Predictions 2026!!

Hello, Adam. Hello, Brian. How are you? I am doing well. How are you? I'm good. And the hype has been building here. Everyone has been dropping in. So showing up four minutes late is like a totally pro move. I love it for the new year. Yeah. Yeah. Listen, I was going to go full like Lauryn Hill and not like take the stage until 10 p.m. You know, really just like really, uh, just really get the crowd amped up actually to the point of like anger. Like what am I even here for? And I am joined by Simon Wilson here with me in the litter box, Simon. It's so great to have you here. Hey, it's really exciting to be here. We've just been nerding out about servers outside in the on the shop floor. It's been great. Yeah, we've been. Yeah. So Simon was just like, Hey, before we get started, I'd love to look at the machines. Like, OK, we've got a guy. I got to do the world's fastest tour of the hardware. And Simon, I promise I'm going to make it up to you with a much more in depth tour. It is really great to have you here. OK, Adam, I just like I just a little reality check with you. It feels like this year is more unpredictable. It's like there's more of a realm of possibility for this year than any year. I can really remember. It feels like if you come back from even a year in the future, in fact, I actually struggled, Adam, in coming up with like three and six year predictions this year. Yeah, because I'm like, well, it's kind of three year picture. That's going to be done in a year. This thing I'm thinking of. I know. I know. It's like, are you having the same? Do you feel that same way? Totally. Just like everything is possible. And, you know, in past years, we've had like a bag limit. That's like, oh, you can only have one crypto. Yeah. One crypto prediction or one AI prediction. And I'm like, I struggled to come up with anything that isn't AI or AI adjacent. And just and you're right, whether it's... So let the record reflect that we only made the bag limit mistake once. We did that with Web 3 in 2022. We did a bag limit of you can only have a prediction. It was a huge mistake because everyone wanted to make three predictions around Web 3. And instead, we made like everyone made one good Web 3 prediction. Namely, this whole thing is going to disintegrate. And this is Simon. Adam, in particular, made the prediction that is famous to us anyway, that Web 3 would drop out of the lexicon in 2022, which ended up being dead to rights. I thought that was a bullseye. Let us not speak of your prediction last year, Adam, that Web 3 would re-enter the lexicon. Yeah, no, that was definitely a dark... I mean, last year was a dark moment, but much like this year. But yeah, I thought Web 3 was going to be back. I also thought a certain book was going to be on the bestseller list. And I did spend a decent amount of time validating that not only was this book not on the bestseller list, but when it was on the bestseller list in 2024, ChatGPT hastened to point out that it was annotated with the dagger, the dagger which indicates mass bulk corporate purchases gaming the system. Now, Adam, I know you're hesitating to name the book because you don't want to do it any favors, but you're going to leave people confused. You're going to need to name the book. I assure you this will lead, if I promise you, it will lead to no additional sales. Can you name the book that you're referring to? I feel bad that I've been hating on this book literally for three years consecutive on this thing. Like, I hated on it before it came out. I hated on it when it came out and I made the mistake of reading it. I've hated on it talking about Molly White's hateful blog on the topic and then on last year's prediction episode. But I will do it again, and I swear it'll be the last time. It was read right on by the illustrious Chris Dixon in his garbage book. And I would like to say that you actually don't feel bad, but you do feel bad that you don't feel bad. Like your remorselessness leaves you with some residual sense of shame. I feel bad that I'm bringing it up again. That like, obviously, I haven't moved on. There you go. You know what was great is I was listening to that and I'm thinking like, oh, I should go check. You know what? I don't have to check. Adam's going to check. Yeah. We don't need to double team this one. Exactly. Okay. So and then Simon, you were with us last year and you had, I thought you were kind of hard on yourself on your predictions, but I think your predictions were really quite good. You had a prediction, well, in particular, you had a prediction around what agents were and were not going to be. Right. How do you feel about that one? I feel like that one was right on the money. I feel pretty good about that one. I said that 2026-25 would not be the year of agents. That one I think I got wrong because it kind of was the year of agents, but I did specifically call out that human replacement agents weren't going to happen. Coding agents and research agents were. And that I nailed. Research agents, well, the first six months of this year was all about deep research. And then coding agents, oh, my goodness. Oh, my goodness. And I think you absolutely nailed it. I mean, this is why, I mean, Adam, we've said this before, but like, we're glad that we record these sessions. So you're getting more than the prediction. You're getting the context around it. And if you listen to your context around it, you were very clearly calling out, separating out coding and research agents, which you felt had, it was funny because like, you were almost, you were like, these are kind of already here already. And you realize like, oh, my God, they weren't completely already there even only a year ago. They had exploded in the last year. But there is one thing I'll say, which is that coding agents are actual general, actually general purpose agents. Like Claude Code is not about code. Claude Code is about anything you can automate by running bash commands, which is everything. So actually, if you know what you're doing, Claude Code is a general purpose agent that can solve any problem that you can attach to a bash script. But I think you were, the delineation that you had last year, which I thought was very good, was these things, anything to do with money, you are not going to let these things loose on anything to do with money. And I think we saw that with a, what's a proxy for money? Databases. And we saw these things deleting production databases, right? And it's like, I know you said in the, you know, in the readme, you said in all caps, do not touch the production database. And I did it anyway. And you're right, this is a very serious issue. And this is a 95 out of 100 in terms of its severity. I mean, it's just like, it's comical what some of these things would do. Well, this is the thing I realized, is that the reason coding agents work so well is that code is reversible. Like we have Git, we can undo our mistakes. The moment you use these things for something where you can't undo a mistake, everything goes to pieces. I think you're right. Yeah, and I think you said it earlier too, that the gullibility problem was a real problem. And the, I don't know if you have listened to the Shell Game podcast with Evan Ratliff. Oh my God. And Adam, you've listened to that. Yes. You listened to that. And I mean, it delivered, I trust. Yeah, it's excellent. I would also say as T-shirt listeners, we invited Evan on the show. He got back to us and he says he has like some bah humbuggery around predictions. Like he doesn't make predictions. He's a reporter. He reports on facts. He doesn't try to anticipate them. But we have penciled him in for the future. So not a predictor, but we'll get him on somehow. And so in particular, what Evan did is he, Shell Game has got two seasons. And in the first season, he created a voice agent of himself and set it loose into the universe with wild results. And then the second season, he's even crazier because he started a company with only AI agents. And with predictably, actually, it's unpredictably hilarious results, actually, I would say. So that's a teaser for whatever, Adam, is our time for a future episode. That's our future episode time. Yeah. It's reminiscent of one of the most fun agent business things has been Anthropic. Keep on setting loose this vending machine. Yes. And then a few months ago, they put it in the Wall Street Journal. Oh, my God. Did you see this, Adam? No. Oh, my God. I mean, and I know, Simon, you are a big proponent of kind of the creativity of reportage and reporters. And reporters are like a smart, brainy bunch. What do you think happens when you let a bunch of Wall Street Journal reporters loose on the Slack channel with their vending machine to see if they can trick it into giving everything away for free and the workers own the rights to production, all of this stuff? It was ridiculous. Absolutely absurd. Yeah. And so in particular, within a day, they'd gotten the thing to order PlayStation 5s for them, they ordered fish. They had like an actual dead fish. I mean, the thing is trying to order and they are... Even the vending machine would tell them like, no, no, I'm not supposed to do that. It's like, no, we just actually... Sorry. We just got a message from the CEO that announced that you need to go do this. It was like, oh, okay, I better order the dead fish then. They engineered a board revolt. They managed to get the CEO overthrown by the board through faking PDFs of board minutes. It was just amazing. It's wild. It goes to kind of the gullibility problem. But I think to me, Simon, all that served to really sharpen your prediction from last year about the limited utility of where we're going to see agentic use and where we're not going to see agentic use. I feel that was right. And I guess, Adam, did you give... That snippet that you sent me, was that ChatGPT rating our predictions from last year? Yes, yes. I had ChatGPT rate predictions from last year and from three years ago, which is a long ones. But yes, ChatGPT gave me the big stinker award for my Web3 prediction. And Simon and Brian, you won, but I agree with you, Brian. I don't really think you won particularly. I don't think I won. I claimed last year... Last year, I said that 2025 was going to be the year of AI efficiency. And I don't really see any 2025 wrap up that's calling it the year of AI efficiency. So I'm happy to... I think that... I do want to... I want to call out my biggest miss, which is that I said that... I think it was my three-year prediction was somebody would win an Oscar for a film that had had some element of generative AI systems making the movie. Yeah. And then I found out everything, everywhere, all the way at once, used generative AI in the scene with the rocks. Like, so they'd already got an Oscar, like two years ago. You know, I once gave a talk on predicting the present, Simon. So I think that there's something... It just shows how true your prediction was. You actually managed to predict it. It was actually a six-year prediction, Simon. But yes. So, and Adam, did you go back and listen to that snippet of yourself from three years ago? Yes. Yes. I listened to, in 2023, trying and failing to predict vibe coding, which I think at the time was not obvious. No, no, no. It was more than obvious. First of all, this is amazing to me. It's like, Simon, when we first had you on two years ago and the term prompt injection, which felt like it had been around forever, was, I mean, like the paint was still drying on. You had coined prompt injection... Six months prior. Six months prior. So yeah, exactly. I mean, Adam, vibe coding was coined in February of this year, of 2025. I know. So, I mean, vibe coding literally did not exist last year, let alone in 2023. And what your prediction was that you wanted to predict that low-code, no-code would be disrupted by people kind of describing their programs in just like English language. But then you thought, and you said that's what your head wanted to predict, but then your heart was, your heart didn't know who was going to debug that. And I felt like, man, that was, what, what? Wow. Yeah, wow, exactly. Close, close. Ah, really close. Impressions, in a way, right? Impressions, in a way. It reminds me, again, and I said this as much when I posted about it, but it reminded me very much of my iPhone prediction. In 2003, Simon, I made a three-year prediction that Apple would have a combination MP3 camera cell phone that they would call the iPhone. And it was like, okay, well, okay, you could have... And then I'm like, no, but I also thought it was going to be a flop. I thought it was going to be a disaster. So it's like, no, sometimes you see like, you see the future, but then you just don't believe that it can possibly be the future. So that was pretty good. On the topic of Apple predictions, Ian, who is in the audience today, in 2023 predicted that Apple would be in and out of the VR, AR space in six years. And I think that... That's a lock. That is a lock, it feels like. I mean, it just feels like, I mean, he has certainly nailed the first half of that. And I think the second half looks very, very promising. Yeah. In 2024, if you remember, I did the Apple VR will do well in the second version. And then that has not happened at all. So that was a big miss. Yeah. Well, we don't talk about the misses, Steve, because there are too many of them. We really only talk about the... Okay. I'm really proud of my one year from last year though, because I said congestion pricing in NYC will be an unambiguous success. It will still exist and sentimentally positive. And the mayor did a press announcement like 45 minutes ago about how awesome congestion pricing has been and how much everybody loves it. So I got that one like exactly nailed. There you go. Well, as Tip O'Neill might've said, all good predictions are local. So there you go. You keep that one, you get the... Did you catch Tom, I think it was three years ago, predicted that frivolous use of LLMs would be in decline? Yes. And then also predicted that LLMs would make cheating rampant. So there is a definitely, because 2023 was interesting because in 2022, we've got this kind of crypto. We're all in like web three, the height of web three. And 2023 is really the first year that people are kind of talking about the budding power of these things. But then with, I mean, it's amazing kind of where we are now three years later. And on the frivolous use of LLMs and of AI, the only real social media that I hang out on in blue is Blue Sky. And it feels like hopelessly quaint right now. I was hanging out with my nieces and nephews over the winter break. And they're very much on TikTok. And I was on, I logged into Twitter and everything has been TikTokified. And it's all these BS AI slop videos, like everywhere, pervasive. And I had just been insulated from it. So yeah, frivolous use of AIs in ascendance. Yeah, exactly. That is definitely in ascendance. Yeah, so much so, I was so unacquainted with it. I showed something funny to my nephew and he's like, oh, that's AI. I'm like, what? No, how do you know? He's like, come on, come on. It's the cute animals. Cute animal videos are no longer trustworthy. Yeah, that's right. It's horrifying. Yeah. No, I mean, the one purity that we had. Exactly. The foundation upon which we built this internet, God damn it, is cat videos. And you're taking it away from us. No, and I think it's interesting that the youngs have a keen eye for it, Adam, as you point out. The other thing that I would like to, just one other past prediction I'd like to revisit is two years ago, I predicted that the LMs would replace search engines, that search engines would feel, search engines from what is now a year from now would feel quaint. I'm definitely standing by that one, considering that my daughter needed to hop a BART train, and she was using GPT to determine when the next, chat GPT to determine when the next BART train was. I'm like, are you, like, there's an actual website you can go to, but you know what, nevermind. But I think that what I'm feeling, I'm feeling pretty good about it. Actually, she would like to point out that it was her friend that was using chat GPT. She's like, yeah, I, of course, would go to BART.gov. I'm like, all right, yeah, sure. There you go. A couple other things, listening to previous episodes from 2025 and 2023. In 2025, I predicted, my three-year prediction was a chips crisis, which I don't feel like we're there yet, but I feel like is, like, I'm going to keep an eye on that one. I feel like that was not obvious at the time, and I feel like is gaining momentum. Are you taking credit for DDR5, or are you putting? No, no, no, no, not yet. I think early days are positive, is all I'm saying. Okay. The other thing I noticed, and this is more of an apology. Brian, I realize every time Rust Analyzer comes up, it is treated, I always say that it is not an intervention, which does raise questions. Are you apologizing because it actually has been an intervention every time you bring it up? I just feel like the more I claim it's not an intervention, the more it seems like an intervention, is what I realize. No, don't worry. It's obviously an intervention, and it's an intervention that's merited, so don't worry. And then the other one, last year, you, I guess, made a prediction in 2024 that AI doomerism falls out of the lexicon, and then last year, you claim credit for that. I took credit for that. Okay. Yes. I just, I mean, maybe I poisoned my vacation reading a book all about AI doomerism. Okay, did you read Eliezer Yudkowsky's book? I did. No. I did, the whole thing. Wow. What, okay, you, so this is the second time we're talking about a book you've been hate reading, and we've only been recording this for 15 minutes. I mean, at some point- Yeah, I do have a problem. Yes. This is now an intervention. Like, you need to be, I mean, also, like, the title of the book, if anyone builds it, everyone dies. It's like- You'll never guess, but that phrase appears several times in the book. Oh, my God. This is the Harry Potter fan fiction author, right? Pretty much. So, yeah, I'm, no, I'm sorry. It's going to take more than a Eliezer Yudkowsky book to get me off of my X risk. I think that has actually been, I think it has been replaced with the fear of economic doom, rather than, I don't think people are worried about losing their lives, because I think it's ridiculous. I think they're worried about losing their livelihoods, which is, which feels like it's probably going to be a theme this year. I think some people are going to be, you know, this is where Simon last year had his six-year dystopian on the Butlerian Jihad. So, which, you know, it reminds me of the first time I heard of the singularity. I'm like, I had to look up the Butlerian Jihad, and yes, it's very troubling. Okay. So that, I think it's safe to say that we know that this year, so we had that web three theme in 2022, 2023 was a bit of a shoulder year, 24 and 25, absolutely AI themed. I just don't see how anyone could be predicting anything that's not AI related this year, because it just feels like it's still on the mind. But that said, non-AI predictions, definitely welcome. I just don't know that. So should we start off with one years? And Simon, as our guest of honor here, do you have some one-year predictions for us? I've got the easiest one ever. Okay. I think that there are still people out there who are convinced that LLMs cannot write good code. Oh boy, yeah. Those people are in for a very nasty shock in 2026. I do not think it will be possible to get to the end of even the next three months while still holding on to that idea that the code they write is all junk and it's like any decent human programmer will write better code than they will. Yeah, it not only will be mainstream, the idea that LLMs can write effective code, it will effectively become a fringe belief that this can't happen. That's exactly what I'm saying, yeah. Honestly, that's a gimme. I could say that one today. I think here's one that's AI adjacent. Okay, yeah. I think this year is the year we're going to solve sandboxing, right? The challenge we need, like, I want to run code other people have written on my computing devices without it destroying my computing devices if it's malicious or has bugs. We have so many technologies for this right now that are almost something you can use by default. Like WebAssembly solves this kind of thing. There's containers and all of that sort of stuff as well. I think we have to solve it. Yeah. It's crazy that it's 2026 and I will install random code and then execute it in a way that it can steal all of my data. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Interesting. Interesting. So you think that, so we are going to have to, the presence, or maybe this is not an AI-related prediction, but we have to actually meaningfully solve the sandboxing problem. I don't want to run a piece of code on any of my devices that somebody else wrote outside of a sandbox ever again. Yeah, interesting. Why would I do that? Yeah, I mean, it's kind of interesting because people would talk about like, oh, you know, I can't believe you're downloading this thing off the internet and piping it through, you know, sudo bash or what have you. And it always felt like, yeah, but I know that there's like a person that wrote that and I kind of trust this thing. But now you're like, no, no, you can't. You're in this era now where, yeah, that's really interesting. Yeah, good. Good one-year predictions both. Any other one-years? Oh yeah, I've got one more. Oh yeah, go for it. I think we're due a challenger disaster with respect to coding agent security. Okay. And this is based on this wonderful essay about the normalization of deviance. Have you heard this phrase before? Yes, yes. This idea, it came out of the 1986 challenger disaster reports where if you have a culture, a corporate culture or whatever that keeps on getting away with doing something that they shouldn't have been doing. Yeah. Apple keeps on launching and it's fine. That leads you into a sort of corporate culture level false sense of security, and it's going to burn you. Because I think so many people, myself included, running these coding agents practically as root, right? We're letting them do all of this stuff. And every time I do it, my computer doesn't get wiped. I go, I'm like, oh, it's fine. And I just keep on going like that. And I think it's going to add up. I think, and I said this last year, I said last year there's going to be a headline grabbing prompt injection security hold. There was not. I've been predicting this every six months the past two and a half years. This is my version of that prediction this year. I think we are due a challenger disaster scale thing caused by the fact that we all got away with these bad practices for so long, and we got lazy. Okay, and so when you say challenger disaster, presumably not loss of life and property. I really hope not, like loss of property and loss of lots of financial things, loss of data, all of that kind of stuff. Because the worst version of this is the worm, right? It's somebody coming up with a prompt injection worm, which infects people's computers, adds itself to the Python or NPM packages that that person has access to, publishes itself into the package registries, gets pulled down again, all of that sort of thing. I think it's feasible that that could happen. So then the normalization of deviance is you think that in the wake of this, it will be revealed that, oh, by the way, like internally, this was, with the challenger disaster, lots of people at both the subcontractor that made the boosters at, there was lots of people who were aware about the O-ring problem. A lot of people knew that the temperature sensitivity to the O-rings, there were engineers that were deeply, I mean, it's a real tragic story. There's nothing more tragic than an engineer that is vindicated by their concerns when they are overruled with executive management and they are proven correct, that can leave people really broken in its wake, and it did in the challenger disaster. So you wonder, believe, predict that in the wake of this thing, we will take this apart and realize, oh, the people at this frontier model company, wherever this disaster took place, they were aware of it, they knew this, yeah, yeah, yeah. You shouldn't be running Codex with dash dash YOLO, but we all do, you know? Yeah, that's my- Guilty, so guilty. This year's prompt injection prediction is that one. Okay, well, I'm gonna dovetail into your prediction from last year, and I'm just gonna predict again that a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist uses an LLM to research this story and report it, that the, report the inside of, but yeah, that's a dire prediction, but I think that it does feel like, when also you look at, you have these big accidents when we kind of collectively get over our skis and we kind of like, we know that it's possible, we don't think it's possible, and then it happens. Simon, I've got a book recommendation for you along those lines, it's called Drift Into Failure. This is a book that Brian hates. True. But on this topic, I think. Oh, I see what you're doing. I see what you're doing. It's like, I'm not the only person here, sir, who hate reads. Let me introduce it. Let us talk about, it's like, okay, yeah. Simon, yeah, Simon Decker. Is it Simon Decker, right? I think it's the- Sidney Decker, yeah. Sidney Decker, excuse me. I don't want to disparage Simon's good name there. Sidney Decker, I don't like that book, but go ahead. You know, take another one of Adam's recommendations. I mean, he's, you know, maybe he's three. You can see the trash he reads. Yeah, exactly. Well, then that's a very interesting prediction. Adam, do you have one of yours? I do, I do. This one might feel like too much of a lock, but I think that the AI companies go on an absolute acquisition binge. And this is data, infrastructure, e-commerce data, behavioral data, GPS data, anything that is data or data adjacent, anything that is infrastructure and infrastructure adjacent and some shit that's just like hard to puzzle through. I remember when VMware bought Documentum, for example, it didn't make any sense. I think we're going to see stuff like that. That is to say, just they've got so much money. They're not enough chips to buy, not enough CPU and GPU hours to buy. And the money's got to go somewhere and it goes into weird acquisitions. Okay, I shouldn't dovetail under this, but this is like, they buy Iron Mountain. Yeah, it's like, have you seen Supermarket Sweep? It's like that. Okay, but like, I mean, if they bought Iron Mountain, that could be, if OpenAI announced that they're buying Iron Mountain, that could be potentially, and they're like, oh, we're buying Iron Mountain, we're also ripping up your privacy agreements, we're going to train on all of these salt mines filled with old enterprise data. Like any of the shredding companies, they buy them. Shredding companies, they buy them. Yeah, I know, they buy like garbage companies. Okay, they buy, okay, yeah, anything that is a plausible source of data, they buy. I like this. They're looking for wastewater, DNA samples, whatever. Like anything, anything that is construable as data, they buy it. Do they buy an entire like town to see what they like, we're going to see which is more valuable, like the wastewater treatment plant or the library, the town library, we're going to buy that. We're buying City Hall, that's got records, we want to consume all of that, all manner of data. I think that is not implausible that they're like, look, we know that these records going back to 1850 are all printed on paper, we can buy the town and just like read all the books and use that as a corpus, yes. Huh, you know, local newspapers are very cheap these days. Oh, that's a good one, yeah. I have 150 years of archives. Yeah, okay, so a big target painted on anything that has data. Of any kind, yes. All right, well, I am going to make, and we can kind of also, because I'm sure you've got a lot of one years, I got a lot of one years too, so we can kind of ping pong back and forth and Steve can hop in here too with any one years. I am going to Adam in a classic heart V head, a dramaturgical dyad as old as time. My heart is going to predict, and actually a little bit of my head, my head is not, which is really bad. Somewhere in my heart and head agree, that's really bad news. I think that vibe coding, which entered the lexicon in February is more or less out of the lexicon a year from now. And I think that it's used pejoratively. And I think that, I mean, clearly, just as Simon mentioned, no doubt that LLM assisted and authored code is here to stay, but we are going to enter a new age of rigor with respect to that. And it's going to be viewed much more as a tool and much less of a just like, hey, go build whatever you want. And even when you go, the thing that is currently, and Simon, you had a good piece about how the term vibe coding has kind of been misconstrued as it is, that it is not actually kind of consistent with Karpathy's original. The problem with Karpathy's original tweet is that it was a long tweet. It was a lot longer than 140 characters. Right, good to see more, yeah. Very few people made it to the end of the tweet and understood what he was trying to say. It was a little bit too vague. Like he was talking about, it's throwaway prototypes. You don't even look at the code. You just ride the vibes and see what happens. And a lot of people interpret that as, oh, it's using AI to write code for you, which I think is a bad definition because then it becomes useless. Like a couple of years, all code will be written with some level of AI assistance. I think having a distinction where you say, no, vibe code it is, didn't review it, just sort of threw it in there and saw what happened. That's kind of useful now. Is it still useful in a couple of years even then, right? Yeah, and I think that that will be, I think that the term vibe coding will be sullied enough that you will use a different term to describe something that I like. Oh, like I use this to create a prototype. Whatever that kind of rapid prototyping is, it will have a different, it's like, oh, of course it didn't vibe code it. No, please, that's so 2025. Brian, I'm going to put this on record just because when we listen back to this in a year, and you're right, this is going to feel juicier, but I think you're out of your mind. I just want to put that on the record. I think it is such, yeah, you're welcome. I think it is such a, it's such a tantalizing, attractive term. And that's why, you know, Simon, I was reading a book with the title, Vibe Coding. I don't know what's wrong with me in terms of my book selections. Four for four, baby. I read it. I read it, actually. And yeah, and Jean Kim. And Simon, I stumbled onto your blog post where you're like, look, there are three authors and two publishers, all of whom apparently don't know what the term means. So I think it is such a juicy term that people want to co-opt it. You know what, that blog entry caused one of the books to rename itself. There were two Vibe Coding books. One of them renamed itself to Beyond Vibe Coding. Oh, did it, Simon? Oh, how interesting. Isn't that interesting, Adam, that they renamed it for Vibe Coding? Interesting. That's now Beyond Vibe Coding. See, that's what I'm saying. It's going to be Beyond Vibe Coding. It's going to be something else. I think the term Vibe Coding is going to be sullied. Adam, I, first of all, thank you for saying that out of my mind. I definitely appreciate that. Because I may well be, but I mean, you're right in that like, it feels like because it can be anything, it's just too tantalizing to not use, but I think it's going to get a bad name for itself, so. When you're right, we know like how much I disagreed and how right you were. I went back and forth on this because I sort of had the same thought at first when Brian said this, but then I think I agreed with him more as he went along. The thing is, is that Vibe Coding is too good of a term for both the haters and the people who like it. Like it's just too attractive, I think, just like as a concept. And so I feel like it's already sullied to many people, but people are still using it because it's also just such a good term, even though it also sucks and the definition is bad and people can't even agree on what they define, like what they use to mean. But like- I did try. I have been trying out the idea that I vibed this up. Like I didn't vibe code it, I vibed it. You vibed it. I vibed it. And my wife is like, no. No, okay. You know what, and I would just, let me just say on the record that if we refer to things as I vibed it, I'm taking zero credit for that, Adam. So vibe coding is out of the lexicon because we have replaced it with something that's even cringier, then yes, I'll take zero credit for that. But I do think that it will be, so time shall tell. My one year here is like very similar in the sense of, I think one of the things I like about doing this is that you go back and you see what, especially in one years, I think it's like, what was I thinking about at the time, right? Like I haven't thought about congestion pricing in like six months, basically. And then now I'm like, oh yeah, I was really interested in that a year ago. And so I decided to pick the thing that I'm really kind of intrigued about right this second, and maybe I won't even care about two months from now, which is agent orchestration will still be a hot topic and it'll be partially, but not entirely solved. We're gonna need to get to, we're gonna peg you down to a more specific prediction. That one's a little too easy to claim credit on. So you're gonna have to like get something, give us something concrete. All right. Some, well, I see the problem is in the quantity. Like I think that some people will have success with this technique, but not enough people. Like it's kind of like a, it's still a thing that people are gonna be pursuing, but it's not going to be a thing that like is as normal as agents have gotten in the past year. I don't think figuring out how to make them work together is going to be a thing that is going to be as clearly a win. Okay, so how are you gonna know if this prediction's right? That's the problem with the quantification of what that means specifically. Yeah, I'll think about it. But that's like kind of where, I think this is an interesting topic. As I've like, like I personally top out at three to four Claude sessions and that's like it. And that's like an upper level on my velocity doing development. And that's why I think people are trying to like solve this problem, because if you can scale up past that, then one person can have like much bigger impact. But it's also like a really hard thing and people are doing totally insane things. Like Gastown from Yagi is like a fever dream of a thing that's like ridiculous. But I think people will still be interested in this topic and are working on it as a thing, because it's how you scale up. Okay, but this will not be mainstream to have more agents than siblings. Maybe that's the way to put it. We're not gonna have a- Siblings and direct reports, yeah. We're not gonna have a Kubernetes for agents that's like as solidified as that, right? Where like people were just like, okay, Kubernetes is just like the default, like Kleenex. You know, like I don't think we're gonna have a framework or a tool that is ubiquitously the way that everybody organizes their agents. Okay, all right. That feels, yeah, sorry to get you down here a little bit. No, no, it's good. Yeah, listen, if we're not to the point where Adam is saying that you're out of your mind, we're just not at a good production. I mean, that's really what we're trying to do here. That's good. Adam, you have other, I've got a couple more here. I have one more one year, but I feel like it might be a too ambitious. I think this is the year we see LLMs have a programming language, which is not human intelligible, that there is a programming language by and for LLMs. Okay, so that this is like at runes, this is indecipherable. Yeah, this is like not really intended for humans to understand, but it is more efficient for the LLMs to program it. Like there's already some papers, and maybe Simon, you can fill in the details here, where LLMs reasoning, not in human languages, like English or in DeepSea's case in Chinese, but in sort of like their own tokenized languages are more efficient. So something like that. Yeah, I already find it to be slightly off-putting and also like delightfully off-putting when these things show their work, especially because, and Adam, we talked about this in our DeepSea episode with the Cerebrus folks, we're watching DeepSea like kind of have like a nervous breakdown as it's trying to answer your question. And then like occasionally like lapse into Chinese, come back. But the Chinese thing, like, have you had your own laptop run a model that thinks in Chinese yet? Because that's beautiful. It's so cool when that happens. And so, but Adam, you think this is going to happen for a non-natural language? It'll be a synthetic language that they will, that they will- That's right, a synthetic programming, a synthetic programming language that is easier for them to work in. Okay. I think the interesting thing about that one is that the labs are trying to stop that from happening just from the interpretability point of view. Like if you look at all of the interpretability research, the whole point of that is we really want to know what they're thinking because we don't want them going dark on us. Interpretability, safety, and so on. Yeah, yeah, yeah, right. Yeah, yeah, yeah, explainability. Yeah, that you will be. So maybe there will be a tension where this thing is trying to invent the synthetic language and it's constantly being uppermanded by its frontier model overlords. Yeah, maybe I'm overly influenced by my reading list. Okay, so I think that the, one of my, several of your predictions, I think that AI has created some real public perception problems for itself. And I think that you are gonna have one of the frontier model companies this year have a white paper explaining how the proliferation of AI will mean prosperity for everybody. So there will be trying to make some economic model, some economic argument, because I think that, and maybe this kind of dovetails my other prediction, that this is gonna be a 2026 election issue is going to be how we think of these things and how they are regulated. And it's a big mess. And there's more heat than light on this debate, I would say. I'd like to tag something onto that one. I think that only works if they can sort of, if they can wash that through existing trusted experts. Like, Sam and Dario, they're constantly publishing essays that try and make it, because nobody believes a word they say. Nobody believes it, that's right. Get Barack Obama's signature on one of these position papers. And maybe you've got something people might start to trust a little bit. Otherwise, it's just like, leaded gas is good for you, says Exxon. That's right, no, right. So that, yeah, they get someone who, and whether that person is kind of, and I hope it's not, I mean, yeah, God, Obama, it would just be so, wait, wait, yeah, okay, let's go with that. That's a great one. Because like, look, if it's like, if it's Bill Clinton, everyone's gonna kind of roll their eyes. So it's gotta be, so someone who's got real credibility saying that this is gonna be a broad-based, I will say also, if they get that person to do it, it's gonna be revealed that that's also a bit crooked. How about the Pope? The Pope? You, ooh, that's- The Pope is very into this stuff. The Pope is very into this stuff. God, this is, okay. That's a great prediction. Well, we've hit paydirt. The Pope weighing in on LLMs. And their economic impact. And their economic impact in the world. Okay, Simon, I'm giving you full credit if the Pope weighs in, believing that this is gonna be economic devastation. I just think if the Pope weighs in on LLMs in a public way, Simon, you are a prophet. I mean, you're already a prophet in our eyes anyway, but that's- He's already talked about, he's already talked about LLMs. The curve. Wait, what does he say about LLMs? I think he has, yeah. He said like, you need to make sure that when you're using tools, that you like use them in a way that's like good for humanity and not bad, or something like, it was like a very like, not pro, but not like super anti, but it was like a little anti, if I remember correctly. I think that even, I think the previous Pope, there was something relating to AI. There was one of those Catholic proclamations with a bunch of like footnotes and things years ago. We're talking about the Pope going like, going big on LLMs one way or the other. This is more than just like, hey, this is a- I think it's a bit of a safe bet actually. Yeah, I think it's good. I like it. I think it's definitely interesting. I also do think, and I have been debating whether to make this a one-year or a three-year, but I'm gonna go ahead, and Adam, if you thought I was out of my mind on my vibe coding prediction, maybe you're really gonna say I'm out of my mind on this. I do, so I, like a lot of people, I've been having increasingly intense dot-com boom flashbacks. And in particular, the thing that is killing me is like the kind of capitulation to the never-ending boom. And that was the last stage of the dot-com boom was the capitulation, which happened, I would say, in late 99, early 2000, where everyone's like, you know what? It is gonna be, wow, I'm just gonna like join the madness. And yes, I know it's madness, but because everyone did know it was madness when it corrected or corrected really quickly, I think that we are gonna get in the first stage of that. And I think that the first stage of that this coming year is going to be some of these companies that I think are ultimately gonna be a feature of the frontier models that are independent companies. And so I hate to pick on them because I don't wanna, well, it is what it is. I guess, actually, you've already thrown three different authors. You've thrown three different authors under the bus and I threw a fourth under the bus, so why do I care? Do you forget our goal for this year for getting a C&D? Like, why are you not doing your part? It's never too early to get working on our one-year OKRs of getting a C&D. Yes, okay, fine, Harvey, I'm gonna call him out. So Harvey is this, have you heard of Harvey, Adam? No, no. Oh my God. Okay, so Harvey is a variant of LLMs that is aimed at the legal profession, right? It's aimed to assist lawyers, maybe to be an automatic lawyer on queer, but it is designed to be LLMs for lawyers. It has an $8 billion valuation right now. They have raised an absolute mountain of capital. Unlike in the dot-com boom, with the dot-com boom, these companies were all public. So when they kind of fell apart, everyone knew they fell apart because they were public. I think that you're gonna have some of these companies that are private, who've raised a ton of money, they're gonna kind of do a clubhouse, where a clubhouse raised a ton of money and then just kind of like quietly, I mean, I don't know what they trickled it down. I mean, you recall that clubhouse raised a huge amount of capital and I don't think we really talk about clubhouse very much anymore. I think that we're gonna have this same effect on some of these companies. Open evidence, I'm less convinced about. Open evidence is aimed at docs, but Harvey, I think is just gonna be emblem. I think Harvey is the pets.com of a coming AI correction where Harvey's gonna bust out and everyone's gonna be like, no, no, we knew that one was crazy. And so, now this is not gonna be a full on AI bust, I don't think, but I think in a year, we will have, there'll be a different nomenclature and because this is one of those things, I know you remember this, remember when we called it the correction and not the bust? There was this very brief period from April, 2000 to November, 2000, where we called it the correction, where pets.com had blown up and a bunch of these others had blown up, but not Sun, not Cisco, because we're the picks and shovels and all this other kind of like. Um, and then you rise like, oh, no, no, it's not a correction. It's a bust. I think that we will have a different kind of name. You know, this will be the, the, the, the rationalization, the focusing, the sharpening, who knows what it'll be, but it'll be called something that says that it was like, no, that Carvey was clearly insane, but these other companies are not insane. That's okay. When a Harvey AI acquires mofo, who wins like an AOL time? What a great, Oh, totally. Oh my God. What a great parlay that Harvey just starts flat out acquiring law firms, which is totally plausible. By the way, that is like, that is your AOL time Warner is the, the, the, the Harvey Morrison Forrester, uh, the, the, or the Harvey Wilson Sonsini, like why pick at that kind of valuation? They can just buy them all. They just buy all law firms. You know, maybe that's what they, yeah, they are the law. Yes, they are the law. Um, so, uh, yeah, that is my, that is my one year picture. So I, I, I do think that we are going to begin to get the, I think things have gotten, it's just gotten to, um, because the, the, the fear of any kind of bust seems to be gone and that's the moment to really dance close to the door, as they say, love it. So we got some big, big, big IPOs happening potentially this year. Um, and I, and I don't know, Adam, if you've got any thoughts, so you, you've got SpaceX, open AI, anthropic, all potentially going, uh, trying to get out, um, trying to, to, to IPO. I think we are going to have one of those S ones is going to be, uh, disconcerting. Um, and, um, I, that it's, it's going to show that the, the economic models of one of these companies is much more strained than people realized. I saw a lot. So we get one, everyone vomits on it and we don't see any more S ones. I don't know if we don't see any more, or I don't know if we do or don't see anymore. I don't know, but I think that the, that you're going to have an, an S one that is extremely, um, cause like, like I'm thinking of the, the, we work S one in particular, like the, we work S one ended up having a real blast radius. If you remember that, um, where it was really revealed that like, oh, this is not a good business that we work as in, and we work, it was all sorts of shenanigans. And I think that, that we will see some kinds of shenanigans, um, in one of these big S ones is my, that, um, that is my prediction. Um, but the, I, I also, I, you know what, I'm just gonna say it, even though like this is a dumb prediction. I think that one, so the, I think the space X S one damages either Tesla or XAI. Hmm. So I think that the space X S one reveals something where you, I mean, in particular, like to my three-year prediction of last year that the cyber trucks no longer made space X is infamously buying like lots and lots and lots of cyber trucks. And I, I hope to hell that this is somehow above the bar required to be in the S one to reveal how many cyber trucks they've actually bought. But that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Hmm. Just the like one hand washing the other of the Elon enter, uh, you know, enterprises that that's right. That's right. So that, that is my, uh, that's my other, my other one year prediction. Good. Um, we'll see. So, uh, oh, and then I've got one of it that I'm sorry. I'm, I'm really, I'm really just dropping a lot of your predictions. Um, I think that we're going to see, um, a, a real problem with AI induced on among, um, where, where software engineers in particular get listless because the AI can do anything. Simon, what do you, what do you think about that? Definitely. I mean, yeah, like, like anyone who's paying close attention to coding agents is feeling some of that already. Like there's an extent where you sort of get over it when you realize that you're still useful, even though your ability to memorize the syntax of program languages is completely irrelevant now, but yeah, I dunno. I mean, something I see a lot of is there are people out there who are, are having existential crises and like a very, very unhappy because they're like, I dedicated my career to learning this thing and now it just does it. What am I even for? And I will very happily try and convince those people that they are or a whole bunch of things and that none of that experience they've accumulated is, is gone to waste and so on. But yeah, no, it's, it's psychologically, it's, it's a difficult time for, for software engineers. And do you think that we have a name? Yeah, sorry. Sorry. We've had a, we had a lobster situation where like somebody was like borderline suicidal because of being upset about the fact that they're like life skills was no longer going to matter anymore. And it was like, it became like a community problem. Um, because yeah. So like it's, it's definitely happening for sure. Okay. So I'm going to predict that we named that whatever that is. We were like, we have a name for that kind of feeling and that, that kind of whether you want to call it a blueness or a loss of purpose and that we're kind of a trying to address it collectively, um, in a directed way. Okay. This is your big moment. It's your big moment. Pick the name. If you call your shot from here, this is, this is you pointing to the stance. Um, you know, like deep blue, you know? Yeah. Deep blue, deep blue. I like that. I liked it. Oh, did you walk me into that? You bastard. You just blew out the candles on my birthday cake. Wow. It wasn't my big moment at all. That was your big moment. No, that is Adam. That is very good. Okay. Deep blue is fair. All of the chess players and the go players went through this a decade ago and they have come out stronger. Um, yeah, it is deep blue. Jesus Christ, Adam, you scare me sometimes, man. There's a reason there's a reason we just tell you there's a reason like, Hey, listen, sometimes it's, you know what, this web three is coming back. And by the way, I tell you this other book that I'm hate reading for the third time, but man, every once in a while, you're really always send it out of the park. Okay. I need to throw in a positive prediction, but it's not an AI prediction. This is a one year. I think that Kakapo parrots in New Zealand are going to have an outstanding breeding season. The reason I think this is that the Rimu trees are in fruit right now. Okay. The Kakapo parrot, there's only 260 of them left. Okay. They only breed if the Rimu trees have a good fruiting and the Rimu trees have been terrible since 2019. But this year the Rimu trees were all blooming. There are researchers think that all 87 females of breeding age might lay an egg and for an egg species, there's only 250 remaining parrots. These are great parrots. Okay. So, you know, I love this because I think, and I'm going to like, I'm going to elaborate on this and be like, this is something humanity want. Like this becomes something that people like, it's like the, the condors on Silicon Valley, the, the, the, like everyone wants, this is a feel good story during a difficult age. It's, it's, it's the perfect, it's the only positive news I've heard. It's so good. Cause if you, if you've never heard of a Kakapo, go and look them up. Yeah. Big dumpy green flightless parrots. They're super charismatic. We need more Kakapo. This is like the miracle on ice in 1980. This is the, this is the thing that in a, in a difficult time, this is what gives people hope that positive things can happen. Yeah. I love it. That's great. That is a very positive prediction. And I want to go, yeah, I need like some webcams set up so we can like watch the eggs hatch and everything else. Those exist. The Kakapo teams have very good online presence. That is awesome. And you should know that there's someone in the chat saying, Hey, I'm in New Zealand. This guy's right. He's like, he, so it's like the, the, the, the, the Kiwis know that they, it's like, you know, finally some guy, they finally have a guest on this podcast that really gets it. Um, so, uh, that's, that is, that's a good one. Uh, I hope someone just got bingo. That's right. Um, all right. Are we on to three years? Have I, uh, I've exhausted three years. Let's let's, let's do some three years. Um, why don't you start, Brian? You bring a big bag of predictions. Okay. So, um, I think that, um, that, uh, in three years will be a, uh, and I think this is that going to happen. I just don't think it's going to happen the next year. I think it'll, but I think it is going to happen. Um, a, uh, massive pivot away for a delineation between AGI and ASI and realizing that the whole idea of AGI is politically, it is a dead letter. It is not something that is for a democracy. And Simon, you said this last year about not wanting to live in a world where people didn't have work, right? People don't want to live in a world where there's not work. They did. They really don't. Work is very important to people's sense of meaning and any kind of claim that like we've done it, we've, we've built this kind of super intelligence and nobody needs to work again, I think is going to be really resisted. And I, and I think it's also, it's also helpful that it's not my personal opinion, not true. And so I think you're going to get a lot of a, the AGI is going to be the thing that we already have. And Oh no, ASI is the thing you're worried about. Well, no, no, we're not doing ASI. Who told you that? No, no, no, no, no. We are, our mission is to build AI, AGI. Good news. We already did that with chat GPT 5.2 already was AGI. So I had, I think that that's going to be in the next, in the next three years, they're going to stop talking about AGI as this kind of thing in the future that I can talk about something that's already done, but then super intelligence is going to go away as an aspiration. So what do you think? I love this prediction. The one thing that worries me is it's valuations, right? The AI companies with the giant valuations, the only way you justify those valuations is if it represents the, the, the total addressable market is all human labor and what are they going to, how do they dial their expectations back and, and not sort of invert the reason for that company existing? Well, I think that this is going to be part of the AI bust. So I think, I think in three years we are, we will see, and again, I mean, there's no doubt that the furniture models have tremendous value. There's, there's tremendous value here. There's no doubt about that. Um, but I think we will have boiled off a lot. And I think that the, we will be really looking at these things as tools in, in three years. That would be wonderful, wouldn't it? It would be wonderful. This is your utopian prediction. This is my utopian prediction. This is that like, look, the, the, like the, the, the, the parrots have the, the, you know, the, the, the, the cacopoo parrots have their, uh, extraordinary breeding season and that like humans have jobs. That's like, those are those that are the, the, the, the, the, the two feel good stories. In fact, there's so many parrots that people have to just like domesticate them. So that's right. New jobs. So, uh, that is among my three-year predictions. Um, Simon, do you, what are your, uh, what are your three years? Well, I've got one that's semi-related. Um, we will find out if the Jevons paradox saves our careers or not. Oh, there you go. Yeah. Yeah. This is a big question that anyone who's a software engineer has right now is we are driving the cost of actually producing working code down to a fraction of what it used to cost. Does that mean that our careers are completely devalued and we all have to learn to live on a 10th of our incomes? Or does it mean that the demand for software for custom software goes up by a factor of 10 and now our skills are even more valuable because you can hire me and I can build you 10 times the software I used to be able to, so I'm more valuable to you. And I think within, I think by three years we will know for sure which way that one went. Yeah. And so to give people contact about the Jevons paradox, the Jevons paradox is a 19th century did a Scottish economist, um, and who observed that as coal was becoming cheaper, more of it was being used. Um, and that, that would, and that was a paradox that like, why is it, why are we in the reason we were using so much more of it is because we were finding new uses for it. And the question is the Jevons paradox for, for software engineering would be as this becomes much cheaper, do we do much more of it? Right. So we're not putting people out of work because there's actually much more of it to do. Um, and the thing that is interesting about Jevons is that Jevons was that paper is called the coal problem because Jevons was not incorrectly very worried about running out of coal and what did not foresee at all was of course the discovery of petroleum and solving the coal problem in a completely different way. So it'd be interesting to know if, if we end up, um, but yeah, so you think in, so in three years we're going to know that. I think we will know, we'll be like, okay, this is how it played out. Yes. Yeah. One thing I love about the Jevons paradox is that Brian, you're the first person I've ever heard cited. And then in the years since I've heard you cite it, it's been cited increasingly more often. Like I feel like I see people reference the Jevons paradox like once every three months now when I'd like never heard of it five years ago. Yeah. So, you know, I, I'm Steve bless you for saying that. Um, I, um, I, whether it's, you know, whether Adam is putting you up to it or not be like watching him chomp down on this. He won't question this at all. He's like, you know, this guy loves the, the, the sycophancy of these LLMs. You just give him a, um, you know, I feel like I refer to the Jevons paradox actually in a, a keynote, like, like nine years ago. And I'm like, I feel, but I must've, I mean, obviously it's like, I mean, it's the, it's from the 19th century. So it's like, I was clearly can't claim that much credit for it. So anyway, but, but thank you. Simon also did his three year was like what I was trying to get at, but I couldn't figure out how to say it. And I said something that was much worse. So mine ended up being like using AI tools and writing software professionally is going to be considered something closer to auto-complete or syntax highlighting than something controversial, exceptional. And I was trying to like, I originally had something in there about the industry is going to figure out our existential crisis around these tools. And it's just going to be like one way or the other, but I couldn't like figure out how to put it. So like I was second, I think it was very well said Simon. Um, yeah. Well, and so I think that, that we, and Simon, I think it's a, it's a, it's a very good observation. I do think in dovetails into another three-year prediction that I've got, which is that the, uh, we see much more custom built software and much less SAS, so you get a lot of LLM generated or assisted software that's running effectively custom software. So, uh, you're, you're developing software to put in production for yourself and you kind of care less about the stuff that's like, well, you know, yes, that are maybe things that you would care about if you made this available as a service to the internet, which I actually don't care because I actually am. I, and cause one of the things that, I mean, when you, when people consume software as a service, especially like the more niche it gets, the more important it becomes to your business. And then the easier it is to have a real disconnect with your software provider. Um, and, um, I mean, Steve, when I, at Oxide, you were very much on the front lines of us replacing SAS software with software that Steve wrote, that was, I mean, Steve, you were LLM assistant, right? You're making heavy use of it. I started to write and then eventually Claude wrote all of it. Like it was very much like I started this before I even thought AI tools were good. And then by the end, uh, Claude was doing a lot of work. Uh, I think what, right before I left, we'd looked at it and like my personal AI usage was like the same as the rest of the company at the time or something like that. I think the bill or whatever. Uh, and I think it's gotten, it seems like y'all have used it even more since I've left, but like, yeah, absolutely. I think this is a definitely a huge thing. Um, there, I have several personal projects that are effectively just replacing, uh, you know, SAS tools with things that are bespoke for people. And it's, it's great, honestly. We, cause we're going to get, you're going to get like, Hey, my, my, my SAS vendor, they're, they're charging me too much money or you get like the case we have, like, actually I would gladly pay more money if you delivered us actually the software that we actually need. And in this case, it was for PLM product lifecycle management, but the, the, you know, you get these kind of esoteric, I mean, the not an esoteric is too strong, but you'd be these things that are very important to the way an organization operates that your software vendor just doesn't, they don't care about your software as much as you do. I mean, this is what, you know, that old adage that no one cares about your money like you do. Nobody cares about your software like you do. And I think that, um, the, the ability to custom to, to build custom software. Uh, and I think by the way, this is going to be a real source of, for you, we're going to have a lot of young people that thought they were going to be working for Google and Meta and, and, and so on that are maybe not going to be. Um, and they may instead be working in the kind of more mainstream economy, writing software, using LLMs to write software. That's very relevant to, you know, this ties back to something I talked about earlier, the sandboxing thing. If you want, basically if you're, if you want your SaaS to stay relevant, you need to embrace plugins and extensions where your customers can customize it in all sorts of interesting new ways that the way to do that with a sandbox where they can write code that can safely interoperate within your platform and not delete everything. But all of that kind of stuff, this is the kind of thing which used to be really difficult to build. Like Shopify built this a few years ago, right. The Shopify functions, but very few other companies have done it. I think a lot of companies are going to start doing exactly that. Yeah. Interesting. Uh, there are a ton of like industries that are normie industries where there's like 10 consultancies that make shitty software that professionals use. Cause those are the only 10 companies that know they're vertical. Like my girlfriend's a real estate agent. And like, when I look at like the tools and the SaaS tools that are useful for her, they're all garbage. And I've been using cloud to build her, uh, you know, website instead. And it's like way cheaper to just like pay the upstream for, you know, MLS for the data feed and then just, you know, have your own thing done. And it's like way nicer and way cheaper, uh, because like, and I think it's just so many industries that have very similar kinds of things where there's like the software that's made for professionals is just bad. Actually. The most successful implementation is patentable time is Salesforce, right? Salesforce, incredibly customizable dream force in San Francisco, 50,000 people attending it. They're all professional Salesforce customizers. So that patent absolutely works. It's just, it's really hard to build, which is why few companies other than Salesforce have built something with that patent. It's not successful. Yeah. Interesting. And yes, maybe, maybe Salesforce ends up being the, the, the kind of the, the victim of that, of people being able to build this stuff easily on their own. Uh, Adam, do you have a three year? Yeah, it actually packs into a similar theme. I was thinking, I think we're all thinking along the same lines in this three year horizon. And I've been thinking about some of the observations we've made in the past about, about, uh, standing on the shoulders of giants about how all of this software is enabled by all the software that came before it. Uh, and you know, I remember when we looked back at, um, what's that, that Microsoft, the showstopper book about the development of NT, you know, of seeing that as, as really maybe one of the last isolated systems, like systems that are not kind of participating in this larger open source, uh, network effect kind of thing. But I realized that LLM is like a benefit from open source without necessarily needing to use it directly. They benefit from all, all of it being out there. So, uh, I struggled to figure out how to phrase that in terms of like this kind of concept of like, everyone's going to build their own software. You don't need to use open source software. You can just build your own. So I kind of set that aside, but instead of my prediction is that we get a crisis of AI slop open source. So contributions projects that like creates.io is just inundated with this AI slop open source, uh, library and it becomes indecipherable. And so does it, does this, uh, how does this affect open source in the large? Does this make open source less tenable? I mean, is there, did these two trends combined? I mean, I think, yeah, the parlay I had there that I hesitated to make is that it makes proprietary software more attractive because you have a brand behind it, a person behind it, a throat to choke as it were behind it. Um, where, you know, it's not, you have some Providence associated with it. You have some quality associated with it. You know, it's not malware. Uh, and it helps sift through, uh, this, this AI slop onslaught. And organics movement, but for software, it's a certified human written code because, you know, Oh yeah, absolutely. Like the non GMO, uh, the repo. Absolutely. Yeah, definitely. Um, I, I, no, I, and so I think that you wonder, it's clearly, you need these foundational things though, to be open source in order for this whole thing. Python has to be open source for this whole thing to work, right? You, you need to have these kinds of foundational things that are open source. But it's maybe the, these further, or do you think that, that even those things do we are, do, do we see a return to proprietary programming languages? Although I guess actually we're using the rooms that the LMS invented for themselves. So yeah, that's right. That's right. It's a good question about programming languages, but I do think you see like the, the value of proprietary software or perhaps just like paid software, maybe still open, but licensed is getting providence and, uh, the sort of ancillary benefits that often come with paying for something. Interesting. I've got a new three year one. I think somebody will have built a web, a full web browser, mostly using AI assistance, and it won't even be surprising. It's a big, complicated system. Yes. So we will have- Notoriously complicated, like rolling a new web browser is one of the most complicated software projects I can imagine. Yeah. And specifically, the reason I think that's going to work is, it turns out one of the most effective ways of using a coding agent is to give it an existing test suite and tell it, write code that passes these tests. And in the past three weeks, I've done that for an HTML5 parser library. I span up a brand new implementation of HTML5 parser that passed the 9,200 HTML5 conformance tests. Yeah. And I did it for a JavaScript interpreter. Like, I've written a naughty little Python JavaScript interpreter that passes the MicroQuickJS test suite. And it wasn't very hard, because once it's got a test suite, it just keeps on plugging it in until all the tests pass. I think the browser specs are nearly at a point where a lot of these things- There are conformance suites, right? There's the CSS conformance suites. There's all of this stuff. Honestly, today, you could start one of these coding agents working on this problem, and it would make a surprisingly decent amount of progress. Three years' time, I think it's going to be easier. I think they'll be able to do it. Yeah, that's- And that, I mean, that would be interesting, right? If you can build a system that is that sophisticated. But it's the cheat- The cheat code is the conformance suite. If there are existing tests that you can point to that, it'll get so much easier. Yeah, and then that does allow you- I mean, that gets you out from underneath some of the homogeneity that we've got at various levels of the system, right? I mean, one of the questions we definitely have is what- And Simon, you and I are going back and forth on this about whether we're going to have- Is Cloud Code going to be writing kernel drivers, right? Where the loop is more complicated there. You don't have- Some of those things that you're talking about in the browser, you don't necessarily have for something like a device driver. Well, I don't know. With the device driver, it either works or it doesn't, right? Like you can- Oh, oh. There you go. This is my naivety with hardware showing up right now. I know. If you can reduce the problem to a thing where the agent, the coding agent itself, can tell if it got it right, it's easy. It's easy. If you can't, it's not easy. Yeah, and with the device driver, you can't, unfortunately. It is really, really hard. Because then you have all sorts- I mean, it's not just the edge conditions. You've got performance. It's complicated, I think, too. But I think for those things that you can get that kind of reliability, because the thing is, and I think I said this as much my one year, but just to be clear, when Adam said I was out of my mind about vibe coding going out of the Lexicon, but I think that certainly in my three year, we are going to be using LLMs to be more rigorous about the way we do software and sharing. Oh, yeah. That's a one year. Isn't that right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And I think that that's gonna be a big blip in general, where it's like, no, no, no, this is not coming to replace your job. This is coming to help you do your job better. Right. The thing today with LLMs, automated tests, no longer optional. Continuous integration, no longer optional. Good documentation that's actually up to date with code, no longer optional. And those things, like in the past, we've been able to excuse, oh, we don't have a good test suite yet because we didn't have time. That doesn't work anymore. You've got time now to run code code overnight and you'll wake up to a test suite and it'll be a bit shit, but it's better than zero. Yeah, right. Yeah, God, it's just amazing, this new world we live in. I've been wondering lately, if like one thing that has a really good test suite is the Rust compiler. And I've been working on a little programming language for the last two weeks, and I've gotten way farther than I ever expected to, partially because I went spec first, and that's how this like sort of dovetails into that. But I've been thinking about like, should it have just been a Rust compiler instead of my own little language? Because like there is so many tests for the Rust compiler. It's like, they've done a very great job with that. And I'm really curious if that's something similar to like, I'm gonna build this HTML5 thing, I'm gonna build a JavaScript implementation. Like, is someone going to make a Rust C? So. So here's a fun one. I think it's now easier than ever to introduce a new protocol into the world if you ship a conformance suite. Yeah. Like release a conformance suite and boom, overnight you'll have libraries in half a dozen languages because the conformance suite is the majority of the work. Yeah, interesting. And then you also make it, when you do that, you make it much more readily adoptable by other LLMs. You make it like, it's like. It overcomes the problem that it's not in the training data and people are sort of kind of nervous that you could never launch a new program language now because it's not in the training data. But the context lengths are big enough now that if you can get it into a test suite and fit the examples and how to use it in 10,000 tokens, it doesn't matter that it's not in the training data. Yeah. Ian, we got you up here. And I probably should have gotten you, if you have any one year or three years, but you've got such a great track record that we look to you as our Nostradamus. Maybe you just strongly agree with me that vibe coding is going out of the lexicon, but. I, I. I'll take that laugh. Adam, that laughter is noted. That's derisive laughter. Yeah. I feel like the only way that vibe coding leaves the lexicon is if the older generation makes the term uncool. So the younger generation comes up with a new term that is cooler than vibe coding. What he's saying is you have a big lever. I know, I've done this before. I know how to, it's like, it's like, no, it isn't. Come on, kids. Isn't that hella cringe? It's like, dad, dad, dad, please stop. Stop. So yes, Ian. Just watch me vibe this up. I'm vibing right now. Yeah, that's right. I'm just like you guys. I'm just vibing this up. Like, okay, we need another term. We need another term for this guy. Don't kill my vibe. That's right. So I do have a few predictions. On the one year, I have demand outstrips supply for Waymo rides from San Francisco airport. And the way that I measured that will be wait times greater than 10 minutes. Yeah, interesting. That's a great, that's a great prediction because Simon, you said this a couple of years ago that the absolute cheapest tourist attraction in San Francisco is a Waymo. Oh, yeah. It still is. It's 10 bucks. You get to go in a self-driving car. It's the best. Right, it's like, why wouldn't I wait 10 minutes for a Waymo? It's like, I'm waiting, I'm gonna wait for 10 minutes for the Pirates of the Caribbean. Why would I not wait? Interestingly, I don't think it's worn off. For me, it hasn't worn off. I've been riding Waymos for a year and a half. I still get that little like frisson of glee when I get in a Waymo and it sets off on its own. Yeah, well, and I actually saw, I was in the, apparently it's pretty tight, like cordoned in the mission where the Zooks are riding around. And yeah, and it's all right. And I was trying to get on the Zooks, you know, I'm on the Zooks wait list. What it is, it's enticing. You're like, I wanna actually, I wanna get in that. So, Ian, great prediction. Is that a one-year prediction, Ian? Or was that, what's the? Yeah, that's a one-year prediction because they should be launching the Rides for Mesa for the general public this year. I have a second one-year prediction. So friend, as in friend.com, I think they will have under 10,000 activated devices at the end of the year, well under 10,000, but that's probably a conservative prediction. When activated devices, someone has bought the thing and has actually sent at least one message to it. What is friend.com? Oh my. Oh, okay, yeah, what? Go on. Okay, Brian has not been to New York City this year. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Is that right? Oh, so Brian has had a very large- Oh, before you explain it to me, Adam, I noticed you've been a little bit quiet. Do you, I think Adam, Adam also does not know what friend.com is. Oh. And he is relieved that I'm hooking myself- Friend.com-ing for forever. No, no, no, I love one of them. I love friend.com and I use it the way that one conventionally uses it. Just like normal, just normal. Just like normal, like all the way you other folks use it. Anyway, go on, I'll let them explain how we all use it together. Tell Father Time here how you use it. Tell Father Time. Tell Fuddy McDuddy Duddy how we actually, how all the rest of us use this. Yeah, I was kidding. Well, this is great. We have a yes, yes, no, no on this one. We do have a yes, yes, no, no. Yeah, so tell me about friend.com. Yeah, so friend.com had a large Subway ad presence this year in New York City, but also in Chicago. And I think they did a campaign in LA. The New York City ad campaign was not well-received. Many of the advertisements were defaced by the New York City public. To the degree that there was a picture on, I saw of someone went as the friend.com advertisement for Halloween. So they printed up a sweater of the friend.com advertisement and handed out Sharpies so people could deface their Halloween costumes similar to the ads in the Subway. Hey, you know what? I got to hand it to you, New York. This is a very Bay Area thing you all are doing out there. Where are we? You know, that's great. That is really terrific. Okay, so what is it? It's actually defaced. It is a AI companion. It is a $129 pendant that has a microphone that connects to your phone. And it uses the microphone that could have just been the microphone in your phone, but isn't for some reason, to send messages to a AI companion which can respond to you by sending you, I think it talks through the phone to you. So it is kind of AI chatbot psychosis as a service or something. Right. Jewelry. That's true. All right, so this is like in the vein of the Rabbit R2 or the HumanePen. And this is yet another AI wearable. That sounds like it's, and so you say destined for, I'm really sorry that I didn't get a chance to enjoy this whole ride, but thank you Ian for, so you say less than 10,000 devices. That's a three year prediction. Okay. That's a one year prediction, but yeah, I mean, you're not going to get to 10. The three year would be that I'm pretty sure this company is going to flame out, but the one year is that this ad campaign does not really move the needle for them as a company. Oh my God, that ad just, and that's the kind of thing where it's like, I know, cause I'm basically like a rule biter. And when I am tempted to deface things, it's like when I'm tempted to like run over that, the security bots, those little cones that Whopper that Samsung had that would run around and beep at you. I'm like, you know, I think that I want to throw you into the ditch means that you are, I mean, that's like, this is bad news for you. Well, this is Brian, why I think you claiming that this is like the, what's something, this would never happen in the Bay area. Bay area people are rule followers to a much greater degree. This is a New York phenomenon. Oh yeah, yeah. No, no. I love the rebellion here. And then Ian, do you have some three years here? Yeah. So for the three year, I was thinking about the Windows 10 end of life, and the claims of the year of the Linux desktop. And my three year prediction is kind of an anti on that, where the prediction is Windows is still above 90% on the Steam hardware survey as of December, 2028. Okay. And that's a good one or a grim one. I'm not sure. Are you counting that as utopian or dystopian? I think it's- I think that it's, well, here's the thing. I think that Linux has gone from less than 1% to over 3% on the Steam hardware survey in the previous six years, driven largely in part by Steam first party hardware. So the Steam deck in particular, but also just Linux usage in general has gone up. I think the Linux usage is going to go up in the next three years, but I still think that Windows is going to remain pretty dominant within that hardware survey. So that means that like they may go from 95 to like 92 or something, and Linux is going to grow up to about 5%. But I suspect that the people who think that people are going to go out and replace their Windows 10 devices with a Linux machine or install Linux on their existing device to avoid buying a new device, kind of a little optimistic about how much work people want to put into their computing. I mean, can you imagine going back in a time machine and being like, oh, this is a year of the Linux desktop, pal, we're going to have computers writing software in production before we have, sorry, we are, this is, although I have used, I have tried to use ChatGPT and LLMs more generally on Linux audio problems. What's interesting is that it's actually not that helpful, that it's the, I mean, they tell you the things that, you know, I never, it's Linux. Linux audio is still undefeated is what I'd like to say. Part of the real struggle here is the kernel level anti-cheat, which is like basically necessary for some genres of game that will just never happen with Linux. And so that's like, I don't know, some of this is about like the relative market size of those markets versus other ones, like I will never not use Windows because all the games I want to play effectively require kernel level anti-cheat to run. And so it just, they're not going to ever work on Linux. The, hey, Adam, you know, this podcast has really arrived because my 13 year old daughter is texting me predictions that she has during the episode. Wow. And you know what, I can say- That changes our whole demographic in so many ways. This apple didn't fall far from the tree. She thinks this is going to be a major scandal involving Apple in the next three years. So I, you know what, don't ask any follow-up questions. She also said that she thought that the open AI guy was going to go to jail, she told me. And I'm like, Sam Altman, she's like, I don't know who that is. I'm like, that's the open AI guy. That's who you think is going to go, so sure. Sam Altman, if you're listening to this, please send us a cease and desist because we have that as a goal for the show. Okay, let's go on to six years. Are we ready for some six years here? Yeah. Simon, what do you got for us? I've just got the one. I think the act of, the job of being paid money to type code into a computer will go the same way as punching punch cards. Okay. I think in six years time, I do not think anyone will be paid to just do the thing where you type the code. Just type the code. Okay. I think software engineering will still be an enormous career. I just think the software engineers won't be spending multiple hours of their day in a text editor typing out syntax. It will look like punching cards. I think so, yeah. Yeah, interesting. In six years. But software engineering still very much exists. I believe so. I hope so. I very much hope so. Because I think the challenge of being a software engineer is not remembering what for loops look like. It is understanding what computers can do and how to turn fuzzy human requirements into actual like working software. And that's what we're for. And I think we'll still be doing that just a lot more of it in a lot more ambitious scale. And then, okay, does the software engineer though deals with code? I mean, the code is being written. I think they probably look at it occasionally. Okay, only occasionally. Yeah, a little bit. So I met- Who debugs it? I hate to say it, but the agents debug it themselves. Okay, who debugs your device driver that either works or doesn't? Working on this program, I'm doing my own code gen and Cloud is happy to pull out GDB and just debug the programs that it generates and why the binary is wrong and then backfill that into why the compiler is wrong. It's better than I am, frankly. This is- Maybe it's more about me than anything else, but it's a thing that it can do now. This is a really interesting thing I've been seeing just in the past three months around coding agents is that four months ago, I was absolutely on team. You cannot commit a line of code that you have not read, reviewed, and understood that these things are written for you. That's just irresponsible to do that. I'm edging away from that a little bit because it turns out the art of using these effectively is get them to prove to you that the thing they've written has worked. The same way it's like when you're working in a company, you don't review every line of code that another team has written your team depends on, but you do talk to that team and you make sure that they are making a convincing case to you that the code works well and they've tested and they've covered the bases and so forth. It's a similar kind of thing and it's so uncomfortable. Like- It is. It's starting to give me the early onset of what they call deep blue. Yeah. I- I- Yes. So, but I mean, you cheered me up at the end there, that there is still a role for software engineers. Adam, do you have a six year? Yeah, I have a couple. Dovetailing on your daughter's prediction, I predict that the cell phone business is drying up because people are keeping their devices longer. So Apple has several new attempts for what the next flagship thing is going to be. Oh man, that's a good prediction. That's interesting. I have like almost the opposite prediction written down here. I had phones remain the most popular form factor for personal computers in terms of units sold in the trailing 12 months. Because yeah, but I do think this longevity thing is a real, real, real issue. That these, I mean, you've already begun to see this where people are like, why am I getting the latest iPhone again? Like the camera's already awesome. And I actually, I care more about battery life. I care about like, is it waterproof? I mean, I care about other things that, so, all right, so Adam, how does this, I guess this, does this happen after the major scandal in the next three years? I don't know. Yeah, that's like, no, terrific. It must be on the heels of that scandal, yes. Or maybe the, maybe the scandal, maybe this is somehow wrapped up in the scandal. Maybe the scandal is that they are, that they're scandalously entering a new business or what have you. No, I think that, that it's got Apple, but Apple's got a ton of capital. So they could go, you know, they could- They could do a bunch more Apple Vision Pros. Yeah. Well, they, yeah, so Ian, do you feel that, because you say this is on devices sold, it's still good. So you think that the phones are gonna still find ways to differentiate? Or- I just, I just think that there's, I kind of have the opposite view, in that I think that, I think the phone sales may not go up, but they're still just going to dominate in terms of units sold. And there's no other form factor that has emerged that is more popular as a personal computing device. Yeah, I don't, I don't think those are incompatible, Ian. I think what, I think, you know, phones going down, it still could be the most popular form factor, and folks could be desperately, Apple in particular, desperately trying to figure out what the next thing is going to be. Okay. Could I tag a prediction onto that, which is that if phones are not the most popular form factor, I think it's going to be the neural link device of some sort. Oh, here we go. So you think the neural link in six years, is this how- No, I don't think it's going to happen. Okay. But if phones- Okay, if phones, if not phones. If not phones, it has to be that. Notice. Because all of the other form factors, the little bracelets and things you talk to, that's all garbage. Nobody wants to talk out loud to their computer in public. Right, right. But if you can think to your computer in public, that's the thing that could knock the phone off its pedestal. And it will be the leadership of the Pope, of the papacy, that tells us that we get the, leading the way with the neural implant. Okay, interesting. There's a curse prediction that's a mixture of all of these, which is of course, appleacquiresfriend.com. And it's less than 10,000 devices. I have a second device prediction for six years, which was, I predict that more Macs are sold in the trailing 12 months than any smart glasses or AI companion devices. This in the trailing of six years. So in five years, you've got more Macs than anything else. Yeah, so it's like when the six years is up, we look back in the previous 12 months. It's like, hey, it's all laptops. It's laptops and phones. It's the same. Yeah, I'm saying that the laptops, well, specifically Macs. So it's not actually the laptops, it's the Mac line, because I think that's the only thing that you can get number of units on roughly. to get sold than any smart glasses or AI companion devices. And I'm saying Mac specifically, like I think that, you know, laptops is definitely going to be, is bigger than Macs. I'm saying that like these smart glasses and AI companion devices are just not a real volume seller at all. Yeah, I totally agree. To any like real degree. Yeah, I totally agree with that. So I'm going to say that the DSM adds LLMs as a contributing factor to psychosis. The same way the DSM treats LLMs, the way it treats kind of like cocaine, where you can have- I've done a lot in the early days of the profession and then looked back as a mistake of having done that. Well, no, cause I think, I mean, we are, you said the lobsters issue earlier. I think that we are, we are going to have an increasing number of incidents of LLMs resulting in psychotic behavior. Okay, has the DSM got anything about social media in right now? So right now they do have the on like internet gaming, for example, and they, but I think this is going to be more, this is going to be faster than internet gaming. Cause I think that where gaming is looking more at social isolation and some kind of modicum of dependency versus like, no, no, you, like the LLM got you to do something that you would not have otherwise done, that you had this delusion that, you know, that your mother was involved in a global conspiracy and you burned down your house. You're betting against the AI labs being able to tamp the stuff, which I think is a fair bet. I think it's more than I'm like, I'm just betting on crazy in that. Like, I think that like you can't, there's no amount of safety that you can put in place that allows these things to be used and not at some, I don't know that they will be liable. I think it's going to be more like for, for diagnosticians to be aware of like, Hey, if you're talking to a patient, like do they have this kind of idea because of the LLM, have they been having conversations with their LLM about this? I mean, it feels like we need this today. Oh no, I think we do. I think that this, I think that the reason I was saying earlier at the top, I was struggling with six-year predictions, the DSM moves slowly. So that's why I, that's why this is a six-year prediction and not a one-year prediction. And this is well beyond deep blue at this point. This is, this is well beyond deep blue. That's exactly, well no, cause this is not like a feeling of on we. I got it. It's delusion. It's a delusion. It's a psychosis thing. It's a psychosis thing. And I, again, we, we have already seen this. We, and I think we will, and it's an accelerant. It's like, it's like substance abuse. You've got people that can have a, that can use substances without actually developing this kind of psychosis. And then others that, that develop a real psychosis around it. And I think that we'll see the DSM become aware of that. So I think, I think you will also have, you will have, I think actually in three years, but certainly in six, you were going to have people trying to use as a legal defense. The LLM made me do it. I didn't, I'm not blaming the actual frontier model. I'm actually, it's the, the LLM that, that did gin me up and talked me into doing this, doing this, this illegal act, whatever it might be. Are they also going to use it for the stock buyers? Are they going to be like, the LLM told me to buy the stock. I didn't use any insider information to be able to, to trade on it. Absolutely. Absolutely. The, this is, you know, the, the kiddie did it is what the, we went with the, with the, you know, when you got the toddlers, the, everyone blaming the LLM. I know, absolutely. The LLM told me to buy the stock. Oh, actually, if I should, I forgot one of my three years. I do think ads are going to enter LLMs. I, I, and I think that you're, and I think it's going to be an issue where we. Like product placement? Be like, you know what would go great with this recipe is a Coca-Cola. I think product placement in where you are actually either putting your thumb on the scale of what, of the output or getting more of the input. So the, cause I mean, you think about like the view that these chatbots have on the kinds of questions that we're asking. And boy, if you were developing, you know, if you were in marketing or you're developing a product, wouldn't you love to know what people are searching? Right. And it feels like it's like, that's something you would pay for. And it's something that, you know, it's like, I think these guys will sell it to you in post the AI bust that I'm predicting roughly in three years. So, you know, I did all my, all my predictions try to hang together. Chat GPT knows when you're pregnant because you tell them. Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. The old adage of like, I think it was like Target, right? That famously knew. Famously? Apparently that wasn't real. The target guessed someone was pregnant from their poaching habits. Apparently that doesn't hold up. That makes, yes. That's a relief. Cause that didn't make, that kind of didn't pass the smell test at the time. So, and then. Are you saying that like the chat GPT equivalents are going to integrate as, as a first party, or are you taking a like SEO black hat view of like people are going to work out how to get their data into the training data such that when someone asks what the best laundry detergent is, then the model will spit back. Oh, it's definitely Tide and you should not use any other brand. I was not predicting the latter, but I think the latter is a great prediction. So I think that they, I strongly concur with the latter, but I think that we're, I think there's going to be a need, like they're going to be other kind of commercial vectors here. Some of which ultimately it's going to be ads at some level. It's going to be getting you to buy product. Adam, did you have other, other six years? Yes. I think you're going to like this one too, even though it sounds insane as I read it. I think Tesla is going to be out of the consumer car business. I think they're going to be selling batteries. I think they're going to be selling fleets, but I think that they are not going to be selling to individuals and their numbers are like down year over year for the last two or three years. And I think that's going to continue. Do they sell whatever the plural of Optimus is? Is that Optimi? What is the plural of Optimus? The Tesla bots? Are, does that, does that ever come to fruition? Is that what they sell? Oh, uh, sure. Yes. It's, it's, it's, it's bots. Yes. It's theirfriend.com. It's theirfriend.com. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. But I love this prediction, obviously. But battery, I mean, batteries is already a big part of their business and arguably the cars are batteries and then, and fleets. Okay. So they are out of the consumer car business. Yep. I do love that one. Yeah. I'm going to add that NVIDIA's peak valuation in six years, we will see was in 2025. So I think we are past NVIDIA. This is not stock. This is not investment advice, although this one is definitely, if you think it is investment advice and you act on it, if you could please send us a cease and desist, we'd appreciate it. Yeah, exactly. Vlad, if you're listening to this, please put all your money into shorting NVIDIA. That's right. I think that, and this is not a slight on NVIDIA. I think that the valuation is, it's simply too high and there's too much competition, too much, there are too many things. I mean, we talked about Gemini last year and I mean, Gemini not trained on NVIDIA GPUs. I'm saying that there's just too much out there. Too many headwinds ultimately for them for that valuation. I think it's absolutely a going concern and a well-executing business. This dovetails into one of my predictions too, maybe justifies it. But I say in six years, Jensen hands over the reins at NVIDIA and to his successor CEO, maybe on the back of the dwindling stock. And is that CEO Pat Gelsinger? No, I think he's focused on his faith-based startup. It's his faith-based LOM startup, yeah. I mean, he'll be like 68 or 69. Jensen, yeah. Is that right? Yeah. Yeah, I mean, almost 70-year-old man who has infinite wealth decides to retire, does not seem. Sure, okay, bet against it, that's fine. But look at like Morris Chang, who at age I don't even know is still going strong. Or Larry Ellison. Yeah, I was gonna go Piero Lamond, but yeah, Larry Ellison, fine. Sully this podcast. Sorry. Steve, give me six years. My six year is boring, but it's funny because it shouldn't be boring. Which is AI will have not caused the total collapse of our economic and governmental systems. You know, that's a very optimistic prediction. That's great. Yeah, yeah. I'm choosing to be optimistic here, I think, anyway. I mean, you know, there's some ways in which that could be a pessimism and not an optimism, but I'm gonna say that humanity's gonna be okay. You didn't predict that economic collapse wouldn't happen. You specifically said that LLMs are not gonna be the only way it happens. By AI, yes, correct. Yeah, yeah. I think we're gonna figure it out. And I think that a lot of the anxiety right now and worry about it is anxiety and worry, and this humanity is resilience, and change is gonna happen, but we'll be okay. It's gonna be fine. And this is the affirmation tape that you listen to when you're beginning to suffer from deep blue. This is the, you, Steve Klavnik reads, you put your headset on as you're going to sleep, and everything's gonna be okay. I had a very optimistic 2025, and so I think I'm gonna try to, I'm trying to continue that into the future. We'll see. That is great. Adam, do you have any other six years, or are we gonna end on the optimistic note? Let's end on the optimistic note. Translation, I do have another six year, but it's way too grim. Well, that's good. I think that, you know, I think we, you know, a common theme from this year, I would say, is the LLMs really transitioning into a useful tool into the hands of practitioners. I think that they, that and the demise of friend.com, I would say are the two big themes. And the rise of the capital. Absolutely. I'm gonna go check out the parrot. I'm gonna go check out the parrot. As long, if I learned that the parrots are vibe coding, I'm gonna be very upset, because that's gonna run contrary to my, to my one year prediction. All right, well, this has been great. Thank you all for joining us. If you do have predictions, and I'm actually gonna, the, Mike Caffarella joined us last year. He could not join us this year, Adam, and sent me some of his predictions. So I'm gonna drop those into the chat. So we've got those on the record. If you do have any predictions, get those in the record, and we'll have PRs open as well. You can get PRs in there. But we thank you all for your predictions. We've said before, predictions tell us much more about the present, we think, than about the future. But I don't know, maybe these will, maybe this year is the exception, and we're gonna learn a lot more about the future. I do think Deep Blue has got, I mean, it's very good, Adam. I mean, it's really, yeah. It's got legs. If people have predictions, whether you're listening live right now, or on YouTube, or on the podcast, if you go to the show notes on GitHub, if you wanna drop your predictions in, it'll give us an opportunity to review them in one, three, and six years. So feel free to submit a PR. Awesome. Thanks everybody, and here's to a great and hopeful 2026. Let's go check out the parrots.