Skip to content
The Twenty Minute VCThe Twenty Minute VC

Only 10% of Neo-labs Will Survive | Factory CTO, Eno Reyes

Eno Reyes is the co-founder and CTO of Factory, the agent-native software development platform building autonomous "Droids" for enterprise engineering teams. Factory has raised $220 million, most recently a $150 million Series C at a $1.5 billion valuation, from investors including Khosla Ventures, Sequoia Capital, 20VC, NEA, Blackstone, Insight Partners and Nvidia. Before founding Factory, Eno worked as a machine-learning engineer at Hugging Face, training, optimizing and deploying large language models for enterprise customers. ----------------------------------------------- Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 03:02 Why the Cheapest AI Model Is Not the Cheapest System 11:08 Could AI Data Companies Be Worth $200BN? 12:46 Are Frontier Model Valuations Overestimated? 15:57 Can Anthropic Really Be Worth $2TRN? 17:36 Has AI Been Marketed Terribly? 21:00 Will AI Companies Ever Reach SaaS-Like Margins? 26:00 Is Model Routing Already Commoditized? 32:12 Who Will Own Your Company's Intelligence? 36:44 How SpaceX Buying Cursor Changes the AI Coding Market 40:04 80-90% of Neo Labs Could Die in 18 Months 44:06 Should US Companies Trust Chinese Open-Source Models? 47:26 99% of AI Workflows Will Run on Open Models 49:19 Has Microsoft Played the Best Hand in AI? 51:54 Is AI's Data Centre Debt Becoming Dangerous? 54:29 Are We at Peak AI Froth? 55:58 OpenAI and Anthropic Could Be the Netscape of AI 57:50 Will Legacy SaaS Companies Rush to Sell? 01:02:59 Has Silicon Valley Become Too Money Obsessed? 01:06:03 Why Pedigree Is Overrated When Hiring 01:13:19 Should Engineers Get $100K+ AI Token Budgets? 01:17:51 Quick-Fire Round ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3j2KMcZTtgTNBKwtZBMHvl?si=85bc9196860e4466 Subscribe on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-twenty-minute-vc-20vc-venture-capital-startup/id958230465 Follow Harry Stebbings on X: https://twitter.com/HarryStebbings Follow Eno Reyes on X: https://twitter.com/EnoReyes Follow 20VC on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/20vchq Follow 20VC on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@20vc_tok Visit our Website: https://www.20vc.com Subscribe to our Newsletter: https://www.thetwentyminutevc.com/contact ----------------------------------------------- #20vc #harrystebbings #ai #founder #startup

Eno ReyesguestHarry Stebbingshost
Aug 29, 20261h 29mWatch on YouTube ↗

EVERY SPOKEN WORD

  1. 0:00 – 3:02

    Intro

    1. ER

      I see a world where the smartest model is actually the cheapest. People are thinking about outcomes in AI, and they're looking at 20, 30, 50 and they're saying, "That's ludicrous. That's crazy." That is underestimating by an order of magnitude how massive a transformation this is gonna be. 8 and 10 billion's the new 1 billion.

    2. HS

      Today we have CTO and co-founder of Factory, Eno Reyes. He is one of the most articulate and insightful thinkers about the value stack of AI that I've interviewed. Factory is one of the leading companies that specialize in autonomous software development, and Eno is incredible in this show today. There's gonna be a lot of notes taken in this discussion.

    3. ER

      Two of the largest companies that provide models today have explicitly said, "We're going to go after every single one of these industries and businesses that we provide intelligence for." Calling open source models Chinese models is a psyop by the frontier labs to basically trick people into thinking that they're scary and otherize them. In three years, 99% of workflows are gonna be done on open models.

    4. HS

      Ready to go? [upbeat music] Eno, dude, it is so good to have you in the studio. I obviously had Matan in the studio. I was chatting to Keith Rabois over the weekend about you. So thank you so much for joining me, dude.

    5. ER

      No, thank you for having me. I'm super pumped to be here.

    6. HS

      Now, I hate background stories. I'm sure you listen to podcasts. It's like, "How did you get into this?" And you're just like, "I'm bored of this." But downstairs I asked you how did you get into technology and fall in love with it, and your story was, like, heart-wrenching and compelling. And so I have to ask it. How did you first fall in love with computers, do you think?

    7. ER

      Yeah. I, I think that the beginning was my parents. So both my parents went to art school, and they were always in love with technology and how that sort of intersected with creativity and media. And I think that where that started, especially with my dad, was he was born in San Francisco in the s- late '60s, and he w- was six years old and he got actually hit by a bus. Uh, and that changed the trajectory of his life in a pretty crazy way where, you know, he wasn't playing sports, he wasn't, uh, able to do as much of that, like, traditional 1960s kid stuff. Instead, he went to technology and computers, like the early days of, uh, when, you know, you barely had screens and were instead sort of tinkering. And he spent most of his life basically embracing technology as a way to extend his own reach beyond, like, what I'd argue his physical body could do.

    8. HS

      It's so interesting how life delivers you a hand, so to speak, and how consequential that hand is to kind of how you are today.

    9. ER

      100%.

    10. HS

      Um, it's very hard to transition from a father being hit by a bus to margins. [laughs]

    11. ER

      Right.

    12. HS

      Like, only a venture capitalist could do that-

    13. ER

      [laughs]

    14. HS

      ... in such a swift transition. Um-

    15. ER

      Well, so- some margins in AI might make you feel like you've been hit by a bus,

  2. 3:02 – 11:08

    Why the Cheapest AI Model Is Not the Cheapest System

    1. ER

      so.

    2. HS

      [laughs] I mean, uh, yes, absolutely. And we, we chatted before. You said the cheapest model isn't necessarily the cheapest system.

    3. ER

      Mm-hmm.

    4. HS

      And I read this when I was doing the work over the weekend, and I was like, "Huh." Like, can we just unpack that? The cheapest model isn't necessarily the cheapest system. What does that mean?

    5. ER

      Yeah. I, you know, it really comes down to this idea that when you're thinking about price, you should not be thinking about the inputs to the price, you should be thinking about the outputs. So I think about the price of the outcome. So let's take software as an example. How much does a code review cost is far more interesting than how much do the tokens inside of that code review. And so, uh, you take a very sophisticated model. If it's able to do that code review, uh, immediately without making any mistakes, getting the right outcome right away, searching the right phrases, uh, and you use, you know, 1,000 tokens or whatever, it will be significantly more than that, a million, versus you use a cheap model and it spends time, it's running, it uses 50 million tokens. And ultimately, you know, that price difference of the full outcome, uh, makes the higher quality model cheaper. Uh, now that's not how all tasks go, but for many of the most, uh, intelligent demanding tasks, I see a world where the smartest model is actually the cheapest.

    6. HS

      I totally hear you there, and it kind of goes against the a token is a token theory. But will we then have millions of specialized models with every company having specialized models operating on their own data because, to your point there, it'll be able to work much more efficiently?

    7. ER

      Yeah. I think that the, there's a real world where the speciation of models increases very rapidly. This is sort of the world where the fireworks and the people who help make models possible I think win because the alternative is you only have a very few specialized providers that have models. Now, in our view, there is going to be probably a difference between the commodity task executors. So this is just like your everything model. Uh, and that we think will be dominated by open models. And then you have businesses that will say, "Well, uh, you know, we do a lot of commodity tasks, but there's a couple of very high volume specialized tasks that only we do." And for those, your commodity model won't be good enough. Your frontier model will be too expensive. And so they'll want something in between where they can take a commodity model and make it good enough via post-training, and then ultimately they'll run that and they probably will be the only consumer of it. So they won't even give it to the rest of the world, they'll just keep it entirely internal. Uh, so I think that that will lead to a lot of models. Not like a, you know, it won't be millions, but it'll definitely be quite a lot.

    8. HS

      When you look at the post-training required, when you look at the implementation required, I look at that and I think that company structures and teams today are simply not equipped-

    9. ER

      Mm-hmm

    10. HS

      ... to do that How will we solve for that? Is this just a moving into an incredibly services and implementation-heavy world where we have these insane AI teams coming into every co- how, how do we solve that?

    11. ER

      Yeah. And I think that this is one of those things where right now the recipe for post-training and building models does live primarily in the heads of a specialized few group of people. Uh, but that's also how software development was, like, 20 years ago. So in my mind, the same tools that are currently democratizing access to software are actually the tools that will be used to democratize access to intelligence in general. So I see a world where, uh, you're a company, an enterprise, and you say today, "Well, we don't have the, the knowledge or the skill set to build our own specialized models." Well, very shortly, uh, already to a certain extent you can, uh, open up a platform, go into their, uh, you know, webpage, click a couple buttons, describe the task you care about, point it towards those workflows that happen in your business today, and out comes a model, and that model will be really good. Uh, and so I think that right now the... there's, like, a couple of companies that claim that r- like, recursive self-improvement and model training will be only their domain, and I think in reality, many businesses will have access to that technology via software services that other companies sell.

    12. HS

      You said about kind of focusing on the outcomes and not the inputs. That is a great idea when it's a very vi- verifiable output.

    13. ER

      Mm-hmm.

    14. HS

      Code review.

    15. ER

      Yep.

    16. HS

      When there is ambiguity to something, which could be a marketing conclusion, did it come through X channel or Y channel? Uh, my girlfriend's a lawyer. Uh, different legal notes, uh-

    17. ER

      Right

    18. HS

      ... is ambiguous. Some people like it one way, some people like... How do you think about the importance of verifiability in determining outcome quality?

    19. ER

      Yeah, I mean, ver- verifiability is ultimately the single most important, uh, property of success with current AI systems, and I think that the way that we'll sort of p- progressively address this is by building new ways to verify the work that we do. And so, you know, I'll be really concrete about that. Uh, what a bunch of the eval cre- creators and model trainers have done in some of these domains like healthcare and legal, where you don't really have a concrete set of verification strategies, they'll take experts, they'll bring them in, they'll have them create effectively, you know, their own new forms of verification. Maybe they show two examples side by side and they say, "Which one, based on your judgment, is better?" And being able to then take intelligent models that have a lot of the ground reasoning and the knowledge that these domains have, combine them and say, "Now you, as the model, go and build this similar form of verification." I actually would argue the frontier right now of AI is AI systems that can build verification where there is none, and thus they can progress into tasks that today humans consider to be too difficult for AI to resolve.

    20. HS

      AI systems that progress into verification, what, what does that actually mean?

    21. ER

      Yeah. To make it as concrete as possible, uh, you know, imagine that you are walked into a room at a law firm and they say to you, "Hey, you're gonna start j- you know, basically judging how, how to determine whether or not these new hires are good." W- what does, like, a very novice manager do? Well, they kind of go by their gut, they're looking, and what they're doing is if they're, if they are actually intuitive, they'll go by their gut and make good calls. They'll say, "That, uh, you know, new grad is gonna be big at this firm. I like them. I'm gonna continue to promote them." But when you have a giant firm or you sort of systemize, you realize that that approach to management is very rare. In reality, you need to go to the firm and you need to start writing stuff down. "Here's the things that we like about great, you know, new hires. Here's the things we don't like." You know, any company starts to learn managing at scale looks like this. You have to write down the things that you care about and build a framework or a system to analyze how it goes well, uh, th- you know, the job to be done. I think that great AI systems are basically relearning this, like, management strategy of saying, "You can go by your gut," and honestly, a great AI system can be right very often without this sort of structure or framework. But in reality, what you'll need to do is you'll need to write down, "This is what good looks like. This is what bad looks like, and here's how we judge." And what's interesting is, yes, that makes the system better at determining what good looks like, but it also changes the incentives because when you write down, "This is what good looks like," people read that and then they start to act more like what good looks like. And so you have to be careful because if you say, "Good looks like A, B, and C," you're gonna get a lot of A, B and C. But if you basically built the wrong incentives, then that system will end up following that pattern regardless of if it's actually good or not.

    22. HS

      Oh, it is a brilliant statement. Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome.

    23. ER

      100%.

    24. HS

      That's the hardest thing about, actually, venture firms when you run them as a business, 'cause if I set you, you know, the, the kind of goal of three deals per year, you'll give me three deals per year.

    25. ER

      Yep.

    26. HS

      I, I don't want three deals per year. I want a great deal. I want factory. I don't care if it's three or six or one.

    27. ER

      100%.

    28. HS

      And so

  3. 11:08 – 12:46

    Could AI Data Companies Be Worth $200BN?

    1. HS

      it fundamentally, to your point, changes the output that you get. Um, I think I made a big mistake because I'm in McCaw.

    2. ER

      Mm-hmm.

    3. HS

      Uh, and I think we did it at, like, 2 or 3 billion. My, my memory should be better-

    4. ER

      Mm-hmm

    5. HS

      ... but I'm, I'm older than you. Um, and I didn't do the latest round at, you know, whatever, $20 billion because I thought how much bigger can it be?

    6. ER

      Mm-hmm.

    7. HS

      Like, maybe 100 billion, but that's a 5X. It's, like, not that exciting.

    8. ER

      Mm.

    9. HS

      5- 5X, uh, and that's with no dilution. And I'm now thinking that I'm completely fucking wrong and that there is a pathway to 200, 300 billion-

    10. ER

      Mm-hmm

    11. HS

      ... in the data requirements that will be needed. How do you think about what I just said?

    12. ER

      No, I think that's, that's totally true. I mean, people are thinking about outcomes in AI and they're looking at 20, 30, 50 and they're saying, "That's ludicrous. That's crazy." That is underestimating by an order of magnitude how massive a transformation this is gonna be. However, I think that what people underestimate is that the types of businesses that are going to become massive, uh, do not look like businesses 20, 30, 40 years ago where they had a technology mode or they had some sort of key capability that no one else could replicate. Instead, it's basically collections of people that understand what the future looks like a little bit more clear-eyed than the other people. And so these data companies, like you mentioned Mercor, yes, they sell data, but every person at that company gets how AI is going to look much clearer than the average human, and that makes them worth significantly more than, you know, even what investors will

  4. 12:46 – 15:57

    Are Frontier Model Valuations Overestimated?

    1. ER

      say.

    2. HS

      Going back to what we said about lots of specialized models and companies working on their own data which is obviously proprietary, I'm, I'm confused. How does this not reduce the TAM for frontier models?

    3. ER

      I think it might. I think that the TAM of frontier models is frankly over-weighted right now. Uh, the world basically assumes that there's gonna be one to three companies that have total domination over the intelligence era. And not only is that I think is just a silly proposition because generally people don't like that sort of strong dominance of a couple of few- of small companies or large companies. Um, but the real question is how do you defend your margins if you're a f- model lab when there are so many options? And I think that margin profile shrinking is going to change the expected value of these businesses. Baked into 2, 3, $4 trillion valuations is an assumption that you can basically 2X the price of those tokens and people will buy them. So-

    4. HS

      Is the margin profile looking shit? And what I mean by that is Anthropic just produced their first quarter, I believe, of profitability.

    5. ER

      Mm-hmm.

    6. HS

      Margins seeming to be ripping.

    7. ER

      Yeah.

    8. HS

      And they're throwing off cash now. Is that not going in counter to what you said?

    9. ER

      No, I think, I think also that one of the biggest drivers of that is actually the applications on top of that. Uh, and so one of the things that I think is quite clear to all of these model businesses is that the model itself may be a fairly rough trade-off, or rather, uh, the margin profile of the models is definitely worse than the applications. Uh, in my mind, if you are a model provider, you're basically looking, A, to dominate the platform era, in which case you want to be one of, you know, N's companies that sort of sell... get really good at selling inference, or B, you just wanna move up to become an application layer company that has really good models. Anthropic seems to be following the application path while OpenAI seems to be dipping its toes in both, but the platform commitment from them seems much stronger.

    10. HS

      Which strategy do you think is right if you were to bet on one?

    11. ER

      I, I think that the application layer is going to be a much harder battle because being model locked is actually a huge disadvantage if you're trying to sell outcomes.

    12. HS

      Why, why is that?

    13. ER

      Well, it's bad incentive alignment. If you are a model locked provider, then you are inherently selling those tokens in order to make sure that your business, you know, gets the margin it needs. If you are going to a company and saying, "We can give you the, you know, the best outcome," you have to do that with only your models. So they can really give you, you know, their best model. Meanwhile, someone who's not model locked can give you the best model, right? That difference between their best model versus the best model can be massive in the pricing. I mean, we see this right now in real time in the coding. Anthropic can basically only deliver, you know, their model's outcomes.

    14. HS

      And the best model also is highly subjective dependent on the consumer.

    15. ER

      Oh, yeah. It's totally different based on the task, the profile, the risk-taking that people wanna have. Uh, tons of

  5. 15:57 – 17:36

    Can Anthropic Really Be Worth $2TRN?

    1. ER

      different options.

    2. HS

      Can you help me understa- again, I'm, I'm very thick, but I, I, I don't like cynical questions. I like to be optimistic. I think it's fantastic we're seeing Anthropic potentially go out at 2 trillion, but you're essentially placing a $2 trillion price on Claw Code.

    3. ER

      Mm-hmm.

    4. HS

      Which is not that difficult to switch off of.

    5. ER

      Yeah.

    6. HS

      Uh, w- w- what am I missing? Is that... What should I know that I'm not getting? How should I think about that?

    7. ER

      No, I mean, I think that is fundamentally the risk for an investor is that you're making a $2 trillion bet on one of the most competitive application markets in one of the most finicky segments of the market, which is, you know, dev tools. And so, uh, I do think that part of what needs to happen in order to make these, uh, companies like Anthropic and OpenAI realize the value is they either, A, uh, which they're pursuing, have to go through regulatory capture, in which case they go and they tell, uh, they sort of scare politicians into s- into thinking that they must own the means of intelligence, and thus they become the only providers of the most frontier capabilities, or B, they have to figure out a way to build applications and outcomes that match the true Pareto frontier of cost and quality. And I think that means opening up to more models. So it's actually like, uh, sort of at odds with the two strategies. You either, you know, capture it and keep the model or open up to everybody. This is a very hard decision and one that I think you can start to see OpenAI actually grappling with as they've let more models into their harness. They, they're not making it official, but they're clearly supporting an open model ecosystem in a more direct way.

  6. 17:36 – 21:00

    Has AI Been Marketed Terribly?

    1. HS

      Do you think Dario's marketing message has been mistaken?

    2. ER

      I think that the marketing of AI in general was w- probably one of the worst marketing jobs done by, uh, you know, contemporary capitalists i- in that it basically did the opposite of what you want. Scare every single person, tell them it's very unreliable and- Basically threaten their wellbeing and livelihood with the technology while you roll it out at scale. And so I think that the challenge is that the things that Dario brings up are not only well-intentioned, but there are, uh, very real threats from unregulated and dangerous AI. I think that there's a way, though, to communicate about this without maybe embellishing the economic ends. And because I think that the carrot-and-stick here can just be, one, you know, the technology will be incredibly transformative. Two, and humans will have a huge role in that transformation, and you will have a huge role in that transformation. Uh, and three, if we don't do this, you know, well, then like all other technologies, there's gonna be risks. But the moment you start talk, talking about the singularity and AGI and create this god-like mythology out of AI, you're gonna scare a lot of people.

    3. HS

      We're gonna be the last remaining private company. [laughs] It's like truly sh- it's like, "Well, you flew here on United." [laughs]

    4. ER

      [laughs]

    5. HS

      I don't, don't know how that's gonna work.

    6. ER

      Uh, yeah, I mean, you know, there, there's gonna be a lot of, uh, of change if some people think that there's gonna be one company. And I think Sam Altman just did an interview where, yeah, and kudos to him, it's hard to go back and say, "I was wrong." He basically says, "I totally underestimated the momentum of the economy, the momentum of existing businesses, and so I predicted this future that actually has not come true." And I think that that's a great reckoning where you go and you say, "I didn't think that this was gonna happen, and it's clearly not going that way, so I'm revising my prediction."

    7. HS

      What did you not think was going to happen where you had to revise your prediction?

    8. ER

      Ooh, I love that question. I think the biggest thing that surprised me where I've had to go back and seriously correct my priors, uh, is building a business is much more reactive than planning. Uh, and what I mean by that is y- you know, almost every one of our best decisions as a company has been in reaction to some information in a split-second decision, sort of, rather than a master plan that we forecasted six months ahead. And I think that, that knowing that, you start to look at the rest of the world, you hear from other business leaders how that's also how they make decisions, and you start to realize that, uh, th- the world is just this, like, constantly reactive feedback loop where people are just talking to each other and making decisions, and no one actually has an answer to what the future's gonna look like. And so you basically just are defining it in real time in group chats and in the actions that you take as a business. So I think that, like, learning that r- in real time has made me totally, one, question the existing world and structure, like basically nothing's guaranteed and anything could change. Uh, and two, it really gives-- It's, uh, quite empowering. It makes you realize you're basically a couple of decisions away from even greater outcomes and, you know, a, an even bigger business than you had prior.

  7. 21:00 – 26:00

    Will AI Companies Ever Reach SaaS-Like Margins?

    1. HS

      Totally get that on the anything could change. One thing that I hope changes is margins-

    2. ER

      [laughs]

    3. HS

      ... and margin profiles. Um, help me understand. When we look across the wave of incredible businesses in AI, the margin profiles are still s- lower than they were previously.

    4. ER

      Yeah.

    5. HS

      30 to thir- 35%. Say as a barometer compared to 70, 80% with SaaS.

    6. ER

      Right.

    7. HS

      Is that a momentary period in time where we're in a build-out phase and they expand over time, or is that just a net new that the revenues are gonna be much larger?

    8. ER

      Well, not all businesses in AI have bad margin profiles. I mean, I know we've got good margins.

    9. HS

      Okay, great. [laughs]

    10. ER

      And, and, and that actually comes in a way that I think is also customer aligned in that we are so focused on sort of thinking about these outcomes themselves as a, uh, as the thing to be valued. And so we've kind of gone away from a lot of common paths that we see other AI companies doing. We don't subsidize consumers, uh, in like the dev tool space. That's an... You know, that hurts us in a lot of ways. We don't have the mind share from self-service users.

    11. HS

      So you have no PLG?

    12. ER

      Uh, w- I would separate, uh, self-service from PLG. We have a lot of focus on PLG within companies that we've deployed to, to allow the adoption to increase. But what we don't have is like a consumer public-facing plan that is, I would say, super rational for a current consumer unless you're optimizing for quality.

    13. HS

      Should you? In a land grab environment like today, should you?

    14. ER

      I think it's a really good question. In our-- In my mind, the biggest reason for this is there are two players with effectively infinite money who are trying to flood the market, and their intent is if we flood the market, we keep you. But remember what we talked about just a second ago, you don't keep them after you, uh, after you sort of pull back the subsidies, as we've learned. And so in-- I think that probably the consumer will continue to follow the sort of like most cost-effective solution. And so what does that look like in one, two, three years? I think it's open models. I think the most cost-effective solution for a model is going to be the cheap one that you can run locally on your computer. And so we wanna make sure that we are the product that best fits that type of experience. So that's why we're so optimized on local and on open models today for on-prem, but in the future it's for all consumers. And so we won't have to subsidize as much as we'll have to create an amazing experience for self-service. So I think of this as like a long con where eventually, or you know, a long game, where eventually the self-service will come to us, but not because we subsidize, but because we have the best product in market.

    15. HS

      So if you're advising me as an investor, say, on, on how to think about margin and how that plays into my decision to invest or not in a business, what would you say?

    16. ER

      I think that, uh, for us, this is a part of our strategy. It doesn't mean, though, that it's the only way to win. I do think that there's probably gonna be businesses where, uh, they're able to lock you in because of a workflow or a system of record that they produce and the margins or the subsidies can be a route or redu- temporarily reducing margin can be a route towards gaining, you know- This is a classic strategy, right? It's not, this isn't even new to AI, um, you know, gaining customer base. What I would say, though, is that if there's no path to increasing the margin profile, that is very risky. And I think that a lot of investments are being made in businesses where the promise is simply that they will, like, raise prices, but you won't see a consummate increase in the value of the platform. It is so competitive in AI right now. If you are not also raising the outcomes and the value that you get out of the product while you raise that price, people will churn and move to another thing. So I do think it's, it's quite tricky, and the margin profile actually matters a lot, but it's not end-all, be-all.

    17. HS

      Will you have that churn in enterprise sales? You work with some of the biggest companies in the world. I'm sure you sign year-long minimum, multi-year long.

    18. ER

      Yep, yep.

    19. HS

      You have pretty sticky client bases there, no?

    20. ER

      I think so. I think that people also see these m- year or multi-year partnerships as just that, like a partnership. Uh, part of what makes it, it interesting to build right now is that a lot of what you're selling is not only the technology, but your knowledge about how to best use that technology, which I would, you know, carefully differentiate from consulting or professional services in that you don't actually have to go in and do all of the implementation or... And I honestly think if you have a product that requires 100 FDEs to get it deployed, you just have a bad product. But instead, I think that if you have the advice and the knowledge of the direction that you think the world should go on, you're selling that with the product. And so people are willing to go and buy that. And I think that if they see it from you today, they sort of know that in a year you'll also still have that same knowledge and sort of forward-thinkingness. And so, uh, now obviously lots of people can give that, but if you combine that with a product that then acts a little bit more as a platform or a system rather than a tool that people use, you can also get stickier by just being something that, you know, you build on top

  8. 26:00 – 32:12

    Is Model Routing Already Commoditized?

    1. ER

      of.

    2. HS

      We spoke about the different frontier model providers essentially having this really challenging dynamic of being locked into their own models-

    3. ER

      Yep

    4. HS

      ... when serving, say, raw code or any application that they choose to serve. One then thinks that the value becomes in the routing of models, like the tasks to the model, what's optimized for each use case, cost, latency, uh, you know, function, whatever it is.

    5. ER

      Right.

    6. HS

      And OpenRoute gets bought for $8 billion. Uh, all the value's in the routing. Great. And then everyone is doing routing.

    7. ER

      Mm-hmm.

    8. HS

      And like Ramp has a routing provider. You know, one of my companies, Merged.dev, has one. We're in another startup, Requesty. And I'm like, well, the routing's completely commoditized. [laughs]

    9. ER

      Right.

    10. HS

      Help me understand. What world do we live in?

    11. ER

      Yeah. Well, I think that, you know, routing is a really interesting technology in that I don't think the technology itself is necessarily that differentiated. Uh, and so w- if somebody comes up and says, "Look, uh, you know, Stripe bought Open Router for 8 billion because of the technology," then I'd say either, A, if they have insider knowledge, then that was a bad decision. If, B, they're just sort of assigning that to it, I think they're missing what I read when I read the lettered in shareholders, which was that they see this as a, a bet on where the direction of capital allocation is going. I mean, think about it like this. What is, what are tokens other than intelligence? And how do you get tokens? Well, you pay for them. And how does the infrastructure layer get it? Energy. It's literally like translating energy into intelligence, and you're just trading dollars along the way. All of this is basically converging towards one thing, whether it- you call it allocating energy, allocating intelligence, allocating money. P- businesses need to allocate whatever this is in order to grow and expand how they operate, and it, grow and expand their bottom line. If you're Stripe, you already control the flow of one out of the three of these. With Open Router, rather than the, the routing technology, you actually just gain the information of where these models are going, right? You start to understand what are people doing with intelligence? How are they allocating it? To what models are they using? So now you start to control the second of these three things. Maybe they'll make a play into, you know, energy infrastructure or data centers at some point. But just ownership over those two is a massive bet on how to think about where companies allocate, uh, resources. And so for them, I think this is very reasonable. But what's interesting is you wouldn't pay $8 billion for, uh, the same company that had no users with better technology. And so that difference, I think, is really important, and it gets towards that broader idea of the technology's just no longer the moat.

    12. HS

      Do you think it was a good buy?

    13. ER

      At 8 billion, it would have to be really, really foundational to the team that becomes whatever this next bet on allocating, you know, capital is for Stripe. Uh, or, or rather helping the businesses that Stripe has as customers allocate capital. I would say that if they think that data gives them insight into how to run Stripe better as well, that could also potentially make it worth it. 8 billion is quite steep though, so I mean, stranger things have happened. Uh, it feels like 8, 8 and 10 billion's the new 1 billion, so.

    14. HS

      I'm intrigued. You, you know, you obviously have a, a routing product within Factory.

    15. ER

      Mm-hmm.

    16. HS

      Um, what do you see, what insight do you get from that, that maybe the world doesn't see?

    17. ER

      Well, one of the most interesting things, and I've been talking about model routing for these products that you've mentioned, which is gateway routing, and that's sort of how it's referred to because ultimately the routing effectively happens outside of where the task is being completed. And so a lot of companies will do this. They'll g- look at Ramp and Stripe and Open Router, and they'll put a model gateway, and that gateway is just how all of the different tools and products of the company route to LLMs. What's interesting is that w- we've seen that you can definitely get some nice cost savings doing this, like 10, 20% from these types of products. Um, but you really- Need something fundamentally different when you have agentic workflows, because to actually take the most advantage out of models, you need to do something that's a little different from just routing. You need your agent or your system to dynamically understand the task it's working on and understand how to allocate, uh, intelligence, uh, in a much more stateful way. And when I say stateful, all I mean is, like, you need to know not only what's going on today, you need to know what just happened and what's going to happen in the future. And that can't happen outside of where the task is being completed. You have to be in there in the task.

    18. HS

      Is that related to the importance of context window expansion that everyone talks about?

    19. ER

      I'd say that, uh, in a way that taking the context window and expanding it was solved not at the model layer, like outside at the endpoint, but instead inside of the agent with something called compaction. It's exactly similar. People really want the problems to be solved, like sort of somewhere else, like in the model or in the gateway. But more and more we see it's the harness that solves these problems. And I think that the, uh, the thing that is sort of underestimated about why the harness continues to solve this is that the harness is effectively the new sort of application. It is just where all the logic happens. It's where the state is maintained. It's the easiest and the best place to basically do work with AI. And so as that starts to accumulate, I'd say like more advantage or technology benefits, uh, I think we're starting to see people ask questions like, "Should I be building my own harness? Should I get a really great harness? What is a harness?" Uh, and that's something that I think at Factory we're trying to spend as much time as possible educating people about sort of what does well in the harness versus what can be done outside, and how to think about like building versus buying a harness.

  9. 32:12 – 36:44

    Who Will Own Your Company's Intelligence?

    1. HS

      And context window expansion is one, and then continuous learning and the kind of the rise of the first truly continuous learning model. Does a continuous learning model help or hurt Factory's business?

    2. ER

      I think that, uh, well, it's interesting 'cause there, there are sort of two directions for this. I would say that there was an idea of continuous learning from over the last couple of years that said there... you would have a, like a literal LLM-like model where all of the learning happens internal to this closed loop system. Uh, that technology has not been developed. It doesn't exist. There's sort of attempts and early looks at it, but in general, uh, anybody who wanted to try and hold all of the learnings behind an API, uh, would be able to potentially accumulate advantage that would, uh, make it harder for others to use that model in their product because ultimately they would be accumulating all of the learning. But in reality, what has happened is quite the opposite. Basically, model providers have even acknowledged that all of the continual learning happens at the harness layer, and that learning is basically something that I would argue businesses are gonna find very critical that they own, that they are the sovereign of. And I think that that is ultimately the question of the next five years of AI. Who is the sovereign of your intelligence? Is it you or is it some other company?

    3. HS

      Sorry, can you unpack that for me? What, what does that actually mean? Who owns the data outcomes that are generated from the tasks that you do?

    4. ER

      Y- Basically, who owns the learnings and the workflow that successfully achieved the outcomes for your business? The, a great example for this would be if you were a law firm and all you did was just outsource every single one of your cases to some other company, and in fact, maybe it's like 10 different companies, uh, then, you know, come five years later, those other companies can just turn around and screw you over because they know exactly how to do your entire business. And what's interesting is I think that pretty much every company in the world is thinking to themselves right now, "What's gonna happen in a couple of years if I outsource all of my intelligence to someone else?" And what's interesting is that at least, you know, two of the largest companies that provide models today have explicitly said, "We are going to go after every single one of these industries and businesses that we provide so- like intelligence for."

    5. HS

      Do you see with large enterprises, the biggest companies in the world are scared of OpenAI and Anthropic coming after their business?

    6. ER

      I, I think that m- not all of them necessarily think they're gonna come after the business, but the largest companies in the world are very wary of the model labs coming in and promising them intelligence and sort of luring them into a trap. And that's something that I know, you know, there are many businesses that are starting to become aware of this. Like Palantir has been quite loud about this idea of owning your intelligence. Microsoft as well. Satya wrote a great piece about this. I think that all of that opining is very spot on. At the end of the day, if it's not your intelligence, uh, then there is just a real risk that either, A, they come after your business, or B, if they disagree with what your business is doing, they have a little bit more leverage and control than I think the typical business owner would like.

    7. HS

      And when we talk about sovereign intelligence and owning that outcome, is that why on-premise is so important?

    8. ER

      I think that's a huge part of it. Uh, to most businesses, on-premise isn't even about the technology. It's just about the idea, which is that if I need to, I can take control and ownership over every dimension of this software and we get to stay in control. And that element is interesting 'cause for us, we offer an on-prem offering. It's in fact one of our most popular offerings, Factory Private. And even though we offer this, a lot of the businesses that we talk to actually go with our SaaS model because they just know and have the peace of mind if they need to switch, not only do we have it available, but they understand exactly how it would work. And so I think that a part of this story is just being able to Share with people that we are incentive aligned. If you need this, we have it, and you won't lose anything. And so on-prem and owning your intelligence are very similar stories.

  10. 36:44 – 40:04

    How SpaceX Buying Cursor Changes the AI Coding Market

    1. HS

      How much does it help you or hurt you that Cursor was bought by SpaceX? It gives some amazing scale benefits in terms of access to compute, but it does make them, you know, model bias.

    2. ER

      Yeah. I mean, the, that outcome for the folks at Cursor is obviously amazing. So [laughs] I, uh, yeah, needless to say. And, and I think that, uh, where it helps us is, uh, one, you know, it's going to be a very hard story to become model independent or s- rather stay model independent when you're attached to a model lab. So they're going to wanna push Groq. The mo- the products are gonna become increasingly oriented around Groq, and that, I think, will become a challenge. There's also some, you know, to be honest, trust and enterprise-related concerns that they're going to have to deal with with their new brand. But ultimately, the team there is obviously incredibly competent. And so I don't discount them as a player in this market. Uh, however, I do think f- that most of the enterprises are going to have a second look at the idea of sort of ceding their software development life cycle to a provider who is, one, likely to be model locked and, two, uh, has an existing sort of history or pattern of maybe f- struggling to operate in these larger and more secure environments.

    3. HS

      Totally get that. And no, I mean, unbelievable outcome for the team and amazing team. Can I ask you, when we look at the cadence of model development today, it's just so fast.

    4. ER

      Yep.

    5. HS

      And, like, I actually use arena.ai, uh-

    6. ER

      Yeah

    7. HS

      ... as like a discovery mechanism to new models.

    8. ER

      Right.

    9. HS

      And it's... I'm using suddenly these weird models that I've never heard of and would never have used before-

    10. ER

      [laughs] Right

    11. HS

      ... and I'm loving the output. My question to you is, will we see the cadence of model creation sustain in the way that we are today? In other words, the rate of new models keeping on coming, or is this a, a momentary period at the start of a new cycle?

    12. ER

      I think that it will likely sustain for quite a long time. Uh, and this actually gets to another interesting property of, like, the open routers. A lot of people treat model routers as effectively a information or news stream about which model is next. It's kind of a free advertisement every single time a model drops. You know, now Stripe can tweet, "New model on our router," and you see Stripe's name with this news cycle. So I think that actually it's very common for people to basically use new model drops and all this news as a way of keeping up with AI in general. Uh, new models will likely continue to drop as people... One, it gets easier. It's just gonna become fundamentally easy to build models. And two, uh, this idea of sovereign intelligence also is g- uh, like humans, we're gonna have models with tons of different opinions, tons of different perspectives, and that, I think, is going to play nicely into how people sort of operate in today's world. A lot of the times, you don't go with a business 'cause it's purely the best performance. You go because you like the person who started it, or you wanna buy from someone where you saw them on the news or on TV and you agreed with their statements. Models are gonna be like that as well, where they emit opinions and they have takes that are different from the ones that are most popular, and people will gravitate towards those. So I see this actually just getting much faster and even broader before it

  11. 40:04 – 44:06

    80-90% of Neo Labs Could Die in 18 Months

    1. ER

      shrinks.

    2. HS

      A lot of guests on the show before have made kind of bold statements that, like, 70, 80% of the Neo labs that we have today w- will die in a given time period, three to five years, whatever you wanna choose. Um, do you think that's true? And how would you advise me and other investors on the model or the Neo labs that will thrive versus die in this next wave?

    3. ER

      I, I think it's plausible it, it's even more. I, I think it could be 80 to 90% of Neo labs die in the next 18 months, and die is going to be a funny word to use because it'll probably be, for a lot of them, incredible outcomes. So I don't know if it's necessarily doom and gloom as much as it's these businesses may not make sense as independent businesses. And so a lot of what I think matters for a Neo lab is you should ask questions like, one, is this business attached to a durable workflow? Two, is that workflow going to change if new frontier models get better? And three, if this workflow were to be introduced, uh, to a new business, then would that new business figure out something even better? And so basically, is it durable to, like, effectively an entirely new way of thinking or a new way of working? If all three of those are true, legal is a great place where I think, one, uh, new models won't necessarily get better without access to the data. Two, it's obviously a very proprietary workflow. And three, we're still gonna have legal system in five, 10, 20 years. So probably all the Neo labs focused on legal are gonna have great outcomes. Versus I would argue that there's some places like, um, a lot of knowledge work that's related to intermediate tasks, like people operating in Excel and Jira, that's just not gonna be differentiated. The workflows are very common, and I think that we may not use a lot of tools like that in five to 10 years. So this, like, com- general computer use, all this other stuff just may not be as valuable as an independent business.

    4. HS

      I, I'm... You know, the thing that strikes me is just the misalignment in capability progression, which sounds like a real word wank. But, like, when you look at, like, coding and customer service-

    5. ER

      Yep

    6. HS

      ... amazing, undeniable. Legal, good, but not in the same level as coding and customer service.

    7. ER

      Mm-hmm.

    8. HS

      And then other things, honestly, marketing copy, visuals, a lot of... It's, it's so not there.

    9. ER

      Mm-hmm.

    10. HS

      Like, if I wanted to use AI to clip this show- It, it clips this. It misses both of our face 'cause it goes through the middle

    11. ER

      Yep

    12. HS

      It has no understanding of how to align clippings between an audio edit and a video edit. It's so far off. Will we see a real multi-year time lag between different sectoral capabilities progressing in the same way that coding has done?

    13. ER

      Definitely. And, uh, the biggest reason why, for example, clipping a podcast is still such a hard problem for models, uh, is likely because the maybe handful of businesses that deal with media haven't devoted 100% of their time to just taking that knowledge that lives inside the heads of people and brought, bringing it into AI. And the moment that we start to see businesses capitalize on that delta, uh, I think the progression will happen extremely quickly. So it's purely a matter of time before most workflows become something where a business capitalizes on that first bit, which is, uh, an, a workflow that currently has proprietary data or proprietary knowledge. You don't normally think of clipping a podcast as proprietary, but I think for the most part, it's a real skill, and a lot of the people couldn't even describe how they know when to do the right clip, and that intuition, writing it down is hard.

    14. HS

      Oh, I totally think it. And knowing, like, the hook. If you started 10 seconds earlier and the hook was 10 seconds in, your chance of virality goes down significantly.

    15. ER

      Yep.

    16. HS

      The skill of knowing what is a ho- it, it kind of goes to taste

    17. ER

      100%.

  12. 44:06 – 47:26

    Should US Companies Trust Chinese Open-Source Models?

    1. HS

      But it, it's actually not. I completely get you there. Um, we always hear about the Chinese open source ecosystem and the questions around security and everything that in, is in between. Do you think those are justified, or do you think actually we should leverage it and thank them for their capabilities? [chuckles]

    2. ER

      I think calling open source models Chinese models is a PSYOP by the frontier labs, uh, to basically trick people into thinking that they're scary and otherize them. Uh, in reality, in my mind, the open models that come from a bunch of different places are n- not any different from a existing frontier model from a lab. Uh, they just happen to have been created by people, you know, a couple thousand miles away. Now, there are some very real challenges with taking in models from really any business, and I think that what's interesting is it's actually the same challenges with models from, like, OpenAI and Anthropic. You should ask questions for all of your models. Like, one, what is potentially being censored by the creators of these models? Uh, two, are, are these models going to be able to solve the problems that I care about? And three, uh, if this model becomes, uh, if this model goes away in, like, six months, 12 months, will I be able to switch to something else? And if the, and if the answer to all these things is, like, yes, yes, yes, then I do think that there will be concerns about using those models. Uh, for me, the Chinese models specifically have demonstrated no examples where they have some sort of security risk or backdoor compared to American models. Instead, they are just biased in a way that American models are, uh, for their own creators and preferences. These are things you have to be aware of, but typically don't change the day-to-day.

    3. HS

      So you don't think that American companies should be concerned about using open source Chinese models?

    4. ER

      I think that as of today, the current Chinese frontier models should be analyzed by American companies it, for the tasks that they care about. And if you're, for example, working on national security in the United States, you definitely should not be using Chinese models. But I do think that we have to be sort of clear-eyed and say, for a code reveal, it's very likely that a Chinese model and American model will give you the same. I'll give you a great example of this. Uh, if you are writing a 10-K, uh, that expresses your business's, uh, current state and some of the examples in preparation, uh, for, you know, sharing finances with investors. Uh, let's say that part of your strategy is about introducing recursive self-improvement to models, and you care about AI, and your business is leaning heavily into it. Uh, if you use a model from this provider, uh, it will block you. The answer is Anthropic, right? And so if you are writing a model about American defense or preparation, I highly recommend against using a Chinese model. But all of these are basically contextual based off of the preferences of the creator of the model. So it's just like any other technology. You have to be aware of who created it, and you have to be careful. Because if the person who created it doesn't want you doing the things that you're gonna do with that model, it is going to be harder. Uh, that's something that I think people need to be aware of for all models, though.

  13. 47:26 – 49:19

    99% of AI Workflows Will Run on Open Models

    1. HS

      Totally get that. Guillermo from Vercel tweeted last night or yesterday about the weighting or usage of open models significantly increasing at a much faster rate to tokens used on closed models or frontier models. Um, what percent of workflows will be completed with open models in three years' time?

    2. ER

      In three years, 99% of workflows are gonna be done on open models. But 1% of those tasks is probably gonna be 30, 40% of the economic value of the future of intelligence.

    3. HS

      Wow, but you still think that 60% will flow to open models.

    4. ER

      I think, I think close to, I think almost all usage of models in three years are gonna be primarily open, but that difference between frontier and open is going to become actually larger than it is today. Uh, and I think that this is actually pretty aligned with how maybe the, that percentage is overweighted, but, like, how, if you listen to how Sam and Dario talk, the use cases that they're talking about their frontier models being used for are incredibly niche They're talking about bio research at the frontier. They're talking about super advanced LLM and AI development. They're talking about security and defense. These are use cases that really only fit a very specific profile of effectively the frontier of science and technology. This is where I think labs like OpenAI and Anthropic actually can be incredibly differentiated because they already have the muscle to work on those very frontier problems. But if you go into any business in the Global 2000 today, and you look at... You ask any random person, "What are you doing today?" It's not something that needs the true frontier of intelligence, like 99% of the time. And so cost will dominate. OpenAI and Anthropic could release an open model that they then inference on, and I think that that could actually be a great

  14. 49:19 – 51:54

    Has Microsoft Played the Best Hand in AI?

    1. ER

      business for them.

    2. HS

      Given the commoditization of the model layer, like we've spoken about, people seemingly chastise Microsoft. Given that commoditization, do you think Microsoft have actually played a great hand in having a little bit of a bet through OpenAI, but not being tied down with an extensive model investment layer?

    3. ER

      I, I think Microsoft might be one of the best positioned, uh, hyperscalers, honestly, with respect to AI because of this independence. Right now, Satya has played a masterful game of getting huge upside from the OpenAI investment and work. Uh, Kevin Scott as well, who I know was, like, sourcing a lot of that deal. Uh, you know, the, the... That team found a lot of the potential of what AI was going to be. But they currently realize that one provider is just simply not sufficient to cover what intelligence is n- needed in the enterprise. And so now they've moved towards more concretely expressing, one, that we support all AI developers, and Azure should be a place for inference on Anthropic and OpenAI and open models most importantly. Uh, but two, even if you do want that frontier intelligence, you can come here. And I think that that duality, that model independence, is going to be massively valuable for a business that wants to accelerate, uh, really, like, work for all other businesses. I think it's a very clever positioning because they captured the upside with a bet, and now they're capitalizing on the market as a whole.

    4. HS

      Is Zuck wrong, then, to be putting as much money as he is into Spark and building out that program?

    5. ER

      I think he's right for humanity in that we need more open models like that, especially like American-made open models. I think that a lot of people, you know, even with respect to what I said earlier on Chinese models, people are gonna buy us. And, and so open models are great because it just increases, uh, adoption in America and abroad. Uh, but two, I think that as a business, they're going to have to build on top of that and take what they did with Meta, the consumer, the monstrous consumer business that it is. They need to power all of their operations with these new models and the investment will be well worth it.

    6. HS

      So would you buy Meta or Microsoft today if you could only buy one?

    7. ER

      If I could only buy one, Microsoft for sure.

    8. HS

      Wow.

    9. ER

      The biggest thing that Microsoft has going for it is that infra. They own so many of these data centers. They're spending so much on build-out. No matter what model runs on top of that, Microsoft is gonna win.

    10. HS

      Do

  15. 51:54 – 54:29

    Is AI's Data Centre Debt Becoming Dangerous?

    1. HS

      you worry about the debt cycle? And what I mean by that is there is so much cash being put out into the data center build-out.

    2. ER

      Yeah.

    3. HS

      And, and we've just never seen levels of debt like this before, and you're seeing that in bond pricing for Meta and other things.

    4. ER

      Mm-hmm.

    5. HS

      Do you worry about that sustenance or do you just think, "Fuck it, we're still so early"?

    6. ER

      I think that it, it actually should start to concern investors, uh, in that if you do not have a huge amount of free cash flow, then taking on massive amounts of debt is bad. It's dangerous. And so for the Microsofts and the Googles of the world, uh, they have access to businesses that are durable, are existing with huge barriers to entry. Uh, and I think that as a result, those businesses may take a hit from a future like, for example, collapse in value or, uh, even if it's not a collapse, just like a minor hit in the projected future cash flow from AI, those businesses are still gonna be around. And so I think it's a, a, a, a risk. But to be completely honest, if you're OpenAI or you're Anthropic, the hundreds of billions in free cash flow that you need in order to pay back the debt that you're taking on in order to accommodate these data center build-outs in order to get the next big training run, it's totally existential for them. And so they need to become the single greatest free cash flowing businesses in the history of technology in order for them to just live. And so it's a-

    7. HS

      It's a high bar

    8. ER

      ... pretty massive bar. Yeah.

    9. HS

      Do you think they should be moving into the chip layer as they are? I mean, we've got the wonderfully named Halapino. Uh-

    10. ER

      Yep

    11. HS

      ... and then we have Anthropic, you know, now reportedly, you know, working on their own chips. Do you think that is the right move?

    12. ER

      I think so. I think verticalization is clearly the strongest way to unscrew yourself from, uh, h- taking on a massive amount of debt and burden. Uh, in the future, if they become multi-trillion dollar companies, they will simply have to enter in this market and own more of that infrastructure layer. Uh, so it seems, like, quite obvious that they wanna play there. Uh, I think the biggest question is how this changes their relationship in the midterm because if you are, uh, with, with, uh, their current vendors. Uh, because ultimately, you know, their explicit goal is to replace their dependency on you. So I think that that's going to be an interesting challenge to navigate.

    13. HS

      I think it's a little bit like competition in VC, which is like, ah, no one really has any loyalty anymore.

    14. ER

      Yep. No.

    15. HS

      I'm so sorry to say that, but do you know what I mean?

    16. ER

      No, it's true. It's true.

    17. HS

      Yeah. Jensen's like, "I'm working on Nemotron. I'm buying poolside." Sam knows that fully.

    18. ER

      It's coopetition with everyone.

  16. 54:29 – 55:58

    Are We at Peak AI Froth?

    1. HS

      Yeah. Listen, this... Our job is to survive. Do you worry about where we are in the market today? I have, like, you know, older, wiser friends being like, "Harry, this is peak froth." And then I'm also like, "Peak froth?" But also, Cursor just sold for $60 billion after four years. That is cash that's coming back to hospitals, foundations.

    2. ER

      Mm-hmm.

    3. HS

      That ain't froth or IRR. That's cash back.

    4. ER

      Yeah. No, I mean, I, I think that what I am less concerned about is a, like, 2008-style financial crisis or massive bubble or asset crash. I think that that seems disconnected from the true reality of where this technology is and is going. We've already started to see outcomes in science and in sort of, like, real serious human, like, prosperity-style changes. Now, that- it's very early, but the technology pretty clearly to almost all experts in the fields of science and technology is on a trajectory towards accelerating human prosperity. That is hard to deny from a outcome perspective. Now, what's more interesting is who are the businesses that are going to be the sort of backbones of that transformation. We are probably in, like, the Yahoo era, where we don't actually have or at least widely recognize the Googles of the world, or, like, the sort of the thing that

  17. 55:58 – 57:50

    OpenAI and Anthropic Could Be the Netscape of AI

    1. ER

      comes after. And so today, when I look at OpenAI and Anthropic, there are I think more analogies to Netscape and sort of these technology companies that were first. But ultimately, uh, you know, it's hard to navigate being first. I think Steve Jobs always had, like, a really great strategy at Apple of not being first, but of being the best at almost everything they did, and that's something that we also like a lot, you know, being first or best, but we heavily lean towards being best.

    2. HS

      Totally get that. I'm continuously changing my mind on outcome sizes.

    3. ER

      Mm-hmm.

    4. HS

      You know, we're an investor also in a lovable of the world. Uh, something that's a $13.5 billion business at 600, 700 million of ARR. Fuck, dude, the, the trajectory of company growth is just unparalleled. Do you think investors need to change their mindset on outcome expectations and company growth expectations?

    5. ER

      Yeah, I think that it is hard because there's a current space where people are experimenting, and they're buying a lot of technology in a fairly speculative way. And so it's hard to index on AI for every other possible industry. But you start to look at some of the other industries that are being influenced by this wave and, uh, you know, even, like, CPG, right? Yeah, it feels like every other day you hear about a massive brand that got bought for billions of dollars that started two or three years ago. So I think that maybe it is just true that the world gets faster. It grows bigger better than ever before. Uh, and we're starting to see the early days, and I think that a lot of people say this is what the singularity will feel like. Things will just move faster. Things will grow bigger. There will be more, and we'll start to normalize it and build models and say, "Oh, yeah, that's just the way it is today." But it's-- I think it might just be us expanding as an

  18. 57:50 – 1:02:59

    Will Legacy SaaS Companies Rush to Sell?

    1. ER

      economy.

    2. HS

      Before we move to, like, internals, which I do want to touch on because you've got really interesting takes on hiring. Uh, final one. We saw Airtable go for two and a half billion, give or take.

    3. ER

      Mm-hmm.

    4. HS

      Um, i- listen, it's a fantastic outcome, incredible, but it's just a, a reduction from the $11 billion price before. Will we see a generation of SaaS companies sell, exit before we see this wave of cannibalization that could occur?

    5. ER

      Yeah, I mean, I think that certainly we will. And I heard this, uh, from, uh, a, a fellow founder who told me this, and I totally resonate. Uh, you know, it-- basically, contemporary SaaS businesses are more like movie studios now, where you have to hit a blockbuster, and you have to keep hitting blockbusters in order to keep the attention of the world. And if you are an Airtable, you made that, like, one movie that was a hit, and people loved it, so no doubt it's a great business, great outcome. But if you sort of rest on that, then yeah, bending spoons will come and eat you. And I think that the new world is much more about continuously getting bigger and growing larger. And so I won't be surprised to see a huge wave of M&A of these businesses because they're still good businesses fundamentally, or you can make them good businesses. And they just aren't going to be like Stripe or these massive things that capture fundamental pieces of the economy.

    6. HS

      I think a very good parallel is also, like, gaming companies, where it's like you have a banger of a game, and you will have a hardcore user base that will sustain for five, seven years-

    7. ER

      Yeah

    8. HS

      ... and that life cycle looks great, but you need another big, big hit.

    9. ER

      100%.

    10. HS

      I totally get you there. Listen, your hiring is candidly different. When we were chatting before, you said, "We expect 100% of our future hires to come through acquiring companies and bringing their founders and teams into Factory." It's re- I read this and I was like... Honestly, I was like, "Wow, that's hard," because often founders make bad employees. I would suck as an employee.

    11. ER

      Mm-hmm.

    12. HS

      How do you determine, ooh, a team will thrive internally within Factory or oof, that's an opinionated, pretty arrogant, egotistical founder-

    13. ER

      Yep

    14. HS

      ... that's not a team player?

    15. ER

      I think that's a great question. T- to me, the most interesting thing about this is that the profile of an organization has changed so rapidly that acquiring an organization is no longer what it was 10 years ago, and what I mean by that is if you are someone who just created an open source project, then you are quitting your job and you're spending five, eight months just building that one thing, and that shows so much more conviction than, you know, you can track in an interview. And so it's much easier actually to spot these talented people who are sometimes companies of one who are just-- they're ready to execute. They wanna be a part of a mission, or they're already operating towards a mission, and basically what you're offering them is more resources to do that. And so I think that a lot of what we're looking for when we try to bring a team in is are you mission aligned? Are you someone who's going to operate independently and be able to take on a huge amount of responsibility? Um, and- What's interesting is all of these people are also aware of this lack of technology mode, and so they're pretty willing and ready to basically either integrate everything they did in a couple of days or scrap what they've been working on in order to build something even bigger. And so for us, this profile is just such a match made in heaven for a team that already operates with a ton of former founders, a ton of people who were previously working at startups. Uh-

    16. HS

      Can I be a dick?

    17. ER

      Please.

    18. HS

      Mission aligned. Of course, no one wants someone who's not mission aligned.

    19. ER

      Right. Right.

    20. HS

      And then also, like, willing to take on responsibility. It's not, like, groundbreaking. What, what... Do you know what I mean?

    21. ER

      No, I... No, I totally get what you're saying. In my mind, the mission aligned for us means that you're literally working on the exact problem that we're working on and doing it very well. So I think that when people come in and they say, "Well, I loved that we were working on payments, and in a way payments is just like AI for software development," you're kind of like, all right, I'm, I'm sure that you absolutely could work on this, and in fact, maybe we'll actually hire that person, right? So I'm not suggesting that they're, if you worked on payments, you can't join Factory. But the people that we're looking at are already deep in the weeds of building harnesses for software development where they've already built something that, you know, tens of thousands of people are using on a daily basis, and maybe they even say, "That's better than the stuff we're getting from Factory." Or they've thought so deeply about the problem of outcomes in AI and measuring that, and they already have sat down with business leaders to say, "I wanna solve how to translate these AI inputs into AI outcomes." And so mission aligned to me isn't, like, a property that you can suggest or say. It's actually extremely evident in the work of the founder. And so that has made it very easy to stress test, I think, are you gonna do well at a company, 'cause you're basically doing the same thing except backed by us.

    22. HS

      Mission aligned goes contra

  19. 1:02:59 – 1:06:03

    Has Silicon Valley Become Too Money Obsessed?

    1. HS

      what Chamath has got a lot of heat over the weekend for saying-

    2. ER

      Yep

    3. HS

      ... uh, which was that Silicon Valley has been too, become too money-centric, and that's now a problem. Do you think he's right?

    4. ER

      I think that that is something that it sounds like Chamath would say because frankly that's how he's made his money. I, like, I think about what we're doing and how we got started. When we created the concept of the software factory, something that he, you know, loves to use that term as well, uh, you know, we said to ourselves, "We're looking at this very hard, fuzzy, ambiguous problem. We're ever... We're eating so much glass. We're going up to people saying, 'This is gonna exist, this technology. Here's how it works.'" And people would say, you know, "Leave." Like, "Go away." Like, it has nothing to do with the pursuit of an outcome 'cause at that point you're literally trying to almost be right about a technology, and so it's, like, sort of very product-y, it's very engineering heavy. It's kind of contrary to what the world is saying, or at least people are saying maybe at some point in the future. They're kind of dusting you away. In my mind, that sort of mindset of I'm trying to build a thing, I see the way the future might look, I'm gonna get super in the weeds, I'm gonna have people tell me I'm wrong every single day for three years straight until they eventually agree with you, I think that that's actually filled, uh, in San Francisco. Like, everywhere you go in Silicon Valley, there's tons of people who just care about technology, about doing something that might change the world. Uh, and I think that what you sort of get around that though are people who do wanna profit on top of that, and their only, like, way of participating, because their background might not be in building, uh, is to try and, like, sort of build financial instruments around it. That's actually healthy and important part of the ecosystem, but it's not the only thing that happens in San Francisco.

    5. HS

      I actually think it's the paradox of what Chamath says, which is I think the influx of money has led to a 1% realizing I've got f- plenty, a lot of money whatever I do. I can always go back to a big company, to a great company and get paid a lot.

    6. ER

      100%.

    7. HS

      So I'm going to choose to work on something that's really interesting.

    8. ER

      Yeah.

    9. HS

      Do you see what I mean?

    10. ER

      Yeah. And, uh, I mean, there's just no shortage of people who are just purely trying to realize a dream in San Francisco. It's... It is amazing to see, and I think that it's actually quite harmful that the, to, to that culture that people really want to create a narrative that it's purely financial seeking. Because t- in today's world, the words that you say and how you portray something, that becomes a part of the story that the s- intelligent systems that we're building ingest, and they, their, like, world model, LLMs and the tools that we're gonna use to do work on a daily basis for the next decade, you know, that technology is built on the stories that we tell. So I'm always trying to share a little bit more of the optimistic side of how I perceive the world to be because I think that that actually helps make that world occur with a higher probability.

  20. 1:06:03 – 1:13:19

    Why Pedigree Is Overrated When Hiring

    1. HS

      We've talked about team additions.

    2. ER

      Mm-hmm.

    3. HS

      Cognition places a lot of emphasis on, like, the chess champion and, like, the math prodigy. Do you think we are over-weighing the importance of traditional, uh, certification, or do you think that is the right thing to focus on in a more verifiable engineering heavy hiring process?

    4. ER

      Yeah. I think that it is conventional hiring wisdom to look at pedigree and look at achievements and say that's, like, the right way to pick people who are gonna be smart. Um, I think though that in many ways the sort of, like, least agentic path that you could take is to only try and hit the goals that other people set in front of you, and that tends to look like you go to the right school, you do the right competitions, you, like, follow the rules well enough that you then get recognized for how well you follow rules or, like, operate within the system. Now, actually, there's plenty of- ... smart people who are gonna do that because that's also how you almost guarantee a great outcome for your life. So to be clear, you can still find many smart people who follow that path. But in our mind, the most important trait in an individual to hire for is how capable you are of operating outside the bounds of what today the system calls the rules. And that is something that is very hard to measure for. And so ultimately, I think you need to look outside of that traditional pedigree and start to look for people who, A, that system might have overlooked. Uh, so like I know that I'm a big proponent of this. You know, I mean, I went to an Ivy League school. I learned firsthand that that is barely a signal for competence. [laughs] Uh, there are plenty of idiots who went to Ivy League schools. And I think that the clearest signal for me that someone's done something great is that they have built something that they care about that they wanna tell the world about. And I think that you can see that all over, and that's why I say it's not just companies that we think will sort of make up the people we, quote-unquote, "acquire," but it's, you know, one-person shows who just built something in their spare time that demonstrates that they are gonna go outside of the boundaries of what traditional systems would reward.

    5. HS

      How do you think about placing a value on those one-player, small-player teams? You know, we're seeing, um, Poolside being bought and a lot of the employees moving over to Nvidia at a $12 billion rumored price. How the, how the fuck do we put a price tag on heads?

    6. ER

      No, it's a great question. I mean, and this is ultimately probably one of the biggest, uh, challenges of capitalism in general is this like desire to place a value on humans and talent, which is sort of challenging. It's like obviously basically some of the best outcomes in history have come out of effectively like one person making a gut check or the right call. People say this about like Jeff Bezos. Is he worth $100, you know, $200 billion, or is it the company that built it? In my mind, there is something magical that happens in the connections between the people. So it's not that any one node is worth, you know, $100 million, but when you put all of these nodes together, the graph they make, that can be worth tens of billions of dollars. And so I think that that's actually one of these interesting parts about a talent strategy is that you have to constantly be thinking about the graph you're building, and those nodes can come in and they're almost a little bit more, uh, you know, there's traits and properties that you want them to have, but the best people are people that make that graph much stronger than it was before. And that I think can easily be worth $10, $20, $30-plus billion, especially to companies who are operating in a model where their talent was built pre-AI. Any business that was decided on their graph before this insanely, you know, game-changing technology was created has to update their graph very rapidly. And by bringing people in, that can be the difference between a $2 trillion company being a $4 trillion company. So almost anything's worth it.

    7. HS

      Penultimate one before we do a quick fire. What do you see other founders make in terms of mistakes on hiring that makes you go, "Oh, no. You know, Sarah or Simon, I wish you hadn't done that"?

    8. ER

      I think the biggest thing is performative work culture. Like people who look for people who are saying, "I'm gonna grind 24/7, and I'm gonna be unstoppable, and I'm gonna work myself to a bone." I think a lot of founders see that, and they sort of are catching a signaling that this person is gonna be really productive. But what we have found is that this sort of performative work culture, this like 9:96 sorta attitude is almost always correlated with making up for some other, you know, detractor or trait that they [laughs] you know, basically means that this person might not be a great hire. And I think that that actually applies at the company level as well. All the companies that sort of for the most part say, "You know, we work people to the bone Saturdays and Sundays, and we've, you know, have to have people, you know, in all the time," I think that at different points in your company's life you will work on weekends. You will work, you know, 15 hours in a row. Like that's gonna happen. I think trying to make that your culture points out that your business doesn't make a ton of sense without it. So-

    9. HS

      I, I get in a lot of trouble in the UK and in Europe for being kind of the 9:9:6 guy.

    10. ER

      Yeah.

    11. HS

      And I think that people take 9:9:6 from me too literally. I definitely do not mean 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM, six days a week.

    12. ER

      Yeah.

    13. HS

      I mean a culture of-

    14. ER

      Yeah

    15. HS

      ... if I ping you on Sunday morning saying, "Hey, a big client's got a problem. We need to jump on a call with the buyer there," you jump on on Sunday morning.

    16. ER

      Yep.

    17. HS

      It probably won't happen, but it's not, "I'm sorry, it's my weekend, and I will resume on Monday."

    18. ER

      100%. I mean, and that's just the reality of, of building a startup. I, I mean, you know, w- I am constantly talking to people on weekends, and we're doing stuff that indicates [laughs] that w- the business operates outside of Monday through Friday.

    19. HS

      Sure.

    20. ER

      I think, though, that there's clearly a difference, and that's why I say performative work culture. Any time you create an incentive to sh- to show people that you're working rather than to actually do work, you're basically incentivizing the wrong thing. And so I think really focusing the business on outcomes, like it's interesting you just mentioned, you know, you jump on a call with a client in order to achieve something. Well, that's pretty easy to see that you're not talking about the act itself. You're talking about the outcome you want to achieve.

    21. HS

      Sure.

    22. ER

      And that difference is pretty massive when you're hiring. And I just see a lot of people think that they're making the g- the right call by only selecting for people who have that trait, and I think you miss out on a lot of great talent who knows that that's kind of bullshit.

    23. HS

      I think the other thing is senior engineering talent, especially with families, say, is instantly put off by the performative, often young hustle culture. And actually I've learned that the leverage that you get from like, especially when it comes to like infrastructure engineering or architectural engineering-

    24. ER

      Yep

    25. HS

      ... is very real.

    26. ER

      Yeah. I, I mean, right now basically being able to point a set of agents in the right direction and knowing from the beginning what direction to go on is worth not only more because it gets the job done faster, but it now translates into real dollars, right? Like if you spend 100 times more tokens- Trying to get an outcome because you just don't know as much. Uh, it doesn't matter that you worked harder, it just basically means that you missed the ball the

  21. 1:13:19 – 1:17:51

    Should Engineers Get $100K+ AI Token Budgets?

    1. ER

      first time.

    2. HS

      I, I had Brandon on the show from McCool.

    3. ER

      Yeah.

    4. HS

      And he said that they spend more on tokens than they do on engineering headcount. My dear friend Jason Lampkin from Sasta, who we do a weekly show with on news with Rory, um, said that we'll give $100,000 of tokens to our best engineers.

    5. ER

      Yep.

    6. HS

      Where do you sit on that today, and how do you think that changes?

    7. ER

      We actually don't even think about allocating tokens or credits towards people like that. Like, I think that that's actually, in fact, a very weird way to think about it, and I think gets at a measure that ultimately people are looking at inputs. What we think about is how many tokens or basically how much spend that we allocate towards projects and outcomes. So I'll give you a great example. There's an evaluation that we have been hill climbing against in order to try and see if we can build a system that beats it. It's incredibly difficult. It's called Program Bench. And one of the things that we've done is effectively allocated almost seven figures of, like, credits in a given, in one day, uh, on this benchmark, and that was currently being done by, like, one person. So I guess you could say that we allocated seven figures of credits to that person. But in reality, what we're trying to do is we're trying to see does our research pan out on this project. And so of course we're willing to spend that much in order to see if that outcome comes true. Uh, similarly, for a lot of our, uh, engineers, like, what we do is we try to say basically scope out these projects. And once you know the scale and scope of the project, all you have to do is basically share the bid of what you think it's gonna cost, and then we go and we send it off. And we, in fact, have products, uh, called agent effectiveness that let you allocate and look at how many credits were spent on a given project in order to measure are you achieving the outcomes that you'd like in your business given the spend that you're putting towards those areas. And I think that in this new world, the, like, relationship of one-to-one mapping, like agents to humans or, like, saying, like, an agent has a name is sort of a weird way to think about it, when really you have an agent system and you allocate capital towards projects. So I, I see that number for some businesses approaching eight and nine figures easily.

    8. HS

      What really good idea did you say no to that was very hard to?

    9. ER

      I think self-service is by far for us the hardest thing to continuously say no to. Uh, it is actually quite painful as a builder of products. I want more people to use our product, and there's these certain types of adjustments that we could make. And I think many of them would unfortunately come at odds with, one, making our business more successful, or two, um, you know, the experience for the enterprise. And that's something that I don't see as being permanent. Like, I do think w- we're gonna hit a certain scale where we're allowed to pursue many things at once, but it constantly sort of nags at me that I can't just, like, hit a button and then 10 million people are using the product. 'Cause when we look in the market at comparable solutions that have, you know, millions of users, basically the biggest difference is economics and that's it. And so we know from a product perspective we have a lot that's there. It's just that we have to make a hard decision to not, uh, subsidize.

    10. HS

      If you own the outcomes of those consumers and you get that data back, could you not make an argument that the improvements that that data would provide to the core product would outweigh the cost to serve those free self-serve users?

    11. ER

      So that's actually how we use self-service today, is basically we have a product that, uh, you know, obviously you can download it off the internet and you can try it. We, we have a, to be clear, a pretty steady stream of, you know, tens of thousands of people that use the product every day from that segment. Uh, and I think that in the, for those self-service users, they are giving us feedback and they're helping shape, I would say, more of, like, the experience from a user at the individual level. But I think at this point a lot of that, um, can be achieved with, you know, less than, I'd say 250,000 people. And so once you start to hit critical mass, uh, you get that feedback loop, you have everything you need. Uh, you don't need, like, 5, 10 million people to get that, those bug fixes in. Uh, however, there is something really special about seeing the community build, like, sort of media and content and storytelling around your product, and I think that that's a part of the experience that we have to work really hard to create a comparable for.

    12. HS

      Yeah, a grassroots community-

    13. ER

      Yes

    14. HS

      ... that kind of grassroots brand is harder if you don't have that.

    15. ER

      Yeah.

    16. HS

      I totally get you.

    17. ER

      100%.

  22. 1:17:51 – 1:29:12

    Quick-Fire Round

    1. HS

      Um, we're gonna do a quick-fire round.

    2. ER

      Let's do it.

    3. HS

      And in the UK we have a game, uh, and I'm probably gonna get in trouble for this, and it's called, um, shag, marry, kill.

    4. ER

      [laughs] Right.

    5. HS

      Uh, brutal, but you get the theory-

    6. ER

      Of course

    7. HS

      ... which is short, like, you know, buy for the short term, buy for the long term, and sell hard.

    8. ER

      Yep.

    9. HS

      Um, Meta, Microsoft, and Nvidia.

    10. ER

      Ooh, this is a fun one. You know, I think that I would have to say marry Microsoft, shag Nvidia, and kill Meta. And I'll tell you why. Microsoft to me represents a software company that has become an everything company that really does sit in the lifeblood of almost every Fortune 500. There's not a single business that doesn't have Microsoft something, and I think that that means that that company is going to be here for a very long time. I say this also as a former Microsoft employee for a year and a half. Um, Nvidia is the current king maker of technology. They get to decide who is currently even sitting at the table. And so I have no doubt that that's going to continue to grow massively. Uh, and how durable that is, I think that it's just a matter of if they accumulate power at the right rate. If they do it at the current rate, and then at some point people might ask questions about are we gonna let one company control the whole supply chain. Uh, but today I think it probably The answer is, what other choice do we have? So they're gonna keep growing. Um, and Meta, you know, I, I say this with, with love to the, to the company. I think that ultimately from a technology perspective, they're really actually quite accurate often. Like, I think the, Zuck's push into VR was, like, technologically correct. That felt like the right move. I think the push now into open models technologically is correct. I think that they have one cash cow, which is their ads business, and I think that that means that they're gonna have to work really hard to figure out if there's anything other than that that can sustain the business. So it just makes it the weakest of the three.

    11. HS

      Will Nvidia be a $10 trillion business in three years?

    12. ER

      I think that there's a real serious chance that if we let SpaceX be worth two or three trillion, then Nvidia probably is worth 10. Uh, and so I think that the answer's likely yes.

    13. HS

      It depends on the buoyancy of multiples.

    14. ER

      Yeah.

    15. HS

      Uh, do you... You said about the entrenchment of Microsoft in businesses. Would you be a buyer or seller on Salesforce given that?

    16. ER

      Oh, I'm a buy on Salesforce.

    17. HS

      Really?

    18. ER

      I believe that the businesses that are going to be m- most durable are the ones that have a workflow and a system of record that they've defined that everyone agrees is consensus. So you look at, like, the Salesforce of the world, you look at, uh, today at least Atlassian, and I think that the biggest thing is when people say, "I hate that software," and everyone buys it, that's probably a pretty good business. Because they're not buying the software, they're buying what's underneath of it. And that to me is actually much more durable than the technology itself.

    19. HS

      I'm an investor in Linear. Linear are absolutely crushing though.

    20. ER

      Yeah.

    21. HS

      And they... And what's interesting is actually, and it's a really interesting one, is Atlassian are crushing and so are Linear, and it just goes to again the market size being so much bigger than anyone comprehends. And I think we think too much in zero-sum. I take from you and so you lose.

    22. ER

      Yep.

    23. HS

      We're both just crushing actually.

    24. ER

      I, I think that's really true. And one thing that's important is Linear and Atlassian are selling the same thing. It's the same workflow, agile, and a system of record that represents agile. I will say though, that one of the things that is pretty clear to me is that the way we build software is fundamentally changing, and I think that agile might be s- one of the things that gets hit with this new way of developing. And that makes me think that there's a huge opening for what the next system of record and the next workflow looks like. And I do think it's gonna have to be much more radical, and it'll be very challenging for both Linear and Atlassian to transform into that new way of building.

    25. HS

      Codex, Cursor, Cognition, and Claude Code-

    26. ER

      Sure

    27. HS

      ... rank one through four in terms of threat level you feel from them.

    28. ER

      Oh, threat level's interesting. I think, uh, in my mind, the current ranking would be... 'Cause I actually feel that I have to condition this by saying I don't feel a impending threat from the rise of these players, because I think that they're actually all going in a different direction from what we're building, and that's really important, and I'll touch on that in a second. But in terms of, I'd say, relevance to the conversations when I'm talking to enterprise buyers, number one is, uh, Claude Code. I think that it's just brought up in every single conversation. And so we always have to sort of share with people why we see ourselves as largely complementary to the Anthropic platform and suite. Um, the second is now, uh, Codex has increasingly been referenced in deals and conversations where people are saying, "Look, like, we were on Claude Code and now we're switching to Codex." That's actually the greatest news for us because it shows how basically unsticky this is and it gives uncertainty. However, they're coming up way more frequently now, and I think it's because their work platform is better than Anthropic's. So it's not Codex for coding, but a- rather Codex for Work that's coming up more frequently, which is very fascinating. Then I would say Cognition because they're basically the only other model-independent vendor in the enterprise. And so I'd say that one of the big, like, sort of consistent feedback points we hear from them is that, uh, you know, they're building this cloud offering. It's very sort of futuristic on the idea of imitating a software engineer as a human. And so I think that that is something that ex- makes people ask, w- is that different or the same as your strategy? Uh, and then Cursor has, is sort of present actually in a lot of these businesses. I don't think that anyone really perceives Cursor to be their primary enterprise software development strategy as much as an IDE, which is I think still a great business 'cause they're still gonna get a lot of usage. But that sort of is how I see them. Uh, and this is most informed by this idea of almost all four of these businesses are sort of coming to enterprises and saying, "We're going to build you a eventually human-level AI replacement for labor, and then we're gonna sort of Indiana Jones swap this for the people in your business." And I think that that is just so different from what we're going into and sort of sharing with them, which is that you're not gonna replace human with AI as much as you're going to build a new system for developing software, and humans are going to build that new system alongside AI, and that new system is going to look very unfamiliar. And so it's not so much a one-to-one labor mapping as it is a entirely new development methodology, and that's something they're really only hearing from us right now, and I think it sort of contextualizes the many tools in the space compared to Factory.

    29. HS

      Will Chamath be successful with his, I can't remember, the 1809 or but for whatever it is?

    30. ER

      Yeah. The, the, the... I, I think that, uh, my answer would be it depends on how real the software is. I haven't seen any examples of it sort of like working in an enterprise environment. Uh, I think that if they're very focused on building software that works and delivers outcomes, um, I believe that he has just as good a chance as anyone, and is very well connected. Uh, but ultimately I do think that part of this is about, like, building with the enterprise. And so I think that that's probably going to be the biggest question is, like, can they get enterprise traction in the markets that matter with people who take them seriously as a, like, full-time Uh, software development opportunity

Episode duration: 1:29:22

Install uListen for AI-powered chat & search across the full episode — Get Full Transcript

Transcript of episode h9VNB9TA2Hk

Get more out of YouTube videos.

High quality summaries for YouTube videos. Accurate transcripts to search & find moments. Powered by ChatGPT & Claude AI.

iOSAndroidClaudeChrome