20VC: From Only OpenAI to Die-Hard Anthropic: The Downfall of OpenAI in Enterprise | Harvey vs Legora: Legal AI is a Winner Take All | $7M ARR in a Single Day and Raising $200M Across 3 Rounds with No Deck with Max Junestrand, CEO @ Legora

26:51And what we told all the clients were, we were lucky it was summer because we could say, oh, it's summer in Europe, so we're not working. And we're going to wait to onboard you after summer. And there's so much demand that we're going to have to do it in October because September is completely full. We can't onboard more clients. But October 1st, 2024, we were ready to onboard a thousand lawyers a day comfortably on the product. And we got to that point and then we started to rip. And I'm very proud that I had the guts to tell the investors that that was the right plan. Because I think if we had continued to push, we would have just churned everything.

27:32So when you look back at the timing of the US expansion, do you not think you could have gone sooner and not ceded so much ground? Well, for what it's worth, I don't think we conceded a lot of ground and we are winning back a lot of ground, if you put it that way. So customers aren't loyal? No, I think everybody is still treating this as an extended pilot and an option on AI. It's like a call option. They're not doing five-year contracts. They're doing one to three-year contracts. And in law firm time, that's a blink. Many of these firms have been around for 200 years. So two years might be half of our lifetime, but for them, it's a short time.

28:14So when we look at the numbers, the retention for a Harvey is 98 % logo retention, 178 % net revenue retention. Do you have as good numbers? So for both those numbers, yes. But on NRR, I don't think that's a fair number for me to comment on because so much of our growth is not about renewing contracts from 2024. In a single day in 2025, in December, we added 7 million of ARR one day in 24 hours. And that was more than what we did in 2023 and 2024 combined. And so NRR and logo retention, it's up to 2026 to determine where those real numbers will be. And I think for what it's worth, the ability of these products to go quite broad will be very interesting because to some extent, there's initial use cases that you can solve with AI that we target.

29:07And then the more time we spend with our clients, the more problems and opportunities we see. And so what's happening to the product is they're growing quite a lot. And so what I think will happen is that this will be like a suite, like a platform kind of play that just becomes more and more of the central system where they do their work. So on an NRRR standpoint, do you charge on a per seat basis or on a per task basis or on a volume per task basis? We charge on a per seat basis. Is that optimal? I think that's optimal for the buyer. I don't think that's optimal for us. Yeah. And is that not like solving for a historical norm, not a future optimization?

29:45Yes, it is. I actually don't think it's the right pricing model. I think it should be consumption-based because you can have individual users racking up such big LLM costs that it basically becomes unsustainable on a per-user basis. The reason why we have that is you need to make it easy for the buyer. If they don't know how to manage a consumption-based pricing model, you can't have it. And I think that will pivot. And I'm unsure exactly what the timing is. I think the timing is more around when the clients are ready versus when we are ready. And so task expansion is incredibly useful for retention, not for revenue optimization.

30:24In other words, the more they do, it's more likely they are to retain, but it doesn't actually help your dollars. Right. No, it actually costs more. Yeah. I mean, so it's a bad thing to use the product. Do you have good margins? We have okay margins. I respect the honesty of that answer. Yeah, right. It's not sauce margins. And I think it will take time to get there. Will it get there, do you think? Yes, I think it will get there. Not only do I think it will get there, but I think your ability to price versus traditional sauce products will be insanely high. Because you used to use a lot of these products to do very narrow parts of the work.

31:06And they were all disconnected. To give you an insight into the life of a lawyer, it's like you have this product over here that you use to compare two contracts. You have this product over here that you use to extract relevant data from contracts. You have this other product over here where you go and look up legislation. You have this other product over here where you go and look up case law. All these different things. So you as the human had to sit there, comb through all these different systems and aggregate the stuff yourself. But now, similar to Opus 4.5, you're just going to send the task to Ligora.

31:37And it can be pretty arbitrary. And then you let it figure it out. And it just goes and does all the work, or at least a big portion of the work in a much, much, much, much shorter time at a very high quality level. And when you do that, you are not being priced against the other SaaS products. You're being priced against, what would I pay a lawyer to go out and actually do this work. So in three years time will you still have seat based pricing? Absolutely not. When does that change? When our clients are ready to buy on consumption. Why do you sound so confident that will be within three years respectfully?

32:16Because cursor's consumption, a lot of other enterprise tools are for consumption. I just think legal takes a little bit more time. But within three years, well look like you got to understand my vantage point. Three years is longer than I've been CEO at Lagora for. So three years for me is a very long time going forward. On the margin optimization side, is it a little bit like, you know, obviously we're investors in Lovable, where they're able to do model selection dependent on task and optimize margin because of that? You can do that, of course, which we do to some extent. But it's also, I don't think we're in the margin optimization time yet.

32:56You're in the land grab time. Yes, that's the right way to phrase it. In the land grad time, what is the biggest challenge that you face? Biggest challenge that we have right now is growing from 30 to 300 and then doubling again in the next two quarters from 300 to 600 and maintaining the ambition, integrity, teamwork and just like raw grit that got us here when you double the team. I think we just hired two new people in the US and they were really surprised by how late everybody was working. They were like, oh, at the other place I was at, which was another legal tech provider, everybody left at six and we have dinner in the office at eight.

33:45And so when your entire team globally operates at that level and at that pace with that goal in mind, that's awesome. But I care a lot about maintaining that. There's so many things - Well, I still interview everyone. So I ask quite brutal questions about why I take a hard job, you could go work somewhere else. I try to create missionaries, not mercenaries. And I think we've successfully done that. I also think that you get pulled in. Like when you see everybody else doing it, you're just like, okay, of course I've got to do it. And momentum breeds momentum. Like we were signing deals on New Year's Eve.

34:22We had a big Christmas dinner whilst we were having glögg, or what's it called? Muleed wine. You have that in Sweden. We were having the wine before the dinner and we had the big sales dashboard like at the wine thing and everybody kept looking at it because like everybody wants momentum. Everybody wants to win. And when you join a company and you feel like a winner, I think you get burned out doing work that, you know, where you don't feel like you're winning. Do you think competition is helpful in creating that vibe? 100 % of course. Do you light the tinder, so to speak, and fuel the fire? Oh, yes.

35:00I think I'm quite good at it, actually. And competition can be played at a macro level, where you think us versus them. But you can also do it at a lower level, which is our marketing team wants to beat that marketing team. Or our engineers want to build a faster document upload time than that other team. So you compete on all these micro levels and you celebrate them like crazy. What I've learned this year, I actually used to be quite bad at celebrating. I remember when I was in business school, my dream job was to go to McKinsey because I thought that's where all the amazing people went. I found out maybe that that was not the case.

35:44But when I got the call and I got the job, I was in the grocery store and I celebrated by buying a bag of peanuts. Yeah, that was a bit crazy. So I was really bad at celebrating, really bad. Explains why you're so thin, but... But this year, we've learned to celebrate, and it's amazing. You celebrate the wins really hard, because then you also really feel the losses. Because I think it's easy to be blindsided if you have momentum and you have success. You need to see the world for what it is. I heard from some of your investors that internals at Harvey call you their CPO, speaking of comparisons of teams.

36:20Well, I think you'll have to ask them. That's funny. I'm going to ask you, have they ripped your product? Well, I think we take a lot of pride in developing our product as fast and as well as we can. And I think there's two main parts to our product development. One of them is improving the parts that we have. And the other one is making new qualified bets. I think we have had a history of making bold and correct bets. I think there's many legal tech products that on the surface looks pretty similar. There's even another product where they ripped our name and it's our tabular review. It's just called tabular review, their product, which is totally fine.

37:03But what happens when you then go into these competitive pilots and the user starts to kind of rip them apart, that's where you see that one product is a Rolls Royce or maybe a Volvo and the other product is maybe a cheaper version. What product decision did you make that with the benefit of hindsight was a mistake? And what did you learn? The first version of the Legora product back in summer of 2023, that was completely the wrong direction. We built it centered around a couple of core use cases, and we did not have an agent or a chat that could operate over those tasks. It was like a click and point use case.

37:42Clearly the wrong direction. So after we got accepted into Y Combinator, we deleted all of that code. I think we made some good product decisions by very early adopting. Basically, Langchain was too bad at the time, so we built our own agent architecture. And we did that very early, which I'm very proud of. And that was like the right direction to continue on. And you still have that today? No, it's been completely rebuilt many times. I last committed code in October, 2020. But I'm just intrigued as to how you think about that. we're seeing more and more companies a la Deal or a la Revolut build their own complete vertical software.

38:18Yeah, I think we're not the size of Revolut or Deal. And so it probably doesn't make sense for us to do that. And Langchain and a lot of their surrounding tools have gotten a lot better. And so I think we're in the job of, and our engineering team is in the job of picking the best third party things. The other right product decision we made or wrong was that we were doing too many things. So in 2024, we were 12 engineers and we were trying to build six or seven different things at the same time. And that was creating a lot of confusion because I was very involved in the product decisions at the time and I was basically just out doing go to market.

38:55And so we'd make a lot of product decisions without me in the loop. And then it kind of looked like a Frankenstein monster. There's actually a pretty funny doc from October or November 2024 that was called the Leia Product Manifesto. Oh, I remember. Yeah, we were Leia this, in 2025, we were still called Leia. Yeah, I remember. And it basically outlined that we were going to do three things, but we were going to do those three things so well that our suite was the best basket money could buy. And it was our agent, our assistant, our tabular review, and our word add-in. And we were competing with local products for these different things, right?

39:35Like the word add-in was competing with a bunch of other legal tech companies that were only focused on the word add-in. Our tabular review was competing with, at the time, like Hebbia and companies who were only focused on like tabular review as, or the matrix, I think they call it. And then we had our agent. But we said, if we have all of these three things and we combine them in a very user-friendly way, that suite is going to be better than buying all of these three things separately. And that's kind of the platform player, the suite play. That was totally the right move. So we removed five or six other things that we were building, just deleted the code, and then we hard committed on these things.

40:13When you look at the landscape, when you think about kind of that bundling versus unbundling, how you thought about that, when you look at the landscape today, how does that landscape look in three to five years? Is this a win and take? Okay, actually, a much better way to ask that is, is this an Uber and a Lyft or is this a Google Cloud, AWS, Azure? The reason why I don't think it's a Uber and Lyft is because in Uber and Lyft, there was no product differentiation. The products were pretty much the same. and it was a strategy differentiation on global versus yeah but it was very hard to build something different uber for what it's worth i mean the product looks the same today basically right with the addition of you know bells and whistles but it's the same fundamental thing but the difference to our story is that the product differentiation really matters and the amount of things that you can go and build is so vast it's like this universe of legal technology that just has never been built.

41:11Because one of my theories is that maybe in legal tech before generative AI, there weren't that many exciting things to build. And it was really hard to scale a good company. And as soon as you got to single digit million revenue, you would get an acquisition offer, which would be life-changing money for the founders, but no unicorn outcomes. So the product strategy will impact the trajectory of all of the businesses in our vertical tremendously. I think it's totally a winner takes all. All sauce. I mean, you know this. Number one will grab 90 % and number two to number 10 will share the remaining 10%.

41:50And so I think what that means for us is you got to run like hell. You got to win. There's no number two. There is only being number one. There's only winning. Everything else is losing. The type of people who think like that are the people who work at LaGuardia. One segment that I do find interesting or two segments it's like the verticalization it's like we're investors in solve yeah ai for patent lawyers love them they've done amazing you have verticalization in that sort of way and then you also have verticalization in the we're going to own the whole vertical and do like a crosby we're going to be your law firm right and use ours how do you feel about those two i don't think that owning the entire service layer and software layer is a winning strategy basically building an AI native law firm.

42:37The reason is, I think there are so many talented lawyers that are very good at utilizing software, and I would not want to compete for them. I think it's easy to get into that space and try and solve lower complexity tasks. I mean, you're starting out with kind of non-disclosure agreements, master service agreements. You can get there pretty quickly, but then that will be a very crowded space in and of itself. I would much rather be the shovel seller to all the world's amazingly talented lawyers who want to turn their firms into software powered entities. I don't think that there will be a ton of margin slash profit in the low complexity work because I think as soon as AI can do a task it will do that task.

43:28The only question is kind of where does it get transacted? And the big law firms, they already do NDAs for free for their clients because they got to win the expensive private equity work. And so it's like, are you going to show up as Crosby or somebody else and go, hey, pay me 50 bucks of NDA? I'm not sure. Okay, so we think that's not a good strategy. What about the verticalization? Yeah, I think you can quicker get to a lot of value in verticalizing. I'm not sure what the TAM looks like within each of those verticals. If you look at patents, it's a$485 billion mark. Yes, it's a huge market.

44:01So maybe you go win patents and that's amazing. Or patents becomes part of a broader thing. Unclear. I think there will be many winners in different layers of the ecosystem. And I also think that there's one part which is kind of the central hub that will, you know, let's say somebody goes to LaGuardia and they want to write a patent, then why don't we just ping Solve Intelligence? Yeah. and say, hey, Solve Intelligence, come write us this patent. And then it comes back and does it. Or maybe that's what Copilot wants to do, right? I think there's a lot of Venn diagrams and a lot of overlap. Right now, I think it's more down to execution than it is to underlying markets, being smart about the markets.

44:41You have hired now 150 people in the US, 50 or 150? No, we're like 50. 50 in the US now, okay. I think we'll be 150 before summer. It's a lot of people still. When you think about that, do you think the canonical wisdom thought that the US works harder, they are harder driving, they are more transactional but bullish and they are in the office late and we in Europe just like to chill the fuck out? Is it fair having hired 50? I don't think that's fair. I think we were very good at seeding the Legora culture in the US. And a couple of our best people from Europe went to the US and have spent a lot of time there.

45:21So actually like the, hey, we're all such hustlers. We're so good in the US. Yeah. It's a bit of bullshit. I think it's a little bullshit. But for what it's worth, the culture that we have in our US office now, I almost want to spend more time in the US just to be there because it's electric. I mean, New York is on fire. and i have a hard time spending a lot of time in new york and then coming back to stockholm because new york is always up it's always awake it's my tempo whereas stockholm is when you walk out on the street not when you're in the office it's a little sleep why are you not living in new york or living in the us i'm de facto living on a plane i had 200 travel days last year in total last year i spent a meaningful amount of time on product and we have all engineering in stockholm We're 10 % YC founders in our engineering product and design team.

46:12Wow. Which I think is a high number. Two of our batch mates have actually joined the company. How are they different than non-YC engineers? I think what's cool about it is we're structured in a way where I think my management style is very, it's a lot of delegating. It's not very micromanaging. And it's very, here's the thing, go wrong with it. I think founders do very well with that. I also think it basically gives all the different components of our platform, which is separated into pods. Like we have one team working on this piece of the product, one team working on this piece of the product, and there's like a YC founder running part of the product, and then they just run like hell on their thing.

46:51And they're competitive about their part being better than all the other parts, or rather their equivalents in other products. I also think YC as a way of attracting very ambitious people who want to win. Before we do discuss the future of law firms and then do a quick fight, I have to ask you, I'm going to ask Harvey on the show, which you know, about their revenues. I have to ask you for yours. Where are you guys at? Well, I'll tell you a little bit later in the quarter. But in December, we added 7 million in a day. And we've basically doubled every single quarter for the last six quarters. Will you be at 200 by the end of the year?

47:33Definitely. Otherwise, I'll come back. What's the stretch goal? You can shame me. What's the stretch goal? You'll have to ask Patrick, our CRO. If you were at 300, would you be happy? Well, I don't view the number in isolation. I'll be happy by the end of the year if we deliver on all the promises we've made to clients. And we don't even need these competitive pilots. If you're a lawyer and you do serious legal work, you're on Legora. It's like Figma. If you're a designer that makes money, you're on Figma. I want that to be the truth. And if we do that, I'm sure 300 is the number or even more, right?

48:11Okay. In terms of the structure of law firms, they thank you for the work that they now no longer have to do because you do it. But you will need far fewer trainees. You will need far fewer juniors. Do you agree you will need far fewer juniors? And what is the structure of a law firm in the future? So I think law firms will go through a quite significant consolidation period. Because so far, there hasn't been a lot of incentives to consolidate law firms. But now, actually, private equity wants to get in on the action. They want to fund different law firms who want to become AI powered. Again, coming back to the idea of do you want to own the whole stack or do you just want to work with the best service layer?

48:53And so you're seeing a roll-up play where you integrate AI. Absolutely. I don't think there's going to be an AMLaw 200. I think it's going to be an AMLaw 20 or maybe AMLaw 12. I don't think it'll be a big four because of regulation and it just takes time, but it will definitely consolidate. At the end of the day, Legora and I care about working with the winners of that space because the technology lever will be one of the, if not the most important lever to utilize in competing against other firms. It looks different for different practice areas and in different calibers, but let's take a bread and butter M &A transaction.

49:30In a bread and butter M &A transaction, the legal work that the law firms do is pretty much undifferentiated. You get pretty much the same thing depending on which firm you go to. If you just look at the DD and the work, it's kind of an equilibrium where the price gets offered at. Let's say it's 100 ,000 pounds. The minute that one of the firms that are playing in this game are able to offer that at a lower price, but same quality or maybe higher speed or something like that, some attractive aspect of running that deal, let's say they're offering at 80K, you kind of break the equilibrium. Everybody has to move to that equilibrium.

50:08It's kind of a market share game. It's like who can run the fastest on technology and all the other aspects of what it takes to run a law firm and who can win most of the market and then hold that market. Because then I think you're able to deliver additional services that go outside of what the very, very, very competitive things are. Will we have fewer junior lawyers and trainees? Will law firms be smaller? I actually think law firms will be bigger, right? Because they will consolidate. But I don't think that you will need the same number of lawyers running a transaction as you have today. If you have a physical data room.

50:43That's why it's called a data room. You used to have to send people there, and they would open up all the boxes, read everything, make all the commentary, right? And then it became a virtual data room. But you have to assume that there's going to be more transactions in the future. Yes. So more transactions, probably fewer people running those transactions, but every person can run more transactions because of technology. So just to really be clear, you do not think there will be less trainees in junior lawyers? I do think that there will probably be less junior lawyers and trainees, because I think that you just won't need as many people to execute the work that the firm has.

51:24Also, most law firms are partnerships, correct? Right. The partnerships accrue profits. Yes. So if I can take out - But I'm already seeing patterns of this where firms that we work with will have somebody leaving. They will not fill the vacancy, but they're doing more revenue than they did last year. And so it's a higher profit. I think it might also create an opportunity for big law will do really well because they have a lot of moats and a lot of brand and a lot of data. Small law can do really well because that's still operating on a very, very personal basis. I think where it might get difficult is mid law, where it's very competitive.

51:57You're competing hard on price. You throw AI into the mix and it will make it even more competitive. But in engineering, let's just take another example. people. We're hiring more engineers, although they're writing more code, right? Because there's more stuff to do. So the thing for the law firms is they need to increase the size of the pie. So you think we'll have more engineers in two years' time? I think so, actually. Because I think there'll be... You can just do more stuff. You'll have more people writing code and doing things, or starting new things and projects and things in two years than you have today.

52:30I think you're being quite optimistic, which is really nice. But I think we're going to see more labor displacement than I think people expect. And I think we're going to see that in the next 12 to 24 months. Jason Lampkin, again, friend, said this is the year that we're going to see AI displace large amounts of knowledge work. And that's going to show up in labor figures. Do you think that's too soon? Well, I think it's within that time frame that AI gets pretty good at completing end-to-end tasks very deterministically within our vertical. So unless they can find something else to do then you know that thing within the firm or growing the pie then yeah but here's the cool thing right like if you use technology to complete more of the work then you need to think about how you win more work from the other firms but yeah I mean on a total like for but I'm talking for an individual if you're talking the total level yeah probably do you worry about the demonization of you as a technology leader displacing labor no that's not something that i worry about i should worry in in time i think it's something that will can i ask you timesheets is how lawyers spend a lot of their time every two days they have to do their timesheets yeah it's wild fucking wild adrian who was our rvp product his yc company did ai timekeeping wild um a billable hour is over no i don't think it is i think billing will move much slower than both you and I would think because often it's actually demanded by the clients because they want to get a breakdown of everything that the lawyers actually do.

54:09And it will start to be replaced by fixed fees in different practice areas and for different types of tasks. But you will still have a sort of ephemeral billable hour above that. Dude, I'm going to ask you quick fire. Does that sound okay? Shoot. Three rounds, no deck. What's the biggest advice on fundraising? The advice that I got NYC was build a good business and it's very easy to fundraise. That's what I've lived by. I don't think I'm a master fundraiser by any means, but I am. With respect, I'm going to push you. Sorry. You got Benchmark early, which then led to Redpoint. Do you think Benchmark is just a massive signal which led to a quick successive round that you wouldn't have had otherwise?

54:52No. So Redpoint was not the fund that first wanted to preempt us. There was another firm that wanted to preempt us for the A round and they gave a very competitive term sheet for the series seed. Much higher price than Benchmark. Benchmark was, I think, the lowest price out of any seed fund. But you placed so much value on them that you took the discount. Yeah, I placed value on Chathan. Chathan, not Benchmark? Yes. Interesting. I picked on partner. I heard Benchmark was good. I can do that research. But I met within two weeks, probably 80 partners. Nobody knew my space better than him. I thought it was great.

55:32I was taking three companies public. That's what I wanted to do. And I thought I'd be much better off working with that guy. Unthinkable reality. You start another company, but you can only bring one investor with you. Yeah. Who do you bring? Chetan. Really? Yeah. That's it. That's easy. Okay, you can delete one investor from your cap table. Who do you delete? Well, I think I'll delete YC. Do you regret doing YC? No, I love YC. But all the other investors are on my board, so I would feel very rude. That'd be a fucking awkward board meeting, wouldn't it? It would be very awkward. No, but yeah, I think because they're not that...

56:08Well, I think that's unfair. They're extremely helpful still. YC rocks. I still speak with Gustav every quarter, but all the other are either board observers or board of directors. So that I don't, I can't comment on that. What's your most unpopular belief about where AI is heading? I really do believe in the platformization. I think there are way too many point solutions that will not survive a winter bubble, whatever you might call it. And they would deliver more value as being part of a broader ecosystem. What do you know now that you wish you'd known at the start of Leia? I wish I knew what the intensity of doing and thinking about nothing else would sort of impact your own psyche and personality.

57:01For the last two and a half years, I've basically done nothing else than to think about Leia or Legora or the business. And, you know, when you're in college or prior to that, I was doing so many different things. It was nice to do many different things and you got to have many different contexts and you got to do many different types of activities. And when you got tired of one thing, you can go and do another thing. This is not that. It is like running a mega sprint as part of a marathon and I love it. But I think, you know, could I go back and also have that expectation going in? I think I would have been better at handling other disappointments or, you know, parts of my life that I couldn't focus as much on.

57:46I think our job is much easier as venture investors than we give credit to. I think when you find obsessed founders that are just quite unhinged and psychopathic, I would put you in that category, to be honest. I put me in it too, to be honest. But when you find them, it's quite obvious. You know, when I sit down with Alan Chang at Fuse Energy, I said, do you angel invest? And he goes, are you fucking stupid? I said, potentially, my mother thinks so, but you know, tell me why. And he's like, to angel invest, I'd have to either sell revolute shares or fuse energy shares that would both be a terrible decision so no i don't angel invest no no because you you can't focus on doing that you can't make good decisions or all right you know you can invest 10k in a friend's company because it's nice but you can't do it seriously penultimate one which founder do you most respect and admire and look up to i'm pretty bad at having idols i wish i was better at it i was super nervous the first time i met daniel from Spotify.

58:40I remember I was super, I thought that was the coolest thing ever in 2024. He had reached out to us. I was like, hey, I love what you guys are doing. Daniel's amazing. He's amazing. When I grew up, looking at Niklas and Daniel and Sebastian and seeing these Swedish tech companies succeed, that was phenomenal. That was a huge inspiration. And now having met Alex and Gustav who are taking over Daniel, they're also fabulous. But I don't go around on a daily basis thinking oh i look up to this person i want to be like them i try to draw inspiration from where i see good and then i run at it final one what's the best advice you've ever been given the best advice i have ever been given was probably from yc and joel at sauna labs which was to take the check with benchmark over anyone else dude thank you so much for doing this it's so lovely to do in person.

59:36I really appreciate the friendship. Thank you for not letting me on the cap table. I think about it every day. It's fine. I got over it. You prick. But you're a hero, my friend. Thank you so much, Harry. Let's go. But before we leave you today, over 80 % of Fortune 100 companies are running their businesses with Airtable. Airtable combines AI with the scale of an award-winning, infinitely flexible no-code system, a platform where you can see all of your data in one place and use it to make really big picture decisions. Think of it like mission control for your company. Airtable goes beyond organization and automating repetitive tasks.

1:00:13It lets you use your data to inform strategy, monitor progress, and take action. Every cell is capable of performing hundreds of AI-powered tasks like web research or localization and using those results to inform and update hundreds or thousands of other cells and workflows in real time. Unlock the true scale of your workflows at www.airtable.com forward slash 20vc Airtable, the infrastructure of innovation. And just like Airtable organizes your workflow data, MetaView organizes your conversation insights. This episode is brought to you by MetaView. Who says hiring has to be fair? Every founder, VC, and exec I speak with knows this.

1:00:55Your ability to hire is the biggest constraint on your company's growth. But recruiting is slow. It's subjective and only getting more competitive. And that's why teams like Eleven Labs, Brex, Replit, Deal, and 5 ,000 other organizations use MetaView, the AI company giving high-performance teams a real unfair advantage in hiring. MetaView's built a suite of AI agents that behave like recruiting co-workers. They proactively find candidates, they take interview notes automatically, and they help you surface the best candidates in process. For the first time, AI handles the recruiting toil and gives you a single source of truth.

1:01:32That means hours saved per hire and a team focused on what matters most, winning the right candidates as fast as possible. Don't let your competitors out hire you. MetaView customers close roles 30 % faster. Try MetaView today and get a free month of sourcing at metaview.ai forward slash 20VC. After MetaView captures what was said, Turing helps you build with the people who can deliver after it. Frontier Labs keep facing the same limitation. Models perform well on benchmarks, but fall short once they enter real coding tasks, real tools, and real workflows. That disconnect between synthetic evaluation and actual system behavior is now a core blocker for agentic models.

1:02:16That's why NVIDIA, Anthropic, Salesforce, Gemini, and other leading labs partner with Turing. Turing is the research accelerator focused on post-training reliability. They build realistic reinforcement learning environments, next-generation data quality systems built from real-world operational traces, and coding datasets that stress models under the conditions where failures matter, state changes, workflow branching, brittle tool calls, and the coding errors that break RL agents but never appear in benchmark reports. In reality, a model may demonstrate correct reasoning in your evaluation setup, yet still select the wrong parameter or mishandle a code update in a realistic interface.

1:03:00Turing makes that failure visible and gives teams the signal they need to fix it. For labs advancing agentic systems, Turing provides the structure required to understand why these failures occur. To find out how, visit turing.com forward slash 20VC. That's turing.com forward slash 20VC.