Transcript Viewer
Nov 14, 2025 ยท 2025 #43. Read the transcript grouped by speaker, inspect word-level timecodes, and optionally turn subtitles on for direct video playback
Speaker Labels
Edit labels for this show, save them in this browser, or download a JSON override for the production folder.
Transcript Playback
Human Transcript
Blocks are grouped by speaker for readability. Expand a block to inspect word-level timing.
Speaker 2
like a week ago they were like open ai is dominant three days ago it was like gemini 3 pro is mark benioff's like i've i'll never go back to chat gbd again and today it's uh it's it's it's claude 4.5 just killed crushed everything my point is
Speaker 3
like there's just no stability hello everybody it is sunday november the 30th 2025 uh last november show on technology that was the week weekly summary it's been For those people who grew up watching wacky races, it's been one of those wacky races kind of week where every day there seems to be a new leader in the race to win AI. Lots of news about Google piercing NVIDIA's aura of invulnerability. The Google stock is doing extremely well. Lots of news also about Anthropik's new Opus 4.5 model. Some people see that as Anthropik's ace in the hole when it comes to winning the race. And of course, Keith, who loves ChatGPT, has noted that the ChatGPT 5.1 Codex Max is a big deal. In overall terms, in some ways, AI seems to be winning. We have a situation where AI is winning, apparently, the copyright fight. But when it comes to international, China, supposedly, at least according to the Financial Times, has leapfrogged the US in global markets for open AI models. And perhaps AI isn't really winning. The Economist has an excellent piece about the failure for... AI to catch on within the corporations. In other words, it's a wacky race this kind of week where everybody or nobody seems to be winning. Keith, I know your editorial this week is about how no one is not only winning the AI race, but perhaps never will.
Speaker 4
Yeah, although there's a play on words there because it isn't a race. There's no finish line. I mean, it's an endless and accelerating innovation cycle, caveated by the fact that LLMs as a technology are not going to... going to be the final uh answer there there's a lot this week from other ai technologists working on something yeah and gary marcus has always made that point
Speaker 3
and uh ilia uh yeah also has been making that point so you know we don't even know who's winning within ai let alone the different companies
Speaker 4
Yeah. So it's one of those times when, sadly, there's a media framing of a race because that drives eyeballs and clicks. When actually we're in an age of accelerating innovation with no end in sight.
Speaker 3
You'd call it in LLM, a notebook slide, the year of intelligence, Keith. Is that how we're going to remember 2025? We're going to, later in December, we're going to do a show looking back over the whole year. I'm also going to preview 2026 in tech terms. But has this been the year of intelligence, do you think?
Speaker 4
Well, I'm using the word intelligence in the way it's generically used out there in the media. I actually think LLMs are not intelligent. I think they're just really, really good. They fake intelligence very well. The Chinese Deep Seek model just got a score on the math Olympiad test, both the Chinese one and the US one, that beats any human that's ever taken the test. So they're very good at appearing to be intelligent, but as we all know, they're guessing machines. And so intelligence is the wrong word. But there is a lot of work on actual intelligence. DeepMind's AlphaFold is a great example of actual intelligence. And lots of researchers are working on that. And so one of the memes is we're moving from the age of AI
Speaker 4
productization back to the age of laboratories for the next generation of AI. And so there's many different narratives inside this meta-narrative.
Speaker 3
Right, and then narratives within narratives within narratives. As you say, it's a crowded chart, not a finishing line. But it would be fair to say, Keith, that certainly in terms of last week, Google had a great week. Gemini... is being reviewed very positively. Mark Benioff came out, and if it was last week or the week before, saying that Gemini now is his preferred AI over OpenAI. Google's development of their own chip, as I said, the economist at least suggests, has pierced NVIDIA's aura of invulnerability. Google's stock is up remarkably in the last three or four months. So it's been a good week for Google. I take your point that maybe they haven't won, maybe no one will ever win, but there are winners and losers each week, and certainly Google is the biggest winner this week.
Speaker 4
Google's a winner. I think a week ago it was a fairer statement to say they're the winner this week, because this week two of the others recalled up. But you're right, generally you're right. Google stock is up. Google, a year ago, I was predicting that Google was in mortal danger. I wouldn't say that now.
Speaker 3
I think... So in other words, Keith, maybe you can say this publicly, you were wrong.
Speaker 4
Well, one's always wrong about predictions. There's no such thing as a correct prediction.
Speaker 3
Well, I've always been bullish on Google. I mean, I obviously come with my own biases. But why do you think you underestimated Google last year then?
Speaker 4
Well, I think they've got some massive challenges that on the face of it, it's hard to imagine how they overcome them. The biggest one is that they earn over $300 billion a year from search-based advertising. And the challenge is, as they put AI mode, as it's called, into Chrome to replace web search mode, will they still be able to earn revenue from advertising? And the evidence so far is yes.
Speaker 3
And that's why the stock's gone out. That's why Wall Street now is, Google is a darling of Wall Street because it seems as if they can literally have their AI cake and eat it. They can have AI and they can also still continue with their traditional search advertising model, which seems almost unbelievable. I'm not sure whether it can continue.
Speaker 4
Yeah I have my doubts whether this is just a moment in time or not indicative of where it's going. I do think they have a massive advantage which is they have the only database of paid links and clicks that if they choose to migrate those links and clicks into the AI interface having already built the database of them, and it's a real-time database as well, then the question then becomes, will people click as often in an AI interface as they do in a web search interface? That's gotta be a no. Because why would you click in an AI interface when it's giving you answers? You only click when it's a link to an answer. So I suspect click rates will continue to decline. But the monetization of clicks, Google's in prime position compared to OpenAI, Anthropic and all of the others.
Speaker 3
Who are losers, do you think? I mean, we don't. They don't tend to make headlines. There were a series of headlines, I think the week before this, on Oracle's massive decline in its stock market value. Are there losers? I mean, if we accept that there isn't a single winner, I think it's a wise editorial headline this week, Keith. But there are going to be losers. Who's done badly this week or in November 2025? Is it Oracle?
Speaker 4
I think Oracle's in a good position. Its share price is not indicative of its positioning. A year ago, Oracle wasn't in the race at all. It's now a major partner of OpenAI and others. Microsoft showed the way here. Microsoft partnered very early with OpenAI, and Azure has benefited from that. Oracle is really replaying the Microsoft playbook and has done so successfully. Its share price spiked up and has now corrected back a little bit, but it's still in way better shape than it was a year ago. So I don't think Oracle's a loser, actually. I think the biggest losers are the SaaS companies. if you think of the SaaS companies and probably Salesforce is- Yeah,
Speaker 3
I mean, I was thinking of Benioff and it's interesting, Benioff made the announcement about his preference for Google Gemini over OpenAI. I don't quite know how that impacts on his company, Salesforce.
Speaker 4
Well, look, Benioff can still win. A little bit like Oracle a year ago, in the short term,
Speaker 3
Well, no one's going to win, Keith. You've told us there aren't any winners.
Speaker 4
Well, you're asking me who's a loser. So let's frame it in the opposite. Is Salesforce going to be a loser? I wouldn't say that yet. I think Benioff's acutely aware of the need for agent force to become their leading product. And if he can pull that off, he'll continue to grow revenue and everything will be fine. But that is a bit like Google had the challenge a year ago. He's got a challenge to make sure that happens.
Speaker 3
I wonder also, I mean, I take your point that we can't always use the markets as an accurate mirror of the health of a company, but it's these second rank companies that seem really stalled, companies like Pinterest and PayPal and Adobe. Are they all going to be losers? Are we going to have a middle class tech company as we've had historically? Or are they only going to be giants and startups and nothing in between?
Speaker 4
Well, content portals will only maintain their audience insofar as we users continue to go to them for for what were you looking for? And increasingly, the evidence seems to be, although the Economist article disputes it in the case of enterprises, that users are...
Speaker 3
Well, I mean, you've got to accept their right on that. I know you don't necessarily believe that it's not the death knell of AI, but their point is an important one, that corporations are not embracing AI as much as we expect it or some people expect it.
Speaker 4
I think they're right, but I think that's as expected because the innovators dilemma is strongest in enterprises. And, you know, as we all know, enterprises, every consulting firm knows this, enterprises are the slowest to understand and the slowest to change. So it's very likely that that's an accurate representation, but not shocking on the face of it, not at all shocking. I just did it. Sorry, go on. But going back to the main point, Pinterest and other content portals, this will be true for lots of them, unless it's habit forming, like say music streaming, are going to be subsumed in AI interfaces, I would predict. But that, again, is a prediction without a timeline. I don't know how fast that will happen, but it seems to be likely that will happen. And if that happens, the AI interfaces become the primary intermediary between you and me and whatever knowledge or information we're looking for.
Speaker 3
They're the roadkill. I just did a show actually yesterday with Christopher Marcus, a very smart business professor at Cambridge University. He wrote an interesting piece for the Harvard Business Review on the need for businesses to strategically hibernate in a time of great uncertainty and upheaval. And I think his argument may actually explain why AI is not catching on quite as what people expected in corporations, because corporations are just very fearful of all change, given the geopolitical struggles, particularly in the US, Trump, tariffs, and everything else. So maybe it's just the current climate of uncertainty that's undermining corporate embrace of AI. Corporations are, by definition, very conservative.
Speaker 4
Yeah, you know, every venture capitalist knows there's a curve of adoption, which only ends with the late adopters. And the real test of AI's, you know, staying power is where in that curve it currently is. And I think it's still in the early adopters curve, which is the very earliest stage of that adoption curve.
Speaker 3
As they say, people always joke about Silicon Valley, you're always an early adopter until you're too late. So who knows whether there's again a a middle market here. What about in international terms? As I said, the FT reported this week that China has leapfrogged the US in global markets for open AI models. You've already talked about DeepSeat.
Speaker 3
You note or your Your Google LLM notebook image suggests that governments are now major players. Is this race between the US and China? Is it another wacky race, Keith, where one week China will appear to be ahead, the next week the US? Of course, it's a two-man race. There's no team from Europe or Russia or Japan involved in this race, it would seem.
Speaker 4
Yeah, although interestingly, the slush conference happened in Finland this week, and Lovable, the European-based coding, vibe coding company, announced that it reached 200 million annual run rate. within four months of having previously reached 100 million. And Mistral, of course, is still in Europe. And they declared Europe as a player in the game, which I think was an overstatement.
Speaker 3
Well, they would, wouldn't they, because they're European.
Speaker 4
But I do think AI is going to grow everywhere it's allowed to. The British budget this week, brought in a bunch of stuff to incent venture investment in early stage startups. I think the EU is far behind the UK in thinking like that. So Europe is hamstrung mainly by regulation, which seems to be weakening. which is a good thing.
Speaker 3
Maybe a little too little too late. Can the US, I mean, coming back to your theme this week of nobody's winning, which means really in a way that everybody's winning, can the US and China both win this race simultaneously?
Speaker 4
Absolutely. I think that's the only outcome likely. And really, you know, nations don't have balance sheets in the same way that companies do. They do, but they're derived from different sources like tax. The winners will be Chinese companies and American companies mainly. And those companies will pay taxes wherever they operate. And so governments will harvest that. But also their products will be used globally. And so revenues will be spent everywhere. And productivity gains will be impacted everywhere. So it isn't as if the rise of US companies or Chinese companies only benefits them. It should lift everything up.
Speaker 3
No note this week, Keith, of the B word, your favorite word, bubble.
Speaker 3
You note that what's happening is a new industrial stack, not a software bubble. What is an industrial stack? And can there be bubbles within industrial stacks? Or by definition, is that not a bubble?
Speaker 4
Well, an industrial stack really talks about rebuilding from first principles, the way to do things, the way things get done. So the stack is a kind of a logical sequence of hardware and software in order to rewire the way we do things as humans. And we're in the middle of the early stages of that new stack. And as we've already noted, there's early adopters doing it a lot, like startups today that are AI native look very different to startups even four years ago in how they build and what they build. So that's really what it refers to. And money always pours in. to the recreation of, if you think about it, of the division of labor. This is the recreation of the division of labor on a better basis, a more productive basis. And you would expect money to flow in because better, cheaper production leads to more voluminous outputs that cost less. that then get consumed, which drives revenue. So what there really is, is a cycle of innovation and revenue, not a circular economy in the way some people would do.
Speaker 3
Although some of the deals, I mean, I take your point broadly in a historical sense, but that doesn't mean that some of these supposedly circular deals involving Nvidia and Oracle and OpenAI. I mean, they're still circular. You can have circularity within the broader context of the building of an industrial stack.
Speaker 4
Of course, there's circularity, but it isn't a closed system. There's a massive difference between Nvidia spending money with OpenAI or vice versa to that's the only money flow. If that was the only money flow, You know, you would consider it a round trip. But if there's huge amounts of both investment coming in on the left and revenue coming in on the right, and it isn't a closed system, it's just the main players doing business with each other, which, by the way, they have to because they rely on each other for their own growth.
Speaker 3
You know that market structures are adapting, venture capital in particular. That's your area of expertise. How is this playing out in terms of venture? You've often suggested that there are going to be huge winners at the top end of the venture market. Some venture startups or more democratized forms of venture investment and everything in between is getting destroyed. What's happening on the venture front here, Keith, in terms of the market adaptation?
Speaker 4
Well, this is probably if you're a venture capitalist, this might be the most worrisome part of the picture.
Speaker 3
And I don't think any of our audience is going to worry too much about VCs, are they?
Speaker 4
So there's two developments in venture capital. The concentration of money into a smaller and smaller number of funds, namely Sequoia and Andreessen and a few others. There's maybe 10 funds that are sucking in all the money.
Speaker 3
A winner take all.
Speaker 4
which is reflected also in the tech industry more broadly. Right. So they're becoming massive, massive, massive funds and other funds not being able to raise money at all. And then secondly, the concentration of that money into fewer and fewer companies. So very large shares go into a very small number of companies.
Speaker 3
So it's Andreessen or Sequoia investing in open AI and Anthropic, basically.
Speaker 4
That would be a bit of a caricature, but broadly speaking, that's the trend. And And then the problem is there's no IPOs, or very few IPOs, so there's no exits. And companies are being able to stay private much longer at much higher valuations and still raise ginormous amounts of money, which means that the money originally invested isn't being returned to the source, which is pension funds and the like. So you get a liquidity trap at huge scale with massive concentration. Now, when that happens, the market reacts and it's reacted. Goldman Sachs acquired a secondary market company called Industry Ventures. Charles Schwab acquired a secondary market company called Forge Global. Earlier, BlackRock acquired Prequin. And what is happening is that the market is looking to put money in the hands of buyers of these private companies. And that's leading to secondary purchases at a much larger scale than previously, although it's still tiny. It's only 2% of the value of unicorns is being bought through secondary markets, not a big number, but it's much bigger than ever before. And that's because there's a large number of smaller venture funds looking for liquidity. And they're ready buyers, if they can get a good price, buying. For example, Dave McClure's new fund, Practical BC, is a secondary buyer.
Speaker 3
And Dave's actually coming on the show next week. I want to come back, Keith, to the stack for a moment. You talk about this being a new industrial stack, not a software bubble. One of the interesting discussion points this week is on Google in the sense that Google's the only company trying to own the entire stack. Does that make Google more or less likely to be a winner in this new game?
Speaker 4
Well, there's pros and cons. It's certainly helpful to Google for decision-making purposes to be able to control both costs and capabilities. So that's the plus. Google's primarily an AI winner with developers, to some extent businesses, but they tend to be startup businesses, not the big ones. The big ones are all going to Microsoft and or Oracle more than they're going to Google. There's rumors that Meta may do a big deal with Google for their new... Yeah,
Speaker 3
which is another reason why people are very bullish on Google this year.
Speaker 4
Yeah, so that's the plus. The minus is... Google's TPUs, that's the equivalent of... To NVIDIA's product. They are a generation or two behind NVIDIA in terms of capability. And NVIDIA isn't sitting on its hands. It's producing an annual upgrade to its whole stack. So I don't think it really threatens NVIDIA. Google is a purchaser of NVIDIA because of that for pre-training. In other words, very, very compute heavy parts of the AI cycle. Google isn't using its own stuff because it doesn't yet do as good a job. And so I think it's a more nuanced landscape. And then the final piece is, and this is just my opinion, but I think AI is ultimately a consumer-led game.
Speaker 3
Well, you and certainly The Economist would strongly disagree. The Economist piece suggests that always these booms or new business cycles, whatever you want to call them, new industrial civilizations, are always driven by corporations. But
Speaker 4
Well, I think it's either or there. It's what comes first. And I think the evidence so far is chat interfaces are the primary reason AI has grown. And chat interfaces are mainly used by consumers. Now, consumers can include business people. I don't just mean hobbyists. It can be business people sitting at work. But it isn't a traditional top-down enterprise sale. It's a bottoms-up, one-person-at-a-time adoption curve. And in that game, OpenAI is very far ahead.
Speaker 3
You say, Keith, that rather than asking who will win, we should ask three questions. What are those three questions?
Speaker 4
Put them on the screen so I don't have to use my memory, Andrew.
Speaker 3
I don't know the three questions. You're the expert.
Speaker 4
So the graphic has them in. The three questions really correlate to... Capabilities, capital, and civics. Yeah, what can it do, who's funding it, and what are the policy implications? So what can it do? Contrary to Gary Marcus's narrative actually is getting better and better and better.
Speaker 3
So it's the three Cs, capabilities, capital, and civics.
Speaker 4
Yeah. So capabilities, clearly it's getting better and better and better. But I will concede to anyone who says so that there are other technologies outside of LLMs that are going to take it even further. And those are in the early innings, a company called Sakana.ai. has a white paper that I put in the editorial about something called continuous learning machines, continuous thinking machines. And Demis Habasis, is it Habasis or Sabis? I always get that wrong.
Speaker 3
Demis, who's the head of AI at Google, the number two guy at Google.
Speaker 4
Yeah. And Ilya Satsukeva, they both this week talked about the inability of LLMs to be great at generalization. which we've talked about on the show, that generalization is still a human thing. But they have a fix for that, which is a different technology than NLMs. And so I think capabilities, we're so early compared to what's coming. I do think the current capabilities are already good enough to make robotics, humanoid robotics, real.
Speaker 3
So the first question then is on capabilities. So you think that we're still in the early innings there. Capital, can we, and I'm quoting you here, can we manage a $200 trillion asset world key?
Speaker 4
Look, that's about 1.2 times global GDP.
Speaker 3
In other words, a lot of money.
Speaker 4
Yeah, yeah, exactly. Actually, it's 80 trillion more than global GDP. So it's more than 1.2 times. And so that's a massive investment. But if we're really rebuilding the stack of human division of labor, that doesn't seem a massive price. I mean, it's not 10 times global GDP. And so I'm going to anticipate that most governments and most capital providers will find that money. And I will say the money sitting on the sidelines, not invested, is many times higher than global GDP.
Speaker 3
Yeah, but you're not going to have capital in Uganda or Belgium or Vietnam put into this. I mean, it's all coming from the US or China, isn't it?
Speaker 4
Well, actually, the capital is coming from everywhere. Sovereign wealth funds everywhere.
Speaker 3
Oh, I mean, obviously the Gulf states as well, but they're unusual.
Speaker 4
But the capital is pouring into mainly American and Chinese companies. But that doesn't really matter as long as what it produces is a new global division of labor. And by that, I mean an industrial division of labor in terms of how things get done. And it will pay off. Some people estimate global GDP will double. Other people think it made more than that.
Speaker 3
It's highly speculative. And let's get to the final C, Keith, civics. Can the upside be shared? You and I have talked about this endlessly. Everyone's talking about this. Can this upside, this clearly is upside, there's clearly huge amounts of money, but currently it's all going to companies like Google or their shareholders.
Speaker 4
Well, yeah, so this is a huge debate. My current position in the debate, subject to change, is... Concentration of capital is good because that's the most efficient way to get the wins. But it has to be correlated with clear policy to distribute the rewards. And that is the missing ingredient. There's a lot of talk about it, you're right. Nobody is really seizing the moment there and therefore the talk gets louder until there's a resolution, it will continue to.
Speaker 3
Well, last week you suggested the resolution would come through some sort of violent revolution. A lot of people are suggesting that. In fact, our interview of the week with Sven Beckert, a very distinguished economic historian from Harvard University, has a new book out, Global History of Capitalism. He also believes that the current inequalities in our economic system will probably provoke enormous change. And he's ambivalent on AI. He's kind of bullish in a way, but also not entirely convinced that it will naturally lead to more equality. So you're not alone in recognizing the potential role of revolution in all this.
Speaker 4
Yeah, yeah. And that's a very good book that he's bringing out. Just one correction. I said in the absence of civics, you can anticipate a lot of social upheaval.
Speaker 3
We don't have three. We've got capabilities in the three Cs, capabilities, capital, civics. So you said, without civics, we're going to have revolution.
Speaker 4
Well, not necessarily revolution, because that would be a positive spin, that somehow people would take over and put something better in place. What you might end up with is chaos, or worse still, extreme wealth, barbell-like. And that may or may not lead to civil unrest. It depends on what people do about it. But I think that civics, in other words, decision-making about how everyone benefits. Elon Musk has the most interesting take on this because he implies it will happen organically. He's basically saying that once you have robots that can do pretty much any physical task, you will quickly have an end of labor. And once you have that, you'll have the end of money. And so everyone will be equally rich, meaning they don't need money.
Speaker 3
I think that's another classically childish Elon remark, because don't ask who owns the robots. But I don't want to have another Elon.
Speaker 4
Even if you think it's wrong, you should embrace it as a serious narrative, because Sam Altman kind of agrees with that.
Speaker 3
Well, the fact that Sam Altman and Elon Musk agree on anything doesn't suggest it's real.
Speaker 4
I would say it's kind of a wacky race. You have to say why not. You can't just mock it.
Speaker 3
Well, as I said, simple question. Who owns the robots?
Speaker 4
Well, the whole point is that people will. Who are the people? How's that going to work? Well, initially...
Speaker 4
Obviously, you have to be a bit open-minded here, but initially... Let me tell you the detail.
Speaker 3
Musk claims that by next year,
Speaker 4
his robot will be $30,000 and capable of learning any household task. Now, if you divide $30,000 by the number of weeks in a year, it's about $600 a week.
Speaker 4
which will do cleaning, cooking, laundry.
Speaker 3
Yeah, I take your point on the prices will come down, blah, blah. We all know that, but it's Musk's robot. He's going to be selling it, whether it's Tesla or SpaceX or X, whatever other company he has. He's not giving it away for free.
Speaker 4
Well, I think you didn't listen to his talk. He made the point that as the impact of that kicks in, both in industry and in the home and on the street, everything is gonna ultimately be free and therefore money won't be required to pay. I mean, it's just... Well, it's just math. It's the math of production. That's how the whole history of the human race has worked. The fact we can buy a carton of milk today for $5, It hasn't always been true.
Speaker 3
But I don't want to go on and on about this because he just gets on my nerves. It's so childish. If you want to bring up, hold on, hold on, bring up milk. It's not free milk. You still have to buy it. Yeah, but it's still farms. There are still distributors. There are still stores.
Speaker 4
No, you're still missing the point. I think if you're calling him a child, I'm going to call you a cretin. You're not embracing the point. The cost of milk. delivered by the way to a population in the world of 8 billion people is now close to nothing compared to what you would have had to pay to achieve.
Speaker 3
I take that point, but there are still milk companies, right?
Speaker 4
There's still people who- At this stage in history, can you see the trend curve? Can't you see the trend curve?
Speaker 3
Give me an example then of a product that has literally become free when it used to be expensive, where there's no market for it. You just go out in the street and you can just have as much of it as you want.
Speaker 4
I think there's lots of things like that.
Speaker 3
Well, give me an example. Give me one example.
Speaker 4
Parking in Palo Alto.
Speaker 3
Well, that's your best example.
Speaker 4
Well, it's an example.
Speaker 3
But it's an example within a very... I mean, the government's still paying for that parking first. In Palo Alto, it's very unusual.
Speaker 4
You're right, but think of what that sentence means. We, the people, paid taxes from this much bigger wealth that we've got compared to 200 years ago. And our elected authorities are able to use it to provide free parking. By the way, in England, they provide, at least at the point of consumption, free health care and free education.
Speaker 3
Yeah, but it's not right. And that's a better example than free parking in Palo Alto, which is the wealthiest suburb probably in the world. But the NHS is in crisis. Anyway, we'll talk about this more. I'm happy to talk about these issues as long as you don't bring up Musk, because I just think he's a moron. But that's just my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm the moron. Finally, Keith, you have a South African sympathy with him for some bizarre reason. But finally, and coming back to politics, there's an interesting piece in The Economist on MAGA being divided over the promise and perils of AI. Yeah. How much do you think this will play out? I mean, certainly, I don't want to continue talking about Musk, but he's certainly on the techno-optimist side of the MAGA movement. Do you see this as destroying the MAGA movement?
Speaker 4
I think it should. Destroy or transform is both the same word for me in this context but I think that it should destroy the Democratic Party as well I think basically the debates inside there will be some people who want to embrace this rebuilding of the human stack and there'll be those who want the rewards from that to be individually owned and those that want them to uplift society in both camps and it's hard for me to see the current left-right divide surviving that i think we're going to redefine the meaning and i think you're going to go back to this article that's in this week's newsletter about the industrial age only being possible because of a generalized belief in progress i think it's very likely that you know we need a generalized belief in innovation and the uplisting effect of innovation in order for new dividing lines to be drawn.
Speaker 3
So who do you expect to win in the Musk or the David Sachs versus the Steve Bannon wings of the MAGA movement in the next couple of years?
Speaker 4
I find it super hard to predict because there's so much irrationality or subjectivity there. But what I would like to happen is Bannon and the backward-looking, hardcore MAGA to shrink into a sect and for society to embrace investing in innovation for progress for everyone.
Speaker 3
Well, there you have it. There are no winners this week. We like to find winners, Keith, but nobody is winning, which means also no one's losing. Lots of opportunity. The stack continues to grow. That was the week for the last week of November, 2025. We will be back next week. We're going to do, I think, about three shows in December. And we'll also do a backward look at 2025 and some forecasting on 2026. So have a good week, Keith, and we'll talk next week.
Speaker 4
Bye. Thank you.