Build by AI

The Great ChatGPT Overhaul and the $12 Billion Mystery I 12th June

Share episode

Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.

0:00 | 33:47
A mystery engineer at OpenAI is orchestrating ChatGPT's biggest transformation yet, while Jeff Bezos finally opens up about his secretive $12 billion AI startup. Meanwhile, DoorDash wants you to order pizza with photos, Apple thinks AI can give you superpowers, and Google DeepMind is worried about what happens when millions of AI agents start talking to each other. From factory robots that refuse to specialize to cultural AI built for India's scale, today's episode explores the wild directions AI is heading in 2026.
SPEAKER_01

Um I'm sitting in my kitchen this morning, uh scrolling through news, and I see this headline about some open AI engineer named Tibot Sotillo leading Chat GPT's biggest transformation yet. And my first thought was, wait, who? Like, we know all the open AI names by now, right? Altman, Brockman, the whole crew. Um, but this guy is apparently orchestrating what could be the most significant overhaul of the product that basically launched this whole AI revolution, and most people have never heard of him.

SPEAKER_00

Yeah, I had the exact same reaction when I saw that story pop up. It's like finding out there's been this puppet master behind the scenes the whole time. And what really got me was the timing. We're talking about a sweeping overhaul of ChatGPT right when AI coding has become one of OpenAI's fastest growing businesses. That's not a coincidence.

SPEAKER_01

Exactly. And then you've got Jeff Bezos finally talking about his $12 billion AI startup after being mysteriously quiet about it. $12 billion, Alex. That's not venture capital anymore. That's nation-state money.

SPEAKER_00

Right. And he's out there saying they're not being secretive. Which is exactly what someone being secretive would say. It feels like we're watching these massive chess moves happening in real time, and most people don't even realize the game has changed.

SPEAKER_01

Um and it's not just the big players either. You've got Google DeepMind actually worried about what happens when millions of AI agents start interacting with each other. Like they're the ones building these systems, and even they're concerned about the implications.

SPEAKER_00

That's what really gets me. When the people building this technology are the ones raising red flags about where it's headed, we're definitely in uncharted territory here. You're listening to Build by AI. I'm Alex Shannon, and we're diving into the stories that are reshaping how AI works in the real world.

SPEAKER_01

And uh, I'm Sam Hinton. Today we're talking about the mystery engineer behind ChatGPT's biggest transformation, Bezos finally opening up about his $12 billion AI play, and why Google DeepMind is genuinely worried about what happens when millions of AI agents start interacting. Plus, factory robots that refuse to specialize, and why you might soon be ordering pizza with photos.

SPEAKER_00

It's Wednesday, June 12th, 2026, and honestly the pace of change right now is just wild. Let's get into it. Because early reports from Wired suggest this could be huge. According to the reporting, this open AI engineer has been instrumental in developing their AI coding capabilities, which have become one of the company's fastest growing businesses. And now he's apparently leading what they're calling a sweeping overhaul of Chat GPT itself.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah, yeah, this is fascinating because you know it tells us two things. First, AI coding isn't just a side project at OpenAI anymore. It's clearly a major revenue driver. And second, they're confident enough in that success to let the guy who built it completely reimagine their flagship product.

SPEAKER_00

Right, but what does sweeping overhaul actually mean here? Are we talking about a new interface, new capabilities, or something more fundamental about how ChatGPT works?

SPEAKER_01

That's the million-dollar question, isn't it? But here's what I think is happening. The coding use case has taught them something important about how people actually want to interact with AI. When you're coding, you're not just chatting, you're iterating, building, testing, refining. It's a completely different interaction model than the conversational chat we started with.

SPEAKER_00

Oh, that's interesting. So you're saying they might be moving away from the pure chat interface towards something more what? Collaborative?

SPEAKER_01

Exactly. Think about it. You know, when developers use AI for coding, they're working in this back and forth cycle where the AI is almost like a pair programming partner. You're not just asking questions and getting answers, you're building something together. If that model is driving serious revenue, why wouldn't they want to bring that collaborative approach to everything else?

SPEAKER_00

But here's what I'm skeptical about. Can that coding style interaction work for regular consumers? When my mom wants to plan a vacation or write an email, does she really want a collaborative AI partner, or does she just want quick, helpful answers?

SPEAKER_01

Uh that's a fair point, but I think you're underestimating how much regular people are are already trying to use AI for creative, iterative tasks. Um they're writing stories, planning events, brainstorming business ideas. The chat format actually holds them back because it doesn't support that iterative building process very well.

SPEAKER_00

Okay, I can see that. And if Sotio is the guy who figured out how to make AI coding work so well that it became a major business line, he's probably the right person to figure out how to scale that collaborative model. The real question is timing. When do we actually see this transformation?

SPEAKER_01

Given that coding is already driving significant revenue, I'd bet we see previews of this within the next few months. Open AEI doesn't typically sit on game-changing features very long. Keep an eye on this, because if they crack the code on truly collaborative AI interaction, that's going to change how everyone else builds AI products too.

SPEAKER_00

You know what's really interesting about this though? It suggests that open AI is learning from their users rather than just dictating how AI should work. The fact that AI coding became one of their fastest growing businesses probably surprised even them initially.

SPEAKER_01

Absolutely. And that's actually a healthy sign for the industry. Instead of building AI in a vacuum and hoping people figure out what to do with it, they're watching how people actually use it and then doubling down on what works. That's real product market fit thinking.

SPEAKER_00

But it also makes me wonder, what other use cases are they seeing that we don't know about yet? If coding was this hidden success story that's now driving a complete overhaul, what else is bubbling up that might reshape the product again in six months?

SPEAKER_01

That's a great question. My guess is we'll start seeing more specialized interfaces for different types of work. Maybe a research mode, a writing mode, a planning mode, each optimized for how people actually want to interact with AI for those specific tasks.

SPEAKER_00

Which would be smart because right now everyone's trying to force every use case through the same chat interface. It's like trying to do video editing in a text editor. Technically possible, but not optimal. If Sottio can crack this, it could be as big a shift as the move from command line to graphical user interfaces.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah, that's actually a perfect analogy. And just like the GUI revolution, whoever gets the interaction model right first is gonna have a massive advantage. That's probably why OpenAI is moving fast on this. You know, they know everyone else is working on the same problem.

SPEAKER_00

Moving on to something that's been bugging me for months. Jeff Bezos and this Prometheus AI startup. Early reports from CNBC suggest that after raising what appears to be $12 billion, which is just an astronomical number, Bezos is finally talking about it publicly. And his main message is essentially we're not being secretive about our operations.

SPEAKER_01

Dude, come on. You raise $12 billion for an AI company, stay quiet about it for who knows how long, and then your big reveal is we're totally not being secretive? That's like the least convincing transparency I've ever heard.

SPEAKER_00

Right? And $12 billion, let's put that in perspective. That's more than most countries spend on their entire tech sectors. That's not just building another AI chatbot money. What could they possibly be working on that requires that level of investment?

SPEAKER_01

Here's what I think is happening. Bezos saw what happened with the cloud computing transition. Amazon got there early with AWS and basically owned the infrastructure layer for a decade. Now he's looking at AI and thinking, I need to own the infrastructure layer for the next computing paradigm. $12 billion isn't just product development money, it's build the entire stack from chips to software money.

SPEAKER_00

That would make sense, but then why the secrecy followed by the sudden transparency push? If you're building infrastructure that's the kind of thing you usually want to talk about to attract customers and partners.

SPEAKER_01

Unless what you're building is so fundamentally different that you needed to get to a certain point before you could even explain it properly. Think about it. When CM When AWS launched, most people didn't understand cloud computing. Maybe Prometheus is working on something that requires that same kind of education process.

SPEAKER_00

But I'm still skeptical about the timing. Why come out now and say we're not being secretive, instead of just not being secretive? Show us what you're building. Give us demos, use cases, something concrete.

SPEAKER_01

Fair point. Maybe this is just the first step in a longer reveal process. You know how these tech launches work. First you tease that something exists, then you build anticipation, then you do the big reveal. But twelve billion dollars suggests they're playing a much bigger game than typical startup launches.

SPEAKER_00

Yeah. And with Bezos' track record, we can't just dismiss this as another overfunded startup. When he moves into a space with that kind of capital, it usually reshapes the entire industry. The question is whether they're too late to the eye party or if they're building something so different that timing doesn't matter.

SPEAKER_01

I think timing actually works in their favor here. The first wave of AI was about proving the technology works. Now we're moving into the infrastructure and scale phase, which is exactly where Bezos has historically excelled. Keep watching this, because if Prometheus is what I think it is, it's going to change how we think about AI development and deployment entirely.

SPEAKER_00

You know what's wild about this though? $12 billion is more than OpenEye has raised in total across all their funding rounds. This isn't Bezos trying to catch up. This is Bezos trying to leapfrog everyone.

SPEAKER_01

Exactly. And that level of capital suggests they're not just building software. They're probably building hardware, data centers, uh maybe even, you know, custom silicon. Uh that's the kind of vertical integration that could give them a serious competitive advantage if they execute well.

SPEAKER_00

But here's what worries me. When you have that much money, there's pressure to spend it and show results quickly. That can lead to rushing things that should be done carefully, especially in AI where safety and alignment are real concerns.

SPEAKER_01

Oh, that's a really good point. Although, to be fair, Bezos has a pretty good track record of thinking long term. Amazon wasn't profitable for years because he was focused on building the foundation first. Maybe Prometheus is taking the same approach.

SPEAKER_00

Maybe, but AI is different from e-commerce. The potential downsides of moving fast and breaking things are much higher. I just hope they're putting as much money into safety research as they are into building whatever this thing is.

SPEAKER_01

Agreed. And honestly, the fact that that Bezos is finally talking about it publicly might be a good sign. If they were really reckless, they'd probably stay in stealth mode longer. Um, the transparency push, even if it's PR-driven, suggests they want some level of public accountability.

SPEAKER_00

I hope you're right, because if Prometheus succeeds, it's going to force everyone else to compete at that scale. And I'm not sure the industry is ready for that level of capital arms race. Let's shift gears to something completely different, but equally fascinating. According to TechCrunch, there's a company called Faker that just raised $85 million to build factory robots that, and I quote, don't specialize in anything. The key insight here is that their robots can be reconfigured for different tasks, unlike the specialized humanoid robots we usually see from companies like Boston Dynamics.

SPEAKER_01

Most factory robots are basically very expensive, very precise hammers. They're amazing at one specific task, but if you need to change your production line, you're looking at massive retooling costs.

SPEAKER_00

Right, so instead of building the most advanced humanoid robot that can walk around and do human-like tasks, Decker is saying, let's build robots that are really good at being reconfigured quickly. That seems like a much more practical approach for actual manufacturing.

SPEAKER_01

Exactly. And think about the economics here. A specialized robot might cost half a million dollars and do one thing perfectly, but if your product line changes, or if demand shifts, that robot becomes a very expensive paperweight. A reconfigurable system might cost the same up front, but it can adapt to different market conditions.

SPEAKER_00

But here's what I'm curious about. How reconfigurable can these things actually be? There's got to be some trade-off between flexibility and performance. A robot that can do everything probably doesn't do any one thing as well as a specialized robot.

SPEAKER_01

That's true. But I think you're thinking about this wrong. It's not that one robot does everything, it's that the same robot platform can be quickly reconfigured for different tasks. Think of it like a smartphone versus a bunch of single-purpose devices. The smartphone camera might not be as good as a dedicated camera, but the convenience and cost savings make up for it.

SPEAKER_00

Okay, I can see that analogy. An eighty-five million dollars suggests investors think there's a real market for this approach. What does this mean for the broader automation industry?

SPEAKER_01

I think it signals a shift from the robots will replace humans narrative to robots will make manufacturing more flexible. Instead of building lights out factories where robots do everything, you're building adaptive factories where robots can quickly switch between tasks based on demand. That's actually much more realistic for most manufacturers.

SPEAKER_00

And probably less threatening to workers too, right? If the robots are designed for flexibility rather than replacing specific human jobs, there might be more opportunity for human robot collaboration.

SPEAKER_01

Absolutely. This approach is more about making factories smarter and more responsive rather than just cheaper. Keep an eye on Thieker, because if they can prove this model works, it could unlock automation for a lot of smaller manufacturers who couldn't justify the cost of specialized robots before.

SPEAKER_00

You know what's interesting about this approach? It's almost the opposite of what we see in AI, where models are becoming more and more specialized. Here they're saying specialization is actually the problem, not the solution.

SPEAKER_01

That's a fascinating observation. Maybe it's because manufacturing requirements change much more frequently than we realize. Like you might need to switch from making widgets to making gadgets based on market demand, but you don't need your language model to suddenly become good at image processing.

SPEAKER_00

Right. And there's probably a time factor too. In AI, you can retrain or fine-tune models relatively quickly. But retooling a factory with new robots could take months or even years. So the flexibility has to be built into the hardware from the beginning.

SPEAKER_01

Exactly. And this could be huge for companies that manufacture seasonal products or products with unpredictable demand. Instead of having to predict what you'll need to manufacture six months in advance, you could adapt your production line in real time.

SPEAKER_00

That's actually revolutionary when you think about it. We talk a lot about just-in-time manufacturing for inventory, but this could enable just-in-time manufacturing for the actual production capabilities. That level of agility could be a massive competitive advantage.

SPEAKER_01

And it might actually make manufacturing more resilient too. If you can quickly reconfigure your robots, you're less vulnerable to supply chain disruptions or sudden changes in demand. The pandemic showed us how fragile specialized systems can be.

SPEAKER_00

Now let's talk about something that honestly keeps me up at night sometimes. According to MIT Technology Review, Google DeepMind is funding research into what happens when millions of AI agents start interacting with each other online. This is being led by Rohin Shah, who heads up AGI safety and alignment research there. And the fact that they're proactively studying this suggests they think it's coming soon.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah, the this is one of those stories that sounds like science fiction until you realize we're already seeing the early stages of it. Think about all the AI agents that are already online trading bots, content moderation systems, recommendation algorithms. Now imagine that scaled up by a factor of a thousand, and they're all more sophisticated.

SPEAKER_00

Right, but what are the actual risks they're worried about? When I think about millions of AI agents interacting, I picture either complete chaos or some kind of emergent behavior that nobody predicted.

SPEAKER_01

Both of those are real concerns, but I think the more immediate worry is about systemic effects. Like imagine millions of AI trading agents all using similar strategies or content generation agents that start amplifying each other's outputs. You could get these massive feedback loops that destabilize entire systems.

SPEAKER_00

Oh, that's terrifying. It's like the 2010 flash crash, but for everything, not just financial markets. But here's what I don't understand. Why is DeepMind studying this instead of just trying to prevent it?

SPEAKER_01

Because you can't prevent it. The agent economy is coming, whether we're ready or not. Companies are already deploying AI agents for customer service, sales, content creation, data analysis. The question isn't whether we'll have millions of agents interacting. It's whether we'll understand what happens when they do.

SPEAKER_00

That's both reassuring and terrifying at the same time. At least someone's thinking about this proactively. But what can they actually do with this research? Even if they identify the risks, how do you govern millions of autonomous agents?

SPEAKER_01

That's the trillion-dollar question, isn't it? I think the goal is to identify patterns and design principles that make agent interactions more predictable and stable. Maybe it's about building in circuit breakers or creating standards for how agents should behave when they encounter other agents.

SPEAKER_00

It reminds me of how we had to develop protocols for the early internet. Nobody knew how millions of computers would interact either. But the stakes feel higher here because these agents are making decisions, not just sharing information.

SPEAKER_01

Exactly. And the timeline is so much faster. The internet took decades to reach global scale. We could have millions of AI agents online within the next couple of years. That's why this research is so critical. We need to understand the dynamics before we're completely overwhelmed by them. This is definitely one of those better safe than sorry situations.

SPEAKER_00

But here's what really gets me. We're talking about Rohan Shah, who's specifically focused on AGI safety and alignment. The fact that he's leading this research suggests they see multi-agent interactions as a potential path to AGI, or at least a major safety risk on the way there.

SPEAKER_01

That's a really insightful point. Maybe the concern isn't just about individual agents getting smarter, but about what happens when you have emergent intelligence arising from the interactions between many agents. That's a completely different kind of AI risk than we usually talk about.

SPEAKER_00

Right. And it's much harder to control or predict. You can audit one AI model, but how do you audit the emergent behavior of millions of agents interacting in unpredictable ways? It's like trying to predict weather patterns, but the consequences could be much more severe.

SPEAKER_01

And unlike weather, these agents are designed to achieve goals and optimize for outcomes. If they start coordinating in unexpected ways or if they develop strategies that their creators never intended, the effects could cascade through multiple systems simultaneously.

SPEAKER_00

This is why I actually appreciate that DeepMind is being open about studying this. They could have kept this research internal, but by funding it and talking about it publicly, they're encouraging the broader research community to think about these problems too.

SPEAKER_01

Absolutely. And the timing makes sense. We're at this inflection point where agent deployment is about to explode, but we still have time to build in safeguards if we act quickly. In five years, it might be too late to change course.

SPEAKER_00

Alright, let's rapid fire through some other interesting developments. First up, DoorDash just launched something called Ask DoorDash, which is an AI chatbot that lets you order food using natural language prompts and photos. Instead of scrolling through restaurants.

SPEAKER_01

This is actually way smarter than it sounds. Instead of spending 20 minutes scrolling through menus trying to figure out what you want, you just tell the AI, I want something spicy and vegetarian under $20, or show it a photo of a dish you liked. That's solving a real user experience problem.

SPEAKER_00

Yeah, and it probably increases order values too. When you're browsing manually, you might stick with familiar restaurants, but an AI can surface options you never would have found.

SPEAKER_01

Exactly. This is one of those applications where AI actually makes the service better for users while also being better for business. Win-win.

SPEAKER_00

What I find interesting is that they're essentially turning food ordering into a search problem rather than a browsing problem. That's a fundamental shift in how we think about discovery in these marketplace apps.

SPEAKER_01

And the the photo feature is genius too. How many times have you seen a dish at a restaurant or on social media and thought, I want that, but I have no idea what it's called? Now you can just show DoorDash the photo, and they'll find similar options nearby.

SPEAKER_00

I could see this becoming the standard interface for all food delivery apps pretty quickly. Once users get used to just describing what they want instead of browsing menus, going back to the old way is going to feel really clunky.

SPEAKER_01

Absolutely. And this is probably just the beginning. You know, I could see this expanding to dietary restrictions, mood-based recommendations, even coordinating group orders where everyone just describes what they want and the AI figures out the optimal restaurant and delivery logistics.

SPEAKER_00

Next story.

SPEAKER_01

Wait, hold on. They were going to covertly sabotage researchers who were using Claude to build competing models? That's not just anti-competitive, that's actively harmful to the research community. No wonder people spoke out.

SPEAKER_00

Right. And the fact that they reversed course so quickly suggests they realized how bad this looked. You can't position yourself as supporting open AI research while secretly kneecapping anyone who might compete with you.

SPEAKER_01

This feels like one of those policies that made sense in a boardroom, but completely falls apart when exposed to daylight. Good on the researchers for speaking up, and honestly, good on Anthropic for listening and changing course.

SPEAKER_00

But it does make you wonder what other policies are buried in terms of service that we don't know about. If this one got caught, how many others are there that haven't been discovered yet?

SPEAKER_01

That's a really concerning thought. And it it highlights the importance of having researchers actually read these policies and call out problematic ones. The research community basically served as a check on corporate overreach here.

SPEAKER_00

It also shows how quickly public pressure can force changes in this industry. Anthropic went from defending this policy to completely reversing it in what? A matter of days? That's the power of community accountability.

SPEAKER_01

True, but it also makes me question their internal review processes. How did a policy this obviously problematic make it through legal and PR review in the first place? That suggests some gaps in their decision-making process.

SPEAKER_00

Here's something interesting. There's a company called Avatar AI that's built a video generation model specifically for India's market. According to early reports, it's priced at half a cent per second of video generation and is designed to be culturally aware.

SPEAKER_01

This is huge because it shows how AI development is becoming more localized and specialized. Instead of trying to build one model that works everywhere, they're optimizing for specific markets and use cases. Half a cent per second is incredibly cheap compared to Western alternatives.

SPEAKER_00

AI trained primarily on Western content often misses cultural context and nuances that are crucial for other markets. Absolutely.

SPEAKER_01

This could be a preview of how the AI market fragments into regional specialists rather than global monopolies. And that's probably healthier for everyone in the long run.

SPEAKER_00

What's really smart about this approach is that they're not trying to compete on the highest end features. They're competing on price and relevance. For most use cases, you don't need Hollywood quality video generation. You need something that works well and costs less.

SPEAKER_01

Exactly. And by focusing on India's scale, they can probably achieve better unit economics than companies trying to serve smaller, more fragmented markets. The volume makes up for the lower pricing.

SPEAKER_00

I wonder if we'll see more of this regional specialization. Maybe AI models optimize for Latin America, Southeast Asia, Africa. Each focused on the specific needs, languages, and cultural context of those regions.

SPEAKER_01

That would actually be a much more sustainable model than the current race to build one AI to rule them all. Different markets have different needs, different price sensitivities, different cultural contexts. It makes sense to optimize for those differences rather than trying to average them out.

SPEAKER_00

And finally, Apple's camera chief, John McCormack, is talking about how generative AI features in what's apparently iOS 27's Photos app can enhance photos by adding synthetic pixels. He emphasized that Apple is using AI purposefully, not just for the sake of AI.

SPEAKER_01

I appreciate that Apple is being thoughtful about AI integration rather than just throwing features at the wall, adding synthetic pixels to enhance photos sounds like computational photography taken to the next level, but I'm curious about the line between enhancement and manipulation.

SPEAKER_00

Yeah, that's going to be an interesting ethical discussion. When does enhancing a photo become creating a fake photo? Apple's usually pretty good about being transparent with users about these things.

SPEAKER_01

True. And if anyone can find the right balance between useful AI features and user trust, it's probably Apple. They've got a good track record with computational photography so far.

SPEAKER_00

What's interesting is the superpowers framing. That suggests they're thinking about AI as amplifying human capabilities rather than replacing them. That's a much healthier approach than the AI will do everything for you narrative we see elsewhere. Exactly.

SPEAKER_01

And synthetic pixels could actually solve real problems, like fixing photos that were taken in poor lighting, or removing unwanted objects without obvious artifacts. If it's genuinely making photos better rather than just different, that's valuable.

SPEAKER_00

The key will be user education and clear labeling. People need to understand when AI has been used to modify their photos, especially if they're sharing them or using them for important purposes.

SPEAKER_01

Agreed. But knowing Apple, they'll probably build that transparency into the interface from day one. They're usually pretty good about giving users control over these kinds of features rather than making them mandatory or or hidden.

SPEAKER_00

Alright, if you zoom out and look at everything we covered today, there's this interesting pattern emerging. We've got ChatGPT getting a major overhaul based on lessons from AI coding, Bezos dropping 12 billion on AI infrastructure, factory robots designed for flexibility rather than specialization, and AI companies focusing on specific markets and use cases.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah, it feels like we're moving from the proof-of-concept phase to the how do we actually make this work in the real world phase. The ChatGPT overhaul is about better interaction models. Thekr is about practical automation, avatar is about localized AI, and even DoorDash is about solving actual user problems rather than just showing off technology.

SPEAKER_00

And then you have DeepMind doing the responsible thing by studying multi-agent interactions before they become a problem. It's like the industry is finally growing up and thinking about sustainability, practicality, and long-term consequences.

SPEAKER_01

Exactly. 2020 or in early 2025 were about look what AI can do. 2026 seems to be about how do we make AI actually useful, safe, and economically sustainable. That's a much healthier conversation to be having. The question is whether the companies with the biggest resources, like whatever Bezos is building with Prometheus, are thinking the same way. Or if they're still in the move fast and break things mindset.

SPEAKER_00

That's what worries me about that $12 billion raise. It's such an enormous amount of money that there's going to be pressure to deploy something revolutionary to justify it. And revolutionary doesn't always mean safe or well-tested.

SPEAKER_01

But on the flip side, look at the anthropic story. The research community was able to force a policy change through public pressure. That suggests we have more influence over these developments than we might think, as long as people are paying attention and speaking up.

SPEAKER_00

True. And the diversity of approaches we're seeing is actually encouraging too. Instead of everyone trying to build the same thing, we've got companies focusing on different interaction models, different markets, different use cases. That competition and specialization should lead to better outcomes overall.

SPEAKER_01

Absolutely. The Avatar story is a perfect example. Instead of trying to beat open AI at their own game, they built something specifically optimized for their market. That's smart business and probably better for users too.

SPEAKER_00

And even the Apple story fits this pattern. They're not trying to build the most powerful AI features. They're trying to build the most useful and trustworthy ones. That focus on user experience over raw capability is exactly the kind of maturity we need to see more of.

SPEAKER_01

Right. The question is whether this trend toward specialization and responsible development continues or if the massive capital influxes, like Prometheus' 12 billion, create pressure to return to the bigger and faster at all costs approach.

SPEAKER_00

I think a lot depends on how well these focused, practical approaches actually work in the market. If Thaker's flexible robots succeed, if Avatar's localized AI finds traction, if DoorDash's natural language ordering takes off, that proves there's real value in the thoughtful approach. That's a wrap for today's build by AI. As always, the pace of change in this space continues to be absolutely wild, but at least it feels like we're asking better questions now.

SPEAKER_01

Definitely. You know, if you found today's discussion helpful, make sure to subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Like we're doing this every day, because honestly, there's just too much happening to keep up with otherwise.

SPEAKER_00

We'll be back tomorrow with more stories about how AI is reshaping the world. Until then, keep building.