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.
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.
Ten years ago a new and promising technology burst into our homes – the smart speaker. Like many tech-forward families, our household went all in. We got two Alexa speakers and two Google Homes, plugged them in, and they became fixtures in our kitchen and bedrooms for years.
Problem is, we kind of hate them now. At first they were cool – it was novel to talk to a device and have it actually work, at least for simple tasks like “what’s the weather today” or “play Vampire Weekend.” But we quickly grew disaffected with our new purchases, because more often than not, they failed when presented with even moderately complicated queries like “what time is the Giants game tonight” or “what’s on my grocery list.” In short, the first generation of smart home speakers were limited by a rigid approach to “intelligence” that didn’t scale. Only one sad, bedraggled Google Home remains in service in our kitchen, serving as a glorified clock radio (that’s it in the picture above). And it’s not doing Google any favors in the branding department, because whenever we ask it anything even slightly complicated, it fails, earning a string of expletives in the process*.
But all that is poised to change in 2026. We’re now all in the habit of having nuanced, complicated, and satisfying conversations with AI chatbots, and in the past year, those conversations have increasingly taken place on our phones, using a voice interface. Home speakers have been an obstinate exception to this new habit, but this year, the three major smart home players – Amazon, Google, and Apple – will finally integrate conversational generative AI into the next generation of their devices. If they work properly, we’ll finally get the voice-driven interface revolution I’ve been excited about for decades.
My prediction is this: By year’s end, we’ll have ambient AI in our homes, and it will actually work as expected. This in turn will shift what we expect as consumers of technology, in our cars, on our phones, and in the world around us. It won’t be a revolution, but when we look back at 2026 ten years from now, we’ll realize that this was the year “ambient intelligence” took off.
*I often imagine the poor QA engineers at Google or Amazon who have to listen to the snippets of audio the devices capture after their devices deliver reliably crappy results. I bet it’s gold.
—
This is the fifth in a series of post I’ll be doing on predictions for 2026. The first four are here, here, here and here. When I get to #1, I’ll post a roundup like I usually do.
If only Nano Banana could spell, AI would be a thing.
For the past many years one prediction has proven reliably accurate: There will be no significant Federal regulation of the technology industry. At times this stalwart prognostication has been tested by major anti-trust actions – but each has proven ultimately toothless. This year, for example, we’ll learn what the DOJ managed to accomplish in its second case against Google – and it’s still possible a judge will rule that the search and AI giant must divest itself of its adtech infrastructure. But I don’t think so. And even if that ruling does come to pass, Google knows it can simply appeal, dragging out any eventual impact until it wins a war of attrition with an increasingly feckless and uninterested DOJ.
Besides, arguing about the past is playing yesterday’s game, and in 2026, the game has reverted to an even older playbook. For the past five or so years, tech giants have had to play defense when it comes to M&A and sweetheart partnerships – Meta was being sued over its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, Google over its consolidation of adtech and its domination of search distribution through deals with Apple and Samsung, among others. But in 2026, the governors are coming off.
Here’s what the co-head of software banking at Goldman has to say about the year ahead, according to The Information: “[Goldman] is gearing up for what it anticipates to be an “extremely active” period that could top 2021, a year where tech M&A and IPO volume both hit record-highs.” Put another way, Big Tech is gearing up to once again go big. Expect some eye-watering acquisitions, as well as novel partnerships around AI products and distribution. While the DOJ fights yesterday’s war, Google in particular will be building a Death Star of AI distribution featuring all the same players from its days of search monopoly: Apple, Samsung, and other Android partners. And the government won’t do a thing about it.
I opened last year’s predictions by noting that “Big Tech has leap-frogged finance in the pantheon of political influence,” and 2026 is the year that influence will start to pay its expected dividends. Yes, there will be individual actions driven by a mercurial and vengeful autocrat. But if tech companies continue to pay tribute, and I certain they will, that Goldman banker nailed it: 2026 is going to be a very, very big year for tech deals.
—
This is the fourth in a series of post I’ll be doing on predictions for 2026. The first three are here, here and here. When I get to #1, I’ll post a roundup like I usually do.
All year long I monitor my annual predictions, taking note when events either make me a fool or a sage. 2025 marked perhaps the most unpredictable and frustrating year of them all – and that’s not nothing, given I started prognosticating in 2003. But then again, I did expect an odd one – from my 2025 post: “This isn’t going to be a normal year. 2025 will be strange, frenetic, and full of surprises.”
I titled my post “Tech Takes the Power Position.” While I didn’t make that sentiment one of my specifically numbered predictions, it did provide the context for how I was thinking about the year ahead. “We’re not accustomed to the tech industry having this much raw power. The finance industry? Sure…But this year, for the first time ever, Big Tech has leap-frogged finance in the pantheon of political influence…the subset of Big Tech bros who’ve bought their way into the Oval are evangelists for an untested and downright strange brand of magical thinking best summed up as “techno optimism.” …for better or for worse, 2025 is going to be the year when the loudest voices in the room are all adherents of the Great Man Theory, and they all happen to have direct access to the Oval Office.”
I certainly think that sentiment has proven out over the past 12 months – the tech industry is an indisputable driver of the tragicomedy currently playing out across American society.
But what of my specific predictions? Let’s roll the tape:
TikTok will continue to operate in the US. Check. Not only did TikTok continue to operate, the administration recently announced a sweetheart deal that addresses none of the original issues raised (by Trump!) in the first place (save making various cronies rich on the arbitrage). I’ve never been a fan of the TikTok ban, nor of TikTok itself, but I certainly got this one right.
There will be no meaningful regulation of Big Tech. Check again. Perhaps this was too easy to predict, and I should have gone further: There will be meaningful deregulation of Big Tech. At the state level, more than 30 AI related regulations passed, but that was greeted with an executive order attempting to reinterpret the Constitution so as to mollify Trump’s tech bro donors.
2025 will not be the year AI agents take off. Check. Three in a row! If you are merrily employing agents to do your bidding across the Internet, please let me know. So far, consumer agents remain a pipe dream, and enterprise agents have been slow to move beyond the kind of automations most companies already have hard coded. “No one knows what the hell an AI agent is” declared Techcrunch last spring. “Agentic commerce is still a collective hallucination,” proclaimed industry trade Marketecture this Fall. I have written about this story all year long and will keep focusing on it next year, so if you want more, just stay tuned!
2025 will be the year Gen AI gets boring – and better. Check. I think this also proved true. The term “boring” is certainly disputable – but my point was that it would be a year of evolution, not major leaps forward, and that’s certainly been the case. Products got better, usage kept going up and to the right, and, as I wrote: “2025 is the year Gen AI is put to work doing boring, useful things for us.”
Prompt data becomes the new gold standard.Push. This one is harder to support. First a bit of explanation – in my prediction, I wrote “prompt data provides one of the richest signals of what people want, need, and plan to purchase, and that is simply too valuable to not be leveraged by marketers (and Big Tech).” But did that happen this year? Certainly by Google and OpenAI, to both improve their AI products and develop their advertising systems. And I’ve met with dozens of interesting startups that are working in the space in one way or another. But did prompt data become a fungible class of data like, say, retail or financial data? Not really. I’m going to give myself a push here. I think I was right, but can’t prove it yet.
Retail media will consolidate. Push. There were too many deals to list over the past 12 months related to the retail media network world. But here are a few: DoorDash & Symbiosys, Pinterest & TVScientific, Instacart & OpenAI, Kroger & Omnicom; oh, right: Omnicom & IPG, which was driven in part by the data-driven nature of RMNs. But then again, we saw a bunch of new RMNs either launch or expand significantly, including Home Depot (OrangeApron), Ace Hardware (RedVest – see a trend here?), Best Buy Marketplace, Kroger Precision Marketing, and “shoppable TV” from Walmart’s Vizio integration. So perhaps true consolidation in this space is still a year or two off…I’ll give myself half credit on this one for now.
Apple will be in open warfare with OpenAI. Whiff. I was sure Apple’s 2024 OpenAI deal was provisional, and that Apple would end up selling its “consumer surfaces” to the highest bidder (IE Google). But that didn’t happen in 2025 – likely because both parties were waiting for Google’s antitrust remedies related to their search megadeal. Now that the suit has been resolved (quite favorably for both), I’d look for more Google-Apple news in 2026. And while I’m quite sure Apple is no fan of OpenAI, it keeps those feelings private. “Open warfare” never really broke out. My first big miss.
A Trump/Musk fallout? No. A burnout? Yes. Push. Well, this one is tricky. Was there a fallout? Yes. But did it settle down into a negotiated truce (a “burnout”)? Again, yes. Here’s what I wrote: “By year’s end, Musk and Trump will have tired of each other, preferring to do business with each other through proxies…both Musk and Trump are smart enough to realize they need each other – so they’ll avoid an all out press battle.” For the most part, that is how the story played out, but it did get ugly there back in the spring. I think I got this one mostly right, but missed what should have been obvious: When two billionaire narcissists split, they’ll always be a spectacle.
Google gets a new CEO. Major Whiff. In fact, just the opposite happened. When Bloomberg writes a piece titled “Sundar Pichai Is Google’s Wartime CEO After All,” you know you missed the mark, even if it seemed like you were correct at the start of the year. I’ll take the L here, and tip my hat to Sundar’s extraordinary comeback.
Health at the center. Check. This was a pretty broad prediction, but my main point was this: “Next to tech politics, the healthcare industry will be the most interesting story of 2025.” I stand by that statement, even if it’s entirely subjective. I had a front row seat to that story all year long through DOC, and the pace is only increasing. From policy (RFK’s vaccine panels, Medicare and ObamaCare at the center of a government shutdown) to breakthroughs in AI and cancer, women’s health, and many other fields, 2025 was a huge year for health. I expect that to only continue.
Crypto goes sideways.Check. With this prediction, I was guessing that the crypto craze would push prices up and up, but as with all pump and dump schemes, the market would end up finding the floor by year’s end. And that’s pretty much what happened. Bitcoin, which serves as a proxy for the market overall, started the year at around $92,000. It climbed to nearly $125,000 by mid year, but has been languishing back at $88,000 or so as of this writing. But wasn’t it a fun ride?!
Ok, checking my self-graded homework – that’s 7 of 12 right, 2 of 13 wrong, and 3 pushes. Not bad! Look for my 2026 Predictions in a week or so, and have yourself a merry holiday season!
Back in the day when I was covering Google on a daily basis, I’d have spent hours poring over yesterday’s news that the judge in Google’s landmark antitrust case essentially blinked. But twenty-odd years of experience leaves me with very little to say about how Google’s first anti-trust case has been resolved, other than this: It’s a nothing burger, with a side of same-as-it-ever-was.
Over the course of nearly four years since the government brought its case, a lot has changed:
The United States has veered away from liberal democracy toward illiberal autocracy, and the current administration is no longer interested in grand antitrust remedies that serve the public. Today, everything is seen through the lens of whether a given action or decision furthers the President’s power. Preserving the status quo gives him leverage over powerful actors – he can continue to threaten and bully, ensuring fealty and tribute. In this administration, as in Moscow, Pyongyang and Beijing, no one is allowed to have more power than the Dear Leader.
As I laid out in my predictions nine months ago, the tech industry is now the most powerful force in politics outside the President, and its two most muscular companies – Apple and Google – did not want their duopoly upended. We’ll likely never know what soft-power backroom deals were cut to avoid what nearly every legal scholar felt was justified action by the government, but to think those dynamics didn’t impact this decision is to ignore the reality of my first point above.
OpenAI’s existence became a convenient foil. The emergence of generative AI has given Google (and the judge in this case) the ability to argue that the DOJ was fighting yesterday’s war. Sure, Google might have been a search monopolist, but look – OpenAI is proof that the market is always smarter than government regulators! Never mind the fact that search literally built the foundation for generative AI, or that generative AI is the natural evolution of search – a product that Google will continue to dominate now that government remedies have been rendered toothless.
Google – and its $20 billion partner Apple – are likely doing cartwheels today. Wall Street certainly is.
I’ve written a lot about AI lately, and I’ll admit, most of it is critical. Plenty of you have asked me why I’m so down on the sector. The crux of it is this: I think we’re approaching AI without considering history’s lessons, and because of that we’re failing to ask the questions that will matter as the technology becomes inextricably embedded in our culture.
Perhaps the most important question is metaphorical – what’s the best metaphor for how we interact with AI? We’ve got plenty of examples to chose from. Will our interactions with AI end up being like the PC – a personal device that we own and control? Or will it instead end up like social media or search (or worse, television) – a centralized service that is owned and controlled by large corporations?
As generative AI took root over the past few years, I’ve been watching the early returns, and they’re not encouraging. We’re barreling down the “AI as a service” road, oblivious to the tradeoffs we’re making along the way. If AI is indeed the most significant technological breakthrough of our lifetime, do we really want to adopt it into our lives under the same big tech business model that gave us Instagram, TikTok, Amazon, and the gig economy?
In recent weeks, Amazon updated the code underpinning its website to add language warding off new AI agents from Google. These changes follow restrictions Amazon added earlier this year calling out bots from Perplexity, Anthropic’s Claude and OpenAI’s ChatGPT.
The story continues in an almost apologetic tone, explaining that Amazon doesn’t want AI agents crawling its site because it “could see a big drop in the number of people browsing their sites directly.” That, in turn, could derail Amazon’s $60 billion advertising business.
True, but left unsaid is the even larger impact that personalized AI agents (I call them “genies“) might have on Amazon’s business should they have access to Amazon’s platform. Truly personalized agents that work only for one individual would effortlessly compare Amazon’s pricing and delivery options across the web, perhaps finding a better deal at Walmart, Shopify, or a small third-party vendor eager to break into the market.
Amazon doesn’t want anybody – or anything – undermining its dominant position in online commerce, so it’s enforcing a “no AI agent” policy across the board. But let’s call it what it is: Amazon is refusing to compete. And while using market power to stifle competition might be par for the course amongst big tech players, what we’re forgetting is how these policies lock out innovation as new market dynamics are in play.
If large tech companies like Amazon refuse to honor requests from third-party AI agents, consumers are left no choice but to rely on AI that’s been “approved” by Amazon. That’s a model built not for consumers, but for the profits of established players.
The key to genies is that they work for you. If you have a choice between having your own health care genie coded by genius Valley hackers on a mission to keep you healthy (and not broke), or using the one provided by Blue Cross Blue Shield Anthem Empire Incorporated and given the stamp of approval by Apple or OpenAI, which one would you want to use?!
Do you trust Amazon, OpenAI, Apple, Meta, or Google to give you the best deal possible? If you do, then this AI revolution is turning out exactly how you wanted it to.
By the time I got home, Ed Zitron, currently the tech world’s most fervid antagonist – had beat me to it. Zitron dissembled The Information’s reporting, noting that the piece takes “great pains to accept literally everything that OpenAI says as perfectly reasonable, if not gospel, even if said things make absolutely no sense.”
So what doesn’t make sense? Well first off, the numbers themselves. OpenAI earned less than $4 billion in revenue in 2024. The report, sourced from anonymous “potential and current investors,” claims OpenAI is projecting 2029 revenues to be $129 billion – an increase of $125 billion in just five years. That’s a more than 100% annual compounded growth rate – for five years in a row. Calling such a projection optimistic is a disservice to the word optimistic. It’s fantasy, and Zitron rightly skewers The Information for accepting the numbers without so much as a reality check from anyone who might have the experience to provide context.
Take Google, which was the fastest growing tech company of its time, and emblematic of a dramatic shift in Internet business overall. Back in 2003, the year before the company went public, the company earned nearly $1.5 billion in revenue. Five years later, the company had grown at an annual rate of more than 70% – to more than $21 billion in revenue. That’s extraordinary – but it’s not close to what OpenAI and The Information is reporting.
How about Facebook? Well, the year before it went public, it earned $3.7 billion in revenue, close to what OpenAI earned in 2024. Five years later, its revenues had increased to more than $26 billion – a nearly 50% annual growth rate. Again, historic, but less than half of the history OpenAI claims to be making.
OK, what about Apple, during its fastest era of growth – from 2003 through 2008, after the launch of the iPhone? Apple grew from $6.2 billion to $32.5 billion in those heady times, impressive, but…that’s only a 39% annual growth rate.
I could go on, but finding examples of paradigm-shifting technology companies that grow at double digits (or more) over an extended period of time is beyond difficult – it’s impossible. Not to mention, the only way OpenAI gets to these eye-popping growth rates is to adopt advertising – the very business model it’s said to eschew.
So, if we’re to believe OpenAI, and by extension, The Information as a credible source of journalism, we’d have to ignore history, pop the red pill, and suspend disbelief. It seems investors in OpenAI are willing to do just that.
As generative AI reaches a fever pitch of investment, product releases, and hype, most of us have ignored a profound flaw as we march relentlessly toward The Next Big Thing. Our most dominant AI products and services (those from OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft, for example) are deployed in the cloud via a “client-server” architecture – “a computing model where resources, such as applications, data, and services, are provided by a central server, and clients request access to these resources from the server.”
Now, what’s wrong with that? Technically, nothing. A client-server approach isn’t controversial; in fact, it’s an efficient and productive approach for a company offering data-processing products and services. The client – that’s be you and your device – provides input (a prompt, for example) which is relayed to the server. The server takes that input, processes it, and delivers an output back to the client.
Non-controversial, right? Well, sure, if the “server” in question is a neutral platform that’s only in the business of processing your data so you can use the services it offers. Banks, for example, use neutral client-server architectures to provide online financial services, as do most health care providers. The data you share with them isn’t used for anything other than the provision of services.
But that’s not how most consumer-facing technology companies view your input data. For Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, and countless other consumer apps, the “input” you send to their servers is used for far more than just providing a specific service. As you are probably well aware, input data – and a lot of other data – comprise the critical mass driving the tech industry’s most profitable business models: Lock-in (more on that soon), and advertising.
If you know my work, you know I’m a huge fan of advertising – I’ve built my career in related fields of publishing, media, and advertising technology. But that doesn’t mean I’m a huge fan of how the technology industry has eclipsed traditional advertising models for what critics call “surveillance capitalism.” I love the idea that personal data can make advertising work for … people. But so far, we’ve not built a system that works that way. Instead, we’ve built an unchecked engine of extractive capitalism that seeks to lock us in through data capture. Core to this lock-in is the aforementioned client-server model of data input, as well as a thicket of legal contracts, known as “terms of service” and “privacy policies,” which govern how companies can use that data.
Enter Your AI Identity
This week, well-known technology analyst Ben Thompson posted on OpenAI’s recent news that it was adding “memory” to its ChatGPT product. OpenAI hasn’t documented exactly how this memory feature works, but Thompson suggests it “seems to be some sort of RAG search over structured summaries of previous chats.” If that last sentence left you a bit puzzled, don’t fear. I think of it this way: OpenAI is taking all your previous input data, processing it in various ways, and combining it with whatever you ask it next so as to give you better output.
So far, so good, right? Well…maybe. But maybe not. Thompson notes that ChatGPT’s new memory feature only works for “memories” that are on OpenAI’s servers – memories from Google’s Gemini or Anthropic’s Claude may as well have been written in sand. Thompson calls this fact a “strategic moat” for OpenAI, because, as with Google, Meta, Apple, and countless others in the tech world, OpenAI has built a product that will own the identity you’re building as you interact with it. He presses his point further, delivering this stunning conclusion: “What is interesting about OpenAI’s gambit here is that the identity they are seeking to own is not your identity but rather the identity of your AI.”
Thompson continues his analysis by theorizing that once OpenAI establishes dominance as a central repository of our AI identities, it can, through its API, become something of a master connector for all other AI services. He mentions a new AI chatbot called Auren that he’s been testing. Wouldn’t it be cool if Auren, which calls itself a “superhuman emotional intelligence, memory, and therapeutic capability,” could connect with and be informed by your OpenAI identity? “Presumably,” he continues, “the details of [our conversations with Auren] could then flow the other way to my AI identity [at OpenAI].”
It’s always the presumptions, damnit. As soon as I read that line, I realized it was time to read OpenAI’s terms of service. Yes, it’d be great if data flowed bi-directionally between all manner of apps – AI and otherwise. But – as I’ve written over, and over, and over again – that’s not how the tech industry works. Driven as it is by data capture and rivalrous economic incentives, the tech industry has built its business models on “lock in” – making it very difficult for consumers to leave one service for another. Ever tried to leave the iPhone for Android, Google for Bing, or the Mac for a PC? That’s lock-in at work.
Put another way, Thompson is praising OpenAI’s move toward “owning AI identity” as consistent with the standard technology industry playbook of locking us into using its services, forever. And what is OpenAI’s method of lock-in? You guessed it: Your data. How do I know this? Because I did, in fact, read OpenAI’s terms of service and its other data-related policies. And they’re depressingly similar to the the rest of the technology industry’s. To wit:
Users may not “automatically or programmatically extract data or Output.” In other words, folks like you and me cannot use our own AI agents to pull our own information from OpenAI’s servers. Goodbye, my dreams of genies!
OpenAI “may use Content to provide, maintain, develop, and improve our Services.” This is an industry-wide catchall that allows the company to do pretty much anything it wants to with your data, within applicable law (which in the US, ain’t much.)
And as with all other tech companies, OpenAI “may share your Personal Data, including information about your interaction with our Services, with government authorities, industry peers, or other third parties in compliance with the law.”
I don’t know if you find that last one unsettling given headlines like “How DOGE led a ‘hostile takeover’ at the IRS to use taxpayer data,” but I find the idea that my “AI identity” is locked in a private company where it is subject to potentially authoritarian government decree…a bit disturbing of late.
OpenAI’s policies did have one bright spot – as of today, the company promises to not get directly into the advertising business. From its privacy policy: “We do not “sell” Personal Data or “share” Personal Data for cross-contextual behavioral advertising, and we do not process Personal Data for “targeted advertising” purposes.”
Comforting, right? Well, kind of. Let’s not forget that Apple, which makes similar promises, rakes in more than $20 billion a year from its relationship with Google, and it also operates a massive advertising business of its own. Once OpenAI owns our identities, will it ignore that kind of a bonanza? I doubt it. In fact, I’m quite sure the company is counting on it. AI may well be The Next Big Thing in tech, but one thing’s certain: There’s nothing new about how it plans on making money from us, and that’s a damn shame.
Look, I’m not much of an AI image-generation prompt writer.
This isn’t going to be a normal year.
2025 will be strange, frenetic, and full of surprises, particularly for those of us who watch tech closely. We’re not accustomed to the tech industry having this much raw power. The finance industry? Sure. For decades, we watched leaders from Goldman rotate through every administration’s cabinet and economic team, and we got used to it. But this year, for the first time ever, Big Tech has leap-frogged finance in the pantheon of political influence. And while the finance bros have a reliable and predictable ideology – capital is king – the subset of Big Tech bros who’ve bought their way into the Oval are evangelists for an untested and downright strange brand of magical thinking best summed up as “techno optimism.” The sophomoric claptrap underpinning Andreessen and Musk’s approach to politics may not be representative of the tech industry overall, but for better or for worse, 2025 is going to be the year when the loudest voices in the room are all adherents of the Great Man Theory, and they all happen to have direct access to the Oval Office.
One year ago, while reviewing the performance of my less-than-stellar 2023 predictions, I said that I’d learned my lesson: Going forward, I’d avoid prognosticating about Trump or politics, and I’d steer clear of wildcards like Musk and crypto. But here we are, one year later, and each of those topics swirl around our once and future President. They’re unavoidable – and very much in the news, regardless of the traditional holiday lull.
Since jotting down my initial list of 2025 predictions two weeks ago, several have already started to come true. The very first notion I had — that TikTok will not be banned in the US — looked like a counterintuitive call just last week. Thanks to a fresh Trump filing, the odds have shifted considerably. I also planned on predicting that Trump would have a serious falling out with his new tech bro besties. Again, the odds of that increased with this past week’s imbroglio around H-1B visas. I don’t think immigration will be the issue that splits up our two favorite camps of narcissists, but it does offer a fine foreshadowing of fissures that could become chasms this coming year.
Regardless of politics, crypto, and Big Tech, there’s plenty of other topics worth prognostication. So let’s get to it, and let the chips fall where they may.
TikTok will continue to operate in the US. As I said above, the odds of this coming to fruition got markedly higher with Trump’s filing this past week. Regardless of his insistence that he and he alone can save TikTok, I think an outright ban of the platform is hard to defend on First Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court hears the case in ten short days, and I think they’ll find a way to throw it back to Congress. Cans will be kicked, and TikTok might technically be banned for a spell, but by the end of the year, we’ll likely have forgotten it ever was. Meanwhile…
There will be no meaningful regulation of Big Tech. So much noise around Section 230, so little actual signal. We won’t get a national data privacy policy, we won’t get robust data portability, and we won’t get any federal clarity about how to manage AI’s impact on society. We will get a bit of this and a bit of that – mostly related to the same two issues that seem to dominate tech legislation: Intellectual property and pornography. Same as it ever was, regardless of the Big Tech Bros’ influence.
2025 will not be the year AI agents take off. As the bloom came off the Generative AI rose in 2024, everyone started talking about AI agents as the Next Big Thing. Google, Apple, OpenAI, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon – all of them (and about a million startups) are trying to build user agents for both enterprise and consumer use cases. I’m a huge fan of the concept, but for now, it remains just that. Reasoning agents that book your travel, negotiate your insurance bills, or manage your calendar simply will not work if they are beholden to the same business models currently driving Big Tech. There’s so, so much to say about why this is true, but I’ll leave that for another series of posts.
2025 will be the year Gen AI gets boring – and better. That said, 2025 will be the year product teams take over the Gen AI agenda, and start building the kinds of things that help us in our everyday life. We got a glimpse of these kinds of products with Google’s NotebookLM, and we’ll see a lot more of them this coming year. Workflow optimization, automation, summarization, all the stuff that we kind of don’t like to do? Gen AI can help with that, but not until good product leaders focus on building good products that are purpose fit for the task at hand. 2025 is the year Gen AI is put to work doing boring, useful things for us.
Streaming becomes a big time events platform. It’s taken too long, and the tech is still a bit glitchy, but the era of big time events on streaming is finally here. Last year we saw sports consolidate its hold on the streamers, and by year’s end, Netflix proved the model with its Christmas NFL extravaganza. Tired of digital black boxes and 1.3-second ad impressions, brand advertisers hunger for platforms where they can reach big audiences with 15-30 second narrative spots. Streamers will spend the year concocting any number of “events” designed to capitalize on this trend: Sports, certainly, but we’ll see Amazon, NBC, Netflix, Max, and all the rest fabricating any number of new kinds of tentpoles ready made for brand advertising.
Prompt data becomes the new gold standard. One of my very first posts, more than 20 years ago, described “the database of intentions” created by our search queries. Over the years I’ve updated that post, adding all manner of new signals – location, status updates, social media, commerce data. 2025 will be the year that prompt data – the stream of input we create as we engage with ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity etc – will become a commercial asset that drives markets. Tied to identity, prompt data provides one of the richest signals of what people want, need, and plan to purchase, and that is simply too valuable to not be leveraged by marketers (and Big Tech).
Retail media will consolidate. Question: How many “retail media exchanges” are there today? Answer: Way too many! Yes, Amazon and Walmart are dominant, but did you know that Wayfair, CostCo, Best Buy, Kroger, Chase, and CVS have them too? And those are just the larger ones. Retailers have realized they’re sitting on a gold mine of purchase data, but buyers of that data don’t want to work with dozens of different vendors. And in the end, most retailers want to focus on what they’re good at: Selling stuff. That augurs a consolidation in retail media – one that’s going to accelerate throughout the year.
Apple will be in open warfare with OpenAI. I was already leaning toward this prediction – I read Chris Messina’s post last summer about Apple front-running OpenAI to maintain control of its iPhone customers. Most of us assume that “Apple Intelligence” will be an OpenAI competitor. Not exactly. Instead, it will be an “orifice” through which the highest bidder will pass (just as Google did with search). And that’s a game OpenAI can’t afford to win – so it’ll find other ways to call Apple to the carpet. The press will love the fight, and it’ll dominate tech headlines for at least a few months.
A Trump/Musk fallout? No. A burnout? Yes. I alluded to this in the introduction, but let’s formalize it here as a prediction: By year’s end, Musk and Trump will have tired of each other, preferring to do business with each other through proxies. Sure, at least one of the DOGE boys will have his head on a spike, courtesy an unfettered Donald Trump. It takes a certain kind of quisling energy to stay in Trump’s good graces for more than one year. I don’t think any of the All-In crowd have it in them. However, both Musk and Trump are smart enough to realize they need each other – so they’ll avoid an all out press battle.
Google gets a new CEO. There have been intermittent calls for Sundar Pichai’s head over the past few years – and all of them have petered out. It’s hard to argue with Google’s five year stock performance. But 2025 marks a decade for Pichai in his role, and the company faces all manner of structural and political obstacles. I’d predict that Google will announce a CEO succession process by year’s end, if not earlier.
Health at the center. Yes, RFK Jr. is a strange bird, but the health industry is due a shakeup, and it seems like it’s coming, regardless of whether the Senate confirms an anti-vaxxer for the top government job. Next to tech politics, the healthcare industry will be the most interesting story of 2025.
Crypto goes sideways. I’m stunned by the rise of crypto over the past few months – even if it does make a ton of sense given that the crypto lobby is pretty much the same folks who gave us DOGE. And I’m comfortable predicting that crypto will continue to “pump,” at least for a while. But it’s still too early for crypto to earn into any of the valuations its been given, and the sector will deflate by year’s end. At present, bitcoin is having a hard time staying above $100K, and while it will likely pass that milestone comfortably throughout the year, by this time in 2025, it’ll have come back down to earth. I think.
And that’s it, a dozen predictions for 2025. TikTok, regulation, AI, data, retail media, streaming, Apple, politics, Google, crypto, and health. Thanks for coming along for the ride, and we’ll see how I did next December!
Back in the day when I was covering Google on a daily basis, I’d have spent hours poring over yesterday’s news that the judge in Google’s landmark antitrust case 
As generative AI reaches a fever pitch of investment, product releases, and hype, most of us have ignored a profound flaw as we march relentlessly toward The Next Big Thing. Our most dominant AI products and services (those from OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft, for example) are deployed in the cloud via a “