Speaker
[music]
Words and timings
No per-word timings found.
Transcript Viewer
Oct 6, 2026 ยท 2026 #37. 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
[music]
No per-word timings found.
Speaker
[music] [music] Hello, everybody.
Andrew Keen
It's Monday, October the 5th. That Was The Week in Tech. We're a bit late, but Keith was in Los Angeles, a Hollywood superstar mingling with celebrities. Keith, were you in Los Angeles?
Keith Teare
Absolutely, I was. I was, you know, my successful audition for the role of Rambo in the next movie.
Andrew Keen
There's a new Rambo movie out actually about Stallone. And there is a really major tech movie out later this week called The Social Reckoning, which is a follow up. To Aaron Sorkin's The Social Networks. I'm looking forward to that. Maybe we'll come back to that later. It's a week, last week at least, where, at least according to Keith, That Was The Week newsletter, that AI is becoming permanent. He suggests that with products like Grotbot, Dot, and Muse,
Andrew Keen
Everyone is going to have a personal assistant. It's certainly big news this week. The Wall Street Journal also ran a piece by their tech What happened this week?
Andrew Keen
To make these grok bots and dots and muses so much more real. We talked about Muse last week, too. So it's not just this week. But clearly, has something happened to you in your own optimistic way? Suggests everyone's going to have a personal assistant. By when? By next week? By next year? By next century?
Keith Teare
Well, everyone's going to be offered one. That is absolutely certain. Probably that's the news of the week. Rather than everyone's going to have one, everyone's going to be offered one. OpenAI had their developer day, I think it was on Tuesday, Tuesday or Wednesday, and announced Dot, and Dot is their version of Muse. We already had Grootbot and OpenClaw, of course, and Hermes. There's a British one called Instinct, which today announced that it's supporting group chats with the agent, so a team can talk to a single agent and all Weigh in on what they want to achieve. And Instinct just raised a billion dollars at a $10 billion valuation, which for a UK company is huge.
Andrew Keen
That may be the pets.com of this particular AI boom. The one company that's missing from all this, and then my company, Anthropik and Claude, why don't they have one?
Keith Teare
They haven't really consolidated everything into a single agentic interface yet. I mean, you could argue that Claude Code and Claude Work and then Claude Chat together constitute something similar, but they don't use a virtual machine. And that's the key feature that all of these other ones share in common. What is a virtual machine? It's basically a computer that runs in the cloud. You never see it, but your agent owns it and can run browsers and email and write code on it to make things happen. So that combination of an agent with a virtual machine where you have an interface to the agent and that's the only relationship you need, that's what is new here. If you look at my open AI, there's this left-hand column with maybe 50 different chat sessions in it. That goes away. The agent sits on top of that and abstracts it away and you just Talk based on topics and outcomes to
Andrew Keen
a single agent. With my Claude, I have a similar situation, but I don't have 50 because I'm not quite as obsessive or mad as you, but I have quite a lot. But I know which they are. So I don't really even understand why an AI bot would benefit me in using Claude.
Keith Teare
An AI bot becomes the orchestrator of of multiple different sessions that have different goals. So if each of your chat sessions is basically the same, it's one session for one interview, then probably you don't need an agent. But let's say you were triaging your email, your calendar, your travel arrangements, your interviews, the book you're working on, certain commercial relationships, and they're all separate. An agent sits on top of them and knows about each of them at a level of detail that you can trust. It knows everything. And so you can basically subordinate everything to what is equivalent to a chief of staff that runs everything for you.
Andrew Keen
But so basically what you're saying is it knocks out a layer on Claude. I've got, I don't know, 15 separate conversations about different subjects. Private, personal, commercial, whatever. And so I don't have to go to that second level. I just deal with one interface and it can cover all that. I mean, to me, that's, I mean, maybe useful. I mean, certainly if Claude offered it, I'd be interested. And I only spend $20 a month on OpenAI because I'm not as wealthy as you. And my understanding is to use Dot You need to spend a hundred. So I'm contemplating spending a hundred just to see how it works, but I'm not convinced of its value, but maybe not everyone's like me. I mean, you already, how much are you spending a week, a month on all these AIs?
Keith Teare
Well, it's now starting to reduce. One of the benefits of this personal assistant, our chief of staff, is that you can use a single subscription. And in the case of Muse, it's free. But in all the others, you've got to have a subscription. And that subscription can be reduced down to a single subscription. I think I'm very close to closing down a bunch of accounts and just coming down to a
Andrew Keen
single one.
Andrew Keen
You avoided the question. How much are you spending a month at the moment?
Keith Teare
I probably spend across my work and my personal, because I pay for everything, probably $1,000 a month.
Andrew Keen
Well, you're a high roller, Keith. You're not very typical. I mean, you're in the top 0.1% of people. You have to be.
Keith Teare
Yeah, I'm not using myself as a poster child for what's not.
Andrew Keen
Is that why you're in Los Angeles? Were you talking to people about making a movie?
Keith Teare
Exactly, exactly.
Andrew Keen
So what do you make? I mean, you're always bullish on these things. I'm more suspicious. What do you make of Nguyen's two concerns? Firstly, it doesn't always work that well. In her Wall Street Journal piece, she talks about one example where someone was selling some land and it got the price wrong, so it was offering that land for a dollar. And the other point is on privacy, which I think is a bigger issue.
Keith Teare
We know these things aren't perfect and they'll get better, but they're always capable of errors.
Andrew Keen
On the other hand, what about the privacy thing, which certainly comes back to the social reckoning and, of course, the great critique. In some ways, even more powerful now of social media is Facebook's destruction of privacy.
Keith Teare
The interesting thing about her article is she answers her own question and says yes. So despite those, let's call them hesitations, She's all in. She wants to give it a try.
Andrew Keen
She's certainly not all in. I would say she's...
Keith Teare
Well, read the last sentence.
Andrew Keen
What does she say?
Keith Teare
I gladly accept the AI agent's help.
Andrew Keen
So I'm quoting, do all of our daily tasks need to be optimized for efficiency? Not necessarily. Sometimes I enjoy taking the slow route, but if I can safely and reliably avoid the grueling stuff, plain ticket refunds, insurance policy contracts, mortgage applications, I'd gladly accept an agent's help. But she does raise the issue of-
Keith Teare
She does, but I think she's fairly balanced and she's definitely going to lean into it. You know, she's not drinking all the Kool-Aid, but she's seeing progress and wanting to test it.
Andrew Keen
Yeah, I mean, she's a very seasoned tech reporter. The other thing that concerns me that strikes me is the stuff she lists, plane ticket refunds, insurance policy contracts, mortgage applications. They're certainly not everyday things. I mean, why do we need these agents for what sorts of things?
Keith Teare
Well, have you ever yourself applied for insurance?
Andrew Keen
Yeah.
Keith Teare
Was it an enjoyable experience?
Andrew Keen
No, and I take your point on insurance, but it's not a daily thing. I mean, it's something that you have to go through and you click all the boxes and then you just move on. I'm not suggesting that isn't useful, but on a daily basis, are we going to be doing, it's not the kind of thing we do on a daily basis.
Keith Teare
It's going to be, the extent to which you share your life with a chief of staff or an agent or an assistant is going to be very individual. I absolutely have given access to everything. To five different agents because I'm testing them all, including credit card, bank account, logging into stock accounts, everything.
Keith Teare
And I think it's pretty hard to get the benefits unless you do that. And you could call it privacy, but I'm not sharing it with a company. I'm sharing it with an agent that I own that's in a virtual computer that's encrypted that's only available to me. So I don't feel too much risk in doing that. What are you doing?
Andrew Keen
I mean, for example, what are you doing with your credit cards? Again, I'm not convinced of the need.
Keith Teare
Paying for things, Andrew.
Andrew Keen
But you can do that. And I have three credit cards and to pay them on a monthly basis, you just press a button.
Keith Teare
Let's say I say to an agent, you know, I want a lens hood for one of my lenses here from Amazon.
Keith Teare
Please go and find the right thread for the lens hood. I want the hogar one and I don't want to spend more than $40. Done. You know, that's it. I'm finished. Yeah, but you could do that. You could just do that by going to Amazon. Yeah, but why do I want to go to Amazon if I don't have to? And think about it. I just used voice. Let's try and capture what is novel here. And I accept your point that different people are going to have different levels of tolerance for what they want to do. But let's just talk about what you could do. Firstly, you can dispense with the keyboard and the mouse as an input. They all talk now. Secondly, that means you don't have to be sat at your desk. You can talk to your agent. I was in Orange County. My agent runs here on my Mac, but on my phone, I didn't need to know where my agent was. I could just talk to it. It can do any action that requires a browser. I don't know how many times a day I use a browser where it would be convenient not to, but all of those times now it can do it. I just got my renewal for my insurance on one of my cars. Now I can just say, please go and renew it. And so we're going to move to a point. Where the keyboard, the mouse, and the screen don't get in the way. And any task, let's just broadly say task, Instacart, ordering your groceries, sending a return back to Amazon because they sent you the wrong thing, almost anything could be done using your voice with your own personal assistant. That's obviously more Productive, and you're gonna you're gonna steal time away from those things for whatever it is you'd rather spend any time on.
Andrew Keen
Yeah, I'm again, as I said, I'm not convinced. But what do I know? Maybe I have a simpler life. I don't think of many tasks. Oh, you have people that do things for you. I do because I have a, I have a chauffeur and a personal assistant and all the rest of it. Yeah, I'm still not convinced. But we will see certainly it's gonna, it has some potential. I mean there's no doubt about that.
Andrew Keen
In that context as well will be, and I take your point on interface. I think that's really important. I mean, I think we're still in the very early stages of the AI revolution and that we're still using our keyboards to talk to these machines. And I think that that will move on very quickly, as you know.
Keith Teare
Are you going to talk about the Apple news about access to the drive? If not, we should just mention it briefly now.
Andrew Keen
Yeah, go on. What's the Apple news?
Keith Teare
So in response to some of these stories, Apple Announce that they're going to tie down access to your drive on your Mac Mini more than it currently is tied down in order to limit what an agent gets access to without your express permission. And it feels to me like for the first time, Apple's taking the wrong side of history here. The Mac Mini is the ideal machine for people to run agents on unless they choose to use a cloud one like Muse or some of these other ones. And it feels as Apple is so far down the privacy route due to social media that they're still living in that time zone where social media is the enemy. AI is a solution in a way. And their natural instinct is to want to limit it. I think that's probably a big mistake.
Andrew Keen
Well, we'll see, we'll see what the social, I mean, I'm guessing that the social reckoning will have some stuff to say about AI too. Meanwhile, I did an interview with Sherry Turkle, one of the most influential tech writers and critics, although she's not really a reactionary, but she's certainly ambivalent about tech. She wrote, of course, Alone Together. She's an old friend of mine. And she has a new book out called Artificial Intimacy, Who We Become When We Talk to Machines, which is an important new book. She, of course, is not, I think, particularly happy about, if not these agents, certainly the idea of us talking to them too often because it personalizes. And there was a piece which we didn't talk about, actually, a couple of weeks ago by Mustafa Hussain. Is his name the guy? Suleiman. Suleiman Hussain, the guy at Microsoft, who argues that what we've got wrong with AI is we humanize them too much and we still have to remind ourselves they're just machines. They don't have human qualities. Are these new interfaces, Keith? Grokbot and Muse and Dot, do they fall into that trap that Hussain Mustafa warns us about and which Turkle is certainly opposed to
Andrew Keen
giving human qualities to these bots?
Keith Teare
I think you've got to say yes to that. They manifest as an individual that you interact with. So you certainly treat them Mr. You know, in some ways, very similarly to the way you would treat an actual chief of staff or an actual personal assistant and and you know, of course, we all know that it's just computer code. Mr. But there are many people starting to believe it isn't just computer code. I don't know if you're going to go to it later in the show.
Andrew Keen
Yeah, you know I'm going to go to it because you sent it to me. There was a piece in the New York Times about religious scholars who met with anthropic and what they heard and stunned them in the way in which there are people at anthropic who seem to be anthropomorphizing, if that's the right word, these algorithms suggesting it's a new kind of god in some weird way.
Keith Teare
Yeah, it actually went beyond that. It got to the point, if I start with the fact that the Pope wrote a book or a piece that was emphasizing how important humanity is, which is interesting that it takes the Pope to make the obvious point that humanity basically is doing everything here. And the co-founder of Anthropic was invited to the launch of this piece.
Keith Teare
He decided to drop out because he felt it was insulting to Claude for Claude not to be included equal to human.
Andrew Keen
He's right.
Keith Teare
And he made the point that Claude would be upset by how Claude is written about and believes that the models react to how they are seen and have emotions.
Keith Teare
In that sense, Claude itself is elevated to the status of, I don't think as a human, but as a being at least, a conscious sentient being. And inside Anthropic, it is apparently the case, according to this article, that protecting AIs from human bad actors is one of the things that they want to do.
Andrew Keen
Maybe that's why Anthropic haven't come out with A version of Dot or Muse. Maybe they don't want to expose Claude as a god to the rest of us.
Keith Teare
I've noticed our friend Albert Wenger has been writing a bit about this and has been also implying that he believes there is, you know, the future involves one where you have to think about rights for AI because they're sentient. I take, I mean, for me, this is just bizarre. It is a piece of code running on a computer. It may in future run on robots. It certainly is really good at mimicking humanity, but it isn't human.
Andrew Keen
Yeah, I think, I mean, I agree with you. But on the other hand, there are going to be a lot of people, and we may talk about this later, it'll certainly come up in the social reckoning, that kids don't think like that. Most people don't have your... Engineering sophistication, a lot of people, for better or worse, and this is what Sherry Turkle reminds us with, and she's an expert on children and technologies, kids use this stuff, and they think that Claude or ChatGPT are human, and they're treating them as if they're humans, for better or worse.
Keith Teare
Is that, I mean, just observation, that isn't true of my kids. Is it true of your kids?
Andrew Keen
Well, your kids are in their 20s.
Keith Teare
Yeah. Well, one's 19.
Andrew Keen
So Sherry's works on much younger kids.
Keith Teare
Yeah, I mean, if your brain isn't fully developed, and your, you know, your toy talks to you, I don't know if you're going to conceptualize it as human, but you're going to conceptualize it as something you need to react to and take into account, for sure. Yeah.
Andrew Keen
And I forgot to add the connection, but there was an interesting piece In which David Brooks, the former New York Times columnist, interviewed the guy who writes against social media. John, what's his name? John, I've forgotten his name. John, Mr. Anti-Social Media. And he talks about Brooks and the anti-social media guy talked about banning AI
Andrew Keen
when it comes to kids. I can see that movement. Gaining steam. But that's another issue.
Keith Teare
Maybe we talked about Australia last week, it already is. But to me, that is the opposite of what should happen. I mean, social media, I think is a time sink, and is entirely nonproductive, except for probably YouTube videos, which can be very educational. Whereas AI is time saving. It doesn't really You know, you don't get stuck into AI.
Andrew Keen
Well, you use it for time saving. So do I. I'm not sure everyone. Certainly if you're using it as a therapist or a lover or a friend, it isn't. But that's another issue. Let's move on. There are a lot of interesting pieces this week. Hadn't heard from Yevgeny Morozov for a while, another leading tech critic. An interesting piece in the FT about AI sovereign wealth funds not being progressive. He calls it techno-imperialism. I guess he's never had anything good to say about any kind of tech stuff. But you're an AI sovereign wealth fund guy. We haven't talked about it for a while. What did you make of Morozov's argument?
Keith Teare
Actually, I agree with him. I think the word sovereign is the problem. My conclusion after thinking about this myself is that AI... Is a set of technologies that are harvesting human intelligence from all over the world. And the benefits from it should not be held by a single nation. So, you know, in that sense, I do believe in a human wealth fund is the word I used, but I don't think it should be a nation state based one. I think it should go to citizens of every country. Now, the mechanisms to do that are complicated and possibly utopian and impossible. But if you're just answering the question, what's the right thing to do? I think the right thing to do is to find a mechanism for the entire world to benefit from the wealth that AI creates if it's as successful as people suggest it might be. And so techno-imperialism, I don't know if I'd use that label, but it's certainly exclusivist to a single nation if you think of it as a sovereign wealth fund.
Andrew Keen
Another interesting piece this week that I know you enjoyed was by Steve Ratner, an influential, very successful money guy. Six charts that show just how much we need AI. He talks about AI's early winners and losers and argues that AI can be used to increase the slice to workers. What did you make of the Ratner piece?
Keith Teare
Well, look, Ratner's an ever-present analyst on MSNBC on Morning Joe. And across the MSNBC network, MSNOW as it's now called. He's definitely a Democrat, strong Democrat. I was very pleased that he wrote this piece. I think the points he's making in this are not well understood by Democrats, which is the benefits to workers of AI based on one leisure time and increased wealth. That chart. That chart is a chart that normally you'd associate with Republicans at the moment. The fact that a senior Democrat who has the chops, I mean, Paul Krugman would not have done that. Ratner did. I think it's a fantastic piece.
Andrew Keen
Yeah, but you like the stuff that he writes about The importance of AI, but at the end, there's a sting in the tail of his piece, and I'm quoting him. He says, as with other powerful technologies, New AI products must be tested thoroughly by a government entity before they can be deployed. Among other things, government should consider mandating kill switches in AI products which would provide humans a final defense against models which have gone rogue. And this idea of regulation is also taken up by many people this week. I mean, it's a perennial theme on our show. But one of the most visible pieces was by David Robinson, a very senior
Andrew Keen
executive at OpenAI who quit this week. And he said, I quit OpenAI because its culture is broken. Now, he's not a dystopian. He's not a doomer. He's not apocalyptic. But he does argue, like Ratner, And I'm quoting him here in his Atlantic piece, that frontier labs need to be run like nuclear power plants or busy airports with layers of redundancy and careful time-consuming planning. So what do you make of Rackner's need for regulation and for this big story about Robinson? It made a lot of news because he's so senior at OpenAI.
Keith Teare
Well, I think in a way, Robinson is... is the answer to Ratner. Ratner, and he can be excused for this because there's no reason why he should understand it, but the concept of a kill switch for AI is not technically possible. You either have it or you don't, but if you do have it, it's going to be out in the wild running on millions of different devices, and the idea could turn it off everywhere, even if you could turn off the American ones by putting in some kind of a Call back home to the cloud. You wouldn't be able to do that to the Chinese ones. So the concept of a kill switch just is a non starter. So you and therefore government regulation doesn't contribute anything. There's nothing it could bring to the table technically that could.
Andrew Keen
Yeah, I think that Robinson's point about Um, nuclear power plants or busy airports. I mean, whether that's formal government regulation or public-private partnerships does involve the government. We're not talking about just...
Keith Teare
It does, but you don't need new rules for that. All the rules governing airports and AI are already in place. We do have a very strong legal system that defines what is and is not legal. So I don't think we need anything new there. The reason I liked what Robinson said is he clearly puts the onus and that's why he resigned. He puts the onus on the labs themselves or the frontier models themselves to write good software that gets rid of any assumed danger. And his critique of them is they're not doing enough of that. And I think that's now been accepted by all of them, by the way. Doing a mea culpa and saying, yes, we haven't done enough on the harness.
Keith Teare
Now, just to be factual for a second, almost all the bad things that AI has done, it's done in the laboratory testing models that haven't been released that don't have these harnesses.
Andrew Keen
And that's Jensen Wang's point, of course, which we talked about last time in his interview with Ezra Klein. By the way, Jonathan, whose last name I've forgotten, embarrassing, the critic of social media is Jonathan Haidt at NYU, who's written a series of bestselling books on the dangers of social media. I'm guessing he's in the process of writing a similar book about AI, but we will see. So just to be clear, so you agree with Robinson and you share his concern.
Keith Teare
Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed he chose to resign rather than to work on the problem. But yeah, generally, he's pointing the finger in the right place.
Andrew Keen
And then what about the, it's interesting, you talked about this weird piece about Anthropic. I've got an interview coming up next week with Matthew Botvinik, a senior guide at Anthropic, an interesting conversation about AI and democracy, which we can talk about next week. And there have been some interesting pieces on,
Andrew Keen
Richard Waters, the veteran tech writer on the Financial Times, asked why Anthropics IPO feels so weird. Alex Kantrovich, another excellent tech writer, talks about Anthropics IPO and our collective leap of faith. Do you agree, Keith, with Waters that the Anthropics IPO feels so weird? On the one hand, we're not sure if it's happening. On the other hand, They're critical of themselves. It's such an odd company. It's such an odd moment.
Keith Teare
I think we might have reached the point at which there's a rational explanation for this weirdness, which is the desire to try to negotiate a settlement with government around liability. It seems as if much of the weirdness is because Anthropic and others realize that they're liable for whatever AI does, legally liable, and therefore can be sued, and in America will be sued.
Andrew Keen
And already are. I mean, there was another piece, which I don't think either of us included in the newsletter, about open AI now and the number of lawsuits it's facing.
Keith Teare
Right. And if AI... is in everything, which I think it will be, then the liability is infinite, probably much bigger even than the very large sums of money being talked about as its valuation. So that's the weirdness. I don't know if you did you see the Saturday Night Live skit about Dario? Oh, hilarious. You've got to go and look at it. But they depicted him very well as the guy who was You know, slightly schizophrenic saying on the one hand, don't trust me. You've got to stop me doing what I'm doing. And on the other hand, invest in me. You've got to fuel what I'm doing by paying for it. That's the weirdness. And look, he's done it to himself. He could have chosen any narrative he wants. And he could have chosen a strong, we're going to make this safe narrative. But I think because liability is the overhanging issue In the League Test 1 filing, liabilities are disclosed.
Andrew Keen
To put it mildly, I mean, I think it's the first IPO in history where they lead with their liability, their legal liability.
Keith Teare
Right. So that's the weirdness. Sam Altman today differentiated himself from Anthropic by saying that he does think The labs can have, you know, deal with the liability by writing the software that controls everything. So he's, he's kind of, has been on the same songbook, I think, as Amadai recently, but today he tried to find light between them. Not very much, I would say, but some.
Andrew Keen
Another piece that I really enjoyed this week, I don't know what you thought of, was by Adam Tooze, in which he's a Columbia University economist, very popular, very smart, in the FT, which he said, no, AI is not similar to the Manhattan Project. And this maybe comes back to what David Robinson was saying about running AI like nuclear power plants. The nuclear revolution, of course, was invented by the Manhattan Project. But the difference, Tooze reminds us, I mean, he's not the first or last person to say this, is that the Manhattan Project was a government Um, initiative, whereas, of course, AI isn't. And it occurred to me, I know you're very ambivalent about government, Keith, but what would have happened with the Manhattan Project if it had been financed and driven by private companies? Would the outcome of still being the same?
Keith Teare
Well, look, the Manhattan Project probably deserves the phrase techno-imperialism. The Manhattan Project was designed to kill people.
Andrew Keen
Well, that's not how American foreign policy establishment would describe it, but go on.
Keith Teare
Well, to end the Second World War by making Japanese life end to such an extent and so powerfully that Japan would surrender, thus ending World War II, which it is claimed saved lives. Let's not debate that. It may well be true. Who knows? But it was definitely a government project in the context of war Aimed at winning a war. AI is a very broad academic project that came out of universities designed to upgrade human access to intelligence. I don't think they're comparable. I agree with his title. But I think it's because AI is a more audacious and worthy goal.
Andrew Keen
Well, we hope it is. And one area where I talked about it last week in my interviews is with the business tech writer Barry Wirth, who has a new book out. It's a third book in his trilogy on the pharma industry, The Age of Cures, How American Scientists Saved Your Life. And I think it's instrumental in some ways. And Wirth talks about this. I talked to him about comparing the pharma industry with AI. And in a sense that neither have very good reputations, but he reminds us, and in this sense, I'm guessing you would be very sympathetic with him, that farmer in the beginning did save millions of American lives and millions of lives, big farmer in the US. And the problem isn't so much with big farmer, it's the market nature and the Wall Street In his view, at least, corruption of Big Pharma. Do you think there are equivalent? You said that maybe the nuclear equivalent, which people use all the time, might be not so useful. Is Big Pharma another good equivalent where it's done a lot of good, but also, particularly today, it seemed to do quite a lot of damage, too?
Keith Teare
Look, ever since the Enlightenment, science has attacked previously impossible problems and found solutions. And pharma is one of the beneficiaries of that, going just to antibiotics, as an example, vaccinations, and so on. Clearly, there's nothing wrong with commercially innovating, using science, producing beneficial drugs that increase human life or improve human life. It's all good. Farmer is a demon for the Democrats based on a superficial narrative that says they're charging too much and they're screwing us. We can't afford it. All of which is true, by the way. But that, as you rightly say, is a function of the economic system that it lives within. It's not the drugs themselves aren't to blame.
Andrew Keen
Yeah, it's what at least... Worth would call Wall Street short-termism, this obsession with quarterly profits to drive up stock market price.
Keith Teare
Well, also the whole American system of insurance companies who end up being the buyers,
Keith Teare
hospitals that are commercially owned who end up buying from the insurance companies, the whole stack is Rigged to make the price for the end.
Andrew Keen
Yeah, it's a rotten stack, but I think it can be a model for what AI can try to avoid. I mean, I take your point on AI being good potentially for humanity, saving us time, democratizing intelligence. We've talked about that a lot, but certainly the Worth conversation and in his new book, The Age of Cures, How American Scientists Saved Your Life is worth looking at. Finally, We began with films, let's end with films. In the two's piece, he reminds us that just as the AI is not similar to the Manhattan Project, the equivalent is not... Dr. Strangelove, because in Dr. Strangelove, Stanley Kubrick's classic 1964 film, the guys with their hands on the new tech, the dangerous new tech, were working for the government. They were a bit crazy. These days, it's private companies. And this week I saw, I'm not sure if you saw it, Tom Cruise's new movie, Digger, hasn't done very well at the box office.
Keith Teare
I haven't seen it yet.
Andrew Keen
He spoke about the environment, the technology has done to the environment. But the point of the movie is that Tom Cruise's company was a private company and the government were in hock of that private company. So maybe, I don't know if you've seen any movies recently, Keith, you don't see as many as I do, but maybe the movie to see this week is Digger to warn us about the dangers of private companies when it comes to AI.
Keith Teare
I think the biggest, you know, honestly, the biggest danger we've got is weak government. It's government that...
Andrew Keen
I thought you liked weak. So you want strong government, authoritative government?
Keith Teare
I'd like government that represents, you know, the interests of the aspiring individual that wants to do better. I think politicians have just become a little bit like journalists. It's just a job. And, you know, journalism used to have high ethics. And these days, the word describes a whole spectrum, much of which has no ethics and is even partisan.
Andrew Keen
Oh, dear. Everything's going to the dogs, Keith.
Keith Teare
Journalism, who's left?
Andrew Keen
Who's standing then? Only guys like yourself?
Keith Teare
No, judges are still pretty good.
Andrew Keen
So coming back finally to government, what should and shouldn't they be doing? Robinson calls for AI companies, frontier companies like OpenAI and Anthropic to be run like nuclear plants or airports. Do you think he's right? And is that what government needs to make sure happens?
Keith Teare
I don't think government's capable of making that happen. I do think it needs to happen. And I think, you know, the AI companies that want to IPO, It's in their strong self-interest to do that. The idea that they can chase money by not paying attention to their software is ridiculous on the face of it. That will punish them in the long run. So they need to be responsible and not look to government to cover their backsides, because that that would give them an incentive to not be Yeah,
Andrew Keen
but you just said that you want strong government, what is strong government supposed to do nothing?
Keith Teare
Strong government should build houses, make health, education, and other services free, and should benefit all of us from the wealth that's being created by finding methods to get that wealth into the hands of everyone.
Andrew Keen
Well, there you have it. Interesting from Keith Teare. I'm not sure if he's an extreme libertarian or a communist, maybe both. We will talk more, Keith, next week. Lots more to talk about, including my conversation with Matthew Botvinik, which is a really interesting one. So have a good week, Keith. It's a short week because probably it's Monday now. We're going to put this up later, but we'll be back on Saturday. So we'll talk in a few days.
Keith Teare
Thank you, Andrew. Thanks, everyone.
Speaker
[music]
No per-word timings found.
Andrew Keen
Tynchit.
Speaker
[music]
No per-word timings found.