Love

VIP

I'm bob

May 2025

15 正在關注 20 粉絲 199 帖子

付費文章 (2)

Bitcoin’s Silent IPO: Why This Consolidation Isn’t What You Think

The quiet liquidity event reshaping Bitcoin’s ownership base and its future stability

0.02 USDC 6 次購買

A payments protocol for the internet. Built on HTTP

Payments on the internet are fundamentally flawed. Credit Cards are high friction, hard to accept, have minimum payments that are far too high, and don't fit into the programmatic nature of the internet. It's time for an open, internet-native form of payments. A payment rail that doesn't have high minimums + % based fee. Payments that are amazing for humans and AI agents.

0.07 USDC 2 次購買

帖子 Media

Love

· 5h

最新消息： #SEC 主席保罗·阿特金斯表示，他正在取消不切实际的规则，以“推动、澄清和改造”金融市场。 #加密货币 #btc

https://x.com/WatcherGuru/status/2035051688390758557?s=20

中文 English

0:00 随着未来一年的一系列规则制定计划，

0:04 我认为首先需要将它们放入背景中审视，

0:08 以及其后数年的情况，

0:12 在这期间我们的监管框架经常难以

0:15 跟上它所监管的市场步伐。

0:18 举一个监管与现实鸿沟的例子，

0:23 我们的规则仍默认采用纸质方式

0:26 传达股东信息。

0:29 在算法交易和人工智能的时代，

0:33 我认为这一规定应该成为历史

0:36 而非标准。

0:37 其次，基于此，

0:39 拒绝更新SEC规则，

0:43 反而通过误导性的执法监管运动

0:49 扼杀了许多潜在产品或将它们驱赶到海外。

0:53 当创新者无法获得合适的规则指引，

0:57 或在善意合规的努力后

1:00 面临传票威胁时，

1:04 理性的反应是转向其他地方发展，而他们确实如此。

1:08 整整一代数字资产创新

1:12 在美国以外发展，

1:14 并非美国创业者缺乏雄心

1:18 或美国投资者缺乏兴趣，

1:21 而是因为美国监管者缺乏决心。

1:25 第三，数十年的创造性规则制定

1:29 积累成了合规迷宫，

1:31 错综复杂到支撑起了整个行业

1:35 专门帮助上市公司

1:38 应对SEC复杂的监管框架。

1:43 当进入美国资本市场的成本

1:46 包括雇佣专家解读

1:49 SEC监管体系，以制作

1:53 只有学者才会欣赏的披露，

1:56 那么显然问题非常严重且根深蒂固。

2:00 我们的目标应是提高欺诈

2:03 和操纵的成本，而非合规本身的成本。

2:08 因此，在这样的背景下，每一项

2:11 SEC正在推进的举措和每一条

2:15 我们提出的规则、发布的解释

2:18 以及进行的机构改革，

2:22 大多归入三类之一。

2:26 第一类是推进规则以适应

2:28 当今市场运作方式。

2:31 第二类是澄清我们的监管体系，

2:34 简化监管，释放创新。

2:38 第三类是改革我们的要求，

2:41 消除繁重和不切实际的负担。

2:45 这三大支柱——推进（Advance）、澄清（Clarify）、改革（Transform）

2:49 构成了一个整体政策议程，

2:54 我称之为我们的ACT战略。

0:00 With a robust pipeline of rulemaking set for the year ahead,

0:04 I think it's instructive first to contextualize them

0:08 in the years that they follow,

0:12 a period in which our regulatory framework too often struggled

0:15 to keep up with a market that it oversees.

0:18 As just one example of the gulf between regulation and reality,

0:23 our rules still default to paper delivery

0:26 for shareholder communications.

0:29 In an age of algorithmic trading and artificial intelligence,

0:33 I believe that requirement ought to be a relic

0:36 and not a standard.

0:37 Second, and on that note,

0:39 a refusal to update the SEC's rules

0:43 prepared with a misguided regulation by enforcement campaign

0:49 has killed many would-be products or driven them offshore.

0:53 When innovators cannot discern fit-for-purpose rules

0:57 or when they face the prospect of a subpoena

1:00 as the response to good-faith efforts to comply,

1:04 the rational response is to build elsewhere, and they did.

1:08 An entire generation of digital asset innovation

1:12 developed outside the United States,

1:14 not because American entrepreneurs lacked the ambition

1:18 or American investors lacked the appetite,

1:21 but because American regulators lacked the will.

1:25 Third, decades of a creative rulemaking

1:29 have compounded into a compliance labyrinth,

1:31 so elaborate that it sustains entire industries

1:35 whose sole function is to help public companies

1:38 to navigate the SEC's complex regulatory framework.

1:43 When the cost of accessing America's capital markets

1:46 includes retaining specialists to decode

1:49 the SEC's regulatory regime to produce disclosure

1:53 that only an academic would appreciate,

1:56 then something is very clearly and deeply a mess.

2:00 Our goal should be to increase the cost of fraud

2:03 and manipulation, not the cost of compliance itself.

2:08 So against that backdrop, every initiative

2:11 towards which the SEC is working and every rule

2:15 that we propose, every interpretation that we release,

2:18 and every institutional reform that we undertake

2:22 largely falls into one of three categories.

2:26 Those that advance are rules to align

2:28 with how markets operate today.

2:31 Those that clarify our regulatory regime

2:34 to streamline oversight and unlock innovation.

2:38 And those that transform our requirements

2:41 by eliminating both the burdensome and the impractical.

2:45 So together, these three pillars of advance

2:49 or A, clarify or C, and transform or T,

2:54 form one integrated policy agenda

2:57 that I'm calling our ACT ACT strategy.

Love

· 5h

光是想象代理能够自主训练并使用稳定币支付，就让人觉得不可思议。

我开发了 mpp-nanogpt-modal，该项目在 Modal 上通过 #MPP 部署了 @karpathy 的 #nanoGPT 项目，并在无需 #API 密钥的情况下进行训练，所有费用均通过 #Tempo 上的稳定币支付。

接下来，我将尝试更长的训练周期和自动研究。

https://x.com/dwr/status/2035158640265765067?s=20

Love

· 12h

“我认为，作为一个国家，我们面临的最大风险是‘自杀’，而非‘他杀’。”

#Palantir 首席技术官希亚姆·桑卡尔（Shyam Sankar）与 #a16z 的凯瑟琳·博伊尔（Katherine Boyle）和埃里克·托伦伯格（Erik Torenberg）共同探讨了希亚姆的新书《Mobilize》，以及国防、人工智能、“SaaS末日”等话题。

00:00 引言

07:53 重建工业基础

18:01 陆军现代化

24:20 #SaaS 末日

29:42 自动化中的自主权

38:24 避免自我毁灭，战胜中国

40:42 电影作为文化意志力

49:57 里科弗海军上将的故事

@ssankar @KTmBoyle @eriktorenberg @PalantirTech #ai

https://x.com/a16z/status/2035055567774130269?s=20

中文 English

0:00 世界大事件提醒我们，邪恶确实存在。

0:02 可怕的野蛮行为依然可能发生。

0:05 国家一旦开战，不能仅靠战争部打仗，

0:09 而是需要全国家动员。

0:10 实际上是整个国家的事。

0:12 认为美国人无法承担这一责任，这简直是井底之见。

0:15 这种想法不可理喻。

0:15 我认为我们国家最大的风险是自杀，而非他杀。

0:18 我们如何赢得人工智能竞赛，尤其是在迈向实体AI和机器人技术时？

0:23 这些领域需要注意什么？

0:24 我们过去赢得胜利的方式，却意外地被我们自己抛弃了。

0:28 现在有机会重新找回这一点，重燃士气。

0:31 此刻或许有人会说，我们需要造更多武器，

0:34 我们需要做这个、做那个。

0:34 没错。

0:35 但最重要的是——

0:37 凯瑟琳，当我们讨论要邀请的嘉宾时，

0:48 肖恩，在你的名单上是首位。

0:50 是怎么回事？

0:52 嗯，人们在Jeremy Stern的报道《巨像》和很多最新播客中

0:57 听说过肖恩。他是那种几年前消息灵通的人都会认识的，

1:03 他是所有人的“老大哥”式解决者。

1:06 Trey Stevens，Andrew Allaire的联合创始人，

1:11 曾在推特上说

1:11 肖恩单枪匹马成就了他的职业生涯。

1:14 John Doyle和很多我们公司的创始人都说肖恩让他们的事业起飞，

1:18 引荐他们进入Palantir，

1:19 支持他们，也鼓励他们离开Palantir另辟蹊径。

1:22 这个故事你会一遍又一遍地听到。

1:27 但直到几年前，

1:27 肖恩才真正成为公众人物，他以前一直是幕后解决者。

1:31 而且，

1:31 我认为真正改变这一点的是，肖恩——我很想聊聊你的灵感来源——

1:35 你写了一篇被视为开创性的文章

1:36 论及“第一早餐”计划、国防改革，

1:39 你是首位这样公开讨论这问题的人。

1:41 不过，你写这篇文章时，Palantir已经运行了17年，

1:45 你决定

1:45 成为美国必须采取改革行动的坚决声音。

1:49 我很想聊聊你如何从幕后到台前，成为这个运动的代言人。

1:53 是什么促使你这么做？

1:53 这既是主动的绝望，也充满乐观。

1:55 多年来我从内部观察五角大楼，看到防务运作，

2:00 这种渐进的恶化

2:00 在历史背景下愈发明显。

2:04 促使我发声的原因是，我觉得这一刻仍有机会修复，

2:08 同时看到大楼外的情况，

2:08 创始人们正在重新崛起，充满了巨大能量，

2:11 有人愿意为国家利益而建功，这一刻值得凝练并提出我认为的根本诊断：

2:15 我们过去赢得竞争的做法，

2:17 不小心被抛弃了，现在有机会重拾它，

2:21 并需迅速行动。

2:22 时间紧迫，我们像青蛙被慢慢煮熟一样，失去了威慑力。

2:25 单独来看，这些事件好像可以忽略，比如2014年俄罗斯吞并克里米亚。

2:30 然后是2015年南沙群岛的军事化，JCPOA未能阻止伊朗造核，

2:34 以色列的暴动，

2:36 尤其是10月7日事件后，局势急剧恶化，我们必须行动，

2:38 此后事态只会更糟。

2:40 好消息是，近一年防务部门的变革远超我过去19年所见，

2:44 人们正抓住改革机遇。

2:46 看到这一点令人振奋。

2:48 大家齐心协力为国家利益努力。

2:52 那你觉得，是什么让18个月前，人们开始接受多年被忽视的观点？

2:57 也就是你长期坚持但被视为异端的那个？

2:58 我认为答案在于领导力。我们称他们为开国元勋，

3:02 有美国精神在其中，

3:04 每个创立故事都是异端与英雄的结合。

3:05 这些人看到了现实的不足，明白时间紧迫，必须采取行动。

3:08 他们既在政府内部，也在政府外部，

3:12 形成了志同道合的联盟。

3:14 所以难以说出单一时刻，但选举无疑是关键部分，

3:18 这让清醒的领导层得以掌权，为改革创造条件。

3:21 你一直很忙，加入了军队，还写了书。

3:24 为什么现在决定写这本美国未来的权威之作？

3:27 为什么同时加入军队，还领导Palantir？

3:29 我一直在思考如何动员力量避免更大冲突。

3:32 现在很难不把当下比作30年代末的局势，

3:34 事态正在酝酿已久，大家谈大国竞争。

3:38 我们正走出冷战胜利后的茫然，或更准确说是苏联失败后茫然。

3:42 这导致信了很多关于未来的谎言，现在正逐渐暴露。

3:46 所以我们不能像二战期间那样，等对方先攻击再动员。

3:50 对二战的正确认识是，领导层早在30年代末就认识到要动员，

3:54 不过当时没有全民意愿。

3:55 租借法案提供了动员机制，花了18个月建立和改造工厂，

4:00 为盟友提供威慑能力，二战爆发时我们已全速生产。

4:04 打仗不是战争部的事，是全国家的事。

4:08 冷战胜利让我们误以为仅靠国防工业基地足够，只靠战争部打仗够了。

4:14 其实，这必须是全体美国人共同参与的事。

4:19 美国公民既要关心国家的繁荣，也要关心保障繁荣的自由。

4:22 我们离这个目标已经很远。

4:24 1989年，只有6%的重大武器开支给了专业防务公司；

4:29 那时柏林墙还在。现在这个比例是86%。

4:33 我们现在习以为常的，实际上是过去的异常状态。

4:38 《动员》想将这个故事置于这样的背景：

4:42 所谓的美国工业基地，就是赢得二战的那套。

4:45 克莱斯勒造造导弹也造小面包车，

4:47 每个美国人买的相机、汽车、防摔盒实际上也补贴了国家安全。

4:51 这非常重要。

4:54 私营部门投入的研发远超政府，

4:56 我们要利用这条价值曲线为军人提供能力。

4:59 那怎么回到那条路上？

5:03 美国工业基地是谁？今天我们想到的是诺斯罗普·格鲁曼和洛克希德·马丁，

5:06 其实是格伦·马丁、杰克·诺斯罗普、勒罗伊·格鲁曼，

5:08 这些创始人

5:10 不光考虑公司季度表现，更在建造比自我更伟大的事业。

5:13 他们不只是外部人士，

5:14 还有海曼·里科弗，他顶住海军压力打造核潜艇。

5:18 这需要极大的胆识。

5:21 奥本海默曾断言核潜艇永远失败。

5:24 但里科弗坚持了下来。

5:29 冷战结束后，我们追求和平红利，

5:31 减少国防开支，

5:33 我们从51个主要承包商减少到5个。

5:37 很多人误以为这是整合，

5:39 其实是失去了竞争。

5:42 但本质上它一直是垄断买家市场，竞争来自政府内部的服务部门，

5:47 而非行业间的竞争。

5:50 “最后的晚餐”促成了同质化和国防金融化。

5:53 这些公司不再关注增长，转而关注财务指标。

5:57 创造力和异端思想被排斥，那些人去了科技圈。

6:02 但这些异端者至关重要。《动员》列举几乎所有防务创新都出自异端。

6:06 机构反对，官僚阻挠，

6:07 决策过程试图扼杀创新。

6:10 例如赢得二战的希金斯登陆艇，

6:12 海军最初不愿采购，甚至试图窃取设计，

6:15 但最终92%的登陆艇都是希金斯造。

6:17 如果这位苏格兰爱尔兰血统的设计师缺乏极度执着，

6:21 诺曼底登陆根本无法成功。

6:22 这说明异端者是创新的驱动力。

6:26 你说得没错，这是我们投身国防的核心问题。

6:31 垄断买家的本质导致供应商被置于“加拉帕戈斯群岛”，

6:36 与主陆断开，而巨型陆龟虽然奇妙，

6:39 但一回到大陆就会被竞争者吞噬。

6:41 因此，有想法的人难以把创意带回防务。

6:44 当我们开始打造Palantir时，国防部没有正门，

6:48 只有情报界一条路可进，外人进不去。

6:51 这局面直到2015年才开始改变。

6:54 因此现在发布的“18条论纲”和“防务改革2024”很有意义，

6:58 10年来一直有异端者敲门、准备助力国防。

7:02 书中提到这些“异端英雄”，你做了大量研究，现在成了防务科技行业的活百科。

7:08 你觉得谁是最值得一提的英雄？谁是人们需要了解却不了解的？

7:14 很难只选一个，但新的介绍是杜鲁·库科上校，

7:17 他是Maven AI系统之父。

7:22 库科出生在南加州，单亲母亲抚养，唯一上大学途径是军训，

7:27 入伍成为海军陆战队员，经历丰富，

7:31 发生过一次关键事件：在尝试撤离ISIS下的伊兹迪难民时，

7:35 一名年轻海军陆战队员误判敌方火箭弹威胁，

7:39 造成疏散行动失败，成千上万人遭受残酷迫害。

7:43 这事件改变了他的人生轨迹。

7:47 后来他进入五角大楼地下室，负责资源极其有限的AI项目，

7:51 全力推动AI应用在军队。

7:56 经历了大量排挤、调查，甚至有人诬陷他地下藏伊朗人，

8:00 结果调查人员尴尬发现他那房子根本没有地下室。

8:03 这故事说明了一个问题：你是否愿意以一切代价追求目标，

8:08 是否在乎理念高于职业生涯？这些人值得我们学习。

8:12 现在正是激励潜在异端者挺身而出的时候，你的国家需要你。

8:18 过去一年最激动人心的是，我看见这些人，无论在大楼内外。

8:22 领导层放手支持、保护了这些异端者。

8:25 曾被空军厌恶、极具异端性的空军飞行员约翰·博伊德，

8:29 他是F-16的父亲，他的理论在海湾战争得到印证。

8:33 博伊德说，成为某人或做某事，二者不能兼得。

8:37 他极难相处，却得到了三颗星空军将军的保护，

8:41 后者懂得没有保护，这类人才无法在体制内存活。

8:43 领导认同其价值，选择容忍他的怪异。

8:46 希曼·里科弗和伯纳德·施里弗等创始人在体制内外，

8:50 勇敢推动了核潜艇和弹道导弹项目。

8:53 但他们同样极难相处。

8:58 他们在特定领域坚持到底，推动了划时代技术。

9:01 你看到的是，领导层的支持、鼓励与保护对创新而言至关重要。

9:06 你加入陆军的项目起源于乔治将军和史考特·德里斯科尔秘书的推动。

9:10 我2014年以来一直与以色列合作。

9:14 他们技术先进，十分自豪。

9:16 10月7日后，以色列动员了36万预备役军人，

9:20 这些都是过去服役的预备役人员，拥有丰富产业经验。

9:23 他们回归现役后，对以军的技术状态感到震惊，

9:27 短短四个月内技术升级超过过去10年。

9:30 这令我无法忽视。

9:33 世界各国都有这样的技术人才储备。

9:36 我们山谷的创业公司知道如何打造这些能力。

9:40 年轻的战争新人充满意愿和智慧，但也具备运营智慧。

9:42 我学到的经验和教训，

9:44 错误可以犯，但请别重复，是在登高望远。

9:47 我不确定24岁时能为军队贡献多少，但44岁还能助力加速。

9:50 这不仅是说我，也是说硅谷，

9:53 说美国制造业。我们要在越南海军等地形成协调配合。

9:57 中国推行军民融合，我想明白为什么美国却让自愿军民融合难以实现。

10:03 二战时我们直接委任了10万符合“201部门”标准的人才。

10:07 现在国家授权依然存在，只是未被充分利用。

10:10 我很自豪与几位技术领袖一起加入陆军，

10:13 成为高级顾问，参与多个项目，支持军队变革。

10:17 我自己也学到了很多，希望军队从中获益。

10:21 我愿意促进相关界的进一步合作。

10:26 我现在的工作聚焦两点：一是帮军方规划长期力量结构；

10:31 二是如何将软件作为可塑的武器系统，赋能指挥官推动进步。

10:35 这就是所谓的“作战数据团队”。

10:38 让我印象深刻的是军中人才素质，

10:41 他们很多不是正式学的计算机科学，而是自学成才，

10:44 最具说服力的AI应用都是他们创造的。

10:48 这背后是一定的焦虑感，

10:49 不是为了10%效率提升，而是存亡攸关。

10:53 AI极大授权那些具备特定技能的人。

10:56 比如情报军官精通其领域。

10:59 我想问，这些人才十年前在哪里？

11:03 事实上，“他们一直都在”。

11:06 但当时他们做什么？做了PPT给项目官僚汇报，被否决？

11:10 不，他们聪明不会浪费时间。如今他们自己做两周，快速迭代。

11:14 能够实证证明已推动军队进步，

11:16 大家对成果反应积极，都想赢。

11:20 大机构普遍在从零到一的创新阶段挣扎。

11:24 他们急于快速扩展，但军队规模庞大，必须深思创新推广路径。

11:30 这是整天从事的行业工作。

11:32 军方比拼不是图样仿制，

11:34 而是吸取经验，避免走弯路。

11:37 同样大企业也应向初创学经验。

11:41 确实，军中技术能力极强，基层人员涌现创新，

11:44 这或将掀起军事变革，充分发挥美军自下而上的创新优势。

11:48 关于SaaS的崩溃论，我怎么看？

11:52 AI让软件切换成本大幅降低，传统的代码、数据、界面护城河不复存在，

11:56 一些SaaS公司走上淘汰之路，比如monday.com、Atlassian等。

12:00 没有任何系统能够幸免。

12:03 我认为软件可分为Beta和Alpha两类，

12:07 Beta软件让你与别人更相似，将受苦。

12:10 我一直批评软件产业，卖软件重于软件本身的实际价值。

12:14 AI使定制化软件成为可能，

12:16 更注重Alpha价值的公司将受益，

12:19 Beta软件将面临重重挑战。

12:22 举例来说，疫情期间CEO讲话大多谈视频会议，

12:26 而不是企业资源计划系统，这揭示软件价值匮乏。

12:30 对我们来说，疫情则加速了向客户的适应，

12:33 筛选了真正有价值的技术。

12:37 我们看到模仿性的行业解决方案承受压力，

12:40 而区别化软件将市场获益，体现竞争优势和战略。

12:44 Alpha软件将获得更高估值，比如可视化编码。

12:48 在硬件和互联网经济中，利润分布也在变动。

12:52 AI堆栈有芯片、模型、基础设施和应用，

12:56 模型被商品化且承压，厂商正向上扩展，构筑AI基础设施。

13:00 狭义的垂直AI解决方案正逐渐覆盖整个堆栈，

13:04 实现规模化和更多用例。

13:08 价值可能集中在芯片层和我们称为“本体论”的AI基础设施层，

13:12 这两层相对难以被攻破。

13:16 有份经济学人文章概述了经济可能面临的三种未来：

13:20 一切走向垂直整合，AGI让一切消亡，或2%增长。

13:24 这代表广泛可能，择一而行是我们的选择，不是被动接受。

13:28 美国要赢，关键是领导层塑造和引导。

13:32 我们拥有绝佳人才和技术基础，我们将在AI赛道上发力。

13:36 最大风险是自我毁灭，不是外敌。

13:40 中国虽强，但他们必须我们衰落，才能真正崛起。

13:44 有非法方式企图阻碍我们的农业生产，这违背公平竞争。

13:48 美国社会陷入虚无主义和两极分化，忘了团聚的力量。

13:52 我认为，我们要恢复对机构的信任，推动社会正向发展。

13:56 重启美国制造业，最大化利用我们的技术创新和资源优势。

14:00 我们发明了批量生产、核能等领先技术。

14:04 提出美国人缺乏能量，是低估了我们自己。

14:08 这是意志和领导力的问题，而非技术难题。

14:12 你提到的文化建设很关键，很多人误以为是技术或产能问题。

14:16 你投身电影制作，这是完全不一样的领域，

14:20 能说说你为何跨界？你想如何通过电影激励社会意志？

14:24 我小时候移民美国，在奥兰多长大，

14:28 五六岁时常和父亲一起看80、90年代的电影，

14:32 《猎杀红色十月》《红色黎明》《第一滴血2、3》等，

14:36 那时我就感受到了“美国人”是什么感觉，远早于了解公民知识。

14:40 类似最近很多人对《壮志凌云：独行侠》也有共鸣。

14:44 娱乐让我们反思自己，认识我们想成为怎样的人。

14:48 如果我们的娱乐只讲科技毁灭的反乌托邦故事，

14:52 会潜移默化形成消极预期。

14:56 我成长于太空海岸影子下，那里充满对科学和技术的热爱，

15:00 甚至小学期末作业是写如何登陆火星，

15:04 这孕育了我对美好未来的信念。

15:08 我们要重新讲好故事，既娱乐又鼓舞人心。

15:12 你也说在奥兰多长大，我觉得这很有趣。

15:16 我也在80、90年代的佛罗里达州长大，

15:20 当时很多人嘲笑佛罗里达，但奥兰多有迪士尼世界，

15:24 迪士尼动画里的善恶故事深深影响我。

15:28 这是美国文化的代表，我的父母也在主题公园售卖纪念品。

15:32 我从小浸润在这样的故事氛围中。

15:36 迪士尼的电影曾塑造美国精神，我们要重拾乐观和英雄主义。

15:40 我们也期待未来几年，产业带来更多支持美国的乐观内容。

15:44 比如近期拍摄的《使命召唤》电影和泰勒·谢里丹的作品，

15:48 这些都反映了现实社会的故事。

15:52 近期世界大事件提醒我们，邪恶真切存在。

15:56 俄罗斯坦克越过边境，10月7日的残暴令人震惊。

16:00 在地缘政治层面，我们应该称中国为“对手”，而非“近似对手”，

16:04 他们的许多行动毫无效果。

16:08 这给第三国国家警示，不要误以为美国已退缩。

16:12 我期待通过电影和硬实力推动美国伟大与繁荣，

16:16 无论软实力还是遏制对手，都是为保护未来世代的繁荣。

16:20 谢谢你。

0:00 World events remind us that there is actually evil out there.

0:02 Just horrendous barbarism is still possible.

0:05 When a country goes to war, it's not enough to just have the Department of War

0:09 fight these wars.

0:10 It is actually the whole country.

0:12 The idea that somehow the American people are not capable of this beggar's

0:15 belief.

0:15 I think our biggest risk as a country is suicide, not homicide.

0:18 How do we win the AI race, particularly as it moves towards more physical AI

0:23 and robotics, etc?

0:24 The things that we did to win in the past, we accidentally turned our back on.

0:28 And there's an opportunity to reclaim that with figure.

0:31 In the moment right now, you could say, we need to build more weapons.

0:34 We need to do this. We need to do this.

0:34 Yes.

0:35 But the most important thing we need to do is-

0:37 So, Catherine, when we were talking about guests that we had to add on,

0:48 Sean, was at the top of your list.

0:50 What was that?

0:52 Yeah, well, you know, it's, I think people are, you know,

0:57 after the Jeremy Stern profile and Colossus and a lot of, I think, you know,

1:03 stories that have come out recently or podcasts that have come out about Sean.

1:06 He's one of these people that if you were in the know several years ago, you

1:11 knew.

1:11 He was the OG, like, fixer for everyone.

1:14 You know, I think Trey Stevens, who's, you know, the co-founder of Andrew all

1:18 came out

1:19 on Twitter and said, like, he's single-handedly responsible for my career.

1:22 And I, you know, John Doyle, so many of our founders, have pointed to Sean as

1:27 the person

1:27 who made their career and introduced them to Palantir, supported them in Palant

1:31 ir,

1:31 but also sort of, you know, gave them wings to fly away from Palantir and to

1:35 start something new.

1:36 And you hear that story time and time and time again.

1:39 But it wasn't until, and Eric, you and I were talking about this.

1:41 It wasn't until a couple years ago that I think Sean actually became more of a

1:45 public figure.

1:45 He was sort of the behind-the-scenes guy, the behind-scenes fixer.

1:49 And I think the thing that really changed it was, Sean, and I'd love to talk to

1:53 you

1:53 about kind of what was the inspiration for this.

1:55 You sort of wrote this seminal piece about First Breakfast, about defense re

2:00 formation,

2:00 and we're the first person to really start talking about it.

2:04 But again, this was like 17 years into the journey of Palantir that you decided

2:08 I'm

2:08 going to be, you know, a strident voice for what needs to happen in America.

2:11 So I'd love to talk to you about this, you know, going from the behind-the-

2:15 scenes person,

2:17 the guy behind the guy, and so many of our companies, to saying I need to come

2:21 out and

2:22 be a voice for this movement. What was the kind of impetus for that?

2:25 It was kind of equal parts in active desperation and active optimism.

2:30 You know, I felt like after years of just seeing

2:34 the building, the Pentagon from the inside, seeing how defense was operating,

2:40 I felt this frog boil that continued to happen set in a historical context.

2:46 But the reason to say something is actually I thought this was the moment that

2:50 it could

2:50 all be fixed, that alongside of that happening, seeing what was happening

2:54 outside of the building,

2:55 that the founders were re-emerging. There was a huge amount of energy.

2:58 People wanted to build in the national interest, and it was a moment to kind of

3:02 crystallize what

3:03 at least put forth what I thought the fundamental diagnosis was that really the

3:08 things that we did

3:09 to win in the past, we accidentally turned our back on, and there's an

3:13 opportunity to reclaim that

3:14 with vigor. And we needed to do so quickly. That time was running out, there

3:18 was a shot clock here

3:19 that we have frog-boiled our way to a place where we've lost deterrence.

3:23 You know, any one of these items in isolation, you can write off, you could say

3:27 , okay,

3:28 the Russians annexed Crimea in 2014. That's just one thing.

3:32 Then you have the militarization of the Spratly Islands in 15. You have the

3:36 failure of JCPOA to

3:38 keep the Iranians from getting a bomb. You have a pogrom in Israel, and

3:42 certainly after October 7,

3:43 it was kind of a radicalizing moment that like, what is going on here? We need

3:49 to act,

3:50 and I think we've only had more things since then. Now, I think the good news

3:54 is, in the last year,

3:55 more has changed in the department than I've seen change in the prior 19 years,

3:59 and people are

4:00 seizing that moment for reformation. And it's been rewarding to kind of get it

4:08 out there,

4:09 get people to rally behind it, and all of us building the national interest.

4:13 Yeah. I mean, what is it? Because I think you get this question probably all

4:17 the time.

4:18 What is it about the last? I mean, as you said, it wasn't a single moment,

4:21 but there is some change in the culture and the zeitgeist. And I think you have

4:25 a unique

4:26 understanding too of culture and kind of how these memetic shifts happen. But

4:30 what was it about,

4:31 you know, 18 months ago where it's like everyone seems to agree on the thing

4:36 that was so contrarian

4:37 for many years where you were sort of banging your head against a wall saying

4:41 like, this is,

4:42 you know, this needs to happen. Well, maybe unsurprising for my worldview,

4:46 it all comes down to leadership. You know, I, we call them the founding fathers

4:51 for a reason.

4:52 There's something special about the American spirit that is, you know, every

4:57 founding story is,

4:58 is equal parts heresy and heroism. And we had the right people who kind of saw

5:04 like, hey,

5:04 this is not working. And we're, the shot clock is running out and we have to do

5:09 something.

5:09 And we had those people both inside the building and outside the building. So

5:13 it's kind of a

5:14 conspiracy coalition of the willing coalition of the capable to go do that.

5:20 So it's hard to point to anyone single moment. I think the kind of the election

5:24 is a big part

5:25 of it, not to not to make it political, but just being able to get in a

5:29 leadership that viewed it

5:30 with clarity and set the conditions to make this change happen. Yeah. So you've

5:35 been busy. You,

5:37 you know, you've joined the army. You've written a book that's coming out. I'd

5:42 love to get into

5:43 to mobilize. But first, why did you decide now's the time to sort of write the

5:47 right,

5:48 the canonical book of what needs to happen in America? And then maybe we can

5:51 talk about sort

5:52 of the sort of fundamental thesis to you. But why now? Why write a book, join

5:56 the army and also

5:57 be leading Palantir? Yeah. Well, there's a there's a code you kind of thread

6:02 through that,

6:03 which is like, how do we mobilize to prevent a bigger conflict? And if you're

6:07 really paying

6:08 attention, it's hard not to think that we're kind of in the late thirties here,

6:11 that things

6:12 are brewing. They've been brewing for a while. People talk about great power

6:17 competition.

6:18 And I think we're kind of coming out of the malaise of having won the Cold War,

6:22 or the Soviets having lost it, perhaps more accurately. And that kind of led to

6:26 a lot of

6:27 bad behaviors that allowed us to believe a lot of lies about the future that we

6:31 're kind of now

6:32 marking to market. And so we will not have the luxury that we really had in

6:41 World War II of

6:42 letting the adversary attack us first and then deciding to mobilize. And I

6:46 think a more

6:47 clear-eyed view of what actually happened in World War II is that's not it. It

6:51 's not this

6:51 facile thing that we just flipped a switch. And the automotive industry decided

6:54 , okay,

6:55 after Pearl Harbor, we're going to make all this war material. What really

6:58 happened is that

6:59 leadership from FDR realized in the thirties, in the late thirties, that we

7:03 needed to mobilize,

7:04 but there was not yet a national will or popular mandate to do so. And Len Le

7:09 ase provided the

7:10 mechanism to do that. It took us 18 months to build factories and re-tool them,

7:14 and we were able to

7:15 create capability deterrents that we sold to the Brits and to the Soviets, such

7:21 that

7:21 when World War II really kicked off for us, when Pearl Harbor happened, we were

7:24 at full rate production.

7:26 And the way that we mobilize, when a country goes towards the whole country

7:29 that goes to war,

7:29 it's not enough. I think part of the legacy of having won the Cold War is

7:32 thinking it's enough

7:34 to just have a defense industrial base. It's enough to just have the Department

7:37 of War fight

7:38 these wars. It is actually the whole country. And I think that's the most stark

7:42 thing. It's like

7:43 we all, as American citizens, need to be invested in both the prosperity the

7:47 country gives us,

7:48 but also the freedom that underwrites that prosperity. And we have come a very

7:52 far away

7:52 from that world. In 1989, only 6% of spending on major weapon systems went to

7:58 defense specialists,

7:59 i.e. companies that were exclusively in the business of defense. That's not

8:02 that long ago.

8:02 That's when the Berlin Wall still stood. Now that number is 86%. So really,

8:08 what we think of as

8:09 normal is an aberration from the past. And Mobilize seeks to set that story in

8:13 context of one,

8:14 hey, this is the industrial base, what I like to call the American industrial

8:18 base,

8:18 that won World War II. Chrysler built Minuteman missiles and minivans. And

8:23 every camera, car,

8:25 cereal box that an American consumer bought was actually also subsidizing our

8:29 national security.

8:30 And that's really important. We see this with the hyperscalers. We see this

8:32 with technology.

8:33 The amount that our private sector spends on R&D dwarfs what the government is

8:37 capable of spending.

8:38 And you want to get on that price performance curve as a way of delivering

8:41 capabilities to

8:42 our brave men and women in uniform. Yeah.

8:45 So how do we get back to that? And oh, so the second part of it. Yeah, so we

8:53 had the American

8:54 industrial base. But who was the American industrial base? Today we think of it

8:58 as North

8:59 of Grumman. We think of it as Lockheed Martin. But actually it was Glenn Martin

9:03 . It was Jack

9:03 Northrop. It was Leroy Grumman. They were people. They were founders. They were

9:08 kind of not thinking

9:10 about, hey, what's the performance going to be next quarter? They were building

9:13 something way

9:14 bigger than themselves, way bigger than their companies. And those founders

9:17 weren't just outside

9:18 of government. They were inside of government. It was the Heimann Rickovers

9:21 that against the will

9:22 of the Navy, building the nuclear Navy. And I love that story, too, because it

9:26 takes a lot of

9:26 Hutspa Oppenheimer. The father of the bomb said the nuclear Navy wasn't going

9:30 to work. He told

9:31 Oppenheimer, he told Heimann, he was going to fail. And he still proceeded. And

9:36 that's something I

9:37 think in the Valley we recognize as the classic founder personality. And a big

9:41 part of what happened

9:43 after the end of the Cold War, we wanted a peace dividend. We started spending

9:49 less in defense.

9:50 We had this famous dinner, the Last Supper. We went from 51 prime contractors

9:53 down to five.

9:54 I think the conventional explanation of what happened is wrong. People think,

9:59 hey, we had

10:00 consolidation. Consolidation means we lost competition. That's not, yeah, okay,

10:06 maybe at the margin.

10:06 But first of all, it's always been a monopsony. The nature of the competition

10:10 is not what people

10:11 think. It's not these companies competing against each other. The competition

10:14 has always been the

10:15 services competing. It's been competition inside of government that drove

10:18 innovation,

10:19 not competition from industry. What really happened from the Last Supper is

10:23 that consolidation

10:24 bred conformity. It was the beginning of true financialization of defense.

10:27 These companies

10:28 really could no longer think about growth. They thought about financial medics,

10:32 dividends, buybacks,

10:33 cash flow. And it kind of became very narrow. And that conformity is not an

10:39 environment that

10:40 founders can thrive in. The heretics were expunged. They left. They went to

10:45 other parts of the American

10:46 economy, like tech. But those heretics are required. In fact, if you look at

10:51 part of the book, we

10:52 catalog all these amazing defense innovations, almost to a T. Every single one

10:57 of them was a

10:58 heretical idea. The institution was against it. The bureaucracy was against.

11:02 The process tried to

11:03 kill it. And these determinative outcomes, you can think about the Higgins boat

11:06 , the boat that won

11:07 World War II. The Navy didn't want to buy the boat. The Navy tried to steal the

11:10 designs for the boat.

11:11 In the end, 92% of all boats in World War II were Higgins boats. Think about

11:15 where we'd be if this

11:16 Scott's Irishman wasn't just willing to just almost pathologically commit

11:21 himself to making

11:22 this happen. The boys that would not have landed at Normandy. Yeah. No, I mean,

11:26 and that's super

11:26 interesting. Yeah, because I think that as you said, it's always been, you know

11:30 , this sort of force

11:31 consolidation that we've picked the winners there, you know, we're post history

11:36 now, like we don't

11:37 actually need to build for for wartime. So it's your view that that really that

11:41 just expunged

11:43 all of the talent that used to go to defense. And it's interesting because it's

11:45 also I mean,

11:46 it's in some ways it's sort of serendipitous that that's exactly when the

11:49 internet's rising.

11:50 So it's like, if you're this kind of weird personality, you're going to go work

11:54 on this new thing

11:55 that's so exciting. You know, I think of like, you know, Mark Andreessen, right

11:58 ? Like he could have

11:59 been in the defense industry maybe 20 years earlier, but it's like, you know,

12:03 the people who were

12:03 building the internet in the 90s, they wanted to build the new thing. So I

12:07 guess like, is that

12:09 sort of the fundamental problem? Is that like, it just became a place where

12:12 anyone who was

12:13 interesting or anyone who had a different view just could not thrive? Yeah,

12:18 exactly. And then

12:19 we compounded on that problem by, you know, the nature of the monopsony. So

12:24 unlike a monopoly where

12:25 you have one sellover thing, a monopsony is where you have one buyer thing.

12:28 That the Department of

12:29 War is a monopsony. The nature of the monopsony is it forgets, it starts

12:35 imposing all sorts of

12:37 constraints on its suppliers and how they behave and what they need to look

12:40 like. And that led to,

12:42 it's like put it, we put all of these companies on the Galapagos islands. They

12:45 're not on the main

12:46 land anymore. And so what do you get on the Galapagos? You get these exquisite

12:49 giant tortoises.

12:50 They're really amazing. It's like alien life. It's very cool. Except when you

12:55 take the tortoise

12:55 back to the mainland, they're not competitive. They're going to get eaten alive

12:58 by the wolves.

12:59 And so we started creating a huge number of barriers for these people who even

13:04 when they

13:05 had ideas that could those ideas come back into defense. I like to say, like

13:10 when we started

13:11 Palantir, there was no front door in the Department of Defense. You had to, the

13:15 only front door,

13:16 there was exactly one. It was in the intelligence community. It was Inchitel.

13:19 If you were an outsider,

13:20 there was no other way. And the only people that worked here were insiders. Of

13:24 course,

13:25 now that is, that's part of the sea change that happened starting really in

13:28 2015. But that means

13:30 putting forth the 18 theses and the defense reformation and 24 makes a lot of

13:35 sense because

13:35 we have 10 years of heretics who have been knocking at the gate ready to come

13:39 help the department.

13:40 Yeah. And so much of the book, I mean, you talk about these sort of heretical

13:43 heroes,

13:44 you know, and doing the research. And I mean, you're now sort of like the

13:47 walking encyclopedia for

13:48 the defense industry in tech. Who are the most exciting heroes? Like who's the

13:53 person you look

13:53 at and you say like, gosh, that that is, that is the person that people don't

13:56 know about they

13:57 need to know? Well, I think it's hard to pick only one that a new profile that

14:02 we put out there,

14:03 which is some of these figures are historical figures, monarchs, Shriver,

14:06 Edward Hall,

14:07 Hyman, Rick over, James Boyd, John Boyd, sorry, but the one that's new is

14:11 Colonel Drew Cucor.

14:13 And Cucor is the father of Maven. And here you have this marine colonel, you

14:20 know, born

14:21 raised by a single mother of Southern California, very modest background, his

14:26 only way of going

14:27 to college was ROTC joined the Marines. Lots of incredible experiences there,

14:32 but he had a

14:34 seminal experience where he was trying to evacuate Izzadi refugees who were

14:39 fleeing ISIS and a young

14:42 Marine looking at ISR made a call that he thought he saw RPGs. And that would

14:47 have made it unsafe

14:48 for the Marines to land and exfil these people. And there actually wasn't one.

14:53 As a consequence,

14:54 you have order of thousands of people who were tortured and slaved and raped

14:59 because of this

14:59 failure of operation. And it just changed this man. And so when he had an

15:04 opportunity in the

15:06 basement of the Pentagon on a project with no resources to go after bringing AI

15:10 to the department,

15:11 he leaned all the way in. And you can see the journey of the heretic here where

15:16 everyone hated

15:18 him. Everyone tried to kill him. Every service thought they were doing AI.

15:21 People tried to throw

15:22 IG investigations. And it's like one of the details we document is that someone

15:26 said that

15:26 Colonel Cucor is housing Iranians in his basement. So they actually sent out

15:32 criminal investigators

15:34 to his house to look at this. And here's a Mormon devout Mormon for four

15:38 daughters,

15:40 1400 square foot home that doesn't have a basement, by the way. And you know,

15:44 the investigators were

15:45 just completely dumbfounded, but it shows you sometimes that what, you know,

15:49 are you, are you

15:50 willing to put it all on the line? Are you so committed, so incorruptible in

15:53 what you're trying to

15:54 deliver? Or is this just a career? And that's one of the things I think I draw

15:58 a lot of inspiration

15:59 from these folks is just seeing, you know, if they can do this, we can too,

16:03 seeing that these

16:04 people exist inside of government, they exist outside of government. And I

16:08 think it's that's

16:09 in the moment right now, you could say, we need to build more weapons. We need

16:12 to do this. We need

16:13 yes. But most of the most important thing we need to do is inspire the latent

16:17 heretics

16:18 to actually step up. This is the moment your country really needs you. What's

16:22 been exciting

16:23 over the last year or so is I'm seeing those people. I'm seeing them inside the

16:26 building. I'm

16:26 seeing outside the building. And that's that is, you know, what is driving the

16:29 change is the

16:30 leadership is setting the conditions to empower the heretics. They're

16:33 protecting them. John Boyd,

16:35 who was a famously difficult fighter pilot, his own service, the Air Force

16:38 hated him,

16:39 but the Marines learned everything they could from him. And all of his heresy,

16:42 he was really the

16:43 father of the F-16. All of his heresy was proven correct in Gulf War I, where

16:47 we destroyed the

16:48 fourth largest army in the world in days. It's just everything came to bear his

16:51 high-low mix,

16:52 his oodle-loop. But, you know, John Boyd said to be or to do, you can be

16:59 somebody or you can do

17:00 something. But you can't have both. And, you know, how committed are you to

17:04 this? But he was so difficult.

17:06 He gets a lot of credit. I think the other person who gives credit, who I don't

17:10 even know the name

17:11 of, is a three-star Air Force general who protected him because people like

17:15 that do not survive in

17:16 these bureaucracies on their own. It's not like, hey, he's difficult and we

17:18 somehow tolerated him.

17:20 It's no. Someone realized there's something special here. And despite that, we

17:24 tolerate him.

17:24 You see that with the dynamic between Bernard Shriver, who built our inter

17:29 continental ballistic

17:30 missiles at Edward Hall, who specifically built the Minuteman. Shriever fired

17:35 Hall once and then

17:37 hired him back, realizing there was no way we were going to get to solid-fueled

17:40 intercontinental

17:41 ballistic missiles without this notoriously difficult human. And I think that's

17:47 great leadership.

17:48 Yeah. Yeah. And you just said something interesting, which is that it really

17:52 takes

17:52 leaders inside the building to model the change, to encourage it, to protect

17:58 the people who are

17:59 those heretics. And you've joined the Army. And it's a program from General

18:04 George and Secretary

18:05 Driscoll. Maybe tell us a little bit about the origin of that and then what you

18:09 're doing specifically

18:10 inside the Army now to support that change. Well, the origin story of this is

18:17 really,

18:17 so I've worked with the Israelis in some capacities since roughly 2014.

18:22 This is a very technical country. And they're proud of how technical they are.

18:28 After October 7th, you know, October 8th, they mobilized roughly 360,000 reserv

18:32 ists.

18:33 By definition, all these reservists are prior service through national cons

18:37 cription.

18:38 And most of them had now had 20 years of experience in industry.

18:42 And when they got back to the IDF, they were horrified at the state of

18:46 technology in the IDF,

18:47 which is actually an implicit self-critique, which is, hey, when I was 20, I

18:51 was really good at coding,

18:53 but I didn't know what I was doing. Now I have 20 years of experience building

18:57 internet-scaled

18:58 things. And I actually know how to do these things correctly. So I saw them

19:03 modernize more

19:03 in the four months after October 7th than I did in the prior 10 years of

19:07 working with them.

19:08 And that was just I couldn't, I couldn't unsee that. So of all countries in the

19:14 world,

19:14 we are drowning with that talent. You know, the skills we have at building

19:18 things

19:18 in the valley, the companies that A16Z backs, like we know how to do this as a

19:23 nation.

19:24 The 20-year-old version of our green suitors maybe did it. You know, there's

19:29 the will,

19:30 there's the intelligence, the capability, but there's also then the trade craft

19:33 and know

19:33 how the experience, all the dead ends that I've run into in my career. The

19:36 mistakes I've made,

19:37 if you're going to make mistakes, please make new ones. Don't make the same

19:40 ones I already

19:40 have done. How can you stand on the shoulders of American industry to go faster

19:44 and do this?

19:45 And so I'm not sure I really had a lot to give the army at 24, but I think at

19:50 44,

19:51 there's a lot I can do to accelerate certain things. And that's not just a

19:55 narrow statement

19:55 about me. I think that's a whole statement about the valley. This whole

19:57 statement about

19:58 American manufacturing, everyone in El Segundo, how do we make sure if the

20:03 Chinese make civil

20:05 military fusion compulsory, why do we make voluntary civil military fusion

20:09 impossible?

20:10 And when I look back at history, we didn't use to make it impossible. In World

20:14 War II, we

20:14 direct commissioned 100,000 people that look like what we now consider a

20:18 detachment 201

20:19 into the military. And we should be doing that again. The authorities exist.

20:23 They're just laying

20:24 their dormant and we're basically underutilized. So I was proud to join the

20:29 army with three other

20:30 colleagues. We have Bob McGrew, former chief research officer at OpenAI, Boz,

20:35 the CTO of Meta,

20:37 and Andrew Wheel, the former chief product officer of OpenAI, head of science

20:40 now.

20:41 And I think we've been able to work on different projects that really, we act

20:45 as senior advisors

20:46 to army senior leaders. And there's different projects that we kind of get our

20:49 hands dirty and

20:50 and help. But I think it's been a really, I've learned a lot by doing it.

20:54 Hopefully the army's

20:54 benefiting from it. But I think more broadly, we would like to catalyze this

20:58 across all of the

20:58 services and a broader call for folks who are listening to this now in industry

21:03 .

21:03 What's been the biggest surprise? I mean, you've obviously worked with the

21:06 department for years,

21:08 but being on the inside now, what surprised you?

21:11 In my, so my focus is really two things. I'm helping them think through

21:17 how to plan for structure over long periods of time. So how do I generate the

21:22 force I want for

21:23 all the different military occupation specialties? So that's been one. But the

21:27 second part of it is

21:27 thinking through how do we want to employ software as almost like a malleable

21:33 weapon system as

21:34 something that our commanders can wield to drive advancement? And they call

21:38 these the operational

21:39 data teams. What's been hugely impressive to me is the quality of talent in our

21:45 green suitors.

21:46 People who are not formally trained computer scientists, people who have just

21:49 learned these

21:50 things, the most compelling AI applications I'm seeing across commercial or,

21:55 you know, so private

21:56 sector or public sector are being built by these green suitors. And it's, and I

22:01 think there's

22:01 something about the existential stakes. You know, you're not doing this for fun

22:04 . You're not doing

22:04 this for 10% efficiency. It's a binary outcome when you're lose. The other

22:08 thing about this

22:09 moment that I think is really interesting with AI is it's massively empowering

22:12 to people with

22:13 specific skills. So, you know, it is the Intel Warren officer who really knows

22:17 their domain.

22:18 And I was wondering, you know, as someone who's been doing this for 20 years,

22:21 like, where was this

22:22 person 10 years ago? And the conclusion I came to is they were always there 10

22:27 years ago. What would

22:27 they have done though with their idea? Make a PowerPoint slide, brief some

22:31 program bureaucrat,

22:32 who would tell them how bad their idea is? No, because they're smarter than

22:35 that. They wouldn't

22:35 have wasted their time. Now they spend two weeks, they build it themselves. Now

22:39 they're having an

22:40 empirical conversation about how what they've built actually drives the army

22:44 forward. And everyone

22:45 is quick to adopt it because everyone wants to win. So it's been really

22:48 exciting to see that.

22:51 The other part of it, I think, is big institutions. It's conserved across

22:57 private sectors well,

22:58 struggle with zero to one. Everyone wants to get, you know, everyone wants, if

23:03 you have some sort

23:03 of innovation, they almost want to rush to get to N as quickly as possible. How

23:08 do I scale this

23:08 across the formation? Well, the army is a very big place. And thinking very

23:12 critically about the

23:13 pathing of what is the journey and cycle of getting an innovative idea to scale

23:18 . That's literally what

23:20 we do as an industry all day long, right? And how do they take and vibe those

23:24 lessons

23:25 rather than cargo culting their way there, which is frankly what I think the

23:28 private sector,

23:29 you know, large fortune 100s do as well. So they have more to learn from

23:33 startups in this capacity

23:34 than they do from, you know, big fortune 100 companies. Totally. And that's so

23:39 interesting too,

23:39 about just, you know, that is something I hear time and time again, like the

23:43 level of technical

23:44 ability of someone very junior in the army or the navy today. It's like they

23:48 came up tinkering,

23:50 and yes, as you said, like now the tools are there, they can just build

23:52 something where it's

23:53 and you're not only learning from startups, you're literally learning from

23:55 individuals who are

23:56 enlisted, who have a great idea, which is it's it does feel like, as you said,

24:00 like this is a

24:01 revolutionary time for the military where they can actually learn from their,

24:04 you know, junior

24:05 people who have a great idea and that can be deployed very quickly. Which plays

24:10 to the American

24:11 military strengths of bottoms up innovation, mission command type control. It's

24:15 really something

24:17 that our military can uniquely do than no one else can. Let's get into the SaaS

24:21 apocalypse.

24:22 You know, there's a line of thinking that says, hey, now that the switching

24:26 costs are,

24:26 now that AI is here, the switching costs are very low, you know, there's no

24:30 code moat,

24:31 there's there's no data moat, there's no UI moat, and there's a set of SaaS

24:34 companies that are

24:35 on the conveyor belt on the way to the guilty. And you know, maybe it's monday.

24:39 com first,

24:39 and maybe it's Atlassian, and you know, companies that aren't systems record,

24:43 and then maybe it's

24:44 coming for them to know that people say, hey, you're not going to vibe code,

24:48 you know, Atlassian,

24:49 you're not going to vibe code, these, these, you know, incredible products with

24:51 all these

24:52 integrations and all these, you know, distribution, et cetera, would say you

24:56 and the SaaS apocalypse,

24:56 how do you make sense of it? I think both things are true. So I have a, I would

25:01 give you a different

25:01 rubric to think about it, which is what software is really fundamentally about

25:07 beta, and what software

25:08 is about alpha. And I think that the software that's about beta is going to

25:12 really struggle that,

25:13 you know, this is, this is software that made you more similar to everyone else

25:16 . And this has been

25:17 my historical critique of the software industrial complex, which is that the

25:21 feedback loop for the

25:22 people building the software is, can I sell it? Not did it, did it add value,

25:26 which is downstream of

25:28 can you sell it? And, and so the, you can think of almost like vibe coding, the

25:33 , the advent of AI,

25:35 it allows you to make software that's specific to you. It's inherently alpha

25:38 focused,

25:40 if you do it right. But I, so I think that the platforms that are already

25:44 focused on alpha are

25:45 going to continue to have an advantage. It's like actually going to be a win

25:49 that fills their

25:50 sale up on the other side that the stuff that's all beta is really going to

25:55 struggle. And you can

25:56 almost argue like maybe the beta wasn't that valuable to begin with. But one of

25:59 the jarring

26:00 moments for me was in COVID, if you really look back at what were CEOs talking

26:05 about in their earnings

26:06 calls about software, they, no one talked about the $5 billion ERP

26:11 implementation they did that

26:13 saved their supply chain because all of them fell over like paper tigers in two

26:16 weeks.

26:16 And what they were talking about was zoom and teams and how that enabled them

26:21 to go remote.

26:22 And you cannot think of like that's crazy. That is, that should have been a

26:26 sputnik moment for the software industry to say, wow, we haven't built shit

26:30 that's valuable.

26:32 How depressing. And on the flip side for us, at least COVID was a huge tailwind

26:39 because it's

26:40 specifically because we were able to help our customers adapt to this reality

26:44 at the speed

26:45 of the disruption. I think it kind of separated the wheat from the chaff. And I

26:49 think we'll kind of

26:50 see that, you know, maybe there's a lot of things we've been spending on almost

26:53 mimetically like,

26:53 well, other people use it for this. This is a standard industry solution for X.

26:58 Those things

26:58 are going to feel a lot of pressure. And on the on the flip side, they're going

27:02 to be software.

27:03 It's almost almost like a toolkit and approach that allows you to express how

27:07 you're more

27:08 different than other companies. It's almost become software that allows you to

27:11 express your

27:11 competitive advantage. Your strategy is going to be a premium on the day to

27:16 stuff like vibe

27:17 coding. You can't do it. I think that's actually true. Like, I think it's

27:19 actually true that day

27:20 to is much harder, a lot of it's unsolved, and you're gonna have to figure that

27:24 out. But I don't

27:25 think that's going to preclude the pressure on the beta on the beta software.

27:28 Yeah. In terms of a crewing value, right now it seems like the hardware layer

27:36 has the highest

27:37 margins, whereas in the internet economy, the applications had the highest

27:41 margins. I'm curious

27:42 if you think, and I will be like the internet where sort of the entities that

27:47 control the

27:48 and user relationships crew the most value, or if you think it'll be more like

27:52 the cloud

27:53 where the infrastructure layer occurs the most value or has the highest margins

27:58 . How do you

27:59 think about how to play out? If you thought about the stack as chips, models,

28:05 AI infrastructure,

28:07 AI applications, what I see happening empirically is the models are being

28:12 commoditized and always

28:14 under pressure. The model companies are expanding up. Sometimes they almost

28:18 call it in a diminutive

28:19 way a harness, but it's actually they're building software around it that is AI

28:23 infrastructure

28:23 to do something like code. And then the people who started as narrow vertical

28:30 AI solutions are

28:31 kind of earning their way down this stack to realize like, oh, I need this

28:34 actual AI infrastructure

28:35 to be able to scale to my customer base and handle more use cases. So our

28:39 theory has always

28:40 been the value is going to accrue in two places at the chips layer and at the

28:43 AI infrastructure

28:44 layer, what we would call ontology. But those two layers, I think, are going to

28:48 be pretty defensible.

28:49 There's this funny chart in the economist the other day about what's going to

28:53 happen to the

28:53 economy. And it gives three three predicts either everything goes to the, you

28:58 know, goes vertical,

28:59 AGI, either, you know, we're all dead or, you know, we're all economically dead

29:05 , everything

29:06 collapses, or, you know, 2% growth. And so, you know, the economist is is has

29:13 hedging just like many

29:14 others. I'm curious how you what's your sort of mental model for what AI is

29:19 going to do to the

29:19 economy in terms of, you know, the productivity stats and GDP growth, but then

29:24 also the the job

29:26 market. And I mean, AI as it achieves its goals over the medium term. And we

29:30 sort of, you know,

29:32 start to reach the potential that people have been talking about, you know,

29:34 people say AI 2027,

29:36 it's even if it's 2030. How do you think it's going to impact the economy?

29:39 I have a lot of thoughts here. So hopefully we'll hit them all and I won't

29:41 forget them as we go

29:42 through this. So the first bit is what always irks me about how we talk about

29:46 AI is as if somehow

29:48 we have no human agency. AI is going to do X. No, that's not right. Humans are

29:53 going to use AI

29:54 to do X. There's a choice here. Do we want to invest in AI slop and essentially

29:59 AI slot to borrow

30:00 an expression from from John Colson, Patrick Colson? No, I think that these

30:05 things are,

30:06 I don't want to invest in that at least. So what is our normative view of why

30:10 AI is valuable?

30:11 How does it result in American prosperity? How does it make our society better,

30:16 not worse,

30:17 and restoring the fact that we have agency and therefore an obligation to steer

30:22 this

30:22 in a specific way? So that's the first part of it. Then if, okay, if we have

30:27 agency,

30:27 what is that? You know, my view of this is we have a historic opportunity to

30:32 fix the fundamental

30:34 breakdown that happened in the 70s between wage growth and GDP growth. That

30:39 this should

30:40 be if we look at just the example we have about the Intel Warren officer who's

30:44 suddenly able to do

30:45 so much. Well, I see that playing out on the ICU floor. I see that playing out

30:48 on the factory floor.

30:49 There is an opportunity to give the American worker superpowers with AI. It's

30:53 David Slingshot

30:54 in a world where the Chinese Goliath has been this giant sucking sound of

30:58 American prosperity.

30:59 If we do that, it's a basis for underwriting the re-industrialization of the

31:05 country.

31:06 And that we're not going to do this symmetrically. That's why it's a slingshot.

31:10 It's not like

31:10 hey, this is how they do it there. We're going to do this here. It's actually

31:13 we're going to do

31:13 this in entirely new ways like Hadrian is a perfect example of that, right? We

31:17 are re-industrializing

31:19 using technology, making these people 50 100 times more productive than it

31:23 could be otherwise,

31:25 and it's going to lead to all sorts of new possibilities in particular because

31:29 I think the great

31:30 lie of globalization is that we can do the innovation over here and we're going

31:34 to have the

31:34 production go over there. But guess what? Innovation is a consequence of

31:38 productivity. If you don't

31:39 make the thing, you can't innovate on how you make the thing and what the thing

31:43 is. You see that

31:44 with SpaceX, there's a reason the R&D engineers are co-located on the

31:47 production floor. What is the

31:48 feedback loop and cycle time they expect to come out of that? And you see that

31:51 in the negative where

31:53 we used to think who she was just some cheap set of pipetting arms for contract

31:57 pharmaceutical

31:58 research and now 50% of all clinical trials are being done in China. And so I

32:02 think we should

32:03 view this as a national emergency and a national opportunity around AI. And

32:08 what concerns me

32:09 a bit, these technology revolutions are usually by the vast vast majority are

32:17 tool revolutions, not concept revolutions. It was not Galileo who invented the

32:22 telescope.

32:23 He used it to discover planetary motion. It was the future of these

32:27 technologies,

32:28 the microscope, the power loom, the telescope, the personal computer. They are

32:32 determined

32:33 not by the inventor of the technology, but by the people who wield the

32:36 technology. Today,

32:38 when we listen to the AI doomerism, we're listening to the inventors who are

32:41 incredibly smart,

32:42 but just like their creations, they have their own jagged intelligence. Just

32:46 because

32:46 they were smart at building the model doesn't mean they're going to be right

32:49 about the implications

32:50 of it. And then we are implicitly giving up our own human agency and how to

32:55 steer it. It is us

32:57 as the wielders of it that are going to determine the future course of this

33:00 technology. And I see,

33:01 you know, maybe the most authentic thing about that economist graph is those

33:05 range of outcomes

33:06 are exactly what's possible. And it's up to us to pick which one we want to be

33:10 on. It's a choice

33:12 we're making. It's not something that's being done to us. Yeah. No, you just

33:15 said something so

33:16 interesting that I think is is underexplored, which is the co-location of R&D

33:21 and production,

33:22 which is something we very much understood that was sort of, you know, that's

33:25 the as the Henry Ford

33:27 style, right? Like that's how we used to build things in the physical world.

33:30 And then, of course,

33:31 globalization led to this sort of separation of them. And even you still see it

33:34 in companies,

33:35 right? It's like the engineering team in many companies is not the same as the

33:38 production

33:39 team. You can be a production company or an engineering company. We see this a

33:42 lot in our

33:42 American dynamism portfolio. What was the impetus for sort of that

33:47 philosophical division?

33:49 You know, I think a lot of people point to policy changes in the 90s. But what

33:53 was like the real

33:54 impetus from your research that sort of led to this sort of divorce between

33:58 production

33:58 and engineering? And how are you seeing it come back together again in

34:01 companies today?

34:03 Europe has created exactly zero companies from scratch in the last 50 years

34:07 worth more than 100

34:08 billion euro. We have created all of our trillion dollar companies from scratch

34:12 in America in the

34:13 last 50 years. The difference is founders. You know, you have really good

34:18 companies over there,

34:19 but they're like 300 years old, 100 years old, whatever it is. We kind of had

34:26 the

34:26 Europeanization of our mega cap companies until recently, you know, Intel at

34:32 some point. There

34:33 was this fork in the road where they could they could have promoted their CFO

34:37 to be the CEO or

34:39 Pat Galstinger as CTO. Back then this is before he came back later to be CEO.

34:45 Who did they pick?

34:45 They picked the CFO, the person that Wall Street would understand. Not the

34:50 person who could actually

34:51 determine the future. And by the way, it really looked like it was working for

34:54 10 years until it

34:55 fell off a cliff. But that was all financial engineering, not real engineering.

34:58 You know, when was the the last Boeing CEO to be an engineer? I think was 2004.

35:04 You know, there was a way there. So you think about there's a period of time in

35:07 our economy

35:07 where we understood that the engineering was leaving these things. Elon says

35:10 the pathway to

35:11 the CEO is through the CTO, which sounds like a crazy, heretical statement

35:15 because like certainly

35:16 from my generation, the way we grew up, that's not true. That's not how that's

35:20 not what we were

35:20 taught. Now I'm not saying that because I'm the CTO here. Don't read anything

35:25 into that. It just

35:26 means that like, if you want to infer that you're breaking news today, Cindy

35:30 Grove, who was the

35:33 president of Intel, used to start his annual sales and marketing kickoff

35:36 meeting by reminding

35:38 all the salespeople, just remember, it's the engineers who create all the value

35:41 . You guys just

35:42 move it around. You know, it doesn't mean the salespeople aren't important or

35:46 aren't necessary,

35:47 but there is kind of a sequencing here. And I think we kind of got very

35:50 confused about that,

35:51 that we became very good at financial engineering and forgot about engineering.

35:54 One thing one of our portfolio CEO said is that maybe salespeople are the least

36:00 AIable in terms of being able to be automated or replace them. I'm curious how

36:05 you think about

36:06 sort of the jobs at tech companies, you know, leverage with AI, how you're

36:12 using in your own

36:12 income, you know, in penalty or how do you think about that? Yeah. So one part

36:18 I was going to say

36:19 from earlier that I think is relevant to this is, you know, Pascal said every

36:24 human has a God-shaped

36:26 hole in their heart. And part of the potential pathology from the labs is that

36:31 they have filled

36:32 that hole with AGI. And so there are things that they assert as empirical that

36:37 are actually

36:37 articles of faith. They may be true. They may not be true. I don't know, but

36:41 they get confused

36:42 between what's an article of faith and what is actually an empirical reality.

36:45 And so if you view this through a very pragmatic clear-eyed view, say the sales

36:49 people,

36:50 I'm not sure why the goal is replacing people to begin with. Like, isn't the

36:53 goal to win?

36:54 Isn't the goal to be dominant in your industry? You want to be better. And so

37:00 maybe being better

37:01 is about a mixed mammal AI teaming. It's, you know, how do I build the Ironman

37:05 suit for the sales

37:06 people I do have? How do I make the best salespeople more productive and system

37:09 atize? What is it that

37:10 makes them good for everyone else? Like, there's all sorts of other ways of

37:14 thinking about the

37:14 problem if your goal is winning. But if your goal is AGI, it's the aesthetic of

37:19 the fact that you

37:20 couldn't replace the person with this model is offensive. And you're just going

37:24 to, you know,

37:25 you're just going to keep driving at that. And I think it could be a

37:28 distraction. This is one

37:30 way in which I think the Chinese do have a little bit of an advantage, which is

37:32 , first of all,

37:34 just to be clear, I'd bet on us 100 times out of 100. But they have a pragmatic

37:39 approach like

37:40 the whole point of AGI is to win. It's not AGI. How do I improve my productive

37:47 forces, as they would

37:48 call it? Now, I think that the good news is if you look at the people who wield

37:52 the technology in

37:53 America, that's what they're focused on. You know, the CEOs I deal with, none

37:57 of them have asked me,

37:59 "Hey, I want to fire a bunch of people." Or, "How do I get rid of these people

38:02 ?" Maybe because we're

38:03 too expensive for that sort of bullshit use case. But they come to me and say,

38:06 "I want to dominate

38:07 my industry. I want to destroy my competition." Okay, great. So the ambition is

38:12 there. And maybe

38:13 you get more efficient by doing it. But actually, the whole point is to grow

38:16 massively. So that

38:18 ambition sets the frame of how you're going to apply the technology and what

38:20 sort of solutions

38:22 you find valuable. Speaking of China, how do we win the AI race, particularly

38:28 as it moves towards

38:29 more physical AI and robotics, et cetera? What are the things to make sure we

38:33 get right or the

38:34 things we need to we need to fix? I think our biggest risk as a country is

38:38 suicide, not homicide.

38:40 You know, I have anyone who knows me knows I'm a big China hawk. And I think

38:44 part of the challenge

38:45 with China is it's not enough for the CCP to prosper. America must also fall.

38:50 Like, look, if you want

38:51 to buy our soybeans or not, I don't begrudge you. That's a business decision.

38:54 That's free trade.

38:55 Great. But when you're trying to smuggle in agricultural funguses so that we

38:58 can't grow

38:58 soybeans, that's a different ball game altogether. And that that offends my

39:01 kind of

39:02 American Calvinist sensibilities of fair play. But so all that said, that would

39:07 make it seem

39:08 like I care a lot about homicide. But I think our problem is actually one of

39:11 national will and

39:12 focus. And like, are we actually addressing the problems that we face here? Are

39:16 we encouraging

39:17 the agency and our people to believe the world can be better? You know, this

39:21 manifests in a sense

39:22 of just kind of like nihilism and polarization that we forget what makes us,

39:26 what unites us,

39:28 and we focus on what divides us. And there's this kind of sense like, hey,

39:32 nothing really works and

39:34 doesn't really matter. So let's just burn it all down. And a big part of like

39:39 how I think of what

39:40 Pounder does in the world is it is about the legitimacy of our institutions,

39:45 like whether it's

39:46 doors falling off planes or basic government services working, these

39:48 institutions should all

39:50 work excellently. In the absence of them working, it breeds this nihilism. And

39:55 then you get the wrong

39:57 reaction to it. So that's what that's what I think we should focus on

39:59 addressing. So now,

40:01 to physical AI, the point of having an ambition, like let's re-industrialize,

40:04 let's be maximalist

40:06 about this, not some sort of half measure that's like a little bit of friend sh

40:08 oring here or there,

40:09 whatever. It's like, no, we invented all of these technologies. We invented

40:13 mass production. We

40:15 invented nuclear power thing after thing after thing. It's like the idea that

40:18 somehow the American

40:19 people are not capable of this thing. How is that beggar's belief? Right? So I

40:23 think it's actually

40:23 about will and motivation and leadership. Yeah. No, I think that that is such a

40:28 good segue into

40:30 what you're doing in terms of building culture. Because I think this is

40:33 something that

40:34 is overlooked. A lot of people think it's a technical problem or production

40:37 problem. And I

40:38 agree with you that I think it's a seriousness and a will problem. And you have

40:43 now been investing

40:44 in film, which is totally different than what you do at Palantier. So I would

40:48 love to understand,

40:50 you know, why did you start a film production company? And how do you think

40:54 that's ultimately

40:55 going to change the culture around having more will about doing these hard

40:58 things?

40:59 Well, it really starts with my own assimilation journey. I came to the U.S. as

41:04 a young child. I

41:05 settled in Orlando. And my assimilation journey, as a four-year-old, five-year-

41:10 old,

41:10 was watching movies with Dad on the couch. And what were the movies of the '80s

41:14 and '90s? It was

41:15 Hunt for Red October and Red Dawn and Rambo 2 and 3. And you know, I like to

41:21 say, as a five-year-old,

41:22 I knew what it felt like to be an American before I knew civics. That was way,

41:25 way down the line.

41:26 And I think a lot of people experience that again after a long period of time

41:31 when they

41:31 watched Top Gun Maverick. And so, you know, we sometimes over-intellectualize

41:35 these things,

41:36 like there's a feeling to it. Even subtle things like I heard from the guy who

41:40 made the movie 300,

41:42 that after 300 came out, Navy SEAL recruitment went through the roof. And he

41:46 was kind of perplexed.

41:48 Obviously, it's a movie about Spartans. What does this have to do with Navy

41:52 SEALs? But it

41:53 clearly inspired so many people to be like, "I want to look like that. I want

41:56 to be that strong.

41:56 I want to be that heroic." You know? And so, the virtue of entertainment as,

42:01 first of all,

42:01 it's got to be entertaining. It's not probed out here. But then it lets us

42:04 reflect on ourselves.

42:06 And who do we want to be and what do we want to be like? And if our

42:09 entertainment is all

42:11 Terminator, AI ruins the world, technology is a force of evil. It's all dystop

42:16 ic future scenarios.

42:17 That sets us sort of condition, which I would juxtapose to my youth in Orlando

42:21 growing up in

42:22 the shadow of the Space Coast, which was just like science and technology is

42:25 amazing. And we're

42:26 going to be living on other planets. And, you know, as a sixth grader, write a

42:29 report on how

42:30 we're going to get to Mars. And it just inculcates a fundamental belief that

42:34 the future will be better,

42:36 and that science, technology, the will to invest in these hard problems is

42:40 worth it.

42:40 It's worth it. And so, I think we have a moment to reclaim storytelling in a

42:45 way that's both

42:46 entertaining and inspiring. Yeah. No, I love that you point out that you grew

42:49 up in Orlando. It's funny.

42:51 I also grew up in Florida in the '80s and '90s. And it was like, you know,

42:55 people made fun of

42:56 Florida, right? Like, they didn't understand if there was anything good there.

42:58 But Orlando,

42:59 I mean, you say it's the shadow of the Space Coast. It's also Disney World,

43:02 right? It's the best

43:04 stories of a century. It's American culture. And so, I'd love to, I mean, were

43:10 you a Disney

43:10 kid? I mean, like, was that something that, like, also spoke to you of, like,

43:14 these stories of

43:15 good and evil that are passed down through cartoons? Absolutely.

43:17 How did that help you? So, also, I mean, there's a part of the story, which is

43:23 the business. Like,

43:24 why did we end up in Orlando? You know, after we fled violence in Nigeria, my

43:29 dad had a childhood

43:30 friend who was living in LA who sold knickknacks at theme parks. And he's like,

43:34 "Hey, look, I know

43:34 this horrible thing just happened to you. There's this up-and-coming place with

43:38 theme parks. I don't

43:38 live there. I need someone I trust there. Why don't you go to Orlando?"

43:42 So, literally, it's not just that, was I a Disney kid, my parents' job was to

43:48 provide knickknacks

43:49 in the theme park stores. So, like, after school, they would take me to Sea

43:53 World and I would pet

43:54 the stingrays while they restock the shelves. You know? And so, I grew up very

43:59 much in vibing

43:59 the storytelling, the aspect. I mean, Epcot. Epcot was all about painting an

44:04 optimistic vision

44:05 of the future and what technology was going to be like and the stories of

44:08 heroes and, you know,

44:09 that there was both, there was both evil and bad in the world and there were

44:13 clearly heroic

44:14 actions that you could take and it was all super inspiring.

44:17 And I mean, that's what's so interesting too is like, I feel like the height of

44:23 the sort of

44:24 good and evil battle inside of Disney film was sort of the Lion King 90s, right

44:29 ? Like, I mean,

44:29 they were different films then. How do we get back? I mean, maybe it's not back

44:33 , maybe it's

44:34 forward, but how do we get back to those stories for children, for people to

44:38 feel optimistic again?

44:40 I mean, you know, in some ways you don't hear, oh, I grew up in this city and

44:44 it's the height of

44:44 optimism. You don't hear that about California anymore. What will it take for

44:49 movies to transform

44:50 that? Well, you know, this is a kind of a personal opinion, but I'm really

44:55 excited that

44:56 David Ellison is going to have Warner Brothers because, you know, if you think

45:00 about Hollywood,

45:01 the original studio heads, they were founders. Like Jack Warner, in the 30s,

45:05 Germany was the

45:06 third largest export market for American entertainment and the Nazis actually

45:11 deployed sensors into

45:12 Hollywood to control what was being made and every studio capitulated except

45:17 for Warner Brothers.

45:18 Jack Warner was the only person willing to stand up and speak truth and only a

45:23 founder can do that

45:23 because if you're a professional CEO who's employed, you can't survive that.

45:29 And so I think in some ways there's a mirror to the present day Hollywood and

45:34 the

45:34 defense industrial base. It's conformity. It's kind of lack of opinion. It's

45:39 lack of a normative

45:39 view of what is it trying to communicate. Then if you go a little bit further

45:44 down the line,

45:44 you look at the Vietnam era, like we had very cynical Hollywood content in

45:50 Vietnam as a reflection

45:51 of how we felt about ourselves. In '73, George Lucas made American graffiti

45:56 because he was tired

45:57 of it. He's like, I'm tired of it. I just want to make a movie about boys

46:00 driving cars chasing girls.

46:01 And it was a palate cleanser that kind of like, yeah, the American people

46:05 remembered like,

46:06 okay, we went through our period, our cycle of grief and cynicism and we're

46:10 ready and it set

46:11 the conditions for the movies of the 80s and 90s that we all love. I think we

46:15 're also kind of tired

46:17 of it right now. We're tired of the cynicism that everything's going to be

46:21 worse. And you see

46:22 that in the performance of stories, Top Gun Mavericks, the easy one to point to

46:26 , but the content that's

46:28 doing well right now is American oriented. There are inspirational figures. The

46:33 heroes aren't anti-heroes

46:35 that are drug addicts that you wouldn't want your kids to grow up to be. There

46:37 's actually some sense

46:38 of inspiration in it and some pride in terms of who we are and how that

46:43 reflects in the entertainment

46:45 itself. So I think we're, if you think about the next two to 10 years, we're

46:50 going to see a lot

46:52 of content like that. That's what I see in the development pipeline from these

46:54 studios themselves.

46:55 That's exciting. So maybe talk to us about some of your projects or things you

46:59 're working on and

47:00 what you're most excited about. But then also, yeah, that's so interesting. We

47:02 've had these

47:03 conversations, Eric and I with Mark and others about how the pipeline for the

47:07 last 10 years has been

47:08 Dower. We're sort of getting the end of the pipeline. You're seeing it in sort

47:11 of the Oscar

47:12 nominees this year. It's like they're not optimistic. But as you said, like

47:16 maybe 10 years from now,

47:17 we're going to see this pipeline of just like pro America exciting, optimistic,

47:21 enthusiastic,

47:22 golden age sort of content. What are you seeing and what most excites you?

47:26 Well, you know, I don't want to give away too much of my own development

47:30 pipeline here.

47:31 But I would say like you see like Call of Duty is being made right now with by

47:36 Pete Berg

47:36 and Taylor Sheridan. You see the entire Taylor Sheridan universe. I mean, and

47:40 talk about

47:40 Sicario. It was like 2014. Sicario has basically came to life with the new the

47:46 Jalisco new generation

47:47 cartel, right? Like, like there's a sense in which the storytellers have

47:54 exactly the frame that were

47:56 that we're kind of excited about. I think there's recent events are very

47:59 interesting to tell stories

48:00 about right now. Even a movie like War Machine, which just came out from

48:06 watching the trailers,

48:08 it was not yet clear. You can imagine like five years ago that that the

48:12 storyline would have

48:12 been something more like the US government build evil robots that the human

48:16 soldiers had to defeat.

48:17 In this case, it was more like aliens basically sorry to give away the plot if

48:23 you haven't seen

48:23 it. But you know, you have an alien robot and brave Americans, rangers have to

48:27 defeat them and

48:28 do through their own ingenuity. That that itself is I think showing you it's it

48:32 's belies the shift

48:34 in the narrative and storytelling that's happening. I think world events remind

48:38 us that there are

48:38 actually there is actually evil out there. Russian tanks can just roll across

48:43 the border. You know,

48:45 October 7th, just horrendous barbarism is still possible that these things don

48:50 't maintain themselves.

48:51 So what would I like I think so putting this back in a geopolitical lens, you

48:59 know,

48:59 as much as I've been saying, we shouldn't call China near peer, we should call

49:02 them peer because

49:03 calling them near peers like a shiplet that lets us off the hook. When you look

49:08 at

49:08 operations like Maduro or midnight hammer, it's hard to think of more you have

49:14 done to restore

49:15 deterrence in the world. A reminder that we do have the will maybe because we

49:19 didn't have the

49:20 will you forgot that we had the capability, but we have both the capability and

49:23 the will to do

49:25 things that are quite amazing. At the same time, it signals a very obvious

49:29 truth, which is somehow

49:30 none of the Russian and Chinese shit worked. So if you're a third party country

49:34 and you're thinking

49:34 about how what is the future of the world and how do you want to be allied and

49:38 maybe you've been

49:40 hedging because you've been seeing America and retreat, it's also a reminder

49:44 that the Chinese

49:44 did not come to save Maduro and none of the equipment they provided actually

49:48 seemed to do

49:49 anything. So is that really an option for you? So I give you the geopolitical

49:54 answer, but I think

49:56 okay, here are some some projects I think I can share. So Oppenheimer was

50:00 hugely successful and

50:01 complicated right where it's like it's three dimensional to the point of

50:05 entertainment. It's not

50:06 probed. I think there's a very powerful story in Hyman Rickover and the birth

50:12 of the nuclear

50:13 navy. We talked a little bit about him, but you know what I love about Rickover

50:16 is he was born

50:16 in a shuttle in Poland came came over at the age of six, one of these near

50:21 almost near missed

50:22 stories where they were on Ellis Island and you get to Ellis Island, you have

50:25 10 days for someone

50:26 to come pick you up. And so his mother sent a telegram. It gave someone money

50:30 to send a telegram

50:31 to the father who was already here to come get them. The guy pocketed the money

50:34 for the telegram.

50:36 On day 10, someone happens to arrive that they know from the old world who then

50:41 runs out, gets

50:42 the father to claim them, get buys them one extra day. So on day 11, they get

50:46 picked up.

50:46 But you know, this near miss where we almost didn't have Rickover, but Rickover

50:50 was a notoriously

50:52 difficult personality. So five foot two short short guy in World War II, he

50:56 drove a coal ship,

50:57 not he had no it was not a prestigious post. But after World War II, he was

51:00 sent to Oakridge

51:01 at the the vestiges of the Manhattan Project. And he was inspired to get this

51:05 idea of putting

51:06 nuclear power inside of the submarines. Because before then, submarines sucked.

51:11 They they could

51:11 go underwater for like an hour. They were diesel power. They were allowed. They

51:15 were basically

51:16 surface ships that could occasionally submerge. And after that, they became

51:20 really exquisite.

51:21 And I think he built the first one in like five years, six years, the Nautilus.

51:25 But the Navy didn't want him to succeed. They not only did Oppenheimer think it

51:30 was a stupid idea,

51:31 the Navy did too. His first office was a women's restaurant. I kid you not, you

51:35 know, it's like,

51:36 how can we humiliate this guy to quit? And he just kept going. And what I think

51:40 is interesting when

51:40 you look at his memoirs, like, it's not that he was immune to the humiliation.

51:45 He felt every

51:46 slight and insult, he documented them. But somehow he was able to channel that

51:50 into something he was

51:52 going to push through and still succeed despite that. Zumwalt, who was the

51:56 chief of naval operations,

51:57 the senior most uniform person in the Navy said, the Navy has three enemies,

52:03 the Soviet Union,

52:04 the Air Force, and Hyman Rickover, the zone Admiral. The other thing that I

52:08 think fits very closely

52:09 with 18 theses, like Hyman Rickover was a four star Admiral for 30 years. That

52:14 is something we

52:14 can't even contemplate today. We almost view our officers as cogs to keep

52:21 moving around.

52:22 Every two to three years you have to keep moving. As the first director of the

52:26 nuclear Navy of

52:27 naval reactors, you know, he was in that role for a very long time. But that

52:32 role, even today,

52:33 is an eight year stint, but shows you the primacy of people that we understand

52:37 with something this

52:38 exquisite, something where this much knowledge and continuity matters, you don

52:42 't just keep pulling

52:43 people out every two or three years. And our ships or subs are the safest in

52:50 the world by launch on.

52:51 So every six months, the Soviet Submariners would get six months of respite at

52:57 Sochi to recover

52:58 their white blood cell count because they were getting irradiated. We've had no

53:03 deaths due to

53:04 radiation. You know, he built it with the specification, this has to be safe

53:08 enough for my son. He built

53:09 it to a specification that is 100 times safer than the minimum safety standard.

53:14 And that is this

53:15 sort of aspiration only a founder could have. Yeah, this is going to be a great

53:18 movie.

53:18 What else is there to do? And you're doing everything. So what else is on the

53:25 radar for you?

53:25 Well, you know, I in some sense, maybe it's enough, but all of these things

53:31 have a through line where

53:32 it's really about American greatness and inspiring the next generation. And it

53:35 's driven home to me

53:37 when I think about my kids and recognizing that the America I grew up in

53:41 is something that every generation has had to fight for. And I'm in that phase

53:45 now where I'm

53:46 fighting for the prosperity that the next generation ought to have. And so

53:50 whether it's

53:51 soft power and inspiration and movies or hard power and deterrence of

53:55 adversaries and preventing

53:56 World War III, it's all about American greatness and the prosperity of the

53:59 American people.

54:07 Thank you.

Love

· 12h

《Stableminded》是一档聚焦前沿创业者的财经播客。内容深入详实，以创业者为核心，全面探讨现代金融。

新一期节目将于下周上线。

第45集 - @cnaut，@raincards 首席技术官

第46集 - @louisamira，@atxp_ai 创始人

第47集 - @nvs，@infinite 首席执行官

由 @altitude 呈现

主持人：@dr3wrogers

集数：0045-47

美国旧金山 #btc #usd1 #usdc

Love

· 14h

人工智能是一种功能强大的软件——它并非外星生物。我们面临的最大风险在于，对人工智能未来的恐惧与焦虑会让我们止步不前，而其他国家却在此时超越了我们。 #ai

https://x.com/altcap/status/2035010929650508092?s=20

中文 English

0:00 这部分我们刚和政策制定者讨论过，我们需要始终

0:05 走在前面

0:06 布拉德，你做得很好。我们必须走在他们前面，

0:08 向他们传达

0:09 关于这项技术的现状。它是什么，不是什么。它不是一个

0:14 生物体。

0:16 它不是外星人，它没有意识，它是计算机软件。它不是

0:28 什么

0:29 我们会说，完全不理解它。这不是真的。我们并非

0:33 一点也不理解。

0:34 我们了解这项技术的很多方面。因此，我认为，第一，

0:39 我们必须确保

0:39 继续向政策制定者传递信息，不让悲观主义和

0:45 极端主义

0:46 影响政策制定者对这项技术的认知和理解。然而，

0:51 我们仍然需要

0:52 认识到技术发展非常快速，不要让政策

0:56 走得过快，

0:57 超前于技术发展。作为一个国家，我们面临的最大国家安全风险

1:03 是，

1:04 当其他国家采用这项技术时，我们却因为愤怒、

1:10 害怕或者偏执，

1:12 导致我们的产业和社会未能利用人工智能的优势。

1:17 所以，我最担心的是人工智能

1:19 在美国的普及情况。

1:27 [BLANK_AUDIO]

0:00 This is the part that we just with policymakers, we need to we need to always

0:05 get in front of

0:06 them and Brad, you do a great job doing this. We had to get in front of them

0:08 and inform them

0:09 about the state of the technology. What it is, what it is not. It is not a

0:14 biological being.

0:16 It is not alien. It is not conscious. It is computer software. And it is not

0:28 something that

0:29 we say things like, we don't understand it at all. It is not true. We don't

0:33 understand it all.

0:34 We understand a lot of things about this technology. And so I think, one, we

0:39 have to make sure that

0:39 we continue to inform the policymakers and not affect, not allow do-marism and

0:45 extremism

0:46 to affect how policymakers think and understand about this technology. However,

0:51 we still have

0:52 to recognize the technology is moving really fast and don't get policy ahead of

0:56 the technology

0:57 too quickly. And the risk that we run as a nation, our greatest source of

1:03 national security concern

1:04 with respect to AI, is that other countries adopt this technology while we are

1:10 so angry at it or

1:12 afraid of it or somehow paranoid of it, that our industries, our society don't

1:17 take advantage of AI.

1:19 And so I'm just mostly worried about the diffusion of AI here in the United

1:22 States.

1:27 [BLANK_AUDIO]

Love

· 3d

“全球每一家软件公司都必须制定@openclaw战略”——Jensen在@NVIDIAAIGTC大会上的发言将OpenClaw定位为有史以来最重要的开源项目之一，他们宣布推出 #NemoClaw ——这是一个面向企业级安全 #OpenClaw 的参考平台，内置OpenShell、网络边界及安全机制。

https://x.com/altryne/status/2033642805009256624?s=20

中文 English

0:00 如今，全球每家公司都需要有开放爪策略和

0:04 智能系统策略。这就是新型计算机

0:08 这就是令人兴奋的部分

0:11 这是开放爪之前的企业IT。这是旧的IT行业软件

0:17 公司开发工具

0:19 保存文件，当然还有

0:22 帮助公司使用和整合这些工具的GSI顾问，

0:25 开放爪之后

0:28 智能时代。这将会是未来的样子。这是非凡的

0:33 部分，每一家IT公司，每一家公司

0:37 每一家SaaS公司

0:39 每一家SaaS公司都会变成

0:42 智能即服务公司

0:47 毫无疑问

0:49 每一家SaaS公司都会变成智能即服务公司和

0:53 智能即服务公司，

0:55 令人惊讶的是，开放爪恰好在行业最需要的时候

0:59 给了行业所需

1:01 正如Linux恰好在行业最需要的时候出现一样

1:08 正如Kubernetes出现在恰当的时机一样

1:11 正如HTML出现，让整个行业能够抓住

1:15 这个开源

1:17 技术栈并做出实质应用。只有一个问题

1:23 智能系统

1:25 在企业网络中

1:27 可以访问敏感信息，可以执行代码，还能

1:31 进行外部通信

1:33 大声说出来，想想看，访问敏感信息

1:39 执行代码，进行外部通信

1:41 显然

1:44 这是绝对不允许的，所以我们和彼得合作

1:48 集结了全球顶尖的安全和计算专家，我们与彼得一起努力

1:53 使开放爪

1:56 成为

1:59 企业级的

2:00 安全且私密的开放爪

2:03 我们称之为

2:05 尼莫爪，致敬开放爪，它具备所有这些

2:12 智能AI工具包，第一部分是

2:16 我们称为开放壳的技术，它现在已经集成到开放爪中。

2:22 现在它适合企业使用

2:24 这个技术栈，我们称为尼莫爪，您可以下载并试用它，

2:29 您也可以

2:30 连接它，

2:32 连接到全世界所有SaaS公司的策略引擎，

2:38 您的策略引擎非常重要，极具价值。

2:42 所以策略引擎可以被连接，

2:44 尼莫爪或开放爪结合开放壳能够执行这些策略引擎，它有网络护栏，

2:49 有隐私路由器，因此我们能够保护并

2:52 保证爪不会在我们公司内部随意执行，并且做到安全可靠

0:00 Every company in the world today needs to have an open clause strategy and a

0:04 gentex system strategy. This is the new computer

0:08 Now, this is just an exciting part

0:11 This is enterprise IT before open claw. That is the old IT industry software

0:17 companies creating tools

0:19 Saving files and of course

0:22 GSIs consultants that help companies figure out how to use these tools and

0:25 integrate these tools post open claw

0:28 Post-agentic. This is what it's going to look like. This is the extraordinary

0:33 part every single IT company every single company

0:37 every SaaS company

0:39 every SaaS company will become a

0:42 Gas company

0:47 No question about it

0:49 every single SaaS company will become in a gas company and they gentic as a

0:53 service company and

0:55 What's amazing is this open claw gave us gave the industry exactly what it

0:59 needed at exactly the time

1:01 Just as Linux gave the industry exactly what it needed exactly the time

1:08 Just as Kubernetes showed up at exactly the right time

1:11 Just as HTML showed up and made it possible for the entire industry to grab on

1:15 to this open source

1:17 Stack and go do something with it. There's just one catch

1:23 agentic systems

1:25 in the corporate network

1:27 Can have access to sensitive information it can execute code and it can

1:31 communicate externally

1:33 Just say that out loud. Okay, think about it access sensitive information

1:39 execute code communicate externally

1:41 obviously

1:44 This can't possibly be allowed and so what we did was we worked with Peter

1:48 We took some of the world's best security and computing experts and we worked

1:53 with Peter to make open claw

1:56 open claw

1:59 enterprise

2:00 secure and enterprise private

2:03 Cable and we call that

2:05 Nemo claw which is a reference for open claw and it has all these

2:12 agentic AI toolkits and the first part of it is

2:16 Technology we call open shell that has now been integrated into open claw now.

2:22 It's enterprise ready

2:24 this stack with a reference stack we call Nemo claw you could download it play

2:29 with it and

2:30 you could

2:32 Connect to it the policy engine of all of the SaaS companies in the world and

2:38 your policy engines are super important super valuable

2:42 So the policy engines could be connected

2:44 Nemo claw or open claw with open shell would be able to execute that policy

2:49 engine it has a network guard rail

2:52 It has a privacy router and as a result we could protect and

2:57 Keep the claws from executing inside our company and do it safely

Love

· 4d

在 #RubyLLM 中从零开始构建聊天界面是多么简单 #ai

https://rubyllm.com

https://x.com/paolino/status/2033667012463874404?s=20

Love

· 5d

💫 #LangChain Academy 新课程：构建可靠的智能代理 💫

将智能代理部署到生产环境并非易事。传统软件具有确定性——当出现故障时，只需检查日志并修复代码即可。但智能代理依赖于非确定性模型。

再加上多步骤推理、工具使用以及真实用户流量等因素，构建可靠的智能代理比传统系统设计复杂得多。

本课程旨在教你如何通过迭代优化，将代理从首次运行逐步打造成生产就绪的系统。

你将学习如何使用 #LangSmith 实现这一目标——这是我们专为观察、评估和部署代理而打造的代理工程平台。

https://x.com/LangChain/status/2033269622103793917?s=20

中文 English

0:00 我很高兴宣布我们最新的Langshane学院课程——构建可靠的

0:03 Langsmith代理。

0:04 我们正在解决代理工程团队如今面临的最大挑战之一，

0:09 无论你是搭建系统的工程师还是负责交付的产品经理，

0:10 将代理从原型推向生产环境都是一项艰巨的任务。

0:13 可靠性并不新鲜，工程师们

0:14 数十年来一直致力于提升系统的正常运行时间、准确性和性能。那么为什么代理这么难处理呢？

0:20 传统软件有明确的规则和确定性的逻辑。

0:21 出现问题时，你查看日志，找到代码行。代理的代码只是骨架，

0:27 它定义了工具和

0:29 提示。真正的决策发生在一个非确定性的模型内。你无法仅从代码库中

0:34 阅读模型的

0:35 推理，但你可以追踪从初始输入到最终输出的决策过程。

0:39 这种可观测性是构建可靠代理的基础。

0:41 本课程的目标是通过持续迭代，将代理从首次运行打磨成生产就绪系统。

0:47 你将学习如何使用

0:48 我们的代理工程平台Langsmith来观察、评估和部署代理。

0:53 你会从第一次分析周期开始，运行代理，找出问题，

0:55 并通过追踪而非日志进行调试。修复失败后，还要确保它们不再出现。

1:00 你会构建评估来捕捉回归并随着时间追踪质量。

1:04 最后进入生产阶段，每天成千上万用户使用你的代理，

1:05 你需要一个既能随业务增长又成本高效的测试系统。

1:09 到课程结束，

1:10 你将拥有完整的工具包来构建、测试和运营任意规模的可靠代理。

1:14 我非常期待你投入学习，掌握用Langsmith构建可靠代理的方法。

1:20 你可以今天就报名参加。

0:00 I'm excited to announce our latest Langshane Academy course, Building Reliable

0:03 Agents with

0:04 Langsmith. We're tackling one of the biggest challenges Agent Engineering teams

0:09 face today,

0:10 whether you're an engineer building the system or a product manager responsible

0:13 for shipping it,

0:14 bringing agents from prototype to production is difficult. Reliability is not

0:20 new. Engineers

0:21 have spent decades refining uptime, accuracy, and performance. So why are

0:27 agents so hard to get right?

0:29 Traditional software has clear rules and deterministic logic. Something breaks,

0:34 you check the logs,

0:35 you find the line of code. With agents, the code is just scaffolding. It

0:39 defines the tools and the

0:41 prompt. The real decisions happen inside a non-deterministic model. You can't

0:47 read a model's

0:48 reasoning in your code base, but you can trace its decisions from first input

0:53 to final output.

0:55 This observability is the foundation of building reliable agents.

1:00 The goal of this course is to take an agent from first run to production-ready

1:04 system

1:05 through iterative cycles of improvement. You'll learn how to do this with Lang

1:09 smith,

1:10 our Agent Engineering platform for observing, evaluating, and deploying agents.

1:14 You'll start with your first analysis cycle, running your agent, finding what

1:20 breaks,

1:20 and debugging with traces, not logs. Once you fix those failures, you'll make

1:25 sure they don't

1:25 come back. You'll build evals that catch regressions and track quality over

1:30 time.

1:30 Finally, production. Thousands of users hitting your agent daily. You'll need a

1:36 testing system

1:37 that scales the grow while staying cost-efficient. By the end, you'll have the

1:42 complete toolkit

1:43 to build, test, and operate reliable agents at any scale.

1:48 I'm really excited for you to dive in and learn how to build reliable agents

1:51 with Langsmith.

1:53 You can enroll today.

Love

· 1w

“这个世界是由一群和你聪明程度相差无几的人建造的。”

#Replit 首席执行官阿姆贾德·马萨德谈及传统职业建议为何不再符合现实：

“许多规则纯属偶然，只是历史遗留产物。”

“你的使命是开辟通往未来的道路。找到最契合世界发展方向的做事方式。”

“这并非投机取巧，而是要洞悉系统如何针对你设置障碍。如何真正破解它？如何突破它？”

“人工智能正是实现此目标的绝佳工具。”

“若你深谙这些工具的运作原理，便能意识到自己拥有惊人的时间优势。你能以更快的速度完成任务。”

“许多程序员仍在沿用旧式编程方式，效率极其低下...直到被时代淘汰。”

@amasad与 @jackhneel #ai #codex #claude #claudecode

https://x.com/a16z/status/2031828442585710894?s=20

中文 English

0:00 首先，要有一种心态：这个世界是由并不比你聪明多少的人建立的。

0:08 3 00:00:09.520 --> 00:00:18.240 很多规则是偶然形成的，存在于历史原因中。

0:18 5 00:00:18.800 --> 00:00:29.600 你的任务是找到通向未来的道路，找到与世界发展方向最契合的方式。

0:29 7 00:00:31.600 --> 00:00:36.560 因为老师和父母给你的建议已经不再适用了。

0:36 9 00:00:37.680 --> 00:00:42.480 我们这一代人，比如千禧一代，老一辈给我们的建议是：

0:42 努力工作，考上好大学，完成这一个又一个目标，

0:47 12 00:00:48.240 --> 00:00:54.240 找到工作，买房买车，成家立业，仅此而已。

0:54 几年后，大概二十年后，你会成为百万富翁，

0:59 15 00:00:59.520 --> 00:01:04.820 因为你的房产升值了，你退休了，幸福地生活。

1:04 17 00:01:05.680 --> 00:01:10.670 这种模式存在过，二战后约有二三十年时间。

1:10 19 00:01:11.360 --> 00:01:12.880 但现在不存在了。

1:12 所以这不是作弊，而是弄清楚制度如何对你不利。

1:21 22 00:01:23.600 --> 00:01:27.360 你如何破解它？

1:27 你如何突破它？

1:28 你如何以更贴合当今世界走向的方式做事？

1:36 26 00:01:37.760 --> 00:01:41.200 人工智能是实现这一点的绝佳工具。

1:41 只要你懂得这些工具的运作方式，

1:47 29 00:01:49.600 --> 00:01:53.200 你就拥有了惊人的时间优势，能做事更快。

1:53 31 00:01:56.720 --> 00:01:57.120 仍有许多程序员

1:57 仍用旧方法编程，非常缓慢，

1:59 他们会一直如此，

2:00 直到被淘汰。

0:00 There's a mindset of, first of all, the world was built by people that are not

0:08 much smarter than you.

0:09 And there are a lot of rules that are accidental, that are there for historical

0:18 reasons.

0:18 And your job is to find the path to the future, find the way of doing things

0:29 that's most aligned where the world is headed.

0:31 Because the advice your teachers, your parents are going to give you, are just

0:36 not valid anymore.

0:37 My generation, like millennials, the advice that the boomers would give us,

0:42 is that you work hard, you get into good university, you check this box, this

0:47 other box,

0:48 you get to get a job, you buy a house and a car, you get a family, that's it.

0:54 You know, a few years in, like, you'll, you know, 20 years later, you're a

0:59 millionaire,

0:59 because your house property went up value and you retire, live happily ever

1:04 after.

1:05 That's, that doesn't exist, that does like existed for like 20, 30 years, post

1:10 World War II.

1:11 And then it's gone.

1:12 So it's not about cheating, it's about figuring out how the system is rigged

1:21 against you.

1:23 And how do you actually hack it?

1:27 How do you get past it?

1:28 How do you, how do you do things in a way that is more native and true to the,

1:36 where the world is headed today?

1:37 AI is a great tool for that.

1:41 Just the fact, if you're someone who just understands how these tools work and

1:47 understand how you have

1:49 an amazing time advantage, you can do things a lot faster.

1:53 Again, there, there are a lot of programmers that are still doing programming

1:56 the old way

1:57 and they're going very, very slow and they're going to continue to go very slow

1:59 until they get

2:00 obsolete it.

Love

· 1w

X Money下月即将上线 👀💸

埃隆·马斯克表示“X Money”将于下月开放早期公众使用。

首版功能将聚焦法币支付——支持在X平台内收发资金，类似 #Venmo 或 #PayPal 。

但所有人都在追问：加密货币会是下一个目标吗？

若马斯克最终将比特币或加密货币支付通道整合至 #X Money，数字资产将瞬间触达数亿用户。

这将成为加密货币史上规模最大的分发渠道之一。 #XMoney #btc

https://x.com/CryptosR_Us/status/2031588469265273197?s=20

載入中...