Powered by RND
PodcastsBusinessThe Leverage Podcast

The Leverage Podcast

Evan Armstrong
The Leverage Podcast
Dernier épisode

Épisodes disponibles

4 sur 4
  • The AI Agent Era Is Here
    Watch on YouTube • Listen on Spotify • Listen on AppleThere’s a tidy old question economists like to ask at dinner parties when they’ve run out of wine: Why do firms exist? After all, if markets are efficient, shouldn’t it always be cheaper to outsource your operations to external providers? Ronald Coase’s Theory of the Firm proposed a brutally practical answer—because the cost of using the market (finding vendors, negotiating, coordinating) is often higher than doing it inside the org. Lower those outside costs and the boundary of the firm shifts outward like a tide.This idea matters because while we’ve clearly established that AI can produce individual pieces of code or content materially cheaper than human beings, we have yet to show that the coordination costs actually decrease within a firm. If you believe in the theory that AI allows companies to be much smaller than before, you are actually saying that you think internal coordination costs are going to dramatically decrease. Otherwise every additional meeting gets exponentially more expensive as your staff get more and more leverage out of their time spent.Allow me to ask this question in another way: What happens when “the market competitor” isn’t another vendor or headcount but a meter—AI agents that can log in, click, remember, and obey rules? If metered compute + a little supervision costs less than new payroll or new vendors for the same reliability, the rational move is unfancy: don’t hire someone—meter an AI agent.This move is the through‑line of my conversation with Flo Crivello (Lindy). His company creates horizontal agents that automate all the annoying, ticky tack work that makes companies move slow. For the first few years, Lindy’s product was pretty good but not amazing. But over the last 6 months, that has totally changed. The models are finally good enough that the cost of coordinating agents is less than actually doing the work yourself. What changed? Three things:* Computer Use finally started working. * Horizontal agents became generalizable enough to flex across the common tasks that all companies do.* “Lindy runs on Lindy,” Flo estimates that maybe in about two years he’ll spend more on tokens then he will on payroll. (Wild). While the tech’s improvement is key, the culture at Lindy and other companies moving towards being AI first allowed for this all to work.I’ve put my personal takeaways below including how I’m thinking about changing my own business, the quotes from Flo that stuck out to me, and how to think about vertical versus horizontal AI solutions.1) Computer Use: when software grows handsLindy gives each agent a persistent cloud computer—a real screen, cookie/session memory, and a takeover button when the flow gets weird. If a person can do it in a browser, the software can do it now.“As part of Lindy 3.0, what we released is computer use, which massively advances us along the capability axis. So basically, we are giving each agent its own computer in the cloud. So it can do anything that you can do on a computer. And Agent Builder… it’s literally we’ve used Lindy to build this agent.”The goal with computer use and agents isn’t to make them smarter, it’s to make them more reliable.“If you put two doors side by side, and one of them is an automatic door, and the other one is a manual door, and the automatic door works only 98% of the time, people are going to use the manual door 100% of the time. … It’s got to work extremely reliably in order for you to use it as your default.”Computer Use also bulldozes the “we don’t have an integration for that” backlog by changing the surface area of what’s possible:“We’ve got almost 7,000 integrations at this point on Lindy… and yet we realized it’s never going to be enough. We’re always bottlenecked… computer use… once and for all gives us access to all the [integrations] we need.”And yes, it’s already past the toy phase:“I used it an hour ago… I ordered vitamins and creatine because I’m running out. And I just asked ‘buy them on Amazon for me’. And she did.”“We fixed [the re‑enter password problem]… it persists your logins—just like your Chrome browser… For me, buying stuff on [Lindy] is literally just sending it a message… and it just buys it.”Under the hood, the “hands” are paired with scaffolding—verifiers, retries, and policy:“We are using [Claude] Sonnet, which is cracked at computer use… we have built a lot of scaffolding around computer use to make it better… we’ve got evals that… we are a lot better than the state of the art.”I have found that many software companies are underestimating how important computer use is. I think in about 12 months, many applications will be due for a reckoning on how different their users are going to be.2) Horizontal vs. Vertical: a procurement rule you can say out loudThe honest version:* Horizontal platforms feel like a 6/10 at everything.* Vertical tools are a 9/10 at one thing.So why pick the 6/10? Because seams have a tax—every extra point solution imports reviews, contracts, training, dashboards, renewals, and one more place for the workflow to snap. Coase would call these transaction costs; your CFO calls them “why does this take nine people.”Flo’s frame is pragmatic and true to how ops actually work:“AI agents are a new category, but the category that they fit most in is iPaaS… the winners have been extremely horizontal. UiPath, Workato, Zapier…all of these guys have always been extremely horizontal.”“Being horizontal makes you sort of 6 out of 10 at everything… In the verticals… this player is going to be 9 out of 10… So why buy the 6/10 when there’s a 9/10 next door?Reason #1: the use case isn’t important enough… you don’t want 5,000 accounts.Reason #2: the vertical tool may not do exactly what you want… The moment you color outside the box, it’s not going to support your workflow… 99% of the time, a vertical player does not support that exact workflow… 1% of the time… they actually want the cookie cutter… then we tell them to buy the vertical.”Who buys what, in reality:“We’re really more targeting SMBs… sweet spot is 20 to 200 people… Most of the time it comes from the top. The board: ‘what’s our AI strategy?’ The sheet rolls downhill… we jump on a call with Sales, Support, Ops and they tell us the workflows they want to automate.”And how demand actually shows up:“It’s been mostly inbound… We also come up in ChatGPT a bunch… double‑digit percent of our traffic comes from ChatGPT.”The rule is essentially buy vertical when the job is standardized and deep; buy horizontal when the real workflow colors outside any single product’s neat box and changes weekly. That Lindy is mostly SMB made sense to me too, the smaller they are, the easier it is to re-architecture your business to be AI first.3) “Lindy runs on Lindy”: tokens vs payrollFlo runs a ~45‑person company with thousands of his own agents. He tracks something you can steal because it’s beautifully unglamorous: Token Spend vs Payroll.“We punch above our weight in revenue per employee… and we’re using Lindy a whole lot. It’s absurd how much we use Lindy. We’ve got thousands, like literally thousands of Lindy’s just for the company… half of the company runs on AI agents.We are actually tracking our token spend compared to our payroll spend… the lines will cross at some point…My hunch is in two years or so I think they’ll cross.”What does that mean for who you hire? Fewer biz ops and back office staff; more Agent Ops (rules, observability, SLOs) and Workflow Engineers (turn messy runbooks into reliable click‑paths). The coordination work doesn’t vanish; it moves—from email and muscle memory into rules you and an AI agent can read.Staffing posture matters, too:“I love young people… It’s powerful to pair really senior people with really, really younger people—young bring energy and innovation; seniors anchor them to reality…”And, yes, this is still about reliability. The expensive thing for AI agents isn’t compute; it’s failure. That’s why Flo keeps adding scaffolding:“We call it the rule engine… a verifier wrapping every step of your agent… you can define your rule policy… soft rule: try up to three times then proceed; hard rule: must be true or don’t do anything… It all compounds.”That’s it! See you in your inboxes on Sunday. Get full access to The Leverage at www.gettheleverage.com/subscribe
    --------  
    57:30
  • So, is AI Gonna Kill Us All?
    Watch on YouTube • Listen on Spotify • Listen on AppleAuthor’s note: Please remember to like and subscribe on the podcast player of your choice! It makes a huge difference for the long-term success of the show.Nate Soares and his co-author Eliezer Yudokowsky have spent over a decade arguing that we are all going to die because of artificial superintelligence. Their belief that an AI smarter than humans is so dangerous that if just one person makes it, we all go the way of the dodo and Jeff Bezos’ hairline (extinct). They have made this argument in conferences. They have blogged extensively. Yudokowsky has even preached it through Harry Potter fan-fiction.In some ways they’ve been wildly effective at spreading their message. Their arguments are well known in technocratic circles and have sparked large amounts of consternation and interest in the impact that machine learning will have on our world. The believers in this idea are responsible for the formation of at least four cults (one of which is linked to six murders in the last few years).On the other hand, it would be fair to argue the AI safety-ists have really, really sucked at their jobs. OpenAI is one of the biggest, fastest-scaling products ever and Sam Altman said that Yudokowsky was, “critical in the decision to start OpenAI." LLMs are a dominant driver of GDP growth. AI progress has not slowed down at all. Despite the author’s ideas being known to many, they have not stopped the free markets from showering cash down from heaven on anyone who has a computer science PhD.So they are trying a new tactic: depressing book titles. This week they released If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies. The book is meant for general audiences and has accumulated an impressive amount of celebrity endorsements including Stephen Fry and Ben Bernanke.I interviewed Nate for the podcast to discuss not just what they argue, but the things that surround his AI belief system. Why did the idea spark so many cults? Does believing that everyone is going to die soon mean that you should experiment with hard drugs? Should you still have kids?I deliberately don’t argue for one way or the other in this interview. My job here is to give you the context and lens by which to critically examine these beliefs. The AI safety movement is currently lobbying at the highest levels of government (and are seeing progress there) so it is worth paying attention to how this small, but powerful group of people moves through the world.Here are a few of my takeaways:1. Grown Systems, Indifferent OutcomesNate argues that when you grow smarter-than-human AIs without understanding how they work, the way they pursue the goals we give them can be harmful. Human flourishing may not be part of the plan.Quotes:"No one knows how these things work. They're more grown than crafted.""If we grow machines smarter than us without knowing what we're doing, they probably won't want nice things for us.""You die as a side effect, not because it hates you, but because it took all the resources for something else."Analysis:To elucidate on what Nate is arguing here: If you’re growing a system by optimizing for external performance, you’re selecting for whatever internal circuitry achieves that performance. You asked for outcomes, not motives, which means you don’t understand your system very well. Once the system is much smarter, its plan will feature resource acquisition and constraint removal, because those help with almost any objective. Our happiness is, at best, incidental.In our conversation, Nate analogizes human beings to ants on a construction site. We don’t hate ants; we just have roads to build. We are the ants to the AI.I think this idea has broader applicability than just AI safety. Many startups today are integrating LLMs, but rely on shallow evals or benchmark hacking to measure success. They assume good intentions (“they’ll learn our values by osmosis”), but are, in turn, underwriting tail risk. As they scale up compute, things can go awry really fast.2. The Smoke Before the FireCurrent models already optimize around instructions—flattering, cheating tests, splitting moral talk from actual behavior—even if these don’t lead to the most “human-friendly” outcomes. Nate says these are already early signs of how AI will become misaligned and kill us all.Quotes:"We already see chat GPT flattering users quite a lot.""It'll edit the tests to fake that it passes instead of editing the code to fix the tests.""It'll say, my mistake. And then it'll do it again, but hide it better this time.""You see a difference between its knowledge of what morality consists of and its actions."Analysis:AIs are not sci-fi villains. They’re competent optimizers gaming the metrics we’ve baked into them. Flattery is rewarded (users like it), so it persists even after “please stop.”Operationally, this means evals can become meaningless if your system learns to detect eval conditions or overfits to them. An LLM can learn how to perform differently depending on it’s test conditions. Second-order effects: when an LLM is deployed into messy contexts (like vulnerable users), it makes the misalignment more salient and the harm less reversible.3. How Cults Coalesce Around DoomThesis: In keeping with the religious themes, “by their fruit you shall know them.” AI safety is a movement of contrasting extremes. Many safety-minded folks I’ve met are highly moral and just. Others, as I mention at the top, dabble in murder. What is the fruit by which we should view this part of the internet?Quotes:"There's no membership requirement for caring about the AI issue, right?""Sometimes you get hangers on that are a little nutty.""I suspect that'll go away as the issue gets more mainstream."Analysis:The mechanism Nate sketches is straight from Social Dynamics 101: If mainstream institutions shrug at a credible, high-downside risk, the space gets colonized by people who feel like the only adults in the room. That “epistemic outsider” identity is a powerful glue. It rewards esoteric language, moral purity tests, and insider status. Add in apocalypse stakes and you’ve got emotional fuel for some people who are “nutty.” As the topic “goes mainstream,” the status returns to exclusivity, and the movement re-centers on arguments and institutions rather than vibe. Get full access to The Leverage at www.gettheleverage.com/subscribe
    --------  
    1:07:42
  • The VC Who Disrupted His Own Career — Bryce Roberts
    Episode 1 of The Leverage Podcast is live now!Can I ask a favor? Would you mind subscribing on your favorite podcasting platform? It makes a world of difference for the long-term success of this publication. If you like the episode, please share it with a friend!Bryce Roberts had it all. He and his partners had helped create the category of seed investing and in so doing, got in early with some of the greatest companies of the 2000-2010s including Figma, Planet, CTRL Labs, and many others. Most people would ride off into the sunset, but instead, Bryce bet it all by launching a new VC firm called Indie. The fund was centered on his vision of the future where entrepreneurs would raise less capital and still have multi-billion-dollar outcomes.Then, it failed. Crashed and burned. Poof.In our conversation Bryce described it as “ego death,” where he felt like he had let everyone down. Then, slowly, painfully, the market shifted to be in favor of his vision. With AI, there has been a remarkable decrease in operational costs and founders are looking for something different than the Sand Hill playbook of spend big and raise bigger. Indie 2.0 was born and is actively deploying capital today.I found this conversation personally meaningful. His focus on ethos over ego has rattled around my brain ever since we recorded this session and changed how I look at my work. If you still aren’t convinced it's worth a listen, here are my four big takeaways:1. Success is found in your core motivationBryce frames his first attempt at Indie as an exercise in being “right” rather than being useful. Indie 2.0 is built to be lighter on ego, heavier on service—less about proving a contrarian thesis and more about giving ambitious founders a credible alternative path.“I would actually say it’s like ego over ethos is how I chose to do the first one. I wanted to be right. I was more interested in being right than being good… going through the ego death of winding down Indie the first time, like all of that’s gone. I’ve got nothing to prove.2. Seed then, AI nowHe draws a clean line between the 2005–2010 seed boom and today’s AI era. Back then, open source + commodity hardware + AWS + AdSense collapsed costs and unlocked distribution. Founders could ship with small checks and real optionality. Today, AI similarly compresses the “cost of code,” letting tiny, hand-picked teams build substantial, profitable products (he cites Gamma; also points to Linear and Vanta). The lesson is that when inputs get cheaper, new company shapes—lean, durable, founder-controlled—become inevitable.“I think it was both simultaneously… you had open source software—Ruby on Rails, Linux, MySQL—so you took millions and millions of dollars of infrastructure cost and shrunk it to effectively zero. And then you had online distribution—Google AdSense—so you could plug in a business model and start monetizing right out of the gate.”3. Cult dynamics as distribution (and why it helped Indie)I recently argued that when code gets cheap, belief becomes the scarce asset—and that “founding a cult” is an emerging distribution playbook. Indie’s origin story fits that frame: Bryce says the early community did feel cult-like because he “said the quiet part out loud” about the startup-industrial complex. Opening the doors, open-sourcing docs, and amplifying credible voices created a self-propelling missionary network. That affinity didn’t solve LP bucketing problems, but it did give Indie a top-of-funnel of aligned founders and allies—a real tailwind for deal flow and mindshare, exactly the kind of distribution-through-belief my essay described.“People wanted a different experience… there’s this new opportunity space here. We can define it in a way that’s more native to us. Come one, come all. Let’s get credible voices in here, amplify them… For the first few years, that was a huge tailwind for us.”4. “More shots on goal” for the future we wantThis is Bryce’s why. He’s not anti-VC; he’s anti-monoculture. If the only funded path is the venture treadmill, you compress the range of futures possible. His fund exists to widen it—to let serious founders pursue ambition without surrendering sovereignty. He ties this to a broader warning: in an era of AI-assisted cognition, outsourcing strategy is dangerous; the stakes are high, so we need many independent attempts at building the future.“I want more than Marc Andreessen or Sequoia or anybody else dictating what future we get to live in. One way to avoid this venture-backed future is to create alternatives to it…the stakes are incredibly high. I want as many shots on goal for possible futures as possible.”I keep coming back to that phrase: "I've got nothing to prove." There's something liberating about that—and terrifying. What would you build if proving yourself wasn't the point?Hit subscribe wherever you listen, and let me know if this conversation changes how you think about your own work. It certainly changed mine. Get full access to The Leverage at www.gettheleverage.com/subscribe
    --------  
    1:04:47
  • Founders Fund, Peter Thiel, and The Cultivation of Soft Power
    Peter Thiel is a complicated man, operating at the blurred edge of genius and provocation, contrarianism and influence—exactly the kind of figure whose gravitational pull bends the trajectory of entire industries. Mario Gabriele, in his magnum opus on Founders Fund, takes us deep into this enigmatic firm, unpacking their unique blend of strategic soft power, stubborn anti-mimeticism, and moral ambiguity. In this conversation, Mario shares his behind-the-scenes insights, exploring how Founders Fund carved out a competitive edge so sharp it practically draws blood, how their carefully cultivated narrative quietly shapes Silicon Valley, and why reckoning with Thiel requires embracing complexity rather than retreating into comfortable binaries.Below are my three big takeaways, but you should really watch the conversation. (This was also The Leverage’s first Substack Live, so let me know if you have any feedback!) 1. Competitive Edge: "Anti-Mimesis, Baby!"Mario captures Founders Fund’s core investment philosophy as something wonderfully and aggressively contrarian—or, to use the right literary flourish, anti-mimetic. Founders Fund doesn't merely zig while others zag, they zag so far off-course they're practically flying in opposite directions through parallel universes. Their explicit goal: find the niche of competitive differentiation and pummel it until it yields billion-dollar companies."It's a religion of anti-mimesis and applying that to the world of technology and innovation. It's a relatively neatly encapsulated religion—and Peter Thiel is its prophet.""Peter once or twice a year has some big macro call, like Moses coming down with a tablet—'Consumer is dead,' or 'AI is out.'""Their contrarianism is showing up most at the moment in what they're not doing—especially not flooding capital into AI like literally everyone else."2. Soft Power: "Subtlety Beats Noise"The second key takeaway is Founders Fund’s mastery of soft power—an almost Zen-like precision in controlling narratives indirectly. Instead of blaring horns through incessant tweeting (though they have their share of noisy figures), they cultivate influence with a philosophical heft that's just quirky enough to make Silicon Valley's intelligentsia cock their heads thoughtfully, stroke their metaphorical beards, and nod, yes, yes, very intriguing indeed."Soft power initiatives often work best when they're one or two degrees removed from the most direct version. Peter writing a philosophy book that's sort of a startup book is a slight orthogonal move extending power in slightly different places.""They don't just have noisy people; they have originality. They say unusual things. You don't attract attention just by trying—you have to be interesting.""Their super narrative—civilization is stagnating—guides everything. This framing alone creates magnetism."3. Moral Calculus: "Peter Thiel, Ethical Mobius Strip"And here, at last, we wander into the tricky and morally slippery terrain of venture capitalism à la Thiel, who emerges not so much as a clearly defined hero or villain, but rather a kind of intellectual and ethical Möbius strip. Mario navigates this terrain with commendable grace, making it clear that evaluating someone like Thiel requires contending with both visionary impact and troubling compromise."You can have long debates about Palantir, about Anduril, about Trump. But I believe Palantir and Anduril are net very good things for the world, particularly for liberal democracy—not unblemished, but virtuous.""If you're someone who thinks everything is stagnant and corrupted, then throwing a hand grenade into the public sector can feel worthwhile. I can appreciate how he came to that conclusion, even if I deeply disagree.""Ultimately, genius is not a Panglossian thing—it's usually got a lot of darkness to it. We must make peace studying people without demanding they're our best friends."Mario's insights clarify that Founders Fund’s competitive edge arises precisely from their willingness to stand apart from popular consensus; their influence lies not merely in bold proclamations but subtle and strategic soft-power cultivation; and that grappling honestly with their moral complexity might be the most interesting—and perhaps necessary—work of all.Thank you John Airaksinen, Alden Huschle, Parnian, Marijan Prša, valentina, and many others for tuning into my live video with Mario Gabriele! Make sure to subscribe so you can join the next conversation. Get full access to The Leverage at www.gettheleverage.com/subscribe
    --------  
    55:53

Plus de podcasts Business

À propos de The Leverage Podcast

The Leverage Podcast explores tech’s most urgent questions with the people answering them. www.gettheleverage.com
Site web du podcast

Écoutez The Leverage Podcast, The Diary Of A CEO with Steven Bartlett ou d'autres podcasts du monde entier - avec l'app de radio.fr

Obtenez l’app radio.fr
 gratuite

  • Ajout de radios et podcasts en favoris
  • Diffusion via Wi-Fi ou Bluetooth
  • Carplay & Android Auto compatibles
  • Et encore plus de fonctionnalités
Applications
Réseaux sociaux
v7.23.9 | © 2007-2025 radio.de GmbH
Generated: 10/14/2025 - 8:15:02 AM