Are AI Glasses Over?, Big Technology Audience Questions, Alex Stamos on AI Cybersecurity

22:49Ranjan Roy:And it is, it's terrifying. Have you done the psychoanalyze me prompt? no but i did so i use like claude and chat gpt gemini i'll kind of go through the three of them and cycle around so it is funny so i have asked like what do you know about me like what would you ask back and they all have very different kind of like jagged jarring aggregations of who i am like i don't know they're uh i i don't have one that just knows me through and through i i've done it diversify i've done it with chat gpt yeah it's pretty good yeah and then like it will first give you a answer that's like kind of sanitized and then you say go a little deeper and then you say get a little darker oh dear i have not red teamed chat gpt i challenge you all to give it a shot or don't go darker don't don't go darker but if you really want to okay thank you over here And thank you for the question.

23:48Let's move on. Yeah.

23:49Ranjan Roy:Thank you, guys. And really appreciate all the work that you do on the podcast and YouTube. Your conversations go so deep and still very broad, so I really appreciate that. Thank you. We appreciate it. You're a listener or viewer? Oh, yeah. All right. Both. Thank you so much. Depends on where I am. Amazing. Appreciate it. And my name is Saoji. I'm an advisor for startups in the AI space, and I've been in product management and go-to-market strategy. My question for you, somewhat related to the gentleman before, there is a lot of coverage on agents and what agents can do and a little bit about the governance and cost control.

24:27Ranjan Roy:What I don't see a lot about is agents do drift, probably why we don't have better examples than travel. And over a period of time, They don't get better at that specific understanding of the people and the business context and the operating model they're working in and learn from it. I was wondering, is there a lot of conversation that you guys are seeing around the learning layer in the agents? Is it too early for that to happen? And the conversation is mostly around governance and cost and access. It's actually a good question for Ronjan. Yeah. So again, like working in this all day and thank you for the question.

25:15Ranjan Roy:I, I think what's going to happen. I'm already starting to see is like six to 12 months ago, the approach was just jam as much information into whatever system you can. And we were kind of promised that it would just work and AI is just going to, and like there's, you know, you'd get this feeling that, oh wait, a hundred page pdf it actually could parse and i can get information out of but then when you're doing that at any kind of agentic scale it doesn't and i think already like how information gets chunked up and like distributed in different ways and context windows everyone would see like one million uh token context window but we didn't really know what it meant and now more and more like and i actually think this is going to be one of the most interesting like professional opportunities and areas to be an expert in going forward is like being able to kind of, it's funny, like it is as much art as science right now, but I think like the more you can start to grab a hold of how information flows through these agents and how you actually get it reliable, it's going to be a really, really interesting space.

26:20Ranjan Roy:It's not, it's no one job right now. Okay. Thank you for the question. All right. We have seven minutes, three questions. Let's see if we can keep the questions brief and we'll keep the answers brief and we'll get to everybody i'll try to be quick thank you everyone uh big fan of the pod by the way uh chris of way he i'm one of the co-founders of a company called virus watcher i'm here with my colleague oh cool flew in from dallas he flew in from austin yes nice big fan we got a couple dallas folks here today oh who's dallas shout out dallas okay go matt hey oh yeah we're big in texas um i'm gonna go in a different direction with my question is I want to know kind of what y 'all's thoughts and honestly if you can ask this kind of later on with Greg Brockman and others what is the thought on using AI models and AI and you know technology for biological intelligence biosurveillance and public health for emerging risk detection well with infectious diseases is a very interesting project that we're working on we have a lot of epidemiologists on our team we were just at the UN two weeks ago with the World health organization and trying to discuss these problems and how we can use the technology to to kind of detect these things early on so I kind of want to get you guys thoughts on that can I ask you a question back and if you could give a brief answer that would be great okay are you believer in the bio capabilities of these models like fable like do you think anthropic made the right decision by gating them wait wait bio capabilities meaning like you're talking about biological weapons he's talking about like disease correct but i i think that he's gone no no no his answer will give us okay into the question i i mean i think it's uh it's a very touchy you know it's a there's no right answer i don't think um but i do think it probably did more harm uh you know than you know not allowing everyone to kind of take advantage so you're not you're not basically worried that today's cutting-edge models could cause like new bio threats no i i am but i think there's also a lot of positive that could come out of it as well let everybody use it though yeah i mean i just you know it doesn't even have to be a fable style model it can be you could take a frontier model distill a more um right a safe custom model yeah safety uh with you know safety standards involved but sorry i don't want to be too long i just want to know No, great question.

28:39Ranjan?

28:40Ranjan Roy:In terms of the first part of it, I do think, again, like, and it's one of the underappreciated things, and I feel in the AI industry, like disease prevention and scenario modeling around virus, like we don't talk about that stuff enough, or whoever is trying to talk about it, it does not get listened to enough. So I love the kind of work you're doing, and, like, those kind of stories would bring the AI industry a little bit better reputation, I think. Yeah, no, I agree. You're thinking about biological weapons. No, I think that if, well, if you can do one, then you could certainly do the other.

29:13Am I, what? I don't know. Is one like, okay.

29:16Ranjan Roy:I actually have no idea. No, why are you giving me these problems here? No, I hope that we can. Sorry, I know that's a very, no, no, no. We're going to speak with, we'll hopefully have some time to talk about health with Brockman. Yeah, I would love, yeah, if you can have, okay. Okay, thank you for the question. Over here. Hi, my name is Heidi. Hi, Heidi. You're linking online friends. That's right. You messaged me yesterday. Thank you for being here. Thank you for being here. During this event, see each other in person. My question about before you with a different speaker mentioned about China.

29:52Ranjan Roy:So I'm Chinese. I'm curious about why you think China is important to be this partnership with USA, special high tech. Second question about you. So you mentioned a lot of LRM, larger model. So my question about Gemini, ChitGDP, and Cloudy and Anderson, which one you prefer? Think about it in future. It's more stronger, smarter in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Well, the question on China is, sorry, what's the question on China? No, no. Why do you think it's important to build a relationship with USA? so yeah it's like you know all right i will i will take that question and then ronjan will answer which model he likes better um you know i i think that we're obviously in this competition the u.s and china are in this competition and there's like a lot of suspicion on both ends and um you know i've said in the past that like it would be great if there was better cooperation between the two countries and people have told me that i'm naive but i'm not gonna you know, lose that hope.

31:01I think that if, if, I mean, in some ways competition's good, right? Cause then you'll just have everybody striving to build a better thing. But, you know, we just talked about AI for health. If the countries were able to work together, maybe on specific initiatives, that would be much welcome.

31:16Ranjan Roy:I think the most interesting part of like US versus or US with China in terms of AI in the last few months, the conversation around moving towards deep seek and adding it into your agentic process or adding Chinese models did not exist in any conversation I was in 12 months ago and now is in almost every conversation, at least as an option, because cost has become such a larger part of the conversation. So I think it's a good thing. I think the more integration there is overall across these systems, the better. Yeah, but watch out for La Chaton-Fat. La Chaton-Fat, Mistral. The cat holding the hands with Dario and Sam is my favorite meme the whole year.

31:59Okay, we have one minute left, but let's see if we can do it in a minute.

32:02Ranjan Roy:All right, I'll go through this quickly. Hi, Maria Sarah Roberts. I'm in business management consulting. My question is a little bit different. As we are evolving into or entering in a world already where endless possibilities are available, where and how do you see the evolution of the responsibilities that big tech companies have in supporting making this world better? Not the product and our engagement and how we interact with all the screens better, but rather like the real big problems that the world has. And not because they should, but because they can. So how do you think about like the evolution of that as we step into this world?

32:42I'll answer that. Or do you want to answer? Go ahead.

32:45Ranjan Roy:We had a backstage, we had a long rant because I'd forgotten that Anthropic is a PBC public benefit corporation. but I still think there is a responsibility. I don't actually see it happening in any kind of way because competition is so fierce. Now I wish it would, but I don't see it happening. Yeah, that was a good answer. Come on. I want to make sure everybody gets to coffee. Oh, no, screw it. I'll answer it. So Jeff Bezos, so I think they have an obligation to do good for the world, and I don't know if, and I know people within the companies are very serious about that. So they have their own side projects.

33:27But I think as a society, maybe we can't expect them to do it out of the goodness of their own hearts. Jeff Bezos was recently doing an interview and he said, I think what I do in the private sector is gonna outweigh whatever I could do charitably. I disagree with that. And I think that that's just the mindset of a lot of people at the top of these companies. and so like everybody else needs to be aware of that and not count on it even though it would be nice so that's my perspective all right uh ronjan will you come back with us after the break and speak with alex stamos and i about whether um this mythos and fable stuff is material or marketing you know i would love to you guys want to get a coffee break you guys are amazing thank you very much.

34:11Find the vacation you're looking for in Missouri. Whether you're searching for this, wanting something like this. Oh, that's cute. Maybe up for something like this. Or just really, really need something more

34:27Ranjan Roy:like this. You'll find the vacation you want in Missouri. Missouri, it's the getaway that gets you. Plan your fun at visitmo.com. So you may have heard that AI is in some trouble in Washington. And that story has led to a lot of guessing. People have guessed, are these models actually that dangerous? How much better are they than previous generations? And do they deserve to be restricted by the federal government? We've certainly done a lot of guessing. And I think the only way to get to the bottom of this is to speak with somebody who is deep in the weeds on the cybersecurity aspects of AI models.

35:09Someone who secures them and someone who has spent a career working in security. And that would be Alex Stamos. Alex Stamos is the former chief security officer at Meta and he's the current chief product officer at Corridor. Ranjan and I have this debate all the time. Is what's going on with Mythos marketing or material? Well, let's get to the bottom of it. Ranjan will come out and be my co-interviewer for this one. So ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Alex Deimos and once again, Ron John Roy.

35:42Thank you.

35:43Ranjan Roy:Hey, thanks, friend. Alex, boring times in your industry. Yeah, it's an honor to be here. I am by far the poorest person in the afternoon lineup. It's like I bring down the mean net worth by a comma, I believe. So I do appreciate being here. Well, Alex, I don't want to cue you into podcaster finances, but I think you're good. Of the guests, I guess. Yeah, yeah. So talk a little bit about, we're obviously at this moment where the government has pulled down, or basically forced Anthropic to pull down Fable or Mythos, its frontier model. Right. Both of them, yes. What happened? Right. So just for recap for everybody, last Friday, what happened was the White House became aware of research that Amazon had done.

36:31Ranjan Roy:It is not unreasonable for Amazon to do this work. Amazon hosts Anthropics models in what they call Bedrock. This includes in all of the classified spaces. If the NSA is using Anthropics models, it is running in AWS secret cloud or top secret cloud. Amazon is doing security testing. I expect this is part of getting ready to host Fable and Bedrock and found some things that they wanted to complain about with Fable's protections that make Fable different than Mythos. I guess we can talk about the exact ones. Amazon had sent over these results to Anthropic. There was some disagreement between Anthropic and Amazon during the week of how serious they were.

37:17Ranjan Roy:Now, I don't have the exact details here, but somehow, apparently, Andy Jassy, the CEO of Amazon, mentions this to with somebody at the White House, and the White House freaks out, and according to reporting, calls Anthropic and is not happy with how quickly they can get Anthropic on the phone. Anthropic is asking for more technical details. They're not able to get details from the White House of what the White House wants, so the White House orders them to take Fable down. Anthropic says, no, we can just fix these issues. Why don't we work it out together? And as a result, instead of working out together on Friday afternoon, something around 5 p.m.

37:58Ranjan Roy:Pacific time, the Commerce Department signs an order saying that the models are designated export controlled and that no foreigner, including the foreign citizens who worked and actually built the models themselves, can touch them. Whether or not the administration actually has that legal power is disputed, but Anthropic decides to actually follow through instead of immediately getting a temporary restraining order. And because they have no ability to make sure that no foreign citizen is seeing the models, actually pulls them down. Both Mythos, which was privately accessible, as well as Fable, which was publicly available.

38:36Now you've spent a career working in security. Yes. Ronjan and I for months now have had this debate about whether all of this talk of doom and super powerful models from Anthropic, like for instance Mythos, a model so powerful that you can't access it, whether that represented a real capability increase or whether that was just marketing. and it's a step change, not really a step change in capabilities. So I actually want to toss it to Rajan, who is firmly on the marketing side of this thing, just to make the argument of why you think this is marketing and Alex can address that.

39:16Ranjan Roy:Yeah, I think trying to understand what is that new capability that is so dangerous, what is that step change? I think the reason I get so suspect on it is how perfectly coordinated a lot of the marketing and communications are are around how they roll these out. Like, again, mythos is the most dangerous thing. There's someone eating a sandwich in a park that actually got, like, where the model broke out of containment was like a PR release. It was a very coordinated thing. So what is that danger that they're trying to kind of bring to the world? Like, what is it really? What does it look like, feel like, or what is it actually going to be a problem?

39:55Ranjan Roy:So how much money do you guys have writing on this? Well, how would we even play this? I don't even know. Like as a bet. As a bet. Like is there a polymarket? Oh, yeah. I'm trying to see what my angle is here. Apparently I have. Well, no, you are the person that knows. You play Eric Trump action. You know the answers here. And we have just been kind of like debating on vibes. We just argue on vibes. So, okay. So it's actually a little bit of a complicated answer. So Mythos is almost, it is the best bug finding model that we know about for sure. it is most likely the best bug finding model in the world.

40:33Ranjan Roy:And I say most likely because we do not know what the Chinese secretly have in their labs, but for all the stuff for which we have open known security evaluations for, it scores the best. Now, is it the avenging cyber god that Anthropic makes it out to be? I personally don't think so. Yes. It is. You're not necessarily, You're not right yet. But it is really good. It is really good at finding bugs. But from my perspective, the, like, Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5, a bunch of other models are here, and Mythos is here. At bug finding. At bug finding and exploit development, and it is not here, which is kind of where you would think from reading all this stuff.

41:18Ranjan Roy:The other thing is that everybody pretends that Mythos was the breakthrough, but that is not true. For people in the security world who have been paying attention, This Rubicon was crossed well last year with the Opus 4 series, with the GPT-5 series. That is when the models became better or as good or better than the best human bug finders. And not just as good as the best bug finders. And there's like 50 or 100 of these people, and I know a couple dozen of them. The problem is those people are very expensive, right? And they don't scale. You can't just throw water on them and make them multiply like gremlins.

41:51Ranjan Roy:That would be nice. I mean, certainly the NSA would love that. but models can. You can just scale them as much as you want with money and power and GPUs. And so that last year was a huge deal because all of a sudden you saw these amateur bug finders. Imagine you went to a high school track meet and every single kid is posting Olympic world record times. You'd be like, man, they're juicing, right? That something had happened. That is what last year was like, like mid to late last year in the vulnerability discovery world is the kids started juicing, right? And it's because the models hit this point where they could find everything.

42:32Ranjan Roy:And so, yes, Mythos is really good at finding bugs. It's really good at writing exploits. Fable is not. And so that is what the whole point of Fable is it is the same model weights as Mythos, but Anthropic put a protection in place to keep it from doing the really nasty stuff that Mythos will do. and Amazon has some complaints about that. But what happened is the complaints Amazon has, a number of us have looked at them and then Anthropic has pushed back. Even with the jail breaks that Amazon has, you cannot get Fable to do things that you can't do with the Opus series, with GPT-5 and even with a bunch of Chinese models.

43:12Ranjan Roy:So that is why the actions by the Trump administration make absolutely no sense because those models will not refuse at all. You can just ask GPT-5 to go find these bugs and it will go do it for you. You can just ask Kimmy, which is an open source Chinese model. It will go write you these exploits. And so, yes, you can trick Fable into doing certain things, but you can't trick it into doing the really powerful mythos stuff, which is like grind on the Linux kernel for all day and find a bunch of bugs, which will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars, it turns out, if you pay the full price.

43:44Ranjan Roy:And those have not been jailbroken. And so there's no real good reason for what happened. So yes, Mythos is really powerful. It has only been accessible to a very small number of companies. It is not magically powerful. The other thing you have to remember here is bugs are cheap. Exploits are, we're now drowning in bugs because these models are so good at finding. And we have so much bad software. We've been writing bad software forever. And it turns out that human beings writing code in C and C++ especially, was a really bad idea. That we should not have been writing, building our entire lives based upon memory, unsafe languages.

44:24Ranjan Roy:And then in the presence of these superhuman bug finders, not just Mythos, but all of them, that was not a good idea. And so if you're a pedestrian and you get hit by a F-150 at 80 miles per hour or a McLaren at 200 miles per hour, you don't really care. You're dead, right? Right, and that's the difference here, is like the Mythos is the F1, right? Mythos is the F1 and... Yeah, exactly, and Kimi or GLM-52 is the F150. And so you could take the McLaren off the market, but all you've done is actually hurt the defenders who want to have full coverage, right? Who want to be able to find all the bugs.

45:05Ranjan Roy:An attacker only needs one or two bugs to string together to actually pull off the attack. And so that's why, you know, so about 150 of us wrote this open letter and signed it saying this is really stupid because all you're doing is hurting defenders and you're also really hurting the US AI industry. Okay, I think Ranjan wins the debate. Well, no, Mythos is real. It's not all marketing, but it's not all marketing. But I just want to say, mythos is really powerful, but it doesn't really matter because there's so many bugs out there that you can use any of these models to find them. What I'd like to do is I'd like to shift the debate, one, away from finding bugs, because the other problem here is we cannot set the standard that US AI models can't find bugs.

45:48Ranjan Roy:That is a terrible, terrible, terrible standard. If you are writing software with an LLM, it has to be able to understand what a bug looks like so it does not write those bugs. It has to. And that's the trick actually Amazon used, was they tricked it into basically finding bugs in individual lines of code because it has to be able to do that to write secure code. If American LLMs know nothing about security, they will create more security flaws. So we cannot create a standard where American LLMs are dumb about security. That would be a humongous own goal. And that is one of the possible outcomes here of this whole brouhaha, that would be really stupid.

46:31Ranjan Roy:And so, you know, I think, yes, I don't think either one of you wins. I mean, as the referee here, I think Ronjon has a little bit of a, you have a point, but Mythos is really good. It just, it doesn't, Anthropic has played it up too much. OpenAI is rumored to be releasing something that's Mythos quality really soon. and I doubt that they're going to follow, they'll just give it a number like I think they've learned from Anthropic, you don't call your thing like the cyber gorgon That actually would sell Yeah, it sells a little too well right? Maybe as a Greek with the Odyssey coming out, I'm getting a little sensitive about the marketing here but like you know, let's like back off on the naming scheme and move back to numbers but like I think a big part of this is we just have to like reset the standard of like not bug finding but the actual creating and creation of exploits and then other kinds of offensive operations of which there's a bunch of other things you can do offensively with these models those are the things that we should call off limits not bug finding because that is something that we have to do much more quickly than we're doing right now can i i just want to try to articulate my point which is you know this is all right so when we talk about is mythos material or is mythos marketing, my argument would be like, if something was material, it would look a lot like what we're seeing today, right?

47:53Like at a certain point, these models are increasing in capabilities. You're going to want to put some safeguards on them. And so is what Anthropic is doing that different from like where you'd want to be if you actually had these concerns?

48:06Ranjan Roy:I mean, I think both Anthropic and OpenAI have a path in which they have like a KYC model. Know your customer? Know your customer. Yeah. So OpenAI actually has a couple levels. They have a public one where you can basically say, I want access to cyber capabilities. And then they have a private one. I believe Anthropoc only has the private one, right, to get access to Mythos. But I do think it's reasonable to have some level of gating. But in the case of Glasswing, I think it was honestly, I thought it was not widespread enough. I know of like critical infrastructure companies that don't have access to Mythos right now.

48:41Nobody does right now.

48:42Ranjan Roy:Well, right now. Before last week. like people who should have had access did not have access now seeing what happened here you could see why they were so careful um but from my perspective as defenders we are in a race against time right we have all of these bugs that need to be fixed and we also have this weird thing where we're like this whole conversation is predicated on the idea that like the american labs are years have had of our adversaries. And that is just not true. So while Fable was shut down, on Tuesday of this week, GLM 5.2 was shipped from Zeta AI, which is a Chinese lab. This is an open-weight model.

49:22Ranjan Roy:It is MIT licensed. So any of you can go not just download the weights from Hugging Face, but you can include it in your own product, and you can retrain it. It is within percentage points of the top closed models from anthropic and open AI in a bunch of things, a bunch of evals. We don't know how good it is at bug finding yet, so there hasn't been any good testing here. But encoding and a bunch of other intelligence tasks, it's almost as good as the best the United States has. And that's the best Chinese model we know about, right? Unlike American labs, the Chinese are not going to announce their mythos, right?

49:59Ranjan Roy:And so the idea that we should be doing everything in the United States to just be playing defense is we're playing like a defensive model here. That is stupid from my perspective. We need to be accelerating our capability to do these things and not just playing defense. Well, now I am sufficiently scared, even though I've thought that the mythos was pure marketing, but what do we do about it? Like, how do we, what is that? Like, and I think I share that Glasswing, again, why it felt like marketing to me, it was this kind of exclusive club that people were invited to and I actually spoke with people who are using it and they spoke about it almost like it was a club like oh yeah we got access to mythos we're spending a ton of money like I think what should it look like this kind of rollout to actually help us in glassware I mean it they're fixing real bugs they have found like 10 ,000 bugs now one of the problems with glassware is they've found like 10 ,000 bugs but they've only fixed a thousand right so like you do not want a 10 to 1 ratio of the bugs you found to fixed um we just joined a thing called Project Athena, which Chain Guard is running, which is all about fixing specifically open source bugs.

51:03Ranjan Roy:So Glasswing, a lot of that is closed source with inside commercial companies. We are part of this coalition that is using Mythos to fix open source bugs, which is a huge challenge because just finding the people who have access to that source code, commit access, is difficult. So that's going to be a huge push. So it's not just totally BS. I do think that one One of the things that's going on here is that if these companies ran any modern AI security tool against their code base, they'd find 80 % of those bugs. They don't have to use Mythos. Right. So it's just that they've never looked, right?

51:39Ranjan Roy:It's they're like... That's concerning. Yeah, right. And so they're like, oh yeah, I've got this old crappy code and they look for the first time and all of a sudden they find... And they could have done it a year ago or six months ago and found some number or some percentage. I had this conversation with the CEO this morning who's like, how do I get into Mythos? Alex, who can you call? And I said, don't wait. Here you go. Here's an API key for Opus right now. It works today. Because do not wait for the Trump administration to figure out what they're doing with Mythos. Use Opus 4.8 right now, and I guarantee you'll get 70 % of the bugs you care about.

52:12Alex, you're a security researcher. One of the stipulations about getting Fable back. So, by the way, Anthropic has said they expect Fable to come back on soon. But one of the stipulations that's been talked about to do that is that they have to prevent it from being able to be jailbroken. Is that possible?

52:29Ranjan Roy:Yeah, I saw you did jailbreak in air quotes. Yeah, no. So we have two minutes left. So talk a little bit about why that's not possible. No, there's actually a paper from NIST. It's like a kind of a Godel completeness theorem kind of paper that basically says it's impossible to make a model that is completely not jailbreakable. Like I said, Fable needs to be able to understand what security flaws are to be able to do its job. I think what Anthropic might, the game they might be playing here is redefine what jailbreak is back to what their system card says. So their system card says, we define different levels of cyber capability, and finding a couple of bugs and knowing what a bug is is okay, but we won't let you build exploit chains and do lots of long-term stuff.

53:14Ranjan Roy:And so if they can define back to their system card what a jailbreak is, then they're fine. Right? What would be terrible for the entire American AI and cybersecurity industries is if the Trump administration defines a jailbreak as having any ability to find any vulnerability in code, because then all of us have to go to Chinese models. Really? That's it. Yes. That would be a terrible, terrible outcome. And that might happen, because unfortunately, the news that broke just in the last couple hours is Politico is reporting that Anthropic and the Trump administration are negotiating what the AI safety standards should be.

53:49Ranjan Roy:So, I don't know, it's like Howard Lutnick writing an eval right now. I find that a little terrifying. So, I am hoping that Anthropic, obviously there's very smart people at Anthropic working on this. I am hoping that they are able to come up with something reasonable that moves stuff towards exploitation, not bug finding. Like, we have to have the ability as defenders to find and fix flaws. The other thing I just want, because we don't have a lot of time, the other real own goal here was that this injected a type of political instability and political risk into the USAI industry that did not exist.

54:21Ranjan Roy:There are a bunch of companies that are now going to have to use open-weight models because at any time on a Friday afternoon, it's a good thing that Fable is only out for a week because people didn't have time to work into their critical path. But if Fable had been out for a month and at 5 p.m. on a Friday all of a sudden it got yanked, then pagers across the country would have gone off because every system would have fallen over. And so now, this week, CIs and CTOs are signing contracts to have open weight models on different hosts, on US hosts, they're not using Chinese hosts, but they're using Chinese models as backups through LLM routers because political risk is now a risk of using AI companies.

55:00Ranjan Roy:That is a massive own goal. The United States of America does not need to do that. We should not do that again. That is incredibly stupid at a moment of maximum pressure from the people's remote of China. And so I can't stress enough, like we lost a war this weekend. like let's not lose another war by making it unreliable to utilize the United States right Alex will you come on the show for a longer conversation absolutely love to yeah Alex thank you thank you shop the Sherwin-Williams sale and get 30 % off super paint super deck and wood scapes products June 12th through the 22nd whether you're refreshing your interior or exterior we've got the colors to bring your vision to life and with delivery getting everything to your door is easier than ever.

55:48Ranjan Roy:Shop online to have it delivered or visit your neighborhood Sherwin-Williams store. Click the banner to learn more. Retail sales only. Some exclusions apply. See store for details. Delivery available on qualifying orders.