gip

Yes and this is in line with the idea that 99%+ of the value created by AI will be captured by the broader economy, not OpenAI and friends.

That being said, even local AI will still be displacing humans fast and it's not clear new jobs will be created fast enough. Regulations and policies will be needed imo.

That makes sense, thank you for explaining. TradFi already offer access (direct or ETFs) to major cryptos who have demonstrated some utility like BTC, ETH, XRP, SOL and a few others.

If interest in tokens and altcoins wanes, Coinbase may be in a weak position.

Very curious why they haven’t diversified into real world assets. It seems like an obvious move, even if the margins would be lower than their fee business (~85% margins!!).

They’ve added tokens and altcoins to the platform, but I don’t think that’s a particularly strong long-term bet.

We need to heavily regulate anybody who is not following the rules that make us the de-facto winner

How about building a multipolar world where different parts of the world (US/China/India/EU/Africa,..) get to build sovereign tech and have their own winners?

Same with Codex and very soon with open source & local models. Training great models (for coding and similar tasks) seems to be a question of scale and not much more.

It is likely that 99% of the value created by Anthropic / OpenAI / friends will go the end user. Which is great news.

True. That is why it is key important to have open source and sovereign models that will be accessible to all and always on / local.

Competition (OpenAI vs Anthropic is fun to watch) and open source will get us there soon I think.

Totally. That is why it is key important to have open source and sovereign models that will be accessible to all and always.

At the end of the day, all these closed models are being built by companies that pumped all the knowledge from the internet without giving much back. But competition and open source will make sure most of the value return to the most of the people.

I have been told by a startup founder that he wants his strongest player to replace and automate the weakest using AI!

That may be what Meta is already doing. I’m afraid we are going to see something like that at play in tech for the coming few years until we get to an equilibrium. Sad and it might work.

It could be an A/B test to see whether people without an existing subscription care about Claude Code (CC) at all. If they sign up then CC is disabled (or not as it is not really an issue to offer more). Capturing that info would definitely be useful to a growth team.

For a successful IPO and attract more capital you need a very good story/narrative. That what is being crafted here. Business fundamentals matter less with elon!

Taking dystopia aside, without a lot more context I don't quite get how the captured data will be particularly useful to train models for say software engineering. If someone can shed light - thanks!

because some other parents won’t activate it, which then makes the situation unfair for the kids. I’d much rather have it on by default so that all kids are treated the same.

That’s a strange argument. The government or anyone doesn’t have a mandate to ensure everyone has the exact same experience. Differences in upbringing are normal. I didn’t have a TV growing up while most of my friends did. It might have felt unfair at the time, but it wouldn’t justify the government forcing my parents to get one -> overreach.

Surprised by this take. Building a startup is already insanely hard. So I wouldn’t like to add more challenge by spending time integrating with non-US services if they are not top just because of my political views.

I feel a better answer is for Europe to build real, competitive alternatives to US services.

I agree with the risk you’re pointing to. Money currently mediates access to resources through labor and markets.

We either need to redesign money or a novel way to mediate access to resources. I haven't seen any proposal to make that work, which is a bit scary.

There must be a lot of pride and meaning in being run over by Saleforce's money truck.

They probably don't have much choice and Salesfore needs people who have built and launched products (I don't have any info, just a guess).

Assuming: simplicity === no unnecessary complexity.

In my (limited) experience as an engineer and manager, leadership (e.g., a VP) didn’t like (or reward) simplicity. Simple solutions often meant smaller teams, which wasn’t something they were pushing for, especially pre-2024. I do think this is slowly evolving, and that the best leaders now focus on removing unnecessary complexity and improving velocity.

Or worse: train the AI to make decisions that align with the view of Anthropic management and not the elected government. Workout telling anyone.

I’d agree it is a serious risk.

The challenge for Americans is: can the political work of defining and protecting our values be outsourced to a company like Anthropic?

Anthropic (and others), whether due to financial/regulatory/competitive, will at some point permit their products to be used for any lawful purpose. Even if they attempt to restrict certain uses today. That arrangement is unlikely to hold.

Americans should vote for the right candidates and elect leaders who will carry and defend their views. I don't think there is any other way.

The reality is that the US Constitution only offers strong guarantees to citizens and (some of) the people in the US. Foreigners are excluded and foreign mass surveillance is or will happen.

I believe every country (or block) should carve an independent path when it comes to AI training, data retention and inference. That is makes most sense, will minimize conflicts and put people in control of their destiny.

AI is a transformative technology that will reshape how companies are run. More layoffs may be coming unfortunately. But on the other end, more companies and more products will be created. More competition overall, including for Block.

The overarching risk, imo, is America turning against tech and its leaders / billionaires. I think this is slowly happening. And why not, if the People decide that tech is not bringing good things to our modern society anymore, that should be respected.

That would require to repeal the FISA and the Patriot acts. That won't happen.

More fundamentally, however, the US constitution only protects Americans and American companies. Europeans would be foolish to trust the US with their data given this lack of basic protection and oversight.

Similarly, in the 2000s, the US pushed back against the development of Galileo and preferred that Europe continue relying on GPS. That created tensions between the US and the EU.

Fighting data sovereignty is a losing battle for the US: data are too strategic to outsource, even to allies.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation)

My prediction: soon (e.g. a few years) the agents will be the one doing the exploration and building better ways to write code, build frameworks,... replacing open source. That being said software engineers will still be in the loop. But there will be far less of them.

Just to add: this is only the prediction of someone who has a decent amount of information, not an expert or insider

I think that’s fair.. building a competing product would likely be relatively easy and inexpensive. But that’s true for most software now: it’s becoming easier to build, and the barriers to entry are lower.

I love Anthropic and OpenAI equally but some people have a problem with OpenAI. I think they want to reposition themselves as a company that actively supports the community, open source, and earns developers’ goodwill. I attended a meeting recently, and there was a lot of genuine excitement from developers. Haven't seen that in a long time.

Send an DM on twitter to @edfixyz (one of my account) and I'll reply with a link to the website tomorrow to give you a sense. Can't share a link here, it will kill my backend.

Care to have a phone call with who you call a bot tonight?

If so, send a DM on twitter to @edfixyz with your phone number and I will call you immediately. Or give me your twitter handle.

I'm tired of that BS - when people don't like what you write they call you a bot.

I'm not a bot. You are saying that because for some reason you resent people who have a good experience with Codex / OpenAI. Curious what that is - people hate the CEO or what?

I like Claude Code too btw.

The crazy thing here is that I wrote the initial comment myself!

In 2026, I don't use an IDE any more.

I don't think it is the best way to look at it. I think that now every team has the power to build and maintain an internal agent (tool + UX) to manager software products. I don't necessarily think that chat-only is enough except for small projects, so teams will build agent that gives them access to the level of abstraction that works best.

It's a data point but this weekend (e.g. in 2 days) I build a desktop + web agent that is able to help me reason on system design and code. Built with Codex powered by the Codex SDK. It is high quality. I've been a software engineer and director of engineering for 10 years. I'm blown away.

Got it, thank you for the insight.

The assumption is that Claude has access to a stream of fresh, currated data. Building that would be a different focus for Anthropic. Plus Thomson Reuters could build an integration. Not totally convinced that is a major threat yet.

I'm not really understanding why Thomson Reuters is at direct risk from AI. Providing good data streams will still be very valuable?