The All-Index
E275May 29, 2026

Anthropic's Digital God, Pope vs AI, Job Loss Narrative Flips, Open Source Crackdown Coming?

Takes
9
Companies
6
Right so far
3
Wrong so far
1

Directional takes judged by each stock's move since this episode aired.

SacksSacksBullish

Sacks notes Anthropic is pulling away from OpenAI in growth rate (reportedly ~10x YoY vs OpenAI's ~3x), and if sustained for two years the math suggests Anthropic would achieve near-monopoly market share — making it the clear momentum leader in the frontier AI race.

if you have one company that's growing at 10x year over year and another company that's growing at 3x year over year, within 2 years, the first company will have 90% market share... you would always rather be the company that has that
ChamathChamathNeutral

Chamath argues Anthropic's safety narrative and lobbying are a calculated game-theory strategy to dominate the regulatory environment, absorb capital, and create oversight bodies less capable than itself — enabling it to exploit competitors and lock in disproportionate market power.

if you want to be unexploitable, I think the best thing that you could do if you're trying to build a super god is have 3 or 4 entities in a room, close the door behind you, and then dominate those other 3 or 4 entities, and then you set
GGuestBearish

Gurley argues Anthropic is either pursuing regulatory capture to entrench its market position, or genuinely believes it is 'midwifing a deity' — either way making it a dangerous and untrustworthy actor whose doomerism rhetoric has strategically created a public halo while masking its true agenda.

I've never ever seen a company that is both leading their field and the most negatively outspoken commenter on what they do... My initial theory was the regulatory capture theory... But then they got so loud that I've literally in the past
SacksSacksNeutral

Sacks argues Anthropic is pursuing regulatory capture to lock in monopolistic control of AI, by branding itself as the 'safe' AI company and characterizing competitors as reckless, which would concentrate power dangerously and harm the competitive market that currently benefits consumers.

if you brand yourself as the safe AI company and then try to characterize everybody else as a reckless player, and reckless AI needs to be stopped, you can see how this would basically further your monopolistic control over this industry.
AppleAAPL-5.3% since this episode
JasonJasonBullish✗ wrong so far

Jason argues Apple is a dark horse in AI because its hardware (M-series chips with large unified memory) enables local on-device AI model inference, giving it a unique 'intelligence sovereignty' value proposition that could become decisive as enterprises and consumers seek to avoid data lock-in with frontier AI labs.

I think Apple is just the dark horse in this entire race. If there is an open-source product that can run on this hardware, the M5s, the 48 gigs, 128 gigs, the new Mac Studio coming out with supposedly a terabyte, that changes the whole
MicrosoftMSFT-3.2% since this episode
ChamathChamathBearish✓ right so far

Chamath notes Microsoft is cutting cloud AI licenses as enterprise customers pull back AI budgets after spending heavily on tokens with minimal measurable results, signaling a near-term headwind for AI-related cloud revenue.

You just saw Microsoft announce that they're killing the cloud licenses. It's a super dynamic market right now, and I don't think we know what the terminal solution looks like.
MetaMETA-10.1% since this episode
ChamathChamathNeutral

Chamath argues Meta's recent large-scale layoffs are primarily a correction of years of overhiring and mismanagement — not AI-driven efficiency — and that the company could have been just as effective at a fraction of its peak headcount, implying the AI narrative is cover for operational cleanup.

You could have stopped the company at 3,000 people when I left and it would not have changed the outcome of that company. There was no need to go to 90,000 people and burn $50 billion on VR. They did it because they had the freedom to do
BlockSQ-8.8% since this episode
SacksSacksBearish✓ right so far

Sacks argues Block's AI-attributed 50% headcount cut is pure AI washing — the company had severely overstaffed relative to peers during COVID and needed the cut for fundamental operational reasons, not because AI generated real efficiencies.

within 24 hours, all the financial analysts on X said that Jack was AI washing and that Block had horribly overstaffed during COVID... running much more inefficiently than all of its other peers in this category, and they've needed to do a
WixWIX-21.4% since this episode
ChamathChamathBearish✓ right so far

Chamath flags Wix's layoff announcement as a sign the website-builder business is fundamentally challenged, as tools like Claude can now build websites directly, implying structural headwinds for the company.

interesting that he just talked about operational details... You can build websites with Claude. Yeah, the whole website business is challenged.