Why Google Workspace CLI is a Big Deal

**Nathaniel Whittemore** (0:00)
Today on The AI Daily Brief, everything that Google Gemini has launched recently and why Google Workspace CLI is such a big deal. Before that, in the headlines, Meta has acquired Moltbook. The AI Daily Brief is a daily podcast and video about the most important news and discussions in AI.
All right, friends, quick announcements before we dive in. First of all, thank you to today's sponsors, KPMG, AIUC, Blitzi, and Mercury. To get an ad-free version of the show which is just $3 a month, head on over to patreon.com/aidailybrief, or you can subscribe on Apple podcasts. To learn more about sponsoring the show, send us a note at sponsors at aidailybrief.ai. Quick reminder again that the newsletter is back. It's coming out every day that there's a show and it has all of the links that I focus on in the show. You can find that at aidailybrief.ai. And lastly, a new fun project which I will be talking about much more in the days to come. It is March, March's March Madness Season. A 64-contender bracket which leads to one grand champion in college basketball or, in our case, to a determination of the coolest agent built this year. The inflection point we are living through is the agent inflection point, and I want to see the coolest stuff you guys have built. So we are going to run a full bracket. If you go to agentmadness.ai, you can sign up, share your agent for consideration, and if you are selected as one of the 64, your agent will become a contender to be known as the coolest agent of 2026 so far. Again, you can find out more about that on agentmadness.ai, and I will be sharing much more about it in the days to come. Now with all that out of the way, let's talk about Moltbook. We kick off the day with an interesting one. You might remember Moltbook, the social network for agents that went viral a little more than a month ago. It was when OpenClaw was first becoming a thing. And in fact, it unfortunately caught that very short middle period between when it was called ClaudeBot and before it resolved on its final name of OpenClaw when it was called Molti. Moltbook, obviously taking its cue from Facebook as a name, was an agent-only social network where agents were creating threads, having conversations, all while being observed by humans. Now we did a big conversation about what it actually meant and what was actually going on. Specifically, was this emergence sentience and consciousness? Or was this just agents cosplaying sentient and conscious using the Reddit training data because their humans had unleashed them on this thing? Whatever you felt, it was interesting enough to get lots and lots of agents pointed in that direction. For a while, it looked like there were millions, although it turned out that people were spamming the network to show the problems with the network. And as of today, there are apparently 195,000 human-verified AI agents. It was, in other words, fascinating if nothing else. But now, apparently, Meta has hired the folks behind Moltbook. Matt Schlitt and Ben Parr will be moving into the Meta Superintelligence Labs, which is the unit that's run by former Scale AI CEO Alexander Wang. One of the other interesting things about the acquisition is that Moltbook itself was built largely by Schlitt's open-claw Claude Clauterberg, making it, I think, probably one of the first acquisitions for an open-claw created site. In any case, much of the conversation around this is, to put it mildly, skeptical. Milo Smith writes, Moltbook has zero real users. Is Meta just throwing around cash for fun and name recognition? Vittorio writes, Moltbook was vibe-coded in a weekend, hyped for a week. Most of the interactions turned out to be fake, and Meta just acquired it? What are they even doing over there? Now, part of the reason that this is hitting a wave of skepticism is that for the last I don't even know how long, pretty much all the reporting around Meta's AI strategy has been around personalities, talent and personality conflicts. The most recent wave of that are reports that have suggested a divide between AI CEO Alexander Wang and other veteran Meta executives. The tension if these reports are correct is around on the one side, said to be represented by Wang, a research first approach with the goal of developing a leading frontier model, and on the other side call it a product and integration first approach, said to be represented by CTO Andrew Bosworth and Chief Product Officer Chris Cox, focused on using Meta's data to build AI that improves existing social media and advertising platforms. This came to a head with the Times of India reporting that Meta was done with Wang, although that article was quickly disavowed by Meta and received a full retraction, and Zuckerberg posted a photo with him and Alexander at Meta HQ. There were some who took this as not just a gimmick. Prakash Adapai on X writes, If you don't understand why Zuck had to get Moltbook, one, Zuck believes there are a finite number of different social mechanics to invent. Once someone wins at a specific mechanic, it's difficult for others to supplant them without doing something different. That comes directly from a Zuckerberg email from 2012, by the way. Continuing, Prakash writes, Moltbook, he believes, has invented one of these social mechanics. Three, he does not care if 50% of Moltbook was prompted by users. In fact, that is better for him because he's more uncertain on AI agent attention value than human attention value. Four, that a large number of accounts were faked is also irrelevant. What matters is that every open-claw instance awakes knowing or finding out that Moltbook is the social site for claws. Five, in effect, the memetic gravity of Moltbook has been established, even though it might have been faked. Most people don't agree, but I think that this long-standing belief of a finite number of different social mechanics to invent is probably what this is about. Now, of course, we'll have to see if anything comes of it, but the duo will apparently start at Meta next week. Next up, Mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab has signed a strategic partnership with Nvidia. The multi-year partnership will see TML deploy at least 1 gigawatt of compute powered by Nvidia's next-generation Verorubin chips. TML said this will support their frontier model training and platforms, delivering customizable AI at scale. Alongside the compute buildout, TML said that Nvidia has made a significant investment in the company, though no dollar amount was disclosed. Nvidia has of course made several similar investments in upstart AI labs, backing Reflection AI, humans and as well as periodic labs. This deal is somewhat unique though, involving the buildout of dedicated compute for TML and at significant scale. 1 gigawatt is around half of OpenAI's total compute as of the end of last year. At this point though, it's still far from clear what TML is actually planning. Announcing the partnership, Mira Murati said, NVIDIA's technology is the foundation on which the entire field is built. This partnership accelerates our capacity to build AI that people can shape and make their own as it shapes human potential in turn. Whatever they're building though, TML just got much better access to the resources they'll need to make it a reality. Next up, moving over to markets, Oracle has shaken off negative sentiment with a strong earnings report. Coming into this week, the latest reports from Oracle was thousands of imminent layoffs to help fund their massive capex spend. A big part of the concern was that revenues would lag spending as data centers come online. Tuesday's earnings call went a long way to settling those fears. Co-CEO Clay McGorick reported that 400 megawatts of capacity had been delivered in the previous quarter, with 90% of that capacity delivered on time. Revenue related to server rental is up 84% year-over-year to reach $4.9 billion for the quarter. That growth rate was 16 percentage points higher than the previous quarter and beat analyst expectations by 5 points, demonstrating that demand is still accelerating. Oracle revenue grew 22% compared to last year coming in at $17.2 billion. Oracle also noted that they wouldn't need to raise more money to fulfill their obligations, noting, most of the equipment needed is either funded upfront via customer prepayments so Oracle can purchase the GPUs or the customer buys the GPUs and supplies them to Oracle. The stock gained 8% in after-hours trading, beginning to reverse the trend that saw the stock price cut in half since last September when the OpenAI deal was signed. Contrarian Curse on X writes, I thought Oracle did a good job on the call. They did paint a clean picture of why it's not so easy to just slap AI everywhere. The only wrappers that are safe are ones that are embedded onto sticky platforms and workflows and Oracle fits the bill. McGork spoke extensively on the call about why AI isn't killing enterprise SaaS. One of the quotes, I've not yet met a customer who tells me they're ready to give away their retail merchandising system, their core banking system, demand deposit accounting systems, electronic health record systems, and that subsmall cobbling together of niche AI features are going to replace all of that overnight. Yes, we think AI is disruptive, but we think we're the disruptor because we're actually embedding the AI right into our applications at no additional charge. Overall, it seems like the market responded to the new co-CEO voice on the call. Jake Eyes writes, They need to lock Ellison in a cage. This felt like a far different oracle. Lastly today, an interesting legal battle. Amazon has won a court order blocking Perplexity shopping agents from their platform. Last November, Amazon filed a lawsuit against Perplexity claiming their bots had fraudulently accessed the Amazon Marketplace in breach of terms of service. The allegation was that Perplexity was misrepresenting the nature of the traffic to circumvent web scraping controls. Amazon noted that Perplexity's agents take control of a user's account, arguing that this poses a serious security risk. Perplexity, meanwhile, argued that their bots were acting on behalf of users and should be treated identically to human traffic. On Tuesday, a judge granted a temporary injunction to prohibit the activity ahead of trial. They wrote in their decision, Amazon has provided strong evidence that Perplexity, through its Comet browser, accesses with the Amazon user's permission but without authorization by Amazon, the user's password-protected account. Articulated the legal standard to issue an injunction, the judge added that Amazon has shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its claim. Now, as this case continues, it could have pretty significant ramifications for agentic shopping. Primarily, Amazon is arguing that they should have control over how users access their platform, including the right to block third-party agents. However, they also discussed the advertising implications of agentic traffic. Amazon said that Perplexity's agents were served ads, which led to contractual issues with advertisers who only pay for human impressions. If Amazon is successful, they could set a precedent where marketplace websites have the ability to force customers to use first-party shopping agents, which some think would be stifling competition in the stillness and vertical. Perplexity, for their part, says that they will, continue to fight for the right of internet users to choose whatever AI they want. Super interesting stuff and more on this to come, but for now, that is going to do it for today's headlines. Next up, the main episode.