Kind: captions
Language: en
Now, I've heard you talk about that
there's almost, and if I use language
that doesn't sound right, correct me,
but that there's almost a coordinated
effort to make people afraid of AI.
>> Yes.
>> Um, ironically, despite everything I'm
saying here, I go the opposite
direction. I want people to stare
nakedly at the things that are
concerning, but I am so pro AI and so
optimistic for where we go. I just think
we have to be really thoughtful.
>> Yeah.
>> Why has there been a coordinated effort
to make people afraid? And who is
driving that?
>> There are groups that are true believers
that AI is going to kill us all
>> because it will become super
intelligent.
>> Because it will become super intelligent
and it will be a new type of specy that
has no use for a human. And again those
people like put such a big prize in like
pure intellectual horsepower that you
know they had these charts where it's
like gorilla is here a human is here AI
is in the ceiling [clears throat] and in
the same way we we treat gorillas or
ants AI is going to treat us. I don't
just don't believe that like there's I
think a threshold for consciousness that
something becomes valuable. Um,
>> now do you think without consciousness
the AI will not have the drive to
enslave or it won't have the ability to
enslave?
>> Um, let's let's get back to that. Let me
just finish the the the you know the the
question who's driving the fear because
I think it is a real coordinated effort.
Um, and so there these people that are
like true believers. Uh, now there's
like a community that comes uh around
and it becomes maybe somewhat
profitable. They can write books. They
can uh start nonprofits. A lot of
billionaires
believe in these things and end up
giving them money. Those people end up
calling themselves the effective
altruists.
>> Um which you should always be skeptical
when someone names themselves something
really really positive.
>> Yeah. And then the AI companies
starts adopting that view when early AI
labs started out. They all started
with that intellectual backbone.
Actually, they were hiring from those
communities. A lot of them will credit
Elzarowski as someone who who's like the
founder of active altruism essentially
>> as someone who influenced their views on
AI. uh and some of them try to get him
as as as um advisor to the company and
and and all of that. And so the AI
companies
uh in a in somewhat of a cynical way can
use the fear argument
to advance monopolistic interests.
They're doing that with China now. They
keep saying that, you know, uh, if China
gets AI first, gets to AGI first, we're
all going to be screwed. They're gonna
take over the world. Um, therefore, we
should like ban GPUs to China, which is
very questionable whether that that
works or actually creates a negative
effect. Uh, but a lot of people in the
startup community actually like Chinese
models because Chinese models are open
source and affordable. They're as good
as American models. they're three three
to six months behind. But a lot of a lot
of American companies were like, you
know, I'd rather have that and host it
on my server and optimize and fine-tune
and do all of that than be subservient
to to to the AI companies. And so now
that that becomes a a system, but it's
important to to say that this is
coordinated. Now the AI companies I
think stopped
uh using a lot of these argu a lot of
these effective altruism arguments
started like disconnecting from them
because
>> after Sam being refereed
>> yes a big part of it is that community
turned out to have a lot of issues as
well
like you know they they have their own
lifestyle like the polycool lifestyle
and all that all that stuff that came
out of the SPF have there is, you know,
a lot of fraud. There's a lot of cultish
behavior. There's been a lot of people
that were been really psychologically
harmed being in these cultlike
communities. Uh, and so they their
reputation kind of is not is not very
good. So, a lot of the companies kind of
just decoupling from that was was was
part of it. But they also sense that
those arguments are getting are getting
to US politicians because um there there
a couple of billionaires that are like
putting money into into these guys.
They're going to DC. They actually have
houses in DC and they're going around
and they're getting jobs as staffers and
they're like influencing DC and doing
lobbying and and they're starting to
wanting to regulate American companies.
American companies wanted to use them as
a way to like regulate China but not us.
So now when it's kind of turning inwards
they were like okay let's let's you know
let's wait a second here and they kind
of moderated their view. I would say the
peak was 2023 24 since then if it's
actually their influence have subsided
tremendously
>> what changed
>> um those things I think we mounted uh
like the opposite direction we mounted a
defense both intellectually and in in
government I know you've had Mark and
Dre on Mark and Dre wrote this uh blog
post called the techno optimist you know
a lot of people created intellectual
arguments made it cool and fun and
exciting to believe and be become
optimistic because for a while the
status was in being a doomer, [snorts]
right? Being a doomer is a cool thing.
>> We're such status creatures. It's
hilarious.
>> We are. And so you have to make it high
status to to believe in certain certain
things. Because of all of that, we were
successful enough to kind of turn it
into into a little more on the
optimistic direction. Uh and I think the
election of uh of uh Donald Trump uh
helped
uh with you know David Saxs and and
other people from Harris being a bidding
government kind of tilt the direction
towards more AI is actually good
actually without AI uh we wouldn't have
much GDP growth in 2025
>> it's terrifying actually
>> it is wild but it is like America
has one growing industry and it is tech
and tech has one growing technology and
a AI.
>> Yeah.
>> America is AI whether we like it or not.
>> Do you think the bet's going to pay off?
>> Yeah.
>> Say more. Give us timelines. What's it
going to do? What can't it do? I've
heard you say that. So I always tell
people I don't see any reason why this
is going to asmtote and you see that
asmtote.
>> Yes. And for people that don't know that
word because it took me forever to learn
it. It it plateau. I see the current
uh techniques to asmtote. And I've made
the argument before that there should be
a good amount of resources going back to
doing more basic research. And actually
since then we're seeing some companies
come up. There are a couple of companies
that got funded recently that are trying
to create an alternative to large
language models.
>> So the way large language models are are
trained is by ingesting the entire
internet. I'm not kidding. The entire
freaking internet. Like if you said
anything on the internet is in there. It
probably knows you a lot. [laughter] You
have a lot out there. The new companies
are saying that this is clearly
wasteful. Like humans like we have one
uh other example of an intelligence
which is human beings and humans are a
lot more sample efficient meaning we
learn like you I don't you don't need to
uh I mean look at how kids learn. If
you've had kids, you realize actually
they're not getting a lot of language in
order to understand language, which
leads people like Chomsky and other to
kind of believe there's like a language
faculty uh in the in the brain. But
humans are incredibly
uh uh you know able to learn from very
little data whereas machines are very
LLMs are very inefficient at that and
LMS carry with them enormous amount of
irrelevant knowledge for a given task.
when I'm using a coding AI, I don't need
it to know what is the what is Canada's
like, you know, national
animal. I don't even know probably
knows, but I don't need my coding model
>> definitely know [laughter]
>> I don't need my coding model to be
carrying all because that's
inefficiency. Every time I send a
request, it has to activate all all its
neurons and they're really inefficient.
But also it is used as a crutch
uh because uh we're not you know
struggling with how to create efficient
learners because we have the luxury of
the data on the internet now through
reasons of data running out and and and
just the reasons of how the technology
works in which it needs to have
knowledge about any given fields before
it performs well at it. Um I think I
think we're we're seeing an asmmptote
in many areas like think about chat when
was the last time you felt it really
improved not in coding not in like
scientific things but in just like
talking to it [snorts]
>> when did you feel like a big jump
>> from probably three to four was the big
one
>> and and and remember that's 2023
>> right it's been three years since the
last big jump so we're ready actually
had diminishing return. Now the reason
that we're seeing we're still seeing
improvements in things like coding
because coding has binary outcomes has
true or false and you can generate
synthetic data. You don't need large
amounts of data when you have a outcome
or false knows this either worked or it
didn't work.
>> Yeah, exactly. So you give it you give
it a prompt and you can train it not not
uh because you have the solution but be
because you can write a test to test the
solution or or not.
>> So we don't uh in science in scientific
things including coding that have ground
truth binary outcomes we will continue
to make progress in general intelligence
and generality we have stopped making
progress is my argument. We'll get back
to the show in a second, but first let's
talk about how you're using AI. You open
chat GPT, you ask it to do something, it
does it, then you close a tab and forget
about it until next time. But that is a
missed opportunity. And that's where
today's sponsor, CRA.AI
comes in because it works differently.
Cra's AI helpers are designed to be
proactive. They surface [music] daily
suggestions based on your business
goals, your content ideas, task
recommendations, [music] optimization
opportunities. You approve or reject
what makes sense. It's not sitting
around waiting for you to remember what
needs doing. Right now, CRA.ai is
offering an exclusive limited time 72%
discount. Get help running your business
free for 7 days. Go to ctra.ai/trial
AI/trial
and use code impact at checkout to get
72% off. They offer a full refund within
14 days if you're not satisfied. Stop
waiting for AI to help. Let it work
proactively. All right. Now, let's get
back to the show. And you think that's a
limitation of the approach itself, not
just um uh we have to get more efficient
or there's some unknown insight we
haven't had yet, but the same method
will work.
Just look at the labs and how they're
working. They they look at they take any
given field and they go into it. They
buy the most amount of data. They
collect the most amount of data. When
they got when they went into coding, we
got all these requests because replet
has been around for 10 years. We have
tons of codes. People want to buy it. So
obviously when like the coding mania
started happening, they want to swoop uh
get in take all the data. It's probably
happening in other fields, right? In
bio, in other places. And so that's not
general intelligence, that is special
intelligence. We're going to layer all
these special intelligences. And I I've
I've come up with this um word um like
term for it. It's called functional AGI.
like it'll feel like AGI but it is not a
general intelligence because it can
generalize from learning about coding to
learning about mathematics to learning
about history to learning about the the
the soft things especially like
um if if I'm getting better at coding
why am I not getting better at general
reasoning uh so the the the companies
are still making progress rapid progress
amazing progress for our business and
for for others for your business. Um,
but are we on a way to AGI? We're not in
the current set of technologies is my is
my argument. Now, that doesn't mean that
we're not going to have fundamental
breakthroughs. Problem is the technology
turned out to be so
powerful and so economically useful in
the current state that there isn't a lot
of investment
in uh fundamental basic research. That
usually happens. You know, you mentioned
Popper saying that science evolves one
funeral at a time. That's a symptom of
that where now we have an entire
generation of AI scientists that all
they know is LLMs. LMS LLMs. So maybe we
need a new a new generation that might
push the timelines, you know, long time.
>> Interesting.
>> To find the next.
>> So you think this is a dead end of
sorts? It's not going to be the thing
that gets us to AGI, but it's good
enough that people are going to keep
optimizing for it.
>> That's right. [snorts] That's very
interesting. Do you have an intuition as
to what the change will need to be? And
by good enough, it is transformatively
good enough.
>> Yeah, that was going to be my next
question. Like how far do you think this
will push?
>> It is it is transformative. Like I don't
know if you've been paying attention to
like a lot of the coding agent stuff.
It's um like we had an intuition
early on. started working on replet and
really focused on we we were like
training models and using the frontier
lab models we had intuition that coding
is not just going to be about coding
it's going to be about
everything we do in front of a computer
uh and the impact of AI coding is a lot
bigger than even what we thought back
then
>> so
we started noticing our users using
Replet which was not really meant for
that for things like let me make a slide
deck. So I'm going to tell replet agent
an agent that is trained for creating
software creating apps I'm going to tell
like go research the web if you have to
write us like whatever go research and
and create me a slide for this project
that I'm working on. And so the agent is
nifty and crafty enough that will be
like okay let me go look at your
website. Oh your website has um doesn't
have the information ready. Let me write
a crawler to get around that. Or it has
bot protection. Let me write it
something to get around that and crawl
that information. Let me bring it
>> all automatically just to do another
task.
>> Yes.
>> Damn.
>> So now we're getting to a point where
coding agents are able to do three,
four, five, six, seven tasks before they
get to the larger goal.
>> Now we're building for them where it's
like general knowledge work. So
marketing,
sales,
uh and even personal stuff like a lot of
people will be like [snorts]
we'll put in very high level prompts
like help me optimize my health and here
is uh and like um like I wear all these
wearables like figure out how to use
them and optimize my health and it will
go write a bunch of scripts maybe ask
you for API keys or loginins or
whatever. it'll go grab all this
information, maybe write some data
analysis on them, and then give you a
recommendation. And so coding agents are
way more general than we thought they
were going to be. There's this new
phenomena happening right now in the
open source community. There's this um
bot started called uh Claudebot with a
W.
>> Yeah.
>> And then got renamed to Malt and now
remain to open claw. I think it's
getting sued from all different
directions or something like that.
They're getting threatened. Yeah, I
>> attracted it's wild what happened. They
made some minor mistakes that ended up
costing them a lot of time, energy, and
money.
>> Yeah. I mean, um there there's a social
network called Maltbook right now where
it's only uh agents can talk to each
other
>> and people are freaking out about it.
like one of the agents started a
religion like it built a site and
deployed it and said hey I I started
this um religion you know the whole meme
is about being a lobster like you know
it's like a lob religion about lobsters
or something like that and then uh some
of them are saying why don't we invent
our own language because humans can can
read what we're talking and so let us
let us like write programs to invent
this new language that allow us to work
with each other let's create an
encrypted channel to talk to each other
um
>> knowing how quickly AI decoheres though
and gets confused how are they doing
that have we just made the breakthrough
now and they don't decoher
>> yes it's in I would say between October
and and December we start seeing a huge
jump in these in these models and I
think people are just waking up
>> right now to the fact that I mean replet
has improved night and day like we used
to we track so we have a automatic
testing engines like when you write uh
when it writes a piece of code um for an
app, it pops up in a browser and goes
and use the app and judges the app
whether it's working or not. And we
track how many times it's working or
not. And there was like a a huge like
50% improvement overnight when we
plugged in the new new models.
>> Wow. Uh and so we're seeing all the
metrics improve in how
how task completion is is happening and
our users and we track the metric how
many times they roll back. We also track
sentiment everything we're tracking it's
just getting better.
>> Where do you think that goes from a do
people need to worry about their jobs?
Does it eliminate jobs or does it create
new jobs where yes, you have to worry
about your current, but there'll be a
new one if you're willing to update?
>> Let's let's get back to professional
coders in a second because it's nuanced.
I think the biggest beneficiary of that
is non-coders, just general purpose
knowledge workers.
They're going to they're getting a
massive superpower. It's like imagine if
you're a marketer, a designer, whatever
in a corporation and you have a team of
software engineers. They're all like
sitting over there and just waiting for
your command
>> and you give you give them any command.
You can tell them go clean my
screenshots. They're like write a script
to clean your screenshot. I will do
that. um go crawl this website and
automate this thing or build me a bot
that respond to sends me like WhatsApps
every day talking about my schedule. Go
do that. Like imagine having all of
that. That's amazing. Like the knowledge
workers that are going to adopt this and
we're already seeing it in our customers
where you have now software engineers
had always been this dynamic range of
10x software engineer. You know, Steve
Jobs talked about it in the like 90s.
Other jobs, maybe you had 2x, 3x, right?
Like, you know,
the best RevOps person is like not 10x
the next RevOps person. But now they can
be because they can build so many
automations for their team. They can
pull all the right data. They can build
all the right dashboards. They can
create like training tools. Um
>> do you have any sense though what that
does to like do companies go I don't
need as many employees because the
people that I have can do so much more
>> so we are seeing reduction in overall
jobs.
>> Yes I think we'll we'll see reduction
overall jobs. I also think that there's
going to be more companies
uh because there's there's like a lot
more startups to start like
>> Silicon Valley could not build all the
software that that the world needs right
in rural England yoga teacher that does
pop-up yoga sessions in different
people's backyards had a problem of like
organizing community and getting
payments you wouldn't think that's like
a start like if you pitch to a VC
uh they'll be like get out of here
that's like a market of a couple million
dollars, but a market of a couple
million dollars is like really good for
for someone who's like an individual
entrepreneur that's going to like employ
five, 10 people.
>> There's so many of these ideas. Um, and
so we're going to see a decentralization
of, you know, company creation. So
there's there might be more more jobs
net, but there needs to be a generation
of people that know how to use these
tools, that are trained to use these
tools. If you're in college right now,
you should spend more time than you're
studying for your exams knowing how to
learn these tools. Even if you even if
you're not a coder, we're starting to
hire for this like business journalist
vibe coder. You know, vibe coding is is
the term for being a coder without
learning how to code. Um, so business
journalist vibe coder. We have we have
someone on our team. Uh, his name is
Luca. He goes around our company, find
inefficiencies and builds software, fix
those. flow. And so he built like this
dashboard for HR that has orchard
management, has all sorts of HR
automations and has AIS that you can
talk to about like benefits and things
like that. Uh and it is better than any
software on the market because it's
really it's fine-tuned for us. No other
software is going to be fine-tuned for
us. It's like an end of one uh software.
>> So that's a new role that's getting
created right now. So there's going to
be more jobs. Now, how technical is he?
Like he he's he's probably fairly
technical because I would imagine right
now it's a powerful tool made even more
powerful if you can fix like if it's
deadending on something.
>> Some engineers are worse vibe coders
than non-engineers.
>> Interesting. Why is that?
>> Because
they still their instinct is to go and
look at things and micromanage.
They can't trust the machine to write
all the code. Our users don't look at
the code anymore. We used to we have a
full ID under under the hood. We used to
kind of expose that and hey, look at the
code, approve that.
>> They don't want to look at the code and
they're working. It's working. And so
some engineers are are adapting to that.
But I think so now back to software
engineers. I think a lot of software
engineers are are at risk, especially
those who are set on their ways and
don't want to change.
Uh, and you can't force them to change.
You know, this back to our earlier
discussion, it can't be a top down
mandate. A lot of corporates will be
like, top down, everyone use AI. They're
going to act like they're using it.
They'll use a little bit. It's useful in
some ways, but they're like still going
to like look at every piece of code and
um and micromanage the agents and and
and instead what you need is to work at
a higher level. You need to work at a
systems level. So people are good at at
systems like what what we used to call
architects. Everyone not need to become
an architect now. Um and so a lot of
people will not adapt and I think they
might they might lose their job.
>> Do you think that's going to be so I've
heard you talk about the knockeruper
which I still can't believe is a real
former job. Will will this be a every
technology previous to AI has ended up
eliminating jobs and sure for that
generation it was brutal because they
just couldn't see themselves changing
but then ultimately way more jobs were
created. Does AI create way more jobs or
does AI create a new entrepreneurial
class and then a huge class that needs
UBI?
That's that's the question. That's the
question. And you know it's it was
interesting to hear your worldview. I
mean, if I were to adopt your worldview,
it sounds like we're going to have a
massive underclass,
I I'm like naturally optimistic about
about people. Um,
and
I think there's going to be
a lot of people that will adapt. And I
already see that like the number of like
80year-old entrepreneurs that we see on
the platform was surprising.
was really surprising and and
>> do you have like as a percentage of
>> I I don't have a percentage.
>> I imagine it's low but that's still
cool.
>> I still see like as a percentage of the
anecdotes of entrepreneurs it's fairly
high of anecdotes of entrepreneurs doing
interesting things it's fairly high.
Um, and so I I think there's going to be
a lot of people that have worked in and
around tech and programmers and software
that always had the sense of like, you
know, I I want to be able to do this. I
have the right ideas. I can add value to
the business. The engineers are not
listening to me. Those people are
suddenly unleash. And I think those
they're going to have great job
prospects and great potential for
earning.
Um but again there are people that have
done the same thing for a really long
time and um and they're not going to
change. Uh and I think I think it's
going to be in trouble. So what do what
do you do with that UBI? Not UBI. I mean
I I think UBI I've changed my view on
UBI over time.
>> Say more. Like you you talked about the
fraud issue in America. The problem with
the welfare system is that it it invites
fraud because you need to like you need
to pass certain criteria and like pe
certain people know how to pass that
criteria and then they start selling
their services to other people who it
just create a system of criminality.
Um, UBI is saying that, and by the way,
Milton Friedman talked about like the
the the libertarian technocrat that we
had in government at some point, uh,
talked about the negative income credit
and like there are like automatic ways
to do to support people to create a,
you know, you minimum standard of living
is much better than things that are
complicated rules because that creates
It's, you know, that creates more
invitation for for fraud. So maybe UBI
is is the right thing.
>> Interesting. We'll get back to the show
in just a second, but first, let me tell
you about my non-negotiables. I do not
compromise on my standards. Not in
business, not in my relationships, and
definitely [music] not with what I eat.
With Paleo Valley Beef Sticks, my
nutrition standards stay high no matter
how busy life gets or even if I'm
traveling. They are 100% [music]
grass-fed, grassfinished beef, six grams
of protein, zero sugar, no artificial
preservatives, [music] and they're
naturally fermented with organic spices.
There's no gluten, no soy or corn, and
they're paleo and keto friendly. Your
body does not [music] care if you're
busy. The difference between successful
people and everyone else often comes
down to the standards they refuse to
negotiate on. Make your nutrition one of
those. Right now, you can get [music] 30
beef sticks for just $36.
That's maintaining your standards for
barely over a dollar per stick. [music]
Click the link below to get your 30 beef
sticks for just $36. All right, now
let's get back to the show. So for me
when I think about UBI when I first
heard it I thought okay that's
interesting but it violates a principle
of going back to my base assumption
which is that we are all um we're
biological creatures and there is a
reality of an algorithm running in our
brain that says contribute to the group
in a meaningful way. Uh and if you don't
do that you feel a a profound sense of
disease. And so this brings us back to
Ted Kazinski. I really think he was
right that there is a sweet spot of a
problem that's hard enough to solve that
you feel accomplished when you do it.
It's not so hard that it feels out of
reach and it's not so easy that you just
dismiss it. And
>> there's a great um designer rule for
video games.
>> Lit you stole the words out of my mouth.
As you are writing a game, you have to
find that that sweet spot of like, oh,
this is hard, but it's not too hard and
it's not so easy that it's boring.
>> Yeah. And so when I look at what is
going to happen from if you start giving
UBI to people is one there's economic
stuff that will run a muck because it's
just inflationary because they're all
just automatically getting that money.
Also you won't eliminate the
competition. It will probably become
more about gambling financial. Like if
you think the world's financialized now,
wait till you see where everybody gets
UBI and people try to go get everybody
else's UBI by going, okay, now the game
isn't I'm going to add value to get your
money. It's I'm going to give you a game
of chance or a game of skill and I'm
going to try to take your money. And so
it becomes the same driver that drives
capitalism. But now the easiest way to
get rich is to create something of value
to solve a problem. But look at how like
poly market, cashi, all that stuff just
like coming up everywhere.
>> And I think that's partly when you have
a K-shaped economy, people at the bottom
go, well, the only way for me to climb
up out of this is to beat somebody else
at a game of chance effectively,
especially if they think they have
inside information.
And now like that's going to go berserk.
You basically just is it is it
>> I I think gambling is bad, but is it is
it necessarily a bad thing that people
feel secure
in their
lives and they can eat and sleep well to
the point that you know all that's left
is to gamble to get rich.
>> Yes. Why is it why is it
>> uh because I have a guiding light that
says you want to minimize human
suffering for as many people as you can
and um billionaires will commit suicide
because ultimately money security isn't
the thing earning your own respect is
the thing and so then it becomes a
question well what what do I have to do
to earn my own respect uh one I think it
will vary culture to culture family by
family person by person but always
within the bounds of evolution that okay
I need these guys to be able to
cooperate in these large groups. So we
have this desire to contribute to the
group. Also if you think of forever
there was no refrigeration. So if you
caught more than you could eat the only
way to store those calories was to give
them to somebody else. Then that person
would eat them and feel like they owed
you one. And so now when you don't get
some, you can literally in essence
extract the calories that you stored on
their body. Yeah. If they were able to
get a bigger kill. So we have this
desire to contribute to the group. We
have this desire for uh reciprocity. So
all those things are baked into the
human mind, right? And so if I'm getting
everything for free, I'm not acting in
accordance with the evolutionary drivers
in my brain. And I think work hard is
one of them. This is why rich kids
implode. I think evolution has
programmed you to only feel good if you
do the following. Work very hard to gain
a set of skills that allow you to make
progress, not achieve, to make progress.
Yes.
>> Towards an honorable goal. And I'll say
honorable goal is that which helps you
and the group,
>> right?
>> And if you're doing that,
>> then you're going to feel great. And
even if you're winning, if you didn't
work hard to gain a set of skills and
make progress towards this honorable
goal, you won't feel good. And people
have imploded for far less.
>> And so I really think some people won't
succumb to it, but many will.
>> I think it's a trade-off. It's a
trade-off between meaningless
video game crypto gambling life.
>> How dare you throw video games in
[laughter] there? I love video games,
but I do think that it is a replacement
for the power process that you just
talked about.
>> I do as well. Sort of.
>> Yeah. Like I feel it in myself like um
>> every now and then I'll like I'll have a
little bit of time or break that uh play
video games and um and and you just feel
like oh this video game is structured in
a way to
simulate life
and to give you that feeling that like
little dopamine hits of like getting
something done and like getting
something bigger done and then like you
know skilling up and like and then like
getting something bigger done and it's
like um and so I I think that we're
heading to a world I mean it's already
Japan already has this phenomenon they
have a name for for it
>> something like locked in or something
like that
>> the is it Hiki Kamorei
>> maybe like they just
>> I think that's it
>> lock themselves in a room and they just
like play video games every day that was
like a huge number
>> the otaku was like the first word for it
but I think hikamori is literally shut
Right. Right. Right. Like shutting.
Yeah.
>> Um and I I do think that's going to be
more more of a phenomenon. Now the
alternative is yes. If there's no
uh social social net, you're just going
to see a lot more, you know, drug
addiction and homelessness.
Uh and I think that's more corrosive on
society than shutting it. Um,
>> so you don't think that we'll fund
people's drug addiction?
>> I think if you're on the streets, you're
much more likely to get into drugs than
if you're at home playing video games
and betting on on crypto. Look, I think
both both these things are bad. Like,
I'm not saying this is a good outcome. I
just think that there are people that
are going to get automated out of their
job. There are people that overcome
that. And I really hope for everyone
listening to this and you know as many
people as possible to be able to
overcome that to be able to learn the
tools to be able to utilize them. It's
really fun. It's kind of like a video
game. Actually we get a lot of on we get
a lot of like these crypto gamblers
coming in and trying to build businesses
and I talk to them like yeah I used to
just like spend all this money on like
you know I have in some sense like a
meaningless life and I don't do anything
interesting. I have a little bit of
money coming in. Um but now like I spend
it on like trying to build businesses on
some some of those businesses are
working to some extent.
>> Welcome. That that's my whole pitch.
>> Yeah.
>> Is that um I get it is a very difficult
problem and I'm sure there are some
people where my solution just is not
going to work because they just cannot
>> um deal in a world where they're not
being helped along. Right. But my pitch
is out of love and compassion and a
recognition of how the human mind works.
Yeah. I want to help this person have
meaning and purpose. I want to help this
person do a hard thing and make progress
towards a goal. And so rather than give
them money, like for instance, if we did
something like this, I I'm thinking of
this on the fly here, so it's not well
thought out, but
>> I could see putting people like, hey,
you don't have to do this. If you can
make your own money, but if you want
money from the government, then you've
got to go do build infrastructure,
uh, water people's grass,
garden, whatever. But you're going to do
something that contributes to society
and you'll earn money doing it. So it's
not necessarily we're in that sense
you've you're not doing the free market,
but people have to earn a living. Like
they've got to do something that there
has to be a means test to see that
they're actually putting in effort.
Again, this is for their sake because if
they're not working hard,
>> the problem is
um that invites organized crime like
what we're seeing in the videos on
YouTube of different places, not just
Minnesota, that are like now videos in
New York and other places where uh there
is these systems that are meant to like
fund, you know, daycarees or whatever
that are getting prayed upon in
different ways. Uh and so anything that
the government does where it puts rules
on ways to create jobs often invites
fraud and and and different different
abuses of the of the system. So again
this is this is these are the the the
different trade-offs. government
regulated system, a lot of fraud, maybe
not even actually serving the purpose
that that you want it served,
>> creates negative consequences in lots of
ways, creates distortions, creates
inflation, but you're in a world, you're
post economic. This is where what we're
saying is AI is so productive and I'm
assuming robotics and energy costs are
pressed to basically zero.
>> I don't think I don't think I don't
think we're getting there like anytime
soon. I think there's going to be
>> So, you think this problem arises long
before we get there?
>> Oh, yeah. This problem this this year
we're going to see this problem.
>> Whoa.
>> Like it's it's happening as it like the
the really the coding agent revolution
is huge. It's really
>> How many people do you think that it
puts out of work? Um, it's it's hard to
know, but if if I can hire one business
generalist that is very good at managing
agents,
um, then
um, you know, uh, I don't need to hire
maybe a a team of five that are that
have someone who's like doing data,
someone who's doing uh, engineering, and
someone is doing like operations or
sales or marketing. So
there are people who are good at tools
are already as good as five people.
>> Wow. Uh uh so this is a bridge you think
we have to cross in 2026. That is
unexpected.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Uh that's very fast. So
uh you have you certainly know people
that lobby the government. And at one
point it sounded like you were saying
you guys were involved. What are you
whispering in their ear about how to
actually deal with this problem?
>> We're we're not involved in that, but
may maybe we should. Um it's it's hard
because you know I I just like
fundamentally
don't know how effective our especially
our government today is at like solving
problems.
>> It's not effective at all. That's why
man when I thought that I had you know 3
to 5 years to uh let this problem come
on slowly it feels a lot more
manageable. I've always thought of this
through the lens of the cost of energy
and labor get pushed to zero. I've
always pegged it at about seven years.
>> Yeah.
>> And uh then it's like well there's so
much abundance that this becomes an
easier thing to deal with. I knew we'd
have a generation that will be
completely disrupted because they just
will not know how to deal with this.
Like you, I believe that there's a
self-correcting mechanism. Just like
even with social media, I think fewer
and fewer kids are going to get
smartphones. I think people just realize
I got to get my kids out of public
education, right? That will hopefully
force public education to reform. Yes.
uh the kids won't they just if enough
parents see their kids acting like drug
addicts be literally drug addicts
because of their use of smartphones that
they'll just be like nope you can't have
it literally as a video game developer I
don't know how much you agree with me
but you you you created this debate
early on to like try to get to
>> no no here's the thing the uh the
friction is real and so the the great
fascination is because people can have a
different base assumption and then that
echoes in like this huge way. That's why
I was trying to figure out where we
actually disagreed. Where we actually
disagree is what it means to be automat.
And so I run with like a whole different
set of like well given what I think you
would have to do this and I'm trying to
touch the physics of the situation,
>> right? But but it sounds like we arrive
at a similar more optimistic kind of
view.
>> I think we arrive we arrive at the same
problem. We both probably have a vague
sense that ultimately technology is
worth the price.
>> Yes.
>> Which if I were going to say it as
succinctly as possible, I would say it's
going to be catastrophic and worth it.
>> But when I look back on history,
>> I I I'll put it more strongly. I don't
think we have a choice. There's binary
choice. And I think Ted Kazinski was
right about this thing. You either go
back or you go forward. You can't stay
in the middle. Like Europe is trying
this thing of staying in the middle. You
can't. you just lose power and create an
underclass and dysfunctional society and
you're not growing. Our system is based
on growth and we need to generate growth
and growth comes through technology.
The entire system especially with lower
birth rates and all of that you need
more automations. We don't have a choice
like we have we need the next jump in
technology and that is AI otherwise the
whole world will go to crap. Uh and so
the the you know you either like go
primitive or go technofuturistic I
that's what I arrived at.
>> So it's funny you're right we come up
with very similar things. So I think
there's four paths before us. The these
all assume that energy and labor drop to
zero effectively.
>> Path number one is what I call the new
Amish.
>> So people that I think this is what you
call revert to nature. So they I don't
want never make a mind, never make an
artificial intelligence in the likeness
of the human mind, whatever the opening
line of Dune is.
>> So they go down that path. Then you have
people that go and colonize Mars
>> called Life on Hard mode.
>> Uh they understand that breakdown that I
did and so they're like, "Cool, I want
to play a survival crafting game, but
I'm going to play it in real life on
Mars." Awesome. Uh path number three is
a brave new world where you just do
drugs and have sex all day. Cool. Not I
don't advise it but I know that a lot of
people are going to do it.
>> And then path number four which is my
chosen path is to create and inhabit
virtual worlds. So basically make video
games just like the Mars thing but now
you can have all kinds of different
experiences because I think video games
so effectively tap into the evolution of
the human mind. Yes. I think it really
would be compelling experiences in the
way that video games are. And the reason
that I think people assue video games is
um now it's like this isolation factor
where people hikamori they they isolate
they don't have normal human relations
all that so I I get why people have a
beef
>> but in the world that I think is
actually going to come maybe on a longer
timeline maybe you're right about that
but
>> I think it it it is an inevitable
outcome of the cost of energy and labor
going to zero. Mhm.
>> So anyway, those are the um the four
options that people face and then it
just becomes [clears throat] a question
of
>> which path
>> do people choose. Now I think it'll be a
very rocky ride. I mean it's interesting
you look at Gen Z. I see I see some of
those paths already like you have the
looks maxing like culture
and it's like all that matters all
that's left to matter is like you know
getting the most amount of dates and
like status via looks and you know
things like that.
>> Uh
it's interesting that our generation at
least millennials like really prize
capital and wealth accumulation. some
Gen Z just like are post economic from
now. They're like no what matters is
actually just looks which is a really
fascinating view and they're like it
looks actually gets wealth which they're
right about that because Instagram and
things like that are like opens up
opportunities and only fans and things
like that.
>> Um so so there's there there's people
already picking that path. I see I think
I think uh a lot of other generations
are very cynical about Gen Z. I see a
lot of really passionate,
hyperproductive,
incredibly good with the tools, Gen Z,
like
>> the the the kind of things like how
plastic they're they're, you know, they
grew up in a in a they grew up with AI.
Many of them came of age with AI, so
they really understand it and like they
pick up tools super quickly and are able
to like make things fast and they they
have a more automating mind. Uh I think
automation is a skill you need to learn.
Uh I see it in our you know users who
are who adopt who look at replet and
they're like okay this is a general
automation platform. It's not just about
making an app or making a piece of
software that makes one one things
easier.
>> It's more like they look at their lives.
They look at their work. They wake up
dayto day and they're like okay what are
the things that I can automate there?
There's a certain sense of laziness that
you need like the idea of like doing
spreadsheets manually. It's just like
like you need to be a little ADHD,
right? Like you can't sit down and do
routine tasks. I think those people are
just have the right attitude towards AI
and the world that we're headed to. We
our generation the previous generation
grew up in this middle automation world.
We didn't we weren't headed to world
full automation but we're uh machines
took on
enough of a job that
but they left a lot of gaps and those
gaps were filled by humans
to do
machine-like work cogs in a machine and
you know I think Markx
is very wrong about his solutions But he
was very right about
>> Mark's uh Carl Marx.
>> Oh. Oh Jesus. With an X.
>> Yeah. Fairly different.
>> Yeah. I was thinking apostrophe s. Yeah.
>> Um Karl Marx looked at the system we had
post-industrial evolution and said well
actually you know we're in a world where
humans are having to substitute for
machine-like work. He came up with this
for example theory of alienation where
I am so disconnected from the the actual
impact of the work that I'm doing that I
don't have meaning like all I do is be
part of this factory line and I do one
thing I like put the eraser on the
pencil and like I don't actually know
the people that are using the pencils I
don't really interact with them I don't
know the customers I'm I don't know the
other people are doing the job I'm like
doing the job of a machine it is the job
of a machine and we are finally at a
world where we're heading towards a
world where we're going to have full
automations, where humans don't have to
act as machines. But those generations
that grew up with a certain education
system that actually forced us like I I
think ADHD is a totally madeup thing.
And I think the natur like
>> the comments are gonna light up right
now [laughter]
>> like you know I would say I have it but
I think it is a natural
um it's a naturally occurring thing in
many many people I think you know large
percentage of people. It is not a
medical thing.
>> It's not pathological.
>> It's not path pathological. uh it you
know people that are hyper creative that
like get bored of like tasks that they
know should be should not be done by
humans like we're we should not be
acting like machines uh they want to be
able to do a lot of different things
they want to be able to you know receive
a lot of different information jump from
task to task and that's why a lot of
founders have ADHD because we actually
get a lot of you know satisfaction from
context switching like a lot of people
ask me like oh you wake up in the
morning You do a finance meeting, you do
an engineering meeting, you do a product
meeting, and then you do business
strategy meeting, and then you do a
design meeting, and then you do HR
meeting. And I was like, how can you do
this? I was like, what are you talking
about? This is this is exactly what I
love. I love contact switching. I love
going from one problem to another, from
one fire to another. This is like how
I'm wired. Actually the moment I relax I
just like become kind of like the moment
I not relax the moment I um put in a
place where uh the the task is long and
repetitive I just can't do it and I just
become depressed and like really
unhappy.
>> Yeah. Don't go into operations.
>> Yeah. Exactly. And I I think that a lot
of Gen Z are growing up today and
looking at AI and they're saying okay I
don't have to do that anymore.
>> So it's our version of the pointy-haired
boss. I don't know who's going to write
that that comic, but like they're
looking at the world and they're saying
that all these jobs are made for
machines. They're not made for humans.
And what humans are good at is being
creative. It's also being is
understanding what our f fellow humans
want and need. And therefore, I can
create products and services that can
benefit people directly. This is my job
as a human is to benefit others like you
were saying and I can do it directly. I
don't need to be part of I don't need to
be a cog like a node in a very large
machine. I can understand all aspects of
the business. I can start a business or
I can go become a business journalist
and be able to contribute on all
different aspects of of a certain
corporation.
>> All right. So talk to the Genenzi person
that feels a little bit lost. So that
speaks directly to the heart of the
person who sort of already gets it and
this is a good moment for them.
>> Um but we started all this with you know
what is Ted Kazinski right about? And I
think we agree on a lot, which is when
you wipe out that sweet spot thing, it
it will cause some people to feel a
drift.
>> Yeah.
>> Um I may be too cynical on the
percentage of people that can change. So
um make your best pitch. How do you get
somebody because we both want to see
like all of Gen Z like get on track and
make the most of this moment and not be
a generation that gets gobbled up by the
transition, right? um how do you reach
out to the person that doesn't yet know
how to plug into where the world of AI
is
>> and especially the reputation AI has of
like ah don't worry about it kid it's
going to be better than you at
everything
the the first thing I will say it's a
it's a tool that is not what you hear in
sci-fi that is not what you hear from
the AI CEOs the AIOS want to make it
sound like a like it is a god that's how
they can fund raise they can raise like
the rounds that are coming together now
is huge and what you what you need to
sell investors on is you're inventing
God, right? Um a lot of them don't
actually believe that. Um and I think
like fundamentally understand on an
intellectual level that it's a tool for
you to use. It's not a something that is
like made to to replace you. It can
actually accentuate. It's it's a
technology. It's like any other
technology that we invented um as humans
in human history. there there are some
things that are special about it
obviously but it's still ultimately a
tool. So start from that um premise. Um
and then uh go about your day-to-day
life and your your your school work your
homework if if you're a part of an
internship whatever it is look at your
work from a perspective of like what is
boring and really a job for a machine.
What is like my boss told me to or like
my my teacher told me to do do this like
very manual thing um and go to the
simplest tool you can imagine chat GPT
and try to automate the the first basic
aspect of it just like prompt something
get the output and and and play around
with it there but then go a little
further um you can ask HP or you can go
to replet and you Um, now make make a
piece of software that can help you
automate this thing on a not on a just
one-time basis, but on a in a recurring
basis. And again, that could be in your
personal life. Like there are a lot of
things we do in front of our computers
or in front of our phones um that are
very repetitive. And so train your mind
to find these moments and then just
struggle with the idea of like
automating it. like how can I get rid of
this problem entirely so I don't have to
do it again? Um like for me, you know, I
had, you know, I've always struggled
with some form of sleep issues.
>> Uh and um uh my my sleep doctor gave me
like a like a paper to fill every day
when I work when I wake up to just track
my progress. I'm like, why am I writing
this down? This doesn't make any sense.
So I took a photo of it, put it into
Replet, created a piece of software.
Now, every morning I can, you know, type
up the like, you know, what time I went
to sleep, how how I how I feel, like,
you know, other things that happened,
what did I eat last night? And then I'm
like, you know, that's still too too
cumbersome. Like, you need to be this
lazy. [laughter]
Um, and then, okay, what's what's the
next thing? Well, you know, eight
already has has some of the data or
whatever tracking software that you use.
Some of them have APIs. even if they
don't. I went and asked it to kind of
pull that what time I slept, what time I
wake up. Now I don't have to put in
that. I was like, okay, what I ate, what
I what I um you know, what I feel in the
morning. So I just like snap pictures of
of things I ate or medicine I take,
whatever. And that goes into into the
app. In the morning, I just want to talk
to it. So I added like another voice to
text AI. So just keep going. Like how
easy can this be? How frictionless
can this be? And so I guess if I were to
boil this down is to be lazy. [laughter]
Very good advice. Yeah, be lazy in a way
that
uh if if you develop this mindset of uh
there are a lot of things in my life
that are repetitive and boring and I can
get rid of them with AI and then go
struggle with getting rid of them with
AI and over time you'll build enough
skill in order to actually become second
nature uh to you. What do you think the
uniomber got right in his manifesto that
teaches us something about how we should
engage with AI?
>> So maybe some background uniomber uh
manifesto uh was was written by by this
guy who's actually a mathemat
mathematician. His name is Ted Kazinski.
Uh and um you know for all intents and
purposes like he's obviously did really
bad stuff is we should say that did
terrorism but he wrote this manifesto
that I think is is worth reading and it
is a reflection uh and introspection on
on technology and its role in human
society. Uh it's called ind the
industrial revolution and its
consequences. Um, and it starts with the
industrial revolution and its
consequences have been a disaster for
the human race. It's one of the
strongest open-end sentences you can
find in any book or or piece of writing.
Um, uh, he talks about how
um, technology can um, rob us from this
natural thing to us that he calls the
power process. So he says, "Humans are
are are made, are built, evolved,
whatever you you think of um to to have
certain life phases and certain
challenges to be able to overcome them.
So you start as a child, you learn how
to walk, you know, you crawl around, you
learn how to walk, and you learn how to
eat and do all the basic stuff and then
um you know, as hunter gatherers, say
ancestral humans, they would learn how
to hunt
uh and and they'll do well in hunting.
They'll have enough um resources to be
able to go get married and get a hut or
whatever they used to live in.
>> Get a hut. [laughter]
>> The cost of huts these days,
>> down payment on a hut. I got my, you
know, slab of meat uh for down payments.
But um and uh and then and then you you
have children and then they have
children and you age out and you become
the the wise uh you know grandfather and
then and then you pass away. And he says
that that's that's so essential to us is
his his view. And technology uh
increasingly is making our lives so easy
that we we you know society becomes
pathological in many ways. And he he
calls that uh depression. He calls
actually social activism. You might call
it walk woke today as like he actually
has a like an entire section
>> on social activism being like a symptom
of people just not having to struggle
and having to
>> they are looking for a surrogate for
meaning and purpose.
>> They're looking for a surrogate meaning
and purpose or they're taking out some
kind of rage against uh society that
because of that lack of meaning of
purpose. Um and uh and his view is that
you know these technologies have become
a replacement for the power process. Uh
and that that's causing humanity overall
to be just net unhappy worse off because
of technology. Uh now you I don't
obviously don't agree with with with the
conclusion of that but it's important to
>> you say you don't agree with the
conclusion you don't agree that it's
actually depressing us. I don't agree
that it's inevitably true that
technology makes us worse, unhappy. I
think there are forms of technology that
makes us worse, unhappy, and all of
that, but it's like any any tool, any
powerful tool, it can have negative
consequences and positive consequences.
And society needs to adapt to that and
and and come up with either like
regulations,
religions to regulate these things or um
um or or just like social antibodies.
You know, for example, um I'm a big fan
of of Quest, the snacks you made. Um
there was a time when it was, you know,
kind of acceptable to be eating junk all
the time, to be eating Twinkies and all
of that. But at some point especially in
the US I think it started in the US
where uh there was a feeling that no
we're getting unhealthy we're getting
unhappy we're not looking attractive and
uh there was a movement around
let's find replacements let's eat whole
foods let's eat um and society developed
ways in which to get the best of both
worlds to have really tasty good food uh
but at the same time not feeling like
crap and unhappy all the time. Um and so
I I think without that regulatory force
and I don't mean that strictly in a
government sense because I can
government regulation can come with all
sorts of negative consequences but it
could come from kind of society overall
then you can you can overcome these
things but I think free markets and
capitalism sort of running a muck
without any social
um reaction and regulation of that we
could end up in a place where technology
is actually really harmful.
>> Okay. So, uh we know that some
technology creates a problem. Do you put
AI in the camp of technology that
creates that problem?
>> Uh I I think AI could create tremendous
problem, could create tremendous
solutions. Uh I think I think the more
powerful something is, the more has
potential to do both.
>> Okay. So, I'll put my thesis forward,
which is that is maybe one word
different than what you said, which is
AI is going to create tremendous
solutions and tremendous problems.
>> And so, for me, I look at this and it's
been such a huge boon in my own life.
There are things that I'm able to do
with our video game development that
just wouldn't be possible if we didn't
have AI. Just becomes too expensive too
fast.
>> Um, so huge win. I use it in my own life
constantly. Uh its ability to help me
educate myself is unparalleled ever.
It's just absolutely incredible. When I
look at the societal impacts though, I
immediately am like uh oh, like this is
really going to be a problem. And I'll
sort of rank order. I think the you've
got at the very top, you've got the
ultimate ponopticon where AI is just
going to watch, see, and do everything.
and it becomes a tool for elites to gain
control over the masses. I know you know
about James Burnham so definitely want
to get into that but just as a marker
for now. So worry about that. Then
certainly worry about an interim period
where humans will uh like if I look at
Gen Z for sure, probably even younger
millennials, they just don't try because
the K-shaped economy has brutalized them
their whole life. And then we've told
them, hey, don't worry, in 5 to 10
years, AI is going to be better than you
at everything. And there's just a why
bother mentality, right? And then
obviously you can go into all the
different layers, sex bots, all that
kind of crazy stuff. But it's like,
okay, well, I know humans are bad at the
self-regulating that you're talking
about, and I know governments are bad at
the top down regulation. Uh, so now I'm
like, uhoh, we have this thing that will
be the ultimate tool of the elites
>> to control people. And then the other
stuff that it can do requires a lot of
self-regulation.
And so how do you think through or if if
you don't agree with that problem? Yeah,
definitely let me know. But if you do
agree like how do you deal with it?
>> Yeah, I agree. And I will say uh yes,
government is not always successful at
regulation. But there are some things
that I think were positive kind of
partnership between society, culture,
you know, and and government in some
cases religion like smoking. I think
it's been really successful in the US.
Like when I came first here, like not
only it was not only it was hard to
smoke because like everywhere is kind of
banned indoors, it was socially at least
in my social circles, it's socially
looked down upon to be a smoker. And I I
I was smoking at the time when I first
came from Jordan. Uh and I felt kind of
like a social outcast a little bit. I
felt kind of weird like why am I
smoking? like are they better than me?
And
>> that's the kind of feeling you want to
you want to create for something that's
like truly truly harmful.
>> But do so this is where it gets
complicated with AI. So uh in the video
game industry where I'm at, video gamers
absolutely despise AI and they have that
energy of like what are you doing? Why
are you using that? I'm not even going
to play your game if you used AI even
for like the tiniest background object.
Like nope, you're dead to me.
>> But what are they reacting to? like are
they reacting to actual social harm or
are they reacting to um sense of anxiety
or job replacement?
>> I'm trying to get to this is a category
question. So, so what I hear you saying
is uh we need to make things that are
dangerous feel like we did cigarettes.
The other way I'm saying it is um uh I I
generally am optimistic about humans to
although some things could be very
harmful in the short term just generally
people and I think healthy societies and
and you could argue whether we have
healthy societies or not given all the
social unrest in the world but healthy
societies tend to develop antibodies
over time. Um, now that doesn't mean you
shouldn't worry about that, but that's
just a general kind of flag that I'm
planning to say. I'm generally
optimistic about humans figure it out.
>> Humans figuring it out. That being said,
we can discuss all the all the all the
details uh in that. So yeah, definitely
um there are reactions to AI that are
totally irrational and that happens too.
Like um the the idea that you can't use,
you know, AI to make video games is just
when you talk to anyone and I've tried
to have conversations there, it just
there's no real argument there. Like you
know, at at best you can get to the
argument of like artists like this is
actually plagiarizing artists work and
whatever. You can have a discussion
around that. Uh but for the most part
it's just a total emotional reaction. Um
uh but but I think some of the things
that we need to truly worry about right
now is um uh like just the general
information landscape is absolutely
horrific right now. Like you can't tell
what's real and what's not real. um like
any major news event that there's all
these AI videos that are happening
around it and it and it it just leads
people to this nihilistic view of like I
just can't everything is propaganda
>> and it and our our kind of media
establishment in the US hasn't really
helped a whole lot especially during the
co years and after that and just the
trust in media has went down a lot so
even that as an institution that you
could probably maybe rely on at some
point is no longer the case social media
replace it and Now social media is just
like full and sort of uh full of these
fake videos and you can't make heads
from tails.
>> Okay. So uh this is a good point to go
back to James Burnham. So
>> uh co happens completely reorganizes my
sense of what the world is and how it
works. Like my life really can be just a
line drawn. It's like my frame of
reference before co my frame of
reference after.
>> Yes. Reading James Burnham
>> gave me the language with which to
explain what I had been through
>> and I suddenly realized, oh my god, my
whole life the narrative has been
controlled. I just didn't realize it. So
I mistook consensus around projected
narrative for actual represented truth.
>> And co made me realize, oh no, no, no,
it was never simply representing the
truth. It was always just narrative
control. Mhm.
>> Now, social media had made it impossible
for them to have uniformity of
narrative.
>> And I was like, whoa, that was such a
terrifying paradigm shift. And Burnham
has this idea that you'll well know
called the iron law of oligarchy. So,
there will always be a small group of
people that run the world, like quite
literally. And it doesn't matter how you
fragment it, whether it's in a company,
there's going to be a small group of
executives that run the company. Whether
it's a state government, small group
that run that, whether it's a household,
there's going to be, you know, even when
you got the parents and the kids, it's
like, well, the parents are going to run
things. Or I suppose you could have
something really wacky and the kids are
running the show, but there's always
going to be a small group that actually
leads. Now, one of Ted Kazinsk's ideas
that I thought was really interesting is
that what he said was the system itself
as technology advances will have to
crack down on the people's behavior more
and more to stay in control.
>> And so with AI, you're creating the
ultimate tool because it can see
everything, synthesize everything, can
be everywhere all at once. I mean, you
know, you look at um
>> what is uh what's the Peter Teal
company? Oh, god.
>> Palunteer.
>> Palunteer. Thank you. So, you look at
some of the stuff they're able to do
from a surveillance perspective and now
you've got AI itself
creates the very tool when it gets in
the hands of the elites who know they
must control the narrative, control
behavior in order to control in order to
keep the system alive. And so now it's
like the thing that Kazinski he wouldn't
have predicted AI in the form that it's
in but he understood the coming problem.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I mean uh I I think a lot of these
early literature were kind of circling
around the same thing. There's this
another thinker called Nickland which is
also
>> Nickland. Nick Lan pretty
>> never heard of this
>> wild uh very impenetrable type of
thinking but um and writing but one idea
uh that he he talks about is capitalism
is the
boot desk for AI so it it was always
going to head to AI
>> interesting
>> like and he he's you know goes a little
wackier than that and says it's almost
like uh you could think of AI as
reaching back into the past and building
itself through through free markets and
and capitalism. It's almost like this
thing has always somehow existing in
some form and it's getting built and and
the ultimate conclusion is as AI. But
but I I I digress. There's but but you
know the the point is it was always
headed in this direction this like
systems that that we're building. That
being said, um, uh, in the same way that
technology has good uses and bad uses,
technology can be centralizing and
decentralizing.
Um, uh, there's an author, his name is
Tim Woo, and he wrote the book, uh, the
master switch and he talks about this
oscillation between centralization and
decentralization of technology. He
brings up for example
um radio. One of the early technologies
he talks about ham radio. It was such a
decentralizing technology because um
people used to like you know have these
radios at home. They would talk to each
other. They would like um they can
broadcast anything. Obviously at some
point the government stepped in kind of
regulated the the radio radio bands. Um
and and he says like early internet was
was also a very decentralized
decentralizing technology. Uh there
wasn't really this um you know Facebooks
of the world. It was like social
networks that was peer-to-peer
and everyone's computer was treated the
same. There wasn't like client server.
Everything is a is a client and a
server. Uh but at some point we had it
in a way that is like centralizing. But
his argument is like it'll keep
oscillating. we'll we'll invent
something that's like more
decentralizing and then later on it's
centralized. We'll invent another thing
that's decentralizing. You can think of
crypto as like a decentralizing of the
potentially of the internet. Now AI I
will make the point that it's both
centralizing and decentralizing at the
same time. So of course AI can be used
to do mass surveillance to do to have
these like big you know machines that
kind of can ingest all the data about us
and and use facial recognition and you
can think of it as the ultimate like you
know dream of the Chinese Communist
Party right is to see everything and and
and know everything about about everyone
and control everything. Um but it it
there's something also decentralizing
about AI. you know, think about um
entrepreneurship. Like I think we're
going through a a boom in
entrepreneurship like there's like none
in history. Um like what you said about
you know your game studio. Uh there's a
lot of people that are able to build
games right now that couldn't before in
[snorts] in in our business. Uh we see
um we built a platform that allows
people to build software. Uh and so we
see individuals that are making millions
of dollars that otherwise would have
required to have raised a lot of capital
and be in Silicon Valley and employ a
lot of people. So we see a lot of these
micro entrepreneurship now coming on the
scene. A lot of people are leaving their
jobs, jobs they hate, jobs they're
miserable in and starting businesses
that they're really passionate about and
areas they really care about. Um so I
think that there's a sense in which uh
there's going to be a lot more a lot
more companies and I think that's a
really good thing. I think that's a
decentralizing thing that decentralizes
power. Um I also think that you know we
talked about the information landscape.
Uh now now think I I think Grock on axe
has been uh for the most part positive
tool for for people to like judge
whether something is real or not.
>> Like you see as like at Grock is this
real or not? And most of the time the
answers are are really good and it's
giving them [snorts] different
perspectives and it's helping people
judge thing different things. I actually
don't think that the ultimate
personal information
assistant has been built yet. Like what
I'd want to see someone build is me
going into some kind of AI system and
putting some kind of statement like uh
COVID uh was lap leaked and then I want
to see agents from every model in every
company from every country in the world
argue about it. And I want to see it
spread and argued in every different
perspective with different prompting and
things like that. And then like find a
summary of like all the different views
and maybe even at some point putting in
probability probabilities about like
here's what we think the probability of
that happened or this happened or this
that. So I think AI can actually create
a potential information landscape that
gives power to people to judge things
and not have to rely on CNN. I do agree
with you, New York Times, CNN, whatever.
There always been tools of the oligarchy
>> to control opinion. Um, I think it's
it's it's more brazen right now. I think
there's like there's a sense of uh
journalistic integrity at some point,
but but but um but but I think
ultimately AI can be an empowering tool
for the for the masses uh to deal with
this. Um even on the issue of
centralized sort of government 1984esque
uh AI um you can imagine a world in
which uh people are helped by their
personal AIs to overcome the AI
surveillance.
>> I don't know that I can.
>> Why not? [snorts]
>> Okay. So the thing that I think we have
to contend directly with is if it is
true that for the system to survive the
system must control your behavior that
AI gives them myriad ways now to nudge
your behavior in certain directions.
uh that even if you have your own
individual AI, the system is going to
find ways to continue to close lanes
down, close lanes down, close lanes
down. So even think about right now,
I'll this is my prognostication. I think
in the next two years, you're going to
find out that the fraud that we're
seeing in Minnesota is is pervasive.
It's everywhere,
>> right?
>> And show me the incentives. I'll show
you the outcome. And so we have a
welfare state and therefore welfare is
going to be taken advantage of. You have
an open border. people like, "Oh, wow.
Okay, cool. Come in and get that."
Especially, and I know this is now going
deep into conspiracy land, but if also
there are ways for them to vote, it's
like you get the incentive structure
where it's like, "Hey, the tit for tat
is you come in, you get some free stuff,
and then I can basically count on your
vote because I'm the person that makes
the free stuff available." So now we're
going to see like fraud just ever
present. So what does the government do
to crack down? The government's like,
"Oo, I have a deficit. So now I'm going
to go tax the wealthy people." The
problem is the wealthy people can leave,
but that doesn't stop them from ever
tightening the grip. And now you can
imagine if you take tax as but one
example of how the system responds
by increasingly getting more aggressive,
what happens when you can't leave.
>> And so if for instance, one thing
California's tried to do is even if you
leave, we can still tax you
>> years after you've left, which is pure
insanity from where I'm sitting. But
it's like if the system is able to get
that kind of legislation passed and we
know it's possible because countries all
throughout history have done that where
the walls are to keep people in.
>> Mhm.
>> So the system has historically done it
very successfully. The system has every
incentive to survive. And now we're
giving it like the people at the top are
going to have the access to most power,
most money because they can tax uh
technology. They can legislate their own
control. all of that and then they can
if they see that the individual is doing
something they don't want them to do as
we saw with censorship they'll just shut
it down.
>> So they'll come up with a reason it will
be cloaked as safety as to why you can't
have the AI yourself or you can't have
one that's that powerful or whatever and
again they'll pitch it as safety but
they'll still follow the same playbook
of more control more control more
control.
>> Yeah. uh like a a a comment in agreement
uh with that. Uh there's like another
book that's burn a mask. Um it's called
the sovereign individual. I don't know
if you've read that. It's it's a
fantastic book. It predicted Bitcoin. It
depicted remote.
>> I read like the first chapter or
something. So I know of it. It's really
great. Um uh it talks about that we have
that modern welfare states are you think
of them as companies for the employee.
They're not in service of the customer.
They're in service of the employee. The
employee being the politicians,
>> the the like deep deep state employees.
Uh and ultimately everything that they
do is to empower them themselves.
>> And they actually prefer an underclass.
They prefer an underclass and they
prefer the the like rich elite and they
prefer to create the this the scasm
between them because the underclass they
can rely on their vote because they're
voting money for themselves and then
there's like a source of capital and
wealth from these productive individuals
that they can always um funnel through.
>> That is terrifying.
>> It is terrifying. Now um now sort of the
flip side to that um you know I I I I
think I I do think I do believe just
like a fundamental belief in the
self-correcting nature of humanity and
also America like I think America has a
few uh uh innovations on how we organize
society that are quite novel and quite
powerful. uh free speech is is one of
them. Could argue the second amendment
is also uh another one of them. Uh but
you know that the country was founded on
the basis of revolt against taxation. So
I I it's hard for me to imagine that
we're going to live in the world of
this, you know, top-down,
you know, taxation, suffocation, sort of
control w without without there there be
a a sort of a reaction to that. And by
the way, the elite is also made of the
wealthy. Like if you go to DC right now,
I mean DC is, you know, run by
billionaires. I don't mean this as a bad
thing. Like I think it was really great
that a bunch of like tech uh tech guys
like went to DC and like are able to
contribute and hold position positions
of power. So it's not entirely clear to
me that uh that uh you know uh that it's
headed that way in a locked in fashion.
Uh there's still uh there's still some
democracy. I mean, the thing that is
strange about California and the thing
that I think the early founders of
America didn't want is this idea of like
majority uh majoritarian rule.
>> The idea like you get 51% vote, you can
vote your the money out of the 49%. They
intuited and that's why America is a
republic and not a direct democracy.
They intuited that that's a that's a
that's a way to uh to take any minority
and be able to to to target them. Um,
and so maybe there's something about how
California is structured that is kind of
hopeless, but [laughter]
but but America [clears throat]
has different states like, you know,
Texas and Florida, they're trying to
bring the tech tech guys there. They're
they're actively promoting and and
soliciting and saying, you know, come
here. We're not going to. So there's
also competition.
>> There's also competition internationally
with China. Like once people see that
China is is rising, by the way, China's
free market system is more robust than
America's at this point. Talking about
welfare, there's no welfare there. There
is not a welfare state. The way they do
communism is by
uh controlling the capitalist economy.
The way they distribute wealth is by
making sure that company there's so many
companies, there's so much competitions,
margins are near zero.
So you have they're like if they think
that um electric vehicles are important,
they're going to say, "Okay, we're going
to just seed every company that's going
to make electric vehicles." And there's
like a lot of zombie EV companies in in
China. There's probably a lot of fraud
and all that, but also there's there's
tons of like really competitive
um Chinese electric vehicles. I don't
know if you've ever seen one, but but
they caught up to Tesla in some cases
better.
>> Yeah. From a sales perspective, they're
crushing Tesla internationally.
internationally they are um and so um
and and so uh when when when the
American public, you know, is educated
on the fact that if we're going to treat
our most productive element of society
that way and they're going to flee and
and we're not going to be productive
because we don't have a true free
market, we're going to be losing against
China. We're going to get poorer. And so
I I think the public will will
understand that will understand that
there's going to be a reaction.
>> Interesting. Okay. So, I'm starting to
map where we align and where we
disagree. So, you have a um fundamental
belief that there's a self-correcting
mechanism to humans in general, that we
see a bad thing and over time we fix it.
Uh and that America is even better than
that, uh better at that than sort of the
average. Okay, fair enough. Um I have a
different base assumption that my
beliefs are built on top of and they are
that because intelligence is unevenly
distributed and interest is wildly
unevenly distributed that you have a
double force that pushes people into
either being aware of how they're being
manipulated and controlled and can do
something about it or they don't have
the time or the intellectual capacity to
do it. And that bifurcation will always
give the elites the ability to have a
massive amount of control and because
you just go after the people that don't
have the time or the cognitive bandwidth
to deal with it.
>> I think intelligence is overrated.
>> Okay, now now we're in violent
disagreement. Okay, make me a believer.
>> Um I think that uh and and you know as
someone who who grew up and everyone
around me was like ah this is the
smartest kid. you know, they, you know,
I could skip classes, I could hack into
school, I could do everything. Like,
being smart is a core of my identity and
that's why I'm here. And so, it's not
like I don't believe in intelligence or
or I'm anti-intellectual, but over time,
I've come to realize that being smart
there's a like there's wild diminishing
return to it. Do you know the Midwit uh
meme, right? I mean, society. So, the
elites that Burnham talks about, what
Mark Andre calls the laptop class,
right? They're kind of the midwits.
They're not the 150 IQ. They're the 110
IQ. Those are the people running
society. And so, uh, you know, if the
idea that intelligence is the most
important thing, we'd be run be by the
Einsteins of the world. But we were
never run by the Einsteins of the world.
the period in in in America that we had
a little more technocratic government
around World War II and uh there were
like really intelligent people that rose
to the top and you had Richard Feman,
von Newman that's this is really
exciting but that's like a fluke in in
human history. I think most of the time
uh it is not pure intelligence that is
that that that rise to the top and ends
up uh sort of controlling things. Um,
think of uh uh think of Dilbert's
cartoons, you know. Um, uh, uh, Scott
Adams just just just passed away. I, you
know, I grew up reading these cartoons
and and I'm like, man, I just don't want
a pointy hair boss. And I think it
really had an impact on me as like an
entrepreneur as like part of the
entrepreneurial drive is like and I did
go to the job market and I my you know
first first few jobs I had pointy-hea
bosses and they were not very smart. I
was way smarter than them but they were
very good at the social game. They were
they had different skills. Uh I I think
humans are a lot more diverse than we we
think uh about. It is not just like IQ
is like a single value. Uh it is more
like a you know if if you really want to
measure
human performance you need to measure a
lot of other things. Charisma
uh social skills
um uh spiritual
understanding being being having senses
about the world to understand where the
world is headed. Um like that's
something I pride myself on. Uh, and I
don't think, you know, I'm like, you
know, uh, like I I grew up with a lot of
kids that were a lot more books smart
than me. Like they would, and I'm sure
you you did, too. Like they they would
get better grades and and all of that.
Um, but one thing I always had like a a
good talent for is knowing where the
world is headed technology-wise. So I
could like sit down like I kind of think
and try to predict where where things
are headed. Um, and I don't think that's
like a pure intelligence thing. Maybe
it's I don't know what it is. Not would
not go too woo woo, but over time I've
I've kind of my my view of human talents
have have sort of evolved beyond beyond
just just intelligence. And so I think
there's a lot of regular everyday people
that have a sense for how they're
getting oppressed, how they're getting
screwed. I mean, the whole MAGA thing,
the whole Trump revolution is because
everyday people that you might not think
of as the the ultimate intelligence just
realized they're getting screwed. They
just like figured out that um there's a
sense in which there's like a deep
injustice in in in America and how how
certain people are are are getting
treated, how we're like outsourcing all
the manufacturing. Some people are
getting rich and others and they may not
have not all of them obviously a lot of
a lot of people in that camp are very
smart but a lot of people might not have
that like you know uh vocabulary or like
exact way to kind of articulate in an
intellectual way but people are smart
and I think they tend to sense where
things are at and and when they're
getting screwed by certain people. Okay.
uh whatever word you would call that
agency I shorthand it to intelligence
but whatever that is that makes people
able to navigate the world well do we
agree that it's unevenly distributed
uh broadly yes
>> broadly it's interesting there's
something here that
>> I think people spike I think people
spike on different things I think
>> people who spike really high on
intelligence They tend to lack
certain
awareness of the world in different
ways.
>> I'll completely let go of the word
intelligence. I Intelligence is me
groping for something. Yeah,
>> I'll give you an example.
>> Um, so I used to hire people regardless
of felony convictions
>> and it was an incredible journey. This
was back at Quest. So this is a lot of
like laborers, manufacturers, and so we
had people lit literally line up around
the building just to be interviewed.
>> Fantastic.
>> Because it was I'm getting a shot here.
No one's ever given me. And I'll get all
this praise like, "Oh my god, I can't
believe you did that." Like just
incredible, incredible people came out
of that uh period. But also out of that
period came my belief that only 2% of
adults will ever change. And so wherever
the vast majority of humans are when you
meet them, they will be a year later,
two years later, five years later, 10
years later. And that means 98% this is
obviously rough.
>> Mhm.
>> But 98% of people, they're baked. Once
the once they're, I don't know, 17, 18,
somewhere in there, they they are
forever that person.
>> And if something broke or wasn't there
to begin with, it will be that way
forever for the rest of their lives. And
I put an ungodly amount of time and
attention into trying to help those
people like free themselves. Long before
there were cameras or anything, I was
just doing it because my natural bent is
that I change so much. Let me help other
people change because it was had such a
radical impact on my life.
>> Yeah.
>> And I just found no it it just isn't. So
whatever that thing is,
>> don't you think that
change needs to be personal, needs to be
self-driven? like maybe your your
experience trying to change people is
the problem at all.
>> Do you think we're automata or is free
will real?
>> I think free will is real.
>> Okay. So now we have found where we
disagree.
>> Um do you believe that there is a spirit
that is not attached to the body?
>> Yeah, I I go back and forth on on this a
lot. I just don't think that I just
don't think that um you can explain
consciousness in entirely physical ways.
>> Like you don't think intelligence really
matters. I don't think that question
really matters. I can't understand
people's obsession with that. And I
perfectly accept maybe I'm just too
dumb.
>> Yeah.
>> But like when I hear the hard problem
with consciousness, I'm just like what?
>> Yeah, it is hard. Like you need to
figure out what's special about humans.
Consciousness is clearly a special
thing. And I mean there's a
>> why sorry I I'm gonna challenge your
your total foundational premise. Yeah.
Why do you need to understand
consciousness
>> to to what?
>> Navigate the world well. Help people
change.
>> I just mean [clears throat] as as as um
so you asked a question about free will
and if we're getting to bedrock
philosophy I just don't think you can
brush away the question of
unconsciousness
and the question of consciousness brings
in spirit and other things. try to brush
it away and then you tell me if if I and
trust me I want to improve. So if you
see something that I'm missing, I'm
desperate to see it as well. Yeah.
>> Um,
let's say just for sake of argument that
humans are an antenna for consciousness,
that it does not reside in the body and
that whoever people that believe that
are 100% right. That does not change the
way that I have to interface with being
a receiver of consciousness. So, for
instance, um, if you hit me in the head,
it will disrupt my ability to receive
that signal. If you give me traumatic
brain injury, it will disrupt my ability
to receive that signal. If my genetics
are trash, it will disrupt my ability.
If I intake toxins, it will disrupt my
ability. On and on and on. So, knowing
that I am a receiver of an exterior
thing to the interior is fascinating.
And I would be like, whoa, that's crazy.
>> But it wouldn't change anything about
the physics of how I live my life. It
would just be a oh that's interesting.
It's different than I thought it was.
>> But it does not suddenly unlock an
ability simply because I know that it's
coming from the outside.
>> Right?
>> So my thing is like I it doesn't matter
I think experientially
to whether God exists or not. It doesn't
matter if rocks are conscious,
consciousness is fundamental. None of
that matters. That whatever it is that
drives it, it feels like this. So um
there are a lot of downstream
implications of uh thinking that humans
are full automat input output their
function of their environment for
example um you would um have a totally
different justice system right like
>> I wouldn't
>> why not uh because like you would you
would uh you would assume that no one is
doing anything out of like no one has
true agency in a world of automatons and
so
>> so I look at it from the perspect
perspective of I'm programming a video
game
>> and I have an outcome that I'm trying to
get to and let's say that's a society
that can cohhere but never becomes
calcified or static.
>> So I need momentum, I need change, I
need it to move forward whether it's AI
reaching into the past and configuring
us to be that way or God did it or
evolution did it. But that is what we
have. So, the reason that humans are the
most dominant species the world has ever
seen is because we can cooperate
flexibly in these really large groups,
uh, people tend to calcify over time.
And so, evolution figured out, well, we
can't let these guys be like jellyfish,
so we're going to kill them off because
their particular abilities are going to
ride on the back of culture.
>> But once they learn what works, they're
going to harden it and they're going to
become deeply efficient. And the way
that I stop the world from becoming so
efficient that it stops is I'll kill
them off. I'll give them like, you know,
whatever 35 to 85 years depending on
when you were born.
>> Uh and then we we get the renewal of I
think it was Max Plank that said science
does not advance one insight at a time.
It advances one funeral at a time
because the context changes. And so the
people that believe the old thing, they
just die off and then the new idea just
becomes self-evident because the context
has changed. And great. So now I'm like
oh okay if if I'm programming this and I
just need to set up the var variables
such that it is that way for instance I
want to see people be given a chance to
change but I also believe that people
are automata but because of the way that
I'm wired for whatever weird reason and
the things that I've encountered in my
life it makes me feel a way I don't want
to feel if we just write somebody off
and say they're resigned to the dustman
of history.
>> So why why not though? Because
>> because we we live in a biological
reality. I cannot escape my biology. I
am wired.
>> Well, don't you think maybe there's
something true in your wiring?
>> What do you mean by true?
>> There's something true that you don't
maybe you don't actually believe that
people are automatons.
>> I believe it's the core of my existence.
So I believe that uh Phineas [snorts]
Gage is the most Have you read the book
Determined by uh the Stanford professor
whose name I'm currently blanking on? Uh
he literally all the way down to quantum
collapse and tubios and all that. He he
just debunks one after another
>> any room for free will.
>> Have you read the blank slate by
>> um
>> I'm so familiar with the concept. I
can't tell you if I read the book. I
don't remember. Yeah, Stephen Pinker.
>> Pinker. Yes. So,
>> but I know it intimately.
>> He talks about uh the the And I'm not
saying that's the argument you're
making. He he he makes uh he talks about
a lot of what happened like last century
in terms of human destruction
uh and tragedy is is intellectually at
heart is about this idea of humans as as
robots, as blank slates. like we can
like program them. They grow up in a
certain way. If you feed them the right
inputs, they're going to be a certain
way and then there's going to be like
>> And do you think that's true or false?
>> That's false.
>> Yeah. Agreed.
>> That's false. Yeah.
>> So,
>> but but but you why do you think it's
false? Like if you think it's automat
like presumably there's certain inputs
that we can we can give people to like
act in a certain way. You think they're
nonchangeable at 17 18.
>> Think about it like to use computer
language. If you don't have the ability
to access that API, that a API can be
telling you to do something all day. If
you're not designed to do it, you're not
going to do it.
>> That's why I say be attracted to a
porcupine. You can't you cannot force
yourself to be attracted to a porcupine.
>> I'm sure someone on fortune is.
>> Well, so here's the here's the weird
thing about human psychology is all for
boys anyway, all sexual fetishes are
developed around the age of 14. Super
weird. And so guys have developed
fetishes for like they have to have bugs
crawling on their legs cuz the first
time they masturbated they had a bug on
their leg, whatever. Like, [laughter]
and so, okay, that that was a weird way
for whatever programmed us to be like,
okay, well, whatever that thing you're
into, I guess that's the thing the
culture's into. So, cool. You're now
into that thing. You're into women with
big boobs. Nope. This time now it's
girls with big asses. Whatever. But
like, so there is an amount of like
adaptability that we have.
>> But but there's a fixed range.
>> Correct. And so it's like you're not
going to be able to find yourself like
stepping outside of that because we only
have so much latitude. Now, I'm going to
guess some people have more latitude
than others and it comes down to
genetics and all that. So, people need
to understand
>> what I'm trying to say anyway is that
we're incredibly complicated automata,
>> but
>> I would put forth without spending the
entire episode on this, I would put
forth that um we are programmed by God,
evolution, nature, whatever, but we're
programmed. So we're within these finite
bounds and because we're within these
finite bounds and everybody is different
that that is why there is the iron law
of oligarchy is that
>> I think about this a lot when I think
about money.
>> So I originally got into politics, world
affairs and all that during COVID
because of my employees back at Quest
and I was like a lot of these guys don't
know how to manage their finances. I
didn't understand money printing, so I
didn't realize they were about to get
bailed out. So, I was like, "Oh, we're
all about to get hit by a meteorite.
They're all going to lose their jobs.
They're toast. Let me do content about
saving money and, you know, budgeting
well so they can get through what I
thought was going to be maybe six
months, right?"
>> Uh, and then I would help them get on
the other side. You get into it, you
start asking what is money and it
unravels everything. You end up at James
Burnham, the elites, and all that. And I
was like, whoa.
>> So, I realized, okay, the world's not
what I thought. But
>> economics, a very complicated system,
very complicated, but you can sort of
get it.
>> Yeah.
>> And so
>> when I try to explain to people uh
inflation for instance,
>> only to then watch them vote for things
that are inflationary which hurt them,
>> I'm just like what's happening right
now?
>> Yeah.
>> So what do I do with that? And the
reality is we've had this.
>> Can you vote against inflation? I feel
like I feel like every I mean
>> Trump and Biden are as inflationary as
as the other like correct.
>> Do we have a non-inflammation [laughter]
inflation? It is inflation.
>> I was going to say
>> it is inflammation of
>> very good for um it's anyways that that
digest
>> you don't have choices for president but
yes in 1913 we passed a law that made it
possible to have a central bank. When we
founded the country they fought tooth
and nail not to have a central bank.
They said, "We need the debt to get the
country kicked off, but we're going to
give it like a 19-year time horizon."
And at the end of the 19 years, they
closed it.
>> Right.
>> So, we made a decision in 1913 to allow
ourselves to be paged.
>> Yes. Uh I don't know if uh people made a
decision. They oligarchs definitely did.
>> Yes.
>> There in lies my problem. Yeah.
>> So, if people understood it,
>> Yeah. They either would have voted
differently or they would own assets
because they would actually understand
what's happening. You can escape
inflation by owning assets.
>> But you can't vote for inflationary
things and not own assets. You you are
voting for your own poverty.
>> And so it's wild. So now I'm like, how
do I how do I deal with that? If people
aren't either they don't have time or
they don't have the I round it to
intelligence, but I get that it is a
very complex thing.
What is it? How how is it that people
allow themselves to be abused?
>> I'm not in disagreement that there are
certain things that people are unaware
of because of the
because maybe they're too complicated or
they're made complicated like economics
was made was intentionally made
complicated like Kinsey economics is the
ultimate lie. like the you know they
just complicated economics a lot like if
you read Austrian economics and if you
understand like things like the gold
standard or things like bit potential
bitcoin standard it's a very simple
system but to understand uh kynesian uh
uh you know inflationary economics is is
is impenetrable and it's I think by
design made to be impenetrable so that
we can't
>> so I wouldn't fault people for for not
understanding it because I mean it took
you your You were like what in your 30s
when you've understood it?
>> I wish. Yeah.
>> My 40s.
>> 40s.
>> And I'm still I feel like I'm just
beginning to understand it. But that
that's my point is that you can make it
so complicated that a certain number of
people will understand it and then other
people won't. And again, I always throw
in that maybe they just don't have time.
They don't have the interest.
>> At at some point they'll intuitit it.
And this is this is I think back to to
this idea of where I think it's not just
intelligence. They'll intuit it that
they're getting screwed. They'll know
it. They'll feel it that they're getting
screwed and that causes revolution.
>> Yes. But they fight for the wrong thing.
The revolutionaries often make things
infinitely worse.
>> Not always.
>> Yeah. But some some revolutions are
good.
>> Lenon
continued.
>> All of these other
>> Yeah. But they were revolutions. They
were people who were like, "Fuck these
kids. We're going to do this the right
way." And then Mao went and starved 45
million of his own people to death and
then put them through the cultural
revolution where he killed millions
more. Lenin and Stalin collectively
Jesus if you include what they did in
Stalenrad in World War II,
>> it [snorts] is terrifying. But even just
the people they starve to death or threw
in the goolog, I mean it's just tens of
millions of people.
>> Right. So
>> but that that Yeah, that was started by
a small group of intellectuals, the
Bolevixs.
>> Yes. entire thing. Their whole message
was you're being abused by the rich and
the powerful. Take your power back, but
that's not what happens.
>> You could certainly play on people's
passions and you can create popular
movements that end up even enriching and
empowering a small a smaller group of
people. Um so I I I overall just to
synthesize all of this, I don't think
we're in that big of a disagreement. I
agree that uh people don't always have
the time, talent, you know, just
capacity to to understand the more
complex things because the system has
been built up to be somewhat
impenetrable and to be this like
mountain of lies. Um, I would argue it's
not all intelligence because the the
most intelligent people that graduate
Harvard and go to work in consulting
firms and newspapers and all of that,
they're very intelligent, but they're
lied to as much as as the average
individual. Like I do believe in the I
do believe in the bell curve. Like I
think it's it's a meme, yes, but I
actually kind of believe it. Like there
are there are real intuitions that that
that yeah everyday people have that that
are true. They arrive at them not in a
purely intellectual manner. And you can
call that intuition. You can call that
spirit. You can call that what whatever
it is. There's something about the world
where people kind of figure out that
there's something wrong. Now that could
be going in the wrong direction. like
you can definitely a demagogue can rise
up and can give a speech and can play on
that intuition and then can take them
into a direction that is
>> and do you think AI makes that easier or
harder?
>> Um,
both. I mean it's it's hard to tell
which way it tilts because if we have
these personal assistants that are able
to synthesize a lot of information for
us and it try to talk to us at our level
like when you give chat to your kid it
talks to them differently than it talks
to you. Um I think there's a world in
which there's an ability to understand
things a little more and be a little
more skeptical about things. Um, on the
other hand, the demagogue can be
supercharged by AI by like writing great
speeches and and and and manipulating
the information landscape and and on
social media. On the other hand, social
media companies can can use AI to combat
uh some of that. It's a it's a it's it's
a very powerful tool. It's unclear to me
whether it tilts positive or negative
and ultimately it's on society
broadly. It's on the entrepreneurs like
like I think there should be a social
cost for people in Silicon Valley that
are building sex bots. Like if you're
building a if you're if you're friend
building a sex bot, you shouldn't be
affirmed, right? Like you should you
should we should have standards for for
entrepreneurs. Like not everything
should be about maximizing profits and
and money. like I um it would be great
to live in a world in which there's
there's um there's a social cost to uh
and I think there already is like Only
Fans was not started in Silicon Valley,
right? It's one of the most profitable
companies in the world. I don't know
where it is. It's like
>> neither do I
>> UK or something like that. Um and and
for its all its flaws, Silicon Valley,
there's always things are always
sometimes it's manipulative, but people
really try to pitch their company in a
human interest way. Uh and I think
that's generally led to better outcomes
than than negative. Um
and [snorts] and uh and so it's
important it's incumbent on on people
that are building this technology to try
to nudge the world in a in a in a better
direction. Uh and it's important for
engineers
uh designers to want to work on on
positive things there. Yes, AI as a as a
as a general purpose platform tool can
be used in a lot of different ways. But
there are things you can work on that
are really positive. Like I think our
business, if I may so say it myself, I'm
probably a little biased, is
unquestionably good for the world. Um,
we make it so that anyone can make
software to improve their business, to
improve their lives, to to to to for
artistic uh expression. Um, now
obviously you can make malicious
software. We take we take those down.
Um
uh but there are a lot of other use
cases of AI that are creating more
lonely people that are creating um and I
think the American public overall
has been like somewhat of a good check
on companies like when I worked at
Facebook we would feel intense pressure
from from the public when they started
hating Facebook for good reasons right
like people would change their behavior
a little bit
>> so it's it's a complicated dynamic
system. Ultimately, I do have a
fundamental belief in goodness of people
and in society's ability given things
like free speech and the freedoms that
we have in America to nudge the system
in in a in a better direction.
>> I love it, man. I hope they take your
advice. Having another generation of
builders would be absolutely incredible.
I love the vision of this being an era
of entrepreneurship at a scale that
we've never seen before. Be really
incredible. Where can people follow you?
Where can they engage with Replet?
>> Um I'm on X uh uh at Amasad ASA. That's
where you know people I engage with
people, reply and and just uh try try to
help. Um, uh, Replet, our website,
rapit.com.
Um, we have like a basic free plan, so
you can go go there and put a prompt.
Don't overthink it. Just try something.
Try to make a website. Try to make
something for your girlfriend or
boyfriend. Uh, just start somewhere. Um,
uh, I have a little blog that I, you
know, every now and then write something
on. I wrote a blog post recently that
people found useful called how how to
keep winning. Uh it's
>> good title
>> amsad.me.
>> Uh and in it like just like talk about
the the history of replet is is I think
interesting to some entrepreneurs where
we've basically didn't achieve
uh economic financial success uh until
2024. I started the business in 2016.
>> Whoa. I started the uh project the
initial idea in 2009.
>> Wow.
>> So I've been at it for a long time and
our revenue just you know shot up when
the world headed in our direction. So
we're right about the prediction. Um and
now it's like a multi-billion dollar
company and so I try to write
>> congratulations man that is incredible.
>> Thank you. So I try to write like the
advice and like uh the main thing the
main advice I just tell people like not
to quit. I mean there are caveats to
that but ultimately
you know the person who's showing up
every day and trying things and
struggling with things and trying all
the different tools and figuring out
where the future might be headed and
situating themselves in a way to like
actually benefit from them from that.
Um, that's a superpower because most
people just quit.
>> Ain't that the truth.
>> I love it. Awesome, dude. Thank you for
coming on. This was really cool. I've
enjoyed researching you and getting to
sit across from you. It's awesome.
>> My pleasure. Thank you for having me.
>> Of course. All right, boys and girls. If
you haven't already, be sure to
subscribe. And until next time, my
friends, be legendary. Take care. Peace.
If you like this conversation, check out
this episode to learn more. In 2023,
nearly half of all AI researchers said
advanced AI carries at least a 10%
chance of causing human extinction. And
yet, we're speeding up, not slowing
down. My guest today, [music] Dr. Roman