U.S. vs Iran, Paramount’s win & more

ALEX MORRIS: I’m Alex Morris, the lead producer here at Rapid Response, and I’m joined today by your host of Rapid Response, the voice of the show, Bob Safian. Bob, how are you doing?

BOB SAFIAN: I’m good, Alex. Thank you. It’s fun to be doing this a little differently this time.

MORRIS: Absolutely. We’re going to do something we’re calling the Rapid Recap. This is where we go through the buzziest stories, trends, and key indicators from the business world recently.

SAFIAN: Hit me with what you’ve got.

Copy LinkHow attacks on Iran could impact business

MORRIS: Well, unfortunately, we have to start with the news over the weekend. We saw the U.S. and Israel launch joint attacks on Iran, sparking a wider conflict throughout the Middle East. Are there any indications of what impact this could have on the business world?

SAFIAN: Yeah. As I’m sure everybody listening realizes, it’s hard to know what the implications are going to be in the long run at this point. What I’d say is the one clear lesson for all of us is that disruption isn’t slowing down anywhere. We saw this with tariffs recently, with the Supreme Court denial, and not to mention advances in AI.

For listeners, we recently had Corey duBrowa on the show, the Burson CEO and former comms chief at Google, Starbucks, and Salesforce. He started listing all the things that are moving around us these days, all the uncertainties and ambiguities, and it can make your head spin. The question becomes: How do we act in a world seemingly without rules? I think that’s the question a lot of us are asking ourselves and trying to get comfortable with.

MORRIS: How much of that do you think is acting in a world without rules versus the rules just being changed, and that there will be new rules?

SAFIAN: Well, I guess when you think back to several months ago when President Trump made it sound like there wasn’t going to be any U.S. involvement in overseas activities, and now we see action in Venezuela and we see action in Iran, that’s where I say rules and expectations on all kinds of fronts are hard to anchor on.

I caution folks about making quick judgments about what the impact of this will be on politics or the economy. This is one of those times when we have to learn to be flexible and stay on our toes.

MORRIS: When you were back at Fast Company, you wrote about this idea of Generation Flux. Is this kind of what you’re referring to here as well?

SAFIAN: Yeah. This goes back more than a decade. I started writing about the idea of Generation Flux — a group of people and businesses defined not by their chronological age, but by their ability to deal in a time of chaotic change. I didn’t realize how prescient that was, but today we’re all in Generation Flux 2.0.

We have to learn to live inside it, to be open to more fluid situations, structures, and systems, and open to learning new skills with AI and pursuing different career paths. I think about this as: We all need to be entrepreneurial, whether we’re entrepreneurs or not. We need that kind of agility.

And as I’ve talked about Generation Flux over the years, one of the questions I get is, “You talk about chaos so much — what do you like about chaos?” My response is: It’s not that I like chaos; it’s just the reality of the environment, and we have to learn to live in that reality.

Copy LinkAnthropic vs. the Pentagon

MORRIS: I want to move on to the news we saw come through on Friday. Talks fell through over Anthropic’s contract with the government to use their tech. They were concerned about their technology being used for mass surveillance and autonomous drones. Once they pulled out, Sam Altman and OpenAI were very quick to jump in and say, “Well, we can do that.” I’m curious what you think about this story. What does it indicate about Anthropic’s brand? Is it good for their brand but bad for their business? What’s going on here?

SAFIAN: In a lot of ways — talking about Generation Flux — this is a quintessential example of flux and what I call flux leadership. In an environment of chaos and change, what anchors us is our principles.

MORRIS: It reminds me of when Ken Frazier was on our show. He said — and I still honestly think about this every week — “A value isn’t a value until you’re willing to lose something for it; otherwise, it’s just a preference.”

SAFIAN: Yeah. So eloquent, right? And I think that’s the perspective and the step Anthropic took with the Pentagon. It was a choice they made in service of their business, and it had a cost. I think it helps define their brand even more strongly than before.

OpenAI made a different choice, reflecting different kinds of principles that will have different implications for their brand and business over time. They may have more of a business with the federal government going forward. Again, none of these things are secure.

The upshot to me is that leaders will face more of these moments in this environment of chaos and in the future. As a leader, the lesson is to be clear about your own principles for yourself and your business, so that when events like this come up, you’re more comfortable recognizing it’s a principle decision. You know your principles, and you know how to act on them.

MORRIS: Does it concern you about OpenAI — the fact that they were so quick to say, “Whatever Anthropic has a problem with, we’re fine with?” Or is that too simplistic?

SAFIAN: I think Sam Altman is more comfortable being fluid with certain things and having business arrangements he can use to his advantage, which isn’t always bad for business. He and OpenAI contend that they have the same philosophy about autonomous killing machines as Anthropic does, and that they’re protected in their agreement with the Pentagon.

It’s hard to know what about this is just two groups getting crosswise, which some describe as almost personality-driven with Anthropic. But clearly, Sam is more willing to play ball, and that was more palatable to the Department of Defense.

MORRIS: My fear is that in a world where everything is so politicized and polarized, do you think we’ll reach a point where the left are fans of Claude, the right use OpenAI, and insane people use Grok? Where are we?

SAFIAN: I don’t think people are going to make their tech tool decisions based on politics. I think they’ll base them on which tools help them get their work done best.

Again, it’s more about branding — who’s going to come work for your organization, maybe what kind of sponsors you have if you have that kind of ad business, as OpenAI does. I think it’s more about talent. Maybe once these companies go public, it’s about what kind of multiples they get for their brand, but we’re really early in figuring all that out.

There are so many factors that feed into it. This is just one data point we’re obsessing over now, for good reason, but it may not be the definitive one.

Copy LinkWill AI lead to more layoffs?

MORRIS: I want to stay in the world of AI. Last week, fintech firm Block, run by Jack Dorsey — formerly of Twitter — let go of 4,000 staff members out of their 10,000-person workforce. Jack Dorsey, in a statement, cited gains from AI as the reason. Is this a sign of things to come?

SAFIAN: Well, you and I have talked before about whether layoffs attributed to AI are actually one-to-one — meaning AI is actually doing those jobs — as opposed to them being the result of disruption, of which AI is part, but which demands a new structure.

I’m not saying that Jack is lying when he points to AI. I’m just not sure that applying this situation to every other business, as some news reports worry about, is apples to apples. It may be these are one-to-one jobs at Block, but that doesn’t mean everyone’s going to have huge layoffs because of AI.

In my conversations, I think a lot of tech leaders ultimately just don’t care if jobs go away because of AI. Some rationalize that this always happens with tech waves, but many are really driven by what’s good for them. There’s a race for billions in building and owning the next railroads. And if there’s collateral damage as they’re growing, I don’t know that they really make that a priority.

We’ve seen this from Silicon Valley before — not taking responsibility for the societal impact of tech while enjoying its fruits.

I remember talking to Mark Zuckerberg in probably 2017, and I asked him whether, as beneficiaries of tech, we have a responsibility to help those being left behind. He said yes, there was, but he certainly didn’t commit resources to that the way he did to developing the metaverse.

We’ve seen the impact of social media: fueled polarization and societal anger and frustration, and fear about changes that have driven us apart. It’s hard not to feel like we’re on a similar track with AI — perhaps even on a larger scale. For all the billions being invested in AI systems and data centers, how much is being committed to reskilling?

Do tech leaders really feel a responsibility to help the overall population win in an AI race, or are they just battling each other to win? My suspicion is it’s more the latter.

Copy LinkNetflix leaves the race for Warner Brothers

MORRIS: I want to move into the media business. Last week, we saw Netflix bow out of the race for Warner Bros. If we go back a month, Netflix looked like a sure thing to land the deal. Were you surprised by the outcome?

SAFIAN: I was a bit. It has been a fascinating game to watch. I will say, when it comes to Netflix, I applaud them for not getting drawn into bidding too much. It’s a rare discipline in corporate acquisitions for a bidder to just say, “You know what? Too rich for my blood.”

Paramount Skydance needed the deal more. We discussed this a while back with Janice Min at The Ankler, who explained that Skydance needs the deal. They need the scale to be competitive. But buying Warner Bros. Discovery may not turn out to be worth what they’re paying for it. I could see part of Netflix’s calculation being that David Ellison won’t be able to make it work, and they’ll be able to buy what they want later at a better price.

The wild card, of course, is that the Ellison family has so much money, courtesy of Larry Ellison’s Oracle fortune, so anything might happen.

MORRIS: Has this made David Ellison the most powerful person in media?

SAFIAN: It’s made him a player. I wouldn’t say he’s the most powerful person yet, though. That will depend on how they execute and whether this combination of assets they’ve brought together really is effective, not just a house of brands — especially considering a lot of those brands are troubled in different ways.

MORRIS: I’m seeing a lot of people worried that part of the deal includes CNN. We’ve seen what’s happened at CBS News and over at 60 Minutes. The small silver lining I’m holding onto is, I’m 28, and very few people I know — or younger than me — watch TV news. The power of CNN and CBS News might just be a relic of a different era and not where people get their news anymore.

SAFIAN: Do I think a lot of people are watching TV news, or that it’s going to be a growing area? No, but I do think professional journalism environments still drive the news cycle in many ways. So many of the folks you see in the channels you’re looking at are getting their starting point or source from established news outlets.

Is CNN at risk? CNN has a devoted audience of a certain kind, and it would be bad business for them to disrupt that unless they thought they could find a better audience some other way. I don’t think they’re going to disrupt that just to keep one political party happy. That won’t work as a business. Ultimately, I think those are the decisions that will drive what they do.

Now, maybe they’ll decide they don’t want to be in the news business as much and pull back resources — that would be disappointing. I know it makes sense for journalists to worry, lament and push back over those things because that’s one way to stay protected in these areas. But I believe that, at the end of the day, quality journalism will be valued. It may not be as big a piece of the pie as TV news once was, but I still think it will be among the more dominant places people go to.

Copy LinkHundreds of journalists let go from The Washington Post

MORRIS: We saw Jeff Bezos and The Post let go of hundreds of journalists, shuttering the sports section, the book section, shrinking local and foreign coverage. What does this indicate to you about the media business?

SAFIAN: I’ve been disappointed by the Jeff Bezos era at The Washington Post. I thought that having one of the richest people in the world buy The Post would lead to more investment and resources behind great journalism.

When I worked at Fast Company, I was fortunate to work for a successful businessperson — our owner, Joe Mansueto — who was incredibly supportive of investing in journalism. And Jeff Bezos has way more money than Joe does, so I really hoped he’d bring that along. He hasn’t.

It’s interesting because when Bezos bought The Post, I thought it was a way to marry his tech influence with influence through media — something not so different from what Elon Musk did by buying Twitter. That seemed crazy at the time, but it’s probably been more influential for Musk, in some ways, than The Post has been for Bezos.

Now you have to include the Ellisons in this conversation as media influencers alongside tech. I’m not sure who the James Bond villain is in all this, but there is a dystopian quality to it. I hope for the best owners with the best intentions to safeguard our news stories — that was my experience at Fast Company. It’s not at all clear that’s what we’re getting from these mega-owners right now.

MORRIS: Before we move on from Jeff Bezos — Blue Origin. Last year, he sent Katy Perry and a few other celebrities to the edge of the Earth’s atmosphere. I was at a party a few weeks ago and met someone who works as a costume designer in Hollywood. She said she’d worked on the Blue Origin flight. I asked her, “So were you working on the science of space suits?” She said, “No, it was just like any other film costume,” which I found kind of telling.

SAFIAN: Blue Origin is not winning the battle with SpaceX right now. They’re just not. They need all the buzz they can generate. There’s a lot of money floating around and headed to space-related initiatives, so Blue Origin may still be a player in the long run.

MORRIS: One thing we’ve learned: Rich billionaires love space. They love the idea of being the one to go to space.

Copy LinkBob Iger picks his replacement

One last story in media: the changeover at Disney. Bob Iger has finally picked his replacement, Josh D’Amaro, who was running the theme parks and consumer products division. We had seen so many rumors about who could fill this position — even friends of the show, like Brian Chesky at Airbnb, Andrew Wilson at EA, and Jimmy Pitaro at ESPN. Were you surprised by the decision?

SAFIAN: You can’t be surprised that a leader from inside, at that level, would be the choice. Granted, the last time they tried to succeed Iger with someone inside, it didn’t work out the way they wanted. I assume their due diligence was more intense or had different parameters this time.

What I really think about with the Disney changeover is how it reflects the broader trend of CEO changes — the rate going way up this past year. The strains CEOs have dealt with over the last five or six years have been so intense, it’s not surprising that some are saying, “I’m out,” and others are being told, “We need someone newer, younger, fresher, with more energy to take on the craziness in the future.”

There is a new generation of leadership coming across corporate America, and I’m keeping my eye on that because I’m not sure who the Bob Iger of the future will be. Bob Iger is a tremendous leader. Will his successor be that person, or will it be someone else from somewhere else? That’s the parlor game I’m playing with all of this.

MORRIS: So much of the mission of the show has been about cutting through the noise. It’s so hard to know what’s noise versus what’s actually worth paying attention to, which is why I wanted to end on a really quick rapid-fire game with you, if that’s OK.

SAFIAN: OK, great.

Copy LinkNoise or legit trends?

MORRIS: I’m calling it Noise or Legit. I’ll throw out some fun, buzzy stories, and you tell me whether it’s noise or legit — meaning it really is something to pay attention to for the future. OK?

SAFIAN: All right. Great. Let’s do it.

MORRIS: The first one: the viral Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise AI video.

SAFIAN: That was enabled by the Chinese resource Seedance. I think it’s probably noise for now. Hollywood is clamping down on that sort of thing. Guardrails will come in.

What’s legit is the long-term transformation AI will create in content, lowering costs and broadening creator impact. But we’re not there yet. It’s just a scare for now — not legit yet.

MORRIS: All right. Elon Musk merging xAI and SpaceX. Noise or legit?

SAFIAN: Oh, that’s noise — but a lot of noise. I’d call it financial engineering. It’ll impact how other companies act and give Musk more leeway and flexibility, maybe help him hit some enormous personal compensation targets.

But does it make Tesla a better car? Does it make Starlink a better service? Those are what matter long term, and just merging companies doesn’t necessarily do that.

MORRIS: The next one: the vibe coding wave.

SAFIAN: I think vibe coding is totally legit — especially with all the advances in recent months. As you know, Alex, the company behind Rapid Response and Masters of Scale, WaitWhat, recently did a three-day AI sprint. Folks with no technical background were able to create prototypes within days, even hours.

Now, making those prototypes ready for deployment — especially for mission-critical work — still takes a quality human engineer or designer to make it truly effective and distinctive. But the tools are advancing much, much faster. So it’s legit.

MORRIS: Social media on trial.

SAFIAN: Well, I have to say this is noise. I’m not saying the social media companies will always win in court — they may lose — but they have enough money to pay whatever’s needed.

Big picture, I think the social media genie is out of the bottle. It would take more aggressive government-backed action to really change things. There are analogies to cigarette smoking and how courts made businesses more accountable, but this is more nuanced territory. Even cigarette companies are still around. People are still smoking. I wish it wasn’t noise, but I suspect in the long run, it may be.

MORRIS: Next one: the introduction of the GLP-1 pill.

SAFIAN: Here in New York City, there are subway ads everywhere — Ro has Charles Barkley and Serena Williams in ads all over. They’re not about the pill specifically, but GLP-1s are legit. Pills will make them even more legit.

We had New York Times writer Sarah Kliff on the show earlier this year. We talked about the new food pyramid, new vaccine rules, and the MAHA movement. There are all kinds of questions raised about the health effects and new surgeon general guidance, but GLP-1 pills reinforce that science keeps moving forward. That’s the real impact. And you can’t look at Charles Barkley on Inside the NBA and not say, “Wow, these things have an impact.”

MORRIS: All right, and finally: Moltbook — the social network for AI agents. Noise or legit?

SAFIAN: Oh gosh, I love this story because it’s noise. Nick Thompson, CEO of The Atlantic, did a great video debunking why Moltbook wasn’t the event everyone feared. So Moltbook is noise.

What’s legit is Nick’s point, which is that AI is susceptible to hype. Is there going to be a SaaS apocalypse? No. Software as a service isn’t going away. The business may change, but it’s not disappearing. Finding the hype is legit; Moltbook itself is just noise.

MORRIS: Well, Bob, as always, thank you so much for going through all this with me. Happy March, and here’s to another month of the show.

SAFIAN: Thanks, Alex. Always fun — really, always fun.