Make Claude your AI podcast player.

Great thinking, put to work. ExpertsFM turns Claude into a player for the best moments from top business podcasts. Ask anything, hear the answer in the original voices from the exact moment, then apply it to your work.

Add to Claude ↗
A great clip every morningThe story and why it's worth hearing, then Claude helps you apply it to your work.
Playlists made for youName a theme and get the best moments from top business podcasts, ready to play.
Expertise, appliedGet the best thinking applied to whatever you're working on.
From recent conversations

Five views worth knowing this week

Each one is a view or estimate that a builder or investor shared on air, set next to what other reporting shows. These are their opinions, not facts ExpertsFM vouches for. Tap any one to hear it, see the deeper context, and read the other side.

1For investors

Legal AI companies are now valued above one CEO's estimate of the entire US market

UiPath's Daniel Dines estimates legal AI is roughly a $10B-a-year opportunity in the US. Harvey and Legora are now valued at about $15.5B and $11B. Those prices only add up if the winners capture far more than he expects.

Hear it and see the evidence ↓
What was said on air

Daniel Dines sizes US legal at $300B. He thinks about 30% of that labor is replaceable ($90B), and that vendors might charge about 10% of it as model usage, so roughly $10B in total. He asks whether Harvey's and Legora's investors are mistaken. Three days later on 20VC, Jason Lemkin said Legora had hit $200M ARR with its next round at $11B, and cited a report, which he wasn't sure of, of minus 50% gross margins at Harvey.

The Twenty Minute VC (20VC)
Why AI Cannot Replace Humans in Enterprise, with Daniel Dines of UiPath
Daniel Dines, CEO of UiPath
The Twenty Minute VC (20VC)
Meta's Muse Hits No. 1, Menlo Sounds the AI Bubble Alarm, and more
Harry Stebbings, Jason Lemkin and Rory O'Driscoll
Deeper context

Harvey raised $550M at a $15.5B valuation in September. Its co-founder said ARR passed $400M, up from about $190M in January; the company has not confirmed that figure in its own announcement.

↗Point Blank↗Okara · ARR timeline
One read

If Dines' math is right, the valuations are a bet that these companies capture labor dollars, not model-usage dollars. He names that path himself: a vendor that maps the work and becomes "a legal department" can capture much more. If the reported negative margins are real, gross margin may be a better signal than ARR for which way this goes.

The other side

Dines' $300B covers the US only, while Harvey sells in 60+ countries. His 30% and 10% are rough guesses. The ARR and margin figures are reported, not confirmed by the companies.

Go further in your own Claude

Each button copies this view and the question together. Paste it into a Claude chat that has ExpertsFM added.

What else have podcast guests said about how AI companies will make money from legal work?
What have founders said about the gross margins of AI apps that pay for outside models?
2For investors

Dylan Patel estimates Jane Street earns up to 5x more from each unit of compute than Anthropic charges for it

He argues that gap will push AI labs to keep more of their best compute for their own use. Anthropic is reportedly preparing a November IPO. If he's right, the lab could deliberately let revenue grow slower than its compute.

Hear it and see the evidence ↓
What was said on air

Dylan Patel says Anthropic's revenue per megawatt has gone from about $20M to as high as $100M, while customers like Jane Street capture an estimated $300M to $500M per megawatt. His view, which he calls non-consensus, is that labs will put less compute into selling and more into their own use, pointing to Anthropic's compute additions outpacing its revenue additions.

Dwarkesh Podcast
Dylan Patel: Anthropic & OpenAI will have most of the world's compute by 2028
Dylan Patel, founder of SemiAnalysis
Deeper context

Anthropic's annualized revenue reportedly passed $100B in mid-September, up from $65B at the end of July and $9B at the end of 2025. Reports put an IPO in November at about a $2 trillion valuation. These are run-rate projections from press reports, not audited revenue.

↗Bloomberg↗Revenue timeline
One read

Public investors will price Anthropic largely on revenue growth. If Patel's view holds, a slowdown in revenue relative to compute could reflect a deliberate choice rather than weak demand. Compute added versus revenue added, quarter by quarter, would be one way to tell the two apart.

The other side

The per-megawatt figures are Patel's estimates. The view fails if internal research runs into diminishing returns before outside demand does, and a public company faces pressure to show revenue.

Go further in your own Claude

Each button copies this view and the question together. Paste it into a Claude chat that has ExpertsFM added.

What else has Dylan Patel said about how AI labs will spend their compute?
Who else has discussed whether AI labs should sell their compute or keep it for their own use?
3For founders

Higgsfield says its margins run 80%+ on open models it trains itself, versus 20% to 30% on closed ones

AT&T now routes about 40% of its AI use to open models and reports coding costs down 56%. Together they suggest an AI product's margin may increasingly come down to which tasks go to which model.

Hear it and see the evidence ↓
What was said on air

Higgsfield's Alex Mashrabov says the company crossed $1B in annualized revenue in 18 months, and that margins are over 80% on its own post-trained open models versus 20% to 30% on closed models, because "PhD-level intelligence is not necessary to make a viral social media video." Ollama's Jeffrey Morgan predicts open models will carry 80% to 90% of a business's AI usage but only 10% to 20% of its AI budget.

The Twenty Minute VC (20VC)
$1BN ARR in 18 Months: The Untold Story of Higgsfield
Alex Mashrabov, founder of Higgsfield
Y Combinator Startup Podcast
Open Models Change The Economics of AI
Jeffrey Morgan, founder of Ollama
Deeper context

AT&T says about 40% of its AI usage now runs on open models, up from 20% in May, with a 60% to 70% target. It processes about 45B tokens a day, up from 8B a year ago, and reports coding costs down 56% for a 2% quality drop. It uses Gemma, Llama and Nemotron, not Chinese models. On OpenRouter, Chinese models carried 57% to 67% of tokens in mid-September, up from 6% to 13% in February.

↗AT&T figures↗NYT coverage, summarized↗OpenRouter shares
One read

If these numbers generalize, the valuable piece may be the test that decides when a task is too hard for the cheap model, since that is what lets volume move without quality falling. There also appear to be two markets forming: US enterprises choosing American open models, and price-driven developers choosing Chinese ones.

The other side

Higgsfield's margins are self-reported and specific to video ads. OpenRouter is price-sensitive developer traffic, not a census of corporate spending. A 2% average quality drop can hide the tasks that fail.

Go further in your own Claude

Each button copies this view and the question together. Paste it into a Claude chat that has ExpertsFM added.

What have founders said about the margins of building on open models versus closed models?
When should a company post-train its own models instead of paying for closed ones, according to podcast guests?
4For founders

YC says more than a dozen of its companies each make $10M+ a year selling training material to AI labs

Industry surveys put a single simulated app for AI training at up to $300,000. What the labs are buying may preview where AI improves next.

Hear it and see the evidence ↓
What was said on air

YC says it has funded more than a dozen companies in two years that each make over $10M a year selling data or training environments to the labs, in many cases hundreds of millions, and that many of these companies stay quiet about it. On Dwarkesh, a researcher describes the order in which Anthropic built its training environments (coding first, then finance and spreadsheets, then PowerPoint and the long tail of office work) and says other labs have since followed it.

Y Combinator Startup Podcast
The State of Startups in 2026
YC partners
Dwarkesh Podcast
AI researchers debate how close we are to recursive self-improvement
A panel of AI researchers
Deeper context

Epoch AI's survey of vendors puts a simulated website at about $20,000 and a faithful copy of Slack near $300,000. Individual tasks run $200 to $2,000, and exclusive deals cost 4 to 5 times more. Anthropic reportedly discussed spending over $1B in a year. Vendors name enterprise workflows such as expense reports, CRM updates and spreadsheets as the 2026 growth area, and say the expensive part is the code that checks whether the AI actually did the task.

↗Epoch AI survey↗Environment pricing
One read

If what the labs train on this year shapes what their models do well next year, back-office work could be where the next jump shows up. For someone who knows one industry's workflow deeply, a reliable checker for that workflow may be sellable to the labs before any AI product is built.

The other side

Labs build many of these in-house and are reportedly pushing standard formats that make vendors interchangeable. Revenue figures for these companies are mostly unpublished.

Go further in your own Claude

Each button copies this view and the question together. Paste it into a Claude chat that has ExpertsFM added.

What have people said about startups that sell data or training environments to AI labs?
Which kinds of work are AI labs building training environments for next, according to AI researchers?
5For operators and investors

The AI roll-up model has just taken a $2.7B-revenue public company private

On air, a podcast host walked through the margin gains these funds report at small accounting and property firms. Long Lake has now closed its $6.3B purchase of Amex's corporate travel business, which made about a 7% margin last year. Each 10 points of margin there would be about $270M a year.

Hear it and see the evidence ↓
What was said on air

Greg Eisenberg reports that Thrive Holdings has bought close to 50 accounting firms in 24 months. At one, Larson Gross, AI cut one 180-hour annual job to 15 hours. He reports that General Catalyst's Long Lake bought 18 businesses and reached $100M EBITDA in under two years with margins doubling. He cautions that these numbers are self-reported.

The Startup Ideas Podcast
$5T opportunity: AI Roll Ups
Greg Eisenberg
Deeper context

Long Lake has now made 40 acquisitions and closed its $6.3B take-private of American Express Global Business Travel. PitchBook puts that business at $2.7B of 2025 revenue and $182M of operating profit, about a 7% margin. Long Lake was valued at $5.8B last November.

↗General Catalyst↗PitchBook
One read

On $2.7B of revenue, each 10 points of margin is about $270M a year, more than the business's 2025 operating profit. Roll-up buyers say they target 30% to 40%. Whether a large public company changes as fast as a 200-person firm is the open question. For operators, the change the podcast describes is that the people who produced the work become the people who check it.

The other side

The small-firm results are self-reported and untested in a recession. Long Lake says it has never done a layoff, so any margin gain has to come from growth rather than cost cuts.

Go further in your own Claude

Each button copies this view and the question together. Paste it into a Claude chat that has ExpertsFM added.

What have investors and operators said about AI roll-ups of small service businesses, and where do they disagree?

Everything under "What was said on air" links to the moment in the original audio. "Deeper context" comes from news and industry sources, linked. "One read" is ExpertsFM's own interpretation of the two together; no speaker said it, and it may be wrong. "The other side" gives the reasons it may not hold.

Type “ExpertsFM” in any chat.

Biggest opportunities in AI right nowTwelve clips, in order, playable in chat or on a shareable page
  1. The trillion-dollar bridge

    · an enterprise software CEO
    Why the space between model capability and real enterprise workflow is huge, and the layers of startups it opens up.
    3:13
  2. Models are interchangeable, workflows aren't

    · an automation pioneer
    The real value is mapping the work, not calling a model.
    2:21
  3. Go where the plumbing isn't built

    · an AI-for-finance founder
    Why private markets beat public ones for AI: the work is still done by humans.
    2:15
  4. Bottle your best people's judgment

    · an AI-for-finance founder
    What if enterprise value moves from your people into systems you own?
    2:46
+ 8 more clips · every one opens at the cited moment in the original audio
“What's missing in AI right now?”From the newest episodes. Tap any source to hear the moment.

AI work is increasingly happening in the background. The stack is still built for chat.

Slow it down. An AI inference founder says GPUs do their best work on big batches, but the industry tuned them to answer fast because AI meant chat. Background agents don't need that, so he calls the shift to throughput-first infrastructure the biggest change of the next year.

Speed it up. A diffusion-model founder sees a different waste: today's models write one token at a time, so the GPU spends most of its time moving weights instead of computing. His models write many tokens at once, aiming for speed and efficiency together.

In practice. A search-for-agents founder ignored speed at first to get quality and cost right for background agents. Then his team cut each search from three seconds to 200 milliseconds.

Why it matters. They agree today's AI wastes the GPU. They split on the fix: accept slower answers for much cheaper work, or change the model so you don't have to choose.

Source 1 · 4:20 Source 2 · 4:15 Source 3 · 5:06
“Expertise on my work”It asks one question, then goes to work
What are you working on?
Startup or product idea
A decision I'm facing
A market or trend
Pitch, plan or documentpaste or attach it

Describe it, or paste the whole document. ExpertsFM finds the lessons that apply, the conditions where they hold, and where the experts disagree, each with the original moment one tap away.

Claude, superpowered.

Find what's worth hearing

Discover the episodes and shows you need to hear, based on what they actually say, not just titles or chapters.

Where the experts agree, and where they don't

Know which ideas have real consensus behind them and which are still up for debate, so you see the other side before you act.

Search that finds ideas

Search by concept or by exact words across the whole library. Find every place an idea shows up, in seconds.

Audio, right in the chat

Every insight links to its exact moment in the original episode. Press play without leaving Claude.

The exact source, always

Every idea shows where it came from: who said it, in which conversation, at what moment.

How to Connect ExpertsFM

ExpertsFM plugs into claude.ai as a connector. It's free. No app to install, no account to create.

Click Add to Claude

Claude opens with the name and connector URL already filled in. Sign in to Claude if it asks.

Add ExpertsFM to Claude ↗

Click Continue

Claude notes that the connector came from a link. Check that it says ExpertsFM and www.expertsfm.com, then click Continue.

Get insights from ExpertsFM

Type “ExpertsFM” in any chat, or ask any question and tell Claude to use ExpertsFM.

Get the daily clip

Once ExpertsFM is added, type ExpertsFM every morning in any Claude chat. Claude sets it up, and a new clip arrives each morning.

On Claude's free plan, type ExpertsFM today any time instead.

Prefer to add it by hand?

Copy the connector URL. In Claude, open Customize → Connectors, click Add, choose Add custom connector, name it ExpertsFM, and paste the URL.

https://mcp.expertsfm.com/mcp
On your phone: add it once on the web, and it works in the Claude mobile app too.

Claude may ask you to approve tool access. Managed workspaces may require administrator approval.