Anthropic knows they are weeks away from AGI, which is why they are working with companies like Accenture, Deloitte, PwC, and others to build "joint centers of Excellence" and training and certifying 30,000 PwC professionals on Claude.

E-scooter company Lime files for IPO axios.com/2026/05/08/scooter…

you can outsource your thinking but you cannot outsource your understanding

GOLDEN TEMPO WINS THE KENTUCKY DERBY.

Atlassian’s results surprised Wall Street, but it shouldn’t be a surprise. The simple heuristic for the future of software is that when there are 100X more agents than people, which parts of software will grow because agents are doing more work that the underlying software is tied to. If the world generates more code, generates more leads, reviews more contracts, processes more invoices, creates more designs, transacts with more payments, and so on, what are the underlying systems that are managing that work? That will give you a hint as to what happens next. These agents still need guardrails, security, compliance, workflows to be tied to, data stored, and so on. Those parts of the system of record ecosystem will only go up over time in a world of 100X more untrusted (and trusted) agents used in your workflows.

Anthropic is asking investors to submit allocations for the AI company’s latest fundraise within the next 48 hours, according to sources familiar with the matter. The round, which @mtemkin has reported is expected to be roughly $50 billion, is estimated to close within two weeks, the sources said. spr.ly/6015BBRQ83

Silicon Valley is so defunct Culturally, intellectually Their consternation seems really projection that they know the economic model of high margin inference doesn’t work long term Scarcity is fleeing to the Relational Sector—Daniel Gross’ >SF is the new Detroit is coming

Starting to hire and retrain for new agent engineering roles for *internal* functions to help get more powerful agents working well on critical business processes. I expect this type of role to be a very big deal over time at Box and other companies. It looks something like an internal FDE, whose job it is to wire up internal systems and get agents working with them effectively. The person will be extremely technical and capable of building secure, governed agents for internal workflows that connect to business systems (like Box, Salesforce, Workday, etc.), and codify workflows in skills. In some cases this person may understand the business process well enough to do it fully, but in most cases I expect them to work with the business directly in an embedded fashion. Ironically, that may introduce another new role on the business side that is more akin to agent product management for internal processes. The key is that you need technical process people that can span multiple teams or functions in an organization. It’s not about brining automation to a job, but bringing automation to a process. This is going to be a very big trend in most companies going forward. Fun to watch the early innings of what this will look like.

Something strange is happening in tech. CTOs of billion dollar companies are quitting to take IC roles at Anthropic. Workday CTO -> MTS (Mar 2026) You[.]com CTO -> MTS (Mar 2026) Instagram CTO -> MTS (Jan 2026) Box CTO -> MTS (Dec 2025) Super[.]com CTO -> MTS (July 2025) Adept AI CTO -> MTS (Jan 2025) The mission is that real.

Three of our early competitors are shutting down. Why? Here's what I know about each 👇️ Before I get into it, I want to say that I respect each one of these companies and their founders. It's incredibly hard to start a company, and even harder to win. Being in the arena is not easy. With that, here's my perspective on each. 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗔 This was one of our fiercest competitors for a long time. For a year, we'd see them in almost every deal. The founders were strong, especially in GTM. They built community well, were good at appearing bigger than they were, and had an original leg up in marketing. During our Series A we were constantly asked about them, and they had a year-long headstart. Why we won: → We shipped product faster. In early deals, the same story would play out again and again. The prospect would ask for a feature neither of us would have, and then we'd build it within hours. Meanwhile, it would take their team days or weeks to ship the same thing. This won us trust. → We nailed brand. Although they had great in-person presence, we struck lightning with LinkedIn. We started creating content and our brand presence outgrew theirs. → We nailed positioning before they did. In the early days we were a bit of an ambiguous product. We were originally a Slack app that sold to many members of the post-sales team. A year into the company, we decided it made the most sense to double down on customer support for the B2B segment. This is when the term "B2B support" came into existence and we created a subcategory of the support market. It also allowed us to focus in on replacing larger incumbent products like Zendesk and Intercom. 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗕 This competitor had been around a couple of years before us, and they had one "killer feature" that they loved to showcase. We wouldn't see them much in deals, but we were not excited about building this one thing that neither we or anyone else had, and it meant that their customers base (albiet small) was decently sticky for them. We won for all the same reasons as competitor A, BUT we also built a superior GTM. This is one of the biggest challenges for companies founded by engineers (this includes Pylon). Sales and marketing are on the opposite side of engineering, but equally important. We embraced it and built a real GTM team while I suspect they did not. → 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗖 Possibly the least interesting of the mix. This company had been around for 3 years prior. Unlike the others, they were not SF-based but would show up occasionally in deals. Two additional reasons we competed well against them: → They split their focus across IT ticketing and customer ticketing. Their core product wasn't developed enough for them to be able to make this tradeoff. → They were effectively bootstrapped. I don't think a bootstrapped company can afford the same level of talent and ambition when competing with a company with a grander vision that's more well-resourced.

Law just got more attractive. Jude Law as the face of @WeAreLegora in our new brand campaign. Yes. Seriously. The name is almost too good. But the reason we did this isn't the wordplay. We believe this is the most exciting time in history to be a lawyer. Never before have this many brilliant people been working on tools designed to improve and delight lawyers' lives. This campaign is us saying so. With a little more flair than the usual go-to-market. legora.com/law-just-got-more…

(🧵1/11) For the past year and a half, I've been investigating OpenAI and Sam Altman for @NewYorker. With my coauthor @andrewmarantz, I reviewed never-before-disclosed internal memos, obtained 200 pages of documents related to a close colleague, including extensive private notes, and interviewed more than 100 people. OpenAI was founded on the premise that A.I. could be the most dangerous invention in human history—and that its C.E.O. would need to be a person of uncommon integrity. We lay out the most detailed account yet of why Altman was ousted out by board members and executives who came to believe he lacked that integrity, and ask: were they right to allege that he couldn't be trusted? A thread on some of of our findings: