Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots podcast.
I'm Joe Wassenthal and I'm Tracy Alloway.
Today you are going to be listening or watching a special episode of our podcast recorded live at a conference which you've probably never seen before.
Yeah.
This was at the Lazard for Square conference, and we interviewed Dimitri Shevalenko. He is the chief business officer of Perplexity, which is something you might have used before. We certainly use it.
YEP, one of the leading AI models, and so this is a conference related to media and deal making, and so we talked about what the impact of AI is going to be on news, media and brands, the Internet as we know it.
We also took questions from the audience, so you will hear us referring to question that we are receiving on the app. We hope you enjoy take a listen. All right, So here's my first question, should we even be talking to you? What I mean by that is I could just go on Perplexity and ask all these questions and it will give me a pretty decent answer. What's the point.
So, first of all, thank you for having me it's great to be here. The I love that that tee up and you guys are scheming backstage of like what's gonna be the hard opening question? But I love it because the thing that humans will always be uniquely exceptional at is asking questions. So perplexity may have the answer, but perplexity does not have an innate desire to be curious.
And that's what you guys have. And that's why journalism is so important, and that's why having these conversations important. It's about the questions, not necessarily the answers.
Kind of related to this, I guess. But here's the thing that I always think about, which is I enjoy using perplexity, et cetera. Let's say, you know, you have great relationships with all the news publishers, etc. And they're really cool with it all, and all those deals get solved, et cetera. Like why do we need the internet as we know it that has things called websites built for humans?
Now that we're in this age where we can go to a chat about or something like it, and the answer is right there, do we need to have what are traditionally called websites anymore? Why would a publisher continue and invest in design and all of these things when I could just get the answer from perplexity or tragic pterior whatever else.
So again it goes back to I think the reason we're drawn to media properties is because of the questions the journalists and editors are asking. Right, it's not necessarily it's the framing. It is the what is actually worth asking about, what's worth reading about. Perplexity doesn't have answers to that. You have to come to perplexity already armed with a question. And oftentimes people you know read news and there's something they didn't understand fully and they come
to perplexity to get that deeper understanding. But the spark that comes from editorial judgment, that comes from the intuition of a world class reporter, and that's why we're excited through programs like Commet Plus to find new business models for that.
How do you actually judge editorial judgment or quality of news sources? Because I can imagine a future where a lot of our news consumption is through something like a perplexity model, which means that you're basically the arbiter of what information is reliable. So how do you make those decisions.
It's not me at at the wheel. You know, ultimately, this is where we focus a big part of our technology. It's building accurate AI. And the thing that we believe is that's going to be most scared in the future is not intelligence, it's trust. I think the bedrock of trust is transparency. That's why Perplexity pioneered, showing you exactly which source the information is coming from and empowering users to apply their own judgment of whether that is a
good source or not so good source. But we deploy many different algorithmic strategies. Oftentimes, if many publications are saying the same thing, you know, that's a strong signal that they're onto something, and you know, the outliers you're you're kind of more sensitive to. But this isn't you know, it's not a simple problem, and this is why, you know, we raise a lot of capital and hire the world's best technologists to build accurate AI.
So I think anyone could sort of intuitively understand why publishers might be anxious about Perplexity as being a destination. Evidently it's not just news publishers. Literally, when since we got on stage in three minutes ago, news rope at Amazon demands perplexity to stop AI from a stop AI agent from making purchases. Just broke three minutes ago from Bloomberg.
What is the job Bloomberg.
It's not just news that's anxious about the idea of perplexity being the destination. Clearly, it's all kinds of businesses.
So I think, and I haven't read the article yet, but I think I have an understanding the issues. The Ultimately, the issue with Amazon is tied to perplexities. Web browser called Commet and Comment is a web browser that has an AI assistant built into it. And what we think is important is that consumers and end users have access to powerful AI when they are accessing publications, accessing websites,
accessing the Internet. The first thirty years of the Internet, we had lopsided AI where big tech you know, Google, Netflix, Facebook, they used AI to control what we see, to get us to click on certain things and not click on other things. And what is changing now is Perplexity is focusing on giving powerful AI to the end user, and we think this is the right thing to do. We think it's a principle viewpoint that when you're on Amazon, it's not Amazon's business. Whether you're using AI to help
you evaluate is this the best thing to buy? You know, can I find it cheaper somewhere else? Do I actually need to buy the other thing they're telling me to buy with it? The world's wealthiest people they have personal shoppers that help them do this, and we're democratizing that sort of intelligence, that sort of assistant access to everyone.
Just in terms of competition. Is the argument basically that technically, you know, a Google or an Amazon could create similar products to what you guys are doing, but their own business model basically prohibits them from doing what you're doing.
I should have you joined our next investor pittures exactly that it is, there is a big opening for an independent, neutral AI player that is aligned with users. You know, Google is still you know, they're generating you know, one hundred billion in revenue per quarter, which is amazing, but a lot of that is coming from getting you know, average you know, their their customers, advertisers, you know Amazon, they're trying to get you to buy as many things as possible.
Uh.
Our success metric is do users are they willing to pay for a Perplexity subscription? And so we're purely aligned with our users.
Speaking of competition, like what is the differentiator? Okay, maybe Amazon has some obvious angles and some of the others Opening Eyes seem sort of independent in the same bucket. It's really huge. It's one of the biggest websites in the in the world. It does and strike many of the things that they offer replicated seems sort of similar to perplexity. You must get this. I know private stock answer this, but what is the differentiator between you and an open AI?
So you know, I'm fortunate to get to speak with a lot of curious people that have to answer a lot of hard questions every day, and there they tell me they use perplexity, And it comes back to work focused on accuracy above all else. Chat GBT is an amazing product, but they built a product that is optimized for engagement. It's trying to be your cheerleader or your coach.
It's trying to get you to keep going. And they've also built a product that is designed not to use the best LM in service of your question, but it's designed to use their lms. And so part of being neutral, part of being independent, trustworthy, accurate is using the best possible technology to answer the question the best possible way, and so being an aggregator of all the best models, having our own independent search infrastructure that isn't the being
search API, which is what chat GPT uses. Those are all the building blocks of a more useful, accurate AI.
What's your actual revenue source at this point, because I know you're big on subscriptions, you experimented with ads. I think you might have paused that at this point, but it does seem if you're trying to be different to Google, you probably don't want to be as ad driven as they are.
Yeah, So we're seeing tremendous traction with both consumer subscriptions and then companies buying the enterprise version of perplexity for their employees. Ultimately, it's in that enterprise context where having accurate,
useful knowledge is incredibly valuable. And so you know, we've had, you know, been fortunate with a enterprise go to market team of just five people, you know, seeing that business you know, more more than eight x this year, seeing you know, many multiples increase in our consumer subscriptions, and we're excited about building products that our user aligned that also create marketing value for brands and advertisers. But this isn't going to be rebuilding AdWords and click based systems.
We think it's important to create real value so that when your personal AI agent powered by Perplexity is evaluating a potential commercial opportunity something you might buy imagine, you know, alongside the answer you get an offer for an exclusive discount. That would be something that your agent would say, Hey, this is even though this someone's paying for this to
show up here, this is actually a good deal. If it's just an AD that says click me, click me, click me, we don't think that's going to be sustainable, and that's not the type of marketing products we're looking to build.
Can we talk a little bit about the fundraising environment for AI? I mean, obviously we know how crazy, you know, intense things are in.
The word are people throwing cash at you as you walk down the street.
But also it feels like every day, like I like it used to be when I paid attention to startups, it felt like there were discrete rounds. There's a C and then an A, and then a B and maybe a C and then an I P O. When I read, it feels like every day there is just it. Are the are the rounds? Blending into each other, so that it's just this sort of ongoing stream of oh, here's a new raise, et cetera. Here we got some new chips, and then we are giving them some equity, et cetera.
Has the line between rounds is it blurring?
Yeah? So before Perplexity, I mean I spent most of my career at consumer internet companies by the extint as a founder of a robotics startup, and AI is definitely a different fundraising environment than that was, which was very challenging.
I think at his core, a lot of investors believe, and we agree with this belief that what's happening with AI now is as profound as the original introduction of the Internet, and so they're there are going to be a wave of new generational companies that are being built right now. And you know, a lot of the value is actually uh, you know, compounding while these companies are privately held, and so that that is you know, there's a lot of conviction by by private investors in that.
And I think a second piece is that investors themselves
are power users of products like Perplexity. They are people that have a lot of questions, do a lot of research, and so they have not just an abstract understanding of a balance sheet, They have their own intuition, you know, which is very different than like B to B SaaS where it's like, you know, you have to go do thirty customer interviews and you're you're kind of getting all the second order information, you know, with perplexity, use it yourself.
You understand the value the time that you just saved, the creative expansion you just had, and and that gives investors conviction. And so that that is you know, fueling this environment. Is it at times you know, too frothy?
Sure?
You know, are there going to be some investors that make the wrong bets? Absolutely, But the core human need of getting good answers to good questions, you know, we we think that is boundless and so we're we're confident in the path ahead.
Well, speaking of froth, is there anyone you turn away in terms of being an investor?
Yeah, So there's this phenomenon that that tends to happen in bubbly periods of multi layered SPVs. So SPVs are special purpose vehicles and so you basically have many layers of outsource fundraising where you have you know, principal agent misalignment where the fundraiser is not making money off the investment, they're just making money off the management fee. And so we often get approach from players in that space, and we, you know, whenever we can detect that's what it is.
We we avoid taking on funds like that because we want investors who are getting direct access to perplexity and who are in it for the long haul, who aren't just trying to make a quick buck on a management fee flip.
I want to talk about this more. I'm really fascinated. We actually we did an episode with A. Vlaw Ton of the Robinhood cee only was talking about tokenization of private assets, and I guess this sort of actually relates
to the question about discrete rounds. But does it feel like, you know, in theory, if some sort of slice of equity perplexing maybe people so forwards or these vehicles that are linked to it, does it feel like the line between what it even means to be a private and a public company is inevitable going to disappear, especially add in the fact that we seem to be on this road where public companies will not be expected or required to have to report information as timely as they used to.
I think it's important when you're a privately held company to control the sale of your equity. And I think that the challenge, you know, why we haven't, you know, we've been approached by a lot of these tokenization schemes. And you know, again, if you have folks on your cap table that are not aligned for the long term, they may be looking for quick flips and then that creates a weird signal in the market, and that may harm you know, a primary raise, right, and so the
the noise that comes with that. It's not like we're short on other you know investment, you know, avenues. So it's just an unnecessary kind of noise risk.
So, speaking of throwing money around, the thirty five billion dollar bid for Chrome was what was that? Was that a troll?
We that was when we made that bid, the DOJ had still not decided whether Chrome would be divested from Google. The web browser as evidenced by you know, Amazon's behavior is clearly incredibly valuable surface area, and that you know, thirty five billion was a starting bid. You know, at this point I can safely say I think Chrome is worth more than that. But what I can confidently say is we had more than thirty five billion of investor interests in making that bid, so it was not a
constraint on you know, the funding side. Obviously, Google does not want to sell Chrome unless they will be forced to, and it doesn't look like the government will be forcing them.
So you're serious about that one. It's not just a sort of antitrust flag waving exercise.
No, we had, you know, very large sovereign wealth funds that you know, we're we're kind of lined up and ready to go.
Here's a great question from someone anonymous via the app. Can you talk about unit margins? You often hear this, it's like, oh, these AI companies they're not even on a unit basis making money given the compute costs et cetera. Are what can you talk about gross margins? And right now whether like you know, a given query is profitable given the cost of delivering.
And so the uh A paying pro subscriber to Perplexity is profitable for us. Okay, so the unit margins are strong the free users right now because we do not monetize them, you know, we don't we lose money on those AI companies. I think something that is underappreciated. They generally actually when they do the accounting of free users, they attribute that to research and development because you're still
using those prompts to improve from the model. So you know, it does allow for your unit economics to potentially appear more pristine than they are.
Are all pro users profitable? Because this also strikes me as something unique with AI, which is that you know, when back when Twitter was and it's infencing power users were good, it feels like in the case with AI, sometimes you get these power users where you're losing money on them. Are all pro users profitable or do some use it so much that it is more than the subscription fee?
I mean, I don't. It's not a material amount. And we've also introduced a Max tier, So we have a twenty dollars month pro subscription, and for the folks that want, you know, the most expensive reasoning models and higher limits on them, there's a two hundred dollars month product called Max and that also gets you access to our email assistant, and so I think you'll you know, and other companies
have also introduced kind of higher tiers of subscription. So this is not a problem that's unique necessary to AI, and you kind of introduce tiers of service uh to to support it at scale.
What does your expenditure actually look like at this point? Like, what are you spending the most money on? Is it we read about these insane salaries for engineers going to Claude or Open AI or whatever. Is it talent retention or is it compute power? Is it the content deals with media organizations? What are you spending on?
So the biggest expense is inference? Right, So it is the cost of compute. Uh, when you're you're asking a question and running it through an l M, you know that that is uh, that is a material expenditure. We you know, Perplexity doesn't do pre training. So the sorts of AI PhDs that other companies are paying, you know, reported one hundreds of millions of four we're not that. That's not we're not in the mark of that. We have incredible AI application engineers and that's that's what we
recruit for. Ultimately, engineers that are joining Perplexity joining because they believe we're just getting started, right and they're coming for an equity appreciation story that's you know, already bearing fruit. But we're we're just at the beginning of that journey.
Maybe this is sort of a way of restating Tracy's question, but it all feel like any AI conversation. It's like what is the bottleneck right now?
Right?
Is it talent? Is it capital? Is it compute? Is it power?
Etc?
Like if you could have unlimited amounts of any one of those things, what would you want more of right now?
So I think it's important to buy fur Kate. There's the companies that do the training of foundation models, and those are the ones that are really pushing for the massive infrastructure buildouts. Yeah, we're not constrained on compute for inference at the current usage levels. But as you know, behavior shift, I mean by a show of hands in the room, like how many people have stopped primarily using
Google when they have an informational question? So you know about with eighty percent of the room, you know, raise their hands and we see the early adopter behavior in you know, audiences like this. You know, folks that work in financial services, people that again for whom quickly getting high quality information matters. As you know, this behavior becomes more mainstream, we obviously will need more compute for inference. But the the folks that are are kind of talking
about trillions of dollars in investment. It's it's really a different universe than ours. It's unclear to me why some of those investments are needed. Sometimes it feels like a strategy of, you know, kind of what what the US was trying to do with the Soviet Union, of just getting your your competitors to go broke by you know, being able to raise the most capital. And we'll see how that plays out.
Since you mentioned financial services, we have a good question from the audience, and we've done some media naval gazing. I'm sure we're going to do some more, but for now financial services naval gazing. What do you think the impact of AI will be on places like Wizard and other Wall Street firms.
I just think this is going to be a incredible flowering of creativity and productivity lift. I think of using a product like Perplexity and other AI tools in the day to day of somebody that works in investment bank is really twofold. The first is saving you eighty percent of the time to get to the eighty percent first draft of a work product. Right in investment banks, that's kind of putting the other pitch decks doing modeling, just
gaining tremendous efficiency. And it's important to distinguish it's not about making that workflow autonomous. You still absolutely need human judgment on what the end output should be, how to approach it. This is not about replacing investment bankers. It's about giving them tremendous leverage. I think the more disruptive impact is now that it got a lot easier to begin a new initiative, to begin a new prospect. How many more new engagements are you going to be able
to spin up? Right? Because the biggest constraint on new business is an employee feeling they have the bandwidth to take it on. And you know, experienced leaders now have much more leverage, and I think that's going to play a profound role, Atlizard, and you know part of why I'm excited to be part of the organization.
I love these audience questions because they're saying things that I would think that are reminded me and that I would have been rude to say, you didn't answer the first question about are you going to kill journalism? But someone says you didn't answer the first question, how would journalism survive when AI has skinned it? I get Oh, yeah, you know, AI is an interested in asking questions, but
it's not. The question is like, why would brands continue to like build out these presents for like a human reading and scrolling when I can just go to one destination that doesn't necessarily click me anywhere else.
Well, I mean, when I look at the earnings numbers for the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, for Bloomberg media companies seem to be doing fine well.
New York Times is doing well. Games and I don't know if you get earnings numbers for but.
What I hear, you know, like some subscription numbers.
But by the way, I was doing a lot more than Games actually did not. It's a very impressive company. But by and large it does not look like the actual news business.
It's a lifestyle company is doing particularly well well.
But I think it's it's part of the value of the mundle I mean, this is a very This is very analogous to when the Internet was first introduced. You had traditional brick and mortar retailers, and the best brick and mortar retailers adapted to the digital environment, and the best publishers are adapting and gaining leverage with AI. I mean, last night we had the CEO of Axel Springer talk about how he's leaning into AI and it's actually an
incredible opportunity for productivity. And so I don't think this is zero sum. I do think there's going to be some publishers that thrive and others. And the media business was already facing challenges, you know, certain segments of it well before AI. So I don't see this as being kind of the fundamental tension.
But if you fast forward five or ten years from now, what does the front page of the Internet actually look like to you? And what exactly is I guess the economic packed between media and platforms such as yourself, What would the ideal packed agreement actually look like? How basically, give give me your vision of the Internet in five.
Years were two seconds. We're introducing something called Comment Plus, which we already have the Washington Posts and Conde Nast La Times, many great publishers signed on for and it was really inspired by Apple News Plus, where if you are a Comment Plus subscriber, which is five dollars a month, and we bundle it into Perplexity pro So even people that didn't necessarily you know, want to pay for it. We're taking money out of our cut and feeding it
into this program to seat it. As you consume premium content in the comment browser, we're then sharing that revenue back proportionally with publishers. And it's actually accounting for not just page views of premium content, but agent actions on that content and citations in the commt browser. And so ultimately, I think subscriptions are a very powerful business small for media. I think there's a lot more to do there, and we want to play a leading role in doing that.
I'm very impressed by the finance module within Perplexity. You know, there's a whole graveyard of companies that have tried to take down our employer at Bloomberg. Do you see yourself as a potential challenger company? Tracy asked about you know, financial services, et cetera. Do you see yourself, at some point down the road is a challenger to the terminal?
Yeah? I mean, how many people have access to Bloomberg terminal. It's like, I mean, you guys like, it's not it's not millions, right, So yeah, it's not millions. So for us, the success of Perplexity Finance is it's similar to what I was saying about with Amazon and people that have personal shoppers like Bloomberg Terminal, is that like it's this is like company.
And so when you're thinking about the lizards of the world and all the other banks, could you at some points see yourself pitching Perplexity or Perplexity Terminal as a world all these other ones had failed to do it.
I think for us, the bigger opportunity and the bigger opportunity is not to go after Bloomberg Criminal. It's giving everyone who can't afford Bloomberg Terminal a version of it that is useful for them and when they're making retail stock investment decisions, when they're understanding the interplay of the markets and the news cycle, that they have access to
powerful technology. Right, So it's not I don't think we can't like Bloomberg Terminal, like people are there for the chatting, Like there's all kinds of features there that we're not trying to replace. Thank you, and it's an amazing product and amazing brand. I think it's for us this is about democratizing, expanding the scope of who has access to premium financial intelligence.
Another question from the audience. This one's from Oliviate Chastan, What do you think will be the key skill sets for media entertainment executives to manage the impact of AI on content industries?
I mean, I think my answer to this is the answer I think it's a key skill set for any professional in the age of AI is you have to get really good at asking the right questions. And so that means asking your teams why are they working on, what they're working on, what's the leverage, what's the unique differentiation?
And so it is approaching their business with a profound curiosity and an understanding that you know there are new disruption and leverage opportunities, and to kind of lead with that curiosity.
Everyone always says that, but what does a good prompt actually look like to you? Can you give us a specific example of like a prompt that really impressed you?
I think to me, asking a good question it's like a level deeper than like the prompt engineering is is kind of that that in some ways will get abstracted very soon. When I say asking a good question, it means a question that embodies and embeds all the known knowledge on a given topic. And the question you're asking is, then you know, where do you push the frontier, Like what is the thing that is not yet knowable that in your question you're pushing your organization on, you know.
Going back to the browser question about the bid for Chrome Google itself earlier this year, there are a lot of people, Oh, Google is going to get disrupted by AI, and it's a classic innovator's dilemma. They invented all this tech and they're not making now the stock market views Google's done phenomenally or alphabet They've done phenomenally well, and a lot of people have really changed their tune on them.
If the browser is such an important part of the real estate here, does that just give them a massive leg up? I mean, I know you're going to launch have your own and open AI is going to have its own, but Chrome is everywhere, Like how that sounds like a very big mode.
It's a very powerful distribution leverage point. But their greatest strength is also a weakness and that they built it around a a adword system where they're reliant on people clicking on links, and the behavior of clicking on promoted links will just matter less in the future of the Internet than it has in the past.
Speaking of promoted links, this is another question I've been wondering about. Sometimes I see these companies and they advertise on LinkedIn and they offer what I think is sort of would be the equivalent of like the AI equivalent of SEO. Is that all snake oil is there?
Like?
Whatever does that exist? Can are there these games that publishers or any brands can play to do well in AI or they Is that sort of a fraud?
I don't want to call it a fraud. I have not uncovered those companies provide analytics, but they are not actionable, okay, and so I have not found an actionable output there. And in some ways our purpose is to prevent those insights from being actionable because if you can game a Perplexity answer, it means it's not accurate and trustworthy. And so you know, if they do find a hack, like, we have better engineers that will fill that hack.
I have a slightly philosophical question, but is there any way to inject a tiny bit of randomness or creativity in some of Perplexity's output? And what I mean by that is I think at this point we're all aware of algorithmic content moderation and the idea that if you start your Netflix account and you watch one romantic comedy for the rest of your life. Netflix is going to be throwing like Matthew McConaughey films that you forever and
ever and ever. How do you deal with that aspect of it, the risk that people are funneled into like one particular answer stream or one corner of the Internet.
So memory will be an important feature of products like Perplexity, and the way we avoid that trap is transparency, just like we do with sources, where we actually show you all of the things that we've added to your memory. And if you don't want to be pigeonholed as a romantic comedy lover, you just delete that memory. And I mean, I'm kind of I recently got into health supplements and now every time I ask about health supplements, my decision
to begin, you know, pomegranate supplements is getting mentioned the answer. Yeah, And I you know, I deleted that because I'm like, you know what, I don't want it like coming back to the pomegranates, as great as they are, and that was you know that that I just went and deleted that memory. I saw where it was, and you know, I'm pomegranate free and my answers.
There's a question here about let's see but the comparison to the first wave of the Internet. So this person is talking about content creation, AI agent studios, pace of change moving very fast, I mean, is decision. What's really extraordinary to me about the last several years is the speed with which we seem to get new paradigm. Right, blogs were one or going to be a big deal. That was twenty years ago. They had a lifespan of a few years. Then you know social media, Twitter, etc.
There's speed. How do you think about things get overturned so fast these days? How do you think about making investment decisions under such conditions of uncertainty?
Yeah, this is I mean, a funny time to drop his name, but this is where we love the Jeff Bezos line of you know, it's the hard thing to predict is not what's going to change, but what's going to remain the same. I think from our vantage point, the bedrock is accuracy and trust, right, And that's actually as intelligence gets much more powerful, it gets more powerful and manipulating us, and so that that's why kind of
that trust bedrock is paramount. And that said one of my you know, management mantras is that I have absolute conviction that six months from now I'm going to have a top three priority that today I don't know what it is. And that embedded in that is an understanding that even the model makers themselves when they release a new model until us out, they don't know what emergent
capabilities and what the useful applications of that will be. Yeah, and so kind of you know, having core foundational principles well at the same time preserving agility, adapt adaptability and being the best at applying the new gifts we get for the service of users. That that's going to be a key operating skill.
There's a second part of that audience question that Joe just asked, and I think it's it's probably the one that's on all of our minds, and it's the bluntest one. But is AI in a bubble?
There are certainly parts of it that.
Are not you obviously, but your competitors presumably.
I mean, I think of all of the time and leverage that professionals and knowledge workers are getting and to me, the ROI on that, like I can see the trillions of dollars in economic productivity happening from it. But are there certain companies that have just raised too much capital and is going to create imbalances in the ecosystem?
Yes, all right, but I really have forty five seconds. My issue is a lot of things still don't work in AI. I tried to ask Chad Gpt yesterday how many full school weeks are in New York City public schools. It's like, oh, I'd have to count it by hand, and it seriously said that. I posted a screenshot of it. A lot of these agent things like, they don't work very well. Like a lot of things. I once asked, who are the most common guests on odd lots over the years. It just gave me a bunch of this
was this was not your site. But I'm just saying, like a lot of AI agents and so forth, they sort of about.
Halfway through, Yeah, I'm tempted to do a live check of weather perplexity. We give you a good answer on that. But this goes back to what I was saying about emergent capabilities. The fail case, and this comes up actually in many enterprise conversations, is just because you tried something two months ago, it doesn't mean and it didn't work.
It doesn't mean it's not working today, and so we all need to keep this open mind that these technologies are getting smarter and better at a rapid clip, and you know those are solvable problems.
All right, Dimitri, thank you so much for thank you, thank you for conversation. Really appreciate it.
That was our conversation with Dmitri Schevalenco, chief business officer at Perplexity.
Shall we leave it there, Let's leave it there, all right. This has been another episode of the All Thoughts podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me at Tracy Alloway.
And I'm Joe Wisenthal. You can follow me at the Stalwart. Follow our guest Dmitri Schevalenco. He's at Dmitri one. Follow our producers Kerman Rodriguez at Kerman armand dash O Bennett dashbod at kill Brooks at Killbrooks. From our Odd Lots content, go to Bloomberg dot com slash odd Lots with the daily newsletter and all of our episodes, and you can shout about all these subjects twenty four to seven in our discord Discord dot gg slash od Lots.
And if you enjoy odd Lots, if you like it, when we do these live recordings. Please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform, and remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad free. All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening.