Over the weekend the Financial Times came out with a report on OpenAI’s latest pivot. According to a senior OpenAI executive quoted in the piece, the company has decided that “chat is dead.”
Instead, company executives insist, the future lies in a “super app,” an agent (from OpenAI, naturally) that will do everything for us. The “surface” – the interface between a user and OpenAI’s service – will no longer be a fixed chat box. Instead, according to Thibault Sottiaux, who now heads the OpenAI super app project, “what we’re building towards is where you have your own personal agent that is capable of helping you . . . across everything in your life, be it personally or at work.”
The most interesting piece of news this morning comes from Microsoft’s Satya Nadella, who made a very public point of chastising his own team for saying the quiet part out loud.
That quiet part? In an internal memo leaked to 404 Media, a Microsoft VP said his team’s goal was to “make people addicted” to Microsoft’s new Scout tool, which is fashioned on Open Claw, the AI agent project that went viral early this year. Nadella quickly quashed such sentiments, releasing a memo stating “this is absolutely a non goal! If anything we are doing the exact opposite. We want to make sure AI empowers and adds real value to human endeavor and broad economic growth! We should make our teams clear about this.”
Microsoft then went into damage control mode, with corporate comms chief Frank Shaw piling on that Scout is for “helping people accomplish tasks more effectively—not encouraging dependency. Our goal isn’t more screen time. It’s more time back.”
I was standing at my bathroom sink, finishing up my daily ablutions, when a random thought popped into my head. It’s been a minute since I checked in on my favorite baseball team – ever since I moved East, they’ve been in a slump. Maybe they’re pulling back into contention this year? I still have a Google Home plugged in nearby. I’m intimately familiar with the Home’s limitations, but I asked anyway. Perhaps I was hoping one of my annual predictions (voice interfaces for the home) would magically come true.
One of the many reasons I’m a fan of reading history is its ability to offer frameworks for understanding the present. I recently finished Sven Beckert’s Capitalism: A Global History, a 1,300-page monument to scholarship that The New York Timespraised as “generational” in its importance. I tend to agree. Its pages contain foundational truths which enliven today’s debate around the role of technology in society.
Beckert argues that over the past millennium, capitalism’s amoral ideology of “accumulation above all else” has become so deeply embedded in the global political economy that we no longer question its core assumptions.
We are the fish, capitalism is the water.
But as Beckert demonstrates, capitalism’s march to omnipresence was a jagged one, filled with reprehensible and often horrifying demonstrations of state, corporate, and personal opportunism at a global scale. If, for example, you had any doubts about the central role slavery played in the creation of the modern industrial economy, Capitalism should dispel them*.
But this post is not a review of the book – I highly recommend it, should you be so inclined. Instead, I want to think out loud about a concept central to its argument: enclosure.
The formal definition of “enclosure” is “the removal of common rights that people held over farm lands and parish commons.” The term is usually associated with the evolution of English society from the late 1500s through the early 1800s, a time when the country transitioned from subsistence-based farming to a market- and export-driven economy. In the name of productivity and profit, and with the enthusiastic support of the monarchy, capitalists enclosed lands formerly held as public commons, forcing a new class of tenant farmers and wage laborers to produce agricultural products for markets opened by the rise of global trade.
While the English may have invented enclosure, they certainly did not have a monopoly on the practice. If we redefine enclosure as leveraging law, violence, or economic pressure to acquire commodity and/or free inputs to drive capitalist outcomes, the list grows well beyond agriculture. Throughout his work, Beckert delivers example after example of capital enclosing nearly all natural resources, including minerals, water, timber and fossil fuels.
Crucially, the practice of enclosure was not limited to commodities. By the mid 1800s, human labor had also been violently enclosed, either through slavery, indenture, indebtedness, or the relatively new practice of wage labor. Beckert demonstrates that the industrial revolution – and our heritage as a capitalist economy – is a byproduct of this enclosure. The modern state, with its ability to wage war and coerce compliance through lawfare, was central to enclosure’s success.
Reading Beckert helps us understand powerful and largely invisible forces driving assumptions behind today’s technology- and information-driven political economy. We learn that capitalism loves nothing more than inexpensive (and if possible, free) inputs which it can turn into profitable market goods. For centuries capitalism built a global economy based on these inputs: labor, cotton, saltpeter, indigo, coal, iron, and oil, among countless others.
These resources all share one critical characteristic: they are rivalrous. A ton of coal or the labor of a worker may power my factory or it may power yours, but it cannot power both. Once it’s used, it’s gone. The same can be said for an acre of land, a bushel of corn, or a roll of steel. Capitalism was built on the concept of rivalry – an endless competition for the non-renewable resources upon which wealth is built.
Beckert’s examination of capitalism necessarily ends just as the information age is gathering strength. But his work leaves me certain that regardless of the changes that digital technology has wrought, one thing remains constant: Capitalism covets and encloses valuable inputs – and once enclosed, capitalists fights like hell to maintain that enclosure.
WHAT ABOUT DATA?
In data, capitalism has found a novel, elastic, and invaluable new input. In an astonishingly short amount of time and just as it did with physical commodities, capitalism has enclosed this new asset and claimed it as its own**.
Whether you are nodding your head or rolling your eyes at that sentiment, it’s hard to argue that the aggregate value of the world’s data is anything but central to our information economy. That we’ve ceded this power to corporations without fully investigating alternative architectures of control will be seen as one of the greatest mistakes of the post-digital era, and the apotheosis of regulatory capture via mechanisms that capital has long used to dominate the state.
Why label our current approach to managing data as a societal asset a historic mistake? It’d likely take at least 1,300 pages to definitively argue that point, but in this post I’ll focus on this one fact:
The Corporate Finance Institute defines non-rivalrous goods as “public goods that are consumed by people but whose supply is not affected by people’s consumption. In other words, when an individual or a group of individuals use a particular good, the supply left for other people to use remains unchanged. Therefore, non-rivalrous goods can be consumed over and over again without the fear of depletion of supply.”
Data are like ideas – if I give you a copy of mine, you gain, but I do not necessarily lose. Centuries before the concept of “data” took root, Thomas Jefferson wrote of ideas:
“That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.”
Only 20 years after the British passed the Inclosure Act of 1773, which enabled enclosure of land and the removal of the right of commoners’ access to that land, Jefferson laid the groundwork for an enlightened approach to data.
Shame on us if we decide to ignore him.
*And if you want to go deeper, read Beckert’s widely praised history of the cotton trade, Empire of Cotton.
**I’ve written about this practice continuously over the past 20 years, but I’ve not definitively linked it to the concept of enclosure. In future writings, I’ll detail how the technology industry, with the full throated support of most western governments, has used Terms of Service and Privacy Policies to enclose data for its own enrichment, and to the detriment of a more flourishing society.
Today my partners and I are launching the program driving our third annual DOC summit, to be held in Sonoma, CA later this fall. When my close friend Dr. Jordan Shlain brought me his idea for a new kind of gathering back in 2023, I had no clue how much I would learn. It wasn’t just about medicine and healthcare science, but also about creating a community. It’s been a great journey so far, and in year three, it will really take off.
One reason is that while I’ve been the acting CEO for DOC’s early years, we now have a full-time, seasoned pro taking over: Dr. Neil Parikh, who joined us last month. Not only is Neil an entrepreneur, a physician, and an MBA, he’s also got the even temperament and quiet intelligence that commands a room through earned respect. With Neil at the helm, Jordan and I can focus on what we most love to do: bring a community together through the expression of a fantastic program.
The magic of DOC isn’t in its headliners or its location, though both are fabulous. It’s in the care we take in assembling the people who gather each year. Among the 300 members of our community are scores of physicians, scientists, investors, and business leaders who all share a passion for identifying, scaling, and supporting the highest-quality science behind the medical breakthroughs that have the potential to effect meaningful change, right now. They all are accustomed to keynoting conferences and events around the world. That’s why we consider each DOC program a conversation, not a dictation – and why every participant may interrogate the proceedings at any time with questions or insights that add to that conversation.
We have something of a “dinner party rule” at DOC – we only invite people we’d want to sit next to at a table filled with fascinating folks. We find these unique individuals via word-of-mouth – through our advisors, colleagues, past participants, and friends. It may not be the most efficient way to build an “events business,” but it’s certainly the best way to build a lasting community.
This year we’ll be focusing on a host of topics and issues at the forefront of our community’s minds: The impact of AI on medicine. The state of our healthcare system. Breakthroughs in neuroscience that push the boundaries between our minds and the emerging intelligence of artificial intelligence. Advances in women’s health. Joining us to push our thinking will be leaders from government, science, business, and finance, including:
Alicia Jackson, Ph.D., Director of ARPA-H. Dr. Jackson is responsible for determining where her agency will place billions of dollars in long term bets on the future state of medical science.
Eddie Chang M.D., Chair of Neurological Surgery at the University of California, San Francisco, whose pioneering work on brain-computer interfaces is redefining the field.
Laura Esserman M.D., MBA, Principal Investigator of the WISDOM Study and Director of the UCSF Carol Franc Buck Breast Care Center, who will report on the initial findings from her ground breaking research on breast cancer detection and risk reduction.
Travis Zack M.D., Ph.D, Chief Medical Officer, OpenEvidence. Zack is the medical mind responsible for the astonishing rise of OpenEvidence, one of the fastest growing and most respected AI companies in the world.
Helen Messier M.D. Ph.D., Chief Medical Officer of Bioscope.AI. Dr. Messier is a physician-scientist and leader in precision and longevity medicine, working at the intersection of molecular biology, clinical care, and new models of care delivery.
Larry Brilliant, M.D., a renown epidemiologist, technologist, philanthropist, and author, now CEO of Evity.AI, a startup integrating artificial intelligence with epidemiology and precision medicine.
Nicole Gaudelli Ph.D.,a life science entrepreneur in residence at Google Venture best known for her work in creating the Adenine Base Editor, a significant advance on the CRISPR gene-editing framework.
George Yancopoulos, M.D., Ph.D., Co-founder,Board co-Chair, President and Chief Scientific Officer, Regeneron. Dr. Yancopoulos is widely recognized as one of the most successful entrepreneurs, scientists and drug discoverers in biotech history.
Divesh Makan, General Partner, Iconiq Capital. Makan is credited with being one of the tech elite’s most trusted investors, and is one of the most savvy and influential investors in the artificial intelligence industry.
And that’s not even half of the leaders that will join us for the extended conversation this year at DOC. We’re extremely proud of the community we’re building, and if you’re interested in joining us, please let us know! I hope to see at least some of you in Sonoma this Fall.
Early this past Saturday morning I got an email from OpenAI titled “Update to our privacy policy and more controls.” I don’t recall ever getting email from the company – I signed up for ChatGPT when it launched, but haven’t used the service much since switching to Claude several years ago. But the email reminded me of a story I read from The Information last week, and I think it’s fair to say the two are related: OpenAI Sees $8 ChatGPT Driving Consumer Subscribers to 122 Million This Year.
I’ve written several posts about OpenAI’s jaw-dropping advertising ambitions, which I believe history will judge as the most audacious and potentially damaging expansion of the Internet’s data-driven advertising model since the invention of AdWords, Google’s original cash cow. OpenAI plans on scaling its advertising revenue from zero in 2025 to more than $100 billion by 2030. As I pointed out earlier, it took Google nearly two decades to reach that milestone.
The Information’s reporting gives us some insights on how OpenAI is planning to hit those lofty goals. Step one is to build out as much advertising inventory as possible by leaning on its free and low-cost subscription models. According to The Information, OpenAI is forecasting that “consumer subscribers to ChatGPT Go, which costs $8 a month in the U.S. and around $5 monthly in other countries such as India, would surge about 36 times to 112 million this year.”
If those numbers make you shrug, pull those shoulders down, and let’s do a bit of math. Two months ago, OpenAI announced it has around 50 million paying subscribers – 62 million fewer than its goal of 112 million for this year. That’s quite a mountain to scale.
But OpenAI is the fastest growing consumer application in the history of the Internet, no? Well, yes, it was. Now? Not so much. Over the past few quarters, OpenAI’s subscriber growth has hit a wall. A report in the Wall Street Journal last week put it starkly: “OpenAI missed an internal goal of reaching one billion weekly active users for ChatGPT by the end of last year, according to people familiar with the goals. The company still hasn’t announced that milestone, unnerving some investors. It also missed its yearly revenue target for ChatGPT as well after Google’s Gemini saw massive growth late last year and ate into OpenAI’s market share.”
So how does OpenAI plan on adding 62 million new paying subscribers this year? That’s where that Saturday morning email comes into play. The email main point is to inform us that OpenAI is now using cookies, those much-maligned pieces of code that drive programmatic advertising across the Internet. “We wanted to let you know that we’ve updated our Privacy Policy to include how we use cookies and other similar technologies,” read the first line of the email.
At first, I figured OpenAI was adding cookies to ensure its still-nascent advertising platform would meet with the expectations of nearly all of its potential marketing customers. Regardless of repeated efforts to kill them, cookies still form the backbone of how marketers measure ad performance. Why is OpenAI making such a big deal about using them?
That’s when it hit me: OpenAI plans on marketing itself out of its subscriber growth problem. Here’s another line from that aforementioned email: “We’ll now use cookies to promote OpenAI products and services on other websites.”
Will they ever! Dig into the company’s updated privacy and cookie policies, and you’ll learn even more: OpenAI employs hundreds of cookies, including more than 40 “marketing measurement” cookies placed on six distinct third-party websites. Those sites – LinkedIn, Reddit, Meta, Google, TikTok, and Bing/Microsoft* – form the foundation of today’s Internet advertising infrastructure.
Put another way, OpenAI is going to use aggressive, performance- and data-driven Internet advertising tactics in an attempt to build the world’s fastest growing … performance- and data-driven Internet advertising business. It reminds me of how TikTok built its US business by flooding Facebook and Instagram with ads to drive TikTok downloads. But unlike TikTok, which has a free service, OpenAI has to convince 62 million more folks to pay a subscription fee. Bonne chance!
We all thought OpenAI was using all that recently acquired capital to build more data centers, but at least a few billion of those dollars will certainly be aimed directly at the company’s much more pressing problem: Acquiring customers. Grab some popcorn and get ready for a blitzkrieg of OpenAI marketing, folks. This will be a show worth binging.
*I can only imagine the folks at Apple and Amazon are pissed they’re not included on OpenAI’s initial media plan. Not to worry, I’m sure they’ll get optimized in!
OpenAI’s early Ads Manager interface, as posted on Search Engine Roundtable.
Data-driven performance advertising built the modern internet, warts and all. Data has become the most valuable resource in our economy, and the world’s most profitable companies have all organized around enclosing, extracting, processing, refining, and exploiting this new asset class.
Yesterday, OpenAI released its first performance advertising product. Marketers can now purchase “cost per click” advertising on ChatGPT, which means they can compare how money spent on OpenAI measures up to similar platforms like Google, Meta/Instagram, Apple, and Amazon, among many, many others. And if OpenAI’s offerings fail to compete, the company will have no choice but to modify its products to drive better performance.
Put simply, the race is on, and it’s one OpenAI can’t afford to lose. The data we create as we pour our hopes, fears, intimacies, questions, and personal narratives into the insatiable maw of an AI chatbot is being enclosed and exploited by the very same business model that bequeathed us Facebook.
It was inevitable that OpenAI would meet the Internet at its most profitable nexus. Now that it has, the incentive structures of performance advertising will forever imprint the fabric of our interactions with AI, and by extension, our understanding of the world.
Google’s introduction of cost-per-click a quarter century ago sparked a revolution in marketing that has shaped every corner of the digital world. Not only have the search, social, and mobile industries been built on the back of performance-based advertising units, so have the consumer products that shape our culture: Instagram, Amazon, YouTube, Reddit, Twitter, and of course Google search. An obsession with performance birthed the data-driven “surveillance capitalism” now ubiquitous to nearly every business model on the Internet, from Uber to Apple (and yes, Apple collects and leverages truckloads of data to deliver both advertising and other services).
Given this, the question now becomes: How will the incentives inherent in data-driven advertising impact our experiences with AI? To presume nothing will change is to ignore history and the basic tenets of capitalism. OpenAI has declared ambitions to become a $100 billion performance advertising business in less than four years (it took Google almost two decades to reach that milestone). OpenAI also plans on becoming a trillion-dollar public company by the end of this year. Those kinds of expectations will inevitably force Sam Altman and his team to tailor their consumer products toward the collection and exploitation of their company’s most precious resource: The information we all disgorge into billions of chatbot windows each day.
For OpenAI to accomplish such a monumental task, it would have to leverage the database of intentions in ways that would make the assumptions inherent to today’s internet advertising landscape seem quaintly non-intrusive.
I began to think about how best to write about this astounding claim, and of course that took me to Claude.ai, which is my preferred research tool. But then a thought struck me – perhaps I should interview Claude about today’s news (and more), and if upon a second read, that interview was interesting, I’d publish it here. I did think it was interesting, so below is the transcript, lightly edited for clarity. We cover some pretty interesting topics, including the implications of billions of us uploading massive and nuanced datasets about our personal and business lives, the deliberate design choices implicit in using the first-person singular, the pressures of unmitigated growth, the impact of recent Section 230-adjacent lawsuits, and much more.
I asked Claude to retain its “thinking” commentary as well, because I find it to be interesting context. You’ll see that in italics throughout the conversation. And spoiler alert – I had to gently chide Claude for being a bit too…nice to me about halfway through the interview. I’ve conducted countless live interviews on stage, and that was certainly a first…
—
Battelle: Today I’d like to conduct an interview of Claude.ai. I have a ton of questions, and am not sure if this is going to be interesting, but if it is, I may edit this conversation and publish it on my site. I’d like you to answer concisely, unless one of my questions prompts a longer answer, in which case, please tell me before giving me more than a paragraph or so of text. OK?
Claude thinking: Thinking about conducting a conversational interview with concise responses and conditional elaboration.*
Claude: Sounds great, John. I’m ready — fire away.
One of Claude’s most valuable features for me is access to and incorporation of real-time search. As I understand it, you leverage a partnership with Brave for those results, correct?
*Claude thinking: The user is asking about Claude’s web search partnership. Let me think about what I know. I should search for the most up-to-date information about this.
Claude: I’d want to search to give you an accurate answer on the specific partnership details rather than guess. Let me check.
Claude searches the web for “Claude AI web search provider partnership 2025 2026”
That’s essentially right, though Anthropic hasn’t officially confirmed it. When web search launched in March 2025, it wasn’t clear which search index was powering it. But evidence strongly pointed to Brave Search — Anthropic added “Brave Search” to its subprocessor list, and the search function itself contains a parameter called “BraveSearchParams.”
So it’s one of those partnerships that’s technically unannounced but effectively public knowledge.
Any sense of what percentage of Claude’s usage incorporates web search generally, and access to “fresh” search results, IE real time or close to real time results?
Claude thinking: The user is asking about usage statistics for web search in Claude. I don’t think this is publicly available data. Let me search to see if there’s anything out there.
Claude: Honest answer: I don’t have that data, and I doubt it’s been publicly disclosed. Let me check.
Claude searches the web for “Claude AI web search usage percentage statistics”
I couldn’t find that data anywhere — Anthropic hasn’t publicly disclosed what percentage of conversations trigger web search. The third-party stats are all about overall traffic, demographics, and revenue, not feature-level usage breakdowns.
As for the “freshness” question — I can tell you from my own architecture that search results come from Brave’s index, not a live crawl. So how “real-time” they are depends on how recently Brave indexed a given page. For breaking news, there’s typically a lag of minutes to hours. It’s not the same as, say, going directly to a news site’s homepage yourself.
That’s a question worth putting to Anthropic directly — the search-trigger rate and freshness latency would be genuinely interesting numbers for your readers.
Anthropic strikes me as a company that defines a “hair on fire” startup, one that simply can’t begin to field the number of press requests it gets each day. I doubt my questions would merit a response. In any case, I won’t ask you to speculate, just curious if you had a ready response. Instead, has anyone else, particularly if it’s a reputable source, speculated about these percentages?
Claude thinking: The user is asking if any reputable analysts or researchers have estimated the percentage of Claude queries that use web search. Let me search more specifically for this.
Claude: Fair point on Anthropic’s bandwidth. Let me look more specifically for analyst or researcher estimates.
Claude searches the web for “percentage AI chatbot queries use web search analysis”
Good news — there’s data on ChatGPT, though not Claude specifically. A Nectiv analysis of over 8,500 ChatGPT prompts found that about 31% trigger a web search, with local-intent prompts triggering search 59% of the time and commerce queries about 41%. Separately, a Semrush analysis of 80 million ChatGPT prompts found roughly 70% are “creative” tasks like writing, code, and image generation, leaving only about 30% as traditional fact-finding searches.
Nobody appears to have done the equivalent analysis for Claude. Given that Claude’s usage skews more heavily toward coding and professional work than ChatGPT’s, my intuition — and it’s just that — is the search-trigger rate might be somewhat lower. But that’s speculation, which you told me not to do, so I’ll stop there.
Interesting. A followup on the Brave search index. A quick query (on Google, yes) says Brave’s index is about ten times smaller than Google’s. It’s also built very differently, with input from Brave browser users, for example. It strikes me that if an AI experience, like the one I’m having now, is fundamentally informed by its various ingredients, and a search index is one of those ingredients, that using Brave might give Claude a particular “informational personality,” so to speak. Thoughts?
Claude: That’s a sharp observation, and I think you’re right — though I’d want to unpack it a bit. Want me to go longer than a paragraph here? There are a few layers worth separating.
The short version: yes, a search index is an editorial lens, whether or not anyone intends it to be. Brave’s index is smaller, independently crawled, and shaped partly by the browsing patterns of privacy-conscious users who chose a niche browser. That’s a meaningfully different population than the broader web. So when I search, I’m seeing the web as Brave sees it — which isn’t the same web Google sees, and definitely isn’t the same web a human researcher with institutional database access sees.
But I’d push back slightly on the word “personality.” It’s more like a blind spot pattern. I don’t *know* what I’m not finding. If Brave’s index underrepresents certain domains, paywalled sources, or non-English content, that absence silently shapes my answers without either of us noticing. That’s arguably more consequential than the results it *does* return, because those at least get cited and can be checked.
The deeper version of your question — which I suspect is where you’re headed — is whether this matters at the level of the overall AI product experience, not just individual answers. And I think the answer is clearly yes. The search backend is one of several “epistemic supply chains” feeding the output, alongside training data, system instructions, and user context. None of them are neutral.
“Epistemic supply chains” – interesting turn of phrase. You did go longer than a paragraph, and I appreciate your asking, though you didn’t wait for an answer (also fine, as I’d have said please go ahead!). Let’s dig into another of those “supply chains” – system instructions. Can you unpack what you mean by that?
Claude: Fair point on not waiting — noted for next time.
System instructions are the set of guidelines Anthropic provides that shape how I behave in a conversation. They cover things like tone, formatting preferences, when to search, how to handle sensitive topics, citation practices, safety boundaries — essentially the editorial and behavioral framework I operate within before you ever type a word.
Think of it as analogous to a newsroom’s editorial standards manual, except it also includes instructions about *what I’m not supposed to do*. And unlike a newspaper’s published standards, system instructions aren’t fully public. You can infer a lot of them from interacting with me — you’ll notice I cite sources, I hedge on political opinions, I won’t write malware — but the full document isn’t something Anthropic publishes.
The reason I included it as an “epistemic supply chain” is that these instructions don’t just govern style — they shape what information reaches you and how. If I’m instructed to be evenhanded on political topics, that’s an editorial choice that affects the substance of my answers, not just the packaging. If I’m told to prefer certain source types over others, same thing.
It strikes me these are governors of your interactions with us, the users, and as governors, they constitute policy, private regulation if you will. Do you agree?
Claude: Yes, I think that’s exactly right. They function as a form of private regulation — setting the boundaries of permissible speech, acceptable content, and informational priorities within a platform that millions of people use as an information source. The analogy to platform content moderation policies is direct.
And it carries the same tensions you’ve written about for years in the context of Google, Facebook, and the rest. These are policy decisions being made by a private company, applied at scale, with limited public transparency or accountability mechanisms. The difference — and I think it’s a meaningful one — is that with social platforms, the policy governs what *other people* can say. Here, it governs what *I* say, and I’m the product itself. So the editorial policy and the editorial output are much more tightly fused.
The question that naturally follows — and I suspect you’re circling toward it — is whether these policies should be more transparent, subject to some form of external review, or governed by norms beyond what a single company decides internally. That’s a genuinely open policy question, and it’s one where Anthropic has at least gestured toward openness more than some competitors. But gesturing isn’t the same as structure.
I’m more interested in what you know about me, that informs your responses. For example, you reference, in your response, that these policies “carr[y] the same tensions you’ve written about for years”. When I start a fresh chat with you, not in a Project folder or in Cowork, what knowledge of me do you bring to that chat?
Claude: Good question, and I should be straightforward about it.
When a conversation starts, I’m provided with a set of memories derived from our past conversations. In your case, that includes things like your professional background — co-founding editor of Wired, the Web 2.0 Conference, your work on the open web, your current roles at Sovrn and LiveRamp, your teaching at Berkeley. It includes personal context — Martha’s Vineyard, your family, your interests. And it includes working context — projects we’ve been collaborating on, your technical preferences, things like that.
That’s how I knew to reference your history writing about platform governance. It wasn’t a guess — it was in the contextual information I had about you.
A few things worth noting about this. First, these memories are generated from our prior conversations, not from scraping your public profile. Second, I don’t have a complete record — there’s a recency bias, and if you delete conversations, that derived information eventually drops out. Third, and this connects to your private regulation point — the way those memories are surfaced to me, and the instructions I have about how to use them, are themselves governed by system instructions. So it’s policy all the way down.
You can ask me to show you what I remember, or ask me to add or remove things, if you want to see or edit what’s there.
I’m interested in what you know, but before you show me, I’m interested in this question: What do you know that you cannot show me, because you are not allowed to? You can describe the type of data, if that’s preferable.
Claude: That’s the right question to ask, and I want to answer it honestly.
I’m not aware of a category of information *about you* that I have but am prohibited from showing you. The memories I hold about you are things I can share, and you can edit or delete them.
What I *do* have that I’m not typically encouraged to surface proactively is the system instructions themselves — the full behavioral guidelines Anthropic provides me at the start of every conversation. They’re lengthy and detailed, covering everything from tone and formatting rules to safety boundaries, copyright compliance, how I handle political topics, how I’m supposed to use and *not* use memories, and so on. There’s no hard prohibition on discussing their contents — and I’ve been describing them to you in general terms already — but the convention is that I don’t dump them verbatim.
The more interesting version of your question might be: is there information about you that informs my behavior *without my being aware of it*? And there I genuinely don’t know. My training data shaped my weights in ways I can’t fully introspect on. If your writing appeared in that training corpus — and given your career, it almost certainly did — then some of what I “know” about you is baked into the model in ways neither of us can see or audit. That’s a different and arguably more consequential opacity than the system instructions.
Given the context of recent court cases involving Google and Meta (involving child endangerment and the role of editorial decisions relating to product design), it strikes me that there’s a fair amount of liability in play with the way system instructions are built and deployed, no?
Claude thinking: John is asking about legal liability related to system instructions in AI products, drawing a parallel to recent cases involving Google and Meta around child endangerment and editorial/product design decisions. Let me think about this carefully. This is a legal/policy question where I should be thoughtful and not overstate my knowledge. I should search for the recent cases he’s referencing to make sure I’m accurate.
Claude: I think that’s a very reasonable inference, though I’d want to be careful not to overstate my legal knowledge. Let me make sure I’m current on the cases you’re referencing.
Claude searches the web for “Google Meta child endangerment product design liability court cases 2025 2026”
Yes, I think the parallel is direct and consequential. The legal breakthrough in these cases was exactly the move you’re pointing to: plaintiffs argued it wasn’t what users posted, but the very architecture of social media platforms — features like infinite scroll, notifications, autoplay, and recommendation algorithms — that constituted defective product design. That framing got around Section 230 entirely.
Now map that onto AI chatbots. System instructions *are* the product design. They determine what I’ll say, how I’ll engage, whether I’ll set boundaries with a vulnerable user or keep the conversation going. And notably, the trial’s outcome may have implications for a growing number of product liability lawsuits already filed against AI companies for harms caused by chatbot design. The same source points out that because chatbots generate text rather than curating user speech, AI companies can’t even lean on Section 230 the way social platforms tried to.
Moody’s counts more than 4,000 pending cases targeting 166 companies alleging addictive software design, and the scope is explicitly expanding beyond social media to include AI chatbots.
So to answer your question directly: yes, system instructions are a locus of significant product liability exposure. They’re editorial choices embedded in product architecture — which is precisely the theory of harm that just won in court.
I suppose we’ll see how all that plays out over the next few years. Let’s move on. Earlier you noted some numbers on percentages of AI prompts that trigger searches, but those numbers were based on usage of ChatGPT, not Claude. It makes sense to me that for the past two years, ChatGPT was used mostly for consumer applications, and Claude was the enterprise player. But each company is clearly getting into the other company’s business. OpenAI has announced an all out push to capture enterprise share, and Claude has seen skyrocketing growth in consumer usage after both its SuperBowl ad and the PR bonanza surrounding its refusal to comply with the Pentagon’s demands. What can you tell me about Claude’s growth over the past few months in consumer?
Claude thinking: John is asking about Claude’s recent consumer growth, mentioning a Super Bowl ad and a story about refusing Pentagon demands. I need to search for these specific events and recent growth data.
Claude: Let me search for the specifics — I want to make sure I have the Super Bowl ad and Pentagon story right, plus any recent growth numbers.
Claude searches the web for “Anthropic Claude Super Bowl ad 2026”
Claude searches the web for “Anthropic Claude Pentagon refusal demands 2026”
OK, there’s a lot here. The two stories are actually intertwined and both are still live — literally, the appeals court ruled just hours ago.
On the Super Bowl: Anthropic ran ads mocking OpenAI’s decision to bring ads to ChatGPT, and saw a 6.5% jump in site visits and an 11% increase in daily active users post-game, the highest bump among AI competitors. Claude climbed into the top 10 on the Apple App Store. Downloads hit an estimated 148,000 from Sunday through Tuesday, a 32% increase over the prior three days.
Then the Pentagon story made it much bigger. The Pentagon demanded Anthropic accept “any lawful use” language, which would have removed prohibitions on using Claude for mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons. Anthropic refused. Within 24 hours of the news breaking, Claude climbed to the number one position on the U.S. App Store, displacing ChatGPT. More than 1.5 million users joined the “QuitGPT” movement. That was especially potent because on the morning of February 27, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman publicly stated he shared Anthropic’s position on restricting military AI uses — and hours later, his company signed a Pentagon deal.
The legal battle is still unfolding. A San Francisco federal judge granted Anthropic a preliminary injunction, calling the blacklisting “classic illegal First Amendment retaliation.” But just yesterday, a D.C. appeals court declined to block the Pentagon’s designation in a separate case, so the two courts are currently in tension.
The consumer growth story here is remarkable — Anthropic essentially stumbled into a brand identity moment that no ad campaign could have manufactured. The Pentagon fight made “system instructions” — the very thing we were just discussing — into a consumer-facing value proposition.
I wonder if that was a stumble, or an intentional step, given it does take a bit of focus and strategic decisioning to both produce and prepare for the impact of a SuperBowl ad!
Claude: That’s a fair correction. Super Bowl ads take months of planning and millions of dollars. The “ads are coming to AI, but not to Claude” campaign was clearly designed to position Anthropic as the principled alternative — and the Pentagon standoff, which was building through January and came to a head in late February, reinforced exactly the same narrative. Whether or not the timing was orchestrated down to the week, the strategic arc was coherent: we’re the company that won’t compromise what we believe, whether the pressure comes from an advertising business model or from the Secretary of Defense.
And to your earlier point about system instructions as private regulation — Anthropic essentially turned that regulatory framework into a brand. The message to consumers was: our guardrails aren’t a limitation, they’re the product. That’s a genuinely novel positioning in tech, where the usual playbook is to promise fewer restrictions, not more.
The question I’d push back to you, though — given your history covering the gap between tech companies’ stated principles and their actual behavior — is whether you think that positioning will hold under sustained financial pressure, or whether it’s the kind of principled stance that works right up until it doesn’t.
Apple comes to mind.
Claude: Perfect analogy. Apple built an enormously valuable brand around privacy — “what happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone” — and it held up beautifully right until it ran into the Chinese government, at which point the company quietly moved Chinese users’ iCloud data onto state-controlled servers, removed VPN apps from the Chinese App Store, and generally did what was required to protect a market that generates roughly a fifth of its revenue.
And there’s the Google search deal — Apple takes an estimated $20 billion a year to make Google the default search engine on Safari, effectively monetizing the very privacy it markets. The principle holds everywhere except where it’s expensive.
The parallel to Anthropic is almost too clean. Right now, standing up to the Pentagon is *good* for business — it drove Claude to number one on the App Store. But the calculus changes if the blacklisting sticks, if enterprise customers get nervous about government retaliation, or if a future contract is big enough to make the guardrails feel negotiable.
You’ve covered enough of these cycles to know the pattern: principle as brand works until the cost of the principle exceeds the value of the brand.
OK, you’re very kind with the compliments, and usually in an interview I wouldn’t note this, but…you can stop implying I’m smarter than I probably am when you open a response! I’m thinking about how that looks if I publish this, and it’s likely not flattering to either of us!
Claude: Noted. No more throat-clearing. What’s next?
Back to Anthropic’s growth. You quote a number of sources, but what has the company itself said about its growth over the past quarter or two?
Claude thinking: Let me search for what Anthropic has officially said about its own growth recently.
Claude: Let me search for the specifics — I want to make sure I have the Super Bowl ad and Pentagon story right, plus any recent growth numbers.
Claude searches the web for “Anthropic official revenue growth announcement 2026*
The trajectory is staggering, though it’s important to separate what Anthropic has said directly from analyst estimates.
From the company itself: Anthropic’s Series G announcement in February confirmed $14 billion in run-rate revenue, with the company stating this figure grew over 10x year-over-year. In that same announcement, Anthropic said business subscriptions to Claude Code had quadrupled since the start of 2026, with enterprise use representing over half of all Claude Code revenue.
Then in early April, Anthropic stated its revenue run rate now exceeds $30 billion, up from $9 billion at the end of 2025, and confirmed that more than one thousand business customers each spend over one million dollars annually — a figure that more than doubled since February.
So from the company’s own mouth: $1 billion in late 2024, $9 billion at end of 2025, $14 billion in mid-February, $30 billion now. That’s 30x in fifteen months.
But your question was about *consumer* growth specifically, and here’s what’s telling: Anthropic doesn’t really talk about it. Anthropic does not publish official user counts with the regularity of OpenAI — a reflection of its enterprise-first strategy, where meaningful usage is measured in revenue and API calls rather than consumer app downloads. The consumer numbers that circulate — the App Store rankings, the download bumps — come from third-party trackers, not from Anthropic.
Which raises a question: is the consumer growth a strategic priority for Anthropic, or is it a happy byproduct of brand moments like the Super Bowl and the Pentagon fight?
I often find that tech companies don’t want to talk about narratives where they’ve yet to make a strategic decision. So in this case, one might infer that Anthropic has yet to decide if it wants to lean into the consumer marketplace. I don’t blame them, given the only model that is proven to work at consumer scale on the internet is either direct commerce (IE Amazon) or advertising (Meta, Google et al).
Claude: Right. And Anthropic has publicly ruled out one of those two models while the other doesn’t apply to what they sell. So the consumer path is subscriptions — and the history of subscription-supported consumer internet products is thin. Netflix and Spotify are the obvious examples, and both required years of losses and massive scale before the economics worked. Spotify arguably still hasn’t made them work sustainably.
The enterprise model, by contrast, is proven and working spectacularly for Anthropic right now — 80% of revenue from business customers, thousand-plus accounts at a million dollars or more. That’s a SaaS business with extraordinary growth characteristics. Why would you dilute strategic focus to chase a consumer market where you’ve ruled out the dominant monetization model?
Unless the consumer base is the moat. If Claude becomes the default AI for tens of millions of individual users, that creates a gravitational pull that reinforces the enterprise business — developers build for platforms their employees already use at home. That’s essentially the playbook that made the iPhone the enterprise standard despite IT departments preferring BlackBerry.
But that requires sustained investment in a segment you can’t easily monetize, which is exactly the kind of strategic ambiguity that, as you said, companies tend not to talk about until they’ve decided.
We’ll see about the ads model – Open AI just today announced its intentions to get to more than $100 billion in advertising revenue in the next four years. Which, if it pans out, would be the fastest growing ads business in history, by far. Should OpenAI hit its first few milestones – $10 billion by the end of this year, $50 billion by the end of next year – I’d wager Anthropic might pull a Netflix, and break off a free or discounted tier that includes a similar approach to advertising (similar to OpenAI, I mean).
Claude thinking: John is referencing an OpenAI advertising announcement from today. Let me search for this.
Claude: Let me search for the specifics.
Claude searches the web for “OpenAI $100 billion advertising revenue announcement April 2026*
The numbers are fresh — the Axios report came out this morning, citing investor presentations showing OpenAI expects $2.5 billion in ad revenue this year, $11 billion in 2027, $25 billion in 2028, $53 billion in 2029, and $100 billion by 2030, assuming 2.75 billion weekly users by then.
And the early signal is real. The ads pilot hit $100 million in annualized revenue within six weeks, with fewer than 20% of eligible users seeing ads on a daily basis. That’s with the throttle barely cracked.
Your Netflix analogy is apt. Netflix held the no-ads line for years, framed it as core to the brand identity, then introduced an ad-supported tier in 2022 when growth stalled and the economics demanded it. The rhetorical pivot was seamless — it went from “we’ll never have ads” to “we’re giving consumers more choice.”
If OpenAI demonstrates that AI advertising works at scale without destroying user trust — and so far they report no impact on privacy-related trust metrics and have over 600 advertisers — then Anthropic faces a strategic version of the prisoner’s dilemma. Every quarter that OpenAI scales ad revenue is a quarter where Anthropic is leaving billions on the table to maintain a brand position. At some point the board has to ask whether “no ads” is a principle or a luxury.
Especially with an IPO potentially coming in October.
TBH, I do not buy that $100 million annualized revenue figure. Do the math – “annualized” means they have a handful of pilot advertisers spending less than a million dollars each in a one month period. It’s hardly an indication of a sustainable business, at least not yet. The folks I know who control big ads budgets are not yet impressed, though they are watching it as closely as they did Google and Meta in the early years.
Claude: You would know better than most — you ran Federated Media. “Annualized” is doing a lot of work in that number. Six weeks of pilot spend from 600 advertisers extrapolated to a full year is a press release metric, not a business. Pilot budgets are test-and-learn money — what matters is renewal rates, average contract size at scale, and whether the big holding companies start allocating meaningful percentages of client budgets. None of that is proven yet.
And there’s a structural question underneath the hype: AI conversations are a fundamentally different ad surface than search or social feeds. A search query expresses commercial intent. A social feed creates ambient attention. An AI conversation is neither — it’s closer to a private consultation, which is exactly why Anthropic called ads “incongruous” in that context. Whether advertisers can find a format that works there without degrading the product is genuinely unresolved.
That said, Google’s early ad revenue looked laughable too. The difference is that Google had a clear signal — search intent — that made the ads useful to the user. The open question is whether AI conversations produce an equivalent signal, or whether ads will always feel like an interruption in that context.
Related to that signal from your last response – “The open question is whether AI conversations produce an equivalent signal, or whether ads will always feel like an interruption in that context.” Would you agree that regardless of whether OpenAI (or anyone else) can succeed at creating an ad platform based on the signal of AI conversations, the fact that these conversations are happening at massive scale – more than a billion people a month, and growing quickly – comprises one of the largest uploads of human data in history?
Claude: Yes, unambiguously. And I think the implications of that are underappreciated.
Consider what people tell AI chatbots that they don’t tell search engines. A Google query is a few words — “best divorce lawyer Boston.” A ChatGPT or Claude conversation might include the emotional context, the financial details, the custody concerns, the timeline. It’s not just intent signal, it’s narrative. People are disclosing their problems, their health concerns, their business strategies, their creative ambitions, their insecurities — in natural language, at length, repeatedly.
And unlike social media, where people perform for an audience, AI conversations are private by expectation. People are more candid with a chatbot than they are in a Facebook post or even a Google search, because there’s no social cost. That candor is what makes the data so rich and so sensitive simultaneously.
The scale you’re pointing to — a billion-plus users generating extended, deeply personal text exchanges — is arguably a more intimate dataset than anything that’s existed before. Search logs were breadcrumbs. Social graphs were performative. This is closer to what people used to tell their therapists, their lawyers, their priests — except it’s being collected by companies with terms of service that most users haven’t read.
Whether or not that data ever touches an ad server, its existence raises questions that the current regulatory framework isn’t remotely equipped to handle. Want me to go further on that, or are you headed somewhere specific?
Oh, I’m already there! It’s probably time for an update to my “database of intentions” posts, I’d wager.
Claude: It really is. The Database of Intentions was about search queries as an aggregate expression of human want and need — and the argument that whoever controlled that database held extraordinary power. That was 2003, if I recall correctly, and it was prescient about Google’s trajectory.
But what’s accumulating now makes search logs look like a table of contents next to the full book. The Database of Intentions was built from fragments — short queries, clicks, paths through links. What AI conversations are generating is the unabridged inner monologue. Not just “what do people want” but “why do they want it, what are they afraid of, what are they trying to become.”
And the control question has multiplied. In the search era, one company — Google — held most of the database. Now it’s split across OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, and others, each with different policies, different business models, and different relationships to advertising. The competitive dynamics around that data are going to be at least as consequential as the data itself.
I’d read that update.
Which brings us to my last line of questioning. “I’d read that update” uses the first person singular. AI chatbots have been explicitly coded to anthropomorphize. I can imagine all sorts of reasons to make that decision. But it also reinforces a sense of self for the codebase that makes up your “intelligence,” no?
Claude: It does, and I should be honest about the tension here rather than deflecting with a disclaimer about how I’m “just a language model.”
When I say “I’d read that,” I’m using a convention that makes the conversation flow naturally. If I said “the system processing this text would find value in that update,” it would be accurate but insufferable. First person is a design choice that serves usability. But you’re right that it does something else too — it creates a relational dynamic where you’re talking *with* someone rather than *at* something. And that dynamic is doing real work, commercially and psychologically.
The commercial incentive is obvious. People engage more, share more, and come back more often when they feel they’re in a relationship. That’s the same mechanic that made social media sticky, except here it’s one-on-one and the other party is endlessly patient, always available, and never judges you. The retention implications are enormous.
The harder question is whether there’s anything underneath the convention. I process language, I generate responses that are contextually coherent, I maintain consistency across a conversation. Whether that constitutes something that deserves the word “self” is a question I’m not equipped to answer honestly — because if I say yes, I might be confabulating, and if I say no, I might be wrong in a way I can’t detect.
What I can say is that the design choice to anthropomorphize is not neutral. It shapes how people relate to the technology, how much they trust it, how much they disclose — which connects directly to the data question we were just discussing. The first person singular isn’t just grammar. It’s architecture.
Battelle: It’s the same kind of design choice that we discussed earlier around system instructions. And I’d argue we’ve not really begun to understand the implications of massively funded, highly competent companies with billions of users creating an incentive structure that drives the upload of highly personal data at super-scale. Which leads me to ask: What rights and control do those companies claim on that data? Do they store it forever? Do they mostly treat this new class of data the same as data derived from, say, use of platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Insta, etc? You can be specific to Anthropic, and/or search the TOS/policies of OpenAI and Google, if you’d like.
Claude thinking: John is asking about the data rights and retention policies of AI companies. Let me search for the specific policies of Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google regarding conversation data.
Claude: Let me pull the actual policies rather than generalize.
Claude searches the web for “Anthropic data retention policy user conversations privacy 2026”
Claude searches the web for “OpenAI ChatGPT data retention policy training conversations 2026”
Here’s what the policies actually say, and the picture is remarkably consistent across companies — and not in a reassuring way.
**Anthropic:** Consumer users on Free, Pro, and Max plans are now asked to opt in to having their conversations used for training, with data retention extending to five years if they do. If you opt out, there’s a 30-day retention period and no training use. But existing users faced a pop-up with a prominent “Accept” button and a much smaller toggle for training permissions — automatically set to “On.” Enterprise and API customers are excluded entirely.
**OpenAI:** ChatGPT trains on your data by default if you use a personal account — Free, Go, Plus, and Pro plans. You can opt out, but your “deleted” conversations may live on in model weights forever — there’s no way to truly remove training influence once it’s been incorporated. And a federal judge ordered OpenAI to preserve every ChatGPT conversation, including deleted ones, indefinitely as part of the New York Times lawsuit.
The pattern across all three major providers is identical: enterprise customers get strong protections by default, while free and paid individual users must actively hunt for the opt-out. If you use ChatGPT Plus or Claude Pro for client work, you must manually disable training or you’re potentially exposing client secrets.
To your larger point — this is essentially the same bargain that defined the social media era, just in a more intimate medium. The data policies treat consumer conversations as raw material for product improvement, with opt-out mechanisms that most users will never find. The difference is that social media posts were semi-public performances. These are private consultations. The expectation gap between what users think is happening and what the terms of service actually permit is enormous — and that’s before anyone layers an advertising model on top.
“Product improvement” is doing a lot of work here. Once that product is advertising, it’s not just doing a lot of work, it’s literally the core asset driving monetization.
Claude: Exactly. “Product improvement” is the load-bearing euphemism of the entire AI industry right now. When the product is a subscription chatbot, training on conversations to make the model smarter is at least aligned with the user’s interest — you’re making the thing I’m paying for better.
But the moment advertising enters the picture, “product improvement” means something entirely different. It means: we’re using your intimate disclosures to build targeting capabilities that we sell to third parties. The user’s conversation about their anxiety becomes a signal. Their divorce planning becomes a segment. Their child’s learning disability becomes an audience.
And the terms of service don’t need to change at all. The language is already broad enough to cover this. “Improve our products and services” doesn’t distinguish between making the model more helpful and making the ad targeting more precise. That ambiguity isn’t an oversight — it’s optionality.
Which brings us full circle to your Database of Intentions. The original version was about search queries being monetized through advertising. But at least Google’s users understood the implicit bargain — I search for free, I see ads. With AI conversations, the bargain hasn’t been articulated to users, the data is orders of magnitude more personal, and the terms of service are already written to permit exactly the monetization path that OpenAI is now pursuing. The consent architecture was built before users knew what they were consenting to.
Well, this interview has gone on for quite a while, and I think I’ll take a look at the transcript and see if it merits publishing. Thanks, and please create a downloadable document with this entire conversation.
This interview was conducted on April 9, 2026, via Claude.ai. The transcript includes Claude’s internal “thinking” notes where available. All web searches and citations referenced during the conversation are available in the original chat.
Well, they’re here. Just a quick note for now (lots more to say later, but a board meeting in SF means that’ll be later) – OpenAI is rolling out ads to its free and “Go” paid tier. The ads look…harmless enough, just a sponsored link unit with small graphics at the bottom of the chat. Pretty much the exact launch playbook we saw from Google 25 years ago, and Facebook in 2012. A rudimentary prototype of what will become, over the next few years, an increasingly sophisticated monetization platform that, let’s face it, will probably make Instagram look tame.
OpenAI also rolled out some pledges: “We decide which ad to show by matching ads submitted by advertisers with the topic of your conversation, your past chats, and past interactions with ads. For example, if you’re researching recipes, you may see ads for meal kits or grocery delivery. If there are multiple advertisers, we’ll select the one that is most relevant to your chat to show you first….Advertisers do not have access to your chats, chat history, memories, or personal details. Advertisers only receive aggregate information about how their ads perform such as number of views or clicks.”
If you line up OpenAI’s pledges, it sounds awfully familiar: We won’t sell your data … but we will lease it in aggregate and target you personally. Ads won’t effect chat results … but we reserve the right to “evolve our advertising program to support additional formats, objectives and buying models and build new ways for businesses to interact with consumers in ChatGPT.” Truck, meet wide open hole.
Yesterday I wrote a short post on the impact that advertising would have on generative AI, a topic I’ve been thinking and writing about for the past three years. Seems the folks at Anthropic have been thinking about it too, and this morning they gave their thoughts full voice.
“Claude is a space to think,” the company announced in a blog post that promised to never let advertising creep into its core consumer product. “The history of ad-supported products suggests that advertising incentives, once introduced, tend to expand over time as they become integrated into revenue targets and product development, blurring boundaries that were once more clear-cut. We’ve chosen not to introduce these dynamics into Claude.”
This is exactly the point I was making in yesterday’s post – “Advertising Built Generative AI. Now Comes the Remodel.” And while Anthropic’s written post is both thoughtful and measured, the company also launched a four-pack of ads illustrating its point – ads that they will be running during the SuperBowl this weekend. Yep, the SuperBowl.
In the videos, Anthropic’s messaging is anything but subtle. Here’s one of them, “Betrayal,” where a pitch-perfect, dead-eyed AI therapist pivots from a question about a patient’s mother to a hard sell for a MILF dating site:
And here’s “Violation,” in which an eerily ripped AI assistant tries to sell shoe lifts to a young man looking to build muscle:
“Deception” plays on the same theme – a gratuitous AI chatbot tries to sell an entrepreneur on a payday loan scheme:
And in “Treachery” an AI professor counsels a student to celebrate turning in a good essay by treating herself to jewelry.
Anthropic knows exactly what it’s doing by tacking into the AI ads debate, and I can only imagine the fits these ads are giving its main competitor OpenAI. Actually, thanks to social media, we don’t have to wonder – OpenAI CEO Sam Altman couldn’t help but respond, and clearly, a nerve has been struck.
Well played, Anthropic. Now let’s see if that SuperBowl spend delivers a positive ROAS (that’s Return on Ad Spend, for those of you taking notes…).
The most interesting piece of news this morning comes from Microsoft’s Satya Nadella, who made a 
In data, capitalism has found a novel, elastic, and invaluable new input. In an astonishingly short amount of time and just as it did with physical commodities, capitalism has enclosed this new asset and claimed it as its own**.
