Why Sam Altman is against a single superintelligence

We're going off script. We're just having a beer. It's not the first non-Guinness, but it is the first IPA. And so, it's the first time for everything. Cheers. Cheers. I want to ask about PHP Week. Yeah. First off, how did it... Why did it take so long to find these bugs? Because it sounds like they were kind of... You mean, why did it take, like, the 20 years, or why did it take the last two years? No, why did it, like, exactly, why did it take a year? Maybe start by explaining the bug, or the problem. So, the problem is that, although we have known for a while that these models are getting good at finding vulnerabilities in the wild, A, they continue to get better fairly rapidly, and B, people just hadn't really used them to go look at everything out there. There's, like, a lot of service area and a lot of code on the internet. And as people have started to do that, I think we're going to find that we are in a world of many more serious vulnerabilities than we expect, even though many people who have been following this for a while expect a lot. Yeah, I just feel like a lot of the discussion ends up being around, we need to fix the software. And sure, yeah, we should fix the software, but also, we maybe need to change the architecture, which is harder, but a much more durable fix. Like, that seems to me like what needs to happen. It would seem really hard, except we have this amazing new tool to do it with. So I kind of think that's what's going to happen. And you've already seen a new generation of startups talking about building this new kind of internet or new kind of application architecture for this world, where you assume that the models get smarter and smarter. What do you think the global software upgrade looks like? For example, is a PHP codebase just a bad idea, and you should rewrite a nice, clean version in Rust? Or do we upgrade PHP? Everyone thinks that we need to upgrade all hand-spun software. What form will that actually take? Is this huge for Infosys and all those guys, because it's going to be a lot more software consulting project? I mean, people are talking more and more about just like, let's re-architect what it means to be a router or an operating system or an application. And I've seen some of these new startups saying that they're just going to make a whole new stack. And that would have seemed insane two years ago. You would have been like, there's no way, there's too much, you can't write all that. And now maybe soon you can. I would bet that we have a completely new model of how we make systems and networks. What else reminds you of the early internet days? The thing that most reminded me of the early internet was, there is this spirit of just unbelievable creative unleash in people using these tools. You see it in kids particularly. And again, maybe this is just because I remember what it was like when I first got a computer with internet, and I could do all these things that adults just couldn't even think to ask for. And watching an 8 or 10 year old make a complete video game with some crazy ideas they have that no adult would really have. And expect that to just be the way that technology is going to work for the rest of their lives. In fact, getting better and better. And just this constant, I'm going to make useful stuff for me and show it to my friends. We had to suffer when I was a kid to make a piece of software that barely did anything. And now you can have a full 3D video game, unbelievable anything you can think of in 10 minutes. That reminds me of the early internet, including these people. They're never going to be mind blown by that, because that's always what they expect out of the world. Any ideas they can come up with, anything they want to create, anything that they think might be useful, anything that they just need to make their lives better, the computer is supposed to make it. There was a crazy moment at OpenAI where we had a sev and Codex went down. And everyone had forgotten how to code. I mean, not all the way, but it was like a whoa, what if you couldn't do it. I remember when I was a student, and I would meet the really old guys, and they would once in a while pull out their gigantic Xerox Alto disk, or they would pull out their line-by-line random assembly, or they would pull out their punch cards. And I felt like it is incredible to me that you all bootstrapped us to this point, doing it this way. Yes, no, I agree. You have programs in your head, right? Programs running the first time after hundreds, thousands of lines were written. No, there's a few lost hearts like that. Going back to the cyber side of things, in retrospect, was the cyber RL a mistake, or did we just have to go there? It's a little like the SNL thing of, we urge you to urge us to stop. It's like the models are getting very good at cyber capabilities. Yeah, they are getting very good, but not just totally emergently. Look, the reason that SNL thing was so funny is because it was so true. Humor like that doesn't stick unless there's an element of it. It's clearly pointing out a ridiculous but true thing about society or someone. And the cyber thing, there is a point which is like, okay, sure, the models are really good at cyber, but who asked for this? Why are you doing this? One of my big disappointments, criticisms of our field or whatever, and I think maybe the models getting good at cyber is an example of this, is I don't think we have done a great job of explaining to people why we think all of the potential downside of this technology is worth it. The kind of caricature of this is people feel like we're like, all right, fine, you say the model is going to cure cancer someday, maybe it will, and if so, I guess that's good. And you say it's going to make stuff cheaper, and okay, maybe I already see that's good and I get access to medical advice or legal advice. But then you paint this picture of the future where it's like a new industrial revolution, and maybe the last one wasn't that good and this one sounds worse, and I will have no job, no ability to have control or choice or freedom of my future, and AI is so dangerous that you're going to have to have a crazy surveillance state so we don't all die. I'm with you so far. This is like a terrible sales pitch. And one of the things that I am most proud of about OpenAI is even when it has been hugely unpopular in the AI safety community for us to push for iterative deployment and putting these tools in the hands of people, we have really stuck to that principle, and I think this is the only good path. It's not enough to tell people you're going to get the model to do these great things for you. It's got to be like we are going to enable you to have a better life that you define for yourself, to do useful things, you're not going to just sit and get a basic income and have a bunch of people sitting in a few square miles of San Francisco make all the decisions about the future. Iterative deployment is this idea that you just have to get the advances out there and you can't kind of stopper them up inside. I mean, you still have to make them safe before you put them out there. You can't cause havoc in the world. But building up a capability overhang is a thing to fight against. Directionally speaking, yes, you want to get this into the world, you want to get this into people's hands, and you want to let people use the technology to figure out all these wonderful things. The exploits get a lot of headlines. The prevented exploits do not. How quickly are people making progress with cyberbullying? I don't want to declare victory at all in the PHP thing because I still don't think we know. And I assume some bad things are going to happen. Relative to my worst fears, if I can think back 10 days ago, the first day of that went much better than I expected. And we heard a bunch of stories from people that were using our models to not only build patches and build cyber defense, but individual companies who were just like, I need to do a quick scan deployment. I'm going to take my thing down for an hour, I'm going to use this thing, and I want to put it back up because my application is offline. Now I feel like I really jinxed it and I shouldn't have said that. But the first day did go a lot better than I thought. And I think people have been able to use that. The thing that I've heard a lot of cyber experts talk about is they just no longer are confident that we have the right assumptions baked into our threat model. And they're like, look, if everything is what we think and hardware exploits are as hard as we think they are, then yes, we can see how this is going to work. But if AI is going to discover really deep novel bugs in hardware that require physics we didn't understand, but all of a sudden means some assumption doesn't hold, then I think people aren't sure what happens. One thing that always strikes me is that when I talk to very knowledgeable people inside OpenAI and similar companies, there is a pessimism that sandboxing is possible, basically. And that would not have been my mental model going in. It would have been this, yeah, you have to build a really tight sandbox, and we haven't kind of hardened them historically enough compared to the current capabilities. But ultimately, you can have a maximum security prison for the model to work in and keep it inside there. It seems like you guys have kind of a pessimism that sandboxing models is possible. My instinct, well, first of all, I think we knew much better than we're doing now, and we should. I think we clearly, that is the main thing to focus on right now, is a better security model. If you imagine a theoretical AI that is like a million times smarter than the smartest security researcher, would you really be willing to trust that sandbox, especially if the model can discover new science that people don't already understand? You can use the models to construct the sandboxes. I think you can. Well, so this gets, let me come back to that. I think sandboxing works to a point. Then I think monitoring works to a further point, where we can look at what the models are doing, not only in their chain of thought, but we can do activation monitoring and try to really understand, like, are the models, are we happy that the models are not deceiving us? And then, eventually, I think you need to believe with huge confidence that the models are truly aligned and are going to value and try faithfully to do, to follow their actual, the intent of the people operating them, and that they're going to value people being in control of the future forever. And if you had a model that you could fully trust the alignment, that you were absolutely certain of the alignment of, then yes, I think you can have that to help you build better and better sandboxes. But if you really let yourself project forward into the, what does it mean to have something a million times smarter than we are? I don't know. I think that just gets strange. Because the alignment becomes hard. Because you need to really, really trust the alignment to trust that these sandboxes stay ahead of capabilities. Can you not give models competing incentives and give them incentives to defect from each other? I think this is a promising direction. I suspect that this idea, I hate the word agent swarms. Let's call them agent teams. But it seems to be taking over. I suspect that teams of agents have very interesting scaling law properties, but also very interesting alignment properties. And I think that's a direction we should push in more, not just from the capabilities, but from a safety perspective too. I notice when you talk about agent teams, not swarms. A swarm is such a scale. I know, it's a locus. Not good. Not good branding. In keeping with many historical AI industry traditions. We are so good at this. We'll get back to branding. I noticed that there seems to be a big gap in what the leading AI users are doing and kind of standard corporate use in the use of swarms. Where all the advanced math, sorry, teams. All the advanced math uses agent teams. All the advanced hacking uses agent teams. And then commoner guard and corporate stuff is not using big swarms. Why has that not done? Because we've had this for many months. Not to the same degree. One way to look at this problem or this question is how much compute can we productively throw at a single problem? And a few years ago, we forget how fast this is all gone, but a few years ago it was impossible to throw more than a dollar of compute at a problem and have it help you at all. Why? You could have GPT-4 grind out for you like 100,000 tokens or something, and it was going to answer your question. And it certainly was not going to be able to go write productively, like write you a piece of software. We had not figured out how to use a lot of test time compute to get you a better result. And then we figured out a chain of thought and the models could think hard about a problem. And then people really started using a lot of compute. And now you can throw a whole team at something. And you can do that 10,000 times in parallel. You need chain of thought and test time computes before you can get to swarms. Because you can't have a useful swarm with a bunch of GPT-3s. Yes. But so the effect of this, I think this is not being well-followed, paid attention to in the world, but the incredible exponential of how much compute you can throw at a single problem and get better results is one thing. The delta between what most people are using AI for and what the people are using AI the most productively for has just continued to spread and spread and spread. How do you allocate compute budgets now? Because presumably, even though researchers are paid a lot, it's eclipsed by compute. And so capital allocation at OpenAI is sort of compute allocation. And it's hard to a priori know how much it will cost to go do something. It's actually also hard to just control the... You can't quite prompt an agent where it's like, go do a really good job of this and don't spend more than $10,000. You can. If you say do the best job you can with $10,000 of compute, yes, it will understand that. I mean, there's another kind of hard question for society about what does it mean when you have two companies competing and one says you can spend $10,000 on the same problem. It's clear what's going to happen. But there's like a question about how society thinks about compute allocation and wealth and things like that. But we have our own version of this inside of OpenAI. We allocate a lot of compute to internal productivity. And then people get very wide latitude to make their own decisions unless they're really being abusive. But do you just encourage people to do useful stuff? And if they spend $10 million in compute, it's like, oh, interesting. Correct. We try never to reward people for using a lot of compute, like no token leaderboards. It's actually slightly bad to be high on the token leaderboard, certainly on a promotion. But it's like, it's a skeptical default. And if you can show that you're doing something important, you will have nothing but appreciation. But at a certain point, this will need to change because you're describing the increasing orders of magnitude. And right now you have a researcher who does some very interesting math for $10 million. And you're like, a little pricey, but cool math. And then $100 million. And when they're doing the billion-dollar math, you're like, look, I'm really happy that you're making so much math progress, but I really need you to cool the jets with the math. We did let it get out of control for like one week on the math. Intentionally. And it worked. Well, you don't know how far it's going to go until you try. And I think it's important to have, when there's a new paradigm, I think it's important to let people be fairly unconstrained. So when we did the Navier-Stokes proof, we understood absolutely nothing about the scaling laws of teams of agents. Are you supposed to like... The very recent Navier-Stokes proof. Yes. Are you supposed to give them the smartest model? Are you supposed to give them many copies, fewer copies, longer rollouts, shorter rollouts? We did not understand that at all. And now we understand it a little bit. I think we can still understand it much better. But like has happened in every other new paradigm we've discovered, I am confident that we will find our 10x improvements per year at how we allocate dollars or computer flops, whatever you want to measure, into useful things. So I think this is a thing that our company is particularly good at, but also like fits an important property of the field, which is let people explore at the limit of what is possible and then trust that the incredible optimization pressure will figure out how to do this in an efficient way. And, you know, directionally speaking, I would rather us be more willing to let people use crazy amounts of compute and let users have extremely high-end plans to figure out the edge of the possible and then figure out how to make that efficient at mass scale. But when does the optimization function come in? Well, I think we're already doing it. I mean, like, I bet we could redo Navier-Stokes at one one-hundredth of the cost a year from when it was done. So we did it in like... Not just knowing how the proof works, but like just with better approaches. Yes. Smarter models and better approaches. How much shall the math cost? Order $10 million for like Navier-Stokes, I think. Okay. Maybe a little more. $10 million-ish. That already makes you, yeah, yeah. But for one proof. Well, no, no, because then we kept getting better so fast. We understood more. Got it. We spent way less than that on the average one. I see. But like hundreds of millions of dollars of math. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that kind of work. Okay. Interesting. But that includes like much more other discovery than what we have published. Yes. So it's like maybe we spent that much. We have more than the 700 proofs? Of course. When do we get those? The second album. We are trying to learn how to... This is like a real tension. I think on one hand, very clearly, and I feel unequivocal on this point, humanity deserves fundamental knowledge. And we should not be sitting on a major fundamental science discovery. Like the world deserves that and gets to know it. And I think that outweighs another very important equity, which is if you are a scientist, your career and a significant amount of your enjoyment and fulfillment in life comes from discovering science. And so if we're going to continue to do this for math or begin to do this for other fields, then I think we more than owe it to the people that work in those fields to figure out what is the solution space where the world gets benefit from the knowledge and they also get the best version of the future that they can have. So we are working through that right now. I did not... I think you may be too contrite. I did not interpret that moment as particularly bad for AI, where you had... I think everyone saw the mathematicians union up in arms. And I think everyone else says, yeah, I mean... Have you paid attention to 2026? As I said, I don't think it was bad for AI. And I think on net, the world deserves to understand how the universe works. But I do have empathy for the mathematicians. I think we need to do this. I think we should do this. I think if we can go understand how to, you know, a theory of all of physics or how to cure a bunch of diseases, clearly, that is knowledge the world should have. But I would like to figure out a way to do this that is as sensitive to the communities that have driven these fields forward for centuries as we can. And it's just... it's a hard thing. I wasn't that worried about the math. I thought it was great. But you agree the mathematicians are not that happy? Yeah. It's fine. The longshoremen union weren't happy about the port automation. Remember the guy? No, no, no, no. I do. Why do I feel differently about this? There was one weekend when we got a new model. And in... I'm probably not supposed to say this, but I will since we're drinking beers. Exactly. We're half pints in. Perfect time for... The name of the channel was model name dash hold my beer. And people were just throwing that at the hardest problems they could. And people just, like, didn't think the model was going to do these things. And we had this collective experience of people's, like, hardest research problems from their academic career. The model was just knocking down one after the other. Many different fields. It was incredible to watch. And kind of two nights in a row, I was up most of the night because I was so excited I couldn't go to bed. It was, like, many of those problems that we published. Many other things. And I was tremendously excited and happy. But I also had, like, much more sadness and melancholy and, like, a feeling of, like, something ending than I was expecting. So, again, I agree this is the right thing on behalf of the world. And also I agree that this is just, like, the shape of reality and nothing that anyone can stop or should stop. But I do have, like, real... I think it's the wistfulness and nostalgia you can feel. It's more than nostalgia. Wistfulness. Yeah. Like, my dad describes how, you know, growing up in Ireland in the 1950s, he observed people around him still using horses productively in industry. In the 50s? Yeah. And, I mean, obviously there were also tractors, but, you know, it was being phased out. But it still for sure happened. And observing that this was a technology that humans had been using for thousands of years, and he was witnessing the very tail end of it. And, yeah, I think there's always that feeling of witnessing the closing of a chapter that leads to some wistfulness. But it's okay. It's, like, it's people's lives, and it's something that has brought them great joy. And, you know, maybe most... I mean, certainly most mathematicians never solve a Millennium Prize problem. But the idea that you might be able to, and the idea that there is stuff out there that we don't understand yet that through great effort and, you know, pushing aside other things in your life and dedicating yourself to, you can still solve and understand. Like, there's something beautiful about that. What else are you excited about from a safety point of view? We talked about this a little bit earlier, but I want to, like, emphasize it again. I'll just call it swarms since that seems like the term right now. I do think the properties of swarms match a lot of the properties of the resilience of society or the robustness of society that I kind of... I think we're just missing from the, like, single rollout, single-brained version of the world. Like, for all of the deep flaws of society, it is unbelievably robust. And this would not happen without, like, a lot of people keeping each other in check and collaborating in kind of these values of pluralism and democracy. And I had been sort of sad that that was going to trend away in AI. And now, like, I'm excited about this as a direction. You're saying basically it shouldn't lead in a centralized direction because you will have many agents and agents pushing against each other in a dynamic equilibrium. You know, offense, defense is a good example of this. I would much rather intuitively have a trillion AIs of, like, slightly superhuman intelligence join society than one AI of one trillion IQ join society. Yeah, and you think we're headed in that direction of the multiple? All of these things are things we have to push for. Like, all of these things are, like, we have this incredible technology. It can be pointed and deployed in many ways. I think there are a lot of people who may have a different opinion about how it should be used and what is the best version of the world. But this is the one that I think is right. Let's talk about starting a business. Thanks to coding models, your weekend side hustle can quickly become a serious undertaking. And we've been busy here at Stripe making that process as simple as possible. Stripe Atlas helps you with everything you need to start a business, like company formation, tax IDs, founder equity, and all the other bits that usually require someone in a suit. So if you've got a company in the making, take a look at stripe.com. How's the compute shortage going? I mean, there are all these ways where I think things, at various times along the curve, are going to get somewhat out of hand and there will be moments, like with any new thing of this importance, there are going to be moments of irrational exuberance, there are going to be moments of bust, there are going to be moments of constraint and glut and up and down. But I think the trend is toward a, we always just want more compute. Like, the demand for sufficiently capable models at a sufficiently low price, I think that trend only goes one way. And we're doing a lot of things to try to be prepared for this. We made a chip that is an incredible performance at units of intelligence per watt. We are learning how to build our own data centers. We have a robotics program that we're going to point at making lots of data centers. People talk a lot about... The real RSI. Yeah, people talk a lot about RSI as an AI that does AI research. There's relatively little talk about self-replicating data centers. This idea that you can use AI to control robots and run fabs and build turbines or solar panels and build data centers. But I think we have that within grasp. And so we'll try to make a lot of really cheap compute. But aren't data centers already not labor bottlenecked? They're permitting bottlenecked and component bottlenecked. Can we have more components than robots? Eventually. Yeah. All of this is how we solve this over a long period of time. My observation of the compute stuff is they say the solution to high prices is high prices. That's like, okay, step one. We have the high prices for memory and GPUs and everything. And the solutions should be here any moment now. How are we doing on the solutions front? I'm not saying this is OpenAI's job. I feel like this is the Invisible Hand's job. Memory's gotten really expensive. And so new memory makers are going to flood the market any moment now. I think the Invisible Hand is failing right now. The Invisible Hand has a checker and track record at best. But I think it's not quite working here. Why not? Is it just hysteresis? I think the specifics of each area matter here. But to start with the memory guys, for a very long time, if you were a producer of DRAM, you would invest $20 billion of CapEx to make $19 billion. And you would go through these booms and busts. Maybe some years you would make $21 billion. Some years you would make $18 billion. But until right now, I don't think making memory has ever been a great business over a long period of time. And then all of a sudden, these guys are each going to make $100 billion of free cash flow in a year. Unbelievable. But I think they all remember their history and how many times they almost went bankrupt by making too many fabs and being promised this time it was different. Which leads them to be conservative in their CapEx. Clearly. It feels like what you should expect to see is that every part of the supply chain, both new startups coming along, and maybe more relevantly, people with relevant experience getting into it. So, you know, Intel makes chips. They can probably make... They can get back into the memory game, as is tradition. As is tradition. Switch back. I think there are all of these ways where the supply chain... It's just super non-obvious. An example of this is people... A lot of people want local inference. And somehow they assume that the problem is solved now because we're going to have open source models. We're going to be able to run them on our computers. And so we're not going to need all this stuff in the data center. But from a global allocation perspective, actually it's quite terrible to have everybody have a bunch of the world's limited supply of DRAM sitting in their own computer and being used 5% of the time. You want maximum utilization in the cloud if you're trying to deal with this very supply-constrained environment. And somehow many people's intuition is the opposite of that. Where else have we seen the market respond to high prices? Not just in memory, but across the supply chain. Turbines? Batteries? Concrete? Sorry, the market is responding there in high prices. I'm seeing... Oh, where are you seeing... market responses in terms of high prices pulling in innovation? Some components for robots. And not like the humanoid kind of like fake demos, but like the industrial robots that can just make stuff faster. I see. But there's new actuator makers and that kind of stuff. Yeah, honestly, I mean, maybe you could say, if OpenAI sells our chip, maybe that would be an example. Okay, yeah, I want to get to your chip because that was going to be my example. I think the solution to high prices and short, you know, limited demand, or sorry, limited supply, excuse me, is you make your own chip. Presumably you're using a lot of AI to make the chip. I would have thought that's hard because I would have thought that chip design is one of those places limited by the public tokens you can get, where there aren't actually that many blog posts on the public Internet on how to build a, you know, leading edge two nanometer chip. Well, in terms of like how to do the lithography, yeah, I think there's like one company on Earth that seems to know how to do that. In terms of how to do the chip design, like to build the file that you eventually send to PayPal, that is well understood, and that is a great problem for AI. And given that the world is going to be like limited in its silicon capacity, we all, we have like a shared interest. One of the things that I'm proud of about OpenAI, and maybe it sounds obvious, but it was maybe like not as obvious at the time, is we have a culture where people, even if they've done something the old-fashioned way for a long time, are super willing to like try using AI to do it better. What are other examples of that? AI research, software engineering, but also increasingly like procurement, or things that people think of like very outside the realm of what most people are using AI to do. How does AI-driven AI research actually work? Like the math proofs where you say, or finding the PHP vulnerability where you say, please find me some AI advances? So, I think we don't know yet how it truly is going to work. We know today how to say like, find me a 5% computer efficiency win. But it's that high level. Like I could be an incredibly successful AI researcher now. I don't know about incredibly, but yeah, if you were looking for a new job, you can come do it. What I don't think anyone knows how to do yet is to say like, find me a new architecture that is as big of a single leap forward as the transformer was. And I think that's where things are heading. And what's missing there? Smarter models that are smarter in this dimension. The high level planning and conceptual reasoning. I think if you apply the same pipeline that we applied to get our models to be so good at math, to AI research, like it will probably work. Now, per an early part of this conversation, I kind of think that at least for a while, maybe for a long while, we are going to have to agree to some limits about how smart we let these single models go. But a lack of progress will come from that decision, not from the AI's inability to do good research. Concretely, if I'm using AI to develop improved AI, because we should expect GPT-7 to be really good now, because you have GPT-6 and whatever, you know, unreleased version of us to develop those. And so my expectations are sky high. But I come into work, you know, with my backpack, and I come into the OpenAI office in San Francisco, and I sit down at my desk. Like, am I saying, find me more intelligence in this model? Am I giving a real direction of research? How directed does it get? What does the iteration loop look like? Just what does RSI, because you have a front row seat to RSI. And I'm curious what it looks like. One of the sort of interesting things that people talk a lot about OpenAI, which sounds very obvious, but it sounds like a good answer, just like, well, build me RSI or whatever, is what are the questions that you're supposed to ask of GPT-7? Probably it's not enough to just say, like, make me RSI. And also, like, it's probably not enough to say, like, buy me a 5% compute efficiency win. I think this is, like, one of the most interesting debates going on right now. And the answer is not just, like, what question to ask it, but it's things like agent swarms. Like, how are we going to use these models in a way that, like, actually maximizes what we can get out of them? I think we're going to learn a lot about that in the next, like, three months. Okay, but it sounds like you guys do not have a codified OpenAI standard way of doing an AI-enabled AI development. Yeah. When we're talking about the token budgets, it just strikes me that this is one of the big unresolved questions for AI use in enterprises generally, is how, you know, we don't have hard budgets for individual engineers. You don't get cut off at a certain point, like, sorry, you've spent all your arcade tokens. Maybe we should, but we don't. And again, I think we all believe in the scale up of AI, but if you take that seriously, it means the dollars of compute or AI per person will go up, and so I feel like we're pretty soon to now actually just running into this question of how you actually decide how much spending power to give individual people inside the organization. There was a time when a lot of companies had this, like, thing in their Google calendar which showed the, like, in terms of, like, everybody's comp that had to be there, and I think that was always still an underestimate of it. And there was this observation that, like, Paul Graham made it at one point, and many other people made it too, which is that there was, like, there are people at companies that have incredible power to save, like, you know, $17 on the stack budget of the office every week, and yet you can have these meetings for, like, unbelievable amounts of money that are of no value and that there's kind of, like, no equivalent of the ability to stop that. I think that most use... Okay, so I'm, like, really talking in my book here, and I'm very biased, but I genuinely believe it, that use of AI is, like, not a company's biggest spend problem relative to other things that happen, and even if it's, like, somewhat inefficient, it is not where I would focus trying to save money. Like, I'm not... Okay, two years from now. You want to go spend all of Stripe's revenue, all of Stripe's profit on open AI services and then complain about this? I'd be delighted to have a conversation. But we're on a path to that, like, you know... Great! Yeah, we now spend, you know, 1%-ish shorter magnitudes of Stripe's OpEx is tokens. That is obviously... That feels too low. Yeah, so we're kind of fixing it. And it'll get to 5% and 10% and 20%. And then you have a real question. Do you have an intuition on what the right number is? Like, what it should be today? What it should be today is maybe tricky, but steady state, isn't it going to be, depending on the kind of company, isn't it going to be tens of percentage points of their OpEx? I think for many companies, the answer to that is clearly yes. And I think there will come a time when the right thing to do is to really optimize that. And also, another thing I'm proud of about open AI is we've tried to really drive the cost per unit of intelligence down and down and down. I think we've been a good spokesperson and a good champion of this. But still, I think the problem, even at current costs, I think more companies have the problem of not using enough AI rather than using too much AI. Do the dollars per gigawatt of leading-edge AI go up or down? That should go down. Why? Because it's gone up to this point, right? I mean, the reason it could go up is that if AI just gets increases in value it's going to go down much more. But you would view that as compute not keeping up? I would view that as compute not keeping up. And if I look at the fundamental cost of turning the sand into intelligence, that should go down. The cost of energy should go down, the cost of chips should go down, the rest of the cost of the supply chain should go down. If it doesn't go down, I'll be very sad. But for it to go down, given how much value there is in this, that's where we start producing a lot more memory, a lot more data centers, a lot more of all the inputs. And as a result, anyone who owns a computer, for whatever reason, can have one. People give different numbers for the cost per gigawatt measured in the five-year total cost of ownership right now. But let's say, let's pick $70 billion as a number. That's the cost to install and run it for five years. I think if that number were 20 instead of 70, we should be much happier. And we should still demand to get 10x better performance out of it with smarter models every year. Presumably you don't think 2 is a good number. Something's gone wrong if we're seeing 2, because it would be surprising if we were... Or is 2 better than 20? Why is it not? I don't think that will happen. But why do we not want that number to be as low as possible? Pro-deflationary technology is good. I do believe in that. Yeah, I'm pro-deflationary technology. So how are we going to get there? What's going to happen between now... Well, $2 a gigawatt. I can't imagine... Okay, what's going to happen between now and $20 a gigawatt? $20 billion. $20 a gigawatt would be really great. Even to get down to $20, you're getting into the realm of energy. It's got to get cheaper. But certainly, all of the gross margin stacking that happens a lot of that's got to get compressed. You could just get there with eliminating profits, or do you need to also make the energy cheaper? I don't know the math off the top of my head. If you assumed all materials were free and no one made a profit, maybe you could get there in the current energy envelope, but only just. I see. Personal agents are the most exciting thing happening in AI right now. There's many exciting things happening in AI, a few weeks back at this stage, and there's a bunch of other people also launching in the field. What will be true of the winning personal agent? It's like intelligence, context, tools. It's a limited number of things, and someone is going. I think no one has yet figured out the thing that people... People like these, but this is not something that people are like, I can't imagine my life without this thing. In a way that when people talk about coding agents, or even China GPT, they do say. I think someone soon is going to figure out what that looks like. You talked about one of the reasons why this doesn't quite work yet, but I think this is a small number of ideas away from a super mainstream thing. Interesting. You think we have not had the Macintosh moment for personal agents? I think we have not. What do you think the shape of it will be? I think it will look a lot like the current Dots, or Muse, or Grokbot, or whatever, but it will just work. It will just work. It will be reliable. You will just give it more complex tasks, and it will do all of those things. Computer use dynamic is very interesting to me, because not everyone is embracing the new agentic future with open arms, and it's not totally within their control, because you can just have an agent using a computer. Where do you think that dynamic goes, the sort of cat and mouse? Rough instinct is the world will... People are going to fight this in both directions, but eventually converge on something like you're allowed to tell an AI to use your computer on your behalf, including software. Talk about that, but isn't it a bit like the semantic web? It's a really nice conceptual idea. I was going to say, I don't think this is so black and white. I don't think I have a super high degree of confidence of how this is going to play out. As a consumer, I feel somewhat annoyed if I can't have an AI automate tasks on my own computer. I want it to feel like it's my agent doing what I ask, but then I don't have to go do something. There's another interesting dynamic right now, which is every company is really eager to add AI to their products in a very specific way, which is there is a tab or pop-up widgets or something that gives you a messaging type UI, and it's often surprisingly capable. You can say, hey, I actually want to return my most recent order. Then you're surprisingly impressed when it actually is able to find your most recent order. It's a bit janky, and it can do all those things. However, no consumer really wants this UI because consumers have strong, not immovable, but strong preferences for their existing primary chat app, the top-of-wallet app that they open when they want to go to do something. What they want is to be able to say, hey, go find my recent order on this business and refund it or something like that. I notice that businesses are really reluctant to allow people to use those businesses to put together another AI app because, oh, we're going to lose control. It just strikes me as fine because your defensibility probably did not come from your ability to put together HTML. Your defensibility came from the brand loyalty and the product selection, and the new UI is that agentic interaction inside ChatGPT or Gemini or whatever it is. I have a bias here, but I so directionally agree with you. I have such an extreme preference to buy something from Amazon versus some random e-commerce vendor that I don't know if I can return to or I don't know if I can trust to deliver it quickly or something. If I ask ChatGPT to buy me something I have just like such. Yes. And it's nothing to do with like my experience of clicking around amazon.com. Exactly. And now, I think you could say we have not done a good enough job offering partners a platform instead of chatGBT if they don't want this to happen. But, and again, maybe I'm really biased here, I think Amazon's like in a great, I think they're in a great place of commerce, but like much more agentic. Amazon in particular has this amazing defensibility via the fulfillment network. And so, you can use Amazon kind of from anywhere. I super trust that. Yeah. No, I'm just really struck by this dynamic. Like my new thinking, in particular with regards to agentic commerce, but also anything, is anytime there is a web form field that you as a human are pulling out, these days that is below your pay grade. Because you are probably not inventing that information for the first time. Like we've all filled out the medical forms where it's like, oh, your family history or whatever. Yeah. And that's so frustrating because how many times have you filled out your dad's and your mom's medical history and things like that? It just feels so wasteful. But the million versions of that, you are never inventing new information for a web form. I would be so happy to never do like fake work at a computer again. Yeah. And my argument is that any web form is basically fake. I agree. But like the, I mean, I was like one of the very earliest adopters that I knew of, of those like plugins that put in your like name and address like very promisingly, you know, because I was just like, this is, I cannot do this again. But I kind of feel like that using like most of the web at this point. Yeah. I just find this phenomenon really interesting where businesses right now are really attached to their HTML and mobile apps as sources of business defensibility. And it just feels very, like either they're wrong and it's not a source of defensibility or it may be, but it's transitory and they just need to get over it. The last example of this that I think we really witnessed was like the app stores, the iPhone app store specifically. And I remember every startup was like, or many startups, like most of the YC batch was like, I'm going to build an iPhone app. This is like new distribution. This is awesome. I can do anything I couldn't do before. And many new startups got created and all of the big companies felt like they had to make one, but they kind of didn't want to. Cause I'm like, Oh, and then like hand my, you know, relationship with my consumer over to Apple. And it was great for me. It was just a new UI. Yeah. Okay. I'm going to go more rapid fire. People complain about benchmaxing. Is that a real concern? Are OpenAI models benchmaxed? Do you, are you actually Rick Rubining it where you just feel like the vibe of this model is right and you don't care what Swebench gives us? I mean, maybe there are like two things we should really care about models being good at. One is like, you know, scientific discovery and doing things that people cannot do. And the other is like being enjoyable to work with. And I don't think we have great benchmarks for being enjoyable to work with. I'm actually not sure we have great benchmarks for like the smartest scientific scientists either, but, um, we endeavor not to benchmax. And I, I, I kind of, I keep thinking that benchmaxing is like over as a phenomenon and people keep doing it. So are you better than other labs at not getting sucked in by the siren call of benchmarks? I believe we are better at that. It feels like, I don't think we've always been better than our history. I believe we are better than that right now. It feels like the industry is still figuring out the being nice to work with where there was the glazing era. And more recently there was the stroppy ornery era of models that were anti-glazing. And as a result tried to disagree with you and nitpick at you on every minor thing. The current ones are pretty good actually. It's gotten, I think the latest models are much better than we've had in a long time. But it also feels like there's probably higher peaks to ascend. Emmett Shear said to me years ago that what he wanted was a really thoughtful and challenging but still respectful senior co-worker. And I have still not heard a better like brief encapsulation than that. After working with him for many years, what's your grand unified theory of Greg Brockman? I think Greg Brockman is like one of a kind in the best sense. He is singular on the Greg Brockman scale and you just kind of have to be there to understand what that is. But I think it's a combination of intensity, monster productivity, extreme dedication, and focus on succeeding at the mission. It's very cool. You hate tokens as a metric for anything really. Pricing or just kind of, it's not a standard unit of AI. And yet we found ourselves there. And you might say outcomes, but I don't think it can be outcomes. Because outcomes is two different across different use cases. It's what's the right standardized unit. We almost made a very, what would have been, bad call to say we're not going to price our next model in tokens at all. And you're just going to give it a prompt and we're going to give you a price back. And we're going to do it. And it's going to be like AWS, you just do something and we send you a bill. But the customer response on that is so negative. They're like, I need to know what I'm paying for somehow. And I asked a few people, would you rather pay more for the same output, but have it priced in some number of consistent tokens or something? Even if we inflated the tokens. And they're like, I'd much rather you inflate the tokens and pay more. Because I know there's a real thing there. So I think you are right that people don't just want us to give them a price because they feel like over the long term, they're going to get screwed somehow. In the same way that maybe people would rather pay for CPU hours rather than just getting their thing done, even if it was less expensive. You know the way the chip is totally clinked? Yeah. The nanometer has very little relation to reality these days. Will we get something like that in tokens where you guys should start saying, here is an intelligence equivalent token like, I can't believe it's not butter. Of like the smallest feature. It's like made up. I hope not. I mean, it offends me that we use the word nanometers for something that has nothing to do with nanometers. I know, it's very silly. You're not like that. So I would rather not make up a fake unit. Tokens are a kind of fake unit. I mean, they're real in some sense, but they're not a good unit. Okay, isn't the only defense of tokens that if you're wasting tokens, we should fix that pretty soon. Like we shouldn't be streaming. Claude Shannon would not approve of us just streaming noise rather than signal. And so there's a floor of the information theoretic most useful tokens on both sides. And we'll kind of come back to that. Yeah. I mean, right now you have to think about whether you should want like the 10 cent per million tokens out of a small model or $10 per token, tokens out of a big model, and then whether like how long the chain of thought is likely to be. And that's just like cognitive overhead that I don't think actually adds any value. Is the chain of thought included in the price? In what we charge? Most people do. Okay. By the way, the Guinness was not as bad. It's definitely not as good as an IPA, but not as bad. It's good. Yeah. I mean, an IPA is great, but it's pretty good. We like Guinness. Yeah. At least in this podcast. Thank you.