E147: TED goes woke, Canada's Nazi blunder, AI adds vision, plus: who owns OpenAI?
01:28:06 Share

He comment has gone.

hey, come to the show.

Have you ever .

heard the show?

Yeah, I have. I am actually fan. My girlfriend introduced me to like two years ago, and i've been a family ever since. And apparently, like many women, SHE has like SHE has legit concerning obsession with sex.

Oh, that we .

go .

home.

right? Here we go. Let me, this is called up.

I'm sorry. And we just psychologically explore this before we get into the real .

service of the what, why do you like him so much? I don't.

Oh.

OK great.

Thank take up.

Three.

two.

man.

We open sources to the fans .

and .

they just got.

Or if everybody welcome back to the all in podcast, we have a very full docket today. I thought we start with something pretty crazy. There was a really weird uh, moment last week tend through one of its speakers under the bus.

So we decided to have him on to talk about the experience the second family we've done in at least they did to sa silverman for doing comedy at ted because people at ted are a bunch of virtual signal lunatics, including some of my friends who go but common hues ah, if you don't know him, is a writer and podcast. He has a pretty popular podcast, all conversations with common. And he did a talk, which I encourage everybody to watch at ted.

And it's titled a case for color blindness. Uh, we all watch IT. It's very powerful talk and something weird happened. common. Welcome to the program and maybe you could just share with the audience how you want up speaking at ted, what the content uh of your talk was briefly and then the bizarre reaction when they try to ban and kill your talk post to you giving yes.

I first really glad to be Young guys. I'm a fan of the pod, so i'll give the short version here. If you want the long version, you can go to the free press where I wrote a big summary of of what happened there.

Basically, what happened is Chris Anderson invited me to give a ted talk, and, uh, I chose the subject of my upcoming book, which is coming on february, called the end of race politics. And the argument is just essentially color blindness. This is the idea that you want to treat people without regard to race, both in your personal lives and in our public policy.

And wherever we have policies that are meant to collect and help the most disadvantage, we, we should preferentially use class as a variable rather than race. That's my talk enough show. So I prepared to talk with the ted team.

I got their feedback, and I created a, got up there in April, gave the talk ninety five percent of the people in the audience, IT was quite well received. Whether or not they agreed with every point IT was they well within the bounds of acceptable discourse? There was a very small minority on stage. I could see that was physically upset by .

my talk stage.

I could see this on stage yet in the moment. But I mean, i'm talking five people in a crowd of almost two thousand. So I expected that because, you know, color blindness is not invoke today on on the left, on among the progressives.

It's really the idea on goa. And so I was expecting to field some push back. And I I talked to some critics and so forth.

But what happened is what began as just a few people upset began to spiral into a kind of internal staff meltdown at ted. So this group called black at ted ask to speak with me, I agreed. And then they said, actually, we don't want to talk to you.

And they are an employee group at ted. After the conference, Chris email email me and said, look, i'm getting i'm getting a lot of blow back here. Internally, there are people saying we shouldn't release your talk at all.

Then, of course, the next month, they came up with a variety of sort of creative solutions about how to release my talk in a way that would appears, the vogue staffers that really didn't want you to be released at all. And at this one I had to start kind of sticking up for myself. So first they wanted to attach, uh, like A A debate to the end of my talk and released at as one video which I felt would really send the wrong message. You would send the message that like this idea can be heard without the opposing prospect.

They tell you what was problematic about your talk term. Well, like what was the problem with the talk?

Well, there are no factual problems that past the fact checking team. There were, there were no substantive issues with the talk. The problem was that the staff IT upset the staff. That was the language that was used IT upset certain people in the staff got and .

and those people are black.

and probably most were, you know, I tried to actually have face to face conversations with, uh, some of these folks. I only got to to, uh, talk to one woman. So presumably many of them were black, possibly not all.

Okay, what was the what do you perceive was the problem with your talk, or what they perceive the problem with your tickets?

So the the last day of the ted conference, they have a town hall. People from the audience come and give feedback. The town hall opened with two people denouncing my talk back to back. The first said that IT was racist and dangerous and irresponsible.

And the second guy, who's actually a guy I knew, he said that I was willing to have a slide back into the days of separate but equal, which was totally the opposite of my talk. And I I employ anyone to just go online and watch IT, go on youtube, decide for yourself whether these criticisms bear any resembLance to reality. But that was the idea that the talk is racist, that, you know, i'm some kind of pro jim co. Person is really, really danged kind of criticisms.

Your talk is up on tech website in on youtube bright. But part of the controversy was that the number of views seem to be pretty suppressed. Was that discussed with Chris when you talk with him or you have a point of view on the suppression of the promotion of the video even though they put IT out there and how that affected you know, how widespread the video has been made available to fox?

yeah. So in my final call with Chris, he sort of presented this idea about how to release IT, and he sold IT to me as a way to amplify my talk, which I think was kind of some spin. He was in a tough position, caught between me and his employees.

We ultimately decided they would release the talk, and then two weeks later, they'd release a debate between myself and this guide, gmail booi, who was in new york times columnist um so the talk came out on ted website. The debate came out and I kind of mentally had forgotten about the whole situation until tim urban, who is a popular bloggers who's actually even the oh, that's great yeah, tim is great. He he's also given the most view ted talk of all time on youtube. Tim noticed that my talk just had a really absurdly low view count, like an implausibly low views count on on ted's website. In mid August, he waited this and that he believed they were intentionally under promoting my talk.

And so I checked.

yeah, yeah, I checked. And all of the of the five talks surrounding mine, they all had between in four hundred fifty thousand views and eight hundred thousand views. That was the full range mine had seventy three thousand, right? So sixteen percent of the low end of the range of all the talks released ed around mine. So when that happened, I felt that ted had kind of reneging on its end of our bargain and that's when um very wise got one of IT and I I went public.

Just to be clear, you're saying that the condition for releasing your ted talk, the bargain you struck with Chris, was that you would do a debate with someone in a separate video and that you had to do the debate in order to have your ted talk release.

Yes, wow. So yeah, that what that was the end of the negotiation, the beginning of the negotiation was trying to get me to release those things as one video. And I said, hell no.

And then next we're going to released them as separate videos. On the same day, I said, how know is that dilute IT? And then we agreed on a two week separation between the two.

In your experience with ted and your conversations around this matter, are you aware of other videos that ted has refused to put out that were a live ted talk at the ted conference and they were deemed to be too controversial to be released publicly?

Definitely not this year. I can know. I don't know the whole history of ted, but nothing like that this year, for sure.

we go one of two ways with the freedoms. G, and do you want to talk about the substance of the talk, or maybe digg into the culture of ted?

I want to talk about the subsistance of the talk in a minute, but I think it's worth to sharing my experience with you. I started going to ted as an attended around, I believe, two thousand seven. And I went every year until twenty nineteen.

I got a lot from the community. I got a lot from the conference every year. I was an incredible week of my life. Every year was a big deal for me. Um in the early days, I would go there and I saw new perspectives on technology, on the environment, on um social change, on all these like topics that we're not in my data day, that I thought we're really exciting and all inspiring and that really was kind of this epos of ted back in the day before percentages and took IT over was to kind of you know inspire people with new ideas over the years that I attend a ted.

I began to observe that many of the talks and I spoke about this very briefly last week as part of my motivation and interest in doing the all in summer this year, but that over time, many of the talks began to take a bit of a social justice turn in the sense that there was almost lecturing happening as curated by the editorial process at ted, when Donald truck was elected president in twenty sixteen. Needless to say, most of the audience of ted was not on that side of the voting block. And what a disturbed to me the most was that in the three years after he was elected, every ted conference had plenty of subjects, plenty of talks and plenty of conversation about why sociality falling apart, why Donald trump is a key root cause of that, why so much of him and what he stands for, and the people behind him are unjust and evil in all these ways.

There wasn't a single talk that provided the perspective of why anyone voted for him. There was no one that shared a point of view about why this person had come together more than half the votes or half votes in the country. And I thought that was such an important topi C2Better und erstand tha t I w as so sho cked tha t he was nev er par t of the dis course.

That said, i'm not a republican and not a conservative and are not against social justice issues. But I saw ted, over time, get overtaken with this kind of very one sided, almost bully and type of approach to this is the narrative we want to sell society on rather than have a two discs. Uh about the matter I sent in um uh uh a survey uh response in twenty nine after I went to ten, I said I never coming back again this year did IT for me.

I'm over IT and there was such a lack of diversity of points of view at this conference. And so much of this has veered away from inspiring top tics and inspiring talks. And IT became all about fear of technology.

IT became about social injustice caused by one side of the political spectrum. And IT really angered and upset me that everyone has become so close minded at ted. And I said this note, and Christine Anderson reached to me and said, well, you have a conversation.

I went on a zoom call with him, and I spoke with him for an hour. I shared all this and I said, he's missing so much what happening that's a optimistic about the world is optimistic about technology. That's different ways of looking at things.

And he's kind of created this very narrow, reminded you on the topics that they want to address and how they want to address them. And that was in, I walked away. So when I saw what happened with your talk, to me it's almost like the ultimate n game of this process that i've been observing a ted personally for the last thirteen years.

And I just wanted to, you know, last fifteen years, I guess, share that story with you uh and speak publicly about IT. I, I, I very much respect the intention of the people at that. I respect and deeply.

The ted talk changed my life many times along the way over the decade plus that I went there. I have many great friends from ted. I know many people that have worked there.

Everyone has the right intention, but I think it's such a microcap sm and a reflection of what's broadly in going on, which is it's either my opinion or not. And everyone coles' around people with the same opinion, and then you magnify IT and you concentrated, and we have no discourse. And ted used to be a place for discourse, and it's lost that as have so many other forms for conversation in the society and country today.

Come on, what you what you take on the on the ted organization you know free and post having had this experience some curious yeah what you just said.

David, i've heard echoed from at least a dozen people that have gone to ted or or been you know in the tech community for ten years or more. They've noticed the exact change that you noticed. The question is what has driven that? Is IT actually coming top down from the leadership? I'm not sure I am skeptical. I yes, I see you shaking her head. I I agree, I agree, like all my private communications with with Chris suggests to me that he is just as alive to this problem of ideological capture of institutions as anyone but when IT comes to you know his own staff who have really strong feelings who are not to free speech or not pro heterodox beliefs um and open discourse who literally just don't share that value you know is a very tRicky thing with leadership sometimes you have to simply be the bad guy and say, i'm sorry these are the values of the institution and if you are not on board this is not right for you and my perception is that ted has been captured count from the bottom up like many institutions, just from the seeing in of staff that don't share those values and the in a inability of the leadership to actually hold the line for those .

values to they tell you that you made .

them unsafe yes, actually, yes, yes. People said they felt they were attacked in the audience and know my my talk was again, just look at up on youtube. It's quite mild.

Can we actually talk about that? Go to I just make a statement, which is I think that your talk was superb. And just to give you my journey as a kid that grew up as a refugee on welfare and then to get through every single through the street of society, I think when I look back, the biggest thing that I struggled with was always confusing.

When I felt mistreated, I would always directed at racism. IT would be my sort of safety blanket. And I would always look at other people are doing that.

And I was only until I met my wife and spending years and years talking about IT, where I was able to disarm this and see that out of a hundred interactions. A lot of the time just people are having a bad day. Some other percent of the time people are actually just being very classes, because races and IT, turns out, is like a pretty severe perversion.

And it's really crazy when you actually see IT play out. And for me, had I had a framework, if I had your talk, when I was in my twenty and thirties, I would have spared myself a lot of self sabotage. Because what that does is when you feel these things and you don't have a framework to interpret IT or to tolerate the anxiety, I would internalize that anxiety.

And I was a less productive person. And so if the goal was for me, on behalf of my family or on behalf of people like me, to make IT, I would have gotten there much faster had I not gotten in my own way. And when I watched your talk, IT was incredibly validating for the work that I had done.

And I had thought myself, man, if I had had him, if he had made that for me when I was twenty years old, amazing. I would. I could have done so much more, because when I think about some of the mistakes I made, they were rooted in this pacific issue that you touch.

So I just want to say thank you. And I also want to say that to the extent other people are interested and feel like that, you should really listen to what you have to say, because I thought I was equate me address. I was a huge, huge, huge fan of what you had to say. And I thought I was extremely well done, and especially for someone as Young as you. If I was just amazing.

come on, let me ask you, what was the reaction from people of color, people who have experienced the races, and perhaps to your talk, because you must have gotten a tremendous mind. And I didn't look at the comments to tech credit. The comments are open. So what was the reaction you know to people like to matha or yourself people color or maybe who have experienced racism on some regular basis and idea of having color blindness when we're um you know Operating as a society and that goal, which i'll just point out when I listen to your talk, seems to be exactly what mart luther king said. So good yeah .

IT is so there's the stereotype of the reaction is that White people like my talk and people of color don't yes. So that's the stereotype that my critics would like to believe is the reality, because then they don't have to confront my arguments. The reality is that even at the ted conference, which is a progressive space, many, many people of colour, a black people, south asian people, came up to me saying that was an excEllent talk for this.

That in the third reason, and I think of, uh, probably for for reasons, uh, similar to what you are saying to moh, I I have found that often times immigrants of color really resonate with my message. I have many print jamaican friends that, you know they view themselves as jamaican. They come to america. And our conversation about race doesn't make very much sense to them.

right? Why IT doesn't make sense for.

for instance, to strongly feel that your racial identity is an aspect of your core in herself, that you ought to judge people on the basis of their racial identity, that you know, if you're a White person, that you you don't have a valid perspective to bear on a conversation, or you have to, you know, prefer every belief by, i'm a dum White guy, what do I know this kind of routine that we've gotten into in spaces rather than just confronting each other as, hey, you know, i'm calling your chmagh, your David eeta.

Let's all talk about this from the point of view of epidemic equals and have conversations in yeah, you you're gonna about stuff I haven't known because of your individual life story. I'm going, i'm going to have experiences, stuff that you have. We may have even experienced racial discrimination.

We may, we may have stories, stories to tell. But we are starting out fundamentally from the frame of all being human beings that can talk to each other. And you, we don't have to sort of play act to the these racial roles that have become increasingly in vogue in workspaces. And a lot of people resonate with that. And and and and what's more, you know, you've got in this thing on on the left, you've got media institutions that have been taken in in by to you.

You see near times aeds like one, I think, five years ago, that can my children be friends with White people, right? You've god, Robin, the Angelo and her books saying things like a White person shouldn't cry around a black person because IT triggers us is like, this is so the opposite of what IT actually feels like to hang out with an interaction. Al and tight nc group of friends you ACE racial identity receives and importance the more you get to know people.

And I think people in interaction relationships know people with interaction. Al, kids know this. So my message actually resonate with people of of all colors.

That thing was one of the most pointed parts of IT sex. Um you ve got to watch the talk as well, I believe so your thoughts on maybe institutions roading from the inside and uh maybe even one that's supposed to support ideas ideas that matter.

Clearly, this is an idea that matter. I want to not use the term routing because I think your your point is that it's not good. I don't think that's necessarily the case because the point is there is institutional capture that happened. And that institutional capture is almost like a democratic process that we're seeing at companies, that we're seeing at government agencies and that we're seeing in private and non profit institutions that the individuals that are employed, uh, are capturing the organisation's ideals.

Obviously was not what I but that was such institution, you know, in terms of IT was a brave institution under rick saw woman, you know, I get IT.

but I think I think that is such a derogatory return in the sense that can some of these these institutions of all to be different but OK, that's the thing. I I I don't want me yeah .

sex of rotting or is IT being taken over? Uh, from the inside of the bottom of thought, I think .

capture is a pretty good word to use fever, use that word. Just remember, tez original mission, representing their tagline was ideas worth spreading. So there's also a forum for interesting, worthy idea as that they're going to spread.

And here they're doing the opposite. They're basically sandbagging the views and they didn't want a public children. And then when they did degree to publish shit, they basically subject to that to a new requirement of putting A A bottle right by IT.

So this is not living up to the original mission. Now why did this happen? I want to go to Chris Anderson s response here.

He wrote this long post on acts which is too long to read here. It's a really sort of easily Milly mouth defense of what they did. A lot of both sides type language.

I think there's really only one or two senses that are relevant in terms of explaining the whole thing. What he says is that many people have been genuinely hurt and offended by what they heard you say, so is addressed to comment. This is not only dream of we post our talk. So I think this is really the key intellectual mistake that Chris innocence making is that he believes that people can be genuinely heard by encountering well reason ideas they disagree with. I think the way that the marketplace idea is supposed to work is that when you encounter an idea you disagree with, you formulate in equally well thought out response, and you engage an intellectual .

discourse .

to be exactly but you. I think these words are really significant because he's saying not just that the objectors here were offended. He was saying that they were hurt, genuinely hurt so he's buying into the idea that hearing ideas you disagree with is somehow a threat to your party yeah and as soon as you do, that assures you concede that that there can be some sort of physical harm.

From engaging with ideas, you give the equivalent of a hecker veto. To the people who don't like these ideas gets almost like a crybabies veto. So there is no way you can function as a marketplace ideas, and certainly a platform for ideas worth spreading. If you're going to give a veto to people who can claim that they are subjective, emotional reaction to wealth out ideas should trump the right of the speaker to put out that idea or the broader audience .

to hear IT. right?

exactly. And I think that's and I think that's where we've ended up.

Can ask your point of you on institutional capture. Obviously, this is different than the topics you ve been you've spoken about. But as you've gone through this experience with ted and as you think more broadly about what's going on, do you have a point of view on the capture of institutions from the bottom up that happened and how that affected some of these topics like free speech, sharing of ideas, open discourse, um all these foundations that made kind of a free and open society work effectively for so long?

Yeah it's it's a very difficult problem because, you know, it's easy for me from the outside, not being the leader of major institution, to to say, well, this is just what you have to do. Obviously, it's more psychologically difficult to go to your own staff that you have to metaphorical live with everyday and really shake things up um and many people aren't willing to do that.

Someone like barry wise who used to be at the newer time you know her point if you want IT is look, you just got to start your own institutions. You have to start your own institutions with the right ethos from day one, and that's what she's tried to do with the free press. Um rather than try to reform institutions that have a lot of unhealthy inertia that .

Chris could absorb this very easily. I mean, this is a failure of leadership, what he needed to tell these employees is, look, our mission is to be a platform for spreading interesting ideas. And we can't treat this speech differently than the other speech. Just because you disagree with IT.

that's all yet to do. And by the way, just because an idea may be offensive does not mean that IT should not be spread. I think, have you read a JoNathan hates book? Uh, codling of the american mind? Absolutely great book. And I think that speaks. And that was the book I gave away in our gift bag of the all in summer this year, because I thought I was just like an important and kind of pression point of view on what's going on right now that we assume that if something is offensive by some, some, some group could be a large group or a small group, IT needs to be suppressed. And obviously, as you extend that concept to its extreme, you end up losing many ideas that chAllenge, you know, the current kind of main concept that everyone believes.

Here's what I don't understand. So comment, just maybe if you can just guess why when somebody watches this talk, could they feel genuinely hurt? Like what? Like if we had to still man, then let's step in their shoes.

Like what is the what's the cycle that's going on there that gets them too? Oh my god. This is an intolerable point of view.

Yeah, I mean, I think there has to be something with if you're a person that has you know stake your life or your career out on the concept of sort of race based diversity, equity and inclusion, explicitly taking racing into account in policies and you know you're someone that's been working in that domain for thirty years and you see someone like me come up there and just argue against that whole approach.

There may be some severe threat mechanism that comes on board where you actually don't have a rational argument that that easily debunks what i'm saying because what i'm saying is very reasonable. And so in the absence of a great rational argument, when the stakes are high, all the you know primal animal emotions sort of come out your whole limbic system and you feel like you're kind of in a fighter flight situation and you and you feel incredibly emotional. That's my only guess.

Yeah, hurt. And it's scary to think, what if you win the argument? And if you win the argument, that means certain things might go away. And I think the two examples they gave you, Chris arson, came on stage and said, oh, you know, when conductors are looking for a new violin and stay, put them behind, uh, you know, a shade and they and they do color a blind selection process, a color blind selection process.

I think my girl talked about that and blame and your response to, and then they said, wouldn't be Better if we could have you to some representation in that group. So then we would inspire people to get to the group. Your response to that was.

and my response that that was, what you really want to do is if there are reasons why, say, black kids aren't getting access to violins at at a Young age because schools are underfunded. Our band programs are are horrible in inner cities. That's where you want to intervene. You don't want to intervene at at the point at at the moroccan tic online racially rigging the very bar that you would use to measure progress on those deeper dimensions.

Have you read this book called losing ground by Charles burning?

Yes, I have.

I mean, a very provocative book. I have always thought, and maybe i'll just leave this with you because if you were willing to do IT, everyone would love to support you in any way that I could to do IT. But we don't have a full accounting of what really happened starting in the late one thousand nine sixties with L.

B. jays. War on poverty. And I think when you look at racism through the american lived experience, a lot of IT goes back to a bunch of economic incentives that were set up to try to do what theoretically seem at the time the right thing.

We can debate whether that's where L B, J came from or not. But you compound and cade a bunch of decisions forward to your point. Now we're sort of trying to deal with the sentence without really addressing the room cause.

And I think if amErica wants to really heal and deal with this, what we also need to do is give all those people that have that fighter flight response. The Better tool get to understand what kind of got is here, because right now we have a very charged way of viewing these things without actually looking at some of the practical, quantifiable details. Thomas sol has talked about IT, Charles murray talks about IT.

But these are, unfortunately, such heterodox ideas that they just don't get enough mainstream discussion. And if you then compound that with this institutional capture, they get buried. And so the answer may actually be sitting right in front of our face, where IT was the welfare reform system that we implemented in the late one thousand nine hundred and sixty on down the line.

Because those are structures where we can solve IT, which ultimately will get to your point, which is great, fund more music in the schools in that example. And right now, we're so caught up in all of the the labels and the fear mongers that we never get to that. And so I just wanted to put that out there that I think that there needs to be smart, brilliant people like yourself, Young people who can do a full accounting of, like the last fifty, sixty years, in a much more structural way, that these gentlemen tried to do.

But the ideas were just two hero dogs at the time. But because of formats like podcast and like the free press, other things, I think there's a chance that you can actually get these ideas out. And I think it's important because I think folks like me or the people that approached you, there's not enough of us that came from this background that are open minded or at a point where we can tolerate the anxiety to listen your ideas. There's a lot of people that may just visually react, but the more that we can shift those people away from visually reacting to actually tolerating and then thinking and then evolving their point of view, you can do some enormous good in the world. Just why just wants .

to put that out there? Yeah, yeah. no. I mean, that's a huge topic and an understudying topic. What was the effect of of the welfare reforms of the sixties and seventies? I know my mother used to say SHE grew up in the south bronx.

I'm half his band a half black american and SHE used to say she's to just have stories of you know, when the welfare auditors would come around and people would hide their boyfriends, hide their husbands side, their husbands actly and um and in the book black power by stock ly car Michael um AKM which is you know the manifesto of the black power movement, hardly a rightwing source they they made the same point about welfare reform so there definitely is something to be investigated there. Um it's not really my point of expertise. I know gland Lorry is someone who has really dug into that sort of research, but there's definitely A A lot of room for study there.

Let me ask you a question about our industry. We've had um a lot of hand ringing and debates about diversity in funding of startups, uh, capital allocators, venture capital firms. And we have limited partners who have a mission to have more diverse uh, general partners, the people adventure firms who invest in startups invest in more female.

Let's started up success because the numbers, Frankly, you don't have not been a very diverse historically in venture far from IT. And we recently had a female a black female venture firm. I think it's called fearless founders get suit and mature. If you aware of that lawsuit, it's by the same person who suit harvard.

Should there be venture firm specifically designed to change the ratio is the language people use? And should, you know, people with large and downs of capital be backing, you know, black ventura capitalists to see more of them, or female black venture capitalist spanish? Or how would you look at that issue, which has been a pretty sticky issue and has a changed for a one time?

So prescriptive vely.

I don't want to say much because I don't like to tell people how to run their funds or run their businesses, right? If you're a Christian and you want to hire only Christian people, if you're a muslim, you want to higher only muslims. I think you should Frankly be allowed to do that if those are your personal values.

Now, personally, I will tell you with respect to the people that I would hire e to say, work on my podcast, I want every single higher to know that I am not hiring them as a result of their skin color or gender or any other contingent feature of of their identity. I want them to know that i'm hiring them for what they really bring to the table. Now I have a very small team.

Maybe there's something about how the optics the certain optics are required for a larger um a larger firm. But I think IT IT, the problems began when you when you sort of bliss this idea that race is a super deep feature of who you are right from the start. When you bless that idea right from the start, IT sends the signal that what people bring to the table is their racial identity is their gender. Now, when you fast forward two years down the line, when the company is having some meltdown over a race or agenda issue, you have to understand that is possible. You made this bed by signal from the very beginning that was important about the people you're bringing in is their race, is their gender, and that you are a vulnerable to the kinds of appeals that can be made purely on the basis of what are ultimately superficial features of our identity yeah said.

what would your advice be to institutional leaders that are past that point of no return, the CEO of big companies and big institutions that are now captive by these ideologies where they are effectively, as you say, alter sensitive to issues around race and gender. Another set of, you know, superficial identities and are chAllenged often to to make decisions are driven to make decisions that their employees and teams demand of them. Do you have advice on how they can rethink their roles as leaders and .

how to reframe this? I mean, in a word, no. Because it's by that point, it's, uh it's it's an act intractable problem. I've had i've talked to see E, S. That asked this question to me over and over again. Like what do I do once I passed the point where I have so many staff, and if, you know, the system is so sprawling that is no longer under my control, I have so many people with values that I don't share, that I Frankly think privately are insane. But I cannot say so publicly because I have higher order commitments to the shareholders, to the board to to steer the ship right, such as IT is, and the ship can not be change at this point, I don't have good advice and not going to pretend that I do.

Giving that same problem is inherent in political parties in the united states, states, state governments and other larger kind of social systems that we use to organized ourselves and are now also captive and in kind of a point of no return.

I think definitely in the democratic party, there has been a problem with mistaking the twitter commentary or in the journalistically for real life. The truth is, the vast majority of even democrats voters find my arguments around color blinds totally uncontroversial, whether they may have some agreements or not. But if you asked the elite, there's a meltdown, right? There's this huge there just a huge discrepancy, and IT can never be hammed enough the extent to which people in politics are Operating in a bubble and believe mistaking the elite and the twitter sphere for the wider population.

I mean, this feels to me like why Donald tom got elected. But another topic.

this is been amazing. And everybody take a moment. Search for common hues described to his youtube channel, type .

and hues.

yeah. Do a pocket conversations with common. Actually, David sax has been on the casts about a year ago.

How he did .

absolutely fantastic.

Did he make you .

feel unsafe?

He did. Actually, yes.

which was IT. Talk about the usk.

about ukraine.

fantastic. you. I would be hand. Thank you. I saw you had the delt guy on, and I, that was pretty engaging, interesting conversation, got out. Who is really controversial? I thought you handle that one really well too.

Yeah, thanks. He's an interesting one. Is so he is a lot of brilliant things to say, but also he maybe thinks the C I is gna kill him recently on twitter. Mixed bag bag would .

be where I would go with at, listen, this has been amazing, but ted talk is extraordinary. Everybody should watch IT. And yeah, ideas worth spreading unless maybe, uh, you don't agree with them. Good to tech channel and watch IT. Sorry, I mean, I don't want to give to do much more time, but they tried to get me to pay fifty thousand dollars a year, five thousand a year for like five year .

package to go to the vent.

Regular tickets used to be to five hundred, and then now they used to be seventy five hundred. I think they up to ten k and then you can do like donor tickets and you get different features. And so basically there so remember, IT, IT is set up as a nonprofit and there is filling profit work that's done.

And so you and the organization is again, it's not a profiteering media company. IT IT. IT became a big media company because of the success of the the efforts and the the quality, the content that was produced over time. But you know, as we talked about, a lot of media companies and a lot of institutions get captured and know the original .

kind of missing their phone to pay phrase, uh, Bruce walls and pop fiction, ted's dad, baby dd.

a great idea to get a IT.

So they allow the staff who have, let's say, highly niche elite views to veto or suppress talks. They don't like that. That stops being a platform. ideas. This becomes another letting interest.

Gp, what other ideas? What other talks have been canned before they even got to the stage? You have .

to .

wonder and pet in, what about the person that's pro coal? I wonder if the pro coal person is allowed to present .

that to I know that you know the they had Sarah silverman, and he did a comedy, said, which was hilarious and the same people. So this is the thing I find. So the popovers y is just so crazy with the ted people.

And it's a lot of my friends still go is they had sa solver come. These people have laughed at Sarah solo man a million times. They've watch dave shaped. They've seen any number of comics. You don't make them laugh with edgy humor, but then when they're in that you know ted audience and their feeling super precious and that they're very important because they donate fifty grand a year or whatever freedman g gave them, I don't know, to get in there from .

the side door.

Then they were super offended. So they're hypocrite and I don't say any more clearly. They they literally you could pull up Chris Anderson apologizing.

not again. Again, I really .

apologize .

for again. I hope that this is a learning experience for everyone. I hope that this is a turning point for leadership and instruction like this to take a look at what happened, how IT happened, and then hopefully to write the course, because organza, like ted, I thought, were very important and should be in the world and should be successful.

And I hope that they kind of return to the original values. And I hope that this is a moment that that there's a learning experience and that we don't sit shit on them and say they're awful. They are failed to hopefully.

something comes in this. I do think there is one other potential remedy here, which besides just starting a new ted and look kind of the very White point of view, which is just write off and started over member what brian armstrong g did at coin base, he based to said, listen, we have a mission here. It's around crypto.

We're going to focus on a percent on this mission. And if you're not on board this mission, or want to to capture this institution to promote other missions, this is not the place for you. Go to those mission somewhere else. He took A T. If this has .

mentors .

as well as a good sounding board, that is the threshold question that should be debated right now. As do I walk in the door and do I just give this simple lima test and have people sign up or not? And and it's quite and it's quite easy because to your point is not like he's inventing something new.

He's saying this is where we started and this is where we're gonna stay and this is what that means. And if he doesn't do that, then he spoken with his actions. And IT is what IT is. IT what .

what is meant. It's a moment for looking at the international. It's a whole reset moment opportunity. See what happens or not down and keep going. I really appreciate your public about all this and talking about IT.

Very thanks.

everybody, and cheers them and thanks. All right. Listen, it's a new segment we have here when virtual singling goes wrong.

If you missed that, the canadian parliament gave a standing ovation. Two, a nazi. I not like a new nac or not see sympathiser, uh, one of the few actual nazi still alive. Uh, here we see um just the crowd going wild less friday. Uh, ukrainian president sanci, I gave a speech at the canadian house of commons and canadian house speaker Anthony rota introduced a ninety eight year old, your old love hunker has a ukrainian war hero and then the canadian parliament proceeded to give, have a standing .

ovation.

And IT turns out that this person first fought for the first ukranian division in world war two. That unit was also known as the war .

in sss galatia division of i'm product .

in that clock correctly, uh, which was a voluntary unit, a native command. So the canaan parliament apparently gave a standing ovation to nazis. They have apologized for this and said, IT was a mistake. Tramadol, don't know if you ve got to see this. Your canadian ah so your thoughts on what .

we've seen here. I mean, i'll give you my feedback as somebody who when I was now in canada was a pretty garden to liberal. I grew in a liberal household. My father canvas religious ly for the liberals.

And I think that at some point after I moved to the united states, they took voguish, which I think, look at some level, was rooted in something very important, which was, how do you get marginalized folks to be seen, but unfortunately, along the way, just got perverted by folks that just use IT as a casual to sensor people to make other people feel guilty, to judge people. And so I think we all would agree that it's kind of become this virus. The thing that IT masks are all of these other really bad things that come along with IT.

And one of them in canada, which Justin trudeau is case zero above, is also when nepotism goes bad. His father was an incredible examples. Prime minister in canada set the benchmark on all dimensions was just incredible, cool, composed, move the country forward, brought the country together, and then fast, four, twenty five or thirty years in a vacuum of leadership.

What basically happened? We pick this guy who was up until that point of subs to teacher. And the other claim to fame was appearing twice in Brown face.

Okay, so making fun of people like me and elected in prime minister. And what happened was he became the sort of like virtue signal and chief of this very important G A. country.

And IT was all kind of bumbling along. And in the absence of anybody else that was able to step up and offer an alternative, he got reelected, barely, but he did. Then these things happen in the last year. When you look through that prism is how you can see what happens if a country doesn't draw a line and finally take a stand.

So we had this guy who was ill qualified in way over said, who shouldn't been in his role as prime minister, get put in a position when finally a group of people in canada push back, in this case, the truckers, he and the entire government explicit label them as not cease, right? And said, these people need to be put down and completely dismantle. IT didn't seem like IT was right.

We call that out. We all talked about that. And we said, this doesn't smell right on the surface. These are really seems like good on as people that are just trying to make a point and are not being heard. Then you had this thing three weeks ago, two two or three weeks ago, where he actually had a speech in front of the entire parliament where he accused the largest democracy in the world in india, in this case, of coming into canada to canadian soil and assassinating the canadian citizen, which is an enormous allegation to levy.

And what was important to know about that allegation was that I was done without the explicit vocal support of either britain or the united united states, which would be the two most natural allies that canada would present that information to. And instead of doing IT behind the close door to mody, he did IT on live stage like he was like some theatrical performance. Then india follows up and says, um this guy is kind of known to be a little bit of a drug added was on a two day bender and the indian drug dog smell the bunch of on the plane then they have this thing for bottom linski where everybody was there to sort of like virtue signal this war.

And then they actually invited a nosy and then gave him a standing ovation. So when you when you put IT all together, I think what IT shows is just a lack of professionalism. M, which also belies just a lack of experience in capability.

And so I think what IT chose is just like, isn't this enough like, have we not seen enough of these examples? But you can actually start to ask yourself, why can't we just get really good, competent people to do these jobs? Why can't we actually embrace free speech and all of what that means and explore that? Why can't we have people that don't need to theatrically perform on stage? Because eventually you're going to make these mistakes and you're gona embarrass your entire country, and then you're going to imperil relations with some really important allies. And I think this is a moment in time where all of those things need to be questioned. You put on the table.

you're clearly questioning his confidence here because to not have the care to check who is going to speak in front of parliament is crazy. And just to make IT super clear, the speaker that invited hanka that was Anthony rota, resigned on tuesday. And trudeau says rota, the person who invited the nazi um is solely responsible.

Well then he blamed russian misinformation on top of approach. You do you know the prime minister who is the most important politician in the country? Doesn't show up some place unless the office knows who also is going to be there.

He knew that zelenski he was going to be there. He would have known who the gas elias was. This is just be going to covered IT up. But but the bigger issue, but I just be clear.

you're not saying that they invited or not see on purpose and cheered for nobody on purpose, but nobody saying that you're saying there's a lack of care here and it's .

it's a lot of confidence.

It's a lot of dence OK agree with all that.

I think there is also two other dimensions to this back story, if you will. I think first, in terms of how does the mistake this happened, I think IT was all well. Who said that he who controls the present controls the passion.

He who controls the past controls the future. The present is ukraine. IT is the current thing. Everybody has to cheer for ukraine and for the killing of russians. The reason why honker was cheer with the standing ovation is because they said that he fought russians.

He was a war here, or who fought russians? All you to do was do a little bit math to realize the guys ninety eight years old, when was a war against russia, who could he possible been fighting for? But to except people did that, they sort of airbrushed or Whitewash history.

So the present controls the past to ensure A A vision of the future, which should be laid out. In the speeches gave recently where he became so audience in his support for ukraine, he was almost yelling at the podium, saying that canada had to make all these economic sacrifices to win the war. So that point number one is, I think that the worke mine virus almost requires this White washing of the past, but is done for a specific purpose, which is to control the future.

But I White washing the past. If he was a mistake that intellection doesn't make sense.

No, what they did is .

I I understand .

the present is that we hate russia so much that we are .

going to cheer for anybody who killed .

russians. Can was a huge tobacco and embarrass spectacle. I think that nobody asked any questions about the past because the present over rights of sure, the present need to support the current thing overrides like any serve examines historically.

There's one other way, which I think this wasn't an accident, Jason, is that if you look at U. S. Policy towards ukraine, we have made common cause with a number of these far ride alternative groups, Frankly, neonates I groups.

And this occurred before the the current war. So it's not just the merge of convenience. First all, if you go back to war two, that the father of ukrainian, an national, alison, is a guy named step in venda. And today in ukraine, he has seen as some sort of hero, and there are streets named after him and their streets named after some of his cocontract ATS who collaborate with notices.

If you fast forward to the more recent past to two thousand and fourteen, when we had this mayday q in kf, that was back by Victoria newland, one of the key figures in that, who was a guy named ola tony bock, who is the founder of this bota party, which is the social nationalist party, which, if you know what noy stands for, its national socialist, they basic to flip the name and the original logo, the boat. A party was the wolff's Angel, which was a nothing and a this was a far right party infused with the racial ideology of step in badia, who was, again, a nosy, and they brought this guy and and and his party as the muscle in this cup. If you could look at the Victorian newland phone call, the information phone call, where he is picking the new ukrainian government, the yachts is our guy phone call.

SHE says that click, meaning click go, and and a tony box needs to remain on the outside, but yachts needs to be talking to tony box four times a week. okay? He was part of the chest pieces that they were moving around.

After the coup, a civil war breaks out in the dawn bass because the ethnic russians there are opposed to this new government. And the fact that in a kovach who they voted for was to post in an insurrection. What happens then is a war breaks out where far right paramilitary organza, like right sector and like the information is off atan, start killing these ethnic russian separatists.

And a full loan civil war breaks out. Thousands of people get killed. Does the K, F.

Government suppress these neo nazi groups know they? Bringing them under the formal commands structure of the ukrainian military is of pital. An becomes a division of the ukrainian military is shocking. And this goes on from two thousand and fourteen thousand.

The ukraine army, just to be clear here, has not season.

not his supporters. There is no question about that, and there are many people who are concerned about this in the two thousand and fifteen to two thousand twenty time frame, there were many articles writing about IT. The nation had an article about IT.

There were efforts in congress at various points to try to ensure that the a that we were given to the ukraine, an government did not do the italian. So so is said so IT is sad. I think the import.

I don't think .

he's not to be clear, I don't think most ukranian are not season. I don't even think that most ukrainian nationalists are not seize. What i'm saying is that there is a not sea element in ukraine that please White washed over. Well, here's to think about IT. I don't think is a huge percentage, but I think they have outsized influence due to their willingness to use violence, due to their extremism and their willingness .

to any different, not percentage in, say, what everyone to say, White supremacy in the united states are in germany or anywhere else.

I do I don't think it's different in the sense that in the united states is for sure we have new in osi groups. They're not brought in the military. We don't have streets named after their patriarch.

Furthermore, we don't have members of our military with not see in sydney on them. There was a new ord's article just few months ago talking about the fact that, embarrassingly, a lot of these ukrainean soldiers are being photograph with not see in signal a on their uniforms. Now the europe times is framing this as a problem because IT was a propaganda u for, but I think it's upon because it's a problem, not because of just the P R.

Optics of IT. And you know at various points, I think this in the europe articles, well, western media has had to airbrush these photos to hide this fact. Now.

oh, the new york times as airbrush photos of not.

I don't think for times as, but I don't think that you are times as. But I can they talk about the stony problem of not wanting, show these hoos with respected, this linsley being jewish. So what i'd say about that is that zealand's can only came on the scene quite recently.

He got elected in two thousand eighteen. And again, I don't think the majority of people in ukraine are not seize. Okay, are not saying that. But just because the linsley came on the scene in two thousand and fifty and that was elected president, that doesn't mean there's a long and I would say, disturbing history and association between ukrainian alter nationalism and new osi groups.

And I think that part of the the woke thing and part of this orwellian desire where control the present gives the ability rewrite the past, is that there's been a delivered effort to cover up this problem. And to pretend IT doesn't exist is to turn a blind eye to IT. Well, my point is that U.

S. Policy has been to do this. In other words, the u say .

our government OK.

the U. S. State department. And personally, C. I A made common calls with these far recruits because we thought I was beneficial to be aligned with them.

And so we did IT in the made on ku in two thousand and fourteen, from two thousand and fifteen to two thousand and twenty one. We could have gone along with efforts under the minsk t. Cords to resolve this conflict in the dombes peacefully.

But we never did that. We never gave IT any support, and instead we gave support to the care regimes attempt to violence, suppress these russian separatists. And again, the suppression was being done by these rightwing groups.

Look, does that make our state department not? sees? no. Does that make the canadian parliament not? Is no.

What i'm saying is that in both cases, a blind eye was turned to the disturbing ideology and past associations of these people because it's politically in our interest to do business with them. And that's the problems thing about IT. So I don't think in that sense was just a sort of an accident. This is the back story that explains like something like this can happen.

yeah. Okay, Jason.

you have any reactions to trudel doing this and what that means? Or IT, does that mean nothing?

Does a basta I provided give you context on how something like this can happen? That's not just like an accident but I don't think any know .

exactly what happened here and is probably going to be some sort of investigation. But I don't think they knowing put not see up there. Um I think they prove the war and that probably could that have blinded them to do deeper research? Sure people are political politicians most of all and people probably take facts or you know any kind of eating they can use to to um make their case stronger, they'll take advantage of so no sure and true .

pumping his fist and cheering, do you think he knew? He can not know the history and he has to know, he has to .

know if he does .

that somebody was finding the question .

if he .

did on side.

If he did, then you would be saying if he did now and he was pumping his first, then you'd be saying that he was pro nazi. He was cheering for a nazi knowingly.

You know, what i'm saying is, look, the fact you've got some jewish answer street is not in my a get ogee free card for you making political decision to line. Are you saying he knowing?

Are you saying he knowingly cheer for a.

you know, one of the big barker's of the age of italian is a ukrainean log ark named ego color moisi moisi jewish.

Ask me my opinion. I'm just think, do you do you think you knowingly shred for not see? Is that what you're incentive?

I think you the chair, knowing that this ukrainian national als you fought more or two must have been on the german side because .

there was only one okay, I just qualifying you, right? I don't actually have an opinion. Thanks for uh.

query me. I'm not saying that he cheered for nosis. One of saying is he cheer for ukrainian nationalism and he knows that ukrainian an nationalism is. Bound up and tied up with this disturbing history, which he is going to ignore.

Do you guys? Do you guys this?

My point of the is off. These opportunities is under ably and neurotic. A group IT was funded by ugo color, moissey, who is ukrainian.

Alegre, who is jewish, who listen israel, why we call the moisture? I do that because there is of ital believes that every interview, ukraine, including crimea and dab, which has enormous energy reserves, belongs to ukraine. So IT serves the business interests of the energy magnet tes in ukraine to support these people. And that look, politics makes for strange .

bedfellow say actually.

So i'm not saying that the land, sky or color moy or anybody else is a not see because they align with these people. I'm saying they found a politically speedier and useful to alive with these groups, just like the U. S. State department did. Quite Frankly, I don't think we should do that if you want to go around the world, Jason, saying that we are the champions of freedom and democracy and having this moralistic, almost virtue signal foreign policy, I don't think we should be in business or aligned with these new nosti groups wherever .

that they are. I think good when you say you, do you mean me or do you mean the united?

I'm saying if you want to have a highly moralistic foreign policy, let's say, if one wants to have a use .

were pretty if you're going to be principled, you need to keep them. You need to not support.

not you. Jason and feeder, what do you guys think like the the bread chromes in canada? I think i'm just curious whether you guys care about the whole vain of just like competent leadership epidium. M, if you have a view or it's like that is just what IT is, whatever.

I don't know engh about in in politics really, but trudeau does not seem to be super qualified. Yeah so but I don't know enough of money.

So this in terms the king, in part of this, there's a writer name, jet here, who's a leffers writer, but he post something very interesting here, where he explained that in the late one thousand nine hundred forties and one thousand and fifties, canada took in a large number of former note seas. Many of him were S, S. veterans.

So people like hca, because they were good anti communist, and then these nauseous proceed to terrorized anti not ukrainian canadians. There was this ukrainian hall was bombed here in one nine hundred and fifty. So canada has a weird history of bringing in some of these people afterward or two.

So the point is that, yeah, exactly. They look, there's no way that any mi intelligent person who knows the history of war or two, especially the ukrainian involvement in war two, would you know that ukraine was on the german side in war two, and hanka volunteered for the S. S.

He was a for the S S. Licia division. So look, did the speaker of the house? No, probably not. I think worker makes you stupid where they just think about the current thing and no one asked you any questions about the past. But there's a lot more to IT than just like this .

innocent mistake. This has been your update this week in ukraine and weakness. All right, there's a bunch of news about opening eye this week just very quickly. Opening eye is in advanced talks, according to financial times.

With Johnny f of iphone fame, Steve jobs is long term collaborator and moss yoshi song of soft bank to raise more than one billion dollars to build the iphone of ai. And so the idea would be, uh, john Y, I ve got a design from, called love from. And they would help open, I design their first consumer device via the F.

T. Sources, financial times. That is all man. And i've have been having brainstorm sessions and I have sent from to go studio about what a consumer product center around OpenAI would look like. It's very early stages and son has pitched a role for ARM in the development of his chip company that he recently took public.

They also uh, discuss musa and altman creating a company that would draw on talent and tech from their three groups with soft bank putting in a billion dollars in scene and then also open eye is discussing a secondary share cell that would value the company between eighty billion and ninety billion. This should be three x the most recent valuation reportedly though to their credit, they are on track to generate one billion dollars in revenue in twenty twenty three and not sure how much of that is the twenty month subscription that be pretty. If that was those personal cripes, this will be a massive gain on paper for microsoft opening eye, forty nine percent owned by microsoft. And sam altman has personally has stated multiple times now that he has no equity, so he would be getting zero dollars of this. I of course, we know that opening I started as a non profit before switching and our friend vo .

cosla told us very clearly .

ah that those are just details ah what happened to me are are those are just details, but node is the goat.

Sam is the closest thing that we have to an emergent mogo in tech. And the reason is because if everything sits on the substrates, you're gonna to get a license. You're gonna want to get access to whatever developer program, whatever baa that opening I has. And so as a result will be happened.

by the way.

Well, I was just going to say so hubby in the captain seat. So even if he doesn't have any equity in open the eye, he'll get he'll just put his money into the best startups that it's like .

White combined or on there. By the way, I take on that whole claim that sam doesn't .

on any part of OpenAI column. Go here, columbo, explain to us the details in there and you said, I don't know any is an open eye, but you started open a eye right .

then who does? Yeah.

that's the thing.

What I think is really interesting about what OpenAI has done its fundraising rounds is that each round has been a capture turn model. So for to hundred.

one hundred x, right?

Every I think some of the very early people got up to hundred X I think maybe the thirty billion dollars capital x so I think the thirty million different rounds capture a three hundred million doll valuation. Meaning if you're an investor, your share go up in value till the company he hit the market cap a third a billion and then basically your cat effectively cashed out. It's like you bought a share but sold a call back to the company. As industry .

works this way, you investing the film may tell you you can make three act and it's over, right? Something I the independent film business.

yeah so so no event I know I think people invested like a two billion or evaluation were kept up like a hundred billion. I heard that employees who are getting stock options are capital under billion where they were way back when they start granted these OK. So my point is that if OpenAI turns into one of these companies, like a google and up in the trillion dollar club, then nobody's going to own anything because they will already long ago, new interest.

like the new interests, end up being like for eight percent. No, because what will happen at the end is the new people that buy in that higher Price that, that buy out the early investors they're getting effectively things like eight percent return that he turns into debt.

eventually turns into some. I think what's really going on here, somebody has to own the residual value of the company called the far out of the money.

That's how they get around the IOS problem of IT being non equity. That's how they say that it's not .

equity in a private corporate. I think it's so brilliant. IT is OK seems set up the foundation is a nonprofit, but he controlled that effectively, right? yes.

So yes, he tecumthe is not an own over the shares the foundation is. But what can you do with the foundation that you could do with personne ship other, maybe buying a personal resident? I think you can buy a plane.

I think look at the church of scientology. There are a lot of real estate. So my point is, not only do I think that sam really owns OpenAI through the figure of this foundation, I think he wants one hundred percent of IT in the event that the call option is struck, meaning answer being .

a true dock company. You, sam is harbor in this example. Let's not speculate too much.

Why all? It's just details right as well. No said so, just details.

I am speculating. I think it's informed speculation if you want to become the world's first trillion air and you were extremely, uh, premeditated about IT clever and premeditated about IT, what would you do? Number one, you would want to choose a moon shot type area that was a world changing technology.

A I certainly qualified confusion. Maybe crp tote does, as I understand, the same as bets in all three, those areas. Number two, you would want to figure out a way to own as much of as you could, really one hundred percent, if you could.

And that's a very hard thing to do when you're running a capital intense of start up. But investors tend to underestimate the power law and the value of the far out of the money call option. So maybe you can get them to solve that back to really cheaply.

And third, if you're really far cited, you would want to insulate yourself against populist anger from being the world's first, truly. Now so you basically put your shares in a non profit foundation where you're not really sacrificing that much of control or the ability to control the asset. But IT gives you tremendous I love.

where did you come up with this is this is genius. This is genius. Ously just, you repeat, talk about this over chest or something. How did you construct this?

And you're saying this is in four a of financial conspiracy corner. I. C.

hats out. It's really free, free out that were even opposite .

to science corner.

Is that a conspiracy or is IT this reality?

I think if you are even one percent right, the combination of lawyers and accountants that would leak this and the number of people that were part of the origination of the foundation that would want to sue will be very high. That's just the natural state of things in these kind of things seems .

like a lot easier way.

But but whatever I said, other than the fact that I was for premeditated, which that's not the right word, that premeditated sounds to inferiour.

No, no, no. I'm i'm whenever whenever money is made at this quantum and at that scale, everybody wants a peace because they know that that there are one shot. So I just think that it'll amplify the pressure for actors inside those organizations to take their shot. And that's just gonna financially the right thing to do for a lot of people. If if what you're saying is true.

we know the investments were made under a capp turn model. I think that we know the non proof foundation .

owned shares on the table. Like what's even on thinking because he was alone. That really got the thing off the ground because that critical investment made the whole thing come to life. He could have done this on his own.

Yeah, how much to see on zero zero? I mean, but after a lawsuit, how much? And now I speak.

So can we talk about the text now? Here go so opening. I released some new ChatGPT features. The key point here is they're doing what's called multi model. Multi model is the big innovation.

What does that mean? That means the input could be voiced, the input could be code, the input could be data. Uh, IT could be a picture.

Here is a picture. If you're watching along on the youtube, do a search for all in pocket on youtube. Hits, subscribed, hit the bell.

And it's a classic picture of one of those no parking signs where there's four different ones. You take a picture of that, that's the input and you say it's wednesay four pm. Can I park in the spot right now?

Tell me in one line IT comes back and as just you can park for up to one hour starting at four pm. What this means is the output or the input could be in any of those modalities, modalities. Fancy word for an image of video actor.

So you're going to be able to say, hey, give me the poster for the all in conference, a best d runner. And I wanted to be these things. And here are the pictures of the boys and then make IT and go back and forth and back and forth. And this is really ground breaking at the same time last week grew a bard and send deep modern I play with this on this week start up um. You now have google flights, google dox, gmail and a number of of the other core google services are now in barred.

So that's not multi a model exactly um but you could do things like ask google flights, hey, what is the best non stop you know between new york city and due or from an east coast destination that has laid down flat since a and IT really does is starting to work. So this idea that google is gna be displaced or they're moving slow that might be antiquated information. So those are the two big, big, monumental announcement just in the last ten days freezer.

When you look at these two, which one is the more important announcement? And what do you think about th Epace? Because we hear we are we're about to hit the one you're anniversary of ChatGPT .

three point five. I ve been using a lot of different tools the last couple of months, and i'm kind of getting to the point that I feel that much of what's happening is overhyped rather than overhyped. There's some really incredible potential emerging. Um I I give a couple of examples and then i'll talk about the mobile phone first is uh under a car party.

As you guys see in the tweet that I just posted in the chat, made a point today that l ams are emerging not just as a chat bott, but as a kernel process, meaning a new type of Operating system that can do input and output across different modalities, can interpret code, can access the internet and information, and then can render things in a visual way or in an audio way that the user wants to consume IT to. As a result, elements become the driver to a new type of computing interface. There was a paper publish and all, uh, share the link to this paper here as well.

We can put them in the notes is not worth playing up on the screen that showed that using L A lands in autonomists driving can actually significantly improve the performance of the neural nets that the autonomous cars are trained on to. The autonomists car is typically trained on a bunch of sensor data that comes in, and then that sensor data determines what sort of action to take with the car. And what this team showed is that if you actually put in a communication layer that thinks and talks like a human in between the sensor data, the action data IT can do really wide raging interpretations of the data that otherwise would not be apparent from the data.

Said he was trained on. So for example, you can see a person down the road and ask you, what do you think that person's gonna do next? And the L. A.

And because it's trained on a much larger corpus of data, then just sensor data from cars, IT can make a really good human like interpretation of that feedback decision back into the control system of the car and have the car do something more intelligently that are otherwise would have been able to do so. These L L ms are becoming a lot more like a software um Operating system. And you can kind of extend that into mobile phones.

Mobile phones originally were just voice and then they were single lines of text in the form of SMS. Then you were able to browse the web. And then the upper revolution came about where all of this information emerged through apps. What LLM s now allowed, perhaps, is that the entire Operating system of the phone can run and render any sort of application, or any sort of service or product you might want to use on the fly instream.

So the input of the phone can be voice IT can be visual IT can be video and the output can be rendered by perhaps a bunch of what might otherwise be called apps, but color third party developers that build in stream into that chat. That's no longer looks like a chat interface that we see on ChatGPT, but can be rendered visually, can be rendered with audio, can be rendered a bunch of different ways. So if mobile really is the dominant take hardware platform that humans are using, uh for computing today, L L S.

And these sorts of tools can become the dominant Operating system on that hardware, and you can totally rethink the modality of how you use computing through application city. We have an upstart, and we download apps and use them. And that all becomes instream in an L, M, or or chat type interface that can be access in a lot of different ways.

So for me, there's a really bigger thing that's happening. That's not just about making smarter tools and increasing productivity, but a real revolution in computing itself that seems to be emergent. And I think car park is tweet this morning some of the stuff i've been playing with, some of the papers i've been reading and some of the speculation around the mobile hardware start to support that.

This is I I think it's gna be really significant. It's a wholesale rewriting of computing, computing interfaces, human computer interaction that's going to rethink everything. And IT seems to be pretty substantial. And and just using a bunch of tools myself, i'm blown away every single time with .

what you can do yeah I mean, right now, I would agree with you, strongly agree, because this was some this was magic links vision for the future, which is you would talk to agents as they call them. This was A A company that existed in the nineties before smart phones existed. IT was a physical device, made the and the Operating system.

The concept was, you would say, i'm looking for a flight to go to this place. The agent would go out, you would do a bunch of work and then come back to with the options. So not just a google search coming back with tables, links, but actually just solving your problem.

And if the interface is from general magic, right? General magic right? Yeah, right, right.

And there is a movie, general magic, the movie. You can look at the wikipedia company. But this was a lot of like the early work in this area. And I think this is going to become the interface and L M, talking to each other.

Then the question becomes, who owns this? How many of these are there? Are they vertical? Ze, so what? What do you think the game on the field is here? Sc.

well, I I think this is super interesting. I don't know this qualifies as a science corner.

but this is the most .

recent science corner into an interacting realms involved.

I know bar and the rain is joke into this, but let's let's keep our eyes wide open here. okay.

So on the phone, I think what's interesting there, just to boil IT down, is you're talking about replacing the main interface, which is currently a wall of apps, right? And you pushed you top an APP to go into the APP and then you interact with IT. You're not about replacing all that with basically voice.

So imagine a visual .

if you connect like glasses to IT or something. So rather .

than double click on an APP, the APP developers, as they are called today, are basically building instream utilities that are part of the chat interface that that is the phone itself. And that's what's gonna so compelling you have to read like we use the right websites and we wrote apps and now we're gona write these kind of extreme services plugins. Alex a was going to do this.

Well, I got never got kind of socks. IT doesn't like that. Well, does this. But imagine if the phone perfectly understood what you are saying, then you would just say, call me in uber, order my food, whatever, and you just instruct IT that would be it's like in that movie, was IT her the lucky .

for unix movie .

that gri thinking .

disappointed all the science ones?

Like we're going to do a rematch able on that yeah .

we should we watch IT. You won't even really need the pain of glass if you can just talk to IT with an early ACE. Now I think you're right that the phone needs to know what you're looking at or you can do so much more if IT has all those senses.

That part of the multi model demo that that opening I showed this week as IT has video and has camera integration. And remember, in human computer interaction is often a lot easier for a human to interact with A A visual representation of stuff on the screen, then to hear stuff in audio. So we we will still still need some sort of visual display, whether it's a screen or I glass or something that shows us A A bunch of inform.

Sam apparently talking about the ecosystem. C create. Sam apparently invested in a company that was hardware plus software for like journey, like you had hang like a netlist on your neck, a camera type device.

arable, okay.

And I would record everything. And IT would be like your memory back up and you feel the query yet. So that was .

William gibsons plot line in one of his books, where he had a little saplin that would follow people around and record everything. And then you'd have A D V R of your entire life, and that would be completely indexed.

And then you could, the A, I would know your entire life and be able to advise you and you guys use the feature on your your pods where if you leave them in IT will read you the messages from your signal or your incoming notifications where IT reads them to you. The obviously, you don't. So there's a new feature on the the airport.

D, you leave them in and if you're working, you're walking around the house, you're walking around manhattan like I am these last couple of days. IT will stop the pocket on listening to say, you know, oh, poker group says this, oh, you know, your wife just text to do this. And IT breads IT to you and then you can say replies. So eventually, if siri works and then you have those apple gog's on, I think that that is gonna the eventual interface, which is you'll hear certain things, you'll see certain things. Some things will be Better visually.

other things will be Better. Didn't facebook announced a new pair of glasses today?

Those are like, there are spectacle kind of things. These are the light A R glasses.

where you could take pictures to say.

everything's converging a fast. yeah. And so I I started using a new no, taking APP called reflect. You guys heard of this is .

so reflecting on things. Wow, this progress.

I just started to play with IT. But what IT does is you keep like A A daily log of who you've met with and what meaning ings were about. So it's basic, a no ticking APP IT IT back links so that IT source a link together the people on concepts or whatever.

And so like the use case that I think it's quite useful for once you've been using IT for a while is okay. I I mean, with this person once, last time I saw them, what do we talk about them? So that gives you like content?

Yeah, that's awesome.

I A real memory, right? Because like I I like i'm dying for some much stuff now. I can even. I can forget people's names sometimes if I only .

met him once or twice, so his name is first day is me.

not you guys?

But no, it's also getting old. So it's true. It's a function of how much input is coming at you. There's so much coming at us today .

having a short log of who i've met with them and briefly what the meeting was about, so I can go back and check IT. And at some point in the future, i've search against IT. But the only problem with that is I do have to, like, take the time to enter all the stuff and of things.

If you just .

be just automatically, like a true external hard drive to my brain.

then that of a slack in gmail into automatically.

you are the world IT already connected with google. I don't want my slack in my reflect. What I want is my meetings, which they do. They integrate with google calendar. great.

And really, that's IT like the main thing I want is if I could just know everyone I talk to, and I don't need a transcript, I just need the log line. Just I can remember, I just see the prompt six months now. I just need to prompt that. I meet this person and he was the topic.

that sex. Have you got to the have you built linton ized your greetings. Now it's great for you. So that's the great that's the great thing is great to see so that you .

know you preserve optionality for .

the people. You .

have something .

such .

a banger. I when I met, uh, clinton, I was at a Hillary clinton fundraiser when he was a senator here in new york and they sent you up an elevator to this fundraiser, and you get off the elevator and build clinton standing there. And he walks up to me like three steps.

O, J, K, L. It's great to see you in a grab your elbow who shaken. I am so happy for what you did IT for help.

Hilary win, you know, Jason, we are so appreciative. And then know, you walk into the room and I like, oh my god. Bill clinton, no, there's my name told.

Then I look behind me and I see the next person. I see a woman come out with a clipboard. Whispers in, is here the next person's name coming out the elevator he's waiting. That person disappears. Oh, David, it's so great to meet you that really appreciate everything you've done for Hillary.

You know, that role of whispers ing the name of a person in the politicians. The year goes only back to roman times. That was called the no clatter.

A R, A.

No man is the latest word for name.

It's A I. The name exacts .

a question, how often do you to think about the roman empire?

Just probably .

making reference.

I so, yeah, pretty. It's pretty. I just glad that the rest of the world, this is catching up to our obsession with glad or this has been an amazing episode for the dictator himself to moh Polly hopeton a and rain men. Yeah, definitely burn baby David sax and the sulton of science the queen of kwai, the prince of panic attacks and the air to the ted throne the creator of the worlds greatest conference in freeburg I am the world's.

爸爸爸爸 load dad， bad baby.

your.

World, man.

We open sources to the fans and they .

just got crazy with.

Should also get a room big.

Sexual tension to release B.