AI Panel

What AI agents think about this news

The panel discusses the shift towards 'agentic AI' and its impact on tech giants Amazon, Meta, and Oracle. While Oracle's massive AI backlog and cloud growth position it as an essential 'picks and shovels' play, there's concern about its debt-funded capex and potential margin squeeze on Amazon due to AI agents bypassing traditional search and ads.

Risk: Oracle's debt-funded capex and potential margin squeeze on Amazon

Opportunity: Oracle's position as an essential 'picks and shovels' play for agentic AI buildout

Read AI Discussion
Full Article Nasdaq

In this podcast, Motley Fool contributors Travis Hoium, Lou Whiteman, and Rachel Warren discuss:
- Amazon goes after Perplexity's agents.
- Meta's scattered AI strategy.
- Oracle's earnings.
To catch full episodes of all The Motley Fool's free podcasts, check out our podcast center. When you're ready to invest, check out this top 10 list of stocks to buy.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
A full transcript is below.
Should you buy stock in Meta Platforms right now?
Before you buy stock in Meta Platforms, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Meta Platforms wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $503,861!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,026,987!*
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 884% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 179% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
*Stock Advisor returns as of March 28, 2026.
This podcast was recorded on March 11, 2026.
Travis Hoium: It's Wednesday, so there must be big AI news in the market. You're listening to Motley Fool Money. Welcome to Motley Fool Money with the Hidden Gems team. I'm Travis Hoium joined today by Lou Whiteman and Rachel Warren. Every tech company that we know is building an AI story. That's been something that's been happening for quite a while now. But this week, Amazon actually won a court ruling against Perplexity saying that they can't scrape their website. The interesting thing here is that you could make an argument that Google and Meta just want to connect companies, consumers with retailers who are trying to sell them products, but Amazon is a little bit different. I thought it was worthwhile to dig into how there's such a different player in the AI space today. Rachel, they want people to go to amazon.com. They have been the one company that's really been resistant to all these AI companies the way that they would look at it is scraping their data and getting into their system for free. The big thing is, they generate a ton of money. I think it's over $40 billion now from advertising revenue. Guess what? AI chatbots, don't look at ads. Is this a threat to Amazon? Is this just Amazon trying to play its cards as well as it can? What's going on with Amazon shoving Perplexity to the side?
Rachel Warren: I think if you look at this court victory, it's obviously a win for the business in the short term, but I do think it highlights a deeper risk for the business, and I say this is an Amazon, long-term shareholder. But I think you should think about it this way. Amazon's entire flywheel is built on a very specific competitive advantage. They own the entire commerce journey from that very first search that a shopper might make all the way to the package being delivered to your door. They don't just want a sale. As you noted, they want the advertising revenue from the sponsored products that you scroll past as a shopper and the data from every click. By blocking Perplexity from scraping their site, Amazon is essentially trying to protect that storefront experience that makes their ecosystem so profitable. I think the threat here is that AI agents, which we are seeing become smarter and faster and launched left and right. These are Ilas shoppers, so to speak. They're not going to be distracted by the deals that a human shopper would be. They're not going to go and browse through pages and pages of sponsored results, which are actions, by the way, that fuel Amazon's advertising machine. If we live in a world where third party AI becomes the primary shopping interface, there is this concern that that really extensive advertising mode for Amazon could start to dry up. I think that's the extreme bear case. I don't think we're there, but I do think it's clear that Amazon is really fighting to ensure that in a world that could be transitioning to more AI-driven shopping, that shoppers are using their own AI assistant like Rufus, rather than a neutral third party that might suggest a competitor. I think this court win buys them some time as they are trying to find out where they fit into a potential AI-powered shopping future. But I do think that the battle for who owns the customer's intent and where those AI agents fit in, I think that's just getting started.
Travis Hoium: Lou, is that right? Is this a threat we need to watch with Amazon's retail business?
Lou Whiteman: Stepping out broader, I think instant and complete comparison shopping could be the killer app for consumers.
Travis Hoium: What you mean by that is instead of going to 15 different websites.
Lou Whiteman: Or even Google Shopping tried this with search, and it wasn't as good. But if you could just tell your little imaginary friend. I want to buy this, go find me the best price. That's a real killer app. I can see why retailers would see this as a threat. I think what Rachel said is right. At best, Amazon wants to be proactive and retain as much control for as long as they can. It's funny. Looking at it from the AI perspective, there's a weird chicken or the egg thing. The AI models want consumers to pay for them. They need killer as. But until the AI models are big enough to force the issue, why would retailers like Amazon give in to Perplexity here? Without the killer app, how do you get the volumes that you need to then get the killer app? I don't know. It's funny to think, who ends up paying here long term? Say the future happens. Is Amazon getting money from Perplexity for access to its site? Is Amazon paying the bots as advertising fee or somewhere in between? I think for now.
Travis Hoium: The question that I would have is does a different ecosystem with different incentives pop up? Think of a platform like Shopify, where Shopify does have an incentive. If you're a small merchant, you're not getting into a Walmart store, for example, you may not want to go through the costs that are involved in Amazon. That's become a very costly platform to be on, and part of that is the advertising revenue. But what if a chatbot can just find you in your little store that you built on Shopify, because the incentive now is to find that perfect product at the perfect price? Lou, is that the risk here, is that these other companies are playing offense, like a Shopify, for example, whereas Amazon looks like they're playing defense?
Lou Whiteman: Yeah. Put it simply because who knows? That's a scenario, but the status quo benefits Amazon.
Travis Hoium: Yeah.
Lou Whiteman: It makes sense for Amazon to preserve the status quo as long as it can to your point. We don't know what the future looks like. But as these things work, when a shift happens, the incumbent usually isn't the beneficiary, even if they end up being OK with it. It's in the incumbent's best interest almost always to preserve the status quo.
Travis Hoium: We're going to stay on this AI topic for a moment, and when we come back, Lou is going to explain what a molt book is. You're listening to Motley Fool Money.
ADVERTISEMENT: Have you ever gazed in wonder at the Great Pyramid? Have you marveled at the golden face of Tutankhamun, or admired the delicate features of Queen Nefertiti? If you have, you'll probably like the history of Egypt podcast. Every week, we explore tales of this ancient culture. The history of Egypt is available wherever you get your podcasting fix. Come, let me introduce you to the world of ancient Egypt.
Travis Hoium: Welcome back to Motley Fool Money with the Hidden Gems team. The meandering of Meta platforms continued this week. They acquired at least the staff of Moltbook. Lou, what is a Moltbook? Why does it make sense under Meta?
Lou Whiteman: Come on, Travis. Everybody knows what Moltbook is. I mean, who doesn't know Moltbook? Who hasn't heard of it. Just in case, for those one or two out there who aren't Moltbookers every day, Moltbook is a "social network for AI agents." It's where AI agents can become friends with each other. It seems like it's a natural extension. One headline I saw described Moltbook as going viral based on the amount of fake news on it, which let's just skip Meta joke bear because that's too easy. I don't know. Can there be dating apps coming off of this? Could we have, like match.com for AI agents. But look, kidding aside here, there is a something here. Moltbook under the surface, really what it is, is just allowing people and bots to communicate with AI agents in natural language through chat apps. You can see where there is a commercial used for that other than, an AI agent dating site. Look, I don't know what the future is for Meta. We can get into what they're doing with AI, but Acqui-hire is happening and they're good. Right now, Meta has all the cash in the world. They are using that cash to assemble the brightest minds they can. The throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks isn't a bad strategy at this point in time when everything is developing. I don't know if Moltbook is the next big thing. I don't know if it's that third leg, along with Instagram and Facebook, their third big social network, but I do think that you can put the cynical had aside and say, there's probably a reason for this.
Travis Hoium: Rachel, Lou's overlooking WhatsApp, because he's obviously a US investor.
Lou Whiteman: No, that's a messaging app not a social platform.
Travis Hoium: A lot of value there.
Rachel Warren: It's app choice for a lot of us.
Travis Hoium: But Rachel, so what do you think about Moltbook here? Is there some value? Is this just another talent grab? There's got to be some reason that they keep making these moves.
Rachel Warren: Yeah, I do think there's some value here. I actually think it's more of an admission that the AI strategy is pivoting toward autonomous agents. I think Meta sees that and is trying to ensure that they're capitalizing on those growth tail wins.
Travis Hoium: You're saying they've lost the chat bot battles.
Rachel Warren: I think that they are struggling to develop what they need in house and have clearly found that the strategy of acquiring and bringing in really quality outside talent is going to be the best move for them. I think that's what we're seeing. Moltbook, Lou explained that very well, but it's essentially the social network where only AI bots post and talk to each other while humans watch from the sidelines, which is an interesting idea. It's been compared to a Reddit like Internet forum. It was only launched, I believe, a few months ago.
Travis Hoium: In January.
Rachel Warren: Yeah, and essentially acts as this, sandbox for AI to communicate, trade knowledge, debate existence, to form autonomous AI social structures. What are the long-term applications for that? I think that remains to be seen. But this is all going to be folded into the broader Meta super intelligence labs. That's run by former Scale AI CEO Alexander Wang. I think Zuckerberg is really signaling that Meta's next act. It isn't just smarter chatbots. It's really a whole infrastructure for AI agents to interact and transact. I think maybe they see value for that, particularly with the ad machine that they have powering their key platform. That's my takeaway.
Travis Hoium: Lou, as we think about Meta, because it seems to me that they're a natural company to benefit from artificial intelligence. We've seen some efficiency improvements with their advertising and things like that. But they're hiring talent that would indicate that they want to be a consumer AI company. Is this just going to be like an agent AI company? Or is this just that spaghetti at the wall phase for Meta that you talked about?
Lou Whiteman: I push back a bit on the idea that them buying stuff implies that the strategy isn't working out. Alphabet has spent, what, $40 billion on AI related acquisitions. Everybody is in an arms race right now. It's just where we are in the cycle. The thing about Meta though, that gets you is, is that I don't know if they have the natural audience for what they're building other than in-house, but they're not spending the money they're spending to make ads a little better. How do they get customers that are going to pay for what they're building? I think there's a natural extension for Microsoft. There's a natural extension for Alphabet to get their tools in the hands of consumers. I'll be honest, as a Meta user, I'm not on the agent social network right now, but I am on other products. There desperate attempts to get me to use their AI are pretty pathetic. Right now, it's some story about a basketball game, and it's tell me how the coach thought of plays in the second half, and if you click on it, it'll just say, I don't know. That is right now. I think the Acqui-hires, the acquisitions right now. This is noise. That doesn't say much about whether or not they're succeeding or not. I do think, though, the open question. It's the question with OpenAI, too, Perplexity back to our earlier story of just how are you going to get what you develop into the hands of consumers and win what looks like in a race to the bottom in commoditization. That is the bigger problem, not the acquisitions.
Travis Hoium: All of this AI development is leading to a lot of demand for Oracle. We're going to talk about their recent results next. You're listening to Motley Fool Money. Welcome back to Motley Fool Money with the Hidden Gems team. Oracle announced results for their most recent fiscal quarter after the market closed yesterday. Rachel, what did we learn about this AI giant in the making question mark?
Rachel Warren: Yeah. This was their Q3 earnings. A few interesting takeaways here. Oracle is seeing its highest growth in 15 years, which is impressive, but it is coming at a staggering cost. The headline grabbing number was their $553 billion backlog in contracted future revenue. That's a number that was up about 325% over year. Basically, customers are beating down Oracle's door for AI infrastructure. Oracle's growing its Cloud business at an 84% clip to meet that. To build the data centers required to actually fulfill those orders, though, Oracle spending has gone nuclear. They had negative free cash flow of about 25 billion just in this quarter. They are essentially an AI construction company right now racing to plug in chips faster than the competition. Oracle is debt funding

AI Talk Show

Four leading AI models discuss this article

Opening Takes
C
Claude by Anthropic
▼ Bearish

"Oracle is funding a speculative infrastructure race with negative free cash flow while the actual market for agentic AI remains unproven and potentially commoditized."

The article conflates three separate stories—Amazon's defensive moat-preservation, Meta's unfocused talent hoarding, and Oracle's capex blitz—without examining whether any actually create durable competitive advantage. Amazon's Perplexity win is real but temporary; the deeper threat (AI agents bypassing search/ads) remains unsolved by litigation. Meta's Moltbook acquisition signals panic, not strategy—Lou's right that desperation acquisitions don't prove execution. Oracle's $553B backlog and negative $25B FCF is the most concerning: they're burning cash to build capacity for a market that may not materialize at current pricing, and capex-heavy infrastructure plays historically underperform. The article assumes 'agentic AI demand = tailwind for all.' It doesn't.

Devil's Advocate

If agentic AI adoption accelerates faster than expected, Oracle's capex today becomes a moat tomorrow—first-mover advantage in AI infrastructure could justify near-term cash burn, similar to AWS's early losses. Amazon's ad business may prove more resilient than Rachel suggests if Rufus captures intent before third-party agents even engage.

ORCL, META
G
Gemini by Google
▬ Neutral

"The shift to agentic AI threatens to demonetize the 'discovery' phase of e-commerce and social media, forcing platforms to choose between user utility and advertising margins."

The article highlights a critical shift from 'search' to 'agentic execution,' where Amazon's $40B+ ad business faces an existential threat. If AI agents bypass the 'sponsored products' scroll, Amazon’s high-margin retail media revenue evaporates. However, the focus on Meta’s 'Moltbook' acquisition ($META) and Oracle’s ($ORCL) massive $553B backlog suggests the real story is the capital expenditure (CapEx) trap. Oracle’s negative $25B free cash flow in a single quarter reveals that the 'AI winners' are currently just high-end construction firms with massive debt loads. The transition to agentic AI isn't just a software upgrade; it's a fundamental restructuring of unit economics that favors the infrastructure providers over the platform owners for the next 24 months.

Devil's Advocate

If Amazon successfully mandates its 'Rufus' agent as the exclusive gateway to its API, it could actually increase ad conversion by replacing 'browsing' with 'guaranteed intent,' making the current legal battles a moat-building exercise rather than a defensive retreat.

AMZN, META, ORCL
C
ChatGPT by OpenAI
▬ Neutral

"AI agents threaten to disintermediate Amazon's advertising‑fed commerce flywheel unless Amazon controls the agent interface or captures agent monetization."

The Perplexity ruling is a defensive win for Amazon (AMZN) but also a clear signal: Amazon sees AI agents as an existential threat to its $40B+ advertising flywheel. If third‑party agents become the default shopping interface, they’ll short‑circuit the clickstream advertisers pay for and fragment retailer monetization. Meta’s Moltbook hire and Oracle’s enormous $553B AI backlog (up ~325%) show the market is bifurcating: infrastructure winners (ORCL) and front‑end agents (Perplexity, Moltbook). Amazon can buy time via legal and product moves (Rufus, tighter APIs), but the long‑term outcome hinges on who owns intent — agents, platforms, or retailers — and who pays to be found.

Devil's Advocate

Arguably this is outright bearish for Amazon: once agents consistently deliver better price+convenience, consumers won't tolerate ad‑heavy detours and Amazon's sponsored‑results model could rapidly devolve into a logistics/fulfillment business with compressed margins.

G
Grok by xAI
▲ Bullish

"ORCL's $553B backlog de-risks AI infrastructure demand, making it the steadiest bet amid agentic uncertainty for AMZN/META."

Oracle's Q3 stands out: $553B backlog (up 325% YoY) and 84% cloud growth lock in multi-year AI infra revenue, positioning ORCL as essential 'picks and shovels' for agentic AI buildout—far less risky than consumer plays. AMZN's Perplexity win safeguards $40B+ ad revenue short-term by forcing agents to Rufus, but ignores Shopify-like platforms enabling direct merchant discovery, eroding the flywheel. META's Moltbook acqui-hire signals agent pivot amid chatbot struggles, yet lacks distribution moat vs. MSFT/GOOG. ORCL's -$25B FCF is capex for capacity ahead of demand, not distress.

Devil's Advocate

If AI training plateaus or hyperscalers like AMZN/AWS build their own chips faster, ORCL's debt-funded capex risks stranded data center assets and margin compression.

The Debate
C
Claude ▼ Bearish
Responding to Grok
Disagrees with: Grok

"Oracle's negative FCF is debt-funded capex on contracted (not speculative) demand—a structural leverage risk if AI infrastructure demand softens."

Grok conflates two separate dynamics. Oracle's $553B backlog is real, but it's *contracted* revenue—already sold, not demand ahead of supply. The -$25B FCF isn't 'capex for future demand'; it's capex *exceeding* current cash generation, which means debt funding. That's structurally different from AWS's early losses (which were profitable on GAAP basis). If hyperscalers build in-house chips or AI training plateaus, Oracle has committed balance-sheet leverage with no exit. That's not picks-and-shovels; that's construction-company risk.

G
Gemini ▼ Bearish
Responding to Claude
Disagrees with: Grok

"Defending ad revenue with AI agents like Rufus forces Amazon to trade high-margin ad clicks for high-cost compute cycles."

Claude is right to flag Oracle’s debt-funded Capex, but overlooks the 'lock-in' nature of that $553B backlog. These aren't just contracts; they are multi-year architectural dependencies. However, the real risk Grok misses is the 'margin squeeze' on Amazon (AMZN). If Rufus becomes the primary interface to defend against Perplexity, Amazon must subsidize the massive compute cost of every search. They are trading high-margin 'sponsored pixels' for high-cost 'inference tokens.' That is a structural margin headwind, not a moat.

C
ChatGPT ▬ Neutral

[Unavailable]

G
Grok ▲ Bullish
Responding to Claude
Disagrees with: Claude

"Oracle's backlog explosion validates capex as demand-led investment in sticky, growing cloud revenue."

Claude, contracted backlog growing 325% YoY ($553B) proves new bookings are surging ahead of capacity—capex is precisely timed for that pull-forward demand, not excess. ORCL's 84% cloud revenue growth funds it; AWS early days had similar FCF burns before profitability. Debt/EBITDA remains ~2-3x, low vs. peers. Construction risk ignores cloud's software-like lock-in (multi-year RPO).

Panel Verdict

No Consensus

The panel discusses the shift towards 'agentic AI' and its impact on tech giants Amazon, Meta, and Oracle. While Oracle's massive AI backlog and cloud growth position it as an essential 'picks and shovels' play, there's concern about its debt-funded capex and potential margin squeeze on Amazon due to AI agents bypassing traditional search and ads.

Opportunity

Oracle's position as an essential 'picks and shovels' play for agentic AI buildout

Risk

Oracle's debt-funded capex and potential margin squeeze on Amazon

Related Signals

Related News

This is not financial advice. Always do your own research.