfect for generative
AI. So for me I think our brains the way
we learn is going to change. I think
that's good. we have to adapt the way
like learning is done for generative AI.
But I don't think people are going to
get dumber. Maybe that's optimistic.
But I think this is one of the points is
a lot of the stuff, let's say you're
thinking about using this for work, a
lot of the stuff that you're doing at
work
will get your brain sort of deep into
the material and help you think
critically about a broader business
activity. I'm just saying this for this
s sake of argument because I do believe
LLMs could be like really useful uh in
the workplace. I don't I think less of
that in education like if people are
going home not just writing their SATs
but like writing like essays for class
they're not going to retain anything cuz
you actually the pain that you endure in
that writing is where you retain. Um but
I actually like just to sort of move
from education to work. Wonder if this
will make better workplaces if people
are using more AI and whether it will
make more competitive companies if
people are using more AI uh because of
the impact that it could have on the
brain. Hold on, hold on. Just quickly on
the education thing, I think it really
is going to demand like rethinking how
the classroom works. And I think that's
good. like writing essays as you said it
was the enduring the pain of writing is
where you learned in the past that
potentially goes away but like
presenting the essay having to be able
to defend it like more socratic learning
like do do you think this is going to be
net bad for education or do you think we
just have to update the way we teach
I think we've had this discussion before
I am I'm hopeful that we can find a way
to teach better but I think if you marry
this style of learning with our current
education system, you end up getting a
disaster. Okay. I'm not Yeah, I won't I
won't argue with that, I guess. But but
then Yeah. Oh, go ahead. The flip side
then you also get into to me the most
optimistic part of this is the
democratization of learning and like
access to knowledge learning tools like
now the fact that anyone in the world
can any wherever you are just with an
internet connection can actually like
create entire curriculum tailored to you
like I think it's going to really be
good for learning at a large scale I in
isolated cases couple of uh 18 to 39
year olds in Boston uh writing an SAT
essay yes that format is not going to be
good and it's going to be change like
people will just cheat their way out of
it and not actually develop their brain
but I I kind of look at this like what
YouTube did for learning this is going
to be at like a thousandx scale. Yeah.
So Darcesh after we turned the cameras
off for our conversation on Wednesday
was like yeah I just basically drop
stuff like papers I'm trying to learn
and uh have Chad GPT uh use the Socratic
method and uh help teach me that way. So
I think yeah hopefully we will develop
new uh modes of learning but I also
think we're living at a time where we've
known we need new modes of learning for
a long ass time and we're still doing
the wrote memorization and spitback
stuff that we've been doing forever now.
I'm sure there going to be education
professionals uh who are listening to
this who are going to know uh much more
than me and say that there are areas
where this is improving. I don't doubt
that. But by and large I think my
generalization about the education
system uh really across the globe holds
true. So let's let's talk about work
because we have limited time today and
we should definitely get it to this uh
Andy Jasse uh message to Amazon
employees about AI in the workplace. She
says, "We have strong convictions that
AI agents will change how we all work
and live. Think of agents as software
system that use AI uh to perform tasks
on behalf of users or other systems.
Agents let you tell them what you want,
often a natural language, and do things
like scour the web in various data
source sources. uh summarize results,
engage in deep research, write code,
find anomalies, highlight interesting
insights, translate language and code
into other variants, and automate a lot
of tasks that consume our time. There
will be billions of these agents across
every company and in every imaginable
field. There will also be agents that
routinely do things for you outside of
work, from shopping to travel to daily
chores and tasks. Many of these agents
have yet to be built, but make no
mistake, they're coming and coming fast.
Can I just pause here before we get to
the fact that he's going to sort of now,
you know, soon pledge to decrease
Amazon's workforce to be like, come on.
I mean, we've heard this promise for how
many years now and it's not there. And
what makes him so confident and of
course he's closer to the technology uh
than I am, but what does he make what
makes him so confident to think that
this is going to happen?
I would I would push back. I think the
vision that's being presented is going
to happen in terms of like time scale
when that happens. I think uh like again
the same way learning has to change.
Work is definitely going to change. A
lot of the repetitive things that we've
all done over and over again uh start to
be automated in some way. I mean, even
thinking about like this podcast,
being able to upscale our audio, being
able to uh edit very quickly, getting
video clips from Riverside, like this is
something that would not have been
possible a few years ago, even like a
two years ago at the scale that we're
able and quality were able to do for our
listeners. Little plug there. But, uh,
you know, like overall, I think it's
definitely going to happen. I think I'll
agree that it's in every CEO's
interest to say this, especially if
you're a publicly traded company. It
just is kind of easy to say we're going
to be getting efficiency gains and
stuff. But but I do think from a
messaging standpoint, it's important
because this will force the workforce to
actually start learning how to use these
tools. And I think I think that's
whoever whichever companies like figure
that out. And and I've thought about
this a lot like are the winners of the
next like decade going to be AI first AI
native companies or is it going to be
giants that actually are able to
transform themselves? And right now it
feels like it could be AI native AI
first companies. So I think the giants
got to get moving a bit more. Yeah,
you're hitting on it. So, here's here's
Jasse's uh another paragraph from me. He
says, "As we roll out more generative
AI and agents, it should change the way
our work is done. We will need fewer
people doing some of the jobs that are
being done today and more people doing
other types of jobs. It's hard to know
exactly where this nets out over time,
but in the next few years, we expect
that this will reduce our total
corporate workforce as we get efficiency
gains from using AI extensively across
the company." Wall Street Journal
comments on this. The real message Andy
Jasse is sending to employees on AI.
Jasse's memo likely has another aim.
More tech leaders are propagating the
view that job security in the age of AI
means learning to use it fast. Jasse
echoed uh uh this this belief in his
memo to workers this week, imploring
them to be curious about the technology.
Those who do will be well positioned to
have a high impact and help us reinvent
the company by effectively threatening a
pink slip. To those who don't, Jasse, at
least guaranteed that the AI workshops
at Amazon's offices will be humming.
Little cynical. Well, actually, you you
left out I was thinking about this it
when you dropped in this uh quote. So,
the quote, you're not going to lose your
job to an AI, but you're going to lose
your job to someone who uses AI. It's
attributed here to Jensen Hong, who told
the Milin Institute in late May. I I was
I feel I've been hearing that for years
now, haven't you?
Yeah, that's not like a Jensen
exclusive. I know. I I was trying to
figure I was actually looking up like
who the original like who we can
actually give that quote to, but because
I feel that if you want to sound smart
in AI conversation, just look at someone
very seriously and say it's people
aren't going to lose their jobs to an
AI. They're going to lose their jobs to
somebody who uses AI and you will sound
like the smartest person in the room.
So, sounds right to me. It's right. It's
brilliant. It's brilliant. It's the
future.
So I guess like going let's just you
know sort of tie this section up.
Do you think that do do you really feel
that Amazon is going to
contract because of AI? And if it does
will it be AI in the uh in the in the
you know headquarters or will it be AI
sort of in the form of robots in the
warehouses? I think he's talking to
headquarters employees here, but I think
it's still a better chance that you'll
get like robots with better dexterity
that replace people in the fulfillment
centers versus uh reducing workforce.
See, I I would actually disagree that
Amazon in the frontline side of it had
brought AI and automation at such a
level that like is unparalleled versus
other companies. So, they already got
this out into the frontline workers. So,
I think this I I think this is more
geared at HQ and may maybe he's just
telling them to roll out Alexa Plus
because I bought an Echo Show after your
episode and I'm still waiting for Alexa
Plus. I think you are as well. So, maybe
that's the real message here. I mean, he
mentioned Alexa Plus in his memo, and I
was like, well, where is it? Well, but I
do think that we're going to see more
CEOs with messages like this, and I
think this Wall Street Journal writer is
totally right that more than a imminent
downsizing, it's just going to be like,
please use the tools because like you
hinted at earlier, it's a lot of these
co-pilots or whatever are just kind of
sitting dormant. Um, and that's why like
I read Jasse's like big like vision
setting paragraph about the agent. And
he also talks about how agents will help
work, you know, the work workforce and
therefore, you know, you won't need as
many people. And I'm just like, I'll
believe it when I see it at this point.
Well, it's like Apple intelligence for
me. Ah, okay. See, I'm still going to me
if you have an AI illiterate workforce,
you're not going to see it. The
technology is not going to be enough to
actually make it successful. So maybe
again the like the the implicit message
in this is just become AI literate
because then you'll be able to actually
build these agents, build these
workflows, do all of this. You know, I'm
going to agree with you here. I do think
I think we both agree there's a
tremendous amount of power in AI today
if you learn how to use it right. And if
I was a CEO of a big company like that,
I would definitely be imploring the
workforce to, you know, get their hands
dirty and and get using these products.
Now, would I say I'm going to fire you
if you don't? Probably not. Um, but I do
think that it's a good thing to be like,
"Hey, uh, you should you should start
using these." Um, and there are ways to
do it. Maybe I mean, if you have again,
go to the workshop if you need to. Um,
but they they can already help
tremendously in certain workflows. So,
yeah, dude, learn how to use it.
Otherwise, we're going to do an aqua
hire of your biggest enemy and nemesis.
and uh and be wary. That's right. All
right. So, we're going to go to break
and come back and talk about Mark
Zuckerberg's latest on his hiring spree.
Before we do, I just wanted to say that
um we've seen some ratings come in and I
definitely appreciate everybody rating
the show. I know I ask often, but again,
it's the only publicly available metric
to show uh our our size and the fact
that we have an engaged listenership.
So, if you could rate five stars on
Apple Podcast or Spotify, that would be
much appreciated. Uh, I try not to ask
too often. Sometimes we get someone that
will listen to the show once and come in
and drop a one-star review. And
obviously, it's never fun to see that.
So, we know we have engaged listeners.
If you're listening on Apple Podcast or
Spotify, uh, and can rate us, that would
be great. And, uh, either way, we
appreciate you being here. All right,
we'll be back right after this. And
we're back here on Big Technology
podcast Friday edition where we are
happy or intrigued to report that Mark
Zuckerberg uh is still spending the
money. And this week, last week we had
the $14 billion aqua hire of Alexander
Wang uh and the scale AI I don't know
leadership talent crew. This week the
money doubles. Uh Zuckerberg tried to
spend 32 billion on Ilia Sudskever's uh
AI start startup Safe Super
Intelligence. Um Skever ultimately
turned Meta down. This is according to
the information. Uh but the company is
now in talks to hire Safe Super
Intelligence's co-founder and CEO Daniel
Gross. And earlier this week uh there
were also reports that Meta was in talks
to hire Gross as well as former GitHub
CEO Nat Freiedman. Uh, Meta is also
reportedly talking to taking a stake in
Freeman and Gross's joint venture firm
NFDG, which was invested in prominent AI
startups such as Perplexity and
Character AI Gross and Freeman could
significantly beef up Meta's AI super
intelligence lab. So, this idea that I
brought up last week that it's about the
talent, you can now you're getting to
the point where compute matters, but
talent
uh is starting to matter more. Uh it
seems like you know this is really
coming to fruition and Zuck is just
gonna spend until he has this team of
all stars. I think aqua hire zition
while said in a bit of jest last week by
you is going to go down as one of the
bigger trends of the year we're seeing
it again and and I mean in a way even
like the deep mind acquisitions of long
ago in AI with the big tech giants maybe
aqua hierition has been the modus
operandi this entire time and is going
to continue to be like rather than we're
going to buy your customers your
product. It's actually we're just buying
the talent and that's all that matters.
Um, so yeah, I think we we could see
more of this. It's going to be
interesting, but also at a certain
point, when do you have enough talent?
Like what what's the inflection point
that you're like, "Okay, we we got
everyone we need. We're we're like a
hundred billion down. Um, we have a a
team of AI Avengers. What do we do now?"
I mean, you you optimize the models and
you try to come up with new techniques
and all these talented leaders will have
people working underneath them that will
be able to execute. You would think the
new strategies that they try to pull
off, but I think it's kind of notable
that he wasn't able to get Ilia. I mean,
it's a moonshot. 2 billion for a
pre-product startup, right? Not a bad
That's a moonshot to try to get him
because uh we know that he's definitely
I would say like fairly ideological left
Google to go to OpenAI because of uh the
promise of the safety work. Um left
OpenAI after some weird stuff happened
with Sam. And I think Kevin Ruse from
the Times has a pretty interesting take
on this. He says the problem of trying
to buy your way into the AGI race in
2025 is that top tier AI researchers are
already rich think we have like 1 to
four years before super intelligence and
don't want to spend those years building
AI companions for Instagrams for
Instagram actually okay that's a good
point um I mean first of all I think
Ilia is worth 32 billion just for the
branding of super intelligence and
bringing ASI to market and letting us
move past AGI but I think that's fair
that yeah I mean If you're already a
researcher by like disposition and you
are worth a couple hundred mil, you
don't want to build like an ad optimizer
for Facebook, an Instagram fake
companion, a a Khloe Kardashian
uh like replica. You would like to be
getting to your ASI. So that makes
sense. it's going to be a bit harder,
which makes more sense at like a Nat
Friedman, GitHub CEO, that persona of
like a true business builder. They're
the ones who actually are going to be
more open to this kind of thing. I think
now in theory, there is a separation
between the research side of Meta's AI
efforts and the product side. And I
believe there is, but it's clear that in
companies like Meta, like companies like
Google, the research and product sides
are coming closer together. So it could
be like yeah come come in like even to
the researchers that he's going after
come in and we'll give you money and you
can try to build the best AI model. Uh I
think there'll probably be some
reluctance at least at the beginning to
um to believe that. I mean especially
you saw what ads came to WhatsApp after
the promise I think there was a promise
never to bring ads onto WhatsApp. Uh
they're there now but the I I'll just
say this one thing. the best way to make
this work is to build a product that
works. If they can really start
advancing the status quo, uh then
they'll get more people involved and you
know it snowballs. But I think yeah, you
have to do that with talent and he's
doing going after the talent. So I I
think the strategy is smart. I'll say
that. I I actually agree. I will agree
that they have the distribution in place
so that's not going to be an issue. So
maybe it is fair that they they're have
to put their entire bet on just
improving the model significantly in the
short term and definitely not falling
behind and then they can win solely on
distribution.
Okay. Well, one quick rant on WhatsApp.
WhatsApp. Yeah. Do the WhatsApp ads
thing. All over New York last like in
the Highline in New York, there was
these huge out ofome marketing
activation of like it was just kind of
ridiculous. It was like WhatsApp, we
don't read your messages. WhatsApp, we
can't see anything. Like there was uh
kind of these blurred out uh I don't
know big like plastic things that you
would stand behind and they would take a
picture of you. It was just weird. First
of all, anytime you're told over and
over, we don't read your messages, I'm
just asking, why are you having to shout
this repeatedly? Are you reading my
messages? Um, my other favorite thing is
they also just in the corner had a
little waiver that by taking part in
this activation, you are releasing the
rights to be filmed for marketing
purposes, which is classic meta. But
what I loved was so I started seeing
this a number of podcasts I listened to,
they these ads started showing up. There
was like big billboards in Time Square
showing this. And then a week later,
WhatsApp announces it's gonna be
launching advertising within the app for
the first time in its life. So, Oh,
there you go. Yeah. Yeah. Um, never
change, Meta. Never change. Okay. One
more thing I want to talk about. I just
saw a report that Meta discussed buying
perplexity before investing in Scale AI.
Hey, get off Apple's lawn. All right.
This is Tim Cook's deal to do and Tim
Cook's alone. You lose your finders fee
if Meta gets them. That's true. I know.
I I actually uh been DMing with the
chief business officer of Perplexity uh
who told me that the deal is not likely
uh but the meta-cale deal was so
unlikely that I feel we and I feel we
aren't living in a world of likely. I
read that as a as a maybe but also he
told me that Apple and Perplexity have
had no M&A discussions. So if this Meta
thing is true, Mark Zuckerberg has done
more M&A discussions uh with Perplexity
than anybody else. I think if Meta can
get Perplexity, it should do it. I think
that would be smart. I think it would. I
mean, speaking of anti-competitive
though, I mean, Meta doesn't have any
search.
Actually, that's that's a fair point.
And suddenly search becomes more
competitive and this pushes back against
Google. All right. Approved. Okay. Thank
you. That was a very easy approval
process. And I expect that it would be
the same uh level of ease as uh we would
see with the federal regulators. Okay.
Sorry, I said one last thing. One last
thing on this. I got a text uh from
someone who listens who said uh what is
Facebook doing? Uh these
couldn't get along at OpenAI as it was.
Um I think they're going to get along
within meta. I mean, of course, it's
it's it's a disperate group, right? It's
not exactly all OpenAI alumni, but there
you know that's that is one of the
biggest risks when you bring in big
personalities is that they will they
will be too big to like someone on
Twitter floated like wait Ilia's going
to repo report to Alexander Wang. What's
what's the idea here? Oh my god, I would
love to. That's just the reality show
and podcastw worthy content to give us
material alone would be worth the 32
billion. Oh yeah. I mean I I would love
to I mean I think our our numbers would
double immediately with weekly reports
of how things are going. Do it on
insider. Do it please. Uh for the sake
of big technology listenership. Uh thank
you everybody for listening. All right,
let's end here with the closest sign
that we are nearing AGI. Whimo is about
to start testing in New York City. Uh we
also have Tesla uh starting to roll out
its pilot in Austin. I think that's
coming in the coming days. It's going to
be with safety drivers and Whimo will
also be with drivers in the front seat
until they uh until they get approval to
drive. But like we said, if if Whimo
starts rolling around New York without
any drivers, you and I here on the show
will declare AGI. Yeah, we said there's
there's currently the ARC AGI benchmark
which is one of the industry standards.
We've proposed the win AGI WIN Whimo in
New York benchmark. You roll through uh
like Broadway and 34th on a in a
driverless Whimo. AGI is here. Cancelled
the Microsoft OpenAI contract. AGI is
declared. It's done. And
what a storyline that would be if we see
Whimos going down Fifth Avenue and then
Sam Alman follows along and says, "I'm
free. See you later, S." Yeah. Chad GPT
is half off this week.
Greatest marketing stunt of all time. I
I could see it happening. All right,
Ranjan. Great to speak with you as
always. Thanks for coming on. All right,
see you next week. All right, everybody.
Thank you for listening. Next week on
Wednesday, we should have legendary
investment analyst Tom Lee coming on. So
stay tuned for that. And then Ron John
and I will be back next Friday. Thanks
for listening and we'll see you next
time on Big Technology Podcast.
[Music]