Techin' Geek

Journalists, entrepreneurs, and even some public relations professionals will tell you that the PR process is broken (buy me a drink sometime, and I’ll give you my rant). But could AI actually make things better?

Honeyjar, which will be attending this week’s TechCrunch Disrupt as part of the Startup Battlefield 200, wants to use AI to make the expertise and judgment of the best PR pros available to everyone, including founders who have no idea where to start.

The startup’s founders, CEO Michelle Masek and Chief Communications Officer Nadia Jamshidi, certainly fit the bill when it comes to PR expertise. They’ve both spent decades in the field, doing in-house communications and working at agencies. Masek recently served as senior vice president of marketing and communications for Ev Williams’ venture firm, Obvious Ventures.

As Masek described the challenges involved in “helping with the why and when of comms and marketing for 110 portfolio companies” (the startups her firm had invested in), I flashed back to my own brief stint leading marketing at an early-stage VC firm, where founders were constantly asking for help getting into TechCrunch. So I wasn’t surprised that Masek found herself asking, “Is there a way to scale the senior-level expertise into AI [in a way] that actually helps users do the work of comms in the proactive and skilled way that we do?”

Honeyjar is her answer to that question. It automates processes like writing announcements, finding the best journalists to pitch, and identifying the most promising speaking opportunities. But Jamshidi told me in a follow-up email that Honeyjar’s vision goes beyond getting press coverage and beyond specific AI tools.

“Honeyjar can find reporters, build media lists, scan news and social, track coverage, and surface opportunities,” she said. “Those capabilities are important, but they’re just one piece of what we’re building. The bigger idea is bringing the whole communications workflow together: signals, context, strategy, judgment, timing, and execution.”

And it’s not just for founders. Masek said she’s come to realize there are “millions and millions of unassigned communicators responsible for the work of comms.”

“They don’t have the title of comms, but they’re marketers, investors, authors, creators, school superintendents, sports team leaders,” she added. “It’s incredibly horizontal, this need to nail strategic communications. It’s always passed around, but the problems are very often not solved.”

Nor is Honeyjar trying to replace PR professionals. Masek said she and Jamshidi built the tool they wanted to use themselves. She argued that Honeyjar can make PR firms and in-house comms teams more effective, while allowing individual PR practitioners to “take on that third client without any scaling cost.”

When Honeyjar opened its waitlist, it received 10,000 signups in the first 24 hours, said Masek. Beta testers include Nextdoor, tech startup Coco Robotics, investor Bloomberg Beta, and agencies Mission North and Full Picture.

That sounds promising for companies looking to get more attention, but it could be a nightmare for journalists. We receive more pitches than we can respond to, many of them already written by AI chatbots.

When I raised my fears about getting inundated with even more PR slop, Masek noted that while Honeyjar can draft a pitch email or a social media post in the customer’s voice, the customer actually has to hit send or publish.

“We never want a world where the human is removed from the loop,” she said.

And that’s also where judgment is key. Masek said she and Jamshidi tried to “infuse and encode Honeyjar with our wisdom.” Through a broader initiative called the Comms Lab, they’re now training the product on the judgment of other PR pros as well.

“For us, judgment is knowing what to do, what not to do, when to act, and how to adapt to the situation,” Jamshidi added. “That comes from understanding a company’s goals and priorities, what’s happening inside and outside the organization, and knowing what to say, to whom, where, and when.”

In some cases, Masek said Honeyjar might even tell a founder that they’re simply not ready for coverage.

“We hear from reporters all the time who want better pitches, who want to hear from experts directly,” she said. “We actually see a future where there are more credible pitches in your inbox from sources who you actually want to hear from.”

Microsoft President Brad Smith is calling for urgent regulation of AI, and his argument is that consumer products like milk and washing machines have more oversight than the companies building artificial intelligence.

On a recent BBC podcast, Smith called AI both a “weapon and a tool” that is putting the world’s cybersecurity at risk, and said the “moment has arrived” to institute global safety rules.

Smith also said the U.K., and not the U.S. or European Union, is best placed to lead on global safety rules. Britain’s AI Security Institute, launched in 2023, receives access to major models from U.S. frontier labs before they are deployed and has quickly become a leader in AI safety testing. 

That role has been under threat in recent weeks, with U.S. President Donald Trump warning against “globalist” organizations, which he claims are interfering with American companies. Last month, he reportedly asked Anthropic and OpenAI to withhold new models from British testers, but AISI confirmed on Monday that it is able to access and test the latest models. 

Despite the president’s pushback, however, Smith argued the U.K. can regulate AI in ways that the U.S. cannot. 

“In Washington, D.C., people don’t look at the U.K. and they don’t look at London the way they look at Brussels,” he told the BBC. “That’s a strength.”

His comments come amid rallying cries from tech leaders, including Anthropic’s Dario Amodei and OpenAI’s Sam Altman, to slow the pace of AI development in the wake of several incidents where AI agents went rogue.

Last month, Trump hosted tech leaders of companies including OpenAI, Anthropic, Nvidia, AMD, SpaceX, Meta and Google at the White House to discuss AI safety. They signed a “morally binding” document in which they agreed to work with “independent auditors” to assess the safety and capabilities of their AI models. 

Smith says the document is a “good step,” but it stops short of the type of regulation that is necessary. The problem with voluntary self-regulation, he said, is that the “good companies” will comply. 

“It’s the companies that are not as responsible that you need to worry about,” he said.

Smith outlined several AI safety rules he’d like to see put into place, like a legal obligation to alert an organization if its system was breached by rogue AI agents. He also appears to be in favor of AI labs getting the approval of outside evaluators before an AI product is released, and spoke positively about kill-switches to pause or slow down AI if humans lose control of it. 

“Let’s speak calmly, maybe even softly, but firmly, and start to bring people together,” Smith said. “I hope that’s the role we can play as a company. I hope that’s the role the U.K. can play as a country.”

TechCrunch Disrupt 2026 is built around one question: How do you build an enduring company in the AI era? Our programming and speaker lineup reflect that, based on the feedback we’ve gotten from the community and the reality on the ground. And everything kicks off in just a few days, act now before your chance to save $100 on your pass comes to an end.

Last year at Disrupt, we spoke with founders about their experiences and discovered the results of their attendance firsthand. One founder saw a 3x oversubscription rate after their confirmation for Startup Battlefield and more than 100 investor inbounds helping fuel conversations about a future fundraising round. Another founder had nearly 30 back-to-back conversations with investors who flocked to them after a pitch onstage and followed them to their booth.

That’s not the exception at Disrupt — that’s the point. And those opportunities aren’t just available for Battlefield finalists. Every conversation in the Expo Hall or in a Side Event can create an opportunity for your startup. For years, whether it’s been held in New York, San Francisco, or elsewhere, Disrupt has brought together thousands of founders, investors, startup team members, and tech leaders.  

We’re keeping that mission alive at SF’s Moscone West, this October 13-15 with a packed lineup of speakers, more than 200 expert sessions, a wealth of organized and serendipitous networking opportunities, and most of all, the chance to be in the same room as the person who could change your nascent idea for a company or your current startup’s trajectory.

This guide is for the founders out there who are just learning about Disrupt, who need a refresher, or are skeptical of whether it’s worth it. TechCrunch has been around for more than 20 years; we can take it. And before you dive in, we have two discounts that run up until Disrupt begins you should be know about. Founders can bring a team member along for 50% off their ticket by following this link, or you can help laid off members of your network find their next opportunity at Disrupt with our steep discount of Expo+ passes.

The reality of what makes Disrupt, Disrupt 

If you’re asking Claude or ChatGPT if TechCrunch Disrupt is worth it, you’re not alone. The reality is that Disrupt is a unique event, and it’s happening at a unique time for the startup community.

This year’s Disrupt isn’t about predicting the future of AI; it’s about building companies in it. Across six editorially curated stages, founders will hear practical lessons from the CEOs, investors, engineers, and operators shaping the next decade of technology.  

Whether you’re raising your first round, scaling your team, or deciding how AI changes your product, every session is designed to answer one question: “What can I take back to my company on Monday morning?”

The founders Disrupt empowers 

Disrupt works a bit differently, depending on where you are in your founding journey, with different tracks you can follow to make the most of the three days:

Pre-seed and idea stages 

You’re here to pressure-test your thesis, meet your first angel or pre-seed investors, and figure out who else is building in your space. Prioritize the Builders Stage, the Startup Battlefield semifinalist pitches, and the Expo Hall, along with roundtables tied to your industry and conversations you’ll want to learn more from.

Early revenue or actively raising 

You’re here for capital and validation above all else, and your time is valuable. Prioritize our investor-matchmaking tools and the connections that come with your Founder Pass, including the networking tools in our app. You also get access to the Deal Flow Café, where we foster one-on-one conversations between founders and investors.  

And when your schedule isn’t packed with dealmaking, learn from VC perspectives and fundraising-focused sessions at the Builders Stage.

Scaling, hiring, in search of partnerships 

You’re here in search of talent, strategic partners, and market visibility. Those same networking tools and opportunities can help you meet potential hires and partners and deepen those connections or make new ones. Disrupt’s Side Events aren’t to be missed — there’s one for every industry, interest, or post-event vibe you could be looking to find.

Startup Battlefield: The most iconic pitch competition 

The Startup Battlefield winner’s reveal packs the Disrupt stage and is each year’s capstone event. But it’s the lead-up to that $100,000 check and the deluge of attention the winner receives that’s the most valuable for founders attending Disrupt.

The 200 startups chosen on August 20 to compete go through a rigorous prep process and get the opportunity to pitch onstage in front of top-tier VCs and the Disrupt crowds. You’ll also get to watch those pitches, take notes, learn from the peaks and valleys, and potentially meet the teams behind the ideas and innovations. It could be in a follow-up meeting or just walking through the halls of Moscone.  

And if that all leaves you inspired, here’s an insider tip: Most Battlefield participants, and several winners, have gone through the process multiple times. We’re no longer taking applications for 2026’s competition, but we’re expanding the program to more international markets, and the 2027 process will be similar to this year’s, so take note for the future!

[embedded content]

The founder-focused programming 

Disrupt 2026 spans several stages, each built around a different founder need:

• Disrupt Stage: The biggest conversations in technology, featuring the founders, CEOs, and industry leaders defining what’s next. These are the conversations you’ll be talking about long after Disrupt ends.
• Builders Stage: The tactical playbook for building a startup. From fundraising and hiring to GTM, product, and scaling, every session is designed to give founders practical advice they can put to work immediately.
• AI Stage: AI isn’t the future — it’s the present. Learn how the fastest-growing startups are building, deploying, and monetizing AI, with practical lessons on agents, models, infrastructure, and what it takes to win in the AI era.
• Real World AI Stage: AI is moving beyond the screen and into the physical world. Explore how robotics, autonomous systems, manufacturing, healthcare, and defense are turning AI breakthroughs into real-world products and businesses.
• Smart Money Stage: Follow the money. From fintech and stablecoins to payments, embedded finance, and AI-driven financial services, this stage explores how technology is reshaping the movement of capital.
• Smart Systems Stage: Every AI breakthrough depends on the infrastructure behind it. Discover the innovations in chips, compute, energy, networking, and data centers that will determine the next generation of technology companies.

Conversations you can only get at Disrupt 

• RJ Scaringe (Rivian): Building a generational company. 

• Panos Panay (Amazon): Designing products people love. 

• Paolo Ardoino (Tether): Money, AI, and infrastructure. 

• Toni Schneider and Rose Wang (Bluesky): Can social start over? 

• Amjad Masad (Replit): Every founder becomes technical. 

• Andrew Feldman (Cerebras): Winning the AI compute race. 

And that’s just the beginning — we’ll have more speakers to announce as we get closer to Disrupt. Check out the full lineup of speakers across all stages and events here.

How to get the most bang for your buck at Disrupt 

Disrupt’s prices increase as we get closer to the event, but we have a couple of promotions for Founders looking to save. You can save 50% on a second ticket by following the link here, and bring a coworker or co-founder along for the ride.  

If there are colleagues in your network who have been impacted by layoffs who you’d like to have join up, we have an option for them as well, with a special $75 Expo+ Pass available at a limited volume for those impacted by cutbacks this year.

Your time at Disrupt is valuable, too, so before you head there, check on our regularly updated schedule of speakers and Side Events, get ahead of competitors’ schedules by booking your networking opportunities in advance, and get your own elevator pitches in order to make the most of those magical Disrupt moments that can come at any point October 13-15!

Earlier this year, the streaming and entertainment industry witnessed one of its most high-stakes megadeals ever, stunning industry observers. Not only is it historic in its size, but it is also predicted to disrupt Hollywood and the media business as we know it. 

After years of Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) struggling under the weight of billions of dollars in debt, compounded by declining cable viewership and fierce competition from streaming platforms, the company has been considering major strategic changes, including selling its entertainment assets to one of its rivals.

Several major players saw the potential in acquiring the media giant, and in December, Netflix announced it would acquire WBD’s studios and streaming for $82.7 billion.

But in a surprise eleventh-hour move in late February, the David Ellison-run Paramount became the winner of this bidding war, offering $111 billion to acquire all of WBD’s assets, including its studios, HBO, streaming platforms, games, and TV networks such as CNN and HGTV. Paramount was recently acquired by Ellison with significant support from his father, Larry Ellison — the Oracle chairman, world’s sixth-richest person, and major Trump donor.

Paramount’s offer was approved by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in June. A federal judge then paused the deal after a lawsuit was filed on July 13 by a coalition of 12 state attorneys general. However, a judge approved it in late September, with the acquisition finally official as of October 6.

Let’s break down exactly what happened and what could come next. 

What has happened so far?

​This all started back in October 2025 when Warner Bros. Discovery revealed it was exploring a potential sale after receiving unsolicited interest from several major players in the industry.

​The bidding process quickly became competitive, and Paramount and Comcast emerged as serious contenders, with Paramount initially viewed as the frontrunner. 

However, WBD’s board eventually determined that an offer from the streaming giant Netflix was the most attractive. Netflix offered $82.7 billion for just Warner’s film, television, and streaming assets.

Thus began the bidding war. Paramount believed its bid of approximately $108 billion for all of Warner’s assets was superior to Netflix’s offer that focused on just the studios and streaming. To sweeten its deal, Netflix amended its agreement in January to an all-cash offer at $27.75 per share of Warner Bros. Discovery, further reassuring investors and paving the way for the deal to proceed.

​Paramount persisted in its attempts to acquire WBD. Still, the Warner board repeatedly rejected its offers, citing concerns about Paramount’s heavy debt load and the increased risk associated with its proposal, including concern over the suite of investors bankrolling Paramount’s bid, which includes Saudi, Qatari, and Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth funds. The board noted that Paramount’s offer would have left the combined company burdened with $87 billion in debt, a risk they were unwilling to take at the time.

In January, Paramount filed a lawsuit seeking more information about the Netflix deal. A month later, the company sought to sweeten its deal by announcing it would offer a $0.25 per share “ticking fee” to WBD shareholders for each quarter the deal fails to close by December 31, 2026. It also said it would pay the $2.8 billion breakup fee if Warner backs out of its deal with Netflix.

Then, in a final attempt to secure a deal, Paramount increased its offer to $31 per share in February. This prompted the WBD board to prolong discussions with Paramount regarding a potential agreement, considering it as a superior offer. Netflix declined to increase its bid and withdrew from the negotiations.

“The transaction we negotiated would have created shareholder value with a clear path to regulatory approval,” Netflix co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters said in a statement on February 26. “However, we’ve always been disciplined, and at the price required to match Paramount Skydance’s latest offer, the deal is no longer financially attractive, so we are declining to match the Paramount Skydance bid.”

In addition to the billions Paramount already holds in debt, the company is also set to assume the approximately $33 billion in debt Warner Bros. Discovery holds under the agreement. The deal will be backed by a $54 billion debt commitment from Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Citi, and Apollo Global Management, as well as $45.7 billion in equity from Larry Ellison.

Regulatory hurdles and other concerns

In addition to the assumption of substantial debt posing a significant financial burden, Paramount faced several other hurdles in its deal with WBD. 

For one, Ellison has warned about significant job reductions that are expected in the near future. There have already been widespread concerns among critics about potential job losses and lower wages.

Ellison is also a controversial figure in the industry, and his ownership of CBS News has been seen as sympathetic and supportive of the administration of Donald Trump, of whom his father, Larry Ellison, is a major donor. Under Ellison’s ownership of Paramount, reporting critical of the administration has been shelved or received increased scrutiny from Ellison or his appointed head of CBS News, the conservative provocateur Bari Weiss.

This has led to some concern among employees at Warner-owned CNN. Trump has personally sought concessions from news divisions critical of him, including a $16 million settlement from CBS, before his FCC would approve the Ellison takeover of Paramount. Before Netflix bowed out of the deal, Trump pressured the company to fire the former Biden White House official Susan Rice from its board. He has publicly stated his intentions to bring CNN to heel under new owners.

Regulatory scrutiny was another hurdle. Such a large-scale merger attracted attention from lawmakers.

For instance, California attorney general Rob Bonta said in a statement on February 26 that “these two Hollywood titans have not cleared regulatory scrutiny — the California Department of Justice has an open investigation, and we intend to be vigorous in our review.”

A day before Netflix backed out, a coalition of 11 state attorneys general urged the U.S. Department of Justice to review the merger under concerns it will stifle competition and increase subscription prices. This comes months after U.S. senators Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Richard Blumenthal voiced their concerns to the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, warning that such a massive merger could have serious consequences for consumers and the industry at large. The senators argue that the merger could give the new media giant excessive market power, enabling it to raise prices for consumers and stifle competition.

Despite the DOJ approving the deal in June, a coalition of 12 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit on July 13 to block the merger. The suit argues it would lessen competition and harm movie theaters, cable distributors, and viewers. The coalition is led by Bonta, with Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington also joining. 

In response, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín issued a 14-day pause.

What now?

As of October 6, Paramount and Warner Bros. has officially been renamed Skydance, and the new combined corporation will have annual revenue of almost $70 billion.

In terms of its streaming services— Paramount+, HBO Max, and Discovery+,— those are all set to be combined eventually.

For a writer, the mechanical keyboard is a beautiful thing. They’re certainly not necessary for everyone, but a well designed mechanical keyboard can turn a tedious day of typing into an aesthetically pleasing experience.

Given that most of my days involve sitting at a desk for hours, having a keyboard that I enjoy using is a necessity. I first got a mechanical keyboard about two years ago — the Keychron K2 — and I’ve never looked back.

Keychron is one of the most prominent brands within the mechanical keyboard industry, having made a name for itself after initially launching via Kickstarter back in 2017. The company has since produced dozens of different keyboards (as well as keypads), and a variety of mouse models.

Unlike other electronics, there isn’t a whole lot to owning a mechanical keyboard. The simplicity is part of the appeal. You unbox them, set them up (the K2 comes with little tilt legs that give you a slightly better angle from which to type), and plug them in.

From here, you have a couple of different options. The K2 comes with a simple USB cable, but there’s also an option for Bluetooth connection. If you value a clean, minimalist workspace, Bluetooth is probably the way to go.

While I am loyal to my older Keychron K2, there are a few upgraded and newer versions to consider. Keychron has released a variety of new models over the past two years, with a broad range of features and price tags.

In many cases, the form factor is the draw. One of the more interesting releases, called the Keychron K8 HE Wireless Magnetic Switch Custom Keyboard, comes with an all-wood body and is equipped with an LED backlight. That one is substantially more expensive at around $200. The K2, meanwhile, costs $60. But if you’re into the look, maybe it’s worth it.

If you’re a gamer, there’s also Keychron’s C0 HE One-Handed 8K Keyboard, which is a keypad built for convenience and speed and has an industrial aesthetic to it. However, interested gamers will have to wait — as it’s currently sold out.

The company has also updated its K, Q, and V series keyboards, with many of those ranging in price from $100 to $200 depending on the features and model.

One of the appealing elements of owning a mechanical keyboards is the versatility. You can swap out the key caps for a wide variety of others (indeed, there’s a whole sub-market devoted to this) or make your own custom caps (I’ve never gone that overboard).

There is also the sound, of course. Some people balk at the accentuated noise of loudly clacking keys, but I’m a fan. In fact, the sound is one of the key selling points for a lot of consumers. The distinct auditory experience produced by said keyboards has even made its way into ASMR videos.

For me, the Keychron’s biggest selling point is its retro form factor. I get really nostalgic for old school electronics, and Keychron scratches this itch pretty well. It’s a beautiful looking device, that brings to mind a different era of computing, when the style was more workman-like, less minimalist.

As far as home office purchases go, you could do a lot worse than to pick yourself up a piece of hardware that makes your desk look like it just time-traveled from the 1990s.

If there’s any doubt about how seriously Meta is taking AI, here’s a new signal: The company on Wednesday announced that its Muse assistant is now available in a dedicated iPad app. That’s a milestone it took Instagram some 15 years to reach, despite constant user demand.

Muse, meanwhile, hit the iPad just a month after launching on iPhone.

(To be fair, it may not be as difficult to bring something like Muse to iPad, given its text-heavy interface, where image and video resolution and formatting matter less.)

Since launching on iOS and Android on September 8, Muse has topped 6.6 million installs, according to estimates from market intelligence firm Sensor Tower. The app, which is now one of dozens of consumer-facing AI agents, lets users connect their accounts to stay on top of email, meetings, bills, and more, and to complete tasks like booking reservations, ordering groceries, setting goals, and making purchases.

To make that work, Meta has been adding partners in the effort, which appear in Muse as “connectors.” Users can add and sign in to them selectively, depending on which parts of their online life they’re comfortable letting an AI agent handle.

With the iPad release, Meta has updated this list with several of its newer additions, including connectors aimed at small businesses, like Asana, Canva, Dropbox, Figma, QuickBooks, GitHub, Klaviyo, and Zoom, as well as connectors for Meta ad accounts. It also added Notion and Granola.

In addition, Meta recently announced more retail partners, like Best Buy, Gap, Sephora, Walmart, and Wayfair. These allow the agent to shop those retailers’ sites and complete transactions on users’ behalf. Because this technology is still new, these experiences can still run into issues as websites mistake agents for bots and block their access.

On Tuesday, Meta announced that it’s working with industry partners on a technological solution to this problem in the form of an open standard that would allow personal AI agents to identify themselves to businesses. That would help businesses sort the good bots from the bad.

A now-former officer with the Central Intelligence Agency has pleaded guilty to stealing almost $200 million, including hundreds of gold bars, as part of a fraudulent scheme masquerading as a top secret government program.

The U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday confirmed that David J. Rush, a Virginia resident, admitted to one count of wire fraud linked to running the fabricated operation and defrauding the government while he was a CIA officer. In a statement, prosecutors said that Rush lied about his education and military experience to gain a position at the CIA, and used his access as an employee to set up the top secret and highly compartmentalized program with the intention of using it to funnel U.S. government funds into his possession.

During his arrest, law enforcement found more than $46 million worth of gold bars in Rush’s house linked to the long-running fraud scheme, along with cars, watches, and over $2 million in cash.

The plea deal means that Rush escapes trial, as much as the U.S. government likely avoids having to explain in open court how Rush evaded vetting scrutiny to join the U.S. intelligence agency, and how actions went undetected for more than a year.

Rush was until recently a senior CIA officer, who according to earlier reports worked for a division of the CIA since 2010 that develops hacking tools and techniques for carrying out espionage. Per court filings, Rush had significant authority over government intelligence programs and spending.

Over the course of 2025, Rush used his position to fabricate a so-called special access program, which are surveillance or intelligence-gathering operations so sensitive that only a few people are read into them. Special access programs, or SAPs, require special clearance that not even the most cleared individuals in government are granted access to. According to The Washington Post, Rush constructed the compartmentalized program under the guise of a fake “continuity of government” plan, aimed at keeping the government functioning in the event of a war, natural disaster, or some other destructive catastrophe. As part of the scheme, Rush used the program and fake government contract to trick an unnamed defense contractor into buying large amounts of gold that Rush then pocketed.

According to The Post, the case astounded officials as Rush’s duties at the CIA involved work with one of the government’s “most sensitive intelligence-gathering programs,” with details so sensitive that only a few senior U.S. intelligence officials and lawmakers know of its existence. The Post withheld details of that program from publication as its disclosure could “jeopardize ongoing intelligence-gathering operations.”

Court filings said that by virtue of his position, Rush “effectively acted as his own approving official, enabling him to expend substantial amounts of United States government money without meaningful scrutiny.”

Rush is scheduled to be sentenced in late January 2027 and faces up to 20 years in prison.

When self-taught coder Sigil Wen was 17, he moved to Silicon Valley and lived in an AI hacker house with famed AI researcher Andrej Karpathy.

While there, he hacked and coded alongside other people who would become the biggest names in AI, like Perplexity founder Aravind Srinivas and OpenAI researcher Noam Brown. He tested early versions of AI tools that would later become well known, including a chatbot shared by Anthropic co-founder Ben Mann that would become Claude, an image generator from David Holz that would become Midjourney, and what would become OpenAI’s GPT-3 and the image generator Stable Diffusion. Prominent investor and entrepreneur Naval Ravikant hired him for Airchat, Ravikant’s now-defunct rival to the Clubhouse social network.

For fun, he figured out how to get GPT-2 running on his Apple Watch. “It was a magical time,” Wen told TechCrunch.

Now a Thiel Fellow — the program from investor Peter Thiel that invites young founders to pursue projects instead of college — Wen on Monday launched an invite-only beta of Underdog, one of the most private AI assistants Silicon Valley has yet to offer. The model runs wholly on-device, meaning the user’s data remains on devices they already own, currently Macs and Windows PCs, with Linux, iPhone, and Android versions coming soon.

Underdog is powered by Husky, the inference engine Wen built to run AI models quickly on a user’s own hardware. Wen says it moves less data between a computer’s main chip and its graphics chip than rival on-device engines.

Underdog has other security features baked in, too, like encrypting the keys to the email and other accounts that users authorize Underdog to access.

Underdog is, however, using much smaller models than today’s state-of-the-art ones hosted in data centers. It currently uses a 27-billion parameter reasoning model fine-tuned from Qwen3.8-27B.

Wen argues that this model compares favorably with Claude Opus 4.6 in some benchmarks, or what was considered top performance six months ago. He says that means it can handle the everyday tasks that people want an AI assistant to do, like shopping research or answering math homework questions.

“You don’t need to sacrifice your privacy for the capability because they’re just as capable,” Wen says. He adds that small on-device models will continue to grow more capable over time.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about Underdog is its early business model. The app will be free at first and never ad-supported. Since the AI runs on users’ machines, Underdog doesn’t have the giant overhead of paying a provider for inference. “I don’t have to charge you a subscription to run this because my costs are so super low,” he said.

Instead, with Stripe co-founder Patrick Collison as one of his angel investors, he’s borrowing a play from the fintech era. Underdog will take a tiny percentage of payment transactions that the AI assistant makes using Stripe’s secure payment rails, something like an interchange fee. In this way, the AI assistant never has to mine your data. It is as aligned with you as your bank or credit card providers.

This runs contrary to the business motivations of many of the other players in AI assistants, whose privacy policies allow them to collect data on users that they may sell to advertisers or other third parties, or use to train other models.

That kind of data collection could be a particularly treacherous trade-off for users of an AI assistant, which may need access to the most intimate details about you in order to be useful, from medical conditions to financial data to data on your kids.

As Wen wrote in what he calls his AI manifesto, “Why should using AI require surrendering your private information?”

He tells TechCrunch: “I honestly want to build Underdog for myself. I’m building a product that I would be proud for my future children to use.”

The startup behind Underdog is named Conway Research, and Collison isn’t its only big-name investor. Conway is backed by Andreessen Horowitz via partner Chris Dixon, as well as Khosla Ventures, Hummingbird, SV Angel, the Anthology Fund (the partnership fund between Menlo Ventures and Anthropic), and a prominent list of angel investors that includes Vercel founder Guillermo Rauch, Noam Brown, and Deedy Das, among others.