Why Logan Kilpatrick Left OpenAI for Google

It's crazy to think that a million active users as a small startup. The other sort of scary thought is the thought that maybe AI one day will be able to break encryptions.

We've got artificial super intelligence right now. There's 7 billion agents on earth that are focused on this problem. And, like, nobody has cracked those encryptions yet. I think it's much more likely that there's like some physical hardware innovation that allows supercomputers to really take off and break some of those things.

Hey, welcome to the Next Wave podcast. My name is Matt Wolf. I'm here with my co host Nathan Lands, and we are your Chief AI officer. Our goal with this podcast is to keep you looped in on the latest news and everything you need to know in the AI world. And today we have an amazing guest for you. Today we're talking to Logan Kilpatrick. Now, Logan used to be the head of developer relations over at OpenAI. Now he's the lead of product over at Google's AI studio. We actually recorded this episode a few weeks ago and happened to catch him in this in between phase where he's not at OpenAI, he's not at Google yet. And we got some really, really cool insights from him. Now what he says on this isn't the opinions of Google or OpenAI, because he's not with those companies at the time of recording, but by the time you hear this, he's now working for Google in this new role.

Being a know it all used to be considered a bad thing, but. But in business it's everything. Because right now most businesses only use 20% of their data. Unless you have HubSpot, where data that's buried in emails, call logs and meeting notes become insights that help you grow your business. Because when you know more, you grow more. Visit HubSpot.com to learn more.

And I think a lot of people, they only know, like Sam Altman, they don't know that Logan on Twitter has been like the main voice of like, he's been talking to all the AI influencers, all the engineers, like anytime any big thing would come out, like he was the human like voice that you would hear on social media from OpenAI. And now he's left right after OpenAI seems to be doing great, but there's been a lot of drama. He's left to join Google. So it, it does seem like a huge win for them because if he can start making their products more, you know, if he can be like a human like voice for Google and explain to people like how you can use it. I think it's such a big win for them.

Yeah, there's a lot of interesting things happening right now both at Google and OpenAI. In fact, Google is about to do their annual Google I O event and last year that's where they made a whole bunch of huge AI announcements. We're expecting really big AI announcements again this year. I'm gonna be there with Logan, so I will probably be doing a little bit of reporting from this Google I O event and keeping you looped in. We'll likely even do a follow up episode about what happened@googleio and all of those announcements. There's also some rumors flying around right now that OpenAI is about to launch a AI powered search engine to go head to head with. Go. We don't really totally know all the details about that, but it's unfolding right now. It's supposed to be happening the week that this episode is dropping. So if there's any big news around that we will be telling you all about that in an upcoming episode as well. But today, in this episode, we had a really fascinating conversation with Logan. He had some really good insights about OpenAI, the culture at OpenAI, why he decided to leave, why he picked to go to Google. And of course he has some amazing insights for you if you have a business or you want to use this stuff in your personal life. He has some great tips there as far as how you can actually integrate what he teaches and what we're talking about on today's episode. It's an amazing episode. You're really going to enjoy it. So let's go ahead and jump on in with Logan Kilpatrick. Thanks so much for joining us on the show today.

Yeah, likewise. I'm super, I'm super excited to be here.

So I'm curious how when it comes to OpenAI, I promise the whole conversation won't be about OpenAI. But I'm curious, you know, as head of Developer relations in the early days, you were probably working with, you know, Jasper, Copy AI, those kinds of companies.

Yeah. And a whole like, I think the most interesting thing to me about being in OpenAI was just the breadth of the work in the early days because of how quickly everything was moving and because of how everything was always on fire all the time, you could really just jump in and if you were someone who loved fighting fires, which I loved, you could jump in and get your hands dirty like pretty much anywhere in the company. And, and that was something that I appreciated so much and I Think, like, the natural tendency as a company grows, as things become more formalized, every additional hundred people who join the company, there's just like less and less of an opportunity to do that. And, yeah, it was interesting to see. Like, when I joined OpenAI, it really, really felt like a small startup. And I think when I left OpenAI, it didn't feel like a small startup anymore by. By any means.

Yeah, no, it's crazy to think that, you know, a million active users as a small startup. But, yeah, I mean, that was kind of the vibe in the early days. It seems like that's really cool.

I also think at the time, ChatGPT was just like a demo. Like, I don't really think, like, people had. Were, like, just starting to, like, at that time, the million. I don't think that was like, daus, if I remember correctly. It was just like a million people had tried ChatGPT or something like that. So I'm guessing, like, the attrition rate was super, super high and most people weren't actually converted, like weekly users or something like that.

Yeah.

So.

So basically the growth of ChatGPT when it first came out wasn't really expected. Right. OpenAI didn't anticipate that it would have that, you know, quick of an onboarding of so many people.

So at the time, the reason that ChatGPT was created, and there's a really great podcast interview with my former manager, Fraser, who led product for both ChatGPT and the API, and he talked about how. And again, this was before I joined OpenAI, but the GPT4 actually finished training summer of 2022, so the team knew what was coming. And really the early explorations that Fraser and the team were doing and a bunch of other folks was thinking about what is the right form for this technology to actually be useful to end users. So this whole narrative that the team just threw together something random and then published it and then it all went perfectly well is actually not true. And folks should go and listen to Fraser talk about this. But it was a very intentional process of having a whole team of people who are, like, constantly iterating for multiple, like, on the order of multiple months to, like, ultimately come to the form factor that that was what ChatGPT was, which ended up being what we released to the world. So there's more nuance to the story, but I think people like to hear the story of, like, oh, it was just totally random and we did this together.

Yeah. I was gonna ask you, like, where did that narrative come from? That's what I'd heard as well. It's like, oh, they just threw it out there and like, oh, it blew up and they didn't expect it was gonna happen. I was like, that doesn't sound right to me. But you know, I don't think they.

They people have the perspective on how quickly it would grow. But, but really the intent was to see whether or not this is something that would resonate with consumers. Like it was intended as a product release in a certain sense and like, intended to see whether or not this like, basic chat interface would be something that's useful to people that we could ultimately use when GPT4 came out to sort of be the thing to, you know, be the catalyst for people using that product. I, I think that's like, I don't know whether someone at OpenAI started perpetuating that narrative or whether it's just like a media narrative that, that took off. I'm not sure.

I don't know if it was like 10 years ago or so, but there was like, in Silicon Valley a whole wave of like chat bots that were released, which obviously were way more primitive than what's out now, but everyone's all, was all convinced, oh, this is going to be the next thing is these chat bots. And it never worked. And so when ChatGPT came out, I think there was a big question, like, will people actually use this? You know, because people in Silicon Valley thought they had already seen that before. And then ChatGPT came out and like, people were just blown away. And I was as well.

Yeah, same here. I was, I was an early Jasper customer. So I had sort of experimented with and seen the power of this technology early from, from using Jasper. And honestly like GPT4 is really what started to make it much more useful. Like, I, I still think the highest leverage, like largest marginal value you can get from ChatGPT is if you're an engineer and you use it for coding. Like most of the other things are like, useful and nice, but it's like from a raw economic output perspective, coding is the, is the most useful thing to use this technology for today.

Yeah, I, I, I told, I told Matt previously when I finally like started using it in code, I'm like, oh my God, this is such a game changer that it's like, helped me like, it helped me like change some code from like JavaScript to C and some other things I was playing around with. I was like, this is nuts that it can just do that.

It's crazy to me how that there's still engineers out there who haven't made that jump and, like, haven't had that aha moment. I'm like, that literally makes no sense. Like, even for. And, you know, not. I'm sure there's folks at all companies, so this is not like a representative data point. But, like, even folks I worked with at OpenAI, some of them, like, weren't using AI every day as a software engineer, and it was always crazy to, to see that, especially being so close to the technology.

Yeah, well, I mean, the two top, like, coding, you know, influencers like Jonathan Blow and Primagen, they're both like, saying that, like, AI is like. I'm not sure if they're calling it a fad, but they're like, oh, it produces shit code and, like, all this kind of stuff. And it's like, well, you know, it's.

Better at coding than I am.

Yeah, exact. Exactly. It's better than coding than most people are. It would bring the average level of code up. You know, not everyone's like the most senior developer who's been doing it for like 30 years. And obviously this stuff's going to just keep getting better and better.

So I'm curious, one last OpenAI question, and you don't have to answer it if you don't want, but was there any sort of catalyst that led you to leave OpenAI? I mean, from the outward perspective on Twitter, it looked like everything was cool, amicable, you just kind of wanted to move on to something else. But I'm curious if there was any story there.

I think broadly, like, my broad perspective is like, the company just changed so dramatically from what I joined. Like, I intentionally joined. Like, I had worked at Apple and had intentionally joined us a small company, because I wanted a lot of the things that come with working at a small company, like being able to move really quickly, being able to have high agency to go and solve problems, having the green fields, all those things. And I think just like, very naturally over time, OpenAI became less of those things for me personally. And I think it was also, like, I don't remember if this was on camera or before we started chatting on camera, but the comment about, you know, being a human voice at OpenAI, like, it was a really challenging position for me to be in. And I think, like, if you look around, like, there was not a lot of other people who were doing that type of work. And I think that just had its own whole host of challenges. And I think just overall, also, incredibly, like, as I started to have more conversations with people just became incredibly excited about like where everybody else in the ecosystem was. And yeah, I think there's so much interesting stuff happening and I think like OpenAI for a long time has dominated the narrative of being the benefactor of this technology and also the people who are giving the most value to the world. And I think there's going to be more companies that are going to be able to successfully do that in the next six to 12 months, which I find just as a consumer and as somebody who loves the technology, I think that's so incredible and I'm excited to hopefully get to help that from a different side of things.

I feel like OpenAI is really going to miss having you there because there is no one else right now who does that. Before on Twitter you were the only one I would look to when things would change. So I'm curious. So you said that you left because of it no longer being a startup and you wanting there to be other competitors out there who can compete with OpenAI. But why Google? Why not doing an open source AI project or something like that?

I feel like there's still such an opportunity at the large language model space as I was exploring it was could go to an application layer company. There's a bunch of incredible companies doing interesting stuff at that layer of things, but it still feels like there's a lot of opportunity. I also think like, you know, to be candid for, for Google, like the, you know, they've had a challenging narrative as far as like what how developers feel about the platform, like what they've been doing with AI. Like there's a, there's just this incredible moment and opportunity at Google for someone who loves building products for developers to really come in and, and help support that ecosystem. There's also so many smart people at Google. Like there's have such an incredible roadmap and again I don't know all the details because I haven't actually, at the time of this recording haven't actually started that role. But I think they, at least from what I've seen externally, I think they're pushing in the right directions like the 1 million context window, like the, those models being natively multimodal, like all that stuff gives me a lot of confidence and, and hopefully what the roadmap looks like for other things. And it's also just like such a core piece of their business. Like there's a lot of people and like I think I love what the meta folks are doing and I love that they're putting out the llama Models, but in many ways, at least from like my outside perspective, it's not clear that it's like the core driving force for their business. And I feel like in the case of Google and others, like, it is a core driving force for their business at least now. And I think for Meta, it'll probably evolve to be that over time as they build AI into their products and services. But today it's like, yeah, like, do, do I need a chatbot for Instagram to be a viable product for me? Like, not really. Like, they could essentially keep that product and keep going without AI. And I think Google's in a very different position with respect to search and some of their other platforms.

Yeah, let's, let's talk about open source versus closed source for a minute because, you know, there's, there's this big sort of storyline unfolding, right. You've got Elon Musk versus Sam Altman, the sort of public battle of open source versus closed source going on. But I'm curious to hear from your perspective. Where do you see the value of open source? Why? I know you've been sort of outspoken, a proponent of open source, you know, on your Twitter account, where do you see that value of open source? What, what excites you about open source?

One, I think it's like fundamentally at the end of the day, and people like to construe it in a different perspective. But from my, from my perspective, it's fundamentally like a business decision. Like, do the, do the pros of open sourcing models and all the, you know, potentially infrastructure around those models end up outweighing the cost of doing that? And, and there are very real costs. Like, I don't think people, like everyone just assumes that open source is like, you know, positive in every direction. It's like, certainly not if you've ever been an open source maintainer. Like, it is not fun in many, in many cases to maintain open source projects. Like, there's just, people are, you're essentially giving something away for free and everyone is asking you to do more things for free.

Hmm.

And you're not getting any of the value that's being accrued. And I think this is like the, the really difficult tension for companies that are making this decision. And I think, like, I love the folks at Mistral and I think they're doing really important work, but it's, it's a challenging position for them, as an example, where, you know, they open source a model and then, you know, you can now do inference on that model on any of the many, many different platforms that offer inference and you know, that led them to, with their most recent model not making it fully open source yet or I think there's like some nuance about how, how open that the latest model that they did is. And I think like more companies are going to struggle with this because I do think at the end of the day, especially for the model layer, it's hard to have a business that does this. And I actually think this is why companies like Meta, it makes a ton of sense for them because like they are not a developer platform company. Them taking the model and putting it out to the world actually doesn't really matter. Like it's not negative for their business because their business is serving ads and selling products to the 4 billion people who use their platform. And like, that's a very privileged position for them to be in. And I think there's a lot of startups who, who don't have that distribution and are still trying to do open source models. And you just run into these like very real realities of running a business that make it really hard to open source those models. I think there's also like the whole philosophical debate about whether the technology should be open source because it's super powerful. I think that like, that's a very fair argument. I think there's also a bunch of very fair arguments on the safety side around not open sourcing some of these models.

I do wonder like, how regulation is going to hit open source because like it does feel like everything is going to more and more regulation. You know, Europe's like heavily starting to regulate AI in the, In America there's more and more people wanting to regulate AI. I'm kind of more on the like the E ACC side of things of like, we need to go as fast as possible. But I do understand like the concerns and so I, I do wonder like, it feels like, okay, Elon Musk is like open sourcing all his AI but at some point when that gets very powerful, I have a feeling the government's gonna be like, yeah, we can't just have anyone having that. So I'm really curious how, I'm curious how that stuff's gonna play out long term because I think open source is very important because I don't, I love OpenAI. I love Google. I don't want like OpenAI and Google being the future of AI which is like the future of humanity, basically.

Well, it's funny because I think Logan posted something on Twitter the other day about, can somebody bring me a hard drive with the weights for GROK on it because I can't down to 368 gigabytes. So I mean the GROK open source I think still has some roadblocks for general consumers to just start using on their own computer.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

This is part of the nuance that I think a lot of people miss is like there's this massive spectrum of what it means to be open. And I think like the, you know, to the OpenAI folks credit and I forgot whether what blog post or whether where they talked about this, but I do think like having your technology cheaply available through an API and making that broadly accessible to the world for developers to go and build products and platforms like to me that is like certainly an element of openness and I think like putting the weights of a model available to the world is also an element of openness. But I think that just because you make your weights available does not mean that like you're actually running an open source project. And at NumFocus we like when we evaluate open source projects to see whether or not they can be a part of NUM focus, like there's this huge list of things that you have to go through from like you know, who are the people who are making the decisions about where the money is spent, you know, what are the like the governance policies, the code of conduct, all that stuff which like no one is looking at. They're like oh, just because the model is open, you know, it doesn't matter that it's a for profit corporation or someone who's got a lot of money, who's driving and making all the decisions. And I do think it'll be interesting to see how, how the narrative evolves over time. I actually think in many ways like open source models are like much less open than traditional software is. Like if you look at any of like the popular open source projects like many of them have like distributed governance, it's like clear how they decisions all those things. And that's very much not the case for some of these open models, which is super interesting.

You mentioned Meta earlier and it's something I guess I haven't been able to wrap my head around is you know, why a company like Meta would open source their models. You know, from what I understand to train one of these models it could cost millions of dollars to train with all the compute power required to train the models. What do you think like the motives for Meta to release models like this publicly? Why would they do that?

They are not selling a developer product and they don't have a developer platform. They have, I think there is some like, Facebook app platform or something like that, but I think that's like all slightly aside. They don't. They're not like a cloud provider. They're not selling the model to end users for them to be able to. Or developers for them to be able to build out in their technology. So really it's like open sourcing the model. The only way that, that hurts them potentially is somebody takes that model and then goes and makes an Instagram competitor or a Facebook competitor or a WhatsApp competitor. And I think if you look at their business like they have deeply. They're deeply entrenched in the ecosystem. They have distribution, they have all the money, they have all the modes. So, like, they actually don't really need to worry about that as much. And it's more of an existential risk for them if they were to not take AI and infuse into their platform. Because then all of a sudden somebody makes WhatsApp with AI and Instagram with AI and Facebook with AI, and then, you know, they get disrupted. So it's much easier for them to justify that cost of just like essentially business as usual. This is the next technology frontier. Take AI, put it into those platforms, and then now, you know, potentially even, you know, they can sell services to people with AI on Facebook and Instagram and WhatsApp and things like that.

Yeah, it almost feels like there's an element of this, like, meta redemption arc happening. Right. Where a lot of people were soured by Meta with the Cambridge Analytica and the data leaks and all that kind of stuff. And now Meta is kind of saying, no, we're, we're good guys here. We're open sourcing our stuff.

I'm sure that's part of it. Like, I, and I think that makes sense for them. Like, there's, there's certainly, like, they're definitely winning people over by open sourcing models. And I think it's like, it's been a viable strategy and they've been doing.

That for a while. Right. Like, that's been their playbook for recruiting talent with like, GraphQL, React, Pytorch. Yeah, yeah. And that all kind of started like, when, like, the image of Facebook in Silicon Valley was kind of going down, at least in like, the, the tech press. They were like, everyone was hating on Facebook. And then they're like, oh, we're open sourcing all this stuff. And all these developers like, oh, we love Facebook. And so it kind of created this like kind of divide there where all of a sudden a lot of developers were loving them. And I, I think this is a continuation of that playbook.

Let's talk about, let's talk about the potential risks of, of open source, right? So there, there's this kind of scary thought around open source that, you know, somebody in their basement playing with open source tools could cause massive destruction and things like that. I guess let's speak about and talk about some of the risks and maybe some of the counteractions that can be taken to mitigate some of these risks. There was that story, I don't know, a year ago about chaos GPT that tried to take over the world by tweeting to like seven people or whatever. But I mean, I think that's a real fear of a lot of people is that somebody in their basement could create some sort of AI agent that creates real chaos, real destruction.

Yeah, it's such a tough position. And this is why it's always been tricky for me to like, in many ways, like I, I align with OpenAI's principles about what the risks are with open sourcing models. I think there's also a way to potentially do more in the open, even with some of those risks. I think very fundamentally I have yet to see any proof or any like scientific evidence. Essentially there's all of this stuff that happens during the model training process to make it so that the model's outputs are not like a net bad thing for humanity. And I think there's wide bounds of this and people can disagree about how much of that you should do. But that is the intent of how many companies train these models today. The challenging part is that once you take the weights of the model and you make it accessible, it is easy to essentially fine tune away a lot of the safeguards that employ that have been put in. And I think today that's like less of a problem because you can just get the model to say a bunch of bad things. And I think all the really, really bad capabilities are potentially less of a risk. I think the real challenge is like you take a GPT5 or a GPT6 and if the same principle holds, you could really get a model that's capable of doing a large amount of damage. And because it's open source, anybody can just go and fine tune. You could make an open source training set with a bunch of bad stuff in it and publish it and share it with people and then they can go and do this themselves. And I think also with like how Compute and efficient models are going to become over time, like it'll just become easier and easier for, for people to do this. I think like the, the only like one there could be some like scientific breakthrough that would like make it so even if you fine tune the model, you know, doesn't want to do bad things. That seems like a stretch. Like I, you know, it's outside my realm of understanding how that would be possible, but I suppose that it's possible and if we could do that, then that would be awesome. I think the other option is it's likely that there'll be some amount of pressure that's put on people who are providing compute to do some, you know, moderation or some sort of like security checking at the, at the compute level, at like the token generation level. I don't know how feasible that is either because like you could just spin up a GPU yourself and do this on your own computer so you don't need someone else's compute. But like, for example, why I have conviction that OpenAI will successfully and safely deploy this technology, at least from what I've seen, is that like there is some level of monitoring taking place on the platform. So they can see if someone is continually asking how to make bombs or bioweapons or something like that. Like they can actually monitor what's taking place and go and proactively take action to keep people safe and keep the platform safe. And I think to me that's not possible in the context of open source. And yeah, it's a big open question, especially if you have your own GPUs. It's essentially impossible to stop somebody from doing something like that if you don't have any control over the compute from a cloud perspective or something like that. So it's a tricky situation and I think this goes back to, it's just a myriad of really, really tough trade offs, which is why I don't appreciate much of the narrative online, which lacks the nuance of all of these things. Like there's just, there's like a lot of very, very real trade offs to take into account. Everyone's like, oh no. Like they, they glaze over a lot of those things. And I think it'll, it'll also become more clear as the models become capable. Like more capable. Like today it's like a little bit easy to be like, oh, like what's the worst that happens? You get something that's going to write like mean jokes or stupid tweets or whatever. And then again, Twitter just has to Take those tweets down. But I think, like, you know, you imagine a world where the agentic systems really take off, and there's a. There's great infrastructure to do that. And all of a sudden, at the push of a button, like, you have access to go spin up, like, millions of agents, like, you could genuinely cause. I could see genuine harm being caused in the world from that. And thankfully, I feel like we still have a little bit of time to try to figure some of that out. But, yeah, there's real challenges.

Yeah. The other sort of scary thought, and this kind of bubbled up with the whole, like, Q Star rumors were going around, right. Is the thought that maybe AI one day will be able to break encryptions. And if AI can break encryption, then everybody's bank accounts are at risk. You know, all cryptocurrencies are at risk. Like, pretty much the Internet as we know it is at risk because it's all sort of built on this cryptography. Do you see a world where the AI models are able to break the cryptography that sort of runs the Internet today?

I don't know enough about cryptography to really be informed. My instinct has always been that it's like, much more likely that somebody will use these models to, like, accelerate quantum computing research, and then that will be the catalyst for, like, I feel like it'll be like a hardware innovation. Like, just. And my mental model for this is like, we've already got AGI right now. We've got artificial super intelligence right now. There's 7 billion agents on Earth that are focused on this problem. And, like, nobody has cracked those encryptions yet. So, like, I don't think it's going to be an LLM layer that ends up doing that. I think it's much more likely that there's, like, some physical hardware innovation that allows supercomputers to really take off and break some of those things.

Like, I hear the concern on, like, okay, there's gonna be like, these rogue agents and all that. But I don't know, like, I. I was born in 1984, and like, I read the book many, many times, and that's like, you know, my concern is, like, okay, sure, all those things could happen. But also it seems very likely that, like, when you centralize power and you have like, one group or two groups, they have all the power. And then. And then humanity starts kind of like, outsourcing our intelligence to the LLMs because they get so intelligent that they're more intelligent than us. So we're like, hey, GPT. Seven, what do you think I should do in my life? And then now you've got the kind of government sneaking in there or whoever. You know, let's say it's not the US government, but, you know, it could be. It could be other governments who are, you know, supposedly are more nefarious and, and they're all of a sudden kind of telling people how they should live their lives and like, actually kind of micromanaging people on an individual basis, like having, Having the AI kind of tell you, like, how could I make Nathan do this thing I want him to do? Right? And all of a sudden the LLMs, like, give me different results, you know, based on what they want me to do. I have a lot of concern about that. Like, more. More than the rogue stuff, because I think with all, like, the rogue AI stuff, you're gonna have, like, this battle of, like, okay, there's bad people using AI in bad ways, but in theory the good guys also have the AI and maybe they even have, like, a slightly better model. And so I think those things are gonna not be as big of a problem as people think.

I think Bill Gates said something recently to the effect of all of the problems that people are worried about with AI. AI also solves those problems.

Yes. Yeah.

And I feel like that's kind of like where you're going with that.

I think that's true to a certain extent, but I would. My. My mental model for this has long been that, like, there the. Or like, we could have this technology today. It doesn't mean that there's so many humans on Earth in so many different, like, life and geographic and financial positions that, like, it doesn't even matter if we have this technology available to, like, quote, unquote, everyone. Like ChatGPT is available to quote, unquote everyone, but it's really not. Like, it's only available to people who have access to the Internet and know about what AI is. And like, I think, yeah, it's. It still feels like one. Nathan, to your point, I. I'm. I'm 100% in favor. I don't think that the best outcome for this technology, just from like, a technological development perspective, is that only one company controls this. And I think just the trajectory of where the ecosystem is headed, it feels like that's not going to be the case. Like, it feels like, like pretty much everyone has realized they have a vested interest. Like, every company with any amount of technical. Technical capacity is like, let's go train a model and let's go. Let's Go make this happen. I think the question is like, how far does that trend continue? And, but it does feel like people have woken up to this idea. And I, I would imagine, like, I don't think the open source layer of this is going to go anywhere. I feel like this idea that, you know, good people on the Internet are just like crusading into like the bad places on the Internet and like stopping people from doing bad things, at least in my worldview, like, I've never, you know, seen that happen before. It's usually just like there's bad people doing bad stuff and like they all get together and do more bad stuff together. So it'll be interesting to see if like AI is potentially a fix for that.

So I wanted, I wanted to ask about the future. I wanted to kind of get your perspective on, on where all of this is headed. I'll read a tweet real quick that you put out. You said in the next 10 years we're going to have superhuman AI full self driving everywhere in the world. Humans on Mars, Internet everywhere on Earth, supersonic commercial jets and cures for major diseases. So what do you think's coming first of those? And you know, I'm just kind of curious to hear your sort of future scenario. And what do you think is kind of coming within the next few years? What do you think is still 10 years out? Like, how does, how does this story unfold?

All of this comes back to being like a physical hardware challenge, which will be really interesting to see how that plays out. Like, I imagine the main limitation on a lot of the progress that takes place is like, like, can we get enough GPUs? Or I'm guessing in 10 years it'll be some new iteration. It won't be GPUs, but some new compute to power all of these things. Because you can imagine, like, even if you had, and this is the challenge with a lot of the narratives around, like super intelligent AIs that are just like doing stuff for you all the time. Like, you'd basically have to have like a H100 cluster in your bedroom, like to power all the types of things that like people think will be possible with AI. So like, it really does come down to like, you know, can we produce enough compute for there to be an H100 for air, or not even one H100, but like a rack of H100s for every human on Earth. And like, that is like a deeply physical problem, like very abstracted away from all the things that AI will be able to do and AI will be able to solve parts of those problems. But like, AI cannot solve the problem of like physically moving sand and rock and all this stuff. So like, there's a lot of like, very interesting, like traditional human problems that I think need to be solved to get to that point. My guess is like the boom arrow is already going to do hypersonic, so that won't be the thing. Like, that's, that's for sure. Pretty much a guaranteed. In my mind someone, someone's intelligently responded about how the windows for Mars, it seemed unlikely that we would get there in the next 10 years, which is really sad to me. I'm like, dude, another 10 years. How, how can they not get to Mars in 10 years? I feel like that should be super soon. But apparently we only have like there's a window in six years or something like that or four years and like it's going to be too long before the next window. So we probably won't get to Mars if that person is correct in the next 10 years, which sucks. And it's not clear to me that AI is going to make that happen. But I really do think like, the abundance of intelligence is going to be so exciting, but also like, have like very real challenges for society. I think the thing that gives me the most hope about this is like, how quickly humans seem to adapt to new changes. Like the fact that we have ChatGPT and all of a sudden like we're pissed that it's, you know, telling us to do work and are upset about like it not just doing everything for us already after only a year and a half or whatever, however long it's been, I think is like a great example of like, our expectations continue to go up. And I, I think my hope is that the technology like continues on like that linear curve and doesn't end up like on some crazy exponential. Because I think that's just like where the highest chance for things to go wrong and people to be, you know, disrupted in a negative way. But if it, if we can stay on some not actual exponential curve, then I'm hopeful that like society in the world will be able to readapt. But we're also close to this technology that like, if you rounded the percentage of people on Earth who are like actively using AI every day, like it probably rounds down to zero. Like it's probably like 1 or 0% of the world. And like that's just like, like speaks to the level of how far we still have to go with this technology to make sure that we get like the rest of the world on board using this technology, bought into it, actually contributing to the discourse. And like that is a really, really difficult problem. And it honestly sounds like it's a problem that's probably going to take 10 years.

And that's one reason we started this podcast, you know, is like there's so many people who have no idea what's going on with AI. You know, I moved from San Francisco out to Kyoto over a year ago and like I was surprised. Like I'm thinking like in my mind like, oh, Japan, super futuristic. Which, you know, I've been here a lot, so I know it's not always like how people imagine it, but I would, I would go out to like local cafes and stuff and hang out with like locals and I would show them like mid journey or show them chat gbt. They're like, what is that? They would just be like, have no idea what the hell was going on. I basically just like pulled magic out of my pocket and they just were so completely mind blown. I was like, oh my God. So like the average person around the world probably has no idea what's going on. They may have heard like one or two like scary stories on the news and that's probably their entire context for AI.

This, this needs to be like a government level project. Like actually a part of. When I was, when I was exploring what's out there, I was looking like, is the government spending money to try to like educate the masses on this technology and like not just the US government, but like global governments. Because I feel like it's just like, you know, I, I think your show is going to do incredibly well, but it is likely to reach people who are like much more interested in AI. So I think it's like a really, really hard human problem. And like, I think it's going to take like, I would love to see some like international level collaboration to be like, we need to educate humans about how to use AI. But it just feels like, yeah, you can't get international governments to agree on anything, so who knows if that'll happen. But somebody should try. Like I feel like it would be super useful.

Yeah, I think a lot of leaders around the world barely understand the technology. I mean, I think that's one problem of having like really old people in government. You know, I hate to get like political like but on both sides right now, politics, like it doesn't feel like the great greatest spot to be in like when the AI revolution is starting to have like leaders who just really can't even fathom what's going on with the tech.

I agree. My instinct is that like, that will be a major catalyst for like the next generation of leaders to, to try and run for office. Like, I actually know some folks who, who I worked with at like adjacently through open source and they were at the Schmidt Ventures, Schmidt Futures, the, from Eric Schmidt. And you know, the guy's running for, to his credit, running for the House of Representatives in Georgia, which is incredible. You should actually have him on the show. I happily connect you but like, specifically through this platform of like, the world is changing and like the current leaders, like, who are all great and have a bunch of awesome accomplishments, like, don't understand how this technology works and like it's really difficult to adapt to that change if you don't understand how the technology works and you don't have your hands on it every day. And I think, yeah, it's, it's a critically important problem for us to get right.

This is a HubSpot podcast and you know, HubSpot talks to entrepreneurs and business owners and things like that. And, and in your role at OpenAI, you dealt with a lot of SaaS, founders and business owners. What advice do you have for business owners looking to work with AI as a piece of their business?

The biggest challenge with people who aren't inherently giddy about AI and technology is just getting past the blank page problem. And I think this is part of the challenge with ChatGPT fundamentally as a tools. You show up and you're like, like you basically are, it's, it's blank and you basically already need to know how this technology helps you. I think GPTs are like a really great step in that direction because they like, are a very tangible, small use case that like, I don't have an AI problem, I have like a finance problem and I need help with my books or whatever it is. I think all of those, like looking for those like very specific tangible use cases and trying to automate stuff around them. Like I've always been a, I'll give my, my really quick shout out to the people at Zapier. Like I think Zapier is going to be the, an incredible catalyst for people who are just getting used to this technology to like truly automate things. And there, there's so few platforms that are targeting that demographic of people and I, I actually think HubSpot is one of them. I've been a huge fan of HubSpot and Dharmesh and the whole team doing a bunch of incredible work around AI and, and I think like more and more companies need to do that and I think more and more people need to go and find those use cases. And it's just really hard. And I empathize with that a lot. Like, I feel this challenge for myself. I'm like, I'm always busy, like how can I use AI to help me? And it's like not always obvious like what the, what the use cases are. I think the like real, the real tangible advice is like, go and play with the technology. Like you have to, you have to like get your hands dirty with it. You have to play with it, you have to run into the edges. You have to like, like explore the tools a little bit. And like that kind of sucks. And I think like platforms like the one that you all have can like hopefully be something to like help get some of the right resources to those people. But yeah, you just have to play with the stuff and find out what adds value and like, hopefully find something that adds enough incremental value that it's like worth you spending your time continuing around it. And I think like Chat GPT and a bunch of these other tools, like really will add enough value if you, if you spend the time to play around with them and, and get your hands dirty.

Yeah, I actually onboarded my dad onto ChatGPT by showing because he's actually a business owner himself, he does window covering, so nothing tech related. But I showed him how to use ChatGPT to help him respond to his emails and now he uses ChatGPT to reply to all of his emails and he's constantly finding like new ways to use ChatGPT in his business. But the email was that catalyst. So just like something really simple like that, like help me write my emails better is a, is a really good way to get into it, I think.

Yeah, I need to figure that, figure that out with my mom. I show it to her and she was like, oh, that's so impressive. That's so amazing. And then it's just like, okay, now what?

It's that. Now what? That is like the opportunity. I think like, like no one has really nailed that, like now what piece? And I think if you can like help people with that, now what? Like that is a huge opportunity that I, I think, yeah, there needs to be more thought put into.

Very cool.

Well, this has been an absolutely amazing conversation. We've had a blast. Hopefully we can have you back on in the future once you've settled that role at Google a little bit and maybe talk about what's going on there, but I really appreciate the time. Is there, is there anywhere you prefer people to follow you? Is Twitter the best place? Do you have a website, any, anywhere people should go after listening to this?

Yeah, I'm posting on Twitter. I'm posting on, I, I try to post on LinkedIn because I feel like there's a underserved AI market on LinkedIn. Like everyone's, all the cool stuff's happening on Twitter. I'm like, we gotta help all the, all the normies on LinkedIn. So I spend time on LinkedIn as well. And yeah, I have a website, but there's nothing as useful as on Twitter and LinkedIn in official Logan K. And then on LinkedIn, it's just. Logan Kilpatrick.

Awesome. Well, thank you so much for spending the time with us today. This has been such a fun conversation. I can't wait to get it out to the world. And yeah, thanks for, for joining us today.

Thank you for having me. And congrats on the launch of the show. This is awesome.

Sam.