Codex from 0 to 10M Users: Building ChatGPT Work — Akshay Nathan, OpenAI

Okay, we're here in the studio with Akshay from OpenAI. Welcome. Thank you. And with our trusty co-host, Vibu. So you recently launched ChatGPT Work. You lead core product engineering. You know, it's been a long journey into all this. I find it very interesting that you started with no code or low code with Walrus and Airtable. And to some extent, ChatGPT Work is kind of like the super app of super apps of, well, here is the ultimate no code. You just write a prompt. Yeah, yeah. It's funny how things come full circle. I mean, I think for a long time in my career, I mean, I started my career working consumer fintech, but then after that, there's this hypothesis that the things that we were able to do with code as engineers, if we could bring that to many more people in a more accessible way, then that would be truly magical. We were working on a startup. It's actually funny, before LLMs, before Vision LLMs on how to do automated testing with AI. And it was just kind of jank back then, but doing what we can and then worked at Airtable for a while on the same thesis that if we can bring a database or the primitives behind a database to people, that would be really useful to them. But once I think LLMs came onto the scene, it became clear that this was the missing piece, the missing technology required to bring the magic of code to everyone without them having to know what's going on underneath the hood. And so I think this launch and a lot of the stuff that we've been up to is the manifestation of that. How was stuff when you joined? So you joined OpenAI 2023. Now we've got so much more stuff. So ChatGPT, CodexApp, ChatGPT for work. How have things changed? Actually, I think the more interesting thing is how things haven't changed. I guess one, I joined, I remember when I joined, it was like 500 people. one thing I was worried about was like, I was looking for something, you know, more early stage and like, was it going to feel startup enough? And I joined and I was like, this feels even more startup-y than I could ever imagine. And like, that really hasn't changed even till now. I mean, I think the like level of like bottoms up ambition and like the ability of anyone to like, you know, do anything or have an idea and ship it is really cool. But on the like sort of mission side, I think what was really compelling to me is this mission of, you know, bringing Frontier Intelligence to everyone, like building AGI and then bringing it to everyone. And I think technology and back then that like that vision is going to, you know, not be a linear progression. Like we're probably going to like try different products and have different things that succeed and don't. But the vision has stayed the same and the mission has stayed the same. And we're starting to see the pieces fall together. And that's really cool. You worked on enterprise. A lot of people never touch chatGBT for enterprise, God. What is something that you learned from there that you're bringing into your work now? I think how there's no like one size fits all solution in enterprise. I remember in the early days of ChatGPT Enterprise, like we would talk to customers and like everyone, that was like when, I think it was a year after ChatGPT was released and everyone was so excited to bring, you know, AI into their enterprise. And like there's all these teams that were being stood up as like, you know, the AI deployment team, these enormous budgets. And if you asked anyone, like, what were they excited about? Like, what were they excited about solving? like at first you'd get like you know kind of like the the baseline answers of like we have all this context and data and all this stuff but if you ask them like you know what was like a discrete use case that like they want ai to enable in their in their workplace you get such a different like variance like explosion of different types of answers and it's interesting like you know you using these models and these products you you have this box and you can say anything to it which is the magic but it's on the flip side it also means that like you don't know what to do with it. And in enterprise, I think a big part of that is actually meeting the users where they are, what use cases are they trying to solve, and then actually teaching them how they can use AI to gain leverage there. Do you meaningfully differentiate that from forward deployed engineering? I think there's the go-to-market side of it, and then there's the product side of it. I think you need more to product side. And I think however good we get at FDE Motion, I think at the end of the day, if we have a user who's looking at their computer or looking at their phone. It's our job in the product to be enabling them and showing them where to go. So really excited about that. Do you think there's been changes over the past three years of adoption? So there have been step function changes, you have reasoning models and whatnot. Is there still the same problems of enterprise has black box, don't know what to do with it, or have things changed? I mean, we're seeing now that there's this huge uptake, right? Everyone's extremely excited about it. It feels like many people, like millions, hundreds of millions of people are using ChatGPT. They understand how generally to work with AI. But then every time a new capability gets unlocked, so now we're seeing with agents, there is probably a contingent of early adopters still who truly get it. You can do anything. You just have to make sure the right context is there. It's connected to the right tools and then you're supervising it, but anything is possible. But then there's this like 10x or 100x bigger market or like they don't yet get that or they don't yet see that. And so I think that's the next stage here. So I guess to answer your question, like I think the adoption is there and growing fast, but I think the opportunity is like far, far bigger than that. That's where we want to play, especially with Chachapiti work. Yeah. Well, let's skip ahead to Chachapiti work. Only like a month ago or so announced, what was the sort of decision process that led into it? there was this overall merging of the super app. Is that what we're officially calling it? You deprecated the browser as well. Just, I guess, summarize your last couple of months of working on this thing. Yeah, it feels like forever now, but I guess it's only been a few months. I think maybe the one impetus that is most salient is when we release codecs or even internally add codecs. It was really surprising to us. I think we recently put out some stats on this. that there was this real inflection of adoption among non-developers at OpenAI. And I, through this product development process, would go to these UXR sessions to talk to people internally. And the thing that stuck out to me is, one, you go talk to strategic finance or marketing or whatever, and they're all using Codex for their use cases. That part's cool. But the thing that really stuck out to me is how proud people were that they were using Codex. It's like, I'm not supposed to be using it, but I am. It was that. it was like that they were, you know, early to this like new thing, but it was also this thing of like, they felt like they had a superpower, right? And what we recognized then is that like the power of codecs, power of agents, like we already had this massive distribution base of people who have, you know, come to know and love ChatGPT. Like, how do we show that to them? Like, how do we bring it to them? Which is like a hard product problem. And it's like a tricky thing, right? There's many ways you can go about it. And so that's all we call the merge and the super wrap over time and ultimately launch it in ChatGPT work is how do we do that? But it came from that initial realization that the power was not only for developers, much, much earlier than probably even we thought. It could be extended to everyone. How do you see the products differently? Who is it for, right? So Codex started out even CLI, then App. Now there's a merge of ChatGPT, Codex, and ChatGPT Work. So is it the opening for the average user, for enterprise, for work? How do you position it? I think we want to get to position it for if you're doing worky related things, for lack of a better word. I think productivity is actually what the pillar that I support. That's the name of the team. And the reason for that, the reason we call it productivity and not enterprise or work or something like that is because there's also personal productivity. I think ChaiJBD work is, I've seen people do things in their personal lives that you wouldn't classify as work technically, but these agents are super capable for. One recent example that someone posted about on our Slack is someone has a missed package. They didn't receive it, and then they got the picture of it from Amazon or wherever the courier was. And they asked ChaiJBD work to find out where that package is. and the agent is extremely tenacious and took the image, looked at a bunch of listings around their neighborhood and figured out exactly the apartment complex in which the package was. I gave them some information. And so I think there's all these things that you, you know, worky or productivity-related things. I think that's what we want the product to be. You asked about Codex. I think we think Codex is a durable brand, but we have a principle that the user, we don't want a user to get stuck in a tab or an experience where they don't get the power of the product. And so basically everything that you can do in the codex portion of the product on desktop, you can do in chat to your work and vice versa. But we made some opinionated product decisions on how much of the git state, if you're in a git repo, do we want to expose to the end user? Or how much do we want to make the experience of seeing the agents thinking diff forward so that you get exposed to the diff side of the back? And then on the safety side, how do we want to think about sandboxing and making sure that we have the right defaults one state versus the other. So there's some opinions that go behind that, but we don't want the user to need to choose which experience they're in. That is a good goal for AGI, right? People don't want to choose what version of AGI they want. They just want the AGI to decide for them. Can I get an answer? It's not super clear to me. Is the Codex Harness and the ChatGPT Work Harness the same? Is it just UI affordances, or are there actually prompt level or even deeper differences? So the harness is the same. The harness is shared. In both of the products, we made improvements to the harness to make it good for knowledge work, especially as it relates to plugins or computer use or artifacts. You get that power regardless of what your experience you're in. On the UX side, there's opinionated takes that we have when you're in codex mode, how the UX should behave. And some stuff around the sandbox, like I mentioned, but the underlying harness and capabilities should be the same. I'm just kind of curious, maybe we can, is there a query that we can run that would look different in the two modes? Yeah, I try to create, like, ask it to create, like, a retirement calculator spreadsheet or something in both modes. And then in codex mode, you might have to be in a repo for this, but you'll see, like, the diffs of, like, the sheet that it's creating and stuff like that. And the file edits, but in RRQ, you won't be able to see that. I think that's super clear. And then also the other thing I wanted to dive into was the productivity team. What else is there? First of all, what are the top level teams other than productivity? Isn't productivity everything? So we have a team focused on ChatGPT, like the core chat experience for consumer, which is not, I think, all productivity. People are using ChatGPT every day for search to figure out how to write messages to loved ones, to think about how to learn a new topic, et cetera. And so there's so much more inside to create images. There's so much more in chat that the hundreds of millions of users are using that obviously that warrants a very dedicated effort. And there's teams focused on enterprise and infrastructure and API and stuff like that as well. I will bring it up. Yeah, so I have them both running. This is work. There's a codex version here. I picked 5.6.Soul so this will take a while I think we'll just keep it in the background and you know as they finish we'll look into some of the differences yeah but immediately I think if you flip back to the Codex version you'll see that it assumes Git exactly like Dynamic Island assumes that you're in a Git repo and you might miss some stuff because some of it is like in the actual chain of thought with those changes and how we display that is there an unintuitive like is there a thing that you wanted to ship and then you got feedback and you were like, no, let's not do it. Like, what's the thinking behind that? In Chattabit work? Yeah. I think one direction we could have gone with this is like keeping the experiences like completely separate. So it's like why... Different apps. Exactly. Like different apps or even in the same app, like different, completely different experiences. Like why merge it all? Like what is, you know, Codex, obviously people love. Like why bring these products together? And I think the intuition here is that like all of our jobs are like changing dramatically with AI, every few months. I feel like I wake up and I'm doing a completely different thing than I was doing a few months ago. My hypothesis here is that, or I should say our hypothesis, is that part of what we're building in this technology is giving people leverage. Maybe it's the more mundane parts of your job or parts that if you were able to automate, you'd be able to share more ideas faster or whatever. You're able to do now. And because of that, that might actually blur the lines between someone who's only writing code or creating strategy docs or planning events or helping with marketing or doing podcasts or whatever, right? And so these things are going to get blurred over time. And so trying to draw a hard boundary based on who you are is going to be tough. And we should enable users to choose, but we shouldn't box them in. And so a lot of the work that went in here, keeping the primitives the same, like for example, plugins are unified across this product and ChatGPT in the cloud, was because of that. It's this thesis that eventually things are going to come together. And we don't want to be, like we want to be prescriptive about when to be in either experience, but we don't want to box anyone in. I wonder if there's users who are very tuned to the old ChatGPT harness that is effectively now replaced by the Codex harness. I can't imagine what that was, but maybe they're more, the more conversational side. Can you compare and contrast the two harnesses because only you've seen it? Yeah, I mean, I think ChatGPT, the existing harness still exists. today. It exists in this app. The classic, right? You just start a new chat and you don't go under work, right? Yeah, if you start a new chat and go to chat, then you're talking to chat. We can technically do another. I guess on instant. Yeah, so this one's not going to code. Or it's going to be inline. It's not inline or sandbox. Actually, we try to push you to go to work if you're creating a spreadsheet. This is a router decision? Sorry? This is a router decision? This is the decision that the model is making. and then it sees that you're able to or you're trying to do something that would be better served in work mode. But I think your question was like, what are the advantages of the chat, like ChatGPT chat harness? It's more broadly like I want to basically do an oral history of harness engineering, right? You know, the ChatGPT harness lasted us from, let's call it the 01 era until now. And now it's being replaced by the codex harness effectively. And they're overlapping somewhat. but I'm curious what changed if there is. My perspective on this is there's sort of like a constant process of divergence, convergence, divergence, convergence. And in chat, many of the use cases I was talking about before, like search or learning, I think we're really optimizing for latency and optimizing for personality and different things that over time, the reason people love ChatGPT is because we've been optimizing for those things and working on them for so long. Codex, what we learned was that if you give the agent access to this infinitely flexible environment as a computer, you can do really, really powerful things. And so when we think about, okay, well, for knowledge work, which mode should we choose? It felt more natural to us to bring that to this computer environment and maybe abstract some of the details this computer away from users who might not be used to that, but give them that same power. But ultimately, I think that we want the power in all places, right? We want to meet people where they are. So I'm sure there'll be work down the road in order to get things to be equivalently capable in all scenarios. But it's just a question of what we've been focusing on the product on historically and what we're focusing on now. I think alongside that, outside of just Harness and when to use codex, HTTP, or work, there's also the new models you've released, right? Any guidance there? So people love to min-max what to use, like only use Terra on high reasoning versus for this, you know, you want to use Sol here, ignore all these. There's 32 options. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But that being said, you know, for people that are expanding, so productivity, trying stuff for work that don't have the breakdown of what all this is, what's the advice, right? Well, I mean, I think before the advice, like the first thing is like none of this would be possible without these models. Like I think you asked earlier, like, you know, what was like the inspiration for work? And like, you know, early on, like I mentioned, like what we were seeing with codex, but that was also because the models were getting infinitely more capable. That's happening again. I think it like another step function jump now And to answer the question on advice like we want this default to be the best possible Like we want to be opinionated about the default And so we chosen a default that we think is going to be the best for everyone And, you know, we have for power users options under the hood. One could argue that there might be too many right now and we're working on simplifying it. But you can extend, you know, the reasoning level and you can change between the different model classes if you need to, but the default should be the best for most use cases. So my advice to most people would be to stick to that. And then if you reach a situation in which you think that you could, you want to try a different configuration if you're not seeing either the efficiency on the cost side or the quality on the intelligence side, then you can change the defaults and see if you can get something better. But we think that the default should be good enough. I'm just going to run something by you since you have way more experience than me. I've recently been doing soul light but with goal with the idea that the goal basically augments the reasoning effort but with more terminations and turns is that a good way to think about it as opposed to soul ultra or soul you know extra high yeah it's hard to say because it's like an interaction effect exactly it's like there's a preference on you know for you as an individual like how do you like to collaborate with the models like how many of those like terminations as you call them do you want where you know you can steer or make sure that it's doing the right thing. I think generally people should try whatever works for them. I think that using Ultra or the multi-agent setups are best for when you have tasks that are either incredibly complicated, like open explorations, or very parallelizable. I think even for tasks, using Goal I think is best for tasks that you know that you'll be able to make consistent progress in a way that's verifiable over time. But I think for most tasks, they actually don't fall into either of those buckets. And so, like, at least when they're starting. And so that's why I think the best first step is, like, trying it with the default configuration and then seeing, like, where you want to go from there. Right. You guys worked on a slider, which actually is super helpful for reducing the amount of panic. Yeah, yeah. It's nice on mobile, at least. There's a nice slider. It's nice here. I haven't tried it. So you have the advanced view there, but if you click advanced view, yeah. Yeah. Ooh, just a simple slider, yeah. Very pretty, very colorful. Yeah, that idea was to reduce it to one dimension, even though there's multiple dimensions, right? Try to project it onto a single dimension for the user. You have something that represents speed and efficiency on one side, and then sort of quality and thoroughness on the other side. I am just puzzled that it uses Sol so much. No, no, I think this slider, if I'm not mistaken, Terra. Oh, it is. So they preset Terra to only be the light one. But I think a lot of people actually, more people should use Terra. One, because Sol keeps running out of capacity. I'm the reason, you know. Here's 10 minutes of our retirement calculator. Oh, that's the Excel thing. This is work and then Codex is still cooking. So we'll get back into it. I think it'll be interesting to actually see the thought process, the reasoning. and also you know I guess this is eight minutes on work Codex is still cooking yeah and by the way so I have do you know Gabriel Chua he's part of the OpenSignport team he showed me this and I was like pretty shocked that this looks like Excel it edits Excel files you never paid an Excel license right but somehow this is like kind of workable and it's agentic Excel yeah I mean one of the big like pushes that we made for this launch was like artifacts right like both on the model side, I think if you compare this with 5.5 and 5.4 before that, you'll see that there's been pretty dramatic improvements in the quality of these artifacts. And then also on the product side. The UX side is also crazy. Like hosted sites and whatnot, no longer needing to host your own little webpage. Oh, I have a story about that. I can do a separate thing. I'll need to take the visuals here, but we'll cut to that later. Was there co-training, I guess, because you were making this big move? And you launched 5.6 on the same day as ChatGP's work. Was there influence between the model training teams and the harness teams? Or did the launch days just happen to line up the same day? I think that, you know, we collaborate heavily with the research teams. And I mean, I think that's like one of the most magical parts of the job, like the most fun parts of the job. But yeah, I mean, just using artifacts as an example, like, you know, a lot of what you're seeing, like underneath the hood, And there's a lot of work that went into making sure that we have the right infra to be able to train the models to get better at this. And then on the product side, had the right experience for users to be able to collaborate with the model on an artifact like this. In fact, this whole viewer, the intuition here is that it's not necessarily that you wouldn't need an Excel license. This is stage one, right? This is probably not what you meant when you were making a retirement calculator. You want to iterate. And when you're seeing it, and if this thing is high fidelity to what you would actually see, or what your coworkers would see if you were to send this to Sean, that I think makes it so easier and makes you trust the product in terms of iteration. When you say coworkers would see, do you see a multiplayer, multi-team collaboration with Artifacts? Any things you guys think about? You can already share it, right? Yeah, it's something that we're actively thinking about. one thing that we've noticed internally without talking too much about the roadmap is that there's many times when someone will ping me about something and I will ask TragiBDwork the question and then I'll ping them back the answer and then I'll be thinking the three of us are just all on one hosted exactly, but I'll think about was I required in this loop and maybe it was I'd rephrase what they were asking or pulled from certain context or whatever but when I gave them back the answer that process was also lossy I gave them just my interpretation of what ChachiBG work cooked up. But underneath the hood, there's so much context in the rollout and stuff that could be interesting. So the answer was preemptively respond to every inbound request? No, it's just literally like, this is what I do sometimes as my job. I know, you copy-paste and then you're just a message-forwarding service from AI to AI. I think it's interesting, right? It helps people understand the capability of what you can ask and delegate that oftentimes people don't realize until they try or someone shows you and then you're like, oh, okay, okay. I see. I think there's also like a light security issue where like basically you're the permissions layer. Like, yes, I could query everything that you query and I could get an automated response, but maybe I'm not supposed to see it. Yeah. And there's no way I would know because I'm not supposed to know what I don't know. Especially as like, you know, which IWD work for or asking you to connect your plugins and, you know, it's pulling from your local files and stuff like that. Like the amount of context that the agent has access to is like deeply personal. and that's something we need to preserve. So that'll be definitely a challenge. There's Excel, there's PowerPoint, there's Docs, the grand trio of work. What other formats of work do you think about? Obviously you worked on Airtable. Is there a future where there's open AI Airtable? What does that look like if you ever ended up doing it? It's a really good question. I think one that you didn't bring up was Sites and I think that was a before part of this launch. there's one side of sites that I think people commonly talk about especially on Twitter and stuff of like you know this sort of prototyping tool and actually we saw that happen with this launch even the model slider that you guys were referencing earlier like that was developed almost fully in a site like you know the collaboration between design and engineering and product on that was like on a site where we play with you know the affordance and figure out how it feels and all of that but the other aspect that I think is a little bit less talked about is like sites as like an artifact for knowledge work. I was actually talking to someone the other day who was on like our corporate finance team and like they're mentioning how like now when they have these reports that they're working on as a team month to month, historically those things were in slide decks and in spreadsheets and now they're just in sites. And like sites is the mechanism that they collaborate across the team. And the reason is because it's like it's like somewhat higher bandwidth, like, you know, these tools, like PowerPoint and Excel are like infinitely flexible, but at some point you reach the boundary of like either as a human, you may not know how to use some feature or something or the product itself doesn't support it. But with a site, you can kind of do anything. You ask for anything and you can get that. Once people see that magic, I think it's been really valuable. Yeah, let me show you my case study. This involves all the hot topics, including ChatGPT work, but also 5.6, token billionaires and token maxing and sites and auto research. I'm a fan of this game called Strata. It's basically that's like a little board game that you play with physical blocks that come on top of it like that. So over the weekend, I took like 30 photos and just threw it into ChatGPT. 1.7 billion tokens later, out comes this site with a fully playable thing with 3D block placement and everything because it requires physical blocks and I needed friends to train on it so they can get better so I can play against them. But also, I could also do things like train an AI on it. And that gets into auto research. So you want to train your own AIs and then make sure they self-play against each other. I need to accept both AIs. So this is AI versus AI, and they're going to self-play. Obviously, the AI start out bad, and then you want to define a loss function and get good. I wasn't going to supervise all this. I was at Dallas and Mateo attending a conference. What I ended up doing was auto-researching on this and creating benchmarks. and there was just way too many parameters for me to read. So I started asking it for a site and it's created this lab panel. Is there a shortcut for a site that is created? You should be able to go in the sidebar to sites, top of the sidebar. The left sidebar. This one? Oh, left? Yeah, I just scroll all the way to the top. Oh, it says sites. Oh, there you go. Yeah. So it creates the sites. I don't think this is exactly what I wanted but let me show you what it popped up I think as a research artifact it is very important to communicate exactly what is being done outputs this thing which I eventually started publishing so I moved it off of sites because I wanted more database and infrastructure than sites afforded me but this is a research output that you can start to mess with and try to think about what hyperparameters are you tuning for training your AIs. And I was trying to make scaling laws and everything and doing all sorts of game optimization stuff. And the fact that you can just kind of throw this up as a research artifact, I no longer need to read chat GPT output. I read site output. But then there's also a huge sprawl. Look at how long this thing is. There's so many numbers. It is pretty overwhelming. So then I have to start putting it from there. But it's an interesting transition from Markdown, that you're putting out to you're putting out a whole functional site. I think Markdown just isn't that optimal for people to read, right? Might as well just write HTML website. And I don't know, I think you can do a lot with customizing this, right? You have your skills that explain what you want. Like I noticed they're quite verbose. I don't need a lot of this information. It's very verbose. So, and then the nice thing of having a site side by side is, you know, you just iterate on what you want and what you don't, right? Yeah, I don't know if any, that triggers any stories for you of how it's run internally? Am I doing this right? Yeah, I mean, I think that this is like a workflow that we're seeing like all different types of teams use where like the canonical artifact that was previously a deck or something is now becoming a site. And like with a site, you, because it's just HTML, you can like, it's infinitely flexible. And so, you know, if you want to give more prominence to a certain thing that like in a slide deck would, you know, feel like it was buried, like you can do that you can have it be like the hero image right and so I think that like people are starting to see that there's obviously more work to be done to make these things like much more easier easy to collaborate on you mentioned that they're very they're long and verbose could be broken up I'm sure they're super long yeah yeah but I think we're starting to see that like there is this aspect of this is a really interesting format for people to use that's like much more flexible than what they ever had before. I think your job also becomes kind of meta. You're not designing the products, you're designing a product to make products. And I'm curious how you manage that. I think one thing that we've been, like when we look at the UX, like that we've been thinking a lot about is how can we balance like simplicity with capability? Like if we're designing a product, like you said, that like is made to build other things, right? You can build so many different things. But we can't put that all in front of you because you'll get overwhelmed. And so we had similar problems or similar challenges even with ChatGPT. But especially now, when there's so much that can be done, I think the balance that we're constantly trying to strike is like, how can we give the user enough of a UI surface where they can be expressive, they can tell the agent what they need, they can verify that it's using the right tools, it's pulling from the right sources, etc. but then it gets out of the way and then how can we build the right system such that we can show them instead of telling them what can be done because so much of this is going to be like how do they discover the next use case and the next one after that if they really want to be super powered by the AI It's interesting, I feel like everyone also just has a different way to do it, right? I made a similar version of this, same game I didn't take any pictures of board or rule game I threw an at goal 18 minutes, 53 seconds later a lot of tokens later I've got a similar version obviously not with all the other research and whatnot but you know you had to do all the latest trends and yeah I did it with did it with codex not work but it's interesting right yeah and this is obviously GPT image generating the avatars very good for game design like a lot of game designers were like really into GPT image I will say like the broader takeaway probably is the reason that we do this is more so just to test the tools right like this was also a test for 5.6 came out I had done the game on 5.5 right the ability for me to no longer need it to I had to feed it the rules it's a pretty niche game it couldn't find how to do this on its own oh yeah 5.6 in its auto distribution that's why I'm also very keen on testing the 5.6 capability but you know this is just as work comes out as new things come out these are just our sideways to test things right yeah it's some kind of private evil I guess that is not less private but also valuable because now you can send this to your friends. And I mean, I learned about this game through seeing this. It's a hard game. He's very good. It's good when no one is competing with you. But yes, it's a classic RL problem of like self-playing, bootstrapping your game AI. Yeah, you see how easily work becomes personal and personal becomes work because the thing I do for personal, it actually directly informs people I work with because I showed it to them. They were like, oh, you can do that with GPT, which I imagine is the growth strategy. Yeah. The show not tell is a big piece that I think we're still not fully cracked of showing people all the things that they can do with the product versus trying to teach that to them through articles or onboarding or whatever. Yeah. Meeting them in the moment. It's a career risk for me because I used to be in developer relations where your job is to show and then you're like, what do you mean you don't need? Actually, your job is to tell. But the product people are like, well, we don't need you if our product isn't intuitive enough. Yeah, I mean, that's the magic of the models. So you can tailor the telling or the showing to specifically what the user needs, what they care about, what they've done in the past, exactly where they are on the adoption journey. So I think that's going to be a super big opportunity. Seems easier and easier now to tailor custom showing, right? People have different use cases. as much as you said you don't want to segment different people into different buckets, right? It's also not that hard to for people that are in different categories. But the question, I guess, is you said your team is more broadly on, what was the term you used? Productivity? Productivity. Which is now work, basically. Is it work? Is there another distribution that we're not hitting? Is there a group of people that will have something different than ChattuPT codex or work? Is there more that the mass isn't targeting? I see it as like a sequencing. Like, you know, the vision is like bring useful agents to everyone. We started with like developers. Like developers historically are like early adopters that are willing to put up with more friction set things up et cetera Like that Codex started I think the next opportunity is what we call general knowledge work all the other functions around developers. I think when you go from developers to this segment, there's inherent challenges, obviously, with this show-and-ot-tell thing that we're talking about, making the product more understandable, bringing in new capabilities that matter more for this cohort than matter for developers, things like artifacts, things like computer use, et cetera. And then I think the same learnings, similarly to how we took the learnings from developers and brought it to general knowledge work, the next stage will be taking the learnings from general knowledge work and bringing it to everyone no matter what they're doing in their lives. And we're already seeing that a little bit. This game example that you have is something that's on the border of fun and personal life to your professional life. I use ChatDBG work full-time at home for everything, for whatever I'm doing. I used it the other day to come up with a meal plan and save that on the computer environment that it has and something that I can continue going back to. Is everyone doing that yet? Probably not because the thing says work on it, but eventually we want to get people there. Chagipity life. Yeah, exactly. Chagipity cooking. But I think there's a lot of opportunity there, but I see it as we built a foundation in software engineering and we're going to take the same learning so we take software engineering to knowledge work, knowledge work to everyone. Do you have any power user advice? I feel like there's a group of people that will live it, use it for everything, stay on it 24-7. Yeah. And then there's a bit of a gap between that crew and people that, you know, okay, I use it for work. I use it occasionally. Sometimes I pipe questions. Any advice, any learnings, anything you recommend or just, you know, takeaways that you found that help bridge that gap? I think a couple things that I've seen is like one that it really helps to broaden your imagination of what's possible. And this has been a learning even for me. Like, you know, the technology has progressed so fast that, you know, it's something that like even three months ago, like no way, no way the models can do this. Like now it's like, wow, it's like you actually can. You have an example? We're going through right now our review cycle internally. and people always talked about this as kind of a thing that the models are good at and there's a cliche of like, okay, no one wants to be writing reviews and we just use AI to do it. But I mean, in all seriousness. You have to evaluate it as well. Yeah, exactly. In all seriousness before, it was just like slot basically and I think it was helpful, but not super productive. Now I've found that the model can do a much, much better job than me, especially in this environment of pulling context on what people are up to, how they've like the things that they've done to make a difference, highlighting like, you know, wins that they've had that like I may not even have seen, you know, has access to like everything, right? Like the code, like, you know, things that they've caught, reviews, Slack, everything. And so it's like incredibly powerful in that domain. And like, just like six months ago, the last time we did this, like I didn't even, I tried using it, but it was not at all helpful. And this time it's been like incredibly helpful. And like, so I think continuing to push the frontier of imagination what's possible, even if you tried something before, I think is maybe my biggest piece of advice. The other, I guess, thing is the more you put in, especially in this environment where the model has access to everything on your computer or in Chagibity work, you can create artifacts over time and save them in your library and the model will continue having access to those. The more information you give it about whatever domain you're in, whether it's your life or your work, the more valuable it becomes. And it'll become valuable in ways that might surprise you. It might pull from context in a way that may be proactive and that you might not even have thought about. but it needs to have access to those tools or that context first. One thing I just want to talk about the review stuff because that's a very sensitive thing. And you're a founder, you've managed people, you've hired people. As manager myself, I'm very reticent to put out any LLM-generated things, especially when it comes to people because it feels like you don't care. Presumably at OpenAI, people are obviously more open to being basically rated by GPT. But are there any unofficial rules around this? Like, what's the etiquette? Oh, I mean, I think the etiquette is that, like, I would never write something via, like, solely via AI and, like, present it as, like, a review for someone. What I was talking about is more, like, gathering context. That's the place where it's incredibly helpful. So it's just search. It's agentic search. It's like agentic search, but, you know, that you can tailor and steer much more capably than you could before. And because, like, the thing is, it's all, there's sort of a flywheel happening, right? because of Codex, people are able to do, and because of Tragedy Bior, people are able to do so much more now than ever before. And if you're able to do so much more, it's easy to miss things as well. And so I think we need to use these same tools to keep up with all the impact that people are having and understand where it can be helpful. I think the thing, obviously I run a small company, so easy to search, but at the scale of OpenAI, with the amount of messages that you guys put in Slack, do you think that it misses things? Probably, but I think that I also miss things. Like it doesn't matter, right? It needs to be human level. It's all relative, right? Sometimes it's nice when it finds things you wouldn't, right? Like right now my codex system prompts, they're set up in such a way that every project I have has a separate notes MD. And it just writes learnings to there. And then the global one can pull from all these. So sometimes it'll be like, oh, there's this project you did like four months ago. Here's a note that we had. And it randomly pulls it back into context. that I would never do. I haven't thought about it. And I'm like, okay, this is quite superhuman, right? Like stuff that would, and you know, it'll save like hours on chunking of stuff or find something that's already been done. And I'm like, as much as it might miss stuff, I would too, but it's very useful when it finds stuff. And I have like a very, you know, non-super engineered solution to this. It's just markdown files that get pulled whenever they want. Yeah, I actually have a funny anecdote about this. Like recently, gearing up to this launch, you know, the team has been, you know, really cooking on it for a couple months. And over that time, there's so much conversation and chatter going on in Slack and Docs and elsewhere. And one of the members of the team set up this scheduled tasks like automation to look at everything that's going on and come up with the best memes and then post it in one of our shared channels. And there are two cool things about this. The first is, I think the models are, over time, actually starting to become funny. It was a year ago, that was not at all the case. The second is, it was what you were saying, And they find things in surprising ways that you may not have thought of and create connections that you may not have thought of. And that really helps with the meme generation because then you can see something that genuinely surprises you and is funny in that way. So yeah, I mean, obviously that's not the most productive use of this technology, but it does uncover this capability that's emerging, which is just to find information that you otherwise would not know. Talking about the launch, I think I have pretty much said this is the most successful launch in a long time. I think even more successful personally than 5.0. And you're announcing 10 million users. Does it feel different? You've been through a lot of launches. I think it feels like a culmination. Well, I think two things. One, it feels like a culmination, like I was mentioning earlier, like this vision mission that we've been on for a long time. Like I said, we saw the magic of Codex internally. And then we're like extremely excited to bring this to many more people. and to see it working, to see us reach the distribution goal in numbers that you mentioned, I think that's huge and super exciting. The flip side of that is there's so much more to do too. That's also really exciting. ChatGPT as a whole, this product that everyone almost equates to AI and loves has hundreds of millions of users. And so 10 million is really cool, but we need to get this to everyone. We need everyone to feel this magic. And so that's the next step from here. But yeah, I think extremely pumped about how it's going so far and the opportunities. Awesome. I did want to also, because I've been tracking the number closely, it transitioned at some point from just Codex users to Codex plus ChatGPT work, obviously because the same harness, the whole point is that you can't come down separately. You have roughly a billion ChatGPT users. Why did it just jump to one billion right away? Like, isn't that the default on ChatGPT or no? We don't default you into ChatGPT work if you're on ChatGPT. If you're free, yeah. It's also only available to paid users right now. And I think there's a good process of educating users of what is the value of this product, having them try learning from their feedback and making it better over time. But the goal is to get as many people who love ChatGPT today to feel the power of ChatGPT work. But I think it'll be a journey. Yeah. Codex will still be alive as a brand for the foreseeable future. Yeah. and we'll just toggle between them as needed for UI stuff. Yeah, I think it's an even stronger point than that. I think we fully intend to treat developers like developers have been a core market for us for so long. And there's so much more that we can do to make Codex great specifically for software development, and we'll continue to do that. This doesn't take away from that at all. If anything, it should increase the utility of something like Codex, because now you can move seamlessly between writing a diff to creating an artifact or... doing a search over your character. I do wonder how much this terminology leaks to the non-technical user. Do they have to learn to say artifacts if I want artifacts? It's funny, we call artifacts internally because that's what the team's called. Externally, no one says that, no one calls it an artifact. But I think that people often describe things whatever they're used to, right? So if Chachabiti work is good at creating slides, they'll say Chachabiti work is good at creating slides and that's actually what we want. One big, another, I mean, it's July of 2026. One big thing that also happens for OpenAI was OpenClaw. And that's, I think, a lot of people's first time really maxing an agent for personal stuff, but also crossing over to work in some same way. As far as I understand, OpenClaw is still independent. But did you go through your own OpenClaw moments? Were there any lessons you took from OpenClaw to Codex or back? Whatever. I think there's a lot of inspiration. I did go through my own OpenClaw moment. Yeah, tell the story. Me and my wife set up an OpenClaw to try to manage everything in our house. Not that there's a ton, but it was actually quite useful. We gave it a calendar and started creating events for us and stuff. At some point, the laptop that we were running on it died and I never got a chance to pick it back up. But there's a lot of inspiration there. In chat GBD work, in web and mobile, you get access to a persistent computer environment where you can store files and those files stay around between sessions. And the idea is to be able to enable use cases like this. One of the members of our team actually uses ChatGP work for what they used OpenClaw for before. And I feel like it has a completely transition, which is like workout planning and meal tracking, which again, it's like a worky thing, right? It's like not work necessarily, but it's like in personal productivity space. But it has all the same primitives. So it has scheduled tasks. It has the ability to store files on a file system. It has the ability to reference those things over time. And so you start to see the same types of use cases emerge, which has been really cool. Is there a point that chat.gpc work completely replaces OpenClaw? Obviously, they're independent, so. Yeah, I mean, I'm not close to it, so I can't speak to the OpenClaw roadmap, but I don't think so. I think that there's going to be, you know, there's always a need for this incredible open source technology that that team has built. and I think that we can draw inspiration in the product and you know ChatGPT I think many more people have like heard about and used ChatGPT than have used OpenClaw and if we can take the magic from OpenClaw and bring it to them I think that'll be a success. I think that like one thing on the ChatGPT work side that we feel strongly about is that like the core experience is that you come to this product and you have a conversation, start a session, whatever you want to call it with this agent and the magic of the product is that you can do anything in that moment and we would like to create a product where you don't have to click a button or to go to a different place, whatever. And you can get whatever functionality exists in, you know, your finances app or any other product, like, in this one place. And so that's the goal. It's like, we want an extensible system with plugins where you can connect to the tools that you need in order to be able to accomplish, like, a financial task where you can, you know, if you're doing, like, science work, like, we have an ability to, like, extend the system and such that you can like write the tech and it performs well. There'll always be like products that we support that are best in class at those things. But we want as much of the magic as possible in that core experience. Yeah. Do you think that you can do everything you used to do with WellFronts in Chattapd Finance? I actually tried it. I mean, like Chattapd doesn't yet custody cash and assets for me. So that part, no, not yet. But I mean, there was like a whole component of like retirement planning and sort of like financial planning and budgeting and stuff that we were looking into when I was there. And like with the finances plugin, like that's all possible today. So I feel like at least that component's replaced for me. I haven't really plugged it in yet. I'm somewhat scared to look at the answer. Like that's honestly like the same reason for health and finances. Like I'm like, I don't know. It's really good. I mean, it's really cool how, I mean, we were talking about the agentic search aspect a little bit earlier, but it's really cool how in conventional UX, the more power you want to give to a user, the more knobs and bells and whistles you need to add. For these finance and budgeting apps, there's always a bunch of the different filters and search bars and stuff like that. But now, with the right connectivity to the right data, you can have whatever you want. You can ask any question you want into that box and get the answer. And I think that's super powerful. I think it's also nice to just have it centralized in one space, right? You have different health apps. I have one for a smart scale, a watch, all these different things. It's just nice to centrally co-locate it. Which is part of the whole thing of OpenClaw, right? That you would have a personal OS, which presumably ChatGPT wants to become. I do think that just relying on just-in-time pulling of data for, let's say, via MCP, CLI, API, whatever you do, still not enough. I come from a bit of a data engineering background. You still want a data warehouse or some kind of caching or semantic layer. Do you feel that or do you already have that? I can't speak to all the details on how everything works, but I think it depends on the access pattern. If you want an answer immediately, then yes, it's very difficult to do that. You need to pull from all of these sources. But a lot of the use cases that we want to enable and ChatGPT work aren't necessarily something that you need immediately. It's more like a task that you want the agent to go and do. And that's going to take a certain amount of time. And, you know, with things like programmatic tool calling and stuff now, like some of that time and sub-agents and stuff, like some of that is also parallelizable. And so it's possible, I think it's very possible that there's the ceiling on what can be done, you know, with MCPs and like calling out to these cert-front services has been raised substantially. So we're really excited about that. You mentioned sub-agents. I got a double click on that. Ultra is a new mode. You have special affordances in ChatGPT itself to show off the agents. Can't really do much with them, to be honest. Just watch. What have been your experiences? Any design issues that you would call out to other builders building with sub-agents? I think it sort of goes back to the balance that I was raising earlier about like, you know, showing builders the power of the tool, but also creating enough of an abstraction to not overwhelm them. I think with subagents, the thing that we wanted to show is that you can take a task that has many parallel tracks or is complicated in a way that subagents can handle and this product is for you. The model can accomplish those goals or try to accomplish those goals. And so that's the point of showing them the product and that's where we've gone with the design. there's another iteration of this where you can see exactly what they're doing and things like that, which I think could verge on overwhelming with information. And so this is the Dober trade-off that we made for now. I mean, you do display quite a lot of transcripts. Right, right. I think it's hidden by default, right? No, no, it's hidden by default. Some people could want more. So I'm one of those people that will basically throw a lot of stuff at goal and pretty much every goal, I'll tell it to use sub-agents. Seems redundant, right? But every time I'm like, okay, use subagents where possible. And I have a lot of people, a lot of friends that recommend and do the same. Whereas I sometimes talk to people that are like okay this is where I want you to use subagents for this subtask And I sure they would appreciate seeing into how they being used For me it primarily like two things right One is net time efficiency So span out across sub agents. Two is probably cost, right? Don't use big expensive model. Offload to a lot of smaller, cheaper models. And some people want that level of control. So if you have repetition in what you're doing, right? Say I want something built where I wanted to consistently do this every day. I might want to go in and fine tune subagents here, subagents there. So you can see both, but I think if I'm not mistaken, it's hidden by default. There's a dropdown that goes a lot where I'm like, okay, I'm just going to keep using. You can change the model that they use? I know I tell them to be steered. I'll say my, I know Anthropic offers this in Cloud Code. You can tell Fable to use Sonnet or Opus to use Sonnet as subagent. So pretty trivial thing. You know, you tell it to span out subagents with Sonnet, you know, it's cheaper, faster. I would assume if it's not there, it could be built there. But I think there's a side of... It's too many toggles. It's not a toggle, actually. It's just you tell it in chat. The way I do it is prompt it, right? And I think this is something that gets abstracted unless it's something you built for repetition, right? So if I'm building something, say, that's podcast prep, right? Research into people, do a very, very deep, extensive research. That I might want to configure to cheaper, faster model just for web search, right? I can see a world in which you want both. I think the default is actually pretty good right now where it's hidden, but you can drop down and get some more info into what's done. I know people talked a lot about it on 5.6's launch. This thing loves to use a lot of subagents and causes the ChatGPT app to just crash because it's so processor heavy. For what it is, that's not my experience. I mean, I haven't had a crash from subagents. I haven't either. We both have big laptops. I know people brought it up. There was a topic of discussion that we didn't see the same, but it is another vibe eval, right? People are like, okay, the amount of subagents so this wanting is crazy. And I'm like, I think this is okay. I think it's good, but just stuff people bring up. I think when we launched the product too, we weren't as opinionated about who is Ultra for and when should they be using it. And since then, we've made some changes to require you to turn it on and find it in the advanced setting because that's who it is for. It's for power users who understand what's going to happen. because it also, you know, depending on your use case, can use more of your limits as well. Yes. So that's where I think a lot of the feedback was coming from. It's okay. Reset the limits. Always reset the limits. Well, you know, today we're resetting because of this. I want to change topics to one last piece of the harness, memory. A lot of people are commenting on memory recently. Chad Gypsy's new memory system uses Sarkis not very good. And then this guy, also basically the same thing. And Samir, who you presumably work with, talking about memory. What can you say there? I think that Samir and the team have made a ton of updates and improvements over time I think when I talk to friends family members about what they love about chat GPT the fact that it knows them they feel like their chat GPT is their chat GPT I think comes up probably number one and chat GPT work in the cloud by default all conversations are inherent from your chat GPT memory so you'll know context about you and they'll also be able to write back to this memory with like a small text write. Like you tell me when you're writing, right? No, it's part of the same like memory V3 system that we launched. Yeah, Dreaming V3, yeah. So I think that's been really powerful because, you know, going from ChatGPD to ChatGPD work feels like an extension of what I've already been doing with the product for sometimes many years. So that's been awesome. And it's awesome to see that people are recognizing the improvements here. So it's basically a retrieval problem, right? Like, are you retrieving the right things? Are you over-focusing on the wrong things? Is there more false positive or false negative? If that makes sense, what's the bigger problem? So I don't work on memory directly, so it's hard to say what the bigger problem is with certainty. But I think you're right. I think that there's two sides of it. It's making sure it knows things about you, but then also having the EQ to bring those things up at the right moments proactively or surprising you in ways that are positive, not negative. So I think it's a very challenging problem, but something that I think we feel very, is a huge opportunity to get right, which is why we made big investments in it. How do you see the side of, okay, when you're building Chat2BT for work, different than the regular chat app, different than Codex, managing memory across different projects, collaboration and whatnot, how do you see the side of what's separate from the harness, right? So if I have four threads on one project, any learnings on how to build memory systems there, for background as well, I guess, to steer it a bit is, when you do chat style applications, I'd say you have a lot of one-offs, right? When you switch to work, it might be something you're doing for a month, something you do a lot, right? Now, as I add more sessions, there's a lot more than just single-threaded, right? And there might be memory there. I mean, I think first I challenge that the depth of the memory or the value of it is fundamentally different across chat and work. It is true that there are a lot of shorter sessions on chat, But I think, you know, ChatGPD, the product has had like a ton of longevity, you know, as long as this technology has been around and people use it for worky, like productivity related things already today. And so I think we found that there's a lot of value. I mean, I found this with my personal usage, like all these one-offs add up over time into something like quite durable and like quite a good representation of who I am. I know like from time to time, something will go viral on X about like, you know, ChatGPD telling you everything it knows about you. And people are always surprised how deep that is. The fun roast me, you know? Exactly. So I think that's all to say that I think there's a lot of depth there in the existing ChatGP product. And so that's why I think we think it's valuable to bring into the work product. But the other reason I brought that up is because I think hopefully we can use some of the same fundamental primitives and systems to extend memory here as well. And I know this is something that the team that focuses on this is working through right now. I wanted to bring up one element of memory, which I honestly don't really use much. And I'm curious if you do. Chronicle, which is up on screen right now. It's kind of a super memory or like, what is it? I think the idea is that like, it can learn from, you know, how you're using your computer. And like, it's another input source into memory. And I think it's, you know, experimental right now and something that like, isn't default off. But I'd recommend that you try. I think that it's like quite interesting how it goes back to a conversation we were having earlier on like, you know, you were asking, like, does it, can ChatGPT miss things? Like, does it, you know, on Slack, when it's searching, does it miss things? Because there's such a volume of stuff, right? And like, you can ask the same question about like everything that you're doing on your computer. Like, is it going to know everything that you're doing? Is it going to capture the intent and stuff like that? Probably not. But like, it probably will find things that you might not know about. And then if it can surface those to you in relevant times in proactive ways, like when you're doing tasks, then I've found at least that it can be quite helpful. So it's worth trying. So mostly for insights and longer term. Yeah, exactly. Like insights and it builds context that can make you more productive on certain tasks. But it's hard to describe without feeling it. I will say you can feel it pretty well. Like the idea of what they're saying here, right? just check through my memories or check through my logs and add skills. Yeah. Pretty underrated, right? But that's automations. You can repeat that using a chron job. Checking through your memories and creating skills. Yeah. I think the creation of the memories from Chronicle itself is like what's different. It's like you have much deeper memories because you have Chronicle on. It's there. I don't use it much, but maybe I just, I need more examples. I imagine you guys use a lot of it internally, so I'm always fishing for use cases. Yeah, I would just try turning it on and then like it just auto works like it yeah and seeing like where where it might start helping you I think you'd be surprised yeah amazing I think that was about it in terms of like the overall coverage of ChatGPT work I think there's been a lot of like good progress and discussion on building and all these things there's a lot of like ex-founders in the community and in OpenAI as well do you think that things have changed a lot I guess like your overall reflection of building pre-AI and post-AI? I mean, I think things have changed a ton. I think it's like super exciting to see how quickly you can go from idea to something real today. Whereas even before, like I think five, 10 years ago, it was fast if you were scrappy and rolling to build the minimal viable thing. But now the extent of what you can build is much, much broader. And I think that also, what we've seen internally building is that gives you an opportunity to validate much more quickly, to talk to users, to talk to internal doctors, etc., and make sure you're on the right track. And that loop, I think, has become more closed than ever before. And that's a win for product development. And I think it's a win for consumers and users, too, because ideally that means they're getting much better products out the gate. Does it mean your team is smaller? I think there's much more to do now. So I think people can accomplish more individually or in a small team than they were, that would require more people than before. But there's at the same time, there's also more to do. So I think the teams are much more ambitious. Have you seen any changes in scopes of roles and building teams and how we used to have teams, say, a few years ago versus what ideal teams look like now? I think we've seen a blurring in the lines between the typical product development functions, like between EM, BM, engineer, designer, et cetera. Yeah, I want to bring up this quote. There will be only four jobs left in tech. There's AI, slop cannon, the people who just burn a bunch of tokens. And then there is SRE, people who are more responsible. There's grownups who sell things. And then there's hot people. this is an interesting take I think my suspicion is that there's everything everyone will be like T-shaped in a way and that like AI will enable everyone to become a generalist you know things that like I never would be able to like come up with a design before and like even now I don't have maybe like the visual taste required but I can iterate on something with the help of AI but then people will have a specialty and that's like the I guess the straight line in the T or the upward line of the T. And so like you can have a specialty that you're interested in and with the help of AI you can go deeper and become better at it over time but then you'll also be a generalist and so with that foundation what you can accomplish is like almost limitless. What are you bottlenecked by in terms of specialties? Do you need more designers? Do you need more slop cannons? Do you need more hot people? I think the bottleneck becomes like sort of like ideas and taste I guess. I think because anyone can can build now I think it really is the era of like bottoms up ambition and because there's so much to be built you're always going to be bottlenecked by you know the amount of ideas and amount of things that you're doing at a given time models help solve that? Models? Yeah I mean I have the example of like I have a front end design skill that's like they give me four drastically different examples of what this looks like sure it burns a lot of tokens but you know and then I'll mostly just condense down okay I like this part, I like this part let's draw these together and it's like yeah I had a vision but like I don't know. I would say that the one automation that I would love to work and it doesn't work is bring me new ideas right? Somehow LLMs are just not it One interesting part of that idea is like they're not like in a vacuum it's like not, they usually come from somewhere and like you know in product development like they're coming from talking to users or reacting to friction that you're seeing or feedback, building on some foundation that you already have planned out before, whatever. And so I think that's where there will always be value in these generalists that we talked about, like closing that loop and coming up with those ideas that are grounded in that feedback or talking to users or whatever it is. Cool. You lead the productivity team. How do you define productivity? I think our mission is to make it possible for people to do things that they weren't able to do before. And right now we're thinking about it from the perspective of knowledge work. And so when I look at knowledge work, I think about people are no longer siloed by their roles. They're no longer siloed by maybe the background or training that they have. Like no matter what function you're in, you can suddenly build things. You can suddenly get access to data that you otherwise might not be able to interpret, et cetera. And then I think that extends to your personal life where we want to give you leverage at the end of the day. like we want the models and the product to be able to keep the leverage so that you can you know create time for yourself to do the things that you love does that also translate to a way to measure productivity like what is the end measure leverage i think we haven't figured this out yet part of the reason is it's so diverse everyone has different goals and really the true measurement is like their ability to achieve that goal did we help you or did we not yeah and it's very difficult without knowing what that goal is up front and also tailoring it for every individual. And the thumbs up and thumbs down from ChatGPT doesn't give you anything, right? Right. I mean, you don't know if they're thumbs down in the content of the answer, the vibe of it, whether or not it helped them with their goal. I think that's difficult. But it's something that I think we will need to figure out and the industry at large will need to figure out because, you know, that's how we measure success if this is what we're for. Do you think it's changed productivity and how you measure it? Basically, you said there's a lot more work that can be done, a lot more scope. Has it changed? I think it was always true that what you really wanted to measure is like, you know, was your team, was the individual, were you personally able to hit the goal, or are you closer to hitting whatever your goal is, right? But I think previously we used proxies for this, so like, you know, code commits, or lines of code, or whatever. Story points. Yeah, exactly, story points. They're coming back, by the way. Maybe, but that is sort of part of the change, and like, I think with AI now, those proxies starting to fall apart like you know in the number of tokens you use or the number of pull requests you make are like no longer like maybe as hyper correlated that is your team able to hit the goal or are they on track to hit their goals so I think we'll need to come up with new measurements for the managers listening give them one thing to try I think for me what's important is like at bats are we as a team building the muscle to have not just quantity of at-bats, but quality? Like, are we able to go all the way from, like, generating an idea, building it out, getting the feedback, reacting to that feedback, actually validating or invalidating the hypothesis, going on to the next idea? Are we able to do that really efficiently? Like, that goes to, like, you know, the actual, like, code that's being written or the designs that are being made or the specs that are being written, whatever, but also the culture of the team. Like, do we have the humility and are able to, like, go through that process many, many times and stay motivated and excited throughout that. So that's the thing that I think is important now, especially when we're on the frontier of this technology and there's so much to build, there's so much to do. That's probably the most important thing that we look at. Any traps people fall into around measuring productivity, which your teamwork on? I feel like there's a lot of, okay, we added a lot of LLMs, we have dashboards for this and that, but not much has changed, right? That is the trap, yes. and you know the broader source of the question is for the managers and teams building you know how should they approach this I think maybe the trap is like conflating motion and progress I think motion is much easier now than ever before because of the tooling that we have but progress requires you to be like very prescriptive and deliberate about like what you're actually trying to achieve and it goes back to our question of measurement Right. Like you were talking about like, can we open AI like figure out how to measure productivity for our users? That's a very hard problem because of the diversity. But like as a team, like you should have a really prescriptive and deliberate view on like what progress looks like for you and for your team. And if you don't have that, then it's very easy to conflate these two things. I think at-bats is a really great thing. I'm really glad. I like the discussion between motion and progress. I think that's a quote that we're going to feature on the write-up. You've been very generous with your time. Thank you so much and congrats on 10 million. Yeah, thank you for having me. Next one, I had 100 in two months. Two weeks. Thank you.