E124: AutoGPT's massive potential and risk, AI regulation, Bob Lee/SF update
01:33:07 Share

Welcome to episode one hundred twenty four of the all in podcast. My understanding is there's going to be bunch of global fan meet ups. Episode one twenty five if you go to twitter and your search for all in fan meet up SHE might be able to find the link.

But just be clear, we're not they're not official all in this. There are fans. It's self organized, which is pretty mind buying. But we can't vote for any particular organization.

right? Nobody knows what's going to happen at these things. You can get rob could be a set up, I don't know, but I retreated IT anyway because there are thirty one cities where your lunch s are getting together to celebrate the world's number one business technology podcast.

IT is pretty crazy, you know, this reminds me of is in the early nineties, when rush lambo became a phenomenon. There used to be these things called rush rooms, where, like restaurants and bars with early broadcast, rush over their speakers during, I don't know, like for the morning through lunch broadcast, and people will go to these rushings, listen together.

What was that like sex when you about sixteen, seventeen years old at the time, what I like you used to this.

I was A, I mean, that is kind of crazy. We ve got like a phenomenon going here where people are self organizing.

You've said phenomenon three times inside a phenomenon, he said, phenomenon, phenomenon.

Why sexing a good mucha h what's going on?

There's a specific secret totam that you do under the bathroom stall. When you go to a russian of the rows.

I think you're going to confused about the different vent you want to.

We can give.

We open sources to the .

fans and we.

Is a lot of actual news in the world. And general AI is taking over the dialogue, and it's moving at a pace that none of us i've ever seen in the technology industry. I think we'd all agree the number of companies releasing product and the compounding effect of this technology is phenomenal.

I think we would all agree a product came out this week called auto GPT, and people are losing their mind of IT. Basically, what this does is IT lets different G, P, S, talk to each other. And so you can have agents working in the background, and we ve talked about this some previous podcast, but they could be talking to each other essentially and then completing tasks without much intervention.

So if let's say you had a sales team and you said to the cell team, hey, look for leads that have these characteristics for our sales software, put them into our databases, find out if they are already in the databases, alert a sales person to IT, compose a message based on that person's profile, linked in her twitter, whatever, and then composing email, sending to them if they reply, offer them to do a demo, and then put that deal on the calendar of the sales person, thus a limiting a bunch of jobs you could run, but would essentially be crown jobs in the background forever. And they can interact with other elements in real time sex. I've just give but one example here. But when you see this happening, give us your perspective on what this tipping point means.

Let me take a shot explaining in a lightly different way not that your explanation was wrong, but I just think that maybe explained in terms of something more tangible. sure. So I A friend whose developers been playing with auto GPT, by the way.

So you can see it's on github. It's kind of open source project. IT was out of a hobby project.

IT looks like that somebody put up there. It's been out for about two weeks. It's already got forty five thousand stars on good hub, which is a huge number.

Explain what githa is for the audience.

This is a code repository and you can create you know repose of code for open source projects. That's we're all the developers checking their code. So you know for opens, for products like this.

anyone can go see IT and play with IT. It's like porn hub.

IT would be more like amateur photo because you're contributing your scenes as IT where your code just .

going to this has a ton of of stars. And apparently, just last night, I got another ten thousand stars overnight. This thing is like exploding in terms of popularity.

But what you do is you give you an assignment. And what auto GPT can do that different is IT can string together prompts. So if you go to ChatGPT, you prompt at one at a time.

And what the human does is you get your answer, and then you think of your next prompt and then you can go from there and you end up in a long conversation, I guess, you, to where you want to go. So the question is, what if the AI could basically prompt itself? Then you've got the basis for autonomy, and that's what this project is designed to do.

So what you'll do is what my friend did. He said, okay, you're an event planner, AI. And what I would like you to do is planning a trip for me for a wine tasting and hills work this weekend.

And I want you to find, like, the best place I should go. And it's got to be kid friendly. Not everyone's gona drink and have kids there.

And i'd like to go to have other people there. And so I like you to plan this for me. And so what auto GPT did is IT broke that down into a task list.

And every time I completed a task, IT would add a new task to the bottom of that list. And so the output of this is that IT searched a bunch of different wine tasting venues. I found a venue that had a botch ball along area for kids.

IT came up with a schedule, IT created a budget. IT created a checklist for an event planner. IT did all these things my friend says is actually in a book of venue this weekend and use IT.

So we're going beyond the ability, just for a human, to this prompt. The A I were now the AI can take on complicated tasks, and again, they can recursively update its task less based on what IT learns from its own previous prompt. So what you're seen now is the basis for a personal digital assistant.

This is really where it's all ahead. IT is that you can just tell the AI to do something for you pretty complicated. And IT will be able to do IT will be able to create its own texas and get the job done and quite complicated jobs. So that's why everyone's losing their shit .

over this free burg. Your thoughts on automating these tests and having them run and add add tasks to the list. This does seem like a sort of seminal moment in time that this is actually working.

I think we've been seeing seminal moments over .

the last .

couple of weeks and months kind of continuously every time we chat about stuff for every day, there's new releases that are paradise shifting and kind of reveal new applications and and perhaps concepts structurally that we didn't really have a good grasp of before some demonstration came across ChatGPT was kind of the seat of that.

And then all of this evolution sense has really I didn't changed the landscape for really how we think about our interaction with the digital world and where the digital world can go and how can interact with the physical world. It's just really profound. One of the interesting aspects that I think I saw with some of the applications of auto GPT, where these almost like autonomists characters in in like a game simulation that could interact quate each other, or these autonomous characters that would speak back and forth to one another, where each instance .

has its .

own kind of predefined role, and then IT explore some set of discovery or application or prompt back and forth with the other agent, and that the kind of recourse of outcomes with this agent to agent interaction model, and perhaps multi agent interaction model, again reveals an entirely new paradise. You know how things can be done, simulation wise, discovery wise, engagement wise, where one agent know each agent can be a different character in a room.

And you can also see how a team might resolve to create a new product to collaborate vely by telling each of those agents to have a different character background or different set of data, or different set of experiences or different set of personality traits and the evolution of those that multi agent system outputs. You know something that's very novel that perhaps any of the agents Operating independently, we're not able to come to reveal themselves. So again, like another kind of dimension of interaction with these with these models and IT a again, like every week, it's a whole another layer to the onion. It's super exciting and compelling. And the rate of change and th Epace o f k ind o f, you know, new pats s being being defined here really, I think, makes IT difficult to catch up and particularly in highlights wise, to be so difficult, I think, for regulators to come in and try and set set of standards and a set of rules at this stage because we don't even know what we have here yet and it's it's gonna very hard to kind of put the gene back in the barks.

yeah. And you're also referring, I think, to the stanford and google paper that was publish this week. They did a research paper where they created essentially the sims, if you remember that video game, put a bunch of what you might consider NPC is non player characters, you know the merchants, the whoever in a um in a video game and they said each of these agents should talk to each other, put them in a simulation.

One of them decided have a birthday party, they decided to invite other people, and then they have memories. And so then over time, they would generate responses like, I can't go to your birthday party, but happy birthday, and then they would follow up with each player. And seemingly emergent behaviors came out of this sort of simulation, which, of course, now has everybody thinking, well, of course, we, as humans, and this is simulation there, are living in a simulation.

We've all just been put into the, and tramp is what we're experiencing right now. How impressive this technology is, or is IT. Oh, wow. Human cognition, maybe we thought was incredibly special, but we can actually simulate a significant portion of what we do as humans. So we're kind of taking the shine off of consciousness.

I'm not sure it's that, but I would make two comments. I think this is a really important week because IT starts to show how fast the recurring is with a ee. So in other technologies and in other breakthroughs, the recursive generations took years, right? If you think about how long did we wait for from iphone one to iphone two, IT was a year, right? We had waited two years for the up store.

Everything was measured in years. Maybe things when they were really, really aggressive and really disruptive were measured in months, except now these incredibly innovative breakthrough, ts are being measured in days and weeks. That's incredibly profound.

And I think IT has some really important implications to, like the three big actors in this play, right? So IT has, I think, huge implications to these companies. It's not clear to me how you start accompany anymore.

I don't understand why you would have a forty or fifty person company to try to get to an M V P. I think you can do that with three or four people. And that has huge implications. Then to the second actor in this play, which are the investors and venture capitalists that typically fund this stuff.

Because all of our capital allocation models were always around writing ten and fifteen and twenty million dollar checks and hundred million dollar checks and five hundred million dollar checks into these businesses that absorbed tons of money. But the reality is like, you know, you're looking at things like my journey, others that can scale to enormous ze with very little capital, many of which cannot be bootstrapped. So IT takes really, really small amounts of money.

And so I think that's a huge implication. So for me personally, I am looking at company formation being done in a totally different way. And our capital allocation model is totally wrong size, but fun for for me with one billion dollars.

Does that make sense? No, for the next three or four years. No, the right number may actually be fifty million dollars invested over the next four years.

I think the VC job is changing. I think company is started to changing. I want to remind you guys of one quick thing as attention.

I had this meeting with under carpathia. I talked about this on the pod where I said, I chAllenged to him. I said, listen, the real goal should be to go disrupt existing businesses using these tools.

Cutting out all the sales and marketing right and just delivering something. And I use the example of stripe disrupting strike by going to market with an equivalent product with one tenth the number of employees at one tenth the cost. What's incredible is that this auto GPT is the answer to that exact problem.

why? Because now, if you are a Young industry as entrepreneur, if you look at any bloated organization that's building enterprise ass software, you can string together a bunch of agents that will also construct everything you need to build a much, much cheaper product that then you can deploy for other agents to consume so you don't even need a sales team anymore. This is what I mean by this crazy recursion that's possible.

yeah. So i'm really curious to see how this actually affects like all of this, all of these, it's the product companies continuation chaff. And then the last thing I just want to say related to my tweet, I think this is exactly the moment where we now have to have a real conversation about regulation, and I think that has to happen otherwise going to be a shure.

Let's put a pin that for second. But I want to get response to some of this. So, sex, we saw this before. I used to take two or three million dollars to commercialize a web base software product, APP. Then IT went down to five hundred k than two fifty.

I don't know if you saw this stories, but if you remember the hit game on your iphone, fp y birds, flappy birds, you know, was a phenomenon IT peeto. Hundreds of millions of people played this game over some period of time. Somebody made IT by talking to ChatGPT for a major ney in an hour.

So the perfect example, and listen to a game. So it's something silly. But I was talking to two developers this weekend, and one of them was A N OK developing.

The other one was an actual text x developer who's built, you know, very significant companies, and they were coding together last week. And because of how fast ChatGPT and other services were writing code for them, he looked over at her and said, you know, you're basically at ten ex developer. Now my superpower is gone.

So where does this lead you to believe company formation is gonna? Is this going to be, you know, massively deflationary companies like stripe are going to a have a hundred competitors in a very short period of time? Or are we just going to go down the long time of ideas, solve everything with software? How is is gonna ay out in the in the startup space? David acx.

well, I think it's true that developers and especially junior developers get a lot more leverage on their time. And so IT is going to be easier for small teams to get to an MVP, which is something they always should done anyway with their seat round. You shouldn't have needed, you know, fifty developers to build your v one that should be, you know, this the founders really. So that, that I think is already happening in that trend will continue. I think we're so away, away from star as being to replace entire teams of I just I think right now, the ways .

to a ways, months, years.

decades, it's in the years. I think for sure. We don't know how many years. And the reason I say that it's just very hard to replace know one hundred percent of what any of these regular job functions do, a hundred percent of what a sales wrap does, one hundred percent what a marketing wrapped does or even what a coder does.

So right now, I think we're sold the phase of this where it's a tool that gives a human leverage. And I think we're still away, away from the, you know, human being completely out of the loop. I think right now, I see IT mostly as a force for good as opposed to something that's creating a, okay, a ton of dislocation.

Freeburg your thoughts.

if we follow the trend you to make. That video game that you share took probably a few hundred human years than a few dozen years, then, you know, with other tool kids coming out, maybe a few human months, and now this person did IT in one human day using this tooling. So if you think about the implication for that, I mentioned this a probably last year. I I really do believe that at some point, the whole concept of publishers and publishing maybe goes away where, you know, much like we saw so much of the content on the internet today being user generated, most of the content is made by individuals posted on youtube or twitter. That's most of what we consume nowadays or instagram or tiktok.

In terms of video content, we could see the same in terms of software itself, where you no longer need a software startup or a soft ware company uh, to render or generate a set of tools for particularly user, but that the user may be able to define to the agent, the A I agent, the set of tools that they would individually like to use or to create for them to do something interesting. And so the idea of buying or subscribing to software um or even buying or subscribing to a video game or to a movie or to another form of starts to diminish as the leverage goes up with these tools, the accessibility goes up. You no longer need a computer engineering degree or computer science degree to be able to harness them or use them.

And individuals may be able to speak and simple and plain english that they would like a book or a movie that does, that looks and feels like the following, or a video game that feels like the following. And so when I open up my iphone, maybe it's not a screen with dozens of video games, but it's one interface. And the interview says what you feel like playing today. And then I can very clearly, in specially state what I feel like playing. And I can render that game, render the code, render the engine, render the graphics and everything on the fly for me, and I can use that.

And so, you know, I kind of think about this is being a bit of a leveling up that the idea that all technology against starts central and move to of the edge of the network over time, that may be what's going on with computer programing itself now, where the tool kit to actually use computers to generate stuff for us is no longer a tool kit that harness and controlled and utilized by a set of centralized publishers. But IT becomes distributed and used to be edge the network by users like anyone. And then the edge of the network technology can render the software for you and IT really create a profound change in the entire business landscape of software and the internet. And I think it's uh you know is is is really like we're just started to a see have our heads on travel around this notion and and sort of trying to linked IT to the old paradigm, which is all started up. S are going to get cheap er smaller teams, but that maybe that you don't even need startups, don't even teams and don't even companies to generate and render software .

to do stuff for you anymore chaff. When we look at this IT, it's kind of a pattern augmentation as we've been talking about here. We're augmenting human intelligence, then we replacing this replication or this automation, I guess, might be a nice way to say, to his augmentation than automation and then perhaps depreciation. Where do you sit up on this that teams like sax feels it's going to take years and freebies, things say, maybe started up in content or over. What do you sit on this augmentation automation, deprecation journey were on?

I think that humans have judgment, and I think it's gna take decades for agents to replace good judges. And I think that's where we have some defensible ground. And i'm going to say something controversial.

I don't think developers anymore have good developers get to the answer or they don't get to the answer. And that's what agents have done because the the ten x engineer had Better judgment than the one exchange. But by making everybody attends engineer, you're taking judgment away.

You're taking code paths that are now obvious and making IT available to everybody. It's effectively like what you didn't chess an A, I created a solver. So everybody understood the most efficient path in every single spot to do the the most E V positive thing, the most expected value positive thing.

Coding is very similar. That way you can reduce IT and view IT very, very reductively. So there is no differentiation in code.

And so I think free break is right. So for example, let's say you're gonna start a company today. Why do you even care what database you use?

Why do you even care which cloud you're built on to freeze ax point? Why do any of these things matter? They don't matter. They were decisions that used to matter when people had a job to do and you paid them for their judgment.

Oh, well, we think G, C, P is Better for this specific workload, and we think that this database architectures is Better for that specific workload. And we're going to run this on A U. S. But that on the jure.

And do you think an agent cares if you tell an agent find me the cheapest way to execute this thing and if IT ever gets not, you know, cheaper to go someplace yourself, do that from me as well. And you know E, T, L, all the data and put IT in the other thing. And I don't really care.

So you're saying you will you will swap out stripe for agent or for amazon web services. It's going to be ruthless.

It's going to be ruthless. And I think that the point of that, and that's exact perfect and A I is ruthless because it's emotionless. IT was not taken to a steak dinner.

IT was not brought to a basketball game. IT was not sold into A C. E. O. It's an agent that looked at a bunch of A P I N points, figured out how to right code to IT to get done the job at hand, that was passed to IT within a budget, right? The other thing that's important is these agents execute within budgets.

So another good example was, and this is a much simper one, but a guy said, I would like seven days worth of meals. Here are my constraints from a diet ary perspective. Here are also my budgetary constraints. And then what this agent did was figured out how to go use the inter card plugging at the time, and then these other things, and execute within the budget.

How is that different when you are a person that raises five hundred thousand dollars and says, I need a full stack solution that does X, Y and z for two hundred thousand dollars? It's the exact same problem. So I think it's just a matter of time until we start to canabal ze these extremely expensive osi fied large organizations that have relied on a very complicated go to market and sales and marketing motion.

I don't think you needed. More the world of of agents and and other GPT. And I think that to me is quite interesting because a IT creating obvious set of public company shorts.

And then b you actually want to ARM the rebels and arming the rebels, to use the toby lukie analogy here, would mean to feed hundreds of one person, teams hundreds, and just say, go and build this entire stack all over again using a bunch of patients. yeah. And I think recursively, you'll get to that answer in in less than a year.

Interestingly, when you talk about the emotion of making these decisions, if you look at hollywood, I just interviewed on my other podcast, the founder .

of you have another pocket.

I just thank you episode you've .

on or four times excuse to plug.

i'm not going to plug this week and startups, available ones point and actors es and youtube to comes less this weekend. Runway is the name of this company interviewed. And what's fascinating about this is he told me on everything, everywhere, all at once, the award winning film.

They had seven visual effects people on IT, and they were using his software. The late night chose like kober. And so after that are using IT. They are ruthless in terms of creating crazy visual effects now without, and you can do text prompt to get video output. And IT is quite reasonable, what's coming out of IT, but you can also train IT on existing data sets.

So they're going to be able to take something sacks like the simpsons or south park or star wars or marvel, take the entire corpus of the comic books and the movies and the T, V. shows. And then half people type in, have iron man do this, have, look, sky worker do that and it's going to output stuff and I said, hey, when would this reach the the level that the Mandala in T. V.

Show is? And he said within two years now he's talking his own book. But it's quite possible that that all these visual affects people from industrial light magic on down are going to be replaced with director sex, who are currently using this technology to do, what do they call the images like they go to script storyboards storyboards.

Thank you. They're doing storyboards in this right now, right? The difference between the story boards, acts and the output is closing in the next thirty months.

I would say. I mean, maybe you could speak to a little bit about th Epace h ere b ecause t hat i s t he p erfect r oof, this example of roof, this. A I, I mean, you could have the entire team and industrial magics or pigs are be unnecessary.

T, well, I mean, you see a bunch of the pieces already there. So you have stable diffusion. You have the ability to type in the image that you want.

And IT spits out a version of IT or ten different version of IT. You can pick which one you want to go with. You have the ability characters, you have the ability to create voices, you have the ability to replicate a celebrity voice.

Then we think that's not there yet, as far as I know, is the ability to take static images and stream together into a motion picture. But that seems like it's coming really soon. So again, in theory, you should go to train the model where you just give IT a screen play and IT outputs essentially an animated movie.

And then you should to find tunit by choosing the voices that you want and the characters that you want, and you know that kind of stuff. So yeah, I think we're close to IT now. I think that the question though is, you know every nine less color of reliability is a big advancement. So yeah, IT might be easy to get to ninety percent within two years, but I might take another two years to go from ninety and ninety nine percent, and then I might take another two years to get to ninety nine point nine and so on. And so to actually get to the point where you're at the stage where you can release the the atque movie, i'm sure we'll take a lot .

longer than two years. Look at this sex. I'm just show you one image.

This is the input was a drone footage of a mountain range. And this is what I came up with. Now if you were watching T, V.

In the eighties or nineties on a non hdtv, this would look in distinguishable from anything you've seen. And so this is at a pace that kind of crazy. There's also opportunity here, right? Free burger in. If we were to look at something like the simpsons, which has gone on for thirty years, if Young people watching the simpsons could create their own scenarios, or with auto gip team, imagine you told the simpsons stable dimension instance, read what's happening in the news, have part simpsons respond to IT the south park characters parody whatever happened in the news today, you could have automated real time episodes of south park just being published on to some website.

Before you move on to, you see the the wind studio demo. We can pull this one up. It's really cool. Yes, please, this a start up that using this type technology. And the way that works is you film a live action scene with a regular actor, but then you can just drag and drop an animate character onto IT IT, then converts that scene into a movie with that character .

like planet ty aps, a lot of the rings, right? So there goes .

after the robot placed the human. wow. You can imagine, like every piece of this to eventually get swapped out with A I, right, like you should be able to tell the ai, give me a picture of a human leaving a building like a Victorian era building in new york, and certainly can give you a static image of that.

So it's not that far. Then give you a video of that, right? And so yeah, I think we're pretty close for this call IT hobby yester amateur s build a create pretty nice looking movies using these types of tools. But again, I think there's A A jump to get to the point where you're just all together .

replacing one of the things i'll say on this is we still keep trying to related back to the way media narrative has been explored and written by humans in the past. Very kind of lenie story telling, you know, to two hour movie, thirty minute T, V segment, eight minute youtube clip, third second instagram clip, whatever.

But one of the enabling capabilities with this um set of tools is that these stories, the way that are rendered and the way that they explored by individuals, can be fairly dynamic. You could watch a movie with the same story. All four of us could watch a movie with the same story, but from totally different vantage points.

And some of us could watch IT in an eighty minute visionary, a two hour versions or a, you know, three season episode episode version, where the, the, the way that this opens up the potential for craters, and not so. So now i'm kind of saying before I was saying, hey, individuals can make the wrong movies and videos. That's gonna incredible. There is a separate, I think, creative output here, which is the leveling .

up that happens with .

creators that maybe wasn't possible to them before. So perhaps the creator rights, a short book, a short story. And then that short story gets rendered into a system that can allow each one of us to explore, IT and enjoy in different ways.

And I as the creator, can define those different vantage points. I, as the creator can say, here's a little bit of this personality, this character trade. And so what I can now do is a crater is stuff that I never imagined I could do before.

Think about old school photographers doing black and why total phy with pinhole cameras. And then they come across the doby photoshop, what they can do, the doby photoshop with stuff that they could never conceptualize of in those old days. I think what's going to happen for creators going forward, and this is going back to that point that we had last week or two weeks ago about the guy that was like, i'm out of a job.

I actually think that the opportunity for creating new stuff in new ways is so profoundly expanding that individuals can now write entire university that can then be enjoyed by millions of people from completely different lines, viewpoints and and models. They can be interactive. They can be static.

They can be dynamic. And that the two personalized, but the tooling that you as a creator now has, you could choose which characters you want to define. You could choose which content you want to write. You could choose which content you won't be AI of filling for you and say, hey, create fifty other characters in the village and then when the viewer reads the work or watches the movie, let them explore or have a different interaction with the set of of those villagers, uh, in that village or you could say, hey, here's the one character everyone has to meet, here's what I want them to say and you can define the dialogue. And so the way the creators can start to kind of harness their creative chops and create new kinds of modalities for content and for for exploration, I think, is going to be so beautiful and incredible.

I mean, freeburg.

yeah, you can choose the limits of how much you want to be individual to enjoy from your content. This is how narrowly you want to fine IT. And my guess is that the craters that are going to win are gonna the ones that are going to create more dynamic range and me, creative output. And then individuals are gonna be they're going more into that. Then they will with the static, everyone watches the same thing over over, so that there will be a whole new world of craters that maybe have a different set of tools build on what you're .

saying for Better things. Incredibly insight ful. Just think about the controversy around two aspects of a franchise like James bond. Number one, who is your favorite bond? We grow up the Roger more we learn to us that then we discover your and all the sun you see, you know, the latest one, he is just extraordinary and and Daniel crack, you are like, you know, that's the one that I love most.

What if you could take any of the films you give me, the spy who love me, put down your crag a, and now would be available to you. And then think about the next controversy, which is, oh my god, is Daniel. Does James bond need to be A Y.

Guy from the U. K, of course not. You can visit around the world, and each region could get their own celebrity, their number one celebrity, to play the lead and controversy over.

you know, the old story, the epic of gilgamesh, right? So, like that story was retold in dozes ens of different languages and IT was told through the old tradition. IT was like spoken by bars around the fire pet. And all of those stories were told with different characters and different names and different experiences. Some of them were ten minutes long, some of them multiple.

Our sagas explained through the story, but ultimately, the morality of the story, the story line, the intentionality of the gino creator of that story here through the bible, is another good example of this, where much of the underlying morality and ethics and the bible comes through in different stories, read by different people, in different languages. I think that that may be where we go, like my kids want to have have a ten minute that time story. Well, let me give Peter pan ten minutes.

I want to do, you know, uh, a chapter and night for my older daughter for a week long of Peter pen. Now I can do that. And so that the way that I can kind of consume content becomes different.

So I guess what i'm saying is there is two aspects to the way that I think the entire content, the the realm of content, can be rewritten through A I. The first is like individual personalized creation of content, where I is a user can render content that was of my liking in my interest. The second is that I can engage with content that is being created that is so much more multidirectional onal than anything we conceive today, where current centralized content creators now have a whole set of tools. Now from a business model perspective, I don't think the publishers are really the play anymore, but I do think the platforms are going to be to the play and the platform tooling that enables the individuals to do this stuff and the platform toolls that the content create to do this stuff are definitely entirely new industries and models that can create mult hundred billion dollar outcomes.

Let me hand the soft sex, because there has been the dream for everybody, especially in the bay area of a hero coming and saving gold.

therm city.

And this has finally been realized. Dave and sax, I did my own little twitter A I hashtag, and I said to twitter, A I, if only, please generate a picture of David saxes batman crashed down on the peak thinking bridge, the amount of creativity sacks that came from this. And this is something that, you know, if we were talking about just five years ago, this would like a ten .

dollar im artists. These were individuals, individuals that were able to harness, to set up platform tools to generate this incredible new content. And I think IT speaks to the opportunity ahead, by the way.

where inning one, right? So when you see yourself as batman, do you ever think you should take your enormous wealth and resources and put IT towards building a cave under your m mention that let you out underneath the golden gate bridge you can go fight crime. So, good sex, do you want to go fight this crime in golden?

I think ccs co. Has a lot of got them like qualities. I think the billions are more real than the heroes. And fortune don't have a lot of heroes.

but we ve got a lot of jokers.

Yeah so yeah, that's a whole separate topic.

I'm a separate topic will get to at some .

point today you guys are talking about all this stupid bullshit like there are trillions of dollars of software companies that a good disrupt in your talk king of making fuck in children's s books and that pictures of safe it's so dumb version and nobody cares about anything so what the what you teach people where there's going to be actually economic destruction.

be amazing economic destruction .

and opportunity you spend all this time on the most stupid is fucked in topics.

It's an illustrative example.

No, it's the latest example that .

you talking .

cira .

cell.

I think I think U S. Box office is like twenty thousand a year. I remember when like pp got to like a hundred billion a year payment volume.

And now it's like hundreds of billion years size of U.

S. Media and entertainment industry. Seven hundred and seventy million. Okay, it's not in significant.

Video games are nearly half a trillion year.

Yeah I mean, this is number in significant. But let's pull up trios tweet. Of course the dictator wants to dictate here.

All this incredible innovation is being made. And a new hero has been born to month poy hopital A. A tweet that went viral, over one point two million views already a reader tweet for the audience.

If you invent a novel drug, you need the government to vet and approve IT F, D, A before commercialize that. If you invent a new mode of air travel, you need the government to vet and improve IT F, A A. I'm just going to edit this down little bit.

If you create new security, you need the government of that and approve IT ACC. More generally, when you create things with badal impact positive, if the government create a layer to review and approve IT A, I will need such an oversight body. The F, D, A approval process seems the most credible, and it's adaptable into a framework to understand how a model behaves and its counter factual.

Our political leaders need to get in front of the sooner rather than later and create some oversight before the eventually big, avoidable mistakes happen. Engineers are let out of the bottle. Try out.

You really want the government to come in. And then when people build these tools, they have to submit them to the government to approve them. That's what you're saying here, and you want that to start.

Now here's the alternative. The alternative is gona be the debate cle that we know a section to thirty. So if you try to write a brittle piece of legislation or try to use old legislation to deal with something new, it's not going to do a good job because technology advanced way too quickly.

And so if you look at the section to thirty example, where have we left yourselves? The politicians have a complete ability to pass a new framework to deal with social media, to deal with misinformation. And so now we're all kind of guessing what a bunch of eight, seventy and eighty year old supreme court justices will do in trying to rewrite technology law when they have to apply on section to thirty.

So the point of that tweet was to lay the alternatives. There is no world in which this will be unregulated. And so I think the question to ask ourselves is, do we want a chance for a new body? So the F D A is a perfect example, why, even though the F D A commissioners appointed by the president, this is a quasi organza, is still arms length away as subject matter experts that they hire.

And they have many pathways to approval. Some pathways take days. Some pathways are months in years. Some pathways are for breakthrough innovations. Some pathways are for devices.

So they they have a broad spectrum ways of of arbitrating, what can be commercialized and what cannot otherwise. My prediction is we will have a very brutal law that will not work. It'll be like the commerce department in the ftc trying to Jerry mander some old piece of legislation.

And then we'll happen is it'll get escalates to the supreme court. And I think they are the last group of people who should be deciding on this incredibly important topic for society. So what I have been advocating, our leaders, and I will continue to do so, is don't try to run this into an existing body.

IT is so important. IT is worth creating a new organization like the F. D. A. And having a framework that allows you to look at the model and look at the counter factual judge, how good, how important, how disruptive IT is and then released in in the wild appropriately. Otherwise I think you'll have these K S GPT things, scale infinity. Because again, as freeburg said, in a asset, you're talking about one person that can create this chaos multiple, that by every person that is an ancestral, every person that just wants to show seeds of chaos. And I think it's going to be all avoidable.

I think regulating what software people can write is a near impossible task. Number one, I think you can probably put rules in restrictions around commerce, right that that certainly feasible uh, in terms of how people can monetize. But in terms of writing and utilizing software, uh, it's gonna as chAllenged as trying to monitor and demand oversight and regulation around how people write and use tools for uh for genome biology, uh, exploration.

Certainly you want to take a product to market and sell a drug to people that can influence their body. You have to go get that approved. But in terms of you doing your work in a lab, IT is very difficult.

I think the other chAllenge here is software can be written anywhere. IT can be executed anywhere. And so if the U.

S. Does try to regulate or does try to put the brakes on the development of tools where the U. S. Can have kind of A A great economic benefit. And great economic interest there will be advanced made elsewhere, without a doubt.

And those markets in those those places will benefit in, in an extraordinary out of his way, as we just mentioned, there's such extraordinary kind of economic gain to be realized here that if we're not if the united states uh, is not um leading the world, we are gonna following and we are going to get to disrupted. We are going to lose an incredible amount of value and talent. And so at any attempt at regulation or slowing down or telling people that they cannot do things when they can easily hop on a plane, they could do IT elsewhere, I think is is fraught with peril.

So you don't agree with regulation. Sax, are you on board with the tramplin or you're on board with the freeze?

And I think just like what computer hacking it's illegal to break into someone, computer IT is illegal to steal someone s persons information. There are laws that are absolutely simple and obvious and you know, no nonsense laws.

Those lot of these have a hundred thousand jobs by making a piece of sofa though.

that's right. And so I think try trying to intentionally ze how we do things versus intentionally zing um the things that we want to prohibit happening as an outcome. We can certainly try and prohibit the things that we want to happen up an outcome and pass laws. And in institute, governing bodies are with authority to oversee those laws with respective things like stealing data.

But you can jump on a plane and go do IT in mexico, canada or whatever reason you get to x, where do you?

And on this, yes, i'm saying like there ways to protect people. There's ways to protect society about passing laws that that make IT illegal. Do things as the output outcome.

Do you pass on K S GPT. Explain your example.

You talk about records. It's a recursive ve agent that basically is trying to destroy itself.

destroy humanity yeah but I guess .

by first becoming all powerful and destroying humanity and then destroying itself. Yeah, it's a tongue in cheek auto GPT but it's chek not it's not a tune and cheek auto GPT guy that created IT you .

put that out there and said, like you try to show everyone to your point what intentionality could arise here which negative .

intentionality? I think it's very naive for anybody to think that this is not equivalent to something that could cause harm to you. So for example, if the prompt, hey, here is a security league that we figured out in windows.

And so why don't you exploit IT? So look, a hacker now has to be very nal today with with these auto GPT. A hacker does not need to be technology exploited.

This zero day exploit in windows have into this plane and bring IT down. Oh, okay, the GPT will do IT. So who's going to tell you that those things are not allowed? Who's going to actually, vt, that that wasn't allowed to be released in the wild?

So for example, if you worked with amazon and google and microsoft and said you're gonna have to run these things in a sandbox and we're gonna have to observe the output before we allow IT to run on actual bare metal in the wild, again, that seems like a reasonable thing. And it's a super nai for people to think it's a free market. So we should just be able to do what we want. This will end badly quickly. And when the first plane goes down and when the first fucking thing gets blown up, all of you guys will like.

sorry, thanks. A pretty compelling example here by chh. Somebody puts out into the wild, K. G.

Go searcher and says, hey, what are the vulnerabilities to the electrical grid? Compiled those and made a series of attacks and write some code to probe those until we and success in this mission. You get a hundred points and stars every .

time you change in a beautiful example. But it's even more serious. IT is, hey, this is an enemy that's trying to hack our system.

So you need to hack theirs and bring that down like you can easily trick these GPT, right? Yes, they have no judgment. They have no judgment. And as you said, they're ruthless in getting to the outcome.

right?

So why, why do we think all of us said this is not going to happen? I mean.

it's literally the science fiction examples. You say, hey, listen, make sure no humans get cancer. And like, okay, with the logical way to make sure no humans get .

cancer is to kill all the humans address. So what do you think you're regulating? Are you regulating the code that right?

If you look at the F, D, A, no, you are a lot to make any chemical drug you want. But if you want to commercialize IT, you need to run a series of trials with highly qualified measurable data and you to like minded experts that are trained as you are to evaluate the viability of that. And but the part and there are part ways that allow you to get that done in days under emergency use.

And then there are pathways that can take years depending on how god ganu in the task is at hand. And all i'm suggesting is having some amount of oversight is not bad. In this paced c example, I get what you're saying.

but i'm asking tactically, how what are you overseeing? Your overseeing ChatGPT, you're overseeing model.

you doing .

the chips?

okay. Look, I used to on the facebook platform, we used to create sand boxes. If you submit go to us, you would we would run IT in the sandbox.

We would observe IT. We would figure out what I was trying to do, and we would tell you this is allowed to run in the child. There's a version of that, that apple does when you submit an APP for review and approval. Google doesn't as well. In this case, all the beer metal providers, all the people that provide GPU, will be forced by the government, in my opinion, to implement something. And all i'm suggesting is that IT should be a new kind of body that essentially observes that has P, H, D, that has people who are trained in this stuff to develop the kind of testing and the output that you need to figure out whether I should even be allowed to run in the wild on bear metal.

right? But you are in that the model and that the models need to be reviewed by this body. And those models, if they're run on a third party set of servers, the right. So if the computer t can run up on your computer.

IT needs to be connected to the internet if you want to GPT IT actually crawls internet. IT actually touches other A P S. IT tries to then basically send a push request, seize what IT gets back, passes the j on, figures out what IT needs to do. All of that is allowed because it's posted by somebody, right? That code is running, not locally.

but but so the host becomes sure.

if you want to run IT locally.

you can do whatever you want to do. But evil agents are onna do that right? So, A, L.

how I could use V.

P, S, I, I, the, and is open this open market. And people are in another road country.

They can do everyone. I think that what you're going to see is that if you, for example, try to V, P, N and run IT out of to giga, stand back to the united states, it's not going to take years for us to figure out that we need to IP block random ship coming in pushing pull request from all kinds of by pizer. We don't trust anymore because we don't now trust the regulatory overside. The they have for code that's running from those I P S. Are not U S.

Da stic position for .

second, I think the ultimate if if what tomato is saying is the point of view of congress. And if if tuatha has this point of view, then there will certainly be people in congress that will adopt this point of view. The only way to ultimately do that degree of regulation and restriction is gonna be to restrict the open internet IT is going to to have monitoring in the walls protos across the the internet because you can have a set of models running on any set of server, sitting in any physical location. And as long as they can move data packets around, they're gona be able to get up to learn .

a ferrous activities. Let me still mean that for your freedom. I think, yes, you are correct. The internet has existed in a very open way, but there are organizations and there are places like the national highway traffic safety administration.

If I would still match max position, if you want to manufacturer a car and you want to make one in your backyard and put IT on your track on your land up in napper somewhere and you don't want to have breaks on the car and you don't want to have you know a speed limited or air bags or seat belts, and you want to drive on the hood the car, you can do that. But once you wanted to go on the open road, the open internet, you need to get, you need to submit for some safety standards like N H T, S A, like tesla has to or ford has to. The sex where you sit on this are, is, is, let's assume that people are going to do very bad things with very powerful models that are becoming available.

Amazon today said they're be switch and they're to put bunch of L L, ms and other models available on bloomberg m, facebook, google barred and of course ChatGPT opening I and being all the stuff s available to have access to that. Do you need to have some regulation of who has access to those at scale? Powerful tools? Should there be some fda or N H T S I? I don't think we .

know how to regulate yet. I two are. And I think the harms that we're speculating about, we're making the A I more powerful than IT is.

And I believe IT will be that powerful. But I that is premature to be talking about regulating something that doesn't really exist yet. Take to the chao GPT scenario, the way that would play out would be you've got some future incarnation of auto gp.

T, and somebody says, okay, all of GPT, I want you to be, you know, W M D A I and figure out how to cause like a mass destruction about, you know, and then that creates like a planning checklist, that kind of stuff. So that's the basically the the type of scenario we're talking about. We're not anywhere close to that yet.

I mean, the cow GPT is kind of a joke. IT doesn't produce. IT doesn't produce a check can give an .

example that would actually be completely apple laugh ble.

One of the first things on the cw GPT checklist was to stay within the boundary. The law. I didn't want .

to get prospect god, so the person who did that had some sort of good intent. But I can give you an example right now that could be done by ChatGPT in order to GPT that could take down large watts of society, cause massive destruction and almost redis in to say IT here say, um well, i'll say and then maybe we'll have to delete this but if somebody created this and they said a figure out a way to compromise as many powerful people, people and as many systems passwords, then go in there and delete all their files and turn off as many systems as you can. ChatGPT and auto GPT could very easily create fishing accounts, create billions of websites to create millions of loggins, have people logged into them, get their passwords log into whatever they do, and then delete everything in their accounts. And IT can be done today.

I know .

you peace of IT can .

be created today.

but you you're accelerating the progress.

Yes, you can also be where fishing and other days, yeah, exactly. And but i'm accelerating in weeks. Why don't you just boot the bank accounts and just steal the money? Like that's even simple, like people will do this stuff because they are trying to do IT today.

The number one, this is a tool, and if people use a tool in the various ways, you prosecute them. Number two, the platforms that are commercializing these tools do have trust and safety teams. Now in the past, trust and safety, he has been a ufos m for censorship, which IT shouldn't be.

But you know, I has a safety team. And they try to detect when people are using their tech in a deferral way. And they try to prevent IT, do you? Well, no, not on censorship, but I think that there are .

probably people are using the police. Are you willing to add ate your or society responsibility to to OpenAI to do the trust and say .

what what i'm saying is i'd like to see how far we get in terms of you want to .

see the mistakes. You want to see where the mistakes are and how bad the mistakes.

I'm saying it's still very early to be imposing regulation. We even know what to regulate. So I think we have to keep tracking this to developed an understanding of how I might be misused, how the industries is going to develop safety guard rails.

Okay, and then you can talk about regulation. Look, you create some new F, D, A right now. okay? First, while we know what would happen, look at the drug process.

As soon as the fa, gd involved is slow down massively. Now IT takes years, many years, to get a drug approved. So yes, but at least with a drug, we know what the gold standard is.

You run a double line study to see whether IT causes harm or whether is beneficial. We don't know what that standard is for A I yet. We have no idea.

You can have something to .

double city .

in a you so you have somebody review the code.

You have .

two instances .

in the same point.

auto GPT. It's pani. I mean, my friend use IT a book wine tasting.

So who's going to review that code? And then speculates, say, oh well, in nine nine point nine percent of cases it's perfectly benevent fine and a knock us. But I can fantasize about some case that someone might do. How you just resolve that. Very simple.

There are two types of regulation that I concurrent any you can do what the movie industry did, which is they self regulate and they came up with their own rating system. Or you can do what happens with the fda and what happens with cars, which is an external governor space body. I think now is the time for self regulation so that we avoid the massive heavy hand of government having to come in here.

But these tools can be used today to create massive form. They're moving at a pace we just in the first heavy show that none of us have ever seen. Every forty eight hour something drops.

That is mind blowing. That's never happened before. And you can take these tools. And in the one example that chmagh on, I came up with the top of her head in thirty seconds.

You can create fishing site, compromise people's bank accounts, take all the money out, delete all the files, and cause K, S, on a scale that has never been possible by a series of russian hackers or chinese hackers working in a boil room. This can scale, and that is the the fundamental difference. I didn't think I would be sitting here. Steel manning trios argument.

I think I have a little I think people do not understand compound interest. And this is a private example where when you start to compound technology at the rate of twenty four hours or forty eight hours, which we've never really had to acknowledge, most people's brains break and they don't understand what six months from now looks like. And six months from now, when you're compounding at forty eight or seventy two hours, is like ten to twelve years in other technology solutions.

This is compounding, this is, this is different because the compounding.

I agree with that the paste revolution is very fast. We are on a bullet train to something, and we don't know exactly what that is. And that's disconcerting. However, let me tell what what happened. If we create a new regulatory body like the fa to regulate this, they would have no idea how to arbitrate whether a technology should be approved or not. Development will basically slow to a crawl to slight drug development.

There is no double blind standard. There no doble .

standard in A I that everyone can agree on right now to know whether something should be approved. And what's gonna en is the thing that made software development so magical and allowed all this innovation of the last twenty five years is permissionless innovation. Any developer, any drop out from a university, can go create their own project in which turns into a company.

And that is what has driven all the innovation of progress in our economy of the last twenty five years. So you're going to replace permissionless innovation with going to washington to go through some approval process. And IT will be the politically connected IT will be the big donors who get their projects approved. And the next mark zuker berg, who's trying to do his little project in the dormant somewhere, will not know how to do that, will not know how to compete in that highly political process. I think you're .

mixing a bunch of things together. So first of all, permissionless innovation happens today in biotech as well is just that is why Jason said, when you want to put IT on the rails of society and make IT available, everybody, you you actually have to go and do something. Subsidy in the negotiation of these drug approvals is not some standardized thing.

You actually sit with the F, D, A. You have to decide what and points, what is the mechanism of action, and how will we measure the efficacy of this thing? The idea that you can do this today in A, I is laughing.

Yes, you can. And I think that smart people, so for example, if you pit deep minds team versus open a eyes team to both agree that a model is good and correct, I bet you they would find a systematic way to test. That is fine.

I just wanted point down.

okay. So basically, in order to do what you're saying, okay, this on for nor who just dropped out of college to their projects, they are going to learn how to go sit with regulators, have a conversation with them, go through some complicated approval process. And you're trying to say that, that won't turn into a game of political .

connections.

Of course.

I will course of the step between which is self regulation.

yeah. Well, let's get to that. Hold on second and let's look at the drug approval process.

If you want to create a drug company, you need to raise hundreds of millions of dollars. It's incredible expensive. It's incredible capital intensive.

There is no drug company that is two guys in their garage. Like many of the biggest companies. Like many of the biggest companies is long.

I started that is because you're talking about taking a chemical or biological compound and in injecting into some hundreds or thousands of people who are both racially, gender based, age based, highly stratified all around the world at the minimum all around the country. You're not talking about that here, David.

I think that you could have a much simpler er and cheaper way where you have a version of the internet that's running in a huge sandbox, some place that's closed off from the rest of the internet and another version of the internet that's closed off from every thing else as well. And you can run on a paralo path, as IT is with this agent. And you can easily, in my opinion, actually figure out whether this agent is good or bad.

And you can probably do IT in weeks. So I actually think the approvals are actually not that complicated. And the reason to do IT here is because I get that IT may cause a little bit more friction for some of these moment, pops.

But if you think about what's the societal and consequences of letting the worst case outcomes happen, the A G I type outcomes happen, I think those are so bad, they are worth slowing some folks down. And I think like just because you want to, you know, bike groceries for one hundred dollars, you should be able to do that. I get IT. But if people don't realize and connect the dots between that and bringing airplanes down, then that's because they don't understand what this is capable of.

I'm not saying we're never going to need regulation. What i'm saying is, is way too early. We don't even know what are pulling.

We don't know what the standard would be. And what we will do by racing to create new fda is destroying american innovation in the sector. And other countries will not slow down. They will beat us to the punch here.

Got IT. I think there's a middle road here of self regulation and thought fulness on the part of the people who are providing these tools at scale. To give just one example here, and this tweet is from five minutes ago. So to look at th Epace o f t his, five minutes ago this tweet came out, a developer who is an A I developer says, A I agents continue to amaze ze my GPT for coating access and learn how to build apps with authenticated users that can build a design al web APP, create a back and handle off, logging up low code to get up and deploy. He literally, while we were talking, is deploying websites.

Now, if this website was a fishing APP, or the one that chamois talking about, he could make a gazillion, an different versions of bank of of america, wells fargo, exit, then find everybody on the internet, then start standing different poohing emails, determine which pooing emails work, iterate on those, and create a global financial collapse. This sounds insane, but it's happening right now. People get hacked every day at one, two, three percent.

Tax fraud is occurring right now in the low single digit percentages. Identity theft is happening in the low single identity a percentages. This technologies is moving so fast that bad actors could tend act that relatively easy.

So ten percent of us want to be hacked and have a credit tack. This could create chaos. I think self regulation .

is .

the solution. No, good.

No, I credit .

and .

I .

check point. You talk for eight minutes.

So if you have a point to make, you should have got in the eight minutes.

Oh my god, you guys get up ahead. What I said is that there are trust and safety teams at these big A I companies, these big foundation model companies like OpenAI. Like I said in the past, trust and safety of you formation for censorship, and that's why people don't trust IT. But I think that would be appropriate for these platform companies to apply some guard rails on how their rules can be used. And based on everything I know they're doing.

that this guy just released websites for the government web, which chat G, P. It's onna have to do IT automated.

You're basically populating capabilities that don't yet exist. I just tweet the guy is doing IT.

He's got a video of themselves doing another way. What do you .

think that's a far cry from basically running like some fishing expect that's gonna ing down the entire bank's system.

A literally a fishing a fishing side and a with all are the same thing.

Good for you. I think that is doing something illegal. If he's hacking into computers, uh, into people's emails and bank account, that's illegal.

You know a lot to do that. And so that action breaks the law. That person can be prosecuted for doing that.

The tooling that one might use to do that can be used in a lot of different ways, just like you could use microsoft word to forge letters, just like you could use microsoft excel to create fragile and financial statements. I think that the application of a platform technology needs to be distinguished from the technology itself. And while we all feel extraordinary ly fearful because the unbelievable leverage that these A I tools provide.

Again, i'll i'll remind you that the ChatGPT four or the GPT four model by some estimates, is color a few terabytes you could store on a hard drive or you could store on your iphone and you could then go run IT on any set services that you could go set up physically anywhere. So you know, it's a little bit naive to say we can go ahead and you know, regulator platforms and we can go regulate the tools. Certainly, we should continue to enforce and protect ourselves against the furious actors using, you know, new tools in in inappropriate, illegal ways.

You know, I also think that there is a moment here that we should all kind of observe just how quickly we want to shut things down when you know they take away what feels like the the control that we all have from one day to the next. And you know that the the real side kind of sense of fear that seems to be quite contains for a large number of people that have significant assets or significant things to lose is that you know tooling that that you are quitting IT entirely newly disruptive systems and models for business in in economics. An opportunity for so many needs to be regulated away to minimize, you know what, we clam to be some potential downside when we already have laws that protect us, uh, on the other side.

So you know, I just kind of a anna also consider that this set of tools creates extraordinary opportunity. We gave one sort of simple example about the opportunity for creators, but we talked about how new business models, new businesses can be started with one or two people. You know, entirely new tools can be built with a handful of people are entirely new businesses.

This is incredible economic opportunity. And again, if the U. S. Tries to regulate IT, where the U. S. Tries to come in and stop the application of models in general and regulate models in general.

You're certainly gone to see those models of continue to evolve and continue to be utilized in very powerful ways. Are going to be advantages to places outside the U. S. There's over one hundred eighty countries on earth. You're not all gonna regulate together. It's been hard enough to get any sort of coordination around financial systems, to get coordination around climate change, to get coordination around anything on a global basis, to trying to coordination around the the software models that are being developed, I think is is pretty nice.

even want to have a global organza. I think you need to have a domestic organization that protects U. S.

And I think europe will have their own thing again. F, D, A. Versus emma.

Canada has its own. Japan has its own. China has its own. And they they have a lot of overlap and a lot of commonality and in the guard rules they use. And I think that was gonna en here.

This will be beneficial only for political insiders who will basically be able to get their projects. And there are apps approved with a huge day weight loss system, because innovative will completely slow down, but did not be built on freeburg point, which is that we after remember that A I won't just be used by nefarious actors, that will be used by positive actors. So there will be new tools, that law, unfortunate reality use.

And if somebody's creating fishing sites at scale, they are going to be probably pretty easy for, you know, law enforcement a is to detect. So let's not forget that they'll be copilot written for our law enforcement authorities. They will be able to use that to basically detect and fight crime.

And a really good example, this is in the crypto space. We saw this article for the past week that challis's has figured out how to basically track, you know, a listed bitcoin transactions. And there is now a huseby prosecutions that are happening of illegal use of bitcoin.

And if you go back to a bitcoin first took off, there was a lot of conversations around silk road. And the only thing that bitcoin was good for was basically illegal transactions, blackmAiling a drug trafficking. And therefore we had to stop IT coin.

Remember, that was the main argument. And the counter argument was that will no bitcoin like any technology we used for good or bad? However, there will be technologies at spring up to combat those nefertiti illicit use cases.

And sure enough, you had a company like chain aly sis come along and now has been used by a law enforcement to basically crack down on the illicit use of bitcoin. And if anything, it's cleaned up the bitcoin community tremendously and I think is dispelled this idea that the only thing you'd use biton for is black market transactions. Quite the county.

I think you'd be really stupid now to use bitcoin in that way. It's actually turned. Bitcoin is something of a honeypot now because if you use IT for nefertiti answer tions your transactions record in the block chain forever.

IT is waiting for chain else to find IT. So again, using bitcoin to seeing illegally, really stupid. I think in a similar way, you're going to see self regulation by these major AI platform companies combined with new tools are used new A I tools that spring up to help combat the inferior uses. And until we let those forces play out, i'm not saying regulate never. I'm just saying we to let those forces play out before we lead to creating some new regulating body that does even understand what its Mandate .

emissions to be. The kind story .

is three general stories unbelieved pretty epic IT took years.

but basically this guy was buying below on sock road, and he deposit to his bitcoin. And then when he withdrew IT, he there was a bug that gave him twice as many bitcoin. So he kept creating more accounts, putting more money into so and getting more bitcoin. And then years later, the authorities figured this out again with, you know, chain analysis type things.

Look at James song over there. Look, ames accused.

had a lamborghini, a tesla, a lake house, and was living his best life, apparently, when the feds knocked on his door and found the digital keys to the script of fortune in a popcorn chain in his bathroom and in the safe in his spaceman floor.

So they have a the reason, the reason I posted this without, like, what if this claim that you can have all these anonymous transactions actually full the entire market? Because IT looks like that this anonymity has effectively been reverse engineered and there is no anonymity at all. And so what bitcoin is quickly becoming is like the most singular honeypot of transactional information that's complete available in public. And I think what this article talks about is how companies like chain analysis and others have worked now for years, almost a decade, with the enforcement to be able to map all of IT. And so now every time money goes from one with quinola another, they effectively know the centre .

and the recipient. And I just wanted make a one quick correction here. IT wasn't actually exactly popcorn. IT was cheetahs special flavor popcorn. And there is a ton of where he had a mother board of a computer .

that held is a key chance that that this project was .

actually introduced by the or network that the CIA had their hands all over tour. T O R, if you don't know, IT, which is an anonymous like multi really peer to peer web browsing system and people believe it's A C, I honeypot, an intentional trap for criminals to get themselves, uh, caught up in her as we rap here. I wouldn't amazing discussion in my lord that I never .

thought I would be. I want to say one thing, yes, we saw that someone was arrested for the murder of probably that about this morning, which turns out that the report of the S, F, P, D. Arrest is that it's uh, someone that he knew that also works in .

the attack industry, someone that yes.

possible. But I I I want to say two things. One, obviously based on this arrest and the story line is quite different than what we all assumed IT to be, which was some sort of homeless robbery type moment that has become all too common place in S.

F. It's a commentary for me on two things. One is how quick we all were to kind of judge and assume that, you know, a homeless robber type person would do this in S. F which I think speaks to the condition in sf right now, also speaks to our conditioning that that we all kind of lacked or didn't even want to engage in a conversation that maybe this person was murdered by someone that they knew because we wanted to kind of very quickly fill our own narrative about how bad sf is, and not just something that I really felt when I read this this morning.

I was like, man, like, I didn't even consider the possibility that this guy was murdered by someone that he knew because I am so and brought right now by the narrative that S, F is so bad. And there must be another data point that validates my point of view. f.

So, you know, I can't want to just acknowledge dg and acknowledged we all kind of do that right now, but I do think IT also does, in fact unfortunately speak to how bad things are in S F. Because we all we've all have these experiences of feeling like we're in danger and under threat all the time. We walked around N S F, uh, in so many parts of santana.

O I should say where things feel like theyve gotten really bad. I think both things can be true, that we can kind of feel biased and fill our own narrative. I kind of launching on to our assumption about what something tells us. But but IT also tells us quite a lot about what is going on in in fairness.

and I think it's time for you to make that point. I am extremely vigilant on this program to always say when something is breaking news with whole judgment, whether it's the trump ase or Jesse, small light or anything in between generation six, let's wait to your all the facts and in fact, quote from sax, we don't know exactly what happened yet.

correct?

Literally sax started with that. We do that every fucking time on this program. We know when there's breaking news to withhold judgment. But you can also know two things can be true, a tolerability necessary.

But I do. I, as soon as .

I heard this, I was vid I action to make. That's a fine .

assertion to make sumption. Listen, you make that assumption .

for your own protection.

We got all these reporters who are basically propaganda, trying to claim that climate down in service go. They're all basically seeking comment for me this morning, sending emails are trying to god od us because we basically talked about the bubbly case in that way. Listen, we said that we didn't know what happened.

But if we were to bet, at least what I said is I bet this case that looks like a lot like the piano cup for case that was logical, less not conditioning or bias, that logic. And you need to look at what else happened that week. okay.

So just. The same week that bodily was killed to me could be three other examples of things that happened in gotham city, A K. In vertex o. So number one, former fire commissioner don harmony oni was beaten with introduce life by a group of homeless addix in the mariner, and one of them was interviewed in terms of what had happened.

And basically dawn came down from his mother's house and told them to move off his mother's from porch because they were, are obstructing her ability to get in and out of our apartment. They interpreted that is disrespect, and they beats him with a tire or a metal pipe. And one of the puddles who was involved in disappear tly admitted this, yeah, play the video.

Somebody over the head like .

that and attack .

him was respectful. We.

who was this done?

done. So he was being disrespectful and then, but is that enough to beat him?

Up, lord, I mean.

so this is case number. And apparently in the reporting on that person was his interviews. He's been in the marine, a kind of terrorizing people, maybe not physically, but verbally.

So you have, you know, bans of homeless people and camped in front of people's houses, don coming on to get beaten with in the injuries life. You then had the case of the whole fit store on market street shut down in servants to go. And this was not a case of shop lifting like some the other store closing we have seen.

They said they were closing the store because they could not protect their employees. The bathroom were filled with needles and pipes that were a drug pair for ali. You had drug eyes going.

And they are using IT. They were engaging in altercations with store employees, and whole foods trade like that to close the store because, again, they cannot protect their employees. Third example, board of supervisors had to depend their own meeting because their internet connection got vandal's zed.

The fiber for the cable connection to provide their internet got basic to spend. Their meeting and present was the one who announced this. And you saw in the response to this, yeah, I reach eating him when viral, there were lots people said, I ve got a small business.

And the fiber, the copper wire, whatever, was vanilla zed. And in a lot of cases, I think, is basically drug out, stealing whatever they can. They steal ten dollars of copper wire, sell that to get a hit, and IT causes forty thousand dollars .

of property damage. Here, the insanity sex, literally the proper response when there's violence. And sciences o is, hey, we need to make this place less violent.

Is there a chance that you could be people who know each other? Of course, that's inherent in any crime that occurs that they'll be time to investigate. But literally, the press is now using this as a moment to say there is no crime and safran ces go where that were acting like.

I just have the new york times email during the podcast, had their night from the chronical semis co chronical in light of the Bobby killing appearing to be an inter personal dispute. SHE still doesn't know, right? We don't have all the facts with another tech leader. Do you think the tech community jump ed to conclusions? Why are so many tech leaders painting safran this guy as a destoyer housekeep with the reality, with the reality is more new on something is all type of their own reality.

Yes.

I mean, it's like, of course, the reality is nuance. Of course it's a health scape. Walk down the street either.

Can I give your theory please?

I think .

IT was most evident in the way that iran dismantled. The man handled the B, B, C. Reporter.

oh my god, that was fruitful.

This is a small microscope. What I think media is. So I used to think that media had an agenda. I actually now think that they don't particularly have an agenda other than to be relevant because they see winning relevance.

And so I think what happens is whenever there are a bunch of articles that tilt the penguin into a narrative, they all of a sudden become very focused on refuting that narrative. And even if IT means they have to like, they'll do IT right? So, you know, I think for months and months, I think people have seen that the quality of the discourse on twitter became Better and Better.

Everyone is doing a lot with bots in all of this stuff, cleaning IT up. And this guy had to try to establish the counter narrative and was willing to lie in order to do IT. Then he was dismantle here.

You guys, I don't have a bone to pick so much as inference. This, I think i've been relatively silent on this topic. But you guys is residents.

And former residents, I think, have vested interest in the quality of that city. And you guys have been very vocal, but I think that you're not the only ones. Michelle tandler in our shelburne is a bunch of smart, thoughtful people who have been beating this drum.

Gerry ten. And so now I think reporters don't want to write the end plus first article saying that emphasize o is a health cape, so they have to take the other side. And so now you're gna go and kick up the counter narrative and they'll probably dismantle the truth and kind of redirected in order to do IT.

So I think that what you're seeing is they'll initially tell a story about what, then there's too much of the truth. They'll go to the other side because that's only way to get clicks and be seen. So I think that that's what you guys are part of right now.

They are in the business of protecting the narrative. But I do think there is a huge ideology component to the narrative, both in the elon case where they are trying to claim that there is a huge rise and hate speech on twitter. The reason they are saying that is because they want twitter to engage more censorship.

That's the etiological agenda here. The agenda is this radical agenda dearmer ation. They actually believe that more and more people should be let out of prison.

And so therefore they have an incentive to deny the existence of crime. And servers go and the rise and crime mate, service s go. If you pull most people in services co, large majority of service co.

Believe that crime is on the rise because they can they hear IT. And what I would say is, look, that I think there is a prayad of activity, a pyramid of criminal or anti social behavior and services go that we can all see. The base level is you've got a level of chaos on the streets where you have open area drug markets, people doing drugs.

Sometimes you'll see you know a person doing something disgusting like you'll defecating on the streets are even worse. Then there's like a level up where they're chasing after you or you to harassing you people. I've experiences that have experiences that then there's a level up where there's petty crime, your car gets broken into or something like that.

Then there's the level you get mugged. And then finally, the top of the pyramid is that there's a murder. And it's true that most of the time the issues don't go all the way at the top of the pyramid where someone is murdered, okay, but that doesn't mean there's not a vast permanent underneath that of basically quality of life issues.

And I think this term, quality life was originally used as some sort of way to minimize the behavior that was going on saying that they weren't really crimes, we shouldn't worry about them. But if anything, what you seem same for cisco is that when you ignore quality of life crimes, you will actually see a huge diminishment. And what is like to live in these cities, like quality of life is real, and that's the issue. And I think what what you're trying to do now is that say that because probably wasn't the case that we thought that was that that whole pym's doesn't pyramid exist.

We can all experience, my god.

and is insincere. And the existence of that pyramid ID that we can see and here and feel and experience every day is why we're willing to make a bet. We called IT a bet that the Bobby case was like the bryan, a couple case.

and in with a disclaimer, with a disclaimer. We always do a disclaimer. And just to George hamm from the financial times, who detail me, here's what he asked me.

There's a lot of public attention lately on whether cesc r. Status has one of the top business and technology have the U. S. Is at risk in the aftermath of the pandemic. C dull, obviously.

IT is I wonder if you had a moment to chat about that and whether there is a danger that negative perceptions about the city will damage to reputation for founder captain in the future. So essentially the ending says the obviously a lot of potential for hysteria a and this conversation keen to avoid. And it's like, have you walked down the street and I asked them, have you walked down the street and just .

go just in the best responses. Send him the thing that says and which is the amount of available office space and safran ces go after voting company companies are voting with their feet. So it's if the quality of life wasn't so poor, they stay.

This is the essence of of gas lighting, is what they do is that people who've actually created situation, service go, their policies, their policies of defunding the police, making IT harder for the police to do their job, decriminalizing theft under nine hundred and fifty dollars, allowing opener drug markets. The people who have now created that matrix of policies are created the situation.

What they then turn around and do is say, know that people are creating the problem, are the ones who are observing this. That's all we're doing is observing and complaining about IT. And what they try to do is say, well, no, you're running down somewhere to go.

We're not the ones creating the problem. Were observing IT. And just this week, another data point is that the mayor's office said they were short, more than five hundred police officers and services go here.

Nobody who who's going to become a police officer here. Are you crazy?

Well, and there's another article just this week about how there's a lot of speculation. A rumors are swarms of an unofficial al strike, informal strike by police officers who are Normally on the force, who are tired of risking life in lib. And then, you know, they basically risking out of physical altercation with a homeless person. They bring a man and then they're just released again.

So there's a lot of quit, quitting this, going out of the job is like this, learned helplessness, because why take a risk? And then the police commission doesn't have your back IT seems like the only time you have prosecute tory is ill by allow these prosecutors when making over a cup, not one of these repeat offenders. Look, look.

mother board in york times just email in d me and and then did you guys say that instead of solving these issues, the board of supervisors was dealing with a wild parent?

What was IT the group.

the meeting that was suspended?

They had, or yeah, they had scheduled the meeting to vote on whether the wild arrays are the official animal of the city of sand. Frances o, so that was the the scheduled meeting that got, uh dispended .

also connect me. I just clarify what moon interview, a BBC reporter interview elon and said there is much more race and hate and hate speech in the feeds on twitter.

He said, can you give me an example and he said, well, I don't have an example, but people are saying this, said, which people are saying and the BBC reporter said, well, just different groups of people are saying IT and you know, i've certainly seen said, okay, you saw and for you he goes, no, I stop looking at for you he said, so. Give me one example of hate speech that you've seen in your feed. Now we, without speaking about any inside information, which I do not have much of, they've been pretty deliberate of removing hate speech from places like for you.

And here is a very complicated issue when you have an open platform. But the the people may say a word, but he doesn't reach a lot of people. So if you were to say something really nice, IT doesn't take a genius to block that and not have a Richard bunce people. This reporter kept insisting to elon that this was on the rise with no factual basis for IT that other people said IT and then he said, but I don't look at the feed he said, so you're telling me that there is more hate speech that you've seen, but you just admitted to me that you haven't looked at the you've three months and IT was just like this completely .

weird thing I just had. Mother.

this is that if you're a journalist, just cut IT down the middle, come with, prepared with that, and start taking a position. Either way.

I want to connect one dot, please, which is that he filled in his own narrative even though the data wasn't necessarily there in the same way that, you know, we kind of felt in our narrative about sanford cisco. With the baby murder being another example, we put a .

disclaimer on IT.

We all our second, we said we knew, we didn't know, and furthermore were taking great pains this week to correct the record and explain what we now know that reported IT .

was IT so far. To be intellection honest, this is just intellectual honesty. Honestly.

are going software freeburg are getting gasoline by all these people.

Get get up anyone? I think guys, totally, the I totally had zero data. By the way, when you're journalist, you're supposed to report on .

data and evidence. So he certainly the story, yeah, this is that don, don happened to survive.

Guys, I love you.

I from my there has been a lot of discussion about the future of saveria, isco, and the death has quickly become politicized. Has that was any division or disagreement from what you've seen? Or has that not been the case?

The Price is gf right .

now you're just like, oh my god, just like the right was gleeful with justice millet having gotten himself beaten up or you know, setting up his own are right everybody for the sultan of science currently conducting experiments on a beach to see exactly how burnt he can get with this. S, P, F, two hundred, under an umbrella, wearing a sun shirt and pants.

Freed freeburg on the beach was the same. Out of astronauts were only two space walks.

Hey, stable division, make me an image. David free. Berg, wearing a full body beating, so covered in S, P, F, two hundred under three umbrellas .

on a sunday beach.

The division for the dictator tripoli, hopeless, a creating regulations and the regular .

regulator. You can tell the regulars.

latour, see IT tonight when we'll eat our orchards. What's left of them?

The final four .

or five orchard in existence on ose, the rain man himself, noma didn't even get .

to putting run in on the verses more 哈。 I think you .

should ask auto GPT how you can eat more, endanger animals, wipe up a plan for you? yes.

And then haven't go kill those animals in the world, put something on the dark web to go kill the remaining rino s and bring them to chaos house for poke night.

I don't take rials or taste good wasn't like .

the problem movie. IT was, oh.

did you guys see? Is coking barrel yet?

IT was a mathew broader marland bro movie right where they're .

doing the takeoff on the godfather .

was the fresh moah it's like a conspiracy to eat endangered animals the freshman the came out one thousand nine hundred and ninety ah morlan branda did IT with Matthew broader and my bruno corby. They actually that .

was the only thing .

actually they are eating endangered animals.

Do you think he too is not going to be good? Sax, I know, heats. One of your favorite films.

Me too, it's awesome, is a what kind you're going to do.

Heat took, and the novels already come out .

adam of the novel.

yeah he's .

amazing to move to p ing best bank .

robbery slash .

shoot out in movie history.

You know that is literally the best film ever like it's up there with like the joker with reservoir dogs, the joker and batman movie where he robs the like.

I mean.

what I love you guys, I love you and blub in post one twenty four, if you want to go to the family, 拜拜 my back。 Rainman give .

IT we .

open sources to the .

fans and .

crazy.

all.

sexual.

Attention release 那里。