Why tech is racing to adopt AI coding

Support for this show comes from Robinhood Wouldn't it be great to manage your portfolio on one platform? With Robinhood, not only can you trade individual stocks and ETFs, you can also seamlessly buy and sell crypto at low costs. Trade all in one place. Get started now on Robinhood. Trading crypto involves significant risk.

Crypto trading is offered through an account with Robinhood Crypto, LLC. Robinhood Crypto is licensed to engage in virtual currency business activity by the New York State Department of Financial Services. Crypto held through Robinhood Crypto is not FDIC insured or CIPIC protected. Investing involves risk, including loss of principal. Securities trading is offered through an account with Robinhood Financial LLC, member CIPIC, a registered broker dealer.

No one can see or hear your personal messages, whether it's a voice call message or sending a password to WhatsApp. It's all just this. So whether you're sharing the streaming password in the family chat. We're trading those late night voice messages that could basically become a podcast. Your personal messages stay between you, your friends, and your family. No one else. Not even us. WhatsApp. Message privately with everyone.

Imagine for a moment that we have the ability to rewind time. Back through the age of the dinosaurs, all the way back to around 500 million years ago, when our ancestors, ancestors, ancestors... We're crawling around in the muck along with other animals. If we started over from that point, would we end up with the same world that we have today? This week on Unexplainable? Some scientists are trying to answer that question. So listen wherever you get your podcasts. Hello and welcome to Decoder.

This is Casey Newton. I'm the founder and editor of the Platformer newsletter and co-host of the Hard Fork podcast. And I'll be guest hosting over the next few episodes of Decoder while Neelai is out on parental leave. Congratulations, Neelai. And I'm very excited for what we... I plan for you all. If you follow my work at all, particularly when I was a reporter at The Verge, you'll know that I'm a total productivity nerd.

I love productivity apps, whether it is a to-do or some kind of collaborative app or something making use of AI. At their best, I think productivity apps are the way we turn technological advancement into human progress. And also, they're fun. I like trying new software, and every new tool brings with it the hope that this is the one that is finally going to complete the setup of my dreams.

Over the years, I've used a lot of these programs, but I rarely get a chance to talk to the people who make them. So for my decoder episodes, I really wanted to talk to the people behind some of the biggest and most interesting companies and productivity about what.

they're building, and how they can help us get things done. And that brings me to my guest today, Michael Truel, the CEO of AnySphere. You may not have heard of AnySphere, but I bet you've heard the name of its flagship product, Hurser AI. Cursor is an automated programming platform that integrates with generative AI models from Anthropic, OpenAI, and others to help you write code. I guess there I will pause and give my disclosure for the episode, which is that my boyfriend works at Anthropic.

But Cursor is built into a standard version of what programmers call an integrated development environment, or IDE, with technology like Cursor Tab, which autocompletes lines of code as you write them. And Cursor has become one of the most... And AnySphere, the company that Michael co-founded just three years ago after graduating from MIT. is now shaping up to be one of the biggest startup success stories of the post-Chat GPT era.

So I sat down with Michael to talk about Cursor, how it works, and why coding with AI has seen such incredible adoption. As you'll hear Michael explain, this entire field has changed a lot over the past few years. And now here in San Francisco, So tech executives and employees are regularly telling me about how much they are using and liking cursor.

So look, a lot of people are worried that AI could take their jobs, and rightly so, I would argue. But you'll hear Michael say that job losses are not going to come from simple advances in tools like the one that he's making. Lots of people... the Bay Area think that super intelligent AI is going to remake the world overnight, making products like Cursor pointless. But Michael believes that change is going to come much more slowly.

I also wanted to ask Michael about the phenomenon of vibe coding, which lets amateurs use tools like Cursor to experiment with building software of their own, even if they've never built anything before. That's not Cursor's primary audience. told me, but it is part of this broader shift in programming, and he's convinced that we're only scratching the surface of how much AI can really do here. So, AnySphere CEO Michael Truel, here we go.

Michael Trewell, you are the co-founder and CEO of AnySphere, the parent company of Cursor AI. Welcome to Decoder. Thank you for having me. What is Cursor? What does it do? Who is it for? Our intention with Cursor is to be the best way to build. software, and in particular, the best way to code with AI. For people who are non-technical, I think that best way to think about cursor as it exists today is think of like a really souped up word processor.

where the way engineers build software is they're actually doing a lot of writing. They're sitting in something that looks like a word processor, and they're editing millions of lines of logic, so things that don't look like language. And Kursher helps them do that work way more efficiently, especially with AI. And there's kind of two different ways Kursher does that right now.

One is Cursor's kind of watching you do your work, and it's trying to predict the next set of things you're going to do within Cursor. So this is the autocomplete form factor, and that can be really souped up in programming compared to writing. Because unlike writing, there are often times when you're programming where the next 20 minutes of your work are entirely predictable. Whereas with writing...

It's a little hard to get a sense of what a writer is actually going to put down on the page. There isn't really enough information in the computer to understand the next set of things they're going to do. And then the other way that people work with Cursor is they're kind of increasingly delegating to Cursor like they're working with a pair programmer working with another human. And so they're handing off small tasks to Cursor and having Cursor kind of go end to end on them.

We'll dig a little deeper into the product in a moment. But first, let's talk about how all of this started. When you founded AnySphere, you were working on computer-aided design software. How did you get from there to Cursor? My co-founders and I, we come from backgrounds where we've been programming for a while, and we've also been working on AI for almost as long as we've been programming. And so...

One of my co-founders, one of us had worked on recommendation systems in big tech. Another one of us had worked on computer vision research for a long time. Another one of us had... worked on trying to make machine learning algorithms that could learn from very, very, very little data. Another one had worked on a competitor to Google using the antecedents or the things that came before LLM technology in machine learning.

But worked on AI for a long time, had been engineers also for a long time and loved programming. And in... 2021, there were two moments that really excited us. One was using some of the first really useful AI products. Then another was kind of this body of literature that was showing that AI was going to get better, even if we kind of ran out of ideas by making the models bigger and training them on more data.

That got us really excited in like kind of a formula for creating a company, which was you pick an area of knowledge work and you build the best. product for that area of knowledge work, like the place where you do your work as AI starts to change. And then hopefully you...

you do that job well and you get lots of people to use your thing. And then if you do, you can see where AI is helping them and you can see where AI is not helping them and where the human just has to correct the AI a bunch or just do work without any AI help. And then you can use that to then make the product better and kind of push the underlying energy. technology for it.

And then that can maybe get you into a path where, yeah, you can really start to build the future of knowledge work as this tech gets more mature and be kind of the one to push the underlying technology to. So we got kind of interested in that formula for making a company. And the craft that we really loved, the knowledge work that we really loved, which was building things on computers, we actually didn't touch it first. We went and we worked on a different area.

which was, as you noted, computer-aided design. It was trying to help mechanical engineers, which was a very ill-fitted decision because none of the four of us are mechanical engineers. And, you know, we had friends who were interested in the area. You know, we had worked on robotics in the past. but it wasn't really our specialty. And it was because it seemed like there were a bunch of other people working on.

trying to help make programmers more productive as AI got better. But after six or so months of working on the mechanical engineering side of things, we got pulled back to working on programming. And part of that was just our love for the space.

Part of that, too, was just it seemed like the people who we thought had the space covered, they were building useful things, but they weren't really pointed in the same direction. And they didn't really seem to be approaching the space with the requisite ambition. And so, yeah, we decided to... to build the best way to code with AI. And that's where Cursor started.

I have read that one of the AI tools that you used early on was GitHub Copilot, which came out about a year before ChatGPT. What was your initial reaction to Copilot and how did it influence what you wanted to build? Copilot was awesome. Copilot was a really, really big influence. And it was the first product that we used that had AI really at its core that we found useful. One of the sad things to us...

you know, as people who had been working on AI and interested in AI for a while was that it was very much stuff that was just like kind of in the lab or in the toy stage. It felt like... For us, the only real way AI had touched our lives as consumers was mostly recommendation systems, right? You know, the news feeds of the world, YouTube algorithms, things like that.

And so GitHub Copilot was, yeah, it was the first product where AI was really, really at the core that was useful. And so that was a big inspiration. And at the time we were considering, you know, should we try to pursue careers in academia? Copilot kind of was this. existence proof that no, actually it was, you know, time to work on these systems out in the real world. And, you know, even back then in 2021, there were some rough edges. There were some places, you know,

The product was wrong in really obvious ways, and you couldn't completely trust its code output, but it was nonetheless really, really exciting. And another thing to note too is, apart from being the first useful AI product, it was... the most useful new dev tool that we had adopted in a really long time. And we were people that had kind of optimized our setups as programmers.

had kind of modded out our text editors and things like that. And we were using this crazy kind of text editor called Vim at the time. And it was not just the first useful AI product that we had used, but also the most useful dev tool we had used in a really long time.

That's interesting. So you guys sort of like software, you like using software, you like trying to find software that makes you more productive. I feel like that probably made you well suited to tackle a problem like the one Cursor's trying to solve. Yeah, I think caring about the tools we use was helpful. And I think that there are actually kind of different degrees of that on our co-founding team. One of my co-founders in particular is like...

the straight out of central casting early adopter who is the first one on these new browsers, first one on the new category of everything. A couple of us are a little bit more laggards. I think actually having that diversity of opinions has helped us in some of the product decisions we've made.

So you described Cursor as kind of like a souped-up word processor. Software engineers, I think, would call it an integrated development environment, or IDE. And developers have been using IDEs since the 80s. But recently, AI Labs have released tools like OpenAI's Codex or Cloud Code that can run directly in a terminal. Why might someone use Cursor over those options? Both of those are really useful tools.

The thing we care about being, so I think we start as this IDE, we start as this text editor, and what we really care about getting to is to a world where... Programming has completely changed, and in particular, a world where you can develop professional-grade software, perhaps without even really looking at the code.

It's that kind of future programming and changing it from this weird, you're reading these millions of lines of logic in these esoteric programming languages to getting you to a world where you can build software by just specifying the minimal intent necessary. to build the software you want. You can tell the computer the shortest amount of information it needs to really get you, and it can fill in all of the gaps.

Yeah, programming today is this intensely labor intensive, time intensive thing where to do things that are pretty simple to describe, to get them to actually work and show up on a computer, it takes many thousands of hours and really large teams. lots of work, especially at professional scale. So that's where we want to get to is kind of inventing that new form of programming. I think that that starts as an editor and then that starts to evolve.

And so we're already kind of in the midst of that, where right now Cursor is this place where you can work one-on-one with an agent and you can work with our tab system. And then increasingly, we're getting you to a world where more and more programming looks like starting to delegate your work to a bunch of helpers in parallel.

And there's a product experience to be built for making that great and productive and understanding what all of these parallel helpers are doing for you, being able to intervene in the places where it's helpful, understanding their work when they come back to you at a level that's not having to read every single line of code.

Yeah, I think that there's a competitive environment with a bunch of tools that are interested in programming productivity. One of the things that's limiting about just a terminal UI is that you have only so much expressiveness in the terminal and control over the UI. From the very start, we've thought that the solution to automating code, replacing it with something better, is this kind of two-pronged thing.

where you need to build the pane of glass where programmers do their work, and you need to discover what the work looks like. You need to build the UI. And then you also need to build the underlying technology. And so one thing that would distinguish us between some terminal tools is just that... degree of control you have over the UI. Another thing too is we've done a lot of work on the model layer, on improving, going beyond just having things that

show up well on a demo level. And there's a lot of work on AI products to dial in the speed and the robustness and the accuracy of them. And for us, one important product lover there has been building kind of an ensemble of models that work with the API models to improve their abilities. And so every time you kind of call out to an agent in cursor, it's like this set of models that some of them are API, some of them are custom. And then also,

For some form factor, or for some of the features, it's entirely custom, for instance, like the soup pip autocomplete. And so that's also one thing that has kind of distinguished us from other solutions.

Yeah, let's talk a bit about these proprietary models. They seem to be fueling a lot of your success. When GPT and the OpenAI API first got released, we saw a lot of startups come out that quickly were dismissed as just wrappers for an API, right? You're just sort of trying to build something on top of somebody else's API. And Cursor started in a similar way where it was using other folks' APIs in order to create its product. Since then,

you're building on top. Say a bit more about what you're building and how you're hoping it kind of sets you apart from those sort of pure wrapper companies. I think that also, like one asterisk before getting into the model side of things, I think that the... The wrapper term came from the very start of when people were building AI products, when there was only so much time to kind of make the products a bit deeper. And now I think we're at a point where there's a ton of product overhang.

And so even if you're just building with the API models, I think that there's, and lots of areas, our area of working on the software development lifecycle, but in other parallel areas too, I think there are very, very deep products to be built on top of those things. And that sounds like it. The wrapper term for at least some areas is a little bit dated. But on the model level, from the very start, we wanted to build a product that...

got a lot of people using it. And one of the benefits you get from that scale is you can see where AI is helping people and you can see where AI is not helping people and where it gets corrected. And that's a really, really important input to making AI more useful for people.

And so at this point, for instance, with our tab model, which does over a billion model calls per day, this is one of the large language models that writes actually almost some of the most production code in the world. And we're also on our fourth or fifth generation of it. That is trained using product data of seeing where AI is helping people, seeing where it isn't, seeing what in the places where it isn't, trying to predict how it can help humans. And also requires a ton of infrastructure.

specialty talent to be able to make those models really good. For instance, one of the people who has worked on those models with us is Jacob, who built actually the... kind of GitHub Copilot before GitHub Copilot, which was Tab9, which was the first kind of programming autocomplete product. He is also one of the people who built one of the first million token context window models, and so has done a lot of work on making models to understand more and more and more information.

But yeah, specialty talent and specialty infrastructure to do that work. And one of the, in our... ambling kind of windy way to working on Cursor. I think one of the things that really did help us was when we were working on CAD and also in some of our explorations before, my co-founders had to

dig very deep into kind of the ML infrastructure and modeling side of things. And so when we actually set out to work on cursor, we thought it'd be a long time before we started to do our own modeling as a product lover, but it happened much sooner than we expected.

Recently, I had dinner with the CTO of a big tech company, and I asked him about what coding tools were popular with his engineers. And he told me that he actually regularly surveys them on this question. And they had cursor available as like a trial, it was labeled.

And he said he was getting these panic messages from engineers saying, please tell us you're not about to take away cursor because they've become so dependent on it. Can you give us a sense of why for programmers, this has kind of felt like a...

before and after moment in the history of the profession. What is it that tools like Chrysler are making so different in the lives of these engineers day to day? I think that we're just already at a point where the... you know we are far far far from the ceiling of where things can go and far far far from a world where you know much of coding has been replaced with something better but you know i

Just already at this point, these products and these models can do a lot for programmers and already taking on quite a bit of work. And I think that the technology is... especially good for programming for a few reasons. One is that programming is text-based, and that is the modality that the field has figured out perhaps the most. There's a lot of programming data on the internet, too. There's a lot of open source code.

Programming is also pretty verifiable too. And so one of the important engines of AI progress has been training models to predict the next word on the internet and making those models bigger.

That engine of progress has largely run its course. There's still more to do there. But the next thing that's kind of picked up the torch in making models better has been reinforcement learning. So it's been... basically teaching models to play games, kind of similar to how in the mid-2010s, you know, humanity figured out how to make computers really good at playing Go.

and playing dota and other video games we're kind of getting to a level of of language models where they can do tasks and you can set up games for them to get even better at those tasks and programming is great for that because you can run it write the code and then you can run it and then you can see the output

and see if it's actually what you want. And so I think there's a lot about the technology that makes it especially good for programming. And yeah, it's just, you know, I think one of the use cases that's the furthest ahead in kind of deploying this tech out to the world and people finding real value from it.

Yeah. I mean, my sense is maybe if I used to have to work eight hours a day, now it's maybe closer to five or six. Is that part of it? Yes, in the sense that I think that the productivity gains of what would have taken you eight hours before in sum.

companies now actually can take you five or six hours. I think that that is real, not across all companies, but is really real in some companies. But I think that the thing I would nitpick on there is I don't think programmers are actually just working, you know, And I think a lot of that is because there is just a ton of elasticity with software. And I think it's really easy for people who are non-technical or just don't program professionally to underrate how inefficient.

programming is at a professional scale. And a lot of that is because programming is kind of invisible. a programmer is doing at a company like Salesforce is there are just tens of millions of lines, many millions of files of existing logic that describes how their software works. And anytime they have to make a change to that, they have to take that ball of mud, that mass of things, it's very unwieldy and they need to edit it. That's why I think that it's...

It's kind of shocking to many people that some software release cycles are so slow. But so, yes, I think that there are real productivity gains. I think that it's probably not reducing the number of hours that programmers are working right now.

We need to take a quick break. We'll be right back. How are you going to squeeze the last drops out of summer? One more beach trip? Kayaking by the lake? an evening bike ride during those late summer sunsets. Whether you're soaking up the last bits of summer or gearing up for a new adventure, you can turn to Liquid IV to stay hydrated in the heat, get fueled up for sports,

and for your next day recovery. One stick of Liquid IV and 16 ounces of water is more hydrating than water alone, and it comes with three times the electrolytes of the leading sports drink, plus eight vitamins and nutrients, all in a single stick. And they're not just refreshing.

They also have great flavors. You can capture sun-drenched memories with the Orange Vanilla Dream Hydration Multiplier. This nostalgic vanilla flavor with notes of candied orange can help keep you hydrated and your taste buds happy. Powered by Liquid IV HydroScience, Liquid IV replaces necessary nutrients lost from everyday dehydration. Savor the last bits of summer with Liquid IV. Tear, pour, live more.

Go to liquidiv.com and get 20% off your first order with code DECODER at checkout. That's 20% off your first order with code DECODER at liquidiv.com. Support for this show comes from Vanta. Starting or running a business comes with a lot of responsibilities beyond just having a great product. Making sure you're compliant with security protocols, especially those designed to keep customer data safe is one of them.

Vanta helps companies of all sizes get compliant fast and stay compliant with industry-leading AI, automation, and continuous monitoring. And Vanta saves you time by helping you complete security questionnaires up to five times faster. A recent IDC white paper found that Vanta customers achieve $535,000 per year in benefits. No wonder more than 10,000 global companies trust Vanta, including Atlassian, Quora, Chili Piper, and Factory.

So whether you're a startup tackling your first SOC 2 or ISO 27001 or an enterprise managing vendor risk, Banta's trust management platform makes it quicker, easier, and more scalable. Establishing trust isn't optional. Vanta makes it automatic. Visit vanta.com slash decoder to sign up for a free demo today. That's V-A-N-T-A dot com slash decoder.

Support for this show comes from LinkedIn. One of the most important elements to making sure your small business is successful is the quality of candidates you hire. With LinkedIn, you can feel confident that you're getting the best talent available.

LinkedIn makes it easy to post your job for free, share it with your network, and get qualified candidates that you can manage all in one place. Based on LinkedIn's data, 72% of SMBs using LinkedIn say that LinkedIn helps them find high-quality candidates. post your job for free at linkedin.com partner that's linkedin.com partner to post your job for free terms and conditions apply

We're back with AnySphere CEO Michael Chewell. Before the break, we were discussing how his company's product, Cursert AI, is being adopted by professional coders. But now I wanted to ask about a different use case, Vibe Coding. Well, you mentioned non-technical people. Cursor is used by a lot of professional programmers, but this year saw the coining of the term vibe coding to describe what more amateur programmers can do, sometimes even complete novices.

and often with tools like Cursor. How big is the Vibe coding use case at Cursor? And what do you think is the future of Vibe coding? So our main goal is to help people who build software for a living. Right now, that means engineers. And so that's our main use case.

It's been interesting to see as you focus on that use case and you use the understandings you get from that use case to kind of push the tech forward and you hop programmers up more and more levels of abstraction, how it then also makes things more accessible.

And that's something that we're really excited about. And I think in the end state, I do think that building software is going to be way more accessible. You're not going to have to have tons of experience understanding programming languages and compilers. I think there's still a bunch more work to do before anyone can build kind of professional grade software. That said, it's been really cool seeing people spin up.

projects and prototypes from scratch, designers in professional settings doing that. It's been really interesting to see non-technical people contribute small patches and bug fixes or small feature changes. to professional software projects already. And that's kind of the Vibe Coding use case, not our main use case, not where the company makes most of its money, but one that I think will become bigger and bigger as you push the ceiling of focusing on professional developers.

I'm curious what you think of as the demand for it, though. I understand it's not your focus of the business, and people like to talk about it. I think people – look, it feels cool to have never built software before, and all of a sudden – Next thing you know, you've actually created a little to-do list app for yourself or something. I probably differ from some of my colleagues on this personally.

As the world as it exists right now, I do think that like kind of the two buckets of that vibe coding use case, one is there's like an entertainment bucket of you're doing these things mostly for like personal enjoyment or hobbies.

And then there's also a bucket that's more professional. And I think that that's like designers doing prototypes or that's people that work to serve customers contributing back bug fixes to a professional code base. And the way in which I probably differ from some of the people I work with... is there's a group of people who are really, really, really interested in end-user programming and throwaway apps.

and personalized software, where everyone entirely builds their own tools. I think that that's really cool. I think enabling that is really cool. And I think a lot of people who aren't technical will be interested in doing that. But I still think even if you get to a world where anyone can build things on computers, there's going to be, I think most of the use cases will still be served by like...

a small minority of, you know, 5% of the world that's caring a ton about the tools and building them. And then everyone will more use those tools because I just think that like the interest in that stuff really differs amongst the population. But so, yeah, right now, right now, commercially, think that a lot

A lot of the more vibe coding stuff falls more into like a mid-journey camp or like an entertainment camp. It's something that some people get interested in for a bit and then kind of put it aside. And then, you know, some of it is in this professional camp of people that, you know, work on software for a living. but don't code right now.

I think you're right because when I worked at more traditional companies, whenever a new piece of software was introduced, everyone would get upset. So that's my case for most people not becoming like sort of, you know, pro-vibe coders. I like software though, so I'm vibe code. curious, maybe two or three generations from now in cursor, I'll be able to make myself something useful.

You mentioned earlier that there are these kind of two main ways that people use cursor. There is the, I'm looking at code and you're helping me auto complete things. And then there is the, I'm going to give you a task and walk away. and come back and see what you've built. You told Ben Thompson recently that over the course of the next six months or a year, you think you can get to a place where maybe...

20 or 25% of a professional software engineer's job might be the latter use case of just handing off work to the computer and having the computer do the work end to end. Any updates to that number in the last month or so? And how high do you think that number can scale ultimately? I think these things are really hard to predict. I think some of the things that are blocking you from getting to 100%, one is having the models.

learn new things, like understand an entire code base, understand the context of an organization. But yeah, learn from their mistakes and really learn new things. I still think that the field doesn't have an amazing...

solution for that. The two candidate solutions are, one is you make the quote unquote context windows longer, which is these large language models, they see they have like a fixed window of text or images that they can see and then there's a limit to that and outside of that you know it's just the the model that came off the assembly line and then that new kind of information that's put into the model's head

which is very different from humans because humans are going through the world and like, you know, your brain is changing all the time. You're getting new things. That's kind of persists with you. And like, obviously, you know, some memories fade away, but it persists with you somewhat.

Candidate solution number one to the continual learning problem is just make the context windows really big. Candidate solution number two is train the models. And so every time you want them to learn a new thing or a new capability, you go and...

collect some training data on that, and then you throw it into the models mix. And both of those have big issues, I think. But that's one thing that's stopping you. And I think that the rate of really consequential... ideas in ML that are kind of like new paradigm shifts is pretty low industry-wide, even though that the rate of progress has been really fast over the past five years.

ideas of the form of replacing long context or in-context learning and fine-tuning with some other way of continual learning. I don't think that the field actually has an amazing track record of generating lots of ideas like that. I think it's sort of ideas on the right.

of maybe one every three years. So I think that will take some time. I think the multimodal stuff will take time too. The reason that's important for programming is you want to play with the software and you want to be able to click buttons and... actually, yeah, use the output. You want to be able to use tools also to help you make software, tools that have GUIs. So for instance, observability solutions like Datadog are important.

for understanding how you can improve a professional piece of software. So that feels like it's needed. These models also, they can work coherently for minutes at a time. now even hours in some cases, but it's a different thing to work on a task for the equivalent of a human's weeks. And so just even architecturally, knowing if we're going to be like coherent over sequences that long will be interesting to see. And that I think will be...

tricky. But there are all of these technical blockers to getting to something that's 100%, and there's many more that you could list, and there are also many unknown unknowns. And I think that in a year or so, even with just playing the game of going from a high-level text instruction to changes throughout a code base, playing that really well, I think if in the bull case...

you could probably do over half of programming as it exists today. Yeah. Yeah. I see these studies that Meter puts out where they look at the average length of time that... software or that an AI model can do. And it does keep doubling at this really impressive rate. So I think the... the hurdles that you identify are super important. But when you pull back, it does seem like length of task is really improving. And ultimately, you know, humans don't...

tend to work on discrete tasks that are all that long. So I do think it's getting easier for people to imagine an LLM putting in a full day's work. Yeah, I think that just like forecasting these things is tricky. And one... related fields that can maybe be telling of how things will evolve here is just kind of the history of self-driving, which obviously has made leaps at the bounds of advancements. And in San Francisco, we...

There are Waymos. There are commercial self-driving cars. My understanding is Tesla's also made big improvements. But, you know, I remember back in 2017 when people thought, you know, self-driving was going to be done and deployed within a year. And obviously there are still...

big barriers to getting it out into the world. And that feels like, as hard and as very disturbing is, it does feel like a much lower ceiling task than some of the stuff the field's talking about right now. So we will see. Yeah. Interesting. I do want to sort of ask you about timeline stuff, but I'm going to wait until a little bit later. All right. Let me now ask you some of the famous decoder questions, Michael. How big is AnySphere today? How many employees do you have?

We're roughly 150 people right now. Okay. And when you think about like how big you want the company to be, are you somebody who envisions very big workforce or do you sort of like the smaller Nibbler team? We do like the Nibbler team.

And I think the caveat there is we want to keep the team nimbler for the scope of work that we're tackling, but that will still mean growing the team a lot over the next couple of years. But yeah, I wonder if it will be possible to build... a thriving technology company that does really important work with, you know...

a maximum team size of maybe 2,000 people or something like that, something of the size of the New York Times. And we're excited to see if that is possible. But definitely, we need to grow a lot from our current headcount. What is your org chart like? You have a few co-founders. How do you all divvy up your responsibilities? The two biggest areas of the org are

engineering and the research side of things like R&D generally, and then the go-to-market side of things, so serving customers. This is a company that has really benefited from having a big set of co-founders and a big, very capable founding team. And so there's a lot of across that scope, kind of dividing and conquering. In particular, I think that there's a really important set of people on the founding team who have done.

phenomenal work in building out that early part of the go-to-market side of things. And a lot of that is just entirely of people in the founding team is kind of entirely credited to like a subset of it. And so there's a lot of dividing and conquering. across the business at the same time i think actually amongst once you like zoom into the technical side of things there's like an intense focus from the four co-founders on that and really putting kind of all eggs in

in one basket of that side of the business. And so, you know, I think that we're lucky enough to be in a time where there are really, really useful products to build in our space. And I think that the highest... you know, the highest order bid, the thing you cannot mess up is having the best product in the space. And so we've been able to be relatively lean in other parts of the business.

especially relative to our scale, but also as a ratio to engineering and research and still be able to grow really far. What part of the business do you like keeping for yourself? Like where do you like getting your hands dirty and would you be mad if someone tried to take it away from you? I spend a lot of time.

trying to help how I can in growing the team. And we think hiring is incredibly important, and especially the hiring of ICs. Individual contributors. Yeah, yeah, individual contributors. I think that one way technology companies die... is that the best ICs start to feel disengaged, like they don't have control over the company, and the talent density lowers. And then I think that if you're working on technology, no matter how good the management layer is, if...

just you have less than excellent people doing the real work, I think there's only so much you can do. I think that the dynamic range of what management can do is kind of limited. I'd like to help how I can by spending a bunch of time on hiring. And we actually got to maybe 75 people just with the co-founders hiring and without hiring functional recruiters.

And so now, you know, have fantastic people helping us hiring people on the recruiting side of things that work with us closely. Spend a bunch of time on that and then try to help how I can on the engineering and product side of things. And those are the two biggest areas of focus. And then there's a long list of long-tail things. Right.

You're fairly young. I think you're 25 and have had to make a lot of really big decisions about raising money, making acquisitions, all those hiring decisions that you just made. How do you try to make decisions? Do you have a framework that you use or is everything? ad hoc. Yeah, I'm not sure there's one framework. I think that, you know, some pretty common devices that help us is we try to do our best to farm from.

descent kind of all up and down the group, the org. And this is not just for me. It's try to do it for kind of all decisions in the company of having increasingly like a very clear DRI. And then, you know, lots of people who are kind of inputs to the decision.

Every decision is pretty unique. I think that other devices that are well-known, that are helpful, are kind of understanding how high stakes the decision is and how reversible it is. I think that especially when... you know, you're in a vertical like ours with the speed that it's moving, there's just a limit on the amount of time and the amount of information you can gather on each thing.

And then, you know, other devices like, you know, clearly communicating the decision and using that as a way to kind of force clarity for how you thought it through. We need to take another quick break. We'll be right back.

Support for this show comes from OpenFone. If you're a business owner, your company's phone system should make it easier for your customers to communicate with you. You'd think that's obvious enough that it shouldn't have to be said. But how often is that actually true?

OpenPhone is a business phone system that streamlines and scales your customer communications. It works through an app on your phone or computer so your team can share one number and collaborate on customer calls and texts. That way, Any teammate can pick up right where the last person left off. And their AI agent can be set up in minutes to handle calls after hours, answer questions, and capture leads.

So you never miss a customer. That means that for the 60,000 plus businesses that use open phone, voicemail is a thing of the past. Open phone is offering our listeners 20% off their first six months at openphone.com. That's O-P-E-N-P-H-O-N-E dot com slash decoder. And if you have existing numbers with another service, OpenPhone will port them over at no extra charge.

Open phone. No missed calls. No missed customers. Support for the show comes from Framer. So you've dragged your feet on getting your own website. Or maybe you've signed up for a website builder. but you're bored with the cookie cutter templates that make your site look the same as anybody else's. It might be time to try Framer. Framer is the design first, no code website builder that lets anyone ship a production ready site in minutes.

You can get inspiration from hundreds of templates or strike out on your own from a totally blank canvas. Multiplayer collaboration means your writer, designer, and marketer can all tweak the same page at once with no risk of corrupting version control. And under the hood, you'll get responsive breakpoints, built-in hosting, a flexible CSM, and privacy-friendly analytics.

that you know what's working and what needs fixing. And at every step, Framer's AI-powered Dev Assistant helps you generate banners, pricing tables, navigation bars, and more, all specified to your palette and branding. Ready to build a site that looks hand-coded without hiring a developer? Launch your site for free at Framer.com and use code DECODER to get your first month of pro on the house. That's Framer.com promo code DECODER.

Rules and restrictions may apply. They say to only bring what you can carry. So with the all new 2025 Ford Expedition Tremor. Bring a lot, like three dirt bikes, a few tenths, an entire crew ready to make memories, a panoramic 24-inch display, and the confidence to push your limits. The all-new 2025 Ford Expedition Tremor.

Always consult the owner's manual before out for driving. Know your terrain and trail difficulty and use appropriate safety gear. Max payload varies based on accessories and vehicle configuration. See label on door jam for carrying capacity of a specific vehicle. Always properly secure cargo.

We're back with AnySphere CEO Michael Truel. We just covered the core decoder questions, but now I wanted to talk a bit more about hiring, in particular how the AI talent wars are affecting a company like AnySphere. Well, let's talk a little bit more about hiring since you brought it up. There has been talk that OpenAI had considered acquiring you. And I have to ask, given his recent spending spree, has Mark Zuckerberg invited you to his house in Tahoe?

No, no. No? He's not coming around with his $200 million signing bonuses saying, Michael, why don't you kind of come over here? We're building superintelligence. This for us is kind of life's work territory.

Yeah, feel really lucky to have the technology lineup, kind of the initial founding team lineup, the people that have decided to join us, and the way things have gone on the product to have the pieces in place to execute on this ambitious goal of automating programming. And time will tell if we're going to be the ones to do that. But as, you know, people who have been programming for a long time and working on AI for almost as much.

Being able to reinvent programming and help people build whatever they want to build on computers with AI kind of feels perfect for us. And it feels like one of the best commercial applications of this technology, too. So I think that if you can succeed in that, you can also push the field forward in big ways.

for other verticals and other industries too. And so, no. Yeah, it sounds like you really want to stay independent. Yeah. Has Meta's recent hiring spree made it noticeably harder for you to recruit lately? No, not really. The research team, we try to keep fairly small. I mean, the whole company is kind of small relative to what it's doing, but the research team especially.

People think through hiring decisions in different ways. And what we have to offer is most appealing to people who want to be a part of an especially small team, working on something focused, kind of solving. problems with AI out in the real world. I want to be in a place, too, that marries. We're kind of this weird company. You talked about some products that are being made by some of the great folks that work on the API models.

I think that we're like this weird experiment in a company that's smack dab in between the foundation model labs and normal software companies, where we try to be really excellent at both the product side of things and the model side of things under one roof and have those feed into each other. And so we appeal to, I think, a certain type of ML researcher or ML engineer. And for them, I think it's kind of about being part of this and a little bit less, you know, like some of the other things.

One last hiring question. It was reported this week that two folks who used to run Cloud Code that you'd recruited to come over to Cursor left back after a couple of weeks. Can you speak at all to what happened there? Kat and Boris are awesome. And I think that they have a lot left to do on Cloud Code. And they're really, as I understand it, just the people behind that. And that is their creation. And as someone who's been working on...

something for three and a half years from inception, you know, kind of understand the ownership that comes with that. And they have a lot left to do and they were, they were excited about that. And so they've decided to stay. Cool. It seems like you were mentioning this interesting position that you sit in in between the big labs and other startup companies who are using your software. How do you describe Cursor's culture when you're recruiting people?

perhaps unsurprisingly we are process skeptical and kind of hierarchy skeptical and so you know we need to as we do more and more ambitious things like more and more coordination is required but for like a certain level of thing you know the scope of the company we try to be like pretty light on each of those I think it's a very intellectually honest group. It feels very low stakes to criticize things and just be open very publicly about feedback on work.

It's a very intellectually curious group. You know, I think that people are interested in doing this work, you know, for the end goal of automating programming. And separate from any work-life balance things, because we want this to be a place that's all levels of work-life balance can do great work.

It's a place where I think no one really treats it like, quote, you know, so far, like just a job. Like they're really, really excited about this. And I think it's kind of a special time to be building technology. And so one should try to seek out a role where you can, don't treat it like just a job.

I think it's very focused and understated. Like I think from the outside, partially because of how little communication we do with the outside world and we need to get much better at that. I think... Mostly people know Cursor as, oh, that thing that grew really fast and kind of know about top-level metrics and things like that for just how fast the adoption has been.

Internally, we've thought that it's really important to hire people who are, while they might be very ambitious, are very humble and pretty understated and pretty focused and level-headed. because there's noise left and right. And I think that, yeah, just having kind of clear focus and putting your head down is actually really, really important for people being happy in this space and also just for the execution of the team. Yeah, those are some things to describe the current group.

You mentioned communicating with the outside world. I think your cursor's history is mostly just a history of delighting its customers. But you did have this moment recently where you changed the way you price things and folks got... pretty mad and basically you just move from a set fee to more usage-based pricing and some people ran over their limits without realizing it what did you learn from that experience yeah i think that there was a lot to learn from that

and a lot on our end that we need to improve on. To set the stage to the way cursor pricing has worked, even, you know... back when Cursor first started, is by and large, you sign up for a subscription, and then you get an allotment of a certain number of times you can use the AI over the course of your subscription term.

And the pricing evolved, you know, features were added, features were changed, kind of like up and down that limit has, or like, you know, there are different ways like you have been able to pay down that limit or not pay down that limit over time. And what's happened in parallel is kind of using the AI once, what that means, the value that gives people and the underlying costs in some cases has changed a lot.

One big switch there for us is that increasingly when you quote unquote use the AI, the AI is working for longer and longer and longer. And so you called out that chart that you've seen. where it's showing the kind of max time an AI can work. And it's gone from seconds to minutes to hours at this point, and it's gone up very fast. We're kind of front lines of that, where now when you ask the AI to go do something or answer a question, it can work for a very, very, very long time.

And that changes the value it can give to you. You can go from just asking a simple programming question to having it write 300 lines of code for you. And that also changes the underlying costs. And in particular, less the median and more the variance of those costs. So yeah, we... bundled together a series of pricing changes. And the one that garnered the most attention was switching from a world where the monthly allotment is in requests to it's in the underlying compute that you're spending.

And one thing to knit on what you said is that actually usage-based had been a big component of Cursor before because... Over the life of Kurser, people have just used the AI more and more and more and more. Then, you know, they started running out of limits and we wanted to give people a way to kind of burst past that.

What this did is it changed kind of like the structure of also how that usage pricing worked, where it's not on a request basis, it's on the underlying compute basis. And definitely that could have been communicated legions better. There's a lot we learned from that experience and a lot we need to show up on in the future. Yeah, I think it's...

It's hard for consumers in particular to understand usage-based pricing because they're used to Spotify and Netflix where they pay their 10 or 20 bucks a month and it's sort of all you can eat. But the economics of AI just don't really work that way. It will be interesting to see how things play out in RSpace in particular, because I think that for the consumer chat app market, so far at least there's been...

Yeah, it would be interesting to see how the curves of just how compute per user over time has gone up. But I wouldn't be that surprised if it's been pretty flat over the past 18 months or so, where the original GPT-4... I'm not privy to any inside information, but it seems like there have been big gains from a model size perspective where you can actually miniaturize models and get the same level of intelligence. And so I think that the model that most professional users are using...

something like a ChatGPT has actually maybe gone smaller over time, the compute usage has gone down. But in our space, yeah, I think that there's just... For one user, I think the compute is probably going to go up. And there's a world in which the token costs don't go down fast enough, and it starts to become a little bit more like,

AWS costs and a little bit less like Percy productivity software and still remains to be seen. But one thing to note is that we do think it's really, really, really important to offer users choice. And so we want to be the best way to code with AI if you just want to.

turn on all the dials and just get the best, most expensive experience. We also want to be the best way to code with AI if you want to just pay for a predictable subscription and get the best thing that that price can offer you. Even for the main individual plan, the $20 pro plan. The vast majority of those users don't hit their monthly limits, and so aren't hit with a message saying you need to turn on usage pricing or not.

That's the kind of AI user I am. I never hit my list. It makes me feel like I need to be using it more. There is a really, really big difference between the top 5% and a median. a median user. So some people are very, very, very AI forward. Well, coming to my last couple of questions here, I want to try to get at...

how AGI-pilled you are. Because when we were talking earlier, you're sort of identifying all these very real... technical problems in building more advanced systems that are just truly unsolved problems in AI. You know, the size of the context window, giving these systems longer memory, helping them learn the way that a human might be able to.

learn. We don't know how to do that yet. And yet there are lots of folks in the industry who believe that by 2027, 2028, the world looks very, very different. So where do you sort of plot yourself on the spectrum? people who think that everything is absolutely about to change and we're sort of at the start of a process that's going to take decades. I think we're kind of this bet on the messy middle.

where we do think it's going to take decades. We do think that nonetheless, AI is going to be this transformational technological shift for the world. Bigger than, you know, maybe... Yeah, just a very, very, very big technological shift. And when we started working on Cursor, it was funny. We would get these kind of two dual responses. And I think one is now increasingly falling out of favor, just with the rise of the first AI products that have really reached billions of people.

Early 22, we would get kind of two reactions. One reaction was, why are you working on AI? You know, I'm not sure that there's really much to do there. The other reaction that we would get, because we did have...

close friends and colleagues who are very interested in AI is why are you working on, you know, insert X application, whether it be CAD or whether it be programming specifically, you know, AGI is going to wipe all of this stuff out in, you know, Y years, you know, maybe it's 2024, 2025. We think it's... It's this middle road of this jagged peak where if you actually peek under the hood at what's driven AI progress so far.

Again, I think that there's been a few ideas that have really worked. There's been lots of details to fill in between, but there have been a few really, really important ideas. I think that despite the number of people that have worked on deep learning over the past decade and a half, the rate of

idea generation in the field, like really, really consequential idea generation in the field hasn't budged that much. And I think that there are lots of real technical problems that we need to grapple with. And so I think that there's like this urge to anthropomorphize these models and see them be amazing and human level or super, superhuman at some things. And then think that, you know, they will just.

be great at everything. And I really think it's this very jagged peak. And so I think it's going to take decades. I think it's going to be progressive. I think that one of our... most ambitious hopes with Cursor is if we are to succeed in automating programming and building an amazing product here, that makes it so you can build things on computers just with the minimal intent necessary.

Maybe the success of that and the techniques that we need to figure out in doing that can also be helpful for pushing AI progress forward in general. And I think that the experiment to play back here is if you were in... 2000 or 1999 and you wanted to push forward AI, one of the best things you could do is work on something that looks like Google and make that successful and make that R&D available to the world.

And so, you know, in some ways, one of the ways, at least I think about what we're doing is trying to do that. Okay. So it sounds like you don't think that there's just going to be one big new training run with like a lot more parameters and we're going to wake up to a machine God.

You know, time will tell. My best guess, yeah, and I think it's important to have healthy skepticism about how much you can know with these things, but my best guess is that it will take longer than that, yet also still be this big transformational thing.

All right. Well, last question here. We've talked a couple of times today about how hard predictions are in general. So I'm not going to ask you to do something crazy like predict what cursor is going to look like five years from now. But when you think about it, maybe... Two years from now, what do you hope it's doing that it isn't quite doing yet? I think a bunch of things. So I think in the short term, we're excited about it.

world where you can delegate more and more work to kind of very fast, helpful humans. And you can build a really amazing experience for making that work delightful and orchestrating work amongst these agents. Another idea that we've been, or I've been interested in for a long time, which is a bit risky, is, you know, I think that if you can get to a world where you're delegating more and more work to the AI, you'll start to...

run into an issue, which is, do you look at the code? And are you reading everything line by line? Or are you just kind of ignoring the code wholesale? And I think that... Neither closing your eyes and ignoring the code entirely in a professional setting or reading everything line by line will really work. And so I think you'll need this middle ground. And I think that that could look like the evolution of programming languages to be higher level.

and to be less formal. And all that a programming language really is, is it's a UI for you as a programmer to specify exactly what you want the computer to do. And it's also a way for you to look at and read exactly how the software works right now. And yeah, I think that there's a world where...

programming languages will evolve to be much higher level, more compressed instead of millions of lines, hundreds of thousands of lines of code. And I think that for a while, an important way you build software is you could

read and point at and edit that kind of higher level programming language. And I think that this also kind of gets at a bigger idea that's behind the company of there's all this work to do on the model side of things. The field's going to do some of that. We're going to try to do some of that.

But then the end state of what we want to do is also this UI problem of how do we get the stuff that's in your head onto the screen. And I think that the vision of you just entirely built software by typing into a chat box.

is is powerful like i think that that's a really simple ui you can get very far with that but i don't think it can be the end state you need you need more control um when you're building professional software and so you need to be able to kind of point at you know different elements on the screen and be able to

you know, dive into the tiniest detail and change a few pixels. You also need to be able to point at parts of the logic and understand exactly how the software works and be able to edit something very, very fine grained. That requires rethinking.

new UIs for these things. And the UI for that right now is programming languages. And so I think that they're going to evolve. All right. Well, a lot of fascinating things that you're working on. Michael, thank you for coming on to Coder. Thank you for having me.

Thank you to Michael for taking the time to speak with me, and thank you for tuning in. I hope you liked it. If you'd like to let us know what you thought about this show or what else you'd like us to cover, drop us a line. You can email the team at decoder at the verge.com. They really do read every email, or you can hit me up directly on threads or blue sky. I'm. Crumbler on threads, and I'm caseynewton.bsky.social.

Not very catchy, is it? Decoder also has a TikTok and an Instagram. You can check those out at DecoderPod. They're a lot of fun. And if you like Decoder, please share it with your friends and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Decoder is a production of The Verge. and is part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. Decoder is produced by Kate Cox and Nick Statt. The show is edited by Ursa Wright. The Decoder music is by Breakmaster Cylinder. See you next time.

Hi, I'm Teffy. Maybe you've seen me on TikTok or TV or interviewing celebrities on the red carpet. But before all that, I was just another girl running late to her desk job, transferring calls. Ordering printer ink. I don't miss that. But I do miss not working at work. Gossiping with my coworkers about celebrities. What's the latest with Bieber? Where's Britney? And which Jonas brother is which?

That's what I want my new podcast to feel like. Like you and I are work besties. We'll chat about celebrities we're obsessed with. How could you be registered to vote and not know who Jennifer Aniston is? Look up their star charts. Sagittarius and a Capricorn, they do clash and have so much fun avoiding real work together. I'm having a silly goose of a time. Teffy runs. Teffy laughs. Teffy over shares. Teffy explains.

But most of all, Teffy Talks. From me, The Cut and Vox Media Podcast, this is Teffy Talks. Let's go.