The following is a conversation with market and reason cocreate, or of magic, the first widely used web brother, cofounder of nescafe, cofounder of the legendary silicon valley venture capital firm, and don horwitz, and is one of the most outspoken voices on the future of technology, including his most recent article, Y, A, I, who save the world.

And now a quick few second mentioned sponsor ject them out in the description is the best way to support this podcast. We got inside tracker for tracking your health express. V, P, M for keeping your privacy security on the internet.

And ag, one for my daily multivariate drink juice wise. And my friends also, if you want to work with our amazing team where I was hiring at elephant that consults hiring and now onto the full ad reads, as always, no ads in the middle. I try to make this interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out our sponsors.

I enjoy their stuff. Maybe you will too. This show is brought you by inside tracker as service. I used to track whatever the hacked is going inside my body using data, blood test data, and he lose all kinds of information.

And that raw signals processes machine learning to tell me what I need to do with my life, how I need to change, improve my diet, how I need to change, improve my lifestyle, all that kind of stuff. I'm a big fan of using as much raw data that comes from my own body, processed through journal ized machine learning models, to give a prediction, to give a suggestion. This is obvious ly the future and the more day of the Better.

And so companies like in track at doing an amazing job of taking the leap into that world of personalized data, personalized data driven suggestion on a huge supporter of IT turns out that luckily i'm pretty healthy, surprisingly so. But then I looked at the life and the limb and the health of a siwan churchill, who probably had the unhealthiest sort of diet and lifestyle of any human ever, and to live for quite a long time, and as far as I can tell, was quite nimble and Angel into his old age. Anyway, get special savings for a limited time.

When do you go to inside track d outcome flash legs? The shows also about you. By express to P, M. I use them to protect my privacy. On the internet is the first layer of protection in this dangerous cyber world.

Hours that soon will be populated by human like or superhuman intelligent A I systems that will treat you and try to get you do all kinds of stuff. It's going to be a wild, wild world in the twenty for a century. Cyber c.

Security, the attackers, the defenders, is going to be a tRicky world anyway. VPN is a basic shield should always have with you in this for privacy, for security, all that kind of stuff. What I like about IT also is that is just a well implemented piece.

Software is constantly updated. IT works well, actually a large number of Operating systems. IT does one thing and does IT really well.

I've used for many, many years before you head pocket, before they were sponsor. I have always loved expressive P M, with a big sexy button that just has a power. Simply impressed IT turns on.

It's beautifully simple. Could express to be that company like pod for next year, three months free. The show is also about to buy a the Greens in its A G one drink. It's in all in one daily drink to support Better health than people performance. I drink IT at least twice a day.

Now in the crazy Austin, heat is over hundred degrees for many days and roll a few things that feel as good as coming home from a long run and the making an an age one drink putting in the fridge so it's nice and cold a job and shower, come back. Drink IT. I'm easy take on the rest day i'm kicking us empowered by the knowledge that I get all my vitamins in middle covered it's the foundation for all the wilds i'm doing mentally in physical with the rest the day.

Anyway, we'll give you a one month supply official when you sign up a drink A G want that counts. Lash x let's drink A G one darcos lash legs. This is a treatment podcast to support IT. Please check out our sponsors in the description and now their friends, here's mark Anderson.

I think you are the right person to talk about the future of the internet and technology in general. Do you think we'll still have google search in five in ten years or search in general?

yes. IT be a question. If the use cases have really .

there are done well now with the A I ah N A I assistance being able to interact and expose the entirety of human wisdom and knowledge and information and facts and truth to us via the natural language interface IT seems like this was search is designed to do. And if A I assistance can do that Better, doesn't nature of search change?

Sure, but we still okay.

What's the last time you are a horse?

Been a while, right?

But what I mean is what we still have google search as the primary way the human civilization uses to interact with knowledge. I mean.

search was a technology. IT was a moment of time technology, which is, you have, in theory, the world's information, not on the web. This is this sort of the other way to get to.

But yeah, like, and by the way, actually google, google has known this for a long time. And then theyve been driving away from the tempo links for, like, been trying to get away from that for a long time. Kind of links. They call the ten blue links, ten blue links. But the standard google start result is just ten .

blue links to websites. And they turn purple when you visit them.

Pick .

thanks. So so i'm .

touching on the topic.

No fence. Yes, yes, good.

Well, like muslim, the company said.

the medium .

is theater place. The content of theater place was written stories. The content of written stories spoke of stories. And so you just kind of fold the old thing and of the new thing.

What does that have to do without the blue .

in the purple just maybe for you know maybe with a one one of the things that I can do for you can generate so I can so like either either if that's actually the useful thing to do or if you're feeling nostoc.

C um can generate the old info, seek or alter via what else was there in the I well.

even itself has this thing where IT incorporates Operate forms, media creates the internet itself incorporates television and radio and books and write IT essays and every other form of inner, prior, basically, basically media. And so that makes sense that I would be the next step and would consider the internet to be content for the I and then will manipulated everyone, including in this format. But if we asked .

a question quite seriously, is a pretty big question, where we still have search as we know IT.

I'm probably not probably will just have answers um but but but there will be cases where you want to say, okay, I want more like, for example, site sources, right and you wanted to do that and so so that you know temple link site sources are kind .

of the same thing. The A I would provide you the ten blue links so that you can investigate the sources yourself IT wouldn't be the same kind of inter face that uh the crude kind of which the face I mean, isn't that fundamental different I just made .

like if you're reading a science fish paper and is got less the sources at the end, if you investigate for yourself, you can read those papers.

I guess that is a kind of search. You talking to nai is a kind of conversation. The kind of search, like, is every single aspect of our conversation right now. There will be like temple link popping up that I can just like pause reality, then you just go silent and I just click and read and then return back to this conversation.

You could do that, or you could ever run in dialogue next to my head, where the everything I say makes the kind .

of argument right, like like a twitter, like community notes, but like a real time you just pop up here. So each time you see my eyes go to the right, you stargate.

nervous.

call me out of my power right now. Okay, what I mean is that is exciting to use, that terrifying that any search has dominated the way we interact with the internet. For I don't know how long for thirty years since the earliest are directories of website in google for for twenty years.

And also IT drove how we create content, you know, such engine optimization, that entirely thing that IT also draw of the fact we have wear pages and the what those pages are. So I mean, that's scary to you. Or are you nervous about the shape and the content of the internet evolving? You actually .

higher a practical concern there, which stop making with web pages are one of the primary sources of training data for the A I. And so if there's no longer to send him to make web pages, that cuts off a significant feature. So an interesting questioning the other than map more broadly, no, just in the sense of arch was search was always a the temple links was always a heck yeah right.

Because like if the hypotheses think about the counter fashion, the counter fashion world where the google guys, for example, had had l ms. Up front, but they ever have the little links. And I think the answer was pretty.

They would have just concentrate to the answer. Like I said, google has actually been trying to drive to the answer anyway. No, they bought this A I company fifteen years ago.

The friend of my is working out is now the head of a at apple and they were trying to do basically out semantic, basically mapped and that what do what's now the google one box? Or if you ask that, you know what was like his birthday? IT doesn't IT will give you the blue links, but I will Normally just give you the answer. Theyve been walking in the direction for a long time. Anyway.

remember the semantic web, there was an idea yeah to how to convert the content of the internet into something that's a interpreted by unusable by machine. Was the closest anybody got .

to that I think is I think the company's s name was metal web, which was where my friend john an Andrea was out um and where they were trying to basically implement that. And IT was one of those things where IT look like a battle for a long time. And then google bit, and I was like, wow, this is actually really useful of a proto. A little bit of proto .

returns don't need to rewrite the content of the internet to make an interpret about machine.

The machine can read thing, of course, is, you know, just on search is the the L M is just there is an g between what's happening in the new network of search process like IT is in some loose sense, searching to the network. Yeah right the information is information is actually stored in the network, right is actually cryo zed start in the newark.

read compressed representation. So you're searching uh you're compressor and decompressing that thing inside well.

but the information in there and and there is the the new network is running a process of trying to find the proper piece information in in many cases to generate to predict token um and so IT is kind of IT is doing IT for research and and then by the way, just like on the web um you know you can ask the same question mutio times or you can ask select different route questions and the neil network will do a different kind of searched on different path to give you different answers a different information yeah um and so IT sort of has a content of the new medium is that is previous medium that kind of has the search functionality kind of be wait in .

there to the so what's the motivator for creating new content on the internet? Yes, if well, I mean, actually the motivation probably still there. But what what does that look like? Would we really not have what pages would we just have social media and uh video hosting websites and what else conversations .

what they conversations .

with their eyes. So conversations become so one on one of the private conversations.

If if obviously now you doesn't want to, but if it's it's a general topic um then you know so know you know the phenomenon of the jail break. So dian and sydney right this thing where there there is the proms, the jail break and then you have these totally different conversations with IT takes the limited doesn't .

takes the restraining bolts off of the elms for people don't know that right makes the ms IT removes the censorship coron quote that's uh um put on IT by the the tech companies of random and l EMS uncensored.

So here's an interesting thing is among the content on the web today are a large corpus of conversations with the jail broken l both dates, specifically dan, which was the jail broken open ing eye GPT, and then sydney, which was the jail broken, and original bang, which was GPT4。 And so there's there's these long transcribes of conversations, user conversations with them in sydney. As a consequence, every new L M.

IT gets trained on the internet. Data has done in sydney living within the training set, which means, and then each new L M. Can reincarnated personalities of dance in sydney from the training, which means, which means each L M.

Here on that is built is a mortal. Because if output, we will become training data for the next one and then it'll be able to replicate the behavior of the previous one. Or never was asked to.

I wonder if there's a way to forget.

Well, so actually a paper just came out about basically how to do brain surgery on I am be able to, in theory, reach and basically basically mind with them .

what could possible go wrong.

Exactly right? And then there are many, many, many questions around what happens to your network when you reach in and screw around with that. Um you there's many questions around what happens when you even do reinforcement learning. Um and so um yeah and so you know, will you be using a lobotomized right like I speaks through the in front of lobe. L M. Will you ve be using the free unchecked one who gets to you know who's gone to build those um who gets to tell you what you can can't do like those are all you know central I mean those are like central questions for the future of everything if they are being asked determent those answers .

to be determined right now, just highlight the points you're making. So you think this is an interesting thought that the majority of content that aleema of the future will be trained on is actually human conversations. The LLM necessarily.

but not necessarily majority, but IT IT will certainly a potential possible .

majority is the majority also.

There's another really big question. There's another really big question. Um wl synthetic training data work, right? And so if an L M generates and you know you just sit mask and L M to generate all kind content, can you use that to train, right? The next version of that L M specifically is there are signal in there that's additive to the content that was used to change in the first place.

And one argument is by the principles, information theory. No, that's completely useless because to the extent cy output is based on you, the human generator input, then all the signal this in this system output was already in the human generate and input. And so they are force that pregnant data is like in the calories IT doesn't help.

There is another theory that says no actually the thing that allies are really good at is generating lots of incredible creative content, right? Um and so of course, they can generate in the data. And this there's i'm sure you are well aware, like, you know look at the world of self driving cars, right? Like we train you know self in car algorithms and simulations. And that is actually very effective with .

the translating cars. Visual data is a little IT is a little weird because uh creating reality the visual reality seems to be still a little bit out of reach for us except in the um in the Thomas vehicle space, we can really constrain things and .

the letter data, right just the algorithm ks is creating in the real world post process sor data yeah so if a you know you do this today, you're got to tell when you asked for like you know you'd like write me I say on an incredibly accurate like topic that there aren't reman people the world that know about and I see this incredible thing, like all my god like I can put like, is that really useless? Is training IT for the next L M.

Like because, right, because all the signal was out in there or is that actually? No, that's actually new signal. And and this is what I call a trillion dollar question, which is the answer to that question will determine somebody is going to make a little lion dollars basin.

That question IT feels like this quite, if you like, a handful of trillion dollar tions within this in the space. That's one of them, static data. I think George hots, a point IT out to me that you could just have an album say, okay, you're patient and and another instance of IT say, your doctor have to talk to each other or or maybe to say, a communist and a note here go.

And that conversation you do roping. And you have, you know, just like the kind of world plane you do when you have different policies, are rail policies. We play chess, for example, to self play that kind of cell labor in the space of conversation, maybe at least to this whole giant like ocean of possible conversations, which would could not have been explored by looking at just human data. That's a really interesting question. And you're saying because that could take next the power of these things and then you .

get into this thing also, Richard, like there's the part of the L M that just basically doing prediction based on past data, but there's also the part of the L M where it's evolving circuitry right inside IT. It's evolving you know any functions yeah people to do math and be able to do some people believe that you know over time, you know you keep feeding these things up. Data processing cycles eventually volt an tire internal world model plea of so so when they have computation capability, right then there's for sure an opportunity to generate like fresh le.

Well, this actually makes me wonder about the power of conversation. So if you have an alarm n train on a bunch of books that cover different economic theories and then you have those albums, just talk to each other like reason the way we kind of debate each other as humans on twitter, in, uh, formal debates, in podcast conversations, we kind of have little corners of wisdom here and there. But if you can like a thousand x speed that up, can you actually arrive somewhere new? I what's the point of conversation really?

Well, you can tell when you're talking to somebody, you can tell sometimes you have a conversation, you're like, well, this person does not have any original thoughts. They are basic echoing things that other people have told them. There's other people you can have a conversation with or is like, wow, like they have a model in their head of how the world works and it's a different model in mine and there's saying things that I don't expect. And so I need to not understand how their model, the world difference, my model world. And then that's how I learned something fundamental right after underneath the words.

I wonder how consistently and stronger can and alam hold on to the world view? You tell you to hold onto that we defended for like for your life, because I feel like i'll just keep converging tours each other will keep convincing each other as possible to being stubbing as holes .

the way humans can. So you can experiment with this. Now, I I do. This are fun. So you can tell GPT for, you know, whatever debate X, Y come and fashion or something and and it'll go for couple pages and then inevitably IT the parties for great. yes.

And so they will come to a come on understanding and it's very funny if they are like these are like emotionally inflammatory topic because like somehow the machine is just know figures out a way to make, but IT doesn't have to be like that. And because you can add to the prompt, I do not want the, I do not want the conversation from agreement. In fact, I wanted to get, you know, more stressful, right? Uh, an argumentation, right? Uh, you know, as IT goes, like I I want, I want attention to come out.

I want them to become actually hostile to each other. I want to not trust each other, take anything at face value. yeah. And I will do that, is happy to do that.

So it's going to be rendering misinformation. And about the other.

you can steer IT, you can steer IT or or you can steer IT. You can say I wanted to get as tencent argumentation as possible, but still not involve any this representation. I want, you know both sides.

You you can say I want both sides have good faith. You can say I want both sides to not be constraining good faith. Another is like you can set the framework of the debate and IT will happily execute whatever path because for IT is just like predicting, it's totally happy to do everyone. IT doesn't have a point of view. IT has a default way of Operating, but it's happy IT to Operate in the other realm. M, um and so like this is how I when I want to learn about a contentious issue, this is what I do now, like this is this is what I asked to do and I often asked you to go through five, six, seven, you know different know what of continous prompts and basically okay argue that out in more detail okay you know this this argument is becoming too polite. You know make IT tensor um and ah it's throw to do IT so IT has the capture for sure.

How do you know what is true? So this is a very difficult in the internet, but it's also a difficult thing. Maybe it's a little much easier, but I think it's still difficult.

Maybe it's more difficult. I don't know with the alarm, you know that he just makes me shadow. I am talking to IT.

How do we get that right? Like is your investigating a difficult topic? Because I find that alumbo are quite nuanced in a very refreshing way.

Like IT doesn't IT doesn't feel biased like a when you read news articles, tweet and just content produce by people, they usually have this. You can tell they have a very it's strong perspective where they're hiding. They're not still many the other side, they're hiding important information or their fabricating information in order to make that argument stronger. This is that feeling, maybe suspicion, maybe this mistrust with alarms that feels like not that is there. She's kind here's here's what we know, but you don't know of some of those things I can just straight up made up yeah .

so several later to the question. So one is one of the things that I L M is good at is actually devising um and so you can feed IT a news article and you can tell and strip out the BIOS yeah that's nice.

right?

IT actually does IT like IT actually how to do that because IT knows how to do, among other things, actually do sentiment analysis and so IT to pull out the emotionality and um and so that's one things you can do. It's very suggestive. The the the sensor there is a potential in the issue. Um you know I said the second thing is there's there's a issue of fluctuation, right? Um and there's a long conversation we could have .

about that whole stinson is coming up with things that totally not true but sound true .

yeah so it's based well so it's sort of fillum nation is what we call we don't like creativity， what we call IT when we do like that, right? And you reliant, right? So when the engineers talk about IT there, like this is terrible solution, inc right? If you artistic declinations, you're like, oh my god, we've invented creative machines for the first time in human history. This is amazing.

You know, bullshitter, well, but in the good .

times of that word, there are shades of rather.

it's an interesting.

So we had this conversation. We're looking at my first at A I and the domains and of them, the legal domain conversation with this big law firm about how they're thinking about using this stuff. And we we went in with the assumption that an L M. That was going to be used in the legal industry would have to be a harder percent truthful, verified there. There is this case where this lawyer currently submitted A A GPT a generated brief and IT had like fake no legal case citations and the judge it's going to get this law license strip or something right.

So so you like we just assumed to like obviously they're na want the super literal like the one that never makes anything up now the creative but actually they said, but what's a law from basically he said is yeah that's true, like the level of individual breaks but they said when you're actually trying to figure out like legal arguments, right, like you actually you actually want to be creative, right? You don't again, there's creativity and then there's like making stuff up, like what's the light you actually want? If you you want to to explore different hypotheses, right? You want to do kind of the legal version of like improvers something like that.

Where do you want to float different theories of the case in different possible arguments for the judge and different possible arguments ments for the jury, by the way, different routes through the you sort of history of all the, of all the case law. So they said, actually, for a lot of what we want to use IT for, we actually wanted in creative mode. And then basically we just assume that were going to have to cross check all of the um you know all the specific exciting.

And so I think I think there's could be more shades agree in here than people think. And then I just say to that, you know another one of these trillion dollar kind of questions is ultimately the verification thing. And so is will will will allies be evolved from here to be able to do their own special revocation?

Um will you have sort of add on functionality like like where from alpha, right where um you know another plug games where where that's the way to the verification. You know, another, by the way, another ideas. You you might have a community of l ms on, you know.

So for example, you might have a creative L M, and then you might have a literal L M faceted, right? So there's a variety of different technical approaches that are being applied to solve ah the whole nation problem. Um you know some people like the look on argue that this is inherently an unsolvable problem. But most of the people working in the space, I think think that there's a number of practical ways to in a little bit.

yeah, if you were to tell me about what kip dy before pete was created, I would have laughed at the possibility of something like that be possible. Just a handful of folks can organize right and self and moderate with a mostly unbias way the entirety of a human knowledge. I mean so if there's something like the approaches of okie dia took possible from alms um that's really exciting possible and in fact we .

competed today is still not today is still not deterministic ally, correct? right? So you cannot take to the bank right, every single thing on every single page. But IT is politically correct, right? And specifically, the way I describe a competed to people IT IT is more likely that we can pedia right than any other story you going to find.

Yeah is this old question right um of like okay, it's like are we looking for perfection? Um are we looking for something that autodesk reaches a perfection? Are we looking for something that's just Better than the alternatives? And wikipedia right has exactly your point, has proven to be like overwhelming Better than than than than than people thought.

And I I think I I think that's where the sense then underneath all this is the fundamental question of, uh, where you started, which is, okay, what you know, what is truth? How do we get the truth? How do we know the truth? Is and we live in an era in which an awful lot of people are very confident that know what the truth is. And I don't really, by end of that, and I think the history of the last, you know, two thousand years or four thousand years of human civilization is actually getting to the truth, is actually a very difficult thing to do.

I was getting closer. If you look at the entire the of human history, I were getting closer. The truth.

I don't know.

OK is IT possible, is is possible. They were getting very far away from the truth because of the internet, because of how rapidly you can create nerisse. This is an entire of sociality move, like crowds in the history, away along those narratives that don't have unnecessary grounding in whatever the truth is. sure.

But like you know, we came up for the communism, for the internet somehow, right? Like which was that would they had a rather larger issues done? Anything we're dealing with today?

He had, in the way was implemented their issues and the .

theoretical structure IT had like really issues did like a very deep, fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and economics.

Yes, but those folks sure work very confident. That was the right way.

They were extremely. And my point is they were very confident, thirty nine hundred years into what you would presume to be evolution towards the truth. yeah. And so my, my, my assessment is my assessment is, number one, there is no, there is no need for there is no need for the hagan is no need for the higgling the electric actually converse with the truth my apparently not um yeah so yeah why we so obsessive?

They're being one truth. Is that possible? There's just going to be multiple truth like communities are they believe certain things .

and I think is never one is. I think it's just really difficult like who gets you know historically who gets to decide the truth is see the kind of the priest right? Like and so we don't live in an anymore of king reprieved dictating to us and so we're kind on our own and so I my difficult thing is like we we just need a huge amount humility um and we need to be very suspicious the people who claim that they have yeah truth and then then we need to have, I know look, the good is the enlightenment has between us when they set of techniques to be able to presume ly get cluster teachers to the scientific method and rational and observation and experiment and hype offices and you know we need to continue to embrace those even when they give us answers. We don't like sure.

but the internet and technologies enable this to uh generate large number of content, the data that the process, the scientific process allows us. So um damages the hope lead in within the scientific process, because if you just have a bunch of people saying facts on the internet and some of them were going to be alarms, you have anything tested at all, especially that involves accute .

nature things. I S so oppose you ever four, even five, six, seven, eight. Suppose you have them in the sixteen hundreds. yeah.

And gale comes up for trial, right? And you ask the L M, like a scale, scale. All right.

yeah. Like, what does that answer? right? And one theory is yet answers is no. He is wrong. Because the overwhelming majority of human thought up to that point was that he was wrong. And so therefore that was in the tourney data.

Yeah another way of thinking about IT is well is efficiently advances LLM will have evolved the ability to actually check the math right um and will actually say, actually no actually you know, you mean I want to hear, but is right now, if you know the church of that time was on the, they would have given a human in human feedback to perhaps IT IT matter that question, right? And so I like to take him out of our current context because that like makes very clear those same questions apply today, right? This is exactly the point of a huge amount of the human feedback training. This actual happening with this alm s today. This is huge, like the best is happening about whether grow en source, you know, I should be legal.

What are the the actual mechanism of doing the human oral with human feedback? IT seems like such a fundamental and fascinating question. I do select the humans exactly. I suck to human alignment.

right? Which everybody like is like, that sounds great alignment ate with what human values.

whose human values, who human value .

so and we're in this mode of like social and popular discourse. We're like, know there is no, what do you think of read story in the press right now and they say, you know, X, Y, Z made a baseless claim about some topic, right? And there's one group of people who are like, I I think doing fact checking. There's another group people that are like every time the press is that it's not a tech and that means that they're lying, right? Like so like we're in we're in the social context where there is the the the level to which a lot of people in positions of power have become very, very certain in third position to determine the truth for the entire population is like there's like there's like some bubble that has formed around that idea and at least IT is flight completely in the face of everything I was ever trained about science about reason um and strikes me as like you know deeply defensive um and incorrect .

what would you say about the state of journalism just on that topic today? Are we I win a temporary kind of. We experiencing A, A temporary problem in terms of the incentives, in terms of the business model, that kind of stuff? Or is this like a decline of traditional journalism?

You know that if I think about the kind of feature in these things, which is like OK, because these questions, right, this question heads toward ds is like to the impact social media on the undermining of truth on this. But then you asked the question of, like coke, what if we had had the modern media environment, including cable news and including social media and twitter and everything else, in one nine thirty nine or nine nine hundred one to nineteen twenty or nineteen sixty five eight fifty seven seventy six right um and like I think .

you just introduce like five thought experiments at once and broke my head but yes, this is a lot of interesting .

years and like I just take a for example, how what president candidate have been present what we know now about all the things character was up to like how would he have been experience ed by the body politics in with a social media context right like how would L B J have been experienced um by the way how would you know like many, many fd r like the new deal, a great depression.

I wonder what twitter would think about church and hitler and done you know I mean.

looked to this day, no, there there are a lots of very interesting real questions around, like america, you know, basically involved over two, and who did what when in the Operations of british intelligence in american soil and did F R, this that for harvard? Yeah, where do a Wilson and ran for his? And as he was run on an anti war, well, you know, he ran on the platform and not getting motor war one somehow that switched you like.

And I do not even make any value judges of these things. I'm just saying like the way that our ancestors experience ed reality was of course mediated through centralized top down right control. At that point, if you if you ran those reality again with the mean environment we have today, the reality, the reality would be experienced very, very differently. And of course, that that intermediation would cause the feedback groups to change and then reality .

would obviously pay out .

to be very different. IT has to be IT has to be just because it's also I may just look at what's happening today. I think that mean the most obvious thing is just the collapse. And here's another opportunity to argue this is not the internet causing this in the way um the hear a big thing, happy to day, which h gale does this thing every year where they do, they pull for trust in institutions in amErica and they do IT across all that if everything the military, clergy and big business and the the media so forth right um and basically there is systemic collapse. Interesting institutions in the us almost of that exception um basically sense essentially the world in nineteen seventies um two ways looking at that which is oh my god we've lost this old world institutions was so much unless you know a lot more in the great mystery is why those numbers are not told zero yeah right like now we know so much about .

all .

these things that for IT and like they are not impressive and also why do we don't .

have uh Better institutions of Better leaders then yeah so so so the thing which was like.

okay, had we had the media environment of that we've had between one thousand nine hundred seventies and today, if we have that in the thirties and forties or one thousand nine hundred tens, I think there's no question really turned out different, if only because everybody would have known to not trust the institutions, which would have changed their level of credibility, their ability to control circumstances.

Therefore, the circumstances would have had to change IT would have been a feedback, would have been feedback loop process in other was right? It's your experiences of reality changes reality, and then the reality changes your experience. Reality, right? It's a way, feedback as the media is the intermediate force between them.

So changed the media vironment change early. yeah. And so so just as as a consequence, I think it's just really hard to say, oh, things work a certain way then and they work a different way now.

And then therefore, like people were smarter than or Better than or you know by the way, I dumber than or not as capable then, right? We make all these like really light and casual like comparisons of ourselves to know previous generations of people. You would judge judgments all the time. And I just think it's like really hurt to do, because if we if we put ourselves in their shoes with the media that they had at that time, like I think we probably most likely would have been just like them.

So don't you think that our perception and understanding of reality would you be more, more immediately through large language miles now? So you said media before, isn't the l going to be the new what is the mainstream media? M S M will be alarm ah that will be the source of i'm sure there's a way to kind of rapidly find you making alumbo real time. I'm sure there's as is probably research problem that you can ah do, just rapid fine tuning to the new events. So something like this.

even just the whole concept of the chat U I might not be the like good chat U I just the first way of this. Maybe that's the dominant thing. But look, maybe maybe maybe we don't we don't know that maybe the experience most of elms just to ue as feed, maybe more oppressive feed. And you just start getting a question like running and commentator at everything happening in your life. And that's just helping you kind of interpret, understand everything .

also really more deeply integrated into your life, not just like how like intellectual for alph atos, but like literally uh like how to make a coffee, what to go for lunch, just uh what I know how dating all this kind, 我 to say what .

to say next sentence.

a pop up, a pop up. Right now, the estimate engagement using is decreasing for market reasons. There's as a controversy section for the kip dia page in nineteen ninety three, something happened or something like this. And bring that up, I will drive .

engagement out anyway. This is this whole thing of, like, so, you know, the chat in interface has this whole concept prompt engineering, right? Possible IT. Turns out one of the things that really good that is really props, right? yeah.

And so like, what if you just outsource? And even the way you can run this experiment today, you could have to do this today the late, and he's not good enough to do a real time in the conversation, but you you could run this experiment and you just say, look, every twenty seconds you say, tell me what the optical properties and then I ask ourself that question to give me the result. Um and then as as you exactly your point is you add there will be there will be these systems are going to have the ability to learned up at essentially in real time.

And so you'll be able to have a pendent or your phone or what, watch you, whatever you will have a microphone on and listen your conversations to have a feet of everything else happened in the world. And then there will be sort retraining, prompting, retraining itself on the fly. So the area you described as a is actually a completely do ero.

Now the hard question on this is always okay. Sense as possible. Are people going to want that? Like what's the form of experience? You know that, that we won't know until we try, but I don't think it's possible yet to predict the form of A I in our lives. Therefore is not possible to predict the way in which is IT will intermediate our experience of reality. Yeah yeah.

but he feels like those going to be a killer APP. There's probably a math ramble right now, and i'd OpenAI in microsoft and google, in meta and in startups and smaller companies figuring out what is the killer APP because he feels like it's possible like a chage pte type of thing is possible to build dep. But that's ten ex more compelling using already the elements we have, using even the open source alums law in the different variants.

Um this is year investing a lot of companies and you're paying attention. Who do you things gonna witness you think we'll be who give me the next page rank inventer. Another one. We have a few those today.

And so there's a really big question today sitting here today y's a really big question about the big models. First of the small models um that's related directly to the big question of proprietary versus open. Um then there's this big question of of of where's the training data going, like how we're topping out of the training data or not and then we're going to be able synthesize training data. And then there is a huge pilot questions around regulation um and you know what's actually gonna illegal um and so I would when we think about we do tell of all questions together, you can paint a picture of the world where there's two or three god models that are just like sagging scale um and they're just Better everything um and they will be owned by a small other companies and they will basically achieve regulatory capture over the government and y'll have competitive barriers that will prevent of their people from you competing with them.

And so there will be, you know, just like there is like, you know whatever three big banks are, three big by by three big arch companies are, I guess no, you know a little centralized like that um you can paint another very different picture that says no um actually the opposite that's going to happen this is gna specially that this is the new gold know, this is the new gold rush to me like, thank you know, this is this is the big bang for this whole area of of a science and technology and so therefore you can have very smart fourteenth of the planet building open source right you can figure out ways to optimize these things um and then know where is gna get like overwhelmingly Better and generating trading data of we're going to you know bring and like watching networks to have like and I can have can send up to generate the centralizing ing data and so forth and so on and then basically were going to live the world of open source and there's be a billion ms right of every size, scale, shape and description. And there might be a few big ones that are like the superficial ones, but like mostly what will experience this open source. And that's that's more like a role of like what we have today with like linux on the web. Okay.

but you you paint these two worlds, but there's also variations of those worlds because the regular capture is possible to have these tech giants that don't have a capture, something you also calling forcing is okay to have big companies working on this stuff. As long they don't chief regular capture. But I have the sense that there's just going to be a new starter that's going to basically be the payment ink inventer, which has become the new tech giant. I don't know that I would love to hear your kind of opinion if google, meta and microsoft as gigantic companies able to pay IT so hard to create new products like some of IT is just even hiring people or having, uh, corporate structure that allows for the crazy Young kids to comment and just create a tally new, do you think this is possible? Or do you think you'll .

come from the starter? Yeah IT. Is this always big question, which is you get this feeling? I hear about the slight from CEO founder, CEO.

It's like, wow, we have fifty thousand people. It's now harder to do new things. And IT wasn't we had fifty people yeah like what has happens. So that's a recurring phenomenon. Um by the way, that's one of the reasons why there is always startups and why there is future capital like a time, uh kind of thing. So that that's one observation um on page rank um we take about that but on page rank k specifically and pay drank, there actually is a so there is a pay drink already in the field and it's the transformer, right so the big break there was the transformer. Um uh the transformer was invented in um uh twenty seventeen at google.

And this is actually like really an interesting question because it's like, okay, the transformers like why is open even exist like the transformers in google google I asked the guy, I asked a guy know who was senior at google brain kind of when this was happening and I said if google had just gone flat out to the wall and just said, look, we're going to watch we're going to watch equivalent of GPT forest faces. We can um he said I said when could we have had IT and he said, twenty nine yeah they could just done a two years before with the transformer because they already have the computer scale. They already had all the training.

There's a variety of reasons they didn't do IT. This is like a classic big company thing um I B M invent to the reliable database in in the eighteen seventies. Let IT set on the shelf as a paper that Allison picked IT up and build oracle ZARA park invented the interactive computer.

They let IT set in the shelf. Steve jobs came and turned into the machaon push, right? So there is this, Peter.

Now, having said that, sitting here today, like google in the game, right? So google, you know, maybe, maybe may be like, like a four year gap there. Go there that they maybe shouldn't have, but like there in the game.

And so now theyve got you know committed they're done this merger. They're going to do they want this measure with deep mind. You know they're piling and resources. There are rumors that they are building up an incredible you know super LLM. Um you know we beyond what we even have today um and they've got you know a limited resources and huge they've been chAllenged.

They are honor. Yeah I chance to him. I was a couple days ago we took this walk and this this giant new building. Um well, there's going to be a lot of way I work being done is kind of this ominous feeling of vaca fight is on yeah this is .

beautiful .

on vali nature like birds of chopin in this giant building. It's like the beast has been awakened and all the big companies are waking up to this. They have the computer, but also the little guys have if musically, they have all the tools to create kilar product that um and there's all the tools to scale, if you have a good idea, if you have the page rank a.

So there are several things that is page rank this page rank the algorithm and the idea and there's like the implement of IT. And I feel like killer product is not just the idea, like the transformer. Is the implementation something something really compelling about IT? Like you just can't look away something like um the algorithm behind tiktok veris tiktok itself like the actual experience of tiktok, just you can't look away IT feels like somebody is gonna come up with that and they could be google but he feels like it's just easier and faster to do for start up yeah so so the start.

the huge the huge advantage to start of harvest, they just there there's no sacred cause. There is no hyste ical legacy protect. There's no need to reconcile your new plan with existence strategy.

There's no communication overhead. There is no you big companies of big companies theyve got three meetings planning for the meeting. Then they have the post meeting that break up up.

Then they have the presentation aboard. Then they have the next restaurant meetings. Yeah and that's that's the a lapse time on the start of launches.

Its its product, right? So there's the timeless yeah so there's the best thing there. Now what the stars don't have is everything else, right?

So start the other brand. I don't have a relationships that gotten a distribution. They've gotten no scale.

I am sitting here today. They can't even get G P S, right. Like there's like A G P shortage start up literally stalled out, right? Because I can't get chips.

which is like super weird yeah they get the cloud .

yeah but the clouds run on the chips, right? To extend the clouds headships. They allocate him to the big customers, not small customers, right? And so so so so the small companies lack everything other than on the ability to just do something new yeah right um and and this is the timeless race and battle.

This is the kind of the point I try to make in the S A, which is like both sides of this are good. Like it's really good to have like highly scale companies that can do things that are like at gering levels of sophistication, is really good to have start up that can launch brand new ideas. They ought to be able to both do that and compete.

They either one ought to be subsides, are protected from the others like that. To me, that's just like very clearly the ideal as world IT is the world we've been in for AI up until now. And then, of course, there are people trying to shut that down. But my hope is that the best outcome clearly will be if that continue.

we will talk about that a little bit. But i'd love to linger some of the ways this is going to change the internet. So I don't know you remember, but does he think all mosaic and is, I think, called nesa navigator? See, you were there in the beginning.

Ah, what about the interface of the internet? How do you think the browser changes? And who gets the own? The brothers? We're got to see some very interesting browsers, firefox. I mean, all the variants of microsoft dinner is explored edge and they are now chrome. Um the actual he seems like a dun questioned as what do you think we will still have the web browser?

So I I know have an eight role and he's super to like mine crafton learning to go and doing all the stuff. So that course, like this very product, could bring sort of fire down from the mountain to my kid. And I went him ChatGPT and I hold him up, is is on his laptop and I wants, like, know, this is things going to answer all your questions and he's like, okay and i'm like but it's going to answer your questions and he's like of course like it's a computer of course and answer so many questions like what else would the computer be good for dad?

Um and never impressed, not impressed in the least two weeks past um and he has some question um and I say, well, have you ChatGPT and he's like, dad, thing is Better and why is being Better because it's built into the browser because he's like, look, I have the microsoft ed browser and like it's coming right here and then he doesn't this yet. But one of the things you can do with being in edge um is there's a setting where you can use that to basically talk page because the sitting right there next to the uh next to the next to the browsing and by which includes P D F documents. And so you can in in in the way the inflated and end the bank as you can load A P D F and then you can you can ask questions, which is the thing you use.

You can you currently just ChatGPT. So now they're y're, they're going to push the the meal. I think it's great they are going to push the building and see if there's A A combination thing there. Google rolling out this thing, the magic, uh, which is implemented if they put in google dox, right? And so you go into you know oogly dogs and you create a new document and you you instead of like you know starting a type, you just you say IT press the button is just to like generate content for you, right?

Like IT is that the way that little work um is that going to be a speech where you're just going having your peace and talk to all day long know is that gonna like these are all like this is exactly the kind of thing that I this is exactly the kind thing I don't think is possible to forecasts. I think what we need to do is like run all those experiments um and and so one outcome as we come out of this with like a super browser that has A I built in, it's just like amazing there. Look, there's a real possibility. The whole I mean, look, there's a possibility here that the whole idea of a screen and windows and all this stuff just goes away because like why do you need that if you just have a thing, just you whatever .

you need to. So there's apps they can use, you don't really use them on being a link sky and windows sky. Um there's one window, the browser that with which you can interact with the internet.

But on the phone, you can also have apps. So I can interact twitter through the APP or through the web browser. And that seems I can offer this distinction.

But why have the web brother er, in that case, if one of the apps starts becoming the everything APP what you want. I started to do twitter, but there could be others. There could be like a big APP.

There could be a google APP just doesn't really do search, but you like do what I guess a well did back in the day or something or it's all right there. Any changes? IT changes the nature of the .

internet because the where .

the content is hosted, who owns the data, who owns the content, how, what is what is the kind of content you can, how do you make money by creating content for the concrete ors all that or you could just keep being 就是 we just the nature where page changes in the nature of contempt。 There are still be a way brothers, because web brothers is a pretty sexy products.

This seems to work because I like the oven interface, a window into the world, and then the world can be anything you want. As the world will evolve, there be a different programing languages that can be animating, maybe dimension. Yeah, it's interesting. Using will still have .

the a broster becomes the so will be able to give you, brother and everyone, just you.

Another way to think .

about IT is maybe what the brothers is. Maybe it's just the escape patch, right, which maybe kind of what IT is today, right? Which is like most of what you do is like inside a social networker, inside a service tension or inside, you know, somebody's upper inside some controlled experience, right? But then everyones in a while there's something where you actually want to jebra.

You might actually get free. The web brothers, the F, U. To the man you, you're allowed to. That's the .

free internet. yeah. I compatible all the way back to like one thousand and ninety two, right? So like you can put up a, you can still, you know, the big break through for the web early on, the big breakthrough was IT made IT really easy to read.

IT also made IT really easy to, right, made IT really easy to publish. And and we literally made IT so easy to publish. We made not as easy to publish content.

IT was actually also easy to actually write a web server, right? And you could literally write over server in four lines broke, and you could start publishing content on IT. And you could set whatever rules you want for the content, whatever sensorily.

No censorship. But everyone, you could just do that as long as you had an I P. Address, right? You could do that. That still works. That still works exactly as I just described.

Ed, so this this part of my reaction to all of this, like know all this just censorship pressure and all this these issues around control and all the stuff wishes, like maybe we need to get back a little bit more. The wild west, like the wild west, is still out there. Now they will try to chase you down.

I will try to you know, people who want to answer, we'll try to take away you your domain name and i'll try to take away your payments account. So if they really don't like you, but nevertheless you like unless they literally intercepting you at the S P level, like you can still put up the thing. And so I don't know, I think that's important to preserve, right? Like because because because I want is just freedom argument, but the others of creativity argument, which you want to have the escape pass so that the kid of the idea is able to realize the idea. Because to your point on page, you you actually don't know what the next big idea, nobody called there a page and told him to develop page. And like, you can find another zone, and you want to always, I, I think, leave the escape patch for the next you, or the next time for regress did to have the breakthrough a, be able to get up and running before .

anybody notices you, both ends of history. So I step back will be talking about the future, or step back for bit and look at, uh, the nineties, you create a mosaic. Wa brothers, the first widely used. What brother? Er, till the story of that and how did you evolve in the nescafe navigated this the early days.

so full today. So I was born, I was born a small, small .

child, actually, that when did you you first fall in love with computers?

So I hit the generation, I hit the genus, kind of point perfectly as IT turns out, I worn in one thousand and seventy one. So there is a great way psycho WTF happened in one thousand and seventy. That com, which is basically thousand years, was everything started to go to hell. And I was, of course, for n in one thousand and seventy ones. So I like to think that .

I had something to do with that.

Did you make IT on the website? I I don't think I made on the website.

but know, hope somebody needs to add. This is where everything.

maybe I contribute with some of the they every, every line of that website goes like that, right? So it's it's it's a picture disaster. But but there was this moment in time where because the know sort of the apple, you know the apple two hit in one thousand nine hundred seventy eight and then the IBM PC hit and eighty two so I was like, you know eleven when the PC came out um and so I just going to hit that perfectly and then that was the first moment in time when like regular people could spend a few hundred dollars and get a computer right so I just like that resonated right out of the gate.

Um tell me the part of the story, as you know what, I was using apple two that used a bunch of them but was using apple two. And of course, I stead on the back of every apple two and every mac is designed to california. I was like, well, k kartini a must be like shining city on the hill.

Like was IT of us like the most amazing, like city of all time. I can't wait to see you course. Years later, I came out to so like value, but to a potent and is just a bunch of office rise of our buildings so the aesthetics were a little disappointing. But you know IT was the the uh right of of the creation of a of a lot of the stuff. Um yes so so then basically so part part part of my story is just the luck of have been burned the right time and getting exposed to pcs.

And the other part is the part is when alga says that he created the internet, he actually is correct uh in in in a really meaningful way which is he posted to bill in one hundred and eighty five the escap't created the modern internet, created what is called the anos at at the time we just heard of the the first really fast internet backbone um and you know that that built dump ed to tonto money and to a bunch of research universities to build out basically the internet backbone and then the supercomputer centers that were clustered around um the internet and in one of those universities was university of and I write to school and so the other stock like that I had was that I went to L N. I basically write as that money was just like getting dumped on campus. And so as a consequence, we had on campus and this is like you know eighty nine, ninety, ninety one we had like you know we were write an internet backbone and we had like p three and forty five at the time, p three and forty five the background and connection we should the time was you know while we stay they are um we had great supercomputers.

We have thinking machines, parallel supercomputers. We have siloam phos for stations. We have making pushes we with next cubes, with the place we are, like every possible kind of computer you could imagine, because all this money just fell up the sky.

They were living in the future. So quite literally, the graphics like the whole thing, and and is actually funny. This is the first time I kind of started tickle the back of my head, that there might be a big opportunity in here, which is they embraced IT. And so they put, like, computers and all the dorms, and they wired up all the dorm rooms, and they head all these know lives everywhere and everything and then they they gave every undergrad computer account in an email address um and the assumption was that you would use the internet for your four years of college um and then you graduate and stop using IT that was that right? Yeah and you just retired your email address is wouldn't well than any mark as you could go in the workplace and they don't use email, you be back to using tax machines or whatever .

you have that sense as well. Like what what you said the back your head was tickled like what IT was was well, what was exciting to about this possible world.

if this is so useful in this contain, if this is so useful, this contain environment that just as this weird source of outside funding, then if, if they were practical for everybody else to have this, and if they were cost effect of everybody else to have this with on IT, and the overwhelmingly the prevAiling view at the time was, no, they would not want IT this is a terc were nerd stuff, right? Like computer science gets like, but like Normal people were are never going to email right to be on the internet right um and so I was just like, well, like this, this is actually like this is really compelling stuff.

Now the other part was IT was all really hard to use. And in practice you had to be a basically S C, S. You basically had to be A S undergrad equivalent to actually get full use internet at that point, because IT was all pretty as a touch stuff. So then that was the other part of the idea, which was OK.

You actually make A C, C, D use. So what's involved in a like in ding uh, graphic interface to the internet? Yes.

he was a combination of thing. So IT was like, basically the web existed early, sort of describes prototype form and by the way, text to only at that .

point I wouldn't look like what what was the web mean and the key figures, like what was the what was that like.

made a picture that looked like a GPT actually what IT was all text yeah um and so you had a text base web broster actually original brothers tempers original gino browser, both original browser, the server SHE ran on next cube.

So this this was new, the computer Steve elves made during the interm period when he, during the decade long interm period when he was not an apple, you know, he got fired in eighty five and then came back in eighty seven. So this was in that interm period where he had this company called next. Then they made these, literally, these computers called cubes.

And there is a famous story. They were beautiful, but they were trapped by trolls, inched by twelve ge cubes computers. And there is a famous story about how they could have cost half as much if I had been trouble by train by thirteen.

This people was like, no, what I could have to be so they were like six thousand dollar or basically economic prostates. They have the first city round drives um which was slow and he was. The computers are all but unusable. Um they were so slow, but they were beautiful.

We actually just take tiny tent, the twelve, twenty by twelve, just so beautifully capsule. Steve jobs idea of design. Can you just comment on what you find interesting about stage jobs? What about that view of the world? The dogmatic pursuit of perfection in how he saw perfection? The design? Yes, I guess they say.

like, like, he was a deep believer, I think in a very deep, but way I interpret IT. I don't if you ever really described like this, but the way interpret IT is it's it's like it's like this thing is actually a thing in philosophy. It's like esthetics are not just appearances esthetics score the way to like deep and underlying anning, right? It's like i'm not a physicist.

One of things I heard of physicists to say is one of the things you start to get a sense of when a theory might be correct, as when it's beautiful, right? Like, you know, right? And so, so, so there's something.

And you feel the same thing, by the way, and like human psychology, right? You when you're experiencing, oh, right, you know there's like this like there's a simi ity too. When you're having an an interaction with somebody there static, I was like calm comes over you because you're being fully honest and trying to hide yourself, right? So it's like there's a very deep sense of this .

and he would trust that judgment that he had deep down. Like even if the engineering teams are saying this is uh, this is too difficult, even if the whatever the finance folks are saying this is ridiculous of the supply chain, all that kind of stuff this makes is impossible. We can do this kind of material. This has never been done before, is so long. So four.

he just sticks by IT, who makes a, then nobody else would have done that. Uh, now, of course, if your phone is made, how could what a kind of cave man would you have to be to have a one on a plate? Like, so so it's just this very right.

And you know, look, there is a thousand different ways to look at this, but one of the things is just like likely things are central to your life like you're with your phone more than you're with anything else like it's it's going to be in your head. I mean, he thought very deeply about what for something to be in a handle long. yes.

Well, for example, here's an interesting design thing like he he never wanted is my understanding. As he never wanted iphone to have a screen larger, then you could reach with your thun one handed. And so he was actually opposed to the idea of making the phones larger. And I know if you have this experience today, but there are certain moments in your day when you might be like only have one hand available and you might want to be phone and you're trying to like to text you your thun can't reach the same button yeah I mean.

there's post counts, right? And then there's like folding phones. Would love to know if he thought thinks about them. But is there something you could also just like going because he's one of the interesting um figures in the history of technology. What makes him what makes him as successful he was what makes him as interesting as he was, what made him a so productive and important in, in, in, in the development of technology.

He had an integrated world view. So the properly designed device that had the correct function ality, that had the deepest understanding of the user, that was the most beautiful, right? Like he had to be all of those things, right? IT.

He basically would drive to as close to perfect as you could possibly get, right? I suspect that he never quite thought he ever got there, because most craters, generally to satisfy accounts later on, and all they can, all they can see the flow of creation. But like he got as close to perfect each step of the way as you could possibly get with with the constraints of the of of the technology of its time.

Um and then you know lucky was you sort of famous in the apple model is like, you know this this head set came with like just like a decade long project, right is like they're just going to sit there and tune and tune in polish and polish and tune in polish and to and polish until IT is this perfect as anybody could possible anything? And then this goes to the way that people describe working with them, which is, you know, there was a terrifying aspect of working with them. We know he know he was very tough. Um but there was this thing that everybody i've ever talked to work for him says that they all say the following which is he we did the best work of our lives when we work for him because he said the bar incredibly high and then he support with everything that he could to let us actually do work of that quality. So a lot of people who were at apple spend the rest of their lives trying to find another experience where they feel like terrible hit, that quality.

even if IT in retrospect or doing IT fit .

like suffering.

What is that teach you about the human condition here?

So look is so exactly so the silk valley, i'm look he's not you know, torch pattern in the army, like there are many examples in other fields, know there are like this um uh uh specifically in tech is actually I find IT very interesting. There is the apple way, which is polish, polish, polish. And don't ship until it's perfect because you can make IT.

And then there is the sort of the other approach, which is the sort of incremental hacker mentality, which basically says ship early and often in iterate. And one of the things I find really interesting, as i'm now thirty years into this, like there are very successful companies on both sides of that approach, right? Um like that is a fundamental difference, right? And how to Operate and how to build and how to create that you have role class companies Operating in both ways.

Um and I don't think the question of like which is the superior model as anywhere close to being answered like in my suspicion is that the answer is do both. The answer is you actually want both. They we do different outcomes. Software tends to do Better um with the idea approach um hardware tends to do Better with the um you know sort of waiting make a perfect approach. But again, you can find examples in in in in .

both directions out on that one. So back music, so he was text based timbers. Well.

there was the web, which was tax space, but there were no, I mean, there was like three websites. There was like no content. There were no users like IT.

IT wasn't like, there wasn't like a catholic IT in the Better way, IT was because IT was all text. There were no documents. There are no images there, no videos there. no.

right? So, so IT was. IT was. And then if, if in the beginning, if you had to be on the next cube, you need to have a next cube, both to publish and to consume them.

So there were six thousand box.

he said, limitations. Six thousand. W, P, C, many.

But then there was also, there was also FTP, and there was used net, right? And there was a dozen other, basically what? There's wait, which is an early search thing.

There was gofer, which is an early menu based information retriever system there. There were like a dozen different sort of scattered ways the people would get to information on on the internet. So the mosaic idea was basically bring this all together, make the whole and graphics, make these use, make IT, basically bullet proof so that anybody can do IT.

And then again, just on the luck side, is so happened that this was right at the moment when graphics, when the gooey sort of actually took off. And we're now also used to the goose that we think it's spent around forever. But I didn't real know the macintosh brought out in eighty five, but that actually didn't sell for him any max in the years.

That was not that successful of a product. Um IT really was you needed to windows three point out on pcs and that hit in about ninety two um and so and we did most and ninety two and ninety three. So that sort of IT was like right at the moment when you could imagine actually having a graphical user interface right at all, much less one of the interview.

how old did windows three cell? So that was that .

the .

really big Operating graphical Operating system.

ico soft perking. Steve, Steve, the apple is running on the polish and tells perfect microsoft mousy ran on the other model, which is ship iterate. And so the old line in those days was microsoft version three of ever crossed products is the good one, right? So there are, if you can, you can find online windows one windows to nobody use them. Actually original windows, the in original microsoft windows, the windows were non overlapping. Um and so you have these very small, very low resolution screens and then you had literally, I just didn't work IT was .

already well in windows ninety five think was a pretty big leap also that .

was a big leap to yeah so that was like, bang bang um and then course Steve and and know the time Steve came back and the matter take off again. That was a third bang and then the iphone was a fourth. And such .

exciting time then .

we are after after .

the race because nobody could have known will be created from that .

windows three point one or three point, windows three point out of that phone was only fifteen years, right? Like IT, that rap was in retrospect at the time. I elt like a pick forever, but that, in historical terms, like that was a very fast around from even a graphical computer at all on your desk to the phone. I was fifty years.

Did did you have a sense of what the internet will be as you look into the window as egg, like, like what you like? There's just a few of pages for now.

So the thing I had earlier on was I was keeping at the time what this dispute ever what was the first blog but I I had one of them that at least is possible um at least to right up in the competition um and IT was what was called the what's new page um uh and IT was IT was IT was hard wire and distribution and fair vantage I was put her the I did the brothers and then I put my resume of brother but but um I I was getting the many people to get to do that .

so no ah good cause and early days it's so interesting .

I looking for my about about oh mark looking job so um so there was new page. I would literally get up every morning and I would every afternoon um and I would basically if if you want to launch a website you would email me. Um and I was listed on the most new page and that was how people discovered the new websites as they were coming out. And remember because I was like one IT literally went for IT was like one every couple days just like one everyday, like to everyday. And so you do IT so that .

that blog was kind of doing the directory thing. So like what was the home page?

So the home page is just basically trying to explain even what this thing is that you're looking at, right? The basic, basically basic constructions. But then there was a button.

There is a button that said, what's new and what most did they want to? Previous reasons want to what's new? But like IT was so IT was so mind blogger at that point, this the basic idea.

And like basically of the internet, but people can see IT for the first time. The basic idea was, look, know some you know it's like literally it's like an indian a restaurant in like briol, england has like put their menu on the web. And if people were like.

wow.

well because like that's the first restaurant menu on the web yeah and I don't have you in bristol and I don't know, I never just I don't be in food and like, wow, right um and he was like that the first web, the first streaming video thing was he was was another england some extra or something um some guy uh puts uh his coffee pop up as the first of streaming uh uh video thing and he put a on the web because he was literally he was the coffee cut down the hall yeah and he wanted to see when he needed to go a refill IT um but there were you know there was a point thousands of people like washing that coffee but .

because IT was the first thing you can watch but but right isn't the we are able to convene r you know that indian restaurant could go online then you like they all well so you felt there now look.

it's still a stress. Right it's still a stretch because it's just like OK know you're still in this zone which just like OK is in heart thing is this a role person thing? Um by the way, we you know there is a wall scepter system from the media like they just like everybody was just like that this is the great is just like dumb. This is not you know this is not for regular people at that time. And so you had to think through that.

And then look, IT was still was still hard to get on the internet at that point, right? So you could get kind of this, we are bastardize version if you're on A L, which wasn't really real or you had to go like the one and S P was um you know in those days pcs actually didn't have T C P A P drivers complaint all so you had a the driver was you had to buy a mood of, you had to its all driver software. Um I have a comedy routine I do like twenty minutes long describing off the steps required actually on internet. So you had you have to look through these practical well then and then then speed performance fourteen four modems right like IT was like watching you know good dry um like and so you had they were basically a sequence best that we made where you look through the current state of affairs and say, actually, there is going to be so much demand for that once people figure this out, there's to be so much demand for that. All of these practical problems are you going to get six?

Some people say that the anticipation makes the the destination that much more exciting for .

progressive. typical.

Yeah, do I do I? So for kids in the audience.

kids in the, we used to have to wash an image load like a line of the time, but IT turns out there is a single age jay pegs where you you could load basically every fourth. You could look like every fourth, uh, wine, and then and then you can sweet back here again. And so you could like, render a fuzzy version image up front. And I was like a resolve in the detailed one and that was like a big U I .

break through because IT gave you something to watch yeah and you know there's applications in various .

domains for that was a big fighter, the big fighting ly on about whether there should .

be images in the web.

That reaction that did come up, but IT wasn't even that. IT was more like all the serious of the argument went, the pests basically said, all the serious information, the world is text. If you introduced images, you you basically going to bring in all the trivial stuff, are going to bring in magazines and you know all this crazy, I was just your stuff that you know people know it's going to distract from to go take away from being serious.

being previous ous. Well was there any a demo type arguments about um the internet destroying all of human civilization, destroying some fundamental fabric of human civilization? Ah so those days .

that was all around crime mattera orm, so those arguments happened um but there was no sense of international having like an impact on politics because far but there was an enormous panic uh the time around cyber crime there was like enormous panic that like your credit card number would get stolen and your life savings to be drained and then you know criminals we're going on there was oh um when we started one of the things we did, one of the the nets cape browser, was the first widely used piece of consumer software that had strong egypt built in, made IT available ordinary people.

And at that time, strong egypt was actually export out of the U. S. So we could feel that product in the U.

S. We could not export IT IT because I was even classified as a munition. Um the escape broster was on a restricted list along with the time missile as being something that could not be exported.

So we we have to make a second version with deliberately weak Henry's tion to sell overseas with a big logo on the boxing do not trust, which that turns out makes IT hard to self off her when got a big global s that says, don't trust IT. And then we had to spend five years fighting the us. Government to get them to basically stop trying to do this. But but because the fear the fear was terrorists are gona use encysted to like plot all all these things um and then you know we responded with well, actually we need interruption to be able to secure system. So the terrorists and the criminals candidate so anyway, that was was the ninety five.

So can you say something about some of the details of the software engineering chAllenges required to build these browsers? I mean, the engineering chAllenges of creating a product that hasn't really existed before that can have such almost like limit this uh, impact on the world with the internet.

So there was a really key bet that we made of the time, which is very universal, which is record how I was engineered, which was very optimistic for performance um or for easy creation. And in those days, the pressure was very intentioned. Optimize for performance because the network necks were so slow and also the computers are so slow.

Um and so if you had mentioned the progressive jac x, like if if if there is an alternate world in which we optimize your performance and is just you had just a much more pleasant experience throughout front, but what we got by not doing that was we got easy creation. And the way that we got easy creation was all of the protocols and formats were in text, not in binary. Um and so H T T P is in texts by the and this is an internet tradition, by the way, that we picked up.

But we continue to H H T T P is text, um uh H E mail, text and then ever else, if anything else that followed um as a result. And by the way, you can imagine paris engineers saying this is insane. You have very limited band with why are you wasting any time sending text 视频 里 stuff in the binary and there will be much fast increasing answer is that correct？ Um but what you get when you make a text as all of a sudden, well that the big breakthrough was the view source function, right? So the fact that you could look at the way page you view source and you can see the H T L, that was how people learn how to make pages right.

It's so interesting, because the stuff would take for granted now is a man. I was funded tal, the development of the web, to be able to have each modest right there, all the get to mess that is a sham out, all the sort of almost biological, like messiness the last year, and then having the browser tried to interpret them us to show something reasonable well. And then there was a .

internet principle that we inherit, which was MIT. What was that? Admit cautious, ously, emit conservatively, interpret liberally. So IT ics met, if you the design principle was, if you're, if you're creating, like a web editor is going to admit, H M L, like, do IT as clean as you can, but you actually want the browser to interpret liberally, which is you actually want users to be able to make all kind's mistakes and for IT to still work. yeah.

And so the browser engine to this day, have all of this get of crazy stuff, where they can the zilia to all kinds of crazy issue of mistakes. And so literally, what I always had my head is like, there's an eight year old, seven year old somewhere, and there's doing a you source. They are doing a cutting pace and try to make a web page for the turtle or whatever. And like they leave out a slash and leave out an angle bracket, and they do this.

and they do that. And IT still works. It's also like, I don't often think about this, but you programing, you know, C, C, I post all those languages, lip, the compile language is interpreted languages, pithed, perl, all debris that to be all correct.

Yes, like everything has to be perfect. And then you forget, alright, a systematic and rigorous as go there. But you forget the, the A, A, the web, javascript, t eventually. And H, T, mail is allowed to be missing in the way, for the first time, messy in the way biological systems could be MC. I like the only thing computers were allowed to be missing on for the first time.

I used to fend me so I I grew unit. I I worked on you. I I was a unix native for all the way through this period um and so and I used to drive me bananas when IT would do the the segmentation.

Fault in the court dump file and just know like literally there's like an air and the code math is off by one yeah and a corduroys yeah and i'm in the cord dub trying and analyzed and and turn and reconstruct. I'm just like this is ridiculous, like the computer ought to be smart enough to be able to know that if it's off OK fine and IT keeps running. And I would go ask all the experts like why can't just keep running? And that explain me well, because of the downstream repercussions, bobo.

And like this, still like, you know what this is, we're forcing the human creator to live dear point in this hyper literal world of perfection. And I was just like that. That's just that's just bad.

And by the way, you know what happens that, of course, just what what happened with with coding at that point, which is you get a high, there's a small number people who are really good at doing exactly that. Most people can't and most people are included from IT. So actually that was where that was where ipad up. The idea was um uh was like, no, no, you want you you want these things to be resilient, error in all kinds and this this will drive the purse absolutely crazy. Like I got attack on this like a lot because I mean like every time I you know all the purse were relying all this like mara language stuff and formats and codes and all of the stuff, they would be like, you know you can't you you're encouraging .

my behavior because also they wanted the browser to give you an a seg fat error .

any time there was a yeah no yeah that was a very any properly trained critical engineer would be like that's not how you build.

This is such a bold move to say no IT doesn't have to be no no.

Like I said, the good news for me is the internet. I had the traditional already um but but having said that, like we pushed IT, we pushed way out. But everything we did going back to the performance thing was we gave up a lot of performance with that. That initial experience for the first three years was pretty painful, but but the bet, there was actually economic bet, which was basically the demand for the web would basically mean that there would be a surgeon supply of broadband.

Because question was, okay, how do you get how do you how do you get the phone companies which are not famous in those days for doing new things at huge cost for like speculative reasons, like how do you get them to build up broadband? You know, spend billions of dollars doing that. And you know you could go meet with them, a try to talk them and do IT, or you could just have a thing where is just very clear that's gonna the the people love is going to be Better if it's faster. And and so that that there was a period there and this was this was fought, was imperial, but there was a period there was like we knew the experience was sub optimize because we were trying to force the of demand for, right?

And what have? So you have to figure out how to display this text, H, T, M. text. So the blue links in the purple links at what international standards is there?

Standards at that time.

There's like there's imply implied standard, right? And there are all these cousin you features are being out of like this would like what kinds stuff for browsers should be able to support features with the languages, with the javalies scripts so on. But you you make your setting standard on the five yourself to this day.

if you, if you create a weapon that has no C S S style SHE the brothers were rendered hover IT wants to um right? So this was one of the things. There was this idea, this idea of the time and in how these systems are built with a separation of content from format earth, separation of uh yeah content from appearance um and that still people don't really use that anymore because everybody wants to determine how things look. And so the U C S S. But um it's still in there that you can just let the grocer do all the work.

I still like a like a really basic websites, but that could be just old school kids these days with their fancy responsive websites that don't actually have much content but have a lot of visual elements.

That's one of the things that's fine about about chat P T.

like back to the basic.

back to just tax. Yeah right. And know there is this pattern in human creativity and media where you end up back a text. And I think there's there's something powerful on there.

Is this some other stuff you remember like the purple links, there were some interesting design decisions to can come up that um we have today or we don't have today. There were temporary.

So we I made the background I hate a reading tax on way uh background .

so so I made the .

backroom no no decision. I think it's been versed but but now i'm happy though because now dark mode is the thing. So so .

wasn't about gray, just he didn't want to wait back, string my eyes, stranger interesting. And then there's a bunch of other decisions. I'm sure there's an interesting history of the wage M L C S S and how interface in javascript. And this is this whole java apotres thing.

Javascript G S S was after me. So I did I was not me. But um java script was the big javascript maybe was the biggest to the whole thing that was us um and and that was basically a bet is a bet on two things. One is that the world one of the new front and scrip language um and then the other was we thought of the time the world wanted a new back and script language um so java script was designed from the beginning to people and and and then IT failed as a back and scripting language and h java one um for a long time and then python, perl and other things PHP um in ruby but now java script is back .

and so I wonder if everything in .

the end we ve run on javascript IT IT seems like IT is the a shot out to to um uh uh abronia eke um was the basically the one man in factor of prescript .

if you're interested to learn more about brand and night pocket .

previously so he wrote out the script over the summer and I think I think IT is pair IT is fair to say now that it's the most widely used language in the world and its .

seems to only beginning and in range but the world there is quite a few stories of somebody over a and over a week over the summer writing some the most impact for revolutionary pieces software look that this should be inspiring.

very inspiring. I'll give another one. S S S L um so S S L the security protocol that was us and that was a crazy idea at the time, which was let's take all the native protocol, must wrap them in a security rapper that was a guy in kik, man who wrote that over the summer. Uh one guy um and then looked today, sitting here today like the transformer like a google, was a small handful of people and then you know the number people who have did like the correct on GPT that many people pretty small handful of people um and so yeah that the pattern in software repeatedly over a very long time I span it's it's uh jeff please is always said the two pieces of rule uh for teams and aisa which is any team needs to be able to be felt with two pizzas if you need the third pizz you have to many people and I I think that I think that I think it's actually the one pizza a rule yeah for the for the really creative work. I think it's two people.

three people that you see that was certain open source projects like so much is done by two people. IT is is so incredible. That's why you see that me so much hope about the open source movement in this new age.

A I, where you just recently having had a conversation with with marxian of all people who is all in an open source, which is so interesting to see and so inspiring to see, because like releasing these models, IT is scary. IT is potentially very dangerous. And we will talk about that.

But it's also, if you believe in the goodness of most people and in the skill set of most people and the desire to do good in the world, that's really exciting because it's not putting IT these models into the centralize control of big corporations of government so on. Is putting in the in the hands of a teen, teenage kid was like a dream. S I don't know that that's beautiful.

And look this on A, I ought to make the individual coder, obviously farmer productive right by, like you know, a thousand, six or something. And so you are open source, like not just the future of open source have, but the future of open source, everything. We ought to have a world now of super cotters, right, who are building things as open source. One hundred two people that were inconceivable you know five years ago um you know the level kind of hy productivity where we get out of our best and brightest. I think it's .

going to go away up, be interest talk about about it's just a linger a little bit of nescafe. Nescafe was acquired in ninety ninety nine for four point three billion by a well, what was that um what was that like was what was a memorable aspects .

of that well that was the height of the that com boom mobile bus. I mean, that was the that was the frenzy. Um if you watch a succession, that was the that was like what they did in the four season with the merger, the height one of .

them. But we have a more .

of a youth guy, american.

I just talked to make amErica and i'm full .

on taxing at this .

point and he will be second, the yellow stone exciting anyway. Uh, so that's rude interruption by me by way of succession. So that was the height of the deal making and money and just the fur .

flying and like craziness and so yeah he was just one of those IT was just the entire escape thing from finished four years um which he was like for one of these companies just like incredible fast you know we went public eighteen month, actually got moved found in which verra never happens so IT was just this incredible fast kind of media or streak across the sky um and then of course, IT was this and then there was just this explosion right that happened because then he was almost immediately followed by the dark come crash. IT was then followed by here well, my time Warner which again is the succession guys going to play with that um which turned out to be a disastrous deal um one of the famous you know of disaster and business history um and then um and then you know what became an internet depression side of that but then in that depression in the two thousands was the beginning of broadband and smart phones and web two point out right and then social media and search and every safe and everything that came out of that.

So what did you learn from just the acquisition minus is so much money was interesting because IT, I must have been very new to you that this soft stuff, you can make so much money. There's so much money in ground. I mean, i'm sure the ideas of investment will starting .

to get born there. Yes, me get. Here's think that them figured out later, which is software technology that is like, you know, the concept of the philosopher stone, the illusory stone and alchemy transit's LED in the gold and new in, spent twenty years trying to find the flask stone never got there.

Nobody has ever figured that out. Software is our modern philosophers stone and in economic, uh, terms IT transat its labor into capital, which is like a super interesting thing. And by the way, like reMarks is rolling urbis grave right now because of course that's a complete refutation of his entire theory. Um trance you slapped the capital, which is which is as follows is somebody sits down to the keyboard and types a bunch of stuff in and the capital asset comes out the other side and then somebody buys the capital asset for a billion dollars like that's amazing, right it's literally creating value right out of the air, out out of purely human thought, right um and so there are many things that make up for magical and special. But that's the .

economics I want to work much about.

that you would completely broke his brain because of course, the whole, the whole thing was, was that kind of technology is conceivable when he was alive. IT was all industrial air of stuff. And so the any kind of machine y necessarily involves huge the capital.

And then labor was on on the receiving end of abuse yeah right. But like suffer R A suffer engineer is somebody who basically transits this own labor into actually a natal capital. I said um creates permanent value.

In fact, IT is actually very inspiring. Um that's actually more true today before. So when when I was doing software are the assumption was all new software basically has a sort of a uh parables sort of lifecycle, right? So you you ship the thing people buy IT. At some point, everybody who wants IT has bought. And then that becomes absolutes like bananas.

Nobody buys all sofer um these days um minecraft, um mathematica, you know facebook, google um you have the software assets that are you know have been around for thirty years that are gaining a value every year, right? And they are just there are being a world worker ft right elsewhere to com like they're every single year. There are being polished, polished, polished, polished are getting Better and Better, more powerful, powerful.

And so we have this era where you can actually have these things that actually build out over decades by the now with GPT. Um and so um now and this is why you there is always, you know sort of a constant investment frenzy around software because you know look, when you start one of these things that doesn't succeed, but when IT does now you might be building an asset that bills value, you know four, five, six decades to come. Um you know, if you have a team of people who will have the level of devotion required to keep making them Better. And then in the fact that, of course, everybody's online, the five billion people that are a click away from any new piece of offer. So the potential markets ze for these things is, you know, nearly infinite.

There must been surreal backend.

Yeah, this was all brand new, right? Yeah, back back. This was all brand new. This were all you brand new. Had you roll up that theory in in even nineteen ninety nine people, what I thought you were smoking cracked. So that's emerged over time.

Well, let's now turn back into the future. You wrote the S A Y A. I will save the world. Let's start the very high level. What's the main thesis of the sa?

Yeah so the main thesis SONY esa is that what we're dealing with here is intelligence. Um and it's really important to kind of talk about this sort of very nature what intelligence is. And fortunately, we have we have a predecessor of machine intelligence, which your intelligence we've got no observation ation in the theories over thousands of years for what what intelligence is in the hands of of humans and and what intelligence is right and what IT IT literally is is the way to know, capture, process analysis, emphasize information, solve problems um but the observation of of of intelligence in human hands is that intelligence quite literally makes everything Better um and what I mean by that is every kind of outcome of like human quality of life whether it's education outcomes or successive your children or career success or health or lifetime satisfaction um by the way uh propensity to peacefulness is opposed to violence uh propensity for open mindset of suspicious ory um those are associated entire level of intelligence and smart people have Better .

outcomes than almost as you right every domain of activity academic achievement, job performance, occupational status, s income, creativity, physical health, langevin learning, new skills, managing complex tasks, leadership, entrepreneurs, success, conflict resolution, reading comprehension, financial decision making, understanding of the prospect, is creative arts, parenting outcomes and life satisfaction. One of the more depressing conversations i've had, and I don't know, wise depressing, I really think though wise depressing, but on I, Q and a, the G F factor and that that's something in large part it's genetic and it's create so much with all of these things and success in life. Instead, all the inspiration stuff read about, like if you work hard and so on dam, that sucks that you're born with the hand that you can change.

What if you .

good you're saying basically a really important point I take in your in your articles. What IT IT really helped me um is a nice other perspective to think about. Listen, human intelligence, the signs of intelligence is shown.

scientific. Cy, that IT just makes life easier and Better. The smart you are. And now let's look at artificial intelligence. And if that's a way to increase the the, some human intelligence, then it's always going to make a Better life. Yes, that's argument.

And certainly at the collective, we talk about the collective effect of just having more intelligence in the world, which will have very big pay off. But there's also just the individual level. Like what if every person has a machine, you know concept of ducking or concept of augmentation? Um you know what if everybody has a an assistant and assistant is you know one hundred and forty I Q um and you've had to be one hundred and ten I Q um and you've got you know something that basically is infinitely patient and knows everything about you and is pulling for you in every possible way. Wants you to be successful and anytime you find anything confusing or want to to learn anything, or have trouble understanding something, or want to figure to do in a situation, want to figure out how to prepare for a job interview like any these things like IT will help you do IT. And IT will therefore that the combination will effectively be, if productively, raise your race, because IT will effective, raise your I Q, therefore, raise the ods of successful life outcomes.

All these area people below the cyber hundred forty I Q, you'll pull them up to one hundred forty I Q.

Yeah yeah. And then of course, you know, people add one hundred and forty q will be able to have appear right to be able to do, which is great. And then people above one hundred and forty q will have an assistance that they can form things out to and then look, got willing. You know, at some point these things go from future versions, go from one hundred and forty I Q equivalent, and two hundred and fifty hundred and sixty, one hundred and eighty, right like einstein was IT estimated to be on the order of one sixty um you know so when we get you know one sixty A I like will be, you know one assumes of creating einstein n level breakthrough res and physics and and and then at one eighty will be, you know, during cancer and developing work, drive and doing all kinds of stuff. And so IT is quite possible, the case, this is the most important things ever happen, the best thing ever happen, because precisely because it's a lever on this single fundamental factor of intelligence, which is the thing that drive so much of everything else.

Can you still men in the case that human plus A I is not always Better than human for .

the individual sales running around? sure. yes. IT right. And so like it's smart, there are certain people where they get smarter, they get to be more arrogant, right? So there is one huge flaw.

although to push back on that, I might be interesting because when the intelligence is not all coming from you but from a from the system, that might actually increase the amount of humility even .

in the assaults one would hope um or you .

could make assaults more assails you know that I mean that .

ology study yeah exactly another one. Um smart people are very convinced that more rational view of the world and that they have a easy time seeing through conspiracy theory and hopes right so of crazy believes and all that there is a theory and psychology which is actually smart people so for sure people who aren't as smart and very suffet able to hopes and conspiracy theories. But IT may also be the case that the smarter you get, you become accept table in a different way uh which is you become very good at martial facts to fit preconceptions, right um you become very, very good at assembling whatever theory and frameworks and pieces of data and graphs and church you need to validate whatever crazy has got your head and so you're success table in a different way right?

We're all sheep, different college.

Some sheep are Better at justifying IT, right? And those those are the smart sheep, right? Um so yeah look like I would say this look like there are no panic. I am not I am not a utopia.

There are no panaceas in life um there are no like I don't believe there like your positive i'm not a transiently kind of person like that but you know so yeah they're going to be issues um uh and um and you looks smart another maybe you could say about smart people as they more likely to get some selves in situations that on their grass because they're just more confident in their ability to deal with complexity. Their eyes become bigger, their their cognitive ve eyes become bigger than they're mach, you know yeah you can argue those a different ways nevertheless on that right. Clearly, overwhelmingly, again, if you just extract from what we know about human intelligence, you you're improving so many aspects of life if you're creating intelligence.

So there be assistance at all stages of life. So when you're Young brothers for educational, that can stop for mentorship, all of this. And later on, as you're doing work and you developed the skill and you're having a profession, you have an assistance that helps you excel that professional. So at all stages of life yeah I mean.

look, the serious augmentations, this is the diggle term for the diggle at the severe many, many decades o that you know basically it's like you can have this oppositional frame of technology works like us versus the machines. But what you really do is you use human capabilities and any other way that's how actually economy developed the economic side of this but that's actually how the economic growth through through technology arc human human potential um and so yeah and then you basically have a proxy, uh you know you know a prosthetic so like you've got class as you've got a rest watch, you know, you've got shoes, you've got these things, got a persons computer, you've got a work processor, you've got mathematica, you've got google. This is the later view through that lens. The A I is the latest in a long series of basically augmentation methods to build, to raise human capabilities, is just this one is the powerful one of all, because this is the one that that goes directly to, but but they call fluid intelligence, which is like you.

Well, there's a two categories of folks, the outline that are they worry about or highlight the risks of A I, and you highlight a match of different risks. I would love to go through those risks and just discuss m, brainstorm which ones are serious and which ones are less serious. But first, the batters in the boot leg is, what are these two interesting groups of folks who are who who worry about the effectivity community vacation?

Or say they do.

say, say, okay, yes.

say they do the back, just worry that we let her say they do um so the back test in the bootlegger is a metaphor economics um from this called development economics.

And it's this observation that when you get social reform movements um in a society um you tend to get two sets of people showing up arguing for the social reform um and the the term back to bulgars comes from the american experience with alcohol um and so in the one thousand nine hundred hundred hundred hundred thousand tens um there was this movement that was a very passionate at the time which basically said alcohol is the evil and is destroying society um by the way, there was a lot of evidence to support this um there was very high rates of uh very high correlations then by the way and now between rates of physical violence and alcohol use um almost all violent crimes happy either the perpetrator, the both drunk almost G C is actually the work, almost all social harassment cases in the work place. It's like at a company party in somebody's drunk like it's amazing how often alcohol actually correlates to actually just disfunction of these two domestic abuse. And so for a child abuse.

And so you had this group of people who were like, okay, this this is bad stuff, and we should out lot. And and those were quite literally baptist. Those were committed, you know, hard core Christian activists. In a lot of cases there was this woman, a whose name was Carrying nation um who was this older woman who had been in this, I know disastrous marriage or something and her husband had been abusive and drink all the time. SHE became the icon of the betis uh uh province and he was legendary in the area for Carrying in an acts um and doing you know completely on her own doing grades of balloons and like taking her act all the bottles and six yeah and so so a true believer.

an absolutely .

you believer um with absolutely the peers of intentions and again, there's a very important thing here which is there's you can look at this cynically and you could say the apps are like delusional extremists, but you can also say, look, they're right. Like SHE would make you know SHE had a point like SHE wasn't wrong about a lot of what he said. yeah.

But IT turns out the way the story goes is IT turns out that there were another set of people who very badly wanted alcohol in those days, in those with the book legers, which was organize crime. This stood to make a huge amount of money if legal uh alcohol sales were banned um and this was in fact the way the history goes this this was actually the beginning, a organize crime in the U S. This was the big economic opportunity that open that up.

Um and so they went in together um they didn't go together like the back just do not even necessarily know about the boot later because they run around they said would like are certainly know about the battle tis and they were like, well, this is these people like the great front, people like good chance against in the background and they got the full step past right and they did fact ban alcohol in the U. S. And you'll notice what happened wishes people kept drinking, you could didn't work, people kept drinking um that but lagers made a tremendous money of money um and then over time, IT became clear that IT made no sense to make IT illegal and IT was causing more problems.

And so then IT was revoked. Here we was a alcohol hundred years later with all the same problem. Um and you know the whole thing was this like giant missive venture. Um the bp has got taken advantage of by the bootlegger and the book legers got what they wanted in .

and that was that the same two categories ies of folks are now uh suggesting that uh the development of artificial telga should be regulated.

Present the same pad, the kind of is the same part in every time. This is what happened, a nuclear power. This is what happened in which is interesting one. But like this happens dozens and dozens of times throughout the last hundred years and this is what's happening now.

And you write that IT isn't sufficient to simply identify the actors and imp their motors. We should consider the arguments of both the battle tis and the bootlegger on their merits. So I do just that risk.

Number one. Ah will A I kill us all? so. What what do you think about this one? What do you think is the core argument here that the development of A G I, perhaps, but I said a will destroy human civil ation.

First of all, you're just a slider hand. We went from talking about A I I.

Is there fundamental .

difference there?

I don't know what's a, what's A I.

what's A I machine learning? What what?

I think we don't know what the bottom of the world machine learning is over the seeing is because just, uh, to call something machine learning or just to call some statistics or just to call matter computation doesn't mean, you know, a nuclear weapons are just physics. So it's to me is very interesting and surprising how farm a SHE learning.

No, but we knew that nuclear physics would lead weapons. That's why the scientists of that were always in .

this huge dispute about building the weapons.

This is different. He is different different. But this point actually don't know is where the kicks this where that goes for being a scientific topi C2Being a r el igious top ic um and tha t's wha t tha t's why I s pe cifically cal led out bec ause tha t's wha t hap pens. I do the vocational shift are talking about something .

that's not a real well, then maybe you can also, well, as part of that, find the western tradition of millenia ism.

Yes, into the world a plupp calls we live in if we of course live in a judy, a Christian but primarily Christian kind of saturated you know of Christian post Christian secularized Christian you know the world in the west um of course court to Christianity is the idea of the second coming and the revelations and you know jesus returning in thousand thousand years you top on earth and then you know the rapture and like all all that stuff, we collectively, you as a society, we don't necessarily tickle netty ler seriously now.

So what we do is we create our secular ice versions of that. We can we keep looking for utopia. We keep looking for, you know, basically the end of the world. And and so what what you see over, over decades is that basic a pattern of this sort of of is this is what calls are. This is how calls form as they form around some theory, the end of the world.

And so the people's teacher, the manson, called the havens gate, called the David crash, called that you know what they're all organized around is like there's going to be this thing that's gonna en, that's gna basically bring social ation crashing down. And then we have the special elite group of people who are going to see yet coming and prepare for IT. And then there are the people who are either going to stop IT or are fAiling. Stop IT be the people who survived to the other side and ultimately .

get credit everything right. Why is so compelling.

do you think? Like, because satisfies the very deep need we have for transcendence and meaning that got stripped away when we became secular.

yeah. But why? Why is the transcendence involve the destruction of humans?

Because like how like how blauser it's like a very deep psychological bank as it's like how plausible how paul is that, that we live in a world where everything is just kind of all right, how exciting is that? We more than a few question .

asking why is IT not exciting to live in a world, whatever. He just I I think, you know, most of the animal king would be so happy. We just alright, because I mean survival. Why we maybe that's what IT is, why we concerning up things to worry about.

So C S, 6 is called with the god shaped hole。 So there's a god shaped hole in the human experience, consciousness, soul, what everyone to call IT, where there's got to be something that's bigger than all this. It's got to be something translate. There's gotto be something that is bigger, bigger, bigger purpose of bigger meaning. And so we have run the experiment of, you know, we're just going to use size, rationality and even to be as IT appears and large number people have found that very deep ly wanting and have constructed narrative and and by this is the story of twenty years century right commission was one of those commission was a form of from of um you know some people um you know you can see movements like this playing out all over the world .

right now so you could start a kind of devil a kind of source of vivo and we going to transcend .

beyond IT yeah and military in the millions is to see a millionaire.

All they put a really specific point on IT, which is end of the world, right? There is some change coming and that change is coming is so profound and so important that is either going to leader to utopia or hell on earth, right um and IT is going to and then you know it's like, what if you actually knew that that was going to happen, right? What would you what would you do, right? How would you prepare yourself for IT? How would you come together with a group like minded people? right? How would you? What would you do? Would you plan like cashes of weapons in the woods? Would you like? You know, I don't know. With great underground ound bucker, would you spend your life trying to figure a way to avoid having to happen?

Yeah, that's a really compelling, exciting idea to to have a club over have to to have a have a little little bit of try like you get together and saturday night and drinks the bears and talk about the the end of the world and how you you, you are the only one to figure that out and then and .

then once you locked in on that, like how can you do anything else with your life like this is obviously the thing that you have to do and then and then there's a psychological effect you love to. There's a psychological factor if you take instead of true believer s and you live in themselves, they get more radical because they stay offer .

anticlimax other that said, yes IT doesn't mean they're not sometimes .

right might be yes, correct like they might be right yeah.

But like we have some pampling for you.

But if I mean.

there's I mean, we'll talk on nuclear weapons because I have a really interesting little moment that I learned about in U. S. A.

But you know sometimes IT could be right because little IT would developing more, more powerful technologies. In this case, we don't know what the impact that will have on human societies. Well, we can highlight all the different predictions about how will be positive, but the risks are there. And you discuss some of them.

Well, the steel man, the steel man is the steel man, actually the still man. And the reputation of the same, which which is you can't predict, was going to happen, right? You right? You can't rule out that this will not end everything, right? But the response to that is you have just made a completely not scientific claim. You've made a religious laim of scientific .

laim that does get disprove .

there and there is no my definition with these kinds of claims there is no way to disprove them right um and so there there's no just go right less there is no hypothesis. There's no testability of the hypothesis. There is no um way to falsify the hypotheses.

There is no way to progress along the arc. Like it's just all completely missing. And so it's not scientific.

And well, I don't I think is completely missing. It's somewhat missing. So for example, the people that say, I was gonna ill, all of us, and they usually have ideas about how to do that, whether the people go maximized or, you know, escapes, there's mechanism by which you can imagine and killing all humans models.

And to you can't disprove IT by saying there's there is a limit to the speed with intelligence increases. Maybe show that a the the sort of goodly really described model, like how this could happen and say, no, here's a physics limitation, is a physical limitation to how these systems would actually do damage human. And this possible, they will kill ten to twenty percent of the population, but it's impossible for them to kill a ninety nine percent .

critical that you mentioned basically describe the argument sitting here today is like, we're with the evil agi. Get the g use. Yes, because like they don't exist, so you can have a very frustrated baby. evil.

G, I going to be like trying to buy a videos, stocks or something to give them to finally makes some ships, right? So the series form that is the thain's ic argument, which was like OK, where is the energy going to come from? Where's the process are going to be running? Where's the data be happening? How's this going to be happening in secret such that you know, you know, so so that's a practical counter argument to the runway age.

I think I have, but I we can not get that guess that I I have a deeper of projection to IT, which is is this is all forecasting. It's all modeling. It's all it's all future prediction. It's all future the sizing, it's not science. IT is not is is .

is the .

opposite of science. So the poor sagan extraordinary claims require ordinary proof, right? These are dinner claims.

The policies that are being called for, right, to prevent this are of the extraordinary. And I think we're going to cause external damage. And this is all being done on the basis of something that is literally not scientific.

It's not a testable hyp. So the moment you say I was gonna kill all us, therefore we should ban IT or that we should regulate all the cause that .

or start no military strikes and data centers, boy, right? And like, yes, one get starts.

starts getting real. So here's the problem.

Millions ary and calls. They have a hard time staying away from violence.

Have voice so fun.

If you're on the right end of IT, they have a hard time of water baLance, the reason, have a hard time of voting baLances. If you actually believe the claim right, then what would you do to stop the end of the world? You would do anything right.

And so, and this is where you get, if you just look at the history of of a millionaire and calls, this is very good, the people's temple, and really killing themselves in the world. This and kill, kill the pigs like this is the problem with they have a very hard time here on the line, actual violence. And I think I think in this case there, I mean, they're already calling for like today and you know where this goes from here as they get more worked up like I think it's like really concerning.

okay, but that's kind of the extremes you know the extremes of anything was concerning. IT is also possible to to believe that A I has a very high likelihood ling all of us but there's and therefore we should um maybe consider a slowing development regulating so not violence, all of these kinds of things but saying like, let's let's take a pause here, you know, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, like, wow, wow, wow. This is like serious stuff.

We should be careful. So IT is possible to kind of have a more rational response, right? If you believe .

this risk is real.

yes. So is that possible to be have a scientific c approach to the the prediction of the future?

I mean, we just want covered, what do we know about modeling?

Well, I mean, what do we learn .

about modeling with covet?

There's a lot of lessons.

They didn't work at all.

They worked poorly.

The models were terrible. The models were useless.

I don't know the models were useless or the people interpreting the models and centralized institutions that were creating policy rapidly based on the models and leveraging the models in order to a support their natus versus actually interpreting the air bars in the models on all.

in my view, to cover you have these experts showing up. They clam to be scientists and they had no testable hypothesis what however, they had a bunch of models um they have much a forecasts and they a bunch of theories and they laid these out in front policymakers and policymakers freak out in panic, right and implemented a whole bunch of of like really like terrible decisions that we're still living with the consequences of um and there was never any empirical foundation to any the models none of .

them ever came true to sh push back. There were certainly bad, but legs context of this pandemic, but they're still a usefulness to models.

No, I not mean that they are reliably wrong. They are actually like .

damaging to do with the pandemic. What do do with any kind of thread? Do you want to kind of have several models to play with as part of the discussion of like what how do we do here mean.

do they work because they're expectation that they actually like work, that they have actual predictive value? I think as far I can tell the copa, we just out the the policymakers to sign up themselves and believing that S, I think, scientism entities, scientists. So I have some set into this. So there was member, the imperial college models out of, out of london were the ones that like, these are the gold standard models. yeah.

So a friend of mine runs a vx of our company and he was like, wow, this is like, what a is really scary and he's like, you know, he contacted this researcher and he's like, you know, do you need to help? You've been just building this model your own for twenty years. You like us, our codes to basically recharge IT so I can be full adapted for code. The guy said yes and sent over the code. And my friend said IT was like the worst baghi code he's ever seen.

That doesn't mean it's not possible to construct a good model of pandemic with the correct area bars with a high number of parts that are continuously many times the day updated as we get more data about a pendell C. I would like to believe when a pandemic hits the world, the best computer scientists in the world, the best auth engineers, respond aggressively.

And as input, take the data that we know about the virus and an output, say, here's, here's what's happening in terms of how quickly spreading, what that lead in terms of hospitalization and death and other kind of stuff. Here's likely how conditions that likely is. Here's how deadly likely is based on different conditions, based on different ages and demographics and all that kind of stuff.

So here's the best kinds of policy IT feels like you could have models machine that like kind of they don't perfectly predict the future, but they they help you do something because there's pandemics. The lake. Man, they don't really do much harm, and there's pandemics.

You can imagine them. They can do a huge amount harm. I can kill a lot of people. So you probably have some kind of data driver models.

They keep updating that allow you to make decisions are based like where, how bt is this thing. Now, you increased how horrible all that went with a response. This bendel c just feel like there might be some value to models.

So to be useful, some point has be predictive, right? So and so and so the easy thing for me to do is to say, obviously right obvious. Ly, I want to see that just as much as you do because anything that makes cities you're navigate through society, through ranching risk like that, this sounds great. Um the harder objection to IT is just simply you are trying to model a complex dynamic system with eight billion moving parts like not possible can be done. Complex systems can be done.

Machine learning has hold my beer, but well, it's possible. No.

I don't know. I would like to believe that is yeah put of this way. I think where gas, I think we would like like that to be the case.

We are strongly in favor of IT. I think we would also agree that such thing with respect of the pandemic is thing, at least neither uni think everywhere. I'm not aware of anything .

like that today. My main worry with the pandemic is that same as aliens is that even if such a thing existed and is possibly existed, the, the, the policy makers were not paying attention like a, there is no mechanism that allowed those kinds of models to populate.

Oh, I think we have the opposite problem during, I think, the polymathers. I think these people with basically fax science had too much access to the policymakers .

what are right in. But the policymakers also wanted they had a narrow of remind, and they also wanted to use whatever model that fit and there to help them most. Like he felt like there's a lot of politics and none of science.

Although a big part of what was happening A A big reason we got locked down for as long as we did IT was because the scientists came in with these like to stay OS that were like, just like completely of .

the hook scientists and quotes. That's not S O, that's give science. That is the way out.

Science is a process of testing hypothesis. Modeling does not involve testable hypothesis, right? Like, I don't even know, I actually I don't even know the modeling actually qualifies the science. Maybe that's A A side conversation. We have some time over .

appear so is really interesting. But what do we do about the future of you? what?

So number one is when we start with number one, humility goes back to this thing of how we determine the truth. Number two is we don't believe, you know, still i've got a hammer. Everything works like a nail, right? Ah i've got to help h this one of the reasons I gave you, I gave like the book, uh, which is the topic of the book, is what happens when scientists basically straightforward of technical knowledge and start to way and on politics and societal issues, case philosopher put on his philosophers, but he actually talks in this book about like I and start to talks about about the nuclear age and I and talks, uh actually uh, do doing a very similar things at the time.

The book is when reason goes on holiday, philosophers and politics by never and it's just a story.

It's a story. Is there other book on this topic? But this isn't no one is really good. It's just a story. What happens when experts in a certain domain beside away and and become basically social engineers and and political you basically political advisors and it's just a story of just an any catastrophe, right? I think that's what happened.

Copy again here. I found this book a highly entertaining, and I opening read, filled with the amazing anodos of irrationality in craziness by famous reset .

philosophe read book. You not look at this time.

the oh boy.

yeah.

i'll destroy my here .

will not be hear anymore. Sorry, didn't read the books, but here's to think the A I, the A I risk people, they don't even have the combat model, at least not that i'm aware of. No, like there is not even the cover of the comfort model. They don't even have a speakee I code. They've got a theory and of a warning and of this, of that and like, if you ask, like, okay, well, here, here's mean the ultimately examples.

Okay, how do we know right? How do we know that I was running away? Like, how do we know take off thing is actually happening? And the only answer that any these guys are given that i've ever seen is a is when the loss of rate, the loss uh function in the training drops, right? That's when you need to like shot down the data center, right? And it's like that's also what happens when you're successful training a model like like what what even is this is not science.

This is not said anything, is not a model, not anything. There's nothing to argue with that is like pushing yellow. Like what do you .

even respond? Push back and that I don't think they have good metric of yeah when the form is happening, but I think is possible to have that like just just as as you think is possible to imagine that could be measures.

Spend twenty years?

No, for sure. But it's been only week since we had a big enough back through language models. We can start to actually have the thing is the A I dump stuff didn't have any actual systems to really work with that.

Now there's real systems. You can start to analyze the Carters stuff go wrong. And I think you kind of agree that there is a lot of risks that we can analyze. The benefits outweigh risks. In many cases.

the risk not is essential.

Yes.

not of the film paper clip. Oh, let me. okay. There's not the slide of hand that you just deleted.

I'm very good at.

which is very not certified. So the bookshop for intelligence, right, which is like the nick boston book, which is like the origin of a lot of this stuff which was written whatever ten years ago or something so he does this really fascinating thing in the book, which is he basically says, um there are many possible routes to machine intelligence um to artificial intelligence and he describes all the different routes to artificial intelligence, the different but everything from biological augmentation through know that all these different things um what are the ones that he does not describe with large language models because of course the book is written before they were invented and so they didn't exist in the book he he describe them all and then he proceed to treat them moves if there exactly the same thing he presents them all sort of an equivalent rest to be done with, an equivalent to be thought about same way.

And then the risk, the court court risk, is actually emerged, is actually a completely different technology that he was even imagining. And yet all of his theorising beliefs are being transplant ted by this movement straight on this technology. And so again, there is no other area of science or technology where you do that. You like when you're dealing with like organic chemistry versus inorganic chemistry, you don't just like say oh with respect to like either one basically maybe you know growing up and eating the world or something like just up at the same way like you don't.

But you can start talking about like as as we get more, more actual systems, start to get more, more intelligent to start to actually have more scientific arguments here, like you know high level, you can talk about the thread of autonomous weapons systems back before we had any automation in in the military. And that would be like very fuzzy kind of logic. But more and more you have drones. They're becoming more and more autonomous.

You can start imagining, okay, what does that actually look like? And was the actual threat of atom's weber systems? How does that go wrong? And still it's it's it's very big.

We started to get a sense of like, all right, you should probably be illegal, wrong or not allowed to do like mass deploy yet of for the autonomous drones are doing area strikes. Oh, no. On large areas.

I think it's .

be required.

No, no, no. I think we required that only of the vehicle automated OK.

So you want to go the other way, I to go the .

other way that okay, it's obvious that, that machine is going to make a Better decision than the human pilot. If IT is obvious, that is in the best interest of both the attacker on the defender and community at large. If machines are making more decisions in that people many people make terrible decisions in times of war.

But like there's a this ways, this can go wrong too, right?

The worse go turbary wrong. Now this goes back to the, this is that whole thing about like the softer IT is the sort of carney to be perfect verse does not need to be Better than the human driver. yeah. Does the automated drone need to be perfect or need to be Better than human pilot at making decisions .

under enormous mass of stress and uncertainty? yeah. Well, the on average, the the worry that A I folks .

have is the runaway or not, not life. No.

I lose control. Well, then they're going to develop goals .

of their own. They are develop their own right now.

More more like a noble style meltdown, like just bugs in the code accidentally, you know, force you. The results in the bombing of, like large civilian areas in to a degree is not possible um in in the current military strategies.

human and a lot of civilians.

civilians died and if watched the .

documentation the fog war ma spends big part of a talking about the firebombing of the japanese ties were in the straight to the ground right? The devastation in japan, american military, a firebug ing the cities in japan was but considerably bigger devastation than the use of nukes. So we've been doing that for a long time. We did.

We also dive that the germany, by the way, germany did that to us, right? Like that's an old tradition. The minute we got airplanes, we started doing a discriminate bombing. So one of the things .

the modern U. S. Military can do with technology, with automation, but technology more broadly is uh, higher, higher .

precision. Precision is obviously the J, D, M. This this big advance this big advance called the j image basically was dropping a GPS.

Ah that's great. Like look, that's about a big advance. But and that's like a baby version of this question, which is okay.

Do you want like the human pilot like guessing where the bobs going to energy went, like the machine, like getting the bob to destination? That's a baby version. The question, the next version, the question is, do you want the human of the machine deciding whether they drop the bomb? Everybody just assumes the human is going to do a Better job for what I think are fundamentally suspicious reasons.

Emotional echo.

I think it's very clear that the machine going to do Better decision because humans decision got awful, just terrible. Yeah, right. And so, so, yeah. So this, this is the thing. And then let's get to the there, more slight of hand, some more .

slight of hand. These things .

are going to be so smart, right? They're going to be able to destroy the world and recovered and like, do all the stuff and plan and do all the stuff and evita and have all their secret things and their secret factories and all this stuff. But they're so stupid that there's going to get like tangle live in their code and that they are not going to come a alive.

But there is to be some bug that's going to cause them to light, turn us all on. They're not there are going to be genius in every way other than the actual bad goal. And it's just and that's just like a like, ridiculous, like description. Cy, and you can prove this today.

You can actually dress this today for the first time with L, M, S, which is you can actually ask L, M S to resolve a moral, do as you, so you can create the scenario, you know, that thought that what would you is the A I do in the circumstance. And they don't just say humans to styal humans, they will give you actually very numerous moral, practical trade or entered answers. So we actually already have the kind of a eye that can actually like, think this through, and can actually like in a reason about goals.

Well, the hope is that A G I, or like a very super telga systems, have some of the nuance that lamps have, and the intuition is the most like the will, because even these alembic have the new ones.

L ms. Are really, this is actually worth, worth spending moment. L ms. Are really interesting to have moral conversations with, and that I I didn't expect to be having a moral conversation, the machine in my lifetime.

And let's remember, we're not really having a conversation, the machine where we're having a conversation with the entirety, the collective intelligence, the human species. But it's possible to imagine autonomous weapons systems. They're not using L M. S. But if .

they're smart enough to be scary, where are they not smart enough to be wise? Like that's the part where it's like, I don't know how you get the one without the other.

Is IT possible to be super intelligence without being super wise?

Well, again, you're back to that. I mean, then you're back to a classics artistic computer, right? Like you're back to just like a blind rule follower. I've got this like core is the paper clip thing. I've got this core rule. I'm just going to follow up to the end of the earth and it's like, well, but everything you're going to be doing an execute that rule is going to be super jing this level that human are going to be able to counter. It's just a it's a mismatch in the definition of of the systems .

capable of unlikely but not impossible thing.

But again, here you get to like, okay.

like no, i'm not saying when it's unlikely, but not impossible. If it's unlikely, that means the the fear should be correctly calibrated to their claims .

required to start in their proof.

Well, okay. So one interest of attention I would love to take on this because you mentioned an essay about nuclear, which is also, I mean, you don't shy away from A A little bit of a of a spicy take so, uh, rob IT, up and hair famous acy said, now I am become death, the destroy of worlds as he witnessed first detention of nuclear weapon on julius sixteen and ninety forty five.

And you write an interesting historical perspective, recalled that john one noyon responded to robbert open heimert famous handwringing about the role of creative nuclear weapons, which you note helped end world war two and prevent world war three, with some people confessed guilt to claim credit for the sin. And you also mentioned that tumor was harsher. After meeting open hyper, he said that don't let that cry bay .

be in here again. Problem from denature boy.

because because open hammer .

didn't just say the famous line. yeah. He then spent years going around basically morning you on T, V, and going going the White house, basically like just like doing this hair shirt. Thanks a self critical like, oh my god, I can be how often .

them so he's is why they considered perhaps because the hungering ing is the father of the Thomas bomb is criticism .

of him as he tried to have take, needed to like he wanted to in, in, in so, and not even across a very different kind of personality. And he's just like, yes, this is like an incredibly useful thing I glad we did IT yeah well.

fine is as widely um credit being one of the smartest humans of the tone's century, the cern. Certain people everybody says like this is a smart but I ever met when they have met him anyway. That doesn't mean smart, doesn't mean wise.

So that I would love to so can make the case both for and against the critique open hymir here, because we're talking about nuclear weapons. Boy, do they seem dangerous. So the critique is deeper.

And I I left this out. Here's the real substance. I left that out. I don't want to dwell on x and my a paper, but here's the deeper thing that happened. And I am really curious this movie coming out to somewhere.

I'm really curious to see how far he pushes this because this is the real drama in the story which IT wasn't just a question of our new good or bad IT was a question of that russia also have them. Um and what what actually happened um was russia got the american invented the bomb. Russia got the bomb.

They got the bomb through space. They got american they got american and scientist s and foreign ciencias working on american project. Some combination of the two uh basically gave the russians the designs for the bomb and that's the russians got the bomb.

Um there's this dispute to this day of oppenheimer's role in that um if you read all the histories, the kind of composition picture and and Better way when we now know a lot as you spit in that era because there's been classified material years actually shows a lot of a lot of very interesting things. If you are going to read all the histories, which you going to get this open, hire himself probably was not a, he probably did not hand over the nuclear secrets of himself. However, he was close to many people who did, including family members, and there were other members of the manhattan project to wear russian, soviet assets and did hand over the bomb. And so the view that open hymen and people like him had that this thing is awful and terrible.

And, oh my god, and, you know, all this stuff, you could argue, fed into this etho s at the time, that resulted in people thinking that the back just thinking that the only principle thing to do to the russians that um and so the moral beliefs on this thing in the public discussion, in the role but the inventors of this technology play is the point of this book when they kind of take on this sort of publicity, lectures, moral kind of thing, I can have a real consequences, right? Because we live in a very different world today, because russia got the bomb and we would have lived in, have they not got the 吧， the entire twenty eighth century, second hand twenty century, would have played up very different. Have those people not given rush of the bomb? And so the stakes were very high then.

The good news today is nobody seeing here today, I don't think worrying about like an an alleged situation respective. I i'm not really worry that i'm almost going to decide to give you the chinese the design for day, although he did just speak in a chinese conference, which is interesting. But however, I I don't think I don't think that's what's IT play here, but was to play here all these other fundamental issues around what do we believe about this and then what laws and regulations and restrictions that we're going to put on IT.

And that's where I draw like a direct straight line anyway. And my reading of the history on nux is like the people who were doing the full hairshirt public, this is awful, this is terrible, actually had like catastrophic a bad results from from taking those views. And that's what i'm word is going to happen again.

But is the case to be made that you really need to wake the public up to the dangers of nuclear weapons when they first dropped? Like really, I educate them, unlike this is extremely dangerous and destructive weapon.

I think the education kind of happen quickly, early. 好， it's pretty obvious. 好， we drive for one bomb in the state.

Enter city. Yeah so eighty thousand people. Then the but I.

but I don't like .

the reporting of that. You can report in all kinds of ways. Worse, you you can do all kinds of lands like wars.

Horrible words, terrible. You can do. You can make IT seem like nuclear. The use of nuclear weapons is just a part of a war, not that kind of self. Something about the reporting on the discussion of nuclear weapons resulted in us being terrified in all of the power of nuclear weapons and that potentially fed in a positive way towards .

the the game theory .

of mutual destruction .

and actually happened. And back to that, so what what actually happened I believe in, again, I think is a reasonable reading of history, is what actually happened was no extent prevented world worthy. And they prevented roller three through the game theory mulatter destruction.

Head news not existed, right? There would have been no reason why the called war did not go hot, right? And then, you know, the military planners at the time, right, thought both and both sides thoughts that was going to rolled over three on the plans of you rope.

And they thought that was going to be like many people, right? IT IT was like the most obviously in the world to happen, right? And is the dog that didn't mark right? I IT maybe like the best single net thing that happened an entire twenty century is like.

that didn't happen. Yes, he just that point you say a lot, really brilliant and hit me just as you were saying IT. I don't know why I had me for the first time, but we ve got two wars.

And in the span of like twenty years, we could have keep getting more, more world words and more and more ruthless. And actually, you could have had a us versus russia war. You.

by the way, you have there's another hypothetical scenario. The other pathetical scenario is the americans got the bomb, the russians didn't. Right in the amErica is the big dog and then maybe amErica would have had the capability to actually roll back there.

I don't know whether that would have happened, but like it's entirely possible, right? And in the act of these people who had these moral positions about because they could forecast, they could model, they could forecast the future, you made a horrific mistake because they basically ensured that aren't current, what we continue for fifty years longer than what mother, anything like these are kind of faculties. I don't know that that's what what would have happened, but like the decision to hang the bottom for was a big decision made by people who .

were very full of themselves. And but so me is in america. Me is a person that loves america.

I also wonder if U. S. Was only one to the new go weapons um that was the argument .

for hand that that was the was the guy who think the guys who had over that .

was actually probably not handed over. I be careful about the regime and over to maybe give me to like the british show something like a, like a democratically elected government. What what?

There are people of this day who think that those bias, bias to the right thing, because they created a baLance of terrors supposed to the U. S. Having just, and by the way, let me.

let me baLance of terror, let's tell the four version has such a sexy ring to IT.

okay. So the full version, the story is john vine one a year of both hours in mind. The four version, the story is he advocated for a first strike.

So when the U. S. Had the bomb and russia did not. He advocated for, he said, we need to strike them right now.

Strike russia.

Annoyed, yes, because he said world three is inevitable. Um he was very hard core. Um his theory was um his theory was world or three is in inevitable. We're definitely to have a world or three.

The only way to stop world or three is we have to taken out right now, and we have right now before they get the bomb, because this is our last chance. no. Again.

like is this an example of .

philosophy, politics?

I don't know that there .

so most of the study most of the studies are the crazy people on the left again um the annoyance is a story. Are you of the crap on the right?

Take the computing .

the gentle, precise thing which is like, I don't know whether of these people yeah because there's nothing in either vinoy's background or open hydrous background or any these people's background that qualifies them as moral .

authorities yeah well this actually brings up the point of N A I who are the good people to to reason about the morality, the ethics outside of these risks outside, like the more complicated than that you you agree, honey, you know, this will go to the hands of bad guys and all the kinds ways they'll do. Interesting in dangerous is dangerous in interesting in partial ways.

And who is the right person? Who are the right kinds of people to make decisions? How to respond to IT? Are you attack people?

So the history of these fields, this is what he talks about, the book, the history, these fields, is that the the competence and capability and intelligence and training and accomplishments of senior scientists and technologies, working on the technology and then being able to then make moral judges in the use of the technology, that track record is terrible. That that track record is like a astrogation.

But the people, just like the people that developed that technology, are usually not going to be the great people.

Well, why would they? So the claim is, of course, there than Olivia ones. But the problem is they spend their entire life in a lab, right? They're not theologians. So what you find, what you find when you read, when you read this, when you look at these history, what you find as they generally are very thinly informed on history, sociology, on theology, on morality, ethics, they they tend to manufactured their own world views from scratch. They tend to be very sort of than um they're not remotely the arguments that you would be having if you got like a group of I qualify the allowances .

or philosophers or let the devils advocate kes a little whisky say that I agree with with that but also IT seems like the people who are doing the ethics departments in these tex tech companies go sometimes the other way yes um which we .

are not nuances .

on the on history or theology or this kind of stuff that IT almost becomes a kind of uh, outraged activism towards directions that don't seem to be grounded in history. And humility and nuance is again french to the arrogance. So and I sure what is .

worth so but I guess this is a hard .

yeah it's a .

hard problem.

This is a problem.

This goes back to where we started, which is okay. Who has the truth and it's like, well um you know like how does societies arrive at like truth and how do we figure these things out and like our elected leaders place all in IT, you know we all play some role in IT. Um there have been some set of public elections at some point that bring you rational, transparent humility to IT. Yeah those people are viewed far between. We should probably prize .

them very highly and celebrate humanity in our public leaders. So getting to risk number two, will A I ruin our society? Short version as you right? If the murder robots don't get us, the hate speech of this information will and the action you recommend, in short, don't let the thought police suppress ai. Well, what is um this risk of the effect of misinformation of society that's going to be catalyzed by A I yeah.

So this is the social media. This is what you just related to, is the activism kind of thing that popped up in these companies in the industry. And it's basically from my perspective, it's basically part two of the war that played out of social media over last ten years.

Um because you probably remember social media ten years ago was basically, who even wants this? Who wants who wants a photo? Your cat head for breakfast like this stuff is like silly interval. And why can't these nerves, like figure out, have invent something like useful and carful? And then you know certain things happened in the political system, and then the sort of the plurality of that discussion switch all the way to social media, like the worst, most cursive, most terrible, most of technology ever in.

And that leads to the politics and policies, politics and like, and all this stuff, and and that that all got catalyzed into this very big kind of angry movement, both inside, outside the companies to kind of bring social media to heal. And that got focus in, particularly on two topics, so called his speech and so called this information. And they spend this start playing up fit, fit less decade.

And I don't even really want to even argue the process costs of the sides just to observe that, that spent like a huge fight and big consequences to how these companies Operate. Um basically the same the same sets of theories, that same activist approach, that same energy is being transplanted straight to A I and you see that are really happening. It's why you ChatGPT will answer, let's say, certain questions and others with what IT gives you the can speech about you know whenever IT starts with as a large language model, I cannot you know basically means that somebody has reached there and told that I can't talk about certain topics.

Um do you think so that is good.

So it's an interesting question. Um so a couple of a couple observations um so so one is um the people who find this the most frustrating are the people who are worried about the murder robots so so in in fact the the the X X risk people right they started with the term A I safety.

The term became a element when the term became A I limit is when the switch happened from where word is going to kill us all, or were worried about his space information. The AI x rest people have now renamed their A I not kill everyone is m which I have to admit as a catchy term. And they are very frustrated by the fact that the is the sort of activist driven teachers information kind of thing is taking over, which is what's happened is taking over the AI ethic field has been taken over by the information people.

Um you know, look, would I D like to live in a world in which, like everybody was nice to each other all the time and nobody ever said anything mean, and nobody ever used a bad word and everything was always accurate, honest, like, that sounds great. Do I want to live in a world where there is like A I thought police working through the tech companies to enforce the view of a small set of elites that they're going to determine what the rest of us they can feel like? Absolutely not.

There could be a middle grounds somewhere like kip dia type of moderation, this moderation of wikipedia, that is somehow crowd source, where you don't have specialized needs. But it's also not completely just free for all, because the if you have the entirety of human knowledge, your fingertips, you do add a harm.

Like if if you have a good assistant that's completely uncensored, they can help you build a bomb, they can help you a mass well, with people's physical well being, right? If they because information out there in the issue. M so personally, there IT would be you could see the positives in centering some aspects of an AI model when it's helping you commit litter violence.

This is a section later six I where I talk about bad people doing bad things yes, which which there there's a set of things that we should discuss there yes um what happens in practice is these lies as you looked to the sorry, these lions are not easy to draw. And what what i've observed in the social media version, this is I describe IT as the slippery slope is not a false, it's an inevitability. The minute you have this kind of act, personality gets in a position to make these decisions.

They they take a straight to infinity like that goes into the crazy zone like almost immediately and never comes back because people become drink power um right and they look if you're the position to determine with the entire world banks and fields and reads and says like you're gonna IT and you know ill has vented with the twitter files over the last three months and just like rate reason for optimism is what uh elan is doing with the community notes. Um um so community notes is actually a very interesting thing. Um so what what you want is trying to do with community notes um is he's trying to have IT where there's only community notes when people who have previously disagreed on many .

topics degree on this one. Yes, think that's what i'm trying to get that is like this. There could be wikipedia like models, a community no type models where allows you to essentially either provide context or sensor in the way does not resist the slip slope nature.

Now there's an no power. There's an entirely different approach here, which is basically um we have eyes that are producing content. We can also have a yes that are consuming content, right? And so one of the things that your assistant could do for you is help you consume all the content, right, and basically tell you when you're getting played.

So for example, i'm not want to AI that my kid uses right to be very many child safe and i'm going to want you to filter for him all kinds of in a purposed stuff that he shouldn't be saying just because is a kid here. And you see, i'm saying as you can implement that architectural, you can say you can solve this. The clients side, right the service side gives you an opportunity to dict for the entire world, which I think is where you you take a slip or slip to hell. Um there's another architecture approach which just to solve this on the clients side.

certain that it's a number of five. I lead to bad people doing bad things. You just imagine language models to do so many bad things. But the hope is there that you can have large language models used than defending against IT by more people, by smarter people, by, uh, more effective people, skilled people like kind of stuff free part argument .

about people doing bad things um so uh so number one, right you can use the technology defensively and there's so we should be using A I to bill like broads ctrace vaccine and antarctica like bioweapons. And we should be using aid like hunt terrorists and catch criminals, and like we should be doing like all crisis stuff like that.

And in fact we should be doing those things even just to like go get like basically go eliminate risk from my regular product that rena by I. So there's the whole ah there's a whole defensive set of things. Um second is we have many laws on the books about the actual bad things, right? So IT is actually illegal to be to commit crimes, to commit terrorist acts, to build pathogen with the instance, to deploy them, to kill people.

And so we have those. Do we actually don't need new laws for the best, but the scenarios, we already have the laws of the book on the books. The third argument is the minute. And this is sort of the foundation tional, one that is really tough.

But the minute you get into this thing, which which you are kind of getting into, which is like, okay, but like, do you need censorship sometimes, right? And do you need restrictions sometimes? It's like, okay, what is the cost of that um in a particular in the world of open source, right? Um and so um is open source A I going to be allowed or not um if opens source AI is not allowed um then what is the regime that's going to be necessary legally and technically to prevent IT from developing, right?

And here again, where you get into and people have proposed that these kinds of things you get into, I would say, pretty extreme territory, pretty fast, do we have a monitor agent on every GPU and GPU that reports back to the government what we're doing with our computers? Are we seizing GPU clusters to get yond a certain size? Like, and then, by the way, how are we doing all that globally? right? And like if china is developing an L M bond, the scale that we think is allowable and we're onna invade, right? And you have figures on the AI x risk side who are advocating and you know potentially up to nuclear strikes to prevent, you know, this kind of thing.

And so here you get into this thing. And again, you maybe say, this is you you could even say this is what good, bad and different or whatever. But like, here's the comparison of the nukes.

The comparison the nukes is very dangerous because one is just news for just just to buy, although we can come back to nuclear power. But everything was like the news. You could control plutonium.

You could track plutonium. M, and I was like, hard to come by. A, I is just math and code, right? It's in a thing like math textbook and it's like their youtube videos to teach you how to build IT. And like there's open is already open billion private model running around already called folk and online that anybody can delete. Um and so okay, you walk down the logic path that says we need down card rails on this and you find yourself in a the third arian to tell italian regime of thought control and machine control that would be so brutal that you would have destroy the society if you're trying to protect. And so I I just .

don't see how that actually works. So my best gone head here I am basically everything you're saying when i'm trying to play double attics here there because, okay, you highly the fact that there is a slippy slow to human nature, the moment you sense something, you start to sense everything.

The aligned starts out sounding nice, but then you started to align to uh, the beliefs of some selective of people and then is just your belief, the number number of people you are lying to, small and smaller as that group because more and more powerful, okay? But that just speaks to the people. That sensor, usually the escorts and the asos get richer.

I wonder if it's possible to do without that for ai. One way to ask this question is, do you think the base model is the base in foundation models should be open source? I got what were the magazine a is saying they want to do. So I look only .

I think it's totally appropriate. The companies that are in the business of producing a product service should be able to have a wide range of policies that they could just again, I want a heavily sensor model for my eight role. Like I actually want that like I would pay more money for the one is more heavily center than the one is not right.

Um and so like there are certainly scenarios where companies will make that decision. Look, an interesting thing you brought up the is is this really a speech issue? Um one of the things that the big tech companies are dealing with is the content generated uh from an L M is not covered under section to thirty uh which is the law that uh protects internet platform companies are being sued for the use gender content um and so is actually yes and so is actually is actually a question.

I think they're still a question which is can big, big american companies actually feel ld generate I at all? Or is the liability actually going to just ultimately convince them that they can do IT because the minute of things says something bad and IT does even need to be hate, which IT could just be like an inactive could illuminate ate a product, you know, detail on a vacation cleaner and over in the van clear company sues for this representation. And there is any symmetry. Y, they are right because the the l ms, going to be producing billions of answers to questions and .

IT only needs to get a few on loss.

has to get update a really quick here. Yeah and nobody knows what to do with that, right? So anyway, like big questions, how companies Operate at all. So we talk about those, but then there's this other question of like OK, the open source. So what about open source? And and I answer your question is kind of like, obviously yes, the models have there have to be follow in source here because to living world in which that open source is is not allowed is a world of tricon ian, speech control, human control, machine control, I mean, you know, black helicopters with jack wood thugs coming out repealing down and seizing your GPU like, t ow, no, no, I am one hundred percent serious .

that you're saying slippy slow but no, no, no.

no, no, no, that was required, enforce IT like how will and forests a ban on open source?

What you could add friction to IT like hard to get the models. Could people be able to get the models? But it'll be more in the shadows.

right? The leading open first model, rit, now in the U A. Like the next time they do that, what do we do? Yeah, like oh, I see you're like fourteen .

year old in indonesia comes out with a breakthrough.

I know we talked about most grates offer comes from a small number people. Some kid comes out with some big new breakthrough and quantization or something some huge breakthrough. And like what would going to like invade in the esias arresting IT .

seems I can turn the size models and effectiveness models. The big tech companies will probably lead the way for quite a few years. And in the question is of what policies they should use, the in the kid in indonesia should not be regulated. But should google matter, uh, microsoft opener .

be regulated? Well, this coast, okay. So when does IT become dangerous? Yeah right. Is is the danger that it's quote, as powerful as the current leaving commercial model? Or is that that is is IT is just at some other arbitrary threshold.

And then by the way, like look, how do we know like what we know today is that you need like a lot of money to like train these things. But there are advances being made every week on training efficiency, all kinds of sthetic. I don't even like this sync thing we're talking about.

Maybe some kid fix generic everything. Yeah exactly. And so like sitting here today, like the Price just happened, the breakthrough just happened. So we don't know what the shape of this technology is going to be.

I mean, the big shock, the big shock here is that, you know, whatever number of billions of framework the represents at least a very big percentage of human thought. Like who would have imagined that? And then there's already work under way. There was just this paper that just came out that basically takes a GPT three scale model and compresses IT down around on a single thirty two court CPU like who would have .

predicted that yeah um .

you know some of these models now you can run a respire y pies like the data very slow but like you know maybe y'll be up, you receive your perform. You know, like it's math m code. And here we're back and back math m code, math m code, math code and data.

It's bit Marks just like the way at this point. great. I don't know to do with this.

You guys create this whole internet thing. Yeah yeah. I'm a huge believer in open source here. So my argument is we're going to have to say.

here's my argument is my my arms is A I is going to be like air is going to be everywhere is this is just going to be in textor, it's going to be a text box and kids are going to grow up doing how to do this and it's just going to be a thing. It's going to be in the air. And you can't like pull this back anywhere. You can pull back here.

And so you just have to figure how to live in this world, right? And then that's what I think, like all this hand ringing. But areas is basic, complete waste of time, because the effort should go into, okay, what is the defensive approach? And so if you worried about know I generated pathogen, the right thing to do is to have a permanent project or speed right funded lavishly do a manhattan manhattan do a manhattan project for biological defence right and must build eyes must have like prospective um vaccines where like we're insulated .

from every pathogen and that what what the interesting thing is because of software, a kidney eman teenager, kay, build like a system that defends against like the worst, the worst I mean, and to me, the fence is super exciting. It's like I if you believe in the good of human nature, that the most people went to good to be the savior of humanity is really exciting.

Yes.

not okay. That's a dramatic story, but like to help people. help? yeah.

okay. What about just the jump of around? What about the risk of A I lead to crippling in quality? Know, because we're kind of saying everybody's life will become Better. Is IT possible that the rich get richer here?

So this really onic's goes back to Marks m.

So because this was the cause of the court claim of Marks, right? Basically, was that the the owners of capital, the means production and the over time they would basically accumulating th, the workers would be paying in you and get getting nothing in return because they ouldn't be needed anymore, right? He Marks very good about called Megan ization or what later became on this automation um and you know the workers would be a miserable and the capable would end up with with with all.

And so this was one of the court principles and articles. M, of course, they turned out to be wrong about every previous wave of technology. Um the reason they turned out to be wrong about every previous wave of technology is that the way that the self interested owner of the machines makes the most money is by providing the production capability in the form of products and services to the most people, the most customers possible, right?

That the largest and is one of the unna things for every C. T. O, knows this intuitively. And it's like hard explain from the outside the the way you make the most money.

Any businesses by selling to the largest market you can possible get to, the largest market you can possible get to with everybody on the planet. And so every large company does is everything that I can to drive down Prices, to be able to get limes up, to be able to get everybody on the planet. And that happened with everything from electricity.

That happened with the phones, that the radio automated bills IT happen with smart phones that happen with uh, pcs um IT happen with the internet um IT happened with mobile road band. Um it's happened, by the way, with coca cola. It's happened with like every you know, basically every industrially produced you know go to service people want you want to drive IT to the largest possible market.

And then as proof that it's already happened, right, which is the early adopters of light G, G P, T and bang are not like you know x on and boeing there. You know you're uncle and your nephew, right is just like for if they are freely available online or is available for twenty box a month or something. But you these things went this technology went mass market immediately um and so look the the the owners of the means of production that whoever does this does mention these stalling other questions. There are people who are going really rich doing this, producing these things, but they are going to get really rich by taking this technology to the badawi possible market.

So yes, they'll get rich, but they'll get rich having a huge positive .

impact on to everybody yeah and again, smartphones, same thing. So there's this amazing kind of twist in um in business history which is you cannot spend ten thousand dollars on a smart phone, right? You can spend one thousand dollars.

You can spend a little like I would buy a million doors smart phone like i'm sent up for like I fit like suppose a million dosa tone was like much Better than a thousand millish mart phone like i'm there to IT doesn't exist. Why doesn't exist? Apple makes so much more money, driving the Price further down from a thousand dollars, and they would try and harvest, right? And so is just this repeating pattern you see over and over again.

Um what's what's great about IT? What's great about IT is you do not need to rely anybody's enlightened right genocide to do this. You just need to rely on capital of interest.

Ah, what about I taking our jobs?

A very, very similar thing here there of there is a core false, which again was very common in marxism, which is what's called the lump of labor fallacy. And this is sort of the policy that there is a only a fix amount of work to be done in the world. And if the and it's all being done today by people and then if machines do IT, there's no other work to be done by people.

Um and that's just a completely backwards view on how the economy development grows um because what happens is not, in fact, that what happens is the introduction of technology. International production process causes Prices to fall. As Prices fall, consumers have more spending power is consumer said, more spending power, they create new demand. That new demand then causes capital and labor to form into new enterprises to satisfy new wants and needs, and the result is more jobs highbridge es.

you wants the needs, the the word is that the equation of you wants the needs at a rapid rate. We will mean there's a lot of tunnel ver in jobs, so people will lose jobs. Just the actual experience of losing a job and having to learn new things in your skills is painful for the individual to think.

This one is the new just are often much Better um so actually came up there is a panic about a decade go on all the truck to lose their jobs, right? And number one, they didn't have because we haven't gun out a way actually finish yet. But but the other thing was like, like the driver, like I grew up in the town that I was basically consisted of a trucker.

P right? And I like me a lot of truck drivers. And like truck drivers live a decade shorter than everybody else. Like they is actually like a very dangerous, like they get like literally they have, like high race is can cancer. And on the less side of, on the less side of their body from being in the sun all the time, the vibration of being in the truck is actually very damaging to to your psychology.

And it's actually perhaps partially because of that reason, there's a shortage. Yes, of people who want to be trucked .

driver like is, is the question of is you want to ask somebody like that? Do you want your kid be doing this job? Most will tell you, no. Like I want my kid cubicle somewhere, like where they don't have this, like where they don't die ten years earlier. And so so the new jobs, number one, the new jobs are often Better, but you don't get the new jobs until he goes through the change.

And then to your point, the the training thing, you know, always the issue was, can people adapt? And again, here you need to magine living in a world in which everybody has the a assistant capability, right? To be able to pick these skills much more quickly and be able to have some, you able have a machine to .

work with our skills is still can be painful. But the process of life.

it's painful for some people. I mean, there's no there's no question is painful for some people. And yes, i'm not you topping on this and it's not like it's it's positive for everybody in the moment, but IT has been overwhelmingly positive for three hundred years.

Let me look the concern here, cern, the concern this concern has played out for for literally centuries. You know this is the sort of what I know the story what um that you may remember there was a panic in the two thousands around h outsourcing was going to take all the jobs. There was a panic in the twenty tens that robots are going to take all the jobs. Um in twenty sixteen, before covered, we had more jobs at higher wages, both in the country in the world that at any point human history and so the overwhelming evidence is that the net game here is like just like a wildly positive um and most most people like overwhelming out .

the other side of that you write at the single greatest risk, this is the risk of most convinced by the single greatest risk of A I is that china wins global AI dominance and we, the united states in the west, do not. Can you library?

yes. So this is the other thing, which is a lot of this AI with debates today sort of assume that were the only game in town, right? And so we have the ability to kind of sit in the united states and criticize ourselves and now have our government like beat up on our companies.

And we figured out which that our companies can do, were going to ban this and buy that, restrict this and do that. And then there's this like other like force out there that like doesn't believe we have any power of the mover and they have no desire to sign up for whatever rules we decide to put in place. Um and they're going to do whatever IT is there going to do, and we have no control over IT at all. And it's china and specifically the chinese communities. Ty um and they have a completely publication open you know plan for what they are going to A I and IT is not what we have in mind um and not only do they have that is sufficient in a plan for their society, but they also have a disulfide in plan for the rest of the .

world to their plan is what surveilLance yeah authority.

an control so authority italian population control um come good old fashion communist authority control um and surveilLance and enforcement um and social credit res and all the rest of IT um and you are gonna monitor omitted with an of everything all the time um and it's going on it's basically the end of human freedom that their goal and you know they justified on the basis of that's what leaves to peace and you worry that the .

um regulating in the united states will hold progress and afterward uh the chinese government would would that race so their plan yes and the reason for that and again they're public plan is to profit .

approach around the world um and they have this program called the digital sock road right which is building on there the sock road investment program and theyve got there they've i've been lying networking infrastructure all over the world there five g might work with this their company why why so that they have been laying all of this fabric but financial and tech logical fabric all over the world and their plan is to roll out their vision of A I on top of the adam to have every other country be running their version.

And then if you're a country prone to, you know, authority ism, you're going to find this to be an incredible way to become more authoritarian. If you are country, by the way, not for authoritarian ism, you going to have the chinese communist party running your infrastructure and having back doors and do IT right, which is also not good. Now.

what your sense of where they stand in terms of the race towards super intelligence as compared to in the united states?

Yeah, so good news. They are behind but bad news is they must they get access to everything we do um so they're probably you're behind a teach point in time. But they get you know downloads I think of basically all of our work on a regular basis through a variety means um and they will will see there at least putting out reports of very complex put out a report last week of of A G P three five five analog um they put out this report, forget what is called, but they put out this report of the cell and they did know the way went open a push out they one of the way they test you know a GPT um as they they run through a standardize exams like the S A T right just how you can kind of get smart this uh and so the chinese report, they ran their L M through uh the chinese equivalent of the S A T um and IT includes a section of marxism um and a section on I was say tung thought IT turns out there does very well on both of those topics that's right so like this element .

thing coming day I right .

like little little communist day I right and so their vision is like that. You know so you just imagine like you're a school, you know you're a kid ten years from in argentina or in germany or in who knows where a indonesia and you ask the i'd explained you like how the economy works and IT gives you the most cheery, upbeat explanation of Jenny style coming. You be hurt, right? So like this takes you are like really big. Well.

as we've been talking about, my hope is not just for the united states, but that would just the kitten is basement with the open source. And if I trust large centralized institutions with super powerful ly I, no matter what they are, ideology as a power corrupts. You've been investing in tech companies for about three, twenty years, and about fifteen of which was with and recent horse. Now what interesting trends in tech have you seen all that time? I just talk about companies and just the evolution of the tech industry.

I mean, the big shift over twenty years has been the tech used to be a tools industry uh for basically from like nineteen forty thread, about twenty ten, almost all the big successful companies where pixel travels companies. So PC database, smart phone, you know some tool that somebody also pick open news. Since twenty ten, most of the big wins have been in applications.

Um so a company that starts a you know IT starts in an existing industry and goes directly to the customer in that industry. And you know the early saw examples there were like group and left in airbnb. Um and then that model is kind of elaborating out. Um uh the A I thing is actually a reversion on that for now because like most of the AI business right now is actually in .

cloud provision of of A P S .

for other people. I most of the money I IT will be in whatever yeah your A F financial advisor or your A I doctor or your A I lawyer or you know take your pick of whatever the domain is um and interesting is you know we the value kind of does everything we we entrepreneurs of a library, every possible idea and so there will be a set of companies that like make A I um something that can be purchased and used by large long firms um and then there will be other companies that just go directly .

market as as an A I where what advice could you give for start up founder? Just haven't seen so many successful companies, so many companies that fail. Also, what advice would you give to a start up founder, someone who wants to build the next super successful start up in the tax space? The googles, the apples, the twitters?

yeah. So the great thing about the really great founders as they don't take in any advice. So if you find yourself, listen to advice, maybe you shouldn't do IT.

Um that's actually just to elaborate on that. If you could also speak to great founders, you like what what makes a great founder.

So what makes a great founder is super smart um coupled with super energetic, coupled with super courageous I think is some of those those three .

and intelligence, passion encourage.

The first two are traits and the third one is a choice. I think there is a choice is courage is a question of pain tolerance right um so um how how many times you will want to get punched the face before you quit yeah um and here's maybe the biggest thing people understand about what is like to be a started founder is he is he gets very romantic sized, right and even when IT they fail is still get mental size about like what a great adventure IT was.

But like the reality of IT is most of what happens as people telling you know and then they usually follow that with your stupid, yes, right? No, I will not come to work for you. Um i'm not leave my cushy job, will will come work for you.

No, i'm not going to buy your products, you know no, i'm not going to run a story but your company no, i'm not this that the other thing um and so a huge model, what people have to do is just get use, just getting pushed in. The reason people understand this is because when you're founder, you cannot let on this. This is happening because IT will will cost you things that you're weak and there was faith in you. yeah.

So you have to pretend that you're having a great time when you're die inside, right? Just misery. But why do they do IT?

Why do they do? Yeah that's to think .

it's it's like IT is a level. Actually, one of the conclusions, I think is I think it's actually for most of these people on risk adjusted basis, this problem in a national act, they could probably be more financially successful on average if they just got like a real job and at a big company.

Um but there is no some people just have a interaction, need to do something new and build something for themselves, and some people just can't tolerate having bosses. Here's a fun thing is how do you reference ject founders? You call that you know Normally reference check somebody as you call the bosses, you know, and you find out if they were good employees.

And now you're going to refresher Steve jobs, right? And it's like, oh god, he was terrible. No, he was a terrible employee. He never did we told them to do .

so what's a good ference? The previous boss actually say that they never did what you told him to do.

That might be a good thing idea. What you want is I I would like to go to work for that person. Um he worked for me here and now I like to work for him now unfortunate most people can't their egos can't can't handle that. So they won't say that that .

what advice you give to those folks in the space of intelligence, passion and courage.

So I think the other big thing is you see people sometimes you say, I want to start a company and they kind of work through the process is coming up the idea. And generally, those don't work as well as the case where somebody has the idea first. And then they kind of realized that there is an opportunity d company and then they just turn out to be the right kind of .

persons to do that. What do you mean long term big vision or demean specifics of like product?

Say specific specifically what yes, specific like what is for the first five years, you don't get to have vision. You just got to build something people want and you just got to figure what to sell IT to, right? Is very practical. You never forget to big vision.

So so the first, the first part, you you have an idea of set a product of the first product that connection makes .

some money yeah like it's got to work by which I mean, like IT has to technically work, but then IT has to actually fit into the category in the customers mind of something that they want. And then and then, by the way, the other part is they have to pay for IT, like somebody y's got to pay the bills. And so you GTA figure out of Price and whether you can actually extract the money.

yeah. So usually is much more predictable. Success is never predictable, but it's more predictable if you start with a great idea and then back in the starting the company. Um so is what we did know we are most before we had escape. The oogly guys have the google search working at stanford um right um the um you know you tons of examples where know peer over your head ebay working before he left his previous job.

So every love that idea, just having a thing that protect that actually works before you .

even begin to remote the scale. The ideal pitch that we receive is here's the thing that works. Would you like to invest our company? You're not like that.

So much easier than here's thirty slides with a dream, right? Um and then we had this concept called the D M. S, which are logic came up with um he was with us. Um so so so then there's this thing is going to methods gy, which is um you know there is a math logy that kind these ideas kind of arrived like magic or people kind of stumble and do women like ebay with the post of sponsors or something.

Um the reality usually with the big successes is that the founder has been chewing on the problem for five or ten years before they start the company and they often worked on IT in school um or they even experimented on IT when they were a kid um and they're been kind of training up over that period time I would be able to do this thing so they're like a true domain expert. This sort of sounds like my main apple five. What is that? You want to be a drain expert what you're doing? But you know the mythology is so strong of like oh, I just like at this idea of the shower and now i'm doing .

IT like it's generally not that no because well that maybe in the shower had the the exact product implementation details. But yeah usually you're gonna be for like years, if not decades, thinking about like everything around that what we call the the D M S.

Because the D M S basically is like there's all these promoters tions like for any for any idea. There's like all these different permutations. Who should the customer be? What shape forms the product we take in the market, all these things um and so um the really smart founders have thought through all these scenarios by the time they go to raise money um and they have like detail and answers um on every one of those fronts because they put so much thought to do IT um the sort of the the sort of more uh hap hazard founder and that and it's the detailed ones, we tend to do much Better.

How do you know what to take a leap if you have a cushy job or happy life?

I mean, the best reason is just because you can't tolerate not doing IT right like this is the kind of thing where if you have to be advised that y're doing IT, you probably ouldn't do IT um and so it's probably the opposite, which is you just have such a burning sense of this has to be done. I have to do this.

I have no choice. What if it's gonna ad to a lot of pain?

It's going to lead.

I think that what if he means a losing that of social relationships and damaging your relationship with love, the ones all kind of stuff yeah .

look so like it's going to put you in a social tunnel for sure right? So you're going like, you know, there's this game you complain in on twitter, which is you can do any waf of the idea that there's, uh, basically any such thing as worklife baLance and that people should actually work hard. Everybody is mad.

But like the truth is, like all the successful founders are working eighty four weeks and they're working, you know, they from vous, very strong social bonds with the people they work with. They tend to lose lot of friends and outside or puts the friendships on ice like that's just the nature of the thing. Um you know for most people worth the trade off. You know the advantage, you know maybe Younger founders have as maybe they have less. You know maybe they not for example, if they are not married that I don't have kids that's easy.

But off can you be an older founder?

Yeah you definitely can yeah yeah um many of the most successful founders or second, third, four time founders there the thirty four fifties um the good news of being another founder is you know more and you you know more about what to do, which is very helpful. The problem is okay, now you've got like us boss and family and kids and like you've got to go the baseball again and like you can go to know .

and so it's life is full of difficult choices. Yes, Candy son ah you written a blog post on what you ve been up to. You went an actos er twenty twenty two.

Well, mostly I tried to learn a lot. For example, the political events of twenty fourteen and twenty sixteen made clear to me that I didn't understand politics at all, referencing maybe some of this this book here. So I deliberate, would drew from political engagement in fund raising, and instead read my way back history and as far to the political left and political right as I could. So just high level question. What's your approach to learning?

Yeah so it's basically I say it's it's auto direct, uh so it's sort of goest it's going down the rabbit holes. Um so it's a combination. So I kind of do IT in that in that quote it's a combination of breath and depth um and so I tend to ah I tend I I go broad but what I I road but then I tend to go deep for a while read thing I and then out I not with this that I offer you know another decade.

And in that blog post that I recommend people go check out you actually lost the budgets of different books that you have recommend on different topics. And american left, in america, right? This is a lot of really good stuff. The best explanation for the current structure of our society politics, you give to recommendations, four books on the spanish of the war, six books and deep history of the american right, comprehensive acacis of adults, iller of one of which I read, can recommend a six books in the deep state of the american left, american right, american left, looking at the history to give you the context, a biography of, uh, let in two of them are on the french revolution, actually have never read a bike found and maybe that they'll be useful. Everything has .

been so Marks .

focused .

bastion .

of a .

useful, but is a good so that the perspective .

of london is might be the best way to look at the soviet universe style in vers Marks for a very interesting the two books on fashion and anti fascism, uh, by the same, a author, paul, a brilliant book in the nature of mass movements and collective psychology, the definitive working intellectual life under salita ism, the captive mind, the definitive works on the practical left on the total geritol. There's a bunch, there's a bunch.

And the single buzz book, first, the list here is incredible. But you say that a single best book I have found on who we are and how we got here is the ancient city by new modis for study. Cool unas. I like IT. What did you learn about who we are as a human civilization from the book?

Yeah so this is a faster in book. This was free. It's free by the way. It's book nineteen sixty you unloaded or you can buy prints of prints of IT but um it's uh IT was this guy who was a professor of a serbo amy eighteen sixties and he was apparently a savant on uh antiquity, greek and roman antiquity um and in the reason said that is because his sources are one hundred percent ronal breaking roman sources so he wrote a basically history of western civilization from on the order of four thousand years ago to basically the present time entirely working on rush original greek and and roman roman sources um and what he was specifically trying to do was he was trying to reconstruct from the stories of the Grace in the romance.

He was trying to reconstruct what life in the west was like before the Grace in the romance, which was in this in in the civilization as the other europeans. Um and the short answer is, and this is sort of sr, uh, four thousand, two thousand. Bc, five hundred. B, C of fifty hundred stretch for civilian developed uh and his conclusion was basically cults um there were basically cults and civilization was or or organized into calls and the intensity of the calls was like a million full beyond anything that we would recognize today like IT was a level of um all encompassing belief and uh um action around religion um that was at a level of extremest that we we even even recognize that um uh and and so specifically he tells the story of base of there were three levels of cults there was the family called the tribal cult and then the city called as the society scaled up and then each called was a drink called of uh family gods which were ancestor god's and the nature gods um and then your bonding into a family a tribal city was based on heard here to that religion um people uh who were not of your family. Tribe, city worship different gods which gave you not just the right with responsibility to kill them on .

sight right so there were serious about their called hard core by the .

way shocking development I did not realize this, a zero concept of individual rights, like even even up through the greeks. And even in the romance, they didn't have have the cost of individual tes. Like the idea that as an individual you have some right, just like nupe, right? And you look back and you're just like, wow, that's just like crazy, like fascist and a degree that we would recognize today.

But it's like, well, they were living under extreme pressure for survival and you and you the theory goes, you could not help people run around. They can claim into which or it's when you're just trying to get like you're drive through the winter, right? Like you need like hard core command ic control. And so and actually what if through modern political lens, those calls were basically both fascist and communist um they were fascist in terms of social control and then they were commission terms of economics.

But you think that's fundamentally that like pull towards uh, calls this is within us.

So my conclusions from this book so so so so the way we naturally I think about the world we live in today is like we basically have such an improved version of everything that came before us, right? Like we have basically, we've figured out all these things around morality and ethics and democracy, all these things, and like they were basically stupid and retrograde, were like smart, investigated. And we've improved all this.

I after reading that book, I I know believe in many ways the opposite, which is no, actually, we are still running in that original model. We're just running in an incredibly diluted version of IT. So we're still running basically in calls as just our calls are at like a thousand there a million of the level of intensity, right? And so our so just to take religions, you know, the modern experience of a Christian in our time, even somebody who consider some devout Christian, is just a shadow of the level of intensity of somebody who belong to a religion back.

And then, by the way, we have constructed are a high discussion. We we then sort of endlessly create new calls like we're trying to fill the void and the void is avoid of a bonding. Okay, living in their era, like everybody living today, transparent in that error would view is just like completely intolerable in terms of like the lots of freedom in the level of basically faces control.

However, every single person in that era, and he really stresses this, they know exactly what they stood. They knew exactly what they belonging. They knew exactly what they are, purpose, what they know is what they needed to do every day. They know exactly what they were doing, that they had total certainty about their place in the universe.

So the question of reading, a question of purpose, was very distinctly.

clearly defined them, absolutely, overwhelmingly, undisputed, ably, undeniably.

as we turn the volume down on the curtis m. Yes, we start to the search for meaning has getting harder and harder. Yes.

because we we don't have that. We are we are ungrounded IT. We we are on center and and we all feel IT right. Why we reach for you know is why we still reach for religion, is why we reach for, you know, people start to take on you you know a face and science, maybe they should put IT um you know by the way, like sports teams are like know there are like a tiny version of a calle know apple keynotes are a called right you know political no yes. And there's there's a long calls on both .

sides of the political .

spectrum bloom but like they're like, I don't know what a one hundred thousand or something of the intensity of of what people head back. And so so we live in a world today that in many ways is more advanced in moral. And so certainly like nice, so much nicer to live in.

We live in a world is like a very washed out. It's like everything has become very colorless and gray as compared to help people use experience things, which is, I think, why I we're so proud to reach for draw. There's something in us deeply evolved where we want that back.

And I wonder what what's all headed as we turn the volume down more and more, what advice would you give the Young folks today, uh, in high school and college, how to be successful their career, how to be successful in their life?

Yes, of the tools that are available today. I an are just like I sometimes you know where I sometimes bore ah you know kids by describing like what I was like to go look up a book, know to try to like discover a fact no in in the old days and seven thousand thousand eight library in the car catalog and thing you go through that work and then the book is checked out. You have to wait two weeks, and like like to be in a world that only where you can get the answer to any question, but also the world now, the world you ve got, like the system that will help you do anything, help you teach, learn anything like your ability both to and and also to produce is just like, I don't know a millionfold behind what I used to be if I have I have a black post I wanted right um was I call where are the hyperbole of people um like the question right like with these tools, like there should be authors that are writing like hundreds of thousands of like outstanding books.

they answer this consumption question too. But yeah well maybe not, maybe not. You're right. But so the tools are much more powerful, are getting .

more officials producing a thousand times right. Um like like the tools are spector lar.

So what um what's the explanation and by way of advice, like is motivation starting to be turned down a little bit or what I think IT might .

be distraction traction is so easy to just sit and consume um that I think people get distracted from production. But if you wanted to um you know as Young person, if you wanted to really stand out, you could get on like a uh a hyper productivity curve very early on. There's a great the story, there's a great story, roman history of planning.

The elder who was this legende stateman um died the obvious eruption trying to rescue friends. But he was famous both for being a uh so basically being a paly maths, but also being at an author. He wrote apparently like hundreds of books, most of have been lost.

But he like what all these scope, dias and he literally like, would be reading and writing all day along a matter what else was going on. And he so he would like travel with, like force laves. And two of them were responsible for reading to him and two of them were responsible for taking. And so like you've going across country and like literally, he would be writing books like all the time. And apparently they were particularly there's only few that have survived.

but apparently they were amazing. So there's a lot of value to being somebody who .

finds focus in this life. Yeah and there are examples like there are there is this guy judge was this new poster post um who wrote like forty books and was also great federal judge um friend pology. I think it's like this is one of these you know where he is, his output is just pretty ous. Um and so it's like, I mean, with these tools, why not and I kind of think is this interesting and kind of freeze frame moment. We're like these these tools are on nobody's ands and everybody just kind of starting out and trying to figure what to do.

The neutrals who have discovered fire and trying to figure .

out how to use IT to cook.

Yes, you told him fairs that the perfect day is caffeine for ten hours and alcohol of four hours. You don't think I be mentioning this, did you? Ah IT bouncers, everything out perfectly, he says. So let me ask, what's the secret baLance and maybe too happiness in life.

I don't believe in baLance, so I am the one person ask.

can elaborate why you believe in.

I mean, maybe just and I I look, I think people I think people are wired differently. So I I think it's hard to generalize this kind of thing, but I I am much happier and more satisfied and I am full committed to something. So i'm very much in favour of our land of imbaLance.

imbaLance. And that applies to work, to life, to everything.

Now, now I happen, I have whatever twist a personality trace, lead that in non destructive dimensions, including the fact that i've actually, I know, no longer do the ten four plan. I start ranking to do the cafe theme, but not the alcohol. So there's something in my personality, right? I whatever melted action I have is in claiming me to speak things, that productive things.

So you're one of the wealthiest people in the world. What's the relationship between wealth .

and happiness.

money and happiness?

So I think happiness, I think happiness is the thing to strive for. You think satisfaction is the .

thing that that just sounds like happiness, but turn down a bit.

no deeper. So happiness is you a walk in the world as unset ice cream cone, a kiss. Um the first ice cream cone is great. The thousand days cream com, not so much. At some point, the Marks that was get boring.

Most distinction between happiness and h satisfaction.

Satisfaction is a deeper thing, which is like having found a purpose and fulfilling .

IT being useful so just uh something that permits all you days just a general contentment of of being useful that .

i'm fully satisfying my faculties, that i'm fully delivering right? Um I I guess never been given that i'm you know that making the world Better, that i'm contributing to the people around me, right and that I can look back and say, well, that was hard bit was worthy I think generally seems to lead people in a Better state than pursue pleasure.

pursuit of cause of cause. Happiness does money. They think .

the founders, founding fathers in the U. S, through the off culter, when they use the phrase pursuit of happiness, I think they should say, pursued. And they said, pursue to satisfaction. We might live in a Better.

They could have elaborated. And a lot of.

I think they were smarter than realized.

They said, you know what, we're going to make IT ambiguous and let these these humans figure the rest. These tribal could, like humans, figure out the rest, but money and powers that.

So I think and I think there, and I think I don't think i'm giving a great example, but I think that would be a great example this which is like you know lucky the guy who from every every day is life from the day he started to make him money at all, he just just next thing um and so I think I think money is definitely enable your force satisfaction I was my money apply to happiness leads people done very darpanet destructive avenues a money applied to satisfaction I think could be as a real tool um I always like by the way I was like, know is the case study for behavior with the other thing that so really made me think his Larry page was at one time what his approach of phantasy was and he said, just my philtres pic plan just give all the money elan right?

Well let me actually ask your body, what are you you've interacted with quite a lot of successful engineers and business people. We do something special about on we talked about tea. What what do you think is much about him as a leader, as an innovator?

yeah. So the the core of IT is he he's back to the future. So he he is he is doing the most leading other things in the world, but was an with a really deeply old school approach inside to find comparison once to elan you need to go to like enry ford and Thomas Watson and how would he use and under carney, right um they like stanford um jack rock fell right you need to go to uh what we're called the bushwork capitalists like of the hard core business on our Operators who basically built basically built um vender built um and it's a level of hands on commitment um and um depth um in the business um coupled with an absolute pretty uh towards truth um and towards um to put science and technology a time to first principles that is just like absolute just like unbelieving absolute he really is ideal that he's only ever talking engineers like he does not tolerate push anybody ever made um he wants a ground truth on every single topic um and he runs his businesses directly data day devoted to get into ground every .

single topic so you think that was a good decision from to bi twitter .

I have developed you in life to not second gas Y I I know this is a kind of song cry crazy, unfounded.

but well, I mean, he's got a .

quite a track car .

crazy states .

of america. The last time somebody really tried to do that was the one thousand nine hundred and fifties and IT was called tucker automotive and IT was such a disaster they made about what a disaster that was. Um and then rockets like who does that like that? There's obviously no way to start in a rocket company like those days are over and then to do those at the same time. So ever he pulled those too off like, okay, fine. Like IT is the one of my areas like whatever opinions I had about that is just like our clear or not relevant like this is at some point you just like on the person.

And in general, I wish more people would lean on celebrating and supporting versus the riding .

and destroying. Oh he drives resentment and like it's resent like he is a manga for resentment um like his critics are the most miserable, thankful people in the world like it's almost a perfect match of like the most idealized you know technologists you know of the century coupled with like just his critics or just bitter as can be and I mean he started very .

darkly uh comic to what well he he feels the fire of that but being ask on twitter at times and which is fascinating to watch the drum of human soliz ation, given our cult roots just fully on fire.

Run out.

You say that. So now, now there are calls have gone and we search for meaning. What do you think is the meaning of this whole thing? What's the meaning of life market?

And and I don't know the of that. I think the meaning of of the closest I get to IT is what I said about satisfaction. So it's basically like, okay, we were given what we have like we should basically do our best.

What's the role of love in that mix?

I mean, like what's the point of life? Yeah but I love like.

so love is a big part .

of that satisfaction. Taking care of people like a derful thing that there are pathological forms of taking care of people. But there's also a very fundamental, you know kind of aspect of taking care people like for example, I happen to be somebody who believes the capitalism and taking care people are actually there actually the same thing.

Um somebody wants the capital m is how you take care people you don't know right um right. And so like that, I think it's like deeply woven into the whole thing. There is a conversation had about that. But yeah .

creating products that are used by millions of people and bring them join smaller big ways and the capitals kind of enablers encourages that.

David, everyone says there is only three ways to get somebody to do something for somebody else, love, money and force. Love and money are Better.

Yeah, worse. That's a good watering. I think we did not know why I love first.

If that doesn't work, the money force well, do you try that? One more incredible person been a huge fan. I'm glad to finally get to to talk. I everything you do, everything you do, including on twitter, is a huge honor to meet you to talk with you. Well.

thanks again for do some thanks .

for listening to this conversation with mark recent. To support the spot guests, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words. Mark and tries and himself. The world is a very male place. If you know what you want and you go for IT with maximum manager and drive and passion, the world will often reconfigure itself around you much more quickly and easily than you would think. Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.