“At some point, do the interests no longer become aligned? And I say that because there’s been some reporting, including in The New York Times, that suggests that there has been frustrations about how much processing power and access you’re getting.” “We need lots of compute, more than we projected. And that’s just been like an unusual thing in the history of business to scale that quickly. We have things that we’re really good, Microsoft has things they’re really good at — again, there’s not no tension, but on whole, like, I think our incentives are pretty aligned.” “It sounds like there’s a little bit of tension.” “For sure.” “On the artificial general intelligence piece, though, because you always said part of your deal with them is that if you ever get there, right, that then the deal could technically be called off. It sounds like you might be getting close.” “We’ve also said that our intention is to treat A.G.I. as a mile marker along the way. We have left ourselves some flexibility because we don’t know what will happen. But my guess is we will hit A.G.I. sooner than most people in the world think and it will matter much less. And a lot of the safety concerns that we and others expressed actually don’t come at the A.G.I. moment. It’s like A.G.I. can get built, the world goes on mostly the same way. The economy moves faster, things grow faster. But then there is a long continuation from what we call A.G.I. to what we call superintelligence.”