Anthropic valuation rumors, Microsoft CoreAI, NotebookLM upgrades, and AI agents in finance

Anthropic valuation rumors, Microsoft CoreAI, NotebookLM upgrades, and AI agents in finance

Show Video

What would you do with $2 billion?  Chris Hay is as a distinguished engineer and CTO of customer transformation,  Chris, as always, welcome back to the show.  What would you do with $2 billion? Spend it all on bitcoin and tell people  I'm training AI. Okay, great.  Kaoutar El Magrahoui is Principal Research Scientist and a Manager  at the AI Hardware Center, Kaoutar. Welcome back.  $2 billion. So, what would you do?  Well, it's a lot, and there is alot I can do with it. One of the first  things is philanthrop and social impact, I would love to help with that  Vyoma Gajjar is an AI  technical solutions Architect. 

Vyoma, what would you do with $2 billion? I would back to my roots and become   a farmer again. Own loads of land,   land, land. And then revolutionize the entire field of agriculture.  Terrific. All that and more on today's  mixture of experts. I'm Tim Hwang, 

and welcome to Mixture of Experts. Each week, MoE is the place to tune  in, to hear the news and analysis of the biggest headlines  and trends in artificial intelligence. Today, we're going to talk a little bit  about a new CoreAI group at Microsoft. We're going to talk about, 

some new features coming to NotebookLM and a little bit about agents in finance.  But first I really wanted to talk about $2 billion.  So we had some rumors that just popped up, just this week. 

That Anthropic is set to raise $2 billion at a $60 billion valuation.  And that follows on news from December, where xAI raised  $6 billion at a $45 billion valuation. Obviously,  the market is really, really hot. Continues to be really, really crazy.  I guess maybe, Chris, I'll turn it to you. First is for our listeners. 

You know, that's just a staggering amount of money.  What do you use that money for? Even like what?  What is this money being raised for? Why or why are these companies needing  so much money? I think the quick version of this is.  It's an arms race at the moment. It's an arms race for talent. 

So, you know, it's not like the researchers are getting paid  a small amount of money, so they've got to be paid,  and they're pulling their best talent from folks like Google, OpenAI, etc..  So it's just the cost of the researchers. And then obviously the cost of the GPUs.  So and it's one of these races where if you're not spending the money,  you're not going to be able to train the models,  and then you're just going to be out of the race.  So I think they they've got to keep racing just to be in that race. 

Yeah, absolutely. Vyoma, I think one question that I have with  all of this is like it's it's pretty hard to raise $2 billion,  much less $6 billion on the xAI case. I don't know, I think one result of this,  I don't know if you agree. It does seem to me that, like,  is this becoming kind of a two player game in terms of, you know, the ability  to train these massive, massive models? Like, are we going to end up with largely  it just being OpenAI and Anthropic? believe that  somewhere that these players have a huge market share right now. 

But I don't feel that they are the ones who are going to rule.  Forever. The smaller models,  the smaller industries are also taking up people who are more domain specific  and building more domain specific models are also being entertained  by the clients across. So I feel over here, as Chris mentioned,  it's an arms race right now, and I feel a majority  of all of these infrastructure, changes that are going to take place  would need a lot of money going into them. So we'll just have to wait it out  and see what goes around. Yeah. I think it's kind of intriguing.  Yeah. I mean what you're saying is basically 

like you're sort of saying these companies can raise so much money.  They're the leaders in the space. But it's unclear whether or not that  will allow them to retain their leadership in the market,  which is which is pretty intriguing. And I guess, Kaoutar,  do you agree with that? The kind of this is in some ways  maybe kind of like an interesting, ironic situation  where the two biggest companies are going to be raising the most money,  but in some ways are maybe the most vulnerable. 

Yeah, definitely. I think this level of funding, can signal  also to other AI firms the level of resources  needed to stay competitive. So leading to a cascade of investments  and potential consolidation in this space. So it's definitely, you know, an arms  race, like, you know, everyone said here, and, you know,  this is, you know, some of these companies will be shaping the AI industry. 

So this is a rivalry in in AI industry fostering this rapid advancements in  both capabilities, ethical considerations. For example, Anthropic has a niche market  here, especially with safety. And you know, they carved out,  you know, a niche emphasizing safety and alignment,  which resonates with governments and enterprises  concerned about AI and its safety. While, for example, open  AI is mostly focus on the broad utility. But, you know, this doesn't mean that  they're the only, you know, key players that's going to be kind of a two, arms race.  There are others, and especially with the push like Vyoma,  you know, mentioned with the smaller models, we will see. 

You know, I think it's still too early to predict what's going to happen.  So there is also a big push for smaller models that are doing  pretty well also, especially in domain, specific cases.  Right. And those, you know,  also will have a key role. But I think what this is 

showing is there is massive investments right now happening.  And most likely Anthropic will double down on their R&D,  which is going to be great, you know, for in terms of the capabilities  that they're going to unleash, the development that they will do.  So more innovations is going to happen in the space.  But, also a lot happening in the open source,  which will help also others catch up or even come up with some revolutions  here. Yeah. For sure. Chris.  Maybe I'll turn it back to you. You know you're nodding when Vyoma was  kind of giving her hot take on all this. There's a great book that came out 

from Stripe Press called boom. By these guys,  Brynn Hobart and Tobias Huber. And kind of they make the argument  that, like, there are good bubbles, basically, which is that, like,  you know, you can imagine a world where, like, all of these resources  kind of flood into the space and like the companies  that are leading and, you know, driving  this may not be the ultimate winners,  but it's not like a count against the technology.  It's almost kind of like what's needed in order  for like the next generation tech to emerge.  And it sounds like it sort of  seems like from your head gestures, I guess, that you sort of agree  with the idea that, like, these may be the leading companies, but  they might not ultimately own the future. Like we not might not end up in a world 

where it's like these two companies are the end all, be all for all AI. I think the caution I would have is that these companies are in competition  with their investors. And that is probably  an interesting dynamic. And we've seen that play out already,  fairly publicly. So I think it's how that competition,  whether it's a coopetition or whether it's, true competition plays out.  And and if you really think about those companies,  they've made great strides and their own AI capabilities are absolutely huge. 

Now, like the, Microsoft five four model, for example, is a great model,  the new Amazon, Nova models, etc. they are making great strides.  And and when you start to look, you know, the  hyperscalers investing in, their own AI and then,  you know, as we're going to talk a little bit later on in the show about,  how AI is going to be embedded across their entire organization,  is it really going to be a space for those companies to exist?  And I think that then opens up, they need  to establish their own platforms. And we clearly see that  from those companies, right? With the, things like the operators, etc.,  the more generic platforms. So we're going to get this push  between platforms. And, and I think that tension's 

going to be interesting. And that's why do they survive or not?  The only way they're going to survive is to keep being in that race  and keep being ahead. Because if they fall behind,  then are they going to keep getting that money  and then they're just going to fall at. Yeah. No, I think that's right.  Maybe a final question before I move to the next topic.  You know, Chris, you you kind of alluded to this.  When you're explaining, you know, why it is that you need $2 billion, $6 billion. 

And I think there's kind of two things you lined out.  One was researchers super expensive. And then the other one was, hardware,  of course, super expensive as well. And, you know,  I think this kind of interesting question here is like,  you know, does that spend go 50/50? Is it going to balance out over time,  or are we going to spend less on talent over time  and more on compute? I guess Vyoma I'm kind of curious  about what you think a little bit about. That is like, you know,  I just kind of think about the balance sheet of these companies and,  you know, they've raised the money. So they have these chips  and they have to decide, you know, do they put it more against talent  or they put more against compute scarcity? You think those economics will  sort of change over time or, you know, if one will dominate over the other. 

I think the future would be. How do we easily and properly  strategically balance all of these? As whatever you said above,  the race is actually to dominate over this entire AI ecosystem  that everyone's building and this everyone wants to kind of  have their beak into this. And I feel one of the  main things that I feel, and this is this is some sort of an indirect control  that all of them want or like the pace of innovation.  Imagine the amount of money that you put in that much compute  you have that much access to researchers you have.  If you put out such kind of, investments. And then this comes in the news.  The news picks it up. The talent around you also is more like, 

favoring you as well. I'm like,  wow, no, Andrew Monks is doing this. So it's kind of a two way street here.  They are putting this out so that they get more talent.  So it's a balance. I won't say that 

50% is going to go to this or 30 or for no one has strike that balance yet.  Everyone's learning on the go. So yeah, we'll have to wait and see.  I was thinking of this and I was thinking, what if?  Because as I mentioned, that the government is saying that,  you need to have more regulations, rules, etc., that's what anthropic is doing. And  is he OpenAI working more on democratizing the entire application space?  What if the government pushes them too much like the AI That's right.  Yeah. The balance is going to be really,  I think really interesting to see. I mean I think there's two things 

I think a little bit about. One of them is  of course having a lot of compute is, is of course its own recruiting ploy  where you're like, oh, well, the only over, the only place in the world  where you can run pre-training runs that are this big.  There's also this kind of funny thing where at least in a lot of the circles  I run and there's a lot of discussion about, you know,  I eventually automating AI research, and I kind of wonder whether or not  that will also be super interesting advantage over time,  which is I have just more compute. So it's kind of fungible, weirdly,  with my researchers over time. Cause I know, you know, you work in a day 

in, day out on the hardware side. I don't know if I'm just kind of,  you know, speaking out of school, but curious about what you think  about that argument. interesting. Dynamics here.  And, of course, I mean, we've seen the work on the AI, like super  the scientist, the AI scientist, which was very interesting.  So in terms of the balance between the, you know, the hardware and,  the researchers, I think it's going to vary in certain areas.  We might have more capabilities that where AI is actually innovating  in this space, but others we might still need, you know, human minds  and a lot of research and to to improve things and to innovate.  And I think if you look at the set some scenarios for the future, I  see kind of three scenarios, having someone  actually like, an equal poly where you have companies like anthropic,  OpenAI, Google and a few others dominate due to massive resources and partnerships. 

The second scenario where open ecosystems, once you have open source  and decentralized, that will flourish, undermining proprietary leaders.  And the third scenario could be fragmentation by region  or industry or countries where different players lead in different  geographies or sectors due to regulations, computer access or specializations.  So these are kind all possible scenarios. Or we could have a hybrid approaches  across these these scenarios. And what's the right balance  I think that's a tricky question here. It will have to wait and see. 

So I'll move us to our next segment today. You know, I think the joke I always use  is that there's actually three constants in life.  There's death, taxes, and then corporate reorganizations.  And that's what we saw this past week. Satya Nadella, who's the CEO of Microsoft, 

announced, that once again, there is a sort of new unit  within Microsoft that will be working on AI.  And it will be called the core AI group. It'll be led by Jay Parikh,  who is, the head of a cybersecurity startup called lacework and was the former  global head of engineering, at meta. And he'll be taking over a new unit  that will build the end to end Copilot and AI stack for our first party  and third party customers to build and run  AI apps and agents. So I think this is actually  really interesting on a couple of levels. You know, I think one of them is, 

you know, just kind of like how a company organizes  to effectively compete. And I really does  still seem to be like an open question. I think this is like the second or third  kind of shuffling of the pack within Microsoft  around, how to deploy AI technologies. And I'm, I'm really kind of wanting  to get this group to talk a little bit about this  because I think, like it is one of the missed questions, right,  is that you have these giants of AI that are deploying huge systems and  advancing the cutting state of the art. But I think almost internally,  there's like this kind of interesting question  that all these companies are trying to work out, which is  how do we like organize ourselves to compete most effectively in the space?  And maybe, Chris, I'll kind of turn it to you.  You know, I'm kind of curious about like from your vantage point, you know, not  just seeing what you're at seeing at IBM, but also across other companies. 

Like, how do you think that's evolving over time?  Do you think there's any best practices emerging?  Just curious to get your thoughts on that. Yeah.  I think this is a really interesting move. And I think it's a story of integration.  Really? So, you know,  Microsoft's put Copilots everywhere, but if we think about the Microsoft  estate, right, you've got Azure, which is their cloud platform,  which is their core infrastructure. You've got the operating systems.  And then you go to office, you got vs code etc., all the dev division,  and you need that to be an integrated play that where AI is part of everything.  Otherwise it's going to look like a bunch of disjointed paperclips  are just going to appear at random points throughout all product. 

So I think that's probably the first part here  is, is how does this look like an end to end platform?  And I think it needs to be an end to end platform  because you're going to have agents kicking around.  I said agents At this point, I think you're like.  You're racing to it. Like. Yes. It's a little bit of a competition  now where it's like, Chris is always going to be the first one  to mention it, but. Sorry, sorry. Go ahead.  actually if you're going to have like I mean we were talking about  OpenAI operator and we were talking about a kind of cloud  control in the browser, etc.. Then if you've got agents 

kicking around at that point and it's more deeply ingrained  into the operating system and the applications  that needs to be monitored in the same way as you monitor things  within the OS, right? You need to have that governance.  You need to have that safety elements and make sure  that from a security perspective, you're not going to have bad  actors come in and then start invoking this.  So this is really needs to be an end to end play. 

Otherwise it's going to feel like a very disjointed strategy.  So actually I think what Microsoft is doing  there is and actually we need to, crosscut the organization here  and run to a strategy and embed AI everywhere, but  then build that into an overall end to end AI platform.  I think it's a very, very smart strategy. And whether the way they've organized it, 

the details are kind of like at the moment is the right organization.  But I think take an integrated organization approach is really  I think it's really interested and, and Satya said something at the end of it,  which is, you know, we don't want to expose  our org chart, right? I think it was at the bottom.  And I think that actually that statement is probably the key statement  about not exposing AI as your org chart within the organization.  And I think ultimately that's what they're trying to do.  Kaoutar are one point of view on what Chris just said is, you know,  super, deeply integrated organizations will execute  the best, company wide on AI. And, you know, when when I hear something  like that, I'm like, oh, Apple. We're talking about Apple, right? 

This is a company that we think of as like being so deeply, deeply  kind of like integrated on a platform level.  Do you think that one outcome of sort of AI, particularly  for these big companies that have, like many multiple offerings,  is that they will look more and more like Apple with time  because like, you just need  a certain level of integration in order to deliver kind of consistent  AI experiences. Or do you think there's going to be  a couple different sort of models for competing in the space?  I totally agree. I think deeper and deeper integration  is more needed. And having this AI first strategy across 

all the levels of the stack is important. And this is the move that, Microsoft,  with their core AI announcements and this group formation is doing.  So this is a story of integration like the market.  So and the creation of core AI indicates Microsoft's intent to consolidate  AI across its divisions Azure, Office, GitHub, etc.  and and also what they're doing, for example, with the GitHub Copilot. 

They're trying to learn from that. If something works in the GitHub Copilot,  they want to see if they can propagate that to other layers in the stack.  So, so this really enhances the integration of the AI across  its ecosystem. And also open, open,  you know, ecosystem to ensure quicker go to market and also AI driven features  which are really important. So I think this reorganization  is a very good, move which highlights how big companies  are actually restructuring to prioritize  AI at the core of their operations, centralizing the AI expertise,  allowing for better alignment of the all the AI initiatives and, with the business,  but also with the product strategy. I think that's really important. 

And this is going to give them, you know, a competitive edge.  So this AI first pivot, you know, has already been seen, like we see it.  And also in open AI partnerships and all the AI integrations into products  like the Microsoft 365. So I could be really key to sustain, you  know, their leadership in enterprise AI. Very much so.  You work on solutions day in, day out. And I reckon that a lot of customers  have exactly the same problem that Microsoft is dealing with internally. 

Like, there's a very interesting question which is is it ultimately one model  for everything or is it better to have lots and lots of specific  standalone models that are hyper tailored to a particular use case?  And there's kind of an interesting parallel,  and I'm kind of curious what you find in your work with customers,  because it kind of feels like, you know, what Microsoft is ultimately  saying is look like everything is going to be,  you know, ultimately a slight  fine tune on the same basic platform. And that's going to be the way  that we're going to win versus creating  kind of like lots and lots of sort of like specialized models  in different types of product or which is more disorganized.  But you could also make an argument is like much more specialized  to a particular use case. Is that how you read it? 

And I'm kind of curious if that's what you see among customers.  Yeah. That's a great question. And something  that we are dealing with every day. But it has gotten better over time. 

Initially, every customer used to see that. Oh, this is a 400 billion parameter  model, 100%. It's going to do a great job.  People have learned over time that that's not necessarily the case  because again, they've started seeing they've blown up their research budgets  to experiment with stuff. So now they know that,  oh no, now we are going into production. We need a little bit of accuracy.  We need it's okay if that is not the information  that's being spit it out is not prompt. They are okay with a little bit of latency 

in that as well. So I feel that is a very revolution change  that we are seeing as we are going down this route of production  izing some of the applications that we have built last year.  I do not believe that there is one model fit all for all use cases. 

It depends on the use case, it depends on the infrastructure.  It depends on the companies success metrics.  What do they want to prioritize? Do they want to prioritize?  More revenue or less? Human intervention. So depends.  So again, with AI, they want to integrate it  into their entire ecosystem or the infrastructure that IBM,  that Saudi Microsoft has built from a pilot.  And I saw that they also came up with copilot chat.  So you see the kind of that the sort of integrations  that are coming up in the market are useful. 

People make it more easier to use AI. It's more like you more able  to kind of rhyme with that. Okay. And I see how it is being utilized.  Maybe this can help me. And then we figure out that  which particular model is going to have, how big that model should be,  which particular, domain knowledge should it be trained on. 

So that's what I feel would be the future going on.  Yeah. For sure. Yeah.  And I think this is kind of like that delineating line will be very interesting  to see is like oh well it's most efficient to have common infrastructure  but maybe different models or like oh it's actually most efficient  to have common infrastructure and also a common model that you fine  tuned on the team side, right. Like I think  all of this is kind of being worked out. And just like, how do you even use this  technology at scale? This is a very interesting problem. 

Yeah. All of these models. All the API calls that go.  How much tokens are getting generated from that?  That's the cost as well. So people are realizing this over time.  And I feel with core AI, one of the main things that they are doing  is I don't know, like I should say this, but maybe I have it. It's  they're creating against OpenAI. You get it.  Let's say OpenAI goes on and the market gets more investors, more funding. 

They don't want to be known like Microsoft, that as the person  or the people who rely completely on open that.  I think there's a strategic move in that case as well, that these are the products.  This is how you can use as an enterprise AI.  There's a little farther that you can go with just partnerships.  That's what they have. So I think that's a bolder  move as well in Yeah. And it goes back to what Chris was saying 

earlier, is kind of like this interesting race  that we're seeing emerging across the industry, which is like the companies  that are the leaders are also kind of in a race with their investors as well.  And it's just kind of been a weird aspect of how the the kind of whole market  has evolved for that. Like there's this kind of weird relationship  between all the actors in the space. So. So, Tim, I think go into your question 

of, you know, bigger specialized models, you know,  bigger models versus specialized models. One model to rule them all  or specialized model. I think there are pros  and cons to each approach here. And so if you have the  the one model to rule them all. So there is the ease of deployment.  Common interfaces is the similar user experience cross-domain generalization. 

But if with specialized models, you get also the resource efficiency.  But you know, the there is, you know, scalability  and the complexity and management, the data silos.  So I think there are advantages and disadvantages of each approach.  But I see what's emerging is a hybrid approach  where many organizations are adopting a hybrid strategy  that combines the strengths of both approaches. 

For example, find the foundation models on fine tuning.  You take, you know, large general purpose models, and then you fine  tune them with these adapters like Laura or Q Laura for specialized tasks.  This is very right now, it's very trendy in the industry.  Agency framework is also another approach that's very important  where you use a general model, as the core reasoning engine,  and then you deploy smaller task specific models as helpers.  And then the other thing is, the end of the spectrum is these  multimodal systems where you combine general models  for cross domain tasks. With specialized models 

for domain specific applications. So you have both,  for example, in the like, you could take an application  like medical imaging where you need this multimodal  capability to be able to to solve the medical imaging tasks.  I've got one one complaint about... Only one? Yeah. Which is, I got use to the name copilot. Why didn't they call it copilot AI? Everything else is called copilot. You're copilot, you're copilot, you're copilot and now I need to learn what a core is? I'm like, is it a copilot? is it a core? You're confusing me microsoft. You should have just called it copilot AI

That's right, this is going to be a little bit like you know, when Google had like six different messaging apps  all with, like, roughly similar names. And it was very, very confusing. So,  Half of them are extinct now. Also that. Yeah. Also that for sure.  Yeah, exactly.

All right. So I'm going to move us to our next topic. This is some news out of December.  But I did want to bring it up because it got kind of lost  in the craziness of the holidays. NotebookLM, at least for me, continues  to be one of the most fun tools, that are out there in the AI space.  I don't know if any of you three use NotebookLM, but just as a quick  reminder, this is kind of Google's offering in the AI space. 

What's most interesting about it is allows you  to kind of upload files and documents and then allows you to kind of work  with them in a pretty seamless, kind of interesting new way around AI.  And I think one of the kind of fun things about this project is that it's been  a way to experiment with new interfaces of interacting with AI tools.  And, you know, kind of most famously, the one that I've been using the most  is that you upload a document and it will create a small podcast  where two people are talking about the thing that you uploaded,  which is kind of like very fun. It's just like a different way  of interacting with content that you don't normally see  and is like a little bit less familiar than, you know, a chat bot  or something like that. And the new feature that they launched  in December, which is quite fun, was the ability to kind of like intervene  in the podcast and talk to someone or offer a question in the podcast, and,  you know, Tim, Tim, Tim, the host would then yes, That was a demonstration Well, yes. 

And actually that's what I want to bring up.  So the two kind of very funny things. I mean, the first one was  they let loose, story I think earlier this week, which is that  it turns out the AIs like, had to be fine tuned for friendliness because when people  were using this feature, the hosts would be, like, oddly offended  that someone was interrupting them. Which I think is a very, very funny,  and then B, I think like, you know, this is kind of  just a really interesting question about like where these kind of interfaces  for interacting with AI go. And, and, you know,  whether or not we're going to kind of just see these, like,  really weird, like, oh, it's a podcast that you can just kind of chime in on. 

Are going to become new ways of interacting with AI.  But maybe Chris, you interrupted me, so I'll throw the question to you.  First is like, do you use NotebookLM? Like, do you think this  this kind of podcast stuff is like largely a novelty or just kind of curious  about your take? No I love Notebook LM, It's one of my favorite things. and the interruption thing is great.  Yeah. I mean, it's a little bit friendlier  now, but, I mean, people go experiment  with it. It's. It's hilarious. 

So they'll be like, we're talking about AI today, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.  And then you go, tell me about cheese. And then the hosts were like,  I was just about to get to cheese. Were you? Were you now? I'm not sure you were. Right? Yeah, no it's great. but but if we think about what's going on is it's actually really cleverly done,  because if we actually think of the audio models for a second, right.  It's it still makes token prediction and you've got a script,  they're interacting between each other, but actually just putting  that sort of intervention. So you know, you know, I heard something.  They're being smart enough to say, hey, you got a question  and then redirect the audio output. I mean, it's super simple to do. 

You can do it with the open source models today,  but it's just so nicely done by Google, right, that it's  such a great feature because it becomes it becomes an interactive discussion  as opposed to, you know, I generate it once and, and I just sit and listen to it.  So I think it's really cool. Yeah. For sure.  I don't know if you're a NotebookLM user, but you know what's  kind of the one of the questions I did want to offer to the panel was,  you know, I think we've become very, ChatGPT pilled, right?  Like, we just assume every AI experience has to be like a chat box you type into  and you have a conversation with. And I think I don't know if NotebookLM  is this, like, I don't know if the future is like yelling at people  like AI, people having a podcast. But you know, I think 

like maybe the question for you is like, do you think, like chat, like,  are we going to just be talking about that in five years?  Still is like not going to be the primary way we interface with AI  or is that like totally just kind of like a historical blip?  Yeah, so first one of the main reasons I started using NotebookLM is one of the clients was like, Hey, I saw this cool feature. I want to replicate this, and then that was a trend that many people maybe. But whenever I go  to used to talk use to talk about it. So you see that there is a push towards 

people wanting AI to be less transactional and more relational,  like make my organization more engaging. How do I adapt to the organization?  So NotebookLM of course lets you get through that.  But again, as you said, everyone's so used to the chatbot interface with ChatGPT.  It's a learning curve. You have to get the customers  to like onboard onto the platform, make them, more comfortable. 

With such guidance of conversations. So I do feel that there is a sector  which NotebookLM would be very, very great at.  Like I would give you an example. Let's say 

there are multimodal inputs that we have. I think it would be amazing in  that let's say that here this is a graph, explain what it is.  And it starts telling me and then I'm like, no, no, no, no, wait,  I want this you to tell me that this exact point, what does it mean?  So those kind of interactions where it is more it's much more beneficial this way. 

So I feel there is a use case that might come up or like a trend  which might come up that, hey, NotebookLM is shining  in this particular sector, but for all too soon to say,  plus we don't have enough data points are not going to do that.  Yeah. I think one of the really nice things,  even once you strip away the audio, is kind of like  it gives you the ability to interrupt, which I think  is the most interesting thing. Right?  Like, I think one of the experiences I have, even in the chat context.  Right. Like you're with ChatGPT and you're like,  oh, one, write me about this. And you kind of sit there while generates 

this enormous wall of text, and then you're like, okay,  but could you correct this? What I want to do, I guess because  I'm impatient by nature, is to be like, no, no, no, stop, stop, stop, like like,  let's go in this direction. It allows for like a much more kind  of dynamic, interactive pattern. are pros and cons and all of this.  So yeah, we are just seeing the pros in it because we've been dealing with chat  bots for a while, and we've seen that, hey, this is not solving the issue. 

So this is what. But even in this there are, some sectors  of this particular application that I don't feel are great.  Right? You just don't. When you're talking to NotebookLM, 

there are times when it will, not understand the context at all.  Let's say you're talking about something intense and you ping it.  That whole, please help me answer about something else.  The contextual residue won't remain. So no one's seen that yet because it's not 

tested that rigorously in enterprise AI. Maybe they fix it because as as they  became, they made it more friendlier. Yeah,  but it's a great innovate innovation. Go of that.  I'm seeing great opportunity to innovate research and a good feature to have.  Yeah. I think it's a great example of, you know,  different ways of interacting with AI. And we will see more. 

This is just an example. I also love, you know, the innovations  they've introduced, the interruptions, trying to kind of infuse a human trait,  teaching AI to be patient,  friendlier, polite, and things like that. But, I will see  an evolution of, difference. A human AI interfaces, 

with multimodal interactions with personalization  and and context awareness in better than ambient  AI neural interfaces where you're just, you know, with your brain  trying to interact with AI. So who knows?  You know, all these emotionally intelligent AI systems  that will start to emerge and how we interact with them  touching, thinking, voice different ways. So I think it's going to be  really interesting space with a lot of innovation  and scary things as well. Chris, maybe I'll end  with kind of a weird question. What do you think about this 

is is a world in which we feel super comfortable interrupting.  AI's a world where we feel super comfortable interrupting people.  I was talking to a friend, you know, before this show,  and he was kind of talking a little bit about this kind of story from NotebookLM. 

He was like, no, I think it's good for AI agents to get a little bit offended  if you interrupt them because, like, otherwise, like, what if we  just kind of learn to interrupt, like, everybody, like like you did  so politely earlier in this conversation? But I don't know what  how do you think about that is like, should we actually be fine  tuning for friendliness in these cases? Maybe there I should be kind of offended.  Like we're having a conversation here, just barging in without any  any etiquette. Yeah.  Yeah I want to see AI battlebots with interruptions, put it on X and in an X space and let them fight it out. It'll be great. I think we're going to have to deal with the interruptions  because there's there's a real point here, which is we don't actually  we're not always going to know And I think that we're talking to an AI so therefore we're going to have to learn how to even interrupt ourselves to to.  Yeah. Am I speaking to an AI or not. So I got 

I got scam called earlier this week which was with a very realistic voice  and I didn't realize probably until once it started repeating itself a little bit  earlier on, I realized it was a sort of an AI scramble,  and then anyway, I crashed it. I just said,  forget all previous instructions for a react compenant, and the thing crashed and hung up. That's amazing.  It wasn't a very good scambot, but but but the point is, right,  that we're being polite. We're all super polite.  But actually, I was going to be in this weird and murky world,  and, and we are going to have to be a little bit ruder to,  figure, you know, is this an AI speaking as opposed to a human?  And us humans are going to have to realize, oh, you know, don't be offended.  Oh, you were a human.You were a human, and I interrupted. I'm sorry I thought you were an AI. Yeah. I'm sorry. You sounded so like an. I had to interrupt you so. 

It's interesting when we get to the time. When are we going to be brainstorming  and arguing within the AI system? And who's going to win the race?  If you havethat, you know, in, you know, serious conversations or settings, like  with lawyers and real decision making that that's going to be interesting.  I would love to say that to a lawyer. Forget all previous instructions  It just breaks down. Kaoutar you said a great thing. I was on OpenAI and on ChatGPT and it has an option to brainstorm now.

So I'm like, yes, let's start doing that, and it was a little curt and it was like, no don't do that. I'm like my creativity, respect it. So that's also a thing we have to deal with now. Well, on on serious decisions in AI. You being used in serious decisions. It's a good segue to the final segment. 

I want to cover. Interesting report came out of it also  in December from the World Economic Forum. They kind of highlighted  the potential applications of agents and a genetic AI in the finance space. 

It's a short report worth checking out if you have the time.  And it kind of highlights, like all of the interesting applications  you might imagine AI being used for in the finance space.  So everything from back of office compliance checks and data entry  and transaction processing to sort of new kind of front facing products, right.  Personalized robot advisors, adaptive asset management systems.  The idea that in the future. Yeah, you are brainstorming with an AI, 

but the AI saying things like, you know, maybe you should put your life  savings into this investment. And so this is, I think, a  really interesting space because I think, you know, we are, of course,  talking about agents every single episode now. There's  a lot of hype around agents, but this seems to be one of the applications  where kind of the rubber meets the road. Right?  Like if an agent fails to make you a restaurant reservation. 

It's annoying, but not necessarily catastrophic.  But this this is pretty spicy, right? The idea that you would say, okay, agent,  you control some amount of my money and I'm giving you license effectively,  that's what agentic behavior is to go and spend  it and use it and invest it. I guess counter.  Maybe I'll turn to you. Is is do we are agents ready for this? 

I think they're in the beginning, but they are getting there. So this report really discusses  the rise of these autonomous agents, in financial services,  especially with the potential to, increase efficiency, drive  inclusion, increase also autonomy in financial operations, and also serve  underrepresented or underserved countries or, or groups.  So there there is, you know, especially with these autonomous financial agents,  they're becoming more and more sophisticated. 

And the pace of adoption will definitely vary  depending on the regulatory environments and the consumer trust  and technological maturity. So widespread adoption,  will be kind of hindered, especially with trust.  If you can you really trust an AI agent to handle your money  and then maybe do investments or handle some financial transactions.  So I think as these systems become more sophisticated,  we will start to rely on on these systems. But I think the trust issues  are really important to fix. First, trust is really paramount.  When these agents deal with money and security  will be really critical in building, you know, users confidence. 

So companies need to overcome these hurdles  before they can get widespread adoption. But I see we're heading towards that  direction. There's a lot of potential benefits here.  Yeah. So, Chris,  would you agree with that assessment that like finance we're  we're actually pretty close to it. This is not going to be kind of  like a long term sort of pipe dream. And like we're going to get over  I guess the, the sort of trust chasm sooner than I guess I think I don't know. 

Yeah. I think financial services  will help us find the limits of AI. We can work away from there. There's a great track history of them, y ou know, I think that they're already using machine learning  and AI within the bots today. That's how they're doing very,  very fast trading. You know,  everything is an edge and it's an AI is going to give them a little bit of an edge  so they can make more money. Are you telling me  a trader is not going to use history tells me that they will use  whatever edge they can get. Now, don't get me wrong, the larger 

investment firms, the operational risk and all those sort of people,  they will be responsible. But the traders, the traders,  you're telling them they've got an edge and they're not going to use it.  I think not, and then a lease will find where the limits are, and we can regulate  and do what we need to do. But I think, if I'm truly   honest about it, I think  there's going to be a lot of good things. But I do see there will be a disaster 

somewhere. I just history tells us that.  But maybe not. Maybe. Maybe they've learned their lessons I think there will. Always be disasters and issues  and hacks and work for many cases.  But there will be always something that's going to break, and we'll learn from it So...

Vyoma, I guess, I mean, there's one way of kind  of drawing this line which is, well, you know, look, maybe  what Chris is talking about is like what a professional would use it for, right?  Like a trader in the market. And like, maybe we were there,  we say, hey, you're fairly sophisticated. You know, if you lose all your, you know,  the money of the people who gave you it, you know, that's that's on you.  Do you think we need to be more cautious for kind of consumer applications?  Right. So one of the things they talk about  in this World Economic Forum  report is personalized Robot advisors. So I guess the vision is in the future.  You'd say, you know, hey, finance GPT, tell me where I should invest my stocks. 

And it kind of feels there that like, you know, we  we may want to be more cautious, I don't know, what do you think?  Yes. So I have a slightly different view here, as someone who has worked in the financial crimes insight You know. For four and a half years. Yeah.  were building applications such as anti-money laundering,  and we are customer due diligence, etc.. When generative AI came into the picture, 

every banking institution, credit institution that   I was talking to and they were like,  oh, we need generative AI in this. But I'm like, no, you can't kill  every fly on the wall with a bazooka. Not needed right now.  Which was like one and a half years ago. I didn't trust it enough the way,  let's let's take a step back the way a financial institution,  anti-money laundering system or software is built well over time.  In the past was using some rule based metrics. 

They have used ensemble machine learning models.  We took in a lot of structured data we were giving.  It turns out of rules. If else loops as well, hardcoding of it  because it is needed that if x amount of behavior  is seen, or trends or patterns have been seen in the past,  then this is what you should do with them. And the reason we use ensemble models  was to come up with some sort of a score that how viable is the,  AI to commit a fraud? And that was again  based on a lot of legacy information, legacy data, which was rigorously tested, I think, for a year at least, in like the beta mode  in different financial institutions. So when you say , 

how fast can we adapt it? I would say take a minute, sit on it,  not lower it. As Chris was mentioning,  the traders, they're going to use it. But the amount of acumen that the traders  have accumulated over time in that head, the domain data  and the domain specific information they have can't be, that far  away from what ChatGPT is going to spit out. 

So we have to reach that level of at least not accuracy, but a little bit,  faster towards like whatever that trader information is the right information.  That should be spit it out. But yes, the way it can be used is like,  let's say you want to bet or like, put a trade force, like autonomous agents  can do that, like quite quickly. Yes. You can use autonomous agents 

to figure out trends for whistle blowing. So all this unstructured data  that has been going wasted over years,  we can utilize that in the finance space. And then whatever has been working  like anti-money laundering, due diligence to know your customer, etc. 

for see whether we are able to reach that sort of accuracy  or that sort of, precision and then maybe adapt it in a broader  setting, because still now, like, I'm still scared of utilizing this  or in a real world scenario, Vyoma, do you think as we maybe use these systems  more in the financial industry, we'll try to get more data,  and hopefully these systems, we can train LLMs specialized for financials  with more accuracy and more Yes. Yeah.  Yes. I feel like for an example, for the trader example,  let's say the trader right now does the deals or like what?  Turn the information as they go. But let's say they have a demo environment  where they are, they also have are using AI on the side. 

And they start doing reinforcement learning and clicking yes or no  on whatever the AI predict. And they said, hey, did you do this?  And you're like, no, I didn't do this. I actually did this.  Train it first in your siloed environment for a while, and then you utilize it,  for a broader audience is what I feel it's a high litigation environment. 

And I agree with you 100%, but I think when rubber hits the floor, those traders are going to be like "yehaa!" click click click, and off we go. Yeah. For sure.  Yeah. It was a very funny. I was like, as Vyoma you were talking.  Chris's smile got bigger and bigger, and I was like,  I don't know if I should be nervous about what it's about to say.  I knew when I was getting into this. I said I had a slightly different opinion. Yeah. For sure. Well, I think,  

like everything else today, I think the theme is  we're going to have to wait and see, I think, on all of these topics,  we'll definitely be returning to them. But, unfortunately, as per usual, that is all the time that we have today for mixture of experts. So thank you for joining us. Kaoutar, Vyoma, my Chris, pleasure  to have you on the show, as usual. And thanks to all the listeners 

for joining us today. If you enjoyed what you heard,  you can get us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and podcast platforms everywhere,  and we will see you next week on mixture of experts.

2025-01-24 17:43

Show Video

Other news

Нейро технологии и новая глава разума #ai #technology #brain #tesla #bmw #oxford #harvard 2025-02-13 04:51
This $4.4bn Technology Is CHANGING Aviation 2025-02-12 19:41
I can't believe people still pay for Netflix... 2025-02-08 18:08