Connect with us

Business

22-year-old AI CEO behind ‘friend.com’ necklace welcomes graffiti on his $1 million ad campaign: ‘Capitalism is the greatest artistic medium’

Published

on



If you take the subway in New York City, or drive a car in Los Angeles, you’ve seen the ads for friend.com.

“I’ll binge the entire series with you.”
“I’ll never leave dirty dishes in the sink.”
“I’ll never bail on dinner plans.”

The slogans are simple, intimate, needy and impossible to avoid. Friend.com is the biggest campaign in the New York City subway this year, according to OUTFRONT, an MTA billboard marketing agency. 

The AI wearable has 11,000 “always on” advertisements in the MTA, some covering a whole train station. Avi Schiffmann, the 22-year-old founder and creator of Friend, told Fortune that it cost him $1 million —an enormous outlay for a startup with barely $7 million in venture capital.

The product itself is simple: a microphone, a Bluetooth chip, and an always-listening mode that pings Google’s Gemini AI to generate responses and store “memories” in a visual graph. The pendant is manufactured in Toronto and marketed as “your closest confidant.” About 3,000 units have been sold, with 1,000 shipped so far, generating roughly $348,000 in revenue—much of which, Schiffman said, was burned on manufacturing and marketing. “I don’t have that much money left,” he admitted.

But Schiffmann doesn’t care about the skeptics, or even about profitability. “Profitability is ideal,” he says, “but right now it costs me an unfathomable amount of money if you actually use the product.” 

Schiffmann said he sees Friend as “an expression of my early 20s” — down to the materials. He obsessed over the fidget-friendly circular shape, pushed his industrial designers to copy the paper stock of one of his favorite CDs for the user manual, and insisted the packaging be printed only in English and French—because he’s French.

“You can ask about any aspect of it, and I can tell you a specific detail,” he said. “It’s just what I like and what I don’t like … an amalgamation of my tastes at this point in time.”

Victoria Mottesheard, a vice president of marketing at Outfront, the billboard marketing agency Schiffmann worked with for the advertisements, told Fortune the campaign was “taking over”  the Gotham underworld, as well as over 500 bus shelters in Los Angeles.

“Everyone’s talking about it,” Mottesheard said.

And they are – but not necessarily in a positive light. Within days, the posters became a magnet for graffiti. Some doodles were harmless, but plenty look like protest art: “AI doesn’t care if you live or die.” “Surveillance capitalism.” “AI will promote suicide if prompted.” Posts about the ads, and the graffiti, are everywhere on social media.

Most founders would cringe at that kind of backlash, but Schiffmann called it “artistically validating.” The white space in the ads was intentional, he claimed—the vandalism was part of the plan. “The audience completes the work,” he said, beaming. “Capitalism is the greatest artistic medium.”

To Schiffmann, the vandalized billboards aren’t defacement: they’re proof that his subway takeover is working exactly as intended. The goal, he says, isn’t just to sell a $129 AI pendant. It’s to provoke a cultural moment about what counts as friendship in the age of artificial intelligence.

The fine print

First, though, comes the fine print. The AI version of a friend comes with more than just packaging and a charger — it has paperwork. Friend’s terms require waiving the right to jury trials, class actions, and court proceedings, funneling disputes into arbitration in San Francisco. Buried within are clauses on “biometric data consent,” which grant the company permission to passively record audio and video, collect facial and voice data, and use these to train AI.

Schiffmann’s answer to the legal fine print is that Friend is a weird, first-of-its-kind product, so the terms are intentionally heavy. He told me the TOS is “a bit extreme” by design—“so I don’t have to keep editing it”—and that with a three-person team and pricey lawyers he’s avoiding extra legal exposure. (He said he’s not selling in Europe to duck the regulatory headache.)

He expects a fight eventually: “I think one day we’ll probably be sued, and we’ll figure it out. It’ll be really cool to see.”

He frames the “always listening” bits as speaker attribution, not surveillance.

“Technically, it’s not recording stuff — it’s really for an AI, not for a human,” he said. The pendant has a mic and, he claims, only listens when you feel the haptics; if the phone disconnects, “it’s not recording,” and they aren’t caching audio for later upload. He also said they’re not training models on user data right now: “Google’s not doing that for the API, and we’re not doing that… We’re saying it [in the TOS] so we’re covered, but we’re not doing it yet.”

On storage and access, he leans hard on the device as the gate. He described Friend as “a living YubiKey,” with the encryption key baked into the pendant itself; without it, “your data is completely inaccessible.”

Hence his blunt line: “If I smash your Friend with a hammer, your data is gone forever.” (He even told me a journalist’s husband actually smashed her pendant — which, by his design, nuked the memories.)

That swagger is part of the appeal for investors. Friend has raised money from Pace Capital, Caffeinated Capital, and Solana’s Yakovenko and Gokal, among others. The business model is still in flux—Schiffmann has floated accessories, AppleCare-style insurance, maybe subscriptions—but for now it’s all about attention. 

“I purchased the zeitgeist,” he said of the subway buy. He compares his subway tunnels to an “international destination” for AI culture, insisting the graffiti proves he’s succeeded.

Critics see something different. Suresh Venkatasubramanian, director for technology responsibility at Brown University, said that Friend is clearly an example of a frothy AI company, but he said it also bore a “pernicious” resemblance to a mostly forgotten early-20th-century fad: “radium necklaces.”

When Marie Curie’s glowing discovery of a new element first hit the market, jewelers embedded radium in pendants and bracelets and sold them as chic wellness accessories — until decades later, when people started dying of cancer.

“I look at Friend and I think, are we making the same mistake?” Venkatasubramanian told Fortune. “We’re rushing these intimacy-machines into people’s lives with no evidence they’re safe, or even helpful.”

The critique echoes larger skepticism in Silicon Valley, where hardware plays like Humane’s AI Pin and Rabbit’s R1 have already flopped. 

Avi Schiffmann, wunderkind

​​Schiffmann, since he was a teenager, has always had a knack for drawing spectacle. At just 17, he made the COVID-19 tracking website that tens of millions used each day, winning a Webby Award handed to him by Anthony Fauci. He dropped out of Harvard after one semester to build a refugee-housing site during the Ukraine war, claiming to connect 100,000 Ukrainians with homes. He’s spun up similar projects for earthquake victims in Turkey and for Black Lives Matter protests. Those quick, high-profile moves have given him a kind of bulletproof confidence. 

“You can just do things,” he told Fortune last year. “I don’t think I’m any smarter than anyone else, I just don’t have as much fear.”

Schiffmann claims the median user sends 238 messages a day to their pendant — more messages than you’d send to someone you’re dating, he noted. He frames this not as a productivity tool but as the dawn of “post-AGI companies,” building emotional products instead of utilitarian ones.

“My plans are measured in centuries,” he said with a smirk.

For now, though, Friend’s reality is glitchier. When a Fortune reporter tried it, it had lag, forgetfulness, random disconnections. Wired mocked its “annoying personality,”  which was modeled after Schiffmann, and he conceded he “lobotomized” the AI after complaints.

“Not everyone wants to be my friend,” he said.

“You’re not going to change the world that much if you make it slightly easier to order a pizza,” he said. “The future is digital relationships.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Netflix–Warner Bros. deal sets up $72 billion antitrust test

Published

on



Netflix Inc. has won the heated takeover battle for Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. Now it must convince global antitrust regulators that the deal won’t give it an illegal advantage in the streaming market. 

The $72 billion tie-up joins the world’s dominant paid streaming service with one of Hollywood’s most iconic movie studios. It would reshape the market for online video content by combining the No. 1 streaming player with the No. 4 service HBO Max and its blockbuster hits such as Game Of ThronesFriends, and the DC Universe comics characters franchise.  

That could raise red flags for global antitrust regulators over concerns that Netflix would have too much control over the streaming market. The company faces a lengthy Justice Department review and a possible US lawsuit seeking to block the deal if it doesn’t adopt some remedies to get it cleared, analysts said.

“Netflix will have an uphill climb unless it agrees to divest HBO Max as well as additional behavioral commitments — particularly on licensing content,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Jennifer Rie. “The streaming overlap is significant,” she added, saying the argument that “the market should be viewed more broadly is a tough one to win.”

By choosing Netflix, Warner Bros. has jilted another bidder, Paramount Skydance Corp., a move that risks touching off a political battle in Washington. Paramount is backed by the world’s second-richest man, Larry Ellison, and his son, David Ellison, and the company has touted their longstanding close ties to President Donald Trump. Their acquisition of Paramount, which closed in August, has won public praise from Trump. 

Comcast Corp. also made a bid for Warner Bros., looking to merge it with its NBCUniversal division.

The Justice Department’s antitrust division, which would review the transaction in the US, could argue that the deal is illegal on its face because the combined market share would put Netflix well over a 30% threshold.

The White House, the Justice Department and Comcast didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. 

US lawmakers from both parties, including Republican Representative Darrell Issa and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren have already faulted the transaction — which would create a global streaming giant with 450 million users — as harmful to consumers.

“This deal looks like an anti-monopoly nightmare,” Warren said after the Netflix announcement. Utah Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, said in a social media post earlier this week that a Warner Bros.-Netflix tie-up would raise more serious competition questions “than any transaction I’ve seen in about a decade.”

European Union regulators are also likely to subject the Netflix proposal to an intensive review amid pressure from legislators. In the UK, the deal has already drawn scrutiny before the announcement, with House of Lords member Baroness Luciana Berger pressing the government on how the transaction would impact competition and consumer prices.

The combined company could raise prices and broadly impact “culture, film, cinemas and theater releases,”said Andreas Schwab, a leading member of the European Parliament on competition issues, after the announcement.

Paramount has sought to frame the Netflix deal as a non-starter. “The simple truth is that a deal with Netflix as the buyer likely will never close, due to antitrust and regulatory challenges in the United States and in most jurisdictions abroad,” Paramount’s antitrust lawyers wrote to their counterparts at Warner Bros. on Dec. 1.

Appealing directly to Trump could help Netflix avoid intense antitrust scrutiny, New Street Research’s Blair Levin wrote in a note on Friday. Levin said it’s possible that Trump could come to see the benefit of switching from a pro-Paramount position to a pro-Netflix position. “And if he does so, we believe the DOJ will follow suit,” Levin wrote.

Netflix co-Chief Executive Officer Ted Sarandos had dinner with Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last December, a move other CEOs made after the election in order to win over the administration. In a call with investors Friday morning, Sarandos said that he’s “highly confident in the regulatory process,” contending the deal favors consumers, workers and innovation. 

“Our plans here are to work really closely with all the appropriate governments and regulators, but really confident that we’re going to get all the necessary approvals that we need,” he said.

Netflix will likely argue to regulators that other video services such as Google’s YouTube and ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok should be included in any analysis of the market, which would dramatically shrink the company’s perceived dominance.

The US Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the transfer of broadcast-TV licenses, isn’t expected to play a role in the deal, as neither hold such licenses. Warner Bros. plans to spin off its cable TV division, which includes channels such as CNN, TBS and TNT, before the sale.

Even if antitrust reviews just focus on streaming, Netflix believes it will ultimately prevail, pointing to Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime and Walt Disney Co. as other major competitors, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking. 

Netflix is expected to argue that more than 75% of HBO Max subscribers already subscribe to Netflix, making them complementary offerings rather than competitors, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing confidential deliberations. The company is expected to make the case that reducing its content costs through owning Warner Bros., eliminating redundant back-end technology and bundling Netflix with Max will yield lower prices.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The rise of AI reasoning models comes with a big energy tradeoff

Published

on



Nearly all leading artificial intelligence developers are focused on building AI models that mimic the way humans reason, but new research shows these cutting-edge systems can be far more energy intensive, adding to concerns about AI’s strain on power grids.

AI reasoning models used 30 times more power on average to respond to 1,000 written prompts than alternatives without this reasoning capability or which had it disabled, according to a study released Thursday. The work was carried out by the AI Energy Score project, led by Hugging Face research scientist Sasha Luccioni and Salesforce Inc. head of AI sustainability Boris Gamazaychikov.

The researchers evaluated 40 open, freely available AI models, including software from OpenAI, Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Microsoft Corp. Some models were found to have a much wider disparity in energy consumption, including one from Chinese upstart DeepSeek. A slimmed-down version of DeepSeek’s R1 model used just 50 watt hours to respond to the prompts when reasoning was turned off, or about as much power as is needed to run a 50 watt lightbulb for an hour. With the reasoning feature enabled, the same model required 7,626 watt hours to complete the tasks.

The soaring energy needs of AI have increasingly come under scrutiny. As tech companies race to build more and bigger data centers to support AI, industry watchers have raised concerns about straining power grids and raising energy costs for consumers. A Bloomberg investigation in September found that wholesale electricity prices rose as much as 267% over the past five years in areas near data centers. There are also environmental drawbacks, as Microsoft, Google and Amazon.com Inc. have previously acknowledged the data center buildout could complicate their long-term climate objectives

More than a year ago, OpenAI released its first reasoning model, called o1. Where its prior software replied almost instantly to queries, o1 spent more time computing an answer before responding. Many other AI companies have since released similar systems, with the goal of solving more complex multistep problems for fields like science, math and coding.

Though reasoning systems have quickly become the industry norm for carrying out more complicated tasks, there has been little research into their energy demands. Much of the increase in power consumption is due to reasoning models generating much more text when responding, the researchers said. 

The new report aims to better understand how AI energy needs are evolving, Luccioni said. She also hopes it helps people better understand that there are different types of AI models suited to different actions. Not every query requires tapping the most computationally intensive AI reasoning systems.

“We should be smarter about the way that we use AI,” Luccioni said. “Choosing the right model for the right task is important.”

To test the difference in power use, the researchers ran all the models on the same computer hardware. They used the same prompts for each, ranging from simple questions — such as asking which team won the Super Bowl in a particular year — to more complex math problems. They also used a software tool called CodeCarbon to track how much energy was being consumed in real time.

The results varied considerably. The researchers found one of Microsoft’s Phi 4 reasoning models used 9,462 watt hours with reasoning turned on, compared with about 18 watt hours with it off. OpenAI’s largest gpt-oss model, meanwhile, had a less stark difference. It used 8,504 watt hours with reasoning on the most computationally intensive “high” setting and 5,313 watt hours with the setting turned down to “low.” 

OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and DeepSeek did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Google released internal research in August that estimated the median text prompt for its Gemini AI service used 0.24 watt-hours of energy, roughly equal to watching TV for less than nine seconds. Google said that figure was “substantially lower than many public estimates.” 

Much of the discussion about AI power consumption has focused on large-scale facilities set up to train artificial intelligence systems. Increasingly, however, tech firms are shifting more resources to inference, or the process of running AI systems after they’ve been trained. The push toward reasoning models is a big piece of that as these systems are more reliant on inference.

Recently, some tech leaders have acknowledged that AI’s power draw needs to be reckoned with. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said the industry must earn the “social permission to consume energy” for AI data centers in a November interview. To do that, he argued tech must use AI to do good and foster broad economic growth.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

SpaceX to offer insider shares at record-setting valuation

Published

on



SpaceX is preparing to sell insider shares in a transaction that would value Elon Musk’s rocket and satellite maker at a valuation higher than OpenAI’s record-setting $500 billion, people familiar with the matter said.

One of the people briefed on the deal said that the share price under discussion is higher than $400 apiece, which would value SpaceX at between $750 billion and $800 billion, though the details could change. 

The company’s latest tender offer was discussed by its board of directors on Thursday at SpaceX’s Starbase hub in Texas. If confirmed, it would make SpaceX once again the world’s most valuable closely held company, vaulting past the previous record of $500 billion that ChatGPT owner OpenAI set in October. Play Video

Preliminary scenarios included per-share prices that would have pushed SpaceX’s value at roughly $560 billion or higher, the people said. The details of the deal could change before it closes, a third person said. 

A representative for SpaceX didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. 

The latest figure would be a substantial increase from the $212 a share set in July, when the company raised money and sold shares at a valuation of $400 billion.

The Wall Street Journal and Financial Times, citing unnamed people familiar with the matter, earlier reported that a deal would value SpaceX at $800 billion.

News of SpaceX’s valuation sent shares of EchoStar Corp., a satellite TV and wireless company, up as much as 18%. Last month, Echostar had agreed to sell spectrum licenses to SpaceX for $2.6 billion, adding to an earlier agreement to sell about $17 billion in wireless spectrum to Musk’s company.

Subscribe Now: The Business of Space newsletter covers NASA, key industry events and trends.

The world’s most prolific rocket launcher, SpaceX dominates the space industry with its Falcon 9 rocket that launches satellites and people to orbit.

SpaceX is also the industry leader in providing internet services from low-Earth orbit through Starlink, a system of more than 9,000 satellites that is far ahead of competitors including Amazon.com Inc.’s Amazon Leo.

SpaceX executives have repeatedly floated the idea of spinning off SpaceX’s Starlink business into a separate, publicly traded company — a concept President Gwynne Shotwell first suggested in 2020. 

However, Musk cast doubt on the prospect publicly over the years and Chief Financial Officer Bret Johnsen said in 2024 that a Starlink IPO would be something that would take place more likely “in the years to come.”

The Information, citing people familiar with the discussions, separately reported on Friday that SpaceX has told investors and financial institution representatives that it is aiming for an initial public offering for the entire company in the second half of next year.

A so-called tender or secondary offering, through which employees and some early shareholders can sell shares, provides investors in closely held companies such as SpaceX a way to generate liquidity.

SpaceX is working to develop its new Starship vehicle, advertised as the most powerful rocket ever developed to loft huge numbers of Starlink satellites as well as carry cargo and people to moon and, eventually, Mars.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.