Speaker 1
Hello everybody.
Words and timings
Helloeverybody.
Transcript Viewer
The Cult of Personality
Apr 18, 2026 ยท 2026 #13. Read the transcript grouped by speaker, inspect word-level timecodes, and optionally turn subtitles on for direct video playback
Speaker Labels
Name the speakers
Edit labels for this show, save them in this browser, or download a JSON override for the production folder.
Transcript Playback
The Cult of Personality
Human Transcript
Timed transcript
Blocks are grouped by speaker for readability. Expand a block to inspect word-level timing.
Speaker 2
It's Saturday, the 18th of April, 2026 Saturdays. That was the week days for us where we go back over the tech news of the week with my friend Keith Teer, the publisher of that was the week newsletter this week. He, and he's done this before, but this week seems everything's coming to the boil. He has an editorial against what he calls the cult of personality, in which he's invented an AI photo, featuring the five dominant AI CEOs, Zuckerberg, Altman, Musk, Amidai, and Hassabis. And it's all triggered by a very interesting piece, which I rather enjoyed, by Stuart Alsop, a distinguished venture capitalist on Sam Altman, entitled I Don't Think Sam Altman Lies. Keith, tell us more about the Alsop piece, why this triggered your anti-cult of personality editorial this week.
Words and timings
It'sSaturday,the18thofApril,2026Saturdays.ThatwastheweekdaysforuswherewegobackoverthetechnewsoftheweekwithmyfriendKeithTeer,thepublisherofthatwastheweeknewsletterthisweek.He,andhe'sdonethisbefore,butthisweekseemseverything'scomingtotheboil.Hehasaneditorialagainstwhathecallsthecultofpersonality,inwhichhe'sinventedanAIphoto,featuringthefivedominantAICEOs,Zuckerberg,Altman,Musk,Amidai,andHassabis.Andit'salltriggeredbyaveryinterestingpiece,whichIratherenjoyed,byStuartAlsop,adistinguishedventurecapitalistonSamAltman,entitledIDon'tThinkSamAltmanLies.Keith,tellusmoreabouttheAlsoppiece,whythistriggeredyouranti-cultofpersonalityeditorialthisweek.
Speaker 3
Yeah, so Stuart, I know Stuart, and he's a former journalist, by the way, and became a venture capitalist at NEA after journalism. And he makes the point that he believes that Altman really does think that AI is dangerous and really is concerned about it. And he goes on to say that the same is true of Amidai, And, you know, whilst simultaneously saying what bad CEOs we have in AI, especially Altman, who he doubles down on saying how bad Altman is.
Words and timings
Yeah,soStuart,IknowStuart,andhe'saformerjournalist,bytheway,andbecameaventurecapitalistatNEAafterjournalism.AndhemakesthepointthathebelievesthatAltmanreallydoesthinkthatAIisdangerousandreallyisconcernedaboutit.AndhegoesontosaythatthesameistrueofAmidai,And,youknow,whilstsimultaneouslysayingwhatbadCEOswehaveinAI,especiallyAltman,whohedoublesdownonsayinghowbadAltmanis.
Speaker 2
Yeah, I mean, let's just quote... Let's just quote Stuart Alsop on Altman. He said, my thesis, whatever his other attributes, and no one would deny those other attributes, Sam Altman is one of the worst CEOs I've watched. I'm not sure you would necessarily disagree, but you don't seem to think that CEOs matter these days. It's all structural, Keith, isn't it?
Words and timings
Yeah,Imean,let'sjustquote...Let'sjustquoteStuartAlsoponAltman.Hesaid,mythesis,whateverhisotherattributes,andnoonewoulddenythoseotherattributes,SamAltmanisoneoftheworstCEOsI'vewatched.I'mnotsureyouwouldnecessarilydisagree,butyoudon'tseemtothinkthatCEOsmatterthesedays.It'sallstructural,Keith,isn'tit?
Speaker 3
No, I think there's different kinds of CEOs. You know, I've been self-assessed as a CEO by external parties that my venture capitalists brought in, and they'd certainly determined that I sucked. But what they meant by that is I sucked as a manager and that I was good as a leader. And so there's different kinds of CEOs. I think Altman is a leader and quite a good one. He probably isn't a manager or a product strategist, but that's okay because CEO's job is to build teams that you know fill the holes where their weaknesses are yeah but your argument is that
Words and timings
No,Ithinkthere'sdifferentkindsofCEOs.Youknow,I'vebeenself-assessedasaCEObyexternalpartiesthatmyventurecapitalistsbroughtin,andthey'dcertainlydeterminedthatIsucked.ButwhattheymeantbythatisIsuckedasamanagerandthatIwasgoodasaleader.Andsothere'sdifferentkindsofCEOs.IthinkAltmanisaleaderandquiteagoodone.Heprobablyisn'tamanageroraproductstrategist,butthat'sokaybecauseCEO'sjobistobuildteamsthatyouknowfilltheholeswheretheirweaknessesareyeahbutyourargumentisthat
Speaker 2
or correct me if i'm wrong but in the editorial you seem to suggest that given the hysteria over ai these days and the amounts of money pouring in that it doesn't really actually matter who's the ceo of any of these companies the outcomes are going to be pretty similar is that what you're arguing
Words and timings
orcorrectmeifi'mwrongbutintheeditorialyouseemtosuggestthatgiventhehysteriaoveraithesedaysandtheamountsofmoneypouringinthatitdoesn'treallyactuallymatterwho'stheceoofanyofthesecompaniestheoutcomesaregoingtobeprettysimilaristhatwhatyou'rearguing
Speaker 3
I think it barely matters who the CEO is. It does matter on the margin, especially on the leadership side. Elon Musk is a much more effective leader than let's say a good manager would be of his businesses because he combines the long term view with short term strategy and the ability to explain it. And even if he was a terrible manager, he'd be a good CEO. So it does matter who the CEO is, but the CEO isn't the focus to judge the effectiveness of the company. It's the wrong focus for judging how good the company is or what its likely impact on the future is. For that, you've got to go to the technology, the application of the technology, the correlation between the technology and human adoption of it, and what impact it's having. Those are the really, you know, the important questions. Imagine if you judged a Hollywood movie not on the script or the performances, but on, let's say, the personality of the leading actor.
Words and timings
IthinkitbarelymatterswhotheCEOis.Itdoesmatteronthemargin,especiallyontheleadershipside.ElonMuskisamuchmoreeffectiveleaderthanlet'ssayagoodmanagerwouldbeofhisbusinessesbecausehecombinesthelongtermviewwithshorttermstrategyandtheabilitytoexplainit.Andevenifhewasaterriblemanager,he'dbeagoodCEO.SoitdoesmatterwhotheCEOis,buttheCEOisn'tthefocustojudgetheeffectivenessofthecompany.It'sthewrongfocusforjudginghowgoodthecompanyisorwhatitslikelyimpactonthefutureis.Forthat,you'vegottogotothetechnology,theapplicationofthetechnology,thecorrelationbetweenthetechnologyandhumanadoptionofit,andwhatimpactit'shaving.Thosearethereally,youknow,theimportantquestions.ImagineifyoujudgedaHollywoodmovienotonthescriptortheperformances,buton,let'ssay,thepersonalityoftheleadingactor.
Speaker 2
Yeah, but we do that. We do it with Hollywood movies when it comes to the director. We talk about Scorsese movies, Coppola movies. I think... While you may not like this idea of the cult of personality, it's certainly one that's affecting the media. I think one of the interesting things about this week is, especially with Anthropic's mythos story or sort of release or non-release, more and more mainstream media people are, so to speak, waking up to AI's dangerous power. The Economist, a very mainstream business newspaper or magazine, uh ran a leader this week about and i think it's the cover story about how america is waking up to ai's dangerous power and it lists your fair your famous five ceos as the people who are most affecting the future are you suggesting keith that the economist's argument that these guys demis and elon and all the rest of them are not affecting our future, that when it comes to AI, and I think everybody agrees that AI is going to shape the future, that these individuals don't matter.
Words and timings
Yeah,butwedothat.WedoitwithHollywoodmovieswhenitcomestothedirector.WetalkaboutScorsesemovies,Coppolamovies.Ithink...Whileyoumaynotlikethisideaofthecultofpersonality,it'scertainlyonethat'saffectingthemedia.Ithinkoneoftheinterestingthingsaboutthisweekis,especiallywithAnthropic'smythosstoryorsortofreleaseornon-release,moreandmoremainstreammediapeopleare,sotospeak,wakinguptoAI'sdangerouspower.TheEconomist,averymainstreambusinessnewspaperormagazine,uhranaleaderthisweekaboutandithinkit'sthecoverstoryabouthowamericaiswakinguptoai'sdangerouspoweranditlistsyourfairyourfamousfiveceosasthepeoplewhoaremostaffectingthefutureareyousuggestingkeiththattheeconomist'sargumentthattheseguysdemisandelonandalltherestofthemarenotaffectingourfuture,thatwhenitcomestoAI,andIthinkeverybodyagreesthatAIisgoingtoshapethefuture,thattheseindividualsdon'tmatter.
Speaker 3
Yeah. So The Economist actually did a 45 minute video. It was their editorial team talking to themselves on the five men running AI. And I think the title was how to control the men who control AI. which is an interesting question. Why would they think The Economist could control the men who control AI?
Words and timings
Yeah.SoTheEconomistactuallydida45minutevideo.ItwastheireditorialteamtalkingtothemselvesonthefivemenrunningAI.AndIthinkthetitlewashowtocontrolthemenwhocontrolAI.whichisaninterestingquestion.WhywouldtheythinkTheEconomistcouldcontrolthemenwhocontrolAI?
Speaker 2
And to be honest, that was the... And The Economist, of course, has a female editor. Maybe the men's stuff was slightly ironic.
Words and timings
Andtobehonest,thatwasthe...AndTheEconomist,ofcourse,hasafemaleeditor.Maybethemen'sstuffwasslightlyironic.
Speaker 3
Yeah, but that was the catalyst. The Economist was the catalyst for how I framed my editorial because I thought it was so... low life of a publication with the gravitas of The Economist.
Words and timings
Yeah,butthatwasthecatalyst.TheEconomistwasthecatalystforhowIframedmyeditorialbecauseIthoughtitwasso...lowlifeofapublicationwiththegravitasofTheEconomist.
Speaker 2
Oh, low life, Keith. Now you're hitting underneath the table. But if your argument, I mean, are you kind of dodging the issue? Because if everything's structural and leaders don't matter, then you're basically giving up our power. Then what are we supposed to do? We just accept, well, there are all these structural forces. The economy is leading one way. The leaders don't matter. So we should just lie back and think of England.
Words and timings
Oh,lowlife,Keith.Nowyou'rehittingunderneaththetable.Butifyourargument,Imean,areyoukindofdodgingtheissue?Becauseifeverything'sstructuralandleadersdon'tmatter,thenyou'rebasicallygivingupourpower.Thenwhatarewesupposedtodo?Wejustaccept,well,thereareallthesestructuralforces.Theeconomyisleadingoneway.Theleadersdon'tmatter.SoweshouldjustliebackandthinkofEngland.
Speaker 3
Well, be careful. I don't say the leaders don't matter. In fact, my last sentence in my editorial is that they matter a lot, but they're making mistakes. I'm not saying they don't matter. I'm saying they're not the right focus to judge the entire AI industry.
Words and timings
Well,becareful.Idon'tsaytheleadersdon'tmatter.Infact,mylastsentenceinmyeditorialisthattheymatteralot,butthey'remakingmistakes.I'mnotsayingtheydon'tmatter.I'msayingthey'renottherightfocustojudgetheentireAIindustry.
Speaker 2
Well, let's go to that final remark in the editorial. It says, and I'm quoting you, we need real technical business and social leadership that champions solutions and gains. I mean, no one's going to argue with that. Leave others to do the demonizing. Self-demonization is not just a bad look. It is bad strategy. Maybe look at NVIDIA's Jensen Wang for a clue about how to be an AI leader. But aren't you falling back on the very thing that you're arguing against in the cult of personality? You're putting forward NVIDIA's leader. And NVIDIA is a very different kind of company, certainly from OpenAI and Anthropik.
Words and timings
Well,let'sgotothatfinalremarkintheeditorial.Itsays,andI'mquotingyou,weneedrealtechnicalbusinessandsocialleadershipthatchampionssolutionsandgains.Imean,noone'sgoingtoarguewiththat.Leaveotherstodothedemonizing.Self-demonizationisnotjustabadlook.Itisbadstrategy.MaybelookatNVIDIA'sJensenWangforaclueabouthowtobeanAIleader.Butaren'tyoufallingbackontheverythingthatyou'rearguingagainstinthecultofpersonality?You'reputtingforwardNVIDIA'sleader.AndNVIDIAisaverydifferentkindofcompany,certainlyfromOpenAIandAnthropik.
Speaker 3
Yeah, but if the right message would be that AI is potentially dangerous, you would think that the company making it possible for the entire industry to exist would be one of the companies to adopt that message. And he doesn't. He's absolutely scrupulous in being an optimist and describing the impact AI can have. And that is what I consider good leadership. So actually, what we're seeing from, and it started with Musk, It's certainly very strong in Amidai. It's somewhat strong in Hasebis and Sam Altman. Interestingly, it's entirely missing in Zuckerberg because he doesn't care. But all of them are so focused on pointing out the potential dangers of AI that they're misleading the entire industry down a path that is wrong. Now, the weird thing is, despite that, their businesses... are implementing fantastically. This week, OpenAI and Anthropic both released new stuff. Both of it is fantastic. It's a step up from where it was before. And so the actual several thousand people who work at those businesses and the hierarchy of leadership, both on the science side and the product side, is performing fantastically.
Words and timings
Yeah,butiftherightmessagewouldbethatAIispotentiallydangerous,youwouldthinkthatthecompanymakingitpossiblefortheentireindustrytoexistwouldbeoneofthecompaniestoadoptthatmessage.Andhedoesn't.He'sabsolutelyscrupulousinbeinganoptimistanddescribingtheimpactAIcanhave.AndthatiswhatIconsidergoodleadership.Soactually,whatwe'reseeingfrom,anditstartedwithMusk,It'scertainlyverystronginAmidai.It'ssomewhatstronginHasebisandSamAltman.Interestingly,it'sentirelymissinginZuckerbergbecausehedoesn'tcare.ButallofthemaresofocusedonpointingoutthepotentialdangersofAIthatthey'remisleadingtheentireindustrydownapaththatiswrong.Now,theweirdthingis,despitethat,theirbusinesses...areimplementingfantastically.Thisweek,OpenAIandAnthropicbothreleasednewstuff.Bothofitisfantastic.It'sastepupfromwhereitwasbefore.Andsotheactualseveralthousandpeoplewhoworkatthosebusinessesandthehierarchyofleadership,bothonthesciencesideandtheproductside,isperformingfantastically.
Speaker 2
Hold on, but wait, so I think you're digging yourself into a bit of a moral hole here, Keith. You're saying that the only guy who doesn't care is Zuckerberg and that we should respect that. I mean, shouldn't we respect, I mean, even Elon Musk, you know, I'm not his greatest fan. I mean, he seems very torn on AI. He began OpenAI as a doomer. Now he seems to have changed his mind. Certainly Amadai and Altman have said very different things about OpenAI, depending on, sorry, on AI, on its impact on society. Isn't that responsible? I mean, do you prefer the Zuckerberg model of just focusing on product, not caring on outcomes?
Words and timings
Holdon,butwait,soIthinkyou'rediggingyourselfintoabitofamoralholehere,Keith.You'resayingthattheonlyguywhodoesn'tcareisZuckerbergandthatweshouldrespectthat.Imean,shouldn'twerespect,Imean,evenElonMusk,youknow,I'mnothisgreatestfan.Imean,heseemsverytornonAI.HebeganOpenAIasadoomer.Nowheseemstohavechangedhismind.CertainlyAmadaiandAltmanhavesaidverydifferentthingsaboutOpenAI,dependingon,sorry,onAI,onitsimpactonsociety.Isn'tthatresponsible?Imean,doyouprefertheZuckerbergmodelofjustfocusingonproduct,notcaringonoutcomes?
Speaker 3
Well, I think the answer is yes, that is responsible.
Words and timings
Well,Ithinktheanswerisyes,thatisresponsible.
Speaker 2
What, Zuckerberg's responsible versus Amidai?
Words and timings
What,Zuckerberg'sresponsibleversusAmidai?
Speaker 3
No, no, no, I'm agreeing with you. I'm agreeing with what you just said. It is responsible. it probably should be like 1 100th of the airtime given to their jobs. And it actually is more like 70 out of 100 in terms of airtime given, because the story of AI is not a story of danger. The story of AI is a story of huge human achievement through science and application. to human problems. It's massive. In health, it's massive. It's self-driving cars, massive. So the airtime given to the personalities, even by themselves fueling it by focusing on danger, is ridiculous on the face of it. I mean, what is it about human beings where we only want to hear that?
Words and timings
No,no,no,I'magreeingwithyou.I'magreeingwithwhatyoujustsaid.Itisresponsible.itprobablyshouldbelike1100thoftheairtimegiventotheirjobs.Anditactuallyismorelike70outof100intermsofairtimegiven,becausethestoryofAIisnotastoryofdanger.ThestoryofAIisastoryofhugehumanachievementthroughscienceandapplication.tohumanproblems.It'smassive.Inhealth,it'smassive.It'sself-drivingcars,massive.Sotheairtimegiventothepersonalities,evenbythemselvesfuelingitbyfocusingondanger,isridiculousonthefaceofit.Imean,whatisitabouthumanbeingswhereweonlywanttohearthat?
Speaker 2
It's ridiculous. There's two thoughts. And we're not going to go back over everything we talked about for the last few years, but you know as well as I do that there are a lot of problematic consequences, certainly in the short term, the longer term is another issue. I mean, you're right, of course, in a way, John Thornhill writes an excellent piece on
Words and timings
It'sridiculous.There'stwothoughts.Andwe'renotgoingtogobackovereverythingwetalkedaboutforthelastfewyears,butyouknowaswellasIdothattherearealotofproblematicconsequences,certainlyintheshortterm,thelongertermisanotherissue.Imean,you'reright,ofcourse,inaway,JohnThornhillwritesanexcellentpieceon
Speaker 2
And I know you like the piece about AI having an awful image. He quotes a VP from an SVP from Google, James Manjica, who argues that AI is the industrial revolution plus the enlightenment. And I think that's a nice way of putting it. But of course, as a dark side, both or there was a dark side to both the industrial revolution and the enlightenment. So we know that there are dark consequences? Are you suggesting we just ignore those or that the CEO should just ignore them, gloss over them, not acknowledge them?
Words and timings
AndIknowyoulikethepieceaboutAIhavinganawfulimage.HequotesaVPfromanSVPfromGoogle,JamesManjica,whoarguesthatAIistheindustrialrevolutionplustheenlightenment.AndIthinkthat'sanicewayofputtingit.Butofcourse,asadarkside,bothortherewasadarksidetoboththeindustrialrevolutionandtheenlightenment.Soweknowthattherearedarkconsequences?AreyousuggestingwejustignorethoseorthattheCEOshouldjustignorethem,glossoverthem,notacknowledgethem?
Speaker 3
You see, you say we know there are dark consequences. I don't know that.
Words and timings
Yousee,yousayweknowtherearedarkconsequences.Idon'tknowthat.
Speaker 2
I mean, what did you study at university, Keith? Sociology. Maybe you should have done history.
Words and timings
Imean,whatdidyoustudyatuniversity,Keith?Sociology.Maybeyoushouldhavedonehistory.
Speaker 3
I absolutely did study social and economic history as well. And there are, you know, you've got to the word dark consequences has to be a weighty, a weighty estimation of the dominant impact of a thing. It's not, you know, when people are pushed off the land during the agricultural revolution, of course, there were some dark consequences. But was it a dark moment?
Words and timings
Iabsolutelydidstudysocialandeconomichistoryaswell.Andthereare,youknow,you'vegottotheworddarkconsequenceshastobeaweighty,aweightyestimationofthedominantimpactofathing.It'snot,youknow,whenpeoplearepushedoffthelandduringtheagriculturalrevolution,ofcourse,thereweresomedarkconsequences.Butwasitadarkmoment?
Speaker 2
No, no, that's your opinion. I'm not gonna I mean, I think you're being purposely No,
Words and timings
No,no,that'syouropinion.I'mnotgonnaImean,Ithinkyou'rebeingpurposelyNo,
Speaker 3
I'm not I'm saying that you're focused on you're focused on um, the wrong driving force. The driving force here is not danger.
Words and timings
I'mnotI'msayingthatyou'refocusedonyou'refocusedonum,thewrongdrivingforce.Thedrivingforcehereisnotdanger.
Speaker 2
You know, you spent half your life as a Marxist. I mean, you haven't, didn't you read the communist manifesto? Did you think that that's all nonsense? I know there was an interesting, I don't know.
Words and timings
Youknow,youspenthalfyourlifeasaMarxist.Imean,youhaven't,didn'tyoureadthecommunistmanifesto?Didyouthinkthatthat'sallnonsense?Iknowtherewasaninteresting,Idon'tknow.
Speaker 3
You can't throw something out and then just move on. What is it in Marxism? You think, uh, estimated capitalism as being dark.
Words and timings
Youcan'tthrowsomethingoutandthenjustmoveon.WhatisitinMarxism?Youthink,uh,estimatedcapitalismasbeingdark.
Speaker 2
I've read everything.
Words and timings
I'vereadeverything.
Speaker 3
I don't read in Marx anything negative about capitalism. It's entirely positive about capitalism compared to feudalism that came before.
Words and timings
Idon'treadinMarxanythingnegativeaboutcapitalism.It'sentirelypositiveaboutcapitalismcomparedtofeudalismthatcamebefore.
Speaker 2
Anyway, I don't want to get... I mean, this is silly. Let's focus on... I mean, if you think that, having read the Communist Manifesto, that Marx loved industrial capitalism and he wasn't concerned with the social and economic...
Words and timings
Anyway,Idon'twanttoget...Imean,thisissilly.Let'sfocuson...Imean,ifyouthinkthat,havingreadtheCommunistManifesto,thatMarxlovedindustrialcapitalismandhewasn'tconcernedwiththesocialandeconomic...
Speaker 3
He not only loved it, Engels ran a factory.
Words and timings
Henotonlylovedit,Engelsranafactory.
Speaker 2
Anyway, let's talk about... Blood in the machine, the Luddites. I mean, I'm not sure the Luddites would all agree with you about all the benefits of the Industrial Revolution. Why? I mean, there are more and more pieces on why the AI backlash has turned violent. Why, in your view, has the backlash turned violent? There was a Molotov cocktail thrown at Sam Altman's home up the road from me in Palo Alto. He posted a picture of his family on his own.
Words and timings
Anyway,let'stalkabout...Bloodinthemachine,theLuddites.Imean,I'mnotsuretheLudditeswouldallagreewithyouaboutallthebenefitsoftheIndustrialRevolution.Why?Imean,therearemoreandmorepiecesonwhytheAIbacklashhasturnedviolent.Why,inyourview,hasthebacklashturnedviolent?TherewasaMolotovcocktailthrownatSamAltman'shomeuptheroadfrommeinPaloAlto.Hepostedapictureofhisfamilyonhisown.
Speaker 3
It was in San Fran, Andrew.
Words and timings
ItwasinSanFran,Andrew.
Speaker 2
Yeah, I met in, sorry, up the road from me in Pacific Heights at the Altman compound, and he posted a picture of himself and his baby. Are you suggesting that everyone is just deluded? Have they been reading too much of The Economist? Have they been corrupted by media hysteria?
Words and timings
Yeah,Imetin,sorry,uptheroadfrommeinPacificHeightsattheAltmancompound,andhepostedapictureofhimselfandhisbaby.Areyousuggestingthateveryoneisjustdeluded?HavetheybeenreadingtoomuchofTheEconomist?Havetheybeencorruptedbymediahysteria?
Speaker 3
Actually, I think it's only the media. I don't think anyone else is going around with this fear.
Words and timings
Actually,Ithinkit'sonlythemedia.Idon'tthinkanyoneelseisgoingaroundwiththisfear.
Speaker 2
What about the person who threw the Molotov cocktail at Altman?
Words and timings
WhataboutthepersonwhothrewtheMolotovcocktailatAltman?
Speaker 3
The person who threw the Molotov cocktail is a slightly ill 20 year old. By the way, somebody shot bullets into the house the following day. So there were two events. And, you know, it's a little bit like the Republican who was killed on campus. When the media drives a frenzy, there are people on the fringes of society who take actions like that. I wouldn't directly blame the media, but certainly the media is driving this frenzy. I don't meet anybody that's preoccupied with the dangers of AI.
Words and timings
ThepersonwhothrewtheMolotovcocktailisaslightlyill20yearold.Bytheway,somebodyshotbulletsintothehousethefollowingday.Sothereweretwoevents.And,youknow,it'salittlebitliketheRepublicanwhowaskilledoncampus.Whenthemediadrivesafrenzy,therearepeopleonthefringesofsocietywhotakeactionslikethat.Iwouldn'tdirectlyblamethemedia,butcertainlythemediaisdrivingthisfrenzy.Idon'tmeetanybodythat'spreoccupiedwiththedangersofAI.
Speaker 2
Yeah, because the only people you talk to are wealthy VCs. You live in the middle of Palo Alto. I mean, the Stanford... The Stanford AI index report, which you cite, or certainly John Thornhill cites in his AI is an awful image problem, suggests that there's more and more pessimism about AI. People don't trust it. I mean, you may not agree with people's sentiment, but that's a reality.
Words and timings
Yeah,becausetheonlypeopleyoutalktoarewealthyVCs.YouliveinthemiddleofPaloAlto.Imean,theStanford...TheStanfordAIindexreport,whichyoucite,orcertainlyJohnThornhillcitesinhisAIisanawfulimageproblem,suggeststhatthere'smoreandmorepessimismaboutAI.Peopledon'ttrustit.Imean,youmaynotagreewithpeople'ssentiment,butthat'sareality.
Speaker 3
I think it's a media-driven reality. We talked a couple of weeks ago about about this when we talked about both the doom side and the optimistic side. And we made the point then, and I think you agreed with it at the time, that the antidote to this is using AI. Because the minute you use it for a productive outcome, you understand its strengths and limits and you're not really prone to it.
Words and timings
Ithinkit'samedia-drivenreality.Wetalkedacoupleofweeksagoaboutaboutthiswhenwetalkedaboutboththedoomsideandtheoptimisticside.Andwemadethepointthen,andIthinkyouagreedwithitatthetime,thattheantidotetothisisusingAI.Becausetheminuteyouuseitforaproductiveoutcome,youunderstanditsstrengthsandlimitsandyou'renotreallypronetoit.
Speaker 2
Yeah, but you're not dealing with the general sentiment. People are using it and still don't trust it.
Words and timings
Yeah,butyou'renotdealingwiththegeneralsentiment.Peopleareusingitandstilldon'ttrustit.
Speaker 3
Yeah, I agree that sentiment exists, but the question that's way more interesting is where does that sentiment come from? Is it coming from the fact that AI is dangerous? Or is it coming from a narrative that says AI is dangerous? And I say strongly the second. AI is not dangerous. Let's just say it out loud. AI is not dangerous. There is nothing about it that is dangerous.
Words and timings
Yeah,Iagreethatsentimentexists,butthequestionthat'swaymoreinterestingiswheredoesthatsentimentcomefrom?IsitcomingfromthefactthatAIisdangerous?OrisitcomingfromanarrativethatsaysAIisdangerous?AndIsaystronglythesecond.AIisnotdangerous.Let'sjustsayitoutloud.AIisnotdangerous.Thereisnothingaboutitthatisdangerous.
Speaker 2
So this is, I mean, I'm not sure everyone agrees with you. So the problem then, and John Thornhill argues this, is AI has an awful image problem, which comes from the CEOs. John also wrote a piece about his lunch with Dario Amidai. I actually saw John with you in San Francisco this week. Is the problem then, in your view at least, that the image problem is a consequence of the fact that these CEOs have been discussing the bad consequences and if they just shut up, everyone would trust the AI and fall in love with it?
Words and timings
Sothisis,Imean,I'mnotsureeveryoneagreeswithyou.Sotheproblemthen,andJohnThornhillarguesthis,isAIhasanawfulimageproblem,whichcomesfromtheCEOs.JohnalsowroteapieceabouthislunchwithDarioAmidai.IactuallysawJohnwithyouinSanFranciscothisweek.Istheproblemthen,inyourviewatleast,thattheimageproblemisaconsequenceofthefactthattheseCEOshavebeendiscussingthebadconsequencesandiftheyjustshutup,everyonewouldtrusttheAIandfallinlovewithit?
Speaker 3
Yeah, I think there's a spectrum amongst these five CEOs. The leading, you know, voice of doom is obviously Dario Amadai, because that is his corporate strategy. His corporate strategy is to project fear in order to increase the importance of getting control of it. And he's seeking government backing. But not government takeover. You notice when the government wanted to buy his product, he wouldn't let them control it. He wants government backing for his control of it and some industry-wide initiatives. So he talks a lot about getting together with the others. And so this is a business narrative to get attention for how important Dario Amidai is.
Words and timings
Yeah,Ithinkthere'saspectrumamongstthesefiveCEOs.Theleading,youknow,voiceofdoomisobviouslyDarioAmadai,becausethatishiscorporatestrategy.Hiscorporatestrategyistoprojectfearinordertoincreasetheimportanceofgettingcontrolofit.Andhe'sseekinggovernmentbacking.Butnotgovernmenttakeover.Younoticewhenthegovernmentwantedtobuyhisproduct,hewouldn'tletthemcontrolit.Hewantsgovernmentbackingforhiscontrolofitandsomeindustry-wideinitiatives.Sohetalksalotaboutgettingtogetherwiththeothers.AndsothisisabusinessnarrativetogetattentionforhowimportantDarioAmidaiis.
Speaker 2
So he's a... Speaking of the cult of personality, he has his own cult of personality. You have a conspiracy theory about Amidai.
Words and timings
Sohe'sa...Speakingofthecultofpersonality,hehashisowncultofpersonality.YouhaveaconspiracytheoryaboutAmidai.
Speaker 3
And contrast that with Demis Sabis. Demis will say there is potential for AI to go astray. But then he immediately talks about how he's going to make that not happen. He takes responsibility. He isn't just pointing the finger and asking for regulation. In fact, he doesn't ask for regulation at all. He asks people to trust that he's clever enough to do the right thing. That's what he should be doing. That's what they all should be doing, because they are responsible. They're in charge.
Words and timings
AndcontrastthatwithDemisSabis.DemiswillsaythereispotentialforAItogoastray.Butthenheimmediatelytalksabouthowhe'sgoingtomakethatnothappen.Hetakesresponsibility.Heisn'tjustpointingthefingerandaskingforregulation.Infact,hedoesn'taskforregulationatall.Heaskspeopletotrustthathe'scleverenoughtodotherightthing.That'swhatheshouldbedoing.That'swhattheyallshouldbedoing,becausetheyareresponsible.They'reincharge.
Speaker 2
In a way, you're the one who's not trusting these CEOs. You're all saying they're doing a terrible job. You're denying the importance of CEOs. And then you're saying the only reason why there's all this anti-AI hysteria is because of the CEOs.
Words and timings
Inaway,you'retheonewho'snottrustingtheseCEOs.You'reallsayingthey'redoingaterriblejob.You'redenyingtheimportanceofCEOs.Andthenyou'resayingtheonlyreasonwhythere'sallthisanti-AIhysteriaisbecauseoftheCEOs.
Speaker 3
You keep saying I'm denying their importance. We already read the paragraph where I said the opposite. I don't deny their importance. I blame them for the cult of personality around fear and doom. So they're the ones who are creating their own... And AI will be successful despite them. Because one of the points I make, if you fired Altman tomorrow and replaced him with somebody that, let's say, you liked because they were different, nothing would change, actually. Nothing would change except the narrative.
Words and timings
YoukeepsayingI'mdenyingtheirimportance.WealreadyreadtheparagraphwhereIsaidtheopposite.Idon'tdenytheirimportance.Iblamethemforthecultofpersonalityaroundfearanddoom.Sothey'retheoneswhoarecreatingtheirown...AndAIwillbesuccessfuldespitethem.BecauseoneofthepointsImake,ifyoufiredAltmantomorrowandreplacedhimwithsomebodythat,let'ssay,youlikedbecausetheyweredifferent,nothingwouldchange,actually.Nothingwouldchangeexceptthenarrative.
Speaker 2
Yeah, I mean, I don't think I necessarily disagree with you on that. Although Altman, you know, there was a piece you cite in the Wall Street Journal about his side hustles, blurring the line between open AI's interests and his own. He does conform to a certain version of how Silicon Valley is viewed as self-interested, as slippery. I mean, he doesn't do tech, the tech reputation, a great deal does he sam i mean you'd be better off having someone a little bit
Words and timings
Yeah,Imean,Idon'tthinkInecessarilydisagreewithyouonthat.AlthoughAltman,youknow,therewasapieceyouciteintheWallStreetJournalabouthissidehustles,blurringthelinebetweenopenAI'sinterestsandhisown.HedoesconformtoacertainversionofhowSiliconValleyisviewedasself-interested,asslippery.Imean,hedoesn'tdotech,thetechreputation,agreatdealdoeshesamimeanyou'dbebetteroffhavingsomeonealittlebit
Speaker 3
more solid he's just normal andrew i mean when when i um when i did real names afterwards i created archimedes labs why because i thought that i had so many ideas that doing only one thing was stupid and with archimedes labs which was basically a venture studio i could do more than one thing and we we ended up doing tech crunch there we ended up doing edgio there And if you roll the clock forward, about 12 other companies came out, and I was involved in all of them. It's completely normal in Silicon Valley to be wired into the ecosystem, which means you do more than one thing.
Words and timings
moresolidhe'sjustnormalandrewimeanwhenwheniumwhenididrealnamesafterwardsicreatedarchimedeslabswhybecauseithoughtthatihadsomanyideasthatdoingonlyonethingwasstupidandwitharchimedeslabswhichwasbasicallyaventurestudioicoulddomorethanonethingandweweendedupdoingtechcrunchthereweendedupdoingedgiothereAndifyourolltheclockforward,about12othercompaniescameout,andIwasinvolvedinallofthem.It'scompletelynormalinSiliconValleytobewiredintotheecosystem,whichmeansyoudomorethanonething.
Speaker 2
Let's take another example, Uber, where Travis Kalalnik was a cult of personality before all these characters. With Uber, it was Travis. He was a badly behaved guy, a brilliant entrepreneur. And then he got replaced by a fairly corporate character with a long name. I'm not going to try and pronounce it. Are you suggesting it made no difference at Uber to get rid of Travis?
Words and timings
Let'stakeanotherexample,Uber,whereTravisKalalnikwasacultofpersonalitybeforeallthesecharacters.WithUber,itwasTravis.Hewasabadlybehavedguy,abrilliantentrepreneur.Andthenhegotreplacedbyafairlycorporatecharacterwithalongname.I'mnotgoingtotryandpronounceit.AreyousuggestingitmadenodifferenceatUbertogetridofTravis?
Speaker 3
It made very little difference to the business of Uber. It made a difference to the narrative around Uber. The business of Uber possibly suffered by getting rid of Travis because Travis was a driver who wanted to go fast and You know, the replacement is a more professional.
Words and timings
ItmadeverylittledifferencetothebusinessofUber.ItmadeadifferencetothenarrativearoundUber.ThebusinessofUberpossiblysufferedbygettingridofTravisbecauseTraviswasadriverwhowantedtogofastandYouknow,thereplacementisamoreprofessional.
Speaker 2
Can you pronounce his name, Keith? I'm not going to dare.
Words and timings
Canyoupronouncehisname,Keith?I'mnotgoingtodare.
Speaker 3
I can pronounce it. But I don't remember it. So I'm not going to.
Words and timings
Icanpronounceit.ButIdon'trememberit.SoI'mnotgoingto.
Speaker 2
Well, if you can't remember it, then there's clearly no cult of personality there.
Words and timings
Well,ifyoucan'trememberit,thenthere'sclearlynocultofpersonalitythere.
Speaker 3
Yeah. So, you know, Uber, and I think the same is probably true of OpenAI, wouldn't exist in the form it exists without a leader of that type. because there were so many obstacles to Uber's success as there are to OpenAI success, that it takes a bull in a China shop style to survive even. And now once it's survived and prospering, a professional CEO can take it over and it'll be fine. But it probably suffers even then. I mean, look, Steve Jobs' Apple, was moving faster and more dynamically and with greater certainty than Tim Cook's Apple. Tim Cook's Apple is fine. It's great. But we all know that it would have been a different Apple with Jobs.
Words and timings
Yeah.So,youknow,Uber,andIthinkthesameisprobablytrueofOpenAI,wouldn'texistintheformitexistswithoutaleaderofthattype.becausethereweresomanyobstaclestoUber'ssuccessastherearetoOpenAIsuccess,thatittakesabullinaChinashopstyletosurviveeven.Andnowonceit'ssurvivedandprospering,aprofessionalCEOcantakeitoverandit'llbefine.Butitprobablysufferseventhen.Imean,look,SteveJobs'Apple,wasmovingfasterandmoredynamicallyandwithgreatercertaintythanTimCook'sApple.TimCook'sAppleisfine.It'sgreat.ButweallknowthatitwouldhavebeenadifferentApplewithJobs.
Speaker 2
Right. And Jobs is the platonic version of the CEO who, I mean, whether you liked him or not, I think you have to acknowledge that he shaped history. Had Cook been running Apple, I'm not sure we would have got the iPhone.
Words and timings
Right.AndJobsistheplatonicversionoftheCEOwho,Imean,whetheryoulikedhimornot,Ithinkyouhavetoacknowledgethatheshapedhistory.HadCookbeenrunningApple,I'mnotsurewewouldhavegottheiPhone.
Speaker 3
Correct. And look at some of the things we're getting, because that voice in the room that is contrarian, but in a positive way, looking for a better future, therefore contrarian about mediocrity, when that voice is missing, clearly more mediocre things will be approved.
Words and timings
Correct.Andlookatsomeofthethingswe'regetting,becausethatvoiceintheroomthatiscontrarian,butinapositiveway,lookingforabetterfuture,thereforecontrarianaboutmediocrity,whenthatvoiceismissing,clearlymoremediocrethingswillbeapproved.
Speaker 2
So let's go back to... thornhill john thornhill's piece uh which i know you liked on ai having an awful image problem he argues that um that the industry has a mixed message um that it the message on the one hand of abundance and on the other of disruption are you saying that these ceos should just keep their mouth shut not even acknowledge either abundance i mean you seem to be saying that all they should talk about is abundance
Words and timings
Solet'sgobackto...thornhilljohnthornhill'spieceuhwhichiknowyoulikedonaihavinganawfulimageproblemhearguesthatumthattheindustryhasamixedmessageumthatitthemessageontheonehandofabundanceandontheotherofdisruptionareyousayingthattheseceosshouldjustkeeptheirmouthshutnotevenacknowledgeeitherabundanceimeanyouseemtobesayingthatalltheyshouldtalkaboutisabundance
Speaker 3
No, they should do what Demis Savvis does, which is spend 90% of their time talking about what they're building and why and for who. And the, you know, the guardrail stroke safety discussion should be very much a minority discussion. And, you know, it's not nothing, but it isn't the story. Whereas it's become the story, which I personally blame the media for. But I do think the CEOs fuel it, especially Dario.
Words and timings
No,theyshoulddowhatDemisSavvisdoes,whichisspend90%oftheirtimetalkingaboutwhatthey'rebuildingandwhyandforwho.Andthe,youknow,theguardrailstrokesafetydiscussionshouldbeverymuchaminoritydiscussion.And,youknow,it'snotnothing,butitisn'tthestory.Whereasit'sbecomethestory,whichIpersonallyblamethemediafor.ButIdothinktheCEOsfuelit,especiallyDario.
Speaker 2
So the media from The Economist, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, they're all in on it.
Words and timings
SothemediafromTheEconomist,TheNewYorkTimes,TheWallStreetJournal,they'reallinonit.
Speaker 3
Well, they're not in on it. It's not a conspiracy. It's about selling The Economist. You know, we all know that media requires controversy. It's like the Facebook algorithm. They're feeding our need for controversy.
Words and timings
Well,they'renotinonit.It'snotaconspiracy.It'saboutsellingTheEconomist.Youknow,weallknowthatmediarequirescontroversy.It'sliketheFacebookalgorithm.They'refeedingourneedforcontroversy.
Speaker 2
But what about coming back to this Stanford report, which Thornhill cites, and I know you've looked at, it's a respectable report. I don't think anything coming out of Stanford is biased or looking to make news. people don't trust ai and particularly young people and young people aren't reading the ft or the economist or the new york times how would you explain this the thing
Words and timings
ButwhataboutcomingbacktothisStanfordreport,whichThornhillcites,andIknowyou'velookedat,it'sarespectablereport.Idon'tthinkanythingcomingoutofStanfordisbiasedorlookingtomakenews.peopledon'ttrustaiandparticularlyyoungpeopleandyoungpeoplearen'treadingtheftortheeconomistorthenewyorktimeshowwouldyouexplainthisthething
Speaker 3
on tiktok is where they see it and are we blaming social media now i think i think broad statements like young people don't trust ai are just plain wrong it's a headline it's not true the stanford report doesn't say that it does measure uh you know, trust in AI. And by the way, it's very, very national specific around the world. America is the place where AI is trusted the least. It's paradoxically also the place where the media has the greatest influence. You go to China and everyone does trust AI, despite the fact they've got a dictatorial government.
Words and timings
ontiktokiswheretheyseeitandareweblamingsocialmedianowithinkithinkbroadstatementslikeyoungpeopledon'ttrustaiarejustplainwrongit'saheadlineit'snottruethestanfordreportdoesn'tsaythatitdoesmeasureuhyouknow,trustinAI.Andbytheway,it'svery,verynationalspecificaroundtheworld.AmericaistheplacewhereAIistrustedtheleast.It'sparadoxicallyalsotheplacewherethemediahasthegreatestinfluence.YougotoChinaandeveryonedoestrustAI,despitethefactthey'vegotadictatorialgovernment.
Speaker 2
Maybe because they have a, maybe they don't want to tell the truth about what they do or don't trust.
Words and timings
Maybebecausetheyhavea,maybetheydon'twanttotellthetruthaboutwhattheydoordon'ttrust.
Speaker 3
I don't think the government has power to determine people's belief in whether AI is a good or a bad thing. It's a good thing because there's an optimism in China, well-founded optimism based on economic progress. And in America, there's a pessimism, again, well-founded based on economic decline. And, you know, you get what you pay for. So I think there's a ready-made set of ears for the negative message in America. Despite that, I think it isn't the majority And all Stanford is doing is taking the temperature. Stanford isn't really on the field of battle here. It's just taking the temperature and it accurately reports what it finds.
Words and timings
Idon'tthinkthegovernmenthaspowertodeterminepeople'sbeliefinwhetherAIisagoodorabadthing.It'sagoodthingbecausethere'sanoptimisminChina,well-foundedoptimismbasedoneconomicprogress.AndinAmerica,there'sapessimism,again,well-foundedbasedoneconomicdecline.And,youknow,yougetwhatyoupayfor.SoIthinkthere'saready-madesetofearsforthenegativemessageinAmerica.Despitethat,Ithinkitisn'tthemajorityAndallStanfordisdoingistakingthetemperature.Stanfordisn'treallyonthefieldofbattlehere.It'sjusttakingthetemperatureanditaccuratelyreportswhatitfinds.
Speaker 2
So what should the New York Times be doing? I did an interview, our interview of the week this week with a young writer, Sophie Haney, who had written a New York Times op-ed a couple of weeks ago, April 1st. All the worst people seem to want to be high agency. This intellectual shift against agency. Should the New York Times just not run these sorts of pieces?
Words and timings
SowhatshouldtheNewYorkTimesbedoing?Ididaninterview,ourinterviewoftheweekthisweekwithayoungwriter,SophieHaney,whohadwrittenaNewYorkTimesop-edacoupleofweeksago,April1st.Alltheworstpeopleseemtowanttobehighagency.Thisintellectualshiftagainstagency.ShouldtheNewYorkTimesjustnotrunthesesortsofpieces?
Speaker 3
I don't want to give advice to the New York Times because it implies...
Words and timings
Idon'twanttogiveadvicetotheNewYorkTimesbecauseitimplies...
Speaker 2
You are, because you're critical of media. You're saying it all comes from media.
Words and timings
Youare,becauseyou'recriticalofmedia.You'resayingitallcomesfrommedia.
Speaker 3
Yeah, but the New York Times is a business organization making money from subscriptions. It's going to run whatever it thinks will fuel its subscription base. It's not objective in any sense. It basically is a business. And by the way, I thought the title was fantastic. All the worst people... want to be high agency is a great two part, two part headline, all the worst people, meaning people who think that they can make a difference to the world, want to make a difference to the world. Well, I think I'm guessing this is true. And you can tell me because you did the interview, I'm guessing that she believes that anyone who thinks they can change the world is by definition, the worst people. And what she wants is people who don't think they can change the world, who think they shouldn't have agency. Well, what kind of a world would that be? Well, I'll tell you, it's a world in which the elected officials are not accountable to anyone because nobody wants agency. And therefore, the people elected are free to do whatever they want. Well, that isn't democracy. If you don't have people who have agency, you don't have a true democracy.
Words and timings
Yeah,buttheNewYorkTimesisabusinessorganizationmakingmoneyfromsubscriptions.It'sgoingtorunwhateveritthinkswillfuelitssubscriptionbase.It'snotobjectiveinanysense.Itbasicallyisabusiness.Andbytheway,Ithoughtthetitlewasfantastic.Alltheworstpeople...wanttobehighagencyisagreattwopart,twopartheadline,alltheworstpeople,meaningpeoplewhothinkthattheycanmakeadifferencetotheworld,wanttomakeadifferencetotheworld.Well,IthinkI'mguessingthisistrue.Andyoucantellmebecauseyoudidtheinterview,I'mguessingthatshebelievesthatanyonewhothinkstheycanchangetheworldisbydefinition,theworstpeople.Andwhatshewantsispeoplewhodon'tthinktheycanchangetheworld,whothinktheyshouldn'thaveagency.Well,whatkindofaworldwouldthatbe?Well,I'lltellyou,it'saworldinwhichtheelectedofficialsarenotaccountabletoanyonebecausenobodywantsagency.Andtherefore,thepeopleelectedarefreetodowhatevertheywant.Well,thatisn'tdemocracy.Ifyoudon'thavepeoplewhohaveagency,youdon'thaveatruedemocracy.
Speaker 2
Yeah, I mean, it's an interesting argument, but I think agency is increasingly becoming one of the kind of ideological axes around which we're rethinking political divisions and ways of thinking about the world. And I think Sophie Haney is, I mean, I would encourage people to look at the interview I did with her this week, which we called agency, agency, agency. Three things that all the worst people want, at least according to her.
Words and timings
Yeah,Imean,it'saninterestingargument,butIthinkagencyisincreasinglybecomingoneofthekindofideologicalaxesaroundwhichwe'rerethinkingpoliticaldivisionsandwaysofthinkingabouttheworld.AndIthinkSophieHaneyis,Imean,IwouldencouragepeopletolookattheinterviewIdidwithherthisweek,whichwecalledagency,agency,agency.Threethingsthatalltheworstpeoplewant,atleastaccordingtoher.
Speaker 3
Did you ever read Daniel Bell, Andrew?
Words and timings
DidyoueverreadDanielBell,Andrew?
Speaker 2
Yeah.
Words and timings
Yeah.
Speaker 3
So Daniel Bell, I think, is kind of a turning point in sociological history where ideology became a bad thing. You know, to me, ideology is a good thing. It means having a point of view. But it started with the case that in Western intellectual circles, the idea of a point of view, you know, was equated with bad outcomes. And the best of all worlds was one where...
Words and timings
SoDanielBell,Ithink,iskindofaturningpointinsociologicalhistorywhereideologybecameabadthing.Youknow,tome,ideologyisagoodthing.Itmeanshavingapointofview.ButitstartedwiththecasethatinWesternintellectualcircles,theideaofapointofview,youknow,wasequatedwithbadoutcomes.Andthebestofallworldswasonewhere...
Speaker 2
Okay, so I take your point. So what would you say, Keith, to the young person? We're not saying that not all young people in America mistrust AI, but a significant proportion do. What would you say to them when they fear the consequence of AI on jobs, on the future, on corporate power, on inequality? What's your argument? Get involved.
Words and timings
Okay,soItakeyourpoint.Sowhatwouldyousay,Keith,totheyoungperson?We'renotsayingthatnotallyoungpeopleinAmericamistrustAI,butasignificantproportiondo.WhatwouldyousaytothemwhentheyfeartheconsequenceofAIonjobs,onthefuture,oncorporatepower,oninequality?What'syourargument?Getinvolved.
Speaker 3
Shape it. Don't be a victim.
Words and timings
Shapeit.Don'tbeavictim.
Speaker 2
Manifest agency.
Words and timings
Manifestagency.
Speaker 3
Have agency. Because by having agency, you affect the outcome of things. And without agency, you're the victim of whatever the outcome is. So lean in. Leaning in is the only proposition, especially when something is valid and inevitable as AI is. So it's going to happen anyway. The question is, you know, what influence do you have? And so collectively, you need people that care. And between ourselves, I actually think Altman and Musk are two of those people. I think they do care a lot. Yeah,
Words and timings
Haveagency.Becausebyhavingagency,youaffecttheoutcomeofthings.Andwithoutagency,you'rethevictimofwhatevertheoutcomeis.Soleanin.Leaninginistheonlyproposition,especiallywhensomethingisvalidandinevitableasAIis.Soit'sgoingtohappenanyway.Thequestionis,youknow,whatinfluencedoyouhave?Andsocollectively,youneedpeoplethatcare.Andbetweenourselves,IactuallythinkAltmanandMuskaretwoofthosepeople.Ithinktheydocarealot.Yeah,
Speaker 2
I don't think anyone would deny that they care, although some people might suggest that they appear to care more than they do, that they're self-interested. I'm not sure. I mean, certainly Musk is an odd character. I mean, they care, but so what?
Words and timings
Idon'tthinkanyonewoulddenythattheycare,althoughsomepeoplemightsuggestthattheyappeartocaremorethantheydo,thatthey'reself-interested.I'mnotsure.Imean,certainlyMuskisanoddcharacter.Imean,theycare,butsowhat?
Speaker 3
Yeah, well, if you take those five, The three that I would single out as being, you know, representing a balanced point of view and good agency is Demis Sabis, Sam Altman and Elon Musk. I think Amadai is a complete opportunist saying what he thinks will serve his business's best interests. And I think Zuckerberg is a, you know, basically a sociopathic, whatever serves my interest is going to come out of my mouth at any given moment kind of a guy.
Words and timings
Yeah,well,ifyoutakethosefive,ThethreethatIwouldsingleoutasbeing,youknow,representingabalancedpointofviewandgoodagencyisDemisSabis,SamAltmanandElonMusk.IthinkAmadaiisacompleteopportunistsayingwhathethinkswillservehisbusiness'sbestinterests.AndIthinkZuckerbergisa,youknow,basicallyasociopathic,whateverservesmyinterestisgoingtocomeoutofmymouthatanygivenmomentkindofaguy.
Speaker 2
For some reason, Amadiah's pissed you off. You just don't like him. What did you think of John Thornhill's lunch with him? They had it in San Francisco up the road from me.
Words and timings
Forsomereason,Amadiah'spissedyouoff.Youjustdon'tlikehim.WhatdidyouthinkofJohnThornhill'slunchwithhim?TheyhaditinSanFranciscouptheroadfromme.
Speaker 3
I think it's great it happened because it lets you read in the current finger on the pulse of what's going on. So great. I do think Amadai uses these events for marketing purposes. He's being given an audience for a message and the message is we're going to make you all unemployed and we quite possibly may kill you all. Well, why is that a good idea? A, because it's not true and B, because How does that serve Anthropik's interest? Well, the only possible answer to that is that if it's unsafe, you can't let other people in because it's too dangerous. Therefore, trust us.
Words and timings
Ithinkit'sgreatithappenedbecauseitletsyoureadinthecurrentfingeronthepulseofwhat'sgoingon.Sogreat.IdothinkAmadaiusestheseeventsformarketingpurposes.He'sbeinggivenanaudienceforamessageandthemessageiswe'regoingtomakeyouallunemployedandwequitepossiblymaykillyouall.Well,whyisthatagoodidea?A,becauseit'snottrueandB,becauseHowdoesthatserveAnthropik'sinterest?Well,theonlypossibleanswertothatisthatifit'sunsafe,youcan'tletotherpeopleinbecauseit'stoodangerous.Therefore,trustus.
Speaker 2
TechCrunch ran an interesting piece on Anthropik's rise, and I don't think even you can deny that. You may not like, Dario, giving some open AI investors second thoughts about... its valuation. It was built off an FT piece about this $852 billion valuation. Are we seeing a shift, Keith, in terms of this power balance between Anthropic and OpenAI? Anthropic always seemed to be a bit of a footnote, an amusing, entertaining story, a nice product, but not a serious product. And now things seem to be reversing slightly are we seeing a balance especially with the release of mythos this week or the non-release non-release yeah but the answer is yes i mean
Words and timings
TechCrunchrananinterestingpieceonAnthropik'srise,andIdon'tthinkevenyoucandenythat.Youmaynotlike,Dario,givingsomeopenAIinvestorssecondthoughtsabout...itsvaluation.ItwasbuiltoffanFTpieceaboutthis$852billionvaluation.Areweseeingashift,Keith,intermsofthispowerbalancebetweenAnthropicandOpenAI?Anthropicalwaysseemedtobeabitofafootnote,anamusing,entertainingstory,aniceproduct,butnotaseriousproduct.Andnowthingsseemtobereversingslightlyareweseeingabalanceespeciallywiththereleaseofmythosthisweekorthenon-releasenon-releaseyeahbuttheanswerisyesimean
Speaker 3
anthropic anthropics revenue growth is unprecedented it's huge its products are fantastic i use them um and open ai is still ahead by all measures but is being caught and this week according to this um
Words and timings
anthropicanthropicsrevenuegrowthisunprecedentedit'shugeitsproductsarefantasticiusethemumandopenaiisstillaheadbyallmeasuresbutisbeingcaughtandthisweekaccordingtothisum
Speaker 2
This chart on Noah Smith's substack, Noah Opinion, Anthropic now has pulled ahead in terms of annualized revenue.
Words and timings
ThischartonNoahSmith'ssubstack,NoahOpinion,Anthropicnowhaspulledaheadintermsofannualizedrevenue.
Speaker 3
It's a couple of weeks out of date, Andrew. There was a restatement of revenues. And basically, Anthropic is including all the revenue it gives back to Amazon and Microsoft as if it was its own. It's counting its costs. That's what Sam says anyway. No, it's not just Sam. It's pretty everyone.
Words and timings
It'sacoupleofweeksoutofdate,Andrew.Therewasarestatementofrevenues.Andbasically,AnthropicisincludingalltherevenueitgivesbacktoAmazonandMicrosoftasifitwasitsown.It'scountingitscosts.That'swhatSamsaysanyway.No,it'snotjustSam.It'sprettyeveryone.
Speaker 2
They're cooking the books as well.
Words and timings
They'recookingthebooksaswell.
Speaker 3
They're not cooking the books. They even defended it. They said that it is our revenue, even if we have to give it back. So I once tried that in my early career. I tried to have some revenue that I was paying some back to. In my case, it was realtor.com as my revenue and my accountants told me I couldn't do that. So it There's nothing weird there, but the truth is OpenAI is ahead on most counts. But that said, it doesn't really matter because Anthropic is catching up massively. And yesterday, OpenAI got rid of three execs in its product side. So clearly, it's feeling like it's underperforming on the product side. And I think OpenAI has taken a few decisions in the last few weeks that represent a commitment to double down on growth and product. because it's being caught up.
Words and timings
They'renotcookingthebooks.Theyevendefendedit.Theysaidthatitisourrevenue,evenifwehavetogiveitback.SoIoncetriedthatinmyearlycareer.ItriedtohavesomerevenuethatIwaspayingsomebackto.Inmycase,itwasrealtor.comasmyrevenueandmyaccountantstoldmeIcouldn'tdothat.SoitThere'snothingweirdthere,butthetruthisOpenAIisaheadonmostcounts.Butthatsaid,itdoesn'treallymatterbecauseAnthropiciscatchingupmassively.Andyesterday,OpenAIgotridofthreeexecsinitsproductside.Soclearly,it'sfeelinglikeit'sunderperformingontheproductside.AndIthinkOpenAIhastakenafewdecisionsinthelastfewweeksthatrepresentacommitmenttodoubledownongrowthandproduct.becauseit'sbeingcaughtup.
Speaker 2
Yeah, and we talked about them closing Sora, and I think that the Stuart Alsop piece talks about the Sora thing and the acquisition of a media company, which seems a little bit of a distraction. Let's end with the Noah Smith piece, which, as always, you include, and it's always good. What if a few AI companies end up with all the money and power when a take-all situation? I'm not sure. That surprised a lot of people. Your post of the week talks about us being in the age of consensus capital, 75% of all venture money raised by five funds, almost 75% of all VC money invested in five companies. Is that the reality, Keith, that Smith talks about? Yeah. I mean, isn't it inevitable that for better or worse, a few AI companies are going to end up with all the money and power, and it's probably just going to be too open AI and anthropic.
Words and timings
Yeah,andwetalkedaboutthemclosingSora,andIthinkthattheStuartAlsoppiecetalksabouttheSorathingandtheacquisitionofamediacompany,whichseemsalittlebitofadistraction.Let'sendwiththeNoahSmithpiece,which,asalways,youinclude,andit'salwaysgood.WhatifafewAIcompaniesendupwithallthemoneyandpowerwhenatake-allsituation?I'mnotsure.Thatsurprisedalotofpeople.Yourpostoftheweektalksaboutusbeingintheageofconsensuscapital,75%ofallventuremoneyraisedbyfivefunds,almost75%ofallVCmoneyinvestedinfivecompanies.Isthatthereality,Keith,thatSmithtalksabout?Yeah.Imean,isn'titinevitablethatforbetterorworse,afewAIcompaniesaregoingtoendupwithallthemoneyandpower,andit'sprobablyjustgoingtobetooopenAIandanthropic.
Speaker 3
Yeah, I mean, I'd love to discuss that with Noah, because I think from just a linear extrapolation point of view, that is the likely outcome. The likely outcome, if you just assume AI is going to grow GDP, and assume that a small number of companies are going to benefit from that. It might be as small as two, or it could be as big as five.
Words and timings
Yeah,Imean,I'dlovetodiscussthatwithNoah,becauseIthinkfromjustalinearextrapolationpointofview,thatisthelikelyoutcome.Thelikelyoutcome,ifyoujustassumeAIisgoingtogrowGDP,andassumethatasmallnumberofcompaniesaregoingtobenefitfromthat.Itmightbeassmallastwo,oritcouldbeasbigasfive.
Speaker 2
Well, it's the five guys in your photo. I mean, certainly Google is increasingly, or Alphabet, whatever you want to call it, is an AI company. You've got Amidai and Sam, and then X is increasingly an AI company as well.
Words and timings
Well,it'sthefiveguysinyourphoto.Imean,certainlyGoogleisincreasingly,orAlphabet,whateveryouwanttocallit,isanAIcompany.You'vegotAmidaiandSam,andthenXisincreasinglyanAIcompanyaswell.
Speaker 3
Yeah, so I think that mirrors...
Words and timings
Yeah,soIthinkthatmirrors...
Speaker 2
And Zuckerberg, of course, is transforming a matter into an AI company.
Words and timings
AndZuckerberg,ofcourse,istransformingamatterintoanAIcompany.
Speaker 3
Yeah. So I think that mirrors the way that centralization and capitalism kind of go together. If you look at other eras, you know, we went from lots of car companies down to a handful. We went from lots of banks down to a handful. In the normal course of capitalism, competition creates centralization, and that centralization is where money and power live. That's endemic. The only difference is that AI is so dramatic and so impactful across pretty much every domain that the scale of the money and the scale of the power is going to be bigger than ever before. Well, that begs the question, which is how does society benefit, which I think is the main question of the era.
Words and timings
Yeah.SoIthinkthatmirrorsthewaythatcentralizationandcapitalismkindofgotogether.Ifyoulookatothereras,youknow,wewentfromlotsofcarcompaniesdowntoahandful.Wewentfromlotsofbanksdowntoahandful.Inthenormalcourseofcapitalism,competitioncreatescentralization,andthatcentralizationiswheremoneyandpowerlive.That'sendemic.TheonlydifferenceisthatAIissodramaticandsoimpactfulacrossprettymucheverydomainthatthescaleofthemoneyandthescaleofthepowerisgoingtobebiggerthaneverbefore.Well,thatbegsthequestion,whichishowdoessocietybenefit,whichIthinkisthemainquestionoftheera.
Speaker 2
Yeah, and Thornhill focuses on that. I mean, he argues that AI needs to clearly make the argument of how this technology is going to make society better, which almost goes without saying.
Words and timings
Yeah,andThornhillfocusesonthat.Imean,hearguesthatAIneedstoclearlymaketheargumentofhowthistechnologyisgoingtomakesocietybetter,whichalmostgoeswithoutsaying.
Speaker 3
Yeah, and there are good answers to that question. Weirdly, Musk and Altman are the two who talk the most about what they think. Yesterday, actually, Musk talked a lot about what he calls universal high income. And, of course, Altman has WorldCoin, which is his approach to universal basic income.
Words and timings
Yeah,andtherearegoodanswerstothatquestion.Weirdly,MuskandAltmanarethetwowhotalkthemostaboutwhattheythink.Yesterday,actually,Musktalkedalotaboutwhathecallsuniversalhighincome.And,ofcourse,AltmanhasWorldCoin,whichishisapproachtouniversalbasicincome.
Speaker 2
None of the other... One of his side hustles to borrow a language from the Wall Street Journal.
Words and timings
Noneoftheother...OneofhissidehustlestoborrowalanguagefromtheWallStreetJournal.
Speaker 3
Correct. But none of the other three really talk about it because they're more pure capitalists. It's interesting that Musk and Altman are the two who even want to talk about it.
Words and timings
Correct.Butnoneoftheotherthreereallytalkaboutitbecausethey'remorepurecapitalists.It'sinterestingthatMuskandAltmanarethetwowhoevenwanttotalkaboutit.
Speaker 2
Well, we will see. This is certainly... A subject that we've talked about many times, and we will come back to it again, according to Keith Teer. AI is not just about the CEOs. I think he's right. We need to get beyond this cult of personality. I'm not like him. I don't blame it all on media, but maybe media has some responsibility. We will talk again next week, Keith, as long as AI hasn't destroyed the world. What's the chances of that?
Words and timings
Well,wewillsee.Thisiscertainly...Asubjectthatwe'vetalkedaboutmanytimes,andwewillcomebacktoitagain,accordingtoKeithTeer.AIisnotjustabouttheCEOs.Ithinkhe'sright.Weneedtogetbeyondthiscultofpersonality.I'mnotlikehim.Idon'tblameitallonmedia,butmaybemediahassomeresponsibility.Wewilltalkagainnextweek,Keith,aslongasAIhasn'tdestroyedtheworld.What'sthechancesofthat?
Speaker 3
Ooh, I would say like 0.00009%. And Dario would say, you know, a lot more than that.
Words and timings
Ooh,Iwouldsaylike0.00009%.AndDariowouldsay,youknow,alotmorethanthat.