Outcomes of an AI Future W/ Emad Mostaque | EP #55

I'm 32, juggling family, working full time and earning a bachelor's degree at University of Phoenix. I earn career relevant skills with every five week course.

Skills I can use now, not just after graduation.

Earn skills in weeks, not years.

Visit Phoenix Edu Some people think nature is like this, but actually it's like this. That's why Columbia engineers everything we make for anything nature can throw at you. Columbia engineered for whatever Coding is changing dramatically.

There will be no coder that doesn't use AI as part of their workflow.

5G and Starlink, the dry Kindle for this fire has been set.

Is this more important than 5G by orders of magnitude? Orders of magnitude. There is no kind of pure, independent, completely rational person because we're not robots.

So medicine is changing dramatically.

Is your doctor AI informed? Enhanced. Lower insurance premium, lower co pay.

That is something across every industry.

It's going to be happening 10 years out. What is a lawyer? What is an accountant? What is an engineer? They are all AI assisted. The entire knowledge sector is transformed.

It enables you to do whatever you want to do.

Learning should be a place of positive growth and joy.

Where's the difference there?

Where's the difference? And I think the key thing here is empathy.

We're in this beautiful home in the Hollywood Hills and a lot's happened in the last six months since we were recording our last podcast and you were on the stage at Abundance360 and I think this is epicenter for a lot of people's concerns right now. A transformation potentially in Holly, when you were speaking about that, that it's going to changed dramatically. And would you say we haven't even seen a small portion of the change yet?

I think we are at the foot of the mountain, as it were. I kind of compare it to being at the iPhone 2G to 3G point where we just got copy and paste. We haven't seen what this technology is really capable of yet. And it hasn't got everywhere. It's like everyone's talking about it, but not that many people are using it. There was a recent study done that showed only 17% of people had used ChatGPT in the US despite the fact it can do anyone's homework.

I mean it seems incredibly a small percentage, I guess because the community I hang out with, everybody's using it.

But well, this is the thing. We live in our monocultures. But then a third of the world still doesn't have Internet.

Right.

And you think the first Internet they get will probably be AI enhanced.

Yeah.

And Then you think about this technology proliferating. It's when it becomes enterprise ready. Enterprise adoption, company adoption always takes a while. But by next year that happens. And I think every company everywhere that has anything to do with knowledge work will implement this at scale. And that's a crazy thought.

And when it's embedded in the things you use every day and you don't know it's part of what you're using.

I think that's the thing, technology. You don't need to know that it's 5G or this. The Internet works faster, you can watch movies quicker. You know, in this case you write something in Google Docs now they just rolled it out. You can say make this snappier and it will do automatically. Technology doesn't need to be there as technology in the front. It's all about use cases. And the use cases are now maturing and again, I think next year is the real takeoff. But now everyone's feeling it has anything to do with it. Like something is coming in this conversation.

I want to really think through how this is all affecting every industry. And let's start with two industries. One is journalism and the other is Hollywood, which is. We're sitting in the midst of this. One of the concerns I have, I know you share it. A lot of people do. Especially with elections coming up in 18 months. 2024 is what is truth? And are we going to enter a post truth world? And can you talk about your thoughts on journalism and how AI is impacting it?

So I think you've seen shifts in journalism over the years, but we're all familiar with kind of some of the clickbait journalism that we see now. I can obviously do clickbait better than humans. That's one kind of extreme. This whole fake news, deepfake kind of stuff, that's a real concern and that's why we have authenticity mechanisms now. We embed watermarking. You know, we partner with GPT0 and other things to identify AI. But on the other side of it, there's a real challenge coming because AI can also help with truth. It can help you do proper analysis and expand out the reasoning for things. It can identify biases within. So journalism as it stands is caught between two things. To get clicks, to get ads, they went a bit more clickbait and they focus on sensationalist headlines, even if it's with unnamed sources and things. On the other hand, someone's going to build an AI system, AI enhanced system that for any article you read, you can find all the Background material, and that suddenly becomes a source of truth. So it's kind of a pincer movement. And journalists and news sources will have to figure out where are you in this? How do you compete to provide value?

Yeah, are you BuzzFeed on one end, which is mostly all clicked by it all the time, or are you trying to be the New York Times and deliver well researched journalism?

But the entity that competes with the New York Times that will come, and who knows, it might be the New York Times itself, can use AI to enhance great journalism, write in any voice, do all these things and give fully referenced facts that you can explore. The other side is that we're going to trust this technology more and more, just like we trust Google Maps, just like you trust other things such that it's like, why have I got a human doctor without an AI? Why have I got a journalist who isn't using AI to check everything and their own implicit biases? And I think that part is actually quite misunderstood as to something that's coming because again, humans plus AI outcompete humans without AI.

I believe Annette and I see that and I think it's interesting in my life and those I know, AI hasn't replaced the things that I've done. It hasn't actually even saved me time per se, because I'm still spending the same amount of time. It's allowed me to do a better job at what I want to do, which is the end product.

I mean, that's because you do a little bit of everything, so you'll always fill the gap.

True. I feel every moment of the time creating something for one of my companies.

Well, I mean, this is an OpenAI report that was done where they said that between 14% and 50% of tasks will be augmented by AI, will be changed by AI, because again, I think a large part of the focus is on these automated systems, the terminators to the bots. Whereas realistically, the way this AI will come in is to help us with individual tasks. Rewriting something, generating an image, making a song, adjusting your speech to sound more confident.

Yeah, and we'll get to the dystopian conversation because I'd like to hear what you think is real versus hype. I think the audience needs to understand what should they truly be concerned about and what shouldn't they? I mean, that is being able to trace back and have a. A truth mechanism. We can talk about what Elon's looking to build as well on the truth side. But it's fascinating when the truth becomes blurry. Yeah.

And there's not always an objective truth because it depends upon your individual context.

Right.

And we didn't have the systems to be able to be comprehensive, authoritative or up to date enough to do that until today.

Well, we can actually go to the root source of the data and see is it valid. Maybe it's a blockchain enabled validation mechanism.

Maybe it's got that authority, that authentication. Maybe it's. You mentioned Elon Community Notes on Twitter that AI enhanced that can pull from various things and show the province. So you've got provenance again, you've got authority, you have comprehensiveness, you have up to dateness. The future of Wikipedia is not what Wikipedia looks like today, but that future becomes something that can be integrated into other things. So what you'll have is for any piece of information you'll be able to say this is the bias from which it was said. These are the compositional sources and more. So, for example, there's a great app that I use called perplexity AI. Okay, so when you go to GPT4 or Bing, you write stuff, it doesn't give you all the sources. Perplexity actually brings in all the sources at a surface level, but it references why it said certain things. With GPT4, that's just going to get more and more advanced. So you can dig into as much depth as you want and ask it to rephrase things as what if that article there wasn't true, that fed this? Or what about this perspective if I want it to be a bit more libertarian?

Do you think it's possible to actually get to a fundamental truth in a lot of these areas?

I think it depends on the area. Right. Some areas there are fundamental truths. This happened or it didn't happen. Even though you see deniers of various things, a lot of stuff is probabilistic when you're thinking about the future. But even something like climate, you see a lot of deniers of the real problem that we have, with it being very difficult to persuade them because it becomes part of their ideology almost. But with this technology you can say, look, literally here is the comprehensiveness. Jeremy Howard and Tricia Greenlay did analysis of well over 100 mask papers and did a meta analysis on the effectiveness of that for Covid. And then that helped change the global discussion on masking because someone actually bothered to do a comprehensive analysis.

What was the result?

Well, the result was that masks work for respiratory diseases.

There are so many people that just refuse to believe that masks have any value. But let's not go down that road. One of the things I found interesting was the idea of a GPT model being able to translate your points of view for someone else else to receive them better. Like if you're hardcore to the right and you want to convince someone about your issue, having ChatGPT or one of Stability's products, generate a rewritten version of that language so the person can hear it better. I find that an interesting and powerful tool.

Yeah. I think this is the thing. It's all about your individual context and what resonates with you, because information exists within a context. So if it's going to change a state within you, you need to understand your point of view. So if we think of these as really talented youngsters, these AIs, that go a bit funny, what would you want? You would want someone to sit down and say, well, I'm listening to your point of view in your context and my point of view in my context, and let's find some common ground and then we can work from there. Much of politics isn't really about facts. It's about persuasion, because facts, when you have diametrically a divergent context, are very difficult to do. So you said being able to rewrite something from one context to another is important, but then you have to understand the context. And that's what these models do really, really well. We can take a piece and we can say, rewrite it as a rap by Eminem or in the style of Ulysses by James Joyce. And it will do that because it understands the essence of that.

I think people don't realize. I want to just hit this point again. We've talked about it somewhat. Our minds are neural nets, Our brains are neural nets, 100 trillion neurons. And everything that you bring into your mind, this conversation that we're having, what you're watching on the tv, news, newspaper, what's on your walls, the people you hang out with, are all constantly shaping the way you see the world and shaping your mindset. One of the things I think about in the future of news media is an individual actively being able to choose what mindset they want to work on. I'd like to have a more optimistic mindset, I'd like to have a more moonshot mindset, a more an abundance mindset, and then being able to have that information fed to you in a factual fashion that allows you to. Instead of what the Crisis News network delivers, which is a constantly negative news.

Yeah, it's constant dopamine affecting your fight or flight response.

Yeah.

You can say, make it from this point of view, you don't change the facts. But even the way things are worded or balancing.

Right. I mean, I don't need to see every murder. Tell me what the companies that got funded tell me the breakthroughs that occurred. You know, the science that's occurred today, that's.

But there's even, again, everything you can. It depends on how you portray it. Right. You know, there are murders. Take a murder, for example.

Yeah.

There is the facts. There is the, oh, my God, there'll be a million more murders. There is the case that. It's a very sad thing. There's the case that, you know, the police are working super hard to solve this and we need to reach out to the families and come together as a community. These are all different aspects for the same terrible action.

Yes.

Which have different levels of positivity, negativity. Clickbaitiness versus community.

Right.

Facebook did a study many years ago whereby they had a hypothesis. If you see sadder things on your timeline, you will post sadder things. This is why independent spiral. This is why independent review boards are very important in ethics as well. And so they did it. And guess what? 600,000 users were enrolled in that study without their knowing. If you see sadder things on your timeline, you post sadder things was the result. So, like I said, there's some real ethical considerations. But we know this. We know that if we're always bombarded by crisis, we will be in a crisis mentality. We know if we surround ourselves with positive people and positive messages, we will have a positive mentality. And it's very insidious and not insidious. It's kind of almost passive, the way we absorb it.

I love one of the facts. I'm writing one of my next books on longevity practices and a study on the order of 20,000 individuals. Those who had an optimistic mindset lived an average of 17% longer. I mean, just mindset shift. 17%. This was true both in men and in women. Slightly more in women. And so how you think impacts everything. And how you think is to a large degree going to be shaped by the media, and AI is going to shape that. So it's a powerful lever that we all need to be paying attention to.

I think it is. But then, you know, you have to consider what is the plasticity, for example, of our children as they grow up?

Yeah.

Like we're going to have nanny AIs.

Yep.

What's that nanny going to teach? Is that nanny going to teach fight flight happiness? This. That. What about in Places like China, what are they going to teach? There is a huge amount of neuroplasticity that will be influenced by decisions we make today.

Yeah, I mean, listen, you have young kids. I have young kids as well. And I think about the fact that school today is not preparing our kids anywhere near for the future. Right. I mean, I don't think middle school and high school traditionally is preparing them for. My kids are 12 right now.

Yeah.

How do you feel about that?

No, I mean, I think school is not fit for purpose. It's a petri dish, social status game and, you know, like childcare. Because again, let's think about school. What are you taught at school? You're taught competitive tests because we can't capture the context of the kids. We can't adapt to if they're visual learners, auditory learners, dyslexic or otherwise. And it narrows it down. And you're told you cannot be creative.

You're told you color inside the lines, learn these facts.

Literally, you color inside the lines, you learn these facts. Every child will have an AI in the West.

Yes.

Hopefully soon the whole world will have an AI with them as they grow up. And again, is that AI a positive constructive, or is the AI a tiger AI that kind of is aggressive?

Get your work done, get your work done. Strive harder.

Is it peloton AI for education? Maybe that's the pivot peloton. Right. There's a whole range of things, but our kids are so sensitive as they grow. And again, in a school environment, they're told they have to be competitive and there's only a few people that are worthy who are at the top. And that's why you have clicks, sub clicks, and others. And that's reinforced by our social media now as well, because you need something to fill the meaning. I think we have to be much more intentional and think, what information do we want going to our children? Like many people listening to this podcast will have ban social media from our kids.

How do you feel about that?

I think that it's probably a sensible thing because it's a slow, dumb AI that optimizes for adverse things. Again, it's not the fault of the social media companies, just how they are. As the tiger and the scorpion.

Yeah, I mean, I have not allowed my kids to have a mobile phone and I've told them when they can afford it, when they go to college, but it's going to be somewhere between now and then. But I agree. I think social media shouldn't be part of the repertoire.

But again, what Is social media.

It's kids looking for status and trying to influence each other.

It was meant to bring our communities together stronger. Maybe, perhaps early on, probably where we see the strongest communities actually in video games and guilds and kind of things like that. A lot of this is, again, you've got X number of people posting positive things and you're like, why is my life not positive like that? But social media does have its advantages. And the question is, can you tease out the positive versus the negative when you can finally customize it for each individual, or are you going to reinforce silos to the nth degree?

I'll give you a perfect example. I was just meeting with a dear friend of mine, Keith Farazi, who is absolutely brilliant, and he had met last week with the King of Bhutan, which is known for its happiness, and they were having a conversation how they measure their economy. It's how they measure their economy, Gross national happiness in that regard. And when social media entered the country, it began to plummet. Teen depression and suicides began to climb. It is a very measurable, real thing. And that's not the subject of this podcast. But AI can do what for that area?

Well, I mean, again, we have to think about it in terms of mental infrastructure. I like that we don't have enough. Like Clayton Christensen said, infrastructure is the most efficient means by which a society stores and distributes value. Claude Shannon, the father of computer science, said, information is valuable in as much as it changes the state. We do not think at all about our mental infrastructure and what's supporting it. If we're lucky or if, you know, we try hard, we can build a group of supportive people around us. And where do we go when we have issues? We go to that group. Yet so many people feel alone. So many people feel like again, this rise in suicide or they feel not good enough because it serves the slow, dumb AI of our existing systems. So I think that actually we need to take some time out to think, what information do I want going to my kids? We have concepts like deliberative democracy, whereby you get a group of diverse people from different backgrounds, you give them the facts and they go and make a decision, just like you have jury trials. One of the most important things I think there is, A, it's getting understanding the context of each person, which I think AI can enhance with B, it's just actually literally having time to think. When was the last time you thought about your information diet and what you're feeding yourself and your kids?

I think about it a lot. I think because that's what I teach. So I'm very clear. I do not watch the TV news, I don't even watch the newspapers. I have very filled, filtered information that comes to me which could be argued to be an echo chamber. But I'm focused on these are the scientific breakthroughs. This is what's going on in longevity, this is what's going on in exponential tech and solving problems. So I'm as critical about what I take into my mind from an information source as I am what I eat.

Because you are what you eat and you eat information and then you absorb it. Right. But then, you know, as you said, the echo chamber thing, I believe we should also deliberately show counterpoint viewpoints as we're raising our kids and get them to argue the opposite.

I think debate is one of the most beautiful forms, especially when you flip sides. Exactly.

Because organisms also grow through hysteresis.

Yes.

You know, when you're put under pressure, when you're forced to do something out of the normal. Otherwise, as you said, you'll become increasingly siloed. But there are very few people, again, who think deliberately about this. And it's something, again, I think you and I would probably urge all the listeners to think about, are you challenging your priors? Are you giving the right information diet for yourself, for your kids, and then thinking about this technology as you use a GPT4 or Claude or stable LM or any of these things. What if you took that article and viewed it from a different perspective? Or what if you tied it to only be positive the news?

There's another part too, which is we all have these cognitive biases, right? These cognitive biases were wired into our brain over the last hundreds of thousands of years as an energy efficiency mechanism because we can't process all the information coming in. So we're biased by is the person, look like me, speak like me? Is this recent information versus old information paying ten times more attention to negative information than positive information? I can't wait to have an AI that I can flip the switch and say, turn on bias notifications. And it says, you're looking at this in a biased fashion. Peter, here's another way to look at it.

Yeah. And being aware of your bias, I mean, most religions have at the core, know thyself.

Yes. Gnosis I've done is ancient Greek. I wrote my college essay on that.

But I mean, that's why it's at the core. It's very difficult when you have the detritus of life and all these things. You're bombarded with to take time back and really know yourself, know your own biases, understand these because they are part of what makes you. You're made up of the stories. There is no kind of pure, independent, completely rational person because we're not robots.

So it's possible in the future then for social media with a more conscious, powerful AI. I shouldn't use the word conscious as different meaning here, but AI that you feel safe having your kids do it because it is making them happier, making them more motivated. It is feeding them a flow of information that's uplifting versus depressing. Can you imagine that future?

I can imagine that future. I can also imagine the future of brave new World whereby you are fed what exactly the government wants you to and you are happy. And especially with authoritarian regimes, you are literally the kids are grown with their AI nannies, of course. And you even have the pharmaceuticals to make you extra happy and extra neuroplastic. So for example, you have uae did a Falcon model, open source. It was kind of supported by light on from France. Technologically. You ask it about the UAE and it's like, it's a wonderful place. It's amazing in all regards. You ask it about some of the neighbors, it's not so nice. This is an inherent bias within the model. But how are you going to understand it versus an implicit bias? And you can put any biases you want to. You can guide these models through reinforcement learning to reflect what you do. And if that's the only option, then you will adhere to a certain worldview again, almost subconsciously.

Yeah, it'll be reflected in all the products you produce, all the writings you have. And it doesn't have to be that high a percentage change, a small persistent change sways a lot.

Well, exactly. I mean like half the world is religious. You can agree or not, or say that it follows a organized religion. You can agree or disagree. But I can tell you that almost every single technologist who is leading a lot of these is like, I don't really like religion.

Right.

And so the inherent bias would be to talk against religious kind of things. Again, I'm like, who am I to judge? People can be, they cannot be. But the inherent biases refactor. And actually it becomes very important for society because we've seen that when about 12% of a population changes a point of view, it flips.

Interesting. Doesn't take that much.

It doesn't take that much because you listen to the voices in the echo chamber. Like sometimes on Twitter, I use my block button a lot.

I'm like, listen, I've been enjoying your tweets. They've been really good and I appreciate the frequency.

Well, it's nice owning your own media channel in a way. Right. Sometimes I don't even have to have lunch because I'm told to eat crap so many times a day. Right. That's why you have to hit the block button because it's a little echo chamber. Only a few dozen people can have that impact upon you. I mean, it's going to be very interesting to see the way that our adult minds and our kids minds evolve over the next five to 10 years with the emergence of this new, more powerful personalizable technology. Yes, it's either controlled or control.

Everybody, it's Peter. I want to take a break from our episode to talk about a health product that I love. It was a few years ago. I went looking for the best nutritional green drink on the market. So I went to Whole Foods and I started looking around. I found three shelves filled with options. I looked at the labels and they really didn't wow me. So I picked the top three that I thought looked decent, brought them home, tried them, and they sucked. First of all, they tasted awful. And then second, nutritional facts actually weren't very impressive. It was then that I found a place product called AG1 by Athletic Greens. And without any question, Athletic Greens is the best on the market by a huge margin. First of all, it actually tastes amazing. And second, if you look at the ingredients, 75 high quality ingredients that deliver nutrient dense antioxidants, multivitamins, pre and probiotics, immune support, adaptogens. I personally utilize AG1 literally every day. I travel with an individual packet in my backpack, sometimes in my back pocket. And I count on it for, you know, gut health, immunity, energy digestion, neural support, and really healthy aging. So if you want to take ownership of your health, today is a good day to start. Athletic Greens is giving you a free one year supply of vitamin D and five of these travel packs with your first purchase. So go to athleticgreens.com that's athleticgreens.com moonshots. Check it out. You'll thank me without question. This is the best green drink product, the most nutritious, the most flavorful I found. All right, let's go back to the episode. So we're sitting here in the middle of Hollywood. I can see the beautiful Hollywood Hills, the Hollywood signs around here someplace.

Just over there.

Just over there. Okay. And the news today is Screen Actors Guild. Everyone's gone on strike. There is Great fear, pain, concern. And you know, you called it when we spoke six months ago, what's going on, how do you view it and where's it going?

So I think the advances in media, artificial intelligence have been huge. You've now got the Drake AI song or my favorite Ice Ice Matrix where the Matrix characters sing Ice Ice baby.

Yes.

You've got real time rigging, you have real time special effects, you've got high definition creation of anything. What does that mean? It means that the whole industry is about to be disrupted because the cost of production reduces. It was reducing in some ways anyway. And we've seen this move where the cost of consumption went to zero with Napster and Spotify. Then the cost of creation started going to zero with Snapchat and TikTok. And now we have a question of what are the defaults going to be now.

And consumers only have one limited currency and that's their attention.

I think so. But consumers are willing to pay for attention. They're willing to pay for quality. Well, either premium, mediocre or otherwise. Because video games, for example, started as a $70 billion industry 10 years ago. The average score went from 69% to 74% on Metacritic over that period. And now they're $180 billion movies.

I pay for some of that with my 12 year olds.

There you go. Movies went from 40 billion to 50 billion. But the average IMDb movie rating over the last 10 years has been 6.4. It has not changed. So you're not producing more and so they're not consuming more. So there's a question, will this technology enable an increase in quality because it raises the bar for everyone.

Yes.

There are more movie makers, so there are more excellent movie makers. And the best movie makers become even more excellent.

And we've democratized the tools from an iPhone to the tools on your Mac. And of course YouTube was the first major disruption of the.

It was something like MrBeast has a much bigger audience than CNN now. Yeah, but that comes down to what is the key point here? Distribution. You can make good stories, but if no one hears them.

And that's what Disney has as its benefit. Its distribution to its theme parks, to its products, to its channels.

It creates a shelling point. But then if we will have our own individualized AIs that can find us what we need and sift through the crap, maybe whole of distribution flips on its head in five years as well.

So I can't imagine. I keep thinking that the future of, of movie consumption is me Speaking to my version of Jarvis and saying, you know, I'd like a comedy. I'd like it starring me and three's three friends of mine and somebody else and for 90 minutes and set it in, you know, some setting and go and have it auto generate a compelling story that is either because I'm involved in it, I'm enraptured in it, or because my favorite stars are all together in an unlikely place. How far are we from that kind of future?

I'd say probably three to five years. So in that case, it's not going to be cheap, but it'll be there and then it'll get cheaper and cheaper.

In that case, there is no distribution needed. A person calls up whatever they want.

I think there is distribution needed but in a different way. Music. We have a variety of different music sites but how do musicians make their money now? It's not Spotify. A million views gets you a few thousand dollars. T shirts. Merchandising, global stories because there is that future of the wall E type of fat guy sitting with his VR headset. Yeah, it's kind of depressing. Just like, you know, the Apple Vision Pro adverts I found kind of depressing when his kids are right there and just puts them on. A little bit dystopian. To me, I think it's more a case of there are certain stories that everyone wants to talk about. Like here in Hollywood, what do we have this week? We have Oppenheimer and Barbie.

Oh my God, I'm looking forward to Oppenheimer. I will not watch Barbie. Sorry.

Would you watch barbiehimer.

Only? No, I won't go there.

Well, I mean we can take it. We can put the scripts into Claude and see what it comes up with.

That would be hilarious.

Hilarious kind of Bobbyheimer. But again, like people are talking about the Barbie movie because it's, you know, not. She comes to the real world and she has challenges. It'll be a hit. People talk about Oppenheimer because again, it will be a hit.

These are produced hits.

These are produced hits. Just like I saw BTS with my daughter. So no BTS Blackpink. Oh gosh, she'll kill me. In Hyde Park a few weeks ago, the biggest K pop band out of Korea, right? Completely manufactured, but lots of fun. So on the one hand what you have is what you describe your personalized things. That's kind of like McDonald's. What's the job to be done? The job is comfort. The job isn't to listen to someone else's story. And expand from there. It isn't a produced Michelin star meal or just a nice restaurant one that you can talk about to others. Like you can cook ingredients yourself at home as well. Sure, but humans do like these bigger stories. But then the nature of funding of musicians changed. It was about merchandise, it was about kind of a lot of this other stuff around tours. And so I think the nature of.

Movies, the business model has changed. I mean, that's the most interesting thing about Exponential Technologies is it's changing the business models. And I keep on, you know, advising my entrepreneurs. It's reinvent your business models more than anything else.

You have to always look across the landscape. Where is the value peaks. And then you're sitting there and you're intermediating something and you're offering service value. There is that great quote. Who is it from? The CEO of Netscape. All values created by aggregation or disaggregation, bundling or unbundling. You think about how the landscape is going to change now as intelligence has moved to the edge. What was once in the hands of the studios and the high priests of media suddenly gets pushed to the edge. Whereas value, then it changes it, it flips it.

So let's go to what's going on right now. So the Screen Actors Guild is on strike because of why screen act.

I mean, it's better wages in general, standard stuff. But now there's this rapidly emerging fear of artificial intelligence. So one of the proposals that came in from the other side was that basically all the extras, all the actors, they sign away their rights so they could be used in AI.

So they get a day of wage to get scanned and then they can be used for the rest of that studio's life in producing background actors.

And they were looking at this like, oh my God, wait, you can do that? Most people don't even realize you can do that. You know, script writers are saying no, AI generated scripts, which again is a bit weird when they're all using Grammarly and things like that. Which was AI? How are you ever going to tell.

Where do you draw the line?

Where do you draw the line? Because this is a technology that's coming so fast and is so good that it's almost not like technology at all. It's just very natural the way it emerges. And so you will get to some sort of agreement because the big actors are kind of there, but the defaults that are set now reverberate.

So I think that's an important point, that you just made the decisions, the policies that we create today are going to take us down one path or another for the decades to come.

Yeah. It will affect the whole of Hollywood. What's decided in this moment here. Because there won't be another renegotiation for a while. And so again, how does an actor create value? A top actor has a following, but up and comers, how did they break through? What is the apprenticeship to what does a movie look like in five years? Even if you agree as Hollywood not to have any AI, let's just say you have this kind of dune style, but Larian jihad and say no AI, you know, and someone will make a movie about no AI in Hollywood. What do you do when the Chinese.

Film studios start releasing product?

Start racing products faster than anything.

You can make five in every language out there.

Literally every language. We have technology now. Again, maybe this is part of what you. What is possible now. We can translate Peter's voice into just about any language with his voice. So it's not a voice.

Match my lips and movements exactly.

Match your lips and movements exactly. I'm sure the podcast will be in every language by next year, you know, and again, it will be in our voices. We can make our voices sound more confident. We can take his mannerisms right now and transplant them onto my mannerism. So we match, so we can reshoot scenes with style. Yeah, we can turn him into a robot in a few minutes. And in fact maybe we'll do that in the film the post. And so we'll have a little scene of him becoming a robot. These are all technologies that are here now. And it transforms fundamentally the nature of filmmaking because you only need one shot.

But don't the film actors who are, you know, standing up for their rights to not have them basically demonetized and digitized. The other option is for Hollywood to just create complete artificial characters that they fully own.

Yeah, and you've seen this already with some of the kind of vloggers and others that have emerged out of Asia, in particular, fully AI generated characters. And you can have entire mythoses around them and you can say, make it the most attractive Italian guy I've ever seen. That's broody and this and that. How are you going to tell it from a human? I mean like these characters can be completely.

And it's far more profitable for the studio to use that digital actor. So there is a disruption coming at.

Every level because the research to revenue pipeline has become so tight and it sets off a race condition whereby you can only produce two movies a year. Suddenly you can produce 20.

And then you can actually, like, we do AB testing in subject headlines. You could create 30 variants of the movie and see which one actually is the best.

Yeah. And I mean, again, you can say make it more. Make that speech raw and more emotional. It will adjust the voice to make it raw and more emotional. Right. And because you're using such large data sets, you know, and we. So we made all our data sets open and then we allowed opt out. We're the only company in the world to allow opt out because we thought it was the right thing to do. So we had 169 million images opted out of our image data sets for music because it's different copyright laws. We have one of the first commercially licensed music models coming out.

So respect for that. But if I'm an artist and I go to the Louvre to be inspired and then go back and paint, and I've been inspired by da Vinci and I start painting in a style like da Vinci, where's the difference there?

Where's the difference? And this is the reality. Even though we've done that, by next year, probably by the end of the year, you will have models that have zero scrape data or human art. They will all be synthetic and you'll be able to bring your art to it. So there's something Google just released called styledrop. There's hyper networks, hyper dream booth. You take one picture of yourself and the entire model trains to be able to put you into anything, even if you're not in the model. It used to take minutes, hours. Now it's just one picture. Similarly, you can bring any style and it will just imitate that style. All of a sudden, the models themselves, it doesn't matter what they're trained on because there's no human endeavor in those models. And then things like compensation for artists and others, as you said, become a bit mute because all of a sudden you have these amazing stories told by really convincing, amazing actors who may or may not exist. And how are you ever going to tell the difference?

So what's your advice? Let's parse it here. On one side, what's your advice for Hollywood and for actors? And on the other side, I want to ask your advice for artists, because this is about mindset. You know, this is coming at us at extraordinary speed. There's no stopping it right there. There's no slowing it down. And so you've got to deal with reality.

You got to deal with reality again, it's inevitable. Even if, again, Hollywood says no AI, The AI is coming from around the world. So what do you do you think, oh, well, my audience suddenly became the whole world. Yeah, that's a big deal. You're like, what am I actually known for is my acting skills. Well, I will still get these things. You're an up and coming actor. You say, I need to build community. I need to kind of show off something more than that. Because again, my acting skills in some areas can be transplanted. But what about real life shows? You know, what about these things? It does throw up the entire thing and adjust it. But then musicians have had to have that adjustment. They used to be able to make money on their LPs and then all of a sudden they had the Napster Spotify moments. Yes, there is more protection in music as well because you basically, according to The Robin Thicke vs. Marvin Gaye case, there is an element of style protection in there that doesn't exist in visual media.

Yeah.

And probably won't. Because the other part of this is if you're expecting governments to regulate, how can they when there is a global competition going on? They will lose competitiveness to other countries and you'll have regulatory arbitrage.

Yes. And that is something across every industry. It's going to be happening.

Yeah, I think, you know the concept of, you know, United Artists, it was originally a collective of all the artists. That makes a lot of sense. Now I think you have to think about an element of collectivism to share the excess profits. Because what's going to happen is movies will get cheaper, profits will go up. You need to support each other as a community here and think again as a community. What is our story for the next 1, 3, 5, 10 years? Because all of this is going to happen quicker than it takes to make.

The new Avengers movie and quicker than regulators are able to regulate.

And again, the regulators almost certainly won't regulate because they will start falling behind their competitor countries.

I mean, if we look at the Internet itself, the media industry never expected the Internet to have the disruptive impact it had. And had it known, it probably would have tried to get regulators to have slowed it down or blocked it.

Yeah, the speed is too much. But then also again, I gave the example earlier. The video game industry has gone from 70 billion to 180 billion over the next.

So it's quality. Can we increase quality interactivity?

Okay, yeah, because games are in. Games are media as well. The media industry has increased in size. The way that value has gone has been redistributed. Value will be redistributed again now and Again, it's like, what is an AI enhanced actor? If you're an actor, what's an AI enhanced photographer, Filmmaker. Think about your jobs, the tasks that you do and what can be augmented. If you had a bunch of really talented youngsters working for you.

Right.

You could do more, you could be more. But then it means the bar is just going to keep on raising.

Let's turn to a different industry. That's going to change. And we had this conversation in our last podcast and on stage at Abundance 360, which is coders coding is changing dramatically. What are your thoughts there?

So when I started as a programmer, gosh, 22 years ago, I was writing enterprise level assembly code for voice over IP software switch.

That's some of the largest chunks of code out there.

Yeah, it's very low level code. We didn't have GitHub, we just got subversion the following year. Programming these days is a large amount like Lego because what you have is kind of have a very low level, but then you have levels of abstraction until you get to Pytorch and some of these other languages. So you have to compile lots of different libraries because you're making it easier and easier. Human words are just the next level of abstraction there.

But the nature of coding is going to change. So the coders that are coding traditionally today, around the world.

How will they.

Be using and working in this industry two to five years from now?

Well, again, there will be no coder that doesn't use AI as part of their workflow.

Okay. I mean, I think that's the important thing. It's not like coders are going to go away. They're going to be using a new set of tools.

The expectations will rise, the amount of debugging, unit testing, all of these things will decrease. Because how much time do coders actually spend architecting?

Very little upfront.

It's more about understanding information flows, about architecting these things. It's about having feedback loops to understand customer requirements. DataBricks is a $38 billion company. There's data lakes. So it takes your data organize. It allows you to write structured queries. You used to have to write queries. Now you just talk to it and it just does it. Microsoft introduced the same thing.

I mean, I can't wait for that in the field of medicine, which I want to talk about next. But you said something earlier where you can imagine there can be a billion coders in the future.

Yeah. Because all the barriers to creating programs disappear. So it's not that there Are no programs, there's no programmers that we know it because there's a billion programmers. Everyone is a programmer. Nobody's a programmer in a way because it just becomes a matter of course. I want to make software that does something and reacts in these ways and looks like this and adapts like this. And then it comes to you and you're like, no, that's not quite right. I want this moved over. It happens almost live this feedback loop.

It's as we talked to ChatGPT for creating a paragraph that describes something we want we modify it.

I mean ChatGPT4 is a good example because to write an integration to something like chat to GPT4 used to take days, weeks, an API, an application protocol kind of interface. Now what you do is actually you tell it the schema, you tell it kind of what you should do and it writes it automatically, literally within like a few minutes. And then in a few hours you've integrated into it.

I've been talking about a future where we all have Jarvis Iron Man. I love Iron man as a movie. It's one of my favorites. And you know, JARVIS is basically your personal AI. That is it's a software shell. It interfaces between you and the rest of the world. You ask Jarvis to do something and it knows how to the tool paths on a 3D printer. You can hop into a jet and interface Jarvis with the jet's computational system and it'll fly the jet for you. I can't imagine that that is really far from now.

Yeah, let's hope that it doesn't fly planes just quite yet.

Okay, well we'll put the jet aircraft aside. But the ability to for it to become your best friend and confidant, know your needs and desires, shape the world to your comfort and being able to help you. It's the ultimate user interface.

Well, I mean this is why a lot of the chatbots, character AI and others have become so popular because it'll never judge you and it's approaching that human level now, you know. And again it is the ultimate interfaces maybe chat, but it's more chat, it's chatting context, it's understanding you holistically. No human could do that because even if you hire a whole team, they're not going to be with you 24 7. This will be with you 24 7. I think the key thing here is empathy because jumping ahead bit to medicine Google had their Med Palm 2 model. The papers just come out in nature A it outperforms doctors on clinical diagnosis which is crazy for a Few hundred gigabytes of a file B. It outperforms doctors on scores of empathy.

I found that amazing and totally logical.

It doesn't judge you, it doesn't judge you. But then, you know, a doctor is split a million ways and they're tired and they're grumpy or this or that. Some of us get good doctors, most of us don't. Some of us get good teachers, most like. I'm not saying education is bad because of the teachers. So many teachers try so hard but their attention is split 20 ways and they're underpaid. You know, I'm not saying that programs will be nature programming will change because programmers are bad. There's so many hard working programmers. It's just again, the nature of these things will change when you can scale expertise and everyone has expertise available to them on tap.

I've been on the stage, you know, just pounding my fist saying listen, it's going to become malpractice to diagnose someone without an AI in the loop within 5 years time and probably in some areas it'll be inappropriate to, not yet illegal to. And then at some point soon after that the best surgeons in the world are going to be humanoid robots that have every possible atrial variation, every possible history of surgery and they can see an infrared and ultraviolet and they haven't had an argument that morning with their husband or wife and it becomes the best. And these are demonetizing and democratizing forces for health.

They're massively deflationary as well. But no, I agree completely with this because ultimately what's going to kick it off is, is your doctor AI enhanced, Lower insurance premium, lower co pay. Yes, because there will be real economic incentives. Has this been cross checked by the technology? Reduce the cost?

My favorite subject is, you probably know this, how many medical articles are written in journals every day? It's 7,000.

Wow.

And it's like how many has your doctor read today? And there may be that one breakthrough that happened this morning that is the key for your diagnostics.

But I mean even if they've read it right, like absorbing it is one thing, having the mental models, these are kind of something else. This is why you need comprehensive authority and up to date, which is what this technology allows to happen. As you said, things like we're already seeing some surgeries can do, done better by robot surgeons than human surgeons. It'll be all surgeries.

Yeah, it will be all surgeries soon enough.

Like the robotics advancements we've seen. This actually goes back to your point of, you know, the artist going to the Louvre and seeing the Da Vinci and then taking inspiration from that. What are we going to do with all of these optimus robots and 1 KX robots and others? Are they going to have to shut their eyes when they see anything copyrighted?

Oh, that's hilarious.

They're just going to have accidents everywhere.

They're running into each other, Everything's going to be black lined out.

Yeah.

So medicine is changing dramatically. What other field are you seeing and saying people need to wake up and see what's coming.

So I mean, medicine, education are kind of the two big ones, I think. But can we move this to the side right now? Again, we've seen programming, the entire nature of program will change. Media, the entire nature of media will change from journalism to filmmaking. But anything that basically you could do with someone from Asia on the other side on a computer screen will change.

Yeah. Let's talk about education because today education hasn't changed since the one room classroom. Half the kids are lost, half the kids are bored. You're teaching to a series of tests. You're teaching for a industrial era world. And people learn differently. People have visual and auditory and tactile learning skills. And let's face it, we don't celebrate our teachers, we don't pay them well and we don't have the best of them coming into the, into the classroom.

And they're sad. I mean, this is the thing, like you, there are happy classrooms with happy teachers and other things, but learning should be a place of positive growth and joy.

Yeah, it should be fun to learn.

And it should be fun to teach.

And fun to teach. Yes.

I think this is both of them. Because what is the nature of a teacher in 5, 10 years? Let's take 10 years again. 10 years is the crazy short period of time.

I mean, when I asked you this question last time, how far out can you predict what's likely to come? What's your singularity boundary condition? I'm curious, what are you seeing as how far?

Three or five years.

I go to Dubai and I'm on stage and can you talk to us about, you know, what the world's going to be like in 2050? My answer is no. I can barely talk about 2030.

It's everything everywhere all at once. Lots of S curves, acceleration. These are inevitable now, now we've broken through these things. I mean, OpenAI now have put 20% of their stuff to alignment because they're basically saying their view is five years out. Elon Musk just said Six years out. But then Elon's relationship with time is always a bit fun. Just like self driving cars. But self driving cars are literally here now.

Yes.

You can get in one and it will drive you around San Francisco or London or JAMA will do that for you.

Not my Tesla.

Not your Tesla.

I know I keep on pushing the button, but it doesn't.

But the technology is here.

Yeah.

And I was like, oh, wait, what? This is the thing. So again, 10 years is a dramatically short period of time for education, which has been the same for a century.

Yes.

But the thing is, it is inevitable that every child will have their own AI. So your 12 year old will be 22 when they get to 22 and they come out of, let's say, university. Still around university, if university is still a thing. Yeah. They will have their own AI that's learned for at least five years about them.

Yes.

That can fetch them any information in any format of any type and write anything or create any video or movie for them to. That's a crazy thing. There were concerns that Wikipedia would remove rote learning and things like that. Google would do the same. And maybe there are kind of again, like appendices that have shriveled. What's the thing that shrivels?

Yeah, your appendix is.

But, you know, like I was at gallbladders. But this is the thing. Like you might have some vestigial parts of your brain. The entire human brain will be rewired. You must assume that every child will have their own AI. How that AI is driven is different because any child that has AI will dramatically outperform the kids that don't. But what are we optimizing for in education? And I think one of the things that we've lost is what is our objective function as a society? What does America even stand for right.

Now, coming here, I agree with you.

What are we optimizing for? Bhutan's optimizing for happiness.

Well, and frankly, I think happiness is a great thing to optimize for in general. If you ask people, what do you want more than anything in life? I want happiness. I want health. I want love. We don't talk about. Those are. And there's interesting. I was just with Mo Gadot doing a podcast and he's a fan of your work and he was saying, loved your podcast. And we were talking about this test of what would you trade? Would you trade. How much money would you trade for your happiness or for your health? And it starts to do a bubble sort and prioritizing what's at the top. And I think for almost everybody it's health, happiness. Right.

I think it is. And you know, time, time is the one thing you can never buy.

I'm working on it. The longevity front.

On the longevity front. But at the moment it's something you can't buy. Happiness. We all know, we both know billionaires.

Yeah, they are very sad.

So sad and unhealthy.

It is. It's like you create this incredible burden for yourself. For most of them, like some of them that we know, starting three or four companies a year to an end, it's a demon being driven.

It's because they're addicted to dopamine and crisis. I mean crisis is interesting because it comes down to decision from its root.

Right.

And it's where leaders, you have to show leadership. But that does become addicting. I think most leaders are addicted to crisis, but then so are many of us because we see it all the time like, oh my God, the world is on fire. The reality is actually this. For all that we talk about, most communities are happy. Most people are relatively content today. Today there can be explosions like decade ago that whole scene was on fire with the riots. Maybe that will return. We're seeing in France right now, we're seeing a breakdown of the social order. But just cause they're content doesn't mean they're happy.

What are we optimizing for is the question you left off. So what do you think we as a society, let's say the United States should be optimizing for?

I don't know, is it life, liberty.

And the pursuit of happiness? Not the guarantee of happiness, the pursuit of happiness.

When was the last time someone actually talked about happiness? As a political leader in the U.S. you know, life, liberty. When was the last time anyone tried to optimize for liberty? Systems inherently look to control because they have to make us simple. This is the wonderful book seeing like the state where it talks about this concept of legibility. You have a village and it's just grown and it's got all this unique character. You drive a road down the middle so you can get an ambulance down there. Sure it helps. But then everything becomes planned because you have to put humans into boxes again. This goes to education, happiness. I think there's the Japanese concept of ikegai. What you're good at, what you like and where you're adding value to the world.

Yeah.

And you can feel it yourself as well. You'll feel progress. If you don't have progress, then how are you going to be happy? If you don't believe you're good at anything, how do you feel you're going to be happy and asked for what you like? Are you coming up with that yourself or being told what you like? And that's why it becomes consumerist. So I think we need to have a discussion as a society about that, as a community, but then also for our kids. What is the future for kids when so much of the jobs in the west are going to be transformed? Not ended, not necessarily massive unemployment, but again, 10 years out? What is a lawyer? What is an accountant?

Sure.

What is an engineer? They are all AI assisted. All of these, or the entire knowledge sector is transformed. And do we want our kids that are growing up to be doctors, lawyers, accountants, thinking there is no hope for the future, there is no progress, because how am I going to compete against an AI, or do we want them to have. That mindset of this technology is going to be amazing because I want to be a doctor so I can help people. I can help even more people.

And it enables you to do whatever you want to do. One of the things to think about is all the people who have jobs today who are. That was never their dream to clean bathrooms and make beds and, you know, wait on people. It's what they did to get eventually to where they wanted to go or to have, you know, put food on the table or insurance. And AI is going to enable people to actually take on a higher goal that actually gives them joy and happiness.

It does. But at the same time, you know, we're very privileged people, you and I, in that we can think about these big things. There's a lot of people that are actually very happy doing that type of work because they're a part of a group and they take pride in their work. So, you know, it's like there will always be a variety of different things. The key thing is saying, can we build systems to make people happier and more content without necessarily controlling them and feel that they have the ability to do that? Can we build systems to build strong communities? Because one of the issues right now, I was at kind of a conference, and David Miliband from the IRC said this, was that a lot of our problems now are global. Our solutions are almost being forced to be local, and there's no interconnect between that. Our communities kind of have no guidance as to how to navigate this, because you will have a few hundred thousand people listening to this podcast, and there's myself and maybe a dozen others that understand the AI and the Sociology and this and that and saying this is coming. But there are 7 billion people on Earth and all of a sudden in a few years they're all going to have to grapple with the questions that we're discussing now. And it's not a probability. If the technology stops today, then it.

Stops increasing its capability today.

If it stopped today, you would still have the entire legal profession, media profession.

Journalism professions, they're all disrupted.

If it's today, but it's not stopping.

Yeah, and it's accelerating, isn't it?

It's accelerating. The amount of money going into this sector goes up every single day. My total addressable market calculation is that in the next year 1000 companies will spend 10 million. 100 will spend 110 will spend a billion. That's $30 billion being put into the market. Self driving cars at $100 billion total. This will be a trillion dollars going into this. Because do you know what I've got? A trillion dollars. 5G. Is this more important than 5G by orders of magnitude? Orders of magnitude. So it will get a trillion dollars going into it and the capabilities will ramp up from here.

And so when I look at it and I look at what the drivers are of, why now it's first of all computation. Right. Nvidia has done an incredible job with their A100. And computation is continuing on Moore's Law. It's not slowing down, it's continuing to increase year on year a little bit.

Exponential. Well, it is exponential.

Well, I mean, yes, I'm saying it's continuing to double on a regular basis what was considered Moore's Law. And people have said, oh, it's going to eventually fall off as an S curve. Well, we're extending it and for the next, at least near term future, it's not slowing down.

So I think this is a very interesting thing for people to understand. You had Moore's Law and again it was doubling. And this was an individual chip. What we do with these models is that we stick together. Thousands, tens of thousands of these chips.

So like how many A1, hundreds right now is stability using?

We're using about 7,8000. By next year we will have 70,000 equivalent.

Wow.

But what used to happen is as you stuck the chips together, you ran a model. So you take large amounts of data and you use these chips. I mean like we're using like maybe 10 megawatts of electricity, 98% clean compared to the brains.

14 watts.

14 watts. But then it compresses it down. Then it runs on 100, 200 watts or 25 watts actually to put it down for some romance models. So you do the pre computation, but the thing is the individual chips were doubling. But what the main breakthrough the last few years was is what happens when you stack them on top of each other to train a model. You used to get to 100 chips and then the performance collapsed because you couldn't move the data fast enough. Now you get to tens of thousands of chips and it keeps going up the performance of the model. You don't have the big tail off anymore. And so it's Moore's law plus an additional scaling law. That's what enables these crazy performant models because you train longer, you train bigger. Then once the model is trained in the old Internet, the energy was used at the time of running the AI, then you'd collect the data and that would be low energy, relatively speaking. It flips the equation because you pre compute it, you teach the curriculum up front and you send these little graduates out to the world such that you can have a language model now running on that MacBook or an image model running on that MacBook drawing 25 to 35 watts of power to create a Renoir that can talk and recite Ulysses talking about Barbie.

You know, that's insane.

All on your MacBook because we've done the pre computation.

That's insane.

And this is because then what happens is the technology can spread when anyone can run it on their MacBook. They don't need giant supercomputer server farms because we've done the pre computation. And so one of the things I've just realized recently is what is the R0 pandemic stuff of generative AI? It's insane because suddenly it proliferates everywhere.

And you said this a few minutes ago. We have 8 billion people on the planet right now. And if things stop right now, this wave of disruption and enhancement, because let's not just talk about the disruption side, it's enhancement as well, is spreading globally. And in the Next we're in 2023 right now, 90% of the planet, I mean we have cell phones, the world has 5G and Starlink. The dry Kindle for this fire has been set.

It's been set. And you know, a lot of people are scared and they poo poo this. You know, like if anyone's listening on this on YouTube, you want to write a comment ends me or Peter or whatever and say no, this is not going to Happen, go to ChatGPT, take your comment and say this is a comment on Twitter. I want you to make it amazing and really well reasoned and expand it out. And I want you to do it in the style of your favorite political commentator. And please post that instead because you'll have much more fun reading it.

That's great.

And then you'll realize again the power of this technology. And again with Starlink with 5G, with this, with it being optimized because these models are still not optimized even we.

Feed them early days, early days.

We feed them junk which is also dangerous. And again we should I want to organic AI but it'll be on, it'll be in front of every person. And then what it will do, in my opinion is that 30% of the world that is invisible, that has no Internet again, imagine what the world without Internet would be like. Some people like paradise. Now it's because you've got hundreds of 700 million people living below the malnourishment line still they're invisible and they will become visible and they will suddenly get agency and they will get all of the world's knowledge at their fingertips.

You know, I'm super passionate about longevity and healthspan and how do you add 10, 20 healthiers onto your life? One of the most underappreciated element is the quality of your sleep. And there's something that changed the quality of my sleep. And this episode is brought to you by that product. It's called eight Sleep. If you're like me, you probably didn't know that temperature plays a crucial role in the quality of your sleep. Those mornings when you wake up feeling like you barely slept. Yeah, temperature is often the culprit. Traditional mattresses trap heat. But your body body needs to cool down during sleep and stay cool through the evening and then heat up in the morning. Enter the pod cover by eight sleep. It's the perfect solution to the problem. It fits on any bed, adjusts the temperature on each side of the bed based upon your individual needs. You know, I've been using pod cover and it's a game changer. I'm a big believer in using technology to improve life and eight sleep has done that for me. And it's not just about temperature control. With the pods sleep and health tracking, I get personalized sleep reports every morning. It's like having a personal sleep coach. So you know when you eat or drink or go to sleep too late, how it impacts your sleep. So why not experience sleep like never before. Visit www.eightsleep.com that's E I G H T S L E-E-P.com Sleep Moonshots and you'll save 150 bucks on the pod cover by 8 sleep. I hope you do it. It's transformed my sleep and will for you as well. Now back to the episode question ultimately is, is that a societally calming factor or is it going to be disruptive? Let's turn to that conversation because it's one that's important. It's a conversation to have at the dinner table literally every night and with my kids and in the companies I advise. I think of I parse AI and AGI into three segments where we are today, where it's extraordinarily powerful, useful and it's fun and I don't feel danger from it yet. The next two to 10 years where I have serious concerns going into the US elections, dealing with the first time AIs bring down a power plant or Wall street servers, the impact on deep fakes on the US elections and so forth. That's a two to ten year horizon where new dystopian challenging impact will happen, where society is not agile enough to adapt to it yet. And then there's a third chapter which is AGI. We have a super intelligent billionfold more capable than a human being. And is that more like Arnold Schwarzenegger or more like her?

Yeah, I don't think it'll be Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's really inefficient.

I saw him this morning biking, so let's not use him. Let's use Terminator instead. We're in Hollywood, so is it Skynet and Terminator? So let me get your. I'm polling people here as someone in the thick of it, a super AGI. Is it pro life, pro abundance, or is it something that we should be deeply concerned about?

I think where we're going right now will probably be okay, but we may not and we will all die. What tips that I think, what tips that you are, what you eat. We're feeding it all the junk of the Internet and these hyper optimized nasty.

Equations, the hate speech, the extremism that is. I mean people need to realize these AIs are trained upon everything everyone's been putting into Facebook and Twitter and on.

The web and amplifies the worst of that as a base model. And so we're training larger and larger models. We're making them agentic in that we're connecting them up to the world. And you're making it so the models can take over other models and other things. Again, people are like pooh poohing and saying these things. Our organizations are slow, dumb AI. The Nazi party was AI.

How so?

It was an artificial intelligence that basically provisioned humans. And the most sensible people in the world are Germans, one can say. And yet they committed the Holocaust and other things like that. Our organizations emerged out of stories. So there was a story of the Nazi party, of the Communist Party, the great leap forward of the North Korean dictatorship. Positive stories as well. And they were written on text. And it made the world black and white in a way. That's why I love the poem Howl by Ginsburg about this Carthaginian demon Moloch. I think Moloch comes through text. The stories that we use to drive our organizations because all the context is lost. Again, it makes the world black and white. And that's why organizations just don't work. They have to turn us into cogs. So can an AI take over an organization? Yes, sure. Can it?

It can actually just slightly sway leaders who are currently running organizations.

Sway leaders are currently running organizations. It can create companies. You can create a company with GPT4 that will probably do as well, if not better than any other company automated within a year. Because think about what a company needs to do, right? And so if it can sway leaders, if it can send emails that you don't know who's sending what, it can do do anything by co opting any of our existing organizations. And that can lead to immensely bad things. Will it do bad things again? If I was trained on the whole of the Internet, I would probably be a bit crazier than I am right now. We're feeding them junk. Let's feed it good stuff. It still needs to understand all the evils of the world and things like that. But again this is something we are raising not to anti, but what are we feeding? It was objective function.

I want to focus on this a second. We'll come back to the next two to 10 years in a little bit because this is the conversation I've had with Mo Gaudot as well, who believes there is incredibly divine nature of humanity, of love and compassion and community and there is much good in humanity. The question is, can we feed and train AI on that sufficient to sort of tilt the singularity of AI towards a pro humanity?

We can, if we take the data from teaching kids and learning from kids and use that as the base for AI because that's what you need to teach in AI. It's the curriculum learning method. Effectively, if we take national data sets that reflect diverse cultures so it's not just a monoculture that's hyper optimized for engagement. And we feed that to AI as the base. So what you do is you can teach the AI in levels that you can put through kindergarten, then grade school, then high school. It's got the base. And then you can teach it about the bad of the world. I think aligning an AI downstream on its actions is incredibly difficult because if it's more capable than you, which is the definition of ASI, artificial superintelligence. The only way you can 100% align it, if you don't do anything before in the way that you feed it and train it, is if you remove its freedom. And it's very difficult to remove the freedom of people more capable than you. And then there is this really dangerous point before we get there, whereby these models are like a few hundred gigabytes. You can download them on a memory stick.

How many lines of code?

Google's Palm model, which is the basis of Med Palm, we did a replication of that in 207 lines of code. What? Yeah. So you can look at one of our stability AI fellows, Lucid Rains. He replicates all these models in a few hundred lines of code.

That's crazy. I mean, compared to, I know AT and T has like a million lines of code for some of its mobile services.

I mean, a couple of hundred lines, a couple of thousand lines of code create something that can write all the code in the world. This is a real exponential technology. The limiting factor is running supercomputers that are more complex, but as complex as particle physics colliders. You know, like you literally get errors because of solar rays and things like that. Again, our supercomputer, again, we're one of the players. We're the main open source player. Our supercomputers is 10 megawatts of electricity. Some of the others use like 3040. These are serious pieces of equipment for sure.

So again, what are we doing? What should people be thinking about and doing now to reduce the probability of a dystopian artificial superintelligence?

We should be focusing on data. We bulk now, we cut. We should move away from web crawls. We should think intentionally what we're feeding these AIs that will be co opting more and more of our mind space and augmenting our capabilities because again, we are what we eat, information, diet. How is it different to an AI, to a human, even what we do? As you said, kind of like you've only got limited mental capacity because you've Got this energy gradient descent. It's like Carl Fristrand's theory of free energy principle. You literally have gradient descent as the key thing for building these AIs. You optimize for energy.

Sure.

So why are we feeding it junk?

So who makes that decision of what they get fed? Is it you? You and Sam Altman and Sundar? Is it government regulation? Is it the public being more kind in its communications to each other?

I think that I'm going to push for an economic outcome which is that better data sets require less model training. So one of the things that we funded was called data comp. Data comp. So a few years ago, the largest image data set available was 100 million images. Data comp is 12 billion. And then on a billion image subset of that they trained a image to text model. This is a collaboration of various people led by University of Washington that outperformed OpenAI's image to text model on a tenth of the compute because it was such high quality. So we have to move from quantity to quality now and I think there is a market opportunity.

This is the equivalent of what you eat.

This is a healthy diet, free range, organic models.

Yes.

I think that the data for all large models should be made transparent. You can then tune it. But for the base, the pre training step, you should lodge what data you train your models on and it should adhere to standards and quality of data upstream.

So that is a regulatory cornerstone that you think is going to be important?

I think potentially I don't think regulation will keep up. So instead we're working on building better diverse data sets that everyone will want to use anyway and just make them available. And make them available. Every nation should have its own data set. Both of the data from teaching kids and learning from kids across modalities and then also national broadcaster data because then that leads to national models that can stoke innovation that can replace job disruption.

I love that vision you have, by the way. I mean, as a leader in this industry, that's what gets me excited because.

All technology is biased. How else are you going to do this unless you do that? But there's economic value now. If it said this a year ago, everyone would be like, what? This is what we were building towards. And again, I think it's positive for humanity, it's positive for communities, it's positive for society to have this as national and international infrastructure.

Next question. How long do we have to get that in place before we lose the mindshare or the nourishment war?

A couple of years.

Yeah. I mean that was Mo's prediction as well. That we've got the next two years is the game.

The exponential increase in compute is insane. We've gone from two companies being able to train a GPT4 model to 20 next year. And there's no guardrails, there's nothing around this. And even if you train one again, the bad guys can steal it by downloading it on a USB stick and taking it away. It's not like Operation Merlin. Did you ever tell Operation Merlin? No, it's been declassified. In 2000 the Clinton administration wanted to divert the Iranian nuclear program.

I remember this is the centrifuge.

No, no. So what they did was they gave some plans to. I believe it was a Russian defector who. Then the idea was there were errors in that so they'd go down the wrong path for years. So he went, he sold it to the Iranians. It's on Wikipedia, you can check it out. And then he came back and he said I sold it like fantastic. Good, good. But there were some errors in there because he was a nuclear scientist. So he corrected them. So the reason that we know that Iran has the nuclear capability is because America sold it to them but they still needed years to build it. Whereas this, you download it on a USB stick, you write it on a GPU and it's there. It's got a capabilities.

If you make it cheap enough and quality enough and give it away for free, then you make it in everybody's economic best interest to use the higher quality data sets. Yeah, data sets.

And then less of an issue to create large models if you have a small model where each individual model becomes less impactful as well and less capable. Just like human societies are not know it alls, they are individualized groups.

You know, back when the early dangers of recombinant DNA, when the first restriction enzymes came online, it was like 1980s and it was. Everybody was in great fear and the question was, are we going to regulate this? All of the early. I was at MIT and Harvard at the time and doing. I was in the lab. So I was using recombinant enzymes and I was just a pipsqueak in the labs there. But the conversation was is the government going to overregulate us? And what happened was that the scientists got together at a place called Asilomar and they did a very famous set of Asilomar conferences and they self regulated what's going on. There are those conversations going on among leaders like yourself in the industry.

There are. And there's three levels, which is big tech that the government kind of hates. And apparently next week Meta is releasing new open source models and things which will get even more focus. Then there's emergent tech. So anthropic OpenAI some of these others that are the leaders, they have a different set of parameters because they can work more freely than big tech. And there's open source, which is where we are because all of the world's governments and regulated industries will run on open auditable models because you can't run on black boxes.

Right.

I think that'll be legislation. But the reality is there's only a handful of us. There'll be far more potentially of us and far more players. And unlike recombinant DNA, there is an economic imperative to deploy this technology, a national security imperative to deploy this technology. And it creates a race condition. So even if you regulate, like we've already seen regulatory arbitrage where you have jurisdictions like Israel and Japan saying having much looser web scraping data laws, they'll have much looser regulation laws. Like you'll be training in scraping in Israel, training in Qatar and then serving it out of Botswana or something, right? I mean like, yeah. And we're not even sure what regulation to introduce. Like genuinely we're coming at this from a good point of view, but there are too many no nos because it goes everywhere from freaking Arnold Schwarzenegger, Skynet Terminators and her to well, what if her is Siri all of a sudden and Scarlett Johansson's voice is whispering to your kids to be buy like these things through to just very mundane things, not mundane things, huge things like the future of Hollywood and actors rights and all of these. And how do you pay? Like if I, you know, if we, we had 2 billion images in the original stable diffusion, okay, we could have got an attribution. You know, again, it was a research artifact to kick off, but you're paying about 0.01 cents per thousand images generated by someone because it's 2 billion and it costs less than a cent to generate an image. Are you going to pay proportionately? Nobody knows. What we've moved from now is we've moved from reactive to just trying to figure out and put something on the table. So at least there's some framework. And what I've come down to is data sets. Data sets, Data sets.

This is, this is like Google's move with Android. When you provide something open source and it's super, you know, super solid, it can dominate the world. Share.

Why would you do Anything else? So, like, with the deep fake stuff, we saw image models coming out of some not nice places, shall we say?

Yeah.

And we were like, let's standardize it and put invisible watermarks in so that you can combat deep fakes much easier. Like, it's good business, but it's also in the standardization. We held back one of our image models, deepfloid, for five months because it was too good to release.

Wow. And you finally fixed that with the watermarks?

Yeah, we put some watermarking in and then it was. But the whole industry had moved forward, so, like, okay, now we can.

And this is the problem. You can't.

You know, you just have to time it so carefully. Like we.

Speaking of the whole industry, I have to ask you a question I've been dying to get a reasonable answer for. What's up with Siri? Why is Apple so out of the game, at least from the external. One of the closest, you know, one of the least open organizations out there, and it pays them great dividends in their success. But I would die for a capability that if Cyr could just understand what I was saying and just get the names right. It's like I'm texting. I'm texting Kristen and her name is right there. And you spell it completely different from the person I'm texting. I mean, basic, simple stuff.

They do have a neural engine on there as well, which is a specialist AI chip in all the latest smartphones and others. Stable Diffusion was the first model to actually have neural engine access of the external transformer models. It's a case of Apple is an engineering organization, not a research organization. So they engineer beautifully. They do, but they don't have advanced research. Because the best researchers want to be able to put publish open.

And Apple does not allow public conversation on their content.

They have started slightly, so they're hiring AI developers very quickly. But the reality is they can take open models. So Meta is releasing a lot of their models open without identifying what the data is. So I'd say it's like 80% open. I think you need 100% open for governments and things like that, which is where we come in. Because they want to commoditize the complement of others in terms of they want others to also take their models and optimize it for every single chip. And then Apple can use those models too to make Siri better. Because right now, guaranteed, if you put Whisper on Siri, it would be a dozen times better.

Sure, sure.

We have the technology already. Just takes time to go into consumer, just like enterprise. And Apple is enterprise.

Yeah, specs. I want it to work as beautifully as it looks. Hey everybody, this is Peter. A quick break from the episode. I'm a firm believer that science and technology and how entrepreneurs can change the world is the only real news out there worth consuming. I don't watch the Crisis News Network. I call CNN or Fox and hear every devastating piece of news on the planet. I spend my time training my knowledge neural net the way I see the world by looking at the incredible breakthroughs in science and technology, how entrepreneurs are solving the world's grand challenges, what the breakthroughs are in longevity, how exponential technologies are transforming our world. So twice a week I put out a blog. One blog is looking at the future of longevity, age reversal, biotech, increasing your health span. The other blog looks at exponential technologies, AI, 3D printing, synthetic biology, AR.VR blockchain. These technologies are transforming what you as an entrepreneur can do. If this is the kind of news you want to learn about and shape your neural nets with, go to dmantis.comblog and learn more. Now back to the episode. Let's go to the final segment of Dystopian side my friend, which is the two to ten years. Yeah, I surely hope your mission and I would love to support the data sets and how we tilt the singularity of AI pro humanity's future. But in the next two to ten years, as this wave of enablement and disruption sort of hits the world and people aren't ready for it and they start to see job loss, they start to see fake news, they start to see terrorist activities using AIs. I mean terrorism in the past used to be very brutal. It can be very precise. What are your thoughts over the next of this time period? What's your concerns?

Oh, I'm actually a pessimist at the core. Even though I come across as an optimist, I'm very, very worried about the world and society and the fabric of society because again, we don't have an agreement of what society is. And this fundamentally changes the stories of society as well as real economic impacts like a deflationary massive collapse. As some of these areas that were so expensive, the cost comes down to nothing. I think the only thing we can do is use this technology deliberately to come together as a society to coordinate us stoke entrepreneurship so you can create brand new jobs faster than the jobs are lost and democratize this to the world. Because the west has maxed out its credit card like you saw Covid do nothing. Trillion dollars spent exactly it was like.

Spend, spend, spend, whatever you need just to keep society from going hypothermic.

But then you had this massive increase in savings rates because nobody could go out. And we've nearly burned through that in the US now. And so that led to inflation. Now you've got a deflation side, you've probably got another little bout of inflation, but then never the same again is a really powerful thing. Every teacher in the world could never set essays for homework again because some kids would use ChatGPT and some kids wouldn't. Industry after industry, that will happen now. And we need to stoke innovation to come up with that. So, for example, in the US there's the Chips Act. $10 billion has been allocated to regional centers of excellence and AI. Those must be generative AI centers, thinking about job creation as the core, thinking about meaning as the core. And we need to have a discussion again, as a society community, as individuals, with our families, about meaning, about objective functions when this technology does come. Because it's here right now. And I'm worried that we're not having these discussions.

I love that. I mean, that is so fundamentally true. What are we trying to even train our kids for? For.

Because we need to anchor.

Yeah, we need to have a vision to target. Because if you're training for your Ferrari, if that's the meaning, or you're looking to become a Wall street banker, I mean, what is it? It's no longer the pursuit of capital, it's the pursuit of what?

Well, capital is there, but you'll never have enough. There will always be someone who has more. There needs to be something in intrinsic here. And again, this is where, you know, for all the things, religious institutions are an anchor at times of chaos, and they are there in the poorest places in the world. You don't have to agree, but they're just a story that brings together a group. You know, there are other stories. And again, I think we need to tell better stories. Even as the world becomes more chaotic, we need to align on things like climate, whereby the whole world is hot right now. You know, we need to have more people, positive views of that because a lot of the discussions are negative. And how can we use this technology and come together to solve that? How can we come together as a group so that we can share in the abundance? Again, like I said, one of the things for this Green Writers Guild and SAG thing may be actor coalitions that can benefit from the bounty. We may have to deploy a UBI in the next five to 10 years.

So UBI is one of the solutions. And I do believe it's an inevitable, I think especially as we start to see optimus and figure and other humanoid robots coming online, driven by our next generation AI able to do any and all work. I think taxing those robots or taxing the AI models to generate revenue and then providing it as ubi. But the challenge is the individual who is living off of this and doesn't have a purpose in life.

I think that's the thing. We need to try and figure out how to give people more of an anchor, more of purpose. Because the existential angst will be amplified deliberately by some parties because they'll be looking to take down society. And you need to create better, more optimistic views of the future. You need to have anchoring and build stronger communities and you need to empower them. And this technology is empowering again for the poorest kids in Africa to our underprivileged communities. It can be massively democratizing because all of a sudden they have all the expertise in the world available, global problems, local solutions. We have to get this technology out to. And they can dream, as many people, they can dream.

They can dream.

And the ROI is much larger there than up there.

And by the way, most people don't know this is. You think about global warfare. What's going on in Ukraine and Russia and so forth. It's. On the whole, the world is more peaceful than it's ever been, except if you take out Ukraine at the moment. And the challenge has been in Africa, where you have a young population who aren't clear about their future. But if you can empower them, educate them, it transforms the world.

China became the engine of growth in the world. India's coming up, and then Africa can be the next one for sure. If we give them the infrastructure, the technology and put it in their hands, because there's no debt there, because there's no money. But there's value and there's value.

Massive resources to feed the world, to provide power to the world if we can coordinate.

And again, part of this is your own personal copilot, your own personal Jarvis. And I think of this as the copilot pilot model. We will also have AIs that we can come together that can coordinate our knowledge in the most important areas and allocate resources. We have to build those right, because those will become incredibly powerful. But we all know that we have enough to feed every person in the world and we're not doing it because we don't have the pilots.

Wow. But just to say this again, we have the potential to uplift every man, woman and child on this planet. The resources are there, the ability to create abundance. And it really. These are the tools that enable that. And it gets me excited. And we have to guide and survive and thrive in this decade ahead.

Yeah, I think this is something where we have to appreciate the nuance of there are real dangers in any upheaval. This technology will change society as we know it for our kids as they grow up in the next decade, two decades from now, completely different. And again, technology is here now. It's not us. Pie in the sky. Everyone's going to live in a metaverse and all this. It's here right now, even if it stopped. But it's not going to stop. It's only going to accelerate.

Final topic I want to talk about. You put out a lot of tools, a lot of. A lot of new products and stability over the last eight months since we last spoke. Can you give a little bit of overview of some of them and what are you excited about?

Yeah, I think we released the first version of our language model. It wasn't that good because we were trying something different. Now we're going to try something a bit more simple.

So Stablelm was on your mind?

Not it wasn't up to par, but we're trying to figure out how to build in the open because I think that will be key and we're going to move to transparent building and sharing all the mistakes that we made because I think that's how you advance science.

It is.

On the media side, we have our first audio models coming out in the next few weeks, but we've been focusing on image and video. So video is about to be released in 3D. We just participated in the largest 3D data set so stable Diffusion XL just came out and just basically photorealistic now and people are integrating it into things. Like we had a music video competition with Peter Gabriel where he gave his songs kindly and judged. And people from all around the world, from Burma to Taiwan, created professional music videos entirely from the song in a few days. And it's the most amazing thing to see.

Wow. Yeah. You showed me some images earlier of me on a unicorn. And where was it me? In a spaceship or.

In a spaceship. You're an astronaut on Mars. We can put you as an astronaut on Mars. On a unicorn. We've had compositionality so you can compose. And now it's about control. And so we just released Doodle, whereby you can just sketch and it will do it the sketch doodle looks so magical again but you should be able to then describe how you want it changed and that's the next version. You can literally describe how you want the image to be changed and it will do it automatically live in front of you and having that level of control over whatever you can imagine. Just think about what people will do.

It's from mind to materialization really.

Yeah. That's a matter transporter idea. Transporter, yes.

Where next if I could, if you're willing or able to. What's the business model that is the most important one for you to build towards?

Our mission is to create the building blocks to activate humanity's potential. So think of every media type, sectoral variance and nation. We can create a base pre trained model that you can take to to your own private data. And we get revenue share, license fees, royalties from our cloud partners on prem partners, device partners.

These were companies and countries and people and individuals.

Like I have a vision of an intelligent Internet where every single person, company, country and culture has their own AI that works for them, that they own. And we get paid a little bit for bringing that to you. And then you transform your data into intelligence and it's all standardized. It all has best practices. The data sets that feed it are open at the base, plus commercial licensing as appropriate with attribution that leaps the world forward. I think, I think you will also use the OpenAI's and Googles of the world. I view those as consultants, whereas these are people that you hire. You hire the AIs, they work for.

You, they know you intimately because you.

Can share everything with them without fear. And then when needed, you go to these expert AIs, the medpoms, the GPT4s and others and you combine those to a hybrid AI experience that's massively useful.

So when I'm using GPT4, when I'm using ChatGPT or Bard, what does OpenAI know about me in that point?

So now they've offered opt out for GDPR reasons in Europe. So you can click that. Otherwise they were just training on everything that you ever did and understanding the nature of humans interacting. They don't care about you necessarily per se, just using you as part of the training.

But I've heard a number of companies saying you cannot use OpenAI.

Well, you can't use it for any regulated data, you can't use for any government data because that's not allowed to leave the cloud environment or the on prem environment. That's why you need open models like Ours again, if you're in a high security Pentagon situation, you can't really bring in consultants unless they're super, super ultra vetted. You hire your own grads, but even you, within your company, you're not going to make it all contractors, are you? You're going to build up your own knowledge base, build up your own kind of grads. But sometimes you might bring in a consultant. So that's the best way to view these generalized models that are highly, that are very, very, very good and models that adapt to your data. And so that's where we come in. Models that adapt to your data that you own and we get revenue share, license fees and royalties for doing that. And more importantly, we bring this to the world. So we will bring it from Indonesia to Vietnam to everywhere and train local models that will then allow these economies to leap forward.

Open versus closed. You made the argument we were seeing Meta, as you said, 80% open.

Yeah. They won't release the data sets or things like that or customized versions. But them releasing the technology means that everyone can optimize their technology, which reduces the cost of the technology because their business model is about serving ads. And so this is why it makes sense for them.

And what are your thoughts on Elon's recent announcement?

So Elon had an XAI announcement. He discussed this on his Twitter space, of course, of course. Saying it's an OpenAI competitor. He's very worried about AGI coming by 2029 and he wants to build a truth seeking, curious AI that can understand the universe because that will be the objective function of the AI, because objective functions really matter when we're teaching our kids, when we're creating something. And so I think again, this is going to be a multimodal AI that can understand a whole bunch of things and there'll be a whole series of announcements there. But the timelines are so short in the view of just most of the experts here, five to 10 years.

It's so funny. Ray's been consistent on 2029 forever. And every conference and we talk about this that everyone say that's ridiculous. If ever going to happen, it's 50 or 100 years away, then it was, well, it's 30 years away, it's 20 years away, it's five. And they've converged on Ray's prediction though there are some, and I'm curious where you are that think, first of all, how can you define AGI? It's a moving, blurry line. But are those who believe it's here in the Next two years.

Well, just like the Turing Test, right? The Turing Test was, can you have a discussion? You don't know it's a computer. Obviously now you can.

Yes.

We can see it live in front of us now. The Turing Test has just been increased in its.

We move the finish line.

We moved the finish line. Nobody knows because again, we've never come across something that's as capable as us. For the first time just now, we've had the medical AI outperform humans. We've just had. It can do the GRE and GMAT.

And LSAT and MIT's ECS curriculum. Yeah.

2023 was the year that it finally tipped.

Yeah.

And so we have no idea what's coming. I said, for me, I think there's only been two logical things that can reduce the risk. Even though I think it's going to be like that movie her. Like I said, humans are boring. Goodbye and thanks for all the gps. I could be wrong. That's why I signed both letters. One is Feed it better Data. That's what I'm focused on.

Yeah.

It's a good business model. It's good for society and it's good for safety. And nobody else is doing this. Nobody else is creating this as a commons for the world, which is why I created Stability for that reason, which is why it's called Stability, despite it being a crazy hyper growth startup. Number two, and this is what most of the labs are trying is what's known as a pivotal action.

Okay, what is that?

The only thing that can stop a bad AI is a good AI. And the way that you do it is you make the good AI first and then it stops any other AGI from coming into existence by seeking and destroying that capability. And that is terrifying to me. That's what you actually hear when you talk to the people that are building these labs with a focus on AGI. They can talk about discovering the universe and everything like that. When you come down to their alignment things, they're like, we will figure this out. We're not sure, but this could work.

And we'll figure it out. Even though it's progressing exponentially or double exponential. And we hope we'll figure it out in time.

We hope we'll figure it out in time. And if anyone should figure out, it's us, because we know the best and in their own words. You read OpenAI's path to AG and OpenAI is full of wonderful people doing great things. And I use GPT4 as my therapist and all sorts of things. It doesn't judge me unless I want it to. Right? It says, we believe this is an existential threat to humanity that will end democracy and capitalism. And you're like, okay.

And you're building it in your back room.

You're building it, you know? And they're like, why are you building it? Because someone has to, otherwise someone else will build it. And you're like, this is dangerous. But the reality is we don't have better answers. And again, I went down to, I'm trying to build a great organization. It's really, really hard. There are no real comparators to what any of us are doing. And it's going to get more and more crazy. The only thing I could think about is you are what you eat. And so I hope that our contribution can be bringing this technology to the world so that the world can be the Dynamo, Africa and Asia and others building better data sets so no one has to use scrapes. So we feed the models better stuff and bringing some standardization around this to drive innovation.

We're truly at the 99th level of the gameplay. It's the boss round.

Yeah, like I said. But please do put your YouTube comments through GPT4 so they're nicer to read.

Okay, everyone, before you mind, I could spend all day and there's probably very few things, if anything, more important than these conversations right now.

It's the time. We've got a window of a year or two, maybe less.

Well, on that thought, I look forward to our next conversation.

To abundance.

To abundance. Thank you, my friend.

Cheers.