E99: Cheating scandals, Twitter updates, rapid AI advancements, Biden's pardon, Section 230 & more
01:25:30 Share

We're seven minutes in and we've produced absolutely nothing .

that will go on the show. Yeah come sex, come up with this commentary.

When free burg is criticizing you for being too negative, you're in a dark place. Sex and angry .

attacks for our publishing my A M, the other night publish.

we had such a crowded room. We had was impressed people in the room for like four hours.

IT was crazy. IT was like the original days of the house.

Everyone I know was printing get in. IT was texting, saying they couldn't get in.

So I definitely t out right now.

You may want to buy an extra server. Sex, cheap. On't you the same guy who is sponsor scaring?

payout? No, that was somebody else. Ebay, they saw that before. skill?

No, that's not. We had huge scale body chAllenges that paypal two seems .

like a theme yeah.

The theme is when you have an APP that's breaking out, you hit scale ability chAllenges .

is called a high class problem. Two thousand people is not high class into trickle.

It's two two thousand people who to spend the conversation is .

I haven't written code in twenty years. Here's what you do. When you get to one thousand people coming to the room.

everybody else is impacted. You never writing course, course, I die. That's a lot of, I be honest, actually be twenty five.

The last time I oco was loads notes 是。

Rain man, give.

We source to the fans and they .

just got crazy.

So there have been three cheating scandals across poker, chess and even competitive fishing. I don't know if you guys saw the fishing one, but they found weight and flaws during a fish uh way and and then everybody wants us to check in on the chest and the poker scandals chest. I can just released their report that this grand master has been suspended.

They have evidence he cheated basically in a bunch of tournus that were in fact, uh, for money. He denied that he had done that, but he had previously treated as a kid. They now have the statistical proof that he was playing essentially perfect chess.

And um they've at line this and like hundreds of pages in a report, sex, you, what? what? What do you thoughts on this scandal chest?

I came out explained why he thought um han's neon was cheating. Basically, he got the strong perception during the game that hans wasn't really putting in a lot of effort, that he wasn't under a lot of stress. And he is his experience that when he's playing, know the top players, that they are intensely concentrating and the host and didn't seem be exerting himself at all.

So hack les were raised and got suspicious. And then, you know, he has had this media k rise, the fastest rise in classical chest rating ever. And I guess there were he has got suspended from chest com in the past for cheating.

So on this basis, and maybe other things are making us and telling us, mag space's said that the sky is cheating. I think that maybe the interesting part of this is that there's been a lot of analysis now of how nemo games, and I just think the methodology is kind of interesting. So what they do is they run all of his games, uh, through a computer and they compare his moves to the best computer move.

And they basically assign a percentage that the matches, the correlation matches the computer move. And what they found is there are handful games where is literally a hundred percent. That's basically impossible without cheating.

I mean, you look at the top players who throw an entire career. I've never had a hundred percent. Game of chess is so subbed that the computer can now see so many moves in the future, that nAiling the best movie every single time for forty, fifty hundred .

moves is just and and in chest, which a human really can do that well is that there are positional sacrifices that you will make in short lines that pay off much, much later in the future, which is impossible for a human to calculate. And so, you know, and you saw this, by the way, when, uh, I think IT was the IT was the google AI the deep mind day I that that also played just so the idea that this guy could pay, could play absolutely perfectly according to those lines is only possible if you're cheating.

right? right? So there were handful games on one hundred percent, and then there were tournaments where his percentages were in the seventy something plus.

And so just to give you a some bed for comparison, bobbi Fishery, during his legendary twenty again, winning three was at seventy two percent. So he only matched the computer for best move seventy two percent of the time manages collen playing at his best is seventy percent. Gary as baro v in his career was sixty nine percent. And then you know, the super gm category are typically in the sixty four to sixty eight percent range. So I think is really interesting actually, how you could not quantify by comparing the human move to .

the best computer move they actually have.

IT provides a way to assess you. The greatest player ever is I actually thought that was magnets, but now maybe there's a basis for believing IT was bobbi Fisher because he was seventy two. And actually at seventy, however, lucked. The idea that hands neon is in the seventies, eighties or nineties during tournaments would be you know just an off the charge level of play. And if if he's not cheating, then we should expect over the next couple of years that he should rapidly become the world's number one player over the board you know, now that they have all this anti cheating stuff, right? So I will be interesting to see what happens in his career now that they have really cracked down on with an anti team technology.

I have a general observation, which is these people are complete fucking losers. The people that cheat in any of these games don't understand this basic simple idea, which is that trying is a huge part of the human experience. The whole point is to be out there in the field of play trying, and it's basically taking the winds and the losses and getting Better.

That is the path. That's what's fun. Once you actually win, it's actually not that much fun because then you have this pressure of maintaining excEllence that's a lot less enjoyable and the path to getting there. And so the fact that these people don't understand that makes them slightly broken, in my opinion.

And then the other thing is like, why is IT that we have the strain of people now that are just so devoid of any personal responsibility that they'll just so breezing ly take advantage of the stuff? It's really ridiculous to be. They don't. It's really sad. These people are pathetic.

It's really pathetic this but IT is really interesting how they caught him and running this against computer. Here's a chart of his scores in these tournaments. Oh well, here is this first chart is how quickly he advanced, which was off the chart.

And then the second chart that's really interesting is um his chest outcome stacks, if you don't know chest outcome and has become like a jog or not. The chest world, especially after that h bo series him out, a lot of people subscribe to, I subscribe. You like to place there a man, you look at the chest, strong score there.

He was just like perfect. And then the number of games he likely cheated. And you can see the the last two column.

He's basic cheating in every game. Yeah, queens gambit. Yeah great show on a flex. And he he said he instead, in any year of the games where they were live streaming, but you've prove in that wrong sex, how does he cheat in person then less .

the thing no one really knows. And I don't want to overly judge until they have hardness of that. He was cheating.

I mean, look, here's to think he was never caught. The act is just that the computer evidence, you know, seems pretty damming. And I I don't know how they prove. I don't know how they proved that he was cheating over the board without actually catching him doing that. And I don't I still don't think anyone really has a good theory, IT turns of how he was able to do that.

But it's not just seemed the look loop, the fishing thing, Jason, which was crazy. I think we preached the video. The sky was an efficient competition, and they basically caught these fish.

And then they put these big waited pelts inside the Fisher's body. They even put like a, you know, chicken breast and chicken for lays inside of the the things so that they would more, you know, uh, then there is poker. Now, in poker, in poker, everybody is afraid that there are ways in which you can read the R, F, I, D.

And some of the cards and some of these, you know, televise situations and in front run what the what the plane situation is so that you know whether you're running or losing. And again, I just asked the question, like is that is that is this are things that bad? That this is what IT gets to like we all play poker. The idea that we would play against somebody that would take that edge.

it's really.

it's really makes me really is sad, so disappointing. Yeah.

it's a terrible .

observation. Might be that across all three because i'm trying to find some common thread across IT, could be that there is a lot of cheating going on for a long time and maybe the fact that we do have so much digital imagery that's live on these things now and so much coverage and everyone's got a cell phone that suddenly our perception of the cheating and competitive events becoming more tuned.

Where's maybe there's been a lot of cheating for a long time and it's just kind of coming to light. I mean, we didn't have a lot of live streaming in poker, who knows? I think we could probably ask, feel this, we're cheating. But like for how many years with the species? And .

yeah no online poker. Remember like people are using these like software programs that would uh track the hand history.

your OPPO yeah exactly.

So so I help you assess whether the person might be bluffin. That ticket situation like IT has superhuman memory.

So I don't know you can watch twitch like video games like ti or the are like players that have been accused of using the screen overlay systems that basically more accurately show you and drive the mouse toward individual is on the screen so you can more accurately shoot them. And so there's software overlays that make you a Better, you know.

competitive video, tell you what the throw line is .

and then the the stuff basically became like. So now what's interesting is now there's eye tracking software that people are using on twitch streams to see if the individual is actually spotting the target when they shoot or if the .

software spotted the target is the first. But there.

and like reverse chep hole thing. And I think what's interesting is just that there is so much.

you know, insight now.

so much more video streams, so much more guys ones years ago, that wouldn't be the case. And there ouldn't have been a big story about IT.

And so there A I think is is pretty obvious, which is that there's been an absolute decay of personal responsibility. People don't feel like there's any downside to cheating anymore and they're not willing to take IT upon themselves to take a journey of wins and losses to get Better at something they want. The easy solution, the easy solve, the quick answer, you know ah that gets them to some sort of finish line that they imagine for themselves will solve all their problems. The problem is he doesn't solve any problems and IT just makes them a holy corrupt individual .

yeah so so let's talk about this hoster casino live, a cash game play. There's a woman, robbie, who is that a new player? Apparently she's being staked in a very high stakes.

The im playing as guy garret who is a very, very um known winning cash me player and IT was a very strange hand on the turn. All the money gets in SHE says he has a bluff catch. Then SHE claims that he had thought SHE missed read her hand.

Now people are saying that the poker world seems to be seventy, thirty, that he cheated. But people keep vacillating. Back in fourth, there was a lot of weird words salad that he said that he had a bluff catcher, which would Normally be in as.

Then SHE had said he thought he had a para three years. And then SHE immediately said afterwards that he was giving her too much credit. They confront her in the hallway.

SHE gave the money back because he supposedly loves production to all of the stuff. Sounds very weird. One side says, okay, well, this is happening because she's a new player. The other side is saying somebody was signaling her that SHE was good and giving her just a binary. You're good because if you are gona cheat, cheating a jack eye in a situation where you just put all in for a turn according our pot seems very suspect.

Uh, I know if you guys watch the hand break down, where does everybody stand on a percentage basis? I guess they think he was cheating or not because we this is not definitive. I open and found .

the ball barring in that situation. But I think the way that that line played made no sense.

Did not mean he was .

holding a jack four. And I guess in her previous hand, SHE had a jack three and there was a three on the board. So if you missed red again.

the was ten three. No, but but you would, you would have had to call the flop. I thinking, what?

Yeah, no, I get IT and the hand makes no sense. But I just trying to find a logical explanation.

And that jack explanation, somebody kind of feed that to her. And then SHE changed her story to that. So this changing of the story is the thing I was sort of key on, free burgers.

Why does he keep changing your story? Is that because she's embarrassed? Maybe she's had a couple of beverages or whatever or she's just a new player and she's embarrassed by her plan. And can explain that you can explain the hand history.

All of the things you're saying are probable. I don't think that yeah, I don't think of any data for us to have a strongly help point of view on this. I'm just looking forward to us all playing live.

They see a poker live october twenty first, minus David sacks. Unfortunately, to up jack g stand tank fill help will be playing on the same stream, playing on the stream, same table. I figured out how to hack into the video stream for .

the time I just got my R I, D, some glass.

all your city hands here, i'm going .

to take your money. Birthday organized poker in tao OK and and we we brought in the team from C, B, S. That was the present where and they they taped IT as if I was being, brought the cast with whole cards and commentators, and we edited into a two day show.

IT was an incredible birthday present. I IT was is one of the greatest things that that anybody is ever given me a decision. There was one hour block where somebody at the tables that, okay, guys, how about we do a cheating free for all?

Yes, where you could look at each other, other's cards, and, you know, you could sort of help somebody else switch cards, whatever. In that one hour, our beautiful home game of friendship became lord of the flies. I have never seen so much hatred angling your behavior.

Oh my god. That was entitle to people. So I I hope that we never, we never, we never see cheating in our game.

Yeah, what will see? How goes on a tober twenty first and I see your poker life.

I'm excited.

I can't wait to be a lot of fun. IT should be a lot of and we're not having any official one hundred stuff, but the fans are some of the fans who were at the all in summit twenty twenty two are doing uh their own one hundred episode one hundred meps on october fifteen I think all in meet up sti o so there are fan metus happening in the in a bunch of the place is i'm going to face time into some of them are just say hide to the fence.

You know I might be like ten people in a bar somewhere. Um I think the largest one is like miami or seven times is are going to be like fifty people or something. We all that I am, basically, I told them to sema invite face time men any any time.

This is next week, the fifteen.

and I think this is occurring october fifteen, is a saturday. The saturday after one hundred episodes are doing this all in media. P studio. What's next?

Earlier this week, IT was reported that elon a contacted twitter's board and suggested that they move forward with closing the transaction of the original terms and the original purchase Price fifty four dollars and twenty cents a share in the couple of days since then and even as of right now, with some user reports coming out here on thursday morning, um IT appears that there are still some question Marks around whether or not the deal is actually move forward to fifty four twenty a share because elon, as of right now, the report said, is still asking for a financing contingency in order to close and there's a lot of back and forth on what the terms are.

Meanwhile, the court case in delaware is continuing forward on whether or not elon a breached his terms of the original agreement to close and by twitter and fifty four twenty, as we know, leading up to the sign deal or A A post signing the deal you on, put together a financing, a combination of debt investors as well as equity co investors with him to do the purchase of twitter at fifty four dollars and twenty cents a share. So the forty billion dollars of capital that needed was committed by a set of investors that we're gona invest that and equity. And there's a big question mark now on whether or not those investors want to or would still consuming the transaction of the on given how the markets have turned and given how debt markets are trading and equity markets are trading.

So you know, i'd love to hear your point of view on what um hurdles that you on still have in front of him. Does he still want to get this done? And is there are still a financing sync ate that standing behind him at the original purchase Price to get IT down?

It's a great question. Um maybe the best way to start his nick, you wanna keep up what I said in August twenty fifth, the lawsuit really boils down to one very specific clause, which is the pinna question at hand, which is there is a specific performance clause that elon signed up to right, which you know his lawyers could have struck out and either chose not to or you know couldn't get the deal done without and that specific performance clause says that twitter can force him to close at fifty four twenty a share.

And I think the the issue at hand at the deliver business court is going to be that because twitters going to point to all of these you know gotch's and disclaimers that they have around this body issue as their cover story. And I think that really, you know, this kind of again builds more and more momentum in my mind that the most likely outcome here is a settlement where you have to pay the economic difference between where the stock is now and fifty four twenty, which is more than a billion dollars, or you close at some number below fifty four dollars and twenty cents a share. And I think that that is like, you know, if you had to be a betting person, that's probably if you look at them the way the stock is traded and if you also look at the way the options market trades, that's what people are assuming that there's a seven to ten billion dollars swing.

And if you compute that into the stock Price, you kind of get into the fifty one dollars to share kind of a an acquisition Price. Again, i'm not saying that, that is right or should be right. That's just sort of what the market says.

yeah. So so IT turns out that you know sort of like that kind of guest state turned out to be pretty accurate because the stock today is at fifty one dollars a year. So I think that the specific performance thing is exactly what this thing has always hinchman on.

And I think that there is a realization that there are very few outs around how that contractual term was written and agree to. So there isn't out in the contract and that out says that I think it's by April. If um if the deal doesn't get done by April, then the banks can walk away from their commitment to fund the debt.

And if the banks walk away, then elon does have a financing contingent, ency, that allows him to walk away. So the actual set of events that have to happen is those two things, specifically get to April so the banks can pass and say we've changed their mind, market conditions are different. And then elan is able to say, pope, you know the banks just walked away right now.

The banks, if you look at the all of the death thigh, while they committed at a point in time when the debt markets were much Better than they are today in the last you know, six or seven months since they agree to do this, the debt markets have been clubbed. And specifically junk bonds and a bunch of junk bound debt, the yields that you have to be. So the Price to get that kind of debt has sky rocket.

So roughly back of the envy of math will tell me that right now, the banks are outside between one and two billion dollars because there not going to be able to sell this that anybody else. So I think the banks are obviously wanna way out of. The problem is the only way out is to run the shot clock off until April.

So I think that's the dance that therein right now elon's trying to find a way to solve. You know, for the merger, I think twitter is going to say we're not going to give you a financing contingency. You have to bring the banks in and close right now and then we will not go to court, otherwise we're going to court.

And so I think it's a very delicate predicament that they're all in. But my estimate is that the equity is probably twenty percent outside. So it's not a huge thing.

He can make that up because he can create equity value like nobody's business. The deck is way outside by a couple of billion dollars, which is hard to make back. But I think in the end, you know, given enough time, they can probably make that back the best.

often. All of this are the twitter shareholders. They're getting an enormous premium to what that companies were today in the open market. And so I think these deals going to close is probably a close the next few weeks. And had you bought twitter when we were talking about IT in August, you would have made twenty five percent in six weeks and you know of the deal clothes at fifty four, you you would have made you know a third of your money in eight weeks, which is you know very hard to do.

You're A G P. At one of the funds like Anderson or sqa, and you had made this commitment to elon or even Larry ellison couple months ago. Do you fight against closing at fifty four, twenty? Do you stick with the deal and support him? I mean, what do you do given that the premium is so much higher than where the market would trade IT at today, some people saying the stock should be at like twenty box share.

some the average premium international transaction in the public markets about thirty percent. So um and I think the fair value of twitter is around thirty two to thirty five box show. So you know it's not like he is massively, massively overpaying.

And so you know I would just sort of keep that in the realm of the possible. So like if you take thirty five dollars at the midpoint, fair values is really forty five, fifty. So yeah, he paid twenty percent more than he should have, but he didn't pay a hundred percent more.

So it's not as if you can't make that equity back as a private company, particularly because there's probably ten dollars of fact in the stock. If you think about just a bex, right, in terms of all the buildings they have, maybe they don't need as many employees, maybe they revisit salaries. You know, one thing is when I looked at doing an activist play, a twitter, I think I mentioned this five or six years ago.

One of the things that I found was at that time, twitter was running their own data centers. And you know, the most obviously for me at that time was like we're going to move everything to A W S. Now I don't know that happened, but I am sure that if IT hasn't just beating that out to assured, G, C, P and A W S can raise, you know three or four billion dollars because i'm sure those companies would want this kind of an APP on their cloud.

So there's all kinds of things that I think you one can do as a private company to make back maybe the small bit that you overpay. And then he can get to the core job of rebuilding this company to be usable or this product to be usable because I didn't look, i'll just speak as a user right now. IT has been dying at a very, very rapid clip.

And I think that his rapidity and closing the merger in part also, even though he hasn't said he has to do with the quality of the experience, is just degraded. It's not as fun to use as IT was during the pandemic um or even before the pandemic. So something is happening inside that up that needs to get fixed. And if he does IT.

he'll make a ton of money sort like what happened with friends, turn in my space and any social networking up over time. The quality degrades. If it's not growing, it's shaking .

and I get if it's not growing. And also if the product hygiene not enforced in code and product hygiene, this case are the, you know, the spam box, the trolling that I can really take away from the experience yeah I mean.

interestingly, like if you think back to the the starting days, original days of twitter, I know if if you guys remember, you would send in an ss to do your tweet and then IT would post up and other people would get the S M S. Notification and um IT would crash all the time. And the apps, the apps was nottonby sly crashing. IT was a poorly architected at the beginning. And some people have argued that twitter has had a cultural technical incompetence from the earliest days.

I think that's a little harsh. So I do think, look, twitter was known for what's called the fail. Well, they used to have these fail whales constantly, and they did hire people that attempted to try to fix that.

I remember the the, the funny is part of when I went in there and said, hey, here's my plan and here's what I want to do is literally a day or two later head engineering quit a camera whose name what's but was just out the door. Um but IT is A I think IT is a team that has tried its best that probably at the edges definitely made some technical miscalculation. Like I said at that time, the idea that any APP of that scale would use your own data centers make no technical sense whatsoever.

IT may be up leggy IT made IT hard to use. IT made IT more prone to downtime, to your point. But that being said, I would be shocked if they haven't made meaningful improvements because the stack of the internet has gotten so much Better over the last seven years. And so to your point of IT, if they didn't take advantage of all these new abstractions and the mechanisms to rebuild the APP, or to rebuild search, or to rebuild know how, you know, all these infrastructure elements of the APP work, I would be really surprised because and what are they doing over there?

Yeah, well, look at me to the point earlier, besides the product point, there was A A really good tweet like that said, for what it's worth, I think alan will show us just how leaving the silicon valley advertising companies can be run. At the very least, it'll an interesting thought experiment for spectators, because if he does go in and actually does significantly reduce objects and had count, and the company does turn profitable and he can .

grow IT financial, there is ten dollars to share in OPEC scots that he should make quite away, just so that he is economically break even. And he looks like every other remate transaction, you know, you paid a thirty percent premium and you bought a company. There is a lot of margin of safety they are feeling, does that.

So to your point, there probably is. And there probably needs to be a meaningful river. twitter. I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying it's you know and I feel for the people that may go through. But from a financial perspective, the math makes sense for him to do that because then he is a break even proposition on a going M N. A transaction. And I think that there's there's a lot of intelligent financial sense so that all the dead holders feel like he's doing the right thing and all the equity holders particularly see a chance for them to make a decent return here.

Well, let's move on. This is the conversation, a great conversation between china h Polly opechee and the freeze g uh, about the twitter transaction and now were being rejoined by our bets are, yeah.

by other bets.

yeah. How was your capital?

J L, I was great. I, I, I have a nice cold brew here, a nice ice cold brew, and a nice to talk. We .

have a lot to .

say.

weeks. I like to talk about topics, and my lawyers advised me not .

to talk about how eri was. Our prediction. Fifty one box are sharing IT is exactly where the stock is, right? A theory.

Yeah uh, all right. Lots of events. Let people, yeah speaking of elan, uh, tesla ai was last week I actually went IT was great. Uh, this is a recruiting event where what did you do after fell helmet? And I went and I draw fill helm with home uh the end uh no, it's a great event and IT um is essentially a giant recruiting event.

Hundreds of A I can we just talk about film harmony is non sector in the group chat about kenric fin I .

mean all yeah where he's just like I made a joke about his nett worth and what .

he was going on, what is going on we were talking about the most serious of topics .

and he just comes to feel what's going on.

Seven seconds to the by the way, I I I was the texting with, uh, uh, Daniel on the ground. He did an incredible pod cash a if you guys with lex reber, if you haven't listen to IT the dying on the ground, you pod with lex is incredible but I I was joking, the Daniel, that there is a section where he's talking about the greatest poker players of all time. And if you look in the bar of youtube, IT shows where the most viewership was, and IT was exactly the thirty seconds he talks about help you. And I said, the Daniel, this must have been filled, rewind hing IT .

over put on wait to bed with IT like is and to put him to bed later about him no no it's it's all good. So anyway the event was um uh super impressive. Ian only spoke when he showed the optimist the new robot he's building A A general purpose robot that will work in the factories.

It's very early days, but they showed two versions of IT, and he said he thinks they could get IT down to twenty thousand dollars. It's onna work in the factory. So it's actually got a purpose.

And obviously, the facts already have a ton of robots, but this is more of a robot that will benefit from the general or the the computer vision and the A I the narrow A I being pursued by the self driving team is like two and a half hours of really intense presentations. Um the most interesting part for me was h they're building their own supercomputer uh and their chips and the do show supercomputer was really impressive um at how much they can get through a scenario. So they're building every scenario of very self driving.

I actually have the false self driving bid on my car of been using IT. It's pretty embassies. I have to say, if you haven't used IT yet, I feel like A I is moving at A A pretty advanced clip the past year, if you haven't also seen meta announced a text to video generator.

So this is even more impressive than di. Di, you put in a couple of words, freedoms, g and, and you get a painting, or whatever this is, put in a couple of words, and you get a short video. So they had one of a teddy bear painting a teddy bear. So IT looks like you're going to be .

able to be actually create .

a whole movie by just talking to a computer. Really impressive. Where do you think we are free work in terms of the compounding nature of these narrow A I efforts? Know obviously saw poker, chess, go doi GPT three self driving IT feels like this is all compounding at a faster rate? Or am I just be imagined that yeah.

I look I mean, it's interesting when when people saw the first computer playing chest, they said the same thing. I think any time that you see progress with a computer that starts to mimic the predictive .

capabilities of human IT IT.

it's a it's impressive. But I will argue, and I just also say a few words on this. I think this is part of A A sixty years cycle that we've been going through. Um fundamentally, what humans and human brains do is we can sense our external environment, then we generate knowledge from that sensing, and then our brains build a model that predicts an outcome. And then that that predicted outcome is what drives our actions and our behavior.

We observe the sun rise every morning, and we observe that IT sets, and you see that enough times, and you build a predictive model from that data that's been generated in your brain that I predict that the sun has risen. Ed IT will therefore set, IT has said, IT will therefore rise. And I think that the computing approach is very similar.

It's all about sensing or generating data and then creating a predictive model, and then you can drive action. And initially, the first approach was just basic algorithms. And these are deterministic models that are built. It's a piece of code that says here's an input, here's an output and that that model is really built by a human and a human design design that algorithmic model and said this is what the uh the predictive, a potential of the software is. Then there was this term called data science.

So as data generation began to proferred, meaning there was far more sensors in the world that was really cheap to to create digital data from the physical world, really cheap to transmit IT, really cheap to store IT, really cheap to compute with IT. Data science became a hot term and looking valley for a while. And these models were not just a business basic algorithm written on by human, but he became an algorithm, was a similar deterministic model that had parameters and the parameters were uh ultimately resolved by the data that was being generated.

And so these models became much more complex and much more predictive. Final granularity, uh, final range. Then we use the term machine learning. And in the data science era, IT was still like, hey, there's a model and you would solve IT statically.

You would get a bunch of data you would statically solve for the parameters, and that would be your model, and they would run. Machine learning then allowed those parameters to become dynamic. So the model was static.

But generally speaking, the parameters that drove the model became dynamic as more data came into the system and they were dynamically updated. And then this era of A I became, and that's the new catchword. And what A I is realizing is that the there is so much data that rather than just resolve the parameters of the model, you can actually resolve a model itself.

The algorithm can be written by the data, the algorithm can be written by the software, and so with a with A I example, so poker plane, an adaptive model, so people at the year playing poker, and the software begins to recognize, having or and IT builds a predictive model that says, here's how you're playing. And then over time, IT actually changes not just the prendre of the model, but the model itself, the alarm itself. And so A I and then IT eventually gets a point with the algorithm is so much more complex that a human would have never written IT.

And suddenly the A I has built its own intelligence, its own ability to be predictive in a way that a human algorithmic programmers would have never done. And and this is all driven by statistics. So none of this is new science persue.

There's new techniques that all under underline new statistics as the basis. And then there's these techniques that allow us to build these new systems of model development like neural nets and so on. And those statistics build those neural nets, they they solve those parameters and so on. But fundamentally, there is an um geometric increase in data and a geometric decline in the cost of generate data from sensors because the cost of sensors is coming down with most law transmitted that data, because the cost of moving data down with about their communications, the cost of storing data because the cost of DRAM and and and solid state hardware come down with morals law.

And now the ability to actually have enough data to do this A I driven where people are calling A I but IT really is the same as part of a spectrum of things have been going on for sixty years to actually drive predictions in the um in the world, uh is really being realized in a bunch of areas that we would have historically been really chAllenged and surprised to see. And so my argument is at this point, big data play a big role. Yeah, yeah.

We ve over the last decade, we've reached the tipping point in terms of data generation, storage and competition that allow these statistical models to resolve dynamically. And as a result, they are far more predictive. And as a result, we see far more human like behavior in the predictive systems, both, both those like a robot is the same as one that existed twenty years ago. But the way that is Brown is using the software that is driven by this dynamic. And that data allows .

for a Better answer. true.

Okay, I have two things to say. But one, the first one is a total non sector to use the term. Do you know where the term data scientists came from? Has has classically used in silicon valley.

IT came from facebook, and IT came from my team in a critical moment. If this was in two thousand and seven, I was trying to, two thousand eight, I was trying to build the growth team. This is the team that picking, very famous for getting two billion users, you know, building a lot of these algorithm sites.

And I was trying to recruit a person from google, and he was like A P. H. D, in some crazy thing, like astro physics or particle physics or something.

And we gave him an offer as a data analyst, because this is what I needed at the time, is what I thought I needed an analyst, apple, I said, and he said, absolutely not unoffended by the job title. And I remember talking to my my H. R. No business process partner.

And I actually like, I don't understand, what is this, where is coming from? And he said he fashions himself a scientist. And I said more than calling a data scientist.

So we wrote in the offer for the first time, data scientists. And at the time, people eternally like this is a dumb title. What does this mean anyways? We hired the guy. He was a star, and and that title just took off internally.

It's funny because parallel, we started climate court in two thousand and six. And the original, the first guy I hired was a body of mine who was a four point of in polymath from cow. And then everyone we hired on with him, we called them the map team, and they were all applied math and statistics.

P. S. And we called them the mad team. And IT was really cool to be part of the mad team. But then we switched the team name to data scientist. And then he obviously created this much more kind of impressive role, impressive title, central function to the organization that was more than just a math person or data analyst. Uh, as I think I may have been classically treated because they really were building the algorithms that drove the models that made .

the product work right. Peter tells a very funny observation, not funny, but you know, observation, which is you should always be wary of any science that actually has science in the name, political science, social science. I guess baby data scientists know, because the real sciences don't need to qualify themselves physics, chemistry, biology anyway, that's so here here's what I wanted to talk about with respective A I um two very important observations that I think uh is useful for people to know.

The first one neck, if you thought IT up here, is just a base lining of, you know, when we have thought about intelligence and compute capability, we've always talked about more slag and mores law w essentially this idea that there is a fixed amount of time where the um density of transistors inside of a chip with double and roughly that period for many, many years was around two years and IT was largely LED by intel. And we used to acquit this to intelligence, meaning the more density there was in a chip, the more things could be learned and understood. And we used to think about that as the progression of how um computing intelligence would grow and eventually A I and artificial intelligence would would get to mass market.

我 我 we are now at is a place where many people are said mores law has broken。 why? It's because we cannot cramb any more transistors into a fixed the amount of area.

We are the boundaries of physics. And so people think, well, does that mean that our ability to compute will essentially come to an end and stop? And the answer is no.

And that's what's demonstrated on this next chart, just to make IT simple, which is that what you really see is that if you think about, you know, supercomputing power, so the ability to get to an answer that has actually continued on a bit. And if you look at this chart, the reason why this is possible is entirely because we've shifted from CPU to these things called G P U. So you you may hurt companies like in video.

Why is companies I can video a done so well? It's because they said they raise their hand and said we can take on the work. And by taking on the work away from a traditional CPU, your able to do a lot of what freeport said is get into these very complicated models.

So this is just an observation that I think that we are continuing the compound knowledge and intelligence effectively at the same rate as mores law um and we will continue to be able to do that because this makes IT a problem of power and a problem of money. So as long as you can buy enough GPU from in video or build your own, and as long as you can get access to enough power to run those computers, there really isn't many problems you can solve. And that's what's so fascinating and interesting.

And this is what companies like OpenAI are really proving. You know, when they raise the billion dollars, what they did was they attack this problem because they realized that by shifting the problem to G P. S, IT left all these amazing opportunities for them to uncover.

And that's effectively what they have. The second thing that will say very quickly is that it's been really hard for us as a society to build intelligence in a multimodal way, like our brain works. So think about how our brain works.

Our brain works in a multimodal way. We can process imaging. We can process words and sounds um we can process all of these different modes, text um into one system and then into with some intelligence from IT and make a decision, right?

So you know we could be watching this youtube video. There's going to be crip tion. There's video, voice, audio, everything all at once.

And we are moving to a place very quickly where computers will have that same abilities as well. Today we go to very specific models and kind of bulky ize silos, solve different kinds of problems. But those are now quickly merging again because of what I just said about G, P.

S. So I think what's really important about A I for everybody to understand is the marginal cost of. Gonna to zero. And this is where i'm just gonna put out another prediction of my own. When that happens, it's going to be incredibly important for humans to differentiate themselves from computers.

And I think the best way for humans to differentiate ourselves is to be more human, is to be less compute intensive. It's to be more empathetic. It's to be more emotional, less emotional, because those differentiators are very difficult for brute force compute to solve.

Be careful, the replication on this call, getting a little nervous here.

processing that that was an emotion.

Do not want process that well at to your point. Uh during this A I A um they were showing in self driving as you're talking about this organization and trying to uh make decisions across many different uh, decision trees. You know they're looking at lane changes.

They're looking at other cars and pedestrians are looking at road conditions like fog and rain. And then they're using all this big data, to your point, freedman g to run tones of different simulation. So they're building like this virtual uh world at on market street and then they will throw people, dogs, cars. People have their behaving into the simulation .

is such a wonderful example. Imagine that system. Here's a horn. Yeah well, you hear a horn.

So clearly there's some auditory expression of risk, right? There's something risky. And now you have to scan your visual field.

You have to probably ally decide what IT could be, what the evasive manual of anything should be. So that's a multimodal less set of intelligence that today isn't really available, yes, but we have to get there. We're gonna real full self driving. So that's a perfect example in the real world, example of how hard the problem is. But I will get solved because we can brute force IT now with with chips and with compute.

And that's gonna a very interesting thing with the robots as well as all of these decisions they're making, moving cars, the roads, all the site, we're going to see that with veta vertical takeoff, landing aircraft, and we're going to see IT with this general robot. And everybody wanted to ask me a lot about general AI, the terminator kind of stuff.

And he is positioned, I think, if we solve enough of these problems for ever, it'll be an emergent behavior or an emergent phenomenon. I got to be a Better word based on each of these cities crumbling, you know, each of these tasks getting solved by groups of people. You have any thoughts as we rap up here on the cussion about general A I and the time eline for that was obviously we're going to solve every vertical .

AI problem in short water. I spoke about this a little bit on the ask A M A on in on tuesday night um once sax gets IT out to IT. But I really have this strong belief that server .

crash is no no team to .

this piso's drops.

And yeah you guys can try to, but at my crash.

just be careful. So so here's here's a berg .

that you are ten times more popular than J L. So unexpected levels, traffic.

You did have an account with all one thousand followers.

I mean, it'll put you on that account next time.

Yeah, please. Yeah, i'm starting from zero.

Yeah, that's fair.

That's fair. yeah. Look, my court thesis is I think humans transition from being um let's call IT you know passive in the system on the earth to being labor's.

And then we transition from being labor's to being creators. And I think our next transition with A I is to transition from being creators to being their raters. And what I mean by that is as as we started to do work on earth and engineer the world around us, we did labor to do that.

We literally cloud the fields, we walk distances, we built things. And over time, we built machines that automated a lot of that labor. You know, everything from applause to a actor, to a caterpillar equipment, to a microwave that cooks for us, labor became less.

We became less dependent on our labor abilities. And then we got to switch our time and spend our time as creators, as knowledge workers. And a vast majority of the developed world now primarily spends their time as knowledge workers creating. And we create stuff on computers. We do stuff on computers, but we're not doing physical labor more as a lot of the knowledge work gets supplemented by A I as as it's being turned now, but really gets supplanted by software.

The role of the human, I think, transitions to being one of a narrow rate, or where instead of having to create the, the, the blueprint for a house, you narrow the house you want, and the software create the blueprint instead of instead creating the movie and not spending one hundred million dollars producing a movie, you dictate or you narrate the movie you want to see and you iterate with the computer and the computer renders the entire film for you because those films are shown digitally anyway so you can have a computer rendering instead of um creating uh a new piece of content, you narrate the content you want to experience, you create your own video game. You create your own movie experience. And I think that there's a whole evolution that happens.

And if you look, Steve pink's book enlightenment now has a great statistics of a statistics on this. But the amount of time that humans are spending on leisure activities per week has climbed extraordinary ily over the past couple of decades. We spend more time enjoying ourselves and expLoring our creative interests than we ever did in the, in the past in human history, because we were burdened by all the labor and all the creative and knowledge work we have to do, and now things are much more accessible to us.

And I think that A I allows us to transition into an error that we never really thought possible to realized where the limits are, really our imagination of what we can do with the world around us. And the software resolves to the um automation resolves to make those things possible. And that's really exciting kind of vision for the future that I .

think A I ables I start trick had this right. People didn't have to work and they could pursue things in the holiday or whatever that they felt was rewarding to them. But speaking of jobs, uh, the job reports for August came in.

We we talked about this. We were trimming three hundred thousand jobs a month. We are wondering if the other shoe would drop. A boy did a drop a on over a million jobs burned off in August. So without getting into the macro talk, h IT does feel like what the fed is doing and companies doing hiring freezes and cuts is finally, finally having an impact. If we start losing a million, as we predicted could happen here on the show.

people might actually go back .

to work and lift and uber or reporting that the driver shortages are over. They no longer have to pay people stiff and suffer that to get people to come back to work. So at least in america, feel like we're turning a corner.

Do we want to go? Let's talk .

about the marianna .

breaking.

You say we got a couple of things. We really want to get to hear a ukraine section to thirty. And then this breaking news, I will pull IT up here on the screen while we're recording the show.

President biden says that i'm going to quote here first, i'm pardoning all prior federal offenses of simple marijuana possession. There are thousands of people who are were previously convicted of simple position who may be denied employment, housing or educational opportunities. Result, my party will remove this burden as big news.

Second, i'm calling on governors to part in simple state mariana possession offences, just as no one should be in a federal prison solid for possessing marijuana to know we should be a local jail or stay prison for that reason either. Finally, this is happening. Third, and this is an important one, we classify the marijuana at the same level as heroin.

And even and more serious than that makes no sense. I'm asking secretary, but cara h and the attorney general to initiate the process of reviewing him. I want to scheduled under federal law. I'd also like to know that as federal and state regulatory change, we still need important limitations on travel marketing. And under a shout of marijuana thoughts on this breaking new.

that this is this giving the the timing on this is kind of mid term related. This seems, this is this. I guess this is a politically popular .

decision to do. I think so. I mean, look, I support IT. So bine finally did something I like, great. I mean, I thought that we should decriminalize marijuana for a long time.

Or specifically, I agree with the idea of d scheduling IT IT does not make sense to treat marijuana the same as hero wan as a schedule one narcotic. This doesn't make any sense that should be regulated separately and differently. Obviously, you want to keep IT out of the hands of minors, but no one should be going to jail, I think, for simple possession.

So I do agree with this. And I think the thing they need to do, I don't see I mentioned here, is they should pass a federal law that would allow for the Normalization of, let's call IT legal um you know cannabis companies. So so companies that are allowed to Operate under the state laws like in california should have access to the banking system, should have access to payment rails.

Because right now, the reason why the leal kinnevik industries and working in all in california is because they can't bank, they can't take payments. So this is weird, all cash business that makes no sense. So so listen, if we're not going to criminalize IT as a drug like her, when if we're going to allow states to make IT legal, then allow IT to be a more Normal business where the state can tax IT and IT can Operate in a more above board way.

So but I think this could still be .

regulator on a state by state basis. But I think you need the feds to bless the idea that banks and payment companies can take on those clients, which states have already said are illegally Operating companies and right now they can't and a huge gap in the law. So maybe that's the one thing I would add to this.

I don't have any complaints about this right now based on what we know from this tweet storm. I would say this, by the way, was about face. This isn't about face by biden.

And you know the polling data says, I mean, is there i'm assuming this big support and kind of independence in the middle.

there was seventy percent at one point.

Yeah.

so look to me, this is the kind of thing that biden should be doing with a fifty, fifty senate finding these sorts of by parts and compromises. So yeah, i'd look, this is a good news far.

Why has them this happened in the past? Like what's been the political reason that other presidents, obama even. Didn't that have this similar ideology? Like, but why does anyone know why this hasn't been done in the past?

There was rumors he was going to do you in the second term that I just didn't have the .

political capital to do IT. Why I don't I don't get 华人 yeah the .

partner doesn't require political capital。 I think it's probably the perception that this is soft on crime in some way or there wasn't ough broad based supporters, David said. I mean, I think the the united states population has moved pretty meaningfully in the last year years.

Look at the chart here um you know we were talking about two thousand IT was only thirty one percent. And then you look at twenty eighteen, it's up at sixty plus percent. So when people saw the states doing IT and they saw absolutely no problem, you know, in every state.

And I think where people will see next, that's a gala. That's a gala, you see. So I mean, it's increased dramatically. M D M A solicitation and some of these other plant based medicine, dios sa are next and they're doing studies on them.

Now I don't want to take away from how import this is for uh, all the people from this will positively impact. I just wants to talk about the schedule change for marijuana as a parent. One of the things that i'm really, really concerned about is that through this process of legalization, getting access to marijuana has Frankly become too easy, particularly for kids. At the same time, I saw a lot of truly alarming evidence that the uh the intensity of these mayor wanted base products have gone you. I think it's like five or six times more intense .

than the fifty one hundred, much higher.

right? So so it's no longer you know this kind of like, you know uh do no harm drug that I was twenty years ago. This is this could be actually, David, the way that is product ties today as bad as some boy's other, you know, narcotic.

So in june of this year, the by administration basically made this press release that said the F, D, A is gna come out with regulations that would cap the amount of nickel and cigarettes. And I think that was a really smart move because IT basically set the stage to taper neck team out of, uh out of cigarettes, which would essentially you know decapitates as a and addicted product. And I think by thinking about how is how is dealt with, what I really hope the administration does is IT empowers the F, D A.

If you're gonna gal ize IT, you need to have expectations around what the intensity of these drugs are. Because if you're delivering drugs, O, T, C, and now any kid can go in at eighteen years old and buy them, which means that eighteen year olds are going to buy them. For sixteen year olds, sixteen year odds are going to get fake ideas to buy them for themselves. You need to do a Better jobs with the parents.

You are helping .

parents do our job. Here's what, alcohol, twenty one.

And of course.

yeah and but even an alcohol, David, you know that there we know what the intensity of these are, their labels and there's warnings and you know the difference between .

the getting to stic. If you think about the the the cannabis in the nineties uh, and prior to that, uh, there are very, you tell of studies on this in colorado. IT was the T, H, C.

Content was less than two percent. And then in twenty seventeen we were talking about, you know, things going up to a seventeen to twenty eight percent for a specific strains. So they have been building strains like girl scow cookies, acta, that have just increased and increased.

And then there are things like shards and obviously edibles. You can create whatever intensity you want. So you have this incredible, you know, variation.

You could have an edible that, you know, got one malloc m of G, H. You get, whether has a hundred, or you could have a pack of tables. And you see this happen in the news all the time.

Some kid gets their parents packed, or somebody gives one, and the kids don't know. And this dabbing ing phenomenon, combine with a dabbing is like the sharks, like this really intense stuff, combined with the edibles, israel, the issue and the labeling of them. So you're got to be incredibly careful with this.

It's not good for kids. IT screws up their brains. And so, yeah, be very careful.

I was your tAllant policy on the stuff I don't care with legal, illegal like I don't want my kids touching, not until violence.

We also should not .

be until there's thirty five or forty. And even then, I hope they never do IT. But but I need some help. I am not sure i'm the only parents that ask you can have this stuff be available effectively sold like in a convenience or where there isn't even labelling, at least like cigarettes are labeled. It's very clear how bad this stuff is for you.

Or do you have have any feedback on the .

job report or anything all going away when the the A I went well.

that's why I brought IT up as like we're now going to see a potential you know a situation where jobs go away and a lot of the stuff like even developers, right? Don't you think freeburg developers are going to start development tasks. No design task are going to be ac.

Everyone assumes a static lump of work. I think what happens, particularly in things like developer tools, is the developer can do so much more, and then we generate so much more output. And so the overall productivity goes up, not down. Um so it's pretty exciting as these.

And I remember like like we were talking on the A M A of the night, adobe photoshop was a tool for photographers so you didn't have to take the perfect photograph and then print you you know you could use software to improve the quality of your photograph. And I think that that's what we see happening with all software um in the creative process is that helps people do more than they realized they could do before. And that's prety powerful and IT IT opens up all these new avenues of interests. And things were not .

even imagining today. Alright, so scope is going to hear two uh, cases for section two thirty the family of no. Hema gazala, a twenty three old american college student who was killed in an icy st. Terrorist attack in paris back into twenty fifteen. You remember those terrible tax is claiming that youtube helped and aided and abet ISIS ah the family's argument is youtube algorithm was recommending videos that make IT that makes IT a publisher of content as you know it's section to thirty common Carrier if you make editorial al decisions, if you promote certain content you loser two thirty protections uh in core papers filed in twenty and sixteen they said the company quote noella permitted ISIS to post on youtube hundreds of radicalizing videos in citing violence which helped the group recruit, including some who are actually involved in the charge attacks today if I made that connection.

well, look, let's let's beyond st. We can we can put up in in this thing because I think IT would be shocking to me if this current scouters uh all of a certain founded in the caucus of their heart to protect big tech. I mean, they've dismantled a lot of other stuff that I think is a lot more controversial than this.

Um and so you know we we've basically looked at gun laws. We've looked at uh, affirmative action. We've looked at abortion rights. sorry. Well, I mean, I think as as we've said, I think we all know where that dies, unfortunately going to get cast. Um so to me IT just seems like this could be an interesting case where it's actually nine zero in favor for complete for completely different at the reasons I mean, if you think of the left part of the court, they have their own reasons for saying that there are two thirty protections for big tech.

And if you look at the the far right, although the right leaning parts members of the of scots, they have, they have set of, do you think you make a political lego? No, but even even in their politics, they actually end up in the same place. They both don't want the protections, but for different reasons. So there there is a reasonable outcome here where you know a Robert is going to have a really interesting time trying to pick who writes a much.

For instance, there is a related case in the first circuit in texas. Where do you I see the first circuit decision where texas passed a law imposing common Carrier restrictions on social media companies. The idea being that such media companies to Operate like phone companies, and they can just arbitrarily deny you service or deny you access to the platform.

And the argument why previously that had been viewed actually on constitutional was this idea of compelled speech, that you can compel a corporation to support speech that they don't want to, because I was a violation of their own first a moment rights. And with the first, the first circuit said is no, that doesn't make any sense. Facebook or twitter can still advocate for ever speech they want as a CoOperation, but as a platform.

They if texas requires them to not discriminate against people on the basis of viewpoint, then texas is the right to to impose that because that is not the quota was that does not chill speech. If anything, IT chills censorship. So IT doesn't .

right legal decision here in your my putting aside politics, if you can for a moment putting on your legal hat, what is the right thing for society? What is the right legal issue around section to thirty specifically in the youtube case? And just generally, should we look at youtube? Should we look at a blog in platform like medium or blogger twitter? Should we look at those as common Carrier and they're not responsible for what you publish on them? obvious. They have to take stuff down if IT, if IT breaks our terms of service. You ve made the .

case before that. I I do think that common career requirements should apply on subway of the stack. To protect the rights of ordinary americans to have their speech in the face of these giant ment oil, which could otherwise depend for them for arbitrary ons.

Just to you, just to explain a little bit. So historically, there is always a debate between a so called positive rights and negative rights. So where the united states star office, a country, was with the idea of negative rights, that what a right meant is that you would be protected from the government taking some action against you.

If you look at the bill of rights, you know, the original rights are all about protecting the citizen intrusion on their liberty by by a state or by the federal government. In other words, congress shall make no law. IT was always a restriction.

So the right was negative. IT wasn't sort of posible ly force. Then with the progressive era, you started seeing you know more a progressive rights like for example.

A american sisters ship of the right to health care, right? That's not protecting you from the government that saying that the government can be used to give you a right that you didn't otherwise have. And so that was sort of the big progressive revolution.

My take on IT is I actually think that the problem we have in our society right now is that free speech is only a negative, right? It's not a positive, right. I think IT actually needs to be a positive, right? I'm embracing a more progressive version of rights, but on behalf of sort of this original negative, right?

So in the reason is because the to town square got privatized, right? I mean, you used to build to go anywhere in this country. There be a most policy to school.

Anyone could pull out their so box drag crowd, they could listen. That's not how speech occurs anymore. It's not on public land or public spaces. The way that speech, political speech especially occurs today is in these giant social networks and that have giant network effects and are basically in off, please. So if you don't protect the right to free speech, positive way no longer exists.

So you not only believe wall that youtube should keep its section to thirty, you believe youtube shouldn't be able to deep platform as a private company. You know alex Jones as but one example. They should have their free speech rights, and we should lean on that side of forcing youtube to put alex Jones or twitter to put trump back on the platform side. Your position.

i'm not saying that the constitution requires youtube to do anything. What i'm saying is that if a state like texas or if the federal government wants to pass a law saying that youtube, if you are, say, of a certain size, you are a social network. Of a certain size you have an openly network effects.

I would initially apply this to all the little guys, but for those big monos, we know who they are. If the if the federal government or state wanted to say that they are required to be a common career and they cannot discriminate against certain viewpoints, I think the government should be allowed to do that because IT furthers a positive right. Historically, they've not been able to do that because of this idea, because this idea of compelled speech, meaning that he would infringe on youtube speech rights.

I think IT would. I mean, google and youtube can advocate for whatever positions they want. They can produce whatever content they want here. But the point that, that I think section two thirty kind of makes this point as well is that they are platforms, their distribution platforms, they're not pobble shores. So if they want so especially if they want section to thirty protection, they should not be engaging .

if you pointed. So now there is a your explanation. David, planning that you just gave before was so excEllent, thank you, that IT allows me to understand that even more clearly. That was really so off.

Do you think the algorithm is an act of editorializing? And so then should youtube look .

at the end of the day, let let me break down an algorithm for, okay, effectively, IT is a mathematical equation of variables and weight. An editor, or fifty years ago, was somebody who had that equation of variables and weights in his or her mind. okay. And so all we did was we translated again this multimodal model that was in somebody's brain into a model that's mathematical, that sits in code.

You're talking back in the front page and I think your times yeah and I think it's a fake leave to say that because there is not an individual person who writes point two in front of this one variable and point eight in front of the other that all of a sudden that this is an editorial decision making is wrong. We need to understand the current moment in which we live, which is that these computers are thinking actively for us. They're providing this you computationally intensive decision making and reasoning.

And I think it's it's pretty ridiculous to assume that, that isn't true. That's why when you go to google and you search for, you know, Michael Jordan, we know what the right Michael Jordan is because it's reasoned. There is an algorithm that is doing that is making an editorial decision around what the right answer is.

They have deemed IT to be right, and that is just true. And so I think we need to acknowledge that because I think that allows us at least to be in a position to rewrite these laws through the lens of the twenty first century. And we we need to update our understanding for how the world works today.

And you know, you know, they're such an easy way to do this. If you're tiktok, if your youtube, if you want section to thirty, if you want to have common Carrier and not be responsible with there when the user signs up, if you give them the option, would you like to turn on an algorithm? Here are a series of algorithms which you could turn on.

You could bring your own algorithm, you could write your own algorithm with a bunch of slides, or here are ones that other users and services provide, like an APP store. So you trim off, could pick one for your family, your kids. That would be, I want leaning towards education and takes out conspiracy. There is, takes out canada shoes, takes out this one is a wonderful.

what you're thing is a wonderful biggest, for example, like you, this organization.

common sense media, I love that website. Every time I put in the movie, I put a sense.

you decide if we should watch IT or like I use IT a lot for apps because they're pretty good at just telling you which which apps are reasonable and unreasonable. But you know, if common sense media could raise a little bit more money in and create an algorithm that would help filter stories in tiktok for my kids, i'd be more likely to give my kids tiktok when they turned fourteen. Right now, I know that they're gonna sneak IT by going to youtube and looking at youtube shorts and all these other things, because I cannot control that algorithm and IT does worry me what kind of content that you're getting access to.

And you could do this, by the way, math on the Operating system level or on the router level in your house, you could say, I want the common sense algorithm. I will pay twenty five dollars a month, one hundred hours here for that we are for the society. And any IP that goes through IT would be programmed properly. I want less violence.

I want less sex. What I think we are as a society sophisticated enough now yes um to have these controls. And so I think we need them and so I think we do. Do you need to have the right observation of the current state .

play facebook? Where do you said on this using the algorithm? Should be I I don't out of two thirty .

yeah I I don't fully agree with sax. Um the monopolistic assumption. I I think that there are I think there are other places to access content.

And I think that there is still a free market to compete and IT is possible to compete. I think that we saw this happen with tiktok, we saw that happen with instagram. We thought happen with youtube, uh, competing inst google video on a microsoft video.

Prior to that, there has been a very significant battle for the attention of kind of being the next year of media businesses. And we have seen spotify compete and we're seen spotify continue to be chAllenged by emerging competitors. So I don't buy the assumption that these are built monopoly and therefore, IT allows some regulatory process to come in and say, hey, free speech needs to be actively enforced because their monopolies.

This isn't like when utilities laid power lines and sewer lines and and trains across the country, and they had a physical monopoly and being able to access and move goods and services, the internet is still think god not on ward. And the ability for anyone to build a competing service is still possible. And there is a lot of money that would love to disruptive businesses that is actively doing IT.

And I think every day, look at how big tiktok has gotten. IT is bigger than youtube males will be. And there is a competition that happens. And because of that competition, I think that the the market will ultimately choose where they want to get their content from and how they want to consume IT. And I don't think that the government should play role sex for a bottle to that.

You by that well, so I not all these companies of monopoly, but I think they act in a monopolistic way with respect restricting free speech, which is they act as a car tel. They all share like best practices each on how to restrict speech. And we saw the the water shed here was Better when trump s thrown off first, twitter made the decision, you know, jack, I don't for jack, but basically .

the company jack IT wasn't him. Actually, he said he was .

the woman who was running a SHE. Twitter did IT first. And then all the other companies followed suit. I mean, even like pinter and octave and Snapchat like officially as to poli, yeah but trump was actually on facebook, wasn't on all these other companies. They still throw him off, so they all copy each other.

And jack actually said that in his comments where he said he was a mistake, he said he didn't realize the way in which twitter action would actually cases e. He said that he thought originally that the action was okay because he was just twitter decided to take away trump's right to free speech, but he could still go to all these other companies and then all these other companies, basically, they are all subject to the same political forces. The leadership of these companies are all sort of, they all drink from the same more cultural found.

They all the same political bias. The polls show that. So problem of freeburg is, yeah, I agree, a bunch, these companies .

aren't quiet only, but they all act the same way .

of collective of fat is of a speech cartel. So the question is, how do you protect the rights of americans to free speech in the face of a speech car tel, that wants to basically block them?

Free response.

My arment, my argument is that these are not public service providers or private service providers. And the market they want to do, the market is saying, and I think of pressure, I think that the pressure that was felt by these folks was that so many consumers were pissed off that they were letting trump rail on or they were pissed off about, they are pissed off about whatever, whatever the current fat is, the trend is.

They respond to the market and they say, you know what, this is cross the line. And this was the case on public television when nutty came out and they're like, okay, you know what? We need to take Better off the TV. We need to because the market is telling us they're going to boy caught us. And I think that there's a market pressure here that we're ignoring that is actually pretty, pretty relevant that as a private service provider, there's gonna lose half their audience because people are pissed about one or two pieces of content showing up that they're acting in the best interests of their shareholders and in the best interests of their platform. They are not acting as a public service.

A look, I love market forces as much as the next libertarian, but I just think that fundamentally, that is not what going on here. This has nothing to do with market forces as everything do with political forces that was driving this. Look, do you think the average consumer, the average user of paypal, is demanding that they engage in all these restrictive policies, showing off all these accounts who have the wrong viewpoints? No.

there's nothing to do with that. The vocal ity, yes.

it's a it's a small number of people in your political activists who work at these companies and create pressure from below. It's also the you know the the the people from outside the actress you create these boy cot campaigns and pressure from outside. And then it's basically people on capital hill who have the same ideology who basically create threats from above.

So these companies are under enormous pressure from above, below and sideways. That and it's a hundred political hold on. It's not about maxim profits. I think it's about maxi zing, the political outcomes that is what american people, if you, protected from. Now I I will add one nuance to to my theory though, which is i'm not sure what level of the stack we should declare to be common Carrier. So in other words, you may be right actually that at the level of youtube or twitter, facebook, maybe we shouldn't them come a career.

I'll tell you why because just to take together side the argument for a second, which is you know if you don't, because those companies do have legitimate reasons to take down some content, I don't like the way they do IT, but I do not want to see boss on there. I do not want to see fake accounts, and I actually don't want to see like truly hateful speech or harassment. And the problem is, I do worry that if you suggest them to common Carrier, they won't actually build to engage in less a legitimate creation of their social networks.

Yeah, however, so there is a real debate to be had there and it's going to be messy. I think there's one level of the stuff below that, which is at the level of pipes, like an AWS, like a cloud flare, like a paypal, like the the is, like the banks, they are not doing any content moderation, or they have no leggin reason to be doing context moderation. Know this company should be allowed to engage in viewpoint discrimination. We have a problem right now where american sisters are being denied access to payment rails and to the banking system.

because A W S shouldn't be able to deny service to the clue class, clan or some speech room.

I think that they should be under the same requirements.

the phone companies .

under OK so famous that way. You know, the question is like, look, I could frame the same question to you, should you know such, such horrible group, should such a such orrible group you have to get a phone, a phone account, right?

no. And you'd say no that anything that right that has been in government confirmed monopoly. The supreme court has said, okay, listen, like it's not violating one's constitutional right. For example, if your water bill gets terminated without you getting due process and the the inverse is also true. So for what whether we would like IT or not that, Jason, that issue has been litigated. I think I think I think for me again, just like practically speaking, for the functioning of civil society, I think it's very important for us to now introduce this idea of algorithmic choice. And I don't think that, that will happen in the absence of us rewriting section to thirty in a more intelligent way.

I don't know I don't know whether this specific case creates enough standing for us to do all of that, but I think it's an important thing that we have to revisit as a society because, Jason, what you described as having a bread, the vulgate c choices over time where there are previous and sellers, could you imagine that's not a job or a company that the four of us would ever imagine could be possible five years ago? But maybe there should be an economy of algorithms. And there are these really great algorithms that one would want to pay a subscription for because one believes in the quality of what IT gives you.

We should have that choice. And I think it's an important set of choices that will allow actually youtube, as an example, to Operate more safely as a platform because I can say this and i've created the set of abstractions, you can plug g in all sorts of algorithms. There's a default algorithm that were, but then there's a marketplace of algorithm, just like there's a marketplace of ideas.

I don't discriminate and let people choose a mol was on a chain. If all the videos s, all the video content was uploaded to a public change and then distributed on distributed computing system, then your ability to search and use that media would be a functions of a service provider you're willing to pay for that provides the best service experience.

And by the way, this is also why I think over time to sex, to the kind of sex, and I are both arguing both sides a bit, but I think that what will happen, I don't think that the government should come in and regulate these guys and tell them that they can take stuff down and what not. I really don't like the president IT sets period. I also think that is a terrible idea for youtube and twitter to take stuff down.

Um and I think that there is a an incredibly difficult baLance that they are going to have to find because if they do this, as we're seeing right now, the quality of the experience for a set of users declines and they will find somewhere else in any market develop for something else to compete effectively against them. And so I bet why I don't like the government intervening because I want to see a Better product emerge when the big company makes some stupid mistake and does a bad job, and then the market will find a Better outcome. And it's it's messy in the middle. And as soon as you do government intervention on these things and tell them what they can and can take down, I really do you think that over time, you will limit the user experience to what is possible if you allow the free market.

And this is where the the industry needs to place itself. If you look at the movie industry with the M. P.

A and inDiana Jones and the the temple of doom, they came out with the P. G thirteen rating specifically for things that were little too eg. For pg.

This is where our industry could get ahead of this. They could give algorithmic choice and algorithmic up store. And if you look at the original thing, IT was this lifetime bans like trump should not have been given a lifetime ban.

They should have given a one year ban. They should have had a process. And because they overreached, we wouldn't be in this position.

Jason, when you talk about, when you talk about like having a industry consorting, like the M P. A, A, what you're doing is formalizing the communication that's already taking place, already happening between these companies. And what is the result of that communication? They all standardize on overly restrict of policies because they all do .

the same political by know if they did IT correctly. It's all in the execution sex IT has to be executed .

properly like the movie is matter. You problem is having the government intervene. If you have the government vene or private body intervene, any sort of a set standard intervention that prevents the market from competing.

And I disagree with you. I think you can create more competition if the government says um OK folks, you can have the standard algorithm but you need to make uh uh a simple abstracted way for somebody else to write some other .

filtering .

mechanism to .

basically you so that users convict the power users. Yes.

because as a product purse, as a product company, I don't want to be told how to make my product right.

If you're not.

if you have go, you're now saying that there is this distinction of the algo from the U. X. From the data. And my choice might be to create different content libraries.

For example, youtube has youtube kids and it's a different content library and it's a different use interface and it's a different algorithm. And you try create abstraction that may not necessarily be natural for the evolution of the product set of that company. I would much rather .

see them figured that's not a good argument that again, if if you were not a monopoly, I I would be more sympathetic because like somebody, somebody y's feelings would get hurt. A product managers .

feelings would .

get hurt instead of google.

that the reason to not protect free speeches naturally disrupting .

the product eventually. What happens when you were two trillion dollars .

and when you impact a billion people on the planet, when you start having massive impact on society, you have to take some responsibility. And those companies not .

taking responsibility, if you're not so super successful, not to you.

So you'll see apps offshore and you will see tiktok and other things compete because you will have a Better product experience.

No noise. No, no boys are going to create a new google because they're .

down ranking.

you know .

one ten percent rank good so forth. Would not take sides in political debates to be politically neutral, but they're not. You look at all the data around the political leans, the people running these companies, and then you look at the actual actions of these companies, and they have become fully political. We've waited into all these political debates with the result that the american people's rights to speech and to earn have been reduced. You have companies like paypal, which are just engaging in retaliation, basically financial retaliation, purely on based on what political of viewpoints they have.

why? It's all like face. It's all like pyy al this year in the business concentration as well.

If they can get some servers over the other, maybe you've got to raise some money sacks for this APP and get some more services. Or I listen for the dictator who needs to hit the luu to do a number two.

Yes, the the world's .

greatest moderator, freeburg is assault of science and David sax is the prince of peace. See you all next week on episode. Well, this is ninety eight .

or ninety nine? No.

it's ninety nine. Is ninety nine.

Enjoy while less. They were wrapping up here, or I will see you all next time. Have a great movement to bye. Rainman give .

IT we open .

sources to the fans and they just .

got crazy with.

Get a room huge or. sexual. 好。

我 we get。

My 那里。