AI時代、いちばん大事なスキルは「正しい問いを立てること」

Let's start with this $20 billion rumored $20 billion partnership that you have with Nvidia. Can you talk about the structure of the deal and how it came about?

Oh, so Jensen moves fast.

Yeah. So how'd it come about? So, we had been working on uh integrating GPU and LPUs together. The best way to describe why this helps is if you were building out a logistics network for the United States and I told you you could have either 18-wheelers or uh you know vans for last mile delivery, which one would you pick? And the answer is both, right? And so GPUs and LPUs combined ended up giving better performance across the performance curves. We had implemented it and we had gone to Jensen asking could we buy about a 100,000 GPUs because we were going to deploy them ourselves and Jensen saw what we had done and thought maybe it would be better to make this available to all of their customers.

There's another thing that I love that you said when we had this conversation that when AI is talking to other AI, speed is becoming more and more important.

I'm going to go on a tangent just for a second and then we'll come back to this. I talked to a lot of founders about this recently, but there the whole point is like when agents are making payments, the amount of payments that are being going to be made is going to skyrocket. Do you have any like insight into that?

Tell me more about the hobbies and the side projects because this has come up in a couple of our previous conversations that you and I have had.

And is this in text form?

It's text with links that I can click through to learn more. The the big shift I did on the daily brief though was I started off by getting a whole bunch of text and I would read it and then I realized, oh, it's AI. It's done a whole bunch of research. It has the context. Why don't I have it just summarize everything? Just give me a bunch of headlines and I can ask follow-up questions. I just spent time and recorded an episode with Gustav, who's the uh co-CEO of Spotify right now, and he did something very similar because he tries to avoid any kind of feeds. the whole thesis behind like the organizing principle of Spotify is like time well spent. And he's like, "Well, you know, me just scrolling and getting like rage baited at on X isn't beneficial, but there is information I want to know." And so there's a couple different places that his agents go out and and essentially summarize uh stuff he might be interested in. He's like, you know, he's like, "Hey, don't include rage bait. Don't include politics." But then he also uh heavily emphasizes these are the people that I'm interested in. What are the people that I'm interested in speaking about? And if the same people that I'm interested in are speaking about the same topic, I want to know about that. And then it he can read it, but now he turned it into this like personal podcast and he actually listens to it in Spotify. He's like essentially his daily briefing, but he listens to it in like 5, 10 or 15 minutes.

Yeah, and and this also goes towards a shift of going people are moving from being IC's or individual contributors to all being leaders but leaders of AI. And what really good leaders do is they don't do the work themselves. They don't have the answer themselves. They're just asking the question. They're just cons, you know, considering everything they're hearing and then they ask the question that no one else asked or everyone is thinking but is afraid to ask. So with AI because it can go off and solve all of these problems for you. It can do the research report. It like the question that you ask determines what you get and that determines the output. From information age like we were all trained to just answer questions. Like that's what school's about. Remember this, remember that, remember this. With AI, you just ask AI. It knows. You just have to think of the right question. It's a fundamental shift.

I want to go to something you text me about your views on leadership, which is what is your description of leadership.

on Founders Podcast or this one

And so, had I tried to be an absolute control freak, that wouldn't have worked for me. I'm one of these weird people where I can go to a restaurant and I can tell the waiter, "Just bring me whatever you think is best." Or I don't even have a driver's license. I haven't had a driver's license in since, you know, I was uh 18. And I've

Cuz I don't feel the need to drive. I'd rather think. I don't need to control driving. I want to control thinking. I want to focus. I want to be on my phone. I want to be doing something useful. And that's been the case since I was, you know, 19 years old. And so, I'm happy to delegate things in a way that others are not. So, one of the things that's different about my leadership is when I hire people, I hire very autonomous people who often go off and execute on their own. And they would be terrible in most corporate environments. but also I can't hire the same kinds of people. And that was true to me. Had I, you know, gone the other way, I wouldn't have been very successful. If other people go this way, they're not going to be successful. Then again, there are a lot of things that are very similar, which is most of the best Silicon Valley leaders, they lead from a place of inspiring their people as opposed to um trying to to get people to be afraid. But that is a form of leadership. There are plenty of leaders out there who are successful because they cause people to become afraid. And so you just have to pick the form of leadership that works for you. But also, when you're picking where you're going to work early in your career, you should probably work somewhere where you're going to learn the lessons that are good for you. If you're more of a a kind of person who can show appreciation and gratitude, you probably should not work for someone who inspires fear because you're not going to learn any lessons that you can use yourself.

I haven't.

It would probably be AI. So I think this is going to be a shortcut for founders in the future and we can get into this but like the first thing that you have to do as a founder is you have to go from the technical thing that you know how to do and that you can add value with to learning how to manage people and for me that probably cost Groq 3 to four years.

I was a terrible leader. I was one of the world's worst leader when I started. Um, I had a lot of I I I gave people a little too much latitude because I'm more of a delegator, but I I entrusted people who probably shouldn't have been entrusted with that level of autonomy. I didn't hire people who could operate autonomously, but I was naturally someone who would delegate and give autonomy. So, what ended up happening was things would just grind to a halt because they wouldn't know what to do and I wasn't telling them what to do and they were used to being told what to do. And then finally I would get so frustrated I would go in there and tell them what to do but it was so unnatural to me that they didn't accept it.

I work through questions. I like to I like to set highle direction. So for me my leadership style was come up with a goal that was so it took me a while to get there but come up with a goal that was so simple that I could put it on a challenge coin and give it to everyone. So, everyone at Groq had a challenge coin that said 25 million tokens per second and had a little graph of it going up and everyone knew that was the thing to do. And it's sort of like when you ask um an agent, an AI agent what you know to do something. The fewer constraints you give it, the more freedom it has to solve your problem. And so I liked to work with incredibly creative people who would come back with surprises. Say that part again. Say that part again. This is important. the fewer constraints the fewer constraints that you give someone the more freedom they have to solve the problem and the more freedom they have to surprise you with the solution. So if you want to run a highly highly creative and innovative uh organization then what you really want to do is minimize the number of constraints but you also have to give them the things that matter. If you aren't able to very crisply distill what you're trying to accomplish, then either you're going to over constrain or under constrain the people. When you're trying to do something as a founder, you are inherently trying to disrupt an old industry. There's a moat. You're trying to do something differently. If you're not doing something differently, what's the point? They're already these wellestablished, well-funded companies. If you can bring a team together that is also disrupting and innovative and it's not just you, then it goes from, you know, being Superman to being the Avengers. And so that was just my natural leadership instinct. Had I been more of a command and control person, I should have doubled down on command and control. You have to you have to just do what's natural.

Not too much.

And that you saying that took you 3 to four years into the founding after the founding of Groq to figure out

What else have you learned from Jensen?

This is in every book on Bezos.

How many employees did you have at Groq when you did the partnership with Nvidia? about 450, but it was more difficult to manage than a typical group of 450. So, in the military, depending on your rank, you are allowed to um to have a certain number of people reporting into you. And the higher your rank, the more you can have as an officer. But when you're when you have scientists reporting to you, the number is actually much smaller, like dramatically smaller. Because I had such a creative organization, it was much harder to manage them. the the problems manifested. And so it probably was more like managing a group of 5,000 people than it was 450 in many ways. In other ways, it was like managing an even smaller group because innovations would just happen on their own. But like the better the people, the harder they are to manage.

I think you were at one point, you know, close to running out of money. Is this not accurate? So early on at Groq um and this is a lesson for found because if you're doing a capital intensive business you're going to need to raise money and one of the things that we went through was we had raised money from some VCs who fell out of favor with other VCs and others didn't want to co-invest and so every time we would try to raise we just struggled and there's also a little bit of bimodality in how

Hold on. That's actually kind of hilarious. the biggest deal Nvidia ever does by like almost 3x and the West Coast VCs missed it. They all chose other things that were safer. So, so there's this thing called the Keynesian beauty contest. Have you heard of it?

Okay. Um John Maynard Keynes, the economist. So, the idea is and it it runs in parallel to VC and and when you see this, you can start to understand some of the behavior, some of the lemming behavior because it's actually a good idea to follow other investors. So, in the Keynesian beauty contest, imagine I give you a magazine with a bunch of models in it. And your job is to bet on models and say which one's the most beautiful. But the determiner of the the most beautiful model is not who's most beautiful. It's who has the most money put on them. And that model like pro rata to how much money you put in, you get all of the money that's been bet on all the models. And and if your model doesn't win, you get nothing. You lose all your money and it goes to the winner. Well, if that's the case, if someone has a lot of money, they can put it down on any model that they want, whether they're beautiful or not. And a bunch of people made other bets. It doesn't matter. They just come in and they make a big bet. Now, when you're watching some of these wagers that are happening in Silicon Valley with people putting in big bets, it's because that used to be what won. What's changed though is that unlike the Keynesian beauty contest where the winner is the one with the most money, in reality, there's a point at which you get enough money and you don't need more. And for the first time in history, the the startups are not starved for cash. They have all they need and more. So now everyone's getting funded to the level that they need. And putting more money in is not an advantage. But people are still acting as if putting more money in gives that startup an advantage.

Yeah. So going going back to what you asked about almost running out of money. We were about 3 weeks from running out of money at one point.

That was many years ago. And

No, no, no, no, no. We were we were fine towards that.

It was really only a little over 2x. Um so that wasn't a huge jump. Um, and we also had the ability to raise at the amount that we we did the licensing for.

Well, it it was that 3-week period from the time when we presented and asked to buy GPUs until um not only the the deal was done, but money had been wired. But how many months before were you working on this?

This is the story I want.

Explain what you mean by putting our chips together.

Okay. So from Jensen's point once he sees this.

Right. Why does he decide to act so quickly?

Right now, when you go to use AI, it's a little it may feel somewhat fast, but that's because you're not used to using it much faster. Sort of like when you first use the internet, it felt fast compared to mailing things around. But when you got broadband, you realized, oh my gosh, like this is so much better. I'm never going to go back. The difference is broadband actually needed people to make their websites faster to make it usable. If the servers are slow, you don't get a benefit. So, it took a while to roll it out and make it good and get video that could stream and all that. The difference is you you put, you know, you put these LPUs into a system and all of a sudden the generation of tokens gets faster. It's like getting broadband instantly on these existing models. And so now rather than having like you know having to wait you know a minute to get an answer you can get an answer in 10 seconds and that really starts to compound. So let me let me walk through an example of why it's not just speed but it's also quality. The other thing that I did was I created Google TPU and at Google there was this time where I'd already moved over to Google X. I was no longer working on the TPU at that point. had already done it and someone else from the TPU team was at Google X came by, showed me this email uh from Deep Mind saying, "Hey, you know, we've got this competition. We think we're going to lose. There's a prize purse. Um, is your chip as fast as as we've heard?" And we're like, "Yes." Like, you know, it's like Ghostbusters, you know, when uh um someone asks you, "Are you a god?" You say, "Yes." Someone asks you, "Is your chip as fast as I've heard?" You're like, "Yes." So we reply back yes and they're like great competition's in 30 days. We're going to play the world champion and go and we played our test games and we lost. We need to win. So they had no choice but to port over to to that TPU chip. So we did it and a bunch of interesting things happened. I think Do you know what an ELO score is?

Okay. So for those who don't know what an ELO score is, it's sort of your ranking in chess or go and something like a 200 point advantage is insurmountable. Like the probability of you winning is basically zero. AlphaGo running on GPUs had an ELO score of about 3,200. Lee Sedol was about 35 uh 3550. Um and I might be getting the first digit wrong. It might be 2,000 instead of 3,000, but like you know it was it was more than 200.

Yeah, I read that book.

Yeah. So, so like you just know these people who will construct these very elaborate stories in their mind that are completely disconnected from reality, right? And then there are some people who are just incredibly street smart but couldn't do basic arithmetic or or anything like that. Reality quotient often times it starts off as being able to to recognize reality but but in the most extreme form it's the ability to choose the dominant game that's being played. So what most really successful founders and entrepreneurs do is everyone else is playing this game and they realize that if you play this higher level game, you win. Simple example, MySpace was focused on number of accounts signed up. Facebook focused on monthly active users. It was the dominant game, right? If you have monthly active, that's more important than account signed up. And if you maximize the the monthly active, you're going to beat someone who's maximizing account signed up. You're playing a better game. And so, as a founder, you're often able to do this better than other people. And your job leading those people is to try and help them connect their activities to that dominant game. So, when running Groq, I I said our goal was to get to 25 million tokens per second of capacity in our data centers. That meant everyone had a different way to contribute to that. Meant they could make the chip faster. Meant they could make the software faster. It meant we could deploy more. It meant we could get our power costs down so that we could deploy more chips for lower opex. It meant get more data centers. It meant fab more chips. It meant find ways to optimize the supply chain so we could um put orders in faster to fill things faster for customers when we got a so everyone could connect what they were doing to that one dominant game. Where being a founder is challenging is you often see that and you tell it to people and everyone wants to stick with the old way of doing it or they care more about the process. So moving from being an engineer to being a founder, the thing that that finally clicked for me was if I was going to do something disruptive, my job was full-time change management. And the first principle of change management is to make it feel like it isn't a change. Why is that so important? People do not like change. No human being likes change. The difference between people who appear to like change and people who don't like change is often they're looking at different things. And for the the one that is fine with the change, nothing changed. So if I'm playing this dominant strategy here and that doesn't change. I'm just trying to maximize the number of tokens per second that I've deployed. When my approach changes, nothing really changed. But if you're down here thinking how do I make this uh chip faster and not thinking about the software, then you might view something that changes the chip as a change. And so your change management duty is to give people enough context so that they see that their job hasn't really changed. What they're trying to accomplish is the same thing and there is no change. Tell me about return on luck. I read this book by uh Jim Collins a while ago and it had this chapter in it and it really resonated with me and the thesis is the most successful companies don't have more lucky events. They just seize on that luck better than other companies. And I read this very early on as a founder and I started to notice it was true. And there was a really good example of this when LLMs first started to become a thing. I remember getting a phone call from um the the CEO of GitHub basically saying, "I need a bunch of GPUs. We've we've now gotten LLMs to be able to do code completion even though, you know, we're part of Microsoft and everything. Um you know, we we just can't get GPUs. Could we use your your chips, your LPUs?" And I went to the team and I'm like, "We got an opportunity. We can do this." And they're all like, "Nope, not going to work. Can't run it on these chips." I'm like, "No, it looks like it's the ideal thing to run on our ch. It looks almost perfect." They're like, "No, it doesn't work. There's all these things that are in GPUs that we don't have." And I'm like, "Yeah, but none of those are important for LLMs." And they were looking at the wrong things. I let them convince me that we shouldn't pursue it, even though in my bones I kind of knew that that we should. This happened another time where there was another opportunity to deploy an LLM and and I let them talk me out of it. The third time like no, I'm going to do it myself. And so I just went through the whole thing. I I did the arithmetic and and determined the performance and everyone disagreed with me that it was possible. And I'm like, no, no, look at this. And in the end, we ended up hitting exactly those performance numbers. The thing was they were looking at the wrong they were looking at all the reasons why it couldn't be done. than why it could be done. And we talked ourselves out of it. I had multiple lucky opportunities that I didn't seize. I mean, how much better off would we have been had we been the original thing running LLM at Microsoft for OpenAI? That would have been a very different outcome. So, we we lost a little bit, but we were still ahead of the curve when we realized that fast inference was going to be a thing. And I remember very early on, we would talk to potential customers. We even had a video where we sped up um like what it looked like and everyone who looked at it was like why do I need an LLM to be faster than I can read and it hadn't occurred to them yet that

You're not going to be doing the reading but also that's not how the internet works. Like do you are you okay with a web page showing up? You know

Yeah, because eyes don't move that way. Eyes move all over. You need the entire thing there. you're gonna look at it and even before you read it, oftentimes you'll have a sense of this isn't what I needed and you'll start typing your question without reading everything that came out. So I realized that fast inference was going to matter.

We had

Even within Groq,

there was a lot of push back on like we had a lot of turnover at this point. A lot of people were leaving because

This was probably three or four years ago.

now everybody's just talking about fast inference. It's like everything but what and I wasn't paying attention to this four years ago. I had the other stuff like I was I just wasn't paying attention. Can you talk about the the difference in I think this is one of the most important parts of your company's story is just how contrarian maybe not even the right ... word but it was out of favor your your idea your main idea of people like no it's not important well everything was out of favor everything was considered a bad idea that we did but if you don't do things differently that you have no advantage right

when people don't understand the first principle of something and they're getting involved in it because it's a it's you know hype. They don't understand enough to understand why what you're doing is different.

Yeah.

Well, so what eventually worked was uh so and and this goes to a little bit of marketing that we we came up with. We realized that there was no possible way, no matter what we showed people, for them to accept that fast inference was going to be helpful unless we let them try it. And I remember this example from um Eric Schmidt does was involved in this thing, SCSP or whatever, and they they showed off Anthropic um an LLM from Anthropic about 3 months before the chat GPT moment. And I remember sitting there seeing it, seeing demos of this AI answering questions in the audience and no one reacting. I'm like, how is it no one is reacting to this? Now compare that to the chat GPT moment where everyone reacted. What was the difference? The difference was when people asked their question and they got an answer to their question that was specific to them. That was magical. Seeing text show up for someone else's answer wasn't magical. So I realized that and I'm like the only way we're going to get people to understand the value of speed is if we just implement this put it on the internet. So, we did and what ended up happening was we we put it online and I remember I was doing a little bit of a world tour trying to find customers and I was in Norway and I was doing a presentation and I noticed cuz we had it working and I noticed that the presentation was like when I was doing um queries um using some of the open source models, I remember it just felt a little slow to me. Not not that slow but a little slower than usual. I'm like what's going on here? because like I'd been, you know, Norway's further away than the servers, but I tested earlier and it's fine. I checked in, our usage had skyrocketed. Someone had posted on um on X uh a video of an LLM running on Groq that was just running super fast and it was viral. All of a sudden, everyone started creating applications using it, posting those, and it was just such eye candy when when people saw it that everyone started creating their own, and we just went viral. Say more about this experience that you had, though. I'm really like, you're coming at it from first principles. You're saying these people are getting involved in it because it's hype and it's like the the thing that's, you know, being spread around at the moment. Like what was that experience like for that that several years where you're just going through this like I'm trying to explain why this is going to be important and you're just hitting blank stare or brick wall after brick wall. Well, there's this common theme where a lot of really good innovators are innovators because they experienced the problem before others did. remember my experience of AlphaGo on, you know, TPUs and and being able to outperform the world's best Go player only because of the hardware that we switched to. Yes, I I was able to to sort of get this return on luck more than others. I'm more able to like say, okay, there's an opportunity, I'm going to go for it. But I was also exposed to the opportunities first. And you need both. So you have to be in a position to see the future ahead of and this is the common saying right the future's already here it's just not evenly distributed because I was in a situation where I got to see the future because I was really willing to like seize luck and double down on it when everyone else was like no let's not pursue this opportunity and I'm like yes this is the opportunity those two things are what work together when you're saying yes this is the opportunity would you describe the response you're getting as opposition or indifference One of the biggest shifts in my leadership, another book, Turn the Ship Around by David Marquet.

Okay. So,

I don't know.

They're involved in it. And everyone says, "I intend to do this. I intend to do this." It gives everyone an opportunity to say what it is that, you know, they're doing so people can hear it, but you're not asking for an opinion. The issue was over and over again earlier on I was I was getting opinions from people and they were stopping me.

Yes.

And if I had just said I intend to do this.

Yeah. I I literally said I I I put a presentation together. I said we're going to get to this particular speed per chip. And rather than people going, "We can't do this," they all sort of jumped in and said, "This is how we do it." It's a very small change in phrase, but it has all the difference in your ability to move forward. You're not inviting friction, but yet people would still give uh feedback when it was really important. When there was a real problem, they would raise it.

Were you asking potential customers? These are teammates.

Okay.

Let's go back to this time where you you were 3 weeks away from running out of money. Yeah.

Yeah.

And then I'm reading about Groq Bonds and it sounds very similar to some of the things that Phil Knight had to do because Nike was so close before they IPOed. They had to IPO out of necessity because they were just kept running out of money or very close to it and he actually converted some of the loans that his he got from his employees into equity and wind up you know doing very well for them. So explain this idea that you had for Groq bonds.

Why?

I was very good at hiring people who were incredibly smart and talented

Poetic design. So poetry is semantic density. It's when you say so much in so few words. That's

Hugely important. every word matters yeah it it's the smallest possible the most minimal expression of the thing you're trying to achieve is the most poetic and that that's not just in words it's also in design right you know something is poetic even if it's not words and so that's another one but each of these has a a negative version right so the the opposite of return on luck would be squanders luck. The opposite of poetic design would be, you know, maximalist design, like just throw every feature in. Like you, you know, some of these products where it's like, where am I supposed to click? And so, it's really easy to spot people who fit some of the positives and not realize they have some of the negatives. And what you're really hiring for is to avoid those negatives because if one person comes in with that negative, they're bringing that into the whole team. The biggest flip in my hiring was when I went from looking for positives, which is what you do when you're trying to grow talent, to looking for negatives, which is what you do when you're trying to select talent. When I'm trying to help someone grow and improve, I want to show them the path. Right? This there's a famous example of how do you increase the amount of money given to a charity? It's not making people, you know, realize how great the charity is. It's not making them feel good about giving to charity. It's about telling them where to send the money. If you tell them how, if you give them a skill or a technique, then they can very often learn it and do it. So, when you're trying to grow people, show them the positive. Don't say, "Hey, don't squander luck." Show them what return on luck looks like, which is there was this opportunity once that everyone said no to and we said yes and it made us successful. Right? When you're hiring, you're really looking to to vet people and you're you're trying to say no to things. And that's a very different motion. And some people are really good at growing, some people are really good at hiring. But you have to you have to separate those two into very different mental modes. The reason I noticed this at Groq was we hired a head of HR who was very good at noticing problems with people and getting them out. And as I observed her doing that, I realized I'd been hiring all wrong. I think the way you described this to me was you essentially inverted it and now you're hiring for loss bias is I think the term that you So humans have a natural loss bias which is people attach a mathematical number to it which is a loss is six times more painful than a gain. Like you see this where someone will invest money, lose 20% and it'll be very painful, but they didn't invest in something that grew 100% and that hurts them less than losing 20% of the money. Even though not getting the gain, the opportunity cost is much higher. There's a personality trait in people where I call it sort of booking the win early. And you'll see like we would be in an architecture meeting and someone would say, "Well, if we do this, the chip will be twice as fast." And I look around the room and no one seemed that excited about doing it. What's going on here? And and I I started to realize everyone was hearing, "If we do this, the chip will be twice as fast. Let's put that in the next chip." And I'm hearing, "If we don't do that in this chip, the chip's going to be half as fast as it could be." As soon as I heard that something could be done, I would book it. I would immediately sort of just assume that if I don't do it, I've lost this thing. So, as I started to hire, I would look for other people who had the same sort of book the win early attitude. The moment they hear something's possible, they book it and they're like, I don't want to lose that thing. A lot of the most successful entrepreneurs, they sort of manufacture their own sort of discontent. but I I I think this hiring for lost bias and applying it to not only the talent, but also these meetings you're having in product uh in product design and things that would make your product better is actually really important. You mentioned before that you learned from an episode of Founders on Michael Jordan uh one way to do this where he would challenge his teammates to bets. Why was that an interesting idea to you? so I was having a conversation with um a bunch of entrepreneurs and a bunch of people in other fields who you know some of them had made a lot of money some of them hadn't and the entrepreneurs were the ones who were the least happy with their wealth even though they had more money everyone in the discussion was incredibly successful. But what we started to realize was um the like even though some of these entrepreneurs had made hundreds of millions of dollars, they were comparing themselves to others and they never had to work again in their life, but because they were unhappy with their wealth, they had a reason to continue and start another company and and do more. Meanwhile, the other folks who were very successful, they were quite happy with their wealth, but what they were unhappy with was their their previous work product, a a previous piece of writing they had written or something like that. And because everyone in this room was successful, what we identified was everyone had something that they were discontent about that drove them. And so I started looking at at my own life and and you know there were a lot of periods where there was genuine discontent because we hadn't had product market fit. But then once we had product market fit at at Groq I was unhappy with the scale and then I was unhappy with you know other elements and I just kept finding things to be unhappy with. Most people can be quite content with the status quo and they're not going to keep pushing to innovate. You have to have a personality where you are constantly discontent if you're going to keep pushing things forward. At the moment, I'm I'm um I'm discontent with the lack of compute in the world. AI is revolutionary. It's going to change everything for people. You know, there are pros and there's cons, but the pros are massive. I'm you know they're going to be medical discoveries and if it takes us an extra year to cure cancer because we don't have enough compute that's my fault. every single person who dies from cancer, every single person who becomes old and and you know infirm and and dies like there could come a point we don't know there could come a point where AI um comes up with you know slow ways to slow aging right all of that I feel is kind of on my shoulders and I need to perform I need to make sure that the world has more compute Yeah. well I I think that goes back to people perceiving a change right Um, I I had a recent post that got a lot of negative feedback, which was I said that there's effectively been code rationing, right? As a software engineer, the the default is code is expensive to write. And so, I'm going to be very careful about what code I write. I'm I'm not going to create a feature unless I'm absolutely sure that it's the right feature to create. I'm I'm not going to implement something until I've got it figured out. And what we've seen from agile software development is when you take the risk and you sort of implement something and you get feedback, you end up getting better results. But there's still just generally a very natural prediliction to to say no to things. And so concept of sort of a no engineer. It's someone's job to to say no to things, right? They they're they're the ones in the meeting who say we can't do this. We shouldn't do this. What I'm seeing is that um code is becoming almost free. It's it the marginal cost is approaching zero and it's shifting the way that things are done for professional engineers where you just implement the thing you experience it and you say re-implement in this different way based on my experience. The other shift is the accessibility. is very much like lit uh you know um literature and and literacy right there was a time when scribes were the only people who could read and write and they sort of controlled access to the written word and then we got much simpler reading and writing you know alphabets as opposed to these these sort of um uh ideographs and and hieroglyphs and so on and all of a sudden many people could learn to read and then we got education system and everyone could learn to read and everyone could read and write. All of a sudden, it became about the quality of the written word, not just the written word. But everyone had access. My EA creates software applications now. Like when I go on a trip, she creates a little app which I can click through and it tells me what the weather's going to be and it updates live and and pulls it from sources and, you know, gives me all my phone numbers and and all sorts of extra information. That would have been impossible for an individual who didn't know how to write code before. So what I think is going to happen is a lot of people are going to get access to being able to create software to solve problems who would have never had the technical capabilities before but who would have had good taste and know what good is uh like and there's just going to be an enormous number of founders unlike in the past where you just didn't have access to the capital and you didn't have access to the talent. I think you're going to see individual founders um without large teams creating very valuable companies that solve real problems for people. And I love that framing. Uh we'll end on this one of my favorite quotes of yours which you said looking forward to a year of massive upleveling for anyone who wants it. Thanks for the time, man. Glad you did this.