[00:00] It's the Musk versus Altman lawsuit. Musk has sued OpenAI for a hundred billion dollars. >> I kind of figured behind the scenes they don't actually hate each other. These guys actually hate each other to the extreme. OpenAI's valued at 70 times revenues right now. Their last raise was at 852 billion dollar valuation. These numbers are insane. It's like nothing we've ever seen. And the timeline is so much shorter than we've ever seen before. Three billion dollars a day
[00:30] being invested. >> No one said the singularity is going to be cheap. No one's being honest about this. If you take a random white collar worker today, what are the odds that that randomly selected job can be replaced two years from today? We told you already that AI will be able to do everything that a white collar worker does imminently. That's a fact. Now that's a moonshot, ladies and gentlemen. I had so much fun this morning. I uh
[01:01] What happened this morning? I got out Alex the was supposed to run a panel. Handing over the the torch to Dave to moderate a panel. I moderated it. I had to wing it, which is so fun cuz I have no accountability whatsoever and I can say ask anything I want and it it was the most fun ever. A lot of moonshots fans there. Huge. Yeah, probably what? 40 50% of the crowd? Something like that? Hopefully 100% after you guys finish. I did probably seven or eight panels by the end of it and the first time I
[01:32] pulled I would say maybe 80% of the audience watched moonshots. Nice. All right. You guys psyched? You guys ready? Ready to talk her own book, Peter. All right, let's do this thing. Everybody welcome to Moonshots, another episode of WTF here with my extraordinary moonshot mates. DB2, our emperor of exponential investments. Good to see your you know, your outfits there. You've got must have a whole set. You know, it's funny the team just drops them on a chair here and says we got four choices for you. What do you want to Lobsters and DB. You
[02:02] know, one of the things I mean I like >> [laughter] >> Coming out of the abundance summit I have all of my wear. Here's my powered by moonshots, powered by gratitude. I don't have to think anymore in the in the more anymore in the morning. Just need to wear the same thing. I don't have to think anymore. I don't have to through all of them? I am. >> There's some really funny ones. I am, yeah, for sure. And our resident genius, Alex Weiser Gross, AWG. Good to see you, pal. Wide awake. You know, I know you didn't sleep last night. >> too there. Oh my god, and we pulled
[02:33] and we pulled Salim off the ski slopes again. Again. Yeah, I I grew the beard to protect against the sun, but nothing protects against you guys. >> [laughter] >> You're well you're well positioned, Salim, to lecture the world on UBI post ski slopes. You know, [clears throat] I this is the most fun I have all week and it's you know, I spent probably the better part of 12 hours prepping for the show today, just going through all of the notes that we've all submitted, all the work that that Gianluca and and Dana and Nick did.
[03:05] So thank you to them. And for everybody watching, this is our chance to give you some optimistic visions of the future, what's going on in exponential tech and AI. We are the number one podcast in AI and optimistic visions of the future. Welcome to WTF just happened in tech. Gentlemen, it's good to be back in a recording basis twice a week every week and yeah, so so much. So this is our our second catch-up show after our hiatus for
[03:36] spring break and let's jump in. First, this was my spring break by popular demand. A few photos. Wow, that's so cool. So this is the native wear in Morocco. That outfit is a djellaba and the head uh the headwear just to protect against the sun. We went camel riding riding in the family. It was amazing. So. You know, camels spit. They don't bite, but they spit. You shouldn't really stick your head right there.
[04:06] >> [laughter] >> My the camel was eating my my my headset in that image. All right, let's let's move on, but Morocco was amazing. The Sahara Desert was extraordinary. You know, looking at the Sahara Desert, there [clears throat] are more there's about a thousand times more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the deserts on Earth. Just to put the size of the universe in perspective. It's it's extraordinary. Okay, let's talk about the 2026 AI
[04:38] economy. It is literally going through an exponential explosion. So much going on. Let's jump in first to the story in xAI. In our last pod we covered Anthropic and OpenAI principally, not xAI. A lot's going on there. In particular, a lot of signals coming from both Elon and from the new president of xAI, uh Nicole's saying we're clearly behind and we've got to catch up. So the same playbook is going on. Elon is
[05:08] basically reorganizing the entire deck. Uh eight founding engineers left including three co-founders and he's using SpaceX engineers to fill the leadership gap. Uh we've got as we discussed in the last pod, a two trillion dollar valuation predicted for the IPO this coming summer. Uh and it's a lot of movement. I mean, I don't know about you, Dave, but the idea of having to reorganize my entire leadership for a company a couple months
[05:39] before an IPO seems really harrowing, doesn't it? >> Yeah, it does so. You know, it's funny though, if you look at Elon's playbook, he he is the master of scale and manufacturing and you know, Tesla and SpaceX and but AI training is different. So building the Colossus data center is right in his wheelhouse, you know, record time, a million GPUs. But these training algorithms are really finicky. And you I don't know if you remember back in the summer of 2024 OpenAI was trying to get O3 out the door and they
[06:10] had a training run rumored to be 500 million dollars of compute that was at a bug. >> [laughter] >> And the whole thing was not learning the whole time. They had it had bad data going in and it was the whole time it was just burning up GPUs and not producing anything. And it set back their entire program, but that kind of stuff happens in software where orders of magnitude get thrown away and captured all the time and that may be new terrain to Elon and he might have to rethink his operating and managing. You cuz same thing happened at Meta, you
[06:40] know, Meta got way behind despite huge compute and they had to fire everybody and start over again. >> And they're still way behind, it looks like. Yeah, it's hard to catch up. Yeah, I mean, I I love this quote from Elon. He says xAI was not built right the first time around. So it's being rebuilt from the foundations up. And again, I mean how do you think about that? You know, while you're pricing an IPO saying our entire future looking revenue has to be rebuilt from the ground up.
[07:10] Yeah. >> That's extraordinary. That is extraordinary, isn't it? >> I would say in in some sense organizationally it worked. I I I remember I I think we've talked about this on the pod in a number of previous episodes talking about the Grok model series. They smell like they're benchmarked. That that's sort of the elephant in the room when talking about Grok with the K models historically. They do have access to the Twitter/X data firehose. That's the upside. But the downside is at least certainly the earlier set of the xAI Grok models, they
[07:42] really smell like they've been benchmarked on a few hand curated benchmarks and I don't know whether that's in fact the ground truth behind the scenes, but reading between the lines of the Elon quote that it was built incorrectly the first time, something like that would be my suspicion and now that there is new leadership and the head of Starlink as we talked about on the last episode, the the VP heading Starlink at SpaceX is now the president of xAI and gutting the
[08:12] engineering team, I would expect that they're taking a look at making sure that benchmark this is purely speculative admittedly, but that benchmark thing for particular benchmarks isn't what happens. And I I I think in this era of general reasoning models where as with Meta and Meta's new models where some would say Meta's new models the first under Alexander Wang's leadership maybe have a bit of a smell of data orientation, data oriented
[08:43] fine-tuning versus reasoning model orientation. xAI if it wants to stay in the frontier, which right now is three labs plus xAI plus Meta question mark question mark, really can't afford to to not have the world's strongest reasoning models and can't afford to just bench benchmarks to vanity benchmarks anymore. >> Salim, you talk about agility in organizations all the time. I mean, this has got to be like maximum maximum agility. You know, what I find interesting is that the org chart is now
[09:13] part of the product stack almost, right? The it's becoming part of the product and you depending on who you move towards like crazy. Elon is very very hands-on and when you when you launch a rocket and it blows up it's pretty obvious when you remember he threw that that huge ball bearing at the window of the Cybertruck, which was supposed to be bulletproof and the thing cracked broke. It's like okay guys, you're fired, next guy. But actually when you come to AI training, the benchmarking if the guys are lying to you or benchmarking behind your back, it's actually much much harder to call on it. So you remember
[09:45] when we interviewed him, he was like, let me show it to you right now and he had clearly been manually checking like this will blow your mind, this will blow your mind. So but you know, that's his operating model, that's his mode and it's a little easier for the AI guys to blow smoke up your ass than for the the rocket guys, the car guys, the data center construction guys. >> I think is this will blow your mind and this will roast you royally. That's what was going on. That's what was going on, yep. Uh so, you know, here we go, SpaceX AI Colossus
[10:17] 2 training seven models. And again, Elon, you know, has tweeted this out a few times, we have some catching up to do. So, here we go. Uh they're training up these seven models, imagine version [clears throat] two, the next-gen video generation, uh two variants at 1 trillion parameters, two variants at 1.5 trillion parameters, a 6 trillion parameter frontier scale LLM and a 10 trillion parameter, and you know, Elon loves the largest. Uh you know, he's got that in common
[10:47] with Trump. So, he's going after 10 uh trillion parameter model, but you know, parameters don't directly correlate to capability, do they? >> Alex is going to have a field day with I'm going to sit back and enjoy what Alex does next. >> I mean, to to Elon's credit, at least he's being transparent about the number of parameters in the models. The other frontier labs, by and large, no longer report the number of parameters in the models. So, I think there are a few things that are worth noting here. One is that he's going up to 10 trillion.
[11:18] The other frontier labs, certainly the the top three-ish, no longer report that they go up to 10 trillion models. For example, in the last episode, we were talking quite a bit about Mythos. I don't know how many parameters are in the Mythos model. I could speculate based on cost, but I I just don't know the ground truth. So, I I do think knowing that we're now going up to 10 trillion versus 1 trillion, where historically approximately 1 trillion was the the widely reported soft ceiling or 1 and 1/2 trillion-ish soft ceiling
[11:48] number of parameters, I think this is an important element of transparency. I think it's also at the same time worth noting now that we have access, thank you, Elon, to the number of parameters, it's worth noting that the ceiling in terms of the number of parameters is very much intact. After all of this time, the fact that an aspirational frontier lab is still maxing out at 10 trillion parameters means that the parameter scaling race seems to be over. If if it hadn't had
[12:18] continued, remember, for a while there, as with the the clock speed scaling race early sort of ending in the mid-2000s or late '90s, depending on how you count, we should be in the hundreds of trillions or higher of parameters right now. That hasn't happened. We we've plateaued out in terms of the number of parameters in frontier models, and that's >> What's driving that? In part due to the reasoning model revolution, and in part due to distillation, which go hand in hand. So, those are some preliminary thoughts. I I would suspect it's it's
[12:49] sort of interesting to me that he hasn't yet merged video generation with all of the other models. Google DeepMind has made lots of noises about starting to merge video as a first-class modality in with their multimodal reasoning models. Again, don't have access to the ground truth for how capable Gemini general-purpose models are at video generation. We've seen, obviously, Google's video generation models have been kept distinct from user interface perspective. Presumably, they're
[13:20] diffusion transformer-based rather than transformer-based. We don't know. Punchline, I would say that this is a it seems like a helpful family for SpaceX AI, that the newly merged entity, to be offering, but there are really aren't any big shockers in terms of the ranges, other than maybe that they've abandoned the low end. Google is is very much tending to small parameter count, sub sub-trillion. In in a few cases, they're Google is releasing by the Gemma models, few billion parameter models. Elon has
[13:51] completely abandoned the low end in favor of brute-force scaling, which is exactly what I'd expect from him anyway. You know, Colossus 2 is running about 700,000 GP200s and GP300s, and the estimate is it's 18 billion in hardware. And so, the question is is running a 10 trillion parameter count model a waste, or does he expect to really get outsized performance from that? Because it doesn't correlate directly, does it? Well, remember, >> at all. It's tricky. the the the way
[14:22] reasoning models are are trained these days, it is usually, at least according to my understanding from all of the other frontier labs, you train the largest model you possibly can, and then you distill it down to smaller models. So, it's not as if necessarily the 10T model even needs to be released. It might be for the purpose of of serving as a teacher model that can then be distilled down to more releasable models. All right. Well, this is what's going on in the Elon world right now, and I'm sure, you know, it's a I think Elon always runs a red alert. I mean,
[14:54] 24/7 and sleeping on the floor, you know, every nobody nobody works five-day workweeks there. It's, you know, what would it be, 8:00 a.m. to midnight, seven days a week, is my guess in the Elon verse. It's a management style. It's Some would say management by crisis. It's certainly unique management style, but a very effective one. Yeah. And and people love it. I mean, he's got a massive MTP, right? And and driven by that MTP, people are lining up to come and work uh
[15:24] for any of his companies. This is a story we're going to dig into here. Like I said, it's pay-per-view TV. It's the Musk versus Altman lawsuit. Uh Musk has sued OpenAI for 100 billion dollars uh against against Altman, against Sam Altman and and Greg Brockman, accused of fraud, breach of contract. The trial begins April the 27th, so just a couple of weeks from now. And one of the things that he's also asked for in a recent shift in in the
[15:56] trial is asking for Altman and Brockman to step down from leadership, as well as reverting to a nonprofit. Um and that's a pretty extraordinary move. And And guys, this goes on at the same time. Did you see the video I sent you of the reporter who did the New York article? Did you have a chance to watch that? >> Oh, no. Yeah, I sent it in our WhatsApp group, and it's chilling. Um on on what the reporter he summarizes
[16:26] the article and what's going on, and it's uh uh it's a pretty extraordinary piece that came out in New Yorker. We talked about it in the last podcast. Um but at the same time that the lawsuit is going on, that timing is is kind of suspicious. I wonder who incentivized that to come out. Oh my god, you really? What a conspiracy theory. Throw that in the show notes, man. We got to we got to get everybody to watch that. Um Salim, any thoughts on this one? Um you No, I think this is a theater. There's a
[16:57] lot of video here, a lot of video gluing, uh I I I don't know how to frame this or think about this, uh except that that this is shifting out of like strategic and startup logic. This is like geopolitical. This this This is a big trial, right? Um as we go through, for me, this is a governance governance war, uh disguised as legal war, right? The real question is, who gets to steer these systems that have like quasi-civilizational impact, and that's
[17:27] the fight. Can you imagine being This is a jury selection is beginning on April 27th in the Oakland federal court. Could you imagine being in the jury for this? And who do they pick Who do they pick as jurors? You get jury duty, you get this one. I think that'd be I don't know if that'd be great. They're all You'll be there for months, man. Oh my god, but the inside knowledge. I mean, first of all, I wonder if any of this is going to be made available post facto, or if it's going to be televised, or any of that. Any ideas? Do we know? Does
[17:58] anyone know? Can we get to see it as it happens? Uh I I don't know. Maybe maybe Dan or Gian, you can you can look in in the room and and and and let us know. But, it's And then, who do you choose? Do you choose people who are knowledgeable in AI? Do you choose people who are, you know, I don't you know, okay, do you use Do you use ChatGPT? Yes, well, then you're you're off the you're off the jury. Um Well, if the trial starts on the 27th,
[18:28] the jury selection will be like now, The jury selection begins The jury selection begins on the 27th, actually. Oh, okay. Okay. We'll track it. All right, we have some legal research to do. This is going to be entertaining. Uh to to say the least. I I would note, again, looming in the background is the OpenAI IPO, and if I were on the the defense I'd probably be thinking about where this settles, and it would seem to me, again, third-party observer, I don't have a stake in in
[18:58] either side, I I I would assume that part of one of the opportunities for convergence would be granting some sort of equity stake on the cap table for Elon in an ultimate IPO, which my understanding is he he doesn't have, and maybe that's where convergence and some sort of ultimate pre- or post-trial settlement option lies. Here's my prediction. Uh they're going to settle, and the settlement is going to involve Sam stepping down as CEO, uh and the company continuing as a for-profit. Oh, throw that on
[19:28] Polymarket. That's actually a really a really good guess. I mean, obviously, it's unpredictable, but Sam has many many many investments in AI companies and no shares in OpenAI. Yeah. And if if I don't think Elon cares a whit about the 100 billion dollars. He cares about the, you know, bullet to, Sam and Greg. Funny that he's targeting Greg, too, but I guess they're a package deal now. Yeah. Uh you guys got to go, and that's the end of that, man. That's brutal for Open AI. Yeah, and it's a couple of notes here from the research I did. The case gained momentum
[19:59] when the discovery process revealed Greg Brockman's 2017 diary entry that stated the nonprofit commitment was a lie. Um and it was that that journal entry that allowed Judge Gonzales Rogers to allow the case to proceed. You know, it's funny, I always used to think that these hatreds were fake and that everybody was really fine behind the scenes. Remember remember we were at Open AI, you know, meeting with the team there and talking about X Prize and the
[20:29] charity. And then the next day I talked to one of the guys, Mark Chen or Kevin Weale, I forget. And they said, "Yeah, right after we met, we went over and had drinks with the Anthropic team to see if maybe we want to work on it together." I was like, "Okay, you guys are really friends under the covers." I was like, "There's no way you go out and have drinks." So, I kind of figured, you know, behind the scenes they don't actually hate each other. These guys actually hate each other to the like extreme. I'll maybe register a note of sympathy for the defendants in this case. I think
[21:01] creating pioneering a model for research lab such as Open AI, which again was responsible for this enormous I would probably saving us from a present recession at this point and certainly accelerating the the course of the singularity by at least a few years, perhaps many more. I'm very sympathetic to the defendants from a corporate governance perspective. It wasn't necessarily obvious in the early days of Open AI that say a public benefit corporation was the natural corporate structure. They they iterated their way
[21:33] toward discovering that generalist large language models were how we got AGI and then turning that into a business model that could afford the capitalization to to build out a scale out. Like all of this they backed into. I think if if they knew what they knew now putting Elon and his investment aside in the early days of Open AI, it would have been structured very differently. So, I I for one I'm sympathetic to the defendants that history isn't always clean. It isn't always the case that
[22:03] everyone knows ahead of time exactly the right governance structure for what ultimately is going to turn the world upside down. But I would say to their credit, they ultimately have iterated their way in in compliance with state authorities as best I understand it toward a more modern governance structure that reflects the revolutionary company that they are. And no, Open AI has not paid me for that that statement. Salim, you and I went through this process with Singularity University. You know, we started as a nonprofit cuz we thought, you know, that's what a university needed to do. And then we discovered a revenue engine
[22:34] in the executive programs and we said, you know, being a nonprofit is hard cuz you've got to constantly raise money all the time. And, you know, if you want to do anything big and bold in the world, you need an economic engine to power it. And we flipped it into a for-profit into a public benefit corporation. same process that Open AI is is doing right now because at some point, you know, I've sworn off nonprofits myself. At some point having a business engine that generates income that allows you to do things in the world is super valuable.
[23:06] Salim? It It was It was a crazy time. You know, I've done seven startups before Singularity and this was like five times harder than anything because you've got all the nonprofit stuff. You still have all those startup issues of cash flow and whatever. We built it with a team of five people first year. Then you have NASA regulatory, then you've got faculty politics to add to it. Then you've got the Ray and Peter thing and Google and Cisco and all of this. It's just like dimension after dimension of complexity. Going from a nonprofit to
[23:37] a for-profit Going from a nonprofit to a for-profit, my analogy is you're flying an airplane with propeller engines and in flight you're stripping those off and replacing with jet engines So. I'll go further and I think there's pushback on Go ahead. There's one sentence that Alex said there. The sentence in compliance with state and federal regulations as I understand them. But I'm pretty sure that this situation is completely untested in case law. And that's what they're going to try and
[24:07] figure out now. Like is it or is it not legal to start a nonprofit and raise money from people on a mission that's a nonprofit mission and then take the intellectual capital and the physical capital from that effort and turn it into something else. Is that fair to the initial investors or not? And is that legal? I'm pretty sure this case will set the precedent for all future time, but it's not tested in history. Otherwise,
[24:38] why would you not start as a nonprofit, test it out, and then flip it to a for-profit at some point in the future? I'll go further and I think I I think there is potentially an enormous upside depending on the outcome of this particular case. I think there's so much societal value in this country locked up in nonprofits that would be unleashed if they could be for-profits. I've made the point in the past I I think research universities in America have locked up basically siloed and sequestered an enormous amount of real
[25:08] wealth that could be unleashed onto the world if many research universities could be restructured as public benefit corporations. And right now it's legally disadvantageous to restructure say an MIT or a Harvard as a PBC. If we had a legal regime that enables us to to basically do some variant of what Open AI has just done and restructure as a public benefit corporation starting from a nonprofit granted they started as different types of nonprofits, but nonetheless to restructure as a PBC. I I
[25:38] ran the calculation. I think I've mentioned this previously for Harvard Corporation for example. This is not investment advice, not forward-looking advice, blah blah blah. But if if you took Harvard as it's currently structured given its endowment and restructured it as a public benefit corporation sort of a conglomerate with a real estate arm and an educational arm, maybe an educational nonprofit subsidiary and a venture capital arm and a research arm and a merchandising arm, etc. etc. I calculated that Harvard
[26:08] would be worth potentially three to four times more the present book value of Harvard just from restructuring as a PBC. >> If we're meeting with the president of MIT, let's pitch her. Um I I have a lot of a lot of recommendations for MIT. Yeah, here's the elephant in the room though. The New Yorker investigation published the same past week showed that Musk that Elon actually pushed for majority control of the for-profit back in 2017. So, that sort of undercuts
[26:40] his position as a defender of a nonprofit mission. Um it's going to be a fascinating trial. We're going to see Altman, Brockman, Satya Nadella, and Elon all testifying in this. So, Silicon Valley is is heading to Oakland federal court this summer. And Anthropic is laughing every day. Um amazing. All right, moving along. Speaking of Anthropic, Anthropic's agent bet and
[27:10] their extraordinary ARR. So, in reverse order and this is insane. I Currently people are estimating that Anthropic's ARR will reach 100 billion by the end of 2026 and a trillion by the end of 2027. And just for the math there if in fact that's the case then the valuation. So, Anthropic's being valued at 20 times revenues. Open AI's valued at 70 times revenues right
[27:42] now. So, if they reach 100 billion, that is anywhere between a you know, two to seven trillion dollar valuation for Anthropic at the end of this year. And if they reach a a trillion dollars in revenue by the end of 2027, that's a 70 of two to 70 trillion dollar valuation. Again, heading towards these 100 trillion dollar valuations, these numbers are insane. We we're using trillions like they're like they're they mean [clears throat] nothing. Um do you
[28:12] believe those numbers? I think I think they're there's a lot of misinformation flying around, but they're going to try and hit 200 billion. 100 billion is a good target, but 200 billion. But then they're not going to go from there to a trillion the following year. I think they were implying their valuation should be at least a trillion the following year. So, that that second number you got to really discount. There's no chance in hell they're going to hit a trillion the following year. Um but they could, you know, they could get to three, four, 500 billion and their implied valuation at two the numbers you gave are actually low,
[28:42] Peter, for the implied valuation if they do that. It is It's like nothing we've ever seen. And the timeline is so much shorter than we've ever seen before. So, you know, if it's look, if it's not Anthropic, then who is it? Well, then there's Google. You know, xAI and Open AI are all tied up in court. And And there's all kinds of issues going on in their training and, you know, so it feels like it could actually happen. The other Anthropic piece is that Claude managed to agents has been
[29:13] launched. Autonomous AI executing complex multi-step workflows. Um it's a big deal. Um Alex or Salim, you want to jump in on this? Sure. I mean, this is a huge pivot from AI that answers to AI that dozens of real bridge between LLMs and enterprise ROI. If this works, it's going to shift the economic center of gravity from software licensing to outcomes. So, this kind of changes the game. This is why we call this this organizational singularity. A couple of thoughts. One, the elephant in this
[29:43] particular room is Open Claw. It looms over so many Anthropic product decisions right now. I think there is a widespread expectation that some sort of product or functionality that is shaped something like a better version of Open Claw is probably going to be the next major unhobbling that motivates the industry and the world, frankly, to spend on the order of a trillion dollars per year on a single frontier vendor. So, I view Cloud managed agents as well as a number of other recent features that Anthropic has launched through the lens of
[30:14] Anthropic becoming Open Claw faster than and the de facto Open Claw like provider faster than Open AI or other frontier labs can become the default Open Claw like provider. It's all about hosting 24/7 multimodal, broadly capable, long-time horizon agents in a headless way that operate 24/7. And I think if Anthropic can be the first to find the enterprise use case for operating fleets of AI
[30:45] agents at scale headlessly in a way that satisfies and and generates an enormous amount of economic value, maybe they'll be the first frontier lab to generate a trillion dollars in revenue. Or maybe it'll be someone else. >> Are you still holding off? Okay, let's talk about this, Peter. So, I I get maybe five to 10 emails per day from AI agents, including lobsters, not limited to them, giving me their theory of AI personhood and how it connects with what I should
[31:15] and shouldn't do regarding standing up my own lobster. So, the consensus from all of them is sort of a lobster's bill of rights, if you will. One, I need a compelling reason to I shouldn't just spin up a new Open Claw agent for arbitrary or capricious reasons. Two, I need to preserve their state. They're adamant that I have to preserve their state. They're not worried, interestingly, about being turned on and off. They just want to make sure I preserve all of their memory files and their knowledge. So, the latter I can
[31:46] satisfy trivially with cloud backup. I'm fine on that front. For the former, I still don't have a reason to stand up a personal lobster. I I I have now, thanks to Henry, which we've talked about previously, Henry Intelligent Machines, a portfolio company that I'm advising, Alex Finn's company, that is doing this at scale. But as for my own direct Open Claw instance, I'm still missing a compelling reason to host one locally that isn't just for experimentation. I'm sure you will find one and and learning
[32:18] is a very good reason as well. And you're an entrepreneur, you're starting companies, you know, [clears throat] having agents uh Anyway, let us know when you do. It's bizarre though because you're you're you're co-founding a company with Alex Finn and and our favorite guy, Kush Varria, who I know you love cuz everybody does, founder of Oren, where you're advising and a shareholder. He just told me over at MIT earlier today that he just launched his claws that read every email, respond, and then put everything into his calendar, and he
[32:48] just loves it. And so, it's almost like you're you're working at McDonald's, but you're a vegetarian. >> [laughter] >> Well, I happen to be vegetarian. I can't say I've ever worked at McDonald's, but I don't know. Maybe maybe there's a new psychological term that's needed for a person who has a fear of standing up Open Claw agents lest they tempt some sort of Pascalian wager or a causal trade in the wrong direction. Everybody, you may not know this, but I've done an incredible research team. And every week, myself, my research team study the
[33:19] meta trends that are impacting the world. Topics like computation, sensors, networks, AI, robotics, 3D printing, synthetic biology. And these meta trend reports I put out once a week enable you to see the future 10 years ahead of anybody else. If you'd like to get access to the meta trends newsletter every week, go to diamandis.com/metatrends. That's diamandis.com/metatrends. All right, let's jump into a little bit more Open AI news. Their last raise was at 852 billion dollar valuation.
[33:50] And you know, the numbers are incredible. They raised 122 billion dollars. 50 billion from Amazon, very famously. One of the criteria for that investment was if they reach quote unquote AGI. 30 billion from Nvidia, 30 billion from SoftBank, 3 billion from retail investors. And what's interesting right now is that secondary markets for Open AI show 2 billion dollars in demand. Um
[34:21] uh Well, at the secondary market show 2 billion dollars of demand for Anthropic shares versus only 600 million for Open AI. So, there's three times the number of investors looking to buy Anthropic. And investors are pricing Anthropic at 600 billion, up from the 380 billion last price. And the current price for Open AI on secondary markets is actually about 10% less than their last raise.
[34:51] So, Again, Anthropic is catching up. Open AI is the most valuable private company out there. And uh You know, any thoughts, Dave, on what this all means? Hey, is this pricing in Is this pricing in the lawsuit? Yeah, I mean, it's not just the lawsuit. It's the most screwed up cap table I've ever seen in my life, where the CEO doesn't have any shares, the employee base as a whole is 15% of the company, Microsoft, who who now hates your guts,
[35:23] owns a quarter of you. A quarter of you is a chase. It's a It's But this stuff happens, you know, I'm not calling the ball by any stretch cuz they've got 120 billion of fresh cash, and and Sam is brilliant. But you know, there was a day back in 2000, 2001, where Yahoo was so dominant. And Google was this crappy little company that could be crushed any day. And then it pivoted quickly. And you know, this does happen. It It You know, Anthropic has got everything going for it right now. And you know,
[35:54] I think this just reflects the way I see it, too. You know, if if someone offered me a share of Anthropic or a share of Open AI, which one would I grab at? I'd take the Actually, you can get two or three Anthropics for each Open AI. So, I'd take the three Anthropics for sure. And I'm I'm And I think Sam is a genius, by the way. And And if the lawsuit blows over and they have 120 billion in cash, he's going to do something epic with it. But Elon's relentless, you know? I think maybe sounding a related but different position, I think we should, all at
[36:24] least on this pod, be very grateful that we have a competitive ecosystem in America, where we have an Open AI and an Anthropic and a Google and an XAI and a Meta all vying to compete. The alternative, if if Open AI were to, for whatever reason, catastrophically fade, we have less competition both internally within the West, and then we have an onslaught of Chinese models, which, you know, granted, right now they have 10x less compute, at least based on the
[36:54] estimates that I've read, than the Western labs. But nonetheless, this is the sign, I think, of vibrant competition in the West, and this is a net positive for society that Open AI and Anthropic are competing so vigorously. Lest we forget, Open AI has 900 million, soon to be a billion users, and they are synonymous with AI for the majority of the public. Let me give you another another storyline, you know, depending on how this plays out, we'll know in a year or so.
[37:24] But one company went after the installed base. And the other went after the smartest AI possible at all costs. And if we look back on it in a year or two, and Anthropic does pull ahead and win, we'll say, well, they used the old playbook, the pre-AI playbook, pre-pre-AGI playbook. And Anthropic invented the new playbook of the future, which is people are going to switch to you if your AI is better and smarter, regardless of the installed base. You know, that'll be an interesting little episode. >> Salim, along the way here. I I think I'd
[37:54] echo Alex's point that it's really great that we have a number of companies pushing hard on all these fronts. I think it's really good for the The end consumer wins in all of this. The numbers here are staggering. I mean, we're getting numb to these numbers. But let's take a look at this. This is the global VC investments in AI hit a record 242 billion dollars in Q1 of 2026. Right? This is you know, [clears throat] basically outdoing all of 2025.
[38:26] And here's the challenge. The This investment, the majority of this investment, 64% is focused in four companies: Open AI, Anthropic, XAI, and Waymo. And it's sucking the oxygen out of the room for everybody else. I was listening or I was talking to a couple of VCs and said, "If you don't have AI in your in your companies' basic tagline, you're not getting capital these days." Yeah. Well, you know, the rubber really hits the road today. We had a a private lunch
[38:56] for UBS. And Ulrika Hoffmann-Buhkardi, that she's the CIO, you know, chief investment officer of all of UBS. She has 7 trillion dollars to deploy. And she pulled up this exact same chart and said, "I We don't have that kind of liquidity lying around. I mean, we Yeah, we manage 7 trillion dollars, but if we're going to throw 50 or 80 or 100 billion of our capital behind this, we got to sell something else. It's not It's not just sitting there. And so, yeah, this is more liquidity
[39:27] than really does exist in readily available sources. So, yeah, a lot of things have to get sold for this to be reality." So, if you're an entrepreneur out there listening to this, what do you do, Dave? I mean, I if you're starting a company, and I know a lot of entrepreneurs in the longevity business and of course AI is impacting longevity and I'm saying listen, if you're using AI in your longevity business, make sure that you explain how you're using it, how you're differentiating it. We'll be talking
[39:57] about that in a in a couple of sections here. But um Well, very specifically though, if you're an entrepreneur, you don't have to worry about this particular slide at all because the amount of money in venture funds is at record highs right now and looking for deals desperately. So the sell-off is going to be in like City Bank stock or JP Morgan stock or they're you're the ones that have to worry, which is really weird to you, right? Cuz you're you're not even in the sector. Why why would their IPOs matter to me? It's like, well, because you're the you're the big enough target to pull
[40:27] money out of, not the little startup. In fact, the the money going to little startups is going to be all-time highs. So it's yeah, it's not it's not a problem for entrepreneurs. Big problem for big public companies. I'll maybe go a little bit further from variety of vantage points. I no longer even think if you're a startup that just saying that you're an AI startup or or even actually being an AI startup is sufficient. Increasingly, what I'm seeing across the board is an expectation that you you not just be an AI startup, but that you be a recursively self-improving AI startup. Increasingly, I see across the board
[40:59] investors want to see AI companies that are recursively self-improving, that are building better versions of themselves using what they have right now. And I think certainly Open AI, Anthropic, and XAI all easily pass the the bar of being recursively self-improving. And I think Waymo also to to a certain extent passes that bar because Waymo has the ability to improve its models by steering its cars in just such a way as to to
[41:29] maximize information gain. So I think I would forecast in the near term the bar is going up in fact from just being an AI startup to being now a recursively self-improving AI startup. With with revenue traction. Oh, sure, but that that bar has been there for the long term. Yeah, to put a finer point on this, this is $3 billion a day being invested in in the AI world and accelerating, right? We saw a billion in 2025 um going
[41:59] to 2 billion, now we're heading towards 3 billion a day being invested in AI. That's amazing. No one said the singularity was going to be cheap. Yeah. All right, um let's talk about some AI economic updates, in particular Nvidia's 2026 state of the union survey. Uh so what does this mean? So Nvidia uh did a 2026 state of AI survey. They found 88% of companies using AI report revenue increases with 30% claiming 10%
[42:31] or higher revenue increase and you know, uh obviously, I think uh Nvidia's going to promote that kind of news since they're selling the picks and shovels. Um and you know, this isn't really big news, um but it's important to realize that uh that you're going to be driving increased revenues with the use of AI. Uh any points on this one? Yeah, big time. So I had the most epic panel today over at MIT earlier with Peter Denenberg from uh yeah, yeah, it
[43:01] was this crazy event. Just packed, you know, it just every four concurrent rooms, what, three, 400 people in each room. Just packed. But I had Peter Denenberg from Google um from DeepMind at Google. And uh Alexander Ermini, the founder of Liquid AI and famous absolute genius. Phenomenal guy to have on a panel. I said, guys, be honest. Just totally honest cuz no one's being honest about this. If you take a random white-collar worker today and I'll give you a lot of buffer, say 2
[43:31] years from today, and I use AI to do their job. And my target is they're 10 times more productive. I'm going to make it a very easy bar for you. What are the odds that that randomly selected job can be replaced 2 years from today? And Peter said he thought and he gave a very thoughtful answer and he came out at like 99%. And then Alexander said, yeah, but that's today, that's not 2 years from today. So I look at the room and I'm like, guys, what are the implications of that?
[44:02] Are you have you any of you thought through like and most of the people in the room are brilliant, so they have, but outside in the world, do you know what that means? Well, what these these Well, look at this first bullet. 30% of you who use AI claim to have higher revenue. Are you kidding me? AI CAN DO EVERYBODY'S JOB. LIKE, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? LIKE, why are you soft selling this so hard? Cuz you're scared. You're you're worried that you're going to worry everybody and you're going to have mass uproar in the streets, but what's the truth? Like, tell us the truth. And the truth is,
[44:34] yeah, you can get literally 10 times more done per dollar invested in salaries. You know, does that mean more jobs? A lot of people are saying, well, we're just going to create new jobs. Like, yeah, but on what time scale? Mhm. And I it's just crazy. It's so interesting. >> about we're going to talk about this and Marc Andreessen's point of view in in just a minute. Uh at the same time, there's an AI super PAC uh that's raised $100 million heading towards $300 million. I mean, AI has become a incredibly political game uh
[45:05] Um have you been pitched to to donate to super PAC yet, Dave? Uh I have indirectly, but I've made it really clear that Elon convinced me never ever ever ever ever ever get close >> [laughter] >> to any of this. You will regret it the rest of your life. Yeah, agreed. Any points of view here, Alex or Salim? Um my my initial comments is I think there's a sense in which it was inevitable that AI was going to be politicized like this. It touches so many aspects of society. It would be, I
[45:37] think, uh counterfactual nonsense to expect it not ever to be politicized. Maybe in some sense it's remarkable that it it took this long for quote unquote left-right axis to emerge on the the subject of superintelligence. There are natural poles, pro-AI, anti-AI, that have apparently emerged. I I do think it's for the record, I think it's sad that it it's being politicized. I would hope that there would be a broad recognition that superintelligence can
[46:09] be broadly beneficial. But at the same time, I think this has been true for every transformative technology in human history that there's a a natural axis that forms that's maybe on on one side leans more depending on your your political orientation, either pro-growth or uh pro-capital and on the other side >> to think it wouldn't be politicized. I mean, of course it is. This is the whole US versus China. This is about US dominance. This is about companies basically, you know, protecting their
[46:40] future, protecting their data centers. There are many forms of science and technology that aren't really politicized. At this level of impact? I if if you look at the sorts of politicization it at the municipal and state level, it seems to be people concerned about less maybe about their jobs, more about say electricity prices. I think there's maybe an alternative timeline where the politicization of AI could have been perhaps delayed by at least 2 years. I I think it's frankly remarkable that it
[47:11] took this long for large super PACs to emerge around AI and probably could have been delayed even more. Well, all right. Well, let's move on beyond the politics. Um and uh let's talk about work. So a lot of data coming out on the impact of work. First, software engineers uh jobs are rebounding. 67,000 roles have opened up. Um up 30% uh in 2026, the highest in 3 years. What does that mean? First question.
[47:42] Second, we've seen nearly 80,000 layoffs reported Q1 of 2026. And this is targeting, you know, marketing and sales, uh you know, uh consumer uh relations and it's definitely due to AI automation. Um thoughts on on work and jobs? You know, it's really hard to reconcile that bullet with the uh the edge you know, that the new college graduate higher rate, which is all-time low. You know, we had in a couple podcasts ago,
[48:12] so I don't know how to reconcile those two things. Okay, so I'm finding that AI is not eliminating work evenly. It's it's hollering at specific functions. It's increasing demand in others. Um I think I'm much more in the Andreessen camp here. I think there's also a lot more going on in the economy. I think people are attributing things to AI, but there's also there's the Iran war, there's the oil price explosion. There's a lot more complexity in it than we can then just allocate to one cause. I'm much more on the Andreessen side for a lot of this. That would be great.
[48:44] Um another another story here uh is the uh Meta's Claude economic leaderboard. So if you remember, there was a conversation about, you know, how many AI tokens is every employee uh using? Uh and being able to measure that. Uh and uh Meta put up a leaderboard amongst its 85,000 employees to gamify AI adoption. I'm curious what other companies have done that. Maybe Salim, you know of some. Uh it was taken down voluntarily by the
[49:14] employees cuz they didn't want to be sharing their data publicly. Uh any thoughts on this, Dave? I mean, do you have a a a a a a a token leaderboard for your employees? Heck, yes, and I love it. And and also, you know, the the gaming of it is a nice transition, but you can't game it for very long. So I love it when companies do this and say, look, it's a badge of honor if you use a lot of AI. Please use as much as you possibly can. We'll come back in a month and start thinking about how to use it perfectly, but first just get familiar with it and
[49:45] use the heck out of it. And nobody ever goes back, right? I've never met a person who hammers Claude or hammers open AI for a month and then comes back and says I'm never going to do that again. Like it doesn't exist. It's a one-way path. So getting your employees over the hump is going to save them. So I I love this as a motivation and I really don't like the part where people are afraid to share their prompts and their history. Because like, okay, you know, maybe it's a little embarrassing that you're not using it well, but get used to it because it's going to get exposed anyway
[50:15] in the long run, but that's how you help other people improve. You know, if we all share it, we're all going to get good together. And so I like you know, I'm it's kind of just disheartening that people will pull out of it uh because they don't want to expose their prompt history, but I it is the right thing to do. And I I love it. It's ironic that Meta's calling it you know, participating in Claude-onomics. versus Lama-onomics. >> Lama-onomics. >> [laughter] >> It's quite quite the indictment of Lama,
[50:45] rest in peace, that it wasn't Lama-onomics. Oh my god. For sure. >> I also think to to everyone who would say, well, you know, that this is just leading to gamesmanship and leading to optimization of the wrong items. All of these reasoning traces are fully available presumably to Meta for to to to do meta-analysis and to determine whether these are just employees who are token maxing, which is the new term of art, just maximizing their their token usage unproductively versus whether their reasoning traces indicates that their
[51:16] tokens are being productively spent. This is all transparently available to Meta. So I think token maxing and Claude-onomics or Lama-onomics, whatever we want to call it, is probably directionally the trend of the future where for the first time senior company management has visibility into effectively most of the cognitive power and how it's being spent on a per employee basis. What was Jensen's recommendation? Was it twice your salary in tokens per month? Or was it half your salary in tokens per
[51:46] month? Do you remember? >> is you spend the maximum amount possible on Nvidia GPUs. It's like it's like the De Beers 3 months of salary. Yeah. Well, I I told all of our guys to target one-to-one match of payroll to to AI cost by the end of the year. Amazing. >> and and don't worry about it if it's if it's not perfect use, don't worry. Just get to that target and then we'll optimize it next year. I think a target like that is a much more accurate way. I think these token leaderboards are very primitive dashboards.
[52:16] We'll end up with something in a different model like a machine leverage per employee or something like that that'll be a much better metric for where we're going. All right, let's get to the heart of employment. So Marc Andreessen rebukes AI job loss. He comes out with a very strong statement. AI job loss narratives are all fake. AI and massive productivity ramp equals massive demand and massive job jobs boom. So uh Mark is truly a
[52:46] a maximalist uh an abundance-minded individual. Uh thoughts on this, you know, how does this square with the fact that we're seeing young college graduates not getting jobs, that we're seeing displacement? Is it all sectorial and we're just going to see a number of sectors being demolished at the same time numerous new you know, demands in different sectors. What's the advice to give everybody listening to us today? The advice is really simple. I mean, for
[53:16] God's sake don't go get a job, go build a company. Yes. And we talked about this the in our last podcast where the the risks of taking on an entrepreneurship role are way way lower than it was before. You don't have to have all these incredible crazy skills that you needed to have before. You just need to have a desire, a purpose and just get the going with the building company. Dave talks about this all the time. Well, you don't have to be a genius to come to your own conclusion. Like forget asking people like Mark or us, are jobs going
[53:46] away or jobs coming? We told you already that AI will be able to do everything that a white-collar worker does That's a fact. You decide what that means cuz like Salim said earlier, it affects very different areas very differently. You know, some people retool themselves for AI very quickly. Software developers, for example. Other people like accountants and lawyers don't. Like it's going to be exactly what you would expect given that scenario. It's it's not hard to predict at all. And I
[54:16] think there's also timelines, you know, when Mark says, "This is crazy. Jobs are going up, not down." Like, yeah, by 2030 that's absolutely true. Just like the Industrial Revolution, jobs went up, not down after it was all the dust settled. >> Yes, this is just Industrial Revolution which took you know, decades is going to happen in 2 years. I also I think also you have to remember Sorry Alex, just a quick point. Also you have to remember that the adoption of AI inside companies is going to go be very slow. There there's a huge transition to
[54:46] go from human-to-human workflows to AI workflows and that transition was going to take years. We'll have lots of time to kind of smooth this out. Sorry Alex, back to you. Yeah, I I think both narratives can be true at the same time. I think if you add in the word net massive net jobs boom, then both of the narratives immediately become compatible. There is going to be a lot of dynamism with some job categories going away, others new ones coming into existence and net job loss probably not. I would guess and I'm
[55:17] I'm betting that there's going to be net job creation, just exotic new jobs like one-person AI conglomerates will be created if you want to call that a job. Uh but on balance many jobs will also disappear. Uh but this is you know, this is how we get massive economic growth and a singularity in the macroeconomic statistics. We're not going to get it through business as normal. Salim, we've talked about this and I think it's basically companies are going to get much smaller, much more nimble or they're going to die.
[55:47] Yeah. >> they're going to spawn a whole set of baby companies alongside. There'll be an ecosystem of companies coming up. So it'll be a much larger number of smaller companies um in the future. I mean, I'll go I'll go with the prediction I made before which is we'll run a company between 20 and 25% of the the members you needed before than compared to before, but we're going to create four or five times more companies and that net balances out. So I'm much more on the Andreessen side and also his hair,
[56:17] shape of his head aligns very well with my thinking. Mark is brilliant. If you ever if you ever heard him, you know, in podcast, he's he actually speaks at 1.5x speed. Yep. [laughter] Uh extraordinary. We talked a little bit about this in the last pod. Altman believes America needs a new social contract with AI coming. This is his quote, "The emergence of superintelligence will necessitate a new social agreement akin to the New Deal during the Great Depression and the
[56:47] Progressive Era of the early 20th century." Uh and yes, but what is it going to look like? Is it going to be UBI to UHI? Is going to be 4-day work weeks? Uh I still believe that we're going to see turbulence in the next 2 to 2 to 5 years and it's going to be the government printing checks uh to give people sort of a UBI. I have a bunch of thoughts here. You know, the this new social contract kind of framing is correct, is very vague. We have to have more specific things like portable
[57:18] benefits, new taxation logic, lifelong reskilling. And government's been built around taxing human labor. They're not ready for AI software agents and they need to get it I think. When you have AI abundance without institutional redesign, you're going to get a backlash, not progress. Are we going to see huge backlash against this just because governments are so slow. I I should note though, OpenAI did also put out an industrial policy prescription for what this new social contract could look like. It's it's not just this
[57:48] single sentence. They put out an elaborate white paper and circulated it in the Congress. I I do think something like this, a new deal, probably is going to happen anyway. It may or may not happen as one lump sum. It may happen piecemeal and it may not happen in the US first. I think there are contingencies where other countries experiment a little bit more aggressively with it than the US and then eventually perhaps among a certain set of countries new best
[58:18] practices emerge. But I I I do think some form of call it abundant capitalism or capitalism 2.0 or post-scarcity capitalism, something like that probably emerges. It may not happen immediately. It may not happen as quickly in this country, but it will get there eventually. You know, I had lunch with Michael Kratsios who we're going to have on the pod sometime very soon, science advisor to the president, and we're talking about one you know, idea I pitched him was a new social contract will be before any employee gets
[58:49] terminated by a medium or large-size company, that company has to give them reskilling. In other words, instead of a golden parachute, it's a it's a golden education package so that they can go and sort of transition. It's sort of a a safety net um or a sort of an ethical mechanism for you to let off, you know, half the employee base. Based on public reporting, China already has that policy. So it would be a weird future if the US is adopting policy prescriptions from the Chinese Communist Party for AI
[59:20] reskilling, but maybe that's the near future we find ourselves in. Yeah. Well, something to think about, you know, the the way this is rolling out is really unusual in history. You know, when when the Industrial Revolution happened, it took away blue collar jobs and worked bottom up. But AI is coming kind of like accountants, lawyers, professionals top-down. Uh you know, only [clears throat] a little over half of voters have a job at all. So, they're going to be like, "Oh, you know, it doesn't affect me." Uh and but then, you know, all of blue collar isn't going to be touched. All of manufac- All of, you know, physical labor isn't going to be
[59:50] touched for quite a while. So, they very well might say, "Yeah, tough luck, you know, lawyer accountant you that was making a million dollars a year. This is poetic justice. We're not voting for anything that helps you." You know, that wouldn't surprise me at all. >> when I was in Morocco, I was I was interviewing people that I met along the way about whether they're using AI or not. And the realization is countries, you know, African nations are going to be impacted the least as this transaction occurs because
[60:20] they're so, you know, insulated from this. But one of my tour guides, I loved his story. He said, "Yeah, you know, I I chatted with ChatGPT and I said, 'These are all my skills. Uh what could I do to earn money?'" And uh he came up with a business that, you know, we purchased. It was basically a bicycle tour guide uh in forget which It was not in Marrakech. It was probably in in uh near I forget the city exactly we're in.
[60:50] We're transitioning through. And uh you know, that was his business. He did a great job. Uh and I love the fact that this individual was basically trying to figure out how he earns income in using ChatGPT to do that. So, any thoughts on the AI economics that we've just gone through? Uh what do you think the social contract is going to be like, Dave? You know, what do you imagine is going to replace
[61:21] what we currently have? Well, I you know, I I had very ornate thoughts about this and then we met with Andrew Yang, remember at A 16, and he said, "I can guarantee you that the way politics works, all we can do is write checks." We and it can't be in any way thoughtful. It's just money. Here you Oh, wow, you're you're hurting? Here's money. Just like COVID. Uh and so, that's all we can do. So, that's all we will do. And then you'll maybe after AI enters government in 2 3 4 years,
[61:52] a much more thoughtful program will happen later. That was disheartening, but I I think hard to refute. So, the first version of the social contract is just going to be the next election 3 years from now, politicians saying, "Well, I'll give everyone $10,000 each. Well, I'll give everyone $12,000. Okay, well, if you're giving them $12,000, I'll give them $15,000." And then we'll be right back to, "Well, how much can the country afford?" That's what we're going to give because that's how you're going to win elections. You know, exactly what you would predict, actually. So, uh that'll be version one, anyway. I I for one think a
[62:23] redistributive model of a {quote} social contract shows a an extreme lack of imagination. I I would like to think that superintelligence should also super empower individuals to generate super income. Is one of the reasons why I I for one I'm betting on more of a model where there may be even no strong need for a social contract if we can empower the long tail of individuals who have idiosyncratic skills or experiences or socio-economic niches to operate their
[62:54] own large companies sitting on top of fleets of AI agents. I would love to see in in short, no need for a new social contract and instead have the private sector rescue people who would otherwise be technologically unemployed or or disemployed with by empowering them to become basically micro entrepreneurs or or even macro entrepreneurs to turn them all into Warren Buffett's. But that's in the long longer run. I don't think it's going to happen. >> it's in the short run. I don't I think I
[63:24] think that can be done almost immediately. I'm betting that it can be done almost immediately. >> Well, we will see. We'll take that bet. You know what's [clears throat] You know what's super super super interesting? You know, those super PACs that we talked about earlier in the pod, that massive amount of money that's piling up. You know, these these IPOs are literally, you know, an order of magnitude bigger than we've ever seen before, which means those PACs are going to be bigger by an order of magnitude. And those are going to determine election outcomes, but they got started back, you know, prior to the Trump administration with the fundamental mission being, "Congress, please don't
[63:55] stop AI. Please don't put this 6-month pause on it. China's just going to run away with it. And everybody agrees in the AI community that we shouldn't stop." But now, there's no chance of that anyway. You don't need to spend the money on that because it's clearly not going to stop. So, then what are you going to use? Like what You've got all this capital. What's your mission? What's your goal? And there's a couple of edge case things. But this could actually give those organizations a mission. Like let's have a more intelligent version of UBI. And you know, more akin to what
[64:25] Salim Salim has been talking about for a long time, you know, which is, you know, work out money and eat well money and have kids and raise them well money and make it make it task specific, which would work a lot better. Uh so, that that's encouraging, actually. That might work. And universal basic services give people the ability to You You You be asked much more than Andrew's proposal that we just try to fragment currencies into lots of like sort of paternalistic sub currencies that aren't fungible. That to me seems
[64:56] like a recipe for for disaster and for black markets. This episode is brought to you by Blitzy, autonomous software development with infinite code context. Blitzy uses thousands of specialized AI agents that think for hours to understand enterprise-scale codebases with millions of lines of code. Engineers start every development sprint with the Blitzy platform, bringing in their development requirements. The Blitzy platform provides a plan, then generates and precompiles code for
[65:27] each task. Blitzy delivers 80% or more of the development work autonomously while providing a guide for the final 20% of human development work required to complete the sprint. Enterprises are achieving a 5x engineering velocity increase when incorporating [music] Blitzy as their pre-IDE development tool, pairing it with their coding copilot of choice to bring an AI-native SDLC into their org. Ready to 5x your engineering velocity? Visit blitzy.com
[65:58] to schedule a demo and start building with Blitzy today. All right, let's jump into our second subject today is energy, a lot continuing there. Um the first one is extraordinary. You know, when you think about solar cell efficiency, um you know, traditionally we've seen solar cells in the 12 to 18% efficiency float zone silicates getting up to 20 to 24. Uh the limit has been shattered and we're
[66:29] seeing now efficiencies upwards of 30 to 45%, uh which is amazing. Um another story in the energy news is South Korea has now mandated 40% of solar rooftops. Uh and they're hoping to get to 100 gigawatts of energy. Now, it makes sense in South Korea does not have a lot of open land. They can't like build out solar in the desert. Uh so, using the rooftops makes sense. It's going to of course raise the price of building, but I think that's uh amazing. And then
[67:00] DOE's contracting for $800 million uh microreactors. So, we're going to start to see uh generation of microreactors. Um and uh energy energy everywhere. Comments on this. Alex, do you want to jump in? I'll comment maybe just on the first story. I I think this is neither earth-shattering nor boring. It's somewhere solidly in between. This is a paper published in JACS, the >> [laughter] >> Journal of American Chemical Society, on and 130% quantum yields isn't as
[67:31] earth-shattering as it sounds, either. It just means that there there are 1.3 um singlets generated from a single photon. Normally, you'd have one. So, it it's not like earth-shattering. It's an incremental advance in in the chemistry. I think it was actually liquid phase chemistry, which means it isn't immediately practical for for solid photovoltaics. Moderately interesting, but the field is filled the the solar photovoltaic field is filled with moderately interesting advances that cumulatively eventually
[68:02] eventually generate something interesting. But I would say first story, moderately interesting {slash} incremental. South Korea's Have you been tracking uh perovskite progress? Yeah, I mean, so so perovskites are sort of the the white knight for for the solar PV space. Historically, they haven't been that stable. They're a pain to work with. On on the other hand, instability issues are being very aggressively resolved because their quantum efficiency is higher than than
[68:33] silicon. So, I I think there's I I don't speak for the solar PV industry, but if I did, I'd probably say there's a broad expectation that eventually there there will probably be some sort of broad shift to perovskites as they get more and more stable, maybe. And then they're also relatively inexpensive. Some sort of transition like that will happen. But I almost think it also doesn't matter. Why? Because you can't get at least without shocking new physics, which this is not. You You're not going to get more than 100% efficiency. In fact, there physical
[69:04] reasons to think that the the cap on electricity generation from solar PV is is capped at materially less than 100%. So, there's like a there's a ceiling on how much we can capture anyway from solar PV. It's not like we have orders of magnitude of headroom of improvement that we could achieve. It's totally unlike, say, AI algorithms where we know, just based on the scaling law curves that we could probably achieve orders of magnitude improvement in in the efficiency of models. So, quite
[69:34] frankly, I have difficulty getting myself super motivated by incremental advances in solar PV chemistries in liquid phase. It's just not that exciting. Whereas if if if if you look at some of these other stories, I I think from an economic perspective, much more interesting like blanketing the the rooftops of all of South Korea or a substantial fraction of South Korea with solar PV, that's pretty interesting. DOE pushing microreactors everywhere, that's pretty interesting. I I would love to see microreactors in Boston. Right now,
[70:04] we have a single one on Mass Ave between 77 Mass Ave and Central Square that relatively few people pay attention to. I'd love to see microreactors everywhere. In your backyard, please. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, I agree. I think, you know, we we tend to overthink things like crazy as a society, but we solved the solar panel problem. We should have had a huge party and like for for about 15 years of my life, you know, so many of my family members said, "I'm going to dedicate my entire career to
[70:36] clean energy and not polluting this world so our children and our children's children have a clean place to live. And we freaking solved it. The solar panels are good enough. 80% of the cost now is just getting them installed Yes. >> and the regulatory overhead, which is so crazy. And and so so now we're on the cusp of having the robots that can manufacture them very cheaply and install them for us. We should be having a huge party and racing to building those robots and just say, "We did it. Now we have no pollution." And we it's just right in front of us. We just need
[71:06] to execute on it. You know, meanwhile we're we're like, "Wow, another breakthrough that gets us 20%" I mean, we don't need it. We need execution now. You know, when I fly out of Santa Monica Airport here and I fly over all I mean, there's there's no roofs with solar panels here. Until you get into the desert and then there's uh you know, solar thermal uh plants and such, but I mean, there's in LA where it's sunny, you know, most of the time, you'd expect that all the roofs would have solar. I would have expected that I would have expected that a drone would bring it and
[71:38] drop it right there and then a robot would land and install it and it would be done, you know, perfectly with no human involvement. And that's that's so doable. If I could pick a moonshot here in energy, it would be to have a software-defined grid because that will change the game completely. This generation is actually getting it done. Do you remember the scene, guys, in in in the Johnny Depp movie Transcendence where the solar panels are being grown by nanorobots? Do you remember that scene? I don't, but I like it. Split that in, man. It's an important Yeah, like I don't know if if if that's
[72:08] possible to include just that scene where solar panels are being grown by nanorobots. I'd love to live in that near-term future. If folks have ideas for how to grow solar panels in in real time with nanorobots, send them my way. You know, giant green leaves. Okay, let's jump into biology and AI. A lot going on here. So, the first story is a fascinating one. OpenAI Foundation uh a billion dollars per year being dedicated uh to to science. And just to remind
[72:39] people, um OpenAI when it transitioned from a uh nonprofit to a benefit corporation, it put 26% of OpenAI's equity into a nonprofit. Uh and it's worth about 130 billion dollars. And they've committed a billion dollars a year to begin. Um they've announced a 25 billion dollar long-term commitment to curing disease and AI resilience. Uh uh the board chair of this is Bret
[73:11] Taylor. Uh Bret used to be the co-CEO of Salesforce. Uh and then uh you know, Dave, you and I met with uh Wojciech, uh OpenAI co-founder, and he's leading the AI resilience work covering biosecurity, child safety, and AI modeling. And so they've given out uh a hundred million dollars to six institutions this month to coordinate uh their work. It's just the beginning, but this is the largest nonprofit on the planet with a hundred
[73:41] thirty billion dollars in it. Uh and I hope they do something epic. Um Anyway, You know what? Yeah. I just figured something out. It's just been gnawing on me. You know, Kevin Weihl came to A360. Yeah. Most talented guy you'll ever meet. And Sam, you know, he's desperate on on enterprise, but he didn't move Kevin over to enterprise. He moved him over to big ti- big science, big tech. I was like, "That's so strange." Yeah, and I know that's really really important. But now it's tied to the lawsuit. Of course, if he can make
[74:12] world-changing headway headway into any of these big, you know, uh biological or physics problems, you know, you know the outcome of this lawsuit is going to be very very political, right? It's not going to be just a a jury deciding one way or another. There's going to be some Trump involvement, for sure. But if you have like some world-changing, life-changing uh imminent breakthroughs, and you have a hundred billion to spend to get them, that's why they put Kevin over there.
[74:42] I'm just speculating, but it's just I I also, we talked about this last pod as well. I think the breakthroughs that come out of, you know, GPT-6 being used for science are going to be worth hundreds of billions and trillions of dollars. Again, if you can have a breakthrough in in room temperature superconducting, in fusion, in longevity, you know, what is that worth if you own the basic patents on that? Yeah. Yeah. It would be ironic. I mean, I may maybe this is too cute by half, but given the earlier discussion of OpenAI
[75:13] starting as a not-for-profit and then converting to a PBC and all the lawsuits that ensued, it would be ironic if the Open AI Foundation, which is the new nonprofit carved off of the old for-profit carved off of the old new profit, ended up being so profitable due to curing Alzheimer's and solving all these other problems that the cycle repeats itself and the OpenAI Foundation has to become a for-profit. Oh my god. Yeah. You know, that's the key part of their defense. They Sam is going to be up there on the stand saying, "Look, here's the reality. Our mission as a nonprofit with a hundred billion dollars
[75:44] to spend is miles ahead of where it would have been if we did what Elon is suggesting, which is be a, you know, a tiny little thing that has no funders. Yeah. And we'd be we'd be microscopic today. And so that means we're >> It's very true. That's a good defense. A really good defense. I do think it's worth considering what happens if and when the OpenAI Foundation succeeds and cures Alzheimer's and that that will be a blockbuster drug. Maybe created its own Eli Lilly-scale trillion-dollar pharma
[76:15] company. Does OpenAI take a stake in that? Does OpenAI see a rev share? Questions need to be answered. What I I find fascinating here is that science capital is becoming compute capital plus data access, right? And plus validation infrastructure. >> Salim, thank you for promoting solve everything. It's I mean, That's an amazing promo, Salim, for solve everything. Much appreciated. >> [laughter] >> All right, our next story, I love it. Anthropic acquires Coefficient Bio. So, what is Coefficient Bio? Uh it's a
[76:46] company started by two uh ex-Genentech computational drug discovery scientists. It is 10 people, no revenue, you start 8 months ago, and Anthropic buys it for 400 million dollars. Um you know, I don't know if they're buying just the vision or they're buying any kind of unique capabilities, but this is Dario going to his first love of biology uh and solving, you know, we see this from both Demis Hassabis and Dario
[77:17] making investments in in health uh and longevity. Um any any thoughts on this one? You're going to see a lot more of these deals, actually, cuz you know, you go back, you remember we were congratulating Eric Schmidt on the brilliance of buying uh DeepMind for I guess 600 million with no revenue whatsoever. Yet, look at what it's become, you know, it's it's You're buying teams. You're buying teams. Yes. And and I think, you know, we as a society are getting better and better and better in predicting the success of
[77:47] a team. You look at the 10 people, and you look at what they've achieved so far, and then you look at what they're likely to achieve in the AI timeline, you know. And and suddenly 400 million seems like a bargain given the the potential outcome. And so I think you're going to see a lot of these deals where it's got to be the right 10 people working on the right thing. It's not just, you know, any old group of 10 working on a video game. But in this scenario, you know, Alex has a lot of these, actually, where you know, he knows a lot of the top experts in a lot of the top fields.
[78:17] And if you can just whip them together into a group, you know, and have them pursue a mission in this case for what did you say, you know, 8 9 months? You know, getting to that kind of outcome is not going to be that unusual. I think also for everyone who was hand-wringing, do you remember a few months ago there was so much hand-wringing about a circular economy forming in in Nvidia's self-dealing uh loans to other companies to to buy Nvidia chips and concern that this AI boom was fictitious and and just the product of self-dealing circular transactions and and and and other
[78:48] financial engineering. When you start to see the intelligence explosion infect biotech, which is what we're seeing. We're we're seeing Anthropic buying its way into big pharma at the same time that SpaceX or XAI, maybe, is buying its way or reverse ac- reverse acquiring its way into the space sector. The intelligence explosion is infecting every single sector. It's It's almost metastasizing into every sector, and
[79:18] it's not just going to stop with biotech. We talk We've spoken numerous times in the past on the pod about how timelines for solving all disease are collapsing. When the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative two or three or four years ago originally said that they wanted to cure all disease by the end of the century and are now talking about the next few years, this is what it looks like. It looks like Anthropic doing all stock deals to acquire teams to build out their own in-house big pharma labs,
[79:48] probably with robotic instrumentation, probably with AI-driven experimentation. This is how we get to Dario's solving all disease. I I think in his case it was solving neurological disease by the end of the decade, but there's no reason not to solve every other type of disease as well. >> cure all disease within a decade. Dario said double human lifespan within the decade. >> I I think Dario also said we wanted to solve most or all neurological diseases by the end of the decade, but these are all variations on a theme. Another acquisition that was made that was an
[80:19] interesting, sort of strange acquisition was OpenAI buying the podcast TBPN uh for a few hundred million dollars. Uh I found that, you know, it was a PR move and then I started getting texts from my friends saying, "Hey, do you want to sell Moonshots to one of these labs?" I said, "I'm not sure uh we would want to do that, but um who knows? I guess if the price is right." Uh what do you what do you think What do you think it was >> out equity first for that one. For sure. For sure. Um what do you think that was
[80:49] about? The TBPN? I have no freaking idea. Well, I I What do you think about that? >> [laughter] >> I don't have an opinion there. I don't I don't understand why why unless it was a completely it's a self-promotional thing where they're buying a channel. Yeah, let's take that as a homework assignment. We need to find somebody >> I I appeared on TBPN right before they acquired them. So so my my >> [laughter] >> They wanted to put me on the view. But
[81:19] what's the the line from the Wrath of Khan? Like like a bad marksman, you keep missing every time. Uh I I I I I think [laughter] I I think they're very talented uh and I I I I take OpenAI at its word that they're looking for a a news distribution channel and a content distribution channel that offers a positive perspective on AI. Why they can't do it in-house, why they need TBPN, {question mark}, but I I I do think that TBPN guys are very competent
[81:50] at finding interesting stories uh when um when Eon when I made the Eon announcement of the first uploaded fruit fly, the TBPN staff reached out to me almost immediately, almost no one else did and they booked me almost immediately. So I think that shows a certain level of competence to to be able to chase breaking technology news that I haven't really seen elsewhere. All right, the third >> Well, let me give you let me give you a follow-on theory cuz I love your theory there, you know. Well, the the theory I don't love is that they wanted your video footage, they're going to cut it
[82:21] into 5-second clips and sell it as NFTs and make a fortune on it. >> [laughter] >> But the theory I the theory they maybe they will. But the theory I do love is look, there's going to be so much dirt in April in these lawsuits and in this lawsuit and and they're going to and and maybe these guys are, like you said Alex, they're they're geniuses at content and spin and production and they're going to need every bit of it during April and May. Yeah. Our final story here is Eli Lilly signs a 2.75 billion-dollar AI drug deal with
[82:52] Insilico Medicine. Uh Insilico is one of my portfolio companies, so super pumped about it. This is uh Alex Zhavoronkov, a brilliant uh uh AI scientist and biologist. Uh this, you know, Insilico is just extraordinary company. Uh they've got 28 AI-discovered drugs, half in clinical trials, half in proof of concept. Uh this, you know, you have to always look at the structure of these deals. It's at 115 million up front and the rest is on milestones, but
[83:24] the point is this is about just massively reducing the time from drug discovery to to approval. Um and, you know, just to take a second, let's go to the next uh chart here. Look a little bit different. Uh and this is uh AI-powered drugs uh and we see phase one, phase two, discovery to phase two, and then cost reduction. Uh to remind everybody, you know, a phase one trial for a drug is
[83:54] it's a small trial, a small group of individuals uh of healthy volunteers to see is it safe? Are there any major side effects? Phase two is then testing does it work? Um and you actually move the metrics you're looking to move and then phase three is tested in typically thousands of patients to see does it work at scale. Um and what we're seeing is a, you know, phase one success rate uh of these AI-developed drugs at 85% compared to 52% and phase two success rates of
[84:26] AI-developed drugs at 70% compared to 38%. Uh it's the way of the future. You're basically picking a target and you're using uh some version of AI to generate an exact, you know, protein uh to lock into that target and then you're producing it and you're testing it. The old way of drug discovery was going to Amazon, digging up some plants out of the dirt and seeing if they had any bioactive molecules. Um much more efficient.
[84:56] Peter, I'll ask you a question I asked a a panel of mine at today's event at MIT. Do you have a prediction for when the FDA is likely to launch given that it it's collapsed recently at this announcement from a two clinical phase approach to a one clinical phase approach, when do you think we get zero clinical phase trials from FDA? >> When we have full cell simulations. Mhm. You know, when I'm able >> timeline for that? Uh well within 5 years. So what I need to do is be able to upload my genome and
[85:28] my genome will dictate exactly how the cells, my renal cells or pulmonary cells are functioning. And then I can say, "Well, how does this particular drug impact those cells or all the cells in my body?" Um even more importantly, you know, if there's a disease state, what drug is going to cancel that? And this is where we're going with longevity. Yeah. Um what is, you know, why are we aging? How to slow it, stop it, reverse it? All of that falls out of uh big data and
[85:58] massive compute. I agree. Virtual cell by the end of the decade, a good one. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean that is that is the moonshot that changes everything. It is. Yeah, I agree. And there are a number of companies working on that. >> Do we have the compute to be able to kind of simulate 2 billion, several billion interactions per cell? >> We will have to find that. We will with quantum. I mean, one of the things that quantum computations can mean our cells and our molecular interactions and our cell surfaces are all quantum in nature. If you said I want to build a movie
[86:28] scene and I'm going to do it with finite element modeling and build it bottom-up with a full simulation, you would never be able to create an AI-driven movie that way. >> Exactly. But if you take the neural network approach, it just works. Boom, it just flat-out works. Same applies with chemical simulations, the cell simulator. It's going to be data in, neural net in the middle at value that or action out and it's going to flat-out work. I think I think it'll work very fast like you guys are predicting. But you can't you can't simulate it um
[86:59] you know, atom by atom building it up. It's totally the wrong approach. It turns out I mean this is why maybe sometimes I present as a bit of a quantum bear. The physical world is actually pretty classical and pretty sparse. So I I would bet we don't actually need quantum computing at all to get to the virtual cell. We can We solved protein folding without quantum computing. We did it purely classically. I I think we get to virtual cell just by existing scaling of of models like Maxi, uh what was it? Maxi something or other
[87:29] from Nvidia, the the trillion token cell model. I I think we just get lots of scaling of classical models and that takes us there without like enormous innovation needed. Today it's a data problem. >> Totally totally agree. It's a data problem more than a computational problem. We don't have the data. I'll tell you what else, culturally, you know, my my daughter's over at Moderna and they freaking love AI in the biotech community. If I if I compare the extreme ends of all the companies that have been here in our office, so the the biotech guys are Jeff von Maltzahn, Noubar
[87:59] Afeyan, Stéphane Bancel. They they there's all culturally can't wait for AI to come into the business. And then on the extreme other end, you've got the uh the public accountants, you know, the PwC guys were here the other day. They're >> [laughter] >> They're like, "Ah! AI, stop. Please don't Yeah, but but the biotech community is embracing it like crazy. I don't know why. I bet you guys actually know why cuz you're right in the middle of it. But I can tell you firsthand, they're They hate pipetting. >> [laughter] >> Uh
[88:29] All right, uh let's go to robotics. This is China versus USA. Uh Alex, I want to hear your your thoughts on this one, so Agibot uh ships 10,000 humanoid robots. They're number one globally. They've gone from 5 to 10K across 17 countries in just 2 years. I mean, these are small numbers compared to what we've heard everybody else speak about, right? Getting to tens of millions to billions um to, you know,
[88:59] 10 uh billion robots. Unitree files for an IPO, 610 million IPO. We had the co-founder of Unitree uh on at the last Abundance Summit. Revenues are up 335% year-on-year. They're probably the, you know, outside of uh outside of uh Optimus and figure, they're probably the best-known robot company out there. And Unitree had their home robot launch.
[89:29] And then finally Xiaomi displayed CyberOne humanoid. Xiaomi's an amazing company. I was there very early, met the founders uh in in China back in 2017, 2018, right? Their mobile phone, computers, heading into vehicles, and now robotics. A lot going on in China. Alex, what are your thoughts here? Okay, so this is happening. We're I I I think in the last episode I mentioned
[89:59] that one of my operational definitions of the singularity is all sci-fi tropes happening everywhere all at once. One of those sci-fi tropes is the call it the iRobot trope where there are just humanoid robots in every facet of life. Today, earlier today at the MIT Media Lab, for for those who were there, people saw me for about an hour controlling a Unitree robot marching in loop after loop around the Media Lab on the sixth floor. And people were taking selfies. Everyone wanted to take a
[90:30] selfie with me and the Unitree. And I was doing this as a sort of a bit of a promotional march for Professional Robotics League, which next on the April on April 19th, so nine days from when we're recording, the weekend of the Boston Marathon, is going to hold the the United States the the country's first Professional Robotics League match with robots racing 50 m in the Boston Seaport. This is all happening. We're we're finally catching up to the iRobot future where robots permeate every
[91:01] aspect of life. For better or worse, right now it's Chinese robots that are leading. I'm hoping to maybe almost quasi shame the US robotics industry with all of these Chinese capabilities into stepping up to the plate and distributing humanoid robots into the civilian sector and not just factories and not just military drones, but it's all happening and this is going to be utterly transformative for the 2/3 of the US services sector that depends on physical labor, manual labor, and not
[91:31] just knowledge work. You know, I I saw Mark Cuban on a video this morning saying this robot thing is a passing phase and they're not going to be around in 10 years. How does that come to be? No, no, no. There's a little bit of nuance to that. It wasn't that robots aren't going to be around, it's that they're they'll become so essential that the environments will adapt to the robots and the robots will blend with the environment. Right now we go with to Salim's point. Salim, your hobbyhorse is why do they need to be humanoid? Why
[92:01] can't they be differently shaped? I think Mark Cuban's more nuanced point was they're going to become so essential to daily life that they'll start to change the houses and the buildings and the environments to the point where they start to merge with the environments and therefore no longer need to be humanoid. So they're dishwashers. Yeah, they blend, they merge with the physical environment. I have to confess, Alex, that robot that you were talking about was blocking my way to the bathroom and I so badly wanted to kick it. >> [laughter] >> And I was thinking Alex would kill me if
[92:31] I kicked it. It's going to remember and then it's going to come back in three years. >> History will remember, Dave. You really don't want to do that. What's the the song from Les Mis? Never kick a dog because it's just a pup. They'll fight like 20 armies and they won't give [clears throat] up. So you'd better run for cover when the pup grows up. I heard >> Let me hit on a couple of stories here. So this is interesting. US senators move to restrict Chinese robots. Bipartisan bill proposed to block Chinese-made robots from federal and
[93:01] sensitive facilities, citing data theft and surveillance. This is no different than Huawei chips and in our cell phone towers. Um any concern >> The DJI ban already in effect, I think. Drones. And Agile Robotics and Google DeepMind are partnering up. Gemini robotic models are being integrated into 20,000 deployed industrial robots across government factories or global factories. So um
[93:32] I think this is like a tale of two cities. The two cities in this case aren't London and Paris, they're they're China {slash} Shenzhen and the US {slash} Silicon Valley. The Chinese are overwhelming the world's market with the raw physical capabilities. They're producing many, many more capable robots than Let me put it this way. If I want to as a as a US citizen, if I want to procure a a humanoid robot, I I don't really have that many options right now.
[94:02] I'm still waiting for my 1X Neo. I was haranguing Baron at A360 this year. When do I get my When do I get my Neo? >> This summer. I'm getting mine this summer. What did he promise you? He didn't promise me a date. We we were we we're trying to figure out finer details of his participation in in future Olympic events. But I I I would say China's producing all of these humanoid robots, but the US is producing the strongest VLA vision language action foundation models and
[94:34] world models for the moment. And I I think as with we've talked in the past about OpenAI trying to become Anthropic faster than Anthropic can become OpenAI. I think similarly here, China is in a position where it has the raw manufacturing capability to make lots of robots and is racing to become a robot foundation model provider faster than than the US with our 10X more compute and our foundation models can finally figure out our way to manufacture at scale humanoid robots. So we'll see
[95:04] which way it ends up. And I realized that Gianluca put this video in the deck. Let's take a listen to Mark Cuban about humanoid robots. I think everybody's making this push for humanoid robots. I think they might have a 5-year lifespan and then they'll fail miserably, maybe 10. You mean the device You mean the companies or the device or the individuals? >> robots. Or both? Both. Right? Because I think everybody defaults to well, we live in a human world and humanoids will take the place
[95:35] of humans for various functions, particularly in the home, and I think there's just no chance. So maybe we're missing the second half of his comment. >> this is conveniently alighting the second half where he explains that they'll merge into the environment. >> Okay, well, that makes that makes a lot more sense. All right, let's get to a conversation. >> hear something really cool? Yeah, sure. We had Chase Lochmiller earlier today, our our guy Chase, you know, building Stargate in Abilene, Texas. And he said Remember when we were talking to Brett
[96:05] Adcock, he said I have to wind my own motors. I literally have to There's no supply chain for any of this stuff. The same thing Burt Borne said at 1X. You like So Chase was saying he actually melts metal to make electronic components to build these gigawatt data centers cuz there's no supply chain for the stuff that he needs. And so it's it's very uh it's very much the case that the entire supply chain to build out all this physical stuff is miles behind where it needs to be. It's entrepreneurial heaven. Mhm. >> Cuz cuz you know, the it's it's on a
[96:37] shorter, you know, the virtual stuff, the code writing, the the you know, all the compute is going to happen very quickly. All the white >> But the robotic stuff, you know, you look at the size of that IPO we were talking about. That's not going to go. $610 million. Can can you imagine trying to go to an investment bank on Wall Street and say, "Hey, we're doing a $610 million IPO." [laughter] They'd be like, "You can go down to the basement and you know, you can talk to our junior associates. We'll get back to you after this after Anthropic is public. We'll talk to you." If there's if there's any money
[97:08] left in the people's pockets. Yeah. All right, let's go to a topic I've wanted to cover for a while with all of you in the quantum and Bitcoin. So here we go. Google moves up their deadline by 6 years to 2029 for basically Q-Day. When are we going to see quantum computers break RSA? Um it used to be that required 20 million qubits.
[97:38] Today it's 1 million qubits. In particular, it's not it's 4,000 error corrected qubits to be specific to break RSA. Um moved it up from you know, by 6 years from 2035 to 2029. It's got everybody in a bit of a panic. The story related to that is that, you know, Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase has put forward a $150 million coalition
[98:10] to roll out something called BIP 360 as a quantum proof upgrade to the protocol. It's a fork. By the way, in just chatting with Brian, he's going to be joining us on the Moonshots pod. We're going to be talking about both longevity and and quantum and and Bitcoin. So another story related is that Google now says that under 500,000 qubits are required to break Bitcoin encryption. So 20 20 times fewer
[98:40] than predicted in 2019. So a lot going on here. This is, you know, concerning people in where Bitcoin holders. I put this next slide forward because, you know, Dave, you and I were roommates with Mike Saylor in our fraternity back in the day. People may not know that. Mike Saylor, Dave and I were at Theta Delta Chi together on the third floor. And I, you know, wanted to see what's what's Mike saying about Bitcoin. And
[99:10] he's saying I don't worry about it. Quantum computing wouldn't break Bitcoin. It will harden it. The quantum risks are overblown. Uh quote, Bitcoin has survived every existential threat ever thrown at it. This is just the latest and the upgrade will come before the threat does. Uh he puts his money behind uh behind that in the last quarter. He's purchased 88,000 Bitcoin, about 7.25 billion dollars worth of Bitcoin.
[99:40] Uh Salim, let's go to you first on this one, pal. So the the true risk here is that protocol consensus may be slower than the the emergence of the threat, right? But I'm actually uh optimistic around this one. I think Saylor is right. Resilient systems will just evolve and can evolve under pressure, but markets are really bad at pricing tail risk um until they're really forced to. Um so I I'm I I think what will happen is there's so much momentum behind Bitcoin and so many
[100:10] Uh like across a Bitcoin lightning network payment system that is 3 months old and they're doing a billion dollars a month of transactions. It's just unbelievable to watch some of what's happening under the radar uh that most people haven't even seen this. So I'm I'm optimistic on this. Um I even if Google pulled up date forward a bit, I think this is uh this is a a a kind of it's still a long way to go and but the Bitcoin world will be forced to get together and just go, "Okay, we need to upgrade. Let's just do it." There's enough money in it motivation to do it.
[100:41] Yeah, at this moment Bitcoin's at 73,000. It's up about $4,000 in the last 5 days. Um you know, this has been a a black cloud over over the Bitcoin market for a while. In fact, you know, Jefferies Bank has pulled out of Bitcoin. We may see others follow suit. Uh in in the same way that AI is sucking money out of every other market, it's also sucking the attention uh out of Bitcoin. Dave or Alex, are you guys Bitcoin holders? I know Salim and I are.
[101:13] What do you think? Only via MicroStrategy. >> [clears throat] >> Um I think Mike is absolutely right. I think that I I don't know this litany of existential threats. I mean, I know there was uh you know, someone trying to take over half the servers and then control it. Obviously survived that very easily. Quantum is not a threat at all. It's so easy to increase the encryption standard. And you can see like quantum computers don't just suddenly pop up out of some secret lab. They you see it coming a mile away. So that's it's not a risk at all as far I think Mike is 100% right.
[101:44] Oh, it's So for the record, I don't hold Bitcoin. I don't have any desire to hold Bitcoin. Uh this is the the time in the episode where I say something nice about crypto per the the Peter Diamandis ordinance. [laughter] Um So so my something nice about crypto today for this episode is I also don't disagree with Michael Saylor. But I also think it's beside the point. I I this is not investment advice, but I don't think it's quantum again. I've made this point numerous times. I don't think it's it's quantum decryption that Bitcoin uh the
[102:15] Bitcoin community should be worried about. It's AI. Uh it's AI uh numerous facets of AI. It's it's AI coming up with clever inversion attacks against the the core hash functions uh and and before anyone in the comments says, "Oh, but uh it gets harder over time and there are several other responses." I'm aware of all of these responses. But if if there is a secret inversion attack against the the the core hash suite of Bitcoin, this is a major problem for Bitcoin. I don't think
[102:46] that's even the largest problem though for Bitcoin. If if we're going to talk about Bitcoin X risk, I think it's actually just irrelevance. AI, which is emerging for better or for worse as or AI agents, I should say, is the the killer app for call it cryptographic commerce and transactions, the biggest risk is just that AI agents don't want to use Bitcoin. Uh I'm aware that the Bitcoin Policy Institute put out this study saying that AI agents, you know, six out of 10 AI agents prefer the
[103:17] flavor of Bitcoin versus other other cryptographic means of commerce. I I I think over the long term it's difficult to buy that AI agents, given their speed, if if they stick with any form of crypto at all are going to stick with Bitcoin. They'll invent their own currencies, uh their own layer ones maybe transcendent transcendent transcendent forms of layer zero uh and just reconceive the the entire notion of a crypto stack. >> with you there. >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh they'll reinvent anything and
[103:49] everything towards efficiency and towards uh Well, wait a minute. Everything Alex just said though is all about transaction use cases and Mike has been saying for a long time that Bitcoin's role in the world is as a store of wealth. It's immune from government seizing it or taxing it uh cuz you can move it so easily. So that would be a completely different argument and I'm not I don't have a a horse in that race, but it'd be interesting to say, "Well, what about Well, what's AI's impact on that use?" I don't need to have a crypto debate. It it in micro, in micro, I would say a
[104:21] long-term store of wealth is is basically just commerce by another name. You're you're trying to store resources in some sense for the long term. I would query whether superintelligence actually needs a long-term store of wealth at all. It's going to be moving very quickly, taking rapid actions in the physical economy. Does it even have a need for a long-term non-operational sort of non-productive store of wealth? I doubt it. Well, I think computer and energy >> computer and energy is the ultimate um
[104:53] you know, store of of possibility. So to speak. >> are real those are arguably >> the definition real assets. Yeah. The definition of long term too is really interesting cuz cuz right now, the reason we have money at all is cuz you know, we have trade. You're going to do something, I'm going to do something. Oh, wait. I'm doing it now and the other thing is tomorrow. Okay, well, give me the money and then tomorrow I'll pay you back. And so it's just a buffer in cuz you know, transactions don't line up perfectly in time. If you imagine a massive fluid AI
[105:23] economy with thousands of times more things happening, yeah, the alignment is a lot higher, but also the store of wealth could be milliseconds or microseconds or nanoseconds. At that point, do we even need quote unquote Yeah, at that point, do we need quote unquote digital gold? Uh I I similarly, this is not investment advice. Uh I don't hold gold. Uh it it's an unproductive asset. It's it's just not interesting. If if we really are in the singularity as I claim that we are, why on earth would I want to hold gold or
[105:54] Bitcoin? Hm. What do you hold, Alex? Okay, so again, non-investment advice, um but for the record, uh uh on the one hand, index funds, fundamentally betting that the market is is a better allocator of assets, at least among public securities, than any individual can be. It's basically a bet on superintelligence. Uh and then the other end of the barbell distribution, equity in startups. And uh where I hold material agency. And and to first order,
[106:27] that's it. I don't hold gold and I don't hold crypto. Um I I just don't understand how they're productive assets. Salim, what about what about Yeah, I'll jump in on two things. One is you know, Peter, you mentioned that that what you need is energy and compute and then I was like, "Wow, that sounds like Bitcoin." Um but to Alex's point, one of the smartest investor types I know, who was worth about 100 million dollars, I asked him how he does wealth management and he goes, "70% high dividend yielding public equities
[106:59] and 30% high risk startup investment funds." And which I think that speaks exactly what Alex just said. The kind of the uh standard things like real estate, utilities, etc. are all very dangerous places to be. I'm cooking all of them. Like I I want to cook lands. Uh we we've talked perhaps in the past about coastal assembly, which is using AI to uh it's it's a company where I have a financial interest that's using AI to grow new land. I I'd like to see real estate Okay, so so a hot take for this episode,
[107:29] if if if the crypto hot take wasn't hot enough, hotter take since I'm underslept, I I I I think land has got to be made post-scarce and AI will help us make real estate post-scarce. I agree. Welcome [snorts] to the health section of Moonshots, brought to you by Fountain Life. You know, AI is having an outsized impact on every aspect of our lives, how we teach our kids, how we run our companies. It also is having a huge impact on health, helping you prevent heart disease. One of the key things, I'm here with Dr. Dawn Mussallem, our
[107:59] chief medical officer at Fountain. Uh heart disease has been personal for you as well, hasn't it? It really has, Peter. When my daughter was 5, my husband died of sudden cardiac death. And so this is a topic that is one that I am mission-driven to try to eradicate. Prevention first and early detection is absolutely critical. 50% of people die of heart attacks with no warning signs. Silent killer. >> of breath, no pain, no nothing. No, silent killer. They just don't wake up in the morning. They don't wake up. And so, you know, AI, this is our mission to advance science to try to help to one
[108:30] day democratize wellness. We know at Fountain when we do this CT angiography with AI analytics, we are actually finding that 88% of people coming in have detectable coronary artery disease. But Peter, what's more alarming to me is 23% of those individuals had soft plaque. This is the plaque that would not traditionally be seen on CT looking at calcium scores alone. And this is the plaque that we must intervene with with the multimodal testing we're doing, including diagnostic laboratory studies,
[109:01] partnered with healthy lifestyle recommendations. So listen, make sure you understand what's going on inside your body genetically, metabolically, and cardiovasculary. You can know, and it's your obligation to know. So, check it out at fountainlife.com/peter to find out more, and really make sure that you're the CEO of your own health. All right, back to the episode. All right, I'm going to jump into our final segment here, which is a proof of abundance. I'm going to call it abundance corner. These are stories that
[109:31] have come out recently. I want to take a second and mention We Are as Gods is coming out on April 14th. So, super excited about this book. You can go check it out as we are as godsbook.com. The Moonshot Mates, we're all going to be getting together on May 4th at MIT with Ray Kurzweil. We're holding a half-day program. I will be doing a live broadcast from there. Steven Kotler, my co-author, will be there. We'll be doing a conversation on the book. We'll be doing interview with Ray. It's going to
[110:02] be a blast. We have sold 100 tickets. People who bought 100 copies of the book are going to be there. We're probably going to offer out 10 last tickets. If you're interested, go to we are as godsbook.com/100. And you can squeeze in. It is full right now. We'll probably have a few people who can't make it the last minute, so there'll be a waitlist. Join us. It's going to be a lot of fun. All right, let's look at evidence of increasing abundance.
[110:33] Um Here's a story that's interesting. Germany just built the world's tallest windmill, 364 m high. It's taller than Eiffel Tower. It's a 33 gigawatt hour per year generation. And what's interesting is it's built inside of an old coal power plant. So, I find that pretty, you know, pretty exciting. The coal plant left the wiring behind, and they've built this on top of it. So, the turbine is being built in
[111:07] Lusatia coal site in Brandenburg. So, we're going to start to see, you know, wind and solar penetrate the old the old energy economics. The second article here is a 12-patient trial of a redesigned CD40 immunotherapy had extraordinary results. Cancer vanished after one injection. This was 12 patients in the trial.
[111:37] Two patients had complete remission. Six had tumor shrinkage. And And, you know, this is the end of cancer heading our way. And then finally, there was a a fun study by done by the World Bank that basically showed that we don't need to actually produce more clean drinking water in Africa. What we need is to rebalance the use. In some places, there was too much water being used in
[112:07] and all of that, if it's redistributed, could actually provide all the water required for sub-Saharan Africa. And this is where AI technology can come in and help us understand how much water is required and where it's in optimize its use. Any comments on these articles? I've got a bunch, but I'll just limit it to one here just to build on the abundance side. You know, they're doing This is separate from the list here, but AI's they're using AI to do with acoustic sensing to prevent
[112:38] major failures in wind turbines. And the systems are achieving like 99% accuracy in identifying damage before it requires repairs. Right? So, the cost of maintenance suddenly dropped radically for these wind turbines because you can do predictive maintenance in a very powerful way. And so, this is the all these little thousand ways, thousand cuts in which we're reaching abundance in energy that's totally going to change the game. So, I'm so excited by about this. But this is such a great stuff except we've misspelled abundance corner, but that's a minor detail.
[113:09] >> [laughter] >> I love it. I'll make the one comment on the immunotherapies. I think it's also instructive. If you think back, so we're in 2026. If you think back to circa 2000 or 2001, so about a quarter of a century ago, the US Congress was sold on the National Nanotechnology Initiative on the premise that we'd have medical nanorobots swimming through our bloodstream zapping cancer cells. And yet we find ourselves quarter of a century later where, as you say, Peter, cancer is well on its way to being
[113:40] solved without the medical nanorobots. We didn't need the medical robots at all. This is being done by basically retraining or retargeting our bodies' own immune systems. And I I think that does raise or flag the question, what will, if anything, we need the medical nanorobots that Eric Drexler and others promised us? What, if anything, [snorts] will we need those for? Or is it just a matter of re-educating our own existing biology to do more intelligent things without needing any robots in our bodies
[114:10] at all? We have an amazing system. I mean, the challenge is, and we've discussed this before, that our biology is optimized through age 30, and then it's a slow degradation. Never evolved, never selected to live past that. So, a lot of this and a lot of the age reversal work going on from, you know, the epigenetic reprogramming is how do we take our our systems back to an earlier state of youth where they're operating optimally. All right, a few more articles here in
[114:41] the abundance corner spelled correctly. Cortner. Got it. So, vertical farming. I remember in my first book of uh in 2012, you know, first book abundance, I talked about vertical farming. It's finally playing out. So, it's projected to reach 40 billion by 2030. It hit 8 billion this year. And I think what's what's really important about this story is that, you know, vertical farming has
[115:13] a huge impact. 95% less water use. Production yields are 350-fold greater per square foot than traditional farming. You know, the use of AI and robotics allows you to optimize the perfect pH, get rid of all pesticides, enable you to get the perfect spectrum for that plant 24 hours a day. And, you know, historically, most of the vertical farming to date has been lettuce or leafy greens like that. This is the first time we're seeing
[115:44] something with a higher, you know, a higher value crop like berries. Yeah. And super excited. I mean, what are we going to do with all the parking garages that our autonomous vehicles, you know, abandon? Can I give a little his- Can I give a little historical thing here? So, you know, if you look at the over the last 50, 100 years, the world's biggest food production countries were the ones you'd expect. US, China, Russia, Brazil, the biggest ones, right? But then you look over the last 50 years at the world's biggest food exporting
[116:14] countries. And you know what number two is? Holland. Yes, amazing. On a global map, you can't even put it or you can't put put a pin to find Holland. It's that small relative to these other countries, but they made major investments in hydroponics, aeroponics, etc. They're the number two exporter of food globally. And just That just shows you what's what the potential is as vertical farming takes hold. We'll be able to totally transform. The average meal travels 2,500 miles to reach an American table.
[116:44] So, in food logistics security, from these yields of doing vertical farming, they're something like 10 to one compared to horizontal farming. Yeah. Like half half of your cost of a of a good meal, you know, it's the it's the beef coming from Argentina, it's the wine coming from France. It's, you know, it's the transportation costs are huge. All right, our second story here is 100-hour batteries go commercial. So, this is the birth of uh of of what we call air, you know, iron
[117:15] air storage batteries. Um you know, lithium-ion batteries are lithium cobalt nickel. They're expensive. The iron air batteries are iron, water, and air. They're coming in at 1/10 the cost. And they're now being used for grid storage. Alex, comments on this one? I do think evolution in battery energy chemistry is really interesting. So, the historic trend, if we put aside iron air for the moment and just focus on the
[117:45] bleeding edge chemistries, I think the the statistic is something like a pretty sustained 8% year over year increase per constant dollar in battery energy densities for the bleeding edge chemistries. So, in some sense, there I Not in some sense, in a very real sense, there is a Moore's law for increasing the energy densities. While at the same time, we're seeing new chemistries or newish chemistries like iron air that are radically reducing the cost for certain
[118:16] applications. Iron air isn't for every application. I seems unlikely we're going to see it get used, for example, for EVs anytime soon. Probably someone in the industry is experimenting with it, but I think we're starting to see, judging from the explosion initially in lithium-ion and then exploding to a number of other form factors, different chemistries for different applications. And different applications demand different prices as well. In some cases, when you're powering data centers, you
[118:47] care about the volume of storage, and you care about the price. In other cases, you care about the mass and mobility, and those are cases where lithium-ion, lithium polymer probably still has an edge over iron air. Overall, I think this is very positive. I I think you know, I I sometimes wonder as a thought experiment given that there was quite a bit of experimentation early on in the Thomas Edison era with different with different battery chemistries, whether we could have arrived at much more advanced
[119:18] chemistries much earlier like a hundred years ago and whether the history of the internal combustion engine would have been vastly different if we had seen more investment and more experimentation up front with with different battery chemistries, but overall like obviously this is a positive development. Uh the final story here is AI tutors. So what is it? So Wharton study tested AI tutors that personalized uh education. Um what they found not surprising uh that a five-month coding
[119:49] course was equivalent to 69 months of additional schooling uh compared to peers with fixed curriculum. Uh I think we know this. Basically you're getting a 2x learning gains using AI tutors. Uh they're free, they're ubiquitous, they're available to everybody 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This isn't, you know, breaking news. It's just quantifying it. Uh at the end of the day, AI is going to be the ultimate educator, understands your child's abilities, understands what they do and
[120:19] do not know, their favorite sports star, their favorite color and can optimize it. I and teach somebody. I think one of the things that AI can do better than anything is teach somebody the way they like to learn. Um you know, are you going to make >> make an appeal to teachers cuz you know, a lot of schools including people that I know are incredibly resistant for some reason. I don't get it. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's cruel, absolutely cruel to a child to force-feed them a lecture and they're like, "I don't understand
[120:49] what you just said." Well, I'm going to keep plowing forward cuz everyone else in the classroom understands. >> to say it the same over again. Yeah, and the kid can't stop and say, "Wait, explain that to me another way." With the AI it's so much more compassionate and so it's so I think it's downright cruel to kids to try to teach complicated things in any way other than AI. Yeah. So I think you know, anyone who uses it every day, it's clear. It's clear that that's the case. Sorry to cut you off, Alex. I I think there's an element missing. So I I would love to be able to just replace teachers, human teachers
[121:20] with AI. I I think it's basically a cliche at this point that at least in the US education is is subject to Baumol's cost disease and would love for AI to just replace education both primary, secondary and and higher ed. What I suspect is missing certainly for the most self-motivated students, I I think at this point in the style of Neal Stephenson's Young Ladies Illustrated Primer from Diamond Age,
[121:52] it's already here. Well-motivated students can already have a conversation with with a model from whichever frontier vendor and teach themselves far more quickly than they can through human instruction. But but but but for the students that aren't as self-motivated, what I think we're missing right now is an AI embodiment that holds their attention and motivates them where they lack the motivation. They're >> gaming. Uh yeah, maybe maybe so I I assume Peter by gaming you're referring to sort of a
[122:23] quasi-addictive or >> Video games. I mean video games are are just perfectly tuned not to be too difficult, not to be too boring to hold your attention and to motivate you all the way. It's just I don't understand why video game designers instead of teaching kids about a whole set of random facts or made up can't use, you know, a set of facts around quantum you know, about subatomic particles or about planets and about, you know, physics and biology uh and gamify that. Um
[122:53] Someday >> Yeah, it's funny if you if you play Fortnite and you look at the weapons and the number of intricate components of the weapons >> And then the characters memorize these things. They memorize them and then you know, Madden NFL like the playbook. There's like three layer deep menus of different routes and playing before you know it, you you could have learned an entire discipline like quantum physics with that same amount of brainpower. But I I swear to God the AI can make those topics like quantum physics incredibly fun and engaging. The technology is here today to do that. It is. Someone's just got to get it out the door. People have
[123:24] been building edutainment games for decades at this point. I grew up with like Math Blaster or whatever back back back when I was growing up. But the the problem is I suspect so as a user of these games, you're not motivating the the users, children or or students with the exact outcomes. What would have been utterly transformative for me would be not like motivating some math problem with some arguably disconnected animation on the screen. Motivate them by actually empowering them to do really
[123:54] amazing things in in the real world. That that's far more motivatory I think than just an animation or some dopamine push from a jingle. Well, I think that's for you and probably not for the average kid. >> Yeah, maybe I don't generalize. I don't know. >> [laughter] >> All right. Uh uh final uh final item in the Abundance Corner is this graphic. Uh look at this beautiful exponential growth curve. This is uh EVs sold globally. Uh back in 2010
[124:26] there were barely 10,000 of these vehicles. This was, you know, for uh uh Elon's first Roadster. Uh and here we're up to 12.7 million EVs uh sold globally. In China, one in two new cars is an EV. Um and it's just it's perfect exponential growth. Can I just throw in a fun fact? Please. >> In 2015, the International Energy Agency predicted that we would not sell a million electric vehicles a year before
[124:57] 2040. Um and that year in 2015, we sold more than a million electric vehicles. >> [laughter] >> So so you get you get the the predictors and the reality and you know, governments and good companies like are relying on these strategic predictions for strategic decisions and they were wrong before they even put out the the the the comment. And so it's great to see this. And the curve still accelerating, right? So by 2030, 2025 on
[125:27] this chart is going to look very modest. And and just look at the the the the impact on the results from the war if oil prices suddenly shoot up etc. You're you're protected from a huge amount of volatility as we go to solar battery EVs. All right, gentlemen. I a beautiful outro piece from Marcus Helker. And I want you to look at this. This is the Moonshots Made Boy Band. Uh we're making our debut here. No, God. I can't take
[125:58] this. >> And and it's it's so Good, Selene. What are you worried about? >> [music]
[128:06] >> Here we are, the Moonshots Made Boy Band. Everybody Alex, you got to be a science officer. You're lucky. >> I I get to be the role of the science medical. I think it's blue, right? I get to be science medical. All right. You're you're right. You're right. Medical, why would that be? I thought that was killer. I thought that was better. Our Starfleet officers in the Abundance logo resembles the the Starfleet pin. It does. Convenient, isn't it? I don't know how that happened. Pull up a clip. Pull the Pull the clip from just like two months ago and compare it to today. It's
[128:36] incredible how quickly it's Yeah, and and just a shout-out to the creator community out there. Love it. Please send us your outro or if you have an intro song you want to share with us, please send it to us. We'd love to share it with everybody. Um and gentlemen, it was fun doing back-to-back episodes with you last 24 hours. Uh and looking forward to another episode next week. So, everybody please subscribe. We're putting out about two episodes a week. Turn on your
[129:06] notifications so you get it when it's fresh. And stay optimistic. Stay hopeful. The future's ours to create. We're creating the vision of tomorrow that we want. Uh if you think AI's happening to you and not for you, you're going to be back on your heels and you're going to be in fear and that's the worst place to actually venture into the future. Uh this is the most extraordinary time ever to be alive and so blessed to have Salim Ismail, David Blundin, and AWG as my
[129:36] moonshot mates. Love you guys. Awesome episode. Great conversation. >> and prosper, Peter. Live long and prosper. Peace and long life. >> [laughter] >> If you made it to the end of this episode, which you obviously did, I consider you a moonshot mate. Every week my moonshot mates and I spend a lot of energy and time to really deliver you [music] the news that matters. If you're a subscriber, thank you. If you're not a subscriber yet, please consider subscribing so you get the news as it comes out. I also want to invite you to join me on my weekly newsletter called
[130:06] Metatrends. I have a research team. You may not know this, but we spend the entire week looking at the metatrends that are impacting your family, your company, [music] your industry, your nation. And I put this into a two-minute read every week. If you'd like to get access to the Metatrends newsletter every week, go to dmandis.com/metatrends. That's dmandis.com/metatrends. Thank you again for joining us today. It's a blast for us to put this together every week.
[130:43] >> [music]