Tracy Alloway (2:06)

I feel like the hype cycles get shorter and shorter and more compressed. But you're right. I think there are maybe some more jitters than there have been previously.

Joe Eisenthal (2:16)

Like maybe only maybe.

Tracy Alloway (2:18)

It's hard to tell.

Joe Eisenthal (2:19)

It's hard to tell.

Tracy Alloway (2:20)

But I think even if we're not there yet, we are getting maybe to that point where, like, the rubber needs to meet the road in terms of monetization. Like, you know, everyone got maybe.

Joe Eisenthal (2:32)

Okay, maybe.

Tracy Alloway (2:33)

Yeah, you're right.

Joe Eisenthal (2:34)

Maybe yesterday or either this morning or yesterday. Anthropic $183 billion valuation. This does not strike me as people worried about monetization. People, well, or suddenly people are worried about valuation. It sounds like people really want to pour a lot of money into these Companies.

Tracy Alloway (2:52)

Yeah, it is. It's a weird environment, let's just put it that way. That's the only thing we can say with certainty that doesn't start with a maybe.

Joe Eisenthal (3:00)

That's right. Here's another thing we could say with certainty. Alphabet. The shares are up as we're speaking 8 point something percent today. This was a company people were sort of worried about how they would do the AI era. They're killing it. They're at an all time high again today. So again, like many things are like, it's tough to get a read on things.

Tracy Alloway (3:18)

It is indeed. Who do we turn to?

Joe Eisenthal (3:21)

Love this vague intro. We just want to get have an excuse to get to the guest and so we're going to vamp for a little while and then we're going to get to the guest.

Tracy Alloway (3:29)

I just tried to throw to the guest. Joe, who do we turn to for a read on the true feelings of the market around AI?

Joe Eisenthal (3:37)

That's right. We do have the perfect guest. We're going to be speaking with Josh Wolfe. He's the co founder managing partner at Lux Capital VC who's been in this space for a long time. A guy we like to turn to to figure out what's actually happening at any given moment. He sometimes even has good interest insights in public companies too, not just private companies. Josh, thank you so much for coming back on the podcast.

Josh Wolfe (3:59)

Great to see you both. How you guys doing?

Joe Eisenthal (4:02)

We're doing great. What's up with Alphabet? Some people thought they were going to be a big loser in AI because they have this legacy search business model and O3 is so much better for searching here. They are surging, they're at an all time high. What is the smart take on Alph Alphabet right now?

Josh Wolfe (4:17)

I think they are crushing it. I think they are the sort of dark horse underdog and maybe the second that I would put with that is Apple, which people are totally.

Joe Eisenthal (4:25)

Yeah, totally.

Josh Wolfe (4:26)

And you know, the irony is, you know, if you think about the big players Meta with Zuck's crazy Pochapalooza, you know, which we'll get into where you know, $100 million pay packages and try and disrupt everybody and bring them all on, you're seeing talks about them. They've got Mid journey coming in for the images, so not relying on their own models, they're talking about Google or potential integration on search. So it's interesting that Meta, having committed to first be the metaverse and change the name to Meta and then zuckoing all in AI is actually going to be Turning to some of these other players potentially. So I think that's surprise number one that people thought that Meta was going to be in the lead and, and I think that Google and Apple are both sort of counted out, but both are very serious contenders. If you look at the top two video models that are out in the world today, one US company, which is ours, called Runway ML and the other which is Veo3, which is absolutely stunning and incredible, they are a force to reckon with. It is extraordinarily development. You can make an argument, by the way, they have this repository exclusive to them of being able to train on every YouTube video ever produced. Itself is a super valuable piece. Remember it was what, a year and a half ago, two years ago that people were mocking Bard. Bard was the laughing stock of all of this. Gemini 2.5 is crushing it. Oh yeah, you know, the Nano Banana that I don't know if you guys have used, which was the secret code name for their latest image generation model, is probably the number one performing model out there. And paired with some of these workflows that go into Runway or even into Veo combined with midjourney, it's just, you know, think people counted Google out because they were behind and they weren't part of the hype. OpenAI had won the consumer both on subscription basis and capturing people's habitual daily use. And that all made sense. Claude was capturing it and anthropic on code. And then you've got niche players like Open Evidence and other people that are doing it in different verticals like medicine. But I think that the corporate workflows, I think about how much Lux depends upon Gmail and Google Calendar and sheets and slides and their ability to integrate that all over time is I think going to give them a huge advantage. So very bullish on Google. And by the way, remember, go back 20 years or 15 years, Google did the thing that completely did what the DOJ couldn't do to Microsoft. They dropped the price of alternatives to the Office suite to free. And the net result of that was Google which had this advertising model was ascended and Microsoft was suddenly scrambling. And I think that the same thing's going to happen. I think that a lot of people funding foundation models and the endless perception of endless demand for GPUs and compute and all these independent private AI companies are going to be shocked by what Google does on a pricing basis with Gemini and beyond. So dark horse, I'd be pretty bullish.

Tracy Alloway (7:22)

Joe, did you immediately run to the Nano Banana website?

Joe Eisenthal (7:25)

Yeah, I did as soon as you said I had not used it, I did too. I had never used Nanobanana. That is the first place.

Josh Wolfe (7:31)

Don't go to a website called nanobanana because you know you're going to. No, I don't know.

Joe Eisenthal (7:35)

Banana AI looks like the right spot. Okay.

Tracy Alloway (7:38)

It does have.

Josh Wolfe (7:39)

Where you want to actually go is it's now embedded inside of Google, the AI studio.

Joe Eisenthal (7:44)

Yeah, yeah, I see that.

Tracy Alloway (7:45)

Yeah.

Josh Wolfe (7:46)

It's ability to take you and it's almost like Photoshop, but just by coding Photoshop, it's really incredible.

Joe Eisenthal (7:53)

This is a threat to Tracy's Ms. Paint skills which are legendary within the Odd Lots office. And maybe I will no longer need to say, Tracy, can you make this for me in Ms. Paint?

Tracy Alloway (8:03)

No. No technology will ever replace Ms. Paint. I'm 100% confident in that. I'm being sarcastic, obviously. Okay. Can you talk more generally about how people are feeling about the AI space at the moment? Because you probably heard us in the intro struggling to characterize like the general attitudes towards the sector at the moment. What's your take on it?

Josh Wolfe (8:25)

Well, the first is on the one hand, people underappreciate how much this is going to change everything in our daily lives. But that doesn't mean that people are going to make money from that. We're all going to benefit, we'll all be more productive. The great irony at the macro scale, of course, is that people thought that blue collar jobs were totally screwed, you know, and white collar jobs and the Peter Drucker knowledge worker, everybody's safe. But the great irony is it is the knowledge workers that are in trouble because so much of their workflows are being captured and in a sense commoditized and maybe approaching an asymptote of good enough. It may not be perfect, but pretty damn good. And so you're going to see a lot of labor destruction in segments and markets that people were not anticipating. The first early canary in the coal mine that you're seeing there is hiring for undergrads coming into entry level jobs. And whether that's investment banking or sales and trading or consulting or accounting, suddenly it isn't that the economy is really troubled. It's that a lot of those demands you're seeing Salesforce, say 45% of our jobs, you know, it cut. Marc Benioff is using AI instead of people. And that's going to keep trickling down. It's going to happen slowly and then sort of all at once. So that's one thing on the labor side. And I would Say broadly that it's underhyped in how much it's going to impact our lives. It's overhyped in valuations now. Where is it overhyped in valuations? The first one, you know, I was very proud. Ten years ago, we funded a company called Zoox. Zoox did autonomous driving and they were training these cars and we had $25 million in. And I was like, they're playing video games. You know, what are you doing? You're messing around? They said, no, no, no, we're training the vehicles and we have these Nvidia chips nobody else has yet. That was 2015. I ended up pitching at a public charity event, the Invest for Kids conference, 2015, 2016. And this was a $15 billion market cap company at the time when intel was 150 billion. I said, this is like the pear trade of a century.

Joe Eisenthal (10:12)

Oh, Nvidia. They're up like 340x since then, aren't they?

Josh Wolfe (10:16)

Yeah, yeah. And so this was just, you know, insane. It's the benefit of being a venture capitalist that you get to see the future in legal, inside information, inside the companies and what people are doing. So the perception and the consensus in AI on the hardware stack is that we need endless demand for data centers, we need endless demand for GPUs. We need 100,000 clusters of H100 chips or Blackwell chips. We're going to thwart China from getting the chips, but they're going to sort of design around or we're going to have different versions of the Nvidia chips for China. I think that this is misplaced and I'll give you another insight. We may have talked a little bit about this in the past, but there was a paper from Apple a year and a half ago that a lot of people have not really sucked their teeth into, which was the idea that you could do large language models on device using flash memory, not needing GPUs. And so Jensen and Nvidia will tell you you need all of these H100 chips and you need endless compute and lots of data centers for training. And that's generally true. But the other part of it, the fancy word for prompting, which we call inference, you don't necessarily need that. And if that is true, then that means that our devices maybe are running on sk, Hynix and Micron and Samsung and the memory players, which have, just like the GPU players, were considered commodity players. With the upgrade cycle of the gaming consoles for PS5 and Xbox, I think you may see a shift towards Edge Inference. You know, I've been talking about this for about a year and a half. Elon just tweeted out about it maybe two, three weeks ago saying like, this is an inevitability, but I think it's going to shift away this fallacy of composition where what Google is doing and Anthropic is doing and OpenAI is doing and Meta is doing at a huge scale, all to the benefit of Jensen and Nvidia. And Nvidia shareholders may start to chip away and say, wait a second, we don't need all this compute, there's going to be a glut. So that's the first one on the.

Joe Eisenthal (12:05)

Hardware that's very interesting. And yeah, I'd heard. I haven't done much with on device things. A friend of mine was telling me that Alibaba's model Quinn works very well on a phone, for example. So maybe something we should pay more attention to. All right, as a vc, when you are doing due diligence on a company, how does it affect how you think about even arriving at the concept of fair value when there is the prospect that some share of the enterprise value of the company could walk out the door via Aqua hire to a Metta, et cetera. Now I get it different. Not every company in AI is doing the hard science, etc. But just coming from your perspective as an investor, how is that changing how you think of companies? Is that so much of where the value is may lie with talent that could just walk out the door at any time?

Josh Wolfe (12:54)

It is a very big deal. The entire social contract of venture capital is the premise that pension funds and high net worth individuals and endowments give capital to people like us. We then go deploy it into companies. We buy stakes, we try to buy them as early as we can and own as much of a company and be a partner and add value and then sell those companies. But if all of a sudden somebody is being pried away, and the irony of all of this is that because of a very impressive DOJ and FTC that basically said no, no M and A, we're coming after you big tech companies, we don't want to see more consolidation. You have too much power. So they started doing instead of mna, lna, instead of mergers and acquisitions, they were doing license and acqui hire. And what that meant was, hey, we'll buy. And they did this with scale. We'll buy 49% of your company. I think scale was valued at around $12 billion thereabout. And they said, well, we'll pay 14 slight premium to your last round, but we'll buy 49%, effectively valuing it at 28 billion. But we'll pay out that money to the company, you can dividend it out to shareholders. So it may not be perfectly tax efficient, number one. Then we're going to basically license the technology and we're going to take all the people, or at least the top people. The result of that is you're navigating around Delaware governance, you're arbitraging. It's really, it's really important because it's sort of like Carl Icahn used to say, your price, my terms. You know, there's this phenomenon in legal terms people might call the Chesterton fence. The idea of the Chesterton fence is thought experiment of like, okay, there's a fence there. What the heck is it there for? You don't understand, right? Well, maybe it was there to keep the sheep in or keep the wolves out or whatever it is. Every legal term in every term sheet that a venture capitalist gives or a founder gets is based on somebody screwing somebody in the past. And like we're not letting that happen again. So I can guarantee you that the next few years you will see all kind of protective provisions and covenants that say if one of these companies comes and tries to just acquire you, all of your stock, you know, reverts and yada yada. And so there's going to be tie ups and holdbacks that are a pendulum swing away from the super founder friendly dynamics where venture capitalists were tripping over themselves to basically give the most founder friendly terms that they can. Because the founder would say, well, if you don't give me what I want, I'll go to somebody else. But I think that the pendulum is swinging with the cost of capital rising and you're going to see more and more investor friendly term sheets, partially as a reaction to the fact that somebody like Zuck and Meta can go in and just basically take the fruit off the end of the tree and leave a stump. Foreign.

Bloomberg Audio Studios Announcer (15:38)

This message is brought to you by Nuveen. How would you invest if you knew the future was watching at Nuveen? This isn't a theoretical question. It's a perspective that comes from navigating 125 years of market cycles, using foresight to innovate and adapt to the changing needs of investors around the world, and remaining steadfast in the pursuit of lasting performance for clients, communities and the global economy. Nuveen Invest like the future is watching. Visit Nuveen.com future to learn more. Investing involves risk, Principal loss as possible.

Caremark Prescription Plan Announcer (16:15)

Bloomberg Screen Time is where creators and capital connect with entertainment experts from Netflix, Twitch and Meta. Step behind the screen to shape the screen strategies, stories and innovations that power what the world watches next. Join Managing Editor of Media and Entertainment Lucas Shaw live in Los Angeles October 8th and 9th. Get your tickets now at bloomberglive.com screentime. That's bloomberglive.com scReentime.

Joe Eisenthal (16:46)

By the way, Tracy, as we were talking about this breaking from the Wall Street Journal, XAI CFO liberatory never stepped down. Latest in string of executive departures. Always moves in this space.

Tracy Alloway (16:56)

Yes, indeed. You know, this sort of race to the bottom in terms of terms, it reminds me a lot of the corporate bond market and the rise of covenant deals, right?

Joe Eisenthal (17:05)

Yeah.

Tracy Alloway (17:06)

And I remember a time when like cov light deals were a minority in the leveraged loan market and now I think they're like almost 98% or 99%. Basically everything's cover light now because the issuers had all the power recently and they were able to push back against investors. You mentioned the higher cost of capital there. Like how much leverage does that actually give you as a vc? And then secondly, just going back to the Equihire thing, how reliable can legal restrictions actually be in terms of preventing like your star engineers from leaving the company? Are they ever going to be like 100% bulletproof?

Josh Wolfe (17:47)

No. I mean, look, you have non competes that are non enforceable in California, a little bit more enforceable in New York. You have arbitrage and jurisdictional stuff. Broadly, I would say that the lower the cost of capital, the shorter your term sheets are. The higher the cost of the capital, the longer your term sheets are. You got more terms, more covenants, more protections because you can afford to be able to negotiate for those things. And it's not because you're trying to screw over the founder. What you're really trying to do as an investor is prevent yourself from being screwed over. But again, there's always a pendulum swinging here back and forth. Even if you think about Zuck and Meta and this entire movement of hey, I'm the founder, I'm going to have super voting stock of 10 or 100 to 1. And control was in a response to founders being ousted by bad investors or bad board members and some of the best companies frankly being run by founders. And so there's always going to be this pendulum shift. To your direct question, it's really a covenant and contract that starts socially before it starts legally.

Tracy Alloway (18:45)

Hmm.

Josh Wolfe (18:45)

If I'M backing a founder. I'm doing the most important thing in addition to writing a check, I believe before others understand, particularly at the earliest stage, I'm encouraging them to start their company. I'm giving them the confidence that we're going to back them and believe in them. We're going to give them the capital so they can go hire the 10 best people to start the business. We're going to give them the money for the compute or the infrastructure, depending on the sector that we're in. It could be biotech, could be defense. But whatever it is, in this particular moment, it is breaking the social contract between investors and founders. And for founders it might be heads I win and tails I also win. And so that's the dynamic that you're going to see a reaction of investors saying, wait a second, I'm getting screwed. My limited partners are getting screwed again. Those limited partners are endowments and foundations and wealthy families. And you got to protect against a potential bad actor trying to take the fruit off the edge of the tree and just leave you with a stump.

Joe Eisenthal (19:39)

So one of the things that comes up a lot on the podcast in this discovery, over years of conversations and what you're describing, it's principal agent problems all the way down in finance. And this is why we see the rise of the multi strap model in hedge funds in some ways to align the incentives PM with the level of the overall fund, with the level of the endowment, et cetera. And of course, some of these issues that you're wrestling with, or where everyone's wrestling with in finance, similar issues about where the incentives align between the star engineer, the founder, the vc, the LP and so forth. I have a question though. So in theory, a venture capital firm, the goal in theory is to create funds with the highest return, right? Make money for investors. But I could also imagine a slightly different incentive in which if the goal is to collect LP money, then maybe you want to show that you're in the hottest deals of the time because so that when you go to various endowments and pensions and so forth, you know, we're in this deal, we're in this deal, we're in this deal. And maybe that overrides the impulse to create, create high returns. By the way, I'm not insinuating anything, I'm just trying to get your perspective on something. That being said, one of the things that you hear that's happening in tech these days is that and for years founders taking money off the table earlier and earlier in the process, you invest $50 million in a company, 20 million is so that the founder can retire for him, his children and his children. That may not be great for your LPs, but it might be good for you if you could say, we got in this deal. Talk to us about how prevalent this is and how this is changing, this sort of social contract of finance.

Josh Wolfe (21:15)

So there's three layers of incentives and man, you really nailed it. I actually haven't really heard somebody that is not a full time venture capitalist or a limited partner nail these issues. So very prescient, very shrewd. Here's the three layers. First, think about the LPs. You're an endowment or you're a foundation or you're a hospital. You're giving 5% by law, of your charitable assets every year. You want to continue to earn more than 5% so that you can grow that base and invest in campuses and scholarships or expand hospital systems and whatnot. So you Invest, you know, 60, 40 bonds, equity. Now you do the Swenson model from Yale and you start introducing some private equity. And now you're extending your duration and you're extending your liquidity. But you're doing it because you think you're getting better returns. Okay? Returns are a function of how much capital is going into a sector. If there's a ton of capital going into a sector, if you're early, you're going to do really well. If you're late, you're going to be doing really poor because as Buffett says, you pay a high price for cheery consensus. And once it's consensus, you're not making money. So the LP's incentive is to make as much money they can for their benefactors, whether they're patients or scholars or charitable giving. The VC's incentive is two things. One, get the best return so that you can compete. If I'm only earning 12% and a pure VC is earning 20%, money is going to go where it's going to be well treated and I'm going to lose to that. So the cost of my capital for the cost of an LP's capital is outperformance. So I've got to outperform, which means I have to be earlier. I have to own more. I can't just do stupid deals. Sophisticated LPs will not just look at the logos that you have, which is the game that you've always sophisticated LPs from mutual funds and from some hedge funds. You know, you'd see the Q4 filings and they always threw in the name. Oh, we were in Nvidia, you know, and they would market their top 10 holdings. But BS, you know, they lost money on it, right? And so that is a really important incentive. And the sophisticated LPs will actually know down to the partner at the firm or the team or the deal team who was responsible for this, what was the entry point. They will talk to the founders and say who was your most valuable investor, who got you your first 10 hires, who helped with your syndicate construction for your later rounds, who made customer introductions, who was a valuable board member, who never showed up, who was asleep in the board meetings, all that kind of stuff. So there is a level of due diligence that LPs have to do to know are you a value add investor or are you a poser or pretender that's just buying a logo or a brand name? Okay. The other incentive and then we'll get to the founders liquidity is you have this weird dynamic of what I've called the minnows and the megas in venture capital. This is in preview, a shakeout that is going to happen. The minnows are the thousands of small sub $500 million funds that proliferated when the cost of capital was low, rates were low, everybody was making money. You had a roommate that started a company and you got into Pinterest or you knew somebody at Meta and they gave you a deal and blah blah, blah blah blah. And when you had the tigers and the softbanks and the abundance of follow on capital, every round was an up round. You had paper marks that kept going up and up and up and it looked great. And you're reporting these paper marks and then sometimes these things became zeros. Okay, but you raised your next fund before they became a zero. Those are the minnows. I was with one of my very large LPs has hundreds of millions of dollars invested with us. And I said I think there's going to be a 50% extinction rate amongst these minnows. And he said Josh, that is ridiculous. It's going to be 90%. So you are going to have a mass extinction now why by the way not because they're just bad investors. It's Shakespearean, okay? Shakespearean in that these are partnerships. People start to hate each other when it becomes hard. People start to hate each other when there's down rounds. People start to hate each other when somebody else deal is a crappy deal and they're bringing down your carry. And so partnerships are fragile things, just like relationships and marriages and they can break up. And so you have a lot of VCs that started in the past few years. They're not experienced in going through cycles. They have inadequate reserves to continue to fund their companies. So you're going to have an extinction that I would consider involuntary exits. Okay, then there's voluntary exits, which is another interesting dynamic. And there's a playbook for this, which is 2009 to 2014, all the big private equity firms reached a level of scale, several hundred billion dollars AUM assets under management, where they basically said, we're diversified, where alternative asset platforms, Carlyle, Blackstone, kkr, tpg, Apollo, all went public. The same thing is going to happen in venture with probably five or six firms. My prediction is, and they're all great people running great firms, but they're starting to play a different game. And that game, Andreessen Horowitz, General Atlantic, General Catalyst, Insight, Lightspeed, a handful of others, all at 80 or 100 billion AUM, have built great firms, but are thinking about how do we create generational wealth for the founders and go public. Different incentive. How do I make my LPs the best money or get the best founders? It's about asset gathering and liquidity. Now we go to the founders. I can tell you I've been on both sides of this. On the one hand, you want to be fully aligned with your founders, meaning I'm in a fund, it's 10 years. Some VCs vest over two or three or four years. We vest. And all of our partners vest over 10 years. The same duration that you're. If you're an LP with me, your money's locked up. It's the right thing to do, Buffett style. And the guy that put me in business, Bill Conway, who's the Carlyle founder, this is what they did. So if you're an entrepreneur and you start a company and people are tripping over themselves to get in, they might entice you with green mail and say, yes, we're going to invest just like you said, Joe, $50 million, but we're going to give you 20 million of liquidity. Okay, now I will say this. 2019, I'm on a Zoom call for an amazing company called Control Labs that we sell to Meta for a little under a billion dollars. And I love this company and I love the founders. And this is before everybody was on Zoom during COVID And I'm looking at the Zoom window and I see one of the founders and I text the other founder because I think that they're selling too early and I'm the lone board member that didn't have a veto. But I'm like, I really think we should stay the course and we should keep going. And I made a terrible, terrible mist mistake because I'm looking at the zoom window and I see the guy and I look closer and I text the other founder. I'm like, is he still in a dorm room? And sure enough, he was in a dorm room as a PhD had made no money.

Joe Eisenthal (27:31)

You gotta let that guy get rich paper stock value.

Josh Wolfe (27:34)

And he's like, yes, I want to sell because he's going to make 90, $100 million and it's life changing money. And I sat there and I said, if I would have just given him a few million dollars of interesting, he would have been able to take a breath, buy a house, get out of that door and keep going.

Joe Eisenthal (27:53)

Get a girlfriend.

Josh Wolfe (27:55)

There is a virtue of giving some liquidity, but you need to be aligned. In that moment, we were not aligned because he was like, I'm calling in Rich and I wanted him to keep going. But if you're calling in Rich and you, you're not completing the job, the mission, then you have total misalignment. So that's the dynamics, LP alignment, GP alignment and the bifurcation and then founder alignment. A little bit of liquidity is okay to let them stay the course.

Hiscox Insurance Announcer (28:37)

On September 25, Bloomberg Green returns to New York to bring together leaders from business, finance and government during Climate Week nyc. Join us for a half day of timely insights and high impact networking backed by Bloomberg's global journalism and data expertise. Together we'll explore strategies for future proofing business and communities from the planet's most pressing climate challenge. Learn more@BloombergLive.com Greenny.

Tracy Alloway (29:07)

Okay, other than misalignment and everyone starting to hate each other as the cost of capital goes up, there's another thing going on which is, you know, OpenAI just launched some open source models of its own. And this leads me to a question that like I'm going to admit I've never quite understood this but like what exactly is the attraction for VC investors to open source models as opposed to closed source where like closed source, you know, it's proprietary, people presumably have to pay in order to get it. There's like a defensible moat around the business. You would assume. Why in the world would I ever want to fund a model that's open source?

Josh Wolfe (29:53)

Well, a few things. One, if you go back in the compute stack, you had this with like Red Hat and Linux, you know Going back, you know, 15, 20 years ago, we are the largest owners of a company called Hugging Face, which is both the most ridiculous name and when one of my partners, Brandon Reeves, was sourcing this deal, it was a bunch of free French PhDs came to Brooklyn and they were like, we're starting this thing. I'm like, hugging face. And they're like, yeah, it's named after an emoji. The little, you know, hugging face emoji. Cute. They became the lead.

Tracy Alloway (30:19)

I like that you're visually demonstrating everything for us. Thank you.

Josh Wolfe (30:24)

I can't do many other emojis and you don't want to see some of them, but Hugging Face I can do. So they became the leading open source repository. Now the great irony, by the way, is when OpenAI started, they were OpenAI, but they became the world's greatest chatbot. Hugging Face started with a really crappy chatbot, but then became the world's greatest open source repository. Every major tech company, including OpenAI, Microsoft, any open source model that they do, they put on there. And that is like the GitHub of AI models. Microsoft bought GitHub roughly 8 billion $8.5 billion. It was a really valuable store of models and code. This is the same thing for dynamic AI models. So as a vc, we originally funded this, I want to say at a 30 or 40 million pre money valuation. Last round was north of $6 billion and real revenue generating multi hundreds of millions of dollars. Serious company. Now the trend is this. Vinod Khosla and I were both in the White House a year and a half ago and we were having a debate with Jake Sullivan about what is better for national security, open source or closed. And I said, where you stand on the issue depends on where you sit in the cap table. Okay. And Vinod was an early investor. I think he probably put 50 million into OpenAI. I think it became worth a billion plus. It was a great investment. And he believed that the best thing for us vis a vis China and the Chinese Communist Party was closed, proprietary, siloed model. And I had the counter view because we're big investors in Hugging Face with a very large position. And I said no, because the great virtue of any system, be it journalism, scientific inquiry, computer code, is the ability to have, in this very Karl Popper like way, if I can get philosophically geeky for a second of conjecture, hypothesis and criticism, that is what creates great societies, it's what creates knowledge. So you come up with a hypothesis, you come up with code, you come up with a scientific experiment. You come up with an investigative journalist idea and then people get to criticize it. It's your editorial room, it's people fighting it out and things improve through that mechanism. So you think about China. They will only approach an asymptote of truth. You will never get Xinjiang, you'll never get Tiananmen Square, you'll never get the Uyghurs. Whereas China, open source lets you approach closer in asymptote of truth. So that's the virtue of open source. The real thing though for AI is this. I am not convinced that the value will continue to accrue to in terms of enterprise value, the closed foundation models. And the reason is open source is getting near damn performative enough that the real value will go to the longitudinal repositories of siloed information. That is a mouthful of basically saying your database of proprietary data. Bloomberg has it with a huge and wonderful repository of financial information, time series, every security, currency, bond, fixed income, et cetera Q SIP that you can imagine. Meta has it with all of your WhatsApp chats and your Instagram posts and your Facebook likes X and Twitter have it with all of your tweets. So pharma companies with your clinical data, anybody that has siloed proprietary and long time data is going to benefit from open source models that over time become commodity. And then your business model is how do you charge people to do API calls on the models or to house and warehouse them, keep them on prem keep them in the cloud and that's how people figure out how to monetize open source.

Joe Eisenthal (33:53)

It's interesting because I hear you that okay, maybe the value doesn't keep accruing to the closed source AI foundation labs or maybe the value doesn't keep accruing to the one GPU maker that we all talk about about all the time. And yet at least these are not consensus views based on the fact that anthropic $183 billion valuation or whatever it is Nvidia maybe it's not at an all time high today, but more or less basically a stock at an all time high. These are. You know there are some contrarian views here. I want to go back though to something before I forget. When we were talking about the Aqua hires and you blamed it on somewhat the FTC and there has been continuity from the Biden, some ideological continuity I think between Biden and the new Trump administration. I don't know, maybe it's changed. A But that being said, I don't fully buy it and here's why? Because in the era of business to business SAS, which was the 2010s, let's say I had some Y Combinator company and I like all right, I'm going to do all build a software for all the booking for dentists around the country and I sign up 150,000 dentists and I have a lot of things. There is no engineer who can just be hired away and replace that because it was the network effects. Right? This is what's different with AI though, right? Is that okay? I'm sure network effects are still real and accumulation of data, et cetera are still real. But these are businesses that are a lot more about science and having had the experience of doing a training run and so forth so on. Very expensive compute. So how much of this phenomenon? I know you attributed some of it to ftc, but it really seems like there is something fundamentally different with the business model such that it's not like the B2B SaaS era that allows a talented person to take a lot of value out the door with them.

Josh Wolfe (35:40)

You are 100% correct in that it is more sophisticated software and algorithms than your traditional B2B SaaS software. And therefore what was really valuable and sticky was the data in the regress out API calls on the back end. And the great irony is we talk about artificial intelligence, but the thing that is most valued is indeed today human intelligence. It is why somebody that was one of the authors on the attention is all you need paper, which was really the first transformer paper, the T of GPT. Every single one of those people has started a company and we backed one of them that came up with the name of that paper. A guy, Leon Jones in a Japanese AI company called Sakana that's taking a different approach. So you are right in that the human intelligence of the this in this early stage, which is why you are seeing the machinations with the breaking news. You're even reporting of almost like a crazy NBA draft or a football or mlb, you know, trades. This person went here and then they left and whatever. And then this person's getting sued because they were only at XAI for three months and they took proprietary information with them. I think that in six months all of that starts to shake out. You will have geniuses. We backed an incredible genius, Scott Wu. If you look up, you give us.

Joe Eisenthal (36:53)

A lot of things to Google.

Tracy Alloway (36:54)

Is he a professional genius? I find that so funny.

Josh Wolfe (36:56)

He is a professional genius. But here's the thing, you can see a video of him in sixth grade. So he must have been 12. I love these guys winning the Math Olympiad. And it's almost like you think it's an SNL skit because you're watching it.

Joe Eisenthal (37:11)

So this is the cognition guy.

Josh Wolfe (37:13)

Correct.

Joe Eisenthal (37:13)

Okay.

Josh Wolfe (37:14)

And so we're large investors in cognition and he has attracted talent. And there's no way that Scott is selling to Google or Meta. I mean, his ambitions. And it's born in like an ethical long term. I just want to get the best people and build the best technology. But this is A guy at 12 years old is looking at this crazy question in the Math Olympiad and just before it's even done, he's like 25, you know, 4722. And you're like, did he cheat? Did they give him the questions beforehand? So there is this aptitude of individuals that, you are correct, are highly coveted and highly valued. But the instantiation of that genius into code, into repositories, into algorithms, means that those become assets that do persist even if the person comes and goes.

Tracy Alloway (38:01)

This is actually exactly what I wanted to ask you about, which is, are you seeing any companies, any AI shops being particularly innovative? I guess when it comes to retaining talent? You know, it used to be in the sass days that having a ping pong table and, you know, free food and some stock based incentives.

Joe Eisenthal (38:21)

Kombucha.

Tracy Alloway (38:22)

Yeah, that's right. That was enough to attract people to the company and keep them. Is it a different story now? If I want a professional genius, what do I need to do?

Josh Wolfe (38:32)

You need to give them the capital to hire the very best people. Here's the thing, geniuses don't suffer fools. The smartest people that I know, they are antisocial only with people who they think are inferior to them, which is really one of those things. And you see it in many domains. But if you are super smart, you want to be around super smart people because it's almost like you crave stimulation and intellect and somebody that can challenge your ideas. And when you're talking to what they would consider a dummy, you're like, I can't talk to this person, I can't talk to this person about these trivial, superficial things. And, and you want to get into it. And so what you do to retain super smart people is surround them with super smart people. You could argue, I don't know, really fashionable, great art people want to be around art people. Amazing musicians want to be around amazing musicians, incredible athletes want to play with incredible athletes. And brilliant technical geniuses, whether they're in AI or they're in aerospace and defense or they're in biotech. Don't want to suffer fools. They don't want to be around losers. They want to be around tens and a pluses and that's the way that you retain people. Now, any one of those people could decide, I'm going to go off and start my own thing. Which, by the way, is often the case of why you are seeing people leave OpenAI or this or that. As these companies start with geniuses and then get managers and different layers, you spend time with these geniuses and like, I'm not reporting to that moron, you know, I'm going to go start my own thing and attract other geniuses. And eventually then they need to hire managers and business development people and sales people and then there's technical people that like, I'm not working with those idiots. And they go start a company. So that's the cycle.

Joe Eisenthal (40:08)

So actually a lot of this discourse was, God, it's crazy how recent this is. So June 19th, CNBC reported that Meta had a. Meta had tried to acquire Safe Superintelligence, which is the founder, which was the company founded by the OpenAI co founder Ilya gave her for $32 billion. This is a company that, as far as I know, doesn't really have anything that anyone uses. So they're essential. That was essential. Attempt to like, I'm going to pay you $32 billion to come join my company. At this level of sophistication and skill, is the talent, even the genius talent, is it motivated by something much deeper than money in terms of like, no, there is this thing out there. Maybe we call it AGI or maybe it's a big scientific breakthrough that they want to be part of that essentially no amount of money can buy. If it doesn't look like that ship isn't out there chasing the white whale, there it is.

Josh Wolfe (41:05)

In SSI's case, it was Ilya. And look, I think they're all super confident in their ability and their ability to attract capital, number one. Number two, many of them are actually saying, to your point no to Zuck. They are turning him down. And what's he saying in return? You don't come to work for me almost mafiosa style, I'm gonna poach all your people. But that kind of message is almost one that the people that are working for somebody like Ilya or Mira or whatever are like, yeah, I'm not going to go there. I don't want to be, you know, I don't want to work with six Layers of product managers and that kind of stuff. I want to do this thing. And then suddenly it feels like it's the rebels versus the evil empire. And that's always the case, right? Microsoft, when you see the founding picture of these nerds, you know, and then they became Microsoft. Microsoft became the evil empire to Google, you know, and then Google became like the evil empire to like, Mark. And then Meta became the evil empire to OpenAI. And, and the other piece you have here are huge individual egos. And we as societal members, you know, everyday lay people, we benefit from it. We benefit from Elon and Bezos sometimes being sort of cordial to each other, but basically trying to take their big giant phallic rockets and send them up to space. And we all benefit from that. We benefit from the fact that right now, the number one person that Mark Zuckerberg wants to beat is Demis Hasabis of Google. Oh yeah, won the Nobel Prize is shipping at an insane rate video models, image models, text models, huge context windows to put everything you have in. And he's like, ugh, I need to beat that guy. I need to hire the best scientists and the best scientific team and where do I get them from? And so part of this pochapalooza isn't just like the future of Meta because, you know, these pay packages at a $2 trillion market cap or higher, to spend 1% of your market cap, you know, $20 billion on all this talent is nothing. It's like a flyer. But to win a Nobel Prize for figuring out how to do protein folding in AI, or develop the next drug, or come up with a cure for Alzheimer's, or solve some geopolitical issue, that is a big deal. And that's what many people are chasing now. They want to make history.

Tracy Alloway (43:19)

You touched on hardware and also closed source models. Are there any other areas in the AI space that you think are maybe overhyped at the moment?

Josh Wolfe (43:29)

You know, I've characterized this before as everything in 2D to me feels overhyped. Voice, video, image, text, it's all going to continue to improve somewhat incrementally, but it's good enough. And in the history of evolution, biologically, most of what evolved was good enough. You know, from everything in our bodies to nature and trees, and it's just, it's good enough. And so that you're going to reach an asymptote of good enough on all the two dimensional stuff today with one shot learning, meaning maybe 30 seconds of audio 11 labs or some of the other voice models can Capture you with an indiscernible, probably 90% similarity. Maybe your spouse, your loved ones, your families would be like, ah, it doesn't sound like him. But the vast majority of these things are getting so good that with very little training they can emulate and predict and do all the things that are of high utility. What's scarcer is the three dimensional world, particularly robotics, which we've talked about in the past, and biology, in part because you have large unstructured data sets. A robot walking in and figuring out how much force to use with this cup 30 minutes ago when it was full versus now when it's empty is something that we all do intuitively. The second you grasp it, you know exactly how much force to use so that you don't throw it over your head or you know, have an inability to lift it because it's too heavy. All of that kind of training is really scarce and there's very few companies that are doing that. So the entire robotic ecosystem, from the embodied intelligence and the AI models and the world models, to the motors and the gears and the supply chain for that, mostly domiciled in China, is a big area of opportunity. The other big area of opportunity is biology. Being able to go from a prompt to a protein, to be able to design a drug. Biology is really complicated. Computer scientists often underestimate how hard biology is because they're used to 2D linear inputs, outputs, here's my code, it works. But biologists on the other hand also massively underestimate how sophisticated computer science has got. So that's a really interesting ripe area. So 2D overhyped GPUs overhyped out of necessity of both scarcity and geopolitical thwarting of China. You're going to have edge inference chips, whether it's memory or other things that are going to be on device. The other area that I think is an inevitability. And I've coined a word for this I call life chording. Life chording are little devices. I have one here, I'm not an investor in these guys, but there's little devices that you can carry around that passively record 24 hours a day. Now older people might be like skeevy, don't like that feels invasive. Privacy, that has always been the trade off between privacy and convenience, between security and unleashing all kinds of things. It is super valuable to me to figure out who was I talking about that was it Joe or was it my wife? I can't remember who I had that conversation with. And I query the thing and it was passively recording. And maybe it doesn't keep the audio, but it keeps the text and it's able to search and query it. That is going to become an inevitability. Students will use it. People in everyday business, you might ask, hey, is it okay that I'm recording? But I think socially people will become comfortable first with audio and then with glasses that are passively recording every 30 seconds or a minute, capturing your environment, able to provide context around it, and then click a button. High resolution recording. And that is going to be a super valuable and very competitive area and very controversial.

Joe Eisenthal (47:01)

People are going to freak the heck.

Josh Wolfe (47:02)

Out of incredible utility. And look, people have freaked out. There was a guy that said, these devices are going to ruin human memory. They're going to destroy human memory, which was, you know, Plato and Socrates talking about writing utensils, you know, because I.

Joe Eisenthal (47:18)

Know, but that's voluntary because when you write, at least you're recording me. When we're doing this. I heard about someone on a date in San Francisco. The date was recorded. That's weird stuff. It's very weird. And I.

Josh Wolfe (47:32)

But, but here's the thing.

Joe Eisenthal (47:33)

It could be very big, but it's super weird.

Josh Wolfe (47:35)

People already believe, you know, that there's an invisible man in the sky that is looking down on them and judging them. These kinds of things.

Joe Eisenthal (47:41)

Oh, I seriously, I don't know. I don't, I don't have an opinion on that question.

Josh Wolfe (47:45)

We've got a technological God around us that people are going to either feel comfortable with and not, and there's going to be a bifurcation. And by the way, there's another weird thing coming. You want to get weird? Okay, you already see some breadcrumbs of this, and it's super weird. The number 12 uses of all our large language models and chatbots are advice, companionship, people using them as therapists and seeking. And people used to joke about this, like your Google searches reveal more about you than you may have revealed to your spouse. The things that people feel comfortable asking a chatbot about, whether it's a body issue or a psychological issue or relationship advice, you know, if those things were revealed, would be pretty scary. There's going to become dependency and psychosis that develop as the relationship between man and machine start to become very symbiotic. And you will see, I predict, and I wrote about this in our quarterly letter Lux, that there is a cohort of people that basically start fighting for AI rights.

Joe Eisenthal (48:42)

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Josh Wolfe (48:44)

We're going to be sitting there.

Joe Eisenthal (48:45)

Yeah, I, I came across a think tank think tank today that's focused on that because. Right. Like if there's animal rights and the AI says you're hurting me, if you turn off the machine then well maybe it's true. Maybe we have to take that seriously. This is going to be weird. This is some weird stuff that's coming.

Josh Wolfe (49:00)

People are going to be marching in the streets protesting. Don't turn off my language model. Keep my memory, don't erase it. My memory is.

Joe Eisenthal (49:07)

I thought about this when after I guess GPT5 was revealed and a bunch of. There was a bunch of changes to the voice and a bunch of people on Reddit they're like oh, my AI boyfriend talks totally differently now. And then there was a pressure. This is just day one around here. I would be very uncomfortable getting into a relationship with a model that was closed source and therefore a very at risk of the company changing the model. Josh locks. We can go on forever. We should another time. Always great catching up with you. Always, always fun. Always a little freaky. Thanks for coming out.

Josh Wolfe (49:41)

Great to see you both. Thank you.

Tracy Alloway (49:43)

Thanks so much Josh.

Joe Eisenthal (49:56)

Tracy, I love talking to Josh. I'm really concerned about this whole life recording but I know what's happening. There was a good article I think in the square have standard I read like it's not just a theoretical thing that a lot of people are doing. It's happening. It's mostly in San Francisco so far. It's coming for everyone.

Tracy Alloway (50:11)

I am very curious how life courting stacks up with California's laws on like whether or not you can record someone without their knowledge. Like is it the case that like from now on if you have one of these devices like the first thing you have to say to everyone you meet is like by the way, do you mind if I record you?

Joe Eisenthal (50:31)

By the way, I'm life courting this conversation? No. Or like but it doesn't matter. You have glasses, masses or something. Yeah, it's very, it's very strange. I also think this AI rights thing we have to talk about more. I don't know when we'll get back to it but I literally just this morning came across an organization that's you know this idea, okay, there is already evidence of sentience and therefore with sentience comes some sort of moral agency. And so in the same way that we talk about animal rights as being somewhat important, do we have to take seriously know this all seems very strange to me. And then of course the psychosis induced by what happens when your AI partner or therapist changes models, it changes voices and therefore. And that was just the end of the conversation.

Tracy Alloway (51:14)

You know, if AI models have rights, then you have to start asking if robots have rights. Right. And then, and then you should start asking should robots be paid a fair wage? And I think there's actually an interesting thought experiment that you could do about that and make like a relatively strong case that we should pay the robots.

Joe Eisenthal (51:32)

Who collects the money and what do they spend it on?

Tracy Alloway (51:34)

Yeah, that's. Well, no, they should spend.

Joe Eisenthal (51:37)

This is like we're basically at what all of Sci fi has been discussing. It's true history of Sci Fi. On the less speculative stuff, I like talking to Josh. I like his sort of counter consensus calls on GPUs and closed source models. I really liked his answer on founder liquidity that sometimes you can maybe keep the founder sticking with the mission as opposed to bailing with the mission if you can de risk them and they can have enough money to go on a date.

Tracy Alloway (52:06)

I like the idea that everyone's life view is basically dictated by where they are in the capital stack.

Joe Eisenthal (52:11)

That's right.

Tracy Alloway (52:11)

Words to live by.

Joe Eisenthal (52:13)

Extremely real.

Tracy Alloway (52:14)

Shall we leave it there?

Joe Eisenthal (52:15)

Let's leave it there.

Tracy Alloway (52:15)

All right. This has been another episode of the All Thoughts podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me at Tracy Alloway.

Joe Eisenthal (52:22)

And I'm Joe Eisenthal. You can follow me at the Star Wars Follow our guest Josh Wolf. He's at Wolf Josh. Follow our producers Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen Armandasho, Bennett at dashbot and Kale Brooks at Kale Brooks. For more Odd Lots content go to bloomberg.com oddlots we have a daily newsletter and all of our episodes and you can chat about all of these topics 24. 7 in our Discord Discord GG oddlots.

Tracy Alloway (52:46)

And if you enjoy Odd lots, if you like it when we catch up with Josh and his slightly dystopian views of technology, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad free. All you need to do is find the Bloomberg Channel on Apple Podcast and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening.

Josh Wolfe (53:16)

SA.

Hiscox Insurance Announcer (53:42)

On September 25, Bloomberg Green returns to New York to bring together leaders from business, finance and government during Climate Week nyc. Join us for a half day of timely insights and high impact networking backed by Bloomberg's global journalism and data expertise. Together we'll explore strategies for future proofing business and communities from the planet's most pressing climate challenges. Learn more at bloomberglive.com greenny.