Substack said their readers do not want to invest attention in content that feels empty, automated, or mass-produced. so they brought in Pangram.

The company has framed the in-built AI detection tool feature as a response to “Claudefishing”, ( This is actually the first time I heard this word 🧐😶 🙈) with the goal of helping readers judge whether text was likely written by a human, written with AI assistance, or generated more heavily by machines.

Definitely nothing wrong with the concern, its understandable even if the proposed solution isn’t.

The first problem is that this is plainly an AI-for-AI solution.

One model is being asked to identify and score the outputs of another class of models, then present that score as a meaningful signal to human readers.

That may sound practical at first, but it immediately creates an arms race dynamic:

1. generators improve,

2. detectors adapt,

3. “humanizers” appear,

4. detectors respond again, and

5. everyone spends more time interpreting scores than discussing whether the writing is actually useful, accurate, or thoughtful.

Everyone writes!

This is not only a creator issue. Writing is now part of almost every serious job, especially in technical, strategic, and leadership roles. Founders write applications, technical updates, product notes, investor messages, partner emails, research summaries, and public positioning pieces. Engineers, scientists, and operators do the same in different forms. The platform context may be Substack, but the real issue is broader:

And that wider view changes the frame.

The debate should not be reduced to whether “creators” are cheating. It should ask what counts as legitimate assistance in modern knowledge work, what still requires human judgment, and whether platforms are measuring the right thing when they flag text.

No one ever disclosed ( or had to) that they used Google?

One basic argument still stands: no one ever had to add a disclaimer saying “I used Google here.” Search engines changed writing permanently, but they were treated as infrastructure rather than authorship.

People searched for facts, checked context, located sources, and then wrote. No one demanded a running label every time a search engine shaped the path to an idea.

AI is treated differently because it can generate direct text rather than only retrieving information.

That distinction is real, but it is often overstated.

In practice, many professionals use AI as a tool inside the same workflow that already includes search, notes, references, redrafting, and editing. The relevant question is not whether a tool was present, but whether the human remained responsible for the argument, the verification, the nuance, and the final judgment.

Share

AI is not good enough to clone thoughtful writing, yet!

The strongest practical point is that AI is still not efficient enough to clone a person doing serious, thoughtful, high-context writing. It can help produce direct content quickly, and it is often useful for structure, summarization, rewriting, copy-editing, and routine explanatory text.

But thoughtful writing is not just sentence production. It requires layered research, selective reading, domain judgment, strategic positioning, iterative drafting, and often multiple rounds of self-critique.

That matters even more in technical and founder-led contexts. High-quality writing in those settings usually depends on choosing which evidence matters, deciding what to omit, aligning the message with commercial or scientific stakes, and understanding second-order consequences.

Those are not merely stylistic tasks.

They are acts of judgment.

So the claim that AI can simply “replace the writer” is not convincing in this category of work.

Assistance is not equivalence. A model can produce prose in a familiar tone, but producing credible, deeply reasoned writing with real stakes still depends on a human carrying the intellectual load from beginning to end.

Not all AI use is the same

Not all AI use is slop, and not all slop is made with AI.

A person can use AI to brainstorm headings, tighten sentences, summarize source material, or remove repetition while still doing all the substantive thinking themselves. Another person can press a button, publish whatever comes out, and contribute noise at scale. Those are not ethically or intellectually the same thing.

This is why percentage labels are misleading.

A detector may try to estimate how much text “looks AI-generated,” but that does not tell a reader whether the piece reflects care, expertise, originality, or accountability.

It does not capture whether sources were checked, whether claims were challenged, or whether the author has real skin in the game. In serious writing, those are the variables that matter.

Subscribe now

SO why detectors like Pangram exist?

There are understandable reasons these tools exist.

Platforms, universities, and publishers want a shortcut for handling a trust problem that has arrived faster than social norms and institutional policies can adapt. They want a signal that says - this might be machine-written, take a closer look. They also want some kind of visible response to fears that AI-generated volume will degrade quality and erode confidence.

So detectors exist partly because institutions want enforcement, partly because platforms want to show they are acting, and partly because readers are anxious about being manipulated or wasting attention.

In that sense, Pangram is not random. It is a product of institutional demand for a simple metric in a messy transition period.

But then why the detector logic breaks down?

Even Substack’s own framing acknowledges that Pangram cannot detect whether “great human care” went into a piece. it can only estimate whether AI was used in making the text. and that is a major limitation because -

Research and criticism around AI detection also show recurring accuracy problems. Evaluations report variable reliability across tools, along with false positives and false negatives, especially when human-edited AI text or atypical human writing is involved.

Once that is true, a detector becomes less an instrument of trust and more a mechanism for suspicion.

It starts training people to doubt the text, the writer, and sometimes their own judgment.

This is where the phrase “AI stopping AI slop” becomes too neat. If the system cannot distinguish between low-effort machine churn and high-effort human-guided drafting, then it is not actually measuring slop. It is measuring statistical traces in language and presenting them as if they map cleanly onto authenticity. They do not.

Share AI Unfiltered

The AI-for-AI trap

Even if forget about substack for a moment and just look out, its a familiar pattern in the AI era.

use AI to scale production,

then use more AI to monitor, rate, rank, and filter the outputs of the first layer.

That may be operationally convenient, but it shifts attention away from substance and toward machine legibility.

The model is no longer helping the work directly, it is just helping institutions police the side effects of other models.

That is why this feels circular.

The internet is flooded with low-effort generated material, so the answer becomes another layer of automated judgment. Then people begin optimizing for the detector, arguing with the score, or buying tools that evade the detector. This does not restore trust.

It industrializes distrust.

What would make more sense?

A better frame would start from responsibility rather than purity.

Who stands behind the argument?

Were the claims checked?

Is there real domain knowledge present?

Does the piece show evidence of thought, synthesis, and accountability?

Those questions are harder than asking a detector for a percentage, but they are closer to what readers actually need.

That does not mean transparency is useless. It can be reasonable for platforms or authors to describe how AI was used, especially in cases where the distinction matters. But disclosure should clarify process, not replace judgment, and detectors should not be mistaken for a measurement of human value.

Share

The position underneath all of this.

The most defensible position is not anti-AI. It is anti-laziness, anti-deception, and anti-false certainty.

AI can be a meaningful support tool for research, drafting, editing, and communication. It can also enable high-volume, low-accountability publishing. The line between those outcomes is not whether AI exists in the workflow, but whether a human has done the thinking and is willing to own the result.

That is why the detector debate can feel so unsatisfying.

It asks the wrong question.

Instead of asking whether a model touched the prose, the more serious question is whether the final work carries evidence of thought, care, verification, and responsibility. Those qualities are still human, and no percentage score has solved for them.

Leave a comment

India’s Vikram‑1 launch (Skyroot Aerospace) has been framed as a feel‑good story about a young team, a private rocket, and a nation joining the US and China in having a startup reach orbit. As founders watching from the sidelines, it’s easy to read the headlines, compare them to Elon Musk’s three Falcon 1 failures, and conclude that this is mainly about hustle, bravery and “28‑year‑olds beating the odds.”

This essay takes nothing away from that achievement. Instead, it tries to add a layer:

The PR story is good - and mostly true

The public narrative has three main beats:

• A team with an average age around 28 built India’s first privately developed orbital rocket and reached orbit on its first attempt.

• India becomes the third country, after the US and China, where a private company has independently developed and launched an orbital rocket.

• Elon Musk’s Falcon 1 failed three times before reaching orbit, so Skyroot’s first‑shot success is held up as evidence that India’s young founders and new space policy have “leveled up” the game.

For Indian founders and engineers, that’s energizing. It signals that serious hardware is now a legitimate startup domain, not just something you do inside a national lab if you’re willing to wait a decade.

( Do Note - I don’t agree with this kind of writing - “while you were scrolling” here. but I understand its more common and usual than one would want, specially across all the writing and distribution channels including substack specially headlines like “if you are doing this X way - You are doing it Wrong” ) well anyways! my point just highlighting the hype / PR point.

And it is a good sign:

But Vikram‑1 didn’t appear in a vacuum

Since 2020, India has systematically opened its space sector to “Non‑Government Entities” (NGEs), created IN‑SPACe as a single‑window nodal agency, and formalized the 2023 Indian Space Policy to enable end‑to‑end private participation in satellites, launch vehicles and related services.

ISRO was told explicitly:

focus on science and frontier tech, while commercial and applied tasks move increasingly into private hands.

In practical terms this means:

• Private startups can design, test and launch their own rockets, but do so on top of ISRO’s infrastructure: launch pads at Sri harikota, propulsion test stands, tracking and range assets.

• IN‑SPACe authorizes, “hand‑holds” and promotes these missions, acting as a state partner rather than a distant regulator.

• Policy reforms and FDI changes explicitly aim to pull in global capital and grow India’s space economy from single‑digit billions to several tens of billions by 2033, with private companies playing a leading role.

SkyrootA is not an outlier here.

it is the intended proof point of this architecture.

Share

Young founders, yes - but on a state‑built launchpad

Skyroot’s founders left ISRO in 2018 and set up a private company, raising venture funding from institutional investors including Temasek and GIC. They then built Vikram‑1 as an “almost entirely indigenous, largely 3D‑printed and carbon‑composite platform,” and brought it from drawing board to launch pad in about six years.

That’s genuinely impressive. But crucially:

• They launched from ISRO’s Satish Dhawan Space Centre, not a privately built spaceport.

• They validated their propulsion and structures using test infrastructure made accessible by state decision, not by leasing a random field and hoping regulators would catch up later.

• Their regulatory interface was IN‑SPACe, whose mandate includes promotion and guidance, not just licensing and penalties.

So the story is neither “heroic founders in spite of the state” nor “state rocket with a private badge.”

Is there anything “new” in the rocket itself?

Share AI Unfiltered

Technically, Vikram‑1 is a small‑lift, four‑stage orbital launcher:

three solid stages and a liquid, restartable orbital adjustment module, able to carry roughly 350 kg to a 450 km low Earth orbit. ISRO’s SSLV, developed on the public side, is a four‑stage small‑sat rocket with solid stages and a liquid Velocity Trimming Module, capable of about 500 kg to 500 km.

The architecture is evolutionary, not revolutionary.

What is fresh is:

• The heavy use of carbon‑composite structures to improve mass fraction in a small‑lift regime.

• The reliance on 3D‑printed engines and modular subsystems to compress manufacturing timelines and reduce cost.

• The framing of Vikram‑1 as part of a family that can be scaled (Vikram‑2, Vikram‑3) in a commercial, fast‑iteration context.

If you’re a founder, the relevant lesson isn’t “this rocket is unlike anything ISRO has flown,” but “this level of capability can now be executed by a private company under a state‑enabled regime.”

Subscribe now

Falcon 1’s failures vs Vikram‑1’s first‑shot success

Skyroot’s first‑try win. But the more interesting comparison isn’t engineering brilliance vs incompetence;

it’s ecosystem maturity vs frontier chaos:

• SpaceX was operating in a much less defined private‑launch regulatory and industrial context, building its own supply chain and launch site almost from scratch.

• Skyroot is launching in an era where India has already proven orbital flight repeatedly, has flight‑tested SSLV in the same class, and has written a policy specifically designed to encourage private launch vehicles.

Falcon 1’s failures helped define and force, the ecosystem that now makes companies like Skyroot possible.

Skyroot’s success, in turn, is helping validate India’s bet that you can compress that journey by pre‑building the public–private framework first.

Why this matters for founders?

If you’re a deep‑tech founder looking at India’s Vikram‑1 moment, the key takeaway isn’t to feel “less than” because you’re not putting rockets into orbit. It’s to recognise the pattern:

• The PR focus - 28‑year‑old founders, private rocket, comparison to Elon - is good for inspiration and talent attraction.

• The strategic reality - a government that opens infrastructure, reforms policy, and encourages institutional capital into hard tech - is what actually makes these stories repeatable.

Founders “like us” should celebrate the win while also reading the footnotes:

this is not a pure market accident. it is a state trying to prove that public–private partnership in space can work, and that private capability can sit on top of public assets without being smothered by them.

Latest on Intelligent Founder AI

Intelligent Founder AI

The NVIDIA AI Factory: Roadmaps, Risks, and Future Dominance

I did this deep dive around GTC 2026 (mid-March), in the immediate wake of Jensen Huang’s post-conference podcast blitz i.e. Ben Thompson, All-In, and a string of long-form interviews that reframed NVIDIA as a vertically integrated “AI factory” company rather than a…

Read more

8 days ago · 8 likes · Poonam Parihar and The Intelligent Founder

Apple says OpenAI stole its future. OpenAI, meanwhile, is busy trying to build a future where the primary interface to computing isn’t a phone at all, but an always‑on agent that lives in your home and inside your work tools. we unpacked Apple’s paranoia about losing control over the next interface shift, earlier in “The Great AI Heist” ( link below ), in this is post, we’ll look at OpenAI’s side of the table.

how a model company turns into a hardware + agent company and

why that’s worth picking a fight with Cupertino over

The Great AI Heist

OpenAI’s side of the story is basically: “we’re not just a model company anymore. we’re building a hardware + agent stack that lives in your home and inside your workflows, and we think that’s how we beat everyone from SpaceX to Apple.” Okay. 🤔

Bloomberg’s reporting has OpenAI’s first device as a portable, screen‑free smart speaker designed to be a “humanlike AI companion” that sits in your home. It’s meant to control your smart‑home kit, play media, answer questions and messages, and act as a kind of ambient “home computer” for the AI era, i.e. a ChatGPT without the rectangle of glass. The speaker reportedly packs sensors and mechanical elements that can move, turn, and respond to you, plus a rechargeable battery so it can follow you around the house. Internally, the pitch isn’t “we built Alexa 3.0,” it’s: we gave the agent a body.

That’s exactly what makes Apple’s lawsuit existential from OpenAI’s point of view.

Apple isn’t just upset about staff attrition. it’s arguing that OpenAI’s hardware stack - design language, supplier map, roadmap all of which has Apple DNA baked in and should be frozen or unwound by the courts.

For OpenAI, the speaker is a wedge - basically a way to stop being purely dependent on iOS and Android surfaces and instead own a new interaction surface outright. If the agent lives in a device you control, not just inside another company’s operating system, you get to define the experience and the economics.

Under the hood, that hardware move is powered by GPT‑5.6—Sol, Terra and Luna - which OpenAI calls its “most capable system yet.”

Sol is the frontier brain, aimed at long‑horizon reasoning, complex coding and scientific work.

Terra and Luna are tuned for cost and throughput.

The launch came with political theatre:

previewed in June, delayed under U.S. national‑security pressure, then cleared and released on July 9 as a system the Trump administration explicitly signed off on. Open AI’s narrative is very deliberate.

At the same moment, OpenAI rolled out ChatGPT Work:

an agent designed to stay with a project for hours, reach across your apps and files, and turn goals into finished documents, spreadsheets, slide decks and simple web apps. It’s a convergence of ChatGPT and Codex into one work layer, aimed squarely at white‑collar workflows rather than casual chat. Rollout starts with Pro, Enterprise and Edu, then expands to Plus and Business, signalling that OpenAI sees Work as a monetisation and lock‑in lever for organisations, not just another “labs” feature.

Put the pieces together and OpenAI’s gambit looks very different from the rest of the frontier set.

Share AI Unfiltered

Meta ships Muse Spark 1.1 as a creative multimodal model. Anthropic releases

Claude Sonnet 5 with a safety‑first, constrained‑access posture.

Google sits on Gemini 4, waiting for the right regulatory and competitive moment to move.

OpenAI’s bet is more vertical: a brain (GPT‑5.6), a pair of hands (Work and Codex), and a body (the speaker), all wired into a single stack that can mediate both your home and your workflow

The scenario they’re selling is simple to imagine and at the same time also hard to ignore. a screen-less speaker running GPT‑5.6 Sol and the Work agent overhears a project discussion in your living room, pulls the relevant files from your laptop, and drafts the proposal and slides before you even sit down at your desk. In that world, whoever owns the agent and the box it lives in captures a disproportionate share of value.

Apple wants courts to lock down the box.

OpenAI wants regulators and judges to recognise model behaviour as defensible IP and then race to embed that behaviour in hardware before anyone else can.

For Apple’s side of this mess, and how Anthropic fits in - read The Great AI Heist, then come back here and ask: - in a world of agents with bodies, who’s really stealing whose future?

Few Updates this week-

1- Our AI stack of newsletter - Intelligent Founder AI - hit #88 on Substack’s “Rising in Technology” leaderboard last week, (and #98 in Business earlier this year); huge thanks to everyone who’s subscribed, shared, and sent us ideas to dissect next.

We’re now a 5K-strong community across Intelligent Founder AI and AI Unfiltered, with around 3.3K and 1.5K subscribers respectively, even allowing for some overlap between lists.

2- We’ve moved our quantum technology blog, Quant Opinion, from Medium to Substack so we can manage and publish research more easily in one place. Medium will remain as a syndication channel for all three projects—Intelligent Founder AI, AI Unfiltered, and Quant Opinion - so if you follow us there, you’ll still see every post, not just the quantum ones.

Read the latest on Quantum here and Subscribe to Quant Opinion on Substack for our latest quantum research, analysis, and commentary. -

QuantOpinion

Quantum computing for database optimisation

Quantum computing is starting to matter in places businesses actually feel: speed, efficiency, and decision-making…

Read more

10 days ago · 1 like · Poonam Parihar

Latest on Intelligent Founder ai-

Intelligent Founder AI

Ep.014 - Open Source vs Proprietary AI: The Model Decision That Shapes Your Infrastructure

The performance gap between open-source and proprietary frontier models has collapsed…

Listen now

10 days ago · 5 likes · Poonam Parihar and The Intelligent Founder

Leave a comment

Last year the question was whether generative AI could move from hype to measurable value.

this year, the question is-

Industry forecasts suggest that more than 40% of agentic AI projects may be canceled by 2027. That makes the real question less about adoption and more about whether these systems are being built on data, governance, and review processes strong enough to survive contact with reality.

To be precise, AI agents are the task-executing systems themselves, while agentic AI describes the broader system design that gives those agents more autonomy, planning, and coordination.

Most organizations are now preparing to deploy AI agents in the next two years, but a large share of those projects are expected to be canceled before they create lasting value.

That should not be read as a warning against the technology itself. It should be read as a warning against deploying it without the foundations it needs to work safely.

Table of content

1. Why Agents fail

2. What agents need

3. Where agentic AI works

4. Deploy in tiers

5. A readiness checklist

6. The real lesson

Why agents fail?

The first failure mode is operational.

Agents act on stale or missing data, and once they do, the error spreads fast. A system built to automate decision-making is only as good as the information it receives. If the data is incomplete, outdated, or fragmented across systems, the agent may still produce confident output, just not correct output.

The second failure mode is control.

Many deployments lack the permissions, audit trails, and boundaries needed to manage risk properly. If no one can easily see what the agent accessed, what it changed, or why it took a particular action, then the organization loses trust before the system ever scales.

The third failure mode is human.

Teams can become passive when the system appears smart enough to handle things on its own. Over time, people stop reviewing outputs closely, and that creates a dangerous false sense of safety. The more “intelligent” the system seems, the easier it is for oversight to fade.

Share AI Unfiltered

What agents need?

For agentic AI to work, it needs more than prompts and tools. It needs a reliable operating layer.

That starts with centralized, fresh data.

Agents cannot make good decisions if each team is working from a different version of the truth. They also need shared business definitions, so terms mean the same thing across functions. Without that, the agent may technically be correct while still being strategically useless.

They also need lineage.

Organizations should know where data came from, how it was transformed, and whether it is trustworthy in the context being used. Lineage is what turns raw data into something decision-grade. And finally, agents need governance: clear rules about who can access what, who can act on what, and where the boundaries are.

Without these elements, agentic AI becomes improvisation. With them, it becomes a controllable system.

Where agentic AI works?

The best candidates are the ones that are high volume, repeatable, and grounded in authoritative data.

These are workflows where the pattern is stable, the inputs are known, and the business value can be measured clearly. They also need to be reversible. If something goes wrong, the organization should be able to unwind the action quickly.

Just as important, the outputs need to be easy for humans to review. The goal is not to remove people from the loop entirely. The goal is to make the loop faster, more accurate, and more scalable.

That means the right place to start is not the most ambitious workflow. It is the most bounded one.

Share

Deploy in tiers

Start with read-only use cases.

Let the system retrieve, summarize, and analyze information without changing anything. This gives teams a chance to test quality without taking on unnecessary risk.

Next comes drafting.

At this stage, the agent can propose outputs, but a human still reviews them before anything is sent, published, or executed. This creates a useful middle ground: the system adds speed and consistency, but people retain control.

Only after that should organizations consider write-back. Even then, the scope should be narrow. The agent should be allowed to take bounded actions under strict limits, with strong guardrails and visibility. Autonomy should be earned, not assumed.

This tiered approach is less glamorous than “full autonomy,” but it is far more realistic.

New on Intelligent Founder AI -

Thinking Machines's Story After Inkling

A readiness checklist

Before deploying an agent into a live workflow, it helps to ask a few basic questions.

• Have you chosen the right workflow?

• Is the data unified and trustworthy?

• Is the context properly governed?

• Can the agent interact with systems through the right interface?

• Have you built the agent against a controlled environment?

• Have you validated it with guardrails in place?

• Can you activate it safely and reuse the components elsewhere?

If the answer to any of these is no, then the project is probably not ready for production.

The real lesson

The real story here is not that AI keeps failing. It is that every new wave of AI exposes the same underlying weakness:

GenAI was the warning shot. It showed how quickly excitement can outpace usefulness. Agentic AI is the next test, because now the system is not just generating content, it is taking action.

That is why the question is not whether agents are impressive. The question is whether the organization around them is mature enough to support them. In the end, agentic AI will not be judged by how autonomous it sounds, but by how reliably it fits into the messy reality of real work.

Leave a comment

Over the weekend, Satya Nadella dropped what might be the most important AI essay of the year, and it’s not about model quality or benchmarks. It’s about the reverse information paradox:

In the classic Arrow “information paradox,” the seller …

Read more

It looks like everyone is accusing everyone else these days. from stolen iPhone secrets to scraped chatbot answers, the biggest names in AI are suddenly treating “open” as a crime scene.

If your timeline also feels like “wow, did everyone in AI decide to sue everyone else this week?”, you’re seeing what I am seeing.

The latest in this series is, Apple sui…

Read more

On paper it sounds like classic consulting. In practice it’s something different. a product company turning itself into a forward‑deployed AI engi…

Read more

Fable 5 is Anthropic’s main public model for demanding work such as coding, analysis, and other long, multi-step tasks.

One important detail is that Fable’s more restricted sibling model called Mythos 5, is back…

Read more

We’ve entered a strange moment where intelligence is cheap, but the atoms underneath it are not. The cost of generating a million tokens of text or code has fallen dramatically, yet the silicon, memory and data‑center capacity required to do that a…

Read more

June 2026 has brought another round of notable model releases and infrastructure improvements, including Claude Opus 4.8, GPT-5.5 Instant, Gemini 3.5 Flash, and new performance claims around AI training efficiency. The pace of change is still impressive. Yet the underlying question for builders has not changed: which model is actually the right fit for …

Read more

AI has very clearly eaten mobile. In just a year, global time spent in generative AI apps has roughly doubled, from 17.2 billion hours in the first half of 2025 to a projected 36 billion hours in the first half of 2026. Consumer spending has followed the same curve.

Across mobile overall, AI has become a core revenue engine: global in‑app purchase revenue reached around $167 billion in 2025, and for the first time non‑game apps overtook games as the main source of spend.

Within that surge, assistants still sit at the centre.

ChatGPT has become the fastest application in history to reach 1 billion monthly active users, hitting that level roughly three years after launch. It remains the largest assistant, but it no longer looks like a monopoly.

Recent data puts ChatGPT’s “True Audience” share at about 46.4% in May 2026, with Google’s Gemini at 27.7% and Anthropic’s Claude around 10.3%. Time spent is heavily concentrated in a small cluster of assistants, but the lead is now shared between several players rather than one. In practice, the assistant layer has become a three‑ or four‑player market, sitting on top of a much broader wave of AI‑branded mobile apps.

The more interesting story however, is what happens when you stop looking at sheer scale and start looking at revenue per user.

At a headline level, ChatGPT still dominates mobile revenue. Its app has generated quarterly revenue in the low billions and has out‑earned the rest of the top 10 AI apps by a factor of five or more. But on a per‑user basis, Claude now comes out ahead.

In the US, Sensor Tower data suggests that,

Claude’s iOS app earns about $2.76 per user, compared with $1.74 for ChatGPT –

roughly one and a half times higher ARPU off a smaller user base. Claude also turns a larger share of its users into paying customers, with around 13% of iOS users subscribed versus about 8% for ChatGPT in recent snapshots.

The broad, general‑purpose product wins the biggest audience; the more focused product captures the highest‑value users.

Right now, the division of labour looks roughly like this:

ChatGPT is the default assistant for almost everyone, ( almost! ) Gemini is the deeply integrated option for people inside the Google ecosystem, and Claude is emerging as a favourite for high‑intent professional and enterprise use, where depth, safety and workflow fit matter more than novelty.

The fact that Claude can sustain higher ARPU and better conversion on fewer users is a reminder that enterprise‑style usage tends to be structurally more monetizable than mass‑market experimentation.

It also highlights how narrow the first wave of AI monetization has been.

Share

Most of the money so far has gone into the very top of the stack:

chatbots,

writing tools,

companions,

coding assistants, and

image and video generators.

Apps that explicitly brand around “AI”, “LLM” or “machine learning” are on track to make about $12 billion in in‑app purchase revenue in the first half of 2026, with downloads up 177% versus 2023. Almost all of that activity is still about what happens on the screen – typing, reading, chatting, scrolling.

Even the first wave of ads in AI assistants follows the same pattern. OpenAI has started testing ads inside ChatGPT; by May, roughly 17% of daily users were seeing ads, and impressions had grown more than seven‑fold in a few months, mainly from software, retail and media brands.

[ While this piece is a focused, number‑driven zoom‑in on assistants/mobile and the missing infrastructure monetization, I also did an overview / bigger picture if the story is consistent out side of AI mobile, and the assistive interface being a major revenue surface here - ]

AI Needs a Better Founder Narrative.

Very little of this touches infrastructure though.

None of the headline statistics are about AI planning maintenance windows or improving reliability or performance. The AI that has “eaten mobile” is mostly AI that talks, draws and recommends, and not AI that understands physical systems, reasons about risk, or optimizes interventions on the ground.

The business models mirror that focus:

consumer subscriptions,

prosumer upgrades,

usage‑based APIs on text and images, and

now ad inventory.

There is no equally visible set of metrics for AI that quietly reduces downtime, extends asset life or improves safety in the background of critical operations. take it most of the founders reading will fall in to visible category, but this is what worries me, personally.,

For founders and operators, there is both a caution and an opportunity here.

Read more

You might not be using Claude. You might not even know who Anthropic is. But there’s a good chance it’s already inside your stack. As for me, and the substack, I can’t seem to able to escape it.

Claude Code is writing a sizable percentage of production code at companies you rely on. Mythos‑class models have been scanning the operating systems, browsers and cloud infrastructure your products run on. The Linux kernel, Firefox, AWS? all being audited by a capability tier most developers can’t touch directly.

Last week, I argued that Anthropic’s Fable 5 launch was a bait‑and‑switch on privacy: Mythos‑level capability, but only if you accept 30‑day data retention and human review. The trade‑off was brutal but understandable: jailbreak defense for a model that can find zero‑days in the global software supply chain.

Six days later, that whole debate was rendered moot by a single letter from Washington. The U.S. government issued an export‑control directive ordering Anthropic to suspend access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for any foreign national, anywhere in the world, including Anthropic’s own non‑U.S. employees. Anthropic responded by killing access to both models globally while it negotiates with regulators.

In other words:

Agents, meters, and a Friday‑night kill switch

From a builder’s perspective, look at the sequence.

Anthropic spent the spring trying to choke off “cheap agents” by banning third‑party tools and the Agent SDK on standard Claude subscriptions. Developers revolted, and by June 15 the company quietly walked the ban back:

agents stayed, but programmatic usage moved to a separate, hard‑capped credit pool per plan, with no rollover.

The ban died;

the meter survived.

Then came Fable 5, positioned as Mythos‑class for everyone, but with mandatory 30‑day retention and human review wrapped around the most sensitive workloads. Privacy was traded away in exchange for more telemetry and more leverage to intervene when the model did something dangerous.

Finally, on a Friday evening, an export‑control order flipped Fable and Mythos from “metered SaaS products” to “restricted dual‑use technology” overnight.

No clever routing, no pricing workaround - just a blanket ban for anyone with the wrong passport, which in practice became a global shutdown.

This is what frontier AI looks like in 2026:

three overlapping control layers on the same capability.

1. Pricing and metering – who can afford to automate at scale.

2. Data retention and policy – who is allowed to use the sharpest tools without giving up logs.

3. Export controls and nationality – who is allowed to use them at all.

themselves at the inference layer;

Fable 5 is the first visible proof that export controls have climbed all the way up the stack.

If you’re a founder outside the U.S., you just watched the third layer become real in a single news cycle.

Share AI Unfiltered

This isn’t just Anthropic’s problem

From the outside it may look like Anthropic’s only drama. But Anthropic isn’t the only lab in this game. OpenAI, Google, DeepSeek and a growing open‑weight ecosystem are all chasing Mythos‑class cyber capability, but Anthropic is the first to have a frontier model formally yanked into an export‑control regime. That makes Fable 5 less a one‑off and more a prototype for how other frontier models -closed and open- may be treated when they cross certain capability lines.

The timing matters.

Regulators are experimenting in public with where to draw the line between “powerful tool” and “regulated capability.” Once a pattern is set like certain eval scores, certain cyber benchmarks, certain deployment patterns. all the other models that hit those thresholds can be dragged into the same regime almost automatically.

Why my Anthropic playbook Part 3 is delayed.

I was planning to publish the 3 part of the series on intelligent founder on sunday. for those who; din’t read the previous one focussed on -

• Part 1: how Mythos and Project Glasswing turned a series of near‑disasters into a moat- security as a market, not just a cost center.

• Part 2: the business map - Glasswing’s coalition, the revenue curve, where Anthropic sits against OpenAI, Google and others, and what a Mythos‑grade security model does to the rest of the market.

The Part 3 was meant to be the “everything else” chapter: the PBC structure, the investor map, the internal fractures, the China problem, the IPO window, and the next eight months. It’s the chapter about governance, incentives and how a $900B‑ish PBC behaves when quarterly earnings collide with a safety mission.

Anthropic isn’t just shipping models. it’s rewiring how software gets built thats from Claude Code in your IDE to Mythos‑class scanners in critical infrastructure.

and It’s doing that as a Public Benefit Corporation heading toward a 2026 IPO at close to a trillion‑dollar valuation, with a charter that legally constrains how it can prioritize profit over mission and a cap table that now includes Amazon, Google, Microsoft and NVIDIA.

Whatever governance structure they lock in this year is the one public markets and regulators will inherit.

And now, for its most advanced systems, Anthropic sits under an explicit national‑security regime that can switch your most important tools off with a fax. You can’t write a serious “Anthropic governance and incentives” chapter without integrating that reality.

So yes, Part 3 is delayed. and not because the outline has changed - it’s still origin, revenue miracle, the real product, the code play, investors, efficiency, internal fractures, China, IPO, permission race. But the frame just shifted from “how Anthropic will govern itself post‑IPO” to “how Anthropic will be governed, full stop - by boards, by regulators, and by whoever gets to sign the export‑control letters. I think i’ll take a minute before i’ look in to this again.

Share

Now why all this matters even if you never call the Claude API

Read more

Anthropic named their initial security coalition Project Glasswing - after the famous butterfly with transparent wings. The metaphor was quite obvious -

clear visibility into vulnerable codebases,

delicate handling of a dangerous AI model.

Yesterday, they released the public version, Claude Fable 5, draped in a new logo of swarming butterflies. So what t…

Read more

What’s happening right now in AI is that the “frontier” part meaning the most powerful general‑purpose models, has hit a kind of plateau, while the action is shifting into two places:

1. smaller open models you can actually run yourself, and

2. better tools that turn any model into a useful assistant or “agent.”

In other words, the headline isn’t just “models…

Read more

On the labour side, the numbers have moved from hypothetical to measurable. In 2025 there were about 1.2 million layoffs in the US; roughly 55,000 of them – around 4–5% – were explicitly attributed to AI. In Q1 2026 alone, tech firms cut

Read more

As much as I’d like to focus on other corners of the AI world, the past few weeks keep circling back to the same two labs, no matter which stack you care about. It’s understandable there’d be parallels, but this year OpenAI and Anthropic feel like they’re almost shadowing each other. One week Anthropic is in the headlines with a scary‑good cyber model; …

Read more

I am back from my travel and slowly going through what I missed, will take me a bit to get back on the routine, but quickly looking through past weeks’ AI news, it looks pretty chaotic from the outside, Loads of new models, more courtroom drama, giant capex numbers and there’s of course space data centers, simply saying, its all scattered to be hoenst b…

Read more

When Nvidia rolls out OpenAI’s Codex to 10,000 employees, it’s not just another “AI boosts productivity” headline. It becomes a coordinated play between Nvidia and OpenAI to lock in hardware, models and workflows at scale, and then sell that pattern to everybody else. and thats exactly how founders should be reading it like -

What exactly ha…

Read more

I published Anthropic Playbook - Part 2 deep dive 3 days ago. and noted this. -

Read more

Agents are rapidly moving from passive copilots to active operators, concentrated in software and finance, increasingly acting in unconstrained environments, and increasingly built by other agents. If you’re thinking about governance, infra, or product, the unit of analysis now isn’t just “the model” it’s the tool layer and the action space it exposes.

…

Read more