The Next Wave - 5 New AI Models That Are Smarter (and Cheaper) Than GPT-5

Hey, welcome to the Next Wave podcast. I am Matt Wolf, and I am here once again with Joe Fear. And we're going to do what we did last week. We're going to break down the stories that we think are the most interesting, that we think you should know about, talk about why you should know about them, and be thinking about them. And we're also going to break down a really cool demo of how to use some of these AI tools in your own business. And how do you put your products into AI and sell your stuff better with AI? We got some cool demos and tips that we're going to share throughout this episode around that as well. So without further ado, I don't really like wasting time with long intros. Let's just get straight to it. How you doing again today, Joe?

I'm doing great, man. I'm happy we're back. And I feel like this week was packed with all sorts of different announcements. Obviously, we got a bunch here.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, I mean, again, like you said, a lot of stuff happened this week. We've got brand new models that came out from a lot of the foundation labs. In fact, the only one we didn't really hear from this week much was OpenAI, which was interesting. They were kind of quiet.

They had some other news, though, so we'll be. We'll definitely be talking about them, too.

Yeah, yeah. There. There's a big storyline. In fact, you know, let's just jump straight into that one.

Let's do it.

So the big story out of OpenAI this week was that the Open Claw founder, his name is Peter Steinberger, went. Did I say that right? Open Claw. Yeah, yeah, Open Claw. The Open Claw founder, Peter steinberger, went to OpenAI. There's too many opens. I was getting confused with the opens.

It's an open relationship. I don't know. I'm just kidding.

Ooh. Where are we going with this?

I don't know.

Yeah. So Peter steinberger went to OpenAI. He developed OpenClaw. He was the sort of lead person on that OpenClaw open source project. If you're not familiar with OpenClaw, then you probably haven't been paying too close of attention to the AI world. It was. Here's the tldr, though.

It was.

It was originally called claudebot. Then Anthropic went to them and said, hey, you can't call it that. It sounds too much like Claude. So they went, okay, fine. They changed it to Moltbot for like a day. And then the next day they changed it again to openclaw. And what this was was a AI agent that you can run on your computer, you can run it on a virtual server, but you can chat with it from wherever you like to send Messages. So Telegram, WhatsApp, Slack, Discord, any of those tools where you do messaging, you can actually have conversations with your AI chatbot and it would go off and do actions on your behalf. And you can give it as much or as little access as you want. You can give it access to your emails and your calendars and your passwords and your API keys and whatever you want. And depending on the level of, you know, autonomy you want it to have, it can go off and do different actions on your behalf. And that thing just blew up like it was the talk of the AI world, still kind of is to this day. And the guy who created it, this Peter Steinberger, well, he grabbed the attention of a lot of companies and ended up going to OpenAI. Look, we know AI moves fast, so we created your weekly cheat sheet on what's happening this week in AI with over 20 prompts for the newest tools that you can copy and paste a quick reference table that shows you exactly which model to use and tactical breakdowns of the newest AI releases. Scan the QR code or click the link in the description. Now let's get back to the show.

This is kind of crazy. I mean, like, yeah, what you're showing on screen here is basically what his letter with his decision and his kind of thesis behind it all. And I thought it was interesting because he came from a previous PDF company. I think it was like a decade ago or something. He. And it's like, yeah, yeah, so he

created a company called pspdf. And I think the PS stood for Peter Steinberger, if I had to guess. So he created this like PDF tool that is actually now used by Dropbox and a whole bunch of other big platforms use this sort of infrastructure that he built to manage PDFs and then he ended up getting like a hundred million dollar investment and then cashing out and then sort of going and becoming a hermit for a while before coming and stepping back into the limelight to develop Open Claw.

Yeah, I thought that was interesting. Like, and when AI, like, I think he brought came back to the world of AI like in 2025, so like last year, but then started developing like all these different projects and then OpenClaw ended up being the one that got the most attention for good reason. And like, it's interesting that he didn't want to go. I Think people were even talking about like, could this be the first one person billion dollar company? And I think he mentioned something like, you know, I've done the whole like growing a company thing myself. I'm good. Yeah, like I want to go partner up with someone awesome. And I guess, yeah, well, I mean

all of the products that he built between when he sort of came back online to now were all sort of infrastructure pieces towards OpenClaw. In fact, he actually put something out on X pretty recently saying it's kind of funny, there's this storyline that I had a, I had 40 failures before I finally made Open Clan. He's like, that's not true. All of these other tools I built were the building blocks that became Open cloth. So like that narrative is just like a made up narrative for marketing. That's not the real narrative. It's good story, but yeah, it makes for a good story, but yeah. So this, this Open Clothing, it's interesting because he wasn't really making money off of it. In fact he was saying he was, he was paying out of pocket to keep this thing alive and going and he was sort of relying on donations through GitHub to, to, to sort of keep paying it and to pay some of the other workers that were working on this thing. So like, I don't think he had any intention of turning this into $1 billion business.

No, I don't think so either. That was just the chatter out there I've saw. But it was interesting. So he picked Open AI. I don't know Matt, like, because I think he was chatting with a couple of the other, you know, the labs as well, which is interesting because you know, it started off with, you know, Claude behind the whole thing basically powering this and they don't have him anymore. So that dude is now working with their biggest competitor OpenAI.

Yeah, well, here's the thing. So when it comes to openclaw, everybody that was using openclaw in the early days, they were going and using their, their Claude Max plans, right? So Claude has a plan called the Claude Max Plan. It goes for they have a hundred dollar plan and they have a $200 a month plan. And Claude Max basically lets you use like Claude code at almost like an unlimited level. Like you do have some limits, but you can get a lot of usage out of it for your 100 or $200 a month plan. And people found workarounds to use their Claude Max plan in tools like Open Claw. Anthropic went and said no Claude Max plan is designed for people who want to use CLAUDE code specifically and use our tooling. So if you're using cloud code outside of our or if you're using your cloud max plan outside of our tooling, that's against our terms of service. And they started like essentially threatening people for using their $200 a month plan inside of Open Claw. Right. And so that's kind of what got people going. Oh, so they don't even want us to pay their high end $200 a month plan if we're going to go use it somewhere else. Okay, well, we'll go OpenAI and then OpenAI said, hey, feel free to use our $200 a month plan inside of Open Cloud. We, we welcome it. Right. So OpenAI went and had this narrative of like, Claude's going to be the company that's going to shut you down. If you're on their high end plan. We're going to be the company that's going to say, yeah, come to us. We, we'll, we'll take you over here. So that is a big, big piece of why he ended up going to OpenAI. I don't know if Claude ever actually, or anthropic ever actually approached him about bringing him in. I know Meta did. He said he had a conversation with Zuckerberg and Zuckerberg tried to bring him in, but he ultimately decided to go to OpenAI because he felt that OpenAI would a keep Open Claw open source.

Yeah, yeah.

And he didn't want OpenAI to come in and say you have to use OpenAI models inside of OpenClaw if you want to use OpenClaw. He wanted to keep it open source. Your choice. You get to use this however you want. OpenAI basically allowed that. So now what it sounds like is happening is he's going to OpenAI. He's finding somebody else to lead the development of Openclaw. Openclaw is going to continue sort of on its own within like a foundation away from Peter. Peter's going over to OpenAI to start developing their like more agentic systems at OpenAI.

Ah, interesting. Yeah, that's what I just read here is, is, yeah, it's. Open Claw will be a project under an independent foundation. Okay, Yeah, I didn't know that. And it's the whole big.

That's what I'm here for, Joe.

Yeah, you're good. Yeah. Well, Claw just validified that from an article that came out two hours ago. So you nailed it. You're on the news.

I have not even read that article, so I'VE just been following along closely. Yeah, so that, that's pretty much the storyline there. He's going to be building out the sort of whatever OpenAI's next version of an agent is going to be. And Anthropic really, really did kind of fumble the ball here, right, Because a. It was called claudebot and when they named it Clodbot, everybody just sort of like immediately associated it with Anthropic's Claude. Right. And so everybody already had this sort of like, tie in association to Anthropic. It brought more awareness to Claude. People were actually signing up to Anthropic's $200 a month max plan so they could go use it inside of Claude Bot. So Anthropic was getting more customers from it. And then when Anthropic did their whole like, hey, you need to stop using this name, and he decided to go to OpenAI, a lot of people went, screw Anthropic.

Then, yeah, I think they, yeah, they dropped the ball. I mean, especially with the momentum. And what does it say, like, on GitHub, it has 100,000, 100,000 plus stars, like just on. I think it's like the biggest growing project ever on GitHub. So, yeah, it's just like the fact that, like, dude, you would have had all that momentum, but now, I mean, we were talking last week about how open AI, you know, with their new monetization model they put out there were like, what are they going to do? I was like, well, shoot, maybe it's agents, you know, and now you get the attention of all these people that are also paying attention to openclaw and Peter. So I don't know, maybe. Maybe that just helps shift stuff a little bit for them.

Yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, I feel like we're still early in the year, right? Like, it's, it's still February, it's still only the second month of this year, and it's. This year's already shaping up to be the year where, okay, agents are finally feeling useful.

Right.

Like last year, agents was a big buzzword, right. 20, 25, we did have that as like, everybody was saying, oh, agents are here, we're using them. That's a big buzz. But an agent was essentially like, oh, look, it can click things on my browser for me. Yeah, right. Like, look, my browser is now highlighted and it can move my mouse and type things on my keyboard without me having to move my mouse and type things on my keyboard. That's cool. It's doing it really slow, like slower than If I was just to do the damn thing myself, but I mean, I could open up like four tabs and have it doing four different things very slowly for me. Right. Claudebot is sort of the first thing. And I'm going to keep calling it claudebot even though I know it's called openclaw now. My brain hasn't caught up yet. It's like Twitter X. I still call it Twitter. So with, with claudebot, this was like the first one that came along where you can just go and use whatever chat platform you like. If you, you know, if you use Slack on a daily basis, you can use Slack and treat it just like a team member. Hey, I need this done. Five minutes later your team member comes back and says, cool, I did it for you.

Right.

That's totally different than you seeing your browser glow and then the mouse is moving around for you and doing things like that's just trying to get your computer to do something that a human can do already where something like Claudebot is tapping into the APIs, it's building its own software behind the scenes to do things. You know, it's basically handling a whole bunch of processes behind the scenes to make sure your outcome happens instead of like doing what a human would do to get that outcome to happen, you know?

Yeah. And there's all these crazy, like, I love following people on Twitter and there's like, there's a lady that I just came across, I think it was retweet by. I don't know who was someone, some tech person. But lady is a home. Like, she homeschools her kids and she's like this open claw, like fanatic and is awesome. I forget her name. I should probably pull it up. But basically she was showing how she's like, figured out how to basically train her, I think. I don't know, she gave it a name. Everybody gives their Open Claw name, it seems like. And you know, you just. Basically, it's now like printing stuff on a 3D printer from whatever she told it to do with the school curriculum. So it's like, like, holy moly, like, and it's doing it by itself without any human intervention in the middle and.

Yeah, well, I mean, theoretically, it can go. There's sites out there that have 3D print templates already, right? You've got printables and thingiverse and all sorts of sites where you can find anything to 3D Print. These tools could go and search those sites, find the thing you need, download the STL file, send it to your printer for you and print it out. You know, theoretically. We tried this last week. Theoretically you could ask tools like Gemini to go and create you a print file and it can send that to your printer and automatically print it out as well. We didn't have so much luck with that, but theoretically, you can.

Sure, it'll change. But yeah, like, I don't know. My. I think of the different use cases. I mean, your buddy Matthew Berman seems to be like, way down the rabbit hole when it comes to open claw and.

Oh, dude, his videos are awesome. I know I've watched like two or. I mean, they're pretty in the weeds, but I've watched two or three videos where he's breaking down, like, these insane systems where, like, every night while he's asleep, it's going and doing a bunch of research and finding talking points for his videos and making thumbnails for him and, you know, all sorts of just stuff. And then he wakes up in the morning and he's just got like, his messenger app full with like, here's everything I did for you while you were asleep. And it's just like, it's wild.

So I don't know, I see this and immediately, you know, I thought of like, the whole. Agents are now coming to everybody, you know, like, everybody is going to be able to at least start interacting with agents. Seems like that's what OpenAI is pushing towards. It's still very early there. But then you have what Meta was it just this week, I believe. Right. Basically talking about how Manus, who they acquired, is now it's all being usable on Telegram, and essentially you can kind of do something similar. And I'm curious of your take here, Matt, of all the details, of course, and what this means.

Yeah, yeah. So basically, this sounds like Manuscript is. Well, this is. This is Meta's play in response to claudebot. That's what it feels like. I don't know for sure. Like, the. The man of Steel was probably in the works before the whole Clodbot stuff bubbled up. Had to have been, because it all seemed to happen a little too fast. But this, you know, the way that this is all angled and the way they're marketing, it feels very similar to what we're getting out of claudebot. But yeah, basically the same thing. Like, you can use Manus agents inside of Telegram, which I think is hilarious because Meta owns WhatsApp.

That is a good point. I didn't. Okay.

But, you know, I actually think it works in WhatsApp as well.

I think Slack.

I think you can Use it like in any of the messaging apps. It's just interesting to me that, like, the headline tool that they mention is Telegram. It says Telegram is the first supported channel. So I think it, like, maybe it's just Telegram right now and WhatsApp and the rest are coming. Um, but it is kind of funny that it's like a meta competitor that is one of the first ones that is rolling out into. Yeah, it's probably like the easiest API to deal with or something. I don't know.

There's had to been some relationship and there's like, we got to rush to market now. Like, this is our chance.

Yeah. But I mean, it basically seems like this similar idea, but I don't think it's at any sort of level close to what you can do with Open Claw yet.

It doesn't seem that way.

Yeah, like, a lot of what Manus is still doing is a lot of, like, taking control of a browser and, and doing things the way a human would do them instead of just like operating directly in the back end via APIs and stuff.

Yeah, it is cool to see this. I mean, like, and of course, when it's kind of like the model race. Right. Which. And we'll probably talk about that here too, but it's like when all this stuff happens, you know, you have the other guy is. Is going to bring something to market, even if it might not be the same or perfect or it's just supporting one channel. It's just like now it's becoming a thing in all of our minds. And yeah, I know we've been told, like you said, like, the agents, they've been around, but I feel like this is the year of the agents. Well, yeah, well, this is the year

that the agents actually start to feel useful. This is the year where an agent feels like an employee and not like a gimmick. Right. I feel like last year agents were very gimmicky. They were very take control of my browser and ooh, I can sit here and watch it do the things I would be doing anyway. It's just doing them a little bit slower. But I could open multiple tabs and have it do multiple of them. But now it's actually like, they're useful. Like, I can go away and have things happening for me while I'm away. That's. That's what makes this current sort of iteration of agents useful.

Yeah.

They also are much, much better at checking their own work. That was kind of an issue with past agents, is that they can go and act on your behalf. But they would screw stuff up and not realize they screwed stuff up. Current iterations of these agents, they can go and do some work, look at the browser, go, oh, that's not the way it should look. Go back, fix its own mistakes, look at the browser again and go, okay, now I got it right. I'm going to report back to my, you know, my, my owner, whatever you want to call the humans in the loop. I'm going to go report back to my owner and say that I've finished this now that I've double checked my work. That whole double checking your work thing is a big deal, right? Because if you've ever tried to like vibe code stuff, that's the kind of headache you run into is it'll say, oh, I fixed that. You go and open your browser and it's like, it's still not working. Fix it better. And it's like, okay, well, I fixed it. Now it should definitely work. Now you open your browser, still not working. What the heck? You just said you fixed it. It's not working. Well, less of that is happening now. If you've ever used like the newer models, like Opus 4.6, Claude 5.3 codecs, things like that, they actually will look at their work and go, oh, it's throwing up an error. Let me fix that. Op is still throwing up an error. Let me fix that. Oh, now it's working. Okay, I'm going to report back and say I'm done with my task. They're actually double checking themselves now, and that is a huge leap from what we had this time last year.

Right, Interesting. There's. And Matt, I'm probably going to text you this, but like, I saw Mark Cuban. I don't know if you saw this, he brought up an interesting point. And you might know the math and the things more than I do, but I feel like it's. It's an interesting little segue here where he basically put something out there. He was like, hey, so what happens? And it's a response to the all in podcast, but what happens when AI tokens cost more than your employees?

Yeah, I did, I did see this. Basically, it's getting to a point now where you might be spending $300 a day on AI tokens, but $300 a day is more than what you probably would have paid an employee to do the same level of work.

Right? Yeah. And that's kind of the argument. And obviously it goes. He goes into the math and all that, but I thought, I'm like, I've not totally thought about that before, but it's like, yeah, we're everybody's, not everybody, but a lot of people are so hyped up on agents and automations. But then we might not be doing the math on what it's going to take to actually complete the job effectively. And that's what he's kind of breaking down the math here and based on that clip you're showing there. Yeah.

So I mean it's interesting. I, I have been seeing that more and more where like, if you're like, I do a lot of vibe coding stuff myself, I code up a lot of things and I've definitely had days where I've spent, you know, a hundred dollars in tokens and it, it's like really added up quickly. But I also think that is a very short term problem. We're going to get into all of these model releases here and one of the big things about these model releases is that they're getting better and better and better and also getting cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. So right now the state of the art model for coding is Probably Cloud Opus 4.6, maybe ChatGPT 5.3 Codex. Right. It's kind of a toss up between those two. They're both really good coding models. However, Sonnet 4.6 just came out and Sonnet 4.6 is doing almost Opus level coding. It's almost as good for like a third of the price. We'll get into the prices in a minute. I don't know exactly what they are, but the cost is like quite a bit less. But they're still getting opus 4.6 level quality out of it. So these costs are going down very, very quickly. So this is only a problem like right now.

So it's a short term thing. It's an interesting, very short term. Yeah, interesting thought process I guess. But yeah, I want to bring that up just because I was like, that's interesting. But to your point, it's like these models, which is what we'll talk about. It's like there's so many getting pushed out all the time.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. A couple, a couple quick things on this whole agent topic. We'll just blow past these ones here, but Meta launches, Manus AI Integration and Ads Manager. I know we've got like a large business audience for this podcast. Well pretty soon you're going to be able to have just Manus and pretty soon might even be right now. Let's see. I think it's right now has taken the next steps in its integration of Manus AI with some meta advertisers now being informed that they can access manage functionality within the ads manager. So it's kind of like a rollout. It doesn't sound like everybody has it yet, but it sounds like you can go and tell like your Manus agent, go build me an ad for my product. Right? Go build me an ad for this cereal brand. And it will just go and like, look at your site for you, learn everything about your product, probably pull screenshots for you of what the product looks like, use sort of copywriting principles on your behalf, and then just go and create your ad in the ads manager without you ever even touching the ads manager you just prompted in telegram and not WhatsApp.

And probably keep an eye on the stats as well because it's all integrated in meta's, you know, in their ads that are there and they just make more creatives and. Yeah, because that's the whole thing that I'm seeing from, I mean, all these creatives. And I know you and I have run ads for a ton of years now and it's changed, but now it's almost like, trust the AI. They want more creatives in general and then their AI engine, you know, metas will kind of do the hard labor now, whereas back in the day it was the humans dialing the jobs, I. E. You.

Yeah, no, that is a very good point. Yeah, that is a very good point. Right, like when, when we used to run a lot of Facebook ads ourselves, we had to run ads and then, you know, every day we were in that ads manager making sure, like, our cost per clicks weren't going over a certain level. And if this ad was underperforming, this one was overperforming. Adjust the budget. So we're putting more money towards this ad and less money towards this one or turning this ad off altogether. And it was like this constant, like, course correction that you have to do to keep your ads on track. And if you have a bot that doesn't sleep right, it could keep your ads on track 247 without you even looking into it. It's just, it knows your criteria that you want it to stay within and it's constantly managing that. Now, do you actually need an agent to do that? Not really. I feel like that should just be something that the ads platform does for you without the need of an agent.

Yeah, it's making. It's taken some of the friction down, you know, it could maybe take some of the creative creation out of the way. But even though I'M sure that might get even more integrated into the platform, you know, over time.

Yeah, yeah. I mean, I, I feel like what, what an agent is going to probably be best at in the. In terms of advertising would be going and looking at your website, reading, like your sales copy on your website, learning what your product is all about, then deciding what the best imagery that's going to resonate with the most people is going to be, deciding what the best copy that is going to resonate with the most people is going to be, and then creating those ads for you. I would imagine you don't even need AI agents or AI at all, really, to keep your ads on track. Right. You should be able to go in there and say, hey, I want to generate leads at $2 or less per lead. If anything goes over that, turn it off.

Right?

Like that's just an. If this, then that statement in the back end, there it is, right like that. That's just like regular logic. That's not even like, AI necessary.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I don't know, we'll see how this rolls out. But again, this what's got pushed out on the 16th. So it was, you know, earlier this week. It just seems like, okay, this whole agent thing, you're going to start seeing this, I feel like integrated in all the different platforms in some way to kind of have flavor.

Yeah, no, it is interesting because I, I do see. So there was this big wave during, you know, end of, let's. Let's call it 2023. The year of 2023 was the year of every company put AI into their product, whether the product needed AI or not.

We're an AI first company now.

It's like every company did that, right? Hey, look, we're now, uh, we're. We're a company that does SEO services. But now with AI, we're a company that does, you name it, bookkeeping services. But now with AI, like, every product just now has AI. And I feel like this year we might start seeing that same kind of trend, but with AI agents, right? Like. Like, I don't really feel like Facebook ads should need an agent to manage your ads. Like, they should just have recommendation. They already have recommendation algorithms. They already have. If this, then that sort of logic, algorithms. Like, why does that need AI? I don't know. Why do you. Why do I need to talk to an agent to make that happen? I don't know. Shouldn't I just be able to go in the back end and say, here's the cost per lead. I'm trying to get, go try to get that for me. And then it just goes and does it. Do I need an agent to do that for me? I don't know.

Yeah, I know it's too much of a good thing. Maybe it's not necessary.

And then last thing, we'll talk about this one. Real click, real click. Real quick. 11 agents for support. I did briefly come across this one, but I haven't dug in too much. My guess without reading the website is that because it's from 11 labs, it's customer support that you can like have it use your own voice or use one of their like pre existing like realistic sounding voices to do customer support for you.

Right, right. That's what it seems like. And it' they're claiming, what does it have here that you know, you can load up things like your SOPs and then you can probably, you know, loop in your agents, maybe specified agents. Depending on what's going on, it improves with interactions. Guardrails. I thought it was interesting that it's emotionally and contextually aware of situations further down on the screen.

So if it's emotionally and contextually aware. So if you ever get on the phone with an 11 Labs agent for customer support, just start screaming at them. Just like rail at them. Right. And they'll probably give you what you want because they're emotionally intelligent and can tell that you're pissed off.

Matt, click into that. Let's see what it sounds like. Because they do have an example. I am kind of curious. Yeah,

hey there. I'm Jennifer with eleven Airlines. And how can I help you today, Jennifer?

My flight just got canceled and I'm

stuck here in Orlando. At this rate I'm going to be

missing my daughter's birthday. This is ridiculous.

Yeah, I hear you and I'm so sorry about that. Let's figure out what's going on. Okay, could you please tell me which flight this was?

Yeah, this is flight MD412.

Great, thanks. Okay, just pulling that up now. Okay. Yeah, I see it. Three cancellations on one trip. That's. Yeah, that's not the experience you should be having. I'm going to fix this. Okay, Let me just see what I've got.

Well, realistically, what kind of options do

you have for me?

Okay, so here's where we're at. I can book you on the same flight route tonight, but I'm going to be honest with you, that route's been a mess all week and I wouldn't trust it. Yeah, not for something like this. The other option is I reroute you through Charlotte first thing tomorrow morning. You'd land by noon. It's a longer day, but you're getting home.

Just give me the one that's actually

going to get me there. I think we get the idea.

Interesting story, Matt, because it sounded like that guy was stuck in Orlando. We've definitely had our fair share of stuff getting stuck in Orlando.

It's always Florida, too. It's always Florida.

This makes so much sense. I feel this guy's pain. Only we had an agent at the time. I mean, it sounded pretty good, I thought, and.

Yeah, it does. It does. It's. It does. It sounds pretty realistic.

Yeah.

I just wonder how it would have been different emotionally if he was, like, screaming at her, you know, I don't

see an active way we can actually try this, so that would be fun.

Yeah. Wait, but no, I mean, I think that's. I think that's interesting. I think.

Matt, I don't know.

I have. I have mixed thoughts about it. I don't know if you remember this story. This is probably almost a year and a half, two years ago, but there was a short. A story, I believe it came out of Chevy, where they set up, like, an AI assistant on their website. It wasn't one that actually vocally spoke to you, but it was like a, you know, a chat bot on their website, and somebody actually talked the agent into giving them, like, a Chevy Tahoe for free. So if you say it in the right way with the right sort of thing, like, oh, your boss said it was okay. I talked to him earlier. Like, are you going to be able to, like, convince me, convince these AI agents to, like, give you free stuff?

Interesting. I mean, it's for the shot.

Yeah. I'm sure they're trying to build guardrails in about. With that kind of stuff, but I guarantee we're going to hear at least a couple stories out of some of these support bots where people got them to, like, give them free cars and free flights and stuff like that, you know, That'll be.

Yeah. Testing the guardrails. I mean, like, it claims they have the guard rails in there, but. Or you have to maybe put them yourself. There's definitely going to be a pastime of people that are probably going to be testing guard rails. We'll just say, just for that reason alone.

All right, what do we got next up on the. On the list here?

Well, Mr. Mato, we mentioned how there've been all these releases of different models. Like, there's kind of like, I feel like a confusion with most people now. I don't know how many were released. Was it like 5, 6, 10? I don't know.

It depends on what time frame we're talking about. This week there was four. At least five that I know of.

Okay. I think of this month, seven so far. I think I was telling it earlier. So yeah, a lot's happening on the model front, so things are getting better, cheaper, faster, like you said. Yeah.

Sound like a Daft Punk song for a second.

We should remix it with the Gemini music.

So yeah, this week alone we got Claude Sonnet 4.6, we got Gemini 3.1 Pro, and we got Grok 420, or Grok 4.2 if you want to know about it.

Geez. Okay,

these are the models that came out from the big sort of US Frontier Labs. We did also get a couple other models out of the Chinese labs. We've got Byte Dance, who is the creator of Tick Tock and Cap Cut. And you know, among other things, they released a new model called seed 2.0, which they claim to be fairly state of the art. And then we also got a model called Quinn with a whole bunch of numbers after it. I don't even remember what it was called, but that's an open source model that is almost catching up with the Frontier models. So those are the other two that came out outside of the three that I just mentioned. But the three that I just mentioned, clodsonic 4.6, that one came out first. 420 came out the same day. And then Gemini 3.1 came out on the 19th, which was Thursday.

Yeah, it's. I found it interesting because there's been so much of this happening in obviously short period of time. And what they're basically, it seems like the biggest single month, at least is what I read the biggest single month, model releases and AI history.

Quite possibly it does.

Busy.

I feel like there's been some weeks in the. I mean, I don't. I don't know exactly, but there have been weeks where it's like, hey, Google just released something in the next day, Anthropic just released something, and the next day OpenAI just released something. And I do remember weeks that feel equally as hectic, but it does feel like a lot of models came out this week.

My brain goes to what the heck does this mean for us, the users? Joe Schmo. Users like me. Hi, I'm Joe Schmo here. But when it comes to users, like, do you feel like, oh, I feel like the models are blending in. Like people have their favorites, you know, like OpenAI did not make the list like, like we talked about earlier. So like.

Well, because they did Codex 5.3 last week or they had GBT 5.3 Codex last week. So like they had, they, they actually released two models two weeks in a row, GPT 5.3 Codex and the following week GPT 5.3 Codex Spark. I get exhausted trying to say these names.

I don't know how you keep nail the Quinn one though. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

I'm not even trying anymore on Quinn because they just keep on adding more letters and numbers to the end.

It's like a password, very secure password is how they're naming all their models.

Yeah, yeah. So I mean, what does this mean to the everyday normal consumer that just wants to use ChatGPT or Claude to ask it where to go to dinner or whatever? Not a whole lot. Right. These models, they're getting better, they're getting smarter. But they're getting better and smarter in areas where the majority of people probably aren't going to notice or care that much saying that they are also getting better. Faster, cheaper, smarter. Right. Work harder, faster, cheaper, smart. Yeah, they're, they're getting better. So that has the benefit of bringing down costs over time. So we've got Claud Sonnet 4.6 on the screen here. Claud Sonnet 4.6. One of the big deals about this one is it's got that 1 million token context window which basically means you can feed it so much data, Right. You can feed it like the entire Harry Potter book series and read all of it and answer questions. Right.

Okay. So you're not going to get cut off if you're trying to shove a whole bunch of, I don't know, like, I'm just thinking my use cases, it'll be like call transcriptions or all these other notes and other like unless your

call was, you know, a month long call that didn't stop. No, you're probably not going to get cut off on any sort of calls that you're going to have.

Nice, I like it.

But saying that the 1 million token context window is more for the API users, there's still limits. If you're just using the regular Claude AI website, you're not going to get that million token context window on their website. You're going to get it if you're using Claude via the API and sort of using it for development. So that is, it's cool that we've got that. But your Everyday Joe Schmo, as you call them, is not going to really see the benefit of that. Yeah, but Sonnet 4.6 is a lot better at coding. But it is the new model that's inside of the free plan, the, the, you know, the $20 a month pro plan, all of the, the lower end plans. This is now the default model. And I'll go ahead and show like the benchmarks down here. Benchmarks don't really mean too much to too many people. But really what I look at, I want to look at them for is like the comparison. So you can see that when it comes to like agentic coding, Opus 4.6 is still the best. But Sonnet 4.6 is still really, really good. Right? Same with like another coding benchmark here. Opus 4.5 and 4.6 are like 80.8, 80.9%. This is 79.6%. Like it's basically as good, this kind of like a lot cheaper to use model.

You were saying this earlier how it's like. Yeah, well now this new model, Sonic 4. 6, even though it's not technically the best, now you're seeing how close it really is to the best and it's going to be dramatically cheaper like you're mentioning.

Yeah, exactly. And here's, here's the thing where this one actually starts to like stand out is that when it comes to actually like agentic use cases, like going and doing work on your behalf, it's like as good as the state of the art model here. So like a finance agent, it actually scores better than their 4.6. For office tasks, it actually scores better than 4.6. So like this model is almost designed for something like claudebot, which is where Anthropic just totally effed themselves. Right? Because like this model is probably the best model to be running in something like Cloudbot because it's a lot cheaper to use than Opus 4.6, but it's also really good at agentic stuff.

The thing we're talking about here. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So it's, it's, it's kind of crazy here, but let's see. But one of the big things about this is like in the API. So let me actually pull up the API docs here. Let's see pricing. So if we look at their pricing Here, Claude, Opus 4.6 is 5 million, 5 per million token input, $25 per output tokens.

Right.

We just saw that Sonnet 4.6 is pretty much almost as good in most use cases, except for input tokens. It's $3 per million tokens instead of 5 and for output tokens it's 15 instead of 25. Right. So this is like the big deal here is that you have a model that's almost as good as the most state of the art model but. But it's a lot cheaper to use. So developers are able to use this model a lot cheaper and get a lot more done with the same amount of cost. Now where does this matter to everyday Joe Smo users here? Here's where this gets really interesting and cool is these models now we talked about this a little bit last week, but these models now when you need it to solve a problem for you, if it doesn't know how to solve that problem, it will often go and write code for for you that can then go solve that problem. Well, they're getting cheaper and better and faster at writing that code behind the scenes. So now when you need it to go solve a problem for you that maybe it just doesn't know because it's not in its like initial training data. Well, it can go write a script that then solves that problem for you and it's getting better, faster, cheaper at that stuff.

That's gonna get cool. I mean it's. And just what built right into Claude I would imagine because you can watch the thing literally code in real time just talking natural language to it, not without using cloud code.

You use Claude Cowork, you know, the one that can actually take control and basically access your terminal and do things on your computer on your behalf. If you ask it to do something for you that it doesn't just know how to do natively, it will go and write a script that can then go do that thing for you.

That's cool.

And it used to be a lot more expensive to go and write those scripts, but now that's getting cheaper because models like Sonnet are actually able to do similar level of coding but for less cost.

Yeah, and I looked up with, and we're not even talking about perplexity here, which I was going to bring up, but I use perplexity just now to search up. Why does this matter for non tech users specifically? But it's like I guess anthropic deliberately put sonnet4.6 in the free tier by default and included features like file creation, connectors, skills, context, compaction at no cost. So basically it's opus level intelligence for one fifth of the price. Which means yeah, the casual users that tiv. Yeah basically now can have that top tier AI performance without paying anything for premium. Yeah, take that. Exactly. Chat GPT with your ads. I'm just kidding. I'm not, I'm not playing sides.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I mean, yeah, that's pretty much it with, with that. And then, you know, moving over, we also got Gemini 3.1 Pro this week. This is now Google's not their best model because they also have their, their Deep Think model as well, which is the one we were playing with last week, you know, getting it to solve the three body problem and whatnot. But this model is now like their best sort of widely available, inexpensive to use model. Right. So same kind of idea, Right. It's getting better and smarter. This one, it seems to have really leveled up and like sciency kind of areas. Right. So if we look at the bold ones are the ones where it claims to be the, the top dog. Right. Some of the ones that are the most interesting here, Arc AGI, they scored 77.1%. The next closest is Opus at 68%, almost like 10 percentage points lower. And what Arc AGI is, is it's like these logic reasoning puzzles that a lot of them are like visual that'll be like, okay, so if I have this pattern of images here and then you have this next image and it's got this pattern of images, what's missing from this one? Based on what you know about this one. And it tries to find like the, the visual pattern recognition, for example. And they're not things that are necessarily. The models don't really go and like train on this stuff in advance. They have to actually look at the, the thing, decide what the next sort of sequence in the pattern is. And models have been really sort of bad at this over time. Well, this model is now the best at doing that. This one's also the best at scientific knowledge, competitive coding, scientific research, coding. So this one, it seems like they really leveled up with like the sciency stuff. You know, like if you, if you have a lot of like really deep research, science type questions. This one seems to be the best at that kind of stuff. And it also got really good at making SVG images. So that's, that's another thing.

Yeah, we can. I mean that's great for what? Just like just website graphics in general. It's like now you can animate some really cool stuff instead of some static image and it looks pretty dang cool. Yeah, they're like, yeah, more gradient, a little bit more texture, smoother. Sweet. And I like that new button. This is a little off topic, but that creep music Button now we can have more. It's only 30 seconds though. It's not the Suno match, but I could see what they're doing. It's.

Yeah, yeah. I made a song about the Padres and it kept on calling them the. The. The pod.

The Padre. Padre.

Kept saying Padre or something. Yeah.

Like, oh boy. Yeah. Pronunciation not too great, but I see it's fun. It's fun.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, yeah, that's. That's pretty much the Google model. I did some tests on my recent video on my channel where I made it. I had it do an SVG of a wolf playing Baske and it did.

Okay. The numbers were a little. Little crooked. It seemed falling down.

Yeah, yeah, there's. There's a little funkiness going on.

You want to move on next?

One more.

Oh, you got one more.

There was one more. Elon did release Grok 4.2. The interesting thing about this one, they didn't really do any sort of like, big announcement around it. There was no blog post. Elon just tweeted about it saying, hey, it's out there.

That's his blog post, by the way. Just Elon.

That's it, look. Yeah, yeah, here it is. But the big difference between this one is it uses like what they call the Council of Exper. So whenever you ask it a question, it uses four different models that are sort of fine tuned in four different ways. One for like fact checking, one for like research. 1. I don't remember what all four of them are, but there's like basically four models. It asks the question to all four of those models. The four models essentially like debate between themselves about the best answer and then give you back the one best answer that all. That was sort of like a consensus answer that all four of them kind of came up with collaboratively, if that makes sense.

Yeah.

So imagine like if you. This isn't exactly an Apples Apples comparison, but let's say you went to Gemini, you went to Claude, you went to ChatGPT, and you went to Deep Seq and you went to all four of these models and you asked all four of them that identical question, and all four of them gave you an answer that had some similarities but some differences. And then you took all four of those models, put it into one other model and said based on all these answers, give me like a consensus answer that that sort of sums this all up kind of thing. Right. That's kind of what's happening.

That's. I mean, it's a cool, interesting. Yeah, it's. It's Basically agents doing the. I mean, the work for that specific question or query. Is that happening? Like without, I guess, that wrapper, the agent wrapper, like on the other ones.

So, like this mixture of experts concept has existed where you have these big models and it will go ask sort of separate chunks of parameters inside of the model and then come to a consensus. And that's. That's the mixture of experts kind of concept.

Got it.

This is a little bit more like straight up, like in. In your face. Like, hey, we're asking this agent, this agent, this agent and this agent, and then they're all sort of coming together on a consensus at the end.

Yep. And the four agents to wrap it up. I looked it up. There's a research, a retrieval agent, reasoning and solver, critic and adversary agent, and a writer, stylist agent.

Yeah, yeah. So there you go. So there you go. It'll. It'll sort of like optimize on those four things and kind of give you the best of all four of those worlds, theoretically.

The four brain team, they call it.

Yeah.

All right, cool. Model race happening. Won't stop.

Yeah.

For a while.

Who's gonna win? Joe, what's your prediction? Who's the big winner at the end of the race? Who gets the gold medal?

I think. I don't know, man. It. I like anthropic. I like what they're doing, but I know there some things are happening in the Pentagon. I don't think we're gonna even go in there. But like with the government. Yeah, we'll see how that shakes out.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, I. At the end of the day, I don't think there's going to be any one winner. I think. I think we're gonna see Google, Anthropic, ChatGPT or OpenAI and XAI all doing big things. And I think we're also going to see open source really sort of catch up and there'll be a lot of other alternatives. And because there's a ton of alternatives outside of the big foundation labs, that's going to sort of force the big foundation labs to do better and keep their costs down for users because they have alternatives and competition is healthy because it keeps everybody trying harder and not sort of screwing over the consumers. So that's what I hope continues to happen.

Yeah, yeah, I like it. Cool. Should we show off one of the more visual things?

Yeah, let's. Let's get visual with it.

So next topic is, we have something way more visual from Google. They did a drop as of what yesterday of this recording. So Matt, what is this thing? So this basically the way I looked at it when I started tinkering around, I was like, holy crap. Like, okay, basically marketing agencies, this is a quick way to have them at least be disrupted completely. Or you have now a brand new tool that you can quickly iterate and create some cool brand assets, marketing collateral, all that fun stuff that is cool for the visuals. So yeah, so tell me about it.

Essentially what this is. This. So what we're talking about here is called Photo Shoot in Pomelli. And what this is is you can give it like an image of your product. And this is for physical products in the real world. Like the examples they're showing are sunglasses and purses and sodas and things like that. Right. You give it these real products that exist in the real world, images of them, and then it will actually create product photo shoots of them. So there'll be scenes that are like inside of a studio or scenes of somebody actually holding your, like your can of soda or a scene of it like sitting on a counter in a kitchen, things like that. You know, to me it seems like a, a sort of implementation of Nano Banana. Right? Like they have this technology with Nano Banana, I can go to Nano Banana, upload a product shot of my product, upload a picture of, you know, somebody holding a different cereal box and say, put my cereal box in that person's hand and nanobanana will do that for me. But this Pomelli is basically a sort of shortcut to doing that. Right. It's basically them saying, look, we, we've already got a bunch of studio templates and people holding product templates. You throw your product image in. We'll create the image of like people holding them and things like that. So you can sell them on your Shopify store or whatever.

Yep. I, I mean even tinkering around with it, I think it's still just like in this beta tester experimental thing. But I mean you can use it right now and maybe we want to show it off. I have some stuff prepared here.

Yeah, yeah. Let's see what you made. Let's see what you made.

All righty. So this is, there's one screen right before this that I'm not showing, but basically you can plug in your website address. In this case, I plugged in our favorite baseball team. So the theme continues. So I plugged in this mlb.com padres and it took, it claims like 10 minutes. I think it took more like four minutes or something. But basically what it did is it came up with the business DNA of the Padres based on just the URL that I gave it. And you can see down here, it's pulling in the. The. The title, their logo, the font they use or something maybe close to it. I didn't double check all this stuff. We can see it's pulling in the fonts. So it's like a. Basically it's a brand kit. It's a style guide right here. I guess their logo is America's number one ballpark. I know Petco park is.

So that's Petco park maybe.

Exactly.

Maybe not necessarily a team's logo, but

yeah, you can see what it's trying to do. It's pulling in the brand values, the aesthetic, the tone that that's being used in the full overview, which is pretty damn cool. Just right off the rip, like it's just pulling all this info in along with the images that it's pulling from its website, its brand. You can see it has quite a bit. You can upload your own as well. So that's kind of like where you start. And then over here, under campaigns is where you could start building out marketing campaigns. It gives you some suggestions, like, so it created these without me doing anything. And then these two up here, I'll go to next. But basically they're ones I created based off of some things.

So these features, these campaigns, this is the stuff that's been in there. The photo shoot is the new feature. But this is just to clarify, this is like the stuff that they. That. That has been in Palli for a little bit. The photo shoot features the one that, like, they just rolled out this week.

It ain't perfect, but it does pretty damn well. So, yeah, rendered. All it started off was a hat that was in here and basically now you can see. Let's see it made. It made even a video of this dude. I mean, it looks pretty good. It has basically something that you can go out and post has call to actions if you wanted to put it on here. But yeah, this technically started off with just this little hat, which is probably somewhere in this DNA thing, I think. Yeah, there you go. It started off with that hat right there.

Oh, yeah, gotcha.

Technically, I did the photo shoot part without really noticing what I was doing.

So it won't let you create a photo shoot now.

Let's try it. I'm just gonna try. Sure. Looks great. Come on. Yeah. When I did this earlier, I think only one or two rendered. Two failed. Oh, here we go. Here we go.

New person yeah, so that's actually way quicker than they claim.

Yeah. Yeah, that's pretty good. So, I mean, look, it started off with this kind of top view of this hat. Put it on this dude. Put this guy in Petco Park. That's legit.

Yeah. That actually does lit jit look like Petco park in the background.

Yeah. I'm like, we've sat right about there before, and then you got this woman over here that's hanging out with a bunch of Easter eggs. Cool. But, yeah, I mean, and then from this, you have the ability to change up this. I think I can even animate this if I go back to my campaigns. Where'd it go? I'm still learning the platform, y', all, but you can see it works out. Oh, there we go. You can. You can create a campaign from here. That's the thing.

I think that's what I forgot to do when I messed with it yesterday was click the button that said add to your business DNA.

Yeah, well, I click campaign. I didn't add to the DNA that time, but you'd see. See where it plugged it in up here.

Yeah.

So then. Oh, you can even put even a product page. I didn't do that. But let's just. Yeah, it'll start generating stuff for me here.

I don't know.

This is cool. Like, as someone who's worked with a bunch of businesses and it's like. I mean, you could do this the manual way, or you could just start off quick and have like a whole bunch of ideas and stuff.

So what you're saying is, if I wanted to start a super quick drop shipping business where I get cheap junk on AliExpress, set it up on a Shopify store and sell it to people quickly. I can use Pumeli to go and just download the picture from AliExpress, throw it into Pumeli. It'll show people using that product. I could put that on my Shopify site and then I can go over to Manus and say, hey, Manus, create some ads for me that sell my Shopify junk. And I got a business just like that.

What was that video that we showed last week where it showed with the lady, like, spraying down the car?

Oh, yeah, the stupid frog.

There you go. Yeah. Yeah.

So, yeah, so if we want to go sell the stupid frog. The stupid frog.

Yeah, Use that video generator. I forget. Yeah, you got everything done for you. It's done in.

Yeah, that was seed dance 2.0 that we were playing with or we were looking at last week. We still haven't gotten to play with it. But yeah, I mean, honestly, how easy is it today versus like five years ago to create an E commerce business? Like especially a drop shipping business where you just find a product online and you sort of resell it.

Yeah.

Like you use a tool like this to make all your product imagery. You use, you know, Shopify to like actually set up a storefront. You use HubSpot to set up your CRM.

Right.

You got to get the HubSpot shout out in.

There you go.

You go and set up Manus and your Facebook ads to, to go and drive traffic to the ad and boom, you've got a business.

Like overnight, you literally have everything. You can see it's building out. I don't know what clinics built for. So yeah, not totally on point with the messaging, but I'm sure it could all be dialed in with the business DN thing.

Yeah, you just gotta. Yeah, the business DNA is kind of like the custom instructions sort of thing, so it knows how to handle it all.

But I mean, this is rad. And, and to your point. Yeah, you could spin up stuff really fast.

Yeah, dude, there's never been an easier time in history to like spin up a business. And if it doesn't work, well, you didn't put too much time and effort into it. Right. You spin up a business, you test it for a couple weeks, you go, okay, this one's not working. Let's go spin up another business.

Yeah, well, I looked at this. I mean like, I got a lie. I have a client that's, that pays me and this is like a separate deal out of whatever the thing is. Like we create a lot of these type of assets. And the first time I saw this, I was like, this is crazy. Like that just made what we're doing kind of irrelevant. Not completely because there's more to it. But I'm like, shoot. If you're just a company developing assets like this, you better be thinking of how else can you be valuable to that company. And not saying this is going to just replace what you're doing overnight. If you're like a Canva ninja or whatever, social media, you know, whatever you're creating your assets media for. But I'm just saying, like maybe try to elevate a little bit higher up than just the visuals at this point, because it's coming for your lunch.

I've sort of talked about this quite a bit in the past is people need to start to take more of the conductor mindset versus the trumpet player mindset.

Right.

Like, you can't just be the one person in the band that does this one thing. You need to be that. You need to move out a layer and be that conductor who's saying, okay, I'm the guy who now creates the ads. I'm the guy who creates the brand image. I'm the guy who creates the Shopify store. I'm the guy who creates, who sets up our CRM. I'm the guy who goes and does the ads now. Because AI is here and it can make all of that stuff feel effortless. So now you're just this conductor that's saying, go do this, go do this, go do this, go do this. And the business sort of happens around it. But saying all that, I think it is. And Joe, you and I have had many, many talks about this on our, our various coffee dates. There is a short window of time where this is going to be true. Because as this gets more and more democratized and more and more people can access all this stuff and it gets easier and easier and easier. Well, the, the benefits that this brings you becomes more of a commodity like any. Once anybody can do this, everybody will do this, which makes it sort of not as valuable anymore. So, like the window of time to be capitalizing on using these tools and like bringing them to whatever business you work on, the time is right now, but that window is going to close.

Mm. I'm a big believer of figure out how to be a really good human in this era of technology. And know the tools. Exactly. You just said, Matt, like, gotta be aware. You gotta be using them. Like, even if it's just playing with this for 10 minutes, you know, it's like you will know more than most, but at the end of the day it's like, yeah, figure out how you can use your human side and use AI to augment how good you might be or just get better and smarter, faster, stronger, back to that self again. But I feel like that's gonna win out. People are gonna want that connection in some way. So you put a tweet out, Matt, that we're looking at in the screen here. I thought was kind of funny, you know, like, I'm gonna buy a copy of two copies of this Time magazine. I was like, what's man talking about here? And essentially this, this magazine has a big old article, but the COVID is, is the people versus AI. So it's obviously different stories of people. Yeah. Behind the growing backlash of AI and the build out of data centers and what energy, water, all the, all the Consumptions. And, you know, I guess you read your tweet, Matt, and you can elaborate on your own.

So here's the Time article tweet. It says, this is Times new cover. In a deeply divided nation, a new coalition is forming around one belief. AI is moving too fast inside the stories of nine Americans across ideologies and professions, determined to slow down the technology reshaping daily life. My tweet in response to that was, I'm gonna buy a copy for two reasons. One, I genuinely do wanna hear both sides of the argument and understand where they're coming from. That is 100% true. Number two, these will be used as the memes 10 years from now and read like the people who tried to slow down the growth of the Internet. Right? Like, if you look now, when people talk about AI, how often do you see them referencing like, you know, articles from the, the 90s that say, what is this new Internet fad that everybody's talking about?

Right? Well, Internet super highway back then.

Yeah, the Internet super highway. The, the World Wide Web. And we can all see how that all aged. Everybody looks at that now and goes like, like it was inevitable. Like, why were you talking about it that way? And that's sort of how I feel about articles like, this is 10 years from now, people are going to be looking at this like, these were the people that said the Internet was like, we should slow down the advancements of the Internet. Like, that's what it's going to read. Like now when I posted this, I got like mixed comments. I always mute my posts after like a day because it's like after a day, trolls just jump in and it's just pointless. But some of the early comments were like, I saw one comment that said something like, I'm going to pick up this magazine so I can read the arguments of the people that I've already decided I disagree with. Right? Yeah, that's not true. That's not what I said. I didn't say I disagree with these people. I'm not saying, hey, we shouldn't slow this down. All I'm saying is that's not going to happen. Right? Like, I want to understand why people want this slowed down. And I do understand a lot of the reasons they want it slowed down. And for a lot of the reasons they want it slowed down. I actually agree with many of them. I do think that there are big cons with what is happening in the world of AI and, and how fast this is advancing. I do believe that. And I do want to read about it. And I do want to hear those perspectives, and a lot of them I probably actually agree with. But does me agreeing with them or does time writing a, a magazine about this topic, is that going to effectively slow it down? Nope, not even in the slightest. It's, it's just not right. There's multiple reasons here, you know, and probably the biggest one is if we say we need to slow down, A.I. right, let's just say, all right, we, we all in the US Agree, let's slow this down. It's all moving too fast. Do you think China's going to be like, yeah, we're going to slow down also, right? No, it needs to be like a global agreement if we're going to slow down. There's mistrals in France, you've got the bite dances and the alibabas over in China. Right. You've, you've got other countries developing this stuff as well. Russia is trying to develop their own as well. You've got other countries that are trying to push the advancement of this stuff. So if we do say we want to slow it down, you need a global agreement that we're going to slow it down. Not sort of localized country agreement that we need to slow it down. Yeah, right. Like, it's true. When it comes to like, military advancements, do we want the militaries of these other countries to have the upper hand? No. Right. So like, when it comes to, I was talking about that Quinn model, which is an open source model that's almost caught up with the frontier models, do we really think the open source models that are coming out of China are going to slow down? Do we think that the people in the US aren't going to be able to get their hands on the open source models and further develop them under the radar outside of these foundational labs? It's just not, it's not a feasible thing. In my, in my mind, it's not. I mean, I could probably hear arguments that might change my mind, but I have a really, really, really hard time seeing it as a feasible possibility. That doesn't mean that I disagree with the people who are saying it should slow down. They're two different things.

It's true. And I'm thinking of two different things. But like, Elon, I think, I know he had a point where like, for a while he was saying the same thing, you know, and he was kind of sitting on the sidelines more or less, but then he just realized, you know, this, this train's moving so fast and, you know, like he has his own way of how he wants to do things with AI and in the future he's like, I just gotta jump into the race because you know, like it's not slowing down and it doesn't seem like anybody else at the, at the helm is able to do that either. So he's in it, you know, so that's, that was his decision. But then you know, there was this, this documentary mini. It was only like 10 minutes long on YouTube and came out like two years ago. But I just watched it randomly like yesterday. Matt, you said you've seen it before and I'm just going to pull it up on my site. It's called two scale time and basically just shows the evolution of humans over the scale of 13.8 billion years. And what I was just looking at and then you know, as this timelines this thing out and I don't know Matt, if you want to show these visuals because it's pretty damn epic of just like the visuals themselves of the scale of human history. But it shows it was trying to make a point of like how there's so much advancement that's happened recently. It's almost like like I'm sure people resisted technology growth over millennia over 13 billion years, but now we're starting to see so much more change in such a rapid period of time. It's almost like we're probably not even used to even fathoming what is happening anymore because you can just see that timeline right there. Yeah, it's like. And they, they basically went to the Mojave Desert and like scaled out over I don't know how long.

I think it was miles.

It had to have been miles. And it's really cool because it is like drone shot from the beginning of time. Basically, basically fire you can see and over the span of this whole period to where it shows now the present. But this was looking backwards, not forwards. And I thought it would be also kind of cool for you and I Matt, since we've thrown out predictions all the time, really what the heck is going to happen ahead of time? You know, like on the other, the left hand side of this scale here, obviously they're just predictions, but I did. I don't know. What are your thoughts, I guess initially Matt, on all this?

I think this meme accurately describes how I feel. It says Time magazine, the people versus the wheel. Grunts from the silent majority dragging rocks and rolling is a dragon.

There you go. So there you go. The evolution of time. It's like really, are you, are we gonna Fight this. I guess we. Maybe someone did. I'm sure someone fought electricity as well. Like, I'm sure there's a lot of stories on that.

Yeah. I mean, again, my, my thoughts on this whole thing are I actually do see both the pros and cons, and I've. I've been very vocal on both my YouTube channel and on this podcast and on my X account about, like, there is pros and there are cons, there are positives, there are negatives. There's a lot that I love that AI could potentially do. There's a lot that I hate that people are using AI for. I agree with a lot of things on both sides and on X. And a lot of these places, nuance is very hard for people. They think you need to be polarized. They think you need to be on one side or the other. Like, if you use X as like your sort of barometer for how people feel about AI, you would think that you're either on the side of I absolutely love AI, we need to advance it and nothing's going to stop us, or I absolutely hate AI, we should shut it down, bomb the data centers, all that kind of stuff, right? That would be what the feeling you get on X would be. You're either on one side or the other. But the reality is the majority of the human race, the majority of the people I talk to on a daily basis are more in the middle. When I go and have dinner at my neighbor's house, right, One of my neighbors is a teacher, one of them is a graphic designer, one of them's a painter, One of them works as a, like he, he works. I actually don't know where he works, but he's like some sort of engineer, right? And all of these guys, whenever we, we all hang out together, AI comes up quite often because they know what I do for a living. So they all kind of want to bring it up and talk to me about it. And they all sort of live in the middle. Most people live in the middle. Most people are like, I really, really hate the fact that when I get on Facebook, I can't tell if what I'm looking at is real or fake anymore. But I really, really like that. I don't have to like read like my boss's 2000 word email anymore. I could just have AI summarize it for me, right? Like, most people fall like in this center. And the people that are doing this whole like Time magazine people, they're on one side of that spectrum. They're the ones that are saying, I'm on this side of the polarization. I'm one of those people that thinks we need to shut it down. And I have a really, really, really hard time getting my head into the headspace of the people that are on either side of that polarization. Like, I can't get inside the head of the person that says, accelerate at all costs. I don't care what it means for humanity. But I also can't get into the headspace of the people that say, I hate AI. We need to stop it. We need to slow it down. We need to. We need to end this. This has gone too far. And I. And my opinion is that most people are probably in the middle. My guess is that most people are somewhere in the middle of, like, ChatGPT is kind of cool. It helps me a lot. But I hate all the AI slot videos I'm seeing lately. Yeah, sorry about the rant. I have a lot of rants.

I like the rant sparked. It worked. Takes a great. I think right now it's just a big education phase. And I agree most people are probably in the middle, especially the more they learn about what's actually happening.

There is another sort of thing I want to talk about that's in the same vein, and that's the whole idea of, like, creativity and, like, can AI be creative? Can AI like, there's obviously a lot of, like, freakouts going on in Hollywood right now. We even briefly touched on it this weekend, last week about the whole seed dance thing where Hollywood is kind of panicking right now because it can create Disney ip, it can create actors that look exactly like Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt and put them in a movie, and that scares people. Right. There's that whole discussion, which I think is like a really sort of fascinating rabbit hole as well. And there's a clip from. Are you familiar with Fei Fei Li? They call her like the. The godmother of AI. And she has like a really good clip. She went on TVPN and it's a three minute clip, but I think she has like a really good take on creativity. But then also, Matthew McConaughey has been in the news recently around his take on this, and Ice T has been in the news, the rapper about his take on this. And so I want to share some of those takes as well, because I think that's kind of like an interesting discussion. But I want to start with Fei Fei Li because. So Fei Fei Li, she invented this thing called the imagenet, and it's like this giant database of images that were labeled, of what the images were. And then those labeled images became what now are like image generators, right? Like it became a lot of the training data that now a lot of these image generation things came out of. And she now has a company called World Labs where she's creating basically spatial intelligence. She's, she's teaching AIs to understand the physical world and how you know, depth works and height works and gravity and motion and like actual physic like putting AI into the physical world. And it's really, really, really, really fascinating person. I read her autobiography, it was awesome. But I want to share what she has to say about creativity because I think she's got a really good take on it.

One thing I consider myself a scientist in my heart and I actually really don't like hyping. I think, you know, that's just, you probably have seen me not on the hype train in most of these discourse, right? So as a scientist I think world model is underappreciated because it's so new. And in terms of overheated, I do think that Silicon Valley as a whole tend to mistaken clear vision with short distance sometimes. For example, 2006 Stanford self driving car drove the first 140 miles in the Nevada desert for mankind self driving car. It took 20 years for Waymo to be fairly on the road as a L4. And there's still, it's still so limited and this is a massive amount of effort and it's also riding on the coattail of a very mature industry, especially hardware and distribution and use cases and all that. So this is an example to show you there are clear visions, for example, you know, robots that can do all kind of house chores. And as a mom I'll tell you that that would be amazing. You know, start with cleaning my bathroom. But that clear vision is important. But the journey is going to be long. We have issues with hardware, we still need to figure out data. The world model brain of the robots also need to improve and all that. So that's just an examp and also creativity, right? Creativity industry, which we are also engaging in. One thing, I don't call it a hype, I call it a misleading sentiment which actually really bothers me is that we don't want to replace human creators. Human creativity is precious. It tells the story of our species, of our culture, of our society, of our community, of each one of us. What we want to do is to superpower and augment creators capabilities. And sometimes the communication of technology is a little skewed towards, oh, the model can do all the work in creativity. And I personally really want to highlight human creativity as something that's so fundamental to who we are. And AI is here to help and

augment and then they go to an ad after that because that's VPN does. But I really, really like her take on creativity. First of all, I think it's fascinating to think about the autonomous vehicles, right? The first self driving car, 2006, we're just now getting Waymos in 2026. So like one of the points that she was obviously making is like a lot of people think that this is moving a lot faster than it, it actually is. But also exponential growth curves, right. I do think a lot of the large language model stuff is moving faster than what the pace of, you know, 2006 to 2026 was with self driving cars. I think, you know, robotics and the house cleaning robots and stuff will take not 20 years to get to from now. Right. We're probably only more of a few years off due to exponential growth curves. But the whole creativity aspect is something that, like, I feel like I've been trying to say for a long, long time, but everybody wants to argue on the creativity aspect and that's that like, humans should be the creative force, but AI gives human superpowers to make it so that whatever their creative vision is, they can actually achieve that. Not everybody is going to be able to have like these crazy CGI skills or the ability to draw anything they want or the ability to create music and, you know, but now you can have a creative vision and not having the knowledge or skills that used to be gained over 20 years, you can now sort of put your creative vision into the world because these tools exist. And I think that is the way to be looking at AI when it comes to creativity is that it's not taking away human creativity, it's taking away the hard part of getting that creative vision out of your head into the real world.

Mm. And I see it as. Because I just heard another example the other day of, of someone who is using AI for one of the first times to create like a business. It was in the brewing space and I was talking to our buddy Richie about this and, and basically he was saying how like this guy was like, man, I have the best bulletproof business model and all this stuff I can build it all at. And, and basically it was the AI telling him how smart he was and not pushing back on him with any critiques and all that until our buddy basically said, okay, I want you to ask. I don't know what he was using. Let's just say Claude or. Yeah. And say, like, okay, so point out all of the potential flaws in this business model and like, how do you poke all the holes in this whole thing? And then he's like, oh, God, yeah. And basically it's the AI talking back, saying, like, yeah, this model would never work. Here's why. Bubble bond. It basically, like, essentially brought the guy to tears. I wasn't in the room, but this is what I kind of had, the essence of it and what my takeaway was there, which I think a lot of folks will kind of lean on AI for maybe creativity and all that is, like, just to have it do the thinking and do all of that stuff without coming to the table and using it more as a thinking partner. And like you said, maybe run a whole bunch of ideas that we as humans are coming. The unique perspectives, the, you know, the flavors that we want to bring into whatever our work is. And, you know, maybe. Maybe we pull all that context out of ourselves somehow. I can help with that. And then it has a better picture of how we're thinking creatively, and then it can expand and help us get that out of our head, out of our mouth, whatever it is, and then iterate from there.

Yeah, well, I mean, like, how much of the AI videos that we're seeing circulate are just like, kind of sloppy memes that don't really have great story, that don't really have great, like. Like, they're very throwaway feeling content. They're like one child that just because you have access to the ability to make videos and because you have access to the ability to make music and to write articles that, like, are we seeing an abundance of amazing stuff put out into the world as a result? No, because you still need that, like a good human, creative person to go and orchestrate that stuff for you. And I think that's the part that a lot of people are missing, is that, like, you still have to have taste, you still have to have creativity, you still have to have ideas. And it turns out we could give people all the tools in the world to create whatever they want, and people just don't know what to make with them still. Right. Anybody can go and create any app they can imagine right now you can get into Claude code, tell it an idea for an app, and it will go and make that app. And maybe you go back and forth with it a little bit, but 10 hours from now, you can have a working app. That does what you want. Why isn't everybody a millionaire selling SaaS products yet? Why not? Because nobody has good ideas. You still need to have the taste. You still need to have the ideas. You still need to have, like, the sort of implementation mindset of like, okay, this isn't working. Let's do this. You need to have a feel for user interface and user experience. Experience and test your own apps. And turns out most people, even when you give them all the tools in the world to make anything they can possibly ever imagine, they're still too lazy to do it.

There's a reason why the word of the year last year was slop.

Yeah. So, yeah, absolutely good raids.

All right. What are those other videos? Let's keep moving. Yeah, yeah, this is good.

Yeah. So I got. Here's another thing. This is from Ice Tea the rapper. And along the same lines, right? So somebody wrote on X, I wish more older rappers realized that AI shouldn't touch the music industry in any way that impacts the creative work, including music videos. Right. And then Ice T basically says, I disagree. Fans want us to make and produce the music, then shoot an expensive video. Then they get it for free if they have an Apple subscription or Spotify. I would argue if you have an Apple subscription or Spotify, you're not getting it for free. But whatever. That's beside the point. The days of the expensive videos are over. There isn't even mtv. AI is the only sensible way to add visuals to a song. You can hate it all you want, but it's the future. Right. This is somebody that has money, has resources, has means to go and make music videos if he wanted to. And he's still saying, yeah, but AI just makes it so much easier and cheaper. So we're all going to go that route.

Yep. I think this is cool to see the perspective from creators and people like, like McConaughey in Hollywood as well.

Yeah. So Matthew McConaughey. So there's a video that's going viral that is from Variety where somebody. I don't think the actual question is asked in this video, but basically he's. He's telling people, like, get on board because it's here whether you like it or not. So here's, here's. Here's his take on it.

Don't deny it. It's not enough. It may be for you, but it's not going to be enough to sit on the sidelines and make the moral plea. The moral plea that, no, this is wrong. It's not going to last. There's too much money to be made. And there's.

It's just. It's too productive.

It's.

It's here. All right, So I say get, Get. Get your own. Your own yourself voice, likeness, etc, trademark it. Whatever you got to do.

So you did that.

Yeah. Get. Own yourself. So when. And if. When it comes. Not if it comes, no one can steal you, but they're gonna have to come to you to go, can I. Or they're going to be in breach and you'll have the chance to be your own agency and go. Yeah. For this amount or no. Okay, it's coming. Is it going to be another category or is it going to infiltrate our category? It's damn sure going to infiltrate. Infiltrate our category. I think it'll end up. Does it become another category? Will we be in five years having films. The best AI Film. The best AI Actor. Maybe. I think it might be. That might be the thing is that becomes another category. I'm not sure it's gonna be in front of us in ways that we don't even see it. It's going to get so good, we're not going to know the difference. That's one of the big questions. What we're doing right now is the question of reality. That's. It's more hazy than ever in a very exciting way, I think, but also a scary way.

So nuance take. Right? Exciting and scary. Not a lot of people have that nuance.

I just wish everything was voiced in his voiceover. I mean, he's. Nice cadence and he really hammers in on that. Whatever.

Well, his voice is trademarked now, so you can probably. For the right price, you can use it.

Well, see, that's the. That's my. That was my biggest takeaway is like, he made. Because I saw. Yeah. He did this whole trademark of his ip, basically genius. Like, and. And this goes back to. Was it Fei. Fei Lee and how she was talking about creators. It's like, well, this might actually be the time if we're thinking it correctly through. It's like, okay, well, own your ip, you know, have. Have put your stake in, like, basically protect yourself so you can become your own agency person as a creator. And that doesn't just mean, like, YouTuber, but it could just be an actor, an artist, anything out there.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, here's the. Like, one of the things that he was talking about is like, you're. You're trying to stand on, like, this moral high ground of, like, this is wrong. You're trying to replace Us. It's all of this, like, moral thing, but at the end of the day, and there was a really good Colin and Samir YouTube podcast episode where they talked about this AI stuff. And I actually went and left this comment on, on, on their video because I felt so strongly after watching the video, is that you could stand on your moral high ground right now. But the reality is one, you might say, like, hey, I'm never gonna watch AI videos. I don't want to see what an AI video looks like. If an a. If a movie was fully made with AI and it comes to theaters, I'm not gonna go watch it. I don't want to see it. Okay, that's cool. You do that. Here's the thing. Give it a few years. Nobody's gonna be able to tell us AI Right? And who knows if the studios are even going to tell you it was generated with AI at that point either, right? So we're going to get to a point where you have no idea that this was made with AI you might be watching the next episode of South Park. They did the whole thing with AI and they just didn't even tell anybody they used AI but the whole thing was just generated for them and you're watching it without even knowing it. That's going to be a future reality. Whether you like it or not, that is going to happen. These studios are going to figure out how to cut costs, how to crank out movies faster, how to crank out TV shows faster. How do I not, how do I pay actors less? How do I pay voice actors less? How do I pay animators less? How do I pay CGI artists less? All of these studios want to figure out how to cut costs. They're going to do it. It's going to happen. It's inevitable, guaranteed. That's point number one. Point number two right now. Maybe our generation is romantic about the idea that we have movie stars. We have our Tom Cruise's and our Brad Pitts and our Angelina Jolie's and the people we grew up watching on the big screen. And these are the stars in our eyes that, these are the famous people that we want to go see in movies right now. And we're, we're romantic about an era where that was the reality. Yeah, my kids, your kids, Joe, they will not give a shit. They do not care. They are growing up in a world where AI Slop is going to be everywhere. By the time they're on social media and on the Internet and watching tv. It's going to be just, just Everywhere. Like, they won't be able to get away with it. They're growing up in a world that's native to AI. It will just always be there. They're not going to have that same sort of romantic sentiment about, like, oh, I need to go see Matt Damon in the new movie, because it's freaking Matt Damon. They don't care and they won't care. That is not the future of the younger generations. So our generation may not want to go to a movie and see AI slop, but. But the next generation following us up won't give a damn.

Yeah, it makes me. You brought up south park, and we know how, like, with what seed dance, how fast it is to make something. And this reminds me of the documentary Six Days to Air. It's. Yeah, remember? I know. You know? Yeah. It's the whole idea of, hey, you got six days from an idea to the final cut that's actually pushed out to Comedy Central. It's like, dude, that's ain't six days anymore. That's. I mean, I'm not saying South Park's doing this at all or ever will, but what you're saying it's possible.

Well, they did have an episode they wrote with Chat GPT, and the episode was about chatgpt. So it has happened at least once,

but usually in the whole nine, though, you know, so.

Yeah, yeah. But I, like, I just think that the. That people are stuck in the way it is, in the way it used to be, instead of looking at where it's going to go. And that's why I think Ice T and Matthew McConaughey and some of these people are looking at this and going, look, it's going there whether you like it or not. So we have two options. We can stick our head into the sand and say, look, I am not getting on board with AI. I am not going to let companies use my face, my likeness, whatever. I am going to boycott it. I am going to write an article for Time magazine and tell people how much I hate AI. Right. You can go and do that thing, but it's still gonna steamroll over you, and the world's not gonna care.

It's gonna keep spinning and it's going faster.

So why not set yourself up for a world where you are placing yourself in a good position for when it is here? That's what he's doing. He's saying, look, I am trademarking myself. I am trademarking my voice. I am trademarking some of my sayings. Like, I'm probably not allowed to say, all right, all right, all right. So I won't say the third. All right, because that'll probably get trade. That's probably trademarks now, right?

Oh, man, that was so fun to say.

But he did that in a way where even, like, even after he's gone, his estate can still make money off of his face, his likeness, his voice, his sayings, right? Like, he can go on vacation and have a movie shot that he's starring in while he's sipping pina coladas on the beach, right? Like, why not choose that path instead of the path of, I'm going to resist this as much as possible, but then be irrelevant in a few years.

I want to keep going on this, but I'm privy at the time. I want to keep going. Like, because you brought up the whole younger generation of not caring about potential like actors. Like, yeah, my kids. Your kids. Like, so I guess what is the future of, you know, a person sharing content, value something to the world? Like, do they not care about that at all? So it's like, you know, so our creators actually more in jeopardy than anything because they're kind of like actors, if you think about it. Like, someone trusts them, right? And they want to hear from them.

I still lean on what I said last week. I think it comes down to taste and opinions and things that are uniquely human, right? Like, if an AI is giving an opinion, that opinion is basically a general consensus, right. That it's based on all of the training data that is collected from all around the Internet. So it's sort of like leaning on the mean. It's leaning on the average of what most people would say about that thing that you asked it, but it's like an. An average opinion of the corpus of data that it was trained on, right? It's not like a real human opinion. I think that's going to continue to be valuable to people. I think taste is going to continue to be valuable to people, right? Like this. If. If Steven Spielberg went and had access to AI tools and prompted all the scenes to put together an amazing movie, it would come out a hell of a lot better than if I went and I prompted all of the scenes to make a movie. Because he knows what goes into good storytelling, he knows what goes into good visuals. He knows, like, he has all of that experience where if he now sort of leaned into the tools that are available to him and use those tools to put his process around it, but with these tools that can make it faster, he's going to do a hell of a Lot better job at making a movie than I will having access to the exact same tools.

There you go. Taste us being human are going to bring out the best of this stuff with the tools.

Absolutely. All right. All right, we can circle back around to this topic because I have a feeling it'll be an ongoing topic often. So we can. We can. We can circle back around. I think we wrap this one up pretty quickly here. But before we do, we show off some cool robot ninjas.

That's really. That's really how we should wrap up everything, right?

I think every episode you just wrap up with robot ninjas, I think so.

Throw them on screen, man. Without further ado. This is crazy. Yeah. So, okay, so Chinese robots, I forget the spring festival gala, I guess it happened this week, so it looks like it's. Yeah, there's humans dancing and also doing crazy, like, martial arts moves. I mean, I got a little freaked out when part of this, I think it had swords. I was like, oh, yeah. In my guess, and I think I read this correctly, they're all pre programmed. I mean, they're obviously synchronized extremely well. So, like, if we're thinking Optimus, you know, with Elon Musk and his robots that are obviously different from this, his are not like this.

Not yet.

Not yet. I mean, I'm sure it's probably possible. I mean, this is wild, though, these kids.

Yeah, Well, I mean, you look at this stuff, all right, they're bringing out like BO staffs now or something.

I'm talking about. I'm like, this is freaky right here.

Later on, they have nunchucks, too. But you know what I think about when I look at this is. Right, I think this is like the future of military, right? Like, why. Why are. Why would we go and send, like, humans into battle when we can just go and send robots in and they can hold on to the. The weapons and, you know, go and do the business. Right.

I already heard they're doing that in Ukraine. Like, they're doing. They're sending robots that are kind of similar into buildings to like, you know, search them, but also be on the front lines to do reconnaissance, where that's probably the most dangerous part of things, you know?

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And so, like, I look at this and, you know, a lot of people. So we see a lot of stuff in China about robots lately. And I was at CES earlier this year, and robots like this were just freaking everywhere. They were everywhere. And what sort of. What I learned during ces, seeing the robots everywhere, is that when it Comes to, like, mechanical engineering, making robots that can do anything. There's not a bottleneck there. Look, they're doing. They have robots that can do backflips, that can swing swords around, that can use nunchucks, that can jump seven feet into the air, jumping backwards over, like, the cape. Like, we're there with robots. There's no issue with getting robots to do any sort of movement that a human can do. The problem is still on the software side.

Right.

The problem is still the robots don't necessarily understand the environment around them. They don't know, like, we don't have robots that can really go and do our dishes for us. Because, like, when a human goes and does their own dishes, they have different strengths with which they might grab different things. A heavy plate, you grab it and lift it at a different sort of rate than you would go and grab a little plastic cup. You might give it a lighter touch. Or if something was glass, you won't squeeze it as hard because you don't want to squeeze it and shatter that glass under your hand. Right. Robots, on the other hand, they're just as capable of a hand going like this and closing around a glass. They're just as capable of going and picking up a plate and lifting that weight. But it's the difference between all of those little potential nuances and everything that might be in your sink that needs to go to the dishwasher, that it can't sort of switch between all of the nuanced items yet. That's a software issue, not a hardware issue.

You.

Right.

So, yep.

What I've sort of come to learn about robots is that from a engineering, mechanical standpoint, we can make robots that do literally, like, anything now.

Yeah.

From a software perspective, they don't have an understanding of the real world yet. That's also what Fei. Fei Li is working on when she's trying to build these world models, is trying to help these models understand physical intelligence, physical world around them, understanding depth, understanding how much to. To grab this thing. If it's moving eggs from an egg carton, you don't want to just go and pick up, like, the whole thing and squish all the eggs inside. Right. The robots don't have that level intelligence yet to. To understand the nuance of every possible thing that it could potentially interact with.

So I'm curious on the. Because I totally agree. That's my takeaway here is, like, when I first saw this, I was like, dang. Like, the movements, I mean, they're just. It's clean you know, but on the intelligence side, it seems like that's where like, Elon Musk with everything he's doing and, you know, he just. What? They stopped producing the Tesla X and the S to produce Optimus robots in the Fremont factory and maybe elsewhere too. But, like, it seems like he's going more for the intelligence side of things, of these robots. Not sure exactly the mechanics and how, if he has. If they have the possibility to do all this yet. Maybe. But it's interesting exactly what you're saying. They have like China with the mechanical side, obviously, dial that in. In production, they. We all know they can crank stuff out, but when it comes to the intelligence side, that's the gap right now. It seems like Elon's kind of coming from that angle. I mean, I'm sure he's getting it coming from the production side too. He's got that covered pretty well.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, so right now, if you look at where China has advantages, China has advantages on the mechanical side. They've got, like, they are. They have a culture of industrial manufacturing, right? The huge culture over there of like. Like, why do you think the US so much stuff around your house says made in China? It's because the. China has all of the manufacturing infrastructure to manufacture tons and tons and tons of stuff. What China doesn't have is all of the compute. We have Nvidia over here. We have amd, we have intel, we have Qualcomm, we have, you know, you name it. All of the companies that are developing and engineering the chips, they're actually not making the chips. Almost all the chips are made in Taiwan, but they're actually sort of engineering and architecting the chips that are then made at the manufacturing facilities in Taiwan. And so we have, like, an abundance of compute here in the us, so we can make things smarter and smarter and smarter. You know, things like large language models and image models and agents and all that kind of stuff. They have a large manufacturing base, so they can actually make machines over there a lot better and faster and more efficiently than we can make machines. But they don't have the same level of compute and intelligence to put in those machines. The irony is, if the US and China just decided to work together, we would probably have the smartest robots in the world, like, already, because they would be using the US's ability to create this insane good compute with China's ability to manufacture these robots really, really quickly and a lot less expensively in the us, right? When. When someone like Elon. Elon's probably Not a good example, because he's probably manufacturing a lot of it here. But when companies in the US Are trying to manufacture their own humanoid robots, most of the parts to make those robots are made in China, and they have to import them into the US So when. When somebody wants to make a humanoid robot themselves here in the US they need to go and figure out what parts they need. They need to order them from China. There's, you know, multiple weeks of getting over here, going through customs, getting those products here, getting them here, manufacturing them, assembling them all in house. Right. In China, they don't have those same bottlenecks to actually manufacture these robots. They just. They have the facilities. They can just make the robots really quick. So what does that do for China? That means that they can fail a lot faster. They can make a robot go, oh, that one didn't work. That one doesn't do backflips. Let's try again.

All right.

They spin one up, two weeks later, this one can do backflips. Cool, right? They can iterate a lot faster because they have the manufacturing culture and infrastructure to manufacture robots at a highly rapid rate. Where in the US Every time you fail, you have to go through that whole process of getting parts from across the world back to the US to make your next iteration. That's sort of the difference between the US And China and why China is so far advanced in robot, in robotics, and the US Is so far advanced in, you know, the. The actual, like, chips and intelligence. But China is begging to get the smarter and smarter chips in. The US Wants the robotics. Right? And it's like, that's why there's that sort of, like, massive difference in capabilities between the two countries right now.

You know, what's interesting is I just looked up and Elon Musk's Optimus, the humanoid robot currently relies significantly on China for its key parts and materials. They're just so.

There you go.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So that's still the bottleneck. I mean, maybe not for a long time, but still bottleneck. And even Musk said, like, you know, he's affected by some of the things that happen in China and, you know, stuff in between the. The countries.

Yeah, I mean, he'd be able to iterate on his Tesla robots a lot faster if he had a facility in China just cranking them out for him. But he's getting the parts over here. They have to build and engineer them over here. And then if it doesn't work, well, then they're going back and forth to get all the things. And it's, it's just, it's sort of a difference in, I guess the sort of like, I don't know the right word, but like the business processes of the two countries, like China just put a huge, huge, huge emphasis on manufacturing and the US Has a lot less of an emphasis on manufacturing. Meaning when you do manufacture something in the US It's a hell of a lot more expensive than when you manufacture it in China.

Yeah. And it still says even the future, like Elon's probably going to keep reliance with China on the parts and all that stuff. So.

Pretty wild.

Yeah. We'll see where it shapes up. We always get to end with some robots.

Robot got to end with some robots. Especially ninja robots. I call those ninja robots.

Scary, man.

Scary. Well, cool. This was definitely a long episode, but we covered a lot of ground and got a couple good rants in there. And if you like this kind of stuff and you want to stay looped in and hear me and Joe rant on what happened last week in the world of AI, well, make sure you like this episode. Subscribe to this channel. We'll make sure more of this kind of stuff shows up for you. Thanks again for tuning in. Really appreciate you and hopefully you will catch you in the next one.